FSEC continues mission-review debate

By SUE WUETCHER
Reporter Editor

Members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, meeting in a special session on March 10, continued to lambaste the administration for what they consider a lack of faculty consultation in the preparation of a mission-review statement.

But some FSEC members acknowledged that faculty senators may not have done enough in soliciting the opinions of their colleagues on the issue. And others admitted that many faculty members have no interest at all in mission review.

The meeting, which was devoted solely to a discussion of the latest version of Provost David Triggle's mission-review document, was called by senate Chair Peter Nickerson in response to complaints expressed at the February meeting of the full Faculty Senate that faculty members had not been consulted in the preparation of the document. The statement, which could be submitted to SUNY central administration as soon as this week, outlines the direction UB will take as it heads into the 21st century.

Complaints about the lack of faculty input in the mission-review process continued at the special FSEC meeting, with Louis Swartz, associate professor of law, circulating to his colleagues a statement asserting that faculty members largely have been "bypassed" in the development of the mission-review statement and have been brought into the process "too little and too late."

Swartz asked President William R. Greiner "to take responsibility for the way this mission-statement process has been handled. "The fact is, the work of Provost (Thomas E.) Headrick (who prepared early versions of the document) was mostly on his own, assumedly preparatory to consultation with the faculty," he said, noting that the senate's Academic Planning Committee had access to early versions of the document.

Swartz urged that, regardless of whether the mission-review document is sent to Albany in its present form, Greiner and Triggle "take steps very quickly to involve the faculty in a much more substantive way in terms of the planning process."

Boris Albini, professor of microbiology, said that most of his colleagues in the medical school "had no idea that a mission statement was being prepared." He urged that the administration begin consultation with the faculty on such issues "as early as possible" in the decision-making process so that discussion can take place in a "quiet and constructive mood," instead of a "pressurized way."

Greiner wondered why faculty senators from the medical school had not informed their colleagues of mission review, and why they weren't pushing the administration and the dean of the school for more involvement. He noted that all deans had received the numerous versions of the mission-review document and many forwarded their comments to Triggle.

Lilliam Malave, associate professor of learning and instruction, admitted that perhaps senators have not actively solicited input from their colleagues on major campus issues. "I don't recall any faculty senator ever calling me and asking for my input," she said. "We need to change our ways."

Judith Tamburlin, research assistant professor of clinical laboratory science, told senators she had contacted her dean and department chair about the document and had photocopied it and circulated it to members of her faculty. "To my knowledge, no one responded," she said.

"A lot of faculty truly don't want to be bothered. If you look at the total faculty, I don't think many are engaged at all; I don't think they've even bothered to read it."

Greiner challenged the senate to "take responsibility" for engaging faculty in the mission-review process. He urged the Academic Planning Committee to develop a "careful, thoughtful critique (of the final version of the mission-review document) that worries about the substance" of the document, rather than the process, "because it is an open-ended thing.

"We're going to have a conversation with SUNY and where we come out as to what our mission-review document in the end looks like is going to be the product of lots more iteration. But we need to start somewhereŠwe need to try to begin to have at least closure on the initial stages of what will be an extended conversation."

Samuel Schack, professor of mathematics suggested that Nickerson send a one-page letter to faculty members notifying them that Triggle's document is posted on the Web http://wings.buffalo.edu/provost and urging them to send comments to the provost.

Triggle told senators that while he has been involved in the mission-review process only for the past five or six weeks, he tried "to be as communicative and open as possible." He added that he has posted versions of the document on the Web and has circulated copies to the deans and department chairs.

Moreover, he added, he has invited written comment from members of the university community, and has incorporated many of the suggestions he has received, pointing out that the document is an iterative one and can be changed, even after it is submitted to central administration.

In discussing the substance of the mission-review document, some FSEC members took issue with what one senator described as the document's "overstatement" of the impact of technology on the future of the university.

Swartz contended that "drastically replacing traditional teacher-student pedagogy with electronic-based instruction" will lead UB "almost exactly in the wrong direction."

Students will be attracted to UB, he said, if the university offers them something they cannot receive via technology: "Interaction with faculty and other students in a learning environment."

James Holstun, associate professor of English, agreed. He submitted to senators that Cornell will not abandon "the face-to-face, Mr. Chipsian mode of instruction," and that SUNY Geneseo is "cleaning our clock" in undergraduate enrollment, not because of electronic instruction, but "because they've bolstered undergraduate instruction and fact-to-face instruction."

Schack also argued against the notion that the future of higher education is in electronic instruction and technology. There is no evidence, he said, that technology is moving as fast as is suggested in Triggle's document.

"This is just hugely overstated. I think the statements about it (the use of technology) in the future of instruction are hugely overstated," he said, noting the "almost anxiety with which (that premise) is stated" in the document.

He said he found it "particularly troublesome" that assertions are made in the mission-review document without any comment from faculty. "I do not like the idea that we will be committing ourselves in a mission statement to a particular constellation of outcomes about the growth of technology that haven't even been reviewed, much less accepted, much less supported by evidence amongst the faculty."

Triggle disputed Schack's view, suggesting that it was based on an early version of the document. He read from a section of the most recent version that stated that UB "must recognize that we are living between two revolutions - a paper revolution that is not fully spent, and an electronic revolution that is not fully developed. Such interfaces are notoriously unstable and final directions very difficult to predict. Whilst our initial steps may be disappointingly slow and incomplete, we should not underestimate the long-term implications of this electronic revolution for scholar, library, university and society."

Greiner told FSEC members that he did not believe that UB can operate from an assumption that technology won't move quickly; "the risks are too high."

"My hope would be that we do what's necessary today to see to it that in 20 years we're one of the 100 or so universities left standing in the United States."

Schack also disputed Greiner assertion that Triggle's mission-review document is based on Headrick's academic planning document, noting that major initiatives and goals of Triggle's document are mentioned in passing, or not at all, in Headrick's plan, while major thrusts of Headrick's are not included in Triggle's.

Among the Headrick goals not mentioned in Triggle's document, but which, Schack said, received much faculty support, were the goals of upgrading the doctoral programs - at least one-quarter in the top quartile and almost all in the top half of the National Research Council rankings - and the establishment of the master's degree as the terminal degree, which he said, received "short shrift" in Triggle's statement.

In fact, Triggle's focus that UB must target its research investments in "four currently fashionable areas" - molecular, biological and biomedical sciences; computer science and information technology; materials science and the environment and infrastructure - appears to "undermine" the goals of Headrick's plan, he said.

He said he was concerned that these four "emphasis areas" were chosen by administrators without consultation with the faculty.

"I don't see how we can so quickly turn away from a vision of the future we embraced only two years ago," he said, adding that Headrick's plan had been well-accepted by faculty and was moderate in tone, unlike the "anxiety level" of Triggle's plan.

Greiner noted that the four emphasis areas were chosen because UB has "great strength" in these areas. And departments must collaborate in order to "make headway" in these areas.

"I just read Tom's document as leading in this (Triggle's) direction," he said, pointing out that Headrick's plan had emphasized consolidating some doctoral programs in order to increase the quality of all programs.

Moreover, the SMART NY initiative, a focused research investment program led by the four university centers and Cornell, could provide money additional money for research in these four areas, he said.

"What David is trying to do is create a level of anxiety that I think is necessary," Greiner said. "We've got to commit ourselves to the fact that the environment around us is changing. David probably overstates it somewhat, but how else do you energize people to think about the possibility that the technology will change so fast?"