Morgan Responds to UMUC Duplication of MSU Doctorate In Community College Administration
Published by MSU Office of Public Relations
The issue of unnecessary academic program duplication continues to generate considerable media coverage particularly where a historically black institution is involved. Much of the coverage is cast as disputes among area campuses in which one campus wins and the other loses; or as instances in which one institution seeks to establish itself as a monopoly while the other institution seeks a more noble purpose of everything that is good. To so narrowly frame the issue of program duplication, which the United States Supreme Court has found to be an instrument of historic and present-day segregation, is unfortunate. It makes a mockery of state and federal civil rights laws and raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of those laws against countervailing forces of political power and influence.
The failure to appropriately frame discussions of program duplication as a legal construct inevitably leads to the omission of facts critical to any objective public assessment of the issue. As demonstrated in the narrative that follows, recent news articles on the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) proposal for a doctorate in Community College Administration and the ultimate decision of the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) are classic illustrations of just how the omissions can skew the news coverage.
The Maryland Higher Education Commission recently voted to support a decision of Higher Education Secretary, Dr. James E. Lyons, to grant the University of Maryland University College authority to offer a program similar to the existing doctorate in Community College Administration at Morgan State University (Morgan). Included in the approval was the Secretary's stipulation that the UMUC program could not be offered to residents of the State of Maryland. This is the provision of the decision to which the media has devoted endless attention, to the exclusion of other more revealing information. The media and other critics of the MHEC decision have termed it a victory for Morgan State University, with headlines at the Baltimore Sun reading "Morgan wins fight with UMUC" and "Morgan Blocks UMUC Program." A more accurate heading would have been "UMUC wins; Marylanders Lose."
Excluded from the press accounts is any mention that the initial decision of the Secretary issued on February 13, 2009, was to deny UMUC authority to offer the program. Only later was he influenced to rescind the decision and subsequently to approve the UMUC duplication with the restriction for Maryland students. Maryland taxpayers lose anytime an academic program is unnecessarily duplicated between two publicly-supported institutions. The loss is only made worse when the taxpayer dollars go to fund the duplicated program and the taxpayer is excluded from participation in it. That is the unfortunate circumstance created when the higher education secretary was influenced to abandon his original decision and to opt instead for an unprecedented compromise position. The reversal not only compromised students, it is also a compromise of state and federal law.
Note the following. The University of Maryland University College initially submitted a proposal on November 18, 2008, to offer a program similar in course content, targeted student clientele, employment opportunities and delivery format to the doctorate in Community College Administration established at Morgan in 1999. In December 2008, Morgan registered an objection to the program based on the standards set forth in State and federal law prohibiting unnecessary duplication of academic programs both where it wastes State resources and maintains an illegal segregated system of higher education. Dr. James E. Lyons, Secretary of the Maryland Higher Education Commission ("MHEC" or "Commission"), then conducted an extensive review of the UMUC proposal, with input from UMUC, the University System of Maryland and Morgan. The review also involved an analysis of data compiled by the MHEC staff and consultation with the Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Commission. The Secretary concluded that the UMUC program would be unnecessarily and unreasonably duplicative of the existing Morgan program and would demonstrably harm Morgan. Consequently, Secretary Lyons issued a decision on February 13, 2009, denying UMUC's proposal to offer the community college administration doctorate under any condition.
The only recourse to UMUC at that time was, by law, an appeal of the Secretary's decision to the Maryland Higher Education Commission. UMUC chose not to appeal but immediately launched aggressive efforts to get the Secretary's decision reversed. The series of actions that followed are both unparalleled and bizarre. On February 27, 2009, the Secretary rescinded his original decision to deny the UMUC program proposal, claiming that he was going to add more formal negotiations even though negotiations had already occurred consistent with State regulations. As a result, the UMUC proposal was given privileged consideration months beyond the period of time required by State regulations.
On June 5, 2009, the Secretary issued a third decision, this time granting UMUC authority to offer the duplicative doctoral program, but restricting the program to out-of-state students. On September 21, 2009, Secretary Lyons reaffirmed his June 5th decision to allow UMUC to offer a doctorate in community college administration and explicitly denied a UMUC request to extend the approval of the UMUC program to include access to Maryland students.
The University of Maryland University College subsequently appealed Secretary Lyons' decision to the Maryland Higher Education Commission. The Commission held a hearing on October 14, 2009, and on October 23rd issued a statement upholding the Secretary's decision to grant UMUC authority to offer the doctorate in community college administration on the condition that the program would not be available to Maryland students.
Morgan continues to maintain that Secretary Lyons' February 13, 2009 decision disapproving the UMUC program under any circumstance was educationally sound, fiscally responsible, procedurally correct and legally compliant. Further, the Secretary's February 27th letter rescinding his original decision as well as all subsequent actions taken by the Secretary and the Commission were procedurally, intellectually and legally indefensible. There is no provision for rescinding a decision by the Secretary. If any institution wishes to challenge a decision rendered by the Secretary, the law requires the institution to file an appeal to the Maryland Higher Education Commission. Since UMUC elected not to appeal, the Secretary's decision should stand.
Morgan contends also that the concept of a publicly supported university such as UMUC offering a program to everyone except the taxpayers who support it is unsound. Equally unsound is the idea that a state-supported traditionally white institution would be approved to duplicate an existing program at a public historically black campus, which state and federal law clearly prohibits. It does not matter that the UMUC program is an on-line program, particularly in an age when all campuses have the capacity to offer programs on campus, at satellite sites, on-line, in-state and out-of-state.
The only legal and responsible option available to the Secretary and the Maryland Higher Education Commission was to deny UMUC's program proposal and to recommend to the Governor and the Legislature that they provide, as soon as the budget allows, funding sufficient for Morgan to deliver the program in whatever format necessary to insure access wherever necessary, be it in-state or out-of-state. Instead, politics prevailed as it did with the Towson MBA three years ago. The problems created by the MHEC decision are much broader and far-reaching than any single degree program.
The harm done to Maryland's four historically black institutions by past and present-day decisions similar to that made in the Towson University and University of Maryland University College programs is pervasive and compelling. Morgan and other historically black institutions are far more segregated now than they were forty years ago. In 1972, 43 percent of graduate enrollment at historically black institutions was white, and a year later that percentage had increased to 53%. In 2006, it was 14 percent. For the same period, the percentage of white students enrolled in graduate and professional education statewide, and who attended public HBIs, declined from 8 percent to 2 percent. The impact of these data is even more dramatic when you factor out white professional enrollment because of the absence of professional programs at historically black institutions during the referenced period.
The effect at Morgan, specifically, can be seen with the MBA. The Morgan MBA was approved in 1969 and by 1974, it enrolled 234 students. Fifty-four of the students were white. Once duplication of the program began in the public sector (1976), overall enrollment in the MBA declined to 28 in 2006 with no white enrollees. These dramatic declines in both the number and diversity of the enrollment undermine the viability and vitality of a very important sector of our public higher education system. Likewise, the potential richness of Maryland's multiracial and multicultural population is significantly diminished,
In summary, challenges to academic program duplication are not a matter of historically black institutions seeking protection against their traditionally white competitors, nor can the importance of program duplication be captured in catchy headlines and simple phrases. It is instead a proxy for the greater effort to dismantle the dual system of higher education and to establish in its place a system of public colleges and universities that are comparable in their competitiveness to attract students regardless of race. The facts in the specific case of the UMUC Community College Administration program demonstrate that Morgan was correct in its objection, and Secretary Lyons was equally correct in his original decision to deny approval of the UMUC proposal. Rather than reinstate the Secretary's initial ruling, the Maryland Higher Education Commission embraced the Secretary's compromised position and, thus, created rancor among educators, lawmakers and the general public.
Four years ago, the Maryland Higher Education Commission mistakenly decided to approve an MBA for Towson University and legislation was introduced in the Maryland General Assembly to allow judicial review of decisions made by MHEC. That legislation failed, but the UMUC case illustrates the wisdom of its sponsors.
