THERE IS NO DOUBT that higher education in South Carolina would benefit from a stronger central governing authority, preferably a board of regents. Gov. Mark Sanford seeks this goal, and he has been frustrated by colleges and universities putting up roadblocks in its path. Having had enough of the games, Gov. Sanford fired back, telling colleges and universities that if they don’t want to work together for the good of the state, they would be better off leaving the system. The governor’s proposal was clearly a volley at Clemson University, the most entrenched and determined opponent of central control.

We understand the governor’s frustration with Clemson. Some of its trustees have flirted openly with the notion they would be better off private. President James Barker questioned whether Clemson should call itself “public” anymore, saying its rising support from tuition and other non-state sources has made it more of a “hybrid” institution. Mr. Barker dishonors the great, public service tradition of Clemson with such remarks, as do his trustees who encourage them.

While Clemson University has make the loudest noise along these lines, it is not alone. At a retreat earlier this year, USC trustee Darla Moore said of the state’s flagship public university, “We are two-thirds private, and we need to start thinking like that.”

There are compelling arguments to be made for private investment in higher education. The extra cash that private donations and grants provide increases the scope and reach of universities’ missions, including research that is in the public good. Colleges and universities can raise the overall educational achievement in our state and contribute to increased economic activity. Private investment in that mission benefits private enterprise with a healthier operating environment.

On another front, colleges and universities have, of necessity, raised the portion of their revenue that comes from students and parents. These unprecedented tuition hikes came in the wake of state funding cuts. It should be noted that some of that revenue does come from the state in a roundabout way, through the state-funded scholarships many college students use.

On the regulatory front, colleges and university leaders are correct to say that some state requirements are cumbersome and dampen innovation. But that calls for improving governance, not doing away with it.

The reason we need a board of regents is that Clemson, USC and other powerful schools historically have acted too much like private institutions, and too little like state agencies. They looked to their own needs and goals more than to the entire state’s. They have worked together only to the extent that they have chosen to do so.

State investment has made the premier institutions in our higher education system what they are today. Clemson, USC and the Medical University of South Carolina are the best we offer our residents in terms of higher education that is much more reasonably priced than similar private options. The recent cooperation between those three institutions is something we need more of, not less. That’s why we need governing arrangements that would promote that.

Even if you think any of them should go private, which we don’t, the present proposal would give them too much. Clemson’s tangible property alone is worth a king’s ransom. And that doesn’t touch the good will of its name and years of continuous, successful operation at state expense, assets no responsible private business would give away.

Clemson should act less like a private institution, not more so. The governor’s proposal to let it become completely private goes too far.