No to MSU - Name change would be grab for land-grant status

For many years, I have been very passionate about the critical role higher education plays in our state's future. For that reason, I have volunteered my time to serve that cause.

I was a member of the University of Missouri Board of Curators for 10 years from 1985 to 1995. I am very proud that I was the only curator ever reappointed by Gov. John Ashcroft and the only curator in the last 50 years to be re-elected president of the board by my fellow curators for two successive terms. I attended Southeast Missouri State University and am a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia.

In 1992, I chaired the statewide Task Force on Critical Choices for Higher Education that brought together all public and private universities and colleges in this state as we developed a Coordinated Plan for Higher Education. This consisted of all college and university presidents and the presidents of their respective boards. We worked together for almost a year and produced a plan this is still productively used today in Missouri higher education.

The name change requested by Southwest Missouri State University that is before the General Assembly is a major policy decision for this state that has profound educational and budget implications for all Missourians. Those who advocate for this bill should understand that they are agreeing to support two major state universities requiring a $100 million tax increase to fund them at a minimum level annually.

The name "Missouri State University" says to the world that it is a land-grant, research, doctoral-granting institution. That is not SMSU. It has taken 166 years for the state and other supporters to build the infrastructure in Columbia that serves the entire state of Missouri.

The name "Missouri State University" is not a name to be awarded on the basis of number of students or the population of the geographic area. It is fundamentally related to the mission of an institution, its history and its scope. You don't buy that name or lobby for it. You have to be granted that status by the legislature, and you have to be it.

The University of Missouri at Columbia was established Feb. 11, 1839. In the 1860s, Congress passed the Morrill Act, which provided an entire township of land for the establishment of colleges of mechanical arts and agriculture in all the states. These universities, many named the "State University" -- Michigan State, Kansas State, Florida State -- were what we now know and refer to as land-grant universities. The Missouri legislature, in its wisdom in 1869, voted and decided to establish and designate Columbia as the university for the land grant and the accompanying mission.

In the words of Jonas Viles in his centennial history of the University of Missouri, written in 1939, of the decision in 1869 by the legislature to place the land grant Missouri State University name on the Columbia campus he wrote: "It would be a generation before such a new institution could get going, while a start could be made immediately by attaching it to the going concern at Columbia."

In short, the Missouri legislature decided to place the land-grant college on the University of Missouri campus. Nebraska, Minnesota and Wisconsin did the same thing.

In a few years, the money drain from our fine regional universities to support a newly named Missouri State University (Southwest Missouri State University) could be serious indeed. Professors' salaries could likely increase 30 percent to 40 percent at the new MSU, which could impact funding for the regionals and cost the taxpayers. Our state could end up with two large, mediocre universities in Columbia and Springfield and severely weakened regional institutions.

This same debate was held in the Missouri legislature from 1865 to 1869. Our forefathers wisely concluded to focus those resources on one centrally located campus already showing great promise in 1870.

Missouri currently ranks 46th in the nation in per-capita support of higher education, and students and their families are footing a bigger portion of the bill each year when tuition increases. The name change bill before the General Assembly is about funding, status, doctoral degrees, land-grant image, professors' salaries and student recruitment. It is about further dividing a small pie of higher-education funding that could take dollars and students from Southeast, Missouri Southern, Harris-Stowe, Northwest, Central Missouri State, and the University of Missouri and send those funds and students to Springfield.

The faculty, administrators and boosters of SMSU know what this new name means, and they want it.

First, they know they want the land-grant mission specifically assigned to the University of Missouri-Columbia in legislation signed by Gov. Joseph Washington McClurg on Feb. 24, 1870. The name change is merely a back door and deceptive way of obtaining the land-grant mission, its status and funding.

Second, SMSU wants 30 percent to 40 percent increases in salary for their professors. We don't have the money. Worse, they want that money without the faculty having achieved the academic scholarship, authorship and research work background that would entitle them to that level of salary in higher education.

Third, they want even more recruitment and transportation of students to Springfield from the other colleges in Missouri. We don't have the money for that either.

We need to think about what it means to Southeast Missouri State University and all of Missouri higher education and stop it. It means permanently placing Southeast Missouri State, Harris-Stowe, Lincoln, Northwest Missouri State, Central Missouri State, and Truman State in a third-tier status in Missouri higher education.

I and others fear that by 2015, SEMO could be a satellite campus of the new MSU system based in Springfield. Some Springfield folks are already talking about taking University of Missouri-Rolla into the Missouri State University system.

Universities are big business. The people behind this effort in Springfield know this, and they want a bigger part of the action.

What are the consequences for the other regional universities?

What are the consequences for the other cities that host our colleges and universities?

Should we support a name change for SMSU? Yes, certainly, if it reflects their mission, is the product of sound educational policy making and doesn't damage other institutions' abilities to serve the state.

Should it be Missouri State University? No, because it isn't, and our tax revenue will not support a duplicate of the Columbia campus in Springfield.

Springfield businesses, paid lobbyists and the leadership of Southwest Missouri State are now in Jefferson City every day pressing state representatives and senators to support the name change. Your legislators must hear from you now as none of the other universities have lobbyists to oppose the name change.

A few of us volunteers helped defeat this bill in the House last year. All of Missouri needs your help now.

John Lichtenegger is a Jackson lawyer.