Open Letter on the public draft of the UMB Mission and Vision Statements

To the University Community,

We are faculty of the College of Science and Mathematics, and we are writing to you to express our extensive concerns about the first public draft of the Mission Statement and Vision Statement that was recently presented to the faculty. [See drafts below.]. For comparison, see existing statements.

We believe this document is deeply flawed in content, direction, and representation. Moreover, we believe that the absence of significant changes to this draft would bring serious damage to the College of Science and Mathematics, to the reputation of UMass Boston as a beacon of knowledge and education, and to the demographically and ideologically diverse group of students we serve - particularly those who see education as a means to rise socio-economically.

We believe the Mission and Vision Statements trample on the fundamental role of the university: to facilitate the creation, curation, and dissemination of knowledge. To elaborate, we believe that the main goals of a university are to empower the pursuit of knowledge, to cultivate lifelong learning, to foster the exchange of ideas, to encourage critical thinking, to unequivocally support free inquiry, and to instill respect for a diversity of ideas and viewpoints.

Under no circumstances can political or ideological activism be the primary purpose of a public university. This is not to say students, faculty, and staff cannot be activists. Quite the contrary: individual people are the agents of social change, and as such they should be encouraged to organize and fight for a better society. Moreover, the public university can play an active role in educating students on pressing issues of social injustice as well as effective methods of activism. However, in this regard the role of the university is to empower people to take action themselves - not to coerce students, faculty, or institutional units to do so.

It is important to emphasize that the fundamental role of the public university can neither be political nor ideological activism. In part, this is due to the illegality of compelled speech in public institutions and our legally binding commitment to academic freedom as outlined in the so-called "red book" on academic personnel policy. Additionally, ideological activism cannot be a central goal of the university because at times it will conflict with education and research. The search for truth can never be subjugated to social or ideological beliefs.

We raise these points about the purpose of the public university because we believe the current drafts of the mission and vision statements radically depart from these fundamental tenets, and instead promote a chilling environment for the pursuit of truth. This is most evident in the Vision Statement which discusses diversity, equity, expansive notions of excellence, wellness, an ethic of care, plural identities, climate justice, environmental justice, and racial justice, and then states that "We hold ourselves and each other accountable to ensure these values drive all decision-making in research, pedagogical innovations, resource allocation, and the development of policies and practices." That is, these values - which have very distinct ideological interpretations - must drive the direction of every researcher and department on campus, and as a community of scholars we will hold people accountable when their research does not actively promote these values.

• If your research on quantum computing is not perceived as promoting climate, environmental, or racial justice - will you be held accountable and your resources re-allocated?

• If your department makes the data-informed decision to support the use of standardized tests as a measurement of student learning or preparation, but the campus views this as being opposed to wellness, an ethic of care, equity, or an expansive notion of excellence, will your department be held accountable and its resources re-allocated?

Another point, no less important, is that although UMass Boston is a research university, the word research is only mentioned briefly towards the end of the draft of the Mission Statement. Such diminutive support for knowledge creation seems to strongly indicate its reduced value on this campus.

Although these may not be the messages the mission and vision statements intended to send, they are nevertheless the messages that will be received by current and future faculty and students. The message is that at UMass Boston academic freedom and the search for empirical truth will be subjugated to a narrow ideological viewpoint which has a radically divergent agenda. Importantly, this message will actively deter prospective faculty and students from even considering UMass Boston as a place of study or research. This in turn will deprive the campus and the greater Boston community of world-class public scholarship in disciplines represented in the College of Science and Mathematics.

For these many reasons and others, we believe that the current drafts of the Mission Statement and Vision statement are deeply concerning. However, we also believe that this outcome was likely accidental, and that it stemmed from the fact that the College of Science and Mathematics only has one representative on the committee despite being the second largest college on campus. As such, we call on the committee to significantly revise the current statements with guidance from faculty selected by the College of Science and Mathematics. We are keenly aware of the distinct difference between being "selected from" CSM and "selected by" CSM.

If you are UMass Boston faculty (CSM or otherwise) and you would like to stand in support of these or related concerns, we ask that you either publicly sign below or else email someone who has signed to privately convey support.

Mar. 6, 2022 - Academics from other institutions can sign too (academic e-mail only, please). Notice that signatures are updated manually.

We are still accepting new signatures.

Comments by signatories:

• I oppose the Vision Statement Draft.

• Research should be equally emphasized in the mission & vision statement for a Public research university, like UMB.

• While I applaud the emphasis on addressing disparities I do not support the diminuation of the research and academic focus presented in the Mission and Vision statements. These need to be emphasized as fully appropriate and necessary in light of our position as a public research University.

• There is nothing wrong with the current mission and vision, so I see no need for a revision. Those statements were carefully crafted and represent our community values very well. The new statements create an environment of exclusion rather than inclusion.

• The mission statement should emphasize the core purposes of education and scholarship to advance our knowledge and understanding of ourselves, life, the environment and the universe. We should be pursuing truth for the benefit of all. While many ideas in the mission and vision drafts are important, our mission should not be narrowed to this very limited view.

• I agree with the content of the open letter from CSM faculty. The vision statement is of special concern given the imposition of targeted work required to obtain resources. I also am concerned about statements about shared governance which although highlighted in the mission and vision statements is not operationalized at this time. Indeed these statements reflect the current sense of an authoritarian, hierarchical approach by university administrators. I would also like to point out that inasmuch as health can refer to wellness and illness and disease, emphasizing health promotion is contradictory, as we certainly do not want to promote illness and disease.

• My key difficulty comes with the phrase "these values drive all decision-making in research." *All?* There is something backwards about the wording: My research in the foundations of quantum theory is determined by where my mathematical nose takes me (nothing else). The research questions invented and pursued have nothing to do with my *concomitant* commitment to diversity, equity, wellness, etc., with regard to the people in my research group. How I build my group to help follow the research questions should well be *in part* determined by concerns over diversity, equity, wellness, etc., but that cannot be the determining factor for the research program in the first place.

• The current mission and vision statement is a beautiful statement that already emphasizes the values of inclusion. The proposed one is written in a language that is well known to be partisan and introduces - constitutionally - an element of partisan politics in the University that only belongs to regimes where knowledge, research and teaching have to bend to political conformity. The final phrase about "holding each other accountable" is chilling.

• The Provost's personal ideology is not the mission of the university. A lot of work went into hashing out the previous statement in 2010; we should retain that.

• UMass Boston is a public university, not an NGO or an anti-racism training organization. Such overtly ideological language will only drive good people away.

• Many of us were not trained to pursue research that directly addresses the University mission; we were hired for the training we did receive in specific academic disciplines. If we only expose students to anti-racist and health promoting content in courses we will not be fully preparing them for the world outside UMB. Some of the mission language seems to conflate the atmosphere we strive to promote on-campus with the content of research and teaching.

• When I came to UMB we said we were "a research university with a teaching soul" I hope that continues to be true, but the vision statement as written doesn't comport with that identity. It should.

• We endorse this letter as a call to revise the mission and vision statements to center research and knowledge creation as core university activities. That revision should preserve the acknowledgement that UMB faculty and students engage in varied and diverse forms of knowledge production including community engaged scholarship. We consider the parts of this letter that debate truth and freedom to be unhelpful and unnecessarily provocative - Joint comment by two members of the CLA.

• I think a compromise can -- and should -- be readily arrived at.

• I strongly support the letter. University should promote independence of thinking and freedom of research.

• I think this letter and other material should be brought to the attention of the retired faculty. I do not know how to do that. The issue is pervasive, hardly limited to scholarship and research in math and science.

• Got my B.A. from UMass/Boston in 1981. Loved it there. Here's hoping it does not become an indoctrination center. Its 2010 mission statement should stand, intact, for decades.

• This action by UMB mirrors the horrors I witnessed in my native Syria, where public Universities were the first stop for the Assad regime to monopolize the political ideology of the country. We are witnessing similar attempts in Hungry. I don't want it to happen in the USA.

• Strongly support this.

• UMB has always been a world-class institution in STEM higher education, while championing DEI without compromising the core values of research, teaching, and service.

• The new mission statement is the most perfect abandonment of the telos of truth that I have ever seen a university make. It will bring eternal conflict and incoherence to UMB if it is implemented. For more on what happens when a university tries to take on a telos for which it was not designed, see here: https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/one-telos-truth-or-social-justice-2/

• Keep ideology and politics out of science. The fundamental role of the university: to facilitate the creation, curation, and dissemination of knowledge, not adhere to a selected ideology.

• Provide high-quality math, science, and critical thinking instruction, and the rest will follow. Underrepresented and under-resourced students are, as usual, the sacrificial lambs on a grotesque altar to ideology.

• The core mission of academia is the creation, curation, and dissemination of knowledge. Institutionalized activism and politicization will lead to Universities being caught in a pincer movement between political extremes, this will compromise the core mission of knowledge-seeking and erode the credibility and stability of academia.

• Fully support this letter.

• Activism and Research are two distinct processes – with different means and ends. Activism defines a particular goal to achieve – an end. Research defines a particular process to be followed – means. Combining these processes into one results in less effective outcomes for both. . Activism is driven by a goal – an end. The end goal is valued for its own sake, not subject to evaluation or evidence – it is an end that those pursuing it believe in. The end goal is the only thing that matters – the aim is to achieve this goal by any and all means possible. The means are irrelevant, so long as the end is attained. Activism defines a particular end, while imposing no standard over the means. In research, it is the process – the means – which enable the end result to be called “research.” The ends from research are only valid, if careful attention has been given to the means that produced this end. Not all conclusions can be called research. Research becomes “research” only if the process taken to achieve the ends – the findings, analyses, conclusions – was subject to certain methodological standards. A university is NOT activist organization. The primary mission of a university is NOT to promote any social justice goal – however noble. To recognize that a university is not an activism organization, is not to say that activism goals are invalid. It is simply to recognize that achieving social justice ends is not a primary mission.

• It is impossible to sit back and watch my beloved university sink under the pressures of a "woke" and extremist group of administrators. Having earned both my undergraduate and graduate degrees from UMB, I stand with those faculty members who have spoken out against the destruction of a superb institution of learning and research.

• I think your last few paragraphs, esp. the "accidental" phrase, are letting the committee off the hook too easily. Based on reports from around the country, this entire direction is intentional. ~~ I organized a protest like yours years ago at Rice, and we succeeded. I wish you all the best.

• I strongly support the open letter.

• A suggestion: to read Rae Yang's memoir, "Spider Eaters," about the cultural revolution.

• As this letter says, the role of a university is to empower the pursuit of knowledge, to cultivate lifelong learning, to foster the exchange of ideas, to encourage critical thinking. Any attempt to control the ideas that are developed and debated is dangerous. All the wording of the mission and vision statement is smokescreen. Meanwhile, does the university really care about all the people who work for it, does it offer stable work, good salaries and suitable working conditions?... and this includes people doing the cleaning or serving meal. Not only, this is smoke-screen. A university must serve the cause of building a better word, by paying attention to things that do not try to really change the source of inequalities and suffering. If one is really concerned about democracy, equality, wellness and justice one would need fight for free education, supported collectively by the society, for free health care of equal quality for everybody, for smaller income for the rich, better lives for poor, collective decision for what to produce, for which purpose, at which cost for the planet and for the wellness of workers, instead of a society where Blackrock and Wall Street make all the decisions that really matter, in a complete non-democratic way inherent to capitalism.

• There is something rotten in the state of the Academy.

• This is a nicely crafted letter of principled opposition. Of course all public universities should strive to serve their community, and they do so through teaching and pursuing new knowledge in a civil and respectful environment. Individual faculty and students can (and should) then use that knowledge to advance social causes as their conscience dictates. As tax-supported public institutions, state universities must nevertheless studiously avoid compelled speech and behavior, irrespective of the animating beneficial intent. Absent this principle, freedom of inquiry and debate is squelched.

• I once worked at UMB as a TA for a couple of semesters. The student body I saw was diverse, motivated, and talented. I completely support UMBs mission of ending racism and promoting health, but stating this as the one goal of a university is self-defeating. If you as a public university had no power against racism beyond the nobility of your intentions, your mission statement wouldn't matter a damn anyway. The public university's power against racism is the inherently anti-racist power of genuine knowledge. So by all means mention anti-racism in your mission statement, but don't leave out your defining focus on teaching and research. You're a university. That's why your anti-racism matters.

• Fully support the open letter.

• This statement would be unacceptable at the University of Chicago because it both compels and chills speech at the same time, and takes an ideological position that is subject to debate but is presented as a fiat. It violates the U of C's Kalven principles to keep the university ideologically and politically neutral as a way of maintaining freedom of speech.

• The third paragraph of the open letter states precisely the purpose of the university. The draft mission statement's ideological blather does not.

• Statements like this are not only wrong in principle. They invite intrusion from people with a different political orientation, many with the political power necessary to inflict harm on universities, both financial and scholarly.

• Up until the last sentence one could see this as being a performative exercise in "aspiration" with little real world effect. However, the implication that the only research and teaching that can be done at UMass must adhere to all the equity principles (or else!) is contrary to what makes a university great!

• Just about all of our universities are being destroyed by activists advancing ideological goals and cancelling academic standards and goals.

• The implementation of this vision statement would justifiedly destruct the institutions academic reputation, but also the reputation of universities in general as a place of excellence. This is unacceptable.

• Intellectual diversity is extremely important at a University (even more important than racial diversity) administrators should strive to achieve that goal. I support the faculty who have reservations and concerns about a mission statement that does not highlight: (1) research (2)excellence (3)intellectual diversity (4) freedom of speech, as major goals.

• We got a similar piece of propaganda for and by the DEI industry dropped on our heads at CU Boulder three or four years ago.

• Wonderful! Now to extend this to private universities.