Kansas University, as well as Kansas State University and all the Kansas Board of Regents universities, is fortunate to have a number of dedicated, talented and loyal faculty members. These teachers and researchers have elected to remain on Mount Oread or at other state universities rather than accept positions at other schools at considerably higher salaries.

A high percentage of these faculty members are among the older portion of the universities’ staffs and perhaps think they do not want to go through the trouble of making a move so close to the end of their careers.

On the other hand, younger faculty members, the “all-stars” of the future, in this group have not been part of their university community as long and may not have the same degree of loyalty. They are more likely to say yes to attractive financial offers from other schools.

An older faculty member may say to himself, “I only have X years before I retire, and the confusion and expense associated with a move at this stage of my life really doesn’t seem worth the effort, even though I would make a few more dollars.”

A younger faculty member, with many years left before retirement, can look at the total difference in earnings a new job could offer over a number of years and see that it would add up to a substantial increase over his or her whole career.

This is why faculty morale is such an important issue at Kansas universities. What is the level of faculty morale at KU and the other regents universities and what needs to be done to improve morale, not only at KU but at the other schools?

With this in mind, a survey was taken recently to measure faculty morale at all of the state universities. The survey was sent to all faculty members who are tenured or on a tenure track. The results of the survey are most interesting. There is some good news and some not so good. In fact, some of the information on faculty morale is disappointing and should be of concern.

Respondents were asked to react to the statement “Faculty morale at my university is high.” Of the KU faculty who responded, 12 indicated they strongly agree, 47 moderately agree, 89 neutral, 139 moderately disagree and 144 strongly disagree.

To the statement “Senior administration understands the day-to-day concerns faced by the faculty,” KU faculty responses were: 15 strongly agree, 74 moderately agree, 76 neutral, 125 moderately disagree and 139 strongly disagree.

What may cause this disgruntled attitude is another question, but it appears to be a serious matter, one that needs the attention of those in various university administrative areas, as well as members of the Board of Regents and state legislators.

How about the response of tenured and tenure-track faculty to the statement “Senior administration is concerned about faculty morale.” At KU, the rankings were: 25 strongly agree, 77 moderately agree, 91 neutral, 107 moderately disagree and 131 strongly disagree.

By a margin of more than 2-to-1 (238 to 102) these senior faculty members do not think the administration is concerned about faculty morale. The story is even worse with the response to “Faculty morale at my school is high.” There the negatives are almost five times the number of positives.

What the regents intend to do with these figures is anyone’s guess. Do they intend to act on them? If so, how?

In many areas, there are some surprisingly positive and encouraging numbers; the most negative responses are to issues concerning faculty morale and the degree of concern or interest by senior administrators.

If a university was run like a private business, a publicly owned business, such a report would spur immediate attention and action by the board of directors. In a very significant way, public, state-assisted universities, such as KU and the other regents schools, are indeed publicly owned operations. This being the case, what actions should the regents initiate?

The survey was conducted among university faculty members, the “employees” of the “company” in question.

It would be interesting to know the “public” or “consumer” response to the same questions posed in the survey only measuring public morale concerning state universities rather than faculty morale.

Could this be one of the reasons Kansas legislators do not seem to favor a level of state fiscal support that matches the fiscal support received by peer institutions of KU or KSU?