The article goes on to state that UNC and Eshelman essentially agreed in 2003 that the School of Pharmacy would be renamed after him. Fred Eshelman has given the School over $30 million, as announced in press releases from the University in February 2003, January 2008, and February 2008.
Eshelman is the founder and CEO of PPD, a global contract research organization based in North Carolina. Perhaps this is coincidental, but the future namesake of UNC School of Public Health, Dennis Gillings, is the founder and CEO of Quintiles, a similar corporation in competition with PPD.
I am deeply troubled by this news; especially the way in which UNC administrators have acted to create “transformative” changes, as they have been referred to by Deans Blouin and Rimer, in their respective schools without broad, public input from students, faculty, and alumni, and with limited transparency at best.
Students and faculty at the School of Public Health have been told by Dean Barbara Rimer that “rules and processes” have been followed and that faculty and alumni were consulted regarding the Gillings Gift. She has used the terms rigorous, fair, appropriate, checks and balances, respect, trust, and commitment to describe the process. I suggest that little evidence has been provided to support these statements and that the argument that faculty and alumni were involved is weak.
We have been led to believe that consultation with a handful of individuals in various leadership roles who also happen to be alumni, including members of the Public Health Foundation Board of Directors, and an as of yet undetermined number of faculty who were likely hand-picked by the administration, is sufficient to represent the interests of the thousands of alumni and over 250 faculty members of the School.
Not to mention the nearly 500 students at the school who have only just recently received a letter from Dean Rimer, and who have yet to be invited to participate in any forum specifically about the Gillings Gift, despite over 14 months having passed since it was announced in February 2007.
And what about the roughly 6.5 million taxpayers in the state who support the University of North Carolina year after year? They should be outraged at UNC’s decision to rename any of it’s schools after a donor considering the institution is the oldest public university in the nation and that it belongs to the people of North Carolina, not any individual, family, corporation, foundation, etc.
But back to the article in the Triangle Business Journal. Bob Blouin, dean at the UNC School of Pharmacy, in speaking about Eshelman says, “He’s been incredibly modest in his approach toward helping our school.” Since when does having your name plastered above the entrance to a major academic institution constitute modesty? And consider this, the School of Pharmacy Communications Office has included the following in their style guide, posted on the School’s website:
Eshelman, Fred: In 2003, Fred Eshelman gave $20 million to the School of Pharmacy, at the time it was the third largest gift in the University’s history and the largest gift ever to a U.S. pharmacy school. He is CEO and founder of Wilmington-based PPD Inc. Eshelman has asked that his name appear as Fred Eshelman in all uses, including the professorships that bear his name. Do not use his middle initial (N.) or his full first name (Frederic).
Fred Eshelman Distinguished Professorship: At Eshelman's request, we do not include his middle initial in the name of the professorship. These are $1 million professorships.
Modest? I think that’s a stretch, but you decide.
I will however offer you this. In the same news release announcing Eshelman’s donation of $20 million, UNC News Service mentions that one of the largest gifts to the university was “an anonymous $25 million gift to the School of Medicine” in 2001. I guess you can't ask that a school be renamed after yourself if you are an anonymous donor, but then again why would you want to?
The last comment I wish to call your attention to is this: “It has enabled us to compete at a new level.” This quote is from Dean Blouin in reference to the contributions made by Eshelman. It resembles a comment made by Dean Rimer to a group of students last month when she attempted to justify the Gillings Gift by explaining that the UNC School of Public Health is in competition with Johns Hopkins and other schools of public health.
I have read the mission statements for the UNC School of Public Health, the UNC School of Pharmacy, UNC Chapel Hill, and the University of North Carolina system and have yet to find where it states that our schools exist to compete with other institutions, or to compete at all. The preamble of the School of Public Health does state, “We are committed to remain the leading public School of Public Health in the United States” and the vision statement of the School of Pharmacy includes, “To be the preeminent school of pharmacy…” but I interpret these statements to mean that the schools will strive to be the best in their own right, not to actively engage in competition.
More importantly, the UNC system mission states that the multi-campus university is supposed to remain “dedicated to the service of North Carolina and its people.” I fail to see how renaming our schools, and potentially allowing private interests to corrupt the education and research being conducted at our public institutions, serves the State or its people.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment