Skip to main content

Thinking about the Delaware budget and higher education

[Sub-title: Dana, this one's for you]

This afternoon my employer, Delaware State University, makes its pitch at the Joint Finance Committee. I don't usually blog about DSU because of potential conflicts of interest and my position as faculty union president.

But sometimes you just have to go with what you believe.

I suspect (I have absolutely no inside information on this) that DSU will put on a presentation that attempts to justify the same level of funding as originally projected, in an effort to avoid anything more draconian than a 3% cut. I suspect that many other agencies will do so as well.

It's no secret that DSU--like a lot of American citizens these days--is walking a tight financial line. I could give details, but that might get me into confidential information--just go read the newspapers and public documents if you are really interested in the numbers.

I have to say, however, that going in today and suggesting that higher education cannot take cuts at least as deep, if not deeper than public education in this State is a dire mistake.

DSU, UD, and Del Tech all possess an ability that the public schools do not have: they can gin up money from other sources: grants, tuition, fees, donations, etc. etc. So point one is that colleges and universities have a better ability to compensate for such cuts than public education--and they need to acknowledge that fact publicly.

Point two: the cost of higher education has been skyrocketing for the past two decades, way out ahead of inflation. I'm not sure why: for the last two decades I have only seen departmental instructional budgets go down, and teaching lines eliminated as the number of administrators go up while more and more millions are spent on sports and branding. Wait, maybe I do know why the costs are increasing....

Colleges and universities in this State need to present evidence of some serious cost control measures before claiming some sort of exemption from the same budget cuts faced by my children's schools. With respect to my own institution, a more cynical observer than me might ask why a university with with about 180 faculty and 3,500 students requires a Provost, two Associate Provosts, six Vice-Presidents, and six deans--or one senior administrator for every 12 faculty and every 234 students.

Point three: without public education functioning, higher education is pretty damn meaningless.

Point four: school districts are now having serious conversations about whether or not they can afford inter-scholastic athletics while cutting services to special needs students. Good for them; it's the right discussion to have. Where is that discussion on the part of higher education in this State?

Point five: if banks and corporations receiving Federal funds are (rightly) to be subject to extreme transparency and even government regulation of salaries, why not State-supported higher ed? Delaware and Pennsylvania are--to my knowledge--the only two states in the damn country which basically exempt state university operations from most FOIA provisions. What the hell? And what about those bloated administrative salaries? Is the General Assembly going to ask Harker, Smith, or George to insure that the top 10 administrators at each institution take 5-10% pay cuts to do their part? [Kudos, by the way, to Harker for getting that ball rolling.]

I expect that if any of my colleagues reads this I will hear about it in a negative way. So be it.

But as recipients of State and Federal funds, colleges and universities in Delaware have an absolute responsibility to conduct their operations frugally, transparently, and in the spirit of insuring that all education in the State is adequately funded.

PS--on a tangential note: dropping the DSTP tomorrow and replacing it with off the shelf assessments to replace our NCLB requirements would save $5 million instantly. And Jack promised he'd do that. Hope we see it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...