Only three present remarks at hearing sessions on arts, sciences reorganization

By SUE WUETCHER
News Services Associate Director

Three persons‹only one of whom was a "new voice" -presented remarks May 7 and 8 during the first two sessions held by the hearing panel collecting evidence on the proposed reorganization of the arts and sciences at UB.

One of those speakers, Claude Welch, chair of the Faculty Senate and SUNY Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Political Science, said later that he was "a little surprised at the lack of participation (in the hearing panel process) at this point," although he noted that three speakers are scheduled for the panel's last session on June 4.

The "new voice" -Jui H. Wang, Einstein Professor of Science‹led off the hearing-panel sessions. Wang presented a proposal to establish three broad divisions of the core academic faculty to participate in university-wide teaching programs.

The other two speakers were Nicolas Goodman, vice provost for undergraduate education, who argued strongly for the creation of a College of Arts and Sciences, and Welch, who declined to support either reorganization option that is on the table or propose a new alignment.

In his planning document, Provost Thomas Headrick has recommended two possible reorganizations of the arts and sciences: merging the faculties of Arts and Letters, Natural Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences into a College of Arts and Sciences, or combining the natural sciences and mathematics and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences into a College of Science and Engineering and merging arts and letters and social sciences into a College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.

Panel to provide analysis

Headrick has charged the hearing panel with gathering evidence, both written and oral, on these two options. He also has asked the panel to consider "local options," or proposals from single departments or significant cohesive groups within a department to be placed within some academic unit other than an arts and sciences college.

The panel will provide an analysis of the issue, and has been given a target date of June 20 to present its report outlining "the preferred course for the university to follow in connection with the proposed reorganization."

President William R. Greiner is expected to make a final decision on the reorganization by July.

Wang suggested to hearing-panel members that the university's core academic faculty be split into three divisions: a Division of Arts, Letters and Social Sciences; a Division of Physical, Mathematical and Applied Sciences, and a Division of Life Sciences.

Each division, which would be responsible for both graduate and undergraduate educational programs in its field, would be headed by a director who would report directly to the provost and be on an equal standing with the deans.

He said that under his plan, whole departments would not be brought into the various divisions, but faculty members who wished to do so could join the divisions on an individual basis. The idea, he said, is "not to disrupt the present structure of the professional schools."

He used the term director, rather than dean, because he does not want his plan to be associated with the present decanal system which, he said, many find "too restraining for progress."

He said he hopes the directors would have more authority than the deans currently do, and would place more emphasis on programs, rather than traditional departmental boundaries, to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration. Many universities are, in fact, abolishing departmental names, he added.

In his remarks before the hearing panel, Goodman took up the case for a College of Arts and Sciences.

Emphasizing that he was speaking for himself, not for the provost, Goodman noted that while a majority of the Triggle Commission three years ago recommended the creation of a College of Arts and Sciences, then-Provost Aaron Bloch was unwilling "to take the political risks involved in taking that step."

Deans council formed as compromise

The Council of Arts and Sciences Deans, composed of the deans of the faculties of Arts and Letters, Social Sciences and Natural Sciences and Mathematics, as well as Goodman and Peter Gold, associate dean of the Undergraduate College, was formed as a compromise, he said. The idea was that the three faculties would act as a single unit in matters regarding undergraduate education, while maintaining their autonomy in graduate and research matters, he said.

And although the council has achieved a number of successes, most notably the implementation of the general-education curriculum, increased access to majors and an improved system of advising, there have been some drawbacks, he said.

The council now is dormant, in part, Goodman said, because Headrick has not "responded very enthusiastically" to the council's initiatives and has not given it a mandate.

The deans respect each other's turf and don't step on each other's toes, he said. "When there is any sense at all of interfering in the internal affairs, or the possible interfering in the internal affairs of one of the units, the other two deans back off," he said.

Moreover, the deans do not have the authority to reallocate resources, he said. "The budget belongs to the three deans separately, so there is no way that that organization (the council) can move money around to meet the needs that are presented by the undergraduate problems," he said.

And since the three budgets are separate, there is a "disincentive" for a particular dean to reallocate money in his unit from graduate research programs to undergraduate programs if the deans are not doing that as well, he said.

Need seen for faculty discussion

"There is a lack of consensus (among the deans) on priorities," he said.

"The arts and sciences are not three separate fields," Goodman continued. "The arts and sciences are, and by rights ought to be, a unified collection of disciplines that need to interact and there needs to be faculty discussion of how we organize the curriculum" and address other common matters, he said.

A merger of the natural sciences and mathematics with the engineering school will not solve the problems of undergraduate education, he said.

There is no tradition in engineering of service instruction, he said, noting that while the majority of the teaching load of the science departments involves students from other departments who are taking introductory and prerequisite science courses, faculty in the engineering school "only teach their particular students.

"As a result, there would be a lack of fit between the instructional mission, certainly on the undergraduate level, between the natural sciences and engineering," he said.

Welch, the only speaker at the May 8 session, told panel members he was "an agnostic" when it comes to reorganization.

"I have no prior position, for or against," he said.

He outlined nine "principles" that he said were important in terms of effective reorganization, including having a clear set of institutional missions, the need for accountability, consistent two-way communication, measures of effectiveness, regular evaluation of participants and programs, and sufficient resources to carry out the basic mission.

Welch also addressed areas that he said need attention, but would not be affected by an arts and sciences reorganization. These include curricular emphasis across fields, enrollment management, international education, issues within the health sciences and information technology.

"These points all make me conclude that an activist Provost's Office will continue to be necessary in a whole variety of areas, irrespective of any reorganization of arts and sciences," he said.

Welch endorses 'ground-up planning

Welch suggested that a position of a vice provost for arts and sciences could have been created this past fall to intervene with the council of deans. "Perhaps, there might have been some steps taken so that that council might not have languished," he said.

He also endorsed efforts at "ground-up planning" within the various units, in particular commending the planning effort undertaken by the Faculty of Arts and Letters before Headrick's academic planning document was released. "We need to have such planning" among the other arts and sciences units as well, Welch said.

He said that although he does not favor any particular reorganization option, he hopes any reorganization will be seen as "inspiring," will clarify the mission, have a reasonable basis of resources and will engage the faculty "in a positive sense, as opposed to a negative or critical sense."

In response to questions from the hearing panel, Welch said he feels a reorganization would ease the integration of the three units by giving them a "sense there is a set of common missions for the three faculties that would supplement and perhaps override the kinds of different institutional cultures that have developed."

He said that a unified College of Arts and Sciences could promote cohesive undergraduate education if it moves ahead with "what has already been reasonably established," namely the general-education curriculum.

"There is a good reason to believe there would be benefits to undergraduate education from such a unity, but, on the other hand, it does not solve all the issues," he said.

Welch added that he believes some of the same benefits could be achieved through a functioning council of deans, as well as through input from the Faculty Senate, which will be addressing such undergraduate education issues as administrative resignations and academic requirements in general.

The hearing panel will convene again at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 4, in 14 Knox Hall. Three proposals are scheduled to be presented.