Universities can gain public support, confidence by clearly defining goals and objectives

To the Editor:

America's acceptance of Thomas Jefferson's and Benjamin Franklin's view of public education as necessary to nurture an informed, politically responsible public has long justified public support of schools. Expansion of that support to institutions of higher learning was a natural extension. The place of publicly supported universities among democratic institutions was aptly described in the 1984 Master Plan of our own university. "...public higher education is directly answerable to the society at large. Supported by public funds, it has a mandate to deploy its resources in pursuit of the public good. Instruction and research are part of the process; so is the function once called outreach, and currently known as public service."

Over the years, taxpayers provided a wealth of resources to public universities. Historically, however, it is unclear how "the public good," in pursuit of which those resources were to be deployed, was defined and by whom.

Most taxpayers hold the view, perhaps unrealistically, that, besides developing competencies that will enable students to be productive members of society, higher education also should be an experience that prepares them for the ethical, social and political responsibilities of adulthood.

Unfortunately, the public finally has come to realize that the education of students is not a top priority among our institutions, that universities put research ahead of teaching. It is no secret that self-promoting and often esoteric research projects, rather than teaching, occupy the time of many of the highest-paid faculty.

Diminishing financial support is the predictable response of a disillusioned public. The semblance of a public mission is further eroded when reduced state subsidies result in transfers of tuition increases from taxpayers to students.

If judgment day is here for tax supported universities, how are they meeting the need for public accountability? Do public universities have clearly articulated missions with well-understood goals and objectives that provide a rationale for making painful choices, while assuring the public the "quid pro quo" defined in their master plans?

It is not that administrators do not regularly produce documents that purport to spell out their educational objectives. It is their unwillingness to state those objectives with enough specificity and practicality that they might be held accountable for not achieving them that is the problem.

How many public universities evidence the will or political courage to use budget situations as opportunities for improving educational quality by targeting certain units for growth and others for retrenchment? An unwillingness to identify the educational activities of most importance to do well makes it possible to only dilute dwindling resources by trying to do some of everything. Finding ways to enhance and protect excellence in core activities while operating at the cutting edge of change demands extraordinary leadership.

Perhaps, it is time to reconsider the criteria on which public universities are judged to be "great." Conspicuous consumption of research support in the absence of quality teaching and community service carries little weight among those judging the costbenefits of public support of higher education. Difficult times provide exceptional opportunities for enlightened stewards to emphasize the populist service responsibilities of publicly supported universities and define the "public good," in pursuit of which their resources are to be deployed. Such an accomplishment would go a long way toward regaining public confidence and rationalizing the annual budget decision process. To do less is to hasten the privatization of public higher education and make the term "public university" an oxymoron.