Dear Colleague:

Last spring I proposed to the faculty to establish a Faculty Merger
Review Committee to evaluate the benefits, costs, and risks of the
proposed Rice-BCM merger. The faculty resolved to have this commitee
established.  The Committee, chaired by Don Morrison, will make a report 
to the faculty in a special faculty meeting on August 28.  Unfortunately, 
I am attending a conference in Siberia (yes, they will let me come back)
and will not be able to attend the meeting. Several people urged me to to 
communicate directly with the faculty on this matter. This should not be 
viewed as a "minority report".  I fully stand behind the report that will 
be delivered to the faculty on Friday. Nevertheless, I do have have 
personal take on these issues, which I'd like to share with you.

Unquestionably, a merger with BCM clearly brings with it many potential 
benefits, including many possible collaborations in scholarsip and 
education, as well as increased visibility in the biosciences. In addition,
a path of no action may be risky to Rice and bring about long-term decline.

At the same time, the merger would bring with it many costs and risks: 

(1) Many collaborations currently exists between Rice and BCM.  The 
possibility of developing new collaborations between Rice and BCM 
without a merger has not been explored.

(2) Many potential new collaborations have been described, but with little
analysis of why they have not occured so far.  The difficulty of realizing 
a wish list of potential collaborations has been underplayed, and the cost
underestimated.  The reality is that most medical schools are 
"academic islands". 

(3) The posibility of investing directly in the biosciences at Rice has not
been adequately explored. It is not clear that an investment in the merger 
is better for Rice than investment in its bioscience programss.

(4) There may be risks to Rice of not merging with BCM, but a careful 
analysis of these risks has not been offered, and alternative action 
plans have not been adequately explored. 

(5) The merger would impose on Rice a significant financial burden 
at a time that it is already straining under a very challenging budgetary 
environment, following a substantial decline in the endowment. 

(6) because of the large size differential between Rice and BCM,
the merger would expose Rice to the inherent volatility of medical schools 
and the inherent instability of relationships in the Texas Medical Center. 

(7) Successful implementation of the merger would require deft execution
in a very challening environment; the BRC experience shows the extreme 
difficulty of successful execution of similar projects. 

(8) The fact that after a year of negotiations no satisfying arrangement 
for BCM partnerships has yet been found indicates the complexity of the 
problem. The more complex and creative the solution is, the higher the 
risk of unsuccessful execution. 

(9) BCM is currently on a downward trend. There is a significant risk
that it may continue to decline in stature even after a merger. Rice may 
find itself having acquired a mediocre medical school.

(10) The merger would create one of the most unbalanced academic 
institutions in the US, with a very small university attached to a very 
large medical school. The impact of such an imbalance on Rice's mission
has not been carefully analyzed. 

For these reasons, I believe that the merger proposition is exceedingly 
risky. While it has the potential to lift Rice to the next level, it also 
has the potential to cause irreparable harm to Rice.  The costs and the 
risks are high enough to place the burden of proof on those who advocate 
the merger. In my opinion, a compelling case for the merger has yet to be 
made. While not taking action is also risky, I believe that rushing into 
action is riskier.

I am particularly troubled by how "unscholarly" the process has been.
Sober and unbiased inquiry is the essence of our academic business.
Over the past year, I have seen various memoranda produced by the Rice
Administration arguing for the merger. In my opinion, it is fairly clear 
to a reader of these memoranda that their conclusions preceded their 
analysis. (All of these memoranda are classified "Confidential" and have 
not been shared with the faculty at large.) FMRC has made an effort to 
engage in a more objective analysis, but its ability to do so during the 
summer, with limited access to resources and information, is restricted.

Finally, I am mostly troubled by the minor role assigned to the faculty by 
the Administration in this matter. Clearly, a merger decision is a 
corporate decision and is appropriately in the province of the Board of 
Trustees. Still, quoting the distinguished Columbia physicist I.I. Rabi, 
"the faculty is the university." It is clear that that if the decision is 
taken to merge, then faculty involvement and support are necessary for the 
merger to be successful. Nevertheless, the Administration has been careful 
not to seek formally any expression of faculty support.  (Last spring's 
survey indicated that only a minority of the faculty are in support of the 
merger.) Personally, having spent a signifcant part of my career in 
corporate research, I am chagrined to see this university turn into a 
"corporate university".

You can find more merger-related material at 
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/rice/ (Rice access only).
You are welcome to write back to me.

Sincerely,
Moshe Y. Vardi