Provost James Staros has recommended consolidating the College of Humanities and Fine Arts (HFA) and the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) into one unified College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS), according to a Jan. 21 report authored by the Provost recently obtained by the Collegian.

The college would encompass all of the departments, programs, institutes and centers currently under the auspices of HFA and SBS, and would be in existence by July 1.

The report summarizes dialogue on the widely-discussed evolution of the plan, which initially arose in late 2008, soon after the creation of the College of Natural Sciences, in response to concerns about the financial future of the University. In 2009, the Provost convened an initial task force to “study issues surrounding a possible merger of those two colleges.” As reported last fall in the Collegian, that group identified a litany of logistical, financial and personnel issues which could arise from such a merger, delivering a report which found that “the benefits of merging these two colleges would have to be quite substantial to outweigh the considerable costs.”

Despite the largely negative first report, Provost Staros decided to form a second group, composed of 10 heads and chairs from HFA and SBS, to study the issue further and draft “a provisional vision and mission statement for a new College.”

When the task force was formed two years ago, faculty members especially expressed concerns about redistribution of teaching loads, reconfigurations of advising staff and alumni relation programs, and the potential complications of streamlining two large bodies with different business practices, methods of organization, computer software, office space and support staff. In his report, Provost Staros acknowledges those realities, writing that “I have come to understand better how the current structure works and why faculty members might be concerned that they risk losing relationships and investments that they value.” However, the Provost reported, “I see the benefits of the new college outweighing the benefits of continuing with the current organizational structure.”

One issue the merger idea would not improve is saving money.

“The creation of a new college is not a means of implementing budget cuts,” Staros wrote in his report.

Another area which created concern for some was staffing. After the idea for a consolidated CHASS was originally floated, some faculty and staff feared they might lose their jobs if the new college were to be created. In his report, Staros said there would be no such cuts.

“The creation of a new college does not imply reductions in staffing,” he wrote. “The new college will bring together the existing staff in CHFA and CSBS.”

Though Staros said no one would lose their job, he wrote that staff would have to prepare itself to perhaps serve different roles or functions.

The fact that no jobs would be cut “does not mean, of course, that every job will remain the same,” he wrote. “Roles may shift and opportunities may arise as two organizations come together.”

Since Chancellor Robert Holub took over at UMass and since Provost Staros joined him in 2009, the two have pushed interdisciplinary research as a campus priority.

This is one of the goals of the proposal, Staros wrote, as he made the case that disciplinary regions will remain distinct, although interplay and overlapping would be signature features of the new college.

In laying out his argument for the new school, Staros said he believes a mission like CHASS’ “to promote the study, understanding, and expression of what it is to be human,” is “intellectually sound and timely.”

“The disciplined study of ‘what it is to be human’ could have no greater relevance or urgency,” he wrote.

One of the greatest goals of the proposal, Staros wrote, is promoting faculty cooperation and cross-disciplinary research and teaching.

“It is likely that a considerable increase in connectivity will occur as faculty members engage in everyday activities related to college business,” he wrote. “Faculty members from various departments will encounter each other on the College Curriculum Committee and will make connections that they would not otherwise make.”

Another argument which came out of the formation of CNS was that the creation of the new school actually pushed faculty and staff outside that college further away from the sciences, rather than promoting cross-disciplinary cooperation. Learning from that issue and facilitating more overlap, then, would be a goal of the proposed merger.

“The campus did not address how the new College of Natural Sciences would relate to other parts of the campus, however they might be organized,” he wrote. “This left many programs in the social sciences – and some in the humanities – with the legitimate concern that the first round of organization may actually have left them more distant from existing and potential collaborators in the sciences.”

Staros said he feels a CHASS would not suffer from those same alienating effects.

“This proposal is made in the firm belief that the connections and opportunities spanning the liberal arts and the sciences will be more clearly articulated, more readily supported, and more effectively pursued if the existing, unified science college is joined by a strong college that brings together the arts, humanities and social sciences.”

The report also addresses concerns about a potential loss of distinct identity which the merger could cause, a prime concern from faculty.

“There is no doubt that having a college ‘of’ social science or a college ‘of’ humanities provides a certain amount of distinctive identity,” he wrote. “However, if we are seeking to promote transdisciplinary connections and interdisciplinary approaches to scholarship, that homogeneity can also be an impediment.”

Ultimately, Staros wrote that he believes a potential CHASS may not deliver the degree of coherence and interscholastic unity that a College of Arts and Sciences, another previously-discussed option, might, but that it could deliver great dividends for facilitating more interplay and cooperation among faculty.

“By calling upon both CHASS and CNS to build the mechanisms necessary to promote collaboration across the sciences and the liberal arts, I believe the campus can realize the essential benefits many hoped for in the proposal for a College of Arts and Sciences,” wrote the Provost.

“In general, the campus has been in a state of waiting-to-see for an extended period,” wrote the Provost, who was previously at Stony Brook University in New York. “We are in a position to make the decision to move forward, and this is the right time to do it.”

The Collegian will have more on the proposal as it develops.

Sam Butterfield can be reached at [email protected].