A civil war is building in Akron, and like most such conflicts, it promises wreckage that will be difficult to overcome. The source of the division is the presidency of Scott Scarborough at the University of Akron. Many in the community, including prominent civic and business leaders, want his ouster. So do many on the university faculty. Others, including members of the university trustees, who also are part of the community, see him performing the necessary repair work in finances and preparing the school to meet the steep challenges facing higher education.
Against that backdrop, Scarborough deserves credit for the way he approached his talk at the Akron Press Club last week. He opened the floor to the audience, which included some of his sharpest critics. The audience framed the discussion and posed questions.
The hope is that the talk did some good, if not in changing minds, then in beginning to open a path forward, the university and the community avoiding the harm of a prolonged power struggle.
Scarborough has invited harsh criticism for his failings in communication and execution. He defends the value in acting swiftly across many fronts. Yet he did not need to move so swiftly or as sweepingly. In his talk, he admitted the catalogue of errors. He also talked about pursuing “shared understanding,” his continuing meetings with community leaders an effort to achieve just that.
The UA trustees gave the president two primary jobs — clean up the messy finances, driven, in part, by the level of debt, and boost enrollment, in steady decline of late amid unfavorable demographics. Scarborough has improved the financial position, painful as the process has been. He also has a plan for improving enrollment, a leading element the “polytechnic” concept, or leveraging the university’s strengths to draw from a wider pool of prospective students.
As Scarborough noted at the Press Club, polytechnic isn’t about what you learn but how you learn.
Much as some critics reject the thinking, these are paths to a stronger university. They even represent a basis for bridging differences in the community and on campus. Yet for that to happen, the president must do more to address his credibility gap and gain trust.
One steady criticism of Scarborough, even from allies, is that he doesn’t listen. That’s not the trait of an effective leader. Another concern is that he lacks a commitment to academic quality, so key to elevating the university. The response need not involve hiring nothing but tenure-track faculty. That is unaffordable, here and elsewhere, largely due to misguided legislative choices. The president still can show in concrete ways he is committed to true quality.
And if Scarborough progresses on these fronts, then his many critics must be prepared to give him time — to judge him on a more complete record of quality, finances and enrollment.
Those critics may declare, “Never going to happen!,” and add that the university is headed to ruin, piling on the president the shortcomings of previous administrations, governors and lawmakers. As Scarborough rightly indicated, the ideas and initiatives already unveiled are open to change, bad ones cast aside, good ones made better. That is the middle ground or “shared understanding,” imperfect as it might be.
What the university cannot afford is this developing civil war, which risks its own considerable damage to the reputation of the school and the city.