UT's Officially Disapproved Information Source and HISTORICAL ARCHIVE. The only source of truth, where Paradox Manifests: Hundreds of thousands of visits. Yet No One Admits to Reading It. Welcome to the "Grey Area" where "Unethical Utterances," i.e., criticisms of administrators, are commonplace. Make U.U. here where genuine civility still reigns, a.k.a., freedom......................... UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO'S EQUIVALENT TO RADIO FREE EUROPE
Jacobs' arrogance is astonishing
It's the same old, same old at UT
. . . . Either Jacobs is misleading the media or he has misled the Board of Trustees. President Jacobs objected to "the general tone" of the UT-AAUP Newsletter. Many persons on this campus object to the "general tone" of the Jacobs Administration. During his tenure as President, he has introduced an administrative culture of fear and intimidation. . . . A point of logic must be raised here, with all respect to UT AAUP, the conclusions that President Jacobs has (1) misled the media and (2) the Board of Trustees are not mutually exclusive. Both would seem likely given his considerable talent at spinning "visions." |
18 comments:
So, is the plan to fight one bad idea with a different bad idea?
Yr humble & obt
John Dickinson.
First, the plan includes keeping A & S as one college so is a major improvement over the multiplication of colleges in the plan from the small presidential group. Second, to be fair, it creates councils for each of the two schools and a joint executive committee. The two councils might even meet together some or all of the time. Putting Education in A & S has some advantages, though does create challenges - it is worth talking about. We need to realize that this Friday may very well bring an edict that viritually no A & S faculty member likes - the president is scheduled to announce his decision that morning - and he can do almost anything that he wants to do. These are very troubling times. Perhaps it is time for a compromise.
I find it very interesting that after the merger, the two faculty senates had to merge, but in this plan the A&S council has to split. Where is the logic?
I suspect that the logic is one of retribution.
Isn't the Arts and Science a Faculty Construct? What right does an Adminstrator have to split it or reform it?
Why would Engineering be willing to give up its Chemical Engineering Department to this organization? It seems to me that Chemical Engineering is one of the better Engineering Departments and removing it from Engineering might break up its ability to be successful under its accreditation body.
"Isn't the Arts and Science a Faculty Construct? What right does an Adminstrator have to split it or reform it?"
Do you think that the CommTech faculty voted to shut down that college? The ultimate legal authority of the university is the board of trustees. If they say that A & S is to be split up into 3 colleges with creative names, it will happen.
I do not see how the College of Engineering would be willing to allow Chem. Eng. and Envir. Eng. out of that college. They are the two strongest departments in engineering.
Second, this plan is still similar to the original one. It maintains the title "College of Arts and Sciences", but still incorporates associate deans; still creating a division between faculty and the administration. Also, it is still a plan for a top-heavy administration.
A couple of observations.
1. Why would the proposed College need a senior associate dean? This is an unnecessary position.
2. What about an assistant dean for student services (i.e., advising, graduation, etc..)
3. The Associate Dean for Research should not be a scientist per se. Likewise, the title should be research and creativity.
4. I assume a professional budget office would still exist and the current AD positions in education would be eliminated? However, a director of education student services--licensing--would need to report the assistant dean for student affairs.
5. Why has the dean chosen to maintain sub-divisions in the arts & letters school?
in total, this proposal has the potential to flatten the admnistration and potential reduce costs. Moreover, the multiple council may strengthen shared governance as colleague associate deans would be more accountable to their "local" council
Concern Alum (and current university administrator)
So the other plan with all the goofy names was just a smoke screen for this plan?
This looks less horrible than other plans, but I still wonder: What problem is it supposed to solve?
I suspect all this reorganization proposal nonsense is and has been a "done deal"" for quite some time. All those let's-pretend-democracy-stakeholder meetings. It's like the old give-em-a-fair trial and hang-em cliche.
UT needs a presidential search. And we (faculty) should also approach current gubernatorial candidates about restructuring the board--at least getting some of them elected, and about doing REAL searches according to established public hiring practices; and getting rid of these buddy-system deans and the current president.
Approaching gubernatorial candidates? Come on, folks.
Strickland has been in love with Jacobs since he was elected and is down in the polls by double digits. And you think Kasich is going to listen to university professors? Kasich, if anything will be upset trustees haven't pushed hard enough to make universities more business-like.
And you're all forgetting the No. 1 reason this plan is doomed from the start: Judith Herb gave $15 million dollars to put her name on a college, not on a school within another college. Engineering will never give up its programs.
Maybe the college is split, but there's no chance UT gives up $15M to reorganize, not when the Herbs are still out there with more potential money to give.
When nothing else works, SING OUT!
Little boxes of restructuring,
Made of ticky-tacky,
Little boxes, little boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same!
(apologies to Malving Reynolds)
Chemical engineering department "willing"? Since when has "willing" been any criteria for this administration to do what it wants? We should just lay back and enjoy it, because it is going to happen anyway.
It interesting that these charts have lead to a discussion about what to do with the College of Engineering. It seems like these are the conclusions:
BioEngineering will go to Medicine,
Mechanical Engineering to Business
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science may be disbanded or sold off to Owens,
Enineering Technology transferred to Owens and, of course,
you have read the fate of Chemical and Environmental Engineering.
It seems that no one wants to claim Civil Engineering at this time so it remains in the College of Engineering.
Your justification for this rant is a stretch, None. Just give it a rest. Paste a stickynote that says "publish or perish" on your refrigerator door. As your colleague I worry about you, though our relationship has become strained.
Well I guess the discussion on the dean's plan and the split of A & S Council is moot. The president just announced that A & S will be split into 3 separate colleges. Shows how valuable it was for the A & S Council and the Faculty Senate to speak against the plan. It will be interesting to see how the North Central accreditation team views a major administrative change for colleges over the unanimous objections of two established faculty governance bodies.
Post a Comment