By: Neil Markee
Editor in Chief-Purchasing Link

We have just elected and installed a corporate CEO as Chief Executive Officer of the USA despite the pre- and post-election polls showing roughly half of U.S. voters would rather have someone else. An unnamed “other,” I guess, but apparently not the other major candidate in the race.  Donald Trump won the contest laid out by the U.S. Constitution, despite the many polls and predictions of TV talking heads and print reporters covering the political scene. Presumably, these people are the best educated, best qualified, they know how to count electoral votes in this specialized area—but they got it wrong. Political analyses took a hit this year. Clearly, many people were disappointed with the national election process, which they apparently saw as producing something of a Hobson’s Choice.  Since the election, the most common national media headlines and topics have asked what happened and where do we go from here?

What has this to do with the business side of higher education? Potentially a great deal, I think. A Wall Street Journal (1/17/17) titled “The New Landscape” included an image of President Trump standing on a stone jetty, leaning on a cane, and with a (presumably embroidered) red cap in his other hand, looking out over a fog-shrouded tumultuous sea. Higher education navigates on that sea.  The subhead was “In the wake of a tumultuous year, globalists survey a world of uncertainty.”  That certainty applies to us. The leadership of every government agency we deal with will change and, likely, many policies will.  Detectives follow the money and much of how that is allocated and spent on campus is influenced by business affairs and procurement. 

 Many inches of column space have been devoted to explaining Trump’s rhetoric without adding much understanding.   Not all the headlines were critical or pessimistic at first glance, but none I read were supportive. For example, in a lengthy article in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Peter Schmidt, headed,” For Some Advocates, Trump Presidency Raises Hopes,” not many of the hopes mentioned are likely to be seen as positives by many on campus.  If Chronicle articles accurately reflect the views of the academic community, it’s clear the election outcome was not anticipated or welcomed by that community.   There wasn’t much published reaction from the business side of the house, although many of the mentioned changes could have substantial impact on budgets, sources of funding and spending. 

What is likely to change?   Very few days into the new administration, in truth, nobody knows.   Some of the same people who were confident in predicting the outcome are now sharing their views on the likely direction of the new administration.   Several have referred to Trump’s lack of experience with higher education beyond his student days at Princeton and Penn. With some pointing out the same could be said for all presidents since Wilson, with the exception of Eisenhower, who spent some time as Columbia University’s President.  None of the observation published to date have added much light. It’s wait and see, I guess.   

Trump’s background is in private business and I think it’s more than likely he and his administration will evaluate the management of colleges and universities from a business perspective.  “Businesslike” is not seen as an appropriate model on many campuses but, in recent years, since the computerization of business processes and the use of data analytics in the routine course of institutional management, businesslike thinking has become an established trend. Even some academic matters are among higher education activities commonly discussed in terms likely to be familiar to business leaders in the commercial sector. Although the precise definition of “businesslike” in the new regime is not yet clear, we will probably see the established rate of change pick up a bit as federal appointees with significant experience in the business world become more involved in the national administration and seek to interact with the leadership of higher education.

Performance audits and cost/benefit evaluations are likely to become more visible and important aspects of decision making in every area, as government strives to rein in the growing cost of higher education.  What is our degree worth in comparison to those offered by other institutions within our system or regionally or nationally?   What can we do on the cost side to make attending our institution more attractive? Has anyone ever sat down and rationally examined what we offer?   Tough questions of this sort are not rare among commercial business. 

The new administration may see students as customers and, as in the commercial sector, entitled to a stronger voice in the content of the service offered for sale. Maybe taxpayers should be treated as stock holders, as they do provide much of the money invested in the program.  A businesslike administration on campus, supported by Washington, may well grant them a role in shaping policy, including curriculum on campus.  A fundamental change in governance philosophy is likely to alter just about every aspect of higher education as we know it, including procurement.

What about within procurement?  Maybe procurement will become a more interesting, challenging and rewarding pursuit, delivering a more valuable level of service in a businesslike environment. More transparency and public accountable is likely to follow.  Increased oversight is probably inevitable if Buy American becomes a government policy.  As personnel officers pay more attention to the legal status of staff, procurement officers may have to pay more attention to the emigration status of the employees of suppliers.  Businesslike management will probably result in shifting spending authority to the business side of the house and, although not popular everywhere on campus, may be inevitable if it’s thought to facilitate the achievement of t he institution’s basic goals. If that’s the case, procurement officers may be seen as key advisors to the chief business officer in areas other than the technical aspects of procurement, as they participate in cost/benefit considerations.  

Overall, at this point, there have been more questions than answers. But some writers have been willing to express an opinion.  One article in the Chronicle of Higher Education  (1/13/17) asked, “What’s In, What’s Out for College as Trump Takes Office? “Another in the 1/20/17 issue saw, “Unchartered Waters for Higher Education in Trump Era”.  Most of the articles I have seen to date in the national media and in the Chronicle have been negative, maybe even hostile.  For example, “What’s in, What’s Out” lists seventeen changes, nine “outs” and eight “ins.” I think it’s fair to say that none were likely to be welcomed with open arms by higher education.  One of the “outs” in the article mentioned caught my attention because the picture is painted with a very broad brush and I thought its message a bit over the top.  (See below.). 

Title IX enforcement on sexual assault.  It won’t go away completely, of course. But it’s hard to imagine the next administration adopting the same aggressive posture taken by the current one, considering how Republicans, would-be Trump insiders, and even some colleges feel about the approach over the past several years.  Ditto for protecting the rights of gay and transgender people.”

A variety of approaches have been adopted by individual colleges and universities and I doubt anyone knows how Republicans or Trump supporters coast to coast feel about any one of them.   If there is one opinion held by a significant fraction of Americans paying attention to the issue, it may be that we have not yet found an approach that works.  Some people believe colleges and universities are trying to keep the process in house to minimize adverse publicity. Sexual assault is a very serious crime, and how we handle misconduct in this area involving faculty, students and staff has become a major issue in the national media. It’s not going away.  I suspect most Americans, including Republicans, would support a law and order approach, reporting the suspected crime to the authorities, and then providing legal and other support to all students involved—while cooperating with the authorities and observing normal constitutional guarantees.  I haven’t seen any indications that the new administration or Republicans would support withholding justice in this area. Although this is probably a too-hot-to-handle topic within the private legal community, what little I have seen seems to show a concern over the lack of appropriate legal process.   

Almost certainly, what’s next will be a topic of discussion on campus with senior decision-makers trying to understand the options available and seeking useful input from their staff.  To productively participate in the ongoing discussion, procurement officers and other business leaders will need to understand all aspects of the situation as it applies to higher education and to the environment on their campus.  Where can you get the information you need to stay current?  Your NAEP peers at other institutions are an outstanding source.  The Chronicle of Higher Education can help us better understand faculty views, and the national media is probably the best source of information concerning thinking in the nation’s capitol and within the business community.

That’s what I think. What’s happening on your campus?