Notices of the AMS
March 1996

Demotion of Mathematics Meets Groundswell of Protest

Arthur Jaffe [note]

Salah Baouendi [note]

Joseph Lipman [note]

The University of Rochester’s plan to downgrade its mathematics
program has called forth an extraordinary surge of protest, not only
from mathematicians, but also from well-known scientists both in
universities and in business. Statements have been made by at least
six Nobel laureates, by dozens of members of the National Academy of
Sciences, as well as by other leaders in science and industry. The
outpouring comes from many fields, including chemistry, computer
science, economics, geology, biology, mathematics, philosophy, and
physics.

Norman Ramsey, Nobel Laureate in physics, remarked on being told of
the Rochester plan, “Surely you must be joking. If you had only one
science department at a university it would be mathematics, and you
build from there.” In scientific circles, the Rochester plan has
become a symbol of the wrong way to downsize.

The Rochester administration announced their controversial
“Renaissance Plan,” with the stated aim of improving the quality and
the attractiveness of the University through downsizing (20% students,
10% faculty).[note]Faculty cuts are to occur through encouraged attrition in selected
departments. Four graduate programs will be terminated: mathematics,
chemical engineering, comparative literature and linguistics. The
faculty reduction for mathematics, from twenty-one to ten, is the most
severe.

Addressing the resulting teaching shortfall (over 70% of Rochester’s
undergraduates enroll in calculus courses) President Thomas H. Jackson
states: “We do reject the notion that only tenure-track mathematicians
and mathematics Ph.D. students are the only potential groups capable
of offering high-quality mathematics instruction.” Vice Provost and
Dean Richard Aslin states: “We can significantly decrease the faculty
size in mathematics who are primarily devoted to delivering quality
undergraduate instruction to math majors and other sophisticated
science majors, while seeking other avenues (technology and
nonresearch faculty) to deliver instruction in basic calculus
(typically for nonmajors).” In fact, President Jackson has
acknowledged the likelihood that the best mathematics faculty will
leave.

Renowned economist Lionel McKenzie, Professor Emeritus at Rochester,
just returned from Japan where he received the Order of the Rising
Sun. He feels strongly that his university has made a major mistake
with respect to mathematics, and that his own work would have been
impossible without a lot of cross-fertilization from Rochester
mathematicians. McKenzie is working within the university to have the
administration take a different path.

The collection of protest letters already received by the Rochester
administration constitutes a remarkable testimonial to the place of
mathematics in research and in education. Many letter writers assert
that Rochester cannot maintain its research excellence in the physical
sciences and in other quantitative areas–as it aspires to do–without
a strong program in mathematics–which it now has. Others state that
ending the graduate program in mathematics and consigning the bulk of
calculus teaching to adjuncts and faculty in other departments will
markedly degrade the quality of education Rochester offers to
undergraduates. Hence Rochester will become less attractive both to
prospective students and to prospective faculty.

Several writers criticize the reliance by the Rochester administration
on rankings of their mathematics graduate program in the U. S.
News and World
Report and in the 1995 National Research Council polls, rather than by
careful external evaluation of each department. Not only can polls be
“based largely on knowledge by hearsay and intuition, rather than hard
study of programs,” but as explained by Fields medal winner Michael
Freedman, “… departments with specialized strength will be
underrated”.

Thirty-one professors in the Harvard Physics Department (including
three Nobel laureates, thirteen members of the National Academy of
Sciences, and the dean of the Division of Applied Science), signed the
following statement:

The Department of Physics at Harvard University is dismayed to learn
of the decision by the University of Rochester administration to cut
in half the size of their mathematics faculty and to discontinue their
graduate program in mathematics. Rochester has a tradition of being
one of the leading American universities in science and in technology.
Recent history confirms the interaction between fundamental
mathematical concepts and advances in science and technology. We
believe that it is impossible to have a leading university in science
and technology without a leading department of mathematics. We hope
that Rochester will reconsider its decision.

Members of the Harvard Chemistry Department, including a Nobel
laureate and eight members of the National Academy of Sciences,
expressed similar sentiments:

Our department is dismayed. For centuries, mathematics has rightly
been termed “the queen of the sciences”, and this is just as apt
today. In particular, chemistry has benefited more and more from
mathematical developments and concepts. A university that aims to have
a worthy program in science and technology simply must have a genuine
department of mathematics pursuing original research. We urge the
administration of the University of Rochester to reconsider.

Steven Weinberg, University of Texas, Nobel laureate in physics,
wrote:

I was proud to receive an honorary doctoral degree from the University
of Rochester in 1979, for I knew Rochester as a distinguished center
of research in physics, my own field. But recent news from your
university makes me fear that it will not be able to continue to
maintain this high reputation.

I am not a mathematician, but I regard mathematics as the core of any
research program in the physical sciences. If you do not have a
graduate program in mathematics then eventually you will have no
research mathematicians, which will make Rochester far less attractive
to theoretical physicists. Experimental physicists may not feel the
loss of the mathematics program directly, but with fewer first-rate
theoretical physicists you will begin to lose your best
experimentalists as well. You will also be weakened in your ability to
compete for good students; both graduate and advanced undergraduate
physics students need to take advanced courses in mathematics, which
can only be taught well by active research mathematicians. I imagine
that similar effects will eventually be felt in your chemistry and
optics departments. I would not advise any prospective undergraduate
or graduate student who wishes to concentrate on the physical sciences
to go to a university that did not have a graduate program in
mathematics.

Co-Nobelist Sheldon Glashow adds:

The study of mathematics (including graduate education, undergraduate
concentration, and research) has always been and will always remain an
essential component to any entity purporting to be a university.

Joel Moses, a computer scientist and provost at MIT wrote:

I for one cannot imagine operating a school of engineering in the
absence of a strong and research-oriented mathematics department. The
same can be said for a school of science. I am also dismayed at the
prospect of covering a substantial portion of the teaching load in
mathematics with adjunct faculty. If you carry through with it I
predict that your programs in sciences and engineering will suffer a
marked decline.

The University of Rochester has a well known program in optics. In
reply to a recent solicitation for graduate applications for an optics
fellowship at Rochester, Professor Peter Pershan of Harvard wrote, “I
will be happy to advise prospective students about the optics program
at Rochester; however, the recent budget problems that have induced
the University of Rochester to propose closing their mathematics
graduate program will certainly be noticed by our students. It has
already been widely discussed within our physics department.”

George Backus, Research Professor of Geophysics at the University of
California at San Diego and a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, wrote:

At UCSD, the Institute of Geophysics and the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography often recommend that our Ph.D. students take graduate
courses in the UCSD Department of Mathematics. Modem theoretical
geophysics and physical oceanography simply cannot be done without
sophisticated modern mathematics. To teach these [advanced
mathematical subjects] with sophistication and insight requires people
for whom they are the primary research interest.

Expressing an industrial point of view, Neil A. Frankel, manager,
Advanced Components Laboratory at the Xerox Corporation, wrote in the
December 7 issue of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle:

It is evident that neither [Kodak nor Xerox] is well served by the
elimination of two technology-related [graduate] departments [chemical
engineering and mathematics]. To stay ahead of the very significant
competition from Japan and elsewhere [Kodak] will need all the quality
engineering talent it can find. The availability of a quality
university in Rochester enhances our ability to attract the very best
people to our company. If graduate mathematics is eliminated, I really
don’t see how UR can support first-rate programs in the sciences and
in engineering, and I fear that all of these will decline.

Professor Sir Michael Atiyah is director of the Newton Institute in
Cambridge, England; he is master of Trinity College (Newton’s own
college); and also he is the past president of the Royal Society. Sir
Michael emphasized the unity of pure and applied mathematics, writing:

Increasingly the complex problems that scientists now face require
more sophisticated mathematical understanding. The advent of more
powerful computers has in no way decreased the fundamental relevance
of mathematics. I can illustrate the scope of mathematical interaction
with other fields by listing just a few of the interdisiplinary
programmes that we have run at the Newton Institute in the past few
years: computer vision, epidemics, geometry and physics, cryptology,
financial mathematics, and meteorology.

Edward Dougherty, editor of the Journal of Electronic Imaging, wrote
in the January 1996 issue:

While at first this might appear to most people as simply one major
research university deciding to restructure itself into a not-so-major
university, for those of us in the imaging community there is much
more at stake. Because it is home to both Kodak and Xerox, Rochester
is one of the major imaging centers in the world, and therefore the
future of imaging is closely tied to significant imaging events in
Rochester. Suspension of graduate research and teaching in two key
foundational imaging disciplines is not insignificant.

Chemical engineering plays a role in imaging materials, toners, and
numerous other staples of digital imaging. The case for mathematics is
even more compelling when it comes to digital imaging.

Simply put, there is no scientific phenomenology without mathematics.
The kind of mathematics graduate courses necessary for contemporary
research in image processing might simply cease to exist in the city
of Kodak and Xerox.

One justification given by the Rochester’s administration for
eliminating the mathematics graduate program is its perceived weakness
in comparison with other programs. While acknowledging the presence of
several world-class mathematicians on their faculty, the
administration has been significantly influenced by rankings by U.
S. News and World
Report and by the National Research Council. However, many letter writers
have defended the quality of the department, pointing out that its
strengths are specialized. But in several subfields Rochester is
extraordinarily strong, and in algebraic topology the department is
among the very best in the country. Ironically, the areas of strength
are subfields which have had a major impact on related disciplines
(physics, economics, or engineering).

Marvin L. Goldberger, dean of the Division of Natural Sciences in the
University of California at San Diego, was co-chair of the recent NRC
study of graduate departments. He is also president emeritus of the
California Institute of Technology, former director of the Institute
for Advanced Study in Princeton, and a member of the National Academy
of Sciences. He wrote:

I was absolutely appalled and dumbfounded to learn … of the
University of Rochester’s intention to do away with its graduate
program in mathematics and to have only a service program in the
field. It is hard to imagine that a first rate university with an
outstanding mathematics faculty (The National Research Council survey
not withstanding and as co-chair of that study I speak with some
authority on the significance of those rankings) would take such an
action no matter how dire financial circumstances might be.

Not only is mathematics an exciting and vital intellectual endeavor,
but from a number of standpoints plays an exceptional educational role
at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Advanced mathematics is
essential in all areas of applied science, economics, technological
risk analysis, to an increasing extent in fundamental and applied
biology (e.g., drug design), in national security issues involving
communication, cryptanalysis, satellite reconnaissance; the list is
endless but one more example is particularly relevant: In recent years
topology has played a central role in elementary particle physics
where string theory is a candidate for a “Theory of Everything”. This
is another case of the remarkable and mysterious relationship between
mathematics and the physical world. Topology is one of the strengths
of the Rochester Mathematics Department.

Saunders Mac Lane, Max Mason Distinguished Professor Emeritus of
Mathematics, University of Chicago, and former vice president of the
National Academy of Sciences wrote:

I am surprised and shocked to see the extent to which NRC “ratings”
have figured in the decision … . I am familiar with the work of the
NRC. (I was chairman of the “Report Review Committee” of the NRC for
eight years). I simply do not think that these NRC ratings are serious
enough to be used for administrative decisions at universities … . I
do not think that the U. S. News & World
Report has any standing whatever as a serious source of information. In
particular the device of listing the “top 15” or the “top 30” seems to
me almost meaningless … . The use of U. S.
News (page 2 of your “Rationale for restructuring” memo) to calculate the
number of Ph.D. programs needed [“to attain a national ranking higher
than Rochester’s as an institution attractive to undergraduates”]
seems to me barren and superficial … . As you know, the Rochester
mathematics department has chosen to specialize in analysis and in
homotopy theory (I know the latter field; Rochester is eminent there).
This choice seems to me reasonable for a smaller university. However,
it may have a strong effect on ratings, as for example for raters not
familiar with homotopy there.

Barry Mazur, William Petschek Professor of Mathematics at Harvard
University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote:

The University [of Rochester] is one of the not-very-numerous places
in the country where active research in number theory is undertaken.
But this is not the only field of mathematics in which the current
program at Rochester is important. In the hard classical problems in
algebraic topology, for example, Rochester is very strong.
Individually (and perhaps collectively) the algebraic topologists at
Rochester are responsible for some of the most productive new turns in
that field, and I guarantee you that few universities (Harvard
included) could boast as distinguished a faculty in this area.

Richard Kane of the University of Western Ontario wrote:

It is my strong belief that many of the students produced [there in
topology] are outstanding–as good as topology students produced
ANYWHERE. These students have created a very positive image of
Rochester.

Dean Aslin explains what the University intends to offer its
undergraduates in mathematics. “There are other ways to service our
need for calculus instruction, including the hiring of nonresearch
adjunct faculty and/or the redirection of other qualified faculty from
other disciplines. … The refocused department that emphasizes
quality calculus instruction … and individual research excellence,
will best serve the needs of the college. A reduction in steady-state
faculty size over time from twenty-one to ten FTEs, with additional
nontenure-track teaching faculty who staff much of the elementary
calculus sequences, can achieve these goals.”

Kenneth A. Ross, president of the Mathematical Association of America
(MAA), a professional organization, with about 30,000 members,
concerned primarily with collegiate mathematics instruction, wrote on
behalf of the Executive Committee:

Mathematics and mathematics instruction are constantly changing.
Recent initiatives by the National Science Foundation have, for
example, resulted in major changes in the way that calculus is taught.
Advances in technology have affected not only mathematics pedagogy but
also the curriculum. To attract and retain the brightest
undergraduates requires that those who are responsible for instruction
be active mathematicians and be aware of the ways that both the
subject and its instruction are changing.

In view of this the Board of Governors of the MAA at its annual
meeting in January 1995 passed a resolution that makes it clear that
it is a disservice to students and to the profession to relegate the
teaching of mathematics to adjuncts and faculty from other
disciplines.

Alan H. Schoenfeld, professor of education and mathematics at the
University of California, Berkeley wrote:

My considered judgment is that, despite your best intentions, your
plan for restructuring will inevitably worsen the quality of
undergraduate mathematics instruction at Rochester. [It] is a recipe
for disaster. Here are the two main reasons why. First, such a plan is
likely to result in the complete demoralization of the department’s
faculty. The best researchers will leave, because they can and because
the environment is clearly not hospitable to a major aspect of their
professional lives. There is no way that you can hope to maintain a
dedicated mathematics teaching faculty under those conditions. High
quality teaching takes place only where it is a widely shared
priority, and people are respected for it.

Second, there are very serious dangers in placing calculus instruction
in the hands of others. After many years of stagnation the
undergraduate mathematics curriculum, stimulated by “calculus reform,”
is undergoing a significant transformation. That reform has come from
within the mathematical community, and is rapidly taking hold within
it. Keeping abreast of such change–in particular, major pedagogical
and content changes in calculus–requires being connected to the
mathematical community. Creating and delivering instruction consonant
with reform requires both knowledge and commitment. The odds that
faculty from other departments would (a) know about such reforms, (b)
be willing to make the effort required to implement such changes in
service courses outside their home departments, are virtually nil. One
of my responsibilities as chair of the Mathematical Association of
America’s Committee on the Teaching of Undergraduate Mathematics was
gathering data on and trying to fix the “adjunct/temporary instruction
problem” in mathematics. I’ll be blunt in summary: such instruction is
typically cheap, and you get what you pay for. A major instructional
and administrative commitment is required to make appropriate use of
such staff under the best of circumstances… I conclude that the
changes you propose are almost certain to produce a significant
lowering of the quality of instruction in mathematics courses–no
matter how you staff those courses. This is the direct opposite of
what you intend.

David Hoffman, head, Scientific Graphics Research Initiative,
Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Berkeley, recalled his
undergraduate experience at Rochester:

As an honors-program history major [at Rochester], with a strong
interest in the sciences, I took graduate courses in mathematics, hung
around the math department and got to discuss math with graduate
students and young faculty. I also attended many literature courses. I
was exposed to a great deal of science, first-hand, in an atmosphere
that highly valued the humanities and the arts. It is evident to me
and I hope it is clear to you that this has been a strong influence on
my career. For me, all these things came together around mathematics.
Without a strong graduate program in mathematics, I could not possibly
have had this formative undergraduate experience. Such an experience
will be impossible after the Rochester Retrenchment. Replacing
mathematics professors by part-time and temporary workers will lower
the quality of instruction at the entry level. A “teaching specialist”
in calculus could never have given me the insight, challenges, and
encouragement I got from professional research mathematicians at the
U. of R., even those who were not great classroom instructors…

Tom Davis, principal scientist at Silicon Graphics, wrote:

No matter how much time you spend trying to convince yourselves
otherwise, this will certainly hurt the quality of your
undergraduates’ mathematics education (and hence their education in
all the engineering and scientific fields).

In the 13 years since I helped to found the company Silicon Graphics,
I’ve noticed that it is becoming more and more difficult for us to
hire students with a sufficient background in mathematics. Every year,
we require more, and the students seem to have less. So if you’re
interested in producing students who can compete in these
rapidly-growing job markets, you should be thinking about how to
increase the amount and quality of mathematics they learn.

Richard Ernst, Nobel laureate in chemistry, wrote:

The natural scientists and engineers at the ETH [Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology would very violently reject a proposal that
the courses in mathematics should be given by members of their own
applied departments or by mathematics teachers who are not at the same
time active at the research front.

I expect that universities with a weak or nonexisting mathematics
department will be the first ones to disappear. I am sure that you do
not want the University of Rochester to belong to those institutions.

Summing up, Herman Feshbach, the former chair of the M.I.T. physics
department and past president of the American Physical Society
remarked, “With one action, Mr. Jackson has reduced Rochester to a
second-rate university.”

On December 6, 1995, the American Mathematical Society sent a
fact-finding delegation to Rochester. On December 12, President
Cathleen Morawetz sent the report of that committee to President
Jackson, along with a letter stating in part:

“Let me state firmly that in tough times tough decisions must be made
and everything is on the table. I have learned this as director of the
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences (NYU) (1984-1988), trustee
of Princeton University (1972-77), director of NCR (1978-1990), and
trustee of the Sloan foundation (1980-1995). This has also given me
insight into how decisions are made and ought to and can be changed
before they do irreversible damage.”

She also offered the assistance of the Society in finding a way to
preserve the integrity of the mathematics program consistent with the
overall goals of the University.

In the absence of any change in the Rochester administration’s
position, the Society has appointed a task force, chaired by the
president-elect, to follow the future of this tale. The task force,
while still being formed, consists of mathematicians and prominent
scientists, as well as persons from the world of business. It is a
testimony to the central role of mathematics that Marvin Goldberger
and Alexander Rich have agreed to serve along with others on the task
force, as have Nobel Laureates Walter Gilbert (biology), Dudley
Herschbach (chemistry), Robert Solow (economics), and Steven Weinberg
(physics). The charge of this group is to follow developments, to
inform the community, to facilitate assistance to Rochester, and to
solicit support.

Every two years the American Mathematical Society invites a well-known
scientist from outside mathematics to address the Society. This Gibbs
Lecture is a major event, generally attracting several thousand
listeners. In January 1996, Steven Weinberg ended his Gibbs lecture
with a description of the central role of mathematics in all of
science, and a forceful statement that the closing of the graduate
program in mathematics at Rochester is a symptom of general malaise in
our universities. Weinberg concluded, “I am proud to be a member of
this task force.”

This groundswell of protest from the scientific community demonstrates
that the Rochester plan is not only bad for mathematics, but it is
also bad for the University of Rochester, it is bad for American
science, and it is bad for the country.