Colleges and universities have often expanded far beyond their fundamental educational missions, into ancillary activities, such as golf courses and conference centers.
What about radio stations?
In today’s Martin Center article, David McGarry argues that they shouldn’t operate radio stations.
He writes, “Public media organizations have not, however, been severed completely from the state: according to a 2025 report from the University of Vermont, “50 percent of all public media organizations [NPR and/or PBS affiliates] are licensed to a college or university.” I must confess that I find the entanglement of press and state disquieting — in principle, categorically, in any form or degree, large or small. In this I consider myself a quintessential, inveterate American.”
McGarry is right to dislike the entanglement. To get money from any government entity is bound to corrupt the recipient, who will start thinking mainly about how to continue and increase the flow.
But won’t a decoupling prove to be harmful?
McGarry points to successful instances:
“I think we should be owned by other people” — that is a mantra for amicable separation. A few universities have followed this course, including the Universities of Missouri at St. Louis and Kansas City, which have worked to avoid disrupting programming during and after the multi-year process of decoupling. To institutions of higher learning, it offers revenues from the sale of a broadcast license and savings from funds no longer spent to subsidize public media; to stations, it offers genuine independence. After the University of Texas fired the general manager of KUT and KUTX earlier this year, donors began discussing a decoupling for the purpose of obtaining that very thing.