By Nicholas Chremos
America is finally under new management. After 40 years of inept, arrogant, and irresponsible leadership, our nation is on the verge of a bold, new age, which holds great promise for the future. It is unfortunate, however, that change doesn't trickle down. A case to consider is the very university which we attend. Although there has been a slew of administrative changes in the past two years, nobody asks about the efficacy of these changes. Nobody questions the legitimacy of Columbia's bloated administrative structure. Therefore, rather than lobbying for more money from Washington, Columbia should merely increase the efficiency of the services which it provides. To begin with, Washington is justified to cut funding for universities in general and Columbia in particular. It is precisely because universities have violated the trust in which they have been invested that Washington threatens them with budget cuts. An apt example is Stanford University, where millions of dollars were spent, not on the research for which it was earmarked, but rather on luxury items. Of course, such irresponsibility occurred at other institutions, thereby provoking a just public outcry. Furthermore, politicians represent the public interest. It thus follows logically that many politicians, especially those who were recently elected, are intent upon cutting academic funding, as academia has successfully alienated itself from the public, demonstrating both an arrogant fiscal irresponsibility and lack of concern for the taxpayer's investment.
Moreover, budget cuts are intended to increase the efficiency of university spending by providing a powerful incentive for universities to curtail unnecessary costs. In the case of Columbia, budget cuts would be particularly beneficial, as they would force the administration to question the need for unnecessary positions, such as the Dean of the College, thereby forcing the university to shrink its bureaucracy, while simultaneously saving taxpayers' money. Additionally, by sending lobbyists to Washington, Columbia undermines the argument that it is trying to make. How, one may ask, can a university spend money to pay lobbyists, while it cannot find enough money either for financial aid or research? Such contradictory actions seem to characterize the relationship between the public and academia; it is time for a change.
Finally, university research should simply become more efficient. When corporations run research programs, they often do not receive federal funding. The same should be true of universities, especially as universities can patent their discoveries. In the January 27th issue of the Columbia Daily Spectator, Vice President for Health Sciences and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine Herbert Pardes argues that federal money is needed to pay for the "indirect costs" of research. It is this attitude which seems to have permeated academic research and which now needs to be changed. Rather than asking for government subsidies, Pardes and his colleagues at other research institutions should first ask how they can increase efficiency, then they should go to the government to beg for money.
Change has come to government. Hopefully similar changes can be imposed upon universities in order to make them more responsive to public demands and in order to protect the interests of the American taxpayer.