George Zoffinger's public commentaries about Rutgers cause me to wonder if the fable of The Six Blind Men and the Elephant might apply to his situation. As the fable goes, six blind men, having touched an elephant at different places - the trunk, the skin, the tail, a leg, a tusk, an ear - each came to a conclusion about the elephant's appearance, then vigorously argued their opinion based upon limited experience. By participating on only one standing committee of the University Board of Governors, while other board members participate in three or more, Mr. Zoffinger, like any one of the men in the fable, may be drawing conclusions about the whole university based only upon the one, limited part that he experiences. Virtually all the issues on which he has been outspoken since joining the board relate to the work of the subcommittees on Budget and Finance, Buildings and Grounds, Educational Planning and Policy, and Intercollegiate Athletics, yet Mr. Zoffinger has consistently failed to attend the meetings of these committees to express his views, while knowing that the substantive work of critiquing and revising, even rejecting proposals that may come to the board for approval, takes place in these committees.
By doing so, he not only misses a good part of the discussion and thinking about the matters these committees address, he fails to contribute his own insight and opinion where it would be most useful. Mr. Zoffinger's recent concern has centered on the three specific items, namely the reduction of varsity sports at Rutgers from 30 to 24, the expansion of the football stadium and the increase in costs to students for a Rutgers education:
1. Reducing the number of varsity sports teams at American universities is a national trend. Rutgers is not unique. For some time before the proposal to transition six Rutgers varsity teams to club sports came to the Board of Governors for decision, the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics considered the value of doing this as part of an overall strategic plan for Rutgers athletics. The proposal came to the board at the same time as it was grappling with the state of New Jersey's $66 million reduction in the University's budget allocation, and the reduction of the sports was cast, perhaps too much, in the shadow of this budgetary crisis. Therefore, it is understandable that advocates petition for reinstating the eliminated sports as if it were merely a matter of dollars and cents.
2. Expanding the football stadium came in the wake of a dramatic demand for seats by fans - well over 10,000, the last I heard. Financing for this project is based in part on a letter pledging to raise $30 million in private donations for this project from Gov. Jon Corzine and Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak. The governor recently restated his intention to honor this commitment. Mr. Zoffinger says the stadium will be financed totally from University borrowing, implying he has no confidence in the governor's and the senator's pledge. Rutgers continues to rely upon the written Corzine-Lesniak commitment and has authorized borrowing only the remaining $72 million, which it projects will be totally underwritten by income from stadium and game-generated revenue. If the pledged funds are not received, it will fall to the board to adopt alternate ways of doing what it thinks is central to the future growth of the University.
3. In the last school year, student costs at Rutgers passed the $20,000 mark for the first time in the University's history. No board member is happy with that. But this is the result of rising, fixed costs, costs not regulated by the board, and from the precipitous decline in state aid. Responding to state aid reductions in recent years, Rutgers has made severe cuts in administrative and academic areas. However, there must be a balance of increases in revenue and reductions in costs if irreparable harm to the overall quality of the university is to be avoided. The discussions on how to achieve this balance take place in the appropriate board subcommittees where every reasonable option to tuition increases is considered.
To simply vote against tuition increases at the tail end of a long process, with no viable alternative to propose, is at best unfair to the other volunteers who have taken the time to do the preliminary work. Rutgers remains highly accessible, because while tuition has increased, so has financial aid to needy students. Rutgers remains a highly attractive, affordable option for students in New Jersey and elsewhere. This is reflected in the record number of new and returning students this fall, the high academic standing of Rutgers, the record-setting financial contributions recently announced and the pride that its winning athletic teams are bringing to students, alumni and to citizens of the state generally. The Rutgers governing board is doing its part to make it even better.
The Rev. M. William Howard Jr. is the chair of the Board of Governors at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Be the first to comment on this article!