Editor’s note: This commentary is by University of Vermont spokesperson Enrique Corredera.
The recent commentary by University of Vermont professor and state Sen. Phil Baruth conflates the university’s pandemic response with chronic budget issues that must be addressed regardless of the pandemic.
The proposed phase-out of majors and departments with extremely low enrollments in UVM’s College of Arts and Sciences has nothing to do with the pandemic. There is no way to use pandemic funds to address the budgetary problems the low enrollments create. Revenue decreases caused by enrollment declines, coupled with increasing human resource costs, have resulted in a structural budget deficit that has grown to $8.6 million over the past several years. Efforts over the past five years to enlist the help of faculty to find a way out of the deficit have not yielded any viable solution. That’s why, using data to identify the majors and minors with the lowest enrollments, a plan was created to address the deficit in a way that maintains alignment with student needs and interests. And we have of necessity pursued other actions in the intervening years, like the non-tenure-track faculty position reductions that Baruth cites.
The university has a fiduciary obligation to the state to address these structural issues. Like any other successful organization, the university must find a way to direct its limited resources to the areas where we can best meet the needs of our students, and away from areas where very few students are being served. Otherwise, we risk weakening the institution and jeopardizing the value of its educational, research and economic contributions to the state.
Baruth correctly points out that UVM made a strong case to the state Legislature for funding to help cover pandemic-related expenses. The university is grateful for this generous support, but that support could only be directed to one-time Covid-related expenses; not the structural budget problem the university must correct.
Baruth inaccurately asserts that the administrative side of UVM has not been impacted. The reality is that the budget challenges that are now facing our faculty are nothing new to the administration. In the past 10 years, administrative units have reduced their budgets by $20 million. And they are in the process of cutting another $11.5 million out of the current year. It’s worth noting that UVM already employs fewer administrators than our peers — 5.6 administrators/1,000 students as compared to the 9.8 average at our public high research university peers.
Regarding pay cuts, senior university leaders voluntarily took a 3.3% cut in addition to the 5% reduction in pay assigned to the highest-paid employees at the university. Employees making less than $45,000 saw no reduction, and staff making between $45,000 and $60,000 received a 2.5% cut. While staff, administrators, and medical school faculty have taken these cuts, United Academics, which represents the non-medical faculty, maintains that its members should take no salary reduction and instead should receive a 13% salary increase over fiscal years 2021-23, even though the average salary for a UVM faculty member is more than $95,000 for a nine-month academic year.
Lastly, Baruth seems to suggest that the solution lies either in tapping the university’s endowment or convincing donors to give money to save the low-enrollment programs set to be discontinued. Sadly, neither is viable. Endowment funds cannot be used for any purposes other than the ones designated by the people who made the gifts, and we know of no donors who would be inclined to give money to subsidize programs that are attracting so few students. Donors are drawn to programs where they see strength and success. We have plenty of those, including in Arts and Sciences.
We believe the responsible approach we are taking will ensure that UVM can be that shining light for Vermont for decades to come.
