Good morning.  Thank you for another opportunity to share some developments and perspectives with you.

The IFS met on April 7-8 on the campus of the University of Oregon.  The theme for the first few hours, to no one's great surprise, was money.  We were welcomed by UO Provost John Moseley, who spoke to us about the new RAM model, specifically as applied at the University of Oregon.  He pointed out that the BAS model had few incentives for a campus to do anything other than stay at the bottom of its "corridor," whereas the RAM model now provides incentives for growth, all other factors being equal. Provost Moseley also informed us of the UO's 5-year plan to reach a 95% of comparators level of faculty salaries, a plan which IFS hopes other campuses might seek to emulate.  And, believe it or not, that will be almost my only comment today about faculty salaries.

Chancellor Cox joined us next, first urging us to pay careful and serious attention to ballot measures which will soon be before us.  We then discussed approaches to the next higher education budget, including, at the Chancellor's initiative, the matter of faculty salaries.

Board Member Geri Richmond, who had spent the earlier part of the afternoon with us as well, was our next guest.  Professor Richmond emphasized the warmth with which she has been received as a Board member and how receptive all have been -- and she did not pay me to say that.  IFS members indicated the fine job she appears to be doing in pioneering the role of faculty
member on the Board, and there was collective  discussion of what that role should be and should not be, including general agreement that it is not meant to "represent" faculty but, instead, to offer the unique perspective of a concerned professional who happens to work every day on a public college campus.  And, of course, we talked about a variety of campus issues.

Our next visitor on this busy afternoon was Yvette Webber-Davis, OUS Diversity Officer, who walked us through the Faculty Diversity Initiative Program and its sub-programs, approved by this Board in 1995.  We discussed several of these initiatives in terms of potential IFS involvement in attempting to increase the diversity of students and staff in OUS institutions, since IFS has established this topic as one of our priority concerns.  The heart of the problem, which is something of a vicious circle, is that we desperately need and seek people of color while we are hampered by a poor reputation for being a welcoming state for people of color.

Next, Grattan Kerans kindly yielded up his place on our backed-up schedule to State Senator Lee Beyer of Eugene.  Senator Beyer began by stating the view that our next legislative session could be good for higher education or could be the worst we have ever had, largely depending upon the success of well-known ballot initiative measures - - and others not so well-known. After considerable discussion of this threat, the bulk of our time with the Senator was spent discussing anticipations of the next legislature and how to effectively influence its membership on behalf of higher education.

Grattan Karans then stepped forward as our final guest of the afternoon. Again, our discussion centered upon the upcoming budget, the upcoming legislature, and Oregon's not-so-proud 44th-place ranking in per capita spending on public higher education.

The next morning the group met for its business meeting, as is our custom, and what I'd like to comment on today grows out of my usual summary that morning of Board meeting highlights.  I happened to mention one of those items we have all experienced that you think is going to be quick and simple but which turns out to trigger lengthy discussion.  What the item was was the proposal to eliminate "flat plateau" tuition rates and substitute "per credit" tuition charges for all students.  Well, a great deal of
conversation ensued, not that this was an entirely unfamiliar proposal to anyone but that it focused some broader emotions and concerns which I'm about to identify.  Namely, the concern is that this seemingly innocuous and efficient move symbolizes what one member termed "the Balkanization of coursework," a second called "the privatization of a public good," a third termed "the commodification of academia," and a fourth described as "an emulation of the University of Phoenix."  All four of these characterizations pertain to the fear that credit-based tuition is likely to discourage students from utilizing horizon-broadening elective courses, likely to move them away from signing up for "programs" as such and toward signing up for courses only (thus the Balkanization idea), and likely to move university faculty one step closer to becoming trainers rather than educators.

Then, four days later, I found myself browsing through an old copy of Harper's Magazine while passing time in a hospital waiting room.  An article caught my eye, titled "I Know Why the Caged Bird Cannot Read" and subtitled "How American high school students learn to loathe literature."  Although the focus was on high schools, not universities, and specifically on how the misteaching of literature contributes to an educationally crippled citizenry, I found myself thinking back to the prior Saturday's IFS meeting. And I also found myself thinking back to how many times during my several months of observing Board meetings and Board committee meetings I have heard well-intentioned apprehension expressed about the "practical value" of a program, or about "how worthwhile" a course might be, or about "how useful" a foreign language is.

Third, as I was preparing these remarks yesterday I noticed a flyer about an upcoming seminar soon to be held on my campus by a visiting scholar whose expertise is in the three C's of "creeping campus corporatism."  His April 24 talk is entitled "The Fate of Humanism in a Corporatized University."  As you can imagine, I was beginning to conclude that the fates were dictating what I should address you about today.

All of this, it seems to me, is of a piece: a vital, complex piece for which the members of the Board bear an enormous, frightening responsibility.  The awesome challenge before you is to guide the operation and management of our institutions without endangering fundamental elements of what makes them worthy institutions to begin with.  If our universities are meant to nourish the human spirit and to expand awareness, inspire sensitivity toward others, and build communication skills and critical thinking capacities (as I believe they are), then a given policy or procedure supportive of those goals is in order.  A contrasting procedure may be suitable for something calling itself a university but truly bent only upon producing employment skills and credentials while disdaining Shakespeare and all other ostensibly "non-relevant" subject matter.  Furthermore, I think we would all agree that a  vital and productive economy is really best served by having creative, spirited employees, not unimaginative drones who simply assemble their widgets the same way every day.  Every good CEO knows that Frederick Taylor's time-and- motion efficiency ideas were vastly oversimplified and just didn't pan out.  As the author of the Harpers article (Francine Prose) remarks, "Education, after all, is a process intended to produce a product. So we have to ask ourselves: What sort of product is being produced by the current system?  How does it change when certain factors are added to, or removed from, our curriculum?"  In the context of an earlier topic in today's meeting, I am all for the improvement of science facilities on our campuses, but my view may differ slightly from Dr. Richmond's; for every dollar strategically invested in engineering, computer science and biosciences (and these seem to always be the only areas selected for "strategic investment"), a proportionately lesser segment of a campus's resources are directed toward the social sciences, humanities, and fine arts.  I would expand the "Wustenberg Principle" which has been cited a few times here today from "The students first" to "All of the students first" (not just some of them who happen to have declared favored majors).

This educational philosophizing on my part may seem far removed from the operational matter of how to charge tuition.  But I'm not sure the distance is that great.  And the message is simply a plea on behalf of the non-utilitarian.  When we start demanding the measurable utility of every facet of a university education, we threaten the time-honored, value-added, subjective components of what a university education should be about.  So I implore you, in your wisdom, to consider the unintended consequences of rulings that may have the deceptive appearance of being simple, straightforward business decisions.  I have appointed a subcommittee of the IFS to further explore this particular matter of tuition charge systems, and I would be pleased to share any findings with you if you are so inclined.

I have no update on the IFS Legislative Agenda I cited two months ago except to tell you that we are still at work on it and in the process of constructing a Scholars' Network of existing faculty expertise for informational access on the part of any and all policy makers in the state - - including Board members.  I would remind you of our annual joint meeting of IFS, AOF, and AAUP, coming up at the Alumni Center on the campus of Oregon State University on the morning of Saturday, April 29.  IFS itself next convenes June 2-3 at Southern Oregon University.

Thank you for your attention.  These reports are a privilege for me, and I hope you find them helpful.
 
 

Gary H. Tiedeman
Professor of Sociology/Director, Liberal Studies
Fairbanks 303/Social Science 213F
541-737-5383/541-737-0628
FAX: 737-5372/737-2434
E-mail: GTiedeman@orst.edu