Skip to main content

Meeting of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council

Friday, January 18th, 2002, 3:00 p.m.

The Pleasants Family Assembly Room in Wilson Library

Chancellor James Moeser and Professor Sue Estroff, Chair of the Faculty, will preside.


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.

DISC 3:15 Remarks by the Provost: Tuition Task Force Report.

  • Provost Robert Shelton.

DISC 3:30 Remarks by the Chair of the Faculty.

  • Professor Sue Estroff invites questions or comments on any topic.

INFO 3:45 Annual Report of the University Committee on Copyright.

  • C. David Perry, Editor-in-Chief at the University of North Carolina Press.

INFO 3:50 Annual Report of the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.

  • Appendix to the Report.
  • Senior Associate Dean Karen Gil, Chair.

ACT 4:00 Resolutions 2002-1 and 2002-2 Amending the Faculty Code (First Reading).

  • Professor Janet Mason, Chair of the Faculty Committee on University Government.

INFO 4:15 Annual Report of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee.

  • Professor Frederick P. Brooks Jr., Chair.

INFO 4:25 Annual Report of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council.

  • Professor Estroff, Chair.

DISC 4:40 Open Discussion of Topics Raised by Faculty Members.

ACT 5:00 Adjourn.


Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty


ACT = Action
DISC = Discussion
INFO = Information.



Present (65): Allison, Ammerman, Barbour, Bollen, Bouldin, Bowen, Boxill, Bromberg, Cairns, Carelli, Chenault, Clegg, Colindres, Cotton, Crawford-Brown, Daye, D’Cruz, Drake, Elter, Elvers, Files, Fishell, Foley, George, Janda, Kagarise, Kjervik, Kopp, Langbauer, Lubker, McCormick, McGraw, A. Molina, P. Molina, Nelson, Otey, Owen, Pfaff, Pisano, Poole, Raasch, Rao, Reinert, Retsch-Bogart, Robinson, Rowan, Schauer, Shea, Sigurdsson, Slatt, J. Smith, W. Smith, Straughan, Strauss, Sueta, Tresolini, Tulloch, Vaughn, Wallace, Walsh, Waters, Watson, Williams, Willis, Yopp.

Excused absences (17): Admiora, Adler, Bynum, Fowler, Gilland, Granger, Henry, Kalleberg, Kessler, Kupper, LeFebvre, Malizia, Meece, Moran, Nonini, Orthner, Raab-Traub.

Unexcused absences (2): McQueen, Sams.

Call to Order

Prof. Joseph Ferrell, Secretary of the Faculty, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Chancellor’s Remarks


Speaking to proposals for tuition increases, Chancellor James Moeser quoted from an article by Mark Yudof, President of the University of Minnesota, in the January 11, 2002, issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education:

More than a century ago, state governments and public research universities developed an extraordinary compact. In return for financial support from taxpayers, universities agreed to keep tuition low and provide access for students from a broad range of economic backgrounds, train graduate and professional students, promote arts and culture, help solve problems in the community, and perform groundbreaking research.

Yet over the past 25 years, that agreement has withered, leaving public research institutions in a purgatory of insufficient resources and declining competitiveness. The gap between professors’ salaries at public and private universities, for example, has grown from $1,400 in 1980 to $22,100 today. As a result, public institutions find it increasingly difficult to compete for the best faculty members who, in turn, attract the brightest students and significant research dollars.

He commended the entire article to the faculty. The citizens of the State of North Carolina have been very generous in supporting higher education. The average State appropriation in 2000 was more than $15,500 per student, and the University System received more than $383 million in appropriations last year. This compares to $575 million in grants and contracts brought to the University by the faculty, which demonstrates the importance of retaining our current faculty and recruiting new and excellent people to replace those who retire or leave for other reasons. The level of support for students per capita is the second highest in the eleven-member AAU peer group. The University of California at Los Angeles was at the top with $14,700, and the others ranged from $5,000 to $13,000 per capita. Chancellor Moeser said this commitment of public support should be reinterpreted into 21st Century standards, by keeping the University doors open to those qualified academically, without regard to costs. The University should recommit itself to this North Carolinian vision for opportunity and excellence.

Two fundamental principles which the University should follow are: (1) keeping Carolina’s in-state tuition in the lowest quartile of our national public peers, and (2) committing ourselves to continue to meet 100% of the documented financial needs of our students in order to hold them and their families harmless from the increased cost of attending Carolina due to campus-based tuition increases. We have held to this commitment thus far. In addition, the University must obtain increased private support for faculty salaries, graduate fellowships and undergraduate scholarships. The additional load of tuition increases should not be an additional disproportionate load on the backs of students and their parents. He said the University can and must increase tuition within the framework of these principles. The Tuition Task Force has shown the scope of the challenges the University faces in closing the gap between Carolina and its peers regarding faculty salaries and faculty/student ratios. Salaries of the tenured faculty are within 9% of the mean of our peers. The gap will become increasingly serious as we anticipate retirement of over 30% of the faculty within the next decade. It will take several years of above-average salary increases to close the salary gap. Similarly, class size and faculty staff ratios threaten the future value of a Carolina diploma. Conversations and coordination with other partners in the equation—the Board of Trustees, the Board of Governors, the Legislature and the Governor—must be a priority, and a long-term evaluation on campus of the proper role of campus-based tuition increases in the future will be essential.


No decisions have been reached in discussions with the Qatar Foundation. Negotiations are being conducted in good faith. The University is sticking with its principles regarding the structure of the program. Negotiations are centering on programmatic and financial issues. There are some issues that are not negotiable, such as nature of the Carolina curriculum. The Chancellor said the University would welcome a consortium with one or more peer universities for the delivery of general education so long as there is no compromise in our degree requirements. This venture is about vision, not about money, but it is essential that all costs are covered, and that programs on this campus are enhanced. The debate about Qatar has enriched the University. We will continue to seek other opportunities to be a real presence in the world, whether or not the discussions with Qatar succeed.

Chancellor Moeser thanked Prof. Robert Adler and Prof. Holden Thorp, who volunteered to conduct a seminar on the Qatar proposal. It was a great success.


Chancellor Moeser thanked the faculty for its participation in the Winter Commencement at which Prof. Trudier Harris-Lopez was the speaker. Senator John Edwards will be the speaker for the May Commencement.

Provost’s Remarks


Provost Robert Shelton acknowledged Dr. Lynn Williford, Director of Institutional Research, and her staff who assisted the Task Force on Tuition, and thanked the members of the Task Force for their hard work. (The Report is available at There were three meetings of the Task Force. The Board of Trustees in November requested that we be prepared to present any recommendations on tuition increases at the Board’s January 24 meeting. Initially, the Board requested a multi-year approach, to provide predictability for students and families. Subsequently, the Board of Governors asked for an immediate one-year plan to be followed later by a multi-year plan. Thus, the data presented in the Task Force’s report covers a five-year planning period while the recommendation is limited to the 2002-03 academic year. The issue of tuition increases is very complex, which indicates that any multi-year plan should be subject to frequent review. If we eventually turn to a five-year plan, Provost Shelton anticipates that it would be evaluated annually.

The Task Force approached the problem in three stages:

  • Reach closure on a set of principles to guide future campus-based tuition increases.
  • Determine how increased revenue from tuition increases will be used.
  • Understand where the delicate balance that must be struck among various constituencies—taxpayers, undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty.

The recommendation to be presented to the Board of Trustees at their January 24 meeting will be a one-year $400 campus-based tuition increase. This recommendation was approved by a vote of 11-4. All student members of the Task Force voted against it.

Prof. Diane Kjervik (Nursing) referred to the table in the Report headed “Tuition Increase Revenue Applied to Costs of Achieving Specific Instruction Resource Needs”. She asked for clarification on how the dollar amounts for the specific needs were generated. The Provost responded in detail.

Prof. Reid Barbour (English) asked if the Task Force had discussed a sliding-scale tuition plan based on need, and whether any other university has such a scale. The Provost replied that we do that, in a sense, by providing need-based aid. He pointed out that we provide 70% of our financial aid in the form of grants, rather than loans, which is a much higher percentage than at peer institutions. Consequently, the average indebtedness of our graduates is comparatively low.

Prof. Ronald Strauss (Dentistry) asked if the $400 increase also applies to the professional schools. Provost Shelton said the Committee did not discuss that and that he will bring the question to the Board of Trustees. In the past, the Board has not added campus-based tuition increases to the tuition of those professional schools that have requested and received special tuition increases. Chancellor Moeser said that all but one of the professional schools already have special tuition plans in place. In view of that, Provost Shelton said he would recommend to the Board that the $400 increase not apply to professional schools that already have special plans. Taking note of that comment, Prof. William Smith (Mathematics) asked whether the five-year revenue projections included in the Task Force Report were based on total enrollment, which includes the professional schools. The Provost replied that they are based on total enrollment and that he would think that those schools with special tuition plans would be expected to devote part of their tuition receipts to the purposes outlined in the Report. He added that no decisions have been made as to specifically how the net $5.8 million (after deducting 40% for student aid) will be allocated. Prof. Smith asked if it is the advice of the Task Force that the money be allocated as outlined in the Report ($5.3 million for faculty salaries, $2.2 million to reduce student/faculty ration in the College and School of Journalism to 18:1, $800,000 to increase number of undergraduate classes with fewer than 20 students, and $149,000 for graduate teaching assistant stipends)? The Provost replied that it is.

Prof. Camilla Tulloch (Dentistry) asked for clarification as to what is meant by adjusting faculty salaries “for disparity in legislative increases.” The Provost replied that the total need for faculty salaries estimated in the Report is about $27 million. Of that, about one-half is needed to close the current gap between our salaries and those of our peer institutions. The remainder is an estimate of what it will take over a five-year period to keep abreast of salary increases at peer institutions. The Report assumes that we will receive legislative increases in the five-year period, but that they will be about 2% each year less than those at peer institutions, which has been our actual experience over the past decade.

Ms. Elizabeth Chenault (Academic Affairs Libraries) pointed out that the Report does not specifically address needs of the libraries and their staffs. Provost Shelton replied that the general language of the Report intends to include librarians among those who need salary increases.

Prof. Anthony Meyer (Surgery) asked if the Task Force had compiled comparative data on expenditures per student at other institutions. The Provost referred to the table in the Report that compares state appropriations and enrollments for fiscal 2000. This shows Carolina at the top with an average appropriation per student of $15,543. Prof. Meyer pointed out that without data on expenditure per student, it is difficult to infer whether other institutions have relatively greater access to funding other than state appropriations.

Prof. Richard Pfaff (History) thought it admirable that we are having a public discussion of this issue and he agreed that we need more funding. He cautioned, however, that public discussion of the use of increased tuition receipts should be in general terms rather than in specific dollar amounts for narrowly defined uses. He wondered whether our public peers are engaging in similar public conversations about tuition increases. The Provost agreed to an extent. Being too specific ties one’s hands and diminishes our ability to respond to emerging needs. On the other hand, if we are not fairly specific about the uses, the risk that the General Assembly will reduce its support commensurately increases. Prof. Pfaff reiterated his question about discussions at peer institutions. The Chancellor replied that “the answer is no.”

Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks

Men’s Soccer Team.

Chair of the Faculty Prof. Sue Estroff congratulated the players and coaches of the men’s soccer team for winning the NCAA national championship.

Faculty vote on athletics.

Prof. Estroff said she had sent word of the vote on athletics to all faculty chairs in the ACC schools, suggesting that they work collectively. She heard from colleagues at Duke that they were working on the same issue. The Executive Committee intends to have conversations with athletic coaches on campus.

Review of Deans.

Prof. Estroff reported that the Provost, with the advice and cooperation of a number of faculty colleagues, has developed a format for review of deans who are seeking reappointment. In addition to the traditional process, each faculty member of the school of the dean being reviewed will have the opportunity to complete an anonymous questionnaire regarding the dean’s performance. The data will be compiled by the Office of Institutional Research and will be available only to the Review Committee.

Tuition Increases.

Prof. Estroff thanked the faculty members who sat on the Tuition Review Committee. She then recognized Justin Young, President of the Student Body, who had asked for the privilege of addressing the Council on the tuition issue. Mr. Young said that the students appreciate the faculty and appreciate their outstanding contribution to society, which is recognized across the globe. Students at the University are among the brightest in the nation. The students want their faculty to be adequately compensated, and want to continue to be taught by the excellent faculty. Students want faculty and student voices to be heard in decision-making processes and want Carolina to be financially accessible to all North Carolinians. The recent tuition proposal has a number of problems in procedure and policy. The four student members on the Committee were opposed to the tuition increase proposal. Mr. Young said there was limited time given to the decision-making process. No alternatives to a tuition increase were proposed or researched. Time should be given to fully assessing the situation on levels other than tuition awareness. He said that other institutions strongly depend on fund-raising efforts to make up large portions of their budget. Many of the students were left wondering where the money from tuition increases would go. Would they go to faculty salaries, or into a single academic department, or other places? He said that nobody knows. There has been talk of doubling tuition over the next five years. Information is not on the website for the faculty to make decisions. He urged the faculty to unite with the students to demand a more definite proposal. The students will present a list of demands for the Board of Trustees meeting next Thursday and are asking the faculty to support them.

Prof. Estroff continued her remarks. She said that all agreed that the University was under-funded. Salaries for faculty and staff are not competitive. Graduate students are not earning a living wage and their stipends are not adequate to allow the University to continue to recruit the best and brightest. Class sizes must decrease, class offerings must increase. The student/faculty ratios must fall. She said that tuition was one of the revenues that feed the University, but not the only one. What the faculty had to do was to have another public conversation about what is a fair share. Many members of the faculty and staff have children who are students at the University, and they have not been taken into consideration in the proposal. Missing is a common ground amongst the faculty about where the money ought to come from and where it ought to go.


Prof. Estroff reported that she would be joining the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee as a faculty representative along with Prof. Boone Turchi.

Prof. Stephen Weiss (Computer Science), spoke as the Chair of the Committee on Student Conduct, and asked for volunteers to serve on the University Hearings Board, which reviews appeals on Honor Court decisions. Training for these members is on the Internet, and the meetings are in the evening. If the pool was large enough it would only be necessary to serve once a year. Prof. Estroff volunteered.

Annual Report of the University Committee on Copyright.

Mr. David Perry, Editor-in-Chief of the University of North Carolina Press, said the major work of the past year was the drafting of the campus copyright policy, which the faculty approved in August, 2001. The Committee also reviewed the report of the Libraries’ Electronic Reserve Committee. It reviewed an online copyright law education document for students that the Office of Computer Policy at ATN had drafted.

Annual Report of the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.

Prof. Karen Gil (Psychology), Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education in the College of Arts and Sciences, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions, introduced Mr. Jerome Lucido, Vice Chancellor for Enrollment and Admissions and Director of Admissions. Mr. Lucido gave an overview of the report with an overhead display. He then reviewed the activities of the Committee:

  • Reviewed campus and system enrollment growth plans.
  • Received a report on faculty involvement in student recruitment (including telephone calls, admitted student receptions, class visitations, and an open house for high school juniors.)
  • Approved the over-awarding of out-of-state admission slots for music and drama in order to ensure a yield of the targeted twenty students.
  • Considered and approved a recommendation to require a faculty reference in the undergraduate application for admission.
  • Reviewed possible changes to the uniform, weighted, North Carolina high school transcript.
  • Received a report from the Subcommittee on Athletic Admission
  • Received a report from the Subcommittee on Students with Disabilities.

Prof. Diane Kjervick (Nursing) asked about gender distribution. Mr. Lucido reported that the undergraduate student body is 59.6% female, 40.4% male.

Mr. Joshua Bosin (Student Liaison) observed that many of the best students came from out-of-state and asked about efforts in recruiting the very best students within the state. Mr. Lucido said there were many and there was a multi-year program to identify and attract those students, beginning in their sophomore year when they take their SAT exams.

Prof. William Smith (Mathematics) noted that a national discussion is going on as to the use of SAT scores in admission decisions. He asked whether the Committee has discussed the issue. Mr. Lucido said the Committee has been following the national discussion but believes that SAT scores are used properly at Carolina as one among a number of factors taken into consideration.

Resolutions 2002-1 and 2002-2 Amending the Faculty Code (First Reading).

Prof. Janet Mason (School of Government), Chair of the Faculty Committee on University Government, presented two resolutions amending the Faculty Code.

Resolution 2002-1 revises the composition of the Administrative Board of the Library. Currently, the Board has 13 elected members of which four must hold the rank of professor, eight must hold the rank of associate or assistant professor, and one must be a librarian. The amendment eliminates the faculty rank qualifications, reduces the number of elected members to 11, and adds two appointed members. The net effect is to retain the same number of members but to simplify the means of filling the slots. The proposed change has the endorsement of the University Librarian and the Administrative Board.

Resolution 2002-1 was adopted without dissent.

Resolution 2002-2 makes two technical changes in the Code to reflect the change in nomenclature of the School of Government (formerly the Institute of Government) and to enable the Committee on University Government to amend the Code without General Faculty action when needed to reflect changes in titles of academic units and administrative officers.

Resolution 2002-2 was adopted without dissent.

Annual Report of the Advisory Committee.

Prof. Frederick Brooks (Computer Science), Chair of the [Chancellor’s] Advisory Committee, said the principle function of the Advisory Committee is to serve as the third tier of professional judgment on appointments, promotions, and tenure. Prof. Mason noted that over the past several years, the Advisory Committee has had something of an identity crisis in relation to the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council. She asked if the Committee had discussed that matter. Prof. Brooks said it had been discussed and was included in the report. He said there were two matters which the Committee thinks should be addressed by the faculty:

  1. Given the new administrative structure, with an Executive Vice Chancellor, should the Committee be advisory to that office, to the Chancellor, or to both? At what stage in the personnel process should its advice be sought?
  2. With respect to policy advice, as opposed to personnel advice, what are the proper roles of the Advisory Committee, which is elected by the Faculty, and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, which is not?

Prof. Ferrell said he did not think that the identity crisis to which Prof. Mason referred is due to members of the Advisory Committee being unhappy with their assignment; rather, it stems from a discordance between the functions of the committee as described in the Faculty Code and the work it actually does.

General Discussion Period.

Prof. Philip Bromberg (School of Medicine) complimented Mr. Lucido’s presentation. With respect to in-state students admitted, he asked whether county of residence plays an important role. He noted that there is a widespread belief that it is more difficult for Orange County residents to get admitted. Mr. Lucido said there was no county quota, no limitation on enrollments from any particular county, and no limit on enrollments from Chapel Hill. Prof. Pfaff asked if there were statistics regarding first generation college students, and the number of applicants whose parents went to other colleges in North Carolina. Mr. Lucido responded that the data is available. Prof. Pfaff asked if there was data regarding the desire of students, whose parents attended other colleges in North Carolina, to attend UNC-Chapel Hill. Mr. Lucido said that this data is not now available but gathering it is being studied.

Mr. Joshua Bosin (Student Liaison) asked what the faculty’s response was to students who felt that the raise in tuition was for salary increases for the faculty. Prof. Jan Yopp (Journalism & Mass Communication) said more education was needed about where the money for faculty raises comes from. Prof. Ferrell said there were really only four sources of additional State funding for the University: tax increases, diversion of funding from other agencies, tuition increases, and the Governor’s proposal for a lottery. The only one of these that is within the University’s control is tuition. Prof. Estroff added that every state was facing huge budget problems, and a conversation was needed to discuss “fair share.”

Chancellor Moeser agreed, and added that the University does not intend to take a passive position with regard to asking the State to continue to uphold its responsibility. The historical fact in the State has been very generous, liberal support of higher education. That has made it possible for a low-tuition Institution. The budget for the State was predicated on 4% growth this year, and 4.9% revenue growth next year. These estimates will not be realized. The Chancellor said he would not be surprised if the University had to make further cuts this year. Already this year the UNC system budget was predicated on the addition of 3,500 additional students, but instead 7,000 additional students were absorbed. The State appropriated some for the enrollment growth from the students with an additional 5% retroactive tuition increase. System-wide the budget is about $23 million short. In order to provide for the enrollment growth system-wide the State will have to provide $70 million. The first priority is to hold the ground we presently have in very difficult financial times. The issue should not be tuition, but the quality of educational experience, and the quality of the instructional mission at this University. Retention of faculty and acquisition of faculty to reduce the faculty/student ratio should be the conversation. There is a hard reality that everyone has to face.

Prof. John Smith (Computer Science) said it was highly commendable that the University should try to take charge of its own destiny, but he worried, if the tuition increase was put in place, the Legislature would simply reduce appropriations commensurately.

Prof. Bobbi Owen (Dramatic Art) commended the Tuition Task Force for trying to plan ahead so that students and their families could know about the tuition increases, but she wanted to emphasize that the average faculty salary of $100,900 that is often cited takes into account salaries in many of the professional schools where salaries are considerably higher than they are in Fine Arts and Humanities. She did not mean to suggest that any faculty members are being paid too much, but she did think it important to point out that many are being paid too little.


The business of the day having concluded, the Council was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.


Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty


Pdf of meeting materials

Print Friendly, PDF & Email