November 7, 1995MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 (Please note: These minutes are published late as the Secretary had to await the creation of a new voting list so the minutes could be distributed.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES President David Frohnmayer called the meeting to order at 3:09 p.m. in Columbia 150 on September 27, 1995. The minutes of the May 3rd and May 17th, 1995 meetings of the University Assembly were approved as distributed. It was announced that following this meeting a reception would be held in Collier House. In addition the President announced that the annual report of the Faculty Advisory Council and the Faculty Personnel Committee would be a part of these minutes. MEMORIALS Mr. Louis Osternig, Exercise and Movement Science, was recognized to read a memorial for Mr. H. Harrison Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Physical Education. Mr. Clarke was on the faculty of the University of Oregon from 1953 until his retirement in 1974. Mr. Clarke passed away in Eugene on June 8, 1995 at the age of 92. INTRODUCTION OF NEW FACULTY Vice President for Academic Affairs John Moseley introduced the Deans who in turn introduced new faculty members. The Assembly gave their new colleagues a warm welcome. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY President Frohnmayer presented the following address. I begin with my thanks, sincere greetings, and welcome both to returning faculty and the new faces among us. During my first months as interim President of the university, and since I accepted the post on a permanent basis, I have appreciated the fact that you have "cut me some slack," under both personal and professional circumstances. This has allowed our new administrative team to develop a style of leadership with which the campus seems comfortable, and in turn, your hard work and teamwork has unleashed an enormous amount of creative energy. Creative energy is the fuel that drives this campus. I want to talk about how we have used that energy to great advantage in the past year and where it might take us in the year to come. Let me first, however, offer some context for my remarks on the state of the university. And that context comes, as it must for a great public university, from the society around us. The efforts we are engaged in at the University of Oregon are integrally tied to and arise from our community - or I should say "communities," because our constituencies and concerns extend from our locality to regional, national and international arenas of action. In appearances around the state this year, I have expressed repeatedly my conviction that this is not the Great University of Somewhere, but the University of OREGON. The work of each of us is affected directly or indirectly, for good or ill, by the level of pride that students and community members feel for us, by the level of support we receive from our state government, by the level of respect we engender in funding agencies and from donors. It is easy to look around the exquisite emerald acres of our beautiful campus, and to believe that we are a place apart. But we are not an isolated island of thought and beauty, disengaged and distant from our society. What happens in the world outside our campus determines in great measure the health of our enterprise - and increasingly, our enterprise helps determine the health of our larger society. It is this vital relationship between our university and the larger communities around us that I wish first to address. If there is one word that encapsulates the times in which we live, it is change, unprecedented technological, economic, social and political change. The word "change" itself is an inadequate descriptor. Our world has become one of continuous, unsettling and accelerating transformation. By one estimate, more technological advances were made in the last years of the 1980s than in the entire 140 years of the Industrial Revolution. The effects of this metamorphosis - particularly in computerization, industrial automation, robotics, and our ability to store, retrieve and disseminate vast quantities of information (both useful and useless) - alter our lives daily. One direct effect of this New Technological Revolution is a transfiguration of the world economy. Weekly we witness instability in the mammoth industrial and retail giants of our recent past as they downsize, rightsize, or capsize. The results are personal as well as corporate. The generation now being taught in our classrooms will, it is estimated, change jobs or professions on average four or five times during their lives. And we don't know what most of those callings will be, because they haven't been invented yet. Fully 70 percent of the occupational categories now described in Department of Labor listings did not exist in 1940. The human consequences are especially evident here in Oregon. Our economy has been transfigured in two short decades from one based on natural resources to one based on the manipulation of information. Some have benefited, while many others have been devastated in their expectations and rewards. Once-secure jobs are secure no longer. Those who are best able to take advantage of technological and economic development survive and grow wealthy during this time of economic evolution, while others - often those without the education necessary to succeed in this increasingly information-driven world - fall into poverty. The stalwart American middle class is threatened and shrinking. Several Oregon pollsters not long ago came to identical conclusions about the effects of these trends on people in our state. To a person, they reported that they had never seen such insecurity - personal, financial and political - at any time in modern history. And we know from a reading of history that economic insecurity breeds psychic insecurity, encourages political extremism, and fosters a disconnection from social institutions, including the government, the press - even our system of public education, including that offered at public colleges and universities. Into this context of irreversible global transformation, I now place the University, an institution noted not for change, but for continuity. Western universities can trace their roots back to the cathedral schools of twelfth-century Europe, where an ideal of education was born that has proven incredibly durable. By one estimate, of 75 institutions founded before 1520 that are still doing much the same things in the same ways and under the same name, 60 are universities. We who labor at this university are part of this tradition of scholarship that now extends nearly a millennium. Of course, the Academy has experienced dramatic changes as well. The influx of federal research dollars to universities after World War II has proven especially important. Here at the UO and at institutions like ours across the nation, research - especially scientific research with its ability to garner large sums of federal money - elevated in importance, not only as an institutional priority, but as a criterion for faculty advancement. The benefits of university research to our society have been enormous. But this shift has also engendered a counter-reaction. In the past decade, the higher education enterprise has endured a variety of withering attacks. In a recent spate of books such as The Closing of the American Mind, Profscam and The Academy in Crisis, on television programs such as "60 Minutes," which last year excoriated the University of Arizona for failing to bring its undergraduates into contact with "real" professors - in the press and public fora, we have been taken to task for pursuing obscure and irrelevant lines of inquiry, for offering our professors the unique form of security we call tenure, for having GTFs teach our classes for us - for allegedly forgetting, in our rush for grants and professional advancement, the art and joy of teaching. At the same time, paradoxically, many Americans are becoming increasingly aware that universities are more important than ever, both for giving birth to the scientific advances that are creating the new economy, and for providing the educated populace and intellectual and social insights required to survive - let alone thrive - in it. These are, in other words, enormously challenging times for us in the academy. But I believe we are meeting the challenge. A year ago, when I tendered my first State of the University address, I offered an urgent list of ways the university would itself have to change in order to move ahead during these unprecedented times. During the past year, I am happy to say, we have made significant advances on all fronts. * I stated the obvious a year ago in declaring that we had to raise more outside money in order to maintain - and enhance - the quality of the university during times of reduced funding from the state legislature. We have succeeded, thanks to the faith and loyalty of so many benefactors and believers in the quality of what you do. - Grants and contracts for our research and service efforts rose significantly during the past year, reaching nearly $50 million for the first time in the university's history. This is double the annual amount we earned just a decade ago. - Giving from private donors is reaching new heights as well. Our university's Oregon Campaign, the largest fund raising effort in state history, is ahead of schedule and nearing the two-thirds point toward its goal of $150 million during the past year. This Campaign is proof of the high regard in which the people of the state hold our university and its programs. That high regard is especially evident among a special group of recent donors. During the past two months, these generous and far-seeing supporters have provided us a series of gifts that will be used to help develop innovations in undergraduate education: to fund new programs for faculty mentoring and the development of teaching techniques, to brainstorm new classes and explore new ways to use technology, to enhance student advising and reward exceptional teaching. These gifts go far beyond the usual, both in size - collectively, the gifts total $6.6 million - and in creativity of purpose. They are aimed at nothing less than enriching the learning process itself. We have some, not all of the donors here - If I could ask our special guests Tom and Carol Williams, Jim and Shirley Rippey, and Willie and Amy Tykeson to stand. They ask only two supremely important commitments in return: That you care, and that you excel. Please join me in thanking them for their generosity and their commitment to our enterprise. * A year ago, I asked you to capture the ability to make crisp, collaborative decisions on pressing problems. During the past year we have found a comfort zone between the ivy-walled model of collegial faculty governance and the imperative of speed in decision-making. I have come to appreciate as President that this university is not a strictly hierarchical or linear organization. It has an organic composition of its own, a live culture of individual human autonomy. The energy that this decentralization can unleash at the school, college and even departmental level is vital in promoting our mission. At the same time, we must be posed to examine and then seize instantly new and needed opportunities to serve all of the state as policy makers debate the future structure of higher education in Oregon. This has not been an idle summer for the central administration. We have devoted sustained and uninterrupted hours of concentrated focus on all aspects of our mission, from managing change to revitalizing the undergraduate experience to communicating the significance of our world-class research. The resulting goals are not casual or vague homilies. They stem directly from the University's mission statement. But they are measurable, and provide us with an ambitious series of actions for the coming year. One immediate task is the implementation of the Administrative Efficiency Act for Higher Education - leeway granted us by the state legislature to streamline and make more efficient our business practices. We believe the Act can save us hundreds of thousands of dollars - and cure a number of headaches caused by the old system of state bureaucracy. At the same time, we are making our internal decision-making more efficient through a new faculty governance system, which I hope will be implemented this year after two intense years of preparation. Governance is not an abstraction - it is a distillation of how we think of our community, a framework for reaching consensus, and a necessary tool of communication between faculty, administration, and students. * And students are at the heart of our enterprise. A year ago, I cautioned that we must be acutely mindful of the financial sacrifices being made by our students and their families, and that we must make a point of reaching out to each student with new incentives to learn, not just to accumulate course credits. A modest rise in tuition this year renews the importance of that concern. During the past year, you have answered that call by helping develop more and better ways of teaching our students in innovative small-class environments, through Freshman Interest Groups, Freshman Seminars, and the new Honors Track program in the College of Arts and Sciences. You have reached out through a new Admissions program of faculty calls to prospective students. These contacts between a professor and a student wondering where to go for their college education made a real difference, and I would like to extend my personal thanks to the scores of faculty who participated. And you have reached out in countless individual ways. I will mention only one. You may not have heard that this year the Oregon football star and television sports personality Ahmad Rashad came very quietly to campus - he requested that we not publicize his presence - to go through summer commencement. Lured by the promise of the NFL, he had left the UO years earlier a few credits short of what he needed to graduate. But he finished, finally, this year. A major factor in his decision to earn his last credits was an athletics counselor during Rashad's time here, Barbara Nichols, who continued to call him every year saying "Ahmad, it's time for you to finish your degree." Without Barbara, he might not have found the gumption to get his last three credit hours. This individual attention, respect and care can make a transforming difference in someone's life. We owe that effort to every student. * Finally, I asked you to implement our productivity plan at every level. There has been a good deal of talk on this campus in the past year about "increasing productivity" - a term that comes from a legislative requirement that each Oregon public college and university develop a productivity plan showing how we are addressing the need to serve an increasing number of students in the face of limited state support. Here at the University of Oregon, the plan we developed, with enormous faculty involvement, relied not on larger classes and heavier teaching loads, but instead on improving retention, streamlining the curriculum, using new technology more effectively, and decreasing the time to attain a degree. Increasing productivity is imperative if we are to meet our financial and internal efficiency goals. But it will serve neither our students nor our state to increase "productivity" at the expense of the quality of education. Earlier in the summer a distinguished member of our faculty expressed his anxiety to me at the diminishing hours of his day. While successful in the private sector, he had returned to academia, he said, because it offered the chance for a more reflective life and the creation of new knowledge. He understood clearly that the University was one of the last institutions in our world in which reflection is not a luxury but an integral component of our character. And he expressed to me in abstract, yet nonetheless emotionally poignant terms, that to lose the time for reflection would be to lose something of incalculable value. He is right. Here each of us must find a balance with integrity. We must recognize that financially, we are now a tuition-driven university with an unavoidable interest in things like faculty-per-student-credit-hour, and other inputs and measures that seem more suited to the financial pages of a newspaper or industrial journal than to a university campus. If we do not achieve productivity gains, we may lose both the time and the place in which to reflect. But we must be acutely mindful as well that there is a spiritual side to campus life that will never be adequately accounted for by credit hours generated or time clocks punched. We are not a for-profit business or corporation in any ordinary sense - although we are incredibly cost-effective by any comparison with our national peers. We are engaged in an essentially different enterprise. We owe it to ourselves, to the taxpayers, to the students who are bearing the costs on their backs, to use our time wisely. We might feel kinship with the track star who was admonished by his coach to "Get out there and run as fast as you can - and then gradually increase your speed." But we must also never lose the wisdom of the academy, wisdom that grows from time spent in quiet thought and collaborative dialogue with others. I am confident that we will find that balance, both as individuals and as an institution. These were the charges that I put to you last year. Your responses have been both heartening and successful. And we have seen other successes. * The Rose Bowl was more than a sports event. It was a unifying metaphor for an entire state which many of us feared had drifted dangerously close to embracing mediocrity and tribal divisiveness as its dominant self-concepts. * We have had a wonderful year of work published and individual honors conferred on you, our faculty - far to many to enumerate. At the risk of incurring wrath by omission, I will however mention some group honors. Our Charles H. Lundquist College of Business was recently ranked among the top 40 undergraduate programs nationally, and two weeks ago the National Research Council ranked our graduate programs in psychology and biochemistry/molecular biology among the 25 best in the nation. The extraordinary quality of our scholarly work is underlined by recent studies of citation rates, in which UO faculty often rank among the most-referred-to scholars in the world. * Our financial health has been buttressed by healthy increases in number of students this fall, enough to give us every reason to believe that our enrollment projections will protect our fiscal position. Because our belt has been tightened for so long, we will be able to use every marginal dollar wisely, in ways that will result in evident increases in the quality of the institution. * If I were to report that we achieved everything from the state legislature that a university president could hope, I would be dissembling before this distinguished forum. At the same time, if positive lip service were legislative currency, we'd be counting our money in billions. We have seen a very significant shift in legislative and public official awareness of the critical importance of higher education to the future of the state. And in dollar terms, we in fact did better than many had predicted. We managed to keep tuition increases to a minimum, while still leveraging our gains in efficiency plus a little money from the state into pay raises for most faculty this year. We will continue to press our case in Salem and I think in a friendlier and more understanding environment. But please don't think this is just the job of a university president or administration. This is a task which everyone has to assume, as part of our entrepreneurial efforts to reach out to the state. * And there is good news here as well, for I believe that after decades of being considered separate from the state, Oregon is now beginning again to adopt us as its own. This development is of great importance, because our success is tied to the state's perception of its own. We cannot forget that we are a public institution. However short-changed we may feel in the short run about the level of support shown by our legislature - and state funding now constitutes less than one dollar in five in our budget - we are not private in the sense that we are hermetically sealed off from our society. One of the finest things said to me in the past year was that the UO had become outward-looking. This sense of looking outward and upward - not merely inward - of being rooted in and connected to our state and society, of providing service to our community, of being a resource for the people around us, is what makes a great public university. Amidst the good news, I would be remiss to ignore two issues of great sensitivity on every American campus. Let me speak to these points briefly but firmly. It is a source of great relief that we have been spared the ugly and demagogic battles of race-related policies that have consumed the California college and university system. Rather than deal with misleading attacks on numerical codes of compliance, it is our continuing obligation as an institution that prepares students for a diverse world to do our best - and then some - to be a welcoming community to all people. This area is one in which we have little reason to become smug or self-satisfied. We have much distance yet to travel. Gender-related issues also can become explosive on any campus. It is and has been the long-standing policy of this institution that we will not tolerate sexual harassment of any character. Policies to that effect, carefully developed by faculty and administration, will be implemented this year that further advance our commitment that no one is to be demeaned, degraded, or injured by the careless or calculated actions of another person. We have faced problems here, times when we may have felt that the public we serve no longer understands or appreciates our work. We have special reason to extend empathy to our colleagues in the classified staff whose need for salary justice went largely unheeded. But grief, pessimism or cynicism have never motivated any individual or any institution to greatness. And I have been proud to note that none of these moods has become a dominant theme at our campus. Just as stress is contagious, so is enthusiasm. I witness daily heartwarming signs of health, signs of growth, signs of amazing adaptability to change. We are willing to take risks to overcome challenges. To risk another track-and-field analogy, "You can't win the long jump without getting sand in your shorts." We will continue to face financial strictures as a result of the last phase of Measure 5. But since becoming President, I have talked to dozens of heads of institutions around the nation, and it's clear to me that we are at the peak of the curve - perhaps the bottom of the curve is a better way of expressing it - or way ahead of the curve in terms of what many universities are facing. They are still in denial. We have acknowledged the loss and grief, and now have embraced recovery. Our faculty, administration, management service and classified staff have behaved courageously, inventively, innovatively, and crossed barriers, even bridged chasms, that still threaten other institutions. We are a community here. We have proved it this year through good times and times that were not so good, through a bowl game and a strike, through a public Commencement with Corazon Aquino and the countless private meetings where a professor provides needed guidance to a student. Where do we go in the year ahead? Many places. This is an institution that is on the move, out of both desire and necessity. The necessity arises from forward momentum thrust upon us by external, societal changes. There is a sense that universities are change-resistant cultures. But we are a culture with learning as our central theme. And learning by definition implies change. Change is redefining us. But we also have the capacity - and, I believe, we have a mission - to lead that change in constructive and fruitful directions. Toward that end, I ask you to join me in three great efforts during the coming year: * First, we will strive to give our students an education that ranks among the best in the nation. This comes first from attracting and developing outstanding faculty. The attraction of a strong university in an outstanding environment continues to bring talent to Eugene, as I think you will see during the new faculty introductions following my remarks. But we must strive as well to become consistently better at the craft of teaching - and to remember that education is much more than a simple series of lectures. We want the University of Oregon to be a place where students find not just class hours but intellectual engagement, where there is a commitment to an undergraduate education that is individual, personal, and life-transforming, and to a graduate education that is infused with the joy of discovery. We want our students to emerge with the ability to think critically, find information efficiently, and cope with change gracefully. In other words, we must provide to our society - and to societies around the world, through our many international students - citizens who have learned how to learn. If we do not do this, we will have failed. But we will not fail. We want everyone in the nation to know that when they talk about the great public universities, Oregon is on their lips, along with Michigan, California, and Virginia. * Second, we must emphasize the university's role not only as an important factor in the state's economy, but as an engine of wealth creation. The dollars that we bring into our local area from our payroll, our students and our research and gift funding, are certainly critical to the regional economy. But on a larger plane, our university is a place where new ideas are given shape and new technologies are born, where the intellectual seed corn is grown for tomorrow's harvest. Here I enter a note of caution: We live in a world where knowledge is exploding and the degree of specialization in all fields of inquiry is extraordinary. We should never become so trapped in the hardened templates of conventional thinking that we become locked in a goose-step march of subspecialization. Happily, we don't have to discover the value of cross-disciplinary collaboration. We have a tradition of working in interdisciplinary institutes, from many in the sciences, to the Humanities Center, to groups that cut across both the sciences and the humanities, such as the Institute for a Sustainable Environment. New ideas come from reaching out to other disciplines, and reaching out is easy on a campus of our moderate size. We are lucky to be part of a community of learning that is small enough to be a real community. * Finally, we must continue to connect our university and our society through ongoing community service. It is through community service, as well as teaching and research, that we continue to prove our value to an increasingly skeptical public. Teaching, research and service - this is the triad of missions that define research universities. There is a natural tension inherent in meeting, let alone defining the balance, of these often overlapping obligations. But these are not three separate missions to which one allocates packets of time. They are interwoven and interleaved, a rich and diverse forest of ideas and responsibilities, each necessary to and growing from the others, each important in its own way. What is the role of the academy, with its long-term values, in this time of transformation? Higher education is criticized at times as a place that allows some people to travel first-class on a doomed vessel. But because we are a public institution, it is our job not to provide champagne on some Titanic, but to help guide our vessel to safety. We must use those things that make the academy unique - our time for reflection, our ability to teach, our scholarship and creative energy - to help our society understand the change that is occurring, to put into context, and to help guide the societal transformation of which we are a part. And we must be careful here as well. We claim to transform lives. And we must. But we should not become so grand as to say that we singly will transform society - because our society is rightfully worried about what we, with unbidden pretension, might do to it. We are an integral part of social transformation. In the face of that, we cannot afford to burrow comfortably into lives of solitary introspection. We must engage, energetically and fruitfully, with the world around us. And we must engage at every level. We do not know that we won't need a multitude of poets as well as molecular biologists to shape the future. Indeed, if we are to reach a world at peace with itself, the insights of a writer may be demonstrably equal to those of people at the frontiers of scientific discovery. We are at an extraordinary place in an extraordinary time. I would not trade my place amidst you for any that I currently can imagine. I have had the opportunity. I know the peril, the pain and the promise. This place -- this great University -- is my choice. And it is a choice that has come both from careful reflection and, in the deepest sense - to use a phrase that we as a culture too often shy from using - from love. I know that many of you share that feeling, and I thank you for joining me in continuing this great adventure of life, of learning, and of service. Thank you. ADJOURNMENT The business of the meeting having concluded the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Keith Richard Secretary ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL: 1994-95 The 1994-95 academic year began with the leadership of a new President, David Frohnmayer, a new Provost, John Moseley, and a new OSSHE Chancellor, Joe Cox. Frohnmayer described his major challenges as selling the U of O to Oregon and getting the campus to talk to itself outside of the traditional committee structure. Financial problems continued to plague faculty and staff as Ballot Measure 8 passed thus eliminating the state contribution to the employee's portion of the PERS retirement fund, effectively giving all employees an average 6% decrease in salary. The prior two years passed without any increase in salary from cost of living or merit. In response to this situation, OPEU later went on strike in early May and finally settled with a 5% increase in July and a 2% increase in 1997. Within the context of these difficult times, President Frohnmayer has provided the campus with optimistic energy. The FAC resumed its traditional role as the confidential advisory body to the University President. Provost John Moseley and Vice-Provost Lorraine Davis were also in regular attendance. Four major issues of concern to the faculty as a whole and to the Assembly were discussed at length. A brief description of these discussions follows. BUDGET The University dependence on undergraduate out-of-state tuition continues as the state contribution shrinks to about 30% of the 1994-95 revenue. After 1994-95 we will have a balanced budget and operate in the black, but by a very small amount. To maintain this balanced budget we will need to have an 8% increase (1100 students) in enrollment while the faculty size remains constant. Improving productivity is a key issue--doing more with less. Most of the enrollment increase is expected to come from improving our recruitment and retention of undergraduates. Admissions expectations for next year appear excellent since competing in the Rose bowl gave us national coverage. The OSSHE BARC Report, which recommended a number of economic and administrative reforms to Oregon colleges and universities, has already given an overall savings of $5 million. By June 1995 the University has been able to implement $435,000 in cost savings by consolidation of administrative offices. Other University recommendations included $200,000 in potentially identified by use of Banner Financial Information System (by 6/97) and $1,000,000 savings if we can crate a public corporation for OSSHE. Such a corporation would create cost savings in travel, purchasing, human resources by eliminating duplication and bureaucracy of the State regulations. The BARC report also recommended a change in faculty governance finding that the existing system no longer was effective. REFORM OF FACULTY GOVERNANCE Discussions about reform of the faculty governance system began to take shape during the summer of 1993. In October 1994 former President Brand charged the FAC with the task of studying and recommending charges to governance. That task occupied the FAC for almost all of its meetings in 1993-1994. In May 1994 the FAC recommended to the Assembly that a special committee on Governance Reform be created. During the summer of 1994 Sarah Douglas, the Chair of the FAC, appointed the members of the Assembly Committee on Governance: Laura Alpert, Chair; Jack Rice, Caroline Forell, Jack Sanders, Keith Richard, Mark Rhinard, ASUO. The FAC followed the activities of that committee from its inception and vigorously advocated for the recommended reform--which was finally brought about in a vote of the University Assembly on May 17, 1995. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING AND REWARDING TEACHING A report from the Faculty Rewards and Development Commission, an ad hoc committee appointed by former President Brand, was reviewed and advice about many parts of it were offered, particularly the Guidelines for Evaluating and Rewarding Teaching document. Three meetings from January 23, 1995 to February 6, 1995 were taken up with a discussion on this document. The basic problem: How to reintroduce teaching as a valued activity into the University culture. The Guidelines recommend that each department have a departmental teaching plan, teaching plans for individual faculty and a mentoring program for junior faculty. The Guidelines also recommend that each candidate for promotion and tenure present a teaching vita, teaching portfolio, and evaluation of teaching by both students and peers. The FAC was generally in agreement and support on the recommendations for a teaching vita and peer evaluation. There was a greater difference of opinion on the value of a teaching portfolio and z scores in student evaluations. The FAC discussion repeatedly demonstrated the need to balance consistency in comparing faculty performance across departments with the individual practices and expectations within a discipline or profession. We made some specific recommendations of changes to the Guidelines document. This revised document was later presented to the University Senate and recommendations made that each Department develop its own plan to meet the recommendations of the Guidelines. "COLLEGE HIGH" COURSES The FAC received a letter from the Academic Standards Committee asking it to looking into the problem of "College High" courses. Background information given to the FAC included the following. College High courses award college credit for course work completed in high school and taught by high school teachers, but "overseen" by a college. These courses carry college credit. Prompted by problems encountered with students who had been given College High credit for Writing 121, college algebra and first year languages, but inadequately prepared for taking a second year course at the University, the Assembly unanimously passed on February 3, 1993 the following motion: "College credit earned on a high school campus prior to graduation from high school may be validated for transfer credit only by demonstrating proficiency as determined by the respective university department." Following this decision the University encountered a public relations uproar from both community colleges, high school and OSSHE. The major criticism was that the University was blocking articulation. OSSHE wants a seamless transition from high school to college, and for us to have a common policy with OSU. In response, former President Brand effectively gave this legislation a pocket veto. In a memo dated August 5, 1993 to Community College Presidents, OSSHE, and High School and Community College counselors, Jim Buch, Director Admissions, stated that the College High legislation was indefinitely postponed. In a FAC meeting on February 13, 1995 with Jim Buch, we attempted to gather more information and crete a compromise between the public relations demands of the University and the responsibility of the faculty to create curriculum. The FAC emphasized to the administration that faculty had concern about the College High courses because they appeared to be a problem for student success at the University, no because we wanted to assert our independence from the state system. We asked for a history of these courses. Jim Buch described that they originated in the 1970s at Syracuse and were adopted here in Oregon. In a state study conducted in the mid-1980s it was found that there ia great deal of variation in how College High courses are administered and approved. This study developed guidelines for participating institutions. Of the participating institutions, PSU and SOSC are most active in creating College High courses with high schools. They appear to do a good job. However, not all participating institutions follow these guidelines and there are some notable offenders. When asked how many students at the U of O are given College high credit, Jim Buch stated that approximately 15-20% of the freshmen have taken College High courses although it is difficult to determine this. They appear as regular college courses on the transcript. This causes an ambiguity between courses actually taken at a college and a College High course taught at the high school. The number of College High students compares to 25% of the freshman class who have taken AP courses. (Although only 80% of AP students score 3 or above and get credit.) Jim Buch did a study comparing AP, College High, and regular students for retention. He reported that the results are inconclusive. As a step toward resolution of this problem, Provost John Moseley volunteered to develop and administrative plan to address both the concerns of the faculty and the public relations of the University. Major issues which were highlighted by the discussion include: 1) identifying College High courses on transcripts; 2) discussion of this problem with the Articulation Committee of OSSHE; 3) proposing a consistent standard between AP and College High courses; and 4)getting colleges who are supervising the high schools to actually do that and to follow the guidelines. As of the date of this report, the Provost has not presented such a plan. In addition to the above major topics, the following issues were also discussed. >Decentralizing Oregon Higher Education (Kissler report) >Ideas for recruitment, retention and improvement of Undergraduate Education >Problems and the future of Graduate Education >K-12, CC relations, CIM-CAM changes, proficiency testing >Mission Statement for the University >Educational Technology >Amazon Housing >Faculty Salary compression Respectfully Submitted, Members whose terms expire June Terms continue to June 1995 1996 Sarah Douglas, Chair Francoise Calin Susan Anderson Wilmot Gilland Jack Bennett Kenneth Helphand Laird Kirkpatrick Jack Rice Kathleen Nicholson Diana Sheridan H. HARRISON CLARKE June 30, 1902 - June 8, 1995 Henry Harrison Clarke, Professor Emeritus of the former College of Human Development and Performance, died of age-related causes on June 8, 1995 in Eugene, Oregon. He was 92 years of age. Born on June 30, 1902 in Tidioute, Pennsylvania, a tiny town on the Allegheny River in the northwest corner of the state. He left this small corner of the world and rose to international prominence in the field of physical education as a teacher and researcher. Starting his academic journey in 1931, H. Harrison received his master's degree from Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. In 1940, he completed his doctoral studies at the same university, obtaining a Doctor of Education with an emphasis on tests and measurements in physical education. H. Harrison's career path lead to an associate professorship at Syracuse, an appointment as a major in the Army Air Force Personnel Distribution Command during World War II, and positions as graduate studies director and physical education professor at Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts. In 1953, H. Harrison arrived at the University of Oregon; and until his retirement in 1972, he devoted nineteen years to physical education research and teaching. He taught graduate students developmental physical education, elementary and advanced statistics, research methods, experimental design, and laboratory techniques. Examining muscular strength and endurance and conducting the well-known Medford, Oregon, Boys' Growth Study formed the core of H. Harrison's research. The Medford study started forty years ago in the 1955-56 academic year and continued for twelve years. During this time, H. Harrison and his colleagues periodically tested eight to fourteen-year-old boys in the Medford public schools. The measures included such variables as physical and motor traits, mental abilities, sociability, and psychological and emotional factors. Many physical educators view the Medford study as a major contribution to their profession. H. Harrison also founded the UO's Microform Publications, bringing to the university the beginnings of a collection he started in 1949 in Springfield College. This product currently offers more than 7,000 theses and dissertations on microfiche, primarily generated in the United States and Canada. Topic focus on health, physical education, recreation, leisure, fitness, dance, exercise and sport sciences, and sport history and philosophy. Microform Publications distributes research information internationally. During President John F. Kennedy's administration, H. Harrison received an appointment to the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports in 1862. He served as Chairman of the Committee of Research Consultants and the Physical Fitness Research Task Force. H. Harrison continued working on the council for many years as a research consultant. For many years, he was also an active member of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. In 1984, H. Harrison received the Distinguished Service Award from the University of Oregon. H. Harrison is survived by his wife Florence, a son David of Silver Spring, Maryland; a daughter, Nancy Hunsdon of Eugene; a brother, Joseph of Jamestown, N. Y.; a sister, Marcella Armstrong of North East, Pennsylvania; five grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren. Louis Osternig Professor Exercise & Movement Science