UMKC's future

The framers of the 1875 Missouri Constitution gave us a great gift when they established the University of Missouri and its board of curators and charged the state legislature to "adequately maintain the state university." The Constitution calls public education "essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people."

Today the University of Missouri system has campuses in Columbia, Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis which provide undergraduate, graduate and professional education in a host of areas. Their mission remains the same: to serve the people of Missouri through the discovery and sharing of knowledge.

However, the UM system has recently come under attack. A blue-ribbon task force commissioned by a group of Kansas City businesses and paid for by a not-for-profit foundation is questioning its very existence.

The stated mission of the task force is to examine higher education in Missouri with a focus on UMKC. But it is considering recommending the removal of UMKC from the UM system, which, it claims, is hindering UMKC's development. It also suggests that, once severed, UMKC would benefit from heavy investment by local businesses, which will propel it into "excellence."

The task force will present its preliminary report to the Missouri State Government Review Commission in Kansas City on June 24, and its final report will appear in August. It will also report to the UMKC chancellor search committee in an attempt to influence the selection process.

Task force claims have little basis in fact. In reality, the UM system promotes the development of all its campuses. Advantages of belonging to the system include economies of scale and efficient sharing of scarce resources. These economies make higher education accessible and affordable. The system also sustains high academic standards among its members and is accountable to the public. Students benefit from the availability of a wide variety of programs and easier transfers between campuses.

No consortium of Kansas City businesses would be able, or would agree, to maintain over the long haul the level of funding that the state currently provides to UMKC. Large local tax increases and a steep rise in tuition would be needed to make up for this shortfall. Thus many qualified low income students, whom the UM system now serves, would be priced out of attending an isolated Kansas City campus.

But since a stand-alone campus would have higher operating costs, it would still be underfunded in spite of tax and tuition increases. To balance the budget, severe cuts would have to be made to existing programs, and academic standards would sink. The university's reputation would suffer, driving away good faculty, students and administrators. Instead of developing toward excellence, a severed UMKC would regress toward irrelevance.

Dismembering the UM system would not only harm UMKC, it would also damage the remaining UM campuses in much the same ways. Finally, it would set a bad precedent for public higher education in Missouri, encouraging attacks on other state supported universities as well.

Faculty, students and administrators, including UM system President Elson Floyd, have gone on record opposing the task force's suggestions.

Staff, alumni and the broader Kansas City community plan to join them.

UMKC, the UM system and public higher education must remain affordable, accessible and accountable. If you support the tradition of public higher education in Missouri, please write your state legislators and the Missouri State Government Review Commission (http://review.mo.gov/comment.htm).

Patricia P. Brodsky is president of the University of Missouri-Kansas City chapter of the American Association of University Professors.