‘Bunnygate’ reveals silencing tactics


In what has been dubbed the “Bunnygate” scandal, Mount St. Mary’s University has recently made headlines for firing teachers who opposed a student retention plan. When private equity and entrepreneurial expert Simon Newman was appointed the president of the small private Maryland university in 2015, his goals included greatly expanding the institution’s dwindling endowment and doubling enrollment. Perhaps his most controversial proposal, however, was his strict student retention plan, which has ignited a national debate about intellectual freedom and moral responsibilities of an academic institution.

According to the Washington Post, at Mount St. Mary’s University, 20 to 25 percent of freshmen leave without finishing the first year. To curb the high dropout rate, Newman hoped to identify and dismiss struggling students within the first few weeks of the semester to avoid tarnishing the reputation of the university. The retention program and subsequent fallout demonstrates the discord between a university’s administration and the needs of the faculty and students. This underlying discrepancy reveals the core dilemma of how academic institutions are structured and, more importantly, where students and faculty fit into this system.

The Mountain Echo, the university’s newspaper, published evidence supporting the questionable actions of Newman’s retention plan, ensuing controversy on campus. The articles in The Mountain Echo quoted Newman saying “You just have to drown the bunnies . . . put a Glock to their heads.” His insensitive metaphor urges professors to be firm with their students and weed out those that are at risk of ruining the university’s reputation. Rather than help new students adjust to the demands of higher education, he chose to preemptively remove those that initially had difficulty meeting the rigors of academic life.

Following the university newspaper’s initial release, the advisor to the school’s publication, Edward Egan, and a tenured professor who had spoken out against the retention program, Thane Naberhaus, were fired without severance pay and without notice. Such actions spurred national outcry, in which professors from universities nationwide signed a successful petition to reinstate the professors. Since the release of this petition, a new petition for Newman to resign has also been released.

With a diverse student body and faculty, USC should recognize the infringement on academic freedom revealed by the Mount St. Mary’s scandal. For universities to succeed and encourage innovation, there must be a respect and mutual understanding between the students, faculty and the administration. Silencing those who question the appropriateness of plans regarding student education diminishes the purpose of the inclusive community small universities advertise. Students applying to private institutions seek an increased access to faculty and greater decision-making in their education. Private enterprise-style management clearly does not promote the same ideals. Without freedom of expression, academia defeats its purpose. Its growth becomes stagnant.

Moreover, the high number of signatories on the petition for reinstatement demonstrates that the national academic community supports the professors and believes it is unjust for an administration to prohibit constructive criticism.

Perhaps the underlying issue is that private financiers support academic institutions. This dependence subverts the integrity of a liberal education and prioritizes economic gains over educational growth. Newman was appointed to improve the economic situation of the university, and thus naturally his strategies emphasized changes that would help grow the endowment.

The profit motive can lead to a disregard for the well-being of the students and faculty. For students at USC and private institutions in general, it is important to ensure the integrity of the administration’s intentions. Rather than focus on reputation and endowments, the administration should work to facilitate an environment that allows for dissenting voices conducive to a truly great education.