University President Dave Frohnmayer is preparing to retire June 30 after 15 years in office. He will be succeeded by Richard Lariviere, who takes office July 1. Frohnmayer sat down with the Emerald to recall his presidency’s successes, struggles and missteps, and respond to questions about campus controversies. In the final piece of this week’s three-part series, Frohnmayer discusses the University’s fundraising prospects in coming years, the Diversity Plan’s rocky beginning, and his fondest presidential memories.
Allie Grasgreen: After Campaign Oregon, which obviously brought in a ton of money ($853 million), do you think that President-elect (Richard) Lariviere is going to be in a position to continue fundraising like that or are the pipelines somewhat dried out?
David Frohnmayer: No, well, one of the purposes of the campaign was to raise the annual giving from the $49 to 50 million a year to $90 to $100 million a year. And it looks like … we’ll do exactly that. So the overall sustained giving to the University is going to be actually increased from the baseline that we started from. But one of the things that a new president typically does is assess the likelihood of another campaign and the timing for it.
I haven’t actually talked to him about it, but I’d be able to wager any amount of money that one of the first things on his mind will be, you know, how can we be poised for the next campaign? I mean, it takes time to plan a campaign because you have to involve your stakeholders and your constituencies. The Big Ideas project will actually lead to the discovery of particular academic needs that will help to drive fundraising. So that process takes a couple of years, and it’s a very systematic process and many people don’t realize how complicated it is. But I’ll bet anything that he’ll start that off within his first year. Maybe he’s already thought it through in his mind.
AG: Yeah. So then you think we could see something happening in three to five years?
DF: Yes. For sure.
AG: OK.
DF: Yeah, and the reality of it; you’re always in, concluding or planning a campaign in a modern university these days. That’s ahistorical; that was not the case before I took office back in the 1990s, but if you’re not planning a campaign, in the middle of one or celebrating the conclusion of one, you’re in a different cycle than is true for almost anybody else.
AG: So, then was one of the objectives of the Big Ideas plan before you started it to figure out these goals and what people wanted for a campaign?
DF: Well, no. The idea is to make sure that our fundraising
objectives are consistent with the underlying academic missions of the University. It’s to bring coherence to fundraising rather than just going out and inundating the University with large gifts that may only have a peripheral impact on the central academic focus of the University. We want to marry the new and emerging (side) of our academic efforts with the ability to match them with private resources. So, it’s planning that starts at the academic level rather than the Advancement level, if I’m making that clear.
AG: OK. The Diversity Plan kind of went through a period of
uncertainty and controversy.
DF: Yeah.
AG: But it seems like it’s been relatively calm lately, and I know that all the action plans came out for the units and everything. So do you think that the plan has enough traction to continue with both you and (former Provost) Linda (Brady) gone? And I know (Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity) Charles (Martinez) is still here.
DF: Yeah, it does. Because I mean, I think once people see that, first of all, the responsibility is at the unit level, and second, when it’s there it has a human scale. I mean, it has human faces, it has a sense of self-determination and self-control and self-reflection to it that a big master plan, top down, wouldn’t have. We got off to a bad start with the Diversity Plan, and really, that cost a whole year of acrimony and push-back before we got it right. But that’s in the nature of these things. Our experience isn’t unique in campuses dealing with this issue. I have a chart someplace close at hand that shows the change in ethnicity to be expected on this and Oregon campuses in 10 years, and it is striking. The number of people from Hispanic Latino families who are of college-going age in Oregon basically will double in less than 10 years. And I don’t think that our campus, or any of them, is really ready for that.
Now, I can’t tell you exactly what needs to change, but it certainly will change family expectations, the potential need for financial aid, maybe it has pedagogical implications, maybe it has motivation, recruiting, marketing implications, but it substantially will affect how we go about our business, and we need to plan for that now. Demography isn’t necessarily destiny, but it sure is a big part of it. And we need to be poised for it.
But to the more specific piece of your question, Richard Lariviere has spoken very eloquently and powerfully about his commitment to diversity issues. I have no doubt that that
motivation will come from the President’s Office and permeate this place.
AG: So do you hope that he’ll continue the Diversity Plan as it stands now?
DF: Oh, no, you know, I hope that he continues efforts at diversity. If there’s a better way to draw up the plans, that should always be on the table. But you know, pushing back and assuming that this doesn’t need to be something that we attend to is to really push in our own face against a major tide of history.
AG: I guess, like say in five years, what changes do you hope to see on this campus in terms
of diversity?
DF: Well, I know that it will change in terms of the composition of our student body. You know, diversity is something more than just categories of race and ethnicity, by a lot. So I don’t want anybody to fall into that trap. You know there are sort of four federal categories that people for years, as a matter of national policy, have been forced to assess and to measure and so forth. But diversity includes your internationalism, diversity includes issues about how well you integrate people who may feel that they’re part of a social minority, and I use the word integrate in a thoughtful way, not in a sort of forced way.
My definition of diversity is identity within community. And those three simple but really complicated words to me are my view of what a university ought to be. It ought to be a comfortable home for people who are able to express that that’s most essential to them in terms of their identity, their roots, their being, their aspirations. Being supported in doing it without necessarily someone saying, ‘We all have to look alike.’ That make sense?
AG: Yeah, yeah. OK, so I think this is my last question. What will you look back on during your presidential tenure and remember most fondly?
DF: Well, in terms of experiences with students, I have treasured Political Science 199 (Frohnmayer’s Theories of Leadership freshman seminar). Every year, I get to know between 25 and 30 students by first name, and they me, which means that on a typical day there’ll be 100 students at the University of Oregon with whom I’ve had an intensely engaged learning experience that has resulted in personal friendships, that keeps my barnacles scraped off, that leads to lasting friendships among the students because they observe them of each other, and that keeps me current and – if not young – at least current and contemporary in terms of how we actual talk about undergraduate education at its best at this place. I have a pretty good cross-section of what’s happening in the student community. And I think the president really ought to be in the classroom. So that part’s been really strong. And I’ll continue to teach as much as I can, if I can give that kind of value, because it has been highly valuable to students. And as long as it continues to be, I’ll do that.
The other piece is just
watching the campus getting better. And it’s symbolized, of course, by all the structures that have gone up – something like 19 or 20 new or majored remodeled structures in the course of the 15 years of my presidency. But beyond that, it’s the sense that we’ve been building, not stagnating. What really matters is the activities of people in the glass and aluminum and bricks and mortar – the buildings are a proxy for the human activities that take place there. And just to know that it’s better because the structures are better, that we’re able to attract more people or keep great people, whether they’re students or faculty, that’s a tangible sense of accomplishment.
The campus is beautiful. There are two things that are really important about this campus; it struck me the day that Lynn and I drove in here five days after we were married, even though it was pouring rain – and really pouring rain – one was just the beauty and serenity of this campus. And I think campuses ought to be beautiful and serene. But the second one was just this throbbing sense of energy and excitement, and people have smiles on their faces, even though they’re engaged in serious work. It’s obvious that it’s a place where people are generating and engaged with and churning about ideas and new ideas. Those two sentiments about this place have co-existed ever since the beginning and the new buildings simply make that happen in a more vibrant way.
AG: And if we’re going to be raising enrollment, we’re going to need more buildings.
DF: Yeah. But you know, we’re not going to grow so much that we’re going to outgrow the footprint of a university that has a very human face, and a human touch, and a human reach. I mean, you can get your arms around this place. And I go to bigger and so-called better places, and they’re not human. They’re not fully human. They don’t give that same sense of engagement and face-to-faceness that we find here.
AG: And then one more thing I just want to clarify: So, you’re going to be teaching in the law school –
DF: I’ll be doing at the law school whatever I can be most helpful doing.
AG: Uh-huh. And then at the honors college, and then
the seminar.
DF: Yeah. And some of these are conversations that I’m still yet to have. But the point is, I’m an active member of the faculty. You know, I have been in the past and I look forward to doing it again.
[email protected]