Went to Hays' speech at 1:30 today.  About 200 folks there - mostly students.  The essence of his talk was the gaps between tuition and fees, inflation, and academic budges since 2005.  Of course he threw in some slides on ICA too.  What he proposed was an $8million plus cut in administration this year, $4.1 million cut in athletics and having athletics be self sufficient within three years and return academic funding to at least 2005 levels (don't quote me on that one because I was trying to memorize all of his slides).  Quite honestly, it was thought provoking - the non-athletic part that is.  Tuition and fees in particular and inflation have both soared compared to academic funding since 2005.  Anyway, if anyone else was there, I would love to hear your perspective on what he said today.

I was not impressed.  He spent more time reciting poetry, pushing the "empower the students against the admin" agenda, and showing broad data on President McDavis' time here relating to the budget concerns instead of saying anything about athletic spending, which is what that specific event in the broader conference was supposed to be about.  His budget points were so broad and without necessary supporting data that I could take nothing from it.  The little he did  say about athletics wasn't anything special.

This confirms my assumption that Hays is just using athletics because it gets his name in the paper.  He is anti-admin, using the anti-athletics ticket to make that known.

I've got qualms with Vedder and Ridpath too, but I feel they are MUCH more informed speakers for events like this (athletic bashing speeches).  Hays needs to stick to telling us about what the Irish said, what the Greeks thought, and showing youtube videos of the Lord of the Rings...

Oh yeah, and holding Cardinals in his hand.  

Edit:  My mistake.

From wikipedia:

A teach-in is similar to a general educational forum on any complicated issue, usually an issue involving current political affairs. The main difference between a teach-in and a seminar is the refusal to limit the discussion to a specific frame of time or an academic scope of the topic. Teach-ins are meant to be practical, participatory, and oriented toward action. While they include experts lecturing on the area of their expertise, discussion and questions from the audience are welcome. "Teach ins" were popularized during the U.S. government's involvement in Vietnam. As an example, a teach-in at the University of Michigan in May 1965 began with a discussion of the Vietnam war draft and ended with the logistics of a takeover of the University.

It appeared that there was some effort to mimic this description in that there were no chairs in the Baker ballroom and everyone just sat on the floor.

And finally, here's a link to the chart he showed:

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~hays/Budget/flyer.pdf

To my knowledge, this was the only session that dealt at all with ICA.  There were about 20 or 25 sessions dealing with education and funding as well as group issues (women, minorities, etc).  Most sessions were on the second floor.  I only attended two.

I'm going to guess that more than a few profs allowed their students to go to the session instead of class or even offered extra credit.

These clowns need to spend some time outside the bubble that is a tenured professorship in Athens, Ohio.  In the real world, you have the right to call your CEO "Mubarak" in a public forum, but you'll  also have to pay the consequences.  When I worked in downtown areas, I paid handsomely for parking and have always had to contribute toward my health insurance. As much as they hate to admit it, profs are only part of a much larger "product" that must survive in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Universities that want to grow have no choice but to invest in value-added features that enhance the overall campus experience and help raise the visibility of the institution.  Those that don't adapt to this reality will see declining enrollment and reduced revenues.  And with that will come draconian cuts in non-self-supporting educational programs such as the one represented by Mr. Hays.  The guy (and Vedder) would whither in any other profession with more accountability.

Yes and the irony is that even "safe" recession proof jobs like those with tenure at a university are starting to come under fire. Government workers are hitting the panic button over pensions. State budget forecasts across the country look bleak. To be fair, there are top flight faculty that have been in industry or could be successful there. Its obvious though the model for the future is that promient research professors will survive while skilled "generalists" with industry geared PhD's will teach ad hoc courses to students as leveraged resources across universities. You could easily pay 1 super generalist 25% more to take on the instructional workload of 3 Steve Hayes.  

SBH hit the nail on the head. (Yeah, I said it)

If I compared my boss to Hosni Mubarak in a public forum of our peers - I wouldn't have a job the next morning.

Why should this joker Hays be given immunity in a similar situation? Because his chosen profession is higher education? C'mon.

Guy is a clown who should be job searching right now.

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~hays/Budget/flyer.pdf

I don't even know why I give this any time when it just pisses me off, but the "data" in his chart falls flat in a number of areas that would allow anyone with some minor critical thinking skills to simply dismiss.  Its nearly as credible as Rich Vedder's polling skills:

1. First, put numbers in terms of percentages and not the actual dollars to make your martyred viewpoint look far more graphic than it is in reality
2. Then, title the chart one topic, but then list lines on the graph that represent things other than what the chart is referencing
3. Third, completely ignore that only 3% of a student's tuition and fees funds ICA (hence the need to use percentages in the graph instead of the real numbers)
4. Finally, completely ignore the fact that the State of Ohio reducing funding to higher education the last several years is nearly the exclusive reason that DOLLARS have had to rise as they have in the last several years. (in 2011 the SoO will reduce its funding to Ohio by $25MM, more that the entire ICA budget)

Do these things and you end up with a pretty compelling chart.

I'm also intuiting that Steve didn't volunteer for the group that the BoT and Rod acted several years ago (roughly 2008) to initiate the recently launched, $460MM Promise Lives Capital Giving Campaign to attempt to fill the gap left by State funding decreases, relieve the burden now place on students AND FACULTY by the State funding reductions and assure the University that it will not have significant long term cash flow issues. (Alan, feel free to correct me if I am wrong and he indeed point out this very responsible and forwarding thinking action by the BoT and Rod.)

Have you seen the brochure in support of the campaign?  If not, I'd recommend you all request a copy or visit Ohio,edu to read up.  The brochure is HUGE, and there is only one picture of a student-athlete (DJ against Georgetown), AND ONLY ONE FOUR WORD SENTENCE IN THE ENTIRE 28 PAGES THAT REFERENCES INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS!  But there is a whole 'lotta dialogue around donations funding endowed chairs for jerkwads like him.  Guess he hasn't see that yet.  I'm just disgusted Rod and the Board are doing noting in the face of budget cuts!

For God's sake, does this guy even work at Ohio?!  Does he just choose to only present negative issues as he perceives them to try to bolster his case?!  Doesn't seem to be particularly intellectually honest, but that's just me.

If Ohio's students aren't smart enough to get all the facts and choose to take Steve at his word, then no offence, but we need new students. (I take it back, I might mean some offense.)

+1

IMHO, this graph leaves a lot to be desired if it is really trying to show anything meaningful.  Looks to me like the author hasn't had too many math or business courses where one would learn how to put data together in a graph/table to show something meaningful.

These people are embarrassing themselves and the University.  I now know why the Athletic Department and the administration do not acknowledge these weirdos.  They are too busy laughing at them.  I'm for everybody having a voice, but come on!  Instead of listening to these jokers I would be firing them, not for speaking out against the administration, but for shear stupidity and devaluing our degrees.

If you only gain an audience of 10 people to listen to you, while half naked in a homemade skunk suit in the middle of the day at the center of campus, you don't have a message worth hearing.

Thanks for the personal signature.  That is the funniest thing I think I have ever read on here.

EXACTLY!  Your faculty at work with your tuition money!  0% of tuition money goes to ICA.  ZERO!  The support they get from the institution comes soley via student fee money. 
The next time students get frustrated with how their tuition is being spent, they should watch this video. 
And honestly, is that REALLY a "skunk" costume?  I thought I knew what a skunk looked like until I saw this video.  Now, excuse me while I bleach my eyeballs.