Although the completion of the Jischke Honors Building is approaching, the controversy over the naming of the building after former President Martin Jischke remains alive.

Jim Hutter, LAS at-large faculty senator, said Jischke doesn’t deserve the honor of having the building named after him for many different reasons.

“One reason is that the procedure that was used was dead-wrong,” said Hutter, associate professor of political science. “Also, I have been convinced by those who have given reason that Jischke himself was simply undeserving of such recognition.”

In a statement released by Jischke, he said he was honored when he found out the board had made the decision, and suspending the five-year waiting period policy was their prerogative and had been done in other cases.

“I do not know what prompted certain faculty members and students to question the board’s decision,” Jischke said in the statement. “Any comment on their action should come from the individuals responsible.”

Hutter said since the Regents have turned down the Faculty Senate request to change the name, the faculty is free to publicly speak on why they decided it was important.

“I think it’s an atrocity that they should name this building after this president,” said John Robyt, biochemistry and biophysics chair of the faculty senate. “He made himself very unpopular. His leadership policy was to browbeat, intimidate and threaten. He had to have everything his way. He essentially was a Machiavellian villain dictator.”

Carl Mize, faculty senate at-large representative for the College of Agriculture, said the naming of the honors building after Jischke is “a shame.” He said Jischke didn’t run the university, and when he did, was autocratic.

“They don’t talk about his relationship with students. He was big on bringing in the National Merit Scholars. ISU’s a big school, but the undergraduate students weren’t the No. 1 priority.” said Mize, associate professor of forestry.

“Jischke thought Iowa State was part of his career ladder – he did not leave a good impression with the faculty.”

The people behind the naming of the building also make it controversial, Hutter said.

“The fact that Rab Mukerjea and Murray Blackwelder both went with Jischke to Purdue and the fact that they led this move to name the building for Jischke make it very suspect,” Hutter said. “That is not to say they weren’t sincere in thinking he deserved this honor, but the Faculty Senate certainly doesn’t feel this way, as shown by their twice voting overwhelmingly against naming the building after Jischke.”

Hutter said he has heard no support from the faculty for naming the building after Jischke.

“My perception is that there’s tremendous widespread opposition to it,” Hutter said.

Hutter said the people who named the building violated a rule requiring a waiting period of five years after employment, failed to have an actual meeting and made the decision during the summer without considering input from faculty or students.

“Now that the Regents have ignored the ISU faculty, they open themselves up to people who have the right to say things that make public their many complaints about Jischke,” Hutter said.

These may include things like the handling of the Marie Powers farm and Jischke’s possible inappropriate involvement to move funds in how Iowa State would spend the $80 million Baker fund and his personal style of leadership, Hutter said.

“We tried to make it very easy for the board to do this by not embarrassing the board or Jischke, but they didn’t follow that up or take the hint,” Hutter said. “The Senate tried to make it easy for the Board of Regents to say `Yes, we made a mistake by rushing the decision.'”

Hutter said he does not believe any money should be spent for a plaque or have a building dedication ceremony for the Jischke Honors Building.

“To put up a plaque and have a ceremony would be expensive, and is unjustified,” Hutter said. “The plaque will almost certainly come down some day, meaning that they will rename it something else sometime in the future.”

Robyt said the Board of Regents can pay for a plaque and ceremony and there would be nothing faculty can do, but that he believes there will be a resolution on the Senate floor in opposition to paying for a sign or plaque.

Robyt said he would vote against having a dedication ceremony, and some people have expressed interest in demonstrating if there is a ceremony. However, Hutter said that is unlikely.

“Faculty who oppose of the name are much more likely to show their opposition by avoiding the building dedication ceremony than by demonstrating with signs or noise-makers,” Hutter said.

Controversy will last as long as Jischke’s name is on the building, he said.

“I think [the Board of Regents] were very misguided if they thought they would avoid a controversy by not taking his name off the building,” Hutter said.

Robyt said Jischke had very little to do with the Honors program.

“Many other people were more deserving to have their name on the building,” Robyt said. “It seemed to many of the faculty to actually be a slap in our face.”

Mize said Jischke did request the money for the honors building.

“If he had written the check, I’d quit complaining,” Mize said. “Without the million bucks [from him personally], he doesn’t deserve the honor.”

He said the work of a number of people through the years has gotten the Honors Program where it is today.

“No one person deserves to be distinguished or recognized in the naming of the honors building,” Mize said.