No more cuts across the board

The Nevada System of Higher Education faces drastic budget cuts, compounding previous cuts made over the past two years.

There are two approaches to cutting our budget. One is "horizontal cuts" -- or "across-the-board cuts." Those cuts are applied in a uniform way across all institutions and departments. The other is "vertical cuts" or "specific program/department cuts."

All of these cuts hurt higher education in Nevada. In an effort to ameliorate the damage, we have generally used horizontal/across-the-board cuts. While that approach was appropriate in the past, the evidence shows that it doesn't make sense any more.

Peter D. Eckel, a higher education scholar, analyzed both budget reduction methods in his treatise "Changing Course: Making the Hard Decisions to Eliminate Academic Programs." His research shows why vertical cuts are the better approach.

We have assumed that higher education's present economic challenges are temporary. They are not. Mr. Eckel, states "the 'economic fundamentals' have changed creating a new playing field with a different set of rules." He continues: "State allocations do not keep pace with expenses, federal research dollars are unreliable, the stock market is unstable, foundation support is waning, and the tuition-paying public will no longer stand for tuition increases to make up budgetary shortfalls." At the same time, higher education costs are soaring.

Mr. Eckel argues that these changes will exert intense unrelenting pressure on institutions of higher education to change in fundamental ways, and require that we do business in a much different way. In support of that argument, Mr. Eckel explains that "environmental demands have shifted from asking the university to do what it does for less money to asking the university to change what it does."

Therefore, the question is not whether higher education can continue business-as-usual. The question is what sort of institutions will emerge from these inexorable demands.

At the same time, as costs soar, those paying the bill -- taxpayers, students and their parents -- are demanding more and increasing their scrutiny. Such scrutiny requires that higher education apply thought and consideration, and not simple across the board "horizontal" reductions.

Most important, Mr. Eckel found that horizontal cuts in higher education don't work in the long term because they are not concerned with intentionally changing the ways in which we do business. They do not require hard, evaluative decisions. Instead, horizontal cuts weaken the organization's capacity to serve students and the communities at large. They also do permanent damage by ignoring deferred maintenance costs, delaying needed equipment replacement and causing haphazard deterioration of academic programs.

Without a doubt, vertical cuts, where particular units or programs face deeper reductions, or even elimination, are much more difficult. Choices among competing priorities are always more difficult. However, if we continue to use a "horizontal" approach, we will find out the hard way, and sooner rather than later, that our belt can be tightened no more. We risk becoming so thin that we collapse on ourselves.

In my view, that is not an option for us here in Nevada.

Michael B. Wixom represents Clark County, District 6 on the Nevada Board of Regents.