DISCUSSION, CASE AND SLP. This has to be very great!!!!

– Must be totally accurate and thorough….. Readings have to be used and must be a spectacular Plagiarism free paper.

– Must be on time.  I am submitting and you will be required to have the DISCUSSION completed NLT  27 March 2020, NLT 5PM.  Please don’t wait til the last minute as I have 3 other classes and cannot babysit and am expecting a professional paper from whomever gets this assignment.

– The CASE and SLP must be completed NLT 3 April 2020, NLT 5PM.

– Must contact me if there are questions.

-Thesis style paper and format requirements are listed in description.

Edit question’s body

on time No Plagerism

Module 4 – Home

THE SYMBOLIC FRAME

Modular Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion of this module, the student will be able to satisfy the following outcomes:

Case

Using the five assumptions underlying Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic Frame, analyze the symbols, beliefs, rites, and other cultural characteristics of the subject organization.

SLP

Using the Symbolic Frame, evaluate the symbolic characteristics and/or activities of the organization in which you are presently employed.

Discussion

Discuss the ways in which the Symbolic Frame can appropriately be used as a lens for analysis of the session-long Discussion case study.

Module Overview

In Module 4, we turn to the last frame in Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Model: The Symbolic Frame. Symbols, stories, artifacts, rituals, and rites all play a key role in organizations, as they create meaning for the members of the organization. In this final module, we will be finalizing the thesis-style paper.

Module 4 – Background

THE SYMBOLIC FRAME

In Module 4, you will write the final chapter (Chapter 4) of your 25+ page session-ending thesis-style paper. Following are instructions for proper formatting of the final paper:

 

· Use of proper APA Style of formatting, referencing, and writing is required.

· The final thesis-style paper requires the following: Title Page, Table of Contents, and References.

· The final paper will consist of four (4) chapters (Module 1-4 Case).

· The body of the final paper must be a minimum of 25 pages in length (not including title page, table of contents, end references, end tables, end figures, or appendices included with the paper).  

Bolman and Deal (2003) liken the organization to a metaphorical “temple”– i.e., to a place in which certain things are revered by its members: “An organization, like a temple, can be seen as a sacred place, an expression of human aspirations, a monument to faith in human possibility. A temple is a gathering place for a community of people with shared traditions, values, and beliefs” (p. 405). Similar to temples, organizations need leaders who understand symbols, and their import for the creation of meaning, and for guiding the organization. 

Read the following excerpt from Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley. Note the assumptions of the Symbolic Frame, as you will use these to guide the writing of your Case:

Assumptions of the Symbolic Frame

“The symbolic frame distills ideas from these diverse sources into several core assumptions:

· What is most important is not what happens but what it means.

· Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings because people interpret experience differently.

· In the face of widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, increase predictability, find direction, and anchor hope and faith.

· Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than what is produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories that help people find purpose and passion in their personal and work lives.

· Culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people around shared values and beliefs.

The symbolic frame sees life as more serendipitous than linear. Organizations function like complex, constantly changing, organic pinball machines. Decisions, actors, plans, and issues continuously carom through an elastic, ever-changing labyrinth of cushions, barriers, and traps. Managers who turn to Peter Drucker’s Effective Executive for guidance might do better to study Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass. But all the apparent chaos has a deeper sense of emblematic order. In recent years, the importance of symbols in corporate life has become more widely appreciated.

Symbols embody and express an organization’s culture: the interwoven pattern of beliefs, values, practices, and artifacts that defines for members who they are and how they are to do things….the various forms symbols assume: myths, visions and values; heroes and heroines; stories and fairy tales; ritual; ceremony; and metaphor, humor, and play. All these are basic elements of organizational culture” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 242-3).

Required readings

The following presentation by Westbrooks is an excellent overview of the Symbolic Frame: 

Westbrooks, E. (2012). Reframing organizations: The symbolic frame. Prezi. Retrieved from 

https://prezi.com/qae4pi43dsor/reframing-organizations-the-symbolic-frame/

In this presentation, Dr. Jacobs provides a comprehensive overview of the Symbolic Frame: 

Jacobs, R.M. (n.d.). Theories of practice: The symbolic frame. Villanova University. Retrieved on May 8, 2014 from 

http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208002/Powerpoint/8002%20MPA/symbolic.ppt

Finally, Hogan’s presentation is a very good overview of culture and symbols – i.e., the Symbolic Frame: 

Hogan, R. L. (n.d). Chapter 12: Organizational culture and symbols. Eastern Illinois University. Retrieved from 

www.leebolman.com/Reframing_4th_Powerpoint/Chap%2012.ppt

Optional readings 

Notice how this early article by Bolman and Deal points out the difference between “magic” and “might” – of course, both of these concepts now underpin the Four Frames Model: 

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1996). Might and magic. Leadership Excellence, 23(6), 15. Retrieved from ProQuest. 

Wizards and Warriors in organizations? From the authors of the Four Frames Model, here is a more recent (and quite excellent) discussion of the Symbolic and Political Frames: 

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2009). Battles and beliefs: Rethinking the roles of today’s leaders. Leadership In Action, 29(5), 14-18. Retrieved from EBSCO – Business Source Complete. 

Discussion: Mod 4 Assignment

Discussion: University of Missouri (A) – Symbolic Frame

 

Previous 

Next 

Using the Symbolic Frame, choose some symbol – or some other situation in which organizational meaning was at issue – in the

University of Missouri case

, and discuss in-depth how the Symbolic Frame can be used to inform our understanding of the University of Missouri case. 

How significant of a role do you believe symbolism played in the University of Missouri case study. Be sure that you incorporate 1 or 2 assumptions of the Symbolic Frame in your response. 

Remember to perform some outside research, to properly cite your sources, and to demonstrate evidence of critical thinking in your response. 

Before the end of Module 4, be sure that you have responded to a minimum of two of your classmates’ postings. Remember that the Discussions are an assignment – they equate to a full 20% of your final grade; consequently, they require a minimum of 20% of the total effort you put forth into the overall course. In this context, the Discussions require additional research on your part, critical thinking, and graduate-level presentation (grammar, spelling, proper citation, etc.).

 

Module 4 – Case Assignment

THE SYMBOLIC FRAME

Case Assignment

After you have reviewed the contents of the Walt Disney Company website, read the materials included at the Background page of Module 4, and performed additional research from the library and the internet, write a 
6- to 7-page
 paper in which you do the following:

Using the following five assumptions of the Symbolic Frame, complete an in-depth assessment of the Walt Disney Company:

· What is most important is not what happens but what it means.

· Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings because people interpret experience differently.

· In the face of widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, increase predictability, find direction, and anchor hope and faith.

· Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than what is produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories that help people find purpose and passion in their personal and work lives.

· Culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people around shared values and beliefs.

Keys to the Assignment

The key aspects of this assignment that are to be covered in your 6- to 7-page paper include the following:

· Briefly describe the theory underpinning Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic Frame, discussing its usefulness in organizational analysis, and its utility in our understanding of organizations.

· Using Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic Frame, choose 3-4 examples of symbolic characteristics of the Walt Disney Company (you may choose some aspect of the organization’s culture – e.g., artifacts, stories, values, belief systems, etc). Then, examine your chosen examples using the above assumptions of Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic Frame.

· Of the 3-4 examples you have discussed above, which do you believe is the most salient mechanism or process by which the Walt Disney Company creates meaning for its members? Is this mechanism or process made explicit or tacit (or both) for Disney’s members?

· What conclusions can you draw from your use of the Symbolic Frame as it is applied to the Walt Disney Company? In other words, what have you learned about the company? How is use of the Symbolic lens helpful relative to informing outsiders as it concerns the organization’s approach to leadership?

· In the final section of Chapter 4, conclude by commenting on which of the Four Frames (or combination of frames) you believe is most useful to our evaluation and understanding of the Walt Disney Company. Explain.

· The background readings will not give you all the answers to the Case. Therefore, you are required to perform some research in the library, and use a minimum of 3-4 scholarly sources from the library to support and justify your understanding of the case.

· Your paper must demonstrate evidence of critical thinking (if you need tips on critical thinking, 

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/college-and-university-students/799

 is an excellent resource). Don’t simply restate facts – instead, be sure to interpret the facts you have accumulated from your research.

· Remember that the Module 4 Case also serves as Chapter 4 of your session-long thesis-style paper. Therefore, when your Case is complete, compile your final thesis-style paper in accord with the following requirements:

· Use of proper APA Style of formatting, referencing, and writing is required.

· The final thesis-style paper requires the following: Title Page, Table of Contents, and References. See the APA Sample Paper and other use of APA Style at the Purdue OWL: 

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/media/pdf/20090212013008_560

· The final paper will consist of four (4) chapters (Modules 1-4 Case).

· The body of the final paper must be a minimum of 20-25 pages in length (not including title page, references, etc.). 

Assignment Expectations

Your paper will be evaluated using the following five (5) criteria:

· Assignment-Driven Criteria: Does the paper fully address all Keys to the Assignment? Are the concepts behind the Keys to the Assignment addressed accurately and precisely using sound logic? Does the paper meet minimum length requirements?

· Critical thinking:  Does the paper demonstrate graduate-level analysis, in which information derived from multiple sources, expert opinions, and assumptions has been critically evaluated and synthesized in the formulation of a logical set of conclusions?  Does the paper address the topic with sufficient depth of discussion and analysis?

· Business Writing: Is the paper well-written (clear, developed logically, and well-organized)? Are the grammar, spelling, and vocabulary appropriate for graduate-level work? Are section headings included in all papers?  Are paraphrasing and synthesis of concepts the primary means of responding to the Keys to the Assignment, or is justification/support instead conveyed through excessive use of direct quotations?

· Effective Use of Information (Information Literacy): Does the paper demonstrate effective research, as evidenced by student’s use of relevant and quality sources? Do additional sources used in paper provide strong support for conclusions drawn, and do they help in shaping the overall paper?

· Citing Sources: Does the student demonstrate understanding of APA Style of referencing, by inclusion of proper end references and in-text citations (for paraphrased text and direct quotations) as appropriate? Have all sources (e.g., references used from the Background page, the assignment readings, and outside research) been included, and are these properly cited? Have all end references been included within the body of the paper as in-text citations?

Module 4 – SLP

THE SYMBOLIC FRAME

SLP Overview

In the Module 4 SLP, you will write a 3- to 4-page paper in which you will apply the Symbolic Frame to the organization in which you are currently employed (or in which you have worked previously). 

Assignment

The Module 4 SLP requires that you write a 3- to 4-page paper, in which you address the following: 

After giving a brief description of the organization in which you presently work – or in which you have previously worked – apply the Symbolic Frame to the organization, analyzing the ways in which two or three symbolic characteristics you have identified provide meaning for your organization’s members.  

Keys to the Assignment

The key aspects of this assignment that should be covered in your paper include the following:

· Briefly describe your organization – name, what it does, size (number of employees, annual revenue, relative market share, etc.);

· Choose 2 or 3 examples of the Symbolic Frame (value, beliefs, rituals, stories, heroes, etc.), and assess how they create meaning for the organization’s members.

· Which of the examples you have provided do you believe has the greatest influence on the organization-at-large? Why?

SLP Assignment Expectations

Your paper will be evaluated using the following five (5) criteria:
· Assignment-Driven Criteria: Does the paper fully address all Keys to the Assignment? Are the concepts behind the Keys to the Assignment addressed accurately and precisely using sound logic? Does the paper meet minimum length requirements?
· Critical thinking:  Does the paper demonstrate graduate-level analysis, in which information derived from multiple sources, expert opinions, and assumptions has been critically evaluated and synthesized in the formulation of a logical set of conclusions?  Does the paper address the topic with sufficient depth of discussion and analysis?
· Business Writing: Is the paper well-written (clear, developed logically, and well-organized)? Are the grammar, spelling, and vocabulary appropriate for graduate-level work? Are section headings included in all papers?  Are paraphrasing and synthesis of concepts the primary means of responding to the Keys to the Assignment, or is justification/support instead conveyed through excessive use of direct quotations?
· Effective Use of Information (Information Literacy): Does the paper demonstrate effective research, as evidenced by student’s use of relevant and quality sources? Do additional sources used in paper provide strong support for conclusions drawn, and do they help in shaping the overall paper?
· Citing Sources: Does the student demonstrate understanding of APA Style of referencing, by inclusion of proper end references and in-text citations (for paraphrased text and direct quotations) as appropriate? Have all sources (e.g., references used from the Background page, the assignment readings, and outside research) been included, and are these properly cited? Have all end references been included within the body of the paper as in-text citations?

Module 4 – Outcomes

THE SYMBOLIC FRAME

· Module

· Using the five assumptions underlying Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic Frame, analyze the symbols, beliefs, rites, and other cultural characteristics of the session-long target organization.

· Finalize the 20- to 25-page + session-long thesis-style paper.

· Case

· Using the five assumptions underlying Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic Frame, analyze the symbols, beliefs, rites, and other cultural characteristics of the subject organization.

· SLP

· Using the Symbolic Frame, evaluate the symbolic characteristics and/or activities of the organization in which you are presently employed.

· Discussion

· Discuss the ways in which the Symbolic Frame can appropriately be used as a lens for analysis of the session-long Discussion case study.

Institute for Educational Management

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI (A)

ACADEMIC CUTS PLANNED

FOR MISSOURI DRAW FIRE

By Gene I. Maeroff

COLUMBIA, MO., May 28–Budget conscious administrators at the
University of Missouri’s main campus here have proposed dropping
some programs and sharply curtailing others. But the plan has
brought a flood of protest letters, emergency hearings in the State
Legislature and criticism from three of the University’s nine board
members.

“More people have talked about the University of Missouri in the
last 30 days than in the last 30 years,” said Dr. Wilbur Miller,
Associate Dean of the College of Education, which would lose one-
third of its $3.6 million budget under the proposal, jeopardizing many
of its undergraduate programs.

Provost Ron Bunn has proposed abolishing two of the
university’s 14 schools and colleges and sharply reducing the
operations of seven others over a period of three years. The money
freed by those actions could then be reallocated to the remaining
programs to improve faculty salaries and buy equipment for
research.

–The New York Times, May 30, 1982

It was June 1, 1982 and Ron Bunn, the Provost at the University of Missouri’s Columbia
campus, faced several questions. He wondered how the administration’s effort to develop
a long-range response to financial pressures had led to such a political maelstrom. He
wondered whether there was anything the administration could have done to prevent events
from careening out of control. Most important, he wondered what, if anything, he could do
now.

—————————————————————-
This case was written by Jacqueline Stefkovich, Chris Harris, and Lee Bolman, for the
Institute for Educational Management, Harvard University, and is based in part on the
research of Professor David Kuechle, Harvard Graduate School of Education. The case was
developed for class discussion, and is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective
handling of an administrative situation. © 1986, Institute for Educational Management

University of Missouri 2

Nineteen eighty-two marked Ron Bunn’s second year at the University of Missouri. He
was new to the state, but not to higher education. Before coming to Missouri, he had been
a full-time faculty member at the University of Texas and at Louisiana State University. He
was a graduate dean at the University of Houston for seven years and Vice-President for
Academic Affairs at the State University of New York in Buffalo from 1976 to 1980. He had
directed long-range planning efforts at the last two institutions, but neither involved program
reductions on the scale contemplated at Missouri.

From the beginning of his tenure, Bunn was aware of the university’s fiscal problems. He
knew from the outset that cuts in programs would be difficult, but he also wanted to help a
university that he believed “was beginning to enter a period of protracted financial stress”.
He had been optimistic about his reallocation proposals. He felt they had the potential to save
several million dollars and to strengthen the programs that were most central to the mission
of the university and most needed by the citizens of Missouri.

The University of Missouri

Founded in 1839 as the first state university west of the Mississippi and approved as a
land-grant institution in 1870, the University of Missouri at Columbia is part of a
four-campus system (the other sites are Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis). The University is
governed by a Board of Curators whose nine members are appointed by the governor to serve
six-year terms. State law requires that each curator come from a different Congressional
district and that no more than five be members of one political party. Most of the curators
were alumni who served on a part-time basis while maintaining full-time commitments in
law, business, agriculture or other professions. In 1982, the membership of the board
included eight men and one woman who was also the only Black member.

Reporting to the Curators was the President of the University and system-wide chief
executive, James Olson. Each of the four campuses was headed by a Chancellor. The
Chancellor at Columbia, Barbara Uehling, was regarded as a strong and vocal advocate of
higher education.

Columbia, Missouri is a classic college town. The 90,000 residents include 25,000
students at the Columbia campus. The streets carry names like College and University and
the 75,000- person football stadium dominates the southern edge of town. The university’s
teaching hospital is a major health facility for Columbia and central Missouri. The university
operates half a dozen museums and galleries, and fields surrounding the town are sites for
university-based agricultural experiments.

University of Missouri 3

The local visitor’s brochure proudly proclaims the institution as “one of the most
comprehensive universities in the world”, a university that “belongs to all Missourians”.

Beside the nation’s oldest School of Journalism, the campus includes Colleges of
Agriculture, Arts and Sciences, (with twenty-five departments), Business and

Public

Administration, Education, Engineering, Graduate Studies, Home Economics, Public and
Community Services and Veterinary Medicine and professional schools of Law, Medicine
and Health Related Services, Nursing, and Library and Informational Science.

The University of Missouri system is the only public institution in the state to offer Ph.D.
and professional degrees, and the Columbia campus, with its 100+ Ph.D. programs, confers
most of these. Administrators at the Columbia campus emphasize the important research in
areas such as plant biochemistry and genetics, arthritic disease, hazardous waste management
and the effects of diet on cholesterol levels. Students and community emphasize the school’s
excellence in teaching.

The university distributes an information brochure, stylishly dressed in the school’s black
and gold colors, that sums up the institution’s philosophy with these lines:

There are few earthly things more splendid than a
university. In these days of broken frontiers and collapsing values ,
when the dams are down and the floods are making misery, when
every future looks somewhat grim and every ancient foothold has
become something of a quagmire, wherever a University stands, it
stands and shines; wherever it exists, the free minds of men, urged on
to full and fair inquiry, may still bring wisdom into human affairs.

–John Masefield

Administration, faculty and staff are proud of the University. As the Dean for Community
and Public Service, a former mayor of Columbia, said, “I came to this university as a sopho-
more in 1945 and have stayed ever since. I like it here.”

The Financial Context

Missouri was operating on a narrow tax base and ranked next- to-last among the states in
its per capita appropriations for higher education.

In 1980, droughts had hampered the state’s agricultural economy and national economic
trends were hurting other major Missouri industries. The governor had withheld three percent

University of Missouri 4

of the higher education appropriations and announced a ten percent reduction for the
following year. The Hancock Amendment, an anti- tax bill, had recently been enacted via the
initiative process. Bunn doubted that the governor or Missouri citizens would, or could,
support an increase in state taxes.

James Buchholz, the University’s Vice-President for Administrative Affairs, predicted that
reductions and inflation would cause the university to lose twenty percent of its operating
budget during the 1981-1982 school year. Although endowments and research support made
a significant contribution, they were designated for specific areas and contributed little to
the school’s operating budget.

Substantial increases in student tuition were planned, but these accounted for less than
thirty percent of the school’s total operating budget. (Over sixty percent came from state
subsidies and most of the remainder from federal land-grant monies.) Over ninety percent
of the students resided in state. (See Appendix A for budget information, and Appendix B
for enrollment figures.)

The university’s commitment as a land-grant institution obliged it to maintain reasonable
tuition rates for its residents. Administrators viewed massive tuition hikes as out of the
question. To further compound the problems, the state of Missouri was not legally
permitted to deficit-spend.

Bunn and Uehling both believed that the University of Missouri could maintain and
improve its status and capacities as a major university in the Midwest only if it could attract
and retain talented faculty. The institution was already several percentage points behind the
other Big Ten and Big Eight schools in its faculty salaries. (See Appendix C for these
comparisons.) Offering competitive salaries was crucial to this effort.

Bunn and Uehling saw a major dilemma. Either the university could spread broadly the
decline in resources throughout the campuses and hope for a better day, or it could take steps
to reduce its range of commitments so that existing strengths could be maintained and
remaining programs strengthened. Both Bunn and Barbara Uehling believed that it was
essential for the Columbia campus to concentrate its resources on its strongest and most
significant programs. Uehling had frequently and publicly expressed concern over the
University’s tendency to skim all programs across the board at the expense of those central
to the institution’s mission.

History of the Reallocation Process

On November 21, 1980, a few months after Bunn was hired, the University’s Board of
Curators adopted a revised academic plan for the 1975-1985 decade. It read:

University of Missouri 5

The University of Missouri cannot do everything. It is important to
remember that the University is only one of the segments of public
higher education in Missouri and should maintain its historic role of
strength in research, advanced graduate and professional programs
and extension. The University should do well whatever it does.

In August 1981, President Olson asked the chancellors to consider salary increments in
light of the state’s withholding of ten percent of the university’s funds. Uehling, described
by the press as a tough administrator, an iron fist in a velvet glove, assumed what she
considered to be a hard, but fair and reasonable stance. She responded to Olson’s request:

To plan for next year and beyond, we will be developing a process
to identify entire programs that may be substantially reduced or
eliminated, thereby supplanting our need to spread reductions
throughout the campus. The early planning that we have done, at your
suggestion, indicates a need to reduce our commitments by 10 to 20
percent in the next three years. After years of expansion, a reduction
of that magnitude will be very difficult to achieve. But we must do
it. . .

To paraphrase Philip Brooks who spoke of individuals: ‘Greatness
after all, in spite of its name, appears to be not so much a certain size
as a quality in human lives. It may be present in lives whose range is
very small.’ As this is true for human life, so is it true for education,
with programs depending on their inherent quality rather than size.
The success of this endeavor depends on the cooperation and good
judgment of all.

On the Columbia campus, some faculty feared Uehling’s hard line, while others
felt it was long overdue. A majority appeared to support her convictions, at least in principle.
On November 19, 1981, the Faculty Council reaffirmed its long-standing “opposition to
additional budget cuts applied uniformly to all academic units”. That same month, the
campus paper conducted a non-scientific opinion poll. It reported that eighty-seven percent
of the faculty who responded answered “yes” to the question, “Would you be in favor of
dropping entire programs on the Columbia campus to preserve and strengthen others?”

University of Missouri 6

Throughout 1981, President Olson had referred to the University’s financial difficulties in
a number of speeches and public announcements. It was not a surprise when he addressed
the Curators on the subject at their December 16, 1981, meeting.

As the planning processes in which we are now engaged move
forward, we will be bringing to you recommendations which emerge.
The decisions you will be asked to make will be difficult, painful and,
in some cases, controversial. We will need your help and support as
we move toward preparing the University to maintain program quality
and to address difficult decisions about the future. This is the
approach we are taking. If it does not meet with your general
approval, we should know it now.

Olson’s address reminded the Curators of the financial difficulties facing
the university, but he gave only a series of general illustrations of the painful
decisions they might be asked to make. The possibilities included: “limit
enrollment in specific programs”, “adjust admissions standards to better reflect the
unique role of the University of Missouri”, “combine programs within a campus or
even among campuses”, ” reduce the range of options for specialization in selected
degree programs”, and “discontinue entire degree programs and eliminate depart-
ments or even schools and colleges”.

The Board approved this measure with little discussion and no formal
action. Only one Board member questioned the process. Everyone heard the speech
and was given a copy. Whether all the Board Members understood the possible
ramifications of their action was less clear. (The text of Olson’s speech is in
Appendix D.)

The next week, the chancellors were asked to submit a list of
recommendations for determining reductions or eliminations. The President would
use the suggestions as a basis for establishing criteria for retrenchment. Because the
process would involve changes in programs and faculty, the Board had to vote on
the final proposals at their annual budget meeting in July, 1982. As a result of these
stringent timelines, chancellors had three weeks to suggest criteria and six months
to provide a plan for eliminations and reductions based on the criteria. The
countdown began. . . .

University of Missouri 7

At the Columbia campus, Barbara Uehling was ahead of the game. She
had spent the previous year encouraging President Olson to take action.
Anticipating that some action would be mandated, she had, in October, 1981,
appointed a sixteen-person committee to develop criteria to be used in the event that
cut- backs were needed.

Uehling later described her perceptions in the following terms:

The rationale and the data for the whole effort were supplied by the
campus Institutional Research and Planning Office, working with me.
The model for the need to take these steps was based on some very
basic assumptions regarding needed revenue to reach Big 8/Big 10
salaries and to meet inflation on the base budget in ensuing years.
Projected revenues from the state fell short.

The committee consisted of faculty, professional staff, two deans, and two students.
Uehling selected the faculty members and students from panels nominated through the
Faculty Council and Student Association, respectively. Each committee member was to
consult with the groups they represented.

After Olson’s December announcement, Bunn realized that programmatic decisions
would have to be made soon. Anticipating these moves, he discussed possible strategies at
two of his weekly meetings with Academic Deans. He also initiated a meeting with the
executive committee (officers) of the Faculty Council. He proposed three possible ways to
proceed. The first was to organize a committee, provide them with the criteria and necessary
information and let them make the decisions. The second was for an officer, possibly Bunn,
to gather all the data and make the decisions. Third, the deans could suggest programs for
elimination or reduction based on the criteria.

Both groups suggested that Bunn should make the decision. Twelve of the fourteen deans
favored the approach. There was some hesitation among members of the Faculty Council,
who felt that this should be a long, carefully planned process. But they concurred that the
second option was the most feasible in light of time constraints.

Bunn discussed his plan privately with several faculty members. These individuals were
not on the Faculty Council Executive Committee, but they were people whose opinion Bunn
respected. He felt “their achievements placed them in an especially good position to speak
with some authority about evaluating academic programs”. They agreed with the others.

University of Missouri 8

“Even though I had some concerns about any single officer taking the initiative to identify
the programs,” Bunn concluded, “in light of the time frame, and the willingness of the groups
consulted, I finally advised the chancellor that I was prepared to do it, if she judged that I
should.”

Chancellor Uehling approved this proposal, and asked each of her Vice-Chancellors
(including development, student services and administrative services as well as academic
affairs) to follow the same procedure in developing tentative conclusions. (See Appendix E
for the administrative chart.) Uehling stated clearly that all final decisions were contingent
upon her approval. Recommendations would be reviewed by an ad hoc committee appointed
by the chancellor in each of the divisions. The ad hoc committees included representation
from the faculty, staff, and students, although some faculty later criticized the committees
as unrepresentative of the diversity of the Columbia campus.

By January 1982, the list of criteria was approved. It consisted of four categories, each
including ten to twelve questions. They were: a.) quality of the programs; b.) centrality of
the programs to the mission of the campus; c.) cost-effectiveness and d.) demand and need
for the program. (The report of the criteria committee is in Appendix F.)

Uehling and the criteria committee set the target reductions for the Columbia campus at
$12 million or twelve percent of its state-provided budget. Savings would be redirected over
a three- year period in the form of salaries, wages and operating budgets. With about seventy
percent of the entire campus budget, Bunn was assigned reductions amounting to $7.5
million. This was the largest dollar amount of the planned reductions, but it represented a
smaller proportion of the total than the targets for the other divisions.

Bunn’s office had already compiled a substantial body of information. Because
cost-effectiveness reports were available, the quantitative evaluation seemed fairly
straight-forward. (Appendix G contains the data for each program, including teaching-
student ratio, program costs, availability of the program at the other University campuses and
at other institutions in the state.)

Sorting out programs to determine if one was “of greater distinction” than another proved
to be the more difficult task. As Bunn carefully considered each of the University’s thirteen
schools and colleges, he realized that all seemed to have legitimate arguments in their favor.

The College of Agriculture had been awarded several large research grants and it was
mandated as an integral part of the federal land-grant legislation, for which it received federal
funding.

University of Missouri 9

The College of Arts and Sciences was already under severe financial restraints; its survival
was crucial. It enjoyed the greatest student demand, and its offerings constituted fifty percent
of the required courses for the Colleges of Business, Home Economics, Agriculture, Engi-
neering, Education, and Public and Community Services. It was Columbia’s most diverse
program. It had a strong history of research and graduated more Ph.D.s than any other college
on the campus or, for that matter, any public institution in Missouri.

The School of Journalism was the oldest in the world and had a reputation for being one
of the best in the country. It had a thousand current students and a number of influential
alumni. This school ran a commercial television station and published a commercial
newspaper. Consequently, it was one of the most viable programs–and a political
bombshell.

The professional Schools of Medicine and Law had powerful constituencies and only one
other state public institution offered these programs. Although reduction of weaker medical
programs to save stronger ones seemed advisable, Bunn approached these recommendations
with caution.

The School of Library and Informational Science conducted little research and served
comparatively few students, but it was the only program in the state and the University
library system relied upon the school’s students and resources.

In Bunn’s assessment, the School of Nursing and the Colleges of Public and Community
Service and Home Economics were comparatively weak on most criteria, but served the
largest numbers of women and minorities. The College of Home Economics also offered
the only such Ph.D. program in the state and was ranked among the best in the nation in a
national survey.

Bunn struggled with the decisions. He knew that the departments with the weakest
research capabilities were also the youngest on campus. Established during the heyday of the
1960s and early 1970s, they barely had time to establish a track record. Should he sacrifice
them for older, more established programs?

Bunn and his five-person staff spent the next four weeks–a time he later characterized as
a “lonely month”–judging each program on the four criteria (quality of program, centrality
of the mission, cost effectiveness and demand). The most difficult decisions revolved around
program quality. He used a variety of methods to judge this aspect. These included:
program reviews conducted by faculty committees, the most recent accreditation studies, and
reputation studies that had been previously requested of the deans.

Centrality was difficult to assess because the Columbia campus’ mission statement was
broad. It consisted of a few paragraphs referring to teaching, research and public service.

University of Missouri 10

Bunn developed an interpretation that emphasized three dimensions: intellectual and
scholarly leadership; diversity of programs and students; and importance to the university’s
identity as a land-grant institution. (Bunn interpreted the last according to the original intent
of the federal law, activities associated with agriculture.)

Given the budget targets, Bunn felt clear that some programs would have to be eliminated
entirely. He felt that any other approach would result in across-the-board cuts or the
crippling of a significant number of programs. He estimated that a minimum of two colleges
would have to be completely eliminated with an additional six experiencing substantial
losses.

Bunn created a five-point scale where he attempted to quantify his judgement, and rated
each program on each of the four criteria. He double-weighted the criteria of quality and
centrality, and produced scores for the different schools and colleges that ranged from a low
of 15.5 for Public and Community Service to a high of 25.0 for Agriculture and Arts and
Sciences. (Exhibit 1 shows the rankings for the different schools.)

Bunn developed a report that recommended closing two schools and making substantial
cuts in six other programs with a projected saving of about $7 million. (The recommenda-
tions are detailed in Exhibit 2.)

Realizing that colleges marked for elimination and reduction included the largest numbers
of female and minority staff and students, Bunn’s office set aside funds for affirmative action
strategies such as hiring in the remaining departments. He agreed with Uehling’s premise
that women and minorities should enter fields that need their skills.

The affected programs had powerful constituencies in the state. Bunn wondered if his
plan could sustain outside pressure. Would his definition of the University’s mission and his
interpretation of the data withstand scrutiny? Would faculty and students still support
selected cuts after the targeted programs were announced?

On April 1, 1982, Bunn forwarded his suggestions and supporting data to the 17-member,
ad hoc “Provost’s Advisory Committee on Program Reductions”. In his memorandum to the
committee, he emphasized that his conclusions were “tentative” and asked the committee to
“test your judgment against mine”. He also emphasized the seriousness of the task:

To the extent that my recommendations are accepted and
implemented, a number of faculty and staff will lose their positions
at UMC. Careers will be interrupted, relocations will be necessary,
families will be distressed, and financial hardships will ensue.
Though administrators are occasionally seen as being oblivious to

University of Missouri 11

these consequences, I have to record that I know of none on this
campus who is untroubled by these prospects.

Events of April and May

The University of Missouri’s flagship campus here,
normally a place where the loudest outcries are the Saturday
afternoon cheers for “Mizzou” in the football stadium, is an unlikely
setting for such academic furor.

“My advice to other universities,” said Dr. David West, chairman
of Missouri’s Faculty Council and a proponent of the reductions, “is
that you may think you are ready for this and everyone may agree in
the abstract, but all hell will break loose when you name the specific
targets for cutting.”

What the university’s administration apparently did not foresee was
the extent to which the various schools and colleges would fight to
remain alive, taking their case directly to the Legislature and to the
university’s board, which is appointed by the Governor.

–The New York Times, May 30, 1982

When Bunn delivered his proposals for academic cuts on April 1, 1982, he viewed them
as preliminary: they were to be reviewed by an ad hoc committee of administrators, faculty
and students, and were subject to final approval by the Chancellor of the Columbia campus.

The news of the Provost’s recommendations traveled rapidly. His proposals and rankings
of individual programs were published in the campus newspaper. A firestorm began to build.

What disturbed Bunn was that, in his view, key administrators and faculty in the affected
programs largely ignored their opportunity to participate in the campus review process, and
moved instead to “get the word out to interest groups, alumni, professional groups and other
publics that their programs were earmarked for reduction or elimination.” Bunn felt there
was a failure to recognize that his proposals were only tentative, that alternatives would be

University of Missouri 12

considered, and that the basic purpose of the cuts was to secure the funds needed to
strengthen other programs at the Columbia campus.

George Nickolaus, Dean of the College of Public and Community Service, saw it
differently. His college was slated for extinction in Bunn’s recommendations, and he was
highly critical of the proposed changes. “Deans are supposed to be advocates for their
programs,” he said. ” I couldn’t sit back. Small schools and programs dealing with human
services were attacked.” Nickolaus believed that the issue was not “retrenchment”, but an
attempt to enhance faculty salaries when the state was in a recession and many Missourians
were out of work. He criticized the administration for not providing timely and accurate
information. In particular, he noted that the administration was specific about cuts, but not
about where the redirected resources would go.

His faculty united behind him. One faculty member gave Nickolaus a replica of a famous
revolutionary war flag depicting a snake and the legend “Don’t Tread on Me”.

The dean of another school slated for a significant reduction had similar views. “I have
always been a team player, and I was never much of a feminist,” said Bea Litherland, Dean
of the College of Home Economics. “I thought that if you worked hard, you would be
rewarded. But when I realized that the targeted programs were those most affecting women,
I knew that I had to take action.” Students in her school began wearing red T-shirts with the
message, “H%@*! No; We Won’t Go”, shortly after Bunn proposed eliminating two of the
college’s five departments.

In all of the affected programs, administrators and faculty sharply criticized Bunn’s
process and attacked the validity of his conclusions. He was accused of using data that
were unsystematic and out-of-date. He was reproached for making arbitrary decisions based
on his own personal vision of what the University ought to be. He was criticized for putting
too much emphasis on research and graduate education and for trying to create a “Harvard
on the Hinkson” (Hinkson Creek runs past the campus).

Engineers said that he was “anti-engineering”. A professor of education condemned Bunn
for “a flagrant display of political expediency that would strangle the human services
profession.” Supporters of the extension programs said that he was an outsider who did not
really understand Missouri and its people. Women and members of minority groups saw
overtones of sexism and racism in his proposals.

Bunn did not get all the blame. Uehling was sharply criticized and, on April 19,
1982, the faculty passed a resolution urging Uehling either to clean up the mess or resign
(the vote was 237 to 70 out of a possible 1500). Since only twenty percent of the faculty
voted, and this was the second time that they had voted in favor of her resignation (the first

University of Missouri 13

time had been the previous Fall when faculty were dissatisfied with their salary increments),
Uehling minimized the significance of this expression of faculty sentiment.

Many faculty rejected the assumption that there was a fiscal crisis, and argued that
the university was in excellent financial condition. In the words of one faculty member,
“Objective conditions did not mandate drastic reductions. This was an adminis-
tration-induced crisis that was mismanaged.”

Faculty also complained that the Faculty Council was unrepresentative and had
failed to keep them informed about the seriousness of the situation. There were complaints
that the ad hoc advisory committee to study the proposed cuts was “stacked”, so that it was
little surprise when the committee came back with a report that was generally supportive of
Bunn’s recommendations.

University administrators, members of the Board of Curators, and state legislators
received hundreds of calls and thousands of letters. Both houses of the state legislature
scheduled hearings, and one legislator called Bunn to say, “Ron, I have two things to tell you.
First, I think what you are doing is right. Second, I’m going to have to fight you on it.”

By May, 1982, four of the nine Curators had announced that they opposed the
cuts, including three who had been silent six months earlier when President Olson addressed
them on the need for retrenchment. One curator said the faculty was there to teach and not
to write books, so the problem could be solved by increasing teaching loads. Others
criticized Uehling for being a poor administrator and not keeping the board informed. The
press reported running battles between Uehling and at least one of the Board Members.
Uehling felt that she was in a bind, because she had relied on President Olson, at his request,
to communicate to the board. It was hard to defend herself without giving the appearance
that she was publicly criticizing her boss.

Bunn and Uehling were troubled by the reactions and puzzled about what to do.
Much of their time was spent in a frustrating effort to keep up with events which had moved
beyond their control. According to Bunn, “it soon became unmanageable for the
administration to respond to every report and every allegation transmitted through the media.
The volume of work involved in such continuous responding was overwhelming, and the
ground shifted so rapidly that yesterday’s response was not addressing today’s allegation. It
was like the remark attributed to Disraeli in the nineteenth century: “Every time the British
had an answer, the Irish changed the question.”

In addition to everything else, Uehling had to contend with a student occupation
of her office, and the mysterious appearance of “For Sale” signs on her lawn.

University of Missouri 14

During the month of May, support for the administration and its recommendations
steadily deteriorated. Although President Olson maintained that he had kept the board
fully-informed, only two of the curators still supported cut-backs on June 1. One Curator ex-
plained, “It is hard to ignore the stacks of anti- reallocation mail that we have received from
Missourians.”

One faculty member commented that even Barbara Uehling “began to distance herself
from responsibility for Bunn’s specific proposals. She continued to give the impression that
reductions would be necessary, yet it almost looked as if she was allowing Provost Bunn to
hold the bag.”

Bunn felt that Uehling’s difficulties with the Curators on one side and the faculty on the
other made it very difficult for her to defend him. If anything, he said, she probably defended
him “more than she should have”.

At a hearing before a standing committee of the state Senate, Uehling and Olson testified
first, seated side-by-side. When Bunn’s turn came, the committee chairman asked, “Are you
alone?” Bunn replied, “Yes, but I am getting accustomed to the idea.”

Reflecting on the events of Spring, 1982, Bunn drew an analogy:

It is recorded that upon losing the election in 1945, Churchill was
told by his wife, in an attempt to console him, that “perhaps the loss
was a blessing in disguise”. Churchill responded, “That may be, but
I wish it weren’t so well disguised.” Retrenchment and reduction may
be blessings in disguise, but for most of us, they are painful business.
It may be necessary. It is not fun.

University of Missouri 15

Exhibit 1:

BUNN’S RATINGS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

COLLEGE/SCHOOL QUALITY MISSION COST NEED TOTAL

Agriculture 3.5 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.0 5.0 25.0
= 7.0 = 10.0

Arts and 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 4.0 5.0 25.0
Science = 6.0 10

Business & 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 4.0 4.0 24.0
Public Admin. = 6.0 = 10.0

Education 3.0 x 2 4.0 x 2 3.0 3.5 20.5
= 6 = 8

Engineering 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
= 6 = 10

Home 3.5 x 2 3.5 x 2 2.5 3.5 20.0
Economics = 7 = 7

Journalism 5.0 x 2 3.0 x 2 3.0 4.0 23.0
= 10 = 6

Law 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.0 4.0 23.0
= 6 = 10

Library/Info. 3.5 x 2 2.0 x 2 2.0 3.0 16.0
Science = 7 = 4

Medicine 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
= 6 = 10

Nursing 3.0 x 2 3.5 x 2 2.0 5.0 20.0
= 6 = 7

Public/Commu- 3.0 x 2 2.0 x 2 2.5 3.0 15.5
nity Service = 6 = 4

Veterinary 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
Medicine = 6 = 10

University of Missouri 16

(continued next page)
Exhibit 1 (continued)

KEY TO RATING SYSTEM

Quality

5 = Nationally eminent
4 = Strong by National Standards
3 = Adequate by National Standards
2 = Below Average by National Standards
1 = Unacceptable Quality

Mission

5 = Indispensable to Campus Mission
4 = Highly consistent with Campus Mission — Support Function Strong
3 = Consistent – Moderate Support Function
2 = Peripheral to Campus Mission
1 = Inconsistent with Campus Mission

Cost

5 = Highly Productive per Unit Cost/Investment
4 = Better than Average Productivity
3 = Productivity Average by Norms
2 = Productivity Lower than Average
1 = Productivity Much Lower than Average

Need/Demand/Accessibility

5 = Need Critical as Compared with Accessibility
4 = Need Strong as Compared with Accessibility
3 = Need Moderate as Compared with Accessibility
2 = Need Weak as Compared with Accessibility in State
1 = Need Very Weak as Compared with Accessibility in State

University of Missouri 17

Exhibit 2:

BUNN’S RECOMMENDATIONS

UNIT RECOMMENDED CUT PROCESS
ACTION
________________________________________________________________

Library & Elimination $526,000 Three-year phase-out
Information

Science

College of Elimination $1,100,000 Three-year phase-out
Public & (Possibly retain ($750,000)
Community social work mas-
Services ter’s program)

College of Reduction $1,200,000 Review school in con-
Education junction with outside
consultants. Phase re-
ductions over 3 years

Extension Reduction $1,000,000 Review by extension div-
Division ision. Reduce during
1982-83.

College of Reduction $525,000 Review by college. Phase
Home in reductions over three
Economics years.

College of Reduction $400,000 Review by college. Phase
Engineering in reductions over three
years.

College of Reduction $325,000 Review by college. Phase
Medicine in reductions over three
years.

General aca- Reduction $1,500,000 Review by provost in con-
demic admin- sultation with deans and
istration & directors. Phase in re-
support ductions over three years.
services

TOTAL REALLOCATION $7,071,000
($6,721,000 if social work master’s program is retained)

University of Missouri 18

University of Missouri 19

University of Missouri-Columbia

Current Fund Revenues (in 1000’s)

General
Operating

1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

Tuition and
Fees

Incidental
fees

$15,104 $16,057 $18,078 $20,547 $24,878

Non-res.
tuition

$2,866 $3,164 $3,668 $4,324 $4,989

Supplemental
fees

$472 $1,080 $1,164 $1,306 $1,564

Ext. –

Credit

$1,904 $2,436 $1,604 $1,638 $1,859

Ext. –
Noncredit

$1,345 $1,196 $1,372

Other $359 $292 $127 $135 $100

Total $20,705 $23,029 $25,986 $29,146 $34,762

Federal
Appropriat.

Columbia
General

$195 $195 $195 $35 $35

Ag. Exp.
Station

$3,082 $3,373 $3,651 $3,887 $4,043

Coop. Ext.

Service

$1,417 $1,929 $2,061 $1,659 $2,036

Total $4,694 $5,497 $5,907 $5,581 $6,114

State
Appropriation

Regular $66,410 $72,675 $78,549 $73,242 $78,398

FICA $2,849 $3,357 $3,500 $3,792 $4,540

Total $69,259 $76,032 $82,049 $77,034 $82,938

University of Missouri 20

Recovery of
I.C.

$2,559 $2,832 $3,100 $2,757 $2,678

Endowment
Income

$98 $86 $119 $165 $148

Sales and
Service

Columbia
General

$579 $591 $142 $182 $97

Ag. Exp.
Station

$1,380 $1,543 $1,691 $1,662 $1,554

Total $1,959 $2,134 $1,833 $1,844 $1,651

Other $612 $835 $571 $569 $817

TOTAL GENERAL
OPERATING

$99,886 $110,445 $119,56
5

$117,09
6

$129,108

Designated and
Restricted

Tuition and $766 $991 $1,711 $2,130 $2,184

State
Appropriation

$3,846 $3,788 $4,062 $3,986 $4,082

Grants and
Contracts

$23,751 $25,319 $29,729 $32,381 $33,882

MPIP $9,076 $10,721 $12,147 $15,490 $17,957

Sales –
Aux.Ent.

$22,997 $25,854 $26,875 $29,502 $30,501

Other $5,266 $6,613 $7,533 $8,143 $9,125

Total Des.
and Rest.

$65,702 $73,286 $82,057 $91,632 $97,731

GRAND TOTAL $165,588 $183,731 $201,62
2

$208,72
8

$226,839

University of Missouri 21

University of Missouri-Columbia

Current Fund Expenditures and Transfers (in $1,000s)

1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

General
operating

Instruction

$46,583 $51,641 $57,085 $56,479 $61,100

Research $11,123 $12,177 $14,544 $14,104 $15,187

Public
Service

$4,260 $4,674 $5,167 $5,124 $5,335

Academic
Support

$11,939 $13,146 $13,755 $14,111 $15,332

Student

Services

$4,605 $5,273 $5,454 $5,066 $5,767

Inst.
Support

$7,657 $8,651 $9,861 $8,948 $9,594

Oper. and
Maint.
of Plant

$9,691 $10,411 $10,823 $11,093 $10,728

Scholarships

$847 $1,171 $1,085 $1,126 $1,359

Transfers

$1,884 $2,836 $3,450 $2,405 $3,465

TOTAL
GENERAL OP.

$98,589 $109,980 $121,224 $118,456 $127,867

Designated &
Restricted

Aux.
Enterprises

$22,271 $26,100 $28,404 $29,664 $33,382

MPIP $8,490 $9,851 $11,219 $15,400 $16,129

Student
Activities

$732 $775 $822 $941 $905

University of Missouri 22

Restricted
(Grants,
Contracts,
etc.)

$27,997 $29,750 $34,197 $36,800 $37,744

Other $4,062 $4,942 $6,192 $5,113 $7,606

TOTAL DESIG.
& RESTR.

$64,002 $71,418 $80,834 $87,918 $95,766

Grand Total $162,591 $181,398 $202,058 $206,374 $223,633

University of Missouri 23

Appendix B:

Faculty Salary and Tuition Comparisons

Among Big 8 and Big 10 Institutions

(1981-82)

Assistant
Professor

Associate
Professor

Full
Professor

All Ranks

Average
salary for
Big 8/Big 10

$28,764 $34,502 $44,460 $37,663

Average
salary for
Missouri-Col
umbia

$26,760 $31,979 $38,948 $32,870

UMC Rank 12th of 17 13th of 17 16th of 17 17th of 17

Missouri
Deficit

7% 7% 12% 13%

University of Missouri 24

Appendix D:

Report of the Criteria Committee

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR’S CRITERIA SELECTION COMMITTEE

October 9,

1981

The University of Missouri-Columbia is a university in the traditional and

academic sense. It is charged with major program thrusts of a university in the

historic tradition and assumed under the Land Grant mission of teaching,

research, extension, and service. It is the principal public institution in

Missouri for granting the Ph.D. degree and professional education.

The University is an institution which serves the public
that supports it activities and into which it sends human resources
that will fashion the future society. This mission is accomplished
by preserving the connection between knowledge and a zest for life,
uniting the young with the old in any imaginative consideration of
learning. Youth is a time of imagination, energy, and vision which
can be combined with facts and experience that enables each
generation to construct its intellectual image of a new world and
set upon the path to attain it. The task of this community of
scholars is to use all available resources to weld together
imagination and experience in classrooms, laboratories and
libraries; to provide new knowledge and new configurations of old
knowledge; and to acknowledge by commencement those young minds
disciplined by facts and necessary habit.

Financial resources proceeding from the State of Missouri
have become limited by circumstances of revenue collection and
dispersion. It is necessary to provide criteria to determine how
the University can maintain quality in its mission in this
constrained financial setting. The criteria provided here are
drawn from individual experience.

The criteria statements are set in a four dimensional matrix
(see Appendix) of quality, utility, efficiency, and socio-political
impact. No single criteria in itself should determine the
discontinuation or reduction of a program. The order in which
these criteria are applied (i.e. quality first) is important to
maintain the integrity of the academic community.

The academic community is its students, faculty, and staff
or it is nothing. In our current circumstances, budgetary
considerations become all consuming. It is, however, crucial that

University of Missouri 25

the budgetary decisions should conform to academic policy, not
determine it.

We propose that in evaluating every program or activity the
following criteria be applied:

I. Does the program or activity significantly strengthen the
quality of this university?

A. To what extent does it provide a quality educational
experience for its students? For example,
— How does its curriculum compare to that of leading
institutions in the field?
— Does it have the facilities necessary for success
(for example, library, laboratories, computer
services)?
— Does it have national accreditation (in fields where
this is applicable)?

B. Does it have a critical mass of faculty members whose
research production, publication, and professional
affiliations demonstrate national visibility and
leadership?

C. Do its programs in research, teaching, extension, and
service attract external support on a level appropriate
to the field?

D. Is its faculty broadly recruited from the leading
academic departments in the field?

E. Does it attract able students, as measured, for
example, by nationally normed examinations, winning of
national prizes and fellowships, and achievements in
national competitions?

F. Does it produce high-quality graduates, as measured for
example by:
— admission to the leading postgraduate training
programs?
— performance on national and state certification
examinations?
— achievement of distinction in later careers?

II. Is the program or activity useful?

University of Missouri 26

A. What is its contribution to the teaching, research,
extension, and service missions (i.e., its contribution
to the “core” of UMC)?

B. How important is it for other programs or activities on
the campus? For example,
— Does it provide courses needed for other de

gree

programs?
— Does it contribute to the research effort needed for
extension work?

C. What do its enrollment projections and anticipated
employment opportunities for its graduates indicate
about probable future need?

D. What is the current and future need for the
instructional, scholarly, creative and extension
services that it produces?

E. Does it duplicate other UMC programs or activities? Can
it be effectively consolidated with similar programs or
activities?

F. What is the availability of the program on other campuses
(public and private) in the state and region?

G. Does it conform to the mission assigned to UMC in the
system-wide academic plan?

III. What are the costs and the revenue of the program or activity?

A. Is it being operated efficiently? How do its costs
compare to costs for programs with comparable missions
at other institutions as measured for example by:

–ranked faculty/student ratios?
— unranked faculty/student ratios?
–total teaching faculty/student ratios?
— costs per student credit hour?
— faculty/staff ratios?
–other measures of efficiency appropriate for
research, extension and services.

B. What are the total costs of operating the program at
various levels relative to its contribution to
achievement of institutional missions?

University of Missouri 27

–costs at present level of operation?
— costs of improving quality or increasing scope or
size?
— magnitude and timing of savings that would be
realized from reducing or eliminating the program?
— possible alternative assignments for the faculty,
staff, and physical facilities presently invested in
the program?

C. What are the present and potential levels of revenue
generated by the program from:
— student fees and tuition?
— grants and contracts?
— gifts?
— auxiliary enterprises?

IV. What is the socio-political impact of the program or activity?

A. What do the several constituencies of the university
(e.g. students, faculty, staff, the legislature, other
funding and regulatory agencies, the general public and
special interest groups) expect of the program or
activity? What will be their reaction if it is reduced
or eliminated?

B. What will be the impact on the university’s policy of
affirmative action if the program or activity is
reduced or eliminated?

C. What will be the impact on the local and state economy if
the program or activity is reduced or eliminated?

D. What contribution does the program or activity make to
the quality of life for the university community, the
state, the intuition, and the world.

University of Missouri 28

Appendix G:

Cost-Effectiveness Data

Cost-Effectiveness of M. U. Programs

Comparison of Costs of Schools and Colleges

College Faculty/

Student

Ratio

Dollars

/FT E

Student

Stu. FT E

Per Fac.

Credit

Hours Fall

1981

1980-81

Expenses

(G . O.)

Degrees

Aw arded

Expense/De

gree

Aw arded

Agriculture 1:20 $2,219 19.6 17,996 $11,220,668B-442

M – 78

D- 17

$5,270

Arts &

Science

1:18 Com posite figures not

available

Business &

P. A.

1:22 $1,625 28.8 22,422 $3,091,308B-496

M -166

D- 8

$3,554

Education 1:19 $2,053 21.0 20,754 $3,771,247B-481

M -324

D- 89

$3,357

Engineer-ing 1:12 $3,788 12.9 18754 $5,686,628B-369

M – 96

D- 24

$9,530

Hom e

Econom ics

1:14 $2,282 16.0 8380 $1,538,635B-217

M – 20

D- 2

$5,493

Journalism 1:12 $2,733 14.6 8,991 $2,031,548B-377

M – 67

D- 3

$4,280

University of Missouri 29

Law 1:21 $2,581 22.5 6,504 $1,397,563P-138 $8,464

Library

Science

1:7 $4,271 12.2 1313 $526,162M- 44 $8,270

M edicine 1:9 $8,469 9.2 13,537 $8,434,134M- 34

D- 6

P-113

$42,892

Nursing 1:5 $5,852 6.9 3,110 $2,156,485B- 92

M – 37

$11,785

Public

Com m .

Service

1:11 $3,482 10.0 2,041 $625,201B- 71

M – 34

$4,775

Social W ork $3,180 11.8 1,984 $485,893B- 48

M – 37

$5,206

Vet. Medicine 1:6 $9,761 7.0 5,697 $4,193,177M – 7

P- 72

$45,556

Forestry $3,477 13.7 2,428 $1,271,082B-101

M – 20

D- 5

$4,468

Health Rel.

Prof.

$3,731 10.2 3,666 $961,913B- 99 $10,303

Institute for Educational Management

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI (A)

ACADEMIC CUTS PLANNED

FOR MISSOURI DRAW FIRE

By Gene I. Maeroff

COLUMBIA, MO., May 28–Budget conscious administrators at the
University of Missouri’s main campus here have proposed dropping
some programs and sharply curtailing others. But the plan has
brought a flood of protest letters, emergency hearings in the State
Legislature and criticism from three of the University’s nine board
members.

“More people have talked about the University of Missouri in the
last 30 days than in the last 30 years,” said Dr. Wilbur Miller,
Associate Dean of the College of Education, which would lose one-
third of its $3.6 million budget under the proposal, jeopardizing many
of its undergraduate programs.

Provost Ron Bunn has proposed abolishing two of the
university’s 14 schools and colleges and sharply reducing the
operations of seven others over a period of three years. The money
freed by those actions could then be reallocated to the remaining
programs to improve faculty salaries and buy equipment for
research.

–The New York Times, May 30, 1982

It was June 1, 1982 and Ron Bunn, the Provost at the University of Missouri’s Columbia
campus, faced several questions. He wondered how the administration’s effort to develop
a long-range response to financial pressures had led to such a political maelstrom. He
wondered whether there was anything the administration could have done to prevent events
from careening out of control. Most important, he wondered what, if anything, he could do
now.

—————————————————————-
This case was written by Jacqueline Stefkovich, Chris Harris, and Lee Bolman, for the
Institute for Educational Management, Harvard University, and is based in part on the
research of Professor David Kuechle, Harvard Graduate School of Education. The case was
developed for class discussion, and is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective
handling of an administrative situation. © 1986, Institute for Educational Management

University of Missouri 2

Nineteen eighty-two marked Ron Bunn’s second year at the University of Missouri. He
was new to the state, but not to higher education. Before coming to Missouri, he had been
a full-time faculty member at the University of Texas and at Louisiana State University. He
was a graduate dean at the University of Houston for seven years and Vice-President for
Academic Affairs at the State University of New York in Buffalo from 1976 to 1980. He had
directed long-range planning efforts at the last two institutions, but neither involved program
reductions on the scale contemplated at Missouri.

From the beginning of his tenure, Bunn was aware of the university’s fiscal problems. He
knew from the outset that cuts in programs would be difficult, but he also wanted to help a
university that he believed “was beginning to enter a period of protracted financial stress”.
He had been optimistic about his reallocation proposals. He felt they had the potential to save
several million dollars and to strengthen the programs that were most central to the mission
of the university and most needed by the citizens of Missouri.

The University of Missouri

Founded in 1839 as the first state university west of the Mississippi and approved as a
land-grant institution in 1870, the University of Missouri at Columbia is part of a
four-campus system (the other sites are Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis). The University is
governed by a Board of Curators whose nine members are appointed by the governor to serve
six-year terms. State law requires that each curator come from a different Congressional
district and that no more than five be members of one political party. Most of the curators
were alumni who served on a part-time basis while maintaining full-time commitments in
law, business, agriculture or other professions. In 1982, the membership of the board
included eight men and one woman who was also the only Black member.

Reporting to the Curators was the President of the University and system-wide chief
executive, James Olson. Each of the four campuses was headed by a Chancellor. The
Chancellor at Columbia, Barbara Uehling, was regarded as a strong and vocal advocate of
higher education.

Columbia, Missouri is a classic college town. The 90,000 residents include 25,000
students at the Columbia campus. The streets carry names like College and University and
the 75,000- person football stadium dominates the southern edge of town. The university’s
teaching hospital is a major health facility for Columbia and central Missouri. The university
operates half a dozen museums and galleries, and fields surrounding the town are sites for
university-based agricultural experiments.

University of Missouri 3

The local visitor’s brochure proudly proclaims the institution as “one of the most
comprehensive universities in the world”, a university that “belongs to all Missourians”.

Beside the nation’s oldest School of Journalism, the campus includes Colleges of
Agriculture, Arts and Sciences, (with twenty-five departments), Business and

Public

Administration, Education, Engineering, Graduate Studies, Home Economics, Public and
Community Services and Veterinary Medicine and professional schools of Law, Medicine
and Health Related Services, Nursing, and Library and Informational Science.

The University of Missouri system is the only public institution in the state to offer Ph.D.
and professional degrees, and the Columbia campus, with its 100+ Ph.D. programs, confers
most of these. Administrators at the Columbia campus emphasize the important research in
areas such as plant biochemistry and genetics, arthritic disease, hazardous waste management
and the effects of diet on cholesterol levels. Students and community emphasize the school’s
excellence in teaching.

The university distributes an information brochure, stylishly dressed in the school’s black
and gold colors, that sums up the institution’s philosophy with these lines:

There are few earthly things more splendid than a
university. In these days of broken frontiers and collapsing values ,
when the dams are down and the floods are making misery, when
every future looks somewhat grim and every ancient foothold has
become something of a quagmire, wherever a University stands, it
stands and shines; wherever it exists, the free minds of men, urged on
to full and fair inquiry, may still bring wisdom into human affairs.

–John Masefield

Administration, faculty and staff are proud of the University. As the Dean for Community
and Public Service, a former mayor of Columbia, said, “I came to this university as a sopho-
more in 1945 and have stayed ever since. I like it here.”

The Financial Context

Missouri was operating on a narrow tax base and ranked next- to-last among the states in
its per capita appropriations for higher education.

In 1980, droughts had hampered the state’s agricultural economy and national economic
trends were hurting other major Missouri industries. The governor had withheld three percent

University of Missouri 4

of the higher education appropriations and announced a ten percent reduction for the
following year. The Hancock Amendment, an anti- tax bill, had recently been enacted via the
initiative process. Bunn doubted that the governor or Missouri citizens would, or could,
support an increase in state taxes.

James Buchholz, the University’s Vice-President for Administrative Affairs, predicted that
reductions and inflation would cause the university to lose twenty percent of its operating
budget during the 1981-1982 school year. Although endowments and research support made
a significant contribution, they were designated for specific areas and contributed little to
the school’s operating budget.

Substantial increases in student tuition were planned, but these accounted for less than
thirty percent of the school’s total operating budget. (Over sixty percent came from state
subsidies and most of the remainder from federal land-grant monies.) Over ninety percent
of the students resided in state. (See Appendix A for budget information, and Appendix B
for enrollment figures.)

The university’s commitment as a land-grant institution obliged it to maintain reasonable
tuition rates for its residents. Administrators viewed massive tuition hikes as out of the
question. To further compound the problems, the state of Missouri was not legally
permitted to deficit-spend.

Bunn and Uehling both believed that the University of Missouri could maintain and
improve its status and capacities as a major university in the Midwest only if it could attract
and retain talented faculty. The institution was already several percentage points behind the
other Big Ten and Big Eight schools in its faculty salaries. (See Appendix C for these
comparisons.) Offering competitive salaries was crucial to this effort.

Bunn and Uehling saw a major dilemma. Either the university could spread broadly the
decline in resources throughout the campuses and hope for a better day, or it could take steps
to reduce its range of commitments so that existing strengths could be maintained and
remaining programs strengthened. Both Bunn and Barbara Uehling believed that it was
essential for the Columbia campus to concentrate its resources on its strongest and most
significant programs. Uehling had frequently and publicly expressed concern over the
University’s tendency to skim all programs across the board at the expense of those central
to the institution’s mission.

History of the Reallocation Process

On November 21, 1980, a few months after Bunn was hired, the University’s Board of
Curators adopted a revised academic plan for the 1975-1985 decade. It read:

University of Missouri 5

The University of Missouri cannot do everything. It is important to
remember that the University is only one of the segments of public
higher education in Missouri and should maintain its historic role of
strength in research, advanced graduate and professional programs
and extension. The University should do well whatever it does.

In August 1981, President Olson asked the chancellors to consider salary increments in
light of the state’s withholding of ten percent of the university’s funds. Uehling, described
by the press as a tough administrator, an iron fist in a velvet glove, assumed what she
considered to be a hard, but fair and reasonable stance. She responded to Olson’s request:

To plan for next year and beyond, we will be developing a process
to identify entire programs that may be substantially reduced or
eliminated, thereby supplanting our need to spread reductions
throughout the campus. The early planning that we have done, at your
suggestion, indicates a need to reduce our commitments by 10 to 20
percent in the next three years. After years of expansion, a reduction
of that magnitude will be very difficult to achieve. But we must do
it. . .

To paraphrase Philip Brooks who spoke of individuals: ‘Greatness
after all, in spite of its name, appears to be not so much a certain size
as a quality in human lives. It may be present in lives whose range is
very small.’ As this is true for human life, so is it true for education,
with programs depending on their inherent quality rather than size.
The success of this endeavor depends on the cooperation and good
judgment of all.

On the Columbia campus, some faculty feared Uehling’s hard line, while others
felt it was long overdue. A majority appeared to support her convictions, at least in principle.
On November 19, 1981, the Faculty Council reaffirmed its long-standing “opposition to
additional budget cuts applied uniformly to all academic units”. That same month, the
campus paper conducted a non-scientific opinion poll. It reported that eighty-seven percent
of the faculty who responded answered “yes” to the question, “Would you be in favor of
dropping entire programs on the Columbia campus to preserve and strengthen others?”

University of Missouri 6

Throughout 1981, President Olson had referred to the University’s financial difficulties in
a number of speeches and public announcements. It was not a surprise when he addressed
the Curators on the subject at their December 16, 1981, meeting.

As the planning processes in which we are now engaged move
forward, we will be bringing to you recommendations which emerge.
The decisions you will be asked to make will be difficult, painful and,
in some cases, controversial. We will need your help and support as
we move toward preparing the University to maintain program quality
and to address difficult decisions about the future. This is the
approach we are taking. If it does not meet with your general
approval, we should know it now.

Olson’s address reminded the Curators of the financial difficulties facing
the university, but he gave only a series of general illustrations of the painful
decisions they might be asked to make. The possibilities included: “limit
enrollment in specific programs”, “adjust admissions standards to better reflect the
unique role of the University of Missouri”, “combine programs within a campus or
even among campuses”, ” reduce the range of options for specialization in selected
degree programs”, and “discontinue entire degree programs and eliminate depart-
ments or even schools and colleges”.

The Board approved this measure with little discussion and no formal
action. Only one Board member questioned the process. Everyone heard the speech
and was given a copy. Whether all the Board Members understood the possible
ramifications of their action was less clear. (The text of Olson’s speech is in
Appendix D.)

The next week, the chancellors were asked to submit a list of
recommendations for determining reductions or eliminations. The President would
use the suggestions as a basis for establishing criteria for retrenchment. Because the
process would involve changes in programs and faculty, the Board had to vote on
the final proposals at their annual budget meeting in July, 1982. As a result of these
stringent timelines, chancellors had three weeks to suggest criteria and six months
to provide a plan for eliminations and reductions based on the criteria. The
countdown began. . . .

University of Missouri 7

At the Columbia campus, Barbara Uehling was ahead of the game. She
had spent the previous year encouraging President Olson to take action.
Anticipating that some action would be mandated, she had, in October, 1981,
appointed a sixteen-person committee to develop criteria to be used in the event that
cut- backs were needed.

Uehling later described her perceptions in the following terms:

The rationale and the data for the whole effort were supplied by the
campus Institutional Research and Planning Office, working with me.
The model for the need to take these steps was based on some very
basic assumptions regarding needed revenue to reach Big 8/Big 10
salaries and to meet inflation on the base budget in ensuing years.
Projected revenues from the state fell short.

The committee consisted of faculty, professional staff, two deans, and two students.
Uehling selected the faculty members and students from panels nominated through the
Faculty Council and Student Association, respectively. Each committee member was to
consult with the groups they represented.

After Olson’s December announcement, Bunn realized that programmatic decisions
would have to be made soon. Anticipating these moves, he discussed possible strategies at
two of his weekly meetings with Academic Deans. He also initiated a meeting with the
executive committee (officers) of the Faculty Council. He proposed three possible ways to
proceed. The first was to organize a committee, provide them with the criteria and necessary
information and let them make the decisions. The second was for an officer, possibly Bunn,
to gather all the data and make the decisions. Third, the deans could suggest programs for
elimination or reduction based on the criteria.

Both groups suggested that Bunn should make the decision. Twelve of the fourteen deans
favored the approach. There was some hesitation among members of the Faculty Council,
who felt that this should be a long, carefully planned process. But they concurred that the
second option was the most feasible in light of time constraints.

Bunn discussed his plan privately with several faculty members. These individuals were
not on the Faculty Council Executive Committee, but they were people whose opinion Bunn
respected. He felt “their achievements placed them in an especially good position to speak
with some authority about evaluating academic programs”. They agreed with the others.

University of Missouri 8

“Even though I had some concerns about any single officer taking the initiative to identify
the programs,” Bunn concluded, “in light of the time frame, and the willingness of the groups
consulted, I finally advised the chancellor that I was prepared to do it, if she judged that I
should.”

Chancellor Uehling approved this proposal, and asked each of her Vice-Chancellors
(including development, student services and administrative services as well as academic
affairs) to follow the same procedure in developing tentative conclusions. (See Appendix E
for the administrative chart.) Uehling stated clearly that all final decisions were contingent
upon her approval. Recommendations would be reviewed by an ad hoc committee appointed
by the chancellor in each of the divisions. The ad hoc committees included representation
from the faculty, staff, and students, although some faculty later criticized the committees
as unrepresentative of the diversity of the Columbia campus.

By January 1982, the list of criteria was approved. It consisted of four categories, each
including ten to twelve questions. They were: a.) quality of the programs; b.) centrality of
the programs to the mission of the campus; c.) cost-effectiveness and d.) demand and need
for the program. (The report of the criteria committee is in Appendix F.)

Uehling and the criteria committee set the target reductions for the Columbia campus at
$12 million or twelve percent of its state-provided budget. Savings would be redirected over
a three- year period in the form of salaries, wages and operating budgets. With about seventy
percent of the entire campus budget, Bunn was assigned reductions amounting to $7.5
million. This was the largest dollar amount of the planned reductions, but it represented a
smaller proportion of the total than the targets for the other divisions.

Bunn’s office had already compiled a substantial body of information. Because
cost-effectiveness reports were available, the quantitative evaluation seemed fairly
straight-forward. (Appendix G contains the data for each program, including teaching-
student ratio, program costs, availability of the program at the other University campuses and
at other institutions in the state.)

Sorting out programs to determine if one was “of greater distinction” than another proved
to be the more difficult task. As Bunn carefully considered each of the University’s thirteen
schools and colleges, he realized that all seemed to have legitimate arguments in their favor.

The College of Agriculture had been awarded several large research grants and it was
mandated as an integral part of the federal land-grant legislation, for which it received federal
funding.

University of Missouri 9

The College of Arts and Sciences was already under severe financial restraints; its survival
was crucial. It enjoyed the greatest student demand, and its offerings constituted fifty percent
of the required courses for the Colleges of Business, Home Economics, Agriculture, Engi-
neering, Education, and Public and Community Services. It was Columbia’s most diverse
program. It had a strong history of research and graduated more Ph.D.s than any other college
on the campus or, for that matter, any public institution in Missouri.

The School of Journalism was the oldest in the world and had a reputation for being one
of the best in the country. It had a thousand current students and a number of influential
alumni. This school ran a commercial television station and published a commercial
newspaper. Consequently, it was one of the most viable programs–and a political
bombshell.

The professional Schools of Medicine and Law had powerful constituencies and only one
other state public institution offered these programs. Although reduction of weaker medical
programs to save stronger ones seemed advisable, Bunn approached these recommendations
with caution.

The School of Library and Informational Science conducted little research and served
comparatively few students, but it was the only program in the state and the University
library system relied upon the school’s students and resources.

In Bunn’s assessment, the School of Nursing and the Colleges of Public and Community
Service and Home Economics were comparatively weak on most criteria, but served the
largest numbers of women and minorities. The College of Home Economics also offered
the only such Ph.D. program in the state and was ranked among the best in the nation in a
national survey.

Bunn struggled with the decisions. He knew that the departments with the weakest
research capabilities were also the youngest on campus. Established during the heyday of the
1960s and early 1970s, they barely had time to establish a track record. Should he sacrifice
them for older, more established programs?

Bunn and his five-person staff spent the next four weeks–a time he later characterized as
a “lonely month”–judging each program on the four criteria (quality of program, centrality
of the mission, cost effectiveness and demand). The most difficult decisions revolved around
program quality. He used a variety of methods to judge this aspect. These included:
program reviews conducted by faculty committees, the most recent accreditation studies, and
reputation studies that had been previously requested of the deans.

Centrality was difficult to assess because the Columbia campus’ mission statement was
broad. It consisted of a few paragraphs referring to teaching, research and public service.

University of Missouri 10

Bunn developed an interpretation that emphasized three dimensions: intellectual and
scholarly leadership; diversity of programs and students; and importance to the university’s
identity as a land-grant institution. (Bunn interpreted the last according to the original intent
of the federal law, activities associated with agriculture.)

Given the budget targets, Bunn felt clear that some programs would have to be eliminated
entirely. He felt that any other approach would result in across-the-board cuts or the
crippling of a significant number of programs. He estimated that a minimum of two colleges
would have to be completely eliminated with an additional six experiencing substantial
losses.

Bunn created a five-point scale where he attempted to quantify his judgement, and rated
each program on each of the four criteria. He double-weighted the criteria of quality and
centrality, and produced scores for the different schools and colleges that ranged from a low
of 15.5 for Public and Community Service to a high of 25.0 for Agriculture and Arts and
Sciences. (Exhibit 1 shows the rankings for the different schools.)

Bunn developed a report that recommended closing two schools and making substantial
cuts in six other programs with a projected saving of about $7 million. (The recommenda-
tions are detailed in Exhibit 2.)

Realizing that colleges marked for elimination and reduction included the largest numbers
of female and minority staff and students, Bunn’s office set aside funds for affirmative action
strategies such as hiring in the remaining departments. He agreed with Uehling’s premise
that women and minorities should enter fields that need their skills.

The affected programs had powerful constituencies in the state. Bunn wondered if his
plan could sustain outside pressure. Would his definition of the University’s mission and his
interpretation of the data withstand scrutiny? Would faculty and students still support
selected cuts after the targeted programs were announced?

On April 1, 1982, Bunn forwarded his suggestions and supporting data to the 17-member,
ad hoc “Provost’s Advisory Committee on Program Reductions”. In his memorandum to the
committee, he emphasized that his conclusions were “tentative” and asked the committee to
“test your judgment against mine”. He also emphasized the seriousness of the task:

To the extent that my recommendations are accepted and
implemented, a number of faculty and staff will lose their positions
at UMC. Careers will be interrupted, relocations will be necessary,
families will be distressed, and financial hardships will ensue.
Though administrators are occasionally seen as being oblivious to

University of Missouri 11

these consequences, I have to record that I know of none on this
campus who is untroubled by these prospects.

Events of April and May

The University of Missouri’s flagship campus here,
normally a place where the loudest outcries are the Saturday
afternoon cheers for “Mizzou” in the football stadium, is an unlikely
setting for such academic furor.

“My advice to other universities,” said Dr. David West, chairman
of Missouri’s Faculty Council and a proponent of the reductions, “is
that you may think you are ready for this and everyone may agree in
the abstract, but all hell will break loose when you name the specific
targets for cutting.”

What the university’s administration apparently did not foresee was
the extent to which the various schools and colleges would fight to
remain alive, taking their case directly to the Legislature and to the
university’s board, which is appointed by the Governor.

–The New York Times, May 30, 1982

When Bunn delivered his proposals for academic cuts on April 1, 1982, he viewed them
as preliminary: they were to be reviewed by an ad hoc committee of administrators, faculty
and students, and were subject to final approval by the Chancellor of the Columbia campus.

The news of the Provost’s recommendations traveled rapidly. His proposals and rankings
of individual programs were published in the campus newspaper. A firestorm began to build.

What disturbed Bunn was that, in his view, key administrators and faculty in the affected
programs largely ignored their opportunity to participate in the campus review process, and
moved instead to “get the word out to interest groups, alumni, professional groups and other
publics that their programs were earmarked for reduction or elimination.” Bunn felt there
was a failure to recognize that his proposals were only tentative, that alternatives would be

University of Missouri 12

considered, and that the basic purpose of the cuts was to secure the funds needed to
strengthen other programs at the Columbia campus.

George Nickolaus, Dean of the College of Public and Community Service, saw it
differently. His college was slated for extinction in Bunn’s recommendations, and he was
highly critical of the proposed changes. “Deans are supposed to be advocates for their
programs,” he said. ” I couldn’t sit back. Small schools and programs dealing with human
services were attacked.” Nickolaus believed that the issue was not “retrenchment”, but an
attempt to enhance faculty salaries when the state was in a recession and many Missourians
were out of work. He criticized the administration for not providing timely and accurate
information. In particular, he noted that the administration was specific about cuts, but not
about where the redirected resources would go.

His faculty united behind him. One faculty member gave Nickolaus a replica of a famous
revolutionary war flag depicting a snake and the legend “Don’t Tread on Me”.

The dean of another school slated for a significant reduction had similar views. “I have
always been a team player, and I was never much of a feminist,” said Bea Litherland, Dean
of the College of Home Economics. “I thought that if you worked hard, you would be
rewarded. But when I realized that the targeted programs were those most affecting women,
I knew that I had to take action.” Students in her school began wearing red T-shirts with the
message, “H%@*! No; We Won’t Go”, shortly after Bunn proposed eliminating two of the
college’s five departments.

In all of the affected programs, administrators and faculty sharply criticized Bunn’s
process and attacked the validity of his conclusions. He was accused of using data that
were unsystematic and out-of-date. He was reproached for making arbitrary decisions based
on his own personal vision of what the University ought to be. He was criticized for putting
too much emphasis on research and graduate education and for trying to create a “Harvard
on the Hinkson” (Hinkson Creek runs past the campus).

Engineers said that he was “anti-engineering”. A professor of education condemned Bunn
for “a flagrant display of political expediency that would strangle the human services
profession.” Supporters of the extension programs said that he was an outsider who did not
really understand Missouri and its people. Women and members of minority groups saw
overtones of sexism and racism in his proposals.

Bunn did not get all the blame. Uehling was sharply criticized and, on April 19,
1982, the faculty passed a resolution urging Uehling either to clean up the mess or resign
(the vote was 237 to 70 out of a possible 1500). Since only twenty percent of the faculty
voted, and this was the second time that they had voted in favor of her resignation (the first

University of Missouri 13

time had been the previous Fall when faculty were dissatisfied with their salary increments),
Uehling minimized the significance of this expression of faculty sentiment.

Many faculty rejected the assumption that there was a fiscal crisis, and argued that
the university was in excellent financial condition. In the words of one faculty member,
“Objective conditions did not mandate drastic reductions. This was an adminis-
tration-induced crisis that was mismanaged.”

Faculty also complained that the Faculty Council was unrepresentative and had
failed to keep them informed about the seriousness of the situation. There were complaints
that the ad hoc advisory committee to study the proposed cuts was “stacked”, so that it was
little surprise when the committee came back with a report that was generally supportive of
Bunn’s recommendations.

University administrators, members of the Board of Curators, and state legislators
received hundreds of calls and thousands of letters. Both houses of the state legislature
scheduled hearings, and one legislator called Bunn to say, “Ron, I have two things to tell you.
First, I think what you are doing is right. Second, I’m going to have to fight you on it.”

By May, 1982, four of the nine Curators had announced that they opposed the
cuts, including three who had been silent six months earlier when President Olson addressed
them on the need for retrenchment. One curator said the faculty was there to teach and not
to write books, so the problem could be solved by increasing teaching loads. Others
criticized Uehling for being a poor administrator and not keeping the board informed. The
press reported running battles between Uehling and at least one of the Board Members.
Uehling felt that she was in a bind, because she had relied on President Olson, at his request,
to communicate to the board. It was hard to defend herself without giving the appearance
that she was publicly criticizing her boss.

Bunn and Uehling were troubled by the reactions and puzzled about what to do.
Much of their time was spent in a frustrating effort to keep up with events which had moved
beyond their control. According to Bunn, “it soon became unmanageable for the
administration to respond to every report and every allegation transmitted through the media.
The volume of work involved in such continuous responding was overwhelming, and the
ground shifted so rapidly that yesterday’s response was not addressing today’s allegation. It
was like the remark attributed to Disraeli in the nineteenth century: “Every time the British
had an answer, the Irish changed the question.”

In addition to everything else, Uehling had to contend with a student occupation
of her office, and the mysterious appearance of “For Sale” signs on her lawn.

University of Missouri 14

During the month of May, support for the administration and its recommendations
steadily deteriorated. Although President Olson maintained that he had kept the board
fully-informed, only two of the curators still supported cut-backs on June 1. One Curator ex-
plained, “It is hard to ignore the stacks of anti- reallocation mail that we have received from
Missourians.”

One faculty member commented that even Barbara Uehling “began to distance herself
from responsibility for Bunn’s specific proposals. She continued to give the impression that
reductions would be necessary, yet it almost looked as if she was allowing Provost Bunn to
hold the bag.”

Bunn felt that Uehling’s difficulties with the Curators on one side and the faculty on the
other made it very difficult for her to defend him. If anything, he said, she probably defended
him “more than she should have”.

At a hearing before a standing committee of the state Senate, Uehling and Olson testified
first, seated side-by-side. When Bunn’s turn came, the committee chairman asked, “Are you
alone?” Bunn replied, “Yes, but I am getting accustomed to the idea.”

Reflecting on the events of Spring, 1982, Bunn drew an analogy:

It is recorded that upon losing the election in 1945, Churchill was
told by his wife, in an attempt to console him, that “perhaps the loss
was a blessing in disguise”. Churchill responded, “That may be, but
I wish it weren’t so well disguised.” Retrenchment and reduction may
be blessings in disguise, but for most of us, they are painful business.
It may be necessary. It is not fun.

University of Missouri 15

Exhibit 1:

BUNN’S RATINGS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

COLLEGE/SCHOOL QUALITY MISSION COST NEED TOTAL

Agriculture 3.5 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.0 5.0 25.0
= 7.0 = 10.0

Arts and 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 4.0 5.0 25.0
Science = 6.0 10

Business & 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 4.0 4.0 24.0
Public Admin. = 6.0 = 10.0

Education 3.0 x 2 4.0 x 2 3.0 3.5 20.5
= 6 = 8

Engineering 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
= 6 = 10

Home 3.5 x 2 3.5 x 2 2.5 3.5 20.0
Economics = 7 = 7

Journalism 5.0 x 2 3.0 x 2 3.0 4.0 23.0
= 10 = 6

Law 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.0 4.0 23.0
= 6 = 10

Library/Info. 3.5 x 2 2.0 x 2 2.0 3.0 16.0
Science = 7 = 4

Medicine 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
= 6 = 10

Nursing 3.0 x 2 3.5 x 2 2.0 5.0 20.0
= 6 = 7

Public/Commu- 3.0 x 2 2.0 x 2 2.5 3.0 15.5
nity Service = 6 = 4

Veterinary 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
Medicine = 6 = 10

University of Missouri 16

(continued next page)
Exhibit 1 (continued)

KEY TO RATING SYSTEM

Quality

5 = Nationally eminent
4 = Strong by National Standards
3 = Adequate by National Standards
2 = Below Average by National Standards
1 = Unacceptable Quality

Mission

5 = Indispensable to Campus Mission
4 = Highly consistent with Campus Mission — Support Function Strong
3 = Consistent – Moderate Support Function
2 = Peripheral to Campus Mission
1 = Inconsistent with Campus Mission

Cost

5 = Highly Productive per Unit Cost/Investment
4 = Better than Average Productivity
3 = Productivity Average by Norms
2 = Productivity Lower than Average
1 = Productivity Much Lower than Average

Need/Demand/Accessibility

5 = Need Critical as Compared with Accessibility
4 = Need Strong as Compared with Accessibility
3 = Need Moderate as Compared with Accessibility
2 = Need Weak as Compared with Accessibility in State
1 = Need Very Weak as Compared with Accessibility in State

University of Missouri 17

Exhibit 2:

BUNN’S RECOMMENDATIONS

UNIT RECOMMENDED CUT PROCESS
ACTION
________________________________________________________________

Library & Elimination $526,000 Three-year phase-out
Information

Science

College of Elimination $1,100,000 Three-year phase-out
Public & (Possibly retain ($750,000)
Community social work mas-
Services ter’s program)

College of Reduction $1,200,000 Review school in con-
Education junction with outside
consultants. Phase re-
ductions over 3 years

Extension Reduction $1,000,000 Review by extension div-
Division ision. Reduce during
1982-83.

College of Reduction $525,000 Review by college. Phase
Home in reductions over three
Economics years.

College of Reduction $400,000 Review by college. Phase
Engineering in reductions over three
years.

College of Reduction $325,000 Review by college. Phase
Medicine in reductions over three
years.

General aca- Reduction $1,500,000 Review by provost in con-
demic admin- sultation with deans and
istration & directors. Phase in re-
support ductions over three years.
services

TOTAL REALLOCATION $7,071,000
($6,721,000 if social work master’s program is retained)

University of Missouri 18

University of Missouri 19

University of Missouri-Columbia

Current Fund Revenues (in 1000’s)

General
Operating

1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

Tuition and
Fees

Incidental
fees

$15,104 $16,057 $18,078 $20,547 $24,878

Non-res.
tuition

$2,866 $3,164 $3,668 $4,324 $4,989

Supplemental
fees

$472 $1,080 $1,164 $1,306 $1,564

Ext. –

Credit

$1,904 $2,436 $1,604 $1,638 $1,859

Ext. –
Noncredit

$1,345 $1,196 $1,372

Other $359 $292 $127 $135 $100

Total $20,705 $23,029 $25,986 $29,146 $34,762

Federal
Appropriat.

Columbia
General

$195 $195 $195 $35 $35

Ag. Exp.
Station

$3,082 $3,373 $3,651 $3,887 $4,043

Coop. Ext.

Service

$1,417 $1,929 $2,061 $1,659 $2,036

Total $4,694 $5,497 $5,907 $5,581 $6,114

State
Appropriation

Regular $66,410 $72,675 $78,549 $73,242 $78,398

FICA $2,849 $3,357 $3,500 $3,792 $4,540

Total $69,259 $76,032 $82,049 $77,034 $82,938

University of Missouri 20

Recovery of
I.C.

$2,559 $2,832 $3,100 $2,757 $2,678

Endowment
Income

$98 $86 $119 $165 $148

Sales and
Service

Columbia
General

$579 $591 $142 $182 $97

Ag. Exp.
Station

$1,380 $1,543 $1,691 $1,662 $1,554

Total $1,959 $2,134 $1,833 $1,844 $1,651

Other $612 $835 $571 $569 $817

TOTAL GENERAL
OPERATING

$99,886 $110,445 $119,56
5

$117,09
6

$129,108

Designated and
Restricted

Tuition and $766 $991 $1,711 $2,130 $2,184

State
Appropriation

$3,846 $3,788 $4,062 $3,986 $4,082

Grants and
Contracts

$23,751 $25,319 $29,729 $32,381 $33,882

MPIP $9,076 $10,721 $12,147 $15,490 $17,957

Sales –
Aux.Ent.

$22,997 $25,854 $26,875 $29,502 $30,501

Other $5,266 $6,613 $7,533 $8,143 $9,125

Total Des.
and Rest.

$65,702 $73,286 $82,057 $91,632 $97,731

GRAND TOTAL $165,588 $183,731 $201,62
2

$208,72
8

$226,839

University of Missouri 21

University of Missouri-Columbia

Current Fund Expenditures and Transfers (in $1,000s)

1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

General
operating

Instruction

$46,583 $51,641 $57,085 $56,479 $61,100

Research $11,123 $12,177 $14,544 $14,104 $15,187

Public
Service

$4,260 $4,674 $5,167 $5,124 $5,335

Academic
Support

$11,939 $13,146 $13,755 $14,111 $15,332

Student

Services

$4,605 $5,273 $5,454 $5,066 $5,767

Inst.
Support

$7,657 $8,651 $9,861 $8,948 $9,594

Oper. and
Maint.
of Plant

$9,691 $10,411 $10,823 $11,093 $10,728

Scholarships

$847 $1,171 $1,085 $1,126 $1,359

Transfers

$1,884 $2,836 $3,450 $2,405 $3,465

TOTAL
GENERAL OP.

$98,589 $109,980 $121,224 $118,456 $127,867

Designated &
Restricted

Aux.
Enterprises

$22,271 $26,100 $28,404 $29,664 $33,382

MPIP $8,490 $9,851 $11,219 $15,400 $16,129

Student
Activities

$732 $775 $822 $941 $905

University of Missouri 22

Restricted
(Grants,
Contracts,
etc.)

$27,997 $29,750 $34,197 $36,800 $37,744

Other $4,062 $4,942 $6,192 $5,113 $7,606

TOTAL DESIG.
& RESTR.

$64,002 $71,418 $80,834 $87,918 $95,766

Grand Total $162,591 $181,398 $202,058 $206,374 $223,633

University of Missouri 23

Appendix B:

Faculty Salary and Tuition Comparisons

Among Big 8 and Big 10 Institutions

(1981-82)

Assistant
Professor

Associate
Professor

Full
Professor

All Ranks

Average
salary for
Big 8/Big 10

$28,764 $34,502 $44,460 $37,663

Average
salary for
Missouri-Col
umbia

$26,760 $31,979 $38,948 $32,870

UMC Rank 12th of 17 13th of 17 16th of 17 17th of 17

Missouri
Deficit

7% 7% 12% 13%

University of Missouri 24

Appendix D:

Report of the Criteria Committee

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR’S CRITERIA SELECTION COMMITTEE

October 9,

1981

The University of Missouri-Columbia is a university in the traditional and

academic sense. It is charged with major program thrusts of a university in the

historic tradition and assumed under the Land Grant mission of teaching,

research, extension, and service. It is the principal public institution in

Missouri for granting the Ph.D. degree and professional education.

The University is an institution which serves the public
that supports it activities and into which it sends human resources
that will fashion the future society. This mission is accomplished
by preserving the connection between knowledge and a zest for life,
uniting the young with the old in any imaginative consideration of
learning. Youth is a time of imagination, energy, and vision which
can be combined with facts and experience that enables each
generation to construct its intellectual image of a new world and
set upon the path to attain it. The task of this community of
scholars is to use all available resources to weld together
imagination and experience in classrooms, laboratories and
libraries; to provide new knowledge and new configurations of old
knowledge; and to acknowledge by commencement those young minds
disciplined by facts and necessary habit.

Financial resources proceeding from the State of Missouri
have become limited by circumstances of revenue collection and
dispersion. It is necessary to provide criteria to determine how
the University can maintain quality in its mission in this
constrained financial setting. The criteria provided here are
drawn from individual experience.

The criteria statements are set in a four dimensional matrix
(see Appendix) of quality, utility, efficiency, and socio-political
impact. No single criteria in itself should determine the
discontinuation or reduction of a program. The order in which
these criteria are applied (i.e. quality first) is important to
maintain the integrity of the academic community.

The academic community is its students, faculty, and staff
or it is nothing. In our current circumstances, budgetary
considerations become all consuming. It is, however, crucial that

University of Missouri 25

the budgetary decisions should conform to academic policy, not
determine it.

We propose that in evaluating every program or activity the
following criteria be applied:

I. Does the program or activity significantly strengthen the
quality of this university?

A. To what extent does it provide a quality educational
experience for its students? For example,
— How does its curriculum compare to that of leading
institutions in the field?
— Does it have the facilities necessary for success
(for example, library, laboratories, computer
services)?
— Does it have national accreditation (in fields where
this is applicable)?

B. Does it have a critical mass of faculty members whose
research production, publication, and professional
affiliations demonstrate national visibility and
leadership?

C. Do its programs in research, teaching, extension, and
service attract external support on a level appropriate
to the field?

D. Is its faculty broadly recruited from the leading
academic departments in the field?

E. Does it attract able students, as measured, for
example, by nationally normed examinations, winning of
national prizes and fellowships, and achievements in
national competitions?

F. Does it produce high-quality graduates, as measured for
example by:
— admission to the leading postgraduate training
programs?
— performance on national and state certification
examinations?
— achievement of distinction in later careers?

II. Is the program or activity useful?

University of Missouri 26

A. What is its contribution to the teaching, research,
extension, and service missions (i.e., its contribution
to the “core” of UMC)?

B. How important is it for other programs or activities on
the campus? For example,
— Does it provide courses needed for other de

gree

programs?
— Does it contribute to the research effort needed for
extension work?

C. What do its enrollment projections and anticipated
employment opportunities for its graduates indicate
about probable future need?

D. What is the current and future need for the
instructional, scholarly, creative and extension
services that it produces?

E. Does it duplicate other UMC programs or activities? Can
it be effectively consolidated with similar programs or
activities?

F. What is the availability of the program on other campuses
(public and private) in the state and region?

G. Does it conform to the mission assigned to UMC in the
system-wide academic plan?

III. What are the costs and the revenue of the program or activity?

A. Is it being operated efficiently? How do its costs
compare to costs for programs with comparable missions
at other institutions as measured for example by:

–ranked faculty/student ratios?
— unranked faculty/student ratios?
–total teaching faculty/student ratios?
— costs per student credit hour?
— faculty/staff ratios?
–other measures of efficiency appropriate for
research, extension and services.

B. What are the total costs of operating the program at
various levels relative to its contribution to
achievement of institutional missions?

University of Missouri 27

–costs at present level of operation?
— costs of improving quality or increasing scope or
size?
— magnitude and timing of savings that would be
realized from reducing or eliminating the program?
— possible alternative assignments for the faculty,
staff, and physical facilities presently invested in
the program?

C. What are the present and potential levels of revenue
generated by the program from:
— student fees and tuition?
— grants and contracts?
— gifts?
— auxiliary enterprises?

IV. What is the socio-political impact of the program or activity?

A. What do the several constituencies of the university
(e.g. students, faculty, staff, the legislature, other
funding and regulatory agencies, the general public and
special interest groups) expect of the program or
activity? What will be their reaction if it is reduced
or eliminated?

B. What will be the impact on the university’s policy of
affirmative action if the program or activity is
reduced or eliminated?

C. What will be the impact on the local and state economy if
the program or activity is reduced or eliminated?

D. What contribution does the program or activity make to
the quality of life for the university community, the
state, the intuition, and the world.

University of Missouri 28

Appendix G:

Cost-Effectiveness Data

Cost-Effectiveness of M. U. Programs

Comparison of Costs of Schools and Colleges

College Faculty/

Student

Ratio

Dollars

/FT E

Student

Stu. FT E

Per Fac.

Credit

Hours Fall

1981

1980-81

Expenses

(G . O.)

Degrees

Aw arded

Expense/De

gree

Aw arded

Agriculture 1:20 $2,219 19.6 17,996 $11,220,668B-442

M – 78

D- 17

$5,270

Arts &

Science

1:18 Com posite figures not

available

Business &

P. A.

1:22 $1,625 28.8 22,422 $3,091,308B-496

M -166

D- 8

$3,554

Education 1:19 $2,053 21.0 20,754 $3,771,247B-481

M -324

D- 89

$3,357

Engineer-ing 1:12 $3,788 12.9 18754 $5,686,628B-369

M – 96

D- 24

$9,530

Hom e

Econom ics

1:14 $2,282 16.0 8380 $1,538,635B-217

M – 20

D- 2

$5,493

Journalism 1:12 $2,733 14.6 8,991 $2,031,548B-377

M – 67

D- 3

$4,280

University of Missouri 29

Law 1:21 $2,581 22.5 6,504 $1,397,563P-138 $8,464

Library

Science

1:7 $4,271 12.2 1313 $526,162M- 44 $8,270

M edicine 1:9 $8,469 9.2 13,537 $8,434,134M- 34

D- 6

P-113

$42,892

Nursing 1:5 $5,852 6.9 3,110 $2,156,485B- 92

M – 37

$11,785

Public

Com m .

Service

1:11 $3,482 10.0 2,041 $625,201B- 71

M – 34

$4,775

Social W ork $3,180 11.8 1,984 $485,893B- 48

M – 37

$5,206

Vet. Medicine 1:6 $9,761 7.0 5,697 $4,193,177M – 7

P- 72

$45,556

Forestry $3,477 13.7 2,428 $1,271,082B-101

M – 20

D- 5

$4,468

Health Rel.

Prof.

$3,731 10.2 3,666 $961,913B- 99 $10,303

Institute for Educational Management

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI (A)

ACADEMIC CUTS PLANNED

FOR MISSOURI DRAW FIRE

By Gene I. Maeroff

COLUMBIA, MO., May 28–Budget conscious administrators at the
University of Missouri’s main campus here have proposed dropping
some programs and sharply curtailing others. But the plan has
brought a flood of protest letters, emergency hearings in the State
Legislature and criticism from three of the University’s nine board
members.

“More people have talked about the University of Missouri in the
last 30 days than in the last 30 years,” said Dr. Wilbur Miller,
Associate Dean of the College of Education, which would lose one-
third of its $3.6 million budget under the proposal, jeopardizing many
of its undergraduate programs.

Provost Ron Bunn has proposed abolishing two of the
university’s 14 schools and colleges and sharply reducing the
operations of seven others over a period of three years. The money
freed by those actions could then be reallocated to the remaining
programs to improve faculty salaries and buy equipment for
research.

–The New York Times, May 30, 1982

It was June 1, 1982 and Ron Bunn, the Provost at the University of Missouri’s Columbia
campus, faced several questions. He wondered how the administration’s effort to develop
a long-range response to financial pressures had led to such a political maelstrom. He
wondered whether there was anything the administration could have done to prevent events
from careening out of control. Most important, he wondered what, if anything, he could do
now.

—————————————————————-
This case was written by Jacqueline Stefkovich, Chris Harris, and Lee Bolman, for the
Institute for Educational Management, Harvard University, and is based in part on the
research of Professor David Kuechle, Harvard Graduate School of Education. The case was
developed for class discussion, and is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective
handling of an administrative situation. © 1986, Institute for Educational Management

University of Missouri 2

Nineteen eighty-two marked Ron Bunn’s second year at the University of Missouri. He
was new to the state, but not to higher education. Before coming to Missouri, he had been
a full-time faculty member at the University of Texas and at Louisiana State University. He
was a graduate dean at the University of Houston for seven years and Vice-President for
Academic Affairs at the State University of New York in Buffalo from 1976 to 1980. He had
directed long-range planning efforts at the last two institutions, but neither involved program
reductions on the scale contemplated at Missouri.

From the beginning of his tenure, Bunn was aware of the university’s fiscal problems. He
knew from the outset that cuts in programs would be difficult, but he also wanted to help a
university that he believed “was beginning to enter a period of protracted financial stress”.
He had been optimistic about his reallocation proposals. He felt they had the potential to save
several million dollars and to strengthen the programs that were most central to the mission
of the university and most needed by the citizens of Missouri.

The University of Missouri

Founded in 1839 as the first state university west of the Mississippi and approved as a
land-grant institution in 1870, the University of Missouri at Columbia is part of a
four-campus system (the other sites are Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis). The University is
governed by a Board of Curators whose nine members are appointed by the governor to serve
six-year terms. State law requires that each curator come from a different Congressional
district and that no more than five be members of one political party. Most of the curators
were alumni who served on a part-time basis while maintaining full-time commitments in
law, business, agriculture or other professions. In 1982, the membership of the board
included eight men and one woman who was also the only Black member.

Reporting to the Curators was the President of the University and system-wide chief
executive, James Olson. Each of the four campuses was headed by a Chancellor. The
Chancellor at Columbia, Barbara Uehling, was regarded as a strong and vocal advocate of
higher education.

Columbia, Missouri is a classic college town. The 90,000 residents include 25,000
students at the Columbia campus. The streets carry names like College and University and
the 75,000- person football stadium dominates the southern edge of town. The university’s
teaching hospital is a major health facility for Columbia and central Missouri. The university
operates half a dozen museums and galleries, and fields surrounding the town are sites for
university-based agricultural experiments.

University of Missouri 3

The local visitor’s brochure proudly proclaims the institution as “one of the most
comprehensive universities in the world”, a university that “belongs to all Missourians”.

Beside the nation’s oldest School of Journalism, the campus includes Colleges of
Agriculture, Arts and Sciences, (with twenty-five departments), Business and

Public

Administration, Education, Engineering, Graduate Studies, Home Economics, Public and
Community Services and Veterinary Medicine and professional schools of Law, Medicine
and Health Related Services, Nursing, and Library and Informational Science.

The University of Missouri system is the only public institution in the state to offer Ph.D.
and professional degrees, and the Columbia campus, with its 100+ Ph.D. programs, confers
most of these. Administrators at the Columbia campus emphasize the important research in
areas such as plant biochemistry and genetics, arthritic disease, hazardous waste management
and the effects of diet on cholesterol levels. Students and community emphasize the school’s
excellence in teaching.

The university distributes an information brochure, stylishly dressed in the school’s black
and gold colors, that sums up the institution’s philosophy with these lines:

There are few earthly things more splendid than a
university. In these days of broken frontiers and collapsing values ,
when the dams are down and the floods are making misery, when
every future looks somewhat grim and every ancient foothold has
become something of a quagmire, wherever a University stands, it
stands and shines; wherever it exists, the free minds of men, urged on
to full and fair inquiry, may still bring wisdom into human affairs.

–John Masefield

Administration, faculty and staff are proud of the University. As the Dean for Community
and Public Service, a former mayor of Columbia, said, “I came to this university as a sopho-
more in 1945 and have stayed ever since. I like it here.”

The Financial Context

Missouri was operating on a narrow tax base and ranked next- to-last among the states in
its per capita appropriations for higher education.

In 1980, droughts had hampered the state’s agricultural economy and national economic
trends were hurting other major Missouri industries. The governor had withheld three percent

University of Missouri 4

of the higher education appropriations and announced a ten percent reduction for the
following year. The Hancock Amendment, an anti- tax bill, had recently been enacted via the
initiative process. Bunn doubted that the governor or Missouri citizens would, or could,
support an increase in state taxes.

James Buchholz, the University’s Vice-President for Administrative Affairs, predicted that
reductions and inflation would cause the university to lose twenty percent of its operating
budget during the 1981-1982 school year. Although endowments and research support made
a significant contribution, they were designated for specific areas and contributed little to
the school’s operating budget.

Substantial increases in student tuition were planned, but these accounted for less than
thirty percent of the school’s total operating budget. (Over sixty percent came from state
subsidies and most of the remainder from federal land-grant monies.) Over ninety percent
of the students resided in state. (See Appendix A for budget information, and Appendix B
for enrollment figures.)

The university’s commitment as a land-grant institution obliged it to maintain reasonable
tuition rates for its residents. Administrators viewed massive tuition hikes as out of the
question. To further compound the problems, the state of Missouri was not legally
permitted to deficit-spend.

Bunn and Uehling both believed that the University of Missouri could maintain and
improve its status and capacities as a major university in the Midwest only if it could attract
and retain talented faculty. The institution was already several percentage points behind the
other Big Ten and Big Eight schools in its faculty salaries. (See Appendix C for these
comparisons.) Offering competitive salaries was crucial to this effort.

Bunn and Uehling saw a major dilemma. Either the university could spread broadly the
decline in resources throughout the campuses and hope for a better day, or it could take steps
to reduce its range of commitments so that existing strengths could be maintained and
remaining programs strengthened. Both Bunn and Barbara Uehling believed that it was
essential for the Columbia campus to concentrate its resources on its strongest and most
significant programs. Uehling had frequently and publicly expressed concern over the
University’s tendency to skim all programs across the board at the expense of those central
to the institution’s mission.

History of the Reallocation Process

On November 21, 1980, a few months after Bunn was hired, the University’s Board of
Curators adopted a revised academic plan for the 1975-1985 decade. It read:

University of Missouri 5

The University of Missouri cannot do everything. It is important to
remember that the University is only one of the segments of public
higher education in Missouri and should maintain its historic role of
strength in research, advanced graduate and professional programs
and extension. The University should do well whatever it does.

In August 1981, President Olson asked the chancellors to consider salary increments in
light of the state’s withholding of ten percent of the university’s funds. Uehling, described
by the press as a tough administrator, an iron fist in a velvet glove, assumed what she
considered to be a hard, but fair and reasonable stance. She responded to Olson’s request:

To plan for next year and beyond, we will be developing a process
to identify entire programs that may be substantially reduced or
eliminated, thereby supplanting our need to spread reductions
throughout the campus. The early planning that we have done, at your
suggestion, indicates a need to reduce our commitments by 10 to 20
percent in the next three years. After years of expansion, a reduction
of that magnitude will be very difficult to achieve. But we must do
it. . .

To paraphrase Philip Brooks who spoke of individuals: ‘Greatness
after all, in spite of its name, appears to be not so much a certain size
as a quality in human lives. It may be present in lives whose range is
very small.’ As this is true for human life, so is it true for education,
with programs depending on their inherent quality rather than size.
The success of this endeavor depends on the cooperation and good
judgment of all.

On the Columbia campus, some faculty feared Uehling’s hard line, while others
felt it was long overdue. A majority appeared to support her convictions, at least in principle.
On November 19, 1981, the Faculty Council reaffirmed its long-standing “opposition to
additional budget cuts applied uniformly to all academic units”. That same month, the
campus paper conducted a non-scientific opinion poll. It reported that eighty-seven percent
of the faculty who responded answered “yes” to the question, “Would you be in favor of
dropping entire programs on the Columbia campus to preserve and strengthen others?”

University of Missouri 6

Throughout 1981, President Olson had referred to the University’s financial difficulties in
a number of speeches and public announcements. It was not a surprise when he addressed
the Curators on the subject at their December 16, 1981, meeting.

As the planning processes in which we are now engaged move
forward, we will be bringing to you recommendations which emerge.
The decisions you will be asked to make will be difficult, painful and,
in some cases, controversial. We will need your help and support as
we move toward preparing the University to maintain program quality
and to address difficult decisions about the future. This is the
approach we are taking. If it does not meet with your general
approval, we should know it now.

Olson’s address reminded the Curators of the financial difficulties facing
the university, but he gave only a series of general illustrations of the painful
decisions they might be asked to make. The possibilities included: “limit
enrollment in specific programs”, “adjust admissions standards to better reflect the
unique role of the University of Missouri”, “combine programs within a campus or
even among campuses”, ” reduce the range of options for specialization in selected
degree programs”, and “discontinue entire degree programs and eliminate depart-
ments or even schools and colleges”.

The Board approved this measure with little discussion and no formal
action. Only one Board member questioned the process. Everyone heard the speech
and was given a copy. Whether all the Board Members understood the possible
ramifications of their action was less clear. (The text of Olson’s speech is in
Appendix D.)

The next week, the chancellors were asked to submit a list of
recommendations for determining reductions or eliminations. The President would
use the suggestions as a basis for establishing criteria for retrenchment. Because the
process would involve changes in programs and faculty, the Board had to vote on
the final proposals at their annual budget meeting in July, 1982. As a result of these
stringent timelines, chancellors had three weeks to suggest criteria and six months
to provide a plan for eliminations and reductions based on the criteria. The
countdown began. . . .

University of Missouri 7

At the Columbia campus, Barbara Uehling was ahead of the game. She
had spent the previous year encouraging President Olson to take action.
Anticipating that some action would be mandated, she had, in October, 1981,
appointed a sixteen-person committee to develop criteria to be used in the event that
cut- backs were needed.

Uehling later described her perceptions in the following terms:

The rationale and the data for the whole effort were supplied by the
campus Institutional Research and Planning Office, working with me.
The model for the need to take these steps was based on some very
basic assumptions regarding needed revenue to reach Big 8/Big 10
salaries and to meet inflation on the base budget in ensuing years.
Projected revenues from the state fell short.

The committee consisted of faculty, professional staff, two deans, and two students.
Uehling selected the faculty members and students from panels nominated through the
Faculty Council and Student Association, respectively. Each committee member was to
consult with the groups they represented.

After Olson’s December announcement, Bunn realized that programmatic decisions
would have to be made soon. Anticipating these moves, he discussed possible strategies at
two of his weekly meetings with Academic Deans. He also initiated a meeting with the
executive committee (officers) of the Faculty Council. He proposed three possible ways to
proceed. The first was to organize a committee, provide them with the criteria and necessary
information and let them make the decisions. The second was for an officer, possibly Bunn,
to gather all the data and make the decisions. Third, the deans could suggest programs for
elimination or reduction based on the criteria.

Both groups suggested that Bunn should make the decision. Twelve of the fourteen deans
favored the approach. There was some hesitation among members of the Faculty Council,
who felt that this should be a long, carefully planned process. But they concurred that the
second option was the most feasible in light of time constraints.

Bunn discussed his plan privately with several faculty members. These individuals were
not on the Faculty Council Executive Committee, but they were people whose opinion Bunn
respected. He felt “their achievements placed them in an especially good position to speak
with some authority about evaluating academic programs”. They agreed with the others.

University of Missouri 8

“Even though I had some concerns about any single officer taking the initiative to identify
the programs,” Bunn concluded, “in light of the time frame, and the willingness of the groups
consulted, I finally advised the chancellor that I was prepared to do it, if she judged that I
should.”

Chancellor Uehling approved this proposal, and asked each of her Vice-Chancellors
(including development, student services and administrative services as well as academic
affairs) to follow the same procedure in developing tentative conclusions. (See Appendix E
for the administrative chart.) Uehling stated clearly that all final decisions were contingent
upon her approval. Recommendations would be reviewed by an ad hoc committee appointed
by the chancellor in each of the divisions. The ad hoc committees included representation
from the faculty, staff, and students, although some faculty later criticized the committees
as unrepresentative of the diversity of the Columbia campus.

By January 1982, the list of criteria was approved. It consisted of four categories, each
including ten to twelve questions. They were: a.) quality of the programs; b.) centrality of
the programs to the mission of the campus; c.) cost-effectiveness and d.) demand and need
for the program. (The report of the criteria committee is in Appendix F.)

Uehling and the criteria committee set the target reductions for the Columbia campus at
$12 million or twelve percent of its state-provided budget. Savings would be redirected over
a three- year period in the form of salaries, wages and operating budgets. With about seventy
percent of the entire campus budget, Bunn was assigned reductions amounting to $7.5
million. This was the largest dollar amount of the planned reductions, but it represented a
smaller proportion of the total than the targets for the other divisions.

Bunn’s office had already compiled a substantial body of information. Because
cost-effectiveness reports were available, the quantitative evaluation seemed fairly
straight-forward. (Appendix G contains the data for each program, including teaching-
student ratio, program costs, availability of the program at the other University campuses and
at other institutions in the state.)

Sorting out programs to determine if one was “of greater distinction” than another proved
to be the more difficult task. As Bunn carefully considered each of the University’s thirteen
schools and colleges, he realized that all seemed to have legitimate arguments in their favor.

The College of Agriculture had been awarded several large research grants and it was
mandated as an integral part of the federal land-grant legislation, for which it received federal
funding.

University of Missouri 9

The College of Arts and Sciences was already under severe financial restraints; its survival
was crucial. It enjoyed the greatest student demand, and its offerings constituted fifty percent
of the required courses for the Colleges of Business, Home Economics, Agriculture, Engi-
neering, Education, and Public and Community Services. It was Columbia’s most diverse
program. It had a strong history of research and graduated more Ph.D.s than any other college
on the campus or, for that matter, any public institution in Missouri.

The School of Journalism was the oldest in the world and had a reputation for being one
of the best in the country. It had a thousand current students and a number of influential
alumni. This school ran a commercial television station and published a commercial
newspaper. Consequently, it was one of the most viable programs–and a political
bombshell.

The professional Schools of Medicine and Law had powerful constituencies and only one
other state public institution offered these programs. Although reduction of weaker medical
programs to save stronger ones seemed advisable, Bunn approached these recommendations
with caution.

The School of Library and Informational Science conducted little research and served
comparatively few students, but it was the only program in the state and the University
library system relied upon the school’s students and resources.

In Bunn’s assessment, the School of Nursing and the Colleges of Public and Community
Service and Home Economics were comparatively weak on most criteria, but served the
largest numbers of women and minorities. The College of Home Economics also offered
the only such Ph.D. program in the state and was ranked among the best in the nation in a
national survey.

Bunn struggled with the decisions. He knew that the departments with the weakest
research capabilities were also the youngest on campus. Established during the heyday of the
1960s and early 1970s, they barely had time to establish a track record. Should he sacrifice
them for older, more established programs?

Bunn and his five-person staff spent the next four weeks–a time he later characterized as
a “lonely month”–judging each program on the four criteria (quality of program, centrality
of the mission, cost effectiveness and demand). The most difficult decisions revolved around
program quality. He used a variety of methods to judge this aspect. These included:
program reviews conducted by faculty committees, the most recent accreditation studies, and
reputation studies that had been previously requested of the deans.

Centrality was difficult to assess because the Columbia campus’ mission statement was
broad. It consisted of a few paragraphs referring to teaching, research and public service.

University of Missouri 10

Bunn developed an interpretation that emphasized three dimensions: intellectual and
scholarly leadership; diversity of programs and students; and importance to the university’s
identity as a land-grant institution. (Bunn interpreted the last according to the original intent
of the federal law, activities associated with agriculture.)

Given the budget targets, Bunn felt clear that some programs would have to be eliminated
entirely. He felt that any other approach would result in across-the-board cuts or the
crippling of a significant number of programs. He estimated that a minimum of two colleges
would have to be completely eliminated with an additional six experiencing substantial
losses.

Bunn created a five-point scale where he attempted to quantify his judgement, and rated
each program on each of the four criteria. He double-weighted the criteria of quality and
centrality, and produced scores for the different schools and colleges that ranged from a low
of 15.5 for Public and Community Service to a high of 25.0 for Agriculture and Arts and
Sciences. (Exhibit 1 shows the rankings for the different schools.)

Bunn developed a report that recommended closing two schools and making substantial
cuts in six other programs with a projected saving of about $7 million. (The recommenda-
tions are detailed in Exhibit 2.)

Realizing that colleges marked for elimination and reduction included the largest numbers
of female and minority staff and students, Bunn’s office set aside funds for affirmative action
strategies such as hiring in the remaining departments. He agreed with Uehling’s premise
that women and minorities should enter fields that need their skills.

The affected programs had powerful constituencies in the state. Bunn wondered if his
plan could sustain outside pressure. Would his definition of the University’s mission and his
interpretation of the data withstand scrutiny? Would faculty and students still support
selected cuts after the targeted programs were announced?

On April 1, 1982, Bunn forwarded his suggestions and supporting data to the 17-member,
ad hoc “Provost’s Advisory Committee on Program Reductions”. In his memorandum to the
committee, he emphasized that his conclusions were “tentative” and asked the committee to
“test your judgment against mine”. He also emphasized the seriousness of the task:

To the extent that my recommendations are accepted and
implemented, a number of faculty and staff will lose their positions
at UMC. Careers will be interrupted, relocations will be necessary,
families will be distressed, and financial hardships will ensue.
Though administrators are occasionally seen as being oblivious to

University of Missouri 11

these consequences, I have to record that I know of none on this
campus who is untroubled by these prospects.

Events of April and May

The University of Missouri’s flagship campus here,
normally a place where the loudest outcries are the Saturday
afternoon cheers for “Mizzou” in the football stadium, is an unlikely
setting for such academic furor.

“My advice to other universities,” said Dr. David West, chairman
of Missouri’s Faculty Council and a proponent of the reductions, “is
that you may think you are ready for this and everyone may agree in
the abstract, but all hell will break loose when you name the specific
targets for cutting.”

What the university’s administration apparently did not foresee was
the extent to which the various schools and colleges would fight to
remain alive, taking their case directly to the Legislature and to the
university’s board, which is appointed by the Governor.

–The New York Times, May 30, 1982

When Bunn delivered his proposals for academic cuts on April 1, 1982, he viewed them
as preliminary: they were to be reviewed by an ad hoc committee of administrators, faculty
and students, and were subject to final approval by the Chancellor of the Columbia campus.

The news of the Provost’s recommendations traveled rapidly. His proposals and rankings
of individual programs were published in the campus newspaper. A firestorm began to build.

What disturbed Bunn was that, in his view, key administrators and faculty in the affected
programs largely ignored their opportunity to participate in the campus review process, and
moved instead to “get the word out to interest groups, alumni, professional groups and other
publics that their programs were earmarked for reduction or elimination.” Bunn felt there
was a failure to recognize that his proposals were only tentative, that alternatives would be

University of Missouri 12

considered, and that the basic purpose of the cuts was to secure the funds needed to
strengthen other programs at the Columbia campus.

George Nickolaus, Dean of the College of Public and Community Service, saw it
differently. His college was slated for extinction in Bunn’s recommendations, and he was
highly critical of the proposed changes. “Deans are supposed to be advocates for their
programs,” he said. ” I couldn’t sit back. Small schools and programs dealing with human
services were attacked.” Nickolaus believed that the issue was not “retrenchment”, but an
attempt to enhance faculty salaries when the state was in a recession and many Missourians
were out of work. He criticized the administration for not providing timely and accurate
information. In particular, he noted that the administration was specific about cuts, but not
about where the redirected resources would go.

His faculty united behind him. One faculty member gave Nickolaus a replica of a famous
revolutionary war flag depicting a snake and the legend “Don’t Tread on Me”.

The dean of another school slated for a significant reduction had similar views. “I have
always been a team player, and I was never much of a feminist,” said Bea Litherland, Dean
of the College of Home Economics. “I thought that if you worked hard, you would be
rewarded. But when I realized that the targeted programs were those most affecting women,
I knew that I had to take action.” Students in her school began wearing red T-shirts with the
message, “H%@*! No; We Won’t Go”, shortly after Bunn proposed eliminating two of the
college’s five departments.

In all of the affected programs, administrators and faculty sharply criticized Bunn’s
process and attacked the validity of his conclusions. He was accused of using data that
were unsystematic and out-of-date. He was reproached for making arbitrary decisions based
on his own personal vision of what the University ought to be. He was criticized for putting
too much emphasis on research and graduate education and for trying to create a “Harvard
on the Hinkson” (Hinkson Creek runs past the campus).

Engineers said that he was “anti-engineering”. A professor of education condemned Bunn
for “a flagrant display of political expediency that would strangle the human services
profession.” Supporters of the extension programs said that he was an outsider who did not
really understand Missouri and its people. Women and members of minority groups saw
overtones of sexism and racism in his proposals.

Bunn did not get all the blame. Uehling was sharply criticized and, on April 19,
1982, the faculty passed a resolution urging Uehling either to clean up the mess or resign
(the vote was 237 to 70 out of a possible 1500). Since only twenty percent of the faculty
voted, and this was the second time that they had voted in favor of her resignation (the first

University of Missouri 13

time had been the previous Fall when faculty were dissatisfied with their salary increments),
Uehling minimized the significance of this expression of faculty sentiment.

Many faculty rejected the assumption that there was a fiscal crisis, and argued that
the university was in excellent financial condition. In the words of one faculty member,
“Objective conditions did not mandate drastic reductions. This was an adminis-
tration-induced crisis that was mismanaged.”

Faculty also complained that the Faculty Council was unrepresentative and had
failed to keep them informed about the seriousness of the situation. There were complaints
that the ad hoc advisory committee to study the proposed cuts was “stacked”, so that it was
little surprise when the committee came back with a report that was generally supportive of
Bunn’s recommendations.

University administrators, members of the Board of Curators, and state legislators
received hundreds of calls and thousands of letters. Both houses of the state legislature
scheduled hearings, and one legislator called Bunn to say, “Ron, I have two things to tell you.
First, I think what you are doing is right. Second, I’m going to have to fight you on it.”

By May, 1982, four of the nine Curators had announced that they opposed the
cuts, including three who had been silent six months earlier when President Olson addressed
them on the need for retrenchment. One curator said the faculty was there to teach and not
to write books, so the problem could be solved by increasing teaching loads. Others
criticized Uehling for being a poor administrator and not keeping the board informed. The
press reported running battles between Uehling and at least one of the Board Members.
Uehling felt that she was in a bind, because she had relied on President Olson, at his request,
to communicate to the board. It was hard to defend herself without giving the appearance
that she was publicly criticizing her boss.

Bunn and Uehling were troubled by the reactions and puzzled about what to do.
Much of their time was spent in a frustrating effort to keep up with events which had moved
beyond their control. According to Bunn, “it soon became unmanageable for the
administration to respond to every report and every allegation transmitted through the media.
The volume of work involved in such continuous responding was overwhelming, and the
ground shifted so rapidly that yesterday’s response was not addressing today’s allegation. It
was like the remark attributed to Disraeli in the nineteenth century: “Every time the British
had an answer, the Irish changed the question.”

In addition to everything else, Uehling had to contend with a student occupation
of her office, and the mysterious appearance of “For Sale” signs on her lawn.

University of Missouri 14

During the month of May, support for the administration and its recommendations
steadily deteriorated. Although President Olson maintained that he had kept the board
fully-informed, only two of the curators still supported cut-backs on June 1. One Curator ex-
plained, “It is hard to ignore the stacks of anti- reallocation mail that we have received from
Missourians.”

One faculty member commented that even Barbara Uehling “began to distance herself
from responsibility for Bunn’s specific proposals. She continued to give the impression that
reductions would be necessary, yet it almost looked as if she was allowing Provost Bunn to
hold the bag.”

Bunn felt that Uehling’s difficulties with the Curators on one side and the faculty on the
other made it very difficult for her to defend him. If anything, he said, she probably defended
him “more than she should have”.

At a hearing before a standing committee of the state Senate, Uehling and Olson testified
first, seated side-by-side. When Bunn’s turn came, the committee chairman asked, “Are you
alone?” Bunn replied, “Yes, but I am getting accustomed to the idea.”

Reflecting on the events of Spring, 1982, Bunn drew an analogy:

It is recorded that upon losing the election in 1945, Churchill was
told by his wife, in an attempt to console him, that “perhaps the loss
was a blessing in disguise”. Churchill responded, “That may be, but
I wish it weren’t so well disguised.” Retrenchment and reduction may
be blessings in disguise, but for most of us, they are painful business.
It may be necessary. It is not fun.

University of Missouri 15

Exhibit 1:

BUNN’S RATINGS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

COLLEGE/SCHOOL QUALITY MISSION COST NEED TOTAL

Agriculture 3.5 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.0 5.0 25.0
= 7.0 = 10.0

Arts and 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 4.0 5.0 25.0
Science = 6.0 10

Business & 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 4.0 4.0 24.0
Public Admin. = 6.0 = 10.0

Education 3.0 x 2 4.0 x 2 3.0 3.5 20.5
= 6 = 8

Engineering 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
= 6 = 10

Home 3.5 x 2 3.5 x 2 2.5 3.5 20.0
Economics = 7 = 7

Journalism 5.0 x 2 3.0 x 2 3.0 4.0 23.0
= 10 = 6

Law 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.0 4.0 23.0
= 6 = 10

Library/Info. 3.5 x 2 2.0 x 2 2.0 3.0 16.0
Science = 7 = 4

Medicine 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
= 6 = 10

Nursing 3.0 x 2 3.5 x 2 2.0 5.0 20.0
= 6 = 7

Public/Commu- 3.0 x 2 2.0 x 2 2.5 3.0 15.5
nity Service = 6 = 4

Veterinary 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5
Medicine = 6 = 10

University of Missouri 16

(continued next page)
Exhibit 1 (continued)

KEY TO RATING SYSTEM

Quality

5 = Nationally eminent
4 = Strong by National Standards
3 = Adequate by National Standards
2 = Below Average by National Standards
1 = Unacceptable Quality

Mission

5 = Indispensable to Campus Mission
4 = Highly consistent with Campus Mission — Support Function Strong
3 = Consistent – Moderate Support Function
2 = Peripheral to Campus Mission
1 = Inconsistent with Campus Mission

Cost

5 = Highly Productive per Unit Cost/Investment
4 = Better than Average Productivity
3 = Productivity Average by Norms
2 = Productivity Lower than Average
1 = Productivity Much Lower than Average

Need/Demand/Accessibility

5 = Need Critical as Compared with Accessibility
4 = Need Strong as Compared with Accessibility
3 = Need Moderate as Compared with Accessibility
2 = Need Weak as Compared with Accessibility in State
1 = Need Very Weak as Compared with Accessibility in State

University of Missouri 17

Exhibit 2:

BUNN’S RECOMMENDATIONS

UNIT RECOMMENDED CUT PROCESS
ACTION
________________________________________________________________

Library & Elimination $526,000 Three-year phase-out
Information

Science

College of Elimination $1,100,000 Three-year phase-out
Public & (Possibly retain ($750,000)
Community social work mas-
Services ter’s program)

College of Reduction $1,200,000 Review school in con-
Education junction with outside
consultants. Phase re-
ductions over 3 years

Extension Reduction $1,000,000 Review by extension div-
Division ision. Reduce during
1982-83.

College of Reduction $525,000 Review by college. Phase
Home in reductions over three
Economics years.

College of Reduction $400,000 Review by college. Phase
Engineering in reductions over three
years.

College of Reduction $325,000 Review by college. Phase
Medicine in reductions over three
years.

General aca- Reduction $1,500,000 Review by provost in con-
demic admin- sultation with deans and
istration & directors. Phase in re-
support ductions over three years.
services

TOTAL REALLOCATION $7,071,000
($6,721,000 if social work master’s program is retained)

University of Missouri 18

University of Missouri 19

University of Missouri-Columbia

Current Fund Revenues (in 1000’s)

General
Operating

1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

Tuition and
Fees

Incidental
fees

$15,104 $16,057 $18,078 $20,547 $24,878

Non-res.
tuition

$2,866 $3,164 $3,668 $4,324 $4,989

Supplemental
fees

$472 $1,080 $1,164 $1,306 $1,564

Ext. –

Credit

$1,904 $2,436 $1,604 $1,638 $1,859

Ext. –
Noncredit

$1,345 $1,196 $1,372

Other $359 $292 $127 $135 $100

Total $20,705 $23,029 $25,986 $29,146 $34,762

Federal
Appropriat.

Columbia
General

$195 $195 $195 $35 $35

Ag. Exp.
Station

$3,082 $3,373 $3,651 $3,887 $4,043

Coop. Ext.

Service

$1,417 $1,929 $2,061 $1,659 $2,036

Total $4,694 $5,497 $5,907 $5,581 $6,114

State
Appropriation

Regular $66,410 $72,675 $78,549 $73,242 $78,398

FICA $2,849 $3,357 $3,500 $3,792 $4,540

Total $69,259 $76,032 $82,049 $77,034 $82,938

University of Missouri 20

Recovery of
I.C.

$2,559 $2,832 $3,100 $2,757 $2,678

Endowment
Income

$98 $86 $119 $165 $148

Sales and
Service

Columbia
General

$579 $591 $142 $182 $97

Ag. Exp.
Station

$1,380 $1,543 $1,691 $1,662 $1,554

Total $1,959 $2,134 $1,833 $1,844 $1,651

Other $612 $835 $571 $569 $817

TOTAL GENERAL
OPERATING

$99,886 $110,445 $119,56
5

$117,09
6

$129,108

Designated and
Restricted

Tuition and $766 $991 $1,711 $2,130 $2,184

State
Appropriation

$3,846 $3,788 $4,062 $3,986 $4,082

Grants and
Contracts

$23,751 $25,319 $29,729 $32,381 $33,882

MPIP $9,076 $10,721 $12,147 $15,490 $17,957

Sales –
Aux.Ent.

$22,997 $25,854 $26,875 $29,502 $30,501

Other $5,266 $6,613 $7,533 $8,143 $9,125

Total Des.
and Rest.

$65,702 $73,286 $82,057 $91,632 $97,731

GRAND TOTAL $165,588 $183,731 $201,62
2

$208,72
8

$226,839

University of Missouri 21

University of Missouri-Columbia

Current Fund Expenditures and Transfers (in $1,000s)

1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

General
operating

Instruction

$46,583 $51,641 $57,085 $56,479 $61,100

Research $11,123 $12,177 $14,544 $14,104 $15,187

Public
Service

$4,260 $4,674 $5,167 $5,124 $5,335

Academic
Support

$11,939 $13,146 $13,755 $14,111 $15,332

Student

Services

$4,605 $5,273 $5,454 $5,066 $5,767

Inst.
Support

$7,657 $8,651 $9,861 $8,948 $9,594

Oper. and
Maint.
of Plant

$9,691 $10,411 $10,823 $11,093 $10,728

Scholarships

$847 $1,171 $1,085 $1,126 $1,359

Transfers

$1,884 $2,836 $3,450 $2,405 $3,465

TOTAL
GENERAL OP.

$98,589 $109,980 $121,224 $118,456 $127,867

Designated &
Restricted

Aux.
Enterprises

$22,271 $26,100 $28,404 $29,664 $33,382

MPIP $8,490 $9,851 $11,219 $15,400 $16,129

Student
Activities

$732 $775 $822 $941 $905

University of Missouri 22

Restricted
(Grants,
Contracts,
etc.)

$27,997 $29,750 $34,197 $36,800 $37,744

Other $4,062 $4,942 $6,192 $5,113 $7,606

TOTAL DESIG.
& RESTR.

$64,002 $71,418 $80,834 $87,918 $95,766

Grand Total $162,591 $181,398 $202,058 $206,374 $223,633

University of Missouri 23

Appendix B:

Faculty Salary and Tuition Comparisons

Among Big 8 and Big 10 Institutions

(1981-82)

Assistant
Professor

Associate
Professor

Full
Professor

All Ranks

Average
salary for
Big 8/Big 10

$28,764 $34,502 $44,460 $37,663

Average
salary for
Missouri-Col
umbia

$26,760 $31,979 $38,948 $32,870

UMC Rank 12th of 17 13th of 17 16th of 17 17th of 17

Missouri
Deficit

7% 7% 12% 13%

University of Missouri 24

Appendix D:

Report of the Criteria Committee

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR’S CRITERIA SELECTION COMMITTEE

October 9,

1981

The University of Missouri-Columbia is a university in the traditional and

academic sense. It is charged with major program thrusts of a university in the

historic tradition and assumed under the Land Grant mission of teaching,

research, extension, and service. It is the principal public institution in

Missouri for granting the Ph.D. degree and professional education.

The University is an institution which serves the public
that supports it activities and into which it sends human resources
that will fashion the future society. This mission is accomplished
by preserving the connection between knowledge and a zest for life,
uniting the young with the old in any imaginative consideration of
learning. Youth is a time of imagination, energy, and vision which
can be combined with facts and experience that enables each
generation to construct its intellectual image of a new world and
set upon the path to attain it. The task of this community of
scholars is to use all available resources to weld together
imagination and experience in classrooms, laboratories and
libraries; to provide new knowledge and new configurations of old
knowledge; and to acknowledge by commencement those young minds
disciplined by facts and necessary habit.

Financial resources proceeding from the State of Missouri
have become limited by circumstances of revenue collection and
dispersion. It is necessary to provide criteria to determine how
the University can maintain quality in its mission in this
constrained financial setting. The criteria provided here are
drawn from individual experience.

The criteria statements are set in a four dimensional matrix
(see Appendix) of quality, utility, efficiency, and socio-political
impact. No single criteria in itself should determine the
discontinuation or reduction of a program. The order in which
these criteria are applied (i.e. quality first) is important to
maintain the integrity of the academic community.

The academic community is its students, faculty, and staff
or it is nothing. In our current circumstances, budgetary
considerations become all consuming. It is, however, crucial that

University of Missouri 25

the budgetary decisions should conform to academic policy, not
determine it.

We propose that in evaluating every program or activity the
following criteria be applied:

I. Does the program or activity significantly strengthen the
quality of this university?

A. To what extent does it provide a quality educational
experience for its students? For example,
— How does its curriculum compare to that of leading
institutions in the field?
— Does it have the facilities necessary for success
(for example, library, laboratories, computer
services)?
— Does it have national accreditation (in fields where
this is applicable)?

B. Does it have a critical mass of faculty members whose
research production, publication, and professional
affiliations demonstrate national visibility and
leadership?

C. Do its programs in research, teaching, extension, and
service attract external support on a level appropriate
to the field?

D. Is its faculty broadly recruited from the leading
academic departments in the field?

E. Does it attract able students, as measured, for
example, by nationally normed examinations, winning of
national prizes and fellowships, and achievements in
national competitions?

F. Does it produce high-quality graduates, as measured for
example by:
— admission to the leading postgraduate training
programs?
— performance on national and state certification
examinations?
— achievement of distinction in later careers?

II. Is the program or activity useful?

University of Missouri 26

A. What is its contribution to the teaching, research,
extension, and service missions (i.e., its contribution
to the “core” of UMC)?

B. How important is it for other programs or activities on
the campus? For example,
— Does it provide courses needed for other de

gree

programs?
— Does it contribute to the research effort needed for
extension work?

C. What do its enrollment projections and anticipated
employment opportunities for its graduates indicate
about probable future need?

D. What is the current and future need for the
instructional, scholarly, creative and extension
services that it produces?

E. Does it duplicate other UMC programs or activities? Can
it be effectively consolidated with similar programs or
activities?

F. What is the availability of the program on other campuses
(public and private) in the state and region?

G. Does it conform to the mission assigned to UMC in the
system-wide academic plan?

III. What are the costs and the revenue of the program or activity?

A. Is it being operated efficiently? How do its costs
compare to costs for programs with comparable missions
at other institutions as measured for example by:

–ranked faculty/student ratios?
— unranked faculty/student ratios?
–total teaching faculty/student ratios?
— costs per student credit hour?
— faculty/staff ratios?
–other measures of efficiency appropriate for
research, extension and services.

B. What are the total costs of operating the program at
various levels relative to its contribution to
achievement of institutional missions?

University of Missouri 27

–costs at present level of operation?
— costs of improving quality or increasing scope or
size?
— magnitude and timing of savings that would be
realized from reducing or eliminating the program?
— possible alternative assignments for the faculty,
staff, and physical facilities presently invested in
the program?

C. What are the present and potential levels of revenue
generated by the program from:
— student fees and tuition?
— grants and contracts?
— gifts?
— auxiliary enterprises?

IV. What is the socio-political impact of the program or activity?

A. What do the several constituencies of the university
(e.g. students, faculty, staff, the legislature, other
funding and regulatory agencies, the general public and
special interest groups) expect of the program or
activity? What will be their reaction if it is reduced
or eliminated?

B. What will be the impact on the university’s policy of
affirmative action if the program or activity is
reduced or eliminated?

C. What will be the impact on the local and state economy if
the program or activity is reduced or eliminated?

D. What contribution does the program or activity make to
the quality of life for the university community, the
state, the intuition, and the world.

University of Missouri 28

Appendix G:

Cost-Effectiveness Data

Cost-Effectiveness of M. U. Programs

Comparison of Costs of Schools and Colleges

College Faculty/

Student

Ratio

Dollars

/FT E

Student

Stu. FT E

Per Fac.

Credit

Hours Fall

1981

1980-81

Expenses

(G . O.)

Degrees

Aw arded

Expense/De

gree

Aw arded

Agriculture 1:20 $2,219 19.6 17,996 $11,220,668B-442

M – 78

D- 17

$5,270

Arts &

Science

1:18 Com posite figures not

available

Business &

P. A.

1:22 $1,625 28.8 22,422 $3,091,308B-496

M -166

D- 8

$3,554

Education 1:19 $2,053 21.0 20,754 $3,771,247B-481

M -324

D- 89

$3,357

Engineer-ing 1:12 $3,788 12.9 18754 $5,686,628B-369

M – 96

D- 24

$9,530

Hom e

Econom ics

1:14 $2,282 16.0 8380 $1,538,635B-217

M – 20

D- 2

$5,493

Journalism 1:12 $2,733 14.6 8,991 $2,031,548B-377

M – 67

D- 3

$4,280

University of Missouri 29

Law 1:21 $2,581 22.5 6,504 $1,397,563P-138 $8,464

Library

Science

1:7 $4,271 12.2 1313 $526,162M- 44 $8,270

M edicine 1:9 $8,469 9.2 13,537 $8,434,134M- 34

D- 6

P-113

$42,892

Nursing 1:5 $5,852 6.9 3,110 $2,156,485B- 92

M – 37

$11,785

Public

Com m .

Service

1:11 $3,482 10.0 2,041 $625,201B- 71

M – 34

$4,775

Social W ork $3,180 11.8 1,984 $485,893B- 48

M – 37

$5,206

Vet. Medicine 1:6 $9,761 7.0 5,697 $4,193,177M – 7

P- 72

$45,556

Forestry $3,477 13.7 2,428 $1,271,082B-101

M – 20

D- 5

$4,468

Health Rel.

Prof.

$3,731 10.2 3,666 $961,913B- 99 $10,303