editorially speaking Economic Realities: Collegiality and Reform Concerns about the cost, the access, and the quality of the current educational process a s perceived by students and their p a r e n t s h i g h e r education's principal consumers-was the subject of discussion on this page last month. To some the current student expectations seem to bode trouble. However, a more positive n e w of the situation recognizes that the elements-of change are, for the most part, well defined and, accordingly, susceptible to systematic action. Probablv lesson " the touehest ~ - that the colleeiate community must learn now is that little is to be gained in arguing with "the market" or the legislature. Historically the collective influence of academic institutions' administration and alumni has been enormous and often sufficient to ensure the continued flow of resources into the educational system. That condition appears no longer to be the case. Legislative critics and would-be customers seem less and less patient with detailed explanations of why things cost so much, why the processes of research and discovery are so important, and, indeed, why it is best to continue to do things in the future as they have been done in the past. The general public no longer wants to be reminded of the special values that collegiate institutions claim to enshrine. There is a growing conviction among the stakeholders outside of academe that colleges and universities should practice, not simply proclaim, their commitment to intellectual freedom, equity, and the pursuit of open debate. To many people, academic institutions are the proverbial "glass houses" occupied by those who cast--or are prepared to c a s t t h e first stone in the debate about cost, access, and equity The time for academics' cherished reasoned discourse is past. The makers and shapers of public policy have spelled out their concerns, often with micro&opk clarity; in response they expect a behavior that is obviously different from that of previous decades. Confounding this new direction in public policy are the current expectations of parents and an increasingly diverse student body; they want to be shown, not told, that colleges and universities have gotten the message about their concerns with cost, access, and quality. Although the external pressures that demand change are reasonahly well delineated, leaders within academe who seek to facilitate those changes often find themselves confronted by a n apparently endless sea of dilemmas. Academic leaders must build bridges of unknown (and some might contend unknowable) structures between the demands of the external world and the values of academe, between day-to-day necessities and long-range visions, between tradition and innovation, between management and leadership, between past and present, and between the ~
~
~
~
present and an ill-defined future. Universities ore special place% and the burden of the current leadership is to continue to make them special places in the face of the external pressures. However, the "specialness" of universities may not have the same form a s it had in the past. The loosely defined core values that have made them special will have to be ex~ressedmore carefullv and differentlv. The transition between the past and a sGfting present, let alone a n ill-defined future. is fraueht with unanswered questions. Where do we go from (la comfortable) here? W h a t works? W h a t doesn't? How can dead-ends be avoided? Do good examples of successful change exist? And. perhaps most im~ortantlv.how do we know when it's beingdone ^right? In academe, faculty are often the primary agents of changes that persist. For example, in the realm of research the concerted energy of only a few faculty can lead to estab." So it can lishment of the "Center for Research in be--no, must be-with respect to the preservation of the core values that will survive. The reform process must be embraced by those faculty who recognize and value the "specialness" of universities. Academic institutions will have to become more aeile. Thev will have to find wavs to ensure that full-time f&ulty te&h core courses, and tb become more efficient and less committed to emolovment for . " its own sake. The urgent need for academic restructuring derives mainly from tough financial times. Eliminating recurring costs means reducing personnel and rethinking both the scope and the scale of instructional and research programs. Reducing costs means recasting basic functions and purposes. No longer can progress be defined in terms of addition; we will have to learn how to make progress by substitution. One aspect of the "specialness," of academic institutions is their commitment to collegiality in academic governance, a trait that distinguishes them from for-profit organizations. This commitment often impedes the ability of universities and colleges to act with the same deliberateness a s institutions with top-down management. I t is relatively easy to try out new ideas and mount new programs in a n era of increasing revenues. However, in tight money times "turfism" can hamper a n institution's capacity to change the way it does business. The commitment to colleeialitv " and the need to cut budeets. , which aenerallv inelude a large fraction of a budget assigned to salaries and benefits for facultv and staff. are a t odds. Resolution of that paradox is a t t h e heart of the restructuring dilemma facing colleges and universities. JJL
-
-
Volume 71
Number 9 September 1994
719
