Merger musings

BY ADAM PARKER

Several years ago, when Lee Higdon was president of the College of Charleston, the school completed a study and published a report declaring its goal: to become a more competitive liberal arts college.

The report held up as a model the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va., and admitted to significant shortcomings such as too-low faculty wages and insufficient research activities that were holding it back.

There was much talk at the time about rectifying these problems. If the College was to attract talented professors and improve its standing among similar medium-sized liberal arts schools it would have to pay competitive salaries, adjust the balance between teaching and research, improve its facilities, enlarge its scholastic offerings, add degree programs (including graduate programs) and more.

That was then. Today, the conversation has shifted radically. The current president, George Benson, has declared that the goal of the College is “to drive economic development and jobs in the Lowcountry.” To do so, he argues, the College should merge with the Medical University of South Carolina and adjust its academic mission to prepare students for three main burgeoning industries: aerospace, digital media and technology, and healthcare and bio-sciences.

No longer is the talk about how the College can become a competitive liberal arts school. Now politicians and administrators are wondering how the College can help the region compete “with such vibrant economies as Austin, Texas, the Research Triangle, Northern Virginia, Boston, and Silicon Valley.”

“What do those regions have that we don’t?” Benson asks. “They all have one or more comprehensive research universities to help power their economies.”

A merger of the College and MUSC may or may not be a good idea. I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the debate. My purpose here is not to decide that question. Rather, I want to raise two concerns. The first is Benson’s faulty premise and reasoning, which demands scrutiny and correction. The second is procedural.

Liberal arts schools have a long and glorious history. They are designed on the ancient Greek model to promote civic engagement among a well-educated populace. The liberal arts have long been considered fundamental and universal, the basis upon which civilization is built. In ancient times, the liberal arts consisted of grammar, rhetoric, philosophy and logic. They grew to include religion, languages, the sciences, mathematics, history and the arts.

The idea was—and remains—to prepare students for a productive life in the world by giving them a well-rounded education that includes the ability to think critically and question everything. A liberal arts college, therefore, has long been an oasis of learning, a retreat or bubble or safe zone within which young people (and others) can safely gain the knowledge they need not only to be productive members of their immediate communities but thoughtful citizens of the world.

The College of Charleston surely has its flaws and shortcomings, but it has striven over the decades to fulfill this essential mission. It offers its students opportunities to study politics, marine biology, foreign languages, music and visual art, economics, psychology and much more. Essential to this enterprise is a focus on the humanities—the critical study of human culture.

For a long time now the humanities in academic settings have been subject to erosion from economic and political forces and an oddly twisted ideology that views the humanities as either irrelevant in this rapidly changing techno-capitalist society of ours or an outright threat to entrenched conservatism. After all, thinking critically about, say, religion or laissez-faire economics or political systems can undermine orthodoxy and current vested interests. Yet without a populace well-versed in the humanities, we risk becoming like the homogenous consumer-vacationers depicted in the dystopic Pixar movie “Wall-E.” And that’s in no one’s best interest.

So it is disconcerting to read Benson’s recent comments, delivered at 2 p.m. Feb. 5 to the South Carolina House Ways and Means Higher Education, Technical, and Cultural Budget Subcommittee, in which he states that the mission of Charleston’s public colleges and universities is inadequate for the current business environment, or that a new research university “would spin off start-up companies that would help New Charleston to grow.” Since when did that become the purpose of a liberal arts school?

Dynamic economies are, by definition, diverse and cross-regional. They don't depend on a single source for educated professionals. Communities benefit both by producing talented people and by importing them. And they stand to gain not only from a qualified workforce adequately trained for the industries of the day, but from employable people who are ready for the days to come.

This emphasis on shifting the focus of the College toward economic development is shortsighted and dangerous. It risks undermining the very goals Benson and other business leaders declare to be so important. For if the College becomes an institution meant primarily to serve up workers for the “New Charleston,” surely it will sacrifice, or at least water down, its historic liberal arts mission, and that will make the school less relevant, less able to attract prospective learners, less prepared to fashion broadly developed citizens of the future.

Benson does make some good points, especially when he argues that local schools do not provide enough research opportunities for their faculties or offer enough graduate degree programs. This is a complaint I have heard repeatedly over many years concerning the College. But masters and doctorate degrees should be offered not only in engineering and biotechnology, but in literature and women’s studies and music, too. What would happen to the humanities if the obviously dominant MUSC subsumed the College?

Let me repeat: combining the two institutions to create a comprehensive research university might turn out to be a very good idea, the pros outweighing the cons. But how can we know that if we don’t ask questions and seek answers in a rigorous and systematic way? And how can we ensure that the merger process goes as smoothly as possible if we fail to recognize the obstacles and prepare to overcome them?

For two legislators—Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston, and Rep. Jim Merrill, R-Charleston—to force through a bill called the “Charleston University Act” before these issues are properly addressed is the epitome of insensitive and counter-productive politicking. Just because Boeing now is doing business in the Lowcountry, Benefitfocus is expanding and tech companies are popping up here and there does not mean that MUSC and the College should necessarily undergo a wholesale higher-ed transformation. First things first. Before academic mission statements are rewritten, a formal assessment is needed, and lots of public debate.

Is the merger really a good idea? For whom exactly? Would a newly formed research university actually deliver on its promises? To what extent would the two schools integrate? What sort of degree programs would be offered? What would happen to the liberal arts mission? Are there other ways besides merger to collaborate, expand curricula and better serve the needs of the community? What is the cost of merging? What would student enrollment look like, and where would these students be housed? What would be the impact on administration? Could expenses be reduced through consolidation? Would that entail layoffs, hirings? Who would run the larger enterprise? How would the new university get funded? Would the state provide more money?

Some of these questions have been asked in haphazard ways by interested individuals, and a white paper jointly produced by the two institutions last year made a number of helpful observations. But I am not aware of a current and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, or a plan that describes all of the procedural issues. I do know that many students and administrators at both institutions are wary of, or opposed to, the merger. Is it reasonable for politicians to decide their fate without seeking their input?

So let’s call a time-out, shall we? Let’s talk this through responsibly and collectively. Let’s consider Benson’s vision but also revisit Higdon’s concerns. Should Stavrinakis’ and Merrill’s bill pass, it will take several years for the merger process to be completed, during which I predict innumerable “unintended consequences.”

Shouldn’t we attempt to anticipate the consequences?

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