PUBLIC universities are becoming less and less public. Declines in state funding have driven universities to seek private sources of funding, creating a permanent tension between open market competition and the purpose of public education.
Last month, The Futures Project at Brown University addressed this issue in a report titled "Correcting Course: How We Can Restore the Ideals of Public Higher Education in a Market-Driven Era." The authors found that universities throughout the country face "growing pressure to cut costs, measure and report on performance, and compete ever more strenuously for students, grants, funding and prestige." Unfortunately, this competition usually comes at the expense of academic programs and access for low-income students.
In response to market pressures, public universities have sought new freedom from state governments, primarily for the purpose of raising tuition beyond state caps. The University's charter initiative was an attempt to gain new autonomy from the state, an autonomy that many feared would drive up tuition without providing adequate financial aid. Last month, the General Assembly passed a significantly revised version of the legislation, which maintains the University's status as a state agency and requires the University to specify anticipated tuition increases and outline its plan to ensure access for low-income students. The standards have not yet been published, but the State Council of Higher Education is expected to stipulate that the University remain at least as socioeconomically diverse as it is now.
These improvements in the legislation are largely the result of an effort by concerned faculty, students and staff who objected to the lack of accountability in the original bill. Charter opponents worked to educate the public about the possible consequences of autonomy and lobbied the General Assembly for codified assurance that the University would continue to fulfill its public mission. Without this assurance, future administrations could easily sacrifice access in order to raise more money, a tradeoff that some schools throughout the country have already made.
The Futures Project also found that intensified competition has led many universities to underfund academics in favor of lavish construction projects designed to seduce wealthy prospective students. According to the report, colleges and universities are spending money on "new fitness centers, elaborate dorms, and 'gourmet' cafeterias" in order to "entice students with comfort and convenience -- perhaps at the expense of a top-notch educational experience."
Anyone can testify that the University has refrained from improving the food, but we should question the necessity of a $128 million basketball arena when most politics courses fill up on the first day of registration. Like many schools, the University has relied on sports revenues and private donations for its architectural adventures, while it blames state cutbacks for the strain on academic departments. However, The Futures Project noted that colleges and universities "are making choices about whether to request funding from a donor for a new stadium, or for a need-based aid program or an initiative to improve the student-faculty ratio."
Although the state's role is essential, legislation is not enough to reverse concessions to the market that undermine public higher education. Maintaining the integrity of higher education requires not only state control, but also a continuous dialogue between universities and the communities that they serve.
As long as the market treats students as consumers, our priorities influence the administration's priorities whether we like it or not. We have the power to demand that the University cater to our best academic interests instead of our soft spots for shiny arenas, and we have the power to create an ungodly ruckus if the administration tries to raise tuition beyond reason.
Now that the General Assembly has outlined its requirements for more autonomous status, the University has a chance to demonstrate a genuine commitment to serving the public interest as it develops the proposal it must enter into with the state in order to gain autonomy. At the same time, the administration has an opportunity to bring members of the community to the table instead of forcing them to respond to a proposal that was created without their input.
According to History Prof. Jeffrey Rossman, a strong proponent of accountability, the administration remains reluctant to work with students, faculty and staff members. However, the outcome of the charter initiative in the General Assembly proves that these groups cannot be ignored. "I'm not all that optimistic that there will be a genuine dialogue," Rossman said in an interview, "but I think that we have now asserted that we have a voice."
The University community must use that voice to ensure that the administration resists market pressures and continues to demonstrate a genuine commitment to the public interest.
Cari Lynn Hennessy is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 10 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
