Merger musings II

BY ADAM PARKER

The faculties at both the College of Charleston and the Medical University have aired their concerns: most are not in favor of the proposed merger. This week, MUSC faculty overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing the bill recently introduced by Rep. Leon Stavrinakis and Rep. Jim Merrill that would combine the two schools. At the College, faculty members have voiced their thoughts at a recent public meeting and signed petitions meant to send a clear message to lawmakers.

The two institutions have “totally separate cultures” and exist in “two different worlds,” some have said. Their respective missions are distinct. The College has a “private/small school feel for a public school price,” according to one of two petitions posted to Change.org. It boasts small class sizes, a hands-on environment and a well-rounded liberal arts offering that no other public university in the state offers.

These claims worry me. I know of very large, hands-off classes at the College; I am aware of courses that fail to attract talented students or, if they do, let them down. I can tell you stories about recalcitrance and avoidance when it comes to innovation. And the “public school price” of the College has reached about $30,000 a year for in-state students, $50,000 for out-of-state students. I don't know about you, but for that kind of money I wouldn’t want a “small school feel,” I'd want the full monty. So it appears that the “No Merger” position adopted by some is based on arguments that are not entirely helpful and potentially self-defeating.

I am not in favor or the merger, at least not yet, and I’ve explained my reasoning in a separate post. But some of the rationale put forth by proponents of consolidation is sound and worth considering.

Despite what its vocal defenders are implying, the College of Charleston is far from perfect. Its various schools and degree programs are uneven at best. Some are excellent (biology, arts management, Jewish Studies), some are adequate (music, political science, business), and some are not reaching their potential (communication, languages, African-American studies).

For years College faculty and others have advocated for improvements that include stricter tenure requirements, more and better degree programs (including advanced degrees), heightened internal and external collaboration, more competitive wages and efforts to achieve certain efficiencies (one idea I’ve heard expressed is the grouping African-American Studies, Jewish Studies, Women’s Studies and more under a single “Cultural Studies” umbrella).

What’s more, the College continues to struggle with administrative issues, such as a woeful lack of diversity, an over-abundance of out-of-state students (who pay more and therefore help fund the enterprise), tuition that keeps going up, housing shortages and resource limitations.

In other words, much can be done—and must be done—to improve the College of Charleston so that it can offer students an affordable, top-drawer educational experience while at the same time providing teachers with substantial opportunity and administrators with more reason to want to spend time in the office. The reason to avoid a merger at this stage is not because the College is perfectly fine the way it is, or because the Medical University should stick to medicine. The reason to oppose the merger is because neither institution is ready for it.

And not only that. Neither school has a leader prepared to oversee the process of consolidation. Typically, such an ambitious undertaking is thought through by stakeholders then incorporated into a 10-year strategic plan (or something similar) with the full blessing of an active or incoming president who recognizes that the project will largely define his or her future legacy. In other words, a merger should be something initiated at the start of a leader’s tenure, not as he is walking out the door.

George Benson has advocated for the formation of a comprehensive research university that emphasizes science, technology, engineering and mathematics. But to promote this idea now, as he prepares to step down as president, only serves to destabilize an already precarious situation at the College and provoke anxiety at MUSC, which just lost its leader, Ray Greenberg. Finding a new president must be difficult enough without the uncertainty caused by all this merger talk. Who would choose to take the helm of a school whose mission might or might not radically change? How can the board of trustees present to candidates for the job a clear idea of the institution’s goals if those goals might soon be utterly transformed?

And what about the students? None of the administrators or politicians promoting the merger has explained how students would benefit. Benson says engineering is important, but neither the College nor MUSC offers a comprehensive engineering program, and setting one up would be expensive and difficult. It would compete with Clemson’s very reputable engineering program. “Charleston University” would have to figure out a way to distinguish itself and justify the investment in new degree offerings.

This is but one of many curricular questions that should be addressed before a merger is pursued. It seems to me, however, that attempting to answer this question is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. The College must improve its existing programs and administration before it contemplates a merger. It could add degree programs, specializations and certificates of study. It could beef up its research requirements for faculty. It could raise its expectations concerning candidates for tenure-track positions. It could rely less on adjuncts and hire more full-time lecturers and other faculty. It could bolster departments that need help, providing more clerical and curricular support. It could forge more partnerships with area businesses, nonprofits and schools.

The College of Charleston already has a functioning wheel. Sure, it needs to strengthen a few of the spokes and add a couple more, but the thing rolls along well enough. Why reinvent it now, and for what purpose exactly?

Adam Parker is a journalist, advocate for the humanities and husband of a College of Charleston professor.