Search News


Browse Archives

News

Solidarity No More?

June 20, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Plans to potentially shutter the Institute for Labor Studies at the University of Missouri at Kansas City have come to symbolize much more than the end of one, relatively small program for those faculty members involved with trying to save it. To many, the plan reflects an ideological attack and the continuing intrusion of corporate interests in higher education, a lack of shared governance in the decision-making process and an imbalance in the curriculum.

“I look at the business school, which has 47 full- and part-time people on its Web page, its faculty Web page, and I think there’s a remarkable imbalance here,” said Judy Ancel, director of the Institute for Labor Studies, essentially a one-person shop that will shut down unless the Kansas City administration reverses plans to cut off the funding.

The chancellor expects to make a decision about whether to withdraw funding within the next couple of days: If he decides to do so, he said the institute will shut down within the next fiscal year (although not necessarily at the fiscal year’s start, July 1, as many supporting the institute fear).

“I clearly see it,” Ancel said of the situation, “as an attack on working people.”

But just as some would see the proposed cuts as problematic, other professors might see a reason to support the stated rationale for slashing the institute’s funds: to comply with a Board of Curators’ mandate to cut the budget by 1 percent mainly by making administrative cut-backs – and sparing degree programs from harm. The University of Missouri at Kansas City has cut about $10 million in administrative costs over the past two years, its chancellor, Guy H. Bailey, said Tuesday.

“What I’m looking for are any consolidations or reductions that can be done without affecting degree programs and things that students are paying tuition dollars for,” Bailey said. The question, he added, is whether the university can continue to offer a labor studies certificate program in collaboration with Missouri's St. Louis and Columbia campuses -- in which current and would-be union activists take six courses offered by the three campuses over interactive video -- without an administrative presence at Kansas City. "Can we achieve the same things?" without the institute, Bailey asked.

“If the economics department decides that offering this certificate is an important thing, they can simply do it. We already have the structures in place that allow them to do it through continuing education."

The Concerns: Unshared Governance and Ulterior Motives?

Yet, the institute’s backers describe its value as extending far beyond the certificate program. The 22-year-old entity – led by Ancel for 18 of those years -- also offers credit and non-credit coursework and customized training for unions, and is active in community outreach – working with high school students, immigrant communities and even operating a weekly radio show, the Heartland Labor Forum, that airs Thursday evenings and Friday mornings (at 5) for “the factory crowd.” Kansas City’s economy features two automobile assembly plants, vibrant construction, rail and trucking industries and a large government workforce.

“It's an urban land grant institution,” Ancel said of Missouri-Kansas City. “It aims to develop a professional workforce...We have strong professional schools like the business school, the law school and the medical school. We have one employee [in reference to herself] who is trying to provide that kind of professional training for our unions.”

Ancel only learned of the university’s plans to potentially withdraw support for the institute – and therefore terminate her position -- in a May 30 letter from the provost addressed to a partnering community college. The letter was cc’d to Ancel and the economics department chair. (The economics department houses the institute). “To be notified in such a manner, it hurts,” she said. “It shows a total lack of recognition for either the validity of the program or the efforts that I’ve put in as director.”

Bailey has since apologized to Ancel for the letter, acknowledging in an interview Tuesday that the university’s “communications to her were not what I’d like them to be.” He explained the circumstances, indicating that the university needed to give a required one-month notice to end the institute’s contract with Longview Community College before July 1 in order to clear the way for potentially cutting the institute during the upcoming fiscal year.

But “it’s a question,” the interim chair of Missouri-Kansas City's economics department said, of “governance issues.”

"The department of economics was not notified, the Institute for Labor Studies was not notified,” said Peter Eaton, the interim chair and an associate professor of economics. “The only reason we found out anything was because of this letter that was sent to our community partner...there was no consultation. There was no hint even that this was going to occur. And that’s just not the way you run a legitimate organization.”

Other concerns expressed about the cuts lie in a perceived bias against the economics department itself, which specializes in heterodox – or non-mainstream – approaches to economics. In listing the affiliations of various department members, the Web site names the Association for Heterodox Economics, Association for Institutional Thought, Association of Social Economics, Conference of Socialist Economists, and the Union for Radical Political Economics, as some examples.

David Brodsky, an independent scholar and member of the UMKC chapter of the American Association of University Professors, circulated a message online to rally support for the Institute this week, arguing that the decision to potentially shut down the center constitutes an ideological attack on the economics department. “In the United States and elsewhere, the corporatization of higher education is simply an acknowledged public fact,” Brodsky said in an interview Tuesday. “Corporations by definition are not very friendly to labor and labor studies.”

Money Matters

The institute’s supporters have also argued that the university will save little money by cutting it: Ancel said the entire program has about a $100,000 budget (including her salary), about $57,000 of which is provided by the university and system-wide extension funds. Tuition and fees comprise another main source of revenue. "It doesn't [seem to] matter," Ancel said, "that the program generates more money than [the university is] going to save."

Yet, Chancellor Bailey said that the reduction of administrative costs in non-degree programs necessarily involves cutting a number of smaller-ticket items. Many of the savings in the recent round of administrative cost reductions came from the cumulative effect of eliminating (relatively) small expenses, he said.

A Faculty Senate committee, Bailey said, will be involved in recommending areas for budget cuts in the coming months – although he described the Institute for Labor Studies itself as an administrative, contractual structure, as opposed to an entity developed by faculty initiative.

“When you eliminate an administrative position in business affairs, no one complains about it. When you eliminate one in academic affairs, it’s harder to do,” Bailey said. “I understand that, I understand these are things people have been doing for awhile.”

“We’re under a Curators’ mandate…Our financial situation is not great. What we need to focus on,” Bailey said, “is our core mission of students getting their degrees.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Solidarity No More?

  • Reprieve
  • Posted by Judy Ancel , Director at Institute for Labor Studies - UMKC & Longview Comm. College on June 25, 2007 at 10:50pm EDT
  • Great news!

    Late Friday afternoon at a meeting between UMKC Chancellor Guy Bailey and Garry Kemp, Business Manager of the Greater Kansas City Building & Construction Trades Council, and Missouri State Senators Victor Callahan (D) and Chris Koster (R), Chancellor Bailey announced he would not close The Institute for Labor Studies for now. He committed to sit down with me to discuss a restructuring which will preserve what we have. What we agree to will then be put in writing for approval by the labor community.

    The struggle to save ILS isn’t over, but I view this as a great step forward and appreciate the Chancellor’s willingness to engage in further discussion about the future of labor education at UMKC.

    I also want to thank the hundreds of Kansas City labor union leaders and members, UMKC faculty and students, the many members of the KC community, and labor education supporters and scholars from across the country for their letters to the Chancellor and their messages of support to me. I also want to thank reporters at the Pitch, The Kansas City Star, EKC, and Inside Higher Education for their timely and accurate coverage of the issue.

    One of the letters sent to the Chancellor was from Steve Murphy, a former plant manager who now teaches at Benedictine College. Murphy said, “The ILS. . . is a crown jewel of UMKC's cutting edge intellectual capital.....and cannot better exemplify - in my humble view - your official website's proclamation of what UMKC is all about: "We connect education with a dynamic city and its people, and we connect research with real societal issues." I sincerely hope that our current struggle to save labor education can reignite a dialogue within the university and between it and our community about UMKC’s role and responsibilities to greater Kansas City.

    I will keep you informed of the progress in our discussions.

    If you haven’t seen the media coverage, here are some links:

    Pitch blog: http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2007/06/umkc_may_fire_labor_supporter.php
    Inside Higher Ed: http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/20/umkc
    Kansas City Star: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/157406.html
    Diane Stafford blog: http://workspacekc.typepad.com/workspace_by_diane_staffo/
    EKC: http://www.kcactive.com/

    In solidarity,
    Judy Ancel

  • Use your own money?
  • Posted by L.L. , NEA member (mandatory) on June 20, 2007 at 7:35am EDT
  • " .. “I look at the business school, which has 47 full- and part-time people on its Web page .. and I think there’s a remarkable imbalance here” "

    Nearly 40 years ago, Peter Drucker predicted "pension fund socialism," that unions would influence very large pools of financial capital.

    With all the KC-area government and other union members -- they are incapable of putting up, any of the funds required? That is unbelievable.

  • THEY DO USE THEIR OWN MONEY
  • Posted by L.G. , Taxpayer (mandatory, but it's for a social good) on June 20, 2007 at 9:35am EDT
  • L.L.: "With all the KC-area government and other union members — they are incapable of putting up, any of the funds required? That is unbelievable."

    They do--they and their members pay taxes to support public institutions like the University of Missouri, which, as public institutions, ought to do more than provide taxpayer-subsidized training to the managers of private capital. Do private corporations cover all the costs of the business school?

  • Posted by Alan Jacobson at Wayne State University on June 20, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • What model of higher education requires that constituency group fund their own academic efforts? Should the arts community fund the dance department?

  • what is in the public interest?
  • Posted by Abby Scher on June 20, 2007 at 9:45am EDT
  • If public funds support business training it should also support this program. Well run unions and a vigorous defense of worker rights are in the public interest. This is shocking but not a surprise.

    I was interested to see the program runs a radio show. Two independent magazines have closed in the last month, making these type of outlets based in larger institutions even more important.

  • Posted by Kathleen de la Peña McCook on June 20, 2007 at 10:00am EDT
  • Hey L.L. great idea. And while they are at it, let's have all the medical professionals empty their 401Ks to support medical education and all the lawyers empty theirs for the law school.

    --
    Kathleen de la Peña McCook
    Proud voluntary member of the United Faculty of Florida. AFT Local 7463; IBEW raised.

  • what is the controversy?
  • Posted by PS on June 20, 2007 at 10:25am EDT
  • What is the controversy? I went to the Institute's website and there is no evidence that it serves the educational need of its students or that it adds any kind of value. None. Nada. Zip. Zero.

    Anyone can offer a course or certificate. Anyone can administer a radio program. Anyone can consult with labor unions. If a center cannot do something as simple as articulate not only what it does, but also evaluate the impact of its mission, then who is to say someone else cannot do it better? Or that resources should not be spent on programs or services that really do have an impact?

  • $10,000,000,000.00
  • Posted by L.L. , Forced to join NEA at Small, Mediocre Inst. on June 20, 2007 at 1:35pm EDT
  • " .. they and their members pay taxes to support public institutions like the University of Missouri .."

    Again -- the union pension funds in KC control at least $10,000,000,000.00 in pension assets.

    And they can't find $30,000.00 to make something happen? Please ..

    " .. Do private corporations cover all the costs of the business school?"

    A lot of them, pal. At the major business schools, the building sponsorships start at $250,000.00.

    " .. Should the arts community fund the dance department?"

    Not a bad idea. Those in the hard sciences fund most of their activities.

    " .. If public funds support business training .."

    Big problem. One group out-enrolls the other at least 250-1. Not good.

    " .. let’s have all the medical professionals empty their 401Ks .."

    Hey, pal -- they do. My neighbor (working-class, divorced) owes $125,000.00 to an Ivy League medical school. Got any other brilliant insights?

    " .. What is the controversy? I went to the Institute’s website and there is no evidence that it serves the educational need .. None. Nada. Zip. Zero .."

    That appears to be the problem, at hand.

  • Posted by Max on June 20, 2007 at 1:50pm EDT
  • I am a libertarian.
    I pay taxes.

    I want a department of libertarian studies!
    I want a department of libertarian studies!
    I want a department of libertarian studies!

  • Why there is a controversy
  • Posted by Carl Weinberg at DePauw University on June 20, 2007 at 2:05pm EDT
  • In response to PS, who writes:

    "I went to the Institute’s website and there is no evidence that it serves the educational need of its students or that it adds any kind of value. None. Nada. Zip. Zero.

    Anyone can offer a course or certificate. Anyone can administer a radio program. Anyone can consult with labor unions. If a center cannot do something as simple as articulate not only what it does . . ."

    That's bizarre. If you visit the website, you see that the center is clearly educating its students about the role of labor and the labor movement. Of course, if you think that this topic is worthless, then I guess you can say that the center is providing . . . nothing. Now, when you say "Anyone can consult with labor unions" what does THAT mean? Anyone? And furthermore, there is a detailed mission statement on the site in which the center "articulates" what it does. I think the real problem for PS and those who are attempting to get rid of the center is that it openly takes the side of workers. Business schools, which openly and unashamedly promote the interests of business are somehow fundamentally different. I have taught in the Labor Studies program at Indiana University which endured similar attacks and which for the time being, anyhow, has survived. I encourage all supporters of the UMKC program to do what they can to fight this attack.

  • not again!
  • Posted by PS on June 20, 2007 at 7:05pm EDT
  • In response, I do see that the center offers a lot of classes and programs, but I don't see any (repeat: none, nada, zip, zero) evidence that it is "educating" students. There is a big difference between offering a class and learning. Anyone can sit in a class and learn nothing. So, while it is clear that the institute is offering classes, it is not clear that students are learning anything or that the institute is adding value.

    It is 100% absolutely true that "anyone" can consult with Labor Unions. The fact remains that there is NO evidence that the institute does it better than anyone else, even someone off the street. Expertise does not translate into adding value, as anyone who has taken a horrible class from an "expert" or a great class from a Graduate Assistant can attest. Unless the Institute can prove that its consultation services are better than anyone else's off the street, then the assumption that "anyone" can consult with a labor union is a fact, not assumption.

    Nowhere did I state that the Institute *should* be ended on the basis of the substance of its activities. What I stated was that it should be closed based on the fact that it has little to no impact and that resources devoted to it could be spent better on centers that do have an impact. If another entity wants to work with Unions and provide services to labor, and shows that it actually has an impact, then fine. But to somehow read the lack of impact as an attack on labor is completely false and, in the words of one respondent, "bizarre."