Nov 2007
Accreditation Falters Again For AMU
Fri, Nov23, 2007 - Category: University
After fives years operating in Florida, will Ave
Maria University ever be accredited?
The Naples Daily News reported today that, in a meeting earlier this week, the American Academy for Liberal Education (AALE) decided not to grant AMU final full accreditation and, instead, decided to continue AMU's temporary "pre-accredited" status. The article states that "the decision to extend Ave Maria's temporary accreditation was made because of AALE's uncertain status with the federal Department of Education". AveWatch has been closely reporting on the Bush administration's threat to pull recognition of AALE if it did not resolve long-standing performance problems. AALE's interactions with AMU have been questionable, with the most recent controversy centering on AMU's interest in donating to, and rallying donations for, AALE (all while AMU was under final evaluation by AALE, which was a clear conflict of interest). AveWatch even contacted an AALE Board member about the conflict, but was ignored.
It is unclear how the timing of all this will fully impact students at AMU and at AMU's Latin American Campus in Nicaragua (AMULAC); the Nicaraguan campus is riding on AMU's access to federal funds through AALE accreditation. AMU was supposed to be fully accredited or dumped by AALE at this week's meeting; AMU was supposed to have exhausted all of its opportunities to be on temporary pre-accreditation with AALE. This latest pre-accreditation extension was said to be effective "to the end of the academic year", presumably in May. But what then? According to the Naples Daily News "the AALE was organizing a third-party site visit to Ave Maria in the spring to evaluate the school".
"Third-party site visit"?! What does that mean - a group without any connections to AALE? Why would AALE contract a "third-party" to visit and evaluate AMU on AALE's own standards? What kind of authority does such a third-party have? (After all, the federal government gives authority to AALE, not third-parties contracted by AALE, to make accreditation decisions). Who would comprise this third-party? Was a third-party needed because the AALE team that visited AMU earlier in the year had issues, or was it because of all the questionable contact between AMU and AALE over the years?
Another curious matter is the underlying reason for granting temporary rather than permanent accreditation. The NDN article reports that "The decision to extend Ave Maria’s temporary accreditation was made because of AALE’s uncertain status with the federal Department of Education, Martineau [AALE VP] said. The agency has recommended AALE’s recognition as an institutional accreditor be pulled pending the results of a education department advisory committee meeting next month. [...] 'It seems a bit unfair to have these schools go through this whole process and spend all this money when our status is going to be determined,' Martineau said."
This makes no sense. AMU already "went through this whole process" and spent "all this money" anticipating that it would have a final decision on accreditation at this week's AALE Board meeting. Delaying the decision to fully accredit only introduces AMU and AMULAC students to even more instability and uncertainty. Between now and Spring, many parents decide where to send their child to college, and many students decide if they need to transfer to another school. If AALE does squeak past the Department of Education's December review, what parent or student would be confident about attending a school that is still on temporary accreditation and tied to an accrediting agency living day-to-day? If AALE is dropped as an accrediting agency by the Department of Education, AMU and AMULAC stand to lose access to federal funding. Martineau's statement does not inspire confidence that AALE, the most politically conservative of all accrediting agencies, fixed what needed fixing for the Republican Bush administration.
AveWatch was informed that, earlier this week, a complaint was lodged with the federal Department of Education that AALE is intentionally avoiding public input on the schools that it accredits by violating its own stated policy to announce the institutions under review at least 60 days prior to AALE's decision on each school. This violation is clearly seen in the image below, taken from AALE's website today. By failing to list AMU (or any institution) as a school under review for their November board meeting, AALE clearly avoided the reception of any public input on AMU; thus, AALE did not have to weigh such public input in its accreditation decision on AMU. How convenient. AALE proves time and again that it cannot do what it agrees to do.
The Naples Daily News reported today that, in a meeting earlier this week, the American Academy for Liberal Education (AALE) decided not to grant AMU final full accreditation and, instead, decided to continue AMU's temporary "pre-accredited" status. The article states that "the decision to extend Ave Maria's temporary accreditation was made because of AALE's uncertain status with the federal Department of Education". AveWatch has been closely reporting on the Bush administration's threat to pull recognition of AALE if it did not resolve long-standing performance problems. AALE's interactions with AMU have been questionable, with the most recent controversy centering on AMU's interest in donating to, and rallying donations for, AALE (all while AMU was under final evaluation by AALE, which was a clear conflict of interest). AveWatch even contacted an AALE Board member about the conflict, but was ignored.
It is unclear how the timing of all this will fully impact students at AMU and at AMU's Latin American Campus in Nicaragua (AMULAC); the Nicaraguan campus is riding on AMU's access to federal funds through AALE accreditation. AMU was supposed to be fully accredited or dumped by AALE at this week's meeting; AMU was supposed to have exhausted all of its opportunities to be on temporary pre-accreditation with AALE. This latest pre-accreditation extension was said to be effective "to the end of the academic year", presumably in May. But what then? According to the Naples Daily News "the AALE was organizing a third-party site visit to Ave Maria in the spring to evaluate the school".
"Third-party site visit"?! What does that mean - a group without any connections to AALE? Why would AALE contract a "third-party" to visit and evaluate AMU on AALE's own standards? What kind of authority does such a third-party have? (After all, the federal government gives authority to AALE, not third-parties contracted by AALE, to make accreditation decisions). Who would comprise this third-party? Was a third-party needed because the AALE team that visited AMU earlier in the year had issues, or was it because of all the questionable contact between AMU and AALE over the years?
Another curious matter is the underlying reason for granting temporary rather than permanent accreditation. The NDN article reports that "The decision to extend Ave Maria’s temporary accreditation was made because of AALE’s uncertain status with the federal Department of Education, Martineau [AALE VP] said. The agency has recommended AALE’s recognition as an institutional accreditor be pulled pending the results of a education department advisory committee meeting next month. [...] 'It seems a bit unfair to have these schools go through this whole process and spend all this money when our status is going to be determined,' Martineau said."
This makes no sense. AMU already "went through this whole process" and spent "all this money" anticipating that it would have a final decision on accreditation at this week's AALE Board meeting. Delaying the decision to fully accredit only introduces AMU and AMULAC students to even more instability and uncertainty. Between now and Spring, many parents decide where to send their child to college, and many students decide if they need to transfer to another school. If AALE does squeak past the Department of Education's December review, what parent or student would be confident about attending a school that is still on temporary accreditation and tied to an accrediting agency living day-to-day? If AALE is dropped as an accrediting agency by the Department of Education, AMU and AMULAC stand to lose access to federal funding. Martineau's statement does not inspire confidence that AALE, the most politically conservative of all accrediting agencies, fixed what needed fixing for the Republican Bush administration.
AveWatch was informed that, earlier this week, a complaint was lodged with the federal Department of Education that AALE is intentionally avoiding public input on the schools that it accredits by violating its own stated policy to announce the institutions under review at least 60 days prior to AALE's decision on each school. This violation is clearly seen in the image below, taken from AALE's website today. By failing to list AMU (or any institution) as a school under review for their November board meeting, AALE clearly avoided the reception of any public input on AMU; thus, AALE did not have to weigh such public input in its accreditation decision on AMU. How convenient. AALE proves time and again that it cannot do what it agrees to do.
Things are not sunny for Tom Monaghan's academic
institutions. AMU and AMULAC will be in a serious
financial and enrollment crisis if it cannot even
maintain temporary accreditation. AMU has a giant
oratory that will not be open for Christmas mass
because, of all things, the local Catholic bishop
continues to refuse to recognize the structure.
Ave Maria Law School is still under investigation
by the ABA for violations of accreditation, has
multiple lawsuits
to deal with, and just bottomed-out on student
bar
exam passage.
AMSL Students Act While Deans Ignore
Wed, Nov21, 2007 - Category: School of
Law
Earlier this week, Ave Maria School of Law's Student
Bar Association (SBA) voted to discipline a fellow
student who engaged in questionable and highly public
McCarthyist activities to promote Tom Monaghan's
governance at the institution. According to Monday's
SBA meeting minutes, the first-year law students
"petitioned with a majority to approve removal via
impeachment" of student representative R. Hamilton.
The final draft of the SBA's statement reads: "We
condemn the actions of Senator Hamilton, including
his blog and unprofessional behavior within the
Senate. However, in the spirit of the school's unity,
we have accepted his apology and take on face value
his promise to act with integrity and decorum from
here on out."
Examples from the student's now-defunct blog can be seen by clicking "More..." below.
The SBA's representatives ("Senators") accused Hamilton of using vulgarities, misrepresenting another student's position, "an obvious breach of honor code", "the condoning of explicit sexual content", and insulting and offending "countless others". One SBA Senator said: "[Hamilton's] high profile has been read by untold attorneys and judges and has cost the school's credibility and quite possibly student jobs many times". At one time, Hamilton's blog was popular enough to be listed in the blog directory at ABA Journal's Law News Now.
It is not newsworthy to report a law student using indiscretion while making statements, or abusing a new position of authority. Of interest is that AMSL's administration - given their preoccupation with "affirmatively injurious behavior" from alumni and faculty who question Tom Monaghan's governance [see also 1,2,3,4] - for all this, the administration left the headache and labor of dealing with Hamilton to the students themselves. According to the minutes from Monday's meeting, the SBA President said "the Administration has been met with and they have made it clear this is a student problem to resolve".
Would AMSL's Dean Bernard Dobranski have taken such a hands-off approach if the student in question employed the same methods to challenge, rather than promote, Tom Monaghan's agenda? The depth of tolerance that Dobranski seems to find for the pro-Monaghan crowd is again exemplified, similar to the passing-over that he gave to the outrageous behavior and statements of AMSL's Chaplain Orsi (see the BoysCherries series here along with Orsi's views on rape, immigration, and discrimination).
It seems obvious to this observer that the ABA's investigation of the environment under Dobranski's watch is once again justified. Dobranski recently blamed the students themselves for not doing well on the Michigan bar exam. Would it ever occur to him that the environment created by him is to blame... that sticking students with the energy- and time-consuming distraction of dealing with an offensive pro-Monaghan student, and the instability of moving to Monahgan's for-profit Florida development, creates a grossly unhealthy academic environment? How pathetic it is that the student President, rather than the institutional President, is the one to show concern for wasted student time and energy by saying ".. people need to focus on mid terms. You 1Ls do not have time for this, and this is a first in the school's history (referencing a call for removal from office), the same goes for the resignation. I have an entire agenda hanging on my board in my office that we have not gotten to."
Indeed, the entire institution appears to have only one agenda of import - that of Tom Monaghan's.More...
Examples from the student's now-defunct blog can be seen by clicking "More..." below.
The SBA's representatives ("Senators") accused Hamilton of using vulgarities, misrepresenting another student's position, "an obvious breach of honor code", "the condoning of explicit sexual content", and insulting and offending "countless others". One SBA Senator said: "[Hamilton's] high profile has been read by untold attorneys and judges and has cost the school's credibility and quite possibly student jobs many times". At one time, Hamilton's blog was popular enough to be listed in the blog directory at ABA Journal's Law News Now.
It is not newsworthy to report a law student using indiscretion while making statements, or abusing a new position of authority. Of interest is that AMSL's administration - given their preoccupation with "affirmatively injurious behavior" from alumni and faculty who question Tom Monaghan's governance [see also 1,2,3,4] - for all this, the administration left the headache and labor of dealing with Hamilton to the students themselves. According to the minutes from Monday's meeting, the SBA President said "the Administration has been met with and they have made it clear this is a student problem to resolve".
Would AMSL's Dean Bernard Dobranski have taken such a hands-off approach if the student in question employed the same methods to challenge, rather than promote, Tom Monaghan's agenda? The depth of tolerance that Dobranski seems to find for the pro-Monaghan crowd is again exemplified, similar to the passing-over that he gave to the outrageous behavior and statements of AMSL's Chaplain Orsi (see the BoysCherries series here along with Orsi's views on rape, immigration, and discrimination).
It seems obvious to this observer that the ABA's investigation of the environment under Dobranski's watch is once again justified. Dobranski recently blamed the students themselves for not doing well on the Michigan bar exam. Would it ever occur to him that the environment created by him is to blame... that sticking students with the energy- and time-consuming distraction of dealing with an offensive pro-Monaghan student, and the instability of moving to Monahgan's for-profit Florida development, creates a grossly unhealthy academic environment? How pathetic it is that the student President, rather than the institutional President, is the one to show concern for wasted student time and energy by saying ".. people need to focus on mid terms. You 1Ls do not have time for this, and this is a first in the school's history (referencing a call for removal from office), the same goes for the resignation. I have an entire agenda hanging on my board in my office that we have not gotten to."
Indeed, the entire institution appears to have only one agenda of import - that of Tom Monaghan's.More...
AMU Campus Warning on Books/Movie
Sat, Nov17, 2007 - Category: University
AveWatch previously reported on the climate of fear
created by Ave Maria University administration
(1,2).
It seems that some in the administration are
injecting fear into the intellectual culture at
AMU. Yesterday, a campus-wide email was sent by
AMU Executive Secretary Sue Aceto titled
"Warning - movie 'The Golden Compass' ". In the
memo, Aceto warned that "the movie is anti-God"
and that University parents should not buy the
accompanying books by Philip Pullman because
they are "about killing God".
Some AMU students and professors were upset and contacted AveWatch to complain about this "dogmatic advocation by the university" as an offense to intellectual and academic freedom. Dr. Colin Barr, AMU's Chairman of History, responded in a campus-wide email that "... if a University advocates... a refusal to engage critically but respectfully with the serious culture in which it finds itself, it is failing in its mission. Moreover, it is entirely debatable whether Pullman in fact succeeds in his aim; literature is about so much more than a writer's intention. As a matter of fact, Pullman seeks to retell Milton's "Paradise Lost": perhaps we should avoid it, too? After all, many readers have interpreted that great work as something of an apologia for the Devil. (It's not.) As for myself, I have enjoyed the books, and look forward to the movie." Barr went on to say that Pullman's trilogy "is serious literature... to be taken seriously" and that the movie was "an opportunity for discussion, not obscurantism".
"Obscurantism" is "the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known", a hallmark of Tom Monaghan and his Ave Maria administrators. With this kind of engagement fostered by AMU administration in the swamps of south Florida, maybe Monaghan will look to open a branch campus in Mammoth Cave or Carlsbad Caverns.
Some AMU students and professors were upset and contacted AveWatch to complain about this "dogmatic advocation by the university" as an offense to intellectual and academic freedom. Dr. Colin Barr, AMU's Chairman of History, responded in a campus-wide email that "... if a University advocates... a refusal to engage critically but respectfully with the serious culture in which it finds itself, it is failing in its mission. Moreover, it is entirely debatable whether Pullman in fact succeeds in his aim; literature is about so much more than a writer's intention. As a matter of fact, Pullman seeks to retell Milton's "Paradise Lost": perhaps we should avoid it, too? After all, many readers have interpreted that great work as something of an apologia for the Devil. (It's not.) As for myself, I have enjoyed the books, and look forward to the movie." Barr went on to say that Pullman's trilogy "is serious literature... to be taken seriously" and that the movie was "an opportunity for discussion, not obscurantism".
"Obscurantism" is "the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known", a hallmark of Tom Monaghan and his Ave Maria administrators. With this kind of engagement fostered by AMU administration in the swamps of south Florida, maybe Monaghan will look to open a branch campus in Mammoth Cave or Carlsbad Caverns.
Law School Bar Exams: Top to Toilet
Tue, Nov06, 2007 - Category: School of
Law
UPDATE
11/17/2007 - A memo issued by AMSL Dean Bernard
Dobranski confirms that their school finished
last in bar exam results. He blames the scores
on the students' work ethic rather than the
turmoil generated by his administration.
As the 2007 Michigan bar examination scores roll in, yet-unconfirmed reports state that Ave Maria School of Law slipped from top in the state to bottom [see story at Fumare]. Who can argue that the decision to close the Michigan campus and move to Tom Monaghan's Florida mega-development has not objectively destabilized a once-successful institution?
Given the rash of firings, Board resignations, massive drop in alumni confidence [1,2], protest by legal colleagues, and intimidation, it is no surprise that the ABA is investigating AMSL's declining environment under Dean Bernard Dobranski. Tom Monaghan's self-interested management, focused on the good of his for-profit Florida real estate development and his Ave Maria Foundation ministry, continues to breed dysfunction for the students, faculty, and alumni of Ave Maria School of Law.
As the 2007 Michigan bar examination scores roll in, yet-unconfirmed reports state that Ave Maria School of Law slipped from top in the state to bottom [see story at Fumare]. Who can argue that the decision to close the Michigan campus and move to Tom Monaghan's Florida mega-development has not objectively destabilized a once-successful institution?
Given the rash of firings, Board resignations, massive drop in alumni confidence [1,2], protest by legal colleagues, and intimidation, it is no surprise that the ABA is investigating AMSL's declining environment under Dean Bernard Dobranski. Tom Monaghan's self-interested management, focused on the good of his for-profit Florida real estate development and his Ave Maria Foundation ministry, continues to breed dysfunction for the students, faculty, and alumni of Ave Maria School of Law.