0 4 - Tuesday, October 2, 2007 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu This budget agreement is the right solution for Michigan" - Gov. Jennifer Granholm praising the state legislature's early-morning passage ofta state budget that will raise state income taxes and will include a 6 percent tax on nonessential services, as reported yesterday on detnews.com. KARL STAMPFL EDITOR IN CHIEF IMRAN SYED EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR JEFFREY BLOOMER MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. The Daily's public editor, Paul Johnson, acts as the readers' representative and takes a critical look at coverage and content in every section of the paper. Readers are encouraged to contact the public editor with questions and comments. He can be reached at'publiceditor@umich.edu. Writing the rule Faculty input into construction projects should be codified For an institution facing consistent cuts in state funding, the University certainly seems to have a lot of spending money. Construction projects like the new building at the busi- ness school and North Quad are well underway, and more such expensive ventures are in the pipeline. In deciding on construc- tion projects, the opinion of the faculty - an integral part of the University - is important. The administration has never denied this. Yet codifying the right of the faculty to be informed and con- sulted on such matters turns out to be a tricky undertaking. The administration's reluctance to do so seems odd, especially since it has always insisted that it takes faculty opinion into account. The onaton downfall "Excessive wealth engenders self- satisfied mediocrity. It's true in fami- lies, and it's true in universities." - Leon Bolstein, president of Bard College, as quoted in this week's New York Times Magazine. The post- card I received this summer from the University's Alumni Associa- tion was daunt- ing for a couple of reasons. It means I'm almost a col- THERESA lege graduate, KENNELLY and that the Uni- versity is already getting on my back for money. I'm already dreading my first call from the Michigan Telefund at the end of April. A little advice to the Alumni Association and Telefund: After fac. log a net loss of more than $100,000 in my first three years on campus alone, it's going to take me a couple of decades to want to give more money to the University, so don't waste your time. That's not to discredit the attempts of organizations to draw money out of my bank account while my college memories are still fresh. The Alumni Association and Telefund provide a valuable service to a university that has suffered financially. Since 2001, state funding for higher education has declined 7percentin Michigan, despite a 19 percent increase nationwide. Michigan's public colleges have a' lot of losses to make up for, and tap- ping into the wealth of alumni is a reasonable way to do that. The prob- lems start, though, when schools for- get the real reasons for fundraising, become money hungry and fall at the feet of alumni while neglecting the needs of students and faculty. It appears these problems have begun at the University. University administrators 'spend significant time working with donors to create donation packages that the KATHERINE BEREZOWSKYJ donor approves of. More than 98 percent of alumni donors designate where they want the gift to go, thus revoking the University's power to delineate were fundraising money goes. This has resulted in odd sce- narios like construction of expensive new buildings even in the time of drastic state funding cuts and tuition hikes. In the 2007 fiscal year, fundraising at the University hitrecord highs. The $2.5 billion fundraising campaign, the Michigan Difference, reached its goal 18 months ahead of schedule. At the same time, undergraduate tuition went up 7.4 percent and graduate tuition increased 5 percent. Also, the percentage of non-tenured fac- ulty members - who earn consider- ably less money than tenured faculty - has increased substantially in past years. It appears that the University is cutting corners in other areas, too. One example is the library system, which faced the elimination of 2,500 journal subscriptions this year. Another is University Housing, which passed on a 4.9 percent increase to students this past year. These price hikes and budget cuts, despite record highs in alumni donations, translate into a school that's getting greedy and failing the University's students and faculty. This issue is not unique to our university. In Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Andrew Delbanco emphasizes a new trend on college campuses nationwide: "Our top uni- versities compete for 'market share' and 'brand-name positioning,' employ teams of consultants and lobbyists and furnish their campuses with lux- uries in order to attract paying 'cus- tomers'- a word increasinglyused as a synonym for students." Essentially, college has turned into a big business with an identity issue. This trend is taking a toll on stu- dent and faculty morale and causing the "customers" to get curious about financial decisions. Last week, the Senate Advisory Committee on Uni- versity Affairs, which is the execu- tive branch of the Faculty Senate, attempted to codify its role in having faculty input on University construc- tion projects. That part of its proposal was rejected by University President Mary Sue Coleman. Why eactly is the University reconstructing per- fectly functional buildings, while at the same time administrators say they have to raise tuition to make up for budget shortfalls? Is it simply because alumni tell them to? There's a lot of money - just not in the right places. The administration's answer is that the University has to copstantly renovate in order to remain a com- petitive 21st century institution: That still makes it a little difficult to sympathize with the University for cuts in state funding. It's also why I am confused that the tuition rally last week took place in front of the statehouse instead of the president's house. The administration ought to be experienced and smart enough to realize that it's going face cuts. As a result, it should have delayed a couple of construction projects and focused its attention and money more on com- bating tuition hikes. . But it didn't do that, because it has let its hands be tied by donors, and it can't do that. It is acting as a business looking-for profit, not an educational institution with a responsibility to the students and faculty. I don't foresee giving back to the University anytime soon. It didn't care about my budget constraints while I was enrolled, so why should I care about its needs after I graduate? Theresa Kennelly is an associate editorial page editor. She can be reached at thenelly@umich.edu. 6 6 In the past, it has been an unwritten pol- icy of the University to consult the faculty before making major decisions, because faculty are an important part of the Univer- sity community. Hoping to clarify this rela- tionship, the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs, the executive branch of the Faculty Senate, drafted a handbook that included a sentence defining the extent to which the faculty should be involved. Although the proposal hardly pushes the administration into uncharted territor'y, that provision was rejected by University President Mary Sue Coleman, who argued that it committed the president "to an unprecedented process of approval prior to regental consideration." The far reaching presumption that Cole- man seems to envision coming from this change is absurd. It's not as though the administration will have its hands tied by faculty approval. The draft merely calls for the faculty to have the opportunity to con- sult with the president on major expendi- tures. The proposal does not necessarily entail that the faculty's opinion be abided by in every case, only that the opinion be heard. As in the case of the proposed plan to install skyboxes inthe Big House, the faculty should have a recognized right to voice their opinion early in the process and to receive the administration's reasoning regarding the final decision. Currently, the administration is as good asuncheckedinits decision-making.AtUni- versity Board of Regents meetings, where projects are ultimately approved, transpar- ency has taken a backseat to the adminis- tration's agenda. The regents' decision is almost always a foregone conclusion. Even though people generally get the chance to speak at regents meetings, it's already too late at that point to make a difference. Tak- ing the faculty's opinion into consideration at an early enough time where something can be done, will provide real, productive input - not simply the rubber stamp that the regents vote has become. If the administration does consult with and inform the faculty of major undertak- ings anyway - and both SACUA and the administration agree to as much - the Uni- versity's aversion to putting this in writing is very suspicious. It railroaded the skybox plan through the regents (going so far as to stack the speakers list at a regents meeting), even though, as we later learned, at least 300 faculty members oppose that plan. The only justification for Coleman's repulsion of a codification of faculty input seems to imply that the University has grown fond of such heavy-handed ways. That's simply not how a university of this caliber should make major decisions. Making economics more accessible ALEXANDER HONKALA x WA LL St KWT j d ~ r j 1(:,f f 3 r E S +! y: ## vs r 6 S a{. i t 2 1 l x' t 2 f d" k E . ,5 When did a call for the expansion of learning at the University become a "dumbing down" of learning? Ben Niu's viewpoint last week (Economicsfor all of us, 09/25/2007) misinterpreted my suggestion for anoth- er type of economics class for history and politics con- centrators and perverted the argument to suggest a disregard for academic standards. Because many lib- eral arts students avoid introductory economics sim- ply over concerns about their grades, another class should be offered. This viewpoint has been obscured and used as a platform to discuss other issues while still managing to incorrectly ridicule my opinion. While I understand Niu's concerns with America's educational problems, they are irrelative to, if not actually supportive of my point. What I suggested was expanding the current spectrum of introductory eco- nomics to include a course that could be more appli- cable for liberal arts students, not those in economics or business. Nowhere did I suggest lowering the aca- demic expectations of a University course. Providing a class not now available would consequently educate more people. Nowhere did I call for a "de-sanitizing" of mathematics, but I suggested a different means for instructing and testing students. While the pre-requisite for these courses is a level of mathematical understanding covered during a general high school education, this is typically not the reason- ing for a student's apprehension for enrolling. There are many students who choose not to enroll.in these classes because of the potential consequences for their grades. While this may be a contentious issue, those who have opted not to take the course because of GPA concerns will feel vindicated in reading this, and there are many such people. Although the author notes that there is some variety in the composure of the classes, it is still not enough to persuade many students to reg- ister for the class. This issue of persuasion or enticement to choose these economics courses is another area where the author attempts avoid a key part of my argument. Niu calls for more "stringent guidelines" of math and science than what is already in place at the University and to man- date Econ 101 and 102 as a requirement. It would be very problematic if every student felt his orher concentration is superior enough to be a graduation requirement. Stu- dents must choose to take economics and all too often, they choose not to do so out offear of getting a lowgrade. It is an unfortunate reality that this is a motivating factor for many students, but it is reality nonetheless. I agree that a well-rounded education is essential, but not everyone's forte is numbers or graphs. The example of calculating a tip was not meant to cause concern over the level of math being taught in middle schools. Rather it was to highlight how all people have strengths and weaknesses, and for some those weak- nesses are in math-related fields. A more accessible econdmics course would help ensure that those stu- dents don't fall completely behind. Katherine Berezowskyj is an LSA senior. SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU 60 0 Calling students apathetic isa anything, we care too much. unfair: They care too much Jane Coaston LS A junior TO THE DAILY: There are many things that students on this campus care deeply about: educational inequity, racial strife, poverty State legislaurefails to male and war. Does the fact that students did not board buses on a weekday to go to the statehouse to protest something real- the most important cut of all ly make us lazy? First of all, the protest itself was directed at the wrong target. If the University Board of Regents decide TO THE DAILY: to raise tuition, regardless of what state government does, I would like to thank the state legislature for finally tuition will increase. And doesn't it seem a little dubious for balancing the budget. However, by waiting until the students to skip class to ask for more funding for classes? last possible hour to fix the problem, lawmakers have Second, higher education fundingis an importantissue, caused the state permanent damage. Therefore, in but it is not apartheid, globalization or human rights their rush to hash out a bill Monday morning, it seems abuses in Tibet. Ask any member of the Roosevelt Institu- lawmakers forgot to cut one thing: their own salaries. tion, a non-partisan think tank, or talk to members of the groups working internationally to change global events. Rohit Mahajan But don't insult our intelligence and call us "apathetic." If Public Policy junior LETTERS TO THE EDITOR MORE ONLINE Editorial Board Members: Kevin Bunkley, Ben Caleca, Milly Dick, Mike Eber, Brian Flaherty, Gary Graca, Emmarie Huetteman, Theresa Kennelly, Gavin Stern, Jennifer Sussex, Neil Tambe, Matt Trecha, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner Readers are efcouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should BLOGS be under 300 words and must include the writer's full name and Uni- Read more viewpoints versity affiliation. All submissions become property of the Daily. We andspsectives at mich- do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu. gsndaily.com/thepodium. k4