It is typical for student activists to distrust the administration. Their natural stance towards university officials is adversarial, and they will press officials on everything — even if there is sometimes no real substance to their questioning. But the nature of college means these students rarely stay around for long. After four years, they graduate and move on with their lives and a fresh batch of agitators without substantial knowledge of those who came before them begin the process all over again.
But in recent weeks, the rampant distrust of one administrator in particular — Provost Nariman Farvardin — has spread beyond student activists to a much more influential constituency: Faculty members. Any time the university has to cut millions from its budget, the apple cart is going to be upset. People will be resentful of any cuts targeting their department. But Farvardin should be concerned. It is no longer just a few student rabble-rousers who distrust him, but faculty members as well. They do not graduate, and with tenure, many of them are around for decades. Widespread faculty distrust can force a lot more change than student griping.
During last week’s University Senate meeting, Farvardin was grilled by a packed house of students, faculty and staff over the impact of budget cuts. Some faculty members said trust in Farvardin was “eroding” and bemoaned a lack of transparency. Others worried about how certain planned departmental mergers could impact the quality of education. To be sure, not all faculty members feel this way, and getting an accurate look at the opinions of all faculty members would be just about impossible.
Regardless of the depth and scope of faculty discontent, the provost needs to be doing more to calm the nerves of his employees. In a PowerPoint he presented to the deans of the university’s 13 colleges earlier this year, one objective he mentioned for the coming months was to keep faculty and staff morale up. With each day, that goal gets a little bit harder. Dozens of faculty members joined the march protesting Cordell Black’s dismissal as associate provost for equity and diversity. Several of their departments are being merged. Black’s dismissal was a shock, and faculty members may be wondering when and where the next shoe will drop.
So what could the administration do to quell these fears? Their number one concern should be transparency. While the budget is now online due to the actions of student activists and the Student Government Association, there are other budget-related documents the administration continually refuses to release. What these documents actually say is unclear, but student activists are convinced they are far more detailed than the 900-page behemoth available online.
Farvardin has stated that his budget documents have been provided to his private personal advisory committee but that he will try to make the information available online. This is good step, but officials need to go further. Academic affairs is part of the university’s budget, but huge chunks also come from administrative and student affairs. If administrators want feedback — and they say they do — they must provide the university community with a picture of the whole budget, not bits and pieces here and there. As we’ve stated before, the administration should additionally set up a committee made up of faculty, students and staff to help guide decision-makers through this restructuring.
We don’t think the administration is out to destroy programs or kill diversity. Running a massive university is a difficult thing, and when facing a massive reduction in funds, sacrifices will have to be made. But they should be made openly and honestly. The provost initially said the decision to remove Cordell Black from his post was purely budgetary, but has since admitted it was both a fiscal and a personnel decision. This conflicting account doesn’t inspire trust.
University officials should open up the books, bring everyone in, and let students, faculty and staff have a look. Everyone might learn something, the administration might get some good feedback and trust could be restored. After all, what do they have to hide?
