If you’ve kept up with university news at all this semester, you’ve heard about the proposed merger of this institution and the University of Maryland, Baltimore. There have been public forums to gather community input, heated debates and closed-door meetings between officials from both campuses — not to mention plenty of media coverage.
Several variations of a merger plan have arisen since state Senate President Mike Miller first floated the idea in January, but after months of dialogue and untold expenses, the University System of Maryland’s Board of Regents announced last week they don’t endorse even a partial merger. Instead, they recommend a “strategic alliance” in which both institutions will, theoretically, share joint programs and collaborate on research. The board instructed university President Wallace Loh, USM Chancellor Brit Kirwan and UMB President Jay Perman to submit detailed plans for implementing these partnerships by March 1.
This editorial board understands the Regents’ justification, but it seems unlikely a strategic alliance will significantly alter relations between the two institutions. Ultimately, the recommendation amounts to little more than a glorified plan to make plans: Devoid of leadership, it’s a passive response to an important issue that dominated much of this semester.
The decision is eerily reminiscent of the Congressional lockdown this summer when, rather than address the federal deficit head-on, legislators passed the buck to the so-called supercommittee. Close observers doubted the supercommittee’s ability to forge a bipartisan deal, and rightfully so — members admitted failure on Nov. 21.
The disparate viewpoints of Loh, Kirwan and Perman seem unlikely to yield any sincere collaboration. Loh has previously voiced concern that cooperation alone will not be enough, and correctly pointed out that the two universities were supposed to be working together for the past 40 years — which hasn’t happened to any great extent. Advocates lauded the greater availability of academic programs to students on both campuses, and highlighted several quantitative metrics, such as the leaps in national rankings we would likely achieve in key areas if judged as one institution.
Instead, foresight has taken a backseat to parochialism. UMB administrators and Baltimore City officials seem more concerned about neighborhood revitalization — and the subsequent feather in their cap, mind you — than academic prospects for students from across the state. It’s a great tactic because everyone feels bad for Baltimore — who can argue against helping impoverished neighborhoods? But it’s also cynical to preach urban revitalization as a cover for their true desire to retain their sense of importance.
Of course, it makes sense that officials hailing from elsewhere in the USM are concerned about their own bubbles of funding and power. The Board of Regents should have anticipated this cacophony of complaints from the smaller member institutions, but nonetheless realized a full or partial merger prioritizes the interests of students throughout the state — not just in College Park. Improving the academic stature of its flagship institution can only help the state: Maryland’s workforce will improve with more top-notch students in the USM. A better applicant pool with a lower admissions rate means more good-but-not-great students will resort to other schools in the USM, thus increasing the collective caliber of students.
Nonetheless, the Board of Regents has spoken. The cards have been dealt, so to speak, and we’re left with, essentially, an agreement to make agreements. As Loh, Kirwan and Perman work on a proposal, officials must ensure mechanisms are in place to follow through with the alliance. Because, barring significant effort on the part of both institutions — which, frankly, seems unlikely — the project seems destined for little more than a news release. It’s a shame — even if circumstances and personnel change enough to make a merger more appealing or necessary, it will be tough to revive efforts after so much fanfare this year. Who wants to revisit a proposal that was so decisively struck down the last time it was considered?
So kudos to Loh and Miller for trying to do what’s best for the state. Perhaps they can teach the Board of Regents a lesson or two.
