Our Views: Louisiana Tech at a crossroads

Congratulations are in order for the new president of Louisiana Tech University, but the appointment of Leslie Guice carries a particular poignancy for him, as he is an alumnus of the Ruston campus and has been teaching and working as an administrator there for more than 30 years.

“To be able to go in and be the leading person is an unbelievably rewarding experience,” Guice said after being named by the University of Louisiana board to take the place of the retiring Dan Reneau.

Reneau has 50 years’ association with Tech as student, professor and president.

Because Guice, lately head of research at the prominent research institution, has been so involved at Tech, he is also acutely aware of the challenges ahead. Reneau became president at a low point in higher education in Louisiana, a quarter-century ago.

During his time, though, two governors who were particularly supportive of higher education — Mike Foster and Kathleen Blanco — helped to bring state support for colleges back from historic lows after the oil and gas economic crash of the 1980s.

Guice now takes the helm at a time when tax cuts and other spending have shouldered higher ed from the priority list. Gov. Bobby Jindal and the state Legislature have reduced higher education funding by more than $425 million since 2008, and institutions are increasingly dependent on increases in tuition to make ends meet.

As the national and state economy recovers, and with the hope of future governors and legislators more focused on long-term growth, we hope that Guice will also receive the support he needs to build on the accomplishments at Louisiana Tech.

Economic development is fundamentally tied to investment in higher education. One day Louisiana will get back on track.

Comments

1) Comment by bourbon-soda - 08/12/2012

Sounds like the right has picked up on the left's "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

2) Comment by terlenka - 07/12/2012

The budget problem is, in great part, this: the state budget is currently around $25 billion. Almost $12 billion of that is federal matching funds, leaving around $13 billion. Of that, $5-6 billion are protected by the state constitution or law as to where it can be spent, that leaves around $8 billion for everything else, including higher education and health care. The shortfall for next year is currently projected to be just under $1 billion. Out of the $25 billion or so, that's only 4%, but out of the $8 billion where they can actually cut something, that's 10-12% -- after several years now of cutting the budget, meaning that whatever fat there was to cut has already been cut. As to the idea noted that previous governors were "particularly supportive of higher education," veterans of the 80s years tell me that the state was looking for ways to avoid cuts, unlike now where the state (read Jindal) is actively trying to cut the universities. From what people had told me, I thought that the 80s had been much worse: faculty stayed in their offices and avoided talking to people - - at a time when they didn't have computers or phones in the office; that's something I don't see today. Remember, the cuts we have today are because of the Stelley (sp) plan repeal. That is, this crisis is because Jindal and others want the crisis or want right-wing credentials to further their (read his) political ambitions.

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 07/12/2012

@spqr - Thanks. i did not know that about the budget. I am operating on conventional wisdom that the state constitution and mostly federal mandates preclude compel spending in other areas leaving higher ed vulnerable. Maybe conventional wisdom is wrong. That said, a budget is a piece of paper (or electronic equivalent), not necessarily related to how much money is available. Many federal budgets seem loosely moored to reality in this regard. The citizen may also question how much more needs to go to low value-added institutions of higher education.

4) Comment by spqr - 07/12/2012

Our state budget is billions larger than at any time in history. There are no excuses for these drastic budget cuts to our universities, struggling economy or not.

5) Comment by bourbon-soda - 07/12/2012

Any possibility that Foster and Blanco only seemed to be "particularly supportive of higher education" because they had more boodle to work with? The editorial actually alludes to this possibility, as it refers to "historic lows after the oil and gas economic crash of the 1980s." Who was governor then, was he not "particularly supportive of higher education," or were his hands tied by economic circumstances? What about what I recently saw referred to as the "Edwards Constitution" that protects most of the state budget other than higher education from cuts? A "low point - a quarter-century ago" was 1987. Who was governor then, and was he not "particularly supportive of higher education?"