Scott Scarborough arrived at the University of Akron 18 months ago with two objectives — put the finances in order and improve enrollment. The latter involves elevating the profile of the school, a task that surely includes enhancing the quality of education and the university experience. The UA president has real achievements. He has made painful budgeting decisions that others too long put off, and he has launched some promising initiatives.
Scarborough rightly argues that universities like UA must adjust to the changing landscape of higher education. At the same time, the events of the past week say much about the absence of necessary leadership at the university.
They come in the wake of months in which the president has displayed the skills of a strong chief financial officer yet not enough of what the school needs, a chief executive officer with the vision, skills and connections to bring along the university and the community. The simple idea is: A leader must have followers, and the president seems to have fewer as the days pass.
The no-confidence vote of the Faculty Senate last week is one of dozens in recent years across the country. Many faculties made their statements, and university presidents continued in their posts. Yet each vote reflects unique circumstances.
In the case of UA, the vote was overwhelming, and it comes after considerable time in which the president had a clear opportunity to improve the most important relationship on campus. More, department chairs and school directors followed with a letter that spoke with greater power about the need for new leadership.
On Wednesday, Jonathan Pavloff, the chairman of the UA board of trustees, responded by saying he plans to meet with the Faculty Senate leadership. That should have begun months ago, just as the president and the trustees should have done more to address the dismay and anger in the community.
Of late, word has surfaced about the university exploring a deal that would bring under its wing the vast for-profit, higher education network of ITT, three dozen sites across nearly 40 states. The size, scope and complexity are plain, ITT with legal trouble and a poor academic reputation. Against the backdrop of the past year, the deal reinforces that too much of what the president has pursued appears by the seat of his pants, communication and execution inadequate.
No question, some in the community and on campus have been ugly and unfair in their criticism. It has not reflected well on the city. Yet the concerns cannot be dismissed as mere resistance to change. If the university is going to meet successfully the challenge that Scott Scarborough describes, it must have better leadership.
The expectation was, the president eventually would rise to the full job. Unfortunately, that is getting harder to see. The trustees must begin to think hard about a transition. The university is too important to the city and region.