What does it mean?

Below is a message received today, Wednesday, September 19, 2007, from new BGSU Provost Dr. Shirley Baugher. I am not sure what to make of it, what exactly it signifies, or where it will lead, although I am nervous about its mention of both the Spellings report and a European commission, both of which seem to be interested in the standardization of higher education. I am all for access, and increased access, to higher education, but I find myself nervous about exactly this sort of rhetoric (or, I should say, around the rhetoric and ideas in the Spellings report, which I take to be largely at odds with truly successful higher education).

I also note, with some worry, this description from the email of the tripartite purpose of higher education: “personal/professional development… developing citizen engagement in our society… sustaining competitiveness in a global society.” I feel decidedly old-fashioned in insisting that I care primarily (if not only) about the second part of that list, although I hate the nominalization “citizen engagement.” As an educator, I am most interested in helping students to become the best, smartest thinkers that they can be in order that they might best be members of (and promote the ongoing creation of) just societies. But I fear that education is sliding more and more toward professional development, seen as a way to maintain or improve a certain form of national corporate competitiveness.

Ohio prepares to stick it to university staff

Saw the following press release recently:

“Statewide civil service reform to benefit classified staff”. Looks like a doozy. I don’t see where, in the description, there’s much “benefit” to classified staff (in the form of, oh, say control over the workplace, wage and benefit raises, etc.). What we have instead are sentences like these:

“A 1999 IUC report cited a need for greater efficiency in many aspects of state government.”

 ”universities need greater speed and agility to compete for the most talented and diverse staff; [...] the nature of staff job duties has shifted dramatically over the past decades, requiring new conceptualization of the employment arrangement [...] greater efficiencies are needed on our campuses if universities are to be nimble enough to adopt world-class practices and attract top-caliber faculty and staff.”

I cannot thing of an example where language like this didn’t translate into something more along the lines of “the powers that be in the state house want it to be easier for controllers to hire and fire at lower wages, fewer workplace protections, etc., all in the language that defends these choices as if they are necessary for efficiency.”

 There is language in the press release relating to “protections,” but I worry that will prove slim. The language I mostly see (especially about “greater efficiencies” and “world-class [not even "best" anymore!] practices” and universities needing to be “nimble”) it sounds mostly like the kind of language used to justify fewer protections, fewer benefits, and fewer (and smaller) raises for staff at state universities in Ohio.

 Universities are between a rock and a hard place. As the state continues to abandon its role of providing broad-range services to its citizens, the unversity is pressured to become more and more like a corporation out to maximize profits and get the most work for the least money out of its labor force. What worries me is when the university’s own press release mechanism