On Jan. 7, extreme Kentucky lawmakers passed right-to-work legislation. In Ohio, such legislation also has been brought forth locally by West Chester Township trustees, and also was touted in a recent op-ed in The Enquirer that suggested Ohio should enact a statewide right-to-work law. A more thoughtful analysis shows that right-to-work would be very wrong for Ohio.
2017 JAMES C. AND CHARLOTTE PARADISE SCHOLARSHIP
The University of Cincinnati Chapter of the American Association of University Professors announces the award of a scholarship for the 2017-18 academic year. The amount of the award is $2000. Eligible nominees include any U.C. undergraduate at the level of Junior or above, who will be a full-time student at the University of Cincinnati for the academic year 2017-18. Students can be nominated by any AAUP Bargaining Unit faculty member.
The Paradise Scholarship celebrates a partnership in life and law. James Paradise was the legal counsel of the UC AAUP through five years and three collective bargaining agreements. His expert knowledge of labor law was schooled by ten years as a National Labor Relations Board trial examiner and a General Counsel of the Brewery Workers International Union. His commitment to academic freedom was demonstrated by his tenure as President and board member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Charlotte Paradise was a teacher, an active member of the Cincinnati Women’s City Club, and her husband’s legal secretary for more than a decade. Their careers and civic activities exemplify the excellence which the scholarship is intended to reward.
Nominees should have good academic records that evidence an ability to do serious study and a willingness to accept challenges. Equally important, however, will be evidence that, in life outside the classroom, the student exemplifies the unselfish commitment to community service, concern for others, and willingness to defend human rights and civil liberties that characterized the lives of James and Charlotte Paradise. Activities that are undertaken as part of membership in social or fraternal organizations will not be taken into consideration for the Paradise Award.
If you know a University of Cincinnati undergraduate whose life displays these qualities, please nominate by sending his or her name, address, telephone number and email address to the campus office of the AAUP:
We will contact all nominees to invite them to apply.
THE DEADLINE FOR NOMINATIONS IS FEBRUARY 8, 2017; APPLICATIONS ARE DUE, MARCH 10, 2017. THE AWARD WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE APRIL 13, 2017 AAUP CHAPTER MEETING.
2017 Elections Schedule
In 2017 AAUP-UC will be electing executive council members and representatives to the national AAUP Annual Meeting. Following are timelines and more information. Contact the AAUP Office with questions or for more details.
Executive Council Election:
Seats Up for Election:
- Chair, Political Action Committee
- At-Large Member
January 9 – Nominations will open (form will be emailed)
February 13 – Nominations close and names are announced. A second nomination period will begin.
February 27 – Deadline for additional nominations
March 1 – Candidate statements emailed to members
March 3 – Voting begins
March 17 – Voting ends and winners announced
April 1 – New officers take office
Nomination forms must be submitted to the AAUP Chapter Office (ML 0176, 450 Dabney Hall) in hard copy, with the signatures of at least 2 Chapter members in good standing.
All terms are for two years.
Election of Delegates to the National AAUP Annual Meeting:
February 16 – Postcards announcing the election mailed to members’ home addresses
March 1 – Email announcement of the election schedule
March 10 – Nominations open (form will be emailed)
March 29 – Nominations close
March 31 – Candidate statements emailed to members
April 3 – Voting begins
April 11 – Voting ends
June – Delegates attend the meeting
The University of Cincinnati AAUP congratulates Neville Pinto on his appointment as the 30th president of the University of Cincinnati.
The AAUP voiced repeated concerns about the selection process. President Pinto was not involved in the design or implementation of the search process. Its failings should not reflect poorly on him or otherwise taint his presidency at the outset. The AAUP is eager to begin working with him to maintain and build upon UC’s tradition of excellence as a teaching and research university.
The AAUP is glad that the Board of Trustees heeded the chapter’s warnings about hiring a president without experience in higher education and an academic background. This, combined with the problems with the search, could have proved to be particularly unfortunate.
Still concerns about the search process remain. It was not the “open, transparent, and collaborative” process that was promised. Student and faculty input was severely lacking. It has previously been noted that the University of Iowa was sanctioned by the American Association of University Professors for “substantial non-compliance with standards of academic government” after its deficient presidential search. It appears that the UC presidential was conducted in a more secretive manner and with less student and faculty input than the Iowa search.
AAUP-UC will continue to examine this critical issue and explore alternatives in the upcoming weeks. Ideally, this will include, along with the UC Faculty Senate, a dialogue with President Pinto and the Board of Trustees about the principle of shared governance and its application in future searches, including the upcoming search for provost.
We will keep the faculty informed. Look for future communications on this issue.
The UC Board of Trustees has made a last-minute announcement that it will hold a weekend meeting to announce the next president of the University of Cincinnati.
UC faculty have consistently made it clear that UC’s next president should have experience in higher education, as well as an academic background, in order to fully appreciate the work that happens at a public university. Hiring a president without that experience would be a serious concern to UC faculty. This practice has failed at other institutions, notably and most recently at the University of Iowa and the University of Missouri.
The presidential search process was billed as being “open, transparent, and collaborative.” Regardless of the outcome, this search has not met those criteria. Instead, the process was shrouded in secrecy and required strict confidentiality agreements by search committee members. The Board of Trustees provided no information on candidates who were finalists for the position, and gave no opportunity for input on candidates by the broader University or Cincinnati communities.
Faculty are left with the impression that the UC Board of Trustees has a disregard—if not outright disdain—for well-established practices, principles and contractual agreements on openness and academic governance in a public university.
The University of Iowa was sanctioned by the American Association of University Professors for “substantial non-compliance with standards of academic government” after its deficient presidential search. It appears that UC presidential was conducted in more secretive manner and with less student and faculty input than the Iowa search.