RE: Jan. 30 editorial “At what cost does progress come”.
When I first read this editorial, I was perplexed about why this topic was chosen. Is the presence or lack of deans at CMU a pressing issue for some reason? In my role as student trustee, I think I am fairly well informed about issues CMU is addressing. This isn’t one.
That said, I couldn’t disagree more with the premise that having deans would provide some kind of value or benefit to students. Basically, it appears to me that the organizational structure that includes an extra layer of bureaucracy is really old school! Without that layer, faculty have a more direct route to the president, meaning their voices are heard with fewer filters that could change the meaning of their words.
CMU could spend the money and add deans but I can’t imagine how that would change what happens in the classroom. In fact, I can’t think of anything that would be further from the classroom.
The editorial implied that the lack of deans was problematic in CMU being accredited. As student trustee, I have been involved in that process and I can assure you that is not the case. CMU continues to be accredited and received positive reviews from the HLC team that visited campus.
In closing, I would like to encourage The Criterion, the voice of CMU students, to focus on issues that impact and are important to students.
President of the Ho’olokahi Polynesian Alliance
Colorado Mesa University