December 12, 1997
Meeting of the Faculty Council
Friday, December 12, 1997, 3:00 p.m.
Assembly Room, 2nd Floor, Wilson Library
Chancellor Michael Hooker will preside. Attendance of elected Council members is required.
INFO 3:00 Address. Molly Broad, President of The University of North Carolina
INFO 3:30 Remarks. Chancellor Michael Hooker
INFO 3:40 Question Period. [The Chancellor invites questions or comments on any topic.]
INFO 3:45 Remarks. Richard N. Andrews, Chair of the Faculty
DISC 3:55 Special Report on Post-Tenure Review
- Bernadette Gray-Little, Chair of the Advisory Committee
INFO 4:15 Annual Report, Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions
Risa Palm, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
INFO 4:20 Annual Report, Committee on Scholarships, Awards, and Student Aid
- James McCoy, Chair
INFO 4:25 Annual Report, Committee on University Government
- Janet Mason, Chair
ACT 4:30 Adjourn
4:30 RECEPTION SPONSORED BY THE UNC-CH CHAPTER, AAUP, Wilson Library Foyer
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
ACT = Action
INFO = Information
Present (68): B. Anderson, Bangdiwala, Barefoot, Bluestein, Bose, Brink, Carl, Clegg, Collins, Conover, Cordeiro-Stone, Covach, Cravey, J. Dalton, R. Dalton, Debreczeny, Devellis, Eckel, Estroff, Farel, Fink, Foshee, Fox, Gasaway, Gatzy, Graves, Hattem, Holmgren, Hooper, Howard, Hyatt, Irene, Johnson, Lachiewicz, Lentz, Loda, Lord, Lubker, Maffly-Kipp, Mandel, Margolis, Mauriello, L. McNeil, Melchert, Mill, Moreau, Owen, Pagano, Panter, Passannante, Pfaff, Plante, Rabinowitz, Salgado, Schaller, Searles, Shea, Skelly, Stabler, Stidham, Strauss, Tauchen, Tysinger, Vevea, Weiss, White, D. Williams, M. Williams.
Excused absences (14): L. Bailey, Bromberg, Crimmins, Daye, Favorov, Fletcher, Haggis, Hodges, Jackson, Marshall, Matson, Pielak, Platin, Raper,
Unexcused absences (2): Harrison, Rosenman.
Address by Molly Broad, President of The University of North Carolina
President Broad began by saying that in the four short months of her tenure, she has been most impressed by the affection and respect held for the University by the citizens of North Carolina. Her most important responsibility is to provide an environment that enables the faculty to fulfill the goals of the institution. In the years ahead we will be asked to do more and more for the State, to contribute directly to the economy, and to serve more students. Yet, it is likely that the share of the State budget devoted to higher education is likely to decline in relative terms. We will face a daunting challenge to accomplish our mission while resources remain constrained.
President Broad spoke to the reasoning behind her request that each constituent institution of UNC review its affirmative action programs. She summarized the litigation between the University System and the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare that led to a 1981 consent decree in federal court under which the University agreed to initiate a number of outreach, recruitment, and student financial aid programs designed to increase the presence of Black students in historically white institutions and the number of white students in historically Black institutions. These programs have demonstrated results of which we can be proud. In virtually all statistical measures, UNC’s programs have produced results that better the national experience. Although the data demonstrate evident success, we still do not have the degree of diversity that we desire. During the sixteen years that our affirmative action programs have been in effect, the law has been in flux. Court decisions have not yet created a clear or consistent pattern of policy advice, but it is clear that change is in the air. Selection policies at highly selective public institutions are under challenge across the nation in courts, legislatures, board rooms, and at the ballot box. In the face of this reality, responsible administrators must review practices and programs to see that they are legally sound. To do otherwise would place us in a vulnerable position.
President Broad next turned to a report of data illustrating the importance of the research mission of the University. Research funding at UNC-CH has tripled in the past decade. Of all proposals receiving funding throughout the University System, UNC-CH received more than 50% in 1997. The majority of these awards (72%) support research and the source of funding is primarily the federal government (68%). President Broad hopes to focus attention on the State’s return on its investment in funded research. She estimates that every $1 of State investment in research generates $3.65 in external funding. As for the future, she anticipates “an interesting set of exchanges about what role patent policies play around the world and what chilling effect they will play in the likelihood of investment in university research.” Economies around the world have benefited from the openness of research literature without the same protections that we have in this country for patents and copyrights. Another emerging issue is providing competitive compensation and tuition policies for attracting the best graduate students. The legislative policy of “rationing” tuition remissions is not supportive of the research enterprise and needs reexamination.
The President concluded by summarizing key findings of the recent survey of alumni and sophomores throughout the System. In most measures, students rate the System and UNC-CH in particular highly. The one area in which alumni and students express dissatisfaction with UNC-CH is in the area of academic advising.
Professor Leon Fink (History) asked about efforts to achieve diversity in “new forms.” The President replied that the Board of Governors voluntarily extended efforts to comply with the consent decree after it had expired. We have not achieved the full degree of diversity that the decree hoped to engender. How that can be accomplished will vary from campus to campus.
Professor Joseph Pagano (Medicine) noted that funding from the National Institutes of Health continues to increase even while there is evidence that other sources of federal funding are not. He suggested that we should be readying ourselves for what promises to be a continuing expansion of this money stream. The President replied that one of her important priorities is to improve the University’s strategic position in Washington. She asked whether growth in NIH funding has been sufficient to sustain the current needs of the faculty. Professor Pagano replied that the principal area of inadequacy is in funding for physical facilities, but we also need to provide a climate more conducive to interdisciplinary programs. The President replied that she does not anticipate federal support for physical facilities. The problem is a failure of the State to come to grips with the relationships between the capital and operating budgets. We need to do a better job of demonstrating the connection between capital needs and sustaining academic programs and some funding source better than surplus revenues.
Professor Richard Pfaff (History) commented that the University’s research mission is not limited to federally funded research; many faculty are engaged in research that is dependent on library resources. The President replied that the Board of Governors has not failed to request increased funding from libraries; it simply has not been forthcoming. She thinks that we will probably have to rely more and more on sharing resources through such initiatives as NC Live and increased investment in information technology.
Chancellor Hooker introduced Leslie Kendrick and Jonathan Tepper who have been awarded Rhodes Scholarships. They were greeted by warm and sustained applause.
The SAE incident.
The Chancellor said that he has alternated “between rage and humiliation” in his reaction to the recent incident in which members of the SAE fraternity have been charged with theft of a large number of Christmas decorations in the community. He will refrain from further comment on the incident until the student judicial process has run its course, but he could mention a number of sanctions that have been put in place by the SAE national organization and the University. These include canceling spring rush and requiring the fraternity to be alcohol-free permanently, even for students of legal age.
Chancellor Hooker said that he is precluded from commenting publicly about recent disciplinary actions initiated against Edwin Swain, Jr., a lieutenant in the University police force, until an appeal initiated by Lt. Swain has been concluded. After that, the Chancellor intends to make a public statement under the provisions of state law that permit him to comment on a personnel matter that would otherwise be confidential when there are “compelling reasons” to do so.
Athletic coach salaries.
The Chancellor said he would not attempt to defend the current state of intercollegiate athletics, which he finds “absolutely bizarre,” but he does intend to administer our program with integrity to the best of his ability. He noted that we are one of a handful of institutions that does not transfer money from the academic budget to the athletic department. Our athletic department operates under a budget of some $27 million, all of which is generated entirely from within that department. We do attempt to pay competitive market wages to get the best coaches.
The Chancellor has found it valuable to accompany Dean Palm on visits to departments in the College of Arts and Sciences. He is impressed with the results of the technology grants, but has found considerable restiveness about the danger of adulterating the quality of our instruction with digital technology. He emphasized that in his view distance learning seeks to reach populations who otherwise would have no access to higher education; it is not intended to replace traditional classroom teaching in a residential setting. The largest markets for distance learning will be outside the United States.
Professor Paul Lachiewicz (Orthopaedics) asked, with reference to the SAE incident, “what proactively will you and the administration do to the Greek system to let them know that this kind of activity is completely outrageous and not acceptable?” The Chancellor replied “what is really distressing is lack of human sensitivity and moral compass;” we need to examine how we can better provide a moral compass to our students. Professor Paul Farel (Physiology) asked if there would be any communication with the parents of the students involved. The Chancellor replied that he is working on a letter to the entire University community.
Professor George Rabinowitz asked about this semester’s deadline for reporting grades. He reported that in an instance of which he is aware a colleague has only 27 hours after the conclusion of an exam to turn in the grades. The customary minimum time allowed has been 72 hours. The Provost replied that the Calendar Committee was aware of this situation but could not work around it. Professor Bobbi Owen said that it is hoped that this problem will not recur.
Professor Leon Fink (History) asked, with reference to disciplinary proceedings against Lt. Swain, whether we could expect from the Chancellor some comment on managerial personnel and what type of misconduct justifies summary dismissal. The Chancellor replied that the administration is working on management problems in the police department. He wants to reserve judgment on the summary dismissal issue until Lt. Swain’s appeal process has concluded.
Professor Sue Estroff (Social Medicine) observed that the current discussions on affirmative action have overlooked gender. She said that during the past six years, the Division of Health Affairs has hired only half as many women as men, and that includes hires in the School of Nursing. She hoped we would take a broader view of the matter. Chancellor Hooker replied that gender issues have not previously been brought to his attention in this context.
Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks
Professor Andrews reported that progress continues toward implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Intellectual Climate. He intends to make another detailed report next month. He noted the presentation made to the Board of Trustees in November on faculty issues and singled out the video produced by Professor Richard Simpson (Journalism & Mass Communication) for high praise. He said that it is appropriate and important to restate the faculty’s strong support for efforts toward achieving diversity, and to reaffirm our commitment to make this University a model to serve all of North Carolina. Finally, he urged the faculty to consider making gifts during the holiday season to UNC programs that would benefit our university community.
Professor Bernadette Gray-Little, chair of the Advisory Committee, presented for the Council’s consideration and comment a draft policy for a system of post-tenure review that has been prepared by the Advisory Committee. She cautioned that the document has not been reviewed by University legal counsel nor has it been discussed by the Board of Trustees. Thus, the final document may differ.
Professor Laura Gasaway (Law) reported that the faculty of the Law School have discussed the draft policy and would prefer that it not require the initial reviews to be done in order of seniority. The Law faculty would prefer to be able to select those for initial review on some other basis.
Professor Bary Lentz (Biochemistry) said that he is concerned that reviews be carefully balanced insofar as they call attention to strengths and weaknesses. He fears that the current draft places too much emphasis on identifying weaknesses.
Professors Leon Fink and Marila Cordeiro-Stone (Pathology & Lab Medicine) raised the question of outside reviewers. Prof. Gray-Little said that the draft policy leaves this to the discretion of the department.
Professor Craig Melchert (Linguistics) asked what is meant by “peers?” Prof. Gray-Little replied that this term is used without definition in the administrative memorandum directing development of the policy but is intended to mean that review cannot be conducted solely by administrators; there must be faculty involvement. The Advisory Committee felt it better not to attempt a definition of the term.
Rebecca Hockfield, undergraduate liaison to the Council, noted that the policy does not specifically require evaluation of teaching in the conduct of reviews. She thought that should be an important part of the process. Prof. Gray-Little replied that evaluation of teaching should certainly be a part of the review of any faculty member involved in teaching, but that some faculty are primarily engaged in research or service.
Annual Reports of Standing Committees
Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.
The report was received. On motion of Professor Pfaff, the Council adopted the following resolution: Resolved that the Faculty Council endorses the value of continuing faculty involvement in Admissions Office recruitment efforts directed toward top student applicants.
Scholarships, Awards, and Student Aid.
The report was received. Professor James McCoy, chair of the committee, made this statement: “On behalf of myself and former chairs of the Committee on Scholarships, Awards, and Student Aid, and on behalf of present and past faculty, student, and ad hoc members of the committee, I would request of the Faculty Council a public vote of thanks in appreciation for Eleanor Morris, who retired as Director of the Office of Scholarships, Awards, and Student as of November 30, 1997. She has been our inspiration and guiding light since 1980. We applaud her many years of loyal and dedicated service to students of this University and greatly admire the dignity, grace, and decorum which accompanied her every step. Her accomplishments are many. She is indeed one of the University’s priceless gems.”
Professor Craig Melchert moved that the Council endorse Professor McCoy’s statement, which was done unanimously
Committee on University Government.
The report was received.
There being no further business, the Council adjourned.