From Nov. 7 to Nov. 9, the Board of Trustees will review and vote on The Future of Arts and Sciences Project, which would create a school of Arts and Sciences. The project passed an advisory vote among faculty of the Arts and Sciences with overwhelming support on Oct. 30.
Provost David Kotz and economics professor Nina Pavcnik — who co-led the project’s steering committee — wrote in a joint email statement to The Dartmouth that they are “pleased” that the faculty voted to recommend the project’s implementation.
“We are grateful to the many, many faculty and staff members who have contributed ideas and feedback throughout this process, for two-and-half years, and that the formal committees of the faculty have endorsed it,” Kotz and Pavcnik wrote.
The project has been met with both support and concern from faculty members and alumni about resources, faculty governance and the new school’s name.
Support from faculty committees
On Oct. 16, the Committee on Organization and Policy — which considers general policies that affect Arts and Sciences faculty — and Committee on Priorities — which sets budget priorities for Arts and Sciences faculty — released a joint memo endorsing the proposal.
Committee on Organization and Policy co-chair and history professor Cecilia Gaposchkin wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth that the committee was “pleased” about the proposal’s passage.
“We were convinced that it was the obvious thing to do, the constructive way forward and will benefit those of us who teach in Arts and Sciences,” Gaposchkin wrote.
The two committees served in “an advisory role” to the steering committee and recommended “revisions and clarifications to the proposal’s language, budgets and accountability structures,” Committee on Priorities member and music department chair William Cheng wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth.
According to Gaposchkin, the steering committee’s initial proposal contained a proposed budget “that would cover the projected costs of the new unit.” However, the Committee on Organization and Policy “advocated for resources beyond” the project costs to put the new school in a “strong starting position and allow it a measure of flexibility from the start,” Gaposchkin wrote.
“Although we were not given as much as we had asked for, we were satisfied with the steering committee’s good faith efforts in responding to our concerns and requests,” Gaposchkin wrote.
The final proposal “granted a modest increase” in resources compared to earlier proposals, Cheng wrote.
For example, the Committee on Organization and Policy and Committee on Priorities requested 20 employees to support Advancement — the offices of Alumni Relations and Development — for the Arts and Sciences, an increase from the initially proposed three employees. The final proposal grants six employees for Arts and Sciences Advancement.
Debate among faculty members about governance
The proposal has raised debate among faculty members about the place of faculty governance, which currently exists for the faculty of Arts and Sciences as standing committees of appointed and elected members.
According to history professor Bethany Moreton, the current governance system is “undemocratic” because some positions are filled with appointments rather than elected faculty members. She added that the committees have “advisory” roles in administrative decision-making.
“We have a responsibility to students and to our scholarly fields to participate in actual decision-making — not merely advisory, after-the-fact endorsement or non-endorsement — of fundamental decisions that are being made outside of our ability to directly deliberate and influence them,” Moreton said.
Kotz and Pavcnik wrote that faculty governance is “involved in many decisions,” including curriculum, academic departments, tenure and promotion.
“Depending on the topic, there are nuances between decision making and advisory input,” Kotz and Pavcnik wrote.
According to Kotz and Pavcnik, the proposal does not change the existing faculty governance system, and any changes will occur through “normal procedures.”
“Only faculty can change faculty governance committees or processes through a vote,” Kotz and Pavcnik wrote.
The Dartmouth chapter of the American Association of University Professors — an organization of professors dedicated to advancing academic freedom and shared governance — released a statement on Oct. 27 that expressed concern about the absence of “democratic” faculty governance in the proposal.
“Logically, [Arts and Sciences] budget and administrative restructuring cannot be disentangled from matters of faculty governance,” the Dartmouth AAUP wrote. “For this reason, autonomous faculty governance structures must be guaranteed by any proposal that reimagines [Arts and Sciences].”
Moreton — who is also a member of the AAUP — said she is a “strong advocate” for a school of Arts and Sciences with “its own independent existence” but voted no in the faculty vote because she had “profound qualms” about voting to create a new school before strengthening existing forms of faculty governance.
“Instead, those should both be simultaneous actions,” Moreton said.
The discussion about faculty governance during the faculty vote put the need for stronger faculty governance “firmly on the agenda,” Moreton said.
“It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which this won’t be the top issue to be addressed as this restructuring goes forward,” Moreton said.
According to the joint memo from the Committee on Organization and Policy and Committee on Priorities, the former will “continue to explore” a possible restructuring of Arts and Sciences faculty governance.
Art history professor Mary Coffey, however, said she believes it would have been “inappropriate” for a steering committee convened by the College President to change the faculty governance structure.
“My feeling is that this isn’t the place or the mechanism by which our faculty makes decisions about its governance,” Coffey said.
According to Coffey, the rules in the existing faculty governance system allow the Committee on Organization and Policy or faculty members to “raise or make requests for changes.”
“We continue to have that right and that ability going forward, and I just certainly hope now that the issue has been kind of elevated in people’s conscience, we will pursue the changes that people want to see,” Coffey said.
Coffey added that faculty “should have more involvement” in issues beyond the “domain” of “merely academic issues.”
“I would like to see an across-the-board — not just at Dartmouth but everywhere — rethinking of what shared governance means in this current configuration of finances, capital, politics and sort of questions that are at the core of the academic enterprise,” Coffey said.
Alumni voice concerns over name of new school
In addition to faculty debates over governance, the proposal has created some concerns among alumni about the name of the new undergraduate school. Kotz and Pavcnik wrote that there is “no current plan to name the school” unless there is a “compelling reason” to do so at “some future date.” They added that the “name of the whole” institution will remain Dartmouth College “regardless of” the name of the new school.
Steve Upton ’77 said he believes the new school should be named Dartmouth College rather than a variation of Arts and Sciences.
“If you keep Dartmouth College as a name for the entire institution, including the graduate and professional schools, but you turn the undergraduate college into something called Arts and Sciences or School of Arts and Sciences, you’re turning a proud 255-year tradition on its head,” Upton said.
Kotz and Pavcnik wrote that the term “arts and sciences” is “common in higher education” and has “been in use at Dartmouth for decades — if not longer” to refer to the “arts and humanities, interdisciplinary studies, social sciences and sciences.”
Upton added that he believes the proposed Dean of Arts and Sciences should instead be called the Dean of Dartmouth College because the former title is “disrespectful” to the name Dartmouth College and is “easily confused with the title ‘Dean of the Faculty’ of Arts and Sciences.”
According to Alumni Council member Barry Harwick ’77, many alumni feel “very strongly” that the “undergraduate experience at Dartmouth should be Dartmouth College.”
“It sounds like a small thing and it doesn’t really impact the overall new entity or the reorganization thereof, but I think a lot of alumni would just feel better,” Harwick said.
Harwick added that he is “a little bit concerned” that the proposed Dean of Undergraduate Student Affairs — which will oversee the Residential Life and Student Life offices — will have a “diminished” role in comparison to the Dean of the College, who was a “very influential person on campus” during his time at Dartmouth.
“Historically, the Dean of the College has been a great advocate for students in their life outside the classroom,” Harwick said.
However, Harwick said he sees “a lot of positive things” in the proposal, such as an improved advising system for students.
“[Students] can have a better connection with both their academic needs as well as perhaps their personal needs,” Harwick said.
