Is U Of M Crying Wolf?

The flagship of Michigan's higher education system- the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus- has been sending out distress signals lately. Confronted with the statewide budget crisis, U of M officials insist that a slowdown in state funding over the last five years threatens the survival of the Big M, as we know it.
The distress signals, in themselves, are nothing new. In fact, they have almost become a way of life for university administrators- not just in Ann Arbor, but across the country- who have found that one of the best ways to pry money loose from tight-fisted legislators is to issue a steady stream of press releases and speeches on the seriousness of their budget problems.
By combining this kind of public relations effort with intensive lobbying in Lansing, the U of M appears to have forced the state Assembly and Governor Milliken to compromise on their proposed cuts in the higher education budget for 1975-76. On Tuesday, December 9, the Governor's representatives were expected to announce the specifics of that compromise, as well as a "standstill" policy toward higher education funding for 1976-77.
Whether the University is really "crying wolf," as any professor will tell you, depends on how you define a "wolf." The prestigious U of M, whose students still come primarily from the middle and upper-middle classes, has only recently had to begin fighting for funds. It has traditionally enjoyed the status of the state's "showcase" university.
University officials, in most cases, are talking about budget increases smaller than they would have liked, or about increases that fail to keep pace with inflation, rather than real dollar cuts- as in the case of Wayne State University. But freezes on hiring, cutbacks in staff, and increases in class sizes make it look like the budget has actually been reduced.
Between 1969-70 and the current fiscal year, increases in the U of M's general fund budget have been almost entirely eaten up by a 50 per cent rate of increase in inflation. As a percentage of all public spending, the University's budget has clearly been reduced. In the period in question, the federal government's budget grew 77 per cent, the State of Michigan's nearly doubled, but the U of M's went up only 54 per cent.

continued on page 24

Is U of M Crying Wolf?

continued from page 3

In fact, the State's budget for all four-year college and university operations has grown much faster (73 per cent) than the U of M budget. The U of M has been losing part of its share of state funds to Michigan State, Eastern Michigan, Wayne, the U of M campuses at Dearborn and Flint, etc.
Although, as the University tightens up its operations, fewer professors are hired, and clerical and research support is reduced, the biggest losers are unquestionably the campus' 38,000 students. They have absorbed tuition increases averaging from 75 to 100 per cent over the past five years (with the exception of medicine, dentistry, and public health schools), until they are contributing almost a third of the University's budget. Through collective bargaining, University employees have managed to keep pace with inflation, and then some- but students, the largest unorganized group on campus, are now paying more for lower-quality educational services.
The roots of the U of M's incipient budget problems go deeper than the nation's current recession. Some observers trace them to the political backlash against students and faculty active in the antiwar movement of the late '60's. Prestigious liberal arts schools like the U of M were in the forefront, if only because of their size and visibility, much to the dismay of conservative voters and legislators.
The end of the Vietnam adventure, however, has brought with it no reconciliation. Nationally, university budget trends seem to be reflecting a deepening disenchantment with the whole idea of "liberal education." Regional and community colleges stressing practical, job-oriented training and geared to local economies have experienced strong growth in budget and enrollment- during the same years that liberal arts schools have hit hard times. Economic recession has only strengthened students' concern for job security.
The largest part of any university's budget goes to pay salaries- not only to teachers and administrators, but to clerical workers, maintenance workers, researchers, and other supporting staff . Some $128 million of the $165 million general fund budget for U of M this year went to pay salaries and fringe benefits. The employees who earn these salaries have, during the past five years, formed several new unions and strengthened existing ones. Growing white-collar union strength is likely to have a significant impact on the finances of schools like the U of M.
In October, the Board of Regents approved 1976-77 salary increases averaging 11 per cent, well above a year's cost of living increase. Such increases may even be seen as one of several causes for the "cut-backs"- if that is the right term to describe fewer jobs at higher pay levels.
Students and their parents, the real victims of these cutbacks, are having to pay a growing share of the cost of a U of M education.
In return, they may also have to sacrifice what has traditionally been considered "quality education."
In a statement to the Board of Regents this September, Vice President for Academic Affairs Frank Rhodes recited a long list of reductions in faculty size; frequency and availability of courses; summer session programs; program enrollments; and clerical and technical support- which affected almost all of the University's schools and colleges.
Hiring freezes and faculty reductions, according to Rhodes, can generally be expected to mean larger classes.
In 1973, U of M students attempted to fight back against steadily rising tuition- when Student Government President Lee Gill, a black ex-convict, organized a tuition strike (along with extending SGC services to the community, as well as the student body). Gill, a promising leader who might have elevated SGC beyond its legendary inefficiency and corruption, fell victim to a campaign of harrassment led by the Michigan Free Press, which finally forced him to give up in dismay. The MFP, then called New Morning, never substantiated its account that Gill had misappropriated SGC funds.
Changes in the U of M budget are recommended by a semi-secret faculty administration Committee on Budget Priorities and decided on by the executive officers and Regents. University spokespersons refuse to indícate where the deepest cuts are being made or to give concrete, comparable figures on budget changes for the various academie units.
The ostensible rationale for this secrecy is, oddly enough, "academic freedom." University officials apparently feel that the more the legislature knows about its academic priorities, the more that lawmakers will meddle with the University's autonomy. Many students and faculty, on the other hand, feel that these- and other important decisions- made behind closed doors by a handful of deans and Regents would benefit by more open discussion.

continued on page 26

U of M

continued from page 24

Current speculation points to heavier cuts in the humanities and social sciences, specifically Rackham graduate school, the School of Social Work, and the School of Literature, Science and the Arts. Health Sciences (including the medical and dental schools) will probably come through unscathed.
Meanwhile, as course offerings are being reduced and class sizes increased in response to current economic conditions, other items in the University budget are likely to continue unchallenged- including such sacred cows as the football program and the University's golf course. Other "untouchable" items include the school's lobbying and public relations budgets and the over-maintenance of the physical plant.
Most U of M professors are paid to spend large portions of their time doing research, essentially on a topic of their own choosing and without guidance or priorities from the University. It's difficult to evaluate how much of this research may turn out to be esoteric or useless, since U of M refuses to break down its research budget by departments or projects.
In some ways, the U of M is now paying the price for it; past elitism. The reigning philosophy has been based on the premise of infinite growth. To maintain its "excellence," so the argument goes, the University must constantly improve. But "excellence" has come to be measured in numbers: more degrees, more published research, and more classes and programs. Despite their rhetoric about the "disinterested pursuit of knowledge" and the intangibility of "excellence," most faculty hold steadfastly to the belief that the better professor is the one who earns a higher salary. The natíon's top universities constantly try to outbid each other to attract research "superstars."
The U of M, a notorious degree mill, has been particularly devoted to the notion that the more Masters of This and Doctors of That turned out,;the better. The result has been swollen ranks of overeducated and underemployed teachers- particularly from the Rackham grad school and the School of Education.
The effect of prolonged hiring freezes, attrition, and cutbacks in faculty positions is likely to be profound. Faculty openings are normally created and filled as senior professors retire or accept better positions at other schools, and younger, often more vigorously innovative professors replace them. When senior faculty have nowhere to go, the result may be stagnation. When senior-level positions remain unfilled, it becomes impossible for "giants in the field" to flock to Ann Arbor.
With the supply of young teachers vastly exceeding the demand, many schools and departments find they can profitably offer them one-year jobs at bargain-basement salaries. Tenure becomes impossible to achieve, and many bright and dedicated young teachers are driven into "lower-prestige" schools- or out of the profession altogether.
The U of M has felt no real-dollar cuts in its overall budget, but it is nonetheless cutting down or cutting out many of the unique programs which have made it Michigan's showcase university. Somebody, it would seem, has walked off with the educational profits which formerly accrued to students here.
That somebody may be the faculty and staff (some of whom, it must be noted, are students themselves); or the utility companies and fuel suppliers, who now take a hefty $5.7 million slice of the general fund (up 133 per cent in six years). From another point of view, that somebody may be students in lower income brackets and in other, less prestigious schools around the state.