LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

6. HIGHER EDUCATION

6-01
Report of Board for Higher Education

Preamble

In most ways, this has been a quiet biennium in higher edu-
cation—but it may have been a sleeper. Except for a few highly
publicized issues, the most noise that could be heard was the
daily sound of keeping school, the barely audible sound of
seeking excellence in synodical education despite a lot of
untoward circumstances. Few spectacular events happened,
as many competent persons regularly agonized over unmet
budgets and struggled with unrealized enrollment and program
goals. But the evidence is mounting that it was a great 2 years,
and we may well look back upon them as a time of some signifi-
cant turning points, a time when things happened that could
revitalize the system and give it exciting new goals and missions.

Some readers will be unhappy about this report — about its
tone and about the facts and developments it relates. Among
these readers will be those who feel that the Board for Higher
Education should forthwith publish a comprehensive master
plan which tells exactly what should and will happen to each
element in our system of schools, and exactly when. The board
is persuaded that this is an impossible and actually inappropriate
undertaking, particularly when such a plan is rigidly and
narrowly defined. The board and staff have watched master
plans, 10-year projections, campus master designs impressively
appear and then unobtrusively fade away. They were rigid
designs; they simply did not take into consideration just how
fast and how radically situations are changing —in all of Ameri-
can society, in the educational, economic, and ecclesiastical
structures, and in the cultural environment in which American
young people are developing.

The uncertainties in higher education, however, should not
lead anyone to ignore the certainties and to do only minimal
planning. The development of our colleges and seminaries is
much too important to leave to chance. We cannot afford to
refuse to identify important objectives and effective ways of
reaching them just because we fear some possible radical
changes. We cannot hesitate to choose a policy only because our
choice might conflict with some yet unknown eventuality.

The board therefore advocates current and long-range
planning—as an ongoing function at all levels, rather than
plans. To some this distinction will seem to be illegitimate, but
it was not at all unreal as the board agonized over decisions
concerning the future of institutions and programs, not yet
knowing the impact of certain developments which could
already be sensed but not yet defined or measured.

Openness to change and willingness to see and seize its
opportunities should not be confused with indecisiveness. Any
objective history of our colleges and seminaries will show
substantial changes and significant adjustment to change, also
during the past biennium. If these did not generally result from
“directives” of the board, it does not mean that the board was
not involved, corporately or through its representatives and
agents, in helping those changes become reaffirmations of the
ongoing and basic objective of the entire enterprise.

Personnel of the Board

The Board for Higher Education consists of seven members—
three laymen, three pastors, and one teacher or superintendent
of education of day schools. In the past the board has been ap-
pointed by the President of the Synod, upon approval by the
Council of Presidents. Beginning with the New Orleans con-
vention the board will be elected by the Synod, as required by
a 1971 convention resolution.

During the past biennium two new members were appointed.
Miss Morella Mensing, a teacher at Grace Lutheran School in
River Forest, II., became the first woman to serve on the board.
Mr. Walter Brunn, an executive with the United States Steel
Corporation in Pittsburgh, was appointed as one of the lay
representatives. Outgoing members, to whom an exceptionally
warm expression of commendation for distinguished services is
due, are Dr. Richard Engebrecht and Mr. Adolph Rittmueller.
Those who served as officers of the board during the biennium
were: Rev. Merlin Pohl, chairman; Mr. Arthur Brackebusch,

241

vice-chairman: and Rev. Edgar Homrighausen, secretary. The
other members of the board were Dr. Elmer Pflieger and
Rev. Elmer Neitzel.

Activities of the Board

The board met 12 times for a total of 25 days in the 2-year
period since the last convention. One of the meetings was held
on the campus of Alabama Lutheran Academy and College to
give special attention to the opportunities and needs of that
institution. All other meetings were conducted in St. Louis or
Chicago. During a regular meeting in St. Louis, the boards of
control and presidents of the colleges at Austin, Tex.: Concordia,
Mo.: and Winfield, Kans., were invited to meet with the board in
keeping with the Milwaukee convention Res. 6-02, to discuss the
needs of the geographic area served by these colleges and the
future of the three institutions.

On two occasions the board convened its Advisory Council,
consisting of the presidents of the colleges and seminaries, for
mutual consultation on issues of systemwide concern. Separate
meetings were held involving the academic deans, deans of
students, and representative instructors of Greek from synodical
schools.

Of continued assistance to the board was the work of its
commissions, which study certain areas of the educational task
and provide reports and proposals to the board. Included at
present are commissions on curriculum, student life, planning
and research, and recruitment policies. The memberships of
these groups include administrators, faculty members and stu-
dents from synodical schools, and leaders in higher education
who are members of the church, but not serving on the synodical
faculty. Unfortunately the financial squeeze has again prevented
these commissions from meeting as often as they should for
maximum service.

The school year just completed was the final one in a 3-year
plan designed by the board and carried out under the direction
of its staff for an extended overall evaluation visit of each cam-
pus. The teams which visited the various campuses included
synodical faculty members and “outside” leaders in higher edu-
cation, in addition to staff members of the Board for Higher
Education. Following each visit a detailed report, including
evaluations and recommendations relating to all aspects of
operation, was presented to the Board for Higher Education
and the president of the institution. The visit plan also involves
follow-up contacts and reports by the chairman of the evaluation
team which visited each school.

In the divisional realignment for synodical administration
adopted at the Denver convention, the responsibility for the
colleges and seminaries in South America was transferred from
the Division of Missions to the Division of Higher Education.
Almost all of the details involved in this transfer have now been
completed and the Board for Higher Education has been re-
ceiving regular reports concerning the operation of these
schools and has become involved in the discussions of the
issues, questions, and plans relating to the future needs and
opportunities in higher education in South America.

I. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EARLY 70S AFFECTING
SYNODICAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE FUTURE

A. In American Higher Education Generally

The quiet on the college campuses of the United States in
1971, which followed the sharp, often violent, student activism
and dissent in the late 1960s and in 1970, has continued through-
out the biennium. However, there was certainly no shortage of
events and changes which significantly influenced higher edu-
cation generally and also directly or indirectly the colleges and
seminaries of the Synod.

Carnegie Commission

The Carnegie Commission has undertaken the most compre-
hensive study of higher education ever done in any nation.
Many of its reports were issued during the past 2 years and the
final report is due in 1973. It is not possible as yet to determine
the specific direction or degree of impact of the commission on
higher education or whether it will, in the end, have greater