Five steps for a University of Minnesota in transition

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The president of the University of Minnesota is leaving (front page, April 4), and what happens in the next month will irreversibly set the future of our state, for better or for worse.

It is up to the regents. They must choose an interim leader and then the next president. But they must do something else first. They should perceive and then publicly state the problems that have caused the university to lose not only enrollment but academic standing. Being able to overcome those problems and then to achieve and exceed the strengths of our university's best days should be the only criterion for choosing its next president.

Some of those problems affect all universities right now and are not the result of local mistakes. But some are. Whoever is to blame, problems must be acknowledged if they are to be cured.

If I were still a regent I would urge my colleagues to begin right now by acknowledging the following:

1) A major reason enrollment is falling is because tuition is too high. This is as simple as economics gets. The key question is why tuition has grown so astonishingly. The answer, alas, is the student loan program, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time but has had disastrous side effects, particularly on those whose needs were the highest priority of the program's advocates.

This is because colleges and universities, public and private, large and small, used the availability of federal loans as the answer to affordability. If university spending exceeded income, no problem: just raise tuition. Let the kid take out a loan. When I became a regent it was still possible for students to self-finance their educations through summer or part-time jobs. No more.

2) Costs peripheral to the university's mission should be sharply cut — with specific goals to do so publicly announced. The university is in the business of teaching, research and outreach. That's where the money should go. Of course there should be bureaucrats, but should they outnumber the faculty by a multiple?

3) The academic ratings in all areas should be improved. They have been declining. To some extent many public universities face this problem, since states during COVID faced funding choices that the richer private colleges did not. Some of our best professors accepted higher salaries elsewhere. This is all the more reason to shift our university funding from bureaucracy to competitive academic funding that permits our state to regain what once it had — a quality of education of which any university anywhere could be proud.

4) It is imperative that the university reacquire its hospitals and restore our health science programs to the very highest level of national excellence — a lofty goal which once we had achieved. Failure to do so will greatly diminish the growth of our state in every way, including business growth. The one-time cost is very high, but so is the one-time state budget surplus.

5) There must be a better way of selecting regents. I know personally some current regents of intelligence and dedication, but it is difficult to conclude that the board as a whole is serving our university well. It seems to see no role between obeisance and attack.

Legislative leaders correctly see that the regents' oversight duties are remiss. But who selected those regents? The Legislature. This is required by the state Constitution, but it isn't working well. A good regent is one who loves the university and understands governance.

They don't have to have held high positions elsewhere, but must have absolute dedication to their mission, and no other loyalty or agenda. The best regents with whom I served include a veterinarian, a CEO and a farmer. Their highest priority was the academic excellence of the university.

I believe the governor should appoint the regents. If nominees from the governor are sent to the Legislature to be voted up or down, the constitutional requirement would not be violated. The Legislature takes its regent selection role seriously, but no screening committee with 201 members can do justice to its task. And with gubernatorial recommendation, public accountability is easier to locate.

No other institution in the state has or can have a greater impact on the quality of our future than the University of Minnesota. This is perhaps its most critical moment. We must rise to the possibility of doing the right thing.

David Lebedoff served as a regent of the University of Minnesota from 1977 to 1989, the last two years as chair of the board.