Merger cancellation necessitates transparency

By Staff Editorial     1/14/10 6:00pm

It was slated to be the biggest development Rice had seen since the advent of the college system. It was going to propel Rice into the upper echelon of educational institutions in terms of both prestige and research monies. It was going to create the intellectual and innovative center of the fourth-largest city in the world's wealthiest nation.Instead, the proposal to merge Rice and the Baylor College of Medicine was the biggest anticlimax our university has seen in recent memory (see story, page 1). The sound of the deal failing earlier this week was deafening, and reverberated across the university. We can't say we're not disappointed that the deal fell apart - everyone likes to be part of a historical occurrence, of course - and it is worrisome for those in the Rice-Baylor program, who will soon be attending a medical school whose finances are in such unsteady waters that the most logical course of action, merging with Rice, was torpedoed.

However, there is a silver lining to this implosion. The administration was obviously quite enraptured with seeing this deal through - look no further than President David Leebron's column in our Nov. 20 issue. Thus, we are pleased that they didn't let the possibility of merging with an elite medical school cloud the financial facts. We are disappointed that BCM could not get its house in necessary order, but we are happy knowing that the administration and the Board of Trustees recognized the evidence that precluded this deal from taking place.

But the death of the proposed acquisition does not mean that Rice should let the momentum gained from the discussions die. We applaud the university for thinking big in such an instance, and though a wrong turn resulted, it should take solace in the fact that it committed its due diligence in these efforts.

---

---

From the perspective of a media organization, we would call for the university to be forthcoming with what nixed the proposal. Rice and its constituents are often forthcoming with information, so this sustained secrecy goes against precedent. At the least, a statement of the reason they will not reveal the sticking points is required.

After such a lengthy and confusing process, some clarity on the matter is needed. Perhaps then, some of the anticlimactic nature of this non-deal can be dispersed.

---