sponsiveness to coordination and plan-
ning — independent action and com-
petitive duplication versus state-wide
development and orderly growth.
"Change is a characteristic of the
age. Higher education throughout
the nation, and no less so in Mary-
land, is caught up in the process
change. At a time when educational
development is phenomenal, there are
those to whom it would seem less than
wise to establish by constitutional
means a status quo even in the matter
of autonomy. What will be expected
of the University and the state col-
leges as well as what they themselves,
perhaps within a few years, might
want and desperately need cannot be
clearly anticipated. To freeze struc-
ture and operational procedure by
constitutional provision limits the
flexibility of institutions to respond to
change. The very concept as well as
the reality of development necessitates
a fluid or flexible situation wherein
the status quo of any segment of
higher education is not frozen in a
constitutional structure.
"Autonomy granted to public insti-
tutions by means of a constitutional
provision would make these institu-
tions less likely to be responsive to the
public will which normally is ex-
pressed through the legislative action
of elected officials. Constitutional
amendment is, of course, possible but
the process, at best, is slow. Signifi-
cant changes in institutional policy or
deviation from established practice to
respond to changing societal needs
may be open for challenge under a
constitutional provision and may,
therefore, necessitate court interpreta-
tion of rights and responsibilities.
Judicial decision would then be sub-
stituted for direct action by the rep-
resentatives of the people.
274
|
"Proponents of a constitutional
provision for autonomy point out that
it is a firm and relatively stable safe-
guard of institutional initiative and
the need for internal management.
Autonomy protected by a constitu-
tional guarantee limits the possibili-
ties of the imposition of restrictive
policies and detailed procedures by
other governmental agencies and pro-
tects institutions from infringement
or interference arising from caprice or
executive or legislative shift of policy.
"There are those who caution
against constitutional autonomy on
the grounds that it encourages inde-
pendent action on the part of institu-
tions that may result in needless forms
of competition and costly duplication
of programs and facilities. Regardless
of the degree and form of autonomy
and the initiative it engenders, effi-
ciency and economy in the use of
resources necessitates a continual re-
sponsiveness on the part of all institu-
tions to orderly growth and coordina-
tion on a statewide basis.
STATUTORY PROVISION
"Opponents of constitutional pow-
ers ask why cannot statutory provi-
sions serve the purpose of institutional
autonomy? Less secure and more
readily subject to change than a con-
stitutional provision, statutory auton-
omy allows the institutions and the
higher educational system to be re-
sponsive to change resulting from
need, reorganization of structures and
responsibilities, or direct manifesta-
tions of the public will through elected
officials. Admittedly, a statutory pro-
vision for autonomy will lay open the
institutions to the checks and bal-
ances inherent in the democratic
process.
|
