Special to the Tribune-Star
TERRE HAUTE — In its lead editorial of March 10, the Tribune-Star suggests that ISU faculty resist the urge to complain publicly about the potential impact of state budget cuts to higher education. As a tenured professor at ISU, I take issue with an argument that is built on two highly dubious presumptions: one, that most faculty are somehow out of touch with the impact of the Great Recession on the general workforce; and, two, that faculty complaints have been motivated by self-serving opposition to cuts to sabbaticals and “valuable research time.”
The first presumption is simply false. University faculty members do not live in a bubble; we all have friends, family, and colleagues who are struggling to survive in the current economic environment. Moreover, despite our “great health care and retirement benefits”, a phrase from the editorial which deserves more critical attention than I can give here, most faculty at ISU have been working hard to provide quality higher education to our students despite a level of compensation that has remained stubbornly lower than that of our peer institutions for years.
In fact, a high priority for the Bradley administration before the current budget crisis was addressing below-average faculty salaries at ISU, a state of affairs that the faculty have had to “suck up” semester after semester, without prodding from the Tribune-Star.
The second presumption, while also false, is more disturbing, because it only encourages the sense that “town and gown” or, if you prefer, the Ivory Tower and the Real World have differing and incompatible priorities. The Tribune-Star editorial implies that sabbaticals and research time are luxuries, while ignoring the fact that university professors are, at one level, professional researchers, whose personal work produces the critical advances in science, technology, medicine, and, yes, the liberal arts, that allow our society to continue to advance.
More important, the editorial completely misses the connection between research and instruction, something that the ISU Mission Statement emphasizes: Indiana State University combines a tradition of strong undergraduate and graduate education with a focus on community and public service. We integrate teaching, research, and creative activity in an engaging, challenging, and supportive learning environment to prepare productive citizens for Indiana and the world.
The ISU faculty has every right to complain publicly and privately about administration proposals that affect the university. We have already witnessed severe cuts to staff and adjunct faculty that will have a negative impact on instruction for the foreseeable future. Before asking the ISU faculty to grin and bear additional, unilateral administrative “solutions” to the budget crisis, the Tribune-Star should be helping to illuminate the difficult choices now facing the entire ISU community.
If, for example, teaching loads rise dramatically, research will suffer, which will threaten graduate programs and the quality of undergraduate teaching; class sizes will increase, which will undermine the learning environment; community and public service will be diluted, which will put into question the distinctiveness of the ISU brand.
ISU students, their families, and anyone concerned about the state of higher education in Indiana, including, presumably, the Tribune-Star, should also be willing to raise questions and complain, if necessary, about this potential transformation. Where does the ISU community stand on some of these proposals? Is access to a research-intensive university a luxury or a necessity for ISU students? Will they tolerate larger classes? Are they willing they take courses from faculty who are forced to teach outside their disciplines? Should the administration shoulder proportionate cuts to its budget? Should it be required to seek faculty input? How much money should be spent on athletics at an academic institution facing severe budget pressures? Does this community value education enough to petition state government to sustain higher education funding within the current budget — or to raise taxes to a level that would protect educational priorities in the face of declining revenues?
Or, in the end, should ISU students and families also “suck it up” and continue to patronize (and pay tuition to) a university that finds it harder and harder to comply with its stated mission?
— Timothy Hawkins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of History
Indiana State University
Terre Haute
