Lloyd Omdahl, Published March 24 2013
Omdahl: Higher ed deep in a hole
Of the proposals put on the table, and there must be a half-dozen of them, none of them will pass muster. The voters will stand firm with the current structure, just as they did several years ago on the measure to delete institutions from the constitution.
As far as the new chancellor is concerned, in spite of the unrelenting criticism, I remain unconvinced that we should summarily discharge Hamid Shirvani after just nine months of service.
We seem to forget the circumstances that brought us to the conclusion that we needed a strong chancellor.
The president of North Dakota State University had run amok with expansionist visions; both NDSU and the University of North Dakota overspent on building projects, and Dickinson State was giving away degrees.
Lack of supervision was the diagnosis. Since the Board of Higher Education already had its hands full, we looked at the failures in the chancellor’s office and agreed that closer coordination and more accountability was required.
Just about everyone in the state was on the same page. Yes, we needed a stronger central office to bring order to the system. The board took the message seriously and hired a strong hand.
But the downside of such a move meant that more authority for the chancellor left less authority and influence for others. Now the “others” are unhappy.
Nevertheless, it seemed that legislators, administrators and the public welcomed his initial proposals for changing higher education. While some of us had reservations about parts of the plan, we were willing to let the proposals play out until all of the implications were on the table.
Perhaps the chancellor, unfamiliar with North Dakota’s political culture, failed to observe the North Dakota mantra that “everyone gets a say” on all issues. When everyone gets a say, the whole process of change gets stalled.
Shirvani didn’t want his proposals to perish by nitpicking – which we are inclined to do – so he tried to move expeditiously. Unfortunately, style rather than substance became the issue, and current critics seem to have forgotten why we wanted a strong chancellor in the first place.
Because of the controversy, legislators are proposing all sorts of schemes for changing the system. Most of the proposals would politicalize higher education by removing the protection in the state constitution. Once out of the constitution, the system would be subject to all sorts of legislative, executive, community and institutional pressures.
This intemperate debate and recrimination has already tainted North Dakota’s reputation in the national academic community. Rep. Bob Skarphol, R-Tioga, appropriately described our behavior as “embarrassing and reprehensible” and suggested that it is “time to stop the cheap theatrics.”
Here’s the hole we have dug for ourselves. If we buy out Shirvani’s contract, recruiting a new chancellor from out of state will be virtually impossible. Hamid would be the second chancellor to become a victim of shabby treatment in the past 10 years. Who would come to a state with that kind of track record?
We’ve tried in-state chancellors. They have not been effective reformers for a variety of reasons too complex to detail in this limited space. In short, they have been commissioners, not chancellors.
While we spend months recruiting a new chancellor, the big dream of pulling the institutions together into a dynamic and progressive system will be put on hold. We will be back to square one. Status quo will win again.
Omdahl is a former North Dakota lieutenant governor and a retired University of North Dakota political science teacher.