Last Friday, the Ohio University Board of Trustees reviewed a comprehensive evaluation of OU President Roderick McDavis. Taking student, faculty and staff opinions into consideration, the board delivered a fair critique of the president's successes and failures during his tenure at OU.
Just kidding. The trustees acknowledged constituent dissent in that they presented it as an obstacle to leadership before exalting McDavis for his accomplishments at OU.
And should anyone be surprised? This is the same board that approved a contract extension for the president in June that raised his base salary by $85,000, even in light of the myriad criticisms being leveled at him.
McDavis has faltered plenty of times in the past year. His actions have suppressed student and faculty participation in university affairs. Shared governance - in almost all its forms - has gone out the window on many occasions. Budget proposals and spending have been at best misguided and at worst careless. And, as we mentioned, there's the massive raise allotted to him, despite votes of no confidence from both students and faculty and financial constraints that have left faculty salaries inert.
It makes matters worse when the board downplays student grievances. Student opinions matter, and they shouldn't be swept under the rug because only a small percentage of them are vocally displeased. The individuals raising a stink are the ones who are actually informed about the state of university affairs, but the trustees would rather shield the president from student dissent than address it directly.
McDavis has a hard job. Being the president of a major university is no stroll in the park. But the board has heaped praise on the president and simply ignored most of his faults. It claims to acknowledge faculty and student dissent on campus, but its actions don't show that. We're left with a review that smacks of administrative slant and the sincere feeling that the gap between administrators and everyone else will only continue to widen. An us vs. them mentality is being manufactured, one dishonest review at a time.
4 Opinion
Board downplays campus dissent
