At the University of Nebraska Board of Regents meeting last Friday, we heard from over 100 faculty, staff, students, and community members as to why the academic program cuts in the UNL Chancellor’s budget reduction proposal were a bad idea. Since public comment lasted for 5+ hours, you may have missed some of the highlights – so we are going to publish them here. Below is a coordinated series of comments from faculty in the Department of Educational Administration, lending their expertise in educational leadership to explain how the Board could have preserved the academic mission of the University while still cutting spending.
Introduction: How to Save Money, Cut Waste, and Preserve the Academic Mission
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Elvira Abrica and I am an associate professor and department chair of the Department of Educational Administration. I am here with a number of my colleagues, all of whom are nationally recognized scholars in the field of educational administration. Together, we have prepared a coordinated set of comments—our collective professional assessment of what you and Nebraskans should understand about the proposed elimination of academic programs before you today, a proposal built on significant inaccuracies and incomplete information.
We offer this testimony with deep respect for your fiduciary duty, your role as stewards of the University system, and your responsibility to ensure that high-quality, accessible education remains available to Nebraskans across the state.
Let me begin by stating our message clearly:
First, the proposed academic program eliminations are not an advisable way forward.
Second: there is a better plan—one that reduces real costs, strengthens the academic mission, and protects the revenues Nebraska depends on.
Our specific ask is straightforward: pause these program cuts so faculty and administration can work together, quickly, on a more effective solution.
Each of my colleagues will build on this message.
We wholeheartedly agree that
- When something isn’t working, you fix it.
- You don’t keep pouring money into a broken system.
- You don’t keep extras that don’t serve students.
- When economic times are tough, you tighten things up and make sure every dollar is used effectively.
Eliminating revenue-generating programs that are one-of-a-kind in the state will not solve our financial problems. We need to do the hard but obvious work: address the top-heavy bureaucracy of the current University structure that we can no longer afford.
We will deliver to you today a proposal that saves money, cuts waste, and is the most financially responsible action you can take right now.
The Proposed Program Eliminations are Not the Way Forward
My name is Stephanie Bondi and I am an Associate Professor of Practice in the Department of Educational Administration
As my colleague just outlined, our first major point is straightforward: these proposed academic program eliminations are not an advisable way forward.
The Budget Reduction Plan cites $6.7 million in savings by eliminating four academic programs. But that figure reflects only the gross salaries of faculty and staff in those departments. It categorically does not reflect the actual savings—or losses—that would be realized if approved. The proposed cuts may look compelling at first glance, but they amount to a bill of goods—because once you account for the lost revenue and added costs, they simply do not deliver the savings advertised.
The proposed cuts do not account for the tuition these programs generate, nor the additional revenue from grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, distance-education fees. Nor does it account for established partnerships that drive private donations and gifts, and which disappear with program elimination. No business, no government agency, and no responsible governing board evaluates budget decisions using only gross expenses. The real question is always: What is the net impact?
By the university’s own calculation, included in the table of metrics produced by the Executive Vice Chancellor’s office and reported in the media, these four departments are each net-positive, generating a combined realizable net tuition of up to $5.13 million, even after subtracting their operating budgets. This revenue comes about through the day-to-day work of academic units doing the recruiting, teaching, research, outreach, and more that advances the core mission of the university in serving the state.
That’s $5 million in NET tuition revenue—not to mention sponsored research activity—that starts to disappear on day 1 of a cut: Students and faculty have already started applying to out-of-state universities. Those who remain will deter future students from coming to Nebraska at all, because program eliminations of this nature signal how the University handles budget challenges. Costs associated with faculty and staff turnover will rise quickly. And the expenses of a multi-year teach-out for those students who remain are, in fact, comparable to simply keeping the programs and making them better.
The bottom line is that we don’t balance the budget or save money by cutting off revenue.
What to do Instead: Reduce Wasteful Administrative Spending
My name is Beth Niehaus and I am a Professor in the Department of Educational Administration.
As my colleague just described, the academic program cuts in the Chancellor’s proposal are counterproductive to our goal of balancing the budget. But you may be asking, if not this, then what? How do we more responsibly reduce costs?
Our counter-proposal is to reduce wasteful administrative spending by restructuring leadership over UNL, UNMC, and the NU system, similar to how many of our BIG10 peers are structured – including Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, Purdue, Washington, and Wisconsin. We could have one “University of Nebraska” that is run by what is now Central Administration and includes UNL and UNMC, with UNO and UNK maintaining their identities as branch campuses.
This is already the direction we are moving in and at least $6.5 million in savings can be realized in the near term, rather than drawn out over years and years to come.
Restructuring would eliminate:
- UNL Chancellor’s office, including Directors of University and External Relations
- UNMC Chancellor’s office
- UNL and UNMC VC Business and Finance
- UNL Chief Communication and Marketing Officer
- UNMC VC External Affairs
Importantly, outside of the Chancellors’ offices, this proposal would only eliminate the top position in each area, retaining all other staff in those offices. Long term there are also additional cost savings that could be realized as we combine other administrative functions that now exist at both UNL and UMNC, like Research and Sponsored Programs, Online Education, Institutional Research, Compliance, and more. This proposal would involve VERY few position eliminations beyond positions that are already vacant, maintaining key staff doing the day-to-day work that makes our University run.
As I mentioned earlier, restructuring would result in over $6.5M in cost savings from salary and benefits immediately with NO lost revenue – and this is a conservative estimate of the cost savings involved. This is clearly a better deal than cutting a purported $6.7 million that, in reality, NETS A LOSS OF MILLIONS annually.
Most importantly, this approach protects the core academic mission of the institution, preserving our ability to serve our students and the state. It mirrors the administrative structures used successfully at other Big Ten institutions, allowing us to remain competitive while reducing overhead. Cutting academic programs, by contrast, leads to enrollment declines, reduced research funding, and long-term costs that far exceed short-term savings.
I urge the Board to consider this responsible alternative that protects Nebraska’s flagship university and ensures long-term financial sustainability.
Eliminate Bureaucratic Barriers to Innovation – Part 1
My name is Jiangang Xia and I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Administration
Building on the structural changes my colleague just outlined, we also propose that the Board instruct UNL and NU administrators to eliminate the bureaucratic barriers that currently block revenue-generating innovation. What became clear in the Chancellor’s proposal was that our leadership was not thinking expansively and creatively about how to solve our budgetary issues. Instead of proposing truly innovative strategies for utilizing our resources more efficiently, they were stuck in the mindset of how things have always been done around here.
For example, the proposal to combine Agricultural Economics with Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication illustrates this problem. By all accounts, the only things these two departments share are the word “agriculture” in their names and their presence within the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.
But if we remove both administrative and visionary barriers, we could find far more productive and strategic realignments across colleges—such as merging Educational Administration with Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, and combining Statistics with Agricultural Economics.
EDAD and ALEC, though currently situated in different colleges, have a long history of collaboration and shared interests. Bringing these units together would make sense and create meaningful opportunities for growth. For example, EDAD faculty could expand teaching capacity in undergraduate leadership courses, while ALEC faculty could increase advising capacity to grow doctoral enrollment in educational leadership and leadership studies—strengthening both programs and increasing tuition revenue.
Eliminate Bureaucratic Barriers to Innovation – Part 2
My name is Sarah Zuckerman. I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Administration.
Building on the realignments my colleague just described, collaboration across campuses could create new, innovative opportunities. We must think strategically about the most efficient and effective use of our resources across the entire NU system, not independently cutting programs at each campus.
For example, there is currently a College of Education at UNL, UNO, and UNK. Attempts to create joint programs, which we have tried, and to conduct research across campuses have been difficult. Given the different focuses of each College, it makes sense to maintain education programming at all three locations. However, joining them administratively under one system-wide College of Education would align resources, create clearer strategic direction, and facilitate stronger collaboration and innovation. Ultimately, this reduces costs while increasing revenue through higher enrollments and expanded eligibility for grant-funding. It would allow us to cooperate to serve students, rather than compete against one another.
Combining this approach with the structural changes discussed earlier—and the merger of UNL and UNMC under one “University of Nebraska”—we could create a School of Leadership and Community Development spanning UNL, UNK, UNO, and UNMC. This could include faculty currently housed in ALEC; EDAD; Ag Econ, Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education; Community and Regional Planning; Public Health; Social Work; and of course, Nebraska Extension. Such a School would enable new microcredentials and academic programs. It would create workforce and economic development initiatives aligned with community needs. It could increase community engagement across the state and contribute to the development of fundable, large-scale research. By building existing expertise and Extension partnerships, such a School would increase NU’s impact, especially in rural communities. And it would increase NU’s visibility and reputation.
This idea is not a last-minute Hail Mary in the face of budget cuts. It is one that I, members of my department, and others previously named have been working on for four years. There is a blueprint for this type of cross-discipline, cross-campus, community-engaged School in our rejected UNL Grand Challenges Catalyst Proposal. One external reviewer stated that the proposal to reorganize faculty work, reduce barriers to collaboration across disciplines and campuses, and focus on serving communities in Nebraska would attract serious external funding and create a nationally, and even internationally renowned, entity at NU. This approach also builds on our Carnegie Community Engaged University Designation.
Right now, this idea exists only on paper—We need leadership to help us bring this idea to life, not shut the door on opportunities to save a few dollars.
A Better Path Forward for Nebraska
My name is Deryl Hatch and I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Administration. I want to explain why the path we are proposing here is a better way forward for the University and for Nebraska. We fully endorse President Gold’s call for an Odyssey to Extraordinary. Achieving that vision will indeed require innovative thinking, hard work, and hard choices—shared across the entire University system.
As you’ve heard, colleagues across campus have brought forward all manner of feasible and creative solutions that create efficiencies, cut bureaucracy, increase collaboration, and build new revenue streams. The Academic Planning Committee endorsed this approach. These are ideas ready to be acted upon, in the same time frame or less, and for less money, than what it would take to implement the Chancellor’s proposed cuts.
Now, when we consider the goal of rejoining the AAU, keep in mind that the current proposal shortsightedly focuses on Phase I indicators only. But an AAU strategy must be long-term.
Among these Phase II indicators, for instance, is PhD production.
These four departments currently enroll 119 PhD students, representing fully 8% across UNL departments—nearly 1 in 10—and together graduate around 30 annually. For all but a few of those currently enrolled, there are simply no equivalent or alternative PhD programs within the state. Unless graduating in the next year or two, most will stop out or leave Nebraska for other opportunities. We know this because they have told us so and many have already started that process. It speaks to the fact that the fastest way to export Nebraska talent is through program cuts.
Another Phase II indicator is USDA, state, and industrial research funding.
Across these four departments, in addition to millions of dollars in active, competitively-funded federal grants, their support of additional grantwork is both direct and structural. They provide the scientific, analytical, and community infrastructure that makes competitive proposals possible. Environmental and Atmospheric Sciences advances federally funded climate and water research essential to Nebraska agriculture. Statistics supplies the methodological and analytic expertise that strengthens proposals across IANR, Engineering, and the life and social sciences. And departments like Educational Administration and Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design bring the engagement, evaluation, workforce pathways, and industry partnerships that all funding agencies are making a priority.
Eliminating these units weakens the competitiveness of research across the entire university in an increasingly interdisciplinary and partnership-based funding landscape, thereby directly weakening the very indicators that AAU institutions must excel in.
The plan we propose moves the University toward AAU re-entry; the plan before you today for program elimination moves us further away.
Our Ask: Cut Bloat, not Backbone
My name is Corey Rumann and I am a faculty member in the Department of Educational Administration. I have been at UNL in that position for over 13 years.
We can change course today. You have been led down a path that applies band-aids to problems instead of fixing what is truly broken. Cutting academic programs will eliminate unique programs and revenue Nebraska simply cannot afford to lose. Many of our administrators, including the chancellor, have noted the best way to address our budget deficit is to create more opportunities through creative and innovative thinking and cutting programs does just the opposite. We simply cannot be fooled into believing these recommended cuts will do anything but hurt the University of Nebraska now and in the long term.
Instead we are offering an immediate, practical solution—one that reduces costs without harming the programs that generate tuition, partnerships, workforce talent, and research, and the very programs that, by the Academic Planning Committee’s own recommendations, contribute to the strength of the institution.
If we truly believe in an Odyssey to Extraordinary, we cannot choose a path that cuts the people and programs that make extraordinary work possible. As President Gold recently said the only sure way to address our budget deficit is to grow, grow, grow. The proposal in front of you cuts into our academic core—and into our revenue. It eliminates opportunities for growth and partnerships and negatively impacts ALL of Nebraska including our rural communities.
The plan we have presented today cuts bloat, not backbone. It strengthens programs, strengthens partnerships, and strengthens the PhD production that AAU status requires.
We and countless other faculty have done the hard work to bring forward a number of real solutions, real innovative solutions. We are all ready to work with you to implement those solutions.
Now we invite you to take the step with us that moves the Nebraska system and all of Nebraska forward.
Thank you for listening, and thank you for your service to the State of Nebraska.
