So, my last post pertaining to the exit of Marshall University’s key administrators received more attention than I thought it might. However, I was pleasantly surprised when Patrick Farrell, Chair of Marshall’s Board of Governors, reached out to ask if I would like to have coffee and discuss the changes coming to Huntington. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit and chat with Farrell for a few hours. I came away with a few conclusions, about him, and the situation at Marshall.
Patrick Farrell is a genuinely nice guy who cares about Marshall University and Huntington
I say this with the caveat that I realize he isn’t perfect (nor are any of us), but in talking to him for a few hours, several things were apparent that led me to this conclusion. First, at a time when people react, rather than respond, this man took time to discuss complex issues rather than just ignoring a critique. He stated that my questions about what happened at Marshall held validity and were worth asking. Farrell freely addressed my concerns, and the only questions he did not answer related to privacy of personnel involved.
Additionally, Farrell has invested his time, energy, and finances into the Huntington region. His educational background and resumé demonstrate that he could leave the area and succeed wherever he would go. Farrell also brought up various issues pertaining to the integrity of the Marshall Creed (I had honestly forgotten the school had one) and appears to have a sincere desire to uphold these values.
Our discussion also revealed that he had not tried to assess who I was based on one article. It was clear he had taken time to learn as much as he could about who I was coming into this conversation. (I would swear he’s read Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People — and that’s not a critique.) I know that skeptical individuals might take this as Farrell possibly being complimentary to assuage criticism, but that was not my read on the man. Farrell cares about doing what’s right.
If the Board of Governors held an ideological grudge against Gilbert, I am convinced it did not come from Farrell. He did emphasize that the Board of Governors gave Dr. Gilbert a very positive evaluation in the months leading up to his announcement that he would not seek a contract renewal. The entirety of the conversation greatly diminished concerns I had about the Board of Governors.
The ideological divide in the Huntington area is more of a generational gap
The exit of Dr. Jerome Gilbert, former Athletic Director Mike Hamrick, and former Provost Dr. Jaime Taylor represents an unfortunate loss for the Marshall community. Though I am convinced that Farrell cares about doing what’s right for Marshall, I would still contend that an ideological divide does exist in the Huntington area, and that may bleed over into the next decision (which will become more apparent in a moment). To be more specific, I believe the area faces issues connected largely towards a generational gap.
The Silent Generation and Baby Boomers view the world differently than younger generations, in both social and economic issues. The Stewart’s Hot Dogs fiasco, the Black Lives Matter march in May of 2020, and the development of an annual Pride Festival in the city would have been unthinkable even a decade ago. Walk around the city and ask younger adults what they think about universal health care. Yes, these are generalizations. I am aware that some people do not neatly fall into these categories. But the generalizations do demonstrate a pattern and it matters, for the university and the city of Huntington.
The Search Committee Presents an Opportunity
The search for the next President of Marshall University will incorporate a more diverse search committee and transparent process than ever. The search committee for the next president includes five women in the seven members, racial minorities, a student representative, a retired U.S. Army general, and a range of life experiences.
The search committee also wants input from students, parents, alumni, staff, faculty, and other community members. This is an opportunity for the people in this region or individuals with connections to the Marshall community to influence who will be the next president of Marshall University. The committee’s timeline also scheduled listening sessions during the summer for constituents to voice their ideas and concerns. No, I don’t expect the committee will make their decisions based only on what the people want, nor should they. However, when can any of us say that we had a chance to provide input on the president of the school? I also am curious about what the community will say about their priorities for a new administrator for the area’s central institution.
I mentioned earlier that the only questions Farrell did not answer pertained to privacy matters regarding personnel. Unfortunately, we will not know the specifics about the departure of Gilbert or Hamrick unless they want to us know. I suspect they do not, or they would have done so already.
As human beings, unanswered questions bother us. Information and answers are more accessible than at any point in history. Perhaps our society has come to a point where we believe we are entitled to information, and this is problematic. We must live with the fact that sometimes we are not going to be privy to all the information.