Editorial: 'Difficult choices'

When William Chafe, dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, addressed the Arts and Sciences Council one year ago, he characterized his division's financial outlook as one of "difficult choices." Last Thursday, the task force Chafe charged with examining those choices issued its report, and the options are indeed disheartening. With a projected deficit that could reach $6 million by the 2006 fiscal year, Arts and Sciences may have to choose from among several cuts.

In particular, the Arts and Sciences Council Budget Task Force studied four possible areas to cut: doctoral training support, faculty research support, average faculty compensation and overall size of the faculty. Since faculty compensation constitutes over a quarter of the budget, the task force naturally concluded that the main focus of cuts need to be there, either by actually slowing pay increases or reducing the faculty size through fewer searches.

Arts and sciences faculty constitute the heart of any first-tier research university, and slowing its growth at Duke or even cutting its ranks--by as many as 50 professors in the worst-case scenario--would significantly dampen the University's ambitions. For the sake of individual departments that need growth to keep up with research and teaching demands, and for strategic priorities that depend on an influx of new scholars, Arts and Sciences officials should try to minimize cuts to the faculty. Fortunately, administrators have acknowledged this dilemma and wisely have pledged to seek a variety of sources from which to find savings.

There are several possible sources, however, that the task force could not consider, simply because much of the factors affecting the Arts and Sciences budget are beyond the division's authority. As Provost Peter Lange told the task force, according to its report, the division's budget lacks flexibility. Much of its spending has been set well in advance under the strategic plan, financial aid and cost sharing with other divisions. Anything that the central administration can do to delay or restructure these costs--by delaying low-priority construction, for example--would be preferable to cuts to the faculty.

The task force's sobering report should also serve as a wake-up call to the Board of Trustees, who, more than anyone else, can help shore up Arts and Sciences revenues for the future. Although Arts and Sciences needs to be mindful not to increase its tuition more than its peer schools do, it remains below average in overall costs. Even a slightly above-average increase would go a long way to solving the budget deficit, and the Trustees should choose such an increase if the alternative is deep faculty cuts.

Arts and Sciences promises to have a bumpy road ahead. Together, the task force's prudent planning and greater attention from central University officials can smooth the ride.