Until last week, I had never before seen the word “revolt” used to describe the response of state college administrators to the forces which they see as the cause of their institution’s existential challenges.
A June 4, 2014 article by Michael McDonald of Bloomberg News³ carried the following headline:
“State Colleges
Revolt as Years of Cuts Divide U.S. Campuses.”
The article begins with these words: “From Pennsylvania to Oregon, the number of top public universities bidding to shake off government control keeps growing.” (Emphasis added.)
The Transfer of
Power and Property in the Name of an Idea
In his book “From Dawn to Decadence: 500 years of Western Cultural Life,” Jacques Barzun describes the features of a “revolution” as “the violent transfer of power and property in the name of an idea.”
Except for violence, the other features of Barzun’s definition of revolution seem to be present in the “revolt” described in McDonald’s compelling article. For example, a successful effort to “shake off government control” would, in fact, result in a transfer of power and property. And the idea in whose name this shaking off might justifiably occur is one that I believe virtually every American can relate to.
Deep in the American psyche is an opposition—powerful and spontaneous—to the idea of a tyranny imposed on the people by the “sovereign,” whether a monarch or a legally constituted government.
And if “Taxation Without Representation” qualifies in the American mind as a tyranny that must be thrown off, can “Privatization Without Representation” be far behind? I think not.
Funding Share
Versus Governance Share
What is happening to public higher education in Pennsylvania, and to various degrees in other states, may be described as privatization without representation, where: “privatization” refers to the rapid defunding by the State of public higher education, as measured, e.g., by the shrinking percentage of the PASSHE operating budget that is provided by State appropriation; and “representation” refers to the share of the seats on the PASSHE governance boards where all major institutional decisions are made.
The governance arrangement in place in Pennsylvania today was created by Act 188 of 1982 at a time when the State was providing 63% of the annual operating revenues for the state-owned universities. At that time, the State was clearly a majority stakeholder in terms of both funding and governance.
Today, the State share of the PASSHE budget is 25%, but the original governance arrangement has not yet been changed to reflect the enormous drop in State funding share.
The State of Pennsylvania, in the person of its elected and appointed officials, despite now providing only 25% of the operating budgets of the 14 PASSHE universities, nevertheless continues to fill 100% of the 20 seats on the Board of Governors (BOG), and 100% of the 154 seats on 14 Councils of Trustees (COTs).
At the same time,
students, parents and private donors, primarily alumni, who now provide 75% of
the operating revenues at the “state-owned” universities, get to appoint none of the 174 members who serve on the
BOG and the COTs at the 14 universities.
Privatization
Without Representation is Tyranny
-
100% State control of
the 14 PASSHE universities was reasonable
in 1950 when the State funding share was 90%, and the Student paid only 10%.
- 100% State control of the 14 PASSHE universities was unreasonable in 1983 when the State funding share share was 63%, and the Student paid 37%.
- 100% State control of the 14 PASSHE universities became unethical in 1992 when the State funding share fell below 49%, and the Student funding share exceeded 51%.
-
100% State control of
the 14 PASSHE universities became tyrannical
in 2013 when the State funding share fell to 25%, and the Student funding share
grew to 75%!
2)
The students, parents and donors, primarily alumni (the majority stakeholders
at the PASSHE universities are not yet sufficiently aware of the
tyranny to which they continue to be subjected.
It is clear that correcting the second item above will go a long way toward helping to rectify the first.
It is clear that correcting the second item above will go a long way toward helping to rectify the first.
² http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=angelo%20armenti.
³ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-06-04/state-colleges-revolt-as-years-of-cuts-divide-u-s-campuses.html.
Angelo- with your usual crispness, you lay out the dilemma of shrinking funding in state related institutions. The data is undeniable. The economic reality facing these institutions can only be termed "downwards." Despite these irrefutable conclusions as to unintentional privatization, the reality of the state college is made worse by a culture of dependency long habituated by the stream of funding from the public source and the clear inability and even unwillingness to be entrepreneurial. Stated another way, the public institution, if capable of being free from the shackles of government, can more than be set free of the controls that the same government imposes. To say there is no free lunch is an understatement. Privatization can be a blessing if government simultaneously releases the college or university from its mindless and usually inept control. More specifically, how absurd it is to have academic officers operating at Harrisburg Command Center- unfastened from any institutional understanding- capable only of more oversight making even more possible the maintenance of the status quo rather than the invention and creation of the new program design, the novel curricula or the profitable partnership with business and industry.
ReplyDeleteTo be more succinct, I am arguing that funding loss only explains the dilemma one dimensionally. The problem of funding shortfall is also a cultural problem and a structural dilemma that thwarts growth and innovation. State colleges must be free to generate revenue that naturally arises in the educational enterprise. State colleges can no longer be political pawns and perks if these entities ever expect to be flush again. Privatization can either be a curse or a gift from the gods. In the latter instance, the institution has to have the governance mechanism to unhitch itself from an overbearing state and the will to take the risks which assure a brighter future.
Thanks Chuck for your insight into this critical issue. The reason that some of the state colleges are in revolt is because they have despaired of seeing any viable plan to save the noble mission of these institutions coming from the very States, e.g., Pennsylvania, that maintain 100% control while providing 25% of the annual funding. Legally confrontational "revolt" is an intelligent response to the tyranny of 'privatization without representation.'
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletejust forgot to mention to the members that I am Chair and Professor at John Jay College, the City University of New York- an institution heavily controlled by centralized governmental authority- just beginning to grapple with the reality of decreased funding and the comfort-discomfort levels that change brings..
Delete