Downsizing fails students, school

It has taken me a few weeks and several tries to complete a letter to the community concerning the recent experiences I have had with respect to the structural deficit. It has taken so long because each time I begin to write it, I feel a rage against an institution where I work and where I studied. I know this place is filled with great people, but yet this experience makes it hard to feel their presence. A place where the administration seemed to make promises of working with all groups on campus in an effort to improve our financial standing, to strengthen the community and plan for the future. The rage, however, stems from the fact that my experience does not match what was conveyed as Oberlin's goals and principles.

My experience with this change process began by participating in a focus group led by Elaine Kuttner. In the group I learned from other employees how committed we each are to Oberlin and the students. Some expressed feeling frustrated and devalued under the direction of the former administration. Many explained that they looked forward to improvements in our workplace and the community. I felt there was a sense that, possibly, Oberlin could change for everyone here; positive experiences could begin to disperse the frustrations of the past.

The results of the focus groups were reported to the entire community. We were told that an expanded group of upper administrators would make the hard decisions about addressing the deficit with five principles as their guide. These principles would be on flip charts in the room when the changes were discussed to serve as a consistent reminder to those in charge. (See The Observer, Feb. 1, 1996).

It appeared that there was a commitment to making this process more inclusive and respectful of all individuals working for the College. Though the decisions might be hard, distasteful ones, there would be an attempt to work with those affected and, in the case of unionized employees, their representatives.

Throughout the process many people were shut out of the meetings in which the possible job eliminations were discussed. Not that everyone should always be included, but there were no attempts to ask those who might be effected what it is they do or what they thought could change. Though communication was stated as an important element of the process, it was limited.

The process dragged on and staff around me began to worry. A certain amount of stress and anticipation built up as we, outside the group of decision makers, waited. There seemed to be feelings of frustration, fear and despair whenever the topic of the change process came up. The initial hope that the focus groups seemed to generate was almost completely gone. Over the last few weeks decisions have been revealed and actions have been taken. The decisions do not always appear to be in line with the principles. The actions taken in regard to informing the individuals and the recent new approach to my union seem even less in alignment.

The cuts were of jobs outside the group of people involved in considering what positions are important to the institution. In many cases the person cut has worked for the College longer than most of the decision makers. Some have over 20 years of service at Oberlin College. They have worked hard and dedicated much of their lives to the students. Often these are people on the lower end of the Oberlin College pay scale. All are important income earners to their families and in some cases the sole earner.

Others will also be affected beyond the loss of a fine co-worker. In several cases the person in the eliminated position did not provide trivial services nor work that is going to disappear. The jobs may be abolished, but the tasks remain. The plans for these tasks? They will be distributed to those remaining, at least we think so. We have to wait again to find out because not all decisions have been made.

In addition to the pain of seeing who has been downsized by the decision makers, the administration has also changed the game for the unionized employees. The College administration has been distant and less receptive to requests to meet with our representatives to discuss our concerns. Past mutual understandings have been reinterpreted, thus creating significant disagreements. Some past practices we followed out of courtesy and respect have been discontinued. These recent changes initiated by the administration contribute to the creation of a much more adversarial atmosphere, making it difficult to maintain a good relationship between the Union and the administration. It appears that there is no longer an interest, as we expressed last year, to work with the union in building a positive relationship.

During this addressing of the structural deficit, the College leadership has eloquently spoken of community, principles, learning and labor, but it has failed to work and carry out its actions in accordance with those words. It has not up held its commitment to the lower level employees, such as myself, nor to my union. The large gap between what has been proposed as Oberlin's goals and my experience with the structural deficit leaves me feeling sad, angry and empty. I know there are individual students, staff and faculty who do believe in Oberlin's goals and who want to uphold a commitment to make Oberlin a place that values everyone's contributions and treats all with respect. It is important that those who do believe ask that the administration act in accordance with their words and remind them that actions are judged greater than words.