ACCREDITATION PROCESS SHOWS STRONG UNIVERSITY

The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools is expected to take final action this week on the reaccreditation of Southeast Missouri State University. While this status is not exactly surprising (the university has an outstanding track record with the association) it should not be regarded lightly. The reaccreditation resulted from a great deal of hard work and soul-searching, and the North Central report documents the good health of a vibrant local institution.

Understand first that North Central accreditation represents a high level of prestige among colleges and universities; it is a measuring post for nationally accepted practices in higher education. The people who served on the association's evaluation team here were respected administrators, deans and professors from other midwestern institutions; peers cast the critical eye. Loss of accreditation can devastate a campus; it is required for federal and state funding for student grants and other educational programs.

Key to the process was an exhaustive self-evaluation, with dozens of university employees compiling data on all aspects of endeavor at Southeast. A final draft of the self-study was forwarded to the association team last August, preceding an October site evaluation. What this team ultimately found, as reported to the association, was an institution very much on its game. The team recommended Southeast for a 10-year accreditation period, something which only 33 percent of applicants receive, and that is what the North Central commissioners will take up this week.

Systematic self-study is a useful undertaking for any large institution, but particularly one that deals with public trust and public money. Members of the faculty, staff and administration did a thorough job in outlining the strengths and weaknesses of life at Southeast Missouri State. Concerns charted by the evaluation team should be taken as the constructive advice of colleagues. Most of the problems were recognized by the university in the self-evaluation, though were given a sometimes heavy-handed treatment in the team's final report.

For example, the report maintained that "harmful tensions between minority and non-minority students" on campus create "the potential for serious disruption of the institution." Like other universities across the nation, Southeast has had incidents of racial conflict. They have not been excessive and certainly have not threatened the institution. We disagree with the report's contention that more institutional attention needs to be paid to this situation. In fact, well-meaning campus organizations, like Southeast's Task Force on Ethnic Diversity, may concern themselves too acutely with differences of races rather than their similarities.

In addition, the report cites a lack of progress for Southeast in employing and promoting female faculty members, calling the situation "incomprehensible." The numbers in this case are eye-opening: in the highest faculty rank, that of professor, only 12 percent are women. The report cites no evidence, however, that institutional barriers have stalled female advancement at Southeast. Has professor status been denied because of gender? Does a "good old boy" network govern the promotion of faculty? The report doesn't help us with these questions, and the tag of "incomprehensible" is undeserved. Of 33 new faculty members hired for the 1991-92 academic year, 25 were women, something the university points to with pride. If this is the type of "formula hiring" being pursue at Academic Hall, we do not approve.

Overall, the North Central evaluation shows a university of well-maintained facilities, well-planned academic programs and well-grounded support of alumni and community. The forthcoming 10-year accreditation is a deserved honor. It's one more reason to be proud of Southeast Missouri State.