Print
Email
The recent decision by the University of Washington to move forward in creating a College of the Environment may have seemed like just one more academic hissy fit over some minor rearrangements of the furniture. Some unhappy professors got two leaders of the Legislature to protest the idea, and many of the departments slated to move into the new College (notably Fisheries, and Earth and Space Sciences) cast lopsided votes against joining.
In the end, the Regents endorsed the idea unanimously, in part because UW President Mark Emmert and Provost Phyllis Wise made it clear that this was a central initiative of their administration, tantamount to a vote of confidence. In fact, the Regents' vote is just one more step in the perilous path for this idea, agreeing to the shell of the idea and giving the provost a year to convince enough skeptics to come into the tent. The story will slide off the front pages, but it's nonetheless a very big deal.
There's no question the UW has great strengths in environmental sciences and related fields. To some, that's a good argument for preserving the status quo, letting the stars go on shining, combining in flexible ways on certain projects, and not risking turmoil by reorganization. Might the College of Ocean and Fisheries Sciences, for instance, get submerged in a new College headed by an atmospheric scientist? And isn't the best way to do interdisciplinary science to have flexible, lightweight institutes, rather than large, bureaucratic colleges?
Further, such a massive reorganization is very time-consuming and may take better leadership than the provost has shown so far in such tricky areas as reorganizing Arts & Sciences or finding a new Law School Dean. If the affected departments fear that there isn't enough money to pay for quite a few new positions (about 20 new slots are talked about so far), they will suspect that departmental budgets will be tapped to fund the new effort.
A final reason for caution is the UW's track record in pulling together these forces. An earlier Institute for Environmental Studies flew apart, said to have been a victim of difficult personalities and a debate over pure science versus practical applications.
Set against these objections are some pretty compelling arguments for the new College. It would give the UW much greater national prominence, joining just a handful of schools (Yale, Duke, Michigan, Stanford) that have done this. (These other schools have in most cases not created super-departments as the UW proposes, however, but instead have institutes that pull together faculty from various departments, as in the case of Stanford.) "Suppose we wanted to hire Al Gore, or someone of that stature, to head such an effort," says one scientific leader at the UW. "This would give us a place to put him." And with that scale might well come increased funding, as well as the ability to attract top talent. Even the "rebooting" of some of these departments could be beneficial, in ways not clear until you do it.
Denis Hayes, president of the Bullitt Foundation (on whose board Provost Wise sits, by the way), thinks the idea of a College of Environment is "terrific" and likely to draw new resources and talent. Hayes makes the case that, just as Stanford was able to stimulate Silicon Valley by pouring resources, ideas, and inventions into the surrounding businesses, so there is a competition on now for "the post-carbon economy" and massive investments in alternative energy research and applications. If the UW and the Seattle area want to be a big player in this game, they need the prominence and advantages of a large College of the Environment.
That's a very big vision, of the sort that President Emmert likes. It puts the UW on the global map even more; it taps new sources of grants; it lures top talent; and it links up with economic development in a way to gladden the hearts of the business community and the Legislature. It also happens to be a topic of enormous appeal to undergraduates, both for the jobs and for saving the earth.
Maybe too big? Pulling off this big rearrangement will definitely test Emmert, who prefers to delegate fully internal matters to the provost. In this case, Provost Wise is relatively inexperienced, having not been a provost before and coming from a smaller university setting (UC-Davis). Some critics say she tends to get a hold of an idea and, when running into opposition, can start railroading it — not the way things go best in academe. If Emmert, a very smooth political operator, is not going to get deeply involved in something this big, chances are the forces of resistance will win out.
So a lot is at stake here. Emmert and Wise, with numerous Young-Turk allies, really do want to stir up the UW, tackling the entrenched academic barons and adjusting more readily to a changing world. Universities, warns Hayes, "are the toughest institutions in the world to change," but this initiative may be a way to force the issue of serious reform. Emmert has been here long enough to know the ropes, and he retains strong support from the Regents. Even so, he probably has to modify his hands-off style if he expects to prevail.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 8:15 a.m. Inappropriate
A school of science and research or propaganda?: University politics have always been as bitter as machine politics in Chicago or New York. Yes it's about more division of the pot in departmental funding. Yes It's about the potential of a department being administered by someone who has no experience or interest about another field of study. But its mostly about the perception that real science and research will be exchanged for a College whose main concern will be graduating students who will be taught the popularization of environmental concerns rather than to do basic research. It has become professionally dangerous to question any mediaized and popularized theory about global warming. No professor dare question Al Gore while seeking tenure. The discussion behind closed doors is about whether the new college will become the media darling and turn out science propagandists or whether the University will continue to do basic research that will ultimately solve some of our environmental problems.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 11:39 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: A school of science and research or propaganda?: Amen.
Besides, we already have an effective Environmental College in the area. It's called Huxley College of the Environment and it has been turning out ground-breaking environmental research out of WWU since its founding in 1970.
http://www.wwu.edu/huxley/
If it hasn't already, expect the UW proposal to come with a corresponding request for money from Olympia. In scarce budget times, I'd rather not see that money divided needlessly and instead go to an established college program nearing it's 40th anniversary.
And no, I'm not a Huxley grad...
Posted Fri, Jun 27, 9:58 a.m. Inappropriate
"I enjoyed reading the article on the UW's College of the Environment but it contains a factual error. Contrary to what you state, the School of Oceanography did not "cast a lopsided vote against joining." My School has been very much engaged in the discussions pertaining to the new College but we have not voted on the issue because we believe such a vote is premature. Instead we reached a consensus, expressed as a 'sense of the School's faculty' that we should continue to engage in discussions.
"My own view is that the CoEnv is an idea with a lot of potential but that the UW needs to better define the mission and goals of the college before identifying units to join. As of yet, there has been too much discussion of the College's structure and too little discussion of the specifics of exactly what the structure is meant to achieve. As several of my fellow faculty members have pointed out, the UW is in danger of violating the well-known maxim that 'form follows function.' President Emmert may well be a 'very smooth political operator' but it strikes me that the process is as much in need of somebody with patience and with expertise in the relatively unglamorous and time consuming task of working to reach consensus on a logical and workable plan that engages all environmentally-related faculty and students."
Posted Sun, Jun 29, 11:29 a.m. Inappropriate
"My name is David Armstrong and I'm Director of one of the units (School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences) you refer to as casting a lopsided vote against joining the college of the environment (COE) at present. I enjoyed your comments and think you did well to portray a mix of caution and optimism among faculty who might be affected by COE for good, or less than good. As Director of a school who some want to include as a "whole unit," my inclination (and that of my faculty) is to regard the COE shell just formed with caution at present. You capture the major points of concern regarding formation of the college if based on assimilation of whole units.
"One point is worth making in regards to other universities you list that have established various versions of interdisciplinary, multi-faceted environmental programs: Michigan, Stanford, Arizona, Columbia, Duke, etc. All have erected some sort of school or institute as the central environmental nexus with which a number of other academic units interface to provide instruction and research opportunities. These universities have not moved whole units (departments) around to establish their environmental enterprises at the scale of a college, but rather utilize the reputations of whole units and faculty therein to establish the synergies and assemble the teams of people interested in a range of issues and problems. This has been a successful model elsewhere and one many prefer and encourage as focus of environmental visibility at UW. In many models considered locally within the UW preference is for a "porous" institute that would allow membership of faculty from many disciplines who come together to teach and do research on major environmental themes. While such a notion is embedded in the "business case" provided to the Regents, inclusion of whole units in COE (and therefore elimination of other colleges like Ocean and Fishery Sciences as you mentioned) is preferred by the Provost.
"The next few months will be interesting and I'm sure you'll be watching and listening."
Posted Tue, Jul 1, 4:43 p.m. Inappropriate
The College of Forest Resources is one of the units targeted to be absorbed into the new college. Our College would lose its Dean and College status for starters; then we will be thrown into an academic cauldron fighting for staff, faculty, budget, food chain location, etc., at a time when our school should be graduating new foresters to fill the enormous gap created when baby boomers retire through the next 5-10 years. I suspect the same holds true for other schools, like fisheries, etc.
I do not hear a great outcry against the concept of a new environmental college. The College of Forest Resources Alumni, for example, specifically endorsed the concept. There is an outcry, including CFR alumni, over cannibalizing existing institutions to create the new school. You accurately suggest that Provost Wise has been less than politic in her approach. I would add that, thus far, her outreach to the University's customers, the region's natural resources employers, has been more along the lines of, "Here's what I'm going to do," rather than, "I have an idea; what do you think?" Provost Wise' concept is a good one. A willingness to bend a little will get her far down the road to success versus the continued fight over what should be a relatively small bump in the road.
Bob Dick
President
UW College of Forest Resources Alumni