The Eagle: What is your most vivid memory of the Ladner scandal?
Neil Kerwin: There were a whole series of memories that come back. The call I got indicating that I would be serving as acting president was memorable, as you might imagine. I remember vividly the convocation that occurred quite soon after the transition from the former president to me. There was remarkable turnout. On a day that was so surrounded by potential controversy, we were able to keep that convocation program pretty much on the message that the academic mission of this institution was going to go forward uninterrupted. I think the numerous meetings of the board of trustees and the meeting following those board sessions with the press were compelling. The session that we had at the U.S. Senate was also a memorable event. But the overwhelming memory of the year is one of working very hard to balance the demands that were presented to us by the Ladner affair with the need to ensure that the ongoing educational mission of this institution stayed on track.
The Eagle: What do you think was the most positive outcome of the scandal?
N.K.: I think that we are now on the way to implement a thoroughly reformed governance process for the institution. We have a board of trustees that is substantially different both in terms of its composition and its operating bylaws than the one we started with. This new board of trustees now includes both faculty and student trustees. I think that they have set for themselves a very ambitious agenda for not only their work as a board, but also their interaction with the community. I think the office of the president will no longer be allowed to function without appropriate supervision. I think that the community now has very high expectations with regard to how the office of the president performs and expectations for their opportunity to work with the board on issues of substantial substance to the institution. So I think the governance changes would be the most positive result. I think that right behind that is what the university learned about itself. In some ways that may be the most enduring message - in a period when the place was under tremendous pressure, we still managed to put together an extraordinarily strong academic year in every element of our mission. With all the time and attention that was spent on those governance issues, the faculty, administration and students found a way to stay focused on the fundamental reasons we're all here together. I learned a great deal about this place. I thought that after 31 years I'd learned all there was to know about AU, but I learned a lot more about it during the past year, and most of it was positive.
The Eagle: Do you think there were any negative impacts on AU as a result of the Ladner scandal?
N.K.: I think that there will always be a shadow of an effect. How strong it will be, only time will tell. The incident was sufficiently public and traumatic. I imagine that most of us who were in leadership positions here will get questions from time to time about how things are going here. I don't perceive any long-term negative effects. The indicators that I look at in terms of institutional health are generally quite positive. But it's now a part of our history - it becomes part of the lore of the institution. It is the kind of lesson that we'd have preferred not to learn the way we did, but it's a lesson nonetheless. I think it's going to stick with us for quite some time.
The Eagle: Do you think anything could have been handled differently? If so, what?
N.K.: I won't speak for anybody else, but I'll speak for myself. I think that I always hope that I can communicate more clearly than I do - it's a constant challenge. Looking back at the conduct of the office, I hope that I wasn't too slow at getting information out to the community. Once we caught our breath and established a pattern, I think the communication was excellent. I really give tremendous credit to David Taylor, who works with me, for getting that communication program on track. Different people will have different points of view, but I think overall, looking at the entire year in balance, I'd give us pretty good marks.
The Eagle: Do you think the Ladner scandal is still a major issue on campus? Why?
N.K.: I don't know that the Ladner issue is, but the aftermath will be with us for quite some time. I think it expresses itself in more general governance terms. I think that the board and the community are very hard at work determining how these new promises of interaction will work, in fact. It's a matter of taking what I think is a very ambitious design - some people outside of the community think it's a state-of-the-art design - for governance and putting it into effect on a daily basis. That requires a lot on both sides. It requires a lot of outreach by the board, which I think they have made major strides in doing. But the other side of the contract is the community. The community has to be willing and able to communicate with the board and take their opportunities with the board very seriously. I'll do anything I can to encourage the community to do that. The other effects seem to be behind us except for the memories. It's a part of our history now. The extent to which people will think about it and AU in the same sentence remains to be seen.
The Eagle: In 10 years, what do you think people will remember about this crisis?
N.K.: I think the memories will be very dim at that point. Ten years from now, my great hope is that people will look back at the Ladner incident and remember that this was the point in time when AU made a major change in its governance procedures, and that the net effect of those changes was a much stronger, vibrant, open and collaborative institution.
