Cooperation on higher education

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

As expected, Clemson University President James Barker rejected Gov. Mark Sanford's invitation to take the school private if it was unwilling to acquiesce to the governor's board of regents proposal.

Barker, of course, did the responsible thing. Privatization has little merit, and the governor's proposal was more a politically driven volley at Clemson's opposition to a board of regents than a serious effort to reform higher education. It's a bad deal for Clemson, the rest of the 13 state-supported teaching and research institutions given that option, this state and its taxpayers. The state should not abandon a century of investment in Clemson. Nor should the state weaken an institution it depends on by denying it the $85 million in annual funding it provides.

The privatization proposal should be buried for good. Mere weeks removed from the 2004 legislative session, it's time for the leadership of each school, the governor and the Legislature to put their concerns on the table and explore a compromise for new governance based on the shared belief that reform is overdue and the existing funding system is a failure.

Whether it's a board of regents or some compromise, a new governance of higher education should not suffer delays due to an inability to cooperate and compromise.

The governor wants a system capable of imposing efficiency on schools — by force if necessary. It's an understandable desire given how overbuilt higher education in this state is. But there must be room for Clemson or the University of South Carolina, largely self-directed to this point, to still pursue the ambitions in which they are so heavily invested and not be held back by regulation.

South Carolina must spend this state's limited education dollar more wisely than it has traditionally. Schools are taking the initiative, looking at ending the decades of duplication. A recent deal between USC and the Medical University of South Carolina to merge pharmacy schools is an example of the pressure building for schools to share responsibility in this funding climate.

The governor wants to take it a step further and shape this state's colleges and universities into a system of distinct parts capable of working in concert to meet the education, research, economic development and job-training needs of this state. It's an ambitious idea, but it's unclear whether it's workable or whether such radical reform will have to be installed in stages.

Meanwhile, Barker says Clemson will support resurrection of a failed attempt to create separate governance for the state's research institutions. Clearly, those schools need regulatory relief.

Even clearer is this: The days of provincial politics in the Legislature that spawned this inefficiency and overbuilding in higher education must end. And all parties — the schools, the boards of trustees and the legislative leadership — must build a compromise around a shared desire to spend more wisely.