Editorial: Is 2017 AU's 2012? Not if we can help it

“If you want a college degree that has value in 20, 30, 40 years, we must do these things,” President Edmondson said at the Nov. 18 Student Senate meeting, announcing that the University was planning to make some major program cuts.

Less than two weeks later, on Dec. 1, the Strategic Planning Council consisting of the University’s deans, vice presidents, six faculty members, two students and two staff members disseminated a proposal suggesting cuts to Modern Languages, Electrical Engineering and the ski team, among others.

By Feb. 5, the cuts will be final. This decision will arrive less than two weeks after students return to campus–a hasty timeline for cuts that are supposed to protect the University against an anticipated 18.5 percent loss in prospective students by 2017.

We really do care that our degree has value decades from now, and given the short timeline so close to finals, we want to make sure that everybody–faculty and students especially–has the correct information so that they can suggest insightful and financially feasible solutions to our administrators.

We don’t know if this is possible, since decisions are being made almost faster than we can publish quality stories. We have used the tools of the Web 2.0 age to make this process more efficient: Facebook and thefiatlux.com.

Our liveblog generated 21 unique readers during the Dec. 2 Student Senate meeting. We were even able to read one abroad student’s question during the meeting. A Facebook page titled “AU Program Elimination Page” that was started by our Editor in Chief has generated over 260 members and multiple comments in the past week.

However, there is still barely enough time for our student reporters, knee-deep in finals and paper production, to keep up with this hasty process and its long-term outcomes.

Edmondson said that the short-term financial state of the University is healthy, but we have to prepare for the future. This proposal is only the first wave of proposed cuts we can expect. We are aware that other schools are in similar situations right now, and we understand that there is a harsh reality facing higher education today, and that cuts have to be made.

Other schools such as Meredith College in North Carolina are going through almost the exact same process with almost the exact same response from students and faculty.

Now is the time for Alfred University to make decisions that will ultimately shape the University's identity. Although we cannot speak for the all-female school that is Meredith College, we can speak for Alfred University, a school with a proud tradition of diversity.

With that said, in addition to our news coverage, we would like to make the following suggestions to the Strategic Planning Council, President Edmondson and Provost Hall:

1. Save Phi Beta Kappa

Only 10 percent of schools in the United States have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. Alfred University is privileged to be in such elite company. Schools near us such as Alfred State College, St. Bonaventure, RIT and Houghton College do not share this special honor.

In a May 4, 2004 Fiat Lux article titled “AU honored by Phi Beta Kappa decision,” Edmondson said, “It’s a special achievement for Liberal Arts and Sciences. I think it will enhance the value of an Alfred degree, but most of all, I am happy for those who are in it.”

Five years later, at the Nov. 18 Student Senate meeting, Edmondson brought up the value of our degree once again. We, as students, still consider Phi Beta Kappa a vital component of that value.

In the Dec. 2 proposal, Modern Languages would be reduced to offering only Spanish as a major, eliminating German, reducing French to minor, and offering Italian, Japanese and Chinese on its current adjunct basis.

This is unacceptable for maintaining a Phi Beta Kappa chapter as, according to the Phi Beta Kappa website, “the study of literature, languages, philosophy, religion, the fine arts, history, the social sciences, mathematics and the natural sciences is held to be central to the objectives of Phi Beta Kappa.” The reduction of Modern Languages was the only area of study singled out in the proposal. We don’t understand the logic.

The Phi Beta Kappa website states that the chapter-holding institution must have “dependable income sufficient to maintain academic excellence.” The stated reason for cutting Modern Languages is that “it is challenging to sustain the number of languages we offer here at Alfred.” With that said, we understand that cuts must be made. However, the aforementioned criteria should be considered when it comes to Modern Languages, since cutting it will help the University meet the financial requirements for Phi Beta Kappa, but it will hinder the objective of promoting foreign languages.

The following two suggestions will likely be very unpopular, but if there are “no sacred cows,” as Edmondson said, we think they must be considered.

2. A voluntary reduction to clubs and organizations

This is not a widely publicized fact, but every year, money available to student clubs and organizations increases by 3 percent, as long as students spend the budgeted money.

Although an administration-level cut would likely lead to chaos, we as a responsible student body should offer to take a cut for the University. This cut could either take the form of an elimination of our 3-percent increase, or an actual cut to the amount of money available for clubs and organizations.

3. Reduce the size of the football program

We know this idea will be very unpopular, especially given the great success of our Saxons in reaching the NCAA championships, but hear us out.

First, this suggestion isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. Within the past two weeks, both Hofstra and Northeastern cut their Division I football teams. We are only singling out football because it essentially has two teams, and because two Division I schools cut football from their institutions.

Football recruits a lot of students to both its varsity and junior varsity teams, but uses a lot of University resources to do so. If this elimination process is truly for the long-term health of Alfred University, this area of the school needs to be seriously considered. As with all other programs, we need to look closely at placement rates, the cost of the programs, profiles and contributions of alumni, etc.

If the football team is proving to be as successful at recruiting and retaining students as it is at playing the Empire 8, we think that information should be made explicit to the University community at this time.

It’s possible that football has been scrutinized, but with only a vague reason for the proposed cutting of the ski team given in the Strategic Planning Council proposal, it is difficult to make a stronger suggestion in terms of potential athletics cuts.

4. Look at the cost and likelihood of bringing programs back

Nobody is going to be happy when these cuts are made, no matter what they are. We are aware that the current proposal barely covers the amount of money the University needs to save. Therefore, we suggest more emphasis on one criterion that was suggested by the Faculty Senate Task Force in their criteria for evaluating programs that we feel hasn’t been given proper attention: "History/future of the discipline or major."

The proposal looks at a five-year period between 2004 and 2009, assuming that this timeline provides a broad enough historical background on the disciplines or majors to be cut. If we were to look further than five years into the past, we would see that, due to administrative decisions, some programs have either been passively or actively cut. However, these programs were always reinstated later, presumably because of their value to the University.

For example, between 1974 and 1993, Modern Languages programs were either cut or not offered a total of six times, alternating between French, German and Spanish.

With this evidence in mind, it is obvious that one consideration has not been made when evaluating these proposed cuts: the fact that the programs might not be permanently removed, and therefore would not be a wise choice for a long-term cost-reduction plan.

The University clearly has not seen a cut to Modern Languages as permanent. Language programs have come back in the past. Though the loss of programs may not be permanent, these proposed cuts do run a needless risk of permanently severing the University from some of its greatest assets. We don’t want to see an Alfred University without some of the most involved and highest quality professors on campus, membership to one of the oldest and most widely respected academic fraternities in the country or resources for other programs such as art history.

Looking at the history of Modern Languages, it is obvious that sometimes program cuts have not been permanent. Other programs, such as nursing and computer science, however, have, thus far, been permanent. This fact is unfortunate, considering the popularity of such programs today.

We suggest that the potential of a program’s return and the cost of bringing a program back be more strongly considered as a criterion in this process to help prevent the short-sightedness of previous program cuts.