Finger Pointing At Tuskegee


Margaret Murray Washington Hall on the campus of Tuskegee University. Photo Credits: Harold Michael Harvey
Margaret Murray Washington Hall on the campus of Tuskegee University. Photo Credits: Harold Michael Harvey

Top level administration officials are engaged in finger pointing at Tuskegee University. The finger pointing was triggered by  a warning notice from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission (SACS).

Tuskegee University President Brian L. Johnson is pointing his finger at former interim President Matthews Jenkins.

Dr. Jenkins’ finger is pointing back towards Johnson.

Jenkins served as interim president of the historic Alabama university for eight months following the sudden resignation of President Gilbert Rochon in October 2013. Jenkins’ watch ended last June when the Tuskegee Board of Trustees selected Johnson to serve as president.

Johnson contends that Jenkins is responsibility for the defective five year report filing. He first made this allegation in a letter to the Tuskegee University Community dated June 14, 2015, then again in a letter to the Tuskegee University community dated June 17, 2015. Unlike the June 14 letter, Johnson did not sign the June 17 letter.

Internal memos received by Cascade Press indicate that Jenkins prepared the five year report “covering 37 areas at the university.” This report was delivered to SACS March 2014.

According to one source, in September 2014 both “Tuskegee University and the SACS accreditation liaison were informed – in writing – of the 7 outstanding standards, and the University had until April, 2015 to submit a ‘Compliance Report’ providing answers to the issues raised by the reviewers for each of the 7 standards.”

If this timeline is correct, Johnson had six months to respond to 7 outstanding matters. According to our sources, Johnson approved a response to the 7 items on SACS’s follow-up list “in April, 2015” and learned in “June 2015” that the university’s compliance report was defective.

In the university’s June 17, 2015 correspondence to the Tuskegee University Community, Johnson again deflected his responsibility for failing to navigate the university through the 7 outstanding standards.

However, the June 17 letter does acknowledge that the subsequent review of the university’s responses to the 7 outstanding standards , “identified additional areas including and beyond the 5 year report that triggered a ‘public disclosure’ warning.”

This acknowledgment from the office of communication, Public relations and Marketing indicates that the responses filed by Johnson triggered SACS to look at additional areas of concern.

Johnson proposes to remedy the issues raised by SACS by meeting with his team bi-weekly until the university submits its report in April 2016.

Johnson’s predecessor, Jenkins thinks that Johnson and his bi-weekly team meeting approach is not going to get the job done.

“I had a consultant, Dr. Luther Williams, who had successfully managed the SACS requirements at Tuskegee for the past ten years… When the new president came aboard, he terminated the SACS consultant and all the other consultants I had hired in critical areas on campus, saying: ‘he did not believe in consultants… I hope this sheds light on this and other gross distortions that have been floating around out there,” Dr. Jenkins said.

According to Luther Williams, “It is rare that a team of diverse SACS reviewers will not find some deficiencies – real or apparent – within a full institutional submission; the tack is to substantively and comprehensively address each of them via the ‘compliance report!'”

Williams believes that the bulk of the report he prepared under Jenkins’ administration “must have met with positive compliance”  because “both the Fifth Year Interim QEP Report and most of the standards are not among the 7 cited.”

Williams seems to suggest that Johnson botched very minor details in his supplemental report. If true it raises five questions.

One, If Johnson could not adequately respond to minor questions, does he have the competence to handle the expanded inquiry that his defective responses triggered?

Two, if it takes Johnson meeting bi-weekly with a team to prepare a proper disclosure to SACS, could someone with more experience be able to handle this matter in less time?

Three, while Johnson is devoting a full year of bi-weekly meetings on SACS who will be fulfilling the other duties of the president’s office like fund raising and lobbying the Alabama Legislature for increased funding?

Four, Did Johnson’s inexperience expand the scope of SACS’ audit?

Five, Has Johnson made effective use of his time since he came aboard July 2014?


Harold Michael Harvey, is the author of the legal thriller “Paper Puzzle,” and “Justice in the Round: Essays on the American Jury System,” available at Amazon and at He can be contacted at




We’d love to keep you updated with our latest news and offers 😎

We don’t spam! Read our [link]privacy policy[/link] for more info.

Published by Michael

Harold Michael Harvey is a Past President of The Gate City Bar Association and is the recipient of the Association’s R. E. Thomas Civil Rights Award. He is the author of Paper Puzzle and Justice in the Round: Essays on the American Jury System, and a two-time winner of Allvoices’ Political Pundit Prize. His work has appeared in Facing South, The Atlanta Business Journal, The Southern Christian Leadership Conference Magazine, Southern Changes Magazine, Black Colleges Nines, and Medium.

4 replies on “Finger Pointing At Tuskegee”

  1. This is most unfortunate for a great institution of Tuskegee’s caliber. Even worst is what appears to be a lack of leadership in our new president. Arrogance appear be at the center of the problem. I have never met the man. Nevertheless all of the evidence points to inexperience.

  2. College/University Presidents are the instructional leaders of their educational institutions. Such leaders are supremely accomplished and skilled by having held line and staff administrative positions. Thus, they would have had experiences in the preparation of the SACS Fifth Year Interim Report/Quality Enhancement Plan.

    QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN. The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), submitted four to six weeks in advance of the on-site review by the Commission, is a document developed by the institution that (1) includes a process identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment, (2) focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution, (3) demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP, (4) includes 8 broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP, and (5) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement. The QEP should be focused and succinct (no more than seventy-five pages of narrative text and no more than twenty-five pages of supporting documentation or charts, graphs, and tables).

  3. Why has the dismissal of Johnson not been brought to a vote, by the consultant (Luther Williams) to Dr. Jenkins, brother Who is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, General Williams!
    Wagons on circling with heavy pockets and light hearts!
    We need a Phoenix to emerge from the ashes!
    Heads should roll! Blame should be assigned and responsibility should be taken!
    MT should not have to suffer !

Comments are closed.