BY SUE RAMLO
My name is Sue Ramlo, and I am on the cut list—or as I like to call it, the Hit List. There are ninety-six of us on the Hit List, over 70 percent of these faculty are tenured faculty members at The University of Akron (UA), as I wrote about in yesterday’s Academe Blog post. I wanted to let everyone inside UA and elsewhere know what it is like to be on the Hit List and receive notification from your university that your services are no longer desired.
I just completed my twenty-sixth year at UA. I have been a tenured full-professor since 2003, the same year I completed my PhD in education at UA. I teach Technical Physics, Software Applications, and Programming for Technology—courses that are not replicated elsewhere at the university and that serve a specific set of students in engineering technology and applied science associate and bachelor degrees. Since my initial appointment as an Assistant Professor of General Technology-Physics, my position has been in the Department of Engineering & Science Technology in a college now called the College of Applied Science and Technology (CAST), formerly Summit College and before that the Community & Technical College. CAST was recently eliminated in an administration driven reorganization that lacked any meaningful shared governance.
I have loved my career at UA. I have been the Outstanding Teacher Scholar (UA), recognized by Ohio Magazine as an outstanding instructor, and honored at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) as an outstanding researcher. To quote a mentor who recently wrote a letter of support for me that was sent to the Chair of the Board of Trustees and the President of UA:
Professor Ramlo is now at full stride in her career and is publishing at a terrific rate (about 50 articles and 100 conference presentations) while doing yeoman’s service in the classroom at both graduate and undergraduate levels, for which she has been recipient of numerous teaching awards.
Yet, on July 15th, the day our Board of Trustees (BOT) voted to cut ninety-six BUF, the woman who has been my Acting-Dean for less than a month sent me an email invitation to a WebEx meeting. At that moment, I knew I was on the list.
Our meeting that Thursday took about five minutes. She told me what I expected—that I was being fired. I asked what criteria had been used to select me. Her response was simply that my student evaluations were very good and my faculty evaluations (by various department chairs and deans) had always been exemplary. She explained that it was simply financial. I asked about my full classes. I asked who would teach my students. She had no idea even though it was just five weeks from the start of the fall semester. With the cases of COVID-19 steadily increasing in Ohio, the challenges for preparing for fall were vast. Yet there seemed to be no acknowledgement of that fact. She seemed to think that perhaps my students would have to take substitute courses. I am worried about what will happen to those students in the fall. Going to college during a pandemic is stressful enough for any student. Placing students into a situation that does not cultivate their success seems unconscionable to me.
In the meantime, the university administration has continued to create videos and send e-mails to faculty and students about the importance of voting to ratify their last best offer to Akron AAUP. They have used fear and misinformation in these communications. A UA dean said disparaging things about our Akron AAUP president, forcing her to respond to those comments as well as the continued misinformation broadcast by the administration.
There are numerous reasons why the UA administration wants ratification of their final, best offer. Current grievances about their declaring FM will not go to arbitration if the offer is ratified. The administration has offered a (pitiful) severance package to those on the Hit List that they will receive this money ($1,200 per year of service, up to $12,000) only if they agree not to pursue legal action against the university. The administration has implied that if the offer is not ratified, they will be forced to follow the current contract’s financial exigency article by laying off lower ranked, untenured faculty members. These statements gloss over the strategic nature of the financial exigency working in the contract that also includes due process and shared governance.
I do not believe approving the contract is a good idea for many reasons… and not just because I am on the Hit List.
I want to borrow some fine words from my friend and colleague Michael Graham, Professor of History at UA. I cannot possibly do a better job than Michael did in putting thoughts about the potential ratification of the proposed contract on a Facebook page (where NT is Negotiation Team):
Just because our NT had to bargain in good faith, it doesn’t mean that we, as union members, have to approve that “best and final offer”. We will have the opportunity to vote on it, and if we reject it, all matters will go to binding arbitration, where some of the administration’s claims about its true financial situation may face a skeptical audience, as well as questions about whether THEY have been bargaining in good faith. What we get through arbitration might well be better than the administration’s “best and final offer”, even if it’s still not great. More importantly, we as a chapter will then not go on record as having agreed to faculty layoffs without proper notice. I personally will find it very difficult to vote for any arrangement which allows faculty to be laid off without notice for anything except demonstrable incompetence or malfeasance.
I am certain that our administration would like to break the union. Trying to get the union to agree to faculty layoffs (including tenured faculty layoffs) without proper notice looks like an administration trying to use the pandemic crisis to achieve that goal. Many of us might breathe a sigh of relief this week upon learning that we are not on “the list”. But if we as a union endorse the kinds of layoffs which are rumored, then we will have surrendered on a critical question. Even if you’re not on “the list” now, you may find yourself on it next time, or the time after. In that sense, you’ll always be on “the list”.
As I reached out to friends and colleagues about my situation and to ask about theirs, some asked about my thoughts regarding approving the proposed contract. I thought of Michael’s words, but what I said wasn’t nearly as eloquent:. I’d rather go down fighting than blindly accept the university’s severance package; fighting for justice is just more my style.
I believe that this is a pivotal moment for the university and her faculty. Although part of me is heartsick about this situation, I am angry. I am angry not just because I have been targeted and placed on the Hit List despite my credentials, but because I believe that this is an attempt by the UA administration to break our union (or at least weaken it considerably) and eliminate tenure.
My message has been, let’s fight not only for ourselves but for our colleagues, for our students, and for our university. Let us fight for faculty’s right to organize across the United States. The world is watching.
Now that I know more about this situation, I am in complete support of the faculty at UA. As a former administrator, I know that there ARE authentic situations in which FM and financial exigencies have to be invoked to save an institution. However, this sounds like MAJOR overkill; most such financial disasters in academia can be dealt with with minimal firings (esp. of tenured faculty), reassignments, or other cutbacks — or slightly increased tuition. (All not great choices but better than the meat axe!)
What gave it away for me was Sue Ramlo’s depiction of the UA administration’s methods and its ultimate unconcern about the impact on students. It may be that the union is PARTIALLY to blame (as I’ve indicated earlier in a related post) by not demanding an airtight contract in the past or by not threatening strike by taking a strike VOTE (perhaps without having to actually go to the barricades or picket lines), but may be “blood under the bridge” at this point.
Perhaps an ACTUAL strike, including adjuncts, that would shut down AU, would bring more public attention to the circumstances — and the university’s duplicity — and create a space for real negotiations, rather than administrative fiat. A strike would also impinge on UA’s ability to garner tuition funds because, in these pandemic times, many students and parents will shop elsewhere for an education, further dragging down the university’s coffers.
Good luck!
As one reads more of the communication from the Nation’s academy, it becomes clear, somewhat startlingly, that our country’s college professors apparently see themselves as public, federal workers, in a “protected” public employee scheme as far as their expectations and culture are concerned (it’s even worse in the secondary sector), and that the private market-based economy is rather a complete stranger to them; indeed it is shunned and even ridiculed. But higher education is in fact a business, and universities are corporations–literally. So: Welcome to the real world. In that world, companies merge, fail, shrink, grow, and most of all, they change. Those who adapt live, those who do not, perish (sort of like publishing). It’s likely going to be a bigger battle than this current civil war scrimmage–this is just the tip of the spear, so get ready. It will be good hunting.
Situation at Akron is certainly concerning. And to the commentor, Matt above, I could not disagree more with you. Health and education are not commercial, for-profit sectors. Keeping that misguided notion aside, you completely miss the point that the process at Akron was not transparent, and no due process was followed. So are we to do business without ethics, where ends justify means. No wonder we have corruption rampant at all levels in our society.
In 2011, The University of Akron received an award from the American Psychological Association for being a healthy workplace environment https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/05/good-work. What a profound and sad irony that in less than ten years, it has become a place of financial hardship, possible injustices, fear, anxiety, and pitting faculty against faculty. It has become a place where academic pursuits, and most importantly the education of students, have potentially taken a back seat to bitterness and academic mediocrity. It has become a place where excellent tenured full professors were terminated, yet other faculty with less experience remain. Others without such accomplishments may be hired to replace them at a lower cost.
It seems incredibly illogical that faculty members of this high quality were singled out; however, further scrutiny suggests a potentially disturbing trend. There has been speculation that this was a “hit list” against those who had the courage to question administration. After all, who better to eliminate than those with a belief in shared governance and tenure? Who better to silence than the very individuals who were not afraid to say that the “Emperor has no clothes”? This is all speculative, but it has been noted that in many cases, there does not seem any defensible criteria used to justify the elimination of these faculty members.
Despite the barrage of media questioning and criticism, the administration has steadfastly maintained that this was a necessary and solemn decision. According to administration, there is nothing to see here, just move along. Supposedly, the administration did not want to do this, but they were “forced” due to Covid 19 and financial crises. Just ignore it and the gruesome and fearful examples will be soon gone. Elimination of these individuals will make everything ok. Then, “we can move forward”.
Is “forward” the appropriate term to describe the future? Regressive and oppressive seem to be much better descriptors. The faculty that remain may just quietly “do their job” trying to stay under the radar. Fear and anxiety may be the unspoken undercurrent. Because of the fear of potential retaliation and a profoundly weakened union, no one may make a move out of step. No one may dare to voice an opinion counter to what the “persons behind the curtain” deem to be acceptable. It may be next to impossible to attract high quality scholars. It may become a sinkhole of mediocrity where sadly, the student learning and even the betterment of society will be pulled down with it.
The seemingly random (or maybe not) nature of who was targeted seems to send a message that those who are left can do nothing to prevent it from happening to them. What happens if there is further financial hardship due to continuing concerns regarding Covid 19? No amount of outstanding teaching, research or service may protect them. No contract protections can help them. There is no longer any individual control of consequences. The environment becomes random and capricious. Everyone may be apprehensive because they have observed what happened to their colleagues. These are the same colleagues who were once outstanding examples of the professoriate but now they have been eliminated. Unpredictability is no way to exist in a workplace and UA certainly appears to be incredibly far from the healthy environment that it was only nine years ago.
What does “forward” look like for the list of terminated faculty? This reduction in force has come at a time when the levels of depression and anxiety are on the rise due to Covid 19. Some of those impacted may already be dealing with personal loss or illness. Some may be single parents or taking care of their own parents. Some may have chronic illnesses. For some, this may mean bankruptcy. For others, it will mean trying to find another job when hardly anyone is hiring. For those seeking new employment, there may always be a crumb of doubt regarding why this particular applicant was on the reduction in force list. To the general public, and perhaps even some in higher education, the termination may imply in a stigma that can impact an individual’s reputation and job prospects.
While these impacts are speculative, one thing is certain. Those on that list have spent years and years obtaining graduate degrees. They have spent years refining courses. They have spent years publishing, writing grants, doing presentations and service. Most recently, they have stepped up and gotten their courses online so that student success and learning was not interrupted. While we do not necessarily know why they were eliminated, we definitely know of their contributions.
Hopefully, none of these fears come true but it certainly appears that there is the potential for very negative outcomes for all involved. This may have ramifications that extend far beyond a small urban university in the Midwest. This could well be the first nail in the coffin of what used to be higher education, academic freedom and a workplace environment that was at one time, all about critical thinking and intellectual growth.
I have already expressed my support for the faculty at AU, especially those who were terminated.
However, I’ve noticed that none of the commentators above have proposed solutions to the university’s financial woes: increased tuition, reassignments, cutbacks in non-essential expenditures, etc.
One can blame the administration for failures in the past, but what should be done NOW? Of course, if AU is really not in financial difficulty then they’re just lying and cannot claim FM. But if there are real financial problems, maintaining the status quo will not solve the problem.
Most core program’s professors such as polymer science or engineering are not on the list or they simple don’t care about this. People who are actively fighting for this really don’t have a workable solution as to what should be done except protesting and posting on media
Pingback: UA in the News | Akron AAUP