Remarks To The Oregon University System Board of Directors

Bill Danley, President, Interinstitutional Faculty Senate

President Lussier, Chancellor Jarvis, Directors, University Presidents, Students, Staff, and Guests:

My remarks today center around revenue, access, and quality, as if all of us have not heard enough about these topics recently.

Revenue - I don1t believe there is a thinking person in Oregon who does not now know for sure that we need more revenue to make this state work in any manageable way. Even the Governor is now saying that some form of tax increase is thinkable -- just a few weeks ago only a few brave souls were whispering hints of necessary tax increases, and now there is a bi-partisan effort to at least put some ideas on the table and get serious about raising revenue. Faculty at the Oregon University System campuses support this new conversation, and we hope it results in a broad based, comprehensive, and long-term revenue solution, not just a one-shot band-aid. In my conversations around the state, everyone agrees that we need to do more than just increase the beer tax. I say let1s get on with it, and support those who are leaders enough to risk their political lives to get behind the idea. Like all of you, I can1t stand the idea of asking for more money for our universities when sick people are dying and children are hungry and our unemployment rate is among the highest in the nation. The future of the Oregon University System lies in our being the driver of our economic recovery, which will happen when we take care of business and get Oregon back on our feet. I1m ready to pay my share of a fair tax, and I1m willing to work for those who will work to get it passed. I think my colleagues on the faculty agree.

Access - At OUS, we have rightly phrased our requests to the legislature in terms of how revenue affects access. If we get less money to run this system, fewer Oregonians will be able to attend our universities. In a recent adjustment to the 3Deal2, we agreed that we could take some 6,000 additional students at the 72% level of funding of the average of our peer institutions, but below that level we couldn1t maintain quality without having fewer students attend. I hope I am not being inconsiderate when I point out that

(1) Our original hope of 80% funding represents 80% of average, which would put us close to the bottom of state funding for higher education, not at the 80th percentile. 72% would likely assure us of the honor of being dead last.

(2) When we talk about dropping from 80% of average to 72% of average, and talk further about taking cuts of 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10% beyond that, we can talk about consequences of losing students, but faculty know that the initial effect of those cuts is to reduce personnel, salaries, and programs. In a university system where most expenses are personnel, the only way to save money is to cut personnel, and that1s why we can1t take more students.

We know that we are all here for the students, and that students are our only reason for being. Our language in this legislative game, however, reveals the loss of students while it does not reveal the loss of faculty and staff at the same time. OUS faculty are painfully aware of the fact that if we endure more cuts in our budget, it will come at the expense of the jobs of our colleagues and friends. I heard a professor say recently that it seems like the goal is to retire as many faculty as we can and try to get by with the rest. We hope that you will not forget that when you speak of enrollment losses, the faculty lose also.

Quality - The Oregon University System has tried hard to make the point to the legislature and to our public that quality is our foremost concern, and that we will not compromise quality to provide access at any cost. As one of our faculty senators said at our last meeting, 3 Access doesn1t mean letting more kids in the door, it means getting them through.2 We need to remind ourselves of what a quality education means in these trying times, and to think about what it means to be an educated person. We have only to look around us at nations whose educational systems have failed -- it1s often not because of a lack of students or even the availability of tuition, it often is because the ideals of an educated society have been lost. We need to consider the value of having real professors teach our classes, of preserving the ideas of academic freedom and of the value of a liberal education. We need to think beyond the economic, technical, and vocational needs of our students, and to remind ourselves that having more students, larger classes, fewer professors, and less choice of programs of study will not serve our state in the long run. A colleague of mine said to me the other day, 3... asking for 72% of average peer funding is not drawing a line in the sand, it is putting our head in the sand.2 I1m not sure I agree, but I sure understand the thought and the frustration that comes with it.

I have said before that this Board, and this Chancellor, have been more responsive and more tuned in to the needs of both faculty and students than others in my memory. I hope that when I speak of what we feel and need, I do so because I know it will be listened to and not because I think it hasn1t already been considered. All of Oregon, and all of America is suffering economically, and we on the faculty are committed to work with you to do our part to keep us going.