A
VICTOR SCHMITT-BUSH
Assistant News Editor
Fredonia prides itself as being a diverse and welcoming campus. The community is known for working closely with one another to solve problems, moving towards student excellence and making positive change. But some major changes that are projected to be made over the next few years could have a detrimental effect on campus morale, according to Connor Aitcheson, President of the Student Association at Fredonia.
This is because, according to Aitcheson, a wide range of students, staff and campus leaders and officials are already in disagreement about what to do as far as Fredonia’s budget crisis is concerned.
“I think the biggest problem is that we are becoming divided and thinking that we each have our own separate issues,” said Aitcheson. “But when we come together and have dialogue, we are able to better understand the situation.”
The escalating development of the PEPRE process, (which was a last ditch effort made by the Planning and Budget Advisory committee in 2012 to reduce the school’s burgeoning structural deficit), has not helped with campus marketing and public relations. It has generated fear and uncertainty in the eyes of both students and faculty, and local communities surrounding the campus are acutely aware of this.
Local newspapers like the Dunkirk Observer and professional news blogs like DailyNous were quick to spread the word that Fredonia is “cutting programs” after President Horvath released her Nov. 15 Monday update which identified programs that Fredonia might cut.
This is not good for publicity, according to Ralph Blasting, the dean of Visual and Performing arts at Fredonia. He said that if Fredonia wants to minimize the damage that has already been done on a social level, campus leaders must be careful about how they communicate with students, staff, faculty and the public about these issues.
“This process is just as much about social dynamics as it is about money . . .” said Blasting. “[Correctly informing the people about what is happening] takes leadership and good communication and patience. This is really going to test all of those aspects on the campus.”
Aitcheson agrees. Although Horvath has been very transparent about informing the public about this issue, this isn’t enough.
“. . . there is a lot of transparency with no two-way communication,” said Aitcheson. “Members of the community are just being told what’s being done, and in some instances, are being told why this is being done. There doesn’t seem to be any environment or avenue to have dialogue in order to get clarity.”
But this is only true as far as public dialogue goes. Horvath assured that there are a number of avenues by which the community can ask questions, speak briskly about issues or voice their opposition to PEPRE.
“I welcome continued conversations with all of you and value your suggestions,” said Horvath in her Nov. 26 Monday Update. “As someone who benefited from public investment in my learning and from talented teachers who inspired and challenged me, I do not want to let this generation of students down.”
Horvath insisted that anyone is welcome to visit her during her office hours or to set up an appointment. Anyone can send her an email or speak with her over-the-phone.
The problem, however, is that there is a difference between inviting the community to speak privately about these issues, versus creating and actively encouraging a public platform in which all members of the institution can come together and discuss the best course of action to tackling Fredonia’s financial issues.
“[With active dialogue], we are better able to understand the different perspectives that people have when it comes to PEPRE,” said Aitcheson. “And [we can] try to find a solution or a way that we can come to terms with what’s happening in order to reduce the negative impacts that this is going to have on this campus.”
Aitcheson said that the less ideal yet inevitable alternative to this is protests and then there is voiced opposition. This is what the campus is seeing at the moment, according to Aitcheson. Whether or nor it will be of any use is a different story.
“Like I said, I don’t know that voicing these oppositions is going to result in any change, but it’s better to voice opposition to no avail than to not voice your opposition at all,” he said.
Perhaps among the most vocal critics of the way PEPRE is being used are Stephen Kershnar and Neil Feit of the philosophy department, Dale Tuggy previously of the philosophy department, and Julia Wilson of the math department. Wilson was one of the main authors of PEPRE.
Kershnar believes that Horvath could be making one of two claims about Fredonia’s budget crisis and that it is important to distinguish them. The first claim, according to Kershnar, is that Fredonia is in dire financial straits right now in part because it will use up all of its financial reserves.
He said that “There has not been a hiring freeze in the past few years. Nor is there one this year.”
This is odd if the college were in such a desperate condition.
“Sabbaticals have not been canceled as has been done in the past,” he said. “Even if there were a financial emergency, cutting the philosophy major and department would do little to solve it because it is not scheduled to take place until the 2020-2021 academic year.”
In response to this sentiment, Horvath assured that she is acutely aware of the fact that even if academic programs are deactivated, the savings would take several years.
“But seeking ways to avoid spreading finite resources so thin will allow the campus to invest in areas of high demand and growth,” she said.
The second claim Horvath could be making, according to Kershnar, is that this process of looking at enrollment and programs differently is being pushed by Fredonia’s structural deficit. He said the structural deficit does not justify the cuts being made to these programs.
“Very roughly, a structural deficit is the difference between
what the college would like to spend and its actual revenue,” said Kershnar.
“First, note that this is not a real deficit. This year, the structural
deficit was in part handled by cutting unoccupied lines of employment.”
Kershnar also said that we should be wary of taking the numbers of the structural deficit at face value.
“The estimates of the structural deficit vary from $12 million to $3 million and vary depending on the year and the administrator who is speaking,” he said. “If the actual deficit were this large, far more drastic measures would be required than cutting majors and departments when doing so will not eliminate a single tenure-track position, at least in the near future.”
Kershnar is not saying that Fredonia’s financial issues are nonexistent. The question that he, among many others, is asking is, “Why insist on cutting these programs when the negative effects of doing so would far outweigh the positive effects?”
Perhaps of interest to campus leaders is that students, staff and faculty have collectively made these three main claims. The first claim, made by Kershnar, is that eliminating programs based off on low enrollment could actually cause more harm than good. This is in part because, via the second claim made by Blasting and Aitcheson, the immediate social costs of even mentioning the possibility of cutting these programs could far outweigh the financial gains projected to be made as far back as 2021.
The third claim is that students and staff need more dialogue and more agency as far as having an impact on the major decisions made on this campus. According to Aitcheson, we should not settle simply to be told what’s going to happen to us. We all have a vested interest in the future of this campus, so let’s have this much needed discussion together.