Editorials

Don’t pinch pennies on education

America’s financial crisis is casting a much larger shadow over this nation than it would appear at first glance.

When the housing bubble burst and stocks nosedived, the focus was shifted squarely at Wall Street. We saw thousands of photos featuring disheveled brokers, chaotic lending offices and depressed homeowners.

However, as the crisis continues to undermine investor confidence, we’re just beginning to grasp the ripple effect.

Sports teams — from the local to the professional level — will start to feel the pinch, as fans will be forced to make an easy choice between their bills or the ballgame.

The arts will take a major hit, as well. Any industry that can be described as “recreational” will battle some terribly lean times until the general public regains its disposible income.

However, as belts continue to tighten, we must make sure that this nation’s institutes of higher education avoid knee-jerk budgetary decisions. The quality of education needs to be a primary concern.

University of Arizona President Robert Shelton dropped by La Posada Friday morning and told his audience that education is becoming a national emergency.

The University of Arizona announced its Transformation Plan this past Tuesday. Rumors have been swirling regarding Arizona’s academic future, and Shelton has had the unenviable task of explaining the situation to the public.

Cuts of roughly $20 million will take place next year and in 2010, with the College of Humanities rumored to be among those on the chopping block.

The College of Humanities includes the Africana Studies Program, the Center for English as a Second Language, Classics, the Critical Languages Program, East Asian Studies, all of the advanced English courses, every creative Writing Program, the Writing Center, French and Italian courses, German Studies, the Humanities Seminars Program, the Poetry Center, the Religious Studies Program, further Russian and Slavic Studies, Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT), Spanish and Portuguese.

Some of these programs would be assimilated into other colleges, while others would be discontinued.

According to the University of Arizona’s Web site, there are 1,625 undergraduates currently declared in the College of Humanities. It also boasts a 140-person faculty and a 73-person staff — including some of the school’s finest professors.

Humanities awarded 407 undergrad degrees and 116 grad-level degrees last year.

If the speculation proves to be true, all of that will be eliminated. What happens to the students already enrolled at Arizona if their majors vanish into thin air?

In addition, the alumni who graduated from the College of Humanities will be understandably reluctant to donate to the university if these cuts take place.

While the science and business courses might be this school’s bread and butter, it’s key to remember that a successful college prides itself on diversity.

The Humanities Web site states, “A common thread linking the many departments and programs in the College of Humanities is the contributions they make to our understanding of human societies. By developing innovative strategies for teaching that employ digital-age as well as traditional technologies, and by supporting cutting-edge research, the College offers a context and a location for the vibrant conversations that create intellectual community. In this way, COH continues to contribute economically, culturally, and socially to Arizona, the nation, and to international transcultural understanding.”

Is this something Arizona is really prepared to part with?

The 38,000 students who attend UA — and the thousands more that will consider it in the future — will be understandably upset if their scholastic options are drastically cut while tuition continues to rise (currently $5,274 per year for in-state residents and $18,408 per year for out-of-state).

The university must do everything in its power to make sure it doesn’t lose these vital programs. If that means postponing some construction plans, so be it.

As Shelton said on Friday, Arizona is among the finest schools in the nation, with an engaged student body and a forward-thinking faculty. It must stay that way.

It was ignorance, short-sightedness and panicky decision-making that got us into this financial mess in the first place. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.

A Big Three mistake

What’s another $25 billion among friends? Compared with $700 billion, it’s chump change, right?

Such appears to be the attitude in Washington after passage of a massive spending bill that includes $25 billion in low-interest government loans for General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Corp. The Detroit Three package dwarfs the Chrysler bailout of 1979, which was a mere $1.2 billion.

And it passed largely unnoticed as the much larger question of bailing out financial institutions provided cover.

President Bush signed the bill Tuesday.

Let’s be clear: There is little danger of the American economy falling into depression if any of the Big Three fail.

It would be difficult if they ceased to exist, for their workers foremost and for the economy of Michigan and much of the upper Midwest, which relies on auto-related industries.

No one wants this to happen. But catastrophic to the nation as a whole?

No. In fact, such a failure might well force the survivors to innovate more rapidly. Over time, it could be a blessing.

And the plan to bail out the Detroit automakers differs markedly from the U.S. Treasury’s plan to buy up distressed securities from financial institutions.

The Treasury’s plan is based on a clear danger to the overall economy.

Credit is rapidly tightening as banks cut back on making loans and park their money in ultra-safe investments.

Businesses are feeling the pinch first, but individuals are beginning to feel it, too.

Without the lubrication of credit, the gears of business cannot function, and there is reasonable fear that the economy will grind to a halt without government action.

The risks simply aren’t the same if the Big Three fail.

Backers claim that the loans will help automakers build more fuel-efficient cars.

But isn’t the market already telling GM, Ford and Chrysler to do that?

And what makes Congress qualified to pick winners in the auto industry?

The automakers will survive if they innovate and bring to market products that the public wants to buy—which they have failed to do for years.

But here’s the worst part: The automakers hope to shake even more cash out of Washington. Chief enabler John Dingell, a Democratic representative from suburban Detroit, says “we will be starting on the second $25 billion.”

Sorry, congressman, but the first $25 billion was a mistake. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

Reprinted from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Distributed by Creators Syndicate, Inc.