This weekend the votes will officially be tallied and the IU alumni will decide that either incumbent Sue Talbot has proven she has the stewardship, good sense and appropriate priorities to oversee the direction of a world-class research institution; or that one of the five candidates vying for her seat on the board of trustees would be better suited to address the challenges facing the University. Although undergraduates are not allowed to vote, the election has both immediate and long-term effects on the student body. \nThe trustees are volunteer positions, but their influence is enormous. Six of the nine are appointed by the governor, while the remaining three are elected, one each year, for three-year terms. Together, they are the highest order of decision-makers within the University system: they meet to discuss IU’s overarching goals and direction, financial matters and new construction as well as tuition, the appointment of upper-level administrators, campus security and the approval of professors for tenure. In other words, the trustees have their hand in almost everything from what students eat in the dining halls to what they learn in class.\nThough it might be discouraging that the three elected trustees can easily be out-voted by the six governor-appointed board members, given their range of responsibilities, it’s a shame that undergraduates are so apathetic toward (or oblivious to) the race’s outcome. In an effort to counter that ennui, the trustee candidates have answered some of the questions most pressing to students, and members of IDS editorial board have chosen their ideal candidates.
Rankings\nThe six candidates tend to discount the value of US News & World Report rankings, but none of them were willing to admit the impact they have on potential freshmen applicants. Obviously, none of them are against improving IU’s status through the quality of professors and research facilities, but some of them consider it more of a priority than others. Sue Talbot called the rankings “arbitrary,” and though we wouldn’t necessarily disagree, only Allen Woodhouse realized that the root of the problem is the caliber of Indiana high schools’ graduates.
Environmental \nsustainability\nHere again, the candidates all declare their enthusiasm for green buildings, improved recycling programs and decreased energy usage, but only three – Sue Talbot, Tyler Helmond, and Phil Eskew III – seemed knowledgeable enough on the subject to provide serious options. Whereas Helmond suggested that green buildings should be an integral part of long-term planning, Eskew understood that the success of environmental programs depends on their financial solvency and public image. On the other hand, Talbot pointed out that during her time on the board, $1.6 million has already been allocated to IU-Kokomo to assess the school’s environmental programs.
Outsourcing\nMost of the candidates believe outsourcing should be done on a case-by-case basis. Eskew believes more can be done to improve the efficiency of University services and keep them in-house; however, some of the less idealistic candidates see a trade off. Talbot, Woodhouse and Steven Miller, for instance, share the opinion that classroom and lab space are more central to the University’s mission than support services like the Motor Pool. On the specific issue of outsourcing the IU Bookstore, all the candidates were silent.
Access versus \nExcellence\nLeave it to someone running for public office to straddle the fence. Not one of the candidates was willing to say accessibility and excellence are mutually exclusive. The argument here is for “well-rounded students” who have proven themselves academically and in extracurricular activities. In other words, the candidates are all pro-excellence. Since the University can only take so many students, picking the “best” means picking the students who applied themselves in high school and achieved more than their classmates. Admission is a zero-sum game. The only way to simultaneously improve the caliber of applicants and the number admitted is to increase the size of the University.
