Issue date: 3/31/08 Section: News

    Recently, Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein published an editorial entitled 'UDC is a School to Retool'. For those in the University community the article was quite controversial and some were highly offended. Unfortunately, it appears that much of the anger being directed at Mr. Pearlstein is misplaced. The major tenets of Pearlstein's piece were in no particular order; the faculty at UDC is old and resistant to change, the school has been historically mismanaged and is overreaching in scope of programs offered, Washington D.C. can't afford and doesn't need or really want a land grant institution, and finally, city residents, particularly those who attend UDC, would be better served by only having in-city access to a community college. Let's address these issues one by one.

    Faculty age
    Pearlstein states the median age of faculty is 63 and that two-thirds of its members are over the age of 60. These aren't opinions they're facts. The majority of the response to this particular assertion falls into two categories. One accuses Pearlstein of being an ageist and discriminating against the elderly (approaching 60 himself that seems unlikely). The other argues that just because the faculty are elderly doesn't mean that they cannot perform at high level. This is true. Yet it doesn't negate the fact that the age of our faculty is an issue critical to the survival of the school and must be addressed with clarity and expediency. If things continue to progress as they are more than sixty percent of the faculty will be eligible for retirement in five years. There have been rumors of negotiated buyouts for older faculty members that if completed will most certainly negatively impact the number of faculty members and by default the number and frequency of classes offered.

    Resistance to change
    As a student here obviously I interact with faculty members on a daily basis. By far the majority are dedicated and hard working. As Mr. Pearlstein points out many of them have served this University for years, not I believe, as he unfairly implies, for their own financial gain, but instead because they genuinely care for their students and this University. However, I was recently speaking with a group of student leaders and in a poll that was in no way scientific we determined that the majority of their professors were not using Blackboard. If we live in a world where even children are techno-savvy to a fault and if our goal is to produce skilled and valued workers, then incorporating technology into learning cannot be optional whether we're discussing blackboard or online courses. Now as it relates to collaboration with other universities I think that anyone who chooses to address them personally would find that no current faculty members are fundamentally opposed to anything that would benefit students and/or the university. What faculty members are resistant to is bad programs that are under funded and poorly executed. Which for years, unfortunately, is what they've had to endure.

    UDC mismanagement
    I don't think there is anyone who has been associated with the University throughout its existence that would argue that the finances of the school are above reproach. Recent events, most notably a certain Washington Examiner article, have highlighted the schools past financial difficulties. With new leadership in place the school appears to be on the right track in terms of reigning in the endemic overspending and misallocation that have characterized this university for so long. However, no matter how disciplined the spending, the university will continue to have fiscal issues as long as its notoriously complex financial and administrative relationship with the DC government continues as is. Nearly every purchase or financial transaction is scrutinized several times on the way to the DC government CFO's office and back; a process matched in complexity only by its lengthiness. These strictures have made the process of running UDC much more complex than the average university at best. Terminally difficult at worst.

    The city and UDC
    Mr. Pearlstein states that the city doesn't need and probably can't support a quality land grant institution. I don't think any of the approximately 5,000 students currently attending the university or the tens of thousand of students served since its inception would agree with Mr. Pearlstein's assessment of the city's needs in terms of higher education. As a DC resident I have seen millions and perhaps billions of tax payer dollars thrown at ill conceived public projects. I would think the city would gain at least as much benefit from a world class public university as it would a baseball stadium or another renovation of the Verizon center. In Pearlstein's vision for DC's higher education, students would have no non-private higher education options within the city, thereby being forced to travel to College Park or Fairfax to access affordable higher education. This would represent a prohibitive commute for many current UDC students particularly those with families working full or even part- time jobs. Also, inherent in the concept of reducing UDC to a community college is the idea that district residents, who for years have been under-served by the public education system, can only aspire to be peons and do not have the faculties to articulate and define their own life ambitions. For too long UDC, like the rest of the District's education system has found itself to be at the mercy of outsiders, whether it be a congressperson, a right wing think tank, or a well meaning columnist. I think, at the very least, the sacrifice of faculty members and administrators who have toiled for decades in an attempt to instill in this university the greatness that we in the community know it can achieve have earned UDC and its faculty, students, and staff at least one opportunity to participate in defining its legacy and most importantly its future.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools