Search This Blog

Thursday, April 30, 2009


Loyalty is a funny word. It is often used by higher ups when they want you to do something. We now see how loyalty is repaid by the university administration. People who have given their lives to this institution have been axed by it. How many of us remember the claim that our budget and the hospital's would have nothing to do with one another--unless you count fund transfers. Ask those who have been cut about improving the human condition and how transformative this is going to be for them.

One person on the list is Karen Rhoda. Dr. Tinkle does not know her personally, but sees in her removal a giant step toward outsourcing all of online learning. Can anyone say, "Higher Education Holdings?" I have an idea. Why not outsource our administration? If this is the best this administration can do after three years of manipulation, then it and the BOT need to go.

My dear sweet mother used to tell me, "Tinkle, never put your faith in an institution, it will only screw you over. Put your faith in your family and friends." We should all listen to our mothers a little more.


UT Alum said...

Much of the justification given by Jacobs and cronies rings of desperate self-serving lies of the sort told by the morally-deficient when they find themselves in trouble. For example, the drunk who has spent the rent money on alcohol and cannot buy groceries for the family blames increases in the price of food for his problem. How does this differ from Jacobs' wild claim that the costs of increases in salaries have caused the UTs financial problem. If Jacobs is really in charge of the University, as he has claimed in the past in front of witnesses, then he is responsible and should resign or be fired.

At this point it might be less expensive for UT if the BOT gives Jacobs an even bigger bonus to leave. The exit bonus!

horns n' fins said...

I certainly agree with Dr. T's basic sentiment here but let's remember not to confuse the institution with the [expletive deleted] who currently run it. The administration is not "the University" regardless of how much they like think so.

Anonymous said...

As much as I'd like to agree, you're wrong.
The University of Toledo, est. 1872 ceased to exist in 2006. That's not opinion, it's fact. It was a result of Ohio House Bill 4hundred-something. It was replaced by a new entity comprised of the former UT and MCO and coincidentally named "The University of Toledo" This was reiterated many times in meetings, as well as by the official PR channel for UT.
Many of us were unwilling to accept that - the 'University' was not theirs to give away - the University is not just buildings but rather legacy, tradition, personnel and alumni. We were wrong.

First, they (whoever the ultimate 'they' are) killed the legacy with that House Bill.
Second, they totally changed the direction and focus of the organization, marginalizing the humanities and emphasizing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (and throwing in Medicine for good measure - while the acronym STEM was known throughout academia, the second M was an Jacobian invention)
The only thing left of the old institution was the dedication of the remaining loyalists. This was addressed by a series of events.

*The drafting and incorporation of a Strategic Plan that, while having thousands of words devoted to tightening the business end and focusing on STEM(M), didn't bother to mention 'tradition', or 'legacy' even once.

*Hiring of cronies and incompetents and placing them in key positions of authority.

*The administration-encouraged unionization of the PSA in 2008. See, much of the grease that makes the institution run comes from the dedicated efforts of 'at-will' employees that believe they serve a good end by working at an institution of higher education. That is loyalty that cannot be hired, it can only be nurtured and grown. The president, by offering up nearly 100 un-sought positions to the CWA sent a loud message to those employees that their 'above and beyond' efforts were no longer appreciated. Notice two areas effected - Alumni relations and recruitment. Why would anyone want to take people whose ability to perform is tied to their sense of personal investment and force them to now 'work for' UT but 'belong to' the union?

Recent events have certainly done nothing to engender good will in the few that retain hope.
It takes years to instill that sense of belonging that creates the kind of employee loyalty that binds an institution together. Even if a wand was waved and there was a sudden sea change in administrative direction, who is left to mentor the new members of the university community in that sense of belonging that is so crucial to gaining a sense of personal ownership of a piece of the legacy that was UT?

horns n' fins said...

Sigh. I suppose you're right and the institution I loved is no more. I would like to hold out the hope that this "new" UT could also be great if it was not mismanaged, but that is probably a pipe dream as well. Being die-hard Browns fan, I do tend to be delusional in that way.