2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the editor
Issue date: 9/7/07 Section: Editorials
Mentoring program plagued by red tape
In response to the Aug. 31 article about Miami's new faculty mentoring program, I volunteered to be a faculty mentor in this program-but on the grounds that I would mentor students only, while accepting no money, submitting no written reports, and attending no three-and-a-half hour orientation session.
I thought that maybe my 27 years as a member of the teaching faculty here might possibly enable me to be of some help to these students and, because I'm in the business school, I don't need a couple of bucks to do what's right.
My offer was rejected, however, making me wonder if the bureaucratic process is more important than the program's purpose.
It reminds me of the competitions sponsored by engineering schools to find which student team can contrive the most convoluted way to boil an egg: It's not enough to be a mentor for these students but, apparently as important, there must be administration, reports, staff, protocols, furnishings, university vehicles, computers, catered meals, retreats, conference travel, assessment instruments, etc., etc., etc.
In the case of engineering schools it's humorous; in the case of this mentoring program it's a waste of time and money. I also wonder if this is the only place in the University's $600 million budget where such foolishness occurs (a budget that has tripled during my time here, despite little change in the number of faculty or students).
But then again, why care? After all, it's only our undergraduate students and their families who pay for it, right?
James Brock
Department of
Economics
brockj@muohio.edu
More political dynamism needed on Miami campus
While it is heartening to know that we are taking politics seriously, I am sick of the lack of choices we have here on campus. Where are the third parties? In my mind the two parties we do have are so terribly similar that there really is no choice anymore.
Perhaps this is merely a reflection of our lack of choices at the national level, but I think that we can do better here at Miami. After two years of complaining about the absence of a third party on campus, I personally would like to do something about it. It is time to reinvigorate our politics, to question political establishments as they are, and to begin practicing a more intelligent politics. Can politics get any tamer than a Republicans/Democrats softball game? I would like to start up a third party here on campus, combining people of many different viewpoints, so long as these views don't mind contemplating a more radical choice. If you consider yourself a libertarian, communist, green, fascist, anything in between, or are merely sick of the Democrat/Republican monopoly here on campus, this is a call to arms; let's bring politics back from its current stagnation.
Jason Young
youngjc2@muohio.edu
Smoke-free campus offers many financial benefits
Friday, August 31, a Miami Student editorial suggested that the smoke-free campus initiative infringes on rights, and on the same page a letter to the editor stated that the smoking ban raises too many questions.
Working with employees on a regular basis, I am very sensitive to this issue. I have employee friends who smoke. There is a human and financial side to banning smoking on Miami's campus. On the human side, many studies demonstrate that when a workplace environment goes completely smokefree, employees consume 11 to 15 percent less tobacco than average and they have a higher quit rate. After going smoke-free Johns Hopkins Hospital found a 25 percent decrease in smoking prevalence. The social and physical environment in which we live and work has a dramatic impact on our behavior, which cannot be underestimated.
On the financial side, the Society of Actuaries reports that exposure to secondhand smoke adds up to medical costs of $5 billion per year and $4.6 billion in lost wages. Smoking-related costs in Ohio total nearly $3.5 billion annually, or $1,623 per smoker per year. It is a fact that medical costs of smokers are higher than non-smokers. Smokers have more hospital admissions and a longer average length of stay, and are absent from work more frequently than nonsmokers.
Miami University is facing a health-care cost crisis. Last year, our costs increased at 16.5 percent compared to the national average of 8.5 percent and 9 percent for academic institutions. Of course, smoking is but one health issue impacting these costs, but it is a very significant one. Studies by the University of Michigan and Johnson & Johnson show that employers can save $1,100 a year in excess illness costs for every employee who quits smoking.
In sum, the smoking cessation programs offered through Employee Health and Well-Being will be more effective within a smoke-free environment. As Meg Anderson points out in her letter, of course our smoking cessation programs aren't free. Actually, they are an investment in the human and financial capital of Miami University. Implementing these kinds of programs actually saves money in the long run.
I'd like Miami University and our community to be a model of health for the nation. I predict that in three to five years, smoke-free campuses will be commonplace. Miami's smokefree policy, although fraught with implementation challenges on many levels, will be a very positive step for all of our employees and students.
Jay Kimiecik, PhD, Director
Employee Health and
Well-Being
healthandwellbeing@muohio.edu
In response to the Aug. 31 article about Miami's new faculty mentoring program, I volunteered to be a faculty mentor in this program-but on the grounds that I would mentor students only, while accepting no money, submitting no written reports, and attending no three-and-a-half hour orientation session.
I thought that maybe my 27 years as a member of the teaching faculty here might possibly enable me to be of some help to these students and, because I'm in the business school, I don't need a couple of bucks to do what's right.
My offer was rejected, however, making me wonder if the bureaucratic process is more important than the program's purpose.
It reminds me of the competitions sponsored by engineering schools to find which student team can contrive the most convoluted way to boil an egg: It's not enough to be a mentor for these students but, apparently as important, there must be administration, reports, staff, protocols, furnishings, university vehicles, computers, catered meals, retreats, conference travel, assessment instruments, etc., etc., etc.
In the case of engineering schools it's humorous; in the case of this mentoring program it's a waste of time and money. I also wonder if this is the only place in the University's $600 million budget where such foolishness occurs (a budget that has tripled during my time here, despite little change in the number of faculty or students).
But then again, why care? After all, it's only our undergraduate students and their families who pay for it, right?
James Brock
Department of
Economics
brockj@muohio.edu
More political dynamism needed on Miami campus
While it is heartening to know that we are taking politics seriously, I am sick of the lack of choices we have here on campus. Where are the third parties? In my mind the two parties we do have are so terribly similar that there really is no choice anymore.
Perhaps this is merely a reflection of our lack of choices at the national level, but I think that we can do better here at Miami. After two years of complaining about the absence of a third party on campus, I personally would like to do something about it. It is time to reinvigorate our politics, to question political establishments as they are, and to begin practicing a more intelligent politics. Can politics get any tamer than a Republicans/Democrats softball game? I would like to start up a third party here on campus, combining people of many different viewpoints, so long as these views don't mind contemplating a more radical choice. If you consider yourself a libertarian, communist, green, fascist, anything in between, or are merely sick of the Democrat/Republican monopoly here on campus, this is a call to arms; let's bring politics back from its current stagnation.
Jason Young
youngjc2@muohio.edu
Smoke-free campus offers many financial benefits
Friday, August 31, a Miami Student editorial suggested that the smoke-free campus initiative infringes on rights, and on the same page a letter to the editor stated that the smoking ban raises too many questions.
Working with employees on a regular basis, I am very sensitive to this issue. I have employee friends who smoke. There is a human and financial side to banning smoking on Miami's campus. On the human side, many studies demonstrate that when a workplace environment goes completely smokefree, employees consume 11 to 15 percent less tobacco than average and they have a higher quit rate. After going smoke-free Johns Hopkins Hospital found a 25 percent decrease in smoking prevalence. The social and physical environment in which we live and work has a dramatic impact on our behavior, which cannot be underestimated.
On the financial side, the Society of Actuaries reports that exposure to secondhand smoke adds up to medical costs of $5 billion per year and $4.6 billion in lost wages. Smoking-related costs in Ohio total nearly $3.5 billion annually, or $1,623 per smoker per year. It is a fact that medical costs of smokers are higher than non-smokers. Smokers have more hospital admissions and a longer average length of stay, and are absent from work more frequently than nonsmokers.
Miami University is facing a health-care cost crisis. Last year, our costs increased at 16.5 percent compared to the national average of 8.5 percent and 9 percent for academic institutions. Of course, smoking is but one health issue impacting these costs, but it is a very significant one. Studies by the University of Michigan and Johnson & Johnson show that employers can save $1,100 a year in excess illness costs for every employee who quits smoking.
In sum, the smoking cessation programs offered through Employee Health and Well-Being will be more effective within a smoke-free environment. As Meg Anderson points out in her letter, of course our smoking cessation programs aren't free. Actually, they are an investment in the human and financial capital of Miami University. Implementing these kinds of programs actually saves money in the long run.
I'd like Miami University and our community to be a model of health for the nation. I predict that in three to five years, smoke-free campuses will be commonplace. Miami's smokefree policy, although fraught with implementation challenges on many levels, will be a very positive step for all of our employees and students.
Jay Kimiecik, PhD, Director
Employee Health and
Well-Being
healthandwellbeing@muohio.edu
Be the first to comment on this story