The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in Room 150 Geology at 3:41 p.m. on October 5, 1988. Two corrections of the June 1, 1988 meeting were announced. One correction appears on page 5, last line on the bottom of the page where the word ',two" has been changed to "one." The second correction was on page 6, no. 4., 2nd line where the words "stand alone" have been inserted after the word "Sequences" at the start of the second sentence. There being no further corrections, the minutes were approved as corrected.
President Olum introduced the new Provost, Norman Wessells, to the Assembly. Mr. Wessells commenced his work at the University on August 1, 1988.
No old business was on the agenda.
President Olum recognized Mr. Al Urquhart, Geography, to read a Resolution that will be on the Senate agenda on Wednesday, October 12, 1988 and Assembly agenda of November 2, 1988.
WHEREAS the recreational and club sports facilities available to the students and faculty of the University of Oregon are at present inadequate;
WHEREAS the open space and natural areas located immediately adjacent to the campus are extremely limited;
WHEREAS over a period of several years, the Campus Planning Committee developed a plan which the President and the State Board approved and set in motion, for building the needed recreational facilities, playing fields, and open spaces immediately south of the Willamette River;
WHEREAS no provisions for facilities and areas comparable to those already planned and partially constructed have been made and other locations directly adjacent to the campus cannot satisfy the requirements as well as the riverfront location;
WHEREAS two outside consultants as well as the Carley Corporation have recommended that the initial phases of the University/City/Carley Corporation Research Park to be located between the rail line and Franklin Boulevard;
AND WHEREAS other areas near the University can be made available for subsequent phases of the proposed research park;
BE IT RESOLVED that the University Assembly of the University of Oregon recommends to the President of the University of Oregon and to the State Board of Higher Education that the area north of the railroad tracks and south of the Willamette River be reserved for recreational facilities, open spaces and natural areas as provided for in the current North Campus Plan.
STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OLUM
The President made a few brief remarks concerning the University and the present academic year as well as the near future. He did not make a State of the University address. At present the enrollment will most likely come very close to 18,600. The projected 18,300 will most likely be topped as the number of students that have paid fees as of the 5th of October, 1988 is 18,106 and this is more than 600 who had paid fees by this date in 1987. Competitive entrance requirements starting in 1989 will slowly bring the enrollment back to a number that the University can handle more easily than the present number. Because the base budget of the University continues to be $5 million below that needed to support the present enrollment, the pressure on the budget is tremendous at the present.
Mr. Olum did not forecast any immediate solution to the budget problems as the Legislature seems to be reluctant to lift the present cap on state expenditures and thus it now appears that the only salary increase that can be made for 1989-91 will be by the academic budget of the University being cut by 2% in 1989-90 for a 2% increase in that year and repeat for 1990-91 to get a 2% increase. The situation is such that the University must find a total of 4% to cut when the budget is already $5 million short. Plus, the 4% increase is not going to help, in reality, to make our salary scale competitive with the institutions that we are compared with at present.
Mr. Mike Ellis, Physical Education, inquired about the search committee for a new President. Mr. Wessells, Provost, stated that the Faculty Advisory Committee, after much deliberation and discussion, has submitted to the State Board the names of eight faculty members for the Committee. From these eight, the Board will select four to represent the faculty. The remainder of the Committee will be: one student, three Board members, one alumni, and one community representative. It is anticipated that the Board will become active in January 1989, after a new Chancellor has been hired.
The business having concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m.
Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly
The motion to recommend to President Olum and the State Board of Higher Education that the area north of the railroad tracks and south of the Willamette River be reserved for recreational facilities, open spaces and natural areas as provided for in the current North Campus Plan is being presented to the General Assembly to focus the campus communityís attention on the unresolved conflict between the existing North Campus Plan and the proposed master plan for the Riverfront Research Park.
To date, the terms of the discussion have only been framed in terms of the desirability of locating a research facility on this site. However, after lengthy discussions started in 1975 and in thorough planning over the next five years, the site was selected as the most desirable, and possibly the only suitable location, for much needed playing fields. The site plan was approved by the University, the State Board of Higher Education, and the City of Eugene and the first phase--a soccer field and the relocation of the bike path--was initiated in 1980. This plan was confirmed in the North Campus Plan, approved by the President in 1982.
The availability of outdoor instructional fields for physical education classes and recreational purposes, including club sports and intramural activities, is deficient at present. The University notes this in its requests for capital construction funds which state:
The University presently is deficient in the amount of available instructional field area. The planned completion of all four of the south bank fields will provide the University with a field area roughly equivalent to the OSSHE standards for such facilities (at present enrollment levels (1983) provided that the existing fields can be optimally utilized..
The existing fields have not been maintained nor optimally used. In fact, they have been reduced by placing parking on the south end of Howe field and by eliminating part of the tennis courts for parking. Further threats to these areas have been recently suggested--also for parking. The surface of the remaining fields remain unsuitable for optimal use.
The heavy demands placed upon these relatively few fields have resulted in their overuse, thus contributing substantially to their deterioration, especially after the fifth week of fall term., (Capital construction requests to State Board, 1985)
Notwithstanding these adopted positions, the President of the University and the Mayor of Eugene in 1984 initiated a study of the same area for a research facility. The results of the study were that the area would be a suitable as part of a larger site for research facilities. However, after over four years of planning, neither a master site plan nor a financial feasibility study have been completed. Furthermore, no comparison of the two uses of the area--as playing fields and open space or as a research park and parking structures--has been made, the discussions of the last four years have been only in terms of the research park. And even in the planning of the research park, no provisions have been made for the re-siting or replacement of the recreation and outdoor playing fields, which the University recognized as being necessary for a student population that was even smaller than it is today.
It should be noted that three outside consultants have recommended that the proposed research park, in its initial phases, be located south of the railroad tracks. If their recommendations are followed, the area north of the tracks could easily be reserved for playing fields. If in the future, further development of the research park seems likely, other sites for expansion could be found in nearby areas. It is unlikely that suitable open space for playing fields could be found so easily, especially considering the continuing whittling away of existing campus open spaces.
The proposers of this motion find no conflict in supporting both the
creation of University research facilities as well as the maintenance of
the proposed South Bank playing fields.
The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in 150 Geology at 3:40 p.m. on January 1l, 1989. There being no corrections, the minutes of the October 5,1988 meeting were approved as distributed. No meetings were held in November 1988 and December 1988.
The President recognized Mr. Ray Mikesell, Economics, to read into the minutes a memorial for Mr. James Tattersall. Mr. Tattersall (September 27, 1927 - October 24, 1988) was a member of the Economics Department from 1957 until his death. The memorial can be found at the end of these minutes.
Mr. Gerald Fry, International Studies, has submitted a memorial for Mr. Clarence (Clancy) Thurber (September 16, 1921 - December 16, 1988) for inclusion in these minutes. Mr. Thurber came to the University in 1966 as Deputy Director of the Institute of International Studies and Overseas Administration. At the time of his death he was an Emeritus Professor of Political Science. This memorial is at the end of these minutes.
ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OLUM
The President started his remarks by stating that this address was aimed at informing the faculty and students what the University is facing the next two years under the request from the Governor's Office that all state agencies reduce their budgets to fund salary increases in the next biennium. This cut is to produce approximately $2.2 million each year of the biennium which is what is required to fund a 2%, plus 2% salary increase.
It is common knowledge, or it should be, that the University did some very severe cutting in the 1971-72 period and even in 1978 when the School of Librarianship was eliminated. These cuts have never been restored, and in the economic slump of the early 1980s, the University again had to make cuts in the budget, reduce staff and postpone expenditures that should have been made at the time, and the closing of C.S.P.A. With the present cuts having to be made in a budget that is not adequate to really fund the University, it requires decisions of what and how to cut all the more a dilemma.
If the State Legislature enacts the tuition increases that have been put into the budget by the Governor, the University and OSU will have an extra 5% that they will be able to keep on the campuses. As presently established, the tuition funds the University collects are pooled with all tuition funds that OSSNE collects and redistributed on a formula to each campus. The U of O does not get back all that is put in the pool from tuition and has not for several years. Because we now have a head count of 18,500 and the University had to spend funds to hire faculty, GTFs, etc. to meet the demand, the present budget is running a $900,000 deficit. This must be paid. It could be reduced or eliminated if the University's request for enrollment increase funds is approved by the executive department and the Legislature. The President stated that the administration will fight hard to get this money to meet the debt created by the increased enrollment.
A difficulty is the "cap" that the University must operate under at present. The "cap" is on FTE enrollment and we are far beyond this "cap." The budget system employed by the OSSHE does not recognize enrollments past the "cap." Thus, for the state, these students do not exist. They do exist, however, as they are here, they are being taught, etc., and the system absorbs the tuition that they pay. Other institutions in the system have not exceeded their ''cap" and thus the increased enrollment they have had is acknowledged by the system, and they are budgeted to receive increased funds for the students enrolled. Some of this money is the money that the University has generated through the "over-enrollment'' of students that, for us, do not exist.
The University has set admissions policies to attempt to restrict enrollment: The raised GPA standard, the cut-off date for applications, and now the competitive enrollment standard and early cut-off for application of first-year students. We have asked for these policies to be extended to transfer students, as well. But even with the efforts made last year, enrollment increased to a new high. No other school in the system has attempted to limit its enrollment as we have.
The reduction in the budget each year over the next- two years will be 52 million to $2.5 million. This is a substantial cut to a budget that is already bare bones. Programs cannot be eliminated without hurting students and their plans for graduation, faculty cannot be cut without programs being eliminated or a declaration of financial exigency. It might be possible to stop some searches that are now underway and the Provost is now working on this. Some of the extra 5% in tuition that will be collected could be used to help fund part of the cut, but it will take a blending of things to make the cuts for the first year.
The second year is more dire--our instructions require that programs be eliminated to make the necessary cuts. Contracts for some faculty will not be renewed if "sound academic and educational reasons" are found for the program cuts and reduction in faculty. The University has a teacher-student ration of 20:1. In the early 1980s it was 16:1, and that is about the national average for state institutions that are our peers.
President Olum asked Vice President for Public Affairs and Development, Larry Large, to comment on the governor's proposal to grant matching money to the U of O and OSU. Mr. Large stated that $12 million state dollars have been proposed be available to OSU and U of O for matching private funds to establish a number of endowed chairs. The funds, if the Legislature approves, will be for existing faculty positions and not new ones. At present, the University is working hard to find the private funds to match the state funds. The money will be available on a 1:1 matching basis.
The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m.
Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly
Jim came to the University of Oregon in 1957 after taking his B.A. and M.A. at the University of Washington. He received his Ph.D. in economic history from the same institution in 1960. He retained an interest in regional economic history and development throughout his career and his many published and unpublished papers reflected that interest. As time went by, he turned to public finance and was often asked to speak and consult on state and local tax and finance issues.
In 1964 Jim went to Merida, Venezuela to head the University of Oregon's academic program at the Universidad de los Andes where he worked with the Institute of Economic Research under a Ford Foundation grant. Jim's contribution to this program was substantial and has never been fully acknowledged. In addition to establishing a system of economic accounts for the region, the University team had to contend with strong anti-Americanism. Jim's cool-headed diplomacy brought the program through the crisis and the University of Oregon has maintained a very high reputation at the Universidad de los Andes. One member of their faculty who was associated with this program received his Ph.D. from Oregon and subsequently became dean of their economics faculty.
Perhaps the most widely known of his services to the University and the community were his reports to the public and the Legislature on the status of faculty salaries in the State System of Higher Education. Jim not only worked tirelessly in the preparation of these reports, but presented them to the State Board and legislative committees in Salem. This work began with the University Chapter of the AAUP (of which Jim was President in 1968-69), and continued through the Association of Oregon Faculties (of which Jim was the first elected State President). He also served as an elected representative of the University on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate.
In the broader community, Jim served on a number of city and county advisory committees, but was best known as a devoted worker for the Democratic Party, being twice selected as a delegate to its National Convention.
Within the University of Oregon Jimís service included terms on the Deanís Advisory Committee of the College of Arts and Sciences, the President's Faculty Advisory Council, and several terms on the University Senate, including three years as its Secretary and three years as its President. Jim became Head of the Department of Economics in 1980 and was reappointed in 1983 and again in 1986. During his eight-year tenure he recruited nine new faculty members, more than one half of the membership of the Department. His accomplishments as Department Head were impressive.
Jim was not a person who enjoyed the limelight. He preferred to work behind the scenes, collecting, preparing, and interpreting the basic quantitative data on which most organizations must depend. Whether in a University Faculty Committee or as Department Head, Jim will be remembered as self-effacing, calm, fair, and always reasonable. We will also remember with affection the wry sense of humor with which he often disarmed his opponents.
Mr. President, I request that this memorial be made a part of the permanent
minutes of this meeting and that a copy be sent to the immediate family.
Clarence E. Thurber (Clancy to all his friends) was born September 16, 1921 in Nampa, Idaho. In 1943 he graduated from Stanford in political science with highest honors. In 1944, he earned a certificate from the Cornell University Russian Civilization Program, and later in 1961 received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford. His dissertation adviser was Robert Walker, for many years the Director of Stanford's Study Abroad Program.
Prior to joining the University of Oregon, Clancy was involved in international work with the State Department, the Brookings Institution, and the Ford Foundation. He was at Ford from 1952-1962 as an executive associate of the International Program. In that role he worked closely with many universities to encourage the development of international and foreign area study programs. At Ford, he was also deeply involved in encouraging the study of international development in U.S. universities. Also from 1962-1966, Clancy was an associate professor of political science and public administration at Pennsylvania State University.
Clancy began his work at Oregon in 1966 as Deputy Director of the Institute of International Studies and Overseas Administration. When the Wallace School was established he helped develop a program in international development as part of the professional curriculum of that school. He was a permanent member of the Wallace School until 1982, when he became a member of the Department of Political Science. From 1979-1986, Clancy was director of a new interdisciplinary program in International Studies firmly rooted in the liberal arts. In 1982, he also directed a major revision of the graduate program in International Studies. The curriculum in International Studies during that period was enriched significantly by various grants from the U.S. Department of Education and the Exxon Education Foundation.
Clancy's research and consulting work took him to Indonesia, India, Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela,and Canada. In 1974-1975, he was a Fulbright scholar in Costa Rica. A major focus of Clancyís research was the performance of Americans working overseas in developmental contexts. Among his many publications were several books, Training for Specialized Mission Personnel, Technical Assistance in Training Administrators: Lessons from American Experience, Development Administration in Latin America, and The International Education of the Development Consultant: Communicating with Peasants and Princes (forthcoming in March with Pergamon Press in Oxford). After his partial retirement in 1987, Clancy's major research focus shifted to a study of the Free Trade Agreement with Canada and the prospects for a North American common market. Unfortunately, he was unable to complete this project about which he was extremely excited.
Clancy was a deeply committed internationalist who aspired to internationalize the university, the community, and the state. From 1979-1981, he served on the Governor's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies. Through that Commission, he developed close contacts with Dwayne Adcock of the Eugene 4-J School District. A subsequent planning grant from the Northwest Area Foundation later resulted in close cooperation between the School District and the International Studies program to establish the Eugene International High School. Working closely with Charles Porter, Clancy was also a founding father of the Willamette Work Affairs Council. He was as well an active member of Rotary International.
In recognition of his many University contributions, Clancy received the Charles E. Johnson Memorial Award at the June, 1987 graduation. This award honors faculty members who have shown devotion to the principle of freedom of speech, the need to adapt to change, and openness to ideas. Earlier in May 1987, the Clarence E. Thurber Endowed Fellowship in International Studies was created to foster the study of international affairs by minorities. Contributions to this fund can be made through the University of Oregon Foundation, P.O. Box 3346, Eugene, Oregon 97403.
Clancy is survived by his wife, Louise; his four children, Ann and Phillip
of Eugene, and Barbara and Katherine of the Portland area, and by two sisters,
Heler Kinley, of Altadena, California, and Eleanor Kralicek of Eugene.
The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in 150 Geology at 3:40 p.m. on March 1, 1989. There being no corrections, the minutes of the January 11, 1980 meeting were approved as distributed.
Mr. Ed Price, Geography, has submitted a memorial for Mr. Sam Dicken, Professor Emeritus of Geography, who passed away on January 24, 1989. Mr. Dicken was a member of the University faculty from 1947 until his death. The memorial can be found at the end of these minutes.
Dr. James K. Jackson, M.D. has prepared a memorial for Dr. Peter Hafner, M.D., Student Health Center. Dr. Hafner came to the University in 1971 and served as a physician in the Student Health Center until his death on January 24, 1989. This memorial can be found on at the end of these minutes.
President Paul Olum made the following announcement on the naming of campus buildings:
"I have now received reports from four committees which were appointed to consider the naming of campus buildings of facilities. I am informing you in accordance with the newly revised University policy on Naming of Facilities, a copy of which is attached.
1. Committee on the Namina of the Proposed Athletic Facilities. The committee has recommended that the proposed athletic facilities be named in honor of Leonard J. Casanova, Athletic Director Emeritus and former head football coach at the University of Oregon. They felt that his distinguished record merited an exception to State Board of Higher Education policy regarding the naming of buildings after living persons. The name recommended, and which carries the approval of the Athletic Department, is the Leonard J. Casanova Athletic Center.
2. Committee on the Namina of Science IVB. The committee has recommended that Science IVB be named in honor of George Streisinger. Professor Streisinger was a former member of the University of Oregon faculty and was one of the founding members of the Institute of Molecular Biology. His extraordinary research accomplishments have brought world-wide acclaim to the University of Oregon. He was also much loved and admired as a teacher.
3. Committee on the Naming of the Language Laboratory. The committee has recommended that the language laboratory be named the "Osamitsu Yamada Language Laboratory" in honor of Mr. Yamada whose generous gift made possible the refurbishing and modernization of the language laboratory. Mr. Yamada is a businessman from Japan. He gave this gift "in the interests of peace and greater understanding among the nations, and with the knowledge that the study of languages is an imperative in the pursuit of that harmony."
4. Committee on the Naming of the Proposed Chapman Hall Elevator. The committee has recommended that the proposed Chapman Hall elevator be named in honor of John Hocken, III. Hocken was an Honors College student during the academic year 1986-87. He was confined to a wheelchair and suffered from muscular dystrophy; he was also a brilliant student. During the year that Hocken was an Honors College student, he did a great deal to educate others about equal access for the handicapped. Due in large part to his advocacy, the installation of an elevator in Chapman Hall became a high priority in the University's planning for handicapped access to and within campus buildings. He died on September 23, 1987.
I am planning to approve the recommendations of each of these committees and to request approval from the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (where appropriate) to name the above mentioned campus facilities unless I receive strong objections to the contrary from either the Faculty Advisory Council or the Council of Deans by March 10, 1989.
Copies of the committees' reports, as well as other background material, are available from Christine Leonard in my office."
The President stated that he has recently appointed two committees to name the Science buildings and the naming of spaces in the Knight Library. Faculty members and staff are encouraged to submit suggested names to these committees for their consideration. The committee members are:
Committee on Naming of Committee on Naming Spaces in the Science Buildings
Sara Douglas, Computer Info Science Tom Bivins, Journalism
Patty Gwartney-Gibbs, Sociology Edna DeHaven, Education
John Moseley, Research Gary Martin, Music
David McDaniels, Physics Stan Pierson, History
Theodore Palmer, Mathematics Deanna Robinson, Speech
Keith Richard, Archives George Shipman, Library
Norman Savage, Geological Sciences Eloise Stuhr, Foundation
Glenda Utsey, Architecture
President Olum recognized Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the Semester Conversion Committee to state the motion on Degree Requirements.
Ms. Mate, in a preliminary statement, said that it was necessary to reestablish degree requirements because the legislation passed by the Assembly concerning the requirements was on the Semester schedule. This had disestablished the older Bachelor requirements and thus, in the Fall of 1990, the motion now being presented will become the Degree Requirements if approved by the Assembly.
1. The B.A. degree requires proficiency in a foreign language. This requirement may be met by the completion of at least the third term, second year of a foreign language course, taught in the language, with a grade of C- or P or better or by passing an appropriate examination. The B.S. degree requires proficiency in mathematics. This requirement may be met by satisfactory completion of an examination demonstrating mathematical competency equivalent to that attained at the end of one year of college-level mathematics of by the completetion of three approved courses with a grade of C- or P or better.
2. All Bachelor degree students, including those with A.A. degrees, must successfully complete three (3)) quarter credits of approved course work involving either a non-European-American topic or issues of race or gender. Courses satisfying this requirement shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin. Some of these courses might also satisfy group requirements.
3. Group Requirements
A1 legislation enacted concerning group and field requirements for the Bachelor degrees shall be repealed and replaced by the following:
1. All group-satisfying courses must carry at least (3) quarter credits and must be 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. or a B.S. degree must successfully complete six (6) approved courses in each group, including at least one (1) General Education cluster in each group. A total of eighteen (18) courses are required. (Approved General Education stand-alone courses and clusters shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin.)
b. Students in all other Bachelor's degree programs must successfully complete four (4) courses in each of the three General Education groups, with a minimum of one (1) General Education cluster in at least two groups. A total of twelve (12) courses of at least three (3) credits each are required.
3. An approved General Education cluster is an approved set of three (3) interrelated courses offered by one or more departments.
4. No more than three (3) group-satisfying courses may be taken from one department to meet the group requirements. Clusters must be completed in courses outside the major department, but stand-alone courses may be taken with the major department. An approved minor or additional major may be substituted for a cluster 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 two, basic prerequisites.
c. Courses shall be commonly 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 group requirements should be offered every year. A cluster listed in the group requirements that is offered less than twice in any four-year period shall be dropped from the approved General Education group list of clusters.
e. Writing 121 and 122 do not count as group-satisfying courses, nor does the first year of a foreign language.
Mr. Ken Liberman, Sociology, was recognized to introduce an amendment to #2 in the motion. This amendment was prepared by the Ethnic Studies Committee:
Whereas the race component of the race/gender/non-EroAmerican requirement has not been given the prominence it requires, and
Whereas, the present framework for nominating courses to satisfy the - Race and Non-EuroAmerican segments has regressed to a project of departments nominally transforming courses Until they marginally satisfy the requirement, creating an insoluble problem with implementation and administration, and
Whereas, in the longer run, this process will produce an unfocused program that will not satisfy the University's goals for this requirement and will create conflict between participating departments and any administrative body charged with the requirementís implementation,
The Ethnic Studies Committee proposes the following substitute motion:
All undergraduate students at the University of Oregon shall complete a one-quarter course that provides instruction in Racism and Inequality in the U.S. The entire content of courses approved to satisfy this requirement shall be addressed to an understanding of how racism and ethnic discrimination has operated in the United States. If there is a shortfall in courses available for students needing to meet the requirements, then the University should fund departments and programs to develop a course or courses that could make up the deficit.
The President pointed out that the amendment lacked a fiscal impact statement as required by the State Board for any action that might create additional expenses to the institution. Because of this, the President asked Mr. Liberman if he would prepare such a statement and bring the amendment with the statement to the next (April 5, 1989) meeting of the Assembly. Mr. Liberman agreed that he would do this and then moved to postpone definitely the main motion to the April meeting.
Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, stated that he was opposed to postponing the main motion. The amendment, in his view, is drawn too narrow and excludes the purpose of the original motion when it was discussed at the time of the Semester Conversion debates. He felt that one of the purposes of the original motion was to expand the outlook of students, to make them more worldly, to broaden understanding.
Mr. Richard Stein, English, also opposed postponement. He stated that the original requirement as presented in the main motion was to be unfocused and thus defeat efforts to create very large lecture classes in the lower-division courses that would satisfy the requirement. As the suggested courses are proposed to the Curriculum Committee in the months to come, some will meet the requirement and some will be rejected. The amendment is too restrictive.
The motion to postpone the main motion was defeated by a show of hands. The main motion was now on the floor. It was passed by a show of hands.
President Olum stated that Mr. Liberman was free to bring his amendment to the floor of the Assembly in April along with the fiscal impact statement.
The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
Samuel Dicken was born in a rural log cabin and spent his school years in a small town in the mountains of eastern Kentucky. As valuable preparation for his later vocation, he learned the ways of the outdoors and many practicalities of living in a poor community. He also ferreted out a resource that was far scarcer in that community: "Sammy the bookworm!" was the way an ancient resident greeted him on a return visit more than forty years later.
Sam qualified for a scholarly career with a B.A. in geology from Marietta College and a Ph.D. in geography from the University of California. By this time he had an appointment at the University of Minnesota, where he remained for 18 years. He established himself as a productive scholar among Midwestern geographers, who made up the core of the field in the United States during that period. His published articles dealt with the karst lands of Kentucky, with northeastern Mexico, and with agriculture in several areas.
In 1947 he came to Oregon as head of the Department of Geology and Geography. The department faculty consisted of two men in each field. In ten years the faculty and course offerings had been built up to the point that geology and geography could become separate departments. Six years later, when Sam gave up the geography headship, the department had an active Ph.D. program and involvement with students from many parts of the campus.
It was fortunate for the state that Sam and his wife, Emily, who shared his interest in geography and authorship of his later publications, immediately adopted Oregon as principal focus of their studies as well as their home. They explored its farmlands and cities, rivers and coast, mountains and desert for both study and recreation. Sam soon taught a new course in Oregon geography, and one of his three textbooks was written to use in that course. Fascination with the ocean shore led to a comprehensive analysis of recent physical change along the coast that was supported by the Office of Naval Research.
Samís frequenting of the coast led to his proposing a coastal trail running from the Columbia River to California. The Parks Division of the Highway Department retained him as a consultant to plot the course of the trail, and proceeded with its construction essentially in accordance with his recommendations. Thus his marks on the Oregon landscape are material as well as scholarly.
The coastal trail was only one of several projects Sam pursued after his retirement. A book on pioneer trails of the coast was published in 1971. The two volumes of a new geography of Oregon, one historical, the other regional, were published in 1979 and 1982. His final project, carried out with extensive field work after he had passed his eightieth birthday, was a physical and historical account of the Klamath Lakes Basin titled The Heritage of Ancient Lake Modoc.
Sam's love of the land, academic accomplishments, and warm spirit were recognized with several awards from the major organizations with which he had been associated. Marietta College conferred the degree of Doctor of Science on the occasion of the fortieth reunion of his class there. The Oregon Academy of Science, this university, and the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, of which he had been president in 1951, all cited him for Distinguished Service. He gave the annual Ralph Brown Memorial Lecture at the University of Minnesota in 1981. The Oregon Recreational Committee gave him an award for planning the hiking trail. He was informed just this winter that he would receive the highest Honors Award from the Association of American Geographers later this month.
The Geography Department owes its foundation and the outlines of its
present form to Samís professional insights. He remained professionally
active for many years after his retirement, coming daily to his department
office to write and read and to engage in lively discussions over lunch.
We miss his cheer, reminiscences, stories, and wisdom.
Peter Andrew Hafner was born in Los Angeles, September 7, 1936. He received a BA degree in 1959, from St. Alberts College in Oakland, California in premedical studies and classics. He received his MD degree from the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco, in 1964. Peter did an internship at Contra Costa County Hospital in Martinez, California until August 1986. Peter then spent two years as a general medical officer ;n the U.S. Army until 1968, when he went into private medical practice in Pittsburg, California. He joined the University of Oregon Student Health Center in 1971, where he provided general medical care for students. In 1976, he entered the United States Air Force medical service at Zweibruken Air Force Base in Germany. While in the Air Force, he specialized in environmental and aerospace medicine. He returned to the University of Oregon Student Health Center in 1980. He again assumed the duties of providing general medical care to students here at the University of Oregon. In 1986 he was appointed Health Center.
Dr. Peter Hafner was a warm, engaging physician, with a great sense of humor, and will be sorely missed by the University of Oregon Health Center staff and university students. While at the Health Center, Dr. Hafner was actively involved in administration of the Health Center through the Executive Committee and monitoring of patient care through the Quality Assurance Committee. He provided service to the university community through his long term membership on the University of Oregon Human Subjects Committee.
Dr. Hafner's medical colleagues knew he was an excellent physician who provided very high quality medical care to his patients. He had excellent medical knowledge and was very thorough in his evaluation of patients. It was easy for students to communicate their medical concerns to him because of his personable and caring nature. Thousands of university students benefited by his medical knowledge and abilities during the 13 years in which Peter was on campus.
While at the Health Center, Peter became interested in how a vigorous lifestyle can positively affect health. He not only gave sound advice regarding physical fitness and nutrition, but served as an example to his medical colleagues and students by running everything from half marathons to 100 meter dashes at the Hayward Field All Comers Meets.
Dr. Hafner continued to serve with the United States Air Force in the Reserves since 19%0 at McChord Air Force Base and was a Colonel at the time of his death. On January 9, 1989, he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for outstanding noncombat service.
Peter is survived by his wife Marcia, his mother, Theresa, and three
sons, Andrew, Mark, and Tony Hafner, and a sister Jo Sturtevant, all of
The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in 150 Geology at 3:35 p.m. on June 7, 1989. There being no corrections, the minutes of the March 1, 1989 Assembly were approved as distributed.
Mr. Carlisle Moore, English, has submitted a memorial for Professor Stanley R. Maveety, English. Mr. Maveety was a member of the English Department 1955 until his death on February 13, 1989. This memorial can be found at the end of these minutes.
On February 15, 1989 death took Professor Robert C. Terwilliger. He has been Director of the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology and a member of the University faculty since 1969. The memorial to Mr. Terwilliger can be found at the end of these minutes.
Professor Michael J. Moravcsik, Physics, died in Orino, Italy while on sabbatical. His death, on April 25, 1989, came suddenly and very unexpectedly. The memorial for Mr. Moravcsik can be found at the end of these minutes.
Mr. James Terborg, Chair of the Faculty Advisory Council, has submitted the annual report of the Council. This report can be found at the end of these minutes and memorials.
President Olum recognized Mr. Richard Desroches, Chair, Academic Requirements Committee, to read the statement concerning the approval of degrees:
'.As Chair of the Academic Requirements Committee and for the Committee, I move 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 1988-89 and Summer Session 1989, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.
This motion was approved without debate and without dissent.
Quite some time ago I decided that I would give this year's State of the University address at the last University Assembly meeting of the year. I thought it would be nice to make ;t a sort of farewell address, and I had in mind a broader and more general statement about the nature and quality of the University than the usual annual talk which has focused rather heavily on each year's particular situation. It was pleasant, if perhaps self-deluding, to imagine a thoughtful, statesmanlike review of the evolution and present state of this institution followed by a vision of what its future can be.
That is all clearly inappropriate now in view of the unfortunate events of the last few days, events which are being described everywhere as the 1% + 1% budget cuts. I will still begin by saying a few words, most of which you have heard before, about the present state of the University, meaning by 'present'' the way everything has been until now, i.e., through the 1988-89 budgetary year. I do so in order to set as clearly as I can the stage on which these new events are being played out.
This is a marvelous University. I love it, so you may regard my judgment about it as suspect. But I do believe that judgment to be accurate. The quality of the University is exceptional, which means more than anything else that the quality of its faculty is exceptional. That is particularly remarkable since we are among the smallest of the major research universities of the country; indeed, we have, for most of the 20 years since our election to the Association of American Universities in 1969, been the smallest public AAU institution in the nation. Only very recently, when UC-San Diego was elected to membership did we become second smallest.
The indices of excellence abound: the Associated Research Council rankings; the 10 scientists elected from our faculty to the National Academy of Sciences; the large group of Presidential Young Investigators; the exceptional number of Guggenheim, Fulbright, Von Humboldt, and other senior fellowships, as well as the Sloan, Searle and Dreyfus grants to younger people; the doubling of our federal research grant dollars in the past few years, which ;s a much faster rate than the national increase in such funding; the fact that we are the only institution in the nation, I believe, with two American Cancer Society Professorships; the large and important Markey Trust grant for research into macromolecular assemblies, with the University of Oregon as the only recipient of such a Markey grant that has neither a medical school nor a hospital. And I could go on and on.
The central point is that this is a University of first-rate quality which compares favorably with the leading public comprehensive research institutions of the United States. It is a resource of great importance to the State of Oregon.
At the same time, its funding as a state institution has been worse, markedly worse, than that of any institution of its quality (or even anywhere near its quality) in the country. We are at the bottom among the public universities of the AAU in funding, and also at the bottom in the Pacific-10 Conference, or among any reasonably chosen set of peer institutions. This is true with respect both to general program funding and to the level of faculty salaries. Indeed, for faculty salaries, we rank 93rd among the entire group of 107 to 110 public doctoral granting universities in the United States, and the few near to or below us in this salary ranking do not remotely compare with us in quality. But I am not telling you anything that all of you do not know from direct experience.
To make all of this more explicit that we are funded at a dollar level
that is 70 to 75% of that of our peer institutions (corrected, of course,
for size). I believe the situation is actually significantly worse than
that since the BAS model, which they use, in no way takes adequate account
either of the level of graduate work of the University or of the
quality and distinction of the faculty. It hardly matters anyhow, since even the
State System's estimate places our funding at least 25 to 30 million dollars
annually below where it should be to reach the average of institutions of our
This situation is so striking that it once led to a verbal disagreement -- at a distance -- between Governor Goldschmidt and myself. He claimed that it was not possible for me to have it both ways; that is, he asserted, we could not be both as good as I said and as poorly funded. But, of course, we do absolutely have it both ways and it is very easily demonstrable, as I have indicated above, to anyone who is willing to look.
The correct interpretation of the quality and funding situation that I have described is that it is (a) true and (b) a miracle. But this is not a transcendental miracle, it is one with a natural explanation. What makes this miracle possible is the remarkable degree of affection, loyalty, caring that the faculty -and the staff and other members of the University community -- have for this place. It is this devotion, this love, for Eugene and Oregon, and above all for this institution, that make people stay here and help to nourish and build the University in spite of the miserable level of its funding. Their reward comes in the sense o-f collegiality that they themselves create and in what that collegiality means for the living and working environment here.
It is onto this stage, this setting, that have been placed by the Governor and the Legislature the plans for the higher education budget for the 1989-91 biennium. At the time of the preparation of the Governor's budget proposal last fall, we learned that that budget would contain a special requirement, namely, that every State agency, including higher education, would have to reduce its state funded operating budget by 2% in 1989-90 and then by an additional 2% in 1990-91. This was made explicit by the removal of this much in funding from our budgets as submitted to the Legislature.
In return, a corresponding amount of money was to be placed in the salary portion of the budget to provide enough for a 2% salary increase for all of our state employees each year of the biennium. It is important to recognize that this was not, as described in some media accounts, a "suggestion" that we fund salary increases out of reductions in our base budget for programs. The action I have described was mandated.
This plan was supported by the leaders of the Legislature and it is contained in the budget bill for higher education which has already been passed by the Legislature. One modification is that the base budget reductions for the four-year colleges in the State System have been lowered to 1% plus 1%, rather than the 2% plus 2% which is still in the bill for the universities.
It has apparently been agreed also that all salary increases will be given halfway through the year, so that the same amount of money will provide twice as large a salary rate increase. While this doesn't give each individual any more pay in the year of the increase, it does, of course, raise the base for the following year.
Although the budget for higher education has passed the Legislature, we hear that the Legislature is concerned about the magnitude of the required cuts and there are now reports, indications, suggestions that, by exceeding the statutory expenditure limitation, there may be supplementary legislative action that would decrease our mandatory program reductions to 1% + 1% of the base budget, with (I think) 1/2% + 1/2% for the colleges. Funds would be added to continue to provide 4% salary increases (or perhaps even 5%) halfway through each year of the biennium.
There appears to be some confidence that this supplementary action will be taken, but it is difficult to get a clear or unambiguous reading on the level of that confidence, since it is tied to exceeding the currently established expenditure limit. In any case, since hope springs eternal, all the units of the State System are, for the present, and with the blessing of the Chancellor, making their budget reduction plans on this latter basis, with the recognition that they may have to double their cuts if the legislative revision is not made. It is interesting to observe how people are brought to look kindly and hopeful on disaster, real disaster, simply because it could
In any case, then, this explains the 1% + 1% program reductions being made by all of the universities of the State System, including this one. But we have an additional problem of considerable magnitude that the others do not have. I do not want to discuss it at any length, because there seems nothing to be done about it, but it needs to be mentioned. This is that we had about 1,000 students (fall term head count) in excess of our normal enrollment of 17,500 this academic year, and we received no additional funding for those students, neither the additional tuition they generated nor State general funds. Further, even with the severe controls provided by selective admission, we will still have some 500 extra students above normal this coming fall, and we have been denied enrollment adjustment funds for these students next year in the State budget, funds that other institutions are receiving.
I have protested both of these decisions bitterly but to no avail; they seem to me extraordinarily unfair. It would take me too far afield to discuss all of this now, but I am willing to say more about it if you wish during the question and discussion period after the talk. The reason for mentioning this here is that it has created an additional severe strain on our budget and on all of our reserves that will result in our having some 1.5 million dollars of obligations in next yearís budget beyond what we will have funds to cover; about $1 million of these obligations are recurring ones. We do often begin a fiscal year with some excess of such obligations over anticipated funds and we customarily plan to make it up by various kinds of savings during the course of the year; but the amount I have just quoted is simply too large and the present budgetary situation too difficult to count on sufficient savings, and the people in the administration who will have to deal with it estimate that we will need to reduce programs by around $700,000 or so just for this purpose.
To summarize briefly, then, the 1% + 1°/ cuts would require removing from our budget $733,000 in 1989-90 and twice as much, $1,466,000 in 1990-91, for a biennial total of $2.2 million. We shall, however, as the other State System universities are doing, achieve this biennial total of $2.2 million by a reduction of $1.1 million both years of the biennium. This avoids the pain of the larger cuts in 1990-91, but it also has the advantage that the recurring budget reduction, which is carried forward from 1990-91 into the base for 1991-93, will be smaller. Adding on the need for $700,000 of additional program cuts referred to a moment ago, this brings the amount to a recurring reduction of about $1.8 million per year. It is this amount which has given rise to the severe budget cuts all over the University that you have heard about.
I apologize for presenting the situation in this much detail, but it seems to me important that you know quite precisely what it is that we are responding to and that you have the background for the comments on all of this that I now want to make. Let me say how I feel.
From the time when we first heard of the plan for a 2% + 2% budget cut, it was made very clear by members of the State Board and others close to the Governor and the Executive Office that something much deeper was involved than just the desire to have us provide out of our own base budgets most of the necessary funds for modest salary increases. We were told -- and this was, without any question, authoritatively -- that the Governor and his advisors believed that we all had excess 'fat'' or "deadwoodî, or whatever similar word you want to use to describe it, in our institutions. By cutting that out, not only would we make funds available for salary increases, but our institutions would be leaner and better and stronger.
Thus, the proposal for mandated 2% + 2% cuts had, from the beginning, the purpose of getting rid of supposedly unnecessary or duplicative or weak and ineffective programs in our institutions. This is terribly upsetting because no one has ever asked us or discussed with us whether we did in fact have this number of inferior or unnecessary programs which we would be better off without. It was just assumed .
On the other hand, suppose we do leave aside the question of expendable programs and think of the proposal as one to make Cuts solely in order to provide funds for salary increases. Then it is appropriate to ask whether the kinds of cuts we have just had to announce, even at the 1% + 1% level, with the traumatic effects many of you have already seen on individuals, on programs and on faculty morale, make any sense at all when they provide only enough actual dollars for a 1% salary increase each year of the biennium. I think they surely do not. Again, there was never an opportunity to discuss this with the real decision makers.
I think the Chancellor tried as well as he could. He apparently did not feel that he was in a position to offer vigorous, direct opposition to the cuts, but he did make as strong a case as he could in terms of the loss of student access that would he a consequence of the program reductions. And his efforts are probably responsible to a large extent for the present indications that we may be able to limit ourselves to the 1% + 1% cuts.
It is still difficult to understand why the people responsible for this decision never made any effort to find out what it means to us. I could have told them of the fact (which I mentioned earlier) that we receive some 25 to 30 million dollars annually less than what would be required to fund us at the level of our peers. That fact ought to indicate how extraordinarily tight and careful our programming and fiscal control has already had to be. If the State would provide the 25 or 30 million dollars to bring US up to the funding of public institutions of our quality, I would be happy to admit to some ,'fat" and cut our budget by 2% + 2%.
We could have reminded them also that we had to survive and stay healthy and even build quality during the massive cuts of the recession/depression years of 1980-85, and that both the faculty and the classified workers overwhelmingly agreed to postpone for a year a salary increase already awarded in order to help to keep the University strong.
They should also know that where it was appropriate for us to cut or close programs and reallocate funds for the good of the University, we have done so by our own decision. During the time that I have been here, we have closed two schools (Librarianship, and Community Service and Public Affairs), we have reduced the graduate office by 2/3 and we have tightened Up positions everywhere in the institution. Shortly before I came here, the program in Home Economics was dropped. Throughout the University we have left major programs and departments understaffed to the extent that we now have to be seriously concerned about their accreditation.
I say categorically, after all of that, that it makes no sense to require US to Cut 1% +1% as a way of getting rid of supposedly Unnecessary or inferior programs in the University. They are, for the most part, simply not there. The cuts that we have had to propose, especially the largest ones, are generally in very good programs that are needed for our students and for the best interests of the University and the State.
I am not claiming that there are absolutely no places in the University where changes could be made. There are from time to time areas that may not have worked out as well as we had planned or hoped and where reduction and reallocation of funds might be productive. The humanities could certainly profit from an infusion of such reallocated funds. But there are precious few of these areas at the University of Oregon because we have already had to live so close to the edge. If we had been asked, we would have made a special effort to take another look at all the possibilities and to have worked out a reasonable plan and timetable for what might be done. But I can tell you for sure that it would have been a good deal less than the 1°/ + 1% figure.
What I have just said was written last weekend and I was upset when I wrote those words. But I am much, much more upset now as a result of having spent a large part of the past two days joining the Provost and other administrators in meetings with representatives of departments and programs for which significant reductions have been proposed. I need to insert a few words about this here.
The people we talked with came from many areas: Leisure Studies, Health, Physical Education and Human Movement, Gerontology, Counseling Psychology, Education, Human Services, Speech, Mathematics, Physics, Geology, and there are more to come. I was deeply impressed in almost all cases by the strength and contributions of these fields and by their national standing in comparison with similar work elsewhere. As a consequence, the destructive results of the cuts being made hit me very hard.
In many of the cases, including, for example, Leisure Studies, Gerontology, Counseling Psychology, Human Services, Volcanology in Geology, among others, a large share of the serious loss is in outreach programs, in important and irreplaceable service to the community and the state. For example, the Master§s program in Counseling provides supervision and staffing for a number of low fee (often no fee) psychological support services in the community, and it also provides training for a large share of those who become therapists in this and other areas. The situation is similar in Gerontology in which exceptionally fine research is being done by a young assistant professor targeted for dismissal; that program is most important for a state with many older citizens.
I could go though the whole list and explain to you why, for nearly all of them, it is almost impossible, and surely very damaging, to make the proposed cuts. The great dilemma, of course, is that if we do not make these cuts, we will have to make others which will be at least as bad. It is sad and terribly discouraging.
Ultimately, the crucial issue here seems to me to come down to a matter of respect. The administration of this University, together with the faculty, have been charged with the management and care of this institution, with building and nourishing and strengthening it. For most of us, our whole adult lives have been with universities. We know them and we care about them, we have the training and the expertise and the commitment. Why on earth don't they consult us when they are considering some action that will have a significant effect on the institution?
What to do? The people of the government in Salem seem to believe, with all good will, that if they can only reduce our budget cuts to 1% + 1% (that is, the cuts we are already finding so impossible), then all will be well. They must understand that there is something terribly wrong in all of this. They are doing grievous harm to institutions that are already among the most poorly funded in the nation and they are doing so not at a time of depression or state budget deficits, but rather at a time when the State treasury will have the most money in its history. Perhaps the best any of us can do is to try to get this message through to the Governor's office and to members of the Legislature. I urge any of you who can to do so.
Before I conclude, let me make a few comments:
First, don't blame the Provost and the Deans for the budget cuts. The messengers aren't responsible. They have worked hard to make the best decisions they could. The proposals are open for discussion and you should raise your disagreements and objections, but if something is removed from the cut list, something else will have to be added. We must be as thoughtful and considerate as we can be about this, and we must not become enemies of one another. I am particularly concerned about Norman Wessells, our new provost, who has had to be in charge of these impossibly difficult decisions in his very first year here. I know how much he has agonized over the cuts he has been required to make and how deeply he feels about the damage being done.
Second, there has been some discussion of a faculty resolution rejecting the salary increase funded by the budget cuts just because, as I said earlier, it does so much damage to accomplish so little. Aaron Novick had thought of presenting such a resolution and then decided not to. I agree with Aaron. In the first place, it is not in our power to decide, since the Legislature is removing the money in advance from our budget and putting it into salaries. In the second place, if it could be done, rejecting the increase involves stopping the funding mechanism and so it would be a permanent rejection, not a postponement, and the message it would send to the Legislature would undoubtedly be misinterpreted. Finally, I believe that such a debate under these circumstances, unlike those back in 1982-83, would seriously divide the faculty and we don't need that now.
Third, since I have objected vigorously to the mandated program cuts, and in particular to the rationale and the process for imposing these cuts, I must in all fairness tell you that there are some very good things for the University in the budget currently being discussed in the Legislature, that we are likely to get if (an important "if") the expenditure limit can be appropriately modified.
For example, the co-chairs of Ways and Means are proposing that we receive a direct appropriation from the General Funds budget of $17 million for the renovation and expansion of the University's Knight Library, a much better financial package than had previously been proposed. There is also a high probability that we will receive recurring funds that will accomplish in a different way substantially the same purpose as the Governor's request for $6 million in endowment monies for us to match private gifts creating endowed professorships.
There is, further, a proposal to include in the budget a provision for two to four million dollars for the State system to be used in addressing special salary circumstances for some faculty in addition to the planned annual 5% increases.
There are also planned tuition increases in the new biennium which would yield for us an additional $2.4 million of income each year. Much of this is already obligated for specific purposes, e.g., for library acquisitions and for the computer instruction that has been funded by a special $10 fee charged to all students each term. However, it is possible (but not certain) that some of this tuition income could also be used to offset a portion of the $700,000 of our own unfunded budget obligations that I talked about earlier. This might enable us to avoid at least some of the proposed budget cuts, but it could not be used against the mandated $1.1 million of cuts.
Of course, all of this good news, along with getting to the 1Y + 1% level of program reductions instead of twice that much, depends on the Legislatureís somehow finding a way around the expenditure limit. If they do not, the problems that we will face will be far beyond anything that we have so far contemplated.
I referred earlier to the special spirit, the sense of collegiality of this institution. Through very difficult times, morale has remained high and you have struggled to keep intact the central core of the University, often at considerable cost to yourselves.
I do hope you will not now become disaffected and that you will retain that morale and that caring in spite of the present assaults on our base funding that are both so hurtful and so senseless. This University is, as I have said on occasion before, so good that it is worth fighting for and worth getting bloodied for.
The truth is that if we could ever get our state government to understand what is here and to fund US, not even at the average of other public institutions of our quality but just somewhere reasonably near it, this institution could take off like a rocket.
For all the reasons that you know well, this University, and the community of which it is a part, are so attractive that even now when we advertise positions, we get applications from some of the best and most brilliant Young scholars and teachers of the country, only to lose them often to other places for salaries and start-up funds and other support far beyond what we can match. And, of course, our own leading faculty are sometimes also vulnerable to such offers.
With even reasonable funding, we could attract more and more of the best and brightest, who would in turn bring others, and this institution could truly rival the best in the country. This is not at all an impossible dream -- nor is it so far away. We should try everything we can to make it happen.
And now I believe that it is time to bring this to an end. YOU already know that I think this University is a wonderful and exciting and rewarding place. All of you should take great pride in it because you, and others like you who have gone before, have made it what it is.
In a lifetime of academic work, being President of the University of Oregon is the best thing I have ever done. I wouldn't have missed it for the world! And the single most rewarding thing that has happened to me in the years that I have been in this position has been the outpouring of affection and caring from all of my friends here. I am sad, of course, to leave something that has been so wonderful and has meant so much to me, but I must say that I am now quite content to do so. It is time.
Thank you all.
President Olum recognized Mr. Jim Terborg, Chair, Faculty Advisory Council, to present a resolution.
WHEREAS it has become apparent that the mandated one percent per year cut in the University of Oregon budget cannot be accomplished without terminating programs of high quality, which will result in the loss of valued members of the University community, and the loss of educational and other services to the state,
WHEREAS the University of Oregon, together with other institutions of the Oregon State System of Higher Education, has endured a decade of budget constraints which have significantly eroded its capacity to succeed in a competitive national market for first-rate teachers and scholars, and
WHEREAS the University has responded in the past to the budgetary circumstances by terminating weaker programs, while relying on the promise of better times to come to induce faculty to resist the temptation of more lucrative offers from other institutions, thereby managing to sustain the 'Oregon miracleí of a top-rated public university with bottom-rated funding, and
WHEREAS the University is confronted with an ongoing budget deficit brought on by an unexpected enrollment increase, which imposes a moral obligation on the University to provide the enrolled students with the courses necessary for completion of their education, at the same time that constraints are being imposed to limit enrollment in the future, and
WHEREAS the economic consequences of the 'Oregon Comeback.' have generated revenues for the state sufficient to fund fully the proposed and competitively necessary salary increases for the University without imposing their cost on valuable programs in the University.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Assembly of the University of Oregon urges the Legislature and the Governor to withdraw the mandated cuts in higher education budgets, and to fund fully the proposed higher education salary increases.
This resolution was passed without dissent.
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
Members of the Assembly moved that the Farewell Speech of President Olum be forwarded to the members of the State Legislature, and Governor, The Oregonian and the Eugene Register-Guard. The Secretary will do this in accordance with the vote of the Assembly that passed unanimously.
Mr. Charles R. B. Wright, Mathematics, asked the President what individual faculty members could do to bring the message that the University would suffer great harm by the proposed budget cuts mandated by the State Legislature and the Governor? President Olum stated that the students are at present demonstrating and presenting information concerning the drastic cuts in some of the departments and Colleges as well as the closing of some and the reduction of staff in others. He thought the students were doing very well in this effort. As to the faculty he thought individual contact with individual legislators would be the best way to carry the message to Salem. He reminded the faculty that they could not represent the University or the State System in these efforts, but had to make efforts to effect change as individual citizens.
Mr. James Lemert, Journalism, made the point that the crucial area within the Legislature is the House of Representatives and especially the 18 first term representatives. Ms. Margaret Hallock, Labor Education and Research Center, suggested that contact with the Lane County delegation was especially important.
The business of the Assembly, having concluded, the Assembly adjourned, sine die, at 4:30 p.m.
Stanley R. Maveety (Stub to all his friends) was born October 16, 1920, in Oak Park, Illinois. He went to Northwestern University, graduating with a B.S. in 1943. There being a war on, he joined the Navy and worked for the Bureau of Ordnance as a Naval Mine Disposal Officer, Instructor, and textbook author in Naval Mine Disposal Schools, first in Washington, D.C., then in Yokahama, Japan. This involved dangerous duty, for which he was decorated. After the war he enrolled in English Graduate Studies, earning his M.A. degree at Columbia University in 1950, and his PhD at Stanford in 1956.
Stub came to the University of Oregon in 1955 as an Instructor in English. He quickly established himself as one of the outstanding teachers in the Department and rose through the ranks to full professorship. During the 60s, 70s, and early 80s he shepherded many a graduate student through to the doctorate and chaired his full share of committees. From 1964 to 1968 he acted as Assistant Head of the Department, and from 1970 to 1973 was Director of Graduate Studies. He retired in 1982.
Stub's general field of interest was the literature of the Renaissance and in this broad field he was learned and active. Thus he taught courses in Milton, Shakespeare, 17th Century Poetry, and especially in the Bible. As a teacher he was not flamboyant but solid and interesting, impressing his students with a love of literature, the value of critical analysis, and a sense of humor that turned silver to gold. As with any fine teacher he had the power of stimulating their minds and in many cases of affecting the course of their lives. Many of them loved him. Some have testified that if ever they found assignments dull or difficult they could look forward to class time when his blend of structural analysis and historical elucidation would make all clear. On both the undergraduate and graduate levels he was considered "hard" but fair, and "popular" for the best reasons.
His particular scholarly interest lay in the literature of the Bible and its influence on Renaissance poetry and drama. This is a fertile but relatively unexplored field. Much Renaissance literature is saturated with Biblical themes, stories, and images. During his nearly thirty years of teaching at Oregon he published a steady stream of articles in distinguished professional journals, some of major importance. Nor was his research limited to the English Renaissance. Several sabbatical years spent in Germany produced studies of Luther's translations of Catholic Bibles, Luther's influence on the English Bible translator William Tyndale, and culminated in what Stub called the §'spin-off" of his research in German libraries, the discovery of Luther's engagement ring. Add to this his articles on Chaucer, on Shakespeare and his tracing of Biblical influences in later English and American literature, and we see the broad range of his interests. He was, in a sense, taking all literature for his province, for he was committed to tracing the influence of the Bible wherever it could be found, in whatever form. Many a modern poem or fiction bore Biblical fruit, Robinson Jeffers' Tamar, Archibald MacLeish's J.B., Shirley Jackson's "Lottery." E. G. Moll's "Jonah" -- all were illuminated by this approach both as works of literature and as products of their own time. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century poems were approached in the same way, with exciting results. Stub's course in "The Bible in English and American Literature" covered fresh critical methods and readings every year, and was much in demand by students.
But Stub did his best work, and enjoyed it most, in the English Renaissance, in his studies of Shakespeare, Gascoigne, and Milton. He as a sort of Renaissance man, drawn by tradition but seeking new horizons, his alert, curious intelligence searching out previously undetected evidences of the early influence of that great Book. He might well have brought together the evidences he found into a most interesting volume but he did not live to do it.
His department head once said of him: "Maveety is the stuff of which English Departments are made." A superb teacher, a scholar who in his special field could rank with the best scholars in the country, he served the University and his department well. He was active in the larger community, a member of the Upward Bound Advisory Council, a teacher, every week for a term, of prisoner-inmates in the Oregon Penitentiary, and a lecturer at a Shakespeare Festival Camp in Ashland. And once, he inadvertently contributed to the public image of the State of Oregon, and to a politician's campaign. When Senator Eugene McCarthy, in his book entitled the ìOregon Campaign: The Euphoria of the Inexperience doing the impossibleî was thereby given a national coverage no scholarly article would be likely to receive.
Stub is survived by his wife, Beth, of Eugene; a sister, Patricia Elsner
of Glenshaw, Pennsylvania; and a son, Dr. Patrick Maveety, of Newberg,
To those of us who have worked long at the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, the sudden death of Bob Terwilliger comes as a shock and a great grief. He was one of the few people whose names have become almost synonymous with that of the Institute.
He was a modest, quiet man -- but with a keen intelligence, subtle sense of humor and broad interests in the cultural aspects of the community, which add so much to the quality of life.
His research and teaching reflected his breadth of vision. The research involved linking the structural and biochemical characteristics of respiratory pigments with the biology and ecology of the animals investigated. His teaching included very broad ranging subjects such as Marine Biology and Invertebrate Zoology which he handled superbly. He also advised many graduate students during their research at the Institute, a function at which he was especially good.
It is tragic that his career should be cut off just as the Institute he served with such love and devotion enters a new and exciting phase of its existence with expanded facilities and prospects for even greater contributions in the future.
His many colleagues, students, and friends will miss him keenly. We extend our deepest sympathy to his wife, Nora, who shared in much of the research, and to their children, just now beginning their careers as young adults.
Bayard H. McConnaughey
Michael J. Moravcsik died unexpectedly of a heart attack on Tuesday, April 25, 1989, in Torino, Italy. At the time of his death, he was on one of his inimitable voyages--a three-month visit at the Institute of Theoretical Physics in Torino, where he was continuing his theoretical work in spin physics and had nearly completed a book on the ultimate limits to scientific discovery.
He was a musician, a music critic and an active member of the Eugene community in support of the Oregon Bach Festival. He led a full life mixing physics and music to its fullest extent. He will be missed by his colleagues and students.
He is survived by his wife, Fran, his mother Edith, and two children.
A memorial service was held on May 15, 1989 for Michael J. Moravcsik.
Submitted by James R. Terborg, Chair of the FAC
The Faculty Advisory Council consists of eight faculty members (four from CAS and four from the Professional Schools and Colleges) and two Officers of Administration. Members are chosen in campus-wide elections and serve two-year terms. One half of the FAC is elected each year.
The FAC meets weekly with the President and Provost to advise them on matters they bring before the Council. The FAC also raises issues for discussion and recommendation. Meetings typically last three hours and require advance preparation through the reading of reports, assignments of discussion topics, assignment of writing responsibilities, and so forth. The chair of the FAC sets a weekly agenda, in consultation with the President and Provost, and is responsible for conducting the meetings. The meetings, however, are highly informal with active participation by all members. The Council usually reaches consensus, but disagreement resulting in minority opinions is common.
This year was dominated by an unusually large number of events including:
-- Selection of a new President for the University of Oregon -- The 2 + 2 budget cuts included in the Governor's budget for Higher Education -- Budget issues associated with record high student enrollment -- Managing student enrollment through the use of selective admissions -- Appointment of a new Chancellor -- Sexism, racism, and general issues regarding affirmative action
-- Dealing with actions proposed or recommended by the State Legislature impacting the University of Oregon and higher education
Regarding the search for a new President, the FAC contributed to: (1) the statement of presidential search procedures, (2) the statement on the qualifications of a president, and (3) faculty membership on both the Presidential Campus Screening Committee and the Presidential Search Committee.
Considerable time and discussion were spent on budget issues, including: (1) the BAS model, corridors of enrollment, and enrollment ceilings, (2) tenure relinquishment proposals, (3) plans for managing student enrollment through competitive admissions, competitive transfers, and stricter standards for the disqualification of students, and (4) consideration of options resulting from the Governor's 2 + 2 budget proposal.
The FAC has been closely involved in campus issues related to sexual harassment, affirmative action, illegal employment discrimination, and racism. As part of our involvement we have read and commented on the report by the Status of Women Committee with regard to sexual harassment, and the report on affirmative action by Helen Remick, a consultant from the University of Washington. In addition, one of our members is on the search committee for the Affirmative Action Director. We also have met with Jan Oliver from the Council for Minority Education.
The FAC has been proactive in monitoring proposed Senate and House Bills that affect higher education and has written several letters to Chancellor Bartlett informing him of our views (e.g., vigorous objection to Senate Bill 465, which mandates curriculum changes for graduation and to House Bill 3450, which has the legislature renaming the Law School). The FAC also met with Chancellor Bartlett during one of our meetings. We are pleased to note that Chancellor Bartlett has been responsive to many, but not all, of our concerns.
In addition, the FAC reviewed and commented on university policies dealing with the naming of buildings, illegal employment discrimination, promotion and tenure grievance procedures, drug testing for student athletes, the use of animals in research, making the U of O a drug-free workplace, and student conduct. The FAC contributed names to the following committees: Committee on Committees, U of O Foundation, faculty disciplinary hearing committee, Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate, and the State Board visitation panel, among others. The FAC discussed and advised the President and Provost on a variety of topics including: the Riverfront Research Park, rights and benefits of retired faculty, semester conversion, student fees, proposed changes in the student conduct code, administrative rules covering grievance and appeal procedures, proposed changes in the timely notice rule, proposed system-wide changes in the relationship between universities and their foundations, and the renaming of state colleges to universities. Finally, the FAC initiated discussion and produced action on the payment to faculty of proceeds resulting from the sale of the Union Mutual Insurance Company, participation in a family employment program with OSU to help in the recruitment and retention of faculty, and problems with the use of a single-source travel agent for faculty business travel. Other items currently under discussion include eligibility requirements for membership on the Faculty Advisory Council and the Faculty Personnel Committee, and child care facilities for faculty.
At the conclusion of this academic year. the terms of Mel Aikens Patricia Gwaratney-Biggs, Tom Mills, Ken OíConnell, and James Terborg will expire. They will be replaced by two new members from CAS, two new members from the Professional Schools and Colleges, and one new members from the Officers of Administration.
The FAC enjoyed working with Norm Wessells during his first year as Provost and with Paul Olum during his last year as President. For next year, the FAC looks forward to working with a new President.
.On behalf of the 1988-89 Faculty Advisory Council,
James R. Terborg, Chair
Mel Aikens, Anthropology Ken OíConnell, Fine Arts
James Buch, Admissions James O'Fallon, Law
Patricia Gwartney-Gibbs, Sociology Davison Soper, Physics
Esther Jacobson, Art History Joe Stone, Economics
Tom Mills, International Services James Terborg, Management
|Web page spun on 6 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:firstname.lastname@example.org of Deady Spider Enterprises|