“The decision by the administration was made in collaboration with the leadership of the two divisions,” said Dawn Tolbert, vice president of public relations for Shorter University.
The move does away with the School of Sciences and Mathematics, which was led by Craig Allee, who served as dean until his retirement this year. Allee, who is also a Shorter graduate, was employed at Shorter for 44 years.
The College of Arts and Sciences will have two divisions — the division of sciences and mathematics and the division of humanities and social sciences.
Sabrena Parton, a communication arts professor who has served as the dean of the School of Liberal Arts, is dean of the newly formed school, Tolbert said.
Two associate deans have also been named, Tolbert said.
Ben McFry will serve as associate dean of the humanities and social sciences division, and Lisa Keith will serve as associate dean of the sciences and mathematics division.
According to the university’s website, www.shorter.edu, the humanities division includes communication arts, English and modern languages, Christian studies, the Academy of Aristaeus (the university’s Honors Program), the Liberal Arts Foundation, sociology and psychology, international studies, history, and political science.
The university also has the Ledbetter School of Business, a school of education, a school of nursing and a school of fine and performing arts.
You think that this has "fairly benign" lyrics? You have got to be kidding! Did you bother to read them? And this, from an individual that had a DOLL banned because she thought that it was detrimental to women's rights? Get a grip! Shame on Dr. parton for not doing her due diligence! I also know for a fact that some students complained due to the lyrics, to the administation and their concerns were dismissed. And so this is the example that Shorter is now going to set? Ban a world famous opera, but dance to obscene rap lyrics in the Dining Hall? You position is indefensible.
Here's more about the head:
The professional wrestler doll was carrying a woman's decapitated head that said "help" on it. Dr. Parton thought it represented violence towards women and set a bad example for kids, so she complained to Wal-Mart, who pulled it from its shelves. That's not really what it meant to communicate; as part of his personna, the wrestler, Al Snow, has this "schtick" where he received instructions from "The Head", a piece of a mannequin he found in the street.
For more see this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Snow&oldid=499471873#World_Wrestling_Entertainment_.281998.E2.80.932008.29
There's a picture of the head he used in the ring:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=al snow wwf wal-mart head&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=dwhSBJASaJDcjM:&imgrefurl=http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=forumgames&action=print&thread=420608&docid=EYwaFcM7qwVipM&itg=1&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9ENRpbSb5Jo/S2YMW0czF9I/AAAAAAAAAHM/f_l2T5FMJUs/s400/HEAD.JPG&w=320&h=240&ei=9SXrT7brNKKe2wX-w7XJAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=277&vpy=137&dur=1523&hovh=192&hovw=256&tx=177&ty=104&sig=108593059049728391428&page=3&tbnh=122&tbnw=148&start=44&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:44,i:222&biw=1085&bih=591
Here's a picture of the doll:
http://alsnowshead02.tripod.com/toystory.html
So was the toy meant to represent violence against women? No.
Was Dr. Parton right to complain? I think she was. Toys get passed from kid to kid and a lot of kids wouldn't know the back story, so, yeah, I think it probably wasn't a good thing to be selling to kids if they didn't know.
More on the video in my next post.
Was Dr. Parton explicitly endorsing the lyrics? No. Was what she did profoundly dumb? Yes; didn't she even listen to the lyrics during all that practice? Does it create problems for the school during a very tough time? Yes:
1. With the potential backers within the GBC who will be horrified by the incident.
2. With fierce critics of the school, who will exploit it for all it's worth.
3. With the general public, who will see this as really stupid.
4. With the general public, who will be reminded of the line, "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", and already tend to think of Drs. Parton and Dowless as "stone-throwers".
And by the way, this also reflects very poorly on the president's wife, Mrs. Dowless, who also participated.
As for calling this a "gotcha moment", it was more than a "moment"/slip of the tongue. There are multiple videos on youtube showing that this was a carefully planned production rehearsed multiple times, then edited and played on the campus video station.
Call it a "big gotcha project"
The timing could not be worse and the whole event damages the Georgia Baptist Convention's initiative to assert control over Shorter and totally remake the school. Actions have consequences. Rightly or wrongly, this will further cut giving and exacerbate the school's financial woes.
“We believe the role of separating religious groups into two tiers, groups that are religious enough to be exempt and groups that are deemed less religious and must therefore only be ‘accommodated’ is not an appropriate role for the federal government because it puts the federal government in the position of determining the sincerity of the religious commitment of various groups. We believe this is a precedent that could have long-term harmful effects on faith-based organizations, that are neither churches nor run by churches, yet are just as deeply committed to the principles of their faith as are centers of worship.” Council for Christian Colleges and Universities president, in letter to White House regarding contraception mandate.
As Almost_Anonymous has so kindly pointed out, there is a difference between the two "organizations" that has been recognized in courts of law.
You have been taught well by those on the hill and in Atlanta. Your attempt at feint and parry is simply a red herring designed to lead the GBC faithful to the conclusion that the administration and those at the GBC headquarters are right and justified in their actions.
While there may be room for honest disagreement open dialog and satisfactory resolution between both parties,your actions mirror those of the administration, board of trustees and the GBC Executive Committee.
From the alumni, faculty and public, who have an emotional, financial and intellectual vested interest in the outcome of the current discord - "We seriously disagree with the way you are leading Shorter." From the administration, board of trustees and executive committee - "We will pray for you." Where is the attempt by those in authority to come to a satisfactory resolution?
Instead, those in authority send forth young bucks, eager to climb the ladder of GBC prestige, power and recognition while they hide behind the cloak of sanctity and martyrdom.
AbsoluteMind replied "Of course you meant disrespect, Josh, and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise ..."
I did not take jarnoldcr's response to me as "disrespectful".
As for their comments from that article, it's just another example of someone or some group misrepresenting what the argument actually is. The statements says that this distinction..."puts the federal government in the position of determining the sincerity of the religious commitment of various groups."
This isn't about religious commitment, it's about the inherent differences between an educational institution (even a religiously-associated one) and a religious one. The CCCU and ADF might no like that there are differences, and may not choose to acknowledge them at all, but they exist nonetheless.
The fact that those two groups have to misrepresent the issue in order to have an argument illustrates the weakness of their position on this.
That distinguishes them from purely religious organizations whose primary focus and purpose is the promotion and worship of God, Christ (or Allah, or whoever). Even a religious association or affiliation does not change the primary focus or purpose of being for such institutions.
It's not about commitment, it's not about depth of belief. It's the purpose of the organization or institution which defines it, not who or what it's affiliated with.
Your post:
In response to a comment of mine, jarnoldcr wrote "Hi Absolute,While I mean no disrespect, I must be frank ..."
AbsoluteMind replied "Of course you meant disrespect, Josh, and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise ..."
I did not take jarnoldcr's response to me as "disrespectful".
I believe you'll find that Josh was responding to me and I was responding to him. I don't believe your name was mentioned. I know that our names both start with A, but please read more closely before you defend Mr. Arnold.
Hi Mirage,
Although I'm sure that decidedly Christian health care providers, more nuanced in their understanding of their profession than me, might argue otherwise...health care is provided pretty similarly from both the Christian and non-Christian alike. Education on the other hand is never neutral, nor simply the conveying of the same set of facts and skills, but is instrinsically connected to a world view. Christian educators would claim that their job is to instill a Christian world view...a decidedly Christian way of interpreting the world. Christian educators cling to statements such as Arthur Holmes' "all truth is God's truth," or Abraham's Kuyper's "in the total expanse of human life there is not a single square inch of which the Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare, 'That is mine!'" To suggest that a Christian college does not have a religious mission simply because they deal with a similar set of facts and figures as other colleges and universities cuts at the very heart of how these institutions define themselves, their purposes, and why they exist. That is why the CCCU came out so vehemently against the White House in the letter I posted about dividing religious organizations into two-tiers. You may disagree with my post in principle, but I believe that all of the available literature on Christian higher education supports my assertion that this is such institutions define themselves.
Groups such as the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and the Alliance Defense Fund have vehemently fought such distinctions, arguing that a civil government has no business deciding which organizations are sufficiently sacred enough to be considered "religiously affiliated," or what duties within an organization are to be considered sacred vs. secular. For example, see the CCCU's recent letter to the White House: http://cccu.org/news/articles/2012/CCCU-Sends-New-Letter-to-White-House-Regarding-Contraceptive-Mandate-Accommodation
"JArnold, there is nothing silly or incoherent about recognizing the basic differences between religious organizations such as churches and religion-affiliated organizations and businesses, to include colleges and universities."
The Supreme Court has issued decisions dealing with these difference. For instance, religious-affiliated hospitals get less leeway in the form of 1st Amendment exemptions -- they may employ 1000s of people, most not members of the sponsoring organization, and perform services not tied so closely to the denomination's core services (notwithstanding a mission to go out and serve mankind, etc.). On te other hand, religious elementary schools may get more than Shorter does, since their teaching may tie in even more to "religious indoctrination".
There are also different levels of exemption for different sorts of laws; racial discrimination seldom gets a pass while gender discrimination may be more tolerated (ever seen a guy in a Catholic nun's uniform?)
The Court has increasingly afforded greater 1st Amendment exceptions for religious-sponsored institutions in the last 2 decades.
I was surprised that Shorter was able to apply its requirements to staff that don't interact much with students (maintenance people, accountants, etc.) These people don't work in Shorter's core mission -- teaching. However, Shorter's attorney, Andy Davis, is one of the best in Rome, so I'm sure Shorter knows exactly what the law allows.
I'm expressing no personal opinion here on what's right or wrong with the law. I'm sure not looking to start an off-topic debate on religious hospitals, contraception, etc. I'm just passing along my understanding of the law as it presently stands.
That, or ... they were quietly chuckling to themselves about the folly of it all.
It would be interesting to learn more about how this all came together -- who thought of the video? Who organized it? Who picked the music? Who approved it? etc. I wonder if there was any deliberate sabotage along the way?
The timing and impact are certainly regretful. Despite the fact that the song is one of the most popular and widely played pop songs currently on the market, I suspect most readers had no clue about the contained lyrics until it was pointed out to them. Seems more of an opportunity for the already disgruntled to criticize Shorter on any front possible than express genuine feelings of offense.
Shorter has intentionally held themselves up as setting the "moral standard". If you think that the eyes of the public are not going to be focused on them for some type of moral turpitude then I think that you are mistaken. They have set the bar for they they apparently expect, and if they fall below that standard, especially during this currently troubled time on the hill, then shame on Dr. Parton and company for not doing their due diligence. You would have to assume that she is capable of doing simple research on the internet. I also know that students complained about it and their concerns were dismissed. This was a part of her QEP plan for SACS (picked "out of line" from the other faculty submissions). Hard to believe. A glaring example on the true intentions at Shorter. It has nothing to do with Christianity. It is all about power, control and money.
Shorter has made no such claim to be the "moral standard." As a private organization, they have adopted internal policies and practices limited only to their own membership. I'm not certain how critics have made the leap suggesting that this is an implicit condemnation of all Christian who don't share the same views.
What the GBC does within the privacy of their organization is fine with all of us. If you want to embrace your own creed and preach your own dogma, then go for it.You want to set a moral standard for your members, which is exactly what the Baptist Faith and Message is, then you go right ahead. We will support you 100% within the church doors.
When, however, you take that dogma/creed/faith statement and start imposing it on an AFFILIATED (not owned) institution, and when that institution is not a church, but a place of higher learning, that's where the problem begins.
I suggest that you look up the definition of non-profit. You and others on the hill seem to have a problem understanding who you serve and to whom you should declare allegiance.
While I mean no disrespect, I must be frank. Organizations include a broad array of institutions, including both for profit and non-profit. Your exclusion of educational institutions as organizations is silly and incoherent. To say it is fine for a church to set membership standards but inappropriate for a church-related college with a religious mission makes very little sense. It would be more intellectually honest to simply admit you're unhappy with and do not prefer the policies they have chosen. To place Shorter in some amorphous category to suit your own ideology is rather insincere and unconvincing.
While I'm certain you won't see it that way, that is the bald truth of the matter. Such heretics must be cast out in order to maintain the level of spiritual purity demanded by the GBC and their minions at Shorter.
You're pretending that there is no distinction there to be made, but as Anonymous already pointed out there most assuredly are such differences.
Where is the sincerity in dismissing practical, objective differences between the organizations in question? Shorter is not a church, it's not a religious organization but is merely associated/affiliated with one. Such association/affiliation does not make them one and the same, nor does it legitimize a blanket set of standards for two in spite of their differences.
That's not saying that a school like Shorter cannot or does not have a Christian mission, but simply that it's primary mission, principle focus, is the education of those who attend the school and not the promotion of religion or religious belief. That's a secondary consideration given that it's a school and not a church.
Whether there is a "religious flavor" to the teachings at a religiously affiliated school or not, the primary focus of that organization is education. Whether there is a "religious flavor" to the health care policies at a hospital or not, their primary focus is health care. That is one of the principle differences between religious organizations and organizations with a religious affiliation of some sort.
This is very embarrassing and reflects questionale judgement. At first, I assumed it was some trick by anti-Shorter activists but I see it's clearly not.
Does anyone how all this has been received on campus? Did Dr. Parton get introuble? What did she say about it?
Have the trustees, Dr. Dowless, Dr. Price or Dr. J. Robert White had anything to say? I've got to think Dr. Price and Dr. White are going to be very humiliated to face their peers at SBC meetings -- this make the Georgia Baptist Convention look poorly run.
I thought the GBC called the shots at Shorter now?
Sorry.
The group singing the song, LMFAO, is an electro-pop duo consisting of Redfoo (Stefan Kendal Gordy) and SkyBlu (Skyler Austen Gordy).
The group's name is an internet slang abbreviation for "Laughing My F-----g Ass Off,” but according to the duo themselves, LMFAO stands for "Loving My Friends And Others."
Their pop music is self-referred to as "party rock," which commonly follows a theme of partying and drinking.
LYRICS - PARTY ROCK ANTHEM
Party rock is in the house tonight
THERE’S A DANCE PARTY HERE TONIGHT
Everybody just have a good time
EVERYBODY JUST HAVE A GOOD TIME
And we gonna make you lose your mind
WE (MEN) ARE GOING TO MAKE YOU (WOMEN) NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING AND MAKE YOU LOSE YOUR MIND
Everybody just have a good time
EVERYBODY JUST HAVE A GOOD TIME
Party rock is in the house tonight
THERE’S A DANCE PARTY HERE TONIGHT
Everybody just have a good time
EVERYBODY JUST HAVE A GOOD TIME
And we gonna make you lose your mind
WE (MEN) ARE GOING TO MAKE YOU (WOMEN) NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING AND MAKE YOU LOSE YOUR MIND
We just wanna see ya shake that
WE (MEN) JUST WANT TO SEE YOU (WOMEN) SHAKE (MOVE SEXUALLY) YOUR BUTTOCKS
In the club party rock, lookin' for your girl? She on my jock
ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A WOMAN TONIGHT AT THE PARTY? SHE IS DANCING UP CLOSE TO HIM – RUBBING ON HIM IN A SEXUAL WAY
Nonstop when we in the spot, booty movin' weight like she on the block
WE ARE DANCING NON-STOP IN THE CLUB – HER BUTTOCKS IS MOVING IN A SEXUAL MANNER AND IS MAKING SO MUCH FAST MONEY IT’S LIKE SHE IS PROSTITUTING HERSELF ON THE STREET CORNER
Where the drank? I gots to know, tight jeans, tattoo 'cause I'm rock 'n' roll
WHERE IS THE ALCOHOL? I (MALE) LIKE TIGHT JEANS AND TATTOS ON WOMEN
Half black, half white, domino, game the money, op-a-doe
I (MAN) AM HALF AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND HALF CAUCASION LIKE THE COLOR OF A DOMINO. (OP-A-DOE DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING – IT’S JUST A MADE UP TERM THAT RHYMES WITH THE WORD DOMINO)
Yo, I'm runnin' through these ho's like Drano
HEY, I’M HAVING “FAST” SEX WITH MANY WHORES LIKE DRANO WORKS FAST ON CLOGGED DRAINS.
I got that devilish flow, rock 'n' roll, no halo
I’M ACTING LIKE THE DEVIL DOING BAD THINGS – I’M NOT ACTING LIKE AN ANGEL WITH A HALO.
We party rock, yeah, that's the crew that I'm reppin'
YES, WE LIKE TO PARTY AND I REPRESENT WHAT ALL MY FRIENDS ARE LIKE
On the rise to the top, no lead in our zeppelin, hey
I’M REALLY GETTING INTO THIS PARTY SCENE – HAVING NO TROUBLE GETTING/KEEPING AN ERECTION
Everyday I'm shufflin'
Shufflin', shufflin'
EVERYDAY I PARTY LIKE THIS (SHUFFLIN = AN ACTION YOU PERFORM EVERYDAY)
Step up fast and be the first girl to make me throw this cash
HURRY UP AND BE THE FIRST GIRL TO MAKE ME WANT TO PAY YOU FOR SEX
We gettin' money, don't be mad now, stop, hatin' is bad
WE ARE GETTING THE MONEY FOR YOU, HANG ON, DON’T GET ANXIOUS FOR THE MONEY BECAUSE YOU WILL GET OUT OF THE MOOD TO HAVE SEX
One more shot for us, another round
ONE MORE DRINK OF ALCOHOL FOR US (MEN), ANOTHER ROUND OF ALCOHOLIC DRINKS
Please fill up my cup, don't mess around
FILL UP MY CUP TO THE TOP WITH ALCOHOL
We just wanna see you shake it now
WE (MEN) JUST WANT TO SEE YOU (WOMEN) SHAKE (MOVE SEXUALLY) YOUR BUTTOCKS NOW
Now you wanna be, you're naked now
NOW YOU ARE READY – YOU ARE NAKED NOW
Get up, get down, put your hands up to the sound
DANCE IN AN UP AND DOWN MOTION AND PUTTING HANDS UP IN THE AIR
Get up, get down, put your hands up to the sound
Get up, get down, put your hands up to the sound
Put your hands up to the sound, put your hands up to the sound
Party rock is in the house tonight
THERE’S A DANCE PARTY HERE TONIGHT
(Put your hands up)
(DANCE MOVE)
Everybody just have a good time
EVERYBODY JUST HAVE A GOOD TIME
(Put your hands up)
(DANCE MOVE)
And we gonna make you lose your mind
WE (MEN) ARE GOING TO MAKE YOU (WOMEN) NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING AND MAKE YOU LOSE YOUR MIND
(Put your hands up)
(DANCE MOVE)
Everybody just have a good, good, good time
EVERBODY JUST HAVE A GOOD, GOOD TIME.
Put your hands up
(DANCE MOVE)
Put your hands up
Put your hands up
Shake that, everyday I'm shufflin'
SHAKE YOUR BUTTOCKS (WOMEN), EVERYDAY I PARTY LIKE THIS.
Shorter University - "Transforming Lives Through Christ" NOT A CHANCE !!!
LM...!
The irony of this situation has already been pointed out by others in this thread...no opera performance due to its mention of alcohol (even though the lesson to be learned was that this isn't always a good thing)and a host of other ludicrous acts to bring the school BACK to its Christian roots...what a joke...those Christian roots never left the campus. What a shame that this "university" is becoming a laughing stock! Parents....is this what you expect for that large amount of money you are paying for that college education...learning criticial thinking skills via a flash mob? Oh, I forgot, they are successful in sports and going to the NCAA next year, so that makes all of this inconsequential, I guess.
Susan Nicely
Shorter College, Class of 1978
What kind of weirdness will occur on the hill next?
Let's see... a (dancing) Dean of a "Christ Centered University" is doing a flash mob ON CAMPUS with the blessing of administration to lyrics like that. Transforming lives through... they need to be more careful.
http://www.shorter.edu/qep/index.html
My curiosity got the best of me and I searched YouTube to see if Shorter had actually done such a flash mob and found that Shorter did, in fact, stage a flash mob production. It seems to have been performed in the school’s dining hall, in front of many students, faculty and staff. If fact, if I’m not mistaken, the Shorter University President’s wife, Mrs. Don Dowless, can be clearly be seen clapping and smiling while the dance is being performed.
I have no objection to dancing or otherwise having a good time and this would initially seem to be a harmless video of some of the “goings-on” that occur on any normal school campus. But given further investigation, the dance is performed to a song called “Party Rock Anthem” by a group called “LMFAO”. For those that may not be aware of the acronym this stands for “Laughing my F******* A** off” and contains lyrics that I would not allow my teenage children to listen to or be allowed to play in my house. Some of the more salient lyrics include;
“In the club party rock, lookin' for your girl?
She on my jock
Nonstop when we in the spot, booty movin' weight like she on the block
Where the drank? I gots to know, tight jeans, tattoo 'cause I'm rock 'n' roll
Half black, half white, domino, game the money, op-a-doe”
and
“Yo, I’m runnin thru these Ho’s like drano”
http://www.metrolyrics.com/party-rock-anthem-lyrics-lmfao.html
Is this what Dr. Parton regards as “Christ centered” higher education? The students were certainly receiving an education, but not necessarily “Christ Centered”
This is yet another prime example of the hypocrisy that I have come to expect of the current Shorter administration and the “do as I say, not as I do” mentality that permeates the hill. Here is the link to the video that was shown on the Shorter TV station and posted on YouTube where Dr. Parton is clearly credited and thanked for her assistance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY5oBz-pIEk
I have added a link for the lyrics so that those that are interested can review for themselves the content of the “Christ centered” education that Shorter students are receiving. If you think that the students were not aware of the artist’s name and the lyric content, I suggest that you check with your nearest available teenager, as I did. My 17 year old daughter was able to instantly name the correct name of the song, the name of the band and noted with distaste the content of the lyrics.
Wow, Dr. Parton...really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCweKAH5lO4
Is that Dr. Parton dancing at the start? It looks like she is being taught by a student.
Is this, too, typical of "at many colleges and universities, public and private, secular and religious", John of Silence?
If I accept your argument that Deans are administrators, that takes three faculty positions within the new combined schools away and elevates them to administration. I must assume also that the same logic holds true of the current three other Deans on campus (we won't consider the Dean of Nursing, since there is not one at this time, however I'm assuming that the position would also be considered by you to be an administrative position). So, if I can add, that makes 6 positions removed from faculty and placed in the organization as administrators. And since those departments already had Chairs, then we've added another layer of bureaucracy. Is that correct? And we have one less Dean, so that means we've a net of 5 new administrative positions. Though I'm probably not adding correctly.
Conversely, if we designate the Associate Deans as faculty, these are not faculty additions, as they were already members of faculty. They just have administrative duties added to their load, and if they don't have release time, then they are faculty with additional duties and may or may not be considered administrators. None the less, we haven't added to the faculty, we've just added a new category administrator/faculty. Is that right?
So what you're saying is that adding more administrators or adding administrative duties to faculty (Oh yeah, I thought Deans were ACADEMIC Deans, which indicates faculty, but clearly, I'm confused)allows Shorter to add faculty?
As to the Provost position, I understood the hire to be for an Executive Vice President. There was still in place, at the time of his hire, a Provost. For that reason, there was no reason for Shorter to extend its faculty the courtesy of being involved in the process of hiring a new Provost. (This is common hiring practice for provosts at many colleges and universities, public and private, secular and religious.)
Then, the Provost was forced out or stepped aside or whatever term you'd like to use, and the Executive Vice President was then appointed Provost, which, according to your argument and reinforced by the dual title, makes the Provost position, (sometimes called Chief ACADEMIC Officer)now relegated to an administrative position. So we lost a Provost position because it was absorbed into the Executive Vice President's position, just as Dr. Allee's position was absorbed into the combined College/School realignment which is a net loss of six faculty/academic positions.
Those, of course, are added to the - how many is it now? - faculty positions that must be replaced. And of course, the numbers of hires of faculty have been cut in the Fine Arts department, so that's a few salaries back in the pot to pay the new administrators, but less faculty.
Please excuse me for being so confused. It's quite clear now.
For the Executive Vice President, he is replacing the Provost. He is not an addition to the administrative structure. Count you even count on your fingers to figure that one out?
It is true that Dr. Allee helped to build a respected school of science, but the school does not depend on one man to continue to grow. Concerning this edict you mention, the science curriculum has not changed at all, and I challenge you to show me concrete evidence where it has.
It would seem that this consolidation is more reflective of the inability of Shorter to find a Dean for a formerly highly respected School of Science, which Dr. Allee built. I'd guess it might be because of the strictly creationism/new earth edict regarding the science curriculum.
I am not even sure what the comment about botany and painting means. The art department will remain in the School of Fine and Performing Arts. Perhaps do some minimal research before you post.
As for the Socratic model, this reorganization will actually decrease the amount of administration and increase the amount of teachers. Of course, the Rome News-Excuse cannot report that.