Closing departments that serve underrepresented groups most

[AJ_Katz]

Ack!  Our university administrators have proposed budget cuts that involve closing departments that happen to have more women, ethnic, and racial minorities than most of the other departments.  One department is leading the way in terms of serving those underrepresented groups in our undergraduate population. 

This is very disconcerting, as administrators previously laid out the reasons for these program closures as, well, "cuts have to come from somewhere", "more across the board cuts will do more harm than a vertical cut", "sometimes there are things going on that simply can't be put into documentation", and "even good programs may need to be cut to meet the budget shortfall".

But then after hearing from members of those departments and the community, it became apparent that the majority of the faculty in these departments have a greater proportion of junior and pre-tenure faculty, historically serve underrepresented groups in our college, etc.  The response from our administrator, "well, they laid out some things here that are difficult to respond to."  Okay...  but what should be done?

It all makes sense, right?  Implicit bias may be the reason we value work from underrepresented groups less.  Also, those in underrepresented groups may rise to leadership roles (faculty) in the "fringe" departments more because those areas are lesser sought after by job seekers.  Thus, we end up with clusters of minority and minority-serving faculty in the non-core departments.  And then during a budget cut, those non-core departments are more easily targeted for elimination.  So, it may simply be an unintended consequence that these departments would be on the chopping block sooner, but should they be protected because of the role they play in our academic community?

Obviously our administration has either not realized what is happening here in the broader landscape of proposed eliminations OR they have realized this is a consequence and are choosing to ignore it.  So, if you were in an advisory capacity to the administrators, should the recommendation be that our most divers / minority serving department should be sheltered?  Or do we just accept it as an unintended, unavoidable consequence of dire times?

[marshwiggle]

Obviously our administration has either not realized what is happening here in the broader landscape of proposed eliminations OR they have realized this is a consequence and are choosing to ignore it.  So, if you were in an advisory capacity to the administrators, should the recommendation be that our most divers / minority serving department should be sheltered?  Or do we just accept it as an unintended, unavoidable consequence of dire times?

I think the criteria used should be not identity-based. Criteria could include things like

• enrollment
• graduation rate
• post-graduation employment rate (and/or salaries)

and so on.

Note that all of these are reflective of value to students and specifically graduates. Other metrics which are measurable and not identity-based would be worth including as well.

[fishbrains]

Obviously our administration has either not realized what is happening here in the broader landscape of proposed eliminations OR they have realized this is a consequence and are choosing to ignore it.  So, if you were in an advisory capacity to the administrators, should the recommendation be that our most divers / minority serving department should be sheltered?  Or do we just accept it as an unintended, unavoidable consequence of dire times?

It's been my experience that administrators know exactly what is happening when it comes to such budget issues. It's not like they are sitting there shaking their Magic-8-Balls during discussions.

I doubt playing fair will help much (but, of course, I don't know your college). I would try to see if the students understand what is about to happen, and see if they want to fight for their programs. Coming face-to-face with angry minority students with cell phones can be intimidating to admins. Also, dropping a dime to a local news outlet might help.

Unfortunately, I think you are about to see how power really works on your campus.       

[Ruralguy]

If the school values service to under-represented minorities then they should measure this in some way when considering which depts. to eliminate. At the very least, they should know what they are eliminating and understand the implications. Perhaps at the best (I say, perhaps, because I am taking the claims of the OP at face value) the value of said depts. will be reconsidered, and some of these departments will be retained. Or, maybe, these depts. aren't serving minorities as well as you might thing.

OP., what is your school's policy concerning the fate of faculty from dismantled depts? Are they retained? Only retained if the have tenure? Dismissed?

[marshwiggle]

If the school values service to under-represented minorities then they should measure this in some way when considering which depts. to eliminate. At the very least, they should know what they are eliminating and understand the implications. Perhaps at the best (I say, perhaps, because I am taking the claims of the OP at face value) the value of said depts. will be reconsidered, and some of these departments will be retained. Or, maybe, these depts. aren't serving minorities as well as you might think.

OP., what is your school's policy concerning the fate of faculty from dismantled depts? Are they retained? Only retained if the have tenure? Dismissed?

This is part of what I was getting at. If a program, (say nursing), gets lots of minority students and most of them graduate and get decent-paying jobs, then THAT is the thing to emphasize. On the other hand, if a program takes in lots of minority students, many of whom drop out, all of whom have big debts, and most who are employed are working retail, then in what way does it really "serve" those students?

[jimbogumbo]

Obviously our administration has either not realized what is happening here in the broader landscape of proposed eliminations OR they have realized this is a consequence and are choosing to ignore it.  So, if you were in an advisory capacity to the administrators, should the recommendation be that our most divers / minority serving department should be sheltered?  Or do we just accept it as an unintended, unavoidable consequence of dire times?

I think the criteria used should be not identity-based. Criteria could include things like

• enrollment
• graduation rate
• post-graduation employment rate (and/or salaries)

and so on.

Note that all of these are reflective of value to students and specifically graduates. Other metrics which are measurable and not identity-based would be worth including as well.

I think that cuts should surely be based on the stated mission of the university.

[apl68]

Ack!  Our university administrators have proposed budget cuts that involve closing departments that happen to have more women, ethnic, and racial minorities than most of the other departments.  One department is leading the way in terms of serving those underrepresented groups in our undergraduate population. 

This is very disconcerting, as administrators previously laid out the reasons for these program closures as, well, "cuts have to come from somewhere", "more across the board cuts will do more harm than a vertical cut", "sometimes there are things going on that simply can't be put into documentation", and "even good programs may need to be cut to meet the budget shortfall".

But then after hearing from members of those departments and the community, it became apparent that the majority of the faculty in these departments have a greater proportion of junior and pre-tenure faculty, historically serve underrepresented groups in our college, etc.  The response from our administrator, "well, they laid out some things here that are difficult to respond to."  Okay...  but what should be done?

It all makes sense, right?  Implicit bias may be the reason we value work from underrepresented groups less.  Also, those in underrepresented groups may rise to leadership roles (faculty) in the "fringe" departments more because those areas are lesser sought after by job seekers.  Thus, we end up with clusters of minority and minority-serving faculty in the non-core departments.  And then during a budget cut, those non-core departments are more easily targeted for elimination.  So, it may simply be an unintended consequence that these departments would be on the chopping block sooner, but should they be protected because of the role they play in our academic community?

Obviously our administration has either not realized what is happening here in the broader landscape of proposed eliminations OR they have realized this is a consequence and are choosing to ignore it.  So, if you were in an advisory capacity to the administrators, should the recommendation be that our most divers / minority serving department should be sheltered?  Or do we just accept it as an unintended, unavoidable consequence of dire times?

A couple of thoughts:

Are you sure that the departments you're talking about are being singled out unfairly?  Or are they only some of the departments being slated for closing?

How dire is the situation?  The worse the situation, the harder the choices the administration faces.

Utilitarian concerns of the sort that marshwiggle raises aren't everything, but they are a serious consideration.  To what extent have the departments under threat been giving long-term, practical uplift to the underrepresented groups they serve, as opposed to signalling the university's virtue on this or that issue? 

The administration seems to feel that across-the-board cuts would do more harm than eliminating less-viable departments altogether.  How plausible does that claim look?  Is it possible that across-the-board cuts would preserve the departments in name, but weaken them to the point where they become little more than window dressing?

[dr_codex]

Ack!  Our university administrators have proposed budget cuts that involve closing departments that happen to have more women, ethnic, and racial minorities than most of the other departments.  One department is leading the way in terms of serving those underrepresented groups in our undergraduate population. 

This is very disconcerting, as administrators previously laid out the reasons for these program closures as, well, "cuts have to come from somewhere", "more across the board cuts will do more harm than a vertical cut", "sometimes there are things going on that simply can't be put into documentation", and "even good programs may need to be cut to meet the budget shortfall".

But then after hearing from members of those departments and the community, it became apparent that the majority of the faculty in these departments have a greater proportion of junior and pre-tenure faculty, historically serve underrepresented groups in our college, etc.  The response from our administrator, "well, they laid out some things here that are difficult to respond to."  Okay...  but what should be done?

It all makes sense, right?  Implicit bias may be the reason we value work from underrepresented groups less.  Also, those in underrepresented groups may rise to leadership roles (faculty) in the "fringe" departments more because those areas are lesser sought after by job seekers.  Thus, we end up with clusters of minority and minority-serving faculty in the non-core departments.  And then during a budget cut, those non-core departments are more easily targeted for elimination.  So, it may simply be an unintended consequence that these departments would be on the chopping block sooner, but should they be protected because of the role they play in our academic community?

Obviously our administration has either not realized what is happening here in the broader landscape of proposed eliminations OR they have realized this is a consequence and are choosing to ignore it.  So, if you were in an advisory capacity to the administrators, should the recommendation be that our most divers / minority serving department should be sheltered?  Or do we just accept it as an unintended, unavoidable consequence of dire times?

Boy, that rationale -- "sometimes there are things going on that simply can't be put into documentation" -- is a license for obfuscation, and an invitation for speculation.

I'd push back hard on that kind of argument. It makes meaningless the calls for data-driven decision making that Marshwiggle & others would defend.

And it's exactly the kind of process that historically disadvantaged groups will suspect is actually driving the specific cuts. The hatred that dare not speak its name, as it were.

[AJ_Katz]

OP., what is your school's policy concerning the fate of faculty from dismantled depts? Are they retained? Only retained if the have tenure? Dismissed?

All faculty with tenure homes in the departments will be dismissed.

[AJ_Katz]

A couple of thoughts:

Are you sure that the departments you're talking about are being singled out unfairly?  Or are they only some of the departments being slated for closing?

No, I am not sure the departments are being singled out unfairly.  It seems these are "periphery" programs / departments that perhaps do not serve the university's core mission.  However, as alluded, such periphery departments seem to be those that are fundamentally more diverse in faculty and in student body.  The claims in writing made by administrators about the reasons for the cut are weak.  But again, there is a lot of talk from the administrators that we are in dire times, so sometimes even good programs may be cut.

How dire is the situation?  The worse the situation, the harder the choices the administration faces.

Utilitarian concerns of the sort that marshwiggle raises aren't everything, but they are a serious consideration.  To what extent have the departments under threat been giving long-term, practical uplift to the underrepresented groups they serve, as opposed to signalling the university's virtue on this or that issue? 

The claims made are that this is a dire situation that, if we did not have these few vertical cuts, the horizontal cuts would be harmful.  The quantitative aspects mentioned by marshwiggle are part of the evaluation of the procedure for determining budget reductions.  However, in our procedures, no such information on service to underrepresented groups or faculty representation by underrepresented groups is gathered during the process.  My thoughts are that maybe such information should be documented in this process, but I feel it may be a slippery slope (everyone can say they serve a certain slice of the population in some way) and, if it is done, it should be directly connected to the mission / objectives of the institution, therefore justifiable to assess.

Aside from the fact that these closures may affect underrepresented groups in our academic community, I also worry about the outward appearance of such cuts to the public / news. 

The administration seems to feel that across-the-board cuts would do more harm than eliminating less-viable departments altogether.  How plausible does that claim look?  Is it possible that across-the-board cuts would preserve the departments in name, but weaken them to the point where they become little more than window dressing?

Well, that last part of your question is absolutely the rationale that the administrators have provided to us by word-of-mouth.  However, others have noted that deep cuts to administrative support / positions are not occurring (although admins claim otherwise that streamlining has been considered / proposed).  A main issue administrators cited in the idea of eliminating faculty administrator positions is that those faculty would return to their tenure home department and therefore it would be a zero sum game (although they conveniently failed to mention that there would still be salary savings since many of those faculty administrators are on 12-month appointments that would convert to 9-month appointments as regular faculty --- moreover, such conversions of administrators back to regular faculty could actually offset the deep cuts that our departments are facing, thereby bolstering the departments). 

[AJ_Katz]

Ack!  Our university administrators have proposed budget cuts that involve closing departments that happen to have more women, ethnic, and racial minorities than most of the other departments.  One department is leading the way in terms of serving those underrepresented groups in our undergraduate population. 

This is very disconcerting, as administrators previously laid out the reasons for these program closures as, well, "cuts have to come from somewhere", "more across the board cuts will do more harm than a vertical cut", "sometimes there are things going on that simply can't be put into documentation", and "even good programs may need to be cut to meet the budget shortfall".

But then after hearing from members of those departments and the community, it became apparent that the majority of the faculty in these departments have a greater proportion of junior and pre-tenure faculty, historically serve underrepresented groups in our college, etc.  The response from our administrator, "well, they laid out some things here that are difficult to respond to."  Okay...  but what should be done?

It all makes sense, right?  Implicit bias may be the reason we value work from underrepresented groups less.  Also, those in underrepresented groups may rise to leadership roles (faculty) in the "fringe" departments more because those areas are lesser sought after by job seekers.  Thus, we end up with clusters of minority and minority-serving faculty in the non-core departments.  And then during a budget cut, those non-core departments are more easily targeted for elimination.  So, it may simply be an unintended consequence that these departments would be on the chopping block sooner, but should they be protected because of the role they play in our academic community?

Obviously our administration has either not realized what is happening here in the broader landscape of proposed eliminations OR they have realized this is a consequence and are choosing to ignore it.  So, if you were in an advisory capacity to the administrators, should the recommendation be that our most divers / minority serving department should be sheltered?  Or do we just accept it as an unintended, unavoidable consequence of dire times?

Boy, that rationale -- "sometimes there are things going on that simply can't be put into documentation" -- is a license for obfuscation, and an invitation for speculation.

I'd push back hard on that kind of argument. It makes meaningless the calls for data-driven decision making that Marshwiggle & others would defend.

And it's exactly the kind of process that historically disadvantaged groups will suspect is actually driving the specific cuts. The hatred that dare not speak its name, as it were.

Exactly!  It's been a bit difficult to get our administrators to provide numbers that support their claims, but that last sentence you wrote is exactly the rationale that our administrators need to absorb in order to understand why our documentation of the process / rationale for the programmatic cuts is necessary.  Thank you for sharing this viewpoint. 

[marshwiggle]

How dire is the situation?  The worse the situation, the harder the choices the administration faces.

Utilitarian concerns of the sort that marshwiggle raises aren't everything, but they are a serious consideration.  To what extent have the departments under threat been giving long-term, practical uplift to the underrepresented groups they serve, as opposed to signalling the university's virtue on this or that issue? 

The claims made are that this is a dire situation that, if we did not have these few vertical cuts, the horizontal cuts would be harmful.  The quantitative aspects mentioned by marshwiggle are part of the evaluation of the procedure for determining budget reductions.  However, in our procedures, no such information on service to underrepresented groups or faculty representation by underrepresented groups is gathered during the process. 

Being able to measure "service" as much more than simple enrollment would be useful. One could imagine a mercenary institution in an area with very poor schools creating programs with very low standards and progression requirements, so they could attract lots of students who wouldn't get in anywhere else, wouldn't learn much and would be no better off after graduation, but who would bolster the numbers (and bring in tuition fees) without providing any demonstratable value in return.

FWIW, I've been sad to see programs that I've been involved with cut for budgetary reasons, so I know what it's like. But financial solvency is a real thing that any organization cannot ignore indefinitely.

[Caracal]

Obviously our administration has either not realized what is happening here in the broader landscape of proposed eliminations OR they have realized this is a consequence and are choosing to ignore it.  So, if you were in an advisory capacity to the administrators, should the recommendation be that our most divers / minority serving department should be sheltered?  Or do we just accept it as an unintended, unavoidable consequence of dire times?

I think the criteria used should be not identity-based. Criteria could include things like

• enrollment
• graduation rate
• post-graduation employment rate (and/or salaries)

and so on.

Note that all of these are reflective of value to students and specifically graduates. Other metrics which are measurable and not identity-based would be worth including as well.

Those factors should certainly play a role, but I think you also want to consider where the programs fit within the core strengths and mission of the school. A department can have a small number of majors but still be something an institution wants to cultivate and support. A college is not a corporation and shouldn't just be trying to serve its customers.

Years ago there was a whole kerfuffle at my alma mater because they decided to eliminate a number of departments. The decision wasn't driven by  a financial crisis, but a desire to reallocate resources. The departments targeted generally had low numbers of majors and also didn't really fit well with the mission of the school. They eliminated the Journalism department for example, reasoning that the department wasn't strong, and it wasn't really that good a fit at a mostly liberal arts college.

[Caracal]

No, I am not sure the departments are being singled out unfairly.  It seems these are "periphery" programs / departments that perhaps do not serve the university's core mission.  However, as alluded, such periphery departments seem to be those that are fundamentally more diverse in faculty and in student body. 

I think this is often the case. The problem is that if it is  the marginal departments that are most diverse, it is pretty clearly a sign of larger problems with institutional priorities.

[fizzycist]

I have no experience with this, but this is the sort of thing I would pursue until the final no.

Even if your admin is toxic and doesn't GAF, they ought to be worried about a lawsuit.

It sounds like you agree and are looking for a persuasive argument. Perhaps you could argue that we spend a tremendous amount of effort trying to recruit/retain/etc. faculty and students from under-represented groups/lower socioeconomic status. Those "costs" need to be considered as well as the opportunity costs of trying to replicate that in better times. Or if that doesn't work, consider pointing out the scary possibility of a class action lawsuit and bad press.