More on the Husted plan to replace the Board of Regents

I'm really frustrated about this.

I've been scanning news stories from around the state on the Husted proposal to create a single Chancellor of the university system who reports to the governor.

I can't believe there is such uniformity of thought on this issue. Doesn't anyone see the potential politicizing effect this will have on our universities? In our current hyper partisan political climate, how can this be a good thing for higher education?
A couple of news sources I've found seem supportive.

The Lorain Morning Journal, for example, supported the plan in an editorial, with the following reasons:

In editorials last year, we noted some dismal statistics:

- Tuition, always rising, is 45 percent above the national average at four-year colleges in Ohio.

- Ohio falls below the national average in the percentage of adults with a bachelor's degree or higher. The national average is 27 percent; Ohio comes in at 23 percent, which translates to the need for an additional 271,000 citizens with degrees just to become ''average.''

- Ohio ranks 40th among the 50 states in the amount of state money spent per college student, and funding has been going down, putting the financial squeeze on students and their parents.

- Young adults from high-income families are three times more likely to attend college in Ohio as low-income students. While 37 percent of white youths age 18 to 24 attend college, that figures is only 26 percent, and falling, among nonwhite youths.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how are ANY of those problems--which I recognize are important problems--solved by replacing the Board of Regents?

The Zanesville Times Recorder, relying on an AP story, published the following quote from Husted:

Husted said he had not discussed the idea with either Strickland or Harris but that he was "glad to see the governor is receptive to our thoughts on how to change higher education."

Giving more direct control of higher education to the governor is the first step in making the system more accountable, Husted said.

"Right now, you've got a Board of Regents that doesn't exercise any policy-making authority. We believe if you're going to get a more responsive system, the chancellor needs to be directly accountable to the governor," Husted said.

I really don't understand Husted's logic. If he is suggesting that the BOR doesn't exercise policy-making authority, then what is currently preventing the governor from doing it now? Why do they need to be replaced?

I don't understand what "direct control" he thinks the governor should have, and I really think that control needs to be clarified. Will the governor have veto power over research conducted at universities? Over the programs that are offered? At one time there was a push by the legislature to consolidate doctoral programs around the state as a cost saving measure. Is that the kind of authority the governor wants? Is he planning to micromanage the colleges?

The AP story goes on to say:

Judith Block McLaughlin, an expert on university leadership searches at Harvard University, said no public university system she knows of is run that way.

"I cannot think of a single chancellor that reports to a governor," she said. "It's treating education as if it were a state agency and subjecting it to political influence. One of the strengths of America's higher education system is its balance of accountability to the government and its intellectual independence."

The last point is really the key. To what extent is Strickland planning to exercise control over teaching and research activities at the universities?

From the PD's article:

"An independent, nonpartisan Ohio Board of Regents has served, and will continue to serve, the state in an effective manner," Donna Alvarado, board chairwoman, said in a statement issued Thursday.

I have a great deal of faith in Strickland's intent to support higher ed. But we need to think about the power that could be granted to future, less enlightened governors. Do we really want a right wing governor reallocating funding away from programs he disagrees with on moral or political issues?

Do we want a governor lashing out at radical professors whose political views are unpopular? Do we want a governor trying to weed out supposed liberal bias in the teaching of college courses?

I know I'm ranting, but this plan is trouble. There needs to be some noise made about this.

From a political standpoint, why in the world is Strickland giving Husted a victory so early in the term?

Also, if anyone has the text of the statement released by the BOR and referred to in the PD article, I'd love to see it. Leave me a note in the comments.