… in the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that the most charitable description of what’s been going on at the clubby University of Minnesota medical school would be “bizarre.”
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Academic Freedom
and
the Corporate University
The Brown and Minnesota Examples
The Brown and Minnesota Examples
Michael McNabb has nicely laid out the current situation at the University of Minnesota with respect to corporatization with his excellent series: University Inc and University Inc, Part II.
There are further consequences of corporatization which Jennifer Washburn has examined in her excellent article in in Academe, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors
In summary, she writes:
Commercial threats on campus have mounted—from industry control of research and corporate ghostwriting to restrictive sponsored-research agreements and intellectual property deals that place profits ahead of public health.
These threats to academic freedom should cause us to reconsider the meaning of the phrase academic freedom and to understand that similar threats led to the formation of the AAUP in 1915. Powerful corporate interests and wealthy donors wielded undue influence over academic institutions. Today we struggle with renewed threats to academic freedom by commercial interests. Should universities pursue truth or profits?
Washburn uses two cases from Brown University to illustrate her points. David Kern had his career ruined by crossing Brown's medical school administration who tried to bully him into retracting a scientific abstract. Kern's operation was shut down. Brown's medical school administration did appropriate waffling. (See Washburn for the sordid details.)
By contrast Washburn points out the treatment of the chairman of the department of psychiatry. Readers of this blog will recognize some eery similarities between this story and that of our own sorry University of Minnesota psychiatry department chair and Seroquel.
Martin Keller brought in a large amount of money (8.7+ million dollars) and was also the author of a puff piece, so-called Study 329, for the use of the anti-depressant Paxil in children. He then became famous for promoting the use of this drug “off-label” in children and adolescents. Shortly, however, the wheels started coming off his wagon. Elliot Sptizer went after GSK – Paxil's Daddy - for “repeated and persistent fraud” based in part on analysis of Kern's Study 329 raw data. GSK settled out of court.
Unfortunately for Kern, another group turned over the Paxil for children rock and looked again at the 320 data:
Psychiatrist Jon Jureidini of the University of Adelaide in Australia published a second independent analysis of Study 329’s raw data, which found “no significant difference” between Paxil and a sugar pill on any of the study’s eight prespecified outcome measure.
Worse:
According to the Jureidini study, Keller and his co-authors also presented a distorted picture of Paxil’s safety by failing to report that eleven of the study’s patients taking Paxil had suffered serious adverse side effects (including eight cases of suicidal behavior and thinking).
[Cough, cough... Seroquel anyone? Dr. Schulz - Minnesota psychiatry chair and Seroquel shill?]
And of course there were ghostwriters in the sky:
Patient litigation related to the Paxil case also led to the release of internal company documents suggesting that Keller had violated traditional standards of “academic authorship” and “independent scholarship” by working closely with a GSK-paid ghostwriter.
And finally, the blow-off:
In 2008, shortly after Jureidini’s study appeared, David Egilman, a clinical associate professor in community health at Brown University, sent an e-mail to David Kertzer, Brown’s provost, requesting that the university investigate Keller’s possible role in scientific misconduct. In 2009, the Brown Daily Herald, the student newspaper, published an editorial questioning Brown’s apparent reluctance to hold Keller accountable. … Brown’s website currently states that Martin Keller is a full professor who “made major research contributions to the understanding and treatment of mood disorders.”
So what's going on here? Kern wanted to publish a paper about a topic that disturbed Microfibres, Inc. and after Brown failed to stop him, he was, as they say, let go.
Keller brought in a lot of money. It at least appears that he may have violated what I hope are ethical conduct standards at Brown. He is still there.
This is a pretty clear case of the conflict between the corporate university and academic freedom.
Dr Howard Brody has picked up on the Washburn article and give his views on the situation at Hooked:Ethics, Medicine and Pharma:
The university seems to have taken little of any action against Keller, their chair of psychiatry who brings in huge research grants from industry, despite his serious COI and his role in suppressing unfavorable data about the antidepressant Paxil in kids. Kern, by contrast, blew the whistle on corporate wrongdoing in the defense of public health, and saw his academic career destroyed as a consequence.
Dr. Brody also notes the implications for academic freedom:
Washburn diagnoses [these incidents] as a serious misunderstanding of the tradition of "academic freedom." University profs have today fallen into the trap of thinking that this as a purely individual right. Not so, argues Washburn.
As has the Minnesota Daily, the Brown Daily Herald – a student paper, has not been shy about pointing out the hypocrisy of university administration. The corporate affiliations of Brown members of the Governing Board as well as President Ruth Simmons membership on external boards such as Goldman Sachs are pointedly criticized in the article: Scandals Hound Corporation members.
At our place the membership of our former medical school dean on the Pepsi Cola board was also scandalous. Here Pepsi bought the prestige of having a medical school dean sitting on their corporate board. A company that makes products that rot children's teeth? And this behavior was defended by the Academic Health Center VP.
We seek truth and/or cash?
Recently a tiny little protest was mounted against the Brown corporation. As the Herald wrote in its Valentine's day report to the campus:
A banner reading "Corporate Criminals Run Brown" appeared on Wayland Arch facing Wriston Quadrangle Friday evening, a day before this weekend's meeting of the Corporation. Less than 24 hours later, the banner had been taken down. The banner included a small "TM" for "trademark" beside the word "Brown."
Universities seem to be into branding. Our brand at Minnesota is Driven to Discover. To discover what? Truth? Apparently the only limitation at Minnesota is whether an action is legal as demonstrated by the refusal of the Board of Regents to have an independent investigation of the Seroquel scandal. Such an investigation was requested by a large number of the University of Minnesota bioethics faculty. As the Minnesota Daily recently pointed out to the Board of Regents in an editorial entitled Regents Play Innocent:
The University seems to think that because it was not held liable in court for Markingson’s death, it did nothing wrong. This is false; it is a cynical excuse to keep corporate drug money flowing into the University.
The regents’ decision fundamentally undermines our mission: Supposedly, the University is “dedicated to … the search for truth.” But the letter makes it clear that corporate research cash is more important to the University than patient safety and transparency.
Refusing to set up an independent investigation is a willfully ignorant attempt to sweep the Markingson case under the rug and damages the integrity of the entire University.
Brown and Minnesota are quite different types of institutions, yet they both seem to have difficulties with the linkage between corporatization and the concept of academic freedom.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
U of Minnesota Carlson Dean Blake-Davis to Michigan's Ross
University of Minnesota Carlson School
Dean Blake-Davis to
University of Michigan Ross
"Dean Davis-Blake said there have been many attempts ... What is more difficult is the will to take action: Central costs must go down or in four years her college will be spending more on central costs than it does on its faculty. Making that change will require hard choices and it will require that the University model revenue and live within its budget."
"Davis-Blake said that quality is going down because the quality of the student experience has declined, which is related to uncontrollable central costs. At the Carlson School, they have fewer TAs, fewer classes, more students in classes, the building is less clean, there are fewer advisers, they have more adjuncts, and they have less information technology. All of these things are happening."
Link: http://bit.ly/bweBTq
The dry rot of the vainglorious attempt of this administration to "become one of the top three public research universities in the world" has set in. It cannot be hidden with advertising campaigns such as Driven to Discover or its bastard child, Because...
+++
Saturday, February 12, 2011
More Denial at the
University of Minnesota
Academic Health Center/Medical School
over Homeopathy
I wrote a piece which appeared on the Brainstorm blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education that apparently caught the attention of someone in the university administration. For background, please see:
Drs. Frank Cerra and Aaron Friedman sent a response that I was happy to post and include below. Please note that it does not even mention the topic of my original post which was homeopathy. I've put in some brief comments on a few of the more egregious distortions.
Guest Post:
Dr. Frank Cerra, former Vice President, University of Minnesota Academic Health Center and Medical School Dean
Dr. Aaron Friedman, Vice President, University of Minesota Academic Health Center and Medical School Dean
In a February 4, 2011 blog post-turned-editorial, University of Minnesota associate professor Bill Gleason openly questions why a University with an evidence-based medical school would dedicate resources to a Center for Spirituality & Healing (CSH).
The post was about homeopathy, gentlemen...
We thought that was an excellent question, so are pleased to have an opportunity to respond.
The Center for Spirituality & Healing was established in 1995 during a period of time when medicine and the health professions in general were coming to terms with the idea that what we don’t know about improving human health is far greater than what we do know within the confines of our traditional, Western-based practice. The original concept was to develop a program that provided faculty, students, and the community with an entry point to what’s now called integrative medicine, or integrative health care.
Since its inception in 1995, the Center for Spirituality & Healing has helped push health care forward. Students have been and continue to be one of the major drivers for the growth of CSH by crossing disciplines to expand their field of study and adding integrative medicine insight to their scope of study. The Center’s growing number of faculty educates health professionals on new models of care and positions consumers at the center of their health care. Most importantly, the Center helps patients more effectively navigate the health care system, a benefit to any health provider.
Including helpful suggestions on the AHC website about homeopathy and advice about how to select a practioner + employment by the CSH of homeopathy practitioners?
The field of health care is undergoing profound change. Today, patients more frequently combine a complementary treatment approach to traditional therapies. They’re also taking a more active role in the health care decisions that impact them and to do so, are seeking care from providers who are able to safely and effectively integrate these two types of therapies. Such a shift is an asset – not a threat – as we look to treat the entire patient.
The operating principle of the CSH is to have an evidence-based approach to complementary approaches to health, and also to promote comparative, evidence-based research between complementary and traditional therapies—knowledge that providers need to best serve the patients coming to them for integrative care. So in charging the University with wasting its resources in supporting the CSH, Gleason couldn’t be further from the truth.
Absolutely false, gentlemen. The post was about the CSH wasting its resources on homeopathy. A fact that all the circumlocution in the world cannot obscure.
In actuality, only a small percentage of the Center’s funding comes from University resources. The rest, it earns through tuition revenue, philanthropic gifts, and extensive research funding. Integrative medicine is an internationally recognized area of study, including by the National Institutes of Health, and our CSH has been very successful in competing for NIH funding.
And what does the NIH say about homeopathy, gentleman. Please re-read my first post. Have you anything to say about this?
For all of these reasons, the CSH is a great investment with incredible returns. In fact, for every University dollar invested in the CSH, it leverages such funding to generate ten more dollars. If all University Centers, Institutes, and faculty functioned as efficiently or as productively as the CSH, our University would be on very solid footing indeed.
Wow, the (dubious) claim that since we can "make money" on CSH, this somehow justifies the practice of homeopathy. I thought universities were supposed to be pursuing truth. If astrology could bring in the bucks, that would be OK? Alchemy? Faith Healing?
The University of Minnesota’s Center for Spirituality & Healing was founded on the assumption that Western medicine may not have all the answers. In 2011, what we don’t know about improving human health still exceeds that which we do know. Perhaps this will always be the case.
Homeopathy?
But either way, it would be the height of arrogance to think that one line of thinking could possibly supply every brush stroke needed to complete the overall scene.
And who said this? You are tap dancing around the "H" word, gentleman.
In its short 15 year tenure, the CSH has established a model curriculum, hired faculty, and developed a graduate minor as well as a post-baccalaureate certificate program. And for 15 years, the Center for Spirituality & Healing has enriched health and well-being by providing high-quality interdisciplinary education, conducting rigorous research, and delivering innovative programs that advance integrative health and healing.
We look forward to discovering what the next 15 years holds for not just our Center, but the field of integrative medicine as a whole.
It’s critical to remember that our University is a state-wide resource and its mission is to serve the whole patient, the whole state, and the nation.
This is a pathetic response from the present and former deans of the University of Minnesota Medical School. Presumably they have taken chemistry courses at some point and are both aware of Avogadro's number. There is no medicine in homeopathic medicine, gentleman. And this was a pitiful and evasive answer to my original question: Why would an Academic Health Center support homeopathy?
Comments - so far - on the Chronicle post:
"Maybe the university decided that its financial situation required it to restructure some departments. Did you check to see whether Cultural Studies was merged with pharmacology?"
"Drs. Cerra and Friedman are blowing smoke. Homeopathy has already been studied and found to be without effect. Their response is a perfect example of PR doubletalk."
"What exactly is “Spirituality”? Do the smoke blowing Drs. actually know?"
A wonderful detailed response: (emphasis mine)
Diane Auer Jones - vice president for external and regulatory affairs for the Career Education Corporation - comments:
To which, there were of course rejoinders:
and
A wonderful detailed response: (emphasis mine)
Bravo to the University of Minnesota for the very responsible work they are doing to train physicians to consider the patient as a whole person rather than little more than the vessel for the arthritic knee or cancerous prostate. Whether or not homeopathy “works” isn’t the right question to ask. Chemotherapy doesn’t “work” for curing bronchitis in the same way that antibiotics don’t “work” for curing viruses. What we should be asking – and it seems that UofM is – is for what conditions does homeopathic treatment work or work best, and in combination with what other therapies (allopathic, spiritual, etc) does it achieve the best result? It may be that homeopathic remedies work as outstanding stand-alone treatments for some conditions and as complementary (to allopathic) treatments in others. Science has not answered all of the questions about when, how and why alternative (to allopathic) therapies work, but it certainly has not produced any results that would suggest it is a waste of time or money to explore the potential of homeopathic medicine. That homeopathic remedies are inexpensive and have few associated side effects (some remedies make those who are lactose intolerant a bit gassy) should make them the focus of lots of research.
What if homeopathy, acupuncture or spirituality could reduce the cost of health care delivery and produce, for some diseases, equal or better outcomes? Oh, that’s right – it would crumble the hierarchy and challenge the dominance of the current leaders, potentially shifting the power to another. I guess when you can’t show results to prove that your way works best, the best you can do is hack away at the other person’s work. Are the negative commenters afraid that if homeopathy works, you could quickly find yourself out of that job that Harvard medical trained you to do so well? Or are you just worried that the NIH might favor work other than your own when making allocations of scarce resources? Is it just that you don’t want more horses at the tough?
I don’t think anyone is saying that homeopathy, alone, could cure cancer, but perhaps homeopathy could make chemotherapy more effective, or minimize the side effects so that we could use a more aggressive regimen of chemotherapeutic treatment.
Why is it that science is called “junk” science when the findings are counter to mainstream scientific thinking or when one brave soul stands up to challenge his or her peers? Shouldn’t those experts in non-biased empiricism start practicing at least a little of what they preach and hold ALL research findings to an equal level of scrutiny? Have you ever thought about just how much “real” science that is published by mainstream journals turns out to be “junk” science in the end? That, alone, is evidence that peer reviewers are far too lax in criticizing papers that reinforce, rather than challenge, their world view.
Sadly, science has become its own form of religion. In a very odd twist of fate, it is now the scientific community, not the church, that is creating its very own set of modern-day Galileos.
To which, there were of course rejoinders:
Daujones asks: “Have you ever thought about just how much “real” science that is published by mainstream journals turns out to be “junk” science in the end? That, alone, is evidence that peer reviewers are far too lax in criticizing papers that reinforce, rather than challenge, their world view.”
Of course, it’s a serious concern – but that doesn’t make rigorous testing of scientific hypotheses a waste of time, or suggest that those that ROUTINELY FAIL rigorous testing – such as homeopathy’s therapies – should be embraced. There are no discovered conditions in which homeopathy “works” in any way that is different from placebo effects. You may be waiting for that one magical study in which a homeopathic “drug” (which is chemically identical to pure water) actually and unambiguously cures a disease, but you may also be waiting for Santa Claus.
Daujones continues: “What if homeopathy, acupuncture or spirituality could reduce the cost of health care delivery and produce, for some diseases, equal or better outcomes? Oh, that’s right – it would crumble the hierarchy and challenge the dominance of the current leaders, potentially shifting the power to another.”
Very entertaining. Ann Landers used to get letters from people in the 1960s saying that they heard that doctors could cure cancer if they wanted to, but then they’d lose the bulk of their income. It echoed earlier, 19th century concerns – from doctors – that if the “germ” theory of disease turned out to be true, medicine might actually cure disease and doctors would lose the substantial income they derived from treatment of wealthy patient/clients. Medicine persists along its trajectory despite these fantasies.
And the “what if” argument is always a great one. “What if we could find a way to persuade the health fairy to visit whenever we asked, and then those bullying Harvard Med guys that daujones mentioned would be sorry….” What if, instead, we invested our scarce resources in research and development in areas of medical research that have shown real promise?
The “patient as a whole person” is fine. George Engel argued persuasively for that in his famous 1977 article “The Need For a New Medical Model”, and Mack Lipkin wrote his book “The Patient as Person” (also 1977), which became a mainstay of medical education for a while. Nothing wrong with that; clinicians embrace it. But that is a different issue, I’m afraid.
Daujones ends “Sadly, science has become its own form of religion. In a very odd twist of fate, it is now the scientific community, not the church, that is creating its very own set of modern-day Galileos.”
Well, no – religion, as a matter of definition (See Edward Tylor) relies on a belief in a supernatural, which is precisely what has been rejected in science since the Enlightenment. We put people on the moon because our science was good enough, not because we prayed hard enough. Science — like many fields – may embrace its own ideologies, but that doesn’t make science a “religion”, nor does it make those ideologies false. On the contrary – one of the hallmarks of modern medical science is the assumption that revolutions in thinking are just around the corner, as we have moved from simplistic humoral models of disease to anatomical models to cellular pathology to molecular biology, always gaining extraordinary power to diagnose and treat disease. Homeopathy? Not so much.
You want to be treated with a homeopathic “drug” that is chemically indistinguishable from pure water? Fine; go see a homeopath. Just don’t expect a better result than you’d get from a placebo, and don’t expect that responsible allopathic physicians will recommend it. But be very surprised if a major state university medical center offers it.
and
“I guess when you can’t show results to prove that your way works best, the best you can do is hack away at the other person’s work.”
Absolutely right: I guess when you can’t show results to prove that homeopathic remedies work best, the best you can do is hack away at allopathic medicine’s work.
What’s amazing about Diane Auer Jones’s comment on this post is that she was, in the words of her profile on the website of her former employer, The Washington Campus, “trained as a molecular biologist, [and] began her career as a laboratory director and college biology professor.” In other words, someone who was trained in, and practiced, the scientific method now supports a state university offering a scientifically unsupported pseudo-medicine on the grounds that, simply put, since allopathic medicine doesn’t cure absolutely everything all the time, offering any “alternative” medicine must be a good idea.
Not only is Ms. Auer Jones’s comment riddled with the likes of “it may be that,” “what if,” “are negative commenters afraid,” “are [they] afraid,” and “perhaps”–all without one shred of scientific evidence that homeopathic medicine would fare any better than, say, wafting incense and shaking rattles over a patient. It’s up to a medical method to prove it does work; it’s not up to allopathic doctors and scientists to prove that it doesn’t. If there is a bona fide scientific study out there that indicates that a homeopathic remedy works more than a standard deviation better than allopathic medicine in some significant instance, Ms. Auer Jones–who, one would expect, could uncover such data–should cite it.
And while Galileo might have proven the Church wrong on the matter of the Earth being in orbit around the sun, he didn’t prove astrologists, numerologists, alchemists, and tea-leaf readers to be right.
Afterthought: Is the Career Education Corporation looking to add to its roster some schools offering training in “alternative medicine”?
+++
Friday, February 11, 2011
Morrill Hall – The University of Minnesota
University Inc.
Part II
Guest Post by Michael McNabb
[Mr. McNabb has posted on this topic earlier. Part I. in the series is one of the most widely read posts on the Periodic Table, both at the University of Minnesota and at universities throughout the world. ]
As the University transforms itself from an institution of higher education to a modern business corporation, it inevitably acquires the attributes of a for-profit corporation. Here we will examine whether some of those attributes serve the advancement of learning and the instruction of youth. (See the inscription above the entrance to Northrop Auditorium.)
1. The Costs & Risks of Non-Academic Business Ventures
The administration spent $9.3 million on planning the development of UMore Park by the end of fiscal year 2010 (on June 30, 2010). In December 2009 the administration told the Regents that:
1. The Costs & Risks of Non-Academic Business Ventures
The administration spent $9.3 million on planning the development of UMore Park by the end of fiscal year 2010 (on June 30, 2010). In December 2009 the administration told the Regents that:
"Revenues are anticipated to be approximately $3.7 million in FY 2010 and $4.6 million in FY 2011, primarily related to gravel mining activities. Revenues from mining activity beyond FY 2011 are estimated at $3.0 to $4.0 million per year, rising to as much as $7.0--$10.0 million per year after FY 2020. Revenues from mining activities are subject to market conditions."
See the link to the December 10, 2009 report of the Finance & Operations Committee of the Board of Regents at item (5) of Financial Stringency .
The only part of that projection that was realistic was the final sentence. In November 2010 the Regents approved a 40 year lease for mining at UMore Park. The lease provides for a minimum royalty of $5 million (for the entire 40 year lease) plus annual royalties between $425,000 and $800,000. See p. 2 of the November 11, 2010 report of the Facilities Committee of the Board of Regents at http://www.umn.edu/regents/
The projected balance for the central reserves fund for the University is $10.3 million by the end of fiscal year 2011(on June 30, 2011). The balance should be $24.7 million to comply with the policy of the Board of Regents. See p. 32 of the U of M budget for FY 2011 at
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
The central reserves fund exists to provide funds for contingent, non-recurring expenses. The senior administrators and the Regents have depleted the fund to a level almost 2.5 times less than the level required by official policy at a time when the University is facing a financial crisis. The main reason for the depletion is the expenditure of more than $9 million to plan the development of UMore Park, the new business model for the corporate university that features the unique combination of a commercial gravel pit and a utopian residential community.
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
The central reserves fund exists to provide funds for contingent, non-recurring expenses. The senior administrators and the Regents have depleted the fund to a level almost 2.5 times less than the level required by official policy at a time when the University is facing a financial crisis. The main reason for the depletion is the expenditure of more than $9 million to plan the development of UMore Park, the new business model for the corporate university that features the unique combination of a commercial gravel pit and a utopian residential community.
This is what can happen in the new corporate university when senior administrators and Regents go moonlighting and use public funds to start business ventures on the side. See University Inc. It is easy for the senior administrators and Regents to take enormous financial risks on such business ventures when they are not spending their own money.
Spending millions of dollars on advertising is another corporate attribute. The University paid the Olson & Co. advertising firm $4.4 million for the Driven to Discover campaign for the period April 9, 2007 through June 30, 2009. See the link in item (2) of Financial Stringency. In October 2009 the Regents approved an additional $1 million payment to the firm. Now the Regents have approved another $1 million payment to the firm for an "integrated marketing plan" [a/k/a "Because"] for the period November 30, 2010 through December 1, 2011. This latest payment is just the first of two renewals for the contract.
We are told that since the inception of the advertising campaign "public perceptions are shifting upwards" and that "continuation of these efforts is crucial as we work to leverage the brand's success and engage audiences around supporting the University during these challenging economic times." See p. 12 of the November 11, 2010 report of the Finance & Operations Committee of the Board of Regents at:
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
What has been "the brand's success" in generating support for the University? From fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011 the level of state appropriations has declined from $709 million to $591 million. See p. 3 of the March 2010 report "Financing the Future" at:
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
What about the effect of advertising on donors? Here again the administration claims success. See p. 3 of the February 3, 2011 report of the Faculty Consultative Committee:
Yet the senior administrators and the Regents continue to spend millions of dollars on Driven to Discover/Because.
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
What about the effect of advertising on donors? Here again the administration claims success. See p. 3 of the February 3, 2011 report of the Faculty Consultative Committee:
Mr. Goldstein [president of the University of Minnesota Foundation] said it is black and white for him. Driven to Discover has had a huge impact on their work.
See p. 3 of the February 3, 2011 report of the FCC at http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/101142/1/11_02_03FCC.pdf.
So let us look at the "black and white" to see if the historical facts support the claim of a "huge impact." See the historical chart at p. 10 of the 2010 Report on Giving at http://giving.umn.edu/
Professor VandenBosch asked how giving compares to 2008 before the downtown. They raised $280 million that year, Ms. Pickard reported. Mr. Goldstein pointed out that 2008--2009 were great years [plural] in that the University received three of the largest gifts in its history: $65 million from the Masons, $40 million from the Schultz family, and $50 million for the Amplatz Children's Hospital. They have to look over longer horizons because it takes time to develop those kinds of gifts and they do not happen every year.
See p. 3 of the February 3, 2011 report of the FCC (emphasis added).
Yes, and when we look over longer horizons we see that the donations to the University in 2000, 2001, and 2003 (many years before the advent of Driven to Discover) were much greater than in 2010. (In those years the University received between $210 million and $230 million compared to the $186 million in 2010. See the historical chart at p. 10 of the Report on Giving.)
History does not support the Driven to Discover claim. The state of the economy and the private decisions of very wealthy families to leave a legacy are significant factors.
Yet the senior administrators and the Regents continue to spend millions of dollars on Driven to Discover/Because.
So we further enrich an advertising agency at the expense of teaching our children? Every single student, parent, and faculty member would have spent the $6,400,000 and counting on the academic mission of the University. Use the tuition paid by students and their parents and the state appropriations provided by the citizens of this state on the substance of education, research, and public service. Then the public perception of the University will be outstanding. Squander the public resources of the University and the public will be outraged at the misplaced priorities of the senior administrators and Regents.
The expenditure of millions of dollars on advertising is related to the goal of creating a perception of the University as "one of the top three public research universities in the world." Yet the senior administrators and Regents all know that this is an illusory goal. On September 11, 2009 the president and the provost presented the annual University Plan, Performance, and Accountability Report to the regents:
"While university rankings are often a topic of interest to the general public and influential in changing or, in most cases, reinforcing perception; these rankings have several limitations which make them inappropriate for strategic planning and monitoring progress. Two of the most significant limitations are, first, that the rankings are not guided by any empirical and theoretical framework to justify the selection of measures and methodology employed, and second, that the rankings adjust methodologies annually making year-to-year analysis meaningless."
See p. 90 of the Report at:
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
As one ancient statesman and orator asked:
Ubi est autem dignitas nisi ubi veritas?
(Where is there dignity unless there is honesty?)
Cicero, Epistalae ad Atticum (Letters to Atticus)
3. The explosion of costs of administration
The new corporate University has numerous executives (administrators) with extravagant compensation. The amount devoted to "institutional support" (also known as costs of administration) exploded at the University from $108.9 million for fiscal year 2005 to $234.3 million for fiscal year 2010.
The category of "institutional support" includes (1) compensation and benefits and (2) supplies and services. The Table below shows the explosion of these costs.
| University of Minnesota Institutional Support (Costs of Administration) | |||
| 2005 | 2007 | 2010 | |
| Compensation and Benefits | $96.5 M | $118.3 M | $172.9 M |
| Supplies and Services | $12.4 M | $31.0 M | $61.4 M |
Total | $108.9 M | $149.3 M | $234.3 M |
Source: see p. 26 and p. 61 of the 2005 annual financial statement at http://www.finsys.umn.edu/controller/um_annualrpt2005.pdf; see p. 19 and p. 62 of the 2007 annual financial statement at http://www.finsys.umn.edu/controller/um_annualrpt2007.pdf ; see p. 12 and p. 73 of the 2010 annual financial statement at http://www.finsys.umn.edu/controller/um_annualrpt2010.pdf.
Compare the extraordinary increases in institutional support to the modest increases (or decreases) for instruction, academic support, and public service. See p. 12 of the 2010 annual financial statement.
.
The fuel for this explosion has been the skyrocketing tuition and fees. The protests of students and their parents about the crushing debt of higher education do not register with the tone deaf senior administrators and Regents. In November 2010, in the midst of the "financial stringency" declared by the president, the Regents approved $150,000 for compensation and benefits for the new position of deputy director of the Board of Regents and $215,000 for maintenance and "refurbishment" of Eastcliff. See p. 11 of the November 11, 2010 report of the Finance & Operations Committee of the Board of Regents at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
It may be claimed that the lavish compensation of the senior administrators is within the market range for those positions. The Regents may have an unwavering confidence that the market always makes the correct determination in economic matters. Alan Greenspan did when he was the chair of the Federal Reserve, as did the "Masters of the Universe" who were the chief executive officers of the Wall Street firms. Their misplaced confidence combined with greed to bring our national economy to the brink of chaos.
Considerations of equity must balance economic considerations, and that is true in spades when the issue is compensation for the leaders of a non-profit corporation, such as an institution of higher education. It is the public service of a non-profit corporation that qualifies it for tax exempt status. See section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code. Great leaders exemplify that public service.
4. The Hidden Costs of Research
Research at the University is part of the reason for its existence, and research is essential for the continuing existence of many corporations. This common attribute is not a problem. However, there is a problem with the escalating costs of research. The increases in the costs of research and the costs of administration are by far the fastest growing categories of expenses for the University. See page 21 of the report of the Board of Regents on December 10, 2010 at:
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
Those increases are the primary reasons for the huge increases in tuition. See: Stop Using Students as ATMs.
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
Those increases are the primary reasons for the huge increases in tuition. See: Stop Using Students as ATMs.
The administration uses the media to broadcast across the state the news of the funds that it receives for research. (In 2010 the University received $823 million for research from the federal government and other sources.) But those glowing press releases issued by the administration fail to report that those funds cover only part of the costs of research.
The University classifies those costs as Facilities and Administrative Costs. Those costs include the capital costs for the construction and maintenance of research facilities and the operating expenses for compensation and benefits of the researchers and staff. In 2009 the University incurred $289 million in such costs and received $104 million for such costs. So the University had net F & A costs of $185 million. In 2009 the University received $95.2 million in gross revenues from research in the form of royalties. See On The Hidden Cost of Research
The information about these costs is available in University documents, but one has to search diligently to find the information. The public pronouncements about research should also discuss the costs incurred by the University. Then the University puts itself in a credible position to request state appropriations to support research. See The Cost of Education
5. Sports
The modern corporation leases stadium suites to entertain its customers. The senior administrators and the Regents construct a stadium that will be used for six games each year at a principal cost of $288.5 million. In the 2006 "stadium session" the legislature approved $137 million in bonds for the construction of the stadium while it slashed the request of the administration for HEAPR bonds for the maintenance and renovaton of existing academic facilities from $80 million to $30 million. Now the administration and the Regents are strong-arming the students (and their parents) to pay for part of the cost of construction by imposing a stadium fee on all 50,000+ students, most of whom will never attend a single game.
The athletic department also continues to receive annual multi-million dollar subsidies from the general fund of the University (the Operations & Maintenance fund). In fiscal year 2010 the subsidy was $8 million; in fiscal year 2011 the subsidy is $7.8 million. pp. 77 & 81 of the U of M budget for fiscal year 2011 (ending June 30, 2011) see:
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
These multi-million dollar subsidies for sports continue as the administration cuts faculty positions and compensation and plans to cut academic programs. See: Three Minutes of Input
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
These multi-million dollar subsidies for sports continue as the administration cuts faculty positions and compensation and plans to cut academic programs. See: Three Minutes of Input
Conclusion
The creation of the new corporate University raises legitimate concerns. It is up to each student, parent, and faculty member to address those concerns. Talk to your state legislator. Talk to your student and faculty representatives in the University Senate. Send letters and guest columns to the Minnesota Daily and to the local newspapers. Discuss these concerns in your blogs and in committee meetings. As the administration has unwittingly advised us: Because the fate of tomorrow's U is in our hands today (one of the slogans of the "Because" campaign).
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Thursday, February 10, 2011
(U of M president to wear tuition cap?)
Bill to freeze tuition gets cold shoulder
from University of Minnesota and MnSCU
Administration
Administration
From the Star-Tribune
The U and MnSCU say the bill is bad policy and will erode the quality of the education they provide.
A few state senators want to freeze tuition at Minnesota's public colleges and universities -- then limit tuition increases forever.
Few? This may be wishful thinking.
Sen. John Carlson, R-Bemidji, introduced a bill Wednesday that would freeze tuition for two years at the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) and University of Minnesota and keep all future increases below the annual percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index.
While the bill could affect MnSCU schools, the U has a separate constitutional status and would not have to comply.
As a practical matter, the U would have to comply. If they want to get legal, maybe that should be fixed as has been done in other states.
The bill would force the two public higher ed systems "to make true structural reform to push revenue into the classrooms and reduce administrative overhead," Carlson said in a statement. It has the support of Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville, chair of the Senate's higher education committee.
The two state education systems oppose the bill -- not because they don't want to keep tuition low. They do, they said. But they said a freeze would tie their hands in dealing with another round of potentially deep cuts to state funding, diminishing the quality of education they provide.
They want to keep tuition low? So why didn't they when they had the opportunity to do so. The U has espoused a high tuition/high aid model that was a serious mistake.
U President Robert Bruininks called it "a very bad bill" that could force the university to eliminate programs, reduce enrollment and cut need-based aid.
This is an unfortunate reaction because it sounds like a threat - we will take it out on the students. Stupid thing to say.
"It looks like this is an attempt to make college more affordable," he said by phone, "but it would leave us no alternative but to erode the resources we provide now for low- and middle-class students." The U has made significant cuts to deal with falling state funding, he said, but "it is reasonable for tuition to be part of the solution."
The financing at the U is deliberately inscrutable and there is no easy way to tell whether tuition increases actually go to the education of students. They may very well continue the entrenchment of administrators or subsidize research under the table. These matters have been discussed often on this blog. And yet Dr. Paller responded very recently to the fact that NIH funding may go down by stating that the U should hire more (research ?) faculty. The cluelessness of the current administration at the U is breathtaking. Let us hope for serious changes under the new president.
MnSCU voiced similar concerns.
"The Legislature gave the board the authority to set tuition in the first place because the trustees can look at the whole picture," said spokeswoman Melinda Voss. "They can balance the interests of the students and the state's need to prepare more graduates and all the things the board has to take into consideration."
The Minnesota State College Student Association does not support a tuition freeze. But it does support the Legislature setting a cap on tuition.
In fact, hours before the tuition freeze bill gets its first hearing Feb. 16, students will rally at the Capitol, wearing red hats that say "S.T.O.P" -- student tuition is overpriced.
Make sure that President Bruininks gets one of these hats...
"Tuition caps," if you will
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Regents play innocent
The regents are acting like Dan Markingson’s suicide never happened.
In a letter released Monday, the University of Minnesota Board of Regents dismissed a request from eight bioethicists for an independent investigation of the case of Dan Markingson, who committed suicide after being enrolled in a University psychiatric research study.
One of the leaders of that study, Stephen Olson, was Markingson’s doctor, but he also received consulting fees from the study’s sponsor, AstraZeneca. His obligation to the study and its corporate sponsor could have caused him to overlook his patient’s safety. The University made $327,000 from the study, $15,000 of which came from recruiting and retaining Markingson as a subject in the study, despite repeated requests by his mother for him to be released.
Of course, the University has maintained neither it nor anyone involved in the case did anything wrong, an odd claim to make after the Minnesota Legislature unanimously passed a law that prohibits exactly what happened and named the law after Markingson.
The University seems to think that because it was not held liable in court for Markingson’s death, it did nothing wrong. This is false; it is a cynical excuse to keep corporate drug money flowing into the University.
The regents’ decision fundamentally undermines our mission: Supposedly, the University is “dedicated to … the search for truth.” But the letter makes it clear that corporate research cash is more important to the University than patient safety and transparency.Refusing to set up an independent investigation is a willfully ignorant attempt to sweep the Markingson case under the rug and damages the integrity of the entire University.
Surprise, Surprise...
President Bruininks Does Not
Lke University of Minnesota
Tuition Freeze
1. It's a "very heavy-handed form of micro-management." The Legislature elects the U's governing board, and they ought to let that board "take responsibility for setting tuition. That responsibility is codified in the state's charter."
2. "There is absolutely no way we can substantially cut the budget, freeze tuition and continue to provide the kind of education, research and outreach our citizens expect." The bill would "force the elimination of entire parts of the university and cause deep erosion in the quality of what we do."
3. It would have "a devastating impact on students. We would have to consider reductions in enrollment... Courses would have to be cut. Students would face much more difficulty graduating on a timely basis."
4. The bill would result in cuts to financial aid. "It looks like this is an attempt to make college more affordable, but it would leave us no alternative but to erode the resources we provide now for low- and middle-class students.”
5. The bill limits future increases to the annual Consumer Price Index, "a deeply flawed statistic." "It does not include labor... and of course, we spend 70 cents on the dollar on labor."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
