Discussion of Civil Engineering (taken from the minutes of the General Faculty Meeting of March 5, 2001)
FROM THE FLOOR: One engineering faculty member raised the issue of the prospect of abolishing civil engineering. The arguments are that the department does not blend well with the college or the principle of "converging technologies." Two points. Since this started, the civil engineering department has not received a single piece of paper outlining what the problem is or what should be done to fix it. The second point is that Union is missing big opportunities by abolishing civil engineering--in environmental engineering, recycled materials, infrastructure--these are areas that people talk about every day and people understand. Union is abolishing all of this in favor of some areas that exist on a very limited scope and limited scale at big research institutions. There should be an open discussion of all of these issues, because the future of civil engineering concerns all who understand that this tradition has been alive at Union one hundred and fifty-six years.
President Hull responded that nothing will be done without full discussion on campus, through the appropriate committees and discussion with the faculty as a whole. He then called on Dean Balmer.
Dean Balmer stated that when he made his presentation to the Board on Saturday, he had decided that it would be nothing but positive statements, and in the presentation he talked about where Union is--a renaissance for the last six years--of the development an engineering program at Union that was good. That made for good changes, strong movements forward, embracing new things. Engineering at Union needed to change because the world is changing very rapidly and it's been driven by engineering. If Union is going to have an engineering program, it can't be just another engineering program. If it is the same that one can get at a state institution at one tenth of the cost, then it probably shouldn't be at Union. The Union College programs need to be exemplary and Union has the staff, the faculty to do this. But the problem is that the program is spread too thin. There are not enough faculty to do it right. Will there be more faculty? The program has been told no, there will be no more new faculty--liberal arts colleges are concerned about their future generally. So what is to be done? The engineering division has been told that the status quo is not acceptable. So there have to be hard decisions. In the environment that Dean Balmer is projecting for the future, of the programs that Union has, civil engineering is the least able to go in the direction that he feels the program needs to go in. There may be other solutions, and the division is going to be looking for those in the coming weeks. But he does not at this point see how that can be done. The engineering program has to stop looking to the past and instead look to the future. He stated that at the Board meeting he contrasted this with the time when Steinmetz was at Union, and all the opportunities that spun out of that one person's association with Union College. The world is at the onset of another technological revolution and Union can be part of this. But the staffing problem is serious and he can think of no way to solve that staffing problem without reallocating resources. That is the dilemma that he is in. This is a risky endeavor, no question about that.
FROM THE FLOOR: Why is the objective to get rid of civil engineering and instead going to converging technologies?
President Hull said that it is not the objective to get rid of civil engineering. The objective is to focus resources in the most effective way to make the program as exemplary as possible. He has no question with what was said earlier--driving to New York City one wants to get out from under the overpasses as quickly as possible because the infrastructure is pretty scary. The country has an absolute need for civil engineering and in other countries. The question in his mind is what can the college afford to do? There is a disproportionate use of resources in the engineering division, so the caveat that President Hull has is not to put additional resources into engineering. He had the strongest argument with two of the strongest trustees when he said in his judgment Union needed to continue engineering. These two individuals had said that Union needed to get rid of engineering, and President Hull had responded that Union does not want to be just like every other liberal arts institution. Engineering gives Union a comparative advantage. For ten years he has been saying that engineering and liberal arts should be coming together. He added that he knows it when he sees it when it comes to converging technologies. These converging technologies provide a way to bring together electrical and mechanical engineering--and it could include civil--with computer science. There is the ability to bring in physics, chemistry and biology with a whole range of new technologies as they spin out of engineering, from biotechnology to nanotechnology. There have been industries, individual firms, coming to Union to talk about how they might want to partner with Union in this area. So he sees this small college being able to focus its resources on the concept of converging technologies. This would not be unique to Union because Silicon Valley is talking about it all the time; it's just that it makes good sense for a small college when there are the strengths that Union has in the liberal arts and in engineering. It allows Union to bring together strengths in a focused way. The college cannot be all things to all people.
Dean Sorum added that as the topic is discussed in the coming months, she wants everyone to know that no tenured faculty member will be forced to leave the college. People may be reallocated. President Hull reiterated that it is a program that is at risk, not tenured individuals.
FROM THE FLOOR: The first engineering faculty member responded again, saying that he loves the college and what is worrying him is that the college is going to get rid of something that is so important. The decision shows no ability to see what is important for this country in the next few years. Nanoengineering and biotechnology are important sure, but these programs are made of two or three students at very big universities--research institutions with eight or ten faculty supervising two or three students. This is the situation at MIT and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Is Union trying to appeal to one half of a percent of the student population, is Union trying to sustain a program that is economically feasible? The world will always need civil engineers. Civil engineering students receive three job offers before they graduate. Their problem is which one to choose. There is no need to worry about civil engineers as a profession. They will always be needed. It is the future of Union that concerns him very much.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another engineering faculty member noted that at the time of Steinmetz there was the opportunity to get rid of civil engineering in favor of electrical engineering, but they didn't; they just added it. Fifty years ago there was the option to expand mechanical engineering and they left civil alone and put new resources into mechanical engineering. So it should not be a given to give up something to have something new. Without civil engineering Union has a three-legged stool without one of its legs. Finally, this is not a plain ordinary civil engineering department--the department has a professional program where engineers taking courses from Union's faculty every semester, some sixty per year, and they come back with testimonials that they passed their exams because they learned things at Union College that they did not learn in other places. He objects to the idea that Union has a plain ordinary civil engineering program.
President Hull responded that no one is suggesting that Union has an ordinary program. He stated that he said to the Board that Union cannot now put extra resources into engineering. There is not going to be any adding at this time. So the question is whether the college can maintain all four programs--including computer science. President Hull does not have the answer; he depends on others to help him understand the situation. He wants to assure everyone in the room of two things: one is that no tenured individuals are at risk, and the other is that the discussion will take place through the appropriate college committees and will come for discussion with the faculty.
FROM THE FLOOR: But isn't Union adding faculty?
President Hull responded that yes, but his decision is that there are holes to fill in the liberal arts faculty.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another engineering faculty member noted that he feels that the decision has already been made, and that it has been made with the input of only one or two people. None from civil engineering and maybe only one or two from the decision. He said that he was told that the decision has already been made. The question is whether it is to the benefit of the college to rely on the opinions of one or two people.
Dean Balmer replied that he is right that more input is good, but a decision has to be made, and he has discussed it with a number of people, and if a solution to the staffing problem can be found, then that is fine.
FROM THE FLOOR: An engineering faculty member reiterated that this is a decision that affects mathematics, physics, other divisions, the enrollment of future students, and one should allow other brains to participate in the decision. It is not an issue of job security; it is about the future of the institution.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another engineering faculty member wondered that if jobs can be found for the graduate program in engineering, is that more sacred than the undergraduate program in civil engineering? There are certainly three or four lines being used--adding up adjuncts--that could be used as a source to create more lines for the undergraduate program. Why would the college be keeping a graduate evening program while throwing away undergraduate strength? Also should not Dean Lundquist tell incoming freshmen that the civil engineering program will not be here when they graduate?
President Hull responded that the decision has not been made. There will be a process that the college requires and that is what will be done. No student will be at risk because if the decision is made, if the students want to transfer, the college will work with them and with partnerships with other institutions. The point is that one does not tell the students that the program is gone when the decision has not been made.
FROM THE FLOOR: The same engineering professor asked if it is a moral decision not to let students know that the program will be dropped.
President Hull reiterated that they cannot tell the students when the decision has not been made. He has no difficulty talking about morality since there may be a student that will be aided financially and there may be helping the student transfer to another institution. As far as engineering is concerned, most students shift their departments before graduating, and some 50% come in as engineers but do not graduate as engineers.
FROM THE FLOOR: The department feels helpless because of the absolute bias of the committee that has been formed. The civil engineering department has been demanding from the very beginning, as the largest engineering department, to have a voice on this committee. No one from civil engineering was represented on this committee. And the department was not allowed to discuss this at a division meeting. This is one thing that makes one feel helpless. No one is sent to the execution chamber without being given an opportunity to talk and express their mind. As this committee keeps making the same recommendations--no one is listening. Not even one of the very reasonable ideas proposed, to merge civil and mechanical engineering--this is something that does exist all over the country, West Point has a department of civil and mechanical engineering--was considered. Otherwise the tenured civil engineers kept on as orphans will simply be perceived as deadwood. No one is going to wait until this decision happens to them--it just feels so bad not to be able to talk to the people who are about to make the decision about the fate of the department.
Dean Sorum stated that the college does have to talk about the idea of merging departments and it will. She added that when Dean Balmer talked about resources, one of the things she has learned is that engineering, as it is currently organized, requires the equivalent of over FTEs in adjuncts each year. That is a significant number of adjuncts added to the full-time faculty in engineering, and this is not civil engineering's fault--they do not use as many as other departments do. When talking about resources, that is the resource issue.