A WAVE OF ENERGY is sweeping through South Carolina's higher education community, generated by visionary leaders in academia, business and government. This initiative is encouraging, particularly because it involves unprecedented unity among our state's three research universities. A system that for generations has perpetuated mediocrity in post-secondary education now seeks to reach for the stars. There is much in this plan that should be implemented by our state Legislature. But there is one critical flaw that cannot be ignored.

Last week, three-score state representatives, Republicans and Democrats, introduced the South Carolina Research University Restructuring and Infrastructure Act of 2003.

The legislation seeks to enhance South Carolina's three research schools -- Clemson University, the University of South Carolina and the Medical University of South Carolina. That's a worthy goal. While these institutions are our state's best on the public higher education front, they are not considered national models of excellence. Our small state has never provided any one of them with the resources enjoyed by the top schools in other states. The three schools have reached the logical conclusion that the only way they can be a national powerhouse is jointly, through collaborative efforts.

The trio believe there is some regulatory relief that would help them join the ranks of top-tier institutions. Many other states with more successful universities moved long ago to allow more innovation and private investment than South Carolina permits.

The time for such changes has come.

There is only one seriously troubling aspect to this legislation -- the fact that it deals with the research universities alone. We applaud scrapping the old idea that all goodies in higher education must be doled out evenly among nearly three-dozen schools. But we also see the need for comprehensive oversight of all post-secondary institutions through a strong, central governing authority -- along the lines of a board of regents.

The research universities propose in this legislation that they come under their own special oversight council. The measure's boosters are right when they say the Commission on Higher Education is stifling them in achieving excellence. But because of their move, the technical colleges are already hinting they may ask to be removed from CHE's oversight, too. We don't need such further fragmentation.

The idea of freeing the three top institutions from the ineffective CHE while linking and coordinating their efforts is a wonderful one. But the case for including the smaller institutions is just as compelling. It's just as important to set realistic goals for those schools and to coordinate to make sure there is no duplication or wasted resources.

A board of regents is also an idea whose time has come -- one that advocates of the status quo have resisted fiercely for many years. Our state just elected a governor committed to such needed reform. And yet, amazingly, this proposal would give up on it before debate is even joined. That must not happen.

The overall proposal unveiled last week is a much-needed complement to the drive and initiative now coming from our newly collaborative research universities. It's a good conversation starter. Now that the conversation has begun, let's talk about what it will take to coordinate the entire higher education system, encouraging the research universities to achieve their bold ambitions while helping the smaller schools be smarter about accomplishing their missions as well.