New committee, new power structure

In a Spectrum interview last Thursday ("Your daily dose of Deantini," Feb. 11), Columbia College Interim Dean James Valentini hinted at the creation of an Educational Policy and Planning Committee as recommended by the Task Force on Undergraduate Education in its April 2009 report. According to the report, the EPPC would be formed with “the belief that undergraduate liberal arts education is a central mission of the Arts and Sciences at Columbia.” The report justifies its recommendation by stating that the University has “historically lacked a well-established institutional structure” to plan for undergraduate education, graduate instruction, and faculty development “in relation to one another.”

Almost two years after the report was published, it is encouraging to see that the University is finally looking to implement the TFUE’s recommendations and concretely address what seems to be a valid concern. Recent events such as the resignation of former dean Michelle Moody-Adams and professor Andrew Delbanco’s lecture regarding the status of Columbia College appear to validate the task force’s concerns. Both events indicate that the University needs to improve the manner in which it handles administrative processes. When handled well, administrative woes should not distract from the University’s primary educational and research mission. This year at least, we have focused on the administration too much. Thus we welcome the decision on the part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences as recognition of major concerns that have repeatedly distracted the University from its primary mission.

We acknowledge that there has been no official word on how the committee will function or what its powers will amount to. However, the proposed structure of the committee gives reason for pause. If the report’s recommendations are fully carried out, the committee would include the vice president of FAS, dean of CC, dean of the School of General Studies, dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, chair of the Committee on the Core, chair of the Committee on Global Core, and chair of the Committee on Instruction for SEAS. Finally, the vice president of FAS will appoint a faculty chair and three additional members of the faculty.

We take issue with having the vice president of FAS appoint all four faculty members of the committee. Vice President Dirks unquestionably has the right to sit on the committee himself, and we recognize that he has a level of faculty perspective as a professor of anthropology. However, we believe that his expansive role as an administrator, and the multiple interests he must balance, present a conflict when making decisions that should, ideally, most benefit the curriculum. His influence should therefore be balanced by, rather than be superior to, his fellow faculty members. If the committee is to have significant influence over the faculty members, it is only just that they directly select their representatives, rather than surrendering that authority to the vice president of FAS.
We are also uneasy about the lack of student involvement, but we acknowledge that it is difficult to comment without knowing more about the extent of the committee’s powers. We are glad to see, however, that Dean Valentini has indicated support for including students.

There is positive potential for the EPPC to be a solution to a wide variety of problems that have put the administration at odds with the students and the faculty. However, the proposed appointment structure is an unnecessary and counterproductive centralization of authority in the office of the vice president of FAS. In the past semester, faculty members have raised their voices and have shown us more than ever before that they want more control over the leadership and direction of the University. We ought to give them a direct stake when there are new power structures being put in place.