Uptick in Retirements and Outsourcing Employment

You may or may not have noticed, but there has been a sharp uptick in the number of people electing to retire (in addition to all those ‘disappearing’ for other reasons). I would recommend everyone take cover in June because the stampede of people retiring may be somewhat akin to the buffalo thundering over the Great Plains. 

It’s gotten the point where it would be easier if Campus Weekly just printed a list of people who were still employed by UNCG.

The most recent person, but certainly not the last, that I have heard about is the director of undergraduate admissions. She’ll be leaving in June – seems like Bryan Terry’s aggressive charm may have been too much. Dr. Terry has terrorized his employees so much that even off the record, they are reluctant to talk about it. I can see why they would be less than enthusiastic about the possibility of turning to human resources for assistance…

What kind of impact has his presence had on enrollment? It’s hard to say, I’m sure there are some specifically worded questions that could be cagily answered that would address that. I do know that staff enrollment is declining – maybe we need a vice chancellor for employment enrollment. Oh, wait. Isn’t that what human resources was supposed to be? Fudge.

Here are some suggestions for administration on how to stanch the flow of faculty and staff to other institutions:

1. Tag and release. Implant a microchip in the back of the neck of each person working at UNCG. Then, when they ‘retire’ or ‘move on to better opportunities’ or ‘escape in the night taking all of their belongings with no notice’ we can learn where they are and send game trackers to bring them back to the flock.

2. Dogs. It works with sheep, plus we can have a vice chancellor of canines then.

3. Fencing. No, not the kind with swords, the kind with chain link, about 12’ high. Too bad we already built that tunnel under the tracks, so we’ll have to barricade that now as well. Set up a couple of check points, give the employees passports and make them check in. Of course, we’ll have to confiscate all 13’ ladders.

4. Leash laws. All employees found off leash will be subject to a fine.

5. Incentives. No, never mind, that one’s just crazy.

No matter. We’ll just outsource everything – we’ll become the first ever residential college with a solely online presence.

Defining Data at UNCG or Looking for a Single Version of the Truth

First, I have to admit that the title is not mine. I have nicked it from a capstone project presentation created by Sherri MacCheyne (whose name may ring a bell).

You may remember Sherri for a variety of things, but the one relevant here is her selection to be a member of the 2015 class of the UNCG Leadership Institute. Setting aside the idea held by some that she should not have been included given her role in the UNCG3 scandal, the capstone project she created has been uploaded as a youtube video.

Ironically, the video (whose artistic merits I will not address here…as evidence of my compassionate character) begins by stating that a university has many versions of the truth, all of which are dependent upon a specific definition’s use. For example, asking the registrar’s office how many full time students are enrolled versus asking the financial aid office may yield different numbers. The narrator states:

“So you can see why it might be a little difficult to understand, to the outside world why these numbers are different and this could cause and this could cause the university to be viewed as either lying or not knowing what they are talking about. And this is a real problem.”

I heartily concur.

When the university is perceived by the public as either incompetent or deliberately misleading, we have a serious and profound problem on our hands, regardless of whether or not we believe those perceptions are accurate.

MacCheyne proposed as part of her project to make a list of these kinds of terms and create a single definition for them that could be used to communicate across the university so that we were all working with the same understanding.

Excellent!

So, for example:

My definition of a hostile work environment is one in which my boss deliberately attempts to intimidate me, yells at me, belittles me in front of others, makes me cry, and generally makes me feel worthless.

Edna Chun apparently defines a hostile work environment as only being one in which a white supervisor deliberately attempts to intimidate me, yells at me, belittles me in front of others, makes me cry, and generally makes me feel worthless only and specifically because of my minority status (ie not just because the supervisor is an asshole) AND I have filed an official complaint.

This might lead Edna Chun to answer the question: “Was there any evidence of a hostile work environment?” by saying, “No.” Whereas, I might have said, “Yes.” Thus leading people to believe two very different versions of the truth exist side by side. Sure a bit of clarification such as Chun stating that there were no “official complaints” or that the only ones who complained were white people and so it was not necessary to protect them might have made all the difference.

So you can see why working from a single definition might be extremely helpful both to those employed at the university and for those in whose eyes we hope to maintain a positive image.

You could almost say, “egregiously” so.

Almost.