CHC Dean Finalists are Richard Taylor (Physics) and Carol Stabile (Administration)

Links to application materials and surveys are at Details on Provost Woodruff-Borden’s attempt to subvert the Senate and shared governance are here. If you want to share in the pretense that the Provost gives a shit about your opinion, fill out the surveys by 10AM this Friday.

Taylor letter here. A snippet:

I would bring a natural passion to the HC Dean position. I have been passionate about the liberal arts since I was 10. Staring up at the Moon, I marveled at the scientists who had just landed a person on its surface. At the same time, I was in awe of those who could capture its beauty in their creative works. From that time on, I was determined to defeat divides between disciplines. This philosophy has served me well. I receive frequent invitations to talk about strategies to integrate the arts and sciences, including at the White House and for the Nobel Foundation. A student recently wrote to me: “It is not often that you meet someone who is capable of the kindness and generosity that you have shown me, a complete stranger. I must reiterate how much you have served as an inspiration to me, and many of my friends and colleagues who struggle to embrace their dual identity as scient(art)ists in this somewhat rigid scientific world we have chosen to be a part of. It is, as you have shown, possible to have both.” I am very fortunate that my career demonstrates the remarkable value of the liberal arts. My current research serves as an example. My work on bionic eyes emerged from my studies of Jackson Pollock paintings. If I hadn’t delved into the arts, my science wouldn’t be on the verge of potentially restoring vision to over one million people.

Stabile here:

My scholarly background has additionally prepared me for the interdisciplinary work of the CHC. With a PhD in English, I have directed a research center, held tenured positions in professional schools, English departments, and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies programs and departments, and served as an associate dean in the social sciences. I co-founded the New Media and Culture Certificate Program at UO and work closely with the Women in Data Science Conference at Stanford on initiatives meant to diversify the rapidly expanding field of data science. I like to think that the professors who taught me at my small liberal arts college would be proud. My commitment to the liberal arts owes much to those professors and the wide-ranging educational experience that established the foundation for my successes.

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to CHC Dean Finalists are Richard Taylor (Physics) and Carol Stabile (Administration)

  1. Vhils says:

    (Administration) lol i.e. She’s been in English, SOJC, WGS (and U of Maryland) and yet somehow she doesn’t have an ‘academic’ home. That’s not a red flag, nah.

    • honest Uncle Bernie says:

      Richard Taylor a good-natured guy who seems unflappable. He is interested in a lot of things a good fit for the HC. I hope he gets it. I wouldn’t bet the farm.

  2. Disillusioned Observer says:

    There are many reasons why Stabile is unacceptable for the position of CHC Dean. She is a hostile and abusive supervisor and falls far short of the “highest degree of personal integrity” specified in the job ad. The UO administration has a long record of complaints from faculty and staff whom Stabile has supervised across the university substantiating this. It took great courage for these individuals to speak up. Their stories and situations are diverse, but there is a strong common thread: Stabile’s behavior in their units was hostile and abusive, unit productivity in teaching and research was diminished, and the morale of its members suffered badly. Supervisors have conflicts with the people they supervise, but the Stabile case is way, way outside the envelope. The university has overwhelming testimony from respected faculty and staff across the university on this matter. It would be a betrayal of the university, its students, staff, and faculty, and a betrayal of the UO administration’s responsibility to appoint Stabile as Dean of the CHC. If they do, the union should formally protest and the faculty should walk out.

    • Title IX complaintant against Stabile says:

      I am one of those who spoke up. I filed a Title IX case against her at the suggestion of HR. Stabile has violated every respectful workplace policy in place. Every. Single. One. After a year of intense scrutiny with the same investigator (Kristin Binkley) with well over 1,000 pages of documented evidence, audio tapes and emails, Binkley was dismissed “due to illness” the Tuesday prior to the disbursement of the findings that Friday and replaced with Linda King, a retired former AVP with HR. I alone had 38 instances of violation of a hostile workplace within emails, documentation, audio recordings. King sent me a list of questions that I had already submitted evidence with and was included in my file. In addition, my notification said, verbatim: “The determination was that while some of the conduct you alleged was substantiated, there was no policy violation finding.

      With respect to the Grievance, the evidence showed that you experienced similar interactions with the respondent both before and after the grievance was filed. In order to substantiate retaliation, there must be a showing that you experienced different conduct and that the different conduct that you experienced would deter a reasonable person from filing a grievance.

      With respect to the Respectful Workplace Expectations Notice, the Community Standards Affirmation, and the Code of Ethics, the investigation did substantiate some of the alleged conduct….The investigator recognizes that Respondent’s direct communication style and the loss of autonomy that you experienced in your work were challenging. Nevertheless, as the supervisor of record, Respondent had the right to implement the changes that she did.”
      Meaning that Stabile can treat anyone without respect, make them targets, disparage them in front of other co-workers, be insulting in meetings, rage, accuse, put forth untruths and gaslight anyone that she supervises because “she has the right.” That’s NOT what the respectful workplace policy says, Linda King.

      • uomatters says:

        Linda King? Wow that name takes me back to the bad old days. I mean the even worse old days.

        • vhils says:

          Curious as to how much they paid for that outside investigator and why they did not allow them to complete their report…come on UOMatters, make a public records request for the contract, or do you only do that when it’s someone you don’t like?

          • uomatters says:

            You do know you can make the request yourself, right? If you’re scared use a pseudonym. I’d be happy to post whatever info you get. GCO Kevin Reed is deliberately delaying my record requests.

  3. Publius says:

    I have looked into the cost of other similar investigations via public records requests. I would imagine the cost of this was around $60,000-70,000 dollars. Maybe more. They changed the investigator to get the result they wanted—they have done this in two other cases involving complaints against administrators, most recently in the last provost search. (In that one, they paid the outside investigator $83,000 for about three months work to whitewash a candidate, but the stakes were more serious.)

    • uomatters says:

      So about the cost of a CHC Senior Instructor for a year. Maybe more, as it seems there have been multiple complaints to OICRC.

  4. UO Matters says:

    The latest rumor from down at the faculty club is that both the Senate and the Union have filed complaints about Provost Woodruff-Borden’s flagrant abuse of the UO hiring policy, which I suppose explains why no results have yet been announced.

  5. Never been part of CHC but very depressed by the spectacle says:

    The Carol Stabile debacle was a midterm exam designed to test how seriously the university takes resolving the “climate” issue. As she made it all the way to be a finalist, despite her terrible record, the university has failed this test over and over. Now they have a final choice: tell an obviously powerful but incredibly divisive leader like Stabile to move on and, if the second candidate isn’t a good fit, re-running a more inclusive search. Unfortunately, I think they will go the usual route: mass emailing employees that “we take climate seriously”. In light of this search, those emails feel like a slap in the face.

    I expect that Stabile will get the position she wants, as it was preordained. (How else to describe a process that did all it could to minimize the presence of alternative candidates and faculty input?)