Pushback Mounts Ahead Of Restructuring Vote

Upper West Side NY

11 May, 2022

4:51 PM

Description

By Zachary Schermele, Columbia Daily Spectator • May 10, 2022, 10:42 PM Ahead of a faculty vote this week to potentially set in motion changes to administrative power in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, tensions reached a fever pitch, prompting what appear to be concessions from the faculty committee responsible for overseeing the vote. Flyers pleading "Save the College" were plastered around parts of campus and circulated to students during Primal Scream, a student tradition during finals week. Student leaders sent statements of concern to faculty, with Columbia College Student Council issuing a "vote of no confidence in the Bollinger administration" if new policy recommendations are instituted. Alumni groups spun into a worried tizzy, some in disagreement with each other, about how to respond to the proposed changes. Administrators again found themselves at odds with some segments of the faculty and with each other. The outcry comes amid an apparent 11th-hour campaign to grind to a halt the restructuring effort, which opponents say would diminish the power of the Columbia College dean. Student leaders in Columbia College and the School of General Studies, along with alumni in the Columbia College board of visitors and the Columbia College Alumni Association, have expressed public opposition to the effort over the past week. The board of visitors explicitly took issue with a set of three "principles" based on recommendations from an April 8 report from a task force chaired by University President Lee Bollinger. Faculty will take a vote on whether to endorse these principles—not the recommendations—on Wednesday. The task force, which includes faculty, alumni, University Trustees, and administrators, spent over half a year looking into the complicated and often contentious relationship between the College and FAS, the budgetary unit composed of Columbia College, General Studies, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Professional Studies, and the School of the Arts. Its final report recommends centralizing academic decision-making in FAS by creating a Committee on Instruction that would oversee the College, General Studies, and GSAS. It also recommends altering the powers of the College dean in student, alumni, and academic affairs and making the executive vice president of Arts and Sciences more visible to alumni and students. A response document from one task force member, Brian Krisberg, CC '81, Law '84, took issue with the process and substance of the recommendations. It was not distributed to faculty until a month after the report was released. Those recommendations are not being voted on by faculty on Wednesday, but three principles derived from the recommendations by the Policy and Planning Committee, a faculty body elected to represent FAS to University leadership, will be. The principles include faculty governance of curriculum, which already exists on a decentralized scale, and "enhanced communication and collaboration" between the executive vice president of Arts and Sciences and the College dean—two positions that have a long history of tension. They also endorse establishing term appointments and performance reviews for deans in FAS. The implications of the vote on "principles" remain unclear in terms of how they would be implemented, if at all, according to eight faculty members. How academic decisions are made in the various curricular bodies in FAS—a process which some say works well in its current form and others say creates "siloed" decision-making—has major implications for what types of courses and majors are made available to undergraduate and graduate students. Who holds sway over alumni, which starts by developing relationships with current students, matters because it determines the administrative priorities—from financial aid to building renovations—that attract donor dollars. The College and GSAS already share resources, such as faculty and classroom space. They do not, however, closely coordinate academic decision-making in the same way the College and General Studies do. The College and General Studies currently share a Committee on Instruction, chaired jointly by the schools' deans, which makes major academic decisions. In mid-April, for example, the COI issued draft recommendations to require all Columbia College students to complete a major, rather than just a concentration, to receive a degree. GSAS has a separate COI, called the GSAS Executive Committee. Under the task force's recommendations, which are not being put to a vote, a new Arts and Sciences COI would coordinate academic decisions across the three schools, in a way that the current Educational Policy and Planning Committee has tried and failed to effectively do. Such change could result, according to supporters of the recommendations, in more collaborative decision-making that would benefit the academic experience offered to both undergraduate and graduate students. Opponents, however, say the potential changes would disadvantage undergraduates because the current decentralized structure effectively prioritizes them. Outgoing Columbia College Dean James Valentini told Spectator in April that the recommendations would "diminish the ability of the dean of Columbia College to promote the success of the students and faculty of Columbia College." Bollinger, who has long sought to centralize authority in FAS, told Spectator in April that the changes were meant to address "a serious deficit of faculty involvement with the alums of the College and capacity to fundraise on behalf of broad Arts and Sciences faculty department interests" and "to communicate as faculty and students over the curriculum as a whole." Amy Hungerford, the executive vice president of Arts and Sciences, has also expressed support for the recommendations in previous statements to Spectator. "Zero-sum game" In the past week, a number of alumni groups have publicly expressed opposition to the proposed changes. On Thursday, the board of visitors, a powerful alumni donor arm that advises the College dean, sent an open letter to the PPC, saying its members have "concerns about the Task Force Report, its timing, and the process by which it was compiled and shared." The letter claims that the potential changes outlined in the recommendations would "substantially impede the ability of the College Dean to advance the interests of undergraduates in the university." A Monday letter from the Columbia College Alumni Association, another powerful alumni fundraising arm, to the board of trustees says the CCAA also opposes the adoption of the recommendations, which the the group believes would "diminish the authority of the College Dean in curricular and budgetary matters … undermine the institutional and national standing of the College, and erode the quality of student experience, financial aid, and the Core Curriculum." In addition, CCAA president Ted Schweitzer, CC '91, and CCAA chairman Michael Behringer, CC '89, communicated that the group will convene a new Faculty Alumni Committee with the goal of "increasing direct lines of communication and deepening relationships between alumni and faculty." A separate letter from Schweitzer to the CCAA board of directors acknowledges there was "widespread concern" that other actions would result in "alienating the very people we must partner with in the future to achieve our primary goal—avoiding diminution to the CC Dean position." "We must take a firm stand to achieve our objectives, but we must do so without bellicosity and in the spirit of collaboration," Schweitzer wrote. Susan Pedersen, a key member of the task force and a professor of British history, wrote in a statement to Spectator that the task force's goal was to "point a way towards a better and more constructive relationship" between the College, FAS, and its leaders. "If these two people and institutions are at loggerheads, both lose," she wrote. "It seems, though, that some people are convinced that this relationship is a zero-sum game, rather than one in which the two sides strengthen each other. I don't know what to say about that, except that that perception is symptomatic of the problem, and if it is strong enough it will have a very negative effect, whatever happens." On Saturday, former College dean Austin Quigley sent a letter to the PPC, which he requested be distributed to the faculty—a request that has not been approved due to the PPC's electronic communications policy, even though exceptions were made with the board of visitors letter and Krisberg's response document. Quigley asked the faculty to "picture complicated issues in more ways than one." "Centralized governance of the whole, in any complex institution, soon threatens to become unwieldy or self-contradictory or both," he wrote. "Discontent, currently being widely expressed, about unproductive A&S faculty meetings, provides its own cautionary tale. That does not mean that we should abolish centralized bodies, but that they do not always provide the best solution to particular governance challenges." A notable section of Quigley's letter points to misguided concerns from some administrators and faculty about the "counter-factual claim" that College alumni give disproportionately to the College as a result of the College dean's outsized fundraising influence. He wrote that the recently concluded "Core to Commencement" campaign, which has generated well over $700 million, goes "directly to faculty or indirectly to faculty (or elsewhere in the A&S budget) by releasing, substitutionally, other funds in that budget." "Moving, as the Task Force recommends, beyond the school-based/reunion-based fundraising structure to which alumni feel they have long been generously committed, and downgrading the role of the College dean in this realm and others, is likely to have an adverse effect on alumni giving," he wrote. "Alienating, however inadvertently, those from whom we hope to receive more gifts does not seem the best way to enhance our fundraising." Columbia "is known, for better or for worse, for its conflictual culture," and for a dynamic that gives "certain constituencies far greater veto power than is the case at other universities, Andreas Wimmer, a task force member and a professor of sociology and political philosophy, wrote in a statement to Spectator. "I still hope that this doesn't mean, as it unfortunately has been the case some times in the past, that we are not able to address necessary reforms and instead remain stuck in the past," he wrote. Primal Scream CCSC held an emergency meeting about restructuring late Sunday night. During Primal Scream at midnight—a tradition where students "unleash all their pent-up frustrations" by screaming together the Sunday before finals week—and by Monday morning, "Save the College" flyers were distributed around parts of campus, announcing that "PrezBo, [provost Mary] Boyce, and Low Library girlies want to destroy the College." The flyers, which exaggeratingly claim the task force's report recommends "effectively merging" the College with the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, have not been claimed by or attributed to any campus group. The flyers claim the restructuring effort was aimed to take "power away from the College Dean & sap CC's resources and autonomy in order to keep GSAS afloat." They also included a QR code that drafted emails to task force members, Bollinger, and Provost Mary Boyce that voiced opposition to the recommendations. At least two dozen of those emails were sent by early Monday morning. Similar to CCSC, the General Studies Student Council sent a letter to the PPC opposing the recommendations and calling them a "serious set-back for GS." The statement, signed by GSSC and Jerome Brackins, Jr., GS '22, a student representative on the Columbia College-General Studies COI, said the structure would "not prioritize undergraduate students" and would lack regular student representation. The April report recommended "incorporating student representatives from the College, GS, and GSAS in some but not all parts of the Committee's work." The College-General Studies COI and GSAS EC both currently have student representatives, who expressed opposition to the recommendations in interviews with Spectator. Arya Rao, CC '22, a member of the College-General Studies COI, said it is "successful because it is dedicated fully to undergraduate education." Rao opposed the recommendations and spoke for all the COI's current student representatives, who come from both the College and General Studies. "I appreciate the thoughtful consideration the GS Student Council has given to issues being discussed by the Task Force, as GS students are an integral part of the undergraduate community at Columbia," General Studies Dean Lisa Rosen-Metsch wrote in a statement to Spectator. PPC chair Rhiannon Stephens acknowledged the GSSC's concerns about the representation of students and noted that full consideration of the needs of GS students "are important ones" and that the creation of a PPC subcommittee proposed in the principles to be voted on "would consult widely with all those affected." Serengeti Timungwa, GS '22, the GSSC president, said the task force's recommendations, which are distinct from the principles being voted on this Wednesday, would create "major, long-lasting shifts for GS." She also took issue with the lack of student representation on the task force, despite the potential changes directly impacting students. "This essentially changes the current CC-GS Committee on Instruction as we know it, and that committee has been incredibly helpful," she said. "It has allowed us to advocate for more flexible P/D/F grading policies during the pandemic." By Monday night, CCSC released a scathing 18-page rebuke of the proposals outlined in the task force's April 8 report, claiming they would pose "extreme detriments to undergraduate welfare." The statement unanimously approved issuing a "vote of no confidence in the Bollinger administration," including Boyce and "other members of their administration," if the recommendations from the report are implemented. Such a vote, however, does not appear to have any immediate effects, other than optical ones. The statement urged the task force to "rescind their recommendations," in part for "not consulting students or representatives from CC, GS, and GSAS on these decisions and actively suppressing dissenting opinions." It also accused the PPC of "false advertising," saying "rather than advertising the vote as being on policy changes, as is reality, faculty have been told that they are voting whether or not to endorse 'principles.'" "We wanted to be able to reach faculty so that when they have this vote on Wednesday, they know number one, what they're voting on, and two, they know how this affects the students," Columbia College Student Body President Rads Mehta, CC '22, said. Mehta also emailed College students on Tuesday afternoon, urging them to email their professors to vote against the principles. The CCSC statement from Monday did not reflect some potentially significant last-minute changes to the wording of the principles that the faculty will vote on. "Entirely entangled" In an April interview with Spectator, Bollinger expressed a willingness to vote on the recommendations "in principle." On May 5, a week before the faculty vote, Stephens sent an email to faculty members identifying three "principles" from the recommendations in the report to be discussed and voted on by electronic ballot. The principles have changed in just the last few days. The initial principles from the PPC encouraged faculty to endorse "faculty governance of the curriculum with an expanded curricular oversight committee" with majority faculty membership and "mandatory reporting to the full faculty for all major changes above the level of course content and department/program curriculum." They also aimed to create a subcommittee that would propose an oversight body to "consider the mechanics for implementing this principle" and consider questions such as the "constitution of the committee." The initial principles encouraged faculty to endorse the principles of decanal review and "collaborative fundraising and combined development activities between Columbia College and the Arts and Sciences." They additionally recommended "joint representation on, access to, and participation in the development office, the Board of Visitors, alumni and ritual functions of the university by the EVP/Dean of Arts and Sciences and the Dean of CC and, where appropriate, GS and GSAS." On Monday afternoon, two days before the vote and following the board of visitors letter and GSSC statement, the PPC sent an updated version of the principles to the faculty. The updated versions no longer included the phrase "an expanded curricular oversight committee." Instead, faculty were encouraged to just "endorse the principle of faculty governance of the curriculum." The phrase about "joint representation on, access to, and participation in" development and fundraising between the EVP and the College dean was also amended to instead encourage "enhanced communication and collaboration." It still encouraged them to jointly participate in the "ritual functions of the university." The point about decanal review did not change substantively—that point still recommends term appointments and performance reviews for FAS deans and EVP. In the final months of the semester, the advisory recommendations were discussed and deliberated in faculty meetings and two PPC-sponsored town halls. There was a sense, however, among some faculty that the process moved too quickly since the president's office publicly released the recommendations in early April, according to eight faculty members. Nearly 100 people were present at each of the town halls, which were held in late April and early May. Attendees raised concerns over issues including the haste to vote on the principles, and the merits of creating a new Arts and Sciences COI instead of reforming the EPPC, according to eight people who attended the town halls. A task force member also acknowledged during the May 6 town hall that the president had aimed to change the reporting structure in FAS, but ultimately declined to do so. That account is corroborated by December meeting notes and a previously unreported document that was first circulated in the task force in early December by six faculty members who were "in favor of the Columbia College Dean reporting to the Dean of Arts and Sciences." "The interests of these schools are entirely entangled, and when policy and planning are undertaken from the standpoint of one part, such as the College, rather than by and from the standpoint of the whole, factionalism and a disregard for the common good can ensue," the faculty members wrote. Pedersen said certain issues that would be strengthened with more routine ways of discussing curriculum as a faculty—for example, decades-long challenges posed by double majoring, which she cited as problematic for reasons identified in 1994 that still have not been addressed—can instead provoke misplaced concerns about protecting the Core and defending the College. "People who come from elsewhere sort of look at this acrimony with bewilderment," Pedersen wrote to Spectator. "I should think the college only benefits from being lodged in a great research university, and that the alumni would be proud of that model." Derek Wittner, CC '65, Law '68, a former dean of alumni affairs and development, said he believes the way to resolve longstanding issues such as restructuring is "involving all the stakeholders" and to not rush the process. "This process deserves the time and attention of a new dean and new president, not a controversial bequest from outgoing leadership," he said. Deputy News Editor Zach Schermele can be contacted at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @ZachSchermele. Founded in 1877, the Columbia Daily Spectator is the independent undergraduate newspaper of Columbia University, serving thousands of readers in Morningside Heights, West Harlem, and beyond. Read more at columbiaspectator.com and donate here.