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 ( or to


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia at 3:38 p.m. on October 3, 1990. There being no corrections the minutes of June 6, 1990 meeting of the Assembly were approved as distributed.


The annual report of the Faculty Personnel Committee has been submitted to the Secretary and may be found on pages 13-14 of these minutes.

The President recognized each of the Deans and Vice-Presidents to introduce new faculty members.






President Brand delivered his first State of the University address. This address may be found on pages 2-12 of these minutes.


The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m. The next meeting of the Assembly will be on November 7, 1990. The major topic of business at this meeting will be a discussion on the subject of shared-governance at the University.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly


Shortly after I was appointed president of the University, and even before I arrived in Eugene, many of my new colleagues began asking me about my vision for the future of the University. I have tried hard to avoid giving a full answer until now. I wanted to be sure that I knew the traditions and strengths of the University well. I did not want to fall into the trap of importing goals from other institutions to Oregon. The University of Oregon is a special place, with its own values and its own aspirations. Its development and improvement must be carefully crafted to preserve the special attributes of our University that work to make it so .

The University of Oregon is one of this country's finest universities. Its membership in the prestigious Association of American Universities and its growing international reputation attest to its preeminence. Our university has a distinguished past, one filled with significant accomplishments. Our future holds boundless promise. Oregon is a university destined to build on its outstanding tradition.

But how? In what ways will we transform our successes of yesterday and today into those of tomorrow?

Any vision of the future must take into account not only the goals shared by all great universities, but also the unique features of Oregon. In order to define more clearly these aspirations and goals, as well as our current needs, I initiated a strategic planning process. The preliminary reports of the task forces, the schools and colleges, and most of the departments have been written. I have found these reports both informative and creative. As expected, they require refinement and integration, but the main outlines are already clear. These planning reports are data points that inform my vision of the future.

Now, after a year of listening and learning, I am ready to talk with you in more detail about this vision for Oregon. Please understand that I expect this framework to be refined as we continue our strategic planning, and I fully expect widespread debate and discussion about these ideas. This framework is a starting point.

A vision of our future must address the issues of the scale of the University, its aspirational goals and, most importantly, its focal themes. To begin with the issue of scale, I do not see good reasons for wanting the University- to grow in size. It may be necessary for some growth in the latter part of this decade when high school graduating classes are expected to mushroom. But mere growth in student body size is not a proper goal. Instead, we should set our sights clearly on quality, looking at ourselves as an institution with a well-defined and distinctive mission.

Large, mega-universities have great breadth, usually including engineering and medicine. They have huge physical plants, large faculties and student bodies. But they tend to be impersonal places that lead to alienation among faculty and students. Small liberal arts colleges, in contrast, often develop a sense of community, but they lack diversity of academic programs and the capacity to support extensive research, in the humanities, social sciences and professional areas, which require a major library, and in the sciences, where the questions have become more complex and expensive to answer. At the University of Oregon we have the best of both worlds: we are sufficiently large to support research in a carefully selected range of areas, but we are also sufficiently small to maintain a sense of community. Our scale provides us with a true comparative advantage.

If we accept the tenet that our campus is presently the right size, with limited growth, if any, in the student body over the next decade, there are consequences for our overall development. In particular, the total size of the faculty will not substantially increase. That means that program development will have to be evolutionary. New efforts will have to emerge from old ones. We will not be able to do everything that we are now doing, in the same way and to the same extent we are now doing it. and at the same time respond to the significant new opportunities that will inevitably arise as human knowledge and the academic professions advance.

It is worthwhile to observe that there will be substantial opportunity for evolutionary change during this decade. Most of you are aware that one-third to one-half of our faculty colleagues will retire or transfer in this decade. Nationally, it has been noted that the professorate is 'graying.í (I notice that a number of us are graying, too.) But I do not see this as reason for alarm. Rather, I see it as an opportunity for those schools, colleges and departments affected by retirements and turnover to reevaluate their current agenda and determine their future foci.

One main purpose of the University-wide strategic planning process is to provide a context for this kind of thinking. Through it, as well as through the normal debate within disciplines, we can take maximum advantage of this opportunity. Academic programs are dynamic. No discipline or field remains unaltered for long, not at least if it is to be vital. If science faculty members were doing the same things they did five years ago, they would no longer be current nor able to compete for grants. Similarly, the humanities undergo change, sometimes rapidly. In my own field of philosophy, not only have there been changes in the problem sets taken to be important, but the predominant analytic methodology is giving way to a more open, eclectic approach. The Universityís growth will be in the quality and progressiveness of our academic programs, not in their size.

In the past year, we have seen the phenomenon of personnel changes particularly affecting the office of Dean on our campus. This year will see searches for Deans of Architecture and Allied Arts, Arts and Sciences, Human Development and Performance, and Music. Without minimizing the difficulty of the task of recruiting the very best in academic leadership; I want to emphasize the opportunities for these colleges.

The prospect of new leadership and new colleagues should be an exciting one for us all. Assuring that we get the best people is no easy task, but I am convinced we can continue to attract women and men of the highest caliber to Oregon. The effort to recruit new deans and new faculty who can help us to attain our goals and objectives for the rest of this century and position us for continued success in the next should be among our highest priorities.

The University of Oregon must continue to play a national, indeed international, leadership role. We can lead because of the quality and stature of our faculty and programs. Given that we will not be able to accomplish our goal of leadership through overwhelming size, our academic mission must be focused.

The University of Oregon is a public research university based upon a strong core of liberal arts and sciences surrounded by complementary professional programs. It has the advantage of being among the smallest and oldest of such institutions in the United States, and because of its glorious history and enviable present, it can and should aspire to be among the very best universities of its kind in the world.

In order for it to continue to be among the very best, I believe we at the University of Oregon should attend to five key points of focus. First, we should reemphasize our undergraduate educational mission.

Second, we should continue our emphasis on research and creative activity, and with it, continue to foster excellent graduate and professional education.

Third, the University of Oregon should strive to assure an inclusive, welcoming, and sensitive campus environment for all. We can and should become a model for other universities of excellence without elitism.

Fourth, we should continue our emphasis on international programs and work to infuse international perspectives throughout our educational, research and service programs.

And fifth, we should assure that the University is a force for enhancing the quality of life and economic well-being of our state.

The first theme is high quality undergraduate education. There is a long and honored tradition of commitment to undergraduate education at Oregon. However, there are national trends that run counter to a focus on undergraduate education. We must be alert to these national trends and we must be prepared to reaffirm our commitment to excellent undergraduate education programs.

We have all heard it said that research distorts the commitment to teaching. I disagree -- and I expect supportive. The excitement of making discoveries, in the laboratory and the studio, in the library, or in professional practice cannot but be communicated to students. A research university offers opportunities for undergraduates, as well as graduates, to participate in the discovery process and explore the consequences of these discoveries before they become ossified in textbooks. Good students stimulate research and creative activity among faculty members. In the practice of research, our students are our colleagues.

No, a vital engagement in research does not detract from quality teaching. Rather, the culprit is more elusive. It is the trend, accentuated in recent years, to see one's national disciplinary colleagues as one's only peers, to exclude as peers one's colleagues at home.

Faculty professionalism in America has taken an awkward turn. Think for a moment how graduate students and new junior colleagues are socialized. At many universities, it is rare that they are advised about the importance of undergraduate teaching or that senior faculty members assist them with their teaching. Rather, they are told only the tacit rules about succeeding in their disciplines. And as faculty direct their graduate students and new colleagues, so do they direct themselves. National and international associations of scholars are not alone in the blame, however. If university faculties are unwilling to place solid emphasis on and give important rewards for excellence in teaching, and academic administrators follow that lead, can we expect any other result?

The result is that on too many campuses, faculty members have become less invested in their home universities and, consequently, less willing to devote time and energy to those activities that have primary benefit to that university. First among those activities is undergraduate teaching. Again, as disciplinary professionalism gains in ascendancy, faculty members are drawn away from identifying with their home institutions and toward their national disciplinary colleagues. The result is that undergraduate education, along with other institutional activities such as University service, is devalued.

American universities appear to face a dilemma. If this national trend continues unabated, the quality of undergraduate education will diminish. And the critics, some of whom hold the purse strings, will not hesitate to fault the universities. If, however, these universities take steps to reverse disciplinary identification among faculty members, they will harm their research efforts. For successful research depends on strong national peer groups in order to share knowledge and critically evaluate results.

However, I contend that this is a false dilemma. It is based on the mistaken assumption that a faculty member can either identify with his or her national disciplinary peer group or his or her institutional peer group, but not both. Faculty members can -- and should -- have dual allegiances. Self-esteem and rewards can -- and should -- come from both national and local affiliations. In their roles as researchers and creative artists, faculty identification with one's national and international peer group is critical; and in their roles as teachers and mentors, faculty identification with one's local peer group is equally critical.

I have been discussing an unfortunate national trend. It is comforting to observe that the University of Oregon has worked to resist this national tendency. A majority of our faculty have managed to embrace national peer group standards in research, while simultaneously giving their undergraduate students a great deal of time and attention, and working hard to make their teaching stimulating and effective.

However, the tension created by this dual allegiance is real and the pressure of this growing national tendency to diminish institutional identification is a genuine threat. Given these forces, it is incumbent upon us to reaffirm and rededicate ourselves to undergraduate education. For without this conscious reaffirmation, we run the risk of inadvertently losing something we all value -quality undergraduate education.

The active researcher who spends considerable time teaching and working with undergraduates is one main reason why Oregon is a special university and a special intellectual community. We have the opportunity in the years ahead to be a model for other universities that are hoping to achieve a better balance between research and teaching. Of course, they will achieve this end only if their faculty members are able to emulate Oregonís in seeing the importance of the undergraduate mission to a research University

We can make clear our rededication to undergraduate teaching in several ways. The Undergraduate Education Task Force, judging from their preliminary planning report, will be making important recommendations about the transition to college, the ways we advise students, progress through the institution, and the manner in which we deliver instruction. At times, our Undergraduate programs lack coordination. The Task Force will suggest ways to ease the burdens on both students and faculty by proposing a more coordinated approach. The public and private debates that will take place when its final recommendations are issued will have substantial and lasting consequences for our University.

The Task Force will not take up curricular change. The facultyís recent extensive review of the curriculum, even though prompted by an ill-fated attempt to convert to semesters, resulted in improved curricula in both major programs and general education. There is no doubt that discussions of general education will once again consume our energies, though not in the near future. The curriculum is dynamic, in that it is never final, but always evolving as the knowledge base becomes larger and is reorganized. For the present, our main concern should not be the curriculum, but rather teaching, its quality and its delivery.

To this end, I want to make several specific recommendations. These recommendations need extensive campus discussion; moreover, I do not in any way intend that they exhaust the steps we need to take to reaffirm our commitment to undergraduate education.

Given the importance of teaching to our mission, we must make sure good teaching is adequately rewarded. I have asked the Provost to review all departmental and college criteria for merit pay increments. These criteria must clearly state that high quality teaching will command merit raises. If these criteria do not do so, the department or college will be asked to revise them. No department or college will be permitted to distribute merit funds unless their criteria explicitly include a manner for rewarding teaching.

I will also ask the Provost to reexamine the promotion and tenure criteria at all levels to certify that good teaching is taken fully into account. No one will be promoted or tenured if he or she is a poor teacher. We are not a private research company. We are a public university, in which faculty members must be both committed and capable teachers and strong scholars.

Charismatic teaching is probably a native talent; but good teaching is a learnable skill. With the assistance of dedicated colleagues, the Center for Academic Learning Services, and with plain old-fashioned hard work, each motivated faculty member can be a strong teacher. If any faculty member lacks the motivation for good teaching, I say that he or she should go elsewhere! The University of Oregon has no place for faculty who will not strive to be good teachers.

The Ersted and Burlington Northern awards are our most prestigious teaching awards. They carry one-time monetary awards of $2,000 each. I will recommend to the Faculty Advisory Council and the Deans that, starting this year, these amounts be added to the base salaries of the award winners. And in order not to disadvantage previous award winners, an amount equal to the award they won would be added to their base salaries as soon as our funding situation permits. These additions to base salaries are to be independent of any other increments, and they would be allocated directly by-the Provost's Office.

In spite of the facultyís dedication to undergraduate education and their devotion of time and energy to it, we have seen the increasing engagement of instructors and of graduate teaching fellows in the delivery of our lower-division undergraduate program. This is not necessarily bad, but it does present problems and issues that should be addressed within local and task force planning. If the size and scope of some of our disciplines, English, the foreign languages, mathematics, and others suggest the need for a tenured and tenure-track faculty of one size and a teaching force of another, let us recognize that fact. Let us consider the working conditions and salary levels of instructors, regularize their appointments, establish evaluation standards and career tracks for them, and appropriately recognize their contributions.

At the same time we are attending to the quality of our undergraduate programs, we must also continue to enhance our research and creative activity and complement this through our graduate education programs. It is important to me that I not be misunderstood here. I am firmly and unequivocally committed to reemphasizing and supporting quality undergraduate teaching. But I am just as firmly and unequivocally committed to maintaining and enhancing the place of research at our University.

When I am off campus talking to our alumni and even some of whom are not especially friendly to the University, I never fail to evoke strong positive responses when I point out our research strengths. These strengths are indeed impressive. We have four faculty memberships in the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences and eight in the National Academy of Science. Nine faculty members have won competitive Presidential Young Investigator awards from the National Science Foundation, and six among them are women. Oregon faculty have recently won prestigious Rockefellers, Guggenheims, a MacArthur, a Hughes, Sloans, Danforths, Fulbrights, and on and on. The sheer number of these awards outstrips those of many of the enormous mega-universities.

The level of achievement in research and creative activity at Oregon is truly spectacular. In fact, I have noticed that our achievements sometimes overcome our own level of credibility. Sometimes we ourselves do not recognize how very good we are. But we really are this good! As President, I am personally dedicated to continuing and enhancing a supportive environment that makes possible this truly outstanding level of achievement.

The University of Oregon uses two models to organize research, the traditional departmental one and a center or institute structure. Both are important and both are necessary for successful research. All major research universities use both models, but Oregonís advantage has been its extraordinary success in developing the center-based research model. Our interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary centers enable us to undertake boundary-breaking research; and, most significantly, they do so in a way that complements department-based research.

Our research centers span a wide array of areas. The model was forged in the basic sciences, but the idea has spread so now center-based research is well established in the Humanities, the Social Sciences and the professional schools. Our Humanities Center, the Center for Entrepreneurship, the Center for Cognitive and Decision Sciences, and the Center for the Study of Women in Society are a few of the many successful centers on campus.

One of the exciting features of the University of Oregon is its ability to develop unified approaches to broad-based research. For instance, one idea that is emerging in some planning documents is a coordinated effort on several aspects of environmental studies. We already undertake a great deal of research and instruction on environmental topics, including public policy and natural resource law. But there is presently no unifying structure to bring these various efforts together. Over the next few years, it would be worthwhile to explore the development of a university-wide center on the environment, focused on the key areas in which we excel. It would be entirely fitting for Oregon to play a national and, in fact, an international leadership role in this area.

Research and creative activity are closely linked to graduate education. Good graduate education involves students directly in the research enterprise; in fact, graduate students often become major contributors themselves. The ongoing interaction between faculty and graduate students is an invaluable part of our university community.

One area in which we clearly need improvement is the support of our graduate students. We are doing as well as we can, given the limited resources at our disposal. In the future, however, we will have to seek new sources of revenue for graduate student support. I recommend that we make the support of graduate students among our highest priorities for external fund raising.

I envision enhancement and probably some growth of our graduate programs during this decade. We need to explore ways to improve the recruitment of talented graduate students and we need to assure that we are bringing in a diverse group of students: minority group members, women, people with families and current professional obligations, and people from other countries. The realities of the work force projections for the next decades require that every person be prepared to make her or his maximum contribution. As a major research university, we must strive to ensure high quality graduate and professional programs, for through this facet of our mission, we contribute most directly to a bright future for the development of human knowledge, cultural richness and professional excellence. I take this goal to be among the most crucial ones for us in the years ahead.

We face a special challenge in this state as we consider the nature and scope of our graduate programs because of compelling needs for advanced educational programs in the greater Portland metropolitan area. Through various commissions and councils, the state is now considering how best to meet the needs of Portland, and the university of Oregon must be creatively about ways to deliver education, ways to fund it, ways to permit the kind of quality interactions that graduate students can expect. It is incumbent upon us to cooperate fully with Portland State and other state and private institutions serving the area. Indeed, we are already doing so in several fields, and we plan to do so in others. One good example is the College of Business Administration's participation in the Executive MBA Program in Portland, which is a cooperative effort between Portland State, Oregon State, and ourselves. We can fulfill the state mandate for accessible continuing and graduate education by entering into partnerships to provide quality education, especially quality professional education throughout the state.

Of course, these joint efforts will require incremental funds, since we are already stretched too thinly maintaining our current on-campus programs. Moreover, these efforts, whether in Portland or elsewhere in the state, must complement and enhance our campus activities. We cannot achieve success in serving these emerging needs at the expense of current program quality.

The third focal theme in my vision for the University of Oregon is creating a campus community that is inclusive, welcoming and sensitive to all persons, no matter their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical abilities, age or religion. At Oregon each person should have a genuine opportunity to excel with no artificial barriers placed in the way. We must do more than comply with existing statutes. We must pro actively and aggressively seek to create a diverse and harmonious community. Our goal, I have said many times, is excellence without elitism.

I believe that we are already making progress toward this goal. The number of minority students increased over 18% in the past two years. Six new minority faculty have been hired this past year. The Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity is now fully staffed and functioning well. Its charge has been expanded to include not only compliance, but also playing a role in recruiting women and faculty and staff of color and in improving the sense of community on campus. In addition, the Affirmative Action Task Force has made significant progress toward defining a common ground on which persons with differing agendas can come together.

I believe that we have the opportunity to create a model community at the University of Oregon. We can be the campus community that others strive to emulate. We can be successful because we already have a politically and socially aware faculty, staff, and student body and because we are willing to commit ourselves to this goal. True, there is much to be accomplished before we fully realize the goal, but I believe that we have the will and that the way can be found. You can count on my unwavering commitment.

An issue related to creating a non-elitist community is affordability for students. If tuition rises too quickly and the University becomes too expensive, we risk restricting admission to select economic classes. While it is unrealistic to think that tuition will not rise, and that the students' costs will not increase with those of the goods and services necessary to operate the University, we must try to keep these increases to a minimum, especially for resident students. We cannot and should not build the University on the backs of our students. No one should be deprived of a university education for economic reasons. The University must work to make sure that grants, loans, and work-study opportunities are available to all students who need them. Through a more aggressive public information and development program, the University must increase the funds we have available for scholarships and student aid. We have to find ways to supplement our budget other than through egregious tuition increases.

The fourth part of my vision is an increased concentration on internationalization. It has become commonplace to say that the world is growing smaller or that what happens in one part of the globe effects us all. Think of events in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and China during the past year or so, if you need confirmation.

Since the end of the Second World War, American universities have organized international research and instruction according to geographic areas. The University of Oregon itself currently has ten area studies programs that permit various departments to cooperate in interdisciplinary education and research programs focusing on a particular part of the world. Our Center for Asian and Pacific Studies gives us yet another model for interdisciplinary international activity acting as an umbrella organization and bringing together four area studies programs, the International Studies program, and the International Business program, and faculty and students from across the campus who work in fields related to Asian and Pacific Issues.

One excellent idea the Task Force on the Global Context and International Studies has proposed is the creation of an International College, somewhat on the model of the Honors College. I look forward to hearing more recommendations from the Task Force regarding other possible innovative approaches to international education and internationalization.

Internationalization means engaging our students in transnational perspectives, exposing them to languages and cultures different from their own. It means infusing international dimensions into the general education curriculum. It means emphasizing and enhancing the international components of the disciplines. Internationalization means providing greater incentives and opportunities for our students to study abroad and for faculty members to visit and work abroad. These objectives are particularly important for Oregon for many of our students come to the University with little or no acquaintance with other peoples and cultures. While we are strategically located to lead in scholarship relating to Asia and the Pacific, we are still far from the centers of international activity.

With our long tradition of international research and teaching and with all the strength we have in international fields, we are well-positioned to build strength and to capture a leading role among American universities.

The fifth focal theme in my vision for the University concerns its contribution to the quality of life and economic development of our state. A public university is like a three-legged stool in which teaching, research, and related professional service maintain a balance. Our service contribution should stress issues of the quality of life and economic development.

We already undertake significant activity that enhances the well-being of Oregon. The Bach Festival, the Universityís museums, the many music, dance, and theater performances in Beall Hall and Robinson Theater, and elsewhere, traveling exhibits, and innumerable visiting and touring speakers and artists, all contribute to the cultural life of the state. As would be expected of a major public university, we support the professions, local and state government, business and industry, and community groups through continuing professional education and research on policy issues, labor, health care, and the schools.

One noteworthy example of our contributions is the School of Architecture and lilied Arts Center for Housing Innovation. With the help of a federal grant, this center is leading the way in the design of low-cost, energy-efficient housing. It is also a catalyst for an emerging local industry in industrialized housing, which will use second-growth timber and retrained workers to produce affordable housing. another example is the Center for Human Development, located in the College of education, which has attracted significant federal funding for programs that address the needs of children with disabilities. The research undertaken here not only enhances the local economy by bringing back dollars from Washington, D. C., but has far-reaching consequences for the quality of life of some of the most disadvantaged among us.

But when all is said and done, the most valuable contribution the University of Oregon makes toward the quality of life and long-term economic development in the state is to provide high quality education for its daughters and sons. Since people tend to remain in the state in which they receive their education, we are helping to ensure a talented and able population that can secure Oregon's future.

Let me summarize, then, these five focal themes of my vision for the future of the University. We will reaffirm our commitment to undergraduate education. We will continue and enhance our research mission, including complementary graduate education. We will be a university that exemplifies excellence without elitism, a model community that is inclusive, welcoming and sensitive to the needs of all. We will continue and enhance our international orientation. And we will contribute to the quality of life and economic development of the state.

Our ability to realize this vision depends not only on our will, but on our resources. I would be belaboring the obvious if I said that we are an underfunded university. Shortage of funding is apparent when I see the pressures under which our faculty work in all areas, including such key ones as writing and mathematics. and I will not even mention the lack of competitive salaries. This is not the group I have to convince of our genuine needs.

Most important to our funding situation is adequate state support. AS Some of you may already know, the University is engaged in an aggressive campaign to inform our legislators of these needs. The State Boardís biennial budget proposal is well conceived and supportive of the University. The Chancellor's Office, too, is prominently engaged in informing legislators about this budget proposal.

Of course, we do not have control over the state and national economies, and our efforts might not yield full success. But I assure you that any lack of success will not result from want of trying.

However, even if our state budget request is fully funded, we would be remiss if we did not seek to maximize other sources of revenue.

We will, of course, seek revenues from traditional sources, such as grants and contracts. In recent years our grants and contracts funding has increased by over ten per cent per year. It would be good if that rate of increase continues.

We must manage our extant resources to maximum advantage. As a first step, I have begun a system of cost recovery from non-instructional Units. We will take all appropriate steps to ensure better overall management.

One area in which we have not maximized revenue is private fund raising. Private dollars cannot substitute for adequate state support, but private fund raising can provide the margin of additional revenue necessary for excellence.

Frankly, it will be a challenge to increase substantially private fund raising. People in Oregon, and in other states and countries, will be inclined to provide private and corporate support to the University only if they understand our strengths and they are convinced that their support is needed. Taking our case to our alumni and friends in a sensitive and effective way requires a great deal of work by talented and experienced persons. I am greatly encouraged by the recent appointment of Brodie Remington as Vice President for Public Affairs and Development and by the enthusiasm of the many volunteers who are associated with the University. We will mount a major effort in this area. We cannot afford not to be successful.

I say again: the University of Oregon is one of this country's finest universities. It is a special place. It is at once a great research university with a strong core of liberal arts and sciences and complementary professional programs and a human-scaled, caring community. It is a leader among institutions of higher learning. And it is rapidly becoming a model to which others aspire in such key areas as the balance between teaching and research, affirmative action, and internationalization. It is a university in which we can all take great and lasting pride.

Today I described the framework I envision for our future, based on our traditions, our planning efforts, and my own sense of our values and comparative advantages. I will report to you in the spring on the progress being made.

Bringing this framework to life will take all our best efforts. I have full confidence in our faculty and our University. I have no doubt we can succeed.

The future is ours to create. Oregon is a proud and special university. Our best days are ahead of us.

Thank you.

Final Report of the 1989-90 Faculty Personnel Committee

The Faculty Personnel Committee met from late December to the middle of June to review of total of 46 cases, including 11 that involved outside hires with tenure. The FPC was unable to deliberate on three additional outside cases, which were approved by the Provost after June 15.

Of the 35 "inside'' cases reviewed, 16 were for promotion to associate professor with tenure; one was a tenure-only case; one was promotion to associate professor with-out-tenure; and 17 were for promotion to professor.

Of the 11 outside cases that the FPC reviewed, five were at the associate professor rank and six were at professor rank.

In the inside evaluations, the FPC recommended denial of tenure and promotion to the associate rank in two cases. Both recommendations were reversed at the Provost level. The Provost's office did uphold the FPC's recommendations of denial of promotion to professor in two cases.

In the outside evaluations, the FPC recommended denial of two appointments at the professor rank. Both recommendations were reversed at the Provost level.

While the committee was generally impressed by the rigorousness of inquiry into and the preparation of many cases, it has several serious concerns about the T & P process. It is interesting to note that many of these concerns are recurring themes:

1. Non-observance of T&P timetable. Many cases reviewed this year came to the committee well beyond any reasonable allowances for lateness. Most of delays apparently originated at the departmental level. Department heads and deans are urged to expedite all cases according to the calendar set by the Provost's office, in order to allow for the most fair and thorough review. Candidates for tenure and/or promotion are urged to assertively monitor the progress of their cases.

2. Widely varying information on teaching. Statistical and qualitative data on candidate's teaching often were insufficient. In some cases, deans and department heads permitted the candidate to evaluate the data on his or her own teaching, with little comment from higher levels. In addition, the number of teaching evaluations in many cases was inadequate. More attention needs to be paid to the quality of these data and to the consistency of approaches among departments.

3. Problems with outside cases. As in past years, the FPC has been uncomfortable in passing judgment on outside hires with tenure. With the increase in the number of these cases, discomfort has given way to serious concern. This past year, most of the outside cases contained much less of the quantity and quality of information that was found in nearly all of the inside cases the FPC reviewed. The often-rushed nature of these outside cases prevented the type of review that needs to be conducted. The FPC realizes that the Provost's office is now investigating ways to improve the outside-hire process; this committee urges support by department heads and deans to make this process more thorough and equitable.

In addition to these ongoing concerns, a relatively new factor has emerged in T&P discussions: market considerations in promotion and in hiring with tenure. The FPC, while cognizant to the growing pressure of market forces, continued to make its evaluations on the traditional basis of teaching, research and creative productivity and service to the university and community. The FPC recognized, however, that market factors may have carried some weight at the Dean and Provost levels.

The FPC hopes that the much-needed appointment of a vice provost for academic affairs will help correct inequities and shortcomings that have occurred in the past. Next year's FPC report may tell a hopeful tale. In the meantime, department heads and deans are urged to offer appropriate and concerned counseling to candidates and to prepare cases that will permit clear decision-making at all levels.

Respectfully submitted September 28, 1990.

Duncan McDonald, Chair (Journalism) Doris Allen (Music) John Baldwin (PPPM) Stan Cook (Geography) Jerry Finrow (Architecture) Peter Gilkey (Mathematics) Steven Huber (Student Representative) Kathleen Nicholson (Art History) Robert O'Brien (Sociology) John Orbell (Political Science) Deanna Robinson (TCF)


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia at 3:35 p.m. on November 7, 1990. There being no corrections, the minutes of the October 3, 1990 meeting were approved as distributed.


The President recognized Mr. Kenneth Tollenaar, BGRS, to read a memorial for Mr. Herman Kehrli. Mr. Kehrli, Professor Emeritus, BGRS, served the University from 1933 until his retirement in 1966. He passed away on September 30, 1990, in Eugene. This memorial can be found on pages 4-5 of these minutes.

Mr. Edwin Coleman, English, was recognized to read a memorial for Mr. Stoddard Malarkey. Mr. Malarkey was a member of the English Department from 1965 until January of 1990. He was killed in an automobile accident on September 19, 1990. This memorial is on pages 6-7 of these minutes.






The President stated that the main item on the agenda for today concerning faculty-administration shared governance would be postponed. With the passage of Ballot Measure Number 5 on Tuesday, November 6, 1990, the subject that had to be discussed was the impact on the University of Oregon by provisions of the measure and the potential solution on how the State would respond to the revenue needs created by the passage of the measure.

The situation was not one that should cause panic among the faculty and staff of the University. However, we must start working toward a solution today. The President announced that he has placed a freeze on expenditures of over $5,000 in state accounts (050-) and that any expenditure over the cap would need the written permission of the Provost. Further, the salary increment in place for January and February 1991 is still in place, but the proposed $50,000 that it was hoped the State Legislature and Governor would come Up for faculty pay increases during the 1991-93 biennium has been placed in limbo. It is not the 199O-9l budget that is in jeopardy, it is the budget after July 1, 199l.

With exceptions, all searches are now frozen. This includes faculty and the Dean of Architecture and Allied Arts. The searches for new deans in Music and Arts & Sciences will proceed. To a question from Mr. Dan Pope, History, concerning the meaning of the freeze on faculty searches the President stated that the searches were "Dead in their tracks, unless permission from the Provost is given to continue."

Part of the solution for the University must be mixed with response from the State System. But on this campus some things can be done and will be done, beyond the freezes. It is possible that tuition will be increased as it seems the voters want a user fee established for services rendered. Any increase in tuition must be blended with a way to make sure that qualified students from low income families, single parents, etc., would have some type of financial aid available so that they could get an education here. The planning process will continue, but it will have to be refocused and thus the date of the report will be moved from the end of fall term to the end of winter term. The main core of the University will be protected-that is the faculty.

Within a short time the University may have a better idea of what to expect.

The Governor and the State Legislature must meet and decide on what to do and how to do it. This action will tell Higher Education what to prepare for in the way of cuts. This might be known by late winter or early spring. The tax system must be sorted out and this could result in being good for Higher Education. It is just too early to know any details.

Prior to any program cuts, if they are necessary, a full discussion will be held with the faculty, and no precipitous cuts would be made.

Ms. Francoise Calin, Romance Languages, asked how a department could notify a candidate that the search is suspended and expect to keep the interest of the candidate. President Brand agreed that it would be difficult, that early (pre January) decisions cannot be made. Those involved in searches must inform each applicant that the search is suspended for now and that they will be informed when it is active again.

Mr. Charles Wright, Mathematics, asked if the hiring of GTF's was suspended. The answer was yes, for now, but that this would have to be looked at very soon in order to make a decision. A further inquiry from Mr. Wright concerned recruitment of athletes and all that entails, was this too frozen. Only 050- accounts are frozen, the Athletic Department would not be allowed to hire any new coaches because that is now frozen, but athletic recruitment is not a 050- account.

Mr. James Isenberg, Mathematics, asked what other things were under consideration to raise revenue besides tuition. The President said that at this time tuition was on the table, downsizing the University might be a option and as time passes other items might come under consideration. Mr. Peter von Hippel, Chemistry, said the freeze was the equivalent of financial exigency and that it might be premature to freeze at this point. The response was that the freeze was

-aimed at the 1991-92 budget so that any commitment made for that budget year was well thought out and within the plan for any reductions that we might face. After January 1, 1991, reality, but for now we must be in an anticipatory mood.


The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

The next meeting of the Assembly will be on December 5, 1990.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly

HERMAN KEHRLI (1902-1990)

Herman Kehrli was born in Bethany, Oregon February 14, 1902. In view of Hermanís enormous lifetime contributions to his home state, it is worth noting that February 14 is also the day of the year on which Oregon entered the Union in 1859.

Herman graduated from Reed College in 1923. After a few years of high school teaching and service as Executive Secretary of the City Club of Portland, he received a masterís degree in public administration from the University of Minnesota in 1933. In that year, the Oregon Legislature appropriated funds to establish the U. of 0. Bureau of Municipal (later "Governmental") Research and Service, and Herman became its founding director.

For several years, faculty leaders on this campus had been working to improve the Universityís outreach to state and local governments, believing that academic research and rational analysis could improve the process of formulating and implementing public policy. Based on this belief, the University from 1909 to 1942 sponsored an annual "Commonwealth Conference" that brought to campus governmental and civic leaders from around the State to present, hear and discuss papers addressing various issues of the day.

The positive relationships generated by the Commonwealth Conference prompted the League of Oregon Cities to ask the State Board of Higher Education to establish the Bureau. At the same time, Herman was named Executive Secretary of the League. From 1933 to 1966 he served as both Bureau Director and League Executive Secretary, and the staffs of the two organizations were housed together on the University campus. In 1966, the League staff moved to Salem, but close cooperation continued between the two organizations.

Under Hermanis direction, the Bureau developed and maintained high standards of quality and productivity in public policy analysis and public service. It is impossible in this space to list the hundreds of published studies, model charters and ordinances, and training programs produced under Herman's tutelage that have shaped Oregon state and local government institutions and programs for more than half a century.

We may, however, cite a few of the most significant contributions for which credit must be attributed to Herman:

* The Model Charter for Oregon Cities, featuring a "general grant of power" that enabled the voters of cities to take full advantage of the power of municipal home rule. The same concept was subsequently featured in the Bureau's Model County Charter.

* The numerous adoptions of the council-manager form of government by Oregon cities beginning in the 1930s, a development fostered by Herman as director of the Bureau, and similar reform and restructuring of county government.

* Basic reorganization of state government during a period from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s, including the establishment of the Department of Finance and Administration in 1951. Herman was a key architect and advocate for these changes.

* Professionalization of the public service at both the state and local levels. Herman was a major participant in establishment of the state civil service system and he was the chief designer of the Public Employees Retirement System. Throughout his career he was a leader and active supporter of the American Society for Public Administration. After his retirement, he was named an honorary life member of the International City Management Association.

Herman's influence on the lives and careers of his associates was enormous. Bureau staff alumni include ambassadors, appellate court judges, and many city managers, planners and other state and local government administrators and specialists. Also in his debt are countless governors, legislators, mayors, counselors, commissioners and other public officials both elected and appointed.

As the Eugene Register-Guard editorialized upon his death September 30, 1991, Herman Kehrli was "A man of curiosity and warmth, commitment and humor...." and "Few individuals have had such far-reaching -- and long-lasting -- impact on state and local government."

Mr. President, I respectfully request that copies of this statement be included in the Faculty Minutes and transmitted to Herman's family: his wife Helen and his daughters Gretchen and Susan.


Stoddard Malarkey, who was associated with this University for nearly 30 years, first as graduate student and then as a member of the English faculty, died in a one-car accident on September 19 while heading for an afternoon's fly fishing on the Deschutes River. His services to the University as administrator, as scholar, and above all as teacher are well known and keenly appreciated. But he had a range of acquaintance and variety of interests that extended far beyond the University community, so that his death will reverberate in many walks of life and many parts of this state which he so loved. He was a man who found life good and cherished it. It is a striking instance of tragic irony that Stoddard took early retirement last spring to have more time for his many non-academic interests, only to have his life cut short so abruptly.

Whatever Stoddard did as administrator, as scholar, as tireless ,member of countless University committees, I think he would have liked to be remembered most for his direct contribution to the lives of others. His student's he always treated with a rare combination of respect, consideration, humor, and sound scholarship.. His death proved that he was remembered, after more than 30 years, with affection and gratitude by the members of the very first class he taught, at the Catlin-Gabel school in Portland. His most recent students, when evaluation his Chaucer course, gave both him and the course high marks. One student wrote: "He has been one of the best English instructors I have had in four years at the U. of 0." Another admitted that at first 'you intimidated the hell out of me," but that as the course proceeded "much to my surprise you turned out to be an excellent teacher. Thanks!" And another wrote: "Malarkey is probably the most entertaining, knowledgeable professor I've had at the U. of 0. They broke the mold after they made that guy."

Stoddard will be poignantly missed also by the many people whose lives he touched--and in many instances helped literally to save--through his work on the University task Force on Alcoholism and the University Committee on Substance Abuse, and as volunteer counselor at a local treatment center.

Stoddard had a genius for relating to people and will be especially remembered by the many minority students whom he generously befriended over the years. But, for all his warm gregariousness and capacity for friendship, he was a very private man, one who felt deeply but kept those feelings to himself or shared them only with those he loved most. He was a man to who solitude on an Oregon trout stream was a spiritual experience. He disliked and distrusted such public displays of grief as funerals and memorial services. it was particularly fitting, therefore, that his family chose to mark his passing with a small private service, and then went on to the Deschutes River to complete the fishing trip that Stoddard had begun. His ashes were placed in the river.

I think Stoddard would have liked these lines from a Robinson Jeffers poem called "Inscription for a Gravestone',:

I am not dead, I have only become inhuman:
That is to say,
Undressed myself of laughable prides and infirmities,
But not as a man
Undresses to creep into bed, but like an athlete
Stripping for the race.
I admired the beauty
While I was human, now I am part of the beauty.
I wander in the air, i
Being mostly gas and water, and flow in the ocean;
Touch you and Asia
At the same moment; have a hand in the sunrises
And the glow of this grass.
I left the light precipitate of ashes to earth
For a love token.

Stoddardis family has asked that any memorial contributions be made either to Reed College, his alma mater, or to the University of Oregon Foundation to establish a fund for African-American students who wish to pursue graduate study in English.

Mr. President, I request that this memorial be made a part of the official and permanent minutes of this meeting and that copies of the memorial be sent to the immediate family by the Secretary of the University Assembly.


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia at 3:38 p.m. on December 5, 1990. There being no corrections, the minutes of the November 7, 1990 meeting were approved as distributed.


President Brand made the following announcement:

I am pleased to announce that Room 220 Gerlinger Hall, commonly known as the Gerlinger Gymnasium, has a new name: The Janet G. Woodruff Gymnasium.

Janet G. Woodruff, professor emerita, served the University for thirty-eight years in the Department of Physical Education, retiring in 1967. Woodruff dedicated her life to the development of physical education as a profession, and particularly to increasing the role of women in the discipline. Since her retirement, her former students and her colleagues in the College of Human Development and Performance have continued to hold Ms. Woodruff out as a model for inspired teaching and professional dedication to her field.

It was particularly fitting, then, for faculty and alumnae to propose her name for this room in which Woodruff spent so much of her teaching career. I was very happy to adopt the proposal of the Committee on Campus Names that proposed this name for the Gymnasium. By naming the Janet G. Woodruff Gymnasium, we help to assure that her example will continue to inspire new generations of students and faculty.

Ms. Woodruff, who is 88 years old, continues to live in Eugene. The College of Human Development and Performance is planning a small dedication ceremony to take place in February. Those of you who know and remember Ms. Woodruff, and those who wish to do her honor may get more information from Professor Lois Youngen in the Department of Physical Education and Human development Studies.

The President recognized Provost Norman Wessells to make an announcement concerning the military reserve call-up for Operation Desert Shield and students involved in the call-up.

We have already received from the Oregon State System of Higher Education a directive as to the refund policy for students called to military active duty. That directive states that full credit may be given for course work if withdrawal occurs within the last four weeks of the term. The directive summarizes the policy as follows:

The intent of this policy is to allow a student, who has orders to report for active duty, to withdraw at any point in the term and receive a full refund. If, however, a student has completed sufficient course work for the student's instructors to grant credit for the current term's classes then official withdrawal would be unnecessary.

As for the Universityís grading policy, faculty legislation specifies that those students called to active duty who are eligible to receive credit shall be graded on the work already done for the class. Here is relevant language from that legislation:

....Students withdrawing from the University before the final examinations of the present semester in order to enter the military service shall receive credit, without further examination, in accordance with the grade of work already done in each course....

I thank you for your cooperation in complying with this legislation, by assisting our students during this disruptive time in their lives. There are many demands upon these students, demands with which they must try to cope with less than 48 hours notice. These severe time constraints may make it impossible for students to see each faculty member to arrange for grades.

Some students have already left for active duty. Please notify the Registrar if you know of such students so they can be informed of their rights.

On the other hand, you may not know why some students are no longer attending class. The Registrar will attempt to compile a roster of those who have left for active military duty, so he can notify you of their names.






The President emphasized that the main point on Measure 5 is ''Don't Panic!" We are, he said, in "A state of ambiguity." The facts and the total impact will not be clear until after January 1 and the convening of the State Legislature and the budget submitted by Governor-elect Barbara Roberts. The worst case is that the Legislature will not produce a tax package to ease the impact of Measure 5 on the State Budget and that all revenue will come from the unenhanced budget.

No two institutions within the State System are reacting in the same manner in anticipating the impact of 5. The President said the short term impact will be a problem, but if the Legislature and the voters agree to some type of new tax or taxes the long term outlook could be optimistic. Among the long term opportunities would be a better, more balanced, tax structure for the state, thus giving the state more options for funding state programs, including higher education.

The President recognized Mr. Brodie Remington, Vice President for Public Affairs and Development, to speak to the issue of communication and Measure 5. Mr. Remington stated that the important task is to get all information to the University Community as quickly as possible and make sure that the information is correct. A regular column in Inside Oregon on Measure 5 and the University will be commenced, a hot line will be established to take calls concerning all aspects of the University and Measure 5, and that specific inquires as well as general inquires will be answered by the University if it is capable of answering the questions.

President Brand concluded by stating that the main points are: 1) this is a time of anxiety, 2) the University has taken prudent steps in anticipation of the 1991-92 budget, 3) the University is attempting to identify the limits of the problems that Measure 5 will create, 4) that tuition cannot be looked upon as the only source of new revenue as there is a limit as to what tuition will do to enrollment and those who can least afford increases, 5) that other new revenue will have to be found, possibly through some association with Summer Session and marketing, 6) that the University is attempting to position itself to help prepare for the impact of Measure 5.

Mr. Siegel, Economics, stated that the President should give some encouragement to the young faculty to stay with us and not go on the market because of Measure 5. The President replied that he would encourage them to not abandon the ship now, that we want these people to stay and we need them. The number of college/university age students will increase dramatically in two or three years and because of this we, the University, must make sure we are not weakened by not having the faculty and facilities available for the anticipated enrollment because of this natural increase in college/university age students. Ms. Sharon Domier, Library, asked if the thaw for some frozen positions continues and could 'you give a ball park figure" on the number that have been frozen. The answer was that a considerable number of positions are still frozen, some have been thawed and that decisions are made on an individual basis. The important thing is to remember that frozen does not mean eliminated.


ASUO President Kirk Bailey, given permission to speak on the floor of the Assembly, made a short statement concerning Measure 5 and the need to keep in mind that the students and faculty are in this together. Cooperation is important as reactions to Measure 5 are made, and that tuition should not be the first thing to look at for increased revenue. The ASUO will lobby to help convince the legislature that higher education cannot survive with cuts in services and increases in cost for fewer services.

President Brand agreed that cooperation is necessary and that the UO is not anxious to increase tuition but the impact of Measure 5 is dictating any increase that might be forthcoming.


The President started this discussion by reading several passages from an article by the AAUP (1966) titled 'Statement on Governance.''

The simple way of looking at governance is to say that the faculty has responsibility for curriculum and the administration for the budget the President said. But too much overlap makes this untrue.

Mr. Siegal asked what happened to the decision on American Studies that was proposed last Spring. This suggested decision had caused a confrontation between faculty and administration, a conflict of budget and curriculum, he stated. President Brand said he was not happy with the process, but he did not know what the status of the decision was at this time. He called on Mr. Don Van Houten, Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, to reply to the question. Mr. Van Houten said that his recommendation is the same as that given by the Associate Dean of the College last Spring. That consideration is being given to suspending the program and not to closing the program.

Mr. Leland Roth, Art History, asked how the University could create Medieval Studies while letting American Studies die. Mr. Van Houten replied that Medieval Studies would require no money, but it is the bringing together of existing classes and creating the program.

President Brand brought to the attention of the Assembly a motion on the subject of establishing programs and discontinuing programs enacted in 1933 by the faculty.

On November 1, 1933 Dean Hayne Morse moved and the faculty passed the following.

BE IT RESOLVED that henceforth all proposals for the establishment or discontinuance of University schools, departments, curricula, degrees and requirements for degrees shall be submitted to the academic Council for consideration, report and/or recommendation to the general faculty. The faculty shall transmit its affirmative recommendations through its secretary to the University administration for presentation to the Board of Higher Education, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That proposals to establish new courses, to change the hours of credit in established courses, to suspend courses, to revive suspended courses, or to abrogate established courses shall be acted upon by the minor faculty or faculties concerned. The actions taken by such minor faculty or faculties shall be reported to the Academic Council which in turn shall act and report to the general faculty. Affirmative recommendations by the general faculty shall be transmitted by its secretary to the University administration for presentation to the Board of Higher Education.

The President said that the process issue is the important factor in shared governance. Where is the best place to make decisions, the local place is the best place to start. Mr. Van Houten said that college level decisions are not the end of the line decisions, but smaller groups should be involved and the idea of protecting turf must be eliminated if serious decisions are to be made by larger groups. A possible alternative is to have an elected group act for the larger group. Serious decisions, legitimate inquiry and input is difficult without injury or hurt feelings, etc., in larger bodies.

Mr. Norman Savage, Geology and current President of the University Senate, joined in the discussion by pointing out that the Senate must be well informed on curriculum and financial issues for the University. The Senate, he said, was in the process of creating a number of standing committees that would be given charges that would keep the Senate informed on a number of matters, including curriculum and its relation to budget and scholarship, and faculty conditions comprising recruitment, retention, benefits, academic freedom, salaries, sabbaticals and research support. These committees would be answerable to the Senate.

Mr. Savage went on to discuss the present use of the Committee on Committees and that perhaps it would be a wise move to shift the responsibility of this committee to the Senate, also. A further extension of this part of the discussion included the suggestion that it might be wise to look at all the faculty created committees and rethink the charge and make-up of each of the committees, if the faculty agreed.

In conclusion, Mr. Savage added that curriculum and budget are closely intertwined and that knowledge of the budget process and allocation needs to be more widespread. Cooperation between the Administration and the Senate is a necessity.

Mr. C. R. B. Wright, Mathematics, said that the decision concerning American Studies was made in ..executive session'', a small group, and that it involved personnel and budget considerations. The small group can work more efficiently in this area than a large group, especially when personnel and personal decisions are being made.

The University at one time was smaller in enrollment as well as faculty size. The problems of governance were more easily dealt with because of the size. Another factor was the interest of the faculty in governance, from the meeting of the faculty to various committees, and that today because of the size of the enrollment and the size of the faculty it is difficult to sustain the same type of governance. The interest In governance must be rekindled, either the faculty will show interest and do something, or the administration will have to do it, Mr. Wright concluded.

President Brand said that larger schools have gone to a stronger senate and that seems to be the way the UO is moving if what Mr. Savage stated is carried through with the approval of the faculty. Wide participation is necessary for governance to work and the UO does well with most of its committees.

Ms. Jean Stockard, Sociology and present Chair of the Committee on Committees, agreed to what Mr. Savage had stated. She related that the Committee on Committees has become clerical in its work and has no actual control over final committee assignments. A stronger Committee on Committees would be the result of having the Senate take over the responsibility of the Committee.

Mr. Savage stated that this year the Committee on Committees had been told, by the Provost, that Assistant Professors could not serve on committees because they had to work toward tenure, and that if they were on a committee they should be made aware that the tenure clock is ticking. Many of the individuals nominated for committees were not appointed by the Office of the President and the Committee on Committees received no opportunity for consultation concerning the changes. It was suggested by one faculty member that the least that could be done was some type of consultation prior to changes of nominations to committee assignments.

Mr. Fred Andrews, Mathematics, asked how the Provost got involved in the work of committee nomination and assignment. He reminded the faculty that the historic reason for the President to make the final assignment was his position as President of the Faculty and not President of the University. The JO Charter gives both of these positions to the President, and it is under the former that the committee assignment responsibility had been delegated by the faculty to the President. Further, he stated, we have discouraged junior faculty from taking part in the government of the University and by the time they reach tenure they have no interest, knowledge, or tradition of taking part in the government of the University.

Mr. Herb Chereck, Registrar, asked who has primary responsibility to bring to the faculty information for discussion, debate, etc. He stated that it is presently difficult for a decision to be reviewed efficiently, if at all, and that the present committee system does not apply to the months when the regular faculty is not present, but work for the committee needs to be tended to at this time.

Mr. Siegel stated that State and National legislatures have ways and means committees as well as budget committees, and the UO needs the same type of committees. The committees should be broad based and include both faculty and administrators. The President asked what role the Faculty Advisory Council should play in this area. Perhaps the F.A.C. and Senate both have a role. The F.A.C. is basically an advisory group to the President, not a legislative group was part of an answer. The Senate is a legislative body, it is a deliberative body, it has the power to appoint committees, it can investigate, it can report to the faculty and under take actions without being told to do so. The F.A.C. does not have all of this delegated responsibility.

Mr. James Lemert, Journalism, felt that the Graduate Council was under utilized and could be a group used for appeals of some decisions and reactive to various faculty and administrative proposals. Mr. Siegel stated that at present decisions are made by bodies with a bias and because of poor attendance and the lack of good information those taking part are only partly informed of the issues involved in any decisions made with the Assembly.

President Brand said that the President does have the right to veto legislation and that if he did exercise the veto he would explain to the Senate or the Assembly why he chose to do so. He went on to say that the discussion indicated the faculty was interested in exploring the governance structure, to improve the workings of the Senate, the efficiency of the Committee structure and to get more faculty involvement in the governance of the University. This is a long range suggestion coming from the faculty at this meeting. It is not something that can be done overnight or within a short period. It will require work and eventually proposals to the Assembly, from the Senate, to implement any desired changes. In conclusion the President stated that he thought the discussion was worthwhile, of value to both the faculty and the administration and gave all much to be reflective about.


The meeting was called to order by Provost Norman Wessells in 150 Columbia at 3:33 p.m. on January 9, 1991. There being no corrections, of the minutes of December 5, 1990 meeting were approved as distributed.


Provost Wessells recognized Mr. Richard Desroches, Romance Languages, to read a memorial for Mr. Carl Johnson. Mr. Johnson was a member of the Romance Languages Department from 1935 until his retirement in 1972. He passed away in Eugene, on November 30, 1990. The memorial is a part of these minutes and can be found on page 3.

During the Announcement period Mr. Wessells made some statements concerning Measure 5 and the University budget. Obviously, he stated, no final word on any cuts can be certified until after the Governor and the State Legislature makes final decisions, however, during the interim the University has to return some $700,000 to the State from the 1990-91 budget. This is being done through various savings and by not touching the departments, schools/colleges on campus. The freeze has helped recover this money. The core of the University will be protected in the cuts that must be made after July 1, 1991 and that tenure decisions are proceeding as normal. The junior faculty must know that the University has no intention of putting them in jeopardy and that they should not be concerned about their future at the University.


Mr. Paul Simonds, Chair of the Committee on the Curriculum, was recognized to move the adoption of the Curriculum Report for 1991-92. Mr. Norman Savage, President of the University Senate, reported that the Senate had debated the Report, amended the Report and passed the amended Report with a recommendation to the Assembly to approve the Curriculum Report for 1991-92.

The Assembly went through the Report ad seriatim. On page 10, Mr. Ralph 3arnhard, Chemistry, moved that "CH 441/541 Quantum Chemistry and Spectroscopy" should have the words "and Spectroscopy" removed. He also moved the credit hours for "CH 442/542" be changed from "2-3, 2-3" to "3-3". The motion was put to a vote and approved. On page 11, Mr. Arthur Farley, CIS, moved to add to Computer and Information Science, under New Course "CIS 403 Thesis (1-12R) P/NP only." This was approved by the Assembly. On page 16, Ms. Colette Craig, Linguistics, moved to add "Ling 410/510 Experimental Course (2-5R). This was approved by the Assembly. On page 19, Physics, it was moved to delete the changes of PHY 694, 695, 696 to PHYS 691, 692, 693.

On page 24, Art History, it was moved to add a new course, ARH 314 History of Western Architecture I, (3). This was approved. When the Assembly reached page 40, Chemistry, Add cluster, Mr. Ralph Barnhard, moved that the two additional clusters be included after CH 211, 212, 213. These additions are: .'CH 221, 222, 223, and 221, 212, 213.i'

The Report was now completed and it was moved that the Assembly approve the Report as amended. The voice vote indicated no negatives thus the Report was approved.


The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:18 p.m.

The next scheduled meeting of the University Assembly is February 6, 1991.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly


Carl Leonard Johnson was born June 3, 1902, in Center Township, Iowa. He graduated with a BA degree from the University of Iowa in 1924 and received an MA degree in French literature from the same school in 1925. Subsequently he attended Harvard University which granted him the PhD in French literature in 1933. His dissertation dealt with Longfellow's relationship to France and French literature. His full-time academic career began at the University of West Virginia in 1925, where he taught both language and literature courses for four years. In 1935 he came to the University of Oregon as an assistant professor and over the years rose to the rank of professor. He retired in 1972. During his long career here he distinguished himself as a specialist in nineteenth century French literature. Work begun as a doctoral thesis became the basis of Professor Longfellow of Harvard, a monograph that he published in the university o-f Oregon Studies in Literature -and Philology. He also published a number of short guides to French pronunciation, and his textbook First Year French was for many years used extensively nationwide. Among the honors he was accorded one can cite his travel in France in 1946 as guest of the French government, service on the board of directors of the Pacific Northwest Council for Foreign Languages in 1955-1956, and Acting President of the Oregon Chapter of the American Association of Teachers of French also in 1955-1956. In 1962 he received the Palmes Academiques Award from the French government in recognition for his role insetting up a training program for American high school teachers to study French in France. His seminars on Baudelaire became well-known on the West Coast, and in fact his love of this French symbolist poet continued past his retirement. For several years thereafter he worked on a new bi-lingual edition of Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du mal, and until fairly recently a discussion group gathered regularly in his apartment in Patterson Tower to listen to his expert knowledge and thought. On November 30, 1990, Carl Johnson passed away. He will long be remembered as a congenial and warm human being.

Mr. President, I request that this memorial be made a part of the official and permanent minutes of this meeting and that copies of the memorial be sent to the immediate family by the Secretary of the University Assembly.

Richard H. Desroches Associate Professor of Romance Languages


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand at 4:36 p.m., in room 150 Columbia on January 24, 1991.


The impact on the OSSHE budget and the University of Oregon's portion of that budget was the announced purpose of this special meeting. The President explained that he now had information on the direct impact of the required budget Cuts on the University and the dimensions of the problem. It was, he stated, a major one and would result in some drastic cuts in the budget. All of the campus decisions must be made by Saturday, February 9, 1991 and thus the following schedule will be followed in making the necessary decisions and Cuts.



10 (Thu) Governor's budget preview
14 (Mon) Governor's budget released; Subcommittee appointed;
MeasUre 5 Action Team
15 (TUes) Subcommittee
18 (Fri) Subcommittee
22 (Tues) Subcommittee 6-8 pm; faculty receive overview of criteria
23 (Wed) Senate on criteria and procedures
24 (Thur) Subcommittee; Assembly
25 (Fri) Subcommittee (Myles to attend)
27 (Sun) Provost presents recommended program reductions &
; reorganizations to FAC
28 (Mon) Provost contacts deans; dean contacts units offering opportunity
for written response
30 (Wed) to Senate
31 (Thur) Council of Deans; Graduate Council


1 (Fri) Units, written responses due
4 (Mon) Subcommittee; MeasUre 5 Action Team
4-8 President/Provost meet with affected units
5 (Tues) FAC; Graduate Council; tentative special Senate meeting
6 (Wed) to Assembly
7-8 Consider assembly input; write report
9 (Sat) to Chancellor
10-13 Chancellor staff review
14-15 to Board

The amount of the cut for the OSSHE budget is 12%, and this is a base budget cut. Higher Education is being treated as every other state agency even if Higher Education does not fit the mold of every other state agency. The UO share of the cut will be $10 million per year for the next biennium. (The UO has had to give back from the 1990-91 budget $700,000 and this has already been done.) ''How do you solve a $20 million problem?' the President asked rhetorically. Tuition increases, of 80% to 100% would have to be made to restore the funds cut. If the cuts were to be made solely in the general university it would result in a weakened institution and about 4 to 5,000 students fewer than now. Or we can cut the faculty through program elimination, by 20%. These two options would be drastic.

The extreme of these two proposals will be avoided by a middle course. One half of the needed revenue will come from a $200/quarter tuition surcharge and the already scheduled tuition increase of 6.7%. It is planned that $50.00 of the surcharge will go toward a financial aid plan for students who will need financial assistance to meet the new costs. The amount anticipated from these two tuition charges will be about $3.5 million. This leaves the University with a $6.5 million to find.

Part of the $6.5 million increases and professional school fees. The Chancellor has given the campuses the right to retain out-of-state fees and this is a major breakthrough as heretofore the system has taken all tuition and remitted a percentage back to the campuses and redistributed the remainder. Now the major portion left to cut must come from program cuts and reductions.

The $5 million will be made-up from cuts in administration, $500,000, with a reduction of 12 to 15 FTE. The University will have to downsize from 18,000 to 16,000 students. This reduction will come from enrolling fewer freshmen and transfer students. With the program cuts and reductions and the decreased enrollment will result in the need for fewer instructors and GTFs. Some $3.5 million in program eliminations will be made to meet the required reduction in the budget. This is a serious problem as the core of the University must be protected for the future. It is anticipated that $1 million will be cut by the reduction of GTFs, Instructors, Adjuncts, etc. No tenure faculty will be let go and the UO is the only institution that has gone on record to leave tenured faculty alone.

In instances where faculty are tenured and a program is eliminated, a reassignment for faculty that fits their expertise will be found for those who remain at the UO. If a non-tenured faculty person is to be cut the University will give a one year notice. This will cause a cash flow problem for the University for the next year or two. But it is felt that the UO can handle the problem by making very wise decisions in budget distribution over the next two years.

Higher Education is not the cause of Measure 5, it is the victim of Measure 5. At a time when the pool of 18 year olds is starting to increase dramatically, and the potential for major increases in college and university enrollment is anticipated, Measure 5 and the State's reaction to it is causing higher education to retrench and cut enrollment. This will result in a fewer admissions to the State's public colleges and Universities, and thus weaken Oregon in the long run when it needs an education work force to attract industry.

The key principles that will be followed are: 1. Quality of the institution will not be degraded; 2. Cash flow management is not the answer to the budget cut; 3. The University will not declare fiscal exigency, tenured faculty will be protected and contracts will be honored for untenured faculty.

President Brand recognized Provost Norman Wessells to make a presentation to the Assembly on the process that will take place in this budget cutting scenario. The Provost stated that an Action Team on Measure 5 has been at work since December. The Team has met several times and is composed of faculty, students, and administrators. A considerable amount of historical information on past budget cuts has been gathered and has been reviewed by the Team. This has been helpful in the approach to the present situation and will be of help in decision making. The Provost asked that any member of the Assembly that has any new or unique ideas on how to cut the budget that these ideas should be brought to the Team.

The Centrality of mission is important to the program cut suggestion. The degree of speciality to the entire UO mission and the uniqueness of the program to the UO and within the State System and the State. Questions will be asked concerning quality, size, cost and demand of the program as well as its impact elsewhere on campus, within OSSHE and the State. The University is committed to Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and thus these two will be a part of any decision making process.

How can we redistribute tenured faculty within areas cut? It might be possible to move the person to another department where his/her discipline might fit, or within OSSHE, although mechanism is not in place for the latter idea.

Very little, if any flexibility, exists. If a decision to cut is reversed it would mean that the cut will be in another area or program. Alternatives are very few.

President Brand resumed the chair. Molly Westling, English, asked what would happen to untenured faculty in a program or area that is cut. The President replied that the contract would be honored, but there will not be a renewal. Mr. Daniel Pope, History, asked if the salary increase would be sufficient to cover program cuts. The Governor has scheduled zero in salary increases for the next biennium, and the cuts are greater than anticipated salary increase that might be added to the budget by the legislature. The President stated that salary increases is still the highest priority for the System and that some potential increase might be included in any final budget passed by the Legislature.

Mr. Frank Anderson, Mathematics, stated that he felt it would be a great mistake to cut the freshmen class back drastically. In 1990 the University did not hit its target for freshmen--it fell about 300 short--so the idea is to enroll as many as we did in 199O, the President stated. The Provost added that the number of transfers to undergraduate classes--Sophomore, Juniors, and Seniors, will be very few because of the required cuts. He estimated that about 1,000 potential students will be denied enrollment at the University. The President pointed out that the entire system has to cut enrollment, thus the State is mandating the shipping out of young minds to out-of-state institutions and the potential benefit of keeping these young people in the State to aid in the supply of desperately needed educated people will be lost. The State is not willing to face its problems presently and relate the present situation to the future and the damage that will be done by the cutting policy now underway.

The tuition surcharge, $200 has not been agreed to by the political forces in the State. The OSSHE Board has agreed to the charge, but it could be killed by legislative action or by word or action from the Governor.

Mr. Frank Geltner, EMU, asked if the Chancellor's staff would see any cuts. The President said he did not know the precise number of FTE cuts the Office of the Chancellor would make, but said he had heard that it would be around 20.

The list of cuts must be real, it cannot be a laundry list as this is a serious situation and because the State has not decided on the value of higher education in the past, present or future world the cuts must be made to meet the demands of the State Government.

Mr. Steven Chatfield, Dance, asked if any work was being done on creating an incentive program to encourage early retirement. The President said that the Chancellor is working on some kind of program, a one-time-only arrangement that would make it attractive to take early retirement. The details of what is being planned have not been widely discussed and the President did not know any more than this.

Mr. Paul Armstrong, English, asked what it meant that the freeze of faculty positions will be rolled over. The President explained that if a faculty position becomes vacant it would be frozen for one year, if another becomes vacant that one will be frozen for one year, and on-and-on. It does not mean that the same frozen position will be rolled over in a continuation of the freeze.

The President stated that any cuts will be made public on Tuesday, January 29, 1991 in the early afternoon.

In reply to a question on reorganization of departments or programs or the integration of compatible programs or departments the President stated that this is a possibility and that the Team will probably make recommendations in this area. The President said that if and when tenured faculty leave the University--for any reason--from a program or department that is cut that the tenured position would not be refilled.


The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

The next scheduled meeting of the University Assembly is on February 6, 1991.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia at 3:35 p.m. on February 6, 1990. The minutes of the January 9, 1991 meeting were approved with corrections in paragraphs concerning catalog changes.


President Brand recognized Mr. Dennis Pataniczek, Chair of the Graduate Council, to read a statement from the Graduate Council.

The University of Oregon Graduate Council deeply mourns the proposed elimination of a number of graduate programs that are important, valued, and recognized. The loss of 27 graduate majors and 25 graduate degrees will impact 744 presently enrolled graduate students and several hundred additional students who have been admitted, but have not yet completed their degrees. We mourn the loss of internationally and nationally recognized scholars and researchers from our graduate faculty who will depart from our institution following Measure 5 budget cuts. We are and will remain the lesser for it.

The Graduate Dean has communicated to graduate students in closed or reduced programs the Graduate Schoolís intention to provide maximum flexibility in dealing with program requirements, master's and doctoral committee structure, and petitions for waiver from normal policies and procedures. Students have been advised to meet with their faculty and advisors or committee chairs immediately to discuss appropriate options, given a student's individual circumstances and curricular needs. The Graduate School will work to assist students to complete their degrees, without compromising the University of Oregon's high academic standards.

The events of the past three weeks have underscored the need within the University for accurate qualitative and quantitative data on the excellence and accomplishments of our academic programs and for program review. The purposes of such reviews are constructive, leading to program improvement and a greater understanding within the university community and State System of the achievements of a faculty, the quality of a department's programs and students, and the accomplishments of its alumni. Because of the importance of such reviews to our future as a comprehensive research University and AAU institution, the Graduate Council and Graduate Dean will bring forward to the University Senate within the next few months a proposal to implement systematic graduate program review.




President Brand opened the discussion on the impact of the required budget cuts on the University of Oregon- by stating that " amputation of the University has taken place. Healthy limbs have been severed and some of the best programs in OSSHE have been removed from the University curriculum." The task given to the University was not of its own making. It is a task assigned by the passage of Measure 5 for property tax reduction and the impact that the Measure has on the revenue of the state. In a sense, the President stated, Higher Education and other areas of the state budget have been made scapegoats of a tax system that was unbalanced because of high property taxes. Some people are calling for "more blood, more cuts in the state budget.' If this comes to pass public higher education in Oregon will be harmed beyond repair and the future of Oregon will be in jeopardy.

President brand called on the Legislature to seize the leadership in finding a solution to this serious problem. The Legislature needs to ''...rise to the occasionî. in this crisis. Alternative revenue to replace that taken by Measure 5 must be found and the current situation must be reversed as soon as possible. If no new revenue source is found and approved the cuts that will come in 1993-95 will be even deeper. And if the Governor and the Legislature disallows the $200 per student per quarter surcharge the cuts made later in this year to make up for the lost funds will be double what has been cut as of this date.

Provost Norman Wessells was recognized to explain the final decisions on the proposed cuts in the University. It was, he said, ''A terrible painful process.i'

Commencing with a recap of the process used in deciding what and where to cut the Provost indicated that the response to the first announcement of what cuts would be made has caused some modification in the final proposal. A letter sent to the President on this day (February 6, 1991) was distributed to the members of the Assembly and guests.

February 6, 1991

President Myles Brand Office of the President University of Oregon CAMPUS

Dear Myles:

Following the wide distribution of my letter to you of January 28 there has been further discussion of the proposed academic program reductions and reorganizations with the Faculty Advisory Council, the Graduate Council, the Council of Deans, the University Senate, and the Associated Students President's Advisory Council. In addition, we have received several hundred letters from concerned faculty, students, alumni and other interested parties. From these meetings, letters and other discussions it is even clearer that the budgetary impact of Measure 5 will force us to cut programs of high quality and that the severe impact on Oregon will extend well beyond Eugene to people of all age groups throughout the state.

I shared this correspondence and discussed with great care the substantive suggestions with the special faculty subcommittee yesterday. While there was much to be said for the various suggestions and counter-proposals, I must reluctantly conclude that the broad outline of eliminating teacher education, closing the College of Human Development and Performance, combining Dance with Music, reorganizing Journalism and discontinuing health education as a requirement is the best alternative for the long-term among the carefully considered options that included no good or easy choices.

As indicated in the second paragraph of my earlier letter, several of the specific suggestions for reorganization, reassignment, and renaming units will require further discussion with the faculty. For example, although I am convinced that Human Movement Science must be disassociated from physical education, coaching and the management of campus recreational facilities in order to develop into a highly respected department, there have been several constructive suggestions for focusing this new department in the College of Arts and Sciences. I still propose to close the Department of Art Education but now recommend treating it in the same manner as Mathematics and English Education -- namely permanently cutting the two FTE positions linked to certification when they vacate due to retirement, etc. The remaining faculty should be incorporated into another department in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. In these and other proposed reorganizations (Leisure Studies and Services, Counseling Psychology and the remaining programs in the College of Education) we have time beyond the Chancellor's February 9th deadline to define academic mission, focus, and structure for the new Units. Therefore, I intend to appoint faculty committees to discuss such issues over the next 60 days and formulate specific implementation proposals. The Graduate Council and graduate Dean should be involved prominently in assessing the feasibility of continuing existing, or developing new, degree programs with the remaining resources.

The subcommittee also concluded that more time is needed to reach conclusion about Classics and Religious Studies. While I am convinced that the faculty in Classics should be combined with others to achieve a critical mass, several of the proposals that have surfaced in the last week represent intellectually interesting and preferable alternatives to my original suggestion to merge Classics into the Department of History. Therefore, I plan to charge a faculty group to study Classics, Religious Studies, Medieval Studies, and the Arts and Letters Program to recommend reorganizations that will yield a sufficient critical mass of faculty to guarantee high quality, and which will result in administrative savings.

Although these deep budget cuts bring us dangerously close, I do not recommend declaring financial exigency at this time. Therefore, I do not intend to fire the 35 tenured faculty members in programs recommended for reduction or reorganization. The processes we use for appointing and promoting faculty systematically select individuals with intellectual skills and academic breadth, which means that the tenured faculty will be able to provide valuable services in other academic programs. Each case, however, is quite different. In response to recommendations by the Faculty Advisory Council, the University Senate and others I hope that one of our displaced faculty members could assist Vice Provost Lorraine Davis in individual career counseling and placement.

As indicated in my previous letter, we have looked carefully at the possible impact of proposed program reductions on under-represented faculty and students. It is true that the proportion of women faculty and under-represented minorities is larger in the targeted units than in many other departments and the University as a whole. The painful consequences of Measure 5 include the grievous loss of programs that have served so many women, minority and non-traditional students. The proposals, however, will not significantly alter the overall campus percentages. The percentage of women faculty currently is 37% and will be slightly reduced to 36% after the cuts are made. The overall percentage of under-represented ethnic groups remains the same after the proposed cuts (8%). -

The impact on student enrollment will depend upon recruitment efforts and retention rates but it appears that the same pattern will result. Prior to the proposed cuts women comprise 52% of the student population whereas afterwards that percentage may drop to 50%. Minority student representation is predicted to remain at 9%, even if all students in targeted programs leave. Still, the percentages of under-represented ethnic groups is far too low. he must redouble our recruitment efforts in the years ahead, as the Affirmative Action Task Force has recommended.

Finally, many of the letters express concern that closing Human Services, Gerontology, and Teacher Education will remove much of our current opportunities for undergraduate students interested in public and social services. Although the budget cuts are inevitable, I hope that the impact can be minimized. Undergraduate students interested in careers in teaching will still be able to complete a bachelors degree here in Physics, English, Japanese, etc. and then apply to a fifth year program elsewhere for certification. More of our undergraduate students in the social sciences and other fields could be placed in a governmental or social services agency internship. I will be asking some concerned faculty to review our internship opportunities with Larry Smith from the Career Planning and Placement Service to ensure that we have a coordinated and effective program of support for students interested in public and social service.

We have made and will continue to make every effort to minimize the impact of these budget cuts on our students and the state of Oregon. However, one cannot escape the cruel impact of these actions on those who have made personal sacrifices to build these fine academic programs, which have been a source of pride to Oregonians. As I think about the students and the many valuable ways these programs have served people throughout the state, I am angry about the dismantling of higher education, as an unanticipated consequence of a legitimate vote for tax reform. For the sake of future generations, I hope the citizens of the state and their elected representatives will recognize that this short-sighted destruction must stop.


Norman K. Wessells Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. NKW:rmh attachment

University of Oregon Summary of Proposed Academic Program Reductions and Reorganizations

Program Proposal Committee

College of Education Reorganized YES
Curriculum and Instruction Closed
Primary Teacher Education Closed
Secondary Teacher Education Closed
Educational Psychology Closed
Counseling Psychology Reduced and Reorganized -
College of Human Development Closed
and Performance
School and Community Health Closed
Gerontology Closed
Center for Gerontology Closed
Human Services Closed
Physical Education Closed
Health Teacher Education Closed
P.E. Teacher Education Closed

Leisure Studies and Services Reduced, Reorganized and Transferred YES

Dance 4 Transferred; Change in Reporting YES
Human Movement Science Separated and Transferred YES
(Biomechanics, exercise
physiology, motor control,
sports psychology)
Physical activities that are Separated and Transferred
Institute for Sport and Change in Reporting
Human Performance
School of Journalism Reorganized with Expanded Mission YES
School of Music Reorganized with Expanded Mission YES

School of Architecture and Allied Arts

Art Teacher Education Closed YES

College of Arts and Sciences

Speech Closed and Transferred
Classics Transferred; Change in Reporting YES
Religious Studies Transferred; Change in Reporting YES
Mathematics Teacher Education Closed
English Teacher Education Closed
Science Teacher Education Closed
Speech Teacher Education Closed

University Graduation Requirements

Health Education Removed (subject to faculty approval)

FOOTNOTES University of Oregon Summary of Proposed Academic Program Reductions and Reorganizations

1 The Provost will appoint a faculty committee drawn from DEPM, Special Education and Rehabilitation, Counseling Psychology, Special Education (Mildly handicapped) and other units on campus to develop a new mission for the remaining components of the College of Education and to consider an appropriate name change.

2 The Department of Leisure Studies and Services will be closed. Faculty will be transferred. The Graduate Dean will review the feasibility of continuing the current degree programs.

3. After the new Dean has been appointed, the faculty in the School of Music and the Department of Dance will be asked to develop a new academic plan.

4 Faculty in Human Movement Science and others from the College of Arts and Sciences will be asked to develop an academic plan and transition plan for the new department.

5 Transferred faculty who were formerly in the Department of Speech along with their colleagues in the School of Journalism will be asked to develop an academic plan for the new School.

6 A faculty committee drawn from Classics, Medieval Studies, Arts and Letters, Religious Studies and other College units will be asked to recommend a new organization structure(s).

The fundamental changes/cuts remain. The letter explains what changes were made and what was not changed. Students who have completed 90 hours toward their degree in programs that have been cut will be allowed to complete their degrees within two years. In the area of administration, the Provost said, some $500,000 was initially proposed, to be cut, but this grew to $850,000 and is now over $1.2 million. The University has 4.8% of its professional staff in administration, this figure is the lowest in the system by a considerable amount. So administration is not an easy area to cut.

The agony of what to do about promotion/tenure cases for those assistant professors that are coming up for review and have been cut has been troubling. It is possible for the individual to decide to proceed in the process of applying for promotion without tenure. This would give the rank of associate professor when the individual applied for another position. Having this rank might be an advantage in the job market. This decision will be made by individuals involved. Counseling will be available through the office of Vice Provost Lorraine Davis and faculty members who wish to take advantage of this service should contact her office.

Several decisions must still be made on the reorganization of some of the areas that are scheduled to move within schools/colleges. Deans, Department Heads and the involved faculty will make these decisions. The question of what to do with our very outstanding Debate program remains. It might be shifted to the Honors College, but the Debate program is very expensive in GTF costs and funding is uncertain.

President Brand returned to the Chair. Student Senator Aila Annikki Lehtonen, asked about the increase in non-resident tuition. The President replied that nonresident tuition did not now cover the full cost of instruction and that the increase was aimed at meeting this full cost. At present the cost of faculty, classroom use, etc. is not fully covered and the increase will remedy this. In total the increase will be close to $1,000.

Mr. John Nicols, History, queried as to the cuts in Instructors and GTFs that are used in large section lecture classes and how the cuts will hit these sections if no instructors or GTFs are available. The President pointed out that the increase in administrative cuts was made to provide a remedy to this problem. The Provost added that the frozen searches and other funds available within the Provosts reserve will be used to help remedy this problem, also. A cut of 3.2% to 4.5% in the total salary budget for instructors and GTFs will be available and that each Dean will be charged with determining how to put the curriculum together and use the total funds made available for instruction.

Mr. Leland Roth, Art History, wanted to know when we would know the final outcome of all of the cuts and what budget would be available to the University for 1991-93. The decision is both a legislative and political decision. The Legislature has to have a budget for the state by the end of June, so we should know at that time. However, if the decision is made to not allow the $200 surcharge more cuts will be made prior to the end of June and these cuts would reduce access to even more students than the proposed surcharge. The State Legislature will be the final place for all decisions. As of now everything the University has done and the other OSSHE institutions have or will do are proposals. The Legislature must react to the proposals and that is when the decision will be made.

Mr. Alexander Murphy, Geography, asked for an explanation of the surcharge and the amount of money it generates. Simple mathematics indicates a very large amount of money will be available. The President replied that the money collected from tuition is turned over to the State System. The University turns over more than it gets back. Another ingredient is fee remission for all GTFs and that the FTE enrollment at the University is around 15,000 and not the total enrolled of 18,000 plus. The money from the state to support higher education is mixed with tuition money at the system level and then in line with the Budget Allocation System, employed by the system, money is turned over to the campuses. The funds given back are not necessarily equal on all campuses.

Student Senator Lehtonen said that the programs being cut were good representatives of a diverse university and that cutting these programs would make the institution less diverse. How can these cuts be justified on that basis. The cuts cannot be justified on any basis, the cuts were forced upon us and are not of our own choosing. Ms. Becky Sisley, Physical Education, wanted to know who would work with the targeted faculty to work out problems, help make career decisions, etc. Vice Provost Davis will do this and it is planned to find some other qualified person to help her in this serious undertaking. All of the decisions involved will be one-on-one, personal and individual.

Ms. Judith Grosenick, Education, saw the whole thing as a 'done deal.' She had just finished the obituary for the 1991-92 catalog concerning the Teacher Education program and that three questions remain in her mind. She wondered if the central administration was cognizant of:

1) the message sent out in abdicating the training of education personnel, the training of leaders in the area of teaching in the public schools;

2) the impact of closing an entire program that is an integrated part of the campus that impacts on so many other areas of the University, e.g., foreign language teaching, special education, counseling, all an important part of the campus community;

3) what the nature of teacher education is on the campus.

The program in teacher education is geared toward advanced careers. It provides the leadership for public schools, it provides teachers and has the only accredited curriculum/instruction program in the State of Oregon. The President's reply was that no answer could be given as to why the programs were cut, again the cuts were forced upon the University.

Mr. Robert Gilberts, Education and Dean, presented the following statement:

I too can say this is the worst time in my professional career -some 40 years in a variety of roles in Education. At this point in the program elimination decision-making process I realize anything I have to say may at best elicit a sigh of relief from all those in the University that are not to be adversely affected by these recommendations. However, I want to say that it is with a great sense of sorrow and concern that I see the elimination not only of our curriculum and instruction and teacher education programs but other human service programs such as Gerontology, Human Services, and Physical Education.

Having worked with our faculty over the very trying previous ten years of budget cutbacks and seeing the major efforts that the faculty have made to develop and maintain high quality programs only to see them be wiped out is hard enough to bear. That action represents a tragedy of major proportions personally and professionally for many faculty and students as well as for me in my last year of service as dean.

An even greater sorrow is to see a major resource for the improvement of teaching and learning, and for professional leadership in the public schools, lost to Oregon -- not because of any qualitative deficiencies but for what I believe are primarily political and ideological reasons. This action constitutes a mortal blow to the College of Education. I believe it is also a bad decision for the larger University. It is hard to conceive that the ''liberal arts'' University is so disinterested in professional education as to eliminate it as a mission or to retreat from service programs to the various publics in Oregon. This course of action is surely short-sighted and will have long-term deleterious effect on the University.

In spite of knowing these program cuts are for all practical purposes a ìdone dealî I want to take this opportunity to be on record as a vehemently dissenting voice and a negative vote if voting were possible.

I doubt that any substantial analysis of costs and benefits of this decision have been made.

A great disservice is being done to higher education and the State of Oregon and its citizens as well as our students by these cuts. Vital programs are being eliminated and the University has no control over the situation, President Brand pointed out.

Mr. Glen Love, English, asked what the Chancellor was doing to counteract the cuts. Was he out "pounding the board, making the newspapers, the television news programs, bringing the message to the people and the legislature?"

Within Oregon and on the national level, the President pointed out, public school support by taxes ranks 15th in the nation, and support of higher education by taxes ranks 41st. With the present cuts in place this national ranking in public spending for higher education in Oregon will more than likely reduce the number to about 46th.

Mr. Jan Broekhoff, Human Development & Performance and Acting Dean, was recognized and he presented a protest of the cuts. Mr. Broekhoff commenced his statement that by saying that this was a memorial to Physical Education on campus. The Deans involved in the cuts were never involved in the decision making process until after the cuts were in place as the only communication was between the action team, the President and Provost. The President had indicated that communication could still be achieved between .'decision day" on Tuesday (January 29) and the following Friday. Provost Wessells encouraged written comments about the closures to be sent to his office by that Friday. Mr. Broekhoff said that his department heads send documentation to the Provost and he himself made a proposal to maintain School status because of the many complications arising from the management of a vast array of physical facilities.

Mr. Broekhoff went on to say that he waited on the following Monday for a telephone call from the Provost in case the action team and the Provost had questions. Dean Gilberts had the same experience, Mr. Broekhoff said. No call was forthcoming, and that the additional information, counter-proposals, and suggestions did not create any doubt in the decision makers mind.

The issue of maintenance of the physical facilities were of paramount interest to Mr. Broekhoff. With the academic side of the Physical Education Department sent to the College of Arts and Sciences, and the number of faculty reduced from 24 to 11, the question must arise as to who will maintain the facilities and at what cost. Those already doing it will do it at less expense than a new manager.

The College of Human Development and Performance has a fine national reputation, and specifically the Physical Education Department is among the top five in the nation. It was, he said, difficult to understand the closing of such a quality program within the state and the nation.

The faculty, he went on to say, is divided into two camps. One consists of those not hit by the cuts, and the second by those who were hit. Mr. Broelhoff quoted Ovidís line: "Tum tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet," "When your neighbors wall is on fire, you better make it your business." He urged the faculty not to ratify the cuts in any way and let the central administration take sole responsibility.

Mr. Donald Van Houten, College of Arts & Sciences and Dean, said that the seriousness of the situation is clear to all of the campus community, and that no sense of relief that they were not hit by the cuts can be found among those not touched by the knife. We all grieve together, for our colleagues, for our University, the entire situation is a shared experience, he concluded.

Ms. Diane Dunlap, DEPM, stated that she was upset about the cuts and that in the past she has not been tempted by other job offers. Hereafter, the job offers will be pursued and the message she will send will be "to let my feet do the talking"

President Brand offered a resolution to the Assembly.

Recognizing the devastation that the loss of tax support for education, cultural and social service programs caused by the passing of Measure 5, and in particular the impact that the program reductions at the University of Oregon will have on the lives of our students and faculty, the economy of our region, the competitiveness of Oregon's citizens, businesses, and cities, and the loss of potential to the entire world to address the issues of quality education, human health and welfare, and communication, the faculty of the University of Oregon enacts the following resolution:

We, the faculty at the University of Oregon, Urge our political and educational leaders to find and allocate alternative sources of state funding to prevent the unnecessary reduction of programs and student access at our University, at our sister institutions, and the other losses to the quality of life throughout the state. We Urge our legislators to act affirmatively and with courage in dealing with this challenge, and not to look the other way as Oregonís reputation for livability dies out.

Replacement revenue will be hard to come by in this session of the legislature, the President stated, but that the pressure must be kept on the legislature to come UP with a proposal or proposals for the voters to react to as soon as possible. It is possible that if revenue was provided during this session and before July l, 1991 it would be possible to undo the damage done in the cuts and to restore the programs. But if July l, 1991 passes the cuts will be permanent without additional revenue.

Ms. Geraldine Richmond, Chemistry, asked what the faculty could do to help counteract the cuts, to encourage the replacement of the cut funds. Communication with your State Legislature, writing him/her, and to a second part of the question from Ms. Richmond concerning how to alert students to the drastic cuts and what to do. The President added that it would be possible to call time out at the beginning or the end of a class and explain the cuts and what the students could do to counteract them. Mr. James O.Fallon, Law, interjected that the message sent should not be limited to the plight of higher education or the University, but the entire impact the cuts are having on all of the programs of the state. No one of the cuts should be acceptable and the message sent should take this broader position.


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

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly

There do not seem to have been March or April meetings of the assembly


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia on May 1, 1991 at 3:35 p.m. There being no corrections the minutes of February 6, 1991, meeting were approved as distributed.


President Brand stated that two memorials for recently deceased faculty members have been submitted for attachment to these minutes. By a standing vote the Assembly approved the memorials.

Professor Emeritus Marion Dean Ross, Architecture, passed away on April 1, 1991. Mr. Ross came to the University of Oregon in 1947 and served the University until his retirement in 1978. YOU will find his memorial on page 7 of these minutes.

Professor Emeritus William Handy, English, joined the University faculty in 1965 as a Visiting Associate Professor and in 1966 he accepted a regular appointment to the faculty. Mr. Handy retired in 1988 and passed away on January 11 1991 in Eugene. His memorial is on page 8 of these minutes.

The president announced that the body of Professor Emmanuel Hatzantonis been found this morning in the McKenzie River. Mr. Hatzantonis will be missed
dearly by his students, colleagues and the University. The University extends to
his wife and children its deepest sympathy for their tragic loss.

President Brand informed the Assembly that the State Legislature's Joint Ways and Means Committee reported out its initial budget for higher education today and that some '.add backs' were in the bill. One of the proposed 'add backs'' is a budget note that will reduce the number of students that will not be able to attend public higher education in Oregon from the OSSHE number of 6,000 to 4,000. The funds that will be made available for this reduction is only one-half of what will be required by the system to take the additional 2,000 students.

Some salary improvement money is being made available and the amount, although it is something, it is still far short of what is really needed. It is possible that a 4 - 6% increment over the next two years will occur in salaries. Deferred maintenance is being funded by the amount of $1.5 million. All of the money in the add backs is for the state system and not just the University of Oregon. The University will see about 25% of what will be available. However, it is important to note that the State Legislature has not acted on any of this and changes could be made, especially after the May 15, state economic forecast is released.

Replacement revenue has surfaced at the legislature and some discussion is taking place on this subject. Several proposals have been made, but none have been thoroughly discussed. On Saturday, May 4, the only hearing on replacement revenue will take place in Salem. One proposal that has been made is a sort of "safety net'. for higher education. That is because timely notice must be given the proposal is to allow the state system funds to operate at current levels through June 1993. That way if replacement revenue is not enacted the state system institutions would have one year to give timely notice to faculty members. President Brand pointed out that if nothing takes place by June 1992 all bets would be off and the survival of higher education in Oregon would be in serious trouble. It is doubtful if the system could service without some replacement revenue to off-set the next mandated part of Measure 5.


Mr. Norman Savage, President of the University Senate, was recognized to read the following motion:

The purpose of the P/N system is to encourage students to explore subjects outside their majors, minors, or special competencies without the threat of damaging their academic records.

Effective Fall 1991 for all newly admitted undergraduates earning a Bachelor's Degree after Summer 1996:

a. Courses offered solely on an ungraded basis will use P*/N* designation, whereas courses offered on a graded or pass/no pass basis will use P/N designation.

b. Of the total credits required for the Bachelor's Degree, students must earn 168 transfer or University of Oregon credits with grades of A, B, C, or P*. Forty-five (45) credits of A, B, C, or D must be earned at the University of Oregon.

c. P, P*, N, and N* grades will not be counted in the computation of the grade point average.

It is the intention of this legislation that P/NP courses be taken outside the student's major and minor fields; departments may set their own requirements in this regard.

Mr. Savage continued by stating that the University Senate passed the legislation by more than a two-thirds margin and the legislation was before the Assembly by petition of 15 voting faculty members.

Mr. Jack Bennett, Academic Advising, stated that this was a motion that the Senate Rules Committee developed because of problems with the present system and the new Banner System for student records. He reminded the group that the letter grade N* is the equivalent of D+ or less in the grading system.

Ms. Marliss Strange, Academic Advising, rose to move to make an amendment to the motion. She stated that the effective date of Summer 1996 should be changed to Summer 1995. This amendment was accepted. Mr. Savage stated that the motion, as passed by the Senate contained an error in b. The letter grade ìD'' was left out of the first sentence.

President Brand stated that this was an omission and the correction would be made. Mr. Savage also pointed our in a., following the word ''use.' the words .'a grade or' should be inserted. This was accepted. The motion was called for an by a voice vote it was overwhelmingly approved.

The final version of the legislation now reads:

The purpose of the P/N system is to encourage students to explore subjects outside their majors, minors, or special competencies without the threat of damaging their academic records.

Effective Fall 1991 for all newly admitted undergraduates earning a Bachelor's Degree after Summer 1995;

a. Courses offered solely on an ungraded basis will use P*/N* designation, whereas courses offered on a graded or pass/no pass basis will use a grade or P/N designation.

b. Of the total credits required for the Bachelor's Degree, students must earn 168 transfer or University of Oregon credits with grades of A, B, C, D, or P*. Forty-five (45) credits of A, B, C, or D must be earned at the University of Oregon.

c. P, P*, N, and N* grades will not be counted in the computation of the grade point average.

It is the intention of this legislation that P/NP courses be taken outside the student's major and minor fields; departments may set their own requirements in this regard.

Mr. Savage was recognized to read the following motion:

Satisfactory completion of a course in personal health will not be required for a bachelor's degree conferred by the University of Oregon after the end of Spring Term 1991.

Mr. Savage said that the Senate had approved this motion by the required two thirds margin, but since this was a curriculum matter it automatically comes to the floor of the Assembly. The motion is based on the budget cutting that was done in February to meet the demands of the Governor and Measure 5. Mr. Bennett stated that the realities of the situation forced the Academic Requirements Committee to accept this motion, but that they want to express that wellness is an important issue and deplores the loss of this requirement.

Mr. Peter Gilkey, Chair of the Student Conduct Committee, introduced an amendment to the motion.

The student conduct Committee believes that there is a direct relationship between drug and alcohol abuse by students and violations of the student conduct code. It strongly believes that reduction of drug and alcohol abuse would reduce violation of student conduct rules. It therefore proposes the following amendment:

If the Health Requirement is eliminated, the University should develop and implement an effective and mandatory drug and alcohol abuse education program for all undergraduate students.

Mr. Richard Schlaadt, Leisure Studies, was recognized to make a presentation on the need of a course on drug education and alcohol abuse.

Proposed Mandate of Need

1. Continuous news coverage of ongoing drug problem.

2. OSU research (reported 4/26/91) results indicate students graduation from Oregon public schools and attending Portland State University, Oregon State University, and University of Oregon scored extremely low on a substance abuse knowledge test. This contradicts the notion that students are receiving adequate drug education in Oregon high schools.

3. Recent reports on violence, crime, automobile accidents, etc., show a high correlation to substance abuse.

Demand =

1. Students are signing up in large numbers for drug classes and conferences currently being offered through the University of Oregon (also Continuing Education). The UO Substance Abuse Prevention Program (SAPP) will generate over 3,000 student credit hours with an extremely small faculty. Many conferences (Drugs and Rape, and Drugs and AIDS) are attracting over 300 students.

2. Over 400 students have signed a petition requesting that more drug courses be offered (a minor).

Implementation (2 options)

1. Option #1 - 1 college credit; Option #2 - 2 college credits.

2. Utilize existing drug courses (meet over 1,000 students each year).

3. Initiate a new series of 1- or 2-hour drug education courses that go beyond "giving the facts"' and address drug issues.

Budget - Designed to meet approximately 3,000 students (2 hours)

1 Assistant Professor/Senior Instructor $26,000
2 Adjunct Professor 3,000
7 Graduate Teaching Fellows 46,410
Plus OPE

Note GTF courses 50
Adjunct Professors 75 Some classes could be larger
Professor 75

1 hour - Probably close to $40,000.

Ms. Elaine Green, Student Conduct Coordinator, stated that the Student Conduct Committee has found a direct relationship between alcohol abuse and violations of the Student Conduct Code. The requirement for some type of education on health and substance abuse is necessary if even more violations of the Code are to be avoided. Mr. William Holser, Geology, asked what are we eliminating? and what is proposed to be put back? Mr. Schlaadt stated that a great deal is being lost, the cost of any put back is expensive and that it is difficult to change behavior through any approach, but that the suggested amendment is a move to continue to address the problem directly.

Ms. Marliss Strange asked how many took the class and later violated the rules? No study has been done on this, the Assembly was told.

Mr. Barry Siegel, Economics, said that this was a shotgun approach and that not all students needed this type of course. Perhaps the aim of the course could be narrowed to those who need the education. Mr. Gerard Moseley, Vice Provost Student Services, stated that the federal government requires the University to explain what we are doing in this area, report repeat violations of the code, and other things. He said that in the future the rules would probably tighten and force the offering of some type of course as this if an institution receives any federal dollars.

The amendment was on the floor and defeated by a voice vote. The original motion was now called for and was approved by a hand vote of 26 yes and 18 no.

Mr. Donald Van Houten, Sociology, stated that the issue would not go away and that it is a problem the University must address in a serious manner. President Brand said that he agreed and that the University will work toward the establishment of some type of program to address the concerns of substance abuse.




The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:46 p.m.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly

Marion Dean Ross June 6, 1913 - April 1, 1991

Marion Ross, as he would have wished, died quietly in his sleep during the night of April 1. Within 48 hours word of his passing was going out across this country and abroad, attesting to the breadth of his influence and friendships.

He came to the University of Oregon as an assistant professor of architecture in 1947, having graduated from Penn State and Harvard, served in the United States Army in World War II, and taught at Tulane and Penn State. While his training was in architecture, his curiosity about all the visual arts was boundless and his knowledge awesome. Beginning with his own modest course on the history of art and architecture, he created a department of art history that had advanced to awarding the Ph.D. by the time of his retirement in 1978. The quality of the faculty that he recruited and the vigor of the program that he encouraged are measured by the department's inclusion as one of twenty-four in the nation to received support from the prestigious Samuel H. Kress Foundation.

In his thirty-one years of teaching and indeed beyond Marion, whose courses were never easy, touched generations of architectural students, helping them to grow through knowledge and understanding of the worldís architectural heritage. he was an indefatigable traveler, going twice around the world, seeing for himself buildings and gardens of all times and places, bringing firsthand experience and his own photographs back to his students.

Harion, who was something of a Victorian or Edwardian by nature, took his keenest interest in the architecture of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. At a time when many architects and critics were mesmerized by the steel and glass of Gropius and Mies van der Rohe he was one of the first to recognize the strengths of great Victorian architects. As he became acquainted with the buildings of Oregon from this period he devoted much time and effort to searching them out and promoting their preservation. He served on the State of Oregon Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation from 1970 to 1976 and at the time of his death was still being called upon for his expertise. He was, for example, one of the key figures in the historic preservation work in Jacksonville.

A Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts in London, Narion was also a member of fourteen other learned societies in the United States and Great Britain. In 1940, while still a student at Harvard, he was a founding member of the Society of Architectural Historians for which with, with six of the living founders, he was honored at the 50th Anniversary meeting in Boston a year ago. He served on its Board of Directors, the nominating and book review committees, and in 1949 arranged to have the School of Architecture and Allied Arts become one of its earliest institutional members.

He lived modestly, enjoying good food, wine, and cigars, with no patience whatever with incompetence or pretension. His outward appearance was many times curmudgeonly, but it concealed a heart of gold. A very special presence on the University of Oregon campus is gone, but Marion Ross will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, I request that this memorial be made part of the official and permanent minutes of this meeting.

Marian C. Donnelly

William Handy

William Handy's teaching and writing career began as an instructor at the University of Texas in 1954, the year he received his Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma. He came to Oregon as a visiting Associate Professor in English in 1965, and in 1966 he became a permanent member of the English staff. He served briefly as an associate dean of the College of Liberal Arts from 1969 to 1970. He was a distinguished scholar, a beloved teacher, and a treasured colleague. he died on January 1l, 1991 from complications with Alzheimer's disease. He will be missed by all of US.

Bill wrote two important books which were published by leading university presses. Kant and the Southern New Criticism (University of Texas Press, 1963) is a major contribution to Understanding the theoretical assumptions behind the so-called "New Criticism," which was the dominate paradigm for literary study in this country during the 1950s and ë60s. His other book, Modern Fiction: A Formalist Approach (Southern Illinois Press, 1971), reflects his career-long interest in developing critical methods for making close analyses of fiction. He also edited two important books on the New Criticism. A symposium on Formalist Criticism (University of Texas Press, 1965) and Twentieth Century Criticism: The Major Texts (Macmillian Free Press, 1974). For many years Bill was one of the best-known publishing scholars in the humanities at Oregon. His articles on fiction and criticism appeared in leading journals in his field and were frequently reprinted.

He gave lectures and presented papers at universities and scholarly meetings around the world: in Memphis, Dallas and Dublin, North Dakota and Winnipeg, Seattle and Rouen. He was a visiting professor in France and Yugoslavia, as well as at the University of Missouri, the University of north Dakota, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Bill was a very committed and enthusiastic teacher. Students always spoke of the excitement he brought to the field of literary criticism and for providing insights into literature which they never suspected. His "Existentialism in Literature, course, as well as his seminars in Faulkner, were among the most enthusiastically received courses in the English Department. Countless students, Undergraduate and graduate, were changed by his teaching. And that may well by his most enduring legacy.

Mr. President, we request that this memorial be made a part of the official and permanent minutes of this meeting and that copies be sent to the immediate family by the Secretary of the University Assembly.

John Haislip Paul Armstrong

Professor of English, Emeritus Professor of English


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 133 Gilbert on June 5, 1991 at 3:40 p.m. There being no corrections of the minutes of the May 1, 1991 meeting, they were approved as distributed.


Mr. Peter Sherman, Mathematics, passed away at his home in Marcola on April 16, 1991. Mr. Sherman had been on the University faculty from 1960 until his retirement in 1986. A memorial for Mr. Sherman is on page of these minutes.

Mr. Richard Desroches, Romance Languages, was recognized to read a memorial for Mr. Emmanuel S. Hatzantonis. Mr. Hatzantonis was a member of the Romance Language Department and University faculty from 1959 until his death. The memorial can be found on page 4 of these minutes.

Attached you will find the annual report from the Faculty Advisory Council on page 6.


The Secretary read the following statement for the approval of Degrees:

I move that the faculty of the University of Oregon recommend that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the official degree list for Fall 1990 and Winter 1991 and those who will complete the requirements for their degrees in Spring 1991 and Summer 1991 the degrees they have completed.

Without discussion this motion was passed without dissent.




President Brand introduced Mr. Gerald Kissler, Senior Vice Provost, to discuss the recent retreat of those involved in Strategic Planning task forces during the past year. (The President has circulated to each faculty member the reports of each of the task forces.) Mr. Kissler stated that in the fall the comprehensive report will be available. This report will be an integration of all the recommendations and will present a coherent strategic plan for the University.

President Brand made a presentation concerning the past year's budget cuts and the future of the University as it is known presently. The President said that out of state tuition was not off the B.A.S. Model and the University will be able to retain this money. The add-backs in the process of being acted upon by the State Legislature will give to OSSHE funds for salary increases beyond the three percent in the Governorís budget, fund some facility maintenance, and tuition reduction.

Mr. Alvin Urquhart, Geography, asked if the additional salary money would address the salary compression issue and the President replied that the Senate will be addressing this problem during the next academic year, but equity would be a part of the added salary funds. Mr. Ronald Rousseve, Counseling Psychology, agreed that equity needed to be studied but that across-the-board increases would be best as it would give everyone an increase. The President stated that market differences influence equity, and that it might be possible to allow the different schools and colleges to decide on distribution thus making the decisions as local as possible. Perhaps the central administration could establish a norm with a recommended distribution, but the schools and colleges could deviate from the norm with written reasons for doing so.


The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at sine die at 3:40 p.m.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly


Peter R. Sherman, a retired senior instructor in mathematics at the University of Oregon, died at his home in Marcola on April 16, 1991 at age 67. Sherman was born on March 26, 1924 in Shanghai, China. He and his family moved to Claremont, California in 1931.

Peter Sherman served as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army in the Second World War, after which he returned to the University of Oregon as a student. His major study was mathematics, receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in 1947 and a Master of Science degree in 1949. His Masterís thesis was written under the direction of Professor Frank Wood, on a topic in geometry.

In the fall of 1949, Peter Sherman enrolled in the Pacific School of Religion in California, earning a Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1952. He then served as a minister for the United Church of Christ in California, in Wyoming, and in the greater Portland area before returning to the University of Oregon in 1960. Peter Sherman taught mathematics at the University Until his retirement in 1986. With a genial personality, a spontaneous sense of humor, and a friendly demeanor, Sherman was well-liked by students and faculty. Accessible and cooperative, he was active on campus committees, notably the Student Conduct Committee.

Peter Sherman was a member of the Eugene Gleemen, the First Congregational Church, the Harcola School Board, and the Marcola Neighborhood Watch. Also, he was a member of the Board of Directors of the SCAR/Jasper Mountain Agency, featuring a school, a residential treatment center, and educational programs for abused children.

Peter Sherman is survived by his wife, Anne, of Marcola and four children: Dan Paul Sherman of San Bruno, California, Loren Joan Ball of Springfield, Eugene Frazell of Portland, and Nartha Sherman of Mohave Valley, Arizona, and also two brothers, William Sherman of Spokane, and John C. Sherman of Milwaukee, Oregon.

Submitted by Ivan Niven


Emmanuel Hatzantonis was born on the island of Symi, Greece, May 20, 1925, immigrated to the United States in 1947 and six years later became an American citizen. After a B.A. in French and Italian from the City College of New York in 1952, an M.A. in Italian from Columbia University in 1953, he earned a Ph.D. in Romance Languages and Literatures from UC, Berkeley, in 1958. After that came marriage, three children, and a grandchild.

His career at the University of Oregon began in 1959 as an Instructor of French, Spanish, and Italian, but as he rose through the academic ranks to Professor of Italian in 1971, he developed the Italian section from one or two courses of elementary language to its present strength. Now a substantial number of M.A. and Ph.D. students in Romance Languages, Comparative Literature, and other related areas, take Italian as either their major or minor field. During this period he still managed to serve in a visiting role at San Jose State University in 1961-62, and at the University of Colorado in 1968-69. He also directed the OSSHE Studies Center at the University of Pavia, Italy, in 1966-67, and organized the University of Oregon Summer Session in Perugia, Italy, which he directed eight times between 1973 and 1990.

While engaged in this activity Emmanuel maintained a stead production of scholarly articles, book reviews, and papers for various regional, national, and international professional conferences, with guest lectures at four universities in Australia, and at the Italian University for Foreigners in Perugia, Italy. Among the honors he received one can mention a scholarship for study in Italy from the City College of New York, and research grants from San Jose State University and the University of Oregon. In recent years he was named to the editorial boards of Forum Italicum and Italica, the latter being the oldest and best known journal of Italian studies in this country. As Emmanuel led the University of Oregon Italian section to prominence on the West Coast, and as his own reputation grew here and abroad, he was asked to contribute profiles of writers to the Dictionary of Italian Literature and to the Encyclopedia of World Literature in the 20th Century, and on occasion university administrators from outside Oregon sought his advice in assessing Italian programs of their own.

With all this tremendous outpouring of energy one might think that Emmanuel would have had little time to devote to teaching. This was not the case, however, for he not only taught all areas of Italian at Oregon, especially the advanced literature courses (the only other Italianist in the department was a senior instructor), he also contributed regularly to the programs in Humanities, Comparative Literature, and the Freshman seminars, usually carrying an extra unpaid teaching load to do so. These were not courses ill prepared and hastily thrown together if we are to judge by the superior evaluations he consistently received from his students. On several occasions he was nominated for the Ersted or Burlington awards for outstanding teaching. Emmanuel was a well-loved Professor because he took such a sincere interest in the studies and welfare of his students, often stopping them on the street or in the EMU to inquire how their vacation had gone, what they were planning to do after graduation, and inviting them to stop by and visit whenever they were in Eugene.

Emmanuel was indeed a true Renaissance man with an interest in intellectual pursuits and the arts, a widely traveled man (Europe, Australia, and the United States), always eager to see new places and to make new friends, but he could also appreciate a number of other pleasures attractive to the well-rounded man -swimming, dancing, the culinary arts (his dinner parties featured the best of Italian and Greek cuisine), fishing, and, last but not least enjoyed, his friendly weekly poker game. In short, Emmanuel lived life to its fullest and with gusto. Thus it was with shock, disbelief, and profound sadness we learned that on Hay 1 he had taken his life in the McKenzie River. His death seems inexplicable. This was not the Emmanuel we had known, who loved life and who had contributed so generously of himself to the University. The Emmanuel that we shall remember will forever be the vibrant personality, the wise scholar, the caring teacher, our dear friend and colleague.

Submitted by Richard H. Desroches Associate Professor June 5, 1991

Mr. President, I request that This memorial be made part of the official and permanent minutes of this meeting and that copies be sent to the immediate family by the Secretary of the University.

FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL 1990-91 Report to University Assembly June 5, 1991

This academic year was divided into parts. We began in an extremely optimistic mood for the University. There appeared to be general agreement between both candidates for Governor and by the Legislature that Higher Education had been underfunded and that faculty salaries and the Universityís infrastructure were in need of help. The Universityís planning process seemed on track and we were planning on wrapping up the process by the end of Winter 1991. This was also to be a year when FAC and the new administration began to discuss the possibilities of new directions while maintaining the best from the past. Quite obviously the tone changed after the passage of Measure 5. Whereas all had envisioned the year as one of planning and initiatives, it became one of re-action.

While the Faculty Advisory council did not take part in the first round of hearings concerning the cuts, that was done by the Measure 5 Subcommittee, we have spent most of this year reacting to the reality of losing 1/10 of our budget. Surely this time will be remembered by faculty in the future with the same disbelief and horror that has always accompanied reports of the closure of sciences at the University in the 1930s. The University will never be the same institution it was prior to this year. We have lost extremely strong programs and more importantly strong and loyal faculty. For the University, its faculty, staff and students, it has been a tragic time. It is perhaps not yet understood throughout the State of Oregon that by limiting the options of the population for higher education, that the State has suffered a great loss.

The President brought to us policy changes and the implications of such on a weekly bases. This was frustrating for everyone as things often changed very much outside the University's control so that we would often be back the next week hearing a report of the same issue, but now based upon very different premises. We also kept in very close contact with the Provost's Office and the Graduate School for reports on progress in dealing with students and faculty caught in closed programs. Again, we could make suggestions and at times these suggestions were instituted, but changing circumstances often made problem solving attempts moot. All of us often felt we were caught in some horrible decision making experiment, one which was designated to force decisions with as little information as possible, with as little time as possible, and with little concern for the long-term outcome. There is no doubt that in the process of reacting to crises, the University did not deal with ongoing, longer-term problems so that frustration levels on all sides are very high.

The reactive mode that the whole system is in is particularly unfortunate for the University. We have an almost totally new administration and after the honeymoon period of the first year, we were ready to get down to work. The faculty has many questions about either real or perceived changes in direction and the administration has its own concerns. The Planning Process was designed to foster dialogue which has not yet been completed.

Of course, the normal everyday problems which arise around the University did not stop this year. We have discussed with the President many such issues: the Law School Accreditation Problems, minority issues, affirmative action, etc. In addition, members of FAC serve as ex-officio members of several committees, both standing such as the Distinguished Service Award and ad-hoc such as the Measure 5 Task Force. In addition, there were numerous housekeeping duties such as naming of streets, buildings, and rooms which were attended to during the year.

We have also met with other administrators throughout the year. For instance, we have also attempted to keep in touch with the implementation of the Banner system and Telephone registration by meeting with the Registrar and Computing Center Staff. We have met with Stead Upham, Graduate Dean, several times during the year and find his plans for development of the Graduate School exciting. We have met with both Diane Wong of the Affirmative Action Office and Peter Swan to discuss policies and procedures which will be fair to those filing a complaint and those who have been accused in Affirmative Action cases. This is an issue of continuing concern to many groups on campus and undoubtedly will be a topic of conversation during the next academic year.

As mentioned earlier in the report due to the press of Measure 5 issues, we have not been able to discuss with the President and Provost some ongoing issues which are of concern to us as faculty members. The issue of providing adequate daycare for the children of faculty and staff has been set aside since the beginning of the year and still needs additional attention. The evaluation of teaching which is extremely important to President Brand and which we had begun to discuss at his initiation was also set aside. We as faculty are extremely concerned that the issue of academic freedom and freedom of speech has arisen several times this year and we feel that we need to reaffirm the University as an institution where above all free speech is protected even though that speech might offend one or more groups. We are particularly concerned about the recent case in which a criminal type investigative was instituted against material which might be considered offensive, but which as far as we can determine could not be considered illegal. We are very pleased that Robert McNeil, a leading scholar on the First Amendment Rights. He will be an extremely timely speaker for the campus.

Finally, the extremely important issue of Faculty Governance has been set aside this year. We were just beginning to discuss this issue when Measure 5 passed. There has been concern expressed to us by many faculty members concerning the tendency for this new administration to appoint and depend upon ad-hoc committees even when regular faculty committees are in place is one difficulty with faculty committees feeling they have charge. The University Senate has begun a review of the Committee Structure which we believe is very important. Another area where we have been approached by faculty concerns is the Tenure and Promotion Process. We have had only a little time this year to discuss with the Provost his perceptions of the process and feel that next yearís committee should make this a priority area. While planning and change are important, it is important for us as a Faculty to understand just what we have in the way of governance and what is and is not working. We hope that next yearís council will be able to carry on a dialogue with the administration which will plan for the future, but will preserve the qualities which have enabled this University to maintain a quality faculty through much adversity.

Beverly Fagot (Chair) Susan Lesyk
Sam Boggs Lou Osternig (Winter and Spring)
Linda Ettinger Mike Posner
Jeff Hurwit Dick Stein
Jim Lemert Joe Wade
John Reynolds (Fall)


During the past academic year, 1990-91, the University Senate passed the following legislation. This legislation was not taken to the University Assembly and thus the legislation stands as passed by the Senate. The minutes of the noted Senate meetings are available from the Secretary of the Faculty. On October 10, 1990 the University Senate voted to make alterations/changes in the Student Conduct Code. The final form of this legislation is published in the University OAR 571-21021, and OAR 571-21-036. On December 12, 1990 the Senate voted to change the membership and number of faculty on the Graduate Council. Following is the legislation:

To amend the legislation of the University Faculty (now Assembly) of March 4, 1970.

I. That the Graduate Council, which shall also be an advisory committee to the Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, shall consist of six members of the College of Arts and Sciences, representing tow form the Sciences, two from the Social Sciences, and two from the Humanities; and, six members from the Professional Schools/Colleges, representing one from the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, one from the College of Education, one from the College of Business Administration, one from the College of Human Development and Performance, one from the School of Journalism, and one from the School of Music. Two student members nominated by the President of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon and appointed by the President of the University. One of these students must be from a program leading to a masterís degree and one must be from a graduate program leading to a doctoral degree.

II. That the faculty members of the Graduate Council shall be elected for three year terms by the general faculty, and in accordance with the procedures used to elect the Faculty Advisory Council. The process of electing and established terms is explained in VI below.

III. That the student members of the Graduate Council shall be appointed one-year terms, with the student representing the doctoral ranks subject to reappointment to a second term, given the approval of the Graduate Council membership and nominating and appointing bodies.

IV. The Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, who shall be an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Graduate Council, shall be empowered to appoint other ex-officio, non-voting members to represent important constituencies of graduate students and faculty as needed.

V. All faculty members elected to the Graduate Council shall come from departments that have graduate major programs that lead to graduate degrees and are conducted under the jurisdiction of the Graduate School.

VI. Election Process. The following schedule of elections shall be implemented by the Secretary of the University Faculty to insure that the Graduate Council shall have 12 members from the faculty commencing in Spring 1991.

1. The terms of office for members of the Graduate Council elected in the Fall of 1989 shall end in June 1991.

2. The terms of office for members of the Graduate Council elected in the Fall of 1990 shall end in June 1992.

3. In the Spring of 1991 four (4) persons shall be elected to the Graduate Council from the College of Arts and Sciences and four (4) from the Professional Schools/Colleges. Those nominated and elected shall represent constituencies not represented by the carry-over members of the Council. Two (2) of each group of four (4) shall be elected to two-year terms and two (2) of each group shall be elected to three-year terms. The length of terms shall be determined by the drawing of straws.

4. In the Spring of 1992 two (2) persons shall be elected from the College of Arts and Sciences and two (2) persons shall be elected from the Professional Schools and Colleges. Those nominated and elected shall meet the criteria in I above for the balancing of the Council according to constituency. The term of office for those elected in 1992 shall be for three years.

5. In the Spring of 1993 two (2) persons shall be elected from both the College of Arts and Sciences and the Professional Schools/Colleges. Number IV above shall guide the selection of candidates and the term of office shall be three years.

6. The following schedule will have been established by 1994:

1994....two persons from each CAS and Prof. C/S....three-year terms. 1995....two persons from each CAS and Prof. C/S....three-year terms.

1996; two persons from each CAS and Prof. C/S three-year terms. On January 18, 1991 the University Senate voted to change the representation on he Faculty Advisory Council. The following is the legislation:

1. That no more than one (1) person from the same department of the College of Arts and Sciences shall serve on the Faculty Advisory Council at the same time.

2. That no more than one (1) person form the Professional Schools/Colleges shall serve on the Faculty Advisory Council at the same time. This legislation will go into effect with the Spring 1991 election. On March 13, 1991 the University Senate passed the following legislation concerning P/N grades:

The purpose of the P/N system is to encourage students to explore subjects outside their majors, minors, or special competencies without the threat of damaging their academic records.

Effective Fall 1991 for all newly admitted undergraduates and for all undergraduates earning a Bachelor's Degree after -Summer 1996:

a. Courses offered solely on an ungraded basis will use P*/N* designation, whereas courses offered on a graded or pass/no pass basis will use a P/N designation.

b. Of the total credits required for the Bachelor's Degree, students must earn 168 transfer or University of Oregon credits with grades of A, B, C, or P*. Forty-five (45) credits of A, B, C, or D must be earned at the University of Oregon.

c. P, P*, N, and N* grades will not be counted in the computation of the grade point average.

It is the intention of this legislation that P/NP courses be taken outside the student's major and minor fields; departments may set their own requirements in this regard.

On April 10 1991, the University Senate passed the following legislation concerning the Committee on Committees:

Effective May 4, 1991 and amending Faculty legislation of February 7, 1962 and February 10, 1988:

The words: ',These members shall be appointed by the Faculty Advisory Council'' shall be replaced by: ''The University Senate, acting on the recommendation of its Nominating Committee, shall appoint the members of the Committee on Committees. The Senate shall appoint the members of the Committee for the following academic year no later than its lasts meeting of Spring term.'

The words: ,'The Committee reports directly to the President and recommends to the President the personnel of any Committee established by Faculty legislation and such other committees as the President may designate.'' Shall be replaced by: ''The Committee on Committees shall report to the Senate President its recommendations for the personnel of all faculty committees established by faculty legislation. The Senate President shall convey these recommendations to the University President. Before making appointments, the University President shall confer with the Senate President and the Committee on Committees. In order to facilitate timely discussion of these nominations, the recommendations should be submitted to the University President by May 15.

''The Committee on Committees shall, at the request of the University President, recommend the faculty personnel of any other committees the University President may designate.'

On April 10, 1991 the University Senate passed the following legislation concerning the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate:

Effective for vacancies occurring after June 1, 1991.

The three representatives to the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) shall be selected by the following process:

Candidates for two positions (referred to as Senate positions) shall be nominated by the University Senate Nominating Committee (and from the floor of the University Senate) from the faculty membership of the University Senate, and shall be elected by the University Senate. Those elected to the Senate positions are not required to remain elected University Senate members for their full IFS terms.

One position (referred to as the At-Large position) shall be nominated by the petition/Committee-on-Committees process, and shall be elected by the faculty by mail ballot.

The three Interinstitutional Faculty Senators shall designate one of their number to report to the University Senate after every IFS meeting. All three Interinstitutional Faculty Senators shall either be elected members of the University Senate or shall be made ex officio non-voting members of the University Senate.

Their terms for the IFS shall be three years, with staggered terms. Replacements for vacancies of one year or less in any IFS position shall be appointed by the University Senate President. Vacancies of more than one year shall be filled by the normal process (by the University Senate for the Senate positions, by faculty vote for the At-Large positions) for the remainder of the term.

On May 8, 1991 the University Senate passed the following legislation concerning remedial courses and the cumulative University of Oregon GPA:

Effective Fall term 1990:

Grades earned in remedial courses are not used in calculating a student's term or cumulative grade point average.

Effective Fall term 1991:

A student's cumulative University of Oregon grade point average will be determined by including all attempted credit hours at the University of Oregon for the following grades: A, B, C, D, and F.

If a course is repeated, all grades will be included in the calculation of the grade point average.

A student may not earn credit for a non-repeatable course more than once. If a non-repeatable course with a grade of A, B, C, or D is repeated, the credit earned after the first attempt will be excluded from the studentís total credits earned. Earned credit will not be given for courses repeated beyond the limit stated in the University of Oregon Bulletin. Those courses that are repeated and do not earn credit will be identified with a "M'' in the Repeated Course Field on the students academic record.

On May 22, 1991 the University Senate passed the following legislation concerning Honorary Degrees and the composition of the Distinguished Service Award Committee.

It is hereby moved that the University Faculty legislation of April 12, 1939,

on the subject of the granting of Honorary Degrees be repealed and that University Faculty legislation of May 2, 1956, on the composition of the Distinguished Service Award Committee be hereby amended.

1. The University of Oregon shall offer the following criteria for awarding of Honorary Degrees.

A. To an individual or individuals who has/have shown outstanding scholarship or artistic achievement in their lifetime;

B. To an individual or individuals who has/have performed extraordinary public service or distinguished service in their lifetime.

2. No honorary degree shall be granted by the University of Oregon to any person(s) who is/are currently employed by the Oregon State System of Higher Education, or to any person(s) currently holding elective office within the United States.


1. The Distinguished Service Award Committee shall be expanded an shall include the following:

The President of the University of Oregon or his/her designee Chair of the Faculty Advisory Council President of the University Senate Chair, Graduate Council Director of the University of Oregon Alumni Association President of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon President of the Student Senate Five (5) teaching faculty members

2. This Committee shall in early October commence the eliciting of applicants from the University community as well as from the broader community of the State of Oregon the names of individuals who have met the criteria given in 1A and 1B above.

A. The Committee shall screen all applications, ask for more information if needed about the nominees, and investigate, to their satisfaction that the - nominee(s) meet the criteria given above.

B. The committee shall be limited to no more than two nominees per year gong forward for final consideration of the awarding of an honorary degree.

C. It will be the responsibility of the Committee to judge each nominee in the initial nominating process to decide which two (2) nominees to send forward to the University Senate as the nominees supported by the Committee.

D. The Committee shall do all of its work on honorary degrees in the strictest of confidence.

E. The University Senate, in Executive Session, shall discuss the candidates presented by the Committee. Members of the Committee shall make the presentations in support of the nominee(s) separately.

F. The University Senators shall discuss, ask questions of the presentators from the Committee if necessary, and shall vote separately on each nominee. A vote of two-thirds is necessary for the nomination to be approved.

G. The President of the University Senate shall formally inform the President of the University of Oregon of positive vote(s) of the Senate only. Nominees failing to get the two-thirds vote shall not be forwarded to the University President. All documentation on successful nominees shall be turned over to the University President of the University Senate.

H. The President of the University shall forward to the State Board of Higher Education the name(s) of those to be honored by the University of Oregon by the granting of an honorary degree. When the State Board of Higher Education has approved the name(s) submitted by the University of Oregon for this honor the President of the University shall formally notify the candidates and invite them to take part in Spring commencement. Names of successful candidates must be forwarded to the State Board of Higher Education at least 90 days prior to the awarding of the degree.

April 1991

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 of Deady Spider Enterprises