Flamesfanva wrote:JLFJR wrote:I agree Sly Fox. Ron Godwin is not the issue here yet his credentials have been questioned even though he is a PHD and was the president of two colleges before he came to LU.
This was good to read that RG is trying to soften his tone. I remember years ago working for a company that did business with Liberty and hearing RG on a conference call tell us that he had fired his b ----, and asked us when we were going to get rid of ours. I was very disappointed that Doc had someone so close to him that would use such language on a conference call representing the university
I've heard similar things from business people in my church. RG doesn't have an exactly stellar reputation around town. And for many of the faculty, RG's qualifications to be Provost, as opposed to Vice Chancellor, may well be questioned. Being the President of a college typically means you have a knowledge of business and can raise money. Being a Provost means you have an intimate knowledge of academics, which is a far different thing. In other words, no one questions his business qualifications, but many tend to question his academic qualifications--RG's PhD is in management, and he has never done any research or taught extensively. That doesn't mean he isn't smart, it just means he may not totally understand what professors do on a day to day level.
A friend of mine is a retired Air Force officer, and when I told him about what was going on at Liberty he just shook his head and said, "You don't put a munitions officer in charge of operations--they'll get people killed. They count bullets and would rather send the boys out with half a cartridge just to make sure they don't use too many." Godwin may understand what makes a business a good business, but some question if he understands what makes a college a good college.
On his tone, I fear the vast majority of the faculty believe his disdain for them is heart felt, and his making nice-nice is what's feigned. Sort of like watching a horse sing the national anthem--it doesn't quite fit (everyone knows they'd rather sing "America the Beautiful"

). His greatest disdain seems reserved for the pure academics--the ones that love research. Those folk wonder how someone who dislikes researchers can be the chief academic, since after all, research is just a love of learning.
Philonius's posts were an embarrassment to anyone with sense (never heard of a flamer apologizing afterward, though

), but I can understand their desire for anonymity. A professor that's been here for a very long time who is decidedly
not one of the liberals you mention, said he never posts anything in the mass-reply emails because he's seen RG be the ruin of many a good man over something said that offended him.
JLFJR's point about the old model of researchers off in Madagascar while their TAs teach for them is well taken--extremely few at Liberty think that's a good idea. However, can't researchers be champions for Christ, too? If we didn't have them, where would ICR, Summit, or Answers in Genesis be? Makes sense to have more to me. I don't think it's the university's job to supply academic welfare, but encouraging researcher types in what they do could reap huge benefits in the long run: texts with a Biblical worldview, more scholars to combat on a C.S.Lewis/Ravi Zacharias/Henry Morris/David Noeble/Josh McDowell/James Dobson level (not to mention the Apostle Paul & Augustine were scholars before they were Christians and God used that element mightily), and having scholars around would also enhance Liberty's academic reputation. I've heard many a scholar moan that research is not encouraged, publication is not rejoiced over, and it is not thought to benefit the classroom. If we only rely on what other people say, how do we know it's reliable? Self-serving "studies" should always be suspect, primary sources always trump secondary sources--that's why you do research, to find the truth.
No easy answers, I'm sure, but balancing the profit/loss margin with the type of business you're running would seem to make sense to me.