This paragraph caught my eye:
A number of areas of the Teaching Resources Center should be examined for possible reduction. These include support for faculty teaching, the Scantron service for course evaluations (eliminate with on-line evaluations), the mini-grant program and the SPEAK test (should be able to use results of new TOEFL in its place). Some consideration should be given to better coordinate (or centralize) TA orientation and training. Some units provide their own while others rely on the TRC, resulting in duplication of effort. Decisions could be informed by existing qualitative evaluation data of the various programs. The additional review could be conducted jointly by representatives of the Undergraduate Council and the Graduate Council.
First of all, "support for faculty teaching" is what we do, and encompasses all of my position, plus that of 1 and 4/7 of my colleagues. The only cost for many of our faculty support programs are salaries, so to cut those programs means cutting personnel.
Second, departmental TA training and our TA orientation are very different. Many departments don't have TA training, so the only training many TAs get is our seven hours at the very beginning of their grad school careers. In addition, we orient 700 TAs in the fall for the cost of only salaries, photocopying, and nametags. So again: Cutting TA orientation would mean cutting personnel time.
Third, I'm no fan of Scantron machines, but the return rate of online course evaluations is very, very low, and online exams don't yet have the enough security against cheating to persuade faculty to adopt them.
I'm furious and frightened. Maybe I'm overreacting upon the first reading of this report. Let's hope so.
By the way, the same report counsels the Provost not to cut athletics too deeply, as sports programs would feel the effect for many years. (Apparently the quality of teaching wouldn't suffer at all. GAH.)