College board makes another presidential change at Jackson State University

For nearly a month there were rumors afloat Jackson State University President Marcus Thompson had been fired and that an interim president had been selected by the college board, but that Thompson would serve until after the Spring Graduation Exercises. Those rumors were very troubling and rapidly made the rounds, as had such rumors during the last days of the Thomas Hudson administration.

Then on Wednesday the 7th , the rumors panned out. Members of the press and the public waited two hours in the lobby as the college board deliberated in an executive session. At the end of the session, the public learned the college board accepted Thompson’s resignation and Dr. Denise Jones Gregory, Provost and Vice President for Affairs, was named Interim President.

This was the sixth presidential change since the exit of Dr. James Hefner. Before and since those events transpired, almost to a person, citizens with whom we have talked have complained about the college board repeatedly ignoring the advice and counsel of Black constituent committee members and naming their hand-picked candidates, leading to rapid turnovers and institution instability. The instability has become quite embarrassing to Jacksonians.

Even Governor Tate Reeves got in on the act, criticizing the commissioner and the college board for the bad choices and flawed processes resulting in the embarrassing turnovers and instability at JSU. While we agree with Gov. Reeves that bad choices were made and the process has been flawed, Gov. Reeves must bear some of the blame since he appointed a majority of the members serving on the college board. The things to which many in the Black community point as underlying the frequent presidential changes are: (1) the college board’s manner of selecting the presidents; (2) the facts revealed upon the firings of the presidents; and (3) the tight-lipped, non-transparent mode of the college board’s operation.

Many critics suggest the college board’s actions have been plagued with racism, with little or no concern for the sensitivities of the people involved. JSU can serve as an appropriate illustration of the problem observed by many, since it’s treatment in racist terms has been more blatant and occurred more frequently than has been the case with Alcorn State or Mississippi Valley State.

FUNDING INEQUITIES CONTINUE

Nonetheless, one of the most clear and immediate examples involving Alcorn are the revelations by the U.S. Secretaries of the Agriculture and Education Departments. They drafted a letter pointing to years of funding bias by Mississippi. Rather than Alcorn receiving an equal share of the agricultural funds, Mississippi State received more than the lion’s share, often more than 10 times as much as Alcorn. The problem was not halted by the Ayers litigation and is still existing and growing. Similarly, very clear expressions of the college board’s feelings about MVSU have been written in several of its proposals to close the institution, one of which even made it to the federal district court.

In addition to those examples, all three – ASU, JSU, and MVSU – have been consistently underfunded. Despite Ayers and other legal and political efforts, together the three HBCUs today receive less than 20% of the college board’s institutional allocations. Fifty years ago when the Ayers lawsuit was filed, the three combined received 21% of such allocated funds.

PRESIDENTIAL SELECTIONS

For JSU, during the past 26 years, the college board has appointed five permanent presidents, five interim presidents, and one acting president. None of the permanent ones were the choice of the campus representatives approved to help select the presidents. Reportedly, there was strong opposition to the college board’s selection of Ronald Mason, Carolyn Meyers, and William Bynum, and there was no opportunity for JSU constituents to offer a final choice in the selection of Hudson and Thompson.

In short, in every case the college board, on its own, hand-picked the five permanent presidents and in each case, chose and appointed an individual appearing to have serious or controversial baggage. The resignation of Thompson, after such a short tenure as president, causes the public to again focus on the college board’s role in the presidential selection process.

PRESIDENTIAL FIRINGS

Going back to the John Peoples administration, the college board has fired six of eight presidents. Of the two presidents not fired, both received votes of “no confidence” from the faculty senate and, in the case of James Lyons, from the faculty and the faculty senate, indicating they were not good choices from the faculty standpoint. Peoples and Hefner, whose contracts were not renewed, seem to many alumni and faculty to have been fired because they were too aggressive in trying to make JSU truly competitive with Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Southern Miss. Even two of the interim presidents, Bettye Ward Fletcher and Leslie McLemore, were relieved of duty early apparently for the same reason. Four of the other six presidents Meyers, Bynum, Hudson, and Thompson – were fired under circumstances showing the college board knew or should have known the risks in hiring them in the first place. It is of course the belief of many that the college board deliberately made such choices in order to prevent JSU from gaining and maintaining competitive momentum.

ISOLATION AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

As a body, the college board isolates itself even to the point of almost never allowing public comments at its meetings from citizens, not even campus groups such as faculty senates. Much of the college board’s business is conducted through its “consent agenda,” meaning the board has already come to an agreement and will not be discussing those agenda items in public. Much of the other business is discussed in executive session, which again means they do so in isolation, shielded from public view.

Most of what is decided regarding presidential selections and firings is done through executive sessions, with the college board announcing the outcomes at its will and pleasure, no sooner.

Even when the college board decides to use advisory committees, as it does for some presidential searches, it has written its rules in such a way that the college board can easily by-pass or ignore any advice given to them. This isolation and lack of transparency is why it was so difficult to know what was going on regarding President Marcus Thompson for nearly a month.

CONCLUSIONS

Many citizens continue to call upon the college board to be more sensitive to the needs and aspirations of the HBCUs, which have been woefully neglected. This can surely be accomplished by the college board being fully transparent in its decision-making and by listening to the HBCU faculties, alumni, students, and political leaders when the speak on matters of their survival and development. The college board also can and should fully and sincerely involve the HBCU faculty- and alumni-chosen representatives in making presidential selections. These are all matters of shared governance and common sense. Embracing them can contribute greatly to improving Mississippi’s endeavor of higher education, especially the HBCUs.