Absent: C. Alderman, K. Alley, T. Boosinger, S. Brinson, R. Brinker, T. Brower, R. Burleson, A. Cook, J. DeRuiter, B. Felkey, R. Henderson, J. Henton, G. Hill, J. Hung, R. Jaeger, C. Johnson, D. Large, F. Lawing (LTC), D. Lustig, A. Magg, H. Maraman, (CPT), J. Melville, R. Miller, R. Mirarchi, V. Morgan, R. Muntifering, L. Myers, J. Neidigh (CPT), D. Norris, R. Perritt, J. Pritchett, R. Ripley, S. Schneller, D. Shannon, T. Smith, P. Sullenger, A. R. Tarrer, H. Tippur, H. Thomas, B. Turner, D. Wilson

Absent (Substitute): R. Bartlett (B. Peters), S. Bentley (G. Anderson), S. Bigili (E. Moran), B. Burkhalter (J. Golson), R. Gandy (J. Hansen), B. Hames (D. King, Jr.), L. Katainen (T. Madrigal), B.Keith (S. Gropper), C. Michael Moriarty (C. Curtis), C. Price (S. Stanwick), L. Waters (R. A. Voitle)

The meeting was called to order by Senate Chair Jo Heath at 3:10 p.m.

1. Volunteering and nominating faculty for Senate and University Committee appointments

1. Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Status of Racial/Ethnic Diversity:

Dr. Renee Middleton

Heath informed Senators that this report is for information purposes only. Questions regarding clarity are appropriate, but please reserve questions and comments on content for next month’s Senate meeting, when this issue will be presented again.

First, Middleton, committee chair, acknowledged fellow members of the committee: Y. Brady (Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture), H. Stadler (Counseling and Counseling Psychology), G. Howze (Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology), D. Wilson (Associate Provost), D. Armstrong-Wright (Executive Director of the Affirmative Action Office), M. Mercer (Journalism), R. Fellers (Nutrition and Food Science), J. Heath (Mathematics).

Middleton said that committee members are present today, so if you have questions on clarity, please ask them.

In addition, if you have any stones to throw, please direct them at everyone but J. Heath because she wasn’t added to the Committee until three weeks ago.

Each Senator was given a copy of the report on Racial/Ethnic Diversity prior to the meeting. Middleton highlighted several aspects of the report.

The Committee used the term "retention prior to recruitment" (page 3) because it believes that the University has a good idea about what it takes to recruit. The problem that we have had in the past, particularly as it relates to African American faculty, and other under represented groups, is the retention component. That is the piece that the Committee wants to stress. Recruitment is important, but our reoccurring problem has been the difficulty in retaining faculty once they get here.

Middleton noted that the Committee did not use the word "minority", instead it encourages faculty to use the term "racially and ethnically diverse". Originally, the term minority did not refer to just African Americans. But for some reason now, the term seems to indicate just African Americans. The Committee thinks that when you are referring to African Americans, use that term, but if you are talking about racially and ethnically diverse groups, use the more global term.

The Committee stresses with respect to the idea of retention and recruitment, that everyone has a role, including trustees, administrators, department chairs and faculty members. The Committee sees the faculty as being the central role in these issues. When the Committee reviews the institutional diversity plans of each college, it will look at the extent to which the faculty has played a part in the development of these programs. The criteria listed in this report have gone to all of the Deans across campus and they have given their feedback. Not all of this feedback has been reviewed yet, but in general there has been a very positive response to the criteria.

The Committee understands that the criteria is being presented after the fact - after units have already submitted their plans for diversity. You should know that this Committee was not established until after those plans were submitted. We were charged with reviewing the plans, and the central question is "What t it could broaden its charge, but it could talk about racially and ethnically diverse faculty. The Committee certainly wants to be sensitive and responsive to that.

Middleton emphasized the difference between numerical inclusion and comprehensive inclusion (page 3). Numerical inclusion relates closely to recruitment, comprehensive inclusion has everything to do with retention. Comprehensive inclusion goes beyond identifying the numbers of persons from diverse backgrounds, but it goes to also addressing the quality of employment experience. The Committee is sensitive to the fact that both the individual and the university must attempt to adapt to the new dynamic setting.

Middleton encouraged Senators to take this report back to their faculty. The Committee hopes that to conduct a vote upon the criteria at one of the subsequent Senate meeting.




Click Here for a link to the ELEMENTS OF AN INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY PLAN Page




S. Tuzun asked who is included in the term "racially and ethnic"?

Middleton replied that the term does include those people born outside of the United States.

D. Himelrick (Horticulture) asked for a brief explanation of the Knight vs. Alabama case.

Middleton said that Dr. Walker has addressed that case. Auburn, along with other institutions is being charged to increase the number of African American faculty and administrators, as well as our student population. Judge Murphy expected to see some changes and Middleton believes he gave us ten years to make those changes. Auburn is now in its sixth year, and Murphy has indicated that he is not pleased with our progress. So there becomes our challenge, said Middleton. To repeat what Dr. Walker had said earlier, Middleton said that the administration took on the responsibility and thought they would be successful in making some difference, but the University failed. If Auburn is to be successful, the faculty must be involved. Faculty must be the central players; we know how not to retain when we don’t want to. Though faculty must be central, this doesn’t exclude the participation of the administration.

J. Novak (Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology) asked if Auburn used to have enhancement grants for recruitment of minorities, and if so, were they part of the failure? Novak asked if these grants still existed.

On behalf of the Committee, Middleton stated that there was a time when we offered incentives. That program was not well received and had a negative impact. It is this Committee’s understanding that vacancies are to be filled with vacancies that exist.

U. Albrecht (Mathematics) asked whether the committee took into consideration those areas where it is virtually impossible to recruit African Americans. For instance, in his department, there were 12-15 African Americans doctoral students out of a total of 550. The possibility of Auburn, a school set in a small southern town with salaries far below the regional average, to attract any one of these single candidates is nil.

Middleton said that this is true; there is a greater challenge in some departments. That is why there is so much flexibility built into these plans.

Other Items:
a. Rules Committee Election

Heath announced the nominations for Rules Committee that were made at the April Senate meeting: Marie Kraska, Associate Professor, Vocational and Adult Education, member of the faculty since 1988

Ed Morrison, Professor, Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology, member of the faculty since 1990

Michael Watkins, Assistant Professor, Philosophy, member of the faculty since 1994

Nominations were not closed at the April meeting, and Heath asked if there were any additional.

J. Novak nominated David Bransby, Titled Professor, Agronomy and Soils.

The nominations were closed. Ballots were distributed. Heath stated that there were four candidates, and three positions to fill. Election results would be announced at the end of the meeting.

1. Gender and Race-based Faculty Salary Equity Issues: Mary Baker, Vice-president and Senior Research Economist, Economic Research Services Inc.

Before Baker spoke, Heath said that she was told ahead of time about some controversy over the results of the next speaker. Heath told Senators that there would no vote on the report. If you have a better set of premises for determining racial and gender based salary inequity, please bring this to Larry Gerber (History), Chair of the Salaries Committee.

Provost W. Walker introduced Baker. Last September, when he assumed the role of interim provost, he was visited by a number of faculty members who expressed some concern that Auburn was in fact guilty of having salary inequities based on gender. Shortly thereafter, he was meeting with another group of faculty that expressed their concern that Auburn also had some salary inequities based upon race. Walker conferred with D. Large, Vice-president for Business and Finance, concerning this matter. The two agreed that it must be determined whether these charges were accurate. In order to do so, accurate data and statistical analyses were necessary. They asked Debra Armstrong-Wright, Executive Director of the Affirmative Action Office, to find someone who could serve as an expert in order to answer those questions.

Mary Baker has a B.A. from Auburn in Political Science and Economics, a master’s in Economics from Auburn, and a Ph.D. in Economics from Florida State University. She is currently Vice-president and Senior Research Economist for Economic Research Services, Inc. She is also an Adjunct Professor of Economics at Florida State. Baker is published extensively in the area of employment discrimination cases, particularly with respect to economic damages and statistical revenues. She has served as an expert witness in over forty cases serving defendants as well as plaintiffs. She has been retained by a number of corporations to determine whether the data provides statistical support for allegations of discrimination based on gender or race. To name a few, she has worked with GM, Boeing, Exxon, United Airlines, Wendy’s, U.S. Navy, U.S. General Accounting Office, and the Universities of Alabama at Birmingham and Montevallo.

Baker expressed greetings from Economic Research Service, Inc. in Tallahassee, Florida. Auburn’s Affirmative Action Office and Legal Counsel asked Economic Research Service, Inc. to conduct statistical analyses to address two questions: One, is there a statistically significant difference between the average salaries of male and female and black and non-black faculty? And two, is there a statistically significant difference between the average male and female ratio of average salaries to the average salaries paid to the relevant external academic labor market?

Over the last several months, we obtained the necessary data from the University’s Office of Planning and Analysis and prepared a number of different analyses of gender and racial differences in annual salaries, and in the ratio of actual salaries to average market salaries. Today, Baker said, she would summarize the results of the analyses.

First, she presented the baseline conclusions from the analyses. Auburn’s data show that male and female and black and non-black faculty who are similarly situated are paid similar salaries. There is no statistically significant difference between the average salaries of male and female and black and non-black faculty who are alike in terms of measurable factors that include pay. Also, similarly situated male and female faculty have similar ratios of actual salary to the average academic market salary. The difference between the ratios of male and female faculty alike in terms of factors that influence pay is not statistically significant.

The analyses that we conducted include the 1,084 assistant, associate and full professors who were on AU’s main campus on Oct. 1,1998 - the beginning of this fiscal year. 237, or approximately 22% of the 1,084 faculty were female. 28, or approximately 2.6%, are African American. According to the professional literature on compensation, in order for a salary analysis to conclude meaningful results rather than misleading statistical artifacts, it is imperative that the study compare faculty members who are similar in terms of the characteristics that determine pay. Otherwise, one cannot determine whether observed differences in raw average salaries are likely to be attributable to differential treatment of various demographic groups, or attributable to gender and racial differences in factors that legitimately influence faculty pay.

Baker defined the factors that influence faculty salary, listing them as department, rank, years in rank, other years at Auburn, highest degree obtained, tenure status, administrative position and funding source.

The first two factors, department and rank, come together to establish a salary ballpark for a faculty member. Where an individual’s salary lies within that range depends on other factors like those listed.

If male and female faculty and black and non-black faculty are alike in terms of the these characteristics that influence pay, then we would expect the average salaries of the female and male faculty to be similar and the average salaries of the black and non-black faculty to be similar. If however, men and women and black and non-black faculty are not similar in terms of characteristics that influence pay, then we wouldn’t expect salaries to be similar.

At Auburn, the average faculty member is paid approximately $71,300. According to raw averages, the average male faculty member has a salary of about $74,000, and the average female faculty member, about $59,500. This constitutes an average salary difference of approximately $14,400. Social sciences and the court typically contend that if a difference in the average salary of any two groups is greater than two or three standard deviations, the difference is not likely to be attributable to chance or random variation. The female average salary falls at a 12.04 standard deviation difference.

As a result of a comparison of raw average salaries, this salary difference is not explained by chance or random variation. But we cannot explain whether this difference is a consequence of discrimination or simply a reflection of gender differences in the factors that influence pay. In order to make this determination it is necessary to look at the possibility of gender differences in these factors.

Auburn tends to have more women in some disciplines than in others. 54% of the women are situated in the five lowest paid colleges, whereas only 24% of the male faculty are located in those colleges. This could be a factor that explains some portion of that $14,400 raw salary difference.

In terms of rank, there is a very different distribution for men and women across rank. Just under a third of female faculty are assistant professors, whereas just under 15% of male faculty are assistant professors. A little more than half of the female faculty were associate professors, whereas just a little more than a third of male hold that rank. A little more than half of male faculty hold the rank of full professor, compared to only 16% of female faculty holding that rank.

In regard to the amount of experience that the faculty member has in their current position (as of Oct. 1998), at every rank, the female faculty had fewer years in that rank than the males, and these differences are statistically significant. Women have less experience in their rank than their male counterparts.

There appears to be no difference between men and women in other years of Auburn service.

In regard to highest degree obtained, most faculty have a Ph.D. degree of first professional, but when you look at those who have master’s degrees and other doctorates, you see that those are more female.

There is a difference in the rate at which male and female faculty received tenure. Approximately 86% of male faculty are tenured, whereas 70-71% of female faculty are tenured.

There is little difference in male and female occupants of administrative posts. About 11.5% of male faculty have administrative positions, whereas 11% of female have these positions. There was not a lot of difference of the level of these posts.

Most faculty receive the bulk or three quarters of funding from the instruction source. But some get funding from research, public service, academic support, as well as the library. There is a statistically significant difference in terms of the proportion of male salaries that come from research source, than female salaries. Research tends to pay more than instruction. A larger percentage of female salaries comes from the library, and the library tends to pay less than instruction.

In some ways, male and faculty members are alike, but in other ways they are very different. In order to explain whether this $14,000 difference is explained in part or in total by gender differences in factors that influence pay, we conducted a multiple regression analysis. In this analysis, we filtered out of that difference between raw average salaries the portion that is attributable to those gender differences in the factors that we have just described.

When we filter out the difference in discipline and rank, the difference in salary was slashed by 90% to just under $1,500. This difference is not statistically significant and the standard deviation is 1.7.

When we account for other factors, the differential flips and becomes positive. Once we account for the fact that women have fewer years of service at the university (using total years in current rank, and all other years at Auburn) the data show a $930 difference, in favor of women. This is not statistically significant and the standard deviation is 1.4

When we include the highest level of education, tenure status, administrative position and funding source, there is not a lot of change in that differential. This is because these factors tend to be correlated to the variables that have already been factored into the equation.

In the full model, on average female faculty are paid $681 more than their male counterparts. This is not a statistically significant difference (standard deviation is 1.1.)

We went through the same exercise to examine the differences between the average salaries of black and non-black faculty. The raw average salary difference for black and non-faculty was $9,000, adverse to blacks. When we filter out the differences in factors that influence pay, you find similar differences between black and non-black faculty as you did between women and men.

There is a smaller percentage of black faculty at the full professor level, and there are fewer years of service in current rank.

We also used multiple regression analysis to filter out the portion of that difference that is attributable to racial differences in characteristics that influence pay. When we control for department and rank alone, the differential falls to $1,500, which is not statistically significant.

In the full model, when all variables are considered, there is a salary difference that favors black faculty of about $1,200, a figure that is not statistically significant (standard deviation is 0.76.)

In our other analysis, we had to define the relevant external labor market. We defined this as those doctoral-degree granting colleges and universities listed in Oklahoma State University’s (OSU) 1998-99 faculty salary survey by discipline. The survey included the 15 states that comprise the Southern Regional Education Board. The 15 states are West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma. The OSU survey was used because it provides average salaries by salary and rank.

When we conducted a regression analysis in the full model, the average ratio for female is .002 % higher than for men who are like them in terms of characteristics for which the analysis controls.

In summary, we conclude that women are not further below their market averages then men.

M. West (Discrete and Statistical Sciences) asked if Baker’s analysis was a complete census of all individuals at Auburn.

Baker replied that the only people excluded from the analysis were five instructors, and the President, Vice-presidents and the Provost. Baker said she had conducted other analysis with these individuals and the results were the same.





R. Kunkel (Dean, College of Education) asked how much of this information would become available.

Baker replied that she is not the one who decides what to provide.

Jo Heath, announced that as much of the report as possible will be put on the web.

J. Novak asked if the data included the deans and associate deans, because he was trying to figure out where the $71,300 average salary came from.

Baker said that the analysis included administrators. She controlled for whether you were an administrator by the level of administrative posts that the faculty member had.

Baker said that she did another analysis with non-administrators and the results were similar. Twelve-month salaries were used in the analysis, and nine-month salaries were converted to twelve-month figures.

J. Hansen (History) asked whether Baker thought that the fact that areas where there are more women, like library, nursing, fine arts, education where women are paid less is related to gender.

Baker said she would answer from the economist’s view. In those disciplines, the supply is greater than the demand, relative to other disciplines that pay more. Baker does not deny that the disciplines that tend to have relatively low sal ets. Baker said that she has done that analysis and the results are similar to what has been shown for both the administrators and the non-administrative faculty. Baker said that there were not a lot of outlyers - people whose salaries that were extremely different than others.

M. Bradbard (HDFS) asked if Baker had information on which administrators have administrative stipends.

Baker said she did not.

R. Crocker (History) mentioned that there were some universities where the administration has decided to put some money into supporting the unpaid work that the women faculty do outside their job in relation to families by setting up university childcare. She asked whether there seems to be improvement in the tenuring of women faculty when those conditions exist.

Baker said that she had not been asked to address that question.

L. Gerber noted that the study did not address issues related to age or salary compression that were not related to gender or race. Therefore, these findings don’t necessarily mean there is no equity problem, just with regard to these two variables.

Baker said that Gerber is correct, the studies done are looking at patterns across the university. This is a study of patterns not of individuals.

Pritchett told Senators that last year, M. Moriarty, Vice-president for Research, informed him the American Association of Universities had indicated that comprehensive research universities should have a graduate enrollment which approaches 40% of the total enrollment of the university. The University of Florida has adopted this recommendation. The state of Florida has identified three universities that are top tier research universities that are differentially allocating funds to those institutions. The three are the University of Florida at Gainesville, the University of South Florida at Tampa, and Florida State University. Compared to that recommended 40%, this past fall Auburn stood at 2633 graduate students, only 12% of the total university population.

Graduate enrollment at Auburn University has declined 15.7% over the past four years, compared to a national average decline of 3%. Pritchett noted the four colleges where this decline had been noted the most: Agriculture, Engineering, Liberal Arts, and Sciences and Mathematics. Pritchett said that this pattern is distressing.

We have done an extensive analysis of what might be related to that decline, and this report is simply meant to summarize the comparison of the last complete year to the previous year. Pritchett said that there is some good news and some bad news.

As far as requests for information, the graduate school this past year processed 35,000+ requests for information. This amount is the highest in the history of graduate school. Prtitchett said that we are getting the message out there with the changes of the infrastructure that we have made, and the cooperation of the departments in working with us in doing that.

This past year, as far as completed graduate applications, the graduate school is up 7% over the previous year, so people are responding to the message.

However, this past year, as far as acceptances - that is of the applications that actually went to the departments - the acceptance rate is down 13%. The most shocking figure is that of those students that were actually accepted, the amount of the students that actually enrolled failed still further. In other words, of those we invited, we were down 24% over the previous year. The enrollment rate for Auburn University after acceptance is about 53%.

The decline in acceptances occurred in the same four previously mentioned colleges. Pritchett said that the decline has to do with a lack of assistantships. Many departments will not accept a student unless they can guarantee a student an assistantship.

To look into the 53% decline in enrollment of accepted students, we surveyed 21 regional institutions and asked them of those that you have accepted, how many have enrolled. The University of Georgia showed 68% acceptance, and the University of Alabama showed 78%.

Pritchett stated that Auburn’s show rate is so low because we are not competitive.

Pritchett said that President Muse recognized this and a year ago this past January, authorized the creation of 200 presidential graduate fellowships which would provides in-state tuition to graduate assistants. This program is being phased in over the next four years. By the fiscal year 2001, there should be 200 in place. Pritchett said that this is an initial start, one that he is grateful for, but it is not enough at this point in time to reverse the downward decline.

This past fall, Provost Walker asked Pritchett to appoint a special commission to examine the issues involved in decline in graduate enrollment. A Graduate Enrollment Commission was formed that was comprised of the deans of four colleges where the largest declines occurred. There was also a faculty member from those four colleges, and a faculty member from the Tuition Advisory Committee.

Pritchett noted that Dr. Walker has been very supportive.

S. Tuzun said that most minority students are getting fellowships at other schools like Cornell. They receive salaries, full tuition, even house payments. Tuzun said that just giving in-state tuition would not help getting students to come to Auburn. Tuzun said that he congratulated Pritchett for his work.

Pritchett stated that if you are on a graduate assistantship at 25% or greater, you are waived out-of-state tuition. He understands that these proposals are a central benefit, but he also think its incumbent on the units to make graduate education a priority to boost stipends. Pritchett agrees that we need a broader approach and that we also have a lot of ground to make up in other benefits that we do not offer to our graduate students that other institutions do. Pritchett cited health benefits as an example. Pritchett stated that this is a start and that we’ve got to take the first step.