Introduction

During the nineteenth century, a period in which many of today’s public institutions of higher education were founded, most public universities and colleges shared similar visions. These included secular curricula and classical degree programs, while confronting persistent monetary woes. Planning for the most part was reactionary, responding to outside events, such as whether to address the growing demand for science and graduate programs. Following the Civil War, universities recognized themselves as rivals, which led to questioning orthodoxy. Universities came to embrace strategic planning not only in response to internal and external forces but also as a means of self-examination during anniversaries or leadership changes. [1]

Image: Sidney Mezes, first president of UTEP, c. 1915.

The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), like most universities, produced two types of strategic plans since its establishment in 1914. The first type, the visionary plan, established a destination at some point in the future, usually ten to twenty-five years out, which sought to redefine the institution. The second type, the tactical plan, provided specific directions through the use of specific objectives, which were frequently tied to metrics. While visionary plans provided greater flexibility, tactical plans offered more accountability.

Image: UTEP's last strategic plan, published 2008.

Past UTEP strategic plans are available on ScholarWorks@UTEP/DigitalCommons

Regardless of genre, the planning process itself could be formal or informal. Less formal processes often originated with the institution’s leader, who voiced a personal vision for the future based on exigence of opportunity. More formal processes often relied on committees of varying makeup. Formal plans usually involved significant community participation, which reinforced ties or created new stakeholders. [2]

Image: Title page from one of the first higher education plans in Texas, written by President Mezes, 1912.

Formal strategic plans prepared by universities and colleges emerged in the early twentieth century alongside the rise of business schools. These documents began to take on a decidedly business style, which, as Thornstein Veblen pointed out in 1918, reflected the growing bureaucratic structures within larger universities.

Many forces can affect strategic planning. They could originate from factions within the university itself, decisions by its governing board, pressures from community in which it resided, and from legislation or other rules by government entities. Universities frequently used the process to compare themselves with their peers. [3]

Image: Plans for the dormitory (today's Graham Hall) at the Paso del Norte campus, 1917.

1830

The Yale Report

Widely acknowledged as the first higher education strategic plan, the popularly named Yale Report originated to answer a curriculum question: Should Yale drop "dead" languages (i.e., Latin and Ancient Greek) in favor of professional training courses? Jeremiah Day, Yale’s president, appointed in 1828 a committee consisting of community members, Connecticut’s governor, and the faculty. [4]

We are decidedly of the opinion, that our present plan of education admits of improvement. We are aware that the system is imperfect: and we cherish the hope, that some of its defects may [soon] be remedied. – Yale Report, 1830

Image: Yale College, New Haven, Connecticut, c. 1820.

The Yale Report established the parameters found in many strategic plans today: (1) appointment of a committee by the president or chancellor of inside and outside stakeholders to address a question concerning the future of the institution; (2) inward examination of the institution; (3) comparison with other institutions; (4) the recognition of constraints; (5) declaration of a strategy or strategies combined with recommendations for the future; (6) expression of core values; and (7) writing that was accessible by diverse audiences.

This landmark report shaped higher education well into the twentieth century. It became the blueprint for the University of Texas six decades later, which adopted key aspects of the plan. [5]

Image: Title page of the Yale Report, 1830.

1876

"A University of the First Class"

In 1876, Texas approved a new state constitution, which is still in effect today. This constitution made specific provisions for higher education, including the creation of “a university of the first class” as organic law. Those involved in the debate at the time frequently cited the University of Virginia as a model institution. Others, however, believed all Texas needed were non-degree-granting teachers' colleges. Another faction believed that all Texas required was an agricultural and mechanical college. [6]

The Legislature shall, as soon as practicable, establish, organize, and provide for the maintenance, support, and direction of a university of the first class … and styled ‘The University of Texas,’ for the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences, including an agricultural and mechanical department. - Constitution of Texas (1876), Article 7, Section 10

Image: The Constitution of Texas, 1876.

1881

Establishment of the Main Branch of the University of Texas

After four decades of debate, the state legislature established in 1881 the tuition-free University of Texas. Doing so required a compromise that created multiple branches. In addition to a “main branch” in Austin, there would be a medical branch in Galveston, as well as recognizing two existing branches: A&M College in Bryan (today's Texas A&M University) and Prairie View College in Hempstead (today's Prairie View A&M University), both of which had been established a decade earlier under the federal Morrill Act of 1862. In 1913, UTEP would become not only the second oldest component of the University of Texas, but also its fifth branch. As designated branches of a “University of Texas,” each institution was entitled to receive funding from the state’s higher education endowment, the Permanent University Fund.

After the U.T. governing board failed in 1881 to bring A&M College under its control, an existential rivalry was created, with the belief that only one “university of the first class” could exist in Texas. [7]

The fee of admission to the university shall never exceed thirty dollars and it shall be open to all persons in the State who may wish to avail themselves of its advantages, and to male and female on equal terms, without charge for tuition, under such regulations as the board of regents may prescribe. - Senate Bill 98 (1881), “An Act to Create the University of Texas,” Section 11

Image: Map of Austin, c. 1885.

1914

"A School of the Americas"

Founded in 1913 as the State School of Mines and Metallurgy, UTEP opened its doors the following year. Its first institutional leader, Steve Worrell, was given tremendous leeway as to organizing the school by Sidney Mezes, president of both the School of Mines and the University of Texas. Worrell envisioned the tuition-free public institution as a center for training mining engineers for not only the southwest but also throughout the Americas. To that end, he required all students to study Spanish, which would be “of great assistance in [their] subsequent work in the camps of the Southwest.” Indeed, most of the mining students hired after graduation went on to work at mines throughout Mexico, Central America, and South America. [8]

Offers unlimited advantages to [students] because El Paso is the Gateway to Mexico and the reopening of that country means to reopen the vast mining interest therein. Young men with technical knowledge of mining will be in demand. Every graduate of this school will not only have knowledge based upon theory—but upon practical experience. – El Paso Morning Times, 1914

Image: School of Mines at the Lanoria Mesa campus, adjacent to Fort Bliss, c. 1914.

1917

“Intensely Local”

Within a year of its establishment, events prompted Dean Worrell to alter the mission of the School of Mines. In 1915, the Board of Regents required the school to add liberal arts courses. This coincided with the state’s passing of a compulsory education law for school-aged children. Two years later, the legislature, seeing the need to increase the number of teachers in the state, allowed teacher candidates to qualify for a teaching credential by taking four classes at the University of Texas. As a branch of the University of Texas, the School of Mines promoted its liberal arts courses to El Paso. Enrollment increased over 150 percent from 1916 to 1920, with the majority of new students classified as non-degree seeking. [9]

The plan is to have the regular college course taught for the benefit of girls in El Paso who cannot attend college, and these studies will include Spanish, English, mathematics, and French and German. … If the students wish, they will be permitted to continue the full course of four years, including the mining work. – El Paso Herald, 1916

Image: Sketch for the School of Mines’ Main Building at the new Paso del Norte campus, 1917.

1929

“West Texas Flagship”

Harry Y. Benedict, president of both the College of Mines and the University of Texas, provided a new vision for the institution after its 1927 transformation into a liberal arts college. In 1929, Benedict promised to support the creation of a “University of West Texas.” Recognizing that he could not do this from 600 miles away in Austin, Benedict worked to secure for the College of Mines its own president. In 1931, the Board of Regents selected John G. Barry, an M.I.T. graduate and professional engineer. [10]

The University of Texas would cooperate in every way towards expansion [of the College of Mines] into a University of West Texas. … If the people of El Paso provide for such an expanded university, the University of Texas will not look upon it as a competitive movement, and I will do all in my power to further such an expansion and to send here instead a dean, a president of outstanding ability in the education world, to take charge of such an institution. – College of Mines and U.T. Austin president Harry Y. Benedict, October 12, 1929

Image: Physics laboratory, College of Mines, c. 1927.

President Barry’s efforts to promote a coequal branch of U.T. Austin, however, failed to receive the necessary community support. In 1934, two factions—one supporting teacher training and the other supporting the athletic program—united in an unlikely alliance. Both groups feared that a university of the first class in El Paso would raise admission and academic standards too high. Local educators preferred the less rigorous curriculum offered by teachers’ colleges of the period, while athletic boosters wanted to recruit football players without eligibility constraints. When Barry resigned in protest in 1934, the regents cooled on the idea of a coequal branch in El Paso, and Texas governors would not appoint another regent from the El Paso region for another twenty-five years. [11]

Image: El Paso newspaper editorial on the resignation of President Barry, 1934

The enduring legacy of Barry’s West Texas Flagship vision is UTEP’s Latin motto—Scientia and Humanitas, “Science and Humanities.” It has remained on UTEP’s seals ever since. [12]

Image: College of Mines seal, 1932

1936

“Intensely Local”

Following John Barry’s departure, leadership of the the college went to Dossie Wiggins. President Wiggins took over from Barry the accreditation process, which the college had previously received as a department of the Main Branch. In 1936, after receiving accreditation of its own, the College of Mines shifted its vision to intensely local. This included adding its first graduate degree programs, which local teachers demanded. Wiggins, however, opposed adding research to the college’s mission.

And yet there was much to be said for this struggling country college. For one thing, it was desperately needed. El Paso was not yet a city, but it was growing fast. The schools needed teachers. The businessmen needed young men and women with special training. It was six hundred miles to Austin-too far for many people to go for an education. No school was ever prayed for and worked for with greater dedication. – Charles Sonnichsen, Professor of English, describing the College of Mines of the 1930s

Image: El Paso Centennial Museum under construction, 1936

1941

Wartime Measures

A special case of strategic planning took place during World War II. Under wartime measures, the College of Mines, along with 150 other universities throughout the United States, implemented a federally funded accelerated military training program, with classes beginning at 5:30 in the morning and extending into the evening. The goal was to create an educated, trained core of recruits for the army in three months. On paper, the accelerated program created a 2-1/2-year degree program by adding a long semester during the summer. Many non-program students--including women--took advantage of the plan. However, changing draft regulations and war personnel needs prevented most students from receiving a degree under this program, even in the condensed time frame. The wartime measure ended in 1945. Those students that participated in the program appreciated the accelerated pace, while faculty were happy to get their summer back.

Image: Accelerated program cadets, 1943.

1958

First Formal Strategic Plan: "Committee of 75"

U.T. Austin commissioned its first strategic plan in 1958, the “Committee of 75.” The “75” referred to the seventy-fifth anniversary of the opening of the institution, to the seventy-five members appointed to the committee, and to the year 1975, acknowledging the plan’s twenty-year time span. (Members had originally been appointed in 1955.) UTEP, then known as Texas Western College of the University of Texas, would be included in this plan.

The committee’s makeup included politicians, business leaders, educators, and professionals from around the state. Three El Paso business leaders participated on the committee— department store executive Julian A. Borschow; bank executive Jack V. Curlin; and department store owner Richard Miller. [13]

Image: Newspaper account on the release of the Committee of 75 strategic plan, Daily Texan, 1958.

The proposal set out to define the steps necessary for the University of Texas to become the “university of the first class,” as directed by the Texas constitution. To meet this objective, the plan recommended transforming the institution into a research-intensive university.

In 1960, the regents, chaired by El Pasoan Thornton Hardie, submitted to the people of Texas a platform document, laying out its response to the Committee of 75. The Board of Regents used the plan to define the “University of Texas” as the sum of its branches. [14]

The University of Texas is a coordinated system of geographically separated component units. Each unit has important functions to perform, but always as a part of a whole university. The University of Texas operates on many campuses, but it operates as one university. – U.T. Board of Regents, 1960

Image: Desegregation of Texas Western College, 1955.

"Intensely Local"

Rather than becoming a main branch of its own as defined by the regents’ “many campuses, one university” approach, the report consigned Texas Western College to a supporting role, “primarily in the realm of teaching.” As for its future, it was to remain an intensely local regional college and not be allowed to add doctoral research programs to complement Austin’s.

Joseph Smiley, president of the Texas Western College during the formulation of the plan, offered no known contribution to the process. By the time the plan was adopted in 1960, he had stepped down to become the provost and vice president of academic affairs at U.T. Austin. In 1963, he was appointed its president. [15]

Image: World-renowned sculptor Urbici Soler, c. 1955.

1961

Charting its Own Path: The Peace Corps

One initiative undertaken by UTEP in the early 1960s demonstrated that UTEP was more than a teaching college, as the Committee of 75 report had defined the distant branch. With the other the awarding of one of the first contracts for the Peace Corps—the foreign policy program created under President John F. Kennedy—Texas Western president Joseph Ray demonstrated that the college could compete on an equal footing with the larger universities across the nation in specialized niches. The colleges’ terrain and geology program made it an idea location to train civil engineers for the African nation of Tanzania.

Image: First Peace Corps cohort, 1962

1963

Mission '73: "Research Intensive" and "Intensely Local"

In 1962, the Board of Regents approved the appointment of a citizen’s committee to prepare a strategic plan for Texas Western College, as part of the institution’s fiftieth anniversary celebration. Modeled after the Committee of 75, but with only local representation, the Mission ‘73 committee assessed the college’s strengths and prepared a plan for where the college should be in ten years, in 1973. Its recommendations rejected the limited role imposed on the institution by the Committee of 75, arguing for its transformation into a graduate school with its own robust research agenda. To emphasize this point, the report pointedly referred to Texas Western College as the “University of Texas at El Paso.” [16]

Image: Congratulatory telegram from U.T. System chancellor Harry Ransom, 1962.

Mission ’73 laid out three objectives. The first was an increased focus on quality, while seeking national recognition in academics and research. Second, the college would leverage its unique position on the international border. Third, it sought a significantly enlarged curricula in all academic areas. [17]

Image: High-altitude weather research at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, conducted by Texas Western's Schellenger Laboratories, c. 1962.

The University of Texas at El Paso must operate within the broad perspective of a revolutionary world ... [and] be vitally involved in concerns of national and international character. There is no inherent conflict between greatness and community orientation, nor is there conflict between local and universal concerns. Indeed, Texas Western College and all institutions of higher learning can best serve the localities in which they exist by preparing students to live in a rapidly changing world. – Mission ’73

Image: Map of proposed campus additions, 1963.

At the time of the plan’s drafting, the U.T. System consisted of only two academic components: Austin and El Paso. The plan underlined the need for the U.T. System to recognize the trend by other states to organize academic institutions into single, coordinated systems of coequal components. [17]

One of the most pressing needs of the College is more extensive research programs. Research is closely tied in with many facets of a top flight university program. It is along this avenue that the College can gain recognition as an institution of high quality. – Mission ‘73

Image: Old library reading room, c. 1965.

1983

1983-89 Strategic Plan: “Research Intensive” and “Intensely Local”

After Mission ’73, the next formal strategic planning process took place in 1983, during the presidency of Haskell Monroe. Previous administrations under Joseph Smiley (1969-1972) and Arleigh Templeton (1972-1980) chose not to engage in the process. Haskell’s plan emphasized a border focus, while continuing the mission of serving the region. Applied research remained a focus, as did filling gaps in the region’s aesthetic, cultural, recreational, leisure, and athletic needs. [18]

Image: Aerial photo of the Paso del Norte campus, 1982.

UTEP recognized that access to federal and state research grants would decrease, as grant funding was increasingly directed toward doctoral research universities. Unfortunately, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (T.H.E.C.B.) and state legislators favored promoting U.T. Austin and Texas A&M as the only universities of the first-class in the state. [19]

Image: Electron microscope research, c. 1990.

The 1983 plan emphasized three strategic points: UTEP was the only university in El Paso, a large and growing urban area; it was located on a binational border with Ciudad Juarez; and the region had a majority Mexican American population. [20]

The first imperative implies the necessity for the university to provide undergraduate and graduate programs to essentially place-bound students; the second, to produce research which is aimed at policy solutions to the unique transnational urban challenges in the broader context; the third, to develop institutional strategies for successful minority education. Strategic Plan, 1983-89

Image: School children visiting the El Paso Centennial Museum, c. 1985.

President Monroe’s 1983-1989 plan veered more toward a technical document, utilizing more statistics than previous visionary plans. The form and style deviated considerably from that of Mission ’73’s, as did its scope. The genre shifts from visionary to tactical, with an increasing reliance on data and specific, time-sensitive objectives. This reflects the emergence and influence of the personal computer and word processors in the workplace at the time.

Image: Computer technology, c. 1980.

1987

1987-93 Strategic Plan: “Up Not Out”

The state’s biennial budget process often derailed the more tactical strategic plans, necessitating frequent revisions. Monroe’s 1983-89 plan was obsolete by 1985, requiring a new plan due to cuts in state funding.

Image: President Monroe and staff, c. 1985.

Monroe pivoted to an “Up, Not Out” vision, recognizing the educational needs of non-traditional students. Though the plan still called for added graduate programs and research, it placed specific focus on the recruitment of non-traditional students from the region. The issue of retention took center stage for the first time, as did the University’s image within the community. [21]

Recruitment of non-traditional students will also receive major attention over the next several years. … Several colleges and departments have recognized the importance of flexible course scheduling to accommodate the continuing education needs of those individuals whose professional licensure or certification requires enrollment in accredited, credit granting courses.

Image: First day of college, c. 1990.

1988

U.T. System Planning

The U.T. System Board of Regents added responsibility for preparing the System’s strategic plan to the chancellor’s job description. System strategic plans were to include “recommendations for academic programs, capital expenditures, and the allocation of other financial resources,” in consultation with component presidents. [22]

Image: Seal of the U.T. System.

1990

1990-95 U.T. El Paso 2001: “Intensely Local” and “Research Intensive”

In 1990, President Diana Natalicio commissioned two strategic plans. The first was a visionary, community-driven plan, which became a hardcover book entitled U.T. El Paso: A Diamond Jubilee Commission Report, published by Texas Western Press. President Natalicio appointed six committees, each chaired by members of the community, and charged to provide recommendations regarding the future of the university for a specific area of interest. The areas included educational opportunities, leadership, economic development, community development, image, and international relations. [23]

Image: Strategic planning committee, 1990.

The second strategic plan, though tactical in composition, provided a much clearer vision. Entitled 1990-1995 Strategic Plan, it laid out two institutional priorities: (1) increasing educational opportunities for the Far West Texas/Mexico border region by building on the institution’s previous success of enrolling and graduating non-traditional students, which included women, minorities, and first-generation individuals; and (2) growing institutional research, which the plan described as a tool for increasing funding and strengthening academic programs. [24]

Image: Commencement, c. 1990.

1992

LULAC v. Richards

External factors can thwart even the best-laid strategic plans. In UTEP’s case, repeated denials by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (T.H.E.C.B.) and the reluctance of the state’s legislature to increase funding to the border region hindered long sought-after doctoral and research programs.

Throughout its existence, the T.H.E.C.B. sought to preserve and enhance the top-tier status of U.T. Austin and Texas A&M. Since both universities are located in East Texas, less than eighty miles apart, a disproportionate amount of higher education funding went to this region. This meant that the border region, with twenty percent of the state’s population, received less than ten percent of this funding. As for doctoral studies, border institutions accounted for only three of the 590 Ph.D. programs in the state. [25]

Image: Map highlighting the Texas border region.

Two Hispanic advocacy organizations—the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)—noticed this funding disparity and filed suit in 1988 against the state of Texas. Addressing the merits of the suit in 1992, Texas created the South Texas/Border Initiative (S.T.B.I), which not only increased funding to UTEP, but also compelled T.H.E.C.B. to approve new doctoral programs. This removed a major obstacle that allowed UTEP to advance toward its primary strategic goal of becoming a research institution. [26]

Image: LULAC seal.

1995

1995-99 Agency Strategic Plan

“Intensely Local” and “University of the Americas”

The 1995-99 agency plan endorsed the pursuit of increased national recognition for UTEP’s efforts to provide education to an underserved population. The language now included references to a social mobility mission. Furthermore, UTEP would continue to promote avenues that capitalized on its strategic border location and promote the importance of educating a workforce to participate in a global economy, with a new emphasis on access to excellent education.

The plan acknowledged UTEP’s geographical isolation on an international border as a strength, making it strong regional and international university. Fostering this objective was the fact that 6.5 percent of its students came from Mexico—1.5 percentage points higher than today. [27]

Image: Nursing students with patient, c. 2000.

One reason that the University of Americas vision faded was the boon in research funding. By 1994, the South Texas/Border Initiative had sent $200 million to border institutions for academic program development and new facilities. With this increased funding, UTEP shifted its focus toward another of its primary goals—transforming into a doctoral research university. [28]

The University is located in the largest population center on the U.S./Mexico border, a site where mutual concerns and perspectives of developing and developed nations are sharply focused. … This border location creates many opportunities for programs with an international or inter-American focus, including interface with institutions of higher education in northern Mexico and with growing industrial base on both sides of the border. – 1995-99 Agency Plan

Image: Funding increases resulting from the South Texas/Border Initiative, 1990-2016.

2005

U.T. System Planning

The U.T. System revised its system strategic planning process to include an updated mission statement; assessment of the internal environment; assessment of the external environment; goals, priorities, and benchmarks of progress in academic programs, service, capital expenditures, and allocations of financial resources. [29]

Image: U.T. System building, Austin.

2008

2008-2015 Strategic Plan: “Intensely Local” and “Research Intensive”

UTEP’s most recent strategic planning process took place over a decade ago. The 2008-2015 Strategic Plan began with an invitation to community leaders. Promising to be visionary in scope, it evolved into a tactical plan organized around four pillars: teaching and learning; research, scholarship, and artistic production; public service; and leadership and administration. The plan emphasized the regional focus of the institution. [30]

Our mission places the human and economic development and quality of life of the Paso del Norte region—western Texas, northern Mexico and southern New Mexico—at the center of our teaching, research, and service, and positions UTEP at the forefront of higher education’s changing paradigm. – 2008-2015 Strategic Plan

Image: UTEP's strategic planning process, 2008.

The plan’s layout made it difficult to read. Each pillar contained up to five pages of specific objectives and key metrics, which, when added together, totaled close to 500 objectives and key metrics, all of which were printed in a 9 pt. Helvetica font.

The primary vision in this document consisted of continued growth. However, lost in the minutia was the truly aspirational goal of reaching $100 million in research expenditures, which would place the institution among the first-class universities in the nation. [31]

Image: Detail from UTEP's 2008 strategic plan.

The plan used language that reconnected the university with the founding of the institution in 1881, including the phrase, “university of the first class.” The use of this language in an era with eight academic institutions, four of which— Arlington, Austin, Dallas, and El Paso—are now R1 institutions, demands that we ask not only what constitutes a “university of the first class,” but also, “What is the ‘University of Texas’”? Answering these questions will help UTEP redefine 21st century higher education in Texas and the world.

Image: UTEP students, c. 2018.

As a theme, the Commission of 125 plan emphasized the motto of the University of Texas System, Disciplina Praesidium Civitatis, a Latin rendering of the words of Mirabeau B. Lamar, president of the Republic of Texas: “A cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy.” This motto is shared by all U.T. System components on their seals—except UTEP. UTEP’s seal, first adopted in 1932, features the Latin phrase, Scientia et Humanitas—Science and Humanities. The University of Texas at El Paso is unique among all U.T. System components, possessing interdisciplinarity as its core value. [33]

Image: Interdisciplinary Research Building sketch, 2018.