The responses below are from the committee co-chairs Melissa Ferguson, Chris Wildeman, and John Siliciano and represent only the opinions of the committee co-chairs. Given that the full committee has been released from duty, it was not realistic to expect individual committee members to weigh in on these issues, particularly given the short time line for responding to the resolutions. The committee chairs offer these comments not intended to advocate for a particular outcome, but instead to clarify and in some cases correct characterizations of the committee report in the resolutions.
- On concerns about the international policy component
- On the school model being more inclusive
- On the administrative complexity associated with both models
- On one model being more friendly than the other in terms of outreach
- On concerns about the college model impact on the non-policy units in the CHE
- On concerns that the committee was not broad enough in its thinking
- On possible overlap with other initiatives
- On the idea that the shared school model supports greater out reach
- On the centrality of PAM
- On the overall conclusion that the shared school model should be preferred
- On the possibility of considering other options
On Concerns about the International Policy Component
The Committee produced a policy vision that includes a strong international component, and this focus could be successfully realized under either the College or School option. The objective with either option would be to encourage and support policy scholarship in both domestic and international domains. There is nothing inherently limiting under the college model in terms of achieving this objective, as the policy entity would have domestic and internal foci regardless.
On the School Model Being More Inclusive
The Committee notes clearly in its final report that an important objective with either model is to establish a truly university-wide entity, with participation from and affiliation with policy scholars across campus. There is no structural or organizational reason why such inclusion would vary between the two models. In both models, there would be “core” internal faculty in policy (i.e., the PAM and Govt. faculty) and there would be affiliated policy faculty from other units. The mechanisms for affiliation, primarily in the form of joint appointments/shared lines, would function the same under either model. The substantive value/need/role of these faculty would not differ between the options. In both models, the core faculty leading the new policy entity would have early and robust conversations with the relevant policy scholars across campus to explain the options and possibilities for affiliations and meaningful collaboration.
On the Administrative Complexity Associated with Both Models
Over the course of its deliberations over more than seven months, the Committee concluded that the administrative structure of the School model seems more complicated in terms of leadership and that this could have implications for the functioning of the School. The Committee also recognized that there are numerous examples of complicated yet functional organizational structures already in existence at Cornell. The question is how much complexity to build into the structure from the start, weighing its effects against many other considerations. One of the views of the Committee members who supported the School model was that this complexity was manageable. On the other hand, one critical consideration among those Committee members who voted for the College option was that the organizational and administrative complexity of the School model likely would prove too limiting, especially in terms of the dean’s role.
On One Model Being More Friendly than the Other in Terms of Outreach
As noted in the final report, the Committee expects that the core policy faculty in the new entity (initially at least PAM and Govt. faculty) would actively reach out to policy scholars across campus to encourage their participation and potentially affiliation. The Committee also met with relevant policy scholars throughout its deliberations. The exact nature of the participation and affiliations with policy scholars across campus is not expected to depend on which of the two models is selected. Such outreach would happen in either model, and as noted earlier, various types of affiliations to support broad participation across campus could be achieved in either model.
On Concerns About College Model Impact on the CHE’s Nonpolicy Units
The Committee recognized this potential threat, but the exact nature and potential mitigation of this threat have to be critical considerations in weighing its influence on the selection of which policy entity would best serve Cornell’s aspirations in this area. Although the Committee was not charged with identifying specific ways to ameliorate the tension that would arise from non-policy scholars housed in a policy college, this too is a kind of challenge that Cornell has successfully solved in other cases. For example, although the Department of Communication is housed in a college (CALS) that bears seemingly little resemblance to the department’s scholarship and vision, the department is thriving and is well supported. With respect to CHE, there could be new organizational structures introduced that support non-policy scholars and ensure that their research, teaching, external visibility, and outreach continue to thrive.
Regardless, the Committee spent extensive energy gathering information for the Provost and President, through a series of listening sessions, on the ways in which the various different options could be disruptive or beneficial. Documenting these issues was a core concern of the Committee co-chairs, even though the full list of issues is not documented in the report.
On Concerns that the Committee Was Not Broad Enough in its Thinking
The Committee was asked to consider two organizational options for public policy that emerged from over a 3-year long process involving broad faculty participation and committee work. These two options were the ones that generated the most interest among policy scholars and by the President and Provost. They are also the options that present the most opportunity for achieving our ambitions as a university in public policy. The earlier options discussed and then removed from consideration—a virtual school, a school housed exclusively within CHE, and a school housed exclusively within Arts and Sciences—were viewed as unlikely to lead Cornell to achieve prominence in the policy domain.
The Committee was not appropriately constituted to “have the final say” on evaluating the impact of CHE college-level organizational changes on non-policy faculty, students, and programs. However, over the course of its intense deliberations over seven months, the Committee did extensively discuss these potential implications and identified potential ways to mitigate such impacts, including the introduction of organizational structures that would serve to support non-policy scholarship. The Committee also stated strongly and repeatedly that these assessments need to be conducted by college and university leadership.
On Possible Overlap with Other Initiatives
Although the specific concentrations in which there was possible overlap were not mentioned, our impression is that this motion is focused on Data Science and Sustainability. We agree that there are already significant university-wide efforts underway in each of these domains and, indeed, it was precisely the possibility of working with these excellent groups that made these areas of policy scholarship so appealing. The committee co-chairs did reach out to some senior leadership in each of these domains and received a positive response to the idea of collaboration in these spaces. Nonetheless, this vision statement was meant to be only preliminary, and our expectation is that further conversations will be needed through the process.
On the Idea that the Shared School Model Supports Greater Outreach
As noted earlier, an important objective with either model is to establish a truly university-wide entity, with participation from and affiliation with policy scholars across campus. There is no structural or organizational reason why such inclusion would vary between the two models.
On the Centrality of PAM
The two models that the Committee extensively and comprehensively evaluated and detailed in its Final Report are the two possible organizational structures in which PAM faculty could play a central role. The majority of the Committee concluded that the College model is likely the better option for achieving Cornell’s high ambitions in this domain.
On the Overall Conclusion that the Shared School Model Should be Preferred
The committee after months of careful review and extensive consultation determined that both models had strengths and challenges, with the majority of the committee concluding that the overall calculus favored the college model.
On the Possibility of Considering Other Structures
The step of considering alternative organizational possibilities has already happened over the last 3+ years of a process that included broad faculty and leadership participation and evaluation. This point was already addressed earlier in this response.
