The Review
T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f D e l a w a r e ’s i n d e p e n d e n t s t u d e n t n e w s p a p e r s i n c e 1 8 8 2
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015 VOLUME 141, ISSUE 20
SOFTBALL COACH OUT OVER “HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT”
MATT BUTLER Managing News Editor
Softball head coach Jaime Wohlbach was dismissed Monday afternoon, a stunning change for a team with 12 games remaining in the regular season. The decision is effective immediately, according to a statement from the Athletics Department, and assistant coach John Seneca will be the interim coach until a national search is conducted this summer for a permanent replacement. Wohlbach said she was blindsided by the decision, which came during a meeting
with Athletic Director (AD) Eric Ziady. The only reason Ziady would give for her dismissal was that she created a “hostile team environment.” “I asked if they could please explain to me what that means, but they just kept saying, ‘It’s a hostile environment,’” Wohlbach said. “They would not share anything with me.” Wohlbach was also unsure if the firing was a result of a player complaint, though she was told during the termination meeting to never contact the players again. She said she was never told of any player problems and had never been called in for a meeting to
discuss a complaint that year. “These players are great kids, they’ve been playing to win and working really hard,” Wohlbach said. “There’s not one time this entire year that I can tell you that these players have been yelled at or even talked to in that tone. These things are not happening.” She said she had a history of problems with Senior Associate AD Joe Shirley and, to a lesser extent, Ziady. Wohlbach told The News Journal that higher-ups at the university had been bullying her for several months. The decision leaves the Hens (2115, 5-6 CAA) in a state of limbo
heading into the homestretch of their season. Members of the team declined to comment. She also said she was unaware of whether or not the rest of the coaching staff planned to leave with her, or if they were being dismissed as well. Assistant AD Scott Selheimer said the Athletics Department had no further comment on the matter, beyond what was posted on the website. “There was no prep leading up to this,” Wohlbach said. “I just have no idea. No coach should ever have to go through this.”
Campus workers protest to save bus drivers MATT BUTLER Managing News Editor Screams and signs broke the normal midday Monday malaise, as members of the university workforce gathered to protest the school’s impending decision to outsource bus driver jobs to a private, non-union contracting company. About 30 members of the Local 439 chapter of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees labor union came out to show solidarity with the campus bus drivers, toting signs and asking for support from passing students and motorists. The group was made up of mostly custodians, grounds workers, trash-truck operators and other employees of the university from the union. Several cars, including every university bus that passed, let out a supportive honk and waved to the protesters lined along Main Street and outside of Trabant University Center. Diane Muckle, the executive vice president for Local 439, said their anger stems from a February meeting in which the university told its bus drivers they may no longer have jobs by July 1. “Who will be driving your children?” bellowed one protester. “Stand with your bus drivers!” yelled another. Freddy Sierra, one of the leaders of the protest, said if the university eliminates union
workers from bus driving jobs they could come after union members in different departments afterward. Once that precedent has been set, Sierra said, it is sometimes very difficult to reverse the tide. “They have been trying to do this for the last 10 or 15 years,” Sierra said. “It never comes about, but this time it seems like they have pushed it a little bit further [...] I just think they don’t want to have to deal
with the unions anymore.” Sierra said during the February meeting, school officials indicated they no longer knew how to handle transportation responsibilities for the growing campus, and this was influencing their decision to bring in a specialized company. Muckle said if the switch occurs, the 11 full-time bus drivers would be able to retain their jobs but they would no longer be employed through
the university. This means they would lose their Delaware state pensions and their benefits as a university employee. Part-time bus drivers on campus would lose their jobs entirely. More protests are planned in the future, including on Decision Day, which is this upcoming Saturday, Muckle said. Muckle’s and Sierra’s main concern about new drivers would be the lack of union guidelines, which they said could lead to a lack
KIRK SMITH/THE REVIEW With the university toying with the idea of a private transportation company, union members took to the streets to rally support for the bus drivers. A private company would mean unemployment for some drivers.
of background checks for bus drivers. “You don’t even know who you’re getting to drive your students around,” Muckle said. Alan Brangman, vice president of facilities, real estate and auxiliary services, confirmed the university has begun looking into outside options for their bus drivers. Brangman also said the university has reached out to 10 companies for financial proposals without any responses currently, but they expect to hear back from those by the end of the month. He described the school’s actions as “testing the waters.” The possible switch would be part of a larger changeover for the university’s transportation system, Brangman said, which would include changing routes, general service enhancements and a new master plan for the shuttle system. A transportation company might be able to provide all of those at a more economic price, he said. Brangman said the fears of a lack of background checks are unfounded. “If a company doesn’t do background checks, they probably won’t be doing business with the university for very long,” Brangman said. The school is not in danger of a bus driver strike, Sierra said, as a stipulation in the union’s contract with the school bars the workers from walking off the job.
Changes to general education requirements debated PATRICK WITTERSCHEIN Senior Reporter A panel from the Faculty Senate General Education Committee answered questions about the future of universitywide course requirements at an open hearing Monday night.
Charged with creating a new plan that will more effectively “capture learning outside the classroom,” the committee has developed new changes to the university’s requirements. John Pelesko, who moderated the panel discussion, said a significant reason for the
WHAT’S INSIDE
KIRK SMITH/THE REVIEW After a feverish debate at a previous Faculty Senate meeting, Monday’s open hearing gave further spotlight to the controversial gen-ed reforms.
PROFESSOR RICHARD WOOL REMEMBERED page 3
revisions was to allow students to abandon the “check-thebox mentality” that currently dominates course selection. Pelesko said under the current breadth requirement system, students have no academic reason for choosing one course over another. The goal of the revisions to the general education requirements is to create a developmental curriculum with developmental advisement, which embraces multicultural and experiential learning. The new general education requirements would create two new core courses that each student at the university would need to take in order to graduate. The committee has proposed a pilot program for the implementation of these two courses to determine their feasibility. Some faculty members have raised questions about the feasibility of forcing students to take two mandatory classes in addition to the required English 110. The scalability
and consistency of the classes remain a concern. Political science professor Stuart Kaufman said it would be very difficult for the university to create a course with 150 sections and objects to the process of the General Education Committee and General Education Task Force. “Making everybody take the same class is a bad idea, for both teachers and students,” Kaufman said. “We could better use faculty expertise by building this from the bottom up.” During the hearing, he also asked the committee why academic departments, and students especially, have not been consulted during the General Education revision process. When developing university-wide requirements, Kaufman said faculty and the General Education Committee should ask, “What is it that we can teach that we think every student should know?” From Kaufman’s perspective, if the changes are passed, it
UD ACCEPTS POTENTIAL CLASS OF 2019 page 3
could mean fewer options for students when they choose classes. “If they do this cookie cutter thing, the quality of classes will be lower than it is now,” Kaufman said. Sophomore Megan Barnett is worried about the standardization of the mandatory First Year Experience courses, as well as the general lack of knowledge about these changes of students on campus. Barnett said she is disappointed by the lack of student engagement throughout the revision process. As an English education major, Barnett has been to previous Faculty Senate meetings about the revisions but is still concerned about what the changes will mean for new students. “Students aren’t being told about this, so they can’t formulate opinions,” Barnett said. “They can’t speak out or be listened to.”
A LOOK AT UD’S NEW STRATEGIC PLAN page 6