It’s one year into the strategic plan, and you probably haven’t noticed. So far, administrators have focused largely on organizing committees and planning, but expect recommendations for real changes soon. On Monday, the University Senate debated new ways to evaluate tenured professors. Major changes to the university’s library system are also underway. And after spring break, administrators will begin talks to overhaul the general education curriculum. They’re all changes that we still believe have the potential to propel the university to national prominence. But as we begin debating them, it’s high time to remember we’ve heard these promises before.
Twenty years ago, a group of professors and administrators drew up similarly ambitious plans in a document they dubbed Promises to Keep. It was the strategic plan of its day, with plans for tenure-track professors to teach more freshmen courses and shift away from standardized tests. The plan also called on administrators to issue reports on the state of undergraduate education every other year, and in an all-too-familiar sentiment, it called for the overhaul of general education. Twenty years later, less tenure-track professors teach freshmen courses, and the scantron remains the bread-and-butter of university classes. The proposed undergraduate education progress report was only issued once, and general education remains boring and irrelevant for many students.
What happened? Quite simply, the money ran out. In the early ’90s, the university saw some of the worst budget cuts in its history. Promises to Keep lost its moment, and professors and administrators lost interest.
Budget cuts of such extreme proportions were unprecedented, and are unlikely to crop up again soon. But the state’s coffers are drying up, and donors have lately been more reluctant to give to the university amid an unsure economy. As administrators are now specifying the strategic plan’s broad goals, it will be important for them to draw detailed plans – and back-up plans, as well. The strategic plan is a broad document, and if the money does run short, it provides little indication about where its priorities lie. It has four guiding pillars, but they’re all the same height.
Ultimately, ranking priorities is about more than planning – it’s about fairness. The strategic plan was intended to be a 10-year document, but its components are only going to be publicly debated once. While administrators may be able to foster consensus on idealized dreams now, it’s times of sacrifice that often beget the university’s toughest choices. And during these times, administrators rarely have the time to hold public forums. If administrators aren’t publicly ranking their priorities now, then they’re not truly committing themselves to public input. We think it’s great the university is aiming high. We just want to know what will happen in case it slips.
