I
No. Hi?
THE PHASING OUT OF AN INNOVATIVE SUBCOLLEGE/CLUSTER COLLEGE
(MONTEITH COLLEGE, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY):
A CASE STUDY IN CONFLICT DYNAMICS
Arumynayagam Malkia Perus
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 1978
green state UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ABSTRACT
The study describes and analyzes the closure of Monteith College, Wayne State University (WSU) and the related conflict dynamics and policy formation processes.
Monteith was a subcollege established in 1959 to improve the quality of undergraduate education. It was based on the cluster college model. In spite of the opposition from the College of Liberal Arts, Monteith came into existence because of a grant from the Ford Foundation and the support from President Hilberry. Monteith had a great impact on its students, similar to the elite colleges. According to several scholarly studies, Monteith students changed dramatically. However, Monteith had the problems of high costs and attrition rates. .
In 1971, a new Wayne State President reorganized the Central Administration. The new Provost, previously the Physics Department Chairman, had long been an opponent of Monteith. In 1971, the newly appointed Monteith Dean, new also to Wayne State, refused Central Administration "dictates. Consequently, without needed Central Adminis tration support, Monteith was in political trouble.
Because of the financial problem since 1970, Michigan State Legislature requested all of public higher education to cut down tie expenses. The Central Administration and the Board of Governors of WSU decided to close down Monteith in May 1975 as one step. Bitter contro versies resulted partly because proper academic procedures were not followed. The University Council suspended in protest, and the national AAUP questioned the procedure.
The University Council reconvened after the Board of Governors accepted the statutory change, assuring faculty participation in academic matters. The Council appointed an Ad Hoc Monteith Committee to study Monteith. The Committee recommended Monteith’s phase-out. The Council debated the issue and endorsed the recommendations. The Board of Governors endorsed the phase-out in December 1975.
Balridge’s political model was used to study policy formation. The study shows that the Central Administration had the upper hand, using political weapons to influence and control. A major finding is that central administration support is crucial to innovation survival. Ill
IN APPRECIATION
This study was possible because of the co-operation of the
participating universities and tbeit subcolleges in Michigan and Ohio.
My special thanks goes to Dr. Yates Hafner for giving me permission to
study Monteith College. I am also grateful to the Monteith faculty and the Central Administrators of Wayne State University for their
co-operation.
I sincerely thank all my committee members for sparing their
precious time in guiding me till the final step. My special apprecia
tion to Dr. Morris J. Weinberger for his inituitive advice, timely help, and constant encouragement. He is my Guru in the literal sense of the
Indian usage. I also thank Dr. Malcolm Campbell for his constructive
comments and suggestions at the initial stages of the proposal.
Grateful acknowledgements are due Dr. Mearl R. Guthrie, Chairman of the Business Education Department and to the Department of Educational
Administration and Supervision for providing a Doctoral Fellowship to enable me to pursue my doctoral program.
Above all, I am thankful to my heavenly Father for giving me knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, and also for sustaining me with energy and perseverance to bring this study to a completion. Praise be unto the Lord.
A. Malkia Perus IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM, PROCEDURES, AND METHODOLOGY ...... 1
Introduction ...... 1
Statement of the Problem...... 3
Objectives of the Study...... 4
Definitions ...... 4
Significance of the Problem ...... 5
Sources of Data ...... 7
Monteith College ...... 7
Subcolleges in Michigan and Ohio...... 7
Instrumentation and Procedures ...... 7
Questionnaires ...... 7
Interviews ...... 8
Analysis of Data and Its Limitations...... 9
II. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK...... 10
Major Approaches to the Study of Innovation...... 10
The Conflict Approach ...... 12
Rationale for the Political Model ...... 14
The Political Model ...... 15
Power and Influence ...... 18
Who Decides?...... 19
The Political Decision Model...... 21
A Case Study of New York University...... 26
Why Innovations Fold? ...... 28
The New College Experiment...... 31 V
III. CURRENT PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN SUBCOLLEGES ...... 34
The Nature of Sub colleges...... 35
Experimental Programs on Trial...... 37
The Question of Quality ...... 38
Financial Problems ...... 40
Cost Effectiveness of Subcolleges ...... 44
Duplication of Programs...... 49
Student Attrition ...... 50
Shift in Student Attitude...... 51
Faculty Problems...... 52
Tension Between Liberal Arts Colleges and Subcolleges . . 55
Administrative Support ...... 56
IV. A SHORT HISTORY OF MONTEITH COLLEGE ...... 58
Emergence of Monteith College...... 58
Inception of Monteith College...... 58
Monteith’s Educational Model ...... 60
Internal and External Support ...... 64
Friction Between Monteith and the College of Liberal Arts 64
Monteith Stablized as a College ...... 67
Internal Evaluation of Monteith ...... 67
External Evaluation of Monteith ...... 69
Debate on the Adoption of Monteith...... • 71
Impact and Quality of Monteith Education ...... 73
The Impact of Monteith Education...... 74
Quality of Monteith Education ...... 76
Acclaim of Monteith College...... 78 vi
Problems and Issues of Monteith...... 79
Question of High Cost...... 80
Student Attrition ...... 85
Faculty Problems ...... 89
Friction Between Monteith and Central Administration . . 90
Problem of Survival ...... 94
Summary ...... 94
V. EVENTS LEADING TO THE PHASE OUT OF MONTEITH...... 98
The Role of Central Administration...... • 98
Budgetary Problems of WSU...... 98
The New Dean’s Emphasis on General Education ...... 101
The Proposal to Phase out Monteith ...... 102
The Decision to Phase out Monteith ...... 109
Rationale for the Phase-out...... Ill
Repercussions to the Proposal...... 113
University Council Suspends ...... 113
Reaction from Monteith College ...... 114
Intervention by AAUP ...... 121
The Board’s Budget and Finance Committee in Favor of Monteith ...... 122
The Board of Governors in Favor of Monteith ...... 123
The Resignation of the Provost ...... 125
Review of Educational Policy at WSU ...... • 126
The Role of Ad Hoc Monteith Committee...... 127
The Role of Ad Hoc Task Force on University Budget ... . 131 vii
Debate on the Decision to Phase out Monteith...... 132
Debate by the University Council ...... 134
Debate by the Board of Governors...... 145
Repercussions to the Final Decision ...... 149
Monteith's Strategy for Survival...... 149
Reaction from Monteith Students ...... 156
Michigan State House Resolution ...... 159
VI. ANALYSIS OF EVENTS BASED ON THE POLITICAL MODEL...... 160
The Social Structure Factors ...... • 160
External Social Context ...... 160
Internal Social Context ...... 160
The Complex Social Structure of WSU...... 160
Changing Trends in the Central Administration . . . . . 161
Changing Trends at Monteith...... 165
Friction between Monteith and the College of Liberal Arts...... 167
Analysis of Major Causes Leading to the Phase out ...... 168
Interest Articulation ...... 172
Support for the Phase-out...... 172
Opposition to Changes...... 173
Powe:; and Influence...... 175
The 3ycle of Conflict...... 177
First Phase of the Conflict ...... 177
Second Phase of the Conflict ...... 178
ThLrd Phase of the Conflict...... 179 Vlll
The Legislative Stage ...... 180
Implementation of the Phase-out...... 181
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 185
Striking Parallels ...... 185
Innovations as Fad ...... 187
The Survival Model ...... 188
Model A ...... 188
Model B ...... 189
Model C ...... 189
Recommendations...... 191
Recommendations for Further Study ...... 193
Reflections...... 194
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 196
APPENDIX A Questionnaires ...... 219
APPENDIX B Monteith Enrollment and Graduates ...... 228
APPENDIX C Recommendations and Resolutions...... 231
APPENDIX D Comparative Data on Monteith and the Other Colleges at WSU ...... 239 IX
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Agents of Influence in Areas of Academic Decision ...... 22
2. Agents of Power in Academic Decision by SID...... 23
3. Agents of Influence on Budget...... 24
4. Cost Effectiveness of Five Subcolleges...... 46
5. A Comparison of Cost Per Student Credit Hour Between Subcolleges and their Parent Universities/Colleges .... 48
6. Data on Curriculum and Costs for Monteith College, Academic Year ’69 - '70...... 82
7. Cost Per SCH for Departments in the Liberal Arts College of Wayne State University, Academic Year 1969-70 ...... 83
8. Data on Curriculum and Costs for All Colleges, Academic Year '69 - '70...... 84
9. Fate of 1959 Entrants to Monteith and Liberal Arts...... 86
10. Wayne State University Budget Summary, June 6, 1975 .... 99
11. Comparative Data for Three General Education Programs at Wayne State University ...... 110
12. Proposed Reductions and Increase for 1975-76» WSU . . . 118
13. Analysis of Major Causes Leading to the Phase out of Monteith...... 170 X
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Structure of Monteith’s Program ...... 61
2. Proposed Transfer of Monteith Programs to Other Units . . . 112
3. Organization Chart, Wayne State University, 1975 ...... 162
4. The Political Model Leading to the Closure of Monteith . . . 163
5. Issues and Events Leading to the Phase out of Monteith . . . 164
6. Analysis of Major Causes Leading to the Phase out of Monteith ...... 169
7. First Phase of the Conflict ...... 178
8. Second Phase of the Conflict ...... 179
9. Third Phase of the Conflict...... 180 CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM, PROCEDURES, AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Higher education witnessed a tremendous growth in enrollment and
expansion of physical facilities in the 1950s and in the early 1960s.
In order to absorb the influx of students, university campuses expanded
and new campuses came into existence.
The increase in student enrollment, especially in larger
universities, added complexities to the existing problems of student
identity loss. Partly in response to the problem of such student
depersonalization several cluster colleges or subcolleges were started
experimentally in the early sixties at several universities.
A cluster college or a subcollege is a semi-autonomous unit on
a large university campus. The cluster college attempts to counteract
the student identity problem of a large university by creating an atmosphere of a small college while sharing the facilities and the services of the parent university.
The idea of cluster college dates back to the founding of Oxford
University in 1249 in England.However, the cluster colleges came into prominence in the U.S. In the 1960s.
■'•Jerry G. Gaff and Associates, The Cluster College (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), p. 3.
1 5
The purpose of the cluster college is to create a closer and
warmer faculty-student community and more personalized instruction under a multiversity structure. Gaff^ describes the cluster college
model as a significant and growing phenomenon, and "one of the most
promising innovations affecting undergraduate liberal education during
the 1960s, a time when fresh ideas and novel practices swept the land."
In the late sixties, higher educational institutions were shaken
from their lethargic attitude by the youth who demanded "relevance" in
terms of curriculum and "participatory democracy" in the affairs of
education. This eventually resulted in a number of academic innovations
and curricular reforms, such as external degrees, open university, open
admissions, contract learning, modular achievement learning, and cluster
college. Once again, the cluster college model seemed one of the inno
vations for meeting the demands of student needs. As a result, cluster
colleges gained increasing popularity in the late sixties.
The concern for relevancy in the late 1960s has been replaced by
concern for survival in the 1970s as financial problems surfaced on many
university campuses. The financial problem has an adverse effect on
university programs, especially on Innovative programs, because of the
added expenditures usually involved in operating an innovative program.
Financial exigency has added a new dimension to administrative problems at all levels and this seems to be affecting the cluster colleges many of which are still in the stage of experimentation. Financial support and administrative support of parent universities are crucial at this
^Ibid., p. 4. 3
stage in order for cluster colleges to survive. Therefore, cluster
colleges are in a critical stage at the present time.
Statement of the Problem
Financial crisis in higher education has accentuated the administrative problems of innovative programs in universities. The subcollege model, which came into existence in the 1960s, is one of such innovations affected by the current recession in higher education. As administrative problems are intensified, mutual understanding and cooperation between parent university administrators and administrators of cluster colleges is very essential to enable subcolleges to assure their survival and to achieve their goals and objectives.
Monteith College of Wayne State University is one of the subcolleges which came into existence in 1959. In December 1975, the
University Council of Wayne State University decided to phase out
Monteith because of financial problems. The controversial issue of phasing out Monteith, one of the thirteen established colleges at Wayne
State University, aroused one of the most bitter controversies in the history of Wayne State University.
The primary question is how are decisions made in a complex organization, and specifically, what were the processes and procedures involved in the decision making process leading to the phaseout of
Monteith.
The secondary question is who has the power to make decisions in a complex organization and what are the conflicts generated by the policy making process? 4
Objectives of the Study
The major objectives of the study are:
1. To investigate the dynamics of the decision making
process, the dynamics of conflict and the political
struggle leading to the phase out of Monteith.
2. To identify and investigate the sources of power
and conflict in a complex organization in the
decision making process.
3. To identify and investigate the major problems
leading to the closure of Monteith as perceived by
the Central Administration of Wayne State University.
4. To identify and investigate the major problems
leading to the closure of Monteith as perceived by
the administrators and faculty of Monteith.
Definitions
A subcollege model is a "college within the college," and it is part of the total university structure, sharing facilities, faculties, and services to a significant extent. Most of the subcolleges are semi- autonomous.
A subcollege may have one or more of the following characteris tics: (1) The disciplines are clustered together academically. (2) The academic studies are clustered with themes or creative projects. (3)
Students and faculty are clustered together in a living-learning environment. Because of these characteristics, the subcolleges are often known as cluster colleges. 5
There are three types of cluster colleges. First of all, the
term is used to describe a federation of colleges, similar to a
consortium. A federation is an association of two or more colleges
within close proximity and they pool all the possible resources for
maximum utilization and effectiveness. They are independent colleges
cooperating in the sharing of services and programs. Claremont Colleges
in California is an example of this model.
Secondly, the term is used to describe colleges made up of small
groups of students and faculty. The cluster colleges in the University
of California at Santa Cruz belong to this category.
The third type is a subcollege model located within a larger university structure.
This study is concerned with the subcollege model located in a
larger university structure. For the purpose of the study, the cluster
college is defined as a subcollege of a university, sharing facilities and services to a significant extent. Therefore, the terms "cluster college" and "subcollege" are used interchangeably in this study.
Central administration refers to the administrators of the parent university of the subcollege.
Power means the ability to make binding decisions.
Influence is the ability or capacity to persuade.
Significance of the Problem
Monteith College of Wayne State University was one of the first subcolleges, established in 1959; and in December 1975, the Board of
Governors of Wayne State University voted in favor of phasing out
Monteith. 6
The very fact that Monteith was able to survive for the last
sixteen years indicates that Monteith successfully passed the implemen
tation-experimentation stage and the transition-stablization stage as
an innovation and thus seemed assured of its place among the other
colleges at Wayne State University. In view of the financial problems
faced by higher educational institutions, the phase out of Monteith is
a significant event.
There are few studies dealing with decision making processes
and procedures involved in closing down an innovation. The closure of
Monteith provides an unique opportunity to study the dynamics of con
flict and process and procedures leading to the closure of Monteith,
thus providing added information to the existing literature on this
topic.
Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson^ (1970) have documented the
history of the early years of Monteith College and Oakland University.
The present study will focus on the later years of Monteith, thus pro
viding a comprehensive coverage and documentation of Monteith.
The study will help to promote awareness of subcollege problems
with which the institutional research organization of the parent univer
sity can be usefully concerned, and the findings may be used to promote more cooperation between the subcollege administrators and the parent
university administrators.
David Riesman, Joseph Gusfield and Zelda Gamson, Academic Values and Mass Education: The Early Years of Oakland and Monteith (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970). 7
Sources ôf Data
Monteith College
The data for Monteith College were gathered from the following
sources: 1) Wayne State University administrators; 2) Monteith College administrators, faculty, and students; 3) Ad Hoc Monteith Committee;
4) Ad Hoc Task Force on University Budget; 5) Institutional Research of
Wayne State University; 6) Board of Governors Minutes; 7) University Coun cil Minutes; 8) Reports, letters, and memorandums of various committees and administrators; 9) Monteith Archives; and 10) The Archives of Labor History and Urban Affairs, University Archives, Wayne State University.
Subcolleges in Michigan and Ohio
The subcolleges in large universities in Michigan and Ohio were identified and all were included in the sample.Out of the total of eleven colleges under study, ten are degree granting institutions with the exception of one, which was included in the sample because it is also faced with similar problems. In order to provide anonymity, the subcolleges and the universities are identified by alphabets.
The following sources were used for the study of selected subcol leges: 1) Questionnaires—"Subcollege Data Survey" and "Survey of Adminis trative Problems in Subcolleges"; 2) Interviews with parent university/ college and subcollege administrators; and 3) Catalogs and brochures.
Instrumentation and Procedures
Questionnaires
Two types of questionnaires were constructed. The first question naire "Subcollege Data Survey"^ was sent to the deans and directors of
2 LAppendix A-4. Appendix A-l. 8
subcolleges to college some basic data. The second questionnaire, "Survey of Administrative Problems in Subcolleges"''' was sent to administrators of
subcolleges and of the parent university. The content validity and cons
truct validity of the questionnaires were determined by a panel of experts
in subcollege programs.
Interviews
An interview guide was used during the interviews. Even though
the questions were written out, the wording of each question was not
strictly followed. A semi-structured interview approach was used. The
questions were not followed in the same order. When new information was
presented, it was further pursued to gather additional details.
The following persons were interviewed: 1) Parent university administrators—provosts, assistant provosts, deans, and assistant deans;
2) Subcollege administrators—deans, assistant deans, department chairmen, and senior faculty.
A total of 42 interviews were conducted in connection with this study. These interviews were conducted between January 1976 to June 1976.
Out of the 42 interviews, 27 interviews were conducted in Wayne State
University in connection with the phase-out of Monteith. The remainder of the 15 interviews were conducted among the administrators of subcolleges and of the parent universities. The interviewees were assured of confi dentiality of information. In order to provide anonymity, the interviewees are mentioned by titles, and each interviewee is identified by a number.
1 Appendix A-2. 9
Analysis of Data and its Limitations
When the study began, it was the original purpose to investigate
a large number of subcolleges with the intent of surveying trends and
issues common to all. When the potential phase-out of Monteith College became known, it was decided that more detailed case study of events at one
college would serve the desired research purpose more than a general, rather
surface-type, survey. Because of the switch in methodology, only passing
references to some issues involving several subcolleges are made.
The data for the study were gathered from three sources: 1) Wayne
State University documents, 2) interviews, and 3) questionnaires. Because of the enormous amount of data available on Monteith, it was impossible to incorporate all the data which were gathered from the questionnaires.
Therefore, the analysis of the questionnaire, "Survey of Administrative
Problems in Subcolleges" is not presented in this study (See Appendix A-2).
The author intends to make a separate study of the analysis.
Balridge's political model was used in analyzing the phase-out of
Monteith and the related conflict dynamics and policy formation processes.
Chapter II gives a detailed description of the political model. The appli cation of the political model to Monteith’s case is presented in Chapter VI.
The study is primarily a historical study, and it mainly focuses on the dynamics of policy formation. Therefore, a detailed analysis of cost and other factors is not presented in this study. Appendix D provides comparative data between Monteith and the other colleges in Wayne State
University. The purpose of these tables is to provide added information to the reader. . 10
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Major Approaches To The Study of Innovation
An innovation can be studied by using one of the following four
major approaches: (1) complex organization approach, (2) planned change
approach, (3) diffusion and dissemination approach, and (4) conflict
approach.
The major proponents of the complex organization approach are 1 2 Hage and Aiken, Etzioni, and Blau. Hage and Aiken define educational . q institutions as organizations of great complexity. Campbell also
points out that schools are complex institutions because they are
concerned with the tasks of teaching and learning, and modification of
behavior.
Burton^ asserts: "The trend in western society toward large
size and great complexity in formal organization is nowhere more
Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, Social Change in Complex Organiza tions (New York: Random House, 1970); Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (revised ed., New York: The Free Press, 1975); Peter Blau, The Organization of Academic Work (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973). 9 Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, Ibid., p. 35. o . JRonald F. Campbell, "Educational Administration: Is It Unique?," in Eddy J. Van Meter (ed.), Theory Development and Educational Administra tion (New York: MSS Information Corporation, 1973), pp. 136-143. ^Burton R. Clark, "The New University," in Carlos E. Kruytbosch and Sheldon L. Messionger (eds.), The State of the University: Authority and Change (California, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1970), pp. 18, 23 11
apparent than in American higher education." He labels the
multiuniversity structure as "the new university" which is a conflict
prone organization. Balridge notes, "A complex system never rests, and
the resolution of dilemma generates new conflicts and new political „1 processes.
The major work on planned change approach is written by Bennis,
Benne and Chin, and Michael. This approach emphasizes the fact that innovations are likely to be misunderstood and misinterpreted. As a result, an innovation may still face resistance, which can be kept at a minimal level if it is recognized and if provision is made for feedback of the perceptions of the innovation. Therefore, wise strategy calls for perceptive analysis of the nature of resistance at each stage of innovation.
The diffusion and dissemination approach is advocated by
Havelock et al, Schon, and Rogers and Shoemaker.This model emphasizes
^•Victor J. Balridge, Power and Conflict in the University: Research in the Sociology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971), p. 87.
^Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin (eds.), The Planning of Change (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961); Donald N. Michael, On Learning to Plan—And Planning to Learn (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973).
^Goodwin Watson, "Resistance Change," in Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin (eds.), Ibid., p. 497.
^Ronald G. Havelock, The Change Agent1s Guide to Innovation In Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1973); Ronald G. Havelock et al, Planning for Innovation Through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1971); Donald A. Schon, Beyond the Stable State (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971); Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach (New York: Free Press, 1971). 12
the importance of communication of new ideas and human relations.
Havelock"'’ states, "The key to success of the change effort may well lie
in the effectiveness with which the new ideas are communicated." One
way of gaining acceptance of an innovation is to "get the right message
across to the right people in the right way."
He also points out the importance of building carefully planned
relationships with the client system. "A good relationship is a complex
delicate bridge, very difficult and expensive to build and very important
to maintain;" and maintaining a good relationship is easier and less
expensive than rebuilding. "Unquestionably the successful relationship
is the key to successful planned change."’’
The change agent also should know where the power lies and be able
to identify the opinion leaders. The change agent should ask these questions: Who are the most influential and powerful people in the university community? What are their reactions to the innovation? How can these people be influenced to accept the innovation?
The Conflict Approach
Some of the major studies in conflict approach have been done by
Balridge, Corwin and Zald.3 Since the conflict approach model will be * 2
■'■Ronald G. Havelock, The Change Agent’s Guide to Innovation in Education, pp. 112, 124. 2Ibid., p. 48. 3Ibid., p. 61.
4Ibid., p. 46, 50.
5J. Victor J. Balridge, Power and Conflict in the University: Research in the Sociology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971); Ronald G. Corwin, Reform and Organizational Survival: The Teacher Corps as an Instrument of Educational Change (New York: Wiley, 1973); Mayer N. Zald (ed.), Power in Organizations (Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbelt University Press, 1970). 13
used in analyzing the Monteith College phase out, a detailed study of
this approach is presented below.
Balridge, one of the major theorists and proponents of the
conflict approach, points out that studies of unversities have mostly
relied on two organizational paradigms—the bureaucratic model of Max
Weber and the collegial model. While there are bureaucratic elements
in the university, it does not adequately explain the university’s
policy formulation systems. "The Weberian paradigm is weak when it
attempts to deal with these nonformal forms of power and influence.
Secondly, it does not explain the decision-making processes, the
institution in action, how it changes over a period of time. Thirdly,
"the bureaucratic model does not deal with the crucial task of policy 2 formulation." It also does not adequately explain the struggles of
groups within the university and the political issues generated.
The "collegial model" rejects the bureaucratic image of the
university and defines the university as a community of scholars. The
collegial model also fails to explain adequately the problem of
conflict.
After discussing and analyzing the bureaucratic and collegial models as inadequate to study the university governance, Balridge comes up with a political model, which is a synthesis of conflict theory,
community power theory, and interest group theory. He contends that the decision-making process in the university system must be seen as a political process and not as a bureaucratic mechanism.
^-Balridge, Ibid. , p. 11. *3 Ibid.
3Ibid., pp. 11-14. 14
Rationale for the Political Model
Mortimer and McConnel^ point out: . "American colleges and universities are mounting pressure to increase democratic participation in their governance." As a result, power has become widely dispersed. 9 ' Clark^- states that,faculty participation in academic governance is similar to representative mass democracy. Thus the academic community is comprised of a political elite who influence the decision making process. Therefore, any model of university governance should be viewed in light of administrative political reality.
Mortimer and McConnel^ observe: "Crisis is also likely to increase the amount of formal and informal political activity that goes on in the faculty community. Conflicts will tend to heighten the tension involved in these political relationships . . . ."
Kimbrough states:
The term ’politics’need not—and should not—be viewed as confined to narrow conceptions of shady deals, unscrupulous patronage activity, or other forms of unprofessional conduct. Instead of viewing politics as something unsavory or disre putable, it should be perceived as a necessary procedure for making decisions in a democracy.
■'■Kenneth P. Mortimer and T. R. McConnell, "Faculty Participation in University Governance," in Carlos E. Kruytbosch and Sheldon L. Messionger (eds.), The State of the University (California, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1970), pp. Ill, 112. 2 Burton R. Clark, "Faculty Organization and Authority." in T. F. Lunsford (ed.), The Study of Academic Administration (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963), pp. 37-51. 3 Mortimer and McConnell, op. cit., p. 128. , 15
The studies of community power structure have demonstrated that education is—and indeed ought to be--in politics .... It seems reasonable to expect that educational leaders inte rested in changing the schools should become good politicians. . . ~ ~
He further states that educational leaders who are serious about
introducing innovations ought to "exercise a greater share of the n political power than they have enjoyed in the past,"z and they should
recognize that change involves political leadership.
Leaders for change in education must be good enough politicians committed to educational improvement. I am suggesting that the educational leader who attempts to influence the system must become as fully politicized as possible. . . ,3
Therefore, Kimbrough advocates that each educational improvement
project should be promoted by a well thought through political strategy.
The Political Model
The political model as advocated by Balridge derives its
theoretical framework from the conflict theory, advocated by sociolo
gists such as Dahrendorf, Coser and others.
Balridge applies the conflict theory to the university setting because the conflict theorists emphasize the fragmentation of social
systems into interest groups and the study of change as a central
Ralph B. Kimbrough, "Power Structures and Educational Change." in Edgar L. Morphet and Charles 0. Ryan (eds.), Planning and Effecting Needed Changes in Education (Education for the Future, No. 3), (New York: Citation Press, 1967), p. 116.
2Ibid., p. 125. 3Ibid. , p. 129.
^Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press'. 1959); Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (.Glasscoe: Free Press, 1956). 16
feature of the conflict approach. He also incorporates "community
power studies" and the "informal groups"z approach in organization
into the political model.
The political model derives its base from three major areas of
theoretical literature: (1) conflict approach, (2) community power
studies, (3) and the interest group in organizations.
The conflict theory emphasizes conflict and competition, change
processes and the role of conflict in decision making processes. The
community power theory analyzes forms of power and influence, spheres of
influence, interest groups, and goals and objectives. The interest
group theory tries to interpret influence of internal groups and
external groups, divergent values, conflict and competition, and goal- .
setting activities.3
Balridge4 states that whenever an issue develops, it leads to a
"cycle of conflict," which can be summed up as follows:
1. An issue not only causes a large-scale conflict, it also creates a unifying effect on various interest groups.
2. As the issue expands, it eventually leads to the fundamental question of authority. 1 *
^Robert Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961); Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure (Garden City: New York: Anchor, 1963); Nelson Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963). ^L. R. Ephron, "Group Conflicts in Organization: A Critical Appraisal of Recent Theories," Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Voi. 6, 1961, pp. 56-72.
3Balridge, op. cit., p. 19.
4Ibid. , pp. 167-170. 17
3. As the issue gathers momentum, it increases the intensity of conflict.
4. As the intensity increases, it gives way to radicalism.
5. Radicalism leads to sanctions—a stage of demands, threats, bargaining and negotiation.
6. As the action increases, there is a spreading effect, calling for allies and formation of coalition.
7. As the conflict continues, mediators begin to emerge.
8. Finally the compromises and bargains are converted into bureaucratic action and the interest dies down.
The political model focuses its attention on the policy-forming processes, which have major impact on the long-range destiny of an organization.
Since policies are so important, people throughout the organization try to influence them in order to see that their special values are implemented. Policy becomes a major point of conflict, a watershed of partisan activity that permeates the life of the university. In light of its importance, policy becomes the center of the political analysis.
The political model as advocated by Balridge relates to the decision-making process of the university setting and uses the following five points of analysis: (1) social context factors, (2) interest articulation processes, (3) legislative phase, (4) policy outcomes, and 2 (5) execution of policy.
With the execution of policy, the conflict comes to a climax and the conflict to a certain extent is officially over. However, the execu tion of policy which causes a "feedback cycle" may generate new tensions and a new cycle of political conflict.
"''Ibid., p. 21. 2Ibid., pp. 19-26. 18
The political model concentrates on the goal setting process
and tries to study the conflict over values rather than the efficiency
and effectiveness of the organization. It also emphasizes the political
dynamics of the university.
Power and Influence
Campbell3 states that political activity revolves around power.
Who has the power to make decisions and who influences whom?
Corwinz sums up the relationship between power and politics as follows:
Power often assumes an important role within organizations. The recurrent power struggles resemble political processes. The organization's actions are shaped by the outcomes of the power struggles, that is, the compromise that is inherent to all forms of politics. 3 Balridge identifies four types of social controls which are used by bureaucratic structures as political weapons: control of budget, personnel appointment and removal, control of legitimate access to cen tral administrators, and control of information.
Etzioni^ identifies three forms of power: coercive power, remunerative power, and normative power. Coercive power is exercised by
3Jack M. Campbell, "The Politics of Planning and Change." in Edgar L. Morphet and Charles 0. Ryan (eds.), Planning and Effecting Needed Changes in Education (Designing Education for the Future, No. 3), (New York: Citation Press, 1967), p. 159. o Ronald G. Corwin, Reform and Organizational Survival: The Teacher Corps as an Instrument of Educational Change (New York: Wiley, 1973), p. 353.
^Balridge, op. cit., pp. 154-156.
^Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: Free Press, 1975), pp. 4-5, 32, 45. 19
means of threat or force, and physical sanction or control of
psychological needs. Remunerative power makes use of rewards and
penalties; such as, controlling material resources; manipulation of
salaries, fringe benefits, and promotion. Normative power is a type of
power wielded by an admired leader over his followers. It employs
persuasive or suggestive power by means of influence and prestige
symbols.
Educational institutions generally employ normative controls.
Coercive power plays a secondary role.
Dahl''' points out two types of influences—direct and indirect influence. Those who are closer to the stage or a smaller number of persons have much direct influence; whereas, indirect influence is difficult to observe.
What kinds of people have the greatest influence on decisions?
Dahl states:
In any durable association of more than a handful of indi viduals, typically a relatively small proportion of the people, exercises relatively great direct influence over all the important choices bearing on the life of the association ....
Who Decides? 3 Collier states that the power structure which regulates behavior is possibly the most important. Who makes the decisions? Are
-*-Robert Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), p. 89.
3Ibid., p. 95.
3K. G. Collier (ed.), Innovation in Higher Education (Windsor: Society for Research into Higher Education, NFER Publishing, 1974), p. 14 20
the decisions made by the university senate? or by smaller committees?
or by individual executive officers? Who carries the chief weight?
Who makes decisions in a complex organization? Are there many
different power blocs?
According to political theorists, the "power elite" or "ruling
oligarchy" makes the decision. The younger generation has coined the
term "establishment" to refer to the power blocs.
Does the university follow the oligarchy model and power elite,
or is it more democratic? Balridge observes, "these questions are
extremely difficult to answer" in. the context of a university setting.
... the university exhibits a rather rigid structure in which the trustees and officials have the most influence over policies, the faculty, a moderate influence, and the students, very little. Thus the university is certainly more democratic than most other organizations but certainly less democratic than many people think would be ideal.
The university is a pluralistic system.
• • • because the social structure of the university is loose, ambiguous, shifting and poorly defined, the power structure of the university is also loose, ambiguous, shift ing, and poorly defined.
Balridge*3 observes, "As a result of the fragmentation of the
university, decision-making is rarely located in one official; instead
it is dependent on the advice of and authority of numerous people."
Who makes decisions in universities? Balridge4 states that it is very difficult to answer this question within the framework of a
■'■Balridge, op. cit., p. 176
2Ibid., p. 107. 3Ibid., p. 190.
4Ibid., pp. 182-184. 21
university set up. While there is a "power elite" who influences the decision-making process, it is limited by the democratic process of decision networks.
Different groups have different spheres of influence. The central administration has the strongest influence on finance and budget, personnel appointment, planning, and public relations.
Platt and Parsonsi3 m*a de a study of decision-making process in the academic systems of eight institutions of higher education, which were selected on the basis of large-, medium-, and small-size institu tions. Questionnaires were sent out to 639 faculty members out of whom
426 (66%) responded. The Scale of Institutional Differentiation (SID) was used to analyze the data. Out of the eight institutions, three were categorized as having a "high" degree of differentiation; three,
"medium" degree; and two; a "low" degree.
Tables 1 and 2 show that the administration generally holds the most power and influence on educational issues. When it comes to financial issues, the trustees and the administration hold greater power and influence on budget than any other group. (Table 3)
The Political Decision Model
The political model asks the question: Who has the right to make decisions and why is this particular decision made at this time?
iGerald M. Platt and Talcott Parsons, "Decision Making in the Academic System: Influence and Power Exchange," in Carlos E. Kruytbosch and Sheldon L. Messinger (eds.), The State of the University: Authority and Change (Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1970), pp. 133-136. 22
TABLE 1
AGENTS OF INFLUENCE IN AREAS OF ACADEMIC DECISION1
Educational Policy Financial Policy
Agent High Medium Low High Medium Low
Trustees 24% 33% 48% 75% 95% 86%
Administration 77 78 80 89 90 64
Department Chairmen '50 38 58 12 18 14
Senior Faculty 41 32 37 3 6 3
Total [ N=J (174) (177) (36) (178) (176) (36)
'■Gerald M. Platt and Talcott Parsons, "Decision-making in the Academic System: Influence and Power Exchange," in Carlos E. Kruytbosch and Sheldon L. Messinger (eds.), The State of the University, (Adapted from Table 6, "Agents of Influence in Areas of Academic Decision: Per centages of Respondents Rating Agent as 'Highly Influential,' by SID), p. 149. 23
TABLE 2
AGENTS OF POWER IN ACADEMIC DECISION BY SID1
Educational Financial Agent High Medium Low High Medium Low
Trustees 2% 5% 20% 47% 29% 72%
Administration 59 61 46 42 60 14
Department Chairmen 1 6 0 0 1 0
Senior Faculty 7 1 3 0 0 0
Faculty in General 25 21 23 0 0 0
Misc., "I don't know" 6 6 8 12 10 14
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total (176) (174) (36) (181) (178) (36)
'-Ibid., p. 153, (Table 9. "Agents of Power in Various Areas of Academic Decision by SID). 24
TABLE 3
INFLUENCE ON BUDGET1 SPHERES OF
University Budget College Budget
Trustees 81.6% 46.8%
Central Administration 98.9 96.8
Deans 53.3 92.1
College Faculty 7.4 15.6
Departmental Faculty 2.5 13.2
Individual Professors 0.2 1.4
^Balridge, op. cit., (Adapted from Figure 9-3, "Who has influence on various areas?" , pp. 184-185. 25
. the crucial point is that often the issue of who makes the decision
has already limited, structured, and pre-formed how it will be made."'-
Therefore, establishing the right of authority over a decision is a
political question because it is subject to conflict, power and influence
and compromise.
... a complex social structure generates multiple pressures, many forms of power and pressure impringe on the decision makers, a legislative stage translates these pressures into policy, and a policy execution phase finally generates feedback in the form of new conflicts.
The political model of decision making process can be summarized as follows:
1. The political forces, which consist of interest groups,
cause an issue to come to the forefront.
2. The struggle over issue leads to assessment of the problem
of who has the right to make the decision.
3. The decisions and outcomes are to a certain extent pre
determined, which limits the choice or option of outcome.
4. Political struggles are waged over critical decisions,
rather than routine decisions.
5. A complex system of network is organized to gather and
supply necessary information.
6. The political controversy continues with compromises
until a decision is made.
7. The controversy does not end easily even after the final
decision is made. 8. The final decision may lead to a "cycle of conflict."
'•Ibid. , p. 190. 2Ibid., p. 24.
3Ibid., pp. 191-192. 26
A Case Study of New York University
Using the political model as theoretical base, Balridge made a case study of New York University (NYU). He defines the NYU system as a political model, with different power blocks—outside pressure groups, board of trustees, administration, faculty and students.
NYU is mainly a nonresidential urban university with a student population of 46,412 (1968 Fall data). The majority of the students are commuters from the working middle-class. '■
In 1960, NYU presented a federal image—a collection of loosely bound schools, colleges, and institutions and there was little inter action among them. "Until recently NYU was highly decentralized and 2 individual schools and colleges were extremely autonomous."
NYU was losing students and by the end of 1961, a controversy raged behind doors about the future of the University. "Without doubt it was a small group of top administrators who took the major leadership roles and made the critical decisions."J The faculty strongly complained that the decisions were made arbitrarily by top administrators, without much input from the faculty senate, which was considered to be rather weak and merely "rubber-stamped" the decisions of the administration.
libid., pp. 64-65, 191.
2Ibid., p. 83.
3Ibid., pp. 42,45. 27
The AAUP questioned the "method" of the decision making process
but it did not question the "substance" of the decisions. "... the
decisions were successful because of the obvious bureaucratic weapons that
the central administration controls." The trustees also gave their
solid support to the administration.''
There were several interest groups who took sides on the issue.
They used a variety of strategies to influence the decision making
process. The central administration used their power, control over the
budgets, appointment of officials, and admission of students. Other vested groups used pressure on individual administrators, appeal by
popular individuals, and resolutions by professional organizations.
There was a real conflict of interests between vested groups.
A political battle raged across the university. There was a real power
play, and the proponents of change had the upperhand. Thus "the image
of politics seems more able to explain the events than any other image
available.
Balridge draws a parallel between the similarity of governance
of the university model and the Federal Government of the U. S. As the
Federal Government is made of states with several areas of autonomy, so is a university, which is composed of several colleges with areas of autonomy.
The federal university is welded together by numerous ties, some quite weak, others quite strong. At the same time, then, the university is torn apart by centrifugal forces but also bound together by centripetal forces. The exploration of these contradictory processes of centralization and decentralization is a key part of a political image.3
Ibid., pp. 46-49. "Ibid., p. 60. 'ibid., p. 83. 28
Why Innovations Fold? Katz and Kahn*3 point out that organizational changes take place either because of changed inputs from the environment or internal strain and pressures. Out of these two factors, external inputs are the more significant factor in organizational changes.
The basic hypothesis is that organizations and other social structures are open systems which attain stability through their authority structures, reward mechanisms and value systems, and which are changed primarily from without by means of significant change in input. 2 Balridge also supports the same view: "In fact, it seems safe to say that external factors are often the most important impetus for organizational change."
Corwin maintains that administrative support is very essential for the success of an innovation. It can be assumed that the change and the success of an innovation will be directly proportional to the amount of administrative support for it. Some writers state that administrative support for an innovation will be "inversely related to the chief administrator^ longevity in the organization."
Clark^ identifies the following characteristics, which are essential, for survival of an innovation: visible practices, an external
3Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (.New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966), pp. 448-449.
^Balridge, op. cit., p. 58.
3 Ronald G. Corwin, op. cit., pp. 247-250.
^Burton R. Clark, "The Organizational Saga in Higher Education," Administrative Science Quarterly, 17.2, June, 1972, pp. 178-184. 29
social base, a supportive student subculture, and appropriate imagery.
An innovative program should have visible practices to support claims of
distinction. A study of three innovative colleges show that one of the
key variables was the support of senior faculty. A core of senior
faculty have to remain committed to the innovation for its survival after
the leader has gone. An external social base is essential to support and
defend the innovation.
Innovations are sensitive to systematic evaluation because the innovators are concerned about the public image. Miles3 observes,
"Educational innovations are almost never evaluated on a systematic
basis," therefore, "decisions to terminate or continue the innovation are
founded on sand."
Lelong asserts:
"In the large- and even the medium-size university, as the locus of decision on a departmental issue moves from the depart ment to its college to the central administration, the decision inevitabily becomes based upon a less complete and less personal understanding of all the factors bearing upon it. Decision makers in a central administration simply do not have the capa city to know and understand all the details of each situation. In the absence of familiarity, choices tend to be based more on objectivized, quantitative criteria ... .2
Therefore, budget administrators make their decisions based on statistics about teaching loads, class sizes, course offerings, and
■'•Mathew B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in Education (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964), pp. 657, 658. 2 Donald C. Lelong, "Allocating and Utilizing Resources," in Paul L. Dressel and Associates, Institutional Research in the University; A Handbook (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971), pp. 207-208. 30
enrollments. Miles1 notes, "In the absence of good measures of output,
educational organizations tend to stress cost reduction. . ., since
other potential rewards of the innovation remain only vaguely seen." 2 Watson states that "any new experimental school is a kind of
utopian project." Utopias spring up in clusters during certain historic
periods. He cites New College, Rollins College, Bennington, Antioch,
Black Mountain, and Sarah Lawrence as examples.
Most utopias are the creation of a strong father figure. They
are isolated ventures and they cannot afford the security provided by
the established order. They are also usually burdened with financial worries. The founders and directors are not interested in financial details; instead, they are interested in higher matters.
The members of a utopian experiment do not take seriously the dangers and external hostility. They are more engrossed in their experimentation. As a result, they overlook diplomacy and public relations. "The psychological principle here is that a common way of q dealing with threat is to dismiss it from mind."~> Public relations are usually ignored.
While the founders of utopia anticipate that the experiment will diffuse and permeate the other segments, "these hopes are almost never fulfilled. The experiment usually stands alone."4
1Mathew B. Miles, cit. 635.
^Goodwin Watson, "Utopia and Rebellion: The New College Experiment, " in Mathew B. Miles, Ibid., pp. 97 -115.
3Ibid., p. 108. 4 Ibid., p. 113. 31
Many an innovation brought in with great fanfare is superficially accepted, and months or years later, things have drifted back to the way they were before. Nobody may have openly resisted the change. Nobody revoked it. It just didn’t last . . . .*3 2
Watson's 2 concept of utopias can be summarized as follows:
1. Any experimentation or innovation is a kind of
utopian project and utopias spring up in clusters
during certain historic periods.
2. Utopias center about a strong, benevolent champion
or father figure.
3. Utopias cannot afford the solid security offered by
the established order.
4. Most utopias are burdened with financial worries.
5. Most utopias are isolated, independent ventures.
6. Utopian colonies create out-group hostility, and the
members of a utopian experiment tend to minimize
external hostility.
7. Utopias are projections of the human spirit and
should be evaluated by the vitality of the enterprise
during its existence.
3 The New College Experiment
The New College was established in the Fall of 1932 and it was
under the wing of Teachers College of Columbia University. The New
^Goodwin Watson and Edward M. Glasser, "What We Have Learned About Planning for Change," Management Review, November 1965, p. 45. 2 ¿Goodwin Watson, "Utopia and Rebellion: The New College Experi ment," in Miles, op. cit., pp. 97—115.
3Ibid. 32
College was set up as an experimental demonstration undergraduate school
for the preparation of teachers. It lasted for just seven years.
It was founded on the same philosophy as cluster college models.
Like cluster colleges, the New College emphasized individualized educa
tion and community atmosphere and close relationships among students and
faculty. The maximum enrollment was set at 360 but the student enroll ment never reached the set maximum.
When the Great Depression hit Teachers College in 1935, the Dean of Teachers College decided to close down the New College for several reasons. On November 10, 1938, the Dean "suddenly and bluntly" announced that the New College would end in June 1939.
The Dean removed the director of the New College one year before he announced his decision to close down the college.
When the closing of the New College was announced, the New
College faculty and students were stunned. The announcement fell upon unbelieving ears, "It can’t happen here.’" After the announcement, efforts were made to arouse public opinion. "The sense of soliditary was profound." Students and faculty revolted and rebelled against central administration to save New College.
The students of the New College could be grouped as conservatives, liberals, and radicals. The radical leaders were high in intelligence and verbal skills and they rebelled hardest and longest. They tried to arouse public opinion which would force the Dean to revoke his decision.
They sent petitions and a delegation to the Dean, the trustees, the
President of the University, the Mayor and the Governor. They wrote press releases. But all the efforts were in vain. 33
The New College came into existence in 1932 and was closed down
in 1938 because of the following reasons. Teachers College experienced
declines in enrollment and lack of finance from 1932 to 1938. The
annual budget of $35,000 alotted to the New College was "viewed as a
serious threat to the survival of the parent institution." When the
financial depression hit the College in 1935, the matter became worse.
The enrollment never reached its set limit of 360, and the attrition
rate was about 50 per cent. Moreover, the radical, militant political
stance of the faculty and students created problems to the central
administration.
Watson observes that three kinds of influence from New College
lingers: (1) The lives and memories of the students and faculty who
were part of the experiment; (2) The articles and pamphlets produced by
the members; (3) The adoption of bits and pieces of some features of the
model.
New College was a great educational experiment, not because of its duration or its residues, because in it, only for a brief time, students and teachers became truly inspired and dedi cated. They experienced life together at a spiritual eleva tion rarely achieved in ordinary college studies. The losing battle to save New College was probably, for many of those engaged in it, the high point of their educational curriculum—and quite possibly the most memorable event of their lives.1
1Ibid., pp. 114-115.
Although, the study of both New College and New York University were initiated as part of the original general background, it will become apparent to the reader that there are many important parallels to the current study of Monteith (See Chapter VII). CHAPTER III
CURRENT PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN EXPERIMENTAL COLLEGES
Portions of this chapter are based on the data that was gathered from the "Subcollege Data Survey" and the interviews. Out of the 12 subcolleges located in large universities in Michigan and Ohio, two subcolleges did not participate in the survey. All the ten subcolleges under study are degree granting institutions with the exception of one, which was included in the sample because it is also faced with similar problems.1
The interviews were conducted with parent university/college administrators and subcollege administrators. The parent university administrators consist of provosts, deans, and assistant deans. The subcollege interviewees include subcollege deans, directors, assistant deans, department chairmen and senior faculty. The interviews were conducted between January 1976 and june 1976.
When the research study began, it was the original purpose to investigate the 12 subcolleges located in Michigan and Ohio with the intent of determining trends and issues common to all. Therefore, a questionnaire entitled, "Survey of Administrative. Problems in Subcolleges was constructed to collect the data. After the survey was mailed, the
3Appendix A 1-4.
2 Appendix A-2.
34 35
potential phasing out of Monteith College became known and it was
decided that a more detailed case study of events at one college would
serve the purpose more than a general, rather surface-type of survey.
Because of this switch in methodology, this chapter will make passing
references to some issues involving several colleges as it begins the
transition to a solitary focus on Monteith College, Wayne State
University.
In order to assure confidentiality, the parent universities and
the subcolleges are referred to by coded alphabets and the interviewees by their titles and coded numbers.
The Nature of Subcolleges
The subcolleges in America are patterned after the Oxford and
Cambridge model. Unlike the Oxford and Cambridge Universities, which are composed of many independent colleges, the American model is a semi- autonomous subunit of the university. The subcollege model came as a response to meet changing student interest, under the shadow of the giant state-supported higher educational system; and it offers the best features of both the small college and the large university, thus provid ing a safeguard for the small college as well as the large university.
The reasons for the emergence of subcolleges can be summarized as follows:
1. Dissatisfaction with conventional practices of education
in the 1960’s.
3Jerry G. Graff and Associates, The Cluster College (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), pp. 9-10, 32. 36
2. To alleviate some of the problems created by the size
of the university.
3. To provide the intellectual environment and atmosphere of
a small college.
4. To reassert the commitment to provide a vital under
graduate liberal education.
The nature and characteristics of the subcolleges can be summarized as follows:1
1. The subcolleges are to have relatively small enrollments,
between 500 to 1,200.
2. Although the subcolleges are part of larger universities,
they have a semi-autonomous status.
3. Most of the subcolleges have combined the advantages of
residential institutions, emphasizing the living-learning
environment.
4. Most of the subcolleges tend to emphasize liberal arts or
general education.
5. Most of the subcolleges have adopted a four-year degree
granting program.
6. The programs of the subcolleges are student-centered.
7. The subcolleges select faculty members who are committed
to teaching undergraduate students.
8. Some of the subcolleges have eliminated grades and credits.
Information gathered from The "Subcollege Data Survey" and the interviews. 37
9. The disciplines are clustered together academically.
10. The subcolleges emphasize small size classes.
Experimental Programs on Trial
Bowen observes four notable developments in higher education
since 1950. The first and the most profound development has been one of
sheer growth and expansion. The second factor is the proliferation of
new courses. The third development is the change in campus life style.
The fourth development is the "weakening of the financial position of
higher education."4
These four dramatic developments, observes Bowen, have not
significantly affected the central function of teaching and learning.
These four changes, profound though they were, have not penetrated very far into the heartland of higher education, that is, into the central function of teaching and learning. A Rip Van Winkle who had fallen asleep in 1950 and awakened in 1975 would not notice much differences in the way teaching and learning are carried on. Despite a great upsurge of inquiry and research in teaching and learning and much experi mentation with novel concepts and new techniques during the decade from 1965 to 1975, genuine and serious innovation is still largely peripheral . . .
1 Howard R. Bowen, "Teaching and Learning in 2000 A. D.," in Clifford T. Stewart and Thomas R. Harvey (eds.), Strategies for Significant Survival: New Directions for Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1975), pp. 1-2; Howard R. Bowen, "Teaching and Learning in 2000 A. D.," in Dickman W. Vermilye, (ed.), Learner-Centered Reform: Current Issues in Higher Education, 1975 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975), pp. 154-155.
2 „ Howard R. Bowen, "Teaching and Learning in 2000 A. D., in Clifford T. Stewart and Thomas R. Harvey (eds.), Ibid. , p. 2. 38
O’Neil points out that the learner-centered reform has
created two major academic camps—the advocates of the reform and the
critics. The critics are "genuinely concerned and alarmed about
developments they believe will be deeply detrimental to American higher
education as they value it. They need and deserve better answers than 2 they have received." Therefore, the advocates of the1reform need to meet the criticism constructively with scholarly responses.
Vermilye states:
While reformers look with pride at the new people entering college programs, the critics look with alarm at what they regard as lowered standards and inflated grades. And as the needs and interests of the learner become increasingly important in shaping the curriculum, some wonder whether colleges and universities are not copping out on their responsibility to lead . . . .^
He further notes, "In a sense, higher education is now in a critical shakedown phase. A new philosophy is being tested, and the new programs that embody it are on trial."*4 2 *
The Question of Quality
The leading critics of the reform, Bloom, Craig, Frankel, and
Woodward, attribute the lowering of academic standards, inflation of grades, lowered admission requirements, elimination of language and
Robert M. O'Neil, "Pros and Cons of Learner-Centered Reform," in Dickman W. Vermilye (ed.), Learner-Centered Reform: Current Issues in Higher Education, 1975 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975), pp. 12-13.
2 Ibid., p. 13. 3Ibid., Preface, p. x.
4 Ibid. 39
other requirements, and abandonment of research to the academic and
curricular innovations of the late 1960s. On the other hand, O’Neil contends that many aspects of learner-centered reform are not recent innovations; therefore, "the intensity of current attack is all the more ni surpri. si• ng. 2 Craig states that the revolt of the young during the late 60s demanded "relevance" in curricular requirements. As a result, curriculum has been made trivial in the name of relevance and this has led to a progressive deterioration of standards at the undergraduate level. 3 Bloom asserts that the innovative programs of the late sixties
"never had any content. They were just structures for the expression of freedom or intense efforts to provide a ground for relaxation." He goes on to state that the wave of the university reforms which swept the nation were "full of empty rhetoric."
Yale historian C. Van Woodward4 laments that recent trends in higher education, such as, grade inflation, relaxation of traditional requirements, lowering of standards, and abandonment of research are part of the legacy of the late 1960s.
1Robert M. O'Neil, "Pros and Cons of Learner-Centered Reform," in Vermilye (ed.), Ibid., pp. 7-8. 2 Gordon A. Craig, "Green Stamp or Structured Undergraduate Education," Daedalus, Fall 1974, Vol. 1, pp. 143-144.
3 Alan Bloom, "The Failure of the University." Daedalus, Fall 1974, Vol. 1, pp. 61-62. Robert M. O'Neil, op. cit. , p. 5. 40
Martin observes:
One of the most common resources of resistance is not mentioned as often as it deserves: innovative programs are often of poor quality. They are started without a clear notion of what they are to achieve, for whom they are to achieve it, and above all, how achievement can be measured. One should hardly blame students and colleagues for rejecting them. '■
Therefore Stewart and Harvey suggests that "quality must be publicized and demonstrable. Simply assuming the presence of quality is 2 no longer a viable approach to survival."
Financial Problems
"Higher education has always been a reflection of social and economic forces."3 The current status of higher education seems to con firm this statement. Bowen^ observes, "Perhaps th'e greatest obstacle to change in mode of teaching and learning is financial. New methods usually require an initial investment which is hard to extract from tight institutional budgets." Therefore administrators may hesitate to take any risks in innovations which may or may not pay off because of their unknown value
"Even for those which succeed, the useful life is likely to be short and
Edwin P. Martin, "Innovative Programs and Curricula," in Clifford T. Stewart and Thomas R. Harvey (eds.), Ibid., p. 24.
^Clifford T. Stewart and Thomas R. Harvey (eds.), Ibid., p. 94.
^Ibid., p. viii.
^Howard R. Bowen, "Teaching and Learning: 2000 A. D.," in Stewart and Harvey (eds.),Ibid., p. 8. 41
and the number of students involved is likely to be small, so that the
cost per student turns out to be higher than costs for conventional
instruction.
Enteman states: "Even in the most optimistic planning process,
it will be difficult to budget innovative programs, but innovation is as indispensable to higher education as any other programs; its cost must be borne." 3 Meeth states that innovative programs are funded by the same criteria as traditional education, and "we may question how appropriate it is to judge their financial right to life by traditional standards."
A survey conducted by Meeth shows that public colleges and universities
"operating within larger traditional schools seem to have the greatest difficulty with funding guidelines."^ Further, "state formulas and guidelines and some federal funding policies clearly are too restrictive and inflexible to allow nontraditional programs to function effectively."13 2
However, as financial problems are intensified, colleges and universities should attempt to provide quality education at the lowest
1 Ibid. 2 Willard F. Enteman, "Creative Planning," in Vermilye (ed.), Learner-Centered Reform: Current Issues in Higher Education (San Fran cisco: Jossey Bass, 1975), p. 20.
^Richard L. Meeth, "Restrictive Practices in Formula Funding," in Vermilye (ed.), Learner-Centered Reform: Current Issues in Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975), p. 174. ^Ibid., p. 175. 42
cost. Martin is of the view that
"... dissatisfaction with the present state of under graduate education is sufficiently pervasive and intense that we must accept these costs and reexamine our curricula. As competition for student increases and financial resources become scarce, we must offer programs of high quality at the lowest cost. . .
The experimental subcolleges have not addressed themselves to the question of providing quality education at lower cost.
Dressel states:
They become quickly as irresponsible.and as arrogant as their colleagues in traditional units in insisting that they must run their own show, and that no evaluation is possible except on their terms. New colleges, started as experiments by universities to explore the costs and bene fits of alternatives forms of undergraduate education, have not only failed to meet this obligation, but actually have rejected it.
Hartnett observes that "institutional research would play a more important role in improving education if it gave more attention to the question of how the institution affects students."3 4While analysis of cost per-student, full time equivalency, and credit-hour ratio are essential, they do not provide answer to the central question of educa- 4 tion: "How well are we accomplishing what we seek to achieve?" There fore, more emphasis should be placed on how institutions affect their students.
3Edwin P. Martin, "Innovative Programs and Curricula," in Stewart and Harvey (eds.), op. cit., p. 32. 2Paul L. Dressel (ed.), The New Colleges: Toward an Appraisal (Iowa City, Iowa: American Association of Higher Education, 1971), preface, p. 1.
Rodney T. Hartnett, "Strengthening Institutional Quality Through Institutional Research," in Stewart and Harvey, op. cit., p. 62. 4Ibid. 43
Harvey and Stewart point out that educational administrators
too often focus on "short-term physical survival and ignore the long
term concerns of significant survival . . . Important goals should not be abandoned because they are difficult to achieve."*3 2Administrators
should not just be concerned about physical survival by finding easy
solutions to fundamental and complex problems. Therefore, every higher
educational institution should have an effective "radar system" to alert
the administrators of possible dangers and threats. Without an early 2 warning system, it is difficult to avoid obstacles. The institutional
research center can serve this function.
Albert suggests two strategies for reducing costs. These two
strategies are derived from industrial practices. His first suggestion
is the substitution of instructional technology which would reduce the
laborers and costs. The second alternative is to place a larger
percentage of employees at the low end of the wage scale, thus holding
down the average wage. This means hiring graduate assistants, retirees,
and young faculty. His proposal is to transform education so as to be
similar to a modern business enterprise.
House^ draws a parallel between modern industries and the modern
educational system.
3Thomas R. Harvey and Clifford T. Stewart, "Significant Survival: A Synthesis," in Stewart and Harvey, Ibid., p. 93. 2Ibid., pp. 93-94.
3James G. Albert, "Wanted: Experiments in Reducing the Cost of Education," Phi Delta Kappan, March 1974, pp. 444-445.
^Ernest R. House, The Politics of Educational Innovation (Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974), p. 267. 44
. . . an innovation is a change in concrete activity in a technocratic society. Such change increases productivity either by increasing effectiveness or by reducing cost. It is a major engine of economic development, the major focus of an industrialized society. Education is subject to forces similar to those that promote innovation in the industrial sector.
Cost Effectiveness of Subcolleges
Dougherty’s'" study of five cluster colleges in the state of
Michigan focused on the financial factors which influence costs. The
study covered each college for the academic year 1969-70. Dougherty
identifies six factors which influence instruction costs: (1) faculty
productivity, (2) salary level, (3) class size, (4) scope of the
curriculum, (5) enrollment, and (6) student-faculty ratio. Five of the
six factors were found to influence cost per student credit hour (SCH).
Dougherty points out that few cluster college administrators have
attempted to examine the costs of their programs.
No one has looked at what factors influence costs in experimental programs, and although everyone in experimental education com plains about not having enough money, no one has put on paper how these programs might save money without sacrificing quality.
Dougherty states:
In a period of scarce resources, such as we appear to be entering now, it may be much harder to convince the central administration or a foundation that low productivity is justified.3
His analysis of instructional costs was based on faculty salaries and certain administrators who hold academic appointments. The study did not take into account any differences in quality of programs.
'"Edward A. Dougherty, A Financial Analysis of Instructional Costs in Experimental Cluster Colleges (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1972), pp. 1-3, 186.
Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 28. 45
Out of the six factors, the-most important factor which affected
costs was the level of faculty productivity, which was determined by class
size and the number of classes taught by each faculty member (See Table 4).
Another important factor was the level of faculty salaries, because the
cluster colleges have a low student-faculty ration, and a high portion of their faculty involved with, students.3
Another factor that affects the cost is a high dropout rate which has a detrimental effect on institutional expenses. Many students in
cluster colleges return to programs in the parent college or join other
colleges of the parent university. Proliferation of courses, uncontrolled
class size and teaching loads "can cause costs to skyrocket to a threaten-
ing degree."
Dougherty asserts: "There is no college represented in this study
that has a balanced control over all factors and shows a low unit cost."J
And "there was no college with low unit costs that were a result of con scious manipulation of cost factors."4 5 (See Table 5). He observes:
"Low unit costs can be achieved in a variety ways, but the range of options used by experimental cluster college administrators is amazingly small.
As the financial crisis deepens in the 70s, "this is a crucial period in which to begin thinking about controlling costs," warns £ Dougherty.
3Ibid., pp. 41-42, 46. , pp. 42-43.
3Ihid., p. 179. 4Ibid., p. 179.
5Ihld., p. 187. 6Ibid., p. 46. 46
TABLE 4
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF FIVE SUBCOLLEGES
Academic Year 1969 - 1970
Subcolleges
A B C D E
Student-Faculty Ratio 13:1 12:1 9:1 10:1 6:1
Average Class Size 12.8 15.7 11.6 23.1 17.5
Per cent of Small Classes 35.1% 23.0% 40.8% 20.5% 24.6% (10 or less students)
Cost Per Student Credit $38.23 $25.16 $36.39 $36.40 $47.57 Hour (SCH)
Source; Edward A. Dougherty, "Table 11, Data on Curriculum and Costs for All Colleges, Academic Year '69-'70," Ibid., p. 176. 47
A comparison of cost per student credit hour between five sub
colleges and the parent bodies shows that the cost per SCH in three
cluster colleges were very high—respectively 93%, 92% and 164% higher.
(See Table 5). According to Dougherty’s study, College A has high unit
cost because it has not been able to control salary expenditures.3* One
of the reasons for the closure of College A was its high cost factor.
College B has the lowest unit cost because it has tight control
over salary expenditures by employing graduate assistants, doctoral
fellows and young faculty in order to keep salary expenditures down. 2
College E has high unit cost because of limited enrollment. One
of the central administrators of University CDE states:
As you know, we have three sub-colleges here and they are very different in nature and very different, I believe»in the extent of their success. We did have an evaluation of these operations about two years ago and found then that there were marked differences in individual points of view about the effectiveness and the desirability of these programs. On the whole, my feeling is that the science sub-college...... has done a fairly effective job, although, in fact, it deals almost entirely with freshmen and sophomores. I doubt very much that the continuance of the other two colleges (C and E] is justified in terms of the costs and the lack of uniqueness in their programs ... .3
The above statement indicates that Colleges C and E are also in
trouble. College H was closed down because of cost factor and low student enrollment. Colleges F and G were merged for the same reasons.
As early as 1970, Dougherty made the following statement about the survival of subcolleges:
3lbid., pp. 175-179. 2lbid.
3 Letter from the Assistant Provost for Institutional Research to the author, University CDE, April 28, 1976. 48
TABLE 5
A COMPARISON OF COST PER STUDENT CREDIT HOUR
BETWEEN SUBCOLLEGES AND THEIR
PARENT UNIVERSITIES/COLLEGES
Academic Year 1969 - 1970
Cost Per Student Credit Hour
Parent Cost Difference Subcolleges University/College in Subcolleges
College A $38.23 $19.76 + 93%
College B 25.16 22.55 + 12%
College C 36.39 10.00 + 92%
College D 36.40 29.00 + 26%
College E 47.57 18.00 + 164%
Source: Edward A. Dougherty, "Figure 14 Cost Per Student Credit Hour," Ibid., p. 227. 18
Some colleges may be cut back or phased out because of the financial plight of higher education in general, and others may be able to hold on out of sheer devotion to the founders’ ideas. Until cluster colleges learn to manipulate the factors that control costs they will never be able to compete in the academic market place against less expensive conventional programs ....-'■
Duplication of Programs
Because of financial problems, a number of departments in the
parent universities are wondering whether or not there is some duplica- 2 tion of programs in subcolleges. One of the reasons for the closure of
Monteith was that the ad hoc Monteith Committee of Wayne State University 3 charged that Monteith was duplicative in nature. Zelda Gamson gave a note of warning that the Residential College "should be an innovative college which should not duplicate offerings and programs in LSA."
The College of Arts and Sciences in University FGH have been 4 complaining that the College F-G are duplicating their courses. Furthermore they sent a memorandum to the co-chairpersons of College F-G stating that students wishing to fulfill the liberal arts requirements must either complete them at College of Arts and Sciences or at the College F-G.
The Committee intends to notify the Registrar that after April 1976 all students graduating from the College must offer either 32 credits in departmental courses or 32 credits in
■'■Edward A. Dougherty, op. cit. , pp. 207-208. 2 Interview Nos. 16 and 30.
3Zelda Gamson, "The Residential College in 1974—Suggestions for Some Directions," (mimeographed), January 1975, p. 2.
4 Interview No. 30. 50
College F-G to satisfy the general education distribution requirement .
Student Attrition
One of the ways to determine the attractiveness of any
experimental program is by analyzing the enrollment trend and attrition
rate. At present several of the subcolleges are faced with the problem
of declining enrollment and attrition. Thirdly, while the subcolleges
have a ceiling between 500 to 1,200, several of the subcolleges never
reached their ceiling. 2 Newcomb notes that one measure of success of an institution is
its ability to retain students. The attrition rate in the Residential
College of University of Michigan was found to be higher than its counter part. One of the major reasons for the high attrition rate was related
to academic aspects, such as lack of structure, poor teaching, and written evaluations instead of letter grades. Some students did not like the permissive atmosphere of the Residential College and they preferred a more traditional atmosphere.
One of the reasons for the closure of Monteith College was its declining enrollment and high attrition rate. The attrition rate at
Monteith College was as follows: freshman level, 50 percent; sophomore level, 25 percent; and junior level, 15 percent. Thus Monteith was able to
'Memorandum from Chairperson, Committee on Instruction, College of Arts and Sciences to Co-Chairpersons, College F-G, December 3, 1975, p. 2. 2 Theodore M. Newcomb et al, "The University of Michigan’s Residential College," in Paul L. Dressel, (ed.), The New Colleges : Toward an Appraisal (Iowa City, Iowa: American Association of Higher Education, 1971), pp. 128-132. 51
graduate only about 10 percent of its entering freshmen. One of the administrators remarked that Monteith is no more than a junior college.3
College B is also faced with a similar problem. There is a decline in the number of applicants and College B is devising a new 2 recruitment strategy to keep the college alive.
One of the reasons for the merger of College F-G was the lack of students. The parent university administrators told Colleges F and G that they would be given two years to raise the student-faculty ratio; 3 if they did not, they might be forced to close down. College H was 4 closed down due to lack of student interest and other faculty problems.
Shift in Students Attitude
The major reason for the declining enrollment and high attrition rate is attributed to the shift in student attitudes. The nature and characteristics of today’s students are different from those of 1960s.
Most of the students today are job-oriented. Moreover, today’s students are conservative. They want structural courses in the traditional sense.3 As a result, experimental, innovative education is not as popular among students as it used to be/
interviews No . 21 and 34.
interview No . 9. 3 Interview No. 24. 4 Interview No. 42.
interview No. 16.
Interview No. 19. 52
The subcolleges attracted different types of students. They
tended to attract greater numbers ofanti-war and anti-establishment
students. They represented a counter culture.'"
The Assistant Provost*3 o*f University FGH remarked that College
F-G is no longer meeting the needs of present students. Therefore, the
experimental unit is moving in new directions. "Instead of serving
alienated pot smokers, in the 1980s they will be serving non-traditional
adults and evening weekend types."
Faculty Problems 3 Gaff states that most of the new programs are based on the
assumption that "faculty members are the most important educational
resource of a college or university." While teaching has been slighted by academic tradition, most faculty members want to excel in teaching.
In 1973, the Empire State College Office of Research and
Evaluation conducted a study of the faculty of Empire State College—a
statewide college without a campus. The study shows that many faculty expressed their concern over workload, professional development and problems with identifying learning resources. The study shows that the faculty goes through certain developmental stages. The faculty members showed anxiety at the initial stage. The faculty also went through the nonconstructive and ambiguity stage after abandoning traditional methods
^Interview No. 42.
9 Interview No. 42. 3 Jerry G. Gaff, "New Approaches to Improve Teaching," in Vermilye (ed.), Learner—Centered Reform: Current Issues in Higher Education, 1975 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975), p. 92. 53
of teaching. One-to-one contact with students was particularly
draining. Another problem is estrangement, which results in a few
faculty developing negative attitude toward the new setting.*3 2 2 Bradley identifies five stages of faculty development. First
of all the faculty are attracted to nontraditional colleges because they
are dissatisfied with traditional programs. However after abandoning
the old forms, the faculty find it difficult to find new structures.
Estrangement is the second problem. Some faculty are less tolerant of ambiguity which leads to negative feeling toward new setting. The third factor is that the faculty are not quite prepared for the environment.
As a result they experience an educational cultural shock. During the fourth stage, the faculty begin to accept the new environment which helps to reduce confusion and tension. During the fifth developmental stage of renewal, the faculty develop a consistent, coherent, and unified philosophy and style of teaching.
"The change from traditional techniques to student-oriented methods occurs one step at a time." Many faculty members overcome the problems of anxiety and estrangement by either changing their behavior or reverting to traditional programs.
According to Lindquist4 another major problem in implementing innovative programs is deciding the workload and reward system. A study
3A. Paul Bradley, Jr., "Faculty Roles in Contract Learning," in Vermilye, Ibid., pp. 66-74. 2Ibid.
3 Jack Lindquist, "Strategies for Contract Learning," in Vermilye (ed.), Ibid., p. 88. 4Ibid., pp. 76-77. 54
of the faculty members at Empire State College shows that the faculty
are concerned about keeping abreast of developments in their fields. Johnson3 points out that there is a conflict between research
and teaching in subcolleges. He suggests, therefore, that subcolleges
either provide opportunity and stimulus for research or provide emolu
ments for distinguished teachers. Otherwise it may be difficult to
maintain a superior faculty. 2 Martin states that in many cases, several innovative programs
depend strongly on the commitment of one or two founders and when they
leave the scene, the innovations lose their vitality. The faculty also
soon lose their enthusiasm because the professional rewards are based on
research and publication.
The subcolleges either select their own faculty or borrow
faculty from the parent body. Monteith College has its own faculty and
it has its own criteria for tenure and promotion within the framework
of the parent university guidelines. Because of this factor, Monteith
College became highly autonomous and thus it was isolated from the parent body.
On the other hand, Colleges B, C, D, E, F-G borrow their faculty
from the parent body. Because of the reward structure for tenure and
promotion, these colleges found it very difficult to recruit faculty
3B. Lamar Johnson, "Behold, You Created a New Thing: Summary and Critique," in W. Hugh Stickler (ed.), Experimental Colleges: Their Role in American Higher Education (Tallahassee: Florida University, 1964), p. 182.
2Edwin P. Martin, "Innovative Programs and Curricula," in Stewart and Harvey (eds.), Ibid., p. 24. 55
from the parent body. And Colleges at CDE University have moved more
rapidly away from joint appointments of faculty.3
Because of the pressure on College B to develop its own faculty,
for several years College B built up a part-time faculty and was quite
alienated from the parent body. Later the central administration of the
parent body put pressure on College B to find faculty within the parent 2 college. If College B had its own faculty, it would become highly •5 autonomous and lose its support from the main body.
Tension Between Liberal Arts and Subcolleges
Most of the resistance to subcolleges seems to stem from the
liberal arts colleges of parent universities, "in any university, there
is certain amount of feeling, particularly in arts and science that they
alone possess the monopoly of academic virtues. Anybody else has to „4 measure up to their standards.
When Monteith College applied for adoption in 1964, there was much resistance from the College of Liberal Arts. However, Monteith was
accorded a regular status because of strong support from President
Hilberry.5
^Edward A. Dougherty, A Financial Analysis of Instructional Costs in Experimental Cluster Colleges (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, UUnpublishednpublished Ph. D. dissertation, 1972), p. 106. 2 Interview No. 17. 3 Interview No. 15. A Interview No. 42.
^Interview No. 20. 56
Regarding College B, one of the administrators remarked that
College B was really a step child. It was not really respectable in
the scholarly sense of the word. There was a degree of skepticism.1
College of Arts and Sciences was disturbed by College F-G
because it competed for students. It was also uneasy because of the
looser style of the experimental people.
Originally College F-G was under the Dean of College of Arts and
Sciences. When the Dean became the Associate Provost, he took the
College along with him to give needed protection. The Co-Chairperson of
College F-G remarked, "If we had stayed with arts and sciences, we would be destroyed ... These kinds of problems go on forever. There will be 2 always people who will be suspicious of us."
Administrative Support
Administrative support of the parent body is very crucial for the survival of any innovation.
One of the major reasons for the downfall of Monteith was that it lost its administrative support. Monteith came into existence because of the strong administrative support from President Hilberry, and when it lost the support of the Central Administration, it was faced with the crisis of closure.
When College B came up for adoption, the faculty approved it because it was pushed very strongly by the Executive Committee; and the 3 College is still enjoying strong administrative support. * 3
interview No. 15.
^Interview No. 24. 3 Interview No. 16. 57
College F-G was faced with several problems.
In the course of their period of time, they have surmounted innumerable crisis and always have managed to survive. They are always rising from their own ashes. They never die. They have gone through at least four different permutations and they are no more like what they were in the beginning.3 3
In spite of the numerous problems, College F-G is able to to survive so far because of the central administrative support.
I was under lots of pressure from lots of people on campus to eliminate [College F-G3. There were several people on campus who were expecting me to get rid of [College F-G J. Everybody was surprised that I did not eliminate the College.3
3Interview No. 42.
3Interview No. 42. CHAPTER IV
A SHORT HISTORY OF MONTEITH COLLEGE
Emergence of Monteith College
In the village of Blissfield, Michigan, stands a small white frame Presbyterian church. Forty miles north is Ann Arbor with a sprawling campus of dozen buildings housing the complex operations of a modern university. Both symbolically stand as monuments to the career of John Monteith, pioneer pastor of the Blissfield church and first president of the University of Michigan. . . .'-
Monteith College of Wayne State University was established in
1959 in honor of John Monteith (1788-1868)—a man of simple faith and
broad vision, a classical scholar» a minister from Princeton
University and the first President of the University of Michigan.
Inception of Monteith College
Monteith's program of general education was designed in 1958 by
a three-man faculty committee from the College of Liberal Arts. One of
them was Woodburn 0. Ross, Chairman, who later became the first Dean of 2 Monteith College. The Committee completed its report by the Summer of q 1958. The report is generally known as the "Gray Document."
'■Roscoe 0. Bonisted, John Monteith: First President of the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan, January 1967), inside cover page.
^"General Education and Monteith College," A Report from President Hilberry to the Board of Governors, June 25, 1964, p. 1.
3The title of the report was "An Experimental College for Wayne State University, 1958," because of its cover called the "Gray Document."
58 59
After the report was completed, a public relations campaign was
launched to sell this new idea to the key people in the University. A
four-day conference was held in a resort hotel with 50 University people.
The result was that a majority of them were in favor of the new College.
There was no resistance from deans of professional schools since there were certain concerns among the deans about improving the liberal arts education program.3
On October 22, 1958, President Hilberry recommended to the Board of Governors that such a college be established and the Board of
Governors took the following action:
RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors endorses in principle the proposal for an experimental college in general education, and enthusiastically supports the application for a grant to make the creation of this project possible; it further authorizes the President to establish such a college upon being assured of the grant of the necessary funds.3
The program was considered by the University Council on
September 11, 1958 and the following resolution was adopted:
"Approves, in principle, the establishment of an experimental College in general education to this end, should the President decide that such organization is the best method of carrying on study and experimentation in the subject in question."3
On December 17, 1958, the Board of Governors approved the name of
"Monteith College."
3Zelda S. Gamson, "Social Control and Modification: A Study of Responses to Students in a Small Nonresidential College" (Doctoral Dissertation: Harvard University, 1965), p. 43.
¿9 Proceedings of Board of Governors, Vol. 3, October 22, 1958, p. 497. □ "General Education and Monteith College," A Report from President Hilberry to the Board of Governors, June 25, 1964, p. 1. 60
After the endorsement of Monteith College by the Board of
Governors and the University Council, President Hilberry remarked that
Monteith is "a special college for non-specialists." "The New College is unique in the United States, and probably in the world, . . .1,3
In September 1959 Wayne State University opened the doors of
Monteith College to its first freshman class.
Monteith*s Educational Model
Monteith was based on the cluster college model. The classes were to be small. Inherent in the model was the concept of a close relationship between students and faculty. The College was to be kept small with not more than 1,200 students. It was to provide a type of intellectual climate and learning environment similar to some of the well-known small liberal arts colleges within the framework of a large and complex urban university. The program was designed to implement a new approach to general education.
Monteith had certain features of Antioch, Columbia, Harvard and
St. Johns. It had a close resemblance to the College at the University of Chicago. However, Monteith "was not a replica of any single model 2 but a new creation."
Monteith was committed to strengthening undergraduate education.
The "Gray Document" stated: "It is a deeply considered effort to impart
3"WSU Unveils Unique New College," Detroit Free Press, December 22, 1958. 2Yates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 7. 6i
Figure 1
STRUCTURE OF MONTEITH'S PROGRAM
The Monteith Basic Courses Integrated Into A Student's Four Year Program Under The Quarter System
Source: Monteith Brochure. 62
to undergraduates, particularly those in training for the professions, that common body of ideas and knowledge which every educated man should possess."3
The document further stated that the experiment was not to be an honors program. There were to be no special admission requirements to join
Monteith. The experiment was to see whether a large urban university could provide its average students with an educational program equal to that of the best private liberal arts colleges.
The College was organized into three divisions—Humanistic Studies,
Natural Science, and Science of Society. Later, two major programs, Chicano-
Boricua Studies and Monteith Program for Labor School Graduates were added to
Monteith.
Interestingly, the model proposed a novel idea that Monteith freshmen were to be the most expensive students; and seniors, the least expensive.
This was to be implemented by having smaller freshmen classes; but however, this was to be compensated for by increasing the responsibility on upper class-students for individual studies.
One of the experiments of Monteith was to show that "costs can be cut if students are made responsible for their own intellectual destinies to 2 a greater extent than prevails at present." This was to be accomplished by having a "senior colloquium" and a "senior essay" (See Figure 1).
As a result our cost per student credit-hour is, we believe, approximately as low as that of any college on the Wayne campus. When our experimental phase is over, our costs can be further reduced by an increase in size of the college.3
3"An Experimental College for Wayne State University," 1958, p. 2.
2Ibid., p. 4. 3Ibid. 63
Another factor in keeping the cost down was the faculty of
Monteith. The "Gray Document" envisioned that teaching faculty would
consist of 3 professors and 23 junior staff, who have recently finished
their graduate work to join as assistant professors and whose turnover rate would be high. However, these junior staff were to be called tutors. The
plan stated that the senior professors would give all lectures and that the
junior faculty would lead the discussion sections. The emphasis was on excellence in teaching and was not necessarily on research.1
The document stated that at the university level about 25 per cent of entering freshmen continue through to graduation and the founders pre- 2 sumed that the same rate of attrition would occur at Monteith.
Monteith was a degree-granting liberal arts college which existed side-by-side with a conventional liberal arts college. Woodburn Ross, the first dean of Monteith states, "Monteith College occupies a most unusual position in American higher education."13 2 It enjoyed the same autonomy as the parent Liberal Arts College. It had its own faculty and determined its own educational policies. While Monteith followed the salary structure of the University, it fixed its own promotional policies for the faculty.
1Ibid., p. 39, 58. 2 "An Experimental College for Wayne State University," 1958, p. 47.
3Woodburn 0. Ross, "Monteith College of Wayne State University," in W. Hugh Stickler (ed.), Experimental Colleges: Their Role in American Higher Education (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1964), p. 145. 64
Internal and External Support for Monteith
Monteith emerged at a time when there was a national concern
about the rise of specialization, proliferation of courses and the neglect of undergraduates. It came as a response to meet the internal needs of professional schools at Wayne State University.
It had the strong support of the President of WSU, Clarence
Hilberry, who was also the sponsor of Monteith. Further support came from some of the deans of the professional schools because they were not satisfied with the quality of general education provided by the
College of Liberal Arts.3* *
The Ford Foundation supported the program by giving a grant of
$700,000 to establish the college and to meet the transitional costs over a period of five years, ending on June 30, 1964. By this time, the costs were to be fully absorbed by the state appropriations and student fees.
Monteith would have never materialized without outside money— 2 the grant from Ford Foundation.
Friction Between Liberal Arts and Monteith
Monteith was opposed by the College of Liberal Arts from the beginning, because "it would be a competitor for able and venture some students." Secondly, Liberal Arts faculty were not pleased with
3Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., pp. 41-43.
3Ibid., p. 43. 3 Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., p. 49. 65
the radical approach of Monteith to general education. Monteith
eliminated freshman English composition and foreign language require
ments. Thirdly, Monteith was to emphasize undergraduate education while the Liberal Arts departments were emphasizing graduate programs.3 * 5
The English Department did not like the idea of abandoning
freshman composition. "To do away with freshman composition seemed at 2 once pretentious and irresponsible."
Perhaps the most outspoken antagonism came from scientists. . . . They asked what sort of scientific training students would receive who learned about science in fifth-century Athens or from nineteenth-century chemistry or physics, but who were not prepared for advanced work on the contemporary frontiers ... .
Riesman observes that Liberal Arts faculty tended to think of
Monteith faculty as "unscholarly and undisciplined.
One of the faculty members in the College of Liberal Arts
admonished a Monteith faculty, "’You are ruining yourself. You are
ruining your career by staying there. It can't last more than two
Gamson notes:
Not surprisingly, the greatest resistance came from members of the College of Liberal Arts who, with some exceptions, saw the new college as an implicit criticism of them and as a threat to the future security of the college. . . .6
3Ibid., p. 44-49. 2Ibid., p. 49.
J3 Ibid., p. 49. 4 Ibid., p. 91.
5Ibid.. p. 71
£ °Zelda Gamson, "Social Contest and Modification: A Study of Responses to Students in a Small Nonresidential College" (Doctoral Dissertation: Harvard University, 1965), p. 43. 66
The major issues of conflict were centered around money and
students who show promise.
The faculty of Liberal Arts who were anti-Monteith complained
that Monteith was "taking away all of our good students. It got too much money and it duplicated our courses."1
The Monteith students were easily identifiable by the Liberal
Arts faculty because of their radical stance. They tended to talk too much in classes. They asked too many questions and challenged the 2 professors. Some faculty made fun of Monteith students.
Some of the professional schools lent their support to Monteith with the hope of attracting more Monteith students into their schools.
Later on, the professional-school faculty became negative toward
Monteith as "Monteith intake became more problematic .... Of the major professional schools, only Education has remained committed to the
Monteith idea."13 2
Most of the resistance seems to have come from faculty of various schools and departments rather than from the Deans of WSU.
Without support from President Hilberry and the Central Administration,
"Monteith might have been prevented from existing by the veto power of the departments."4
1Sally W. Cassidy et al. Impact of a High-Demand College in Large University on Working Class Youth (Report to HEW, Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University, Vol. 1, August 31, 1968), pp. 341, 342, 355. 2Ibid., p. 355.
3 Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., pp. 48-49.
4Ibid., p. 50. 67
President Hilberry continued to support Monteith. "He
remained in the background as a potential support against opposition
from other Wayne colleges, but he no longer had any direct influence
over Monteith."*3 *B ecause of the protection by Wayne’s top administra
tors, Monteith was able to afford a relaxed decentralization.
Woodburn Ross, the first Dean, played himself down by preferring to designate himself as Director of Monteith rather than a dean. He took a sabbatical leave during the first year of Monteith because he felt that "Monteith would face diminishing antagonism if 2 he were away for a while."
Monteith Stablized as a College
Internal Evaluation of Monteith
In December 1963, Monteith College submitted a 220-page report 3 to President Hilberry covering the first five years of its operation.
On December 18, 1963, the President wrote a covering letter along with the report and sent it to every member of the University
Council. The letter stated:
It is the responsibility of the President and the Board of Governors to decide the equitable allocation of the budget to the essential programs of the University. This requires continuing cost studies of Monteith and all the units of the University, as these studies are going forward.4
llbid., pp. 50-51. 2Ibid., p. 237.
^"Monteith College: A Report to the President," December, 1963 (Mimeographed). 4 Letter from President Hilberry to the University Council Members, December 18, 1963. 68
He requested that the University Council evaluate Monteith and submit a report in the early Spring of 1964.
In response to the President’s request, the Steering Committee asked the University Council Committee on Instruction and Research to evaluate Monteith's report.
On January 21, 1964, the University Council Committee on
Instruction and Research sent a memo to the Secretary of the Steering
Committee, stating that the role of general education of Monteith could be meaningfully discussed only in relation to general education offered by other colleges at WSU. The Committee recommended a weekend conference with the members of the University Council, the Board of Governors and interested administrative officers.1
The Steering Committee responded by stating that while they recognized the usefulness of such a discussion, it could not substitute for a valid, original study. Therefore, the Committee reiterated its original charge and no weekend conference took place.
In response to the reiteration of the original charge by the
Steering Committee, the Committee on Instruction and Research of the
University Council submitted its report on May 11, 1964. A number of questions were raised about the educational program at Monteith. The report stated:
Memorandum from the University Council Committee on Instruction and Research to the University Council, "Response from the Instruction and Research Committee to the University Council on Monteith College," May 11, 1964, pp. 1-2. 69
We have but one recommendation: That the University- Council recommend to the President a study of the manifesta tions of general education as they appear on the campus; that such a study include: a re-examination of the conclusions of the various groups which have recently worked on the University's long-range plans; a compilation of data which will give a complete and accurate picture of approaches to general education in all components of the University; and an analysis of these approaches in the light of the University’s long range aims.
The Committee did not deal with the cost of Monteith because it \ was not one of the charges to the Commitee. The Committee stated that
"decisions about cost can only follow upon decisions about educational 2 philosophy."
The Committee also raised a number of questions about Monteith’s curriculum. One of the questions was about the omission of a foreign language requirement. Questions were also raised in regard to the weight given to abstract thinking'and the quality of Monteith education.
The Committee noted that according to the results obtained from the College Characteristics Index questions, Monteith was placed in the company of some top 11 colleges. The Committee stated since a large number of students also took courses at the Liberal Arts. College, it was 3 difficult to "tell whose contributions we were measuring."
External Evaluation of Monteith
Because of the number of problems and questions raised by internal evaluation of Monteith by the University Council, the President wisely invited two outside consultants, David Riesman, professor of
Social Sciences at Harvard University, and Laurence Chamberlain, Vice
President of the Columbia University, to evaluate Monteith.
1Ibid., p. 3. 12 Ibid., p. 3.
3Ibid., p. 12. 70
Riesman and Chamberlain made a three-day visit to examine
Monteith's program, and they submitted their report on January 20, 1964.3
They noted, "We found a variety of attitudes toward Monteith, but
neutrality and lack of interest were not among them."*2 ". . . though
there were precursors of experiment, . . . nothing comparable to Monteith
has been started in American higher education since the Second World
War."3
One of the most impressive aspects of Monteith is the high good humor and dedication of the faculty in responding to these students' demands. To the degree that this occurs, Monteith College has indeed created a non-residential intellectual equivalent of the small residential liberal arts college.
The report further stated that Monteith could accomodate nearly twice as many students as currently registered. In view of the lack of enrollment, they recommended that Monteith should have a full time officer who would be devoted entirely to recruiting students.
In regard to the tension between the College of Liberal Arts and
Monteith, the report stated:
It is useless to ignore the tension that exists between Monteith College and the College of Liberal Arts. The tension is unfortunate, but it would not be permitted to conceal or blur the fact that the very size and strength of the College of Liberal Arts may be the single argument for a $ small contrasting program within the University structure ....
3David Riesman and Laurence H. Chamberlain, "Report on Monteith College for President Hilberry," January 20, 1964. 2Ibid., p. 1. 3Ibid. , p. 6.
^Ibid. , p. 15. 3Ibid., p. 24. 71
About the future of Monteith, the report stated:
Does it follow that Wayne University is committed to Monteith for all time—that one must always accept a camel once it has got its nose in the tent? It is our judgment after talking to many of the leaders of Wayne that this is really an open question and that they intend Monteith to continue—not necessarily indefinitely, but for the years immediately ahead ... .1
Debate on the Adoption of Monteith
On May 20, 1964, the report submitted by the Committee on
Instruction and Research came for discussion at the University Council.
As several questions were raised about Monteith, one of the members moved :
"’Whereas there is a question within the minds of many current Council Members concerning the interpretation of the status of Monteith College, that University Council ask President Hilberry to state explicitly whether Monteith College Is an established college with an experimental program or whether the College itself Ig to be considered an experiment at Wayne State University.'"
In response to the question, President Hilberry sent out a letter to all members of the University Council on May 28, 1964. The letter stated:
Following the discussion and action by the appropriate Councils of the University, Monteith College was established by action of the Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the President as recorded in the official proceedings of October 22, 1958 and December 17, 1958 ....
Neither the President, the Board, nor the Foundation could have considered the establishment of a college which would be abandoned as soon as Ford funds were exhausted.
1Ibid., p. 25.
^Memorandum from President Hilberry to the Members of the University Council, May 28, 1964. 72
Such a unit could not undertake those commitments to students and faculty which are the essence of thé responsibility of a college. The President makes recommendations on allocations, on salaries and on the granting of tenure to the Board of Governors for all units in the same way. Monteith College has never been an exception.
Let me, therefore, respond explicitly to the request of the Council. Monteith College is an established College with an experimental program.
Thus President Hilberry settled the issue of Monteith's
continuation, and Monteith College was now an innovation officially
stablized.
When considering Monteith College for admission to regular
college status, the University Council debated the issue as to whether
general education is beneficial or whether it is so general that it is of little practical use.
The Chairman of the History Department remarked: "The College of
Liberal Arts has attempted to give a general education and has failed because of vested interests. The dilemma of education today is to produce the whole man." He further argued, "The College of Liberal Arts is becoming a technical school." And Monteithwas trying to solve this problem by providing a general education.
In reply to this attack, the Chairman of the Chemistry Department answered, "Monteith is so general that it does not prepare the student for graduate training. Students in Monteith have an education so broad that they have eliminated themselves from the ability to go to graduate school."2
1Ibid.
2"Debate Flares on Monteith," The Daily Collegian, June 4, 1964, p. 1. 73
In order to clarify the issue of general education at WSU and the
merits of Monteith College, the University Council voted on June 3, 1964 to accept the proposal of the Committee on Instruction and Research.3
On June 25, 1964, President Hilberry strongly recommended the
continued support of Monteith College to the Board of Governors.
I endorse the proposal of the University Council and recommend that the Board of Governors continue to support Monteith College as an established College dedicated to experimentation ....2
And the Board of Governors endorsed the recommendations of the
President.
The Detroit Free Press commented:
But in a sense, the June 25 vote by the WSU Board of Governors to make Monteith a permanent part of the university was a victory.
The influence of Monteith on the total Detroit community may not be measured, but Dr. Woodburn 0. Ross, the college’s dean, and others are betting it will be felt.
Impact and Quality of Monteith Education
Monteith was an experiment in non-elite education. It was
dedicated to the reforming of general education by catering to the needs
of the neglected undergraduates. This movement was based on the assump
tion that "if students are not enlightened, it is the fault of the
faculty, not of such alibis as the poor motivation or incompetence of
students.
3Ibid.
2Board of Governors Agenda, June 25, 1964, p. 3.
3"WSU’s Monteith: A Victory for the Liberals," Detroit Free Press, July 12, 1964.
^Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., p. 12, 14. 74
Monteith aspired to bring to commuters education of high
academic status. Its curriculum was rigid and highly structured.
Monteith expected a rigorous education from students whose allegiance
would be divided.
Monteith attracted a certain type of students who were radical.
Because of this fact, Monteith was labelled as a "beatnik college."
Riesman makes the following observation about Monteith Student Center:
When we visited the Center, it offered a preview of the hippie world: guitars and loud music; odd and informal dress; an atmosphere not only disorderly but positively hostile to order; an alternation of mood between frenzy and lassitude. . . .1
The Impact of Monteith Education
Keeton and Hilberry made a study of the following 12
distinguished liberal arts colleges: Wheaton, Berea, Oberlin, Simmons,
Amherst, Monteith, Goddard, Ripon, Earlham, Morehouse, The College of
St. Thomas, and The College of Liberal Arts of Ball State University.
They observed Monteith as an "expression of a distinctive educational 2 philosophy."
WSU students came from mostly lower and lower-middle class residents of the Detroit metropolitan area. How would these students respond to a highly demanding, interdisciplinary, antivocational program?
1Ibid., p. 171.
2 Morris Keeton and Conrad Hilberry. Struggle and Promise: A Future for Colleges (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969), pp. 183- 201. 75
If Monteith students at entrance appear to be more or less typical in everything except the fact that they choose to enroll at Monteith, they soon become distinctive. Senior student responses on the.College Characteristics Index show the College to have an extraordinary intellectual climate, much closer to that of an independent liberal arts college than that of a university-associated College.
Monteith was one of fifteen colleges studied in a four year program of research conducted by the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education of the University of California from 1966 through
1970. The study tried to measure educational impact and student development in these colleges. "According to the research, Monteith students changed more dramatically in their personality to be involved in academic and intellectual pursuits than students at any of the other fourteen institutions." ,
Cassidy et al also made a study of Monteith College entitled,
Impact of a High-Demand College in Large University on Working Class
Youth. According to their study, Monteith students came from working class- a,nd educationally deprived backgrounds, After comple tion of their program, "[Monteith] graduates taken as a whole, show an unusual ease in speaking of themselves, and of the world around them, in 2 rather sophisticated terms with a good deal of discernment."
According to Gamson's study, Monteith students were more radical and political oriented than the counterparts at WSU. They tended to talk more, critize, and argue more in other classes.
3Keeton and Hilberry, Ibid., pp. 189-190.
^Memorandum From Harold Stack to Monteith Faculty, "Workshop on Educational Impact and Student Development," January 25, 1972, p. 7.
3Sally W. Cassidy et al. op. cit., Vol. I, p. 116. 76
In short, {Monteith] has fast gotten a reputation not dissimilar to that of the small colleges it tries to emulate. The distinctness of its image, the content of the descriptions and the feelings it provokes are similar to colleges like Antioch, Reed, Bard. The atmosphere of the College is reminis cent of these colleges. There are some students at {Monteith] who look as..if they had come directly from Yellow Springs, Ohio. . . .
The Dean of Monteith states that the success of the College is
better measured "by the abilities of its graduates and their degree of
change and development while in college" than by the aptitude of its 2 entering students.
An incomplete survey conducted by Monteith shows that out of
1,102 graduates, in thirteen years 49 have become medical doctors, 72 3 lawyers (two judges), and 230 educators including two academic deans.
Quality of Monteith Education
Did Monteith become a de facto honors College? Riesman et al
observes that Monteith attracted students who were somewhat higher in
test scores than the students in the College of Liberal Arts. ". . .it
has drawn a certain kind of student, but, in terms of aptitudes or social
background, it has not become an honors college. It remains, as it began, a school for the average student from a non-elite background."4 He
3Zelda Gamson, op. cit., p. 57.
2Yates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 9.
^Memorandum From Yates Hafner to Concerned Parties, "The Continuing Story to Date," October 29, 1975, p. 3.
^Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., p. 209. 77
further notes, "We cannot say that Monteith had a greater impact than other colleges, but it obviously had an impact similar to the overall trends at other colleges, particularly the elite colleges."*3
"Monteith was stunningly successful on two fronts— maintaining itself as an intellectual, nonvocational under graduate college and at the same time transmitting aspirations for graduate school. . . .3
Gamson observes that in spite of the fact that Monteith was not to be an honors college, over the years Monteith '"has come to be recognized as a distinct entity within the University as well as in the larger community."3 Monteith students were more intellectual, brighter, and less vocational minded than the counterparts at WSU.
Cassidy et al also states that Monteith students were intellectually higher than the College of Liberal Arts.
. . . [Monteith] is equipped to educate, and to educate well, students from uneducated families even coming from mediocre high schools, and with poor entrance scores as long as they were able to get passing grades during their freshman year. It is the failing student with whom it could not cope, in spite of the best mutual intentions.
Monteith offered a real opportunity for students to attain an impressive degree of competence and intellectual skills. "In conclusion we think we can affirm that [Montieth] has started fulfilling its promise as a high quality small college.
1 2 Ibid. , p. 215. Ibid. , p. 215.
3Zelda Gamson, op. cit, p. 55, 56.
4Cassidy et al, op. cit. , Vol. I, p. 168.
3Cassidy et al, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 4. 78
Acclaim of Monteith College
Monteith College drew national attention and several aspects of
Monteith education have been studied by researchers and educators.
A team of North Central Leadership trainees who visited Monteith
in May 13 - 15, 1963 made the following observation.
"Monteith College, the experimental liberal arts college, is a most unusual operation and one that seems singularly pleasing to the students and faculty associated with it. There was evidence that many of the faculty members of the College of Liberal Arts were not sympathetic to the Monteith experiment but the excellent academic performances of Monteith students generally weighs heavily in favor of the experiment. Since Monteith is a comparatively new operation more time must pass before prudential judgments can be made as to its contribution to the University."3
The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
Commission on Colleges and Universities, submitted a report of WSU on
August 11, 1966. The team observed:
Monteith College constitutes an unusually significant opportunity in an urban institution. Emphasizing as it does small classes, intimate relations between participants in a class and the values to be found in non-professional studies, it adds a dimension often lacking in large institutions.2
In 1960, a delegation of principals from colleges in India paid a visit to Monteith. They were fascinated by Monteith’s educational program. They were impressed by the atmosphere of a small college, its curricula, and individualized study program. One of the principals
^Memorandum from Palmer C. Pitcher, Asst. Dean, Graduate Studies to Woodburn Ross, July 23, 1963. n Commission on Colleges and Universities, North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, "Report of a Visit to Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, April 25-26, 1966," p. 2. 79
remarked that Monteith is a bold leader in general education and it
maintains a happy balance between social sciences, natural sciences and humanities.*3 2
In addition to the visitors, the Michigan Senate also praised
Monteith. When the University Council decided to phase out Monteith, the
Michigan Senate passed a resolution In support of Monteith. The resolu
tion praised the educational excellence and national reputation of
Monteith and urged the Board of Governors to support the continuation of
Monteith.2
Problems and Issues at Monteith
Even though Monteith was stablized as a college in 1964, Riesman et al observed certain potential problems—a new president at Wayne
State University, the problem of grading and curricula, and the shift in the ethnic composition of Detroit. Another problem is Monteith was not well known within the University system even though it was known at the national level. It was also affected by the insufficient enrollment, coupled with the problem of "no-shows" after the students were admitted.
Because of the fluctuation in student enrollment, Monteith could not 3 plan its classes in advance.
3"Comments for News Release: Indian Nepalese Principal Seminar at Monteith College," n.d.
2Michigan Senate Resolution No. 316, December 10, 1975 (see Appendix C-2).
3Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., pp. 205-207. 80
In 1975, the Dean of Monteith wrote a self-study report for the
North Central Association’s accreditation review in 1976. The self-
study report describes the goals, history and design, organization,
resources and buildings, and problems and future plans.
The Dean claims "moderate degree of success" in terms of
Monteith's accomplishments. However, he admitted that "the vast
majority of undergraduates at Wayne are unaffected by the features and
experience of Monteith College."1 He acknowledged that one of the weak
nesses of Monteith was that it had not been able to attract large grants
or contracts. He proposed that a newly-formed Monteith Alumni group was
planning to help in raising funds. He pointed out that Monteith had to
reduce the cost per student credit hour.
Question of High Cost
... a particularly thorny issue is the deliberately high undergraduate costs. The other parts of the university accept grudgingly the higher costs of the Medical School. The greater expense in physics and chemistry, which demand much equipment, can be rationalized if not totally accepted. But how can one justify higher cost for teaching freshman general education courses? This is the question which must be answered, not for the Monteith faculty, because they are fully persuaded already, but for the outsiders who do not share, understand, or support this high-cost education. For a time, the Monteith faculty can ease the burden by dedication and extra work, but eventually an acceptable rationale must be developed.3
One of the original reasons for Ford Foundation funding of
Monteith was to examine an economic question. "’Could a college lower
its costs through the development of independent studies among advanced
Mates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 10.
^Keeton and Hilberry, op. cit., pp. 200-201. 81
students, making it possible to have small classes at the freshman and
sophomore level?’"3* 2As Monteith moved away from the proposed economic model in several ways as outlined in the Gray Document, it became a
forgotten question. Monteith had failed to come up with an answer to
the question of economics.
According to Dougherty’s study, for the academic year 1969-70,
Monteith spent $38 to produce one SCH; whereas the College of Liberal 2 Arts spent only $19.76 to produce one SCH. Tor the academic year,
1974-75, Monteith spent $47.90 to produce one SCH; and the College of
Liberal Arts, $26.97.
Out of the five cluster colleges studied by Dougherty, Monteith was the second most expensive of the cluster colleges. (Table 8).
Dougherty attributes the high cost factor to the fact Monteith had several highly paid senior faculty members. Within Wayne, Monteith had the highest proportion of tenured faculty of any unit.
Dougherty points out several factors which affected the control of costs in Monteith. The small classes and large number of independent offerings contributed to the increasing cost. Secondly, Monteith's policy on tenure and high number of administrators added to the high cost per SCH. Thirdly, Monteith had added a substantial number of non-teaching administrative positions.3
^Dougherty, op. cit., pp. 48, 49; quoted from a published study of College by three scholars in the field, 1970.
2Ibid., (Table 2), p. 68.
3Ibid., pp. 63-67. 82
TABLE 6
DATA ON CURRICULUM AND COSTS FOR MONTIETH COLLEGE1 ACADEMIC YEAR '69-'70
Faculty and Students
1. Full-time equivalent faculty...... 31.20
2. Full-time equivalent students ...... 412.50
3. Student-faculty ratio ...... 13.2:1
Curriculum
4. Number of course credit hours...... 123
5. Course credit hours per F.T.E. student...... 0.298
6. Number of class credit hours...... 1045
7. Number of student credit hours...... 12,994
8. Average class size...... '...... 12.80
9. Per cent of small classes...... 35.0% (10 or less students)
10. S.C.H.'s of independent study ...... 1853
Cost Efficiency
11. S.C.H. per F.T.E. faculty member...... 418
12. Total salary attributable to instruction...... $497,000
13. Salary per F.T.E. student...... $1,200
14. Cost per S.C.H...... $38.23
1Dougherty, op. cit.. p. 64 (Table I). S3
TABLE 7
COST PER S.C.H. FOR DEPARTMENTS IN THE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE OF WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
Academic Year 1969 - 1970
Humanities Dept. A...... 16.86 B...... 17.86 C...... 8.41 D...... 33.54 E...... 10.93 F...... 22.33
Science Dept. A...... 14.98 B...... 21.54 C...... 15.12 D...... 18.32 E...... 17.66 F...... 11.43
Soc. Sci. Dept. A ...... 16.66 B ...... 9.67 C...... 12.10 D ...... 14.42 E...... 6.45 F...... 21.83
Language Dept. A ...... 12.90 B...... 60.52 C...... 25.18 D...... 39.70
Liberal Arts College Average ...... 19.76
MONTEITH COLLEGE ...... 38.23
*Note: These figures in dollars are based on undergraduate, semester student credit hours, and academic salary expenditures, from the Office of the Dean, College of Liberal Arts.
^Dougherty, op. cit., p. 68 (Table 2). TABLE 8
DATA ON CURRICULUM AND COSTS FOR ALL COLLEGES ACADEMIC YEAR '69-'70
Other Cluster Colleges Monteith College (A) College B College C College D College E
Faculty and Students
1. F.T.E. faculty 37.20 31.04 52.96 23.42 32.59 2. F.T.E. students 412 368 453 219 206 3. Student-faculty ratio 13.2:1 11.9:1 8.5:1 9.5:1 6.2:1
Curriculum
4. Course credit hours 123 224 347 129 175 5. Course C.K. per student 0.298 0.608 0.766 0.589 0.845 6. Class credit hours 1045 750 1247 305 375 7. Student credit hours 12,994 11,767 14,504 7,021 6,579 8. Average class size 12.8 15.7 11.6 23.1 17.5 9. Per cent of small classes 35.1% 23.0% 40.8% 20.5% 24.6% (10 or less students) 10. S.C.H. of indep. study 1853 860 1071 29 845
Cost Efficiency
11. S.C.H. per F.T.E. faculty 418 379 264 274 202 12. Total salary (in thousands) $497 $296 $527 $255 $313 13. Salary per student $1,200 $804 $1,163 $1,164 $1,519 14. Cost per S.C.H. $38.23 $25.16 $36.39 $36.40 $47.57
^Dougherty, op. cit., p. 176 (Table 11). oo -P- Another important factor that affected the cost is the number of
years Monteith had been operating.
Did Monteith make any attempt to cut down its cost? One of the
Monteith administrators stated the high cost factor was brought to the
attention of the faculty and administration several times, but Monteith
did not make any deliberate effort to reduce cost. Monteith faculty were
not cost conscious.
Any time any suggestion was made to save money, there was opposition to the suggestion. Time after time, we could have • kept our expenses down, and we did not. It was not a waste of money. The whole faculty was not conscious of cost factor. ■
The Dean admitted in his Self-Study report that Monteith should
reduce the cost per SCH. However, he states:
We have never been given a direct or official mandate to do so, but some individual members of the Board of Governors have advised us recently that they believe our cost per student credit hour (almost $50 in 1974-75) is too high . . . 2
He further states that making use of graduate assistants and low- salaried part-time faculty members by the College of Liberal Arts as
"political economy"; and "Monteith will probably never rival the 3 outstandingly low cost per credit hour of that College."
Student Attrition
When one looks at the statistics on attrition, Monteith did not do well with all of its students. Out of 1,631 students who entered
Interview No. 20. 2 Yates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 15. o Ibid., p. 16. 86
1 TABLE 9
FATE OF 1959 ENTRANTS TO MONTEITH AND LIBERAL ARTS (AS OF WINTER 1963)a
Q Monteith Liberal Arts
Graduated b 3%
Registered in Monteith (Liberal Arts) 44% 36
Registered in another college at Wayne 21 24 State
Dropped out of the University entirely 35 ■ 37
Total 100% 100%
N 265 214
aSource: Monteith College Advisor's Office. b . Less than one per cent.
cBased on a random sample.
LRiesman, Gusfield, and’Gamson, op. cit, p. 211 (Table 4). 87
Monteith between 1959 and 1964, about 359 students or 22 percent graduated from the College. When compared to WSU overall graduation rates, Monteith had somewhat lower graduate rates.
About 11 percent graduated from the Class of 1961 and 13 percent from the Class of 1962. The high attrition rate in 1961 and 1962 indicates that Monteith was unable to attract and retain sufficient numbers of commuter students, in spite of the "Hawthorne effect" generated by Monteith faculty.1
Dougherty notes that there was an attrition rate of 50 percent 2 at the freshman level which reduced sophomore classes by one-half.
This loss could have been made up by transfer students; however, Monteith did not encourage transfer students until the Fall of 1974 because of the highly structured programs.
The attrition rate was about 25 per cent at the sophomore level and 15 percent at the junior level. This meant that Monteith graduated approximately 10 percent of its students. Because of this factor, one of the Central Administrators stated that Monteith was merely a junior q college.
As the attrition rate continued beyond the first year, the economic viability of Monteith was affected. The attrition rate also raised an important question about the value of the program itself in terms of meeting the student needs.*4 2 *
Miesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., pp. 210-212. 2 Dougherty, op. cit., pp. 59-60. ^Interview Nos. 21, 34.
4Dougherty, op. cit., p. 60. 88
Compared to the withdrawals from the College of Liberal Arts,
the percentage of Monteith withdrawals from the entrants in 1959 was
almost three times. Out of the first entering class in the Fall of 1959,
eighty percent of the original class withdrew by the Fall of 1963. About
77 percent of these students transferred to other colleges in WSU.3
Secondly, Monteith never attracted the full enrollment of 1,200
students.
What were the reasons for the high attrition rate? Some left
the University entirely while others returned later to Monteith.
Students with vocational inclination or other interests transferred to other colleges in WSU. Some students left because they did not like the idea o of the Senior Essay requirement at Monteith.
In order to counteract the attrition rate and to enhance its enrollment, Monteith adopted several new programs. Because of the grow ing number of community colleges, more and more transfer students were coming into WSU, and Monteith was unable to absorb the transfer students because of its highly structured curriculum. Later on, in order to attract the transfer students, a new upper division program for Advanced
Transfer Students (for juniors and seniors) was started in Fall of 1974 with a view to enhance the enrollment.
Monteith had been instrumental in starting the Chicano-Boricua
Studies program in 1971. The program emphasized the development of
3Cassidy ét al., op. cit. , Vol. II, p. 95.
2 Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., pp. 210-212. 3 Interview No. 10. 89
reading and writing skills, the cultural and historical development of
Latino people and contemporary analysis of the political, social and
economic conditions with emphasis on Latinos in Detroit.3
In 1974, a Monteith Program for Labor School Graduates was
initiated for part-time students while they were employed full-time.
Special day and evening classes were arranged to accommodate these
students. In the same year, a Program for Engineering students was
9 organized in response to a request from the College of Engineering.
Inspite of all these efforts, Monteith enrollment was slowly
and steadily declining and the attrition rate continued to remain at
the same level.
Faculty Problems
The Dean of Monteith stated in the Self-Study report that one of
the weaknesses of the College was that it had never been a great generator of grants, contracts, and contributions. The faculty was not properly organized for fund raising. The Dean hoped the newly-formed Monteith
Alumni would generate some money and a number of faculty members were expected to write grant proposals.
He also pointed out that the individual faculty preparation for normal teaching duties took about 30 hours a week and an additional 15 hours in planning and helping students. The faculty, therefore, had * 2
3"A Better Future for All Latinos: Wayne State University," (brochure), n.d.
2Kay Hartley, "Monteith College: Report on Enrollment and Attrition," February 1975, pp. 6-7, 10-11. 90
hardly any time left for scholarly work and research.1
Riesman et al states that several Monteith faculty members had
obtained tenure without a doctorate degree and publication. Secondly,
Monteith faculty failed to establish ties with their colleagues in WSU 2 because of lack of interest and energy.
Dougherty attributes the high cost of Monteith to its policy on
tenure and the high number of administrative positions. Since the
faculty at Monteith liked their experience and they wanted to remain at
Monteith, they were rewarded with tenure.
The unbalanced distribution of faculty by rank and the high number of administrative positions give [Monteith] the highest total instructional salary costs of any experimental College in this study and the second highest cost per student credit hour. . .3
In Monteith 60 per.cent of the total faculty positions were held
by associate and full professors. Within WSU, Monteith "has the highest
proportion of tenured faculty of any unit."24 *
Friction Between Monteith and Central Administration
After President Hilberry, a new President took over WSU in 1972.
The new President reorganized the Central Administration by adding and
deleting several positions. One of the changes was that the Executive
Mates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, pp. 15-17. 2 ¿Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit. , p. 230. q Dougherty, op. cit., p. 63.
4Ibid., p. 63. 91
Vice President for Academic Affairs was replaced by the position of
provost. The chairman of the Physics Department joined the Central
Administration as the Provost.
At the same time, Woodburn Ross, the first Dean of Monteith
retired from his deanship. He was replaced by a new Dean, a professor of English from Antioch, Ohio.
Woodburn Ross was an outgoing man and he had good public relations with other Deans and the University as a whole. He was an
"old boy" at Wayne and he had strong political ties with rest of the
University.
Riesman et al observes:
The survival of Monteith in this state of competitive coexistence reflects the low-poressured, good-natured work of Dean . . ., his many friends in the College of Liberal Arts, and the belief that something with which he is associated can’t be all bad. His relaxed manner, though often frustrating to activist Monteith faculty, serve as a buffer between the College and the University.1
On the otherhand, the new Dean was calm going, and he was mainly devoted to preserving the quality of Monteith education. In order to maintain the quality of Monteith, he was reluctant to make certain compromises with the Central Administration. "Politically it was wise 2 to make these compromises." He took it for granted that somehow or other, programs that existed would continue to exist, and his job is to make it the best program. Therefore, he was not willing to make any compromise.
^Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit., p. 231.
o Interview No. 1. 92
He refused to broaden the Labor Program. He also refused to
allow Monteith to grant degrees for the Weekend College Program. He
refused the Weekend College as a part of Monteith. Thus "he cut the political ties that would have kept Monteith alive."1
He felt he was doing this to maintain the quality of education
at Monteith. On the otherhand, there were many faculty members who
genuinely felt that Monteith was not doing that good of a job. But the 2 Dean did not accept this view point.
The idea of Weekend College originated with Monteith faculty in
1972 to recruit adult students. Within a short span of three years, it reached an incredible growth with an enrollment of close to 3,000 students. It was generating more income to the University. In order for the Weekend College to offer degrees, it had to go to the University
Council for approval. Therefore, it was easier for Monteith to offer degrees; but the Dean refused this offer.
The Central Administration had to deal with the liberal Board of
Governors who wanted a Labor Program. They saw Monteith as a vehicle to implement this program and Monteith initially refused it.
Because of these factors, the President of the University took the position that Monteith was supposed to be an experimental college and that the Dean was not willing to experiment.
Monteith had not been adaptive. It was losing students.
Monteith did not broaden its field nor try to adjust to the needs of q students. "Politically, therefore, Monteith was in trouble." *
'•Interview No. 1. 3Ibid.
3Ibid. 93
The Central Administration was displeased with the unwillingness
of Monteith to accept the Weekend College. One of the reasons is that
Monteith dreamed up this idea. Secondly Monteith was an experimental
college and the Central Administration felt that Monteith should be willing to experiment with any new program.*3
According to one of the faculty:
Monteith as a college never turned that proposal down. It was the Dean who unilaterally turned it down. He turned it down because the conditions that were offered did not meet what he saw as the characteristics that Monteith ought to maintain.2
There were many faculty in Monteith who wanted the Weekend
College. If the proposal had been made to the Faculty-Student Assembly of Monteith College, it was quite possible Monteith would have adopted the Weekend College.3
According to the President of WSU, Monteith became more and more
"traditional" and less and less experimental. Monteith started with experimental programs at the beginning and became traditional in its own tradition.
Another administrator from the College of Liberal Arts made the following remarks, 'konteith administration failed to inspire confidence in the Central Administration. The Dean of Monteith was not entirely co-operative on several matters. As a result, he faced loss of confi dence. "He was ultimately branded as uncooperative."3
3Interview No. 20. 2Interview No. 20.
3Interview No. 20. ^Interview No. 34. I
^Interview No. 5. 94
Problem of Survival
The Dean states in his Self-Study Report, "To some faculty
members the survival of Monteith College has appeared questionable for
a number of years," because of the unconventional model of Monteith.
And the "fear of being destroyed" was a dream come true in the Spring of 1975, when Monteith was faced with the real threat of closure.1
The Dean further states:
When Monteith was evaluated and declared an integral part of the University in 1964, it was as if walls were built around the college to ensure its survival. But the walls also had the effect of protecting the rest of the University against the implications of the Monteith experiment for the organiza tion of general education throughout the University . . . .2
According to Keeton and Hilberry, the basic issue at Monteith is
as follows:
the most critical question Monteith presents is not whether its particular approach to liberal education is good, but whether a large urban university has the capacity to cherish and nurture to excellence within itself a relatively distinctive and autonomous small college.3* *
Regarding the survival of Monteith, Riesman et al noted, "We
think it would be a loss to higher education in general, as well as to ' . ■ ' ' ' ' 4 ’ Wayne;itself, if Monteith should not continue to be supported."
Summary
Monteith College came into existence in 1959, during the
Sputnik era, when there was a national concern about the quality of
3Yates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975 Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 28. 2lbid., p. 14. 3Keeton and Hilberry, op . cit., p. 233.
^Riesman, Gusfield, and Gamson, op. cit. p. 233. 95
American higher education in general and general education in
particular. Monteith came into existence at a time when there was a
great deal of concern about the quality of general education at WSU.
Thus, Monteith came as a response to internal and external pressures
to improve general education.
Monteith was based on a cluster college model. Even though
Monteith was to remain as a non-residential college, it was to provide
the academic and intellectual atmosphere of a small residential college by emphasizing the idea of college as a community. Monteith's educa tional program was unique in many respects even though the ideas were borrowed from several notable small colleges.
Monteith College was an experiment in non-elite undergraduate education. It aspired to impart an education of high academic status to commuter students who came mostly from lower and lower-middle class residents of the metropolitan area of Detroit.
According to several research studies cited in this chapter,
Monteith was successful in imparting the high quality education comparable to an elite college. Monteith students changed more dramati cally in personality and in intellectual pursuits when compared to other selected small colleges. Monteith students were found to be more intellectual and brighter than their counterparts at WSU.
While Monteith was not well-known in its own backyard, it was better known at the national level. The North Central Administration singled out Monteith and praised its education in its report of 1963.
When a delegation of principals from India visited Monteith in 1960, they were very much Impressed by Monteith’s education. 96
Because of its radical approach to general education, there was opposition from the Liberal Arts. When Monteith was considered for adoption in 1964, several questions were raised about Monteith in the
University Council. Because of the strong support from President
Hilberry, and the Central Administration the University Council voted to adopt Monteith College on an experimental basis.
One of the thorny issues of Monteith was the high cost of education. The Gray Document envisioned that Monteith’s cost will be comparable to that of College of Liberal Arts. As Monteith moved away from its economic model, the cost factor became a forgotten question.
Monteith’s cost per SCH was almost double that of College of Liberal
Arts for the academic year 1974 - 1975.
The second problemwas the attrition rate of students. In spite of its academic achievement, Monteith was plagued with the problem of attrition. On the average Monteith was able to graduate about 10 per cent of its students annually. The attrition rate raised an important question about the value of the program itself in terms of meeting the student needs as seen by themselves.
When the new President took over WSU in 1972, he reorganized the
Central Administration, At the same time, the first Dean of Monteith retired from his deanship. He was replaced by a new Dean from Antioch,
Ohio. Because of the change in the Central Administration and the change in the administration of Monteith, Monteith lost its political ties with the counterparts of the University.
The new administration of Monteith was not willing to go along with some of the suggestions proposed by the Central Administration to 97
adopt new programs—especially the Weekend College program, because
Monteith was concerned about preserving the quality of its core program.
Therefore, the Central Administration took the view that Monteith had lost its experimental nature and had become "traditional in its own tradition."
Because of these factors, the survival of Monteith became an important issue at WSU. CHAPTER V
EVENTS LEADING TO THE PHASE"OUT OF MONTEITH COLLEGE
Thé Role of Central Administration
Budgetary Problems of WSU
The ups and downs of the auto industry does have an effect on ,
the financing of higher education in Michigan.1
The state of Michigan has been in a tight financial situation
since 1970, and the contribution of the state of Michigan to public
higher education has declined in percentage and has not gone up in
proportion to the cost of living. Therefore, all public higher educa- 9 tional institutions were forced to tighten their budgets.
The following table shows that Wayne State University was faced with a deficit of $2.3 million for 1975-76 fiscal year.
On March 21, 1975, the new President of WSU made a presentation
of the budgetary outlook of the University for fiscal year 1975-76 at
the President-Deans conference and emphasized the need for balancing the budget as required by Michigan law. He presented "a very bleak
financial picture." Then he began to list a number of options available
in order to reduce expenditures for the coming year. He pointed out
that these were not "proposals" but merely "notions." At the end of the
Riesman et al, op. cit., p. 54.
3Interview No. 34.
98 99
TABLE IO1
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY BUDGET SUMMARY JUNE 6, 1975
(Actual) 1973-74 1974-75 Increase and 1975-76 Revenues and Amended Base Decreases Proposed Expenditures Budget for 1975-76 Base Budget
Total Revenues $86,934,099 $97,226 ,000 $ 9,420,100 $106,646,100
Total 86,967,813 97,226 ,000 11,683,000 108,909,000 Expenditures
Difference — ($33,714) - 0 - ($ 2,262,900) ($2,262,900)
3"Wayne State University Budget Summary," June 6, 1975. (For details See Appendix D-l)_. list was mentioned "Monteith/College of Lifelong Learning". When this
came up for discussion, it was almost time for adjournment. The new
President raised a question as to why there should be two experimental
colleges, and he suggested that it would be a good idea to combine
Monteith with College of Lifelong Learning. As it was time for adjourn ment, he went through the rest of the list of possibilities. And nothing more was mentioned to the Dean of Monteith.3
The new Dean shared this information in the week of
April 28, 1975 with the faculty, the clerical staff and the Student 2 Board of Monteith College in three separate meetings.
In response to the new President’s presentation of March 21 at the Deans' Conference, the new Dean of Monteith sent a memorandum to the new President, entitled "Centralization and the Role of the Deans:
Some Principles and Recommendations." In the memorandum, the new Dean made several recommendations stating that the deans should have more authority and responsibility on budget control, personnel decisions, program decisions, and University management. He contented, "The authority of the deans must be commensurate with their responsibility."h 3
The new Dean further stated:
3Yates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College" (A Report prepared for the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools), August 13, 1975, pp. 28-36.
2Ibid., p. 29.
^Memorandum from Yates Hafner to the President, "Centralization and the Role of the Deans: Some Principles and Recommendations," April 14, 1975, p. 1. 101
Each dean should be given a firm budget and allowed to spend it as he sees fit (after of course, seeking appropriate counsel). Authority to transfer funds between personnel and non-personnel categories should be vested in the dean. If a dean overruns his budget he should be fired. The dean did have control over expenditures in the period 1960-65, I am told, then it gradually eroded.3
He also pointed out that if it is necessary to reduce allocations,
this should be done in consultation with individual deans concerned.
The New Dean’s Emphasis on General Education
In view of the new President’s notion to merge Monteith with
College of Lifelong Learning, the new Dean presented a paper in April
1975 at the President-Deans conference. "Program of General Education
at Wayne State University: The Story of Monteith College" was the thrust
of this paper, thus emphasizing the importance of general education and
the role of Monteith at WSU. The paper summarized the main features and
objectives of Monteith, explaining the experimental aspects of Monteith’s
program. He acknowledged Monteith's indebtedness to certain features of
Antioch, Columbia, Harvard, St. John’s and the College at the University
of Chicago. He pointed out that "In the years between 1959 and 1975
Monteith has attracted much national attention, several books and dozens
of articles have been published about it, and many universities have
imitated Wayne State by establishing their own versions of Monteith
. . . ." He pointed out that the North Central Association praised
Monteith in their report presented in the year 1966.
3Ibid., p. 1.
2 Yates Hafner, "Program of General Education at Wayne State University," April 1975, (A paper presented at the President-Deans Conference), p. 3. 102
The new President responded to the new Dean’s proposal by his
willingness to appoint a Presidential Commission on General Education.
He requested the new Dean to write a charge to the Commission.
The Dean completed the draft on May 15, 1975 and it was
entitled, "Presidential Commission on General Education." The draft proposed that in order to strengthen general education, the President
appoint a "Commission to study those programs and to recommend specific ways of strengthening general education at Wayne State University.
Whatever one’s chosen specialty, general education is so indispensable that it deserves the most careful scrutiny, nurture and preservation.1,1
The Commission was to particularly review papers submitted by the Deans of Monteith College, College of Liberal Arts, and the College of Lifelong Learning and "identify the critical differences between the three programs."3
The first report was to be submitted by Monday, December 1, 1975 and to be followed by a final report on March 1, 1976.
The Proposal to Phase out Monteith
The formal proposal to phase out Monteith College dates back, to
May 7, 1975. According to the new Dean, the new President proposed to the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors, in a closed session, the phasing out of Monteith. The phase out was to be accomplished over
'■"Presidential Commission on General Education: Wayne State University," May 15, 1975, p. 1.
2Ibid., p. 3. 103
a period of three or four years because Monteith was "alleged to be too
expensive and to duplicate the programs of other colleges of the
University."*3 *
The new Dean stated that this was done "without consulting the
University Council, the faculty of Monteith, or any dean of the University 2 beforehand ... ."
In the proposal entitled "Monteith College of Lifelong Learning,"
the new President proposed to merge Monteith with the College of Lifelong
Learning. This proposal was discussed in a closed meeting with the
Executive Committee of the Board of Governors.
It was suggested in the proposal: "Reduction of programs will require that we take steps to reduce administrative costs and program modifications that under more favorable fiscal conditions we would not consider."3
The implementation of the proposal was to save approximately
$200,000 in 1975-76 (one fourth of the total budget), $400,000 in
1976-77, $600,000 in 1977-78, and the total budget of $800,000 thereafter.4
Memorandum from the new President to the Board of Governors, "Monteith College", June 3, 1975, p. 1.
Mates Hafner, "The Monteith Problem: A Brief Chronicle of Signal Events, May 7 to November 14, 1975," p. 1.
3"Monteith College of Lifelong Learning," n.d., p. 1.
4 Ibid., p. 3. 104
It was further pointed out that Monteith's "programs have
become (in a sense) traditional (in their own way)."3 The proposal
emphasized that the University might not be able to afford Monteith
under existing financial stress.
If the Board approves the proposal, the implementation of the
proposal was to be carried out in consultation with the following
groups :
Upon your approval of these recommendations, I would enter into immediate discussion with the Dean of the College, followed rapidly by discussion with: (a) the Dean of the College of Lifelong Learning; (b) the Dean of College of Liberal Arts; (c) the President-Deans Conference; (d) the University Council Policy Committee; (e) the University Council; (f) the faculty of Monteith College. . . .12
The purpose of the discussion was to decide on the nature of the
implementation of the proposal.
The nature of these discussions is to be in the way of information sharing of this decision, followed by the identi fication of the specific steps to be taken in the implementa tion, and any particular problem to be handled.3
The new President foresaw that there would be some opposition to the proposal.
As you would recognize, while I believe this to be a viable and important budget reduction alternative, it would be received with some degree of hostility and could not be accomplished without Board of Governors' backing and approval.
Changes are not easy, but they are sometimes essential. I believe that this is an essential but difficult modification at this point in history.3
1 2 xIbid., p. 1. Ibid., p. 4. 3Ibid. , p. 4. ^Ibid., p. 4.
3Ibid., p. 5. 105
The new President entreated with the Board of Governors to go
along with his proposal, "Because there are literally millions of
dollars involved (over the next few years), I sadly but certainly advise 1 you that this is a step that should be undertaken."
It was further pointed out that as the proposal has to go
through the University Council and other faculty bodies, that implemen
tation for 1975-76 might not be possible.
On. May 8, 1975, the new Dean had scheduled an appointment to see
the Vice President to discuss the physical facilities of Monteith. When
he went for the appointment, he was surprised to see that the new
President, the Provost along with the Vice President were waiting to see
the new Dean.
The new President informed the new Dean that he had proposed
Monteith’s phase-out during the closed session of Board of Governors.
If the Board adopted the plan, then the freshmen class would not be
permitted to enroll for the Fall of 1975; but students who are already
enrolled would be allowed to complete their degrees in Monteith. He
said this would result in saving of $200,000 in the first year and
$800,000 by the end of the phase out.
The new President stated that the faculty would be reassigned to the College of Liberal Arts or to the appropriate units in the University.
The name of "Monteith" was to be kept somehow in the University.
"The plan was simply to save money; ... no degradation of the quality
1 Ibid., p. 5. 106
of Monteith’s program."3 As Monteith SCH was not high enough, it is difficult to support it any more. He pointed out, "He desired to make necessary budget reductions in ways that would ensure the greatest A possible goals to the greatest possible number of students.
According to the new Dean, none of the other deans knew of the plans so far. The reasons for privacy and secrecy of the decision was that the administration should be able to make decisions without any pressure from demonstrators. Therefore, the Dean was admonished to keep it a secret.3
The new Dean was "stunned by the surprise announcement."
He offered a counter proposal that the new President appoint a
Presidential Commission on General Education to evaluate the three major programs for undergraduates, namely, Monteith College, the College of
Liberal Arts and the College of Lifelong Learning.
The new President agreed to the idea and asked the new Dean to draft a charge to the Commission and recommend the names of persons to
. 4 serve on it.
Even though the new President was in agreement with the counter proposal offered by the new Dean, the new President stated that the work of the Commission and the dismantling of Monteith must proceed simultaneously, and they were to plan the details of the merger.
Mates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 30.
2Ibid., p. 30.
3Ibid., p. 31.
4Ibid., p. 31. 107
The new Dean pointed out:
It is important, . . ., especially in times of grave financial trouble, to be judicious and circumspent and not to rush head long into panicky decisions under financial pressure; we must preserve the best qualities of education even while trimming the budget.
By May 20 the rumors of the closing of Monteith were strong in the Campus. Therefore the new Dean, between May 9-20, requested the new
President several times to tell the faculty about the plan. The new
Dean was told to state that he was not authorized to discuss the matter.
The Provost, however, agreed to discuss the matter with the Faculty-
Student Assembly of Monteith College. The Provost met with the group on
May 31. But he "neither dispelled or confirmed the rumors. He tried to 2 keep the plan concealed."
On May 30 the President-Deans Conference was held and the new
President made an announcement of the plan to phase out Monteith. "The deans were not being consulted but informed." He also informed them that the Commission on General Education would be formed with the Dean of
Monteith College as the Chairman.
After the meeting, the new Dean wrote a letter to the President , on June 2,offering a counter-proposal. He wrote that the proposal "will serve the interests of the entire university better than a precipitous merger of Monteith with some other unit."4
1Ibid., p. 31. 2Ibid. , p. 32.
3Ibid., p. 32.
Metter from the new Dean to the new President, June 2, 1975, p. 1. 108
The new Dean stated that before making any decision to phase out
Monteith, the Board should wait till the Presidential Commission on
General Education presented their report.
He pointed out that it was not possible to save $200,000 by not
admitting freshmen to Monteith in 1975-76.
I could cite dozens of arguments why it would be a disaster for Wayne State University to eliminate Monteith College in 1975-76. Both in that year and in the long run it would cost more money than it would save to abolish Monteith. The politi cal, economic, and, most seriously, the educational risks would be enormous . . . .1
But the most important consideration is a very deep one that I have no words to express; I allude to the betrayal of a certain quality of life, mind, and human development to which so many Monteith faculty members have devoted their lives and which has been so meaningful for hundreds of students.2
He also raised the question of proper academic procedures which
ought to be taken before abolishing an entire college even in times of
financial emergency.
In conclusion the Dean stated, "I humbly beseech you to share „3 this letter with the Board at your earliest convenience.
The next day, June 3, the new President scheduled a meeting with
the Provost and two Vice-Presidents and the new Dean to discuss the
proposed concentration in Labor Studies sent in by the new Dean on
May 16, 1975. The executive officers were in favor of the program and
the Provost agreed to present the proposal to the University Council. * 3
3Ibid., p. 1. 2Ibid., p. 2.
3Ibid., p. 3
Spates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 33. 109
As the Central Administration was in favor of the new program, the new
Dean was optimistic that the counter-proposal outlined in his letter of
June 2 would save Monteith.
The Decision to Phase out Monteith
On the very same day, June 3 the new President proposed in a
closed session with the Board of Governors to phase out Monteith. He proposed alternate arrangements for 300 freshmen enrolled at Monteith
for the fall of 1975 and that the faculty of Monteith be placed in other
University units during the summer.
He stated that according to the report "The Goals of Monteith
College", which was prepared for the University’s self-study for the purpose of 1976 North Central Association reaccreditation, Monteith had failed to fulfill its basic aims of providing as many students as possible with Monteith's general education program. Further, Monteith never reached its target figure of 1,000 to 1,200 students. Instead the enrollment had declined from 900 to 750 students.23
The new President suggested that the general education opportunities could be met by the Weekend College program in the College of Lifelong Learning.
He also pointed out that when discussions were initiated concerning the possibility of Monteith’s adopting the Labor Studies
Concentration program, Monteith was not interested in it. However, 2 recently some interest has been shown by Monteith faculty.
Memorandum from the new President to the Board of Governors, "Monteith College," June 3, 1975, pp. 1-2.
2Ibid. , p. 2. 110
The new President asserted:
It should be emphasized that the phasing out of the Monteith College Program here outlined is not to be taken as a step to improve the academic quality of Wayne State University, but rather as a step made painfully necessary by the budgetary problems of the University . . . .3
The new President presented the following data about the three
general education programs at WSU.
TABLE ll2
COMPARATIVE DATA FOR THREE GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ' WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, 1974 - 75 '
Total Cost per FYES* Credit Hours Credit Hour
Monteith College 360 17,000 $48
College of Lifelong Learning 1,900 117,000 $30
College of Liberal Arts 14,900 668,000 $27
*FYES stands for full-■time equivalent students.
The new President stated:
It is then for these reasons, at a time of great financial problems which are likely to last for a number of years, that it is necessary to come to a decision which will result in annual savings in excess of $800,000 within 3 years.
The Board of Governors decided in favor of the new President’s proposal of merging Monteith with the College of Lifelong Learning.
Another closed session of the Board of Governors was to be held on June 11 and the new Dean was invited to the meeting.
Mhid. , p . 2. 2Ibid., p. 2.
^Ibid., p. 2. 111
The Board's Budget and Finance Committee was to hold its public meeting on June 11, 1975. And the decision to phase out Monteith was
to be formally ratified at the public meeting of June 13.
Rationale for the Phase Out
Because of the financial problem, the Central Administration had
to take certain steps to reduce "administrative costs and make program modification that under more favorable fiscal conditions" would not be considered.*3 2
The new President stated: "We strictly looked at the budgetary, fiscal problems. We are trying to do a $106 million program for $100 million. The question is where to eliminate money. It was a pure, hard 2 fiscal decision." '•
He further stated, "One of the principle issues I am looking at 3 is to eliminate whatever is duplicative in nature." Every school and every program came under consideration. And in broad general terms, it was felt that Monteith's general educational program is not dissimilar in nature compared to the educational program and end results of general education offered by the College of Liberal Arts.
Monteith College and the College of Lifelong Learning "represent in several ways this University’s experimentation with undergraduate 4 education."
3,,Monteith College of Lifelong Learning," n.d., p. 1.
2Interview No. 34. 3 Interview No. 34. ^"Monteith College of Lifelong Learning," n.d., p. 1. ... Monteith College (after 16 years) hardly considers itself experimental in its approaches to a Liberal Arts education .... These programs have become (in a sense) traditional (in their own way). But they are expensive and we may not be able to afford them under existing financial stress.1
Therefore, Monteith’s program can be absorbed by these two 2 colleges.
Figure 2. Proposed Transfer of Monteith Programs to Other Units
The new President pointed out that while Monteith College had been in existence for the past sixteen years its enrollment was declining. Students were not opting £or Monteith. While the Monteith program was a good and interesting experiment, it was costing more than
the Liberal Arts program. This was a program now serving approximately
500 students out of 40,000 and it was not perhaps worth the extra cost put into it. 1 2
1Ibid. , p. 1.
2Ibid. 113
"As we screened thè three programs on general education—Liberal
Arts with 17,000 students; College of Lifelong Learning, 4000 students;
and Monteith 500 students—fiscally it was not justifiable.1,1
Repercussions to the Proposal
University Council Suspends
When the Board of Governors decided to phase out Monteith on
June 3 in a closed session, it created a great repercussion in the
University community.
The initial reaction of antagonism came from the University
Council, because the University Council was not consulted on an
important academic matter. Therefore, the University Council met on
June 4 under the chairmanship of the Provost. One of the Council
members asking for recognition from the Chair, "MOVED that the Council
deal immediately with a special order of business, relating to the
abolishment of Monteith College without the consultation of the
University Council."2 The motion passed with a two-thirds vote.
A number of questions were put to the Provost regarding faculty
input in this decision.
Another member, "MOVED that the Council suspend itself, subject q to the call of the Policy Committee."
Another member pointed out, "In view of the failure of the
administration to consult with this body, . . . the Council should
Mnterview No. 34.
Minutes of the University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, June 4, 1975, p. 377. 3Ibid. 114
suspend any further meetings until the Policy Committee receives
assurances of some consultation regarding academic policy of the
University."1
The motion passed subject to the call of the Policy Committee.
Reaction from Monteith College
At this juncture, the new Dean decided not to go along with the
decision of the new President to keep the proposal a secret, and he
"should work vigorously to persuade the governors not to adopt the 2 president’s plan."
The new Dean shared the information with the students and faculty
of Monteith. The students organized themselves to save Monteith. The
Board of Governors were contacted. The press was informed. The national
AAUP, the North Central Association, members of the Michigan State
Legislature, alumni of Monteith, officers of the United Auto Workers, leaders in the Latino Community of Detroit, and prominent educators across the country were informed about the crisis facing Monteith.
The faculty of Monteith had individual conferences with the Board of Governors. The new Dean tried to clarify several misconceptions that prevailed among the University faculty and the Board of Governors.
Although the new Dean had been invited to the June 11 meeting, on June 5, he circulated a letter entitled "The Question of Monteith" to the University Community. The letter stated:
1Ibid.
Mates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 34. 115
Since recent events and new stories have raised a serious question about the future of Monteith College and the survival of coherent interdisciplinary general education of high quality in an urban university, we want to assure the Univer sity Community and the public that no decision has been made to curtail, merge, phase out or abolish the programs of this College.
iThe new President] reported to us yesterday that, although the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors has considered the possibility of merging Monteith with another college, it has not voted to recommend any such action . . . ,3
He stated: "It saddens us and is a measure of our challenge to note that some of the most powerful political elements in our society show but poor comprehension of the critical urgency of general education in our times ..."z
In this letter, the new Dean once again reiterated the need for
WSU to improve the quality of general education for all undergraduates.
On June 9, a special meeting of the President-Deans Conference was called to continue the discussion of Monteith. The provost was absent for this meeting.
The Associate Provost for Academic Program and Planning distributed statistical data on college/school cost factors, general fund expenditures, fall enrollments, student credit hours, full-time equivalent students
(EYES), and cost per student credit hour for the five year period, 1970-71 through 1974-75. (See Appendix d)•
One of the members emphasized that the cost factor did not tell 3 anything about the value of a program.
"Letter from the new Dean to the University Community, "The Question of Monteith," June 5, 1975, p. 1.
2Ibid., p. 2.
^Minutes—Special Meeting, President-Deans Conference, June 9, 1975, pp. 1-2. 116
Then a copy of the Dean's letter of June 5, "The Question of
Monteith" was also distributed. The new Dean pointed out two major
issues which he felt were crucial.
1. Whether or not it was economically and educationally sound to abolish Monteith; and
2. What were the proper academic procedures to be followed when drastic curtailment of programs is needed because of financial stringencies?3
He stated that this issue might lead to further complications
with AAUP and North Central Association.
The new Dean proposed that instead of making a "precipitious
decision" to abolish Monteith, the University should wait till it hears
from the Presidential Commission on General Education.
He stated: "The Monteith experiment is nationally known and he
suspects that WSU would become a national laughing stock if it was
eliminated."3
The new President responded that because of the time restraints
imposed on the Board, the Board of Governors should decide now and that
the academic problems could be handled by the University later on. He
indicated the discussion would continue in the next meeting and he
invited the Deans to suggest alternative ways of saving $200,000 without
Having to phase out Monteith.4
In response to the suggestion from the new President, the new
Dean of Monteith wrote a 6-page memorandum to the new President, entitled
"Budget Reductions and Fiscal Responsibility."
1Ibid., p. 1. 2Ibid. , p. 1.
3Ibid., p. 2. 4Ibid., p. 2. 117
The new Dean pointed out that $200,000 which was to be saved by
abolishing Monteith represents only•18 percent of the total University budget of $108,909,000.
He raised several questions about the proposed increase and decrease for 1975-76. (See Table 12). He pointed out that the budget increase for academic units ranges from .1 percent to 12.7 percent. He suggested, "If these increases are reduced by $200,000 (8.0%) being distributed equitably, Monteith*s proposed budget can remain the same in 1975-76 as in 1974-75.”1
He concluded:
Finally, we must urge in the strongest possible terms that no long-range academic policy or program changes be made that are based on short-term economic forecasting or incomplete academic data or unprofessional program assessments.*2
The Board’s Budget and Finance Committee was scheduled to hold its public meeting on June 11. The new Dean, members of the Steering
Committee of the Monteith Faculty-Student Assembly, the President of
Monteith Student Board and the faculty of Chicano-Boricua studies
Program requested to address the Board’s Budget and Finance Committee on
June 11.
Meanwhile, the Board of Governors was presented with a set of documents entitled "Papers Presented to the Board of Governors", which was a compilation of 13 reports in support of Monteith. These reports mainly emphasized the importance of general education and Monteith’s
Memorandum from Yates Hafner to the new President, "Budget Reductions and Fiscal Responsibility," June 11, 1975, p. 4. 2Ibid., pp. 5-6. 118
TABLE 12
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS AND INCREASE FOR 1975-761 WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
Proposed Reductions
College Proposed Base of Reductions/ Previous Unit Increase % (74-75)
Education $ 250,000 - 5.2
Engineering 100,000 - 3.6
Liberal Arts 350,000 - 1.9
Student Affairs 50,000 - 2.8
Monteith College 200,000 -24.4
Proposed Increase
Business Administration 60,000 + 3.4
Health and Physical Ed. 8,000 + .7
Law 70,000 + 3.8
College of Lifelong Learning 313,000 + 8.9
Medicine 1,911,000 +12.7
Nursing 50,000 + 3.3
Pharmacy & Health 50,000 + 4.9
Social Work 28,000 + 2.8
Academic Work 13,000 .1
Student Aid 1,300,000 +28.4
General Support 2,902,000 +14.5
^Memorandum from Yates Hafner to the new President, "Budget Reductions and Fiscal Responsibility," June 11, 1975, pp. 2-3. 119
contribution to general education. The new Dean pointed out that according to the WSU Self-Study Task Force, the two fundamentals goals of
the University are: (1) "To maintain and strengthen programs in general education; and (2) try to solve the problems of depersonalized education."3
The new Dean claimed that Monteith’s efforts were directed toward accomp lishing these two goals.
The report stated that the present administration does not seem to understand the importance of general education. Therefore, "an academic decision of great magnitude is being presented in the guise of a simple budgetary adjustment."z
The proposal to combine Monteith with College of Lifelong Learning is a "merger hoax." "But this is NO MERGER. It is an ABOLITION."3
The new Dean argued, therefore, that the governors should reject the new President’s proposal.
The new Dean raised several questions about the validity of economics, as the saving of $200,000 constituted only one-tenth of the total deficit, which is less than one-five-hundredth of the University budget. Therefore, the Central Administration is trying to eliminate an 4 entire college to realize a minimal saving.
Mates Hafner, "Monteith College," Papers Presented to the Board of Governors, June 11, 1975, p. 2.
Mates Hafner, "Abolishing Monteith: The Educational Consequences for WSU, " Papers Presented to the Board of Governors, June 11, 1975, p. 1.
3lbid., p. 3.
Mates Hafner, "The Question of Economics," Papers Presented to the Board of Governors, June 11, 1975, pp. 1-2. 120
The new Dean asserted: "There has been inadequate scrutiny of
the figures, inadequate planning, inadequate deliberation, inadequate
examination of all the arguments and all the consequences." As there
is an academic decision involved here, a decision must not be made in
such a hasty, rash, and poorly reasoned way.
He argued that most Monteith students are at WSU because of
Monteith. When one considers the potential tuition loss from Monteith’s
incoming Freshman class, it would amount to $153,000. Therefore, the
actual saving would be about $46,100 and not $200,000 as stated by the 2 new President.
The new Dean complained that while he was held responsible for the enrollment, he did not have the authority to do anything about enrollment, because the admission was handled by the Central Administra tion. The Admission Office felt that all colleges should be treated alike and Monteith should not be given any special publicity. The new
Dean cited these reasons as major obstacles to increasing enrollment.*3
He blamed the Central administration:
The proposal to phase out Monteith has been a carefully guarded secret of the University AdministrationThis secrecy has been maintained by not only ignoring the moral right to know of those vitally affected by this proposal violating the
3Ibid., p. 4. 9 Yates Hafner, "Observations Concerning the Alleged Savings of $200,000 to be Realized as a result of the Elimination of the Monteith College Freshman Class in 1975-76," Papers Presented to the Board of Governors, June 11, 1975, pp. 1-2. 3 Yates Hafner, "Monteith and the Enrollment Problem," Papers Presented to the Board of Governors, June 11, 1975, pp. 1-5. 121
legal obligations incumbent on the President by University statue, union contract, etc. When the President presented his proposal to the Governors, he had carried out NONE of the required consultations.1
He argued that the Deans, the faculty union, the University
Council, and the faculty and students of Monteith were not consulted.
There was a lack of careful study and planning by the Central administra
tion on this important issue.
On June 10, the Labor School Alumni Association of the Labor
School sent out a news release, strongly opposing the phase out of
Monteith. They also opposed the merger of Monteith with College of
Lifelong Learning. Monteith should be preserved without changes. They pointed out that the financial burden should be equally shared by all 2 colleges.
The Chicano-Boricua students stated that the elimination of
Monteith would abolish the uniqueness of the program and they expressed
their opposition to the undemocratic way the decision has been carried out.*3
Intervention by AAUP
On June 11, 1975, Jordan E. Kurland, Associate General Secretary of American Association of University Professors sent a telegram to the
President of WSU.
3Yates Hafner, "The Proposal Phase out Monteith College: Legal- Procedural Issues," Papers presented to the Board of Governors, June 11, 1975, p. 1. n "The Case of Chicano-Boricua Studies Program," Papers Presented to the Board of Governors, June 11, 1975, pp. 1-3. 3From "The Labor School Alumni Association to All Media," for Immediate Release, June 10, 1975, Papers Presented to the Board of Governors, pp. 1-3. 122
INFORMED BY WAYNE STATE AAUP CHAPTER OF TENTATIVE VOTE BY BOARD TO PHASE OUT MONTEITH COLLEGE. HIGHLY CONCERNED OVER REPORTS THAT BOARD HAS TAKEN THIS TENTATIVE STEP WITHOUT REQUISITE FACULTY INVOLVEMENT. APPLICABLE STANDARD SET FORTH BY NATIONAL AAUP STATES THAT DECISION TO DISCONTINUE ACADEMIC PROGRAM 'WILL BE BASED SOLELY ON EDUCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE FACULTY AS A WHOLE OR AN APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE THEREOF.' URGE THAT BOARD NOT TAKE FORMAL ACTION ON THIS IMPORTANT MATTER ABSENT REQUISITE FACULTY PARTICIPATION AND RECOMMENDATION.1
The new Dean pointed out the implications of the telegram to the
Board of Governors' Standing Committee on Budget and Finance. He stated
that "the administration of WSU should not run the risk of inviting a
censoring of this university by the National AAUP institutional gover
nance .... Such an action usually has dire consequences for the entire
university."z It would damage the good name of the University and it
would make it difficult to attract foundation and government grants; and
it would affect faculty recruitment.
The Board's Budget and Finance Committee in Favor of Monteith
When the Board's Budget and Finance Committee met on June 11, the
new Dean addressed the Committee for an hour and fifteen minutes. The
summary of his argument in support of Monteith are as follows:
1. Monteith's program in Wayne State University is unique and is not duplicated by any other unit of the University; its high quality had not been questioned by the president, and it enjoyed a distinguished reputation nationally.
2. It is not administratively feasible to begin a phase out of Monteith in 1975-76 and realize the presumed savings. In fact, the move would very likely cost the University more money than it would save. * 2
Mates Hafner, "An Addendum on Proper Academic Procedures," June 12, 1975, p. 1.
2Ibid., p. 2. * 123
3. Proper academic procedures had not been followed by the executive officers of the University in proposing the phase-out to the Board.3
Dean Emeritus Ross and other faculty members of Monteith also made a brief presentation.
After some discussion, the Budget Committee "voted four to three with one abstention to permit Monteith to admit a freshman class for
1975-76, to have Monteith share in the burden of achieving a balanced budget for 1975-76, and to review Monteith during the 1975-76 fiscal year."*2
The Board of Governors in Favor of Monteith
The public meeting of the Board of Governors was held on June 13,
1975. The motion passed by the Budget Committee in favor of Monteith had the effect of recommendation to the Board.
Governor Pincus presented a brief financial report based on the discussion which took place on June 11. He pointed out that the Univer sity should make a special appeal to the Michigan Legislature for funds to meet the excessive utility costs which was expected to be higher in 1975-76 than in 1974-75.3
The President of Monteith Faculty-Student Assembly spoke in favor of Monteith, stating that it has provided "excellent programs for 16 years, none of which were being duplicated in any other part of the
3Yates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, p. 35. 2 Ibid., p. 35.
■^Minutes, Board of Governors—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, June 13, 1975, p. 2589. 124
University.1,3 Therefore, the students of Monteith and Student-Faculty
Council expressed strong opposition to eliminating the College. She proposed that "every facet of the University should tighten its belt 2 and abstain from frivolous purchases."
Governor Einheuser made a motion "that a freshman class be admitted to Monteith College for 1975-76, and that the College share in the burden of achieving a balanced budget for 1975-76; and further, that 3 Monteith College be reviewed during the next fiscal year."
The new Dean again emphasized the high quality and uniqueness of
Monteith College and its national reputation. He pointed out the lack of academic procedures in proposing the elimination of Monteith.
Governor Calloway stated that Monteith College has come to discussion in the Board during the past four or five years because of the budget problems, and because "the College was held in such high esteem „4 that the proposed action has been postponed.
When the motion was put to a vote, it was carried with a vote of
5-3 in favor of Monteith.5
A second motion was passed by the Board, requesting that the new
President submit a balanced budget showing a reduction of $25,000 instead of $200,000 for Monteith.
1 21 3 Mb id. , p. 2591. Ibid.
3Ibid. 4Ibid. , p. 2591.
5Ibid., p. 2592.
Mates Hafner, "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," August 13, 1975, pp. 35-36. 125
The new Dean stated:
So, instead of adopting on Friday the 13th a University Budget that would have contained the proposed dismantling of Monteith College as a footnote which would scarcely have come to the attention of the public that day, the Governors publicly rebuked the President’s proposal and openly pro claimed the continued existence of Monteith College . . . .
Some of the Governors advised the new Dean to increase its enrollment and productivity and reduce its expenses in order for the survival of Monteith beyond 1975-76. As a result Monteith volunteered to accept a reduction of $50,000 in 1975-76.
The new Dean pointed out, "The challenge facing Monteith is to see whether the same important qualities of general education for which the college has been celebrated.nationally in the past can be maintained 2 at a significantly lower cost . . . ."
The Resignation of the Provost
Even though the President initiated the proposal to phase out
Monteith, the idea of closing Monteith to save money seemed to have originated from the Provost, who had been opposed to Monteith since its inception.
As the Provost did not handle the issue properly, he was given the choices of either administrative leave or resignation.
The Provost informed the Board of Governors that the faculty favored closing Monteith, and they took his word for it. As a result, the Monteith issue created a national scandal because the Central
1 2 Ibid. Ibid. 126
Administration did not follow proper procedures. As the Board of
Governors' reputation was involved in this issue, they were displeased
with the Provost and he was pressured to resign.3
Review of Educational Policy at WSU
After the University Council had decided to suspend itself on
June 4 subject to the call of the Policy Committee, the Policy Committee
met on June 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 to study the University Council’s role 2 concerning educational policy at WSU.
On June 13, the Secretary of the University Council sent a
memorandum to the members of the University Council stating that the
Policy Committee had generated some recommendations after exchanging
their ideas with the new President, the Provost, and the Executive Vice
President. "It was agreed by all parties that it was important the
Council speak to the issues of educational policy and that the effec
tiveness of faculty input be assured."3 It was further agreed that
changes were essential in the Statutes of the Board of Governors concern ing the role of the University Council and its functions.
The Policy Committee unanimously supported the Statute changes.
The new President also supported these changes and he agreed to propose
interview No. 20.
9 Memorandum from the Secretary of the University Council to members of the University Council, "Actions of the Policy Committee," June 18, 1975. Memorandum from the Secretary of the University Council to members of the University Council, June 13, 1975. 127
these changes to the Board of Governors. (For details of the statute
changes, see Appendix C-l).
The Policy Committee also recommended that the Budget, and the
Curriculum and Instruction Committee jointly examine Monteith and report back to the University Council as expeditiously as possible.3
After the negotiations were fruitful, the University Council reconvened to deal with the critical issue.
The Role of Ad Hoc Monteith Committee
The University Council reconvened June 18 and at the request of the new President, formed an ad hoc committee to examine Monteith in the context of the University's budgetary problems.
The Committee was "charged with studying the role of Monteith
College with respect to the mission of Wayne State University"; and the
"study will concern itself with both the function and cost of Monteith
College as it relates to the University as a whole."2
Mr. Bails, one of the Monteith faculty, submitted the following motion, which was passed.
"FURTHERMORE, The University Council is responsible for a systematic and continuing review of all educational programs that affect the University as a whole;
"THAT, The question of Monteith College not be examined in isolation but in the context of other university programs and the total University budget, and
Memorandum from the Secretary of the University Council to Members of the University Council, "Actions of the Policy Committee," June 18, 1975.
Minutes, University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, June 18, 1975, p. 379. 128
"THAT, The Committee seek detailed and continuing information not only from the administration but from the programs under study."l
The Secretary of the University Council sent a memorandum on
June 20 to the members of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee and
to the members of the Budget Committee, emphasizing the above-mentioned motion.12
At the request of the President, the Policy Committee charged the
Curriculum and Instruction Committee and the Budget Committee to study
Monteith. In a joint meeting held between these two committees, a sub
committee was formed to study Monteith. The members represented five
colleges and the Admissions Office.
Sandra Brown, Admissions and University Counselor
C. Norman Guice, Liberal Arts
Bernice Kaplan, Liberal Arts
Leon Lucas, Social Work
James McMicking, Engineering
Ruth Morrisey, Nursing
Sol Rossman, Liberal Arts, Chairman
Helen Suchara, Education
The Policy Committee voted to change the status of the sub committee to an ad hoc committee.
1Ibid., p. 379.
2 Memorandum from the Secretary of the University Council to Members of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee and Budget Committee, "Charge to the Budget and Curriculum and Instruction Committee," June 20, 1975. The Ad Hoc Committee followed the following procedures in
evaluating Monteith.
1. The new Dean of Monteith was informed of the formation of
the Committee and was asked to send all pertinent data.
2. The new Dean and his representatives were invited twice for
hearings about Monteith.
3. Representatives from the Institutional Research of WSU were
consulted.
4. Consultations were held with the ex-Provost, the new Provost, and the Assistant Provost.3
5. The Committee met a total of nine times throughout the Summer and into the Fall (the first meeting on July 3 and the last one on October 20) and dealt with additional information in evaluating Monteith.3
Monteith College submitted about 1,000 pages of documents to the
Ad Hoc Committee. On September 18, the new Dean and the representatives of Monteith met with the Ad Hoc Committee. The representatives asked the Committee whether they had any negative criticism of Monteith. The
Committee answered, "With the possible exception of an expression of disappointment with the combined program between Monteith and the Law 3 School . . ., they had no criticisms to offer nor had they received any."
Memorandum from the Chairman, Ad Hoc Monteith Committee to Secretary of the University Council, "Summary Report of ad hoc Monteith Committee," October 27, 1977, p. 1. 2Ibid., pp. 1-2.
Memorandum from the Dean to concerned parties, "The Monteith Problem: A Brief Chronicle of Signal Events, May 7 to November 14, 1975, p. 2. 130
On October 10, the Monteith representatives met with the
Committee for the second time. Again the representatives asked the
Committee whether they had any negative criticism about Monteith. "They
answered no to both questions. In fact, they expressed several compli ments for Monteith."3
✓ The Monteith representatives described some of the problems to
the Committee and they explained what was being done about them. They requested that the next meeting be devoted to the budgetary aspects of
Monteith.
The Monteith representatives were never told that the October
10th meeting was to be the last hearing of Monteith.2
On October 20, the Ad Hoc Committee made an oral report to the
Policy Committee and after a brief discussion, the Policy Committee endorsed the recommendation to phase out Monteith. On October 27, the 3 Ad Hoc Committee released its two-page summary report.
The Committee reported that Monteith is one of three colleges offering general education. There are differences between the three and the differences are primarily in the structure of their approaches to general education. Secondly, the cost per credit hour in Monteith is significantly higher than the other two colleges. "The quality of the basic Monteith program is not in question. The problem reduces to a university-wide financial one."4
Mbid. , p. 2. 2Ibid., pp. 2-3.
Memorandum from the Chairman , Ad Hoc Monteith Committee to Secretary of the University Council, "Summary Report of ad hoc Monteith Committee," October 27, 1975, pp. 1-2 4Ibid., p. 2. 131
The report stated that the current and forseeable financial
situation of the University is dire. "Given the current and continuing
financial plight of the University and the duplicative and costly nature
of Monteith, the Committee regretfully recommends that Monteith be
phased out."3 The Committee recommended that the tenured faculty be
reappointed in other units and that due consideration be given to the
renewal of non-tenured faculty.
On October 28, the Secretary of the University Council informed
the new Dean that the University Council would discuss the adoption of
the "Summary Report of the ad hoc Monteith Committee" on November 5, 1975.
The Role of Ad Hoc Task Force on University Budget
Four months later, after the formation of the Ad Hoc Monteith
Committee, an Ad Hoc Task Force was created on October 14, 1975 by the
new President to review the University's budget and make recommendations.
On November 10, 1975, within a period of four weeks, the Ad Hoc Task
Force submitted its report entitled "Budget Reduction Alternatives."
The Committee consisted of seven members—one of them, a faculty
of Monteith and another, the President of Monteith Faculty-Student
Assembly.
The Committee was charged with the following responsibility:
a. To address ourselves to the immediate problem of balancing the 1975-76 Budget in light of a pending reduction of state appropriations.
b. To address ourselves to the potential state policy under consideration by the Governor to reduce base
Ibid., p. 2. 132
allocations to institutions of higher education by 8% for 1976-77 in his recommended budget due for submission to the Legislature in January.3
After a series of ten meetings between October 22 and November 10
the Committee recommended budget reduction alternatives in 20 areas.
The Task Force projected a deficit of $2.05 million for 1975-76
and $8.2 million for 1976-77. In order to provide lee-way for the budget
cut, the Task Force exceeded the nominal levels by 25 percent. The Task
Force recommended reductions in excess of the projected deficit—a total
reduction alternatives of $3.96 million as an emergency cut for 1975-76
r\ and $3.54 million as continuing cut for 1976-77.
In reference to Monteith, the Ad Hoc Task Force made the following statement. "This College is presently undergoing review of its continuance by other University Committees. If phased out, ... we believe substantial savings can be generated in 1976-77."’’
The Task Force further recommended that the Labor Studies and
Chicano-Boricua programs be transferred either to the College of Liberal
Arts or to the College of Lifelong Learning.
Debate on the Decision to Phase out Monteith
On November 4, just before the reconvening of the University
Council on November 5, the WSU Chapter of the AAUP met with three representatives of the University Council in order to discuss the place ment of Monteith faculty. The AAUP representatives prepared a document
Memorandum from Ad Hoc Task Force to the President, "Budget Reduction Alternatives," November 10, 1975, p. 4.
2Ibid., pp. 2, 7. 3ibid., p. 4. 133
for the University Council. The document was based on the guidelines of
the AAUP policy for terminating a program due to financial exigency. The
document urged that a program termination "should be based on educational
reasons and that, in either case, national AAUP policies should be followed when dealing with the problem of what to do with Monteith faculty members."3
The AAUP representatives agreed not to distribute its document if the University Council would give assurance that the AAUP policies on faculty reassignments would be implemented.
The new President wrote a letter to the University Council on
November 5, and he requested the new Provost to deliver his condensed report, which supported the abolition of Monteith strictly on financial grounds.
The new President stated: "It is my personal desire to continue all of our major academic programs because each serves uniquely; but because of the fiscal necessity to reduce programmatic offerings, . . ."2
He further stated:
It is only after the most intensive and agonizing reappraisal of the budget and financial restraints imposed upon Wayne State University this year . . . that I have reached the conclusion, again that, consideration should be given to phasing out Monteith College .... It is on budgetary and fiscal factors that I am recommending this, not on academic standards.
Mates Hafner, "The Monteith Problem: A Brief Chronicle of Signal Events, May 7 to November 14, 1975," p. 4.
Metter from the President to the University Council, November 5, 1975, p. 1.
o Ibid., p. 1. 134
In response to "The Continuing Story to Date" circulated by the
new Dean, the new President stated, "With regret, I cannot accept his
report of being either factual or characteristic of my positions as he
has stated them.1,1
He pointed out, "As your Ad Hoc Committee will tell you, I am
sure they were in no way pressured by me or by any of the administration.
1 never once communicated with them on this subject, . . ."2
Debate by the University Council
The University Council met on November 5 under the chairmanship of the newly chosen Provost. The meeting began at 1:38 p.m. and lasted
till 5:05 p.m. and the Council could not arrive at any decision.
It was moved and seconded that cameras and press be allowed in the room for this important event.
As a large number of non-members of the Council wished to be heard, the Council approved that at the discretion of the Chair, the non-members would be allotted a total of 30 minutes for their presenta tion and individual speakers be permitted not more than 5 minutes.
The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee made a presentation of the report. The Chairman noted that the wording of the recommendation "’that Monteith College be phased out as a program discon tinuance and that protections as described be provided for the faculty of
Monteith College,’" was determined in view of the AAUP policy document
"in order to avoid unintentional declaration of financial exigency."
Mb id. , p. 2. 2Ibid. , p. 2.
Minutes, University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, November 5, 1975, p. 399. 135
The recommendation of the Committee was moved for adoption and
seconded.
The Secretary of the University Council reviewed the history of
the Monteith issue.
The first speaker was Colleen Jensen, a Monteith student. She
stated that the quality of Monteith College is not a luxury but a standard. She also spoke about the community-life atmosphere of
Monteith.
The next speaker was Arnold Robinson, a Monteith advanced transfer student. He stated that out of the four different colleges he attended,
Monteith was the first school which offered him a challenge. Angel
Gonzaleg spoke in favor of the Chicano-Boricua program.
Then the new Dean addressed the Council. He referred to "The
Continuing Story to Date," which were distributed to the University
Council members.
He stated, "... the abolishment of a College is unprecedented at Wayne; that Monteith enjoys a distinguished reputation among prominent scholars; and that many faculty in professional schools were attracted to
Wayne State University because of Monteith reputation."3
He argued that Monteith needed to be abolished even though its cost was less than one percent of the University budget. He pointed out the quality of Monteith education as attested to by several scholars. The
Center for Research and Development in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley compared Monteith with 14 other similar schools
^University Council Minutes, November 5, 1975, p. 399. 136
and found that "students in Monteith showed the greatest gain in scholarly and intellectual habits of any student in the fifteen colleges they studied between 1966 and 1970."*3
He stated that Monteith was asked to accept a $25,000 cut, but they had volunteered to take $50,000. For Interim, Budget 2, Monteith was asked to take a cut of 3 percent or $24,375, but Monteith volunteered to take a cut of $40,682, which was rejected. So far Monteith had accepted a cut of $91,418 or about 11 percent of the 1974-75—"the greatest percentage cut of any academic program in the University."z
Monteith had never operated on a deficit budget since its inception. During 1973-74 it had turned in a surplus of $14,000. The student body was 11 percent larger and the student credit hour produc tion 14.85 percent higher than 1973-74. Therefore, the Dean questioned,
"why the ad hoc Committee recommended the dissolution of the College rather than saving it various ways."3
He recommended the preservation of Monteith. Once again, he urged the Council that the President set up a Commission on General
Education which he favored on May 30, 1975.
The final guest speaker was Alfred Stern, one of the senior faculty of Monteith. He also questioned the committment of Wayne State
University to general education. He said that he had been to Lansing and many legislatures felt it was an error to abolish Monteith. The
Legislature has guaranteed Mr. Stern a hearing and he would take advan tage of that time.
1Ibid., p. 400. 2Ibid., p. 400.
3Ibid., pp. 400-401. 137
At this time, the Provost announced that the time allotted for outside presentations was over and that it was time for the University
Council to debate the issue.
One of the members raised a question about the relocation of
Monteith faculty. The new Provost answered that there is an annual turnover of five percent of faculty in the Colleges of Lifelong Learning and the Liberal Arts. Therefore, relocation of Monteith faculty should not be a problem.
In response to this issue, Mr. Stagner, offered an AMENDMENT to the Report of the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee.
THAT the Council’s approval of this recommendation is premised on an assumption that non-teaching programs will be reduced by comparable amounts so that the burden of this financial shortfall shall not be carried primarily by teaching programs;
THAT the University Council establish a committee to address itself to establishment of procedures for relocation of faculty consistent with:
a) The wishes of the University Council expressed above with respect to contractual commitments to the faculty;
b) The national standards of the AAUP concerning discontinuance of a program not mandated by financial exigency;
c) The contractual agreement between the Wayne State University- AAUP and Wayne State University.3
The motion was seconded by Ms. Peters.
Ms. Lepold noted that Monteith was never told that its costs were exceedingly high. In response, the new Provost quoted from a memorandum from the ex-Provost to the new Dean, dated 1/31/74. The new
Dean answered that "there was no specific order to reduce cost-credit hour."2
3Ibid., p. 401. 2Ibid., p. 401. 138
At this juncture, Mr. Herman, a Monteith faculty member,
introduced a substitute motion that instead of phasing out Monteith that
it be asked to bring its cost down to a level comparable to other under
graduate programs. It was seconded by Ms. Ronan.
RECOMMENDED that instead of Monteith being phased out—
a) the College be instructed to reduce its average costs per student credit hour to such a degree that by the year 1977-78. Isic] two academic years from now, it be able to demonstrate that it can reduce these costs to a level comparable to those of other undergraduate programs in the University;
b) that while it is recognized that some aspects of the present Monteith program will have to be modified or discontinued because of the reduced financial resources, attempts be made to retain those which are of value to the University;
c) that the administration of the University co-operate fully with the faculty and administration of Monteith to attain such a goal.
Mr. LeBel raised the question as to whether Monteith could reduce
its cost comparable to Liberal Arts program without losing its value of
personalized instruction. In reply Mr. DeSilva stated that "the use of
cost per student credit hour was not a valid mechanism for measuring the
cost of curriculum."^
The new Dean issued a paper, explaining the substitute motion.
He stated, "we are not eager to make more drastic reductions than 11% we have already accepted for this year."3 But Monteith would be willing to
take cuts if necessary. Then he outlined how it would affect the program.
1Ibid., p. 402. 21 Ibid. , p. 402.
Mates Hafner, "A Commentary on the Substitute Motion Regarding Monteith College that Was Introduced at the Meeting of the University Council on November 5, 1975," November 12, 1975, p. 1. 139
He pointed out that the substitute motion would be "entirely unworkable" without the support and co-operation of the University administration.1
Max Coral, Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus and former Associate
Dean of Monteith wrote a letter to the Members of the University Council.
He pointed out the national and international reputation of Monteith. He stated that getting rid of Monteith would not solve the budgetary prob lem of Wayne State University. He appealed for the members to vote 2 against the main motion.
Mr. Lombard indicated that there are other units which might be more expendable such as, some of the vice presidents, intercollegiate athletics, Center for Black Studies, the Urban Study Center, and other borderline programs.
Mr. Bernstein noted that eleven years ago the University Council was denied an opportunity to make a decision on the continuation of
Monteith. President Hilberry then stated that the experimentation of 3 Monteith was not an issue and it was established permanently.
Finally, the Council moved to adjourn at 5:05 p.m. with the
Monteith issue still being undecided.
On November 10, just two days before the reconvening of the recessed meeting of the University Council, the Ad Hoc Committee on
Monteith released its full report of five pages.
1Ibid., p. 3.
Metter from Max Coral, Professor Emeritus, College of Liberal Arts and former Associate Dean and Professor of Natural Science at Monteith to members of the University Council, November 11, 1975. q University Council Minutes, November 5, 1975, p. 404. 140
The report was centered around two major concerns of the
University due to the budgetary problems.
The first concern was that the "quality of education has
declined for a large number of students at Wayne State University,"3
mainly because of the loss of full-time faculty in all schools and
colleges for the past five years, especially in Education and Liberal
Arts. Meanwhile, the class size has increased for the same period.
"The second concern of the Committee is that large numbers of
students are now being deprived of educational opportunities in many of
the programs of the University . . ."*2 so that many qualified applicants
are turned away each quarter.
Therefore, the University cannot afford to ignore the educational
needs of the approximately 38,000 students.
The Ad Hoc Committee recommended, "Given these educational needs,
the limited resources of the University, and the duplicative nature of
Monteith College, the Committee recommends a program discontinuance of 3 Monteith College to be accomplished by a phase out."
The University Council reconvened on November 12 at 12:55 p.m. to
continue the discussion of the Monteith issue.
The new President addressed the Council in regard to budgetary problems and he gave a summary of the report of the Task Force, stating
the need for budgetary reduction. He also pointed out the availability of a 600-page Self-Study Report prepared for the North Central Association
3Report of the ad hoc Monteith Committee, November 5, 1975, p. 2.
2lbid., p. 4. 3lbid., p. 5. 141
and stated this would become the basis of a Long-Range Planning
Commission, which he would establish shortly.
The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee summarized the previous
discussion emphasizing the budgetary cutbacks and its impact on the quality of education at Wayne State University.
Ms. Kaplan spoke about the issues of quality and duplication of
Monteith program. She pointed out that three major units provide general education at WSU. "There were both similarities and differences in their approaches but in fact their goals were all directed to self-educated persons."3
She stated that the integrative and cross-disciplinary approach is unique to Monteith education. However, there are other systems in which cross-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and inter-department approaches are practiced. Because of this factor, Monteith cannot claim uniqueness to its approach.
She also spoke on the problem of attrition rate, which is a measure of student judgment. Among the entering freshmen, only 10 percent 2 received Monteith degrees.
Sol Rossman pointed out that in 1963 when President Hilberry requested the continuation of Monteith, "the Council at that time did not feel it could give its stamp of approval nor its disapproval. It questioned the evaluative criteria used by the Monteith Self-Study." He * 2
^University Council Minutes, November 12, 1975, p. 406.
2 Ibid., pp. 407-408. 1.4.2
stated, "Monteith College . . . was regularized as a College of the
University by President Hilberry."1
He also emphasized:
It was the feeling of the Committee that Monteith had little impact upon the University, addressing itself to few students and not serving as a model for rest of the University as hoped for by President Hilberry, and it is largely duplicative in its effort.2
He stated that it vas the conclusion of the Committee that
Monteith faculty were not very much involved in research and publication.
About 47 percent of the faculty do not hold doctorate degrees.
In conclusion, Rossman said:
. . . They did not indicate that Monteith was a poor program, nor did they support the claim for high excellence. It is within that framework that the statement 'The quality of Monteith is not at issue' was intended by the Committee.
Mr. Erickson questioned as to why the academic matters were not presented in the first meeting. Rossman answered that he did not consider them as central to the discussion.
Finally, when the substitute motion by Mr. Herman was put to 4 vote, it was lost to the main motion.
Then the discussion centered around the main motion.
Mr. Lombard amended the main motion by stating, "That all funds saved by the abolishing of Monteith College be used to augment the various Schools, Colleges and the Library." The amendment was carried.3
1Ibid., p. 408. 2Ibid., p. 408.
4Ibid., 3Ibid., P- 408. p. 410.
3Ibid., P- 410. 143
Mr. Herman objected to the main motion. He pointed out that
previous to the second meeting, there was only a presentation of the
summary report and the full report was only delivered in writing two
days prior to this meeting. The new report presented some new issues
which he had not realized would come in for discussion.3
Mr. Rossman replied that this report was in response to the
question raised about the quality of Monteith.
Mr. Grano stated, ". . . Monteith College was not of sufficient
high quality that it should be maintained at the expense of other 9 programs."
When the main motion with amendment was put to vote, it was 3 carried with 37 ayes, and 20 nays, and one abstention.
The new Provost remarked that this was a trying and painful and
unpleasant decision and the vote should not be viewed in terms of "defeat"
or "victory". "The administration certainly does not consider the outcome
as a victory."4
He further stated that "he would insist that the phase-out of Monteith College would be done as humanely and honorably as possible."5
In the forthcoming University Council meeting on December 3, the new Dean, Mr. Herman and Ms. Leopold requested time to address the Council because some new issues were raised in the November 12 meeting and
Monteith did not have time to respond to those issues.
3Ibid. , p . 411. 2Ibid., p. 412.
3Ibid. , 4Ibid. , P- 412. p. 412. 5Ibid., P« 412. 144
In response to the request, the Policy Committee which met on
December 1 unanimously adopted the following resolution: "That their
response to certain remarks made in the course of debate on Monteith
College be provided in writing to the University Council to be received
as a communication."3
The Policy Committee, according tó the wishes of the University
Council of November 12, appointed an Ad Hoc Committee with the Provost
as Chairman to advise on Procedures for Placement of Monteith Faculty.
On December 2, Secretary of the University Council forwarded a memorandum to the President on December 2 with the following recommenda
tions as endorsed by the University Council on November 5 and 12.
WHEREAS, The educational goals of large number of students are being thwarted by the unavailability of programs or classes and by a lowering of the quality of education.
WHEREAS the Council believes that first priority must be given to students who cannot be served elsewhere in the University and that the widespread problem of the decline and quality of educa tion must take precedence over the interest of a small group.
THEREFORE, Given these educational needs, the limited resources of the University, and the duplicative nature of Monteith College,
The University Council RECOMMENDS that a program discontinuance of Monteith College be accomplished by a phase-out;
The University Council recommends a phase-out because it will permit students who are presently enrolled in Monteith to complete their degrees and because it will provide a transition period for an orderly and equitable absorption of faculty into appropriate positions in the University.2
^University Council Minutes, December 3, 1975, p. 416.
Memorandum from the Secretary, University Council to the President, '*Monteith College," December 2, 1975, pp. 1-2; see also Minutes, Board of Governors—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, December 12, 1975, pp. 2662-2664. US
It further recommended that "the national standards of AAUP
concerning discontinuance of a program not mandated by financial
exigency," be used.1
Debate by the Board of Governors
On November 14, the new President sent out a memorandum to the
Board of Governors, fully endorsing the phase out of Monteith. He
stated:
I am aware this morning of the trauma and uneasiness being experienced by students and faculty at Monteith. It is, imperative, I believe, that we should act with under standing in helping students and faculty alike to feel that we are going to be mindful of their need for reassurance . . . .
He recommended that the core program of Monteith be transferred
to Liberal Arts programs or College of Lifelong Learning; Chicano-
Boricua program to College of Lifelong Learning; Labor Studies Concen
tration to the Department of Economics; and Pre-Professional Programs to
the Liberal Arts.
He urged that the process of changes "should start at once in q the best interests of all involved."
Just two days prior to the Board of Governors meeting, Monteith
was able to convince the Michigan State Legislature to pass a resolution 4 on December 10 in favor of continuing Monteith. 1 * 3
1Ibid., p. 2.
9 Memorandum from the President to the Board of Governors, "Monteith and the Prospects of a New Complex Academic Unit," November 14, 1975, p. 2.
3Ibid., p. 6.
Michigan Senate Resolution, No. 316, December 10, 1975. (See Appendix c-2 for full text of the Resolution). 146
The Resolution praised the educational excellence and national reputation of Monteith College and the value of its services to the
Detroit Community. The Resolution concluded, "RESOLVED BY THE SENATE,
That we strongly urge the Governors of Wayne State University to find alternative methods for continuing the existence of Monteith
College . . . ."3
Meanwhile Monteith College proposed the "Monteith Plan" which was released to the media, rather than through appropriate instruments of University decision-making bodies.
The Policy Committee protested against the Senate Resolution as well as the "Monteith Plan." On December 11, the Policy Committee took the following action:
The Policy Committee instructed the Secretary and Mr. Stagner to protest most vigorously the involvement of the Legislature and the press in the internal academic affairs of the University, which the Policy Committee believes poli ticizes the University, magnifies the divisions among us, and jeopardizes the role of the faculty in the governance of the University.2
On December 12, the Board of Governors meeting convened. Governor
Calloway moved that the recommendations of the University Council and the
University Administration to phase out Monteith be adopted. It was seconded by Governor Keydel. The main thrust of the resolution was:
That the Board of Governors, with reluctance but with recognition of the above factors, direct the University administration to proceed to phase out Monteith College over a period not to exceed three years from this date, . . .
Mbid.
Memorandum from the Secretary, University Council to Members of the University Council, "Actions of the Policy Committee, December 8 and 11, 1975," January 7, 1976, p. 2. Minutes of the Board of Governors, December 12, 1975, p. 2664. U7
The Secretary of the University Council called attention to the
State Senate Resolution 316, which was passed in December 10. He also criticized the "Monteith Plan" which was released to the media rather than through appropriate administrative channels. He pointed out:
. . . the University Council Policy Comminittee was recently reconvened, and he was instructed to protest vigorously the use of such procedures which the Policy Committee considered to be a grave threat to the academic process .... It was the Policy Committee's view that to involve the Legislature and the press in the internal academic affairs of the University served only to politicize the University, to magnify the divisions within the University, and to jeopardize the role of the faculty in the governance of this University.3
He further emphasized that it was of the opinion of the Policy
Committee that "it was important that a decision be made immediately either to phase out or to retain Monteith College."2
Governor Einheuser questioned the "serious allegations" about the quality of the College. Governor Jeffry questioned that if the
College is discontinued, how would the Monteith students be able to complete their programs.
The next speaker was the Dean of Monteith. He emphasized the quality and excellence of Monteith program. In response to the criticisms levelled against "Monteith Plan," the Dean defended by stating that since
University Council decided to close down Monteith, he felt the only appeal left was the Board of Governors. Moreover, the University was a public institution, and the media had the right to know what is happening.3
3Ibid., p. 2665. 3Ibid't p, 2665.
3lbid., p. 2666. The "Monteith Plan" which was prepared by the MonteithCoordinating
Committee, proposed to maintain the quality of Monteith program in a more
cost effective manner. The proposal projected to increase the current
SCH of 14,000 to 30,000 in 1976-77 and to 42,600 in subsequent years.
It also hoped to bring the cost per credit hour to $30 in 1976-77 and
$27 in 1977-78 and $30 in 1978-79.1
In order to reduce overhead costs, the plan recommended the consolidation of social service centers, such as, the Center for Urban
Studies, the Chicano-Boricua Program, the Center for Black Studies, and
the Center for Labor Studies. The new Dean appealed to the Board of
Governors to adopt the "Monteith Plan."
In response, Mr. Ross Stagner spoke against the plan. He pointed out that "throughout his many years of college teaching he had never seen such an extraordinary case which attempted to bring public and political pressure on a decision regarding educational policy."»f 2
Nancy Christensen, President of the Student-Faculty Council of
Monteith College, stated that the students have the right to quality education. She pointed out the lack of input by Monteith students in the decision making process. She also urged the Board of Governors to adopt the Monteith Plan.
Jane Hill, Vice President of the local chapter AAUP spoke on the traditional concerns of the AAUP and pointed out that the Monteith Plan was not in accordance with the University Statutes because it did not go through the University Council.
'ibid., p. 2666. Ibid., p. 2666. John Oliver, Secretary of the Liberal Arts Faculty Council spoke
against the Monteith Plan. He stated that the Liberal Arts Faculty
Council unanimously disapproved of Monteith Plan in its December 11 meeting.
Three Monteith students spoke in favor Monteith, emphasizing the rights of students to quality education.
Finally, when the resolution supporting the phase out of 2 Monteith was put to vote, it was approved with a roll-call vote of 7-1.
At the conclusion, Governor Einheuser, a former student of
Monteith stated that he was disappointed at the lack of positive activities since June 1975 in regard to saving Monteith. "Because of the large amount of creative talent within the University, if there was a sincere desire to maintain Monteith College, some means could have been A found to make it cost effective."J
Repercussions to the Final Decision
Monteith's Strategy for Survival
On June 13, 1975 the new Dean had been temporarily able to stall the decision to phase out Monteith. This was interpreted by several
Monteith faculty that the tide was turning in their favor.
Meanwhile there was a strong rumor that Monteith would be closed down. As this would affect the enrollment, Monteith tried to counteract the rumors by placing several advertisements in the major news media emphasizing the uniqueness of Monteith.
Mb id. , pp. 2667-2669. 2Ibid., p. 2669.
3Ibid., p. 2669. 150
When the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee recommended the phase out of
Monteith on October 20, Monteith was again faced with the problem of
survival.
The new Dean wrote another paper, "The Continuing Story to Date"
on October 29. In this report, he briefly outlined the major events
starting from May. He stated that in times of financial crisis, "the
main challenge facing Monteith . . . was to maintain high quality while 1 reducing costs sharply." To this effect, Monteith accepted a $91,000
cut for the 1975-76 year.
Secondly, Monteith tried to counteract the public impression by
an extensive advertising campaign. In spite of this fact, Monteith 9 experienced, "the greatest no-show rate in history."
Thirdly, the new Dean pointed out the record of the 13 graduating
classes of Monteith. An incomplete survey showed that out of 1,102
graduates, 49 have become medical doctors, 72 lawyers, 230 educators
(including two academic deans). Monteith has accomplished this with 3 "average ability" students.
The new Dean described the meeting between the Ad Hoc Monteith
Committee and the Monteith representatives as "cordial and frank."
During the hearings, "not a single criticism was mentioned."*4
The Chairman of the Committee said that there was no deadline set for the Committee report, but he speculated that the report would be available by March 1976.
Mates Hafner, "The Continuing Story to Date," October 29, 1975, p. 2.
2Ibid., p. 2. 3Ibid., p. 3.
4Ibid. , p. 3. 151
The new Dean stated: "To our knowledge, no evidence was presented by members of the committee, by ourselves, or by other parties to justify the proposition that to eliminate Monteith would redound to the greater good of the University."1
After October 10th meeting, the Monteith representatives suggested that they would be willing to meet with the Ad Hoc Committee and make a close analysis of the budgetary problems in the next meeting.
The new Dean also questioned the unwritten-oral report given by the Chairman of Ad Hoc Monteith Committee to the Policy Committee. While the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee did not find anything against the quality of Monteith’s program, they said it was duplicative in nature because there were two other colleges which provide general education. Therefore, the new Dean raised several questions in regard to the report.
He pointed out that the initial recommendation to abolish
Monteith was initiated by the Central Administration, and "it was merely stamped by the faculty committee and the Policy Committee chaired by the
[Hew Provost;]."2 He again reiterated the quality of Monteith by stating that the Committee was saying that Monteith is "desirable, it’s good, but it’s not important."3
In regard to the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee report, the new Dean made the following remarks:
By making a recommendation that would thus entail a catastrophic metamorphosis of the University's priorities, the committee appears to have gone beyond its ad hoc mission
'ibid., p. 4. 2Ibid., p. 6.
3Ibid., p. 7. 152
and to have become a policy-generating body for the entire University. The ad hoc mission was to respond to a budgetary crisis and find ways of saving money, not to propose a radical shift in educational policy. It was to have done this by examining Monteith not in isolation but in the context of other programs and in relation to the mission of WSU. The present mission of WSU includes Monteith and the objectives for which Monteith was insti tuted and has been maintained for sixteen years. The ad hoc committee's recommendation would deform this mission and deface the University.1
The new Dean stated, "The speed with which the ad hoc committee
has done its work . . . suggests that it has been pressured by the
administration to act quickly."2 He complained that the new President
has not.set up the Presidential Commission on General Education which
was announced on May 30, 1975.
The Dean asserted therefore that "a vote by the University
Council to ’phase out Monteith’ would therefore not seem to be a
reasonable or honorable act."3 He appealed to the members, "If there is
one thing we ask, one mission to which we entreat our colleagues, it is
the call to scholarship, the call to pursuit of the ideals of objectives and judicious inquiry. . . . "4
On November 3, the new Dean tried to mobilize support from the
deans and directors of other subcolleges in the State of Michigan. He
sent out memorandums to all six deans, calling for an informal meeting
on December 12 to discuss the future of cluster colleges.5
1Ibid., p. 8. 2Ibid. , p. 9.
3Ibid., p. 10. 4Ibid., p. 10.
Memorandum from Yates Hafner to the Deans of Cluster Colleges, "The Future of Small Colleges in Public Higher Education in the State of Michigan," November 3, 1975, pp. 1-2. 153
In the University Council, which met on November 5, the new Dean
attacked the Ad Hoc Committee report and upheld the quality of Monteith
College. "The quality of our program has been attested again and again
by competent evaluators from outside Wayne."3
He emphasized:
I am daring the Council to look at what others outside Wayne, who have no vested interest in Monteith, have said about us. And if the chief faculty body, the University Council, does not judge an academic programs in terms of educational values, who, pray, tell, in this university will make such a judgment? I should think that the quality, uniqueness, and reputation . of a college would count for something in the deliverations of a university faculty.3
Once again he emphasized the importance of a quality general educa
tion and he urged the Council to support Monteith. And he urged the new
President to establish the Presidential Commission on General Education which the Dean had suggested to the President on May 30.
In response to the new Dean's charges, the new President stated
that neither he nor the administration applied any pressure on the Ad Hoc
Committee. "I never once communicated with them on this subject."3 The new President, in his memorandum to the Members of the University Council, made the following remarks:
With regret, I cannot accept his report as being either factual or characteristic of my positions as he has stated them. I ask that you judge my positions by what I have said in this memoran dum, which I believe in every way consistent with everything I have said previously about this unofrtunate situation.4
Mates Hafner, "Remarks to the University Council," November 5, 1975, p. 3. ■
2Ibid., p. 4.
Metter from the President to the Members of the University Council, November 5, 1975, p. 2.
4lbid., p. 2. 154
When the University Council voted 37-20 in favor to phase out
Monteith, the new Dean and a senior faculty of Monteith "both vowed
that the struggle to save Monteith would continue despite the Council’s final vote."1
The new Dean said, "’We are not beaten yet.’"
Dr. Dave Murphy, Assistant Director of the Senate Fiscal Agency
stated that Monteith has been receiving $500,000 for several years. If
the University accepts Monteith’s fund, then there has to be a Monteith
College.12
The editorial column of the student newspaper of WSU commented:
"Yesterday, the rabbits of the University Council voted in favor of the
destruction of Monteith College, the last barrier in the path of WSU's q evolution into an assembly-line student factory."
It also commented on the "president’s authority" and the "power
lessness" of the University Council. "They have refused to consider any
other alternatives, perhaps because the [new President] has refused to
give them any."4
After the Board of Governors voted to phase out Monteith, the new Dean issued another major paper entitled "To Set the Record
Straight."
In the paper, the new Dean pointed out that since the
inadequacies of financial reasons to phase out Monteith could not hold
1Jan B. Sands, "The Council Says No: Monteith Appeals to State Legislature," The South End, November 13, 1975, p. 1. 2Ibid., p. 1. 3Ibid., p. 1.
4Ibid., p. 1. 155 water in the University Council on November 5, the Ad Hoc Committee came up with new series of arguments. "The burden of their case rested on the assertion that Monteith College was in no way of exceptional value," and it was on this factor the University Council voted to phase out Monteith.1
The Ad Hoc Committee never questioned the quality of the program during the hearings with Monteith’s representatives. The new Dean said,
"the committee rested its case on a series of educational and programatic arguments in which fact, fiction, misrepresentation, and conjecture were curiously combined."2 He lamented the fact that Monteith was never given a chance on the floor to answer the serious allegations.
In his paper, the new Dean defended several "misstatements and allegations" made by Rossman and Kaplan. He pointed out that:
. . . Professors Rossman and Kaplan, in the name of the ad hoc committee, presented no proper academic evidence to the University Council is shameful. That the University Council voted on this question without demanding such evidence is also shameful.3
He raised the question: "is the University council willing to stand by decisions reached without proper evidence?"4
He argued that the only basis for evaluating Monteith is on the basis of academic evaluation of its program. Figures concerning student enrollment, attrition, and GPA do not tell anything about the qua lity of Monteith program. While the goals of Monteith education and other
Mates Hafner, "To Set the Record Straight," n.d., p. 1.
2Ibid., p. 2. 3Ibid., Appendix I, p. 6.
4Ibid., Appendix I, pp. 9-10. 156
general education programs might be similar, the methods of achieving
these goals were different.
The new Dean concluded his case by stating:
Considering Wayne State's mission as an urban university providing educational opportunities for predominantly working- class students who in the majority of cases are of the first generation from their families to attend college, is there any excuse for not providing students with value for their educa tional dollar? We can see no excuse.3
After the Board of Governors decided to phase out Monteith, the
new Dean continued to fight for the survival of Monteith. Therefore,
the Central Administration was faced with the problem of implementing
its decision. In order to solve the problem, the Dean was asked to
resign or go on administrative leave. In his place, the Chairman of
Humanistic Studies of Monteith College was appointed as Acting Dean in
April 1975.
Reaction from Monteith Students
When the President proposed to close down Monteith, the reaction of students varied from extreme concern to outright anger. On June 13,
1975 the students organized a picket line outside the Board of Governor's meeting.
When the Monteith students heard the recommendations of Ad Hoc
Committee, the Monteith Student-Faculty Council met on October 23 and passed the following resolution, which was conveyed to the Members of the
University Council.
Whereas, the University Council ad hoc Committee to study Monteith has suggested to the Council that Monteith be dissolved, and,
3Ibid., Appendix 8, p. 34. 157
Whereas, the S-FC [Student-Faculty Council] realizes the importance of Monteith to the University,
Therefore, be it resolved, that the S-FC reaffirms its opposition to the dissolution of Monteith.1
The letter appealed to the members of the University Council to defeat the recommendation.
When the writer made several visits to Monteith College after
January 1976, he observed that while the spirit among the Monteith faculty was dampened, it was the students who were active in fighting the cause of Monteith. There were a handful of dedicated students who met regularly at the Monteith Center to plan their strategy.
After the Board of Governors had voted in favor of the phase out,
Monteith students decided to take the issue to Court. The rationale for the decision was that there was a ,conspiracy by the Central Administration to close down Monteith. Secondly it was a closely guarded secret and the initial proposal to close down Monteith was discussed behind doors.
Thirdly, the Board of Governors might not have authority to close down
Monteith on financial grounds alone.
The students appealed for funds from the alumni and several foundations, and they also decided to sue the University. The Monteith faculty had mixed reaction to the proposal. One of the senior faculty remarked that many instructors felt demoralized and were, therefore, reluctant to get involved.
Metter from Ms. Nancy Christiansen, Chairperson, Student-Faculty Council, to Members of the University Council, October 30, 1975.
Menise Crittendon, "Monteith Prepares for Court Battle," The South End, April 12, 1976, p. 1. 1 58
The Central Administration and the Board of Governors expressed
their confidence that they did have the right to phase out Monteith.*3 2
A Legal Defense Committee was set up by the students. The
Committee stated that the main objective of the lawsuit "was to obtain a 9 permanent injunction to keep the College open."
When the new Provost sent out letters to Monteith students on
December 16, 1975 encouraging them to transfer to other schools and colleges, the students complained that they were being pressured to change to other programs.
The students stated:
The GRAND PLAN is the way in which the University Administration will eliminate Monteith and it is based on one simple assumption: that Monteith students will trans fer to different colleges rather than continue in a college which is being phased out . ... the University Adminis tration, under direction from Provost, . . . seems to have taken license to accelerate this dictum.
The Student Council admonished other students not to hurry the transfer under pressure. "The longer you wait, the stronger bargaining n4 position you hold.
A Monteith Rumor Control Service was established to counteract false rumors and to help Monteith students make proper decisions. The
3Kathy Koran, "Stage Set for Monteith/BOG Court Battle," The South End, April 19, 1976, p. 3.
2"College-Wide Meeting set for Thursday," Prime Mover, p. 1.
3 "Monteith Students: Beware of the Grand Plan," Prime Mover, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 1.
4 Ibid., p. 1. 159
new Dean appealed to the students to contact the service if they
wanted to verify any information.3
Michigan State House Resolution
Meanwhile Michigan State Legislature introduced House Resolution
335 on March 16, 1976—similar to the one passed by Michigan Senate on
December 10, 1975.
The Resolution was sponsored by Rep. Dennis M. Hertel of Detroit
and Rep. Richard A. Young of Dearborn Heights. They stated, "the
resolution is not an attack on the judgment of the WSU Board of
Governors, but a show of support for Monteith College. While the
legislature is cutting funds, we cannot tell the Board of Governors how
to spend the money.The Resolution stated that Monteith is one of the
best colleges in the Country and the Board of Governors should try to
seek alternative means of preserving the program.
Several students felt that the Resolution would not have any
effect. One of the students commented that it was like giving a drowning man a drink of water.
The student newspaper aptly commented, "It’s like being on a sinking ship and learning that Coast Guard has passed a resolution that your ship not go under."0
Metter on behalf of the faculty and staff to all Monteith Students, March 1, 1976, pp. 1-2.
2Chuck Snearly, "House Legislation Urges Continued Enrollment for Monteith," The South End, April 12, 1976, p. 3.
3Ibid., p. 3. CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS OF EVENTS BASED ON THE POLITICAL MODEL
The analysis of events presented in this chapter is based on
Balridge’s political model. For details of the model, see Chapter II.
The Social Structure Factors
External Social Context
As the State of Michigan has been in a tight financial situation
since 1970, the contribution to public higher education has not kept up with
the cost of living. As a result, all the public higher educational institu
tions were asked to tighten their budgets. Because of the pressure from the
Michigan State Legislature to cut funds, a handful of central administrators of Wayne State decided to close down Monteith with the hope of saving
$200,000 in 1975-76 and the whole budget of $800,000 by 1978-79.
The external social context had an indirect effect on the survival of Monteith. The budgetary problems gave impetus to bring Monteith’s issue to the forefront. Thirty-three percent of the responses of the Central
Administration indicated that there was pressure from the State Legislature to cut funds. (See Figure 6). -
Internal Social Context
The Complex Social Structure of WSU. Wayne State University is a complex urban university with 13 schools and colleges. It is one of the largest single campus institutions in the United States with an enrollment of approximately 38,000 students.
160 161
The following organization chart (Figure 3) illustrates the
complex structure of WSU administration.
Changing Trends in the Central Administration. Monteith College
came into existence in 1959 because of the strong support from President
Hilberry. Secondly, Monteith had the financial backing of the Ford
Foundation.
In 1964, when Monteith came up for adoption as a regular college,
a number of questions were raised at the University Council about the
programs at Monteith. Several faculty members from the College of Liberal
Arts were not satisfied with the innovative approach of Monteith. How
ever, it was President Hilberry who settled the issue by declaring that
Monteith was an established college.
In 1971, there was a change in the Central Administration. An
Acting President was appointed by the Board of Governors in 1971 and he was named President in April of 1972. The President was not new to the
University as he had served in the capacity of a faculty member for
several years at WSU.
The new President had a strong business background by virtue of his experience as an auto industry executive at the American Motor
Company. One of his major strengths lay in his ability to raise funds as an experienced lobbyist with the State Legislature. His colleagues respected the President for these abilities.
Along with, the new President, there was a gradual change in the composition of the Central Administration. He restructured the Central
Administration by adding several positions and deleting others. The
Provost’s office was reorganized. The new President had been surrounded FIGURE 3. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY ORGANIZATION CHART, 1975* 1 6 2
Wayne State University » Self-Study » 1976, p. 164» FIGURE 4. THE POLITICAL MODEL LEADING TO THE CLOSURE OF MONTEITH
Social Structure Interest Articulation Legislative Phase New Policies Policy Execution
Financial problems The Central Adminis (Processes that at the State level tration serve as a translates pres catalyst for change sures into policies)
External Pressures Support for Changes
Pressure from the Central Administra Central Administra Faculty participa State Legislature to tion and the Board tion takes the lead tion in academic cut funds of Governors in pushing the issue matters Central Administration Internal Pressures Opposition to Changes speeds up the imple mentation process Demand for increased Monteith administra Ad Hoc Monteith University Council budget from colleges tion, faculty and Committee recom votes to phase out students mends the phase-out Monteith New Acting Dean for Monteith's high cost, University Council Ad Hoc Task Force on Monteith appointed to enrollment and attri suspends for not Budget recommends facilitate the tion problems consulting the phase-out implementation
Monteith’s unwilling AAUP protests for Conflict intensifies AAUP policy to be ness to adopt Weekend lack of faculty between Monteith and implemented in College consultation Central Administra relocating Monteith tion faculty Changing composition Michigan Senate in Central passes Resolution in Administration favor of continuing Monteith Conflict between Central Administra tion and Monteith o Administration FIGURE 5. ISSUES AND EVENTS LEADING TO THE PHASE OUT OF MONTEITH
Issues Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV
WSU Budgetary Budget cut Monteith’s high Ad Hoc Task Force Monteith proposes problems on Monteith cost of operation on Budget in favor to reduce cost of closing Monteith
Central Administra Board of Governors Board of Governors University Council Board of Governors tion initiates the decides in favor reverses its decision decides in favor decides to phase proposal to close of the proposal to continue Monteith of the recommenda out Monteith down Monteith temporarily tions
WSU Faculty University Council University Council Ad Hoc Monteith Implementation of power suspends in protest recommends faculty Committee recommends AAUP policy in against the Board participation in phase out of relocating Monteith of Governors academic matters Monteith faculty decision
Monteith College Proposal to merge Dean of Monteith Monteith is duplica Monteith's contribu as an innovation Monteith with proposes Presidential tive in nature and tion to the University questionable College of Life Commission on General is expensive is questionable long Learning Education
Influence of out AAUP questions the Michigan Senate University Council Michigan State Legis side agencies due process passes Resolution in and Policy Committee lature passes House support of Monteith protest against the Resolution in support Senate Resolution of Monteith 165.,
by administrators who tended to make decisions on the basis of cost and productivity, and budgetary considerations.*3
During the same period, the composition of the Board of Governors had changed and this was reflected in the election of the new President.
Probably, Monteith had greater support from the previous Board of „ 2 Governors.
Later, the Chairman of the Physics Department became the Provost.
He had been a critic of Monteith since its inception. According to one source, it was the provost who initiated the idea of closing Monteith in order to save money.
According to Monteith’s perception, the change in the composition of Central Administration was one of the factors which led to the closure of Monteith. Fifty-three percent of the responses of Monteith inter viewees felt this was one of the contributing factors.
Changing Trends at Monteith. Woodburn Ross, the previous Dean of
Monteith and President Hilberry, who both had been English professors, enjoyed a coordial relationship. Ross was an "old boy" of WSU and there was a feeling among the faculty that something that was connected with
Ross couldn’t be so bad. Further, he had strong political ties within the University. He was considered as an outgoing man and he worked very hard to cement a good relationship as much as he could around the Univer- sity as a whole. "Ross always thought there was a threat to Monteith."
interview No. 20. 2Ibid.
3Ibid. 166
After Woodburn Ross, an English professor from Antioch became
the Dean of Monteith in 1971—in the same year when the Acting
President was appointed. The new Dean thought that Monteith was an
established college; therefore, there was a wall built around it.
Nothing serious could happen to Monteith. As he was an outsider, he
did hot have any political ties with rest of the University.
Monteith also displeased the Central Administration by its
unwillingness to accept the Weekend College. The new Dean thought that
the adoption of Weekend College would weaken Monteith's quality. On the
other hand, the Central Administration held the view that Monteith was an
experimental College and any new program should start at Monteith, but
Monteith was not willing to experiment.
Fifty-three percent of the responses of Monteith interviewees
indicated that this was one of the reasons for the downfall of Monteith.
According to the "Gray Document," one of the experiments of
Monteith was to show that a high-quality undergraduate education could be
provided at a cost comparable to other colleges. The Gray Document
envisioned that the cost factor was to be kept down by employing junior
faculty and lecturers whose turnover would be high. But Monteith
departed away from the proposed economic model especially in the area of junior faculty, and it became a forgotten issue. The declining enroll ment and the high attrition rate also contributed to the high cost
factor.
According to the analyses of responses, the high cost factor played a major role in the downfall of Monteith. Eighty-three percent
of the Central Administrators and 80 percent of Monteith interviewees 167
responded that the cost factor was a major issue. This was one factor
upon which both the groups expressed close agreement.
Friction Between Monteith and the College of Liberal Arts.
According to several studies documented by scholars cited previously
(Riesman et al, Gamson, and Cassidy et al), there was a constant tension
between Monteith and the College of Liberal Arts faculty, who were never
reconciled to the Monteith type of education.
When Monteith came for adoption in 1964, a Committee was set up
to evaluate Monteith and the Committee raised several questions at the
University Council in regard to Monteith education. But President
Hilberry wisely invited two scholars from outside the University to
evaluate Monteith. Thus it was President Hilberry who settled the issue
of continuing Monteith.
Interestingly the same questions which were raised at the
University Council in 1964 were raised in 1975 when the debate on the phase out of Monteith came in for discussion at the University Council
and the Board of Governor’s meeting. This shows that Monteith faculty did not rationalize its program to Wayne State University. Therefore,
Monteith was unable to convince the Council members that its program was valuable. While Monteith had national visibility, it was not well- known in its own backyard.
Seventy-three percent of the responses of Monteith interviewees stated that the friction between Monteith and the College of Liberal
Arts and lack of visibility led to the closure of Monteith. As Monteith was a semi-autonomous unit, it became an isolated venture. Therefore,
Monteith could not convince the University Council of the need for its
existence. 168
While Monteith tried to capitalize on its national reputation,
it could neither sell its quality to the University Council nor to the
Central Administration. According to the responses based on the inter view, 67 percent of the Central Administrators questioned the high
quality of education claimed by Monteith.
Analysis of Major Causes Leading to the Phase Out
This part of the analyses is based on 27 interviews conducted at:
WSU between January 1976 to June 1976. The interviewees were grouped into two categories: Monteith and Central Administration. A total of 15
Monteith administrators, department chairmen and senior faculty were interviewed. The second category of 12 interviews consisted of Central administrators, administrators of College of Liberal Arts, members of the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee and Research Associates of Institutional
Research. Three key members, the old and the new provosts and the
Chairman of Ad Hoc Monteith Committee,were not available for interview. An interview guide was used.3 A semi-structured interview approach was followed. This gave an opportunity to pursue new informa tion when such information was revealed.
One of the questions put to the interviewees was:
"WHAT ARE THE MAJOR FACTORS WHICH LED TO THE CLOSURE OF MONTEITH?"
It was an open-ended question. The responses to this question were tabulated and analyzed. Figure 6 gives a summary of the analyses. FIGURE 6. ANALYSIS OF MAJOR CAUSES LEADING TO THE PHASE OUT OF MONTEITH
(Based on the Opinions of Monteith Faculty and the Central Administration)
Primarily Financial 120% 83%
Allegedly Financial 80% High Cost of Monteith 3 83%
Duplicative in Nature SS3 25% 20% High Quality Questionable T
Not Adaptive—Refused Weekend College j33% I 33% Low Enrollment and Attrition I 75%
Diffusion—Less Visibility 73%
Pressure from Legislature to Cut Funds
Change in Central Administration
Friction Between Monteith & Liberal Arts
Monteith's Smallness and Vulnerability
MONTEITH (N=15) lu 1 6 9 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION (N=12) And Others 170
TABLE 12
ANALYSES OF MAJOR CAUSES LEADING TO THE PHASE OUT OF MONTEITH (Based on the Opinions of Monteith Faculty and the Central Administration)
Central What are the major factors which Monteith Administration led to the closure of Monteith? Faculty And Others
Primarily Financial 20% 83%
Allegedly Financial 47 17
High Cost of Monteith 80 83
Duplicative in Nature 0 25
High Quality Questionable 20 67
Not Adaptive—Refused to accept 53 33 Weekend College
Low Enrollment and Attrition 33 75
Diffusion—Less Visibility 73 17
Pressure from Legislature to cut Funds 13 33
Change in Central Administration 53 8
Friction between Monteith & Liberal Arts 73 25
Monteith’s Smallness and Vulnerability 33 _8
N-15 N=12 171
According to the perception of Monteith administrators and the
faculty, the following responses were the major causes:
High Cost of Monteith 80%
Friction between Monteith & Liberal Arts 73
Diffusion—Less Visibility 73
Change in Central Administration 53
Not Adaptive—Refused Weekend College 53
Allegedly Financial 47
Low Enrollment and Attrition 33
Monteith’s Smallness & Vulnerability 33
According to the second category, Central Administration and others, the following reasons were the major causes:
Primarily Financial 83%
High Cost_ of Monteith 83
Low Enrollment and Attrition 75
High Quality Questionable 67
Not Adaptive—-Refused Weekend College 33
Pressure from Legislature to Cut Funds 33
Both the groups agree on one point—the high cost of Monteith.
However, there are strong differences of opinions in regard to the other issues.
The analyses indicated that the decision to phase out Monteith was not based primarily on financial grounds, other factors, such as the high cost of Monteith, low enrollment and attrition, the questionable quality of Monteith played a major role in the decision. Interest Articulation
Support for the Phase Out
The Central Administration initiated the decision to phase out
Monteith with the support of the Board of Governors, and then it controlled the process and outcome.
The "Monteith Plan" seems to indicate that the new President was planning to share the decision with the governing bodies after seeking approval from the Board.of Governors. However, the Provost did not handle the issue procedurally.
The Board of Governors went along with the initial proposal advocated by the new President. But when they were confronted by the protests made by the University Council and the AAUP on procedural grounds, they agreed to permit the continance of Monteith.
After these events, the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee was set up by the University Council on June 18, 1975. There were two powerful men in the Committee—the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee and the
Associate Professor of the Anthropology Department. Along with these two, one of the Assistant Deans from the Liberal Arts was a member of the Committee.
When the Monteith representatives met with the Ad Hoc Monteith
Committee for two hearings, they came back with the impression that everything was all right and Monteith would survive. But to their dis may, the Committee recommended on October 20, 1975 that Monteith be phased out.
After the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee, the Ad Hoc Task Force on
Budget Committee was set up on October 14, 1975. On November 10, 1975, 173
the Committee recommended the phase out of Monteith in order to save
money.
After the recommendations of these two Committees, the issue
went to the University Council. The University debated the matter on
two separate meetings—November 5 and 12, 1975.
On November 5, the debate was mainly centered around financial
grounds for phasing out Monteith. The Monteith Council members were of
the opinion that if the votes would have been taken at the end of this
meeting, Monteith might have survived.
The debate at the University Council took a new turn on
November 12. This time the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee attacked the quality of Monteith program and the quality of the faculty. Monteith was not given enough time to respond to these charges. Several Monteith faculty felt that it was the attack on quality which turned the tide against Monteith.
After the University Council recommended the phase-out, the
Board of Governors went along with the recommendations and voted the phase-out of Monteith on December 12, 1975.
Opposition to Changes
When Monteith administrators, faculty and students came to know about the crisis, they tried to arouse public opinion in favor of
Monteith. The press was informed. The Board of Governors were contacted.
The national AAUP, the North Central Association, members of the Michigan
State Legislature, alumni of Monteith, leaders in the Latino Community of
Detroit, and prominent educators across the country were informed about 174
the crisis facing Monteith. The Dean, the faculty, and the students
worked very hard to save Monteith, but too late, after the formal
decisions of the governing bodies.
Their efforts were not in vain. Their first and last taste of
victory was felt on June 13, 1975 at the Board of Governors meeting,
when they persuaded them to continue Monteith. This was only a
temporary victory. Their efforts were rewarded for a short time only.
The University Council suspended its meetings on June 4, 1975 in
protest to the decision because the Central Administration failed to
consult the University Council. This was interpreted by some of the
Monteith faculty that the University Council was in favor of Monteith.
But the protest was against the decision-making process and on proce
dural grounds.
The national AAUP sent a telegram in protest because the Central
Administration did not follow the proper procedure, but they did not
question the substance.
After the University Council voted in favor of the phase out,
Monteith did not give up its fight for survival. It appealed to the
Michigan Senate and persuaded the members to pass a resolution in favor of Monteith. However, the Resolution hurt Monteith more than helping
its cause. The Policy Committee complained that taking the issue to the
State was politicizing the University and they made a vigorous protest at
the University Council.
After the Board of Governors voted in favor of the phase out,
Monteith took the issue to the State Legislature and they passed a resolution in favor of continuing Monteith. 175
But none of these two resolutions had any impact on the decision
making process or on the Central Administration.
Power and Influence
The Central Administration used its political weapons to control
and influence the Monteith issue: Control of information, control of
budget, and personnel appointment and removal. The Central Administra
tion set the term of reference—to close down Monteith or not.
When the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee began its work, the Central
Administration controlled the flow of data relevant for evaluation. The
Institutional Research Center was not allowed to pass on any data to
Monteith or to other interested groups. All the data was channeled
through the Associate Provost for Academic Program and Planning.
Secondly, the Central Administration controlled the information
on budgetary matters. While the decision-making process was going on,
Monteith did not have access to relevant financial data. Much information on finance was not released.1
Thirdly, the Central Administration had control over the
scheduling of all important meetings, which gave them an edge over
Monteith. Monteith did not have any idea of the time schedule. Because of this factor, Monteith did not have time enough to work out their strategy or plan their defense.
There was also the question of speed and haste. It is really amazing to note that a complex, bureaucratic structure such as WSU could make a major decision within a time schedule of six months—from the appointment of Ad Hoc Monteith Committee on June 18, 1975 till the final
'"Interview Nos. 26, 39, 40. 176
decision by the Board of Governors on December 12, 1975. During the
span of six months, five different committees apparently studied the
Monteith issue—University Council, Policy Committee, Ad Hoc Monteith
Committee, Ad Hoc Task Force on Budget, and finally the Board of
Governors.
The Policy Committee, under the Chairmanship of the Provost, had
a series of five meetings on June 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 to study the role
of the University Council in relation to the educational policy at WSU.
This amounted to a total of five meetings in nine days.
The Ad Hoc Monteith Committee met altogether nine times
throughout the Summer into the Fall of 1975. The first meeting was held
on July 3 and the last one on October 20—a series of nine meetings within three and one-half months to evaluate Monteith.
The Ad Hoc Task Force on Budget was created on October 14 under
the Co-Chairman, the Associate Provost for Academic Program and Planning.
The Committee had a series of ten meetings between October 22 and
November 10—within a short period of four weeks.
The new Dean of Monteith complained that the Ad Hoc Monteith
Committee was pressured by the administration to act quickly. In response to the new Dean's allegations, the new President stated that neither he nor the Central Administration had applied any pressure on the
Ad Hoc Committee. During the interviews with the members of the Ad Hoc
Committee, the members stated that they were not pressured by the Central
Administration.
However, as the Policy Committee, the University Council, and the
Ad Hoc Task Force on Budget were chaired by the Provost and the Associate 177
Provost, one can presume the question of speed and haste. Speed itself
became an influence on decisions.
Fourthly, the Central Administration had input in four of the
five committees which are mentioned above. The Ad Hoc Monteith
Committee was the only Committee in which there was not representation
from the Central Administration. Therefore, the Central Administration
was able to influence the decision-making process and the outcome.
Fifthly, the Central Administration used its power to appoint and
remove personnel in order to carry out their objectives. The Provost
and the new Dean were pressured to resign. One of the senior faculty members at Monteith was appointed as Interim Director of Weekend College.
One of the Monteith administrators was appointed as Director of the
Women’s Center. An acting Dean was appointed to implement the phase-out.
Thus the Central Administration initiated the proposal to close down Monteith and then by using its power and influence it controlled the process and outcome.
The Cycle of Conflict
First Phase of the Conflict. The initial proposal to phase out
Monteith created the first cycle of conflict. In this conflict, the
Central Administration and the Board of Governors were on one side and the opposition groups were Monteith, the University Council and the AAUP. 178
Central Administration and Board of Governors
The National AAUP
FIGURE 7. FIRST PHASE OF THE CONFLICT
In the first confrontation, the power of balance was tilted in
favor of Monteith because of the support from the University Council and
the national AAUP, and Monteith was able to obtain a temporary victory. The
Central Administration and the Board of Governors were forced to retract
their steps.
Second Phase of the Conflict. Even though the Central
Administration was forced to retract on procedural grounds, they did not give up the issue. They pressed the issue further with proper procedure.
In this conflict, the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee ratified the initial decision made by the Central Administration. The Ad Hoc Task
Force on Budget also supported the Central Administration. Then the
University Council and the Board of Governors endorsed the recommendation.
This time the balance of power was heavily tilted in favor of the Central
Administration. 179
The AAUP and the Central Administration made a compromise in
implementing AAUP policy. Thus the AAUP withdrew from the conflict.
Now the only recourse left for Monteith was to apply pressure
through the Michigan Senate, which passed a resolution praising Monteith
and endorsing the continuance of Monteith.
Ad Hoc Monteith Committee, Central Administration, Ad Hoc Task Force on Budget, Board of Governors, University Council
In the second conflict, the Central Administration was able to win the conflict with a comfortable majority, and Monteith was fighting a losing battle.
Third Phase of the Conflict. After the Board of Governors recommended the phase out, Monteith faculty were disillusioned and dis couraged. The new Dean resigned.
However, a handful of dedicated students determined to carry on the conflict. The students planned to take the issue to court on 180
the grounds that there was a conspiracy by the Central Administration
to close down Monteith.
Monteith was also able to persuade the Michigan State Legislature
to pass a resolution in favor of continuing Monteith.
Central Administration
Michigan State Monteith Legislature Students
FIGURE 9. THIRD PHASE OF THE CONFLICT
The Legislative Stage
When the Central Administration decided to close down Monteith, the Dean of Monteith raised the question, "Who has the right to decide in closing down Monteith?" This was one of the central issues of the whole conflict. The University Council suspended itself in protest because it was not consulted. The national AAUP also questioned the procedure.
The first phase of the conflict was mainly centered around the question, "Who has the right to decide?" The Central Administration 181
could not proceed any further until the question was settled to the satisfaction of the University Council. Monteith was able to win the first conflict because the Central Administration misread the mood of the University Council.
The major outcome of the whole conflict was the amendment incor porated into the Board of Governors statutes, assuring faculty governance in academic matters. Therefore, "procedurally it was a victory for the faculty."1
Another important outcome of the conflict was the faculty’s welfare. The local AAUP Chapter and the national AAUP were able to put pressure on the Central Administration to implement AAUP policy in re locating Monteith faculty.
Implementation of the Phase Out
After the Board of Governors decided to phase out Monteith on
December 12, the Central Administration swiftly moved to implement the phase out.
On December 15, the Director of Admissions was notified to inform all the new students admitted to Monteith for the Winter Quarter,
1976. Letters of phase-out notification were also sent to those students who applied for admission to Monteith for the Fall Quarter of
1976. The Provost also requested the Director of Admissions to inform all the counselors in high schools and community colleges about the phase out. New students who were registered for the Winter 1976 were
1 Interview No. 1. 182
contacted by telephone by the Admissions office and were counseled 1 about the various curricular alternatives.
On December 16, the new Provost sent a letter to all the
Monteith students who were currently enrolled, stating that they had the option of fulfilling degree requirements either in Monteith, the College of Lifelong Learning, or the College of Liberal Arts.
On the very same day, the new Provost also sent a letter to all the tenured and non-tenured faculty members stating that he would do his very best to transfer them to an appropriate unit in the University.
On December 22, 1975, the new President sent a letter to the
Governor, the State Superintendent of Schools, and selected State
Senators and Representatives, explaining the phase out of Monteith. He also thanked the Ford and Danforth Foundations for their initial support 2 of Monteith and informed them about the phase out.
The new President sent a letter to Senator William B. Fitzgerald on December 22, 1975, expressing his concern about the possibility of the
Senate taking steps to cut the Monteith's budget from the allocation of funds. He stated:
I am distressed when I hear that our efforts to be responsible, as painful as these efforts sometimes are, may only be rewarded by our appropriation being reduced by the amount now assigned to Monteith College in the budget bill. If the proposal of certain legislatures is adopted, such counter-productive action would overlook the decisive ver dict of the faculty's own governing body, the administration's
3Provost, "Report on Implementation of Resolution to Phase out Monteith College" (Board of Governors, Agenda), January 9, 1976, pp. 1-2.
2Ibid., p. 2. 183
recommendation after over a year of intensive study, and the final determination of an elected board after listening to all sides and carefully weighing the alternatives. This decision was not precipitous nor contrived. It was deliberate and in keeping with the principles set down by the National Association of University Professors.1
The Second Report by the new Provost covered the period between
January 9 and February 10, 1976.*2
The new Provost stated that 30 Monteith faculty had been
interviewed and efforts were being made to relocate them. A Faculty
Advisory group, representing four colleges, was nominated by the Univer
sity Council to advise the new Provost in placing Monteith faculty.
The new Provost appointed Monteith Student Transfer Advisory
Committee and the Committee came up with a proposal entitled, "Proposal in Reference to the Transfer of Monteith College Students to the College of Liberal Arts during the Phase-out Period."3
The new Provost proposed the possibility of transferring the
Chicano-Boricua Program and the Labor School Program to the College of
Liberal Arts.
The new Provost presented his Third Report on March 10, 1976.
The Report mainly dealt with transfer of students, transfer of faculty,
Metter from the President to the Honorable William B. Fitzgerald, Michigan State Senate, December 22, 1975, pp. 1-2.
2Provost, "Second Report on Implementation of Resolution to Phase out Monteith College,' (Academic Affairs Committee, Agenda), February 11, 1976, pp. 1-3.
Memorandum from Montroy E. and V. E. Marlow, Liberal Arts Representatives on the Committee to Advise Monteith Students to the Provost, January 30, 1976, pp. 1-2. 184
and transfer of programs. He also expressed his concern about the transfer Monteith faculty to appropriate units.1
The Fourth Report was submitted on April 14, covering between
March 9 and April 6, 1976. He stated, "Generally speaking, the imple
mentation of the Board resolution progresses normally."2
In response to the speedy implementation, Monteith students
protested that they were being pressured to transfer to other colleges
instead of being allowed to complete their degree program at Monteith.
^Provost, "Third Report on Implementation of Resolution to Phase out Monteith College," (Academic Affairs Committee, Agenda), March 10, 1976, pp. 1-2.
¿Provost, "Fourth Report on Implementation of Resolution to Phase out Monteith College," (Academic Affairs Committee, Agenda), April 14, 1976, p. 1. 185
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study describes and analyzes the closure of Monteith College and the related conflict dynamics and policy formation. Monteith was a subcollege established in 1959 to improve the quality of undergraduate education. When the Central Administration and the Board of Governors decided to close down Monteith in May 1975, it created bitter controversies because proper academic procedures were not followed. Balridge’s political model was used to analyze the events and the process of policy formation.
Striking Parallels
Striking parallels can be drawn when Monteith's closure is compared with the New College experiment at Columbia University (see Chapter II).
The New College experiment started in 1932 under the wing of Teachers
College of Columbia University. It was founded on the same philosophy as cluster college models. Then the Great Depression hit the Teachers College in 1935. Because of the financial problems and declining enrollment, the
Dean of Teachers College decided to close down the New College in 1939.
The. announcement was sudden and blunt.
A political battle raged across the campus. The New College students tried to arouse public opinion which would force the Dean to revoke his decision. They sent petitions and delegations to the Governor, the trustees, the Mayor, and other influential people and groups. They wrote press releases. But all the efforts were in vain. The Dean had the upper hand, and the New College was closed down. 186
There are striking parallels between Monteith and the events that
reshaped New York University. When NYU was losing students in 1961, a
controversy raged behind doors about the future of the University. A small
group of administrators took major leadership roles and made the critical
decisions. The faculty complained that the decisions were made arbitrarily by the top administrators without much input from the faculty. The National
AAUP questioned the method of the decision-making process but it did not question the substance of the decisions.
There were several interest groups who took sides on the issue.
They used pressure on individual administrators, appeal by popular indivi duals and resolutions by professional organizations. But the central administration had the upper hand. The central administration was succesful because it used its bureaucratic weapons to control the outcome. It used its power and influence, control over communication channels, the budgets, appointment of officials, and admission of students.
In each of the three instances, external social context gave impetus to changes inside. The central administration took the initiative in making the changes. There was a real conflict of interests between vested groups. The battle across the campuses were political in nature.
There were real power plays. However, the central administration had the upper hand. While the power elite influenced the decision-making process, it was limited by the democratic process of decision. The documents of governance, such as, AAUP policy documents, faculty charters, statues of
Board of Governors, became extremely important at times of decision in their effect on decision-making bodies. 187
Innovations as Fad
Higher education is like a mirror which, reflects the pressures of social and economic forces. The current trends in higher education such as, financial problems,' shift in students attitude toward career- oriented education, are some of the examples of social changes.
The cluster colleges and other innovative programs came as a response to meet the social undercurrents of the 1960s because the students demanded relevant curriculum and participatory democracy. But during the late 70s, there was a shift in the student's attitude toward higher education. More and more students are opting for job-oriented curricula, and some students are even questioning the relevance of higher education because of the unemployment problem.
Watson states that any experimentation or innovation is a kind of utopian project and they spring up in clusters during certain historic periods. While the founders hope that the experiment will diffuse and permeate other segments, the experiment usually stands alone. Some of the examples are: New College, Rollins College, Bennington, Black
Mountain, and Sarah Lawrence. Now Monteith can be added to this list.
Paul Dressel, Director of Michigan State's office of Institutional
Research and Frances H. De Lisle state that much of curricular reforms are "hasty adoption of fads."3 Innovations, like fashions, seem to come and
Malcolm G, Scully, "Academic Innovation Grows: Much of It Called 'Faddism'", The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. Ill, No. 11, February 10, 1969, pp. 1, 3. 188
go. They may be absorbed here and there, but their longevity is not
assured. If this premise is accepted, then the demise of Monteith was
inevitable like the others.
The Survival Model
The survival model is closely linked to the economic model,
which is based on cost effectiveness; and cost effectiveness is closely
linked to student enrollment and attrition rate.
The survival model is based on the following assumptions:
1. Is the present model responsive to the new student
clientels of higher education?
2. Does the present model cope with the economic demands
of higher education?
3. Does the present model provide an unique approach to
higher education or is it duplicative in nature?
The subcolleges have to develop satisfactory answers in
order to assure their survival.
The subcolleges under study can be grouped into three models:
Model A, Model B, and Model C.
Model A (Monteith College)
Under the shadow of large university
Under the Central Administration
Own faculty (somewhat isolated)
Own policy on tenure and promotion
Emphasis on teaching excellence and less emphasis on research
Empbasj s on improving general education at the undergraduate level Non-residential subcollege
Urban commuter students
High cost
Enrollment problem and attrition
Model B (Colleges B, D)
Under the shadow of large university
Under central administration/parent college
Core faculty and other faculty loaned from parent colleges; teaching fellows and instructors (Pressure to move to more full-time permanent faculty)
Follows parent university guidelines for tenure and promotion
Emphasis on developing the individual as a whole student
Residential cluster college
High cost (comparatively low cost than Model A)
Enrollment problem and attrition
Model C (Colleges J, K, and L)
Under central administration
Group of small colleges
Own faculty
Emphasis on undergraduate education
Own policy on faculty promotion and tenure
Residential and commuter students
(Cost not available)
Steady enrollment 190
Monteith was a unique model compared to Models B and C.
Monteith had its own faculty and its own guidelines for faculty
promotion and tenure. The faculty were rewarded on the basis of teach
ing excellence and there was less emphasis on research. Another factor
is that it tried to create a residential atmosphere with commuter
students.
According to one of the interviewees, there should be a certain
type of vanguard for social change. But if the vanguard gets too far
away from the main body, it will break off and collapse. It might be
fair to say that Monteith was very much a vanguard at WSU that did be
come too far ahead of the main body. For that reason it became really foreign to the parent and was kicked out of the nest.1 Therefore, it is
hypothesized that the more radical the model, the greater the tension
and conflict; therefore, the lesser the chance of survival.
Model B differs from Model A in many respects. First of all it
is usually a residential cluster college. It has a core faculty and the
rest of the faculty are borrowed from parent/other colleges on a
temporary basis and then they go back to their departments. This factor
tends to diffuse and disseminate innovative practices, thus serving as a
link between the innovative college and other colleges and departments.
As a result, the resistance between the innovative college and other
colleges is lessened somewhat.
On the other hand, the borrowing of faculty from other colleges
creates constant problems because of the time-consuming process of *
Mnterview No. 15. -191
recruiting new faculty each year. At times a department may not
be willing to release faculty. Moreover, the new faculty have to go
through a training process and period of adjustment.
Inherent in this model is a constant conflict between research
and teaching. Because of the reward structure, good teachers may not
want to get involved in time-consuming activities in a closely knit
student-teacher relationship. This factor makes it difficult to borrow
good teachers from other departments. *
Model B is also faced with the problem of declining enrollment
and attrition. While the cost factor is somewhat low compared to
Model A, it is still too high. These factors will tend to reduce the
chance of survival.
Model C is composed of a group of cluster colleges, under the
central administration. Each college has its own faculty. One of the
advantages of this model is that these colleges are not under the
dominance of a liberal arts college. This factor eliminates one of the
major conflicts of interest and tension. The enrollment in these
colleges is increasing or remaining steady. Therefore, the survival of
Model C is likely to be longer than Model B.
Reconraendations
One of the major findings of the study is the crucial role of the
central administration, serving as a catalyst for change. The analyses
of the three cases, the New College, New York University, and
Monteith indicate that the central administration initiated the change
process in each case, and then it controlled the process and outcome. 192
Monteith came into existence because of the strong support
from President Hilberry and the Central Administration. By the same
token, Monteith was phased out because it lost the support of the new
President and the Central Administration. The support of the Central
Administration, therefore, is crucial for the survival of any innovation because of the fact that the Central Administration has a great deal of power and influence over finance and policy formation.
An innovation should be cost conscious. As the universities are moving toward adopting the business model to analyze cost effectiveness, an innovative program tends to be judged on the basis of cost effective ness. While quality may be difficult to prove, the cost factor is easily visible in black and white. Therefore, an innovative program cannot survive on the basis of quality alone. Especially in a period of finan cial crunch, the cost factor will play a significant role in the survival of an innovation.
For a long term survival, an innovation should be responsive and adaptive to the needs of its clientele. Student enrollment and attrition rate are good indicators of students interest in an innovation. An innovation cannot afford to ignore the interest of its clientele.
Another important finding is the tension between liberal arts colleges and innovative programs. As a large university tends to be dominated by liberal arts faculty, a mechanism to diffuse the visibility of the innovation will help to lessen the tension.
An innovation should be concerned with its external and internal visibility. While Monteith was known at the national level, it was not well-known right inside Wayne State University--within its own backyard. 193
Thus Monteith became an isolated venture. Monteith had external visibility, but it did not have internal visibility. This was one of the reasons for the downfall of Monteith. Therefore, an innovation should try to dissemi nate and diffuse its innovative practices to other colleges on campus.
Finally, the chief administrator of an innovation should provide political leadership for its survival. He should try to identify the most influential and powerful people in the university community. He should know where the power lies and be able to identify the opinion leaders and influence them to accept the innovation. He should establish a broad political support with the central administration and other important bodies of the university.
Recommendations for Further Study
1. One of the findings of the study has to do with tension between innovative programs and the college of liberal arts. Does this tension arise from the college of liberal arts in general or from certain tradi tional disciplines which are opposed to change?
2. In a large university, the college of liberal arts seems to have a great deal of influence on the decision making process because of its sheer representative faculty strength and its influence on various policy making bodies. A study on the power and influence of liberal arts colleges in large universities will help to understand the spheres of influence on policy formation. .
3. There are some experimental colleges which are long lasting, and they are still in existence. What are the factors which contribute to the longevity of these innovations and assure their continued survival? 194
4. An incomplete survey of Monteith's graduates show that out of
1012 graduates, 49 of them have become medical doctors, 72 have become
lawyers (including two judges), and more than 230 have become educators
(including two academic deans). A longitudinal study of Monteith's gradu
ates will help to evaluate the impact of Monteith's education and the
quality of its products.
5. While there are several studies on the informal communication
net work and its influence on decision making process of business organiza
tions, not many sutdies have been done along this line in a large university
set up. Similar studies should be done to evaluate the influence of the
informal communication net work and its influence on policy formation.
Reflections
Experience is a valuable teacher. I would like to pass on my
experience from my research work to my fellow doctoral students, for what
it is worth.
Innovations appear to be sensitive to evaluations because they are
concerned about their public image. Anyone who plans to make a study of
innovations or experimental colleges should be aware of this fact, and
therefore, should proceed cautiously and with adequate endorsement.
The interview method is superior to the questionnaire approach for most purposes. While the questionnaire method may be less time consuming and easier to administer, the interview approach is more valuable for gathering first hand information. While a busy person may not be willing to spend ten or fifteen minutes to fill out a questionnaire, he often is willing to spend thirty minutes or more with an interviewer. 195
Finally, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the adminisr-
trators, the faculty and the students of Monteith. College for devoting
their time, energy, and effort to fight for a worthy cause. They had the
courage to stand for their convictions.
As one of my doctoral committee members stated, "If a university can only keep the departments that are self-supporting, it will cease to be a university."3
History repeats itself. Watson made the following observation about the New College experiment at Columbia University. I would like to substitute Monteith College in place of the New College experiment in order to make a fitting conclusion to my study.
[Monteith College] was a great educational experiment, not because of its duration or its residues, because in it, only for a brief time, students and teachers became truly inspired and dedicated. They experienced life together at a spiritual elevation rarely achieved in ordinarily college studies. The losing battle to save [Monteith College] was probably, for many of those engaged in it, the high point of their educational curriculum—and quite possibly the most memorable event of their lives.2
3Mearl R. Guthrie, Chairman, Business Education Department, (Statement made during the oral defense), May 3, 1978.
¿Goodwin Watson, "Utopia and Rebellion: The New College Experi ment," in Mathew B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in Education, pp. 114-115, (paraphrased). 196
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY ' 197
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Abbott, Max G. and John J. Lowell (eds.). Change Perspectives in Educa tional Administration. Auburn, Alabama: Auburn University, School of Education, 1967.
Adams, R. F. and J. B. Michaelson. Assessing the Benefits of Collegiate Structure: Thé Case at Santa Cruz. New York: Ford Foundation, 1970.
Alinsky, Saul D. Rules for Radicals. New York: Random House, 1971.
The American Association of University Professors. AAUP Policy Documents and Reports. Washington, D. C., One Dupont Circle, 1973.
American Council on Education. A Fact Book on Higher Education. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1969.
Anderson, Jack A. and J. Wesley Little. Change and Innovation in Education. New York: MSS Information Corp., 1974.
Azumi, Koya and Jerald Hage. Organizational Systems : A Text-Reader in the Sociology of Organizations. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath & Co., 1972.
Balridge, Victor J. Power and Conflict in the University: Research in the Sociology of Complex Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971.
Bell, Daniel. The Reforming of General Education: The Columbia College Experiment in its National Setting. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966.
Ben-David, Joseph. American Higher Education: Directions Old and New. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972.
Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin (eds.). The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.
Berte, Neal (ed.). Innovations in Undergraduate Education: Selected Institutional Profiles and Thoughts About Rxpérimentàlism. ' University: New College, University Alabama, 1972.... 198
Blau, Peter. The Organization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973.
Bonisted, Roscoe 0. John Monteith: First President of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, January 1967.
Brick, Michael and Earl J. McGrath. Innovations in Liberal Arts Colleges. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969.
Campbell, Ronald F., John E. Corbally, Jr., and John A. Ramseyer. Introduction to Educational Administration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1963.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Priorities for Action: Final Report. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Reform on Campus: Changing Students, Changing Academic Programs. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972.
Cassidy, Haddix. General Education in the Complex University. Washing ton, D. C.: Bureau of Research Report, No. 25, April 1967.
Cassidy, Sally W., et. al. Impact of a High Demand College in a Large University on Working Class Youth, Vols. I, and II. Report to HEW, Eric Education Documents. Detroit, Michigan: Monteith College of Wayne State University, August 31, 1968.
Cheit, Earl F. The New Depression in Higher Education: A Study of Financial Conditions at 41 Colleges and Universities (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and the Ford Foundation). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.
Clark, Burton R Adult Education in Transition: A Study of Institutional Insecurity. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1956.
Clark, Burton R. The Distinctive College: Antioch, Reed and Swarthmore. Chicago : Aldine Publishing Co., 1970.
Collier, K. G. (ed.). Innovation in Higher Education. Windsor: Society for Research into Higher Education. (NFER Publishing), 1974.
Cornell Center for Improvement Undergraduate Education. The Yellow Pages of Undergraduate Innovations, 1974. New Rochelle, New York: The Cornell Center for Improvement in Undergraduate Education, 1974.
Corwin, Ronald G. Reform and Organizational Survival. The Teacher Corps as an Instrument of Educational Change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973. 199
Coser, Lewis. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glascoe: Free Press, 1956.
Dahl, Robert Alan. Who Governs? Democracy and PoWer in American City. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1961.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959.
Dickson, George E. Partners for Educational Reform and Renewal. Berkeley: McClutchan Publishing Corporation, 1973.
Dressel, Paul L. and Associates. Institutional Research in the Univer sity: A Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971.
Dressel, Paul L. (ed.). The New Colleges: Toward an Appraisal. Iowa City, Iowa: The American College Testing Program and the American Association of Higher Education, 1971.
Dressel, Paul L. and William H. Faricy. Return to Responsibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1972.
Drucker, Peter F. Selected Issues in College Administration. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1968.
Duberman, Martin B. Black Mountain: An Exploration in Community. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973.
Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. Revised edition. New York: The Free Press, 1975.
Evans, Richard I. and Peter K. Leppman. Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970.
Fabun, Don (ed.). The Dynamics of Change. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.
Gaff, Jerry G. and Associates. The Cluster College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.
Gamson, William A. Power and Discontent. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1968.
Getzels, Jacob W. et. al. Educational Administration as a Social Process; Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.
Gould, Samuel B. and Commission on Non-Traditional Study. Diversity By Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973. 200
Gross, Neal O., Joseph B. Giazquinta, and Marilyn Bernstein. Implementing Organizational Innovations: A Sociological Analysis of Planned Educational Change. New York: Basic Books, 19 7Ï.
Gross, Edward and Paul Gramsbsch. Change in University Organization: 1964-1971. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
Hage, Jerald and Michael Aiken. Social Change in Complex Organizations. New York: Random House, 1970.
Harvard University Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. General Education in a Free Society: Report of the Harvard Committee. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1945.
Hefferlin, J. B. Lon. Dynamics of Academic Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969.
Heiss, Ann. An Inventory of Academic Innovation and Reform. Berkeley, California: The Carnegie Foundation, 1973.
Havelock, Ronald G. The Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1973.
Havelock, Ronald G. et al. Planning for Innovation Through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1971.
Henderson, Algo D. The Innovative Spirit: Change in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.
Hodgkinson, Harold L. Institutions in Transition: A Profile of Change in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.
Hoffer, Eric. The Ordeal of Change. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. Garden City, New York: Anchor, 1963.
House, Ernest R. The Politics of Educational Innovation. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974.
Jencks, Christopher and David Riesman. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1968.
Jerome, Judson.- Culture Out of Anarchy: The Reconstruction of American Higher Learning. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.
Juckfeldt, Vaughn E. A Forecast of Changes in Postsecondary Education. National Center for Higher Education: Management Systems at WICHE, 1972. 201.
Katz, Daniel and Robert R. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Keeton, Morris and Conrad Hilberry. Struggle and Promise: A Future for Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969.
Kruytbosch, Carlos E. and Sheldon L. Messinger. The State of the University: Authority and Change. California, Beverly Hills, California; Sage Publications, 1970.
Lawler, John (ed.). The New University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968.
Levine, Arthur and John Weingart. Reform of Undergraduate Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.
Lunsford, T. F. (ed.). The Study of Academic Administration. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963.
MacDonald, Gary (ed.). Five Experimental Colleges: Bensalem, Antioch- Putney, Franconia, Old Westbury, Fairhaven. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
Marien, Michael (ed.). An Annotated Bibliography of Trends, Forecasts and Proposals for Alternate Future for Learning. Syracuse, New York: Policy Research Center Syracuse University, 1971.
Martin, Warren Bryan. Alternative to Irrelevance: A Strategy for Reform in Higher Education. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968.
Martin, Warren Bryan. Conformity: Standards and Change in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969.
McGrath, Earl J. Selected Issues in College Administration. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1967.
Meeth, Louis Richard. Selected Issues in Higher Education: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965.
Michael, Donald N. On Learning to Plan—And Planning to Learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.
Miles, Mathew B. (ed.). Innovation in Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964.
Morphet, Edgar L. and Charles 0. Ryan (eds.). Planning and Effecting Needed Changes in Education. Designing Education for the Future, No. 3. New York: Citation Press, 1967. 202
Netzer, Lanore A. et al. Education, Administration and Change: The Redeployment of Résources. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
Pace, Robert C. College and University Environment Scales (CUES). Second edition. Princeton, New Jersey: Institutional Research Program for Higher Education, Educational Testing Service, 1969.
Patterson, Franklin K. and Charles R. Longsworth. The Making of a College: Plans for a New Departure in Higher Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M. I. T. Press, 1966.
Polsby, Nelson. Community Power and Political Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965.
Rich, John Martin. Innovations in Education: Reformers and Their Critics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1975.
Riesman, David, Joseph Gusfield and Zelda Gamson. Academic Values and Mass Education: The Early Years of Oakland and Monteith. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970.
Riesman, David and Verne Stadtman (eds.) Academic Transformation: Seventeen Institutions Under Pressure. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973.
Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. Second edition. New York: Free Press, 1971.
Schon, Donald A. Beyond the Stable State. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971.
Smith, G. K. (ed.). Agony and Promise: Current Issues in Higher Education, 1969. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.
Smith, Kerry G. (ed.). Current Issues in Higher Education: Pressures and Priorities. The Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual National Conference on Higher Education, March 7-10, 1965. Washington, D. C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1965.
Stewart, C. T., and J. E. Hartley. Financial Aspects of Interinstitu- tional Coopération: Unit Costs in Cluster and Non-Cluster Colleges. Claremont, California: The Claremont Colleges, 1968.
Stewart, Glifford T., and Thomas R. Harvey (eds.). Strategies for Significant Survival; New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1975.
Stickler, W. Hugh (ed.). Experimental Colleges: Their Role in American Higher Education. Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1964. 203
Taylor, Harold. How to Change Colleges; Notes on Radical Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
Thompson, Victor A. Bureaucracy and Innovation. Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1969.
Tussman, Joseph (ed.). Experiment at Berkeley. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Van Meter, Eddy J. (ed.). Theory Development and Educational Administration. New York: MSS Information Cooperation, 1973.
Vermilye, Dyckman W. (ed.). Learner-Centered Reformi Current Issues in Higher Education, 1975. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
Vermilye, Dyckman W. (ed.). Lifelong Learners—A New Clientele for Higher Education: Current Issues in Higher Education, 1974. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Von Haden, Herbert I. and Jean Marie King. Educational Innovator's Guide. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Co., 1974.
Watson, Goodwin (ed.). Concepts for Social Change: Resistance to Change. Washington, D. C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1966.
Woods, Thomas E. The Administration of Educational Innovation. Eugene, Oregon: Bureau of Educational Research, School of Education, University of Oregon, 1967.
Zald, Mayer N. (ed.). Power in Organization. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbelt University Press, 1970.
Zaltman, Gerald, Robert Duncan, and Jonny Holbek. Innovations and Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973.
Articles and Periodicals
Albert, James G. "Wanted: Experiments in Reducing the Cost of Education," Phi Delta Kappan, No. 7, March 1974, pp. 444-445.
Baldridge, J. Victor. "Organizational Change: The Human Relations Perspective versus the Political Systems Perspective," Educational Researcher, 1, February 1972, pp. 4-10.
Brown, Roget D. "Evaluation, of Experimental Colleges: Some Questions that Need Asking," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XLII, February 1972, pp. 133-141. 204
Benne, Kenneth D. "Authority in Education," Harvard Education Review, Vol. 40, 3 August, 1970, pp. 385-410.
Bloom, Alan. "The Failure of the University," Daedalus, Vol. I, Fall 1974, Vol. 1, pp. 58-66. .
Clark, Burton R. "Organizational Adaptation and Precarious Values: A Case Study," American Sociological Review, 21 (1956) 327-336.
Clark, Burton R. "The Organizational Saga in Higher Education," Administrative Science Quarterly, 17.2, June, 1972, pp. 178-184.
Clark, Terry, "institutionalization of Innovations in Higher Education," Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 1968, pp. 2-25.
Craig, Gordon A. "Green Stamp or Structured Undergraduate Education?", Daedalus, Vol. 1, Fall 1974, pp. 143-158.
Ephron, L. R. "Group Conflicts in Organization: A Critical Appraisal of Recent Theories," Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6, 1961, pp. 56-72.
Frankel, Charles. "Reflections on a Worn-Out Model," Daedalus, Vol. I, Fall 1974, pp. 25-32.
Hage, Gerald and Robert Dewar. "Elite Values Versus Organizational Structure in Predicting Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly, 18.3, September, 1973, pp. 279-290.
Kells, H. R. and C. T. Stewart. "The Conference on the Cluster College Concept: A Summary of the Working Sessions," Journal of Higher Education, October 1967, pp. 359-363.
Kells, H. R. and C. T. Stewart. "The Conference on the Cluster College Concept: Summary of the Working Sessions," Journal of Higher Education, April, 1968, pp. 359-363.
"Living-Learning Cluster," Time, September 9, 1966, pp. 46-47.
Martin, Warren Bryan. "The Problems of Size," Journal of Higher Education, March, 1967, pp. 144-152.
McHenry, D. E. "Small College Program for a Large University," College and University Business, July, 1964, pp. 31-33.
Miller, P. S. "Clearing the Way for Innovation," Educational Record, 48, Spring, 1967, pp. 11-12. 205
"Now the Self-Centered Generation," Time, September 23, 1974, pp.84-85.
Selvin, Dennis. "The Innovative Boundary: A Replication with Increased Costs," Administrative Science Quarterly, 18.1, March, 1973, pp. 71-75.
Thompson, Victor. "Bureaucracy and Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, 1965, pp. 1-20.
Watson, Goodwin and Edward M. Glasser. "What We Have Learned About Planning for Change," Management Review, November 1965, pp. 36, 45.
Unpublished Materials
Bryson, J. Richard. "A Study of Operational and Organizational Strategies and Practices in Experimental Colleges." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1972.
Dougherty, Edward Archer. "A Financial Analysis of Instructional Costs in Experimental Cluster Colleges." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972.
Gamson, Zelda S. "Social Control and Modification: A Study of Responses to Students in a Small Nonresidential College." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1965.
Gamson, Zelda S. "The Residential College in 1974—Suggestions for Some Directions." January 1975. (Mimeographed.)
Jensen, Eric. "Organizational Strategies: Selected New Colleges Universities, 1965-69." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970.
Tonn, Joan Carol. "Organizational Adaptability in Selected Small Colleges." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1973.
Bulletins, Catalogs and Brochures
Cleveland State University: 1975-76 Bulletin, Undergraduate Issue. Cleveland, Ohio, June, 1975.
Grand Valley State Colleges: 1975-76 Undergraduate Catalog. Allendale, Michigan, August, 1975.
A Look at Wayne State University's Monteith College, n.d. 206
Miami University: Catalog for 1975-76. Oxford, Ohio, April, 1975.
Michigan State University: 1975-76 Academic Programs. East Lansing, Michigan, April 1975.
Monteith College: Wayne State University: Bulletin 1970-71. Detroit, Michigan, May 8, 1970.
New-Charter College (Mimeographed).
Oakland University: Handbook for Prospective Students. Michigan, Rochester, Oakland University. n.d.
Oakland University: Undergraduate Catalog, 1975-76. Michigan, Rochester, Oakland University.
The University of Michigan Bulletin: College of Literature, Science, and the Arts 1975-76. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, March 12, 1975.
The University of Michigan Bulletin: Residential College 1974-75. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, September 25, 1974.
University of Wisconsin—Green Bay: 1974-76 Undergraduate Catalog. Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Wayne State University Bulletin, 1975-77. Detroit, Michigan.
Wayne State University: Monteith College, 1973-74 Bulletin. Detroit, Michigan, October 15, 1973.
The Western College of Miami University. Oxford, Ohio, May 1976.
Newspapers
Crittendon, Denise. "Monteith Prepares for Court Battle," The South End, April 12, 1976, p. 1.
"Debate Flares on Monteith," The Daily Collegian, June 4, 1964, p. 1.
"Gullen: WSU Will not Close," Detroit News, October 20, 1975.
Magarrell, Jack. "Governors Pushing Austere Budget," (State Colleges and Universities Affected: ’Era of Limited Resources if Forecast’). The Chronicle, 'Vol. XI, No. 20, February 9, 1976, p. 1, 11.
"Monteith Still Strong, Reduces Costs," (News release), October 9, 1975. 207
"Monteith Students: Beware of the Grand Plan," Prime Mover (Monteith's Student Newspaper), April 6, 1976.
Horak, Kathy. "Stage Set for Monteith/BOG Court Battle," The South End, April 19, 1976, p. 3.
Horak, Kathy. "BOG Appoints Woman's Center Director," The South End, April 19, 1976, p. 5.
Sands, Jan B. "Board of Governors Votes to Dismantle Monteith," Prime Mover (Monteith's Student Newspaper), June 5, 1975, p. 1.
Sands, Jan B. "Council Says No: Monteith Appeals to State Legislature," The South End, November 13, 1975, p. 1.
Scully, Malcolm G. "Academic Innovation Grows: Much of it called 'Faddism'". The Chronicle, Vol. Ill, No. 11, February 10, 1964, pp. 1, 3.
Scully, Malcolm G. "Career-Oriented Studies: The Debate Intensifies," The Chronicle, Vol. XI, No. 20, February 9, 1976, p. 3.
Semas, Philip W. "Monteith College: Casualty of Wayne State Cutbacks," The Chronicle, Vol. XI, No. 12, December 1, 1975, p. 3.
Snearly, Chuck. "House Legislation Urges Continued Enrollment for Monteith," The South End, April 12, 1976.
"South End Editorial," The South End, November 13, 1975, p. 1.
Toth, George. "Students Prevented from Entering Monteith Despite 31/2 year Phase-Out Time Space," The South End, January 27, 1976, p. 1.
"WSU's Monteith: A Victory for the Liberals," Detroit Free Press, July 12, 1964.
"WSU Unveils Unique New College," Detroit Free Press, December 22, 1958.
Interviews
No. 1. AAUP President and Assistant Professor, Socio-Humanistic Studies, March 8, 1976.
No. 2. Academic Services Officer, March 8, 1976.
No. 3. Acting Dean and Chairman, Humanistic Studies, April 7 and June 15, 1976. 208
No. 4. Acting Director, College of Lifelong Learning, University Counselor, May 5, 1976.
No. 5. Ad Hoc Committee Member, Assistant Dean and Associate Professor of History, May 4, 1976.
No. 6. Ad Hoc Committee Member and Associate Professor, April 20, 1976.
No. 7. Ad Hoc Task Force on Budget Committee Member, Professor and Chairman of Chemistry, May 4, 1976.
No. 8. Ad Hoc Committee Member, University Counselor, and Admissions, May 4, 1976.
No. 9. Admissions, April 13, 1976.
No. 10. Adviser and University Counselor, April 21, 1976.
No. 11. Assistant Dean, May 13, 1976.
No. 12. Assistant Dean and Associate Professor, May 4, 1976.
No. 13. Assistant Professor, Chicano-Boricua Studies, March 9, 1976.
No. 14. Assistant Professor, Humanistic Studies, May 4, 1976.
No. 15. Assistant to the Vice President, April 13, 1976.
No. 16. Associate Dean, April 14, 1976.
No. 17. Associate Dean for Evaluation, April 14, 1976.
No. 18. Associate Dean, Professor and Chairman, Mathematics, May 5, 1976.
No. 19. Associate Director, April 13, 1976.
No. 20. Associate Professor, Socio-Humanistic Studies, March 9, 1976.
No. 21. Associate Provost for Academic Program and Planning, May 5, 1976.
No. 22. Chairman, and Associate Professor, Natural Science, April 20, 1976
No. 23. Co-Chairperson, April 6, 1976.
No. 24. Co-Chairperson, April 6, 1976.
No. 25. Co-Director and Professor of Philosophy, August 15, 1975. 209
No. 26. Coordinator and Assistant Professor, Chicano-Boricua Studies, April 20, 1976.
No. 27. Dean, College of Liberal Arts, May 4, 1976.
No. 28. Dean and Professor of English, March 8, 1976.
No. 29. Director and Associate Professor History, August 8, 1975.
No. 30. Director and Professor of English, August 19, 1975.
No. 31. Director of the Center for Career and Development and General Studies, April 6, 1976.
No. 32. Ex-Dean and Professor Emeritus, May 5, 1976.
No. 33. Ex-Chairman and Professor of Political Science, April 7, 1976.
No. 34. President, June 15, 1976.
No. 35. Professor of Physics, April 13, 1976.
No. 36. Professor of Natural Science, April 21, 1976.
No. 37. Professor of Psychology, April 14, 1976.
No. 38. Research Associate, Institutional Research, May 5, 1976.
No. 39. Research Associate, Institutional Research, May 5, 1976.
No. 40. Research Associate, Institutional Research, Academic Program and Planning, May 4, 1976.
No. 41. Secretary, University Council and Professor of Chemistry, March 8, 1976.
No. 42. Vice Provost, April 7, 1976. 210
Wayne State University Documents
Correspondence
Letter from George E. Gullen, Jr., President, Wayne State University, to the author, July 8, 1976.
Letter from Diether H. Haenicke, Provost, Wayne State University to the author, April 14, 1976.
Letter from Martin M. Herman, Acting Dean, Monteith College, Wayne State University to the author, April 7, 1976.
Letter from Diether H. Haenicke, Provost, to Monteith Students, March 24, 1976.
Letter from Diether H. Haenicke, Provost, Wayne State University to the author, March 1, 1976.
Letter from Yates Hafner, Chairmen and Coordinators of Departments, Monteith College, to the Monteith Students, "A Letter on Behalf of the Faculty and Staff to All Monteith Students," March 1, 1976.
Letter from J. Richard Thorderson, Director of Admissions, to the students applying to Monteith College, January 8, 1976.
Letter from J. Richard, Director of Admissions, to Michigan High School and Community College Counselors, January 8, 1976.
Letter from George E. Gullen, Jr., President, WSU, to the Honorable William B. Fitzgerald, Michigan State Senate, December 22, 1975.
Letter from Kenneth M. Smythe, Executive Director of Employment Relations, to Monteith Faculty, December 16, 1975.
Letter from Diether H. Haenicke, Provost, to Monteith Faculty, December 16, 1975.
Letter from Diether H. Haenicke, Provost, to Monteith Students, December 16, 1975. 211
Letter from Max Coral, Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus, College of Liberal Arts and former Assistant Dean, and Professor of Natural Science, Monteith College, to members of the University Council, November 11, 1975.
Letter from Yates Hafner, Dean, Monteith College, to Members of the University Council, November 11, 1975.
Letter from Maurice H. Bernstein, Professor of Medicine, to the University Council, November 7, 1975.
Letter from George E. Gullen, Jr., President, WSU, to members of the University Council, November 5, 1975.
Letter from Yates Hafner, Dean of Monteith College, to the Deans of Cluster Colleges in Michigan State, "The Future of Small Colleges in Public Higher Education in the State of Michigan," November 3, 1975.
Letter from Yates Hafner, Dean, Monteith College, to the University Council, October 31, 1975.
Letter from Nancy Christiansen, Chairperson, Student-Faculty Council, Monteith College, to the University Council, October 30, 1975.
Letter from Yates Hafner, Dean, Monteith College, "An Addendum on Proper Academic Procedures," June 12, 1975.
Letter from Yates Hafner, Dean, Monteith College, to George E. Gullen, Jr., President, WSU, "Counter Proposal," June 2, 1975, pp. 1-3.
Letter from Yates Hafner, Dean, Monteith College, to the Board of Governors, President, Vice Presidents, and Deans of Wayne State University and Other Interested persons, March 22, 1972.
Letter from Clarence Hilberry, President, WSU, to members of the University Council, May 28, 1964.
Letter from Clarence Hilberry, President, WSU, to the University Council, December 18, 1963.
Memorandums
Memorandum from Milton D. Glick, Secretary, University Council, to the President, "Monteith College," December 2, 1975.
Memorandum from George E. Gullen, Jr., President, to the Board of Governors, "Monteith and the Prospects of a New Complex Academic Unit," November 14, 1975. 213
Memorandum from Harold Stack to Monteith Faculty, "Workshop on Educational Impact and Student Development," January 25, 1972, pp. 1-7.
Papers Presented to the Board of Governors
Hafner, Yates. Dean, Monteith College. "Papers Presented to the Board of Governors," June 11, 1975.
Appendices A to M.
A. "Monteith College," pp. 1-2.
B. "The Question of Monteith," June 5, 1975, pp. 1-3.
C. Jerry C. Bails, "The Educational Case for Monteith College: A Faculty Viewpoint."
D. "Abolishing Monteith, the Educational Consequences for WSU," June 11, 1975, pp. 1-4.
E. "The Question of Economics," June 11, 1975, pp. 1-4.
F. "Observations Concerning the Alleged ’Savings’ of $200,000 to be Realized as a Result of the Elimination of the Monteith College Freshman Class in 1975-76."
G. Paul Bluemle, Professor, Monteith College. "Background on Potential Tuition Loss," pp. 1-2.
H. "Budget Reductions and Fiscal Responsibility," pp. 1-6.
I. "Monteith and the Enrollment Problem," June 9, 1975, pp. 1-5.
J. "The Proposed Phase-Out of Monteith College—Legal-Procedural Issues," pp. 1-4.
K. "Percentage Distribution of Students within Colleges by Ethnic Background, Fall Quarters 1968-1974," June 11, 1975.
L. Gerald J. Pittman, President of the Labor School Alumni Association to all Media, "The Labor School Alumni Association," June 10, 1975, PP- 3-3-
M. "The Case of Chicano-Boricua Studies Program," June 11, 1975, pp. 1-3. 214
Minutes
Board of Governors—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, June 13, 1975. pp. 2589-2592.
Board of Governors—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, December 12, 1975. pp. 2663-2669.
President-Deans Conference (Minutes of Special Meeting), June 9, 1975,
University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, June 4, 1975. p. 377.
University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, June 18, 1975. pp. 379-380.
University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, November 5, 1975. pp. 395-404.
University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, November 12, 1975. pp. 405-412.
Appendices of the Minutes, University Council, November 5 and 12, 1975.
A. Procedures for Naming Slate for AAUP Contractual Committees, p. 396.
B. University Council Committee Roster, 1975-76, p. 396.
C. Letter from Yates Hafner, Dean, Monteith College, October 31, 1975, p. 397.
D. Letter from Student-Faculty Council, p. 397.
E. Letter from Catherine Koenigsberg, Student of Monteith, p. 397.
F. Letter from President George E. Gullen, Jr., November 5, 1975, p. 397.
G. Procedures and Guidelines for Implementing Students’ Rights and Responsibilities, p. 398.
H. Report of the Ad Hoc Monteith Committee, November 5, 1975, p. 411. 215
I. Letter from Maurice H. Bernstein, School of Medicine, p. 411.
"A Commentary on the Substitute Motion Regarding Monteith College" introduced at the meeting of the University Council on November 5, 1975 by Yates Hafner, Dean, Monteith College.
"Remarks to the University Council" by Yates Hafner, Dean, Monteith College, November 5, 1975, pp. 1-9.
University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, December 3, 1975, pp. 413-422.
University Council—Wayne State University, Official Proceedings, February 4, 1976, pp. 423-438.
Reports
Ad Hoc Task Force Committee to the President, "Budget Reduction Alternatives," November 10, 1975, pp. 1-8.
Bails, Jerry C., Professor, Monteith College, "The Educational Case for Monteith College: A Faculty Viewpoint," (n.d.), pp. 1-3.
Bava, Joanne C., CLL Representative on Committee to Advise Monteith Students to Diether Haenicke, Provost, "Disposition of Monteith College Courses in Weekend College Program," February 9, 1976.
Center for Research and Development in Higher Education. "The Berkeley Report" on the Study of Monteith and Fourteen Other Institutions. University of California, Berkeley. (n.d.)
Chamberlain, Lawrence H., and David Riesman. "Report on Monteith College for President Hilberry," January 20, 1964.
Commission on Colleges and Universities, North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. "Report of a Visit to Wayne State University, April 25-26, 1966 for the Committee on Colleges and Universities," August 11, 1966, pp. 1-4.
"An Experimental College for Wayne State University" (Gray Document), 1958, pp. 1-62.
Eichleay, Robin W. et al. "Co-operative Self-Education: A Report on the First Year," November 1964, pp. 1-32«
"General Education and Monteith College," Report to the Board of Governors, June 25, 1964, pp. 1-2. 216
Glick, Milton D., Secretary, University Council To Members of the University Council. "Actions of the Policy Committee, December 8 and 11, 1975," January 7, 1976.
Gullen, George E. Jr., President to the Board of Governors. "Monteith and Prospects of a New Complex Academic Unit," November 14, 1975, pp. 1-6.
Gullen, George E. Jr., President to the Members of the University Council. November 5, 1975, pp. 1-3.
Haenicke, Diether H., Provost to the Academic Affairs Committee. "Fourth Report on Implementation of Resolution to Phase out Monteith College," April 14, 1976.
Haenicke, Diether H., Provost, to the Board of Governors. "Report on Implementation of Resolution to Phase out Monteith College," March 10, 1976.
Haenicke, Diether H., Provost to the Academic Affairs Committee. "Second Report on Implementation of Resolution to Phase out Monteith College," February 11, 1976, pp. 1-3.
Haenicke, Diether H., Provost to the Board of Governors. "Report on Implementation of Resolution to Phase Out Monteith College," January 9, 1976.
Hafner, Yates, Dean, Monteith College. "To Set the Record Straight," December, 1975, pp. 1-34.
Hafner, Yates. "The Monteith Problem: A Brief Chronicle of Signal Events, May 7 to November 14, 1975," pp. 1-6.
Hafner, Yates. "Monteith Fact Sheet," November 11, 1975, pp. 1-2.
Hafner, Yates. "The Continuing Story to Date," (To Concerned Parties), October 29, 1975, pp. 1-10.
Hafner, Yates, Dean, Monteith College. "Self-Study Report, 1975: Monteith College," (A Report Prepared for the North Central Associa tion of Colleges and Secondary Schools), August 13, 1975, pp. 1-37.
Appendicies to the Self-Study, A to 0.
A. "Recent Innovations in the Core Curriculum of Monteith College," pp. 1-2.
B. "The Freshman Core Curriculum in Monteith College 1974-75".
C. "Career Preparation and the Question of Flexibility," pp. 1-3. 217
D. "Bibliography of Monteith College."
E. "The Berkeley Report—The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, California.
F. "By-Laws of Monteith College."
G. "Recent Advertisements."
H. "Presidential Commission on General Education, Wayne State University," May 15, 1975, pp. 1-4.
I. "Centralization and the Role of the Deans: Some Principles and Recommendations," April 14, 1975.
J. "Monteith College: New Members of the Faculty, 1974-75," pp. 1-5.
K. "Summer Seminars, Etc."
L. "Program in Environmental Studies."
M. "Concentration in Labor Studies," pp. 1-13.
N. Letter from Yates Hafner to the President (Counter Proposal), June 2, 1975, pp. 1-3.
O. "Papers Presented to the Board of Governors, June 11, 1975."
Hafner, Yates, Dean, Monteith College. "Programs of General Education at Wayne State University: The Story of Monteith College" (A Report to the President-Deans Conference), April, 1975, pp. 1-4.
Hartley, Kay. "Monteith College: Report on Enrollment and Attrition," February, 1975, pp. 1-11.
Hartley, Kay. "Monteith College: Admission and Enrollment," October 6, 1975, pp. 1-6.
"Monteith College," Report to the Board of Governors, June 3, 1975.
"Monteith College: A Report to the President," December, 1963.
"Monteith College of Lifelong Learning," pp. 1-5. (n.d.)
Montroy, E. and V. I. Marlow, Liberal Arts Representatives on the Committee to Advise Monteith Students to Deither Haenicke, Provost. "Proposal in Reference to the Transfer of Monteith College Students to the College of Liberal Arts During the Phase-out Period," January 30, 1976. 218
"Report of the ad hoc Committee," November 5, 1975, pp. 1-5.
Rossman, Sol, Chairman, Ad Hoc Monteith Committee to Milton D. Glick, Secretary of the University Council. "Summary Report of ad hoc Monteith Committee," October 27, 1975, pp. 1-2.
Stack, Harold to Monteith College Faculty. "Workshop on Educational Impact and Student Development" January 25, 1972, pp. 1-7.
"The University Budget," to the University Council, November 5, 1975, pp. 1-3.
"Wayne State University 1965-66, General Data," (A Report for the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools), 1966.
"Wayne State University Self-Study, 1976," (A Report Prepared for the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools).
Letter from Virginia E. O'Leary, Chairperson, Committee on Instruction, College of Arts and Sciences to Professor F. James Clatworthy, Co- Chairperson and to Professor Robert L. Stern, Co-Chairperson, New- Charter College, December 3, 1975.
Letter from Paul L. Dressel, Assistant Provost for Institutional Research, Michigan State University, to the author. 219
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRES 220 Kindly return this form in the self-addressed stamped envelope by
Appendix A-l
SUBCOLLEGE DATA SURVEY
1. Subcollege name: ______2. Total number of subcollege faculty: _____ Student enrollment: ______3. Total enrollment in the parent university: ______4. The subcollege was initially funded by ______5. The subcollege is currently funded by ______6. The subcollege is: _____ semi-autonomous _____ autonomous 7. The subcollege is: _____ non-residential _____ residential
8. Yes No
9. ______Does the subcollege have its own admission policy? 10. _ ___ Does the subcollege encourage transfer of students to other colleges in the parent university? 11. ______Does the subcollege have a ceiling on student enrollment? If yes, what is the ceiling? _____ 12. ______Does the subcollege have a stated policy on what the class size should be? If yes, what is the maximum number of students permitted in a class? _____ 13. ______Does the subcollege offer degree programs? 14. ______Does the subcollege have its own faculty? 15. ______Are the faculty of the subcollege borrowed from the parent university? 16. ______Does the subcollege have its own policy on faculty promotion and tenure? 17. ______Does the subcollege follow the guidelines of the parent university on faculty promotion? 18. ______Has your subcollege ever been faced with the threat of closure? If so, when? ______
19. Is the instructional load in the subcollege the same as that in the parent university? _____ (a) Significantly higher _____ (b) Somewhat higher _____ (c) Somewhat lower _____ (d) The same 20. The subcollege emphasizes: _____ (a) Liberal arts or general education. (b) Other ______21. The subcollege has the following characteristics: _____ (a) The disciplines are clustered together academically. _____ (b) The academic studies are clustered with themes or creative projects. _____ (c) Students and faculty are clustered together in a living learning environment. _____ (d) Other ______22. In the next two years, the total enrollment of the subcollege will: _____ (a) Increase by 10% or more _____ (b) Decrease by 10% or more _ ___ (c) Remain about the same 23. Since its establishment, how many times has the subcollege been evaluated?
24. Subcollege enrollments and graduates
Year Enrollment Degrees Fall Quarter Granted
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
25. Grading system Satisfactory Letter Pass/Fail Unsatisfactory Grades
Year of Establishment
In 1975
Future Trend
26. Kindly enclose the following materials: Administrative chart of the subcollege and a recent evaluation report if possible.
27. Would you like to receive a report of the results of the study? Yes No
Space for additional comments:
What are the major administrative problems in your subcollege? 222 Code APPENDIX A-2
Kindly return this survey in the self-addressed stamped envelope by ■
SURVEY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS IN SUBCOLLEGES
Parent This form has been) University Administrator Subcollege Administrator completed by: ) University Faculty Subcollege Faculty
To the Respondent: This is a questionnaire intended to examine subcolleges. In it you will be asked for vour perceptions about what vour subcollege is like. The only "right" answers are those which reflect your own perceptions, Judgments, and opinions. Confidentiality of responses is assured.
1. Read each statement carefully. . 2. Mark only one answer for each statement. 3. In the right margin, following each statement, circle your response based upon the following scale:
SA - Strongly Agree (If you strongly agree with the statement as applied to your subcollege). A - Agree (If you mildly agree with the statement as applied to yours ubcollege). N - No Opinion (If you have no opinion on the statement). D - Disagree (If you mildly disagree with the statement). SD - Strongly Disagree (If you strongly disagree with the statement as applied to your subcollege).
4. Comments are invited regarding a particular item. Such additions frequently give us added insight and clarification and are greatly appreciated. Please make sute that you Identify the item about which you ate commenting; space is provided on the back of the last page.
1. The subcollege curriculum makes learning more effective for each student SA A N D SD compared to other colleges In the parent university.
2. The subcollege is an attractive alternative for many faculty and students who SA A N D SD wish to do a better job at Intellectual development.
3. The subcollege has contributed to the problem of lowering academic standards. SA A N D SD
4. The subcollegc is currently doing a successful job in achieving its various SA A N D SD goals.
5. Students who are accustomed to conventional courses lack the proper motiva SA A N D SD tion co pursue disciplined, independent study in the subcollege.
6. The subcollege has a stated philosophy of education, specific goals, and SA A N D SD objectives.
7. The subcollege has proved to be a better vehicle for innovation. SA A N D SD
S. The subcollege students worry that their degree will not be viewed favorably SA A N D SD by other graduate schools and employers.
9. The subcollege does a more careful evaluation of learning experiences, SA A N D SD outcomes and related costs than ocher colleges in the parent university.
10. The subcollege utilizes systematic evaluation to decide the quality of the SA A N D SD program.
11. The effectiveness of the subcollege often declines when the newness wears off. SA A N D SD
12. The subcollege model has a promising future. 1 SA A X D SD 13. The present program of the subcollege can meet the future educational needs | SA A N D SD of the students. 223
14. The subcollege provides a unified, radical reform In higher education SA A X D SD Instead of a piecemeal reform.
15. The autonomy of the subcollege provides opportunity to experiment with SA A X D SD minimum handicaps.
16. The subcollege Is directly responsible to a few of the highest ranking SA A K D SD university administrators.
17. The affairs of the subcollege are typically conducted In ways designed to SA A N D SD assure that all voices are heard.
18. The subcollege is dominated by a single "official" point of view. SA A N D SD
19. Faculty are attracted to the subcollege by a philosophy stressing concern SA A N. D SD for students as individuals.
20. The primary purpose of the subcollege faculty Is teaching and Improving the SA A N D SD quality of instruction.
21. One of the pressing problems of the subcollege Is maintaining continuity of SA A N D SD faculty.
22. It is difficult to recruit faculty members whose primary commitment Is SA A X D SD teaching undergraduates.
23. The subcollege faculty find that students demand too much of their time, SA A N D SD leaving few hours for Individual scholarly activities.
24. Even faculty members with a student-oriented teaching style, find themselves SA A X D SD overburdened because of their accessibility.
25. The subcollege faculty finds the constant contact with students fulfilling. SA A N D SD
26. Most faculty, regardless of their expectations, are quite unprepared for the S A A N D SD subcollege environment.
27. Some subcollege faculty discover that their style and interests are more SA A » D SD traditional than they thought.
28. Despite Intentions to the contrary,-some subcollege faculty continue to teach SA A X D SD in fairly standard and traditional ways.
29. The success of the subcollege is attributed to the great enthusiasm and the SA A N D SD spirit of adventure of the faculty.
30. The subcollege faculty get virtually no reward except personal satisfaction SA A X D SD for the addition«! time and. skill they put in.
31. Without suitable rewards, the subcollege faculty soon may lose their SA A X D SD enthusiasm.
32. The subcollege faculty are judged by the conventional criteria of research SA A X D SD for promotion and tenure.
33. Faculty who teach at the subcollege are less likely to receive promotion or SA A X D SD salary increase.
34. The subcollege faculty feel the pressure to engage in research and scholarly SA A N D SD activities to ensure professional mobility.
35. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the subcollege is inadequate financing. SA A N D SD
36. The subcollege competes with other colleges in the parent university for SA A X D SD funding and is accorded or denied by the same criteria.
37. The subcollege programs are expensive to operate because of the emphasis on SA A X 2 SD low faculty-student ratio.
38. The subcollege is expensive to operate because it has not attracted enough SA A N D SD students.
39. Much of the criticism of the subcollege comes from the disciplines in which SA A N D SD enrollment declines have been most marked. 22b
40. The distinctive Image and diversity of the subcollege create pride on the SA A ÎJ D SD part of the subcollege.
41. The distinctive Image and diversity of the subcollege create jealousy on the SA A N D SD faculty In the parent university.
42. A strong sense of tradition on the parent university campus makes It difficult SA A N D SD to operate the subcollege.
43. The subcollege Is placed In continual tension with the other academic depart SA A N D SD ments In the parent university.
44. Most parent university faculty members feel that the subcollege movement Is SA A N D SD detrimental to higher education.
45. Top-level administrators of the parent university are providing effective SA A N D SD educational leadership.
46. Generally speaking, communication between the parent university administration SA A N D SD and the subcollege administration Is poor.
47. The subcollege program Is judged on the basis of financial considerations SA A N D SD instead of Its assumed educational merit.
Thank you sincerely for filling out the questionnaire. Please return the survey In the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope to:
A. Malkia Perus College of • Education, EQAS Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
Additional comments are welcome. 225
Appendix A-3
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS—MONTEITH
1. How long have you been associated with the university?
2. What was the purpose of establishing Monteith in the beginning?
3. What are the factors which led to the closure of Monteith?
4. What are the major reasons for Monteith’s losing its administrative support?
5. What are the reasons for the Ad hoc Committee favoring the phase out of Monteith?
6. How long has Monteith been faced with the threat of closure?
7. How early was Monteith given any warning signal about its potential closing?
8. How early was Monteith given any warning signal about its financial problems?
9. If the major purpose of closing Monteith is to save money, could closing another unit(s) have accomplished the same purpose? Were they considered?
10. If saving money is the major reason for the closure of Monteith, is this reason educationally or academically sound?
11. Why was not Monteith given the option of cutting down its cost line with the other colleges or possibilities of alternative sources of money?
12. Is it worth preserving the best qualities of Monteith even while trimming the budget? How could this be done?
13. Could Monteith have provided the same important qualities of general education at a significantly lower cost comparable to other colleges?
14. Senate Resolution No. 316, December 10, 1975.
"We recognize the educational excellence and national reputation of Monteith College of Wayne State University as being among the best in the land;
"We perceive Monteith College’s full-time commitment to quality under graduate general education as necessary function of Wayne State University which Monteith College performs superbly."
What are your reactions to the above statement? 226
15. Monteith’s "program in Wayne State University is unique and is not duplicated by any other units of the University; its high quality had not been questioned by the President, and it enjoyed a distinguished reputation nationally." (Self-Study Report, August 13, 1975).
What are your comments on the statement?
16. Monteith claims that out of 1012 graduates: 49 are medical doctors, 72 lawyers including two judges, and 230 educators. ("The Continuing Story to Date," October 29, 1975, p. 3).
If Monteith-is judged by the abilities of its graduates and their degree of change and development while in college, can it claim success?
If so, should Monteith be judged in terms of its objectives and results rather than solely on the basis of cost-benefit? 227
Appendix A-4
PARENT UNIVERSITIES AND SUBCOLLEGES SURVEYED
Year of Esta Enrollment Code* blishment Ceiling
University AA College 1959 1,200
University BB College B 1967 800
University CDE College CX 1965 1,200 College D 1967 1,200 College Ex 1967 1,200
University FGH College F** 1965 350 College G** 1967 350 College H** 1969 350
University II College I 1972 850
University JKL College J 1968 600 College K 1970 1,000 College L 1973 no ceiling
University MM College M 1974 600
*In order to assure anonymity, each participating university and college is identified by a code.
**Non-degree granting colleges. Colleges F and G were merged in 1974 because of enrollment problem and attrition. College H was closed.
xColleges which did not participate in the study. 228
APPENDIX B
MONTEITH ENROLLMENT AND GRADUATES 229 Appendix B-l
MONTEITH ENROLLMENT, FALL QUARTER, 1959-1975
Entering Freshmen Total Number of Students
Year Monteith Others Total Monteith Others3- Total
59 265 49 314 265 49 314
60 307 53 360 537 66 603
61 269 25 294 679 59 738
62 233 19 252 690 63 753
63 244 11 255 709 43 752
64 304 19 323 817 52 869
65 281 7 288 889 26 915
66 247 2 249 793 20 813
67 310 X X 894 X X
68 325 - 325 954 63 1017
69 272 - 272 910 61 971
70 406 - 406 1008 86 1094
71 252 86*2 388 987 81 1068
72 164 912 255 844 58 902
73 166 793 252 756 63 819
74 203 663 269 773 X X
75 251 38 289 751 X X
Mon-Monteith students—mostly from Engineering, Business Administration, Education and Nursing. 2 Includes Chicano-Boricua Students. ^Includes Labor Studies and Chicano-Boricua.
xFigures are not available.
(Source: Advisor’s Office, Monteith College) 230
Appendix B-2
MONTEITH GRADUATES, 1963-19751
Summer & Winter & Year Fall Spring Total
63 - 50 50
63-64 18 35 53
64-65 27 48 75
65-66 22 49 71
66-67 32 54 86
67-68 24 72 96
68-69 24 76 100
69-70 37 72 109
70-71 16 71 87
71-72 27 68 95
72-73 27 50 77
73-74 35 69 104
74-75 26 56 82
22 22 75- 1 1 337 770 1107
1 Source: Advisor’s Office, Monteith College 231
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESOLUTION
/ 232
Appendix C-l
STATUTES OF WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
(as amended to February 10, 1972)
4.13- 1 Functions and Responsibilities
This Council has authority and responsibility for the
formulation and review of educational policy affecting the
University as a whole; but this responsibility shall extend to
the internal affairs of colleges, schools, divisions and other
units of the University only where they significantly affect the
interests of other units or the University as a whole.
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FORMULATION AND CONTINUING REVIEW OF
EDUCATIONAL POLICY SHALL GIVE ATTENTION TO THE CONTENT AND COSTS
OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS TOGETHER WITH THOSE ASPECTS OF ORGANIZATION
WHICH HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER OF ACADEMIC
PROGRAMS. THE APPROPRIATE UNIVERSITY OFFICERS, AS DESIGNATED BY
THE PRESIDENT, SHALL WORK WITH THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL IN THE
FORMULATION OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.
4.13- 2 The President will be expected to secure the judgment of the
Council upon any proposed change in educational policy or any
matter affecting faculty rights and responsibilities before taking
formal action thereon funiea»-he-deeana-the-sietter-'fceo-ttrgent-to
pemait-deleyj. 233
WHERE THESE MATTERS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS FOR APPROVAL, THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL SHALL BE GIVEN A
TIMELY OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A POSITION PAPER FOR SUBMISSION
TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS. Jln-the-l«feter-ease-hej WHEN URGENCY
PRECLUDES PRIOR CONSULTATION, THE PRESIDENT shall promptly report
the action taken to the Council for its review.
4.13-2.1 CONSEQUENTIAL MATTERS AS DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF
4.13-2 WHICH MAY BE PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT ARE EXPECTED TO BE
BROUGHT TO THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL AT A SUFFICIENTLY EARLY STAGE
TO ALLOW FOR SIGNIFICANT FACULTY INPUT BEFORE DECISIONS ARE
TAKEN.
Note: Proposed additions are in all caps; proposed deletions are explanatory
June 11, 1975 234
Appendix C-2
MICHIGAN SENATE
Senate Resolution No. 316
Offered by Senators Cooper, Faxon, Huffman, O'Brien, Holmes, Corbin, Faust, Cartwright, Kildee, McCollough, Hertel and Brown
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MONTEITH COLLEGE OF WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
WHEREAS, The Michigan Senate recognizes its responsibility for the support of higher education and respects the status of the Governing Board of Wayne State University which bears the constitutional responsi bility for educational programs; and
WHEREAS, We do not take a position for or against the elimination of any programs, but we do bear the responsibility for the appropriations necessary to meet our obligation; and
WHEREAS, We recognize the educational excellence and national reputation of Monteith College of Wayne State University as being among the best in the land; and
WHEREAS, We see the value of the services Monteith College provides to the Detroit community, and the unique opportunities it pro vides for the residents of the Detroit Metropolitan area and of the State of Michigan; and
WHEREAS, We perceive Monteith College’s full-time commitment to quality, undergraduate general education as a necessary function of Wayne State University, which Monteith College performs superbly; and
WHEREAS, By the significant role so many of Monteith College graduates already have in this State, and inasmuch as in this time of budgetary difficulty throughout the State, Monteith College is in danger of being eliminated; we, therefore, state our support for Monteith College's continued survival; and
WHEREAS, Understanding the requirements to reduce costs, we urge Wayne State University to meet this obligation by examining alternatives to continue the student enrollment in Monteith College programs. Such alternatives might include arranging fulfillment of the general educa tional requirements of the students enrolled in the professional schools by attending Monteith College programs. Other alternatives for reducing 235
costs could be implemented without eliminating the total program. We should like the University to enlist its resources in realizing these suggestions for reducing the costs of a Monteith College education; now, therefore, bt it
RESOLVED BY THE SENATE, That we strongly urge the Governors of Wayne State University to find alternative methods for continuing the existence of Monteith College; and be it further
RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to Wayne State University and Monteith College.
Adopted by the Senate, December 10, 1975.
Billie S. Farnum Secretary of the Senate 236
Appendix C-3
Adopted by the Wayne State University Board of Governors, December 12, 1975
Monteith College
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of Governors adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS the University administration presented to the Board of Governors at its June, 1975 meeting a recommendation that steps be taken to phase out Monteith College, and
WHEREAS the Board at that time requested the President to ask the University Council to advise the Board regarding this recommendation, and
WHEREAS the University Council Policy Committee subse quently asked the Curriculum and Instruction Committee and the Budget Committee of the Council to appoint a subcommittee to study the function and cost of Monteith College as it related to the University as a whole, and
WHEREAS this subcommittee reported back to the University Council Policy Committee, after intensive investigation, consultation and delib eration, with a recommendation that Monteith College be phased out, and
WHEREAS the University Council, after extensive debate during its meetings on November 5 and November 12, supported the subcommittee's recommendation by a significant majority, and
WHEREAS the fiscal limitations facing the University in the immediate academic year and beyond require that a decision be made now so that plans for transfer of students, faculty, staff and adminis trators can be accomplished in the most advan tageous way for the benefit of the affected per sons, and whereas decisions affecting personnel transfers, appointments and reappointments must be made in many instances prior to December 22 in order to meet this objective, and 237
WHEREAS it is imperative that any personnel adjustments be consistent with University polices and prac tices and with existing collective bargaining agreements, and
WHEREAS it is the desire of the Board to permit current Monteith students to complete their Monteith programs within a reasonable period of time, and
WHEREAS the serious financial problems facing the University have intensified and will increase especially in the 1976-77 fiscal year,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
That the Board of Governors, with reluctance but with recognition of the above factors, direct the University administration to proceed to phase out Monteith College over a period not to exceed three years from this date, in the following manner:
1. Admit no new freshmen or transfer students to Monteith College.
2. Provide current Monteith students the oppor tunity to complete their Monteith programs.
3. Set up an advising group to assist those current Monteith students who choose to transfer to other colleges of the University, so that they may successfully complete their college careers.
4. Continue the Chicano-Boricua program with its full faculty and student body and begin discussions immediately with the administration to determine an appropriate new setting for this program in the University.
5. Continue the Labor Studies program and begin discussions Immediately with the Institute for Labor and Industrial Relations and consult with the Labor Advisory Committee of the Institute and other appropriate University units to recommend an appropriate new setting for this program in the University. 238
6. Begin at once to discuss arrangements for the transfer of faculty, staff and administration who request consideration for transfer to other appropriate positions in the University, assuring consultation with appropriate academic bodies in the colleges, the University Council, and representatives of the bargaining units.
7. Ensure that monies saved as a result of these actions be used to strengthen academic programs throughout the University.
8. Make periodic reports to the Board of Governors about the progress achieved in all aspects of these program changes. 239
APPENDIX D
COMPARATIVE DATA ON MONTEITH AND THE OTHER COLLEGES IN WSU 240
Appendix D-l
Wayne State University Budget Summary 1973-74 Actual, 1974-75 Base, and 1975-76 Proposed Base
1973-74 1974-75 Increases and 1975-76 Revenues and Amended (Decreases) Proposed Expenditures* Base Budget for 1975-76 Base Budget Revenue State Appropriation $ 61,476,200 $ 67,867,000 $ 6,769,100 $ 74,636,100 Student Fees 22,195,624 26,284,000 2,613,000 28,897,000 Indirect Cost Recovery 1,418,049 1,500,000 1,500,000 Other Revenues 1,844,226 1,575,000 38,000 1,613,000
Total Revenues $ 86,934,099 $ 97,226,000 $ 9,420,100 $106,646,100
Expenditures and Allocations Business Administration $ 1,684,788 $ 1,777,500 $ 60,000 $ 1,837,500 Education 4,862,222 4,811,854 (250,000) 4,561,354 Engineering 2,655,709 2,741,015 (100,000) 2,641,015 Health and P.E. 1,235,301 1,206,547 8,000 1,214,547 Law 1,639,602 1,825,160 70,000 1,895,160
Liberal Arts 17,959,640 18,016,633 (350,000) 17,666,633 Lifelong Learning 2,581,157 3,504,779 313,000 3,817,779 Medicine 13,508,580 15,000,898 1,911,000 16,911,898 Monteith 807,616 818,773 (200,000) 618,773 Mortuary Science 113,473 108,320 - 108,320 Nursing 1,330,355 1,493,188 50,000 1,543,188 Pharmacy & Allied Health 914,138 1,024,035 50,000 1,074,035 Social Work 829,922 984,586 28,000 1,012,586
Sub-total $ 50,122,503 $ 53,313,288 $ 1,590,000 $ 54,903,268
Academic Support 11,816,166 12,371,996 13,000 12,384,996 Student Affairs 1,755,520 1,791,678 (50,000) 1,741,678 Student Aid 3,453,004 4,579,357 1,300,000 5,879,357 General Support 19,820,620 20,047,208 2,902,000 22,949,208
Reserves : 1974-75 Compensation Adjustments - 5,100,000 - 5,100,000 1975-76 Compensation Adjustments - - 5,350,000 5,350,000 1975-76 Group Insurance Premium - - 500,000 500,000 Contingencies - 22,473 78,000 100,473
Total Expenditures and Allocations $ 86,967,813 $ 97,226,000 $ 11,683,000 $108,909,000
* Expenditures by unit or function have been adjusted to reflect organization changes made during the 1974-75 fiscal year.
6/6/75 241
Appendix D-2
FOUR YEAR UNIT COST STUDY, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
GENERAL FUND - INSTRUCTION AND DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES PER SCH BY COLLEGE FOR YEARS 1970-71 THRU 1973-74
Budgetary Unit 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75**
Business Administration $ 20.04 $ 20.99 $ 22.80 $ 22.81 $ 23.07
Education 26.71 29.30 37.45 38.97 43.00
Engineering 85.80 95.84 115.08 104.05 105.66
Health & P.E. 40.19 49.04 48.43 56.75 70.85
Law 39.52 38.54 40.76 42.71 47.70
Liberal Arts 20.82 21.78 25.88 27.39 26.97
*Medicine 149.12 157.22 149.32 117.28 137.27
Monteith 31.82 35.89 45.99 51.15 47.90
Nursing 74.77 84.00 93.62 97.27 103.76
Pharmacy & Allied Health 53.55 47.05 39.35 54.07 37.71
Social Work 49.33 50.41 51.40 50.94 50.13
Other Ed. Programs 34.53 87.20 46.31 28.10 31.51
Lifelong Learning 27.60 25.02 23.02 25,24 30.01
TOTAL - ALL PROGRAMS 30.88 33.37 39.24 40.92 42.78
* Should not be compared with other colleges because of credit hour assignments.
** Estimated. Appendix D-3. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY: STUDENT CREDIT HOUR DISTRIBUTION BY COLLEGE, 1964-65, 1968-69 to 1974-75
School/College 1964-65 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75
Business Administration 44,162 67,498 68,727 69,415 67,734 67,708 71,251 77,061
Education 116,446 162,376 177,283 178,152 169,422 139,109 124,662 111,895
Engineering 23,402 27,220 30,110 31,207 29,495 25,321 24,051 25,943
Health & Physical Education 13,097 20,418 21,310 20,613 19,621 17,891 16,315 17,029
Law 20,515 31,142 33,556 33,477 37,742 37,510 36,883 38,267
Liberal Arts 517,680 695,116 732,959 763,168 750,960 691,865 655,471 668,685
Medicine* 26,310 40,377 43,191 45,515 49,942 56,247 105,094 109,280
Monteith 16,640 21,292 19,491 21,570 20,095 17,522 17,789 16,750
Nursing 9,559 16,793 13,893 14,429 14,770 13,263 13,391 14,391
Pharmacy* 6,101 10,630 12,365 12,738 15,905 19,799 24,168 27,151
Social Work 7,368 12,179 14,106 15,844 16,525 16,188 16,293 19,639
Other Programs 3,486 1,652 1,757 2,508 2,163 2,911 4,038 3,438
CLL 4 Associated Programs — 21,278 32,352 38,449 62,555 56,979 81,288 133,405
TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS 804,766 1,127,971 1;,201,100 ,247,095 1,256,929 1,171,683 1,188,694 1,262,334
*Adjusted for the transfer of Allied Health Programs from Medicine to Pharmacy and Allied Health
DIR/12-22-75/PKR Appendix D-4. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT CREDIT HOUR: 1964-65, 1968-69 to 1974-75
1964-65 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75
Business Administration 14.60 17.20 18.44 20.43 20.67 23.59 23.65 25.54 (100.0) (117.8) (126.3) (139.9) (148.4) (161.6) (162.0) (174.9) Education 21.83 25.41 25.23 26.75 29.50 28.77 39.00 45.19 (100.0) (116.4) (115.6) (122.5) (135.1) (177.6) (178.7) (207.0) Engineering 45.44 64.84 82.29 85.80 100.12 124.89 110.42 116.75 (100.0) (142.7) (181.1) (188.8) (220.3) (274.8) (243.0) (256.9) Health & Physical Education 32.67 ¿2.84 43.13 47.64 56.15 62.90 75.72 76.02 (100.0) (131.3) (132.0) (145.8) (171.9) (192.5) (231.8) (235.1) Law 14.39 29.07 34.29 40.88 39.90 42.58 44.45 48.08 (100.0) (202.0) (238.3) (284.1) (277.3) (295.9) (308.9) (334.1) Liberal Arts 14.02 20.00 21.01 20.99 22.02 26.02 27.39 28.64 (100.0) (142.7) (149.9) (149.7) (157.1) (185.6) (195.4) (204.2) Medicine* 89.59 135.60 138.72 161.85 178.35 167.26 129.26 146.50 (100.0) (151.4) (154.8) (180.7) (199.1) (186.7) (144.3) (163.5) Monteith 22.95 29.46 33.83 31.82 35.98 45.99 51.15 51.56 (100.0) (128.4) (147.4) (138.6) (156.8) (200.4) (222.9) (224.6) Nursing 48.04 58.16 73.64 74.77 84.88 100.47 99.35 99.67 (100.0) (121.1) (153.3) (155.6) (176.7) (209.1) (206.8) (207.5) Pharmacy** 37.30 43.51 42.50 47.38 44.36 40.65 37.83 39.09 (100.0) (116.6) (113.9) (127.0) (118.9) (109.0) (101.4) (104.8) Social Work 30.73 53.62 52.96 49.34 50.41 51.40 50.94 51.14 (100.0) (174.5) (172.3) (160.6) (164.0) (167.3) (165.8) (166.6) Other Programs 16.92 45.61 45.04 35.65 41.37 33.33 28.10 33.73 (100.0) (269.6) (266.2) (210.7) (244.5) (197.0) (166.1) (199.3) CCL - 41.98 39.14 42.82 28.09 32.12 30.61 32.87 Halstead Price Index 100.0 125.3 134.0 142.8 150.4 158.2 169.0 183.6
*Medicine changed definition of student credit hour in 1973. Also adjusted for the transfer of Allied Health Programs from Medicine to Pharmacy. **Adjusted for the transfer of Allied Health Programs from Medicine to Pharmacy
DIR/12-22-75/PKR Appendix D-5 WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY FYES BY COLLEGE: 1964-65, 1968-69 to 1974-75
1964-65 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 Business Administration 1,002 1,552 1,576 1,602 1,544 1,515 1,611 1,750 (100.0) (154.9) (157.3) (159.9) (154.1) (151.2) (160.8) (174.7) Education 2,898 3,994 4,415 4,510 4,312 3,552 3,216 2,931 (100.0) (137.8) (152.3) (155.6) (148.8) (122.6) (111.0) (101.1) Engineering 540 623 698 737 703 607 578 617 (100.0) (115.4) (129.3) (136.5) (130.2) (112.4) (107.0) (114.3) Health & Physical Education 288 439 465 455 433 395 362 379 (100.0) (152.4) (161.5) (158.0) (150.3) (137.2) (125.7) (131.6) Law 570 871 981 1,001 1,114 1,121 1,057 1,096 (100.0) (152.8) (172.1) (175.6) (195.4) (196.7) (185.4) (192.3) Liberal Arts 11,606 15,589 16,435 17,068 16,787 15,430 14,641 14,922 (100.0) (134.3) (141.6) (147.1) (144.6) (132.9) (126.2) (128.5) Medicine** 515 648 683 729 815 1,012 1,648 1,709 (100.0) (117.8) (124.2) (132.5) (148.2) (184.0) (299.6) (310.7) Monteith 358 458 420 463 432 377 340 360 (100.0) (127.9) (117.3) (129.3) (120.7) (105.3) (95.0) (100.6) Nursing 213 381 314 329 336 300 303 327 (100.0) (178.9) (147.4) (154.5) (157.7) (140.8) (142.3) (153.5) Pharmacy** 133 238 275 284 360 444 549 604 (100.0) (178.9) (206.8) (213.5) (270.7) (333,8) (412.8) (454.1) Social Work 281 367 419 466 474 455 484 578 (100.0) (130.6) (149.1) (165.8) (168.7) (162.3) (172.2) (205.7) CCL (Associate Programs 35 175 . 807 969 1,585 1,442 1,996 3,051 Other (included ROTC in) 80 36 37 53 47 64 85 73 (100.0) (45.0) (46.3) (66.3) (58.8) (80.0) (106.3) (91.3)
TOTAL 18,519 25,371 27,525 28,666 28,942 26,715 26,871 28,397 (100.0) (137.0) (148.6) (154.8) (156.3) (144.3) (145.1) (153.3)
**Adjusted for the transfer of Allied Health Programs from Medicine to Pharmacy and Allied Health.
DIR/12-22-75/PKR Appendix D-6. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY GENERAL FUND COST PER FYES BY COLLEGE 1964-65, 1968-69 to 1974-75
School/College 1964-65 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75
Business Administration 643 748 804 885 951 1,045 1,046 1,125 (100.0) (116.3) (125.0) (157.6) (147.9) (162.5) (162.7) (175.0) Education 877 1,033 1,013 1,057 1,159 1,518 1,512 1,725 (100.0) (117.8) (115.5) (120.5) (132.2) (173.1) (172.4) (196.7) Engineering 1,969 2,833 3,550 3,633 4,201 5,210 4,595 4,909 (100.0) (143.9) (180.3) (184.5) (213.4) (264.6) (233.4) (249.3) Health & Physical Education 1,486 1,995 1,977 2,158 2,544 2,849 3,412 3,452 (100.0) (134.3) (133.0) (145.2) (171.2) (191.7) (229.6) (232.3) Law 518 1,039 1,173 1,367 1,352 1,425 1,551 1,679 (100.0) (200.6) (226.4) (263.9) (261.0) (275.1) (299.4) (324.1) Liberal Arts 626 892 937 938 985 1,167 1,226 1,283 (100.0) (142.5) (149.7) (149.8) (157.3) (186.4) (195.8) (205.0) Medicine* 4,286 8,449 8,773 10,105 10,929 10,949 8,005 9,009 (100.0) (197.1) (204.7) (235.8) (255.0) (255.5) (186.8) (210.2) Monteith 1,067 1,369 1,570 1,482 1,674 2,137 2,375 2,399 (100.0) (128.3) (147.1) (138.9) (156.9) (200.3) (222.6) (224.3) Nursing 2,156 2,563 3,258 3,279 3,731 4,442 4,391 4,386 (100.0) (118.9) (151.1) (152.1) (173.1) (206.0) (203.7) (203.4) Pharmacy* 1,711 1,943 1,911 2,125 1,960 1,813 1,665 1,757 (100.0) (113.6) (111.7) (124.2) (114.6) (106.0) (97.3) (102.7) Social Work 806 1,779 1,783 1,677 1,757 1,825 1,715 1,739 (100.0) (220.7) (221.2) (208.1) (218.0) (226.4) (212.8) (215.8) Other 737 2,093 2,141 1,687 1,904 1,506 1,335 1,588 (100.0) (284.0) (290.5) (228.9) (258.3) (205.7) (181.1) (215.6) CCL — 1,670 1,569 1,699 1,109 1,269 1,247 1,437
TOTAL Instructional Programs 864 1,258 1,306 1,377 1,480 1,783 1,850 1,994 (100.0) (145.6) (151.2) (159.4) (171.3) (206.4) (214.1) (230.8)
*Adjusted for the transfer of Allied Health Programs from Medicine - ■P' to Pharmacy and Allied Health.
DIR/12-22-75/PKR Appendix D-7.
COMPARISON OF GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE AND FYES ENROLLMENTS BY INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT 1965-66 and 1974-75
1965-66 General Fund 1965-66 General Fund 1974-75 General Fund Percent Change Percent Change Instructional Expenditures, Expenditure in Expenditures, in Expenditure, in FYES Unit Actual Dollars3 1974-75 Dollars^3 Actual Dollars3 1974-75/1965-66° 1974-75/1965-66
Business Admin. $ 791,210 $ 1,452,662 $ 1,967,913 35.5 27.2 Education 2,917,344 5,356,244 5,056,661 - 5.6 - 1.3 Engineering 1,201,835 2,206,569 3,028,871 37.3 8.8 Health & Phys. Ed. 490,769 901,052 1,308,171 45.3 10.8 Law 364,207 668,684 1,846,534 176.1 58.4 Liberal Arts 9,565,680 17,562,588 19,157,453 9.1 4.0 Medicine 3,111,463 5,712,646 15,512,429 171.5 212.2d Monteith 460,251 845,021 863,626 2.2 Nursing 556,998 1,022,648 1,434,283 40.3 66.0 Pharmacy & Allied Health 211,307 387,959 1,061,310 173.6 260.3 Social Work 360,217 661,358 1,005,352 52.0 77.8
$20,031,281 $36,777,431 $52,242,603 42.1 28.9
aSOURCE: Wayne State University Financial Reports, 1966 and 1975. bOne dollar in 1965-66 is equivalent to $1.84 today as adjusted by the Halstead Higher Education Price Index.
cCompares 1974-75 expenditures in actual dollars with 1965-66 expenditures in 1975 Halstead dollars.
^Excludes Medical Interns and Residents.
DIR/GMW/1-26-76