5
Memorandum
To: William Wagner, Protik Majumber, Christopher Bolton, Amy Gehring, Gretchen Long, Peter Murphy, Lucie Schmidt, Eugene J. Johnson, Liza Johnson
From: Robert Jackall
Re: the Williams in New York (WNY) Review Committee, the evaluation of the WNY program, and the discussion about and vote on the program in fall 2008
1. I’m writing in response to the 16 June 2008 memorandum to faculty from Dean of Faculty William Wagner and the members of the 2007-2008 Steering Committee. That memorandum states:
As you know, at the last Faculty Meeting the faculty voted to table the
motion regarding the Williams in New York Program that had been
introduced. It is clear to us from what transpired at the meeting that
the complex issues and concerns raised by the review committee require
more time for discussion than we had originally allotted to them. We
therefore intend to devote most of the October Faculty Meeting to a
discussion of the findings of the review committee and to consideration
of the Williams in New York Program in general. A decision regarding
the future of the program then will be made at the November Faculty Meeting.
The review committee’s fine, thoughtful report will provide the basis of
our discussions next fall. This timing will permit the committee to
solicit reflections on their experiences from the students who
participated in the program this past year. If there is additional
information that faculty members would like developed before October,
please contact the Dean of the Faculty Office.
2. Why did the faculty vote in favor of tabling the discussion and vote on WNY? Despite the characterization of the WNY Review Committee’s Report in the Dean’s/Steering Committee’s memorandum of 16 June 2008, more than half of faculty members attending the May 2008 faculty meeting saw the review committee’s report as inadequate, as reflected in those faculty members’ decision to table the discussion and vote. The faults of the review committee’s report are many. To wit: in the report, the committee misstates and misrepresents the most basic data (that is, students’ reported experiences) it claims to have collected and on which it claims to have based its recommendation to terminate the WNY program; the committee did not interview two of the three directors of the WNY program; it did not interview any of the program’s adjunct faculty or the Williams faculty member who participated in it; it did not interview any of the many alumni and alumnae who have participated in the program, including several trustees of the College; it did not interview any of the organizational partners in the city who provide field placements for Williams students, many of them alumni and alumnae. The committee also misstates the cost of the WNY program to date. Nor does it provide comparative data to allow faculty to assess the relative cost of the WNY program with the programs at Oxford or Mystic or indeed with the “real cost” of a Williams education. Further, the committee critiques the “curricular coherence” of the WNY program without providing any specific details whatsoever or comparative contexts within which faculty members might make sense of this criticism. For a fuller discussion of these and other points, please see the memorandum: WNY Review Committee. Response.RJ.7 May 2008, attached.
In light of the perceived inadequacy of the WNY Review Committee’s Report in the eyes of over half of the Williams faculty as measured by the vote to table the discussion of the program and the vote on the continuance of the program, it is surprising, to say the least, that the Dean and Steering Committee decided to allow the same committee to continue to be in charge of collecting and presenting evidence on the WNY program. On the basis of its 25 April report, the committee lacks the credibility and legitimacy to do that job, particularly after one of its members publicly stated on the floor of the May faculty meeting that there is no point in gathering further evidence about the WNY program because, she said, no amount of evidence is going to change sentiments about the program.
What’s at issue now is the credibility and legitimacy of the office of Dean of Faculty and of the Steering Committee. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart stated in a famous opinion in another context: “There is no doubt that it is not merely of some importance, but of fundamental importance, that justice must be done, and be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done”. [ R v Hurst and other Justices of Sussex, ex party McCarthy. 1923] The Dean of Faculty together with the Steering Committee should appoint an entirely new committee to assess the WNY program and to make recommendations to the Williams faculty.
3. The charge to that new committee should include assessments of:
· the evaluations of all 38 students who have participated in the five-semester pilot phase of the WNY program. Given the pilot nature of the program, the experiences of students in the later phases of the pilot should be given particular attention. See Appendix 1 of WNY Review Committee. Response.RJ.7 May 2008
· interviews with all three directors of the WNY program to date. Robert Jackall has already been interviewed, but Eugene J. Johnson and Liza Johnson have not been interviewed
· interviews with all adjunct and regular Williams faculty who have taught in the WNY program to date. See page 8 of WNY Review Committee. Response.RJ.7 May 2008. Specifically, Jerry Carlson ’72, Philip Kasinitz, Shamim Momin ’95, and Tony Robins ’72, Jean-Bernard Bucky should be interviewed
· a representative sample of interviews with alumni/alumnae who have participated in the program to date. See Appendix 2 of WNY Review Committee. Response.RJ.7 May 2008
· interviews with key organizational partners/field placement sponsors who have participated in the program to date. See Appendix A: A Partial List of Organizational Partners/Field Placement Sponsors
· the comparative costs of the WNY program vis-à-vis the Oxford Program, the Mystic Program, and the “real” costs of a Williams education
· the “curricular coherence” of the WNY program to date vis-à-vis the Oxford Program, the Mystic Program, and the programs of the approximately 250 Williams students who study away in their junior years
4. Finally, the office of Dean of Faculty and the Steering Committee should publish the new review committee’s report, together with all communications from faculty members to the dean’s office and the Steering Committee about the WNY program, well in advance of the October 2008 faculty meeting in order to give faculty adequate opportunity to discuss matters beforehand.
Appendix A.
A Partial List of Organizational Partners/Field Placement Sponsors
Arts & Humanities
Museum of Modern Art. Glenn Lowry ’76. ,
Asia Society. Lauraleigh Bush. ; Elizabeth Bell.
Whitney Museum of American Art. Lisa Dowd. , Brianna O’Brien ’; Shamim Momin ’95.
Dodgers Theatrical. Sally Morse. ; Jennifer Vaughn. ; Pamela Lloyd.
Production Resource Group. Jeremiah Harris. ; Nicole Scano. ; Stella Morelli.
Law, Advocacy & Public Affairs
District Attorney of New York. Robin Edwards. ; Joel Seidemann. ; Warren Murray. ; Lisa Friel. ; William Darrow. ; Tracy Conn ’00.
Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of New York. Daniel Levy ’92. ; Michael English ’95. ; Brendan McGuire ’98. .
Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor for the City of New York. Bridget Brennan. .
Women’s Commission for Women and Children Refugees. Carolyn Mackinson.
Vera Institute of Justice. Tim Ross ’88. .
Media
ABC News Special Events. Robert Wheelock. ; David Reiter. ; Paula Cohen. .
NBC Sports. Sam Flood ’83. .
New York Sun. Ira Stoll.
Medical Science & Public Health
Bellevue Hospital, Department of Psychiatry. Ricardo Castañeda. .
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Department of Community & Preventive Medicine. Philip Landrigan. ; miki Rifkin. .
New York Presbyterian Hospital at Columbia University, Department of Surgery. Craig Smith ’70. .