Last year’s financial crisis truly hit home this week at Duke.

The University instituted its first public layoffs Monday, eliminating two staff positions in relation to the merger of the International House and the Multicultural Center.

As other elite research universities like Harvard and Princeton have already experienced, layoffs are an unfortunate reality in today’s current economic climate, and more will be necessary to close Duke’s $125 million budget gap.

But the administration’s lack of communication about these inevitable personnel cuts is troubling.  

Since last Spring, upper-level administrators have publicly stated their commitment to avoid layoffs at all costs, although they were careful not to rule them out altogether. In the past months, however, this strong language has begun to fade, giving way to the recognition that jobs may need to be eliminated.

Based on estimates released by Executive Vice President Tallman Trask, the University shed the equivalent of 400 jobs through early retirement incentives and other initiatives, and 600 more jobs need to be eliminated over the next two years to balance the budget.

While these looming cuts may give Duke the opportunity to “right-size” and trim administrative fat, they will place the future of University employees in uncertainty.

Given this situation, faculty, staff and students deserve a frank explanation of the University’s plan going forward before the axe is dropped on hundreds of jobs. That’s why it is particularly disconcerting that Monday’s layoffs came without any notification or warning.

The process of cutting jobs will be extensive and require politically unpopular and difficult decisions, but open communication from the Allen Building is the first step to ensure that layoffs are made prudently.

That the administration’s overall strategy for eliminating jobs has not yet been outlined to the community at large raises doubts about where the policy is headed. To counter these concerns, President Richard Brodhead and other administrators should release the University’s plan going forward, detailing priorities and potential areas for cuts.

In the past, Duke has taken measures to keep its employees informed about cost-cutting measures through various “Primetime” forums with key administrators. Moreover, the clear information available to employees about early retirement packages introduced earlier this year was laudatory, and it is the type of communication the administration should strive for as it moves forward.  

Not only would a campus-wide statement help to inform the University’s workforce, it would also reassure important stakeholders that the administration is confronting financial challenges proactively.

This is particularly important, as Duke’s cost-cutting strategy thus far has appeared a bit piecemeal, with budgetary changes left to the discretion of individual departments.

Moving forward, such a decentralized strategy—compared to a holistic approach—seems more likely to produce harmful cuts in key academic areas. Along these lines, bringing in an external consulting firm to evaluate the University, as was done at Cornell University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, could be a step in the right direction.

There is no doubt that Duke faces challenges ahead. But in adapting to troubled times, the administration should recognize the need for transparency, communication and comprehensive planning.