September 13, 2019
Meeting of the Faculty Council
Friday, September 13, 2019, 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
Kerr Building, Room 2001
Eshelman School of Pharmacy
3:00 p.m. Chair of the Faculty’s remarks [PDF]
Professor Lloyd Kramer
3:10 p.m. Chancellor’s remarks
Interim Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz
|Introduction to new campus leaders
3:30 p.m. Data Science Initiative
Professor Jay Aikat (Computer Science) and Dean Gary Marchionini (Information and Library Science)
3:50 p.m. Provost’s remarks
Provost Robert Blouin
4:00 p.m. Program for Public Discourse (previously known as Program on Civic Virtue and Civil Discourse)
Professor Christopher Clemens (Physics and Astronomy); Acting Director, UNC Program for Public Discourse; Senior Associate Dean for Research and Innovation, College of Arts and Sciences
4:35 p.m. Resolution 2019-10. On Delaying the Program for Public Discourse [PDF]
Professor Jay Smith (History)
4:50 p.m. Open discussion
5:00 p.m. Adjournment
Video of Proceedings
Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council
The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened on September 13, 2019, at 3:00 p.m. in Kerr Hall, Room 2001 at the Eshelman School of Pharmacy.
The following 58 members attended: J. Aikat, Anksorus, Austin, Beltran, Berkowitz, Boon, Burch, Burke, Calikoglu, Chambers, Coble, Cox, Dewitya, Dobelstein, Donahue, Entwisle, Falvo, Fisher, Floyd-Wilson, Fry, Gates-Foster, Gentzsch, Graham, Guskiewicz (Interim Chancellor), Halladay, Halpern, Hessick, Holland, Ives, Jeffay, Koonce, Kramer (Chair of the Faculty), Kris, Krome-Lukens, Lee, C. Levine, McGrath, Meyer, Mock, Muller, Olson, Padilla, Powell, Rahangdale, Renner, Rudder, Santos, Scarry, Steponaitis (Secretary of the Faculty), Thorpe, Upshaw, Vaidyanathan, VanDeinse, Vision, von Bernuth, Watson, Willett and Worthen.
The following 20 members received excused absences: D. Aikat, Chavis, Clegg, Clement, Divaris, Hannig, Joyner, Larson, A. Levine, Mayer-Davis, Moon, Moore, Roberts, Scarlett, B. Thorp, J. Thorp, Walter, J. Williams, Young, Zamboni and Zomorodi.
The following 13 members were absent without excuse: Bloom, Brewster, Byerley, Fromke, Gilchrist, Gilland, Hobbs, Lithgow, Mayer, Platts-Mills, Ramaswamy, M. Williams.
Others in attendance: Peter Andringa (Undergraduate Observer), Provost Bob Blouin, Mallory Garner (Undergraduate Observer) and Nisarg Shah (Undergraduate Observer).
Call to Order
The Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
Chair of the Faculty’s remarks
Chair of the Faculty Lloyd Kramer welcomed everyone to the first Faculty Council meeting of the academic year. He thanked his predecessor Professor Leslie Parise (Biochemistry and Biophysics) for the work she’s done over the past two years. Professor Kramer also thanked Dhiren Thakker, interim dean of the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy for allowing Faculty Council to host its meetings in Kerr Hall this year.
When people ask Professor Kramer why he chose to serve as chair of the faculty, he stresses that he believes faculty must be deeply involved in the governance of the University because their work in the areas of teaching, research and service form the core of higher education in the United States. Professor Kramer said faculty often complain about the specific aspects of their work and institutional culture, but when their positions are compared to the social and economic positions of most people in North Carolina and beyond, it is evident that faculty at the university are very privileged. He believes these privileges carry responsibility for the kind of institutional and public engagement that comes through faculty governance.
Professor Kramer said his goal is to work in constructive ways with the University leadership team. He thanked the Office of Faculty Governance staff for their work. He wants to listen and learn from staff, students, alumni and retired faculty. He believes everyone’s ideas matter and one of the main responsibilities of faculty members is to stand firmly for the core academic values of tolerance and openness to people of all points of view. Professor Kramer said Faculty Council will be discussing important University issues at every meeting. No matter what issues or disagreements emerge, he believes that faculty must defend free speech and academic freedom as essential to the history and continuing development of university life. He particularly wants to affirm the value of the liberal arts for student education at institutions of higher learning.
Professor Kramer hopes the University can have more interactions with the Board of Trustees (BOT), Board of Governors (BOG) and government officials. He attended a meeting of the Faculty Assembly where they discussed the implications of a one-half percent salary increase for employees of the UNC System. He stressed that faculty views and engagement will be essential in looking for new funding and future leaders of the University. The search process for the new chancellor is underway. He encouraged faculty to attend the public forums on the subject of “traits we need in a university chancellor.”
Professor Kramer believes faculty must constantly explain how the University’s values enhance and express the core values and processes of a democratic society. Democratic institutions can never be taken for granted and the university must be one of the foundations of the democratic public life. The university’s strength depends on the work of all faculty.
Professor Nancy Fisher (Microbiology and Immunology), a member of the Committee on Fixed-Term Faculty, announced that fixed-term faculty will receive an email from the Office of Faculty Governance with a survey for fixed-term faculty. She asked Council members to encourage their colleagues to complete the survey. About five years ago, the committee conducted a similar survey. Now they are benchmarking the responses to see where the University improved and to give fixed-term faculty the opportunity to share issues they would like the committee to discuss.
Interim Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz said he supports and echoes everything that Chair of the Faculty Kramer said at the outset of the meeting. He recently completed his listening and learning tour where he visited various schools and divisions. It was a great opportunity to reaffirm our goals and to remain strategic, bold and student-focused.
Chancellor Guskiewicz shared various campus updates with Faculty Council UNC-Chapel Hill was ranked fifth among public universities for the 19th consecutive year by US News and World Report. UNC was ranked third among public universities by the Wall Street Journal. Carolina alumnus Walter Hussman Jr. and his family gave a $25 million gift to the School of Media and Journalism, now named the Hussman School of Journalism and Media. The Law School had the highest number of students to take the North Carolina Bar Exam, and also had the highest pass rate for the NC Bar Exam for the third year in a row. Chancellor Guskiewicz congratulated Martin Brinkley, dean of the Law School.
Joel Curran, vice chancellor for university communications, and the Communications Team analyze the University’s reputational data every October. The University has an 81% favorability rating and 68% of NC residents have trust in the University. This year, 89 faculty received external offer letters and 67 (75%) of those faculty were retained by the University. University leadership is working with the UNC System Office to retain faculty. Recently, Secretary of the Faculty Vin Steponaitis and Chair of the Faculty Lloyd Kramer met with legislators. Chancellor Guskiewicz said we have to continue to strengthen partnerships with the BOG and the NC Legislature.
Faculty compensation is one of Chancellor Guskiewicz’s main priorities. He spoke with legislators about this issue and believes it is important to continue to impress the need for better faculty raises upon them. The University leadership team is working to improve campus communications. The new communications website called “The Well” will be launched September 23. It will be the news and information hub for faculty and staff. Printed versions of the Gazette are being phased out; all news will be posted online. The Tar Heel Bus Tour will launch on October 16 with 95 faculty touring the state and learning about its history and people, and visiting Carolina research and service projects outside Chapel Hill. This is also an opportunity to showcase the great work of Carolina faculty, staff and students. Chancellor Guskiewicz thanked the faculty who agreed to join the tour.
Later this month, Chancellor Guskiewicz and Provost Blouin will present a draft of the University’s strategic plan titled “Carolina Next Innovations for Public Good,” which emerged from the University’s strategic framework, the “Blueprint for Next.” Two central pillars of the framework are (1) “of the public, for the public” and (2) “innovation made fundamental.” Chancellor Guskiewicz said the draft of the strategic plan brings these two pillars to life.
Provost Blouin and Chancellor Guskiewicz spoke on a panel at the Diversity THINKposium held September 4 about creating a more welcoming, inclusive and diverse community at Carolina. They received feedback from the attendees and will continue these conversations over the next several months.
The Commission on History, Race and Reckoning will be established in the coming weeks. Chancellor Guskiewicz said the commission will fit nicely with the work done by the History Task Force as well as the 20 new courses being taught around reckoning. He is excited about this work and believes it will move our community forward.
Chancellor Guskiewicz and Provost Blouin are hosting three community-building forums focused on defining diversity, equity and inclusion goals on campus and reimagining the Office for Diversity and Inclusion to better engage the campus community. The forums will be held on September 23, October 2 and October 10.
The Campus Safety Commission met three times over the summer. Chancellor Guskiewicz thanked the faculty, staff, students and community members who serve on the 25-member commission. He believes they’re doing great work in helping us to rebuild the trust between the campus police and the campus community.
Chancellor Guskiewicz introduced several new campus leaders: Barbara Stephenson, vice provost for global affairs and chief global officer; Suzanne Barbour, dean of The Graduate School; David Perry, assistant vice chancellor and chief of UNC Police; Charles Marshall, vice chancellor and general counsel; and Angela Kashuba, dean of the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Chancellor Guskiewicz acknowledged Professor Steve Matson (Biology) for the great work he did in leading the Graduate School for eleven years. Emil Kang will be stepping down from his position as executive and artistic director of Carolina Performing Arts to join the Mellon Foundation.
Many new programs are being launched that are unique to Carolina, some of which include the Institute for Convergent Science, Southern Futures, Data Science at Carolina and the Program for Public Discourse. Chancellor Guskiewicz said there has been a lot of faculty involvement and student input surrounding the Program for Public Discourse. He encouraged faculty to talk to people who have been involved. He believes the program fits nicely with a number of other programs at the University and the new General Education Curriculum, which was approved in April.
Chancellor Guskiewicz reminded everyone to attend University Day on October 12.
Data Science Initiative
Provost Blouin said that he became involved in the Data Science Initiative when Vice Chancellor for Research Terry Magnuson presented a report examining the future of data science on this campus. A number of committees have been formed in the past to explore the possibility of data science at Carolina, but there hasn’t been any change. Provost Blouin thought the proposal was a great start and he asked Vice Chancellor Magnuson to look more deeply into the issue. He wanted to ensure that the arts and humanities, social sciences, health sciences and STEM areas were adequately addressed. His vision was a program that would enable the University to be a national and international leader in both the science and application of data science. Provost Blouin wanted to ensure that we have a program that speaks to the needs of both undergraduate and graduate programs, and the University’s ability to be competitive in all domains of the research enterprise.
Provost Blouin used the new proposal as a starting point for a wider campus conversation. He thought it was important to have broad representation from across the University. The steering committee has been meeting weekly to explore the feasibility of data science on this campus, which is an important topic to all of our peers as some other universities are far ahead of us in this domain. The steering committee expressed concern that Carolina has been moving too slowly with data science. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Virginia, and the University of Michigan are positioning themselves to be leaders in data science. Provost Blouin asked Professor Jay Aikat (Computer Science) and Dean Gary Marchionini (School of Information and Library Science) to lead an effort to help explore what it would take to create a strong, new initiative at UNC.
Provost Blouin said they have discussed whether there will be a school, center or institute for data science. A new school has not been created on this campus for more than two decades. The aim is to ensure that any new school, center or institute does nothing to distract from existing programs. The steering committee has seven subcommittees represented by more than a hundred faculty and staff. Provost Blouin emphasized that this is currently a feasibility project; they want to think about this initiative in a constructive way, leading ultimately to something tangible. They also want to be consistent with the needs of the State because data science has become one of the most important areas in society right now.
Dean Marchionini said the steering committee is working intensively to come up with recommendations that will make sense for this campus. The subcommittees are focused on: undergraduate curriculum, graduate curriculum, research, community engagement, finance and funding, infrastructure and student services, and staff support. The charges of the subcommittees include specified deliverables that are due in October. The process is very intensive, but clearly defined. They have been mindful of having balanced representation on the subcommittees. Five different academic units are represented on the undergraduate curriculum, graduate curriculum and research subcommittees.
Earlier this week, the steering committee hosted a kickoff meeting where they discussed and clarified the charges of the subcommittees and entertained questions. The goal is for the subcommittees and the steering committee to stay in communication with each other; each subcommittee has a liaison from the steering committee. In November, the steering committee will work to create a proposal on the Data Science Initiative. Dean Marchionini thanked everyone who is actively engaged in the process and invited faculty to participate and share their thoughts.
Professor Aikat said they are at the beginning of the process, in the feasibility phase. They met with various departments in order to understand how data science can serve all disciples across campus.
Chair of the Faculty Kramer asked if the Data Science Initiative is going to be a part of the curriculum for graduate and undergraduate students.
Dean Marchionini said it is being explored as an option.
Provost Blouin thanked Dean Marchionini, Professor Aikat and the steering committee for the vast amount of time they have spent on this project. A UNC group visited the University of Virginia to see how they approached the creation of their new program in data science; colleagues at Virginia shared a 125-page document on how they built their program. A similar exchange happened with colleagues from the University of California at Berkeley. One of Berkeley’s leaders came to Carolina and answered questions about their data science program. Provost Blouin is appreciative of both universities for their willingness to cooperate with and support Carolina in this endeavor.
Professor Jacqueline Halladay (Family Medicine) said foundations and philanthropists often want faculty to demonstrate the impact of their work on the state of North Carolina. She asked if foundations could help articulate what is needed to capture information on civic engagement and the community impact of a data science program.
Dean Marchionini said no one from an external foundation is a member of the steering committee or a subcommittee. The team plans to identify and reach out to potential stakeholders. They have started conversations with SAS and IBM in the area, but are focused on the kind of engagement faculty do, whether it involves the exchange of data or not. For example, the School of Information and Library Science works with University Libraries and University Archives. In the health affairs, relationships already exist between labor bureaus and community hospitals. The philanthropy part will be ongoing, and Dean Marchionini welcomes any ideas on this front.
Professor Cary Levine (Art and Art History) asked how and when faculty from the arts and humanities will be included in the feasibility and planning stages of this initiative. To which Dean Marchionini pointed out that faculty from the arts and humanities already serve on subcommittees.
Professor Levine noted that many faculty have no idea what data science means, and do not realize how it could apply to their work. Some faculty may need education on data science in order for them to support the initiative.
Provost Blouin said the University has world-class faculty who study moral, ethical and legal issues. They want to build a program that focuses on the complete impact data science is going to have on society, not solely on technological innovation associated with data science. Provost Blouin said the field of data science is growing and we should explore the possibilities and take full advantage of all the talent on campus. They do not know what the data science program should look like and they need the campus community to work with them. Provost Blouin asked faculty to report back to their units and about participating in this process.
Professor Christina Burch (Biology) asked about the difference between data science and statistics.
Dean Marchionini said data science is an emerging field that studies the generation and use of data to inform and access action, information and knowledge. Under this definition of data science, everyone can engage and have a role to play.
Program on Public Discourse
Chris Clemens, senior associate dean for Research and Innovation in the College, thanked Chair of the Faculty Kramer for the opportunity to speak and recognized the faculty advisory committee that developed the concept for the program. The members of the advisory committee are Professor Donna Gilleskie (Economics), Professor Lawrence Grossberg (Communication), Professor Christian Lundberg (Communication), Professor Sarah Treul (Political Science), Professor Molly Worthen (History) and Professor Richard Myers (Law) who recently was nominated to be a United States District Judge and stepped down from this committee. The initial draft originated from a committee of two people charged by former chancellor Carol Folt to create a concept for a program that she named the Center for American Values and Civil Discourse. The advisory committee felt the draft had some good features, but overall it did not describe a program that would work on this campus. They worked to improve the draft and crafted a vision for a uniquely Carolina program.
Professor Clemens said it is indisputable that discourse in this country is broken and Carolina is uniquely suited to address the problem. Carolina has faculty who possess deep expertise in these capacities and students who are eager to work to restore public discourse that is robust, meaningful and polite.
Professor Clemens said the program seeks to support any course that explicitly incorporates structured advocacy, argumentation or debate. The support will come from incentives and infrastructure, which could be course development grants, faculty workshops, faculty learning communities or even graduate communication consultants. Participation in the program is optional for faculty, and any courses developed or enhanced will be reviewed for approval by the Administrative Boards of the College. They are fortunate to have initial support for these efforts in the form of a million-dollar seed fund from a private donor. At this point neither he nor the faculty advisory committee have met the donor.
Professor Clemens said there will be more conversations and roundtable discussions convened under the leadership of Terry Rhodes, interim dean of the College. The initial goals of these conversations are to solicit feedback on the proposal and to take stock of existing strengths in order to draw on them as they build new infrastructure. They will not go forward with support for curricular capacities until they understand what new infrastructure needs to be built. They are prepared to move forward on non-curricular elements, such as a series of moderated conversations and a student fellows program that intends to produce a new periodical related to discourse.
Professor Clemens thanked the faculty advisory committee for their work. He looks forward to the next round of conversations about this program.
Professor Chris Lundberg (Communication) explained his participation in the program. He doesn’t think Carolina can sit on the sidelines as our culture gets more fractious and existential issues that affect the University and broader society continue to rise. The University is in precarious place right now, which influenced his participation in the Program for Public Discourse. During visits to various campus units, students and faculty have expressed concerns that students weren’t being prepared to speak, consume and produce public discourse in ways necessary to maintain the health of our democracy.
Professor Lundberg got involved because he believes it is important for faculty to determine the direction of the one-million dollar gift that can have significant impact on our campus. Determining the best ways to contribute to and advance a culture where faculty can debate together and help students be better producers and consumers of public discourse reflects the University’s best commitments.
As a faculty member, Professor Lundberg is a strong advocate for academic freedom and respecting the autonomy of the faculty. Faculty have shaped the vision and direction of this program in significant ways that will give faculty the opportunity to marshal campus resources, and help produce students who can better deliberate, debate, consume and produce political arguments.
Professor Lawrence Grossberg (Communication) explained his participation in the program. He found the discussions of the advisory committee instructive, insightful and useful. They have been trying to give shape to a program that makes a powerful statement and fits into the culture of Carolina. The program is a work in progress and its growth will depend on faculty. It is an attempt to gather insights and tools and find ways to use them to increase, augment and improve existing efforts to teach and model agonistic conversations and arguments for students. He hopes that faculty can trust and respect each other and students so that the types of conversations this program seeks to foster will continue.
Professor Eric Muller (Law) commented on how the proposal has changed greatly over time. He asked if the donor has been briefed on these changes, and if they remain interested in being a donor.
Professor Clemens has not been in communication with the donor, but he will disclose this information during a future meeting. Today, he met with another donor group that is conservative, and explained how and why the proposal has changed, and how the worse thing to do would be to bring a specific ideology to the program. The donors were pleased and were not interested in anything but what the advisory committee had produced. It was a successful meeting and he expects the initial donor will have the same response. Donors cannot stipulate curriculum content, a fact that is clearly spelled out in gift agreements. The advisory committee insisted such control be maintained for this program.
Professor Lisa Rahangdale (Medicine) asked if the University is committed to moving forward with this program if the initial donor decides to back out.
Professor Clemens said seed money does not result in a permanent program. He does not think it will be difficult to continue to operate on donor funds because the program will not be that expensive in the beginning, especially with the decision not to seek external leadership. The only people being paid on campus from the donation are the limited-term interns.
Professor Kramer asked if the donor is willing to be identified.
Professor Clemens said that normally the donors’ names are not available under public-records requests. However, Professor Jay Smith (History) did a public-records request for Professor Clemens’s emails relating to the Program for Public Discourse, and a donors’ name appears in one of the messages that is now posted online.
Professor Maxine Eichner (Law) asked for clarification on the role of the external members, including the representatives from the Board of Governors and Board of Trustees.
Professor Clemens said the role of the external advisors was to explain the process of building such a program, the work their programs are doing and what they would have done differently. The external members of the committee did not vote on any matters and had no role in shaping the curriculum. BOG and BOT members have served on advisory committees in the College of Arts and Sciences, there is no governance problem with this as long as their role is advisory.
The faculty advisory committee wanted people outside the University to know about the work they are doing with this program, including the Board of Governors and the Board of Trustees. They want the board members to witness faculty deliberations about the program.
Professor Molly Worthen (History) underscored Senior Associate Dean Clemens’s characterization of the role of the external members of the advisory committee. She came into it deeply skeptical, and is now a provisional convert, but still has concerns about how the program will take shape over the coming semester and beyond. Though initially disturbed by the presence of the people not affiliated with the University, she realized that the role of members such as Robert George, director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University, and Paul Carrese, founding director of the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University was to convey what they do on their campuses. The faculty advisory committee rejected these models.
Professor Worthen said the BOG and BOT members listened and were committed to the same values as the faculty advisory committee, and seemed thrilled by the conversations. This experience has left her wondering whether there are others avenues to be explored to create real communication. She is looking forward to the program improving and taking more advantage of existing expertise in the roundtables.
Professor Worthen was also skeptical because the program duplicates what faculty already do in their courses. Gallup and the Knight Foundation released a poll confirming that students believe there is not enough freedom of ideological diversity on campus, and that conservatives do not have freedom to express themselves. A recent survey conducted by faculty on our campus found that students are cowed by fear of judgment by their peers, not the feeling that faculty will issue retribution if they encounter disagreements nor that faculty are trying to indoctrinate them. The findings show that faculty are not succeeding at creating a free environment in classrooms. Professor Worthen said it is worth trying to experiment to understand how faculty can better equip students to deal with this problem in the culture.
Dean Rhodes thanked Senior Associate Dean Clemens and the faculty advisory committee members, and acknowledged the concerns voiced today. They will seek faculty, staff and student participation in this program. She asked Faculty Council to allow the leadership team in the College the latitude to manage this process moving forward.
Basic Parliamentary Procedure
Secretary of the Faculty Vin Steponaitis gave a brief overview of the parliamentary process to help set the stage for the upcoming discussion of the resolution. Each Faculty Council member received a one-page document [PDF] detailing basic parliamentary procedure.
Resolution 2019-10. On Delaying the Program for Public Discourse
Professor Jay Smith (History) presented Resolution 2019-10, On Delaying the Program for Public Discourse [PDF]. Professor Smith said faculty share the concerns he is voicing, an op-ed published in the News & Observer has more than 100 faculty endorsers. They have concerns about a lack of transparency surrounding the development of the program. Professor Smith submitted a public-records request that produced 236 pages of documents and emails exchanged among the faculty advisory board, the external advisory board and administrators. These documents revealed the origins driving the program, and Professor Smith was concerned by it.
Professor Smith said the emails revealed that most of the proposed programming was about addressing an “impoverished” curriculum that lacked viewpoint diversity. Professor Smith noted that the curriculum is not based on nurturing or cultivating viewpoints. Professor Smith said the presence of Robert George and Paul Carrese on the external advisory board, and the visits made by faculty and administrators to the programs at Princeton University and Arizona State are significant. It is impossible to ignore that the Program for Public Discourse would be perpetuating a pattern whereby the rich conservative activists use their wealth to establish a foothold on American campuses. As early as June, it was advertised the program content would focus on the American and Western canon.
Professor Smith said there are reasons to believe the AAUP principle, which states “the faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction,” has been violated. It is also possible that three accreditation principles have been violated in this case. The first Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accreditation principle states “the governing board [here, the BOG] ensures a clear and appropriate distinction between the policy-making function of the board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.” The second SACS principle also states, “The governing board [BOT/BOG] protects the institution from undue influence by external persons or bodies.” The third SACS principle states, “For each of its educational programs, the institution justifies and documents the qualifications of its faculty members.”
Professor Smith said the program requires more discussion because there are too many unresolved questions that deal with governance, faculty control over the curriculum, the use of resources and the origin of resources. He thinks it is inappropriate for administrators to announce the program as if it already exists, because the Administrative Boards of the College have not approved it. Instead of having roundtables, Professor Smith asked Dean Rhodes to convene a meeting of the College of Arts and Sciences faculty, so all college faculty will understand the importance of the meeting and make a point of being present.
Professor Kramer clarified that Professor Smith was asking that the process of implementation of this plan be paused, but the discussion to continue.
Professor Steponaitis stated the question, Resolution 2019-10, and opened the floor for discussion.
Professor Muller (Law) made a motion to amend Resolution 2019-10 by changing the language from “resolves that the plans” to “resolves that the implementation of the plans.” The motion was seconded.
Professor Harry Watson (History) said he does not want the program to continue to be planned because it might roll out as a fully-fledged program later in the academic year when faculty thought it was on hold.
Professor Levine asked for clarification on what the resolution is asking to be put on pause and how long it will be paused. He feels that there is not enough specificity in the resolution.
Professor Steponaitis asked that everybody mindful that Faculty Council has to take some action on this motion, it can be delayed or amended. The motion before Faculty Council is the motion to amend.
Professor Worthen suggested allowing the non-curricular dimensions of the program to go forward if there is a desire to keep discussions going in order to get a clearer sense of the program.
Professor Steponaitis said Faculty Council has to vote on the amendment today, but the vote on the resolution can be delayed.
Professor Ricardo Padilla (Dentistry) said it is his impression that Faculty Council is not ready to vote on the resolution.
Professor Steponaitis said the motion on the floor is the motion to amend the resolution, which has to be voted on before further discussion of the resolution is delayed.
Professor Betsy Olson (Geography) said the problem is that the Council has no information on what is being implemented beyond the proposal, which does not contain the items that the Council is voting to delay.
Professor Steponaitis said one course of action would be for someone to move to postpone consideration to a definite time, which could be the next Faculty Council meeting.
Professor Lucinda Austin (Journalism and Media) asked for clarification on the process of postponing consideration of the resolution.
Secretary of the Faculty Steponaitis said if Faculty Council postpones the motion, they have not yet expressed the sense of the faculty on this issue other than informally through the discussion. The discussion will be put on hold until the next meeting.
A member of Faculty Council made a motion to call the previous question, which was Professor Muller’s amendment. Calling the question requires a two-thirds vote.
The motion to call the question passed.
The motion to amend the language from “resolves that the plans” to “resolves that the implementation of the plans,” passed.
Professor Emeritus Andrew Dobelstein made a motion to call the question, which was the main motion, as amended.
The motion to call the previous question did not pass.
Professor Muller made a motion to postpone discussion of the resolution until the October Faculty Council meeting, with the suggestion that it be moved to the top of the agenda so there will be enough time for discussion. The motion was seconded.
Secretary of the Faculty Vin Steponaitis said the Agenda Committee will give the discussion enough time on the agenda.
The motion to postpone until the October Faculty Council meeting passed.
Its business having concluded, the Faculty Council adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
University Program Associate
Secretary of the Faculty