Alternative to fate of Museums and Research in Nebraska

[Doug Yanega]

>Would not the faculty and staff of the University of Nebraska
>be willing to take a 5-10% salary cut in order to preserve
>the priceless research facilities, materials and staff?  It seems
>to me to be a better solution than, with a sweep of the
>hand and pen, removing all this heritage.

At the risk of getting embroiled in a political debate, I can think
of at least two rather significant reasons this might not even be an
option in the present case:

(1) The University administration would have to actually make such a
proposal public, rather than let it die in committee as an
unacceptable option. If they do not offer it as an option, then it
would require the spontaneous altruistic coordination of 100% of the
faculty and staff - a rather unlikely prospect.

(2) State-run Universities typically receive their mandates from the
state legislature, and *told* what they can and cannot cut out of
their budgets. This happened (and is still happening) in California;
last year's budget cuts were targeted exclusively to research
activities, and part of the mandate was that no teaching-related
activities could be cut (it remains to be seen whether this year's
cuts will be similarly targeted). If Nebraska has a similar mandate,
an across-the-board cut would be impossible. The reasoning is quite
explicit: administrators of state-run institutions will prioritize
the desires of the local constituency - that's part of their job! -
and what the local constituency wants first and foremost from a
University is education, and anything else is secondary. In the
political world, what this boils down to that more people will
complain if teaching is cut than if research is cut: Voltaire said it
in 1764
"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money
as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."

My point in posting this is that those of you who plan to write
letters to Nebraska but have not yet done so might want to bear this
in mind - arguments about the value of the University of Nebraska
State Museum to the scientific community may seem convincing from our
perspective, but they need to be weighed against the fact that what
we're basically asking the administrators to do is to ignore their
constituents and listen to *us* instead. That will obviously require
SUBSTANTIALLY more convincing arguments. In other words, if we can't
give a satisfactory answer to the inevitable question "Why should I
incur the wrath of the Board of Trustees just to appease *you*
people?" we have little hope of any succesful persuasion whatsoever.

Pessimistically, it seems unlikely that anything less than a tangible
*threat* (such as a boycott, where no researcher from the state of
Nebraska is welcome in any museum, nor library, nor given IDs on
specimens) could make them back down from such a policy, but the
taxonomic community is obviously not structured so as to make such
threats. Since we can't, we have few options open to us. Again, I'm
not here to start a debate, but having seen some letters written by
colleagues, I'm struck that we almost certainly can't afford to
ignore the politics of the situation, and future letters may need to
be more explicit in this regard. A pile of letters that say "We think
it's a bad thing for Science if the UNSM is shut down!" is better
than nothing, true, but - realistically - if an administrator or
committee is capable of proposing such a terrible thing, we have
ample evidence already that they do NOT have any respect for Science.
It's like convincing a state legislature to ban duck-hunting season
because it's cruel to the ducks. What is needed is an argument that
makes their plan seem like a MISTAKE, rather than just unpleasant.

I know I'm not alone in wracking my brain trying to imagine a
geuinely persuasive argument, one that an administrator could take
back to the Board of Trustees and say "Look, here's why this would be
a *mistake*" - but it's not easy. About the best I can come up with,
and what I have written in the letter I'm composing, is that there is
a tangible *need* for continuity; they can't shut down a museum of
this size, scope, and importance and then magically re-open it and
re-staff it. A museum derives its character, its *unique* value, from
the people who work in it. If they lay the present staff off, or
(perish forbid) disperse the collections, they will NEVER be able to
replace them. This is not a temporary action that can be reversed
when the economy improves - it is a permanent step backwards, and a
betrayal of 125 years of work, and the lifetimes of all the dedicated
researchers responsible. This will hurt *them*, it will hurt their
constituents - it *would* be a mistake, not just a tragedy.

I offer these comments not because I love to hear myself talk, but in
the sincere hope that it will inspire others here to compose stronger
arguments, and make a *difference* (and, obviously, sway those
fence-sitters who weren't sure whether they personally wanted to
write letters). If an institution like the UNSM goes under, then
*none* of us are safe, but if we can find a way to prevent this
disaster, then we might thereby discover a strategy that can be used
to our collective benefit in the future. If anyone else has
constructive suggestions, maybe I can ask if you'd share them - I,
for one, am still open to more ideas.

Sincerely,
--

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
            http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82