WHY IT WAS AND IS AN AWFUL IDEA TO ACQUIRE THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

Yes, 20 million dollars in the bank sounds fantastic, especially when universities all over are facing lowering enrollment and retention rates. What I am sure did not sound so great was the outcry from students, faculty and staff who saw the deal as what it was: a money grab that would significantly harm the University of Arkansas’ system’s reputation.

Even more worrisome was the secrecy in which this proposal began and how everyone came to discover it through a breaking news story from the Arkansas Times.

The deal consisted of a proposal that suggested the University of Arkansas System-affiliated nonprofit, Transformative Educational Services (TES), acquire the University of Phoenix for 500 million dollars in exchange for providing University of Phoenix licensing rights that could lead to potential income to the UAS of 20 million dollars annually and potentially more if the university was sustainable, as I understand it.

Although the deal thankfully fell through by a vote of 5 to 4, with one abstention, and the system’s board rejected the resolution, this whole ordeal was worrisome for the future of the UAS, and UA System President Donald Bobbitt could still go through with the deal, which he was an outspoken proponent of.

In an open letter to President Bobbitt and the University of Arkansas System Board of Trustees,

The UA Little Rock Faculty Senate urged them to reconsider the acquisition of the University of Phoenix.

They cited multiple reasons, including the University of Phoenix’s ability to shrink from almost half a million students to around 75,000 students in less than a decade, and that even the UA system traditional universities now offer online coursework and credentials and serve adult students, non-traditional students, returning students and military students, which are the services and demographics the University of Phoenix targeted.

They also cite that the University of Phoenix has a tainted reputation, which is true, as the university has a history of deceptive advertising and fraudulent practices, which led to many multi-million dollar lawsuits and settlements. The US Veterans Administration also stopped allowing veterans to use their GI Bill benefits at University of Phoenix until the university could make their requested changes, which they did. The claim of benefits being rejected was denied by University of Phoenix spokeswoman Andrea Smiley.

Furthermore, in Feb. 2022 George Burnett was hired as the university’s president. Burnett had previously led a now-defunct forprofit college which committed fraudulent practices.

The University of Arkansas Faculty Senate also came out strongly against the deal, also citing Phoenix’s poor reputation: “though you acknowledge the “checkered past” of the University of Phoenix, we feel you are too quick to dismiss those problems as being in the past. We feel the reputation of Phoenix’s history will linger for years to come, and our campus is at the most risk for association with it. The University of Phoenix has proven itself, through strikingly low graduation and retention rates, to be unsuccessful at helping students reach their educational goals, anathema to what we do here on the Hill. As the flagship campus, the System brand is inextricably linked to the Razorbacks, to Old Main and the brand-defining world-class instruction that takes place on our campus every day. Phoenix’s well-documented history of dishonest and predatory practices with students resulting in poor educational experiences are the defining features of the University of Phoenix brand, in opposition to ours.”

Again, we see how Phoenix’s terrible reputation would work against everything the UA System is supposed to stand for. They also do not treat students how students should be treated.

On top of all of the reputation claims, UAS Trustee Kelly Eichler, who was outspokenly in support of the acquisition, was revealed to have a conflict on interest that directly went against the UAS Board of Trustee Policy 100.9 stating “A conflict of interest exists when a trustee has the opportunity to influence University actions, decisions, or contracting in ways that could lead to improper personal or family gain or give improper advantage to the trustee or others.”

KNWA Fox24 claimed that the company Eichler’s husband works for stood to make $25,000 upon acquisition and at least $1.65 million once the deal was complete. I would say that is a clear conflict of interest, and Eichler was the abstention vote. Her abstention was the difference between a 5-to5 tie and the narrow loss for the proposal.

Perhaps the biggest reason this acquisition is painful for all UA System faculty and students is because each UA System school has been battling hard to make it through the pandemic and affect changes that benefit everybody. For the President and Board of Trustees to put money and effort outside of the system is a hurtful act.

The UALR Faculty Senate said it best: “We urge you to stop looking outward for the solution, and to start looking inward; invest your time and energy toward expanding access to courses and programs at the existing University of Arkansas campuses. Such efforts will provide sustainable benefits to Arkansans and offer much greater long-term value to the System and state than will be an affiliation with the muchtarnished University of Phoenix.”

This sentiment is repeated in the open letter from the UofA Faculty Senate: “As educational servants to the citizens of Arkansas, our tide can lift all boats when our citizenry can see that access to world-class education need not flow through back door acquisitions of entities from Arizona but rather that world-class structures already exist in our state. These structures are taught and supported by Arkansas citizens, whose results are seen and felt in the very communities in which they live throughout the Natural State.”

Bobbitt led the push to purchase Phoenix and opened the voting meeting by asserting the arrangement was merely a licensing agreement that he had the authority to carry out, but that he would like the Board’s support.

Bobbitt did not offer a public statement after the vote, but spokesman, Nathan Hinkel, said the following: “Dr. Bobbitt has previously said it would be difficult to move forward without support from the Board for this project. That statement remains true, and he is certainly disappointed in the outcome of the meeting.”

Even the idea of this deal is worrisome to students and faculty alike, because these funds should and could be being put to our own existing system. If the UAS has 500 million dollars, that money should go to the campuses in Arkansas who are fighting the effects of the pandemic and who have a reputation of helping, not harming their students.

BY CHLOE MCGEHEE