Deans, Masters coast through periodic reviews

For the third time this year, a residential college Master will undergo a review of his performance to determine if he should be reappointed and continue as master. After the reappointments of Pierson Master Harvey Goldblatt, GRD '77, earlier this week and Ezra Stiles Master Paul Fry, GRD '83, in December, Calhoun Master William Sledge stands next in line for the evaluation to which every Master must submit after five years of holding the post.

A committee selected by University President Richard Levin, GRD '74, composed of four students and three fellows of the college, conducts the review. While the Master gives Levin some suggestions of fellows to choose for the committee, Levin lets the college council president select the students. "The students on the committee are basically responsible for gathering the input of other students in the college," said Rosana Garcia, PC '03, who recently served on the Pierson Master's review committee.

COURTESY FRESHMAN HANDBOOK Silliman Master Kelly Brownell was spared evaluation.

Information gathered from fellows and staff regarding satisfaction with the Master is also reported back to Levin, who makes all final decisions about filling Masters' positions for the colleges. However, a Master interested in continuing has never failed to be reappointed after a review, causing many to believe that this review process is more a formality than an in-depth analysis of the Master's work in his or her college.

Garcia believes that this was true for Goldblatt, because while the committee members took their responsibility seriously, they felt it was a bit of a formality. "Everyone loves Master G," she said. "He's great for the college, so there wasn't much of a question about reappointing him, but maybe in other cases the reviewing and reappointment involves more." Like other Master's review committees, they did feel that it was a useful process, providing an opportunity to reaffirm the students' confidence in the Master and offer constructive criticism.

Fry firmly disagrees with those who say the process is a rubber stamp. While he admits that when a Master "has done a good job, is liked by the students, and has done nothing horrendous, the chances for reappointment are very good," he also made it clear that there is no sense of complacency. "It is not just a formality," he said. Despite the good chances of retaining the position, the way he felt during his own review last semester—the way he believes all Masters should approach the review—was to realize that "You can never know...anything can happen."

COURTESY FRESHMAN HANDBOOK Calhoun Master William Sledge is next in line.

Residential college Deans must undergo a similar review every three years, and Silliman Dean Hugh Flick, who has undergone four reviews in his 12 years as Dean, agrees that reviews are more than a superficial ritual, although he does no know of anybody who has been asked to leave. "It reflects the quality of the Deans in the position as much as reflecting that the process is just a rubber-stamping," he said. "[The review committee] really looks at each Dean and what kind of job he or she does and will continue to do."

While Deans have nothing to do with the review of the Master of their college, the Masters do have an opportunity to offer their input and advice in a Dean's review. But Masters do not actually serve on the Dean selection committee, which consists of students and faculty members who report their recommendations to Yale College Dean Richard Brodhead, BR '68, GRD '72.

Interestingly, while administrators and review committee members insist the process represents a serious effort to honor the best interests of the college, the reviews are neither highly ritualized nor formalized. Rather, the five-year review has been overlooked as recently as last year, when Silliman Master Kelly Brownell was spared a review at the end of his fifth year. Brownell explained that Levin did not see the need for the evaluation, since Brownell had decided to stay on as Master only for one additional year rather than to seek reappointment for a full five-year term.

Ultimately, participants say, while the Master and Dean review processes are both informal and highly likely to reappoint the subject of their inquiries, they nevertheless remain valuable. Masters, Deans, and students who have been part of the process agree that their respective five and three-year reviews reaffirm trust, and, Garcia said, "allow students to talk about things they'd like changed."

Back to News...