Friday, August 27, 2010

A Weakening of Tenure

As the financial situation of most states declines with the loss of stimulus funds and fewer jobs returning, universities will have to make difficult decisions. The story pasted below shows one option being considered in Louisiana and reminds us why vigilance is important in our process of shared governance.






August 26, 2010

U. of Louisiana to Consider Weakening Tenure
By Paige Chapman
The University of Louisiana system's Board of Supervisors plans to vote Friday on a proposal that would make it easier to dismiss tenured professors—a move that has upset faculty members throughout the system's eight campuses, as well as national faculty organizations.

"This could impact the quality of education offered in the classroom and the ability to recruit qualified people, including at both faculty and administration levels," said Jordan E. Kurland, associate general secretary for the American Association of University Professors.

System officials say the contemplated changes are driven by a tight budget. The proposals "are solely precipitated by a set of decreasing resources," said Randy Moffett, the system's president. "There are no other intentions." State financing for has been reduced by 17 percent since the 2008 fiscal year, and Mr. Moffett is anticipating another drop of approximately $95.3-million in the middle of 2011 when federal stimulus funds expire.

Still, some professors fear that three parts of the proposal could drastically reshape academic employment.

Under one of those, a "reduction" of a program could become a legitimate cause for terminating tenured faculty members. Currently, tenured positions can be cut only because of financial exigency or the complete discontinuance of a program.

Mr. Moffett said the proposed new language was added to include special circumstances left out in the currrent policy, such as the restructuring or scaling back of specific academic programs.

Lisa Abney, provost at one of the system's campuses, Northwestern State University, said such a change would provide more flexibility so the university wouldn't have to eliminate entire programs in response to budget cuts. Her institution has undergone an extensive restructuring to deal with financial constraints—including the merging of three departments and the elimination of seven different majors. Six tenured faculty members were laid off as a result.

But the language worries professors. A tenured professor at a system campus, who did not want to be named for fear of being targeted for a job cut, said the main concern is that the word "reduction" is vague. The professor said that it could be interpreted arbitrarily, especially in universities with tense faculty-administrative relations.

The professor said the proposal has already created a "poisonous atmosphere" at his institution because many colleagues are afraid to speak in opposition, fearing they could be fired if the measure is passed.

Mr. Kurland, of the AAUP, echoed faculty members' concerns about the possibility of arbitrary dismissals under the proposal. "It can be used as a device for the university to remove a person they don't want by simply removing what that person is teaching," he said. "They no longer have to show someone is no longer competent to do the work in that position."

Another proposed change that alarms professors is that tenured faculty members could be given much-shorter notice of job terminations—a minimum of only three months in the cases of program discontinuance or reduction.

Mr. Moffett said the change was proposed because the board is often unaware of what the state has determined for its budget until late June or early July. Some administrators said the change would allow them to delay personnel decisions and would prevent them from unnecessarily terminating positions that they may later discover they are able to finance.

Bette H. Maroney, president of Northwestern State's Faculty Senate, found out her position had been eliminated this year. Because she has a year to finish her term and look for a new position, she calls herself "one of the lucky ones." If the measure is passed, she said, professors who are laid off in the future, with little warning, may be adversely affected by the limited time of the hiring cycle in higher education.

The third area of concern is that appeals about tenure and employment decisions would no longer be considered by the system board, but would instead be handled internally by the individual university. Professors said removal of the additional layer could put them at the mercy of a hostile local administration.

The board will need nine votes to approve the measure. It is possible that it may not vote yes or no at its meeting in Baton Rouge on Friday, but instead vote to postpone a decision on the measure. If so, the next time the matter would be up for discussion is at its October 22 meeting.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Welcome to Our New President

Thomas Ross, President of Davidson College, will become the new President of the UNC system on January 1, 2011. He was elected today without opposition by the Board of Governors.

He spoke eloquently of the life of the mind and its value to individuals and to our culture. He believes in the transformative power of eduction. And he understands that education is the future of North Carolina.

I was also excited to hear that he stands ready to work with the Faculty Assembly cooperatively. We stand ready to engage with him.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

This Week in The Chronicle

This week's piece on higher education and time for a reset from the Chronicle for Higher Education is timely. So much of what Finney advocates, the UNC system does already. Our tuition policy is but one example. But we are revisiting it now and thinking about how to meet the budgetary challenges ahead.

The Faculty Assembly is gearing up for an active year. Updates here will be regular and I urge all faculty in the system to stay up to date and active on their campuses. We will all have to be working at answers.




A Reset for Higher Education
By Joni E. Finney


Many of us have seen trouble coming for a long, long, time. Did we really believe that endowment growth, state support, and tuition dollars could or would provide an unchecked revenue stream, tempered only by short downturns in the economy, followed by fairly quick recoveries? Did we really believe that we could expand administrative structures and shortchange instruction, but still maintain quality institutions? Did we think that poor completion rates and the achievement gaps between whites and minority groups could be solved only with more money? Did we honestly believe that expensive amenities and increased financial aid for upper-middle-class and wealthy students could be sustained? Of course not.

To understand what needs to be done now—a “reset” in higher education—we need to first understand the changes pressuring our enterprise: deficits, demographics, and demand. States' structural deficits, or the gap that occurs when states fail to tax new types of economic activity, have been documented for years. A previously good economy permitted states to postpone those problems, but now, state leaders must revise their tax structures to generate more revenue. The most optimistic economic projections say the recession may end in 2013. Even then, states will be hard-pressed to return to the status quo in terms of appropriations.

IN THE RIGHT COLUMN: Charts and Graphics on Finance
BROWSE THE ALMANAC: More Statistics and State-by-State Profiles

Many in higher education lament states’ “disinvestment.” The problem is much more complex. States have been reliable partners in financing higher education. While enrollments grew, state support also grew, by 24 percent from 2005 to 2008, followed by a decline of 1.7 percent from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, the federal government spent $6.6-billion in 2009-10 under the stimulus bill for states, an amount that increases to $23-billion once federal student financial assistance (Pell grants and Work-Study) is included.

The second “D” is demographics. Southern and Southwestern states are experiencing explosive growth. Nine states will account for 70 percent of the country’s population growth by 2025. Thirty-two states face declines in their young populations, leaving them vulnerable economically at a time when many well-educated baby boomers will retire. Educating working adults and young adults—many of whom are underserved by the current educational system—requires rethinking programs and services.

The “D” for demand acknowledges that postsecondary education is necessary for membership in the middle class. Current enrollment patterns show that demand for higher education is strong, even if students must secure private loans or work full time. But research also shows that many college-qualified young people and adults are not enrolling in college, because of tuition increases and lack of available courses.

So how does higher education reset in a way that deals constructively with the three D’s? First, we must acknowledge that public-revenue limitations are likely for the foreseeable future. Second, the discussion of higher-education finance focuses disproportionately on price rather than costs. The focus on price has led many to believe that financial aid is the primary solution to college affordability. But financial-aid increases over the last two decades have not come close to solving the problem. A discussion of college costs that recognizes revenue limitations while enhancing learning productivity is necessary if we are to reset higher-education finance.

Third, a higher-education reset should provide institutional incentives for student success and rethink state investment in research based on public priorities. Redirecting public subsidies to undergraduate instruction could contain costly “mission creep” and be an important step in resetting finance policy. The federal reset might limit the number of universities receiving research money and provide incentives for improved access to college and better completion rates.

States must also take more responsibility for tuition policy. A policy that simply fills the gap between what institutions want and what they receive from the states is counterproductive to public purposes. Tuition increases can and should be moderate, gradual, and predictable. But over the last 10 years, they have been excessively steep and have disproportionately hurt poor and middle-income families, even with financial aid.

An economic reset is an opportunity to reinforce valued democratic ideals. I hope that public policy and higher education’s leaders will reset to honor valued public purposes. The country’s future depends upon it.

Joni E. Finney is director of the Institute for Research in Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor of practice in its Graduate School of Education.