11/29/2011: Steve Duin writes on OUS fail. Bill Graves of the Oregonian captures the craziness. People don’t often talk back to pandering buzzword spewing politicians, or laugh in their faces. We’d be a better country if we did:
Board member James Francesconi … “We cannot be a great state without a great UO,” he said. “But we can’t be a great state only with the UO. We need leaders who challenge us to be great, but not at the expense of others.”
Audience members laughed.
Board member David Yaden said the board still supported bold and creative leadership for UO. “Do not let mediocrity become a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he warned.
More laughter.
Board member Jill Eiland said the board needed the Lariviere supporters as “strategic partners.”
Audience members shot back. “It is an insult for you to challenge us,” said one. “It is a railroad job,” said another. “It is a sham,” shouted a third.
11/28/2011: Matt Donegan was pretty coherent – it turns out he’d put Lariviere on double secret probation back in June – and he allowed for some cathartic back and forth. Allyn Ford was sad, Francesconi and Kelly teared up. The rest of the board read insulting prepared statements – for a decision they are claiming was not made until the meeting? A sham and a farce. Their vote was unanimous – 30 days notice. Read about it in the papers. Meanwhile, mail off those public meetings petitions and email the requests that the Board to hold a public meeting to fire Pernsteiner like they just did for Lariviere.
Not pissed off enough? Just watch and listen to Pernsteiner at the post meeting news conference here. Donegan does not come off very well either:
<p>&amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;nbsp; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;gt;</p>
Two quick questions:
1) What sort of interim president will they cram down our throats? Lorraine Davis? Jim Bean?
OUS Job Opening (thanks to anon)
Wanted – Mediocre, milquetoast administrator with established track record of blind adherence to status quo to lead previously innovative state university. Successful candidate will be an experienced sycophant with proven past behavior demonstrating unthinking
compliance and submission to all local, state and bureaucratic agencies. Physical requirements include a strong, non-dominant hand grip strength to effectively rubber stamp all proposed initiatives – spine not required. Minimal need for creative thinking or bold
leadership potential required, and, in fact, such behavior may disqualify candidate. High likelihood of rapid placement, as projected applicant pool expected to be very, very sparse. If above qualifications are met, but candidate is not selected for current position advertised, application will be forwarded to Salem offices for consideration for another similar post and/or governorship.”
2) The elephant in the room was Chancellor George Pernsteiner. This WWeek story quotes Donegan as saying he and Lariviere were not even on speaking terms at the end. Ok – so fire Pernsteiner:
- He was hired in 2004 by Neil Goldschmidt as an interim appointment, then made permanent after the molestation story broke and everyone was too busy to go through a public search process.
- He does not have a PhD – unique for a university Chancellor.
- He is paid $280,900 in straight salary – while OUS staff get furloughs.
- He gets another $23,320 for “professional development expenses.” He does not document how he spends this, despite state audit rules – he just takes it as a cash salary add-on.
- He gets a free car with all costs paid.
- He gets a $12,720 retirement add-on, to top off his regular PERS account.
- He gets an all expenses paid mansion in Eugene, Treetops, which he uses about 4 nights a month, at a cost to the state of over $50,000 a year. Landscaping is $1300 a month.
- To fight a voter fraud investigation his lawyer claimed he lived in Eugene.
- We pay about $7,000 a year for his maid service.
- He gets another $26,000 from OUS in housing allowance to pay the mortgage on his own house, in Portland.
- He charges the state $52 a day for his personal food while he’s in Portland.
And his contract will be automatically renewed unless the OUS board acts by 12/31/2011.
Reading the Governor’s statement over the week-end and hearing the board speak it is pretty clear Richard got an F for “playing well with others.” The question is what exactly are the complaints of other OUS campuses. If I understand the PSU situation (which I doubt I do accurately) the complaint is that at least their faculty and possibly their administration (though they wouldn’t admit it publicly) would like to be able to do some things like the salary raises etc. If this is true, the level of irony would be incredible – Richard gets fired for running his university as other OUS institutions wanted to run theirs.
P.S. Favorite image from the webcast: we call stick together as we go down the toilet.
Some of us old timers still remember what happened to Paul Olum. This was an instant replay. I even wonder if some of the current board paraphrased some of the statements of the ’87 board in their summations (in particular, the patronizing “you will decide if you are mediocre.”) It was like I was transported back in time.
After the Olum termination we entered the “dark ages,” from which we only recently have begun to emerge. Time will tell if the dark ages are here again.
One more thing from the old timer…
Almost no one remembers the names of the board members that fired Paul Olum.
Remember the names of these people.
Sometime evil gets the upper hand and this seems to be such a moment. Do we not have good options supported by law to fight back? Are we just sheep with getting in line as the only option? Is Origon the banana republic? This is my darkest day of my long Oregon years.
One really snarky, marginal suggestion:
Can the faculty petition the U of O Foundation to rename the Ford Alumni Center the the Judas Alumni Center?
Or perhaps the less inflammatory: “Et tu, Brutus Alumni Center.”
Donegan was coherent until his unending “explanation” of why he can’t come to Eugene on Wednesday (which was no explanation at all). I appreciate that he allowed the back and forth but to what avail?
Old timer,
The board was carrying out its marching orders. As I am starting to see it (I could be wrong…), the narrative is:
Governor(s) (both Ki and Ku): “We must have uniformity in how government are run. That is `better’. You, OUS board, it is your charge to enforce uniformity – especially in matters of wage freezes, furloughs, setting tuition, and any movement to different governance structures. It is detrimental to have competing visions.”
Board: “Yes, sir.”
RL: “Uniformity to this degree leads to mediocrity. I’ll figure out ways to obey the letter but not the spirit of wage/ furlough edicts, and I’ll put forth my own vision for governance and financial stability.”
Public/ press: “Look what he is doing!”
UO: “Hurray!” (well, as readers of UOMatters know, it wasn’t always/ uniformly “hurray”, but I for one have been a content faculty member with RL at the helm, speaking as someone who worked with him on issues ranging from the leadership of the athletics department to K-12 education.)
Other OUS institutions: “Why does UO get to do those things?” (and we don’t…)
Board: “Stop! Stop you rogue!”
RL: (to himself) “If I stop, then I might as well pack it in. It is better for them fire me and replace me with a yes man than to become a yes man myself.”
Board: “We’re warning you…”
RL continues. Doesn’t engage campus in fact that he’s as close as he is to being out the door, though it was hiding in plain view if you take statements in the press at face value. (I for one took those statements as theatre, which was the wrong read.)
Board, acting on behalf of Governor: “You’re fired.”
In the disagreement between RL and the Gov/Board about whether this is a personnel matter or a difference in vision/direction, both are right. This was a personnel matter, but it wouldn’t have manifest if there weren’t significant vision/policy disagreements, at least in the short term (you could interpret the board as saying there is perhaps agreement in the long term.) For the board to believe there weren’t would then imply that they agree that Richard was doing the right things, he just shouldn’t have done them because the marching orders were to do the wrong things.
Here are the real questions, as RL would have us ask:
– What is the value added, for both the UO and other Oregon public universities, by the Chancellor’s office and OUS board. What are the inefficiencies created by this system?
– In the Governor’s K-20 model, can we coordinate and be more efficient (e.g. aligning expectations, so a student who gets credit at university/ college X for a course which is a prereq for something at university Y is really prepared) while having the kind of vigorous local boards that even the OUS board is admitting would be beneficial?
– How tangibly did it harm other campuses to have RL do what he did? Yes, the PSU faculty union is citing his arguments as to why there should be raises, which makes the PSU admin’s job tougher which in turn makes the OUS board’s job tougher. But at the end of the day, is the state better off if the OUS board structures faculty pay, tuition, etc, or should that be a decision of each campus (with its admin, faculty, students, alumni and other stakeholders) makes on their own, based on their understanding of their own mission?
-Do we need to expand ties between faculty, students and broader administration (already relatively well-served by the IFS) so that we can address concerns as peers, rather than leaving the discussion to presidents and politicians?
Fire Pernsteiner. That is all that you need to remember old timer.
Two big arguments I heard there and a large contradiction between them.
1. We shouldn’t be surprised this happened given all of the drama over differences in policy.
2. It is a private personnel issue and hence can’t be discussed.
If it is something public we shouldn’t be surprised about, then how can it be a private confidential personnel issue? Contradiction much anyone?
What I heard tonight was a legitimate justification. And even in testimony from our own side we had a woman talking about how he’s a bull in a china shop, and bad at tactics. Sheez.. are we still going to keep ignoring that he had a responsibility in this? Are we seriously going to still act like it was all pernsteiner?
Oh for goodness’ sake! You ask whether RL had some responsibility in this — has he ever said he didn’t? Who among us is perfect — perfect! — in tactics? Who hasn’t felt his/her nose out of joint, or helped put a nose out of joint? The point is that RL’s actions are integral; his goal has always been what’s best for Oregon: for the UO and for the students — graduates, current, and potential — and the state. Read this:
“With state support declining, Lariviere and presidents of the other state universities want more autonomy from the state Board of Education and the Legislature. They’ve discussed seeking authority to define their missions, set tuition and faculty salaries, manage their costs and revenues, sell bonds, borrow against assets and possibly levy taxes.
“Lariviere’s plan is politically risky given that both the state board and the Legislature may be reluctant to relinquish power. But the president said the quality of the university is at stake. He said he must find a way to raise faculty salaries, now at about 80 percent of their peers in comparable institutions.
“‘The quality of a university is determined by its faculty.'” [quoting RL]
That’s from an April 19, 2010 “Oregon Live” story: see http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2010/04/university_of_oregon_president.html.
Interestingly, the story quotes board member Kelly: “The State Board of Higher Education expects him to ‘get things under control’ and put athletics ‘in proper perspective,’ said Paul Kelly, board president.
“‘The indications are, he is going to be a good leader,’ Kelly said, ‘assuming he meets the leadership test on this Bellotti matter.'”
Leadership test: to pass isn’t about perfection — it’s about integrity, balance, inspiration, and vision.
Let’s honor RL and keep our eyes on the prize: the quality of the university is at stake. Independent institutional governing boards: that’s the goal.
What is done is done, regrettably. However, the war is not yet lost. While the battle for Pres. Lariviere’s job is probably beyond saving, there is still the larger issue that a board who funds less than 8% of UO funding can make back-alley decisions that affect the whole university. That with no representation from the UO, the OUS Board can fire the leader of the institution with NO input or regard to faculty and students. These and many other functions of the Board need DRASTIC reevaluation of purpose and efficacy.
Also, the whole argument that Pres. Lariviere’s decisions and actions were harmful to the other institutions seem to be irrelevant. Pres. Lariviere was not hired to facilitate problems and issues at other universities. He was hired to lead the University of Oregon. There was no real explanation at the meeting how his decisions harm other institutions anyway. It is the Board’s, not Pres. Lariviere’s, job to facilitate unrest and dissatisfaction at other universities. If they want him to work fully toward the benefit of all universities in the state, the Board should vote for Dr. Lariviere to take the Chancellor’s seat.
And in response to the comment that it was not all Pernstiener’s fault. There probably were better diplomatic ways Pres. Lariviere could have handled himself. I don’t know. I wasn’t there in the conversations they had. But I do feel confident saying that it was not Pernsteiner’s initiatives that led the University of Oregon into some of the greatest heights it has seen academically, fiscally, athletically, and in many more areas.
I am a student and I would rather put up with tuition increases and other controversies, just to feel like my voice is heard than to sit under a Board who is not connected with the UO and not have a voice.
As an unfortunate MBA graduate always attempting to disassociate myself from the many Donegans, please let me respectfully disagree that he was neither COHERENT nor sincere. I have suffered his unctuous kind slithering through group meetings smiling and asking you to join them for beers after class while stabbing you in the back along the way. When not clamoring for committee positions or community service opportunities for ostensibly altruistic reasons, they prioritize their personal calendars to attend every networking opportunity possible, all for the sake of updating their resumes, Linkedin accounts and business card collection. His feigned empathy is classic schmoozer prestidigitation to disarm legitimate opposition and hoodwink you into believing that he really “cares.”
He feels insulted and hurt to think that many people at the meeting did not respect his genuine concern for the UO because he spent an ENTIRE day on campus, before assuming his board presidency and attended the LSU-Oregon game in Jerryland. Perhaps I should sojourn on a sister campus for a week and then insist I possess the insight to make a decision about their central administration–or better yet visit a foreign country for a week and claim to be bi-cultural.
P.S.
John T. Scopes, Anne Hutchinson, Galileo, Socrates . . . although I am not comparing the Pres to these martyrs for freedom of thought, I am reflecting on the trial of ideas by those political systems that value only obedience and subordination over all else.
“What is done is done, regrettably.”
This statement is likely true. But if we let it be, then the criminals would go on feel free to do more harm. Should we fight tooth and nail to not let them off so easily so they will think again before they committee another crime against democracy and public trust (wait – does the board itself have the trusting relationship with Oregon public while they claim their trust with RL was broken?)
“Donegans… he was neither COHERENT nor sincere.”
I just watched the video of Donegans answering media questions – his expression is very telling that he was not telling the truth. And his mumbling was all about how dare someone advance a ‘transformational’ partnership doc/ideas without his review and his name on it. Wow. Oregon Higher Ed is in great hands.
“his genuine concern”
From Governor to Chancellor to Board members people were so busy repeating that they really want UO to advance. But truth came out when thousands testified that RL did a great job moving UO forward and and they fired RL. It seems that the louder the community praise RL the harsher the punishment. Oh how much they “REALLY” care about UO community. Shame.
Mr. Graves: I wasn’t laughing at Donegan, I was coughing “blow job”.
I still try to understand what is the rational for the make up of the Higher Ed board and why there is no one from UO serving on this Board. If you watch this video report who those board members you should be surprised who they are and may have some clue why they could voted against UO president:
http://kezi.com/news/local/231895
The Board said that they fired RL because he had lost the trust of the board. But the Board has lost just about everyone else’ trust so they should go away themselves!
I think it’s time for vindictiveness. People need to make the lives of the board members a living hell (through legal means, of course, I don’t mean stuff like vandalizing Treetops). Phil Knight should be actively funding competing business interests and using his influence to in an effort to hurt them financially (not to mention bankrolling Kitzhaber’s next opponent). Picket/protest outside their places of work or even their residences. Make them regret what they’ve done.
I keep thinking back to all the candidates I met who came to the UO in final interviews for top admin jobs, like VP for Development and VP for Research. The folks who didn’t get the jobs left thinking “man, the UO is such a dynamic place, it’s too bad I can’t be part of it.” Today, they are all sitting at their respective institutions thinking (and telling all their colleagues) “thank God I didn’t get strapped to THAT anchor.”
Lariviere for Governor!!!!
RL is still a professor at UO, and with his source of teaching releases dried up he is going to need a teaching assignment. I suggest a large lecture course on the economics and governance of higher education. Can we get Columbia 150? Matt Court? Let’s send well-informed citizens back to all 4 corners of the state to tell their families and communities why this all matters.
This vitriol, inability to see any fault with Richard, and arrogance is the reason that we will struggle to find a good president. Take responsibility for our role in moving forward. Don’t be blind to the fact that UO was in a similarly great position three years ago. We will be in a great position in three more years, but only if we rise above this challenge.
I say push for the plan — I will call it the “Roast Duck Plan” in honor of its apparent originator on these worthy pages — the plan to make UO truly independent — fully private endowment, buy out the state’s share in the campus. Please, Uncle Phil, this is your chance!
Let’s not kid ourselves, the OUS search for RL’s a replacement has already begun. One grim possible would be Graham Spanier, ex-Penn State Pres: available and according to the New York Times has Oregon connections. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/sports/ncaafootball/penn-states-graham-spanier-enjoyed-success-and-secrecy.html?pagewanted=all
Oh, and another UO connection with Penn: we shared an AAEO Director who liked to rub elbows with football coaches and kept secrets.
Am honored beyond words, but suggest that it simply be called the “Duck Plan.”
Who will be the UO interim pres? Bob Berdahl, of course. Former UO history professor and CAS dean, hired away to be U Illinois Provost, then U Texas President, then UC Berkeley Chancellor, then president of the AAU, and throughout all has kept his retirement home in Lake Oswego and cabin on the slopes of Mt. Hood. Very interesting that Lariviere asked him back to UO in a consulting capacity this fall.
Other than the “eroded trust” mentioned by the board last night and their seeming horror at anyone other than the status quo power players in Oregon politics trying to get involved in positive legislative change, I heard no actual complaint about RL, let alone anything that should constitute grounds for dismissal of such a successful and popular leader.
So what are the crooks on the SBHE getting out of all this? Is it just ego, or something more. A backroom deal with the governor about their own future?
Or do they honestly think hamstringing a great big OUS university in mid-sprint is good for any of the hundreds of thousands of persons and pieces of OUS other than (potentially) themselves?
As long as there is a central administration of Higher Ed., subordinates must work withn the system and their bosses must have faith in them. Same holds true at Nike or anywhere else.
I’m still trying to wrap my ahead around the idea that making autonomous decisions is somehow a sign that an institution isn’t ready for autonomy.
To make UO autonomous, should the Legislature remove all State funding (and let the autonomous university buy the campus from the State)?
Just Googled the Board Chairs Business, since he would not share this information with the public yesterday…
Search:
Forest Capital Partners, LLC
google results:
http://www.forestcap.com/Provides timberland investment services to the affluent.
My Opinion:
This just cracked me up…I think I know who wrote their tag line…What Unbelievable Bollocks!!
Anon above: What’s Berdahl like? I know faculty who can tell me how he is as a person, but as an administrator, that would be interesting to know more about.
I’d like to see Lariviere stay just because he’s at least sympathetic to the arts and humanities, though roots there don’t mean they’ll not think in dollar signs like corporate lackeys when they get into the office. He’s far from perfect but I shudder to think what the Board’s choice for UO governance would be like.
Anonymous — there is little doubt that legally the board had the right to do what they did — leaving aside the open meeting stuff — but even the most hierarchical organizations need to have trust of the subordinates in the superiors. Those who lived through Vietnam and saw the U.S. Army disintegrate will know what I mean. Fortunately things are not so dire here in Oregon — I mean, this isn’t a botched war — but the same dynamic applies. And then there is the matter of Uncle Phil. Will he go with the Duck Plan? Or will he eventually get disgusted and wash his hands of it all?
Richard — Close to the Duck Plan — but it is truly “private” not merely “autonomous” if the state is paid for its investment in the campus (which isn’t the entire value of the campus by any means). And remember, don’t forget the part Uncle Phil plays in this. But once he signs on, he won’t need our negotiating help.
I keep hearing these comparisons to the corporate world. Here’s another take.
Board of directors: OUS Board
CEO: Pernsteiner
Division manager: Lariviere
CEO to Board: I have this great divisional manager that’s been a top producer but I can’t seem to get along with him and get him to get in line. He’s kicking butt at the expense of some of my other division managers and I feel badly for them. He’s also arrogant.
Here’s what should have happened-
Board to CEO: We clearly need a new CEO. Can we talk to your division manager?
And the Board should also have said: This divison manager claims that there’s this entrepreneur, who has piled up $10 billion or so, and who has patronized one of the division manager’s subunits so well that it’s built into something great, and who the divison manager claims would like to build up the whole division, and maybe even buy it out at great profit to the parent corporation which we, the board, are responsible for — why don’t we talk to this entrepreneur guy and see what he thinks of our CEO, how our CEO is running our whole show — we can’t afford not to talk to this guy — we’d be remiss and maybe even at risk of legal liability not to — better call him right away!
I want to know whether Kitzhaber had any conversations with his friends at SEIU that swayed him to cut Lariviere loose. I know the SEIU folks were upset with the pay raises and I know that Kitzhaber considers SEIU a vital part of his electoral coalition. Interesting…
Dog to Roast Dog
Well, in the case of surviving Vietnam there is another side to this analogy. In a few cases your survival depended more on executing your own commanding officer than on enemy tactics. Incompetence at the top is one of main reasons for disintegration and this is always a difficult dynamic because incompetence is generally not subject to proper oversight. In principle, the General should execute the CO.
In the case of RL – there is no doubt that he was insubordinate because he had no respect for his superiors because they are incredibly biased, entrenched and largely incompetent in terms of what is needed to turn Higher Ed in Oregon around.
I view this as a no win situation but now the actions of the OUS board are quite public and in plain sight which I would hope invites strong legislative oversight and subsequent swift changes. In other words, I hope some of the generals have woken up due to RL’s sacrifice – but the again, maybe Oregon has no generals …
SEIU negotiates contracts with the Board. If the SEIU folks are upset with their pay they ought to talk to the board.
“I want to know whether Kitzhaber had any conversations with his friends at SEIU that swayed him to cut Lariviere loose. I know the SEIU folks were upset with the pay raises and I know that Kitzhaber considers SEIU a vital part of his electoral coalition. Interesting…?
Not likely. All the local Eugene pro-labor (supposedly) legislators have been against the firing. Kitz is not beholden to SEIU: He knows that he can do whatever he wants and they will still support him. It’s not like SEIU or any other labor organization is going to endorse and GOTV for a Republican.
In that analogy I think it would be more like “I have this division manager that doesn’t get along with any of the other managers, you guys, and the regulating agency that helps fund us. Also, he makes end runs that undermine the work of the entire company.”.
“but his division softball team always wins and he gets free shirts from Nike… And he also postures to his subordinates like he’s their champion, but he’s really an ego maniac”.
UO Matters:
Can you post the funding allocations to the different OUS universities? I would like to see how much the others leach off the UO.
Dog says
Most of this budget information can be found
here.
http://www.ous.edu/dept/budget/historical
UOMatters is pretty busy these days as they are frequently seen, head down, walking swiftly, manipulating an hand held device.
Take up a collection of funds to hire a lawyer to go after Pernsteiner and the OUS board in court. Get an injunction to put the termination on hold while the legal issues are sorted out in court. I’m sure that there are many people on and off campus that would contribute $$$ to this endeavor.
Question. Is the Chancellor voting in both districts/Cities/Counties?
This is old skool but ‘Things that make you go hmmmm….!’
Maybe Frohnmayer can be enlisted to do it pro
bono?
Solution: Sign Treetops over to the uomatters Foundation so we can all live in peace.
I cannot believe that supposedly intelligent people – professors, students, administrators, elected officials (granted, there’s nothing that says these positions have to be held by a person of intelligence) do not understand that the firing of President Lariviere had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with his ideas for funding, self governance, or even pay raises.
It happened because he repeatedly failed to meet the requirements of his contract, in particular his final one-year contract and the associated understanding of what he could and could not do.
If President Lariviere wanted to be a martyr for higher education, he succeeded. What he did not succeed at is bring about any of the change he says he wants.
Phil Knight bemoans the OUS board’s action in firing Lariviere, but I’d bet you a ticket in Matt Court that if an employee of his acted as Lariviere did, that person would be out the door before you could say Nike.
Chip Kelly says he was shocked. If his players decided in the midst of a game to start calling their own plays, they would not last long on his team either.
The OUS system may indeed be broken and Oregon’s entire approach to higher education in need of radical change. But the go-it-alone-we-don’t-give-a-shit-about-any-other-university-in-the-state-system attitude is both purposely arrogant and highly ineffectual.
The OUS board deserves our support for the difficult decision it made.
You’re right, Richard’s firing wasn’t about his ideas. He threatened their power and thus they fired him. He violated that farce of a contract, sure. That contract was merely an assurance that there be a way that they could legally fire him whenever they wanted; they knew he’d violate it.
He wants a truly independent governing board for the UO and they want the status quo. DO NOT believe anything the chancellor tells you about how they agree on ideas and how they are “at this moment” working on a new system of governance; they don’t and they aren’t.
I guarantee you that he and the SBHE will put forward a governance proposal that will add more bureaucracy, not less, and it won’t be in the UO’s favor (or any other OUS institution for that matter). He will propose keeping all the same powers they already have and essentially stripping the faculty of the governance structure we already have (UOMatters ought to submit a FOIA request on the documents of the OUS governance committee). They will probably change their name again to throw voters off their trail…
You can bring up all the Nike examples you want, but Phil Knight would likely never have hired a person he couldn’t supervise, which the chancellor admitted to doing and then assigning some mysterious “mentor” whom he won’t name. It’s complete and utter garbage.
OUS deserves nothing but our contempt.
“it won’t be in the UO’s favor”
The UO already failed to keep their collective head being cut off in speedy execution style. What leverage do UO have to change the Chancellor’s way bring on more harm to this University, esp. after his humiliation in Mac Court?
Some UO faculty thought other sister institutions might show us some support in our crisis and how disappointed they were when there were just silence. And even worse – more comments suggested its UO’s fault to think they are different than others and OSU and PSU should top UO as the state’s flagship university. Somehow OSU and PSU are homegrown and UO is a foreigner or step child.
What happened to our public relations in this state? I know one can not reason with cows. But if Nike can sell shoes to everyone successfully, can’t UO do something to win over more allies in the state so we are not so isolated?