An ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate released its report Monday in response to proposals from Chancellor Biddy Martin and Provost Paul DeLuca, who intended to substantially restructure the UW-Madison Graduate School. Administrators sought to divide the graduate education and research sections of the Graduate School into more separately defined entities and create a new administrative structure to accommodate them. Martin and DeLuca both said restructuring was needed so UW could remain competitive in securing multi-million dollar federal grants, fix problems in research safety compliance and better administer UW-Madison's ever-expanding research capabilities.
The report largely rejected the restructuring proposals and said ""the intimate relationship between the research enterprise and graduate education is a great strength and the foundation of our success as an institution."" Although DeLuca said in a recent interview that he never wanted the two sections to be cut off from one another and his concern was about a single dean of the Graduate School being able to handle the dual tasks, the emphasis was clearly on a fear of falling behind on research. The faculty report blames a lack of funding and a few individuals for any perceived problems in handling research grants, not the dean of the graduate school being unable to handle the dual workload of overseeing research and graduate education.
If anything, UW-Madison is unique among many large research universities in that its graduate education and research programs are so closely connected, and this strength needs to be promoted more. The distinction between the two should not be about dividing them up, but on realizing how strong education programs create better research opportunities in the long run, as graduate students become pioneers in their field only through rigorous training in their early careers. The administration's attempts to spin the possible changes as good for graduate education consistently fell flat whenever pitched at public hearings on campus. Administrators failed to give a legitimate benefit to graduate education in their defense of the proposals, yet flimsy excuses about better abilities to stop plagiarism were the best they could come up with. Many institutions only interested in research money hire postdoctoral workers, which is not seen at UW because graduate education priorities keep students involved. A broader distinction between the two branches could even alienate students more interested in graduate education and create the incorrect perception that UW-Madison is more interested in grant money for its own sake rather than the scholarship underlying it.
However, we agree with the ad hoc report and the administration regarding creating a more clear line of authority over research safety and compliance issues. The report recommends that the vice chancellor for administration take over compliance issues, and this appears to be meeting DeLuca's proposal halfway. If administrators were worried about oversight, it makes sense for compliance issues to be more closely aligned with the Chancellor's Office to ensure greater accountability. The report gives an equally level-headed recommendation for the creation of a Faculty Senate committee to provide additional oversight to the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.
The office of RSP is responsible for dealing with millions of dollars worth of grants and maintaining open communication, something both the administration and the recent report agree has been poorly managed because of both funding and staffing concerns. This grant management needs to be more professionally administered if UW wants to maintain its reputation in competition against other top-tier universities.
The Faculty Senate, Martin and DeLuca must now work together to settle their disagreements about how to best resolve these issues. It is a tribute to the tradition of shared governance on this campus that the Chancellor's Office waited for the faculty report to come out instead of steamrolling over the opposition. We believe the chancellor needs to live up to her claims of a willingness to listen in resolving the issues of compliance and grant management. Anything less than candid and public dialogue would only further undermine faith in the process, something already shaken with the blustering, heavy-handed way the administration first approached this debate.
