On March 4, 1998, MSU's Faculty Council voted in favor of a resolution to restore Montana State University's title, dropping the recently added "-Bozeman." It's hard to say which combinations of reasons members judged as the most compelling among those discussed. I suppose, and it's purely a personal assessment, that there were two essential perceptions, which persuaded members to vote for the change.

The first of these was based on reported confusion because of naming ambiguities about which was the large institution with the faculty, research/creative activities, and graduate programs associated with a major university. A deeply held reservation was expressed that a move to restore "Montana State University" might be taken to reflect badly on other units in the Montana State University system. Others indicated that distinctions of this sort were made by other better-known state systems with no loss of individual institutional recognition. But whatever the aggregate of concerns may have been, there seemed to be a shared feeling the character of our university was symbolized by its name and it was worth preserving.

This second perception derives from a sense that the change in nomenclature of the past four years implies an enervating sameness for all of us. It's regarded as one which diminishes our identities and suggests a superficial unity primarily in the name of efficiency. Themes of interchangeability, the homogenizing Western Governors University, systematized accreditation, and other trends discovering the uniqueness of our residential campuses, dominate the discussion of system change. In response, our faculty welcomes diversity in the system.

MSU's faculty remains broadly committed to continued collaborations including those that create mutually supportive economics and wider access to learning resources everywhere. I'm guessing however, we are becoming less interested in pacts that emphasize productivity over quality. These may give the impression of efficient business-like consolidations. But a grounded sense of who we are, what we do well, and what our aspirations may be is much more than that embodied in an apparent symbolic identity--it vitally encourages characteristic learning initiatives and existing quality-based collegial alliances within and outside our University. Worth noting however, has been our somewhat contradictory disinclination to retrieve our former motto, "Education for Efficiency," thankfully put to rest about the time system renaming was undertaken. Overall, the problems identifying ourselves at recruiting tables seem to be smaller than having essentially indistinguishable titles for institutions with a valued difference.

Peter Kommers
Chair-elect, Faculty Council
Montana State University