September 3, 2004
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost E. Thomas Sullivan
234 Morrill Hall
University of Minnesota
100
Church St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Professor Marvin
Marshak
Chair, Faculty Consultative Committee
School of Physics and
Astronomy
148 Physics
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
55455
Dear Professor Marshak and Provost Sullivan:
The document,
“A lighthouse built on a rock-solid foundation lighting the way for a
bright future – The University of Minnesota,” is enclosed. This
report has the goal of improving our ability to communicate the basic value of
the University of Minnesota to Minnesotans and others. The explanation of the
role of the University herein is done without using quantitative measures
related to the number of students, number of faculty and staff, number of
patents, dollars in grants, etc. It reflects the Einstein quote: “Not
everything that matters can be counted, and not everything that can be counted
matters.” We want you to know that our discussions that formed the basis
of this report were absolutely enjoyable; our hope is that the citizens of
Minnesota, the legislature, and the staff of the University will be uplifted and
informed by this document, and that the recommendations will form the basis for
the future of the University of Minnesota.
The committee - composed of
Regents’ Professors, McKnight Distinguished Professors, and members of the
Academy of Distinguished Teachers - was called the Instrumentalization Task
Force (ITF). The term “instrumentalization” refers to the doctrine
that ideas are instruments of action and that their usefulness determines their
truth. The charge letter from Dan Feeney, Chair of the Faculty Consultative
Committee, and Christine Maziar, Executive Vice President and Provost, stated
“What we mean by ‘instrumentalization’ is to ask about the
developing understandings of the roles and uses of the University within the
various constituencies that make up the University community and its larger
public. The University is seen, variously, as the economic engine of the state,
a source of new discoveries (e.g., in the life and physical sciences,
engineering, etc.), a provider of health care for both humans and animals, a
source of expertise and assistance for agriculture, business and corporations,
state agencies, local governments, nonprofits and other private and public
sector enterprises, a provider of employees, an entertainer of the public
through intercollegiate athletics and arts performances, a developer of human
capital and potential, the educator of an informed and engaged citizenry and so
on. To what extent are these uses and roles appropriate? How well is their
value understood and articulated. To what extent is the value of other roles
and purposes of the University poorly understood, articulated and
valued?”
Although the report is based on this concept, we do not
use the term “instrumentalization” in the report because its precise
interpretation is not commonly known. A central theme in the report is the
value of setting goals of the University in terms of “public goods”
- whether in the form of information, products, or human capital. The
lighthouse metaphor is used throughout the report to emphasize that a public
good, like the light of the lighthouse, is available to everyone and cannot be
hoarded by any one group.
Dan Feeney and Christine Maziar, in March,
2003, asked us to consider:
- How prevalent is the notion that the purpose of the University is to create
jobs and promote economic development? What is an appropriate response to this
point of view?
- Some aspects of the University’s mission are readily measured and
compared against similar measures from other institutions, i.e., volume of
research activity, the number of research dollars, the new patents, royalty
income, graduation and retention rates, and program rankings. How do we make
compelling arguments for that part of our mission that has either
“soft” measures or no comparative data?
- It is said that corporate leaders value liberal education more highly than
the general population. How can, or should, the university make use of the
insights of these leaders?
- What are appropriate strategies for educating the general public and
legislative leaders about the importance of a broadly constructed undergraduate
education program and the importance of the “open dissemination of
knowledge” in the service of society. What should be the value statement
or argument made for public investment in the University?
- The U’s intellectual future is tied to external factors, such as the
increasing accountability measures (how state funds are used, student progress,
and outcomes for students and the state). How can these influences be harnessed
to improve and not harm the value of the University to society, our students and
to future generations?
We believe the above questions are
addressed in the enclosed document – written in a manner that we hope will
entice many to become engaged. We hope our report is useful to you and others
in demonstrating that a great State does not exist without a great University
and vice versa. How fortunate we are to have both!
I and the members of
the task force would be glad to meet with you to discuss the report, if you
wish.
Yours sincerely,
Ronald L. Phillips, Chair
For the task
force: Professors Bert Ahern, Patricia Bauer, David Bernlohr, Sara Evans, Al
Michael, and Nelson Rhodus
cc: President Robert H.
Bruininks
Go to the Lighthouse Report