Two days before the two-year anniversary of his recommendation to cut the Journalism, Statistics and Physical Education departments, Provost Paul Sypherd recommended more program cuts.
These cuts are to once again involve the Journalism Department, which was reviewed by a commission analyzing journalism's stature on this campus and how it might be integrated into a school including the departments of Management and Information Systems, Library Science, Communication and Computer Science.
But the commission's recommendation has been reviewed and unsupported by Sypherd. In a memo to UA President Manuel Pacheco, Sypherd wrote the merging of these departments would create a complex situation that could harm the nationally ranked MIS program.
"Adding additional responsibilities to this unit may seriously jeopardize its stature in a defined field of teaching and scholarship," Sypherd wrote.
Wouldn't it be better for the UA to have five departments working together in the future? Couldn't such a merger be cost effective?
But not only is journalism at stake. Sypherd also called for both the deans and members of the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee to recommend "20 more instructional programs" that can be considered for elimination or consolidation.
Why are all these recommendations being made? Sypherd said it is because the UA is $7.8 million over its budget.
The UA has been allotted a budget of $295.2 million for the 1996-97 school year. The university was also projected in October to have revenues of over $1 billion for the current year.
Doesn't it seem that the university should have enough funds for everything? Obviously, it doesn't - but why?
First of all, look at the new Arizona International Campus. Members of the faculty senate have questioned whether the campus is part of the university or a separate entity. Though the state provides the university with the $2.1 million needed to fund the AIC, the UA cannot pull funds from the AIC's budget.
Pacheco said the AIC was originally designed to house the overflow of in-state students who want to attend the UA. The only problem is that the UA is experiencing a decrease in enrollment, meaning open slots for those in-state students. Trouble is, even if the demand for the AIC is less, that's $2.1 million the UA will never see again.
If the funding for the AIC was directed by the Arizona Board of Regents, then the board should have seen that the three current state universities need more money to fund their current programs - instead of funding a new campus.
If the future of the UA is going to be the role of a caring sibling to its sister university - one that is still in its infancy - we need to look for new contraceptives for Mom and Dad.
The UA needs to focus on its own future, and work toward revamping the programs in place. This would create a healthy environment for it to grow.
Cutting is not the answer.
Staff Editorial