Next week, 12 “consultant-evaluators” from research universities across the country will be in Lawrence for a three-day accreditation visit to review the Kansas University academic program.

According to a briefing document from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the essential questions the 12-person team will try to answer are: What evidence is there that KU is achieving its mission and where does KU fit on the continuum of strong, vibrant research institutions?

Past Saturday columns

KU received the full 10-year accreditation in 1994, and it would be extremely surprising, even shocking, if KU did not receive another 10-year OK.

The only question is: How deep, how thorough, does a group such as the North Central team dig into an institution on a quick, three-day accreditation visit, to KU or any other school?

KU and other universities have years to put together their report prior to the reviewing team’s arrival. KU has had a team working on the upcoming visit for the past two years preparing to prove to the investigators that the school has, indeed, measured up to its mission of education, research and outreach. There’s no question that the KU team will have done its best to highlight the school’s strengths and accomplishments and hide or disguise any weaknesses.

¢

KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway is due to return to Lawrence this weekend after a quick trip to England for fund-raising calls and a meeting in Davos, Switzerland, with many of the world’s top industrial, banking and government leaders.

The conference in Davos has a long history of bringing world leaders together to talk about pressing world issues. It is an honor for Hemenway to be invited to attend this gathering, which is held under the tightest possible security. This writer knows of only one other KU faculty member or administrator to have been invited to this meeting.

As Hemenway stated in a prepared announcement before leaving for the meeting, “This is an extraordinary opportunity to give Kansas and KU a seat at the table and to take part in a dialogue with world leaders on how to solve some of our toughest global problems.” He also said, “This underscores our emphasis on giving students an international experience while at KU.”

It is hoped Hemenway will indeed return to Lawrence with an even greater understanding and appreciation of what he described as “our toughest global problems.” He should return with increased concern about America’s position in the world in the 21st Century and what must be done by American universities to prepare students for what they are almost sure to encounter in the years ahead.

The United States and its citizens have occupied a prized, unique position in the world during the past century, but times are changing, and American colleges must prepare students for this more complex, competitive environment. China is predicted to be the dominant economic force in the 21st Century. A recent report said Shanghai is likely to be the world’s center for business and finance within a relatively short time.

The point is, how well are American universities, KU included, doing in adjusting their academic programs to prepare students for a fast-changing world? What might have been a sound mission for KU 50 or 25 years ago doesn’t necessarily meet today’s needs. What is KU doing to make sure students know more about China and have a genuine “cultural awareness” of China and other Asian and African nations?

KU officials are proud of their study abroad programs, but just how much do these students really mingle with foreign students, foreign faculty members and become immersed in the culture of the countries where they study? Some critics contend it is more a case of KU students going abroad to another university but being taught a KU course by a KU professor, merely transferring the meeting place from KU to a foreign location.

Granted, this is far better than no visit, but is it as broadening and educational as it should be?

Will Hemenway return from Davos calling for modifications in what is being taught and emphasized on Mount Oread, or will he claim he is more encouraged than ever that KU students are getting the best possible education? Will he tell KU students and faculty, members of the Kansas Board of Regents, state legislators and taxpayers that everything is fine, that students are being schooled just right?

Certainly he knows KU could do an even better job. After Davos, will he realize American universities must retool if they are to meet the needs of the 21st century? Just because a school was looked upon as doing a good job of educating students in the 1950s or even in the year 2000, doesn’t guarantee it is measuring up to what will be needed in a country of approximately 400 million by 2050 and a world with far more challenges and competition.

Why not have KU be one of the best, one of the most forward-looking? Why not have KU break out of the mold? Be a leader, an innovator, not a follower or in lockstep with other American public universities.

Why not make KU unique, something different, truly different, something special? As former KU Chancellor Franklin Murphy used to say, “In the vast trans-Mississippi West, there will be a forest of universities, but in this forest there will be a few giant redwoods. KU should be one of the redwoods.”

This still should be the dream and goal of all those interested in KU.

The 12-member accreditation team will be checking to see whether KU is measuring up to its mission, but is this mission up to date?

Isn’t it time to double-check to see whether the KU mission is current in regard to the challenges the United States and its citizens face in a changing world? Are KU students, for example, prepared to handle the inevitable challenges from China, as well as other Asian and African nations?

Members of the Board of Regents have the responsibility of determining the mission of KU, as well as all of the state universities. How often do the regents have a deep, thorough discussion about KU’s mission? Do they merely rubber stamp whatever mission KU officials put forward?

Regents are supposed to determine the mission and then hire someone to carry out those goals. Do they make sure the mission of each state university is different? The KU and Kansas State University missions, for example, should be different, not duplicative. This being the case, why not make the KU mission one of the most challenging, exciting and bold of any state university in the country?

Then make sure faculty members know and support the mission.

Things usually happen for a reason, and right now, we have Chancellor Hemenway returning from an extremely challenging and, hopefully, eye-opening and stimulating conference in Switzerland at the same time an accreditation team is arriving to evaluate what kind of job KU is doing and whether it is meeting its mission statement.

How refreshing, and honest it would be if the investigators didn’t merely rubber-stamp the KU academic program but acknowledged there are some problems, if the chancellor would note that KU should modify and elevate its mission in light of the changing times, if the Regents would give more than lip service to overseeing the mission, roles and performance of its institutions, and if KU could indeed become one of the nation’s most forward-looking state universities.

Why not, and what is holding anyone back?