Discussion of Civil Engineering (Minutes of the General Faculty Meeting of October 3, 2001)
President Roger Hull called the meeting to order at 12:40 pm, announcing that the Board of Trustees will be meeting the weekend after next. The RASC Committee and the FEC have been invited to the Trustees Meeting on Friday, October 12 to present and answer questions. He then asked that the discussion be civil and turned the floor over to Mark Walker, Chair of the AAC.
[sounds of students' chanting heard from outside]
Statement by Mark Walker, Chair of the AAC
Mark Walker gave a statement. The AAC initiated a review of the suggestion that Civil Engineering be eliminated. They set up a committee, the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (RASC) which met over the summer and has produced a report at the beginning of the term. The AAC, at the suggestion of FEC chair Tom Werner, released the report immediately to the faculty even though it made it more awkward to deliberate on a report that was already out. On this past Monday the AAC decided what it would do with the report. The committee considered many dimensions. They decided not to replace RASC options with just one option to eliminate civil engineering. The committee then considered removing options, and in spite of a strong conservative sentiment not to remove something from what the committee had worked so hard on, the majority of the voting members decided to recommend that one of the options, Number 5, not be included on the paper ballot. There was considerable concern about what that option would do to the liberal arts.
The committee then took up the possibility of adding options. There were options 3A, 3-4-6, which had been distributed to the faculty electronically, and the majority of the committee decided not to add any new options. This majority was not convinced that the new options were better than what the RASC had done.
They then took up the option to rank the options, and the committee decided not to, thinking that this would be the responsibility of the faculty in voting. With similar reasoning the committee decided not to just pick one option out, including the option to eliminate civil engineering.
The committee then passed a motion which read as follows: "The AAC hereby passes on the RASC Report to the FEC and the faculty for a vote, with two specific recommendations. Number 1: Option 5 should not be included on the ballot; Number 2: a preferential voting system should be used."
Statement by Tom Werner, Chair of the Faculty
Tom Warner then read a statement, beginning by noting that what is before the faculty for discussion are the options presented in the RASC report modified with Option 5 removed. The FEC believes that the Board will vote on the issue of eliminating CE at the October 12 meeting. It is important to keep that in mind. As a consequence, the FEC is committed to providing informed faculty sentiment among the options for their consideration at the meeting.
He continued by noting that the chair of the FEC can, according to the governance system, call for a vote from the faculty on any issue. The FEC has already designed a ballot. If the vote were to occur at that moment, the ballot would ask for faculty to determine which of the five RASC options they approve and then to rank order their approved choices. There is also a choice on the ballot for faculty to abstain. Any changes will have to be done by a floor vote at this meeting. The timing is tight. After the meeting, the FEC will meet to modify the ballot as a consequence of the meeting. The ballot will go to Judy Ludwig for duplication and distribution to faculty secretaries by Friday. Faculty will place their ballots in the envelope and secretaries will return the ballots to Steve Leavitt, Secretary of the FEC, by next Tuesday at 5:00 pm. The FEC will begin counting one week from today.
The main issue, whether to eliminate a department, is controversial for faculty to make. There is also a sense among some that the process has been flawed, and this only serves to arouse more suspicion and distrust. The events of Sept. 11 and their aftermath underlie all of this, and these have taken a toll on all. He asked speakers to reflect on this and keep their comments as civil as possible. He noted that each speaker will have a three minute time limit on speaking.
President Hull opened the floor.
Dean Sorum asked that faculty keep in mind a couple of things when reading the report, an excellent report. The goal of the Plan for Union is to enrich liberal arts and ensure an excellent engineering program. With limited resources, the College has to be very careful about allocation. Eighty-five percent of the students are in the liberal arts. For those eighty-five percent Union competes with other liberal arts colleges. In competing, the college has to consider both programs offered and student-faculty ratios. Engineering, currently, uses a disproportionate amount of resources with regard to student-faculty rations and instructional costs per student.
FROM THE FLOOR: a member of the Civil Engineering Department introduced a new option, one that keeps all increased resources within Division IV with no extra students added at all. It charges a fee of $840 per year or $275 per term to computer science and engineering students. The fee covers some of the real costs between the liberal arts and Division IV degrees, it can be gradually introduced over a period of four years. The fee is for laboratory and computer software and hardware use, not a tuition fee. It should not be included in financial aid packages. At present engineering students do not pay a fee for lab and computer use, while many science students do pay fees. Engineering students also take four extra courses. The proposal also reduces the size of the CE department from 6 to 5 or add a new endowed chair for $80,000, and use the interest from bequests to CE for $40,000. The total gleans $420,000 to solve the problems without adding any students to the liberal arts and having engineering shoulder the costs. The ballot should include other options derived from the RASC Report. He then moved that the option be added to the ballot.
The move was seconded. Discussion began.
FROM THE FLOOR: Was the motion just now to add all of the options that have been circulating recently, or only the new one added today?
The presenter replied that he was trying to find the least controversial option, so he was only moving the most recent one, even though it may not be the best one.
FROM THE FLOOR: A faculty member asked Byron Nichols, chair of the RASC committee, if they had considered options such as the one now proposed.
Prof. Nichols replied that they did consider lab fees. They did not consider a larger per-term fee charged regardless of courses selected. It did not occur to the committee.
Chris Duncan, RASC member, added that the committee did discuss differential tuition, and that was dismissed, if he recalled correctly, because it discouraged rather than encouraged applications in that division. Also Division IV students receive a larger percentage of financial aid, so adding additional tuition was not necessarily going to give a net gain to the college. He understands that that is not the same as the fee-per-term. He added that in his view the option is talking about money that is not already there anyway. He is not sure how financial people count such things as money not in hand.
FROM THE FLOOR: One professor asked for someone who is informed to make more comments about the new option. The proposal seems to answer many of the questions raised by the report, but if someone could comment on the viability of the option, she'd appreciate it.
Kimmo Rosenthal answered that the committee had discussed having larger fees than the $40,000 that appears in the report, and there was a concern about charging students for services that they might not be taking advantage of. That is why the committee decided to charge a lab fee when the students actually took a lab.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another faculty member stated that some of the earlier options included reducing the size of the CE dept., but this option says to do this OR add a new endowed chair. Why is the wording different here? She added that she was concerned about putting in an option that had an "or" in it.
The Civil Engineering professor who introduced the motion responded that the endowment is not in hand, so that is why the "or" is there. If the dept. cannot find a chair to take one position, then the dept. would have to drop one position.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another faculty member asked if, with endowed chairs, the person giving the money can specify which department should receive the chair.
President Hull responded yes. Most of the chairs, in fact, are the results of endowments for chairs in particular departments, from former majors in that department.
FROM THE FLOOR: The same speaker followed up by asking that if a chair were to be endowed to a particular department, does that mean that the size of that department goes up by one?
President Hull responded that it could mean that, because all these issues are negotiable. Dean Sorum will be negotiating with the AAC to determine which departments needs new positions, so that the Development Office and President Hull know where to seek funds.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another faculty member stated that he thought that the answer was "no", the department would not be increased in size, because otherwise the AAC would not be able to decide there the positions should go.
President Hull reiterated that in seeking funds they will focus on those departments where the AAC has determined the slots should go.
Dean Balmer of Engineering then asked Dan Lundquist to comment on what putting such a large burden on engineering students would do to recruiting.
Dean Lundquist stated that his comments to the committee had been that any additional cost in any area will be a disincentive. He had told the committee that the last time there was talk of a differential for engineering, it was to provide a division-wide discount--not an increase--to attract more enrollments. It is axiomatic that increasing the price will not have a positive effect on applications or enrollment.
FROM THE FLOOR: Wasn't the charge to the committee that they stay within current resource constraints?
Prof. Nichols responded that no, the charge had simply said that changes had to be made from within the confines of the Academic Affairs budget. Adding fees for academic programs would stay within that budget. He added that the committee did look at adding a 10% tuition differential, but decided that the consequences of that would not be helpful. But tuition within specific majors, that still falls under the purview of academic affairs.
FROM THE FLOOR: One faculty member stated that he would like to speak against the motion for two reasons--first, it adds complication to an already complicated ballot. The real issue is to vote to keep Civil Engineering or to get rid of it. He regrets that the AAC did not vote also to drop Option 6, the combination of other options. Selecting from among three or four options and ranking all acceptable would presumably mean one would accept some combination of those. The second reason is that in this case the computer science majors would be paying 5% more than other majors. That is inappropriate--some majors should not be more expensive than others.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another stated: there are two basic choices--Option 1 talks about reallocating resources within Division IV, letting that go on within the division by eliminating a dept. and reassigning resources. Options 2-6 ask the rest of the college share the burden to reinforce Engineering programs. He sees the new option introduced at the meeting as offering the first chance for an alternative way to let Division IV reallocate resources in order to keep civil engineering. There is an appeal because this motion is a different kind of alternative, one that lets Division IV handle the problem itself.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another raised the concern that adding the fee because of the corresponding increase in financial aid. He wonders if that is a legitimate concern. Can these be coupled or uncoupled?
President Hull answered that the motion's author's suggestion was that it would not affect financial aid, but that Dan Lundquist's response had indicated that it would affect financial aid.
The author of the motion then asked President Hull if other fees were taken into account in assigning financial aid.
President Hull responded that yes, financial aid is based on a person's ability to pay the bills. Dean Lundquist reiterated that the school's policy has been to use the same methodology to meet all students needs. New fees of any sort would be included in the financial burden. For every dollar the fee is raised, the college would give fifty cents back in financial aid.
FROM THE FLOOR: A faculty member stated that it would be a professional courtesy to allow Division IV to discuss the new motion, and also to include something on the ballot dealing with it, as a professional courtesy. One does not have to vote for them, but it would be good to include the option.
Chris Duncan stated that had the option come up in the committee discussions, the issue of $2 million needed to capitalize an endowed chair would have been a concern. The committee would have wanted some feedback on the prospect of having to raise this money on top of the capital campaign. There would also have been some uncertainty about using the interest. There was an attempt to keep the options within the existing financial picture.
FROM THE FLOOR: Two comments about fundraising--the college would not get the $40,000 in interest right away. If it came at all, it would be a number of years out, in the steady state, after all the money had been collected. As far as the extra position goes, it is hard to say, because you can't make an ask for Civil Engineering if the department does not exist. There are people who want to endow one kind of position, but it is hard to predict with certainty whether that would be the case. The college could not count on the endowed position.
Dean Rosenthal added that the larger fees would not really be a reallocation of resources--it puts the entire burden on the students, and the committee felt that unacceptable.
There was then a motion to call the question and a hand vote taken to call the question passed. The faculty member from CE who had proposed the motion read the option to be voted on in its entirety:
"It is an option to increase the resources within Division IV without extra students added to liberal arts, charge a fee of $840 per year or $275 per term for students in Division IV, to cover some of the cost differences between the liberal arts degree and the current engineering degree; it is a fee for computer and lab use, not a tuition increase. Reduce the size of civil engineering positions from six to five or add a new endowed chair if possible. Use the interest from pledges to civil engineering to get a total of $420,000. This would be to add it to the ballot as an extra option."
The motion passed by a hand vote.
FROM THE FLOOR: One faculty member wondered that since it has passed, if it would be possible to pair the new option with Option 1 since they were fundamentally similar in asking Division IV to deal with the resource problem.
FROM THE FLOOR: How will the ballots be counted?
Prof. Werner answered that FEC would determine the percent of voting faculty that approved each option. Then for each option they would determine the percent who ranked it 1, 2, 3 etc.
FROM THE FLOOR: A faculty member walked to the floor to the front to give a presentation based on calculations of Union's percent of total budget consumed by academic affairs as compared to other "comparison" schools. He argued that the limits on the debate have been appalling. He's not referring to the three-minute limit on discussion, nor to the limit to one faculty meeting, nor to the past attempt to slip the whole issue past the faculty last spring. He is referring to officious attempt to limit the scope of the entire debate. By putting the onus on Division IV and then telling RASC to consider only the academic affairs portion of the budget, the administration has done exactly what any powerful group tries to do when it wants to ram through a policy while keeping up appearances of democratic process. The abuse of power is stunning, even more so when one examines how much this limitation skews the "unfortunate-but-necessary" conclusions.
He then presented an overhead showing a graph based on RASC data. The graph shows the percentage of total budget spent on academic affairs among Union's comparison schools. There are three groups, the rich who can afford non-academic luxuries; at the low end are schools that also spend less on academic affairs in part because they have to devote more to overhead. In the middle are schools that spend a larger percentage on academic affairs, what you might call "typical" schools. He then put up another overhead that showed which dot was Union, near the middle of the graph. He added a third overhead that concentrated on the schools in the "typical" group. In that group Union is either near or at the bottom in academic spending allocations. No clearer indication of administration priorities could be demonstrated, he said. Increasing the share of academic affairs from 48% to 49% would move Union only a little, still leaving Union near the bottom of that group. But such a change would put an additional $660,000 into academic affairs, far more than current exigency requires.
He then concluded that the real question for the faculty is why the administration issue it has, without addressing the far more important issue for Union--for its reputation--of where its real priorities lie.
[applause]
A Civil Engineering professor then asked to speak to the faculty, noting that talking with the administration had been fruitless over the last few months. As stated at a faculty meeting last year and on other occasions, President Hull has said that he does not want the committee to come back and say, "Hull, raise more money--that would not be an acceptable solution. The committee needs to understand that if civil engineering will continue at Union, it will continue at the expense of some other piece of the academic program. It is up to the faculty to give me their input, and ultimately it is a recommendation that I will have to decide upon before going to the Board of Trustees." The speaker reiterated that President Hull had said "before" going to the Board of Trustees. But President Hull has in fact already gone to the Board of Trustees with his position paper, a document that Civil Engineering has received from several sources. In that position paper President Hull said, "Since we must marshal our resources in the most effective way, the long-standing existence of a program cannot be a sole justification for its continued existence." The speaker then stated to President Hull and the faculty that this is not the "sole" justification for its continued existence--civil engineering does much more for Union than being old. He then continued reading from the position paper, saying that President Hull had said, "The phasing out of civil engineering would not be an easy decision, but it is right, given who we are." He noted that on the following page President Hull contradicts this position when he acknowledges the importance and relevance of civil engineering in everyday life.
The CE professor continued, quoting from the position paper referring to converging technologies, "We will expose our students to dynamic new ways of thinking that encompass academic disciplines across the college. Bio-engineering, the combination of analytical and experimental methods of engineering and computer science and biological sciences, nanotechnology--biology, chemistry, computer science, physics and engineering, mechatronics (?)--conversions of electrical, mechanical, and [unintelligble] systems, pervasive computing--digital communication and computational systems." The speaker then stated that there are no social sciences in this list, no humanities in the list. Something is missing in converging technologies' integration with the liberal arts.
He discussed one more issue from the May 22 faculty meeting earlier this year. He said that he had asked at that meeting about cutting what is weak or what is powerful--if the community doesn't feel that the plan presented to the president makes as much sense as the president does. The president had said, "That is why there is a sub-council looking at the issue." Unfortunately, the sub-council has spoken, and the president has not looked at the issue. The speaker concluded by quoting the New Hampshire license plate which reads "Live Free or Die." He added that if the faculty does not choose Option 1 it is up to the administration to work out how to employ a combination of the other options that were made available to the faculty.
FROM THE FLOOR: One faculty member stated that he has been teaching a course with Prof. Ghaly called Construction for Humanity. It was a new course that combined civil engineering and history. It was a very popular course the first time it was taught. For year the administration has encouraged the community to incorporate engineering into the liberal arts curriculum. It is only in the last five, or even the last three years when this has begun to happen. There are now other courses being offered, and it has been Civil Engineering that has been the most forthcoming from the engineering division in integrating with the social sciences and humanities. It would be a crime to cut the course and a crime to cut the department at a time when this potential is bearing fruit.
He continued, noting that there is a deeper problem, that in some quarters of the administration there is an effort to try to become something other that who Union is. The school wants to be come another Hamilton or Trinity because those are the schools that compete for the students. If Union wants to do that, then it should cut out engineering entirely, move to get rid of the fraternities completely, and then the college might be able to compete--and then perhaps have, like Trinity, 50% prep school students.
Instead, Union ought to continue to do what it does best, emphasize its strengths, emphasize its uniqueness, try to make the engineering program work. The college should not with one easy stroke go against its history. He urged the faculty to vote for any option other than eliminating CE.
Dean Sorum stated that one reason Union spends a lower percentage on academic affairs is because Union spends a higher percentage on scholarships and financial aid than most of the schools Union competes with.
FROM THE FLOOR: One faculty member stated that he is opposed to any option that brings in more students, because the college has been trying to climb up a long hard hill and he would not want to take a step back. Secondly, the school is a school with limited resources and the guidelines should be that the college needs to do what it does in a very quality fashion--this means having to shift resources from one area or another, and this may be one of the cases where that needs to be done.
FROM THE FLOOR: One of the Civil Engineering professors stated that originally the faculty was told that the issue was converging technologies. Then the priority was changed to finances and resources. The money is $400,000 which is less than half of one percent of the total operating budget. In the conditions that were put on RASC, they were told to come up with ideas within limitations--they were not given the opportunity to look at the whole budget. It seems arbitrary that for less than one half of one percent the college is eliminating a department that has the most interaction with other aspects of the college, as mentioned before. It has the most number of women in engineering. It was ranked by USA Today as #7 in civil engineering programs without a Ph.D. It seems not the logical thing to do. Also the administration has been ignoring the collateral effects on other disciplines by not having civil engineering. In addition, engineering students, when they see fewer options for possible majors, will be less inclined to attend Union. At this time, when the country has gotten a D- by the American Society for Civil Engineers for its roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Eliminating the department will definitely affect the future of engineering.
FROM THE FLOOR: Another Civil Engineering faculty then announced himself as "one of the resources they want to get rid of" as an untenured faculty member in Civil Engineering. He stated that he came to Union because of the strong situation of engineering--he had come from a school where there was only a $1 million endowment for engineering. Union was a strong school with a strong history in engineering. It had a strong sense of community service, and he loves community service. It encourages student-faculty interaction. He loves that part too. Now the faculty has a voice in the future of Civil Engineering, though the president has tried to take that voice away. He said that he hoped that the community would consult the president's position paper to the Board of Trustees. The president had said that he would look at the results of the RASC report and the opinion of the faculty, but in the position paper he has again ignored those interests. The president says in the position paper, "We will expose our students to dynamic new ways of thinking that encompass academic disciplines across the college." The speaker continued, stating that getting the students to think dynamically is what all professors at Union already do. Converging technologies will not make them think dynamically in a different way. It might get the engineers to consider biology. He quoted the president again, "We are committed, as the Plan for Union indicates, to an engineering program of excellence and relevance." The speaker indicated that the college already has a program that is excellent and relevant, so shifting is not necessary.
The same Civil Engineering professor continued by stating that the vote before the faculty will redefine the college and its way of doing business. It is going to speak to whether it is okay for the college to sacrifice a program whenever it wants to try to do something new. If the goal of the Trustees is to integrate engineering with the liberal arts, converging technologies is not the answer. It includes only sciences and engineering. The students are also unhappy with what has been happening. He noted that he has a petition with 640 signatures on it in which the students stated: "We support keeping the Civil Engineering Department and recognize the important part the department plays in academic diversity and community support. This is another example of how the president and the administration fail to listen to the voice of the students." The speaker noted that the petition had been circulated only since Sunday night. He asked the faculty's support in keeping civil engineering.
Bob Balmer, Dean of Engineering, then spoke. He stated that when he arrived three years earlier he never imagined that he'd be standing at a faculty meeting talking about the issue in this way. He said that he had spent the last two and a half years trying to unscramble the facts from the mythology about engineering at Union College. The history, the present, and mostly about the future. To him the topic is not about civil engineering but about engineering as a whole, and the future of an engineering program, a highly structured professional degree program, an expensive program, at a select liberal arts college.
Dean Balmer continued by noting that over the last fifteen years there have been five different task forces that sought to look at the role of engineering at a liberal arts college. None of them came up with a solution. There were bandaids, recommendations, but none had solutions. Even the GLEAN report does not have a solution. Dean Balmer stated that he believes that the concept of converging technologies, which is only in its infancy, which does bring people together in a way that has never been done at any other institution, has the chance of making that bridge work. There have to be the resources to do it. He cannot make it work structured the way Union is now. If the college is going to move engineering out of being ancillary--engineering is a guest in Union's house. The division needs to behave like that, and the division needs to perform with the same type of excellence as the rest do. That is his goal.
A Civil Engineering professor commented that the Division IV is part of a family, not a guest.
FROM THE FLOOR: A faculty member stated that he shared an earlier speaker's view that it would be a mistake to concentrate more resources in Division IV. For that reason none of the other options are appealing, particularly Number 2, when it is already clear there is a very large wage differentiation with that division already. He continued by addressing the new option added at the meeting--no matter however suspicious one is, one should please not encourage Union College to have a phony financial aid policy, one that excludes, for a subset of the students, a certain amount of what they're expected to pay. One that discriminates against them, to solve this kind of problem. He asked his colleagues to think about that point when considering that option.
FROM THE FLOOR: One faculty member stated that he is considering taking a hit in his salary raises in order to keep engineering around. The report makes clear that engineers make considerably more money. He suggested that the salary cut needs to be scaled, like income taxes. He asked the engineers to stand up and say that they would be willing to take a disproportionate cut in raises in order to save their colleagues in Civil Engineering and to be fair to their liberal arts colleagues.
FROM THE FLOOR: One engineering colleague stated that Professor Wolfe, chair of civil engineering, would be one of the first to go. No other colleague at this college in the last year has gotten wider recognition for what he has done. There has also been a substantial benefit in fundraising for the actions he has done. He implored his colleagues to think of the individuals that would be cut, all in the same family--they are Tom Jewell, Andy Wolfe, Muhammad Mafi, Ashraf Ghaly, Phil Snow, and Chris Laplante. The college is not getting rid of a department; it is getting rid of individuals.
President Hull adjourned the meeting.
minutes submitted by Steve Leavitt