No way to run a university

Vuthana Suon, STAFF

It’s almost cliché to say it, but the University of Manitoba really is hurting. Going by how we fared in the annual Maclean’s university rankings, we’re apparently the worst medical-doctoral university in Canada. The merits of the ranking are debatable, but what is not is that there are definite and observable shortcomings to attending the U of M.

With the litany of funding roblems, crumbling infrastructure, inadequate student services and general lack of pride that many students feel, one would think that university administrators would try to remedy such shortcomings. However, with the proposed changes that are going to occur to the U of M’s endowment fund, students should be up in arms.

The university’s endowment fund is a pool of all the monies received over the years from donors. It is managed by the Trust Investment Committee, which is composed of university administrators and outside advisers. The money is earmarked by its donors for such things as scholarships, fellowships, improvements to library holdings, support for athletics, or for the university to use as it sees fit (infrastructure upgrades, for example).

Over the years, thanks in large part both to donations and to returns attained from stocks and bonds, the fund has grown to its present $249 million. Of this amount, five per cent is taken out to be used as originally mandated by the donors, and the rest is allowed to grow. As of December 31, 2005, this amount will be reduced to 4.5 per cent. Even more disturbing is that by the end of 2006 some members of the Committee intend to further reduce that figure to four per cent of the value of the fund.

Taking into account the endowment’s present size, a change from five to four per cent means a spending cut of over $2.49 million. This dollar amount will likely increase by the time the policy change occurs, because the endowment almost certainly will have grown by then. As such, this will directly affect all aspects of student life.

There will be fewer scholarships, less money for new computers, less money to clean our oh-so-clean buildings and much more. Considering the present state of our university, is this really the most prudent course of action to take?

According to the spending policy change document found on the treasury services website, “one of the underlying principles of endowment management is the concept of intergenerational equity.” What this means is that by reducing the amount of money given out now, more will be retained to grow and increase over the years.

Committee advisers feel that the current five per cent spending rate is too high, due to the belief that the market will not be as kind to the fund as it has been in the past. At first, this may sound rational, and even admirable insofar as they are trying to protect the fund’s value. However this line of reasoning does not take into account the fact that by reducing the money available, students are ultimately going to be alienated.

By cutting the spending rate, administrators are adversely affecting how students will view the university. This can lead to a reduction in already low alumni support (which MacLean’s currently rates as being 12th out of 15 in that category). After all, who would want to support a school that they are not proud of?

As a student, I am incredibly proud to attend this institution. However, many of my peers do not share my sentiments. We are regarded as a “ghetto,” and I can see why. The Tier and Buller buildings are falling apart (as are many others). Our library holdings are rated to be one of the lowest in comparison to other Canadian research libraries. The buildings are filthy. I could go on, but it would just be redundant and frankly, kind of depressing.

With decreased support from both the federal and provincial governments, and the ever so popular tuition freeze (thanks UMSU), the university is facing a funding gap. This has taken a noticeable toll on both the quality of education offered and the reputation of the U of M. But compounding these problems with further cuts to very necessary programs and services is no way to run a university.

If the spending rate is allowed to fall, as many of the committee members seem to support, administrators will have made an important and substantial decision quietly and without student input. We cannot continue to go unheard.

Vuthana Suon is a third-year science student and the Manitoban’s Sports and Health Reporter.