April 25, 1997
Minutes of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council
April 25, 1997, 3:00 P.M.
Present (52): C. Anderson, J. Anderson, Andrews, L. Bailey, Barefoot, Beck, Beckman, Bentley, Bluestein, Bose, Brice, Bromberg, Brown, Conover, Crimmins, Dodds, Estroff, Farel, Fletcher, Foshee, Fox, Frankenberg, Gless, Herman, Holmgren, Howard, Irene, Jenkins, Johnstone, Lachiewicz, LeFebvre, Lentz, Loda, Maffly-Kipp, G. McNeil, L. McNeil, Owen, Panter, Platin, Rabinowitz, Renner, Rinehart, Rutledge, Salgado, Shea, Skelly, Stidham, Strauss, Tauchen, Tysinger, White, Yankaskas.
Excused absences (23): A. Bailey, Bangdiwala, Chambers, Dalton, Eckel, Evens, Favorov, Hattem, Hodges, Hogue, Jackson, Ji, Leonard, Mandel, Matson, Mauriello, Mill, Passannante, Peacock, Pielak, Shapiro, Stuck, Williams.
Unexcused absences (7): Brink, Danis, Hyatt, Pagano, Rosenman, Searles, Weber.
Presentation of Awards
Thomas Jefferson Award.
The winner of the 1997 Thomas Jefferson Award is Donald Charles Jicha, Professor of Chemistry and Associate Dean of the General College. Professor Joseph Templeton [Chemistry] read the citation, which is appended to these minutes.
Mickel-Shaw Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Advising.
Dean Stephen Birdsall [College of Arts & Sciences] announced the winners of the 1997 Michel-Shaw Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Advising. In his introductory remarks, Dean Birdsall spoke to the importance of academic advising. He noted that in a face-to-face survey that asked students about their level of satisfaction with undergraduate advising, 94% of those surveyed said that their adviser helped them understand the universitys undergraduate program, and was approachable, friendly, and easy to talk to about academic concerns. This contrasts with other surveys that indicate lower level of satisfaction with academic advising in general. The College has plans underway to address this mismatch between the image and reality. As part of that effort, two years ago a friend of the College of Arts and Sciences, Miner Mickel-Shaw, created an endowment to reward and recognize advising excellence in the College. Prospective recipients are nominated by students. The awards are made by a committee of faculty, named by the dean of arts and sciences, reviews the nominations and selects the recipients. At least two-thirds of the recipients must be General College advisers.
The first award was presented to Professor Harold Andrews [Music]. He was cited for his patience, honesty, and helpfulness even, in the words of one student, when answering my silly questions, for his willingness to go out of his way to find the right answers, and for his unfailing courtesy and helpfulness, even though I was a walk-in.
Of Professor Todd Austell [Chemistry], a nominator said he puts students firstÖhe is helpful, knowledgeable, willing to respond to concerned parents and anxious high school seniors, and able to make students feel comfortable in unfamiliar surroundings. Todd exemplifies all that advising is supposed to be about, said the student.
The third recipient, Professor Barbara Stenross [Sociology] demonstrates real care and concern for all students, not just the ones that she is assigned to advise. Even though she sees so many students, wrote another, she is very friendly and helpful. Cited as extremely patient and understanding, as a listener, and always willing to take extra time, one nomination reads to her each student is special and each problem is important. She makes us feel like individuals.
Citation for President Spangler.
On motion of Prof. Jane Brown, the Council adopted Resolution 97-10 whereby the Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill expresses it deep and sincere gratitude to President C. D. Spangler, Jr., for his distinctive and essential contributions as President of The University of North Carolina from 1986 to 1997.
Farewell to Professor Jane Brown as Chair of the Faculty.
Chancellor Hooker noted that this is Professor Browns last Council meeting as Chair of the Faculty. She had the task of breaking in a rookie chancellor, he said, and I can tell you that she had a lot of patience. Jane has never failed when I have been in need of coaching tips. Sometimes I understood that I needed them and sought them. Sometimes I didnt understand that I needed them but she provided them anyway. Those were the times when they were probably the most valuable. Chancellor Hooker presented to Professor Brown a plaque of appreciation for her distinguished service as faculty chair, 1994-97.
Professor George Lensing [English] moved adoption of a resolution of appreciation for Professor Brown and read a citation. The resolution was adopted by standing ovation.
Members of the Agenda Committee presented to Professor Brown several tokens of affection. Professor Bobbi Owen [Dramatic Art] presented a pair of platform shoes. A thermometer to help gauge the intellectual climate was presented on behalf of Professor Carol Hogue who could not be present. Professor Donna LeFebvre [Political Science] proclaimed Jane Queen of the Virtual University and presented her with a tiara and sash. Professor Carl Anderson [Business] presented a book titled A Compendium of the Remarkable, Memorable, Monumentally Inspiring, Yet Esoteric Comments made in Faculty Council Meetings for the years 1994 to 1997. [The book was blank.] Professor Barry Lentz [Biochemistry] presented a large identification badge reading on one side Hi, Im Jane and on the reverse Bye, Jane.
Presentations on Instructional Technology
Chancellor Hooker introduced three presentations on recent initiatives that were funded by presented technology grants through the Office of the Provost. He said that preference will be given next year to projects that further departmental, school, or inter-disciplinary priorities. Also, the permissible uses of grant funds will be expanded to include purchase of necessary equipment.
The first presentation was a videotape that featured, among others, Professor Linda Laceys on-line course in city planning. Next, Professor Sheila Englebardt [Nursing] told of her project to convert a graduate course of health care informatics in School of Nursing to a totally on-line course that will be offered to a world-wide clientele as well as to on-campus students. Professor Englebardt said that there must be incentives to invest the time and effort that is required to develop on-line instruction. She doubts that faculty who perceive that they will be rewarded only for research and publication will be encouraged to embark on the exciting, challenging, and labor-intensive adventure that instructional technology has been for me. Finally, Professor Darryl Gless [English] spoke from his perspective as chair of the Department of English. Nothing highlights the importance of pooled expertise so completely, he said, as does instructional and information technology. Mistakes are extraordinarily expensive; entry investments are very high; maintenance will be costly. He was pleasantly surprised at the range of expertise he found in his own department, much of it possessed by graduate students. Partly because of this pooled expertise, his department was able to get help from the technology grants to improve and enhance freshman writing courses.
Chancellor Hooker spoke warmly of President-Elect Molly Broad and expressed his great pleasure with her appointment.
The chancellor took note of Resolution 97-13 concerning discharge procedures and indicated his support. He said that the current regulations have inhibited him in explaining why he did not accept the recommendations of the Faculty Hearings Committee in the discharge of Professor Barry Nakell and that he would have welcomed the an opportunity to discuss with the committee his response to their advice.
There were no questions of the chancellor.
Chair of the Facultys Remarks
Responding to the chancellors and the Councils previous expressions of thanks for her, Professor Brown said I feel much loved. Thank you very much for all those accolades.
Professor Brown addressed the Council from the perspective of nearing the conclusion of her three-year term as chair of the faculty. Her remarks are appended to these minutes.
Presentation by SEANC
Darryl Arnold, Director of Legislative Affairs for State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) spoke to the Council of the work of SEANC and invited faculty members to become active members of the Association.
Amendment to Instrument of Student Judicial Governance.
Prof. Stephen Weiss [Computer Science], on behalf of the Committee on Student conduct, presented Resolution 97-11 amending the Student Code of Judicial Governance. The resolution makes two changes. The first clarifies that both the campus code and the honor code apply during the time period between semesters. The second change makes it an offense to tamper with or disable any safety device, such as a smoke detector or fire extinguisher. The Student Congress, when it considered the proposed changes, amended them to make the second change inapplicable premises of student organizations that are not officially recognized. Professor Weiss asked that the Council amend the resolution accordingly, which was done. As amended, the resolution was adopted.
Procedure for Discharge of a Faculty Member
Professor Laurie Maffly-Kipp [Religious Studies] moved adoption of Resolution 97-13 regarding the procedure for discharge of a faculty member. The resolution calls on the Board of Trustees to amend the tenure regulations to bring them into conformity with AAUP guidelines as concerns procedure following a decision by the chancellor not to accept a recommendation of the Hearings Committee favorable to the faculty member in a discharge case. AAUP standards in such a case provide that the proceeding should be returned to the committee with objections specified. The committee should then be given 10 days to reconsider its advice, taking into account the chancellors objections and taking new evidence, if necessary.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on University Government with direction that the committee report its recommendations and advice to the Council in September.
Prof. Brown reported that she has written to President Spangler asking that text of the Code of the Board of Governors be amended to cure an ambiguity in the text as to the stage of a discharge proceeding when the faculty member is removed from the payroll.
Carolina Course Review
Prof. Michael Salemi briefed the Council on origins and procedures of the Carolina Course Review. Professor Brown was asked earlier this year whether the results of the Review could be made available to the Internet. She agreed. Subsequently, some faculty members have questioned whether access to this information should be limited to the campus community.
The Council discussed and adopted Resolution 97-12 which directs the Educational Policy Committee to consider and make recommendations to the Council about the advisability of providing student evaluations on the Internet. Pending receipt of that report, the resolution directs that this information should be accessible only by our own students and other authorized on-campus users.
Second Reading of Faculty Code Revisions
Professor Janet Mason [Institute of Government], on behalf of the Committee on University Government, presented Resolution 97-9 for approval on second reading. The resolution revises the Faculty Code of University Government and was approved, as amended, on first reading at the March, 1997, meeting of the General Faculty. Professor Mason also presented and explained Resolution 97-14 which was prepared by the Committee on University Government to address the voting status of faculty who choose to take phased retirement. On motion of Professor Frayda Bluestein [Institute of Government], Resolution 97-14 was adopted as an amendment to Resolution 97-9. The amendment provides that for purposes of faculty-wide elections, a member of the voting faculty who retires and continues on the faculty with a fixed-term appointment that calls for at least one-half time effort will be deemed to retain the faculty rank and voting status that he or she held immediately prior to retirement. Resolution 97-9, as amended, as adopted on second reading, which constitutes final approval.
Annual Reports of Standing Committees
Professor Brown noted she had summarized the annual reports of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council and the Faculty Assembly Delegation in her earlier remarks. She announced that Professor Lolly Gasaway [Law] has been chosen chair of the Faculty Assembly. Professor Gasaway is the first UNC-CH faculty member to have achieved that distinction.
Faculty Welfare Committee Supplementary Report.
Professor Stephen Bachenheimer [Microbiology] briefly spoke to the supplementary report of the Faculty Welfare Committee responding to the recent publication of information on faculty salaries.
Report of Faculty Elections
Professor Ferrell, Secretary of the Faculty, announced that the newly elected chair of the faculty is Professor Richard N. (Pete) Andrews [Environmental Sciences & Engineering]. Professor Andrews was welcomed with an ovation and Professor Brown presented to him a gavel as the symbol of his office.
There being no further business, the Council adjourned.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
Actions of the Council
1997 Thomas Jefferson Award Citation
Donald Charles Jicha
Picture the summer of 1993. Events that would shape life in the United States for decades, particularly for students at Carolina, were unfolding. The sate is set for John Steinbecks Tortilla Flat: unemployment is at an all-time high, FDR was inaugurated in March, the New Deal has begun, prohibition will be repealed by years end, and and a sultry day in late July, Don Jicha is born in Chicago.
Less than forty years later Don would be ushering thousands of students through the General College here at UNC. As Associate Dean of the General College, he has direct responsibility, delegated by the Dean of Arts and Sciences, for more students than any other academic administrator on campus. Dons steady hand has remained on the rudder for more than twenty years, through four chancellors, five provosts, and three deans. And, like the indefatigable Energizer Bunny, hes still going.
Since day one of his arrival in Chapel Hill in 1960, Don has been an outstanding chemical educator. Recipient of the Johnston Scholars Teaching Award and the Senior Class Favorite Teacher Award, he sandwiched twenty-four years of excellent instruction between two Tanner Teaching Awards. AS organizer of the introductory chemistry laboratories, he coordinates the work of more than sixty teaching assistants every semester. Caring for thousands of chemistry laboratory students is a Herculean task, yet Don does this as if it were only a minor pertubation his daily schedule. He is beloved by students for hthe demanding lecture courses he teaches in addition to his laboratory and administrative commitments.
Infused with detailed knowledge of curricula, advising, and student activities, Don is a wonderful resource for faculty, staff and students. Those who work with Don see a practical approach to every problem, boundless commitment to the university, and endless optimism for the future. Dean Jicha is known as a listener among all segments of the Carolina population; sharing a problem with Don is always a good idea.
His level of involvement with undergraduates is exceptional. He writes about 300 letters of recommendation per year for students. How many faculty serve as the administrative leader for a unit the size of the General College and then stuff 300 letters into envelopes they printed themselves? Some of you may know that the first and second floor of Steele Building are occasionally referred to as Generous College: how well that nickname reflects the man at its center.
Don Jicha does not resemble the Jeffersonian ghost who walks the Uva campus on dark nights. Rather, he is a grass roots worker for improved campus life, both academic and social. As Don said earlier this week, Im not an administrator; Im a trench fighter. Don often points out that were all just pilgrim, and what a great companion he is for the pilgrimage here at Carolina. Quietly he has often watched others take responsibility for his successes; equally often he has accepted responsibility for errors of others. One nominating letter noted that Don is as much a part of our University as the Davie Poplar, and every bit as strong and dependable.
Is it possible to reward a lifetime of university service as an outstanding instructor and dependable administrator with the Jefferson Award? Yes, it is. Today Don Jicha has been chosen by this faculty as the 1997 Thomas Jefferson Award recipient.
Prepared and presented by Joseph L. Templeton, Professor Chemistry and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
REMARKS OF PROFESSOR JANE BROWN, CHAIR OF THE FACULTY
April 25, 1997, Faculty Council Meeting
Three years ago when I began as chair of the faculty, I said my philosophy was that no one of us is as smart as all of us. And I still believe that. I believe that is why we have faculty governmentso we can share our collective intellect and insight, so that the faculty can be a part of the future and the everyday running of the university. Collectively over the past three years, we have dealt with both the lofty and the mundane.
We began my tenure as chair getting clear about where faculty will sit in the Dean Dome. Now we all sit together up in the rafters. We then helped write a policy on consensual amorous relationships. We spent almost a year drafting a set of policies for faculty involvement in salary decisions. Weve asked for a task force on intellectual climate, and well soon be hearing from them. And weve endorsed the expansion of benefits to include the domestic partners of employees. And weve expanded our membership to include fixed-term faculty, which is one of the most significant things weve done.
Just this week, weve learned that there will be a womens center in the West House here on campus thanks to the recommendations of the Task Force on Women at Carolina. Professor Marsha Collins, the former chair of our AAUP, will chair the advisory committee and lead us in developing the center and implementing the other recommendations of the task force. Kay Wijnberg also will be involved in that, and with that kind of leadership this will happen. This is great news.
We also are moving forward on renovating our classroomssomething weve been talking about for a couple of yearsand I appreciate the work of the provosts office and Kate McGaughey in making this happen. Kate has provided a summary of which classrooms will be renovated over the next couple of years. Some faculty have asked me about some of the classrooms they like to teach in, and theyre afraid theyre going to be renovated in a way that doesnt work for them in the future. So there are point persons who have been named who are going to track what we want in those classrooms. Their names are on those sheets as well. So if you have a particular need for that classroom, you should see those people, communicate with them, so you still have what you need in the classroom once its been renovated.
I also have learned over these past couple of years that much of what gets done gets down through our committees. Ive attended more meetings in the last three years than I ever knew existed. But this is how we do things. Im grateful for the hard work of these committees. This is the work that too often goes unrecognized and unrewarded and, worse, is sometimes ignored. This committee work is the essential work of faculty government. Let me give you some examples of what our committees have done this past year:
The Faculty Hearings Committee has conducted a thorough and thoughtful review of a difficult case in the glare of public scrutiny. The Committee on Black Faculty and Students has raised important concerns about our minority postdoctoral program. The Educational Policy Committee issued guidelines for cooperative learning environment and has revised the final exam policy. The Committee on University Government revised and updated the Code and the Advisory Committee lead us in an informed discussion of guidelines for post-tenure review. The Agenda Committee created the agenda for the Council this year.
I would like to thank each of these committees and the other committees of the Council and their chairs for their generosity and commitment to University community. I especially would like to thank the agenda committee and the ECFC with whom I worked most closely. Weve spent lots of time together, and I appreciate your dedication.
Most of the recommendations weve made over the last three years will have long-term positive effects on the whole University community. We should be proud of this progress and the extent of faculty involvement in these issues. Initially, I thought our committee structure was archaic and excessive, and I said we should change it: we should look at it, get rid of a lot of committees, streamline it, make it work better. But I have come to see over the past couple of years that although sometimes tedious, ultimately we come to solutions that work. The council is a representative body of the faculty, and Ive seen that it can be counted on to speak to the issues and to produce recommendations that serve the whole community. Its not always pretty, not usually fastbut its always been thoughtful and thorough.
I believe this body and the faculty governance structure it represents will be even more important in the future. Over the past couple of years we have seen higher education, especially public higher education, come under increasing scrutiny from the public and legislatures. They basically are asking if they are getting their moneys worth and if higher education is where our precious tax dollars should be spent. They are asking, Are college students learning what they need to know? Are the faculty working hard enough What are the faculty doing? Are they teaching or just doing their own research? Do the faculty deserve to have guaranteed jobs, when all around us people are losing theirs because of downsizing and restructuring? These arent new questions, but they are now being asked and answered with legislation that we must pay attention to.
Over the past year, the Executive Committee of Faculty Council has spent most of its time in investigating how faculty might be involved in setting priorities and making decisions about how scarce monies will be distributed in the future. We luckily have not had to face the crisis and budget-cutting that many of our sister state institutions have, and to some extent we have had the luxury of thinking about how we might organize a process that works with or without a significant cut in funds. I believe it is vitally important that the faculty is knowledgeable about, and have a role in making, these tough decisions about how money will be spent in the future. The Executive Committee is about to propose a way to do this. Weve been working on this for a year, and we think were getting closer to figuring out how to do this.
We also have been involved in initial discussions about post-tenure review, and will have the opportunity to design a process for our campus this coming year. But this is only the tip of the iceberg of a much more fundamental conversation about tenure that I think we have to have. We have not been successful in shifting the prevailing perception that we have cushy jobs guaranteed for life. Thats what the public thinks about tenure. We must do better in showing those outside our campus that we do much more than is asked of us, that what we do is valuable, and that most of us are working harder than we should. We also have not been successful in showing the public how dedicated we are to our students.
We must demonstrate that we take seriously and act on the philosophy of academic freedom that requires us to investigate and discuss the difficult and perhaps unpopular topics of the day. We must make clear that tenure is not a lifetime job guarantee, but an obligation to do exceptional work both as teachers and scholars. We must be clear that faculty can lose the privilege of tenure if standards are not upheld. And we must be clear about what those standards are. These questions are on the table, and we must answer them, or they will be answered for us.
I remain optimistic that we can answer these questions, and that we will continue to be the remarkable institution of higher education we have been for more than two centuries. Thank you all for this rare opportunity and honor of serving as chair of this remarkable faculty. I have made friends I would not have made otherwise. I have learned more about how this University works than I sometimes wanted to know. I have seen from behind the scenes how our faculty love this university and how dedicated they are to its future. I have seen faculty devote countless hours to search committees, task forces and standing committees purely in the interest of the University. It has been inspiring. And it has been a privilege to get to know and to work with you.