Previous Mission Statement
New Mission
Statement
Speakers' Commentary
Dr. Rich Becherer
Dr. Ron Cox
Dr. Debbie Ingram
Dr. Wilfred McClay
Dr. Mark Mendenhall
Dr. Gail M. Meyer
Dr. Irven Resnick
Dr. David Sachsman
Dr. James Tucker
Dr. Kim Wheetley
Dr. Michael Whittle
Review Session Summaries
September 20, 2001
September 26, 2001
Mission Statement Project
Irven M. Resnick, Professor
Chair of Excellence, Judaic Studies
Like my colleague, Bill McClay, I would like to begin with a disclaimer. As a member of the college of arts and sciences for my entire career--here and at a handful of other universities across the country--my perspective will naturally reflect my affiliation. I recognize that a university is more than any one of its parts, and more than any one of its colleges or departments. A universitas, in Roman law, was always a corporate entity, a guild or organization. Ours must include the goals of each of its parts. Nevertheless, as the largest of the university's colleges, generating more than 60% of total credit hours, and as the central focus of any traditional definition of the university, I think that arts and sciences should take a leading role in defining our institutional mission. And the goals of the liberal arts--traditionally, disciplines that teach the art of living rather than the skills of how to make a living--have been at the center of the university's mission.
Having said this, let me focus on one or two goals which should be primary to UTC's mission:
Increased access. If we are to fulfill our obligation to the state, it is important to try to increase the number of citizens earning a university degree. I take this as self-evident. Every citizen can benefit from training in the art of living. It is also true that a college degree is a significant advantage for those interested primarily in how to make a living. It should not be necessary, any longer, to demonstrate that for the economy of the future--indeed, for the present economy--a college degree will be an entry level requirement; that if Tennessee is to compete in the regional or national economy, let alone the global economy, an advanced degree may be necessary. In one sense, every citizen in the state has access now to a university education: that, of course, is the purpose of the UT and Board of Regents campuses, and of a public system of higher education. In another sense, however, access is becoming a more important issue, and not only because of rising tuition and fees, but also because of state policies. While we all applaud Mr. Lupton's most recent gift, it will not provide continuing funds for new initiatives and will not change the broader operating constraints. As reports of declining state tax revenues appear almost each day, and in the rush to find ways to cut expenditures, the university will come under ever increasing pressure to eliminate programs duplicated at other institutions in Tennessee. From a financial point of view this may make sense. We have tried to save money in the library, for example, by buying fewer and fewer journals, books, and other resources, and we have become more dependent on delivering these materials on demand, either through an electronic subscription service or by inter-library borrowing. In response to the need, we can transfer library resources from one institution in the state to another, although full utilization of these services typically is available only to faculty members and graduate students. Still, this is one way to provide enhanced access. But this practice cannot serve as a general model of state supported higher education. People cannot be moved as easily as books or documents. If we want to provide the people of our region with access to a university program and facilities, the evidence suggests that our students--many of whom work in part-time or even full-time jobs, or have family obligations making it impossible for them to move away from the area--cannot travel 200 miles to attend class because the state hopes to save dollars by eliminating a duplication of programs. Basic programs have been duplicated because the need is not specific to one town or city or locale and because our student population includes a significant number of non-traditional students (about 22% of undergraduates and 31% of graduate students) who are unwilling or unable to leave home, their families, and their employment for their education. We have tried to address some of these concerns with satellite campuses or distance learning--a poor substitute, in my view, for instruction on campus in front of living instructors. These programs can help. But they are not a long term solution. The central campus will and should remain a center for learning and it will have to duplicate many undergraduate and graduate programs, and even increase their number, if we want to increase access. This is not to say that some major or minor programs at UTC may not be eliminated, but overall every discussion should begin from the standpoint that since one of our goals should be increased access, our mission is to grow and not shrink.
Again, since the liberal arts remain at the center of the definition of the university, let me add that when selecting areas in need of resources, we must not turn away from the traditional mission of a university to satisfy only the needs of the business or technology sectors. We must remain cognizant of the needs of our society, and these needs go well beyond a vocational or strictly utilitarian education--one concerned only with achieving, typically, material ends: the skills to obtain a good job, to improve our standard of living, etc. I do not deny that we need to provide work-related skills to students. This was also a feature in the sometimes idealized medieval university, which trained many students in law or theology for positions in the Church hierarchy or imperial bureaucracy. But this has never been the only goal nor the most important goal of a university experience. Moreover, as our population ages, and lives more years past retirement, an education that provides only work-related and not life-related skills will become increasingly irrelevant or marginalized. So, let me add too that in a rush to eliminate duplicate programs from the university as a cost-saving measure, it will be easiest and likely most popular to attack precisely those programs whose payoff, if you will, may only become evident after the conclusion of one's career. In a word, the programs in the arts and humanities. It is these disciplines that have sought to provide access to enduring values, and to educate the individual--for the good of society--to their proper standards. Their practitioners are not, respectfully, "knowledge workers" or "intellectual workers," as if their labor's value can be quantified according to how many widgets they produce, nor should they be despised for this. Yet they have become all too easy targets for pundits and demagogues, who malign institutions of higher education by suggesting that universities have become enslaved to intellectual fads and curiosities. In our experience, nothing could be further from the truth. We are not luxuriating in a proliferation of bizarre elective courses appealing to a fringe audience. Quite the contrary: at our institution in several disciplines essential fields of study are not represented at all or remain underrepresented (e.g. in History, which has no specialist on the Middle East; or Religious studies, which has no position in Biblical Studies or Islamic Studies).
Having argued that we should expand departments and degree programs to serve adequately our region, I'd like to propose something that on the surface may appear as a contradiction: that in order to best serve Tennessee, we must strive to serve our region and the nation, becoming a national institution. This is admittedly easier said than done. But we have some of the tools in place: a faculty that is far better than one has any right to expect, given the financial pressures we have faced. Some of my colleagues' earlier discussions drew attention to the need--and, now, with Mr. Lupton's gift, a new potential--for enhancing certain programs in order to achieve national reputation. If I may play the cynic for a moment, however, I would note that we have even now certain programs that enjoy at least regional and in some instances national distinction, but which as a result of chronic underfunding face a precipitous decline. A discussion of the university's mission can provide an opportunity for strategic planning, to identify those programs that can be salvaged and those that cannot; those that can profitably be expanded and those that cannot. Bill McClay's suggestion to create an honors college, it seems to me, is one worthy of consideration that builds on present strengths, and could provide a basis for future discussions.
As my contribution to such discussions, let me suggest that we examine another feature of national recognition: a national student population. Recruiting students more aggressively from out of state, perhaps with scholarship offers, may be the only way to evangelize and spread the good news, if you will, about UTC. This was, at one time, de facto the special province of the university honors program which routinely brought some very good students from out of state to UTC. Not many, it's true: the program has never, I believe, exceeded 100 students in number. Now, as I look at the entering class of UHON students, almost all are from Tennessee. Is this a bad thing? After all, are we not supposed to serve the citizens of Tennessee? Yes and yes. It is a bad thing, and we are supposed to serve Tennessee. It's a bad thing for several reasons: 1. it decreases the diversity of our student population and encourages insularity; and, 2. it makes us even more dependent on the local community for funds and fundraising and our fortunes become more tied to local or state politics. If, as my business colleagues assure me, it is essential to diversify an investment portfolio to avoid the wrenching twists and turns of the market, the same principle should apply in the university and should caution us against identifying our audience as only students from W. Tennessee In 2000, almost 60% of our students came from Hamilton county, 90% of our students came from Tennessee; 95% came from Tennessee or nearby communities from border states. Our percentage of international students--1.7%--is greater than the number we enroll from neighboring Alabama! Over the last decade the number of out of state students from beyond our border states has never exceeded 3% of total enrollment.
This figure is not typical. Data from comparable institutions in North Carolina (UNC-Charlotte; UNC-Greensboro; UNC Asheville) suggest that on average 15% of undergraduate students are from out of state, and this figure does not include international students. Looking at Alabama (University of Alabama--Huntsville and University of S. Alabama in Mobile) the figure ranges from 15% to 23%. In sum, comparable public institutions in neighboring states draw a much larger number of out of state students. I do not believe that any of these campuses has more to offer students than we. Let's expand our horizons and pursue a population outside our region. My point is that, ultimately, if we are to be Chattanooga's university, we must also become the nation's university. We will make our most important contribution to the city and its economy only if we accomplish this. Perhaps a "Metro university"is one that is for Chattanooga and Hamilton county, and not simply of them; one which makes a positive contribution to the quality of life, to the economy (with more than $12M in external grants in 2001), and to our schools--e.g. UTC's new string program which, with a ten year external grant, will bring music education to 70 3rd and 4th graders, until they complete high school. But let our "Metro university" also be one which introduces people from other parts of the country to Chattanooga and Tennessee, and let us establish a quantifiable, target goal as part of our mission.
How do we do this? We have a few things going for us: 1. Chattanooga itself, which increasingly is recognized on a national level as an attractive place in which to live; 2. improved rankings in publications like U.S. News and World Report that may attract the attention of students even outside Tennessee; 3. relatively low fees, even for out of state students; 4. and some quality undergraduate and graduate programs. Even though our fees for out of state students have risen significantly over the last few years, they remain lower than those of comparable institutions in the southeast. If only we could capitalize on this market advantage! Unfortunately, THEC and state policies actually seem to penalize us for enrolling out of state students, diverting the additional tuition revenues to state coffers. But perhaps with the current budget crisis in Tennessee, our administration can successfully argue that now is the time for the state to adjust this policy and to allow us--even encourage us--to broaden our horizons.
In sum, it seems to me that now is the time to engage in a discussion of strategic goals and, in the process, we may well fashion a new identity for The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.