THE PUBLIC MIND: NOW'S TIME FOR UNIVERSITY TO OFFER MORE ACCESS, NOT LESS

To the Editor:

On Friday, the Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University will cast their votes on admissions policies. The choice is whether to have open or selective admissions. President Kala M. Stroup has asked for input from the community in regard to this decision, as well as to the drafting of a new mission statement. I would like to respond as a taxpaying resident of the university's service region, and as a citizen with a strong belief in democratic principles and in education.

Southeast, like many other regional schools of higher learning, was created by the public through the state legislatures out of a commitment to opportunity and access. As a result, the philosophy of equity is deeply embedded, but it appears that presently a form of denial has blocked the importance of this foundational principle. The awareness of equality has been highlighting itself because of its stunning absence from the media releases concerning the formal changes in admissions policies, and quite frankly I have been taken aback by the one-sidedness: the value of quality, the outcomes of excellence, and the pleasures of the academic elite have manipulated the rhetoric. I believe that higher education can be both equal and excellent.

The equal and excellent debate is certainly not new. During the 1960s and `70s American colleges and universities concentrated on trying to bring about equality through a policy of open access. All of us who are familiar with the litany of excesses that took place primarily in the 1970s also remember the spirit of acceptance and tolerance. In essence, for many of us the cries for freedom and empowerment struck a common chord of hope, as we summoned a new enlightenment in regard to policy and practice in education. But, some would argue that this approach was an extreme swing of the policy pendulum based on a single-minded dedication to the temper of the times. Then, the 1980s brought with it the consensus among many that open access did not work because it compromised important educational standards of excellence. Today, massive changes in the composition of student bodies make the problem even more complex: there are more females than males, more non-traditional students, more part-time students (both traditional and non-traditional), and more minority students (although the numbers of Afro-American students have been declining lately.) Moreover, the disheveled American Dream forces us to stumble over some old bones of realism of poverty, of a changing family system, and of inadequate moral justifications for bureaucratic imperatives.

Schools of higher learning have to increase the participation rates of all kinds of students, and Southeast, because of its location in one of the poorest regions in Missouri and in the nation, has even a greater challenge than most. I feel that as citizens, we cannot afford in terms of social and economic development to allow present or prospective students to become lost in our systems. Consequently, MORE ACCESS, not less, should be provided, especially to those who are members of minorities or lower economic groups, and to those who may be underprepared.

Selective admission policies purposefully construct discriminatory barriers. Southeast has denied admission to over 700 students in the last two years, and in the English Department alone, 11 teachers were not rehired for the spring semester. In today's economic times when education is a necessity for career preparation, and in an area where teachers cannot find employment, the logic of a regional university closing its doors to students and teachers alike is absolutely nonsensical.

In addition, the current literature in education overwhelmingly urges schools to become more and more flexible to meet the demands of a changing society. Recent studies have reported that slower learners can learn at the same achievement level as the faster learners. When the slower learners do succeed in attaining the same criterion of achievement as the faster learners, they appear to be able to learn equally complex and abstract ideas, they can apply these ideas to new problems, and they can retain the ideas equally well in spite of the fact that they learned with more time and help than was given to others. I refer to the accomplishments of slower learners not to imply that underprepared students are simply slower learners, because many life experiences may account for why a student does not meet admission standards. My point is that to include a diverse student population does not compromise the integrity of quality education, but to exclude those who are self-motivated and want to go to the University does seriously compromise and damage the futures of the rejected students, as well as those among the academically select who may have missed the richness of experience gained from having the opportunity to share a variety of perspectives in a supportive learning community. It is important to remember that appreciation of cultural diversity has been added to educational objectives concerning the outcomes of undergraduate education, along with competence in written and oral communication, quantitative skills, and the habit of critical analysis of data and argument.

The Board of Regents must consider that they have the opportunity to use power intelligently, sensitively, and sincerely because their judgments will have important consequences. They can direct the university away from political and economic machinery that is selfish and indifferent. Changing the admissions policies has been linked to new state funding formulas which require that monies be tied to student success ratios (retention and graduation rates). More thought and discussion and research should be directed to such a measure of success. As intelligent taxpayers we are required to stay alert. Quite honestly, I am caught offguard by the logic of these initiatives. I do not want my tax dollars earmarked to benefit only the good students or the socially elite students. President Stroup, in a recent address to the faculty, gave the following description of successful colleges: "They are community centered, based on a sense of caring and respect of ALL individuals as persons of dignity, focused on learning from the differences which come from diverse populations, rather than dwelling on disharmony."

It appears that somewhere between the everydayness of reality and the idealism of elitist fantasy Southeast has lost sight. The university's visions cannot "...focus and draw on all the human family has to offer" (again from Stroup's address) or enable students to learn unless they are first allowed to enter and given the opportunity to try. In sum, the pain inflicted by the harsh reality of the executions of selective policy may harm the quality of education, and thus the quality of life in our region.

Betty Drinnan

Jackson