East coast media make U of M a poster child

Is Eric Kaler defensive now?

"You can't buy publicity like this," the saying goes.

We may be in Flyoverland but one of our institutions is very much under the analytical eye of the Beltway press. It started with the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post then rode piggy-back.

Our state's chief newspaper then re-ran the Washington Post piece. This happened on January 3 in the op-ed section. (When I was a kid we called them "the editorial pages.")

The Star Tribune gave us a provocative headline: "Let's shove back at higher ed."

A headline like this might have been unthinkable a decade ago. We used to see higher ed as a bastion of purity and enlightenment. To some extent it still commands such respect. A critical eye is much more permissible now.

Today we look at educational institutions and see the bureaucratic and ossified aspects more clearly. We are more apt to question all that. The need for cumbersome institutions with expensive assets and individuals seems more and more cause for skepticism.

The Beltway press somehow discovered that our University of Minnesota may be exhibit 'A' in how bureaucratic bloat ought to be seen for what it is. The Beltway press passed over all the institutions in the east and came out here. Why?

If such expose-writing is accurate, and it certainly seems so, we have some hard questions to answer. Charles Lane wrote the Washington Post piece. He comes right out and mentions that the Wall Street Journal piece was the source of much of his information. Lane states that alleged bloat is "typical" of American higher ed - "depressingly typical." If so, why did these elite papers single out the U of M?

It's not even easy reporting on the U of M. I can state as fact that the U employees don't exactly grease the skids when it comes to talking to newspaper reporters. They figure that reporters have an inordinate aim of writing stuff that might be deemed embarrassing or revelatory. And they're right!

U employees refer reporters to higher-ups, who in turn do likewise. So I think it's incredible that an outside newspaper could glean enough information to write a defining piece on how higher education is operating today. The venerable Wall Street Journal did that. The Washington Post then got inspired.

You remember the Washington Post: It's the paper whose reporters were once portrayed by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Attorney General John Mitchell got so upset he said the publisher would "get her tit in a wringer" if she kept pushing things.

Newspapers didn't realize it then, but they were at the apex of their power. And it really had little to do with journalism of the "All the President's Men" kind. It had to do with the business model. Newspapers are hardly what they once were. But they can occasionally break through the restraints and do something significant.

It's interesting and maybe even a little funny that the Star Tribune is just relying on the Washington D.C. writers.

The Washington writers feel some alarm bells need to start sounding about the resources given our traditional higher ed institutions. All this makes me wonder about our board of regents. Are they just ceremonial? I would hope they aren't just glorified stooges.

Certainly there are individuals in the system quite gifted at getting resources directed their way. That involves influencing politicians. The Democrats are feeling their oats in Minnesota now. Does that suggest a little less vigilance when it comes to government waste? A Democrat would cringe at that sentence. Democrats would argue that in order to get people to believe in government, government must be vigilant and accountable.

If the state is to be a partner with the U of M, there must be emphasis on maximizing resources for the benefit of all including those who come from limited means, maybe especially those who come from limited means. And the economic model isn't trending that way now.

The Post's Lane writes that "in the past decade, Minnesota's administrative payroll has gone up three times as fast as the teaching payroll, and twice as fast as student enrollment. Oh, and tuition more than doubled in that same period, to more than $13,000 per year."

Lane further writes that "the bloat on many U.S. campuses is now a significant cause, along with cutbacks in state spending, of the surge in tuition which in turn is an obstacle to upward mobility for an entire generation of young Americans."

Lane talks about "many college campuses" as if the disturbing trend is far-reaching. Which it apparently is. But somehow, he and the Wall Street Journal singled out our University of Minnesota like it's a special red flag. And somehow these scribes were able to penetrate the U's resistance to unflattering media attention.

The Star Tribune should be so motivated.

The Star Tribune's decision to re-print the Lane piece was significant.

I remember when our beloved Strib turned over space in the op-ed section to what I considered an undistinguished puff type of essay on the U from its president, Eric Kaler. I wrote a post at the time about Kaler's misuse of the English language right at the top: "everyday" instead of "every day." He wrote something to the effect that the U needs to "make the proper commitment everyday [sic]." We're not talking "everyday low prices" here.

Anyway, I shared an email exchange with an acquaintance of mine at Minnpost. I wondered if the Strib intended to turn over precious op-ed space on a regular basis to what amounted to selling jobs by our (beloved) University. My contact there, who's the same age as me, responded that the Strib had a long history of "puffing" the U of M.

With that as the backdrop, it's interesting the Strib would re-print Lane's incisive and embarrassing piece, alerting us to the Wall Street Journal piece also, in the January 3 edition.

Beth Hawkins of Minnpost is now engaged on the matter. That's not the person with whom I communicated.

Inspired by the Washington D.C. media, there may be watchdogs sprouting from within our state's own media. The Minnesota legislature ought to feel discouraged by what's revealed. There ought to be pressures for accountability from within.

The regents and legislature need to be aware and committed. We shouldn't need "Woodward and Bernstein" poking around. But it seems to have come to that.

The Wall Street Journal article is behind a paywall. That's only a minor obstacle today. Other online pieces (like Lane's) can quote liberally from it. Not only that, at least one blog has re-printed it in full. Hawkins links to that blog. Gee, can you do that? Well, according to one of the Righthaven legal cases, an online writer can re-post a newspaper article in full and be protected by the "fair use" clause of copyright law.

Righthaven is a company that tried vainly to protect the "rights" of newspapers, to the detriment of the free and unfettered exchange of information in our society. It was knocked on its heels. It never succeeded with any cases that actually got to court. It only succeeded for a while by sending out intimidating letters to people who would get scared and just "pay up." This is still an evolving area of communications law. But judges are tilted in the right direction.

The Internet relentlessly pounds through all barriers. The old media behemoths are on the defensive.

What made our U of M so averse to newspaper attention? Maybe it goes back to that old bugaboo of athletics. The first big disaster to be noticed by my generation was the "knee to the groin." This happened during the absolutely fascinating tenure of Bill Musselman as U of M men's basketball coach.

(Back then we said "basketball" and not "men's basketball.")

Without doing any special research, I can come up with the names of some of the principals then. It was Corky Taylor who applied the knee to the groin. It was center Luke Witte of Ohio State who received it. An absolute brawl broke out on the court of Williams Arena, prompting Athletic Director Paul Giel, a gladhanding salesman of an AD if there ever was one, to say something like it was the worst thing he had ever seen in sports.

There would be more bad things coming for the U athletics. We can remember the image of the champagne glass cut into the hair of Mitch Lee. The way I recall, this U of M basketball player who didn't exactly seem like a scholar, had been exonerated on a matter that he should have been ashamed of anyway. The coach then was Jim Dutcher.

Jim's daughter Judi later appeared to cost the Minnesota DFL the governorship by not being able to answer a question about "E85."

Musselman left here with significant baggage. Only in America? His failings didn't prevent him from returning and being christened as the first-ever coach of the Minnesota Timberwolves.

We'll never forget the Gophers team of Taylor, Ron Behagen, Jim Brewer and Clyde Turner, and later Dave Winfield. Wasn't Winfield recruited off the intramural teams?

No chapter in Gophers history has been as memorable since. Even Musselman's pregame show, styled after the Harlem Globetrotters, is etched in our memory.

Musselman was definitely a "man in the arena." He "let it all hang out" to use an expression common in my youth.

Clem Haskins came along and left a legacy that wasn't exactly shimmering. His very involved academic tutor caused a stew of disapproval and scandal. I understand it was this scandal that really caused the U of M to try to retreat from that notorious nosy "news media."

Except the media have a way of poking through barriers that might seem impervious. We are being reminded of that thanks to the intrepid souls of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Thanks, guys.

The ball is now in your court, regents and legislators. Ski-U-mah.

- Brian Williams - morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com