Judith Rodin to step down after decade as University president

University President Judith Rodin plans to step down in June 2004 as her term concludes. The announcement came last week and coincided with a meeting of the University trustees. [Daniel McQuade/The Summer Pennsylvanian]

University President Judith Rodin announced on Friday that she will be stepping down from her post at the end of June 2004.

Rodin -- who will have served as president for a decade -- will remain at Penn in a part-time capacity, working on fundraising and capital development in the newly-created position of Chancellor.

"I've accomplished everything I set out to do," she said.

A presidential search committee, overseen by University Board of Trustees Chairman James Riepe, will be formed this September to find a replacement. Riepe said an interim president would likely be unnecessary.

Rodin became the first female president of an Ivy League institution when she took office in 1994.

Under Rodin's tenure, Penn has seen dramatic growth, including a rise from 16th place to fourth in U.S. News & World Report's rankings, a tripling of its endowment and more than doubling the amount of its federally-sponsored research.

"We have achieved enormous amounts with the Agenda for Excellence and that strategic plan has been completed," Rodin said, adding that with a new strategic plan currently under development, it was time to step down.

"It's a big and long plan, and I think it requires sustained leadership over that next period and that's an eight-to-nine year period. I think that convinced me in looking at it that this was such a good time," she said, adding that the prospect of beginning a new five-year contract in 2004 helped convince her new leadership was necessary.

However, Rodin's expertise will still be available to her successor while she serves as Chancellor.

"It's a way to have some continuity," Rodin said. "I've built relationships, I have a depth of experience after ten years that the trustees think will be useful to them and frankly, to my successor, and I'd like to be able to be helpful."

Rodin added that she will also remain on faculty.

"I'm most proud about the academic transformation that we've made," Rodin said of her accomplishments, noting the creation of the College House system, initiatives in West Philadelphia and the addition of several hubs such as the Kelly Writers House as some of the achievements of which she is most proud.

"We've all been incredibly fortunate," University Provost Robert Barchi said of Rodin's decade on campus. "To have her for ten years has been a real blessing."

Rodin's departure makes Penn the seventh Ivy League school to have its president step down in recent years.

Jeffrey Lehman was named Cornell University's next president earlier this year, while Columbia University's president, Lee Bollinger, was appointed last year. In 2001, Lawrence Summers, Shirley Tilghman and Ruth Simmons were elected presidents of Harvard, Princeton and Brown universities respectively.

Other top administrators who have left Penn recently include former Executive Vice President John Fry, Annenberg School Dean Kathleen Hall Jamieson and College of Arts and Sciences Dean Richard Beeman.

"I have no regrets about stepping down... because I have a busy year ahead and I expect to be president until June 30, 2004, and there's a lot to do and a lot more time to do it," Rodin said.

Comments (9)

Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Rick Beeman have not left Penn -- they're both going on sabbatical after leaving their high-profile positions. Jamieson will remain on the Annenberg faculty and head of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, while Beeman will remain a History professor. Penn Undergrad

Re: poor quality of photographs in DP/SP. The quality of photographs published in the DP/SP is atrocious. The front page of printed issue of 6/26/2003 (photo by Daniel McQuade) is quite a telling example�?it could have been published in "Pictures Painful to Look At" photography handbook. I see it has been replaced by a better shot in the online issue of the same article. D. Babushok, graduate student School of Medicine

What about the issue of JudRo inviting anti-American Desmond Tutu to speak at Penn's commencement? Sean Lee

Sean Lee, WHAT THE HELL ARE SAYING? What is your point? What do you intend to add? Oh yeah, are communists anti-American? Should we expel them from the actors guild? How about people who disagree with present policies of the government (whether under Clinton or Bush)? Is THAT anti-American? After all, if it passes Congress, isn't that "American" policy (Whether welfare or the patriot act)? What makes someone anti-American then? Because they disagree with what YOU think America represents? I think that makes YOU anti-American. You're lucky there's a Constitution, you might just get ousted like Desmond Booboo. Don't be an idiot. Dillon Kuehn dmkuehn@sas.upenn.edu

Dillon, If you resort to name calling then you have no real argument. Tutu is against American policies, American citizens (including YOU), American capitalism... really anyone who has anything to do with America. My point was that a President of any American college, let alone Penn, who invites someone like this really not the type of leader we need or want. And yes Dillon there are evil, hateful people in the world. Yes communism is wrong and anti-American. Yes welfare is intended only as a stepping stone out of poverty - not for generations of a family to live off of and not work. Yes, there are errors made by the Courts - the willful killing of pre-born human babies is evil. But you know what? This is still the BEST DAMN country on the planet. If you don't like it here or want to bad mouth the USA then get out. If you want to change the wrongs then work to overturn the laws, don't just throw up your arms and say "there is nothing i can do". Sean Lee

Sean Lee says: " If you resort to name calling then you have no real argument." 1.) Calling someone a name does not presuppose that you do not have an argument. It means you called someone a name. If your statement were true, then you would have no argument.... since you call people "anti-american" based upon some sort of matrix of variables in your head. 2.) I didn't call you a name. I commanded you not to be an idiot. That does not presuppose you are an idiot (although I think you are. If I tell someone not to dye their hair, it is possible that they were not thinking of dying their hair. In this situation I am commanding you not to be an idiot...which you are (according to the matrix of variables in my head, including general abilities to formulate arguments without contradicting themselves). So, if name calling precludes someone from having an argument. You lose as well. Sean Lee says: "My point was that a President of any American college, let alone Penn, who invites someone like this really not the type of leader we need or want." 1.) That's your opinion. 2.) Others disagree 3.) Disagreement is an academic savior Sean Lee says: "And yes Dillon there are evil, hateful people in the world. Yes communism is wrong and anti-American. Yes welfare is intended only as a stepping stone out of poverty - not for generations of a family to live off of and not work" 1.) See previous response 2.) While I agree on certain points (i.e. abortion), your nonsensical arguments lead to the polarization of opinions and make people not want to listen..... ..... You are the brother Stephen of DP posts. And the kicker, Sean Lee says: "If you don't like it here or want to bad mouth the USA then get out. " 1.) If I didn't like it here, it does not mean I would like any other place any more than here. 2.) The U.S. is the "BEST DAMN country" in the world because of what quality? per capita GDP? Nah... because of free thought and the ability to connect free thought to instruments of change, allowing for the general populace to choose whether or not they do believe it is better for the country to have that certain change. Do you believe one reason we went to war in Iraq was to liberate Iraqis? I do. Liberation from what? I have my opinion, but I certainly hope you don't believe that we went over there to put in a government that would say, "if you don't like it here or want to badmouth [Iraq], get out". That's a slippery slope into torture, genocide, and the thought police..... any of which should create revulsion in any American. You love to shout your stupid opinions (not because of the end opinion, but how you formulate them), but then you are always the first to shout "Amerika Amerika Uber alles"...... You're probably the most "un-American" person according to any Constitutional scholar. I can only rest in satisfaction that your inability to recognize the inconsistencies in your arguments will never allow you to be a part of the courts and in the interpretation of the law. How fast can you goose step? Dillon Kuehn dmkuehn@sas.upenn.edu

Did you really think anyone read all that ranting Dillon? I have recieved praise for not going with the "liberal flow" here on campus... I am in the majority of American voters. I know that hurts liberals. I fight for Capitalism and against every form of communism and socialism. I fight for equal rights of all people - not "special rights" for militant gays or militant feminists or minority groups. I understand the constitution as well as anyone and realize that the First Amendment only protects you from government interference... what you say can be used against you by individuals, society and employers. Sean Lee

Of course people didn't read my entire post of "ranting"--- because 65% of the words were copied quotations by you (and we all know how much people value Sean Lee's opinion). They probably skipped your sections and went to the meat of my destruction of your logic. Wow, I'm glad you received praise for "not going along with the 'liberal flow'", I doubt those people are going to law school either. Just because you're vehement doesn't mean your arguments are rationally consistent.... in fact, I would argue there is a high correlation between vehemence and specious arguments. Maybe I'm wrong about you being the Brother Stephen of DP posts. You're more like the Dan Fishback of posts..... of course, you know how much praise he receives for going against the "conservative flow"..... Just because I think your logic is horse crap doesn't mean I don't "fight for Capitalism and against every form of communism and socialism [sic]..or equal rights of all people". That's a moronic assumption. And you are wrong in assuming I am not a "conservative". I just don't go along with any "flow". I take the time to hear both sides before spouting my opinions. I take the time to make sure what I believe is consistent in its rationality. I don't believe my vehemence for anything gives credence to the stability of my thought process. As for you "...understand[ing] the [C]onstitution as well as anyone"..... that's stupid. How about Marshall? Do you really think that you know the [C]onstitution better than some of the most brilliant minds in the world who have devoted ALL of their time to understanding that document???? That's absurd. If you would like a reading list on the [C]onstitution or logic I will be glad to provide you with one. Just as long as you promise to read it. Who knows, you might just be vehement about understanding the subjects. Dillon Kuehn dmkuehn@sas.upenn.edu

Eat my fear. Constitution: Eat my fear. Eat My Fear

Comments are closed for this item.