Provost Lou Anna K. Simon’s
Update to the University Community on "Vision 2004"

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Dear Members of the MSU Community:

As we near the end of the academic year, I write to offer an overview on the Vision 2004 process.

Over the last several years, I have talked with members of the MSU community and with stakeholders around the state and nation, and asked them to consider the question: "What kind of university would we create in the land-grant tradition if we started over today?"

These conversations affirmed that MSU has asked and answered this question well throughout its 149-year history. They also reveal that the question has even greater resonance in these challenging times. The ongoing state budget situation has made it difficult for us to look beyond current circumstances and arrangements, and has fostered a growing reluctance to take action or offer proposals that may offer long-term benefits but with short-term costs. Groups and units increasingly have been pressed to solve systemic problems and address institutional issues on their own. Beyond that, there have been growing concerns about transparency and governance processes. Clearly, campus dialogue needed to shift our collective attention from the immediate budgetary situation to consider how we best could strengthen MSU for the longer term.

The intent of the Vision 2004 process was to generate some fresh ideas about MSU’s future and then integrate them into a broader context with other important academic matters that were already under consideration. For example, integrative studies, the growth of residential programs, writing and graduate student mentoring were already being discussed in various quarters of our community. A report from the Arts and Letters College Advisory Committee had expressed grave concerns about the corrosive effect of the ongoing budget cuts. Three college deans had stepped down, putting three colleges in transition.

Within that context, the Vision 2004 process began November 5, 2003 with a statement issued to the campus community, titled Vision for the Liberal Arts and Sciences at MSU. It was followed by a series of more than 20 group discussions designed to gather initial input on the broad concerns of faculty, staff, and students. The report on those discussions was shared with the campus on January 15. That report, along with various formal and informal conversations around campus and additional commentary from a range of internal and external sources, formed the background and the basis for Realizing the Vision: Liberal Arts in the 21st Century Land Grant University, the “blueprint” document released for campus discussion on February 16.

The response to Realizing the Vision reflects the passion and commitment that sets us apart from other universities. I was gratified by the boldness and innovation so many offered in their responses to and refinements of the initiatives outlined in Realizing the Vision. All of these inputs were considered and have helped shape the next stage of deliberations on enhancing MSU for future generations. It is clear, however, that some found Realizing the Vision to be more comprehensive than they had anticipated, perhaps even jarring in some respects. It was misperceived by a few as a set of fixed ideas, rather than a framework intended to be revised and modified over time.

In retrospect, efforts to portray the full breadth and scope of the ideas under consideration and to promote transparency in the process may have given the incorrect impression that there was a pre-ordained plan being advanced. That was not, and has never been the case. To the contrary, our goal was – and continues to be – to shape a coherent series of specific, individual proposals for strengthening the overall academic quality of Michigan State, based on the framework outlined in Realizing the Vision and drawn from the ideas of faculty, staff and students. We have set deadlines in order to focus attention and set priorities while being responsive to requests for additional time to consider various proposals.

Throughout this process, I have communicated regularly with the Executive Committee of Academic Council in order to carefully assess how best to interface ad hoc processes and academic governance. Ad hoc committees established by administrators or by academic governance itself are not a substitute for formal governance review. However, the use of ad hoc committees is a long-standing practice at MSU and has been used at all levels of university administration and governance to gather the best thinking of faculty, staff, and students before making formal proposals to academic governance. In fact, these committees are part of the covenant that I personally made with the Executive Committee of Academic Council (ECAC) – that each part of Realizing the Vision would be transformed into a specific proposal that would have independent and separate governance review.

The following proposals, relating primarily to Initiatives I-III in Realizing the Vision (on undergraduate education, graduate education, and residential education) were presented to ECAC on March 16:

• Adding the title of “Dean of Undergraduate Studies” to that of Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Education. ECAC determined that no further governance review was necessary. This change has been implemented.

• Consolidating the three existing Integrative Studies centers. ECAC referred to the University Committee on Academic Policy (UCAP), where the charge to form a committee to plan the consolidation of the three existing integrative studies centers and to review integrative studies was reviewed. UCAP endorsed the idea of a committee at its March 18 meeting, but had some concerns that will be addressed by the planning committee. More than 158 nominations have been received for the planning committee, which Professor Norman Graham will chair. Membership will be announced by April 23.

An open meeting for the campus community will be held by the end of the semester to provide initial input to the work of the group. Initial phases of consolidation implementation anticipated as of July 1, 2004. Changes which have implications for academic policy will be referred back to UCAP for initial review and to ECAC for steering to other governance committees, if appropriate.

• Reviewing writing in the undergraduate curriculum. ECAC determined that no further governance review was necessary. Nearly 30 nominations from across campus were submitted to work on a planning committee. Professor James Porter has agreed to chair the committee. Members of the committee will be announced by Friday, April 23.

An open meeting for the campus community will be held by the end of the semester to provide initial input to the work of the group. The committee has been asked to provide recommendations by November, 2004. Changes which have implications for academic policy will be referred back to UCAP and to ECAC for steering to other governance committees, if appropriate.

• Addressing quantitative literacy. ECAC determined that no further governance review was necessary. Nearly 50 nominations were submitted to work on a quantitative literacy planning committee that will work in cooperation with other groups reviewing general education requirements to develop models for an interdisciplinary “university curriculum” that addresses quantitative literacy standards and that can be tailored to meet the needs of students with diverse academic interests and backgrounds. Committee members will be announced by Friday, April 23. Professors Doug Estry and Joan Ferrini-Mundy have agreed to chair.

An open meeting for the campus community will be held by the end of the semester to provide initial input to the work of the group. The committee has been asked to provide recommendations by November, 2004. Changes which have implications for academic policy will be referred back to UCAP and to ECAC for steering to other governance committees, if appropriate.

• Establishing a new degree-oriented residential college in the liberal and creative arts and sciences. ECAC advised that no further governance consultation was needed. There were 43 nominees to work on a residential program planning committee, to be chaired by Dr. Marcellette Williams, Past Chancellor and Senior Vice President for International Relations at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and retired MSU faculty member (English and Comparative Literature). Committee members will be announced this week.

Planning committee will make initial recommendations, including discussion of resources and curriculum issues, by October 15, 2004. Changes which have implications for academic policy will be referred back to UCAP and to ECAC for steering to other governance committees, if appropriate.

• Expanding James Madison College (JMC) and Lyman Briggs School (LBS). JMC and LBS are preparing plans to implement the expansions. Those will move forward via the governance processes of JMC and LBS and the College of Natural Science. Dean Sherman Garnett and Director Elizabeth Simmons and their planning teams will work collaboratively on the relevant cross-unit questions. It is my intent to share these proposals with the ECAC when those plans are finalized at the college level so that any changes which have implications for academic policy can be referred back to the appropriate governance committees. There are no plans to significantly expand the number of students in JMC and LBS this fall.

• Strengthening the mentoring of graduate students. The Report of the Research Mentoring Task Force (http://grad.msu.edu/staff/mentoring.htm) was approved by
University Graduate Council (UGC) on February 2, 2004 (http://grad.msu.edu/staff/ugc.htm).

The UGC members also approved four additional recommendations regarding this report in order to strengthen implementation. These were approved by Faculty Council on March 30, 2004. The Dean of the Graduate School is charged with implementation of the provisions of the Research Mentoring Report and is moving ahead.

• Creating a new School of Planning, Design, and Construction. Consistent with the bylaws, this realignment was first endorsed by the faculty of the programs and the advisory councils of three colleges, presented to ECAC and subsequently referred to and endorsed by UCAP and UGC. It then was approved by the MSU Board of Trustees at its April 16, 2004 meeting.

• Closer Academic Alignment with the Detroit College of Law. Consistent with the bylaws and agreements between MSU and the law college, this proposal was endorsed by the law college faculty and the law college governing board, was discussed with UGC on March 1, presented to ECAC and again referred to UGC. Additionally, the University Committee on Faculty Tenure (UCFT) and the University Committee on Faculty Affairs discussed the proposal. It then was approved by the MSU Board of Trustees at its April 16, 2004 meeting.

After providing additional time for groups to assess Initiative IV in Realizing the Vision (“Strengthen the liberal arts by changing college structures to promote new interdisciplinary and cross-unit dialogues”), ECAC received two proposals on April 6:

• Formation of a “Committee on College Reorganization of Liberal Arts and Sciences.” There were 58 nominees to work on this committee, chaired by Stephen Esquith, professor and chairperson of the department of philosophy. The group will begin work this summer and make its recommendations by October 1, 2004. Proposals to restructure colleges will be handled according to the bylaws: They will go back to college and university level governance for consideration and require approval by the Board of Trustees.

• Request from faculty to transfer of the Department of History and MATRIX: The Center for Humane Arts, Letters, and Social Sciences from the College of Arts and Letters to the College of Social Science, effective June 30, 2004. The transfer proposals were discussed with and endorsed by UCAP and the University Graduate Council (UGC).

While the Realizing the Vision framework offers further areas from which specific proposals may be crafted, we do not anticipate advancing any additional proposals or forming any other ad hoc committees until those noted above have completed their work.

On a related note, the realignment of programs in the College of Human Ecology is still under consideration and no final proposal has been developed by the college or its related programs for review by the Office of the Provost and Academic Governance. Additional information about ongoing discussions in CHE can be found at: http://www.he.msu.edu/

To maintain the strength and continuity of our programs as we move through this process, acting deans will be appointed for the Colleges of Arts and Letters and Human Ecology. These appointments will be announced before the end of the semester.

Planning for Allied Health and for Computer Science is proceeding and – at the request of the respective departments and units involved – is expected to move into the discussion phase this fall. However, I have no plans to form any ad hoc committees.

Of course, no decisions will be made over the summer on any matters requiring university level academic governance review, including those related to organizational structures. All proposals to restructure academic units will continue to be handled according to the bylaws. They will be reviewed at the college level before being referred to university level governance and require approval by the MSU Board of Trustees.

The matters outlined above need to move through academic governance before any of the other initiatives outlined in Realizing the Vision are considered. The various planning committees outlined above will work over the summer while the academic governance process is in recess, allowing them to do some of the “homework” required to submit formal proposals to academic governance in the fall. In addition, each group will have a public web site to keep the community informed.

Consistent with our practice of keeping the campus informed and maintaining a transparent process, information and updates related to the Vision 2004 process will continue to be available on the Web at: www.provost.msu.edu.

In closing, thank you for all the ideas, input, and other contributions you have made over the past few months. The personal commitment and energy that this process has evoked is inspiring – it is this drive to enhance our academic programs that will help us chart a steady course for future growth and progress.

Sincerely,