It Has Always Been About Jobs

Another reflection of the difficult economic times we face is the reinvigorated debate about the fundamental purpose of higher education. The debate, which is both internal and external, frequently takes the following line. On one side are those who argue that higher education’s primary goal is to provide students with the knowledge, critical thinking capabilities, and communication skills to empower them to be informed and engaged citizens. The other side advances the claim that, especially in the current economic climate, the primary goal of higher education should be to prepare people to be productive participants in the economy. Simplistically, do colleges and universities exist to prepare students for jobs, or for some other purpose? That’s a fair enough question, one that is certainly on the minds of many students and parents, and a question that clearly can be framed or recast in many complex and nuanced ways.

For land-grant universities like the University of Rhode Island, the answer is, I believe, that our purpose has always been to prepare our students both to be good citizens and productive economic contributors. The Morrill Act of 1862 states: “…each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance, of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life (emphasis mine).” I think the intent is clear – universities that were to be designated as “land-grant” institutions were to educate in order to produce citizens, drawn from the working and middle classes, to be productively engaged in the nation’s economy. The emphasis on “agriculture and the mechanic arts” is important to note: these were the sectors of the economy where the majority of Americans worked.

The University of Rhode Island is charged, as are all land-grant institutions, with providing both “liberal and practical education” to our students. This clause is a cogent example of the highly innovative vision for public higher education laid out in the Morrill Act. It is every bit as relevant in the 21st century as it was in 1862. But the importance of providing both liberal and practical education has perhaps never been more evident. More so than at any time in our past, the modern university’s role is to prepare students for jobs and entire careers that do not yet exist. To succeed we must continually rethink and redesign our academic programs to insure that the content and techniques we teach are as up to date as possible. We must also insure that every student is provided multiple opportunities to acquire the essential reasoning, communication, quantitative, language, social/cultural, and learning skills that are indispensable for success in the global economy.

America certainly needs more students to major in disciplines associated with science, engineering, and technology. At the same time we need to remember that many of our graduates build very successful careers based on majors in the social sciences, the humanities, and the arts. I am convinced, regardless of their programs of study, that engaging students in research, scholarship, and creative work will simultaneously enhance their undergraduate education and prepare them uniquely well for “the several pursuits and professions in life.” Students need to move outside of standard learning environments, whether it involves physical or virtual classrooms, and into research laboratories, field sites, studios, companies and non-profit organizations, or many other environments where they can be confronted with problems that have not been previously solved, or asked to create something new. In my judgment, the University of Rhode Island and America’s other land-grant research universities should seek to provide such learning opportunities to all of our undergraduates. By doing so we will not only prepare them for jobs, we will prepare them to create new jobs.

We Have Met the Enemy - and It's Not Us

Even casual readers of the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education have likely observed that, accompanying the severe financial constraints faced by many public colleges and universities, serious, and at times acrimonious, debates have arisen over how budgets should be balanced. Often it seems that the most highly charged debates are those internal to a campus.

Discussion and debate about the priorities and direction of an institution has long been characteristic of academic culture. It is a desirable and necessary characteristic, a consequence of academic freedom and shared governance, and one of the important attributes of university leadership. Deliberation, consultation, and participation generally have been, and should continue to be, hallmarks of decision-making in higher education. Colleges and universities can still be accurately characterized as “conservative” in the sense that they respect tradition, believe that much can be learned from history, and are cautious about change. But it must also be acknowledged that the pace and magnitude of the changes currently facing higher education will require many of our institutions, especially public ones, to be more adaptable, flexible, and responsive. In short, to change more rapidly than our current practices and systems of shared governance can easily accommodate. And that can be discomforting, unsettling, and alarming.

Given the very difficult financial climate, the growing pressures related to affordability and access, and the pace of – and demands for – change, perhaps we should not be too surprised that internal discussions and debates occasionally degenerate into affixing blame and identifying enemies. Frequently, the divide that is created separates faculty and administration. The rhetoric used is familiar. “Administrators are only interested in adding lines to their resumes, expanding their domains, and pandering to influential external constituencies.” "Faculty are calcified, reflexively resistant to new ideas, and non-productive.” Admittedly, there may be some truth to both caricatures, but less than many think. The substantial risk associated with indulging debate along such lines is that it distracts everyone involved, and higher education’s many stakeholders, from the real issue.

The real issue is cogently presented in a “Discussion Paper” on the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) website entitled: University Tuition, Consumer Choice, and College Affordability. Although slightly dated (2008) its principal findings are probably still sound. This APLU paper examined the financial climate of public colleges and universities and assessed the principal factors driving tuition increases for public institutions. The two main points I want to emphasize are the following (taken directly from the paper, but reversed in order).

“Public university tuition has increased because real per student appropriations have declined. This finding appears again and again in serious examinations of the causes of public university tuition inflation…Overall cost per student has been constant. Tuition increases have been just sufficient to offset reduced state subsidies, but not to increase public university budgets.”

“One of the most robust findings in the research literature is that the real cost per student in public higher education is not increasing….Cost per student has remained constant because revenue per student was constant; funds were not available to increase expenditures further. Public university managers have been highly effective at controlling costs; indeed they were compelled to be, given the resources available.”

These are obviously general statements, but accurate (at least in 2008) for public higher education as a whole. At the University of Rhode Island our increased revenues from tuition and fees have offset steadily declining state funding over the past decade and permitted us to make increased investments in financial aid as we endeavored to maintain affordability. There have been few, if any, significant increases in revenues to do just about anything else. If my many conversations over the last two years with other university presidents are representative, then this has been the case quite broadly. At many institutions, revenues have not kept pace with enrollment growth. At URI, and all but the most well endowed public colleges and universities, reallocation is the dominant mechanism to provide funding for growth or new initiatives. Continuous reallocation can be healthy, but also can be stressful.

So, what are we to do? The first step is to recognize that neither non-productive, ossified faculty, nor overly ambitious, self-promoting administrators, nor any other part of the academic enterprise is fundamentally responsible for our current difficulties. The “enemy”, as it were, is tangible but diffuse: the lack of understanding among Americans of the critical importance of investing in public higher education. China understands this, as do many other countries that are aggressively seeking to increase higher education opportunities and university-based research. Nearly everything associated with higher education, from state appropriations to Pell grants to federal research support, appears to be increasingly at risk for disinvestment in the U.S. This is not just the “enemy” of higher education, but also the “enemy” of economic recovery, of opportunity, of innovation, of growing the middle class, and of building a more just and equitable democracy. Combating this “enemy” is where all of us who care about and understand the value of higher education should focus our collective efforts.

Leadership and Academic Freedom

Because leadership is a central mission of the University of Rhode Island, and research universities more generally, we need to examine the question of how to best provide the leadership that is needed. The work of a university’s governing boards or senior officials is frequently seen as an influential mechanism by which universities can influence public policy, governmental priorities, and resource allocation. So, too, the analyses and recommendations of associations of higher education organizations such as the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of American Universities, and the American Council on Education. But these are not the central, nor the most important, ways in which the leadership of our universities is expressed.

University leadership is primarily derived from the work of faculty and students engaged in scholarship and learning. It flows from the generation and dissemination of knowledge, from the critical analysis and dissection of the politics and culture of societies, from conveying the lessons of history, from opening minds to culture, perspectives, and languages other than their own, and from the interpretation of life through the arts. This is how universities principally provide leadership.

The breadth of the work of the faculty and students at a university cannot be completely captured in any finite list, and it changes continuously. Accordingly, at its best, the work of the university provides a persistent source of discoveries and new ideas that can sustain, invigorate, and renew the societies that foster that work.

In order for the university to carry out such work, faculty must have the “complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results” in the words of the 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure. This is a remarkable document with a living force as important today as when it was written.

Two superb books, For the Common Good (by M. W. Finkin and R. C. Frost) and The Constitution Goes to College (by R. A. Smolla) cogently present this case for academic freedom. They correctly note that academic freedom is not grounded on an argument that university faculty constitute a special class deserving freedoms or rights not guaranteed to other Americans. Rather, it is grounded on the fact that the work of faculty serves an essential public purpose. Put simply, academic freedom provides for the common good. Consequently, I believe that academic freedom fundamentally enables universities to provide the leadership that is so essential in the 21st century.

It is difficult for anyone who cares about higher education not to notice that, in many ways, the concept and value of academic freedom is being challenged with increasing intensity. There are undoubtedly multiple reasons for this, but one, I think, is that we in universities have not adequately shown the connection between academic freedom and the enormous public good universities produce. Instead, we frequently allow academic freedom to be seen as something designed to protect the prerogatives of faculty. In my view, we in higher education need to refute that perception by focusing more sharply on how leadership by universities is crucial to building a brighter future for our nation and the entire world. We must also show that university leadership depends on the protections of academic freedom. Only then can the work of our faculty and students achieve its fullest potential, and only then can the full potential for common good be attained.

Leadership as a Mission

As faculty and staff at the University of Rhode Island prepare in earnest for the new academic year (and clean up at bit from Hurricane Irene), I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of URI and public higher education, and more broadly, our collective future. Recent events have reinforced the conviction that our communities, America, and the world face substantial and undiminished challenges, perhaps even more severe than we believed just a few months ago.

Worries and fears are beginning to grow across many sectors of our nation. And just as our concerns about the future increase, it appears that our confidence in our government’s ability to address those concerns is waning. To me, that is particularly disturbing. Why? Because, for a long time, America has been widely considered the world’s best, most influential, most successful, and most optimistic representative democracy. We are the government. Therefore, doubting our government might be a symptom of a more serious problem – that we doubt our neighbors and even ourselves. By “doubting”, I do not mean exercising responsible skepticism or demanding evidence for others’ assertions or positions (as well as our own). I am concerned by the toxic refusal to even consider views that differ from our own and insistently questioning the motives, ethics, values, and morals of those with whom we differ. Doubting ourselves – unreasonably questioning our abilities and capabilities to adequately respond to the challenges and difficulties we face – is obviously different, but may be partially related. Living and working in an environment dominated by attack and denigration is hardly conducive to building or maintaining the self confidence required to solve difficult problems.

At a meeting this past summer (prior to the near meltdown of governance over the debt ceiling), I heard a presentation by two very experienced and highly-regarded political writers. They indicated that the then current partisanship and polarization of government was substantially more pronounced than what they had previously observed. But in their view this situation arose, at least in part, from the fact that divisions in Congress were driven by powerful forces in society, that in some respects threatened to overwhelm Congress. Another factor was the increasing difficulty to reach agreement on basic facts; highly ideological and partisan media and “think tanks” were all too willing to supply “facts” to suit any preferred position. I came away thinking that critical analysis, serious discussion, negotiation, and finding common ground are no longer seen as essential to the health of our nation – not only by those in Washington but by many factions of our society. Events since then have only reinforced that conclusion.

I believe that in such circumstances public research universities, like the University of Rhode Island, need to accentuate their leadership role. From my perspective, public leadership has long been an implicit mission of the land-grant university. It is time to explicitly acknowledge and embrace that part of our historic mission.

There are multiple, important areas where the leadership of the nation’s public universities could become a critical factor in surmounting the challenges and difficulties that currently confront us. We need to articulate and consistently demonstrate the importance of constructive engagement with ideas and positions that differ from one’s own. We should insist on the appropriate use of scientific findings, quantitative analysis, data analysis, and rational discourse in shaping public policy. We need to defend the importance of education, research, objective analysis, and expertise in shaping the search for solutions. We should show in our words and actions that it is not only possible, but desirable, to find common ground and develop shared solutions in the midst of very diverse assumptions, worldviews, and sociopolitical allegiances. I strongly believe that it is critical for public universities to forcefully remind our political leadership, and our people, that finding solutions to the extensive, global-scale challenges that we face in the 21^st century in fact requires us to work constructively with others who do not share our views, presuppositions, religious beliefs, or all of our values.

I think the University of Rhode Island is prepared to expand its leadership role. I believe that it is essential to the future of our state and nation that we do so.

Groundbreakings

Over the last week I have attended three separate groundbreaking ceremonies. Separately and collectively these events illustrate both key attributes of the University of Rhode Island and our progress towards achieving our goals.

The first event was the celebration of the beginning of the construction process for our new dormitory. This state-of-the-art facility will house 429 freshmen and sophomores. It will feature study spaces and informal gathering spaces, together with the residence rooms, and will create a terrific center for the integration of living and learning at URI. This facility is an important step in building community at our university – by providing more and better spaces for students to live and learn together. All of us look forward its opening in the fall of 2012.

On Monday I attended the groundbreaking ceremony for new research and office space at Alexion Pharmaceuticals in Smithfield. Alexion and URI are developing a strong partnership, to the benefit of our students and to Alexion’s success. Together we can help build the Rhode Island economy while providing a richer education for our students and the kind of staff that Alexion needs. It is a partnership worth celebrating and cultivating, and I was pleased to be there representing URI.

The third event was last Saturday, where students, faculty, and staff from the University of Rhode Island joined folks from South County and across the state to celebrate the start of the construction of four houses for Habitat for Humanity. This was a terrific event that exemplified our shared commitment to community, to assisting those in need, and to being a supportive neighbor.

It is simply inspiring to experience the excitement for this project and to see the depth and breadth of URI’s involvement in making these homes, this new part of our neighborhood, a reality to celebrate for years to come. A lot of URI students have been a part of making this happen: Karin Mellin, Kari Lukovics, Carissa Johnson, Scott Andrews, and Darthula Hansford are working with Habitat for Humanity (Scott is President of the URI chapter and Darthula is the liaison between South County Habitat for Humanity and the URI chapter). Many of our Greek organizations, the volleyball team, and other student groups have helped raise money for the house that our URI community will build.

Here is a picture from the Habitat ground breaking featuring several of the students and others from URI. I hope to see you at the site in the fall!

Discovering More at URI (Part 2)

Last week the University of Rhode Island hosted two especially noteworthy events that attracted substantial attention on- and off-campus. These were the Cybersecurity Symposium and Discovery Day. Both events presented, in different ways, many of the challenges we face in the 21^st century, and highlighted the numerous and important contributions that contribute to overcoming those challenges made by faculty and students at URI.

The Cybersecurity Symposium featured Congressman Jim Langevin and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who are both widely regarded, as among our nation’s key leaders in understanding and combating the threats posed to America and Rhode Island by breaches, spying, and attacks on the ubiquitous networks now seemingly indispensible to practically every aspect of our lives. Those threats were cogently outlined in a compelling keynote address from General Keith Alexander, who is the Director of the National Security Agency/Chief of the Central Security Service, and Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command.

The magnitude of the damage already done to the U.S. economy and to citizens is much larger than many people realize, and the threats are diverse and growing. As sobering as that information is, it was also clear that faculty, students, and alumni of the University of Rhode Island are among the leaders in developing solutions to the challenges and problems posed by security breaches in our information networks. The URI Center for Digital Forensics, and the research and education activities of several faculty and students in the Department of Computer Science and Statistics and the Department of Electrical, Computer, and Bioengineering already contribute in important ways. I got the sense that many who attended the Symposium discovered this fact about URI while they were here. It is clear, I think, that URI can play a much more substantial role in assisting both government and the private sector. New collaborations and partnerships are in the works, which will provide additional opportunities for students and faculty, which, somewhat ironically, may actually provide an economic boost to Rhode Island.

Discovery Day at the University of Rhode Island also emphasized the contributions of students and faculty at URI across the entire range of research and scholarship characteristic of a research university. Students and faculty from every college participated. It was frankly inspiring to see the contributions URI is making to understanding and finding solutions to problems in education, health, science and technology, business, and the environment. URI’s scholarship and creative work in the humanities and the arts was also well represented.

I would like to personally thank our speakers for Discovery Day as well. Keith Stokes, Executive Director of the RI Economic Development Corporation, Leslie Taito, CEO of the RI Manufacturing Extension Service, Umberto Crenca, Founding Artistic Director of AS220, and Paul Hastings, President and CEO of OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, all provided insightful and illuminating talks that illustrated the close relationships between research and creative work and economic and community development. Thanks also to Vice President Peter Alfonso and Den Nasser Zawia (and their staffs) for organizing these events. Dean Dave Maslyn and the Library staff did an excellent job in hosting both the Cybersecurity Symposium and Discovery Day.

The enthusiasm and energy of all who participated in both events, and the invaluable connections that were strengthened or initiated, provide a very strong argument for continuing these symposia. I’m confident we will do that.

Discovering More at URI

The last couple of weeks have been incredibly busy at the University of Rhode Island. Four events stand out: two evenings where special university awards were announced – the Rainville Leadership Awards and the Diversity Awards; and two symposia – one on Cybersecurity and then Discovery Day at URI. My guess is that everyone who attended discovered new things about what our students, faculty, and staff are doing that are, to recycle a phrase that I’ve used previously, “transforming the world.”

Let’s focus here on the awards, and then I will discuss the other events in a subsequent post. The University of Rhode Island has long been committed to developing leaders who make a difference. Our Leadership minor is a very popular and effective program that is a key part of our curriculum. In addition, there are innumerable opportunities for students to develop their leadership skills and to gain invaluable experience. Many of these are created and developed by the students themselves. URI seems to attract students who are committed to transforming the university and the world, and I conclude that we have built a climate here that encourages and supports our students in those efforts.

The students who won the Rainville leadership awards are all simply amazing. Lauren Creamer, Courtney O’Keefe, Valerie Damon-Leduc, and the students in the URI Violence Prevention Peer Advocates have had a tremendous, positive impact on the university, our neighboring communities, and beyond. Remarkably, they also excel in their academic work. They exemplify what is best about URI.

Last night, the Diversity Awards, which also reflect outstanding leadership, were presented to another amazing group of students, faculty, staff and alumni. Jason Almeida, Darnell Spencer, John Brito, Maxwell Edmonds, Michaela Cashman, Brandford Davis, the Gay – Straight Alliance, eXposure, WOWW, Bryana White, Tripp Hutchison, Amy Olson, Dr. Jody Lisberger, Dr. Mercedes Rivero Hudec, and Paul Hastings each represent a compelling testimony of courage and devotion to creating a just and equitable community where diversity is respected and honored. I believe that everyone present was inspired and encouraged by their example.

It’s easy in times like those we currently face to be discouraged and even angry at the conditions and challenges that confront us. It’s easy to simply focus on ourselves and our own priorities and goals. It’s easy to ignore, marginalize, resent, or blame others who we envy or regard as “different”. But the enduring testimonies of the individuals and groups honored over the past week speak to the contrary. They speak to taking action against anger, discouragement, and despair; they speak to courage in the face of adversity; they speak to commitment to make a difference. Most of all, they speak to hope.