Anyone who thinks that bureaucracy moves slowly is probably unaware of “The Deal” — the latest OUS scheme to “save” higher education — which is currently moving through the various governmental layers at warp speed. Not familiar with it? In place of solid information, rumors quite naturally abound. OUS has, for example, vehemently denied that what is being proposed involves “privatization,” but certain tell-tale odors suggest otherwise.
Take the concept of putting the results of research up for bid to private corporations. Assuming this is part of the plan, then one must ask oneself: Does this kind of profit-oriented philosophy have any place in an institution built and maintained, at least in part, on the taxpayers’ dime?
And tuition? According to the Emerald (“Students, University agree on tuition plan,” ODE, Sept. 30), there will be no limit on how much students must fork over, other than some vague notion that it will “not be more than half the cost”– whatever that ultimately turns out to be. A cap on enrollment is mentioned, but based on what criteria? GPA, or ability to pay? One hopes OUS will nobly claim the former, but if higher education is to become a “for-profit nonprofit,” then one can only wonder.
Which brings us to the faculty. If you’re into research, then you’ll probably do well. But what kind of revenue is there to be had from music, dance, ethnic and women’s studies, anthropology, geography, creative writing, etc.?
Of course, we classified employees will get the butt-end of the stick, as usual. The talk is of pulling out of the PERS retirement system, which will then be replaced by “something else,” and the same with insurance. What “something else” will actually be is, again, unclear, but it is difficult to picture a better “deal.”
As for collective bargaining: If the seven universities are cast out to fend for themselves, then the resources for negotiation are split — and it is difficult to believe that has not been taken into consideration over at Susan Campbell.
Years ago, OUS separated from the rest of the state for many of the reasons now being restated (i.e., fewer “pesky” regulations to follow) and with many of the same promises (greater efficiency). Apparently the first try didn’t work; are we to have more faith now?
As to the first point: Sometimes, much as we might hate them, many regulations are effected for good reasons — to prevent bureaucrats from abusing power. And the second point: The promise of “greater efficiency” simply has not materialized.
Indeed, with the unregulated increase in the number of officers of administration to a point where, according figures taken from the ODE and other sources, there are two officers for every three classifieds — the people who do the real work.
Maybe therein lies the beginning of a solution: If one were to cut back the number of officers to a reasonable level, return those positions that were inexplicably removed from classified status, and cut redundant managerial and administrative posts as well, then millions of dollars per year could be saved at the University alone. Now there’s a “deal.”