A question of balance: who does your school exist for--students or faculty? Maybe it's time to restore the power balance.

IN THE JUNE 2003 ISSUE OF UNIVERSITY BUSINESS, EDITORIAL contributor Bob Sevier wrote the following in his column, "Fine-tuning Your Mission":

   A president I interviewed white writing this column said that a
   mission statement is all about finding relevance in today's
   marketplace. Afraid that he might anger his peers, he asked
   that I not use his name. He explained, "Many colleges and
   universities--perhaps even my own--are relevant to only one
   group: faculty. Unfortunately, unless they can find relevance
   with supporting constituencies--prospective students, donors,
   and alumni--they will increasingly find themselves ignored by
   the marketplace." He's right.

I saved this excerpt when I saw it, and placed it on a corner of my desk where I've been glancing at it from time to time, ever since. I had scrawled across it, "Write an editorial on this," but should have added the words, "--when you have the guts." That was in May, when Bob's story came in. It's now mid-July, two issues later.

Now obviously, I don't need a great deal of courage to speak to you about the broader issue of considering relevance to constituencies when formulating a mission statement for your institution. And I'm no expert on how to do that--Bob is, so I'll leave it to him to develop that topic in future columns. But I do want to focus on that red-hot quote above from an unnamed source (who was also, no doubt, concerned about how his or her opinion would go over, hence the request for anonymity): "Many colleges and universities--perhaps even my own--are relevant to only one group: faculty."

While I am not qualified to discuss the ins and outs of building mission statements, the area of expertise I can claim at this moment is that of issue repository. And as issues go, I have sat at too many high-level higher ed conference dinners and meetings in the recent past, where I was privy to the behind-the-scenes "Who are we really for--students or faculty?" debate. Unfortunately, the college and university presidents tossing this issue about never allow me to quote them for the record. But they certainly are willing to "let it all hang out" in front of me, possibly hoping I will steel myself and take the initiative to pen this editorial, thereby igniting the fire that will bring the issue to the forefront. And of course--as always--I take the bait.

So, you won't see any presidential names in this column. But as information repository, I can tell you this: Most college and university presidents with whom I have met say they not only acutely feel the burden of this faculty vs. students issue, but they feel it weighs them down like a heavy, wet blanket tossed over all of their plans and initiatives for a proactive, progressive, and responsive administration. In this era especially (where there is an urgent need to travel light, shedding program redundancies and waste all the way to a more viable and enduring institution) there is something seriously wrong with the attitude that an IHE must be focused on the needs of the faculty even at beyond-saturation cost to students and their families and the rest of the institution.

The argument has always been that without top-level faculty, an IHE simply cannot attract its target student--and no one is going to argue that point or suggest that the level of instruction be sacrificed for cost-saving measures. Yet, as in everything else in life, there is a matter of balance at play here, and many college and university presidents feel their institutions are gravely out of balance when it comes to indulging faculty requirements at the expense of students or the university as a whole. Even our anonymous speaker above allows that this situation exists at "perhaps even my own" institution, yet he/she seems not to feel able to manage it. Perhaps, at that school, students cannot find or are shut out of the programs they want, white there are too many of those they don't need. Maybe they cannot receive instruction from the top-level faculty the institution boasts, and can only queue up, year after year, for TAs or adjunct instructors while research time abounds for those most coveted faculty stars.

And higher education pundits and onlookers of note (William Massy and Ronald Ehrenberg are two) make no bones about the fact that postsecondary spending is out of control after what seems a lifetime of you-want-it-you-got-it expenditure. Those funds have too often gone to keep faculty appeased. This is not to say that no end of valuable programs have been fought for by faculty; they have. It is not to say that funds are not wasted in many other directions; they most certainly are. And it is also not to say that in these tough economic times U.S. colleges and universities--state and community schools, especially--do not feel forced to underpay, cut back, and lay off all levels of talented faculty; they do. But the fact still remains that there are too many schools wherein students are the second consideration, not the first, and that issue is not only critical to the changing face of higher education, but, ironically, to the survival of those very colleges and universities where balance has gone awry.

Is yours one of those institutions? If so, I welcome your thoughts (even anonymously) on this issue, and your suggestions toward restoring balance. I've done my job of taking in the issue, presenting it, and handing it back to you for discussion and, hopefully, improvement. Now it's your turn.

You can reach Kathy Grayson at [e-mail].