March 29, 1996

I. Memorial Resolutions:

A. For the late James Reubin Gaskin: William R. Harmon, Chair, Memorial Committee.

[Chancellor Hooker: May I ask you to stand for a moment of silence.]

B. For the late Edith K. MacRae: William E. Koch, Chair, Memorial Committee.

[Chancellor Hooker: May I ask you to stand for a moment of silence.]

II. Chancellor Hooker.

I have a number of things to report. You will hear very soon from Professor Gerald Horne who will update you on the Black Cultural Center. Let me just take this occasion to say that we have received the pledge of a million dollar gift which will be applied to the Black Cultural Center. Like most million dollar gifts, the donor didn’t sit down and write us a check. What the donor did was to pledge a million dollars over ten years. Like all pledges, of course, it can be revoked. We don’t anticipate that it will be. We don’t know the time table at which the gift will come to us, but I do want to express thanks to the donor and, unfortunately cannot identify the donor because this person wants to remain anonymous. It is delightful to be able to break the logjam that I felt that I was encountering in fund-raising for the Black Cultural Center. And I’m sure Professor Horne takes delight in the announcement of this gift. It will be a lot easier, as I’ve said before, to raise funds for the Black Cultural Center once the programming gets established and we are able to overcome a lot of the negative image that was developed regarding the Black Cultural Center and its identity around the time of its establishment. The image was not appropriate to the reality. The reality is that it will be, it is our intention, at least, that it become a world-class facility for academic research in the areas of its concern. And once that is clear and the image is established, I think fund-raising will be a great deal easier than it has been in the recent past, and I take this gift, which was given in part in recognition of that identity for the Black Cultural Center, is emblematic of good things to come.

You will also hear today from the Task Force, the Chancellor’s Task Force on Women. You have a copy of their report. I want to acknowledge Professor Granger and Miss DeLon for the work that they did in guiding the Task Force. It is a good report. I also want to associate myself with the recommendations of the report, particularly the recommendation for the creation of an advisory committee to the Chancellor. I will create such a committee, working with existing women’s groups to do that. I also am basically in sympathy with the idea of a Women’s Center. However, I’ve asked the Committee to, as it were, cost out the Center and look at the question, how it should be/could be funded. It’s always a challenge for a task force on any issue to produce recommendations that solve the problem that the task force is asked to solve, the problems that the task force is asked to solve, but I think it always needs to be done in the context of reallocation of scarce resources. And so I’ve asked the Committee, not only to cost out the creation of a Women’s Center, but also to put that and to rank that in priority ranking for all of the recommendations that are in the Task Force report. Again, the Committee is in a much better position to prioritize its own recommendations than the Chancellor would be. And so I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee as we develop the priority list and we develop the budget for a Women’s Center and identify sources of revenue that can be used to support such a Center.

You are all aware that as a result of legislative action last year in the budget period we have been asked to do a teaching workload study, that we haven’t, the General Administration hasn’t, the Board of Governors to be more exact has. We have been involved in it. The Provost feels that a great deal of progress has been made, especially now that members of the campuses have become involved in the design of the project. To date, a great deal of progress has been made. I think Dick to be the first to say that he’s reasonably happy with the direction that it’s going. The Committee has recognized differential workloads for campuses depending upon their mission. That’s something that’s very important to us. For example, there has been established a four courses a year workload on Carnegie Research I campuses and eight courses a year on Baccalaureate II campuses, and with gradations between depending upon the character of the campus in question. That is, as I say, very important to us. The details about the workloads for each campus will be sent to General Administration and then to the Legislature by institutions, not by individual departments within the campuses. And I think that avoids possible misunderstanding. The legislation specified also that rewards for faculty who teach overloads should be devised or mechanisms should be identified, and that will, I’m happy to say, be recommended to be left to the home campuses. Now as I say, all of these are recommendations that will go from the General Administration to the Board of Governors and from the Board of Governors to the General Assembly. Now there are very issues that are still to be resolved, not the least of which is how we define teaching. It is easy to identify teaching when a faculty member is standing in front of a class of students. But much teaching that goes on on campus, of course, is harder to identify. There’s teaching when a faculty member is working with a student who is working as research assistant or a teaching assistant. There’s teaching that takes place when a student shows up at a faculty member’s office or office hours for individual consultation. It is important to recognize all of these modes of teaching. And so defining teaching will represent quite a challenge, but an important challenge.

You are also aware that the Legislature mandated an accountability and incentive fundings study. Dick Richardson, if I’m not mistaken, is at General Administration right now working on that accountability study. You’ve heard about it from Jane. I think that we are making progress and I’m pleased to say that we are. We hope that the Board of Governors at April 11 will consider the current report as a set of ideas and will give us an additional six months to develop refinements of the current report. We also believe that the Board of Governors may recognize, say, 50% of the accountability measures to be applied to all sixteen campuses in the University system, the other 50% being specific to each campus, relative to it mission. That is an important emendation to what has been discussed before, and one that I hope will be accepted by the Board of Governors.

I requested of the Government Committee, Joe Ferrell in particular, recommendations regarding implementation of the Salary report, and I’m happy to say that I just heard today, at least my office informs me that the letter is in. Joe has recommended a few modest adjustments to the policy to accommodate the Faculty Code as I understand and I’ve asked Dick Richardson to work with Jane Brown to accommodate the adjustments that Joe has recommended, and I expect to be able to report to you at the April meeting on the implementation of the salary recommendations.

Let me turn to a subject that causes some concern for me, and that is the number of grant proposals that have been developed over the course of this year. As you know, we have experienced since the early 80’s an almost phenomenal increase in sponsored research activity on this campus. This past year we brought in $275 million in sponsored research. That is by any measure a very strong showing and, in fact, was about a 12-1/2% increase just from the year before. However, we track proposals submitted on a monthly basis, and the volume of proposals submitted this year has gone done fairly sharply, and that is a source of concern because there is an almost one-to-one correlation between increases in number of proposals submitted and increases in number of grants received. It is less direct, the correlation, in the case of proposals submitted and dollars received. But it is a numbers game, and I’m concerned that our production of proposals has fallen off. And I’ve talked with Tom Meyer about this, and Tom is convinced that many faculty are simply demoralized because of all of the bad news coming out of Washington regarding funding prospects for the Federal agencies. I think it’s important in that respect to recognize that this year the budget of NIH, which is our primary source of support, went up, and I expect that it will go up again next year — very modestly, but go up nonetheless. Funding for arts and humanities, something that I addressed this week at the North Carolina Philanthropy Conference, is off. And I expect it to get worse. But that, rather than demoralize us, should, in addition to demoralizing us, I should say, should lead us to work even harder to compete for grants in the arts and humanities area. And we stand ready to assist faculty in competing. And I am convinced that Carolina in the arts and humanities area is in a good position to compete. And I have talked with some of my fellow presidents, and I know that this is a phenomenon — this fall-off and demoralization is a phenomenon across the country among Research I universities. So it is not unique to Carolina. But a fortiori we should redouble our efforts to compete because if the rest of the world is reducing its number of grants, or the number of grant proposals, then the grants are ours for the taking, and I hope that we will take even more next year than we did last year. But especially, I want to say, that in the area of the sciences, the life sciences in particular, more money is available, and the money will go to those who submit the proposals. So I am hopeful that you will make use of the resources that we have available, the Grant Source Library, for example, which is on-line, can be accessed by computer, has stored, I think, about 20,000 documents that represent possible funding sources, particularly programs, and it’s a very fecund area for perusal for people who are looking for funding. So given our historical performance, our significant increases since the early 80’s, I think it’s time for North Carolina to kick in the afterburners and accelerate our activity rather to become demoralized and reduce our proposal production.

The final area that I want to speak with you about because it’s been in the press so much lately is simply that of parking. When the Board of Trustees met a couple of weeks ago I told them that I had asked Wayne Jones to look at a number of areas where we might erect new parking facilities. One of the areas that I’d asked him to look at was the playing fields beside Carmichael, in particular because those playing fields are overused, and it is impossible to keep grass there. We had thought of astroturfing them so that the students would have access to better facilities, and it occurred to me, “If we’re going to astroturf them, why don’t we put parking underneath and put the playing fields on the top deck?” We have looked at that. We haven’t ruled it out, but we haven’t ruled it in. There are a lot of complications, things I had never thought of, like carbon monoxide removal. For areas that are used for athletic events where everybody goes out at the same time, there’s the potential of dangerous buildup of carbon monoxide so you have to vent those facilities, those parking deck facilities, with large fans if — now, for normal parking decks you don’t. Because traffic moves in and out through the day and it isn’t peak usage the way that it is for athletic parking. So that just complicates things. But the biggest complication there is traffic flow. Well, that’s the second biggest complication. Everybody understands the biggest complication is funding these parking facilities. That is not the only area we’ve looked at. In fact I told the Trustees that the only area that we had ruled out was Polk Place. I think that was probably premature to say that. [laughter] When you look between here and South Building, you probably could fit 850 cars in there. So we will not rule out any area. But there are a number of possible areas on campus that haven’t been looked at closely, and Wayne Jones is now in the process of looking closely at those. Well, that’s all I have to report. I’d be delighted to answer any questions.

Professor Pete Andrews (Environmental Sciences & Engineering): Mr. Chancellor, since our last Faculty Council meeting Dean Stephen Birdsall has announced his intention to step down as Dean at the end of his term and return to teaching and research in the College. I would like to express my sense of the extremely widespread affection and admiration this faculty feels for his service as Dean, for the integrity and dedication with which he has served. And our great thanks to him for all he has done both for the College, the University, and for the faculty and students, and individuals, and staff who are members of that community. I’d like to invite, I don’t know if Steve is here today or not, but I would like to invite the Council to join me in expressing our appreciation. [applause] Chancellor Hooker: Thanks, Pete. I will convey that expression of appreciation to Steve, and there will, of course, be many other occasions where we will have the opportunity. Professor Barry Lentz (Biochemistry & Biophysics): Mr. Chancellor, on the subject of funding, especially in the biomedical sciences, if you stop over and see us sometime, I think you’ll find that a lot of the growth in funding over the last few years has coincided with growth in facilities and with numbers of faculty. And if we get more grants now, we won’t have any place to put the people that would do the work. If you do come to see us, don’t bring the fire marshal with you. [laughter] Chancellor Hooker: Barry, I have been to see you. It was actually the first place that I visited. The first building I visited on campus the visit of Harry Gooder, and Harry took me through some of the labs, and I saw the refrigerators in the hallway that I prefer not to see. So I understand that you’re cramped. I’m not so much arguing for an increase in grant activity, though that would be delightful to experience. But I’m rather arguing that we shouldn’t fold our tent and go home because it is now more difficult to get funding than it was before. So if we can sustain the same level with modest increases, I’ll be happy. And I do understand, am acutely aware, of the space issues, and I know that that is clearly a limiting factor in our continued growth. Thank you for pointing it out.

Professor Steve Bayne (Dentistry): [Professor Jane Brown: Steve is back!] There was a small report in the paper yesterday about the IRS audit which is impending, and I just wondered what your comments were. Have you maybe talked to some of the other chancellors around the country that have gone through this process. What’s the amount of disruption that you normally expect to get? Chancellor Hooker: I’m sorry that there’s press here, because I don’t want the IRS to think that they’re unwelcome, but [laughter] I did go through this at UMass. It requires a great deal of effort. It will probably cost us a million to a million-and-a-half dollars out of pocket to provide the space and the documentation and the staff support necessary to the IRS audit. It could cost a lot more than that, depending on how long they take advantage of our hospitality. These audits can go anywhere from a year to three years, and if you just look at the average recapture from the audits that they’ve already done — and they’re all peer institutions of ours that have already been audited — it’s about $1.5 million. What frightens me is that the IRS seems to be getting better as they go along. And so if you look at the curve, in a way we’re blessed to have them now rather than five years from now, because the curve of the recapture is going up — not up steeply, but the first institutions to be audited had to return $700,000 to $1.5 million, and lately it’s up around $2 million. But that’s just the money that you have to pay back because you didn’t– Professor Bayne: Could you bribe them with some basketball tickets? [laughter] Chancellor Hooker: No comment. The hidden cost of an IRS audit is the amount of staff time that it takes. I mean it is horrendous. We will have to add the equivalent of at least two staff people, an attorney and an accountant, just to interact with them. And we have to give them space. And as Barry understands, space is at a premium on this campus.

Professor Jack Sasson (Religious Studies): I want to hark back to the topic we’ve been discussing all along here which is the issue of intellectual climate. [Chancellor Hooker: Yes.] You may recall that about a few months ago, sometime in the fall, we all woke up to discover that WUNC-FM was commandeered by a group of people. Now it wasn’t clear at all who has commandeered it and changed the programming, until today I read the Chapel Hill newspaper and it said WUNC drew a record number of listeners in the fall. It turns out that the group are followers or worshippers of Arbitron. They look at Arbitron and it tells them what programming is worthwhile and is not worthwhile. As you all know, of course, Arbitron gives us television, that superb intellectual and invigorating field. [laughter] And what I want to talk about today is that it wouldn’t matter at all if WUNC-FM continues its programming where they are making it mind-to-mind mindless talk. And I might even put up with the notion of cutting up a music and giving you only the “hightly, lightly” little piece for 2 seconds. But what I mind is the fact that it’s still called WUNC-FM because we license it. I think it should be called WARB-FM, and everyone would be happy. We have a mission at this University. This mission is to raise the intellectual climate. This mission also is to teach people. And I think everything that’s been going on at this station is to lower every aspect of things that we expect about what a university ought to be doing.

Chancellor Hooker: I was about to respond facetiously and ask, Jack, if you would be willing to give 2% of your department budget to WUNC. Let me explain the problem. It goes back to the issue of allocating scarce resources that I mentioned when I talked about the Task Force on Women’s Issues. What was it, about six years ago, those of you who were here will remember, the Legislature, it was when the State was in financial trouble, the Legislature zeroed out the five UNC — I think it was five — UNC radio stations that it was then funding. The budget of WUNC is $1.5 million — I think that’s correct. $1.2 million comes from listeners, from donations, another $100,000 comes from the Federal government, and all that money is at risk — the money from the Federal government. The remainder comes from corporate sponsors. And coming from the Philanthropy Conference this week, it was clear to me that corporate sponsorship is also at risk. Everything that funds the arts is at risk because as the Federal government works to build a balanced budget, it’s going to transfer responsibility more and more for social programs to the states and to the private sector. It’s going to close programs. And so you’re going to find a great hue and cry for corporate philanthropy and for foundation philanthropy that now goes to institutions like WUNC to go, instead, to social programs. So the question is, how do you sustain WUNC? It’s sustained by listener contributions. That’s the lion’s share of the support for WUNC. The figures, the Arbitron figures — and Arbitron is a “photographer.” Arbitron lets us know what we are viewing when it’s television, what we are listening to when it’s radio. The Arbitron is not the enemy. We are the enemy. Arbitron is simply telling WUNC what the listeners are listening to. And so the Arbitron ratings are up phenomenally, far more than anybody projected, since the reprogramming, or the change in format. Now I shared your sense of anguish as a listener when they went to the shortened vignettes — what do you call a snippet of music, whatever it is. When they went to that, I didn’t like it. And, on the other hand, they depend, as I say, they depend for $1.2 million of their $1.5 million budget comes from listeners. And the fund drive that started this week set records for the first two days. Why? Because it’s like grant proposals. The more people there are listening, the more money that you’re going to get in a fund drive. Now, does that mean that if we discover that Arbitron tells us that more people listen to country and western music that we will go to a country and western format? No, not at all. We will stick with the classical format, and the news shows, but the changes were almost necessitated by our desire, to the extent possible, to sustain the character of WUNC.

Professor Sasson: What makes us actually desire to become more popular so we sustain something larger, when in fact we began this station on a completely different mission. There are tons of stations that killing each other trying to get more people and get more people to listen in. This is not what we started to do. Chancellor Hooker: What we desire is survival. And that’s, that is the strategy. What they are trying to do, as I understand it, is to change the character of the station as little as possible while ensuring that they have an adequate listener base that will sustain them. And again, if we were willing, if the University were willing to fund them, they could have whatever format we wanted. They wouldn’t have to worry about contributions from listeners. But the question is, would any of us be willing to take a portion of our budget, our unit’s budget, and transfer it to WUNC? Professor Sasson: Just one final question. I don’t want to follow it here, because — but was it a fact that, let us say, in August 1995, was it a fact that the station was doing so badly financially that they had to really change completely and change to this system? I thought from everything that I had heard we were doing well, we were not packing them in but we were doing well, and we were fulfilling our mission. We had a variety of shows, we were reaching different people. I think the lowest common denominator is when we say to ourselves that the only thing we should worry about is whether we are losing more customers, or we have to have more customers and lower our quality of what we are presenting. That’s the problem here. And we’re doing it under the name of WUNC-FM. Change the name, fine. Chancellor Hooker: Thank you.

Professor Steve Leonard (Political Science): The questions that I have may have to do with issues touching on our mission and the allocation of scarce resources and also perhaps acceding to the demand for popularity. My Department’s about to undergo an external review, and I received a memo from my Chair in which it was indicated that a senior representative from the Administration told several of us that the goal of the coming institutional review was to identify the 10 or 20 departments and programs in the University that have the best prospects of moving into the top 10 in their fields and “pouring the University’s resources into them.” I’ve two questions about this. The first is, what do we mean by “best”? And in particular I’m concerned about how we might factor in issues of intellectual excellence, quality in teaching and quality in public service. Especially given that most measures of reputation, disciplinary reputation or professional reputation, don’t touch on these concerns. Indeed, some of my colleagues might argue that reputation can sometimes be corrosive of these concerns. Secondly, I wanted to ask what this strategy means for those units not poised to move into the top 10? I’d like to think of the University as a kind of chain in which the quality of the Institution is measured by the strength of its weakest link. Chancellor Hooker: The short answer is I don’t know. I haven’t seen the memo, and don’t know what is intended by it. The question is how do we measure “best”? Highly subjective as you well know in the Academy. And any measure of the best that I would be satisfied with was one that looked at, first at the scholarly reputation of the department among people in the same field, but that included also the quality of the department’s teaching, both undergraduate and graduate, and included also the quality of its service to the University community, and to community at large in the state. Professor Leonard: Regarding the second question, this notion of pouring the University’s resources into these top departments. I was wondering what the implications were for the remaining units. Chancellor Hooker: As I say, I never heard of the memo before today. You’ll have to talk to the Provost — I’m sorry he’s not here — or the Dean — I’m sorry he’s not here. I’m not trying to duck the question, but I’m not going to answer a question that pertains to something that I’ve not heard about and was not [lying].

Professor Harry Gooder (Microbiology & Immunology): A quick comment about outside grant requests. I haven’t noticed any diminution of the number going out of our department, but I have noticed a change in deadlines. It’s a fact that the Federal government was closed down three times last year, and this has resulted in a backlog of consideration. And I know some agencies were changing deadlines. Chancellor Hooker: Yeah. Harry, I made a note to mention that, and I apologize for not doing that. You are right. The Federal government was in chaos during the budget impasse and some deadlines were changed. But the General Administration tracks proposals submitted from all campuses, and this is the only campus that has experienced the decline. So. Professor Gooder: It’s the one that uses NIH the most. Chancellor Hooker: You’re right. Thank you very much.

III. Chair of the Faculty Jane D. Brown.

I have a number of announcements. I appreciated the Council’s quick vote on Dick Richardson’s appointment as Provost. It was an overwhelming majority in favor of appointment for the next five years. He’s not here, but I think we should extend to him a congratulations and best wishes. [applause] I also will remind you that you soon will be getting a packet like this in the mail, full of interesting, Easter-colored ballots. Please send them back in, and thank you for those of you who agreed to run for the standing committees, the elective committees, and for the Council again.

To update you about what the ECFC has been doing in the meantime, your Executive Committee. We will continue to work, and have been working on, implementing the salary policies that we talked about at the last Council meeting. So I appreciate your moving on that, and will continue to work with you on that. I also wanted to thank those of you who came forward to work with me on the accountability measures, on this proposal for General Administration: Darryl Gless, Jack Evans, Gordon Whitaker, especially, volunteered and, or I volunteered them and they agreed to work with me. And the Advisory Committee. We spent a lot of time looking at those proposals, and we then, and I think we’re being successful at encouraging the General Administration to look at those, to create measures that work for our campus as well as the other campuses. I wanted to especially thank Bernadette Gray-Little and Karl Petersen who spent a Sunday afternoon with me drafting my response. And if any of you want to continue to work on that, I’d appreciate hearing from you. Some of you are experts on this, and we need your expertise as we try to create measures that will work for us.

I also want to update on the Task Force on Intellectual Climate. We continue to look at how we want to structure that. And to, we’ve received some nominations of who wants to be on those committees. If any of you are interested, let me know, and we’ll get those recommendations to the Chancellor. The Board of Visitors will be here next week and we’ll be having a conversation with them about intellectual climate. And I just came from a fascinating lunch sponsored by Carolina Contact. This is a lunch for prospective freshman students, and faculty come and sit with a table of the best students from North Carolina and from the country who are interested in coming here. And it’s basically an opportunity to woo them to come here. And I sat with a group of students primarily from Enloe College, High School — it felt like College, in Raleigh. These were some of the most exciting students I’ve ever been with. They were having a discussion about Stephen Hawking’ A Brief History of Time and talking about the merits of modern physics at this lunch. And I was in awe. So I’m looking forward to a continuing stimulating intellectual climate if we are able to attract these students to come here.

I have a couple of invitations for you. You all should have now received this brochure in the mail, and I want to encourage you to participate. This is called “The University Campaign.” In the Bicentennial Campaign we were able to raise over $2 million from ourselves, basically, to come back to the University for programs that typically aren’t funded by the other kinds of donors. And so this is our opportunity to give back to the Institution, and I encourage you all to do this. This is our opportunity to give back to the specific thing you want to give back to, to graduate fellowships, to the Libraries, to your own unit. So I encourage you to that. If you’ve lost your brochure, there are some more back there on the table, and I appreciate your picking them up and giving what you can. We will have an opportunity as well to meet with our Legislators this coming Tuesday. The AAUP and SEANC are hosting our representatives here in the Union, 3:30 to 5:00. There are the next couple of things; actually, it would be great if you got out your calendars and put these things in your calendars, because what I’d like to do is to kind of remind you again that you are representing the faculty here as Faculty Council members, and it would be important for as many of us to be at this meeting and a couple of all the other things I want to tell you about here in a minute. So, this is our opportunity to speak to our local delegation about what we’d like to see them doing for us in the next, in the upcoming short session that begins in May. This is Tuesday, April 2, 3:30 to 5:00, in 211-212 Student Union. So as many of you can be there as possible. Thank you. I’ve just learned today that Katherine Kraft who is the incoming President of the Graduate and Professional Student Federation told me today that the Governor has declared April 8-12 as the Graduate and Professional Student Appreciation Week. And there’s going to an opening celebration on this campus on Monday, April 8, at noon, we hope up here at South Building. And I would encourage you all to come and to support our graduate students, and to say we do appreciate their being here; we appreciate that the Governor appreciates them. And hope that he puts some financial oomph behind that as well. If any of you have other ideas about how we might celebrate, Katherine Kraft is here. May I introduce you, Katherine? This is the new President of the Graduate and Professional Student Federation. Her phone number is 6-0675. She is open to other ideas about how to appreciate our graduate students and support them. Someone asked: And her email address is? Professor Brown: Email address, please. Ms. Kraft: klok@med.unc.edu. Very great. Thank you. And you have received at least two letters now encouraging you to come to the May Commencement. I encourage you as well. We will have a special speaker, Seamus Heaney will be there to speak to us. And you also have the opportunity to come to a reception honoring him the previous day, on Saturday, May 11th. From 3:00 to 4:30 there will be a reception for Seamus Heaney in the Wilson Library. Is that right, George? Professor Lensing: Yes. We have another opportunity to appreciate our employees. And that is the Employee Appreciation Fair, Friday, May 17, from 11:00 to 2:00. There are flyers back there for us if you want to participate to help create that. And so I would encourage us to do that. This is an opportunity for us to say we appreciate our staff and other employees on campus.

And I wanted to recognize Barbara Harris, the Chair of Women’s Studies, who has another invitation. Professor Harris: Jane asked me to come here today to tell you about a conference that’s going to meet at UNC-Chapel Hill on June 7th to 9th. That is the Tenth Berkshire Conference on the History of Women. It’s a triennial conference. In the year that it’s held it’s the second largest history conference in the United States. If previous numbers give us any idea, something like 2300 people are going to come to this conference. This is a copy of the program. Over a period of a few days beginning on June 7th there will be 211 panels and workshops meeting in 8 time slots. So it’s an enormously exciting event. This is the very first time it’s ever been outside of the Northeast, that is, outside of the area of the Berkshires in western Massachusetts, and it’s really a mark of the distinction of the History Department and particularly its nationally recognized program in Women’s History. All of you are invited to come. I hope you’ll tell people in your departments about it. I will leave flyers which have the address of the Berkshire office at the Friday Center. They’re handling local arrangements, so if you want a program which also contains the registration information, you can get it. And I hope a lot of you will indeed come.

Professor Brown: And finally, I don’t usually do this, but this is near and dear to my heart. There are graduate students on campus who are organizing transportation and participation from this campus to go to a March on Washington June 1 for Stand for Children. Some of you may have heard about this. And I think this will be a wonderful opportunity for us all to stand for children. There are flyers about that as well, and they hope to get buses to go. And I love that it’s being initiated by students on campus. And I’d love to participate with them in that. Any comments for me? Criticisms? Celebrations? Tim?

Dr. Tim Sanford (Director, Institutional Research): I was unable to be here last month I think it was for the discussion about faculty salary mechanisms. And the fifth one pertaining to, asking Institutional Research to work to help set up some archival information of that sort. And I just wanted to mention that while we would be glad to do that, that State law interferes here. Public information on employees only specifies that the current salary and the most recent increase is public information. While that is posted and readily available to anyone to read, and it’s now in the Library — Provost Richardson has got it there. We cannot save those books from one year to the next. Because as soon as a new one comes out, the old one is no longer public information. What any of you made last year is not public information. So we can do this in terms of being able to analyze it for trends and things of that sort, but in terms of being able to archive those books so that someone could go over and say, I want to see the trends of salary information of the individuals in my department, that is a violation of State law. So I just wanted to make sure that people were aware of that and didn’t have their expectations out of line when they went over there and tried to find other information. If I misunderstood the intent of that mechanism, then I would be glad to work to correct it. Professor Brown: Would anybody like to speak to that?

Professor Leonard: Is there any way that we could perhaps have the Legislature change the law so that we could, in fact, get that information. I mean, without that information, this whole endeavor is rather moot. Professor Brown: Well maybe we can still do trend analysis. I understand we can still do trend analysis. But we can’t do the, we can’t have the individual salaries. Dr. Sanford: Well, we can do it internally. In other words, if the Chancellor asked us to do something to look at it, I mean it’s available internally to University officers. It’s not public information. That means it’s not on public display that anyone inside or outside of the Committee can have ready access to. The law defines twelve items. One of those is current salary. So it doesn’t mean that we can’t do it, but an individual faculty member as a citizen of the State is not by law entitled to that information. So we have to be very careful to obey the laws. Professor Leonard: I have a question of Tim, but I guess I have to go through you. Professor Brown: Go ahead. Professor Leonard: Given the fact that this information is not available to the general public, but still may be available to members of the University community who may be serving on various boards or committees for which this information might be relevant, is it nonetheless available to those people, or is it, in fact, destroyed after the end of the current fiscal or academic year? Dr. Sanford: No, it’s not destroyed. Those books literally are destroyed. One of the problems we have is that the University has not done a very good job of keeping personnel histories. We can give you a very good transcript — actually, not going back the full 200 years — but a very good transcript of your courses over anyone’s time here. We can’t do that. We can’t give you your salary history. And that’s one of the things we’re working on with Human Resources, and we do hope the new Human Resources system. Professor Brown: Okay. Well, I think what we’re most interested in are trends. We probably don’t need the individual data like that. If we can continue — Dr. Sanford: That’s fine. I just wanted to make sure that you weren’t expecting to go find a series of books over there, because I don’t think we can do that. Professor Brown: Okay Thank you. Anything else? Great.

IV. Director of the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center Gerald Horne.

Professor Brown: Now, it is my pleasure to introduce Gerald Horne. We have had conversations in the Council before about the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. I am thrilled that Gerald Horne is now here leading the Black Cultural Center. I have found him to be a gentle man, and a scholar. He spent the last year in Zimbabwe as a Fulbright Scholar and previously served as Chair of the Black Studies Department, Acting Director for the Center for Black Studies, and Professor of History at the University of California at Santa Barbara. In addition to directing the Black Cultural Center, he holds a joint appointment in History, Communication Studies, and African & Afro-American Studies here at Chapel Hill. So thank you very much for being here today.

Professor Horne: First of all, thank you for inviting me to the Faculty Council. When I was listening to Chancellor Hooker answering those questions, I didn’t realize it was so much like question time in the House of Commons. [laughter] And also, to the Press here I’d like to deny that allegation that I’m responsible for this anonymous donation. It’s absolutely false. [laughter] But on a more serious note, I’d like to thank Chancellor Hooker in particular, because you should know that it was his energy, his aggressiveness, his vision that’s largely responsible for this very generous donation. And I’d like to thank you personally, Chancellor Hooker, for that, in addition to thanking those in the Development Office, too, who also played a substantial role in helping to get us on the right track with regard to fund raising. And on a further preliminary note, I’d also like to echo what Barbara Harris was saying about the Berkshires Conference. I’ve looked at the schedule, and it’s going to be an enormous conference. Some of the panels and papers there are just tremendous. So even for those who might not be in History, I’d like to encourage each and everyone of you to come, in early June, because it’s going to be quite a treat.

Now as I understand it, my purpose here this afternoon is to address you for a few moments about some of the plans that we have in store for the BCC. And that’s what I plan to do in the next few moments. But also, preliminarily, let me also thank those department chairs that I’ve met with for their courtesies that they’ve extended to me, and to the Center, since I’ve been here: Political Science, Sociology, History, Anthropology, Economics. I hope I’m not leaving anyone out, but there were quite a few departments who have quite gracious in their courtesies that they have extended to the BCC. Also, Psychology. Sorry. And also to Jane Brown, who has been very helpful in terms of things going above and beyond the call of duty. Going above and beyond her responsibility as Chair of the Faculty Council. Jane has been quite helpful to the BCC, and I’m quite appreciative of that. But briefly, we’re having a number of plans on the board right now.

Next year we’re trying to organize a conference featuring scholars from Japan, China, Malaysia, Korea, and a number of Asian countries who, scholars who focus on the experience of African-Americans. You might be surprised to know that there are quite a few who do so. And I’m working with this, as I am working with a number of different individuals and departments on this campus, to try to pull this off. Judith Farquhar from Anthropology, who is a specialist on China, is being very helpful in that regard. George Tindall, who is Professor Emeritus of History, has been very helpful in terms of contacts in Japan. And once again, I would like to urge each and everyone of you, if you have any ideas in this regard, to please pass them on to me. And I’ll give out my email address at the end of these brief remarks.

We’re also planning a conference to coincide with the 20th annual Jazz festival that takes place at UNC in February 1997. This is going to be a Jazz studies conference that will bring academics here who focus in Jazz studies. Preliminarily we’re trying to have the focus be on North Carolinians who have made a contribution to Jazz, like Thelonious Monk and John Coltrane. Although obviously by mentioning those names, even we weren’t having a North Carolina focus, those kinds of individuals we would have to focus on. And once again, we’re trying to work in partnership with different entities on campus. In this case, the Department of Music, and more specifically, Jim Ketch, who, of course, has been the driving locomotive behind this Jazz festival that’s taking place here. And as well, with the Center for the Study of the American South, and particularly David Moltke-Hansen.

Mentioning the Center for the Study of the American South, I’ve been meeting with David recently, and we’ve been trying to get a mini conference together, in about six to eight weeks, basically to bring together scholars from this campus and this immediate region, to focus on the changing demographic situation in North Carolina. Particularly some of the immigration trends that are taking place in this State that are having significant impact upon the political economy of this State. And once again, if you have any suggestions in that regard, I’d appreciate it. As well, tomorrow we’re having a Student Academic Conference, where a number of students are going to be presenting papers, graduate students and undergraduate students, presenting the fruits of their research over the last few months, and then we’re going to have critiques from other graduate students and faculty. And once again, you’re all invited.

In terms of upcoming events, Catharine Newbury, who is a member of the faculty here, but is also an internationally recognized scholar on the situation in central Africa, is giving a presentation on April 3 at 12:00 noon on current conditions in Rwanda and Burundi. For those of you who have been following the tragic events that have been taking place in that part of the world, I urge you to come out and hear what Catharine has to say, because, of course, she will present to you the latest news and the latest insights. Likewise, Glenn Hinson, who is a member of the Department of Anthropology here at UNC, is going to be presenting a paper on April 17 at 1:00 in the BCC on “Voices of Soul: Folk Artistry in North Carolina.” Those of you who are interested are quite welcome to come and attend.

Chancellor Hooker mentioned this gift and the funds we’re trying to raise for this building. He also mentioned the space crunch, if I can use that phrase, on campus, and I think there’s a linkage between the two because this building when it’s finally constructed, will have a library, which will be of significant use to the Library in terms of offloading some of their collections to this particular space. Similarly, this building will have classroom space that will, of course, be open to classes held by any department on this campus, and so I think that this is something that you should be aware of and, as well it ties in to what Jane Brown was suggesting about the North Carolina Campaign and the donations you’re giving because we’re part of the campaign as well. So if you’re giving to the BCC, you’re helping to alleviate the classroom space crunch on campus. [laughter] Among other things. Let me also say that each of you are welcome to come by the BCC any time for any of these programs or lectures. Our film and video series is continuing, and you can stop by the office for the schedule. My email address is gchorne (horne with an e)@email.unc.edu. And I’d appreciate hearing from each and everyone of you concerning ideas or programming. Or if you are familiar with any in the inherited wealth community [laughter], I’d like particularly to hear from you. Or just to say hello. That’s fine, too.

I’m afraid I won’t be able to stay here too long because at 4:30 at the BCC, in conjunction with The Daily Tar Heel, we’re having this open forum on the question of “hate speech” in response to a few recent unfortunate incidents on campus. And, once again, you’re invited. It’s at 4:30; will probably last until about 6:00, I believe. So, I don’t think this meeting will last till [then(?)]. So I would welcome you to come. And once again, thank you, Jane, for inviting me. Professor Brown: Thank you. Thank you very much. [applause] Are there any comments, questions for Dr. Horne? Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for coming today.

V. The Chancellor’s Task Force on Women at Carolina: Noelle Granger and Barbara DeLon.

Professor Brown: Now it’s my pleasure to introduce Dr. Noelle Granger and Barbara DeLon who have been working in the past year (I’m sorry, did I get that wrong? That’s it. Did I get it right? Good. I’ve been working with you too closely to get your names wrong at this point.) For the last year we’ve been working together on the Task Force on Women at Carolina, and even though this is the Chancellor’s Task Force, I asked to have them bring the report to the Council so that you would hear about their recommendations and that we could talk about it. You haven’t had time to digest the full report, which is available over there, or the Executive Summary. So I’d like for them to take this opportunity to introduce you to it, and then if you want to have further discussion about it at our next meeting, we’ll be happy to do that. So, Barbara, Noelle.

Professor Granger: The way we’ve divided it, is because I’m the faculty person, I’m going to give the dry material, and then Barbara will give you more colorful information. Chancellor Hooker, Dr. Brown. It is with a great sense of accomplishment and maybe just a little relief that I and Barbara DeLon and the other members of the Chancellor’s Task Force on Women at Carolina present our final report. The Task Force was formed in early 1995, at which point, at which point I think I talked to you about what we were doing. At the request of then Chancellor Hardin, it has been composed of a core group of seven faculty, six students, and three staff. Some of them are here today, and I would very much like them to stand so that I could, Barbara and I could, recognize them especially for their hard work and their dedication and long hours that they’ve put in this past year. And so would you all please stand. [applause] I particularly want to mention four people who headed their subcommittee: Elizabeth Gibson from the School of Law, Steve Leonard and Judith Scott, who headed the other institution subcommittee. And last but not least, Rachel Willis, who handled the survey. We’ve learned a great deal from each other during this process, and I think that Barbara and I both think it was a wonderful and memorable experience for both of us. Now, with regard to the charges to the Task Force. There were two. I want to start with that, because you can see how the report was built. The first was to produce an inventory and an evaluation of existing programs and services that address the needs and concerns of women on campus. And second, to suggest strategies for improving the quality, coordination, and effectiveness of those existing resources for women. Now, the report that resulted from our efforts to meet those two charges is fairly long and fairly detailed. It’s about 44 pages. And I’m going to make a yeoman’s effort to be as brief as possible. I don’t want to lose your attention. And I don’t want to see anybody nodding off. And I want to keep you on schedule. The complete report’s available, and it’s there for your weekend reading pleasure. And Barbara will have some comments afterwards.

Now, the report, which is summarized in the Executive Summary, has five sections. The first is a brief history of women at Carolina, which was excerpted from the most detailed source, which was a article written by Pamela Dean in 1987 on the dedication of Carmichael Residence Hall. And from this article we learned that while women were always present on the UNC campus, it wasn’t until 1897 that they were admitted to the University. And then, only to graduate level courses which included senior level courses. The number of women gradually increased until by 1920 there were 80 women on campus. These women maintained the highest GPA of any group on campus and included in their group lawyers, educators, a President of Sweet Briar College, and leaders, as you might suppose, of the women’s suffrage movement. Nevertheless, their existence at UNC could best be described as marginalized. I think of it as a parallel universe. They had no access to any of the organizations or activities of the University and had to create their own, including a student government, a separate student government for women. For many years they were not even included in graduation ceremonies. By 1962 they constituted 22% of the student body, still living in this parallel existence. They had separate housing for all the graduate students. They were required to live on campus. They had a dress code, room inspections, closing hours for their dorms, separate admission standards, and rules and regulations which, infractions were punished frequently by their own separate council. Changes began in the early 1960’s with the admission of freshmen to classes in Nursing, followed by the Fine Arts program, and with a steady spread to other programs across campus. But it wasn’t really until 1972 when the University was faced with Title IX, the Federal Education Amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in terms of admission, financial aid, housing, etc., that women were finally admitted under the same standards as men. And from that point on, the marginalized world of the female students changed very dramatically.

Now the acceptance of women faculty proceeded more slowly. Dean reports that the first woman joined the faculty in Elementary Education in 1927, and Harry Gooder says it’s in Biology. We’ll have to debate on that one. By 1972 11% of the faculty was women, and by 1976 when women undergraduates outnumbered men for the first time, only 16% of the faculty were women. We now number 24% of the tenured or tenure-track faculty, and are more than half of the EPA and fixed-term faculty. The Task Force also reviewed and summarized the reports of committees, task forces, faculty research, etc., that either directly or indirectly concerned women’s issues and needs since 1972, the watershed year. The reports are scattered. We felt it would be very advantageous to have them gathered and reviewed in a single source from an historical perspective and also to give us some background for our work. Thus, from work on the Committee on the Status of Women, the Chancellor’s Committee on Diversity and Community, the SACS report, etc., we found that real gains had been made since 1972 in recruitment, hiring, and tenuring of women faculty. Issues that continued to resonate for either faculty, staff, or students were salary equity, promotion, fringe benefits such as maternity leave and child care, the chilly climate for women, second class citizenship for fixed-term faculty. We noted that women staff were largely overlooked in historical perspectives and as well as their concerns and needs in these reports.

So, with that as a background, the Task Force made three assessments to provide a basis on which to make our recommendations. The first of these was the inventory. And this committee, as I said, was headed by Elizabeth Gibson. For this project the members of the Task Force spread out across the whole campus, and we inventoried divisions, schools, programs, departments, administrative units, and every group that we could come across. We tried to access current activities that support services or programs for women in any way. This inventory was the first done for women on campus, and, because of its size, we offer it as an appendix to the report. The information obtained included name of the program, the unit with which it was associated, the group to whom its services were directed, its purpose, current activities, and advisors. So, if you’re interested in that, I’ll provide you with the appendix. Members of the Task Force also met with representatives of women’s resources in the community. We identified 65 different programs, service groups, or units on the campus that in some way dealt with issues of concern to women faculty, staff, and students. Nineteen were determined to have a commitment to serve women in their charter or to have services, resources, or programming primarily for women, based on what was known to the Task Force when we gathered this information in 1995. And we apologize if we missed anyone. In creating the inventory, we came up with the following. First, there is no formal mechanism for communication among or coordination of all these programs, even within the same unit, for example, the Medical School. Some categories of programs and services appear to be poorly represented, especially safety, health services, legal services, psychological services, and support groups for social concerns. The University community appeared to be generally unaware of what services and programs were available. The contributions by programs, committees, service groups, etc., were very uneven from year to year, due to annual changes in leadership, staffing by volunteers, and budgetary constraints. We found that the programs, committees, and service groups were very heavily weighted towards faculty and students, rather than staff. And we also found that the community resources offered an array of services and referrals not available to women from the University, and a better and more integrated relationship between them and the University is possible and needed.

Our second effort was the survey of women’s issues for women on campus. The survey subcommittee was headed by Rachel Willis and supported by Gail Corrado and Alicia Robb, whom I’d like to recognize. They were our two research assistants that helped us during the fall. And the members of the Office of Information Technology, who were extraordinarily helpful, particularly Kathy Thomas. We proposed to survey faculty, staff, and students by a short, directed questionnaire to get a sense of whether women knew about these programs on campus, whether they used them, and whether they felt they were effective. We originally conceived of this as a paper survey, and with the addition of Alicia Robb and Gail Corrado we had access to information technology because of their backgrounds. And the paper survey subsequently evolved into the University’s first electronic survey, which we hope will be a forerunner for future forays into information technology affecting the whole campus. The survey consisted of 20 statements to which the respondents could agree or disagree according to a scale, and some of you, hopefully here, took that survey. And you could also indicate whether you didn’t have sufficient information about the statement or whether you didn’t feel it was applicable to you. We customized the survey separately for faculty, staff, and students. And also encouraged everybody to comment at the end in an open-ended fashion. We received 1232 responses which is far more than we had ever expected we would get with a paper survey. Of these, 80% were female, and of the female respondents, 505 were students, 413 were staff, and 102 faculty. Due to the low response rates for males, the data was analyzed for female respondents only. We did not discourage men from answering the survey. And, in fact, I encouraged responses from men in the Medical School. The responses to the survey, for those who had an opinion on the statements that we offered them, yielded the following information — and this is in the Executive Summary that you have.

First was that it didn’t appear easy for the women to get information on University resources. The respondents didn’t know about most of the great resources that were supporting women. There appeared to be some dissatisfaction with the amount and quality of public discussion of women’s issues and the kind of support that these issues receive on campus. There was, as we had anticipated, substantial dissatisfaction with the cost and availability of child care services in the community, but this was also before the announcement of the new child care center. Work-life issues were a significant, were not viewed as a particular problem for staff but a significant problem for faculty. Professional development was a significant issue for students, faculty, and staff. The students expressed some dissatisfaction with support for extracurricular activities for women and women’s athletics. The interesting one, one interesting one which generated some comment in the Executive Committee meeting was that staff and students disagreed with the statement that they had been discriminated against because of their sex or had been the object of sexual harassment. The faculty were neutral. When we looked at the open-ended comments from the survey, there were a number of them that expressed a great deal of concern over very subtle levels of discrimination, rather than the more overt kind that we were essentially assessing with these direct questions. Faculty, staff, and students disagreed that campus security was adequate. A significant proportion of the women in the University community lacked information about health services, particularly mental health services. Students and faculty disagreed with the statement that the University met the needs of minority women. And they also disagreed with the statement that the University met the needs of the gay and lesbian community. Now, our final two questions on that survey we looked at most carefully. These had to do with coordination of services and the idea of a Women’s Center. There was a strong agreement by faculty, staff, and students that there was a need for better coordination of women’s services within the University. And there was also agreement that the University needed to establish a Women’s Center to better address the needs of women on campus. Now I want to stress that this survey was considered by the Task Force to be a pulse of women in the community. And we did not, and are not viewing it, as an instrument for extensive statistical analysis. After talking to four or five statisticians I realize that depending on what field you’re in you’re going to look at this very differently. And we couldn’t get agreement in terms of approaching it with people from different fields. So we are accepting this as a pulse, a feeling of the women.

Our third assessment was of a survey of other comparable institutions. The subcommittee was headed by Steve Leonard and Judith Scott. And it gathered information on women’s services and their coordination from institutions comparable to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And these include ones both with and without women’s centers, although I’ll explain in a minute it was difficult to find the ones without. We gathered this information primarily by phone using a set of questions developed specifically for the purpose of obtaining this information. And what was found is that most major institutions of the nature, size, and composition of this University have campus-based women’s centers or some comparable administrative unit with a different name. Campus-based women’s centers appear to be essential, successful, and highly regarded campus organizations, offering a wide variety of services and support, either to students or to students, faculty, and staff. The name was not really important. What was important is what these centers did. And they all provided some essential services and, depending on the campus, it could be to students only, or could be to everyone within the community. Most of the centers targeted their resources at the provision of services and programs that were effective in terms of advocacy and support, educational programming, etc. There was a commitment to non-duplication of services and inclusiveness in these centers. Now, finding institutions without women’s centers. We contacted the National Organization of Women’s Centers in Sumner, Maine, after a five-month hunt to find them, and we discovered that they did not have a data base. What was published in 1991 by this group was a list of 400 campus-based women’s centers, but it was not, there was not a data base available that we could analyze. And we were told that there had been a really remarkable increase in the number of campus-based women’s centers, and we would have to wait until their next publications later on this year. We also searched the Internet looking for home pages of women’s centers at comparable institutions and found that even where we knew there was a women’s center, there often wasn’t a home page, so if we found a comparable institution without a home page for women’s center, it didn’t mean it didn’t have a women’s center. Finally, we just got on the phone and we called around and found five or six institutions that were thought not to have women’s centers and discovered that they were either in the process of establishing one or had some mechanism in place which did provide programming and advocacy and support for women, usually within the Division of Student Affairs.

With these three assessments in hand, we then discussed and debated our recommendations for the campus. These recommendations are a consensus of all of our members. And you may read them at your leisure. I’m not going to go through all of them. They include areas of security, health services, legal services, work-life issues, career development, mentoring, and chilly climate issues — what we had suspected were going to be issues based on past reports and task force reports and committee reports. In virtually every case we presented our recommendations to the unit to which they applied prior to our finalization so we’d have the opportunity to talk with Laurie Charest, Edith Wiggins, Don Gold, the Center for Teaching and Learning, Chair of the Child Care Advisory Committee, etc. So these recommendations were made with their concurrence.

What I would like to do in the interest of time and also, I think, because of your interest, is to cut to the chase. And that is our final recommendation, which has been the one that’s generated the most interest. And that was the recommendation with regard to what to do to coordinate women’s services at UNC. We have proposed the establishment of an initial center, reporting directly to the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor. Its missions and responsibilities should be shaped by the specific needs of our Institution and community, and we feel it should serve women, students, faculty, and staff, and also men. As it evolves over the next five years, which we see as a reasonable period of growth and development, its mission and responsibilities should come to include the list that is included on the last page of the Executive Summary. These are very standard functions: Gathering and maintenance of current information on existing services, something we were asked to do. Publicity of those services. Referral of women and men to these services. Educational programming, where needed. Advocacy for those services that we don’t have. Coordination and connection with University, with community resources, very important. Facilitation of connections between existing services. And coordinating relevant services so there’s no overlap and duplication of effort. Representation of women’s interests on relevant University-wide committees. Coordination of activities with Women’s Studies, which would not be included in the center, but would work with the center. Coordination of activities and programmings with the Sonja H. Stone Black Cultural Center. Collaboration with the University Development Office, and this, we feel is very important to raise funds to support the growth and establishment of needed services. And, finally, advocacy for systemic changes, which I think all of these apply to, that will improve the lives of women and men in the University community. We feel that to begin the center we need a full-time director and a full-time staff support person. The director needs to be a full-time faculty member, an individual who possesses the knowledge and the skills to act as an effective advocate for women, and a leader of the University. We recommend the inclusion of the Sexual Harassment Officer for the University — this is very common with other centers — and the jointly appointed staff career development counselor which we recommended for the Division of Human Resources. We feel that initial staffing will come from interns, work-study students, and volunteers initially. We do not make a recommendation for the name of the center, but we do suggest two names: the “Carolina Women’s Center” and the “Carolina Women’s Resource Center.” And this was probably the most lively debate that we had in the entire year. We do not recommend a location for the space, but it’s obvious that the space must be adequate for the activities of the center as we’ve described, and for the safety of its clientele at night. We recommend the commitment of the Chancellor and the University to the organic growth and development of this initial center with the objective, as I mentioned, of having it become fully developed within five years, with the support of our women alumnae especially, faculty, staff, and students, And finally, we recommend the establishment of an Advisory Board on Women’s Issues. And we envision this as similar to the Administrative Board of the General College and the College of Arts and Sciences, having two parts, one which would oversee the establishment of the center and its development, and the other, which would oversee the implementation of the strategies and the recommendations of this Task Force. This should be inclusive of faculty, staff, and students. This will be established, we recommended that it be established, by September of 1996. So, I hope I managed to keep that brief enough. It’s a long report. Again, I want to thank all of my Task Force members. They were great. It was a very difficult task, arduous. I think we learned a lot, and we feel very good about the report that we’ve produced. Now. It’s your turn.

Ms. DeLon: You’re probably all wondering what I can say now after Noelle’s presentation and the Chancellor giving you some information about the resources and the economics, and I thought something like, “ditto”, would be enough. But, I will say briefly that there is, it’s little known that the Chancellor was very generous to us. There’s a lot that we got accomplished particularly with the survey. And had it not been for his generosity, and I probably shouldn’t say this here, that we would not have accomplished what we had. So I thank everybody as well. And this is a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful thing. Very good business. Thank you. [applause]

Professor Granger: We’ll take questions or comments. Professor Paul Farel (Physiology): This report follows a long tradition of very excellent reports on the needs of women in the University. And what they have in common, I think, is a fundamental flaw that those of us who apply for grants know. And that is, if you ask for what you need, with due regard for available resources, you’re not going to have enough to do what really needs to be done. And given the history of studying this issue, all the work you’ve done, a lot of support you’re asking for, it really is, it just took the Chancellor to find the resources to be able to do what needs to be done. Professor Bayne: My compliments, too. I feel like Paul does. This is an incredible report. It’s the kind of stuff that we should be doing more of. I was touched when you went back through the history and I noted when you were emphasizing 1972 as the year, that we’re coming up on the 25th anniversary of that. And it seems to me that there ought to be something marked in time that we could call attention to, that was an accomplishment out of this report that we could say happened in 1997. Professor Granger: That’s a good thought. Professor Brown: The anniversary women’s center. Professor Granger: Well, Barbara and I are both available by email, since everybody’s sharing email addresses. Mine is very easy. It’s noelle@med.unc.edu, and I would be happy to debate, discuss, or whatever, the report with any of you. Barbara’s is badelon@email.unc.edu. And I know hers by heart because we communicate all the time.

Ms. Rachel Willis (Economics): I came to the Faculty Council last spring when we announced the electronic service, and then I unfortunately gloated over the parking permit, so I want to publicly apologize to the Chancellor if I was in your spot, [laughter] and I wanted to thank you for the resource. Professor Brown: Well I will add my commendation. Thank you all. And you don’t need to sit through the rest of the meeting if you don’t want to. And thank you very much. We will continue to work with the Chancellor and moving on these recommendations.

A. Educational Policy (includes resolutions): James J. Gallagher and Anthony N. Passannante, Co-Chairs.

Professor Brown: We have three postponed from February and two new ones. Educational Policy Committee has a couple of resolutions, so we asked them to go first. Jim Gallagher and Tony.

Professor Gallagher: Tony and I have agreed on a procedure here. I’m going to read the report, and he’s going to answer the difficult questions. As you know, the Educational Policy Committee exists to take questions that are provided to it by the Faculty Council, research it, and come back with some recommendations to the Council. The Council outdid itself this year in giving us six issues to look at. You probably have that report in your files. I’ll ask you to refer to it. We have a couple resolutions, but we also have a series of recommendations to make on some of the other issues. The first issue deals with a complaint made regarding final examinations. And a number of students complaining that a substantial number of take-home examinations or assignments are given during the last week of the semester, and they correctly identify this as against the rules. Some of the faculty members, on the other hand, said they were not just assignments. They were part of a final examination procedure that they followed in their course. So after discussion so that we came up with the following resolution:

Resolution #1: Final Examinations [That] Assignments that will be considered a part of the final examination should be clearly announced in the course syllabus, and should be due on the date of the examination.

I don’t know if you want discussion on each one of these. Professor Brown: So should we, why don’t we go ahead and vote on that? Shall we move that? Is there a second? Discussion? Professor Miles Fletcher (History): I’m sympathetic with your intent here, and any comments I have are friendly. I’m wondering how this relates to some current regulations that are already in place. For example, if someone wants to give a take-home exam for a final examination, the person must get permission from that person’s dean. Do you mean this supersede that or to exist along with it? Professor Gallagher: I don’t think there’s a contradiction between the two. I think it fits in with the earlier standards. Professor Brown: Further discussion? All those in favor of the resolution, say aye. [Unanimously adopted.]

Professor Gallagher: The second case involves a specific case that was brought to the attention of the Educational Policy Committee in which a teaching assistant was receiving pay for tutoring students in the same section in which he was performing as a teaching assistant. No existing precedents or policies were identified to cover such an instance. We therefore propose the following resolution, after discussion, rather, in the Committee:

Resolution #2: [That] No instructional personnel, including teaching assistants, should be permitted to tutor for pay students whom they are [currently] teaching, grading, and/or evaluating. Such behavior creates an inevitable conflict of interest.

Professor Brown: Is there a second? [It was seconded.] Any discussion? Ms. Heather Savitz (Student Government Liaison): We were talking, and we were wondering how this affected outside groups, such as the Athletic Department that pays TAs to come in and tutor students in their section. Professor Gallagher: Yes. That’s a good question, because that issue was raised during our discussions, and the Department of Athletics said that despite the fact that this would cause some problems for them, that they would agree to live with this resolution. Professor Brown: Thank you, Heather. Anything else? Professor Leonard: I’m not quite, I’m trying to articulate what it is, oh, does this apply only to instructional personnel who are currently in the process of instructing these students. In other words, if you had these students as students in the past, would you then be exempt. Professor Gallagher. No. It says, “whom they are teaching.” It means currently. Professor Leonard: Okay. Thank you. Professor Brown: Do you want to insert “currently,” to make that clear? Professor Gallagher: “They are currently teaching.” Friendly amendment. Professor Brown: Any further discussion? All those in favor of this resolution, say aye. Any opposed? [Unanimously adopted.]

Professor Gallagher: The third issue was a much larger issue, and that involved the Educational Policy Committee being charged by the Council with addressing the state of classrooms of our University. There have been a number of efforts in the past to also deal with this issue, including a fine committee chaired by John Sanders. And we fanned out from the Committee and interviewed probably 12 to 15 key players in this situation within the University, particularly trying to find out where the resources were and who made the decisions with regard to refurbishment of classrooms and so forth. It was an interesting experience. What we found going through the Classroom Improvement Committee, the Classroom Advisory Committee, the Office of Instructional Technology, the Center for Teaching and Learning, and so forth, was that there was relatively little communication among the groups about this situation, and concluded there really were three separate problems that had to be dealt with. One is a flat-out inadequate number of classrooms, both large and small, but especially small classrooms. Second, the poor general physical condition of many of the classrooms in which we teach. And the third was inconsistent audiovisual support and poor availability of advanced instructional technology. And so with those three issues these are serious problems. There is reason to be optimistic about this, and the reason is that the University administration has done some very creative negotiations with the State Legislature which has resulted in a continuing fund that is going to be available for upgrading our physical facilities. So there is reason to believe that there will be a sum of money each year that will be significant and therefore it becomes important to say who decides where these monies go. We have four recommendations with regard to that.

First, that

a. The Classroom Advisory Committee, under the Provost, should be considered the primary source for recommendations for how classrooms on campus should be improved.

b. [That] the membership of [that committee] the Classroom Advisory Committee should be enlarged to include all relevant parties [all the relevant players] and to include more faculty members [than is currently present]. [And I think you all have a list of the current membership of that committee.](See attached list for current membership.)

c. The Classroom Advisory Committee should create a long range plan (i.e., 5 years) [5-year plan, whatever] for upkeep and improvements that would both some high tech classes and [the] basic improvements to classrooms in desperate need of modernization. [We feel like we cannot abandon the high tech aspect of what we’re trying to do, but we also cannot abandon the kind of third world conditions that we find in many of the classrooms that we’re currently teaching in. And so that some kind of balance in this plan should reflect both of those goals.]

Finally, we felt that on the numbers that we saw, current classroom space is inadequate:

d. The EPS(C) feels strongly that current classroom space is inadequate. Plans for the future must provide for additional classrooms. The CAC (Classroom Advisory Committee) should have a consultative role in the planning of the future capital outlays (possibly a new classroom building).

We also wanted to point out that if we are successful (and)in doing refurbishing of existing classroom buildings, that means they are taken out of service for a while. And so what that means is some inconvenience for the current faculty in teaching and we’re encouraging the faculty to be understanding and supportive of that, during that period of time. And that’s the end of our comments on that. Professor Brown: I’d add that I’ve talked with the Provost’s office and they concur with these recommendations and appreciate them, and will be, and the Classroom Advisory Committee has already met, will continue to meet, and be using these funds, and prioritizing as you recommend.

Professor Bayne: Where do we stand compared to some of the other university community in North Carolina, I mean, compare ourselves to State? Are they in much better stead or is this a similar problem? Professor Gallagher: I think it’s an interesting question to pursue, but regardless of what shape these other institutions are in, we have some very obvious needs that need to be taken care of. Professor Bayne: I’m just thinking of it as an arguing point for the Legislature [Professor Gallagher: I see.] if they are significantly better than we are. Professor Gallagher: Well I think that the amount of money that’s going to be available, because now they’re going to figure it as a percentage of our budget I think as a means of calculating how much money there will be. Whereas previously it was just whatever money was leftover or what could be gleaned from whatever source possible. So we think that there will be resources here, and the key is, can we use them with the most wisdom.

Professor Gooder: I noticed that all faculty members on the Classroom Advisory Committee are from the College of Arts and Sciences. Is that Committee only going to deal with the classroom problems in the College, because there are problems in Health Affairs, and I don’t see how they’d get noted without membership on the Committee. Professor Passannante: I think your point is well taken, and perhaps the membership of that Committee should include some representation for Health Affairs, but to be honest, I think the problems in the Arts and Sciences side of the campus are much more severe than the problems in Health Affairs. Professor Gooder: That may be, but there are some old buildings in Health Affairs, and there are problems. Professor Passannante: Again, the way that this has run in the past has been through the Provost, through the Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs. And I think, I really think it’s been better in the Health Affairs side, and I think part of our prioritization involved to the worst place first and fixing that first.

Professor Farel: I’m concerned about the lack of representation of Health Affairs, that the problems you raise really are University-wide concerns, University offices, not Academic Affairs and not the College. In the School of Medicine our curriculum is being driven by, one of the main forces is availability of classroom space. To teach a small group — by small group I mean 20 students — in a classroom is virtually impossible. So I really hope that in Faculty Council as we discuss these University-wide issues we try and broaden our perspective and make it more University wide. Professor Gallagher: The recommendations both include an expansion both in the number of faculty members on the Committee and a representation of all the important players. So I presume of the important players are whom you’re identifying. Professor Farel: They’re not listed here. Professor Gallagher: They’re not listed, that’s true. Professor Brown: But you want to modify this existing Committee, right? Professor Gallagher: I do. Professor Passannante: Absolutely. Professor Gallagher: That’s the purpose of the recommendation.

Professor Andrews: In the same spirit I’m struck by the experience we just had, the work of the Task Force on Women, and the way in which they were able to reach out campuswide, both in the Academic part of the campus, and the non-academic players on the campus as well. If this really is an important part of our capital planning for the campus, then probably there should be some really significant representation from the people who do capital budgeting and the people on Elson Floyd’s side of the campus as well, and make this, you know, not simply a divide-up-the-pie kind of limited exercise for people who are directly affected by it, but them interacting with people who can help with the money vision and the real long-term planning.

Professor Steve Bachenheimer (Microbiology & Immunology): Just to bring home the message a little more, you may visualize all the buildings south of Manning Drive which hold a large part of the graduate program in Health Affairs. There are two classrooms in all of those buildings. In one of them about 60% of the furniture is broken. The little tables that fold up over the chairs don’t work. And the other room has only card chairs, folding chairs. That’s the state of the classrooms for virtually all of the graduate programs in the Health Affairs sphere. Professor Gallagher: Well, that’s what I was referring to when I referred to third world conditions, and what we obviously hope will happen will be the broadest kind of representation so that the decisions are made which deals with all parts of the campus. You might say that even with the amount of money that we’re going to get, it isn’t going to be taken care, any of these things are not going to be taken care of overnight because we have things like the Americans for Disabilities Act that denies, that will not let you deny access to persons with disabilities, and so a lot of refurbishing has to be done just on that account alone. Professor Bachenheimer: Neither of two buildings that have those classrooms are accessible. Professor Gallagher: Okay.

Professor Bayne: We’re totally sympathetic to the fact that the problem is very broad based, a mega problem, even with the influx of new money, and the [other steps(?)], it will take many, many years to begin resolving it. But what I would suggest is that maybe some of us could get a better look at some alternative strategies. The State money is never going to come enough, fast enough to really take care of this problem. We have to get other monies. What we’ve done in Dentistry over the years is we’ve just asked alumni, they, to perpetually refurbish some of the classrooms. We don’t get them all refurbished, but one of our four puts us in pretty good shape, so we have one good classroom, and then three, like you say, rag-tag things that we’re always trying to get fixed up. But we need, have to look at alternative ways to solve this problem because if we just rely on the State, we’ll be here ten years from now just to [look at the classrooms not very good(?)]. Professor Gallagher: I think your point’s well taken, and the Chancellor is sitting here and listening to this discussion, and I assume he will act accordingly. Chancellor Hooker: Jim, may I say something, just to illustrate the interrelatedness of everything in the Universe, I was talking earlier about the importance of sustaining our level of grant activity. The Legislature, as Jim has pointed out, has given us a [traunch(?)] of funding over the past few years for renovation and repair, and has announced its intention to continue to do that. The Legislature derives the funds that it gives us from the 10% overhead recaptured, those from our grant sponsored research activity. So we generate about $50 million a year in overhead. Five of that goes to Raleigh. It’s reverted back to the University for renovation and repair. So keep up the grant activity. [laughter]

Professor Carole Crumley (Anthropology): I just wanted to mention that I found it ironic during the Bicentennial celebration and the refurbishment of Old East to see the continuing neglect of Gerrard Hall, which was built in 1822, and which I happen to teach in, so I know of all its shortcomings. But it is a wonderful classroom space which has been rendered totally unusable by its unfortunate condition. Professor Gallagher: That’s part of why we’re asking for a five-year plan, is so that you can set priorities and goals and objectives and try and take care of those kinds of situations as well as making sure that we’re on the cutting edge of technology in the classroom.

Professor Leonard: I don’t mean this as a, I hope this isn’t misunderstood. In the eleven years I’ve been here I’ve found it very useful to carry an adjustable wrench, a Phillips head screwdriver, and a slotted screwdriver in my briefcase. You’d be surprised at how much you can accomplished [laughter] if you appear in your classroom five minutes beforehand and tighten down a couple of bolts and screws. Obviously this isn’t going to solve the problem, but it can make things a little more convenient. Chancellor Hooker: We’ll try to make that part of our expanded definition of teaching. [laughter] Professor Leonard: Sometimes I’m tempted to put it on my vita.

Professor Gallagher: With that offer of technical assistance, perhaps we can go on. The issue #4 that provided to us dealt with the recipient of a proposed student bill of rights, with a request for, again, a recommendation for action. As we did last year, we asked for advice from the legal counsel of the University regarding the language of the draft report from the students, and also invited some of the drafters of the student report — and Miss Stacey Brandenburg came and discussed this with us — to attend our discussions and help clarify the intention and objectives. We were sympathetic with many of the issues that the students raised and felt that they had good case for a lot of the things that they were putting in the draft report. But we also felt that the document was written in a confrontational style — lots of “musts” and “shalls” that the faculty will do kind-of-thing. And we felt it unlikely to improve faculty-student relationships and not in tune with the Chancellor’s call for the intellectual climate improvement of the University. So, what we recommend is the establishment of a subgroup from the Educational Policy Committee to work collaboratively with a subgroup of students to develop a joint statement of faculty-student responsibilities that would be designed in fact to enhance the intellectual climate of the University. In this fashion we would hope to create a climate of continuing communication between faculties and students instead of an aura of confrontation that seems out of place in this University. We actually asked the students to run this past the Student Body President, at that time Calvin Cunningham, who concurred with these recommendations. Some of you who read The Daily Tar Heel today noticed a report of this situation, and Tony was, in fact, interviewed by The Daily Tar Heel — do you want to say something about that? Professor Passannante: Well, I think the students have a lot of valid concerns. We just didn’t feel like this document was going to effectively address the concerns that they had. We didn’t think it was the right thing to do at this time, and we hope to come up with something better in the not too distant future. Professor Gallagher: Miss Brandenburg is quoted in The Daily Tar Heel article as saying, “The report has achieved its purpose.” And I think that if, in fact, we are able to put together in the Faculty Council next year, can put together a joint effort between the faculty and the students, then she will prove to be right.

No, No, you gave us two more issues. Full-time fixed-term — fortunately these next two are not that imposing. Issue #5: full-time fixed term faculty eligibility. We received communication from Joe Ferrell of the Committee on University Government asking for comment on whether service on our Committee would be appropriate for fixed-term faculty. And, after discussion, the Committee agreed, namely that there should be no change in the Code affecting this Committee, with the result that fixed-term faculty would be eligible to vote for and serve on the Committee. A number of us on the Committee could identify many people in fixed-term faculty positions who, in fact, are thoughtful people and who could provide useful service on the Committee if so elected.

Finally, the Educational Policy Committee has noted an action from the Faculty Council naming this Committee to serve as a potential liaison on the University efforts to improve the intellectual climate. We are also aware that the Chancellor has decided to establish a special committee devoted to this purpose, and so we agreed to wait for the establishment of that committee and then to communicate with that committee to ensure nonduplication of effort. Thank you.

Professor Brown: Thank you. I want to say I’m sorry I sent you all this business this year, but you have done a remarkable job. We thank you very much. We’re going to go a little past 5:00, so please bear with me. I have to pick up my child at 5:30, so we’ll be out in time to do that.

B. Black Faculty: D. Soyini Madison, Chair [postponed from February].

Professor Brown: Soyini Madison, Chair of the Black Faculty Committee, couldn’t be here and none of the members of her Committee could be here, so she asked to postpone that report until the next meeting.

C. Status of Minorities and the Disadvantaged: Judith R. Blau, Chair.

[postponed from February]

Professor Brown: Are there any comments about the next, the Status of Minorities and the Disadvantaged report, their Committee report? Is there any member of that Committee here? Anything to say about it? Okay.

D. Faculty Welfare: Steven L. Bachenheimer, Chair. [postponed from February]

Then we’ll move on to the Faculty Welfare Committee’s report. Steven Bachenheimer is here. Is there any comment, discussion? Professor Farel: We spent some time discussing extension of benefits to domestic partners. It was my understanding that the Faculty Welfare Committee would be the committee exploring this extension of benefits, but it’s not listed under the [anticipated(?)] activities. Professor Bachenheimer: That’s just an oversight. The Committee will continue to monitor that. We in fact have, for example, it was in November, we actually determined from the Faculty Recreation Association, the Farm, that their policies were in compliance with the resolution. So we clearly are actively taking on this.

Professor Brown: Thank you. Anything else? Great.

E. Administrative Board of the Library: Charlotte H. Mason, Chair.

Professor Brown: And the Administrative Board of the Library’s report. Is Charlotte here? There you are. Thank you. That’s an excellent report. And it looks as though it’s more positive than it has been in the past. Would you concur?

Professor Mason: I think that the Library basically has managed to hold their own this year, and in a relative sense are doing better than they have in the past. I think that the consensus is that in the absolute sense there’s a long way to go, and people, I encourage you to take a look at it, but a couple of issues are: Librarians salaries, which, if you look at the rankings of 108 academic research libraries the last 2 out of 3 years, here we rank between 77 and 90, so that’s pretty dismal. One other big issue, I think is where adequate and sustained, as opposed to one-time funding, is going to come from in order to achieve the objective of the Library particularly in the face of the rising cost of serials. And also to the very growing demand for electronic media which is both very useful to a lot of people, and also very effective for the Library. Professor Brown: On the Librarians salaries, do they, are they counted in when we have salary increases for teaching faculty now? Or is that still an issue. Professor Mason: I think that’s still an issue. I think I’ll let Joe talk to that.

Professor Joe Hewitt (Director, Academic Affairs Library): They haven’t been counted in those special increases, but I think they are being proposed. They are supposedly the “certain others.” Professor Brown: The certain others? Good. Great. Thank you very much.

VII. Old or New Business.

Professor Brown: And Dirk, you had some new business.

A. Professor Dirk Frankenberg (Marine Sciences):

The Faculty-Legislative Liaison Committee has been working this year to attempt to put together a list of faculty and staff who are currently serving on the manifold boards, commissions, and study committees of the Legislature and State. And we have sent a survey instrument to the Deans, Directors, and Department Heads, and have received back from them information that identifies over 80 faculty and staff serving on over 87 formal committees as members and sometimes chairs, and 33 additional faculty and staff who are involved with advising in a formal way these boards and commissions. I view this as a work-in-progress, and I have brought some copies that I’ve left on the back table there. I appreciate anybody’s looking at it, and supplementing what we put together here. I think in aggregate it is a fairly dramatic example of direct State service by the faculty and staff of this Institution to the State and its policymaking boards. But I would be very surprised if it is complete at this point. The [Public] Service Roundtable will carry this project forward by supplementing it as new people are added and bringing it up to date. So I would like to get as good a fix on the beginning as I can, and I hope you will take a look this. I brought 50 copies over here. And please add people to it that we have somehow missed in our survey. Thank you very much. Professor Brown: We’re also going to put that on the public service home page, is that right? Professor Frankenberg: Yes. Professor Brown: So that it can be updated and we can keep track of that. Professor Frankenberg: Right. Professor Brown: Great. Thank you very much.

B. Steve Bayne.

I just ask a question under New Business. A while back, about five years ago, we were looking, projecting into the future, and looking at some of the potential problems that universities in general faced, and one of the issues was tenure. Whether it was a good process inherently, or whether we should be reevaluating that and making some change. And I know other major universities have begun to deal with this. It was issue that was in the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, and I apologize if you have reported on this and I didn’t know. Professor Brown: We have not. Professor Bayne: But I wondered where your deliberations or considerations were or long-term recommendations. Professor Brown: That’s a good question. We have been burying our head in the sand about that. And I understand that it’s, I’m in communication with people at the University of Minnesota right now where this is right on the agenda. General Administration brought in a special speaker to speak to this at the last Faculty Assembly meeting, and I think it is something we need to take up. Professor Bayne: Could I maybe make a recommendation that just reporting that would be interesting for discussion. Whatever happens at the University of Minnesota, just make sure that we know about the progress of the deliberation there. Professor Brown: Okay. I’ll do that. Great. Anything else. Thank you. For those of you who are not faculty, if you would leave at this point. You may leave at this point. And the rest of you need to stay and hear the presentation of candidates for honorary degrees.

VIII. Presentation of Candidates for Honorary Degrees for 1997 Commencement:

George S. Lensing for Beverly W. Long, Chair, Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards.

[Professor Lensing presented the names of five candidates for honorary degrees and read a brief biographical sketch of each. The slate was unanimously adopted.]

pdf of meeting materials