December 7, 2001
Meeting of the Faculty Council
Friday, December 7th, 2001, 3:00 p.m.
The Pleasants Family Assembly Room in Wilson Library
3:00 Call to Order. The Secretary of the Faculty.
DISC 3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Time.
- Chancellor James Moeser invites questions or comments on any topic.
INFO 3:15 Remarks by the Provost.
- Professor Robert Shelton.
INFO 3:25 Remarks by the Chair of the Faculty.
- Professor Sue Estroff invites questions or comments on any topic.
DISC 3:40 Open Discussion of Topics Raised by Faculty Members.
INFO 3:55 Annual Report of the Faculty Committee on University Government.
- Professor Janet Mason, Chair.
INFO 4:00 Annual Report of the Scholarships, Awards, & Student Aid Committee.
- (including “Critical Questions Regarding Scholarships and Student Financial Aid” )
- Professor Charles Daye, Chair.
ACT 4:10 Resolution 2001-7A on Information Technology.
- Professor William Balthrop, Chair of the Faculty Information Technology Advisory Committee.
INFO 4:20 Annual Report of the Faculty Athletics Committee.
- Professor Stanley Mandel, Chair.
DISC 4:30 Athletics and the Academic Mission of the University.
INFO 4:50 Resolution 2001-9 on Athletics Programs in the A.C.C.
ACT 5:00 Adjourn.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
ACT = Action
DISC = Discussion
INFO = Information
Present (62): Admiora, Adler, Allison, Ammerman, Bollen, Bouldin, Boxill, Bynum, Cairns, Carelli, Chenault, Clegg, Colindres, Cotton, Crawford-Brown, Daye, D’Cruz, Elter, Elvers, Files, Fishell, Foley, Fowler, George, Henry, Janda, Kagarise, Kessler, Kjervik, Kopp, Kupper, Lubker, Malizia, McCormick, McGraw, A. Molina, P. Molina, Moran, Nonini, Orthner, Otey, Pfaff, Pisano, Poole, Raasch, Reinert, Robinson, Rowan, Sams, Schauer, Sigurdsson, Slatt, J. Smith, W. Smith, Sueta, Tresolini, Tulloch, Vaughn, Wallace, Walsh, Waters, Willis.
Excused absences (20): Bowen, Drake, Granger, Kalleberg, Langbauer, LeFebvre, Meece, Metzguer, Nelson, Owen, Raab-Traub, Rao, Retsch-Bogart, Shea, Straughan, Strauss, Tauchen, Watson, Williams, Yopp.
Unexcused absences (4): Barbour, Bromberg, Gilland, McQueen.
Call to Order
Prof. Joseph Ferrell, Secretary of the Faculty, called the meeting to order and announced that Chancellor Moeser was in London. He called upon Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Robert Shelton for opening remarks.
The Atlantic Coast Conference presidents and chancellors have already begun the process of implementing some of the recommendations of the Knight Commission. Specifically, the ACC has suggested that the NCAA establish a floor of academic achievement necessary for teams to participate in post-season play, on the condition that the current graduation rate definition be amended to include an assessment of the status of satisfactory progress toward a degree by current members of athletic teams.
A special seminar series for students to learn more about the proposal has been launched. It is being led by Prof. Robert Adler of the Kenan-Flagler Business School and Prof. Holden Thorp of the Department of Chemistry. The packet of material prepared is extraordinarily well done. Student Body President Justin Young reports that there is strong student participation and that quality of discussion is very high.
The Chancellor is talking with officials of the Qatar Foundation in London this week. This is the next step in negotiations and is a good chance for a face-to-face opportunity on neutral ground. Provost Shelton said he thinks it highly unlikely that any decision would be reached at this meeting, but that it is hoped that a decision can be reached by the end of this calendar year.
Provost Shelton discussed the budget cuts. He recalled that at the November Council meeting, the chancellor had reported that President Broad’s meeting with Governor Easley resulted in an agreement that the average non-recurring reversion in the University System would be 2.7%, rather than the 4% reversion required of many State agencies. He noted that this one-time, non-recurring reversion comes on top of permanent cuts mandated by the General Assembly. He said the deans and vice chancellors are acting to minimize the negative impact of the collective cuts on the academic mission. One guiding principle has been to provide as much flexibility to unit managers as possible. The 2.7% rate is a negotiated reduction that could change depending upon the State’s economic situation. Some campuses are holding back 4%, rather than 2.7%, just in case. The permanent cut was $10 million and the non-recurring cut adds another $10 million.
Provost Shelton discussed campus-based tuition increases for the past two years. Last September Chancellor Moeser mentioned the need for a regular, updated tuition plan. The University has the flexibility to do this, but the authority rests with the Board of Trustees, and it is the administration’s responsibility to bring before the Board a systematic, coherent plan that will allow students and their families to organize and plan out their four or five years of undergraduate time at UNC. Provost Shelton said that last month he presented to the Board of Trustees a series of data trying to put into context tuition at Carolina. The context has many dimensions, including assessment of students’ ability to pay. The Board instructed Provost Shelton to develop a proposal or proposals for their next meeting on January 24, 2002. This deadline is critical because the Board of Trustees has to relay this information to the Board of Governors. In response Provost Shelton said he had now appointed a 15-member committee, with leaders from the student government, faculty, administrators, and trustees. He said that joining him as co-chair is Justin Young, Student Body President, and the faculty representatives are Prof. James Jorgenson (Chemistry), Prof. William Maixner (Dentistry), Prof. Rachel Rosenfeld (Sociology), and Prof. Stephen Weiss (Computer Science). Provost Shelton has charged the committee to consider the philosophy by which tuition is set at UNC and to determine the uses to which tuition increases are put, before turning to dollar amounts. He hopes for several options. The need is to consider the ability to attract and retain the very best faculty and to improve the faculty/student ratio which now stands at 21 to 1 for undergraduate instruction. The traditional goal is 15 to 1. The fundamental question is how to garner discretionary resources to accomplish these goals. Provost Shelton said that Prof. Sue Estroff, Chair of the Faculty, has discussed with the Trustees and with him the faculty’s sensitivity about tying any future tuition increases solely to faculty salaries. The Trustees realize the importance of that concern.
Provost Shelton said in the two years previous, 65% of the tuition increases went to faculty salaries, yielding an average faculty salary increase of about 3.4%, on top of money the State gave two raises ago of about 4.2%. This gave the University a chance to close some gaps with peer salaries. For this year, the State-funded $625 salary increase and the $325 tuition increase yielded about 3.4% after taking out 35% to hold for those students eligible for financial aid.
Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks
Prof. Estroff reported that the Faculty Assembly adopted a Resolution on the Academic Calendar introduced by our delegation as directed by Council Resolution 2001-4. There have been promising signals from the Office of the President about accepting the faculty’s view of the matter.
There was a meeting on November 16 of the General Faculty for the express purpose of discussing an undergraduate program in Qatar. A resolution endorsing the program was approved by a vote of 44 to 25 with 9 voting “undecided.” Prof. Estroff said she interpreted this vote as a vote to “proceed with caution, but be prepared to stop.” She said it was heartening to see this complicated circumstance turn into a valuable learning exercise. She encouraged continued discussion.
She said the Legislature had finally adjourned, and the question of faculty raises could have been much worse. That, however, is little solace for a campus that has its highest undergraduate enrollment ever (which adversely affects faculty/student ratios); whose students are frustrated at being closed out of course sections; and that is experiencing teaching-support staff reductions. Prof. Estroff said she wanted to make sure that the faculty understands her plea to the Board of Trustees. She said she asked them to consider tuition increases for a broader category of educational resources including, but not limited, to salaries. She said our students deserve the education they came to Carolina to receive and the faculty and staff deserve to be compensated in relation to their qualifications and performance. She added that the students and families deserved some sense of when, and how much, their tuition might increase during their tenure at the University.
Parking continues to be a problem, and the students are upset about the potential loss of parking near their dormitories. Prof. Estroff continues to have discussions with Justin Young, Student Body President, on the unavoidably contentious matter. She asked the faculty to take into consideration some of the concerns expressed by the students, and try to identify areas in which the faculty would be willing to share in addressing the problem.
Prof. Estroff said it was her hope that the Council will adopt Resolution 2001-7A on today’s agenda. The Faculty Information Technology Advisory Committee has revised its previous resolution (res. 2001-7) in response to the concerns expressed at the November Council meeting.
Faculty Code revision.
Prof. Estroff has asked the Committee on University Government to develop a process for a thorough-going review, and possible revision, of the Faculty Code. She and Prof. Ferrell plan to meet with the committee soon to outline the task. She added that volunteers are welcome.
The issue of gender equity in salaries has begun to come to the fore. Provost Shelton and Sr. Assoc. Provost Bernadette Gray-Little are taking this quite seriously and are taking a good long look at the issue.
Prof. Estroff said the University has a long history of struggle and debate over the proper balance between healthy competition on the athletic fields and venues and robust focus on the educational enterprise. She congratulated the coach and the football team on their winning season and on their Peach Bowl invitation. She said the Council has been consistent in insisting that our students are students first and then athletes, but the overwhelming force of media money seems to make a mockery of our resolve. Without a series of a coordinated, far-reaching, and sometimes courageous moves on the part of the academic and athletic leaders, commercialism and commodification of college athletics will definitely worsen. The resulting degradation of the academic lives of athletes and the academic integrity of the Institution will be substantial. The discussion is not just about basketball and football; and there were many more subtle ways to look for balance. For example, the State high school football championships will be held this year during the week of exams. The Department of Public Safety has made special provisions for parking, but this will not cut down on the noise while students are trying to take exams. Prof. Estroff cited an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education about the impact of Title IX on female athletes of color, asserting that the major growth in women’s sports as been in soccer, field hockey, and crew which has the result of benefiting white women disproportionately. Since the protest about holding football games on Thursday nights, the ACC has contracted for Sunday night games as well. She read from some provisions of a resolution recently passed by The Big Ten limiting the times and days that games are played, the number of breaks in games for commercials, the types of advertising in stadiums, logos worn by coaches and players, that competitiveness in conferences and divisions should not follow standards appropriate for professional sports, that faculty athletics committees provide increasing amounts of sunshine on athletics operations, and that whenever possible, a sports season should be confined within a single academic term. She said that colleagues all over the country are taking action on the issue. It is time to look at the place of athletics in the life of the University and to engage in a reflective assessment of our values and desires for its present and future.
Annual Report of the Faculty Committee on University Government.
Prof. Janet Mason (School of Government) reported that the Committee was beginning to look at the process of reviewing the Faculty Code of University Government in response to Prof. Estroff’s request. She hoped participation in that process would be as broad as possible.
Prof. William Smith (Mathematics) encouraged the Committee in reviewing the Code, which he agrees is in many technical ways outdated. It is not “out of style,” however. The spirit of the Code is consistent with basic AAUP principles of the role of the faculty in the governance and operation of the University. In revising the Code, the faculty should keep closely in mind those things which are right about the Code, although they may be reworded.
Annual Report of the Scholarships, Awards, & Student Aid Committee.
Prof. Charles Daye (Law) presented the report. He commended Assoc. Provost Shirley Ort, Director of the Office of Scholarships and Student Aid, and her staff for great advancement in work on the data presented to the Committee. Carolina has been able to hold to our promise to hold harmless any student with financial need in respect of tuition increases, which does not happen in many Institutions. In addition to the data, the Committee has heard an appeal on a grant-in-aid determination for a student-athlete and made recommendations, which caused the Committee to look at the questions of the procedures it has, as they were out-of-date. The Committee is looking at a policy that will address what the University will do for students who come with a relatively minor drug offense conviction. He added that there is a question of what happens to students who might have an Honor Code violation, and the Committee is looking at the policies. Prof. Daye concluded by reviewing data presented in the Committee’s report, which will be found on the Faculty Governance web site.
Prof. Diane Kjervik (Nursing School) asked whether child care expenses are taken into account in determining need for student aid. Ms. Ort replied that these expenses are not included within scholarship grants but are considered in determining need.
Prof. Richard Pfaff (History) pointed out that the 83 Student Stores Scholarships average about $1,500 each while the University Trademark Scholarships, six times as numerous, average about $2,200. He asked whether this is accidental or by design. Ms. Ort replied that because both of these scholarships are completely within our control, they are used to round out scholarship “packages” that often include funds from other sources. The difference in average award from these two sources is purely coincidental. Prof. Pfaff then noted that there is considerable dissatisfaction among the student body as to the pricing policies of Student Stores, especially with respect to textbooks. He said that complaints about prices at Student Stores are often met with the argument that net profits from the operation go into scholarships. In view of the relatively small number of scholarships made available from this source, he asked whether thought had been given to benefiting students by lower prices rather than scholarships. Ms. Ort replied that the amount of scholarship support from Student Stores profits is greater than indicated by reference to the category noted by Prof. Pfaff. Funds from this source go into other scholarship categories as well, such as the Pogue Scholarships. The Student Aid Office receives $500,000 per year from Student Stores. The Graduate School receives $500,000 per year as well.
Student Liaison Joshua Bosin referred to the Provost’s appointment of a committee to study tuition increases and asked if the Student Aid Office has plans to establish a similar committee to address the needs of students that might be presented as a result of recommendations of the Provost’s Committee. Ms. Ort said she is a member of the committee to which Mr. Bosin referred and will be able to interpret for the other members the potential impact on students of its recommendations
Prof. Bobbie Lubker (Education) asked how the criteria for need could be accessed. Ms. Ort said that the College Foundation of North Carolina’s website, www.cfnc.org, has a calculator program for this purpose.
Ms. Ridley Kessler (Academic Affairs Libraries) asked for more information about Prof. Daye’s remarks concerning scholarship assistance for students with drug convictions. What is the current policy? Prof. Daye said there had been one recent case that was resolved on an ad hoc basis. As it turned out, the information that we had on the student in question was not entirely accurate. Ms. Ort said the reason this matter has come to the fore is that federal legislation requires that applicants for federal financial aid must respond to questions as to prior drug offense convictions, and federal authorities have stepped up efforts to police the things they want college students to do or not to do in order to get federal financial aid. The Committee felt that it needed a policy to guide the use that would be made of this information. Mr. Kessler said that as a child of the ‘60s, he had friends who had made mistakes when they were “children.” It should be kept in mind that everybody makes mistakes. Prof. Daye said the question the Committee felt was important was that they should attempt to ascertain the suitability of the student at the present moment.
Prof. Estroff said this was using financial aid officers as social policing, and she felt that the University should resist this.
Prof. William Balthrop (Communications Studies), Chair of the Faculty Information Technology Advisory Committee, represented the Resolution. He thanked the faculty for their support and suggestions. He emphasized that the Committee does not see innovation and the use of technology as ends in themselves but rather as means toward leading and promoting excellence in teaching. Thus, the first paragraph of the resolution “calls upon the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost to revise, or create, University statement(s) regarding teaching such that the University promotes both excellence and innovation in teaching, which may include the use of information and communication technology.” The second paragraph calls for establishment of an Information Technology Strategic Planning Council that will develop a strategic plan for information and communication technology covering policy, infrastructure, application, adoption, and fund-raising priorities. Finally, the resolution calls for continuation of the successful faculty summer workshops and grants that promote excellence in teaching and learning through innovative applications of information technology.
Prof. Robert Adler (Business) moved adoption of the resolution. He commended Prof. Balthrop for the great job he had done in revising the Resolution, and applauded the patience he had shown.
The Resolution was adopted unanimously.
Annual Report of the Faculty Athletics Committee.
Prof. Stanley Mandel (Surgery), Chair of the Committee, reported that the Committee sees its mission as working to ensure that our athletics program exhibits the highest level of academic integrity, sportsmanship, and Title IX compliance. Its role is not to become involved in the operational decisions of the Athletics Department, but rather to work to protect the excellent reputation that our athletics program enjoys. He submitted with the report a table that outlines the academic performance of the 1996 cohort of student-athletes. The overall four-year graduation rate for male athletes was 60%. The Committee would like for this to be higher, but the percentage is influenced by the fact that football athletes typically take 5 to 5 ½ years to graduate. Withdrawals before graduation also adversely affect the percentage. He said that the Committee, each year, conducts exit interviews with student-athletes. Key points revealed by those interviews this year were:
- Strong emphasis on academics by coaches and student-athletes
- Generally favorable opinion of the Academic Support Center
- Difficulty of concentrating on studies during team travel
- Rigors of practice will also affect ability to concentrate on studies
- Fair treatment by faculty; no special favors, no detrimental treatment
- Racial relations among student-athletes are perceived to be better than they are in campus community as a whole
- The estimated GPA in response to the survey was between 2.5 and 3.5
- Approximately 15% of respondents have experienced difficulty with registration to an extent that it affected their choice of major
- Approximately 38% of respondents reported having difficulty registering for as many as three or more courses
- A majority of respondents (78%) do not expect to be professional athletes
- Generally, respondents reported feeling well-prepared to enter into their careers
- Some views were expressed that advising occasionally seemed to emphasize maintaining eligibility over progress towards a degree
- Pressure to participate in practices were expressed in the phrase “maximum becomes the minimum,” meaning that the maximum allowed can easily become the minimum expected.
Prof. Mandel said that information gathered by Mr. Lanier shows that 29 of 45 institutions in the AAU have special priorities for registration for athletes, and all the schools in the ACC (with the possible exception of Georgia Tech, for which we lack information) are providing some form of priority registration for student-athletes. The Committee does not support blanket registration priority for student-athletes, but there is a consensus that some form of compensatory relief should be found and implemented for individual situations. The Committee recognized that other groups of students not within the purview of the Faculty Athletics Committee may also deserve similar consideration. It was the sense of the Committee that it is desirable to explore two related sets of issues:
- What are the groups of students that perform services for the University, who, as a result, are disadvantaged during registration.
- What types of compensatory registration privileges might be considered for students whose service for the University prevents them from registering for classes on the same basis as do other students who are not performing these services.
The Committee feels that these issues should be pursued from the general perspective as indicated.
Prof. Mandel said the Committee reviewed the Knight Commission Report in detail. The Committee was supportive of the concepts, but noted that competitive pressures make it difficult for individual institutions to decide to “disarm unilaterally.” The Committee felt that it is more likely that change can be achieved at the level of conferences rather than actions by individual institutions. Mr. Steve Kirschner, Sports Information Director, has been invited to the December meeting to discuss issues of sportsmanship, as one of the topics of the meeting. Four Sub-Committees have been formed to address:
- Exit interviews and improvement to the survey
- Academic support for student athletes
- Title IX issues
Prof. Mandel concluded that the Committee feels that the Athletics Department continues to do an excellent job of examining the issues related to the quality of life for the student-athlete, and there is clear evidence that there is a sincere commitment to continue an appropriate balance between the academic and athletic needs of the University.
Prof. Pfaff said that he understands the Committee’s position that it should not become involved with operational decisions of the Department of Athletics, but he wonders how the Committee defines “operational decisions,” especially with respect to matters such as the scheduling of football games on Thursday and Sunday evenings. Prof. Mandel said that he was referring to matters such as which coaches should be hired and at what salary, and other operational issues on which Committee members have no expertise. The Committee has discussed the matter of Thursday night scheduling and took a stand on it.
Prof. Etta Pisano (Radiology) asked how our graduation rates compare to other institutions.
Athletics Director Richard Baddour said the Carolina’s graduation is near the top of public institutions.
Prof. Vincent Kopp (Anesthesiology) noted that the rate of suspension for student-athletes is two to three times greater than for the student body as a whole. He asked why.
Mr. Baddour asked Mr. John Blanchard (College of Arts and Sciences), Director of Academic Support to respond. Prof. Blanchard said he had not analyzed that data, but he felt that in the broad spectrum, the University’s academic credentials can compete with any institution. Mr. Baddour said graduation rates can get a bit confusing. There and there are three methods of computing the rates:
- The Board of Governors requires submittal of graduation information based on recruited student-athletes.
- The NCAA requires submittal of data on athletes who have grants-in-aid.
- The data reported by the Athletics Committee comes from our own database which includes all students who participate in athletic programs.
Prof. Donald Bynum (Orthopaedics) returned to the question about suspensions. He asked for a definition of the term. Mr. Baddour replied that suspension from an athletic program could be the result of academic ineligibility or student judicial action. The Department of Athletics has no authority to dismiss a student from the University; it does have authority to dismiss a student from a particular athletic team. Prof. Bynum said he had not asked about who was in charge of suspensions but about the cause. Are suspensions the result of poor academic performance or unacceptable behavior? Mr. Baddour replied that there are cases of both. Prof. Bynum noted that including all student-athletes in the data obviously make things look better than if only recruited student-athletes were included. Mr. Blanchard said it is his recollection that there is only a 2% differential between “walk-on” athletes and recruited athletes. He also said that the great majority of suspensions are for academic reasons. Some of these suspended eventually are able to reinstate their academic status and eventually graduate.
Joshua Bosin, Student Liaison, spoke to the suspensions issue. In addition to other responsibilities he is a vice chairman of the undergraduate honor court. It has come to the court’s attention that the suspension and sanctioning of disciplinary matters involving athletes is something that the system needs to address. He said these numbers reflect that concern, and he wanted to reassure the chancellor and the faculty that the issue is being considered. As an active member of the student judicial system, he finds the numbers disturbing. Prof. Estroff asked that the Athletics Committee provide a break-down of the suspension data between academic reasons and conduct code violations.
Prof. Celia Hooper (Medical Allied Health Professions) noted that students returning to graduate after withdrawal are not included in the data. Mr. Baddour said that it is standard practice to analyze graduation rates on the basis of a six-year window of opportunity.
Prof. Ferrell asked Mr. Baddour to say something about the dynamics of the ACC. He noted that the Council had resolved against Thursday night games and now finds that not only has that resolve not been heeded but that we will be seeing Sunday night games as well. Are we having any effect on the ACC or is the Council wasting its time in resolving on such matters? Mr. Baddour said we were not wasting our time. In some matters we are by ourselves and in some matters there is some support. This Institution for four years has pushed to get the NCAA to increase the number of core courses required for participation in intercollegiate athletics. Other schools across the country have not supported this attempt. The Institution has been by itself on the issue of Thursday night games, and should continue to speak out against that practice.
Prof. Estroff said if the Big Ten and other major schools could get together on such matters perhaps the ACC could do so also. Mr. Baddour said those discussions are beginning to happen in response to the Knight Commission Report. Prof. Estroff said the faculty should be willing to address matters of concern on our own if efforts to work within the ACC are unsuccessful.
Mr. Kessler asked for comment on how much the ACC controls what we as a member institution do in the athletics sphere, particularly in terms of academics. Why should we be concerned about standards in effect at other member institutions if we feel that higher standards are appropriate for us? Mr. Baddour said in many cases the University does have higher standards, but the question is what are we willing to do, what are we willing to give up, what are we willing to push for change.
Returning to the issue of suspensions, Mr. Blanchard said the reported data includes only academic suspensions. Students who are suspended from a team for honor court violations but left academically eligible are reported in the “withdrawn” category. They would be reported in the suspension category only if they left academically ineligible.
Prof. Estroff said she would like to see the Council discuss the issue of registration and priority registration. Also, in the Big Ten the issue of amount of practice and practice time has been raised.
Prof. Smith said he had been on the Athletics Committee and he felt that there should not be exceptions made for athletes in registration. Students have difficulty with registration for many reasons. Maybe some consideration could be given at the advisor level, where the problems could be assessed on an individual basis. Mr. Baddour noted that the Committee’s recommendation was not limited to student-athletes.
Prof. Estroff said she would be interested in discussion of the standards for white women students versus students of color. Mr. Baddour noted that Carolina has a women’s squad in every sport in which NCAA has championship competition with the exception of rifle.
Prof. Pfaff said he would like to discuss having the N.C. High School Athletics Association state championship scheduled during exam week. He is grateful for the accommodation that the Department has made to the faculty’s concerns, but he would like to hear comment on the pattern of negotiation between the Department and the Association in scheduling these events. Who asks what impact a scheduling request would have on exam week and who balances the considerations of impact on the University as opposed to the Association’s financial considerations? Mr. Baddour said the University had hosted the championships for a number of years. The Department of Athletics sees this as an opportunity for service to the State. It provides a wonderful opportunity for young men and women to see the campus. We try to schedule to accommodate the Association’s needs. The Department has from time to time gotten feedback about noise level, but has not had complaints about day-time parking or disruption due to traffic. Complaints have centered on night games. The Association has to schedule five games within one weekend, which is a difficult task.
Prof. Pfaff then asked Registrar David Lanier whether it would be feasible for the Registrar to work with the Athletics Department to avoid scheduling particularly heavy exams, such as Tuesday-Thursday classes, on a Saturday during the high school championship games. Mr. Lanier was not enthusiastic. Prof. Estroff asked if would be possible for the Athletics Department to have the exam schedule at hand when discussing scheduling with the Association. Mr. Baddour agreed that would be helpful.
Faculty Marshall Ronald Hyatt spoke to the importance of continuing our long-time relationship with the High School Athletics Association. Their unofficial motto is “on to Chapel Hill.” Students from small towns all over North Carolina look forward to those days when they can come to Chapel Hill. Although we may experience some discomfiture, the event goes far to maintain our relationship with the State. It is hard to imagine what it means to that boy or girl to be in Kenan Stadium, out there, on that field, on that day. You see there the best that our State has to offer. He urged that we try to keep those games here.
Prof. Estroff remarked that no one is saying that we don’t welcome the high school championship games. We are saying that this event should intrude on the University’s central mission as lightly as possible.
Resolution 2001-9 on Athletics Programs in the A.C.C.
The Resolution was moved by Prof. Pfaff, seconded by Prof. Bobbie Lubker, and adopted unanimously without discussion or debate.
The business of the day having concluded, the Council was adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty