Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

The Diversity Staff at the University of Michigan Is Nearly 100 Full-Time Employees

Maybe there is money in a gender studies degree. The persius12/30/18
Look at these salaries. persius12/30/18
Shocking and needs to be addressed. One thing though, up superttthero12/30/18
It's fake news, a combination of right-wing dishonesty and r therewillbeblood12/30/18
Michigan's strength coach got a 3 year contract for almost 1 whatnext12/30/18
Definitely excessive, but the football program does generate persius12/30/18
Did you see the other chart? The football revenue to pay the persius12/30/18
dble persius12/30/18
There's fat that needs to be trimmed everywhere. Just point whatnext12/30/18
Where can I apply to one of them positions? imoothereforeim12/30/18
Job creators imho. onefortheteam12/30/18
Oddly, I don't see any Hispanic names on there. persius12/30/18
well that's a relief, once the school starts employing 'thos onefortheteam12/30/18
Maybe the department of Ed should invent its own financial e persius12/30/18
If all else fails we want to be efficient as possible doing onefortheteam12/30/18
As TWBB correctly points out, these are not full-time positi theimmigrant12/30/18
Hard to say based on the University of Michigan Salary Websi persius12/30/18
Source? theimmigrant12/31/18
If people are going to borrow $100k in order to get a master brokelawyer12/30/18
They're obviously understaffed - for a college of almost 40k wutwutwut12/30/18
They're obviously understaffed - for a college of almost 40k wutwutwut12/30/18
There's an essay, later turned into a full book, called "bul onehell12/31/18
Excellent post. See also: http://jdunderground.com/ot/thread theimmigrant12/31/18
Interesting. One potential dimension to “bulls—t jobs” brokelawyer12/31/18
This is true. The book I was referencing (and its original e onehell12/31/18
Well, as long is there is want there is going to be servitud brokelawyer12/31/18
"As for spare time, 99% will use it getting high and watchin onehell12/31/18
onehell makes cogent points but I would quibble with the equ williamdrayton12/31/18
Administrative bloat in the public or publicly-supported sec onehell12/31/18
I have to read this essay. Probably perfectly describes my w soiled_nappies12/31/18
What about Chaos Theory? How do you know that the workplace theimmigrant12/31/18



persius (Dec 30, 2018 - 10:29 am)

Maybe there is money in a gender studies degree.



The Diversity Staff at the University of Michigan Is Nearly 100 Full-Time Employees

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/diversity-staff-university-michigan-nearly-100-full-time-employees?fbclid=IwAR1sOewFEdTnWVAaYLuoBwp19vEi81uiUEDEb-4Jef8tUs0uXb3ISWzroCE

There are various reasons for surging education costs, but the primary one is the expansion of university administration in recent decades.
There is no doubt that the human costs of this rise are severe: Some 44 million Americans currently carry nearly $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and the delinquency rate is 11 percent.

There are various reasons for surging costs, but the primary one is the remarkable expansion of university administration in recent decades. As Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, wrote in the New York Times a few years ago:

“According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.

Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.”

Universities are large and require administrators to function, of course. The problem is there seems to be no end to the expansion. This point was recently illustrated by Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint.

Perry, who also is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, used the University of Michigan as an example to highlight the rise of “diversicrats” (diversity bureaucrats) on today’s campuses. The numbers are astonishing.

1. The University of Michigan currently employs a diversity staff of nearly 100 (93) full-time diversity administrators, officers, directors, vice-provosts, deans, consultants, specialists, investigators, managers, executive assistants, administrative assistants, analysts, and coordinators.

2. More than one-quarter (26) of these “diversicrats” earn annual salaries of more than $100,000, and the total payroll for this small army is $8.4 million. When you add to cash salaries an estimated 32.45% for UM’s very generous fringe benefit package for the average employee in this group (retirement, health care, dental insurance, life insurance, long-term disability, paid leave, paid vacation, social security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, etc.) the total employee compensation for this group tops $11 million per year. And of course that doesn’t count the cost of office space, telephones, computers and printers, printing, postage, programs, training, or travel expenses.

If you fell out of your chair upon realizing that the University of Michigan has a full-time diversity staff of nearly one hundred employees, one of whom earns more than the president of the United States, you can be forgiven. I nearly did too.

We’ve previously noted that the diversity movement is taking on certain aspects of religious faith. It appears, however, that we missed a similarity: Like the priests of ancient Egypt who amassed huge fortunes for themselves and the medieval popes who sold forgiveness and indulgences, the diversity faithful have found profit in their beliefs.

In many ways the modern American university resembles the medieval cathedral—something that began as beautiful but became a monstrosity when its true purpose was lost.

Reply
persius (Dec 30, 2018 - 10:30 am)

Look at these salaries.



Reply
superttthero (Dec 30, 2018 - 10:40 am)

Shocking and needs to be addressed.

One thing though, upon seeing the chart persius put up I realized that this is mostly 1-2 people within the dozens of separate administrative bodies (engineering, housing, health, admissions).

Clearly, there needs to be improvement and there is waste here.. but it's not as bad as I thought from the OP that this was special to diversity BS. Its endemic of all BS.

Mich has like a 4.5 to 1 staff to student ratio.

This is insane.

Reply
therewillbeblood (Dec 30, 2018 - 10:50 am)

It's fake news, a combination of right-wing dishonesty and right-wing stupidity on the part of "Intellectual Takeout."

For example, the second-highest paid person, David Brown, is also Associate Professor of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and "medical director of the Pediatric Otolaryngology Ambulatory Care Unit, founding member and medical director of the Pediatric Multidisciplinary Aerodigestive Clinic."

The third-highest paid person, Gary Freed, is "Percy and Mary Murphy Professor of Pediatrics
Associate Chair, Department of Pediatrics [and] Professor, Department of Health Management and Policy."

Show of hands, how many people think these MDs' salary comes from their diversity roles? Anyone?

I'm sure if I went through the whole list a lot of them would turn out not to be "full-time" diversity people.

Reply
whatnext (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:00 am)

Michigan's strength coach got a 3 year contract for almost 1.5 million dollars. Not the university's strength coach of course, just the football team.

Reply
persius (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:20 am)

Definitely excessive, but the football program does generate revenue that is not corporate government welfare in the form of saddling students in student loan debt.

Reply
persius (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:29 am)

Did you see the other chart? The football revenue to pay these coaches has gone up dramatically because of the television contracts, but the revenue for the drastic rise in tuition to pay these bureaucrats salary is coming from increasing the cost of tuition that is matched by an increase in government student loan lending. It is a cycle that needs to be broken.



Reply
persius (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:29 am)

dble



Reply
whatnext (Dec 30, 2018 - 1:30 pm)

There's fat that needs to be trimmed everywhere. Just pointing at "diversity" doesn't solve the overall problem, it just provides cover. The NCAA and universities like to air nice commercials that make it seem like all that revenue is getting pumped back into the university. It just feeds the whole beast.

Reply
imoothereforeim (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:39 am)

Where can I apply to one of them positions?

Reply
onefortheteam (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:52 am)

Job creators imho.

Reply
persius (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:53 am)

Oddly, I don't see any Hispanic names on there.

Reply
onefortheteam (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:55 am)

well that's a relief, once the school starts employing 'those people' their rankings will go to sh1t.

Reply
persius (Dec 30, 2018 - 12:27 pm)

Maybe the department of Ed should invent its own financial efficiency rankings and only lend a percentage of the tuition based on the school’s financial efficiency coefficient.

Reply
onefortheteam (Dec 30, 2018 - 12:34 pm)

If all else fails we want to be efficient as possible doing it imho.

Reply
theimmigrant (Dec 30, 2018 - 2:26 pm)

As TWBB correctly points out, these are not full-time positions. Perhaps you should check your facts before posting next time, OP. Just a suggestion.

—TI

Reply
persius (Dec 30, 2018 - 2:49 pm)

Hard to say based on the University of Michigan Salary Website. David Brown for example shows two salaries for two different positions. $220,000 for each. The thing I am sure of is they are not being a dean and an "associate professor" for free.

Here is the salary verification link.

http://www.umsalary.info/index.php

Even worse if he is part-time. $220,000 is a lot of money for a diversity dean if he is only part-time.

Reply
theimmigrant (Dec 31, 2018 - 4:27 pm)

Source?

Reply
brokelawyer (Dec 30, 2018 - 4:52 pm)

If people are going to borrow $100k in order to get a masters in gender intersectionality, the institution will need to find jobs for at least some of these people, or the program can’t continue. So the people are employed at the institutions which educated them. In order for these new hires to be able live with all that debt, they will need substatial compensation. In order to afford the compensation packages, tuition must be increased, resulting in more student debt for the people who want to study gender intersectionality...

This is basically “Marxism lite,” except with a profit motive. Nothing is created, nothing is accomplished, the cycle simply perpetuates. The unspoken fact is that federal loan dollars are holding it all up. Turn the spigot just a tad on that money and you’ve got a full blown catastrophe.

Reply
wutwutwut (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:00 pm)

They're obviously understaffed - for a college of almost 40k student, obviously they need something on the order of 2000 assistant deans for diversity and inclusion.

Reply
wutwutwut (Dec 30, 2018 - 11:01 pm)

They're obviously understaffed - for a college of almost 40k student, obviously they need something on the order of 2000 assistant deans for diversity and inclusion.

Reply
onehell (Dec 31, 2018 - 12:17 pm)

There's an essay, later turned into a full book, called "bullsh*t jobs." The author, an anthropology prof at London School of Economics, argues that even the private sector creates a ton of useless jobs, contrary to popular assumptions about capitalism.

He attributes this phenomenon to "managerial feudalism" whereby the modern-day administrator, much like a lord of old, must surround themselves with lackeys in order to maintain power and importance.

Simply put, the more people underneath you, the more important you are. So any efforts to find efficiencies will be confined to the bottom of the org chart, resulting in a phenomenon whereby the more useful your job is to society, the less it tends to pay and the less stable it tends to be. But once you get to management, every layer of BS one can manage to create below oneself is a layer of job security and even growth, and the same incentive exists for the new layer of administration thus created. Combine that with the Puritan work ethic that demands we all work, for wages, for our entire adult life (itself a historical aberration) and you get what we have today, with endless layers of office drones doing maybe 15 hours per week of actual work but chained to their desks for 50 or 60 hours per week.

It's an interesting read, with lots of examples of how the same kind of BS administration exists beyond the walls of the government and universities. There's every bit as much BS in corporate America too. The bottom line is that administrators, wherever they are found, have an inherent incentive to expand their ranks, very contrary to the incentives one might assume capitalism would create.

Reply
theimmigrant (Dec 31, 2018 - 4:32 pm)

Excellent post. See also: http://jdunderground.com/ot/thread.php?threadId=138182

Examples of these irl Office-dwelling "administrators" in the private sector?
Large Firms can have bureaucratic tendencies, similar to government, but this gets attenuated by the need to make money... In Firms that operate in non-competitive markets, it's much more rampant imo. A strong host invites Parasites.

Reply
brokelawyer (Dec 31, 2018 - 1:07 pm)

Interesting. One potential dimension to “bulls—t jobs” is the way enormous improvements in workplace efficiency and data management have minimized the need for manpower. We have three people doing what one person could do, but at no loss of profitability. Pretty impressive.

Reply
onehell (Dec 31, 2018 - 1:25 pm)

This is true. The book I was referencing (and its original essay which you can find online free) all note that many people, as far back as the 60s, were predicting that advances in technology would eventually lead to a 15 hour workweek becoming the norm. And indeed, it probably should be.

But we still have that Puritanical work ethic that says that everything we do other than wage work is merely stuff we GET to do, not stuff that has any value. "Idle hands are the devil's plaything." "If you've got time to lean, you've got time to clean." It's this kind of worldview that leads to us to ascribe no value to volunteering, or raising your kids, or reading books and enriching your mind. And it's also the worldview that forces us to pretend to be busy even when we're not, or to make up BS work to keep us busy, as opposed to the historical norm which was always periods of high activity and periods of low activity, as opposed to a constant full-time commitment year in and year out.

These are all things that technology should have left us more time to do. But it hasn't, because being "busy" is still a badge of honor and having free time is still a sign of laziness and poor character. Of note here is the fact that buying someone's time is itself a rather new invention. Once upon a time, you could buy what the person produced or you could buy the person themselves (slavery or indenture) but you couldn't buy hours, and you wouldn't see idleness "on the clock" as a form of theft from the employer as you do today. Even a feudal lord would generally stay out of the day-to-day affairs of the peasants so long as their taxes (whether monetary or a share of their crops and such) were paid.

I don't think a medieval craftsperson would regard the wage and debt slavery we now call "freedom" as true freedom in any sense of the word. Sure, you can quit your job, you can believe in whatever God(s) you want, and you can criticize your government and no one can throw you in jail for any of those things. But your employer can fire you for (almost) any reason or no reason at all, and many employers have grown so large that they are essentially another layer of government unto themselves, but without all those pesky due process obligations.

Sure the employer can't throw you in jail. But they can fire you, give you a bad reference and maybe even make you sign noncompete agreements that essentially make you unemployable elsewhere, which in another era is akin to a legal remedy we might once have called exile. We used to live as the subjects of kings. Now we live as the subjects of employers, landlords, and moneylenders, and it is not incarceration or torture or execution but poverty that is the consequence of not living by the arbitrary whims of these new masters. It's a difference of degree, but not of kind, and our own very sense of morality and abhorrence of "laziness" has been used to enslave. We have affixed our own chains.

Reply
brokelawyer (Dec 31, 2018 - 2:04 pm)

Well, as long is there is want there is going to be servitude to demand. Computers make things easier, not free. That means movement of capital, workplace supervision, government oversight etc. Complaining about those things is like complaining about the weather.

As for spare time, 99% will use it getting high and watching Netflix on their phones. These aren’t activities of personal improvement. So the problem is not a stultifying work ethic but the utter banality of downtime.

NB: I watch a sh—load of Netflix.

Reply
onehell (Dec 31, 2018 - 2:22 pm)

"As for spare time, 99% will use it getting high and watching Netflix on their phones."

Would they? Is there empirical evidence for that? Some people might just sit around, but I don't think it's a huge proportion or even most people. A lot of studies cited by advocates for universal basic income seem to contradict that basic assumption of humans being fundamentally lazy. Most people WANT to contribute to society in some way, I don't think that everyone is primarily driven by a desire to do as little work as possible and kept from pure sloth only by the threat of homelessness. At the very least, you've got to admit that's a pretty big assumption to make.

That argument also tends to assume that whatever people do that isn't "work" as we currently define it is worthless. Is there a difference between sitting at home watching Netflix and playing with your kids? Or reading a books and developing intellectual curiosity? Or are these things just recreational activities that one must earn the right to engage in?

Reply
williamdrayton (Dec 31, 2018 - 2:59 pm)

onehell makes cogent points but I would quibble with the equivalence between administrative bloat at universities and private corporations. in the case of the former, the taxpayer is on the hook (either because it's a public school or a private school that takes student loans and raises tuition accordingly.)

while some corporate welfare does exist, it pales in comparison to the student loan gravy train

Reply
onehell (Dec 31, 2018 - 5:47 pm)

Administrative bloat in the public or publicly-supported sector harms taxpayers in a more direct way, that's true. But everyone with a 401(k) is an investor, so for example, bloat at a publicly traded company still matters.

Reply
soiled_nappies (Dec 31, 2018 - 4:40 pm)

I have to read this essay. Probably perfectly describes my workplace. It’s bloated with directors amd senior directors, all taking home well north of 150K and all doing very little of real use.

Reply
theimmigrant (Dec 31, 2018 - 4:56 pm)

What about Chaos Theory? How do you know that the workplace would not erupt into Chaos, were it not for these Managers? Discuss.

Reply
Post a message in this thread