When any university decides to overhaul a college or change any part of the academic setting, there needs to be a clear and understandable reason. Right now, any real justification for realigning the College of Arts & Letters, College of Social Sciences and the College of Communication Arts and Sciences is missing.

Until the exact details of the Realizing the Vision plan are known and the immediate benefit of reorganization to the MSU student becomes apparent, we at The State News will remain skeptical.

When students are first investigating a university as large as MSU - which to some could be intimidating by its sheer size - they need to feel like they will be welcomed. One of the great functions MSU developed over the years was its small and intimate college groups. Huge mega-colleges have the potential to drive these students away. Residential options by college have been suggested as a remedy to such fear, but their effect isn't tailored to the undergraduate student body at large.

The idea is that by combining the three colleges into one, there might be more interdisciplinary play between them. It is important that students get education outside of their major areas of study, but the way interdisciplinary classes are executed right now - your ISPs, ISBs, IAHs, etc. - makes them less than desirable. If anything good is to happen, there needs to be a strengthening of how these classes actually function. Unless this is addressed along with the combination of colleges, little will change.

When the time comes for the decision on which changes are needed and exactly how liberal arts will be realigned, the representatives of those colleges need to be fully included. The people closest to the actual workings of the colleges obviously know the most about how they really work.

Currently, there are a lot of unanswered questions. What is known is that the plan was developed to save the university money, and will not involve getting rid of any current programs. The important things we don't know include exactly which students and faculty would be adversely effected by such a move, if class sizes will get any larger and how everyone, students included, at the university would benefit by the plan.

Hopefully, the final draft of the Committee on College Reorganization's report will explain and assure the people who are skeptical of such change. It needs to be carefully worded and affect change only where change is needed. If any problems eventually arise after the official presentation of the plan, open discussion between students, faculty and administrators needs careful orchestration.

It's likely that such a big change won't be accepted by everyone. Something that is possibly caustic needs to be discussed, even after initial analysis. The specifics of which changes are needed, and which are best for the university needs to be openly debated.

If everything goes well, not much debate will be needed. It is our hope that the plan is so comprehensive and thoughtfully crafted that even critics will applaud the change as necessary. Until then, the Committee on College Reorganization has some work to do to keep everyone happy.