TO THE EDITOR:
Thanks to Jim Gulledge (Protest editorial was not well-informed inaccurate" March 30) for pointing out that the Board of Trustees meeting was the right venue for publicly presenting 12 demands about decisions regarding budget cuts at the University.
The BOT is expected to advise the chancellor with respect to the development of budget estimates for the institution and with respect to the execution and administration of the budget.""
With the chancellor and the BOT in the room at a public meeting" what better place to protest?
The faculty staff and students who attended the meeting also knew the following: Layoffs have begun and new positions remain unfilled leaving fewer workers to do the jobs of many; administrators hired a business consulting firm (Bain & Company) that is unlikely to put educational values over business values in its recommendations for dealing with the budget shortfall; the Oversight Committee for the firm's report is composed of three University administrators with no representation by faculty" students or staff; the University has agreed that employees at UNC-Chapel Hill may only speak about Bain if their words fit the talking points agreed to by Bain and the University.
How can a university whose mission includes ""free inquiry"" abide by what looks like a gag order? Or is this the kind of ""fresh perspective"" we should expect from a firm that lacks experience with higher education?
All of us should have full participation — not just consultation — in the decisions that affect our lives and the future of the University.
Sherryl Kleinman
Sociology professor
Steve Hutton
Applications specialist
Epidemiology