You are on page 1of 29


Submitted by Kean University faculty, professional staff, students, and alumni to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

February 16, 2012

The Commissions Team Visits: Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation urges visiting teams to meet a wide spectrum of campus constituencies. We invite the members of the team to meet with us during their visit to the Kean campus. We may be contacted at: Middle States Working Group PO Box 9550 Elizabeth, NJ 07202-9550 EMAIL:

STANDARD 4 The governing body is ultimately accountable for the academic quality, fiscal and academic integrity, academic planning, assets, and financial health of the institution. Characteristics of Excellence, p. 13.

The individual Boards of Trustees, through the administrators they hired, now had direct authority over all matters concerning the supervision and operation of the institutions, including fiscal affairs, institutional planning, construction and procurement contracts, employment, bonding and borrowing, compensation of staff, tuition and fees, controversies and disputes, and programs and degree offerings. Vulnerable to Abuse: The Importance of Restoring Accountability, Transparency and Oversight to Public Higher Education Governance, p. 12; cf. p. 3).

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Allegations of Academic Fraud 3. Impaired Governance . . . . . . . . . 4 5 11 13 17 18 19 22 25?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Assessment Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Last year we submitted a third-party Commission. That report is available at:




In the sequel call that report Kean Crisis I, followed by the page number.

1. PREAMBLE To say that Kean University is an institution in crisis is truer today than it was a year ago. Kean Crisis I explains the condition of the university then; the following five factors have worsened the situation since: The Commissions warning that Kean is not compliant with Standards 7 and 14 The Presidents threatening remarks when he first discussed assessment publicly The exclusion of the University Senate from the universitys assessment effort The discovery that the President falsified his presentation of his professional credentials A National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) investigation which alleges, among other things, that administrators changed grades to allow athletes participation in athletic competitions

Since last June, due to the attention the Commissions warning and the NCAA investigation have generated, media reports about Kean have been overwhelmingly negative. This reports bibliography lists some of this coverage. Also, for the first time, the media has begun to report about political interference in university affairs: [(Hehl 2011a); (Hehl 2011b); (Hehl 2012b); (Hehl & Bober 2012); (Editorial, Farahi syndrome 2012); (Pizzuro 2012); (Wilson, 2010)]. Last year we reported this interference to the Commission. 1 Last Aprils visiting team confirmed the universitys noncompliance with Standards 7 and 14. The visiting team also diagnosed correctly the need to establish, promote, foster, sustain and demonstrate a culture of evidence and assessment (visiting teams report, p. 5); but not identifying Keans noncompliance with Standard 6 (Integrity) was the visiting teams failure2. We devote this report to explaining the universitys persistent noncompliance with Standard 6. We report these events to the Commission not to urge it to resolve them; we know that is not the Commissions function. Instead, we report them for the Commission to assess if Kean University complies with accreditation
1 2

Kean Crisis I, pp. 45-51; cf. pp. 12-17. Kean Crisis I dealt with Standard 6. See pp. 29-39 & 45-55. 5

standards, especially Standard 6. Restoring the universitys integrity and reputation is our motivation.


STANDARD 6 INTEGRITY In all its activities, whether internal or external, an institution should keep its promises, honor its contracts and commitments, and represent itself truthfully. Educational institutions should exemplify within their own working environment those qualities that they endeavor to impart to their students. - Characteristics of Excellence, pp. 21 & 22 (emphasis

On November 29, 2011, Associate Professor James Castiglione wrote to Ada Morell, Chair of Kean's Board of Trustees. In the letter, Castiglione informed Morell that "the available evidence indicates academic fraud has occurred in multiple presentations by President Dawood Farahi of his own academic credentials" (Exhibit A, p. 1). On December 13, 2011, Castiglione wrote to Morell again (Exhibit B). Morell replied three days later (Exhibit C). Castiglione wrote to Governor Christie on January 19, 2012 (Exhibit D, p. 1). Following President Farahi's advice in 2009 and 2011, the Board hired McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, and Carpenter, a law firm, to assist the university administration in labor management issues (Exhibit E). Sometime between the dates on Exhibits A, B, C, and D, the Board hired McElroy et al. to investigate the allegations against Farahi. Doubts about McElroy et al.'s independence to conduct this investigation motivated Castiglione's letter to

Most documents this section cites are available at If documents surface after we mail this report to the Commission they will be added to this we b site. All exhibits follow the bibliography at the end of this report. 7

the governor. The potential for retaliation against whistle blowers motivated Weingartens letter (Exhibit D, p. 2). As of the date of this report, McElroy et al. is investigating. The media has published several articles, which the bibliography in this document lists.

Farahi has claimed that the charges of academic fraud against him are false; "hate, prejudice and greed" fuels them, he added (Haddon 2012). About two weeks later, he admitted that his resumes contain errors but he was not responsible for them; Kean's clerical staff was (Corbett 2012). Our conclusions and the supporting evidence follow. Titles of alleged papers in quotation marks follow the letters A, B, and C. Below each paper's title we list in italics the journals where Farahi claims acceptance or publication. Later, in D, we refer to what appears to be an alleged book. A. "Patterns of Administrative Efficiency" Administrative Science Quarterly (Exhibit F) Administration and Society (Exhibit G) Management Science (Exhibit H) B. "Determining Your MIS Needs" Public Administration Review (Exhibit I) C. "Fiscal Control and Budget Policy" Administrative Science Quarterly (Exhibit F) Exhibits F, G, H, and I contain our inquiries to those journals and their editors' replies. In the CV accompanying his February 2, 1982, letter of application to Kean, Farahi claimed that Administration and Society accepted "Patterns of Administrative Efficiency" (Exhibit J, p. 4). When he completed the Kean's Application and Qualifications Form, dated March 15, 1983, he claimed that Administrative Science Quarterly accepted the same paper (Exhibit J, p. 6). In other words, in his application for employment at Kean, Farahi claimed that two journals had accepted "Patterns of Administrative Efficiency." This is implausible. Academic journals rarely, if ever, consider for publication or publish articles other journals are evaluating or have published. Exhibits F and G show neither journal accepted this paper. Notice Exhibit F's language: 9

ASQ has never published an article by Dawood Farahi, nor have we ever accepted an article by Dawood Farahi that has not been published (Exhibit F, p. 1).


Professor Wamsley, Administration and Societys editor, was also clear: We cannot find a manuscript by Dr. Farahi in any of our back issues, nor do we still have any copies of manuscripts that might have been held in our files awaiting revision by the authors earlier than 2008. Therefore we conclude that no such manuscript was published (Exhibit G, p.1). "Patterns of Administrative Efficiency" appears in Farahi's CVs throughout his employment at Kean. A 1985 CV lists Management Science as the publisher (Exhibit K, p. 3). When Kean's Master in Public Administration Program applied for accreditation in 1987, Management Science again appears as publisher (Exhibit L, p. 5). Exhibit H shows Management Science has neither accepted nor published this paper. As its editor replied: Management Science publishes everything we accept. There is a delay from the accept decision to the article appearing in print because of the typesetting and production process. I have been told that we have no papers in that stage which were accepted more than 1 year ago. We never accept a paper that we know appears in another journal (Exhibit H, p. 2).4 Exhibit K, p. 3 and Exhibit L, p. 5, give 1981 as the year when Management Science published Patterns of Administrative Efficiency. Farahi applied for employment at Kean in 1982 and 1983 (Exhibit J, pp. 1 & 6-7, respectively); but Exhibit J, a 1982 and 1983 document, lists Administration and Society and Administrative Science Quarterly, not Management Science, as the journals that published Patterns of Administrative Efficiency. "Determining Your MIS Needs" and "Fiscal Control and Budget Policy" appear in a 1990 CV (Exhibit M, p. 2). Exhibits F and I show that the journals mentioned in that CV have not published these papers. In the CV Farahi used in 2002 to apply to Keans presidency, Farahi claimed to have "[a]ssisted Dr. Eleanor

Management Sciences editor confirmed to (Kiley 2012) his reply to us. 11

Laudicina with the first self-study of the MPA program" (Exhibit O, p. 4). That self-study lists "Patterns of Administrative Efficiency" as a publication (Exhibit L, p. 5); hence, because assisting Dr. Laudicina presupposes personal involvement, Exhibit O belies Farahis claim that clerical staff is responsible for the errors in his CVs (Corbett 2012). Notice that Exhibit O, the most public of Farahi's CVs, lists no publications. D. "Strategic Management: A Decision-Making Approach" Franklin Watts Farahi claimed this questionable publication when he applied for employment at Kean (Exhibit J, p. 6) and in his 1985 and 1990 CVs (Exhibit K, p. 2 & Exhibit M, p.2, respectively). We found neither the book nor the data about it in the databases where they ought to be if published. The Library of Congress does the initial cataloging of books published in the United States and abroad; the Online Computer Library Center (OCLS) is the database containing this information, which librarians worldwide use to catalog books before adding them to their collections. Catalogued books appear in Exhibit Q contains's and's output. In a 2008 CV to the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), the agency that accredits Kean's Public Administration Program, Farahi claimed "[o]ver 50 technical articles in major publications" (Exhibit P, p. 2). The evidence shows this claim is false. As the exhibits show, Farahi did not use proper bibliographic format (APA, CMS, MLA, etc.)5; instead, he gave each paper's title followed only by a journal's name; for the alleged book, he gave title and publisher only. Finding sources is easy when authors format bibliographical references correctly; proper formatting differentiates books from journals. As we noted earlier, the claimed publisher, not the bibliographic format, led us to assume that Farahi intended to present Strategic Management as a book. This lack of bibliographic specificity made our investigation difficult and time consuming. Other problems with Farahis presentation of his

(Kiley 2012) made the same observation. 12

credentials are: In his 1990 CV he claimed that in 1985 he had been a member of Public Administration Reviews editorial board (Exhibit M, p. 2); Farahis name is not included in the list of editors for all issues of the journal published in 1985(Exhibit R; cf. Exhibit I). His dissertation appears with two titles: - Coordination and Control: A Cybernatic Approach to Study [sic] of Organizational Effectiveness (Exhibit K, p. 3; Exhibit M, p. 2)


- Administrative Efficiency and Information Systems (Exhibit N, p. 1). In 1987, Keans Public Administration Department submitted a proposal to the Department of Personnel of the State of New Jersey. In that proposal, Farahi also used this false title (Exhibit T, p. 3) The dissertations correct title is Economic Growth & System Stability: An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Rapid Economic Growth on Political Stability (Exhibit S).6 In 1994, 1997, and in 2008, Farahi claimed to have been Acting Academic Dean at Avila College (Exhibit N, p. 1, Exhibit T, p. 3 & Exhibit P, p. 1). In Corbett (2012), Farahi says that the Avila deanship is one of the inaccuracies Keans clerical staff put in his CVs. Exhibits N and P, where he claimed to have been a dean, were submitted for NASPAA accreditation; hence, Farahi has misrepresented his professional background in accreditation documents. He also misrepresented his background when Keans Public Administration Department submitted its proposal to receive public funds (Exhibit T, p. 3). This pattern of misrepresentation is important. Last year we informed the Commission that Keans Self-Study did not mention the facultys vote of no confidence in President

The dissertation has suspect features. In its title page, three illegible signatures lack their corresponding names typed below each. The absence of typed names makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, to know who the committees members were. Likewise, below the three signatures, a date does not follow Dissertation Defended. The ampersand in the title is not proper usage for a formal document (Exhibit S). Double-spaced text ends on page 76; from then on, the remainder of the dissertation, including the bibliography, is single-spaced. Several entries in the bibliography are not formatted properly. The bibliography's format changes starting on page 143; from that page on, unlike its previous pages, the dates of publication appear next to the authors' names. The sloppy drawing on page 76 is not appropriate in a finished manuscript. The dissertation is available in the ProQuest database. 14

Farahi. Also, it did not mention students opposition to the new class schedule7: Omitting relevant information or being selective about evidence that is provided raises questions about the institutions compliance with Standard 6 (Integrity). Follow-up Reports and Visits, p. 4. The presentation of his undergraduate degree is inconsistent. In his application for employment at Kean, he earned his baccalaureate in 1970 at Kabul University (in affiliation with Bourdeaux U) (Exhibit J, pp. 2 & 6); but in his application to the Kean presidency he earned the same degree in 1972 at Bordeaux University (in affiliation) (Exhibit O, p.2). In his 1985, 1994, and 2008 CVs, he received his B.A. from Burdeaux University in 1972 (Exhibit K, p. 1; Exhibit N, p. 1; & Exhibit Q, p. 1). Of these three, only the 2008 CV adds (in affiliation). Exhibit N has Boreaux University, France (cf. Exhibit J, p. 6). In his dissertations title page he received his baccalaureate from Kabul University (Exhibit S). We typed the name of the French institution with the two different spellings it appears in the exhibits. As other universities, Keans catalogs list its faculty and the institutions where they earned their degrees. For many years (Exhibit U), Farahis entry in that list was: Dawood Farahi (9-83) Professor, Public Administration BA Kabul University (Bordeaux) MA, Ph.D. U. of Kansas But Kabul University (Bordeaux) disappeared from the latest edition of Keans undergraduate catalog (Exhibit U, p. 5). The catalog is available at As the exhibits show, and (Kiley 2012) noted, Farahi mixes his alleged publications with what seems to be the written products of his consulting work. Exhibit K separates Consultation Activities from Research and Publications; but Kean Crisis I, pp. 1-2 & 21-25, respectively. 15

the latter section lists documents we have not found in peer-reviewed sources. Exhibit Ms Research and Publications does not repeat Exhibit Ks separation. Exhibit O has a section titled Research and Professional Activities (selected). Using New Jerseys Open Public Records Act law, we obtained a copy of the document the top entry on Exhibit Os sixth page mentions. That copy is this reports Exhibit Y. We are qualified to judge neither the quality of the work leading to Exhibit Y nor its recommendations; we do assert, however, that Exhibit Y does not satisfy the requirements of scholarly works, published or unpublished. Notice that Dawood Farahis name does not appear as Exhibit Ys author. In several places, Farahi claimed to have received the Morris Abrams Award (Exhibit J, p. 7; Exhibit M, p. 6; Exhibit P, p. 2); the dates mentioned are 1975, 1977, and 1979. Though he earned his doctorate in 1980, Exhibits O and P assert that the Morris Abrams Award was for the best dissertation research. Staff (2012) shows Farahi did not receive this award. Replying to a Star-Ledger inquiry, Toby Bresky, an administrator with the award, denies that Farahi was a recipient (Staff 2012). Exhibit Z, the last in this document, summarizes the narrative in this section. As its peers, Kean University has an academic integrity policy, available at httt:// grity.html The administration dismissed a faculty member last semester, claiming he or she had falsified entries in a reappointment folder. This former faculty would not allow us to use the relevant documents as exhibits, so we cannot document this claim. In 2007, another faculty member resigned when a colleague discovered she had plagiarized her dissertation (Anderson 2007). As we mail this report to the Commission, the Board of Trustees has not decided Farahis future, so no one knows if it will apply the academic integrity policy to the president. The board held one public meeting on February 9, 2012 (see in bibliography); it will hold a second meeting Wednesday February 15, 2012. 16

3. IMPAIRED GOVERNANCE Variations exist, but university governance is usually a three-legged stool: The administration, the senate, and the student government. The faculty and professional staffs labor union, if it exists, deals with terms and conditions of employment only. Investigations of academic fraud belong in the senate, but Keans Senate has not uttered a word about the allegations of fraud against the university president. Why is Keans Senate not investigating these allegations? Kean University Senate is not a faculty senate; it includes untenured faculty, administrators, and professional staff who lack tenure. These groups job insecurity allowed Farahi to gain control of the senate early in his presidency; he maintains that control today.8 In 2008 he also gained control of Student Organization, Keans student government (Student Org, colloquially).9 Farahi tried twice to turn the Kean Federation of Teachers (KFT) into a company union; both attempts failed10. Today the KFT is the only independent entity on campus. In this environ, it has fallen on the KFT to do what the senate ought to do. The campus community has not seen last Aprils Middle States Visiting Team written report, because the administration has not released it. To get it, the KFT had to file Exhibit V, a request using the Open Public Records Act law.

Kean Crisis I, p. 26, 54. Page 54 narrates two episodes where the Senate and Student Org also failed their constituencies. 9 Ibid., p. 25-26. 10 Ibid., 55. 17


STANDARD 6 INTEGRITY An accredited institution is expected to possess or demonstrate the following attributes or activities: equitable and appropriately consistent treatment of constituencies, as evident in such areas as the application of academic requirements and policies, student disciplines, student evaluations, grievance procedures. The following may facilitate the institutions own analysis relative to this accreditation standard: review and analysis of policies and their consistent application regarding the recording of grades on transcripts. - Characteristics of Excellence, pp. 22 & 24 (emphasis Kean University must answer to the NCAAs Committee on Infractions regarding five violations of NCAAs rules. Alleged violations 1, 2, and 3, which we emphasize in our description below, involve not only NCAAs rules; they also raise serious questions regarding the Commissions Standard 6 (Integrity). An inquiry from a professor to former Athletic Director Glenn Hedden unleashed the series of events leading to the NCAAs involvement. The professor reported to Hedden that she thought a student athlete was taking nine credits rather than the twelve minimum the NCAA requires (Exhibit X, p. x). The issue first became public last July (DAlessandro 2011a), after the university fired Athletic Director Glenn Hedden less than a week after the NCAA visited Kean (Exhibit X, p.14-15); Hedden had served in that position for twentytwo years (Exhibit X, p. 1); Hedden has sued the university, alleging that by firing him Kean violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (Exhibit X). Last September, the NCAA gave Kean ninety days to respond to its Notice of Allegations (Exhibit W). This March the university must appear before the NCAA Committee on 18

Infractions. The NCAA considers these infractions to be five major violations.


The five alleged violations are: 1. During the 2010 spring semester, without consulting the Athletics Department, university officials created a three-credit course exclusively for student athletes in one of Keans teams (Exhibit W, pp. 7 & 14); the course involved a foreign tour. By enrolling in that course, student athletes in that team who could not pay for the tour received an extra benefit from the Financial Aid Office. The benefit was that the university did not charge the cost of the foreign tour to the student athletes involved (Exhibit X, pp. 3-4 & 9); NCAA rules forbid such benefits. The tour occurred in August 2010, but the course offering first appeared in Keans registration system after the add/drop period for fall 2010 had ended. The student athletes registered for the course from September 28, 2010, to October 13, 2010; in other words, they registered after they had gone on the foreign tour. This also violates NCAA rules, because advertising the course after its conclusion precluded nonathlete students from registering in it and going on the tour (Exhibit W, p. 7; Exhibit X, pp. 8-9). 2. A student athletes failure to complete the assignments necessary to remove an incomplete grade led to her GPA falling below 2.0, making her ineligible for competition. The professor teaching the course where the student had earned the incomplete declared to university officials that F accurately reflected the students performance (Exhibit X, pp. 9-11 & 14).11 Before the student exhausted the remedies Keans grade grievance policies afford, and without consulting the athletics department, university officials changed the students grade from F to incomplete (Exhibit W, p. 9; Exhibit X, p. 14). This grade change raised the students GPA above 2.0, allowing her to play an important game (Exhibit W, p. 9; Exhibit X, pp. 9-14). Noticing that the grade change raised the students GPA from 1.97 to 2.04, the Registrar emailed a university official: I will not move forward with the grade change until I hear from

On line 5 from the top, Exhibit X, p. 11 misspell then Provost Lenders last name as Lerner. 20

you. The university official ordered the grade change (Exhibit X, p. 12). After the student played the important game, university officials changed the grade back to F (Exhibit X, p. 14). Another case suggests that the violations the NCAA is investigating may be a systemic problem. Last year, Professor Bert Wailoo sent the Commission a letter, addressed to Dr. Kilnman, dated march 6, 2011. In his letter, Wailoo explained that a student of his had earned a D. Six months later, without following established procedure, Dean Martell filed a Deans Withdrawal Form which expunged from the students transcript the grade and the evidence that the student had taken the course. 3. Kean University violated NCAAs financial aid regulations: A) During the 2007-08 through the 2010-11 academic years, student athletes received the Dorsey Scholarship at a rate higher than students in the nonathletic student population (Exhibit W, p. 11) B) During the 2007-08 through the 2010-11 academic years, the percentage of the total dollar value of institutional grants was not sufficiently equivalent to the percentage of student athletes in the total student population (Exhibit W, p. 11) C) Discussions between university officials and athletics staff occurred before the university mailed financial aid letters to student athletes (Exhibit W, pp. 12, 14 & 15) 4. A coach did not promote an atmosphere of compliance by failing to consult the athletics department on matters involving violations 1, 2, and 3 (Exhibit W, p. 14). 5. The University did not supervise its athletics department and failed to exercise institutional control: The NCAA enforcement staff alleges that the scope and nature of the violations set forth in Allegations Nos. 1, 2, and 3 demonstrate that the institution failed to monitor its athletics department and exhibited a lack of 21

institutional control .... The university's administration acted in matters related to athletics without consulting the athletics department, the institutions awarded a greater percentage of total dollar value scholarships aid to student-athletes compared to the general student body; and the institution involved athletics staff in the review of institutional financial assistance for student athletes (Exhibit W, p. 14).12 Facing the NCAA investigation, Kean self-imposed a ban on some of its teams (Corbett 2011; DAlessandro 2011c); also, according to (DAlessandro 2011d): The school ruled that all 11 Dorsey scholar-athletes campus wide--who met or exceeded the programs criteria (and) did absolutely nothing wrong, according to Morgan-would have to forfeit that $10,200 tuition and fee waiver, or forfeit their athletic eligibility. (Chris Morgan is the new Athletic Director). At least one of the affected students has sued the university, accusing it of announcing its ban too late for students to transfer to other schools (DAlessandro 2011d).


In Kean Crisis I, pp. 17-19 & 21-24, we reported major decisions implemented without consulting the Senate or the students. 22

5. ASSESSMENT THREAT STANDARD 4 LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE The Commission on Higher Education expects a climate of shared collegial governance in which all constituencies . . . involved in carrying out the institution's mission and goals participate in the governance function in a manner appropriate to that institution. - Characteristics of Excellence, page 12. The Academic Program Review Guidelines (Exhibit AA), approved by the trustees on September 12, 2011, was forwarded by the administration to the Board without the University Senates deliberation and approval. In response to this circumvention of the Senates constitutional authority, granted by the Board of Trustees, the Senate passed by a vote of 16-6-1 a resolution asserting its authority under Article II section 1 of its still extant 1997 Constitution. That Resolution (Exhibit BB) emphasizes that Academic Program Review falls under the Senates purview. The Resolution also makes clear that the most recent Academic Program Review was in March 2000 at which time then Provost Alexander directed the Senate to take up Program Review in anticipation of Middle States accreditation that places a great deal of emphasis on . . . assessment. The Board of Trustees may not know that the present administration suspended assessment. Historically, Academic Program Review has been a rolling five-year process that first assesses departments, programs and learning outcomes and then reviews those assessments to make recommendations for the succeeding cycle. As a result of suspending this process, and because the Commission has found Kean noncompliant with Standards 7 and 14, now we have at Kean a rushed panic to assess every department and program in nine months. One week before fall semester 2011, faculty were ordered to revise their course syllabi. In mid semester students had to take an ACT critical thinking. This cut into class time. 23

Standard 7 (Institutional Assessment) requires the institutional communitys involvement (Characteristics of Excellence, pp. 25 & 28). Whatever work, if any, Kean has done to remedy its noncompliance with Standard 7 has lacked faculty and professional staff input. It is unclear who is assessing the administration and how it is being assessed. The team that wrote the Self-Study is no more. Professor Linda Best retired; Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs Kenneth Sanders is now Dean of Students at Rutgers; LaMont Rouse, Director of Accreditation and Assessment, has left Kean; Professor Barbara Lee has been disenfranchised. The administration excluded this group and the entire steering committee from writing the institutional response to the visiting teams written report; unlike the campus community (see last paragraph on page 12 above), Best, Sanders, Rouse, and Lee (but not the full steering committee) read the report but could not keep copies. The administration does not announce major personnel appointments; so, after Lamont Rouses departure, we do not know if those running the Accreditation and Assessment Office have the relevant qualifications. President Farahis threatening statement during the public session of the May 23, 2011 meeting of the Board of Trustees is more disheartening than any of the above. A synopsis of the statement follows; you may hear the complete statement at

Student outcomes assessment in the assessment of programs is not as simple as it sounds. I want to alert this Board that if you thought that all of the things that you heard in the past were pretty rough, you have not seen rough yet. Because now you're talking and asking the individual that create me a matrix and tell me, What does it mean to have a Master's degree in Public Administration? What is it that the expectations are? And what set of knowledge and skills and capabilities are associated with the award of that degree? Then tell me each single course that is covered in that program is connected to each one of those 24

components of what you said a Master of Public Administration or an undergraduate Criminal Justice would do. . . . . That requires that you understand that those who do not follow these rules and those who do not update their skills and their syllabi, and what needs to be done for the students, to create a structure that does the best for the students, would be taken out of the classroom, they will be put into a different location, they will be sent for retraining, they will be subject to insubordination if they fail to do that. . . . . Those are very difficult choices. They will be made. And you will see that there will be a lot more ferocity. When assessment is credible it may involve retraining, reorganizations, reassignments and other outcomes unfavorable to faculty; we know that. The problem with the presidents remarks is its tone and the present institutional context. Due to its history of retribution and its emphasis on construction and renovation, unfavorable decisions emanating from assessment outcomes will be perceived as punitive or unrelated to Keans educational mission. As we said in last years third party report, credible assessment requires mutual respect and collaboration between the administration, the faculty, and the professional staff; because those conditions do not exist at Kean, credible assessment cannot (Kean Crisis I, pp. 18-19). 6. CONCLUSION We end where we began, inviting the visiting team to meet with us. The otherwise valuable work of last Aprils visiting team would have benefited from meeting Kean Crisis Is signatories. 25

Our contact information is in the title page.


We, the undersigned, to evidence our agreement, attach our signatures to this third-party report titled Kean University: An Institution in Crisis II. We present this third party report with our signatures to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. We understand that the Commission will share this thirdparty report with the Kean University administration and will ask that administration to respond. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE POSITION (faculty, student, alumni, etc.)




POSITION (faculty, student, alumni, etc.)




POSITION (faculty, student, alumni, etc.)