On Friday, The Lantern reported Ohio State is planning to eliminate the Office of International Education and move responsibility for its programs into the Office of International Affairs, a move that could result in the loss of OIEs directors. This decision has roused concern among leaders of international education at universities throughout the country.
The university claims the move was designed for efficiency, but The Lantern finds this claim questionable. OIE Director John Greisberger said he was never informed his office was inefficient, a logical first step for trying to rectify such concerns.
Second, the responsibilities of the top seven jobs at OIE are currently slated to be assigned to 10 people in the future. One consequence of this will be that more coordination is needed among these leaders - which at least in theory could mean less efficiency.
In addition, paying 10 people to carry out the same mission as seven seems to suggest either: A) the university plans to spend more on leadership by paying each of these ten people the same amount as the previous seven, or B) the university is seeking to hire less expensive leaders for these 10 positions, and at worst shelling out the same amount of money it did before.
Because lower paying jobs are less competitive, if this latter scenario is the case, it would seem the outcome of this decision would be to hire people of less experience, quality, etc., who might be willing to take this lower-paying job. If the university was seeking to hire the best and the brightest in the field - which some would say John Greisberger is - it makes no sense for the university to make that sort of job less competitive.
Of course, there is always the scenario that the current OIE leadership might be overqualified for their jobs, which drains on university resources. Could these people be promoted to positions where their knowledge might be better employed, and what would getting rid of well-respected leaders in international education signify about OSU's dedication to international education?
So why all the trouble? The Lantern does not know. Could it be that hiring a higher number of lesser-paid administrators could mean more control over OIEs objectives by OIA leaders? Is there a higher budget in store for OIA should it acquire OIE, and with the old directors gone could that mean more control over the shiny new budget? Or could internal university politics be responsible? Or is it, as some have claimed, simply and purely for the sake of efficiency?
The bottom line is much of this has happened outside the public view, at a time when many students are preparing to go abroad for the summer and while many international students are at OSU. It is easy to say such a move will not affect programs, but it is hard to imagine how instituting new leadership with a learning curve could back up that guarantee.
The OSU community deserves to know for what reasons this decision was made and the real impact it could have on programs at home and abroad. The Lantern calls on administrators in OIE, OIA and the upper ranks of university administration to share their views on this leadership change, and what they think it could really mean for students at OSU.
Be the first to comment on this article!