Why does Kansas University have such a difficult time persuading Kansas legislators that programs identified as important or critical to the university, and ultimately to the state, deserve the level of fiscal support requested by university officials?

This situation seems to be occurring with increased regularity in recent years, but it’s a problem that has faced the university for many years.

In fact, the lack of fiscal support for higher education and the low priority assigned to KU and other Kansas Board of Regents universities by the governor’s office were the primary reasons the late Franklin Murphy left the KU chancellorship to assume leadership of UCLA.

At that time, Murphy, one of KU’s outstanding chancellors, said money being spent for the state’s highways was fine, but, due to the failure to adequately fund higher education, growing numbers of teachers and researchers would be using the highways to leave Kansas and drive to other, more attractive, teaching and research opportunities.

Funding for higher education, as well as K-12 is a major issue in most states. Public education probably is the largest single budget item in every state.

It is understandable that those in the business of education want increased funding, and it’s also a fact that those in state legislatures must figure out the proper balance of fiscal support for all state-aided programs — usually with far less money than they need to meet all requests.

The failure to provide funds for specific programs at KU has caused talented and nationally known teachers and researchers to leave the state, a loss for the university and Kansas. This also makes it more difficult to recruit top teachers and researchers to accept positions at KU. Why would a nationally known faculty member being recruited by a number of top universities elect to move to Mount Oread classrooms and laboratories given the current environment?

This week’s statements and actions by several state legislators about requests by KU and other state universities sends a chilling message.

Monday, a Kansas House subcommittee rejected all of the budget enhancements KU and other state universities had requested, with one committee member calling the requests an “absurdity.” Two days later, the full House Appropriations Committee refused to reconsider the enhancement requests, which included a $5 million KU request to establish a Drug and Vaccine Discovery Institute.

In making the request, KU officials said, “In addition to improving human health, the DVDI will benefit the Kansas economy by fostering KU partnerships with pharmaceutical firms, encouraging companies to locate in Kansas, and creating startup companies.”

The record of the KU pharmaceutical chemistry operation is world class, recognized as one of the best. Its research efforts have improved health for millions around the world. By denying the $5 million, legislators have shortchanged the university, handcuffed visionary and talented researchers, denied the public of valuable and perhaps lifesaving medicines and stunted the entrepreneurial spirit at KU.

It is understandable that state lawmakers have a finite number of dollars to allocate and that all those making requests believe their causes merit top priority. Legislators and the governor cannot and will not please all parties.

Here’s a short quiz:

• Who or what is responsible for what seems to be a less-than-impressive level of funding for projects at KU and the other regents universities?

• Why is the reputation and respect for KU, its importance to the state, not what it used to be?

• Have the regents failed to do a good job in representing the needs of KU and other universities?

• Has KU not told its story in an effective manner, and are those representing the university with lawmakers not respected or effective?

• Have university officials asked for too much?

• Is it a case of the state not having sufficient funds to meet the needs and requests of university officials?

• Is KU hurt by its “snob hill” image and its air of superiority, that it is a better, special school compared to other state universities?

• Does the Douglas County legislative delegation carry any clout in selling the KU story?

• Is it a case of too few state legislators understanding the importance of higher education? Does the body need more members with a college or other post-secondary education?

• Do KU faculty and administrators have an appreciation or knowledge of the state west of Topeka?

• Does the image of KU and Lawrence being the state’s center of liberalism — a blue island in a red state, with many Lawrence residents being quick to say that when you live in Lawrence, you are not living in Kansas — create a major roadblock in the eyes of conservative lawmakers?

• When rightly proud KU Endowment Association officials announced they had raised more than $1.2 billion in cash and pledges in their current capital campaign, do lawmakers ask, “Why can’t KU officials fund critical needs with Endowment Association money? They have unrestricted funds.”

It’s probably a combination of all of the above in varying degrees of importance. But it’s a fact, and until answers can be found, both KU and the state will be handicapped and damaged. All regents universities will be denied opportunities to increase their levels of excellence and their ability to better the state and its residents.