At The University of Montana, early student tug-of-wars stretched over a side channel of the Clark Fork, and losers landed in the river. I don't think any students drowned, but later they just drew a line in the sand parallel to the riverbank to lower the stakes. Some politicians brag about drawing lines in the sand. In Montana politics. the lines have often been deep, destructive ruts, and the struggles have been "high stakes" indeed.
For five regular sessions of the Montana Legislature and at least that many special sessions, I have observed the tug-of-war between the Legislature and the Board of Regents for control of the Montana University System. Many of my good friends are legislators, but I have always pulled on the side of the Regents and the University System.
With the passage of HB 229 in the 1995 legislative session, the struggle for control is proceeding toward a final solution. This essay is my perspective on the issue of whether the Board of Regents should be abolished by the voters in November, 1996 and whether the constitutional autonomy now vested in them should be transferred to the office of the Governor with statutory guidance from the legislature.
Let me extend for a moment the tug-of-war analogy. Perhaps in your youth you joined a group pulling on one side of a long thick rope. Sometimes you really got your feet under you and made a difference, and other times your team lost over and over in spite of strong comrades. I've been there and done that as a lobby ist for the Montana University System (MUS).
My particular knowledge and responsibility was for The University of Montana, under the direction of the Commissioner of Higher Education. For example, I pulled as hard for the Montana State University Engineering Science building as I did for the University of Montana Business Administration building because they were the top two priorities of the Board of Regents for capital construction. It was an intense political struggle by a lot of people on both sides that finally resulted in the construction of the two buildings.
To drag out the tug-of-war analogy, remember that they can be fun but you can also get bruised, sore and defeated in the process. It's natural to want to strengthen your side if the tug-of-war is ongoing. The pull-and-tug between the Legislature and the Regents has often reminded me of two long sets of pulling, sweating bodies, often laughing and civil. but always struggling in dead earnest for control. Ostensibly both sides pull for the benefit of the people of Montana but many individual agendas play a motivating role.
You may think that control of post-secondary education is too serious to compare it to a game, I ask YOU to bear with my imperfect analogy as I try to illustrate that the Montana University System is about to get pulled over the line once and for all.
The Regents have drawn their share of lines. One example is the 1986-1990 contract with the university Teachers Union (UTU) on the Missoula campus. A contract is by definition a line (as in "sign-on-the-dotted"). The line may have seemed fuzzy in 1988-89, but it raised hackles all over the place and was finally settled in court. The first level of discord was among the Regents, legislators, and the Governor, because of the Regents' largesse and audacity in granting faculty raises BEFORE the legislature met. The second level of discord was between the Regents and the faculty in defining what percentage salary increase the contract actually intended. That part was settled in court in the UTU's favor.
This example illustrates that the line of contention in the politics of higher education, no matter how it is drawn or who draws it, emerges from two prime movers: money and power. The legislative branch has the money, and the Board of Regents has the power. It's not quite that simple, but in stark terms that's the crux of the issue.
Perhaps you are asking yourself by now where, in the author's opinion, the executive branch fits in the game. Past governors, it seems to me, have not been able to pull quite the weight they would like on either side. The Regents have constitutional autonomy in governance of the University System, tempered by impotence in the appropriation of state funds. The legislature has the considerable power of the purse, tempered by the influence of the Executive Budget and veto power, and by the political clout of the University System.
I should point out that in the last session, Governor Racicot pulled with the Board of Regents for a higher university system budget than the legislature wanted to provide. He didn't get what he asked for but from my perspective he was on the right side. So why worry about placing post-secondary education as a department in the executive branch? I will get to that in a moment.
How do we choose up sides? It's not just 150 legislators on one side, and seven regents and the entire University System on the other. It gets all mixed up. Many salons have devoted much of their legislative careers to pulling for the University System. Some pull on one side or the other, depending on the particular issue.
When faculty and students don't like regential decisions, they turn against the Regents. For example, the decision to switch to semesters led many faculty and students to plead for legislative intervention. On the other hand when the Regents went out on a political limb to support faculty salaries well above the state pay plan. faculty discouraged legislators from meddling with the contractual agreement.
The primary constituents of higher education, students and faculty, have wanted it both ways, to pull on one side of one issue and on another side of the next. Higher tuition? Students seek support from sympathetic legislators. Legislators wring their hands and say, "Don't look to us for help. We don't have any power within the University System." Academic freedom? Faculty line up behind the Regents and their constitutional authority to keep legislators or governors from meddling in the academy.
Regents have indeed held the line against temptation for specific retribution against the departments or careers of "offensive" faculty. The pressures since 1972 have been relatively infrequent and covert, but they have never been eradicated. I have heard ominous derogatory references by legislators to at least a dozen faculty members from various units of the MUS during my years as a legislative liaison. The topics that enraged some legislators usually resulted from letters to the editor or public debates by faculty on such topics as environmentalism, economics, home schooling, tax reform, sales tax, grazing practices, and homosexuality, to name just a few.
Because those of us pulling for the University System were always currying favor, i.e., improved funding, I never took lightly a legislator's concern. I generally tried to place the offending opinions in context. I pointed out that the academy is filled with individuals of divergent beliefs. No one faculty member speaks for the entire enterprise. The First Amendment lives.
Yet some politicians occasionally itch for retribution. In my opinion, they will start scratching if HB 229 is approved by the voters in 1996. Regents are not oblivious to political pressure, but they don't have to do nearly as much horse-trading as the Governor to achieve his varied legislative goals. Since 1972, the academic freedom of a professor is a horse that hasn't been traded. It's a horse the Governor doesn't own.
The 1972 Constitution removed the petty politics of university administration from the agenda of the legislature or the Governor. Too many examples over the years had demonstrated that political pressure can be secret and malignant. It is naive to think it won't make a comeback when the constitutional traces have been kicked over. Post-secondary education is large, diverse, influential, expensive, and frequently controversial. It will always be an attractive target.
Faculty members used to get fired via intense behind-the-scene pressure from local business, civic, or church leaders.
Governors have varied in their ability or willingness to resist such pressure. My master's thesis was a case study in academic freedom from the distant past. In 1921 Arthur Fisher, a UM law professor, devoted his spare time to the establishment of an independent newspaper in Missoula. He was soon history, quite literally.
Rep. Sonny Hanson of Billings, who sponsored HB 229, countered my testimony against his bill by observing that no one gets fired in government anymore, so we needn't worry about that if voters approve the constitutional change in governance of the University System. Up to a point, Rep. Hanson is right. The days of summary dismissals are gone. However, with or without the Regents, wrongful discharge will always wind up in court. It may occur more frequently, and it is difficult, demoralizing, and expensive for all concerned. Controversial professors will have to look over their shoulders more than they have had to for the past quarter-century.
In the 1930s, several UM professors were fired for supporting the librarian's selection of certain books. In 1969 a Missoula ROTC instructor led a campaign to fire an English instructor for his use of a particular essay in a freshman composition class. President Robert Pantzer resisted intense statewide pressure. He was too respected politically to get backed against the wall on the issue.
Governors come and go. They have not all been friends of faculty independence or tenure. Far from it. Through the recent contracts, Governor Marc Racicot has exerted significant influence in regard to the working conditions of faculty, in exchange for his support of higher salaries. It may have been a Faustian bargain. Again, the power over the purse in both the legislative and executive branches gives those two branches the ability to make post-secondary education accountable on all sorts of fronts. The University System expects to be accountable. We prepare endless reports and undergo frequent audits to ensure our accountability. It's never enough.
Some legislators have called the Board of Regents the fourth branch of government. They are anxious for that day in 1996 when Montanans, if they accept the efficiency and accountability rationale, vote to place the University System as a department in the Executive Branch. By the time this would take effect, 2001, Governor Racicot's successor will be in charge of the University System. He or she will play a huge role in setting our priorities, goals, tuition, salaries, and all other policies.
Does that make you comfortable? It makes me distinctly uncomfortable in spite of the fact that I've respected the governors and legislators with whom I've worked. The Board of Regents has post-secondary education as its only concern. The Governor has dozens of concerns. Colleges and universities are often perceived to be fat and happy by politicians who must cope with social services, prisons, fish and game, health and environmental controversies, etc.
It is a disadvantage already, in my opinion. that the Board of Regents is the lone governing board for so many divergent units throughout the state. True, one board keeps higher education coordinated and helps prevent duplication. But those of us in academic governance sometimes envy the many public colleges and universities in this country that have their own independent governing boards. After 2001, our odyssey won't include even one independent board, at least not one with any teeth, so far as I can discern from the intent of HB 229.
I predict we will look back at the age from 1972 to 2001 and say, "Those were the days..." but we let them slip away. We by no means had the strength we needed when it came to achieving better funding for our colleges and universities, but we did have the weight of the constitutional autonomy of the Regents on our side.
When it comes to money and power in Montana. l don't see the University System gaining ground in the tug-of-war, especially if we lose our only governing board. The upcoming constitutional ballot issue is a deep, definitive line in the sand. Think carefully before deciding on which side to pull, and whether to pull tepidly or vigorously in the next few months before the election.