Key Issues Delaying the Fall Semester at Oakland University

Undermining Tenure

The administration demands an unlimited right to hire “fixed-term” faculty instead of “tenure-track” professors.  Fixed-term faculty—hired per course, per semester, per year, etc.—would be employed at the discretion of the administration.  They would have no long-term commitment to the university, and the university would have no long-term commitment to them.  They would be cheaper than tenure-track professors, and they could be fired at the whim of the administration.  Fixed-term faculty could not afford to teach controversial material or to speak out against any administration proposal.  They would have no stake in essential committee work in departments.

How undermining tenure would affect students:  No qualified professor with any other options would take a job at OU under these conditions.  Under-qualified or unqualified faculty hires would be likely.  Undermining tenure would undermine the value of an OU education.

Critical Decision-Making Power (Governance)

The administration demands that faculty have no formal input into university policy-making.  This is the issue that we jargon-prone academics refer to as “Governance.”  If the administration wins on this issue, its power would be unlimited.  Administration control would include large decisions like whether to launch a medical school and how to pay for it, and micro-managing decisions like class sizes and the number of classes each semester that professors must teach.

How eliminating faculty input would affect students:  Do you trust the administration to make consistently wise decisions?  One crucial impact:  It is not farfetched to think that the profit motive would dictate educational policy.  Profits would increase by increasing class sizes—especially if those larger classes were taught by fixed-term faculty—and by having faculty teach many more classes per year than they do currently.  Total control by the administration would open the door for undermining the quality of an OU education. 

Intellectual Property Rights

The administration demands ownership of the faculty’s intellectual property.  This means that the administration wants ownership of our books, articles, laboratory experiments, and even our lecture notes and other course materials.  This follows the private corporation model of the employer, for example a pharmaceutical company, owning any patents or marketable products that are developed in its laboratories.  Historians shudder to think of spending a decade or more researching and writing a book, only to have the OU administration claim it as theirs once it is published.

How administration control of intellectual property would affect students:  In the sciences, it will be increasingly difficult to recruit faculty, who must apply for competitive grants, many of which will not be awarded to researchers who must hand over to a third party (i.e. the administration) the intellectual property developed with the grant money.  In another example, administrators would have the right to gain control of professors’ lecture notes and to hire inexpensive, fixed-term faculty members to teach the courses developed by others.  The “others” then become expendable.  This has already been done, although not yet in the History Department.  Administration control of intellectual property would undermine the quality of an OU education.

No Information About The Medical School

The administration refuses to reveal any significant information about the plan to start a medical school at OU.  The information that the faculty wants has already been submitted to the licensing body that must rule on the plan.  But the administration will not share the data with us.  It is impossible to discuss the state of Oakland University and to negotiate for a fair contract without this critical information.

How the lack of information about the medical school affects students:  Unless the secret information proves otherwise, it is hardly a stretch to think that the recent 9% increase in undergraduate tuition will be used primarily to fund the medical school.  The faculty is not opposed to a medical school per se, but we do not want to see the medical school built on the backs of our students.  Unjustified tuition increases limit access to higher education and limit the amount of time that students can devote to their classes if they are fortunate enough to scrape together the tuition.

Cutting Faculty Health Benefits

The administration demands significant cuts in faculty health benefits.  This would mean a smaller university contribution to premiums and less coverage from the available plans.  In addition, the administration has cynically demanded that the only way we can keep health benefits for same-sex couples is to accept slashes in health benefits for all.  OU can afford to maintain our current level of health benefits.  No one from the administration is making the case that the 9% tuition increase is necessary to pay for faculty health plans.

How cutting faculty health benefits would affect students:  This is obviously indirect, and we are aware that many students struggle with the cost of health care and are without insurance.  I’ll venture that healthier faculty members are happier and more productive for you.  And in a broader sense, somewhere, sometime, we have to stop the race to the bottom, or we will all be minimum-wage, uninsured drones.

Salary

I can honestly say that, with the exception of a handful of faculty members, this is the least of our concerns.  One standard line in the media is that the faculty are upset that President Russi received a 40% raise while we have been offered zero.  Who, other than the Board of Trustees, is pleased with the President’s raise?!?  But the standard line reflects lazy reporting.  I have spoken with a broad cross-section of faculty members on the picket line, and not one has indicated that he or she would be striking if the core dispute were about salary.  Indeed, every person with whom I have spoken has said that he or she would gladly take a three-year salary freeze if the administration would roll back the 9% tuition increase for undergraduates.

We are all sorry for the inconvenience and uncertainty that this delay is causing.  We are all eager to be in the classroom.  But we are standing up for the long-term health of Oakland University, which includes the long-term value of your degrees.  If OU becomes a diploma mill offering a marginal education, your degrees will be diminished.  This administration does not appear to care.