Two important projects that need provost's, faculty's attention

To The Editor:

In the present discussions about the provost's proposed mission-summary statement for SUNY, it is important to separate what is urgent from what is not. Nearly one year ago, SUNY sent this campus 37 questions for which it required answers. That response was due some six months ago and providing it now is indeed urgent. The president remarked at an FSEC meeting on March 10 that developing the answers would not be difficult and that the questions are, in fact, more modest in scope than the mission summary now being prepared.

The provost's statement, we are told, should be regarded as the next step in the planning process initiated by Provost Headrick. As such, it requires considerable faculty discussion. And finalizing it is of considerably less urgency, though perhaps of no less importance, than answering Albany's questions. The two tasks should not be confounded.

At present, the proposed summary statement establishes new directions and makes sweeping pronouncements on a large number of significant topics-directions and pronouncements about which, in recent meetings of the Faculty Senate and its executive committee, many members have expressed serious reservations. (For my comments on an earlier-but, in the main, similar-draft, go to http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~schack. In addition, senators have strenuously objected to the inadequate consultation with faculty prior to the document's preparation-and not merely on the obvious procedural grounds. It seems fair to say that, at this point, the issues addressed in the summary still require the serious study, data gathering and analysis at which faculty and librarians are particularly adept and that, without such study, no consensus can be formed within the faculty on any approaches to those issues. Thus, it would be premature for campus representatives to present conclusions on these matters to SUNY.

I believe that the administration will stop conflating the two projects if they receive enough requests that they do so. Thus, I suggest that we each write the provost (562 Capen, triggle@buffalo.edu a letter requesting: (1) that he respond directly to the 37 questions sent by SUNY, referring, where necessary, to Provost Headrick's planning reports, and (2) that he suspend work on revisions to his mission-summary document until he establishes, and receives reports from, appropriate faculty committees.

If you choose to write the provost on this topic, please send a copy of your letter to the Faculty Senate's Academic Planning Committee (543 Capen, welch@acsu.buffalo.edu, as the FSEC has asked it to monitor the faculty response to the mission-summary document.

Albany asks for answers to serious questions; we give them Biblical quotes

To The Editor:

On April 2, 1998, system administration sent a lengthy document to the campus presidents on mission review: "In order for SUNY to maintain-and enhance-its standing, we must come together, both as individual campuses and as a comprehensive system, to exploit the opportunities for improved student learning, the discovery of new knowledge and enduring service to New York." No one can quibble with these objectives.

Also: "Presidents should consult widely with faculty, administrative leaders, students and other constituencies in framing a response." And "there should not only be candid dialogues within each campus, but also among campuses and with system administration" on the campus role within the system, inter-campus cooperation and such. Sound sentiments.

The document ends with 39 pointed questions. A sample: "What institutions, in terms of overall academic characteristics, do you regard as your current and aspirational peers?" "Against which institutions, both within SUNY and elsewhere, do you compete for undergraduate students?" "How do your campus' academic programs complement those offered by other SUNY campuses?" Good questions.

The response was due by the end of September 1998-a deadline we failed to meet, though not on account of time-consuming, broad consultations. Rather, Provost Headrick went at it alone. He took his time to produce a large number of pages teeming with statistics and the coy plaint "We welcome mission review as a way of clarifying SUNY's commitment to UB's mission and goals."

This document, incidentally, was never in the public domain, it was not shared with the FSEC, it was not available upon request: my copy is a black-market copy.

At this point, Provost Triggle took over the helm, and he also went at it as a solo project. Triggle produced an evolving document, in which he lectures Albany that our student base is no longer exclusively derived from recent high-school graduates, that learning is indelibly associated with the creation of new knowledge, and that an educated citizenry is critical to the future economic integrity (?) of New York.

The provost's prose is smug and humorless. Things are increasingly universal or increasingly different; they are increasingly important or increasingly less relevant; they are increasingly critical and increasingly knowledge driven-you name it, it is increasingly so. The document versions themselves, meanwhile, get increasingly verbose and increasingly boring, and even if increasingly improved, will not be equal to the task.

But it cannot be improved by fine-tuning-it is beyond repair: What system administration asked for, and is getting from other campuses, are cogent answers to serious questions widely discussed and deeply pondered. What we are giving them are biblical quotes. "We are," Triggle pontificates, "simply put, bigger." I would add, in Trigglelese, "and increasingly not better."