March 17, 1998
Senators present: Chair Wahl, Secretary Corbin, Past Chair Smith, Provost Stiles, Parliamentarian Link, Senators Bernhard, Bizios, Bottcher, Brown, Carter, Daley, Fahmy, Gilbert, Griffin, Hamouda, Klenin, Lewis, Lilley, Magill, Middleton, Monahan, Murty, Nagel, Patty, Serow, Siderelis, Strenkowski, Tetro, Wehner, Wilson
Senators absent: Senators Barr, De Buysscher, Rushing, Schwab, Suh, Wall, Wessels
Visitors: Pam Smith, News Services; Frank Abrams, Senior Associate Provost; James Anderson, Dean, Undergraduate Studies; Erika Smart, Technician; Susan Kohlhausen, Student Senate Pro Tem; Andrew Payne, Student Senate Academic Chair; Clare Kristofco, Assistant to the Chancellor; Bruce Mallette, Assistant Provost; Megan Callahan, Student Senate
1. Call to Order
The fourteenth meeting of the forty fourth session of the NC State Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Wahl.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Wahl welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair Wahl announced that the General Faculty Meeting will be held on April 2, 1998 in room 3712 Bostian Hall. Special refreshments will be provided to celebrate the retirement of Chancellor Monteith.
Chair Wahl announced that the Faculty Senate is currently searching for candidates to serve as Chair of the Faculty. In the general election the names of two candidates will be sent from the Faculty Senate to the voting faculty for the election of one of the candidates as Chair of the Faculty for the next two-year term (1999/2000 & 2000/2001).
There will be three additional Senate meetings following today's meeting.
Chair Wahl noted that the festivities for the inauguration of President Broad will take place
April 28-29. He encouraged the faculty to attend.
Elections will be held for the Council on Athletics and the Faculty Assembly in the March 31, 1998 meeting.
There will be a brainstorming session with the faculty who attended the Emerging Issues Forum. The session will meet Friday, March 27 at 10:00 a.m. in the Faculty Senate Chambers to consider how the university might perceive our becoming a sustainable campus.
Chair Wahl urged the faculty to attend the events during Human Rights Week which will be celebrated March 23-27, 1998.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 13, March 3, 1998
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Response to the Eva Klein Report
Marvin J. Malecha, Dean of the School of Design stated that the discussion today is about aspirational attributes. The goal was to try to have a response from the Deans and Vice Chancellors that would be circulated and distributed as a starting point. He stated that this is not a done deal. He noted that all you really have with the six attributes is something that a group of people in a room have discussed at some length and argued about as a beginning point.
Dean Malecha stated that another thing of importance is that they recognize that the university is not doing all the things that it aspired to do. There are parts of the six aspirations that they know they are not doing well. In particular, some are things relative to the decision making processes and business operations of the university. He stated that we also know that because of the nature of the discussion among a fairly diverse group of people representing diverse and intellectual positions, that this already seems compromised by comparison to the Eva Klein report which takes a very clear position on economic development asks questions relative to economic development. It was her job to see the role of the university relative to economic development. When you move that across to the entire university's perspective, economic development is one of the perspectives, but societal contributions and the aspiration to be an agent of change in society and to provide good undergraduate educational experiences are things that do not appear in the Eva Klein Report.
Dean Malecha stated that he is presenting on behalf of his subcommittee, the Deans, and Vice Chancellors, a document that has gone through vigorous debate with more to come.
Dean Malecha noted that the following attributes are not in priority order.
1) We would like to see NC State as an enabling community that values individuals; i.e. students, staff, faculty and administrators are valued as members of the university community and considered fundamental to its future development. Individual achievement is characterized by specific outcomes and incentive planning that both values and rewards individual performance.
The development of individuals as important human resources is essential to the enhancement of the entire university. Because program development and improvement begins with students, faculty, and staff, it is critical to support their development, creativity, and innovation. Faculty support includes seed money and release time to reward and encourage individuals in the form of academic venture capital, complemented by appropriate facilities. Creative partnerships with industry often enhance individual activities by providing additional support.
Dean Malecha reported that there was a very strong belief that the strength of any community begins with the strength of the individuals in the community. Many Deans in the discussion felt that if we were going to move to that first rank of being best in the nation of what we choose to be best at, that we were going to attract, reward, and provide the opportunity for individuals to get done what they need to get done either by release time, proper resource space, opportunity funding, or assisting in partnerships with outside groups whether in government, industry or society. He stated that they are simply saying that if you look at the best universities around the world, there are always some excellent people, whether students, staff or faculty.
2) A Free Mix of Interests That Foster Partnerships
There is a free mix of academic, community, industry and government interests on campus. Individual scholarship and the fluidity of multidisciplinary and cross-functional activities characterize key relationships fostering partnerships between the University community and industry, government and other interest groups.
The University community fosters partnerships with external organizations. These organizations and academic units are situated side by side in facilities allowing mutual interests to flourish, thereby promoting greater interaction among individuals and organizations with complementary skills. There is a great emphasis on team organization, joining students, faculty and staff with individuals from industry and government. Such relationships are necessitated by the nature of the research and sponsored projects expected outcomes.
Dean Malecha stated that this point, very much inspired by the Eva Klein report, was what we see happening on the Centennial Campus now. This is really aspiring to move that relationship to the North Campus and all parts of the university so that we see this fluidity of relationships across disciplinary boundaries or interest areas all over the campus and so that we see the same kind of attention and the new kinds of facilities right here on this part of campus as we do on the Centennial Campus. We should not think about innovation as place bound.
3) Functional Capability That is Problem Focused
The University, with the perspective of scholarship, is problem-focused, responsive to customer-client needs, and able to anticipate the issues of industry, society, and government. These issues are addressed through the ability of the University to form multidisciplinary/cross-functional thematic program groupings as needed.
The University is known for specific strengths relating to individuals or special research programs. These programs transcend traditional University management structures to encourage innovation within existing programs, foster the growth and development of new disciplinary programs, and appropriately consider when to phase others out. Research, and academic experiences are put at the service of the citizens of North Carolina focusing extension efforts on economics and social development.
Dean Malecha stated that this is also something that has its roots in two places. One is the Cooperative Extension on North Campus and also in the Centennial Campus. It also focuses on one of the great legacies of this university as a land grant university and that is to put the faculty and the students to work on problems that make a difference in society, whether industry related or whether related to specific problems.
4) No Firewalls on Campus Thereby Promoting the integration of Research, Teaching and Extension.
The University facilitates the integration of teaching, extension, and research among faculty and staff, and across disciplinary boundaries. The elimination of firewalls between people and disciplines on campus, and the recognition of the diversity and value of responsibilities people assume, promotes the integration and transference of knowledge within the University and to the complex community to be served.
The elimination of barriers between the disciplines and people of the University is a recognition of the mutually dependent activities of research, creative activity, teaching, and application through practice and extension. Equality among the faculty, staff, and students who are focused on any one of these activities recognizes the balance and interdependence necessary for a vital University community.
Dean Malecha said if your assignment is primarily teaching, that should not make you second class to someone who is primarily research or vice versa. On a campus like ours, we are seeking true collegiality to assure that all members of our campus are valued for the contributions they make, recognizing that we all have a particular role to play to make this a great university. To make great schools, departments, and colleges, we have to have some of each to do that. When teams are composed to teach or do research etc., we have to recognize that good teams must be composed of those people who do equal measures of those responsibilities. We are trying to aspire to a community where people are not held in first, second or third class citizenship.
5. An Agile Administrative Environment That Nurtures Internal Innovation and External Partnerships
The University actively fosters intellectual innovation, entrepreneurship and non-traditional approaches in all its mission activities. Therefore, it requires an administrative environment that balances flexibility, productivity, and accountability. The University is user-friendly in serving needs of its own students, faculty and staff and those of its many external partners. All aspects of the University's internal infrastructure--such as policies, business services, facilities planning/management, financing, and budget administration--are designed to support dynamic programs. These programs are intended to induce creative solutions, avoid wasteful use of time, and allow risk taking.
The University management procedures are structured to reduce process in favor of results. High value is placed on achieving results in a timely way. These principles are applied to normal business processes for administration of budgets, travel, purchasing, personnel, and facilities; to assembly of internal coalitions among disciplines or between the University and external entities; and to agreements for research, technology transfer, and service partnerships. The University infrastructure, including facilities is dynamic and adaptive and therefore conducive to innovative teaching, research and extension. There is the flexibility necessary to nurture the faculty role in promoting cross disciplinary activities.
Dean Malecha noted that this is the one area in which the Deans feel that there is the most work to be done in terms of really rethinking how we organize the university. He thinks there is a lot of work that needs to be done here and that everyone in the Deans and Vice Chancellor's group that helped to compose this agrees that this is an area that will require a lot of work and attitude change. This is an area that he believes is very important if we are going to achieve the previous four points.
6. An Environment where Learning and Teaching Flourish That Relates Academic to Individual Learning Paths.
The university community is committed to providing students innovative and individualized educational experiences with joint academic and lifelong learning aspirations. Within this environment, the leadership practices of individuals are nurtured to promote the understanding of contemporary political economic and social skills. Teaching and learning flourish in an environment that easily adapts to the changing needs of society.
The environment for learning and teaching is celebrated as an essential aspect of the experience joining technical skills and professional preparation with the knowledge related to the arts and sciences. Each area of the university accepts the responsibility of fostering students a sense of responsibility as a social change agent with specific skills developed to prepare the student for a productive life. The definition of the student and the related learning environment is broadened to include distance learning and non traditional curricula patterns.
Dean Malecha stated that this puts all of us where it starts, with the notion that when people leave here they have been prepared to succeed and to be productive members of society.
Dean Malecha noted that these are the beginning points for the discussion. This is where the Deans would like to start the discussion and talk to the faculty about how the wording can change, but more specifically what happens next. He stated that if we can get more discussions on what those aspirations and attributes of the university are that we believe in and can get some agreement on this first starting point, then we can move forward with models that will help accomplish this.
Dean Malecha feels that you can gain from being in an exceptional community in some very special ways. He feels that the good programs can get better and the programs that need to, within an environment of excellence, can thrive, irrespective of whether they are pre-identified as one of our pinnacles of excellence. As Chair of the Committee, Dean Malecha feels this is a contribution to the larger well being of our university.
Senator Patty noticed in the Eva Klein report that there was a focus on knowledge based university where she suggested some name changes such as that our mission might be to create knowledge, impact knowledge or impart knowledge and to apply knowledge. These would be the new terms that would take the place of research, teaching and extension and had some good arguments for doing so. It was not referenced in Dean Malecha's article so he wonders what the Dean's thoughts are.
Dean Malecha stated that his committee had a lot of discussion on those points. They talked some about generation of knowledge and the transfer of knowledge. He thinks that is a discussion they should have with the large university which may in fact transform this document again. He thinks that does capture a lot of what a land grant university does.
Senator Daley stated that NC State tends to be a very authoritarian, inflexible university. He wanted to know if the Deans are willing to give up power to create this transformation.
Dean Malecha stated that it means a change in the way the people look to Deans to make decisions. He believes that the more you can disperse that decision-making among units, there is a willingness to entertain that.
Provost Stiles commented that there is a great level of trust in what the Deans and Vice Chancellors are already doing in response to the report. Each one of them has given up power and gained it.
Dean Malecha stated that going into this discussion, he did not truly understand the issues of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. Because of Dean Zahn's participation in the subcommittee and the discussions that went on among the Deans and Vice Chancellors, he understands better what the issues are for that college and for the faculty in that college. He stated that there is a high level of trust and they have been very blunt with each other.
Chair Wahl wanted to know where Dean Malecha sees the university going with this.
Dean Malecha responded that from the beginning, they worked as Deans and Vice Chancellors to put together a document which would be a starting point. They have given the faculty a place where they can know that among the Deans and Vice Chancellors that they have been comfortable enough to put this together to send out with the full intention that it will change dramatically by the discussion that happens among the students, staff and faculty. He stated that this is a beginning. It is not intended to be an end or a way of doing. It is a set of aspirations of a value system that lets you know what we think we should be aspiring to. He stated that we bought into the concept that we were going to be the best university of our kind in the world.
Chair Wahl thanked Dean Malecha for his remarks.
5. Unfinished Business
A. Post Tenure Review
Senior Associate Provost Abrams reported that at the President's request, system-wide guidelines were developed of post tenure review to articulate three purposes. They are
1) recognizing and rewarding exemplary faculty,
2) providing a clear plan and time table for improvement of faculty,
3) performance to remain sufficient, and providing imposition of appropriate sanctions.
He stated that the committee offered ten requirements to address. He highlighted two that he thinks are issues that perhaps are in our existing post tenure review policy. Associate Provost Abrams observed that we have as far back as the 1970's a policy that states that all tenured faculty are reviewed at least every two years comprehensively. The things that were not quite as clear was whether there was a tie of annual performance review and post tenure review. The other was the involvement of peers in the review process. The system-wide group felt that was very important. There was a commission appointed here before the system-wide group finished. He believes that the commission took the posture to amend and adjust the current process rather than to create a new one over what we already had to emphasize departmental responsibilities for establishing criteria and departmental flexibility in the actual process.
Senior Associate Provost Abrams stated that he has received several comments from department heads and has discussed the comments at one meeting of the University Council. Basically those comments address two areas:
1) A sense that the way the procedures were written seems to indicate that department heads might be out of the loop in their reviews.
2) A concern with regard to the three levels of evaluation by the peer committee.
There is some concern as to whether there need to be three levels, compared to the comprehensive review identifying only two levels, and that is, is it for the good housekeeping seal of approval or not. He thinks that issue needs more discussion. He stated that the reason it ended up there is partially because of a response to the system-wide guidelines or purposes that indicate the post tenure review should, in addition to positively revealing those who may not be doing their jobs, might occasionally reveal someone who is doing an exemplary job.
Senator Griffin stated that a colleague asked about the composition of the committee as to whether or not this could be done at a college level as opposed to a departmental level.
Senior Associate Provost Abram said that the issue of flexibility is there and it would seem to him that if the faculty in the departments and the college felt that was the way it should be done, there was enough cohesiveness in terms of the criteria. He thinks the sense at the system-wide community and the commission that Senator Daley served on was that criteria would probably differ by discipline in some respects.
Provost Stiles added that one of the critical stages is the establishment of the criteria which comes from the department must be approved by the Deans and the Provost office. In that sense if the criteria is well spelled out, it is unlikely to be perverted by a subset of faculty in that department and given bad reviews. It is critical what the department comes up with in terms of measurement, what is important, etc.
Senator Daley stated that coming up with the criteria is going to involve a lot of work. The consequences that stem from this are very severe. The commission would like to make sure that if someone is terminated, it is based on very explicit standards.
Senator Serow wanted to know if there is a pilot study.
Senior Associate Provost Abrams stated that the Board of Governors have required us to have a review policy and that policy would warn that implementation would commence with the coming academic year.
Chair Wahl thanked Senior Associate Provost Abrams for his comments.
6. New Business
A. Resolution on Affirmative Action and Diversity at NC State University
Senator Griffin reported that the resolution was developed by Megan Callahan from the Student Senate. After consulting with Chair Wahl it was decided that the resolution would be introduced as a Faculty Senate resolution. Senator Griffin noted that it may also be introduced in the Staff Senate also.
Senator Griffin introduced the resolution for its first reading.
Points of information
Senator Patty feels the resolution should have come to the Faculty Senate through the Personnel Policy committee.
Senator Griffin stated that she received a copy of the resolution after the Academic Policy Committee met. She E-mailed it to Chair Wahl for his review and felt that it should be put on the agenda since the end of the semester is near. She felt that running the resolution through a committee would slow down the process. Her committee is willing to discuss it and take suggestions from the Personnel Policy Committee.
Senator Bernhard noted that he received E-mail from several colleagues in Engineering that were very negative about some aspects of the resolution, while they supported the general idea. He asked that the objections be considered when being discussed by the committees.
Senator Wehner stated that he received feedback from some of his colleagues in CALS. The question was asked, what is affirmative action; does that mean that if you belong to a particular group, could you substitute that for SAT scores or are we saying choose among equally qualified candidates to maintain diversity or preferential treatment.
Senator Griffin noted that the resolution states that race can be used as a factor among many other factors.
Chair Wahl asked if someone would like to speak to what affirmative action really is.
Dr. James Anderson, Dean of the First Year College, responded that it may have taken on a different perception in different institutions. Every student that is admitted to NC State is admitted relative to university criteria for admission. The goal of affirmative action has been to make sure that we have a viable pool prior to admissions or that we have viable pools as we do searches. He stated that there are many 3.5 academic index students who will not get into NC State because many other 2.8 white students were admitted. Why? Because we seek a broad diversity who come here perhaps from other counties, etc. when institutions raise issues of whether or not a particular category of students were raised because of students who might have a lesser average. He observed that the students who applied to the University of California at Berkeley, there were 3,000 students with 4.0 GPAs who were not accepted. They were not accepted because Berkeley wanted a very broad picture of an entering population that reflected the state of California and in that broad picture were many white students who had a 3.6, 3.2 or 2.8. In that case it is an institutional decision. For the purposes of our discussion, every student that is admitted to NC State is admitted relative to our criteria for admissions. Beyond that, we think about our mission as a land grant institution, etc.
Provost Stiles stated that there are two aspects as to what people think of as affirmative action.
1) Having a diverse student body is for every student's benefit.
2) When applying to staff and faculty, affirmative action is not that. That aspect of affirmative action is to try to make it a level playing field to go out and take specific action to make sure that the best possible candidates from groups are not usually represented in the pool for reasons not necessarily unique to this institution, but to go out and find good qualified candidates for a job and then apply the criteria to take the best candidate in that group.
Senator Fahmy noted that the title of the resolution is concerning diversity and affirmative action; yet, the whereases in the resolution are related to affirmative action. He would like to know if the resolution is pertaining to affirmative action or diversity.
Senator Carter stated that he is reluctant to push the resolution through because we are approaching the end of the semester. It seems to him that in the last reading of the Chronicle of Higher Education, on SAT scores and where they are sent, it was reported that African Americans sent their scores first to Howard, NC A&T and then NC State. So among non traditional historically minority institutions, NC State ranks first. NC State and the NC School of Arts are the only two universities that do not have a majority of women among their student bodies. He stated that in terms of trying to get more women to go to college, this seems contradictory to what we need to do. He feels that there is a need to try to get more men to go to college in this state. Senator Carter noted that their goal in the College of Veterinary Medicine is clearly to get more men to apply. He wonders if there is an urgency.
Senator Middleton stated that the subject of affirmative action makes him very uncomfortable. He does not believe that NC State is doing as well as some people think it is. He noted that he is not here accidentally. He stated that he is in a very fine department, but it still happens on this campus when qualified African Americans apply for jobs and are either number one or two in their graduating classes with PhDs and books and manuscripts in the hands of their publisher, they never make it to an interview. It happens on this campus. That says to him that something is not working. He feels that something needs to be done about it. He stated that for us to say that everything is okay and that we are doing well is inadequate. Senator Middleton commended the students for composing the resolution.
Senator Serow stated that one issue about this resolution that he thinks is unprecedented in his three years in the faculty senate, is the reference to a specific federal policy, which is the Bakke case. He is not clear whether statements should be developed about legal rulings, required policy, etc. He would like to know if this is a very selective reporting of the Bakke ruling. His concern is that when we are asked to endorse federal policy we need to be very careful to get some sort of reading from our constituents. He does not think the resolution needs to have this distraction in it. From his personal standpoint, he would be more comfortable voting for a resolution that addresses the question of affirmative action on this campus rather than one that addresses the Bakke ruling.
Senator Wehner noted that the resolution mentions diversity and mentions the categories to be evaluated as being race, gender, ethnicity and disability. He wonders if this should be the list that we use or should there be other traits we should be using to qualify for diversity. He wanted to know if someone's disability is actually known when they apply.
Dean Anderson responded that there are students who upon application do recognize disability and provide documentation, etc. so they can receive the support they need. There are other students who come not even aware that they may have a disability, and it is through their interactions with faculty or other types of activities that we become aware. Relative to the various categories that institutions decide to use, in many cases that is the institution's decision. It varies from institution to institution and does vary within an institution relative to what categories have been selected.
As a point of information to the students, Dean Anderson stated that usually on campuses when the affirmative action discussion occurs, it primarily is associated with the issue of merit. He noted that there is no campus in this country that admits all of its top students. There are institutions that do it more so than others. Beyond that, institutions then make decisions relative to other criteria, and what other institutions try to do is relative to many of these criteria. We want to make sure that students from a variety of backgrounds, groups (whether race is included or not) are given the same opportunity in this applicant process. In a merit discussion, you often hear that unqualified students of color are being admitted when a meritorious white student is not. He stated that for someone to only say that this is an issue of merit and race, somehow he wonders why they leave out the fact that many students at Berkeley, NC State, Harvard, etc. are sons and daughters of alumni who do not have the same level of merit as top students, or who are there because they had a strong push from a legislator, etc. He noted that there is no institution in the country that admits only on merit.
Provost Stiles commented that Mary Beth Kurz has located a list of items that one might consider on the admission process for diversity. He will give it to the Academic Policy Committee for their review to determine what the Faculty Senate would like to say.
Megan Callahan, author of the resolution, stated that she met with Mary Beth Kurz and the two of them reviewed the resolution word for word. It was given to the Diversity Steering Committee and the Staff Senate to consider. It comes on the floor as old business for debate in the Student Senate tomorrow night. She stated that students feel that it is an urgent issue because of the statement by UNC President Molly Broad. She noted that quite a bit of work has been done by faculty and students on the resolution.
Chair Wahl stated that the resolution will be discussed in the Executive Committee's meeting on Thursday.
Senator Fahmy thinks that if the university maintains or starts a program called diversity, it would include affirmative action.
Provost Stiles noted that diversity is a goal, and affirmative action is a process. He does not think one replaces the other.
Provost Stiles urged the Senators to be prepared to represent their positions and to listen to the ideas that other people have on this issue. Do not duck it, debate it.
Senator Nagel would like the committee to be provided with a list of factors that goes into these considerations so the committee can see what they are up against.
Assistant Provost Mallette encouraged the Personnel Policy and Governance Committees to seek and receive from Mary Beth Kurz the exact language of what the request was from President Broad to the campuses. He thinks it is imperative to see what those documents state.
The resolution will be debated at the next Faculty Senate meeting.
7. Issues of Concern
Senator Magill stated that a faculty member is concerned that in the last few months regarding diversity on our campus, sexual orientation has been noticeably absent as a category.
Chair Wahl assigned the issue of concern to the Personnel Policy and Governance Committees.
Senator Magill stated that a faculty member feels that the whole process of the Chancellor Search is slanted away from strong faculty and student input, and that this is an undemocratic process.
Chair Wahl assigned the issue of concern to the Executive Committee.
Senator Daley stated an issue of concern regarding the memorandum on the transfer issues in the First Year College. He noted that this is a response to the outline of the problem for the second and third year students who have not found a major.
Chair Wahl noted that he has received a very good set of responses to the concern on the First Year College. He will be responsible for that.
Senator Daley stated an issue of concern regarding the sophomore survey follow-up.
Chair Wahl assigned the issue of concern to the Academic Policy Committee.
Past Chair Smith stated that a colleague asked him to introduce a resolution which suggests that the Faculty Assembly name 1998 Human Rights Year and the Assembly urges President Broad to declare that it is Human Rights Year for the university and to urge every branch of the university system to indicate their support of the universal declaration of Human Rights.
Past Chair Smith noted that he introduced the resolution and it passed unanimously at the last meeting of
the Faculty Assembly.
8. Election Progress Report
Chair Wahl reported that the agenda for the next meeting will list elections being held for the Faculty Assembly, Council on Athletics, and possibly, candidates for the Chair Elect of the Faculty.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.