Minutes of the University Senate Meeting, April 11, 2001
Present: L. Alpert, B. Altmann, E. Bailey, E. Campbell, S. Cohen, R. Darst, J. Dawson, D. Dinihanian, D. Dugaw, J. Earl, C. Ellis, D. Hawkins, M. Holland, L. Kintz, K. Lenn, R. McGowen, G. McLauchlan, P. Mills, R. Moore, M. Nippold, C. Phillips, J. Raiskin, L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, S. Stolp, D. Strom, F. Tepfer, M. Vitulli, M. Weiner T. Wheeler, P. Wright
Excused: D. Conley, M. Epstein, R. Kellett, C. Lachman, D. Merskin, M. Reed, N. Tublitz
Absent: T. Arnold, M. Bayless, R. Cambreleng, C. Gary, J. Hosagrahar, S. Jones, S. Kohl, S.Shauger
President Earl called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:07 p.m. in room 123 Pacific.
Minutes from the March 14, 2001 meeting were approved as distributed.
Update on nominations for faculty elections. Gwen Steigelman, Secretary of the Senate, announced that there has been a good response for faculty elections. The nominations web page is linked from the senate’s main web page and lists all the various elected councils and committees and nominations to date, updated regularly. Voting faculty will receive a paper copy of the nominations list and balloting will take place the last week in April and first week of May. Elections results will be available at the next senate meeting on May 9.
Senate President Earl moved the senate into Executive Session at 3:15 p.m. in order to discuss and vote on the nominations for this year’s Distinguished Service Awards, presented by Mr. Dave Hubin. All non-senators left the room prior to the discussion and vote, and returned shortly after the Executive Session ended at 3:25 p.m..
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Lorraine Davis who is now the senior vice provost for academic affairs and who effectively functions as the immediate associate of Provost Moseley, would be titled vice president for academic affairs, and would be the chief liaison with the deans and the academic affairs component. Reporting to that office would be the associate vice president for budget and finance, Frances Dyke. The associate vice president for governmental affairs, Michael Redding, and Joanne Hugi, associate vice president for information services, will retain their current reporting lines. The Council of Deans will be recognized as a formal entity on the organizational chart. The vice president for research and graduate studies, Rich Linton, is currently a vice provost, so this is a name change.
A significant change is that student affairs currently reports partly to the vice president for administration. It is our view that over a relatively short period of time there likely would be an impending retirement, thus it would be appropriate at this point to elevate matters dealing with student affairs to a vice presidency level, which would be the subject of a national search. The vice president for administration would stay essentially the same with the potential in the future of moving budgetary functions under that vice president. Finally, there is a current search for a vice president for institutional advancement. This is a renaming of a position that we now call public affairs and development. That search should be completed in the next few weeks.
Approval from the chancellor will be sought after completion of the campus consultative process. The intent is to have these changes in place by July 1, 2001. President Frohnmayer then indicated that comments on the plan were welcome.
Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, asked if both of the TBA positions on the chart correspond directly to positions we now have. President Frohnmayer responded that the vice president for student affairs position is new and will represent a consolidation of functions that are now being performed separately, but parallel to the provosts. Under the direction of the vice president for student affairs, this position would be a consolidation of the functions of enrollment services, which now reports to the provost, and the associate vice president for student affairs, which only recently was created and reports to the vice president for administration.
Senator Tom Wheeler, journalism, asked if there was a site online where one could find out more about the philosophies and rationale behind some of the decisions and reorganizations suggested. President Frohnmayer indicated that the organizational chart would be posted on the web immediately. Although a site providing specific decision philosophies was not available, the deans and other senior administrators are avail to discuss the advisability of the proposed changes. A final question was posed by Senator Diane Dugaw, English, who asked about the impact of the changes on the budget. President Frohnmayer indicated that the budgetary ramifications would not be significant.
Senate Budget Committee (SBC). Wayne Westling, law, indicated that he had hoped to be able to report on how the university was doing in terms of catching up with our comparator universities because that is part of the goal in the SBC White Paper -- not just to raise salaries but to get them to 95% of parity. Instead, Mr. Westling summarized his report with three points.
First, the SBC does not yet have information from the comparator universities, so they are still unable to give exact answers in terms of whether our faculty salaries are catching up, staying the same, or falling behind. This information has not been reported in the national databank, but that should occur by the end of April. Second, and perhaps most importantly, despite the uncertainty of the state budget the SBC is working on the assumption that the university we will be able to implement the next phase of the White Paper salary increases. Mr. Westling remarked how that will be accomplished remains a mystery because of the many uncertainties about the state funding budget. Neverthess, the SBC is working in a tentative way to try to develop a plan to have additional faculty compensation for the upcoming academic year. Third, the original timetable the SBC used was not workable during years in which legislators meet and do not settle the budget until after our university’s academic session is over for the year. Instead, the SBC will switch to a timetable so that in years when the legislature is tinkering with the budget, the SBC will not begin to develop an annual plan for salary improvements until spring/summer when those numbers begin to be firm. This fall, the SBC will present a plan to the University Senate, and the annual increases related to the White Paper will not go into effect until January 1st. Rather than having salary increases going into effect at various times during the year, the SBC suggests having a system where salary increases happen January 1st.
Ad Hoc Committee on Trademark Licensing and Monitoring. David Frank, Honors College and committee chair, gave a brief history of the development of and charge to the committee, reminding the senators that the committee was established last May to bring clarity to the many issues surrounding the university’s membership in the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). After listening to widespread opinion and voices of students, faculty, administration, trustees, alumni, licensees, donors, and others the committee presented its report to the senate executive committee at their September 18, 2000 meeting. The report concluded that the WRC and Fair Labor Association (FLA) were both viable monitoring organizations. But on October 25, 2000, President Frohnmayer, on the advice of legal counsel, announced that the university would not make the financial contribution necessary for affiliation with WRC. Further, on February 16, 2001, the State Board of Higher Education passed a motion that reads as follows:
Consistent with OUS’s commitment to the free flow of commerce and efficient business practices, OUS institutions shall not adopt limits on eligibility to enter business agreements or otherwise conduct business unless based on the ability to perform, evidence of illegal activities or other criteria required or allowed by statue or Board rule. OUS institutions shall report compliance with this policy no later than December 31, 2001.
Mr. Frank reported that the committee struggled with the board’s motion and turned to university counsel, Melinda Grier, for advice. Counselor Grier opined that the ruling would prohibit the university from joining a monitoring agency, and that the university could not enforce the Code of Conduct. Counselor Grier’s interpretation was verified by Ben Rawlins, attorney for OUS. In the wake of that decision the committee decided that its original mandate was no longer relevant and that it should report on its activities, set forth one recommendation, and provide the Senate Executive Committee with insights from its members. On March 21, 2001 the committee met with the Senate Executive Committee, presented its report and several members of the committee addressed the Senate Executive Committee.
The single point of consensus the committee was able to achieve was that the university should initiate research and instruction on the many human rights issues raised by the WRC controversy. In discussions with industry representatives, monitoring experts, and labor rights activists, the committee was told that there is a great need for sustained research on such human rights issues as the living wage, working conditions, and the right to form labor unions. Consistent with the research mission of the University of Oregon, the committee thus calls for the serious study of these and other related issues. Toward this end, University of Oregon research centers and other disciplinary departments that address labor rights and human rights issues should collaborate on a research and educational program that illuminates the meaning of human rights in a global economy. Mr. Frank went on to state the committee’s recommendation that the senate petition the administration to form a programmatic approach to the research of, and instruction in, human rights, particularly as they relate to the condition of workers in developing countries. The funding for this proposal might come, in part, from licensing fees. Accordingly, the committee envisions the creation of:
§ Internship programs for students to learn about the characteristics of human rights, codes of conduct, and the practice of monitoring. In the committee’s earlier discussions with the University of Oregon Foundation’s Board of Trustees, it was told that funding might be available for educational opportunities that would expose UO students to these issues. The committee could foresee UO students emerging as professionals prepared to work with non-governmental organizations, compliance officers in multi-national companies, and international and national governmental agencies.
§ Interdisciplinary degree programs that would join the expertise of professors who might reside in different departments.
§ A research center for the study of human rights. This center could sponsor research on the issues that have been at the center of debate on the campus.
The committee came to the conclusion that because the UO’s mission is research and education, it should embark on programs featuring human rights that would help students and faculty to better understand the issues confronted by the committee during the past year. (For full text of the report, see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/dirWRC/wrc12Apr01.html.)
Committee member Chad Sullivan, ASUO, urged everyone to read the report. He supported the recommendation for a human rights research center, but also challenged the policy adopted by the state board that prevents membership in monitoring organizations. He believes the policy is a poor one without adequate public debate, and one that excludes human rights and environmental protection in university contracts. Mr. Sullivan suggested that, at the very least, the state board should be asked to re-open the policy for further consideration. He also encouraged consideration of further action to adopt a state wide code of conduct that would address human rights and environmental concerns and that would provide a universal code for all universities.
Senate President Earl accepted the committee’s report and opened the floor for discussion. Several faculty members spoke of their disappointment in the state board’s policy precluding the university’s affiliation with monitoring organizations. Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, stated that one of the major forces behind the drive to locate production in low-wage developing countries often is to avoid labor laws, human rights laws, and other kinds of protections that exist in more developed countries. It appears that the state board and OUS are saying that universities should not join organizations that are the source of much of our knowledge about human conditions in developing countries. Senator McLauchlan suggested that such thinking contradicts the mission of the university, which is to provide access to knowledge. He summarized his feelings of frustration and dismay by saying that it is a sad day for higher education when it voluntarily steps back from affiliation with organizations that seek to find knowledge and information about fundamental working and living conditions in the world today.
Senator Randall McGowen, history, echoed Senator McLaughlan’s comments and acknowledged the students for their role in focusing on the moral issues involved and bringing them to the university’s attention. He believes it is unfortunate that a legal decision ignores the campus processes involved in reaching the decision to affiliate with monitoring organizations.
Margaret Hallock, Wayne Morse Center, remarked that there is still much that can be done under the OUS policy. For example, the university can have an aspirational code of conduct, which will work in a voluntary way with our licensing. She suggested that many of these voluntary actions by corporations, as well as the National Governing Organizations, are progressing nicely. The issue of legality is not as important as moving forward with a code of conduct that maintains those principles. Similarly, Senator David Strom, physics, encouraged people not to give up on the idea. As an example, he cited the pressure investors put on companies 20 years ago to divest from South Africa because of apartheid, which was eventually abolished.
Dan Goldrich, political science, spoke in support of the students’ efforts to link the university to this pressing issue. He recommended asking the State Board of Higher Education to reconsider its decision, or to at least meet with the people who have worked on this issue. Also, he would like to see a more affirmative response from the university that takes advantage of all the suggestions that have made and form a committee. President Earl said he would take this suggestion under serious advisement. He noted that as a member of this committee, when the state board made their policy announcement most of the committee were disappointed to the point of a profound cynicism. After grappling for several weeks with what they thought was an unfair and strongly ideological move by the board, he felt the committee did a laudable job of focusing its disappointment into a positive recommendation for curricular reform.
In thanking the committee and accepting their report, President Earl commented on the full spectrum of opinions expressed on the issues and the balance within the committee. He concluded the discussion with acknowledgment and respect for the work that was done.
Resolution US00/01-4 -- Academic calendar and athletic event scheduling conflicts. President Earl stepped down as chair of the meeting in order to speak on this issue. He moved to introduce a substitute motion for the motion left on the floor when the last meeting was adjourned. President Earl indicated that the substitute motion was written with the cooperation of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC), as follows:
The growth of intercollegiate athletics has made the scheduling of athletic events more complex, and conflicts with the academic calendar are almost inevitable. A recent scheduling decision causes special concern: the Civil War football game for 2001 has been scheduled for the Saturday before fall final exams. Such conflicts may be unavoidable, but we should not lose sight of the principle that the academic needs of our athletes and other students are always our top priority.
The combined university senates of UO and OSU therefore made the following recommendations to our Presidents and Provosts: in the future, the academic calendar should be of paramount consideration in the scheduling of athletic events. In particular, we suggest that major events should not interfere with dead week and final exams; in general, we urge a heightened sensitivity to the academic calendar by the athletic departments of our two universities.
President Earl remarked that although the new motion has fewer “teeth” in it, the motion might accomplish three things. First, the motion allows the senate to register publicly its disappointment with the scheduling of the Civil War game and the procedures by which that scheduling took place. Second, it can inject into the issue of intercollegiate athletics for the first time the at-large faculty voice beyond the few faculty that sit on the IAC. Third, there is a significant gesture in joining with the OSU faculty senate to sponsor this motion.
President Earl noted that OSU also is due to vote on this substitute motion. He strongly encouraged senators in the discussion of the motion to not throw their energies into trying to re-write and perfect the language, but simply to support it. He remarked that the OSU faculty are on the same track and the sentiment behind the motion should be very clear.
Senator Phillips supported the motion, stating that it was vastly improved. He took issue, however, with the reference to “dead week” remarking that there is no such thing as dead week in the mathematics department nor in any other mathematics department that he has been associated with as a student or faculty member.
With no further discussion, the motion to replace the main motion with the substitute motion passed by voice vote. The new main motion was thus on the floor for debate. President Earl reminded Senator Phillips of the letter received from the provost outlining what can and cannot be done during the dead week before finals. Vice Provost Lorraine Davis commented that “dead week” was actually created by the senate through faculty legislation.
With debate ended, Resolution US00/01-4 concerning the academic calendar and athletic event scheduling conflicts was passed by voice vote.
Notice of Motion. Mr. David Frank, chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for Trademark Licensing and Monitoring gave notice of motion that at the next meeting he will move the recommendation concerning the human rights initiative noted earlier in his committee’s report.
Motion US00/01-3 -- Amend group satisfying general education requirements. John Nicols, chair of the Undergraduate Council, presented the motion, which replaces legislation governing the approval of courses meeting general education requirements and the distribution of courses student must complete within each group. The motion is designed to consolidate previous legislation, and ensuing amendments, into one cohesive statement. Text of the motion follows.
Group satisfying courses in Arts and Letters, Social Science, and Science must meet the following general criteria:
1.1.Group-satisfying courses in arts and letters must create meaningful opportunities for students to engage actively in the modes of inquiry that define a discipline. Proposed courses must be broad in scope and demonstrably liberal in nature (that is, courses that promote open inquiry from a variety of perspectives). Though some courses may focus on specialized subjects or approaches, there must be a substantial course content locating that subject in the broader context of the major issues of the discipline. Qualifying courses will not focus on teaching basic skills but will require the application or engagement of those skills through analysis and interpretation.
1.2.Group-satisfying courses in the social sciences must be liberal in nature rather than being professionally oriented or limited to the performance of professional skills. They must cover a representative cross-section of key issues, perspectives, and modes of analysis employed by scholars working on the subject matter addressed by the course. The subject matter of the course will be relatively broad, e.g. involving more than one issue, place, or time. Courses with an emphasis on methods and skills will satisfy the requirement only if there is also a substantial and coherent theoretical component.
1.3.Group satisfying courses in the sciences should introduce students to the foundations of one or more scientific disciplines, or should provide an introduction to fundamental methods (such as mathematics) that are widely used in scientific disciplines. Courses should introduce students to the process of scientific reasoning.
2.1.Group satisfying courses must be numbered at the 100, 200, and 300 levels.
2.2.Lower division courses must be offered annually, and upper division courses at least every other year.
2.3.Approved courses must be at least 4 credits each.
2.4.Upper division group satisfying courses must provide depth and rigor beyond that of typical lower-division general education courses. Departments must justify, in terms of content, workload, and method of instruction, the assignment of a course to the upper level.
2.5.Courses that are offered for majors only are excluded from group status, but courses that are designed for both majors and other students may qualify.
2.6.Although laboratory courses are not automatically excluded from group status in the sciences, to acquire this status, the courses must not focus primarily on techniques or data collection.
3.Procedures governing the approval of all courses designed to meet General Education requirements:
3.1.Before submission to the Senate, such courses proposed by departments must be reviewed at several levels:
3.1.1By the curricular committees of the various colleges and schools
3.1.2.By an inter-college committee including the members of the CAS Curricular Committee and two representatives appointed by the deans of the others schools and colleges. This second committee is also charged to review such courses as do not meet the standards set in paragraph 2. and to negotiate a solution with the sponsoring department.
3.1.3. By University Committee on Courses.
3.2.The inter college committee is authorized to establish procedures governing the review process.
4.Completion of group requirements (student progress):
4.1.Within the full set of courses that fulfills all of the requirements, students may not count
4.1.1.more than one course that has the subject code of the major, or
4.1.2.more than three courses that have the same subject code.
4.2.Within the smaller set of courses that fulfills the requirements of each group, students must complete at least two courses that have the same subject code.
Mr. Nicols spoke in support of the motion indicating that the motion has been reviewed and supported by the Undergraduate Council as well as the deans and academic advisors. He brought attention to the frequency of course offerings, noting that upper division courses will be offered every other year and lower division courses offered every year.
In response to a question whether the proposed legislation would make it more difficult for students, Mr. Herb Chereck, registrar, indicated that there will be transition time with dual sets of regulations until catalog supplies expire, a seven year period. He noted that it may be problematic in advising for people who declare their majors late. Mr. Nicols also pointed out that in the interest of simplicity, the proposed legislation reduced current legislation by nearly a third and is considerably easier to read.
Senator Strom asked how many students do not satisfy the criteria. Mr. Chereck answered that in a random sample of 100 students taken during spring, the social sciences departments and English were not consistent and had the most problems; other majors did not have a problem. Mr. Chereck felt these problems could be addressed through departmental advising of which courses needed to be taken to meet requirements, but noted that undeclared students will not know where they stand.
When asked about when the legislation becomes effective, Mr. Chereck said it goes into effect in fall 2002, and that it will be grand-fathered into effect for current students. Mr. Nicols added that a student’s core of major experience is at the 400-level, thus he would urge students to satisfy these requirements early. Senator Eric Bailey, ASUO, suggested that students with majors might not have as much flexibility as undeclared majors. To a question regarding effect on community college students meeting the requirements, Mr. Chereck reiterated the delay until fall 2002 before the requirements take effect.
With the discussion coming to a close, Motion US00/01-3 amending group satisfying requirements was put to a vote and passed by voice vote.
Resolution US00/01-5 -- Rising costs of scholarly journals and retention of copyright. Gina Psaki, romance languages and chair of the University Library Committee, presented the resolution which resulted from the recommendations made in a report from the library committee at the previous senate meeting. The resolution reads as follows:
A. Adopt a university-wide policy that all UO authors try, to the best of their ability, to retain copyright on their own work, including at the very minimum the right to:
1) distribute copies of their work to classes and to individual scientists;
2) publish their work on their own web sites; and
3) post their work on a local UO archive.
B. Immediately identify high-cost duplicate titles among the three research libraries in OUS and establish target amounts for cancellation, in areas in which cancellation would not harm present faculty research, with the ultimate goal of substantially reducing duplication.
C. Educate individual faculty and graduate students to:
1) retain copyright on scholarly articles,
2) discover the pricing practices of journals with whom they collaborate (as reviewer, as editorial board member, as author),
3) disassociate from those with unethical pricing structures,
4) lobby professional societies to put pressure on Elsevier and other publishers of inordinately costly publications, and work collaboratively with efforts such as SPARC in the development of lower-cost alternative publications, and
5) encourage professional societies, where applicable, to assume more responsibility for publishing in their field.
D. Begin a campus discussion about adopting the “Tempe Principles,” the Emerging Principles of Scholarly Publishing recently developed with the support of the AAU and the Association of Research Libraries. The principles provide a foundation for specific actions, such as those outlined above. By adopting these guiding principles, the UO would become part of a national effort to define new systems of scholarly publishing.
E. Ensure that promotion-and-tenure evaluation criteria favor this effort, by holding faculty harmless for declining to publish in journals with pricing structures detrimental to the free circulation of ideas.
During the ensuing discussion, President Earl pointed out that the proposed resolution is not legislation, but rather a resolution outlining ways to begin attacking the problem of rapidly escalating prices for scholarly journals delineated in the library committee report (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/LibComRpt14Feb01.html).
There was a brief discussion about the price per page for a particular publisher and concern that canceling duplicate journal titles might be disadvantageous in some instances. Acting Head Librarian Deb Carver indicated that the library is continually striving to improve document delivery, utilizing other methods, such as fax, so that no one is disadvantaged. She also said the policy can be reviewed. Senator Maury Holland, law, questioned the definition of “unethical pricing”, wondering that referred only to high cost. Nevertheless, the sentiments expressed were generally that the proposed resolution provided reasonable suggestions for responding to increasingly unaffordable scholarly materials costs.
The question was called. Resolution US00/01-5 concerning the rising costs of scholarly journals and retention of copyright was approved by voice vote.
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.