Letter to Chancellor

Here's the letter I sent to our chancellor about the proposed reorganization at UMass Amherst:

I would like to thank you for your candor in addressing the faculty at the General Faculty Meeting. Few top administrators have been so forthcoming with the faculty about the rationale for their plans during my dozen years at the University. I particularly appreciated your response to my question about your goal to use the reorganization to help make a case to external constituencies. Your response, that a reorganization may offer new opportunities that our existing structure makes difficult, is a key point. Moreover, I believe that is what any successful reorganization must have as its raison d'etre.

Rather than beginning with "reorganization" as the goal, I believe we need to begin with a vision for what we wish to achieve. Reorganization may be a means to that end, if it best serves the purpose. Unfortunately, that is not how the discussion regarding reorganization appears to have begun on the campus. Instead, all the public discussion has been about what the pros and cons of various reorganizations might be. This is putting the cart before the horse. If there are goals to be achieved, like reducing barriers to collaboration or streamlining the curriculum, it seems like those goals could be addressed directly where possible. A reorganization may be the best way to achieve our goals, but so far, the discussion I have heard has not centered on any specific goals as an end -- only the reorganization itself.

In the Biology Department, we have practiced this philosophy. I was co-chair of a two-phase "learning goals" process shortly after my arrival in the department that we used to think about our major. The first phase identified goals and secured faculty buy-in. A second phase, reviewed the curriculum and proposed changes to allow our students to achieve the goals. The learning goals statement we developed 10 years ago continues to have relevance today in the department as we develop new courses and think about curriculum.

I would also like to express my serious reservations about the nature of the dialog you have undertaken with the faculty at large. By seeking out only those whom you identify as "distinguished faculty" and the deans, heads, and chairs to consult with, I believe you run the risk of creating resentment among people who perceive themselves to not be part of the "in group". Furthermore, your statements to the effect that those who resist change will do poorly was perceived by many to sound like a threat.

Speaking for myself, I am extremely skeptical of any reorganization during the budget crisis. The on-going cost savings are small when compared with the one-time costs of reorganizing. Faculty and staff will already be overburdened with extra work as positions go unfilled. Reduced funding is going to create a lot of inefficiency with people spending time to avoid spending money -- or justifying their expenses, as with the new travel requirement. The last thing we need is the increased uncertainty and stress a reorganization will bring.

As a member of the life science community, I was a supporter of the College of Life Sciences when it was proposed years ago. It failed at that time for the two things that threaten the current reorganization: a lack of resources to accomplish the reorganization and a failure to sufficiently articulate the specific goals the reorganization would achieve.

Since that time, the structure of the discipline has changed considerably. Interdisciplinary research -- especially with the physical sciences -- has become ubiquitous. The new Integrated Science Building brings Chemistry, Biology and Biochemistry together. We have current research clusters with groups in Engineering and Computer Science. (I am a co-PI on a $1.2 million National Science Foundation proposal with Computer Science to use sensors to track mongoose movement). The Physics department is rapidly developing a strong presence in biophysics. To split the life sciences from the physical sciences now seems like constructing new barriers where none exist.

Furthermore, it's not clear to me that the existing structure necesssarily presents significant barriers. Last semester, Jeff Blanchard, a faculty member in Microbiology (NRE), taught a Computer Science (NSM) course in bioinformatics, using the on-line and computational resources provided by the Biology Department (NSM):
http://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/courses/fall2008/cmpsci/cmpsci691k

Where there are barriers to collaboration, let's work to reduce the barriers. And let's discuss the other goals and how to best achieve them openly. Let's work together to make the best case we can to external constituencies that we're using our resources wisely -- and are not using a reorganization as a public-relations gimmick.