“First in 2009” Prestige

scene eleven Pursuing “First in 2009” Prestige Customers Like other universities, Miami at the end of the twentieth century was an institution engaged in far more than traditional academic activities. It sought to enhance a public image that it could provide young people with unparal- leled opportunities for reflection on ideas in a cozy learning environment, and it treasured its nonprofit status as a state-supported institution. It functioned, however, more and more like a complex business. As the nation’s neoconser- vative political revolution took deep hold on public policy in Ohio, traditional sources of state support declined relative to increasing operating costs. Some doubted that the tuition strategies in place could continue to offset the cost of maintaining Miami’s Public Ivy advantage in an increasingly competitive education marketplace. Nowhere was the new customer orientation more evident than in the university’s efforts to satisfy intensifying expectations of students—and parents— that Miami and Oxford provide a living environment to support lifestyles of young people coming from prosperous middle-class communities. Making the case that Miami could meet that challenge would become a major effort in the Corporate University era. National Rankings Miami administrators told the university’s constituents and prospec- tive students a story of first-rate facilities, strong student organizations, high academic expectations, noteworthy alumni success, and sterling financial value, via press releases, Web sites, and media. In support of these claims, 363 364 the corporate university, 1996–2009 national rankings of prestigious universities scored Miami highly. In 2006 the most popular evaluator of American higher education, U.S. News & World Report, continued Miami’s long record of high standings by ranking it twenty-first among the nation’s public national universities, describing it as offering “outstanding examples of academic programs that are believed to lead to student success.” Kiplinger’s ranked Miami thirty-eighth nationally and the top bargain in Ohio, and the Fiske Guide to Colleges de- scribed it as “one of the rising stars among state universities.” Sim- ilar praise came from The Insider’s Guide to Colleges, the American Association for Higher Education’s Student Success in College, the Kaplan-Newsweek College Catalog, and BusinessWeek. The National Association of College and University Food Services gave Miami five awards as a top campus food program. Such rankings were believed to have a significant impact on admissions. They were typically based on empirical information about such items as expenditure per student combined with sub- jective information such as peer reputation surveys. While most thoughtful educators could readily critique the methods of the ranking agencies and explain their perceived deficiencies, when their university’s score was high it was promoted to seek advantage in the admissions market. This was not a new phenomenon at Miami, for it had ap- peared in the U.S. News & World Report college rankings since they began in 1985. Aspiring to rise in a hierarchy of “America’s Best Colleges and Universities,” in the late 1980s and early 1990s Miami did tantalizingly well, yet did not reach the top. Soon Mi- ami’s president would announce a goal to become “First in 2009.” U.S. News and World Re- port and Newsweek issues Student Life in Oxford promoting college rankings, 2005 editions Successfully meeting such an objective meant continuing to recruit tal- ented students, and that meant responding to their evolving expectations, sometimes in locally controversial ways. By 2004 most students could offi- cially register the cars that many had earlier brought to campus anyway, grant- ing them greater freedom of movement. This change encouraged students to live in a growing number of rental properties well removed from campus, and required expansion of the Miami Metro bus system along with construc- tion of more parking areas. A lot was built at Ditmer Field east of Oxford in a former greenbelt, and previously disallowed parking garages, open to faculty, staff, and students for a fee, were built on the Oxford campus. A visible price of more automobile autonomy was congested traffic in Oxford’s clogged pursuing “first in 2009” prestige 365 streets, which retained the scale and configuration they had when first laid out for the village in 1810. Relaxing restrictions on cars sent a clear signal of accommodation to student desire for autonomy over their personal lives. Students living in off- campus apartments enjoyed new levels of personal freedom even as they dealt with landlords, fell victim to petty and sometimes serious crimes, ran the risk of injury or death by fire in old homes refitted for rental, and had to deal with the consequences of sometimes abusing the property where they lived. Just as in college towns of Athens, Kent, and Bowling Green, Ohio, many permanent residents of the City of Oxford welcomed students for the money they spent while deploring raucous and sometimes destructive behavior at all hours of night. Conflicts between students and university officials tended to center on- ex cessive consumption of alcohol, especially at parties in rental properties and in Uptown bars. On occasion, big weekend celebrations led to serious con- frontations between police and intoxicated students. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, robbery and sexual crimes, at times perpetrated by indi- viduals not affiliated with the university, were not infrequent occurrences. In the spring of 2005 three students died in an off-campus house fire. In spring 2007 another student died after being hit by a train in early morning hours, and Oxford Police charged four of her acquaintances with permitting underage alcohol consumption at a private place, and a fifth for furnishing alcohol to an underage person at a bar. In coverage of this story, the Cincinnati Campus Avenue Garage (2006), Miami’s first automobile parking structure, South Campus Avenue, Ox- ford. Photograph by Rob- ert S. Wicks, 2008. Miami Archives. 366 the corporate university, 1996–2009 Enquirer reported, “In Oxford, police cited 243 people as underage drinkers during the 2006–07 school year.” The report noted that Miami “took disciplinary action against 747 students during the last school year for alcohol-related violations” and “23 students were suspended.” An “After Dark” social program was begun earlier to attract students to alcohol-free functions on campus, and in 2006 Miami began taking more active steps to address excessive alcohol consumption. Forty-one recommenda- tions of a presidential Alcohol Task Force were quickly adopted. These included ending delivery of alcohol to resi- dence halls, increasing education fees for students with alcohol violations, requiring those who used fake identifi- cation in bars to take a class on ethics and honesty, and creating a group intervention program. The Office of Off- Campus Affairs was established as a Miami-Oxford part- nership to foster academic success via education for personal and social responsibility, including appropriate use of “Green Beer Day,” celebrated alcohol. In 2007 a proposal to build a new student center on campus envi- in Oxford since the 1980s. sioned it in part as a social alternative to Uptown bars, without alcohol. Recensio, 2005. An annual Uptown ritual named “Green Beer Day” epitomized these issues. Some Oxford businesses encouraged a tradition of devoting the Thursday before spring break to drinking, by opening at early morning hours to serve green beer all day, allegedly in honor of St. Patrick’s Day. Complaints about dis- ruptive and potentially dangerous consequences failed to check the popularity of what many regarded as fundamental rights to sell, to consume, and to party. Named in 1982, as Green Beer Day evolved in subsequent years some alumni began to return to Oxford for annual alcohol-consumption festivities, even as university officials reminded faculty that classes were to be held without inter- ruption. In a related alcohol issue, during 2007 an effort by Oxford City Coun- cil to place limits on outdoor drinking games was contested at length and re- sulted in minor restrictions. While student culture was tightening its grip on Oxford’s inner city, Mi- ami employees were joining a national trend toward commuting. Oxford’s “Mile Square” had provided homes for most Miami faculty and many staff through the National University era, and that tradition, augmented by expansion of Oxford subdivisions, lingered well into Miami’s Public Ivy phase. A tally of full-time continuing faculty who provided their home addresses for the Miami Directory suggested a clear trend. In the three decades marked by academic years beginning in 1974, 1984, and 1994, the percentage of faculty living in the Oxford Zip Code area dropped from 92 to 88 to 80 percent. In 2002 it was 74 percent, and in 2007, 65 percent. pursuing “first in 2009” prestige 367 Oxford’s League of Women Voters reported in 2007 that over several decades the City of Oxford changed from 70 percent owner-occupied housing to 33 percent. Remaining permanent residents of the “Mile Square” often complained about the social strain of living in close quarters with students who viewed partying late and loud as a basic part of the college experience. Meanwhile, the city installed more traffic lights at intersections and joined Miami in an effort to create new regional transportation routes by supporting plans for a federally and state- funded bypass as well as a locally funded thorough- fare system. By the early twenty-first century a visible seg- ment of the Oxford student body, with its strong academic qualifications and professional aspirations, was also known among college-going peers for a life- style showcasing very trendy clothing, constant net- Student on cell phone at Tuffy’s in Shriver Center, 2008.

Load more