1993-94 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 1
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
OCTOBER 4, 1993
The first meeting of the University Senate for 1993-94 was convened in
the Hubert H. Humphrey Center Atrium, Minneapolis campus, on
Monday, October 4, 1993, at 4:00 p.m. Coordinate campuses were
linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 58
voting faculty/academic professional members, 41 voting student
members, 5 ex officio members, and approximately 250 nonmembers.
Ms. Sandy Pham, Vice Chair of the Senate presided.
I. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY ADDRESS
Honorable Regents, Distinguished Fellow Faculty and Staff Members of
the University, Students, Friends, and Colleagues on All of Our
Campuses, Alumni, and Supporters of the University œ
INTRODUCTION
We are only eight years away from a new millennium and the
arithmetic of our calendar does seem to influence our thinking; we are
facing momentous changes in our society and our world; and, the
changes we face, the challenges we face, have a millennial touch not
only by their magnitude but also in a sense by combining the threat of
disaster with the hope of a new and better order of things.
Please bear with me for a moment, if I hark back a thousand years œ to
the 990s. Please bear with me if I quote very briefly from an Icelandic
poem of that era, a poem that expresses the fear of disaster and the hope
of a better world to come.
The poem, The VœluspÝ ("The Vision of the Prophetess"), actually
describes the entire history of the world. I shall not! I will simply
invoke some of the metaphors of great literature in the hope of inspiring
our own modest efforts to deal with the fears and hopes of the end of a
millennium œ and the beginning of a new one.
On fear:
I will refrain from further use of Icelandic. In my translation:
Black turns the sun,
earth sinks in the sea,
from heaven fall
the stars aflame œ
The breakdown of the moral order, according to the poem, destroys the
physical, biological, and social foundations of life itself.
But millennial fears do not prevail.
Rising [the prophetess] sees
a second time
earth from ocean
evergreen œ
A hall she sees
fair as the sun,
covered with gold,
at Gimle;
there the faithful
fighters dwell
and bliss eternal
all enjoy.
And, now, after this flight of fancy, to the state of the University in the
late 1990s.
A STRONG UNIVERSITY AT A CRITICAL JUNCTURE
The State of the University of Minnesota is that of a strong and
productive institution, one in which we can œ and should œ all take great
pride. Top-ranked academic departments; nationally recognized faculty
and students; very high rankings in sponsored research, patents, and
private fund raising. We have the basic ingredients of a world-class
university. But, like so many institutions in our society, the University
is at a critical juncture this fall for two reasons:
First, we are under intense scrutiny and pressure from society and
morale is low.
Second, we are at a point of decision in planning for the University's
future development.
Today I will discuss with you
œ our situation with regard to public support and our finances
œ I will review very briefly what we have done over the last few years;
and
œ I will lay out my vision for the University for the next several years -
even somewhat ambitiously the next millennium.
PRESSURE AND MORALE
With regard to the problem of pressure and morale, I am concerned
about both faculty and staff, of all ranks and responsibilities. But, right
now I am particularly concerned about the faculty, because for the next
decade the faculty will be the most critical pressure point of the
University. We are entering a period in which there will be a wave of
retirements, as a result of which our faculty will need to renew itself.
Yet it is hard to think creatively of renewal when one is enduring
repeated pay freezes and a barrage of criticism.
You and I are doing what we do at the University because of our desire
to accomplish something of worth. But when that is continually called
into question, sometimes in uncharitable ways, it can be hard to carry
on. You must remember, though, that there continues to be broad
support among the people of this state for what you are doing. In recent
surveys, 83 percent of Minnesotans reported that they had a favorable
view of the University as an educational institution and 99 percent
considered the research function of the University important. (It was a
bit humbling to find that only 29 percent could name the President.)
To a large extent, our recent public travail comes from the inevitable
costs of opening up and becoming a university that is totally open to
public scrutiny. I came to this office pledged to open things up. I have
done so and I will continue to do so. Public scrutiny is good, and it
helps us to be a better university. But at least in the short run, this
process carries real costs. Some of these are financial œ the costs of
new auditing machinery, new budgeting procedures, and so on. Others
are psychological; as we identify our problems and set about dealing
with them, one news story after another pops up.
THE NATURE OF OUR PROBLEMS?
The University of Minnesota has been faced with a management
revolution in the past few years, a revolution:
œ in financial management, introducing a better system to handle a $1.8
billion annual budget where now only 28 percent comes from the
State;
œ in physical facilities, an area in deep trouble five years ago;
œ in research oversight, including complicated œ but potentially very
productive œ public-private partnerships; and
œ in the health sciences, where enormous changes at the national and
local levels present great challenges to our outstanding programs of
research and teaching, and especially to the clinical activities that are
necessary to support our research and teaching.
Most troubling have been the cases of malfeasance and research fraud
that have been uncovered œ very few in number, but casting a pall on
the 99.9 percent of our faculty and staff who are honest and dedicated
stewards of our research, teaching, and outreach.
Let there be no mistake about our position on accountability. Two
central principles must and will determine our response to problems:
First, we must properly use and fully account for all funds and property
entrusted to us.
Second, we have an absolute duty to be scrupulously honest in our
scholarship; without this a university is nothing, and we can tolerate
nothing less.
These two principles have guided and will continue to guide all of my
decisions as some troubling cases have unfolded.
Morale has also been hit hard by our financial situation. Over just three
years the state's cuts and losses to inflation have reduced the
University's funding by $59 million. With only $7.5 million made up
from tuition income, our net loss has been $51.5 million. We have had
two pay freezes in three years, and in four of the last five years our
faculty salaries have fallen relative to the other Big Ten schools. This
will not allow us to maintain the kind of faculty we need, and it cannot
continue if the state wants to have a first-rate University.
Whatever we can do for ourselves we will do. We have already done
some significant bootstrapping. We can and will operate even more
efficiently. And as needed, we will cut some programs and services in
order to do the remaining things well.
But we must make unmistakably clear to the state the consequences of
budgetary decisions. We need to enter into a new contract with the
state, one which lays out exactly what outcomes we can provide for
what investment. The people of Minnesota have a right to expect œ
demand œ clear outcomes from us, and eagerness on our part in meeting
their needs. But without the investment, the outcomes cannot follow.
THE AGENDA OF THE PAST FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS
As I said, we stand at a point of decision in our development as a
University. When I came back to the University four-and-a-half years
ago it seemed to me that we had to deal with four big problems:
We had to reestablish the state's trust in the University by opening it up
and making it accountable.
We had to reform the management of the University.
We had to improve the undergraduate experience at the University.
And, we had to stem the slow decline of quality in our academic
programs.
I have already commented on accountability and management. We have
certainly been working hard on opening up and becoming more
accountable, and we have taken and are taking a number of steps to
improve the management of the University. I also must note some of
the things we have done to address the other two problems: the
undergraduate experience and academic quality.
THE UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE
We have moved with some success to improve the undergraduate
experience.
œ Seventy-five percent of freshmen now meet all of our increased
preparation requirements, compared to 17 percent in 1986.
œ Our average class size has come down 26 percent over that time, and
additional class sections have solved much of our old problem of
inaccessible required courses.
œ The ratio of lower division students to CLA advisors has been cut in
half.
œ The liberal education curriculum on the Twin Cities campus has been
thoroughly revised, and similar curricular reforms have been carried
out on the other campuses.
œ The Crookston campus reorganized its entire program from two-year
degrees to four-year, polytechnic degrees.
And these are only a few high points. Much remains to be done, of
course, and I will speak to that in a moment.
ACADEMIC QUALITY
With regard to the slide in the academic quality of programs, we have
been less successful. I do not mean that we have clear evidence of
further decline over the last few years œ because of lags, evidence one
way or the other on this will not be in for some years. I am referring
instead to our Restructuring and Reallocation Plan of 1991. It is
addressed largely to the problem of program quality.
The plan is on schedule. We are reallocating $58 million œ 13 percent
of our State-appropriated dollars œ across the University, with funds
going to CLA, IT, and selected professional programs on the Twin
Cities campus, to Duluth, and to Morris œ and to system-wide initiatives
such as diversity, research development, and outreach. We are at the
mid-point œ and ahead of schedule œ of these reallocations.
However, the reallocation has been swamped in its effects by the State's
budget cuts.
Remember, I said earlier that our loss in state funds had been $59
million over just three years. Our reallocation did protect recipients of
reallocated funds from the deeper cuts experienced by the rest of the
University, but it could not provide the kind of program enrichment and
support we had intended.
UNIVERSITY 2000: THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOR
THE 21st CENTURY
Where should we head now?
The University of Minnesota of the 21st Century must be a leading,
global academic institution with research and graduate, professional, and
undergraduate teaching second to none.
And, the University of Minnesota of the 21st Century must be a
university in the community, sharing its intellectual resources with the
citizens of the State through a pervasive outreach philosophy and
effective outreach activities.
This vision of the University encompasses multiple campuses each with
a strong, unique mission:
Duluth will continue to develop as a major provider of undergraduate
and selected graduate education and research for the northeastern region,
but increasingly for the state as a whole.
Morris will continue to develop as a very distinctive, public, small
liberal arts college œ something some other states have tried to achieve
but never with our kind of success.
Crookston will develop its new unique residential, career-oriented
program œ a new contribution to Minnesota higher education.
The Rochester University Center will continue to grow as a cooperative
venture of the University of Minnesota, Winona State University, and
Rochester Community College.
The Twin Cities campus will continue to develop as our land-grant
research university.
Each campus must continue to develop its own plan as we work into the
1990s œ and much planning has already been done or is vigorously under
way; some plans are already being implemented. In clusters of
disciplines and professions, we are setting academic priorities and
exploring financial strategies to focus our efforts.
Taken together those plans will define University 2000: The University
of Minnesota for the 21st Century. This is not a university that focuses
just on research, or just on graduate and professional education, or just
on undergraduate education, or just on outreach. It is a university that
combines all these responsibilities in the right proportions, and with
strong focusing within each mission.
Today I want to go into particular detail about my vision for the Twin
Cities campus, and my plan for its development.
A VISION OF THE TWIN CITIES CAMPUS
My vision of the Twin Cities campus is, first œ and unambiguously, and
unabashedly œ a leading, global, research university.
This means that it emphasizes, and excels, at research, scholarship, and
artistic activity œ discovery, analysis, understanding . . . the creation of
knowledge and know how, the development of intellectual resources for
the state, nation, and world.
It means that it provides world-class graduate and professional
education, including educating many of the future faculty members of
other public and private colleges and universities in Minnesota, and
expertise and professionals in a variety of fields.
And it means that it provides instruction of undergraduates who are
sufficiently prepared and focused in their aspirations that they can
benefit from the resources of a research University.
But, the Twin Cities campus is also a research university with a
distinctive land-grant mission that not all research universities have.
We are a land-grant research university.
THE LAND-GRANT RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
This is a unique American invention. In other countries, research is
usually isolated from general education in academies or graduate
universities. America developed a new kind of university, the research
university, in which research and graduate training are combined with,
and feed, the education of undergraduates who can particularly benefit
from work with the originators of knowledge.
And some, but not all, American research universities go a step further.
Through the Extension Service and other means of knowledge transfer,
they provide for the sharing of the results of research with society as an
integral part of their mission. They share knowledge and know how
with families, farmers, business people, professionals, other educational
institutions, yes, with people in every county of their states.
These are the land-grant research universities. They are a wonderful
American invention. Right now universities all over America are
scrambling to act like land-grant research universities, but we are in the
fortunate position of only having to refine our land-grant mission, not
invent it. We have it. We must cherish it, and hone it œ and bear it as
a badge of honor!
We are a land-grant research university!
The term "research university" gives some people trouble. Let me state
what it means in our vision statement.
It means a university where research, scholarship, and artistic activity
conducted by the faculty create special intellectual resources for society
which in turn provide opportunities for graduate and professional
education and a special kind of undergraduate education of very high
quality.
I said we need to refine our mission. What most needs refining right
now? What are the problems that require fixing? Why are we working
so hard at planning?
THREE PROBLEMS ON THE TWIN CITIES CAMPUS
I am particularly concerned about three problems on the Twin Cities
campus:
First, the continued problem of building and maintaining quality in our
academic programs, both research and teaching.
Second, the continued problem of providing an outstanding educational
experience for our students, especially our undergraduates; not just
excellent content but a strongly supportive environment, and services
geared to the needs of students with very different needs.
Third, the need for the University of Minnesota to use its unique
resources to provide a new form of applied, directly employment-related
education.
If we tried to address these three problems within our current
organizational structure, we would just diffuse our strength. Frankly,
over the past few decades we have asked our units to be all things to all
people, and that has satisfied neither us, nor the people we were trying
to serve. We have urged departments to adopt practitioner master's
programs, to increase their public service, to give more individualized
attention to students, and to maintain or enhance research and graduate
education, all at a time when we have been cutting back faculty and
staff.
We have run large-scale continuing education programs with many good
intentions and many achievements, but also as a somewhat off-hand
reflection of our regular curriculum. This has been a missed
opportunity! It is time we get really serious about these tasks. It is part
of our being a land-grant university.
But, we cannot do this as long as those tasks are all mixed together and
thrust on understaffed departments.
To this end, I am proposing a reorganization designed to serve each type
of student in ways that are suited to that student's needs. The driving
concern behind this proposal is to make it possible for our students to
succeed. Since we do serve, and must serve, students with different
needs, it simply follows that we must have different types of services.
Before outlining the proposed reorganization, I must say a few words
about our students, and who they should be in the future.
MISSION DIFFERENTIATION AND OUR STUDENTS
I firmly believe that educational opportunity is a birthright for all
Minnesotans. I subscribe to Jefferson's statement:
"I know of no safe repository of the ultimate powers of the
society but the people themselves; and if we think them not
enlighted enough to exercise control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to
inform their discretion by education."
The land-grant university embodies that belief. But, both philosophically
and as a practical matter, this does not mean admission to just any
educational institution or any field regardless of talent and preparation.
Continued opportunity has to be earned.
It is one of the glorious contributions of our land-grant universities that
across socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, geographical, and other barriers
students are given the opportunity to earn continued opportunity, to
develop their special talents and serve society with their special talents.
Minnesota is blessed with many institutions of higher education,
institutions with different missions, of different size and location, public
and private. We must recognize this, and take advantage of it. This is
not elitism; it is good old Minnesota pragmatism..
The Minnesota Legislature has recognized this. The Higher Education
Bill of 1991 states very clearly that:
"The legislature recognizes each public post-secondary
system to have a distinctive mission within the overall provi-
sion of public higher education in the state and a responsibil-
ity to cooperate with the other systems . . . . The University
of Minnesota shall offer undergraduate, graduate, and pro-
fessional instruction through the doctoral degree, and shall be
the primary state supported academic agency for research and
extension services."
Thus, the University of Minnesota in the Twin Cities should not try to
serve all students. This campus must, of course, share responsibility
with our other campuses, each of which has a statewide role in serving
students. We must share responsibility with an expanded Metro State
University that will help serve the increasing numbers of high school
graduates in the Metro area in the coming decade. We must share
responsibility with other public and private institutions.
So, who should be served by the Twin Cities Campus?
I've already said that the Twin Cities undergraduates should be students
who are "sufficiently prepared and focused in their aspirations that they
can benefit from the resources of a research university." We should
admit in each program as many undergraduates of this type as we are
capable of offering a quality education, given the resources appropriated
for that purpose by the state.
What does this mean?
At this time œ exclusive of General College œ 98 percent of the Twin
Cities undergraduates come from the top half of their high school
graduating classes; 69 percent come from the top quarter. This pattern
has existed for the last half century. The Twin Cities Campus has not
had open admission for a very long time, perhaps never!
If we follow what I just said œ and high school rank is the best simple
predictor of college success we have œ the percentage from the top
quarter might increase from 69 percent to something like 80 percent.
But, we would still œ we must œ use the best possible ways to assess
who is willing and prepared to be an undergraduate student at the
University, given the special demands and opportunities of such an
education. We must ensure that students from all socio-economic and
racial and ethnic backgrounds, of both genders, with an appropriate
geographical distribution, that students from all such different
backgrounds have the opportunity to be admitted to and to graduate from
the University of Minnesota. Fairness demands it; the law requires it;
the land-grant mission was designed to achieve it!
And now to the proposed reorganization.
REORGANIZATION: A NEW DELIVERY SYSTEM
In order to serve students with different needs œ undergraduate students
the Twin Cities campus should serve œ in order to serve students with
different needs I have proposed a reorganization. It is an idea, a
concept, to be tested and, I hope, developed in the strategic planning
process. It is designed to achieve a better experience for all
undergraduate students served by the Twin Cities campus.
We should œ with apologies for larceny to the existing unit with this name
œ we should establish an entity called "University College."
This college would provide a new educational delivery system, a new
service system for students who should have access to the University's
programs and courses but who have special needs.
The specifics need much further work, but the general idea is that this
college might serve:
œ Students with heavy work schedules off campus, or heavy family
responsibilities, which make it impossible for a student to attend a
degree program in the regular day-time pattern.
œ Students who need access through distance learning from other
geographical locations.
œ Students who need to regroup, to refresh or supplement their high
school background before they enter into the regular undergraduate
program.
This college might also serve œ and this is where I'm proposing a new
type of academic programs:
œ Students who need access to special applied, directly employment-
related degree programs in areas where the University has unique
resources; these programs range from the new Twin Cities Educational
Partnership bachelor's programs to be offered in cooperation with the
Community and Technical Colleges to practitioner-oriented master's
programs.
And finally, the college might serve:
œ Students who need access to a variety of non-degree programs,
certificate programs, diploma programs, work shops, job-retraining
programs, etc., again in areas where the University has unique
resources.
The purpose is to provide access to the University's educational
resources, not to offer less demanding versions of regular degrees.
This new delivery system, service system, would provide new logistical
support in making educational programs available to the student; it
would be student-friendly. It would supplement what the regular day-
time campus can provide œ which must also be made more student
friendly. It would draw on the teaching of the regular academic
departments, their faculties, in ways that would serve the students well
without overloading the academic departments with logistical detail.
We expect the enrollment of the Twin Cities campus to remain
approximately stable, with some reduction in enrollments in CLA (where
our staff-student ratios are at their worst) balanced by some expansion
of University College enrollments over what we now have in the
continuing education program. To help meet the metropolitan area's
instructional needs, and to give metropolitan area students more options,
we must support some expansion of Metropolitan State University, and
will act as good-faith partners in the development of its programs.
This proposal addresses the lack of focus of the Twin Cities Campus,
and diffusion of resources, somewhat differently than "Commitment to
Focus." Commitment to Focus was seen by many people, wrongly, as
a move to concentrate on our research-graduate-professional mission
while cavalierly discarding the other parts of our historic mission. In
what I propose, we will focus our missions in research and in graduate
and professional education, but we will also focus our mission in
undergraduate education of a special kind, serving our students in ways
that are appropriate to their needs.
This is the way to be a land-grant, research university for the 21st
Century, a leading, global academic institution and a university in the
community.
IDEAS AND CONCEPTS TO BE TESTED
In developing these ideas and concepts, I have tried to listen carefully
to those we serve and have analyzed demographic, economic, social, and
cultural trends.
We are now in the midst of a heavy schedule of consultation on these
ideas and concepts with faculty, staff, students, and alumni, and in
conversations with many stakeholders. I invite you in particular, you
the audiences on all of our campuses, to enter into vigorous discussion
during the fall. I was in Crookston September 30, and will be in Duluth
October 14, and in Morris, November 16; there will be several forums
on the Twin Cities campus. There will also be other opportunities for
you to participate.
And, when December of this year rolls around, I hope that we can œ as
a united University community œ stand together and say:
This is our vision, these are our ideas. We intend to make sure that
each of our campuses competes for best campus of its kind anywhere.
And when the fall of 1994 rolls around, I hope that we can œ with the
same unanimity œ present to the Governor, the Legislature, and the
citizens of the State a comprehensive plan for the University of
Minnesota of the future.
The year 2000 is important, perhaps not as a change from the 2nd to the
3rd millennium but certainly as the 150th year of the University of
Minnesota. It is our obligation and privilege to see to it that after 150
productive years the sesquicentenarian still remains strong and vigorous.
Let's join in that task!
Thank you.
NILS HASSELMO
PRESIDENT
--------------------------------------
DISCUSSION:
Following the address, Senators and members of the University
community had an opportunity to pose questions to President Hasselmo.
Question: How do you (President Hasslemo) envision the Crookston
campus in relation to the new University College?
Response: The components of the Twin Cities Educational
Partnerships are similar in their intent to the programs at
Crookston. One difference will be that in the Twin Cities the
University will provide only the upper division component of
those programs in areas where it has the unique resources not
available in other systems.
Question: What will be the impact on the quality of the student
population of the coordinate campuses if the Twin Cities
campus is successful in recruiting undergraduates who rank
in the top 25 percent of their high school class?
Response: As there is now, there will be competition among the
campuses for students. However, it should be a healthy
competition and the University must ensure that in resource
distribution, equal opportunity is given to each campus to
develop its unique profile. The richness of the system is that
it provides alternatives for students and it is important for all
the campuses to coordinate their recruitment efforts and take
a pro-active position in seeking out students.
Question: How does Morris, a high ranking undergraduate liberal arts
college, fit into the proposed plans?
Response: The Morris campus has done an outstanding job and should
serve as a role model for the other campuses.
Question: What will the access be to the research university for those
adult, parttime, and non-traditional students who are qualified
to study at the highest levels this University has to offer?
Response: The intention of University College is to give students who
have those needs access to University programs in a way that
is feasible for them. The University will not be offering
second versions of regular degrees (e.g. there will not be two
English degrees). Only one degree in each field will be
offered with access through two different modes. It will be
important to sort out how many students can be served in each
of those modes.
Question: A question concerning graduate education at Duluth was
raised (the question was not audible on the recording).
Response: Priorities must be set within the total framework of
graduate education at the University. It has been decided that
selected graduate opportunities should be made available at
UMD and there are some intriguing possibilities to develop
access to graduate education, perhaps in cooperation with
units on the Twin Cities campus.
Question: A question relating to possible stigmas associated with
University College was asked (the question was not audible
on the recording).
Response: It is important to remember that the degree will be a
University of Minnesota degree with quality control in
University College being handled by the same faculty
members as in the research university. It is anticipated that
in the educational partnerships some faculty members from the
University will structure the programs and maintain quality
control.
Question: Is the current level of Student Support Services sufficient
to meet the needs of U2000 and if not, how will additional
staff be funded?
Response: The student services the University has at this time are not
adequate to the task. A fundamental part of strategic planning
is going to be the development of a viable financial plan for
what the University needs to achieve. The University must
agressively show the State of Minnesota what the return is on
the investment of State dollars in the University.
In conclusion, President Hasselmo said U2000 has been placed before
the University community as a set of ideas and concepts. The
University must be agressive in setting priorities, restructuring, and
being cost-effective in what it does. He then invited and encouraged all
members of the University community to participate actively in the
debate and then to go forward together in a united front.
II. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
MARTHA KVANBECK
ABSTRACTOR