Manipulative Rogers disgrace to higher ed

Oh wad some power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!

Robert Burns “To a Louse”

The printed criticism of Chancellor Jim Rogers is damning. The anonymous criticism is worse.

The printed criticism includes: mercurial, bombastic, thin-skinned, manipulative, polarizing, volatile, crybaby, fiery temper, loose cannon, incendiary nature and conflict of interest.

The unprinted criticism of Rogers includes: megalomania, bully, petulant, tyrant, a guy not to be crossed, treats everything adversarial, chastises the Board of Regents, takes everything personally, says things to distract and confuse, demands that he be flattered and wants to be remembered as the genius of Nevada higher ed.

The truth is Rogers was a jerk even before he became a wealthy TV tycoon. Or, to use a vulgarism sanctioned by the Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionary, a prick, a spiteful, contemptible man.

Printed comments alone are enough to make it clear that Rogers should be fired as chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education. They make it obvious he is the CEO, usurping power over the Regents.

Dennis Myers wrote an excellent takeout on Rogers in the Reno News & Review Aug. 30 (Myers is the best interpretive reporter in Nevada, the deepest, most perceptive, knowledgeable and fairest. He does his homework, which far too few journalists do. He interviews extensively. And, he provides context, the important framework for a full understanding of news.)

Myers wrote that Rogers, with “a well-documented record of being difficult to work with,” is a major source of tension among the Regents. “Time after time he has done things that embarrassed them.”

He wrote that Rogers yelled at Regent James Leavitt of Las Vegas on the phone and “then publically threatened to resign if Leavitt became Regents chair.”

“Rogers astounded the political world by getting involved in Regent election campaigns while serving as chancellor,” Myers writes. “He gave one candidate 20 thousand dollars. That would be a huge amount in a governor’s race. In a Regent race it was extraordinary.”

In a column for the Pahrump Valley Times, Myers wrote that many Regents “are unwilling to level with the public about what they really think, particularly where Rogers and his agenda are concerned.”

Howard Rosenberg of Reno is the wisest of the 13 Regents on this issue. He was the only one who voted against the hiring of Rogers in 2004. Today he is scalding in his criticism. Rosenberg wrote that the board should have known that Rogers had a well-known reputation as a man of “mercurial temperament, a my-way-or-the-highway management style.” To lead the board, Rosenberg added, “requires leadership and coordination, two skills…totally at odds with Chancellor Rogers’ style of absolute autocracy.”

Unfortunately, too many Regents genuflect to Rogers.

Then there is childishness. Rogers withdrew a $3 million donation to the University of Nevada, Reno, because of a Regent’s critical evaluation. (As if UNR President Milton Glick had something to do with the criticism.)

Typical too is the petty way J.R.--the initials are suitable for a big shot--browbeats his TV underlings. He harasses them for eating dinner in their office rather than going out. He arbitrarily fires reporters for having untidy desks. (What reporter ever has a tidy desk?)

Rogers forced Carol Harter out as president of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He did so, not because she suddenly became incompetent after 11 years, but because she refused to put up with his bullying, his tantrums and his absurd micromanaging. And, as hard as it is to believe in these days of academic enlightenment, Rogers would not have visited his nastiness on Harter had she had been a man.

The Regents should never have given Rogers the power to hire and fire presidents. They made another terrible mistake: allowing Rogers to resume his charades when he announced tersely in January: “I quit.”

Finally, Rogers claims to be a big donor. While he does donate, he pledges big money then uses the promise as a hammer. He dangles the money then withdraws it if his will is crossed.

Rogers wouldn’t be chancellor if he didn’t have scads of money. He is the boll weevil of Nevada higher education.

Rogers right on 2 issues

Rogers is right about two important Nevada public affairs issues. He urges an appointed Board of Regents rather than elected one and a state income tax. Education is too important to be the subject of politicking. An income tax is essential if Nevada is ever to enter the 21st century by financing the enormous state needs rather than constant nickel-and-diming.