When Mary Sansalone was first named the dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, no one could have predicted that her tenure would be swamped with controversy. Indeed, everyone upon her arrival applauded her selection. She was a highly respected professional who had previously worked at Cornell University and New York University, and she now held a prominent leadership position within a field that was historically underrepresented by women.
Yet no one could have also foreseen that fewer than two years after she accepted the position, she would announce her decision to step down at the end of this school year. But after beginning her tenure by introducing a series of sweeping changes designed to modernize the engineering school, this is exactly what Sansalone has done. It is a testament to her influence that she was able to accomplish so much in such a short span of time, but complaints and petitions from students, faculty and alumni over her managerial style and alleged lack of communication with other groups dogged her for the majority of her tenure.
The hallmark of Dean Sansalone’s tenure, her “Plan for Excellence” initiative, sought to expand and modernize the engineering school with an aggressive list of changes. The Department of Civil Engineering with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering were slated to merge together to create the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Structural Engineering. Three new engineering buildings covering 500,000 square feet of space would be constructed. The undergraduate aerospace engineering major would be eliminated in part because of recommendations from industry experts that an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering followed by a Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering would provide a better route for professional training in the field. Several research initiatives would be funded which focused on applying engineering techniques to solving problems in poverty, energy, health care and the environment. A host of new faculty would be hired to strengthen the resources of every engineering department and decrease the student-to-faculty ratio. And Writing 1, the introductory English composition course taught to every student in the College of Arts & Sciences, would become a graduation requirement for all engineering students. We supported the “Plan for Excellence” immediately after it was announced, and we continue to believe that it contains the right measures for further growth within the engineering school.
Though some members within the School of Engineering disagreed with certain aspects of Dean Sansalone’s plan, few would argue that it was not ambitious. And perhaps this is part of the reason why her tenure encountered so much resistance. Her plans to trim department budgets and eliminate adjunct faculty positions without fully communicating her intentions alienated many of the school’s faculty members, and culminated in a petition calling for her removal; 29 tenured engineering professors signed this petition and another 14 tenured professors verbally supported it. Similar failures to communicate with students also led to widespread opposition to her policies. A resolution passed by the General Body of the Engineering Student Council proposed changes to fix perceived deficiencies in the engineering school. Among them, the resolution pointed out a failure to communicate among students, faculty and the administration as a result of “a lack of mutual trust and respect,” a series of program and personnel cuts which had damaged the engineering school’s reputation, and a series of changes to faculty, curriculum and degree programs which had led to “the academic careers and professional training of students…[being] jeopardized.” And finally, an alumni petition that called for the Board of Trustees to intervene in the Sansalone controversy and stated, “I plan to withhold any financial contributions to the University until action is taken,” garnered 422 signatures. It should be noted that the Chancellor did not act on the faculty petition after a review of the charges by an independent faculty panel, yet Sansalone’s resignation was announced shortly after the alumni petition was delivered to the Board of Trustees.
Clearly there were very heated disagreements over the direction that Dean Sansalone has taken the engineering school. But what has struck us the most about this controversy has been the divisive tone surrounding the entire debate. The resolution passed by the General Body of the Engineering Student Council, which highlighted “a lack of mutual trust and respect” in the engineering school, was an all too common indication that many people felt the dialogue between parties within the school was either spurious or nonexistent. Hopefully this will change.
And with the search on for a new dean for the engineering school soon to be underway, the opportunity for change now exists. But let’s remember that Dean Sansalone’s work is unfinished. The new dean will be just as focused as Sansalone was on ensuring the future of the engineering school. And part of this process will necessarily involve making the difficult decision of determining whether the school should continue on with the “Plan for Excellence” along with Sansalone’s other policies or whether they should be altered. Whoever assumes this role, one of his or her first tasks should be to mend the many relationships with students and faculty that this controversy damaged. Additionally, we hope that students and faculty will both have meaningful input into the future of the engineering school. If the end of this controversy has taught us one thing, it’s that while the controversy itself may have lost its figurehead, many of the issues it touched upon have yet to be completely resolved.