An Educational Journey: Conflict Management in An Academic Environment

Sunday September 21, 2008
[ Dean Jamieson's positive response]

Question that has so far remained unanswered: Who asked Interim Dean Harbor to ask Aditya not to present the issue to the Corporate Partners?

Aditya's note: Censorship exists in US universities.

"Dear Jon,

(a) The Corporate Partners meeting went off very well. The members appreciated our initiatives related to the undergraduate education.

(b) You successfully prevented me from talking to the partners regarding the move. However, at least one member of our faculty had already talked to at least one partner, and another faculty member talked to the same partner when the partner was in town. I know this because this partner-- who was given a 90 minute dose of criticism of the move to CoE-- confided in me following the meeting.

(c) Several faculty--especially junior--have asked me for a copy of my white paper. Now that the survey and the corporate meeting are behind us, would you object if I share the white paper with the faculty?

(d) [Deleted. This item does not concern the realignment issue.]

(e) A group of 14 senior professors have sent to the Provost a letter--through Mike and I--in support of moving CS to CoE. I had mentioned this possibility to you earlier.

(f) [Deleted. This item does not concern the realignment issue.]

Best regards.

(a) A member of CS faculty, opposed to the idea of CS moving to Engineering, suggests a serious examination of te benefits of having an independent collage of computing and informatics that would rool up CS, CompE, CIT, CGT, and and various cebters under one dean.

(b) Aditya asks this faculty member if he/she was willing to draft a proposal for such a college.

(c) In response to Adity'as question the response from this faculty member "I would certainly be willing to lead a group on this, but I don't have the bandwidth to do it myself." Subsequntly Aditya suggested that perhaps a team can work on such a proposal. Response: "I am willing to work on this, but I have only so many things I can do at once. And there are people who have no interest in pursuing moving CS into engineering, so whether there is current interest in an alternative over in engineering isn't really an issue."

Monday August 31, 2009
[Dean Roberts sends memo to CS faculty]

1. Create a compelling vision for the department through a consultative planning process.
2. Consider the administrative actions that would need to accompany any realignment.
3. Design an undergraduate major for students in the College of Engineering.

"....

I have no problem if Tim wants to first talk to the Dean and then talk to me if needed. The Dean refused to honor my request and that is why I want to talk  to the Provost.

I must mention that if the issue is not resolved before the external review, then there is a reasonable chance that the review will be a chaos and that would not look good for Purdue. Either the Dean or the Provost needs to resolve the issue...my interest is in making sure that Purdue’s image is not tarnished even slightly.

Aditya"

The offrice of the Dean of Science then called Aditya's Assistnt asking why Aditya wishes to meet with the Provost. Aditya then sent the following message at 3:46pm to the office of the Dean of Science:

"---

Dean Roberts does not wish the External Review committee to discuss the realignment proposal for CS to move to the College of Engineering. Regardless of what the Dean wants, many faculty members WILL bring this issue up during their meetings with the committee and in a very serious way. This will likely escalate to a situation that may lead to Purdue’s image being tarnished. I do not wish for this to happen.

As I could not get Dean Roberts to agree to my request for the committee to give their input on the realignment issue, I am seeking another route to get the issue resolved. In the end, if I fail to get this issue resolved to the satisfaction of our faculty, things might get out of control."

A little later Aditya received the following from the office of the Dean of Science:

"Aditya,
 
Thanks for the additional information.   I understand your concerns and that this is a big issue for the CS department, but I also know that Jeff and Dr. Sands have discussed the goals for this visit prior to the finalization of the committee’s charge.  I think that it would be best if we get you and Jeff reconnected first so that he can review with you conversations that have already taken place on this topic and together you can decide if it would be appropriate to revisit the issue with the Provost.  He returns from travel tomorrow – can I have him give you a call?
 
-----"

Aditya's response at 8:38pm:

"Dear ---,

Please ignore my previous email that I sent in a hurry .
> but I also know that Jeff and Dr. Sands have discussed the goals for this visit prior to the finalization of >the committee’s >charge.

Indeed, I am aware of this.

> I think that it would be best if we get you and Jeff reconnected first so that he can review with you >conversations that >have already taken place on this topic and together you can decide if it would be
>appropriate to revisit the issue with the Provost.  He returns from travel tomorrow – can I have him >give you a call?
 
I have already talked to Dean Roberts about this and we disagree on certain issues.  I now wish to take my case to the Provost.  However, if Dean Roberts wishes to speak with me, then  as a courtesy to him I will surely take his call.

Aditya"

(a) Aditya received the following from the Office of the Dean of Science.

"Aditya,
 
Is there any chance that you would be available today between 1-2 to sit down and talk with Jeff and George on this external review issue further?
 
---"

Aditya's response:

">Is there any chance that you would be available today between 1-2 to sit down and talk with Jeff and George on this external >review issue further?
 
OK, I will come over at 1pm today.

Aditya"

(b) Around Noon Aditya asked Nicole to inform the office of the Dean of Science that Tim Korb, Assistant Department Head, will also accompany him to this meeting.

(c) Aditya and Tim Korb attend a meeting with Dean Roberts and Gorge McCabe. Dean Roberts was in hte most angry mood Aditya had ever seen him.

(d) Department Head Aditya Mathur resigns citing serious unresolved differences with Dean Jeffrey Roberts. Click here to see Aditya's resignation letter.

Aditya did not make public the actual reason that precipitated his resignation. The resignation letter only points to the key issue that led to an unfortunate situation that forced Mathur to resign. Anyone who wishes to know what exactly precipitated the resignation is requested to contact Aditya Mathur.

Aditya receives the following request from The Purdue Exponent:

"Hello,

My name is Ashley and I am an assistant campus editor for The Exponent. I
am not sure if you remember, but we spoke last semester about the Computer
Science curriculum. My reason for contacting you now is that we received
information about your resignation on Friday and I was wondering if you
would be able to speak with me regarding your choice to step down. Please
let me know if it is at all possible to get your side of the story and for
you to explain why you felt it was necessary to do so. Let me know when
the best possible time I can speak with you. I will be free tomorrow after
12:30 p.m. if that works for you. Thank you for your time and I look
forward to speaking with you.

Thank you,
Ashley"

(a) The Purdue Exponent reports on Mathur's resignation. Click here to read the Exponent article.

(b) From Joe Camp
Secretary of Faculties

"The article in The Exponent today about the CS department caught my attention because it is an example of the type of organizational change that is supposed to involve one of the faculty committees prior to final approval. I’m not sure that this has occurred and I suspect that most of the people included in this message may not be aware of this step in the process.

The pertinent committee is the Academic Organization Committee and it reports to the Educational Policy Committee (EPC). When appropriate, the EPC can consider and/or refer the matter to the entire Senate for discussion. Below is the link to the list of committees that report to the EPC and the Academic Organization Committee and its charge are described on the associated web page:

http://www.purdue.edu/faculty/committees/subcom.cfm?committee=4

The committee name is also linked to the membership list for the committee and I have included the members in this message. Provost Woodson utilized the input of this committee as part of the process of creating the new college of Health and Human Sciences. Professor Hullinger served as the committee’s liaison during those discussions. I believe it is imperative that this committee consider the proposed change for the CS department and any other departments on campus before any final decisions are made.

If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them."

Aditya receives the following message from one of the CS department's facilities staff member regarding the public availability of my resignation letter.

"I have received an email from XXXX questioning the public
availability of http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/apm/Resignation.pdf and
suggesting I remove it."

Dean Roberts had total support of Provost Sands and Dean Jamieson.There were a few questions from faculty but these were answered curtly. Dean Roberts successfully transformed a purely academic issue into a political one; and this despite two years of discussions among the faculty and with the administration.

During Q&A session Professor Ahmed Sameh asked why the administration has not takn any decision on the realignment proposal despite the report of the Fact Finding committee. Dean Jamieson responded by saying that the report did not adress several important issues. To this Professor Sameh asked why have we not been told what those issues are. There was complete silencein the room for about 15 seconds.

Provost Sands said that he has not had time to examine the issue in depth but he knows that there are multiple views on this issue. Dean Jamieson indicated her opposition to having a department in Engineering that has faculty that does not agree on important issues. She also disagreed with the view that realignment is the primary issue that has caused friction among CS faculty. [Note from Aditya: Friction among CS faculty has existed ever since I joined the department in 1987. I wonder if there is any CS department of this size that is free of friction among faculty.]

This was a very sad day for Purdue.

"Hi Aditya - I'm not aware of any Purdue policy you would be violating by posting that on your CS homepage. I can ask one of the IT policy experts in ITaP if you'd like. Let me know ..."

"Aditya – I’ve spoken with someone in ITaP regarding IT policy, and their opinion suggests there is no IT policy reason suggesting you can’t post your resignation letter on your CS homepage. We cannot speak to any HR policies that may exist. Thanks,"

"Hi Professor Mathur,

I am currently trying to get in touch with everyone regarding what
happened at the meeting and what were the results. I did have one question
and I do not know if you can tell me but what was the condition that would
be impossible to fill? Were there any guidelines that were set regarding
the issue of the College of Engineering and Computer Science?

Thanks agian!
Ashley"

"Sorry about replying so late, it has been a busy time for us. We are
working on an article regarding the issue, it is simply a matter of
response and time that is keeping it. I cannot specify an exact time yet
but we are working on yet. Thank you for all you the help you have given
us.

Ashley"

"I'm a former student of yours, xxxx. I was in your xxxx class in xxxxx. I'm e-maling you because I saw a recent news story that my former classmates sent me saying that you resigned from department head because they wouldn't merge the CS department into the School of Engineering. I read through the realignment timeline you posted on your site and I can't agree more with your decision to resign, it sounds like a big mess. I personally always felt that making CS a part of the School of Engineering really would be beneficial due to the way that engineering and CS work together, and would further growth not only in CS but pretty much all areas of Engineering as well. It's a shame Dean Roberts really put a stop to it - he doesn't know what everyone's missing out on by not combining them.

I'm also e-mailing to let you know that your class ended up really helping me out in my job in a way I didn't entirely expect right off the bat - while I'm not in a specific software testing position, I'm working at a financial software company (xxxx) for over 3 years now and was recently promoted to a higher-paying position in the company's support organization; the software testing skills I learned from your class have helped me not only troubleshoot customer issues but help out the developers with reproducing bugs for them to fix, which contributed to my promotion.

In any case, thanks for being an awesome professor, I still talk about your class to this day, and hope to really dive into the software testing world eventually.

Have a good one,

xxxxxx

"Hey,

It is no problem honestly I have been getting antsy about getting an
article out as well. We have submitted our public information request and
are waiting for the information to be sent to us. That is really what is
holding this up right now. We are independent from the University so our
content is not affected by that, it is simply a matter of getting the
right information and waiting for it to be given. Sorry it has been so
long we are trying.

Thanks!
Ashley

"Hi,

We are still waiting for our public information requests to be given to us
and although we are constantly checking I do not know when that would be.
I am sorry this has been taking so long.

As we continue waiting and looking into the issue, I don't think it would
be particularly a bad thing to write a column on the matter, although that
idea falls in the hands of the opinions editor and editorial board, I will
copy them on this e-mail.

There are also letters to the editor which students, faculty and alumni
can write in about the subject and raise awareness on the issue.

Again sorry about the timing inconvenience!
Ashley"

1. Aditya receives an email from Nicole, Admin Assistant to Head, asking for a suitable time to meet with Sunil (the Interim Head), Professors XX and YY to discuss “CS degree in Engineering”. Aditya's response copied to Professors XX and YY:

"Dear Sunil,

I am not interested in discussing “CS degree in Engineering” with either
XX or YY. Please go ahead without me.

Good luck!

Aditya"

This response because Aditya believes that both these individuals (XX and YY, names not reported here) are against move to engineering and hence having them on a committee to discuss any positive action athat may result in CS moving to Engineering, would be fruitless.

2. Interim Head Sunil Prabhakar visits Aditya and asks him to serve on a committee that will prepare a proposal for offering a CS degree to students in Engineering. Aditya agrees to serve but only if the committee is balanced. Aditya offers three faculty names anyone of which could be included to balance the committee.

"Dear Editor,

First, thanks for the Exponent Salary Guide. Great job! I also liked your
article in the Jan 20 issue of the Exponent.

Sometime in the early Fall 2010, one of your outstanding Assistant Campus
Editors, Ashley Mikutis, had interviewed me regarding serious issues that
relate to Purdue’s Computer Science and Computer Engineering programs.
When the interview did not appear for several weeks/months, I checked with
Ashley on several occasions who in her most response wrote

“We are still waiting for our public information requests to be given to
us and although we are constantly checking I do not know when that would be.
I am sorry this has been taking so long.”

However, the interview has not been published so far. This concerns me as
the astonishing overlap between Computer Science and Computer Engineering
programs continues to exist at Purdue. So many students wish that CS was
in the College of Engineering and was collaborating intimately with
Computer Engineering and other engineering schools. We could then offer a
multitude of new opportunities to the students--e.g. Dual degrees between
Mechanical and Computer Science, specialized program in Computational
Robotics, new jointly offered courses between Civil and Computer Science
in the area of software for transportation, etc. In addition to
significant benefits to students (of both Engineering and Science) Purdue
will be able to improve fiscal efficiency by either combining the Computer
Engineering and Computer Science programs or increasing their
collaboration in areas of curriculum and faculty hiring.

I humbly request you to please publish the interview that was given to
Ashley and allow students an opportunity to begin this issue in an open
forum.

Thanks and best of luck in you role as the editor of an important
newspaper.

Aditya Mathur
Professor Computer Science"

"Aditya,

Thanks for the email I'll look into what happened to the interview it
sounds like a very interesting article and I agree that this issue needs
and open forum.

Best,
Shaan Yadav-Ranjan
Campus Editor
The Purdue Exponent - Purdue University's Independent Daily Student Newspaper
(765)-743-1111 ex. 253"

"Shaan,

Any progress on this issue?

Aditya"

"The merger is an outcome of the ongoing review of academic programs in the colleges and schools. It makes programmatic sense, first and foremost," said Timothy D. Sands, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost and the Basil S. Turner Professor of Engineering. "Second, it should save money in the long run. We are looking for win-win opportunities like this all over campus."

(b) The Academic Oversight Committe (that reports to the Educational Policy Committee) is engaged in developing guidelines for academic reorganization. There is a distinct possibility that soon after these guidelines are in place, the Provost's office will consider the realignment of Computer Science.

I have written to the Exponent Editor who promised to look into why the
interview was not published but has not yet responded.

Any idea what "truly" the problem is? The realignment of Computer Science
with Engineering is an issue that ought to be discussed by students and
faculty on campus. The Exponent would do a great service to the students
and faculty by bringing this out in the open.

Several of my colleagues are now convinced that "someone from Purdue
administration has put pressure on the Exponent for not printing my
interview." Is this really true?

Best.

Aditya"

"Dear Sunil,

Would you consider arranging for me to briefly (15-20mts) meet with the External Review committee? It could be prior to or after the dinner on Sunday or any other time that can be squeezed in the tight schedule.

Given that I was the department head for three out of the 5-year review period, I might be able share with the committee a view that others might not.

Thanks.

Aditya"

Friday February 25, 2011
[Aditya's request denied]

• A diverse group of CS alumni have begun to write to the Provost lending their support to the realignment proposal.
• The 5-year external review was postponed due to Aditya's resignation. The review took place on March 7 and 8. However, Due primarily to the events that led to Adity'as resignation and others related to the realignment, Aditya could not get himself to be a part of this review.
• Not surprisingly the Dean did not include the realignment issue in the charge given to the external review committee. However, the issue did come up during several meetingsof the committee with the faculty and students. The Dean has been adament in that realignment is not an issue to be discussed with the external review committee. Perhaps he believes that the doezen or so items listed on the charge he gave to the committee are all more important than realignment! Undoubtedly, history reprats itself. Resistance from Deans and several faculty was also faced several decades ago at Stanford and NC State when they tried to move their respective Computer Science programs to engineering. Of course, despite the resistance, they were successful.

The wait is over. The final report from the External Review committee has arrived and has been distributed by Dean Roberts to CS faculty. Following are the highlights related to the realignment proposal.

1. "...the Committee recommends that the Provost lead a pan-university consideration of
   how computer science and information technology will be taught, will advance
   scholarship and will exploit the leverage to be had in interdisciplinary cooperation
   across the university. The result would be a shared vision across the university
   and a strategic plan to achieve that vision."

2. "The Dean of the College of Science and the Provost should
   declare that consideration of the single issue of realignment of the Computer
   Science Department into the College of Engineering is closed. They should
   carefully communicate that while the realignment proposal does have some
   positive attributes, the process for consideration of this singleton realignment
   issue is no longer functional and is terminated. Computer Science should
   participate in the pan-university process of repositioning the university to best
   embrace and exploit computer science and information technology for education
   and research, should it commence."

   
   The above two recommendations seem to be very positive for Computer Science, and in general to computing, at Purdue. First, the committee has gone far beyond the realignment proposal. The recommendation above, and several other statements in the report, are a clear indication that the committee thinks that all elements of computing at Purdue, including CompE, CS, C&IT, and CG&T, ought to be included in a broad discussion that must lead to a strategic plan that focuses on bringing computing as a single university wide source for education and research.
   
   Let us hope that the President and the Provost take the committee recommendation with utmost seriousness and establish a university-wide committee to arrive at a strategic plan. What exactly will be the outcome of any such committee and the discussions that ensue, is unclear. But one outcome seems obvious: the face of CompE and CS at Purdue is destined to change for the better, and, in all likelihood CS will not remain a part of the College of Science.
   
   Alll faculty and students who supported the realignment proposal ought to be congratulated for communicating the need for realignment to the External Review committee. Dean Roberts had explicitly asked the committee NOT to look into the realignment issue. The committee did refer to this fact in their report. Nevertheless, many brave souls in CS went ahead and brought the issue to the forefront during the committee's visit. Also, following their visit the committee talked with Aditya. The committee finally recommended what many on CS faculty have been thinking for years: a single face of computing at Purdue!
   
   It is also interesting to note that all the issues that led to the realignment proposalin 2008 are mentioned in the report. For example, the question of the merger of ECE and CS, the divide between CompE and CS, the problems that student's face, course overlap, etc., are all in the report. It is exactly these issues that led the committee to recommend burying the realignment proposal in its current form and morph it into a new and much broader realignment across the university!Obviously, the realignment issue will remain very much alive though in a much stronger and broader form!
   
   A big Thank You to all members of the External Review committee and all CS faculty who have expressed their steadfast support to the realignment and their concern for the betterment of the future of our students and of Purdue!

".. for institutional changes and investments that will position Purdue to be among the global leaders in information and computing science, engineering and technology, encompassing the spectrum from fundamental understanding to societal impact. Among the opportunities that the task force will consider are: 1) enabling exploration and mobility of first-year undergraduate students who know that they
would like to pursue an education centered around information and computing, but do not know
which program at Purdue best suits their aspirations; 2) attracting more diverse, ambitious and
highly qualified students to Purdue; 3) lowering barriers to collaboration among faculty members
in information and computing science, engineering and technology; 4) enhancing flexibility in
the associated graduate programs to allow students to assemble advisory committees with
breadth and depth across the academic units; 5) positioning Purdue to take a leadership role in
the coming avalanche of change that computing will bring to learning and discovery in every
single discipline - from information retrieval and archiving to the humanities to social sciences to
life and physical sciences; and 6) solidifying our strengths in computing and information science,
engineering and technology to become the global leader in a few strategic specialties."

The decision by the Provost seems to be a first step in the right direction. It takes the original "realignment" proposal to a new level by instead proposing to consider a suitable "realignment" all elements of information and computing science, engineering and technology at Purdue. The six items that the provost has enumerated are what the students and faculty supporting the realignment have asked for in private meetings and/or emails to the Provost. The specific outcome of the task force that the Provost plans to set up is unclear. However, we hope that it will be in the best interests of the students and Purdue.

Dear Provost Sands,

Greetings!

In your memo dated May 13, 2011 to CS faculty and staff, you wrote:

“This summer, I will charge a task force to make recommendations for institutional changes and
investments that will position Purdue to be among...”

Could you kindly inform the Computer Science faculty and staff whether or not the task force has been set up, and if so who are its members and the charge? The reason I ask is that summer is now past us, and the fall semester is upon us.

Best regards.

Aditya

Given that the university has not taken any final decision on the realignment issue, and that this issue has created a tense atmosphere among departmental faculty, one wonders whether this is the right time to invite candidates from outside for an interview!

Note that the Provost's memo dated May 13, 2011 mentions the task force to be created during summer 2011.

Eight full professors had signed an early draft of the letter though Aditya finally decided to send the letter with only his signature.

A small group of undergraduate and graduate stuents have formed a group named Students for Computer and Engineering (SCSE). Their objective is to ensure that all barriers that currently exist between CS and Engineering are dispmantled by Purdue administration. Te group has a web site at
http://www.facebook.com/groups/scsepurdue

(a) Head search: It appears that Dean Roberts and some members of the CS head search committee are preventing student involvement in the head search process. Students made an explicit request to the administration for representation on the head search committee. So far their request has been denied. Aditya has written to the provost requesting him to intervene.

(b) Dean Roberts has denied students request for a copy of the report from the departmental external review committee. It is worth noting that the August 2006 report of the review committee titled "Strategic Plan Review" is public and accessible via the Internet. Also available is the External Review Committee Report Physics Department, School of Physics and Astronomy University of Minnesota (from where Dean Roberts came to Purdue). Many such reports are made public, and ought to be made public. However, for some unknown reason, Dean Roberts has decided not to make the report public. Below is a relevant extract from the College of Science Policies and Procedures Manual (note theuse of the term "full department"):

"10. The final written report should be submitted to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
within approximately one month of the site visit. The report should be public in nature, so
that it may be circulated to the full Department. If the Team wishes to provide a more
private document to the administration, that should be appended as a codicil to the public
report."

December 14, 2011
[Computing task force creation]

The Provost has created a task force to look into the issue of computing education at Purdue. Following is the list of task force members.

Balakrishnan, Venkataraman (Head ECE)
Doerge, Rebecca W (Head Statistics)
Fahmy, Sonia (Professor, CS)
Feleke,Yonatan (Student, Purdue@ Fort Wayne)
Hacker, Thomas J (Associate Professor, C&IT)
Hill, Brandon (Graduate Student, CS)
Jordan, G Logan (Associate Dean, Krannert)
Magana, Alejand (Assistant Professor, C&IT)
McCartney, William G. (VP IT, and CIO; Chair);
Midkiff, Sam (Professor, ECE)
Miller, Joann L (Associate Dean, Liberal Arts)
Mullins, James L. (Dean Purdue Libraries)
Newton, Kathryne A (Head, Industrial Technology)
Prabhakar, Sunil K (Head, CS)
Rees, Jacquelyn M (Professor, Krannert)
Spafford, Eugene (Professor, CS)
Subbarayan, Ganesh (Professor ME)
Szpankowski, Wojciech (Professor, CS)
Vijaykumar, T. N. (Associate Professor, ECE)

January 18, 2012
[SCSE posters]

February 7, 2012
[Computing task force]

(a) The first meeting of the computing task force is over. Nothing important to write in this blog regarding the outcome of this meeting.

(b) SCSE now has 108 members. Students want to know what should they do in order for Purdue to begin offering CS to first year engineering majors and to breakall barriers between CS and Engineering.

(c) The SCSE poll status: 58 Yes; 7 conditional yes; 5 No; 2 don't care.

February 10, 2012
[Take down this blog]

Iinternal politics and self-interests have prevented this conflict from coming out in the open and resolved. This lack of resolution has led to the denial of excellent opportunities for students, waste of precious university resources, and prevention of new synergies that will likely develop if CS, engineering disciplines and Computer Engineering are collaborating closely at all levels. Purue students have been starved of great opportunities exactly by our own faculty who have placed their self interest above the interests of the students.

Self interests and politics have built up a tide of giant proportions that is preventing the department from doing great things. It is Aditya's sincere hope that with the help from students and some on the faculty, the department shall turn around. The self-interests will be defeated squarely by the desire for the good of the students.