Auburn University General Faculty Meeting
March 12,
2002
3:00 p.m.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Jim
Bradley.
Jim Bradley, Chair of University Senate: We will begin by approving the minutes of the
University Faculty meeting. Those are posted on the web; I’m sure we’ve all
seen them. Does anyone have a correction or an addition, deletion, or change in
those minutes as they are posted? Hearing none, those minutes are approved as
posted on the web.
The next item is the announcements. For the announcements from
President’s Office, Dr. Walker is out of town today and couldn’t get back
because of the weather. I believe he’s in Birmingham. Dr. (John) Heilman is
here and will read Dr. Walker’s State of the University address for 2002. Dr.
Heilman.
John Heilman, Assistant to the
President: I will follow Jim’s advice
and speak directly into the microphone. I’ll read these remarks as Dr. Walker
prepared them.
Dr. Walker’s State of the University
Address
(As read by
John Heilman)
I want to begin today by acknowledging my deep
appreciation and gratitude to all the senate officers for the leadership
they have provided the University Senate during this past year. In particular,
I wish to thank Jim Bradley and Isabelle Thompson for their dedicated service.
Their task has not always been easy, and the road we have traveled is not one
they would have preferred. In my opinion, however, Jim and Isabelle have
persevered through extremely turbulent times and have done a fine job of
representing this Faculty. We have not always agreed on every aspect of the
issues, or even what the issues are, but they have carried the banner of
governance high and have given their very best. I sincerely applaud both of you
for your efforts on behalf of the Faculty, the Senate, and the University.
Much of my commentary today is going to deal with
matters of diversity and tolerance and where we are with respect to them. As
you may recall, last fall I charged the university with developing and
implementing actions and programs to make diversity and tolerance “core” values
of this institution. I want to share with you my thinking on these issues and
to describe some of the steps that have been taken as well as those that are
underway.
First, please understand that I cannot claim (and I am
speaking with Dr. Walker’s voice here) I cannot claim to have been hurt in the
same way that our Black students and faculty were by the events of last
October. But I can tell you that, along with many others, I was deeply angered,
disappointed and offended.
What we witnessed was a demonstration of degradation
and insensitivity that has embarrassed all of us. It reflects a deep-seated
problem, and it is to this deeper problem that our response should ultimately
be directed.
There are legitimate differences of opinion about the
means by which we can best do this. As
we saw at the Senate meeting a week ago, one approach favors a fairly detailed
statement of policy and procedures that would entail a new and dramatically
different process for exploring specific actions that appear problematic.
If I understand correctly what has been proposed, I
personally have reservations about this approach because I see it as an attempt
to legislate morality. Historically, such
efforts have been ineffective because they tend to conflict with constitutional
protections.
It seems to me that the more promising course of
action relies on our identity as an educational institution. Educational
programs are, after all, our stock in trade.
Accordingly, I think our best chance lies in
educational programming that is designed to create a culture and a community
that engages diversity; one that finds racism, intolerance and discrimination
so abhorrent that those who would practice it are ostracized.
Far more important than my own view, however, is that
fundamental issues are involved; and all of us need to understand that there
are strong feelings on the many sides of them. So it seems to me that these
issues need to be debated openly within the university community, and probably
in forums such as the Senate.
I suggest that open debate would fit well with the
comments made by Mr. Clarence Page made at last Wednesday’s Franklin-Littleton
Lecture that some of you attended. When asked what we should do to address
issues of tolerance and diversity, he replied that first we need to talk with
one another. He then said something
that resonated with me because it is something I have felt but have never really
had the courage to say. That is “white people don’t want to talk about racism,
but racism is all black people do want to talk about.”
Mr. Page also said we need to recognize that a problem
exists, and to understand that progress will occur only over time. That is
important to note because some have recently suggested that the university’s
reactions to the events of last fall were mere lip service that has not been
followed by actions.
I certainly do not agree with that notion and I
suggest a different interpretation. Indeed, we did begin by convening a number
of forums and convocations to discuss Halloween-related events and the issues
they raised. This was exactly what we should have done. It was our way of
confirming publicly that a problem did exist and needed to be addressed.
Those activities, however, will prove to have been
meaningful only if followed by long-term and systematic action. Here is an
overview of what all of us have done and are doing.
We have worked closely, and are continuing to work
closely, with individuals as well as the fraternities that were at the center
of the events last Halloween. Because of litigation that has been brought
against us, I cannot go into details. I would suggest, however, that if we had
done nothing, or done very little, we would very likely not be facing the kind
of legal challenges that have been brought against us.
The actions we have taken with respect to individual
fraternity members and their particular organizations represent only the tip of
the iceberg. Changing our culture will take time, and will require efforts that
reach into all corners of this institution.
Programming along these lines is already under way.
The Office of Student Affairs sponsors portions of it. The staff there has
helped create a project called Programs Emphasizing Acceptance, Change, and
Education — that acronym is PEACE — and many events have already taken place
under this aegis.
We hope also to benefit from the insights of others
who can bring to campus a perspective based on national-level experience. I
would like to comment on two initiatives in particular.
One is that in an effort to improve upon our existing
Greek Life community, Student Affairs is hosting three Greek Life professionals
on campus for a formal review of our Greek community. I met with the visitors yesterday
and look forward to receiving their recommendations.
Also, as many of you are aware, the Russell
Corporation has been generous in supporting our efforts to change our culture.
Russell is making it possible for Mr. Julius Pryor, their director of diversity,
and Mr. Kevin Clayton, a diversity consultant, to conduct five training courses
on campus for key groups including administrators. I attended the first session
and found it to be outstanding.
I think anyone meeting Julius Pryor will find him to be
both energetic and realistic in terms of how he thinks about diversity
programming. I find it instructive that Julius began his work at Russell
Corporation three years ago, but their first actual diversity programming
activity started just last month.
Our efforts will not end with the work that Julius
Pryor and Kevin Clayton are doing. Provost John Pritchett is putting together a
Diversity Leadership Council. It will work with various constituencies of the
university to develop a comprehensive diversity plan. The goal for this plan
will be to weave respect for diversity into the very fabric of this
institution.
Additionally, the Multicultural Diversity Commission
has been designated a standing University Committee. And, under the leadership
of Bruce Gladden and Johnny Green, the Commission has submitted to the
Provost’s Office a proposal to establish a Center for Diversity and Race
Relations. In the near term that center will likely be housed in Foy Union,
which will ensure accessibility. Funding is being freed up for personnel. The
Center’s staff will include a coordinator, a faculty member-in-residence, and
support personnel.
With respect to the curricular component of cultural
change, I want to acknowledge the tremendous effort that faculty across the university
have made, and are making, to incorporate into their courses information and
issues that are relevant to diversity and tolerance.
As I commented earlier, our institutional strength
lies in the academic programming that is the domain of our faculty. In order to
assess the full range of our academic offerings in relation to diversity, we
have asked for information from all who are engaged in these efforts, and we
are compiling the results. Some may question our revisiting of what is. If we
are to move forward, however, we need to determine where we are at present.
Now, I have spent much of my time this afternoon
discussing what we are doing to move forward with respect to diversity and
tolerance as core values of the Auburn community. But this is not the only area
in which I see Auburn moving forward. I want now to spend a few moments
touching on some other important activities that are underway.
In particular, I believe we are making significant
progress in terms of building institutional capacity. Several lines of activity
are involved. One of them involves Dr. Bill Weary’s report, which the Trustees
adopted at their February meeting.
That report, called Auburn University’s Agenda, is
essentially a road map for rebuilding what Dr. Weary calls the commons, or
those qualities that make the institution unique.
The Board directed Mr. Samford and me to establish a
committee to report back by June with recommendations on implementing the Weary
report. The committee should begin meeting fairly soon, and I look forward to
seeing its recommendations.
At its February meeting the Board also addressed a
question I raised about how large an enrollment we should plan for Auburn
University. This is an important question because as we attempt to determine
how much funding we need to meet all our goals, the question of size keeps
arising. The Board’s answer was based in part on a report from Sasaki
Associates who are conducting an analysis of future space requirements for the
campus.
The Board said rather emphatically that 25,000
students should be our target number for on campus students. In addition, the
split between undergraduate and graduate students should be 80% undergraduate
and 20% graduate; or 20,000 undergraduates and 5,000 graduate students.
We are currently almost at that figure for
undergraduates (19,650) and still have a way to go for graduate students
(2,819). Our fall semester enrollment was 22,469. Therefore, any growth in
enrollment must be restricted to graduate students.
In addition, the Board indicated its interest in
increasing campus housing to the extent that we could accommodate 25% of the
undergraduate population. Data compiled by Student Affairs strongly suggests
that students who have had an on campus experience have better retention and
graduation records than those who have not. We may in fact be moving toward
requiring all freshmen to live on campus. I have charged our Director of
Auxiliary Enterprises, Mr. Ritenbaugh, to develop construction and funding
plans as well as a timetable to accomplish this project.
The Board has further expressed interest, again based
on recommendations from the Sasaki group, in Auburn becoming a pedestrian
campus. This raises a large number of questions, the answers for which we do
not have at the present time; things like hours of operation, starting date,
areas of campus impacted, delivery vehicles, and of course where will faculty
park? In an effort to try to answer some of these I have directed Dr. Christine
Curtis to develop an experimental protocol and begin experimentation next fall
if at all possible. So you may begin to see some changes taking place as we
carry out these studies.
The kind of changes we are discussing in conjunction
with our planning activities require funding that is more stable and more
substantial than what we currently have. Besides tuition, the two main funding
sources we rely on are public and private, and I want to comment on each of
these areas.
In terms of public funding, the economy and the
outlook for the Education Trust Fund are not at all clear at this time. As I
have indicated on previous occasions, the legislature did find some extra
monies to address an expected budget shortfall in the current fiscal year.
However, those estimates were based on economic
indicators prior to 9/11. Therefore, the dramatic declines in revenues that
resulted from the events of September 11 were not factored into the
calculations. The economy does, however, appear to be showing signs of
improving somewhat. This explains the willingness of the House Ways and Means
Committee last week to forward to the House an appropriations bill with
provisions for pay increases. We will continue to monitor the situation with every
intention of addressing issues of salary.
Our commitment to improving salaries in relation to
regional averages remains a very high priority. Toward that end I think it is
reasonable to speculate that we will be recommending a tuition increase for the
next fiscal year. The exact amount will of course depend on how we do with
respect to state funding.
With respect to private funding, I will briefly
summarize reports I have made at recent meetings of the Senate and the Board of
Trustees. A feasibility study for a capital campaign is under way, and we are
in the latter stages of recruiting a Vice President for Development to provide
leadership for that campaign.
Clearly, we must do all we can to increase the public
and private resources that are available to us. At the same time, however, I
want us to be thinking in terms of the resources that we help make available to
the State of Alabama.
Those of you who attended my State of the University
address this past fall may recall my urging that economic growth in this state
should be a key objective of Auburn University and indeed of all Alabama’s
research universities. Why, for example, should we not envision Auburn
University spearheading technologically sophisticated economic development
along the southern end of the I–85 corridor?
The presidents of the state’s other research
universities have expressed great interest in the role we can play in economic
development for this state. In my opinion, this is an idea whose time has
clearly arrived and Auburn needs to take the lead in advancing it.
I believe, incidentally, that this idea can fit well
with the university-wide review we are undertaking of Auburn’s goals and
funding needs in the framework set forth by the 21st Century Commission.
A large task force that I have appointed and that
calls itself the Directions Group is conducting this examination of Auburn’s
future direction. Several committees are up and running as part of their
planning process. You can keep track of their work by visiting the Directions
Group page on Auburn’s web site.
In conclusion, while I have spent a lot of time this
afternoon speaking about issues of diversity, I have hoped also to provide an
overview of other areas in which Auburn is moving forward. Over the past decade
or two, the world of higher education has become highly competitive. While
there is no shortage of challenges, I believe that the initiatives I have described
can do much to help us chart a successful course for Auburn University. That is
my report, and I will be happy to take some questions.
End of Written/Read Remarks
John Heilman: And now putting down the summary of Dr. Walker, I
will glad to take questions. I don’t know whether I’ll be able to respond to
them. I’ll do my best. Questions which you would like me to convey to Dr.
Walker, I’ll be happy to do that. Jim, thank you very much.
James Bradley: Questions for Dr. Heilman?
(Question from audience — unable to identify): I’m sorry, I just missed
why he’s not here today?
Response from Heilman: He is at a meeting of SEC Presidents and from what I
understand the weather made it impossible for him to get back in time for this
meeting.
Richard Penaskovic: inaudible question regarding Peaks of Excellence.
Response from Heilman: There are a lot of questions wrapped in what you said
and I don’t know whether I’ll be able to respond. I’ll try my best also to be
careful to say which are my responses since this is a matter of interest to me
and also what I think Dr. Walker’s view might be. On the very important
question that I think you have articulated on the Peaks of Excellence. That’s a
fair point, that’s a fair observation. And I know that it is one that has
occupied Dr. Walker’s thinking. And I would … I would encourage you to raise
that with him at the next Senate meeting. I know he has some thoughts on that.
Turning to bias against Liberal Arts, I … quite
candidly … I’ll say what I think. I have not seen and I am not aware of bias
against Liberal Arts. I care very deeply about the programs in that College and
am quite aware of the candidacy that was not successful. I think that I can
speak to the theory of the Peaks of Excellence. I’ll make this very brief
because I know that you are all here to listen to Dr. Walker, not me. I think
the theory of Peaks of Excellence is that one begins in developing institution
building by starting with areas of excellence, building them up, and then using
the ships metaphor, the rising tide
lifts all ships. I won’t try to debate the merits or demerits of that theory
but I think that’s the underlying theory. This certainly isn’t the only
institution where that approach has been taken. The issue you raise is a good
one. I would raise it with Bill.
Herb Rotfeld, Marketing: I’m sorry Dr. Walker isn’t here to answer this
directly. About increasing the enrollments of graduate programs by 50%. First
of all, we are cutting programs. We have many parts of campus dealing with enrollment
controls. In my own college at the undergraduate level, enrollment controls ...
in our MBA Program, which has been one of the growth programs on campus, we
have some sections where the student count was scored in each section. But my
question. The tuition students pay costs a fraction of the amount it takes to
educate them. I hear about formula funding for the state, but I’m not too clear
on the formula in years where there isn’t any funding. So, how are we going to
pay for all of these increases in students?
Response from Heilman: There are different ways of getting at that. Some are
tax law, I think, and I won’t spend a long time with that. This is done —
speaking very briefly from my perspective and not trying to represent what Dr.
Walker would say — I think one could make an argument that there are some areas
in which we could absorb more students, especially in the upper division
courses without increasing the number of faculty that’s needed. I personally
think there are significant limits on how effective that argument could be. At
the strategic level, I think Dr. Walker might say you’re asking a terrific
question when in fact, he’s asked it too. And that is the question around which
the work of this was organized, based on the goals and recommendations of the
21st Century Commission. And the key questions that go directly to
this group are: Where are we headed? How much will it cost? And how do we raise
the money? So, I think he’s recognized the validity of your question and he
says that answer that we need come up with will take a lot of work and we’re
working on it.
Herb Rotfeld: Seems we are moving ahead before we’ve considered the
costs.
Response from Heilman: Right now I’d refer you to the Provost and Wes
Williams and Graduate Student Affairs to talk about where admissions are right
now. Remember, my thought, this is an objective that the Board was speaking to,
not something to be accomplished this year or next year. In fact, I think that
was probably a better answer to the question than I gave you earlier.
(Unable to Identify Speaker): The same issues, a follow-up. We don’t have a
selective memory. If we talk about building dormitories because it will enhance
the retention of students, yet in our programs we’re turning away after the second
year literally 50% of the students that we attracted to campus because we don’t
have the resources to teach them. To me the idea of proposing growth in
facilities and growth in students is like leading with your chin in boxing. So
my question is this, when are we going to talk bout expansion of the facility?
Response from Heilman: I think that is a terrific question and I would
(laughter drowns out). That is a very good question and I would … one of the
questions that occurred in my experience in Liberal Arts. I hear what you are
saying. I see that … I see that same issue. And I’ll convey that directly to
him. I am taking notes on that and he’ll get them.
Judy Sheppard, Journalism: You said you had a personal bias ... With respect to
Liberal Arts, you don’t see a bias against?
Response from Heilman: If I add up the experiences I’ve had in
administrative positions over the last … actually it’s most of decade or so,
I’d have … I see a Liberal Arts which nets exports in tuition, with Colleges of
Liberal Arts and probably Math and Sciences clear across the country. So yes,
there are issues there. But do I see a College where there is systematic bias
against it, my honest answer is no.
Judy Sheppard: I just wondered because I think back to an article in
the Plainsman two Decembers ago
in which Trustee Robert Lowder addressed the SGA and said that if you wanted to
get an advanced degree in the Humanities, Auburn was not place for you to be.
That kind of statement suggests to me some kind of bias against the College of
Liberal Arts. You have not seen any sign of that?
Response from Heilman: I read those statements too. I believe the question
is: as a practical matter, does that translate into decisions that I see? Well,
I think the leg bone is connected to the knee bone — it’s that connection that
I haven’t seen. My experience.
James Bradley: Now I’ll have some announcements. Diverse
announcements.
· Six past-chairs of the
University Faculty, VP Don Large, and I attended the inauguration of Dr.
William Muse as Chancellor at East Carolina University last Friday. I wish to
thank Dr. Walker for making this possible. It meant a lot to the Muses to have
us there, and they send their greetings to the entire Auburn University
Faculty. Both the Moses= said to greet the Auburn faculty for them, and so I do
that on their behalf.
· Next announcement is an
event coming up March 15. The Alumni Association is having a reception for the
Alumni Professors; new ones as of 2001, Alumni Teachers, and Alumni Student
Scholars. You see the date, the time and the place of the reception, the Auburn
Center. All of you are invited to attend. Vice President DeMent suggested that
if you knew for certain you were attending, to call that number and tell her.
They=ll have plenty of food for you. The Alumni Association is very active and
committed to supporting academics endeavors of the university.
· State of Alabama House
Rules Committee Hearing on Constitutional Reform Convention referendum
Wednesday, March 13, 10 a.m., Alabama Statehouse. That=s chaired by Jack
Venable, one of our trustees. This is a very important hearing. All faculty are
encouraged to attend and show support for voters being allowed to decide
whether a Constitutional Reform Convention shall be held. I know that Barb Struempler
is planning to go there and speak, but any faculty who were able and willing to
go, it would be much appreciated.
· Now, a little about the
University Task Force to Examine Bill Weary’s Report, which was submitted to
the University in January. Part of the resolution adopted by the Board of
Trustees at their last meeting established this “so-called” Task Force which
was claimed by Dr. Walker and Trustee Jimmy Sanford. My understanding is that
the charge is to examine closely the recommendations that Dr. Weary made and
then to recommend which of those could be implemented and how they could be
implemented to the University. So, this is an extremely important Task Force.
And the reason I bring it up today is because C in addition to announcing that it
is important C is that the membership there is a little bit of, I don’t want to
say controversy, but something that’s arisen; the two faculty members on the
Task Force were appointed by Dr. Walker and Jimmy Samford. They are good
people; you all know them; they are past officers of the Senate and the
faculty. The problem is that the procedure which was used was not in the spirit
of Senate governance; there was no consultation with the Senate Rules
Committee. So the Rules Committee has voted unanimously to request two
additional faculty seats to be placed on the Task Force and that those two
additional faculty positions be recommended by the Rules Committee. So that
request has been made to Dr. Walker and we are waiting to hear a response on
that, and as soon as we do hear a response you’ll know about it by way of some
communication by Barb Struempler probably.
The present membership includes:
Jack Miller, Chair
Erlon McWhorter
John Heilman, Secretary
Don Logan, Alumni Association
Mary Boudreaux, Faculty
Gene Clothiaux, Faculty
Ellyn Hix, A&P Assembly
Harold Cummins, Staff Council
Brandon Riddick-Seals, SGA
One year ago tomorrow the General Faculty voted over 300 to 1 to
establish an Ad Hoc Joint Assessment Committee to recommend a way to obtain an
external assessment of the Board of Trustees. As you know, the JAC recommended
that SACS do this assessment and that that required the filing of a complaint
about Board performance with SACS. As you also know, the SACS investigation of
the complaint and the assessment that the faculty requested via the senate one
year ago has not yet happened. I do wish to assure you though the JAC
recognizes the importance of that assessment for two reasons: (1) for the
university’s accreditation reaffirmation which is to occur next year, and (2)
also to help the university prepared for a Presidential search and for the
faculty’s eventual participation in that search. The JAC remains committed to
obtaining the external assessment of Board performance. At this time the JAC
Committee remains hopeful that this can be still be accomplished through SACS,
but alternatives may need to be considered if the fallout from the lawsuit
against SACS is not resolved soon so that an investigative team can come to
Auburn. So, this is just to tell you that the JAC is still in existence, we are
monitoring this. The Committee is committed to carrying out its charge given to
it a year ago.
· The last announcement
covers the Joint Interim Legislative Committee on Higher Education Governance.
The Report was submitted to the State Senate and State House of Representatives
on March 5 by its chair, George Landegger. The report recommends establishment
of a Board of Regents for the 4-year institutions of higher learning in the
State of Alabama. The cover letter for the report records the votes of the
committee members: 4 in favor (George Landegger, Elmer Harris, Sen. Ted Little,
Dr. Ed Richardson), 2 against (Dr. William Walker, Mr. Gordon Moulton), and 2
abstaining (Rep. Yvonne Kennedy, Rep. Richard Lindsey). I will be glad to
provide a copy of the report to any of you who would like to have one. Please
request these from me via e-mail.
That concludes my announcements. Are there any questions?
Connor Bailey: How much was spent on funding the JAC?
Jim Bradley: Zero.
Election of
Senate Offices for 2003: The election
commenced
(BALLOTS
DISTRIBUTED)
Mr. Stone gave appreciation to those persons in the
Senate who had worked on behalf of the Higher Education Partnership. He
reported that there are numerous exciting events going on in public policy that
will impact the state, the public policy community, and in particular that will
impact public universities. There are issues that have the opportunities to
either be positive or negative. Some of those issues obviously center around
funding and more specifically, they center around the Education Trust Fund
Budget. Right not, the Legislative Fiscal Office is forecasting a slight growth
in revenue for the 2003 fiscal year.
Specifically, Mr. Stone stated he was in attendance to
discuss an issue relating to the future of Alabama, specifically to Alabama’s
Constitution. He stated that the Higher Education Partnership endorsed efforts
currently underway to redraft Alabama’s Constitution. The Partnership is
actively working statewide to support the effort to educate the citizens of
Alabama on reform procedures. He gave some background on the Constitution,
spoke some problems with the Constitution, and gave sampling of opportunities
to change the Constitution. A one-hour seminar on Constitutional Reform is
scheduled for Auburn University on April 16.
Dr. Bradley gave special thanks to Dr. Isabelle Thompson for all her
work as Secretary of the Senate for the past year. He gave thanks to Dr. Herb
Rotfeld for his untiring work (four years) as Parliamentarian of the University
Senate. He also gave thanks to the many persons who worked on Committees and in
other positions. He reviewed the challenges he had faced since becoming Chair
of the Senate and summarized opportunities for helping Auburn University become
a better university. He concluded his address with the thought: “We are beaten
only when we lose sight of what we wish to become.” He thanked all for the
honor of serving as Chair.
Please see
Dr. Bradley’s farewell address in its entirety on the Senate Web Cover Page.
(www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/)
An announcement was made that the AAUP was having an
informal forum. Pat Shaw and Muriel
Poston will talk generally about what AAUP members and faculty can do in terms
of improving University governance on Thursday, March 13 at 4:00 p.m.
Judith Sheppard presented the Academic Freedom Award
to Dr. Jim Bradley. She explained that the Academic Freedom Award is given
annually to the person on campus who has done the most to advance AAUP’s two
top concerns: academic freedom and shared governance. Dr. Bradley expressed his
gratitude at being chosen for the prestigious award.
The second award, the
Meritorious Service Award was presented to Jacqueline Kojak of the Opelika–Auburn
News for her investigative reporting on higher education. She explained the
merits of the award (noting that it has only been given once before) and of
giving the award to a journalist. Ms. Kojak expressed her surprise and thanks
for receiving such an award.
Dr. Bradley announced that the Chair-elect was John Mouton of Building
Science, and the Secretary-Elect was Paula Sullenger of RBD Library. He
extended his congratulations to them.
Dr. Bradley then passed the baton and gavel to the new Chair, Dr.
Barbara Struempler.
Dr. Struempler accepted the chairmanship. She presented a plaque of
appreciation to Dr. Isabelle Thompson as Past Secretary. She also stated that
she has a plaque for Dr. Renée Middleton.
Dr. Struempler adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.