|
The Rutgers University Senate, representing students, alumni, faculty, and other members of the Rutgers community, applauds Governor McGreevey and the New Jersey Commission on Health Science, Education and Training for their vision for moving New Jersey public research universities into the top tier of state-university systems. We recognize the great potential benefits of a carefully implemented merger of the three research universities, provided that: · there is adequate, sustained and predictable funding to advance to the next level of academic excellence; · there is a commitment to enhancing research, teaching, and service in all areas, rather than those related to health education only; and · the major stakeholders in higher education, as represented by the University Senate, play a leading role in all stages of the restructuring. This response to the Commission's report outlines the areas of concern in the report, and proposes a modified review and implementation process for the proposal. We believe this constructive response identifies critical issues that will be important in realizing our shared vision for excellence for higher education in New Jersey. AREAS OF CONCERN: As the Commission acknowledges, there was not enough time for a thorough assessment of the impact of the proposed restructuring on the teaching, research and service missions in areas not related to health sciences. That impact needs to be assessed to ensure that any proposed restructuring builds on current strengths, and does not adversely impact areas of traditional strength and reputation, such as undergraduate education or Rutgers’ nationally recognized departments in the arts and humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, agricultural sciences, and its professional schools. The proposed merger has the potential to strengthen existing graduate and professional schools significantly. However, there are serious concerns that too much focus on health education might lead to a redirection of resources, weakening areas of academic strength, and negatively affecting undergraduate education. Separating the university into independent institutions would only exacerbate the impact, as it would be harder to manage these challenges in three separate institutions. In addition, we are concerned that there has been no assessment of how the proposed restructuring would impact Rutgers programs and interactions across campuses. There are a number of Rutgers academic units and programs that currently operate on more than one campus, including the College of Nursing, the School of Social Work, and the Business School, Newark and New Brunswick. Further, there are many more collaborations between faculty and programs on different campuses than was realized by the Commission. To cite just one example, many Camden faculty are active members of New Brunswick graduate programs. It is not at all clear how these programs and interactions would fare under the proposed restructuring. Finally we are concerned over the fact that the Commission’s report makes no reference whatsoever to the land-grant status of Rutgers or to the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (NJAES) or the Rutgers Cooperative Extension Program (RCE) and their direct institutional connections to Cook College. Any restructuring of higher education in New Jersey must preserve and enhance the land-grant mission of Rutgers and the statewide research and outreach programs of Cook, NJAES and RCE. Another critical area of concern involves funding. As stated in the Commission’s report, “Excellence in higher education begins with adequate funding.” However, the Commission’s report also acknowledges that “state support for Rutgers is at the low end of state universities, lags the Higher Education Price Index, and is a decreasing share of the state budget.” The Commission also notes that in most states with institutions it identifies as models for New Jersey, the states spend typically twice or three times more on a per student basis than New Jersey. Rutgers’ current level of excellence has been achieved despite years of operational underfunding and infrastructure neglect, which have now accumulated to crisis level. These needs must be addressed as part of any plan to achieve the next level of excellence. Merger of the three research universities will incur additional costs. Separation into three new institutions will incur much larger additional costs, including: · Costs of duplication of services and infrastructure · Costs of elevating multiple universities into institutions of great excellence · Costs associated with the creation of a state bureaucracy to manage these multiple universities Neither the implementation of a merger, nor of a separation, should be initiated without first identifying the source of funding by the state legislature. In addition to one-time costs, achieving the next level of excellence requires an ongoing commitment by the state to provide consistent, predictable and adequate funding. The state is currently in a difficult financial situation, and taxpayers might not support large additional expenditures to implement such a plan. MODIFIED IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Even if the funds were available there would still be additional concerns. Although the Commission discusses advantages of merging Rutgers, UMDNJ, and NJIT, and of splitting UMDNJ, the Commission's report includes no documented justification for a three-way split of Rutgers. Indeed, in particular separating Camden from New Brunswick may be ill advised, since that would leave Camden as a small, isolated unit without doctoral programs or adequate academic infrastructure (e.g., library and networking support), while New Brunswick would be left with no institutional link to either a Law School or a Business School. There may be arguments for a two-way split between New Brunswick/Camden and Newark. We support the legitimate aspirations of any campus to be an independent university if and when adequate resources are available. Until then, there should be increased campus autonomy. Given these doubts and concerns, we support a staged procedure where the review and implementation phase proposed by the report is split into distinct stages: · Review and implement the merger of the three research universities first, but defer the decision concerning separation. · Assess the impact of the merger after completion of its implementation. Decide on whether the Camden-Stratford, Newark, and New Brunswick-Piscataway campuses should be separated from each other, and, if so, whether it should be a two- or three-way split. · Review and implement the split, if a separation is deemed advisable. As part of this process, decide whether the establishment of a Chancellor and Board of Regents is called for. Regardless of the final structure adopted, the name of Rutgers should be preserved, as well as its status as a land-grant university. For historical reasons, reputation, name recognition, and the fact that there are 320,000 Rutgers alumni, the majority of whom live in New Jersey, this appears to be the only reasonable option. The merged system should preserve the level of autonomy Rutgers University currently has with regards to, among others, control of its funding and assets. This could be achieved by retaining the current Board of Trustees and Board of Governors structure appropriately modified to allow representation from all institutions. Moreover, in terms of the future governance structure, any new statewide body, such as a board of regents, should consist predominantly of recognized educators and leaders in research. Finally, another important issue that should be addressed is the post-merger status of University Hospital in Newark, which is now owned by UMDNJ. University Hospital serves an important social role in the Newark community, and we feel strongly that its funding must be directly ensured by the state legislature as a clear statutory obligation. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Regardless of which restructuring plan is finally adopted, it is crucial that, in addition to deans and other administrators, Rutgers faculty, students, and alumni are involved from the beginning and in every stage of review and implementation. In particular, faculty, students and alumni are eager to participate in, and should be appointed to, all the appropriate Issue Working Groups. They should also be appointed to the University Committees for the various campuses, the Community Advisory and Academic Advisory Groups, as well as any committees created for actions across the system. We ask for a definitive commitment that this be done now. In addition, we strongly urge that the role of the Rutgers University Senate be preserved and expanded in the restructured research university or universities. This constitutes the initial response of the University Senate, composed to address the urgent need for feedback to the Commission's report. A commitment to the magnitude and scope of the Commission's proposal requires intense study and a thorough evaluation. Our study of the proposal will continue, and we expect to expand and/or amend this response as further information becomes available, as the sentiment of individual units and campuses solidifies, and once we have had the chance for additional, wider deliberation. |
Links:
Rutgers University
Livingston College Governing Association
Merger Report
Rutgers University Senate
Rutgers College Governing Association
Douglass College Government Associatoin
