Search Rutgers Rutgers Home  |  Rutgers–Camden

As the battle over the proposed takeover of Rutgers-Camden has evolved, the origins of the idea among South Jersey Democrats has been increasingly clear.  So when reports surfaced that Democratic leader George Norcross was in negotiations for a “compromise,” it appeared that a breakthrough in the contentious battle was imminent.  Then Governor Christie stepped in to re-iterate, “I’m supporting my plan, we’re going to move forward with my plan, and my plan is going to be implemented.” So is it Christie’s plan after all? Not necessarily.

For months, it appeared that Christie was the perfect straight man for South Democratic proponents of the takeover. Give him any situation involving the takeover, and he was bound to hold firm to his support for pushing it through.  Bill Brown questions him repeatedly at a public forum, and the governor calls him an idiot. Frank Lautenberg sticks his nose into the controversy, and he’s a political hack. North Jersey Democrats speak up for getting additional resources to universities in their region, and Christie accuses them of having their noses in the trough.  Even as the head of the state’s office of higher education, Rochelle Hendricks, said it would take at least two months before costs for the merger could be calculated, Christie vowed to have the Barer recommendations in place by July 1. You can almost feel the governor’s itchy finger on the trigger that would execute the proposal  by executive action.

It hasn’t gone unnoticed during the months that controversy has surrounded the Barer report that Christie’s name remains in contention for the GOP vice presidential nomination.  Some have pointed to the shouting incident with Brown as evidence that if Christie has been auditioning for a place on the ticket, he has exposed a damaging weakness for losing his temper. Don’t be too quick to discount the value of such an exchange to Christie’s ambitions.

Traditional calculations for vice presidential partners would seem to argue against Christie.  What Romney needs most, it would seem, is a bridge to social conservatives who distrust him and someone from another part of the country. But Romney has another set of challenges that Christie meets very well.  If he is perceived as a flip-flopper, who better to balance that perception than a running mate who refuses to budge on any position once he has taken it? Christie’s confrontational style is tailor-made for attacking the opposition, a traditional role for vice presidential candidates and one he can be counted on to do with greater effect than Sarah Palin did in 2008. Finally—and this is where the battle over higher education comes in—he can be sold as a man who has advanced a conservative agenda equaling if not exceeding Wisconsin’s Scott Walker without the turmoil that has roiled Wisconsin politics.  In contrast, Christie has rolled back union benefits with bipartisan support.

The battle over the Rutgers-Camden takeover plays into that narrative perfectly.  Just take a look at the video where Christie lashes out at Lautenberg’s intervention as more of the “inside the beltway politics,” while portraying himself as the policymaker who gets things done with bipartisan support.

We don’t know what Christie expects of South Jersey Democrats in the long run, but he, not they, would seem to have the advantage at the moment.  They are the ones desperate to appropriate the Rutgers-Camden resources.  Win or lose, Christie, on the other hand, can remain himself—decisive, unbending,  and making things happen.  Even if he never gets the call from Governor Romney, he comes across as authentic and tough, two qualities that score high in Republican ranks.   One can just hear him thinking, let the details of higher education work themselves out over time. More immediately, there’s still the lure of higher office.   

Reactions to the dissemination of the Rowan plan to take over Rutgers-Camden have been almost as revealing as the document itself. 

Choosing his words carefully, no doubt, Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak responded, “If a consultant was hired to consider the upsides, downsides, and feasibility of such a merger, that just seems like good planning.”  Quite right, if only such a process had taken place either through the Barer Committee or through the consulting document provided Rowan by The Learning Alliance for Higher Education. Rather, as the LAHE document states very clearly in the second paragraph, the consultants were asked “to develop a work plan identifying the actions and considerations that would prove necessary when, and if, the Advisory Committee recommended the integration of Rowan University and its newly accredited School of Medicine, Rutgers-Camden, and possibly other postsecondary institutions and agencies across South Jersey.” No alternatives to a merger are considered in the plan. In fact, no other institutions of higher learning are named beyond the Cooper Medical School and Rutgers-Camden.

Rowan spokesman Joe Cardona denies the report was secret. Why then did university officials not provide the LAHE report along with the roadmap plan released March 22^nd in response to Senator Nellie Pou’s request for internal documents related to the merger at the March 19 hearing before the joint committee on higher education on the Rowan campus? No matter, the Rowan takeover plan is revealed, even if some key details remain to be rooted out.

Thanks to a communication from a colleague, we now have a better window into the motivation behind Rowan’s single-minded support for the Rutgers-Camden takeover. According to the Rowan paper, The Whit for November 2, Houshmand called an all-campus meeting October 25th to confirm that rumors of a proposed merger with Rutgers-Camden were true.  After discussing the university’s strained financial situation, the paper reported, Houshmand stated that  becoming a research-designated university was necessary for Rowan’s “survival and growth.” Otherwise, he said, “Our current path will lead to disaster.”  

Stating the need to recruit more students to relieve financial pressure and more faculty to teach them, Houshmand argued, over a number of objections from the floor, that the best path was through a merger with Rutgers-Camden.

So back to the Governor’s office. Between January, 2011 when the Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education called for further examination of options for supporting medical education in South Jersey and January, when the Barer report was released, no public examination of  upsides, downsides, or feasibility for a merger or any other option for South Jersey took place.  If that doesn’t suggest “a fix,” as Senator Lautenberg has charged, it’s hard to give it any other name.

Now that the Rowan Administration’s position is clearer, the public has every right to know at what point the Barer Committee adopted the proposal to merge Rutgers-Camden into that university.  We need to know who served as the chief agent in securing the Barer Committee’s endorsement. And finally, we need to know at what point proposals for medical education as a whole were made contingent on accepting a merger in South Jersey. The more we know about the proposed merger, the shakier its foundation. Once we have all the facts, it’s hard to imagine it surviving informed scrutiny.

Some time in the fall of 2011, Rowan University made a fateful decision. After some months of discussions with Rutgers-Camden personnel about how the two institutions could best ally their resources to secure greater financial support for higher education in South Jersey, the conversations stopped. Now we know why.

Instead of working out a mutually beneficial and agreed upon plan with Rutgers, Rowan, or one of its allies, turned instead to outside help for a report—a battle plan actually—on how best to take over Rutgers-Camden’s assets.  According to a column in the March 29 Star-Ledger, the plan, from The Learning Alliance for Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania, was commissioned at a cost of $30,000.

That report, issued January 26^th, the day after Governor Christie released and endorsed the Barer Advisory Committee report, proceeded on three premises. First, the Governor would act swiftly and decisively by using his executive powers to effect the merger. Second, he would name Rowan a research university at the same time. Finally—and this was the lynchpin—the merger would be tied to other recommendations in the report. Specifically, Rutgers University would have to divest itself of the Camden campus and all the resources attached to it in order to acquire medical facilities further north.

We know this deal was already in place in November, when the action plan was commissioned, because Rowan Interim President Houshmand met with Rowan students on November 21st to answer concerns about how a merger would affect their education. The minutes, posted on the Rowan website  under the title “South Jersey Merger,” was summarized under the heading “Governor Sent Recommendation.” Among the answers to questions was the affirmation that Rowan faculties were already preparing for a merger. The Barer Committee was still meeting at the time and had not even interviewed Rutgers-Camden Chancellor Wendell Pritchett to get his input to their deliberations.

The Learning Alliance report provided considerable detail on how to seize the opportunity offered by the governor through the proposed merger, making sure, as I have reported previously, that Rowan centralize in Glassboro administrative and budgetary power over the combined institutions.

Not surprisingly, the consultants anticipated a negative reaction at Rutgers, writing, “First, we believe a significant portion of the faculty and staff at Rutgers-Camden will express their unhappiness with what the Advisory Committee has recommended.”  As a response, the consultants recommended a communications strategy focused on “an optimistic discussion of the educational future the Advisory Committee has imagined.”  Those managing the transition, it advised, should “spend as little time as possible explaining how and why the protests have missed the point.”  Rowan has since issued a request for proposals from firms willing to execute its public relations plan.

 The report also anticipated the likelihood of litigation, with the result that “the process of accrediting the New Rowan University undergraduate programs at the current Rutgers-Camden location will be substantially slowed—even put on hold—pending the outcome of possible legal challenges.” Rather than accepting delay, however, the consultants urged the Steering  Committee charged with executing the merger to complete its work by July 1, 2012, the same deadline the governor has since embraced for completing his proposal  for reorganization.

Re-iterating the importance of acting expeditiously, the report asserts, “We believe it will be possible to realize the Advisory Committee’s vision of having in place a major research university in South Jersey even if the full integration of Rutgers-Camden is delayed. All that is required to start the process is the designation of Rowan as a public research university, the necessary reclassification of staff, and a substantial augment in the funds available to the New Rowan University to build the infrastructure a successful major research university will require (emphasis added).  If Rowan, Cooper University Hospital, and the State of new Jersey make clear their intention to establish a major research university in South Jersey, we believe that sooner or later the great majority of faculty at Rutgers Camden will ask to join….”

Not incidentally, Rowan’s consultants urged the university to address its own faculty concerns, notably teaching loads, research support, and tenure review. Noting “a lingering issue regarding the power of the Board of Trustees and the role of the faculty in the governance of the institution,” the consultants urged that the issue be addressed “to preclude the faculty’s discontent…in the enacting of the organizational and curricular changes the New Rowan University will require.”

So the situation is clear. Instead of pursuing avenues of possible cooperation with Rutgers-Camden, Rowan embraced a high-stakes strategy to assure the aggrandizement of its own status. With its unilateral action, Rowan severely compromised the possibility of partnership and mutual collaboration with Rutgers.  By choosing to wait out the victims of its own hostile action, even as it tries to sell its motives as honorable and informed by good practice, it has tarnished its reputation and greatly diminished its standing.   

Sometimes we have to look behind the news to see what is really happening, no less so justifications for the proposed takeover of Rutgers-Camden.

This morning, we opened the paper to read this reaction from John Sheridan, Cooper Hospital chief executive, in response to news that New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg is seeking a federal probe of the costs associated with the proposal: “The reasons for the proposed merger of Rutgers-Camden and Rowan have nothing to do with the funding of the medical school but have everything to do with correcting an imbalance that exists in higher education in South Jersey.”

Ever since the release of the Barer report in January, proponents of the takeover of Rutgers-Camden have been doing their best to deflect interest away from the costs and consequences of the proposal by focusing on untested and inflated projections of benefits to the city of Camden and the region. It’s a classic public relations strategy, we are reminded with the return of “Mad Men” to the screen this week. Cigarettes may not be good for you, but there’s some other reason to smoke them. A little history is in order.

Back in October, 2010, when George Norcross first publicly floated the idea of a University of South Jersey by combining Rowan with Rutgers-Camden, Inquirer reporter James Osborne described the idea as far-fetched, informing his readers that according to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities there never has been a successful merger of public universities in the United States.

About the same time, supporters of Norcross’ idea tried to get the state’s task force on higher education, chaired by former Governor Tom Kean, to incorporate the idea. They tried on more than one occasion, but the best they could do—late in the process—was get the idea further attention as an appendix to the final report. That report, which was released in December, 2010, specifically advised that the relationship of Cooper Medical School “and its relationship with other institutions of higher education in New Jersey should be included as part of the follow-up study recommended in this report” and described the appended one-page description simply as “a summary of a proposal received by the Task Force.”  That proposal was explicit in intent, stating, “The essential ingredients of this university would be the merger of Rowan University and Rutgers-Camden into a single university.”

The final Kean task force report was released in January. At the same time Rowan University President Donald Farish announced he was moving up his resignation by a year. Far from seeking a respite from higher education, he was inaugurated as president of Roger Williams University in Rhode Island in October.  Meanwhile, reports circulated that Farish had not been sufficiently committed to allocating Rowan’s funds to the support of the new medical school. It went without saying that boosting the medical school was a prerequisite for new leadership at the Rowan campus.

The Barer report grew directly out of the Kean task force.  It was a much thinner document, without the depth of analysis or assessment provided in the Kean report. That was understandable enough, as its charge was simply to come up with a proposal for medical education. In the process, however, the Barer committee endorsed the Rutgers-Camden takeover. What it didn’t do was build on the analysis offered by the Kean report, expect to echo the complaint that too many New Jersey students were leaving the state for colleges elsewhere. Common sense, expressed in many forums since the Barer report was released, suggest a takeover would have just the opposite effect, driving many South Jersey students either across the Delaware to take advantage of other options located in and around Philadelphia or up the turnpike to one of the remaining Rutgers campuses.

What the Kean task force report does recommend is worth remembering: “Geographically, New Jersey is a small state. Therein lies the opportunity to focus resources into institutions that are differentiated, high quality, diverse, yet complementary. When taken together, they offer our citizens a broad range of valuable educational choices and opportunities.” That’s the voice that proponents of a takeover of Rutgers-Camden’s assets want to drown out, but it’s the voice that is being heard across the region. It calls for further investments in existing universities, while still maintaining choice among them. It seeks an educational product that is tangible and can be built upon, not one that is shrouded in smoke and propped up with mirrors.

Rowan has released its “roadmap” for the takeover of Rutgers-Camden.  In making the announcement today, Rowan acting president Ali Houshmand complained about the tone of public discussion. “A lot of people have been engaged in throwing a lot of mud at Rowan, insulting this institution, and it’s hurtful,” he said today on KYW radio. So let’s see what Rowan, which now offers itself as the victim, offers in the way of a partnership, without any input whatsoever from Rutgers-Camden.

First, the report presumes that the governor will put the takeover into effect by executive order, an approach he did not rule out in remarks reported earlier this week.  Not incidentally, Rowan expects the governor to reclassify it as a research university, which would remove it from its current category along with other state colleges (which prohibit the introduction of Ph.D. programs, among other things).  Of course, Rowan’s designation by outside evaluators would remain the same, as a masters comprehensive. Since Rowan administrators met in the governor’s office last Friday, an interesting question is whether they cleared the document with his staff in advance, including the anticipated use of executive reorganization.   

 Rowan, signals its intent to sever from Rutgers all endowments and grants designated for Rutgers-Camden, surely a sticky point for the central administration in New Brunswick, and to seek appropriations to replace lost resources, including IT support.  Though the report supports expanding the library to meet the needs of additional students, it fails to account for the loss of an accredited research library and provides no cost estimates for any additional library services.  

Students entering the Camden campus after this year would follow the Rutgers curriculum for the next several years, but would receive a Rowan degree, certainly a first in the history of higher education. Students entering Rowan after a common curriculum is established will get a Rowan degree, whatever campus they attend.   

 Most notably, the report omits the status of the Camden-based faculty. No reference is made to their tenure or their standing with Rowan, except obliquely through a promise to “enhance and integrate existing structures, policies, and resources (e.g., information resources, individuals with specific expertise, student services, infrastructure, personnel, academic standards) (bold added). No guidelines are laid out for conditions under which teaching will take place, namely teaching loads, conditions and standards for promotion and tenure, or recruitment.

Under the Rowan proposal, budgeting would be centralized. There is no designation as to allocation of resources by campus, by formula or otherwise.  Cooper President John

Over "the state" of South Jersey, Rowan shall rule

Sheridan claims that Rutgers currently nets $50 million dollars from Camden tuition and Senate President Steve Sweeney puts the outflow at $61 million. That profit, if it continues with the merger, would go to Glassboro for distribution by the central administration located there. One can guess how much of that would go to Cooper Medical School.

The board of trustees for the combined campuses would be expanded by 10 seats, to 25, assuring the dominance of the current board.  There is no indication of whom and by what criteria the trustees would be chosen.  There is no assurance either that a politically-motivated takeover would avoid the kind of patronage pit that UMDNJ became when its board was politicized.  

The proposal calls for an increase in undergraduate students over five years of 5,000 students, presumably to address the problem cited endlessly by proponents of the merger of the net loss from the whole state of 30,000 students a year.  Even more ambitiously, the report calls for an increase in graduate students of 16% a year, to a level of 5000 students.  Where those students will come from, what financial support they will receive, or what programs will be targeted for growth or development is not stated.  The report states only broadly, “The needs and requirements of faculty, anticipated future degree programs, funding sources, and enrollment management shall be investigated and appropriately planned for.”

True to Rowan’s earlier message to its own faculty, the report calls for committees of faculty from both institutions to integrate the curriculum over the next several years.  At this point, Rowan faculty will be as much in the dark as the Rutgers faculty as to what would be expected of them in the new institution. What is certain, according to the Rowan report, is that current Rowan employees who have it will no longer be given  civil service protection and that bargaining will be local, not with the state.

The same forces that orchestrated the state takeover of Camden in 2002 are behind the current plan to create a major research university  through the merger of Rutgers-Camden into Rowan: South Jersey Democrats headed by George E. Norcross.  Just as the municipal recovery legislation garnered grand promises of Camden’s revitalization, so too this latest effort to assemble assets has been cited as the key to Camden’s recovery.  And the same public narrative can be expected to ensue: first protest, then litigation, and finally Camden still struggling to survive on an uneven playing field.

The connection between the current controversy and the state takeover has been brought to mind in recent days with the passing of Randy Primas, Camden’s first African-American mayor and the state-appointed chief operating officer from 2002 until 2005.  As mayor, Primas had to accept a number of devil’s bargains in order to balance his budget: first a prison on prime waterfront property in the heart of the North Camden neighborhood, then a trash-to-steam plant that fouled the environment for residents of the Waterfront South and Fairview neighborhoods.  He also supported another state prison slated for North Camden and would have seen it in place had he not been appointed state commissioner of community affairs. Without his support, the plan withered before intense neighborhood opposition.

Years later, when he returned to Camden as chief operating officer, the shoe was on the other foot.  Now he was proposing externally-devised plans for Camden neighborhoods, most notably Cramer Hill, that generated their own intense opposition.  The effort to remake much of Cramer Hill in favor of  upscale commercial and residential structures shielded by a golf course slated to replace an abandoned landfill failed when the courts ruled the plan invalid for technical reasons. Although a new, community-based plan followed, it is yet to be acted upon.  Even with substantial funds made available under the municipal recovery legislation,  the takeover did little to improve living conditions in the city.

Instead, the takeover boosted the city’s anchor institutions, its “eds” and “meds”  as well as Adventure Aquarium, which not only privatized but also used a $25 million state investment to expand.  Market-rate housing on the waterfront that was promised as part of the return for privatization has yet to materialize. Clearly the municipal recovery intended for Camden was incomplete at best.

Now, we hear a similar story claiming grand returns for Camden should Rutgers-Camden be folded into Rowan.  In essays under his name in  the Courier-Post and the Inquirer, Norcross described the latest takeover as a “once in a lifetime opportunity.”  State Senate President Steve Sweeney, working from the same playbook, used similar language in a subsequent essay.  A two and a half page, front page article describing Norcross’ vision for the city appeared in the Courier-Post February 12^th and was subsequently reprinted by at least one other Gannett outlet in the state.

It’s a seductive image, but an illusionary one.  Like Primas when he was mayor, Rutgers is being offered a devil’s bargain:  give up the Camden campus in order to acquire a medical school in New Brunswick.  If the governor manages to execute the plan by executive order, as he has signaled, there is nothing he or a future governor can’t do to compromise Rutgers’ integrity.   In the meantime, what will be the effect in Camden?

Proponents of the merger are quite right about higher education being underfunded in South Jersey.  So they have a case to make for greater equity for South Jersey. Where that money would be directed, however, is critical.   Sweeney asks that the public be patient and await details that were not provided in the Barer report.  But enough information has already come out to make clear what is intended.  Just as in the state takeover, the primary beneficiaries are to be those behind the effort, in this case Cooper Hospital and Rowan University.  Rowan’s own website indicates that a primary source of revenue will be tuition earned in Camden.  In their words, “administrators anticipate that a portion of the cost [for new programs] will come from funds that are no longer sent from the Rutgers-Camden campus to support Rutgers-New Brunswick operations.”   Just as significantly, Rutgers-Camden business professor Gene Pilotte demonstrates how important the acquisition of the Rutgers-Camden campus is to improving Rowan’s bond rating.  Cooper Hospital’s John Sheridan  dismisses Pilotte’s analysis as “off the mark,” without offering any evidence to the contrary. Instead, he seems to have inside knowledge that Governor Christie is  prepared to discard Rutgers’ legislative history as an autonomous institution  and seal the merger by executive action as though Rutgers were, in Sheridan’s words, a state agency.

So this is how politics plays out in New Jersey.    Raw power masquerades as benevolence.  Desirable ends are stated without acknowledging behind-the-scenes deals that lack accountability.  If there’s any doubt what will happen if current plans are executed, one need look only at the presumed object of reform in the Barer report itself: UMDNJ. Once that university was opened up to political influence through its governing board, the institution nearly sank in a patronage scandal.  One shouldn’t forget that one of the chief victims of that fallout was State Senator Wayne Bryant, the chief architect of the municipal recovery legislation who subsequently was convicted for taking a non-show position at UMDNJ’s facility in Stratford. 

Primas, Bryant, and Norcross: they played the key roles in the state takeover of Camden.  Primas and Bryant are no longer factors, but there’s no doubt who remains out front on the Rutgers takeover.  George Norcross has a case to make for his hospital and for South Jersey, but not at the expense of Rutgers-Camden.   The city needs a vibrant Rutgers campus, not the shell of an institution whose assets are being appropriated for another institution’s benefit.  As in so many instances, behind  the rhetoric, there’s a lot of money at stake, and nothing about the Barer report or the process that created it has spelled out who is to pay and who is to benefit. As those details come out, you can be assured that behind the mask of “equity,” lies another, much darker story.  

In one of those fascinating documents that reveals what lies behind plans for a takeover of Rutgers-Camden, let me draw your attention to what Rowan University says about the process. It’s chilling reading for those who oppose the effort, not the least the promise that lies at the core of the document:

“While the future no doubt will include many hurdles as the merger moves forward, its success will not be determined by the track record of one institution, but rather the work and commitment of the current Rutgers-Camden employees and students working with Rowan employees and students to develop the new university.

The question should not be whether Rowan is capable of handling the merger, but whether the two institutions can come together to develop an institution that has the potential to transform the region.”

So states the Rowan University web site in explaining the steps it envisions for taking over the Camden Campus, as proposed by the Barer Committee on the future of medical education in New Jersey. It’s a curious statement, not the least because Rowan proclaims that “2016-17 will be the first year of the fully integrated institution and fully integrated curricula.” Four years, and bam! we’ve got a new university. Strikingly, the website and its extended rationale was developed and published without any input whatsoever from those Rutgers employees and students who are called upon to make it happen.

This has been the pattern from day one. Rowan provided assurances to its students that they would benefit from a merger with Rutgers-Camden even before the Barer Committee met with the Rutgers-Camden Chancellor to get his input to the report.  Now, even before a vote by Rutgers University’s Board of Governors and Board of Trustees whether or not to accept any or all of the Barer report, Rowan has the path all laid out. What are they thinking?

Well, first they see some extra bodies to rely on.  Noting that under current plans for growth “faculty and staff already are stretched thin,” Rowan turns to Rutgers, which offers the additional benefit of funds expected to flow from the Camden campus. In their words, “there will be initial and long-term costs, but administrators anticipate that a portion of the cost will come from funds that are no longer sent from the Rutgers-Camden campus to support Rutgers-New Brunswick operations.” Indeed. And for what purposes? Certainly not to replace the library or other resources that would be lost when the central Rutgers administration cut its Camden campus loose.

And what about poor Camden?  Echoing a grossly inflated picture of a revived city advanced by proponents of the takeover, the Rowan website proclaims, “The merged institution also will be a magnet for entrepreneurship, grants and philanthropy and ultimately will create a vibrant 12-month campus for both host communities that will spur economic and cultural activity.”  Noting that the Glassboro campus can only accommodate another 1000 or so students, the Rowan website describes growth, to about 25,000 students, not in Camden but on line and off campus (presumably off its own campus) with the help of the “critical mass of additional faculty and staff” it expects to appropriate from the Rutgers campus.

While those faculty, or at least some of them, could be willing to participate in on-line courses, that’s not exactly what would be expected as the first task of scholars already recognized at the top of their fields. Indeed, the Rowan website acknowledges, the difficulty of personnel issues  such as faculty workloads, benefits, salaries and tenure. It notes breezily, enough, however, that “faculty and staff who have been employed, evaluated and (in the case of faculty) tenured under an existing set of criteria will not have expectations changed mid-stream.” What that means exactly in terms of the criteria that will prevail in a new institution, we can’t say. To suggest, however, that those at Rutgers should not have their expectations changed mid-stream defies reason. We presume the message is directed only at Rowan faculty and their hopes that they won’t have to be judged by any different standard.

Last but not least, consider Rowan’s pledge that transition planning “will be inclusive and transparent.” To that end, their Rutgers-Camden “partners” may be dismayed to learn that the process has started without them, as Rowan reports “with a merger planning team comprising cabinet members, deans, key managers, the presidents of the Senate and AFT, and select faculty and staff to discuss what it will take to make the merger successful.” “If the merger receives final approval,” the site asserts, “transition teams made up of Rutgers-Camden and Rowan employees will form at every level to tackle the myriad issues and propose changes to an expanded Rowan Board of Trustees.” At least that part opens up to Rutgers-Camden participation.

Let’s be honest here. Camden has been taken over before, by the state from 2002 to 2009. City residents had little input to that decision, and the city as a whole remains impoverished and dependent on outside resources. Now, one of its key anchor institutions has been slated for takeover too. We might expect nothing more than a gloss of presumed benevolence from those who would benefit most. But Rutgers-Camden is a vibrant institution, poised to lead the renaissance of the city, and it should not become the victim of another shell game in the name of some fantasy of greater progress. We’ll return to this subject in greater depth soon. Meanwhile, if you like what Rowan offers in the way of a partnership, I want you to buy a share in the colony Newt Gingrich envisions on the moon. You can expect about the same rate of return.

This essay appeared in today’s Currents section of the Inquirer. I am posting it here because it was not linked electronically on the Inquirer’s web site. A companion essay on the site by Cooper Hospital board chairman George Norcross is posted and can be accessed here.

Howard Gillette is Professor Emeritus of History at Rutgers-Camden, author of the prize-winning book Camden After the Fall, and co-editor of the on-line Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia, which is based at Rutgers-Camden.

Camden doesn’t need another blow to its always fragile efforts to recover from decades of  decline.  The proposed merger of Rutgers-Camden into Rowan is being touted by its supporters as a move that could help reverse that pattern by creating an outstanding research institution. Unfortunately, under the current plan, such a move would almost certainly have just the opposite effect.

                One of the few tangible successes of the municipal recovery legislation that put Camden under state control for some seven years are the results of investments in the city’s “eds” and “meds.”   Rutgers and Cooper Hospital were beneficiaries, and both have capitalized by expanding their presence in the city. Moreover, with additional resources, they can deepen the unequalled services they provide the region.

                The strategy of investing in “anchor institutions,” so-called because they are rooted to the places they are located in, has been embraced by the Annie E. Casey and Knight foundations, both of which have made significant investments in recent years in Rutgers-Camden.  If this plan helps Rutgers-Camden and Cooper, those investments, and those from the state, certainly will be aggregated.

                But what is likely under the current plan, starting with the elimination of the Rutgers name? 

The number of students who chose to come into Camden to study will surely decline, given the choice of only one degree, from Rowan. Declining enrollment in Camden will reverse a pattern of growth, which when combined with investments still to be realized as part of the municipal recovery legislation in the form of market-rate housing on the waterfront, have promised downtown revitalization.

                The Rutgers future scholars program which prepares children for college in each of the university’s host cities would be another casualty of consolidation.  Other examples of the commitment of Rutgers personnel from all levels to improve the city as scholars, students, and volunteers might continue, but without the core commitment that Rutgers-Camden has made to civic investment.

                There is no doubting the desirability of forming a partnership between Rutgers-Camden and Cooper Hospital.  Many universities do this in other cities through consortium arrangements.  Together these two particular eds and meds could generate additional grant money, most notably from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.  Rutgers faculty members have an admirable  record of accomplishment in this regard, and they would not have to rebuild the infrastructure of a great university to remain competitive, as they would have to do at Rowan.

                Imagine if Cooper decided in the next few years that because Rowan was the administrative center for a new university, it had to leave Camden for Glassboro.  Pulling up that anchor would have terrible repercussions.  It would be just as bad if the government dictated that Cooper fold into one of the suburban hospitals.  So why Rutgers-Camden?

                There’s a chance to be constructive here. Camden’s continued high level of distress adversely  affects the whole region. We have a chance to invest in the core part of the city and make it stronger.  Let’s do it in a way that has a chance of working, not by undercutting  Rutgers-Camden and all that it contributes but by finding a more effective way to tap those resources in the goal of improving both the quality of care and the quality of education in this once mighty city.