April 18, 2011

Dear Regent Hall:

Per your request, here are my views of the continuing discussions in the media and elsewhere
regarding the Regents’ task forces and my work to support them.

As you know, I was hired six weeks ago to serve as Special Advisor to the Board of Regents. I
accepted this role because I believed that my previous experience as head of higher education for the
State of Colorado would allow me to assist the Regents as they seek answers to (1) how to advance
excellence to ensure that more Texas students graduate with the knowledge and skills they need to
find a job in the 21st century economy, (2) how to serve more students by expanding access to the
many educational assets of the U.T. System, and (3) how to encourage innovation in policy, program
and resource management at every level to make a four-year college education more affordable.
Every day, even after subsequently being informed of a new title and reporting structure, my work
has been focused on following-up on these vital questions that you and other Regents are actively
exploring.

Even though I have become a part of the story, these are the issues that take up most my time on a
24/7 basis. In my experience in public life, it often happens that attention to big issues and big ideas
often get deflected to personalities or institutional squabbles (e.g., turf wars). It is unfortunate but
true. But I am not deflected from the real issues, which do not revolve around personalities or
politics. The real story is how massive shifts – demographic, financial, technological and attitudinal
– are transforming the higher education landscape across America. There is also the question of the
role of competitive proprietary institutions providing post-secondary degrees and what that means
for state-supported institutions.

I have always taken the view that it is the responsibility of leaders to define reality. That comes first,
before you can do anything. While some opinion leaders are allowing their attention to be deflected
from the real issues, the facts remain: Almost every state continues a long-term decline in taxpayer
funding for colleges and universities. Students and parents cannot afford another tuition increase,
and it’s wrong to saddle graduates with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt. More low-
income and first-generation students want to attend college. Employers continue to raise concerns
about the quality of education students receive. New technologies are transforming how students
learn and teachers teach, but it is not clear we are taking full advantage of these assets that can help
us increase access, improve quality, and reduce per-student costs.

These massive shifts coupled with these facts make this a critical time to ensure all nine of our
academic campuses are deploying the latest learning technologies and modern management
techniques. The question is, how will our universities thrive in this rapidly changing landscape and
make more affordable the very best learning in America, making Texas first for students and
employers?

Unfortunately, in the last few weeks, that central question has been lost in a torrent of personal and
political attacks, which continue to escalate.
Some have attacked white papers I wrote, which were intended to spur a dialogue on how to
measure the return of taxpayer dollars invested in research. As we’ve previously discussed, the role
of a think tank white paper is to spur debate, while the role of a leader in government is to act – as I
did in Colorado where my track record as a leader who understands and values research, including
basic research, was crystal clear, including the high value I place on the many important roles of
research universities.

Recently it was discovered that one of my white papers suffered from a production snafu the result
of which caused problems within the text and footnotes. The think tank that published the paper
has acknowledged the errors occurred during their publication process. I have also noted that this
and all my whitepapers are the result of collaborative projects where many hands touch them during
the research, writing, editing and publishing phases. So there are many opportunities for error. Still,
because I was the project leader and because my name is on the piece I accept ultimate
responsibility. I have no doubt that those who want to deny or mute the need for higher education
reform are busy pouring over the dozens of advocacy pieces I have published in my career, using a
fine tooth comb to identify areas where I could have been more precise with footnotes, quotations
and other items. It seems that some want to retroactively apply the standards of a scholar and the
academy to work I did years ago, yet none of my writings were for academic journals and I am not a
scholar, and I have never claimed to be; I am an average citizen who cares deeply about improving
higher education, and I have expressed those views in public many times – in writing, while running
for Congress, in testimony before the state legislature.

Errors are part of life…even professional life. That’s why academic books have “errata” pages and
newspapers publish “retractions” when inadvertent errors occur. I have acknowledged “errata” and
offered retraction and correction. Notwithstanding, those who want to delay and deflect are
unwilling to move on. Instead, taxpayer money is now being wasted on a review of this issue,
forcing me to hire an attorney to defend myself. I think students, parents and taxpayers care far
more about reforms and innovations that can expand educational opportunities at an affordable
price than they do about digging into reasons that admitted errata crept into a report from a project
years ago.

Things I have written and said have been attacked. My associations with former colleagues and
organizations have come under intense scrutiny. One of the core principles of our universities is the
idea of free inquiry – including the freedom to ask tough questions. I have simply exercised that
same freedom of inquiry as I work to assist the task forces in trying to find answers to the questions
Regents are asking. And the questions being asked are pretty fundamental – e.g., how to strengthen
our universities to better serve students, parents, economic competitiveness and the pursuit of
knowledge and discovery.

So, why the uproar? How is it that someone who has been on the job just 49 days, with no decision-
making authority, has become an object of such scorn and caused such tumult that, in the words of
the chairman of the House Higher Education Committee, it “shook the foundations of UT”?

Here’s my answer. Immediately upon starting my new job, on your behalf and that of the other
Regents, I began to ask for data that would inform the task force members on how student tuition
dollars and taxpayer money were being spent. Despite the fact that these data belong to the public,
that by law it should be available to every citizen (and certainly to the Regents), and that the Regents
governing the University of Texas are duty bound to ask for these data and had done so, the release
of such data was resisted at the highest levels of the University of Texas at Austin and the University
of Texas System.

Rather than release these data, we were met with what some have called a well-orchestrated public
relations campaign of breathless alarms, much like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Generous
donors and loyal alumni have been understandably (and needlessly) disturbed by dire warnings about
a “loss of prestige” and “destroying research.” But given that the Regents are simply exercising their
fiduciary responsibility to ask questions and request data about faculty productivity, I believe these
were false alarms, meant to divert attention away from questions about how tuition and taxpayer
money are being spent and to delay reforms that might arise out of the Regents’ task forces.

If there has been any damage to the reputation of the University of Texas, it has not come from the
Regents’ task forces or my work for them. Any damage that has occurred must be laid at the feet of
those who have diverted attention to secondary issues and then encouraged the uproar. Whether
university norms were violated with regard to spreading false rumors or if there was the improper
use of political influence by university employees, as some have pointed out to me may be the case, I
leave to others to inquire.

I am concerned, however, that data I have reviewed, which has not been released to the public,
shows a growing number of student tuition and taxpayer dollars are being paid to professors and
administrators who seem to do very little teaching. And let us not forget, in a public opinion
research study last year, 87 percent of Texans said that that universities’ top priority should be
educating students, with only 6 percent stating that conducting research should be the top priority.

My belief is that these data, which rightfully belong to the public, should be fully released, not only
so the task force members may analyze it but also so the public and outside experts may do so as
well. The chairwoman of the Senate Higher Education Committee recently raised concerns about
university business being done “behind closed doors, as secretly as possible. And if there’s any arena
in which that is wrong, it is higher education.” I concur with her sentiments and believe that the
business of the task forces should be done with complete disclosure according to the transparency
rules the Regents have adopted for this effort.

Only then will people be able to know, in the words of former U.T. Austin arts and sciences dean
and Boston University President Emeritus John Silber from yesterday’s Austin-American Statesmen,
if “the cost of education is largely a function of the reduction of productivity in the faculty, and also
the huge engorgement in administration.”

I know there are many inside the universities, the hard working people who serve students and
taxpayers, who are also concerned with a decline in faculty teaching. I know this because I have
been privately encouraged by many of our faculty members to continue following-up on the
questions Regents are asking even though they fear speaking out in public. One brave man who was
not scared to speak up was Dr. Murphy Smith a long serving scholar teacher in accounting, who
among his specialties is an expert in the area of financial reporting and fraud. Although I have never
met Dr. Smith, he reached out to me and authorized me to share his letter, which I attach.

Notwithstanding the personal and political attacks of the last six weeks, I want to thank you and the
other Regents for the opportunity to work every day on the central question that has driven all my
higher education work during my career: trying to discover ever better ways to ensure that as many
students as possible have access to the highest quality college education at the most affordable cost,
so they are prepared for successful careers and meaningful lives. The task forces that you and
Regent Pejovich chair are doing some of the most important work in the country in terms of
answering that question.

It is an honor to be able to assist you and it is my firm belief that we are on track to ensure that all
nine of our campuses continue on their path of excellence and that the University of Texas System
becomes the finest public university system in America – one that is of the highest quality, serving
an ever growing and diverse Texas population, and affordable for all families.

Best regards,

Rick O’Donnell