Regents’ Proceedings
September Meeting, 1983, page 792
Department of Humanities in Engineering Review and Discontinuance
The president then invited Vice-President Frye to take up the topic of the Department of Engineering Humanities review.
Vice-President Frye in turn invited Dean James Duderstadt from Humanities in Engineering the College of Engineering to comment briefly on the nature of the engineering humanities department review noting that this particular topic had already been the subject of discussion by the Regents at a previous meeting. He remarked that the core issues surrounding this issue, of course, were the problems of financial exigency that were facing the College of Engineering, the basic redundancy between the programs in this department and other units of the University in the area of humanities and, finally, the lack of centrality of this department's mission to the role of the College of Engineering, especially when those programs offered by the humanities department were available through other educational units of the institution. The transition process in this case is somewhat less definitive than in the case of the School of Education, however, for that process is underway and questions relating to that transition are already being addressed. The large factor involved here, of course, is the necessity for coordination with the relevant departments in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, which would have to assume the major part of the educational course burdens that would result from the elimination of the humanities department in the College of Engineering.
Dean Duderstadt noted that this action is not only of interest to the College of Engineering and its students, but rather should serve the better interests of students across the campus. This change would have the effect of exposing all students of the University to a more diverse student population and at the same time allow the Engineering College to better concentrate its own resources in those areas where its expertise exists.
Regent Baker inquired as to whether this change would mean the curriculum environment of the engineering students would be broadened into new areas that would mean some shift of the emphasis of engineering education.
Dean Duderstadt pointed out that was not the intent of this change. The humanities component of engineering students' education would continue and that component simply would be enhanced by exposure to a broader range of offerings in alternative units of the University. The dean noted that there may be attempts to enhance the composition requirements in the early years of the engineering curriculum.
Regent Varner inquired about the point in the report that noted that incremental resources might be needed to accommodate to this change. The dean indicated that the transfer of responsibility for the humanities component of the engineering school curriculum to the area of humanities in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts might require additional resources. That question was being studied now and will be resolved shortly.
Regent Roach commented that this change was indeed timely, if in fact not overdue. He was particularly encouraged by the fact that this move might enhance the interaction between liberal arts students and the engineering students who come to the campus.
Vice-President Frye noted that a motion to approve this discontinuance would be required.
Regent Roach then moved to close the Department of Humanities, College of Engineering, as a unit, as recommended. Regent Baker seconded the motion and it was adopted.
On the Move by James J. Duderstadt, page 76
Book can be downloaded from The Millennium Project website
milproj.dc.umich.edu
The Department of Humanities
Another of our early tasks was to assess the viability of the College’s Department of Humanities, an academic unit providing service instruction to undergraduates not only in skills such as English composition, but in literature (Great Books, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Science Fiction, British and American Writers, among many other courses), philosophy, and history. Although this unit clearly duplicated courses offered by LS&A, it was one of the few priorities of both deans Van Wylen and Ragone, and the department had grown to over 30 instructional faculty members. Engineering students were required to take their humanities electives from this Department rather than from LS&A, isolating them from the rest of the University.
The University’s central administration had long been skeptical about the quality of the College’s humanities programs. Student course evaluations gave low marks to the required courses on Great Books and technical writing, and few engineering students would have taken the courses had they not been required, preferring to take their humanities and social science courses in LS&A with students from other majors. Assessments of faculty quality portrayed the unit as a “second-rate English department,” with only two or three of the faculty with credentials comparable to those of their LS&A colleagues.
Beyond the quality and centrality of the Humanities Department, I had yet another concern. By offering our own courses in humanities and social sciences and requiring our students to take these courses, we were isolating engineering students from students in other programs such as those offered by LS&A. I believed strongly that one of the great benefits of a college education at a comprehensive university such as Michigan was to experience a broad range of academic subjects, to rub shoulders with students with quite different interests, and to take advantage of all the University had to offer. Ironically, the first two deans of the College, Charles Greene and Mortimer Cooley had also worried about separating the early Department of Engineering out of LS&A and establishing it as a separate college for just this reason. I viewed the Department of Humanities as a regressive activity, a waste of valuable College resources and, more seriously, antithetical to the concept of a liberal education that should be the underpinning for undergraduate education.
These views were well known, and the Department was not surprised when I first met with them in fall of 1981 to warn them that the continued existence of a predominantly service department, duplicated elsewhere in the University, was in great doubt in the face of our urgent budget needs. The University had a well-established and highly cumbersome process to discontinue academic programs that, in effect, put the unit on trial in what most felt was an awkward public display. But we preferred a different approach. We would present to the Department a “statement of intent,” with a proposed course of action to: 1) transfer all instructional activities of the Department to LS&A, 2) continue all tenured appointments of faculty in the College (although they would teach in LS&A) until faculty members retired, transferred, or resigned, and 3) retain the technical communications component of the Department, but seek to redirect it toward the new tools beginning to appear such as computers and networks. We would then ask the Department to choose between this action and the formal discontinuance review process. We had little doubt that most faculty members would prefer the former approach, since it was both compassionate and low key.
Although Bill Frye found our approach very appealing, he was eventually persuaded by the University attorneys that we had no choice but to go through the formal academic program discontinuance process, complete with a formal review committee, open hearings, appeals, and the other elements of due process. We therefore began such a process in late 1981, which eventually concluded with our original suggestion. All instructional activities to LS&A—thereby allowing Engineering students to take their humanities electives along with other University students—and the Humanities faculty were gradually phased out through transfers and retirements. Although we had to transfer some of the budget for the Department to LS&A to compensate for the additional instructional load from engineering students, in the end we were able to reallocate roughly half the budget of the Department to the engineering departments of the College. Furthermore, through this discontinuance action we demonstrated both to the central administration and to rest of the University our willingness to take strong action to reallocate resources to our highest priorities. This helped to make the decision of the central administration to provide substantial budget relief to the College more politically acceptable.
Here it is important to note that the Humanities Department was not the only program examined for major restructuring or possible discontinuance. We also reviewed and discontinued the separate degree programs in computer-aided design and environmental sciences. Reviews were also conducted of the Departments of Naval Architecture, Chemical Engineering, Materials and Metallurgical Engineering, and Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, with the possibility of restructuring, redirecting, or merging these departments with other academic programs.
