Global task force suggestions miss goal

After months of deliberation, Penn President Amy Gutmann's Task Force on Global Engagement has finally issued its recommendations on how Penn can become a more globally engaged university. While the proposals selected by the task force are a necessary step forward, they represent a missed opportunity to effect real, visionary change.

The four initiatives recommended by the task force are as follows: to provide 25 to 30 scholarships for students from developing countries; to establish a fund for short-term, cross-disciplinary international endeavors; to bring two or three renowned global leaders to campus each year; and to increase financial aid for study-abroad programs.

These initiatives are positive, but they will not make Penn an exemplar on the global stage. Rather, they bring the university closer to the standard among premier universities. Harvard, Oxford and other universities already offer dedicated scholarships to students from developing countries. Stanford University announced a Presidential Fund for Innovation in International Studies last year, with $3 million in funding immediately available. The World Fellows program at Yale University brings 16 to 18 renowned global leaders to New Haven annually. It also recently announced the International Summer Award program to fund student study-abroad programs.

The point of this inventory is not to argue that Penn should reflexively avoid what has already been implemented at other schools. We applaud any initiative that seeks to bring tried-and-true ideas to our own campus. Yet a university seeking to play an active role in global affairs should lead -- rather than follow -- other institutions.

The list of task force recommendations is striking not just for its conventionality but also because there is, at best, a tenuous connection between the recommendations and the pressing global problems of our time. Is it reasonable to believe that Penn can have an impact on issues like the HIV/AIDS pandemic, global warming or nuclear nonproliferation? Thankfully, the job of answering that question is not ours. The dozens of faculty members and students who made submissions to the task force brought their collective wisdom to bear on that problem months ago.

One proposal called for the creation of a Global Health Institute that would combine Penn's expertise in medicine, nursing, business administration, communication, law and epidemiology to provide tangible solutions to the entire global community.

An example of a field of research that the institute would facilitate is to apply private-sector supply chain expertise to global-health programs.

While health ministers continue to struggle with supply chains for basic health programs like vaccination, Coca-Cola products are able to reach the most rural villages of the developing world. The proposal argues that applying such private-sector approaches to global health is not a one-time project but a novel area of research that Penn could pioneer.

Another submission -- one that we helped write -- proposed policy changes to better ensure that Penn's health-related innovations reach those who need them the most. Our University ranks second in biomedical funding received from the National Institutes of Health, with almost $400 million in grants annually. Changes to Penn's intellectual-property policies could facilitate access to the fruits of University research in developing countries. Furthermore, a part of the proposal lists specific ways to promote research on neglected diseases that principally impact the global poor. If carefully developed, these policies need not impact the University's bottom line -- and they would unquestionably elevate Penn's reputation as a trailblazer in addressing a challenging global crisis.

Unfortunately, our description of alternative proposals is necessarily limited by the narrow range of submissions to which we have been exposed. That, in itself, is a problem. The first step the task force should take to increase collaboration among internationally minded individuals and organizations is to publicly release descriptions of all submissions. Otherwise, the creative energy and excitement that went into generating those ideas will dissipate.

As it stands, the report of the task force lacks a clear, galvanizing vision.

Taken together, the four recommendations in the report represent a small and tentative step where a decisive leap forward was possible. If this University is to actualize its rhetoric about making global engagement a pillar of our strategic plan, more innovative thinking is required.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.