The Gentrification of Public Higher Education - Part 2

Words and Deeds

In last week’s blog post, we began by talking about “The Power of Words.”  This week, we will focus on some critical differences between words and deeds, especially in the world of politics as it applies to the elected and appointed officials who both inhabit and seek to exert maximum control over that world.

And if you are wondering what “politics” and “control” might have to do with the gentrification of public higher education in Pennsylvania, remember this: The fourteen PASSHE universities and the 100,000+ students and their families who rely on them, are subject to total, i.e., 100%, political control.  

The 14 PASSHE universities are Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg, Slippery Rock and West Chester.
    

The Definition of “Politics”

Recall that Merriam-Webster defines the word “politics” as having two very different aspects: “activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government.” (Emphasis added.) 

The first aspect of politics is the familiar one in which citizens attempt to influence the actions and policies of the governments that affect them.  This aspect of politics is best captured by the term “civics,” defined as “the study of the rights and duties of citizens and of how government works.”

Civics, this first aspect of politics, is seen as being quite respectable as manifested by the fact that everyday citizens are often encouraged to consider getting involved in improving their communities by, for example, running for local school boards or town councils.

But the second aspect of politics—getting and keeping power in a government—is neither as familiar, nor as respectable as the first aspect of politics, and for very good reason.

Have you ever heard an elected official or candidate for elective office say “I’m running for election because I am interested in getting and keeping power in a government?”   Of course you haven’t.

Any politician that honest about the true nature of politics would have no chance of getting elected.

Civics aside, politics—by definition—is about “getting and keeping power in a government.”

In the 60s, key insights into the essence of politics, i.e., getting and keeping power in a government, were volunteered by Jesse (Big Daddy) Unruh, a former Speaker of the California State Assembly who became famous for uttering the following quote: 

“Money is the mother’s milk of politics”

If you want to know what ‘getting and keeping power in government’ looks like, you need to “follow the money,” because getting and keeping power in government is mostly about a quest for money.

Consider the following facts relative to the 100% political control of the PASSHE universities:

Governance

·         Total political control of the fourteen PASSHE universities is exercised through PASSHE’s fifteen governance bodies which include: the Board of Governors (BOG) in Harrisburg, plus the fourteen Councils of Trustees (COTs) which operate from the individual university campuses.

·         Of the twenty members of the BOG, five are elected officials and fifteen are political appointees of elected officials.  Of the 154 members of the COTs (11 at each of the 14 universities), each COT member is a political appointee of elected officials.

Fidelity

·         Every one of the 174 members of PASSHE’s governance bodies takes the same oath of office, which reads in its entirety as follows:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.” (Emphasis added.)

·                  Note that the object of their fidelity is not specified in the oath taken by PASSHE governance board members!  Apparently, individual BOG and COT members are free—under the above oath—to decide for themselves to whom they owe their fidelity in carrying out their official duties.

·                  Would anyone then be surprised if a majority of the politically-appointed PASSHE governance board members decided that they owed their fidelity not to the PASSHE students, parents and alumni donors now providing 75% of PASSHE’s annual revenue, but to the elected officials who appointed them to their positions of power?

The Role of Money in the 100% Political Control of the Fourteen PASSHE Universities

·         Now that Pennsylvania’s fourteen so-called “public” universities are actually 75% private, financially speaking, it is instructive to compare PASSHE universities with universities that are 100% private.

·         For example, the individuals normally selected to hold seats on the governance boards of private universities tend to be citizens who have donated to the universities for the benefit of the students; while the individuals normally selected to hold seats on PASSHE’s governance boards tend to be citizens who have donated to various political campaigns for the benefit of the politicians.

·         In this sense, the politicians involved in the 100% control of the fourteen PASSHE universities are actually competing against the students for donations from PASSHE governance board members.

·         During my 20 years as a PASSHE university president, I worked with many different individuals who had been appointed to my university’s Council of Trustees.  And although many wonderful people were appointed, and although we were successful in developing a “culture of philanthropy” at our university that raised $55 million dollars in private donations over my twenty years, generally speaking, only a tiny fraction of that amount was donated by members of our Council of Trustees.

·         Most of the private donations to the university, for the benefit of our students, came from the university’s Foundation Board members—who were not political appointees but were appointed by a self-perpetuating private 501-c-3 non-profit corporation that existed solely for the benefit of the university.  These board members were mostly successful university alumni who came back to their alma mater to help the university they loved by providing scholarships for students.    

To be continued.