Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 09, 1982 - Image 19

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1982-09-09

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

The Michigan Daily-Thursday, September 9, 1982-Page 19

Ax ready,

but which schools will all?

(Continued from Page 13)
have included increasing student and
faculty participation in the review
process, public hearings allowing con-
cerned individuals to express their
views directly to the review panels, and*
open letters to the University com-
munity sritten to explain the process
and answer questions related to the
Responding to student and faculty
doubts about the reviews, Vice
President for Academic Affairs Billy
Frye wrote in an open letter to the
University community last March:
"I want to convey the sense of reluc-
tance that we share in taking this ac-
tion. We are mindful of the adverse ef-
fects that the mere announcement of
these reviews is likely to have. Most
notably, the important scholarly en-
deavors of many student and faculty
colleagues will be upset by these ac-
"It deeply saddens us that so high a
price will be exacted from valuable
members of the community. It is only
because I am so convinced that the
alternative of not taking this action
would be even more costly that I made
the difficult decision that we proceed."
ON THE same day, Art School Dean
George Bayliss announced that the
school's administrators would hold an
open meeting "to acquaint students
with how these reviews take place. I
don't want students to think that this is
a forced march or an execution."
The attitude that "review" is
synonymous with "elimination" again
manifested itself when a local realtor
began a mass mailing of letters offering
his services to faculty members em-
ployed at the Institute of Labor and In-
dustrial Relations following its announ-
ced review.
"With the announced and planned
axing of two rather large institutes by
the UM Administration, I'm sure that
many of you are giving serious con-
sideration to selling your home and
moving to a less depressed area. Some,
of you will think of me as a vulture after
the spoils, but please believe that I only
want to help you. Having been a former
administrator with the College of
Engineering before becoming a realtor,
I can be fully empathetic with your
situation," Ann Arbor Realtor Edward
Hudge wrote to institute staff members.
THE LARGEST demonstration of
fears about the review process oc-
curred when more than 250 students
packed the April 15 Regents' meeting to
protest redirection of the University.
The University's' key Budget
Priorities Committee (BPC), made up
of students, faculty, and ad-
ministrators, has and will continue to
play a central role in deciding the fate
of those divisions currently facing
review, and those that will be targeted
in the weeks and months to come.
In identifying a particular division
for review, the vice president for
academic affairs meets with a small
BPC subcommittee composed of his
administrative staff, two faculty mem-

degree to which a program could
become self-sufficient; the effect the
reduction would have on the Univer-
sity's relationship with the "com-
munity, other universities, and with
governments;" and-probably the
most controversial of the controversial
criteria-a program's "centrality to
the University, viewed in terms of its
pertinence to and support of the growth,
preservation, and communication of
THE SPECIFIC meaning of "cen-
trality" has been hotly debated because.
of its broad definition.
Jamie Moeller, a 1982 University
graduate and former BPC member of-
fered his definition of centrality as
"Centrality only can be delineated in
terms of each unit's mission to the
students, faculty, and community ...
"Students: Does the unit fulfill its
educational mission to its students? Is
this education central within the
University's overall goals and com-
nitments to its students-to provide
them with broad, well-rounded, useful
educations and to produce well-
educated, critically thinking members
of society.
"Faculty: Does the unit fulfill its
mission to its faculty by providing an
environment for scholarly pursuit?
Does it provide a suitable research
climate and the room and incentives for
innovations and creativity in both
teaching and research? Does the unit
provide valuable resources to its
faculty throughout the University?
"Community: Does the unit contribute
to its overall mission of service to the

state of Michigan? Does it produce
graduates in fields that are needed by
its community? Does the unit provide
effective educational services to the
community including continuing
education, workshops, and seminars?"
The question of criteria in the reviews
became an issue in the same sense that
centrality surfaced because of it's
similar loose definition. In a memo cir-
culated to selected members of the BPC
last year, Frye said that the goals of the
five-year plan must override the
questions of quality of certain
programs if the plan is to accomplish
"The most difficult problem that will
have to be faced in our program
reviews is not the problem of criteria in

the usual sense," Frye wrote, "but the
problem of keeping in front of ourselves
the commitment to reallocate $20
million to higher priorities as we review
each program for reduction or closure.
We cannot make decisions about the
fate of any particular program merely
on the intrinsic merits of that program,
but only in reference to this overall goal
of reallocation.
"Thus as last year, we must never
lose sight of the fact that the overall
goal must be met by program reduc-
tions or closures somewhere in the
University or else we must back off the
priorities to which we have committed
ourselves. If that occurs, the plan will
in effect have failed, even if not
. deliberately."

i -*rU.

Rudolf Steiner School
of Ann Arbor
A Waldof School
including Kindergarten
Expanding into a new spacious rural location
Places still available for 1982-83. Transportation available.
a non-profit organization

Daily Photo by DEBORAH LEWIS
DEAN GEORGE BAYLISS tells art school students at a mecting last
spring that a budget review doesn't necessarily mean the school will be cut.

bers, and one student to discuss the
justification and feasibility of such a
IF THE subcommittee agrees to
proceed, the recommendation is taken
to the BPC for approval.
During the BPC proceedings, a
similar discussion ensues, resulting in
either approval or disapproval. If ap-
proved, a subcommittee composed of
non-BPC member students, faculty,
and administrators (but including at
least one. BPC member) is chosen to
conduct the actual review and reach a
Later, a "charge"-the document
used as a guideline for conducting the
particular review-is drawn up
outlining specific areas within the
division that are to be scrutinized.
These areas can include several dif-
ferent issues including declining
enrollments, quality of research, or
relevance to the University curriculum.
Once "charged," the subcommittee
can begin conducting its review. Mem-
bers can request documents, letters of
community support, student grade
point statistics, and a host of other
materials they may need before
reaching a conclusion. Members can
also visit other institutions to compare
the quality or differences in program-
BEFORE submitting a final recom-
mendation to the BPC, the review sub-
committee must conduct one or more
public hearings in which concerned in-
dividuals can testify in support-or
against-the division under review.
After receiving the subcommittee's
recommendation, the BPC can endorse,;
amend, or reject the findings and then

submit its recommendation to the
University administration.
In contrast to the faculty and student
budget committee, which serves an ad-
visory role, the executive officers
decide how a program should be dealt
with after being reviewed.
While the BPC conclusions and en-
dorsements are seldom challenged by
the executive officers, disagreement is
not unheard of. University BPC mem-
ber and assistant to the vice president
Robert Sauve cited the review of the
Extension Service, which took place
last year, in which the executive of-
ficers disagreed with the review com-
mittee's recommendation of
elimination. They decided to maintain
one part of the Extension Service-but
at 10 percent of the unit's original
SAUVE SAID that if the executive of-
ficers decide to eliminate or alter a
division's budget significantly, the mat-
ter must be placed before the Regents
for final approval.
During the Regental deliberations,
opportunities are given for concerned
individuals to speak on behalf of the
The administrative criteria for selec-
tive budget reduction also has surfaced
as an issue by critics of the process.
This lengthy list, prepared by Frye's of-
fice, includes such questions as the
financial benefit of a program to the
University (or the relative amount of
outside funding which the program at-
tracts and future projections regarding
the availability of outside funding); the
potential reduction possible relative to
the overall "loss"-such as "income,
tuition revenue, and reputation;" the

P.O Box 2596
Ann Arbor,MI 48106


2011 Student Activities Building
Information: 763-6600 Employment: 763-4128
Guaranteed Student Loan: 763-4127

LOANS: NDSL, GSL, Health Professions
EMPLOYMENT: Work-Study and Temporary Student

Office Hours beginning 9/7/82:
M, T, W, F: 8:15-12:15, 1:30-4:00
Thursdays: 10:00-12:15, 1:30-4:00

No appointments available 9/7/82
through 9/10/82. Thereafter, ap-
pointments are scheduled begin-
ning Thursday mornings for the fol-
lowing week; scheduling continues

until all slots are full.
Save yourself an unnecessary waif in line-






E r t




a di

$3000 per academic year*
336 S. State-Ann Arbor, 48104 2 _



Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan