Exactly. Much better to have specific examples of things than "he is this way" Again maybe he is but prove it and you get more support for your position
How Schill is changing the face of NU
- Thread starter HailToPurple
- Start date
- Status
Sorry but your first point is bogus. Not renewing or extending a contract is basically another way of terminating the person. It would seem that that potentially belongs in the fact column
You can find examples in the Northwestern Magazine article that I referenced earlier.
But I'm afraid that you completely misunderstood my comment about Schill's reference to the theater and journalism schools.
He made the claim that ... "He also plans to bolster the University’s position in the creative and performing arts."
My point is that our position in the creative and performing arts is already at the premier level. Our theater school is arguable the best in the country. Or at least tied with one or two others. As is also the case with the journalism school.
So exactly what does he think makes him so smart that he can exceed the performance of his predecessors. Rather than giving them the credit they deserve I see this comment as a slap in the face to them.
Last edited:
Journalism is a creative or performing art? Article didn’t mention journalism at all.
Is theater the only performing art?
Come on - nothing wrong with building on your strengths. You are nitpicking the words of the author, not what Schill actually said.
How do you react to the part of the article where he specifically credits his predecessors? (The first time I copy-pasted, I put it in bold, but that may have distracted you into ignoring it.)
[This is] an extraordinary academic community, proud of its accomplishments but hungry to do much more,” he said on a picturesque early summer day in Evanston. Northwestern’s “rapid and steep” ascent to become one of the top universities in the country, he acknowledged, is due in no small part to the contributions of his immediate predecessors, Henry Bienen ’09 H and Morton Schapiro ’23 H.
The article literally uses the phrase ‘predecessors’, then literally prints their names.
🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
“Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest”
Well, I've expressed my opinion on Schill multiple times in several different posts here.
My interpretation of the Northwestern Magazine article is that it paints a picture of Schill as someone who will now do all sorts of things that needed to be done and were not taken care of by his predecessors very well. That's how I read the article, but you and others may interpret it differently.
I really see no point in going back and forth over and over again on this subject. Opinions are not likely to change.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LINE WHERE HE SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES HIS PREDECESSORS!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Like, you’ve only used the word ‘predecessors’, and the line attributed to him also uses the word ‘predecessors’.
Not “previous presidents”, or “emeriti”, or “emerituses”, or “his forefathers”, or “those that preceded him”, or “those that came before here”, or “HANK AND MORTY”, or “Beans and Schappy”, or “dem dudes”.
The president literally credits the predecessors. There is not a direct quote, but the reporter makes it clear that the thought came from Schilly Schill himself.
Hail to reading comprehension!
He should confuse the f*ck out of both left wing and right wing people by wearing a purple cap that says "Make Northwestern Great Again" and be really coy about what he means by that.
Okay well you are wrong about the first one. Schill terminated Johnson at Oregon.
I am wrong about the 2nd one. I thought Schill had an interim status but didn't officially become president until June.
"Nine months after taking the reigns at Evanston’s Northwestern University, Michael Schill was officially installed as the college’s 17th president during an inauguration ceremony held on campus Friday morning, June 2."
That was the basis for my timeline. My mistake.
One month after he officially started at Northwestern, he fired the football coach.
No. Hail to individual interpretations.
I've made it quite clear numerous times that this has been my interpretation of the article. Yours may be different.
The line where the writer says Schill recognizes the achievements of his predecessors is fully expected. Of course he would say that. But it isn't the issue.
The parts where Schill says he intends to do so much more than his predeccessors is what bothers me. He makes it sound like they didn't do everything they could have done and now he is going to pick up the pieces and complete the task.
Once again, that is my personal interpretation of the article and yours might be entirely different.
I would just like to know how many more times you want to go around in this circle?
Are there examples in the text of that article or elsewhere? I’m honestly curious.
Schill was in stadium club today. Had some eyes on him. Not in the least bit interested in the game. Was not with Gragg either. So needless to say those two aren’t exactly a package deal. Could go on and on. Go cats!!
Schill screwed this up worse than any entry level manager possibly could. It boggles my mind that anyone defends this guys as a viable President of a school like NU. If he was in the corporate world he would have been ash canned for incompetence!
I received my Northwestern Magazine much later than everyone else. All I can say is "A picture is worth a 1,000 words"
What are they?
You initially wrote ‘a number of controversial issues’, without defining them.
Has NU taken new public stances on any issues in the past ~year since he was named President?
Read the article.
This is about Schill's personal agenda and not something that NU as institution is promoting as would be the case if the BOT was behind it.
Last edited:
I can't comment on this as the moderator is a little over sensitive - but FWIW, totally agree.
My interpretation, HTP, is that you're a reasonably intelligent, somewhat conservative guy who doesn't like the way the new Prez came in and mucked with the football program. You remembered something you read in a fluff piece that rubbed you the wrong way, and you've concluded that Schill is some carpetbagging Lib who wants to put his stamp on stuff that worked just fine before he got here (from athletics to the creative/performing arts). Yet, when other reasonably intelligent people point out that perhaps you're misreading/misinterpreting the quote, you double-down on your take and say a version of "how can I be wrong if it's just my opinion? Opinions can't be right or wrong!" Whether you're sticking to your guns because you genuinely believe he's an agenda-driven egomaniac hellbent on molding the school in his "progressive vision"; don't like being told what to think; know that conceding the possibility of you being wrong about the article sinks your argument about his attitude toward athletics; or some combination of all of these, well... I suppose that's between you and the Lord.
This is exactly right. Regardless of his politics the guy sucks. Hopefully we can all agree on that.
I would love for an insider to provide insight on what the BOT think as they are the only ones who can make changes. I think (gulp) the president and AD are going to be here for some time. I said I won't renew my season tickets until at minimum the AD is gone. Looks like I might be out for some time.
I didn’t notice Gragg or Schill at the game yesterday. I didn’t see them at the other three games.
Yes, they probably don’t want to get booed at their own stadium so that could be a reason for their no-show status. But no-shows for Homecoming?
It might indicate that the BOT has told them they are on the way out and the BOT doesn’t want them at the stadium. Looks bad for NU if the loudest roar from the crowd is against the Pres and AD.
Yes, they probably don’t want to get booed at their own stadium so that could be a reason for their no-show status. But no-shows for Homecoming?
It might indicate that the BOT has told them they are on the way out and the BOT doesn’t want them at the stadium. Looks bad for NU if the loudest roar from the crowd is against the Pres and AD.
Multiple sources said they were both there yesterday, so they are "present". I have zero inside information, but seems like they are not going anywhere.
Was that him holding part of the big American flag with the cheerleaders on the field during USA song on South end of field?? B4 start of game?? Whoever it was he looked embarrassed doing it
Me too. Greenie on ESPN Friday said something interesting last Friday. He was talking about Butkus and living in Chicago for 11 years. Butkus having so much support because he grew up in Chicago, went to UofI and played for the Bears. He statement was along the lines of “You learn real quickly that Chicago is a Blue Collar hard working city that is fiercely loyal to their own”.
I am a fan not an alum. What NU doesn’t seem to comprehend is that people without the school attachment will walk when they feel like “their guys” have been treated unfairly by outsiders. Schill and Gragg are most definitely outsiders. Fitz and Phillips were born and raised here. I think the folks on these boards most upset about the Fitz firing are non-alum locals. Has anyone defended Schill or Gragg that are not an Alum? Not many. It’s not a way to build a fan base especially when you have thousands of empty seats.
He immediately ran back under the stands with the bald headed body guard that follows him after the one presentation I saw him do. Conveniently, those presentations are directly in front of the visitor fans.
Then you change the narrative. If you have the opportunity to interview Gragg (insideNU), you ask how are you building the fan base and engaging Chicago and non-alum community? You don't give him an easy out and ask about Fitz (I cannot comment on that) as this is part of your job. He would be silent and could not answer in my opinion. He was incompetent before the Fitz ordeal, and you focus on the core job.
That's certainly your right, though I don't know why you hid that in your OP. Just come out and say it next time if it's what you think. Burying it under vague and flowery language with weak supporting evidence doesn't make it any more "balanced," "persuasive," or "factual."
FWIW #1: There's definitely some of the other elements involved in this, too -- specifically the mental gymnastics required to ignore other people's reasoned, and basic, interpretations about "creative and performing arts" because you know it will kneecap your "evidence" about Schill's attitude toward athletics.
FWIW #2: I think he sucks too -- just not for the reasons you suggest.
A poster presumed to be Turk was on here shortly after the Fitz firing talking about how Schill got all the ladies at Oregon and how we are lucky to have him.
I just went back and reread my OP and if you can tell me how in the world that is "vague and flowery" I would sure like to hear it. It's about as basic and clear cut as I know how to do.
But, I'm always open to improving my writing if someone can make a real serious suggestion.
You wrote this:
The university itself via the president is now in the business of dealing with a number of controversial issues. Some here might like that involvement, but others like me may feel it is well beyond what the university should be doing.
I have no idea what controversial issues the president is involved in, nor what new stances NU has taken in the past year. This strikes me as very vague.
You also wrote this:
But that’s entirely different with Schill. I believe that he sees us, again the university, as a tool that he can use to promote his personal agenda.
However, upon further questioning, I do not see that you have explained what that personal agenda is, nor how he is using Northwestern.
- Status
