Maine’s seven public universities appear embedded in an operating model similar to a planned economy. If so, it is a model deserving serious examination. It must be said at the start that the ideas and opinions expressed here are mine alone. They do not represent a university community, faculty group or the University of Maine System.

At its core, a planned economy is known for its centralized government or administration. Like a well-oiled machine, daily operations support the systematic allocation of resources and manipulation of market forces. The first intent of a planned economy is to ensure that favored corporate entities under its care do not falter; while other less favored entities may be allowed to decline, stagnate, or even die.

With a comparable mechanistic model in hand, the chancellor and the UMS Board of Trustees direct and monitor the seven public funded institutions. For the most part, they restrain or champion selected universities by mission assignments, the number and type of authorized degree programs, and resource distribution priorities.

A model that functions more as a living organism, freely interacting with and adapting to changes in the immediate environment, finds itself unwelcome in Maine’s public-funded higher education arena. Independence, flexibility, relevance and accountability must stand aside and give way to protectionism and favoritism. The properties of an operating model similar to those associated with a “free market” are no where to be found in the Strategic Plan.

The plan’s clear intent is to protect the University of Maine, the University of Southern Maine and the University of Maine at Farmington. The University of Maine at Fort Kent, the University of Maine at Machias, and the University of Maine at Presque Isle are marked for extensive change. The University of Maine at Augusta, the third largest academy in the system, is positioned for dissolution. The university representing central Maine will cease to exist.

The College Board, a national nonprofit membership association dedicated to preparing, inspiring and connecting students to college and opportunity, presents UMA as an accredited open admission four year undergraduate institution, offering associate and baccalaureate degrees. Given these few dimensions alone, UMA stands shoulder to shoulder within a peer group of 85 colleges and universities across the United States.

For 39 years, UMA’s actions rise from a community commitment to academic excellence, humanistic principles, and social responsibility. With this compass in hand, UMA aims to prepare women and men for a lifetime of learning, leadership and service to the professions, society, and family.

Even so, the proposed plan positions UMA for termination. In its place the planners promise to staff and maintain an outpost or facility for course delivery in Augusta. That is to say, the provision of a total college experience in the central Maine region (i.e., an aquifer of culture) is considered too costly and unnecessary.

Where might the planners place UMA in a totally different scheme? How about the following: first, set aside UMF, giving it a similar status as that enjoyed by the Maine Maritime Academy; second, accept the current status enjoyed by the UM and USM; third, establish an alliance of regional Universities (i.e., the alliance being comprised of UMFK, UMM, UMPI, and UMA). All seven universities continue as autonomous institutions. In the alternate scheme, the alliance members would fulfill their individual missions, looking to one president for leadership. Given the current UMS operating model, it’s hard to believe UMA could find a better place.

By moving forward with the proposed Strategic Plan, the governor, regional legislators, the cadre of trustees, and the chancellor and his staff are likely to define their higher education legacy by the abrogation of central Maine’s own institution of higher education.

Jack E. Six, Ph.D. is a professor of social science at the University

of Maine at Augusta.