BY DEBORAH BELL, SUSAN DENNISON, SPOMA JOVANOVIC, JESSICA NAVARRO, AND JONATHAN TUDGE

As colleges and universities address myriad crises—including enrollment declines, operating changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, questions about the value of a college degree, and the need to mitigate racial tensions on campus—higher education budgets have come under increasing scrutiny, and talk about threats of budget cuts have become ubiquitous in the halls of the academy. Faculty read the news of institutional woes elsewhere and wonder if their department, unit, or institution will be targeted next for reductions.

Taking the centrality of faculty to higher education’s mission as a starting point, what role should faculty have in institutional budget decision making? When administrations are considering salary reductions, loss of employment benefits, deferred compensation, or furloughs, how can faculty best insert themselves in the process of financial management to ensure a vibrant future for teaching and research in higher education? According to a 2021 AAUP study on shared governance, less than 4 percent of faculty across the nation have a role in budget decision-making. Related to this decline in shared governance, many state universities have seen a marked increase (up to 220 percent) in administrative positions since the 1970s. At the same time, the AAUP found that 70 percent of new faculty appointments were off the tenure track.

Our AAUP chapter at UNC Greensboro—a high-intensive research, minority-serving public university enrolling nearly 20,000 students—decided that faculty voices required amplification when the administration announced impending budget cuts. We developed a survey (available here) consisting of process considerations (that is, who should be included in the decision-making process and how), outcome considerations (that is, how the budget could be reduced and, if reductions involve faculty, for whom and how these reductions should be implemented), and demographic questions. Approximately 44 percent of those surveyed answered our forced-choice questions and many also responded to open-ended questions. Respondents included the full range of faculty, from those not on a path to tenure (“professional track”) to full professors.

Regarding the decision-making process, faculty wanted transparency and involvement (see figure 1).

As one respondent wrote, “Widespread faculty involvement would guarantee transparency. . . .  Having the faculty voice at the table helps administrators understand the consequences of actions.”

In considering the cost-saving initiatives they would prefer, faculty somewhat favored incentivized early retirement and least preferred furlough options (see figure 2). There was greater clarity in terms of where position and salary cuts should come from: faculty responded that senior administrators, followed by lower ranking administrators, should be the first to take position and salary cuts (see figure 3).

As one faculty member noted, “We have a bloated administration at this university. We can function with fewer assistant provosts than we can with integral faculty (that includes adjuncts).” When pressed to consider how to impose salary cuts, if needed, faculty generally preferred a graduated reduction process (that is, a higher percentage cut for those earning more) to an across-the-board simple percentage cut (see figure 4).

Finally, the faculty expressed the desire for equity and fairness in budget-making decisions. For many respondents, this meant reducing more drastically the salaries, and positions, of those earning the most money and protecting those who made the least. One respondent wrote that “[professional track] faculty who do the bulk of the teaching are also the most undercompensated.” Another stated, “The [professional track] faculty barely earn a living wage. The cuts should be non-uniform percentages with the highest percentages at the top.” Other considerations were equally important. For example, one faculty member wrote, “For transparency, the demographics of those who are cut, of even the [larger] effect of reductions, should be analyzed to see implications for BIPOC staff and faculty.”

To combat faculty feelings of gloom, we recommend that other campuses systematically query faculty, host conversations, and organize for action. We found that faculty were appreciative and eager to respond to the efforts of UNCG’s AAUP chapter with their views and ideas. The survey also served to reenergize faculty relationships on campus and increase AAUP meeting attendance.

The fate of higher education is uncertain, but the need for faculty to offer their full and immediate attention to the budget-making process is clear. How faculty and administration respond to the current pandemic, drops in student enrollment due to the birth-rate decline, and the budget crisis has the potential to provoke repercussions for years to come. Working together, not in isolation from one another, is admittedly not easy yet offers the best hope to ensure the survival of higher education for future generations.

The authors are members of the University of North Carolina Greensboro AAUP chapter. Deborah Bell is chapter secretary and professor emeritus of theater and costume design. Susan Dennison is a past president of the chapter and professor emeritus of social work. Spoma Jovanovic is professor of communication studies. Jessica Navarro is a researcher in human development and family studies. Jonathan Tudge is a past president of the chapter and professor emeritus of human development and family studies. Authorship order was determined alphabetically.