Undercutting UMKC: Proposed University of Missouri system change could do real damage
The University of Missouri System Board of Curators will meet this week with important work to do — including considering a proposed tuition increase, assessing the impact of the coronavirus, and, on Friday, discussing the way the four-university system is governed.
Local supporters of the University of Missouri-Kansas City are deeply and rightly worried about that last item on the agenda. Here’s why.
Less than two weeks ago, a handful of UMKC trustees met with curators to discuss the future of Dr. Mun Choi, currently the system president. As president, Choi oversees chancellors at UMKC, the University of Missouri-St. Louis, the Missouri University of Science and Technology, and the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Earlier this year, MU’s chancellor quit. Choi was named as the interim until a new chancellor could be found.
Now, the trustees were told, curators want to make Choi’s dual role permanent by combining the jobs of president and MU chancellor. It would save money, they said.
The UMKC trustees said they were extraordinarily concerned about the move. And they should be.
In the best of times, UMKC lacks for resources and support when compared with MU. By one estimate, Missouri spends $1,300 more per in-state student at MU than at UMKC, a reflection of how the state consistently undervalues urban higher education.
Merging Choi’s job of system president with the MU chancellor’s job would compound that concern. It would continue the process of turning MU into the system’s “flagship” university, first among equals, to the detriment of UMKC, one of Kansas City’s most important institutions.
Imagine if someone made the president of the United States the governor of California, too. The governors of the other 49 states would be furious, and they would have a right to be angry.
Giving Choi two jobs, as supervisor and supervisee, is exactly the same thing.
These serious reservations are not related to Choi’s performance, which by almost all accounts has been exemplary. But the conflict between what’s right for the system and what’s right for an individual university is obvious, and must be avoided.
Earlier this week, the curators considered the possibility of a quick Friday vote on Choi’s dual role. By Wednesday, there were signs the decision could be postponed for at least a month, although system “governance” remains on Friday’s agenda.
UMKC’s trustees are expected to deliver a letter Thursday expressing their concerns about the two-job merger. We add our opposition to theirs and want to emphasize this: Don’t merge the jobs without a full, transparent, open discussion of the merits. That hasn’t happened so far.
UMKC is one of the most significant institutions in our region. It’s a place of learning for more than 11,000 undergraduate and graduate students, a home for important research, an anchor for its midtown neighborhood, a magnet for private-sector donations.
The university does face challenges, and even UMKC supporters concede that the school has struggled to reach the goals it has set for itself.
Some of that is the university’s fault — its internal problems with some teachers and schools have been well-documented. But some of the headwinds come from the state of Missouri itself. As the budget shrinks, it may get worse.
Combining the system president’s job with the chancellor’s job will only exacerbate the problem. That could accelerate the school’s spiral into low enrollments and limited finances, to the detriment of Kansas City and the state of Missouri, and it must be rejected.