Nevertheless she is persisting. Oral arguments on Freyd case April 11, 2PM.

Psychology professor Jennifer Freyd spent several years documenting that she was significantly underpaid relative to her full professor peers in the psychology department, and getting agreement from her department chair and external reviewers on the facts, but still not getting a significant raise. So in March 2017 she filed a pay discrimination lawsuit in federal court.

Now, two years later, complaints have been made, motions and affidavits have been filed, depositions heard, and the case is finally scheduled for an oral argument on UO’s effort to dismiss, in front of Judge Michael McShane. Lengthy docket here, full of embarrassing quotes from administrators and lawyers past and present. Yes, of course Scott Coltrane is still blaming it on the union.

Next week’s hearing:

Scheduling Order by Judge Michael J. McShane: Based upon the schedule of the Parties, the Oral Argument regarding Motion for Summary Judgment 56 and Motion for Summary Judgment 65 set for 4/2/2019 is reset for 4/11/2019 at 02:00PM in Eugene Courtroom 2 before Judge Michael J. McShane. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane.

Were Professor Freyd an incompetent male business school dean, or an incompetent male president, or an incompetent male football coach, or an incompetent male chief spokesman, the general counsel’s office would have offered a generous settlement years ago. I can’t imagine what the holdup is here. No, it couldn’t be that, could it?

Gender and minority equity raises: GC Kevin Reed and HR’s Missy Matella using fees and delays to hide analysis

Back in Sept 2017 the faculty union and the administration signed this MOU here, by which the administration would hold back 0.75% of a 2.0% across-the-board raise for TTF to address “unexplained equity differences potentially related to race, gender, or ethnicity” to be paid starting in Jan 2019.

0.75% works out to a pool of about $450K recurring. These will be permanent increases, if they are ever awarded. Instead of determining these raises transparently, the administration wasted time and money searching for a consultant to do the work. (About $120K near as I can tell. The work is at least a year behind, and still not finished.)

The consultant ran the usual regressions, replicating work I and others had already done, which showed no evidence of a gender gap in pay once the standard controls for rank and department were included. (Except, apparently, for Asian assistant professors.) The committee was skeptical of the results, so they had JP Monroe in IR rerun them. Came out the same, again.

From what I’ve been able to figure out from some leaks and the consulting contract, the administration then decided to proceed anyway, and made a dataset of all the TTF faculty whose salaries were more than ~1.5 standard deviations below and/or 80% or less than their predicted salaries based on rank, time in rank, and department. They then dropped all men who were not racial or ethnic minorities. I think this leaves about 80 people. They then sent departments a request for specific information on the hiring and outside offers of the remaining faculty that might justify their low salaries, or not. The rumor is that productivity was not considered.

This Friday the committee met and went through those faculty, one by one, using this information to decide whether or not they should get a permanent raise, and if so how much. I’ll guess 30 faculty survived this process, with an average raise of about $10K, leaving about $150K or $200 for the remaining faculty. Just a guess, this is all secret stuff.

This seems like an interesting way to attempt to address gender inequities. So back on Feb 28th I asked interim Chief HRO Missy Matella for a copy of the regression coefficients and other aggregate info that would be used to determine who got raises. No individual info, just aggregate results:

Hi Missy,

I’m writing as UO Senate President to request a copy of the regression results provided to UO by Berkeley Consulting Group, and currently being used by the Faculty Salary Equity Study group, as explained on the website at

The Faculty Salary Equity Study work group is in the process of reviewing the regression analysis results and setting the threshold that identifies “negative outliers,” namely those faculty members earning lower-than-expected salaries for the purpose of this study. Identifying “negative outliers” is critically important to fulfilling the requirements of this study. Therefore, the threshold the work group establishes will be more inclusive than the common convention of 1.96 standard deviations below expected salary and 80% of expected salary.

I am not asking for any individual level data. I’m just asking for the regression results as commonly presented by consultants and researchers in this field, e.g.:

Specifically, you should have a table such as this from Berkeley:

And a few figures such as this:


Bill Harbaugh
UO Senate Pres, Econ Prof

Her response was:

Hi Bill – In follow up to our conversation on Friday, I would like to sit down with you, Chris and Melanie to talk about this request and the different interests involved. I talked to Chris and he thinks this makes sense as well. In particular, I think it makes sense to talk about the work of the TTF equity committee and its discussions about how and when to release a report explaining the results and the committee’s work. Chris and I can also discuss the conversations we’ve had about how and when information will be released to UA. Thanks and please let me know some times this week when you’re available.

Always best to read the documents before the meeting, so I followed Matella’s advice and made a public records request for them:

From: Bill Harbaugh <>
Subject: Public Records request, Re: salary equity regression results
Date: March 8, 2019 at 4:31:13 PM PST
To: Lisa Thornton <>
Cc: Missy Matella <>

Dear Ms. Thornton –

This is a public records request for the public records described in the email below.

Please note that the email below to HR Director Missy Matella comes from me as Senate President. She has declined to provide these to me as Senate President. Therefore I’m making this public records request as the editor of the blog.

Ms. Matella has these public records and can easily provide them without fees or delays, however if she proposes to charge a fee, I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest and my ability to widely distribute these public records to the public and reporters through UO Matters.


Bill Harbaugh

(Despite what Kevin Reed believed when he made a public records request for my emails about academic freedom, a UO employee can’t use the PR law to request docs from UO as an employee, because the state assumes agencies will of course share all information with themselves. Sure. So after Matella stonewalled my question as Senate Pres, I had to make the public records request as a private citizen.)

After some back and forth we scheduled a meeting, and the morning of it I got this response:

From: Missy Matella <>
Subject: Re: salary equity regression results
Date: March 26, 2019 at 7:17:30 AM PDT
To: Bill Harbaugh <>, Melanie Muenzer <>
Cc: Chris Sinclair <>, Elizabeth Skowron <>

Thanks Bill. I’m looking forward to talking about the TTF equity committee’s work, the underlying interests and next steps. I’m also interested in discussing the various roles of campus stakeholders relating to this project, which is being implemented under an MOU between United Academics and UO administration.

Bill, with respect to your individual public records request, I’m happy to pass along your thoughts regarding timing to that office again. I previously sent the office your thoughts regarding when the documents should be produced.

Then, 30 minutes before the meeting started I got this from Kevin Reed’s Public Records Office:


Dear Mr. Harbaugh:

The University of Oregon has received your public records request for “…regression results provided to UO by Berkeley Consulting Group, and currently being used by the Faculty Salary Equity Study group…” on 03/11/2019, attached. With this email, the office is providing you with an estimate to respond to your requests.

The office estimates the actual cost of responding to your request to be $435.69. Upon receipt of a check made payable to the University of Oregon for that amount, the office will proceed to locate, copy, and provide the records you have requested that are not exempt from disclosure. Your check may be sent to the attention of Office of Public Records, 6207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-6207.

Please note that if the cost of preparing the documents for you is less than the estimate, we will refund the difference. If the cost of preparing the records for you exceeds the estimate, however, you may be charged for the difference. Following is an outline of how costs are determined.

The office will provide the documents electronically to avoid a copy fee of 25 cents per page.  The office also charges for the actual cost of making public records available.  The charge includes, but is not limited to, staff costs for locating, gathering, summarizing, compiling, reviewing, tailoring or redacting the public records to respond to a request.  The charge may also include the cost of time spent by an attorney in reviewing the public records, redacting material from the public records, or segregating the public records into exempt and nonexempt records.

The cost of time for each employee is calculated by multiplying the employee’s hourly wage calculation (including benefits expenses) by the hours or portions thereof necessary to locate, gather, summarize, compile, tailor, review, redact, segregate, certify or attend the inspection of the public records requested.

Thank you for contacting us with your request.

Sincerely,  Office of Public Records

6207 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403-6207, (541) 346-6823 |

When I talked to Ms Matella at the meeting about charging me $435 for a document she had on hand, her response was to deny that she had the consultant’s report, then say she had to follow Kevin Reed’s (purposively dilatory) procedures, and then to say that she did not want to release anything until the process was over, the equity raises had been determined along with the remaining amount to be paid out ATB if any, and (to paraphrase) the administration and its PR flacks had decided how to spin the results. Needless to say these are not justifiable reasons for delaying release of a public record under Oregon’s public records law.

My guess is that faculty – female, minority, or generic – will be lucky to see any money by the end of spring, at which point the complaints and lawsuits from those who feel that this secretive process has harmed them, or not benefitted them enough, or that it has violated Oregon’s new Equal Pay Act will begin.

Too bad. The simple takeaway from this should have been the very good news that, unlike most universities, UO has very little detectable pay discrimination. Instead it’s the same old news – our administration can’t handle transparency.

Check the provosts’s website here for the administration’s spin:

Avenatti claims Nike paid Dana Altman’s Bol Bol

Which is good, because someone should pay college basketball players, and apparently Dana Altman refuses to give them a cut of his bloated salary and bonuses. Jeff Manning and Brad Schmidt have the story in the Oregonian here:

Earlier this week, Avenatti accused Nike of paying “large sums” to Bol, a California Supreme alumni and prized recruit who is joined the Oregon program in 2018. The Ducks, a Cinderella story in the NCAA March Madness tournament, tip off against Virginia at 6:59 p.m. Thursday. But Bol, who is injured, has been watching from the sidelines.

Oregon coach Dana Altman told The Oregonian/OregonLive on Tuesday that he didn’t have any information about the allegation against Bol. Altman said he had “no reason” to believe the accusation against Bol was accurate and a university spokeswoman echoed that sentiment.

“We are unaware of any evidence that would support these allegations,” Molly Blancett said in a statement. “Diligent inquiry last summer into the amateur status of our student-athletes revealed no indication of improper payments made to any student-athletes or their families.”

NWCCU accreditors will keep academic freedom after AAUP-Oregon, IFS, UO Senate Pres, UO Provost, FIRE & others push back

Another 4/1/2019 update:

The influential Foundation for Individual Rights in Education also wrote to the NWCCU against their plan to remove academic freedom from their accreditation standards:

Full letter here.

4/1/2019 update:

Thanks to the AAUP-Oregon’s Michael Dreiling for alerting the UO Senate and Provost to the NWWCU’s proposed accreditation standards. His letter asking AAUP members to press the NWCCU on this is here:

We write to you with an urgent request to take action and protect academic freedom as a standard and criterion for accreditation by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), the largest single accreditation body in the region. Inexplicably, the latest draft of accreditation standards from the NWCCU removes all references to academic freedom and to institutional bodies and practices of shared governance such as university senates, faculty vote and voice, and tenure (see the proposal and compare to current standards here). The strong emphasis on centralized authority and the implicit erasure of faculty participation in decision-taking is new and it is a threat to the integrity of higher education at hundreds of colleges and universities in the region. …

As you can see below, many issues with these proposed revisions remain unresolved, but NWCCU Pres Sonny Ramaswamy has promised to keep freedom, and give more time for input on other issues:

From: Sonny Ramaswamy <>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 10:07 PM
Subject: Revision of NWCCU’s Standards


Over the last couple of weeks we have received emails regarding NWCCU’s draft, revised Standards from AAUP affiliates and faculty senate chairs, and provosts of a few institutions. (Those individuals are copied on this email.)

Additionally, we have received input during conversations with some individuals.

Based on the recent input received, we’ve made a decision to incorporate appropriate language in our draft Standards for Academic Freedom and Governance, along with revisions on other matters suggested by others.

We’ve extended the deadline for submission of additional comments for revisions through April 15, 2019.

The draft will be revised and sent out for further comments in May. The draft will be revised based on this round of comments.

After the Commission has provided additional comments on the near final draft, it’ll be revised as needed. Then it’ll be sent out for a vote by NWCCU’s family of institutions to approve the proposed Standards in late Summer 2019.

As I have noted previously, this is an iterative process and we appreciate the input, which continues strengthen the Standards.

Our hope is that, once approved, the new Standards will be deployed starting in January 2020.

If not already done, please connect with your relevant faculty organizations on your campuses, such as faculty senate chairs, and exhort them and other faculty to provide input regarding the draft Standards.

They may submit their comments on the current version of revised Standards available at ( either via this link ( or via email (

Thanks for your help.

Sonny Ramaswamy, President
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
8060 165th Avenue NE, Ste 100 | Redmond, WA 98052
Tel: 425-558-4224
Twitter: @NWCCUSonny

The letter to the NWCCU from the UO Senate President (me) is here. The letter from UO Provost Jayanth Banavar is here. My response to the email above is:

Dear Pres Ramaswamy –

I’m glad to hear this. Thank you for responding to the concerns regarding academic freedom.

For those from other institutions considering commenting on the NWCCU’s proposed changes to our accreditation requirements, I’ve attached the letters to the NWCCU from the UO Senate and the UO Provost.

As you can see these address issues beyond academic freedom, and include such matters as shared governance, research, governing board evaluations, institutional control over transfer credits, student success metrics and their use.

I look forward to seeing how the next draft addresses these concerns.

For those interested, I’ll continue to update the posts at with new information.


Bill Harbaugh
University of Oregon
Senate Pres & Econ Prof

3/26/2019: UO’s accreditor considers weakening academic freedom and governance standards

Sorry, long post.

Continue reading

OSU loses a president, gains an economics professor

Members of the Oregon State University community,

I am writing to let you know that it is my intention to step down as president of Oregon State University on June 30, 2020, when my current five-year contract will be completed, and after almost 17 years since I had the great honor and joy to assume the presidency on July 31, 2003. I will continue to serve as president of Oregon State University until the new president assumes office.

The timing for this transition is excellent. We have just adopted a new chapter in our strategic plan, SP4.0, and we are guided by our common statement of aspirations: Vision 2030. Furthermore, we have recently completed a comprehensive self-study as part of a seven-year accreditation process and we will welcome an external accreditation review team to OSU in the next few weeks. We also developed a 10-year business forecast and a 10-year capital planning model to help guide university fiscal decisions. Perhaps most importantly, I have never worked with a stronger leadership team in my 16 years of service as your president, including an excellent university board of trustees.

Personally, my health is very good. Yet, I will be almost 76 years old when I step down as president, and I view my job as including my best effort to assist this wonderful university in transitioning to new leadership. Effective July 1, 2020, I will begin a sabbatical and transition to the College of Liberal Arts as a professor of economics.

Please know that my affection for each of you, my passion and commitment to the mission, vision and values of this university have never been stronger. And, I remain certain that the best is yet to come for Oregon State University and those we serve. Our graduates are our greatest contribution to the future, and my colleagues will help all of us provide for a more inclusive future to meet the educational, economic and social needs and aspirations of all Oregonians and those beyond our state, through our teaching, research, creative work and service.

Within the next few weeks, Rani Borkar, chair of OSU’s Board of Trustees, will provide further details regarding the process and timeline for bringing the 15th president to this wonderful university, including the role that each of you can play in contributing to a successful search for OSU’s next president.


Edward J. Ray, President

GTFF bargaining sleepy blog

The Twitter has a hashtag for this that’s pretty woke:

In the EMU Crater Lake room 12-? today. About 75 GE’s and the 7 member administrative bargaining team. The wifi is slow, and glancing around at the GE’s screens it’s easy to see why – they’re checking email, writing, and analyzing data. At least one dude is working with R on some interesting looking data. Maybe I can get a few pointers from him during the break.

In contrast to the wonderfully shambolic and spiteful arguments that the UAUO used to get from Sharon Rudnick and Tim Gleason, watching the calm and knowledgeable Peter Fehrs, Missy Matella, Mike Mcghee and Michael Marchman negotiate is like watching water-based paint dry on a humid day.

“I think that makes sense”

“We’ll take a look, but don’t see any problems”

“Great, let’s TA this now.” “OK.”

Constructive and polite on both sides, and the audience is getting a lot of work done too. I assume things will get a bit more exciting when they start talking money, presumably later today.

And, on cue, the subject of parental leave comes up. Admins say it’s too expensive. GE’s say it’s an important recruiting tool. GE’s asks what it would cost. Admins say they costed it out but forget what the number was.

I missed a bit, apparently the admins did not bring an economic proposal. Bummer. Apparently then someone at the table got a little mad about something. Sorry, I was grading and missed it.

About 100 GEs here now, many sitting on the floor.

Caucus break.

3:56: The bargainers return, agree to TA the infamous article 4. Applause.

Admins agree to come back week one (I think April 5) with economics. See you then.

Pac-12 Seeking $750M Investment For Schools, TV Networks

In Sports Business Daily, here:

The Pac-12 is seeking $750M from investors, considerably more than the $500M it originally discussed four months ago, according to multiple sources. The conference will distribute $700M of that investment to its 12 schools. The other $50M will go into a new entity to manage the conference’s media rights and networks. The breakdown is detailed in official bid books that the conference sent to potential investors in recent days. The bid book, which is more than 70 pages, identifies the Pac-12 media holding company as NewCo, which includes all the conference’s media rights and the Pac-12 Networks. NewCo reported an EBITDA of $286M last year, according to the bid book. The book does not outline a timetable to complete a deal, but sources indicated the process will unfold over the coming weeks. The Pac-12 did not comment. …

It sounds like UO’s share would be about $50M one time – plenty to plug the $11M current deficit and repay the ~$40M in subsidies the Ducks have taken from the academic side in the years of Pat Kilkenny and Rob Mullens’s continued plundering. Sorry, not enough left over to save baseball.

Board of Trustees holds emergency meeting to discuss budget crisis

Just kidding, of course they won’t meet about that. This is about our greedy basketball coaches.

Two days after President Schill announced that UO is facing an $11M budget crisis which will likely lead to layoffs for instructors and OAs, our Board’s executive committee will be phoning it in on Thursday at 1PM, to give fat raises to Dana Altman and Kelly Graves. Full packet with contracts here.

President Schill outlines plans for $11M in budget cuts

Emailed to the campus today:

Dear colleagues,

On March 5, I wrote to let you know that the University of Oregon’s budget situation is becoming more challenging and it is imperative we move forward with efforts to reduce the UO’s annual operating costs. Since then, I have met with a variety of campus stakeholders to receive advice and guidance. Those meetings have been extremely useful in shaping our next steps, including helping identify priorities and principles to guide us. We all have a shared goal of ensuring the institution maintains a strong upward trajectory even as we grapple with state funding challenges and decreases in international enrollment.

Based on analysis by Vice President for Finance and Administration Jamie Moffitt and her team, we must reduce about $11 million in annual recurring expenditures from the education and general budget. I have provided the provost and vice presidents with cost-reduction goals for their units and asked them to develop plans for achieving those savings. We will prioritize our core academic and research activities; therefore, I have set higher savings targets for administrative units than I have for schools and colleges. Administrative functions will be subject to a 3 percent budget reduction, and decreases for schools and colleges will be in aggregate no more than 2.5 percent.  The provost’s office will do everything possible to ensure that the changes in our schools and colleges have as little negative impact as possible on academic activities and programs, including career faculty and staff.

Each vice president will have discretion for how best to deliver savings within their units, but I have asked them to consider some guiding principles and priorities, including:

  • AFFORDABILITY – We must not step back from our commitment to making the UO accessible to first generation, underrepresented and lower-income students. We will shield PathwayOregon and Diversity Excellence Scholarships from cuts.
  • STUDENT SUCCESS – To the fullest extent possible, units across campus should prioritize funding for efforts that support student success programs. Ensuring that we provide students with tutoring, mentoring, and advising are at the core of a great educational institution. Ultimately, this will help us to maintain affordability by enabling students to persist and graduate on time. We will also protect our student success investments in Tykeson Hall and the new advisors that are being hired to bring our student-to-advisor ratio to the national average
  • CAMPUS SAFETY – We will protect our law enforcement and Title IX (prevention and enforcement) initiatives from budget cuts, because we must provide a safe campus environment for students, faculty, staff and the broader community. Related programs and positions should be prioritized by individual units as they contemplate budget-reduction plans.
  • REVENUE GENERATION – Initiatives and programs that generate revenue should be priorities that vice presidents weigh in their budget-reduction considerations. For this reason, front-line fundraisers and student recruiters will be protected.  In addition, programs and efforts that support enrollment growth goals should be similarly prioritized.

Given that nearly 80 percent of our education and general fund budget pays salaries, it is impossible to achieve budget savings without impacting jobs. The UO already runs a very lean operation after decades of state disinvestment, and our staffing levels are below most of our peer institutions nationally. That means that many of our units will have to consider difficult decisions that may impact the level of service provided to the campus community. In some cases, we may need to stop doing things that are not aligned with the priorities I have identified or the UO’s teaching, research and service mission.

I will meet with and review the provost and vice presidents’ planned budget reductions. While I am not going to mandate a hiring freeze, to the extent reasonable, I have asked vice presidents to consider whether savings can be achieved by leaving open positions vacant or through attrition. In cases where it is necessary to move forward with workforce reductions, plans must be reviewed and approved by human resources and the general counsel. In close coordination with human resources professionals across campus, we will diligently work to ensure that colleagues who are impacted by budget reductions are offered a full range of support services and treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

We are entering a challenging period, but the hurdles we face are not insurmountable. We will continue to forcefully make the case in Salem that the state’s public higher education system needs a consistent and stable funding model that does not continually look to Oregon’s students and families to fill gaps in public support. The UO will continue to pursue a growth strategy that seeks to stabilize revenue swings by carefully and modestly increasing nonresident undergraduate enrollment over the next few years. And we will continue to leverage donor support to invest in academic initiatives – such as the Knight Campus, the Presidential Science Initiative and the humanities fellowship program – that expand and strengthen our world class academic and research programs. By working together, the UO can and will come out of these budget challenges stronger and with a clear focus on our very bright shared future.

I thank each and every one of you for all you do to make the University of Oregon a special place.

Sincerely, President Michael H. Schill, President and Professor of Law

New contract for Dana Altman will not play well in Salem budget talks

Talk about bad timing. UO’s lobbyists are at work in Salem, trying to get UO a bigger share of the state budget. If they fail, UO will have to cut staff, limit hiring, and/or raise in-state tuition.

The legislature is already asking why a university with such an expensive athletics program can’t pay the academic side’s costs without a bigger state subsidy or raising tuition. This news is not going to help:

The University of Oregon has agreed to terms with head coach Dana Altman on a contract extension, athletic director Rob Mullens announced on Thursday:

According to the school, Altman and Oregon are finalizing a deal that would run through the 2025-26 season.

“Dana and Reva Altman are an important part of our community, and we are thrilled at the opportunity to continue to build on the tremendous success we have had over Dana’s nine years as the head coach at Oregon,” Mullens said. “We are thankful for Dana’s commitment to the Ducks, and we look forward to the continued strong performance of our men’s basketball program as well as Dana assuming his rightful place in the Hall of Fame in the future.”

“Important part of our community?”

I assume Mullens means the community of greedy Duck coaches. Mullens, Cristobal, Altman and the other coaches, with a total payroll of ~$23M, gave a total of $50 to the Oregon Community Fund Drive last year:

CoD’s Christoph Lindner out, Banavar wants input on interim

It’s going to be a happy crowd down at the faculty club tonight. One faculty member noted “He made no visible relationships with anyone while he was here. It was obvious from the start he would not be here long.”

Whoever wrote the provost’s letter got unnecessarily gushy considering the damage Lindner managed to do, but it’s very encouraging to hear that Provost Banavar is reaching out to the college before making an interim appointment. Let the healing begin. Provost Banavar’s letter:

Dear Colleagues,

As you may have heard this morning, Christoph Lindner, dean of the College of Design, has accepted a position as dean of the Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment at University College London. He will remain at the University of Oregon through August.

[UOM: at his $265K Dean’s salary, or his $162K faculty pay with a few classes to teach?]

While I am disappointed that the UO will lose Christoph’s leadership, vision, and passion, I hope you will join me in wishing him and his family all of the best with this next chapter. It is an extraordinary opportunity. University College London’s gain is certainly our loss.

I am grateful for all Christoph has done during his time as dean of the College of Design, including his leadership in transforming the School of Architecture and Allied Arts into the College of Design, which comprises the School of Architecture & Environment, the School of Art + Design, and the School of Planning, Public Policy and Management.

Christoph’s vision has helped enhance the prominence of all disciplines within the college. He has been a strong advocate for the enhancement of diversity in design, including the new Design for Spatial Justice initiative in the School of Architecture & Environment and the new Access and Equity research group in the School of Planning, Public Policy and Management.

I applaud the work that he and others have done to elevate the College of Design’s portfolio, creating new synergies among UO departments, working with partner institutions, and looking to 21st century opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students—all while maintaining a focus on the College of Design’s core and historical strengths.

I am grateful that Christoph will remain at the UO through August, which leaves ample time to prepare for a transition. An important next step for me as provost is to name an interim dean, and I intend to do so by the end of next week. First, though, I want to take the next several days to consult with department heads, school heads, and others in the college. If you have recommendations for the interim role, please email me at I will take all of the feedback and information I receive into account, but I must receive it by no later than noon Monday, March 18.

There will no doubt be questions about the process for filling the permanent dean position. My office will coordinate this effort and I will provide more information soon. Please rest assured knowing that the search will follow standard practices, including a review of the position profile, putting together a diverse hiring committee, and hosting public presentations and interview opportunities for finalists.

For the next several weeks, our focus will be on the institutional efforts to balance our budget and identify expenditure reductions. While Christoph’s departure leaves a hole to fill, we will not have any announcements on the search in the next few weeks.

Again, let me reiterate my best wishes to Christoph, his wife, Rebecca, who is associate dean for undergraduate studies in the Clark Honors College, and their two children. It has been a pleasure having them as part of the UO community and I am grateful for all they have both done.


Jayanth Banavar, Provost and Senior Vice President

Lindner’s email:

Dear College of Design Faculty and Staff:

I am writing to share with you that I have accepted the position of Dean of The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment at University College London beginning Fall 2019.

It has been an honor to serve as Dean of the College of Design for the past three years. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your work in making the college what it is today. I am especially grateful to our talented faculty and staff, who are a vital source of the college’s success. My thanks as well to our school heads, department heads, and associate deans for their dedication in leading the College of Design, as well as our Dean’s Advancement Council for their ever-present advocacy, advice, and enthusiasm.

I look forward to finishing the academic year with you, and continuing to work with everyone to advance our academic priorities. During the coming months, I will also be working closely with the Office of the Provost to ensure that the many important programmatic and hiring initiatives in the School of Architecture & Environment, School of Art + Design, School of Planning, Public Policy and Management, and the Department of the History of Art and Architecture continue to move forward smoothly during the leadership transition. The provost will be sharing more about that transition plan shortly.


Christoph Lindner
Dean and Professor

FBI investigation shows college admissions & athletics officials taking bribes from parents & not giving faculty their cut

This is yet another outrageous example of administrators not understanding the “shared” part of shared governance, the bedrock principle behind the success of american higher education. In the NYT here:

… Authorities said the crimes date back to 2011, and the defendants used “bribery and other forms of fraud to facilitate their children’s admission” to numerous college and universities,” including Georgetown, Yale University, Stanford University, the University of Texas, the University of Southern California and UCLA, among others. One of the cooperating witnesses, according to the court documents, is a former head coach of Yale’s women’s soccer team, who pleaded guilty in the case nearly a year ago and has since been helping FBI agents gather evidence.

Some of the 32 defendants are accused of bribing college entrance exam administrators to facilitate cheating on tests — by having a smarter student take the test, providing students with answers to exams or correcting their answers after they had completed the exams, according to the criminal complaint filed in federal court.

Others allegedly bribed university athletic coaches and administrators to designate applicants as “purported athletic recruits — regardless of their athletic abilities, and in some cases, even though they did not play the sport they were purportedly recruited to play — thereby facilitating their admission to universities in place of more qualified applicants,” the complaint charges. …

Think Professors Are Liberal? Try Administrators

An NYT Op-Ed from 2016 by political scientist Samuel Abrams which just popped up in my twitter feed, because some Sarah Lawrence students are trying to get him fired for writing it:

Think Professors Are Liberal? Try School Administrators

The ideological bent of those overseeing collegiate life is having the biggest impact on campus culture.

I received a disconcerting email this year from a senior staff member in the Office of Diversity and Campus Engagement at Sarah Lawrence College, where I teach. The email was soliciting ideas from the Sarah Lawrence community for a conference, open to all of us, titled “Our Liberation Summit.” The conference would touch on such progressive topics as liberation spaces on campus, Black Lives Matter and justice for women as well as for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and allied people.

As a conservative-leaning professor who has long promoted a diversity of viewpoints among my (very liberal) faculty colleagues and in my classes, I was taken aback by the college’s sponsorship of such a politically lopsided event. The email also piqued my interest in what sorts of other nonacademic events were being organized by the school’s administrative staff members.

I soon learned that the Office of Student Affairs, which oversees a wide array of issues including student diversity and residence life, was organizing many overtly progressive events — programs with names like “Stay Healthy, Stay Woke,” “Microaggressions” and “Understanding White Privilege” — without offering any programming that offered a meaningful ideological alternative. These events were conducted outside the classroom, in the students’ social and recreational spaces.

The problem is not limited to my college. While considerable focus has been placed in recent decades on the impact of the ideological bent of college professors, when it comes to collegiate life — living in dorms, participating in extracurricular organizations — the ever growing ranks of administrators have the biggest influence on students and campus life across the country.

… Intrigued by this phenomenon, I recently surveyed a nationally representative sample of roughly 900 “student-facing” administrators — those whose work concerns the quality and character of a student’s experience on campus. I found that liberal staff members outnumber their conservative counterparts by the astonishing ratio of 12-to-one. Only 6 percent of campus administrators identified as conservative to some degree, while 71 percent classified themselves as liberal or very liberal. It’s no wonder so much of the nonacademic programming on college campuses is politically one-sided.

The 12-to-one ratio of liberal to conservative college administrators makes them the most left-leaning group on campus. In previous research, I found that academic faculty report a six-to-one ratio of liberal to conservative professors. Incoming first-year students, by contrast, reported less than a two-to-one ratio of liberals to conservatives, according to a 2016 finding by the Higher Education Research Institute. It appears that a fairly liberal student body is being taught by a very liberal professoriate — and socialized by an incredibly liberal group of administrators.

… This warped ideological distribution among college administrators should give our students and their families pause. To students who are in their first semester at school, I urge you not to accept unthinkingly what your campus administrators are telling you. Their ideological imbalance, coupled with their agenda-setting power, threatens the free and open exchange of ideas, which is precisely what we need to protect in higher education in these politically polarized times.

They’d have to serve fentanyl before I’d watch Dana Altman coach a game

With basketball and event revenue running less than a third of Pat Kilkenny’s liars budget, the Ducks now want a liquor license for Knight Arena, because drunk football fans are just not enough:

But hey, maybe the OLCC will do a better job protecting free speech than UO’s General Counsel Kevin Reed.

Thanks to an anonymous reader for the tip.