Monday, February 28, 2000
Strength and Inspiration
UGA scores big for public relations work
Folk music restoration project finished
Louis Sohn remembered as dedicated alumni leader, supporter
‘Catch-all’ nature of circulation department suits longtime librarian
Newsmakers
Retirees
Art faculty hangs it up
Proposed College of the Environment features open boundaries between units
By Beth Roberts
beth@uga.edu

Ron Pulliam, Regents Professor of Ecology, chaired the Environmental Programs Enhancement Committee which this month proposed that UGA create a College of the Environment. He spoke with Columns about the committee’s proposal.

Columns: Did this process surprise you in any way?
Pulliam: If there was any surprise it was positive--this was a committee of 30-plus people, many of whom were appointed by the deans, many of whom represented particular interests around the campus, and I must say I was surprised how well people worked together. We had disagreements and debate, but I think we listened to one another. I think that we had a better report because of the creative tension in the committee. I was pleasantly surprised by how much common ground we found.

Columns: The committee seems to have aimed for an open process.
Pulliam: We held five open campus-wide forums. Three were designed specifically to solicit input--for the committee to listen to what people had to say before we had formulated our options. Then we had two forums towards the end of the process, largely meant to get reaction and feedback on our tentative recommendations.
In addition we had a Web page. We posted minutes, made announcements, provided draft documents, etc. Over the period of 10 months we had input from hundreds of people around the campus.

Columns: Can you identify strengths and weaknesses in the proposal?
Pulliam: I think it’s a very good proposal. We struggled on the committee for a long time with competing goals. On the one hand, everyone wanted something that was open and accessible and inclusive. On the other hand, people wanted something that was stable, that wasn’t so amorphous that it was ineffective.
The last few months our debate focused on differences between what we called an academy model--a loose affiliation of people across the campus working together--and a college model. What we ended up with was--I think most people on the committee agree--the best of both.
We’re proposing a new college, with some units in it and a number of affiliated units, which will stay in their current colleges but will have specific joint programs with the new college. And it will have a very innovative campus-wide Academy of the Environment, which is meant to promote excellence in environmental research, teaching and service no matter where it is on the campus. The hallmark of the proposal--its real strength--is a good balance, between internal strength and stability and coherence, and outreach and inclusiveness across the campus.

Columns: So the Academy would allow an official connection for people who aren’t in one of the affiliated units?
Pulliam: That’s correct. Most of the departments which are primarily composed of people you would think of as environmental professionals--anthropology, environmental health sciences, ecology, marine sciences--most of those units are proposed either as academic units within the college or affiliates with the college.
But there are a lot of other people with environmental interests. We struggled with how we could include them and give them a meaningful role, without severing their relationships with their home units.
That’s what the academy is about. A group of people might want to put together new courses or do an interdisciplinary research project. They may be from half a dozen different departments, and some may be associated with the college and some may not be. We are aiming for clearly identified resources that can foster that kind of cross-fertilization.

Columns: It’s hard to envision.
Pulliam: You asked about strengths and weaknesses--and we don’t know yet how strong the academy will be. It’s certainly innovative, different from what people are doing at other universities. We say it’s not just a new college but a new kind of college. We all talk about the need to have open permeable boundaries between units, but we don’t really know how to do it. This is fairly bold--we’re saying let’s try it.
I think that the weaknesses of this idea are inherent in the strengths. It is a balance. One of the models was a more traditional college with six or eight departments. We decided not to do that. Even though it might have made a stronger college, it probably would have made a weaker university, and our goal was not to just build a strong administrative unit but to strengthen the university. By weakening--in a sense--the college model, by not bringing all the resources into it and making it as strong as possible, we in effect have a stronger environmental program.

On the Web
Columns report on the proposal
www.uga.edu/columns/000221/front4.html
Report of the Environmental Programs Enhancement Committee
www.bae.uga.edu/epec/compromise.htm
UGA Today ] News Bureau ] Master Calendar ] Columns ] Georgia Magazine ]
UGA Home ] Admissions ] Directories ] Sports ] Alumni ] Weather ]
Search this site ] Search UGA sites ]

Developed by University Communications News Bureau at the University of Georgia.
Beth Roberts: Columns editor, Juliett Dinkins: Columns managing editor,
Janet Beckley: Columns art director.
This site works best with the latest version of
Netscape Navigator 4.0 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0.