This File has been scanned, converted to a TIFF file, an OCR program has been run, and then the file converted to HTML. Any errors are regretted and should be reported to Ekaterina Puffini ekaterinapuffin@yahoo.com or to Peter Gilkey (gilkey@uoregon.edu


MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR OCTOBER 7, 1987


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in Room 150 Geology at 3:38 p.m. on October 7, 1987. There being no corrections, the minutes of the June 3, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed.

MEMORIALS

President Olum recognized Mr. George Wickes, English, to read a memorial for Mr. Roland Ball who passed away on July 30, 1987 in Eugene. Mr. Ball came to the University of Oregon in 1952 and retired in 1982. The memorial is attached to these minutes.

President Olum recognized Mr. James Boren, English, who read a memorial for Mr. Stanley Greenfield. Mr. Greenfield was a member of the English Department at the University from 1959 until his retirement in December 1986. Mr. Greenfield passed away in Eugene on July 30, 1987.- The memorial is attached to these minutes .

With the consent of the Assembly both memorials were made a permanent part of t these minutes.

OLD BUSINESS

None.

NEW BUSINESS

None.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

President Olum delivered the "State of the University'' address. Below is the entire presentation.

Introduction

Friends and colleagues. This is now the eighth time that I have come before this Assembly to discuss the 'state of the University.'' There is much that is happening in the University, so I have a good deal to tell you about. Some of this will already be known to many of you, but I will try to cover the major things, at least briefly, especially because we have a considerable number of new people on the faculty and in the Student Senate.

To set the tone, let me begin by saying that I believe that the general mood on campus is an upbeat and positive one, but there is one truly grave concern, namely, the matter of faculty salaries. I will return to a full discussion of this later in my talk.

Let me first tell you some things about where the University stands today. As you know, our enrollment has been increasing enormously during the last five years and it is now the highest in the University's history. It appears that our fall term student head count will be 17,675; that is 533 more students than we had last fall, and about 2,300 more than we had in 1982. Our freshman class is approximately the same as last year's and the principal increases have come at the senior and graduate levels. That last is fortunate because there is somewhat more availability of classroom space and other resources in senior courses and For graduate students.

To handle all of this we have appointed a large number of new faculty (75 to 30 people this fall) and have increased courses or sections in critical areas. But we are stretched very far and it has been necessary to spread classes more evenly throughout the day.

Student housing is completely full, even with the new dormitory we have purchased from Northwest Christian College and with the rules eliminating most single rooms. We are surely at the limit of the enrollment that can reasonably be handled with the available classrooms, laboratories, equipment and, of course, faculty.

I would like to say a few words about faculty numbers and activities. Our current teaching faculty (that is, not including administrators with faculty rank or GTFs or people on leave) now number 735 FTE. (Note that this is FTE; total faculty head count would be very much higher.) It may be of interest to know that, of our regular faculty, 65 percent are tenured. We have been doing quite well in bringing women faculty to the University, and 24 percent of our teaching faculty are female, including 14 percent of the tenured faculty. We have done far less well in hiring minorities, and only 6.3 percent of our faculty come from minority groups; that is-;an important problem and we must greatly increase our efforts to attract minority faculty to the University.- The increase in the size of our faculty has created a problem also in office space and one serious need of the University is to provide more and better offices for the faculty.

I won't try to list here all of the individual faculty members who are new to the University; there are too many of them and you will have an opportunity to meet them at the reception following this meeting. I would like to tell you, however, about a number of new administrators in the University, since these are people with whom all of you, in one way or another, are likely to have some dealings.

The new director of Human Resources, an area which includes all of the personnel activities in the University, is Linda King. The new director of the University Business Office is Sherri McDowell, the new director of the University of Oregon Foundation is Eloise Stuhr. It may be worth remarking that this means that three of the top administrative directorships in the University, all of which were previously (and probably have always been) filled by men, now belong to women. A new Vice President for University Relations, Larry Large, joined us last March and many of you have already met him. There are some new people in academic and faculty administrative positions, including Kenneth Ramsing, Acting Dean of the Graduate School, John Stahr, director of the Center for the Humanities; Sam Girgus, director of American Studies; Bob Mazo, chair of the Faculty Advisory Council; Fred Andrews, chair of the University Senate. And, if you don't already know it, the President of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon is Kasey Brooks; she has also been named by Governor Goldschmidt as a student member of the State Board of Higher Education.

I had thought to tell you about all of the major awards and recognitions won by our faculty this year, along with the principal research grants received at the University and the large national and international conferences held here. Kathleen Bowman, our Associate Vice-President for Research, provided me with just a part of this material and it became clear that it was impossible to present-it in any reasonable length of time. I will just summarize briefly a few things. Since my information is incomplete, I will avoid mentioning names so as not to slight by omission other members of the faculty.

We now have two more faculty members with Presidential Young Investigator awards. This brings to six the number of our younger faculty with these prestigious awards. These are primarily in the sciences or closely related fields and each of them provides a half million dollars over a five year period to support the recipients' research. This is a very special achievement since in most fields, biology and chemistry, etc., only seven of those PYIs are awarded nationally each year. It is striking that five of our six Presidential Young Investigators are women.

A sampling of additional awards: Two Guggenheims, four Fulbrights, another Searle Fellowship, two more Sloans, the Medical Research Foundation of Oregon Discovery award for the second straight year, two full year NEH fellowships, a National Institute of Mental Health merit award, the Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Prize (one of only 12 in the country), the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit, which is the highest civilian award given by West Germany (perhaps I will be forgiven if I mention that the recipient of this was Wolfgang Leppmann who has just retired from our German Department), and many others.

In the interest of time I will omit conferences and research grants, but a couple of general figures may be of interest:

1986-87 saw a large increase in grant proposal activity among faculty, with 234 more proposals submitted than in the preceding fiscal year. Especially pleasing is the increase of 146 proposals over the preceding year in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Total award amounts received were about $31 million in 1985-86 and $39.5 million in 1986-87, an increase of approximately $8.4 million. These figures do not include any Federal or private monies that are supporting the construction of our science facilities.

Let me turn now to a number of disconnected topics, specifically significant things that are going on in the University. I will try to do this quite briefly, but each of them is something that all of you need to know about.

First, semester conversion: We are proceeding under the direction of Professor Mavis Mate to formulate the plans for semester conversion, with the change to the semester system occurring in the fall of 1990. Probably the most difficult part of this transition will be in our general education (sometimes called distribution) requirements, i.e., what is now described as our cluster system.'' Professor Nate's committee is using this opportunity to take a careful and wide-ranging look at the whole issue of general education, and they will pretty surely present to this Assembly two different proposals: the first, a completely new approach to general education; the second, a much more modest revision of the present cluster system to make it fit into the semester calendar, together with proposals for needed improvements in that system. According to the current timetable, both of these approaches will be ready for presentation to the Assembly in December, with an opportunity for questions, but not debate or action. The Assembly will then be able to take formal action on the work of the committee at the meeting in January, or conceivably in February.

The necessary changes in major requirements for the degree will presumably be handled by the departments themselves, since most of this will be primarily a matter of repackaging the courses for the major into 15 week, instead of 10 week, units. Surely it wonít be quite that simple, because departmental majors often require the taking of courses in other departments, and here, too, some articulation of the new decisions will be needed. This also presents an opportunity for departments to review carefully their present major programs and to decide if changes are needed.

Our hope is that all the principal broad decisions can be made by late spring of 1987-88, so that the academic year 1988-89, and perhaps the fall of 1989, can be spent working out all of the course details and also all of the necessary administrative changes in the various divisions of the University, e.g., personnel, Student Affairs, etc. We need to have everything finished early enough to get it all into the University catalog and into other material that will be going out during 1989-90 in preparation for the fall of 1990.

Next, construction: The Chiles Business Center is now completed and has made possible a real strengthening of the quality of the education offered in the College of Business Administration. We are in the middle, as you can hardly miss if you walk around on campus, of the construction of a $50 million science building program. A part of this, the new facilities at the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology at Charleston, has been completed and the buildings are both thoroughly functional and strikingly beautiful. The Museum of Natural History on 15th Avenue near Agate is nearly completed and if you havenít seen it yet, you should at least walk by to -admire the magnificent gargoyle of a salmon at the front of the building. New Architecture Design Studios in the area across Franklin Boulevard have been competed and are now full of activity.

The 1987 legislature, in its closing days, provided $8 million for a new building for our School of Architecture and Allied Arts, a building that has been our number one priority (and for the most part, the State System's number one priority) for four biennia. The legislature also gave us what might be regarded as a promissory note for a major addition to our Library. Specifically, they have provided three quarters of a million dollars for planning and design for the Library with a clear indication (although one legislature cannot formally commit its successor) that the Library will be its number one capital construction priority in 1989. Our plan is to raise $9 million from private contributions in a capital campaign, to be added to $15 million of state funds, thus providing a $24 million addition to the present Library. The need is urgent. The Library has had to put new stacks in what were aisles and has had to take over a large share of study space for the shelving of books. If some-thing isn't done, we will be totally out of space for both users and books in the next four to six years. Although it is somewhat premature now to make a definite decision, I suppose that our next great need after the Library will be for a new classroom and office building.

Also, under the general rubric of building plans, although in this case it is a joint project with the City of Eugene, we are proceeding with the development of the; Riverfront Research Park. The University Senate last spring resolved, to the satisfaction of most, but not all, people in the University community the issue of classified research in the Research Park. They did so by proposing that classified research be prohibited unless a convincing demonstration could be given to the satisfaction of the research advisory committee and the President of the University that the 'specific classified project is not directed toward the design, development or production of offensive or defensive weapons..

There have been three public- forums on the planning for the Research Park; two of these had to do with design issues, and the third was simply an opportunity for the open expression of opinions about the Park. I call your attention to the fact that there will be one more forum tomorrow evening, Thursday, October 8, at 7 p.m. in the Eugene Conference Center (next to the Hilton Hotel), at which the developer and the architects will present a proposed master development plan. That plan, including a large map of the proposed site development, was described in the ;Register-Guard this past Sunday. A considerable effort was made to take into account the discussion and the ideas presented at the third forum, in particular, on the preservation of open spaces and the retention of the soccer field.

Capital Campaign: I have already mentioned, in connection with the Library, our planned capital campaign. We are already in the quiet part of the campaign, making plans and seeking pledges from major donors, and we hope to be able to go into the public portion of the campaign later in the spring, at which time we will announce the goals of the campaign. Acquiring funds for the Library, as I have already mentioned, will certainly be a major thrust, indeed, along with endowed chairs, the major thrust of the campaign. Larry Large and Eloise Stuhr will be talking to you further about the campaign some time not too far in the future.

Portland Center: The University has opened a Portland Center, for outreach purposes, and more generally so that we can have a presence in Portland. Its address is 720 S.W. Second Avenue, and you might want to stop by and see it if you are in Portland. It is very nice and already quite successful. There is a branch of the University Bookstore in the Center and there are also representatives for our Alumni Association, for our athletic program, for the Labor and Education Research Center, and for our continuing education activities in Portland. The continuing education program has been so successful that we are planning to enlarge the Portland Center by leasing additional space in the building in which to hold more classes and activities, -

Grievance Procedures: We have a mandate to develop new faculty grievance procedures for the University. The situation is that the State Board of Higher Education developed an outline for such grievance procedures this past spring at the same time that the legislature was creating its own very similar set of required grievance procedures for us. Since the Governor felt that the matter was best handled within higher education, he vetoed the legislative action. It is now our obligation to revise our own grievance procedures in such a way as to be sure that they are fully compatible with the State System's document. It should not be difficult to do so. A university-wide committee is being appointed for that purpose which will be very broadly representative. As soon as the appointments have been made, the names of the committee members will be announced publicly.

While I am on the general issue of sexual harassment on campus. This has become an increasingly sensitive issue for the University and a source for a large number of grievances. I urge all of you to take the matter seriously and also to take seriously the memorandum that I have distributed on this issue. In particular, faculty members must be aware of the inevitable position of power they hold in relation to students, both undergraduate and graduate, and must realize that students may not feel free to reject unwanted advances. It requires a special sense of awareness and understanding on the part of faculty.

Let me add that another kind of sexual harassment, namely harassment on this campus of gay and lesbian students is also intolerable. The University's own rules specifically prohibit any discrimination in education or employment on the basis of sexual orientation and we are determined to protect both the academic and civil rights of gays and lesbians.

I have mentioned sexual harassment particularly because it seems to be a growing problem, but I would assume by now that everyone on this campus is aware that discrimination or harassment toward any group of people, i.e., minorities, women, handicapped, etc., is equally intolerable.

Faculty governance: Next I want to say some words about faculty governance in this institution. The role that the faculty of the University of Oregon, and consequently this Assembly, have played in the governance of the University is historically an extremely important one. It is, in fact, enshrined in Oregon legislation which is generally referred to as ''The Charter" of the University and which describes the academic governance as belonging to the faculty and the president. Later legislation may have changed the details of this somewhat, but I continue to feel that faculty governance remains an extremely important principle for us. Above all, that governance must be alive and readily accessible when needed.

The Assembly continues to meet every month when there is business to do, but for the most part the attendance is very poor. The Assembly has delegated a large share of its decision-making powers to the University Senate, although it has made it extremely easy to have Senate decisions referred to the full Assembly. But the Senate has had serious difficulties in maintaining a quorum; student members, in general, attend quite well, but faculty do not. Relatively few faculty are willing to stand for election to the Senate and often those who are nominated withdraw. The Committee on Committees, in its annual report for 1986-87, has drawn special attention to the fact that in their judgment the present system of nominations for faculty elections is not working.

It seems to me urgent that the faculty of this University, with student participation, preserve jealously their role in major University decisions. One such issue, which should be of great importance to the faculty, is the matter of presidential searches, about which I shall say something in a few moments. The important thing is that administrators and situations change, and it is the faculty above all who should determine the nature of the institution.

I am very pleased to hear that the present administration is generally seen as one which is supportive of faculty interests. But it would be terribly ironic if the supportiveness of the administration toward the faculty were to result in Undermining the facultyís power to influence crucial decisions when the time comes that that influence is needed. In a word, faculty can ultimately have just about as much participation in governance as they want, but it will require being actively involved in University committees, in the University Senate, and finally, in the meetings of the Assembly.

Searches: Let me complete this discussion of some things that are happening in the University by mentioning two more matters, both concerned with searches for administrators, but in different ways. First, we are engaged in a search for a new Provost since Dick Hill has announced that he wants to return to academic teaching and research in the Sociology Department and, consequently, will resign from the Provost's position on January 15. We will, of course, greatly miss Dick as Provost, since he has been superb in that role, but I will say more about that on another occasion.

We started a search for a new Provost last spring, but it turned out that it was undertaken too late to complete the search in time to make an appointment for the present academic year. One consequence of that was that many people who might have applied and been interested if the position were to start in July of 1988, did not do so. As a result t, the search closing no time has been extended through October 15, and, in fact, many additional nominations and applications have been received. The search committee is chaired by Theodore Palmer and I understand from him that we now have an excellent list of candidates. The search committee expects to complete its review of candidates before the end of this fall term and to provide a list of five or so finalists who will be interviewed on campus early in the winter term. There will be extensive involvement of members of the University community in these interviews.

In the meantime, we will need an Acting Provost for the period from January 15 to July 1. With the unanimous recommendation of the other deans of the University, I have asked Dean James Reinmuth of our College of Business Administration to serve as Acting Provost and I am pleased to say that he has agreed to do so.

Finally, it is important for you to know that the State Board of Higher Education has developed some new rules with respect to searches for institutional presidents. These changes greatly restrict the participation of faculty at the institutions in the search process. A large part of the motivation for this is an expressed intent on the part of t-he Board to keep the- search process as confidential as possible, even in its latest stages. The new rules would provide for only three faculty members on a search committee of nine, and those three would be chosen by the Chancellor from a panel of six proposed by the faculty. There would be an additional fifteen-member panel which would participate in interviewing the semi-final group of five to ten candidates, but again, this panel would have only six faculty members on it. The American Association of University Professors (MUP) has presented an already alternative proposal to the Board which involves considerably more faculty and other institutional participation in the search for a president than does the Board's process, and the MUP has distributed its proposal rather widely. A public hearing on this whole matter is planned by the State System of Higher Education on Wednesday, October 21, at 7:00 p.m. in Corvallis. I hardly need to say that the matter is an important one for faculty concern and I urge you to make yourselves familiar with the issues involved.

Let me introduce now a subject of extremely great importance to all of us here, namely, issues of money and the quality of the University. First, perhaps I should bring you up to date on the matter of our efforts through most of 198687 to get an increase of $4 million in our base budget to help support the extraordinary increase in enrollment we have had since 1982.

I remind you that we will have had by this year approximately 2,300 or 2,400 more students than we had i n the fall of 1982 and that we have received over that period of time no new funds in our base budget with which to teach these students. In fact, the only net adjustment we have had over that time until now has been a modest decrease of that funding. If we were still funded on a per student entitlement basis, as we had been up until 1982, we would have received an amount more like nine million dollars for our enrollment increase. In any case, the saga was rather along one since, after we had received the support of the State Board, the proposed additional amount was not included in the Governorís Budget for 1987-88, although it was in for 1988-89. That story finally had a happy ending since the funding of the increase was ultimately recommended by the Governor and approved by the l legislature, so that our base budget for this year was increased by a recurring sum of $4 million.

We had to spend approximately two and a half million of the four simply to take care of recurring commitments that had been built up over the intervening years, commitments which we had supported by all kinds of soft money, including salary and other savings and temporary one-year grants of budgetary funds given US by the Board out of the excess tuition on we were generating. That l left just a million and a half which was spent in various ways to cover the additional teaching required by the large influx of new students and to provide additional support for areas of the humanities and social sciences which had suffered badly during the previous OUS difficult budgetary years. This money has by no means covered all of our needs (for example, we badly need more money for equipment and for computer support), but it has made it possible for us to plan on getting through the present year in reasonable financial shape.

There were other legislative fiscal actions that had a considerable effectó - on us. One of these was the funding of capital construction, to which I have referred previously y.

One other decision that was made by the Educational Subcommittee of Ways and Means and ultimately passed by the legislature, was the effective reallocation out of our base budget of $100,000 each to the Labor Education and Research Center and to High Energy Physics. This was certainly not something that we wanted; we needed every dollar we had i n our base budget for getting our teaching done this year, and we see no justification whatever for these reallocations. It seems to me extraordinarily bad practice and a serious invasion of institutional autonomy for members of the legislature to transfer funds within our budget to special projects in which they have a personal interest.

Finally there was the decision made by the legislature with respect to salary increases. As I assume most of you must know by now, the salary increases were essentially all across the board, with 2% increases each year of the biennium (conditional on satisfactory performance) and relatively small fixed amounts, varying by rank, given each year to every faculty member. This latter increase, however, was not permitted for administrators whose salaries were over $60,000 per year. In the total made available to us, extremely little was left for merit or equity increases. Specifically, we have about $107,000 of such increases available to distribute this year for merit and/or equity and nothing more for next year. The deans are working with the Provost on the early distribution on of t these merit i increases.

This raises the most critical issue the University faces, faculty salaries. Perhaps I can introduce this best by saying a few words about what I like to think of as the "miracle,. of the University of Oregon.

The University of Oregon continues to be among the finest institutions in the country -- it is far better than anyone has a right to expect it to be, considering its level of finances. And that is the essence of the miracle. It is a miracle that an institution can be this good with such poor financial support. The reason for the miracle is the sense of affection, of loyalty, and of commitment that our faculty have to this University, a sense that is already so shared by the staff of the institution. That is due in part to the fact that Eugene is a wonderful place to live and to bring up a family and that the cost of living is relatively low here. Even more, I think, it is due to the warm and collegial atmosphere within the faculty of this University and to the unselfish and sharing approach to scholarly work here, much of it conducted in strong interdisciplinary institutes and centers. This helps to keep senior faculty here and to attract younger ones.

The Governor -- and others -- have complained that President Olum can' t have it both ways -- continue to assert that the University of Oregon is of the quality of some of the best public universities in the United States and argue at the same time that faculty salaries at the University of Oregon are abysmally low compared with other institutions, and that this makes it extremely difficult to compete in the hiring of the best young faculty and in retaining our leading senior faculty against very large offers from various universities.

Now, the truth is that it really is both ways. Our salaries are terribly, dangerously low and yet we are surely among the best 20 public universities in the United States and, in a number of areas, significantly better even than that.

I hardly have to prove to this Assembly how poor our salary level is. We are flat bottom in the MU and we are at the bottom of every list of reasonable comparator institutions. In the list of public, doctoral-granting institutions in the country, a list which includes some 106 or 107 universities, our average faculty salary in 1985-86 was 97th and for full professors 101st. No other institution remotely comparable to us (other than Oregon State University) was at that level. Our position improved somewhat in 1986-87, but it will surely be back down at the bottom levels again this biennium.

For the other side of the coin, quality , you are probably red of hearing me talk about it, but I have to, because the truth has not been as well known in Oregon as it is in the rest of the country. I am not going to go through the whole litany again here, but let me say just a few things to remind you briefly. We are 'an AAU institution, one of only 27 public institutions in the United States elected to the M U, and we are a good deal better than a number of those universities. What is more, we were elected in 1969, the third public university elected west of the Rockies, after UC Berkeley and the University of Washington. A little later, UCLA was elected and just in the last few years, UC San Diego and the University of Arizona-. One special tribute to this quality is that we were for many years (i.e., until UC San Diego was admitted), the smallest public university in the M U.

We have had 10 people elected while members of this faculty to the National Academy of Sciences, and all of them for work done here. In fact, two other faculty members from here were elected 'to the Academy after they left, but primarily for work they did' at this University. That is an exceptional record. In national rankings, when such rankings have been made, we have been very high in a considerable number of fields. A large share of our professional programs rank in the top 10 or 12 of the country and some rank among the best two or three or four. We have also had a long and distinguished tradition in the liberal arts, that is, in the humanities and the social sciences. Indeed, one of the best, if most frightening, evidences of the University's quality is the large number of offers that members of our faculty have been receiving from the absolutely top institutions, public and private, of the United States.

But the crucial fact is that this is not a sustainable miracle. People have stayed on here through the bad economic times because they have believed, and I have believed, that when the economy got better, the situation would change and our financial support, especially for salaries, would be greatly improved. I fear greatly that if our faculty should come to believe that that will not happen, then many of our best people, especially those in the middle of their careers, associate professors and younger full professors, will decide to accept some of the very attractive offers they are receiving. My worst nightmare for this institution is that if that happened for a significant number of people, it could lead to a chain reaction of resignations, and the Governor's statement about not having it both ways would then become correct as prophecy if not now as fact. I hope that will' not happen and we must do everything in our power to keep it from happening by getting across the message of the urgent need for an adequate, competitive salary scale for this institution. I assure you that absolutely no other issue is as important to the strength of the University as this one.

Before I conclude, a brief word is needed about priorities and future directions. I have already indicated that without question our first priority must be that of getting adequate funding for the University and, most critically, for faculty salaries. Other internal priorities will be reflected in institutional planning which I will speak about in a moment. But even before I do, I should note that it seems to me that a top academic goal for us over the next few years should be the building of strength in the fields of the humanities and the social sciences. I have already indicated the fine tradition in these fields at the University of Oregon, and we do now have 'excellent faculty and strong programs in many of the areas of the liberal arts, but we have not adequately supported the humanities and social sciences during the bad economic years, and one of our principal goals must be to reestablish the support these areas should have.

With respect to planning, the State Board of Higher Education has asked each of the institutions to present a long range plan. We have intended for some time to use the material collected in our recent 10-year accreditation exercise as part of the basis for such planning. I am aware that there seems to be a belief in some parts of the faculty that the President is opposed to planning. That really isn't true. But I am opposed to the kind of long range planning that is often done by institutions, full of complex, largely abstract, examinations of broad goals and objectives with the belief that these will in turn lead automatically to a precise picture of all parts of the institution over the next five to ten years. I have lived through several such five year (or longer) plans, with multiple drafts produced by an enormous number of committees, only to see them gather dust uselessly on the shelves. I think we all have quite a good common feeling for the basic nature of this institution and for the kind of teaching and scholarly work that we ought to be engaged in. I believe we would become uselessly mired down if we were to start with a broad, philosophical examination of our mission and purpose, which was then to lead to goals and objectives for the total institution.

On the other hand, planning is important for US, SO that we can have a good idea of the future needs of this University. What we will do is shortly to ask each of our departments, schools and colleges, programs, institutes, centers, and other administrative units, how they each see their own appropriate and desired evolution in the coming years. It is the people in the functioning units of the University who know best how their disciplines will need to change, move in new directions, discontinue some old ones, etc., in the times just ahead of us. This has to be modest and a lot of it may require simply reallocations without new funds. It won't help much to tell us what wonderful things can be done with things millions of dollars, but some infusion of funds may be needed for program changes and improvement in some areas. Any such planning may involve some decisions that will have to be made broadly within the University, because different units, even different colleges, may impinge on each otherís interests. We will certainly encourage the deans, and others from various units and departments, to meet together and explore ways in which the 'evolutioní I have referred to may involve decisions and plans that cut across college and departmental lines .

In any case, this is all a "do-able'' and practical kind of planning and something we need. When we have that all together, we will have some idea of how the whole institution should be evolving in the years ahead and we can then try our best to begin to support the most important and necessary of these changes. But I have kept referring here to ''evolution" of the University because, unless the faculty disagree, I doubt very much that we are looking to very large global changes. I doubt that we want any new colleges or any radical changes in direction for the whole institution. I assume, in particular, that we would like to keep our enrollment around 17,500 students already though, for reasons I have stated earlier, I think it would be preferable to set a steady-state limit on our undergraduate enrollment and manage our graduate enrollment according to our ability to handle it in various academic areas. A great deal of the special attractiveness of this institution derives from our being a public university with the tuition and other costs of a state institution and with the scholarly quality of the leading public universities of the country, but with a student body of the size of the major private universities. I hope we can keep it that way.

You will shortly be receiving from the central administration a specific request for each of the units of the University to provide us with their part of the kind of planning document I have just described above.

Finally, to conclude, I have already indicated above in my discussion of money and quality the real conclusion of what I have to say. It is quite simple. This is a truly fine institution and I am both happy and proud to be a part of it. It is so attractive and has so much to offer and has so much promise. I firmly believe that, if we were only funded at a level comparable to that of our peer institutions, in particular, comparable to the public universities of the MU, we would be, in a far stronger sense even than now, one of the very few best public institutions of higher education in the country.

Thank you.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m. A faculty reception in the Museum of Art followed.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


Stanley B. Greenfield (March 19, 1922 - July 30, 1987)


Stanley Greenfield graduated from Cornell University in 1942, Phi Beta Kappa. He served this country from 1942-1946 in the U. S. Army, experiencing combat in Europe following the Normandy invasion. He entered graduate school after the war, receiving his M.A. in 1947 and his Ph.D. in 1950 from the University of California at Berkeley. In 1959 he came to the University of Oregon after academic appointments at the University of Wisconsin and Queens College. At the time of his arrival, Stanley Greenfield was already established amongst the best of a new ?? which followed until his retirement in December of 1986, he went on to enjoy an international reputation as a medievalist. In addition to visiting professorships at UCLA (twice) and Berkeley, he was a Fulbright Fellow at the University of Regensburg and a Visiting Fellow at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He was invited to lecture in England at Oxford, London, Leeds, Keele, and Kent; in Germany at Aachen, Bonn, Heidelberg, Mannheim, and Munich; in Switzerland at Lausanne and Geneva; and in this country at numerous universities including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and the campuses of the University of California at Riverside and Santa Barbara. He was a Guggenheim Fellow in 1965, an NEH Senior Fellow in 1970, and recipient in 1984 of the prestigious Haskins Medal of the Medieval Academy of America for his work on the monumental Bibliography of Publications in Old English Literature. It is in the pages of his curriculum vitae that we find the tangible evidence of his scholarly commitment: author or co-author of three books, editor of three others, compiler of three bibliographies (in addition to those which he produced over the span of eleven years as the Old English bibliographer of the Modern Language Association), translator of Beowulf, author of 41 articles on subjects ranging from Old English and Middle English, Shakespeare and Milton, to a justly famous essay on the American Stephen Crane. And, finally, author of 29 magisterial book reviews which can be said to have done much to elevate the standards of Old English scholarship while at the same time striking a just fear into the hearts of the less-worthy. In the year of his retirement, his colleagues here and abroad honored his accomplishments with a festschrift published by the University of Toronto Press. For nearly thirty years, because of Stanley Greenfield's work as a literary critic and historian, bibliographer and masterful translator, no one has been able to do serious work in the field of Anglo-Saxon studies without thinking of the University of Oregon. For nearly three decades, Oregon students knew him as an outstanding teacher, and, in 1963, be received the University of Oregon's Ersted Award for Distinguished Teaching. He honored us by being a member of this faculty; it is fitting that we should honor his memory on this occasion. I move the adoption of this memorial by the Assembly, and that it be placed in the permanent record of this meeting, and that copies be sent to the immediate family.

Respectfully submitted, James L. Boren Department of English



Roland Ball (1917 - 1987)

Thomas Hardy would have called it one of life's little ironies that two men as different as Roland Ball and Stanley Greenfield, after being colleagues for so many years and even graduate students together, should have died within twelve hours of each other on the same day, July 30, 1987. Two such different colleagues would be hard to find, for while Stanley was a conspicuous figure on campus and in the profession, Roland was the most private of men.

So private was he that few of his colleagues could claim to know him well. Though I knew Rol and for almost forty years and served with him on the Comparative Literature Committee for many of those years, I learned many things about his career only after his death, when at Roland's request I disposed of the papers in his office. Then I was able to see the product of a lifetime of dedicated service to the profession and especially to his students.

Roland Conkle Ball was born on November 10, 1917, in Richmond, Indiana. He earned his A.B. from Swarthmore College and his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. Before joining the University of Oregon faculty in 1952, he taught at Swarthmore, Berkeley, and Cornell University, and during a year's absence from our faculty he was Acting Dean of Deep Springs College(1956-57). During World War II he had served as a radar officer aboard an aircraft carrier, attaining the rank of Lieutenant, j.g., in the U. S. Navy.

Professor Ball was a full-time member of the English Department over a period of thirty years (1952-82) and continued to teach part-time after his formal retirement as Professor Emeritus right up until last year. At the same time he was an active member of the faculty in Comparative Literature, was in fact one of the founding members of that Program and served as its Director during 1971-72. He always taught courses in Comparative Literature as well as English and served on more Ph.D. dissertation committees in Comparative Literature than any of us realized. His files showed how hard he worked in preparing his courses, advising students, and directing dissertations.

Roland's interests covered a wide range of literatures, foreign as well as English and American. His files included multitudinous notes on those literatures for the articles and papers he wrote--particularly papers on Romanticism that he read at meetings of the International Comparative Literature Association. His publications began with American literature but eventually took into account all the major literatures of Europe.

Roland was a great traveler and avid theatergoer, who often spent his summers crisscrossing Europe (not to mention other parts of the world), attending drama festivals and music festivals and film festivals, many of them in remote places and unlikely languages. His specific interest was the modern theater in all its forms; he kept up to date on the latest developments and brought what he learned from his travels into the classroom. His interest in modern theater was catholic and his learning encyclopedic. As one of his graduate students remarked--one who has gone on to an academic career herself: "Roland Ball knew everything about modern drama.i'

Mr. President I move that this memorial be made a permanent part of the minutes of this meeting.

Respectfully submitted, George Wickes

Department of English



MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1987

The meeting was called to order by President Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:35 p.m. on November 4, 1987. There being no corrections, the minutes of the October 1987 meeting were approved.

MEMORIALS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

President Olum announced that he would turn the chair over to Mr. Robert Mazo, Chair of the Faculty Advisory Council. The President stated that he would not be present for the meeting after Mr. Mazo assumed the chair.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Mazo took the chair and explained the business of the day. He stated that the Executive Committee of the State Board of Higher Education recently took action that established a retirement date for President Olum of June 30, 1989. This date has caused much distress on campus and in the community as it does not allow the President the time necessary to accomplish two major projects and it has ramifications upon the process to select a new Provost. The timing of the action is not in question--as it was done at the request of President Olum--but, the wisdom and procedure followed is in question. The business of this meeting is aimed at those points.

Mr. Mazo asked that the Assembly establish an adjournment time of 4:50 p.m. This was approved without dissent. He also suggested, quite strongly, that those who speak to the issue on the floor limit themselves to three or four minutes. He also informed the Assembly that in accordance with the Rules of Order he would not recognize someone who has had the floor if someone who has not had the floor wishes to speak. That the legislation of the Assembly concerning the introduction of Resolutions be set aside and that this Assembly allow the introduction of a resolution without the normal notice of motion on/resolution on process. Mr. Mazo stated that this would need a two-thirds vote and the Assembly approved of the motion without dissent.

Ms. Adell McMillan, EMU, made a motion that the Assembly "resolve itself into a committee of the whole'' to discuss any resolutions introduced. This was approved without dissent.

Mr. Mazo recognized Mr. Peter Gilkey, Math, who made the following resolutions.

Resolution number 1.

Resolved: That the University Assembly urges the Board of Higher Education on to reconsider its Executive Committee's decision since on that President Paul Olum retire on June 30, 1989, and to extend his term of service to June 30, 1992.

Resolution number 2.

Resolved: That the University Assembly deplores the lack of consultation with faculty and other constituencies of the University of Oregon which preceded the decision of the State Board's Executive Committee to ask President Olum to retire on June 30, 1989.

At this time Mr. Mazo introduced Mr. Alan Miller, a representative of the Lane County Board of Commissioners, to read a letter from the Board.

Mr. Mazo than thanked Mr. Miller for bringing the letter to the floor of the Assembly and for reading it to the Committee of the Assembly.

Mr. Mazo recognized Mr. Theodore Palmer, Math, who is already so chairing the search committee for a new Provost. Mr. Palmer stated that several first rate candidates have applied for the position, several upon urging by members of the search committee, and that the retirement date that has been set for President Olum has caused some of the candidates to hesitate in looking at the position. The President and the Provost must work very closely together and that the various candidates for Provost are truly interested in who will be the President over the next several years so they will know with whom they will be working. The orderly transition of having a Provost in office by July 1988 has been interfered with by the action of the Executive Committee.

Mr. Barry Siegel, Economics, made the point that this was not the first time that action was taken without any consultation with the faculty of any member institution on of the state system. He noted a broad problem was a lack of communication between the State Board and the faculty. Lynn Kahle, CBA, faulted the Executive Committee's members for using age as a criteria for its action on when in reality age should not have been a consideration as it is the duty of the State Board to remove barriers such as race or age discrimination, not live with or follow them.

Mr. Peter von Hippel, Chemistry, addressing the fact that the State Board will be meeting on the UO campus on November 13, proposed another resolution that would d have a selected delegation meet with the Board when it is on campus. Mr. Mazo asked that the resolution be held until discussion on the two resolutions on the floor were dealt with.

Mr. Paul Armstrong, English, felt that the departure of President Olum at the stated time of June 30, 1989 would be harmful to the humanities on campus as the initiative to get the humanities funding and for the improvement of the humanities is just now getting underway and that the leadership of President Olum was a necessity to the capital campaign to raise funds for library expansion and for endowed chairs as well as many other things.

Ms. Karen Frymoyer, Student Senate, stated that President Olum has the support of the students because he has been fair, listened attentively to student complaints and has taken a great deal of interest in the students at the University.

At this time Ms. Adell McMillan moved that "the Committee of the Whole shall end and the University Assembly come back into being. This was approved without dissent.

Mr. Peter Gil key was recognized and he formally introduced his first resolution for debate by the Assembly.

Resolution number 1.

Resolved: That the University Assembly urges the Board of Higher Education to reconsider i ts Executive Committee's decision that President Paul Olum retirement on June 30, 1989, and to extend his term of service to June 30, 1992.

Mr. Mazo announced that the tell tellers for the votes on the various resolution would be: Mr. Fred Andrews, Math, Mr. Joe Wade, Student Services, and Mr. Michael Ellis, Physical Education. The vote was call called for and the resolution passed by a vote of 297 in favor, O in opposition, and O abstaining.

Mr. Gil key now presented the second resolution.

Resolution number 2.

Resolved: That the University Assembly deplores the lack of consultation with faculty and other constituencies of the University of Oregon which preceded the decision of the State Board's Executive Committee to ask President Olum to retire on June 30, 1989.

The vote was called for. The resolution passed by a margin of 319 in favor, O in o opposition, and O a abstaining.

Mr. Mazo recognized Mr. von Hippel to present his resolution.

Be it resolved: That the University Assembly request that a representative group of faculty and a student be given time on the agenda of the State Board meeting of November 13th to address the Board, and to answer questions about the concerns of the faculty and students on the timing of President Olum's retirement

The group will be assembled by the Faculty Advisory Council and the officers of the University Senate.

Without any discussion this resolution was passed without dissent.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having ended the Assembly adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University



LETTER

Assembly Lane County Board of Commissioners
November 4, 1987
James C. Petersen
President Oregon State Board of Higher Education
1806 Walnut La Grande, OR 97850

Dear President Petersen:

We are writing as the Lane County Board of Commissioners to request that you not accept the recommendation of the Executive Committee's of the Board of Higher Education to set the retirement date of U University of Oregon President Paul Olum as June 30 1989.

The University of Oregon is Lane County's largest employer and as such the fortunes of the university vitally affect the fortunes of Lane. The university is without question one of the quality public institutions of higher education in the United States. At this date, for example, 9 of the 10 members of the National Academy of Sciences of Oregon are members of the faculty of the University of Oregon.

After the recession of 1982, Paul Olum has led the reemergence of the University of Oregon to record enrollments, a record building program, and now, with a five year plan in mind, to development of a riverfront research park to serve as an incubator and as a facility to promote technology transfer to our state's business community from the university.

We are concerned that the action proposed by the Executive Committee could cause a long-term destabilization of the university with a loss of key faculty. This has been a most unsettling week at the university already.

Quite simply, President Paul Olum is a popular president with students and faculty alike. He is much admired in the business community and by the local governments of our area. We are not unmindful of the positive role played by the Board of Higher Education, the Governor and the Legislature in restoring and improving fortunes at the university and other institutions of higher education and we respect your prerogative and statutory obligations. But with all due respect, we must ask at this time that you set aside the recommendation of the Executive Committee and negotiate a retirement with Dr. Olum that will allow him to complete the ambitious five-year plan which he has so carefully put together.

At a university which is on a rising curve towards excellence, now is not the time to ask this president to step down.

Sincerely,

cc/Ellie Dumdi, Vice Chair cc/Jerry Rust
Lane County Board of Commissioners Lane County Board of Commissioners
cc/John Ball cc/Steve Cornacchia
Lane County Board of Commissioners Lane County Board of Commissioners



MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR DECEMBER 2, 1987.

The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:39 p.m. on December 2, 1987. There being no corrections, the minutes of the November meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OLUM

My friends -- I have not addressed you since the time on October 27 when the Executive Committee of the Board informed me of their decision that I should retire from the presidency of the University on June 30, 1989. I want to say a few words to you now about where I think we are and what seems to me important. I will be quite brief and I do not intend to engage here in a review and discussion of a somewhat painful history which most of you already know full well anyhow.

Before anything else, let me say how extraordinarily much it has meant to me to have the kind of support that I have received from faculty staff, students, the Eugene/Springfield community, and so many, many other people around the state. In particular, the Alumni Association and many alumni chapters, under the leadership of John Gragg, Oliver Collins, and Douglas White, have been just wonderful -- unbelievably wonderful. This outpouring of affection and support has been beyond anything I could have imagined, and it has made a lot of difference to me. In the middle of a very unhappy situation, this expression from colleagues, students, and friends has been a tremendous compensation and it has certainly helped to sustain me.

Now let me turn to the essential matter. On Wednesday, November 18, the State Board of Higher Education voted in a conference call to set my termination as president on the date recommended by the Executive Committee. And now, today, I feel that it is very important to all of us -- above all, for the faculty, staff, and students of this University -- to recognize that I must no longer be the issue and my position must no longer be the issue. I really mean that. That decision has been made by a Board which has the authority to make it. It is important for the University community to accept that fact.

I have loved my time at the University and I love being president; it has been just great. But I would have to retire some time anyhow, obviously, and I would be sorry whenever the time came. Three years, or two years, is not going to make that much difference in my life.

It is also true, as I have said from the beginning, that there are a number of projects that I wanted to finish and in which I have a central role to play, i.e., the search for a new provost, the capital campaign, the Riverfront Research Park, the completion of our current building of Centers of Excellence, and I could go on with several others. Those are important and we will do everything we can to do as much as possible. I have already indicated that we will pursue the effort to get private funding for a new library with a special energy in the coming year and a half.

But all of that pales in comparison to what really is the central issue, which is not me at all, nor is it that list of current projects that I have referred to. The one crucial issue is simply this: what will be the future of the University of Oregon? What is this agenda for the 1990s that we sometimes hear vaguely referred to? What will be our strength in teaching and learning, scholarship and research -- and what our level of excellence? Will we continue to build our high-ranked professional schools and our outstanding work in science? Will we continue to put a first priority on what must be of central importance to a comprehensive liberal arts university, namely, the building of exceptional strength in the humanities and the social sciences? Will we continue to attract the brightest and best young faculty in the country? Are there areas in which we feel we should consolidate programs? Are we going to put emphasis on newly developed areas in international studies, international business, American studies, our recently created Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences, and many other programs that I could mention? Or is it somehow possible that all of these things could be taken away from us and placed somewhere else?

In addition, faculty of this University have expressed great concern about their participation in the choice of the president who will succeed me. The involvement of the faculty is extremely important, because if a new president is to be successful in leading this institution and in keeping it strong, that person must have the full support and confidence of the faculty. Furthermore, the new president must get to know and be able to work well with the faculty; they must really share and be comfortable together in the building of the institution.

In order to discuss this issue of what will determine the kind of university this will be in the coming years, it is necessary to say something about governance. Essentially all American universities, and in particular the great public academic institutions, have the same structure. There is a board, variously called board of trustees or board of regents and here called the board of higher education, in which is vested all power and authority to make the ultimate decisions for the institution or institutions under its direction. The other most important players in governance are, of course, the faculty and administration of the individual institution; and there is need to recognize also the concerns of staff and students and alumni. For public institutions, as is the case in Oregon's system of higher education, the board members are appointed by the Governor with appropriate legislative confirmation. Let me say right away that this structure is an excellent structure, and it has played an important role in the greatness that American universities have achieved.

I have heard just recently that some people have been asking for an elected Board of Higher Education in Oregon. I must tell you that that would be a terrible mistake and we do not want it. Where that system has been used, such as in Colorado, it has led to severe problems, because it greatly politicizes basic academic issues which need much more thoughtful concern.

What makes the difference, then, in how this structure works in different places is not the power given to the board -- that is essentially the same everywhere -- but rather the traditions within which that power is used. This system has been extraordinarily successful in American higher education where the tradition is one in which the board respects the central role of the faculty and institutional administration in determining the character and quality of the university. This does not mean that the faculty and administration make all of the final decisions themselves. These are ultimately referred to the board for approval and the board does have the final say. This is particularly true in a multi-institutional system where questions of duplication of effort and purpose may arise. But it does mean that the board will always listen with particular care and thoughtfulness to the vision, the aspirations, and the planning for the future that come from within the institution itself.

The faculty must, in our case, be deeply involved in determining the agenda for the l990s, and the issues in that agenda will also be ones on which the students and staff and other members of the University community, including the alumni, will want to be heard. It is this agenda, which should come initially from the institution, that should go to the board for action. If the board has questions, they should ask those questions, and if the board has concerns, the board should discuss those concerns with the institutional people.

Clearly the board will be making the final decisions, but it is terribly important that the board have the advantage of all of the knowledge and expertise that exists within the institutions when they make their decisions, and the faculty must feel that their views have been carefully and thoughtfully considered by the board. What is required then, and what must be achieved, is a situation of mutual respect for their separate roles -- by the Board of Higher Education on the one hand and the people within the University community on the other. Such mutual respect is desperately needed if the University of Oregon is to achieve the level of excellence and greatness which is possible for it.

Beyond this there is a serious OUS need for a general discussion of the future of all higher education in Oregon. Does the state want -- more specifically, do the citizens of Oregon want -- really strong higher education? I hope to heaven they do, because all of the evidence has shown that higher education is absolutely essential to the economic welfare of the state, and it is also crucial for keeping at home in Oregon our best and brightest Young people who are truly our most important natural resource.

It is significant that, back in the days following World War II, i.e., in the late '40s and early '50s, the University of California at Berkeley and Stanford University were not remotely of the quality that they are today. Important decisions were made to invest the resources required to build both of those institutions, and they have since played major roles in the economic growth of their areas. The same has been true in North Carolina, and it has been true in other places all around the country. Our own Governor has recognized this and has said many times that the number one requirement for attracting major industry to Oregon is first-rate higher education. And so, strong higher education is important not just to us here at the University, more just to our students -although it is crucial to them -- but it is important to everyone in the State of Oregon.

Finally, then, do not be discouraged -- do not give up hope. This University can still achieve all that we have together dreamt of for it, and out of that strength and excellence it can still make vital contributions to the State and, indeed, to the country. Two things are needed, as I have already indicated: first, a strong commitment by the State, that is, by its executive office and its legislature, to the support of higher education in Oregon; second, a close working relationship between the Board and the University, each fulfilling its own proper role and each completely respectful of the role and function of the other. Right now, in the wake of all the upset and turmoil of the past several weeks, that may not sound so simple. But, when the dust has begun to settle, that relationship can be achieved. Let us do our part to see to it that it is achieved.

Thank you.

After the close of the address Paul Olum left the chair and the meeting. He turned the chair over to Provost Richard Hill.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Hill recognized Mr. Peter Gilkey, Math, and member of the University Senate to introduce a resolution that was sent to the University Assembly by the Senate for the Assembly's concurrence on the resolution.

WHEREAS the State Board of Higher Education and its Chancellor have acted to force the retirement of Paul Olum as President of the University of Oregon and

WHEREAS they have undertaken this action without any initial consultation with the faculty and students of the University of Oregon and then over the repeated expressions of protest from the faculty, students, staff, alumni and alumnae, and friends of the University of Oregon and

WHEREAS they have as a group declined to engage in reasoned dialogue and have thereby confounded the traditions of argument and persuasion on which higher education is founded and

WHEREAS they have acted in defiance of testimony that their action will bring enduring injury to the University of Oregon and

WHEREAS they have provided the citizens of the State of Oregon with no credible reasons for their action in a timely fashion and

WHEREAS they have indicated by their action their lack of confidence in the President, faculty, staff, students, alumni and alumnae, and friends of the University of Oregon

BE IT RESOLVED that the faculty and students of the University of Oregon have no confidence in the current Chancellor of the State System of Higher Education or in the current State Board of Higher Education and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the faculty and students of the University of Oregon urge the governor to take appropriate action to ensure the responsiveness of the State Board of Higher Education to the concerns of the faculties and students of the several institutions and the citizenry of the state.

Mr. Hill recognized Mr. Fred Andrews, President of the University Senate, to make a report on the resolution from the Senate. Mr. Andrews said that after some discussion and failed attempts to amend the resolution in various ways the Senate approved the resolution by a vote of 26 in favor, 2 opposed, and 1 abstaining. Mr. Gilkey was recognized to speak to the resolution. Mr. Gilkey stated the resolution as introduced in the Assembly did have one small change from that passed by the Senate. In the fifth "Whereas" the "and" at the end has been removed and the following words added: "in a timely fashion" followed by the "and." this change was necessary since the Board did finally release some information as to why they made their decision. This resolution did not invite any political intervention but instead asked the governor to make the Board respond to the requests that reasons for the decision concerning President Olum and the setting of the retirement date be fully explained, Mr. Gilkey stated.

Mr. James O'Fallon, Law, made an amendment to excise the last paragraph from the resolution and to remove the "and" at the end of the first "Be it resolved" and replace the "and" with a period. After a short discussion this was put to a vote and passed. (The tellers were: Mr. Don Truax, Math, Ms. Marge Ramey, Housing, and Mr. Robert Friedman, Speech.) The vote was: in favor 181, opposed 4, and 0 abstentions. The resolution, as amended, was now the topic of discussion/debate. Mr. Jim Terborg, College of Business Administration, state that the resolution should be postponed and that the move to vote no confidence in the Board and the Chancellor was an extremely important step and that serious thought should be given to this before any vote was taken. He emphasized that the vote in favor required confidence in the facts, a campus-wide debate and not to let events overtake the sense of the faculty.

Mr. Robert Mazo, Chemistry, disagreed and stated that the time was now for action and that postponing would not change the facts already known. Mr. James Weston, Biology, inquired of Mr. Terborg as to what consequences he anticipated coming from a vote at this time. What was the need for more information, as it was all available now, and the resolution should be passed. Mr. David Povey, PPPM, stated that the lack of knowledge could only be traced to the Board and to the Chancellor.

Mr. Joseph Fiszman, Political Science, did not see any reason for the Office of the Chancellor and that it should be abolished. Each institution should have its own Board and the present Board could never be able to really represent the diverse interests of all of the institutions. He concluded by saying that the resolution on the floor was a mild solution. The vote on the resolution was: in favor 185, opposed 4, and abstaining 7.

Mr. Fred Andrews and Mr. Robert Mazo were charged with the responsibility to send the resolution to the Chancellor, members of the Board, and the Governor.

Mr. James O'Fallon, Law, was recognized to introduce a resolution.

WHEREAS the actions of the State Board of Higher Education and the Chancellor have created a crisis of confidence in the governance of the State System which touches all of the institutions for which the Board has responsibility, and threatens irreparable harm to those institutions,

BE IT RESOLVED that the faculty and students of the University of Oregon urge the Governor to appoint a commission for the purpose of assessing the soundness of the administrative structure of public higher education in the State of Oregon, and recommending such administrative and legislative actions as may be necessary to insure the traditional and essential role of faculties in institutional governance, including the selection of presidents, and the effective voice of students on matters affecting the education and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the faculty and students of the University of Oregon express their willingness to work with all appropriate agencies and the public to resolve the crisis of confidence, and to preserve and improve upon the excellence built under President Paul Olum's leadership.

Mr. O'Fallon stated that his resolution was aimed at addressing the issue beyond the forced retirement of President Olum and the campus. It is aimed at all the institutions in the state system. The proposed commission would be well balanced and not have a political axe to grind and would be able to address the issues of governance on each campus, the governance of the Board over institutions, the place of the Chancellor, etc., and this could be done without political interference.

Mr. Russell Donnelly, Physics, stated that the second paragraph dictates a conclusion for the commission. Might the commission decide otherwise, or might the commission decide against our interests, he asked. Mr. David Wagner, Biology, said the door is open for discussion and that the Board and the Chancellor must respond to commence any conversation to start the healing process. Mr. Brian Matthews, Physics, asked that the resolution be postponed or tabled as time is required to make sure what is said is what needs to be said. The motion to table was approved by a vote of 94 in favor and 57 opposed and none abstaining. Mr. James Weston moved to -introduce the first and third paragraphs of the tabled motion, with the word "further" excised from the third paragraph. The Chair, after checking with the Parliamentarian, Mr. Robert Friedman, stated that the motion was out of order. This decision of the Chair The 0'Fallon resolution, sans the second paragraph, was now on the floor. Mr. Ron Rousseve, Counseling Psychology, spoke in favor of the resolution because it was so positive in spirit. Mr. James Terborg stated that the motion ,'does not do anything.' and Ms. Karen Frymoyer, Student Senate, said the resolution did not make sense. Mr. Peter von Hippel, Chemistry, said the second paragraph was crucial to the resolution and that time is needed to think over the entire resolution. Mr. Fred Andrews asked that the motion be tabled until the January meeting of the Assembly. By a show of hands the motion to table was approved overwhelmingly.

NEW BUSINESS

In January, the Report of the Curriculum Committee will be on the agenda.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


MINUTES OF THE University ASSEMBLY FOR JANUARY 6, 1988


The meeting was called to order by President Paul 0lum in room 150 Geology at 3:37 p.m. on January 6, 1988. There being no corrections, the minutes of the December 1987 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

President Olum announced that a reception honoring Vice President and Provost Richard J. Hill will be held on Tuesday, January 12, 1988 from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. in the Erb Memorial Union Ballroom. All Faculty and Student Senators are invited to this reception.

Mr. Paul Holbo, History, was recognized at this time. Mr. Holbo read the following tribute to Mr. Hill.

Mr. President, I trust that the Assembly will permit a few words of introduction before I elaborate on your announcement.

In recent years the University of Oregon Assembly took on a funereal aspect. A handful of the aging faithful (including me) and a few younger ones met monthly to hear the obituaries of departed colleagues.

The Assembly recently has come alive again, owing to unhappy circumstances. A distinctive institution of this campus proved its value as a forum for expression of the facultyís views and values.

We gathered in this room in November and December to express our support and affection for President Paul Olum and to object to what we thought ill considered action. While the outcome of our complaints was not what we might have hoped, there is some evidence that we caught the attention of those whose actions we protested. We can hold that attention if we maintain the vitality of this Assembly.

It is appropriate, therefore, to ask the Assembly to recognize the person with whom President 0lum has worked most closely in a continuing struggle to maintain and improve the quality of this University: Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Richard J. Hill. As his physical presence indicates, this is not the occasion for a final memorial tribute. Happily, also, we do not mark his retirement, for he expects to resume professorial duties after a well-deserved leave. But, in ten days, his resignation as provost will take effect--earlier than we would wish but, because of his characteristic willingness to help carry the burden as long as he could, a full year later than strictly personal interests might have dictated.

On Tuesday next, at this hour, the President will host a reception in the ballroom, honoring Provost Hill--an event to which you are invited.

A committee of this faculty is now engaged in a search for a new provost. It will not be easy to find someone capable of even surviving the position, as Provost Hill has done for no less than seven and one-half years, much less revealing the qualities of character that he has done.

Some years ago the University of Washington had a provost of considerable academic reputation of whom it also was said that he was the faculty's man in the administration. His first name was Solomon. We've had our own man in the administration, our own Solomon in Dick Hill.

I. known Dick for sixteen years and worked closely with him for almost a decade. In all that time--a period of frequent budget cuts and enrollment strains and crises of one kind or another--he has demonstrated unswerving dedication to the well being of the University, to the interests of individual faculty members and deans, and students--not only graduate students from his own department, but other students with complaints or questions, new students from his Freshman Seminar, students of minority status. He has demonstrated this dedication, this devotion, by laboring day after day, weekends, and late into many nights, by unending patience in countless meetings both on and off campus, by skillful and gracious correspondence. He's tough but he's really gentle. He has given much of himself in our common interest.

Please come to honor and celebrate with him next Tuesday. Today, with the permission of the Chair, please acknowledge his contributions by standing and, something we don't do after a memorial, applauding.

Paul S. Holbo

The Assembly did give Mr. Hill a resounding ovation, to which Mr. Hill gave a graceful thank you to those assembled and to all the members of the University community unity.

OLD BUSINESS

President Olum recognized Mr. Derry Malsch, Chair of the Committee on the Curriculum, to introduce the report of that committee. Mr. Fred Andrews, President of the University Senate, reported that the Senate had reviewed the report at its meeting in December and have endorsed it for Assembly consideration and approval. After a brief statement by Mr. Malsch, concerning the credit hours added this year, the report was placed under review seriatim as is the usual procedure.

On page 9 and under the heading of Mathematics an explanation of MTH 095 was made by Mr. Frank Anderson, Mathematics, at the request of President Olum. Mr. Anderson gave a history of the former 100 course in Mathematics and that in 1984 a decision to have the 100-level course reduced to a non-credit 095 number was made and that this 1987-88 port of the Committee on the Curriculum reflects that change. Oregon State University is going to change to the 095 number already so, but Southern Oregon State College is resisting the change as they include in their 100-level course more than just high school-level mathematics. This conflict , Mr. Hill interjected, will be resolved in the Academic Council meetings of the State System.

On page 11, Mr. Jack Sanders, Religious Studies, was recognized and he moved that the proposal of the Department of Religious Studies be put into the Report at this time. Mr. Sanders explained that the proposal from Religious Studies was to have the M removed from R 405, R 407, R 430, and R 431. The M would be replaced by a G and thus the courses would carry major credit and not minutes nor credit for graduate students, mostly in interdisciplinary studies. The department is not requesting recognition as a department permitted to grant graduate degrees, but as one which makes available certain courses that students elect to take and wish to include in a graduate major. He went on to explain that the Curriculum Committee of the College of Arts and Sciences had approved the change, but the University Committee did not. Instead the Committee suggested that the problems be worked out with the Graduate Council. After some additional discussion the motion to approve the inclusion of the Religious Studies proposal was put to a vote and passed by a show of hands: 42 in favor and 25 opposed.

Commencing on page 15 and continuing on to pages 16 and 17, the College of Business Administration requested approval of 90 credits, the bulk of which comes under the BA 600-level number. It was explained that the Oregon Executive M.B.A. Program will utilize this number exclusively and that the BA 600-level number is for courses taken by individuals, not on campus as full-time students, who are already in the professional category. President Olum stated that the BA 600 level courses would not be used for any other purpose than the Oregon Executive Program and that if the BA 600-level courses were to be brought onto campus as a regular offering of the College of Business Administration, approval by the University Assembly would be required.

The report was completed and the vote to approve the report, as amended, was by voice and in the affirmative.

NEW BUSINESS

President Olum stated that the Special Committee for Semester Conversion that he appointed last summer will be on the agenda of the January 13 University Senate meeting. The recommendations of the Committee and the Senate debate will be reported at the February 3 meeting of the University Assembly.

Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the General Education Sub-Committee for Semester Conversion, was recognized to lead a discussion on the recommendations of that committee concerning the nature and rationale of the proposals for the new General Education requirements.

During the discussion a number of points were raised. They were:

1. That the faculty has not been given sufficient documentation on the proposed changes.

2. The fiscal impact of each of the changes, some minor and some major, has not been fully calculated.

3. The Professional Schools/Colleges are concerned about the invasion of the number of hours required by the changes in the requirements on these Schools and Colleges.

4. The proposal that non-western topics or race or gender study as a requirement presupposes that all students are being exposed to western topics. The committee should document this supposition if possible.

5. The individual schools and colleges should hold meetings to discuss in detail the proposals before the University Senate or the University Assembly debates and votes on the proposals.

President Olum strongly emphasized the last point. He stated that the Senate should consider not debating and voting on the proposals until a thorough discussion has taken place across campus. The changes proposed are fundamental to the University's future and growth and is of the utmost importance to each and every faculty member and, because of the seriousness of this whole process, it is mandatory for each minor faculty to get involved and review the proposals in depth, the President stated. He urged each faculty member to attend meetings on the issues, read about them and discuss them in their departments and at the school and college level. After this has been done, the Senate and the Assembly should be prepared to deal with the proposals.

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR FEBRUARY 3, 1988


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:38 p.m. on February 3, 1988. There being no corrections, the minutes of the January 6, 1988 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Barry Siegel, Economics, announced that a meeting at OSU on February 6, 1988 would be held to discuss various issues in higher education in Oregon. Officials from state government, the OSSHE Board and various OSSHE institutional faculty members would discuss these issues. Mr. Siegel Urged everyone to attend this meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

President Olum recognized Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the General Education Subcommittee of the Special Semester Curriculum Committee to introduce the first motion concerning the semester conversion and University Curriculum.

ENGLISH COMPOSITION/WRITING REQUIREMENT

The legislation of May 20, 1970 establishing the requirement of English Composition shall be repealed and replaced by the following:

1. Writing/English Composition

a) Six semester credits are required in English composition (WR 121,122) with a grade of C- (P if ungraded) or better. This requirement should be met during the first two years of enrollment at the University .

b) Three semester credits of an upper-division course that contains a significant writing component. Upper-division writing-intensive courses that satisfy this requirement will be specifically designated in the University Bulletin/Catalog. This course can be a group-satisfying course.

2. The legislation of April 12, 1972 exempting the Composition/Writing (WR 121, 122) requirement from the group satisfying requirement shall be continued.

President Olum stated that the motion will be separated and discussed and voted upon by the Assembly in two parts. The first part will be the Composition/Writing requirement, that is number "1.a),' and "2" from above.

In his report from the University Senate, Senate President Fred Andrews stated that the Senate had endorsed the entire motion by a vote of 26 in favor, 2 in opposition and 4 abstaining. Mr. Andrews said that a proposal to have 20 weeks of Composition/ Writing was defeated. The sense of the Senate was that the two semesters were needed even if it presented budget or fiscal problems that will have to be resolved.

Ms. Mate said that the ability of students to write and think clearly must be l earned as undergraduates and that the information on gained in this proposed 2 semester requirements retirement would enhance the lines of of the student for the remainder of the time the student was at the University and throughout his/her l life!. She strongly urged the Assembly to adopt the recommendation. President Olum i interjected that the cost would be about $200,000 additional to meet the requirement if it were to pass. However, he stated that the Assembly should not take the budget/fiscal situation into consideration as the proposed changed should be based upon its own merits.

Mr. John Gage, English, stated that the University was now in a situation where it must either teach more or less composition. That is reduce the course to one semester--not equal to the present two quarters or to expand it to a full academic year of composition. The students would be the better for the latter. The subject, once mastered, is applicable to all parts of the University curriculum and indeed to life. The student would have time to get involved in critical reading and more intensive writing skills that are associated with the ability to express oneself f i n correct prose. Mr. Gage stated that the Composition Committee would establish methods for qualified students to have WR 121 and/or 122 waived.

Mr. Don Van Houten, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, gave strong support to the motion even though funding will be a real and serious problem--but the requirement is critical and should be passed. Mr. Nat Teich, English, stated that the other OSSHE institutions, with the exception of EOSC, had adopted the two-semester requirement already in their semester conversion plans. Mr. Paul Simon. Anthropology, thought that the fact that we admit students without basic writing no skill s was the problem. The second semester should be required of all students and for those who lack the basic skills a remedial course should be established and that the students should pay for the course.

The vote on the motion indicated Assembly approval by a show of hands. The following is the motion as passed:

ENGLISH COMPOSITION/WRITING REQUIREMENT

The legislation of May 20, 1970 establishing the requirement of English Composition shall be repealed and replaced by the following:

1. Writing/English Composition

a) Six semester credits are required in English Composition (WR 121, 122) with a grade of C- (P if ungraded) or better. This requirement should be met during the first two years of enrollment at the University .

b) The Legislation of April 12, 1972 exempting the Composition/Writing (WR 121, 122) requirement from the group satisfying requirements shall be continued .

The motion now under discussion was the part noted as "1.b)" in the original motion above. "Three semester credits of an upper-division course that contains a significant writing component. Upper-division writing-intensive courses that satisfy this requirement will be specifically designated in the University Bulletin/Catalog. This course can be a group-satisfying course."

Ms. Mate, in addressing this motion, said that the University could make the course one with a separate director, graders, etc., but the expense would be too much. Instead the choice is to have the various departments recommend courses that will meet the requirement and give evidence of what will be required in the courses thus recommended to meet the requirement. The courses recommended by the departments must be approved by the Special Semester Curriculum Committee. At present some 300-level courses could meet these requirements.

Mr. Peter Gilkey, Mathematics, proposed an amendment to the motion. His amendment added, following the word "catalog" another sentence: "It is understood that no additional University funds will be available to support these courses." Mr. Gilkey stated that unlike the first motion where additional funds must be made available to carry out the requirement, this motion now under consideration, would not be eligible for additional funds. Mr. Al Urquhart, Geography, stated that some classes are too large to realistically carry out the requirement and that funding problems should be satisfied prior to any vote on these issues. Mr. Gilkey said that the motion is "cost neutral" in upper division courses and no expectation of additional funding should be anticipated if this motion passed.

President Olum said the estimate of funding "writing across the curriculum" with graders, etc., would be extraordinarily large and would certainly be impossible to fund. The amendment was defeated by a hand vote.

President Olum stated that each department must find the funds to support the requirements within the motion if it were to pass and that it might become necessary for the President to 'íveto" the motion if funding becomes a central issue in attempting to carry out the motion if it passed. Mr. Barry Siegel, Economics, asked why each department was not asked to respond to this motion earlier by the Committee. Ms. Mate stated that the departments were contacted last spring (1987) and a majority did respond with a positive reaction. Ms. Becky Sisley, Physical Education and Human Movement Studies, asked what the criteria would be for the courses and how would departments with large classes ever carry through with the requirements. Ms. Mate stated that each department would propose the criteria for the courses it proposed to satisfy the requirement. The Semester Curriculum Committee would either accept, reject, or ask for more information on the criteria proposed.

Mr. Kenneth Ramsing, Acting Dean of the Graduate School, moved to table the motion until more information could be gathered so that the Assembly would be able to deal with the motion and its various ramifications prior to additional debate and a vote. It would be best to consider it later when the impact is better understood. President Olum asked if Mr. Ramsing had any idea how long it would take the departments to digest the proposed motion and respond to it in the area of cost, establishment of criteria and targeting courses that would meet the requirements. Mr. Ramsing stated that one year would probably be required. The vote to table the motion passed by a vote of 115 in favor and 100 opposed. (COMMENT: TO POSTPONE, in Roberts, does not mean to merely postpone, but, in effect, to reject. TO TABLE in parliamentary law is literally the speaker's table, but to '.lay on the table" or "to table§' a motion means to delay action on it. This motion is "tabled" and can be "lifted from the table'. at a future meeting of the Assembly.) President Olum charged the Special Curriculum Committee and the sub-committee on General Education to ferret out the facts with the departments in areas such as courses with costs and courses without cost. The details must be gathered from each department in all aspects of the proposed requirements and when this is ready the motion could be "lifted from the table..'

Ms. Mate was recognized to introduce the Health Requirement motion.

Legislation establishing the requirement of Health Education for Undergraduate students passed on June 6, 1913, and extended on April 6, 1933, and modified on May 3, 1933 is hereby repealed.

Mr. Fred Andrews, President of the University Senate, reported that the Senate had defeated this motion by a vote of 8 in favor, 20 opposed, and 1 abstention. The debate was short and did indicate concern over funding or budget problems if the requirement was dropped, the quality of the courses, and the health of the students improved by gaining the type of information that the course covers.

Ms. Mate stated that unlike the English Composition/Writing requirement, the Committee did not feel that every student at the University needed to take the health course. Students could elect to take the course or another course, they would also be free to not take any course in health. Our requirement, she continued, is unique in the MU as we are the only member University that has such a requirement at present. She did not think the budget problems that concern some would appear, as the "worst case" is the one that has been presented Good courses attract good students and this course is not fundamental President Olum stated that the budget situation would probably be a .,wash." Celeste Ulrich, Dean of the College of Human Development and Performance, defended the continuation of the requirement in a long statement that included the fact that life-style, decision-making techniques, evaluation of self, and other things are included in the health course. She concluded with the fact that ''The head does have a body." Ms. Karen Frymoyer, Student Senate, in support of the requirement said that health issues are important, but the course should be revamped and improved.

Mr. Andrews asked how many semester hours would be required to fulfill this requirement. President Olum stated that it would be for one semester and 2 hours of credit. The vote on the motion was 70 in favor and 147 opposed. The motion was defeated.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


Minutes OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR MARCH 2, 1988.


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:37 p.m. on March 2, 1988. There being no corrections, the minutes of the February 3, 1988 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

President Olum announced that the Semester Field Requirements would be on the agenda of the University Assembly at the May 4, 1988 meeting. The President announced the appointment of Norman Wessells as the new Provost at the University. This appointment is to be presented to the OSSHE Board at its next meeting for final approval.

OLD BUSINESS

Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the General Education sub-committee, was recognized to introduce the motion concerning the Non-western, Race, Gender requirement.

Three semester credit hours of approved course work involving a non western topic, or issues of race or gender shall be required of all undergraduate students. Courses satisfying this requirement shall be designated in the University of Oregon General Bulletin. It is possible that some of the courses will also satisfy group requirements.

Mr. Fred Andrews, President of the Senate, reported that the Senate had discussed this motion and approved it by a vote of 24 i n favor, 5 opposed and 2 abstaining. In speaking to the motion, Ms. Mate stated that the purpose of the motion is to expand the focus of the students from past traditions and to make them aware of other cultures and contributions of these cultures to human life. The three topics are linked to facilitate the implementation of the requirement. At present the University General Bulletin contains 160 courses that might qualify in filling this requirement.

Departments will decide if a course meets the requirement and various curriculum committees will verify that it actually does fit the desired requirements. Ms. Mate stated that the motion excludes South America and Central America and that this decision was reached after many discussions within the committee.

Mr Steven Randall, Romance Languages, asked if Russia was included in ìWesternî as used in the motion. The word ''Western'. was not clear. Ms. Mate stated that "non-western" is a popular term and that is why it was used. To another question concerning the requirement for foreign students, Ms. Mate stated that foreign students will not be exempt from the requirement. President Olum interjected that the cost of the requirement was not a consideration as no cost was involved and that no new money would be made available to implement the requirement.

Mr. Ron Rousseve, Education, said he supported the motion, but that it was a token response to a greater need. This motion should be seen as a very small step toward including in the requirements more on the major problems of the late 20th century and a deeper inquiry into these problems, cultures, and people as we quickly move toward the 21st century. He felt that each content area was sufficiently important to stand alone--all are necessary to a substantial change in the way education is looked upon in the future.

Mr. Ken Liberman, Sociology, stated that the multi-cultural world that is upon us 2 demands this type of requirement if the University is to meet the needs of the students. Students are not aware of other cultures, other races, or other people that are different than they. Most students have not elected to take these classes in the past, even if they have been available. It is necessary to make sure that the students are educated about the social disease of sexism and racism, to bring the students out of their cultural isolation, and to break the mold and reshape it in a way that the students are prepared for the future.

Mr. Daniel Udovic, Biology, felt the proposal was too vague, the geographical limits were too tight, and that other important issues exist, but are not addressed in the motion. These issues include environmental studies that are certainly important to the future of the students. Ms. Barbara Pope, Women's Studies, felt the intellectual development of the students was being overlooked in the debate as it appears that most of the discussion has been aimed at cultural issues. Mr. Fred Andrews, Mathematics, asked what the word "gender" meant. The answer was that it could include male-female relations, but was basically aimed at females/women.

Mr. Steven Rendall proposed to amend the motion to have "non-western" changed to "non-European-American.'. Mr. Keith Richard, Archivist, supported this change as he felt the term "non-western" and the definition given by Ms. Mate to exclude the "Americas" would exclude the native North and South Americans. Mr. Charles Curtis, Mathematics, felt the vagueness of the motion was necessary to help the curriculum committees make interpretations of what was acceptable. Mr. Daniel Udovic felt the original intent must be made clear and should be well-defined as vagueness would create problems down the road. The question was called for and was called by a vote of over two-thirds. The amendment was accepted by a show of hands. The motion as passed now reads:

Three semester credit hours of approved course work involving a non European-American topic, or issues of race or gender shall be required of all undergraduate students. Courses satisfying this requirement shall be designated in the University of Oregon General Bulletin. It is possible that some of the courses will also satisfy group requirements.

President Olum pointed out that the term "non-European-American'' includes Latin and South America and the Native populations of these two continents.

Ms. Mate was recognized to introduce the next motion concerning the requirements for a B.A. and B.S. degree.

The B.A. Degree requires proficiency in a foreign language and the B.S. Degree requires proficiency in mathematics.

The motion continues the present requirements for the two degrees and the proficiency shall remain as it is presently stated in the University General Bulletin. The motion passed without opposition.

The next motion Ms. Mate introduced was to give semester hour values to the present quarter hour values for minimum credits required for graduation.

Effective Fall semester 1990 the following minimum credits shall be required for graduation with a B.A. or B.S. degree. All previous legislation establishing any other requirements shall be repealed by this legislation when it goes into effect. All quarter hours shall be adjusted to the semester credit hour unit for students enrolled at the time of the conversion from quarters to semesters. 124 semester credits for graduation 24 semester credits for majors 15 semester credits for minors 42 semester credits for total upper-division hours 16 semester credits for upper-division hours in major 84 semester credits must be graded 30 semester credits of the last 42 semester credits must be in residence.

Ms. Mate pointed out that the motion was a straight two-thirds change for the present quarter hours -- 4 quarter hours equals 3 semester hours. The motion passed without opposition.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Robert Mazo, Chair of the Faculty Advisory Council, introduced the following two motions.

Motion 1) I move that the University Assembly resolve itself into a committee of the whole in order to consider the following question: Shall the University of Oregon require competence in a foreign language equivalent to two years of college level study as a condition for graduation?

Motion 2) I move that the chair appoint a committee consisting of three persons to draft a resolution embodying the sense of the deliberations of the committee of the whole on the question of a foreign language graduation requirement.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR 6 APRIL 1988


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:39 p.m. on April 6, 1988. Corrections having been mailed with the April meeting notice, the minutes of the March meeting were approved.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

OLD BUSINESS

President Olum recognized Mr. Robert Mazo, Chair of the Faculty Advisory Council to read the following motion:

I move that the University Assembly resolve itself into a committee of the whole in order to consider the following question: Shall the University of Oregon require competence in a foreign language equivalent to two years of college level study as a condition for graduation?

The Assembly voted to resolve itself into a committee of the whole by a voice vote. Mr. Mazo took the Chair as for discussion of the question. After some period of discussion the committee of the whole voted to make a report of its findings to the Assembly.

President Olum had to leave the meeting in the later stages of the discussion so the Chair was assumed by the Secretary. The Chair recognized Mr. Robert Jackson, Romance Languages, to report the findings of the committee of the whole.

The committee of the whole requests that the Committee on Committees appoint a committee charged with investigating faculty opinion on the subject of a foreign language graduation requirement. This committee shall provide the faculty with pertinent background information.

Some discussion took place as to the make-up of the committee to carry out this charge. Mr. Fred Andrews, Mathematics, moved that the Committee on Committees appoint a Committee on the Curriculum for the academic year 1988-89 and that this committee carry out the charge. (The Special Semester Curriculum Committee shall continue to work on the Semester Conversion during this period. It had been planned not to have a regular Committee on the Curriculum during the next academic year.) The Assembly voted to accept Mr. Andrews' motion. Mr. Jackson continued:

1. The committee shall circulate to each faculty member a memorandum that contains sufficient background information on the question posed by Mr. Mazo's motion and the preamble to this charge, so that each faculty member will understand all the ramifications of the requirement, e.g., fiscal costs, classroom space, enrollment figures.

2. The committee shall encourage all faculty members to react to the proposal with written comments. This reaction should be aimed at the following: a) shall an exit requirement of a foreign language be required, b) shall an entrance requirement of a foreign language be established; and c) any other question soliciting a response from faculty generated by the research of the committee.

3. After all the information has been gathered the committee will prepare a thorough report of its findings and report these findings to the University Assembly no later than March 1989.

The Assembly voted to accept Mr. Jackson's report and to thus charge the Committee on Committees to initiate the action through the appointment of a Committee on the Curriculum for 1988-89 with but this single duty.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR MAY 4, 1988.


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:35 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4. There being some corrections to page two, the minutes of the April meeting were approved.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. David K. McDaniels, Physics, presented to the Secretary a memorial for Mr. James Kemp, Physics, who died on March 29, 1988 in Eugene. The memorial is on pages 6-7 and is a permanent part of these minutes.

President Olum announced that the procedure to name buildings has been utilized twice in recent weeks. On May 14, 1988 the announcement to name the Library after a major donor to the capital campaign for the construction of an addition to the library will be made. In another action a name has been approved for the courtyard of the Museum of Natural History. Faculty response to both of these actions will be possible prior to the President sending the names on to the OSSHE Board for final approval.

OLD BUSINESS

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

That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 1987-88 and Summer Session 1988, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.

The motion was accepted without dissent.

President Olum recognized Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the Special Semester Curriculum Conversion Committee, to make the following motion:

B.A./B.S. FIELD REQUIREMENTS

All legislation enacted concerning the field requirements for the degrees of B.A. and B.S. shall be repealed and replaced by the following:

1. All group-satisfying courses must carry at least three (3) semester hours and must be approved by the University Curriculum Committee and the University Assembly.

2. Three General Education groups shall be satisfied: a) Arts and Letters; b) Social Science; and c) Science.

a. All students taking a B.A./B.S. degree must complete four (4) approved courses in each group, including at least one (1) approved & General Education sequence in each group. A total of twelve (12) courses are required. (Approved courses and sequences shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin.)

b. Other students in Bachelor degree programs i.e., Bachelor of Architecture (BArch), Bachelor of Interior Architecture (BIArch), Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (BLA), Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA), Bachelor of Music (BMus), and Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) must complete three (3) courses in each of the three General Education groups, with a minimum of one General Education approved sequence in each of two groups. A total of nine (9) semester courses of at least three credits are required.

3. An approved General Education sequence is an approved set of two (2) interrelated courses which may be offered by one or more departments.

4. No more than two (2) group-satisfying courses may be taken from any one department to meet the group requirements. Sequences must be completed in courses outside the major department. An approved minor or additional major may be substituted for a sequence in its General Education group.

5. Courses eligible for group-satisfying status must meet the following criteria:

a. Courses should introduce the basic methods, concerns and subjects of particular disciplines or interdisciplinary topics.

b. Courses should be open to and designed for a general University undergraduate population and thus should have no, or at most, only one or two basic prerequisites.

c. Courses commonly will be offered at the 100- and 200-levels, but 300-level courses may also be listed in the group requirements as long as they clearly meet the conditions in a) and b) above, 400-level courses cannot be used to satisfy group requirements. Courses dealing with basic topics in small classes are encouraged.

d. Courses satisfying the group requirements should be offered every year. A course listed in the group requirements that is only offered twice in any four-year period will be dropped from the General education group list.

e. Writing 121 and 122 do not count as group satisfying courses, nor does the first year of a foreign language. For students taking the BA degree, the second year of a foreign language cannot be counted as group satisfying.

Mr. Fred Andrews, President of the University Senate, reported that the Senate had passed the motion on to the Assembly with a vote of 18 in favor, 4 in opposition, and 1 abstention. The Senate had made no amendments although the debate had reflected some concern over the motion.

Ms. Mate, in speaking to the motion, stated that it reflected several compromises with the professional schools and continued the sequence/group-satisfying courses that the faculty has implemented in past legislation. The aim of the motion is to give the student depth and breadth in his or her education at the university of Oregon as an undergraduate. -

Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, rose to make an amendment to the motion. His amendment was to 'Delete in Section 2.a.: ,'including at least one (1) approved General Education sequence in each group,, (lines 2-3). In the same section: line 4: to delete '.and sequences.'' In section 2.b., lines 6-7, delete , with a minimum of two general education approved sequences in at least two groups." All of section 3 was to be deleted and, in section 4, lines 2-4, delete everything from "Sequences" through the last word in line 4, "group.''

In support of this amendment Mr. Simonds stated that the semester will expand the opportunity for the student to get depth because the semester is longer than the quarter and thus a semester of one course should fulfill the need for depth. Sequence requirements have resulted in too large classes and this amendment would stop this and allow more personal attention to the undergraduate because the classes would be smaller. He stated that the difficulties experienced by students in transferring to the UO would be eliminated or at the least be made less complicated with the elimination of the sequence requirements.

Mr. Fred Andrews, Mathematics, opposed the amendment because the purpose of the University is to educate and not let students dabble or sample and thus get an inadequate and incomplete education

Committee, said the Committee was in favor of dropping the sequence requirements

Mr. Paul Holbo, History, stated that the problem of transfers was not as severe. as Mr. Simonds suggested and in the 1987 session of the State Legislature a mo to get the agreements of transfer credits straightened out caused the creation a special advisory committee to work on such agreements. Mr. Holbo, a member this committee, stated that the committee has been meeting and that a good portion of the work has been completed. The amendment now being proposed would undo the work of the committee.

Mr. Roger Chickering, History, stated that the sequence requirement create cross-disciplinary courses and that this was good for the education of t student to see the interrelationships of various disciplines.

The vote on the amendment showed 21 in favor and 16 opposed. The amendment passed. The motion as passed reads:

B.A./B.S. FIELD REQUIREMENTS

All legislation enacted concerning the field requirements for the degrees of B.A. and B.S. shall be repealed and replaced by the following:

1. All group-satisfying courses must carry at least three (3) semester hours and must be reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee and approved by the University Assembly.

2. Three General Education groups shall be satisfied: a) Arts and Letters; b) Social Science; and c) Science.

a. All students taking a B.A./B.S. degree must complete four (4) approved courses in each group. A total of twelve (12) courses are required. (Approved courses shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin.)

b. Students in other Bachelor degree programs i.e., Bachelor of Architecture (BArch), Bachelor of Interior Architecture (BIArch), Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (BLA), Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA), Bachelor of Music (BMUs), and Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) must complete three (3) courses in each of the three General Education groups. A total of nine (9) semester courses of at least three credits are required.

3. No more than two (2) group-satisfying courses may be taken from any one department to meet the group requirements and must be in courses outside the individual's major department.

4. Courses eligible for group-satisfying status must meet the following criteria:

a. Courses should introduce the basic methods, concerns and subjects of particular disciplines or interdisciplinary topics.

b. Courses should be open to and designed for a general University undergraduate population and thus should have no, or at most, only one or two basic prerequisites.

c. Courses commonly will be offered at the 100- and 200-levels, but 300-level courses may also be listed in the group requirements as long as they clearly meet the conditions in a) and b) above; 400-level courses cannot be used to satisfy group requirements. Courses dealing with basic topics in small classes are encouraged.

d. Courses satisfying the group requirements should be offered every year. A course listed in the group requirements that is not offered for three years during any four-year period will be dropped from the General education group list.

e. Writing 121 and 122 do not count as group satisfying courses, nor does the first year of a foreign l language. For students taking the BA degree, the second year of a foreign language cannot be counted as group satisfying as offered at the University of Oregon.

Mr. Holbo moved to postpone further consideration of the amended motion until June 1. His reasons were the few faculty at the meeting (42 voting faculty members present, no student senators ) and that an issue this important should not be decided by such a small number.

In opposition, the date of June 1 was too near the deadline for departments to complained the the semester conversion on work which is to be done by June 15. The vote on the move to postpone was defeated.

Mr. Donald Van Houten, Sociology, moved to amend the motion in number 4 to read "No more than two (2) group-satisfying courses may be taken from any one department to meet the group requirements and must be in courses outside the individuals major department." This amendment was approved. The main motion, as amended, was now before the body. The vote on the motion passed by a show of hands with only one negative vote.

Mr. Fred Andrews, Mathematics, made the following statement: ''I have voted on the prevailing side of this motion and I now wish to have it entered on the minutes that I move for reconsideration of this motion at the next meeting of the University Assembly."

President Olum ruled that this was in order and that the motion would be placed on the agenda at the June 1, 1988 meeting of the Assembly. In response to a question on about deadlines for the semester conversion on that are set for June 15, Ms. Mate stated that the group-satisfying section could be left blank if no resolution on of the issue was made prior to the deadlines new or if the deadline became a burden to the departments. It was announced that Inside Oregon would carry pro and con arguments on the issue of sequences in the May 26, 1988 issue.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Paul Holbo gave the following motion:

WHEREAS the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, at its December 1987 meeting, has approved adoption of a program approval standard limiting the amount of time and/or credit that may be required for a master's degree teacher-education program,

BE IT RESOLVED that the President and faculty of the University of Oregon consider this standard to be highly inappropriate, beyond the proper and reasonable scope of the Commission's responsibility and authority, and an intrusion into the rightful affairs and responsibilities of the University .

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University of Oregon, acting under the rightful authority of the State System of Higher Education, will continue to determine the requirements for the degrees that it awards.

This motion will be presented to the University Senate at its meeting on May 11, 1988 and at the meeting of the University Assembly on June 1, 1988.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


James C. Kemp (February 9, 1927 - March 29, 1988)


Professor James Kemp died March 29, 1988 at the age of 61 after a very distinguished career as a physicist and astronomer. His background and subsequent career development' is an example to all of us that diversity i n training is so very important. He started out with a bachelor's degree in Slavic Languages. Because of his early years in Mexico he was also fluent in Spanish. Later he became interested in physics, obtaining his Ph.D. in that area from the University of California at Berkeley. He then spent several years working on various pro problems in the solid state area. Here he earned a good reputation and invented his "Faraday Rotation" polarization detector. But, it was when he moved to Astronomy that he truly gained an international reputation.

Jim often said that the best way to success in physics was to devise a powerful experimental technique and apply it to various problems. He successfully followed his own advice, utilizing his highly sensitive polarization "meter" to make several important scientific contributions. Perhaps the most important came in 1970 when working with a student, John Swedlund, he showed that large magnetic fields are associated with White Dwarf stars. This white dwarf star i n the constellation Draco has an extremely strong magnetic field, more than 20 million times as intense as the earth's magnetic field. This development validated Chandrasekhar's theory of stellar structure. Chandrasekhar was extremely elated by this discovery. Chandrasekhar was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983 for this and other contributions.

Jim Kemp was a prodigious worker. For him, 18 hour days were often the norm. His publication record of over 110 refereed papers will attest to that. He worked on a very wide variety of topics including the black hole in Cygnus X-1 and the magnetic fields associated with sunspots. By looking at irregularities in the polarimetric light area of the binary star system, Epsilon Auriga, Jim provided significant evidence for the birth of a solar system. Jim's results favor the hypothesis that new plans planets are being formed in the cloud of matter surrounding this star system.

How about Jim Kemp, the i individual ? He will be forever remembered by students and faculty alike for running around at all times wearing sandals and smoking a corn-cob pipe. In warmer weather, shorts became a part of this scene. He was universally admired for the ability to build his own auxiliary equipment himself, be it a piece of electronics or something that required machining at the shop.

When Jim first l earned of his ill illness, we thanked about the possibility that he might slow down a bit and take it easier. Jim's response was that continuing with his work was exactly what he wanted to do. His interest in science, particularly in astronomy, transcended everything. He said that he planned to continue his investigations PINE Mt. Observatory and to write papers as l long as he could manage. He did exactly that.

One personal anecdote illustrates the versatility of Jim Kemp in other areas. This concerns a Sigma XI lecture a few years back. The local chapter decided to try a very adventuresome format. We used a tape of a talk on Black Holes given at the National Society meeting held in Toronto. Jim agreed to show slides along with the taped lecture. This required great timing and skill to match up someone elseís lecture. Jim listened to the talk on tape, discussed it with the speaker over the phone and came up with a spectacular slide presentation. It worked, even though we all agreed that we would never do it again.

Many people have asked about the future of Pine Mt. Observatory. Our response to this query is that the University and the Physics Department will do everything possible to keep it going. But, it will have to be operated somewhat differently i n the future. Jim Kemp was a unique individual. There are no Jim Kemp running around. We will have to adjust to life without his great individual charisma, his drive, and his institution
Submitted by:

David K. McDaniel s Head, Physics Dept.


UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY 1 June 1988


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:37 p.m. on June 1, 1988. There being no corrections, the minutes of the May 4, 1988 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/MEMORIALS

Ms. Shirley Wilson, Student Services, presented to the Secretary a memorial for Mrs. Golda Parker Wickham. Mrs. Wickham served as Dean of Women at the University from 1946 until her retirement in 1968. The memorial is attached to these minutes.

President Olum announced that the courtyard of the Museum of Natural History has been given a name. Henceforth it will be the Glenn Starlin Courtyard. This action followed the decision of an appointed committee to investigate and report on the naming of the Courtyard.

In addition, the President announced that the auditorium at the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology will be named in honor of Mr. Paul Rudy who is retiring this year after having served as the director of the OIMB for many years. The formal dedication will be on June 11, 1988.

Mr. Robert Mazo, Chair of the Faculty Advisory Council, submitted the annual report of the FAC to the Secretary. This report can be found on page ten of these minutes.

Mr. Larry Richards, Chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee, has submitted the report of the FPC and it can be found on pages 11-12 of these minutes.

OLD BUSINESS

President Olum recognized Mr. Fred Andrews, Math, to move for reconsideration of the Field Requirement legislation enacted at the May 4, 1988 meeting of the Assembly. Mr. Andrews, voting on the prevailing side at that meeting, moved for reconsideration because of the exclusion of sequence courses in the final legislation.

The legislation now on the floor reads:

B.A./B.S. FIELD REQUIREMENTS

All legislation enacted concerning the field requirements for the degrees of B.A. and B.S. shall be repealed and replaced by the following:

1. All group-satisfying courses must carry at least three (3) semester hours and must be reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee and approved by the University Assembly.

2. Three General Education groups shall be satisfied: a) Arts and Letters, b) Social Science; and c) Science.

a. All students taking a B.A./B.S. degree must complete four (4) approved courses in each group. A total of twelve (12) courses are required. (Approved courses shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin.)

b. Students in other Bachelor degree programs i.e., Bachelor of Architecture (BArch), Bachelor of Interior Architecture

(BIArch), Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (BLA), Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA), Bachelor of Music (BMus), and Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) must complete three (3) courses in each of the three General Education groups. A total of nine (9) semester courses of at least three credits are required.

3. No more than two (2) group-satisfying courses may be taken from any one department to meet the group requirements and must be in courses outside the individual's major department.

4. Courses eligible for group-satisfying status must meet the following criteria:

a. Courses should introduce the basic methods, concerns and subjects of particular disciplines or interdisciplinary topics.

b. Courses should be open to and designed for a general University undergraduate population and thus should have no, or at most, only one or two basic prerequisites.

c. Courses commonly will be offered at the 100- and 200-levels, but 300-level courses may also be listed in the group requirements as long as they clearly meet the conditions in a) and b) above; 400-level courses cannot be used to satisfy group requirements. Courses dealing with basic topics in small classes are encouraged.

d. Courses satisfying the group requirements should be offered every year. A course listed in the group requirements that is not offered for three years during any four-year period will be dropped from the General education group list.

e. Writing 121 and 122 do not count as group satisfying courses, nor does the first year of a foreign language. For students taking the BA degree, the second year of a foreign language cannot be counted as group satisfying as offered at the University of Oregon.

Ms. Mavis Mate immediately rose to move that the amendments passed at the May 4, 1988 meeting involving sequences be deleted from the legislation. (This would restore the original wording of the motion as introduced at the May 4, 1988 meeting of the Assembly.) Ms. Mate, in support of her motion to delete, pointed out that the sequence courses served a purpose in the General Education of the student. First was the fact that the student gained knowledge in a discipline for a period of time that gave depth and also how knowledge is acquired. Second, the habits of mind or a framework of reference was gained by the student. To stick with a course through two semesters was vital to the student to learn how to discipline the mind, concentrate, learn how scholars work and write, and to be able to apply what was learned in general situations in the future. Because sequences could be interdisciplinary the student has the opportunity to expand into areas that will aid them in their future life.

Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, argued that the semester system was going to give depth because the courses would be 15 weeks long and that breadth was vital to the education of the student--and by taking more courses to satisfy the general education requirements this breadth and exposure would be very useful to the student in the future. Modes of thought, processes of thinking in historical or scientific ways would be available to the student if no sequences existed he stated.

Mr. Paul Holbo, History, stated that the sequence requirements had replaced a system of anarchy in 1982 and that the faculty would face chaos again without the requirement of sequences. The student must be challenged to complete an undertaking he asserted.

Mr. Jack Bennett, Student Services, speaking in favor of the sequences, stated that it was to the benefit of the student to have sequences. But, he warned, that the failure of departments to offer the sequences on a constant or continuing basis, i.e., every year and every semester, created havoc for the student and difficulty in completing the sequences in an orderly manner.

Sequence courses must not become bland and the classes -overly large if their education is to be solid and meaningful he concluded.

Mr. Al Urquhart, Geography, wanted the motion to delete defeated because all the attributes given sequences could be taught in the 15-week semester period. The courses that are selected to fit into the General Education requirements will b carefully selected and will allow the student to gain knowledge, depth, breadth and methodology. The General Education requirements are not going to be potpourri that will not lead to a definite goal of educating the student was vital point he made. Mr. Robert James, Fine and Applied Arts, stated that the arguments might be premature. He suggested that the Assembly wait until the' sequence courses take hold and the results can be seen. If they are a failure o need adjustment or need to be repealed the Assembly can act at that time.

The vote on the restoration of the original legislation as introduced was 63 i favor and 36 opposed.

The motion now reads:

B.A./B.S. FIELD REQUIREMENTS

All legislation enacted concerning the field requirements for the degrees of B.A. and B.S. shall be repealed and replaced by the following:

1. All group-satisfying courses must carry at least three (3) semester hours and must be approved by the University Curriculum Committee and the University Assembly.

2. Three General Education groups shall be satisfied: a) Arts and Letters; b) Social Science; and c) Science.

a. All students taking a B.A./B.S. degree must complete four (4) approved courses in each group, including at least one (1) approved General Education sequence in each group. A total of twelve (12) courses are required. (Approved courses and sequences shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin.)

b. Other students in Bachelor degree programs i.e., Bachelor of Architecture (BArch), Bachelor of Interior Architecture (BIArch), Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (BLA), Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA), Bachelor of Music (BMus), and Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) must complete three (3) courses in each of the three General Education groups, with a minimum of one General Education approved sequence in at least two groups. A total of nine (9) semester courses of at least three credits are required.

3. An approved General Education sequence is an approved set of two (2) interrelated courses which may be offered by one or more departments.

4. No more than two (2) group-satisfying courses may be taken from any one department to meet the group requirements. Sequences must be completed in courses outside the major department. An approved minor or additional major may be substituted for a sequence in its General Education group.

5. Courses eligible for group-satisfying status must meet the following criteria:

a. Courses should introduce the basic methods, concerns and subjects of particular disciplines or interdisciplinary topics.

b. Courses should be open to and designed for a general University undergraduate population and thus should have no, or at most, only one or two basic prerequisites.

c. Courses commonly will be offered at the 100 and 200 levels but 300 level courses may also be listed in the group requirements as long as they clearly meet the conditions in a) and b) above, 400-level courses cannot be used to satisfy group requirements. Courses dealing with basic topics in small classes are encouraged.

d. Courses satisfying the group requirements should be offered every year. A course listed in the group requirements that is only offered twice in any four-year period will be dropped from the General education group list.

e. Writing 121 and 122 do not count as group satisfying courses, nor does the first year of a foreign language. For students taking the BA degree, the second year of a foreign language cannot be counted as group satisfying.

Mr. Paul Civin, Math, moved to amend "5.d.'' to eliminate the word "only" from the end of the second line, place "less than'' following "offered." This amendment was accepted by a show of hands. Mr. Herb Chereck, Registrar, moved to delete in "2.b.i' the first word ',Other" and to begin the paragraph with "Students" and to insert the word "all' before ''Bachelor" and to delete all of the bracketed material. This was accepted by a show of hands.

Mr. Dan Udovic, Biology, was deeply troubled by "5.d.'' The sequences must be offered every year or at least three times during any four year period or the sequence should be dropped and the way that "5.d." now reads this would not happen. He proposed an amendment to correct this and later with the permission of the Assembly he withdrew his amendment. Mr. Robert Mazo, Chemistry, suggested that Mr. Udovic work on an alternate to replace "5.d." and return to the Assembly with his amendment. Mr. Udovic accepted the charge.

Mr. Chereck now questioned "5.e.'' and wondered why Math was not treated the same as foreign language in the second year. The discussion on this was inconclusive-muddy--as it was stated that the Math General Education requirements for a B.S. were not "skills'' alone as is the second year of a foreign language. Mr. Chereck pointed out that because of this the B.A. student actually had to take two extra courses to satisfy the group requirements and that the B.S. student two fewer than the B.A. student.

The vote on the motion, as amended, was now on the floor. By a hand vote the motion was restored to its original form and amended at this meeting was approved overwhelmingly. The final legislation concerning Field Requirement/Group Requirements/Sequences now reads:

B.A./B.S. FIELD REQUIREMENTS

All legislation enacted concerning the field requirements for the degrees of B.A. and B.S. shall be repealed and replaced by the following:

1. All group-satisfying courses must carry at least three (3) semester hours and must be approved by the University Curriculum Committee and the University Assembly.

2. Three General Education groups shall be satisfied: a) Arts and Letters; b) Social Science; and c) Science.

a. All students taking a B.A./B.S. degree must complete four (4) approved courses in each group, including at least one (1) approved General Education sequence in each group. A total of twelve (12) courses are required. (Approved courses and sequences shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin.)

b. Students in all Bachelor degree programs must complete three (3) courses in each of the three General Education groups, with a minimum of one General Education approved sequence in at least two groups. A total of nine (9) semester courses of at
least three credits are required.

3. An approved General Education sequence is an approved set of two (2) interrelated courses which may be offered by one or more departments.

4. No more than two (2) group-satisfying courses may be taken from any one department to meet the group requirements. Sequences/standalones must be completed in courses outside the major department. An approved minor or additional major may be substituted for a sequence in its General Education group.

5. Courses eligible for group-satisfying status must meet the following criteria:

a. Courses should introduce the basic methods, concerns and subjects of particular disciplines or interdisciplinary topics.

b. Courses should be open to and designed for a general University Undergraduate population and thus should have no, or at most, only one or two basic prerequisites.

c. Courses commonly will be offered at the 100- and 200-levels, but 300-level courses may also be listed in the group requirements as long as they clearly meet the conditions in a) and b) above; 400-level courses cannot be used to satisfy group requirements. Courses dealing with basic topics in small classes are encouraged.

d. Courses satisfying the group requirements should be offered every year. A course listed in the group requirements that is offered less than twice in any four-year period will be dropped from the General Education group list.

e. Writing 121 and 122 do not count as group satisfying courses, nor does the first year of a foreign language. For students taking the BA degree, the second year of a foreign language cannot be counted as group satisfying.

Mr. Paul Holbo, History, was recognized to read a resolution concerning the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission.

WHEREAS the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, at its December 1987 meeting, adopted a program approval standard limiting the amount of time and/or credit that an Oregon institution of higher education may require for a master's degree teacher education program,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the President and faculty of the University of Oregon consider this standard to be highly inappropriate, beyond the proper and reasonable scope of the Commission's responsibility and authority, and an intrusion into the rightful affairs and responsibilities of the University,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University of Oregon, acting under the rightful authority of the State System of Higher Education, will continue to determine the requirements for the degrees that it awards.

This resolution was approved unanimously by the Assembly after discussion concerning the right of the University to establish its own degree requirements through the Charter of the University and the Oregon State System of Higher Education. The faculty, by this vote, strongly asserts its disapproval of the action of the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission.

Mr. Peter Gilkey, Math, was recognized to read a resolution concerning the tax situation of the GTFs and its efforts to get relief from the Federal Government.

WHEREAS a tax on employees' educational assistance undermines the foundation of educational quality,

AND WHEREAS the tuition tax has severely cut into the low income of of students and employees receiving educational benefits, AND WHEREAS the increase in reported income has forced many graduate students to lose federal assistance,

BE IT RESOLVED that the University of Oregon Assembly actively support House Resolution 4332, submitted by Representative Peter DeFazio, and any currently pending legislation which would permanently restore tax exempt status for graduate educational assistance,

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on behalf of the University Assembly the President of the University shall write letters of support for this legislation to: Governor Neil Goldschmidt; Members of the Oregon Congressional delegation, particularly Senators Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield; Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee; Representative Dan Rostenkowski, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee; and Representative Thomas Foley, House Majority Leader.

This resolution passed without dissent

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned sine die at 4:47 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


Golda Parker Wickham May 23, 1988


Golda Parker Wickham was born on May 6, 1904 in Leona, Oregon. She received a bachelor or of science degree in 1931 from the University of Oregon and was one of Phi Beta Kappa's Senior Six. She was named dean of women at the University of Oregon on July 1, 1946 and served in this capacity until October 31, 1968. She was a member of the State of Oregon Curriculum Committee, secretary of the National Association on of Deans of Women (1945-46), president of the Oregon Association of Deans of Women and Girls (1953-54), and vice president of the Northwest Deans Association (1954-55).

Generations of women students were i influenced by Golda Wickham. As dean of women, she took seriously her responsibilities of protecting the interests of the young women committed to the care of the University of Oregon. When Golda joined the faculty of the University, in loco parentis was still very much a part of the expectations of parents and adminstrators . Her expectations of students were high and she placed priority on high moral standards that frequently seemed to be set awash by the morals revolution of the 1960s. She believed fervently in a life guided by honesty, integrity, loyalty, fidelity, and a clear sense of right and wrong. To Golda, to accept less was to expect less.

Her relations with University of Oregon parents set a standard of cordial associations on with the an important constituency --one that since has been hare for the UO to duplicate. She often gave anonymously of her own money to students in need. An "angel fund" for students was established through Golda's work with the Oregon Mothers and the Oregon Dads Clubs. These organizations directed thousands of dollars of aid to students through this special scholarship fund. The Golda P. Wickham scholarship, established in her name by the Mothers Club, speaks to the affection they felt for her.

Golda was a talented public speaker, with a wonderful sense of humor, and could hold audiences spellbound as she described the role of the University in the lives of its students. She loved the University as she knew and treasured it, and she carried a deep affection for many of the faculty and students through the decades. As the last dean of women for the University of Oregon, she was a unique and remarkable person. She wanted University of Oregon women to succeed academically, socially, emotionally, and financially. Toward that end she dedicated her life at the University.

Upon her retirement in 1968, an original poem was dedicated to her at the Mortar Board tea.

Falcon Flight

Soon the Skies will empty of your soaring
The winds no longer know your majesty of solitude
Against the cloud formations,
Another lesser sparrow-hawk will take your place
And the flight of the golden falcon will be done;
Madam, We salute you
Who have seen your teetering Heaven and Earth position Over a gray and wasted land Of no absolutes
Where they all caw of relativity in good and evil,
Sitting on low-branch trees,
Beady eyes seeing no farther than the desert patch below them,
Jealous of another's wider, perspective vision
and so flap sooty wings and cry you mad or stubborn,
Limited or old Because you attempted to hold up the sky With your own weary wings
as long as you were able;
Your surveillance here was a pure thing,
Uncorrupted
Because you would accept no less than clean air,
Wide skies for your domain And refused to rest tired wings
By sitting on a liberal hand, hooded, sightless, at their mercy;
Magnificence of spirit was your calling
Your hallmark amid a limited blue of twittering silly creatures,
So fly on, find your repose in a mountain top or high plateau
That becomes your worth;
We on the plain will settle now For no less than eagles for our eyes
Having seen the flight of the golden falcon


Annual Report - 1987-88 Faculty Advisory Council


The Faculty Advisory Council meets weekly with the President and Provost to advise them on matters which they bring before us, and also matters which we bring up ourselves. These meetings usually last 2.5 hours, and of course there is homework to be done between meetings. To be on the council is a time consuming job, but a rewarding one.

This year we had the opportunity to work with two provosts, Richard Hill and James Reinmuth. We should like to express our appreciation to Mr. Hill for the leadership he showed in the years he served as provost and to Mr. Reinmuth for the truly excellent job he has done as acting provost since last January. Norman Wessells, our new provost, will step into a functioning office with no backlog of deferred decisions.

This academic year was a non-legislative year. Consequently, the council had some time to develop projects of its own. Several motions initiated by the council were adopted by the University Assembly. These were a resolution on the early retirement system, and major changes in the composition of the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Faculty Advisory Council and the Committee on Committees. These changes went into effect in time for this Spring's elections which have just been completed.

Fall Term was dominated by the events leading to the forced retirement of President Olum. The council was in the forefront of efforts to have the state board not accept the recommendation of its subcommittee. As you know, these efforts were unsuccessful. They did, however, bring to the fore issues of governance and the relations of the board with the faculties of the institutions it governs. We met with the chancellor on these matters, and several council members were on the ad hoc committee which met with the board visiting subcommittee. We have recommended to the president that the Advisory Council together with the president of the University Senate, is the appropriate body to meet with the visiting committee on its subsequent appearances on campus.

Here are a few of the other issues which the council took up during the year: committee appointments (the council is charged with appointing certain committees), revision of the presidential search procedure, merit pay distribution policies, naming of buildings policies, semester conversion problems, grievance procedures, proposed language requirement for graduation, long-range planning, enrollment impact on certain departments, university computing.

It was certainly a busy year. Four of the present council together with eight newcomers will serve on next year's council, which promises to be busy also. Interesting meetings usually mean difficult problems, so, may you have many dull meetings. Good luck!

1987-88 Faculty Advisory Council

C. Melvin Aikens
Lorraine Davis
Adell McMillan
Robert M. Mazo, Chair
Thomas Mills
Kenneth O.Connell
Richard Steers
James Terborg 5-31-88
 

The 1987-1988 Faculty Personnel Committee Report


Report to the Faculty

The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) is charged with the advisory role, to the provost's office, for academic promotion and tenure decisions.

The FPC reviewed forty-two cases (files) for Promotion and tenure decisions and an additional fifteen cases of new appointment with tenure for the 1987-1988 academic year. Of the forty-two cases, two were tenure only decisions, twenty seven were from assistant to associate with tenure and the remaining thirteen were from associate to full professor. With only one exception, files were not available for review until the start of winter quarter. However, from early January through June 3, the FPC met weekly to discuss and cast votes on the various cases. Lest someone should be misled, the weekly meetings were only a portion of the work associated with this committee assignment. All committee members were charged with reading and becoming familiar with each of the forty two files prior to the committee discussion. In addition, each committee member was assigned as the primary investigator for five or six of the forty-two cases.

We would like to acknowledge that some difficult issues surfaced during our tenure. As a result, it is our opinion that the most valuable portion of this report may very well be the following recommendations that we believe would assist the University, its faculty, and administration.

Recommendations to the Provost

1. A sample file (format) including support material be placed in Johnson Hall so that those responsible for the file preparation could see a sample. It is true that several colleges and departments did an excellent job in file preparation. However, some departments did a very poor job with the files. The quality of file preparation should not be an issue in promotion and tenure decisions. It would be a simple task to standardize the format of the files. And, some degree of standardization could only assist the process of objective review and unbiased treatment of the candidates.

2. An open forum for the faculty, and if deemed necessary, a separate one for the responsible administrators, be established that would take place early each academic year. The participants should be all outgoing members of the FPC. Deans, department heads and faculty should have the opportunity to interact with outgoing members of the FPC. It has become very clear that a number of faculty, including some deans and department heads, do not understand the tenure and and promotion process at the University, and therefore some faculty are not properly guided. Such a forum would allow a faculty the opportunity to candidly discuss strategy, and learn about the operations and past thinking of the FPC.

3. Cases for new appointments with tenure be referred to the FPC only in those situations where the case is not clear to the Provost. The FPC reviewed fifteen such cases in the 1987-1988 year. The files for the appointment with tenure are not as complete as those for promotion and tenure decisions. The files tend to lack outside letters of evaluation of national recognition, quality of teaching, and the decisions are required yesterday. It seems to always be a problem getting eight or nine faculty to rush over to Johnson Hall some particular morning to review a file so that a department can extend an offer to a candidate that they are sure they will lose if the offer does not go out that afternoon. Realizing that the FPC is advisory to the Provost, it is our recommendation that only those files that the Provost views as unclear be reviewed by the FPC.

4. The Provost§s office review the timing requirements of department or college submission of files. Very few of the colleges and departments actually met the timing requirements for file submission. Because files were not available for review, the FPC was forced to postpone a few meetings. The result of this was that some of the candidates for promotion and tenure were not notified of the decision until finals week of spring quarter. Had the files been in on time, notification could have easily been a month or more earlier.

5. Faculty legislation be changed so that the student member of the FPC would have the right to vote. As it stands now, the student member does not have a vote. All faculty members of the FPC believe that it is asking too much of the student member to thoroughly review files, participate in the committee discussion, yet not be able to register a vote. Given that the FPC is advisory to the Provost, and that all votes are identified, we ask that the student member be given a vote.

6. The Provost review all job descriptions for new academic appointments. The FPC encountered several cases this year where the original job description for a promotion candidate was truly inconsistent with the academic requirements for promotion and tenure. We recommend that the provost review the job descriptions promotion criteria.

Committee members Christine Chaille Henry Dizney Sally Fullerton Paul Goldman Mike Hibbard Dan Kimble Richard Pickering Pam Pifher Larry Richards.


Web page spun on 5 July 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises