New York Background

New York is one of the powerhouses of America. In 2022 it had a GDP of about 1.6 trillion USD with a state GDP of 7.8% making it the third largest in America. Its unemployment rate was also 4.3%, below the worldwide average of 4.89%. [1,6]. By all accounts, New York is one of the economic powerhouses of not just America but the world. This was not always the case however, and one needs only go back half a decade to see a far different New York compared to today.

The 1970s was not a time period looked fondly upon by America. The economic boom post World War II was finally peetering out, and the economy began to trend downward. While the nation itself was still wealthy, its citizens dealt with rising inflation, unemployment and even energy crises [2]. Reforms attempting to target the increased poverty and unemployment stalled, and Americans watched as inflation climbed all the way to 14% by 1980 and a 12% unemployment rate in 1975 . [2,3,4]

Caption: “The state of Oregon was the first to go to a system of odd and even numbers during the gasoline crises in the fall and winter of 1973-74. Here motorists with even-numbered licenses line up for gasoline; 2/19/1974. [2]

New York was not immune to such dire straights, and struggled through this period of economic woe. Faced with unprecedented levels of economic stagnation, unemployment and a general decline of industry, “the City of New York responded by laying off city workers and cutting municipal services such as sanitation and after-school programs.” [4]. As one can imagine, these actions did little to help, and more than 820,000 fled the state, looking anywhere for work. [4] Those that stay directed their anger to the city, as theft, vandalism and drug use skyrocketed. The declining state of the city reached its peak on July 13, 1977 when the power failed and would not come back on for another 25 hours. Almost immediately afterwards, looting began, hundreds of fires causing millions of dollars of damage ravaged the city, and thousands of people had their lives upended. [4] It is one of the darkest days in New York’s history, and symbolizes how dire the situation was in New York and America as a whole during the 1970s.

Caption: This image shows a man reaching through the shattered windows of a jewelry store. Credit Associated Press [4]

School Background

In 1854 an upper-class college-preparatory and finishing school for young men named Brooklyn Collegiate and Polytechnic Institute was founded. In the late 1800s its focus swapped to a focus on engineering and science and in 1890 it changed its name to Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and became a college. [12] In 1917 it broke away from the preparatory division and by 1958 it moved to its present place. [12]. The institution has played host to a number of distinguished faculty including Herman Mark, Ernst Weber and Paul Ewald. Its Microwave Institute played a critical role in research during WWII and was one of the leading engineering schools in America. [12]. Also in 1854, New York University's School of Civil Engineering and Architecture was founded, later expanded in 1894. [11] The school underwent several name changes and expansions before becoming the School of Engineering and Science in 1963 [11]. In 1916 the school offered evening classes that in 1922 became complete criteria to earn degrees. [11]. Both institutions were powerful and known educational institutions in the fields of engineering and science, able to offer various Master and PHD degrees for such fields. [11]

Both institutions also had another thing in common: they faced large financial deficits. The principal cause of such a dire state of affairs was a decrease in both federal research funding and engineering enrollment. In Poly’s case, its financial woes began in the late 1960s, where from 1969-1975 it was forced to rely on state subsidies. [12] Undergraduate enrollment fell from 1,944 students in 1966 to 1,720 students in 1972. Polytechnic suffered an operating deficiency of $700,000 in 1969-70, and without state support would have gone bankrupt in 1971. [13]

Caption: Statement of current fund revenues, expenditures and appropriations for Polytechnic for 1970-71 [14]

NYU SES was not in a much better position. The school had an operating deficit of $700,00 in 1970-71, with a projected deficit to the tune of millions in just a couple of years. Similar to Polytechnic, enrollment was also down from 1,361 students in 1966 to 786 in 1972. Federal research funding had also declined drastically from $6 million in 1966 to $2.4 million in 1972-73. [13].

Caption: Consolidated balance sheet for NYU for 1970-71 [15]

With both institutions in such positions, the administrations of both Polytechnic and NYU began to look for ways to recoup the massive deficit their schools had accumulated. Though merger was not yet the action taken, it began to enter the heads of both schools as a way to save the institutions.

Steps Taken Before The Merger

This section is a work in progress and not indicative of the final results

Writing:

• NYU’s main step prior to the merger was the selling of the Washington Heights Campus
• It became an absolute necessity to sell the campus to avoid bankruptcy [11]
• NYU faculty attempted other methods to avoid merger
• Methods included: leasing the school to City university, asking the state to provide a subsidy, and that SES merge with the state university of New York. Every proposal ended in failure [13]
• PIB meanwhile, sought compromises with various places such as Pratt Institute, Mount Sinai medical school, SUNY, etc.
• Though agreements were made, none of these options eventually worked out [11]
• PIB and SUNY entered into deeper affiliation agreements and plans, though those eventually fell through
• The agreement fell through due to SUNY budget restriction, CUNY objecting to the affiliation and private institution objection [11]
• The underlying argument is that financial incentives forced both schools to look for various methods to survive. Due to a failure of other proposals, and the encouragement of governor Rockefeller, merger quickly became the only option.

EVERYTHING FROM POLY/NYU MERGER 1970S BOX

Folder: MERGER - STATEMENT OF INTENT

New York State Education Department NEWS May 5, 1972

Statement by the Regents on the Plan for Resolving Fiscal Crisis of NYU

• Sold the Washington Heights campus for the Bronx Community College

Office of the NYU president, August 27, 1973. Addressed the alumnus of the school of engineering and science

• Financial problems required the sale of the heights campus, as no other course of action would help cope with the financial issues.
• At the time, it was believed that the State University of New York would take over the campus and create an engineering center, however the plan failed
• A compromise was sought with the Bronx Community College, but this plan was also rejected by the legislative leadership
• Legislation was passed allowing BCC to purchase the campus and authorizing the merger between PIB and NYU. Only course of action the legislation agreed on
• Merger agreement was reached on April 23 of 1973

Separate folder name:Merger (Early 70s) Poly/State University of N.Y (S.U.N.Y)

Proposal for Polytechnic Institute of State University of New York. Draft: March 9, 1968

• The proposal proposed that Poly affiliated itself with SUNY
• Pros: Avoid the loss of an educational resource and fulfills the need for a technological institute
• The objective for Poly was to stimulate its growth and solve the immediate and long term financial challenges
• $2,000,000 deficit in 1966 was met by selling endowment securities
• $2,500,000 accumulated deficit in 1968 has forced borrowing with a pledge of all Poly’s remaining unrestricted general endowments

Letter to Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller from the graduate and undergraduate students of Poly. November 1, 1968

• The students explained that over the past year Poly and SUNY have been in talks about a possible merger. At the time progress was slow and no agreement had been reached
• Poly was in a serious financial crisis that threatened to “terminate a century of academic excellence”
• The students declared that they are strongly in favor of a complete merger and asked the governor to help facilitate future negotiations

Merger Negotiations

This section is a work in progress and not indicative of final results

Writing: Using sources 11, 13, as well as the research below

• The letter concerning the sale of washington heights campus came as a shock to the faculty
• In somewhat harsh terms, NYU’s faculty looked down upon PIB.
• The prevailing attitude was that NYU was superior to PIB and that its facilities were of a higher quality compared to PIB
• The faculty went out of their way to propose multiple other ways to keep SES alive without merging, all methods failed
• The board of trustees passed a resolution that forced the merger through. Political leaders were committed to this line of action and NYU needed the money from divesting itself of SES and selling the heights campus
• In 1972 negotiations between NYU and PIB began. The admin of each school was able to negotiate successfully and drafted and accepted a proposal.
• On July 30, letters offering employment were sent out to NYU faculty. If they accepted, the merger would go through.
• Only 9 of the 85 faculty members accepted, the rest rejected the proposal and the merger fell through
• Commissioner Nyquist sent a letter offering to help mediate and reopen negotiations, and his offer was accepted
• With the faculty realizing that the merger was going to happen no matter what, negotiations began anew
• Through December of 1972 and January of 1973, many of the major points of discussion had been negotiated and agreed upon
• The merger was agreed upon in March, a second agreement on April, and it officially went into effect in July.

EVERYTHING FROM POLY/NYU MERGER 1970S BOX

Folder: MERGER - STATEMENT OF INTENT

SUNDAY NEWS: MAY 6, 1973

Negotiations were described as difficult and grounded to a halt by NYU faculty.

Statement of intent with respect to the proposed merger by Louis N. Rowley, Jr dated 6/5/72

The chairman appointed an ad hoc committee of corporation members to assist in furthering the negotiations. Immediately summarized the thinking of the members which were:

• 1) The New York area needs an engineering school of excellence and stature which the merged institution can achieve. As the economy recovers, the school will provide a massive source of potential
• 2) Negotiations should focus around the full joining of forces, while respecting the freedom of choice of individual faculty and students.
• 3) Negotiations require a free sharing of information, especially assets.
• 4) While risks, doubts and complications exist, they should not obstruct the vision the negotiations seek to realize

Letter from Commissioner Ewald B. Nyquist

• Nyquist sent a letter proposing his intervention of the negotiations between the two schools and re establish negotiations between NYU and PIB
• He believed that negotiations required an impartial third party to act as a facilitator
• He mentions that the institutions must merge by July 1,1973 and have a place to balance their budget within the next several years
• He stated the merger should cover the following matters:

1. Merging of appropriate educational and research programs and faculty
2. Strengthening its programs
3. Considering the possible of establishing PIB as an affiliated engineering institution of NYU

• Should no agreement be ratified by March 15, 1973, each party will submit its own merger agreement and he will make his own.

New York State Education Department News: November 22, 1972

• Announced that the commissioner will officially intervene to resume negotiations after consulting with representatives of both institutions, the governor’s office, legislative leaders and the board of regents.
• An early merger agreement signed by both presidents in July 26, 1972 failed because it received insufficient votes from a majority of faculty members.

The Polytechnic Faculty NEWS, March 26, 1973. Vol 9, No. 38

• Both faculties approved the merger. PIB faculty: 110 to 38, while for NYU it was 56 to 14
• President Auburn said “We are gratified that the vote by the faculties of both institutions was so conclusive”

Issued Statement reporting on the negotiations between the two institutions

• The merger agreement made on June 19, 1972 was to come into effect if two conditions were met
• Poly’s condition was that it received written acceptance of its offers of employment from faculty and staff members responsible for sponsored research and the training grants in force at NYU
• NYU’s condition was that at least 53 members of voting faculty of NYU submit written acceptance of the offers of employment
• Offers of employment were made to 95 faculty members. Only 9 accepted, and 86 rejected. Most rejections used identically worded letters transmitted by an attorney the faculty had hired to represent them. Therefore, the merger failed

Letter to Robert A. Moran from President Arthur Grad. October 23, 1972

Gives a chronology of events related to the 1972 merger

1. In March a proposal was drafted
2. Legislature responded through the passage of chapter 463 of the laws of 1972, calling for the sale of NYU’s height campus for use by the BCC and for the merging of its school of engineering into Poly
3. Poly and NYU negotiated, and on July 30, letters of appointment were mailed to 95 members of NYU faculty
4. NYU trustees authorized discontinuation of engineering school at end of academic year
5. NYU faculty engaged in legal counsel. 54 letters of rejection, dated August 3 were sent alongside 32 other rejections, only 9 accepted.
6. Accordingly, the merger agreement fell through
7. The NYU faculty are urging a reversal of the discontinuation of the school of engineering

Merger Agreement

Caption: The first page of the merger agreement. [#]

On March 26, 1973 it was announced that an agreement was reached and the merger was finalized. The merger agreement contained 10 articles describing all aspects of the process and future running of the merged institution (MI). The following information all comes from said merger agreement.

        Article 1 restates that all parties agree to merge and that a new name will be chosen for MI.

        Article 2 deals with the various governing and administrative processes for the MI. It first discusses the governance of MI, explaining the objectives of the new governing body which included fostering the growth of the MI, protecting the interests of the parties and reaffirming faculty responsibility and input for the choosing of administrators and educational policies. This article also tackles how the board of trustees shall be remade after the merger including info about the voting process, size limit, and how to deal with disagreements. The article then goes into academic and administrative structures. This section details how the academic and administrative structures of MI will be remade, including calling for the resignation of all current academic administrators and allowing acting admins to be appointed by the president and approved by the board of trustees. The next section establishes a faculty advisory committee to assist the president, terminating on June 30, 1973 as well as establishing search committees for administrative positions. The next section concerns faculty governance, calling for the faculty to elect a chairman-elect for the senate, additional members of the executive committee and coordinating faculty members to assist various committees. The article concludes by saying that the trustees shall petition for amendments of the charter to authorize the offering of various programs in different places.

Article 3 concerns the students of the pre-merged institutions. Section 1 focuses on current NYU/SES students who transfer to MI, explaining that they will receive full transfer credits for both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Transfer students would be allowed to earn equivalent degrees at MI. Financial aid would be granted to students who transfer equivalent to that of which students at Poly received. Concerning students enrolled at Poly, the article gave students the option to indicate which courses they took at Poly and which at MI, as well as adding the Poly name to MI diplomas in the event of a name change.

Article 4 discusses personal. First, the article outlined the goals for MI, including maintaining levels of academic staff, evaluating programs, and recognizing faculty that enhance the reputation of MI. The next section concerns NYU faculty appointments. Importantly, all faculty members that had tenure would continue to have tenure at MI, as well as offering any faculty appropriate positions at MI. The next section concerned PIB and NYU faculty. This section ensured fair and equal treatment, discussed retirement age, teaching assignments, faculty salaries, etc. The following sections discuss employment of support staff, research staff and reappointment possibilities.

Article 5 discusses program and research locations, explaining that locations will be considered on their merit and determined by taking into account multiple factors including student recruitment and retention, finances and facilities.

Article 6 concerns undertakings by NYU. Specifically, NYU was required to inform students of the merger, provide details to MI of Alumni, and grant MI needed equipment, contracts/grants and access to the library.

Article 7 establishes that MI was to become affiliated with NYU, which allowed for joint use of facilities, joint degree programs, cross-registration by students and mutual benefits for faculties.

Article 8 discusses miscellaneous representations. Both institutions agreed to keep the state education department informed, agreed to perform all actions needed to ensure the success of the merger, agreed that they were following the law and received permission from the facilities and board of trustees to go through with the merger.

Article 9 goes over mutual indemnities, clearly explaining the compensation MI owes NYU and vice versa, as well as anything excluded from compensation.

Article 10 closes the merger agreement by outlining when the consummation of the merger will occur, when the transfer of staff will occur, and how a take force will be appointed to move equipment.

Aftermath

In early May the news was released. It was official: Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and New York University were merging. This news was a shock to the New York community, described as a historic event since the death of any college, especially one with as storied a history as Poly, seemed impossible. [7]

As outlined in the merger agreement, the faculty of both institutions were offered positions at the newly named Polytechnic Institute of New York, as well as opportunities for students to transfer to the merged institution. To the admin’s delight, numerous faculty and students made the switch, ensuring the institution had quality staff to help navigate it through its turbulent initial years. [8]

And turbulent those times were. Though the merger was celebrated, it brought with it a host of challenges the newly appointed administration, faculty and students would have to navigate. Some of these issues included actually merging two faculties from different schools, addressing the dire situation of research and teaching productivity, boosting undergraduate recruitment, opening up a Long Island campus to reduce operating cost burden on the center establishing the institute as a powerful, high-standing source of quality engineering degrees, initiate a search for long-term fulfillment of administrative positions and of course the massive financial deficit that had driven the merger in the first place. [9,11] To be a bit more specific, overall research support was $2.97 million in 1972-73, and student to faculty ratio was a very low 9.0, illustrating the dire straits of the institution following the merger. [9]

Fortunately, the faculty and president proved up to the massive task, able to make enormous progress on these issues and more within a span of three years. The faculties were seamlessly integrated, stronger pushes for funding allowed for an increase in research productivity, freshman recruitment programs were described as most successful, the Long Island campus was successfully established, a grant from the Carnegie Foundation allowed the institute to develop long-term plans, and administrative positions have been filled while upholding the standards of the institute. [9,11]. Research support rose to $3.8 million in 1974-75 then $4.3 million in 1975-76, and the student to faculty ratio rose to 13.7 in the same year.

        Caption: A chart showing Polytechnic’s revenue in millions of dollars over the years. [10]

With such adequate answers to the many problems the institute faced, we are left with the elephant in the room: could the institution face the massive financial deficit and balance its budget for the first time in over a decade? The answer was a resounding yes. The 1974-75 Provost’s report proclaimed there was a decisive reversal of downward trends seen prior to the merger in 1973, and that “the overall financial condition of the Institute has markedly improved since the merger.”[9] While the merged institute still operated at a $457,000 deficit in 1974-75, the increase in student enrollment, research grants, and ability to operate with less state assistance provided the hope the institution needed. Finally, by 1980, “Polytechnic had completed the difficult period of financial readjustment.” [10] 1986 felt like a completely different time for Polytechnic. Revenue was increasing by 7-9% annually, its budget was balanced, and the institution could finally look towards the future. Though budget challenges still remained, such as a meager $14 million endowment forcing tight budget restraints, the institution was in a much healthier position compared to before the merger. [10] Thus while not perfect, we may safely say that the merger successfully saved both institutions from financial ruin, paving the way for Polytechnic to become the engineering powerhouse known today.

Works Cited

1. Economic and Demographic Trends – 2023 Financial Condition Report | Office of the New York State Comptroller. www.osc.ny.gov. https://www.osc.ny.gov/reports/finance/2023-fcr/economic-and-demographic-trends
2. Nixon Library. 1970s America | Richard Nixon Museum and Library. www.nixonlibrary.gov. Published July 6, 2021. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/1970s-america
3. Bryan M. The Great Inflation. Federal Reserve History. Published November 22, 2013. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-inflation
4. American Experience. NYC in Chaos | American Experience | PBS. www.pbs.org. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/blackout-gallery/
5. The Decline of American Science and Engineering. American Affairs Journal. Published February 20, 2019. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/02/the-decline-of-american-science-and-engineering/
6. ‌Macrotrends. World Unemployment Rate 1991-2024. www.macrotrends.net. Published 2024. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/world/unemployment-rate

     11) Bugliarello, G., & Urrows, H. (1976). Planning and Evaluating an Academic Merger and Making It Work. Final Report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. ERIC - ED129152 - Planning and Evaluating an Academic Merger and Making It Work. Final Report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York., 1976-Apr-15

    12)BROOKLYN’S POLYTECH, A STORYBOOK SUCCESS. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/05/education/brooklyn-s-polytech-a-storybook-success.html. Published January 5, 1986.

13)Millett, John D. (1976). Mergers in Higher Education. An Analysis of Ten Case Studies. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED134105.pdf

Concerning the Poly Archives:

Box: POLY/NYU MERGER 1970S BOX

Folder: Revenue - DATA, etc. NYU

Source: 14: Consolidating Balance Sheet August 31, 1971 and 1970, 15: Consolidated Balance sheet for the year of 72-73 for PIB,

Folder: MERGER - STATEMENT OF INTENT

Source: 16: SUNDAY NEWS: MAY 6, 1973, 17: New York State Education Department NEWS May 5, 18: 1972 Statement by the Regents on the Plan for Resolving Fiscal Crisis of NYU, Office of the NYU president, 19: August 27, 1973. Addressed the alumni of the school of engineering and science, 20: Letter from Commissioner Ewald B. Nyquist, 21: New York State Education Department News: November 22, 1972, 22: The Polytechnic Faculty NEWS, March 26, 1973. Vol 9, No. 38

Folder: Merger Committee Agreement

Source: 23: Merger Agreement between NYU/SES and PIB

Separate Box/folder: Merger (Early 70s) Poly/State University of N.Y (S.U.N.Y)

Source: 24: Proposal for Polytechnic Institute of State University of New York. Draft: March 9, 1968, 25: Letter to Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller from the graduate and undergraduate students of Poly. November 1, 1968

Separate box/folder: President’s Report 1971 - 1988

Source: 9: A Year of Growth 1974 - 1975, Annual Report of Polytechnic Institute of New York, 10: Polytechnic University President’s report 1986

Questions (Temporary)

Temporary Part for Questions

1. Did you see traces of the historical argument? (Financial difficulties were the driving force behind the merger, complicated by NYU Faculty)
2. Was there enough detail? Should I add more?
3. Were the writing sections clear?
4. How were the sizes and integration of images? Did they flow well with the text?
5. How was my presentation skills?
6. Any advice or suggestions?
7. Was the in-text citation style appropriate?