Saturday, March 10, 2007 | 7:13 a.m.
Regarding Christina Littlefield's well-reasoned, factual and well-written March 2 article in the Las Vegas Sun about Chancellor Jim Rogers' suggestion for an appointed Board of Regents:
While I commonly cannot agree with Jim Rogers (for example, his consuming idea that a university is not different than a corporation and therefore should be run like one), for once he is right on.
The Nevada practice of electing university regents only ensures that people with the most money - and not a clue about higher education - will govern the Nevada System of Higher Education.
Graduating with my doctorate from UCLA (where regents are appointed on a four-year swing term by the current governor - 12 regents means that no governor can appoint more than four of them), I brashly believed I would never work for a state that elected its regents. But UNLV offered the most attractive package and so I wound up in Las Vegas, well-paid but increasingly appalled at the gross inefficiency and in fact clueless behavior of our elected Board of Regents.
In this specific instance, Jim Rogers is absolutely correct. Come on, Nevada! Let us join the 21st century together!
David L. Weide, Las Vegas
archive
