“Not surprised; profoundly frustrated and disappointed.”

President Schill has justified his cuts to the museums’ budgets by arguing they are peripheral to UO’s academic mission – while he is protecting the Duck Athletics budget, which will grow by about 3% next year.

Today’s Daily Emerald report from Hannah Kannik explain’s the academic side of the MNCH, by interviewing threee of the museum’s graduate student employees, here.

Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to “Not surprised; profoundly frustrated and disappointed.”

  1. Dog says:

    Right, Natural and Cultural History has nothing to do with the Academic Mission of any University, who needs them …

    Instead, improving the 0-40 yard speed of a 250 lb middle linebacker has everything to do with Academic priority and integrity

    If the BOT really gave a shit about the UO’s academic mission
    they would have intervened in this complete bullshit nickle and dime operation that Schill runs.

    Really, how can anyone of Schill’s supporters on this Blog say,
    yeah, this is fine, he is doing the right thing – I mean he had a pretty visionary provost resign over this nickle and dime shit, and aren’t we suppose to be building a state of the art KC, or is that too condemned to nickle and dime status – oh wait, the rejuvenated Hayward field will save us all.

    We repeatedly demonstrate that our priorities are out of whack and repeatedly wonder why the legislature disrespects us – how far up our own ass are we flying?

    • T. Lysenko says:

      Thank God the President is shutting down that fake-paleontological nonsense. UO’s museum appears to be teaching Darwinism to children! And I hear the art museum regularly exhibits degenerate art. What’s next for the state’s “flagship” university? Teaching workers how to organize unions?

  2. New Year Cat says:

    It’s a black mark on the reputation of the university. But it is hopeless to rely on the BOT for any kind of due diligence or understanding of our academic mission. Boards like that are more like resume puffers than committed academia wonks….one or two classified staff or students might take a stand based on knowledge or principle, but the others seem to be content to rubber-stamp whatever “authority” says.

  3. Deplorable Duck says:

    +1 for “threee”

    Also, the awful truth is that both the museums and athletics are relevant only in terms of the donor millions they pull in. Apparently they prefer sports. Oh well.

    While it still stands, though, the art museum’s Korean room is pretty awesome–check it out.

  4. J. Stalin, jr. says:

    As my mentor, Lenin commented: “There is a Latin tag cui prodest? meaning “who stands to gain?” When it is not immediately apparent which political or social groups, forces or alignments advocate certain proposals, measures, etc., one should always ask: “Who stands to gain?”

    It is not important who directly advocates a particular policy, since under the present noble system of capitalism any money-bag can always “hire”, buy or enlist any number of lawyers, writers and even parliamentary deputies, professors, parsons and the like to defend any views.

    Yes, indeed! In politics, it is not so important who directly advocates particular views. What is important is who stands to gain from these views, proposals, measures.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.