Provost Stephen Director recently outlined what he called an ‘extensive process’ considering the reorganization of the colleges of Arts and Sciences (CAS) and Criminal Justice (CCJ), reflecting ‘the importance of the questions we are asking and the need for thoughtful deliberation.’ I think this approach is best characterized as a post hoc re-construction aimed at ‘damage control,’ not much more. I say this, in part, because this is the first revelation of any process whatsoever since Dec. 19, 2008, when the Provost first announced this review and incidentally about one month before his process produces a Committee report. Rather than accepting the Provost’s attempt to ‘paper over’ a failed process, let’s consider its flaws and how they might be rectified.
This process is clearly being invented ‘on the fly’ – in response to public criticism not thoughtfulness. The idea that this is a deliberate and thorough investigation of the many complex issues embedded in reorganization is both tragic and a public relations spin. This is a free-formed, ad hoc process, actually started in mid-January; to end on May 15; about 12 weeks of intermittent meetings and not much debate, underpinning a momentous change for Northeastern University. This is the process that never was.
Why does the Provost continue to restate that the committee he created will make no recommendations and have no conclusions? He describes the committee as serving an ‘educational’ role to ‘open our eyes to the possibilities’. For an educational process to be useful shouldn’t it actually study something broadly and thoroughly, including the proposal’s underlying rationale? Conclusions and recommendations are indeed appropriate and should be welcomed. If this process is rooted in faculty review, that review cannot be muted from its onset, lest it be seen as a sham.
The committee is said to have met some 20 times. More accurately 20 meetings may have been held, a large number with the committee itself or senior university officials, and the remainder with other constituents, at which, generally speaking, only a small fraction of committee members were actually present. On several occasions notice of meetings particularly for students and alumni was either blown altogether or given just prior to the meeting, ultimately assuring no or low attendance. I’m not aware of any co-op partner meetings that involved those who actually provide co-op opportunities. This is not a criticism of the committee members, for I suspect that they were told they didn’t have to or could not attend all meetings, and, of course, the organization of the meetings is not the committee’s responsibility. It’s an artifact of a rushed, not a thoughtful process.
Throughout, this has also been a selective process with little solicitation of opinion and comment and no visible documentation. How do I know this? After asking for a meeting myself, I spoke to the committee for about an hour or so, and noticing no record was taken, sent my comments to the committee independently, something I urge you to do. It’s also curious that the newly created website designed to capture community sentiment and an e-mail address within it, [email protected], were launched less than a month before the report is due, and at the close of the semester.
The substance and timing of this newly revealed process disrespects the academic community. The provost’s process includes a report from the Reorganization Committee containing no conclusions or recommendations in mid-May, followed by its release to the academic community before June, when a one-day retreat will be held inviting selected members of the community to discuss the non-conclusions/recommendations. Then yet another committee, an Advisory Group, will be independently appointed by the provost, to develop a ‘white paper’ and a rationale for reorganization at the end of the process from the input on the Reorganization Committee’s non-recommendations/conclusions report. And the Advisory Group will issue its ‘white paper’ sometime in late August to be taken up in early September, before it goes to the ‘senior leadership team.’
Who invented this tortured process? So the committee that has studied this the most will be abandoned for a new committee to develop a rationale for reorganization, at the end of the process? It’s always good to jettison institutional knowledge on these matters, so the new committee won’t be encumbered by prior thinking and learning? Where is the Faculty Senate on this? The Senate has been given a passive role to play in a major reorganization of Northeastern and that role should not be accepted.
The timing of this process is equally problematic. Most of this will occur when faculty and students are not on campus ‘- during the summer. Most academic faculty are not on annual contracts. Their responsibilities largely end about the time the provost gets the report from the Reorganization Committee. Moreover, if the provost intends to use early September to finalize community discussion, he does so at the time when classes are beginning and the complexity of the university unfolds anew. It’s my experience that the first few weeks of September witness faculty and students re-settling into the rhythms of the university ‘- yet another time of distraction from this plan to reorganize Northeastern.
If this is an ‘extensive process’ perhaps the Provost will encourage conclusions and recommendations from all involved, and re-launch this process in a clear fashion in September, hosting open, campus-wide discussions that are captured and distributed about where Northeastern is going, and what organizational structures will get us there. Such an invitation would engage the community in a very important set of considerations. Moreover, such a process is respectful of academic governance and in this case governance of the academic heart of Northeastern ‘- its colleges.
Lastly, I must unfortunately say that I believe the stage is already set for the defeat of CCJ. And, in my view it was done in a highly deceptive, backstage and troubling way ‘- admissions to the College were cut nearly 60 percent for the incoming class of 2009, without prior notice or discussion with the college’s faculty. The provost told me directly that the ‘market’ created this situation; fewer CCJ applicants, and fewer who met the ‘standards’ of the university. Most recently he met with the CCJ faculty to outline the dire circumstances of the college; not much encouragement ‘- great faculty retention and recruitment tool.
As it turns out applications to CCJ were down this year; whether this reflects poorly on CCJ, or is the result of de-marketing by Enrollment Management, who incidentally is responsible for recruitment (not the colleges), is unknown, and perhaps unknowable. What is known is that, in comparison to last year, fewer of these applications were actually denied admission to Northeastern and a number larger than those 144 or so admitted were actually put on waitlists for the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2010, ensuring they will go elsewhere. This suggests that there were qualified applicants ‘- that’s of course how they get on waitlists. So, perhaps the qualified waitlisted students should be re-contacted and actually admitted? If not this process will have shameful consequences. My experience as a dean suggests that college finances are substantially based on undergraduate majors and enrollments. So, Enrollment Management cuts CCJ enrollments then the Provost blames the college for having low enrollments, necessitating its reorganization. This can’t work for CCJ or Northeastern.
The Provost says that ‘administrative systems and organizational designs are simply vehicles by which we pursue our ambitions’ ‘- who’s and what ambitions? This is central to the question, ‘Why do this?’ It’s certainly a valid question, but one not pursued. He also states that his process is designed to ‘contribute to our collective thinking on the best approaches to organizing our academic administration,’ but this will be difficult absent conclusions and recommendations. For me, the redux doesn’t work and a good college may be slipping away from Northeastern. Not a high note for a world-class university.
‘- Jack R. Greene is a professor of criminal justice, former dean and 1973 graduate of the College of Criminal Justice.
