UIUC Senate General University Policy Committee
Response to 1/06 Version of UIUC “Campus Strategic Plan”
4/12/06

We find the 1/06 version of the “Campus Strategic Plan” for UIUC to be a considerable improvement on the previous version in many respects.  We welcome the emphasis that continues to be placed upon the importance of “comprehensive excellence” (e.g. pp. 4, 20). We further commend the commitment made to “nurture our great disciplinary strengths, sustaining discipline-based scholarship that continues to generate new insight” (p.4), as well as to “facilitate and strengthen…interdisciplinary scholarship.” (p.5)

We question the emphasis that the document places upon various purported indicators of quality and qualitative improvement, such as certain published rankings and “moving up” in them.  If decisions are made about what to do and what not to do on the basis of best guesses about whether the actions in question will or will not affect our institutional and disciplinary standing in such rankings, the cause of enhancing our genuine excellence – at both the institutional and disciplinary levels – will not be well served.

We further and more importantly continue to be concerned that various other features of the plan as currently framed may be detrimental to the very commendable goal of enhancing existing comprehensive quality– and even to its preservation.  For example:

We consider the three principal “call-out” initiatives specified in the document to be interesting and worthy ideas.  It is far from clear, however, that it would be in the best interests of this campus to make the “significant attendant campus investments” in them – including “reallocation of resources” – that would be “necessary to enable them to succeed at the highest level.” (p.5)  We therefore are concerned about the probable consequences of commitment to them, if they cannot be funded chiefly otherwise than by internal reallocation.  The same applies to many of the “goals” set forth in the document.  We are concerned that commitment to them as institutional priorities could greatly narrow the range of the sorts of excellence we as an institution will be able to preserve and enhance; that, broad as they are, they exclude much of the campus, or would have a distorting influence upon many units if they were to try to tailor the efforts of their faculty to enable them to benefit by association with these initiatives; and that a significant “reallocation of resources” to them would be detrimental to much else that is worthy across the campus, thereby doing more harm than good to our “comprehensive excellence.”

We believe that the campus and its colleges and units should approach all proposals for new initiatives and goals in a spirit of open-mindedness to the virtues of such proposals, subject to careful cost-benefit analysis – particularly where the costs are not to be covered by new monies but rather are a matter of reallocations, the impacts of which also need to be carefully considered, and are to be reckoned among the “costs” involved.  The campus will not be well served if the values added through initiatives undertaken are outweighed by the values lost in consequence of the measures imposed to fund their undertaking.

We are particularly concerned, in this connection, with the announced intention in the document to “garner” the resources to pursue the initiatives and goals set forth by reallocating “3% annually for the initial five years and 2.5% for the subsequent five years” of the budgets – i.e., presumably the total allocation of state funds on all lines – of most “units” on campus.  Whether these “units” are to be colleges or departments and programs, the impact of these repeated reallocations on many of them is likely to be very serious indeed, and quite possibly devastating to any unit that is not among the favored few.  Indeed, the prospect of the loss of more than a quarter of its state funding to reallocation over the coming decade would in all probability be fatal to the aspiration to excellence of any unit.  The result could well be a loss rather than a gain in quality for the institution as a whole, and so a diminution rather than an enhancement of its stature as a comprehensive research university.  And if some relatively small number of initiatives and units are flourishing at the visible and wrenching expense of the rest, that will not be healthy for the campus.

We therefore urge that this campus proceed with all new initiatives and goals only on an as-feasible funding basis, with new commitments and investments being made only as resources can be obtained externally or gathered internally without detriment to existing quality.  To do otherwise would be both strategically unwise and unworthy of the heritage of quality with which we have been entrusted.

We also are concerned that many major decisions appear to have been made about institutional priorities – including the selection of the major initiatives and specific units singled out for “significant campus investment” involving “reallocation of resources,” as well as many other commitments with budgetary implications detailed in the document – without any discernible process involving departments and faculty in a meaningful way.  It appears that colleges and departments are expected simply to adapt to announced campus plans, priorities and policies as best they can.  This would represent a degree of centralized top-down decision-making with respect to the research mission of this campus that is at major variance with the more decentralized, bottom-up manner in which the research mission of this campus has long been pursued, to which much of its attained quality is owing.  “Setting priorities at the campus level” (p.4) is necessary and appropriate in some respects; but in matters deeply affecting the future of our research mission, it is essential that priorities be developed in ways sensitive to the impact of making significant new commitments, through extensive consultations with the colleges, units and campus research community, and with their broad concurrence.  Time constraints placed upon the strategic planning process must not be allowed to result in commitments made prematurely, even if the ideas in question would appear to be good ones.

We therefore further urge that the initiatives and goals set forth in the document be considered proposals rather than commitments, and a process be developed, involving deans, department executive officers and faculty, to advise the Provost and Chancellor in the identification and prioritizing of these and other forms and instances of investments that might be made (as feasible) to enhance the comprehensive excellence of this campus. 

General University Policy Committee

UIUC Senate General University Policy Committee
Supplement to Response to 1/06 Version of UIUC “Campus Strategic Plan”
4/12/06

In what follows, attention is called to language in the 1/06 “Campus Strategic Plan” document relating to the observations and recommendations made in GUP’s response to that document.  The commentary added is intended to spark discussion of the quoted language and associated features of the plan.

“Reallocation of resources.  We expect: to differentially… reallocate 3% [presumably of state funding allocations to units] annually for the initial five years and 2.5% for the subsequent five years.” (p.70)
	Comment: This measure would appear to be the heart of this “Strategic Plan” for the campus.  If implemented, its effects are certain to be profound.  Nothing of a long-term budgetary nature on this order of magnitude has ever been done at this institution.  It would dwarf the impact of the rescissions and budget cuts experienced not long ago.  Question: would the possibility of the gains that might be achieved be worth the consequences?

“An intellectual culture that sustains tradition while advancing knowledge across a broad spectrum of disciplines is distinctive [of] the great public university.” (p.3)
	Comment: Excellent formulation of the institutional character that this campus has attained and must strive to sustain and strengthen.

“…we must find ways to provide innovative, superior undergraduate and graduate education even as state resources to support education decline.” (p.3)
	Suggestion: “even in the absence of increasing state resources.”

“We must be ready to follow the cutting edges of research….” (p.4)
	Suggestion: “We must be poised to anticipate and lead the cutting edges…”

“And we must find the right balance between setting priorities at the campus level and remaining responsive to directions determined by the creativity of faculty initiative.” (p.4)
“…we must be positioned to recognize the centrality of faculty-generated research initiatives….” (p.4)
	Comment: The plan as described in the document tilts strongly toward “setting priorities at the campus level.”  Question: What provisions will be made to ensure that “faculty-generated research initiatives” unrelated to priorities “set at the campus level” will continue to flourish?

“…we must make our academic priorities clear….” (p.4)
	Comment: If “academic priorities” are to reflect the institutional will of the campus, they must be developed through a process that has credibility with the faculty.  Such a process also must be sufficiently transparent to gain the confidence of those who will be affected by it.

“The global eminence we seek requires a breadth of excellence found only in the very best institutions…. A fundamental challenge … is to establish the breadth of disciplinary excellence essential to strengthening our stature among the best of our peers.” (p.4)
	Comment: Excellent statement of the challenge confronting us.

“…we have identified several interdisciplinary strategic initiatives that we believe are within our reach and for which we are uniquely positioned” – namely, “The Illinois Informatics Initiative,” “The Integrated Sciences for Health Initiative,” and “The Illinois Sustainable Energy and the Environment Initiative.” (p.18) 
“In calling out the ideas that follow [namely, the “Illinois Informatics Initiative,” the “Integrated Sciences for Health Initiative,” and the “Illinois Sustainable Energy and the Environment Initiative”], we recognize common threads that have emerged after considerable discussion in units that span the campus.” (p.5)
	Question: Do these initiatives in fact have broad support “in units that span the campus” as top campus priorities in the allocation and reallocation of resources?  
Comment: There would not appear to have been any broad process that has led to the conclusion that these three “initiatives” ought to take precedence over all others. The campus would benefit from a clear accounting of the process through which these conclusions were reached.  In the absence of such an accounting, they are unlikely to be embraced.
Further question: Would this campus be able to achieve sufficient stand-alone preeminence in these three areas to achieve national prominence by means of them?  
Further comment: The focus in these initiatives would seem to narrow rather than broaden our pursuit of excellence, moving this campus away from the goal of comprehensive excellence and toward an emphasis upon focused points of excellence that would be at variance with this goal.

“We also understand that significant attendant campus investments will be necessary to enable [these initiatives] to succeed at the highest level, and that reallocation of resources will be required to achieve our aims.” (p.5)
	Comment: Reallocation necessarily implies “de-allocation” (reduction).  The principles and process of deciding whether the prospective benefits of such reallocation warrant the consequences to units of a campus-wide unit-level de-allocation, or of some more selective de-allocation, should be clearly articulated, to enable continuing and prospective faculty, graduate students and executive officers whose units will be adversely affected to make informed decisions in light of the implications for quality in their disciplines of these campus priority and reallocation determinations. 
	Further comment: The campus must develop a mechanism for ensuring that reallocation and de-allocation decisions undertaken actually move the campus in the direction of greater comprehensive excellence, rather than toward a profile of narrow spikes of excellence against a background of diminished comprehensive quality.

“In order to secure our position as one of the nation’s very best comprehensive public research universities…, we must invest significantly in areas in which we already are near the top tier, but fall short of the best of our peers.” (p.6)
 “[Our leading] competitors [Berkeley and Michigan] enjoy greater comprehensive strength in the humanities and social sciences, plus outright excellence in law, business, and, at Michigan, medicine and health sciences.” (p.17)
 “Our strategic plan is designed to narrow these gaps while ensuring that we continue to outpace these schools in much of science and technology.”(p.17)
	Comment:  Strengthening four departments in the humanities and social sciences (p.24), while weakening the rest by dramatically reducing their state funding over the next decade, may not result in “greater comprehensive strength” in these areas, and could have the opposite effect.  It also is evident that “much of science and technology” on this campus will not be significantly involved in the three “called-out” initiatives, and so will be likely to be adversely affected by the reallocation of resources to them.

 “Reinforce and Build Comprehensive Excellence.” (p.20) 
 “… readiness to embrace and support initiative will always be vital to our development as a university devoted to comprehensive excellence.” (p.20)
	Comment: The prominence of narrowly focused initiatives requiring major investments of campus resources in the plan would seem to run counter to these highly commendable goals.

“…to undertake ambitious new projects in the face of diminishing state resources will put tangible pressure on existing academic and administrative structures.” (p.20)
 “It will [therefore] be necessary to target available resources to areas of research and instruction where the benefit is significant.” (p.20; emphasis added.)
	Comment:  If “significant benefit” is understood very broadly, to include all forms of benefit (intellectual and pedagogical as well as social and economic), all will concur.  If it is meant to refer to direct practical social and economic results (as the language of the document sometimes seems to suggest), however, the implications are chilling.  It is difficult to reconcile this assertion, understood in that manner, with aspiration to greatness as a comprehensive research university.

“We will bring about a culture of increased accountability that identifies and incorporates relevant measures in our evaluation of programs and in the development of academic directions….” (p.20)
	Comment: a “culture of accountability” is not necessarily a culture of knowledge creation and educational dedication, and could turn into a version of the “teaching to the test” syndrome that will bode ill for genuine intellectual and pedagogical excellence.

“Finding a [sound] metric for overall institutional excellence in research and scholarship is extremely difficult.” (p.21)
	Comment:  This is an understatement; but the point is well recognized, and applies to overall college and departmental excellence as well as to overall institutional excellence.  

“U.S. News [survey] results generally correspond with anecdotal faculty opinions of peer department quality.” (p.21) 
Comment: The translation of our aspirations to excellence into such terms, and a determination to do whatever it takes to “move units up” in these rankings, could well lead to decisions doing more harm than good to our actual quality.

“To rival its peers, Illinois must build strength in a significant subset of these areas” [ranked by U.S. News].  (p.24)
	Comment:  “Building strength” in any area or department will certainly require making strong senior as well as junior appointments.  It will take more than “adding on average three senior appointments” – as a “Five-year goal” – to departments as large as English, History, Political Science and Economics, however, to “increase” their (real or even apparent) “stature” significantly. (Any such department is virtually certain to lose at least that number during the next five years to retirement and recruitment; and their counterparts at other institutions will not be standing still.)  And it will take more than “building strength” in two humanities departments and two social science departments for this campus “to rival its peers” in these areas.  Berkeley and Michigan, in particular, have considerably broader ranges of excellence in both areas.  To “rival” them, we will need to do so as well.

“Increase stature of core academic programs.” (p.24)
	Comment: This goal is commendable, if understood to mean “increase their quality”; but the “stature” of a program should not be equated with its U.S. News disciplinary ranking (even if supplemented by “anecdotal faculty opinions”), and “moving up” in the rankings is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition and criterion of enhanced quality.  

“Ensure Excellence in Graduate Education.” (p.29)
 “We must better integrate interdisciplinary study into graduate education.” (p.29)
	Comment: Interdisciplinary study should be promoted when and where it makes good programmatic sense and would enhance “excellence in graduate education” in specific areas of graduate study.  When discipline-focused study better serves the goal of excellence in specific areas, that is what should be promoted in them.

“Critical Initiatives in Research and Scholarship.  The Goal: Enhance and expand our capacity for initiating multidisciplinary research through programs that build teams capable of addressing the most pressing problems in emerging areas of inquiry and scholarship.” (p.36)
	Question: Is this the appropriate model for research in all areas?

“Initiate bold new programs in the humanities, arts and social sciences.” (p.37)
	Comment: To achieve and sustain comprehensive excellence, it also will be essential to attend to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of existing programs in these areas, and of the strengths of campus units in the core areas of their disciplines.  Moreover, quality enhancement in these areas need not mean seeking to “identify opportunities for interdisciplinary research involving the humanities, arts and social sciences,” and to “increase the number of multidisciplinary center or program grant proposals.” (p.37)  These are not the only sound models of research in these disciplines; nor are they the only forms of research and “bold new programs” that ought to be recognized and supported on this campus in these areas.

“Diversify and enlarge our research portfolio to support additional research.” (p.52)
	Comment: This is indeed highly desirable, as is the recognition of the need to “expand and diversify our funding base.”  The operative phrase here quite rightly is: “to support additional research” – including new “initiatives in education, social sciences, humanities and the arts.” (p.52)  Here, at least, it is recognized that “new sources of funding” will need to be found to make possible new “initiatives” – rather than undertaking major new “initiatives” in various areas in the absence of any such new funds, thereby requiring major reallocations away from the forms of research that are central to most well-established disciplines, and to their program quality.

“Goals” (pp. 20-68)
	Comment: The various goals set forth in the document have associated costs of many millions of dollars, much of which would have to be gathered by diverting significant portions of our state funding from its present allocations and purposes.  These goals may have much to be said for them; but they have not been set by any process involving the departments or colleges or faculty in any substantial way, and cannot be said to have their collective or general support.  Moreover, their desirability has not been weighed against what would have to be sacrificed in order to fund them. 

“Allocation decisions will be linked directly to strategic initiatives and goals identified in the strategic plan.” (p.70)
	Comment: This appears to pertain to all funds (not just to new funds).  The consequences would transform this campus profoundly – in ways that could well be at major variance from our shared aspiration to greatness as a comprehensive research university.  It is imperative that no less careful attention be given to the programmatic consequences of contemplated (re-)allocation decisions for specific units to be adversely affected by them than has been given to the “strategic initiatives and goals identified in the strategic plan” that would benefit from them.  The possible benefits of such decisions must be weighed against a clear understanding of what their costs will be, to the general character and comprehensive quality of this campus that these decisions and this strategic planning process are intended to enhance.