More than one-third of Brandeis' Arts and Sciences faculty kindly made donations to the University in response to the Faculty Senate's job-saving proposal regarding voluntary pay cuts to save the jobs of a couple of faculty members. This action, although quite commendable, brings attention to a larger issue: the role of the faculty at Brandeis with regards to budget issues. Should the Senate have made this proposal? I think not.According to the University Web site, "Faculty are the core of our community, and through their teaching, scholarship, research, advising and service, they create our intellectually vibrant institution committed to active learning and social justice."

The significant monetary reaction to the Senate's proposal will save two jobs. This is a clear example of faculty commitment to social justice. But giving the faculty a rather direct say in whether other University employees keep their jobs raises serious ethical questions. The New York Times, which picked up on the Brandeis pay cuts, described the Senate's original proposal as an "unusual suggestion."

After all, the faculty, the office staff and the support staff have at least one important thing in common. They're all Brandeis employees.

If it's not in their job description, should employees have power over whether others retain or lose their employment?

No, they should not. By allowing the faculty alone to raise the necessary funds to save some jobs, the University is pointing out that some posts are intrinsically higher on the University totem pole than others. That alone is not necessary problematic.

But allowing the faculty to make decisions that directly affect employees on the lower end of that pole does not seem very ethical at all. The Arts and Sciences faculty includes a number of quite academically and intellectually capable people, some of whom are undoubtedly qualified to make budgetary decisions. However, these decisions should not be made haphazardly at the discretion of the faculty.

Also, while many University faculty members embraced the opportunity to take from themselves and give to others, the proposal must have placed pressure on some individuals to make what might have been a financially difficult decision. No principled senate should ever have put its faculty in that position.

Companies throughout the United States are experiencing severe hardships amid the current economic conditions. And the managements of those companies are informing employees of various cutbacks that need to be made.

Our University, like most others, follows a business model. It has an Office of Budget and Planning, as well as several committees, some with faculty seats, to deal with budgetary issues. Under normal circumstances, these and other management bodies make the budgetary decisions.

Making a monetary contribution for the benefit of other University employees is an admirable decision. But the Senate should never have made doing so possible in the first place. In a time of financial stability, budgetary issues would never come down to whether faculty members were feeling generous. That should not change when money is scarce.

It still remains unethical that the Senate essentially informed the faculty that they must collectively raise approximately $90,000 of their own money over several days or people will lose their jobs.

Furthermore, although it's now clear that the proper funds were raised and jobs were saved, what would have happened if less than the required 30 percent of faculty agreed to donate? Would the two staff jobs have been sacked?

The answer is quite simple. If the job were crucial enough, the University would have found the money somewhere. If it weren't, it would have been cut. That's the way financial decisions are made in tough times.

The difficult economic situation of the University requires bold, decisive and even unpopular budgetary decisions. It's in some employees' job descriptions to make those decisions-to decide what is to be kept and what is to be cut. Those people-not the faculty-should do that job.