What's the effect of the economy on you as a design educator?

Graphic design areas are historically or by chance often in fine art departments at universities. Budget cuts are an old story. Until design programs and the AIGA, SEGD, etc. collectively lobby to be have design be considered separate from and function separately from fine art departments, the "Art department" will always be the first to have budget cuts and the last to get any budget increases or return to original budgets. Design is associated by administrators with art (or “decorative�) and is therefore, dispensable. Art departments are also one of the departments that gets virtually no outside grant funding. The sciences get billions from DOD, NSF, private foundations, etc. which, while not directly tied to a department budget, provide space, equipment, and salaries for faculty and staff releasing regular funds to run the department and courses. A $100,000 grant is very small stuff for science. Counts for nothing and usually, it is money to begin tests to get a multi million dollar grant. There are no $100,000 graphic design grants that I know of! Most science grants start in the millions for even a basic research project.
Since fine art faculty, in almost all cases, outnumber design faculty, design areas are often treated very poorly by committees and chairs in normal times let alone during big budget cuts.
During s casual conversation about a committee activity, I once had a fine art colleague insult the profession of design directly to my face. This was not new though, so normally I would not think much of it. But this time, my colleague did so clearly not realizing they were doing it. At that moment, I was seeing design "bigotry" overtly and with no emotional cover I thought “Oh, this is what it was like to be black in the South in 1959!� My colleagues literally have no idea and openly encourage students to not study design because it has no value. Very disheartening for the design faculty and confusing for the students.
With this anti design bigotry as a kind of backdrop at most university departments, graphic design areas are always just getting by under very adverse working conditions.
There are exceptions for sure. If graphic design is with industrial design and/or architectural programs or possibly new media and technology areas usually, the balance is good and “design� is in good shape. Architecture colleagues can point at and discuss a graphic design curriculum and see how it works, the need for space, how tenure process differs in design from fine arts, etc. Maybe a dean or two are former architecture faculty. People are on board.
There are also art departments with chairs who understand design and educate the faculty about the profession. But these people are very rare.
BTW: the CAA does nothing to help the situation and despite design faculty and graduate students being a significant number of members, they ignore it.
With the pressure to add in faculty to teach non print technologies, budget cuts, unsupportive and bigoted fine art colleagues - makes this discussion something that AIGA needs to have in a significant way.
The economic downturn is revealing this long standing problem.

MC: My interpretation of your email is that it is the GD faculty who can't express what graphic design is about to their own departmental colleagues outside the field. Perhaps that's because GD faculty themselves don't know anymore--but more likely, it's because the profession/discipline still tries to hang on to its old self-conception of design(er) = art(ist). GD can't have it both ways!

AIGA can't lobby or change very much about the plight of design education or design educators as long as program accreditation is on a voluntary basis. Schools can do and teach (and unleash into the market) whatever they choose. And it will never (consistently) qualify for those coveted NSF/NHS grants until it has a systematic, empirical basis for explaining what it is the field has to contribute (socially, economically, well-being, etc.).

P.S., it's a bit outrageous to equate racist bigotry with lack of disciplinary respect!

This economy makes everyone skittish about making decisions and trying new things even if calm and logical reasoning points to change as being a good thing. Budgets are tight, but the good part of that is everything is questioned. "We've always done it that way" is not a good reason for continuing to do so. The financial pinch, while it does really hurt at times, forces facing realities rather than relying on habit and inertia.

You asked about personal effects: A good thing to come from all this has been increased connections to my former students because I am trying to help new grads build their networks. It is discouraging when well-prepared undergraduates must struggle to find good positions. Cheerleading for them is part of our responsibility as educators and our support and connections can make a difference in helping them get a foot in the professional door.

Even more personally, I decided that fear of change was not going to rule my life and the protection of tenure was not going to keep me in a position that was no longer positive. Money isn't everything. There are still opportunities for those who are willing to take some risks and seek new challenges. One of the realities of academia is that too many people get comfortable with the status quo, or lower their expectations because it is easier than asking "what if?" A tough economy makes this all-too-easy rationalization even easier. I chose change instead and am happily settling in at a new institution that is a much better fit.

Change is invigorating. Stagnation is what kills you -- a little at a time. A good thing about a bad economy is that staleness is harder to hide. AIGA can help by supporting and promoting quality educators, quality programs, and quality interactions among those who are concerned about education. Instead of trendiness, let's promote and celebrate something deeper by minimizing hero worship and identifying those who, by their work and their words, offer intellectual and visual substance.

All state universities in my state went through massive budget cuts last year and bigger ones this year and expected bigger cuts for a third year coming up.
Faculty and staff will have furlough days (essentially, temporary pay cuts) ranging from about 3 days for lower salary ranges to about 5-7 days for most mid to mid high range and about 15 days for at least one university president. Furloughs also happened the previous semester, although, less over all. The previous and current round of furlough days for faculty were taken on non teaching days. Like study day, the day before final exams begin, and other days that are not teaching days or holidays but that the university would be open. However, other than offices with staff closed, most university faculty know that, we work all the time and weekends too so, it is less about a particular day we miss but rather, the reduction in salary and the impact is has on our families. Granted, it is better than cutting jobs.
One peeve that has emerged with many faculty for this second round of cuts is the administrations desire to hide the furlough days so students are basically not impacted. For the second round, many faculty felt that at least half the days, if not all the days, should be during class days so the students and their parents can see the sacrifice being made by staff and faculty economically to keep the university afloat.
At this point, tuition increases will be inevitable sometime in the future to make up for what will be years of shortfall and neglect during the recession and for the decades of minimal support from elected leaders in the very state the state university system was designed to educate.