POSTED BY MARTIN KICH
As part of our ongoing contract campaign at Wright State, we have been asking our members to speak at the meetings of our Board of Trustees. What follows is a statement made by Dan Slilaty, Professor of Mathematics, at the most recent Board meeting. I think that it speaks to issues in higher education beyond those at our own campus.
_________________________
My name is Dan Slilaty. I am a professor of mathematics here at Wright State University. I am a proud member of one of around 586 full-time faculty members at this institution. Can I get a show of hands, who here is a full-time Wright State faculty member? Fantastic! So, what is it that we all do here at Wright State? First and foremost, we are dedicated to the education and success of our students. We design the curriculum and degree programs here at Wright State, we determine the course content of these programs, and in the end we are the ones who walk into the classroom and directly teach those students. In addition to this, we are the ones who meet with students in our offices to advise them and guide them through our programs along the path to graduation. In other words, we are the ones responsible for the continuing maintenance and improvement of the educational experience for the students of Wright State University; an educational experience that elevates the lives of our graduates and therefore elevates the economic life, cultural life, and civic life here in the Miami Valley.
This educational experience that we, the faculty, provide is the product of the working relationship between us and our students. It is this relationship between teachers and students that is THE single reason for being of this and any other university; everything else that exists at a university is simply a consequence of this primary relationship between teacher and student. This is not just some opinion of mine, it is an objective fact.
Now, there are three factors that determine the quality of the educational experience at a university: (1) the expertise and dedication of the faculty, (2) the engagement and effort of its students, and (3) the institutional support received for carrying out this educational experience. Increasing any one of these three increases the quality of the educational experience and decreasing any one decreases it. Aside from the quality of this primary mission of educating students, there is one other major factor impacting the quality of a university and that is the scholarly production and reputation of the faculty. If you think of any one of the most elite universities in the world, then you will see one that contains a group of the most elite scholars in the world working at the cutting edge and pushing forward the boundaries of human knowledge. Conversely, universities with scant or no scholarship are rarely, if ever, are considered to be elite.
At this point, it seems that I have just revealed what our “brand” here at Wright State: Wright State, a great 4-year education at a great price by respected scholars in their fields, altogether in a safe and fun environment right here in the beautiful Miami Valley. Now that’s a brand for a university to be proud of and one that will actually attract students.
Well, this all sounds kind of expensive. How much does supporting a dedicated faculty, 586 members strong, cost? Anyone? Yes, 17% of the total budget of this institution; 17% of the total budget to pay for the heart and soul of what a university is. 17% to pay for the only reason that any student would ever come to Wright State for in the first place: to be taught by the faculty, to graduate, and then move forward with his life.
Now, in the past four years the administration and board of trustees of this university has created a financial mess of unbelievable proportions. How bad is it, you might be thinking? Here is one way to look at it. From 2013 to 2017 Wright State’s reserve funds went from around $130 million dollars to less than $20 million: that’s four years over budget at an average of $27.5 million per year. At a total budget of around $400 million per year this amounts to overspending of almost 7% per year. Overspending of 7% per year when a university is supposed to strive to save 1%-to-3% of its budget to ADD to its reserve funding. Where did all of these funds go, you ask? Irresponsibly high-priced athletics program, exorbitant salaries for top administrators, administrative bloat, branding consultants, and highly risky side projects like WSRI and WSARC. All of these things adding NOTHING to the core mission of the university; nothing towards student instruction, faculty scholarship, and the proper institutional support for these missions which are, after all, what a university is objectively all about. Reserve funding drained to funds drained to nothing to pay for continuing administrative bloat and speculative ventures.
So, in response to their own extreme financial negligence and complete disregard for what a university is actually supposed to be, the administration and board of trustees have gone on a budget cutting spree that protects the products of their own unbelievably reckless and wasteful spending and seeks to slash the core mission of the university. They slashed the compensation and benefits of the University’s hard-working support staff who have no recourse to do anything about it. They slashed course offerings and have delayed graduations of deserving students. They threaten to fire instructors: the three instructors in my department (Erik Potts, Betsy Witt, and Cathryn Holm) have been put on notice that their positions might be terminated next year. Together these three instructors teach 18-21 sections of mathematics and statistics courses per year! To be replaced by what? This is exactly the sort of thing that directly cheapens the educational experience that we provide. And, finally, they have decided to go to war against the 17% of the University’s budget that goes towards compensating its remaining full-time faculty. It is a wild dream for them to think that they will reduce this 17% of the budget by as much as 10%, but a reduction of 5% they must feel is possible. Well folks, 5% of 17% is less than 1%. At a total budget of around $400 million, 1% is around $4 million. To save $4 million from the total budget they attack the heart and soul of the university, they reach out to squeeze those who carry out the core mission of this institution to fund their own malfeasance.
But what is the real price of these irresponsible actions that seek to save their 1%? As I was saying before, the expertise and dedication of the faculty is one of three factors determining the quality of the educational experience at a university and that the scholarly work of the faculty is the other main factor which adds to the reputation of a university. In order to maintain and advance these primary activities, the university must continually attract talented new hires to the faculty. To do this, a certain level of support and respect for them is necessary, especially considering the fact that most faculty members spend nearly their entire careers at one institution. Mistreating and insulting the current faculty now, to such an extreme degree as what is being proposed, will have a long-lasting and highly detrimental effect on future hiring. No young teacher in his right mind would willingly subject himself to anything like what is going on here if he had any other choice available. This is not a formula for advancing the quality of the instructional mission or the research mission of this university. On the contrary, simply the news of what if currently going on here has set us so far backwards so as to take a decade or more to recover. The atmosphere has become so toxic that the administration has sent email announcements to try to reassure our students that they will “somehow” be able to complete their degree programs. One message states, “…no matter what happens, our students’ hard work and progress toward their academic goals will not be impeded.” Well, I was just contacted by some friends of mine telling me that their daughter’s graduation will be delayed until the next academic year, because of ONE course that she needs to graduate which was not offered this year due to the financial situation. Perhaps I need to look up the definition of the word “impeded” but it seems to me that she is being impeded. These are NOT helpful messages for retaining our current students or recruiting good students in the future (good students, by the way, is another one of those three factors that determines the educational quality of a university.)
Well . . . we in the AAUP believe in a principle called “shared governance,” that is, that there must be meaningful faculty participation in the governance of the university. And what we, the faculty, demand is that all future cuts to the university’s budget be made in the irresponsible multimillion-dollar athletic budget, in the extreme salaries and bloat of the upper administration, and in side projects like WSRI and WSARC. 1% of the total budget (or about $4 million dollars) can easily be found in these areas, and cuts in these areas will do nothing to harm the real mission of this university: teaching, learning, and faculty scholarship. The absurd and insulting proposals that the administration and board of trustees have put on the table with us will indeed harm the university’s core mission for many years to come.
Well, I will not sit down and be silent on this matter and I do not believe that my colleagues will either. I will not sit down and watch while the administration and board of trustees decimate this university that I have proudly and joyfully served for 17 years and fully intend to continue serving for another 17. If a strike is the only way in which meaningful shared governance is going to happen, if a strike is the only way to stop this reckless and irresponsible disregard for the core mission of the university, if a strike is the only way to stop this betrayal of the public trust of the people of Ohio, then I will vote to strike, and I firmly believe my colleagues will as well. Thank you.
Pingback: Dan Slilaty: The University’s Single Reason for Being – aaupwsublog
We all need to be thankful to professors like Dr. Slilaty, who can speak the truth without fear of reprisal. That’s definitely one good thing about tenure! Dr. Slilaty sees what can become of American academe if colleges and universities totally cede to the ‘business model’ and continue to churn out certifications while supporting their chief mission: to provide fat salaries for administrators and expensive athletic entertainment for the masses. Think: Roman Colosseum. Oh, and replacing full-time faculty? Contingent faculty — adjuncts. I for one would like to see ALL adjuncts, term faculty, and their tenured colleagues STRIKE nationally to ensure that academic integrity and personal dignity are maintained.
The writer has organized a good argument. By good I mean reasoned, factual and opinionated. He is quite right in his criticism of university administrative overhead costs and other expenses that can compete with labor costs (faculty). I might disagree with him, however, in his central argument as I understand it; that faculty (and the faculty-student dynamic) are the core functional and strategic purposes of the modern university, along with research. I disagree with him in two respects. One: he asserts “If you think of any one of the most elite universities in the world, then you will see one that contains a group of the most elite scholars in the world working at the cutting edge and pushing forward the boundaries of human knowledge. Conversely, universities with scant or no scholarship are rarely, if ever, are considered to be elite.” In my experience, there is a sizable component of research that is rather unimportant (to anyone else but peers); is hardly “cutting-edge,” or especially, is so deeply configured in special interest ideology that it really isn’t even research properly understood, but rather what might be better described as elaborate opinion journalism with footnotes. Two: faculty are obviously central to a university and college purpose, but I disagree with him when he implies that faculty are somehow irreplaceable, or especially valued because of (One, above). In fact, for every senior faculty member on a university payroll, there are at least 50-100 highly qualified at-large or competitor candidates (often many more) that can walk right into the job; with new perspective, fresh ambition; eager work ethic and/or enormous intellectual potential–and may even know something about formal pedagogy. Too many tenured faculty remind me of politicians on their third, fourth or even eighth term: institutionalized, sometimes compromised, and entitled. Universities may actually function at a much higher level (and with more dynamic student learning) with regularly rotating faculty, along with an abolition of tenure, title and hierarchy. As for administrations, they may be better composed of outside, non-academic professionals, or are at least representing a meaningful component. And especially, they are at-risk financially like real businessmen. And that is what a university is: a business.