From vardi@cs.rice.edu Fri Jan 23 11:50:35 2009 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:50:27 -0600 (CST) From: Moshe Vardi To: Carol Quillen , Jim Coleman Cc: Moshe Vardi Subject: Re: Rice/BCM Faculty Advisory Committee RFAC/BCM) - Long Carol and Jim: I need to tell you that I am watching the process unfolding over the last few months with growing dismay. I am at a point where I am seriuously wondering whether I have a long-term future at Rice. My dismay is not about the looming merger of Rice and Baylor. I have not yet made up my mind on the substantive issues. The merger may be a very good idea, or a very bad idea. I do not know yet. My dismay is over the process. My professional life takes place in a fishbowl. I cannot publish a paper without going through peer review. I cannot get $300K from NSF without going through peer review. As a department chair, I could not introduce a BS degree in CS (we had a BA degree) without getting faculty approval. As annoying as it is, it serves a very useful purpose. It is not enough that I believe that I have a very good idea; I have to convince my colleagues that it is a good idea. I spent six months last academic year forcing Art History to make a strong case for the proposed PhD program in Art History. This is a terrific filter for bad ideas. It blows my mind that the president of Rice University can undertake an initiative that will change the character of Rice irrevocably without having to make a compelling case for this initiative. Of course, David has to convince the Board. I hope that the Board is asking tough questions on the financial issue, because so far I have not heard David give a single convincing answer. I cannot decide if he is intentionally opaque or hopelessly naive and reckless. (How else can I take the statement that the stockmarket has already discounted ALL possible bad news and, therefore, we should not expect further major declines?) The board, however, has no competence to decide the academic merits of the proposed merger. Of course, the senior administratiors of the university are competent to evaluate the academic merits of the proposed merger, but I do not believe that a frank discussion has taken place in that group. Conversations I had with a few deans suggest to me that David is running with the ball, and the other administrators, who serve as the pleasure of the president, are just following along. David is being very careful not to subject this initiative to the scrutiny of the faculty. I am slowly coming to believe that the purpose of this committee is not to give David advice; like a good lawyer he does not ask us questions whose answer he does not want to hear. I am starting to suspect that this committee exists so David could say that he is consulting with the faculty. So far I have seen no consultation; David has already made up his mind. We have been meeting since November, and today is the first time that I see a document that tries to make the case for the merger. Why have we not seen this document earlier? (Is it possible that this initiative has gone so far without this simple document?) Why is this documet confidential? Why is David afraid of an open discussion by the faculty over the merit of the proposal? Were I to be on the Board, I'd have rejected this document. It is an advocacy document, not a document that offers an objective analysis of the opportunities and the risks, the benefits and the costs, the pros and the cons. I am struck how different this is from the way David went about his idea of increasing Rice's undergraduate population. There, had made a strong case why this should be done, was not afraid to face some tough questions, and answered them very well. The idea did passed muster. Of course, the impact of increase the undergraduate population by about 1/3 pales in comparison to the impact of the merger, if it goes forward. Of course, looming in the background of this, is the sad story of the CRC. The merger idea bears an eerie resemblance to that of the CRC. We hear promises of great potential for synergy and assurances of no financial burden. The faculty's uniform view of the CRC it that the project has been a disaster. We see no or little collaboration, and the finances are nothing if not burdensome. The CRC story suggests major weakness in Rice's ability to execute grand visions. Why should one believe that execution of the merger will be better? I have chosen to send this email to you, rather than to the full committee. I do not, however, appreciate spending a lot of time on serving as a fig leaf. Unless I am convinced that this committee serves a useful role, I do not see the point continuing my involvement. Moshe P.S. I know that some committee members think similarly to me, but here I am speaking only for myself.