‘Hard choices' ahead as MSU President says ‘we must adjust our financial path'
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — The president of Michigan State University says, 'We will need to make hard decisions that will impact people we care about' as the school adjusts its budget in the wake of federal changes.
Kevin Guskiewicz made the statement in a letter to the faculty and staff on Monday, the first business day following most of MSU's graduation ceremonies.
MSU approves Spartan Stadium upgrades
Guskiewicz says he's proud of what he school has accomplished in his first full year as leader of the university, but he also calls it 'a challenging year, especially these last four months' as he says changes at the federal level 'undercut our ability to advance our land-grant mission and continue essential research projects that make life better.'
He says those changes, along with the rising cost of health care, are making it harder for the Big Ten university to balance its budget. After exploring short, medium, and long-term savings, Guskiewicz said, 'After careful deliberation, we have reached the difficult conclusion that we must adjust our financial path.'
He says university officials will share 'action steps and appropriate measures' to tackle the budget 'in the coming days.' It did not specify whether there will be cuts to staffing or programs.
The next few months of financial planning will be demanding and difficult for some in our community, and we will need to make hard decisions that will impact people we care about.
MSU President Kevin Guskiewicz
Guskiewicz acknowledges that his letter will 'raise questions and concerns' – but says that more information will come out 'in the weeks ahead.'
The letter to the campus community comes out less than two months after MSU announced the launch of a $4 billion fundraising campaign, of which it has already raised $1 billion. The campaign, which the school says kicked off in 2022, is expected to run through 2032.
The school sent the message out a few hours after Guskiewicz left East Lansing for the Detroit Spartan Bus Tour – a two-day trip to the Detroit area with some 50 faculty members and administrators to show how the school is working to improve life in the city and the state.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
State lawmakers propose huge cuts for MSU, U-M
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — State lawmakers have proposed millions in budget cuts for Michigan State University and the University of Michigan due to the 'imbalance of state funding poured into' the schools. State Rep. , chair of the House Higher Education and Community Colleges budget committee, announced on Wednesday his $2.4 billion budget plan for Michigan's higher education system. The House Higher Education Budget proposal will not change state funding for university operations, which is approximately $1.68 billion. However, the proposal reduces funding to MSU by nearly $62 million and U-M by more than $239 million. These freed funds will be used to increase support for the state's 13 other universities. The House proposal would also eliminate DEI policies in Michigan universities. If a school is found to have a DEI policy in place, state funding would be withheld until it complies. The plan also includes requirements keeping men out of women's sports. Markkanen says this will put 'Michigan in line with Supreme Court decisions banning discrimination in admissions, legal status verification for every student, banning graduations based on race or sex.' 'President Trump is doing important work at the federal level, and I want to make sure Michigan expands upon those efforts,' said Markkanen in a news release sent to 6 News. 'We're putting an end to the race-based policies that have hurt our students for years. We're ensuring every person who attends a higher education institution in Michigan is a legal resident of our country. We're also limiting the amount that can be spent on overpaid and often ineffective university administration.' The House budget recommends that universities receive funding on a per-person basis, $5,500 for each full-time resident undergraduate student enrolled in 2024. 'Michigan's largest universities have been getting way more than their fair share for far too long,' said Markkanen in a news release sent to 6 News. 'Our plan sets things right by trimming the fat off MSU and U of M and distributing that funding amongst our 13 other remarkable universities.' Michigan State University Kevin Guskiewicz said in May that, 'We will need to make hard decisions that will impact people we care about' as the school adjusts its budget in the wake of federal changes.' 'Hard choices' ahead as MSU President says 'we must adjust our financial path' Guskiewicz said he's proud of what he school has accomplished in his first full year as leader of the university, but he also calls it 'a challenging year, especially these last four months' as he says changes at the federal level 'undercut our ability to advance our land-grant mission and continue essential research projects that make life better.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Egg prices for consumers fell to 5-month low in May. Here's why.
Consumers are finally getting a break when it comes to egg prices. Egg prices dropped to $4.55 in May, down 11% from $5.12 in April, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The price drop for a dozen Grade A large eggs comes as the effects of a years-long, widespread avian flu outbreak recede and demand for eggs softens slightly, as it usually does this time of year. "There are two main drivers behind the drop in prices — abatement in the conversation about bird flu, and some seasonality in uses of eggs. Typically as we move into summer, demand for eggs soften, as people shift to consuming more meat and grilling outdoors," Brett House, an economics professor at Columbia Business School, told CBS MoneyWatch. "People aren't making heavy breakfasts, so we don't see demand for eggs being as strong as it typically is during the winter months." While egg prices have declined for two consecutive months, down from $6.23 a dozen in March, they remain elevated compared with 12 months ago. In May 2024, a dozen eggs cost $2.70. David Ortega, a food economics professor at Michigan State University, told CBS MoneyWatch that avian flu containment has been responsible for most of the decrease in the average price of eggs. "This is primarily due to a reduction in the number of commercial facilities that have been impacted by the bird flu," he said. "A lot of bird flu activity in the beginning of the year led to a significant surge in egg prices, but those impacts have really lessened over the past couple of months." Wholesale egg prices began to decrease in March, according to Ortega, and the price drops are now starting to show up at the retail level. "There's a bit of a lag before they reach consumers at the grocery store," he said. The bird flu outbreak, which began in the spring of 2022, is not yet entirely contained and continues to impact the industry, he cautioned. "It's still very much an issue," Ortega said. A May outbreak at an Arizona layer farm affected nearly 1.4 million birds, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Consumer Price Index data shows that while overall food costs rose slightly in May, egg prices dropped. "But egg prices are still substantially higher than they were 12 months ago, even after two months of decreases," House said.
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Could a bold anti-poverty experiment from the 1960s inspire a new era in housing justice?
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, Michigan State University (THE CONVERSATION) In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class neighborhoods are threatened by displacement. These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more than half a century ago. In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid urban decline, segregated and substandard housing, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands of disproportionately low-income and Black residents. The federal government decided to try to do something about it. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched one of the most ambitious experiments in urban policy: the Model Cities Program. As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning, I've studied how this short-lived initiative aimed to move beyond patchwork fixes to poverty and instead tackle its structural causes by empowering communities to shape their own futures. The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson's Great Society agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce racial injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United States. Earlier urban renewal programs had been roundly criticized for displacing communities of color. Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway and slum clearance projects that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without decent options for new housing. So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing, education, employment, health care and social services at the neighborhood level. To qualify for the program, cities had to apply for planning grants by submitting a detailed proposal that included an analysis of neighborhood conditions, long-term goals and strategies for addressing problems. Federal funds went directly to city governments, which then distributed them to local agencies and community organizations through contracts. These funds were relatively flexible but had to be tied to locally tailored plans. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, used Model Cities funding to support a loan program that expanded access to capital for local small businesses, helping them secure financing that might otherwise have been out of reach. Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what Johnson described as 'comprehensive' and 'concentrated' efforts. It wasn't just about rebuilding streets or erecting public housing. It was about creating new ways for government to work in partnership with the people most affected by poverty and racism. A revolutionary approach to poverty What made Model Cities unique wasn't just its scale but its philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on ' widespread citizen participation,' which required cities that received funding to include residents in the planning and oversight of local programs. The program also drew inspiration from civil rights leaders. One of its early architects, Whitney M. Young Jr., had called for a ' Domestic Marshall Plan ' – a reference to the federal government's efforts to rebuild Europe after World War II – to redress centuries of racial inequality. Young's vision helped shape the Model Cities framework, which proposed targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education, employment and civic leadership in minority communities. In Atlanta, for example, the Model Cities Program helped fund neighborhood health clinics and job training programs. But the program also funded leadership councils that for the first time gave local low-income residents a direct voice in how city funds were spent. In other words, neighborhood residents weren't just beneficiaries. They were planners, advisers and, in some cases, staffers. This commitment to community participation gave rise to a new kind of public servant – what sociologists Martin and Carolyn Needleman famously called ' guerrillas in the bureaucracy.' These were radical planners – often young, idealistic and deeply embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and hired through new Model Cities funding that allowed local governments to expand their staff with community workers aligned with the program's goals. Working from within city agencies, these new planners used their positions to challenge top-down decision-making and push for community-driven planning. Their work was revolutionary not because they dismantled institutions but because they reimagined how institutions could function, prioritizing the voices of residents long excluded from power. Strengthening community ties In cities across the country, planners fought to redirect public resources toward locally defined priorities. In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education initiatives such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth sports programs. In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects called vest-pocket developments, which got their name from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as the Betances Houses in the South Bronx were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking place – a direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the city's poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to renovate older apartment buildings instead of tearing them down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods. The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities intact. What went wrong? Despite its ambitious vision, Model Cities faced resistance almost from the start. The program was underfunded and politically fragile. While some officials had hoped for US$2 billion in annual funding, the actual allocation was closer to $500 million to $600 million, spread across more than 60 cities. Then the political winds shifted. Though designed during the optimism of the mid-1960s, the program started being implemented under President Richard Nixon in 1969. His administration pivoted away from 'people programs' and toward capital investment and physical development. Requirements for resident participation were weakened, and local officials often maintained control over the process, effectively marginalizing the everyday citizens the program was meant to empower. In cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, residents clashed with bureaucrats over control, transparency and decision-making. In some places, participation was reduced to token advisory roles. In others, internal conflict and political pressure made sustained community governance nearly impossible. Critics, including Black community workers and civil rights activists, warned that the program risked becoming a new form of ' neocolonialism,' one that used the language of empowerment while concentrating control in the hands of white elected officials and federal administrators. A legacy worth revisiting Although the program was phased out by 1974, its legacy lived on. In cities across the country, Model Cities trained a generation of Black and brown civic leaders in what community development leaders and policy advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley called ' a little noticed revolution.' In their book of the same name, they describe how those involved in the program went on to serve in local government, start nonprofits and advocate for community development. It also left an imprint on later policies. Efforts such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts and neighborhood planning initiatives owe a debt to Model Cities' insistence that residents should help shape the future of their communities. And even as some criticized the program for failing to meet its lofty goals, others saw its value in creating space for democratic experimentation. Today's housing crisis demands structural solutions to structural problems. The affordable housing crisis is deeply connected to other intersecting crises, such as climate change, environmental injustice and health disparities, creating compounding risks for the most vulnerable communities. Addressing these issues through a fragmented social safety net – whether through housing vouchers or narrowly targeted benefit programs – has proven ineffective. Today, as policymakers once again debate how to respond to deepening inequality and a lack of affordable housing, the lost promise of Model Cities offers vital lessons. Model Cities was far from perfect. But it offered a vision of how democratic, local planning could promote health, security and community.
