The violence on campus - the wounds inflicted by the budget ax

Source: https://www.cagle.com/jimmy-margulies/2010/10/education-budget-cuts

We are shocked and outraged at the violence resulting in injuries and loss of life occurring in academic settings at all levels, and we should be. If students can't be safe in school, whether K-12 or college, then where can anyone be safe? Guns have no place on the grounds or in the halls of educational facilities - not in the hands of a disturbed child, a disturbed adult, or even a sane teacher. It is easy to raise our voices about this, and we should and must continue to raise our voices until changes of real import are made.

There is another kind of violence on campus that receives little press, though it is very damaging and is destroying innocent lives. It demands our angry voices, but doesn't get much if any notice, so how can we complain if we are unaware?

The president of a local university sent an email out to all faculty and staff Thursday morning to advise all of the current state of response to the budget cuts imposed by the governor and legislature. (These are the very same who decry Kentucky's reputation as being "backwards and uneducated" but still cut deeply into its schools' capabilities to improve the educational level of its citizens.) Buried in the middle of it were 3 short words that sacrificed the dreams and life goals of 352 completely innocent and blameless university students: "close regional campus". The university's regional campus is designed to reach out to students who could not otherwise attend classes on the main campus. This regional campus has been serving its local community and neighboring communities as well as its county and neighboring counties for 20 years.

The media release from the university claimed the regional campus had a student population of 93 students. Somebody in the administration didn't check their facts or the spin doctors had their hands in this. There are currently 140 students attending the regional campus plus 225 dual-credit students who are taking college classes while still high school seniors. (The regional campus also has 8 full-time employees and 6 part-time faculty who weren't mentioned in the media release.) When is campus closing? At the end of spring semester, less than 2 months away.  

How did the students find out? Not from the university president or administration. Rather, they found out when the long-time regional campus administrator sent them a very caring and heartfelt email to break the news.  As one student aptly stated, "They just stole my education from me!"

How did the regional campus staff find out? First thing that morning, the regional campus staff were called into a group meeting with an HR rep who told them their employment was terminated at the end of the semester.  How did the part-time faculty find out? From either another caring, heartfelt email from the same regional campus administrator or reading those 3 words in the president's email, whichever came first. How did the department chairs who support the part-time faculty find out? Only by reading it in the president's email to the entire faculty and staff.

The university's stance is that the regional campus students can now either come to the main campus 45 minutes away or they can take online classes. Neither are viable solutions.  If students decide to transfer to another institution, they will lose scholarships and funding - another consequence that jeopardizes these students' futures.

The problems with commuting: The regional campus students are very much non-traditional students. Many work 40 hours a week. Many have families and children. Some have grandchildren. The one who proclaimed that EKU had just stolen her education works part-time, volunteers as a fire-fighter for her county, and lives on a shoestring budget - all while taking college classes and maintaining a GPA above 3.0. Like her, most of the regional campus students don't have the money to drive the 90-min round-trip to attend classes on the main campus. The time to make the commute would decrease the precious little time they have to study and do their coursework. Many regional campus students can't afford the time to make such a commute for another reason - they have children to care for, pick up from school, and other family responsibilities that don't preclude pursuing a college education but certainly prevent a 90-min commute each day.  That is why the regional campus location in or near their home towns was ideal for them.

The problems with online classes: One of the options students have at the regional campus is to take classes offered via telecast. The faculty member is in a classroom somewhere else (most commonly the main campus) with students physically present in that location. The regional campus students frequently complain that this is not a functional arrangement for some very valid reasons. First, the faculty member is focused on the students in front of him/her, not on the audience "attending" through the camera and microphone. Students in the remote location can't raise their hands to ask questions because the remote faculty member rarely notices. The faculty member cannot work one-on-one with a remote campus student to provide additional assistance. Even though there is a regional campus staff member present for these classes, student attention almost immediately wanders and there is often low-level chatter that prevents students who are trying to focus and hear from doing so. All of that aside, have you ever taken an online class? I have, and in my opinion, the results gained do not come anywhere near being equal to what a student can get by being in the classroom with the instructor present.

These students did nothing wrong. They attend classes. They pay tuition and fees - even fees for main campus programs that they never utilize. How is it fiscally responsible to cut off 352 tuition-paying students? How does that help the bottom line of a budget? How is it fiscally responsible to cause such ill will among these students and the communities that the regional campus serves? Goodwill is a commodity in decline these days. It is not wise to squander it.

If this were all that the university administration has done in the name of budget cuts, it would be shameful enough, but there's more. In the first round of budget cuts forced by the governor and legislature, the administration dictated that part-time faculty (adjuncts) must go. The department chairs, having no choice, cut most or all adjuncts. It is the part-time faculty that teaches virtually all the General Education courses the university demands all students take as part of a well-rounded education at the university. The faculty should teach those, you say? The faculty are overloaded with teaching requirements already since there has been a hiring freeze and as faculty retire, they can't be replaced. But, don't the faculty have teaching-hour limits stipulated? Yes, they do. The simple solution to that was the re-definition of the number of credit hours for each class so that on the books, the faculty are not teaching more hours than they are supposed to teach. How is that working out, you ask? Well, a class that meets for 4 hours a week is now listed as a 3-hour course. Students only pay for and earn 3 hours, but they still meet with the faculty member for 4 hours a week, and the faculty member still meets with the students for 4 hours a week. A shell game pure and simple. Accounting to make the numbers look better than the reality of the situation. Faculty are still overworked.

And if one looks at the cost-benefit analysis of employing adjunct faculty, one will see that adjunct are paid far less than their full-time counterparts and adjuncts receive absolutely no benefits. Basically, well-qualified adjuncts are a very cheap work force. I am not advocating terminating tenured faculty in the least. However, if one thinks about the instructional and program needs of the students that can't be met properly by the tenured faculty and budget prevent adding new tenure-track faculty, then adjuncts are definitely the way to go.

That result is bad enough. The following set of real numbers for just one department at the university makes it far, far worse. In one department that historically has served the Gen Ed needs of a large portion of the university's student body, here's what has happened. I'll refer to each Gen Ed course by Gen Ed A, B, C, and D to keep the department's identity hidden.

• Gen Ed A: Before the adjunct cut, the department served 320 students with 4 sections. In Spring 2018, the department has 4 sections of that can hold a maximum of 204 students.  
• Gen Ed B: Before the adjunct cut, the department served 461 students in 15 sections. In Fall 2018, the department will offer 4 sections with a maximum enrollment of 97 students.  
• Gen Ed C: Before the adjunct cut, the department served 244 students in 12 sections. In Fall 2018, the department will offer 2 sections that can serve a maximum enrollment of 120 students. Those 2 sections will be comprised of one integrated (part online, part in-class) and one traditional model (one large lecture with 4 smaller labs).  
• Gen Ed D: Before the adjunct cut, the department served 121 students in 6 sections. In Fall 2018, the department will offer 1 lecture/lab course and 1 integrated course with a combined maximum enrollment of 96 students.  

Let's add up those numbers, shall we? Before the adjuncts were cut, the department served 1,146 students in 42 sections of 4 Gen Ed courses (that is approximately 27 students per section). After the adjuncts were cut, the department is able to serve 517 students in 12 sections of 4 Gen Ed courses (that is approximately 43 students per section). I should mention that the university mandates Gen Ed courses to have smaller enrollments, ideally 24 or less, for the benefit of the student. So, there are 30 fewer sections of Gen Ed serving to serve 45% fewer students while the total university student population must still take the full complement of Gen Ed courses.

Compounding this decreased Gen Ed availability is that this university's enrollment continues to grow. The math just can't work. More students being required to take a full course of Gen Ed while fewer and fewer Gen Ed sections are offered.

If students can't get into Gen Ed courses, they must postpone taking them until they can get in, which could result in students taking longer to complete their undergraduate degrees. The university may end up receiving more tuition money from each student who stays the course, but student frustration will increase and student loan debt will increase as a result. Many students may simply not be able to hold on long enough financially and will give up on their dream of obtaining a college education. Or, students may see that this university's graduation rates for a 4-year degree are decreasing and opt to go elsewhere.

Violence can be inflicted by armed conflict, but is also inflicted emotionally and spiritually and though the person still lives, the damage is still terrible. When you steal the dreams of an education and better life away from a person, that is violence pure and simple. The talk late Thursday and into Friday amongst the students was to transfer away from a school who could do this to them. I certainly can't blame them.

I speak of one university, but this is not an isolated problem. These budget cuts are affecting K-12 and universities across the country. Seems to me that one of the most over-looked, devalued, and under-appreciated needs in our society is an education, at least in the halls of government. Until education and its teachers again regains their high place and value, this violent theft of dreams will continue.