LITTLE ROCK — It has been suggested by supporters of Arkansas colleges and universities that I am in need of a history lesson because I want to repeal sections of Amendment 33.
My goal is the creation of a state board with constitutional authority to enforce policies at every Arkansas institution of higher education such as reductions of duplicate degree programs. Arkansas would join the vast majority of states that make higher education policy according to a coordinated, statewide plan.
This topic has been percolating for years. Amendment 33 comes up at the state Capitol each time tuition goes up at an Arkansas college or university. In other words, every year. Year after year.
True, the Fayetteville campus of the University of Arkansas did not raise tuition last year, but such an anomaly is so rare that it doesn’t change thedebate. UA-Fayetteville has consistently raised tuition, in step with every other four-year university in Arkansas, for an average increase of 87 percent in only 10 years.
One lesson of history we all should review arisesfrom the 1995 legal challenge by the University of Central Arkansas against the state Board of Higher Education, as it was then called. The board was empowered by the Legislature with authority to review duplicative programs. Exercising that authority ruffled feathers of presidents and chancellors. Specifically, the state board tried to prevent UCA from establishing a doctoral program. In reaction, UCA sued, claiming that Amendment 33 protected each local institution’s power to decide whether to add new programs.
But UCA didn’t pursue its legal challenge all the way to a final Supreme Court ruling, and presidents and chancellors across Arkansas breathed a sigh of relief. They prefer to operate under the ambiguous language of Amendment 33 rather than risk an adverse Supreme Court ruling that would make clear how much power they actually have, or don’t have, under the state Constitution.
I know universities are in a financial bind because the Legislature has not funded their needs at requested levels. However, check the record and you’ll see that I’ve consistently voted for higher education funding at the levels requested by the institutions. Also, since the inception of our lottery I’ve been warning my colleagues that we must not follow the example of states like South Carolina.
The South Carolina Legislature failed to keep its end of the bargain when its lottery was created and for several years did not approve increases in funding. Within five years, tuition had more than doubled andcollege was less affordable than ever in South Carolina, even for students with a lottery scholarship.
Our Legislature must do its part, but institutions must make a better effort to control skyrocketing costs. College administrators should be required to make a stronger case for tuition increases before a board with systemwide authority.
A cost containment policy enforced by a state board would keep politicians from meddling with education policy. The important thing is that the board’s authority would be based on a more solid constitutional foundation than Amendment 33 provides.
I suggest you read Amendment 33. It was a reaction to the dismissal of J. William Fulbright from the presidency of UA-Fayetteville in 1941. However, in 1941, higher education was not thefastest growing sector of state government in terms of new employees, new buildings and new administrative expenditures. In 1941, the cost of tuition did not saddle middle-income graduates with a lifetime of debt.
In 2010, the public wants assurance that universities are at least trying to control costs. The public is weary of reading about astronomical compensation packages for administrators and coaches while the salaries of faculty and staff are frozen.
I have never suggested that the Legislature have direct oversight over higher education policy. That would be no better than our current system in which the Higher Education Coordinating Board is dominated by presidents and chancellors who are accountable only to themselves.
Under my proposal, individual institutions would keep their authority over local education policy on their own campuses. The state board would decide most fiscal matters.
Of course, the Legislature must provide adequate funding and not interfere with day-to-day operations. I know enough history to grasp that political interference is deadly to academic integrity.
The Legislature doesn’t want additional oversight beyond what it now has under the state Constitution. Many lawmakers believe the public would be better served by an independent board, invested with real power to make policy and to carry it out across the state. The Legislature will give serious consideration to putting repeal of Amendment 33 before the voters of Arkansas.
State Sen. Jimmy Jeffress of Crossett, a retired teacher, chairs the Senate Education Committee.
Editorial, Pages 17 on 06/30/2010