Shaking foundations. (Editor's Note).

IF YOU WANT TO GET AN INSIDE LOOK AT WHAT'S REALLY WRONG with university business in the 21st century, hop on the Web and snoop around inside a university's strategic planning discussion board and, as David Carradine used to say, "All will become clear, Grasshopper." You won't be able to miss the monstrous tug-of-war that is only growing between those who believe innovative strategizing is what's needed for the healthy survival of higher education, and those who genuinely believe that anything that has already survived a century or two, must be pretty fine as is.

A perfect example of this struggle is that which has been waged at the University of Nevada, Reno since early March, when President John Lilley proposed a stalking reorganization of the flagship university's colleges. Ostensibly, the six-year overhaul is designed to move the university closer to a model that would not be as much at the mercy of dwindling state funding as is the current one. It involves the restructuring of several colleges, and the creation of new cross-discipline institutions of study. Of course, it also means that funding and staffing among the colleges will change, and that's a mighty uncomfortable proposition for people who are comfy with the status quo.

Objections on the Internet discussion board have ranged from accusations of the "disintegration of the Arts and Sciences College," to those of creating a "sacrificial lamb" of another school. One faculty member complained, "... these proposals spend little time in consideration of student needs or experiences, except as they may influence future giving to the university," and another went on to predict, "... there will be a gradual chipping away of the Core [Curriculum]" (even though he admitted "I have never been a fan of the specific content of our Core Curriculum"). Another staffer proclaimed, "Arts and Science has been reorganizing itself in evolutionary fashion since it was created, and it is functioning very well in light of the resources available to it." Still another suggested merely "a more aggressive search for private funding to offset state funding ... that or limiting enrollment." Petitions were drawn up and circulated; a no-confidence vote in the planning was encouraged. Then, from what must have seemed to Dr. Lilley like an oasis in the Nevada desert, came this, from a notable professor of chemistry at the university:

   I applaud the [University Planning Council] for such courageous proposals.
   They are obviously thinking well outside the box to address how the
   university should most effectively move toward the future. It took
   considerable daring to lay out such a foundation-threatening intellectual
   exercise, before the critical eyes of the faculty and deans, and if nothing
   else it has effectively gotten people involved ... Moreover, a fruitful
   outcome is that departments, units, and colleges are rightfully being
   prodded to defend their existence, as well as to justify where they fit, or
   should fit, in the bigger university picture. The proposed reorganization
   schemes go far beyond the cautious and often parochial Phase II Plans, end
   boldly illustrate what are conceivable alternate models for our
   university.... the UPC should be congratulated for getting past the `fix
   our problems, but don't do anything too drastic' mentality that many of us
   have.

Lilley, in fact, is known for the change and growth that he fostered at Penn State Erie in his 20-plus years there. During his tenure he more than doubled enrollment; implemented strategic planning with graduate, research, and land-grant mission; created schools of Business, Engineering & Engineering Technology with graduate programs, and created schools of Science, and Humanities & Social Sciences with baccalaureate programs; created 13 research centers and secured funding for the $30-million Research and Economic Development Center; raised close to $65 million for endowments and physical facilities; and so on. His ability to bring about change is doubtless the reason UNR brought him on board in April 2001.

But are the changes he and the Council have proposed at the heart of the dissent, or is it simply a matter of too much too fast--frightening much of the faculty, who feel the ground shifting beneath them?

There is "concern," said one petitioner, "that strategic planning on campus has been driven from the top down." Another declared that faculty, department heads, and deans "feel ignored, unappreciated, and sidelined." Yet another protested, "[Lilley's] treatment of me has been abrupt. I have continued to question the process of strategic planning at considerable risk to my own health, which resulted in a trip to the emergency room for heart palpitations."

Whether or not the UPC's plans go through, remains to be seen. Their success or failure will be evident only down the road. But in higher education, the process of pitting considerable daring against the status qua needs to be scientifically reevaluated, for it isn't working as is. This is only a guess, but I'd say it needs a more generous timeframe, better and more detailed communication, sophisticated internal marketing, and bona fide cross-organizational debate. Or else why would one staunch petitioner offer, "... while I now find dubious the proposition that we need anything so dramatic ... perhaps I could be convinced." What's your opinion?

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