Losing the point behind the rules

By Carl Bialik

When I was little, I hated playing by the rules. I wanted to grow up so I could make decisions for myself.

Yale's administrators' modus operandi has been to give up their decision-making power. Rather than maintaining the flexibility to make difficult decisions that break with tradition, they have constrained themselves with rules—rules which, in many cases, are reasonable, but in some cases, are very wrong.

Remember the hiring freeze? The Administration set a cap on the number of tenured professors, implicitly declaring that it was incapable of making fiscally responsible hiring decisions on a case-by-case basis. Instead, if anyone suggested adding a faculty member to a department, Provost Alison Richard could conveniently turn to the hiring freeze as a justification for rejecting the proposal.

This was a cop-out. Even worse, it meant that if someone approached Yale and offered to endow a professorship, Yale could accept only if it was willing to eliminate another faculty position. So when Larry Kramer, BR '57, offered to fund a position in Gay Studies, the University refused. While many factors were behind the University's rejection, one consideration, according to Richard, was the University's fear of setting a precedent of violating the hiring freeze. "As soon as there is one exception, I will have faculty from all corners of the campus saying, `I have donors, too,'" she explained ["Straight From the Gift Horse's Mouth," The New Journal, Sept. 5, 1997].

Think of the horrible scenario that could have ensued: more faculty, in "all corners" of academic life—at no cost to the University. Yale's economic rebound has allowed it to quietly end the hiring freeze—but not before it slashed its faculty by 5.5 percent.

The inflexibility exemplified by the hiring freeze continues today in endowment spending, which is governed by yet another rule. This formula uses recent years' endowment returns to determine how much of the endowment the University will spend in the current year. But by following this formula exactly, the University fails to consider other important factors such as its fiscal health and urgent construction needs.

The potential danger of Yale's rigid endowment policy was seen most dramatically a decade ago, when Yale was perennially operating on a deficit. University buildings crumbled as a result of a cost-saving policy called "deferred maintenance," which delayed necessary upkeep projects—as well as new construction projects—until Yale's financial health improved. At the same time, then-president Benno Schmidt, TC '63, LAW '66, proposed eliminating some academic departments and cutting others to help Yale balance its budget.

Students and faculty blasted Schmidt's actions, and the unpopular president resigned soon afterwards. But his suggestions stemmed from a mentality that continues to grip current administrators, one that makes them prioritize the value of the endowment above the central mission of the University.

Even as Yale is now making amends for deferred maintenance with a flurry of construction, there have been no signs that the Administration intends to restore the faculty to its former size. Several department chairs have requested expansion, but administrators remain unwilling to change endowment spending practices.

This attitude demonstrates that eliminating rules like the hiring freeze will not guarantee substantive action by the Administration. But at least when students, alumni, and faculty speak out against restrictive policies, the Administration will no longer be able to hide behind rules, but will have to defend its decisions on their own merits.

Carl Bialik is a sophomore in Jonathan Edwards.

What do you think? Respond in Speak your Mind.

Back to Opinion...