Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Northwest labor press. (Portland , Ore.) 1987-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 18, 2013)
Breaking Away Top public universities push for ‘autonomy’ from states By MARIAN WANG ProPublica The chancellor of Oregon’s higher- education system currently oversees all seven of the state’s public colleges and universities. But as of July next year, she’ll be chancellor of four. The schools aren’t closing. Rather, Oregon’s three largest state schools are in the process of breaking away from the rest of the public system. The move, long pushed by some university leaders in the system, will give the University of Oregon, Portland State University and Oregon State Uni- versity more freedom to hire and fire presidents, issue revenue bonds, and raise tuition. Across the country, a small but growing number of public universities are making similar pushes, looking to cut deals with state lawmakers that scale back direct oversight, often in re- turn for less funding or for meeting cer- tain performance targets. Over the past few years, schools in Texas, Virginia and Florida have all gotten more flexi- bility to raise tuition. Other plans have recently been broached, though with less success, in Wisconsin, California and Louisiana. The proposals vary in scope, but their proponents generally argue that more autonomy allows public universi- ties to operate with less red tape and with greater freedom to raise revenue as state funding has fallen. But many within higher education point to the potential downsides. They worry that these universities — often the better-known and wealthier public universities — could end up sidelining broader state goals such as access and affordability, in pursuit of their own agendas, such as moving up in college rankings. “My fear is that if public flagships become so focused on revenue and OCTOBER 18, 2013 prestige, and so focused on autonomy, tonomy from the Commonwealth. they will minimize their commitment Those agreements mandated that the to the public agenda,” said Richard No- schools still meet various benchmarks vak, who was previously director of — but they also gave the universities public-sector programs at the Associa- wiggle room. Three years after the deal, a state au- tion of Governing Boards. “They should be leading the public agenda. If they privatize too “It’s not an accident that you much, they’re not going to be see this happening among doing it for much longer.” Others have similar con- big, well-funded publics.” cerns. “I think there’s a potential for confusion, unhealthy competition dit report concluded that while the and misuse of resources,” said Robert schools were meeting their “access” O’Neil, who headed the statewide Uni- goals, the number of low-income stu- versity of Wisconsin system and was dents at each of the universities — as also president of the University of Vir- measured by federal Pell grants — was ginia. In O’Neil’s experience, central- actually decreasing. (A university ized oversight helps keep in check am- spokesman said enrollment of low-in- bitions that might lead colleges to come students has gone up since then.) Even some supporters of moving to- pursue wasteful projects or duplicative ward privatization have begun to have programs. There’s relatively little research on second thoughts. James Garland, former president of the overall benefits or drawbacks of schools gaining autonomy, but it does Miami University, a public university appear that such universities often end in Ohio, was once a strong proponent up resembling private colleges, moving of what he calls “semi-privatization” of toward a “high tuition, high aid” model American public universities, having in which schools hike sticker prices sig- headed a university that he describes as nificantly while offering big discounts “public in name only.” In 2009, he to students schools are trying to attract. wrote a book arguing that public uni- (As ProPublica has detailed, state versities should be autonomous and schools have been giving a growing deregulated by their states. In the years since, Garland said, his portion of grants to wealthier students and a shrinking portion to the neediest.) views on the autonomy question have State and university officials push- “mellowed.” Though he still believes ing for more autonomy often balk at the autonomy can make sense for some term “privatization,” noting that the uni- schools, he’s also concerned about the versities aren’t severing all ties with the potential pitfalls. state. As one planning group at the Uni- versity of Virginia wrote last month, “Autonomous is not the opposite of public.” The University of Virginia, along with two other state universities, struck deals in 2005 that won it significant au- NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS “Some of these flagships would like to make decisions that benefit their own financial future and give them the abil- ity to build posh dining halls or giant stadiums or create new nanotechnology centers,” Garland said, “when what re- ally may be more needed than that is simply providing a high-quality rigor- ous college education for legions of stu- dents in the state who can’t afford that now and have no place to go and get it.” “It’s not an accident that you see this happening among big, well-funded publics,” Garland added. At the University of Virginia, inter- nal discussion of further steps toward privatization has continued. As the Washington Post recently reported, a draft report from a university planning committee recommended “another ma- jor restructuring of the relationship be- tween the University and the Common- wealth.” The document notes that the change “would not mean complete pri- vatization.” University of Virginia spokesman McGregor McCance said the draft re- port was part of early discussions about possible models for public higher edu- cation, and that there are no plans for the university to ask for additional au- tonomy. Colleges and universities that do seek to move in this direction need to have candid conversations about their goals, said Garland: “As more and more schools argue successfully for some kind of autonomy from their states, there has to be a real under- standing about what the mission of those schools is going to be in the fu- ture and there has to be some way of evaluating their conformity to that mis- sion.” In Oregon, they’re still feeling their way through. All of the state’s public colleges will still be overseen in some way by a coordinating commission. That includes the three largest schools, which, even with their new freedoms, will still need the commission to ap- prove certain items, such as tuition hikes beyond 5 percent. The details of how that system of checks and balances will work — and how the change will affect the smaller universities still part of the system — remain to be seen. “It’s such a turbulent time for higher education, there’s a lot to be said for helping to position institutions to be much more nimble when it comes to shaping the business and delivery of higher education,” said Ben Cannon, the governor of Oregon’s education policy adviser, who was recently ap- pointed head of the commission. As to whether the new autonomy will actually help schools become more nimble, Cannon acknowledged, “It’s kind of unproven.” Asked what they will call the new structure and whether the “Oregon Uni- versity System” will nominally con- tinue to refer to all seven universities, Cannon said that was still being de- cided. “That’s a complicated question. The labels are still up for grabs,” Cannon said. “The structure really isn’t. That’s done.” PAGE 5
