Conflict at institutions of higher education is not new. However, with the prevalence of the internet, disputes now capture the attention of national media outlets and can spread quickly to a large audience via social media sites and online publications. Over the last decade, conflicts over athletics, curricular changes, online classes, and special-interest research initiatives have pitted faculty against faculty and faculty against administration. At times whole campus communities may become involved in the fray, from students to staff to alumni. Organizational literature on colleges and universities tells us that higher education institutions have unique characteristics that distinguish them from the business or for-profit world. Universities must continuously innovate and adapt in order to stay relevant to society. Yet they are also decades or centuries old, with traditions, legacies, and unique cultures that pervade campus life. This tension between the old and the new, tradition and innovation, presents challenges to university leaders. When new decisions seem to contradict longstanding traditions, there is bound to be backlash. The focus of the current study was to understand the tensions that fuel university conflict. The study utilized a historical perspective to research the conflict over the planning and implementation of the Milton Friedman Institute (MFI) at the University of Chicago in 2008. Administrators and faculty involved provided their views on the conflict through interviews. Additional data came from news articles, op-ed pieces, meeting minutes, letters, and e-mails. Historical information on the University of Chicago, Milton Friedman, and the Chicago School of Economics was drawn on to provide institutional and biographical information, and well as to make connections between the 2008 conflict and past people or events that emerged in documents and interviews. Four primary factors were found to have influenced the nature of the MFI dispute: Reputation, Academic Freedom, Philanthropy, and Governance. The research data provide the opportunity for a discussion of conflict not as a negative, but as a chance to reevaluate institutional values, standards, and practices. Future directions of research and suggestions for practice are considered.
Read
