This commentary is by Bruce Lisman of Shelburne, a retired Wall Street executive who ran for governor in 2016.
There has been plenty of commentary about the University of Vermont’s effort to adapt to changes that threaten its educational mission. The union has hurled protests the size of manhole covers, while the university responds with facts.
The pandemic has exposed weaknesses in current models of higher education everywhere, but changes in what students want from college is a constant. Those who adapt to change will survive. Others will hope for the best and struggle until their options dim.
Look no further than our Vermont State Colleges System — it’s in trouble and will now rely upon life support from our state’s taxpayers as it develops a new plan for going forward. And rest in peace to Green Mountain College, Marlboro College, Southern Vermont College and others who couldn’t effectively compete for students.
My goal here is to respond to Sen. Phil Baruth’s commentary published by VTDigger Dec. 30. He is in the uncomfortable position of being conflicted from every direction. He gets a paycheck as a professor at UVM so he needs a healthy employer. He’s a member of the union that negotiates wages on his behalf and is now pressing against essential but modest changes to address challenges.
As a senior senator, he could make a strong and public case on behalf of UVM for more state funding but does not. Before I address his comments, let me lay out the benefits that UVM provides our state.
UVM is the state’s second-largest employer. The employee levels have risen over the past 20 years, and the number of permanent employees remain about the same from a year ago. Approximately 9,300 students at UVM come from other states and about one-third of those graduating each year find employment in Vermont after graduation. The university is a large economic influence locally and provides a predictable platform for our state and contributes to making Burlington vibrant.
Additionally, UVM generates approximately $180 million in research dollars that accelerates Vermont’s participation in the “New Economy.” Business start-ups from UVM’s technology programs are real. Finally, the campus infrastructure has been renovated, rebuilt and expanded, and in that way has created large numbers of jobs in our community.
I owe much of my success to UVM and I’ve done my best to give back. I served as its board chair for two years and endowed a scholarship that has helped more than 450 students to date. So, for the record, I am biased about our university, but I am not conflicted.
Baruth says the Legislature sent $87 million to UVM, of which he says $45 million came from the feds as one-time money restricted for Covid-related expenses. He also said that the Legislature did appropriate the “standard $42.5 million in general fund monies.” That “standard $42.5 million” was $42.2 million in 2008 and continues a deliberate and long-held policy of underinvesting in higher education.
This is an important message that the state has sent: The university must do for itself what it must to ensure its long-term health.
Baruth’s concern is genuine. He wonders if the modest restructuring proposal is at odds with President Garimella’s promise to be the institution that addresses affordability, helps to build a workforce and create jobs in our state. Those are closely related themes.
Over the 10 years before Mr. Garimella’s arrival, tuition had increased by 34%. And, before that, tuition and fees had increased at a faster rate. UVM’s reliance on tuition and fee increases nudged the university out of reach for many families just as demographics turned negative in the Northeast.
Now, President Garimella has frozen tuition for a third year in a row and lowered related student costs to make UVM more affordable. This will require a strong UVM to see this through.
The Vermont State Colleges System is facing an existential threat. It wasn’t an act of God that put them there. It was its failure to adjust and act upon change and new challenges over time. They didn’t seem to understand the message from Montpelier: Do what you must to succeed, because the state’s available resources are no match for its needs. There would be no more money for higher education.
The senator would do well to consider the consequence of chronic underfunding by the state. With failure at hand, the state will provide significant funding for the Vermont State Colleges to support their restructuring. In contrast, UVM is doing what it must with resources at hand to manage for a better future.
Small threats can turn into grave threats. Institutional death happens only once. Avoiding it by fixing, rebalancing and pausing growth are designed to avert threats. It is simply good management.
And to the excellent question of whether UVM is creating jobs, a workforce, and pursuing a more affordable education? The answer is yes.
