Wednesday, March 03, 2010

 

Dentist? Nooo...

This piece on fiscal exigency and tenure got me thinking about an unexpected call I got about fifteen years ago.

I was a grad student at Flagship State. I had read an article in the student newspaper that quoted the university President saying that the university would have to do more with less. Since I was concerned that my T.A. position might go away, I wrote a letter to the President (this was back when people still occasionally used snail mail) to urge him to rethink the wisdom of declaring publicly that the university would have to do more with less, since I was concerned that the legislature would take that as permission to hack away. I assumed my letter would go into the circular file, but I felt better for having sent it.

About a week later, after I had forgotten about it, the President called me at home. He identified himself as "Dr. so-and-so," which created a moment of panic. Dentist? Nooo.... Regular doctor? Nooo.... Oh, right!

The university had tens of thousands of students, plus however many employees and such, so it didn't occur to me that I'd get more than a form letter.

Once I figured out who he was, we had a surprisingly good conversation for probably ten minutes. I explained the basis of my concern, and he assured me that he had been misquoted. He then rattled off a few of his achievements, about which I didn't care, before getting to the points that stuck with me. One was that he was happy to address what he repeatedly called "a responsible letter." It took a few days for that one to sink in; he was basically trying to draw a distinction between a civil request and the usual shouting. The second, though, was about reputations.

In outlining my concern that the legislature would take his comments as a green light to cut everything, I argued that he should make a strong public case for the damage done by the existing cuts, and the greater damage that could be done by more. He replied that higher education is a reputational business, and that a President shouting doom-and-gloom could actually make the damage worse. He explained that he had to accentuate the positive with the legislature, even in the face of bad news, lest the university go from 'resource' to 'problem.' He also didn't want to take the chance of the public overreacting, and turning away from the university.

That really stuck with me, since it seemed to explain a lot.

The call came back to me when I read this piece. It outlines objections by the AAUP to colleges laying off tenured faculty without first declaring "financial exigency."

What would it mean to declare "financial exigency" in a reputational business?

You don't declare a fiscal emergency because funding is tight. You declare it because you're circling the drain. That means there's no contradiction between "we're in fiscal trouble" and "we haven't declared exigency." The reason you don't declare it unless you're circling the drain is that it sets off a chain reaction.

Declarations of exigency bring political intervention, lawsuits, drastic drops in donor confidence, brain drains, and terrible press. I wouldn't send my kid to a college that declared publicly that it's on life support; I'd want my kid to go somewhere that will still be there when she's done. A state of emergency declared too soon can become self-fulfilling.

That can put administrators in an awkward position when budgets are bad. In the absence of hard measures, people go by reputation; you need to assure the outside world, as much as you can, that all is well. Even if there are serious fiscal issues, you don't want to plant the seed of thinking that the college is going downhill, because once people think that, it's likelier to come true. Yet at the same time you have to send the message internally that matters are serious, that you aren't crying wolf, and that changes need to be made. That's a narrow strike zone. You want to inspire enough confidence that things keep running, but not so much that people expect the impossible. You want to impress upon the legislature that more funding is needed, without giving the impression that they'd simply be tossing good money after bad. And you want to maintain your credibility in the process. That's difficult on a good day.

An artless administrator will respond with doublespeak, evasion, or incoherence, and those have all happened. Maintaining a steady presence is difficult when you're being pulled in multiple directions at once. It's that much harder when the underlying truth is in contradictory motion, which it has been since the Great Recession started and we've had a macabre tug-of-war between state deficits and ARRA maintenance-of-effort requirements. Some administrators apparently get so desperate to tell their truth that they call grad students at home and explain it to them. Others of us prefer to blog.

I never sent a thank-you note to Dr. so-and-so for the call, and I feel a little guilty about that. For reasons I'm only starting to understand, he helped a twentysomething nobody understand that it's not that simple. I hope this post pays it forward. And I'm sorry I mistook him for my dentist.

Comments:
The argument the article seemed to be making was that in order for admin to lay off tenured professors on the grounds of financial trouble, they were obligated to make the declaration. I took it as being something like bankruptcy: you can get out of your obligations, but you have to declare officially that you are in trouble.

What seems to be happening is more akin to deciding to get rid of your cell phone before the contract is over, on the grounds that you can't afford it, and expecting the phone company to go along with you because they trust your accounting.
 
It seems as if in several of the cases mentioned in the IHE article, that the administration is proclaiming that these are purely academic decisions (not requiring declaration of financial exigency) when they're mostly defending their actions outside the university on financial grounds. Double-speak will get caught out.

Declaring financial exigency is not the same as declaring bankruptcy so I have a hard time buying an administration's complaints that "we can't do that, it'll hurt us".

Here in Canada, the CAUT has a useful statement on the relationship between financial exigency and layoffs that points out the expectation that the board of governors and faculty will both be involved, and that administrators can only use these provisions after some serious effort and consideration.

You can't fix a broken budget in an instant by slashing a program or department but I would certainly hope that academic management wouldn't think that's a good way to operate!
 
Declaration of financial exigency is done at the community college system level in my state, so we deftly avoid the whole reputational issue. All the community and technical colleges in the state are given the same scarlet letter!
 
The university I'm affiliated with took a 20%+ funding cut. If that's not "financial exigency," I don't want to know what is.
 
While your point about reputation and fiscal exigency is well taken Dean Dad, its only part of the article. You certainly don't want to be running around crying wolf. But that does not seem to be the case in Florida or other schools.

What we are really talking about is sacking professors in the Humanities, and hiring in Engineering or the sciences. That strikes me as the bone of contention here. What does that do to a university's reputation?
 
If you saw the Science article about Florida State, you would realize that very real financial pressures were used to justify the elimination of two science departments and their subsequent merger into a third. The humanities were not hit at all, while some other departments are hiring.

What got the attention of Science was that one of the tenured faculty they fired was internationally known and held a "named" chair at the university, while another had been recruited into a special faculty line just a few months before being fired. Their rationale, the number of undergrad credit hours generated by the department, also seems at odds with their stated goal of becoming an AAU research university.
 
I appreciate that it's inconvenient to declare financial exigency before hiring someone. It's supposed to be. But regardless of the inconvenience, this is a contract that universities signed up to when they hire tenured or tenure-track faculty. Faculty gave up a lot, in return for the promises that come with tenure. Universities can't just ditch their obligations when those obligations become unimportant -- or rather, perhaps they can, but that'd be immoral and reprehensible and deserving of criticism.
 
Sorry; in my last comment, I meant "inconvenient to declare financial exigency before *firing* someone". My mistake.

As for flexibility: When Universities are asking for "flexibility", what they really mean is they want flexibility to disregard the obligations they've incurred, "flexibility" to break contractual terms that they agreed to when they hired the tenured faculty. Sure, I'd love some of that flexibility, too. I'd love the "flexibility" to stop paying my mortgage, and keep my house. But it doesn't work that way. The Universities agreed to certain terms when they hired tenured faculty, and now they've got to live up to the obligations they have taken on and abide by the agreements they made.
 
The Universities agreed to certain terms when they hired tenured faculty, and now they've got to live up to the obligations they have taken on and abide by the agreements they made.

And if they can't due to funding constraints? A university doesn't have the power to print money, and if the budget shrinks by enough, some tenured faculty are going to suffer. This is a matter of economics, not morality.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?