November 13, 2001
Broun Hall Auditorium
Absent: J. Saye, D. Pascoe, R. Norton, D. Hendrix, S. Maghsoodloo, J. Gluhman, S. Krishnamurti, R. Locy, R. Paxton, R. Henderson, D. Zhang, M. Reinke, J. LaPrade, C. Hageman, C. McMurtrie, M. Boosinger.
Absent (substitute): S. Taylor (D. ______), D. Bransby (J. Dane),
H. Guffey (F. Laumer), S. Knowlton (J. Hanson), S. Bentley (G. Anderson), F. Kochan (R. Rowsey).
The meeting was
called to order at 3:00 p.m. The minutes for the last meeting were approved as
posted on the web. They may be found at the Senate web page at www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/Senate/schedule.html
October 9, 2001.
Announcements
a.
Announcements from the Senate Chair – Dr. Jim Bradley
Dr. Walker will be
giving his announcements later in the meeting because he is being interviewed
by the Today show at this time.
My announcements are as follows:
1) At 3:30 pm in 202 Thach Hall the AU chapter of the AAUP will
host a forum to examine the topic of accreditation, the complaint to SACS, and
the subsequent lawsuit against SACS.
There is a guest panelist coming from out of state.
2) At 5:00 in the Pharmacy Auditorium The Office of
Multi-Cultural Affairs is hosting a forum titled "Achieving Racial Healing
through Inter-cultural Community Dialogue."
Also, the Senate
Chairs of all 15 4-year colleges and universities in Alabama are being
requested to cooperate with Senators for constitutional reform in February.
That is coming up and you will hear more about that later.
After many requests
during many months, I have put together a list of University expenses for
consultants and legal fees. Most of these are from the past year, but a few of
them go back to 1999.
You have this
information in the handout. I would like to call your attention to the bottom
of the handout where we have some unknown expenses. This information came from
Don Large.
Jim Hanson, Physics:
Does this mean that you don’t know this information, or no one knows this
information?
Dr. Bradley:
No one knows. I will say something about that in a few minutes.
University Expenses for
Consultants/Legal Counsel
A
summary of recent costs to the University for consultants as assembled by Don
Large follows:
·
Arthur-Anderson (Ind.
Cost Recovery Overhead study) - $220.078.00
·
Arthur-Anderson
(Alumni & Development study) - 310,697.00
·
Direct Communications
(Heartsill et al.) Office VP Research (FY '99-'01) - $161,448.88
·
Athletics (FY
'99-'01) - $259,493.68
·
Trustees (FY '00-'01
for Newsletter and other publications, speeches, and other work) - $112,394.52
·
Rick Heartsill -
$200/hr
·
Kim Cochran - $125/hr
·
Publication of
Trustee's "Auburn Update" (3 editions) - $25,242.00
·
Bill Weary to date (@
$250.00/hr) - $24,069.00
Contract
for "Advice and recommendations regarding the search for a new
president"
·
Jerry F. Smith
(Athletic Dept. feasibility study) - $163,779.87
·
Phillip Adams,
Attorney, Opelika, and David Boyd, Attorney, Montgomery, Defense of Board
members named in Open Meetings lawsuit - $111,258.00
·
Stanley Drake,
Consultant (1 yr. contract ended Oct. 1, 2001) - $17,000.00
·
Unknown Expenses
>Appeal of Open Meetings verdict - ???
·
Peter Degan,
Attorney, Atlanta, Preparation of
response to SACS complaint: nobody at AU knows cost - ???
·
Legal fees for Dr.
Walker's lawsuit against SACS: nobody knows - ???
·
Hourly rate: nobody
at AU knows - ???
Board-Senate Interactions Since Our Last Meeting
Nominees for the non-voting faculty members of Board
committees have been selected by the Rules Committee and forwarded to Drs.
Walker and Pritchett. The names of the nominees were sent to the entire faculty
last week over AU Profs. Some have already inquired as to why so many of the
nominees are from Business. The reason is due to nominees being restricted to
certain colleges by the Board's bylaws.
The procedures for
selecting these faculty representatives on Board committees have been approved
by the Senate and have been submitted to the Senate Faculty Handbook Committee
for a recommendation about their inclusion in the Handbook.
Budget: Claire
Crutchley, Finance; Chuck Price, Accounting; Charlotte Sutton, Management
Agriculture: S.F. Bilgili, Poultry Science; Conner Bailey, Ag. Econ; Ken
Tilt, Horticulture
Properties and Facilities:
Dave Cicci, Aerospace Eng.;Tom Denney, Electrical Engineering; Steve Williams,
Building Science
Investment:
Charlotte Sutton, Management; Marllin Jensen, Finance; Steve Caudill, Economics
Recall that the Chair
of the University Senate sits on the board's Academic Affairs and Priorities
and Planning Committee, and that the Chair of the University Committee on
Intercollegiate Athletics sits on the board's Athletics Committee.
Other interactions
between Senate officers and the Board of Trustees since the last Senate meeting
include:
1) Meeting between
Earlon McWhorter , Bruce Gladden and myself, at Mr. McWhorter's request. At
this meeting Mr. McWhorter talked about the Susan Morgan case involving the
Gymnastics Program, himself and his wife, and Mr. Housel. Some Senate officers
and other faculty also attended a luncheon with Mr. McWhorter at the Hotel and
Conference Center on November 8. Mr. McWhorter answered questions about the
Susan Morgan case and about the relative importance of academic and athletic
programs at AU. Some faculty members asked for him to consider Chairing an
eventual Presidential Search Committee. Other faculty members expressed the
opinion that no trustee should be a member of the PSC, recalling that the last
PSC had no member from the board, but was facilitated by the President Pro Tem
of the Board.
2) As I have
announced before, Jack Miller, Chair of Board Academic Affairs Committee has in
the past engaged me in dialogue about revising the charge to that committee. At
the September Board meeting Mr. Miller asked that I read a booklet published by
the Association of Governing Boards about Board Academic Affairs Committees and
to contact him about meeting to discuss it when I had finished reading it. I
have informed Mr. Miller by e-mail and by fax that I am prepared for these
discussions, but I have not yet received a reply.
3) I have written two letters to Board members during the past
month:
In addition, I sent
an e-mail to Grant Davis and Dr. Walker on Oct. 31 asking them to urge the
Board to endorse the Birmingham Pledge at their next Board meeting.
Finally, the Senate officers plus two other faculty members have participated in a Directions Group established by Interim President Walker to consider AU's future. Two Board members in the group are Mr. Samford and Mr. Venable. There have been three meetings of this group since August, the most recent one being in the home of the Interim President on November 1.
The Directions Group
is comprised of about 44 people: 6 faculty members (Senate officers plus
Michael Watkins and Cindy Brunner), 2 Board members, and about 38
administrators. The group is charged by Dr. Walker to answer three questions:
1) What does AU aspire to be? 2) How much will it cost? 3) Where will we get
the money?
Another group,
self-named the 7:15 group after the time of its daily morning meetings, has
provided direction for the Directions Group by revising portions of the 21st
Century Commission's recommendations. This group, led by John Heilman and
comprised of the Vice Presidents plus Barb Struempler and myself, met for about
8 weeks to formulate Seven Guiding Principles for the Directions Group to
consider. Subcommittee Chairs for each of these Guiding Principles have been
selected who will solicit members from the University community to develop
goals and objectives for various components of the University. I have spoken
often to the upper administration about the importance of having maximum
faculty involvement in this process at every level.
Update on the SACS Lawsuit
As you know, the
University Faculty voted on Oct. 2 to request Dr. Walker to withdraw his
lawsuit against SACS. I took this message from the Faculty to Dr. Walker in
person on October 3 and informed him formally, in writing about our request on
October 8. Although I have not yet received any formal response from Dr. Walker
on this request, his not yet dropping the lawsuit plus his statement to
television reporters that he has not heard one good reason to withdraw it leads
me to believe that he has decided not to withdraw it.
On October 3, Dr.
Heilman and Dr. Walker indicated that it would be good for the Senate officers
to have a copy of the court proceedings. I agreed, but we have not yet been
given these. I reminded Dr. Walker about this on November 6. On October 15, I
spoke to the SGA about the Faculty's resolution on the lawsuit and answered
questions. Since then Dr. Walker and Senator Barron have met with the SGA on
the same topic. I have been told by SGA VP Michael Solomon that after having
heard all sides of the issue, the SGA plans to take some action. On November 2
the Senate officers asked Dr. Walker how the lawsuit was proceeding, and he
said that he didn't know. We also asked him how much Peter Degnan's legal fees
were, and he said that he didn't know. We asked if he knew what Mr. Degnan's
hourly rate is, and he said no, that when legal counsel is retained by the
University, the University does not ask about the rates.
Finally, on a related
issue, several Senators and other faculty members have asked me whether a group
like the Faculty or the Joint Assessment Committee could be allowed to use
University funds to hire legal counsel or a consultant like the Interim
President has done for the response to the SACS complaint and for the SACS
lawsuit, and like the Board has done for the Sunshine Law suit and for PR
advice. The Senate officers asked Dr. Walker about this, and he referred us to
Lee Armstrong, the University Attorney. I asked Lee Armstrong about it, and he
said the decision would be up to the President. I asked Dr. Walker about it
again, and he said that other than for representing individual employees in
cases arising from their jobs, University funds would not be available for
legal fees. However, he acknowledged that the question about a portion of the
University community feeling that it needed to seek legal counsel on behalf of
the University was an interesting one and suggested a remote chance that such a
thing might fall under University insurance. This has not yet been investigated
by the Senate officers.
SACS Survey Coming To You Soon
Gene Clothiaux
informs me that the SACS Steering Committee is getting ready to send out a
survey to all faculty. The survey has less than 50 items. It is important for
faculty to respond. It will come through campus mail and be completely
confidential.
Seminar on Constitutional Reform
The Higher Education
Partnership and Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform (ACCR) will sponsor
a seminar on state Constitutional reform on every public University campus
early next year. ACCR is a statewide group, whose president is Thomas E. Corts,
President of Samford University. Many prominent Alabamians are board members of
the ACCR. The goal of this effort is to inform as many people as possible on
our University campuses about the critical need for reform and for grassroots
support of reform. The Senate's only obligation will be to provide arrangements
for conducting the seminar, including AV equipment. The ACCR has asked the
Senate Chairs of the state's 15 colleges to be in charge of making these
arrangements and publicizing the seminars.
Positive Interaction of Senate Officers with a Faculty
"Caucus"
A group of 22 faculty
members convened by a former Senate officer met on Oct. 24. The reported
purpose of the meeting was "to discuss ways in which the faculty could
facilitate a change in the interaction with the Board of Trustees to one that
is more positive." Some key points reported from the meeting were that...
1)
"faculty were distressed with the overall appearance of a
negative/entrenchment type interaction of Board members and Senate
leadership,"
2)
"a concern was raised that because the Senate leadership seemed to be more
focused on battling the Board of Trustees, that the faculty were not going to
be ready to deal with very important problems/issues facing the University
(such as) constitutional reform, budget/prorations, a presidential search, and
SACS reaffirmation of accreditation."
3)
a "reluctance of some Senators to speak up at Senate meetings because of
the hostile environment."
On November 2,
Isabelle Thompson and I met with this group for about two hours. At this
meeting we summarized Senate actions and the work of Senate officers that is not
related to the BOT. We then pointed out that progress with the BOT such as
faculty membership on their committees would probably not have occurred without
the considerable pressure of the nine "no confidence" votes in the
BOT since February, and I said that there are still many more improvements to
be made in University governance as it relates to a faculty voice in the
Board's decision-making processes. To improve communication between the Senate
and the faculty at large, I agreed to send my monthly Senate announcements to
the entire faculty via AUProfs so that all can easily read about the Senate's
activities.
Finally, I stated
that I believe it is the responsibility of all Senators to attend Senate
meetings regularly and to speak out on behalf of their constituencies—that
those not comfortable speaking out should send a proxy Senator to meetings or
ask for election of a new Senator in their department. Last week Isabelle sent
out a reminder about the attendance requirement to Senators who had missed two
or more of the past four Senate meetings.
During the
discussion, the topic of our present lack of means for University-wide voting
without having to attend General Faculty meetings was discussed. I established
a Senate Ad Hoc Committee on University-Wide Voting with Cindy Brunner as Chair
to examine this topic and report back to the Senate. The Rules Committee will
be consulted about the membership of this committee. The committee's charge is
to examine all aspects of University-wide voting that the committee considers
appropriate, including 1) criteria for items able to be voted upon in this
manner, 2) means for ensuring that voters have the opportunity to hear all
sides of issues being voted upon, and 3) the mechanism whereby such voting
should occur and safeguards required for secret and fair balloting.
The Senate officers
welcome all forms of constructive input, and we hope that if you have specific
concerns you believe the Senate should be addressing, you will bring these to
our attention.
I have something to
talk about that I think might set a different tone in the room. This is
something the University can be quite proud about. Auburn University Partners
in Community Service has been operating for about 4-5 years. It is a group of
25 of the most interesting, socially conscious and intellectually stimulating
faculty that I’ve been around in my 30 years as an academic. This group has
also been joined by faculty that have been awarded faculty development grants
to incorporate service learning into their curriculum. Service learning is a
teaching strategy that puts students out in the environment to learn the
constructs that you are teaching them. It also, however, underscores values of
citizenship (something we need very much these days), diversity, and
contextualized learning. Two years ago, the Office of the Vice President for
University Outreach and the Provost’s Office gave us some funding. In those
years of funding, 2,000 students on campus have been involved in this, and
45,000 hours of contextualized learning has been put in the community. Using
what the state uses as a reimbursement rate for these kinds of services, that
is $360,000 that we’ve put into this University.
Your colleagues would
like for you to come see what they are doing. They would be especially happy to
know that Senators were interested enough in what this was all about to come
and spend some time with us from 11-4 on Friday, November 16. You can bring
your children to see Aubie, and we have lots of other things going on. Aubie
will be there at noon.
b.
Announcements from the President’s Office – Dr. William
Walker
I apologize for being
late. For the past week I have been involved in activities associated with
actions that took place on Halloween weekend by two of our fraternities on
campus, Beta Theta Pi and Delta Sigma Pi. You are all, no doubt, aware of the
things that happened. Some of the membership of those fraternities dressed in
costumes that depicted African Americans in a terrible light, and then by some
mechanisms, those photographs that were taken ended up on the web.
There has been an
enormous amount of hurt that has been caused by those actions. I cannot describe
to you the import of pain that has been felt as a result of those actions.
There is also a lot of anger, not the least of which is felt by yours truly,
because many of us have spent an enormous amount of time advancing the notion
of increasing diversity on this campus, not only with students but with
faculty. This whole affair has been one of the most unpleasant things I’ve ever
had to deal with.
If I may, in a moment
of honesty, tell you that I have been shocked at the silence of the faculty. I
have received probably a thousand emails on this subject. I have probably not
received more than 6 from the faculty. I don’t believe that reflects the views
of the faculty on this campus.
I have printed off
one of the emails I received; probably around 1,997 of them are of the nature
of the one I’m about to read to you. Many of them have been from our alumni who
have been as disturbed as the rest of us. This particular email, however,
caught my attention:
Dr.
Walker,
I
am sure you have had your share of mail concerning some Halloween celebrations
at Auburn. I do not intend to make your experience better by sending this
message.
Seeing
the interest Auburn placed in increasing the black population in its Auburn
family fostered a very warm feeling in the hearts of all my children some years
ago. So much so was this apparent interest that three of my four daughters
found themselves students at Auburn. Their experiences were generally very
positive, with a great deal of healing of older wounds of me and their mother.
Recent
events that have triggered patriotic interest and godly reverence gave rise to
even more hope, until I heard about these pictures. It is hard to believe that
a lifetime of struggle, speckled with the blood and sweat of so many, can be
held hostage by such a simple act of mindless stupidity as these pictures. I am
embarrassed to admit my affiliation with Auburn because of these hooligans and
their barbaric celebrations. Already tortured by the stench of slavery, haunted
by the whip of racism, now this state is forced to taste the bitterness of
forgotten memories, all because of the insensitivity of a few students who
don’t have a clue of the strain Alabama has had in changing its perception.
The tuition at Auburn has truly escalated. The sharper mind is purchased by haunting, insensitive souls. What a paradoxical tragedy. Tell me please, what will the cost of this experience be, and how much will it take to overcome this bedeviling perception? Lastly, what will Auburn really do to show it does not condone this type of activity….or does it?”
I think we have a
problem here, one that has to be addressed by this group. We are very obviously
not doing a good job at raising the awareness of cultural diversity on this
campus. I’ve told Dr. Large to be prepared to find the money to do whatever it
is you come up with, but I, Jim, am asking the Senate to move immediately to
determine the program changes that need to be made to make this a priority at
this University. One of the things we have heard from students and members of
the black community, as we have all expressed our views on this matter, is that
this happens all the time and we just aren’t aware of it. Well, you are right.
I wasn’t aware of it. But I am now, and you are now because I am telling you now,
and it is unacceptable. This is something that we as a group should pledge
ourselves to correcting. This is something we can correct. We have made
enormous strides at this University in promoting diversity and cultural
awareness. That, in fact, has been reflected by many of the emails I’ve
received from alumni. This activity has set us back enormously, though, and it
is something we should all be ashamed of.
Frankly, Jim, that
concludes my announcements, and I have to go meet with the leadership of the
other fraternity.
Dr. Bradley:
In response to Dr. Walker’s challenge, our next action item is consideration of
the Birmingham Pledge.
Action Items
Dr. Nancy McDaniel is
the Assistant VP for Student Life and co-Chair of the Multi-Cultural Diversity
Commission. She is going to introduce this item for us. Dr. Green is also here.
He is the other co-Chair.
Dr. McDaniel: Thank you so much for providing the opportunity for the
Multi-cultural Commission to come before the Senate today. How timely it is
that we asked a couple of months ago to come before the Senate and talk about
the Birmingham Pledge. How coincidental that we are doing this today on the
heels of Dr. Walker’s remarks after the hours and days we’ve spent last week
looking at the incident we all agree should have never happened here and should
never happen again.
The Birmingham Pledge
was written on the heels of the racial tension that followed the 50s into the
early 60s. Coined in 1997, its mission is more than just signing a piece of
paper in front of a bunch of people. It is about pledging and appreciating the
value and integrity, the individualism, the worth and the value of every
individual, regardless of where they were born, the color of their skin, what
faith they practice, what social organizations they join, and what friends they
choose. This pledge simply provides an opportunity.
I have heard a lot
over the past week. I’ve heard that you can’t fix this problem with a forum, a
class, a punishment, or a pledge. That’s not where it starts; but it has to
start somewhere. John and I are co-chairs of this Commission. Our Commission
looks like the United Nations. How coincidental that we invited Dr. Walker to
sign the pledge with the Commission three days after September 11. It was prescheduled. It took a different
turn that day. We were coming together in grief to talk about how we must move
forward as a national, global society.
Today we come
together, again as a coincidence, to you, asking you to join the others who
have signed. Who has already signed? We have about 400 signatures from the
event we held last Wednesday, the AU United, the SGA, the BSU, the Auburn City
Council, the A&P Assembly, campus leadership, campus student organizations.
As of tomorrow it is up on the web for anyone to sign on, in the privacy of
their own location as they so deserve.
It is an individual
statement about the values we try to teach our children and our students here.
What I say to my son every night before I put him to bed: Love others as you so
love. Give them that respect, reach out. By signing on, you take a step forward
on your individual journey. We can’t take a step forward collectively unless we
move forward on our individual journey. That is what our commission has helped
us learn, as we work together shoulder-to-shoulder looking at some of those
critical, difficult issues. That is what we’ve come to talk to you about today.
Dr. Green: I would ask each of you to look around the room for a
moment. We have about five African-Americans in this room, so we represent in
this room a microcosm of this University. We need your help. We need you to
challenge the 22,460 students on this campus along the lines of simple respect.
We would like you to join our efforts in promoting diversity on this campus by
you signing the Birmingham Pledge, if you can identify with the values, and
also by you helping the students on campus to grasp this. They will not get it
unless you help them receive it. My presence in the classroom speaks volumes
regarding diversity. I am just one professor. We need you to help us. Observing
the climate on this campus from the emails and phone calls I’ve received, I
cannot believe that the faculty would not join us in demonstrating that we
value human beings.
Dr. Gladden: I have a resolution that is very short and to
the point:
Whereas,
the Birmingham Pledge speaks for itself;
Therefore
be it resolved that the University Senate endorses the Birmingham Pledge,
encourages its distribution throughout Auburn University and the City of Auburn
community, and invites all individuals to sign and live the Birmingham Pledge.
The
Birmingham Pledge
Sign It B Live It
I believe that every person has worth as an individual.
I believe that every person is entitled to dignity and
respect, regardless of race or color.
I believe that every thought and every act of racial
prejudice is harmful; if it is my thought or act,
then it is harmful to me as well as to others.
Therefore, from this day forward I will strive daily to
eliminate racial prejudice from my thoughts and
actions.
I will discourage racial prejudice by others at every
opportunity.
I will treat all people with dignity and respect, and I
will strive daily to honor this pledge, knowing
that the world will be a better place because of
my effort.
The Birmingham Pledge
created
in 1998 by the
Community Affairs Committee of Operation New Birmingham
There was a motion to
adopt the resolution.
The resolution was
adopted by a unanimous vote.
Dr. Gladden:
I also have with me two packets, one A-L, the other M-Z, of personal copies of
the Birmingham Pledge for members of the University Senate. You are being
invited to sign a copy with your name on it. We also have other copies for
guests to put their name on. This is not going to be any good for someone to
sign because they think they have to. We are going to collect the signed ones
because they are collected them in Birmingham.
Information items
The next item is a
report from the Teaching Effectiveness Committee. This committee was charged
some time ago to look at the summer session, particularly the five-week
session, to see whether it was a length of time that could be used to teach
effectively.
A brief background
about how this came about. The Provost and the Graduate School Dean had
received early in the summer some questions and queries about students with
difficulty as it related to their instruction during the summer. Traditionally
, when universities convert from a quarter system to a semester system, their
summer enrollment drops significantly. That had not happened in our case. We
suffered probably one of the lowest differentials between regular and the new
format, and we wanted to maintain that.
The past year’s
Teaching Effectiveness Committee and myself with Dr. Wick from the College of
Science and Math met with those gentlemen
and were charged with the responsibility of examining students’
perceptions of the summer term in general from a number of different
perspectives. Essentially, what we were asked to do was to get feedback from
students about their experiences.
So, the committee met
with the determination to present some sort of survey to the students during
the summer. After some discussion, we came up with 24 closed questions
(fill-in-the-blank electronically) that dealt with the demographics: where
students were, why they came to summer school, whether they didn’t, reasons
they attended or didn’t, and what was the quality of their instruction, the
effectiveness of their learning, would they take summer classes again, and what
would be their preferred length of classes. There was also a space for
comments.
We considered that
the best way to present this information to students would be a global email to
all Auburn University students, which we did about mid-way through the summer
semester. We received almost 4,000 responses; around 3,000 were from students
who were enrolled in the summer, and 895 were from students not enrolled in
summer classes.
In addition to the
collection of that data, we had a number of committee meetings to discuss some
of the formal issues that we had from our own departments and units. We also
had informal interviews with faculty from various units. There was also a
request from the Provost office to the heads of departments to ask faculty
about specific issues related to those being sent out to the students.
In terms of a summary
of putting responses into various categories, these are the ones we looked at:
Looking at those,
here is some summary data for you to glimpse through.
The reasons for
attending during the summer basically fell into one of three categories: to
take classes which would allow students to have a lighter load during other
semesters, to catch up for students who were struggling or had failed a course
before, or to take courses otherwise not available to that student during the
regular course of the year.
About 70% of students
took classes within their major; about 50% of students took classes that were
not in their major. So, it seemed to be an attractive option for students to do
classes outside their general area of study.
The reasons not to
attend were because students could take courses at a junior college at home
(subnoted that these courses were thought to be easier), employment
opportunities (students worked at home and were not able to receive financial
aid at Auburn during the summer), and because students were on track or there
were no classes offered during the summer that they needed. So, if you wanted to
mold and shape all of those reasons into two essential categories, the reasons
to attend during the summer fell into the category of scheduling. The reasons
not to attend were economic.
In terms of the
teaching issues, professors and teachers that were interviewed provided the
case for the short-term, responding that the students get more absorbed, there
is much less absence, and students learn material more thoroughly.
Those that considered
the short-term to be a negative pedagogical situation considered the courses
and loads to be too much. They responded that students were unable to keep up
with the pace of the work, and that scheduling and completing labs was
reasonably problematic. In most classes, for example, if you have a two-hour
class with a one-hour lab, you have 45 hours for a 15-week semester, and that
means you’ll have to shift to a nine-hour week for a five-hour course. Those
were the responses from those teaching the courses.
From the student
responses, their perspectives were the major advantages I’ve already mentioned:
you could take more classes during the summer than normal. The cases against
included a student-coined term Turbophysics,
as the name of a class. Some said that
it was a rushed performance to get through with too much reading, such as in
a Great Books class. Other responses:
it was too short a time to cover the depth of the material, and some teachers
were reducing the demands of the course in order to get through the material.
They also pointed to problematic instruction such as professors letting
students out of class early. Students who took the five-week classes that
didn’t like them said they would never do them again. Students that did like
them said to not cut this option.
As an overall
summary, some love the short courses and some hate them. That applies to
teachers as well as students. The most preferred option was “let’s go back to
quarters,” but that is reasonably problematic considering we are already on
semesters. There were 87 pages of
written comments. Some suggested that we go to the format of other universities
that their friends have experienced.
Teaching
effectiveness is an issue in some of the five-week courses. Some instructors
with lab classes found that it was difficult to get the amount of work done needed
as well as the preparation. For others, it was difficult to maintain student
enthusiasm and interest for such a long time of classes needed to cover the
work in five weeks. Particularly, from the College of Science and Math, we had
feedback that labs were problematic.
However, something
that has not been brought up is that many faculty appreciate the opportunity
for a split summer term, especially those who are gathering grant money, so
they teach for a five-week term and take the second five-week term off from
teaching. On a 10-week term if you are receiving grant money, you basically
have to make the decision whether to do research or not do research during the
summer (teach or not teach).
The recommendations
we made to the Calendar Committee were as follows:
It is important that
department heads counsel their instructors so that if they are teaching a
five-week course, they still offer a quality form of pedagogy and students are
encouraged to keep up with the work. Faculty should be aware that scaring
students is not necessarily the most effective way of handling a course. Also,
advisors should help students appreciate that a five-week course that is also
offered as a regular course during the other semesters would have the same
standards. Some students, given that this is the first time they’ve experienced
a short course, need to be familiar with this notion. Advisors need to be
cognizant of their students in terms of what load they can take during the
summer.
Are there any
questions?
Herb Rotfeld, Steering Committee: I know you were
asked instead of the Academic Standards Committee to look at these issues. As
you look at these recommendations, I am wondering why you didn’t ask about the
impact of GPA for the students, what were the comparisons of the GPAs of
students on the five-week term and on the regular term. Also, concerning terms
of teaching effectiveness, by the nature of the calendar itself, the five-week
time had fewer days and times for classes. You have an hour and a half of class
time, including a final exam. You can’t have a 2 ½ hour final; everyone is
supposed to have a 11/2 hour final as the last class. You asked how much
material they were able to cover; I would say it was less. I would ask the Academic
Standards Committee to consider the value of this experiment.
Dr. Hastie:
To answer your first question, that data was gathered, in terms of comparing
GPAs of this summer and last summer. The request is being sent to someone on
the “hill” to generate that data.
Second question, in
terms of the course work loads, we got a number of anecdotal comments from a
number of people, which is probably a very convoluted summary of the general
responses. Those issues were raised. The responses were two-fold: in some cases
instructors felt they had to reduce work load, and some felt they didn’t. Some
faculty actually reported that thought the performance of students improved on
a five-week course, and that the grade standards were higher. One of the real
difficult issues faced when you get global information like that is when you
have a graduate course with six students versus a Math 160 class with100
students. There is no one best answer. But the responses were context specific
to the situations people were in.
I think the bottom
line lies with the department making a decision about whether they can do a
decent enough job to offer a course in five weeks. I think that is independent
of the Teaching Effectiveness Committee because the individual instructor and
the people in charge of that academic content area would be in the best
position to make a professional judgment about whether they could justify as an
effective teacher teaching a course in five weeks. If they don’t, then they are
doing it for some other departmental-specific reason. I know that the Colleges
of Veterinary Medicine and Engineering chose not to offer any five-week
classes.
One of the
recommendations that was probably looked over very quickly was going to six
weeks rather than five. This would solve that problem of losing time for final
exams, and would turn down the “turbo speed” of some of the classes.
Barbara Struempler, Chair-Elect: We might want to hear
from Dr. McFarland concerning the GPAs comparison of quarters and semesters.
Steve McFarland, Acting VP/Dean Grad School: We
looked at the last four years under quarters, with average grades increasing
quarter after quarter for the last four years. The literature told us that
grades would decline with a transition to semesters. The grades for Fall
Semester declined, as they did for Spring Semester 2001 and Summer 2001. There
is no indication from this Summer’s grades as to whether the summer term had an
effect on average grades. There was a general decline, which was to be expected
from the literature on semester transitions.
Auburn University - University Senate Calendar & Schedules Committee
Proposed Calendar for Summer 2003 Semester
Orientation for new students May 16 (Friday)
Classes begin (10week, 1st 5 week, & 6 week session) May 19 (Monday)
Memorial Day Holiday May 26 (Monday)
Classes end for first 5 week session June 23 (Monday)
Mid-Term for Summer Term June
23 (Monday)
Classes start for second 5 week session June 24 (Tuesday)
Classes end for 6 week session June 30 (Monday)
Independence day Holiday July 4 (Friday)
Classes end for 10 week & second 5 week session July 29 (Tuesday)
Final Exam Period for 10 week Summer Term Only July 30-31, Aug. 1 (Wed.-Friday)
Graduation (Tentative Date) August 4 (Monday)
Discussion:
· Four sessions proposed: Summer Term (10 week/50 day); Summer Session I (first 5 week/25 day session); Summer Session II (6 week/30 day); and Summer Session III (second 5 week/25 day session).
· Spring Semester Graduation is Sat. May 10th (1 week break between end of Spring Semester and start of Summer Term/Summer Sessions I and II).
· Fall Semester 2003 calendar has not been proposed yet, but if it follows pattern of 2001 & 2002, classes should begin approximately August 18-20 (2 week break between end of Summer Term/Summer Session III and Fall Semester)
As Dr. Hastie said,
he was kind enough to come and talk to us last week about what the Teaching
Effectiveness Committee had come up with. You may remember I came before you
folks in September for the approval of the Fall 2002/Spring 2003 calendar and
at that time Dr. Pritchett had asked us to hold off on the Summer 2003 calendar
until we had heard what Dr. Hastie’s group had come up with. So, we met with
Dr. Hastie.
This is our
recommendation. Following our talk with Dr. Hastie, we felt that there were
three things that came out: 10 weeks seem to be very successful, the five-week
terms seem to be successful with more positive than negative comments. For the
five-week courses, with a second and third summer teaching them, faculty might
be better able to judge how to pace themselves or whether a particular course
might be problematic in that format. There were lots of courses that seemed to
fit very well, so the five-week term might be very popular. Dr. Hastie’s group
seemed to feel that the most problematic courses were the lab-based courses,
and that going to a six-week rather than a five-week term might take care of
most of the problems with that situation. So, we talked about a number of
different options.
One thing we talked
about was doing two six-week rather than five-week terms. One of the problems
that we face is that between the end of Spring and the beginning of Fall we
have only 14 weeks. So, if you try to put two six-week terms in there you have
no time in between graduation and orientation for the fall. So, there just
wasn’t room to do that. We came up with a compromised plan: keep the 10-week,
run two five-week, then put in one six-week semester term that would be
oriented more for lab courses or any department that felt they had a course
that would be better taught on a six-week rather than five-week term. That is
basically the proposal. The 10-week, the first five-week, and the six-week term
would all begin on the same day. Major factors would be that all of the courses
would follow the same time schedule, otherwise it would be too confusing and
create problems.
This is the
suggestion of the Calendar and Schedules Committee based on the information
from the Teaching Effectiveness Committee. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: This might be obvious
and I am just missing it, but a student taking one of the six-week terms cannot
take a term after that. There is no more time, right?
Dr. Molt: There would be a one-week overlap if they chose to take one
course in the six-week term and another in the five-week term. They would be
facing a double schedule. They certainly could take classes both terms, but
they would have to recognize a very busy one-week period in there.
Dr. Brunner: Is there much interest on the part of departments and
students in this six-week term?
Dr. Molt:
That is a question we don’t have any real information on. One of the things we
talked about was offering departments the opportunity to have an eight-week
term. But that seemed very frightening, to have many different terms going on
at the same time. That would be difficult for buildings, schedules, etc. The
feeling that we seemed to get was that the six-week alternative may offer some
way to cure some of these problems with that five-week term. Why not eight
weeks rather than a six-week term? It seemed that everything we had from the
Teaching Effectiveness Committee pointed to a six-week term as something that
might be successful.
Christine Curtis,
Associate Provost: In the
semester transition documents, we stated that the department could choose any
week term, three or greater if they had academic reasons and the Provost
approved. It is written in those documents that we can do it.
Larry Gerber, History (not a Senator): I
think one of the problems is that a student can take 13 hours in the first five
weeks.
Dr. Curtis:
No, there is a limit. You can take up
to seven hours.
Dr. Bradley:
Dr. Pritchett, would you like to say something about your plans for this
upcoming summer?
Dr. Pritchett: We
are going to give departments the option this summer to experiment with the
six-week term. All we need you to do is let us know so we can format the
schedule.
Dr. Bradley:
So, there will be a six-week term available this summer on an optional,
experimental basis. It requires no
action from the Senate. It will not change the existing calendar, but it will
be inserted for those who would like to try it.
Jim asked me to make
this presentation concerning our football game damages and expenses, and I
added how to pay for them.
Dr. Ferguson asked me
a couple of weeks ago how I could take this now after living with it for so
long. I said I don’t get as upset about it as I did as a faculty member because
I can do something about it now. So, I have to admit that I have been angry at
the way our campus has been treated for a number of years, particularly after
some rambunctious game.
In the past, Cathy
Love has looked at these expenses and could not figure out a way to pay for
them except for providing the monies that are available to facilities through
Division I. That is how we are paying for it this year. I felt like we needed
to start thinking as a faculty how to deal with this. We have a very opportune
time right now, and I ask you think about it. Unfortunately, September 11
happened. There are measures we have taken since then in security, and there
are other measures we can take before next football season. The second thing is
that we have a Master Plan going on right now. This is an opportunity for us to
think about how we are doing, whether we should continue in our path or change
our path.
I will admit that in
the past when I would go to football games, I would arrive in time for kickoff,
walk from the south side of the stadium, paying no attention to anything. This
year, since it was my responsibility, I decided to walk campus. If you haven’t
done it, do it for the Bama game. You will be amazed. I have never seen so many
cars parked on so much grass in such a small area, or so many grills fit into
such a small area in all my life.
I. Positive Aspects
of Football Game Days
•
Fun
•
Fellowship through alumni events and reunions
•
Family gatherings and traditions
•
Friendships made and renewed
•
Focus on College and School activities,
particularly at Homecoming
II. Negative Aspects
of Football Game Day Activities
•
Damaging University
buildings, property and resources
•
Endangering the
safety of students, faculty, staff and other pedestrians on campus
•
Causing environmental
and health hazards on the campus grounds
•
Interfering with
those on campus in performance of their duties
We had a sewage spill
one week from an RV on campus. Also, in warmer weather it took us three people
to mow instead of one because we had to pull up all the stakes in the ground.
I have been told that
all we are doing in maintenance and operations this week is getting ready for
the game. It is costly, and some of these costs are not even documented.
III. Specific Issues
Damage to buildings that have occurred in past:
ü
Safety showers were
pulled and buildings flooded
ü
Paint sprayed on
walls and screens
ü
Restrooms fixtures
damaged and toilets plugged and overflowed
ü
Grills found in
buildings
ü
Outside doors damaged
and had to be replaced
ü
Areas outside of
buildings used as restrooms and the stench etc. seeped into the buildings
ü
RV’s plugged into
electrical outlets of buildings
ü
Windows broken and
other forced entry into buildings have occurred to reach outlets
ü
Landscape destroyed
or damaged
ü
Building destroyed
History
•
Before 1999, most
campus buildings were left open.
•
In 1999, buildings
with laboratories and sensitive equipment were closed during football game
days.
•
Selected buildings
were left open for restroom use.
Buildings damaged
•
Dudley Hall trashed
during the Ball State game
•
Forced entry into
Allison Laboratories
•
Forced entry and
trashing of M. W. Smith during the Ole Miss game
•
Spray painted
basement of Haley Center during or after the Ole Miss game
•
Store front window
broken in Foy Union during the Mississippi State game
•
Numerous signs
throughout campus stolen or damaged during or after the Florida game
Negative aspects of tailgating
•
Dangerous spikes used
to mark off tailgating areas; tailgating areas marked off early in the week
causing a tripping hazard
•
Damage to landscaping
and tree roots
•
Dumping of raw sewage
on campus lawn
•
Parking on grass and
sidewalks
•
Public urination, etc
Auburn Fans – James
and Joan Miskelley write their concerns regarding Football Game Day safety
I want to read an
excerpt from a letter I recently received:
In
addition to this early roping-off of parking areas, we feel the wooden and/or
metal stakes being used by some of these folks are a menace to the safety of
others. One has to be cautious not to
stumble over one of the stakes while walking to the stadium. Most of the stakes are placed so close to
the curbing there is not enough room to walk without getting out into the
street. When the vehicles do arrive,
many are parked with their bumpers hanging over the curbs. This makes it really dangerous after the
games are over, whether it is daylight or dark, because of the traffic.
This problem does not seem to exist at opponent schools, and we personally think it should not exist at our beautiful Auburn campus either. We have a great deal of confidence in you and respectfully ask that you try to help remedy this situation.
V. Fires –
Four fires during Ole
Miss –
•
One destroyed AAES hay
•
Two in dumpsters
•
One burned roots of a beautiful old oak
VI. Football 2001
after September 11
Closing of all academic buildings
•
For security – locked, Friday night, opened
Sunday or Monday
•
To control vandalism – all academic buildings
are locked.
•
Haley Center is locked at kickoff and opened
Sunday morning.
Increased security at the Jordan-Hare Stadium
•
Barricades monitored by police officers
•
Stadium closed on Thursdays before games
•
Additional security in and around the stadium
Modular restrooms brought in for fans
•
Have electricity,
sewer connections and running water
•
Facilities workers
monitoring buildings to ensure that doors are shut and locked
VII. Costs
|
|
Cost Per Game |
Cost Per Season |
|
Clean up Toomer’s
Corner |
$3,700 |
$18,500 to $40,700
(depending on # of wins) |
|
Clean up of campus,
set-up posts and rope, set-up garbage containers, and repair of landscape by
landscape personnel |
$105,000 to
$110,000 |
|
|
Extra services
required by Waste Management |
$7,020 |
|
|
Restrooms manned by
Facilities |
$7,000 |
|
|
Restrooms manned by
Sodexho |
$5,000 |
|
|
Rental of modular
restrooms |
$71,117 |
|
|
Set up of modular
restroom (initial cost) |
$5,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Repair to damaged
buildings: costs are being tracked for 2001 |
|
|
Cleanup of trashed
buildings: costs are being tracked for 2001 |
|
|
Personnel
monitoring buildings: costs are being tracked for 2001 |
|
|
Cost of guards for
the buildings and landscape |
$12,000 |
|
Cost of setting up
protective barriers |
$3,500 |
|
Line location and
tent permits |
$2,800 |
|
Replacement of
barricades (because of loss) |
$3,500 |
|
Total without the
repair of damaged buildings and cleanup cost of trashed buildings |
$240,437 to
$267,637 |
VIII. Path Forward
•
Master Planners from
Sasaki Associates will be present before, during and after the Alabama game and
will factor the football game day issues into the comprehensive master plan.
Facilities Division
•
Continue to put up
bollards to protect the campus landscaping and buildings
•
Continue to improve
outside doors and locks on the buildings
Working group to be composed of
Alumni
Athletics
Administrative Services
Public Safety
Facilities Division
Safety and Environmental Health
Faculty
Students
Deans
City of Auburn
Board of Trustees Members
Other interested people
Working group to
•
Develop positive plan
for safe and responsible tailgating
•
Encourage responsible
behavior on football game days
•
Encourage peer
pressure to protect the campus during football weekends
•
Develop a means to
pay for the costs
•
Determine the best
means to provide and pay for restroom facilities
•
Need volunteers from
the faculty, administrative/professionals, staff, and students
Are there any
questions?
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I want to say how
happy I am that you are doing this. I have been here 19 years and you know that
my husband and I go to football games fairly regularly. For some reason, the
problem seems to have escalated this year, with people coming in staking out
lots on campus more than a week in advance. I work at the vet school so I don’t
deal with this every single day, but I can imagine it would make you crazy.
I’ve tripped over the stakes and I’ve had to negotiate my way through the
mazes. It is so gratifying to hear that somebody is concerned enough about this
to do something about it.
Dr. Curtis: Let me tell you, Cindy, earlier in the year, I had the
opportunity to talk to each Board member directly and individually and handed
them a paper for them to look at. Many of them had no idea this was going on.
Unless you are here and observe it, you really don’t know it. The R.V.’s for
the Alabama game started in next week and they are everywhere today. Charlie,
would you give us a brief description of what you saw at Mississippi?
[response]After September 11, changes were made in football games at
Old Miss and Mississippi State. Guests do not spend the night on campus. Fewer vehicles are allowed on campus.
Jim Hanson, Physics:
I didn’t grow up in
the south, but I’ve been here for a long time. I was certainly shocked the
first time I saw a football game. A couple of things to put on your list there:
ropes across sidewalks, R.V.’s parked on sidewalks. I made the mistake of
trying to get some work done on a Saturday morning and was cursed for closing
the door of my building behind me. Two general comments: First, with this
committee I think it is a great idea. I urge you to think about going beyond
management and move the stadium . This sounds crazy: build a new stadium. I had
a conversation with a member of my department, and we said they should just move the stadium. Think of it as an
opportunity. Imagine that close by you had enough land so that you could make a
football park with a stadium in the middle of it, campgrounds with plugins,
room for tents, ESPN, etc. It would
still be open green space the rest of the time. Look at it as an opportunity to
make the football experience at Auburn better than anywhere in the nation.
Unfortunately, you just can’t do that with where the stadium is now because of
those darn academic buildings. Let’s ask those Sasaki folks. It sounds
expensive, but it’s concrete.
Second point: It is
very easy for us as faculty members to get on our high horses and talk about
how all these alumni and guests come in and do bad things to our campus. I was
glad to see that there is a lot of positive stuff going on on our campus. I
think that some of the blame for the disrespect shown to our campus falls on us
as a University because we too disrespect our campus. Vehicles drive on
sidewalks all the time. The mail delivery comes up the sidewalk by the Allison
laboratory. That sidewalk is not really the sidewalk but it’s a driveway for
the UPS guy, etc.
Bill Gale, Mechanical
Engineering: When I come on
campus on Monday morning, there are piles of beer bottles. I worry about the large number of drunks in
Auburn on football weekends.
Jim Ferguson, VP for
Facilities: Alcohol is not
supposed to be on campus. But the
reality is that alcohol is on campus during gamedays. We try to deal with the worse cases of drunks, but we cannot stop
all drinking on campus.
Herb Rotfeld,
Marketing: During a faculty lunch with Mr. McWhorter, we
talked about how to pay for the gameday expenses. I think that the tailgaters are customers of the Athletic
Department. Therefore, Athletics should
pay. Then maybe Athletics would take
care of some of these problems.
Dr. Curtis:
I am not saying I agree totally, but we do need to hear the other side.
According to David Housel, the University gains a number of benefits from the
alumni and friends that come on gamedays. By having a game we are providing a
drawing card for the alumni, friends, and donors. The colleges,
administrations, and schools are capitalizing on that activity, so he says. It
is his belief that the cost should be shared, and that the things within the
stadium or directly related to athletics should be paid for by Athletics and
those things outside the stadium should be paid by facilities. That is what he would
answer in his opinion to your comment.
Michael Watkins, Philosophy: By teaching courses,
we allow there to be college sports on campus. It seems to me that by the same
reasoning, David Housel should recognize that athletics should be supporting
academics on campus.
Dr. Curtis: That is why I think we need this working group. We need all
the voices in one room discussing this. We only have part of the voices here
today. I encourage you if you are interested to help us work through this
problem. We would appreciate your help.
With the help of
Cathy Love and Bernice DeWallace, and with the help of the supervisors of
building services, we have been looking at this problem, defining the problems
and trying to come up with resolutions.
Facilities Mission Statement
To ensure a safe,
healthy, clean, fully functional, and, whenever possible, state-of-the-art
learning, research, student life, and athletic environments for students,
faculty, and employees of Auburn University by providing high quality and
well-maintained facilities and operations through quality work and friendly
service
Goal for Building Services
To provide a clean,
safe and healthy environment for Auburn University students, faculty and
employees in a cost effective manner.
Criteria
•
Achieve high level of
cleaning performance
•
Be cost effective
•
Serve customers
•
Set performance
standards and assess
•
Provide training to
employees
•
Work in teams
•
Maintain stability in
current staff’s lives
Objectives for Building Services
•
Achieve high quality
and thorough cleaning of classrooms, teaching laboratories and public areas
such as hallways, restrooms, lobbies, etc. first.
•
Ensure that all Building Services employees
know the level of performance expected and have the appropriate tools to
achieve the assigned tasks including:
(1) time required to
perform the assigned task;
(2) cleaning supplies
and equipment;
(3) training on how to
perform cleaning safely and correctly;
(4) knowledge of job
duties and performance standards so
that each person knows what is expected; and
(5) evaluation of
performance
•
Provide a safe working environment for
Building Services employees.
Current Status
|
4:00pm to 12:30am |
18 Custodian
II’s/Floor Care 2 Supervisor I’s 1 Special Projects
Coordinator |
|
11:00pm to 7:30am |
7 Custodian I’s
(including 1 “day-patrol”) 1 Custodian II 1 Supervisor |
|
5:00am to 1:30pm |
80 Custodian I’s 2 Custodian II’s 8 Supervisor I’s 12 TES Custodian
I’s (in vacant positions) 1 TES Custodian II
(in vacant position) |
|
7:30am to 4:00pm |
2 Special Project
Coordinators 2 Custodian II’s 1 TES Custodian II
(in vacant position) |
|
7:45am to 4:45pm |
2 Administrative
Assistant I’s |
Information Gathering – Ongoing
•
Meetings with
Building Services Supervisors
•
Input from Building
Services Manager, Director of Facilities Management, Facilities Consultant,
Staff Council, Faculty, Administration
•
Walk-through of
buildings in each area
•
Meetings with
Building Services employees in each area
Plan – Work in Progress
|
Action |
Duties |
|
Build daytime
multi-task team. |
Moves, sets-up for
events, cleans spills, special projects, etc. |
|
Build 2nd or 3rd
shift classroom cleaning teams from vacant positions (14), attrition,
promotion, or transfer |
Total cleaning of
classroom buildings; start with Parker, Lowder, Funchess, Engineering
Classroom Building |
|
Begin 2nd
or 3rd shift classroom cleaning as soon as a team for one building
has been hired or trained |
Reorganize daytime
shift. Provide daytime coverage for
buildings on 2nd or 3rd shift. |
|
Develop teams on
daytime shift. May need to start earlier. |
Set goals for each
building. Determine what hours are needed to achieve goals. |
Guiding Principles
As I said, Dr. Walker
asked me to evaluate six months before September 30, 2003 where we stood, how
Facilities Division was doing in their ability to clean the buildings and make
them safe and healthy for our students and faculty, and to evaluate Sodexho,
and then come forward with a recommendation as to what we should do in 2003. We
are not into 2002 yet; there is a lot of work that both groups have to do to
get up to the standards that we need to be at. I have no plans right now.
Unless they request
it, employees will stay on the daytime shift.
Ruth Crocker,
History: I am glad that the
workers will not be forced to change to the night shift. This is one more aspect of racism on our
campus.
Dr. Curtis: When they are
interviewed, new hires will be told what shift they will work.
Cindy Brunner,
Pathobiology: Will the areas
currently cleaned by Sodexho continued
to be cleaned by that group?
Dr. Curtis: The contract with Sodexho expires in 2002. At that time, we will assess the
effectiveness of Sodexho.
Conner Bailey, Ag.
Econ: I have heard
Facilities workers express concern that more cleaning will be outsourced a
payback for the Facilities workers protest.
Dr. Curtis: There are no further plans to outsource cleaning.
Larry Gerber, History (not a Senator): Do
the workers for Sodexho in Haley have health insurance?
Dr. Curtis: They do have health insurance, but not retirement. It is comparable to the
University package.
Bill Gale, Mechanical Engineering: How well are we
communicating to the janitors that they are not going to be forced into this?
Dr. Curtis: I have listened and talked and gotten input from
supervisors. The next step is to write
a short statement to the custodians. I
will meet with each group after Thanksgiving.
Harold Cummings,
Chair, Staff Council: I like this
plan better than the first one, but I would also like to attend those meetings.
Renee Middleton, Counseling and Counseling Psychology: How
well are we communicating with the actual workers?
Dr. Curtis: We are going to write a short, clear
statement and visit 11 areas to inform them on these changes. One thing that
may happen is people may have to change buildings.
Jim Hanson, Physics:
Is there any differential pay for those who work the second and third shifts?
Dr. Curtis:
No, we are working on that.
New Business
Dr. Bradley: Are there any responses that anyone would like to make to
Dr. Walker’s announcements. Two things from me: I heard a criticism and a
charge to the Senate. The charge I heard is why don’t we get the Senate busy
and look at our academic programs to see how we can integrate diversity into
them. So, intend to contact the University core curriculum committee and core
oversight committee to see if Dr. Walker has contacted them. If he hasn’t, I
will talk to him about it.
Second, if there is
anyone here who would like to respond to Dr. Walker’s announcements, please
send him an email. If you would like your comments recorded as an addendum to
the minutes, send a copy to Isabelle Thompson. That will be included as an
addendum to the minutes of this meeting.
The meeting was
adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
These email responses
are arranged in alphabetical order according to the senders’ last names.
Dr.
Walker
I share the sense of frustration and anger you expressed at yesterday's
Senate meeting. However, I was stunned to learn you were surprised that
racial insensitivity exists on this campus.
I served for many years as a faculty mentor for incoming minority
students. Not one student went through their Auburn career without some
demeaning remark or threatening act marring their experience as an Auburn
student. Several years ago, a very close friend of mine, an
African-American faculty member, received a phone threat left on her home
answering machine that contained the worst imaginable racial slur. The
threat was to burn down this individual's home. This was reported to the
campus police, who received the tape. No action was taken despite
reasonably clear evidence identifying the caller.
Christa Slaton has provided a very clear statement regarding not only
faculty concern but faculty actions taken. You may be surprised that
racial problems continue to exist on this campus, but most of us are not.
It is one thing to challenge the university to do better, it is another to
claim that our failure to communicate directly with you reflects
disinterest. We should be pulling together. Put aside your personal
anger, which I accept as sincere. Work with those constituencies on
campus which have been in the trenches. Follow their lead. If you
indeed
were surprised by the photos of Halloween costumes worn by members of two
fraternities, you have to realize you are out of touch with the reality
the rest of us deal with on a day to day basis.
Racial prejudice is a reality on this campus as it is in our state and
nation. I believe those who harbor such prejudice in their hearts are a
small minority. Our great weakness, as Rene Middleton pointed out in her
message, is that a silent majority appears willing to let pass without
comment or objection racist displays on this campus. But such silence
sometimes has been broken.
Two years ago, on November 18, 1999, the League of the South announced a
rally at which the Confederate battle flag would be worn and displayed.
Students organized a counter-rally on the Concourse. League of the South
members were outnumbered at least 50-to-1 that day. It was to me the best
day on campus since the early 1990s, when a group of 40-50 students staged
a sit-in in the middle of North College Street, disrupting the Old South
parade.
Rene is right. The students are out ahead of faculty and administration
on these issues, now as they have been in the past. But we all know that
students come and go. We need to develop an institutional response to
what we ALL now recognize to be a problem. Welcome to our world.
Lets
work together to change it.
Conner Bailey
Dear Dr. Walker:
Please be assured that we in the
faculty share the outrage you
expressed in yesterday's Senate meeting
at the racist incidents in Auburn
fraternities.
If you have not heard from faculty about this affair it does not mean that we
are indifferent, far from it.
As a faculty member responsible for teaching U.S. History, I deal almost all
the time with teaching undergraduate and graduate students about America's
racial past. I would say that the content of my U.S. History course to be
taught next
semester "The Making of Modern America" (1877-1930) will be roughly
one-third
directly confronting the following issues:
The end of slavery and the transition of African Americans to sharecropping in
the South and industrial labor in the North
The emergence of a
Jim Crow (ie. segregated) system of law in the Southern
states, the restriction of black voting
in the 1880s and 1890s, and new
Constitutions in states like Alabama (1901), with which you are familiar.
The rise of the Klan (1870s, then again 1920) and the violent suppression of
black civil rights by white Southerners.
Northern migration of African
Americans, especially during World War I,
and their experience in Northern
cities. Race riots in Chicago, Kansas
City, and so on, in 1919.
Important leaders and their
significance for American history: Ida B.
Wells, WEB Du Bois, Booker T.
Washington, A. Philip Randolph
The development of institutions of
black progress: the churches, savings banks, schools and colleges, the Urban
League, the NAACP, black clubwomen.
I think that this kind of coverage of
race-relations is not untypical for History courses at Auburn, though I have
not done a systematic survey. Speaking for myself, I aim to teach
American history as a history of all its peoples, and of women as well as men.
This is a deliberate effort to combat the racism that still infects many of our
students. We hope that if they understand the past they will reject the kinds
of behavior displayed at the Halloween "celebration."
I applaud the University's resolute and prompt treatment of the offending
fraternities in the recent incident. I was pleased to see that the
coverage in today's New York Times concentrates on the University's punishment
of the students and the fraternities, not on the incident itself. This is a
good message to send, and obviously it has got out.
Sincerely,
Ruth Crocker, Alumni
Associate Professor of History
___________________________
From: Renée A. Middleton
Secretary-Elect and
Steering Committee
Dr.
Walker, I applaud the comments you made to the University Senate yesterday
(11/13/01). There is a wise saying that goes something like this: “All that is
necessary for evil to rise is that good men and women sit and do nothing”. To
date, that’s exactly what we as faculty have done. NOTHING!!! When the Steering
Committee met to put the agenda together for the November 13th
Senate Meeting, I mentioned the fact that faculty ought to be taking a position
regarding the discriminatory behavior of the local restaurants near our campus
(Bourbon Street etc.). At that point, and to his credit, Jim Bradley suggested,
and it was agreed by the Steering Committee, that we begin by having the
University Senate endorse the Birmingham Pledge. I found out at today’s Senate
meeting that Nancy McDaniel had requested this as much as two months ago, but
no action was taken until I raised the issue at the Steering Committee Meeting.
The
University faculty’s silence on the local events in the Auburn Community and
now our silence with respect to the recent events surrounding the obvious
racist pictures capturing students in the Beta Theta Phi and Delta
Sigma Phi fraternities have not modeled the appropriate behavior for our
students. Indeed, once again, the student’s are out in front of the faculty on
yet another issue! I am VERY PROUD of our student leaders and our student body
as a whole, and I am particularly proud that the African American students have
not met these incidents of hate with hate. They have behaved reasonably and
responsibly. Conversely, although I
know many of our Auburn University faculty to be people of integrity and people
who value the dignity and sanctity of humanity. I must ask myself why there is
this malaise, with our faculty as a whole, in speaking out about the
fundamental value of the civility we ought to be extending to each other as
human beings.
It
was clear to me throughout the Senate meeting today that racism was not a
subject matter the faculty wanted to openly deal with or discuss. Consequently,
I question how the events of this last week have been dealt with in our
classrooms. More to the point, how many faculty have dealt with these issues of
the past week in their classes? This speaks to the malaise of our faculty on
issues of racism and racial intolerance. There was significant passion and even
openly stated “anger” over the damage done to the campus after football games.
In short, today, faculty showed more emotion and anger toward the destruction
of objects (windows, doors, walls, etc.) than they did to actual human beings.
Beings who live and move and breath.
Beings who continue to be missing (via lack of a commitment to
recruitment AND retention) in significant numbers in the ranks of our Deans,
Directors, Department Heads, and faculty.
My
faculty colleagues keep asking me how I’m doing. They ask this as if this was not a violation against themselves
as members of the human race. Let me ask you, my colleagues,“How are you
doing?” Those pictures dishonored humanity. They displayed a devaluing of human
beings. They showed an abhorrence and revulsion for humanity. Shouldn’t we all
abhor what we saw? Shouldn’t we all be repulsed by what we saw?
If so, then why is our discussion about this as a faculty merely an ADDENDUM to
the minutes? In my mind, relegating this issue to an “addendum” exemplifies the
type of devaluing experiences that everyone ought to recognize. Why are we
afraid or uncomfortable with having these discussions with our students? Why
haven’t we addressed these issues openly as a faculty? Why did it take us this
long to simply sign the Birmingham Pledge? This is what I ask myself Dr.
Walker. I say these things with a heavy heart. The next scheduled Senate
Meeting is in January. I wonder if we are silently hoping for all of this to
just go away by the time January rolls around. I give you my commitment that I
WILL NOT BE SILENT!
Finally,
I must say that you have given voice to all the right things over the last
week. In short, a lot has been said a lot, but done little has been done. I
pray that when all is said and done, that your comments will not be viewed as
mere “rhetoric”. The Fraternities took bold action this week. To date, our
University has taken no action that one could possibly view as courageous. The
National Board for Beta Theta Phi set the tone for the University’s
action. I am disappointed that University action comes only after the
action of the National Board for Beta Theta Phi. I view the story on the
University WEB Page about the University disbanding of Beta Theta Phi to
be quite misleading. As a faculty member, I have the following questions I
would like you to address to the University Faculty and other members of the
Auburn family:
1)
Who is in charge of the investigation
of the two Fraternities and what is the process toward achieving due process?
What members, persons or groups are involved in the investigation?
2)
Why didn’t Auburn University lead the
action in disbanding Beta Theta Phi? Our action followed that of the
Governing Board for Beta Theta Phi. Thus, what is the significance of
the University’s action? In my mind, our actions toward Beta Theta Phi
can hardly bee seen as courageous. Why is it that the University’s action with
respect to the Fraternities, either follows or occurs simultaneously with the
governing Boards of these fraternities?
3)
Why has the University not given a
specific time-line for the duration of disbandment for Beta Theta Phi?
4)
Why hasn’t the University taken any
action toward Delta Sigma Phi?
5)
Is the University following it’s own
policies in dealing with this issue? Is this issue being dealt with by the
Student Discipline Committee? If not, why not.
6)
Will the University Board of Trustees have any say into the punishment
dealt to the individual students in this case? If so, why.
7)
Is the University Board requesting that they be allowed to give
final approval toward any action taken against the students involved in these
incidents?
8)
Why hasn’t the University Board of
Trustees spoken out on this issue clearly stating what this University stands
for with respect to diversity and tolerance of other people’s ethnic
background, religion, disability status, etc? We have heard from “some” members
of the Board, but there has been no formal board statement. Why?
9)
Will the University continue to do
business with Village Photographers?
Dr.
Walker and others:
While Herb and I don't always agree on various things, I wholeheartedly
agree with his latest commentary on religious diversity issues. I
happen to be a practicing Roman Catholic, which, as you know, is the
root religion of all Christianity. However, I also am very
uncomfortable when I attend university functions where my christian
values are foisted upon a diverse audience that also may include Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists, other religions, and even atheists. I am particularly
troubled when the university administration seems to arrange scenarios
where meetings, conferences, and/or entertainment begin with a
Christian-based pray. A moment of silence to allow all to express
themselves any way that they wish would seem much more appropriate.
Having our universities serve as proper examples of religious tolerance
in this way may go a long way in helping prevent situations like the
rather ludicrous chain of events that is currently playing out in the
Alabama Supreme Court Building.
Best regards,
Ralph
Ralph E. Mirarchi
Ireland Professor
School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences
Dear Dr. Walker:
I am pleased by your clear position condemning the
events surrounding the
Halloween "celebration" on fraternity row. However, I could not help
but take
umbrage at your suggestion made in the course of your remarks to the Senate
yesterday, that the failure of the faculty to send you emails since October 31
reflects a lack of concern about the racist tenor of the campus. Why would
those of us who were distressed by the unseemly actions on Halloween have
emailed you when it was clear from reports in the media that you were taking
action we endorsed and that that action was unequivocally morally right?
Many of us have been painfully aware of the racial
problems on this
campus for years and have used our positions as faculty members as "bully
pulpits" to work for change. On Monday at 2:00 o'clock I stood in Broun
Hall
at the very podium from which you addressed the Senate and lectured on
stereotypes and individual and institutional racism to a class of 120 freshman
in PSYC 1000 (my slides are posted on the CTWEB under the course number). Two
weeks of the course are devoted to "Disliking Others--stereotypes,
prejudice
and discrimination. The focus is on gender and racial discrimination, but I
also cover prejudice against others on the basis of age, weight, sexual
orientation, and disability...I talk about where stereotypes, prejudice and
discrimination originate, how they are maintained, and how we can work to
eradicate them (difficult as research suggests that these attitudes are both
explicit and implicit and those that are implicit are automatic and operate
outside of conscious awareness). I also cover this material in my PSYC 3580
course and in my graduate course in Social Psychology.
One positive aspect of this embarrassing and shameful
recent event is to
raise awareness among administrators such as yourself regarding the extent of
the racial problems we face on this campus and the extent of the ongoing work
among committed members of the faculty to combat them (I was distressed on
Monday to get an email from the Interim Dean of Liberal Arts announcing a
Teach In to encourage tolerance naming history and sociology as the
appropriate departments with expertise to address the issue). I have been a
social psychologist for 32 years and have taught and done research in the
areas of gender and racial prejudice and discrimination throughout my career
as I know have many of my colleagues in Political Science and English, among
others.
Having chaired the Department of Psychology for six
years I am also aware
of the extent of faculty resistance to racial equality on this campus as
evidenced in the chilly climate so many of our students and faculty of
color
report and our less than impressive record in the areas of recruitment and
retention of ethnic minority faculty and students. As a result I was
particularly pleased to hear you say that you had instructed Dr... Large to
find the money necessary to institute curricular revisions and programs to
address the issue. As you and I have discussed on at least two occasions that
commitment has not been clearly evidenced at upper administrative levels in
the recent past and the embarrassing national press we have received in the
last two weeks will only make faculty and student recruitment more difficult
in the coming months. This is especially troubling given the modest but
significant gains we made on the student side in the last year.
Had you not had to leave to go to a meeting after your
remarks to the
Senate yesterday, I would have asked about the failure of the Board of
Trustees publically address the events of Halloween night. Given the gravity
of the situation for the future of the institution to which they claim to be
deeply committed in the eyes of the world, nation, state and regional
accrediting body
I would have thought (hoped) they would have exerted unequivocal moral
leadership on this issue that reflects so grievously on us all.
Ginny
Virginia E. O'Leary, Professor
Department of Psychology
________________________________________________________
Dear Dr. Walker,
Until now I have curbed my urge to write to you about the
despicable racist acts of two AU fraternities at their Halloween parties. I have not written because I know you to be
a leader in increasing diversity on the AU campus and agree with the rapid
steps your administration has taken to deal with these incidents and the
underlying attitudes that spawned them.
Why should I, I asked myself, add to Dr. Walker's load by offering yet another
e-mail that says little more than "Me, too?" I fell no need to "micromanage"
this issue; you were doing fine without my input.
I write now in direct response to your unnecessarily
hostile, angry, and disrespectful chastisement of the faculty at yesterday's
Senate meeting. While I will not burden
you with a resume of my own attempts to stand up for diversity on campus, I
will say that your characterization of faculty as lax and lame regarding this
issue is nonsense on its face. Many of
us work constantly to improve race relations at AU, to promote tolerance, to
eliminate discrimination, and to increase minority representation among
students and faculty here. I will say,
too, that I have made public statements about how AU is handling this current embarrassment
in which I have consistently supported your work.
Let me now rise to the challenge I inferred from your
remarks yesterday, and address the issue of racism at AU. I am of the opinion that from 1963 when
Harold Franklin sued AU for admission through today, Auburn has followed a policy
of doing little more than what was needed to satisfy federal court orders
regarding desegregation and, as we would say today, fostering diversity. That situation has improved over the years
but there is still only the rudiments of a formal method to champion racial,
sexual, gender, religious diversity at AU.
Indeed, we have avoided the institutional soul-searching that is the
first step towards changing the culture of bigotry in which we are steeped.
Our "dirty little secret" at Auburn is that,
regardless of the hundreds of students who are truly tolerant, one does not
have to scratch deeply to expose the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic,
and religious bigotry that is part and parcel of the plantation mentality and
culture of the Deep South.
Such attitudes are subtly reinforced by many of the
institutional arrangements at AU. Let
me note a few examples. Diversity of
race, gender, and even thought seems to have been squeezed out of the upper
rungs of AU's board and administration over the past year. Students with a proclivity towards bigotry
see and absorb the message implied by this unfortunate circumstance. Furthermore, we have institutionalized an
entertainment industry in which African Americans (and often whites) are lured
to Auburn with the promise of a college education in exchange for performing
with our semiprofessional football and basketball teams. We all know that graduation rates for men in
those sports is not as good as it should be.
Nowadays AU enshrines (or acquiesces in the enshrinement) of many
African Americans as heroes, but putting these young men and women on pedestals
turns them into objects, and doing so for their athletic accomplishments alone
reinforces racial stereotypes many of us have spent our lives battling.
Finally, Auburn has institutionalized bigotry by ignoring
the defects we know exist in the fraternity and sorority system. AU demands little diversity from its Greeks,
yet has done much to give competitive advantages to Greek organizations that it
has not given to other student groups.
While the Black Student Union begs the SGA for operating funds, AU has
backed or made direct loans totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars to
finance chapter house construction.
While honorary societies have struggled for years to justify coming to
campus, AU has opened its arms to Greek colonization without demanding
diversity and academic excellence. And
while a State Senator cum Trustee bemoans every tuition or tax increase as a direct
threat to the ability of the poor to attend this school, AU has turned a blind
eye to what we all know is true: that
fraternities and sororities exist to discriminate between the "ins"
and the "outs," sending the message that discrimination in all its
forms is not only tolerated but encouraged.
This is not what we mean to say, but it is what many want to hear.
We talk and talk and talk about education being the top
priority of AU, but most of what we do to support the academic aspects of this
school is invisible to the young and relatively unsophisticated eyes of our
students. Regardless of what words
"those damn liberal" professors pound into their heads during class,
a glance westward through the windows in Haley Center lets students know what
the University as an institution considers to be TRULY important. A glance at their peers identified by
university-supported Greek regalia, avidly discussing the next costume party,
lets students know what the University conspiratorially allows. They see what we show before they hear what
we say. The effect of these
contradictions is cumulative and relentless, so that students can barely resist
our institutional malaise even when they want to do so. The culture of objectification, of
groupthink, of misplaced priorities, of power wielded by a single ethnic/gender
group, of discrimination covered by one's position, is endemic at Auburn. It cannot be rooted out until the
University--beginning with the Administration--searches its soul and discovers,
then articulates clearly and "from the mountaintop," the commitment
to equality, citizenship, and excellence in learning that should be the only
goals of this great university. Then it
must act to eradicate the entrenched powers that stand in the way regardless of
how traditional those powers claim to be or how much money they claim to make.
We all know, Dr. Walker, what is right. You and you alone have the power to enforce
that right. Will you lead us against
bigotry, or bow out of the fight by claiming a captain does not involve himself
in the crew's squabbles? Punishing a
few fools will not the end the problem.
I stand with you to create the basic institutional changes that sends
the message loud and clear:
"Auburn Rejects the Culture of Objectification and
Discrimination. It Embraces Diversity
and Turns Its Complete Attention to Educating the Mind and Body of Each of Its
Students Equally."
I have accepted your challenge. Will you accept mine?
Regards,
Marty Olliff
Assistant Archivist
Dr. Walker,
You insulted all Auburn faculty at the Senate yesterday.
You complained -- your exact words were that you were "shocked" --
that
very few faculty had sent email to you personally, implying that we did not
care because we didn't say it to you. And then you left quickly before
anyone could respond. We understand that this has put a stress on your
schedule and that you could not stay, but . . .
Several of us wanted to tell you that a memo to the interim president is
not the only way for faculty to express concern. In fact, among the many
ways we could deal with it, a memo to you might be way down the list of
viable places for expression. If students act like twits, our first act is
rarely to contact your office unless the racial or ethnic stereotyping is
being ecnouraged by a dean or department administrator.
On this recent incident, contrary to your statement at the Senate, . . .
We care.
We talked to each other.
We had discussions with our own students, with our administrators and with
faculty on other campuses.
It was on the AAUP discussion lines.
There were emails exchanged between faculty. And faculty talked to students
in classes.
Since you are eager to get email from faculty, I now will encourage
everyone to write to you.
May your mailbox runneth over.
.
Herbert Jack Rotfeld
Professor, Department of Marketing
Dr. Walker,
You insulted all Auburn faculty at the Senate yesterday.
You complained -- your exact words were that you were "shocked" --
that
very few faculty had sent email to you personally, implying that we did not
care because we didn't say it to you. And then you left quickly before
anyone could respond. We understand that this has put a stress on your
schedule and that you could not stay, but . . .
Several of us wanted to tell you that a memo to the interim president is
not the only way for faculty to express concern. In fact, among the many
ways we could deal with it, a memo to you might be way down the list of
viable places for expression. If students act like twits, our first act is
rarely to contact your office unless the racial or ethnic stereotyping is
being ecnouraged by a dean or department administrator.
On this recent incident, contrary to your statement at the Senate, . . .
We care.
We talked to each other.
We had discussions with our own students, with our administrators and with
faculty on other campuses.
It was on the AAUP discussion lines.
There were emails exchanged between faculty. And faculty talked to students
in classes.
Since you are eager to get email from faculty, I now will encourage
everyone to write to you.
May your mailbox runneth over.
.
Herbert Jack Rotfeld
Professor, Department of Marketing
November 14, 2001
Dear Dr. Walker.
I was at the
university senate meeting yesterday as the representative from the political
science department. At first, I was sympathetic when you said that you had
experienced the most difficult week of your presidency at Auburn University
dealing with the racially insensitive behavior of fraternities at Auburn during
the Halloween party season. Your next comments, however, stunned me. You
actually blamed Auburn’s faculty for not doing our job to create appreciation
for diversity on campus and teach students to do that.
While I can fully
appreciate how difficult the last week has been for you to defend Auburn
University before the national press and to try to convince them that we are
not the Alabama of the pre-1960s, I am saddened by your lack of awareness and
appreciation of what we as faculty have done for years to promote respect for
diversity on this campus and in this state. Your comments indicated that you
were disappointed in faculty because you received only 6 faculty e-mails out of
1,000 and that you believed we were not doing our job to educate students about
respect for diversity and to condemn racist attitudes and insensitivities.
Then you left the
university senate meeting without giving us a chance to comment. I must say
that I was extremely disappointed in your behavior and your accusations and
your lack of awareness of what so many of us have struggled to accomplish for
years on this campus. Once again, you seem to join the sentiments of members of
the Board of Trustees, who repeatedly devalue faculty contributions to the
university and who remain oblivious to what we do, how we do it, and why we do
it. It is truly discouraging to work so hard with such commitment to Auburn
University and the good of the larger community and to be dismissed as
irrelevant (at best) and/or harmful (at worst).
I really implore you
to do your homework before you criticize faculty in the future. I urge that you
discover what we do, read what we suggest, and consider our input before you
offer your assessments of our performance, judge our motives, or dismiss our
concerns. We are, for the most part, earnest, sincere, and dedicated to
advancing education, improving our society, and practicing what we teach.
Your critique that
the faculty has not done its job ignores the multitude of faculty efforts
throughout the years at Auburn to seed and nurture respect for diversity and to
discourage narrow-minded, bigoted thoughts and behavior. As a female faculty
member, I still endure labels of “femin-nazi” from some students; I have been
told in class by a male student that women are not deserving of respect; I face
scowls and sighs every semester by some of my white male students when I try to
raise consciousness of racism and sexism.
For your information,
this semester I am teaching Political Participation and the president of the
Black Student Union is in my class and is receiving academic credit for his
efforts to promote the adoption of the Birmingham Pledge on campus. We have
spent many hours in class discussing the importance of respect for diversity,
not only on college campuses, but in the larger community. I have attended countless
forums and events on campus to support these views and to model the behavior I
encourage in students, ever since I set foot on this campus..
Yes, I could have
told you that racism, sexism, and other forms of intolerance exists on this
campus and that something needs to be done about it. Yet, had I done so without
the evidence of the last two weeks, I
would have been dismissed and treated as a traitor to the Auburn Family. I
could have told you since 1993 when I first arrived on this campus that all was
not well, but I would have been labeled as a malcontent, a critic of the
blissful Auburn Family. Vice-President of Outreach, David Wilson wrote an
editorial that appeared in the Birmingham News on Sunday about how lonely he
was in the university administration as the only non-Caucasian member of the
higher administration. He explained that diversity is not just diversity of
race or gender, but also diversity of thought.
It is with great
sadness that I experienced your critique yesterday of how the faculty has
failed the university. You judge us without facts, without understanding, and
without recognition of how we have struggled to promote respect for diversity.
When I attended the rally on Samford Lawn last week to support AUnite and to
lend my support to the stand for unity and opposition against bigotry, I stood
among students, staff, and faculty. I waited among hundreds to sign the Auburn
pledge. While standing in the midst of diverse faculty and students, I noticed
that on the steps of Samford Hall, AU administrators stood above the masses.
They were all white and all males (except for one woman). The first thought
that crossed my mind is that the example needs to start at the top. The
administration needs to represent diversity–not only of race, but of gender and
culture, and most of all diversity of thought. A graduate student of mine, who
attended the rally with me, made a comment to me along those lines. Then I read
David Wilson’s commentary about his loneliness at Auburn.
You have rightfully
and boldly taken a vocal and strong stand against the actions of the two
fraternities involved. In that, you have many allies. You have the backing of
faculty, who organize forums, who revise curriculum, who confront political
issues and problems in their classes. It is not fair or just to castigate us
for the ubiquitous racism/sexism/classism that exists in Alabama. I ask that
for once, you stand strongly with the faculty, that you acknowledge our
contributions, and you accept us as partners in solving problems. Please do not
continue to castigate and devaluate faculty who are so dedicated to improving
the quality of life for everyone in the state.
Sincerely,
Christa Daryl Slaton
Professor, Political
Science