UW overrelies on corporate leaders as regents

In 1990, the state of Washington provided 82 percent of University of Washington tuition funding per student, with students providing 18 percent; currently students pay 70 percent and the state pays 30 percent. Conventional wisdom sees this trend as inevitable, but the recent move by the state Legislature to lower tuition by raising state support demonstrates that the trend can be reversed.

Why have we accepted this as conventional wisdom for so long? The makeup of the Board of Regents may be part of the answer.

Eight of the 10 current regents are leaders of finance and industry, bringing a perspective that emphasizes profit-making, cost containment and growth. In choosing new regents, we support a more diverse selection.

The business perspective positions the UW to be “self-sustaining,” with little state support, leading to an increased emphasis on technical fields that attract grants and donors, and which can generate profit by producing intellectual property for the university.

Tellingly, the companies and executives UW regents represent donated more than 10 percent of the money raised to defeat Initiative 1098, an income tax ballot measure in 2010 that would have raised significant new revenue for public higher education through an income tax on our state’s wealthiest individuals and corporations. This is a glaring conflict of interest, as the regents represented the interests of their own economic class rather than those of the UW.

Bill Gates Sr., a regent from 1997-2012, was the singular exception. He strongly supported I-1098, acknowledging that it was essential for our state’s wealthiest 1.2 percent to pay fair share to fully fund education and other crucial community services.

This corporatized perspective deeply affects a university. For faculty, these changes have degraded jobs and job security, changed expectations for faculty performance and eroded faculty governance. Thirty years ago, most faculty at the UW were tenured or working toward tenure, with state support for their salaries and long-term job security. Currently, only a minority are tenure track.

Roughly half of UW faculty are contingent employees who teach higher course loads, often with more students than their tenured colleagues. This more vulnerable faculty majority are paid less, lack strong job security, and have little or no voice in curriculum decisions.

Another 20 percent of faculty are researchers without tenure. They are “cash cows,” welcome only as long as their grants last. Meanwhile, the shrinking number of faculty on the tenure track shoulder ever-increasing responsibility for the work of administration and governance, taking time away from scholarship and student mentoring.

For students, the corporate model brings increased tuition but less time with faculty, even though instructional costs have gone down. Contingent faculty have limited availability for office hours and counseling; some don’t even have office space to meet with students. They lack voice in curriculum decisions, resulting in students not fully benefiting from faculty’s knowledge of the field.

Departments feel increased pressure to admit students from other states and countries, as they pay higher tuition, limiting access for in-state residents. And a growing emphasis on career fields weakens the UW’s offerings in the arts, humanities and fields that focus on building a more just and equitable society.

Overreliance on corporate leaders as regents has left us in need of strong champions for the core values of public education and the understanding of public education as a public good. We urge Gov. Jay Inslee to look to leaders in the education, nonprofit and service sectors to fill the upcoming appointments to the Board of Regents this fall.

This story was originally published September 30, 2015 at 2:50 AM with the headline "UW overrelies on corporate leaders as regents."