COLUMN: Can You Teach Too Well?

From Dan Schorr "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94 From Dan Schorr "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94At the most recent University Council meeting, Professor Stephen Gale and the Committee on Student Affairs presented some interesting observations. The Committee stressed the need for an increased "intellectual social life" and improved "student/faculty interactions." On the very same day, University administrators had an opportunity to act on the wise words of the Committee. But they didn't miss the chance. They saw it and ignored it. Adjunct Assistant Professor Frank Luntz won't be teaching his popular "Candidates, Consultants, and Campaigns" course this fall, and it is difficult to ascertain a conclusive explanation as to why. If anyone represents the ideals expressed by Gale and the Committee, it is Luntz. In fact, just last night Luntz moderated a forum on campus, bringing with him such names as Michael Barone, Joe Klein, and Tony Coehlo. This is what he does for us when he's not polling for Rudolph Giuliani. This is what he does for us after the University shunned him. Imagine what he'd do for us if we could hire him. Well, actually, he used to work for us. Until last spring, his students learned from guest lecturers at the top of their fields, continued the discussions over dinner with Luntz and these political leaders, traveled to Washington, D.C. to tape a special for C-SPAN, etc. The education he provided went well beyond the doors of the classroom. He consistently challenged students – his Penn was not devoid of an intellectual environment. Luntz, however, was informed in late spring that his role as a teacher at the University would terminate with the end of the semester. Why was he cut? Did Luntz's students' Ivy League survey, whose results pointed to glaring weaknesses at Penn, lead to his dismissal? Or was it a relationship of mutual animosity with University officials, possibly dating back to Luntz's days as a Penn student, that led administrators to cut his position? The answer is no. Luntz was informed that there was not enough money to continue funding his class. These are rough economic times and, unfortunately, Luntz's students would have to pay the price. When Luntz offered to teach for free, many thought that the problem was solved. No money to pay him? That's all right. He doesn't want any. However, such an arrangement was deemed unacceptable. All teachers at Penn must work for compensation. Thus, Luntz offered to raise the money himself and donate it to the University to fund his class. Yet despite the cautious optimism of his many students, this proposal was also rejected as unsatisfactory. The University doesn't have enough money, and, just to prove the point, they're not going to accept any from anyone. But, it turns out, money was donated a few years ago to provide for an Asian-American course in the American Civilization department. Have we found a precedent? No. That was for a general area of instruction, not for a specific course. Well, how about allowing a donation for a class on candidates and campaigns? I even heard of someone who might be willing to teach it. You're playing games, students were told. Undergraduate reaction was strong and persistent. Present and former students flooded the Dean's office with letters and phone calls. The Undergraduate Assembly unanimously endorsed a letter calling for the immediate reinstatement of Luntz. Yet while administrators read the letters and heard the phone calls, ultimately, nothing was done. Luntz, as an adjunct assistant professor, most likely earns no more than a few thousand dollars a semester. With a billion dollar endowment, it seems odd that a few thousand dollars could not be found to maintain an instructor whose class is consistently over-enrolled and who receives high review scores from his students. It's unusual for a teacher to receive as much impassioned support as Luntz did, but the indignant outcry made no difference. The resulting frustration led to accusations of impropriety and dishonesty directed towards some of Penn's administrators. These have found their way into the Daily Pennsylvanian, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and Newsweek. Despite these suspicions, administrators insist that their actions were solely a result of fiscal restraint. For those who wonder why other motives have been suggested, the answer is this: the students demonstrated as much support as possible for the Adjunct Assistant Professor, yet he is still not teaching. Unable to accept that financial problems – which Luntz offered to alleviate – forced the dismissal, supporters of Luntz must look elsewhere for a satisfactory justification of why he was fired (or not invited back, or cut, or whatever one may call the University's severing of ties with Luntz). The issue here is much bigger than Luntz. As one UA member stated, even though he personally disliked Luntz, he supported the letter demanding his reinstatement because massive support for any teacher should never be ignored. When students pay $20,000 plus annually to be educated by the University, they should be able to expect that it can raise a few thousand dollars to maintain someone undergraduates strongly desire to have educate them. We have purchased an education, but weren't shown the fine print. We are college men and women, yet we are not responsible enough to determine the value of professors at this University. One administrator went as far as to label the student outcry "inappropriate," saying that students are not part of the power structure that must evaluate this employer-employee relationship. Whether or not Luntz teaches again at Penn is not the business of students, he stated matter-of-factly. To many, Luntz's charitable offers seemed to present a unique opportunity for the University to maintain an immensely popular and dedicated teacher in this time of tight budgets and the resulting cancellation of courses and programs. However, key administrators did not share this view. And thus, at the same University Council meeting, two arguments were presented. Undergraduate representatives and many of Luntz's students pleaded their case for a special teacher and Gale explained that Penn needed more instructors who possessed the capacity to create an intriguing, intellectual environment in and out of the classroom. The reinstatement of Luntz would seem perfect for furthering Gale's cause. Yet, for some reason, the University has not heeded the Committee's recommendations. Dan Schorr is a junior English major from Valley Stream, New York. Behind Enemy Lines appears alternate Fridays.