Responses to comments and questions

We've gotten some interesting comments on this blog.

Thoughts:

• "Why is the committee's timetable not published on any of the sites being set up?"
  
  It's in the letter from Dr. Sethna that's posted over on the website. We make monthly reports and finish up mid-October. Since our first task is to recommend the division of departments into colleges, that recommendation should be in our first report later this month.
   
• "Why are we worried about extra expenses of a fourth college when Dr. Sethna is not worried about it? He's initiating the split and stated publicly that three or four colleges would be the ideal for him."
  
  In the task force meeting with Dr. Sethna on June 22, he said that going to 4 colleges rather than 3 would require major justification. I believe his words were "there is a very high bar."
  
  In any case, we should all worry about expenses. Budgets are tight, and I can't imagine the state getting that ol' time higher ed religion any day soon.
   
• "Moreover, the cost issue is not only raised in reference to a fourth college (out of A&S) but the second and third (and fourth)."
  
  As I understand it, cost concerns did not motivate the decision, but we - all of us, not just task force members or administrators - do have to think about them.
   
• "...there are those of us in COAS who are not participating in this process because we believe that it is a rigged game."
  
  " I think it's time to STOP, THINK, and ASK why you see it as your job to consult constantly with Dr. Sethna to see if, before you put something in the proposal, he'll accept it."
  
  We are operating within a set of constraints, and we only recommend while Dr. Sethna decides. That's definitely so. The task force could make recommendations that have no chance of being accepted, but that's strikes me as pointless: better to engage and do what good can be done.
   
• "Dr. Sethna doesn't need a team of people to push his agenda on the college."
  
  His agenda is to break up COAS. That's happening. I can't speak for the other task force members, but my thinking is that we should deal with what is as it is and try to make the best of it, to do as little harm as possible. I am a pragmatist (in the ordinary sense of the word). In this situation, I believe that "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." I hope that does not compromise me, but people will have varying opinions about that. I do myself.
   
• "Do the 6 of you have special qualifications that allow you to dictate what should happen to all of us?"
  
  Nope. We just agreed to be on the task force.
   
• "Committee, why can we not put in the proposal EXACTLY what the faculty say they want."
  
  Actually, faculty members have different wants and opinions. There are plenty who are in favor of the split, and others who really don't care all that much. Those who aren't angry, of course, are less likely to post to the blog, but they're out there.
  
  Even if there were no faculty members in those camps, I still wouldn't think it helpful to make recommendations that are DOA. (There's that perhaps not-very-admirable pragmatism again.)