December 9, 1994
MEETING OF THE FACULTY COUNCIL
Friday, December 9, 1994
Assembly Room, Wilson Library
Faculty Council Attendance: Present 57; Excused Absences 19; Unexcused Absences 15.
A. For the late Charles W. Hooker: William S. Pollitzer, Chair. B. For the late Fred C. Thomson: Joseph M. Flora, Chair. C. For the late Harry Bergholz: John B. Rutledge, Chair.
Chancellor Hardin: The families of the deceased persons who’ve been memorialized will have copies of these resolutions and they will be made a permanent part of the record of the University.
Chancellor Hardin’s Remarks:
Chancellor Hardin: It’s my pleasure to greet you in the last meeting of the calendar year, and also my pleasure to yield my time to the person whom I will be introducing in a few moments. But in doing so, I don’t want to stifle the urge to ask a question or to make any comment about the Governor’s proposal to raise or cut taxes, or whatever. Does anyone have any matter that you’d like to hear? One of my colleagues pointed out a few minutes ago that he figured that he would save $35 under the Governor’s tax proposal, and I asked him if that was a fair trade for his entire travel budget. We’ll cross our fingers. It’s singular.
I had reported to some of you — not in this group but in a smaller group –that I had had some conversations with some Republican leaders in the new Assembly who were filled with mandate, but whose decisions of the tax cut were in the range of $200 – 225 million. I’m still trying to get over the shock of the proposal that’s now before us, and I really do hope that something may change on that. The state has been recovering nicely and maybe there’s enough revenue to give that much of a tax cut and still meet the essential needs of the State of North Carolina, but at this point I can’t be bubbling with optimism. It is, indeed, the case, however, that our University and University system enjoy bipartisan widespread support. I have not heard anyone speak ill of the University or single out the University for special treatment, negative treatment, but if the tax cut is to be deep, then I worry about all state agencies, including the University. And I’m reminded that a few years ago we had severe cuts that were required to be taken out of the non-personnel side of the University budget. Those, that operating budget has never been restored to its full strength, and we don’t have the kind of slack that we arguably may have had six or seven years ago. So our committee of the faculty that keeps our legislative brothers and sisters informed about our needs will probably have a busy new year and we’ll hope for the best. Any other questions or comments?
I want to turn now to a much more cheerful note. We will hear in a few moments from the Chairman of the Board of Trustees David J. Whichard II. I’ve known Dave Whichard for quite a long time. He’s from Greenville, North Carolina, one of my wife’s hometowns, and his company owns The Daily Reflector and other newspapers in eastern North Carolina. Dave Whichard is a former member of the Board of Governors where he served with true distinction. He’s a graduate of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and is one of the best informed, wisest, and most diligent Board chairs I’ve ever worked with here or anywhere else. Some months ago we expected to have Dave Whichard speak to us, and he was vanquished by a virus temporarily and wasn’t able to come. He has since vanquished the virus and probably been on this campus twelve or fourteen times — and I think I may be conservative at that estimate. He comes often, he comes when he’s needed, he comes when he thinks he can be helpful. I heard him speak to a luncheon meeting of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce just two days ago, and he’s back here again just forty-eight hours later, and I know you will join me in giving an enthusiastic and an appreciative welcome. [applause]
Mr. David J. Whichard, II, Chair of the Board of Trustees.
Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. It’s a pleasure to be here. And, Paul, I thank you for that introduction. And Chairman Brown and Secretary Lensing, I thank you for the invitation to be here today. It’s a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to you and to share with you some of the thoughts I have about Trustee and faculty relationships, where we all fit into the scheme of things, and perhaps share with you some of my ideas about where I think we are, where we have been, and, hopefully, where we’re going in spite of the pronouncement that the Chancellor talked about. Let me say first that the Trustees are very grateful for the leadership that Paul Hardin has given this Institution over the last several years. He’s certainly made many changes, very positive changes, in the Institution which will stand us in good stead long after he’s here. And Paul, let me say before the faculty how much the Trustees appreciate what you’ve done.
Let me also thank you, the faculty, for what this University is. The faculty is the University. And I don’t say that disparagingly of anybody else who works day-in and day-out to make the University run. But the faculty is the University. The faculty is the repository of the knowledge and the information. The faculty is the initiative for research that develops new knowledge and pushes back the frontiers that we haven’t crossed. And the faculty is the conduit through which that knowledge and information is passed to the students, to the people of this state and to the world at large. It is the faculty who, individually, take students under their wings, as you do, get students off on the right path, and often shape their careers, on this campus and beyond. Each of us remembers those special people from our college years. And as you think of those special people from your college years, I hope you realize that even now, you, individually, are remembered not just as faculty, but as special mentors of men and women whose successful University careers they credit in a large measure to your individual guidance. There were those in my life on this campus who still have a special place in my heart. My first week here at Chapel Hill in the forties I walked into the office of my faculty adviser. And I still realize how lucky I was. There sat a friendly, energetic, incisive, enthusiastic young man who became one of my mentors. He was a mentor while I was in school and remained a mentor of mine until just a few years ago when he died. Arnold K. King. What a great man. What a great educator. Arnold left his personal touch and his personal imprint on more institutions in this University system than probably any other person in the twenty years since this system became a system. And, perhaps equally important, he was a genuine keeper of the institutional memory on this campus. And there was Dr. Ernest L. Mackie, who held many campus positions, Dean of Students and other jobs in addition to his faculty responsibilities. But Dean Mackie always found time for my visits. And somehow, he always knew my grades in every course at any point in the quarter. And every now and then he would call me to his office and admonish me to pull us this grade or that grade before the end of the quarter. You know it would probably be against the law for one of you to do that today. But that was a great thing for me and got me through college. And R.D. W. Conner was one of the great teachers of his and perhaps any other day who made history, particularly that of North Carolina, come as alive and vivid as the events of the day. Then there was my special relationship with Oscar “Skipper” Coffin, who was then Dean of the Journalism School. Not an academic in the sense of degrees or scholarly research, but a tough, cigar- smoking former editor who knew his craft and he knew how to teach. Week after week in my years under his tutelage he would say to me, “Whichard, well that was a pretty good story — you got a ‘B’. If you ever learn to spell, I’ll give you an ‘A’.” Well, I did, and he did, but until this day, I keep my well-thumbed “20,000 Words” near my computer keyboard. And every time I reach up for it I think of Skipper.
There are people who think about you the same way, and will for many, many years to come. And we thank you for doing that. These and other faculty members of the forties taught me much more than journalism or history or political science. They taught me by example about good citizenship, critical thinking, human relations, and dedication to serving others. You teach the same things today to the students of the nineties. And let me commend you for your service well beyond the classroom, well beyond the laboratory, in the governance of this University, particularly in the Faculty Council and its Executive Committee. You and other members of the faculty spend countless hours on many permanent and temporary committees that play important roles in policy making and administration for this University as a whole, as well as for its schools and its departments, the library, student affairs, athletic affairs, faculty benefits, and heaven knows how many other things. The extensive self-study that is nearing completion is a product of your thoughtful and exhaustive work. It provides an important benchmark for measuring ourselves at this moment, and an outline of how to chart the future course for this great Institution. I must also mention the faculty’s extensive participation in the many activities of our memorable Bicentennial year. Our University, by next July under Paul Hardin’s leadership, will have gained an additional $400 million from private contributions. But this University has also gained far more as faculty members have gone literally from the mountains to the sea to speak to the people of this State about our, about their, great University. You have brought literally tens of thousands of people to this campus to be entertained, to be lectured, to be awed, and to be enlightened by this great facility which unstintingly poured itself out and the faculty unstintingly poured itself out in this effort. I recognize, and the Trustees recognize, that such service as you give in these areas is not compensated. And it may not be fully recognized in evaluation of faculty members. And unfortunately too often it goes unappreciated by many of the other constituencies of the University. But let me say to you that the Trustees are aware of and greatly appreciative of these vital services you provide for your University. Now let me say a word or two about several other matters, most of which are on our minds. First of all, the Chancellor Search. The faculty members on the Search Committee have played, and continue to play, a vital role in that process. The interaction of representatives of all the constituencies of the University has been positive, cooperative, and constructive, and I say to you the process is continuing to move forward. When a new Chancellor arrives on this campus between now and July, her or his successful tenure as chief executive on this campus will depend largely on the enthusiastic support and cooperation of the faculty. I know and can think of no great university leader who has not had the support of a great faculty. We have the faculty to provide that support to our next great University leader.
Let me speak a minute now about a couple other things: where we have been and where we might go. Excellence is, has been, and will continue to be the measure of our endeavor here at Chapel Hill. It is a measure by which we judge our University, and we must never lose sight of that cardinal principle. We must insist on every front that it never be compromised. And I want to say another word about faculty salaries that Paul has referred to. We certainly all applaud the 6% salary increase which was provided by the General Assembly in 1994. It provided an additional $3.6 million in Academic Affairs faculty salaries and another $3.8 million in Health Affairs faculty salaries, significant increases for the staff. I am confident that the Legislature would not have approved these faculty and staff salary increases had it not been for the leadership of this group, for the leadership of Jim Peacock, and for the cooperative effort that his group provided and was joined by other institutions in this system. At least to some degree your success in 1994 probably influenced the General Administration to ask for larger, yet still imperative, faculty salary increases for 1995, and for appropriate salary increases for EPA and other employees at this University. The significance of the proposal is not just that it calls for faculty salary increases at Chapel Hill amounting to 8% For the very first time it proposes an additional 1% differential in faculty salaries at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State in recognition of the importance and the competitive situation in which these institutions as major research institutions of the nation face in faculty salary competition. Also significant is that there, in addition to the 5% salary increase called for for EPA employees, there’s an additional 2% increase for all faculty and all librarians, another important step. Your efforts in the Legislature this year, which I understand, Madam Chairman, have already started, will be vital to positive action on these proposals in the 1995 General Assembly. Our cooperation with other institutions in the system will be important as we seek to bring this about.
Now let me speak about enrollment just a minute and about resources that we have already spoken about, and for what I think is the need for our attention to greater accountability for these resources. First, enrollment. During the decade from ’83-’84 and ’93-’94, I think it’s interesting that undergraduate enrollment here at Chapel Hill in the Academic Affairs or Academic Affairs enrollment grew from 12,590 students to 13,380 students, an increase of 790 students, or 6.27%. At the same time total enrollment grew from 20,634 to 22,436, an 8.73% increase. Those percentages are considerably smaller than those of the previous decade and I do not see them moving up very sharply in the immediate future. I think the emphasis will continue to be, as it has been in this decade, on making sure that academic excellence at this University continues, and we always meet higher goals. I think there are also some numbers we ought to talk about as we think about the present and the future. In the same ten-year period from ’83- ’84 to ’93-’94, the consumer price index grew about 49% as you’re well aware. During that same decade, the resources annually available to operate this University grew from $413 million to $876.7 million, an increase of 112.4%. State appropriations increased 80.3%, tuitions and fees, 161%. But interestingly enough and very significant, contracts and grants jumped 179% from less than $100 million to more than $277 million. Obviously Chapel Hill has gained a great deal because it’s recognized as a great university, particularly in the field of grants and contracts. When that pool actually was shrinking and our percentage, our piece of the pie, gained ground. And that was a recognition of the great work done on this campus in research and in teaching and in public service.
I think, however, that our University and other public universities need to recognize that probably, really, the political landscape has changed, and probably the public funding landscape has changed as well. That is not to suggest that the Republicans who now control legislative and congressional bodies are any less interested in higher education than were the Democrats who have controlled them for years. But one would be very hard pressed, I think, to find or to expect that there is any indication there is not a feeling that governing spending will grow at a slower pace, if at all, and that funds for business-as-usual will be much more difficult to come by. Even yesterday, as Paul has mentioned, Governor Hunt proposed a program for the 1995 Legislature which would reduce state taxes by $483 million, a significant amount in a state budget as we look forward to needing more funds to continue the work of this great University. If nothing else, these changes mean that public universities, our University, must be more accountable for public and private fundings that we receive. As difficult as we think, perhaps, the last decade seemed to be for us and many other public universities, is it realistic for us at Chapel Hill to expect our annual operating expenses in the next decade to grow at 2.3 times the consumer price index, while the growth of our enrollment is one-fifth of that benchmark in a time when we make be facing greater economic problems than we did in the last decade? It means, I think, for all of us that we have to work more diligently to bring to the attention of lawmakers and the public as a whole the genuine needs of our universities, their ultimate importance to the present and the future well being of our state and our nation. There are a number of things we need to address, I think, on our campus and I think you know them as well as I do. You have your own ideas of what we need to do, how we need to address operating better and smarter and more efficiently.
Let me cite just one of the things that we may address. We need, in my judgment, to deal with the problem of why more of our students are requiring more than four years to earn their baccalaureate degrees. We know the General Assembly is concerned with it. If you talk to people across the state you know they are concerned with it. If we look at only Academic Affairs enrollment change over the past ten years, what portion would you think of those 790 students who were in ’93-’94 above the level that were here in ’83-’84 were here because they were in their fifth year or sixth year on this campus trying to earn a baccalaureate degree? How does the faculty deal with this problem? How do you reconstruct the curriculum without losing anything? How do you change your requirements for your department’s graduation of students? How do we deal with the problem of course availability to students to get all this done in four years instead of five or six? How do we help the students overcome the problems they face in getting the job done? These are problems that only the faculty can effectively deal with, as many other problems on this campus. And I’m glad that you’re giving some thought to these things, and making progress in doing these things. What proposals will you as faculty leaders devise for this University to maintain excellence in the next decade when we well may not enjoy 112.4% increase in our level of funding? I don’t mean to say that I’m not optimistic about this University and its future. I am. Very optimistic. I think we’re well on our way and have gained great momentum in the last several years. And that momentum will continue. But it seems to me that we must be realistic about the landscape which is before us and realistic about what we need to do to meet the challenges that are ahead of us. The greater our accountability, it seems to me, for the resources we receive, the less difficult it will be for us to perpetuate that flow of those resources. I commend you, the faculty, for making this great University what it is. It is the shining light on the hill whose brilliance grows year by year because of you. Because of your excellence. And may be it ever be so! I think you very much. [applause]
Chair of the Faculty Jane Brown.
Professor Brown: I’ll start by saying thank you to the Chancellor and the University Women’s Club for the reception today. It was very festive and thank you very much. [applause] [Chancellor: I’ll pass that on to the real people who did it.] Professor Brown: Okay, great, thank you. I also wanted to say that there will be a December Commencement, and you all have been invited to that. We have decided, however, to not have a formal procession of the faculty this year, because we didn’t get the invitation to you soon enough to really get you into regalia and get there. So we will make that be a tradition that begins next year. You can just keep your regalia between University Day and December, and then we’ll be all prepared and we can do that. And we’ll have a party afterward to entice you to come. So we’ll begin that tradition next year. You’re still invited to come and be there. It’s a good time to be in the Dean Dome. There’s lots of seating. You can get good seats. [laughter] And parking. So I do encourage you to come.
Speaking about basketball tickets. We have had a good conversation with Ron Link about his resolutions. I brought it to the Agenda Committee. The Agenda Committee recommended that we have further conversation with Ron about his resolutions, and that’s in process. We had a good conversation. I’m hoping that we will have the matter of retroactivity cleared up; we won’t have to bring that back to Council. He had some other good ideas in his resolutions that we’re working with the Athletic Committee about, too, and they may come back to the floor or we may just send them on to the Athletic Committee to take up and bring back to the Council at a later date. What I realized as we looked again at that question is that when we passed a resolution last February in it was the desire to re-look at the allocation of basketball tickets in 3-5 years. Actually, I hope that happens and then I won’t be Chair anymore. But I know lots of people take this very seriously, and so we’re working on that. Okay.
And then the other thing, then — Steve Bayne chided us last year for, the Executive Committee of Faculty Council, I think appropriately, for not keeping you up-to-date about what the Executive Committee is up to. So I wanted just to let you know that one of the things, what we did this week was to meet with Bill Graves and the Office of Institute Technology. We actually took a field trip and went to look at the information highway. For some of us that’s more familiar than for others of us. For me, for when I have a computer in my office, I’m still not quite sure how to get on the highway — I’m kind of in the turn lane there, or the merge lane, or something. And so it was a fascinating demonstration. And the point of it was to also to be starting to look at a draft policy about how we’re going to deal with the information highway as a university community. Some very interesting concerns there that I think we need to be talking more about. There has been a good committee that has drafted a policy about such issues as privacy — is our E-mail private or not? Ownership — who, do departments or the University own the information that goes onto the information highway, goes onto the computer system? Who’s going to pay for it. How are we going to get the infrastructure in place so that we all can be on the information highway? So, there’s a draft policy. And I wanted to just check in with you today about whether you’d like to hear more about this, whether you’d like to be involved in this in a bigger way. We, as a council, could take a field trip and look at all of this. There is a classroom set up where we could actually have a conversation looking at the technology and then talk about some of these policy issues. I think that’s the best way to do it. It’s hard to get when you’re just talking about it abstractly if you don’t know this, if you haven’t been in the worldwide net, for example, what that really is. So what do you think? Would you like to have a field trip where we go and spend some of the Council time looking at this and then talking about the policy? What do you think? Let me have a show of hands on that. How many would like to do that? The Council members. Okay, great. How many would think that was the worst thing we could possibly do? Okay, good, so it looks like we’d like to do that. So I think we’ll set that up. And what we could do is to submit the policy, distribute the policy ahead of time so, you can take a look at it, then we’ll go look at this and talk more about the policy. Super.
Okay. And then the other thing that the Executive Committee of Faculty Council has done is to be working closely with Darryl Gless’s office in the reaccreditation project and self-study. And yesterday we held a year-long — a year- long; it felt like a year-long — we held a day-long retreat at the Friday Center where we went over all the recommendations that have been developed by the ten task forces of the reaccreditation self-study. And I thought it was a very valuable exercise and some of you were there. We introduced the concept of “but balls” which we may introduce to Council. They’re little plastic balls that you can throw at each other when they say “but” too often. And so it kept the conversation open I thought, and we had a very, a fascinating conversation about the future of the University, addressing some of the
concerns, I think some of the concerns that you’ve raised here today, David, about accountability, about what are we going to do in the next ten years to ensure the excellence of the University, on a number of fronts, a wide-ranging set of fronts. And what I’m also going to do about this now is to look at how we can bring that to Council in some way to get your further input on this, because what we’re really looking for here is the opportunity to create a blueprint of the future of UNC-Chapel Hill. I think it will be a very valuable document for our new Chancellor. And what we’d like to do is to have as much public input into that document as possible. So I’m looking for ways to bring that to you as well, without having it be another day-long retreat. So we’ll keep that in mind.
And so, finally, for those of you on a semester schedule — some of you are not, but I am — this is a special time of year where you need to acknowledge yourself for accomplishing yet another semester so I appreciate that. Thank you very much for that; I would like to applaud you in that. Thank you for completing another semester, and continuing the tradition of excellence in teaching at the University. Thank you. Questions for me? Comments?
Professor Carl Bose (Pediatrics Medicine): I once again will raise the question of the Chancellor Search. We’re perhaps reading more than we should in the local papers, or at least that’s the opinion of some. But it does remain the virtual source of information of faculty and I’m not sure — maybe that’s appropriate — maybe we should know no more about it than the common man who, apparently, is learning quite a bit about it. Maybe just a comment on what we should know. I don’t know. I don’t know what we should know. Professor Brown: Well, I’m learning too as I go. I’ve never been on a committee quite like this before. I’m so gun-shy right now. I really don’t want to speak very much about it. It is definitely a personnel matter. And though there are some things we can say, we are now publicly posting our meetings. We are having a meeting next Thursday. I think it is appropriate that we can’t say very much about the candidates. I’ve learned that in this kind of search — it is unlike faculty searches that I’ve been on where it’s very clear who the candidates are, and you bring them in, and can look at them very closely. I’m convinced that it increases the pool to keep this kind of confidentiality. It increases the caliber of the candidate we’re going to have. So, and I, as you know, I’m in an awkward position also being a Professor of Journalism, so I am feeling this out. It’s a difficult place to be. So what I can pledge to you is the Committee is working very hard. It is a good Committee, and we have excellent candidates, and we will choose an excellent Chancellor. I’m convinced of that. Professor Bose: I’m convinced of that too. What is the source of public information. I mean is this a leak, is this a Watergate leak, or what? Professor Brown: We wish we knew. We don’t know. Professor Bose: But beyond the naming of candidates, maybe I’m just ignorant of this — the process, the timetable, maybe it’s difficult to establish a timetable and it depends too much on individuals and their schedules and their professional obligations. Professor Brown: The timetable of what? Professor Bose: Well, I mean when does one expect to have a short list? What is the process? When does one expect the candidate to be chosen? When might one expect a public announcement? Is that just too vague? Professor Brown: I think it’s unclear now; it really is. Some committees — we’ve been working about 8 months now, and there never was a clear timetable. We never said we’re going to be done by — . We do want to be done in time to get Paul retired, so he can — [laughter]. I think I will actually learn more about that next Thursday about how the Chair’s moving on that. I’m sorry I can’t be more forthcoming. Anything else? Okay, great.
We have a number of standing committee reports today. There was some supplemental information at the table there, if you didn’t get it. The Agenda Committee met and we always send requests for further information back to these committees and these committees generously have provided some of that this time. So the first committee is the Catalog Committee. Clifton Metcalf sends his apologies for not being here today. He actually wrote us a letter that is in that supplemental information. He had to be at another meeting. And Scott Jared is his good stand-in today, and where is Scott? There you are, great.
Annual Reports of Standing Committees:
A. Catalog: Scott Jared for Clifton Metcalf, Chair.
Mr. Jared: Thank you, Dr. Brown. Council members, as she told you, I’m here on behalf of Clifton Metcalf, and he is, in fact, at a national meeting this morning that is studying the interaction between universities and state legislatures, so I hope he’ll come back with some interesting information for you. Let me begin today by telling you, keep an eye on your mailbox in the early part of spring semester, especially during the first week of class. The Committee has been talking about the information that commonly is referred to as the “faculty listing” or “faculty directory” for a few months now and we will be sending you a survey concerning the use and the format of that information. The survey will be sent out during the first or second week of classes, so be on the lookout in your mailboxes. I know when you return for classes sometimes you might have quite a pile of mail. I encourage you to fill that survey out, complete it, and return it to my office. We are very interested in what you have to say about the use of this information, the appearance, and so on and so forth. It’s a two-page survey, so it’s not very long, but we hope we’ll gain a lot, gather a lot of information from the survey. You have the written report there before you. Are there any questions about the report?
Professor Steve Bayne (Dentistry): I think it’s my sole place at Faculty Council to stand up when this Committee reports and ask, “Can’t we save a few more trees?” Mr. Jared: We are trying. Professor Bayne: What’s the current projection or plan in terms of trying to make more of this part of the electronic record, rather than a published record? Mr. Jared: Well, the representatives of OIT, ADP, the printing services, and my office have met, formed a working group. We have a little bit of direction in that we’re trying to seek a jumping off point, if you will, for every publication that could wind up on the Internet, particularly catalogs. Right now, INFO system is about the only thing that we have that’s a — from what I’ve been told it’s a very labor- intensive process to get those catalogs on there, particularly the ones like the Graduate Catalog and the Undergraduate Catalog. So we are having to rely on the experts in OIT and ADP. We don’t have a time-line right now but we’re all very enthusiastic about it. I think we have gained some definition of our role from this first meeting, and we will be working as hard as we can to save as many trees as we can by getting all of these on the Internet.
Professor Bayne: Just a follow-up question to this. Mr. Jared: Yes. Professor Bayne: I didn’t, I got no sense of how many times a year this Committee meets or how intense the activity is. You always have a list of all the numbers of things that have been printed, but not sort of a description of what the general activities are. Mr. Jared: Well, the members are, serve three-year staggered terms. We try to meet monthly on the first Tuesday of every month. Sometimes that varies a little bit according to class schedules. So I would say over the past two or three years we have met at least eight or nine times a year. Sometimes due to illnesses and other unforeseen events we do not meet, but we try to meet as regularly as possible. And the issues and the discussion, as in any, wavers in intensity from time-to-time, but it’s a pretty active Committee I would say. There are some members here, and if they would like to speak about the intensity of the Committee’s activity, I would welcome that, but I think it’s a good, active Committee. Professor Bayne: One last thing and then I’ll shut up — nobody will believe that. My passion for the electronic conversion of all this information is incredible, but what I really hope for is next year some sort of a report that said that these are our recommendations, this is sort of a proposed timetable, these types of catalog materials can be converted, these are the types of things that the Committee will have to oversee as we have heard from the electronic record, any cost savings that might have occurred, complications you didn’t — but part of that as a plan so we understand where the Committee’s going. Mr. Jared: Sure, that’s a reasonable request. Professor Bayne: I’m sure that the activity is occurring, but it would be nice to have a little bit more extensive report on it. Mr. Jared: Okay. Professor Brown: Can we do that? Mr. Jared: Sure. Professor Brown: I think especially as we’re getting more and more capacity for that inside the University as well as externally, that we’d like to hear how that’s going.
Professor Philip Bromberg (Medicine): Can you tell us how much this operation costs per year and how much money is recouped by the sale of these items? What is the gross cost and what’s the net cost? Mr. Jared: The operation? What specifically are you talking about? The sales of the catalogs? Professor Bromberg: There are 105,000 numbers that are going to be printed, and there’s a lot of work that went into that, a lot of man and woman hours that went into that. How much does this cost the University? Mr. Jared: The printing cost, I would say, would be the best way to define it and the most easily defined at this time. The budget in any given year might be anywhere from $128,000 to $160,000, depending on what editions of the University Record are published. The salaries, the budgets for the salaries would come from various offices because of different departments and schools have people who interact with the Publications Office to produce each of these catalogs. So that figure I really don’t know. But a base cost would be the printing cost I would say. Now as far as recouping, the sales of catalogs through Student Stores have been concentrated only on the Undergraduate Bulletin and the Graduate Bulletin at this time. The Law School has agreed to try, on a two-year trial basis, the sale of their catalog, because they have a quite wonderful recruitment tool, a viewbook, that they send out to prospective students. The recouping of cost only applies to the production, or partial production costs. You might look inside any state — any public document published by a state agency has to have a cost statement in it, and that includes pretty much all the costs of production. So when you look inside any given catalog, it might say, it will give a per unit cost, and that is what we are trying to recoup on those sold through Student Stores. That may not have answered the question, though. Professor Bromberg: I guess — I don’t want to single out the report of this Committee because you’re not alone in this, but I wonder why you did not apparently consider it within your purview to provide detailed information on the financial aspects of this catalog operation in your report. If accountability is going to be a watchword, if we are facing financial strictures and we’re not going to have an increase of x percent as we did in the previous decade, then we really, as a faculty, need to know more about the details of the financial operation of this University. And I would think that as representatives of the faculty that every committee would make it its business to find out what it’s costing for certain operations and in cost elects. Professor Brown: Can you take that back to the Committee? Mr. Jared: I certainly will, yes. Any other comments?
Professor Harry Gooder (Microbiology & Immunology, Medicine): As a follow-up, can you tell me if parts of application fees apply to these costs? Mr. Jared: Not that I know of. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Professor Brown: Thank you, Scott.
B. Instructional Personnel: Richard L. McCormick, Chair.
Provost McCormick: Thank you. I’ll move the microphone back to where it was when Jane spoke. The Committee on Instructional Personnel serves the Division of Academic Affairs and it operates, as I believe you know by now, through two separate committees, the Subcommittee for the College of Arts and Sciences, chaired by Dean Birdsall, and the Subcommittee for the Professional Schools, chaired by me. The major function of both of the subcommittees and, I guess, the Committee of the whole, is to consider recommendations and faculty personnel actions that come to us from the schools and the departments, personnel actions involving tenure-track appointments of any kind, and all reappointments at the rank of lecturer or above. The report, which you should have copies of, says a sentence or two more about how we carry out this function. In my view the process is operating effectively. Recommendations go on from the Subcommittees to the Committee and to the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee, and then on to the Board of Trustees, and upward as appropriate. By tradition, the Committee on Instructional Personnel also has the responsibility for making decisions about the minimum stipends for teaching assistants who have full responsibility. Upon the recommendation of Dean Birdsall, and with considerable consultation among the members of the Committee, we agreed that that minimum stipend would be $3850 for the current academic year, and $4000, budgetary resources permitting, for the year ahead.
The Committee on Instructional Personnel also considers and approves the academic calendars and finally, among its business last year, we carefully considered the actions that the various schools took in response to the 1993 Board of Governors report on teaching and tenure. You’ll recall that this report of the Board of Governors was actually stimulated in significant part by some celebrated tenure cases in the College of Arts and Sciences right here at Chapel Hill. The Board of Governors determined in September of 1993 that all of the schools and the colleges throughout the system, not just Chapel Hill, should carefully review and revise as necessary their tenure procedures to ensure that teaching is adequately evaluated and, just as important, that those evaluations of teaching be taken seriously into account in making tenure and other personnel decisions. You all went through this last year so you remember what I’m talking about. The College and all of the schools at Chapel Hill did that and it was a successful process. We’ve long since reported that to the General Administration. Those are the issues with which the Committee on Instructional Personnel deals. I’ll be happy to answer questions about any of the above.
Professor Miles Fletcher (History): I have a comment on the academic calendar. I’d like to convey the opinion of a number of my constituents that the fall break this year, this fall, this semester, came way too early. It was disruptive to the semester. It came just a few weeks after Labor Day holiday and there seems to be strong opinion that it should come later, preferably even after University Day — if it could be positioned halfway between Labor Day and Thanksgiving break that would be great. But there’s great puzzlement about what it was so early this year and the desire that it not be so early next year. Provost McCormick: Well. I share your view that it was too early this year. I can’t tell you offhand why it was scheduled that way, but I’ll pursue it and see if we can’t get it positioned about the middle of the semester where it belongs. Thank you. Professor Richard Beckman (Journalism & Mass Communication): But I see that it’s scheduled for a similar time next year already. Provost McCormick: We’ll look into that. It may well be. Professor Beckman: Can you say whether that will be permanent? Provost McCormick: Rich, I don’t know, but I’ll try to find out. Professor Beckman: Because I figure how it’s moving, it’s going to be in June pretty soon. [laughter] Provost McCormick: Then we’ll call it summer break.
Professor Charles Paull (Geology): I’d like to express a dissenting viewpoint from those of us that offer a field program and it takes students out in the field and have them participate in nature, it’s nice to have the break early enough so that we can still experience good weather. So don’t swing too far in the other way. Provost McCormick: Okay. I just to indicate in response to all three of you that have raised this matter that I really will look seriously into it. I don’t know why it’s migrated early, evidently for next year, too, but I will take seriously your concern about it, and yours, too. Mr. David Lanier (University Registrar): Do you want me to comment on that? Provost McCormick: Sure, David, please do. David Lanier, the Registrar, the master of the Calendar. Mr. Lanier: I’m Chair of the Calendar Committee, and we shoot for mid-semester for fall break, but there were a couple of considerations that we had to put it there. If it starts too late into October and we then we start advising for our next semester around mid October (so you could put fall break certainly after October 15th), you’re cutting out advising days before we start pre-registration. Also we’re not allowed to have fall break in the same week as University Day. So you don’t want to have half-a-day off on one day for University Day and then have a few more days off during that week for the fall break. Also the reason it was so early this year was because of home football weekends. They had several in a row this year — [groans and hisses and laughter]. If you don’t want us to consider the home football weekends, then that takes one factor out of the process. In fact next year we will have — it’s on around October 5th for Fall 1995. Professor Brown: Is it too late to change it? Mr. Lanier: What’s wrong with October 5th? Professor Brown: That’s okay? Mr. Lanier: I mean it’s approximately mid semester. If you look at Christmas — I’ve got the calendars right here. No, it’s never been that way. It’s always been within the first week of October. It’s always fallen pretty close to University Day as a matter of fact.
Professor Bayne: Last spring when we were talking about increased collaboration with Duke, one of the problems that came up is that our calendars didn’t match up. And I wondered if you people might try to deal with that issue or whether that is a no win situation. Provost McCormick: David, I’m going to call on you for that. I know you recently explained that very carefully to me, but I think you could explain it better than I could despite the excellence in which you gave me. Do you want to tackle that one? Mr. Lanier: We look at Duke every year. In fact, this year, this fall we’re very close to Duke. We started classes on around August 24th, 25th; Duke started the very next day. And we ended at almost at the exact same time. Their last day of classes was probably Thursday, and ours was Wednesday. Their exams start — we start our exams on Saturday, they start theirs on the next Monday, and we both finish our exams on the following Saturday. So, I’m not sure how much closer we can get our — Professor Bayne: This is pretty good. Mr. Lanier: And the reason they’re able to start two days later is because they have one less day in their exam period. They also do not take Labor Day. So they have the same number of instructional days because they have fewer exam days and one less holiday. Also in the spring they don’t take Martin Luther King Day. So we have — they’re the same day that we don’t. And I look at that. I make the proposal to the Calendar Committee. I put up a preliminary calendar for them to look at. I look at Duke’s calendar. I look at State’s calendar. I look at four or five other UNC institutions’ calendars. And I try to match closely. We’re exactly in step with NC State. And only two days off from Duke. Provost McCormick: Are there other questions for David? Thank you very much. Oh, wait, I think there is another question. Professor Brown: Steve, you said you were going to be quiet. Professor Bayne: I know. Professor Bromberg: Have you got one of those rude balls? Professor Bayne: The stuff that comes up on tenure, promotion and tenure, what percentage of that stuff gets sent back? Can you give us some sense of — 95% of the stuff goes through because the way the policies are set in place and — Provost McCormick: Okay. I can’t — I have to turn to Steve to talk about the College Subcommittee on Instructional Personnel. For the Professional Schools, that’s the half of it that I chair, the great majority of it is approved, often with considerable discussion, questions, the Dean is sitting there. What we find, and I assume this is true in the College, too, is that the local units, the faculty members closest to those being considered for promotion or tenure or whatever, take this very, very seriously. They’ve obtained letters from the outside. They’ve scrutinized it carefully. Their standards are very high. If their judgment is negative, it doesn’t come forward. So we don’t see it. But if their judgment is positive, in the vast majority of cases they’ve made the right call, and so, as you suggest, we send it on — not without scrutiny and discussion, but we tend to send it on. Professor Brown: I don’t mean to inhibit you, do you want to follow up? Provost McCormick: Steve, come on, let’s have another one. Thank you. Professor Brown: Thank you, great.
C. University Government: Joseph S. Ferrell, Chair.
Professor Brown: Welcome; thank you for coming. I know you’re on leave this semester. Professor Ferrell: I wanted to compliment your new Chairman. When I walked in the room the first thing I noticed is instead of being arranged like the House of Lords, we are arranged like the Chamber of Deputies. It’s perhaps somewhat strange that the Committee would take three pages of single-spaced type to tell that you we have no recommendations this year. We did consider three important issues. And our advice is that we read the election returns in November, and our advice is, do nothing on all of them since we think, certainly with regard to the issues having to do with review of decisions not to reappoint probationary term faculty members, we affirm the present process and with the concurrence of the Advisory Committee, whose advice we took into account, we feel that no change in that process is needed at this point. And so we recommend that nothing be done on that issue.
On the issue of a Council of Advice for the Registrar, the report essentially is that we’re in process — we don’t recommend against that; we just didn’t like David’s initial proposal. We have floated another proposal, but it’s still floating. And I have nothing to report to you on that, simply because we have not heard back from anyone about the proposal we put forward, which essentially was to use the Committee on Educational Policy as a source of advice to the Registrar on many matters about which he felt the need for advice, and to suggest that there were other mechanisms for looking into some of the other matters to be considered. One of the things our Committee is very reluctant to do is to create another committee. It is difficult enough as it now is to find individuals who are willing to serve on these committees. We’ve got lots and lots of committees that have lots and lots of able people. And we prefer to see what we’ve presently got in place used rather than create another.
The third issue, voting status for fixed-term faculty, was, once we got into it, a much more complex issue than we initially thought. We are aware that, presently, the lecturer-equivalent members of the faculty are the only members of the University community on faculty staff who are not formally represented either in this body or in the staff Employee Forum. We think that is not a very good situation, but frankly we are puzzled as to how to address it. The issue is a very complex one. I had a good conversation yesterday with a person who is in that situation, saying, “I wish you could do something for us.” And my suggestion was, “Develop a proposal and bring it to us.” We were not able to do it, frankly. It is just a very difficult matter to address. So I think what we are doing is throwing it back in someone else’s lap and saying, “We recognize there’s a problem. We agree that something needs to be done. We don’t know what it is.” We’re much better as a committee at taking somebody else’s idea and perfecting it than we are in developing on our own. So that’s my report, Madam Chairman. Professor Brown: Thank you. Any comments? Questions?
Professor Paul Farel (Physiology): Actually, in a characteristic understatement you admitted the fact that you do recommend something, and that was that any member of the Hearings Committee who had participated in any previous phase of a non-renewal decision should not sit on the hearings panel considering the case on appeal. Professor Ferrell: Yes. Professor Farel: Can that be done without enlarging the panel? Professor Ferrell: Paul, I frankly don’t know. What I assumed that addressed, the situation in which a member of the Hearings Committee might have been a Division Chairman in the College of Arts and Sciences and therefore a member of the Dean’s Advisory Committee, having reviewed a process which was later turned back by the main Advisory Committee or something of that sort. In the background that I come from in Law, it’s understood that a judge is going to recuse himself or herself if she or he has prior information about the case before them. And so that’s our feeling is that if you’re in that situation and a member of the Hearings Committee, you should step aside. Professor Farel: For those of us not in law, can you put that, make that clear that that is a policy for the Hearings Committee? I mean what would be the next step to ensure that your recommendation is implemented? Professor Ferrell: The Chairman of the Board of Trustees is listening to the debate. The regulations are the Trustees’ regulations. The report has gone forward to the Hearings Committee — is aware of it. I suppose part of our institutional problem here is the institutional memory situation that someone — we don’t tend to want to put things in writing, and so it depends on this chair of the Hearings Committee communicating that tradition to the next one. Professor Farel: In most instances, I think, institutional memory is very short, but this is a very important issue. Professor Ferrell: Yes, I agree. Professor Brown: How could we move on it, Joe? Chancellor Hardin: Let me suggest something, Madam Chair. I think that this is something that I could consult University Counsel on, and we might discover that there’s some legislative history about the present rules. But I think probably an administrative study informed by perhaps consultation with Joe Ferrell could lead to a recommendation to the Trustees. Professor Brown: Great.
Professor Laurel Files (Health Policy & Administration, Public Health): There is a provision in the Tenure Regulations that the Hearings Committee can hear with only three members, with as few as three members, and that has happened. Professor Brown: How many members are there? Professor Files: There are five on the Committee, and there was at least one occasion, maybe two, where people recused themselves because of a situation and had conferred previously at a different level of the review, and the same member had recused themself, and with the agreement of the person who makes the grievance, can call the hearing with a fewer number of people. I think there’s also a provision for people not sitting in hearings if it is your own department or in other ways involved, so I think the situation may be more taken care of, may be less of a problem than it would appear. Professor Ferrell: We have from time to time — this is not the first time. I can remember at least twice before we’ve debated at length whether we should ask the membership of the Committee be enlarged. Once you get into it, the Secretaries of the Faculty for several generations have said this is the single-most difficult committee to get people to agree to stand for. Because it involves a tremendous amount of work. And it is — we are hesitant to enlarge it to the point — if it is difficult now to fill five spaces, it would even more difficult to fill more, so that has held us back from that solution.
Professor David Pike (Germanic Languages): I followed everything that Laurel Files has said, and have more familiarity with one of the cases than I wish I had, and what she said was correct. In the particular case I was familiar with, we began with five members, two of whom had heard the case that had come before them two or three years earlier, and those two people recused themselves. Maybe the correction that I would make would be that it did not occur with permission solicited from the person who filed the grievance, as a result of which, in my opinion, we had a hearing that was heard by a Committee with something akin to a little in the way of a collective institutional memory. Professor Brown: So you would have wanted to keep the two people? Professor Pike: I don’t know that I’m advocating anything other than corroborating 80% of what Laurel just said, that the provision exists and those four people recusing themselves, and for formally hearing with three people. But that in the case I was familiar with, it resulted in a Committee that didn’t represent an approach to that particular hearing that reflected the way that things had been done in the recent past. And that, in my mind, created some problems. And if, in fact, I don’t want to put the question back to Laurel, where — Professor Files: I think our memories are different. Professor Pike: It could be, but where the idea that people could recuse themselves if the person who filed a grievance approved that …. Professor Brown: Thank you. So [to the Chancellor] you’re going to look into that. Chancellor Hardin: Yes. Professor Brown: Okay, great.
Professor Bromberg: Yes, I rise to inquire about the so- called fixed-term faculty, and the Committee not taking any action, and I just wondered what is going to be done about these people who are working full-time for the University, who get their salary check and bring benefits to the University, who are not represented on, at this meeting, on the Council, or in any other way. Professor Brown: Well I can speak to this issue. I’ve been talking with the people who are concerned about this and who are looking at how to move on it. Part of it is a definitional problem because fixed-term faculty are called different things in different units of the University. I was approached originally to give voting rights to lecturers, but that term doesn’t work in lots of other things in the University. So, some of it’s going to be a definitional problem that we need to grapple with. Professor Ferrell: It’s a definitional problem, and it’s a problem of identifying people given the way our information is organized now. At the departmental level — it’s one of those cases where at the departmental level we all know what we’re talking about because we have individuals in mind. But when you go up to the higher level you find that the culture on fixed-term appointments is very, very different between Academic Affairs and Health Affairs. And within units in Academic Affairs it may be very, very different. I don’t know that we could give you a list, for example, of people who hold fixed-term appointments who do not also hold tenure-track appointments either here or at Duke or at NC State, for example. There is, I’m told, no way to determine what the time commitment is of any given individual who holds a fixed-term appointment, nor what the mix of that individual’s duties are. I’m told that in some units people who hold fixed-term appointments are effectively full-time administrators, rather than faculty members. In other units the situation is totally different. That’s what we kept running into. At this level, at the Faculty Council level, our task is to try to find some kind of mechanism that will — we’re trying to find one size that will fit all — and that may not work.
Professor Bromberg: I’m just asking for what is going to be done about it. My question — I did suggest that the first cut is do you get a full-time check from the University. That will remove all kinds of adjuncts who don’t get that kind of treatment and who, in fact, are not equivalent to full-time faculty.
Professor Rich Beckman: Just to show you how important these people are: the last two years, as a member of the Chancellor’s Undergraduate Teaching Awards Committee, one year as Chair and one year as a member — in both instances we have had candidates brought forth to the Committee who are fixed-term and therefore, by definition, not eligible for those awards. In each case they would have won awards if they had been eligible. So the contribution to the University on the teaching side is very strong and we need to do something about it. I’m not satisfied with no recommendation. Professor Ferrell: Nor am I. Another implication of the decision is, I assume, if we develop a mechanism to identify certain fixed-term faculty members who thereby attain faculty voting privileges, they also acquire full faculty privileges within the department, as to whatever your departmental procedures are about appointments and promotions, for example, service on faculty committees within the department. It would be very difficult, I would think, to exclude from your internal processes any faculty member who held voting privileges in the General Faculty. So that makes it even more — interesting.
Professor Brown: Good. Well, what I could propose, Joe, is to constitute a committee to look into that — yet another committee — but to work with Joe on getting another proposal in front of us soon. Because I think it’s something we really do want to move on.
Dr. Tim Sanford (Institutional Research): I’d just like to make a brief comment on the negotiations with the Registrar’s Office. I share your concern about having too many committees very seriously, but I think this is one where the Council may want to give it some consideration, and that was the reason why the question was brought forward. There are two points that I’d like to make, and I think you’re aware of both of them; they’re nothing new for you. One is that originally back in the ’50s this was a joint committee. The Admissions Committee was a committee on admissions and records. And at that time the Committee asked the Council to create two committees in its place because the work was too much for one committee. And so the Admissions Committee stayed, and for some reason the Records and Registration Committee just never got going with it. So this would technically not be a new committee, but bringing back a committee. The second thing is, and this is the reason why I think it’s more important, and that is that I think we have had too many cases where the Registrar’s Office — it really operates on an academic service philosophy very strongly — has been put in the awkward position of not having any idea of what faculty plans are, to make changes to the grading systems, to add pluses and minuses to grades, to do all kinds of things, until it’s passed in the Council. And the expectation is then very realistically that that happen shortly thereafter. But their planning time when you’re dealing with a student information system — it takes five years to install, let alone to modify and to make other changes — makes them appear very reactive and very hesitant to go along when in fact it’s just the time element involved. So the request is not made lightly. I know the response was not made lightly. But I think this is an area where we do need to make some special considerations of some sort to make sure that we allow the administrative processes to be a part of the deliberations. Thank you. Professor Brown: Great. I’m going to follow up, Tim. I dropped the ball a bit on that, so we’ll follow up on that. Thank you, Joe.
D. Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions: Stephen S. Birdsall,. Chair.
Dean Birdsall: Thank you, Jane. Following submission of the report, we got a request to provide some data for context and we prepared a table for last year compared to this year. I think next year perhaps we can have three years in a row and so forth to provide additional context. I think it was a good suggestion. I’d like to call your attention just to several items in either the table itself — there’re still copies over there — and in the body of the report. First, in the table, note that as I think much attention was called to earlier in the semester, we have almost 3500 freshmen admitted this fall, and that was an increase. It was also a bit of a surprise, and it created a certain amount of scrambling, but all needs were met, both in terms of housing and in terms of classes. Moving down to the subgroups, please note that the out-of-state matriculations — those students that chose to enroll once they were admitted — increased 10% over last year. So there was a 10% increase in out-of-state enrollments. There was over a 20% increase in African-American enrollments, and farther down for transfers, there was about a 6-1/2% decrease in enrollments of transfer students. On the next page there is one item to which to call your attention, and that is in the top under roman numeral “IV. Percent of Admitted Who [actually] Enrolled [among the] Freshmen”. Notice that the Non- Residents, that is non North Carolina students who were admitted, the enrollment was up considerably, whereas the other enrollments were pretty much as predicted in previous years. So the greatest surprise, in other words, was the number of students from out-of- state who were admitted who decided in fact to enroll.
Within the body of the report — there’s a good deal of information there — but there are two items there to which I’d like to call your attention. On page 3 and 4 there are described four different programs that the Office of Admissions has underway to increase the yield of high ability students, that is, those students that we expect to have the greatest possibility of success and whether it be targeted correspondence, involvement in the Morehead selection process, or the Carolina Contact and Carolina Close-Up programs. All of these are directed, again, increase this yield or the number of admitted high ability students who in fact choose to enroll at this University. The other bit of information here is on page 6 to call you attention to. And those are the efforts involved in minority recruitment. Notice that over 1,000 students were contacted before visiting their high schools. There were 323 high school visits. Beyond that, minority staff and some of the African-American faculty wrote or called the top 20% of the accepted minority applications in order to, again, provide the personal encouragement and contacts to lead to this increased enrollment once admission once offered. Whether those extra efforts were a source of the 20+ percent jump in enrollments among the African-American population or whether they would have come anyway we don’t know, but we certainly will continue the effort. I think I’ll stop there, being at the shank end of the meeting in the semester and see if there are any questions.
Professor Linda Stone (Education): I’m Linda Stone. I’m an alternate from the School of Education. And I guess I wanted to ask a question about the Puerto Rican and Hispanic numbers, and these numbers are considerably less than the average compared to applications there. And we know in the School of Education because we’re working with the growing Hispanic communities in Siler City and other places in North Carolina that this is a large, an increasingly large population in the State, and I just wondered if there was any targeted work with them as it looks like it has been with African-American students, and if the Committee is taking that issue up. Dean Birdsall: A year ago, well the earlier year since it was last year that we’re reporting on, but the year before we had, in fact, discussed this — how to identify and make additional outreach to the Hispanic students who we thought would be — first to encourage them to apply and then, once the applications were in, to provide the additional attention necessary in order to encourage enrollment once admitted. So, yes; that’s the short answer, yes.
Professor Phil Bromberg: If I read these numbers correctly, there are 9,000 of 15,600 applicants who are out-of-state. Is that correct? Dean Birdsall: That’s right. Professor Bromberg: And therefore a substantial majority of the applications come from out-of-state students. Can you tell me how many of these 9,000 applicants were admitted and what their average SAT score was? Dean Birdsall: Well, the — it’s in the table. It doesn’t have the SAT scores, but it does have the …. There were 1773 who were admitted of the 8960 who applied. The SAT scores are very high. Very high. Professor Bromberg: Is that information that is really brought home to the Board of Trustees, to the state legislature, that there is a large pool of highly qualified individuals who apply to this University? We are very restricted in what fraction of them we can accept. But there is a almost qualitative difference between those individuals and the great majority of the good students that we do accept, even though those students are improving in terms of SAT scores. It’s all very well to say, “Well, this is a state university, and we have to have these strict rules on not opening our doors to people who are not residents of the state.” On the other hand, there is a good reason to say that we are a national university, and we like to compare ourselves to other universities and talk about our prowess in research, etc. And somehow, even though you don’t want to offend anyone, you’ve sort of got to bring home the message that this University is attracting the very best and the very brightest and that perhaps we need to give more thought as to the balance of who is admitted and, by the way, who might come back to work and live in the state of North Carolina even though they originally come from Minnesota or wherever. Professor Brown: David, do you want to comment on that? Mr. Whichard: Only if Steve stands here with me. Primarily I think our out-of-state admissions are limited to 18% — is that right, Steve, 18%? And I think that’s the student body. Is that right? Dean Birdsall: Incoming freshmen. Mr. Whichard: Incoming freshmen. When you look at the student body as a whole, our student body, the number of out-of-state students is considerably higher than that, the percentage is considerably higher than that because of the graduate component. This is a problem that we’ve wrestled with for a number of years, and I think we will continue to. There is a feeling, at least in the Legislature and other places probably within the University, that says we’re subsidizing very heavily the students who come to Chapel Hill and other state institutions, and we feel state money should be used primarily for state students. That’s what we’re hearing, and I think that’s part of the driving force behind the situation in which we find ourselves. It may change. I would not think it would change any time soon. Do you concur? Dean Birdsall: Yes.
Professor Carl Bose: One approach that’s taken at some other state institutions, and I know this from personal experience, is that those states choose not to subsidize out-of-state students to the degree that the University of North Carolina does, and therefore, admit larger numbers, because the burden on the citizens of that particular state is not as great. Has any thought been given to that, charging much higher tuition to out-of-state students? Chancellor Hardin: Let me try that. If these permitted percentages do change, it may be economically driven. If the state decides to cut back, lamentably, on what we are given per capita, the state may also be inclined to give us an opportunity to charge more tuition, something approaching the full cost of education and bring in more revenue. I think at the present time, though, the formula hasn’t had anything to do up till now. The policies behind the formula have not been revenue-driven at all — they haven’t had anything to do with it at all. Just a question of everybody wants to get into Carolina and, by golly, we’re going to let the North Carolinians get into North Carolina. Every state has something of the sort, some kind of standard. We are low, as I understand it. I know we’re low compared to the University of Virginia, the University of Michigan, and some other state universities with whom we compare ourselves. Interestingly enough, our professional schools self impose similar kinds of proportions, deeming that their mission is to prepare the learned professions for the state of North Carolina. There’s been a lot written and said lately about how good we are. And one nationally prominent evaluator of colleges and universities, that learned journal, U.S. News and World Report [laughter], puts an enormous amount of weight on SAT scores, comparing us with other universities around the country. If we could do anything we wanted to about in-state and out-of-state admissions, we could have any SAT score we want — almost literally any SAT level we want. That’s why I urge reporters, Blake and others, not to get too hypnotized by SAT scores. I think it’s kind of remarkable that we inch up a little bit every single year, at least two or three points a year higher over the last seven years, the years in which I have a special interest. We’ve been inching up every single year. But we could jump, if that’s important to state policymakers, if they want to see us ranked really high, that would be quite a boon for us.
Mr. Whichard: Let me add one other point, too, since Paul had mentioned the increase in out-of-state tuition. I think if you saw the University at Chapel Hill put its out-of-state tuition at nearer the cost of the state subsidy, I think you’d probably see a significant decrease in the number of out-of-state applicants. Chapel Hill is a great educational bargain. We recognize it in North Carolina and people all over the country recognize it, too. People from other states can come to Chapel Hill at the present level of out-of-state tuition cheaper in many instances than they can go to their own state public universities in some of the states. Chancellor Hardin: The other thing is, it makes sense to subsidize out-of-state students. They do represent human capital that we import, and it’s just extremely important for North Carolina.
Professor Harry Gooder: I would hope always in these sorts of discussions when we talk about the economic cost of education and so on, we really distinguish between undergraduates and graduate students. They’re two different cultures. One encourages undergraduates to go elsewhere to graduate school the same way that we take [under]graduates from around the country. Not only that, every time you raise the out-of-state and don’t distinguish between them, in departments like mine you know where the burden falls. We have to compete for graduate students. We have to offer them a nationally competitive stipend, which means the faculty members have to go out and find more out-of-state money, or non-state money, in order to recruit students. Chancellor Hardin: There is one other point distinguishing the undergraduate and graduate students. The in-state/out-of-state dichotomy is senseless, meaningless at the graduate student level. These are mature individuals who are practically all financially independent of their families. Their families all want them to go to law school or medical school. They decide to pursue a Ph.D. on their own. [laughter] And they’ll be residents if they’re not residents the day they matriculate, they’ll be residents one year later.
Professor Karl Petersen (Mathematics): And I’ve already talked about the 18% figure. There’s the other figure in here of 50 for the quota of out- of-the country students. And I brought this question up before. And it’s been mentioned here that the University at Chapel Hill does operate on a national, and also on an international, level. And it’s important to us, I think, to have people come onto the campus from other states and other countries. They add a lot to the education of the in- state students who are here. And I think it makes sense for Chapel Hill to have a larger quota on out-of-the-country students; also to have a larger quota on out-of-state students. So I have two questions. One is if the 18% — does that figure go more or less across the constituent institutions of the University of North Carolina? Chancellor Hardin: Yes. Professor Petersen: It seems to me that it might be sensible for schools like Chapel Hill and NC State to have a much higher quota on out-of-state and foreign students, and maybe some other branches of the University of North Carolina system. Dean Birdsall: That point I think is referred to earlier in the report. It was taken up by the Advisory Committee three or four years ago, and it’s a very difficult one. The faculty recognize all the positives of having a number of international students on campus. The tension of course is that those international students are out-of-state, and so they are part of the out- of-state quota, and as long as that relationship exists, then how far to go for a national [law] school still recognizing the exclusion of other states. American students who are also very, very good, outstanding, then that puts us in a very difficult bind. And we came down through that discussion 50 as the number. But we can always have another discussion on it. Professor Petersen: Let me just follow up. We have very many excellent study-abroad programs, for example, on campus of which only a few students are able to take advantage, and it does a tremendous amount for their education, and their view of life and the world in general. But if you bring some international students over here each one can interact with very many students and bring a part of the world here.
Professor Joy Kasson (American Studies): Another factor that’s often brought up when we have these discussions is the question of the children of out-of-state alumni, and in trying to balance the fairness of serving the people of this state with the diversity that out-of-state students bring. One way to address this might be to consider the children of alumni who live out of state not in the out-of-state quota but in the in-state quota because they are people who have affections for North Carolina, and that makes the out-of-state quota a little bit bigger. This comes up frequently. Chancellor Hardin: I’m amazed that I now am beginning to have institutional memory. [laughter] I didn’t think I’d been here so long. Prior to the 18% we had 15%. And when we had 15% limitation it didn’t include legacies or recruited athletes. Some of our predecessors asked the Legislature to change that. The Legislature magnanimously changed it; raised it from 15 to 18%, but in doing so, made us count legacies and recruited athletes, in consequence of which we now are really frozen at a good, hard solid 18%. We probably had on the order or 20-21-22% under the old system. Professor Brown: Be careful what you ask for… [laughter] Chancellor Hardin: I remember Jay Robertson’s caution when I wanted to raise this shortly after I came. He said, “Paul, it just isn’t the time. There’s too much concern to give North Carolinians higher priority.” Which I do understand as a general proposition. [He] said if you raise the question that you’re not satisfied with 18 and you want more, they may cut you to 10. And they’d be more apt to do that than to raise you to 20-25. But while we’re talking about this thing, logically, logically I think you have 16 campuses and universities in the University system in order to have some missional differentiation. And there is incredibly ample opportunity for undergraduate education within the state of North Carolina and a low-priced University system. And it isn’t logical to have exactly the same quotas in all 16 institutions. If you want to get off this sort of uncomfortable business of self-serving, talking about Chapel Hill and NC State, I’m told that some of the historically black institutions could solve some shaky enrollment problems by admitting more out-of-state enrollments. Because there is a fashion now abroad across the country in which young African-Americans often seek to enter the historically black and predominantly black institutions. And they are located in the South and a whole bunch of them, public and private, right here in North Carolina. So it isn’t perhaps only the great research universities, at NC State and Chapel Hill, that could attract remarkably fine students if we were permitted to do so, but I think some other schools in the system could too. And I hope someday rigorous logic will be applied to the whole thing, rather than sort of instinctive protectionism.
Professor Lolly Gasaway (Law): A way to get around this rigorous logic perhaps might be to look at creating a separate quota for international students, leaving the 18% quota for out-of-state, and putting 5% or whatever we could suggest — making the globalization arguments that were being talked about. Chancellor Hardin: That’s worth a try, because it’s new. Professor Gasaway: And not just limiting it to Chapel Hill but to the other campuses if they are interested in that. And that might be, as we talk about international programs, be a real way to effectively change the 18% by just putting a different quota. Chancellor Hardin: That’s worth discussing with our representatives. Professor Gasaway: Thank you.
Professor James Peacock (Anthropology): While agreeing with the thrust of the discussion, there’s one point that I would like to comment on. Philip Bromberg said that there was almost a qualitative difference between the out-of- state and in-state students. I think that’s an unfortunate designation, and it feeds a prejudice against very bright in-state students. An example is in my department, and this happened to be a graduate student from North Carolina who had 1600 GRE, which is perfect, but was rejected on the assumption, I guess, than an in-state student wasn’t up to snuff. So we have to be careful with the stereotyping which I know is unintended but which is often, nonetheless, a part of our presumption. Professor Bromberg: Well, my only point in using the word “qualitative” and, I must say, I’m amazed that your department had such superb applicants that it can afford to reject someone with a 1600 in the GRE. But be that as it may, it’s that we’re dealing with numbers and, well, it’s all quantitative and I wanted to make the point that we’re dealing with things like 200 points in the range between 1129 and, say, 1350. We’re really almost talking about a different breed of cat. And it makes you wonder what is the wisdom of our fathers in the Legislature, or whoever these people are who are determining the destiny of the University, to overlook the potential of this University for attracting a somewhat increased number of truly remarkable students and hopefully retaining them ultimately to stay and contribute and work in this state, and not to mention the fact that I believe that students learn the most from their peers. And to give our students in North Carolina a different vision as to what exists in the wide world, and perhaps open their eyes to the competitive nature of the world. Professor Brown: Jim, a rebuttal? Professor Peacock: I couldn’t agree more and in fact have, myself, and others, attempted to make those arguments. I simply was taking issue with the phrase “almost qualitative” and the 1129 versus the 1300 are averages, as we know. But I completely agree with the thrust of your argument.
Professor Brown: Super. We have an issue this time, after all. And, Steve, you need to say something. [laughter] Go ahead. Professor Steve Bayne: I always love looking at this report because it’s filled with data, and I love numbers and all that sort of stuff. But there are a couple of frustrations that I just sort of want to pass them back to Steve. You can deal with them any way you want. The first one is I’d really like to see more of a broader snapshot in time, a trend analysis, in each of these categories. Instead of just getting the number for this year or the number for this year or last year. What was it for the last five years, what direction are we going. And the other thing is I’m sure you deal with an incredible number of issues beyond the one we’ve just spent the last 20 minutes talking about. And I wondered if it would be appropriate at some point in time to come up with a list of recommendations to put in the end of the report that said that in terms of the missions and perceived problems or — these might be things that you want to consider in Faculty Council. I know you’re overwhelmed with all this data, and probably by the time you get to the end it’s not — you probably want to stay away from all these touchy issues, but it would be nice from our point of view to have your insight as to what the key issues are concerning undergraduate admissions. Dean Birdsall: Thank you. Professor Brown: Anything else for Steve? Thank you, thank you very much, Steve. And I think the Chancellor’s going to move on this proposal about 5% international — Chancellor Hardin: I like that; it’s new. It’s not the same old argument. Professor Brown: Anything else?
Old or New Business.
Professor Brown: Anything else? Great, thank you very much for a stimulating meeting, and Happy Holidays. See you in January.
The meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m.
George S. Lensing Secretary of the Faculty
Actions of the Council
|Sept. 23, 1994||Resolution of thanks to Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney||To Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney|
|Resolution of thanks to General Assembly||To Members of General Assembly|
|Resolution of thanks to Elizabeth McMahan, editor of Faculty Handbook||To Elizabeth McMahan|
|Oct. 21, 1994||No resolutions|
|Nov. 11, 1994||No resolutions|
|Dec. 9, 1994||No resolutions|