Dear President Jackson:

In the Wednesday, February 2, issue of The Polytechnic, you were quoted as saying, “Whether people hate me or do surveys about me, I still need to do what I think is right.” At a faculty meeting about two years ago, you made a similar comment in response to a question I asked regarding your frustrations at Rensselaer. Your response was that you realize that there are people who do not like you but you have to make the decisions you feel are correct for Rensselaer. It is my opinion that you are working very hard to do what you consider to be right for Rensselaer, but it is also my opinion that your popularity could be much higher.

In this letter, I wish to suggest a few reasons why your popularity with the faculty is low. As a faculty member, I applaud your success in hiring new faculty, building up the research base, and enhancing the quality of our buildings and facilities. In this context, I believe that you have done an outstanding job. However, with regard to fostering an environment of collegiality between the faculty and the administration, you have fallen short and continue to fall short. In this context, it is an apparent lack of sensitivity for the concerns of others that has alienated members of the faculty. Let me give you two examples to illustrate the point.

Many faculty, myself included, have sent you emails at either your suggestion or the suggestion of your staff. However, in most cases, these emails are not responded to, nor are they even acknowledged. When I send an email to a Congressional representative, I always get an immediate acknowledgement of receipt. Then, sometime later I receive a formal response. I see no reason why the President’s Office at Rensselaer cannot have the courtesy to at least acknowledge receipt of correspondence, and moreover, it is reasonable to expect a response to be forthcoming. This lack of acknowledgement and response suggests that you do not want input from the faculty and that you do not respect or value faculty advice.

A second and perhaps more far-reaching example is the way in which the graduate tuition policy has been implemented. With regard to the policy itself, I support the intent and believe that in the long run it is the correct policy. However, the way in which the policy was introduced certainly engendered negative feelings on and off campus. Specifically, long-standing partners such as Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory and General Motors found out about the policy after the fact. These partners should have been involved in the process before announcing the policy. Your approach sent the message to past and future partners that Rensselaer is not sensitive to their needs and does not value relationships. I know that efforts to repair the damage were initiated, but the damage could have been avoided.

President Jackson, there are a number of other examples I could cite which reflect a lack of sensitivity and convey a lack of respect toward others on your part. I hope, however, that the two examples noted convey my opinion that, if members of the faculty do not like you, it is not because of your policies per se, but rather it is because of the way in which you treat and regard others. I believe major changes can be implemented while still conveying sensitivity to, and respect for, the Rensselaer community and our partners. The attitude that, “the train is leaving the station and you’d better be on it,” may be appropriate for Amtrak, but not for Rensselaer. I hope that you will consider working with the faculty and other members of the Rensselaer community to create a genuine feeling of collegiality between the administration and the rest of the Rensselaer community.

Don Steiner

Nuclear Engineering and

Engineering Physics

Program Director