Think Science/Think Simmons causes concern in CAS

College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) faculty raised concerns over the Think Science/Think Simmons piece of the College's revised Strategic Plan at their April faculty meeting.

President Susan Scrimshaw presented, clarified, and defended the main points of the latest version of the document, which will guide the College through 2018-its goal year to reach national prominence.

Some faculty were concerned with how honest and realistic it is to label Simmons a science school, while others, specifically within the humanities, were concerned with how Think Science, Think Simmons would impact their departments, in terms of curriculum and funding.

The four priorities of the document are: academic quality in the learning environment; global and local community engagement; diversity, human rights and social justice; and resource development and diversification. The three model core initiatives are accelerated, interdisciplinary, and better prepared for career success; Think Science/Think Simmons; and educate leaders everywhere.

Before Scrimshaw joined the meeting, the faculty reviewed a letter that Faculty Council wrote to the president about the March 5 draft of the Strategic Plan. Co-chair of Faculty Counsel Janie Ward, professor and chair of Africana studies, read a portion of the letter aloud so that everyone was aware of the issues Faculty Council saw in the earlier draft. The letter outlined six issues, including not reflecting the College's core values and its emphasis on preparation for high-demand jobs.

The 'Think Science/Think Simmons' piece raised concerns because Faculty Council felt that Simmons cannot be another Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and projecting this image would be dishonest. "The emphasis on the sciences is laudable. However, because this has not been central to our institutional identity, placing such a large emphasis, equating Simmons with the sciences, would appear to offer something that we cannot deliver. We do not currently have, nor can we realistically hope to find the necessary resources to improve the sciences to the level necessary to make such a claim," Ward read.

"Simmons, as a small university, with little infrastructure and grants management, and sparse resources in the sciences-laboratory space, up-to-date facilities, and dramatically reduced teaching loads for science faculty, for example-does not appear to be in the best position to achieve excellence as a research institution in sciences," she said.

The faculty also discussed the possibility of going into executive session prior to Scrimshaw's arrival to ensure an honest dialogue about the plan with the president. Despite Professor Carole Biewener, of economics and women's studies, volunteering to be the person responsible for officially motioning to go into executive session, the suggestion was never made.

Some faculty were concerned about how the Think Science/Think Simmons piece would relate to departments outside of the sciences. Professor Marlene Fine, of communications, was confused about how science would be integrated into all curriculum and serve as a guiding principle for departments like hers.

The point is "there are scientific areas and principles and interfaces that actually effect more of our work than we think. And we want our students to graduate aware of that," Scrimshaw said.

One example was given that science can be used to teach students to think critically, which was then expanded to make the point that other departments that teach critical thinking could fall into the science category. This furthered some concerns over how Think Science/Think Simmons would impact other departments.

"I'm worried that in trying to stretch what it means to 'Think Science,' in this new way, this sort of backdoor way, to have people like me feel comfortable with this initiative, and I think we have to be very clear in terms of what this is, in terms of non-social science, non-liberal arts thinking or we have to really be clear that this is critical thinking and logical analysis," said Biewener.

Professor Theresa Perry, of Africana studies, asked for further clarification. She said that she thought the discussion of how science relates to Simmons should be twofold. "So I think there are two things," she said. "How to make the way we do science as good as it can be, and I think the other issue is how do we create a level of scientific literacy so that people can participate in democratic thought and decision making that is increasingly impacted by science."

Scrimshaw explained she had hoped to use science as an umbrella term to give the College the most leverage in terms of fundraising and hiring. She said she could recommend to the Board that the plan use a narrow definition of science, but "I think that would be a mistake. I think we're better than that at being interdisciplinary."

CAS Dean Diane Raymond said that she thought it was a mistake to try and fit professors and departments that are not science into science, but that this made sense in terms of thinking strategically. "I remember back eight or nine years ago when CAS did our strategic plan and we talked about Communications, and the Arts, and the sciences as strategic priorities, and that's how I read this. So I read it as if I go to the Board, or if I go to Susan, and I say, 'I have two faculty lines, one in chemistry and one in philosophy,' I assume it is more likely that the line in chemistry will be funded.

"And that's what it means to makes strategic decisions. Now we may not agree with that as a priority, but," Raymond said, "that's how I understand this-allocation of resources, assessing priorities, but not for all of us to say, 'I got to get on board and be a scientist.'"

Scrimshaw reinforced Raymond's comments. "We have to make strategic decisions, and we cannot fund equally in everything. It's critical to be a good liberal arts college that we are strong in all the critical liberal arts areas, but we are going to, in a strategic plan, choose to look for . . . an area of strength where we can teach you to do well; come to Simmons for this.

"We have to pick some areas where we lead, and this is one that we're picking," Scrimshaw said.

Scrimshaw initially detailed each point of the plan, which she said puts Simmons' focus back onto the academic, as opposed to the business side of the College. "We've spent the last 11 or so years investing in infrastructure, investing in building, investing in staffing, positioning us to now return our attention to the academic side and to say, 'We grew 59 percent at the undergraduate level in five years. We did not grow faculty,'" she said.

She also stressed the need to think strategically and that money can no longer be divided up evenly around the College. "One of the reasons we need a plan is because we cannot be like kids in a candy store and say we'll divide up the candy. We have to think strategically. We have to think five years ahead if we want to add to faculty at Simmons. We make a plan and do it; we're not going to do it in one year.

"We're going to do it over an incremental period, but at the end of that incremental period we will be a lot closer to our goal than if we just divided up the candy every year," she said.

This article was originally published here: http://media.www.thesimmonsvoice.com/media/storage/paper829/news/2008/04/17/News/Think.Sciencethink.Simmons.Causes.Concern.In.Cas-3752951.shtml