Majority Opinion: Opposed to Recommendation #4
The original P&R recommendations moved the Lyle Center Programs (LCRS) to the College of Science along with URP and LA. However the Center has been omitted from the official list of recommendations. As such, we are responding to #4, assuming that we would be included in the migration as originally proposed.
Building Bridges not Mergers. LCRS faculty and staff are pleased that the P&R recommendation highlighted the potential of its programs, and more broadly the potential of the environmental concerns/applications as an affinity of CPP. We agree that this area of emphasis holds great potential as a campus-wide identity. However, we do not believe the proposed re-organization that dissolves ENV and distributes Architecture, LA, URP and LCRS into other colleges will be effective in infusing this campus-wide identity. As such, we are opposed to this recommendation. Building bridges from the holistic, multi-disciplinary and action-oriented approach inherent in ENV to other colleges provides the best opportunity for developing true campus-wide identity in our opinion.
LCRS has been successful in building bridges across colleges in recent years, facilitating formal teaching, research and outreach programs with faculty and students in ENV, Science, CLASS, Engineering and Agriculture, as well as informal activities with every College on campus. However, ENV has been foundational in establishing the approach of LCRS, and we believe this identity continues to be in the best interest of LCRS and the University, particularly in terms of distinguishing itself from other competing programs/institutions as a program concerned with directly impacting actions that affect communities and the environment.
LCRS as a Locus of Environmental Efforts. With enhanced funding, LCRS could serve as a locus for the establishment of a greatly expanded network of faculty, students and staff examining environmental issues across all disciplines. Recommendations #58, 59 and 107 allude to this potential, and we believe it offers far more promise in advancing the interests of the University than proposed mergers.
Benefits to All Colleges. Additional resources would allow LCRS to expand substantial connections to all colleges, offering support for students and release time for more faculty to pursue interdisciplinary teaching, research and outreach programs. Facilitating such a network would not only enhance the Center, but would also offer substantial benefits to all colleges involved. The approach empowers faculty to develop specialized knowledge, often drawing from other disciplines, to enhance their teaching and scholarship within their own department. Community outreach opportunities for all colleges would be increased. LCRS would serve as a resource for all programs, facilitating connections across campus, offering expertise, and resources in the form of space, specialized equipment, and staff support.
Build on What Works Well. The LCRS model has been effective in building truly interdisciplinary programs at the Center, thanks to the contributions of many colleges and the leadership of ENV. The alternative we are proposing would build on this approach, enhancing the flow of resources and expertise back to the Colleges involved in order to strengthen their own programs and enhance this environmental identity across campus. This approach is essential to the continued success of LCRS since the strength of our programs rests on the continued strength and enhancement of our faculty’s home departments.