By FITSNews || Faculty members at the University of South Carolina are irate over the school’s ongoing investment in a failed “research campus” – and they’re giving USC officials an earful about how the botched “economic development” is draining resources (and administrative focus) away from the college’s core mission.
Good for them.
“Innovista” is a cancer on South Carolina’s flagship university, a cash-guzzling hole in the ground that continues to produce nothing but empty promises and oceans of red ink while USC leaders claim to be struggling just to make ends meet. Yet rather than pull the plug on this failed project, “Innovista” just received a $154 million bailout from City of Columbia taxpayers – a deal which will no doubt open the door to additional state funding being funneled to the project.
Amazing isn’t it? Having clearly picked a “loser” in the marketplace, USC is now doubling down on its failure.
Sadly, rather than standing up to protect USC (and its students), South Carolina’s Board of Trustees – along with the state’s (once) largest newspaper and the big government sycophants in the S.C. General Assembly – remain intent on covering up the scam.
Fortunately, there are a few isolated voices of reason amid the cacophony of pro-Innovista spin. Faculty members at the USC College of Arts and Sciences – which is responsible for educating roughly a third of the college’s 27,000 students – are venting their frustrations in the pages of a faculty survey obtained by FITS.
“Embarking on purely speculative investments in university-private partnerships (e.g. Innovista) is irresponsible behavior,” one faculty member noted.
“I do not know what decisions have been made other than to funnel huge amounts of … (money) from grants into Innovista, which does not benefit the university research mission at all in the short run,” another observed.
Other faculty members bemoaned the fact that Innovista construction is preventing needed repairs from being made on existing facilities.
“I don’t understand all the investment in new buildings (like half-finished, poorly thought-out Innovista buildings) when existing buildings are overdue major upgrades,” another added. “Let’s sort out the existing facilities first.”
At the heart of the faculty objections, though, is the fact that Innovista represents a fundamental shift away from USC’s core mission.
“(Innovista) has drained funding and attention from the humanities,” another faculty member said. “We are used to doing the best with less, but at some point, legislators need leaders to help them understand that the humanities also contribute essentially to the mission of the university and the state, and need and deserve their support too – in both the classroom and in research.”
The brainchild of S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell and USC President Harris Pastides, taxpayers have plunged $150 million (including over $40 million in state funds) into Innovista, which was supposed to usher in the “hydrogen economy of the future” and bring “thousands of high-paying jobs” to downtown Columbia, S.C. It has failed spectacularly on all counts – its empty buildings serving as stark reminders of the failure of government-run economic development schemes.
“Focus on Innovista in poor economic times is starving the rest of the campus,” one professor said bluntly.
Indeed it is.
Tuition at USC is through the roof while the quality of education is slipping – and yet USC marches onward with its “economic development” obsession.
What would professors do differently if they were in charge? Simple … they would refocus the school on doing the job it is supposed to be doing.
“Education first, then research and scholarly activities,” one professor said. “Stop wasting money on Innovista.”
To read the survey results for yourself, click on the link below. Also, FITS will have another report on this results of this survey as they relate to the College of Arts and Sciences and its embattled dean, Mary Anne Fitzpatrick.
By stimulus March 25, 2010 at 9:41 am
why cant Eric Hideman move his new offices into one of the empty Innoshita buildings? also, why cant the law school and/or the business school do the same?
By beetrave March 25, 2010 at 11:14 am
Thank you for this report, Will.
When public universities pursue these “public-private” initiatives, they can end up putting their core mission and funding sources at risk. It’s a big gamble: if a project like InnoVista takes off, then the university is justified to ask the legislature for more money for other projects. If it fails, then legislators can say “look at those big empty buildings” and then turn off the spigot for money that supports basic programs. It’s “heads — we might win; tails — we all lose.”
By Huh? March 25, 2010 at 1:24 pm
While I don’t dispute that Innovista sucks, how can one justly call USC South Carolina’s flagship university? I’ve taught the same class at both Clemson and USC, and the differences are staggering.
By Myles Keogh March 25, 2010 at 1:50 pm
The faculty is right. Long past time to run Pesticides and the entire BOT out on a rail. They are completely inept and have yet to be held accountable for the Innovista boondoggle or the Holderman perversions/theft. They need to go.
By really???? March 25, 2010 at 2:02 pm
because he hates on Clemson any chance he can get. Just like the rest of the (the other) USC faithful. If they don’t stop treating the law school like a red headed step child it will probably be surpassed by Charleston School of Law. Wait, on second thought, no it won’t. BAZINGA!!!!
By Rebel March 25, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Many of the comments are about how filthy the university is. Unbelievable. And it is true; many buildings are disgusting. Fruit flies abound in summer, because the garbage bins are not regularly emptied. The classrooms are not regularly cleaned, and if you talk to custodial staff, you find it is because one person is responsible for two-three buildings, or there is just one person in a huge building. The library, which houses some real treasures in its collection, is appalling. I’m harping on this because it is the indicator of what a rotting carcass the university has become. Downright seedy is the only way to describe it. And Innovista is like parking a brand new Cadillac in front of a broke down trailer. Which in many ways is befitting.
This is my favorite comment:
We need buildings, so any practice that gets us buildings for traditional university use (not underwriting the activities of private companies) should be examined and duplicated. USC seems to have abandoned getting money for new buildings from the state. That is a mistake. Buildings like the Graduate Research Center were funded by external grants and state matching. Private money is needed as well, but a strategy for parlaying external support in any form into matching from the state is critical. We can’t go it alone and we can’t build buildings in Innovista for private industry. We need university buildings that combine research and teaching in a healthy environment for students and faculty. Aspects of the research park model are important to the long?term plan for the university, but putting all our eggs in one basket, especially one controlled by a known felon and associates, is a monumental mistake.
By Myles Keogh March 26, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Rebel,
Well said. And it all boils down to leadership and the failure of it by the president and the BOT. No attention to detail, complete incompetence, misplaced priorities, piss poor fiscal management of taxpayer money etc. The BOT and the Pesitides and previously Sorenson have exhibited a complete failure to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities granted to them by the citizens as trustees. It borders on criminal negligence. They all need to be run out on a rail.
By Daniel March 29, 2010 at 1:41 pm
As much as we love Darla Moore’s money, and we do, she has taken our school hostage by personally selecting ineffective and universally despised administrators. The entire business school hates Hildy Teegan (see FreeTimes expose’), while Pastides has bucked under pressure to increase the number of students and refuses to play the ranking game that Clemson has so mastered.
What we need, aside for a new BOT, is to get aggressive. The gap between USC and Clemson is large and growing, so we really need to catch up. The students are tired of this ridiculously slow progress.
By quiet voice of reason November 11, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Public higher education has been allowed to run amuck under Sanford with no oversight, no governance and certainly NO leadership from CHE. Of course, anything they tried to do was just out-voted by the General Assembly. Tuition has run rampant because state appropriations per student are next to lowest in the Southeast (WV is lower).
Check with Clemson’s faculty. Most of them aren’t happy either for similar reasons. If it isn’t engineering, ICAR, or McConnell’s Restoration Institute, then it just doesn’t matter. Most master’s programs are left to sink or swim without any institutional or state support.
Higher education is a mess in this state, across the board. Who will have the guts to change it? (my money isn’t on Haley)