The “Andy Card controversy” on the UMass Amherst campus has suddenly been displaced by system President Jack Wilson’s announcement of several high-level personnel shifts and a “trial run” of a plan to have Wilson supervise the Amherst campus as well as the five-campus system. Amherst Chancellor John Lombardi will remain in office for another year but would appear to have a greatly diminished role.
Wilson’s decision was apparently taken without knowledge of many trustees (one has resigned), local legislators, or campus officials. Beyond the obvious concerns about process, it is not at all clear what to make of it as policy. The Governor is about to announce his higher-ed reorganization, which I hear will have a single board for community colleges and a single board for state colleges, parallel to the UMass board. How does this move fit into that?
There are other states where the leader of the flagship campus is also the leader of a statewide system, but as far as I know they are either like PA, where the satellite campuses are clearly subordinate to the main campus, or NC, where the campuses are generally independent and the “system” is of little importance. UMass Amherst would welcome the latter kind of system, but Wilson’s rhetoric is all about centralization and coordination. It’s somewhat amusing that the move is seen at Amherst as a threat of interference and drawing off of resources to the central system, and at the other campuses as a threat by Amherst to use the system’s resources for itself.
I’m concerned that its mission is now to be a state funded research institute, not to educate. I remember my Marxist InCAR friends at UMASS Boston cynically telling me that the school’s mission was just to create middle managers for bansk and fund companies, but at least that still primarily involved teaching students something. Now it seems it’s more about the research itself, and the commercialization of it.
<
p>
The Globe says the goal of this re-org is to
<
p>
UMASS Worcester is where the Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT) company did all of its human cloning research, and I remember reading once that UMass held the patent on Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, although now it seems we (the people) no longer do. They’re the company that created human cloned embryos a couple years ago, just to be first.
I agree with you that the hope of biotech research money is a big driver in a lot of this. It’s the first thing Patrick ever mentions in connection with UMass, and it’s surely important that Dr. Collins is such a major figure in the move, becoming system VP for life sciences as well as interim chancellor of the med school. Our new Integrated Sciences building in Amherst is supposed to facilitate cooperation with Bay State hospital in Springfield as well as with UMass med school.
<
p>
We’ve had talk in the past about reorganizing departments to form a “life sciences” college, and that has also resurfaced lately.
<
p>
Actually bio research is very good for undergrad education in the sciences, as we are good at involving undergrads in our research projects. (And the only way to attract top new faculty is to have a rich research environment.) The problem is always that the sources of money drive the university’s priorities. Part of the lure of the big biotech money is that it allows the legislature to skimp on the university’s other needs, including undergrad education outside the sciences.
Dr. Randall Swartz (RIP) who helped Eli-Lilly start the first recombinant dna production of erythromicin, helped found a biotechnology concentration in the ChemE program at UML. This program has served as the entry for a good portion of the engineering talent at Massachusetts Biotech companies.
<
p>
UML is as much a center for this as Amherst. The focus on Amherst is exactly why I and many of my fellow students were so upset in 1991 when the merger happened. We warned against this.
<
p>
I am for divesting UML from the UMass system, and rebranding once again as U Lowell. Bring back the Chiefs!
Often when a politician (cough, Bill Bulger, cough) moves to a college presidency they’re looking for a prestigious, high-paying job that’s less stressful and more secure than politics. Unlike Bulger, Meehan already has a generous pension guaranteed from Congress. Does he have any particular ambitions for UML? It’s his hometown school and a potential economic engine. His Wikipedia page says that his wife is a former hospital administrator and he was a member of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, so there’s no reason he shouldn’t have serious opinions about how UML should proceed in that area.
<
p>
We at UMass Amherst didn’t like the merger either, for the most part. I’ve never seen the reason why the Amherst and Lowelll “brands” should be merged, any more than we should field a joint hockey team.
I was wicked effin p-offed when Amherst got a Div 1 Hockey team in the 1990s, and in Hockey East no less! You guys had everything else division 1 you didn’t need hockey. And now they are talking about getting rid of UML hockey. Ugh!!!!
<
p>
And how do you get to keep your white guy with a gun logo and we had to give up our native american one? The Connector, the UML student newspaper had a great contest to rename the Chiefs for a more politically correct time. My favorite was the Chefs. Somone took the logo and removed the head-dress and replaced it with a stylized chef’s hat. It was briliant.
Just kidding. I feel for you on the hockey thing. But I hope you’ll join me in the effort to move the UMass, Amherst football team up to D-I. Whadday say, can we count on your support? Will you call your local legislator to lobby for the funding needed?
<
p>
BTW; didn’t UMass used to be the Redmen? I think it was changed in the early 70’s (way ahead of the curve when it comes to sensitivity out there).
<
p>
I think we can keep the white guy with a gun because we can say he was fighting the whiter guys with guns, the Brits. Though there has been a dustup or two over some unsavory activity by the Minutemen back in the day, I think.
<
p>
The Chefs would’ve been a great choice. They could’ve just airbrushed the “i” out of all those old photos of the championship hockey teams.
<
p>
Ok, taunting over.
I thought you’d point out all the duplication that already exists (like UML and Amherst having two IT and payroll departments) and we should streamline…but no, you act in your own self-interest and advocate for more waste and duplication. Hardly a fiscally conserative view. Apparently you want to hire more state workers so you have more of an excuse to complain.
Thanks Frank. That wouldn’t affect the “soul” of the University would it?
<
p>
I’m sorry I’m not a one trick pony. Would that make you feel better?
There’s always going to be tension between the big campus and the little campuses. And the question of whether they all should’ve been thrown into the same pot at all is still open to debate, as far as I’m concerned.
<
p>
I don’t know what the relationship between HQ and the Amherst campus has been. But it’s about to get a whole lot more in depth.
<
p>
I’m worried about both watering down the flagship, but also diluting the other campuses to Community College, Part II.
<
p>
For that matter, I’m worried the Community Colleges are going to be turned into regional trade schools. They’ve got a big, influential group of people that are overly concerned with two year graduation rates, rather than meeting the mission to provide educational opportunities to folks that don’t fit the traditional college mold.
<
p>
I’m hoping Wilson talked to the Governor about his plans, though I’m not sure how much Patrick has to offer in the way of expertise.
<
p>
But I’d like to see a much more detailed description of the plans for each UMass entity. Trying things sounds great in an educational environment, but it’s tough to make a U-turn in a ship that big.
<
p>
iwas, iam, iMass.
From the Worcester Campus, which certainly would not see itself as subsidiary to the Amherst Campus, the joke is the idea that this will produce collaborative research across campuses. Hell, we can’t develop collaboration with people in the next building. This seems to me like a fantasy that one develops when one is in administration. “We ought to work together more.” It sounds good but does not deal with the reality that we don’t have the same interests, funding needs or work patterns.
<
p>
My spouse says this is an effort to cut bureaucracy. I will bet that it is just another layer on top of what we have now.
I’m inclined to agree with you — business people are always looking for duplication so they can reduce costs, but it’s rare that two research programs in the sciences are doing exactly the same thing and thus rare that they can find any meaningful symmetry. It does seem to me that if you’re doing research that is meant to be applied in a clinical context, there’s an advantage to having a med school and a hospital next door. UMass Amherst has never had that (there’s the longstanding argument that the siting of UMass Med in Worcester was deliberate on the part of Harvard, BU, BC, etc., so as not to create another medical/university combination to compete with them).
<
p>
Things like a common undergrad application don’t interfere too much with what we do. Coordinating curricula with the community colleges is important because we get a lot of transfers from there. But since the five-campus system was created, we at UMass Amherst have never had a whole lot to say to Lowell, Boston, or Dartmouth, and we’ve had little major success in cooperating with the med school.
I think a lot of people are more concerned with the process of this plan than anything else. Word on the street is that certain legislators are pissed, and one trustee has told me himself that it was a back-room deal.
<
p>
So now we have fights breaking out in Worcester and all sorts of upheaval. It will be interesting to see if this passes.
But WHAT is going to get done is far more important to me right now than HOW it gets done. It will have a longer impact, I think.
<
p>
I know, I sound all Bush/Patriot Act/ends justifies the means. And I don’t mean to. I’m not a huge fan of backroom deals concerning major public policy and MyStateU.
<
p>
But I want them to get a plan in place. The right plan. And I think if they get the right plan in place it will be one that will, by the nature of its success, bring folks into the fold.
<
p>
I don’t want them to run the system this way all the time. But if they do it just now to set up the framework and it works and it involves more people once its established, I’ll be happy.
<
p>
Please, please, please save me the slippery slope lectures. They’re buzzing around in my head already. But I want this thing to work for my school so that when my kids consider going there they can defend the place as easily as I could because of it’s success and stature as a major place of learning. And I guess I’m willing to sell a slice of my sould to see it happen.
<
p>
DaveMB; is there a blog that has all the inside UMass gossip?
Not that I know of. I’m hooked into the computer science faculty and the union leadership and that’s about it. Anybody else know of a good gossip source?
<
p>
At lunch today I spoke with several of my colleagues who were at yesterday’s meeting. They were unanimous that Wilson did a lousy job of presenting his case and didn’t really address any of the objections, They were greatly impressed by Rosenberg’s pro-Lombardi and pro-normal-process speech.
<
p>
Today’s Daily Hampshire Gazette has a story on remarks Cathryn (Mrs. John) Lombardi made to the board of the Friends of the Fine Arts Center. She said “that her husband was pushed out as chancellor and that he will stay on another year, in part, to act as a buffer between new management and the campus faculty and staff”. So this sounds like a takeover from outside, which is what has so many people on campus upset. Of course, everyone has their list of people in the administration whom they’d like to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, and if now the revolution is coming…
..to know if this was a move to just get rid of Lombardi or make a fundamental change in the operation.
<
p>
I can’t imagine a scenario–especially this early and with these few details–where Wilson’s message would be warmly accepted.
<
p>
They need to get more information out.
One theory I’ve heard was that they (Wilson et al.) were hoping to keep this under wraps for longer, perhaps until the Trustees meeting in June when it could be announced as a Board decision. Then, the theory goes, it leaked and they had to scramble. The union board heard about it only a few hours before the Wilson and Lombardi email announcements, and apparently the official email to the UMB community was delayed by days so they were reading about their new chancellor in the papers.
<
p>
The amount of political skill shown in the rollout of this plan (i.e., practically none) argues in favor of this theory.
I totally agree. How come when UMASS has a good idea, they muck it up by doing a crappy PR job?
<
p>
My understanding is that each campus will have a “mission”, and resources that belong to the system will be diverted towards the appropriate campuses. For instance, Lowell has a great engineering program, so the bulk of the engineering resources and engineering students will go to Lowell.
<
p>
I also hear that Lombardi was the catalyst. He didn’t exactly buy in to this “one university” thing.
At the faculty senate meeting in Amherst this afternoon (which I missed), Wilson presented his plan and Sen. Rosenberg, UMass Amherst’s best friend in the legislature, responded. Here is the Worcester Telegram’s take on it. My colleagues who were there were greatly impressed by Rosenberg.
<
p>
Wilson hopes that trustee John Armstrong will reconsider his resignation when he better understands the plan, but I have not yet seen any evidence that Armstrong’s action is based on any misunderstanding.
That’s kind of surprising. I assumed he was one of the ringleaders in this thing. He has consistently pressed the need for UMASS to have a plan that clearly defined a mission for each campus, and I have an intuitive feeling that this is it. Besides, wouldn’t this give Amherst more juice?
There’s a difference between a plan for each campus and a plan for the system, and given the lack of consultation with anyone (except, it seems, the executive committee of the Trustees) this looks like the latter. The plan gives Wilson more juice, and whether it gives Amherst more juice depends on whether Wilson becomes part of Amherst. Historically, the President’s office has been viewed as largely hostile by Amherst. (When the five-campus plan was first adopted there was great resistance to the word “flagship” to describe us, though it’s now become routine.) Lombardi was a big proponent of a distinct Amherst brand, and that position seems to have lost out here.
<
p>
Wilson’s first job in the UMass system was as director of UMass Online, which was headquartered in Southborough (and for all I know still is). Whether the online operation is going to be moved and/or expanded is unclear.