The following are reflections, presented in the hope that they will pressure and inform those peoples who will make decisions regarding the significant reduction of the university's budget in the next four years.

1) Be willing to make the record of budgets and salaries public, prior to and after restructuring. After this information is deprivitized those of us who are mystified by the “business” of running a university we will at least be able to feel the security that the “big boys” are honest and willing to publicly announce the fiscal results of their “difficult decisions to cut.”

2) Ground the above data in a philosophy of business and community. For instance, if some people have received vastly larger salaries than others, (e.g. administration vs. service industry) and will continue to do so after restructuring, the university needs to come forward with their philosophy regarding the ethical and socio-historical ramifications of privileging mental over manual labor, the separation of tasks, and the respecting of people who have established their livelihoods near the university. Will the university consider such factors as the employee's social mobility after being cut from the staff? If one person is highly employable and has enjoyed great economic benefit from the university, will a reduction in their salary be considered in light of retaining an employee who has little social mobility? The university needs to claim the geniuses of their intent and vision for the long term health of the community which has served it.

3) If the number of people in the faculty is to be reduced, it is imperative to select for voices which provide sophisticated critiques of dominant ideologies. One brilliant voice which inspires and challenges contemporary ideologies and which introduces the voices of those who have historically not received public attention historically, is worth many “old world” voices. If the university must make painful decisions, let it choose critical vision over stasis.

4) Recognize that the “ombuds” position is the most human and efficient management policy when setting up offices. The need for three specific ombuds positions is obvious.

1. Just as parents have access to the parent's center, which is known for its quick response and action, student's need an ombudscenter at which registration would be handled (reducing the running around from office to office which now occurs), and which would treat them not like burdens, but as people.

2. This university needs an ombudsperson whose purpose is to serve people dealing with sexual harassment of all types. Though there are several different places to which a student can now turn, the ombudsperson would function as a single, safe place, staffed by a professional (e.g. post-doc research position), which could not only inform distressed students in a non-threating capacity, but would also be a central location for the documenting of incidents. Those perpetrators who are repeat offenders would thus not be lost in a system where multiple students having trouble with one person might turn to different resources.

3. The university is situated in the middle of land which was the traditional territory of the Onondaga, yet we have no information relating that as an integral aspect to its identity — we have erased the Onondaga without even acknowledging that we have done so. An ombuds position, possibly a post doc. research position should be created in accordance with the vision of the Onondaga to answer their needs and to facilitate interaction between the vast resources of the University and the vast resources of the imagination, philosophy, and spirit of the Onondaga nation.

5) The university is also situated within the nation which consumes grossly larger percentages of the world's resources than any other nation. At this university we have access to all of the data which warns us that we are rapidly reducing the potential for the earth to regenerate, and are creating a waste stream in which we will asphyxiate ourselves. Restructuring should privilege a radical alteration in consumption practices. Items produced for one time use, paper cups, plastic silverware, unrecycled paper, should no longer be considered appropriate responses to serving university needs. The service of “washing” (e.g. dishes) should be restored as a necessary condition for cultivating responsible humans. The production of obsolescence is gross conspicuous consumption of resources. We know that. Let's act on it.

6) Examine the role of technology. Using a “Luddite” critique, determine where technological advances are and are not beneficial to the humanness of the university, not only today, but 50 years from now. We would ask that privilege and respect human imagination be constantly juxtaposed to technological “fixes.” When humans are replaced by machines, we request that the administration outline the philosophy which underlies their decisions.

These reflections are offered for those of us who, admiring the words of a madman, bless our scholarly friends not for the economic integrity of their thought, but for having opinions that cannot be translated into financial values (Gay Science, #366).