In an exclusive interview with Vassar’s new president Elizabeth Bradley, inaugurated September 24th of last year, Boilerplate Editors-in-Chief Saskia Globig and Dakota Peterson sought to bridge the gap between students and administration. They attempted to explore a difficult terrain of inquiry whose answers have, and to some extent continue to be, obscured from the student community. President Bradley aimed to shed light on administrative decisions. She navigated demanding questions on community and the allocation of the college’s assets by reaffirming her faith in the “Engaged Pluralism Initiative” and its ability to shape the atmosphere on Vassar’s campus. Ms. Bradley communicated an unmistakable commitment to address the complexities of creating and controlling a sheltered space for higher education within which many individuals, each with their own experiences, can excel. Globig, Peterson, and I feel, however, that Ms. Bradley maneuvered through these pressing social conflicts with rather tame, noncommittal answers which only continue to highlight the politics of our college and the increasing disconnect between students and administration.
As Vassar’s president, Bradley assumes a difficult role and responsibility. She framed it as demanding that she make decisions beyond the agendas of students from a liberal arts college. “Sometimes you have to do things that aren’t popular,” she said in the interview. “It’s not about being popular.” Popularity with typical Vassar students, who stay for four short years, isn’t always a priority for the college. But it appears that Bradley’s decisions really have just as much to do with popularity as they do with the best interests of our student body, let alone our demands. Ms. Bradley’s evasion is implicit when speaking about disinvestment in Israel: she said she needs to “become well-versed in” the roles of the Campus Investment Responsibility Committee and the Trustee Investment Responsibility Committee, and is “still learning.” Although Ms. Bradley is inspired to learn and engage with topics brought into focus by students from previous graduating classes, the president has a responsibility to respond to student’s wishes and then appeal to the more powerful, stable forces with agency in keeping Vassar College and its financial aid opportunities secure. Though students may have a cyclical relationship to the institution, financial investors remain virtually constant while physically and psychologically removed. Whose demands are more valuable?
Despite the different expectations we may or may not insist on from the president, there continues to be a lack of transparency between students and administration, which Ms. Bradley doesn’t always address. When discussing the issues of the new meal plan implemented last year, especially in relationship to Ferry’s cooperative housing, Ms. Bradley responded that oftentimes you have to stand by a decision that “was made even if it’s not the ideal one for everybody’s perspective.” She maintained that these decisions are “not malignant or malicious; it’s fearful in some way,” as if the administration avoids communication with the student body because, as Ms. Bradley asserted, sometimes administrators “have to tell bad news and they think people will be upset at bad news.” But where does this fear come from? A lack of understanding? A lack of faith? Ms. Bradley’s response isn’t an adequate answer considering administrators make decisions concerning the needs of students and student life. How can we evaluate and assess the success of some organizational changes over others, if an administration lacks the courage to engage with students and their input? And likewise, how can students believe that their perspectives are being heard through these changes, if there continues to be a lack of transparency with administration?
As Vassar’s student body becomes more diverse, especially financially, a discussion about whose perspectives are taken into account, and where value is placed, must continue. As the political climate outside of Vassar becomes more tense, the administration cannot present itself as a “friend” who “understands” the complexities of being a student and expect that to be reassuring enough. We need proof that changes are addressing the issues of privilege, racism, and classism that plague our community. As we continue to engage with the administration and strive to bridge the gap between students and politics, it is imperative that President Bradley maintains her faith but also her material and action-based investments in the programs she believes will mold Vassar into the community she seeks to create.
Also present at the meeting recorded below was Amanita Duga-Carroll, the newly appointed Vice President of Communications at Vassar College. Working closely with President Bradley, Duga-Carroll’s position is significant: she helps the administration carefully navigate sensitive policies using strategic communication.
Through this interview, and hopefully through other discussions with administration, the Vassar community can gain more insight into the roles and responsibilities each one of us plays within our institution.
Thank you, President Elizabeth Bradley, for working with Boilerplate.
— Yoav Yaron, Vassar Climate Editor
* * *
Saskia Globig: If you could start by saying your name and your position?
Elizabeth Bradley: I’m Elizabeth Bradley and I’m the president of Vassar College. I started in July, as you know, and previous to this I spent twenty-five years at Yale: five as a student getting my Ph.D. and then twenty years on the faculty.
SG: How has your work prepared you to do this job?
EB: Well, I think in a lot of ways my previous work has prepared me well to do this. Of course there are always surprises and I’m learning every day, which I also love. But some of the things I’ve done before have been helpful.
I think one of these is, I really have had a long academic life, so when I work with faculty I very much feel like faculty; I was on the faculty for twenty years, and went up through the chain to be tenured and have a chair, so sort of the things people struggles with, like, “How do you find your new ideas in research? How do you balance research with teaching? How do you deal with difficult issues in the classroom?” All of these things I feel like I’ve had experience from the faculty side, which makes it easier I think than to be head of the faculty, which the president is, but also the administrative voice that hopefully represents the faculty well. So that I would never give up, that was terrific.
I think also being the Head of College at Branford college was really helpful to me, because I got to live with students who were eighteen to twenty-two years old, and live smack in the middle of everything that went on—or, the house couldn’t be more in the middle of things. It was much closer actually than we live now—I mean, we were in the same dorms.
SG: Because it’s a residential college, right? It’s an enclosed thing?
EB: Yes, it’s enclosed with a courtyard. That was tremendously helpful. I think also having my own children, who are this age… that’s really helpful so I guess that’s something I’m bringing to it. And then, I would say just studying Public Health. Public Health is always thinking about a community, it’s not doctor to patient, it’s more a scholar or practitioner to a whole population. How do you help a population come forward and take care of itself? It’s a very empowering profession, or it can be. I think it is.
So that’s sort of helpful too. I look at health very broadly and it includes pretty much everything that makes you feel and flourish well in society or in a community. So, I’m hoping that those backgrounds are also helpful to me in being present in a small, or liberal arts, college like Vassar.
SG: Did you teach in public health?
EB: Yes! Taught in public health, in global health… most of my work—a lot of my work was international in the last ten years. So, the first ten years was domestic, but I… taught global health and public health, and I’m going to teach next year, here.
SG: You are? So cool!
EB: Yeah! I can’t wait. I’m teaching a course called ‘Strategic Thinking in Global Health’ and I’m really excited about it because I just started to work with faculty who are here already, and it feels like we can find a way to offer something that is not offered currently. So that’s exciting.
SG: So, would that be sociology?
EB: It’s going to be in STS.
SG: Oh okay, nice.
Dakota Peterson: Has the president ever taught a class?
EB: I assume, but I don’t know. But I can’t wait, I very much miss being in the classroom right now. I really do. That’s why I love office hours: I get to meet some students here, get some relationships, know what’s going on.
SG: Speaking of community, and the students, what’s your impression of us?
EB: The students here are just phenomenal. [laughs] I’m just trying to think of a way of being creative in saying this, but they are so inspiring. I always—I guess I expected it, but it’s beyond my dreams in every way.
The Barefoot Monkeys: my first three weeks here I thought I got to meet everybody, first of all, they’re so funny and they’re just adventuresome, and then I went to their fire show and they are lighting the whole quad on fire! One of the professors said, “Have you paid the insurance this fall?” But, that’s just one thing.
I also went to the, I think it’s the URSI summer of the students who do the posters and I looked at those posters and honestly, they were using statistical models I taught my doctoral students. And I’d say, “Is that really what you did?” as a first-year or second-year, and it absolutely was. I went to the robotics lab; that was amazing. I went to Bob Brigham’s class where he was teaching litigations and so I got to hear what students—you know, in history—how they sort of engage in class, and they were so open and talkative, and really prepared. So, I guess I have felt that the students are amazing here and, one of the other things that I would say about students here, that I really have appreciated, is how authentic they are.
Sometimes you can come across a population where people are kind of trying to tell you something and you know…kiss ass a little bit… [laughs] just—you know people here just tell you the way it is, they just sit down and boom, they tell you if they don’t like it, they don’t like it. If they like it, they like it. That is actually really refreshing, and I have felt that the people feel—they either feel empowered or they feel authentic or they just feel like this a place where they can speak up and I have really liked that a lot. It’s not always been that way.
DP: One thing we were wondering about is, Cappy had, sort of, not a good rep—
SG: Catherine Hill.
DP: [laughs] But I think there was definitely this division between the administration and students, and it seems like you’re already trying to break down that barrier a little bit, so we wanted to know if you could talk a little about that, or if you feel like you want to sort of break that image?
EB: Yeah, I know. My very first interactions with students: the five students who welcomed me on July 1, with big signs and everything, and I was so excited. So, I asked Amanita [Duga-Carroll], “What are their e-mails? So I can invite them over!” And then I invited them over the next day for tea and they all said they’d never been in the president’s house, and I was shocked that they had never been there. But, they sat down, and they said, “So, we don’t like administration.” And I said, “Ah!” [laughs] “… I understand, tell me more!” So, I sort of understand that in some ways, that those kinds of things can happen.
But I’m really a big believer in the reason that I wanted to be a president, and the reason I want to be a teacher, is I like young adults that are this age. I mean, I think it’s really interesting [when] people your age challenge people my age to learn something new, to feel like, “Wait a minute, the world is open” and there’s novelty in innovation ahead of us. So, to me, I really don’t want to be distant from the students. I think that’s the fun of the job, and that’s what makes me learn. We should all be learning. That’s what college is.
So, I really just consider it a highlight of it. And I’ve felt this way, I’ve been this way, forever. When I was at Yale, I was in a School of Public Health where faculty really liked to do research, that was, primarily do research, and I was always the one that always took on a heavier teaching load. I always had tons of advisees; still some of those advisees came to the inauguration because I’ve known them for years, and years, and years.
Because I really feel that the student voice is the anchor. It sort of is the North Star: where are we going? And how can you create a community that students will flourish in? And some of that—sometimes you have to do things that aren’t popular. It’s not about being popular. That, to me, is beside the point. I think you are really trying to know each other, have authentic relationships, talk about hard stuff if it’s hard. You know—and a president’s role is so complicated, there are lots of times that students want something and you just can’t do it. But, I think that’s okay. You try and keep the relationship, you try to explain when you have to make a decision that you know is not, maybe, what people really want. You explain why you made that decision that way. And you got to stand by that, and, I think…
…be transparent with why a decision was made even if it’s not the ideal one for everybody’s perspective… I don’t seek being popular. I seek having authentic relationships with students where we’re really learning and knowing each other.
DP: I think we’ve definitely experienced that lack of transparency. So, we live in Ferry House, which is a co-op, and so for years we were cooking and that was a big part, and then when the meal plan changed it was like, “Omg we’re losing that,” and so that was really tough for us—trying to figure out if we can get out of it, or what was going on, and then…
SG: It felt like there was no relationship and no information.
DP: And then, yeah, we didn’t even know anything about money, in terms of how much money we could get or how much money was going into it, and so I think for us, that was definitely the part that I’ve been frustrated with, with administrators in the past.
SG: And sort of not knowing yet what’s your job, and what’s this other group of administrators’, and nobody knows.
EB: That’s such an important thing, too. I think in large organizations, people understand: when is it consultation time?—that is, everybody is getting consultation—and when is it decision making time? And who is in charge of what of that? Who actually makes the decision? And you know, all companies and all organizations—I’m sure even your student organizations—suffer with that: “Who actually makes the decision?”
And so I think part of transparency is being very clear what the process is, and ultimately accepting that’s the process and you put everything you can into it, and then the decision actually is made at this level, whatever level it is—it’s not always the president’s level by any means—and that’s how it’s going to be. I think that is a hard thing to do.
Sometimes people aren’t transparent because they’re afraid that if they’re transparent, they have to tell bad news, and they think people will be upset at bad news. I tend to be a little different on that. I tend to just give the bad news and try to think if I really understand why do we have to do it that way, and then articulate that. And you just hope your relationship and your credibility with each other—your trust, really, with each other—that you’re looking at the long haul for Vassar.
What’s best for Vassar holds you through tough decisions…
But I do think that’s sometimes why people step away from being transparent. It’s not malignant or malicious, it’s fearful in some way. So, I’m going to try to not be fearful, but we’ll see. [laughs]
SG: I guess that something that comes out of that, for me, is that a lot of people see what’s best for Vassar. I’ve heard a lot of students say that what they think is being done for the betterment of Vassar doesn’t line up with what’s best for students.
I’m wondering if you could talk about the Engaged Pluralism Initiative and how that fits into that, and if you have any kind of concrete ideas for making this a safer place for students of color, and students of different ability, and people who are marginalized right now.
EB: Such a good question, Saskia. Maybe I’ll just start with the easier part of that, which is the Engaged Pluralism Initiative. Actually, when I applied for this job, I articulated that I thought that one of the major things facing liberal arts colleges today was they had increased their diversity, but they were not inclusive. It’s in my letter of application and I went through this, sort of, “How do people deal with diversity?” Well, sometimes they assimilate everybody, and you just have to be the person who is the Vassar student or whatever, and they assimilate, and you lose diversity, but that’s how people deal with it. Of course, I criticize that because it doesn’t give us the richness of cultural diversity and every kind of diversity we have, and we don’t learn from homogenizing people.
Another strategy people have is to segregate people in their own little groups and create affinity groups that are really tight, and everyone is happy in their own little group, but I sort of criticize that as, to tell you the truth, you don’t learn that much from that, either. You learn a lot from your own people, but you don’t learn from each other. That’s also a problem. Those have been the main strategies that people really use, but I think a more aspirational strategy is engaged pluralism, where you value your own group, you value your affinity space, you think it’s important to be with people like you, but you also think it’s incredibly important to really engage fully with people who are different from you. It’s not just, “engage because it’s politically correct to engage” or, “engage because you should tolerate everyone.” It’s, “engage because you can’t wait to learn what they have to offer, even if it’s totally contradictory to the way you see the world.” And that is a tough type of a society to live in, but that is a really inclusive culture where in fact you are willing to talk with someone even though, “Gah, I don’t like this,” and you keep working, and working, and working, and working at it with the value of a full community.
At the same time, you have a value on your own voice, so I think that’s what’s tough, is when they come into conflict with each other. How do you hold two opposing things in your mind at the same time and still function? My people are like, “Ooh, I got to actually engage with this other and I don’t like the way they think about things.” So, the Engaged Pluralism Initiative in my mind—well, first of all, when it was being designed here—which was really by Dean Chenette and Professor Lowe Swift and some several other people were involved—I wasn’t involved in designing what was to go into it. But when I got here, they said, “Oh guess what? We’ve entitled it the Engaged Pluralism Initiative,” because I had talked about this in my interviews. But I didn’t actually design it or ask them to call it that.
SG: It was a coincidence?
EB: Well, for me it was a coincidence. I think for them, they were like, “Great, this is a good idea!” [laughs] I mean I was actually surprised and I went back to my letter and I said, “Oh yeah, I did use that,” and actually it’s a chapter of a book I just have been working on.I just had to give the final edited version, and this morning I was looking at it and I thought, “See, I did all of this.” But I think it’s more—it’s inclusion. What it is meant to be is the roots of the—the backbone of an inclusive culture. So, you would ask, I think, a really good question, like, “Okay, so you got any ideas of how this is going to work?” I think a couple things about the initiative I like is that they have created seven different groups, sub-groups, to be working on these issues that cut across—get new voices to the table. And have students and faculty and administrators working right with each other and not siloed, which is important because… they learn how to facilitate, et cetera, et cetera. I’m hoping [to get] a lot of voices at the table who were not previously there, so I don’t know if we would call those marginalized or not, I guess it depends where, but I think that is a big plus. I think they’re doing it in several places so the pedagogy is, “How can it be fixed?” There’s the residential life, there’s the relationship with community, there’s several different foci.
I think the big issue is how do you create something like this that actually changes the real culture over time, which is a slow process, as opposed to just build up a whole lot of projects that sit beside the trunk of the tree, but as soon as they are unfunded, they’re gone. I would much rather see this actually be embedded into what we do every day, and it becomes… “this is actually how we have affinity spaces now,” “this is how we work on that,” “this is how we talk about Vassar.” In how we influence communications, we see examples of engaged pluralism. And that it keeps going regardless of whether we have a grant or not.
But it’s part of the trick, the thing that I worry about that keeps me awake at night is, “Can we do it?” because it’s really hard, you know, to tolerate and to really engage in conversation with people and ideas that you find repugnant.
How do you do that? And when has it crossed the line? These are all the issues: when it’s A) repugnant, which you can deal with and learn about, or B) it’s hate. Where’s the line? So, if you throw too much stuff into hate [claps] you’re going to have trouble being inclusive of everyone. But if you don’t throw enough stuff in, you know, you’ve got really a nasty environment.
So, it’s an incredible balance, I think. Which I think drives off trusting relationships, drives off authentic relationships, drives off some level of faith that people are here to be a part of a community.
There’s no one that is a demon; we’re actually here to be a part of a community, but it takes time, I think, to get there.
DP: Yeah, it’s definitely—I don’t know what Vassar would be considered, but I guess it’s sort of the one where there’s lots of groups that are very separate from each other. I mean the school is really divided between—there’s sports and non-sports, and the two never—
SG: Rarely…
DP: Rarely interact. Except for fellow groups which, I think those were really helpful in terms of that—
SG: But then sometimes they kind of dissolve—
DP: They dissolve sophomore year and then it’s split again. I think that’s true for affinity groups too, is there’s a lot of fear and feeling very unsure if the administration has your back. And I’ve heard that also from professors, so that’s definitely tricky. I wonder if—I think that’s definitely something students would be interested in talking about, like figuring out together—
SG: I was going to ask if you get any of that from interviews students were having. Focus groups, or surveys, or anything?
EB: Yeah, no, I think [for] the students particularly in residential houses… You mentioned the student fellows—they can be really effective. I think this is an incredibly important strategy because if you come into your first year, you come into a house, and you know, you’re four weeks in, and you got a C on a paper and you usually get A’s, and you got cut from the singing group or the play you wanted to be in, and your roommate, you’re like, “Eurgh sort of” but you’re not making great friends with them, and then your sophomore fellow is actually now a sophomore and kind of doing their own thing because they have moved you in, you’re in, and they might even be going through a sophomore slump and trying to figure out their major so they’re distracted.
What holds you together as a diverse group bonded, the first and most human thing to do is say, “I’m a little stressed out here, I’m going to find someone that looks like me.” If I grew up low-income, I’m going to find someone low-income. If I’m first-gen, I’m going to find someone first-gen. If I’m black, I’m going to find someone black. If I’m a woman, I’m going to find a woman. I mean that’s just human nature. We would all do that. A hundred percent of people would probably do that. So, I think to really create inclusion, you have to work hard at—and maybe “curate” is a little too managed—but you have to work hard at creating systems that have people lean towards a diverse group. And I think the student fellow program can really be that, but it probably needs greater resources and maybe those people need to be augmented with juniors and seniors who are older, who can, the whole year, keep creating that fellow group as something that you draw strength from and that fellow group is diverse. So yes, you have your affinity group which makes you feel comfortable and you learn so much and it’s so great to be sort of in your own culture for a bit, but you have another group that is in your residential house that you really like and that you can really draw strength from. To me, that is a key strategy. And I don’t think it’s impossible because the footprint of that is already here and it just is a matter of resourcing it and providing adequate training and providing the sort of cultural backdrop from the president throughout, like, “This is what we’re working on. We’re working on inclusion.” And so that becomes kind of a mean: we are working on this, not sort of “That’s the odd thing to do,” but “That’s the typical thing to do.” I’d love to see that happen.
You mentioned the faculty, and that’s also important because, it’s probably true that every group here faces the same situation. And how do we do this among faculty, also, so that faculty, together, can say, “What’s the best way to create community in my classroom?”—where so much important work happens, and I think you want all faculty to feel like students feel comfortable talking. Psychologically safe. That is, they can say what they think and feel at any time, and not feel like they are going to get harassed for that—not feel like they’re going to be made fun of for that. That’s a really hard environment to go for, but why can’t we do that?
SG: I think it’s hard also because my go-to would be, like, ask the students what we want, but that doesn’t always work also either because we’re not professionals who do design thinking—
DP: You have to push people out of their comfort zones.
SG: Right, yeah, and you don’t know what all the models could look like.
EB: Yeah.
SG: I just think that sometimes there’s a trend of—another reason people hate administration—is that there is a sense that administrators are working on it behind the scenes, and sort of orchestrating all this stuff, and then they hand you something that doesn’t always fit you. And I think there has to be more of a balance between what the students are contributing and the faculty.
EB: Totally agree, and I have been to VSA once—normally I’d go again on, I think, the twenty-second—and this idea that we’re talking about, inclusion, and how do we do this in the residential housing, should be shaped by the students and should be, like all engaged pluralism, everybody-brings-something to the table. Students bring experience being students, and their own values. People who have done these kinds of models bring their experience, what they’ve come to, and I think it’s, “Can you create the environment in which ideas really flourish and then they get shaped?” I keep throwing this down in office hours. I talk to people all the time about this, I throw it down on the table and hope it will be shaped. And I think it will be shaped with time, but that requires the kinds of relationships we’re having with administration that I think are really important. And I also tell people very frequently when they feel that I am not listening, or someone on our team is not listening, the best thing you can do is say, “You’re not listening!” And they go, “Oh! Okay! Okay! Okay! Wait a minute! Wait a minute!” You know it’s that constant conversation. So important.
SG: And it’ll take forever.
EB: Constant is actually constant. [laughs] I know, it’s an aspiration. But, it’s such a better world.
DP: The fact that you’re already thinking about this.
EB: I think it’s incredibly important. When I get inspired about taking this job—because, you know, I was happy in what I did before—but the inspiration is really, “What kind of a community can you have?” And Vassar is so interesting because it has such diversity and it’s so empowering of people and nobody is a conformist, so it’s like, “We’re ready to try something!” I mean every element is here, I think, to be able to really demonstrate in our crazy divisive world we’re in right now, really what is inclusive community and how do we take care of each other? That will be exciting—worth working for.
SG: I’m just thinking about the hot button issues of the past years, like divestment from fossil fuels and from corporations in Palestine. Could we just get your opinions, maybe?
EB: Well, I’m still learning on both of these quite a bit, and I have met with the fossil fuel group a number of times, and I think they’re in my Sunday office hours this Sunday—my office hours are open, so you just have to schedule time, but I’ll meet anybody. And I am meeting with the CIRC [Campus Investment Responsibility Committee] group coming up, and of course I sit on TIRC [Trustee Investment Responsibility Committee] ex officio, based on my role—TIRC is the board committee that is about responsible investment—so I have to become well-versed in this. And I think it’s an incredibly important issue. I don’t think the solution is that easy. I don’t think that Vassar really yet knows… I know what the students from the divestment group want, and I know where the board has been on this in the past; of course it constantly gets discussed and will be discussed again this year. But I don’t really have the pat answers. I can really see arguments from all sides of this. So, that’s exactly the truth.
What I do think is important and what I am trying to make happen—which I’m pretty confident is going to happen this fall—is that the legitimate committee on campus that is supposed to make recommendations to the board about their investment responsibility is CIRC. CIRC is going to meet with TIRC, TIRC is the board, and that conversation is going to be a full conversation of engaged pluralism. I am working on all sides to say, look, it’s not going to be one side coming in and blah blah blah they’re not listening and then the other side back. This is going to be a real conversation. And I would love to see the board, which I think they will, in fact, ultimately come back and say, “We made this decision, and this is why.” And I think that’s super important, that it’s clear there’s been full engagement. It’s sort of what we’ve been talking about before: there’s a moment of consultation, which is when CIRC and TIRC meet together in an open conversation—
SG: I’m sorry, what are those acronyms?
EB: I’m so sorry! You think I know [laughs]. Campus Investor Responsibility Committee. They’re the ones in the governance; they’re supposed to recommend to the board. So, the fossil fuel group talks to CIRC, but it’s CIRC that has the legitimate voice with the board. So, then they go to the board and they can make recommendations to the board. TIRC is the Trustee Investor Responsibility Committee. CIRC is students, alumni, faculty, and I think there’s two administrators. So, it’s a good—it’s a really diverse, great group actually. They have done a ton of work and they have read everything that the divestment fossil fuels group has written, and they know each other and whatnot.
So CIRC will make a recommendation to TIRC, but I think that process can be a full, good meeting where there is exchange, and then I would like to see something written from that, because I think there’s a lot of agreements on a lot of things, and sometimes I think the issue becomes overly divisive. So, the question will be whether actually something can come out that—again, may not make the decision that’s recommended, but would be clear and why. So that’s my biggest goal and I think it will happen.
SG: Is that including Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions in Israel and Palestine?
EB: What are my thoughts on that? Since I’ve been here, we haven’t been through this… I guess I would just say that I think that it’s, according to our engaged pluralism mantra, it is so important to be able to talk about these things without throwing fire on each other, and it sounds like in the past, maybe that hasn’t felt that safe for people who are Jewish on campus, hasn’t felt that safe for people who are not Jewish on campus. I mean, you just hear everybody like, “It was a bad, hard time.” So, I am hoping that before we face something like that, I will have enough relationships with people and people have enough relationships to think, “How do we keep our community together even though we disagree about something?” That’s the key. How do we keep our communities still feeling like we’re in community together even though we have disagreements on things?
So, I would probably put the Palestine BDS issue in that. I will say that I am completely—as I’ve said many times publically, there is no place for anti-Semitism here…
…no place for bigotry, period. So, when I hear of that, whether it’s anti-Semitism or it’s been some kind of racial thing, I absolutely want to get on that as fast as possible.
Many people, I’ve given out my cell phone and said, “If things happen, please let me know!” because I think that’s critical to stand up for that. I would as a person anyhow, but in the role of president, I think it’s critical.
DP: Can we ask about the board? We just don’t know really how it works.
SG: Yeah, basically, how are you related to them?
EB: Yeah, that’s a great question! The board has thirty-two people on it, and you can go out on the website on Vassar Board of Trustees, you’ll see them all—well, you won’t see their pictures, but you’ll see their bios and stuff. And it has committees, so there’s ten or twelve board committees, like the committee on Budget and Finance; they think about the budget. Or the committee on Buildings and Grounds, or the committee on Development… you know, you can imagine, there’s a committee on Student Life, and these committees have students. As I understand it actually, there are student observers on the board. I don’t know that for sure, but I’ve been told that. I haven’t been to a board meeting yet. And there’re faculty observers; they aren’t on the Board of Trustees, the Board of Trustees are almost all alumni. And I think there might be one or two who are parents, who are not alumni per se. And then there are faculty and student observers at all times. So, there isn’t something that is completely separate from the campus. They meet three times a year. There’s an executive committee that meets a little more than three times a year, I think in preparation for each [meeting], so they’re six times. And then the full committee is three times a year.
When they meet, they come to campus, and in the beginning, they have a plenary session which is sort of like new ideas that are coming along. I make remarks, the Chair of the Board makes remarks, and then after that plenary session each of the committees of the Board of Trustees meets, themselves, on their agenda. Like Buildings and Grounds is in room one, and Communications is room two, and that goes on like all afternoon. And then the next morning there is another plenary where each of the committees reports out: “This is where we are, this is where we’re going to go next.” So, that’s kind of how the trustees work.
DP: Cool.
SG: Thanks.
EB: And they’re incredibly generous to the college. I mean they are such believers in Vassar. They really want to see things flourish, and they are incredibly influential people in the world, so it’s actually a really good board. And they’re all alums, so they sort of get it.
DP: Yeah. I think my friend’s mom is one.
SG: Really quickly, I know we’re running out of time, but I was just wondering a little bit about—people have been talking, sort of, about your imaging apparatus and coming in—this kind of goes back into being new…I’m just wondering—
DP: Because Cappy had no image.
SG: Right. So, people were free to assume… But the Sunday emails are great, people love them, but [to Amanita Duga-Carroll] I’m wondering kind of why you’re here and how that works?
Amanita Duga-Carroll: And I’m new to Vassar as well. So, it is traditional—it has not been traditional here at Vassar—but it is traditional in the rest of the world that a communications person is with executives, right? So there’s no executives here, but admin is like an executive, right? In any interview, a lot of it is…let’s say she says something like, “Blah blah blah, we have a chart for that, I’ll get you that.” She’s the President, or the CEO of whatever—she doesn’t have time. Communications person is here! Half of it is to say, “I’ll get you that,” or, “If you have questions, follow up with me, because I’ll go find out,” because that person is going to do it. But also, you know, you have a tape recording. The executive has a communications person, so if there is a question later—“Did they say that, did they not say that?”—there’s somebody else in the room with the person. But it’s really more of just to facilitate stuff, and I’ll say I’ve been doing this for like twenty-five years. I started out as a journalist.
So, [to Dakota Peterson] you weren’t there for my speech, but thank god you people are doing this, because no one is doing it anymore. You’re not going to make any money if they do it anymore. But, then for the next twenty years I was doing [communications], and it’s just how it works. It’s just common. But around here it’s not, so… you know.
EB: But I would also say from the executive point of view, I’ve always had—even when I was at Yale, we had a director of communications that I used to work with a lot. You know, they’re incredible, because you say later, “So do you think this is making sense? Am I clear in how I’m describing it?” and they’ll say, “Well, not really, actually, you’d be a lot clearer if you did A, B, C,” and it does help you with your messaging, and I don’t think that they really influence that much on the content, but they really influence how you articulate yourself, and that’s such an important thing in the world—and actually core to liberal arts is, “How do you vocalize the ideas you have?” And if we go all the way back to Athens and Perakles and Socrates and trying to really understand why people got equipped with the liberal arts, that had to do with—so they could participate in democracy. So they could, in the square, say their point and get it in. So, I’ve always thought it’s really important to have someone who has expertise in that.
Particularly as an intellectual, you know, if you’re an academic, you tend to get all tangled down a million squirrel holes this way and that way when you’re explaining it, and a communications person will say, “So, you can say that a lot better. Just do it this way.” And I have found Amanita to be very helpful with that and before, [the communications assistant at] Yale was really helpful with me. But as you can see, the interview is with me, and everything I’m saying is definitely my own thoughts. I’d like to pin it on someone else, but you know…
AD-G: Except that whole cursing on the tape. The cursing on the tape was her fault!
EB: I have to get on this other call, but please, let’s meet again if you ever want to, there’s no problem, no problem whatsoever, and if I can be helpful or you think something’s twisted and I ought to know about it, you should definitely, definitely let me know: [email protected]. That’s a lot quicker than the president’s office. But write to me—it’s great! BP
