Scott Withycombe
Perspectives Assistant
After months of discussion, debate and, in some circles, outrage, the Dean of Seaver College finally announced the Reprioritization plan reflecting the demand for $1 million in cuts from the school’s budget.
The budget cuts required the dean to look at Seaver College programs and determine which were priorities and which would either receive reduced funding or be cut entirely. The final result does not appear to be as bad as many people initially imagined, although considering there are no dollar amounts attached to the circulated plan it is still hard to speculate as to what the final impact will be, especially on programs receiving reduced funds.
While the budget seems to fairly reflect strong academic priorities and an honest evaluation of existing programs, it remains for many a point of contention that funds for academic programs were cut at all. Seaver College is after all chiefly an academic institution and it is an education that students are paying a considerable cost to obtain. Considering that tuition has risen steadily over the past three years at a rate that has greatly surpassed the rate of inflation, it seems only logical that money should be pouring into improving academic programs rather than cutting or abandoning them. If money is tight for the university it is certainly more principled, and certainly more reflective both of what should be the institutional purpose of Pepperdine and also the raise in the cost of education to students, that cuts be made from non-academic budgets.
Looking at the reprioritization plan it is obvious that this approach to budgeting was considered as it appears, at least in terms of the number of programs affected, that Student Affairs will bear a significant portion of the burden. This of course is no solace to Humanities, various Fine Arts, and physical education students and alumni who will see their fields of study dropped from University curriculum.
Pepperdine should have moved to direct all the cuts toward non-academic programs.
It is easy for even the most modest observer to realize that money could be saved by reprioritizing Public Safety, both in terms of necessary staff and necessary new vehicles.
Returning once again to the prioritization in Student Affairs, it is interesting to find one certainly non-essential program that will be receiving increased funding: Convocation.
Increasing funding for Convocation programming, which admittedly retains a small budget in proportion to the $1 million that were cut, is a prime example of misallocation of funds. (This programming budget presumably does not include associated staff salary costs, which most likely figure into to another budget, but should be considered as possible savings as a result of cutting the program).
Convocation for the past two years has served no valuable education purpose whatsoever, especially since there is now a support staff on the ground to prevent students from reading the morning newspaper or finishing some homework during what is otherwise a colossal waste of time.
Convocation has become for many a robotic exercise of sleep-walking into the gym, scanning in, phasing out (or running down to Starbucks), and then scanning out. Post-event discussion of Convo-cation topics or speakers is rarely academic. Rather it is typically criticism of the program itself and the burden it places on students to meet the attendance requirement with very little intellectual award. More than any other factor, this is most likely the result of poor and repetitive content. It seems rational that failing programs would be among the first things to go during budget cuts.
Considering the impressive level of student participation in events like the election debate organized and executed by amazing members of our very own faculty and the lecture given by Pepperdine alum and current Deputy Director for Intelligence at the CIA Jami Misck, it seems that the academic and community building goals of Convocation could easily be met by offering more noncompulsory engagements that cost little or nothing to the University and require only the support and creativity of our dedicated faculty and student body.
Budgeting requires making tough decisions, and cutting budgets never makes everyone, or necessarily anyone happy. What is important is that the overall objective of the institution is not hindered by the cuts. When it comes to cutting budgets at the University it is disappointing to students to watch academic programs be cut and nonessential programs receive increased funds or new vehicles. After all, we came to Pepperdine for an education and it is in our best interest and the Universitys that academic programs be improved and expanded rather than reduced and removed.
10-28-2004