Listening to the arguments involved in the debate over “outsourcing” of the facilities department at A&M, you would think thousands of jobs will be lost and shipped overseas. Our Which Wich will now be shipped stateside in cargo containers from China and classrooms will be cleaned magically by workers in South America.

In reality, there is a more accurate term: Rebadging.

Rebadging essentially means that the same workers just switch payrolls from the University to a private company. The irrational fear of massive layoffs is unfounded. It costs money to find and train new employees to do the same jobs current employees do. This isn’t to say that there won’t be any reduction in workers or cuts in pay. That’s a likely assumption under any scenario where an entity like A&M is paying too much for too little.

University auditors found that Dining Services has run a $1 million deficit the past six years. Why would the University even engage in such a service if it loses money? You can bet the restaurants that line University Drive don’t lose money — and if they do, they don’t last very long.

University costs drive tuition rates, which most agree are best kept low. Low tuition makes college more accessible to all students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, and allows students to graduate with less debt. The primary function of the University is education, after all.

Much of the controversy surrounding the outsourcing proposition has focused on A&M staff, which is certainly part of our Aggie family. While hard work done well is appreciated and respected, it isn’t a ticket to above-market wages and benefits. If the University, through the private sector, can get the same quality of work at a lower price, it would be irresponsible to decline the opportunity, instead transferring the added costs to students.

Most disturbingly, however, is that the Faculty Senate doesn’t seem to be on the side of students.

In a Feb. 26 letter signed by Faculty Senate Speaker Michael Benedik, the faculty voice cited a “history of consolidations and moves for efficiencies from the System” that, from the faculty perspective, “have always yielded decreases in service and insignificant, if any, savings.”

While I agree that University cost-cutting measures haven’t always been effective, this reasoning ignores the fundamentals of contract law. The University knows its costs and what price a private entity is asking, thus it knows how much it will save. If a private company underbids the contract, then it shoulders any additional costs and if the private entity doesn’t live up to its end of the bargain, it is in breach of contract. Unlike other whimsical University cost cutting ideas, this one has substance and teeth.

As for our representatives in student government, they have recently passed a bill requesting a seat at the table during the decision-making process. Bill authors Scott Bowen and Mark Womack have expressed that the Student Senate desires the best service at the best price. It remains to be seen whether student government will officially take the side of the students and advocate for the most efficient use of University funds or put the priorities of the staff first.

This debate uses “outsourcing” as a dirty word, swaying public opinion away from what is best for the University. It’s irresponsible to pay more with our tuition for the same product if a better option is available. The primary purpose of Texas A&M is to educate our leaders and innovators of tomorrow.

If you want to overpay for services with your own money, that’s fine. Don’t force higher tuition and debt on present and future students to pay for inefficient services. 

Taylor Wolken is a senior economics major