OCR Text |
Show N I V E Faculty and staff members (left) met March 9 in the Randall L. Jones Theatre to hear an administrative report on SUU's share of funding for higher education which resulted from the new state budget passed by the legislature. Later, SUU President R s I y Steven D. Bennion (right) and Provost Ray Reutzel led an open forum with faculty members to continue dialogue regarding 'visions· for SUU's future . Six possible scenarios for SUU's future were presented and discussed in the forum. Faculty gathers to discuss future In the future, SUU could be restructured based on one of six possible scenarios presented during an open forum on academic reorganization held March 9. The forum, held in the Randall L. Jones Theatre, provided an opportunity for the administration to report on SUU's share of funding for higher education resulting from the new state budget and to continue dialogue with the faculty regarding "visions· for SUU's future. President Steven D. Bennion opened the forum by identifying five elements that he felt were important to SUU-a continued focus on the university's mission, an .emphasis on quality, increasing enrollment to an eventual figure of 9,000 to 11 ,000 students, targeting and offering the most effective academic programs and capitalizing on SUU's residential setting. He and Provost Ray Reutzel said it was vital that SUU took control of its own destiny rather than have that destiny shaped by external forces. · 1believe complacency can impede progress." Bennion said. Reutzel cited several concerns-including pressure . from the state Board of Regents, strained financial · resources. accreditation issues and developments at Dixie College-as reasons why SUU must decide how it will position itself in higher education. With these concerns in mind, Reutzel said the administration-with input from the deans and various faculty members-has proposed six scenarios for SUU . These six scenarios were presented by four faculty members, followed by a question-and-answer segment moderated by Faculty Senate President Earl F. Mulderink. • SUU could establish a "horizontal" approach by offering as many programs as possible in an attempt to "become all things to all people.· • SUU could institute a · vertical" concept in which it focuses on specialized programs and adopts selectivity as a way to create a distinctive "niche" that makes it unique in higher education. • SUU could regress from a regional comprehensive university to a community college, returning the school to ·a former time and mission.· • SUU and Dixie College could be merged into a single institution, which would allow SUU to reach its student population goals, but lose its identity in the process. • SUU could become a "branch campus· of a research university such as the University of Utah, which would give the senior institution the political and financial power. • SUU could become a "distributive/adult learning university" with a focus on Internet-based instruction rather than a residential campus. Reutzel feels the vertical approach built on four basic pillars-business, e'ducation, fine arts and liberal arts-is the best scenario for'suu. However, he and Bennion have asked for open discussion with the faculty. As expected , faculty responses to the six scenarios were varied. Some engaged in meaningful exchanges with Bennion and Reutzel regarding aspects of the propos&ls. Others, such as James Cotts, a professor of (continued on page 3) |