1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 4
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
APRIL 18, 1996
The fourth meeting of the University Senate for 1995-96 was convened in
102 Fraser Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 18, 1996, at 2:00 p.m.
Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as
present were 144 voting faculty/academic professional members, 21 voting
student members, 10 ex officio members, and 31 nonmembers. President Nils
Hasselmo presided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
Action
Agenda items I. and II. are considered to be noncontroversial or
"housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be taken up
as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the
request of a senator. A majority of those members present and voting is
required for approval.
I. MINUTES FOR JANUARY 11, 1996 AND FEBRUARY 15, 1996
II. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Faculty Affairs Committee Membership
MOTION:
To amend the Senate Rules as follows: (new language is in CAPS)
2. Ex Officio Members of Senate Committees
. . . . .
- Faculty Affairs--Office of Senior Vice President, Academic Affairs;
Office of Senior Vice President, Finance and Operations (one from Asset
Management and one from Employee Benefits); CHAIR (OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE)
OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN COMMITTEE; representative
of the Retirees Association
CARL ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
APPROVED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Standards for the Semester Conversion
Action
STANDARDS FOR THE SEMESTER CONVERSION
INTRODUCTION
With this presentation, its fourth to the Senate, SCEP believes it is
time to make a decision about the Semester Conversion Standards. The calendar
and other semester standards have been discussed at three earlier Senate
meetings as well as in a variety of other settings. SCEP and others have
heard repeatedly that departments want these issues settled as soon as
possible so they can seriously take up the work of reviewing and changing
their curricula.
THE LAST PRACTICAL DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF NEW COURSES FOR APPROVAL WILL
PROBABLY BE IN APRIL, 1997, AND FOR SERVICE COURSES THAT MANY DEPARTMENTS RELY
ON (E.G., MATH, CHEMISTRY, AND SO ON), THE DATE WILL BE EVEN EARLIER. THAT IS
ONE YEAR OR LESS FROM THIS SENATE MEETING. THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GOING ON
FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, AND IF THESE STANDARDS, WHICH CAN ONLY BE REACHED BY
SENATE ACTION, ARE DELAYED BEYOND THIS MEETING, THE PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY IN
WHICH DEPARTMENTS WILL HAVE TO DO THEIR WORK WILL BE CORRESPONDINGLY EXTENDED.
[A note on use of terms: For the purposes of this document, references to
"class hour" or "contact hour" or "hour" are defined as a 55-minute period.]
PROPOSED SEMESTER CONVERSION STANDARDS
MOTION 1A:
There shall be two semesters, each of which shall include a minimum of
70 days of instruction and a maximum of 75 days of instruction, at least
one study day, and approximately one week of final examinations
(including Saturdays but not Sundays).
For the fall semester, classes shall begin after Labor Day and the exam
period shall end not later than December 23. Final grades for the fall
semester shall be submitted to the Registrar no later than three
business days following the date of the exam, except that final grades
which would fall due during the period December 24-31 may be turned in
two business days after January 1.
For the spring semester, classes shall begin on the third Tuesday of
January and provide 74 or 75 class days of instruction. Final grades
for the spring semester and all other enrollment terms shall be
submitted to the Registrar no later than three business following the
date of the exam, or for courses that do not have a final exam, no later
than three business days after the last class period.
Departments may schedule a short three-week intersession following the
end of the spring semester and before the first summer term, using
Summer Session compensation and tuition practices. No department shall
be obligated to offer courses or academic work during this three-week
term.
There shall be at least two summer terms, which may not begin before K-
12 public school classes are completed.
Colleges and campuses may authorize courses shorter than the term of
enrollment, subject to the approval of appropriate curriculum review
committees.
Final examinations normally shall be two (clock) hours long; instructors
may schedule longer examinations with the approval of their department.
The standard class period during fall and spring semester shall be 55
minutes. [Further policy needs to be developed with respect to classes
of greater than 55 minutes in length.] The standard class period during
the summer term(s) shall be in proportion to the length of the summer
term vis-a-vis the two semesters.
DISCUSSION:
Professor Carl Adams, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC),
introduced the proposed Standards for the Semester Conversion and reminded
senators that it was on the agenda for action after discussion by the Senate
at three previous meetings. He commended Professor Laura Koch and the Senate
Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) for their outstanding work on a very
complicated project and said the SCC endorses the proposal as presented. He
then introduced Professor Koch, chair of the SCEP.
Before turning to the individual motions, Professor Koch thanked the
University community for their support and thoughtful discussions during the
past six months.
[Discussion and action follows each motion.]
A senator speaking on behalf of the CLA Curriculum Instruction and
Advising Committee said the committee is concerned about the timeframe for
turning grades in outlined under motion 1A. It believes it will cause an
administrative backlog resulting in the delay of grade notification to
students and that it gives the impression the University is closed the week
between Christmas and New Year's.
Another senator said there is a lack of parallelism between the rules
for the fall deadline and those for the spring deadline. The fall semester
deadline is measured from the date of the exam while in spring there is an
added reference that for courses that do not have a final exam, the clock
begins after the last class. Unless there is a strong argument for the
difference, the senator suggested amending the third paragraph to strike the
phrase "..., or for courses that do not have a final exam, no later than three
business days after the last class period" to make the language consistent.
His rationale was that many classes require a term paper instead of a final
exam which is oftentimes due at the end of the exam week.
AT THIS TIME, PROFESSOR KOCH WITHDREW THE SECTIONS OF MOTION 1A THAT
REFER TO FINAL GRADES AND SAID THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE WILL REVIEW
THE LANGUAGE FOR THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION AT A LATER DATE.
A senator from Duluth asked about the three-week intersession mentioned
in Motion 1A. He did not believe students at UMD would take classes offered
in a May term, but would benefit more from a January term. Professor Koch
responded that there has been a great deal of discussion on this issue and the
majority favored the May term, particularly the flexibility it allows to
incorporate the three-week intersession into the summer session.
Crookston senators reported that their campus is divided on Motion 1A
because of the cooperative work UMC does with other schools and its desire to
work with the same calendar as those schools.
A senator from Morris said their campus would support Motions 1A through
6A if Motion 7 also passes.
The representative of the CLA Curriculum Instruction and Advising
Committee brought up the 55-minute class period and expressed the committee's
preference for a 50-minute period. Professor Koch said the SCEP had recently
discussed that issue and favored the 55-minute period in view of the 14-week
semester.
A motion to amend the document to define "class hour," "contact hour" or
"hour" as a 50-minute period (rather than 55-minute period) was proposed.
However, the motion to suspend the rules to consider the proposed amendment
failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for approval.
Motion 1A, as amended by Professor Koch, was approved on a voice vote by
a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 1B:
Motion 1A shall apply to all campuses of the University.
DISCUSSION:
A senator from the Morris campus urged the Senate to exempt the UMC,
UMD, and UMM campuses from Motions 1B and 1C because those campuses do not
face the same problems the Twin Cities face with respect to the State Fair and
its effect on the fall calendar. The UMC, UMD, and UMM should be allowed some
flexibility in this area. Professor Koch responded that Motion 7 provides for
exemptions to be granted by the President's office.
Motion 1B was then approved on a voice vote by a majority of members
present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 1C:
All campuses of the University shall have the same calendar.
DISCUSSION:
Motion 1C was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present
and voting with no discussion.
APPROVED
MOTION 2A:
Departments are urged strongly to prefer courses of three credits, and
especially to prefer three-credit courses which are taken by significant
numbers of students from other fields. It is understood that laboratory
courses will in most cases be offered for more than three credits.
DISCUSSION:
An amendment to Motion 2A, submitted and distributed to senators in
advance of the meeting, was introduced by Senator George Sell. The amendment
proposes to replace the second sentence of the motion with "It is understood
that many laboratory courses and many lower division mathemtics courses will
be offered for more than three credits" to recognize that lower division
mathematics courses at the University have traditionally been five credit
courses.
After some debate, Professor Sell accepted a friendly amendment to his
proposal broadening the language to include other courses that might be
appropriate for exclusion. The amended version reads:
"Departments are urged strongly to prefer courses of
three credits, and especially to prefer three-credit
courses which are taken by significant numbers of
students from other fields. It is understood that
many courses, such as laboratory or mathematics
courses, will be offered for more than three credits."
With no further debate, the amendment was approved, after which the
amended motion was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present
and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 2B:
Motion 2A shall apply to all campuses.
DISCUSSION:
Motion 2B was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present
and voting with no discussion.
APPROVED
MOTION 3A:
Baccalaureate degrees consist of a minimum of 120 semester credits. The
liberal education requirements (including writing skills), as
established by the appropriate body on each campus (the Council on
Liberal Education on the Twin Cities campus), shall consist of at least
39 semester credits.
College approval is required for any baccalaureate degree programs that
require more than 120 credits. Proposed baccalaureate degree
requirements in excess of 132 credits must also be approved by the
appropriate chancellor or provost.
DISCUSSION:
There was no discussion of Motion 3A and it was approved on a voice vote
by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 3B:
Motion 3A shall apply to all campuses.
DISCUSSION:
Motion 3B was also approved without discussion on a voice vote by a
majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 4A:
The Senate affirms the standard (first adopted by the University Senate
on February 16, 1922, and reaffirmed subsequently) that one semester
credit is to represent, for the average University of Minnesota
undergraduate student, three hours of academic work per week (including
lectures, laboratories, recitations, discussion groups, field work,
study, and so on), or approximately 45 hours of work over the course of
an enrollment period. Expectations of faculty and students will be made
clear. It is expected that the academic work required of graduate and
professional students will exceed three hours per credit per week or 45
hours per semester.
All courses proposed for the semester calendar shall include a student
workload statement demonstrating how the course conforms to this policy.
College and campus curriculum committees and other approving bodies
(e.g., the Council on Liberal Education) must consider the student
workload statement in reaching a decision on whether to approve a
proposed semester course, and should normally reject any course which
does not meet, or significantly exceeds, the requirement of three hours
of academic work per week for each course credit.
It is understood that professional norms and the nature of the activity
may in some cases require more than three hours of work per week or 45
hours per semester per credit. Clinical experiences, some laboratory
work, and some studio activities may be unable to adhere to this three-
hour-per-credit standard; with college approval and with appropriate
notification to the student of the amount of work expected for the
course or educational experience (e.g., in class schedules, bulletins,
or syllabi), demands on the student in excess of the 45 hours per
semester credit are permissible.
DISCUSSION:
One person asked about the intent of Motion 4A with respect to the
amount of time a student should spend on a three credit course. Professor
Koch replied that that will vary. It will depend on what a person defines as
work and the quality of the work. Hours of effort do not necessarily coincide
with the quality of work produced, which is what the grade is based upon.
Another senator said he believes workload should be the same for
graduate and undergraduate students. Motion 4A specifies the workload for
undergraduates but leaves it wide open for graduate students. Some believe
that provides an opportunity for abuse. The SCEP discussed this issue,
replied Profesor Koch, particularly what it means to be a graduate student as
opposed to an undergraduate and also the expectation that graduate students
should have more work to do.
Professor Koch was asked if the SCEP had considered the possibility that
calling attention to the three hour per credit standard might open the
University to complaints by students who find that they can not accomplish the
work assigned in a particular course in the required three hours. Does the
three hours refer to a minimum or a simultaneous minimum and maximum?
Professor Koch said that the SCEP had not discussed the idea of lawsuits. They
did include in the motion that one semester credit is to represent three hours
of academic work per week for the average student, but defining that further
would be difficult.
At this time, Motion 4A was approved on a voice vote by a majority of
members present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 4B:
Motion 4A shall apply to all campuses.
DISCUSSION:
Motion 4B was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present
and voting with no discussion.
APPROVED
MOTION 5A:
The hours of contact time for a course shall equal at least the number
of credits for the course times the number of weeks the course is
offered. In the majority of cases, this would mean the number of
contact hours per week would equal the number of credits for the course,
but the contact hours need not be spread out evenly by week.
A contact hour is defined for these purposes as formal instruction by an
individual appointed for that purpose by the department or faculty
member, including faculty members, graduate teaching assistants,
teaching specialists, or, in unusual instances, advanced undergraduates.
This standard applies to all enrollment periods. The student workload
statement (required in the preceding section) must justify fewer total
contact hours than the number of credits for the course times the number
of weeks the course is offered; contact hours of all types equal to or
in excess of at least one hour per week per credit, on average, need not
be justified. College and campus curriculum committees and other
approving bodies (e.g., the Council on Liberal Education) must consider
the contact hours in reaching a decision on whether to approve a
proposed semester course; such bodies should normally reject course
proposals which have fewer contact hours than the number of credits
times the number of weeks the course is offered, barring significant
evidence that reduced instructional contact hours are appropriate.
Explicitly exempted from this standard are research seminars, studio
courses, clinical experiences, correspondence courses and independent
study, directed study or readings or field work, directed research,
internships and practicums, honors thesis credits, and other experiences
faculty offer to students outside the normal laboratory or classroom
setting (many of which include activities beyond the physical boundaries
of the campuses). Included in the standard are interactive video
classes (which in practice should be no different from in-class
instruction) and one-way transmission of instruction from the instructor
to the students (it is assumed that other avenues of two-way interaction
are used in this instance, such as email and the telephone).
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, Motion 5A was approved on a voice vote by a majority
of members present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 5B:
Motion 5A applies to all campuses.
DISCUSSION:
Motion 5A was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present
and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 6A:
In general, with college review and approval, (1) all departments and
programs should reduce the credit value of their undergraduate and
graduate curricula by approximately one-third, and (2) the time required
for a student to complete a program/degree may not be increased as a
result of the change to semesters. Point (2) is not intended to
preclude changes in the time required for program completion/degree
based on curricular grounds unrelated to the conversion from quarters to
semesters.
DISCUSSION:
Motion 6A was approved without discussion on a voice vote by a majority
of members present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION 7:
Exemptions from these standards may be granted by the President's
Office. Any exemptions granted shall be reported to the Senate at its
next meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Motion 7 was unanimously approved.
APPROVED
The Senate also approved the entire set of standards as amended.
IV. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Hasselmo began his remarks with a budget update. He announced
that the Governor recently signed a $93 million bonding bill for the
University of Minnesota giving much needed help for health and safety,
facilities renewal, and for some major projects, such as a new library and
archives center. The second installment in the biennial budget for 1994-96 is
currently before the Board of Regents. The University, said the President,
has done reasonably well in the current biennium thanks to the Partnership
Proposal. However, due to the State's financial situation, the Legislature
determined there should not be permanent commitments to the level of funding
that the University received for this particular biennium. The task for the
1997-99 biennium will be to make a stronger case for the University so that at
the very least the University can sustain the level of funding of the current
year.
The Board of Regents is considering the University Plan, reported the
President, which is a document that summarizes University 2000. It is a
status in progress report which lays out an agenda for the immediate future.
It includes some amendments to U2000 which have come about through a task
force that has been at work throughout the year. It adds to the original
outcome goals of U2000 and gives a full picture of what U2000 is about both in
terms of its outcomes and in terms of enabling actions that need to be taken.
Research funding has remained strong, said President Hasselmo, because
of the outstanding performance of the faculty in attracting sponsored research
grants. Last year was a record-breaking year with $293 million brought into
the State, generating over 10,000 jobs. Similarly, the private fundraising
effort set an all-time record with $73 million in direct gifts and total
private and corporate contributions of $131 million in one year.
The President next reviewed the Financial Planning Framework for fiscal
years 1997-2000 and discussed four different funding scenarios indicating
needs in additional compensation, information technology development, academic
program development, and deferred maintenance. The resource level, he said,
does not meet the University's needs. The challenge will be to make a case to
the State for the University and to continue internal reallocation.
Finally, President Hasselmo addressed the issue of tenure and read the
following document which he asked faculty to read so they know why tenure is
on the agenda, what the basis is for the review, what the basic commitments
are that remain, and what are the issues, from his perspective.
I. BACKGROUND
A. THE REGENTS' INTEREST IN CHANGING THE TENURE CODE OFFICIALLY SURFACED ABOUT
ONE YEAR AGO.
1) May 11, 1995 -- The Board of Regents, Faculty, Staff, and Student
Affairs Committee minutes:
"Regent Keffeler noted she would like to review the information available on
faculty productivity and engage in an in-depth discussion about tenure issues,
including academic freedom."
[The administration was to determine an appropriate way to bring this
discussion to the Board.]
2) July 14, 1995 -- Regent Reagan's inaugural remarks upon becoming
Chair of the Board of Regents include the statement:
"We may have to make programmatic cuts or take a fresh look at policies
such as tenure."
B. THE REGENTS' INTEREST IN TENURE CODE REVISIONS INTENSIFIED IN THE FALL OF
1995.
3) September 8, 1995 -- The Board of Regents, Committee of the Whole
minutes reflect a detailed presentation by Provost Brody outlining the AHC's
future. Provost Brody suggested that the Board could assist in the AHC's re-
engineering process by considering:
"modifications to governance and tenure to achieve the goals of the AHC..."
The minutes also reflect that the Board would seek special funding for the AHC
during the 1996 legislative session and that:
"The Board of Regents will consider modifications in governance and tenure to
achieve the goals and will request the Academic Health Center administration
and University administration to advise the Board at the earliest possible
point of the kinds of changes that would facilitate what the Academic Health
Center is trying to accomplish."
4) October 12, 1995 - The Board of Regents, Committee of the Whole
minutes reflect that a presentation and panel discussion on tenure took place.
Professor Judith Gappa, Purdue University, discussed national trends and
issues. Among the issues she raised are the following:
"The public's questioning why there is life-time employment for faculty
when corporations and governments are downsizing, and the mandatory retirement
age has been abolished.
The intensifying public demand for access to higher education at a time
of-steady-state or declining revenue.
The perceived "lack of fit" between faculty priorities and the needs of
a changing society.
The linking of faculty accountability to institutional missions.
A perceived "rigidity" of the current tenure system.
Implications of the dual labor market. 33-38 percent of all faculty are
outside the tenure system."
In that discussion, Regents added the issues:
"how to remove a faculty member who has become unproductive;
how to keep current in fields with rapidly changing information;
how to measure the difference between tenured and non-tenured faculty;
and what implications tenure has on the changing role of professors."
A faculty panel including Professor Carl Adams, Regents' Professor Ellen
Berscheid, Professor Mary Dempsey, and Regents' Professor Ron Phillips was
present to field questions raised by the Board.
Professor Gappa observed that the objectives of the tenure system include:
"The preservation of academic freedom;
Selection of the best faculty talent;
Maintenance of high faculty standards;
Promotion of high-quality teaching;
Promotion of the intellectual vitality of universities;
Promotion of effective responses to changing economic, social, and
political demands on universities; and
Balancing of career opportunities for nontenure-track and tenure-track
faculty."
To achieve these objectives, Professor Gappa offered a number of options:
"extension of and flexibility in probationary periods;
part-time tenure and instant tenure;
broadened evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion;
rewards and incentives linked to institutional missions;
post-tenure performance reviews;
limited time commitments for tenure; early retirement incentive plans;
redefinition of what constitutes a "base" salary for tenure purposes; and
reexamination of institutional processes for handling disciplinary
actions, termination, and program discontinuance..."
The minutes also reflect Professor Gappa's observation that "the University of
Minnesota is not alone in its discussion regarding tenure, a national study is
underway."
C. TO INSURE THAT THE FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION WERE HOLDING THE TENURE
DISCUSSIONS IN A COORDINATED FASHION AND IN COOPERATION WITH THE REGENTS'
SCHEDULE, A-FACULTY-ADMINISTRATION TENURE WORKING GROUP WAS ESTABLISHED ON
OCTOBER 16, 1995, JOINTLY APPOINTED BY THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS AND THE CHAIR OF THE FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
5) November 2, 1995 - Minutes of the Faculty Consultative Committee
meeting reflect the President's sense of the tenure discussion:
"He said he wanted there to be no misunderstandings about the current
discussions: academic freedom is the foundation of universities, and without
it the institutions would not be the resource to society that they must be.
But the University absolutely must review tenure; that is the best defense for
tenure as a protection of academic freedom. How tenure comes to be job
security must be evaluated, as must the ways tenure is granted and removed and
the extent of its application within the University, especially the Medical
School. It is in this spirit that he is pursuing the tenure discussions, he
told the Committee, and said they are off to a good start in the collaboration
among the faculty, the administration, and the Board of Regents."
"In response to a short series of exchanges, the President agreed that there
are a lot of cross-currents on the issue of tenure, from those who would
abolish it to save higher education (which would destroy higher education, in
his view) to those who want NO change. He said he believes that institution
must talk about tenure and take a hard look at it; that, he repeated, is the
only way it can be defended. There is also a diversity of opinion on tenure
within the institution that must be sorted out. It is important to engage the
faculty in a dialogue among themselves and with administration."
6) November 20, 1995 -- I wrote a letter to Regent Reagan to summarize
the tenure issues that had previously surfaced, including Professor Gappa's
list of options and other issues raised at the October, 1995, Board of Regents
meeting and in other discussions.
7) December 8, 1995 -- The Board of Regents, Committee of the Whole
minutes reflect that the Regents adopted a resolution which, in part, reads:
"Assure the protection of academic freedom;
provide University decision makers with the flexibility to respond to the
institution's changing circumstances, and to shape academic and administrative
programs to meet the needs of our teaching, research, and service missions;
ensure the maintenance of a vital academy through ongoing programs of faculty
renewal, including effective tools for development and retention;
maintain fairness as a central criterion in personnel decisions;
address the special tenure concerns of the Academic Health Center; and
provide the Board with opportunities for public discussion of eventual
revisions in the tenure code."
The Board also directed "... the administration to develop policy
recommendations for review and action prior to the start of the 1996-97
academic year."
At that meeting Professor John Adams, Provost William Brody and Dean Al
Sullivan made tenure-related presentations, and I made the following remarks:
"Hasselmo continued that he applauds the serious attention and interest the
Board and the faculty leadership are giving to this critical subject. Tenure
is important to our society because it helps protect those who are engaged in
the critical examination of issues of central importance to society. Free and
open inquiry and debate of issues must be protected as well as free and open
sharing of results of scholarly inquiry. Ultimately that must be the driving
concern behind this review. The best protection for tenure, in its essential
role in society, is a tenure system that combines protection with flexibility
to make necessary programmatic changes, that rewards strong performance and
makes it possible to take action against poor performance -- a tenure system
that is credible and efficient."
8) December 15, 1995 - Faculty Consultative Committee minutes indicate
that Regent Reagan explained that "... tenure has been brought to the
attention of the Board by a lot of people, including the legislature, the
Governor, and others. He also said he was very pleased at the way the process
had begun."
9) January 16, 1996 - In my Kiosk column, I wrote: "Let me stress that
tenure is, in critical respects, unique to the academy and very important to
society. First and foremost, by protecting academic freedom, tenure ensures a
free flow of ideas for our society. It ensures that highly creative people
will continue to pursue academic careers, even in the face of more lucrative
opportunities in other pursuits. A strong tenure system, properly applied, is
critical to the University of Minnesota's continued ability to attract and
retain the best minds in stiff national and international competition for
talent."
"Tenure is not an individual entitlement, something bestowed simply because an
individual happens to belong to a certain category of employment. Tenure is
earned; moreover, it is earned through what may well be one of the most
stringent tests of competence and energy in our society."
10) March 7, 1996 - In comments to the Board of Regents, Faculty, Staff,
and Student Affairs, I said, "I want to acknowledge again the very thoughtful
leadership of faculty in this particular matter. I think that faculty
governance, which is at the heart of all outstanding universities, proves its
vitality and viability when really difficult and potentially controversial
issues come forward. It's easy to have a governance system that deals with
routine matters, but when issues that strike at the heart of the institution,
the basic value structure of the University, come on the table, that's when I
think the vitality of the governance system proves itself."
D. THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE BEGAN HEARING TESTIMONY ON THE TENURE ISSUE IN
JANUARY, 1996.
11) February 1996 - Legislation was proposed that would make financing
the University¹s AHC contingent on tenure code revisions.
12) February 19, 1996 - In a hearing before the University of Minnesota
Finance Division of the House Committee on Education, the following exchange
with Representative Becky Kelso, Chair of the Division:
Representative Kelso: "President Hasselmo, we do need to move on. I have a
couple of quick questions. Was Dr. Brody accurate or inaccurate in saying that
the University of Minnesota's tenure code is more restrictive than other
higher institutions across the country? Is that an accurate statement or an
inaccurate statement?"
President Hasselmo: "I believe that it's accurate with regard to some
institutions, but I do not believe that we have a tenure code that is an
outlier vis a vis all other codes."
Representative Kelso: ³Also, President Hasselmo, in the statement in the
Pinney article from the Star Tribune, where we have a quote saying 'as for
laying off tenured professors when their specialties are no longer needed, I
don't think that's going to happen.' Do you think that's going to happen?"
President Hasselmo: "In the case of tenured faculty members when we make
programmatic changes, we will retrain, reassign, and we will provide buyout
opportunities if they do not choose to go elsewhere when that programmatic
change is made. But we are not going to fire tenured faculty members."
Representative Kelso: "So, President Hasselmo, if at some point in time, you
were, for example, to go ahead and do what your predecessor, President Keller,
suggested of eliminating say the Veterinary Medicine School or the Dental
School, from what you've just said, if you would choose to do that, and I'm
not suggesting that's a good idea, but obviously it's not an unreasonable
suggestion, in looking at your financial picture, I think those kinds of cuts
have to be considered. If you were, for example, to close the school of
Veterinary Medicine, of which 90% of the faculty are tenured members, and
there was no other job within the University for faculty members who teach
veterinary medicine, you would not ... your only option would be to retrain
them which I would think would be a very expensive task, offer them early
retirement options, basically to buy them out, that is what I would call
buyout, that would be your only two options that you think would be reasonable
in this type of situation?"
President Hasselmo: "Madam Chair, it would, barring the declaration of
exigency [pursuant to the Tenure Code of the University of Minnesota], that
would be the way we would proceed. Under those circumstances, I believe that a
substantial number of faculty members would seek employment elsewhere because
they are proud professionals and they are not going to cling to what are
rearrangements and even for training possibilities - many of them would go
elsewhere. But I believe in the interest of the integrity of the tenure
system, then we should proceed with the retraining and reassignment."
II. On the substance of tenure
* Coordinating the roles of faculty governance, administration and the
Board of Regents in the discussion of tenure has not been easy. From
the very start of these deliberations, however, the administration has
wanted the faculty to drive the tenure-change agenda. Our governing
code and procedures, which we respect, require nothing less.
* The faculty leadership, like the administration, understand that the
review itself is Board-sponsored. And that, in turn, the Board is
responding to external pressures. We all share in the responsibility to
address these pressures. Failure to do so will be more costly to the
University of Minnesota and to the academy in general, than will simply
addressing the concerns that are being raised‹‹addressing the concerns
in a timely fashion, not necessarily accepting them!
* I have stated my general views on tenure on many occasions, as
exemplified above. Without getting into full details, I wish to
outline the revisions that I believe my administration could both
support and represent as meeting the objectives of clarity, improved
administrative flexibility and efficiency under the code, and improved
faculty and administrative accountability.
* I want to begin with a few core concepts which I believe are important:
1. going forward, the code revision adopted by the University
should not disturb the terms of any faculty members' contract;
2. individual faculty tenure should continue to be sited at the
institutional or system-wide level;
3. individual tenured faculty should not be laid off at the
University of Minnesota for any reason other than institutional
financial exigency; and
4. for programmatic and financial reasons, we need to address the
issue of the sustainable size of the faculty.
* I now want to suggest areas of change that I believe are important to
our successful completion of the tenure deliberations:
1. to clarify that department heads may assign tasks to faculty
members; and that reassignments and retraining may be necessary
in the case of program change;
2. to define the categories of faculty appointment in which tenure
may be granted;
3. to permit colleges to extend the probationary period to up to
nine years;
4. to reaffirm that tenure is tied exclusively to base salary and
not to other income sources (e.g., overload or summer session
earnings; administrative augmentations; non-recurring salary
increases; clinical earnings; bonuses and other forms of
incentives); I want to say here that everyone¹s current base
salary is guaranteed.
5. to develop, in cooperation with the Judicial Committee, more
time-efficient and effective judicial processes; and
6. to effect a meaningful post-tenure review process.
I am absolutely convinced that we can come together with a reasonable set of
changes to the tenure code and procedures. But to do so, we need everyone to
help accomplish this result.
The Board of Regents has repeatedly expressed its commitment to a strong and
vital tenure system in the University of Minnesota. The Regents have also
made it clear that they want and expect reforms and revisions that will
produce a clear, credible, and effective Tenure Code.
V. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
QUESTION: Would you trace the process, including names and a timeline, for
the proposal to close General College and explain why the
faculty, staff, and administration of the College were not
consulted in the planning process?
RESPONSE: Provost Shively consulted frequently with Dean Taylor and the
General College faculty throughout the past year about the
quality and cost-effectiveness of GCs efforts, including several
discussions about comparative studies of its students. In the
fall, Provost Shively met with the General College faculty and
staff and told them the College will have to be judged on how
effective it is in its mission with students, and how cost-
effective it is in doing that. On four occasions between January
and late March Provost Shively discussed with Dean Taylor whether
phasing out General College would be included in the set of
reorganizations the administration would recommend for
consideration, and reviewed throughout this period various kinds
of material on the performance of the College. A week before his
decision, Provost Shively told Dean Taylor that a decision one
way or another was close and asked for any further materials that
could help in the decision. Provost Shively met with Dean Taylor
before the press conference to tell him of the decision to put
the proposal forward and suggested that the President and he meet
with the GC faculty and staff before the public announcement to
tell them personally of the decision. Dean Taylor suggested they
not do this.
The process proposed was one that would have provided for a long
period of public discussion and challenge before a final
recommendation was made by the administration in July. This
process was to have included public hearings, consultation with
community groups, and review by a special committee of community
and University leaders. It is a process that has been used in
the past.
The task of leaders is to lead! There was frequent consultation
with Dean Taylor on this issue and Provost Shively was thorough
and careful in gathering information before reaching a decision.
But ultimately, not every process can be one of discussion and
consensus. The University is now at a stage where they cannot
proceed with that proposal, but the issues remain. These issues
must be dealt with because the University must provide access and
learning opportunities that are meaningful in providing results
for the students who are admitted.
Question: Provost Shively was quoted in the general press as making a
negative statement about General College students. Can you
comment on that?
Response: The statement referred to was an unfortunate misunderstanding and
not reported in its full context. Provost Shively, in attendance
at the meeting, apologized for the remark and any
misunderstanding it caused.
VI. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor Carl Adams, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC),
reported that the SCC has been busy with such issues as semester conversion,
tenure review, RCM, provostal governance and the University's budget. An
additional Senate meeting has been added on May 2 to discuss the Grading
Policy, Semester Conversion Transition Policy, and an item from the Social
Concerns Committee concerning a possible boycott of the Mitsubishi
corporation. The establishment of a Twin Cities Undergraduate Course and
Curriculum Committee will also be discussed during the Assembly meeting.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
IX. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FACULTY
J. Morris Blair
1919-1996
A. Dean Hendrickson
1927-1996
Norman S. Kerr
1933-1996
William B. Lockhart
1906-1996
Donald W. Bates
1918-1996
Professor Emeritus Donald W. Bates of the Department of Biosystems and
Agricultural Engineering passed away on Wednesday, February 7, 1996, at the
age of 77, of heart failure. Professor Bates was born in Frazee, Minnesota.
He earned a bachelor's degree in agricultural engineering from North Dakota
State University. He served in the Navy for two and a half years during World
War II, and then went to Cornell University, where he spent five years on the
faculty while he was earning his master's degree in agricultural engineering.
He and his family moved to St. Paul in 1951 when he joined the University of
Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service and the Agricultural Engineering
Department. His special interest was in the area of farm building design,
including the effects of ventilation on animal health. For many years he
collaborated with Dr. John Anderson in the College of Veterinary Medicine on
the interplay of building design and veterinary care in improving calf health,
and was made a professor in that college in 1980. He retired in 1987 .
Professor Bates is survived by his wife, Mildred, and three sons, John, Bruce,
and James.
Richard D. Goodrich
1936-1996
Richard D. Goodrich, 59, a University educator and administrator of the
animal sciences department, died of cancer on February 13, 1996. Goodrich was
born and grew up on a dairy farm in New Richmond, WI. He received a degree in
agricultural education from the University of Wisconsin-River Falls in 1958.
He received a master's degree in animal science from South Dakota State
University in 1962. He went on to get his doctorate in 1965 from Oklahoma
State University, where he studied animal nutrition, biology, physiology and
statistics. Goodrich became a faculty member at the University in 1965 and
became a professor in 1971. He was head of the Department of Animal Sciences
from 1983 to 1994. Among the many awards Goodrich received was the Horace T.
Morse Award for outstanding undergraduate teaching in 1979. Goodrich was also
nationally known for his research in beef and dairy cattle nutrition, and had
close ties to Minnesota's livestock industry. Goodrich was also known as an
innovative administrator. He worked on developing programs for Morocco and
Russia, as well as within in the University. Goodrich is survived by his
wife, Joyce Ann; sons Mark and John; father, Douglas; sister, Nancy; brothers,
Charles and Roger; and grandchildren, Christine, Melinda, Jesse, Laura Lee,
Daniel and Brian.
ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS
Mary C. Anderson
1954-1996
STUDENTS
Kevin M. Schneider
College of Biological Sciences
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor