Blog Post

As a founding member of SCUP, I recall that one of our principal objectives in establishing the organization was to create a vehicle that would permit campus planners to communicate their experiences in dealing with issues and problems that might confront them. Because American higher education is currently experiencing turmoil, I thought it might be useful to share with my fellow campus planners some of my experiences and thoughts on how to deal with the present challenges.

Let me first say, I believe in “the university!” It is a distinguished institution whose fundamental mission, the discovery and dissemination of knowledge, is a noble one.

Western universities have existed for almost a thousand years: They have given birth to advances in science, medicine, and technology, which have improved the lives of people all over the world. They have spawned ways of thinking and theoretical concepts that have helped to shape human society. And they have educated millions of students, leading them to useful, productive, and happy lives. Higher education has earned its place as a respected, fundamental institution of human society.

Yet the historical evolution of the Western university has not always gone smoothly. Events unrelated to the university’s fundamental mission have interfered with and sometimes frustrated institutions’ efforts to discover and disseminate knowledge.

The town/gown conflicts of the Middle Ages; religious conflicts in the 16th and 17th centuries that forced the temporary closing of the university at Heidelberg (among other things); the American Civil War, which forced the temporary closure of William and Mary, all interfered with the university’s ability to carry out its fundamental mission. Since then, the anti-German frenzy of the World War I era, the economic crisis of the Great Depression, the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, and protest movements in the late 20th and early 21st century have affected the university’s ability to fulfill its basic mission.

In this latest era, a worrisome gap has been created between the university and the nation’s general citizenry, with the majority regarding the faculty and students as “elitist” and out of touch with the opinions of the general population.

In a democracy, this can be a serious problem with potentially serious consequences for universities. We are now experiencing a period of great turmoil in which the government believes that universities have become advocates for a particular political philosophy—and is attempting to restrict their role in this area.

Many faculty and students charge the government with attempting to limit their right to freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech. It is unclear how this conflict will be resolved, but for those involved in day-to-day leadership and decision making, including campus planners, the question of how to proceed is of utmost importance.

I make no pretense about having the answers to the many questions facing higher education today. In fact, there may not be a single right answer to any given question.

For example, Harvard University, with its huge endowment, may be in a strong position to resist government demands with little harm to its reputation or academic standing, while a school with a smaller endowment may have to curtail academic programs and lose outstanding faculty if it is cut off from governmental funding. Each institution will have to make its own decisions based on the realities of its unique situation.

The only advice I offer to my fellow planners is to always remain focused on what is in the long-term best interest of the institution you serve. Do not allow your professional judgment to be swayed by your own political beliefs or your professional biases. Try not to be influenced by vocal pressure groups or influential individuals who will try to manipulate decisions to their advantage or academic unit.

Of course, your recommendations may not always be accepted, particularly if a donor with a large gift wants something else, but you do owe your employer an honest interpretation of the facts and a sincere recommendation on how to proceed. The executive officers and governing boards of universities will normally support well-documented and rationally arrived at recommendations. On those occasions where they do not, it is important to recognize that the planner’s role is as adviser, not the ultimate decision-maker. If things do not go as you would like, accept the outcome—and get on with your work. Nobody wins all the time. Things are always changing, and the old saying goes: “When one door closes, another one opens.”

The campus planner brings a specific set of educational background and professional experience, which is essential to developing a truly excellent campus. The planner’s input must be an important part of the decision-making process.

My career is an excellent example. When I joined the University of Michigan in 1966, there was an active building program, funded primarily by the State of Michigan. This allowed the implementation of campus updates as recommended in the then recently completed master plan. In the 1970s and early 1980s, however, the Michigan economy suffered badly, and the state funding of construction projects ended. I became so discouraged that I began to explore opportunities to change jobs. This did not work out, and I remained at Michigan.

Throughout this time, I never lost sight of the long-range objectives for the campus as defined in the master plan, and I continued to advocate for their implementation. By the late 1980s, things began to change. Michigan’s economy improved, and limited state funding for building projects resumed. More importantly, university fundraising efforts were producing significant support for building projects, our new president and chief financial officer gave strong support to planning and efforts to upgrade the campus, and key projects necessary to improve and unify the campus were implemented. By the time I retired in 2003, I could honestly say that the campus that existed then was the realization of the master plans that had been created in 1963 and 1987. What is more, each new project that has been added since 2003 has been consistent with the principles and recommendations of those plans. The campus today (2025) is an outcome of the concepts set in the 1963 and 1987 plans.

A specific example relates to the Ingalls Mall, the key site development project recommended in the 1963 master plan to unify the central campus. It was to be implemented in phases. Phase 1 had already been implemented, and Phase 2 was ready to go out for bids when a national economic crisis reached its peak. President Nixon declared many financial restrictions to deal with it, and the university put a freeze on all non-essential expenditures, including the Ingalls Mall. I was very upset, fearing that the entire project might be lost. However, I did not lose sight of the goal and continued to press for the completion of the project.

In a few years, the economy improved, the restrictions were lifted, and the project moved ahead. Interestingly, we used the intervening years to improve the design for Phase II, so what was constructed was superior to the original version. The delay had produced an improved outcome. Sometimes what appears as a setback when it is taking place can turn out to be a virtue in the long run. As someone once remarked: “It is hard to remember that your mission is to drain the swamp when you’re up to your ass in alligators.” But it is the planner’s task to remind the university decision-makers that the swamp needs to be drained and to show them the best way to accomplish it.

It takes a long time and a large amount of money to implement a campus plan. It involves many projects, both architectural and site development. More than that, it needs the consistent input of the campus planner to coordinate these separate projects to ensure that they work together to achieve the desired outcome. Consistency over time is essential. You cannot keep changing concepts every few years and hope to achieve a harmonious outcome. Of course, plans must have the flexibility to adjust to changing conditions, but the planner must confirm that these changes take place harmoniously and effectively to avoid a chaotic outcome.

What I am saying to my fellow campus planners is that even in an environment of turmoil and uncertainty, you should adhere to the principles, techniques, and methodologies that have proved effective in your professional career and always act in the long-term best interest of your institution.

The university will survive this crisis as it has survived those of the past. I am not suggesting that this discussion contains any innovative or novel ideas or dramatic new methodologies to deal with the turmoil now besetting higher education in America. Rather, I hope that the things I have experienced and learned during a long career in campus planning will be useful to my colleagues in the field as they strive to help lead their institutions through the current disorder and in planning for their long-range future.

To comment on this post or share your thoughts with the author, email Frederick W. Mayer at frederickwmayer@gmail.com.