Letter from President Hull to Engineering Alumni

April 13, 2001

Dear [Alumni]

I am writing to address questions that a number of engineering alumni have raised about converging technologies and the proposed phasing out of the civil engineering department. To date, I have not written because we are discussing the issue on campus and we do not yet have a final plan to put forward. However, given the obvious interest in and tremendous emotion concerning these issues, I want to write now to explain why the changes are necessary to ensure Union's well-being.

For the past nine months, a committee consisting of two trustees, two engineering faculty members, the elected head of the faculty, the Dean of the Faculty, and the Dean of Engineering worked with a group of consultants to examine how we could sharpen our focus on engineering. At the same time, Dean Robert Balmer tried to ascertain how we should deal with the issue of resources in engineering.

We realize, of course, the importance of a strong foundation in the engineering fundamentals for our graduates; accordingly, students will continue to graduate with their degrees in computer science, computer systems engineering, electrical engineering, or mechanical engineering. Since we also believe that it is important to provide the students of tomorrow with multidisciplinary experiences that deal with the complex problems that emerge from the convergence of computer science, electrical and mechanical engineering, biology, chemistry, and physics, we need to bring the liberal arts and engineering closer together by focusing on these disciplines. As a consequence, we will focus within our programs on these converging technologies because we recognize that the important innovative work in engineering is happening at the intersections of the science and engineering disciplines.

It is important to note that the possible phasing out of the civil engineering department is not linked to the implementation of converging technologies. Rather, it is tied to financial constraints. Given our current resources, we cannot maintain all of our programs and strive for greater excellence. Our computer science and engineering programs are understaffed, and, in order to offer our programs, we add six to eight faculty each year through the hiring of adjuncts. While it may be reasonable for a college like Union to engage an adjunct with particular expertise, it is not responsible to have the equivalent of six to eight faculty teaching as adjuncts. Indeed, the use of these part-time faculty more closely resembles a large state institution than it does an excellent small liberal arts college that emphasizes faculty-student interactions. As important as civil engineering is – and it is very, very important in my mind – the shifting of the six lines in civil engineering to computer science and electrical and mechanical engineering would help solve this obvious deficiency.

Why civil engineering and not another engineering program or a part of the liberal arts curriculum? Because civil engineering is more highly structured and therefore less easily integrated into the rest of the engineering programs, because the remaining parts of the engineering division fit more logically together, and because we are primarily a liberal arts institution (we have 1700 students in the liberal arts and 300 students in engineering). Accordingly, while some might question why we cannot take some of the proposed 20 additional positions in the Plan for Union and earmark them for computer science and engineering, they need to understand that engineering already commands – through higher faculty salaries, greater student financial aid, and equipment – a disproportionate amount of Union's resources.

Let me clearly state that I believe that it is essential that Union maintain a commitment to a strong engineering program. While others have questioned why we do not eliminate all of engineering, I think that approach would be a major mistake. Engineering is – and will remain – a distinguishing feature of Union, but it must also be excellent and the high number of adjuncts is not a basis for excellence.

The proposed phase-out of civil engineering would occur after students in the program have completed their requirements. However, the tenured faculty who have loyally served the College and its students would continue to hold positions at Union where they would teach a variety of courses. While I admit that this solution is neither individually nor institutionally ideal, I believe that it is the fairest way to deal with a difficult and emotional situation.

Over the years, Union alumni have helped make a Union College education affordable to those who have followed them. Our costs have always exceeded our prices by a third; in today's dollars, every student therefore receives $10,000 annually or $40,000 over four years. However much alumni might disagree with Dean Balmer's recommendation concerning the phase-out of civil engineering, I would hope that they would reflect on this fact and recognize that the better that Union does the more valuable the degree that they earned becomes.

Change is always difficult. In order to thrive in the competitive environment in which we exist, though, we must be willing to make changes. Our engineering tradition will continue, but it needs to be modified if we are to ensure Union's future.

All the very best.

Sincerely,

Roger H. Hull

Preserving and Adding: A Response to Hull

Letter to Concordiensis' Editor (May 3, 2001)

I borrowed this title from President Hull's “Up Front with Roger Hull” message in the Spring 2001 Union College magazine. His opening line quotes Edmund Burke as saying “Let us add, if we please, but let us preserve what they have left.” Why would President Hull say this when he is actively trying to eliminate a vital Union tradition and presently strong program in Civil Engineering? Only he can answer that. In my opinion, up to this point he has not given the true reasons!

President Hull does go on to say “However, there is also an obligation to recognize the need for change – not for the sake of change but for the well-being of the institution.” Fine, then why eliminate a program that is actively contributing to the well-being and traditions of the College? Instead find the resources necessary to preserve and promote all of the engineering programs as well as computer science. And why not recognize that Civil Engineering does embrace new technology and is keeping up with the times. We use the latest cutting-edge technology in our structures, transportation, foundations, and water resources courses while maintaining a firm foundation essential to success in the profession. Civil Engineering is not opposed to change; we actively embrace it. We are just opposed to senseless change that will harm the institution.

President Hull also wrote a letter on April 13th to all engineering alumni trying to address questions raised about converging technologies and the proposed phasing out of the Civil Engineering program. The full text of his letter is included in this issue of Concordiensis. Alumni are already telling us that this letter does not answer their questions, nor does it sway them away from opposing the ill-advised elimination of Civil Engineering.

In his opening paragraph, President Hull speaks of the “proposed” phasing out of civil engineering, and says we are “discussing the issue on campus and we do not yet have a final plan to put forward.” Then why in other forums has he said it is a done deal, and why does the rest of the letter try to justify why it is a done deal? And would we be discussing it on campus if it were not for the efforts of the civil engineering and other Union alumni, students, and faculty?

The second paragraph refers to the GLEAN Team report, which most of you should have looked at by this time. If you haven't, go to our website http://civil.union.edu/elimination.htm and read it. I'm sure that you will realize it as a biased and poorly researched document that supports a pre-conceived decision. It would best gather dust on some archival shelf and never be referenced. The last sentence of the paragraph states “Dean Robert Balmer tried to ascertain how we should deal with the issue of resources in engineering.” Then why didn't Dean Balmer study possible alternatives or involve alumni, faculty, students, campus committees such as AAC, or advisory councils in his decision-making process? Why didn't Dean Balmer try to find the resources necessary to preserve, enhance, and promote all of the engineering programs and computer science at Union. A possible answer is he took the easy way out, and he didn't involve the various constituencies because he knew they would tell him it was a foolish proposal. Even in the limited time we have had, our efforts have identified numerous potential sources of funding for the support of engineering. These will not be of the magnitude recently given to RPI or SUNY Albany, but taken together will close the resource gap between engineering and the liberal arts so often cited by President Hull. We plan to have some solid pledges of support in hand before the Trustees meet in June, and will continue to seek additional support. Why couldn't the Dean do this, with the active participation of all the Division 4 faculty and alumni? Why eliminate a program and suffer significantly reduced alumni giving when keeping that program can lead to increased support?

The President goes on to state that the reasons now for eliminating Civil Engineering are resource driven, and have nothing to do with the Dean's proposed converging technologies theme. Then why was the latter reason given in the first place, only to be dropped at the first sign of legitimate opposition? And what sense does the resource issue make when no efforts were made to acquire the necessary resources to enhance and promote all of the engineering programs? What is the real reason for eliminating Civil Engineering?

The adjunct “problem” cited by President Hull is also largely a non-issue if the Administration was willing to support all programs. First of all, the adjuncts that Civil uses are a vital part of the program. They bring a wealth of practical real-world experience into the classroom. We agree that overuse of adjuncts is not good, but the appropriate use of adjuncts adds richness to the curriculum. Furthermore, most of the adjunct “problem” in Division 4 can be traced to the shortage of tenure-line faculty in Computer Science, a shortage that has been exacerbated by administrative decisions over the past ten years. Computer science is properly a liberal arts discipline that supports the whole College. Why should its resources have to come out of existing Division 4 resources rather than from College resources or the 20 new faculty lines proposed by the Plan for Union? Why weren't campus committees, such as AAC, involved in the decision not to allocate any of the 20 new lines to Division 4? Why won't the Administration admit that the elimination of Civil Engineering will not solve the resource problem in Computer Science or the rest of the Division? The phase-out period will be four or five years, and even after that the tenured faculty will be retained. Therefore, only two new lines would be gained immediately after the phase out. Additional positions would not become available until the presently tenured faculty begin to retire in ten years or more.

I have already countered President Hull's assertion that the Civil Engineering program is more structured than the other engineering programs; and the assertion that Civil Engineering does not fit well with the other disciplines is just not true if you look at the big picture. Dean Balmer uses a narrow definition of converging technologies to try to exclude civil engineering, when even that narrow definition is faulty. Again it seems that President Hull and Dean Balmer are rationalizing a preconceived conclusion.

I know this piece asks more questions than it answers, but they are questions that cry out for answers. Why weren't established procedures followed? Why weren't alternatives thoroughly studied? Why weren't efforts made to acquire the necessary resources to strengthen and promote all of the engineering programs as well as Computer Science. Where is the evidence that the elimination of Civil Engineering will make Union a better and stronger institution? Hopefully the Board of Trustees will not make a final decision until all the facts are known and presented honestly. When everything is known, they can make the correct decision and Civil Engineering will continue to make positive contributions to Union College for the next 156 years.

Tom Jewell, Chair of Civil Enginering