Here’s a problem not unique to Mason, not a big deal but also not easy to resolve. How does one reconcile a policy of making it clear that no single unit “owns” a building with appropriate external indications of where major units are?
Mason has very few external signs that highlight units. We do have a sign for the School of Law, outside Hazel Hall which is also designated. And of course we have some buildings called Kammie and Long Nguyen Engineering Building and various buildings with names like Performing Arts or Fine Arts. Technically these don’t convey unit names but a relationship is not hard to discern.
Not surprisingly, then, some other units would like external designations. School of Public Policy will be the largest single tenant in Founders Hall in Arlington; I’ve long wondered about some external indication of ICAR outside the otherwise neutrally named Truland building; pretty soon the College of Education and Human Development will dominate a complex of buildings around Finley, Thompson etc; and the School of Management is working for greater recognition in Enterprise.
So I’m actually sympathetic to some change in policy, and it’s under discussion. There are two problems. In most of the cases indicated, while a unit has a strong presence in the building there are other important units involved as well. How do we avoid misleading or unduly complex signage? For example, can we give some external presence to Management while also noting that Enterprise Hall headquarters New Century College and Economics?
And how do we prevent units that do get a confirmation of preponderant presence from claiming additional rights in the buildings in question — rights such as priority classroom assignment, for example, or some veto over what else gets assigned building space? This one should be manageable through firm resolve but in fact it can be productive of lots of dispute.
Again, this is not an earth shattering issue, but it is surprisingly challenging to come up with appropriate and equitable solutions. I thought that airing it might generate some good suggestions.
The existing policy regarding (non) linkage of buildings to major academic units dates from a time when Mason was much smaller, when most facilities were, in fact, shared, and when it was the policy of the university to downplay the role of the disciplines and professional fields in defining the university. Mason, by necessity and by choice, presented a relatively homogeneous, undifferentiated face to the world. Not linking buildings to units was part of that practice.
Things have changed. Mason is somewhere between large and huge. For better or worse, the disciplines and fields have assumed much greater roles in defining and conducting the affairs of the university. Mason has joined the big leagues and expects its faculty and academic programs to compete with the best. Most units are, in fact, the sole or principal occupants of one or more major buildings.
One thing hasn’t changed: external constituencies continue to complain that Mason is hard to access from the outside.
While past strategy and practice made sense for its time, it is worth examining carefully whether the institution, our students, our faculty and our constituencies continue to be well-served by the old practice of anonymous occupancy. In my view, the benefits to the institution of being able to say to ourselves, our students and our friends that HERE is the College of This and THERE is the School of That far outweigh the inconveniences that the Provost has identified in his post. The marketing advantages would be great, and our public face would be much easier to recognize and differentiate.
Chris Hill
Professor of Public Policy and Technology
School of Public Policy
(The writer notes that, owing to his impending retirement, he will NOT be moving into Founders Hall with the rest of the School of Public Policy later this year, so he has limited personal stake in the outcome of this discussion.)