Last week, staff at the Multicultural Center and International House were informed that their organizations would be merged and two jobs at the MCC would be eliminated. Administrators stated that budgetary considerations were just one of several factors playing into the decision.

Within days of the announcement, after a notably outspoken backlash from students, faculty, staff and alumni, the administration announced that the merger had been postponed and that a task force, composed partially of student representatives, will convene to determine the future of the Multicultural Center and International House. The employee layoffs, however, are nonnegotiable.

While University officials should be commended for putting the merger on hold, this debacle serves as a clear lesson that, especially in financially troubled times, unilateral and opaque action is unacceptable and will garner resistance.

In general, student reaction to the announcement of the merger was justified. The Multicultural Center and the International House both fulfill important roles on campus, and any administrative action that has the potential to adversely affect the services they deliver should be openly communicated to students.

That the administration justified the merger on the grounds of integrating offices with similar purposes is also particularly concerning. The International House and Multicultural Center serve different constituencies in different ways, and regardless of its intent, the suggestion that they have overlapping missions has the appearance of marginalizing culture and diversity.

And even worse, the contentious debate following the merger’s announcement heightened tensions among students and divided leaders of cultural organizations.

In the end, whatever recommendation it puts forth, the task force examining this issue should strive to protect the missions of both entities while recognizing that the hard work and dedication of students, supported by University resources, are what ultimately make campus organizations successful.

More importantly, for administrators, this situation is the perfect example of how not to make cuts. 

It’s no secret that the intended merger was expedited and driven by financial reasons. And in reality, this is only the beginning of many budgetary decisions that will directly affect students.

In the future as administrators make further cutbacks in areas that touch students’ lives, communication should be paramount. 

For the most part, students are reasonable, and they recognize that changes are inevitable given the budget shortfall the University is up against. As long as the process by which the University formulates and implements these changes is transparent and fair, all parties involved will more readily accept the outcome.

Conversely, when administrators act in secret without considering input from important stakeholders, they will inevitably encounter opposition and foster divisiveness.

This time the administration recognized its own mistake, reversing the merger in light of a strong student response. But in the future, by being open and honest when making tough financial decisions, the University can weather its budget crisis in a way that respects all those involved.