On March 7, faculty members held a meeting in the Rapaporte Treasure Hall to further discuss the University reorganization plan that the Senior Associate for Faculty Affairs, Prof. Joel Christensen ’01 (CLAS), introduced during the faculty’s Feb. 28 special meeting. The meeting agenda included memorial minutes for Prof. Arthur Holmberg (THA) and researcher Robert Dunigan as well as an address from Interim President Arthur Levine ’70.  

The Chair of the Faculty Senate, Prof. Jeffrey Lenowitz (HIST), started the meeting by reviewing the minutes from the Feb. 7 and Feb. 28 meetings. There were no corrections raised, and Lenowitz declared the meeting minutes approved. 

Prof. Dmitry Troyanovsky ’98 (THA) spoke in memory of  Holmberg, recalling that he met him 39 years ago as an undergraduate at the University. He said that Holmberg inspired him to become a professional theater director and educator, saying that Holmberg praised his strengths, but never held back his criticism when Troyranovsky’s work was lacking. Holmberg’s approach to teaching didn’t only apply to theater, but prepared students for life, he said.

Prof. Sharon Reif Ph.D ’02 (HELLER) delivered Robert Dunigan’s memorial speech. She shared that Dunigan was the first in his family to attend college and encouraged many family members to follow in his example. As a Black man with a Ph.D, Dunigan was part of “a very small group,” and aware of the importance of giving back. Reif said he was a mentor to many Black and Latinx students at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management and worked closely with his colleagues to start an anti-racism group. 

A moment of silence followed both of these memorial speeches, and Levine started his address. He said that while memorials are deeply sad, they also give him “extraordinary insight” into the work that faculty members do in the community. He started his address by thanking the faculty members for attending these meetings and town halls, “but most of all, for imagining a better Brandeis — a better future for Brandeis.” He thanked Christensen for designing and leading this process, and the Board of Trustees for giving the University a year without budget cuts, allowing time to launch a capital campaign along with “other remedies.”

Levine urged the attendees to support the reorganization plan for a number of reasons, saying that “we can’t remain where we are” as we’ll move towards mediocrity if we don’t act.” He explained that changes in the economy and in Washington D.C. will see one-fifth of colleges close with increasing numbers of universities becoming “online degree programs.” He thinks this reorganization plan will strengthen the University by giving faculty the chance to re-imagine general education and create a program that better reflects its mission.

“[The reorganization plan] really carries out what you told me you wanted, which is to remain an R1, a liberal arts college,” Levine said. He added that this reorganization plan responds directly to the needs of the Brandeis community, rather than allowing administration to continue letting time pass while deliberating the best course of action. Levine said  that this plan also appeals to students and parents because it prioritizes internships, career preparation, micro-credentials and transcripts. He said that the reorganization plan will also make Brandeis more unique, and a pioneer in higher education. 

“The result is going to be an onslaught of media [coverage],” Levine said. “But the real reason we need to do this is to generate revenue.” He added that the plan gives the University a chance to do something that it has needed to for a long time, to specifically “reset governance and create [a] hybrid budget, model for the institution, hybrid governance for the institution, and above all, give agency to the faculty.”

Levine concluded his address by thanking the meeting attendees for considering the plan. 

Lenowitz then explained the voting and discussion rules for the faculty members physically present and in virtual attendance on Zoom. He explained that they were not there to vote in favor or against the resolution during the meeting. The meeting’s final vote would only be to close debate about the motion’s content.

The motion reads as follows: “Resolved, that the faculty authorize the president and the provost to further develop a new structure for the University that combines the School of Arts & Sciences, Heller and Brandeis International Business School into four new administrative units. Each of these units will be led by an academic dean who reports to the provost, aided by vice provosts focusing on the innovation at the undergraduate and graduate level. This vote is made with the expectation that coordinating handbook changes will be presented for faculty vote at two meetings this spring.” In short, this vote would decide whether or not this reorganizational plan will continue to develop.

Lenowitz explained that the Faculty Senate was initially going to be neutral in this vote, as it was in the vote of no confidence against former University President Ronald Liebowitz; however, over the course of the last month, Senate members actively participated in campus discussions among themselves and with constituents, and changed their plan. Save for one abstention, Lenowitz said the faculty senate voted unanimously to support the resolution. He called on Faculty Senate council member Prof. Darlene Brooks Hedstrom (NEJS) to read the faculty senate’s statement of support. 

“As representatives from across the faculty, we recognize that this proposal will affect departments, programs and schools in different ways and not be everyone’s ideal,” Hedstrom said. “However, we believe it is the best available path forward for Brandeis as a whole, aligning with our commitment to one Brandeis.” She explained that the Faculty Senate supports this resolution because of its potential to foster creativity and collaboration, as well as opportunities for innovation. Furthermore, Hedstrom said that the plan ensures that Brandeis is preserving its existing strengths. In addition, the reorganization plan “integrates parts of the arts and sciences with their applications, strengthening pedagogy and research while addressing needs expressed by students, parents and employers.” 

Hedstrom said the plan allows the University to create financial models that are better suited to support long term stability and growth. Lastly, she said it is already supported by the Board of Trustees. After she concluded her statement, Lenowitz asked for an attendee to second the statement, as it is in favor of the motion. An attendee seconded the motion, and Lenowitz then asked if there was anyone willing to speak in opposition to it. 

From Zoom, Prof. Benjamin Gomes-Casseres ’76 (BUS) said that he teaches classes on restructuring organizations in businesses to make them perform better. He said that while the idea of practical liberal arts is a fantastic goal, he was “sad to say that this plan would fail [his] midterm because it simply does not answer the question.” Gomes-Casseres explained that the question is how the University can raise revenue, but this plan would centralize control and destroy revenue, instead. 

He broke down how the reorganization plan could hurt each academic department, notably saying that faculty members at the Heller School and the International Business School will be “beheaded, dismembered and demoted.” He called for support for the School of Arts & Humanities at Brandeis, saying that faculty at BIBS are willing to work with the department to raise revenue. Gomes-Casseres said that this reorganization plan will die if the International Business School loses its integrity. 

“Mr. President, I beg you to hit pause on this vote, let us hammer out a better plan. It’s still possible for all of us to earn an A on this course,” he said. He concluded by reminding faculty members that they vote on a secret ballot.

Next to speak in favor of the motion was Prof. Bulbul Chakraborty (PHYS). She explained that the reorganization plan is making her feel excited about the University again after a long time and hopes that it will help resolve obstacles within teaching, innovating and research. “In this existing structure, there are multiple places where information leaks out and you need to plug those gaps,” Chakraborty said.

Prof. Stephen Cecchetti (ECON) on Zoom offered an amendment to the motion, requesting to take out the resolution’s second sentence, which states, “Each of these units will be led by an academic dean who reports to the provost, aided by vice provosts focusing on the innovation at the undergraduate and graduate level.” He felt that a statement about the organizational structure of administration is unnecessary, and that the organizational structure is about the University instead. His amendment was seconded. 

Lenowitz opened the floor for faculty members to speak in opposition to Cecchetti’s amendment. 

Prof. Jill Greenlee (POL/WGS) argued that removing the resolution’s second sentence would leave faculty with “absolutely nothing to work with.” She said conversations over the past several weeks that convinced her that a centralized structure will be more beneficial to community members, and that removing the sentence will “gut” the resolution to the extent that it would no longer be useful.

Prof. Avital Rodal (BIOL) on Zoom also opposed the amendment, expressing that she could not see how this level of reorganization could happen without leadership. She said that the interim academic deans mentioned in the resolution will come from the Brandeis community, individuals who will guide the plan. She thinks the plan requires leadership for each unit to speak to the undergraduate and graduate programs, and that the plan cannot be further developed without official leadership.

Prof. Donald Shepherd (HELLER) spoke in favor of removing the sentence because he is concerned about the role of these vice provosts controlling the four units. The units at Heller and the International Business School that have been working well and appealing to donors, and he doesn’t wish to undermine them.

An attendee then called the amendment to vote, closing the debate. The amendment failed with 52 votes in favor and 176 against it. The meeting proceeded with deliberations about the full motion again.

Prof. Sarah Lamb (ANTH/WGS) re-opened the discussion in support of the resolution, expressing that it would be a “win-win” for the University to allow Heller and the International Business School to become more integrated into the arts and sciences. She added that undergraduate and graduate students will also have more opportunities to help with marketing prospects. Not to mention, she believes this plan will help Brandeis solve budgetary challenges and “help enhance the Brandeis that we all love.”  

Prof. David Powelstock (RUS) on Zoom expressed his enthusiasm about moving forward with a plan and that faculty are being invited as “partners.” He suggested removing “aided by vice provosts focusing on the innovation at the undergraduate and graduate level” from the second sentence rather than all of it as Cecchetti previously advised. “I don’t see those provosts as having clearly defined roles at this stage … I see them as extraneous leadership,” he clarified.

An attendee seconded this amendment, opening deliberations. 

Prof. Karen Donlean (HELLER) spoke in favor of Powelstock’s amendment. She specifically pointed to a lack of clarity in their roles and expressed concern about the University being able to afford new faculty members.  

Professor Gomes-Casseres spoke in favor of the amendment, questioning why there needs to be upper level supervision for faculty, reiterating his concerns about the integrity of the Heller School being destroyed. “The graduate classes are attracting students to graduate schools, they come because it’s a business school. Not because it is a unit,” he said, saying that integration does not need to be split by these provost positions. “It breaks down the whole reason why we work.”

A faculty member called the amendment to vote, the outcome was 191 in favor and 31 opposed, meaning that the phrase regarding the vice provosts would remain. 

From Zoom, Prof. Sarah Mayorga (SOC) reiterated the importance of the Board of Education’s support, expanding on the idea that the board wishes to collaborate with faculty members and will approve a larger draw from the endowment. In addition, she said this plan is an opportunity to think creatively. 

An attendee asked if a vote in support of the motion would mean that the four academic units would be committed to having two vice provosts. In response, Christensen reassured the faculty that most of the uncertainty seems to come from not knowing everything that will happen after the vote. 

“We acknowledge that the form we get to may not match what we do to get there,” Christensen answered. He said that the plan is set up to accommodate changes from administration and the Board of Trustees while it is in motion. While the details can be altered later on, Christensen explained that consent from the faculty is needed in order to start. 

Prof. Sabine von Mering (WGS/ENVS) said that she is leaning towards voting for the resolution, but requested more information regarding how the plan will help the University’s financial crisis as it does not seem to save money. She emphasized that the University needs more revenue, which requires it to be innovative in order to get prospective students excited about attending.

Introduced by Prof. Sandra Cha (BUS) on Zoom, the last amendment suggested was to add the word “interim” before “vice provost” in the second sentence. An attendee seconded her amendment and deliberations began.

Prof. Jim Haber (BIOL) on Zoom spoke against Cha’s proposed amendment, explaining that undergraduate and graduate students have different needs — that fact does not go away just because the University is reorganizing. He said that there will always need to be someone responsible for graduate education who is distinct from the individual responsible for undergraduate education.

A faculty member then called the amendment to question, and their motion was seconded. Ultimately, 137 attendees voted against the amendment whereas 63 voted in favor. 

The meeting concluded with this amendment vote and a reminder that the faculty will be voting on whether to pass this plan on this motion during their next meeting.