Faculty vote ‘no’ to fairness

In a 130-26 vote last Thursday, the University of Minnesota faculty senate approved the administration’s pay cut scheme, which will see a 1.15 percent, across-the-board reduction in compensation, with certain top administrators slicing off 2.3 percent. These reductions will save $18 million in a bid to close the University’s swelling $132 million budget gap. If historical trends are any indicator, the difference will be recovered with tuition. Dig in for talk of double-digit increases.
This across-the-board proposal was not the only option on the table last Thursday. An alternative proposal, deemed the “sliding scale,” would have yielded equivalent savings with a more progressive cut schedule. During the height of the Great Depression, the University cut pay according to salary level, where wages at the bottom were held steady while larger percentages were cut up top. This time around, across-the-board cuts will inflict greater harm on the lowest-paid staff than on tenured professors or the ever-growing cadre of vice presidents.
Clearly, not everyone was disappointed with the vote. President Bob Bruininks said the debate showed that “everyone was united on one principle: that they are willing to share in the sacrifice …” Provost Tom Sullivan said, “I think the vote speaks of the voice of the senate; it was a very robust, thorough, lengthy debate.”
For clerical workers, janitors and other low-paid University employees, the vote came as a stinging rebuke of progressive principles. AFSCME 3800 President Phyllis Walker said after the meeting, “This means that some clerical workers won’t be able to buy presents for their children this holiday season.”
So why the lopsided vote? It’s complicated. Political science professor Teri Caraway, a member of the Chop from the Top Coalition and a supporter of the sliding scale, explained that administration had coerced faculty into approving the administrative plan. “He held a knife to our throats,” she said.
In an e-mail sent to faculty mid-March, Bruininks spoke in not-so-veiled terms: “If there is not a vote in support of a reduction in pay for faculty, our budget plan going forward will necessarily include deeper college- and unit-level cuts, which will inevitably lead to additional job losses.” Under direct administrative threat of layoffs and with word from St. Paul that failing to vote for pay cuts would further erode what little remains of legislative support, it’s understandable that so few faculty members were willing to “rock the boat.”
While we applaud the faculty for (mild) self-sacrifice, they failed to use their consultative power to craft a more just and sustainable solution that would have spared vulnerable employees from financial pain and scrutinized the very real potential of the University to price itself out of the market.
With little say in the budget process, students should be disappointed that faculty legislators were not more willing to craft and consider alternative budget proposals, which would’ve been a clear sign of challenge to ever-more-expensive administrative lock-step. Microbiology professor Pat Cleary, who voted with the majority, partially blamed the vote on procedural limits: “We should’ve been able to amend the main proposal, but parliamentary procedure wouldn’t allow it.” The faculty senate failed to adopt motions that would have compelled the administration to justify expenses — from public relations to athletics — in relation to the University’s core academic mission.
We can only hope that Bruininks uses the annual State of the University Address on Thursday as an opportunity to offer a more focused, sustainable and just vision for the University’s future.
Many left the meeting looking to the future. Walker was energized regarding the students, staff and faculty who fought for the lowest-paid. “This is the beginning of a coalition that is going to go far,” she said. Cleary, too, looked ahead. “This is just the beginning ... to get rid of the fluff that’s accumulated over the years.”