I came across a faculty rant this week, under the guise of a Q&A session with the university president, that illustrates quite well why certain college majors and dying out and why nobody seems all that sad about it.

When reading this, imagine a middle-aged woman’s voice with a meditative poetry reading-type cadence and more than a touch of condescension, coupled with a very combative slice of body language, like it’s stressful for this person to get these words out.

I’m [faculty member] in [social sciences] and I’m also the director of our undergraduate program. I study symbolic politics and what I saw today was, there was absolute, pretty much nothing from social sciences that was – that was actually accentuated in your program. And I find this very much a shame because I know that in our school we are doing so many very exciting things, whether it’s from the [Very Important Institute], our whole school is dedicated to solving the wicked problems of the world. So I just want to raise that issue but I’m going to attach it to a funding issue and also the [strategic plan].

Our school has been very dedicated in terms of being very productive and has a very high international/national reputation. I was co-editor of [some academic publication] for eight years, it was housed in our department. I’m quite well known in the world myself, not saying that you should have put me up there. But we just had a meeting with our dean, with the college: we are now down to nine full time faculty and we are staffing a PhD program. A PhD program. And we have 500 [undergrads in one major] and I’m not talking about [another major], this is just [the main campus]. And we were told that this is going to continue. We have three positions opening up this year, and they’re not being filled. So my question to you is very specific: what it is that – and we’re told that this is going on for three more years. So if we’re trying to do the [strategic plan] and we only have a cohort of nine – you know we used to have 17 faculty. I don’t know how we’re supposed to do this. I really don’t. And I think it’s quite telling that you didn’t have anything from the college of liberal arts, you didn’t have people from the social sciences or the humanities who are doing fantastic things.

And so I’ll just close with an even more provocative remark which is: it is the feeling on the part of quite a few people who I’ve worked with for quite a few years that we are seeing an instance of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We saw the headlining of the medical school, and it’s many peoples’ understanding that the budget that’s being brought together for that is being at the cost of many units within the college of liberal arts specifically. So thank you very much, with all my respect, but I’m a [social scientist] and I do critical thinking and I believe that it’s important to talk about these issues up front. Thank you.

First of all, there is no actual question. We were promised a question, and it never materialized. The faculty just went off on a tangent instead. If you don’t ask a question, it is highly unlikely that you’ll get an answer.

The accusation comes through just fine, though.

Now. I haven’t sat down with this person to talk about the specifics of her program. But what I don’t here in this forum, or any other, is talk like this: if your program used to have 17 full-time faculty, but now only has 9, why is that? Are you over-relying on adjunct faculty? Or is it perhaps that there is much less demand for your discipline?

If there’s less demand, maybe it’s time to explore if that’s an issue with your particular program, or if it’s a problem that is facing similar programs around the nation or world. Sometimes enrollments do lag, and that’s when you go out recruiting.

Is it that the PhD in your discipline isn’t relevant anymore?

There’s a defeatist attitude in your approach. Perhaps you could outline your unorthodox plan and run it by the president to garner his reaction. Perhaps your solutions to the wicked problems of the world could bring in some outside funds to stretch your budget.

Many ailing departments want to have it both ways. They pull back from participating in faculty governance activities, usually citing reasons like “we don’t agree with the way you’re approaching this topic,” but complain when a decision is reached without them. They enjoy the autonomy provided to faculty at a university, but when it comes to budgetary matters, rely with a childlike faith on the university.

When it comes to robbing Peter to pay Paul, many of the small humanities-type (although it’s not just them) are the ones being subsidized by other departments and colleges.

Rich departments (or programs or labs or PIs) are usually rich for a reason: they do things that create value, that make money.

I feel like this is yet another repackage of Christ’s talk of judgement in the Book of Matthew: Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

First put on your own oxygen mask, then help your brother take the speck out of his eye.