BY EVONN WELTON

In 2011, The University of Akron received an award from the American Psychological Association for being a healthy workplace environment. 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 the 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 the 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 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 an 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.

Guest blogger Evonn Welton is professor of curricular and instructional studies and an intervention specialist at the LeBron James Family Foundation College of Education at the University of Akron.