Good afternoon trustees,
As President Scholz covered in his remarks, the barriers facing higher education are real. Declining public support and investment, demographic shifts that are reshaping enrollments, a shrinking pipeline of Oregon students, and a challenging federal posture. We also face more scrutiny from the public than we have in decades about the value proposition of higher education and the efficiency of our operations.
Yet, I remain convinced that this current moment of intense disruption — while, of course, challenging — presents us with a rare opportunity. Every disruption leaves a wake, swirling and turbulent. Within that turbulence, a slipstream opens: a quieter channel where it is possible to conserve energy and discern new opportunities.
Consider the long-distance runner who drafts behind the leader, moving with patience and economy, waiting with discipline for the opportune moment when wise action enables us not just to move out ahead, but also, perhaps, to tack in a direction that is different from the one toward which the disruption is pulling.
This is a rare inflection point where disciplined and meaningful change at the University of Oregon is possible. And, from my vantage point, that change must be shaped by three dimensions:
- Values-enacted leadership,
- Shared purpose between faculty and administration;
- A candid and disciplined culture of performance review.
I want to talk with you today about that third dimension.
The honest assessment of what is working and what needs attention — however uncomfortable — is among the most important acts of institutional care we can practice. And it is critical for our efforts to restore public confidence in what we do.
My aim is to create and reinforce here at the University of Oregon an academic culture where rigorous, candid evaluation becomes second nature. First, let me address a misperception. The narrative persists that higher education resists accountability, ignores efficiency, and avoids examining its own effectiveness.
The reality is more complex. Consider what already exists at our institution: Faculty face exacting tenure and promotion processes. New proposed academic programs navigate layers of scrutiny before approval. Current programs undergo both annual check-ins and comprehensive ten-year evaluations. We participate in robust accreditation processes that probe curriculum, governance, and outcomes. Review is embedded in the culture of higher education. It is substantive, continuous, and demanding.
So where do we fall short? Not in whether we review, but in how we inhabit that work. Review too often becomes procedural — another box to check before returning to what feels like the "real work."
But the real work is to get better, and to get better, we need to cultivate habits of candid self-reflection and honest, direct feedback in everything we do. When we treat review as a transactional task to be accomplished rather than as a conversation about growth and progressive betterment, we lose the opportunity for the authentic— and often difficult and uncomfortable dialogue — that elevates the quality of the work we do and enhances the life of the university.
Kim Scott captures this well in Radical Candor, as she addresses our fear that directness feels harsh. Her response: "It's not mean, it's clear." We need this clarity at every level.
As we presented to the Academic and Student Affairs Committee a week and a half ago, this year we are launching review protocols for all new programs at their three- and five-year marks. These will examine whether enrollment matches prior projections, whether resources align with need, and whether barriers or inequities are emerging.
Working with the University Senate, we are also considering what "health checks" would look like for all established academic programs. The goal, for all of us, is betterment—knowing what's thriving, what's struggling, what support a program might need, and what we might need to consider closing. If we are going to be better—especially in turbulent times— we will need to cultivate institutional habits of candid, disciplined review at all levels of the university.
Let me return to the image of the slipstream and the opportunity to lead in times of transition. One such opportunity opened in December, when the HECC asked the Transfer Council to establish a uniform 45-credit block that would complete all general education requirements for students transferring to any OPU (Oregon Public University). I have spoken here before about my efforts to co-lead the Transfer Council with my colleague, David Plotkin, from Clackamas Community College. Over the past year we have worked hard to create more trusting relationships across the OPU Provosts and Chief Academic Officers of the Community Colleges.
So, when the HECC’s charge caused significant disruption for OPUs, given how some of us integrate core education requirements into upper-level coursework, David and I worked together with the HECC staff to push for an opportunity for the Transfer Council to propose an alternative. The approach we are pursuing would enable all Oregon transfer students to weave their cross-disciplinary lower-division coursework into more sophisticated, interdisciplinary ways of thinking at the upper-division.
Although the specifics are important, both to me and for the student experience, the reason I raise this here is because it illustrates how relationships of trust between the community colleges and OPUs can have a transformative impact.
Demonstrating our capacity for such collaboration gains in urgency as the state explores opportunities to intervene more actively in the operations of community colleges and public universities across the state. And we have plans to push such collaboration yet further on May 7 when, with the support of the Meyer Memorial Trust (and former UO Trustee, Toya Fick) and the Ford Family Foundation (and our former colleague, Tim Inman), we will be hosting a statewide convening of transfer champions in Eugene.
Our aim is to establish a shared vision for Oregon transfer, including a concrete set of priority steps we can take together over the next 3-5 years. In the wake of the changes we are experiencing, we are gathering our collective energy and appetite for a more coordinated approach to improving transfer between our institutions.
Finally, let me provide a quick update on our two dean searches. Finalists for both the College of Education and the School of Journalism and Communication visited campus during winter term. It was invigorating spend time with leaders who bring both energy and vision for these two critical areas of our institution.
I hope to have news to share about the new dean of the College of Education in the next few days, and the SOJC decision will follow soon after spring term begins.
I began my remarks with an image: the runner in the slipstream, waiting for the opportune moment. The turbulence of this period in higher education has opened pathways that were closed before —pathways toward greater clarity, stronger accountability, and deeper collaboration. In cultivating habits of candid and disciplined assessment and performance review, in nurturing trusting relationships of collaboration across the state, we can demonstrate — to students, to each other, to the communities whose confidence we seek to earn — that we are leading with integrity and vision and a shared commitment to the transformative power of higher education.
Now is the time.
Thank you.