Skip to main content

Meeting of the Faculty Council

Friday, October 5, 2007
3:00 p.m.
Hitchcock Multipurpose Room
Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History

Faculty Chair Joseph Templeton presiding


3:00 Welcome, Opening Remarks, and General Questions

  • Provost Bernadette Gray-Little

3:20 Faculty Assembly Delegation report and discussion

3:35 Carolina Performing Arts: Update and Discussion

  • Emil Kang, Executive Director for the Arts

4:00 Faculty Athletics Committee and Faculty Athletics Representative annual reports and discussion

4:25 Faculty Council Priorities for 2007-08: Discussion

  • Professor Joseph Templeton, Chair of the Faculty

5:00 Adjourn


The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened at 3:00 p.m. in the Hitchcock Multipurpose Room of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History.

The following 59 members of the Council attended: Aaron, Andrews, Bachenheimer, Bagnell, Balthrop, Barreau, Bickford, Binotti, Blackburn, Bloom, Boukhelifa, Broome, Chin, Coleman, Conway, Copenhaver, Couper, DeSaix, Dupuis, Earp, Gerber, Gulledge, Halloran, Heenan, Hendrick, Hightow, Hobbs, Kamarei, Katznelson, Kelly, Kendall, Kramer, Lauen, McGrath, Meade, Melamut, Moss, Murray, Orth, Papanikolas, Paquette, Parsons, Pruvost, Renner, Rhodes, Rodgers, Saunders, Stein, Sweeney, Threadgill, Toews, Wegner, Weinberg, Wilder, Williams, Wilson, Wissick and Yankaskas.

The following 28 members were granted excused absences: Ammerman, Ashby, Bangdiwala, Blocher, Brice, Campbell, Ernst, Ewend, Gilligan, Glazner, Hodges, Kirsch, Koroluk, LeFebrvre, Lesneski, Maffly-Kipp, Mauro, McCombs, Oatley, Peirce, Perrin, Sheldon, Silversmith, Thorp, Visser, Votta, Weil, Whisnant.

The following 4 members were absent without excuse: Marshall, Rosamond, Temple, Vernon-Feagans.

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Prof. Joseph Templeton, Chair of the Faculty, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m., in the absence of Chancellor James Moeser, who was in Charlottesville, Virginia, meeting with President John T. Casteen and the University of Virginia Board of Visitors.

Prof. Templeton acknowledged Chancellor Moeser’s State of the University Address and his outstanding contributions to Carolina during his tenure as chancellor. The Council responded with a round of hearty applause.

Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

Provost Bernadette Gray-Little introduced Assoc. Vice Chancellor Brenda Malone, who has recently accepted appointment as associate vice chancellor for human resources. Ms. Malone came to Carolina from the City University of New York, where she served as vice chancellor for faculty and staff relationships. A native New Yorker, Ms. Malone is a graduate of Swarthmore College and earned her law degree at Hofstra University.

Provost Gray-Little said that the Tuition Task Force has begun its annual discussion of tuition policies. At its first meeting, which was preceded by a discussion with the Board of Trustees, the task force talked about general issues and priorities but did not take up specific proposals. Two more meetings are scheduled. The task force anticipates making its recommendations to the chancellor in late October or early November.

The provost reported that Carolina faculty members involved in research in pharmacology and toxicology have been cited by the journal Nature Biotechnology as among the most productive in the nation. During that four-year period 1996-2000, our faculty garnered 18,120 citations, thereby ranking third behind the University of Texas and Merck Laboratories. The provost said this achievement is yet one more example of Carolina’s growing strength in research.

The provost said that one of her primary goals has been to enhance faculty teaching and research. Toward that end, she appointed a task force chaired by Prof. Pat Conway (Economics) and charged it to develop recommendations. The task force has proposed creation of a Center for Faculty Excellence. The Center will incorporate and expand upon the mission of the Center for Teaching and Learning, include new programs in research and leadership, and become an umbrella for faculty development programs and opportunities. The Center’s services will be available to all faculty. Specialized faculty support programs in particular departments and schools will continue unchanged. The Center will incorporate programs now provided by the Center for Teaching and Learning. It will be staffed by a new half-time faculty director and a full-time EPA non-faculty executive director. The Center will be guided by a faculty advisory board. The provost said that she hopes to have the new Center in place by July 2008. Part of its program will be a faculty leadership “boot camp.” In that connection, the Center will work closely with the Institute for the Arts and Humanities to complement its leadership training activities.

Prof. Suzanne Gulledge (Education) spoke of a recent apartment fire in which one of her students had been injured. She said the student’s parents had asked if it were true that not all Carolina dormitories have sprinklers. The provost replied that this is true, but that there is an active plan that will eventually equip all dormitories with sprinklers.

Faculty Assembly Delegation Report

Prof. Judith Wegner (Law) reported on recent work of the University of North Carolina Faculty Assembly pertaining to proposed amendments to the Code of the Board of Governors affecting academic tenure and post-tenure review. She said that the Assembly’s Executive Committee had undertaken a thorough review of the proposed changes and had recommended a number of revisions. (Links to full documentation of the original proposal and the changes recommended by the Faculty Assembly will be found on the agenda for this meeting posted on the Faculty Governance website.)

Prof. Stephen Bachenheimer (Microbiology & Immunology), a member of the delegation, moved to suspend the rules to allow consideration of a resolution presented by the Faculty Assembly Delegation. The motion to suspend the rules was adopted unanimously.

The Faculty Assembly Delegation introduced the following resolution:

On Proposed Changes in the Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina

Whereas, the Faculty Executive Committee has reviewed proposed changes in the Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina proposed by the “Code 603/604 Committee”; and

Whereas, the Faculty Council adopted Resolution 2007-10 on September 14, 2007, requesting additional time for review of the proposed changes; and

Whereas, the Faculty Council has received a report from the Faculty Assembly Delegation and background materials relating to efforts of the Faculty Assembly of The University of North Carolina to address significant problems in the proposals by the “Code 603/604 Committee,” and

Whereas, the Faculty Council wishes to go on record regarding its concerns with the original Code 603/604 Committee proposal, insofar as it would have introduced vague language regarding possible sanctions affecting faculty, conflated the developmental purpose of post-tenure review with the process of discipline or sanction, imposed relatively lax evidentiary standards for serious sanctions of tenured faculty members, and adversely affected the rights of special faculty, among other problems; and

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Assembly has developed alternative language to address faculty concerns with the original Code 603/604 proposals in an effort to move matters forward and has requested faculty leaders throughout the UNC System to evaluate and comment on its alternative language; now, therefore,

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill resolves:

The Faculty Council supports the alternative language proposed by the Executive Committee of the UNC Faculty Assembly and endorsed by the Faculty Assembly at its September 28, 2007 meeting;

The Faculty Council requests that, in the future, changes to the Code of the Board of Governors or other University policies directly affecting faculty be undertaken only with extensive faculty representation on relevant committees or task forces, open involvement in deliberations from the outset, and adequate opportunities to comment during the academic year except under pressing and unusual circumstances.

The Faculty Council asks the Secretary of the Faculty to submit this resolution to the Chancellor and Provost of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the President of The University of North Carolina as an indication of its substantial concerns with the original Code 603/604 Committee recommendations, its support for the alternative text prepared by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Assembly, and its request that in the future more extensive faculty representation and opportunities for review be accorded when developing policies affecting faculty.

Prof. Gregory Copenhaver (Biology) expressed concern that making unsatisfactory “performance” a grounds for dismissal opens the door for attacks on faculty members who espouse unpopular ideas. Prof. Wegner acknowledged the concern, but felt that the language proposed by the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee is satisfactory. She said that linking the concept of performance with the concepts of incompetence and sustained and persistent failure or refusal to remedy identified deficiencies after having been given an opportunity to improve afforded sufficient safeguards against the kind of abuse the Prof. Copenhaver feared.

Prof. Richard Andrews (Public Policy), a member of the delegation, noted that Prof. Jim Martin, chair of the faculty at North Carolina State University, had spoken eloquently of the need to keep the grounds and procedures for dismissal for cause separate and distinct from post-tenure review, which should not be used to generate backing for moves to dismiss tenured faculty on grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

Prof. Bachenheimer said that consideration of this proposal had given the Faculty Assembly an unusually good opportunity to make it clear to General Administration and the Board of Governors that the faculty are vigilant and vitally concerned about actions that directly affect faculty life.

Prof. Wegner said that the Assembly especially appreciated the position of the delegates from North Carolina State since their provost had been instrumental in developing the original proposals.

Prof. Lloyd Kramer (History) asked when the proposals are to go to the Board of Governors. Prof. Wegner replied that Vice President Harold Martin has said that they will not be on the agenda for the October meeting of the Board, and that the Faculty Assembly has asked that they not be on the November agenda.

Discussion having concluded, Prof. Templeton put the resolution.

The resolution was adopted unanimously as is ordered enrolled as Resolution 2007-12.

Prof. Bachenheimer reported briefly on the work of the Faculty Assembly’s Committee on Faculty Welfare.

Carolina Performing Arts

Executive Director for the Arts Emil Kang gave a presentation on activities of Carolina Performing Arts. He especially noted interactions with students.

Annual Reports of the Faculty Athletics Committee and the Faculty Athletics Representative

Prof. Lissa Broome (Law), chair of the Faculty Athletics Committee, presented the committee’s annual report. She introduced Director of Athletics Richard Baddour. Senior Assoc. Director Larry Gallo, and Senior Assoc. Director for Students John Blanchard.

Prof. Garland Hershey (Dentistry), a member of the committee, remarked that one often hears talk about what is wrong with college athletics, but that the committee’s report this year emphasizes what’s right about athletics at Carolina.

Prof. Bachenheimer, referring to tables in the report comparing Carolina with other athletic conferences, asked how we compare with our academic peers. Prof. Broome said that she thought we do well. Prof. John Evans, Faculty Athletics Representative, agreed with that impression and added that perhaps including specific comparative data of the kind referenced by Prof. Bachenheimer would be a good addition to next year’s report.

Prof. Bachenheimer asked how student athletes’ academic performance compares with non-athletes in the same classes. Prof. Evans said that data that would enable such a comparison is not collected.

Prof. John Papanikolas (Chemistry) said that the data reported by the committee tend to indicate that student athletes as a whole achieve lower grade point averages than other students.

Prof. Kramer asked about a recent report in the Chronicle of Higher Education indicating that Carolina leads the nation in fund-raising for athletics with a total of $51 million last year. He wondered whether that figure is accurate. Mr. Baddour said that the figure includes pledges as well as actual cash receipts. He pointed out that last year was atypical in that funds were being raised for five separate projects: the Williamson Building (athletics administration), a new baseball stadium, a sports medicine facility, an endowment program for scholarships, and special fund-raising for recruitment of a new football coach and renegotiation of Coach Roy Williams’ salary. Mr. Baddour said that 80% of the total raised was restricted, and that only 20% went into the regular operating budget. He said that the focus of the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education was whether athletic fund-raising was a drain on other university needs. He pointed out that fund-raising for athletics accounted for about 14% of funds raised last year for all purposes while the national average is about 26%. He said that over the past seven years athletics has averaged about 11% of funds raised each year. Mr. Baddour said that these facts indicate to him that athletics has not drained money away from other university needs.

Prof. Ed Halloran (Nursing) asked that next year’s report provide some information on money spent on particular sports.

Prof. Evans briefly summarized his written report as Faculty Athletics Representative.

Prof. John Sweeney (Journalism & Mass Communication) noted that the Academic Progress Rate (APR) to which Prof. Evans referred was a new measure. He said that the APR had attracted negative comments when it was first introduced and asked whether it has proved to be a positive step. Prof. Evans replied that he was biased because he was had participated in devising this measure. He said he is cautiously hopeful that it has had a positive influence. He said that the APR measures students against performance standards at the institution they choose to attend. It is not intended to measure progress against national standards. One of the objections, he said, was that the measure would encourage development of academic majors tailored for student athletes. He did not think that had been the case, but, he emphasized, it is not the business of the NCAA to regulate the academic rigor of particular institutions. Mr. Blanchard said he has found the APR to be a very useful move that has had a positive impact.


Its business having been completed, the Council adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Joseph S. Ferrell

Secretary of the Faculty


Pdf of meeting materials

Print Friendly, PDF & Email