I’d like to clarify a couple points that are not accurate.

1. Tenure is not being eliminated. Please stop saying that because it is false.

2. You mention that “those [faculty] who stay will be afraid to challenge and encourage students . . . ” I am a tenured faculty member who will proudly stay, and will continue to challenge students. As will many of my colleagues who disagree with how this entire issue is being represented to the general public.

3. Our (faculty) jobs are not on the line if we challenge student assumptions. This is a gross over-exaggeration of an understandable fear from some faculty.

Let’s use common sense. Let’s say a faculty member covers controversial issues such as abortion or race in their class, and they have some heated conversations with students, challenging assumptions. They engage in the wonderful kind of learning that happens here.

Do we really think it is reasonable that the Board of Directors will single that faculty member out and do everything necessary to declare budgetary hardship just to get rid of them?

Or do we think it is more reasonable that if we experience budgetary hardship, the Board might want to take a look at eliminating faculty who are not pulling their weight in terms of being productive teachers and scholars? Who are currently protected by a tenure system that will allow them to be a drain on the University’s resources?

The public should also be aware that the faculty counter-proposals to the Board included provisions that any faculty salary cuts would only be in effect for that academic year, and would have to be restored WITH INTEREST!!! The faculty counter-proposal, essentially, would create a situation where staff and students would take the entire weight of any reductions – through job loss, scholarship cuts, benefit cuts, etc. The faculty would remain whole and not suffer any financial repercussions.

This is brilliant! Thank you for creating this engaging, yet accurate, description of the issue.