The Quest for “State-Related” Status
- Redux
In the previous blog post we referenced
the two attempts in the past fifty years by individual PASSHE Universities—Indiana
(IUP) and West Chester—to become State-related universities.
IUP’s quest for state-related status occurred in the 60s, years before the passage of Act 188 of 1982 which created the 14-university system of “State-owned” Universities now known as PASSHE.
Two Kinds of “Public Universities” in Pennsylvania
IUP failed in its attempt to become state-related but was later included in the language of Act 188 which made IUP, along with the 13 “State Colleges” of that era, into today’s PASSHE system of fourteen “State-owned public universities” in Pennsylvania.
Penn State University, the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University and Lincoln University are often referred to as the four “State-related public universities” in Pennsylvania.
Two Failed Attempts in Fifty Years
West Chester’s recent attempt in 2014 to become an individual State-related university was even more challenging than IUP’s attempt, since it would have necessitated overcoming two different and very large hurdles: 1) getting the Legislature and Governor to amend Act 188 to allow West Chester to secede from PASSHE; and 2) getting the Legislature and Governor to create new law granting West Chester its desired State-related status.
IUP’s attempt back in the 60s would only have required new law granting IUP State-related status. But today, any one of the 14 PASSHE Universities seeking individual State-related status—including IUP— would face the same two enormous hurdles that West Chester faced and reportedly failed to overcome.
Evidence for that failure in West Chester’s case may be seen¹ in the last sentence of a recent newspaper article which referenced West Chester’s plan to withdraw from PASSHE: “That secession plan has died.”
Since changing the status
of individual PASSHE universities from “State-owned” to “State-related” would
require one or more acts of the Legislature, any such attempt could only succeed
if it were to prevail in the course of a public and very contentious political
process. That process would allow
expressions of support from those wishing to change the status quo, as well of
expressions of resistance from those who prefer the status quo over the proposed
change.
The Role of Politics in “Public”
Higher Education
With regard to public policy, every status quo has its share of “winners” and “losers” namely, those who either benefit from, or are disadvantaged by, that status quo.
The converse of that statement is also true. Every proposed change to the status quo, if successful, would create a “new situation” which will also have its winners and losers namely, those who would either benefit from, or would be disadvantaged by, the proposed “new situation.”
The public debate about
the relative merits of the status quo—versus any proposed changes to it—begins with
the citizens but moves ultimately to our elected representatives in the
Legislature and Governor’s Office, whom the citizens have previously empowered
to make those public policy choices on behalf of all citizens, whether they be
current winners or losers, or future winners or losers.
Regardless of the policy choices made by our elected officials, there will still be winners and losers although, in many cases, they just switch places depending on what our elected officials decide.
The political process in which all public policy battles get fought and ultimately decided is the same one in which the public policy battles regarding Pennsylvania’s public universities will be fought and decided. That political process—by definition—is an adversarial one in which the side able to generate more votes in the Legislature is the side whose policy preference is more likely to become, or remain, law.
The Current Status Quo
The current status quo keeps each of the 14 individual PASSHE universities locked in a system of “State-owned” universities, created by Act 188 of 1982 and statutorily guided today by Act 188, as amended.
The Instant Proposal for Change
Let the instant proposal
for change be one in which an individual PASSHE (i.e., State-owned) university
would be permitted to secede from the PASSHE system to then become a
State-related university.
Winners and Losers
To better understand why the attempts by IUP and West Chester to become State-related failed, it may be instructive to look at two different factors: 1) Who the winners and losers might have been if the proposed granting of State-related status had been successful; and 2) How much political clout those winners and losers might have had in the Pennsylvania Legislature where any attempt to become State-related must first generate enough votes in the House and Senate to get to the Governor’s desk.
Alternatively, we can receive the same insights into the failure of individual PASSHE universities to attain State-related status by looking at who the winners and losers might be under the current status quo.
Public Policy Choices are Dynamic
rather than Static
The point of this heading is to remind us that the current supporters of any status quo—i.e., the current “winners”—could be persuaded to support a proposed change to that status quo if, in their view, that proposed change might be more beneficial to them than the current status quo! It is in that sense that public policy choices tend to be dynamic rather than static.
Therefore, before predicting who the winners and losers might be in the instant policy choice situation, we will look at both the current status quo and the proposed change to it as two alternatives to be evaluated against each other from the point of view of the best interests of the various stakeholders.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment