As students headed home for Fall Break last Thursday night, the University boasted some good news: By centralizing the process of buying goods and services, Cornell could save up to $40 million annually. We are pleased that the administration has found the means to cut $40 million from the procurement budget, but the University must take further steps to maintain that these cuts do not affect academic spending.

When Cornell first announced this summer that it would be bringing in masterminds from the global consulting firm Bain & Company to examine the University’s non-academic infrastructure and spending, we were skeptical. The line between academic and non-academic spending at a university is a hard one to demarcate and it is important that the academic core of Cornell remain untouched by non-academic consultants.

Sure, Bain brought a new perspective to the table and their cost-cutting expertise would help Cornell to develop the recently announced procurement savings strategy. The University is now in the process of modernizing its approach to operational spending, proving that despite the burden of budget cuts, these harsh times have expedited a much-needed internal evaluation. We also realize, however, that down the line these devised plans to save $40 million per year will mean a lot more than cheaper paper clips and staples.

There are many gray areas of University spending that cannot be qualified as either academic or non-academic. According to Cornell, it “will buy only from selected vendors and only via an improved version of Cornell’s e-SHOP online ordering system.” But the statement left out key details of what specific types of spending would be streamlined through this strategy, leaving us wondering how the academic side of things would remain unaffected.

Take, for example, spending at the campus bookstore. Limiting the vendors from which the bookstore buys books may alter a professor’s book list, having a direct effect on a course syllabus. Consider also how centralized spending may affect the University library system, which subscribes to services that contribute the vast array of Cornell’s academic offerings. Centralized spending may also affect the purchasing of audiovisual equipment, which may alter how courses are taught. Caps on toner and paper will also limit the number of handouts professors can distribute.

These are just a few of the ways procurement spending can creep into the realm of academics — something the University has said time and time again it will strive to avoid.

We know major budget cuts are underway and we are aware that academics will not be spared. However, it is critical that the University is transparent in how procurement cuts are made in order to ensure that such cost-cutting decisions do not have unintended consequences that would impact the academic core of Cornell.