The Bugeater

At first glance, the APC’s Recommendations on Proposed Budget Reductions, released to the public on Oct. 31, have bad news for EDAD and TMFD. As a faculty member in EDAD, it certainly felt like bad news to me. Those two units were the only ones to get a majority vote in favor of elimination from members of the APC, slim as those majorities were.

But, what do these votes really mean? What did APC members voting in favor of or opposed to elimination mean when they cast their votes? Reading the full report, what at first appears like a simple yes/no vote seems to be much more complicated.

Below are excerpts from the summaries of rationales given by APC members when casting their votes. As you read each one, guess whether this was given as a rationale for a vote “in favor” of or “opposed” to elimination.

1. Voters noted that the absence of a viable alternative proposal from CASNR and the lack of clarity around the distributed model make it difficult to assess the long-term impact of the cuts, especially in relation to UNL’s R1 status, Big Ten standing, and AAU aspirations.
2. Voters recognized the program’s strategic importance and its role in preparing educational leaders for Nebraka.
3. Overall, the comments underscore the tension between financial constraints, institutional priorities, and the perceived impact of the program, highlighting the need for thoughtful deliberation before final decisions are made. 
4. …these voters also noted new leadership at the Dean and Unit level and that the Unit has several promising initiatives for increasing enrollment that have just recently launched… 
5. Rather than closure, [voters] advocate for providing more time for thoughtful curricular revamp that the program did just last year to attract new students. 
6. [Voters] expressed hope that the program could be retained through realignment… and encouraged providing more time for these opportunities to be explored, given the program’s uniqueness and the opportunities it provides to students. 
7. They [voters] suggested that this is an opportune moment to explore cross-campus collaboration and synergy…
8. These commenters also called for better coordination across the NU System alongside a desire to retain essential pathways for educational administration credentials at UNL. 
9. This is another program that would benefit from better cross-campus coordination, as the Department of Statistics provides critical expertise for programs at other campuses of the NU system. 
10. …there was broad agreement that retaining the program, either outright or through strategic restructuring, would benefit both UNL and the NU system.
11. The loss of degree programs is acknowledged as a significant blow to scholarship and innovation, and the need for further exploration before final decisions are made is strongly emphasized by these voters. 
12. …some APC members viewed restructuring as a pragmatic solution that balances academic continuity with necessary financial adjustments. 
13. …a merger with the School of Natural Resources (SNR) should be considered to reduce duplication, increase student credit hours, and improve operational efficiency. 
14. APC members strongly support the One-Unit Model that merges LARC with Architecture, Interior Design, and Community & Regional Planning. 
15. APC members strongly support the alternative proposal developed by the College of Architecture: a One-Unit Model that merges CRP with Architecture, Interior Design, and Landscape Architecture. 
16. [Voters were] supportive of the One-Unit Model proposed by the College of Architecture. 

NO PEEKING! Mark down your guesses for each statement before moving on.

Okay, here is the answer key:

1. Voters noted that the absence of a viable alternative proposal from CASNR and the lack of clarity around the distributed model make it difficult to assess the long-term impact of the cuts, especially in relation to UNL’s R1 status, Big Ten standing, and AAU aspirations. (in favor – Stats)
2. Voters recognized the program’s strategic importance and its role in preparing educational leaders for Nebraska. (in favor – EDAD)
3. Overall, the comments underscore the tension between financial constraints, institutional priorities, and the perceived impact of the program, highlighting the need for thoughtful deliberation before final decisions are made. (in favor – EDAD)
4. …these voters also noted new leadership at the Dean and Unit level and that the Unit has several promising initiatives for increasing enrollment that have just recently launched… (in favor – TMFD)
5. Rather than closure, [voters] advocate for providing more time for thoughtful curricular revamp that the program did just last year to attract new students. (opposed – TMFD)
6. [Voters] expressed hope that the program could be retained through realignment… and encouraged providing more time for these opportunities to be explored, given the program’s uniqueness and the opportunities it provides to students. (in favor – TMFD)
7. They [voters] suggested that this is an opportune moment to explore cross-campus collaboration and synergy… (opposed – EDAD)
8. These commenters also called for better coordination across the NU System alongside a desire to retain essential pathways for educational administration credentials at UNL. (in favor – EDAD)
9. This is another program that would benefit from better cross-campus coordination, as the Department of Statistics provides critical expertise for programs at other campuses of the NU system. (opposed – Stats)
10. …there was broad agreement that retaining the program, either outright or through strategic restructuring, would benefit both UNL and the NU system. (in favor – Stats)
11. The loss of degree programs is acknowledged as a significant blow to scholarship and innovation, and the need for further exploration before final decisions are made is strongly emphasized by these voters. (in favor – Stats)
12. …some APC members viewed restructuring as a pragmatic solution that balances academic continuity with necessary financial adjustments. (in favor – EAS)
13. …a merger with the School of Natural Resources (SNR) should be considered to reduce duplication, increase student credit hours, and improve operational efficiency. (opposed – EAS)
14. APC members strongly support the One-Unit Model that merges LARC with Architecture, Interior Design, and Community & Regional Planning. (opposed – LARC)
15. APC members strongly support the alternative proposal developed by the College of Architecture: a One-Unit Model that merges CRP with Architecture, Interior Design, and Landscape Architecture. (opposed – CRP)
16. [Voters were] supportive of the One-Unit Model proposed by the College of Architecture. (in favor – LARC and CRP)

How many did you get right? 

What becomes clear in the APC report is that there is broad consensus that all of these units are vital to the mission of the University and should not be eliminated. Even those APC members who voted in favor of elimination noted the importance of each program and argued for alternatives, like restructuring within UNL or increasing collaboration across NU campuses.

Importantly, the APC was also repeatedly told that we HAVE to cut $27.5 million, so if we don’t cut these units we will have to cut others. Administrators’ claims about the serious structural deficit have of course recently been called into question by the AAUP financial analysis of both UNL and the NU system. It is unclear whether any APC members would have voted in favor of eliminating any of these programs if there was not, in fact, a financial necessity to do so (as may well be the case).

So where does this leave us? For now, we are just waiting to see what Chancellor Bennett will do. Will he heed the calls from the APC, Faculty Senate, Graduate Council, and Executive Graduate Council, along with many other faculty, staff, and community members to press pause and develop a transparent, evidence-based, and strategically aligned plan to balance fiscal responsibility and the University’s mission? Or will he continue to double down on a plan that no one seems to think is the right way to go?