This summer the University bid farewell to four of its top officers, backtracking on decades of growth by the administration. This was a move we anticipated, and one we will not be quick to criticize. The creation of these posts initially was the byproduct an era of superfluous spending at Cornell — an era that bears little resemblance to the current state of affairs.

According to Provost Kent Fuchs, the elimination of these positions does not mean the destruction of the ideas or initiatives that the posts were meant to oversee. In his eyes, these officers’ duties will be reallocated to other administrators, cutting hefty salaries from University payroll while maintaining Cornell's various commitments.

For instance, diversity at the University was once an issue that the provost’s office thought deserved a top-level post. But when former Vice Provost for Equity and Inclusion Elizabeth Mannix stepped down in June, the provost’s office concluded that these duties could be redistributed to the deputy provost, the vice provost for academic affairs and the director of the office of workforce diversity, equity and life quality.

At first we were startled by the decision to ax a position with the responsibility of ushering in diversity. But from a practical standpoint, we agree with this move and believe it reflects the provost’s realistic and sensible approach to the budget cuts.

Achieving a goal as far-reaching as diversity at Cornell was never something that should have been allocated to one senior post in the office of academic affairs. Rather, diversity is a complex concept that is ingrained in all layers of the University, most obviously in its hiring and admissions policies. The initial introduction of an officer to shepherd in diversity was less a policy change as much as it was a way to for the University to applaud its own diversity efforts. The move was not to belittle the importance of diversity at Cornell, but rather to more pragmatically grapple with its intricacies.

Accountability will surely be important as streamlining efforts move forward. While we praise the provost for his acute vision for a new administration, he must now bear the weight of these changes and take the lead in ensuring no initiatives are left to fall by the wayside. Moreover, the provost must be prepared to re-engineer his office as it takes on the responsibilities of those positions that were cut. With less administrative support due to fewer staff members and assistants, this will surely be a trying task.

The success of this consolidation of power will be the byproduct of both meticulous scrutiny from the community at large in addition to the insurance of transparency from the administration itself. We will do our part, now the question is if they will do theirs.