MEMORIALS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

A memorial for Ms. Leona Tyler, Professor and Dean Emerita, is a part of these minutes and can be found on pages 5-8. Ms. Tyler joined the University faculty as an Instructor in the Department of Psychology in 1941. She retired from the University in 1972 and passed away, in Eugene, on April 29, 1993.

The Annual Report of the Faculty Advisory Council is a part of these minutes and can be found on pages 3-5.

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DEGREES

Mr. John Nicols, Chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, was recognized to make the following motion:

"I move that the faculty of the University of Oregon recommend that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List for the academic year 1992-93 and for Summer 1993, as compiled by the Office of the Registrar, the degrees for which each person has successfully completed all requirements."

The motion was passed without dissent.

OLD BUSINESS

President Brand recognized Mr. Marshall Sauceda, Multicultural Affairs, to make his motion for reconsideration. Mr. Sauceda moved that the Sanders Amendment that was voted upon and approved as a modification of the main motion on the floor at the May 5, 1993 meeting be reconsidered. Mr. Sauceda voted on the prevailing side on this motion to amend as his motion to reconsider was in order. Mr. Sauceda stated that he wished to withdraw his motion to reconsider and he was in turn offering his support to the motion to refer the legislation to a committee that would be made later by motion to reconsider if the motion to refer was defeated.

Mr. Whalen was recognized to introduce his motion to refer.

Motion to refer the pending legislation and its proposed amendments to an ad hoc committee to consider the current (1988) Race/Gender/non-European-American Requirement, and to consider the proposal (Spring 1993) currently before the University Assembly to change that requirement.

The Provost, in consultation with the President of the University Senate, shall appoint an ad hoc committee to reconsider the current (1988) race, gender, non-EuropeanAmerican requirement. The committee shall also examine the implications of the motion from the University Senate to change this requirement that is currently before the Assembly. In this regard, the committee is charged with addressing:

• 1. the substantive concerns embodied in the motion from the Senate;
• 2. the fiscal implications of the motion, in light of the University's changing budget picture; and
• 3. the curricular implications of the motion, in light of recent curricular changes.

The committee will report its findings to the University Assembly no later than the March 1994 meeting.

The Committee will be composed of ten members. Its membership shall include one person from each of the following committees and units: University Committee on the Curriculum, Academic Requirements Committee, Senate Budget Committee, Undergraduate Education and Policy Coordinating Council, 1992-g3 Multicultural Curriculum Committee, and Academic Advising. There shall be one undergraduate student on the committee. Two additional members shall come from those departments and programs most affected by the proposed curricular changes. The last member of the committee shall come from a department or program not otherwise represented by ted members listed above. all members of the committee, with the exception of the member from Academic Advising and the undergraduate student, shall be drawn from the instructional faculty.

Mr. Quintard Taylor, a member of the 1992-93 Multicultural Task Force, endorsed the motion to refer with through seconding the motion, and Ms. Sandra Morgen, also a member of the Task Force, spoke in favor of the motion to refer. Mr. Davison Soper, Physics, stated that he was opposed to the original motion, but he felt that the motion to refer was the only avenue which could be taken in reaching a settlement of the issue. The faculty, he said, was too evenly divided on this issue and that a victory for either side would not be clear enough to settle the issues involved. Student Senator David Wallerstein rose to endorse the motion to refer and Mr. Charles Wright, Mathematics, stated that he was neutral on the motion, but that he hoped the committee would explore all alternatives, that is the integration of the curriculum that has taken place since the original motion was accepted, or the retraining of faculty to integrate the curriculum so that the necessary information would be available across the curriculum and that no student could avoid being exposed to a full and comprehensive treatment of the issues raised by the original motion.

Mr. Greg Calof, Student Senate, endorsed the motion to refer, but he also stated that no course will erase racism but will serve as a step toward the goal of elimination of racism. Mr. Arnold Ismach, Journalism, asked if all the amendments that had been circulated or made a part of the minutes from the Assembly would be considered by the committee. President Brand assured Mr. Ismach that all amendments would be considered.

The question was called for and was passed by an overwhelming show of hands. The motion to refer was called and it passed by a vote of 317 yes and 5 no.

ADJOURN

The business of the meeting having concluded the last meeting of the University Assembly for the academic year 1992-1993 adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary 

YEAR-END REPORT OF THE 1992-1993 FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL The 1992-1993 academic year has been a period of considerable uncertainty, influenced by political upheavals both before and during the legislative session, and dominated by the budgetary response to Measure 5. In this context, the Faculty Advisory Council has considered a wide range of both ordinary and unusual procedural and policy matters, from faculty salary policy to class scheduling, student internships, and the staffing of the Provost's office. Some discussions, such as the ones over library serials budgets and the relocation of programs to the Riverfront Research Park, were initiated by faculty queries, but most of our time has been devoted to presidential requests for advice and to our own initiatives. Faculty workload and productivity clearly dominated our agenda. Budget policy and the faculty's role in university governance were two other recurring themes.

The FAC this year took the initiative in a campaign to engage the whole faculty in a discussion of the broad topic of faculty workload and productivity. We sent to all faculty members a series of letters that described and analyzed the workload and reward issues at stake for them and for the university, and that raised questions for discussion. The letter campaign led up to a university-wide convocation, consisting of a keynote address by Vice Chancellor Richard Session of UCLA followed by small group discussions. Our activities in this area were coordinated with those of an OSSHE task force on faculty productivity and with other University of Oregon efforts to explain workload issues to legislators and other members of the community. Related events included the formation of committees on teaching evaluation and undergraduate instruction, as well as the Commission on Promotion, Tenure and Career development. We have reviewed and supported proposals from these groups to create departmental teaching awards and improve the evaluation of teaching.

Although the Senate Budget Committee is specifically charged with providing budget policy advice, the FAC also has responsibility for budget policy review. We met jointly several times with the Senate Budget committee. In addition, FAC members served on the vice-presidential budget review teams, and the FAC as a whole discussed the review team recommendations with the individual vice presidents.

Faculty participation in university governance has become a serious issue. We anticipate that within the next few years major decisions on university policy will require the judgment of faculty members with broad knowledge of the institution. There is no shortage of talent among the faculty, but we are concerned about what we see as a general lack of university wide experience and perspective. In recent years a pattern of administrative appointment of ad hoc committees has emerged. This practice, which tends to by-pass or underutilize the standing committees, also has the consequence that, for understandable reasons, the same people tend to be called upon again and again. Meanwhile, the influence of the Assembly has declined and the University Senate has assumed a policy-making role that taxes the capacities of its relatively small faculty membership. The position of the FAC itself is less clear than it once was, as task forces and commissions have taken over some of its traditional advisory functions.

Committee work and adninistrative service consume faculty hours that could be spent in other ways, and we have recommended that the university set the overall goal of reducing by half the amount of time that goes into such activities. In keeping with that objective, we have reduced our own meeting frequency by about a third from its previous weekly schedule. Informed faculty participation in setting institutional policies and practices is essential, though, if we are to maintain and enhance the character of the university. Records back up our observation that the great majority of faculty members have never taken part in policy or administrative decisions outside their departments or schools, save for attendance at Assembly meetings. We have also observed that our colleagues are becoming increasingly reluctant to serve on elected bodies. This year's FAC has begun an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of our present governance structure, with a view to recommending changes that will encourage more active faculty participation, in part by making such service more clearly meaningful. We anticipate that the 1993-I994 FAC will continue the discussion.

Respectfully submitted Laura Alpert John Reynolds Judy Hibbard Richard Steers Anne Leavitt Marliss Strange John Nicols Louise Westling William Orr Charles Wright, Chair

LEONA ELIZABETH TYLER May 10, 1906 - April 29, 1993

Leona Tyler was with the University for 53 years. She joined the faculty as an Instructor in 1940 and died as Professor Emerita and Dean Emerita in 1993, after making significant contributions to the University, the community, the state and even the nation and beyond. Her history of outstanding achievement has been cited as a model for women. Her balanced blend of kindness and firmness is a model for everyone.

Leona was born in Chetka, Wisconsin, in 1906. She had three younger brothers, two of whom also went on to significant accomplishments in the academic world. Her early, formative years were on the Mesabi Iron Range in Northern Minnesota in hard-working mining communities of immigrants from northern and southern Europe. The tax revenues from the these productive mines provided well for the local schools, and her family encouraged Leona's early excellence in her studies and the piano, which she enjoyed playing well into her last decade. Her academic progress was rapid, and she received her B. S. from the University of Minnesota at age 19.

Her major was in the teaching of English, but she had also found herself very attracted to science. She told of her excitement in chemistry class when she first discovered the elegance and order of he periodic table. Later, her choice of psychology provides a synthesis of her strong humanistic bent with her convictions about empirical evidence in organizing knowledge.

Following her baccalaureate, Leona taught English in junior high schools for thirteen years. Observing the development of young people and reading countless essays, she became increasingly interested in what became an important theme in her professional life--individual differences and individuality. In a summer course at the University of Minnesota, a prominent figure in the field of individual differences, Donald Paterson, recognized her ability and encouraged Leona to shift her objectives to the Ph. D. in Psychology. She was also influenced by the great developmental psychologist, Florenca Goodenough, whose textbook she later revised. For her doctoral dissertation she built an interest test for high school girls--a project that heralded themes for much of her subsequent research, teaching, and practice. She was granted the Ph.D. from Minnesota in 1941.

In the fall of 1940, Leona Tyler came to the small Department of Psychology at the University of Oregon. In those days of heavy teaching loads, professors were expected to teach a wide variety of courses in addition to their specialties, which in her case were individual and group differences, testing, and counseling. During the time she was with the Department, Leona was the advisor for more graduate students' masters and doctoral dissertations than any other faculty member. She also worked part-time in the University's Personnel Research Bureau and taught mathematics during the period of faculty shortage in World War II. As the war ended, she developed a counseling service for veterans, which she then turned into the University Counseling Center. All the time she was teaching, Leona continued to counsel students with their vocational and personal concerns. Her view was that the purpose of counseling was to encourage natural life-long developmental processes. In 1g65 Leona was asked to be the Dean of the Graduate School--one of the first, if not the first woman among such Deans in the country. She retired in 1971 at the then mandatory age of 65, still very active intellectually and professionally.

Throughout her career, Leona Tyler's theoretical and research ideas kept developing. Her early concern for vocational interests led to a longitudinal study of the broader question of the directions of development of interests and personality. A major research finding was that dislikes, or avoidances, were more important than likes as people thought about careers. She then turned toward studying the organization of choices of people's lives. She developed the Choice Pattern Technique, which required individuals to indicate how they construed occupations and freetime activities. A Fulbright award to the Netherlands in 1962-63 allowed her to test out her ideas and methods cross-culturally

Later studies expanded research to values, daily activities, and future time perspectives of adolescents in India and Australia. Her most basic tenet was that development involves selection from a great number of possibilities of a set of actualities limited by time and the person's situation. Her investigations aimed at revealing cognitive possibility structures. Thus her thinking moved from rather concrete vocational interests to the broadest considerations about the various selves which the person might actualize.

Leona was a skilled and graceful writer. Her concern for clarifying the human puzzle of personal change over time moved from individual differences to individuality, and from stimulus-response to a systems-ecological view of real-world choices. Her nearly 100 publications made their influence felt through their clarity and aptness. Titles of books and articles reveal some of the progression: The Psychology of Human Differences, (1974); The Work of the Counselor, (1953); Developmental Psychology, (1959); "Research Explorations in the Realm of Choice," (I961), Clinical Psychology, (19621; "Patterns of Choices in Dutch, American, and Indian Adolescents," (1968); Individuality: Human Possibilities and Personal Choice in the Psychological Development of Men and Women, (1978); and Thinking Creatively: A New Approach to Psychology and Individual Lives, (1983). Her textbooks were highly regarded and widely used, and the three editions of The Work of the Counselor were perhaps the leading influence on the development of the counseling profession in their day. In her last ten years Leona continued to think deeply and write occasionally about how to conceptualize life histories.

Along with her teaching, counseling, research and writing, Leona was involved in community service and administration. She was on many state and local boards, such as that of the Laurel Hill rehabilitation center. Her leadership in the University of Oregon through service on many committees, such as the Faculty Advisory Council, and as Dean of the Graduate School. She was successively elected president of the Oregon Psychological Association, the Western Psychological Association, the Counseling Division of the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychological Association. In 1972-73, she was only the fourth woman president since the national organization was founded in 18g2. She was honored by numerous awards, including Distinguished Service Awards from the University of Minnesota and the University of oregon, and the American Psychological Foundations's Gold Medal for Life-Time Achievement in the Public Interest.

Leona died in Eugene of congestive heart failure. Her surviving relatives are her niece, Deborah Tyler of Vallejo, California; her nephew, Daniel Tyler and his wife, Deborah Loomis, and their two children, Leah and Jedd, of Eugene; and her brother Robert's wife, Gerry Tyler, and son Benjamin, of Kingston, Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I move that this memorial be made a permanent part of the official minutes of this meeting and that copies of the memorial be sent to the family of Leona Tyler.

Norman D. Sundberg Professor Emeritus

Department of Psychology June 2, 1992 

"Motion to revise the Race, Gender and non-European Requirement"

"It is incumbent upon the University of Oregon to respond to the changing demographic and political realities of the U. S. and the world as we shape a curriculum for the 21st century. To begin this process, the Multicultural Curriculum Committee requests that the University Assembly approve the following changes in the Race, Gender, and non-European Requirement. These changes will be effective for all undergraduates entering the University of Oregon beginning in the academic year 1994-1995 unless the committee responsible for implementation of the requirement, upon evaluation of available courses, requests an additional one year extension to ensure sufficient course availability for the meaningful implementation of the revised requirement.

"The current requirement calls for one course that addresses either race, gender, or non-European subject matter.

• "1. We move that the requirement be increased to two (2) courses to be chosen from a list of courses to be approved by a Senate- appointed seven (7) member standing committee which will review and recommend to the Committee on the Curriculum approval of existing and new classes for the requirement. The standing committee will review all courses which currently fulfill the requirement as well as new courses which are to be considered to fulfill the requirement. The standing committee will review approved courses periodically, minimally every two years. The standing committee shall be composed of the Director of Women's Studies (or appointee), the Director of Ethnic Studies (or appointee), the Director of International Studies (or appointee), one student appointed by the ASUO President and Student Senate, and three faculty members appointed by the University Senate. A member of the Committee on the Curriculum will be appointed to the standing committee as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
• "2. One of the two courses will focus on contemporary race relations in the U. S.; or the historical roots of contemporary race relations in the U. S., specifically linking the historical matters to contemporary issues; or it will address in depth the social, economic, political, cultural, and/or psychological conditions of, and/or the artistic, musical, oral or written expressions of racial/ethnic minority groups in the U. S. A. In addition, courses that examine the theoretical conceptualization of race as a biological, historical, and cultural category, and that include material about racial/ethnic minority groups in the U. S. can be counted towards fulfillment of the requirements.
• "3. The second course will foster a student's understanding of diversity by focusing on how gender, race, ethnicity and/or class shape experience or identity, relations among social groups, or the creative expressions of women, peoples of color, ethnic minorities, and/or non-European cultures. These courses may be taught in a wide variety of disciplines and can explore either non-European or European societies. Since the primary pedagogical goal of this requirement is to enable students to better understand diversity as it is manifested within and characterizes our society in its global context, the committee shall encourage courses that provide students with conceptual tools and substantive material to facilitate these understandings.

AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 5, 1993 MEETING

Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, to amend l. in the motion:

The committee is charged to negotiate directly with departments, programs and individual faculty to identify suitable courses and to encourage development of suitable components in other courses relating to to the aims of the requirement. The committee shall also refine the statement of the requirement in light of the findings through the above negotiations. The course list shall be reviewed by the University Committee on the Curriculum, the University Senate, and submitted to the University Assembly for approval.

Mr. Christopher Phillips, Mathematics, proposed the following amendment to delete section l and replace that section with the following:

1. We move that the requirement be kept at one (l) course to be chosen in the following manner:

• (a) Any faculty member of an academic department can propose a relevant course to her/his department, argue its relevance there, and receive departmental approval.
• (b) Any course approved by an academic department as satisfying the Race/Gender requirement will be forwarded by a the approving department to the University Committee on the Curriculum, where it must follow the established procedure for deliberation and approval of new or revised curriculum. (c) The process of course approval from then on will follow the normal procedures for any curricular changes at this University.

Ms. Sandra Morgen, Sociology

• 1. We move that the requirement be increased to two (2) course at a minimum level of three credits each** to be chosen from a list of courses to be reviewed by a Senate appointed seven (7) member standing committee which will recommend to the University Committee on the Curriculum approval of existing and new classes for the requirement. **Clarification language suggested by the Office of the Registrar.
• 2. In Section two, on the first course, after the phrase "can be counted towards fulfillment of the requirement," add the following. Also, given the striking parallels between racism in the U S and other forms of bigotry, such as anti-Semitism and anti-Arab sentiment, comparative discussions of the various ideas and expressions of group hatred are encouraged. n

MOTION OF SUBSTITUTION 5

This motion will be made by Mr. John Nicols, History and Chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, as a substitute for the motion that he entered on the record at the May 5, 1993 meeting of the Assembly. "I move that the Provost, as chief academic officer, name a committee to reconsider the current (1988) race/gender requirement. This committee shall consist of seven members: the chairs of the Academic Requirements Committee and the University Committee on the Curriculum; additional members shall be selected from the Senate Budget Committee, a representative of the 'Multicultural Task Force,' from the Academic Advising Office, and from two departments likely to be affected by any change (and not otherwise represented on this list). All the members of this committee, with the exception of the representative of the Academic Advising Office, shall be selected from the instructional faculty.

"The committee shall be charged to review the 1988 legislation. It shall also consider the fiscal and pedagogical implications of the proposal currently before the assembly (Spring 1993) as well as those amendments introduced but on which no action has yet been taken.

"The committee's report shall be presented first to the Undergraduate Policy and Coordinating Committee, them to the Senate and to the Assembly. The report shall reach the assembly for action no later than the December, 1993." 

The Undergraduate Education and Policy Coordinating Council will conduct a review of the general university requirements, allowing for any and all concerned to have the opportunity to participate while seeking information from those most knowledgeable about requirements. By February 1994, the Council will inform assembly members as to the progress and directions of deliberations. The Council will then at the April 1994 assembly, bring to the floor a proposal for the general university requirements.

Charlene Larison Department of Biology From William Baugh and David Jacobs, Political Science

"The ultimate vote on race/gender/non-Euorpean requirements, after all amendments, shall be submitted to a mail ballot of all those eligible to vote."