To the editor:

I read your editor’s gentle critique of outgoing Kansas University Provost David Shulenburger and the number of letters written by KU senior faculty expressing support of the provost. Reading these contrasting views, it’s difficult to believe they describe the same person. This is the enigma of Shulenburger, a man who inspires loyalty in a few while betraying many. None of your KU correspondents point out that the provost has presided over the virtual destruction of shared governance, nor that he engages in petty spats, and encourages retaliation against anyone who dares to oppose him.

Last May, you wrote about faculty morale. By more than 10 to 1, KU faculty felt that morale was low and the senior administration did not understand day-to-day concerns faced by the faculty. This is the true legacy of the outgoing provost, rather than tuition increases, which make university more difficult for low-income students, and certainly not the replacement of tenure track faculty lines with “lecturers.”

The reality is, David Shulenburger has damaged KU, and KU’s national reputation has fallen as a result. The provost and chancellor instituted a corporate mentality on campus, which has primarily served to lower morale of faculty and students. I am sure that the positive experiences described by a few KU faculty are real. The serious question remains: Why don’t all (or even most) KU faculty share their views and experiences?

Raymond Pierotti,

President KU AAUP,

Lawrence