Text of Faculty Association President Lantz Simpson's speech to the Board, May 15, 2003.

 You have a resolution before you today that asks you to eliminate vocational programs and lay off faculty.  In a while, you will have to vote.  I have many times thought about what I would do in your shoes.  How would I reach a wise and just decision?  I would have to examine the evidence and the arguments, and examine them hard.

 The argument has been that the college must prepare for a 10.5% cut, the so-called “worst case scenario.”  This 10.5% cut must include program eliminations.  Supposedly there is no alternative, so these cuts must be done out of necessity.

Now the May revise is in.  The system’s advocates, working together, have restored over $300 million that was missing from the January budget.  The May revise proposes a 4% cut, not 10.5%.  Therefore, you can not conclude that these programs must be eliminated out of budgetary necessity.

Another argument has been that the college must prepare for uncertainty and the way to do that is to eliminate these programs.  That argument is what we English teachers call a non sequitur.  It does not necessarily follow that uncertainty must lead us to program eliminations.  The budget process always contains many uncertainties.  What uncertainty truly calls for is a series of alternatives.  The Budget Committee has recommended clear alternatives.

We’re really down to eight persons and three programs.  But some of these eight persons are not here.  They’re teaching their class and they’re trusting others to argue for them.

Now of those eight positions, three persons have put in their retirement papers.  So we are really down to five persons.  Five persons.  You may say, “Lantz, come on, it’s only five persons.  What’s the big deal?  Lantz, you’re exaggerating.  Five persons is not that bad.”

If you vote yes you are saying those five persons had to be sacrificed out of necessity to save the college.  I don’t think anybody in this room believes that.

In truth, you are being asked to sit as a jury and a judge over these programs.  If you vote yes, you are saying that these programs are guilty of being a financial burden to the college.  In America, the standard of guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty.”  You would be saying that it is beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty that the college must kill these programs in order to survive. Yet, a reasonable examination of the May revise shows there is a great doubt and no moral certainty at all that these programs are guilty of being a financial burden.

If you vote yes, then you will also be passing sentence as a judge would.  Your sentence is death.  That’s what program elimination means.  Let’s not hide behind a euphemism—elimination.  Let’s say what would really happen—these programs will be dead.

Today’s resolution is a permanent solution.  Yet, this budget crisis is only a temporary problem.  A temporary problem should be solved by a temporary solution.  The Budget Committee has offered a temporary solution.  Don’t use a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  You must not sacrifice the permanent future of the college during a temporary crisis.

The students, the community, the staff, and the faculty have spoken with one voice.  That voice has said—“find another way.”  If there is another way, you can not vote to kill these programs.  And we all know-- there is another way.  The Budget Committee has offered another way.  The May revise shows another way.  The May revise makes this proposed Board action no longer necessary.  The worst case scenario itself has been killed.  The worst case is dead.

In a time of grave crisis, Abraham Lincoln appealed to his countrymen to listen to the angels of their better nature.  I am asking you: listen to the angels of your better nature.  Make a wise and just decision today.  Make moral certainty your standard.  If you do, I know how you will vote.  You will vote not guilty.  You will vote no on this resolution.