This little part of a story about the UW regents meeting about the proposed state budget was revealing.
UW-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow said he’s committed to avoiding layoffs, noting his employees were not responsible for the budget shortfall that prompted the cuts and shouldn’t lose jobs because of it. He said other cost-saving measures could include outsourcing campus maintenance and getting by with fewer janitors. But students will feel the cuts, he said.
“I don’t know how we do a 21st century higher education system with 1998 funding levels,” he said.
Let’s break this down into segments. First:
UW-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow said he’s committed to avoiding layoffs, noting his employees were not responsible for the budget shortfall that prompted the cuts and shouldn’t lose jobs because of it.
Notice that the priority is to protect the employees as if the primary function of the university is to provide jobs. It is not. Even the so-called “Wisconsin Idea” doesn’t mention job creation as a goal of the university system. Yet, Chancellor Gow’s first priority is not to protect student services, education, research, etc., it is to protect the employees from being impacted by the budget.
Second:
He said other cost-saving measures could include outsourcing campus maintenance and getting by with fewer janitors.
Notice how when Gow talks about “employees,” he doesn’t apparently mean maintenance or janitorial staff. Who is included in Gow’s definition of “employees” who are worthy of such rigid protection? He doesn’t elaborate, but we know that maintenance staff aren’t in that protected class.
Third:
But students will feel the cuts, he said.
And the inevitable threat. So while Gow is hellbent on protecting employees, he is promising that students will be impacted. Apparently he is no capable of managing a 2.5% system funding cut without negatively impacting the core mission of the university – educating kids.
Fourth:
“I don’t know how we do a 21st century higher education system with 1998 funding levels,” he said.
While I don’t automatically accept, as fact, the 1998 comparison, notice the assumption that spending MUST increase. In an era when technology is enabling incredible efficiencies in the service delivery, the university is apparently immune from those forces. Perhaps if 21st century higher education leveraged 21st century tools effectively, they could deliver the same or better service with 1988 funding levels.
Unfortunately, Gow’s mindset reveals a remarkable amount of rigidity and a lack of innovation that does not lend itself well to the active management of a complex budget. More unfortunately, I don’t believe that Gow’s mindset is unique on the Board of Regents.
You can save 2.5% by simply cutting the funding of all the liberal hate groups on each campus!
You might be able to do it just on the groups that advocate for extermination of the unborn.
Then you can move to cutting all the administration, faculty, and support staff that are dedicated to assaulting the 1st amendment and any other speech of the students that attend UW with their ridiculous speech codes and other Soviet-style Marxist oppression!
That will get you another 10% in savings. I suggest focusing the entire UW system cut from UW-Milwaukee administration. It’s a cesspool.
To me, Walker does not go far enough to defund UW!
Quick story Owen, my son goes to Whitewater, he sent me a text w/picture of front page of school news paper the Royal Purple. The article is about the cuts to UW system. My 1st thought is, why in today’s world is a college newspaper still being printed on paper? Owen, I’m not real tech savvy, but even I know this is a waste of money. When was the last time you saw anyone under 40 pick up a newspaper. Can’t they create a” Royal Purple” app? My point is, if I trip over a savings, can you imagine what would happen if we looked at every expenditure like all businesses do?
Owen, you seem to be critical that a university would want to keep the cuts as far from the instruction as possible. If the role of the institution is to educate students you will want to preserve as many instructors as possible. You will want to preserve choices for students since the whole purpose of a university education is to broaden the mind and create better informed thoughtful citizens. Republicans are talking like funding a university that is not some kind of job producer for the corporations is not worthy of any funding. If their primary role is to produce future workers, they are not universities. They are glorified tech schools.
You inaccurately state that Gow does not prioritize the education of the students or the research. Who do you think provides those services? It is the university teaching and research staff. The University of Wisconsin-Madison brings in millions each year in research. If those staff are cut the university is shooting itself in the foot since the state is abandoning its traditional level of support in favor of tax cuts that create 2 billion dollar holes in the budget.
You said,
“Notice how when Gow talks about “employees,” he doesn’t apparently mean maintenance or janitorial staff. Who is included in Gow’s definition of “employees” who are worthy of such rigid protection? He doesn’t elaborate, but we know that maintenance staff aren’t in that protected class.”
So logically Gow is prioritizing between teaching and support staff and looking at finding a cheaper way to get the cleaning done. Unfortunately it will result in people who have built lives and careers providing these services to the universities being unceremoniously replaced by minimum wage employees working for a contract service with no benefits. Inevitably it will result in lower levels of service. This could, of course, been avoided by merely, for example, taking the federal Medicaid funds and no more university shortfall. Or you could avoid the meaningless $5 per year property tax cut; the only purpose of which is to provide a tagline on Walker’s stump speech in Iowa.
You also appear to be ridiculing the “so called Wisconsin Idea” which speaks volumes as to your prejudices. The Wisconsin Idea as propounded by university president Charles Van Hise in 1904 was intended to utilize the brain trust of university faculty and their research to better the lives of all citizens of Wisconsin. UW professors were prime architects of Unemployment Compensation, Workers’ Compensation, and Social Security. These programs have made lives of millions and millions of people better than they would otherwise have been. The Wisconsin Public Radio network you so often appear on is another example. In its earlier days it brought classes to small rural public school districts that would otherwise not be available. There are countless other examples in the Agriculture Dept., Science, etc. However with the anti-intellectual position of today’s conservatives and their aversion to any government action that benefits the greater good of all, it is understandable that those with your political bent regularly take shots at these institutions that have benefitted all citizens. No wonder Scott Walker tried to kill it literally as well as practically with his cutting of support.
I look forward to the day that Google implements its Knowledge Vault so that search results are rated by accuracy. That way some of the blarney that conservatives spew can be shown to be inaccurate and without factual basis. It may make Kevin’s efforts to find creationism support or sites that say there is no basis to believe global warming a little harder to find. I have no doubt lack of facts will not stop the current crop of conservatives. At one time Republicans supported actions that benefitted society as a whole. Look at the Interstate Highway System as an example. Would today’s Republican levy the taxes necessary to create the I-System? Eisenhower did and the project has returned $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Today’s conservative spout positions that Eisenhower would have considered as fringe nut positions. Like the John Birch Society…you know…the group the Koch Bros. dad helped kick off.