[lit-ideas] Public university (maybe) going private
- From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:48:07 EDT
Hi,
So, what are the pros and cons of a university system currently funded by
the general public to become a private entity. Is it really such a poor idea
or is it that those who sent out this note are just afraid of what might
happen to them personally.
My vague thoughts have more to do with the thought that there was some time
ago a problem with how powerful the research divisions were going in terms of
influence--there is a lot of research being spent in KC right now and with
the potential for continued stipulations on how and what sort of research
might
be done if an insitution takes federal funds, I am thinking that this has
something to do with those fears perhaps being what (really) instigated this
report and desire. (esp by the 'business community' which wants cutting
edge
biomedical research to be done in KC ) But, I do not know for sure...
Any thoughts would be welcome. Hearings are set for next week, I believe,
so it it is a timely issue here in my world.
Best,
Marlena in Missouri
The AAUP chapter at UMKC is appealing for your help
> (if you are on several lists, apologies for multiple mailings).
>
> Since April a so-called "Blue Ribbon Task Force" has been at work
> "evaluating" the University of Missouri at Kansas City, a public
institution
> belonging to the four-campus University of Missouri system. Commissioned
by
> business interests outside the university, the Task Force is chaired by
Benno Schmidt, who has made a career and a personal fortune privatizing public
education. The Task Force has strongly suggested in public statements its
intention to recommend removing UMKC
> from the University of Missouri system. Given Schmidt's track record,
there is a high likelihood that the Task Force will also recommend partial or
full privatization. Other Task Force members are on record in support of an
autocratic model of university governance. The Task Force is an instrument of
certain local businesses hoping to take control of UMKC and profit by
reorganization of the university.
>
> Faculty and student organizations as well as administrators have already
expressed public opposition to the possibility of a corporate takeover.
Please join them by raising your voice against the dismemberment of the
University of Missouri System, the isolation of
> UMKC, its downgrading to an underfunded, third rank institution, and the
erection of financial barriers shutting out low income people and communities
of color from higher
> education.
>
> The future of UMKC and of public higher education in Missouri is squarely
on
> the line, and the direction it takes will impact everyone: faculty,
students, staff, administrators, alumni, retirees, and the public at large.
> We need as many voices as possible to counteract the powerful backers of
the
> Task Force and the extensive public relations apparatus it has mobilized to
> sell its agenda to the public. The plans for a corporate takeover of UMKC
> are on fast track, and we must start to build a large response now. The
first wave of letters must be sent before the Task Force delivers its
"preliminary report" on June 24.
>
> Please do the following:
etc etc.
>
>
> So that the AAUP chapter can tabulate public
> responses to this appeal,
> please send a message to the web manager of the AAUP
> site
> (_brodskyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(http://us.f324.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=brodskyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&YY=46755&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b)
)
stating the number of
> people you have contacted.
> If it is everyone on the list, just write "ALL."
>
> For more information please see the BACKGROUND
> STATEMENT below, which
> includes links to more extensive sources with
> docmentation.
>
> Thank you very much for your support.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Patricia Brodsky
> Professor of Foreign Languages
> President, AAUP chapter at UMKC
>
>
BACKGROUND STATEMENT
See THE FACULTY ADVOCATE (May 2005) for in-depth reports on these issues
(_http://cas.umkc.edu/aaup/facadv18.htm_
(http://cas.umkc.edu/aaup/facadv18.htm) ).
In April the UMKC Trustees, a non-profit support group for the university
without any legal role in running the institution, announced its endorsement
of a Blue Ribbon Task Force. The Task Force was commissioned by the Greater
Kansas City Community Foundation, a local non-profit that manages and
distributes private donations to civic projects.
The Task Force held some meetings with local groups, including faculty at
UMKC. Its stated purpose is "to conduct a ... study of UMKC as an urban
university." But a number of facts indicate that it is not what it claims to
be,
a helpful and well-intentioned effort to
improve the university.
No one at UMKC or in the University of Missouri system asked for a study of
the institution. All members of the Task Force are outsiders with no
significant local knowledge and experience. And the Task Force bypasses UMKC
and
the UM system by addressing its report principally to outsiders.
Benno Schmidt, the chair of the Task Force and its main spokesperson, has a
dubious track record. Schmidt is Chairman of the Board for the Edison
Schools corporation, which privatizes public schools and school systems.
Edison
has consistently lost money, and parents' groups at Edison schools around the
country are demanding a return to public education for their children. In
Kansas City, a school board official
of the Westport Charter School called Edison an "'out-of-state,
out-of-touch' management company."
As of 2005 at least ten class action suits had been filed against Edison,
including for civil rights violations and failure to provide a free and
adequate education. Edison was fined by the US Department of Education's
Office of
Civil Rights for "failing to provide legally required classroom help for a
disabled child."
Schmidt and Edison founder Christopher Whittle received salaries of close to
$300,000 in 1999, while operating costs were one and a half times as high as
income. Edison used "'aggressive bookkeeping' ... to inflate stock prices
while hiding huge losses ... Edison officers have enjoyed windfalls in the
tens of millions of dollars." By 2002 Edison shares
had dropped 98%, and Edison had been accused by the SEC of misleading
investors. For these and other reasons, Edison has been called "Education's
Enron."
Schmidt plays a similar role in higher education. In New York City he was
head of an Advisory Task Force on the City University of New York and
principal author of its controversial "study" of CUNY. As Chair of the CUNY
Board of
Trustees, his job has been to privatize parts of the CUNY system and end
the school's traditional commitment to
accessible education for lower income New Yorkers.
>
Schmidt is not a figure to be taken lightly. He has powerful connections
with Governor Pataki of New York and former Mayor Giuliani of New York City,
who appointed him to his positions. They are both potential presidential
candidates.
>
The Task Force report will be delivered to the Missouri Government Review
Commission (MGRC), a process rife with conflict of interest. Warren K.
Erdman,
a Kansas City power broker who serves on many corporate boards, is both a
member of the UMKC Board of Trustees and Co-Chair of MGRC.
>
In Kansas City the main support for the Blue Ribbon Task Force comes from
certain local business interests who sit on the UMKC Board of Trustees. The
Kansas City business press, which speaks for these interests, recommended
eliminating the office of President of the UM system and the Board of
Curators,
who legally govern the four campuses according to the Constitution of the
State
of Missouri.
>
The Task Force has publicly recommended removing UMKC from the University of
Missouri system. Its rationale is "local control," which it further claims
will promote "excellence." But it carefully avoids the question of who would
have decisive influence on university policy. In fact, control of UMKC
would pass into the hands of local business
interests who back the Task Force and plan to benefit from the
"localization" (read "privatization") of the institution.
>
The Task Force also carefully avoids the question of funding, that is, what
sources would replace state support of the university. This major omission
indicates how irresponsible its forecasts of "excellence" are. Its vague
promises of increased investment by local businesses are pure fantasy. No
consortium of local businesses could afford, or
would agree, to provide the same level of support as the state of Missouri
currently does.
>
Most of the funding, then, would have to come from two sources: increases
in Kansas City regional taxes and higher tuition.
>
Since the Task Force is proposing a plan for the greater Kansas City
region, tax increases would affect not only western Missouri taxpayers but
possibly
those in eastern Kansas as well. But because the UM system saves money by
sharing resources among its four purses, UMKC would cost more to run as a
stand-alone institution than as part of the UM
system. Thus regional tax increases would very likely be considerable.
>
Since taxes could not make up the shortfall by themselves, tuition would
also rise dramatically. But further increases on top of recent tuition hikes
would make a college education unaffordable for a large proportion of the
students UMKC is mandated to serve, lower income people and communities of
color.
If they are shut out of higher education,
their futures will be less than promising.
But even with higher taxes and tuition, UMKC would remain underfunded, and
underfunded institutions are the opposite of "excellent." Salaries would
stagnate, good faculty and administrators would be driven away or not even
apply for jobs, workloads would increase and working conditions deteriorate
for all employees, teaching and other positions as well as academic programs
would be eliminated (including tenured faculty), particularly those in
non-lucrative disciplines that teach critical thinking, professionally trained
faculty would be replaced, if at all, with
underpaid part-timers, and the quality of education would sink, thus harming
the students.
>
Add to underfunding the autocratic management model recommended in a book
by two Task Force members--thus ending shared governance, academic freedom,
due process, and probably tenure also--and we have a recipe for downgrading
UMKC to a diploma mill. Even retirees would suffer.
Removal of UMKC from the UM system might involve removal of the pension plan
from the four campus retirement system as well. Employee retirement
benefits would be reduced
(smaller pool) and, if privatized, very likely endangered a la Enron. The
Florida retirement system is already endangered as principal owner of Edison
Schools corporation.
>
In the first half of May the FACULTY ADVOCATE, newsletter of the AAUP
chapter at UMKC, published exposes of the Task Force and its agenda and urged
widespread opposition. UM system President Floyd stated that he rejected the
idea of removing UMKC from the UM system. And the UM System Intercampus
Student Council issued a press release opposing privatization and
dismemberment of
the UM system. UMKC as a public institution serves all of the people of
Missouri and specifically those in the Kansas City region. As part of the UM
system, it benefits from uniformly high academic standards,
accessibility for all qualified applicants, affordability, the prestige of a
University of
Missouri degree, a wide choice of academic programs distributed among four
campuses, and easier student transfers between campuses and programs. These
are some of the reasons why it is in everyone's interest to keep UMKC public.
>
>
Other related posts:
