Other transcripts

Transcripts

October 30, 2002

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
An interview with Arizona State University's 16th president, Michael M. Crow;
HORIZON explores where voters get information to make decisons on Election Day.
In-Studio Guests:
Arizona State University President Dr. Michael Crow;
Jack Jewett, President of the Arizona Board of Regents;
KAET-ASU poll director Dr. Bruce Merrill

>> Michael: Tonight on "Horizon," Arizona's universities are "changing directions." Tonight hear more about the changes from the man at the helm of one of those universities, Arizona State University president Dr. Michael Crow.

>>> Also, how do voters decide who or what to vote for? We'll meet two valley couples making those decisions right now.

>>> Good evening, I'm Michael Grant.

>>> Arizona universities are now seeking their own paths, but still will work together under a plan entitled "changing directions." Here now to tell us more about that plan and talk about other issues affecting universities is Arizona State University president Dr. Michael Crow, and Jack Jewett, who is the president of the Arizona Board of Regents. Good to see both of you. Dr. Crow, welcome to the university.

>> Jack Jewett: Happy to be here.

>> Michael: Jack, before we get to the "changing directions" obviously, the breaking news and it may in fact be broken is another $40 million in proposed budget cuts for the university system total. How do those line up and how is the university system going to handle that?

>> Jack Jewett: Well, certainly the $40 million in this current fiscal year is an extraordinary burden on the university system, and then also looking forward to the next year, 2004, when the state attempts to reconcile a budget 2 deficit forecast to be upwards of a billion dollars, these are extraordinary cuts that the university system really can't sustain, and we're getting dangerously close to cuts that will just really cut to the very core of what these universities are hoping to accomplish.

>> Michael: And as you point out, it makes it difficult for all agencies, not just the university system, but makes it difficult because they do come in December or January. It takes away a lot of options and if you knew about it six months ago, I'm not saying it would be more pleasant, but at least you would have more time to deal with it.

>> Jack Jewett: That's correct. And of course, looking at the very difficult financial condition for state and for the universities, that is why we at the board of regents are developing and beginning to roll out a reform initiative known as "changing directions." Part of that is to really recognize, I think, that these universities are not agencies. These universities are really becoming much more entrepreneurial, more enterprise oriented and that is reflected in the work that the board is doing with the university presidents to really start to focus on the issue of differentiating the missions of the universities and how that will play out over time. So, we are indeed working on a program that will look in a very serious way, in a way that we really haven't looked at in the past, how we can comprehensively improve our ref streams, 3 recognizing that the state is a very important revenue stream, but we have, over time, out of necessity, become less reliant on it.

>> Michael: Dr. Crow, I want to build on that with ASU's role, but let me get back to the budget situation. What is ASU's share of the $40 million, and have you figured out or are you in the process of figuring out how you lacerate to make that cut?

>> Michael Crow: We've got two issues relative to the budget. We've got the FY2003 mid-year cut which looks to be $17 million as the share of the $40 million. It's possible that share could change and that there is uncertainty about were things may end up and where the Governor or legislature may take it. This is really a two-year budget problem, not just the 503 cut, but the anticipated '04 cut. In '03, we're trying to do everything we can to squeeze the last ounce of efficiency out of an enterprise that's already very, very efficient. We're doing that by basically cutting nonessential services, nonessential functions. We're doing that by shifting more of the burden to external funding, and as I said, squeezing everything that we can out of our enterprise. We won't be able to do this again, because it's already a university which is noted for its ability to get a big stretch out of every dollar that they spent.

>> Michael: Lay-offs?

>> Michael Crow: There may be lay-offs, but this will be met with shifting of resources to other sources, raising more money. There will be an impact in nonacademic services which will be cut back. Academic services will be protected.

>> Michael: Let me change course back to "changing directions." Almost every gubernatorial candidate is talking about this phenomena of the universities needing to become more entrepreneurial or recognizing that they have become and the necessity for the university-private partnerships, and almost all of them also talk about the need for some changes to make that happen, including, perhaps, constitutional changes. Give me a little more meat. Those are abstract concepts. What does this mean, really? What needs to change?

>> Michael Crow: I think what it means is that we've reached this point in history, both as a function of the way the universities have evolved, the present fiscal stress, the growth rate in the state's population, the diversification of the state's population, where it is at this moment time for the universities to change directions and in a sense, speed up their maturation rate, speed up their building of their own identities. Speed up the notion that what the state really needs is three related but different institutions, each performing slightly different functions. So it means in Tucson, from the outstanding base of the University of Arizona that's been built as a great research university, one needs to build one of the great land great 5 research universities in the United States. In Flagstaff, from the base that's already been built there, there is the opportunity to build a world-class residential undergraduate focused research excitable university and in metropolitan Phoenix at Arizona State University, we have the opportunity to build a world-class, metropolitan research university. Now, if you look around the country, these three types of universities exist, focusing only on the ASU case, metropolitan Phoenix, there is universities in London and in Minneapolis, for instance, that have become very high quality, very high performing, deeply embedded in their communities, and focused on returning a lot to the economic future of their regions, the social transformation of their regions and the cultural transformation of their regions. ASU is positioned to move in that direction.

>> Michael: Jack, a lot of people say this is all well and good, but the prime mission of the university is educating young people, and of course, those young people are getting older and older, we know, through the university population. And really, by doing this, and by broadening the base, you deny the primary function that they exist for. How do you make sure that doesn't happen while you're changing directions to something else?

>> Jack Jewett: Well, we've adopted a number of principles that will guide us through the changing directions process to assure that every resident who is qualified to attend the university has that opportunity to do so. We've established principles around affordability and accessibility. As we see these universities emerge, as Dr. Crow has discussed here, we'll see those opportunities expand. At our study session today, we had a great discussion about affordability and accessibility. We know that the revenue stream of tuition right now, it's among the lowest in the country. And that has to be moved up, but it has to be moved -- tuition has to increase in a way that will not exacerbate or create a larger gap between those who can afford a university education and those who cannot. We know from national studies, that we score very low on affordability schedules. What we're doing is looking at tuition and need-based financial aid together, and I think through that, we'll be able to increase tuition, but at the same time, protect those who require need-based financial aid.

>> Michael: What about, Dr. Crow, the perceived program attic conflict, that if the professor is doing research, research is really what he's doing, he's not delivering the product in the classroom that he ought to be delivering?

>> Michael Crow: Well, that's a false dichotomy. No professor that's going to be a great teacher isn't also going to be a scholar. A few professors will be intensive laboratory-based researchers, but that's only a limited number. If you look across the university, the only way you can be a great teacher is to be constantly updating your knowledge, constantly contributing to the advance meant of knowledge in your field, otherwise, you are not a university professor, you are something other than that. And so, it actually goes to the very heart, the very nature of the university and what it's all about. Better teachers are a derivative of folks that are engaged in research and scholarship.

>> Michael: What about just the time squeeze, though?

>> Jack Jewett: Well, the time squeeze is dealt with in the issue of how much time. At least from my perspective, faculty members should be working 60, 70, 80 hours a week or more. They should be flat out committed in their entire energy, all of them, their energy, all of their self-to being the best possible teacher. Teacher is the prime objective, that they are working toward. You can be the best teacher by being at the leading edge of your field and aware of where your field is going and how it's expect and how it's connecting to other things. It's a sin knee qua nonto be a great university teacher and not an active scholar.

>> Michael: We hear a lot about technology Traverse and university-private partnerships. Where does that all fit in this overall picture?

>> Jack Jewett: Well, certainly president crow can speak to this very well, given this background, that's why we brought him to this campus, but research, and the revenues that flow from research and the discoveries that flow from research repair ra mount to the mission of these universities. The University of Arizona, and Arizona State University, both research one institutions. NAU noted as a doctoral research institution. Research is a major component, and certainly the genomics consortium is a key part of our future, but those research dollars, we can do a much better job and that requires some policy changes at the board of regents, but also, it requires a focused view by the legislature and the next Governor to make sure that we have the facilities to do this great research. We believe that we have three superb presidents at the helm of these universities. We have an extraordinary capacity to take research well beyond what has been previous contemplated. It's core to the mission, and we can do a much better job. We will need support from the state to build the infrastructure that will be key to that.

>> Michael: Is one of the problems or opportunities, depending upon which way you look at it, who owns the patent? In other words, if you develop the research here -- and let's say you do it in league with some consortium, like GENOMICS -- who's got it, who can keep it, who can get the royalties off it? How do you move it from point (A) to point (B)

>> Michael Crow: That's at issue. Between 60% and 70% of all economic growth in the American economy for the last 50 years has been driven by new technology. Since 1990 we know that half of that new technology is being driven by fundamental academic science discoveries. Arizona State University, the state of Arizona at large is not capturing the full benefit of its scientists and engineers involved in public institutions because there is a number of constraints. The constraints come from the constitution of Arizona. They come from certain rules that the state has in place that's disadvantaging the Arizona universities as they are competing with the other universities in the other economies.

>> Michael: That don't have similar constraints.

>> Michael Crow: Right.

>> Michael: ASU president Michael Crow, thank for joining us. Jack Jewett, great to see you again.

>>> Making a decision at the ballot box can be tough. There is so much information tossed our way. Ads for candidates and issues bottom barred the airwaves. Information is available on the web, and the candidates personalities themselves can affect our vote. We'll talk to Dr. Bruce Merrill about how voters decide, but first, David Majure jury tell us more about how two families make their choices.

>> That's a hell of a good start.

>> Reporter: So many faces. So many issues. So much information. So, how do voters decide?

>> Sallie Brown: Seat of the pants is a lot of it, I think.

>> Reporter: 67-year-old Sally Brown and her 72-year-old husband Paul have voted in quite a few elections, but this will be their first in Arizona. The browns are transplants from Vermont where they owned and operated a ski lodge. They moved to Arizona two years ago and built a home in Sun Lakes.

>> Paul Brown: We spent many years in the snow and now we're in the warmth.

>> Reporter: Now retired, Paul spends much of his time at the computer working on projects for rotary which he is a member. And as president of the Sun Lakes community foundation, he is leading the fund raising effort to build a local library. Needlepoint is among Sally's diversions; that is, when she isn't working on her master's degree in education. Both of the Browns are registered Republicans.

>> Paul Brown: My father was a Republican. My mother was a Republican. My in-laws are Republicans, and so as a result of that, we sort of stayed there. But I vote as an independent. I choose the individual that I feel can do the proper job, regardless of what their party affiliation is.

>> Sallie Brown: I vote by the candidate.I have never -- I've have been voting since I was 21, the first election I was eligible for, I voted in, and I've never voted a straight ticket.

>> Reporter: Now meet 15-month-old Lucas Contreras. Or rather, meet his parents, 31-year-old January and 33-year-old Carlos. January is a part-time prosecutor for the Arizona Attorney General's Office. When she's not putting bad guys behind bars, she is caring for her son and volunteer for MUHEAD an organization that mentors young Latinas.

>> January Contreras: It really does. It would take something out of the ordinary, I think, to make me believe that a candidate who is not Democrat would be a better servant for the community.

>> Reporter: For Carlos, it's a different story.

>> Carlos Contreras:I mostly look at the -- the ideology of the two parties, and I feel like I fall somewhere in between on some issues. I didn't feel very comfortable with just going with one party.

>> Reporter: This will be his first election. A finance manager for Intel, Carlos became an Arizona citizens on the fourth of July 2001, and to his wife's chagrin, he registered as an independent.

>> January Contreras: Yeah, it was -- you know, I was so excited when he became a citizen an was going to register to vote, and assumed, really, that he would be a Democrat. I really believe there is a difference in parties, and that one party serves the common person better than the other party. 12 And so, when he told me well, I want to be an independent, I was just really surprised. And I call him and say please don't tell anybody you are an Independent.

>> Reporter: As an Independent, Carlos says he isn't very interested in a candidate's party affiliation.

>> Carlos Contreras: It's more of the issues that are going on. For example, in the state, the budget deficit is a big issue. Education is a big issue, so I'll probably vote for those two things that get addressed the best by the candidates.

>> Reporter: Issues are also important to the Browns.

>> Paul Brown: Well, it depends on what the issue happens to be and how it affects, say, the total state, if you are talking about the Governorship, as an example.

>> Sallie Brown: One of the foremost things I look at is are they fiscally responsible.

>> Reporter: We asked the Browns if any single issue can be a deal breaker.

>> Paul Brown: There are many issues that I'm not sure why they are even there.

>> Sallie Brown: There is one with me. If they are -- let's wipe out abortion, let's null and void the Roe-Wade thing they are toast as far as I'm concerned.

>> Reporter: According to our voters, negative campaigns are a turn yourself. A candidates gender or race is mildly important, but their personalities carry a whole lot of weight.

>> Sallie Brown: That does make a difference.

>> Carlos Contreras: It's mostly issues, yeah. And like she said, too, there is some personalities that will affect who you vote for. You can't help but liking somebody, right, and voting for them sometimes.

>> January Contreras: If we had more likeable candidates, I think that would play a bigger role, but I wasn't so -- I supported gore. I was happy that he was doing pretty well, but I thought, at least bush is likeable. To me, that did make him more amenable to him, because he did have the personality. I like personality. It's just we don't have that as an option very often.

>> Reporter: Television, radio, the Internet. Where do voters go for information to help them decide?

>> Paul Brown: Well, I read the paper daily, and I watch the news every evening for an hour and a half.

>> Reporter: Newspapers and television were the top sources of information for our voters. They say they haven't paid much attention to the debates. And even less to advertisements that fill their mailboxes.

>> Sallie Brown: They go in the waste basket before I read them.

>> Paul Brown: And I do the same.

>> Sallie Brown: That's definitely spam.

>> Reporter: Endorsements by people they know and trust were important. January may rely more on endorsements this year than ever before, simply because she hasn't had the time to fully research the issues this election season.

>> January Contreras: It's been different with a baby. Usually I get even more into it. I really do like the time, but you know, you jut don't have the time that you used to. So I don't know as much as I'd like to about all of the propositions, so I think, you know, when I go into the voting booth or when I read the material at home, looking to see who endorsed what will really help me decide, you know, what is going to be something that I support.

>> Reporter: So much goes into a person's voting decisions, still the most influential factor seems to be party affiliation. We know that's true for January.

>> January Contreras: I generally vote Democrat.

>> Reporter: And all things equal, party is pretty important to Paul.

>> Paul Brown: If I had no idea of any information on the background of say three or four people running, I would tend to vote for the Republican, yes.

>> Reporter: And then there is Sally, who takes an altogether different approach.

>> Sallie Brown: If I'm faced with this one, like there was several I really didn't know anything to speak of about the people. I alternated. I voted Republican, then I voted Democrat, and for no reason at all. That's what I mean by the seat of the pants thing. When it in doubt, guess.

>> Michael: Here now to tell us more about how voters decide is KAET-ASU poll director Dr. Bruce Merrill and both Bruce and I guess when we get in there.

>> Bruce Merrill: We do, but what an interesting program. Here you have the ivory tower and there you have the rear world. That's the real stuff. What can you say.

>> Michael: How much do we know about the subject, i.e., how voters decide?

>> Bruce Merrill: We actually know quite a lot. In our system, the main thing that predisposes people to vote for a particular candidate is party. In America, we have this concept of party identification which means most of us identify either as Republicans or Democrats. Now, increasing number are independents, but basically, if you are a Republican, then you are predisposed to vote for Republican candidates. If you are a Democrat, you prefer Democratic candidates. But there's two or three factors that divert people from voting for party. The first and biggest one is personality. I mean, you have a guy like Eisenhower, "I like Ike." Democrats crossed over because they liked him. John F. Kennedy showed that ability. Ronald Reagan, people voted for him. Conservative Democrats elected him because he was an actor. He was charismatic, et cetera. The second thing that deflects people away from the party vote is a strong issue that they are committed to. The main thing we see in American politics in the last 5 or 20 years is the rise of what we call single issue con stitch win sees. In other words people now are becoming more committed to an issue than they are either to party or to the candidate.

>> Michael: And that oftentimes will be a subject like for example abortion, gun control?

>> Bruce Merrill: Exactly. Environmental issues, health control or health issues are beginning to do that. If you go back and use Reagan as an example, for instance, many conservative Republican women would not vote for Ronald Reagan because he was pro life, not pro-choice. They could have been Republican on 10 issues, but if that woman felt that strongly about being pro-choice, then she would vote on the basis of that issue. And so candidates, personalities, and issues, and then the third issue is what we call incumbency. Keep in mind that in our system, it's designed to throw people out of office. So if you are elected to an office for like four years, if you are an incumbent, a great part of your decision is has the person done a good job and should we keep them in for another four years.

>> Michael: Uh-huh.

>> Bruce Merrill: So it's really those issues, along with party that really determine how most people vote.

>> Michael: Is name identification a function of maybe one and three or is it else?

>> Bruce Merrill: Well, it's all of those things, I think, and I think you're really right, because we're talking now about the celeb before I at thisation of politics, which may be the most important thing because it costs so much to communicate. Even a state like Arizona, we have $3 million people, it coughs costs a lot of people to get the message out there. 17 If you are a Charles Barkley or a Danny Ainge or if you are a well-known baseball player, you have instant name recognition and it's going to cost you less, then, to tell people what you stand for.

>> Michael: Do Independents lean more toward Republicans, more toward Democrats or neither?

>> Bruce Merrill: Yeah. Let me tell you what the research shows on independents, because it really goes against kind of the common sense. Contrary to the idea that the independent is this person that really studies the issue independently, aside from party and makes an intelligent choice, what we know from research is that the independent has less political information than either the main-line Republicans or Democrats, and they are much more influenced by the media than either the people committed to a party. So the independents are really much more likely to be suede in an election by who does the best media campaign. They are not really very issue-oriented people.

>> Michael: Okay. Bruce Merrill, thank you very much for the data. We will figure out how they decide next Tuesday.

>> Bruce Merrill: Well, I was going to say at least the next time we meet, Michael, we will know the answer a lot easier then.

>> Michael: To read a transcript of tonight's show or to find out about future "Horizon" shows, go to www.kaet.asu.edu., then click on "Horizon." Tomorrow, please join us for a one-hour "Horizon" special to 18 learn about the ballot propositions. You will be voting on next week. Then on Friday, join us for the final Friday journalists' roundtable edition before the election. There is a possibility we'll be talking politics. Thank you very much for being here on a Wednesday evening. I hope you have a great one. I'm Mike Grant. Good night.