2007 State of the University Address
February 1, 2007
Eric R. Gilbertson, President
Saginaw Valley State University
(click on image for a larger view)
Let me start by declaring that, as in previous years, the "state of our University" is healthy but fragile, strong but vulnerable, hopeful but anxious. There are reasons to worry: there are powerful forces beyond our control - - a troubled economy, divisive politics, a skeptical public; there are also latent potential dangers from self-inflicted harms.
But there are many more reasons to feel proud and confident and optimistic: our financial books are balanced; our academic hygiene has been certified by multiple accrediting agencies; there is a tenuous tranquility in our intramural politics, and our students continue to challenge and inspire us with their imaginative mischief, their determined aversion to learning and their redemptive innocence.
I want first to report about some of the indicators of SVSU’s "state" and speculate about what is in store for us in the months ahead. Then, I want to talk about two specific issues of concern: the economic situation facing state government in Michigan, and the recently passed "Proposal Two" that is now part of our State’s Constitution. So please sit back – this one might take longer than usual.
* * *
Several bits of data and information might provide some perspective on the condition of our University.
The first indicator is, of course, enrollments. Overall University enrollment for the fall 06 semester was somewhat mixed - - there were fewer total students taking classes but more credits were taught - - an increase of 1.2% over the previous year.
This winter semester, both total students and credit hours increased over a year ago - - up by 1.21% and 1.83% respectively. This is a sign of institutional strength, as it represents not just more students coming to SVSU but more students staying and succeeding here.
A good part of this growth comes from an increasing number of residential students. In fact, as is now visible, we are building additional housing for the fall of 07 and still more for the fall of 08. Absent additional housing, we would have been faced with the cruel choice of either turning away freshmen (which would create an enrollment trough that would last several years) or limiting the number of returning students who could live on campus (an equally undesirable outcome).
Campus housing has, of course, given us the opportunity to recruit students from a much broader geographic base, both within the State of Michigan and from other countries. The number of international students studying at SVSU increased this year, signaling continued progress since the setback of 2001. For winter semester, we have 329 students from 40 countries at SVSU.
The University also passed something of a transition point this year. We now have more students who come from outside our immediate four-county service region than we do from within that region. Again, the development of a larger residential component to the campus has enabled us to recruit more broadly and in many ways change the character of SVSU from a primarily commuter-based institution to one that is much more complicated and diverse and interesting.
There are other indicators of the strength of our enrollments. We’re finding, for example, that more and more very good students are willing to "take the leap" and participate in the honors program. . . or participate in one of our study abroad opportunities . . . or apply for support through our Student Research and Creativity Institute.
There are hundreds of students who participate in our musical and theatrical performance programs. And there are now more than 500 students - - or about 6.3% of our total undergraduate student body - - who participate in our intercollegiate athletic teams. In short, we have more good students doing more interesting things. And they have brought a palpably increased vitality to the life of our campus.
Mike Watson of Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, will be joining us as our Director of Athletics at the end of this month. You’ll know him when you see him - - he’s about 6' 7" tall and a former lineman for the New Orleans Saints. His goal will be in part to integrate more effectively the work of our athletic programs with the academic and extra-curricular programs of the University. The physical campus continues to expand, and the student housing and Pioneer Hall projects continue on schedule. When completed in August of this year, the "new" Pioneer Hall will provide not just additional general purpose classroom space but first-rate laboratory space for our engineering programs.
And, as you are probably aware, our next priority for capital expansion is the development of a health sciences facility. Last year, the Legislature passed a bill that included funding for a $28 million project at SVSU. The bill was vetoed - - for reasons having nothing to do with our project - - as part of the political maneuvering at the end of a legislative session. But we appreciate the strong support given this project by the legislative delegation from our region and are very hopeful that in the coming year we can move forward with this project. Keep your fingers crossed in that regard.
Efforts are underway to recruit many new faculty and staff for the coming year. We expect to hire some 27 new faculty, three endowed chairs and a variety of administrative officers.
What is sometimes missed in the ongoing efforts to staff and re-staff is the extent to which our faculty, in particular, has been changing over the past several years. Some 55% of our faculty have been hired in just the past ten years; and there are only 23% of the faculty who have been here 20 years or longer. The service of senior colleagues has defined the University as it is today. But the importance of our recruitment and selection efforts cannot be overstated, as it is the people we hire now who will define this University in decades ahead.
Financial issues are always with us. In all my years in higher education I have never once been told that any single academic department, student service program, administrative unit, library or laboratory or athletic team had enough money. I’ve given up waiting for that to happen. Let’s just say that there is not enough money and there never will be enough money and so we just have to keep on doing the best we can.
For a variety of reasons - - particularly the condition of Michigan’s economy and the structure of its tax system - - the actual money provided by the State per student has declined over the last several years. The consequence of this is, of course, that this University and our sister institutions have become increasingly reliant upon tuition as the basic source of operating support. In a few moments, I want to talk a bit about what is now or may be happening in Lansing in the months ahead; but the importance of these issues to SVSU as well as to the future of our State has never been greater.
Finally, thanks to the support of friends who care about our University, we have made significant progress this year towards our goal of increasing SVSU’s endowment by more than $20 million. As of this date, gifts and pledges to this campaign totaling more than $16 million are in hand, and we anticipate several positive announcements in the weeks and months ahead.
I am particularly proud of one new endowment: the Ruth and Ted A. Braun Fellowship Program. This program will provide support for the professional work of outstanding colleagues. Each year from now on two new faculty or staff members will be designated as "Braun Fellows." Our first two Fellows are Jesse Donahue and Tom Renna, two very deserving colleagues. Congratulations to both of them.
* * *
Two weeks ago, the expected announcements about the State budget problems came down from Lansing. The news was grim and ghastly but not surprising; many observers knew when the budget was adopted last summer (before an election) that its revenue forecasts were excessively rosy. Hard decisions were conveniently deferred until after the elections.
We have done our best to prepare. With a contingency fund and the strong enrollments that were earned this year, we expect to manage without cutting departmental budgets or withdrawing positions that have been authorized for hiring. As in the past, this avoids the chaos and loss of confidence such mid-year cuts inflict on an institution that is lean enough as it is. But that does not mean there is no pain - - just that it will have to be handled as part of next year’s very tight budget.
But now the elections are over and it’s time for State government to get on with the serious business of . . . well . . . governing. There has been enough passion squandered over empty politics. Legislators from across the urban streets and factory floors and cherry orchards and bean fields and summer playgrounds of Michigan have at long last to confront the unglamorous and unpopular decisions about the basic business of government: taxing and spending.
We (and that includes all of us) expect candidates for every state and local office to indulge our appetites for comforting fictions. And so they assure us that they are wise in the ways of business and promise that they can somehow heroically manipulate the wondrous and fearsome tools of government to "create jobs" and enrich each and every voter and their progeny for generations to come. We expect this of candidates even though we know that state and local governments have little, if anything at all, to do with economic prosperity.
State and local governments have largely been spectators to the larger and more powerful economic forces that have changed our State and our lives in the decades just past. The forces of global trade, technological advances, new efficiencies and old attitudes have moved us and shaped us and our region and our State in ways government can only watch helplessly.
Still, we prefer implausible promises to stern and unwelcome truths - - such as, that State government cannot "make the world go away;" it cannot render the forces of change impotent; it cannot make inefficiencies profitable; it cannot make gasoline or heating oil cheap and plentiful; it cannot bring back long-lost days of well paid jobs that didn’t require people to work very hard or know very much.
But what government can do is give us good government - - strong schools and safe streets, a clean environment and a compassionate safety net - - those things from which jobs and prosperity can emerge. And that, in itself, is asking a lot.
Mario Cuomo once said that you campaign in poetry but must govern in prose. It’s time for some straightforward prose.
Governor Granholm has, wisely in my judgment, appointed a bi-partisan commission to make recommendations about the State Budget. While their report is not yet available, there is little doubt they will have to propose some tough actions.
The choices are becoming increasingly clear. Studies and data can be massaged and manipulated to make a case for just about anything. But the weight of the evidence is best summarized to make these points:
- The budget crisis in Lansing is real and serious and can no longer be deferred, much less solved, with temporary fixes or politically expedient maneuvers. State tax revenues are well below what they were a decade ago, and the spending reductions taken in recent years leave little left to cut. This is the result of long-term economic restructuring - - stated otherwise, the permanent loss of manufacturing jobs - - together with an antiquated tax structure and exacerbated by unwise tax cuts in recent years.
- Michigan is not over-taxed - - at least relative to other states with which we might wish to be compared.
- Economic development and prosperity is not some blessing that flows inexorably from the lowest state and local taxes. Progress in economic development results from an educated workforce, from an enviable quality of life, from safety and civility and creativity. The states we might wish to emulate are not those with shabby public services and weak public institutions; they are the states which educate their children, protect their homes and streets, promote their cultures, and care for their citizens.
And so, the question persists: what kind of state - - and society - - do we in Michigan want to be or become? It starts by figuring out what is most important to us: good schools, but how good? Safe streets, but how many prisoners? Good jobs, but how much regulation? And, of course, fine universities, but at what price?
And then, of course, the really hard part: who is going to pay for this? Someone has to, including all of us.
It starts with a replacement for the Single Business Tax - - a tax that was repealed last year by the Legislature without offering alternatives and without providing for any replacement revenues. Don’t look for that sorry episode to make the next edition of "Profiles in Courage." It was, perhaps, a bad tax - - but a necessary form of taxation.
And from there it moves to some thought of sense and coherence in our tax structure. Why, for example, do we tax the purchase of a pair of shoes or a frying pan but not the services of a professional golf lesson or a pet groomer? A hint: it’s about politics.
I speak, of course, with all the authority of one who has never run for public office - - and never could have won, if I had. (Though I do have some experience raising taxes - - tuition is a form of taxation - - and can empathize with those who have that unlucky responsibility.) But the truth is that we too quickly blame our politicians for ducking hard decisions and leading us in the wrong directions. But who’s leading whom? Aren’t they only trying to give us the impossible things we made them promise?
As Cassius once said: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves. . . ." We told our politicians to feed us nonsense. Only we can tell them to have the courage to make wise and honest choices.
And that will clearly require that they raise our taxes. May they have the courage and the foresight to do so, and may we have the courage and the foresight to support them when they do.
* * *
Much has been said and written about the recent passage of "Proposal Two" by the voters of Michigan. But what did the voters actually pass? And what did they mean by it? And where do we go from here?
The debate surrounding this issue unfortunately produced more heat than light. It was emotionally charged - - with disappointing slogans and name-calling - - and in the process, this proposal took on considerably more symbolic importance than it may have in constitutional significance.
* * *
A little history might be a useful starting point. The sentiment famously announced by Jefferson that "all men are created equal"was, of course, only part of his screed against the misdeeds and oppressions of King George. When it came time to enact the basic law of the land, the Constitution, the concept of equality was compromised out - - a lofty but inconvenient notion for the slave-holding states. And so, many "men" were still legally considered chattel for another fourscore or so years after that.
The concept of equality never made it into the Constitution until 1868, after a bloody and bitter war between the states. The Fourteenth Amendment provided that no state could "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And we’ve been arguing about just what that really means ever since.
The toughest and most vexing question this raises is when, if ever, government can treat people differently on the basis of race - - or gender or ethnicity for that matter??
By the late 1880s, most of the Southern states and several Middle states had enacted "Jim Crow laws" that required the classification and separation of people on the basis of race in many aspects of communal life. The recent exhibit in our Library - - "Hateful Things" - - displayed some of the artifacts of those laws and that way of thinking - - "whites only" and "colored" signs that blemished water fountains and public facilities across much of the South and even parts of the Midwest.
For example, Homer Plessey was a citizen who traced part of his ancestry to one great-grandparent who was of African descent. Under Louisiana law he was, then, classified as "colored" and convicted of the crime of riding in a seat that was reserved for "whites only." In an 1896 decision that still lives in infamy, the United States Supreme Court upheld his conviction, holding that laws classifying people and requiring their separation on the basis of race were not unconstitutional under what came to be known as the "separate but equal" doctrine.
That fiction that classifying and separating people on the basis of race did not deny basic equality persisted until the 1950s, when the famous Brown vs. Board of Education ruling required states to provide legal protections in ways that were "color blind." In other words, there could be no equality in the legal separation of people based upon their race.
Fast forward another twenty years, and now the Supreme Court had to decide whether the differential treatment of people by a state on the basis of their race could be constitutionally justified in order to help those whose race had been the victim of historic mistreatment. The University of California had "set aside" a certain number of seats in a medical school for qualified members of minority racial and ethnic groups - - that is, white applicants could not compete for those positions because of their race. And the Court ruled that any classification based on race, whether to help or to hinder an individual, must be viewed with great suspicion - - this, given the sordid history of racial discrimination. And while an individual’s race - - among other factors - - might be considered in assessing his or her capacity to contribute to an academic environment, a state institution could not employ sweeping racial presumptions as a surrogate for disadvantage or "diversity."
Fast forward again to 2003. The University of Michigan simply added "points" to the undergraduate admissions score of any person who was self-identified as a racial or ethnic minority. In many cases those added "points" advantaged individuals in admissions decisions over individuals who had not identified themselves as members of minority groups. And the Supreme Court ruled that this practice was Constitutionally infirm.
At the same time, however, the Court also held that the Law School of that institution, which had used race as one of several factors in assessing applicants’ capacity to contribute to a diverse and academically rich class, had acted properly.
Stated otherwise, what the Court said was that state institutions could not make sweeping presumptions about people based on their race, and thus may not grant or withhold benefits on that basis. But at the same time, a state institution need not be blind to issues of race so long as it carefully makes individualized decisions about people for compelling reasons - - one of which may be to create a rich and diverse academic environment.
The constitutional issues involving classifications and differential treatment based upon gender have been similarly (but not identically) treated. The Supreme Court has struck down, for example, a nursing program that denied admissions to men and a military cadet program that denied admission to women.
* * *
That was the backdrop for the voters of Michigan’s consideration of Proposal Two last November. And the voters decided that their public universities may not "discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."
So what does this mean for us and for what we do at SVSU? A few things are fairly clear.
In California, which enacted a constitutional provision virtually identical to Michigan’s, courts held that this language does not mean state institutions are powerless to address issues that may be unique to one gender or the other or may have greater impact on one racial or ethnic group or another. So . . . is there anything unlawful about teaching rape prevention classes for women or offering health services that deal with gynecological issues? Is there anything unlawful about programs that discuss "women’s issues" or the culture or history of a particular ethnic group? Of course not.
Likewise, there is nothing unlawful about offering social or academic support services that are tailored to the special needs of various groups of students. Students from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups often do come to the University with special and different social, cultural, and academic needs and interests. And we will continue to address these needs and offer these opportunities.
And does this mean that it is somehow unlawful for a public university to focus special recruitment efforts at schools with predominantly minority populations or expand its staff recruitment efforts to reach diverse populations? There is nothing, again, in this or in any other constitutional provision that even hints that we should not be actively recruiting students or staff from these historically under-represented populations.
Our current strategic plan requires that we measure progress towards recruiting and retaining a student body that reflects the racial and ethnic diversity of the high school graduates from the immediate four counties around us (Saginaw, Bay, Midland and Tuscola). We are called upon as well to determine whether our student population reflects this same diversity. In fact, the share of these high school graduates from minority groups is about 12.49%; our student body is comprised of some 13.16% of students from these same groups.
This did not come about by accident. And these efforts will be vigorously continued.
* * *
The question yet to be more precisely determined, however, is when, if ever, race or ethnicity or gender may be considered as a factor - - for any reason and to any extent - - in decisions about admissions or hiring? Must we be utterly blind to these factors - - and to history? And what is a "preference?" Such concerns generally come into play when we admit students to selective programs or when we decide who to hire for open positions on the faculty or staff.
Parenthetically, and as a practical matter, these issues are becoming more and more complicated. We have no "official" records of a person’s race - - only a voluntary self-designation. And in recent years the fastest growing category of our students are those who identify themselves as "multi-racial" - - some call this the "Tiger Woods Phenomenon."
SVSU has occasionally considered race and ethnicity as one factor among many in assessing whether candidates for employment would add to the richness and diversity of our classes or our workforce. But this remains a sensitive matter - - both constitutionally and ethically - - and what is clear is that we cannot and should not make sweeping presumptions about anyone based on race or gender or ethnicity.
But there is nothing in this constitutional provision that prevents us from taking a holistic assessment of each person’s candidacy in admissions or hiring decisions. We can and should consider the advantages and obstacles people have encountered in their lives, the perspectives they can offer to classroom discussions and group projects, the intangible personal and professional qualities like character and motivation that will contribute to the richness and vitality of our academic community.
But these qualities cannot be a subtle proxy for race or gender or ethnicity - - we cannot and should not ignore the constitutions of our State or our Nation.
With the assistance of legal counsel, we will be working to prepare guidelines for departments and offices to assist with the processes for admitting students and hiring new colleagues. This will take some time and some work, and as these initiatives develop we will look to all of you for help and advice.
Like our sister institutions of government, we will all have to work our way through these complicated issues in the months and years ahead. But none of this can or should lessen our commitment to serve students - - all students - - or our region. And none of this can or should lessen our commitment to recruit the best and broadest array of talent available to us for the development and delivery of our programs.
* * *
Allow me to offer one additional thought about our language. Over time, and in the heat of controversy, words and phrases - - even those crafted with benign intent - - take on meanings that were not originally intended and become laden with "baggage" that obscures and confuses issues rather than illuminating them. And so it is with the term "affirmative action."
Asking or announcing whether one is "for" or "against" affirmation action - - as was done frequently in the Proposal Two debate - - does not bring anyone closer to a meeting of the minds. This is not a self-defining term and has come to mean very different things to different people - - usually depending on the side of a debate they are taking. It can mean outreach and openness to some; it can mean racial classifications and set-asides or quotas to others.
When words get in the way of honest discussion we should probably abandon them. "Affirmative action" has long ceased to mean anything we all accept and understand and we should probably stop using it when we wish to have a serious discussion.
I suspect the term "diversity" is coming close to this unlucky fate as well - - it too may have been confiscated by one side or another of a political debate.
But the concept - - that there is a richness to be mined from our cultural and ethnic and international and philosophical differences - - is too important to be lost in the choice of language. Clearly, we should and must continue to work at these issues, now perhaps more than ever. But we cannot assign simplistic labels to complex ideas if we ever hope to have honest discussion. And honest discussion is so badly needed on these matters.
* * *
At the end of 2006, the SVSU Foundation Office calculated their totals for the year. And last year, thousands of people and organizations made gifts totaling more than $6 million to support our University, our students and our work. The largest gift was $1.5 million; the smallest was $5 - - which brings to mind the Biblical parable of the impoverished woman who gave what she could. The large sums of money are nice, but the thought behind any gift matters too.
Consider what this really means. Last year, a couple thousand people sat down and wrote checks to SVSU - - including many of you who work here - - not because they had to and not because they expected anything in return but because they cared about and believed in what we do.
They could have given the money to anyone else; they could have spent it on themselves. And they’ll probably never hear thanks from the people - - students mostly - - who will eventually benefit from their generosity. In fact, they’ll probably never even find out who these students were.
But they gave - - without personal expectations, without really even knowing the recipients - - because they believed in something . . . something called Saginaw Valley State University. They and others still see the University as the "essential institution."
As academics, we are generally skeptics and not easily touched by sentiment. But I am touched by this generosity; you should be too.
There are also thousands of students, and tens of thousands of their parents, and millions of taxpayers too, who also paid - - perhaps not voluntarily, of course - - to support this University and our work. They believe in it too - - more or less.
And if that is not necessarily quite as touching, it should nonetheless instill in us a sense of responsibility - - and a sense of the possibilities created by our good fortune and by the confidence and support of so many others.
* * *
I am often drawn back to a blinding insight once proffered by a former SVSU football coach (not Randy). It came at the end of a particularly luckless season, and he was struggling mightily to rally our enthusiasm. After explaining away the stumbles and setbacks of the season just past he announced, in an earnest tone and with a compelling sense of conviction, "I firmly believe that the future is ahead of us."
I share that faith. And I would even go one bold step further: I believe that the future ahead of us is bright- - but only if we make it so.
We start tomorrow from a position of relative strength, and we enjoy a reservoir of support from within and around us. Despite limitations of finances and the occasional slings and arrows of critics, it is still a good time for what we, in our vanity, call "higher education." Not even our critics argue that the world needs less of what we offer. And while others - - and we ourselves - - sometimes doubt how well we do it, we still have an extraordinary freedom to teach and learn and serve and create.
In some ways the possibilities are limited only by our own energies and our own imaginations. So keep working, and keep dreaming too. On we go. . . .