Minutes of the University Assembly
Wednesday October 18, 2000
President
Dave Frohnmayer called the regular fall term meeting of the University Assembly
for academic year 2000-01 to order at 3:07 p.m. in 123 Pacific.
Minutes
of the May 31, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed.
Faculty
Personnel Committee Annual Report. The secretary acknowledged receipt of the annual
report from the Faculty Personnel Committee.
The committee reviewed 52 cases involving promotion and/or tenure
recommendations. Of particular note
were the severe limitations of interpretation of z-scores of students’
teaching evaluations due to inconsistencies across departments, especially in
identifying and reporting comparator groups.
Several recommendations were made to improve the situation. (See
attachment A for full text of the FPC Annual Report.)
Welcome
remarks from University Senate President James Earl. Senate
President Earl spoke briefly regarding the “health” of faculty governance on
campus, saying that it was in “critical condition”. He stated that he will do his best to awaken the faculty’s sense
of its own power and right to govern.
Suggesting that the senate needs to be a place where we can confront the
many issues and problems facing higher education head-on, he indicated that
this year’s senate will include forums where conflicting issues can be debated
openly and where problems can be
researched and reported. President Earl
reminded everyone that the senate meetings are open and he invited faculty
attendance and participation. (See
attachment B for full text of the remarks.).
President
Frohnmayer spoke about diversity and community as the theme to his welcoming
remarks. He noted that this year’s
freshman class has better test scores and higher GPAs than ever before – and it
is the most diverse class ever. The
president emphasized the campus’ commitment to diversity by stressing that it
is important because a diverse campus prepares students for a diverse
world.
The
president listed a number of significant advances where progress toward
increasing diversity and diversity awareness has been made, such as improving
scholarship opportunities, adding staff in the multicultural affairs office,
increasing efforts to recruit faculty of color, and emphasizing diversity
issues during faculty orientation programs.
Still,
there is much to be done and additional efforts made. The president noted that work is progressing on establishing a
Center for the Study of Social Change, which will concentrate on diversity
issues especially regarding research, training, conflict resolution, and
community outreach directed toward fostering mutual trust and respect. He noted one of the challenges the campus
faces is to maintain our sense of community as the diversity of the campus
increases. One step in this direction, which
the president fully supports, was the senate’s recent resolution regarding the University
of Oregon Affirmation of Community Standards statement. The president concluded his remarks by
reminding everyone that the work they do at this university is noble work, and
he thanked the assembled group for all that they do. (See attachment C for full text of the president’s comments.)
Provost
John Moseley also welcomed the faculty, and especially the new faculty, lauding
their excellent credentials and expertise.
He invited each dean to briefly introduce the new faculty members in
their respective schools and colleges.
(For a listing of the new tenured and tenure-related faculty members,
see attachment D.)
With
the conclusion of the introductions, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary
of the Faculty
==========================================
Faculty
Personnel Committee
1999-2000
Report to
the Senate
The Faculty Personnel Committee
(FPC) has just completed its work for the 1999-2000 academic year. Members of this year’s committee were: Patrick Bartlein (Geography), Stephen Durrant
(East Asian Languages and Literature), Patricia Gwartney (Sociology), David
Herrick (Chemistry), Heath Hutto (Student member--English), Edward Kame’enui
(Education), Lisa Kloppenberg (Law), Terry O’Keefe (Business), Leslie Steeves
(Journalism and Communication), Kent Stevens (Computer Science), Jenny Young
(Architecture). One of our two student
members did not attend after the second meeting.
The FPC work load is heavy. This year we advised the Provost on
fifty-two cases involving tenure and/or promotion. These are broken down as follows:
Internal Cases (48)
Promotion
to Professor
17
Promotion
to Associate Professor with Tenure
29
Tenure
Only 2
External Cases (4)
Professor
with Tenure 4
Total 52
We held twenty-two meetings during
the current academic year, each for approximately two hours. In addition to
this time in meetings, we estimate that we spent an average of three to six
hours each week during winter and spring quarters reading files. Moreover, one member of the committee is
assigned to report each case and prepare a written report to the committee and
then subsequently to the Provost. The
member reporting a case, and each of us has reported five cases during the
year, typically spends a full work-day in preparation.
We believe that the present mission
and structure of FPC serves the University well. Careful peer review at each level of the institution (department,
college, and university) is an essential part of our University’s tenure and promotion
process. The current system provides
for checks and balances and, we hope, assures fairness.
Service this year on FPC has
reinforced our belief in the high quality of our faculty. The vast majority of the cases we have
examined were much more than merely adequate--they were impressively
strong. Moreover, the committees and
department leaders who prepared the cases generally did so with commendable
professionalism. We do, however, have
one major concern and a number of other suggestions. Several of these concerns are addressed clearly in the Faculty
Handbook or other material disseminated from the Provost’s Office. We strongly recommend strict adherence to
those materials.
Our major concern centers upon our
current student teaching evaluations.
FPC finds that the interpretability of UO’s quantitative teaching
evaluations is severely limited because departments (1) omit key comparative
information in their candidates’ teaching summaries, (2) misinterpret z-scores,
and (3) do not explain their summaries of quantitative evaluations.
To compare a promotion and/or tenure
candidate’s teaching to other instructors’ teaching, departments need to report
the comparator group. Many departments
do not report the group of instructors or courses that define departmental
means, standard deviations, and z-scores.
Are the comparators all instructors and all courses, or are evaluations
stratified into sub-categories by course level or type? Are courses taught by graduate students and
adjuncts separated into their own category or included with those of the
tenure-related faculty? Without these
facts, the magnitudes of means, and the signs and sizes of z-scores, necessary
for comparative analysis, are uninformative.
Many departments also misinterpret
z-scores. “Significant” z-scores are
only those greater than +2.0 or less than -2.0 (if departments define
comparator groups and if certain statistical assumptions are met). Many departments assert “significant”
deviations from means when no z-scores exceed the +/-2.0 criterion. Other departments overlook obvious z-score
patterns (such as all-negative or all-positive values, or over-time trends) in
favor of simple counts of z-scores with large values.
When creating summary tables of
quantitative course evaluations, departments should explain their choices and
copy the data carefully. It is often
illustrative to report certain course types separately (e.g., graduate vs.
undergraduate, specialty area vs. non-specialty area, mass classes vs. small
classes). When less than half of
enrolled students complete course evaluations, the results should be treated as
unreliable. Courses with very few
students and that involve substantial independent study (such as internship,
dissertation, reading and conference) are not appropriate to evaluate. Some departments do not make such
distinctions, some exclude certain courses from summary reports for no obvious
reason and some make transcription errors when creating summary tables. Such problems potentially mislead peer
reviewers and unnecessarily burden FPC.
If quantitative teaching evaluations
are to be useful in promotion and tenure evaluations, departments must, at a
minimum, identify and report comparator groups, accurately report and interpret
z-scores, and explain their summary tables.
Better, UO should (1) consider adopting new, improved methods for
quantitative teaching evaluation than enables departments to more easily avoid
problems like those described above, and (2) consider creating a template
summary table for quantitative evaluations to standardize the reporting
process. Either improvement will reduce
burdens in the peer review process.
Our further suggestions and comments
follow:
1.
Candidates should prepare their vitas with great care, and vitas should
be reviewed at the department level before submission of the case. The department should work with the
candidate to assure that the vita is neither over- nor understated (we have
seen examples of both). It is important
that candidates list publications with full citation, indicate which journal
articles have been refereed, provide full employment history, and list all
relevant internal and external service.
2.
The personal statement should be relatively brief (the Faculty Handbook
recommends five pages) and should be addressed primarily to a non-specialist
readership. This year some statements
were too long, and others were filled with language we found impenetrable. The committee realizes that these letters
are sent out to external referees who are specialists in the candidate’s field
of expertise. In cases where there is
concern that oversimplification might offend specialist reviewers, two
statements could be prepared, one for specialist reviewers and one for those of
us require some demystification!
3.
Departments and colleges should take care to indicate the relative
importance of journals and presses in their field. It is helpful when presses and journals are ranked and when a
distinction is made between specialty journals or presses and those of a more
general nature.
4.
Units should explain the disciplinary conventions governing order of
authorship (i.e., what does being listed first or second mean, if it means
anything). We are particularly
concerned about this issue when junior authors appear to be working with more
senior mentors.
5.
Peer evaluations of teaching is sometimes inadequate and only completed
under the pressure of preparing a promotion case.
6.
In submitting files to external referees, we advise strict adherence to
the standardized letter in the Handbook.
In a few cases this year evaluators were not asked several of the key
questions that FPC and others use to assess the relative strength of candidates
(compare the candidate with others of comparable rank in the field, indicate
whether the candidate would receive tenure at your institution, etc.).
7.
We did not have a tenure and promotion statement from every unit
submitting cases this year. We also
noted several striking differences in expectations for promotion and tenure
from one unit to another even when units seem to represent comparable
disciplines.
8.
There is irregularity between units as to who votes on tenure and
promotion cases. While some
inconsistency might be acceptable, it would help if votes were parsed by
rank. We also encourage units to
explain abstentions (present and abstained, conflicted, absent, etc.).
Finally, the committee would like to
acknowledge the help and support of the Office of the Vice President for
Academic Affairs. We especially want to
thank Carol White for her excellent and efficient help. Without her, our work would have been vastly
more difficult. We also would like to
commend our outstanding student member, Heath Hutto. Heath was always well-prepared, intelligent, and courageous. If any of us ever have doubted the value of
student participation in such committees, Heath has removed those doubts!
ATTACHMENT
B
Remarks
from the University Senate President
James
Earl
This
year I just happen to be the president of the Senate, so I have the privilege
of preceding President Frohnmayer on today's agenda. He'll give his
annual "State of the University" message; but first I get to give a
short "State of the Senate" message.
I
said, I just happen to be president of the Senate. The truth is, I was
tricked into it, and no one's more surprised than I am that I'm a
president. The story of how I was tricked into it doesn't reflect very
well on those who did it, so I won't go into details. But it says something
about the state of the Senate that trickery was necessary. Because I haven't
use trickery I had the darndest time finding someone to take the job next
year. Which is a shame, because this job is extremely rewarding.
For the first time in thirty years as a professor I'm getting opportunities
like this one to voice publically the professor's point of view on university
issues.
The
state of the Senate? To put it medically, I think it's
"critical." I remember Assembly meetings where the auditorium
was packed. The debate was vigorous to the point of chaotic.
Today's Assembly and Senate meetings are sparsely attended, and dreary. The
last Assembly meeting was held in a room larger than this, and the president
addressed a crowd of six faculty. Few faculty want to be on the Senate
anymore, or on its committees, and no one wants to lead it. So although
shared governance is alive and functional on campus, I wouldn't say it's
well.
I'll
do what I can to change that this year, but what's really required is a
reawakening of the faculty's sense of its own power (and right) to
govern. I think the faculty's fading interest in the Senate is due to the
recent sea-change in university governance, not only here but across the
country. If professors are less interested in their governance today,
it's because we're uncertain how to respond to this transformation of the
university--uncertain, and resentful too.
Now
as the joke goes, we Ph.D.'s are doctors, but not real doctors; but real
doctors are in a similar pickle. Even as medical technology becomes more
and more sophisticated, and medicine approaches the miraculous, doctors and
patients complain constantly that medicine has become more and more impersonal,
and medical decisions are being influenced, if not made, by hospital
administrators, HMOs and insurance companies, rather than by physicians.
Similarly, professors and students have a right to feel that in spite of all
our wonderful new technology, higher education is quickly becoming a business
instead of a profession--much less a calling.
I
think of the University Senate as the canary in the coal mine, whose unhealth
indicates a larger looming disaster. My eyes tell me we're a very
talented faculty, doing good work under bad circumstances. Like faculties
at many big state schools these days we're burdened by absurdly large
undergraduate classes, and a huge proportion of temporary, non-tenure-track
appointments. And we breathe an academic atmosphere more and more polluted
by marketing rhetoric, an endless search for money, and a gigantic, insatiable
sports industry.
We
need a Senate where we can confront these problems head-on, where the demand
for cleaner air can be heard loud and clear. There is no university where
professors aren't in firm control of the academic atmosphere. This year's
Senate will be a forum where the sometimes conflicting interests of students,
faculty and administrators, as well as alumni, boosters and fans, can be
debated openly; where the problems of large classes and temporary faculty can
be researched and reported; where the influence of fund-raising on university
governance can be openly discussed; and where the influence of big-time sports
on academics can be exposed. That's my agenda. It will go nowhere,
of course, if the faculty isn't interested. I invite everyone to attend
our Senate meetings. Thank you.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
October 18, 2000
University of Oregon
“DIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY”
Thank you.
Particular thanks to those of you who took part in
some of the many events we held to welcome students this year. Many here, along with other faculty, staff,
and administrators, worked hundreds of extra hours during orientation and our
Week of Welcome. These efforts really
made a positive difference this year.
This is but one example of the many things that
everyone here does every day that matters, sometimes in ways we don’t fully
appreciate.
At each State of the University address, I try to
talk about two or three things that I think are particularly vital to the
coming year. A university consists of
thousands of ideas and actions produced by thousands of people. It is a constantly changing mix. It reminds me of a passage from Mark Twain,
when he wrote about learning to be a riverboat pilot: “two things seemed pretty apparent to me. One was, that in order to be a pilot, a man
had got to learn more than any other man ought to be allowed to know; and the
other was, that he must learn it all over again in a different way every
twenty-four hours.” That’s the way this
year has already seemed to me, and I suspect to each of you.
In the midst of all this learning, I want to talk
about two things today, two values that must combine to strengthen our work as
educators and our mission as a university—community and diversity.
As you might have heard, enrollment is up strongly,
especially in our freshman class. This is good news, especially when added to
the fact that our students are arriving better prepared, with better test
scores and higher GPAs than ever before.
Add to this the fact that our freshman class is more
diverse than ever, and you have a truly notable achievement. About one student in seven at the UO this
year is a student of color and one in fourteen is an international student.
We emphasize diversity, we work for diversity, and
we believe in diversity. But we have to
ask ourselves: Why is diversity
important? What does it have to do with
our mission as a university?
Put simply, a diverse campus prepares students for a
diverse world.
It is difficult to prepare students for full,
successful lives in a nation and a region that is growing ever more diverse
ethnically, racially, in every way if our campus does not reflect that
diversity.
Recent studies from the University of Michigan
support that idea. Researchers there
found that five years after graduation, those students who were exposed to a
diverse student body in college were more likely to work in integrated
settings, live in integrated neighborhoods, and have friends of another
race. Students from the most diverse
campuses experienced the greatest growth in active thinking processes, in
motivation to achieve and in intellectual self-confidence.
This is simply another indication, if any were
needed, that working for diversity is the right thing to do.
However it is not easy—especially in a state like
Oregon, which has not always had a history of welcoming minorities.
This unfortunate part of our state’s history,
coupled with the overwhelmingly white demographic of our region, has made it
frankly very difficult to recruit faculty and students of color.
But none of us can afford to use that as an excuse.
In fact, the demography of our state is changing.
And, through concentrated effort, the University of Oregon is not only changing
with it— but also leading in that change.
Efforts toward diversity are happening all across
campus. Here are a few of the most significant advances made recently:
• We have initiated a Bias Response Team to
respond constructively as a community to the type of gender friction we saw
erupt in an e-mail exchange among students in the spring of l999.
• We have added an additional staff member to
the Teaching Effectiveness Program with the specific responsibility to work
with diversity issues in effective teaching.
• We added staffing support in the Office of
Multicultural Affairs, including a
position specifically to maintain our Diversity Web Site—incidentally a good
place to look for ongoing information on diversity initiatives.
• We are devoting more than $1 million for
student scholarships specifically designed to enhance diversity.
• We spent $500,000 in recruiting and
retention activities for faculty of color, and we are seeing good success in
this critical area.
• I established the "President's Advisory
Council for the UO’s Native American Initiative." This Council is comprised of the nine chairs
of the federally recognized tribes of Oregon as well as national native leaders
and experts on sovereignty and tribal issues.
• We spent three days of our new faculty
orientation this year focusing on working with an increasingly diverse student
population.
• Our Academic Deans devoted a major block of
time at this year’s retreat to reviewing diversity issues, with Carla Gary,
Dean Robert Melnick, Dean Anne McLucas and Dean Tim Gleason taking leadership
roles.
• We recently called all department heads
together for a half-day meeting devoted almost entirely to discussions of
opportunities and progress in enhancing and supporting diversity. The range of activities taking place at the
departmental level is amazing.
These are indications of where we have made
progress.
These efforts will be ongoing: these and other indicators
of progress form a base for our next steps.
I would like to highlight one important indicator of what the future
will bring.
We are actively working toward establishing a Center
for Study of Social Change at the University of Oregon. This new Center will focus on diversity
issues, especially research, scholarship, training, conflict resolution and
community outreach directed toward fostering mutual trust and respect, open and
informed dialogue, and innovative leadership for citizenship in a diverse,
cosmopolitan world.
We must muster the courage to penetrate any cultural
barriers to communication among ourselves.
Otherwise we reinforce fears or misunderstandings born of
stereotypes. In so doing, we inhibit
the human potential to grow through interaction.
Much remains to be accomplished as we take these
decisive steps toward building and maintaining a more diverse campus.
A more diverse campus is a worthy goal. But there is a flip side to the
process. As we grow more diverse, we
also face new challenges in maintaining our sense of community.
The University of Oregon has always been a special
place.
Those of you who are joining us for your first year
of teaching and scholarship will find, I hope, more than simply a place to do a
job. I hope that you will discover a
university in which environment, attitude and aspiration meld into something
unusual in today’s world: A workplace that combines human scale (by that I mean
a university that is not so huge it dwarfs the individual) and extraordinary
achievement.
Among your colleagues, I hope you will find support,
encouragement and intellectual fire.
Among your students, I hope you will
find true learners.
Among your neighbors, true friends.
Amidst the serenity of trees and bricks, classrooms
and laboratories of this campus, a true and lifelong home.
We have an uncommon university here, and one that
asks the uncommon of its faculty.
Uncommonly fine teaching.
Uncommonly productive research.
Uncommonly selfless community service.
How do we foster both diversity and community?
At first, these might seem like contradictory goals.
But I do not believe that they are.
The reasons why are outlined in a statement that was
recently forwarded to me by our University Senate. I reviewed it and give it my
full support.
It is titled the “University of Oregon Affirmation
of Community Standards.”
Its purpose is to set forth and affirm a clear and
cogent statement of common community standards.
It reads as follows:
“The University of Oregon community is dedicated to
the advancement of knowledge and the development of integrity. In order to thrive and excel, this community
must preserve the freedom of thought and expression of all its members. The University of Oregon has a long and
illustrious history in the area of academic freedom and freedom of speech. A culture of respect that honors the rights,
safety, dignity and worth of every individual is essential to preserve such
freedom. We affirm our respect for the
rights and well-being of all members. We further affirm our commitment to:
• Respect
the dignity and essential worth of all individuals.
• Promote a culture of respect throughout the University
community.
• Respect
the privacy, property, and freedom of others.
• Reject bigotry, discrimination, violence, or intimidation
of any kind.
• Practice personal and academic integrity and expect it
from others.
• Promote the diversity of opinions, ideas and backgrounds
which is the lifeblood of the university.”
So ends the statement.
And so begins our work together.
Diversity is not something you can achieve
overnight. It is a long, slow process
energized by the commitment of many teachers, students, and staff members.
Community is not something that can be built with
slogans and committees. It relies on
deep roots and on hard work and bringing our best selves to the forefront in
all our interactions with each other.
Despite the difficulty, make no mistake: We are
intent on achieving diversity, for the good of our students, and for the good
of our community.
Diversity is a core value of our university,
strongly linked to our academic mission, as well as an essential attribute for
learning.
For all these reasons, we will continue to work
toward greater diversity and stronger community. We will do it across the length and breadth of our
university. This is not an issue that
can be handled with a speech or a program.
It is the responsibility of each of us, individually, to live up to the
values in the statement I have just read.
We will do it, and we must do it, with civility,
with respect and with understanding.
The Nobel Prize-wining poet Seamus Heaney recently
said: “Getting started, keeping going,
getting started again—in art and in life—is the essential rhythm, not only of
achievement but of survival … the basis of self-esteem and the guarantee of
credibility in your lives, credibility to yourselves as well as to
others.” That’s not unlike what Mark
Twain had to say—starting over again every 24 hours—determined to do our
best—committed to the necessary learning and the necessary work.
As we start this year—and as we restart each day—let
us as a university and as individuals within that university commit ourselves
to that ideal. And let us also remind
ourselves with pride that this work in this place is noble work. For all that you do, I thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
University of Oregon |
|||
|
2000 New Tenured and
Tenure-related Faculty |
|||
|
Name |
Hiring
Department |
Year / Highest
Degree |
Institution Degree Earned |
|
School of Architecture & Allied Arts |
|
||
|
James
Gordon Harper |
Art
History |
1998
Ph.D., History of Art |
Univ
of Pennsylvania |
|
Justin
Novak |
Art |
1996
M.F.A. |
SUNY
at New Paltz |
|
Kevin H Nute |
Architecture |
1993
Ph.D., Architectural History and Theory |
University
of Cambridge |
|
College of Arts & Sciences |
|
|
|
|
Michael
Baskett |
East
Asian Languages & Literatures |
2000
Ph.D., East Asian Languages/Cultures |
UCLA |
|
Judith
R Baskin |
Religious
Studies |
1976
Ph.D., Medieval Studies |
Yale |
|
Arkady
D Berenstein |
Mathematics |
1996
Ph.D., Mathematics |
Northeastern
Univ |
|
Jayna
Jennifer Brown |
English |
Ph.D.,
African American Studies/American Studies - expected |
Yale |
|
Li-Shan
Chou |
Exercise
& Movement Science |
1995
Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering |
U
of Illinois at Chicago |
|
Miriam
Deutsch |
Physics |
1996
Ph.D., Physics |
Hebrew
Univ, Jerusalem |
|
Jesus
Diaz-Caballero |
Romance
Languages |
Ph.D.,
Hispanic Languages - expected |
Univ
of Pittsburgh |
|
Andre
Djiffack |
Romance
Languages |
1998
Ph.D. in French |
Univ.
of Cape Town |
|
Lynn
H Fujiwara |
Women's
Studies |
1999
Ph.D. |
U
of Calif., Santa Cruz |
|
Matt J Garcia |
Ethnic
Studies |
1997
Ph.D., U.S. History |
Claremont
Graduate School |
|
Lawrence
Owen (Spike) Gildea |
Linguistics |
1992
Ph.D., Linguistics |
Oregon |
|
Warren Ginsberg |
English |
1975
Ph.D. Medieval Studies |
Yale |
|
Julie Haack |
Chemistry |
1991
Ph.D., Biology |
Univ
of Utah |
|
Tetsuo
Harada |
East
Asian Languages & Literatures |
1999
Ph.D., Applied Linguistics |
UCLA |
|
Susan
W Hardwick |
Geography |
1986
Ph.D. Geography |
UC
Davis |
|
College of Arts & Sciences |
(Continued) |
|
|
|
Elke
Heckner |
German |
2000
Ph.D., German |
Johns
Hopkins Univ |
|
C
Kenneth Hudson |
Sociology |
Ph.D.,
Sociology; degree requirements completed for December 2000 degree |
North
Carolina at Chapel Hill |
|
Christine
A Kearney |
Political
Science |
Ph.D.,
Political Science, degree requirements completed for May 2001 degree |
Brown
University |
|
Richard W Linton |
Chemistry |
1977
Ph.D., Analytical Chemistry |
Univ
of Illinois |
|
Ulrich
Mayr |
Psychology |
1992
Ph.D., Psychology, summa cum laude |
Free
University Berlin |
|
Martin G Miller |
Geological
Sciences |
1992
Ph.D. |
Univ
of Washington, Seattle |
|
Christopher
T Minson |
Exercise
& Movement Science |
1997
Ph.D., Kinesiology |
Pennsylvania
State U |
|
Fabienne Moore |
Romance
Languages |
Ph.D.,
Comparative Literature - expected |
New
York University |
|
Lise K Nelson |
Geography |
Ph.D.,
Geography - expected |
Univ
of Washington, Seattle |
|
Patrick C Phillips |
Biology |
1991
Ph.D., Evolutionary Biology |
Univ
of Texas, Arlington |
|
Claudia
Polini |
Mathematics |
1995
Ph.D., Mathematics |
Rutgers
University |
|
Anand
Prahlad |
English |
1991
Ph.D., Folklore and Mythology |
UCLA |
|
Daniel
Blake Rosenberg |
Honors
College |
1996
Ph.D., History |
U
Calif Berkeley |
|
Benjamin
D Saunders |
English |
2000
Ph.D. |
Duke
University |
|
Stephen
J Shoemaker |
Religious
Studies |
1997
Ph.D., Religion |
Duke
University |
|
Martin
Anthony Summers |
History |
1997
Ph.D., History |
Rutgers
University |
|
Mark Ty Unno |
Religious
Studies |
1994
Ph.D., Religious Studies |
Stanford
University |
|
Arkady
Vaintrob |
Mathematics |
1987
Ph.D., Mathematics |
Moscow
St U (MGU) |
|
Hao
Wang |
Mathematics |
1992
Ph.D., Probability & Statistics |
Carleton
U, Ontario |
|
Lisa
Wolverton |
History |
1997
Ph.D., Medieval History |
Univ
of Notre Dame, Medieval Instute |
|
Lundquist College of Business |
|
||
|
Joel
J Sneed |
Accounting |
Ph.D.,
Accounting - expected |
Univ
of Arizona |
|
College of Education |
|
|
|
|
David
J Chard |
Special Education |
1995
Ph.D., Special Education |
Univ
of Oregon |
|
School of Journalism and Communication |
|
||
|
Scott
R Maier |
Journalism
& Communication |
2000
Ph.D., Journalism & Mass Communication |
U
of North Carolina |
|
Julianne
Newton |
Journalism
& Communication |
1991
Ph.D. |
University
of Texas at Austin |
|
James
K Van Leuven |
Journalism
& Communication |
1977
Ph.D., Sociology |
Washington
State U |
|
School of Law |
|
||
|
Barbara Bader Aldave |
Law |
1966
Juris Doctor |
U
Calif, Berkeley |
|
Suzanne
E Rowe |
Law |
1989
Juris Doctor |
Columbia
Univ School of Law |
|
School of Music |
|
||
|
Walter Kennedy |
Dance |
1999
MFA Choreography and Performance |
U
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign |
|
Sharon
J Paul |
Music |
1984,
D.M.A., Choral Conducting |
Stanford
University |
|
Steven
Vacchi |
Music |
1997
DMA in Performance |
Louisiana
State U |
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Late
Arrival as of Winter or Spring 2001 or 2001-2002 |
|
||
|
|
|||
|
School of Architecture & Allied Arts |
|
||
|
Hansjoachim
Neis |
Architecture |
1989
Ph.D., Architecture |
U
Calif, Berkeley |
|
|
|||
|
College of Arts & Sciences |
|
|
|
|
Joseph P Masco |
Anthropology |
1999
Ph.D., Anthropology |
Univ
of California, San Diego |
|
Joshua
J. Roering |
Geological
Sciences |
2000
Ph.D., Geology |
U
Calif Berkeley |
|
Barbara
A Roy |
Biology |
1992
Ph.D. |
Claremont
Graduate School |
|
Eric
C. Torrence |
Physics |
1997
Ph.D., Physics |
Massachusetts
Inst of Technology |