This letter was sent to President Roger Hull after his meeting with the faculty of the Engineering Division on April 12, 2001
Roger,
Thank you for meeting with the Division on Thursday [April 12, 2001]. Keeping the lines of communication open is our only hope of reaching a beneficial conclusion to the present situation.
Some things came up at the meeting which indicate to me that you may have some misconceptions about the true nature of the situation and why the Civil Engineering faculty are so vigorously resisting Dean Balmer's recommendation that the program be phased out. I will try to clear some of these up.
The Civil Engineering faculty, and we do truly speak as one on this, takes considerable umbrage to your insinuation that we did not have the best interests of the College in mind when we sent the newsletter enlisting alumni support for our efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth. For most of us the easiest thing would be to quietly let the Department fold and go on teaching engineering science courses until we retire. Personally, I enjoy teaching the introductory courses very much. The only reason I haven't done so is because of other commitments. The two junior faculty would be the most impacted, but they could easily get jobs in the area paying considerably more than Union is paying them.
We are taking up this fight for the Civil Engineering alumni; past, present, and future. They are the ones who have generated the rich heritage and excellent reputation of the program in the past, and who will continue to do so in the future. We are trying to prevent Union from making probably the biggest mistake since Eliphalet Nott decided not to retire at age 65.
There is a critical need for Civil Engineering graduates, Union's Civil Engineering program produces highly qualified entry-level professionals, and the program has as many or more students at the other programs and is no more expensive to run. Therefore, why aren't we investing in the program and publicizing its strong points to attract students rather than considering eliminating it.
You said that you don't want to get rid of engineering as a whole. I won't question your word, but your actions in forcing Division 4 [Engineering Division] to meet the Computer Science faculty need from internal resources speak volumes about your true support. It is our opinion, which is supported by many Union faculty, alumni, and friends, that the termination of Civil Engineering will accomplish the elimination of engineering, regardless of your intentions. The three-legged stool analogy is a good one. Without the three primary engineering disciplines, Union will not have the synergisms available among the programs, will not offer potential students the flexibility they need in choosing among programs, and will experience increased, not decreased unit costs for producing engineering graduates. It will also take years for the remaining programs to overcome the negative impression left by the elimination of Civil, if it is even possible. One hundred and fifty six years of institutional and community memory cannot be erased like a chalk board.
It seems that you have shifted away from the argument that Civil Engineering has to go to make way for "Converging Technology." That is good, because it makes no sense for a variety of reasons that have been eloquently stated in the letters we have been receiving from alumni, parents, and friends. I was going to make an analogy, and I think I still will, just in case the argument shifts back. You wouldn't cut off a person's perfectly good, strong arm just so you could test a new prosthetic device on the stump.
Your new argument that the choice is merely an economic one really makes as little sense as the CT excuse. Civil has as many or more students than the other programs; is as strong as any of the other programs in terms of curriculum, organization, faculty, and students; and is no more expensive to operate. On the advantage side, CE has probably contributed more than the other programs to the integration of the liberal arts and engineering and the foreign study portion of the Union experience. We have also been involved in community service projects for years, both through the ASCE Student Chapter and the senior capstone design course. Our projects have been multidisciplinary, and have incorporated state-of-the-art technology which demonstrates convergence, even if it doesn't meet the Dean's narrow definition of converging technology.
You mentioned on Thursday that the Civil Engineering curriculum is more restrictive than the others because we must demonstrate proficiency in four sub-disciplines to meet ABET criteria. While the four area proficiency is true, it does not necessarily mean our curriculum is more rigid. At the present time the Civil curriculum has four free electives, the same as the Mechanical program. We have what we feel is a much more flexible curriculum as far as terms abroad are concerned. We encourage our students to actually travel abroad rather than satisfying Section IV through one of the other options. As a result, all but one of our 2000 graduates went abroad, and I believe all of our 2001 graduates have gone. What the Dean has failed to tell you is that we have communicated to him that we could reduce our required courses by two to give us six free electives and still meet our ABET obligations.
You also said the Dean's CT program would effectively integrate the liberal arts and engineering. If you look closely you will see that his plan only integrates the sciences with engineering, and even then it doesn't do it effectively if you eliminate CE. Many topics, such as bioremediation and environmental protection interrelate directly with CE. If you look closely at the CE plan that was presented to Dean Balmer in January, a copy of which you received, you will see that our plan goes much further in truly integrating all of the liberal arts with engineering. True, it was done in haste because of the short deadline imposed on us by the Dean, there are parts of it that probably wouldn't be implementable, and we haven't had time to get back to further develop it with everything else going on. However, with the cooperation of the rest of Division 4 and interested liberal arts faculty it provides a framework that can provide much more benefit to the college than "Converging Technologies."
You said that letters you have received have been running about 50/50 in supporting or not supporting the phase-out of Civil Engineering. I challenge that statistic. I have received over a hundred letters and emails addressed to you and carbon copied to me. I have lost track of the number because I have had enough trouble just acknowledging and keeping up with them. I have read every one of them carefully, and have seen exactly one that supports the elimination of CE. Some others support certain aspects of converging technology, but only in so far as they do not compromise the quality of the programs in fundamentals. True, some dissenters may write directly to you and not include me, but until I see your letters I can't accept the 50/50 assertion.
Before a decision to eliminate any program is made, we need to plan and have data showing that the College would benefit from such an action. The same should be done for the addition of any new program, whether it leads to a degree or is a major shift in curriculum focus such as represented by converging technologies. No such planning was done for either the elimination of Civil or the incorporation of converging technologies. It appears that both have been decided on the whim, and because of the prejudices, of the Dean of Engineering.
I don't deny that the College is in a fiscal crunch. However why weren't we asked to economize in order to keep all of our present programs? Why weren't we asked to appeal to our alumni to try to raise the needed capital for equipment, facilities, and endowed professorships that would ease the cost differential between engineering and the liberal arts? I'm not speaking solely of alumni giving here, but going out and urging corporations to give support. Our graduates are our best advertisement for the value of such investment. I have talked to several who think this could be done, but all have said forget it if CE is eliminated.
In conclusion, we feel that Civil Engineering contributes significantly to the reputation and well-being of the Institution. To eliminate it would have profound, negative impacts.