Pictured Above: Dismissing faculty members “when it was not absolutely necessary … would be inimical to a culture of caring, and indeed unconscionable,” the chairs and directors say.
Aya Diab | The Crow’s Nest
By Nancy McCann
Twenty faculty leaders in the College of Arts and Sciences have called out the USF administration for the way it is handling pandemic-related budget cuts.
They denounced administrators for moving too hastily and unilaterally, cutting too deeply and skirting the guidelines of transparency and honesty stipulated in the university’s Principles of Community.
“To treat the current budgetary shortfall as a pretext for sudden and drastic restructuring is a mistake,” they said. “Intelligent strategic realignment requires care, consideration and time.”
The blistering criticism comes in a memo, dated Oct. 30 and sent to the USF Faculty Senate, from 20 department chairs, directors and campus chairs in the College of Arts and Sciences.
The COVID-19 pandemic, which has drastically curtailed USF’s operations and dramatically cut its revenue, has left the university with a $36.7 million hole in its annual budget. An even deeper shortfall is expected in the 2021-2022 fiscal year.
The university administration has announced a tentative plan for an 8.5 percent budget cut that includes reductions of $13.4 million in “colleges,” $4.9 million in “academic support,” $6.5 million in “university business support,” $6.9 million at USF Health, $3.1 million at USF St. Petersburg and $1.9 million at USF Sarasota-Manatee.
It is that plan which drew the ire of the leaders in Arts and Sciences, who pointedly cited the university’s much-touted Principles of Community, “where it is understood that ‘constructive disagreement,’ while never disrespectful, can in the interest of the common good sometimes be adversarial.”
In the memo, the 20 faculty leaders:
** Call on the 85-member Faculty Senate – the primary faculty advisory body to the administration – “to engage proactively and constructively with university leadership” on the proposed cuts.
** Suggest that faculty and students are not “line-items” but members of a special community. Dismissing faculty members “when it was not absolutely necessary …. would be inimical to a culture of caring, and indeed unconscionable.”
** Contend that the magnitude of the state budget reductions “does not approach the magnitude of (proposed) cuts to the library and several USF colleges announced by university leadership.”
“We have not seen an analogous response to the current financial crisis anywhere else in the State University System and have not heard any arguments to the effect it is warranted at USF,” the memo says.
** Lament that “very specific though widely divergent budget targets have been presented to the deans of our colleges with very little guidance as to how they should be achieved.”
“Our deans have been charged with bearing the entire burden of faculty consultation under conditions not conducive to substantive dialogue and have been set up to serve as primary targets for faculty dissatisfaction,” the memo says.
“Neither our deans nor we, as chairs and directors, are in a position to provide any of the faculty and staff who report to us with any reassurances, nor to explain to any of them why some might be at risk while others are not.”
The faculty leaders’ draft memo also sharply criticizes the administration’s emphasis on national rankings and the academic metrics – or yardsticks – that figure in preeminence and performance-based funding by the state.
When “institutional rankings and metric scores genuinely track the quality of a USF education … our success in meeting targets is indeed cause for celebration,” the memo says. “We are aware, however, of respects in which the targets themselves are arbitrary, and of other respects in which the needs of our students and of our regional community are not tracked by canonical metrics at all.”
The university received no performance-based funding or additional preeminence funding from the Legislature this fiscal year, which suggests that the rewards of strong metrics have not been “proportional to our progress,” the memo says.
“That we have been disappointed” in the outcome of strong metrics and rankings “does not mean the strategy should be abandoned altogether,” the memo says, “but it does suggest that the urgency with which we pursue it should be tempered by experience.
“We cannot continue to do what we have done before, repeatedly, and imagine that this time the outcome will change.”
‘Inimical to a culture of caring’
Here is the memo sent to the USF Faculty Senate on Oct. 30 by 20 chairs, directors and campus chairs in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Summary
We view with alarm the budget cuts to USF’s academic units recently announced by University leadership. We call upon the Faculty Senate to engage proactively and constructively with University leadership to ensure that any and all cuts to academic units be (1) explained to and considered in detail by all University stakeholders; (2) subject to the constraints of the “transparent working and learning environment that promotes honesty, fairness, and trust” stipulated in the USF Principles of Community; and (3) proportional in magnitude and timing to reasonable estimates of current and future funding shortfalls.
We ask that in pursuing such engagement the Senate be guided by the values of “productive communication, dialogue, and constructive disagreement” enshrined in our Principles of Community, where it is understood that “constructive disagreement,” while never disrespectful, can in the interest of the common good, sometimes be adversarial.
Community, Austerity, and Strategic Realignment
We take note of two institutional milestones USF has achieved over the past year. First, we have excelled on all of the State of Florida’s performance-based funding metrics, cementing our status as one of Florida’s preeminent universities. Second, we have adopted new Principles of Community.
While under other circumstances we would join with University leadership in celebrating these achievements, the present situation gives us pause. To the extent to which institutional rankings and metric scores genuinely track the quality of a USF education and its value to our students, our success in meeting targets is indeed cause for celebration. We are aware, however, of respects in which the targets themselves are arbitrary, and of other respects in which the needs of our students and of our regional community are not tracked by the canonical metrics at all.
Furthermore, though our decades-long ascent up the ladder of national recognition is a real achievement, it has been a costly one. Financially, we have invested beyond our means, and whereas the expectation that success would be rewarded with new recurring funds was at times reasonable, it was certainly never assured.
The human cost has been more significant. USF faculty and staff have worked tirelessly and seemingly, at times, thanklessly, to make this a university to be proud of, in many cases devoting our entire careers to this cause. We have chosen to do this because we felt our students deserved it, and in doing so we have considered ourselves, our colleagues, and our students not as line-items, but as members of a community, one in which we could, as our Principles of Community enjoin, “commit our time, talents, and resources to building a culture of caring that promotes the integrity of our relationships and the sustainable well-being of the entire community.”
Were we to discover, in the midst of a global pandemic and economic crisis, that leadership was seriously contemplating the dismissal of any of our devoted colleagues, fellow educators, and friends when it was not absolutely necessary, we could not then be blamed for wondering whether in considering ourselves members of a community, we had not been deluded all along. Such a step would be inimical to a culture of caring, and indeed unconscionable.
In the face of evidence of strategic missteps, a strategic realignment is reasonable. Such realignment is the prerogative of University leadership under the guidance of the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors.
USF has chased regional and national rankings for years, in the expectation that recognition and rewards would be proportional to our progress as measured by such yardsticks. That we have been disappointed in this expectation does not mean the strategy should be abandoned altogether, but it does suggest that the urgency with which we pursue it should be tempered by experience. We cannot continue to do what we have done before, repeatedly, and imagine that this time the outcome will change.
We welcome the vote of confidence given by the Board of Governors in endorsing our most recent legislative budget request. At the same time, given the prevailing conditions of austerity in the State budget, we see no grounds for optimism that the Legislature will be able to grant it.
Having received no performance-based or preeminence funding for the current fiscal year and facing the Governor’s 8.5% retention of previously allocated E&G funds, we must certainly seek savings where we can. However, to treat the current budgetary shortfall as a pretext for sudden and drastic restructuring is a mistake. Intelligent strategic realignment requires care, consideration, and time.
The Governor has retained a portion of our allocated E&G funds, and the Board of Governors has announced that it would more rigorously enforce rules against using E&G carryforward to fund recurring expenses. While significant, the magnitude of both measures, taken together, does not approach the magnitude of cuts to the Library and several USF colleges announced by University leadership. We have not seen an analogous response to the current financial crisis anywhere else in the State University System and have not heard any arguments to the effect that it is warranted at USF.
To the best of our knowledge, very specific though widely divergent budget targets have been presented to the deans of our colleges with very little guidance as to how they should be achieved. There has been no public discussion or explanation of the differential treatment of academic units. Our deans have been charged with bearing the entire burden of faculty consultation under conditions not conducive to substantive dialogue and have been set up to serve as primary targets for faculty dissatisfaction. Neither our deans nor we, as chairs and directors, are in a position to provide any of the faculty and staff who report to us with any reassurances, nor to explain to any of them why some might be at risk while others are not.
We ask the Senate to ensure that answers to the questions formulated by the Senate Executive Committee and circulated on October 26 be answered in full, in public, and in writing, allowing for their distribution to faculty and other community members.
A public university is many things. It is a State agency, charged with delivering services to the public. It is a corporation, owned by the State and run by its Board. It is a mechanism by which the State and Federal Governments invest locally and regionally. In these three respects, a public university is no different from a state prison. In this letter we have taken seriously the proposition that, unlike a prison, USF is also a community. We call upon the Senate to put this proposition to the test.
Respectfully submitted, with signatories in alphabetical order:
Golfo Alexopoulos, Director, USF Institute on Russia
James E. Andrews, Director, School of Information
Andrew Berish, Chair, Department of Humanities and Cultural Studies
Patrice Buzzanell, Chair, Department of Communication
Charles E. Chalfant, Chair, Department of Cell Biology, Microbiology, and Molecular Biology
Brian Connolly, Chair, Department of History
Michael DeJonge, Chair, Department of Religious Studies
Sara E. Green, Chair, Department of Sociology
Antoinette Jackson, Chair, Department of Anthropology
Brad Kamp, Chair, Department of Anthropology
Ippokratis Kantzios, Interim Chair, Department of World Languages
Alex Levine, Chair, Department of Philosophy
Beatriz Padilla, Interim Director, Institute for the Study of Latin America and the Caribbean
Diane Price Herndl, Chair, Women’s and Gender Studies
Mark Rains, Director, School of Geosciences
Melanie Riedinger-Whitmore, Saint Petersburg Campus Chair, Department of Integrative Biology
Leslaw Skrzypek, Chair, Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Melissa M. Sloan, Saint Petersburg Campus Director, Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Department of Sociology
M. Scott Solomon, Chair, School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies
Sarath Witanachchi, Chair, Department of Physics
