- Associated Press - Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Oklahoma newspapers:

Tahlequah Daily Press, Aug. 11, 2014

University pay disparity hurts faculty, students

When NSU officials announced they were seeking a 5.9 percent tuition and fee increase for the fall semester, you could almost hear the collective intake of breath from hundreds of students, who were already just scraping by.

The hike sounds steep, but comparatively speaking, it’s a pretty good deal. Even with the increase, NSU is still the second-cheapest public university in the state. But just think how much more affordable NSU would be if it trimmed some of its bloated administrative budget, and passed on the savings to students. And imagine how many more students would be attracted to this unique and eclectic campus if officials opted to hire more full-time professors, rather than cutting corners with a growing cadre of adjunct instructors.

TDP’s recent four-part series shone a light into a shadowy corner where higher ed officials would prefer the public not look. Across the nation, administrators are pricing the vast majority of today’s young people out of an education. Though NSU’s recent hike is relatively modest, it’s one in a series occurring like clockwork on all campuses. And the added burden might not have been necessary if such a big chunk of the budgets weren’t earmarked for salaries and perks of employees who have no direct impact on the educational process.

Many area residents agree. When they got a glimpse into how much money some university officials are pulling down, compared to the meager wages on which most local folks must subsist, they were stunned. Some were angry.

A number of employees called TDP to report certain individuals in the NSU hierarchy had expressed outrage because the newspaper published their salaries. That information is a matter of public record, and the beneficiaries know it. But acknowledging the public’s right to the information is one thing; seeing it in black and white, and realizing how the average Cherokee Countian will react, is quite another.

Yet the salaries of NSU administrators themselves, as exorbitant as some may seem, aren’t as disturbing as the overall disparity on the payroll. Hard-working custodians, who must clean up after slovenly students and messy mucky-mucks, average around $18,000 a year. They get a decent vacation package, along with health insurance, but the retirement system is where lower-paid employees get a raw deal. An employee must contribute 7 percent every month until he hits the $25,000 mark each year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that whereas the $18,000-a-year employee will never catch a break, the NSU president - who makes $222,000 a year - gets almost all his retirement courtesy of Oklahoma taxpayers.

Dr. Steve Turner’s pay is about par for the course for a university leader at his level. But he also gets a car to drive, access to a travel budget, and a house to live in that, by local standards, is essentially a mansion. And when it comes to maintenance and utility costs, the university picks up the tab. Still, Turner’s compensation package isn’t the main problem. After all, he has years of experience, a doctoral degree, and presumably a proven track record. The same is true for presidents of the other presidents in the Regional University System of Oklahoma. The glaring issue is the top-heavy administrative staffs, which are squeezing out tenured professors, keeping long-time lower-end staffers on poverty wages, and forcing more young people into perpetual debt. With self-serving and short-sighted legislators devoting fewer dollars every year to higher education, the top-heavy trend is untenable.

Some RUSO administrators have nebulous duties and sparse credentials, yet they take in high five-figure or even six-figure salaries. New positions have been created for friends and relatives of prominent patrons. Since it’s difficult to give raises to employees unless they’re across the board, some were promoted to boost their pay. It’s a gambit university officials have long used to reward employees who do an exemplary job - and unfortunately, some who are adept at little except bussing the bums of their superiors.

It would appear Turner wants all his vice presidents to have advanced degrees, and that’s a reasonable goal. NSU and other universities are in the business of selling education; it’s an insult to those who study there to have top-level officials who can’t or won’t advance past a bachelor’s. In fact, all executive officers should have higher degrees; to put it bluntly, anyone working in higher education who can’t get a higher education projects a pretty poor image for his own institution.

Associate and assistant vice presidents, who are presumably moving up through the ranks, should also be working on advanced degrees. And unless he or she has decades of practical experience, anyone who is a director, assistant director, or holds any other position of substantial authority, should have at least a bachelor’s degree. Again, if you won’t buy your own product, what does that say about its quality - and what does it say about you?

The NSU budget sends an especially disturbing message to highly qualified professors; theirs are among the lowest salaries in the state, in stark contrast to administrator pay. Several tenured professors have told TDP they’re beaten-down, unhappy, and just biding their time until retirement - and who can blame them? While almost all of them have master’s degrees, and many have doctorates, administrators with far less education, experience and observable skills are paid much higher salaries. It’s an insult to the professors, and an affront to education.

What can be done about this situation? It starts with our elected state officials, who approve the increasingly skimpy higher education budgets. Then it moves to the regents, who have their own agendas to push, and their own flatterers to reward. Until public outcry reaches such a cacophony that elected officials fear being booted from their lofty perches, the people working in the trenches of higher ed will continue to be marginalized, while the more connected desk-riders who know little, and do even less, will be rewarded again and again. Faculty and staff morale will plummet, the quality of education will slip, the reputations of universities will falter, and ultimately, a degree won’t be worth the price of the parchment it’s printed on.

That will be ironic, since no one will be able to afford the degree, anyway.


The Oklahoman, Aug. 8, 2014

Anti-texting legislation long overdue in Oklahoma

An editor at USA Today wrote this week about getting struck from behind as he drove along a Virginia highway on his way home from work. The other driver was speeding. She admitted to being engrossed in a conversation with a friend when she smashed into his vehicle.

“Whether by phone or text, it matters not,” John Siniff wrote. He also noted, “I’m one of the lucky ones.”

Michael Youngs wasn’t so lucky. Youngs, 46, died Monday night after parts of an Oklahoma City pizza parlor fell on him. Police say a motorist dropped her phone while driving and as she reached to try to pick up the phone, the van drifted out of its lane, traveled through an intersection, jumped a curb and smashed into the building.

Some might call it a freak accident, a case of a man being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet this accident goes to another point made by Siniff:

“Too many parents are burying teens whose fatal mistake was to respond to an incoming text. Too many families are shattered because of the selfish impulses of a tech-crazed culture mesmerized by glowing screens.”

He’s right, yet Oklahoma remains one of the outlier states that’s chosen not to act to try to curb cell phone use at the wheel. Forty-four states outlaw texting and driving, according to USA Today; Oklahoma isn’t one of them.

The state does ban texting by teenage drivers for a short period of time after they’ve received their driver’s licenses. But all attempts to ban the practice by anyone outside that small window have been rejected.

The argument is made that Oklahomans can already be cited for distracted driving, so banning texting (or using handheld devices) at the wheel would be redundant. Another argument is that enforcement would be difficult.

Yet we can’t ignore some of the many statistics related to distracted driving, such as:

- At any moment during daylight hours, about 660,000 drivers in the United States are using handheld cellphones. Surely, that’s far more than those applying lipstick or reaching for a soft drink.

- According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about 3,300 people died in 2012 in accidents caused by distracted driving.

- Texting while driving increases by 23 times the likelihood of getting into an accident. Taking your eyes off the road for as little as 2 seconds doubles your crash risk.

In his column, Siniff cited a report in the August edition of the Journal of Public Health, which found that texting bans have led to a 3 percent decline in traffic deaths among all age groups. Teenagers aren’t the only offenders.

We feel strongly that putting a law on the books that says you can be cited and fined for clicking away on your smartphone while at the wheel would affect behavior. It wouldn’t end texting and driving, but codifying a ban would make drivers of all ages think twice before reaching for the phone.

Most every other state has figured that out. It’s time Oklahoma did, too.


Tulsa World, Aug. 11, 2014

Should the state allow concealed guns on college campuses? No

Three legislators want the state to consider removing the ban on licensed concealed weapons on college campuses.

The proposal is due to be considered by a legislative study panel this fall. It is strongly opposed by state higher education officials.

“To put our university students, faculty and staff at risk this way makes absolutely no sense,” University of Oklahoma President David Boren told The Associated Press.

Michael Robinson, Oklahoma State University’s chief public safety officer, said he is concerned about an increase in suicides, the third-leading cause of death among people ages 15 to 24.

“It defies common sense to think a campus would be safer because we have more weapons on campus,” Robinson said.

We believe in the Second Amendment and support the state’s move to allow licensed concealed weapons. When that law was passed, there were those who said it would lead to Wild West scenes on city streets. They were wrong.

Keeping and bearing arms is a civil right. Concealing them is a licensed privilege in Oklahoma, meaning the state can regulate who does it and where they can do it. For example, you must be 21 and pass a firearms safety and training class to apply for a license.

The concealed weapon law outlines several places licensees cannot take their guns, including prisons, city council chambers and professional sporting arenas.

Except for a few narrow exceptions, college campuses also are off-limits. We think it ought to stay that way.

We think the college officials ought to do what they do best - educate. We hope they will be at the legislative study to show the facts behind their position. In the end, legislators should listen to our higher education experts. If they can show that allowing concealed weapons on campus makes school less safe, then it would be foolish to change the law.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide