So how did we get here?  Most residents of North Dakota are not going to like my answer to that.  I think it boils down to a fundamental lack of understanding throughout the state of what higher education is,  what the benefits of a high profile research university are, and what it takes to fund higher education.  One only needs to look south to the Twin Cities with it’s top of the line research university and the many corporations that partner with that university to create a wealthy society not even imaginable here.

Our higher education system is managed by the State Board of HIgher Education, political appointees of the Governor, and the Chancellor, Dr. Goetz.  The last presidential search committee was chaired by that well known scholar Bruce Fureness.  A junior faculty member, from Maryland and no longer here, remarked to me a out the remarkable coincidence of Fargo’s mayor and the chair of the search committee had the same name.  That’s how bizarre it appeared to someone from a respected university..

This committee and the state board apparently thought it important to have a president that would bring division 1 athletics to NDSU. Never mind that their choice had a history of bankrupting universities.

Reported in the media recently was the position of the state board about the violations by NDSU of state board policies and their desire to oversee expenditures.
First, lets look at the NDSU part of this idea.  The governing body of NDSU is tjhe University Senate.  It can by overridden by the President, but he does so at his peril, as he might find himself facing a vote of no confidence.  Former President Chapman was able to bring division one athletics to NDSU be end running the University Senate, claiming that it was none of their business as no appropriated funds would be involved: everything would be funded by private donations. Unfortunately there is no oversight of how the President manages the NDSU  budget, and this has been upsetting the faculty for as long as I can remember.  Of course, there is the vice president for business and finance, but he is not subject to faculty review either before or after he is appointed.  So any mistakes made by “NDSU” were in fact made by two men that were appointed by people that really have nothing much to do with NDSU, and not approved of by the real NDSU.  When the former vice president for business and finance, er, resigned, he claimed that he couldn’t do his job due to pressure from the president and that he learned how to get around state board policies from his counterpart at UND.  Chancelolor Goetz said at the time that he had assumed that state board policies were being followed.  In other words, the man is a fool.

Parenthetically,  Goetz and the state board have taken this oversight a bit further by taking it upon themselves to decide what constitutes proper pre-requisites for some elementary courses, infuriating some administrators at both NDSU and UND.

Is their a solution to all this?  Without a grassroots change of attitude,, probably not.  But it would help to replace the state board and chancellor with more qualified people.

“It is one of the big issues that, even if somebody wanted to practice in a rural area for their residency, there just are not enough slots for them. And research shows that when someone comes to a rural area to do their residency, they end up staying there, so that’s a really positive thing. ”

Wolking says she is sometimes discouraged by the politics around health care reform, but she thinks the benefits to people outweigh the benefits to corporations, if the outcome is that most people will be insured.

“More rural people are uninsured than people in urban areas, and people who are uninsured receive fewer preventive services. That’s part of why having 95 percent of people covered by insurance is so important, so that people can get the preventive care that they need.”

Critics continue to point out the costs involved, but Wolking says that while the House and Senate bills are being combined there’s a chance to work out the best possible compromise.

As I was about to write another essay on what I see as the crisis at NDSU my editor called my attention to the response to my Minard Hall ssay. Since it raises precisely the issues I wish to address, I will respond to these remarks.

Tom Isern is presumably  For the record, I have been at NDSU quite a bit more than twice Isern’s tenure(I believe he came to NDSU in the early 90’s as dean of what is now the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, a post he did not hold for long).  As for “bold words … published anonymously,” it is FargoPhantom staffs) policy to write using pen names(mine is assigned by the   The Phantom knows my identity in the case of legal issues. I’ve used much bolder words on the floor of the University Senate.  As to my commitment to my students and the state, I don’t think Isern has enough experience to have the commitment I have and have had to my students nor to develop the disappointment I have for the state.

I can see why Izern wants to talk about consolidating gains, since the only gains I see are expansion in his college, more departments and more degree programs.  Since I am in favor of NDSU eventually becoming a respectable university, I am pleased about this expansion.  However, NDSU is the North Dakota State University and Apoplied Science, and regardless of what the President’s office has been feeding the press, I see no gains there to consolidate.  In fact, I think that we are in a crisis when it comes continuing quality teaching and research.

In the last few years, we have dramatically increased our student numbers wthout a corresponding increase in faculty or infrastructure spending.   In fact, I  do not think there has not been an increase in departmental operating budgets, at least in the College of Science and Mathematics since the late eighties.  Department Heads and Chairs are under pressure from the upper administration to increase class sizes, open more sections and hire less qualified short timer staff to teach them.  This has been going on for decades and is, I believe, in crisis mode.  Infrastructure for reserch is also under pressure, and retention of quality reserch is a problem, as is retention of faculty in general.  In fact, the Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering resigned effective January 1st, whiom I cosider one of the best scholars I’ve ever met, over similar issues.  Research faculty as well as students need a good library for their work.  But departmental book budgets(the amount of library money departments can ask the library to spend on books in their disciplines) has declined to the point that for at least many departments, one can count on one hand that amount of books they can add to their collection in a given academic year.  Scholarly journal collections decrease at least bi-annualy.  This decline has been going on for well over thirty years, and I see it as a crisis.

The University has admitted for a number of years that faculty retention is a serious problem.  I believe it is beyond crisis.   There are 13 associate professors in the College of Science and Mathematics out of a faculty of about 80.  For those that aren’t familiar with academia, a new faculty member will typically be hired as an asssistant professor is reviewed after three years and is considered for tenure in his/her sixth year.  If awarded tenure, he/she is promoted to associate professor.  Full Professors are those that should have achieved an international reputation for their scholarly activity, as well as demonstrated excellence in teaching.  So, at least in the College of Science and Mathematics, the overwhelming number of faculty are either relatively young or senior.  And I can say without counting that the overwhelming number are assistant professors.  In fact, when a department needs a new chair or head, some departments find it difficult to find someone qualified.  Hiring outside heads/chairs seems to be difficult but not impossible.  My experience in serving on search committees both for chair and dean is that most qualified candidates turn down their offers, not necessarily  because their salary would be so low, but because they see the university as being desperately underfunded.  The only evidence I have for this is, of course, my own observation and experience, which is considerable.

As to faculty, our assistant professors have competitive salaries with our peer institutuions, the associate professors lag by 15% and professors by 35%.  More senior people can lag their peers by as much as 50%.  In my experience many if not most assistant professors do not even see their tenure question adressed.  After a couple of years and they’ve had an opportunity to look around, they leave, if they can.  I do not believe that the main reason for this is their individual salaries, but the awareness of the general underfunding of the University as well as the general lack of respect the University has in the state’s population.   In fact, a young PnD that stayed one year told me he was leaving because “the state of North Dakota does not want what we’re selling.”

I will point out again, as I remark that North Dakota ranks 50th in higher education salaries, that we have a billion dollar surplus.  I think the lack either of respect or knowledge is reflected in the make up of the search committee for the a new president.  The committee of 13, appointed by the State Board of Higher Education, contains one faculty member and one student.  Most of the rest are area businessmen.  I do not thnk this a good make up of a search committee for the president of a land grant university.  For that matter, I thiink the same of the State Board.  Before Isern came here, then Chancellor Treadway exhorted us all to become big Valley City States.  Nothing against VCSU, but their forte is elementary education.  NDSU is the State University of Agriculture and Applied Science.  Why is this relevant?  Because this is the situation we’re in, put there by a disrespecting or unaware public.  And I think the media is part of the problem.  According to WDAY, the decision to move to division one athletics was the “most important decision in the school’s history.”  Frankly, I think that, for example, the decision to hire Tom Isern more important.  When Interim President Hanson’s credentials are discussed, it is always mentioned that he is an ex Bison and Giant.  His other credentials are seldom mentioned, even though they are considerable.  When the MSUM enrollment crisis is mentioned, hockey is discussed as well as the effectivness of some of their billboards.  The idea of improving academic quality is never mentioned.  Do I believe that no one at MSUM has considered that?  Of course not, but it has been ignored by the athletics loving media.  I’ve spent years at other institutions, and this not the situation at those schools.  The public and media treat their academics with much more respect.

The above might seem off the subject, and maybe it is, but if the public is going to respect us enough to spend some of our billion dollar surplus to make higher education reasonable, we’re going to have to do something other than return to business as usual, or soon we won’t have a business to return to.

I would like to say that I remain committed to my students, like the people of North Dakota.  When I came to NDSU, we had 5,000 students and were still refereed to as “the AC” even though we weren’t.  I’ve seen many chnages and like to think I’ve been a positive force in some of those changes.  But I have also watched the support from the state erode, even in the environment of a huge surplus.  And when I saw the pictures of my beloved Minard Hall’s collapse, it’s as though a considerable piece of my insides died.   I fervently hope it wakes up again, a good reason.