But still no substantive response from President Gottfredson on the Senate resolution calling for an end to athletic subsidies. In fact it looks like interim Provost Coltrane has allowed Jock Box tutoring costs (code 267830) to increase by 22%, from $1.8M to $2.2M:
7/23/2013: Pdf here. May 8th 2013 Senate discussion of this resolution, which passed 19 to 4, here. Video here.
This is much better than I expected:
One intent of the resolution is to ensure that athletics is paying an appropriate
share of the costs associated with tutoring and advising of student athletes
and for the arena. This is clearly an appropriate aim and one with which I am
fully supportive. More analysis needs to be undertaken to ascertain the nature
of these obligations while preserving legitimate expectations derived from the
existing agreements. We will expeditiously work to resolve these issues in
collaboration with athletics.
Of course these are just words and not actions. And the words are very different than the angry, dismissive ones we got from Sharon Rudnick and Tim Gleason today, when these subsidies were raised in bargaining.
This letter is now 2 weeks old. So, has Gottfredson’s position on this changed, is he telling different people different things, or did his bargaining team not get the memo?
Rob Mullens wants something in return. Guess what it is.
A pony? I got no clue. Just post it or email me.
He wants Women’s Beach Volleyball. Didn’t Mullens send the IAC the memo? It’s now a NCAA sport, they call it “Sand Volleyball”.
MG is lying to the Senate. Words only. I hear we’re also world class… among the best in the world, even. He thinks we’re awesome, too.
Would Anon specify the lies MG told to Senate?
Note: Re: “world class”: Although that is an exaggeration regarding some Departments, there is, without question, internationally recognized scholarship in some others.
MG is very good at stringing together a bunch of words that sound good but don’t mean a damn thing. He’s done very little to demonstrate respect for faculty or shared governance. Call them lies or just empty rhetoric – the result is the same…nothing.
I will give him credit for at least following the process laid out by the Constitution on this one (he still has not responded to the Senate resolutions to include the Constitution in the contract – which is now the only place it can be protected since the new board has all the power to get rid of it).
I can’t recall seeing a formal reply re “Constitution in the contract.” However, in no way has Mike simply ignored the resolution — he has made it clear that it ain’t gonna happen. At the same time, he has been explicit that, during his presidency, the Constitution will be upheld (see his website). Our best bet for long term survival of the Constitution is to demonstrate its effectiveness as an instrument for constructive, cooperative change. Own it. Use it. Defend it, when necessary, against real, not imagined, attacks.
So the fact that he has failed to “formally” respond to a resolution is somehow evidence that he fully supports the Constitution? Only a true-believer could employ that twisted logic. What evidence, beyond his clumsy rhetoric, do you have to support such confidence?
Oh, Dear. I do hope this Anon is not a member of the UO Faculty. If (S)he is, we should find out when UO started hiring Faculty who cannot read.
Notice that the line spacing changes halfway through the document–generally an indication of multiple authorship. The fact that administrative .pdfs are generally sent as crappily scanned copies, as opposed to machine-generated “originals,” might be viewed as evidence of a) general ineptitude, or b) the recognition that a quick look at a .pdf’s metadata (document properties) often exposes the real author.
Oh for Gawd’s sake. Who is dumb enough to write anything of consequence without subjecting it to editorial revision!
Information about what goes on in JH is so scarce people are reduced to inferences like the above. It’s like looking at pictures of Kim Jong-un’s entourage, trying to figure out who is in charge from the tilt of their hats.
Editorial revision? The kind that results in sloppiness like “pre-date” and “MacArthur Court” and “senate resolution” and “Fall Senate meeting”? And this tortured sentence: “This is clearly an appropriate aim and one with which I am fully supportive.”
Sigh. I know, I know, it’s too much to expect a high-ranking university official to write clearly and correctly. But if not a university president (or his designated writer-minions), whom should we expect to write well?
Whoever writes or “edits” this stuff for MG needs to find a copy of George’s Orwell’s essays and read “Politics and the English Language”. Twice. Then read Strunk and White’s “Elements of Style”, all the way through.
“Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.” – George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”
Our candidates for Coach AND President should be screened for their expository capabilities, if you ask me.
It’s hard work stringing so many words together that collectively have no meaning.
Are we all resigned to this just never stopping? What the hell is wrong with our leadership? Now Coltrane has lost his backbone? Granted he’s in a weak position, but only to the extent he is eying the provost position and has to kiss MG’s ass.
Who knew he signs as “Gott”?