The University of Alaska (UA) system has long been a cornerstone of our state’s education and economy. From training homegrown nurses and engineers to leading cutting-edge Arctic research, UA’s contributions reach every corner of Alaska. The flagship University of Alaska Fairbanks is even poised to join the elite ranks of Carnegie R1 research universities – the top 4% nationwide – a status that promises to attract major federal grants and private investment to our state. UA’s three universities and community campuses provide “high-quality, accessible, and affordable” education across Alaska and are “essential to education, research, workforce, and economic development” here. We applaud these successes, from UAF’s Tier 1 research strides to countless UA graduates powering Alaska’s industries.
Yet with praise must also come prudent oversight – especially as UA asks the state for $365.6 million in operating funds this year.
State funding should be tied to measurable, independently verifiable outcomes, not PowerPoint optimism.
Lawmakers reviewing UA’s FY26 budget request should be both supportive and skeptical in equal measure. Yes, stable state support is vital to keep our university system strong. But the proposed budget includes a $35 million increase in state general funds, and not every line item in this wish list is justified by clear public benefits. Alaska’s leaders must ensure that each additional dollar delivers measurable returns for students and taxpayers. In short, fund UA’s mission – but not its marketing spin or nice-to-have projects that don’t pass the ROI test.
A glaring example is the $5 million in new state funding for athletics at University of Alaska Anchorage and Fairbanks. Alaskans love college sports, and there’s no doubt that the Seawolves and Nanooks bring school pride and community excitement. But the rationale for increasing public funding is soft. UAA argues that sports help with student recruitment and brand visibility – yet offers little proof that such spending yields lasting enrollment or graduation benefits. Good intentions are not a budget justification. If these programs can grow sponsorships, ticket sales, and private donations, excellent – let’s see that first. In the meantime, lawmakers should direct funds toward classrooms, not scoreboards.
Recruitment and marketing are another area where ambition outpaces accountability. UA is requesting about $10 million to fund marketing campaigns, enrollment staff, and strategic advertising across its three universities. While boosting enrollment is a valid goal, each campus appears to be pursuing similar strategies in isolation – often hiring separate teams to recruit the same students. Add in overlapping consulting contracts and “system-wide coordination” from the statewide office, and you have a classic case of bureaucratic layering. Worse, the expected return on this investment relies on highly speculative math: rosy assumptions of dozens of new students per recruiter and tuition surges that may never materialize. State funding should be tied to measurable, independently verifiable outcomes, not PowerPoint optimism.
Hiring, curriculum, public events, and admin priorities should reflect a broader spectrum of viewpoints – especially in disciplines covering politics, culture or society.
Academic Excellence Must Include Intellectual Diversity
There is another dimension to public trust in UA that rarely appears in budget spreadsheets: ideological diversity, or rather, the lack thereof. Many Alaskans, especially those with conservative values, look at the University of Alaska Anchorage and see a faculty culture heavily skewed to the political left. This is not just anecdotal – it’s evident in course content, campus speaker invitations, and a broader tone that often seems out of step with the values of the state that funds it.
This lack of balance does more than irritate. It undermines public confidence in the university’s objectivity and its commitment to open inquiry. When students (or parents footing the bill) feel that their beliefs are not just debated, but dismissed or marginalized by those in authority, the university loses credibility as a forum for honest intellectual exchange. Worse, it alienates the very students UA says it wants to retain in-state. Too many young Alaskans, particularly those from rural communities or religious and conservative backgrounds, now view staying home for college as choosing a hostile ideological environment. They leave – not for lack of opportunity, but to escape a culture they see as rigidly one-sided.
That’s a loss – for them, and for Alaska. We don’t need ideological litmus tests for faculty, but we do need pluralism. If the University of Alaska wants to be a place where all Alaskans feel they belong and are respected, then diversity of thought must be treated as seriously as any other form of diversity. Hiring decisions, curriculum design, public events, and administrative priorities should all reflect a broader spectrum of viewpoints – especially in disciplines that deal with politics, culture, or society.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
A Call for Discernment
The Alaska Legislature should give UA’s proposed $365.6 million general fund budget a careful, constructive vetting. Let’s continue to support what works: funding for programs that train Alaska’s workforce, innovative research like UAF’s, and infrastructure investments that keep campuses running. But let’s also ask tough questions. Are we funding marketing fluff? Are we underwriting programs that duplicate effort across campuses? Are we investing in outreach strategies that actually serve all Alaskans – or just a narrow slice of them?
Education is a public good, but not a blank check. UA’s leaders have shown they can produce excellence. Now it’s time for them – and for our elected officials – to ensure that every state dollar advances that excellence in a way that’s efficient, accountable, and welcoming to all perspectives. If the university system wants more trust, it must do more to earn it.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
3 Comments
The points made here are right on! The fluff and overlapping, and especially the lack of appeal because of its boastful leftist faculty ( Watchman posted and article about an upper level staff lauding Charlie Kirk’s murder), and its publicized promotion of wokism and LGBTQA2S events through the LBGTQA2S Center. Additionally, UAA ( not UAF) has a poor academic reputation in the university world.
$365 Million for a third-rate backwater “college” which appears nowhere near the top 10, or even the top 50, on any nationally recognized list of top-quality colleges?`
.
Okay, UA’s useful when: state and local governments want official looking data to decorate their latest schemes, parents need daycare for the big kids, misfits who don’t like themselves or America need a safe space, academics who can’t get jobs anywhere else need money, and illiterate high school graduates need somewhere to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic.
.
Of course they’ll get $365 Million, more if they want it.
.
Only a Scrooge would ask why taxpayers should be on the hook for any of it when the University of Alaska Foundation reports assets of $604,447,039.
.
Something to think about when talk starts up about sales and income taxes, no?
Actually, the university is the bloated, fat calf that Dunleavy needs to take an axe to. In my years there as a student and later an employee I was amazed at the waste and inefficiency and the lack of investment in modern distance learning. As it clings to the old bricks and mortar model riches are still.wasted on heating, lighting and deferred maintenance of many underutilized facilities ( old bowling alley in Ketchikan, hangars in Sitka, University Center in Anchorage, old elementary school in Fairbanks. Close Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan campuses and fund distance, real-time delivery of courses and degrees.