Michael F. Adams, 21st president of the University of Georgia, began his tenure with a two-day whirlwind of meetings with students, faculty, staff, the cabinet, Athens officials--people he will know well by the end of the year. He started with a press conference the morning of Sept. 3; before he flew back to Kentucky to finish his packing the evening of Sept. 4, he spent an hour with the editors of Columns and Georgia Magazine, sharing his impressions and plans. Here are highlights of those conversations.
Q: What happens next?
MFA:
Where we go from here is really pretty simple. I'll spend a good deal of the rest of this calendar year listening to a number of groups around campus. I want to meet individually with each of the deans. I want to know more about the university's international outreach--I think that's important as we anticipate the 21st century.
I've already asked for a report on current endowed professorships. I want to get a baseline report on where we are in that regard so that I can begin to formulate some plans.
I have read the report on the study relating to the quality of undergraduate student life. I don't claim to be conversant on every fine point, but I will meet with the committee that put that report together very shortly. This is a subject that's of considerable interest to me.
I also will want to get around the state to further the university's public service outreach.
I have now been betwixt and between for three months. Although I have tried to avoid a lot of direct interplay here, I've spent probably half of every working day since June 3 being with, reading about, thinking about the University of Georgia. I brought with me yesterday four full file boxes of briefings that I have read over the past three months. I have met at considerable length with every vice president. I have had three lengthy meetings with the chancellor and two lengthy discussions with the governor. I have a pretty good working knowledge now of what goes on at the university.
Q: You seem to be extraordinarily frank--is this characteristic?
MFA:
People who have known me for a long time will tell you that I'm not very subtle. First of all, being frank is a personality trait. But I think it is very important in an academic setting, since everyone in an academic setting is very smart.They may not always be as informed as you wish they were, but the analytical level is very high. I have learned through the years that when you deal with smart people, the best way to do things is to do them up front, knowing full well that there's someone out there who will not agree with you.
I'm really not put out by that. I think one of the last bastions in America of diversity of opinion is a university campus. Of all the things that we stand for, one of the most important ought to be both the toleration of differences in ideas and a respect for those who might disagree with you.
So I don't expect the campus community to wholeheartedly embrace and agree with everything that I do. I hope that I can deal with them on the table--and that I can develop, because of that, enough of a reputation of integrity that even if they don't agree with me they will at least believe that a reasonable level of forethought has gone into a decision.
I think I have the capacity to assimilate a variety of ideas, to help people get to some agreed-upon course, and then to articulate those ideas. The hardest thing is to get a majority of a university community to some sense of agreement. That takes time, it takes a lot of patience--which is not one of my strongest suits--and to bring as many people as possible along in that process requires you to operate on top of the table.
Q: Where is the university headed?
MFA: The state of the university is sound and getting better. Our goal will be to move this institution into the top tier of public research institutions in the country.
I have paid great attention to the U.S. News rankings that just came out. I don't think we should live and die by them, because there are certain areas that I don't think they evaluate as well as perhaps they could. But I note that the University of Georgia is in the second tier of national universities. That was about where Centre was when I inherited it nine years ago. This year we were in the first tier of national liberal arts colleges, and I want to be here long enough to see the University of Georgia in the first tier of national research universities.
Q: The possibility of appointing a provost was raised during your summer visit. Can you give us some sense of your concerns about administrative organization?
MFA: I spent almost nine years in California and was exposed to a lot of different models of operation. One that was prevalent was called the USC model--University of Southern California--and it involved three senior vice presidents. The central one of the three carried major academic responsibilities, and usually was designated as a day-to-day chief operating officer. A second was a person in finance and administration, and the third was a person who had responsibility for external affairs.
That third function was the one I played at Pepperdine. I watched that model work, and it is almost like the model that I have used during the nine years that I have been a president. So it's a style with which I feel comfortable, it's something that has worked for me. I think the president of an institution like this has some right to put in place--with broad discussion and participation by others--a model that works for him.
So I began with that set of assumptions. I'm going to test those assumptions for a while, but in a relatively short period of time I'll begin talking about some of those ideas.
Q: How have you prepared?
MFA: One of the things that I did this summer was I spent a good bit of time--both on the phone and in person, and I have some yet scheduled--with people who are CEOs of major research institutions.
I spent six years on the executive committee of NAICU [the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities]. I have developed some good friendships around the country, in both the public and the private sectors, at NAICU, the NCAA and other places. I'm not afraid to ask those people for advice on what has worked for them, and I've done a good bit of that this summer.
These discussions with other presidents have been very helpful. And also the time here has helped greatly--I've been here four times for two days each, and it's amazing what people will say to you when you are not yet the president. I think they're a little more guarded in what they say to you once you become president.
Q: How has your experience on Sen. Baker's staff served you?
MFA: I was 27 when I became chief of staff for Sen. Baker. I had been on staff only about two years at the time. It was the best post-graduate experience I could imagine. I was pretty young when I finished my Ph.D.--I was only 24--and I needed some seasoning. My time in Washington provided that.
I guess that I learned two or three things from that experience.
While my political instincts were always toward the middle, Sen. Baker taught me the value of moderation in government. We were moderates not because it was politically expedient but because it made good sense. When he became Republican leader in 1977, there were only 38 Republicans in the Senate. To get anything passed required some coalition building. I think I learned that lesson well.
I also learned that sometimes you have to push. I was a player--not a main player but a player--in the passage of the Panama Canal treaties, one of the toughest knock-down-drag-out political exercises I ever saw. I was at one time reasonably well-versed on SALT II, which again was a very tough battle. I think I learned some lessons in those days about when to push and when not to push that have served me reasonably well.
I also discovered in those days, as it often is said, that people put their pants on one leg at a time. And so while I have great respect for those who hold prominent office, I know that they are mortals, as are we. I do have a pretty good working knowledge of how the system works, and the abilities and shortcomings of the people who make it work, and those are things I learned in Washington.
Q: How about how the University System works--and UGA's role in it?
MFA: First of all, let me just say up front: I like Steve Portch. He and I hit it off early on. I think he's a very bright and capable person. I'm not saying we will never have--or haven't to this point had--a difference of opinion. But instinctively I like him and I think it's mutual.
The second thing I would say is that we talk a lot here about being the leader in the University System, and this I believe. I think UGA should be the leading institution in the system. To lead people you have to have some relationship to them--you can't be either so far ahead of them or so far behind them that there's no relationship between you and the other institutions.
The other side of the coin is that I hope we can establish enough of a relationship with the chancellor and with the regents where we can help them understand what makes UGA different from a two-year institution, or, for that matter, a regional or other research university. The needs at one institution are going to be different from the needs at another institution.
We have to work with the system and the system staff and the legislature and the public to help them understand some of the ways in which we are different.
That's not an unusual situation. I used to tell the faculty at Centre that one of my jobs was to articulate the faculty's needs to the trustees and the trustees' perceptions to the faculty. That's part of leadership--providing that two-way communication pattern. It's going to be much the same way here with the regents and the regents' staff.
Q: What is the role of athletics and football? What about your experience on the NCAA presidents' commission?
MFA: Let me start with the function--what it does for us. It brings us together. It provides a rallying point. Given the diversity and the various foci around an institution, it's hard to find rallying points. I don't know anything that brought Columbus together like Ohio State football. I saw the value of that for 14 years--I had season tickets there.
Athletic systems get in trouble when students cease to be students. I have said already to the football team here: you don't have to be Phi Beta Kappa to be an athlete at the University of Georgia. But you have to be a real student, and to me that means going to class and moving towards a degree. When faced with the issues that will inevitably arise, one of the questions I will be asking about a student-athlete is: is he or she still a real student?
As far as the NCAA goes: we are the NCAA--the member institutions. The burden now under the new federated structure, which I played a hand in writing, is on the presidents. I'm not sure that presidents are any more virtuous than coaches or ADs. To be honest with you, my gut feeling is that the jury is still out on this latest governance change at the NCAA. Whether or not enough presidents will devote enough time to provide the kind of leadership that's needed is one of the key issues in this whole restructuring effort. And it's probably going to be two or three years before we know the answer to that.
Q: The American Association of Universities came up during your summer visit. Why is membership seen as desirable?
MFA: First of all: there's not even a process and a set of requirements for AAU membership. It is in essence a kind of academic club.
I have learned through the years that reputations change more slowly in academia than in many other enterprises. While our reputation has increased substantially during the tenure of Dr. Knapp, I think we are still probably a better institution than the world as a whole recognizes.
I believe that recognition really is a by-product of doing things right, and so it's incumbent on me to ensure, with the other university leadership, that we do things right: that we recruit the quality student body; that we maintain, recruit, and pay an eminent faculty; that we increase our participation in national research; that we articulate our successes better; that we increase the number of master's and doctoral degrees; that we build the endowment; that we have more professors in endowed positions; that we do all of the things well that really make up a first-class, top-rate university. When we do enough of those things well, after a reasonable period of lag time, the AAU will want us as a member.
There is clearly, in addition, some required networking. And I have been reasonably successful at that through the years, as has, I might add, Chuck Knapp, who had just been elected president of NASULGC when he left. Given what Chuck has done here and his move to the Aspen Institute, given the growth in the value of this faculty over the past several years, I start here frankly with a much better reputation among the academic leadership in Washington than I had in Georgia coming from a small Kentucky school. And I hope that all of those and many other elements over time will cause the AAU to say this is an institution that needs to be a part of this group.
Q: What are the advantages to membership? The tangible rewards?
MFA: I don't think anyone is going to automatically start writing checks, sending students, moving out of the Ivy League to come to teach here just because of AAU membership. But it is in many ways an important imprimatur. In some ways it's like Phi Beta Kappa. If someone is a member of Phi Beta Kappa we usually start out thinking that they're pretty smart, and they have to prove to us that they're not. It's that sort of thing.
There could be benefits among certain people. I'm already aware of two or three personnel matters where we are trying to recruit prominent research people here, and to some of them it makes a difference whether or not you are an AAU member. In the network of Washington funding patterns--the NSF, the NEH, the NEA--it certainly doesn't hurt you any. There are certain foundations that want to know what your affiliations are. So "tangible" might be stretching it just a bit, but there are some benefits.
It's one of those opportunities where the university leadership is put into concert with other nationally recognized leaders. There are some very capable people involved in the AAU, and on balance it would be a good thing for the University of Georgia. It's not a be-all or end-all kind of thing, though.
Q: What are your goals for undergraduate education here?
MFA: I spoke to the freshmen out on the lawn today, the 200 leaders who have been in this orientation program. This is a very talented group of young people. We cannot fail to serve them effectively.
Just as our academic support is going to be rooted in the quality--ultimately--of our graduate and professional programs, our public and state support is going to be rooted in how we serve undergraduates. It is not an either-or situation. There does not have to be a constant war between research and instruction.
Bob Atwell, the outgoing president of ACE [the American Council on Education], said to me that one of the things he was most impressed about when he looked at the University of Georgia was the level of commitment that still remained to undergraduate instruction. That is a lesson, for instance, that some members of the AAU need.
So I don't yet know specifics with which to answer the question, but I do tell you that I intend to take a good hard look at the quality and commitment. I'm not convinced we have to ignore lower-division classes. I know there are tradeoffs there, and we'll inevitably have to make some of them, but the deans are going to be asked some pretty pointed questions.
Q: What relationship do you see with Staff Council and University Council? Some presidents have run the show, some have said they were just a parliamentarian.
MFA: I really don't want to categorize my role fully until I've had a few months of testing what issues come before those two bodies regularly. No one, however, has ever described me as just a parliamentarian. I intend to preside--as appropriate--at meetings. I do not promise to always be silent.
I do think there are some things that are more properly the purview of the faculty than the administration--curriculum, tenure processes, subject-specific judgments on publishing matters, and other items of academic decision making. But all of those things usually have people spin-offs, budget spin-offs, culture spin-offs, campus atmosphere spin-offs, and I really don't think an effective administration should be silent on those kind of issues.
Q: What about growth?
MFA: There are two or three realities there. One is: not everyone who aspires to the University of Georgia is going to be able to attend here. We could not grow this place large enough for that.
Secondly, I think part of our mission is to set a qualitative standard for the state. Some call that exclusionary; I call it excellence. This is a place that really ought to be selling excellence to all of the citizens of the state, and frankly I want us to set a standard to which high school students will aspire.
And thirdly, I do want us to be a part of the system. There are going to be times when system needs and individual university needs are in conflict. We'll have to work hard to mediate those in an effective way, but there are some other very fine schools in the University System, and it may be that students need to consider those alternatives as a part of their planning process.
I don't see us growing in the foreseeable future beyond the limit that the regents have set, and I do not want to grow beyond the level that we can serve effectively and for whom we have the resources to provide the quality that young people deserve. So there will be some tradeoffs, there will be some disappointments as far as admissions go, but I think the long-term benefit to the state and to the region is for this institution to plot a very high-level course grounded in excellence.
Q: Is UGA the state's flagship institution?
MFA: We are and have been and I hope ever more will be the leading academic institution in Georgia. Is that clear enough?
