An Interview with the Chancellor

The staff of the Alternative Orange thought that an interview with the Chancellor would be a very useful feature since he could spell out University policy better than any of our staff could. To this end, a reading of the following interview will follow in a future issue of the A.O.

This interview might surprise many of our readers — we didn’t ask very confrontational questions. We took this approach for two reasons: first, the chancellor had the power to end the interview at any point. Secondly, we did not to inadvertently default to sexist, racist, homophobic or classist statements, which happens all too often during confrontational situations. For example, during an exchange about Mrs. Shaw’s salary on Shaw’s televised town meeting, a student government official allegedly said “Traditionally, chancellor’s wives have always done ‘the duties of the chancellors wife’, whatever those are, without compensation. She says that ‘I’m not going to do that, so put me on the payroll.” [Daily Orange, March 24, 1993] Our position is that the recognition of the value of a woman’s labor on this campus should be celebrated as a very positive first step in recognizing the value of the labor of all women on this campus.

With the above in mind, staffer Chris Webster sat down with Dr. Shaw on a beautiful spring day during Spring Break, just before the Blizzard of ’93 arrived to welcome students back to campus. After introductions and inquiring if Dr. Shaw reads the A.O. — he does — the interview got underway:

A.O: I’d like to ask some questions about general University policies and then about the downsizing. First of all, in this handbook [the current Syracuse University Student Handbook] on page 159, it says “Students have the right not to be discriminated against by any agent or organization of Syracuse University for reasons of age, creed, ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, marital status, political or social affiliation, race, religion, or sexual orientation.” In spite of the part about sexual orientation, the University does not recognize domestic partnerships for gays. How can the University not discriminate and not recognize domestic partnerships?

Shaw: So you’re suggesting that if you don’t recognize domestic partnerships you are discriminating? That’s the essence of the question; if we abided by what’s on page 159, we would recognize domestic partners?

A.O.: Simply because the University gives benefits to the spouses in heterosexual marriages and gays, in this state, can not be legally married, and therefore, their spouses can not receive benefits because they’re not married.

Shaw: Right. I would first argue that we aren’t discriminating as a result of the present policy because the present policy was never meant to apply to fringe benefits to the recognition of domestic partners. However, let me be quick to say, that’s a very significant issue that this University must confront as are a number of Universities as well as Municipalities and probably eventually Businesses. At issue, is indeed, what is an appropriate definition of when a partnership is felt to be long lasting. When the relationship is felt to be shared, and the definition we have accepted is a marriage; a legal marriage. It would be easy for us to decide how to deal with this if the State of New York recognized marriages of people from the same sex because then we would consistently apply the standard. The fact that the State of New York does not recognize marriages from people of the same sex means we have to take and make our own interpretation. We have chosen to stay with the legal definition of what is said to be a relationship of long lasting value. That of course has to be looked at as does a variety of other policies and practices as we, as an institution and a society, deal with variety of alternative forms of what constitutes a family. Some institutions have developed their own definition of what constitutes a commitment. and that might include such things as are you named on each others life insurance policy, is there something that you own commonly, do you have the same checking account, you could go down a list of criteria. If there should be some split in the relationship, is there some kind of contract that shows how assets would be distributed and liabilities be distributed; in effect, substitute for what a marriage license is supposed to provide.

Now, that is not something we’ve done; I’m simply saying that places that have tried to deal with the fact that there is no legal to definition to help us have tried to provide their own. It seems to me an approach to consider. The thing gets a little more complex in this sense; it’s clear that two people living together have major income tax advantages over a couple that is married that lives together and so then, you ask yourself, do you want to deviate from the law because in one sense you’re dealing with one inequity and that is people living together that have made the commitment who don’t have the same fringe benefits, the same things accrue to them, at a time when there is a major advantage in living together and not being married by a legal definition. All I’m saying is it’s a very complex issue.

A.O: Several “high-tech” companies, mainly computer and software, have recognized domestic partnerships. These companies have stated that they’re doing so because to not do so would be to lose good people to their competitors and in a competitive world, you can’t do that. As you probably recognize, higher education is becoming more and more competitive, and you have to attract better people to stay in the market, and as the University has been studying this for a long time, it seems to me, isn’t the University losing good people that are going to other Universities where their spouses will receive benefits?

Shaw: It’s really very hard for us to tell.

A.O.: What would you need to tell?

Shaw: Well, first of all, let me say, that from a competitive standpoint this is less of an issue because the majority of institutions do not have the policies of the kind that you are mentioning. So, it is really less of a competitive issue; to me, it could become a competitive issue, if the majority of institutions were to have such a policy but right now it’s less a competitive issue and it’s more having to do with doing the right thing.

A.O.: On the same note, if an organization, outside of the University, wants to use University facilities, are they allowed to if they violate the nondiscrimination clause?

Shaw: Give me an example.

A.O.: Well, I’m an Eagle Scout, and until recently, I’ve been involved with the Boy Scouts [as an adult leader] and a couple years ago, at least — I don’t know the current status — the National Boy Scouts used the Dome for a big fundraising event and the National has become more and more conservative in the last couple of years and they don’t tolerate either homosexuals or atheists, and obviously, women can’t be youth members. Their policies are in conflict with the Universities. If they were to attempt to rent the Dome in the next year, would that be allowed?

Shaw: They have been renting the Dome and I had not really considered

A.O.: Most people aren’t aware of their policies; we realize that.

Shaw: Yeah, I’m aware of their policies. I’d have to think about the implications. It’s easy if you were to ask me would we rent space to an organization that discriminated in some fashion to do an activity that was discriminatory. But this is a different kind of activity and the University has tried to stay away from making judgments about the kind of activity that is appropriate on a University. For example, we have some things we won’t permit in the way of Dome entertainment but there is a wide latitude there that allows for a variety of expression because we are concerned about what happens if we start making those judgments. And, so, I’d have to think about the scout thing as it applies to our own policies. We give a great deal of reign when it comes to expressive activities. And, we don’t say that we are supporting this or that we think this is good that speaker X is here. We say it is good that we are an environment where speaker X can do this, where this kind of group can organize, say and do what they want, but then you look at the scouting thing and it’s a little bit more difficult than that — it’s in a gray area. It’s not a cut and dried thing — they’re coming here and participating in a discriminatory activity — it’s not that. On the other side of it, it’s not that they’re coming here — although there is usually a speech that is very well attended and so it’s sort of like the first question you asked me — it’s not one that lends itself to an easy black or white answer. I should add that we will always err on the side of allowing the use of our facilities when it’s in a gray area until it becomes easy to sort out simply because we have to be very careful not to deny whatever expression it is.

A.O.: What do you define as discrimination? I’m particularly curious about economic discrimination. An example of this is a T.A.’s stipend is about $800 a month and, the last time we checked, the University’s minimum charge, on the sliding scale, for infant care is $90 a week. So, at a minimum, more than half a T.A.’s salary will go towards childcare. This is really going to prevent single parents from being graduate students here. Does this type of economic discrimination count as discrimination and, if not, why not?

Shaw: The typical definition of discrimination is a legal one. And, I think, once you stray beyond that legal definition, good people can disagree as to what discrimination is or isn’t but you don’t have the same ease of deciding what is discrimination. And once you get into saying what is economic discrimination and saying that daycare is eating up half the expenses, therefore it is discrimination, where do you stop with economic discrimination. And, as a consequence, I don’t think you can use the word discrimination and place before it economic and expect to have a set of policies that people will agree to. For example, do I think that’s discrimination? No; it’s not, in the legal sense, discrimination. Does that mean that we should pay no attention to it? The answer to that is no. Is it an important issue? The answer to that is yes, but it’s not discrimination in any kind of legal way.

A.O.: But, at the same time, it’s not illegal, and the University does these other things: it has minority scholarships to prevent systematic exclusion because of economics. Isn’t this the same thing?

Shaw: Wouldn’t it be? Are you saying would it be if we provided extra aid?

A.O.: Yeah.

Shaw: If we were to say we’re going to give free daycare to single parents because in order to have greater diversity we want single parents represented that would be no different than saying that we wanted to give special aid to any group. As the state of NY has indicated, the economically disadvantaged groups can get special aid, and if so, I guess what I’m saying is that if we were to do that, we could use the same argument. Then the question is, do we want to do it, can we afford to do it? Because, it’s clear where the money would come from if we did it. It would have to come from the most part, tuition, since we’re seventy some percent tuition driven, Then it becomes another kind of issue. The issue isn’t lost on me in the sense that I understand that making $800 a month and paying $400 a month in daycare makes for a very difficult if not impossible situation. It’s one of many, however. A young family, where the wife is pregnant and they have two young children and the husband is drawing $800 is really also an almost impossible situation. It gets down to which of those almost impossible situation do we feel a strong obligation to do something about. We can’t do something about all of them.

A.O.: As you’ve said, the University is seventy some percent tuition driven. I’m wondering how influential alumni are to you. Every year, Telefund apparently calls most of them. How influential are alumni in the decisions the University makes about policies?

Shaw: Well, the most influential group in the making of policy is our Board of Trustees because they, by statute, have the authority, and actually, by statute, the responsibility, for making policy. The next most influential group would be members of the campus community: myself, the senate, members of the cabinet, those that have direct responsibility for making policy. Then, beyond that — and I’m including alums — you have people that could influence it by the interests and concerns they show. But they don’t make policy and there isn’t a University where alums make policy. They can influence it but generally they tend to influence it on matters that are strongly felt in a small number of areas where it is easy to discern a pattern of interest.

A.O.: What is your envision of the future of the greek system at S.U.?

Shaw: First of all, let me say that I think that the greek system serves a very important purpose for those who participate in the sense that for any activity where you have a high percentage or number of S.U. people participating it’s one of the ways that they can bond to the University. So, whether you’re talking about participation in plays, fraternities and sororities, student government, athletics, any activity that draws people to it that derive satisfaction and bonding, we expect growth. We want to be supportive of it. Now, that’s my hope. I think fraternities and sororities are increasingly under pressure because the students who are considering whether or not to join are looking at it in terms of the value received for the price that they pay and the hours they put in. And to the extent to which it’s perceived they have value, then there will be students who are interested in it. I don’t think that value can only be extracurricular activities. Those fraternities and sororities that emphasize academics and service and ways of helping to orient their new students and make them good citizens in the community will be the ones that will be able to prosper. The ones that are relying pretty much solely on extracurricular activities will increasingly be having a hard time because there are other ways to achieve those activities. The fact that Universities across the country have insisted upon more regulations on Fraternities and Sororities in terms of alcohol and other activities means that, for the small percentage that might have seen that for the sole reason for existence, it can no longer be the sole reason for existence — there has to be more value added.

A.O.: You’ve set up a Committee on Diversity. What is your envision for that?

Shaw: My first goal is to see the Committee’s report. This Spring, they plan to do an environmental scan — in other words, to survey students, faculty and staff to get their views about this environment [the University environment]. Once we’ve seen that, we’ll be able to, in a more pragmatic way, to come up with more plans as to what ought to be done.

A.O.: I was told that the Committee has only been meeting every two months. How are they supposed to accomplish that if they only meet every two months?

Shaw: Well, first of all, you might want to talk with Howard Johnson who’s the chair of the committee. But, I guess I’m not surprised that they’ve only been meeting — I don’t know if two months is right — but infrequently, because the first thing they they’ve had to do is agree upon a questionnaire and design. And so once they had a general assessment of what they wanted to do, then they farmed out the development of the questionnaire and they’re waiting for that questionnaire to be finished before they can put in any time themselves. Otherwise, we’d had a committee devising a questionnaire which would not have been a very productive use of their time. So, until there is something specific for them to respond to, it wouldn’t be very wise for them to be conducting meetings.

A.O.: Just before Christmas, a community college about an hour’s drive from here, had a fight on campus between individuals. Some damage was done; in particular, a student was thrown against a window which broke. In response, the community college permanently expelled one student and suspended the others for several semesters. The only way the students can come on campus during their suspension or expulsion is to appeal, and if they do this, they must be accompanied by security officers at all time.

It’s no secret that one of the so called advantages of private schools is their ability to discipline — unlike public institutions, such as community colleges, they are not required to take anyone they don’t one, and, within reason, can throw out anyone they want.

While I’ve been at Syracuse, there have been numerous incidents, crimes — whatever you want to call them — such as rape, committed by students that are much worse than throwing someone against a window and breaking it. Yet, at the same time, while I’ve been here [the last four years], no one has been punished as severely as those Community College students were. With the exception of the action taken against athletes, most University punishments are not reported to the local press, at least not to set an example. Aren’t S.U.’s disciplinary actions awfully light?

Shaw: Well, first of all, it would be impossible for you to know what actions have been taken against people that have committed serious crimes against the academic community because the information hasn’t been released. That’s an issue in and of itself and that’s an issue that the Task Force on Student Rights and Responsibilities is grappling with and that [preliminary] report will come out on Monday [copies have been available at the Schine information desk]. Not having the information made available in some kind of consolidated form so that names can not be discerned leads people to believe whatever they want to believe about the disposition of these judgments. I’ll be looking very seriously at those recommendations as it applies to what’s made public to the community. I think that will help a great deal.

Are we too lenient or too harsh? I don’t think you can judge by comparing what you kind of hear from the grapevine with something you have read in the paper about another institution. If you compared us to what would happen in a court of law, first of all, we aren’t subject to the same rigid constraints of a court of law because a lot of people who might be judged guilty of an offense here in a court law, there might not be 100% total proof. So, you can’t really compare us with a court of law even if you had the information because we might find people guilty of something that a court of law might have had a difficult time where there has to be no reasonable amount of doubt then it’s clear that the person is going to be found not guilty. And, so you can’t make that kind of comparison.

I can answer your question and I can answer your question by saying I don’t believe we are too lenient. But I don’t think you can answer the question until the information is presented in a form that allows you to make your own judgments and right now that is not possible. And so, my guess is that it will be possible in the future.

A.O.: I’d like to move onto downsizing now. As I recall, when you first arrived at S.U., you either said there would be or were trying to have tuition raises for the next four years. Has your plan changed; will there still be increases for the next three?

Shaw: Not really, not at this point. Although, each year, we review every assumption made in the four and five year plans and we’ll be doing that again next year.

A.O.: Every year, it’s an independent process?

Shaw: Well, every year it’s independent: you look at your five year plan. You then decide what things have changed. Some things have changed through the first year, so you make changes to your assumptions and then you say to yourself what other changes do we have to make. That has to occur every year but you have a baseline to deal with. And so, in that way, as we make that decision, the assumption was a net 6 percent increase in costs and we make the decision that is too high, then we have to find the money from one of our other assumptions. The most common one would be salary that we have to downgrade our salary assumption or we have to decrease the number of staff we have. But, there has to be some way you trade those things off and that’s done on an annual basis.

A.O.: One thing that really puzzles me is that, in spite of yearly protests, cries, whatever, S.U.’s budget has not ever been opened to the interested members of the University community — I’m not saying the public, but just to student leaders. Wouldn’t opening the budget up make it a lot easier to deal with?

Shaw: I think where you and I might disagree is to what constitutes an open budget. I venture to say that the information that students have, if you want to look at it from the policy perspective, that there is sufficient information to make informed judgments about the major policy decisions that have to be made. If you want to know what somebody’s salary is, that’s true, you can’t find it. I think you’ll find that among the private institutions, we release more information than any you’ll find. We don’t release as much information as the state institutions because we don’t have to and since we don’t have to, we’re not going to release salary data. We’re trying to arrive at ways to give people information that will be helpful to them and simply turning over a big budget book over, with the salaries off, isn’t particularly helpful. We will work very hard to try to improve the information that is given to people to help them help us decide on these issues. One of the things we’ll try to do for next years go-around, is to work with the budget and fiscal committee to determine a way that people can have information that will help them decide them decide these tradeoffs I mentioned earlier.

But, to answer your question, if we simply gave out the data, would people be less concerned about tuition increases, I would honestly have to say no. I don’t think it would make a bit of difference. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. If you think the tuition is too high, it does not matter a whole lot the reasons why we have to do it.

A.O.: In response to the most recent student protests, you stated that Auxiliary operations, like the Bookstore, Utica College, don’t make any money. I’ve noticed that when I purchase books at S.U.B., I’ll come home and take off the little scanner tag, and underneath the price printed right on the book cover will be less than what S.U.B. is charging. When you consider that and the fact that S.U.B. has government subsidized labor in the form of work study students and a locked in market — you either go there or down to M-street to buy books — how can it possibly not make money?

Shaw: Maybe it’s our definition of what making money is. I’ve never said that the bookstore or any of the auxiliaries don’t bring in more revenue than they spend. They do. As a matter of fact, our operating budget is enhanced by 29 million dollars as a result of the auxiliary activities that we have, be it the bookstore, food service, summer session, DIPA, it doesn’t matter. They are in fact, generating income for us. And, when I say, us, us is all of us because if that income isn’t generated, then we would have to find a fund source to replace it. And so, yes, it generates income.

Now the second part of it though, are the prices higher than if there were competitors. Where there are competitors, we do market basket comparisons. We do that in food we serve and we do that in a lot of other things we serve. Now, I don’t know how the book situation is, because walking down to M-street. I don’t see that as something a student would say well it’s a lot cheaper on M-street, but it’s too far to walk, I won’t do it. So, I see, if we’re out of line there, M-street has every right to expect they’ll get more business. And we don’t have any right to expect they wouldn’t.

A.O.: I’m glad you clarified that. When downsizing was being discussed, Utica College was hardly mentioned. Does it make money?

Shaw: Not for us.

A.O.: How you define that?

Shaw: Our relationship with Utica College is that we exert quality control over their academic programs; they’re approved by our senate. We run their bookstore for them for which we are paid which is converted into G.A.S. — the administrative overhead, which goes into the operating budget. Beyond that, they’re expected to be free standing. They’re expected not to cost us any money and if they earn income in excess of what their costs are, which is very difficult to do these days, that’s up to them to decide what to do with them. They’re not really an auxiliary the same way these other things are. Because, we — quite frankly — don’t go in there and run it like we run it like the bookstore.

A.O.: I realize that it’s got it’s own president and administration. What’s the future of that relationship; is it going to continue as is?

Shaw: Their foundation is looking at the relationship with an eye toward recommending any changes that might be beneficial to both parties. They haven’t come up with their recommendations yet. Any recommendations made probably would require special legislation since the present relationship is, for the most part, legislative.

A.O.: By who? The state?

Shaw: Yeah, the state.

A.O.: At S.U., S.U. has claimed that courses taught by T.A.’s are a necessity; S.U. can not function without them. Is that true?

Shaw: Let me put it this way: If you didn’t have T.A.’s, you wouldn’t have Ph.D. graduate students to speak of. If you didn’t have Ph.D. graduate students, you wouldn’t have a University as we have it. You wouldn’t have the same kind of faculty we have. You would be a very large private school devoted almost solely to undergraduate education which attracts a certain kind of faculty but it doesn’t attract, for the most part, a faculty interested in high level scholarship and in working with advanced graduate students. So, in that sense, they’re very important. Now, for the economics of it, that’s not so clear. You pay them a certain amount, give them free tuition, and you add that all together and you’re coming pretty close to what it might cost to bring some one in.

A.O.: It’s not quite there though?

Shaw: It’s not quite there though. So there is some financial benefit, but the major benefit is our being a major research university and without T.A.’s we wouldn’t have quality graduate students and without quality graduate students we’d be another kind of school and I would submit not the kind of school that as many students that are interested in now would continue to be interested in coming to. So, they’re essential, but not for the reasons the people generally believe, that somehow they’re such low paid labor that we make out a lot better. We do make out a little better, but not that much.

A.O.: How do you consider cost effectiveness and how do you allocate resources that aren’t very cost effective. For example, departments that require large investments, but don’t bring in large returns. As an engineering student, I know that the College of Engineering requires very large subsidies for maintaining the labs, yet, with the exception of a yearly Engineering Fee of about $150, my tuition is the same as someone who is studying in a department that does not require much more than office and class space. How does the University justify large subsidies to engineering and scientific departments?

Shaw: Well there are two schools of thought. One is that every tub on it’s own bottom, which means that everybody has to generate enough money to pay for what they do, all the overhead, fringe benefits. The other is to say that the every unit should be financially responsible, that some units will cost more per student than others and that we recognize that in the decisions we make.

For example, in restructuring, we said that we thought the engineering costs were out of line — they were too high. We also said you can’t run a first rate engineering program without the costs being far more than they are for other programs. And so, we used, if 1.00 is the unit that meets all of its overhead and direct costs, than engineering ought to be at 0.75 and certain other areas should be higher than 1.00 to balance it. you justify it academically. It is actually easier to justify doing that than saying every tub on its own button. Because when you say every tub on its own bottom, you’re saying we’re not going to have science and engineering, or if we do, there has to be such massive research money from the outside that you’re bringing in so much indirect costs that you can make all this happen. And so, I don’t find it at all hard to justify.

A.O.: How do you determine the ratios of departments that have a lot of adjunct faculty, like woman’s studies has — there is a long list of faculty that teach in the department, but I think only three of them teach full time in the department. How do you figure out how big that department is?

Shaw: I don’t have to do that; the Vice Chancellor [for Academic Affairs, Gershen Vincow] does. Generally, what you look for — something like Woman’s Studies — most of the people who are teaching in Woman’s Studies are full time faculty members, here on campus. Woman’s Studies is an interdisciplinary study, so you have people whose time is spent in part in doing that and in part in Sociology, English, whatever. That’s a little more complex. If you were asking about true adjuncts, even there the disciplines help you decide. For example, I think most people would agree, that for a major research university, you would not have a majority of adjuncts, in most programs. You look to see what percentage of your program is adjunct and then you also look at what the major is. For example, in some areas of engineering, it’s wonderful to have an adjunct teacher. They have hands on experience. It’s the same way with management. And so, it becomes an art form that the vice chancellor and the deans have to work through and there is not universal standard that says when you get beyond X you have a problem.

A.O.: I think I used term adjunct wrongly; I was thinking of professors that are in a department but also teach in another.

Shaw: Is your question how do you figure how that area is doing? Financially or is that what your question is?

A.O.: How do you determine how valuable it is if “so and so” in Philosophy is teaching a Woman’s Studies course is he or she considered a Woman’s Studies faculty member and does Woman’s Studies get the resources allocated to it or does the Philosophy department?

Shaw: Vincow could answer this better. I happen to know that the Woman’s Studies one, I may not know some of the other quote studies programs, but in Woman’s Studies they have a very small budget. Mr. Vincow has worked with the Woman’s Studies Program to arrive at certain guarantees from the departments about producing sections. The usual concern from these kinds of programs is they have to go hand to hand to each department each semester and that really makes planning almost impossible and I think that’s a valid concern. Then the question is how do you take advantage of the interdisciplinary nature and so we’re trying to arrive at guarantees to make sure the program has the courses delivered when they need to be delivered not only for the majors but for the vast majority of students who are not going to major in Woman’s Studies. They represent a significant challenge but our quote studies close quotes programs are really very important and one of the advantages of having a real large institution is that you can piece together things that way. While there is a tendency to want to make new departments, I think we have to be very careful that we not always resolve this by not making new departments because there is something very significant about having sociologists, political scientists, literature, psychologists, teaching woman’s studies or whatever the studies might be because you’ll get a better interaction than if you end up with a straight department.

A.O.: I guess this leads into another topic: division of resources on campus. It seems to me that at times this division is very inequitable distributions. For example, during the day, it is usually very difficult to get on a computer terminal in a public computer cluster, like an A.C.S. cluster. Computing Services needs to keep Kimmel open twenty four hours a day so that everyone can get access. Yet, at the same time, there is a College of Engineering computer cluster on the second floor of Hinds that is usually half empty and when it’s used it’s for playing games about as much as for academic work.

Shaw: You engineers are all alike.

A.O.: My question is how do you determine when something is a University wide resource and open to everyone and when something is not, particularly when the two things are identical.

Shaw: It’s hard to do that; there is no easy answer that question because you do have specialty needs that have to be met and in doing so you create a situation where you can have an excess one place although I assume that somebody could come in an use one of those computers.

A.O.: You have to know the combination [to the door].

Shaw: I would say that the best way that we can more equitably deal with it is to find out where the use is less and try to make adjustments because we are always going to have that stretch — the need for specialization versus for the need to provide for the general computer needs of our students and to the extent to which we get the feedback, we can do that better.

A.O.: How does someone like me give feedback on something like that?

Shaw: That’s a good question. We’ve talked about the computing area establishing an advisory committee which users come in. That hasn’t been done but it’s in the throws of being done and it’s being discussed. That would be a perfect vehicle to find out what the users tell us. This whole area is, to me, another one of those challenges because four or five years ago was to have enough clusters to meet the need there and the need grows faster than the number of students that you have. We used to talk a lot about all the computer facilities we have for students. We will continue to do that but the change will be that we will also recommend that students that can afford to have there own. We never used to do that but the environment has changed enough. One of the things we have to look further out whether or not our dorms, in particular, are wired in a way that students with their own can access what they need because increasingly as the cost of the hardware goes down students will buy their own and so we’re in a transition where we have to have the Kimmels and all these others and we’ll always have to have specialized places. But increasingly, students will see a computer like they do their books. It will be a must before they come. We’re in the mist of this change so we have not said it is a must. I don’t know if we are ready to say it is a must but I do know that I would advise if I had children left that were this age and I could afford it I’d be having them take their computer with them.

A.O.: Two follow up questions then: will the university eventually establish some kind of financial aid for that? [Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties — one recorder refused to operate at all and the other ran out of tape at this point — about thirty seconds of the interview was not recorded.]

Shaw: . . .send us a note because it’s one of the ways we find things out. If you send it to me, I would give it to my director of budget and planning, John Hogan, so you could sent it to him. But, that kind of information is always kind of helpful. We get some of it now. What we do is we always seriously look at the concerns. In a lot of the cases, it turns out that it isn’t helpful. In some cases, it’s very helpful. But, you only need a couple helpful cases to save money, or one even.

A.O.: Will needing computers be eventually considered for financial aid; considered as an expense?

Shaw: I think so. I don’t know how the logistics of that is. It almost has to be at the point that you are requiring it. Some schools have required computers for some time and they generally add the amount to tuition. It’s how they’ve been financing it — they add the amount to tuition and let you pay for it over four years. Any way you cut it, you’re paying for it. But, in that way, you’re spreading the payments out. So, if it’s a thousand dollar unit, your tuition would go up by $250 and then by the end of the fourth year, it’s paid for. Of course, the way computers are going now, by the end of the fourth year, you don’t want it and you can’t get five dollars for it!

A.O.: We’ve run over, so I just have two closing questions. The first is I haven’t heard anything about your teaching background. Do you have any?

Shaw: Have I taught? Yeah. Most of my career has been administrative. As I’ve been in administrative positions, particularly early on, I taught. Generally the courses I taught were minority relations, small groups, social institutions — these are sociology classes. As a matter of fact, beyond those, my teaching has been mainly cameo appearances where I’ll go in and do a couple weeks of some unit in higher education — something that I know something about. I wouldn’t be prepared to teach a class right now, other than the forum, which I enjoyed. I taught the freshman forum and that was fun. I wouldn’t have the time to prepare for any of the classes I mentioned that I’ve been teaching because I take it seriously and I have too much pride to go into a classroom and not be very well prepared. So, what I do, is keep up on the reading, and that’s not a problem, but putting it together would take more time that I have the capability to put in.

A.O.: Finally, when you were at Wisconsin, you let the downsizing there and then you came to S.U. Are you going to be at Syracuse once the downsizing here is completed?

Shaw: (Laughter) I hope so.

A.O.: You’re not planning on moving on to other things then?

Shaw: No. I’m not like that. There are people like that you bring in to give the bad news, get the place adjusted to it, then make everyone mad and then leave. I really don’t have the temperament for that but I mean I could do it. It was the time for me to leave Wisconsin because I felt that I had pretty much had done what I could do best. There were other things that need to be done but others could do it better. This was a great opportunity, to go to an entirely different venue. I like being in a private school and I like having my own school, as opposed to thirteen schools. I have no other aspirations. So, if people get sick of me, then of course, I’d have to move on. But, short of that — they’d have to be awfully sick because I’m not easy to uproot — they’ll have to put up with me until I reach the ripe old age of retirement, whenever that is.

A.O: Thanks for the interview.

♦ ♦ ♦