In this issue:

• All-Library Faculty Ad Hoc Census Data Group
• Triage Training Begins
• Bargaining Survey
• Ohio Divisive Bills Updates
• Next Chapter Meeting

All-Library Faculty Ad Hoc Census Data Group 

Introduction 

Librarians at the University of Cincinnati are in the midst of a quiet but increasingly dire workforce crisis. Since 2000, there has been a 36% decline in the numbers of overall library faculty (from 56 to 36 librarian faculty). Librarians work at one of four library jurisdictions: the largest jurisdiction, UC Libraries (UCL) which consists of 10 locations across east and west Clifton campus, the UC College of Law Library, UC Blue Ash College Library, and UC Clermont College Library (ref #1). Most of the loss has been driven by declines in the largest UCL jurisdiction, which has suffered a 26% decline of its librarian faculty numbers since 2015 alone (from 34 to 25 UCL librarian faculty). Despite growing enrollments and a continued high demand for library collections and services, faculty positions have not been replaced at the rate at which they’re lost through retirements and resignations.  As a result, the services, collections, and remaining faculty of the libraries are suffering under great strain, with serious ramifications for the educational and research mission of the university. 

 Impact on Student Education and Librarian to Student Ratios 

As UC’s enrollment has grown, we employ below the number of librarians needed to serve our growing student population. Not all librarians work directly with students, but the work of all librarians is essential to providing the services, instruction, and collections necessary for student academic success. When capacity allows, librarians can provide high-impact practices that enable student success such as embedded librarianship in courses or having direct interactions with students. Faculty who work with library faculty find improvements in student projects while students gain a vital connection to university resources and experience performance improvements. With decreasing library faculty numbers, those meaningful connections that impact student learning become difficult if not impossible for those who need it most. 

According to the most recent available data from the American Library Association (ref #2), the average doctoral institution librarian to student staffing ratio is 1 librarian to is 587.61 students (derived from 30.68 FTE librarians per 18,028 students). However, at the University of Cincinnati, our librarian to student ratio is dramatically below the average for other doctoral institutions. In 2019, the librarian to student staffing ratio across the entire university was 1 librarian to 1,258.49 students (of any enrollment type, based on IPEDS fall enrollment head count) (ref #3). 

Peer Comparisons for Library Employees 

The University of Cincinnati is a member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), a group of 120 research libraries across the United States and Canada. The Association of Research Libraries routinely gathers data about its member institutions, including expenditures on collections and staff, staffing levels, and collections holdings. One way to contextualize the staffing situation at UC Libraries is to look at the “aspirational benchmarks” the University has provided in other venues. The institutions UC uses as aspirational benchmarks routinely vary, but a recent list can be found in the recent “Report of the Graduate School Envisioning Committee” (ref #4) commissioned by Provost Kristi Nelson. 

The report included 10 institutions as benchmarks: Nine of these are ARL institutions, except for University of South Florida.  

1. Georgia Tech, Atlanta, Georgia 
2. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 
3. Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
4. University of California San Diego, San Diego, California 
5. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 
6. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
7. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 
8. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 
9. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 
10. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 

With only one exception, every benchmark institution has a larger workforce than the University of Cincinnati Libraries. The majority of these benchmarking institutions have much larger library workforces than the University of Cincinnati. The median value of all these institutions’ library workforce is 235 (inclusive of professional and support staff classifications), over 100 more employees than UC’s 130 employees in 2020 (ref #5).   

Impact on UC Faculty Scholarship 

Professionally trained information professionals build library collections that faculty rely on for their scholarship. Without sufficient faculty librarians, the size and specificity of collections will diminish to the detriment of scholarship (ref #6).  

Having the tools necessary to do good research and scholarship is a major selling point of any institution. Having a well-resourced library with trained faculty supporting the collections and specialized services can draw high impact researchers and scholars to join our faculty and can also help retain them. This will attract more graduate students to our institution, helping us in the long term (ref #7). 

Impact on the Global Research Community   

It’s not just UC faculty, students, and staff who rely on the library resources. UC has important and rare Special Collections materials that many international researchers use, such as those at the Archives and Rare Books Library, Classics, DAAP, Oesper History of Chemistry collections, and the Health Sciences Library’s Winkler Center for the History of the Health Professions. Due to the very small numbers of employees in each of those locations, faculty and staff at these libraries can rarely keep up with user demands of these collections through in-person use and scanning requests, while also managing the daily work of caring for these rare and precious materials. Librarians who work with metadata, digitization, and cataloging are also essential to care for and promote library collections. These areas have also had significant librarian declines in recent years, meaning we are falling farther behind in critical areas of digital collections and digital preservation. 

Among ARL member libraries reporting dedicated Special Collections staff numbers, UC has below average staffing, ranking 68th out of 81 reporting libraries. The median value is 9 FTE Special Collections Professional Librarians, in 2020 UC only had 5 FTE Special Collections Librarians (ref #5). 

Conclusion 

Despite rising enrollments and a focus on research in Next Lives Here, UC has failed to invest in its library faculty who perform vital work that contribute to faculty research and student success at the university. The decline in library faculty negatively impacts collections management, research support, and academic and curriculum services. These ongoing losses of faculty librarians impacts the university’s ability to flourish and generate the excitement and innovation described in our President’s vision. As the union moves into bargaining, we offer this data to AAUP members to inform our colleagues and to seek prioritization of actions to halt the ongoing decline of library faculty.  

References 

1. The 10 libraries of the UCL jurisdiction include Archives and Rare Books, CCM, CEAS, CECH, Chemistry-Biology, Classics, DAAP, Geology-Mathematics-Physics, Health Sciences, and Langsam. https://libraries.uc.edu/about.html 
2. Kathy Y. Rosa, “Academic Libraries. The State of America’s Libraries 2019,” American Library Association, 2019, http://www.ala.org/news/state-americas-libraries-report-2019.  
3. “IPEDS Enrollment Survey,” National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, retrieved August 23, 2021, https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/builder/ipeds_e.   
4. “Report of the Graduate School Envisioning Committee,” Graduate School Envisioning Committee, September 2020, https://mailuc.sharepoint.com/sites/Provost/SitePages/Graduate-School-Task-Force-Issues-Final-Report.aspx.  
5. “Annual Library Statistics,” Association of Research Libraries, retrieved October 18, 2021, from https://www.arlstatistics.org/analytics.     
6. Danielle Cooper and Oya Rieger, “What’s the Big Deal?: How Researchers Are Navigating Changes to Journal Access,” Ithaka S+R, June 22, 2021, https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.315570.   
7. “The Value of Academic Libraries,” SCONUL, retrieved October 25, 2021, https://www.sconul.ac.uk/page/the-value-of-academic-libraries.  

Triage Training Begins!

Are you a member who is interested in getting more involved with your union?  Are you maybe interested in working directly with other members to help them through contractual and other concerns and help alleviate the workload of our staff members?  If so, please consider joining us! The AAUP-UC is searching for members willing to serve on small committees that will work directly with other members on contractual issues such as Article 7 RPT concerns, Article 15 equity issues, APR reviews, and workload documents. We have begun forming committees, and we are starting to train members this week. On Wednesday, November 10, from 11:00am – 12:00 noon, we will be conducting a virtual training on how to help members with Article 7, RPT issues and concerns. Training will continue throughout November and December, and the plan is to have committees in place and ready to help with triage by early spring semester.  There is still plenty of time to get involved and help do your part in keeping our Chapter strong and engaged as we head into a bargaining year. If you are interested in attending the virtual training on November 10 or in joining another committee, please contact Cassie Fetters at fettercd@ucmail.uc.edu.

Bargaining Survey

As most of you likely know, the terms of bargaining unit faculty employment are determined by a Collective Bargaining Agreement that the AAUP-UC Chapter negotiates with UC’s administration. Our current CBA with UC is set to expire on June 30, 2022, and thus we will begin work on our next agreement with UC sometime in mid-spring semester. 

The Executive Council has begun planning for the upcoming bargaining session, and an essential part of this process is to collect faculty input regarding which issues you feel are most important to bring up at the table. As part of this process, the Council has been listening to your comments at Chapter meetings, and, also, to those that you have sent via the Chapter Associates. They’ve also taken into account concerns raised at Faculty Senate and other governance gatherings. 

A crucial component of this information-gathering process, however, is the Faculty Bargaining Survey, a survey we send out each fall before negotiations begin. This measure allows the Executive Council to gain a clear sense of the entire Bargaining Unit’s current priorities. Please be on the lookout for an email containing a link to this survey, and, once you receive the link, please take a few minutes to fill it out. In order for our Chapter leadership to best address your concerns, we need to hear from you! 

Ohio’s Divisive Concepts Bills

Updates to HB-327 and SB135 can be found on the Ohio Conference AAUP website:  http://ocaaup.org/news/legislative-updates-hb-327-sb-135/

AAUP-UC Chapter Meeting

Our next Chapter meeting will be on Thursday, November 18th at 12:30 via Zoom.  Details with the Zoom link and agenda will be emailed to our members soon.  We hope to see many of you there.

In this issue

• Delta Dental
• Divisive Concepts Bills at the Statehouse
• Administrative Salaries Arms Race
• MOU Vaccine Mandate

During the last enrollment period, UC began using Delta Dental instead of Anthem to administer our dental plan. We’ve received a few anecdotal complaints about Delta Dental, and we wanted to clarify what UC’s obligations are and aren’t in regards to the dental plan. UC is free to switch administrators of the health or dental plan as long as the new plan offers the same level of coverage. The deductible, the co-pays, and the percentage covered should be the same as well as the types of procedures covered. The list of preferred providers (PPO) can differ from plan to plan, and UC is under no obligation to select plans with similar lists of providers. If your dentist is not a PPO for Delta, you may still see them, but you will only be reimbursed for the out-of-network rate, which may be less than what the dentist charges and you are responsible for the difference. For more details on coverage, please see the 2020 Summary of Dental Plan Benefits and the 2021 Summary of Dental Plan Benefits. The Budget and Compensation committee is tracking complaints about Delta Dental, and you can email Amber Peplow at amber.peplow@uc.edu to register a complaint.

“Divisive Concepts” Bills at the State House 

At the Chapter Meeting on September 9th, members voted unanimously to endorse #TruthBeTold Higher Education working group’s efforts to oppose House Bills 322 and 327, as well as similar legislation in other state and local governments. You can view the slides from Emily Houh and Steve Mockabee’s presentation on these bills here: https://aaupuc.org/ 

In brief, HB 322 and 327 would prohibit the discussion of “divisive concepts” in classrooms. HB 322 is directed primarily at K-12, while HB 327 has a much broader focus, including Higher Ed. HB 327 is a clear threat to academic freedom, as it restricts faculty from teaching as they see fit based on their expertise. The bill would also threaten the employment of faculty who do not adhere to the bill’s restrictions and would impose draconian cuts to state funding of a college or university where a faculty member violates the bill’s provisions.   

These bills are not yet law. You can help maintain the integrity of education in Ohio. Here are a few actions you can take: 

• Submit testimony to oppose bills – see Honesty for Ohio Education how-to and action resources at all levels – OH Statehouse, State Board of Ed, and Local School Boards & Districts 
• Sign the “Save Ohio Higher Ed” (SOHE) Solidarity Pledge [to sign, scroll to bottom of page] 
• Talk to faculty friends and colleagues who might not be obviously or immediately interested  
• Check/request action from your various disciplinary professional associations  
• Support our K-12 educator colleagues! → See BLM At School for ideas 

• National #TeachTruth Day of Action – kicks of 2021-22 Year of Purpose 

• AAPF #TruthBeTold Higher Ed Working Group – email houhe@ucmail.uc.edu  

• Model faculty senate resolution – forthcoming  

• Teach-in – Oct 14 “National #TeachTruth Day of Action,” commemorating George Floyd’s birthday  
• Endorse AAPF #TBT Higher Ed Working Group’s work 

A first round of testimony on the bills took place on Wednesday, 9/22, during a session of the House State and Local Government Committee, and additional hearings are planned. Stay tuned for updates. 

In case you missed it:

Rising provost salaries attributable to ‘arms race’ in higher education, faculty say

In an article by Quinlan Bentley, The News Record examines  salaries for top administrators at the University of Cincinnati.   > Click HERE to read the full article

MOU Vaccine Mandate

The AAUP-UC Chapter and UC have agreed to a basic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the effects of UC’s recently announced COVID-19 vaccine mandate. A copy of the MOU is available here.

For those unfamiliar with MOUs, they are frequently necessary when new issues or unforeseen circumstances arise in the middle of a contract term. For example, in 2020 the AAUP and UC agreed to an MOU in 2020 regarding the impact of the COVID pandemic on the reappointment and tenure process. Unless an MOU results in significant changes to the compensation or benefits of Bargaining Unit Faculty Members, they are approved by the Chapter’s Executive Council.

The University did not approach the AAUP to negotiate whether or not it would implement a vaccine mandate. Whether or not a public employer is required to negotiate with its employees’ unions over a vaccine mandate is currently a hotly contested legal issue. Some states, including California, have ruled that the employer is not required to bargain over the issue. Other states, including New York, have ruled that the employer is required to bargain. The UC Administration did, however, work closely with Faculty Senate to survey all faculty to gauge support for a vaccine mandate. That survey showed significant support for the mandate. In addition, the Administration approached the AAUP to negotiate the effects of the mandate, which resulted in the current MOU.

The MOU itself indicates that UC will make both vaccines and testing available to members of the campus community. It also states that UC will provide a medical and non-medical exemption form and process for agreeing to such exemptions. Decisions by the Administration on exemptions are final and not grievable. Finally, the MOU makes clear that faculty who decline to provide proof of vaccination or fail to complete testing if they receive an exemption could be subject to discipline, but are entitled to the due process protections outlined in Article 9 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In August, the AAUP National issued a statement urging university administrations to prioritize health and safety as campuses reopen (https://www.aaup.org/news/aaup-urges-administrations-prioritize-health-and-safety-campuses-reopen#.YU3fhi-B1qs). That statement made clear the AAUP’s position on vaccinations and the science supporting them:

“The way forward is to vaccinate as many people as possible, follow masking guidance, and provide regular testing. Institutions of higher education exist to serve the common good. As sites of knowledge creation and scientific discovery, our colleges and universities are uniquely situated to provide leadership by amplifying and promoting trust in CDC guidelines and putting in place sound public health policies and practices, which should include making vaccination easy and convenient for all members of the campus community.”

The AAUP-UC Chapter supports this statement, and encourages everyone to do their part in these historically challenging times.

TO: President Pinto

FROM: Connie Kendall Theado, AAUP-UC President

DATE: August 26^th, 2021

RE: COVID-19 Communications

CC: Provost Ferme, College Deans, AAUP-UC Bargaining Unit

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on the entire University of Cincinnati community, and it has been an exceptionally difficult eighteen months. As the professional organization representing the collective interests and workplace rights of more than 1,700 faculty at UC, AAUP-UC remains committed to being an effective partner who works with the Administration to fulfill the core academic missions of teaching and research. To that end, we are increasingly concerned about several ongoing communication issues that have unnecessarily complicated the return to campus for faculty, students, and staff.

Over the past several weeks, for instance, we have received numerous phone calls and emails asking for clarification regarding the information provided by the University about COVID-19 safety protocols and policies. A recurring concern from faculty focuses specifically on how various colleges and campuses have been receiving different and sometimes conflicting information about these very protocols and policies. The issues currently causing the most concern and confusion among faculty include:

• The UC COVID Check app, specifically how and when to use it;
• Mask wearing, particularly how the stated policy will be enforced and by whom;
• How and when PCR testing will be requested or required;
• And most recently, President Pinto’s decision to Tweet out an important announcement about the University’s position on vaccine mandates, rather than using official channels of communication.

From an institutional perspective, especially on a matter as serious as a global pandemic—which we know the Administration also takes very seriously—communication of vital information, like the concerns listed above, should be shared in a unified, consistent manner and from a centralized source. In other words, it should not be left to each college administration or individual academic unit heads to interpret and craft a message about COVID-related policy decisions or rules from the President’s or Provost’s offices. We strongly urge the Administration to revisit their communications model, which is not meeting the moment, and instead reach out to all constituent groups and shared governance bodies with unified and clear messaging.

In a recent statement on the re-opening of colleges and universities, AAUP President Irene Mulvey called on “campus administrations to do everything possible to ensure the highest level of health and safety,” noting that:Institutions of higher education exist to serve the common good. As places of knowledge creation and scientific discovery, our colleges and universities are uniquely situated to provide leadership by amplifying and promoting trust in science and CDC guidelines as well as putting in place sound public health policies and practices including making vaccination easy and convenient for all members of the campus community.”

In the spirit of shared governance, AAUP-UC is ready to work with the Administration to address the pressing concerns faculty have shared with us and that we are now sharing with you—including the critical question of vaccine mandates to protect our own health and wellbeing as well as the health and wellbeing of everyone in our UC community.

We are committed to promoting and assisting this work in any way we can.

Respectfully,
AAUP-UC Executive Council

What’s in this Issue:

Joint Budget Committee Report Inspires Beginnings of Progress
Response to President Pinto
Ordinary life amid extraordinary times

Joint Committee Report Inspires Beginnings of Progress

The Faculty Senate/AAUP-UC Joint Budget Committee was formed in Spring 2020 to analyze the Covid-19 pandemic’s impact on the UC budget, evaluate the extent of shared sacrifice across colleges and non-academic units, and identify strategies to preserve the core academic mission of instruction and research. After months of collecting information, conducting analysis, determining recommendations, and crafting all of this work into a presentable form, the Committee released its report in November 2020.

The report’s key short-term recommendation was for the current 8% across-the-board budget cut mandated of all colleges to be reduced to a cut of 3%. Longer-term recommendations centered on 1. challenging the idea that permanent budget adjustments are the way to improve the quality and growth of every UC college and 2. questioning the university’s increasing tendency of outsized spending on activities not central to our mission.

In order to ensure continued collaboration with University administration, Faculty Senate and AAUP have outlined clear goals and next-steps. For example, along with directly emailing the report to university leadership upon its release, hard copies were also printed, bound, and mailed in January 2021 to President Pinto, Provost Nelson, the Deans of all UC colleges, and all members of the Board of Trustees. Additionally, the delivery of the report was accompanied by an immediate request for regular meetings between the AAUP-UC Budget and Compensation Committee and the Vice President of Finance to facilitate in-depth budget discussions.

AAUP-UC and Faculty Senate were thus pleased to receive a response in late January, with an invitation from Provost Nelson, Senior VP for Administration & Finance Robert Ambach, and VP for Finance Pat Kowalski to meet on February 11 to discuss issues raised by the report. On that date, Amber Peplow (Chair of AAUP-UC Budget and Priorities Committee), Erwin Erhardt (Chair of Faculty Senate Budget and Priorities Committee), and Greg Loving (Chair of Faculty Senate) spoke with this group to determine first steps in creating a more transparent budgeting process that more significantly incorporates faculty voices.

In this productive meeting, members decided:

•  the administration would provide training on UC’s budgeting practices to the Senate and AAUP Budget committees in order to help alleviate the steep learning curve that all members, especially newer ones, face in analyzing and interpreting UC’s budget documents
•  the administration would assist the AAUP and Senate Budget committees in conducting “deep dives” on topics of budgetary concern as they arise for each group
•  the Chair of the AAUP-UC Budget and Priorities committee will now join the university Fiscal Coordinating Committee, a committee containing representatives of multiple constituencies from across the university where budgeting information and decisions are communicated
•  the Chairs of the AAUP and Senate Budget committees have met with the administration to talk about how to improve the ways that UC budget information is communicated to the AAUP.

The Faculty Senate/AAUP-UC Joint Budget Committee report has hopefully, then, provided an impetus for needed changes in the way UC determines how to allocate its all-too-finite resources. We only need to look at fellow public Ohio universities like Wright State and Akron that have been devastated by financial mismanagement to understand that UC cannot afford to eliminate faculty input into how its money should be spent. AAUP-UC and Faculty Senate look forward to continue moving from these early steps towards a more truly shared budgetary decision-making process between UC administration and faculty.

Response to President Pinto

In the Faculty Senate and AAUP Joint Budget Committee Report, the committee recommended the 8% permanent budget cut enacted in response to COVID-19 be rolled back to 3% cuts. At the January 14 Faculty Senate meeting, President Pinto addressed the administrations’ position on rolling back the 8% permanent cuts and indicated that those funds would not be released until the end of the pandemic. Dr. Pinto commented that academics are the highest priority, but expressed concern that there was too much uncertainty over possible expenses that the university could incur before the pandemic is over. Specifically, he pointed to the fact that the dorms are not and cannot be as full as they have been in past years due to COVID-19. At the time of the meeting, he reported that enrollment was down slightly for Spring as well. He also suggested that if funds were leftover, he in consultation with the deans would decide how to reinvest the funds in the University. While I greatly appreciate President Pinto being forthcoming and upfront with his intentions regarding the budget cuts, I want to point out a couple of inconsistencies in his position.

• First the type of expenses for which Dr. Pinto is holding these funds in reserve are temporary in nature, but the cuts are permanent. This follows the university’s trend over the last decade of diverting funds away from the academic mission of the university, instruction and research.
• President Pinto contends that the university will always need funds to invest for the future of UC, but I ask where are the funds to invest in the students of today? How can we claim to be focused on the academic mission when year after year the funds spent in these areas decline on per FTE student basis and total dollars spent fail to keep pace with inflation?

Shortly following this meeting, several announcements were made that continue to put UC in a more favorable financial position. Governor Dewine rescinded $100 million of the original $110 million in budget cuts to higher education on January 22. Stronger than expected sales tax numbers led to the reinstatement of these funds. Although previously the administration has argued that reductions to SSI are permanent in nature, this announcement clearly indicates that this is not the case under the pandemic and surely with 91% of the funding returned to higher education the 8% budget cut need not be permanent to the colleges. On January 25, the Enquirer touted that UC athletics had $7.7 million unspent in their 19-20 budget. Instead of holding college funds hostage, perhaps these funds could be held in reserve for investment in UC. In addition, UC is set to receive $39.2 million dollars from the Covid-19 relief passed by Congress in December. In this round of Covid relief, UC must use at least $11.7 million for student aid, but the remaining $27.5 million may be used to offset university wide Covid-19 expenses.

As detailed in the Faculty Senate and AAUP Joint Report, the financial impact of Covid-19 has been minimal because it was offset by CARES act funding and strong enrollment. With this additional positive financial news, the case for returning funds to the college is even stronger. At this time, the administration has failed to make a clear and detailed case to justify these cuts on a temporary basis, let alone a permanent one. Even if a case was made for large upcoming Covid-19 expenses, the Joint Report recommends that these funds come from non-academic areas. Covid-19 expenses should not be funded at the expense of the quality of the current students’ education or of the invisible uncompensated labor of faculty and staff. The fat has been sufficiently and thoroughly trimmed at the college level. In fact, many colleges are at the point of cutting muscle and bone, and some have hit marrow. Rather than continuing to starve the academic programs, UC’s administration needs to reverse cuts that were made to the colleges and invest in the students of today and tomorrow. Given the solid financial base of the university, we don’t accept that it is adequate to say that you are stripping the colleges of finances for some unknown future investment.  We need to know where and when the university is going to invest that money in the educational mission of the colleges.

1. Other administrators have also expressed concerns over the cost of Covid-19 testing at other times.
2. At the same meeting, the Provost noted that enrollment was only down by approximately 300 students compared to Spring last year. In addition, UC has announced a record number of applications for Fall 2021, which are up by 8%. UC is expecting to set another record-breaking enrollment in Fall 2021.

Ordinary life amid extraordinary times

Hi everyone. It’s been almost a year. I don’t know about you, but I miss people. So I thought we could add a bit of fun to our regular communications: if you’d like, please share with us a picture from your 2020/2021 at-home life style. I’ve included two here, to start us off.

The first photo is of is my cat, up in my husband Don’s new-to-2020 home office (our guest bedroom). Her name is Matter Energy Transfer Beam, but we call her Mattie. She is definitely enjoying having both her humans around all day, every day.

The second picture is of my efforts to make a little indoor green space in my own home office. The center piece, a huge jade plant, has been travelling with me for about 18 years, and I’ve had the little cactus almost as long. The pothos was draped all over my office at school, and come home abruptly last March, with all its poor little tendrils stuffed into the pot. Once, I almost killed the jade by overwatering it—a rookie mistake—but I saved an upper branch, re-rooted it, and here we still are.

We’d love to see you, your pets, your kids, your alphabetized bookshelves, whatever has been an important part of your life this last year. It’s been tough, I know, but I also know you all have shown extraordinary professionalism, patience, and innovation as you strive to provide our students and our research community with your continued talents.

Send your photos and thoughts to: phoebe.reeves@uc.edu