IBJNews

IUPUI faculty vote to keep public affairs school

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The School of Public and Environmental Affairs won’t be eliminated from IUPUI anytime soon.

Faculty members at SPEA have turned down a proposal to merge with the Center on Philanthropy. The proposal would have dissolved SPEA, one of Indiana University’s top-ranked programs, from the local campus and created a new school centered on public service.

“While that concept will not be pursued, the campus is committed to developing a new school of philanthropic studies,” IUPUI spokesman Richard Schneider said in an e-mail Thursday.

As IBJ reported in February, IU administrators like the idea of turning the influential Center on Philanthropy into its own school. Currently part of IUPUI’s School of Liberal Arts, the center has a $7.4 million annual budget and an endowment worth $66.5 million.

Although the Center on Philanthropy conducts research and has created degree programs in philanthropic studies, the degrees are awarded by the School of Liberal Arts. As a free-standing school, the center could grow enrollment and attract high ratings from college-rankings publishers, according to the proposal written by Patrick Rooney, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy and SPEA deans.

SPEA-IUPUI’s 21 full-time faculty members received the merger proposal March 2 and e-mailed their responses this week. Roughly two-thirds turned it down, Schneider said.

IU administrators targeted SPEA for the merger because professors in its “nonprofit management” program already work closely with the Center on Philanthropy.

Most professors didn’t see the benefit of erasing the SPEA brand. Criminal justice professor Samuel Nunn, who opposed the merger, thinks there are other ways for IUPUI to create a school around philanthropy.

“You may be able to come up with a better plan down the road,” he said. “Folks felt like this was a shotgun marriage being forced down their throats."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. to mention the rest of Molly's experience- she served as Communications Director for the Indianapolis Department of Public Works and also did communications for the state. She's incredibly qualified for this role and has a real love for Indianapolis and Indiana. Best of luck to her!

  2. Shall we not demand the same scrutiny for law schools, med schools, heaven forbid, business schools, etc.? How many law school grads are servers? How many business start ups fail and how many business grads get low paying jobs because there are so few high paying positions available? Why does our legislature continue to demean public schools and give taxpayer dollars to charters and private schools, ($171 million last year), rather than investing in our community schools? We are on a course of disaster regarding our public school attitudes unless we change our thinking in a short time.

  3. I agree with the other reader's comment about the chunky tomato soup. I found myself wanting a breadstick to dip into it. It tasted more like a marinara sauce; I couldn't eat it as a soup. In general, I liked the place... but doubt that I'll frequent it once the novelty wears off.

  4. The Indiana toll road used to have some of the cleanest bathrooms you could find on the road. After the lease they went downhill quickly. While not the grossest you'll see, they hover a bit below average. Am not sure if this is indicative of the entire deal or merely a portion of it. But the goals of anyone taking over the lease will always be at odds. The fewer repairs they make, the more money they earn since they have a virtual monopoly on travel from Cleveland to Chicago. So they only comply to satisfy the rules. It's hard to hand public works over to private enterprise. The incentives are misaligned. In true competition, you'd have multiple roads, each build by different companies motivated to make theirs more attractive. Working to attract customers is very different than working to maximize profit on people who have no choice but to choose your road. Of course, we all know two roads would be even more ridiculous.

  5. The State is in a perfect position. The consortium overpaid for leasing the toll road. Good for the State. The money they paid is being used across the State to upgrade roads and bridges and employ people at at time most of the country is scrambling to fund basic repairs. Good for the State. Indiana taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the toll roads to the tune of millions a year as we had for the last 20 years because the legislature did not have the guts to raise tolls. Good for the State. If the consortium fails, they either find another operator, acceptable to the State, to buy them out or the road gets turned back over to the State and we keep the Billions. Good for the State. Pat Bauer is no longer the Majority or Minority Leader of the House. Good for the State. Anyway you look at this, the State received billions of dollars for an assett the taxpayers were subsidizing, the State does not have to pay to maintain the road for 70 years. I am having trouble seeing the downside.

ADVERTISEMENT