Faculty Senate minutes June 10 meeting
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
THIRTY-SIXTH SENATE
Report No. 13
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, JUNE 10
At its meeting on Thursday, June 10, 2004, the Thirty-sixth Senate of the Academic Council heard reports and took the following actions:
1. By unanimous voice vote, conferred baccalaureate degrees on the Spring Quarter candidates listed in Senate Document #5614, as recommended by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies.
2. By unanimous voice vote, also conferred the various advanced degrees on the Spring Quarter candidates listed in Senate Document #5615, as recommended by the Committee on Graduate Studies.
EDWARD D. HARRIS, JR., M.D.
Academic Secretary to the University
MINUTES, JUNE 10
I. Call to Order
Chairman Wasow called the final meeting of Senate 36 to order at 3:20 pm
II. Approval of Minutes (SenD#5613)
The minutes were approved without additions or corrections.
III. Action Calendar
A. Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies: List of Candidates for Baccalaureate Degrees (SenD#5614)
Registrar Roger Printup had no changes to make in the lists set before the Senate. Chairman Wasow noted that "the list comes to us moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy, so we may vote to confer degrees on those listed." Vote for approval was unanimous.
B. Committee on Graduate Studies: List of Candidates for Advanced Degrees (SenD#5615)
No changes were noted by Registrar Printup, and the list, coming to the Senate moved and seconded by the Committee on Graduate Studies, was approved unanimously.
IV. Standing Reports
A. Memorial Resolutions
1. Wasow noted, "We have two of these today. I'm pleased to welcome political science professor Daniel Okimoto to present a brief memorial statement in honor of his colleague, Kurt Steiner (1912-2003). The full text of the memorial resolution was included in your packets and will be published in the Stanford Report."
Professor Okimoto began. "Stanford has lost a beloved colleague and a warm, refined, and gentle spirit. Kurt Steiner passed away in October 2003. For 91 years, Dr. Steiner had lived and worked in three continents: Western Europe, Asia, and North America. For four decades, he taught and trained a whole generation of students at Stanford. His book, Local Government in Japan, remains on the list of 'must-reads' for all students of Japanese politics.
"Professor Steiner, a lawyer, mentor, and scholar, will be missed by as many colleagues, friends, and former students. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor on behalf of the Department of Political Science of submitting to the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late Kurt Steiner, Professor of Political Science, emeritus, in the School of Humanities and Science."
Chairman Wasow invited the senators and guests to stand for the traditional moment of silence. He then thanked Professor Okimoto.
2. The Academic Secretary, in the absence of Professor Carl Thoresen, Professor of Education, presented a memorial resolution in honor of Professor Oliver E. Byrd (1906-1998). The full memorial resolution was included in the Senate packets and will be published in next week's Stanford Report.
Dr. Harris said, "I wish that I had known this man, but I did not. Raised in part in an orphanage, Oliver Byrd's athletic ability was recognized early, and that led to a scholarship at Stanford in 1925. He lettered in track and majored in economics.
"Oliver Byrd was a born teacher, and after earning a master's degree in hygiene and physical education at Stanford and teaching/coaching at San Mateo Junior College, he returned to Stanford as an instructor in physical education in 1937.
"He then fell under the spell of president Ray Lyman Wilbur, who convinced him to go to medical school. After that, declining a surgical residency at UCSF, he continued in the School of Education at Stanford, eventually becoming Professor and chair of the Department of Health Education. His consuming interest was school health and the dissemination of medical and health information, all without the Internet. Indeed, he launched a system to rewrite technical knowledge from medical journals and provide it for lay persons. Think what he could have done with that zeal and the Worldwide Web! His abiding belief was that while medicine takes care of the present, teaching is for the future. He received many awards, including the AMA's Distinguished Service Award in 1966.
"On behalf of, and in place of, Professor of Education, emeritus, Carl Thoresen, I am pleased to lay before the Senate this memorial resolution for Oliver E. Byrd, doctor of both Medicine and Education.
The senators and guests stood for the traditional moment of silence.
B. Steering Committee
As he began, Wasow's words were interrupted by Professor Naimark. "Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal privilege. Before I read the following remarks and comments from our vice chair, Hester Gelber, who's at Oxford at the moment, and regrets not being here today, I want to thank you, Tom, personally, on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Senate and on behalf of the entire Senate for your sterling job as our chair. Your Dinkelspiel Award is well deserved for your service to Stanford, for your service to the Faculty Senate, and for your service to faculty governance. And, I remind you, I am very pleased that you only told me ONCE to 'shut up!' "
"Norm, shut up!" said Chairman Wasow, with a smile.
"That is the second time!" noted Naimark. "Thank you. I feel better. Now, colleagues, pretend this is Hester Gelber speaking.
"We're about to say farewell to your leadership of what has been an eventful Senate year. It has been a time of both controversial and informational reports. Action items that produced much discussion and others that went through with barely a ripple. Budget constraints meant fewer meetings, and the elimination of coffee, and the first ever recorded Senate session to go up on the Web site. Well, not really [because of technical problems]. But we'll worry about that later on. Among the more heated topics of the year, we looked at the reorganization of the general education requirements, the rollout of the new Oracle financial system, the predatory pricing policies of some large publishing houses which will remain unnamed, at least here, with a call for faculty not to cooperate, and new conflict of interest guidelines.
"We've had very significant reports as well, from the Advising Center, from Overseas Studies, from the Provost who has suggested changes in retirement benefits, from the Vice Provost for Student Affairs, from the survey of Faculty Quality of Life, from the dean of the Law School, and from the Provost's Advisory Committee on the Status of Women. Last, but not least, we should not forget the announcement of the birth of Bob Simoni's new grandchild!
"You have managed this eventful year with grace and an evenhanded recognition of senators' hands raised in the air, and the ability to keep us all on track through a busy agenda. And this, parenthetically, is true of your management of the Steering Committee as well.
"Therefore, commemoration of your deft leadership cannot go by without the appropriate poetic celebration, and remember, this is Hester Gelber, your vice-chair, writing and speaking:
With quiet mien
And soft refrain
Our leader's led us true;
'Gainst Elsevier
And Oracles drear
Our leader's led us through.
No athlete proud
Nor budget cloud
Our leader did dismay;
Through time constraints
And Senate 'plaints
Our leader saved the day.
Magnanimous
And generous
As we can all report;
Live's quality
And equity
Our leader did support.
At the end of the year
With summer near
The gavel's here well tendered.
Three cheers for Tom
Who's always calm
The gavel's here well rendered!
Amid applause, Professor Naimark descended the steps to present Chairman Wasow with a ceremonial and inscribed gavel. Wasow said, "Thank you. And I'm very glad you didn't shut up!
"Okay. Moving right along, from the steering committee, your packets included the University budget plan, which is not included in today's agenda, except insofar as it's a part of everything that happens at Stanford.
"I'd like to extend a special welcome to the members of the Board of Trustees, who are here as guests, and to several newly elected members of next year's Senate. They, along with the chairs and staff of the Academic Council committees, will be joining us at the conclusion of today's Senate meeting for the president's reception at the Faculty Club. Other guests at today's meeting are also welcome to join us... I just invited people to your party, President Hennessy. I hope you don't mind."
"I don't care. I'll send the bill to you, Tom," the President responded.
"Okay," continued Wasow, "I have a couple of updates on matters discussed at last week's Steering Committee meeting. First, there are a few items that could not come to the Senate this year due to the very full spring agenda. And they will be forwarded to the new Steering Committee, chaired by Rob Polhemus. Included among them are the Revised Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest from the Committee on Research, which we discussed but then sent back for revisions, and the Graduate Student Council's report on the Graduate Student Quality of Life, both of which I look forward to hearing in the fall.
"In the interests of finishing Senate meetings in a timely fashion, I've kept my own remarks in past meetings to a minimum, generally something along the lines of, 'We have a full agenda today,' I'd like to depart from that practice briefly today to say how much I've enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to serve as Chair of the 36th Senate.
"After over 30 years on the Stanford faculty, I feel great affection for this place. Chairing the Senate gave me the sense, or possibly the illusion, that I was helping to set the future direction of the institution. This came in part through participation in the Planning and Policy Board, from whom we will hear shortly. But even more, it came through my role in helping to set the agenda of this body. Members of Senate 36 are to be commended for an unusually high attendance rate, at least at most of the meetings. I think this is the lowest we've had all year, but we did manage a quorum. I take some pride in the generally high attendance rate, for my goal at the beginning of the year was to make meetings interesting enough and efficient enough that senators would find it worth the expenditure of their valuable time.
I can't take full credit for the success of this year's Senate, so let me thank a few of the many others who played important roles. First, thanks to members of this year's steering committee, in alphabetical order, Tim Bresnahan, Bob Dutton, Stan Falkow, Hester Gelber, Pat Jones, Norman Naimark, and Provost Etchemendy and Academic Secretary Harris as ex officio members. Second, I'd like to thank the members of the seven Academic Council committees. We rely heavily on these committees for formulation of academic policies and for oversight of the academic offices that implement those policies. So special thanks go to the chairs of these committees, some of whom I think are here today. They are, in alphabetical order:
Jim Baron, Committee on Graduate Studies;
Doug Brutlag, Committee on Libraries;
Mark Horowitz, Committee on Academic Computing and Information Systems;
Hazel Markus, Committee on Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid; Elisabeth Pate-Cornell, Committee on Research;
Ewart Thomas, Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies;
Howard Zebker, Committee on Review of Undergraduate Majors.
"Finally, very big thanks also go to the Academic Secretary's office, Valerie Goss, Priscilla Johnson, Trish Del Pozzo, and Ted Harris. These are really the people who make the Senate function, doing massive amounts of preparatory work to make sure that we get the right documents on time, have the appropriate speakers lined up for each meeting, have rooms to meet in, and have a well-planned agenda. They also see to it that accurate records of our deliberations get disseminated and are archived for the future. I'd like to express special personal thanks to Trish for prepping me before each Senate meeting and making sure that I'm on top of the agenda.
"I just realized that I skipped one of the most important Senate committees, the Committee on Committees. Professor Arnetha Ball has chaired the CoC. And I know that the work of the committee is finished. The Senate very much appreciates all the work that the CoC has done during this year. Thank you, Professor Ball."
Professor Ball graciously responded, "I thank you and the wonderful members of the CoC that I have worked with. They were great!"
C. Committee on Committees
Professor Ball graciously responded, "I thank you and the wonderful members of the CoC that I have worked with. They were great!"
D. Report from the President
President Hennessy had two items. "First, before you on your desks, you'll see the report from the task force on minority alumni relations. This task force, composed of current and former trustees, members of the staff, alumni, and other colleagues at the University, has completed its work over the past three-years. I think it's taken a broad look at the issue of our relationships with our minority alumni, their concerns, their engagement with the University, and how we can best move forward to serve the needs and interests of all our alumni. As you read the report, it will be clear to you that over the next 30 or 40 years, the makeup of our alumni will change dramatically. We need to do a better job in ensuring that what we're doing at the University really engages these alumni. The report is well done, and I recommend that you read it. Start by reading the executive summary, which is very short, to get a feel for the issues raised in the report, and then take a look at the data.
"This task force culminated with a conference held the last weekend of April, 2004. This first conference for minority alumni was attended very well. We had over 800 people attending. Most remarkable was that we had minority alumni who had not been back on campus in 20 years returning for the first time to the University, joining a program that attracted and interested them. I think it's given us a lot better understanding about how to engage our full diversity of our alumni and how we should adjust our reunion programs going forward to ensure that alumni from all across the United States attend.
"One of the most endearing aspects for me was meeting a group of Asian-American alumni, between their 50th and their 60th reunions. Many of them had not been on campus since the days when the Chinese house was a place where many of them lived. They came back to campus to celebrate on this historic occasion. It was a wonderful event! Justice Breyer gave a wonderful talk, as did Professor Charles Ogeltree, just several days before the anniversary of Brown versus Board of Education. We concluded with a wonderful mariachi concert that was also a fund-raiser for El Centro Chicano that was simply spectacular. And trustee, Victor Arias, Jr., was a major star in that event. For those of you who want more details, I will tell you offline.
"The second item I want to bring to the Senate and the faculty's attention arises from a set of discussions that have been ongoing with the deans over the last year concerning the nature of graduate education and how we should think about graduate education as we go forward. This was initially motivated by discussions we've had across the University about the emerging emphasis on multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary initiatives, but it was also driven by several other observations. First of all, the nature of professional education and education for our students in professional programs in engineering, law, medicine, business, and education should be examined. We believe that our graduate students would benefit from a broadening of their education. For example, business students would benefit from an exposure to areas of law. Engineering students would benefit from a similar exposure, as well as exposure to issues in medicine or in business. With that in mind it is clear that the careers chosen by our graduates with doctoral degrees is changing. Twenty years ago most graduates were going into academic careers. Now, fewer than half of our Ph.D. graduates go into academia. This has given us pause to think about how we should educate our graduate students in order to prepare them for a much broader range of career alternatives.
"Reflecting on the success that we accomplished as an institution with the Commission on Undergraduate Education that put us in a position of creating a genuine opportunity for Stanford to change undergraduate education, the Provost and I have decided to establish a Commission on Graduate Education that will look broadly at the role of graduate education across the institution and ask questions: What are innovative ways by which we could change graduate education in response to the changing nature of lifelong careers that our graduate students choose once they leave this institution?
"We will be trying to draw together the members of that commission over the summer. But I wanted to let the Senate and my faculty colleagues know that we will move ahead with this agenda
E. Open Forum
Vice Provost Bienenstock took the opportunity for this last chance in Senate 36 to express opinions or add information. He said, "It's with great pleasure that I announce that Professor of Pediatrics and Associate Dean of Research, Ann Arvin, is the sixteenth recipient of the Albion Walter Hewlett Award of the School of Medicine. For those of you not familiar with that award, it recognizes physicians of care and skill who are committed to discovering and using biologic knowledge, wisdom, and compassion to return patients to productive lives. I note that she is the first woman recipient of the award."
There was abundant applause for Professor Arvin, a fellow Senator.
V. Other Reports
A. Emeriti Senate Representative Report
Chairman Wasow introduced this topic. "Last year, under the leadership of my predecessor, Professor Hank Greely, the Senate created a seat for a representative of the emeriti council. I'd now like to welcome Professor Albert Hastorf, the first such Representative, to present a brief report to the Senate. The emeriti representative for Senate 37 is Jim Mark, emeritus Professor of Surgery, and his alternate is David Abernethy from Political Science."
Professor Hastorf spoke from his assigned seat between Professor Avner Greif and President Hennessy. "I begin with an aside. Dan Okimoto is an 'understater'. Kurt Steiner was an absolutely remarkable person. If you take a look and read that very brief biography, here is a guy who was born in Austria. English was his second language, and then he learned Japanese such that he could participate in Japanese legal trials.
"At the present time, the best guess of Trish Del Pozzo - the source of much knowledge - is that there are 566 emeriti faculty. I say 'emeritee' because I want to avoid pronouncing it 'emeritye' because that makes it the plural of the feminine. In 1994 there were only 439 of us. Some of this is probably due to increases in longevity, but also probably due to hiring practices 30 and 40 years ago. That curve is tapering off a little, but we still seem to grow mightily, as the trustees often remark upon.
"I want to say a word about our little organization, telling you what we think we can do for the community, what the community might do for us, and then, finally, to give some advice. Our organization is a very simple one. I was blessed going into this little job by having Jim Mark as my associate, good friend... and he is a peachy dancer! He will succeed me, and he will be helped by David Abernethy, elected by our Emeriti Council and ratified by the Steering Committee as the Alternate.
"We organized a small council of colleagues, and I want to mention them:
Richard Lyman, emeritus Professor of History, and other tasks;
Larry Ryan, emeritus Professor of English;
Ken Scott, emeritus Professor of Law;
Tony Seidman, emeritus Professor of Engineering;
and Eleanor Maccoby, emerita Professor of Psychology.
"Now, let me say a word about what we think we can do to relate to the community. First of all, most of us were active teachers here, and some continue to teach. The freshman/sophomore seminar program has made use of many of my colleagues, and I hope it will continue to. There are other colleagues of mine across the University who have the desire to continue teaching, but their activities don't fit the freshman/sophomore program. Departments increasingly have somewhat less budgetary flexibility. If somebody called me one night and said, 'I'd like to give some money to the Emeriti Council,' I would use the money to have some flexible resources available for support of emeriti teaching. There's also a service opportunity. Some of my colleagues have played a role on judicial panels this year, a task that active faculty find somewhat disagreeable, and I think that emeriti will continue to perform that service.
"Jim Mark and I thought that we and our 'likes' might play some role in the Palo Alto school system, perhaps giving a guest lecture, or tutoring. We met with some of the administrators in the system, and they responded warmly to this idea. It was left in their court as to what would happen next. Alas, we have not heard from them since.
"By the way, Yale University was given $10 million for an Emeritus Center. Yale built a building for the Center. I wouldn't do that. I think there are other things that are functionally more important. I think small grants for research would be useful for emeriti. I think small get-togethers, such as the ones that used to be held at Hoover House..."
"Until you got to be too many!" chimed in the President.
Professor Hastorf noted that. "There are so many! Emeriti are a little like sophomores. When they see that free food, they just lose control."
"As we say, Al," Hennessy responded, "this is what we call the 'emeriti tea,' but there is not a lot of tea consumed!"
Professor Hastorf came back to the "small get-togethers" idea, noting that "...one of the things I have enjoyed about this year is getting to know some faculty not in my own department or even in my own school. This has been a pleasure. Small get-togethers, where emeriti can perhaps meet for lunch at the Faculty Club, would be a very nice idea.... A little message to prospective donors.
"Now, a couple of words of advice. First, I would say that my colleagues, especially those that live on the campus, have been disappointed in the Hyatt project. They have found it overly pretentious and hugely expensive. There are a small coterie of emeriti going into it, but not very many.
"The Stanford Campus Leaseholders Association has a committee that deals with 'senior interests.' They are active in talking about the stable site. I'm aware that this possibility for senior housing is now on the back burner. My plea is that this University keep in mind the benefits of multi-generational housing. There are a lot of people living in rather large campus homes who would like to move out of them, but not to an old folks home.
"Second, I want to say a word about communication. I think that both the President and the Provost have worked hard at being communicative. But no matter how hard they try, there are messages that don't get disseminated. I hope that they both consider writing a little column once in a while in the Stanford Report with news about emeriti affairs. We need to work hard at getting the word out to emeriti, especially when it's relevant to them.
"Finally, I want to say that it's been kind of fun. A colleague wrote me a note when this appointment was announced, saying, 'Well, Al, no good deed goes unpunished,' and he did, by searching, find out that I had been in every Senate until I retired. I was in the first Senate in 1967. The only other person in this room that was also in that Senate was young Rob Polhemus, chair of next year's Senate. Rob, you must have been just a first-year assistant professor!"
Professor Polhemus clarified his position in 1967. "Yeah, but I was protesting then!"
Professor Hastorf continued. "For those of you interested in whether there's really been any change around this place, there was one woman in the 1967 Senate. Her name was Ann Catalanos. Today, the many women in the Senate symbolize this great change.
But there is also stability in our world. If you take a look at the minutes of the last meeting of the Senate that Trish sent me, most of the deans were absent. I was pleased to note that Sharon Long has been dutiful in attendance. Sharon, H & S must always be alert!
"I want to finish with one other thought. The idea of a Faculty Senate was the brain child of Herb Packer. Herb had seen what happened on this campus when we had trouble. In the old system we had two organizations, the Academic Council, all 700 of them, and a Steering Committee or Executive Committee of the Council, six in number. If the Steering Committee decided that the issue was too complex or salient to the whole community, then the problem was put before the full 700 in the Academic Council. That is no way to run a university. Herb was the one that realized that. I think his generation of the Senate was a very real contribution, but a lot of people complained about it, meaning also that things were normal.
"Thank you for the opportunity to be the emeriti representative." At this point the Senate applauded vigorously.
Professor Burchat had a question for Professor Hastorf. "I think that earlier in the year you mentioned the possibility of emeriti being involved in advising or mentoring undergraduates. Has that gone anywhere?
"No," said Hastorf. He pointed out that emeriti would not likely know which courses were the best to take. "An example is that if you asked me, I used to know who were teaching the introductory physics courses but I don't now. If a student wanted a good course in electricity, who should a student talk to?"
Professor Burchat was quick to say, "Me!" Dean Long concurred with that.
B. Perspectives on Growth. Report of the Planning and Policy Board (SenD#5611)
Chairman Wasow thanked ex-Provost and Professor emeritus Hastorf, and then moved to the principal and final item of business, the report from the Planning and Policy Board, called Perspectives on Growth, which was distributed to all senators and members of the Board of Trustees and is available on the Faculty Senate website at http://facultysenate.stanford.edu.
He added, "Members of the Planning and Policy Board were invited to the meeting. Many are here, and several are members of this Senate. They are Mark Zoback, the gray-haired fellow sitting back there who has been the Chair of PPB, John Baugh, David Brady, Persis Drell, Hank Greely, Hugh McDevitt, Brad Osgood, John Rickford, Debra Satz, and me. Stephanie Kalfayan and Ted Harris served as ex officio members, and Trish Del Pozzo served as staff to the PPB."
Professor Zoback presented a summary of the report. "The careful observer will note that the PPB is comprised of one faculty member from engineering, one each from law, medicine, business, SLAC, education, Earth Sciences,...and three from the Department of Linguistics." There was general appreciative laughter, commending the contributions to the community of this department.
"As you all know, PPB was convened by former Senate chairs Greely, Osgood, and Rickford in the fall of 2002 to look at a variety of aspects of University growth. With approximately 3500 more people coming to work every day at Stanford today than a decade ago, it was recognized that it might be beneficial for a faculty body to assess and to report to the Senate on how, where, and why this growth has occurred and what it might mean for the future.
"I'd like to say a few words about our report. You have it in its entirety. With respect to the motivation, I think we all understand some of the principle drivers for growth, including the emergence of exciting new fields of study, often tied to new technologies. But as exemplified by the Institute for International Studies, Symbolic Systems, and Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, growth can also be tied to interdisciplinary measures in which we attack old problems with new ways of thinking. Stanford will continue to innovate, continue to stay at the forefront of teaching and research, and there's going to be growth in our future. The real question is how to grow most beneficially and how to minimize the negative consequences of growth.
"With respect to the growth trends of the recent past, I think there are four points that are most important to note. First, growth has principally involved non-teaching staff associated with research. In fact, the number of non-teaching staff correlates linearly with the volume of sponsored research. These are postdocs, medical fellows, research staff, and the administrative staff directly related to specific programs.
"Second, while it has been true that there has been a rapid growth of funding to the medical center associated with the doubling of the NIH budget over a recent five-year period, it is also true that there's been rapid growth in sponsored research in many other parts of the University.
"Third, in the foreseeable future, there's no question that there are real constraints on growth. There are now regulatory constraints such as the GUP. And for the next few years, there will undoubtedly be much less rapid growth of federally sponsored research and other sources of revenue to fuel growth.
"Finally, I think that taking a 20-year perspective, as we tried to do, will present exciting new opportunities for the University, and we must be able to pursue those opportunities and minimize the negative consequences in doing so.
"In writing the report we paid special attention to two parts of the university: The medical center (principally, the medical school), and SLAC. The reason for paying attention to the medical center is obvious. It's big and it's been growing rapidly, in two ways. One is that research has been growing rapidly, and the research staff there has been growing in parallel. There's also been growth of the Medical Center Line faculty in response to needs for physicians to do clinical research while giving much clinical service. It is also important to note that Stanford Medical Center faces very special challenges related to teaching, research, and patient care that make it unusual. Consider only the advancement of new diagnostic and therapeutic technologies. Does the medical center really have the option of not offering the best technology possible for patients in need? Does it have the option of not pursuing the most exciting avenues of medical research?
"With respect to SLAC, there are two initiatives there that are worth noting in the context of growth: The Kavli Institute, which represents the confluence of particle physics and cosmology, and advances in x-ray science that will make it possible to study everything from living proteins to chemical reactions as they happen. These capabilities could literally revolutionize many fields of biology, medicine, and chemistry. The reason for mentioning them is that these are endeavors that, as they grow, will involve scientists both at SLAC and at the core campus far more than there has been interaction between those two bodies in the past. This is a good thing, but it is likely to be a source of pressure for growth in the activities on campus.
"The section on initiatives and opportunities across the University deals with some of these exciting interdisciplinary initiatives, such as those in the environment and international studies. And we briefly looked at the question, 'Is bigger necessarily better?'
The answer to this question is by no means a simple one. For example, it's been pointed out in the context of both the business school and the medical school that their small size compared to peer institutions puts them at distinct disadvantages in many ways. Nonetheless, I think no one would deny that their small size helps make them very special and unique schools that is in some ways directly related to their excellence.
"We have a section called 'Stanford and the Surrounding Communities,' in which you can see data which sampled how we are viewed by our neighbors. To paraphrase what was said about a now-retired presidential aspirant, 'they like everything about us except us.' What I mean by that is it is clear that surrounding communities have a very broad appreciation and respect for our primary missions of education and research, and for the many wonderful things that we bring to the surrounding communities. But when asked about us as a property owner and a neighbor, there are as many negative opinions as positive ones. In the final section, 'Where do we go from here?', we have six recommendations. These are recommendations made to this body by your faculty colleagues. I'd like to review them very quickly and then open the floor for questions.
"Mechanisms should be established to develop and enforce stable rates of growth. We recommend only that the faculty should be part of the planning process and that once we have a plan, we simply need to stick to it.
"Second, to gain faculty perspective on growth and evolution of the core campus, there should be faculty representation on the Provost's Capital Planning Group. This recommendation came from a very general and fuzzy idea of the PPB that faculty should be involved in the planning process of new buildings and new facilities. The Provost made the specific recommendation that this could best be accomplished by having faculty members participate in the Capital Planning Group. And we welcome the suggestion.
"Third, the true cost of new initiatives must be fully addressed before they are undertaken. If new buildings, teaching programs, and facilities don't pay for themselves, the cumulative effect of incremental shortfalls will have a negative effect on a wide range of activities as well as upon the overall quality of academic life. The faculty has a real responsibility for making sure this is done, as well as do deans and our University administration.
"Fourth, the development of new initiatives in new fields of studies should be closely related to the consolidation of disciplines, evolution of programs and departments. Words like 'consolidation' and 'evolution of disciplines and departments' is an easy thing to say and an extremely hard thing to do. In fact, in my past experience in this senate, it showed time and time again how hard it is to make difficult decisions about our peers. But, that said, the spirit of PPB was that it is essential for the faculty to be engaged in this process if any recommended changes are ultimately going to be accepted and embraced by the faculty. Support is needed for faculty-initiated interdisciplinary research and teaching. Interdisciplinary programs provide wonderful opportunities for advances in many disciplines without significant manifestations of growth.
"Finally, we recommend that a faculty committee on community affairs should be established. As I noted above, there's tremendous respect in the surrounding communities for Stanford's core academic missions of research and teaching. The board believes it would be quite beneficial for the faculty from across campus to participate, along with other university representatives, in maintaining good communications and good relations with our neighbors.
"To conclude, I think it's fair to say that what PPB is really saying in our report is that we fully recognize that it is the entrepreneurial spirit of the faculty that is driving growth, and that the faculty is more than willing to be part of the process of governing."
Questions and discussion
Professor Greely was the first speaker. "As a member of the PPB for the past two years, I want to say a word of our appreciation to Mark Zoback for his magnificent leadership in this effort. At times we wondered whether we would accomplish anything of value for the time we were putting into it. I think we did, largely because of the way Mark kept us on point. I would only say that the most surprising thing to me in this two-year exercise has been how rapidly the University has grown over the last several years. We grew rapidly from 1988 to 1993. We grew rapidly from '93 to '98. We grew rapidly from '98 to the present. We grew rapidly in bad economic times as well as in good ones. We grew fairly rapidly even when we had a hiring freeze! We are growing because we are good. And we are growing because we've got lots of good people and the faculty, staff, and students who come up with good ideas that the outside world recognizes as good ideas. And we're going to keep doing this.
"A couple months ago, a colleague from another school came to see me about a project she's thinking of, a large interdisciplinary project on a great, important topic. She had involvement from people from six schools. It's a wonderful idea. I think it'll probably go forward because this is such a good place to do it. It will be a good project, but it will involve more people coming onto the campus.
"We will, I think, continue to grow, but we can't grow indefinitely. That is the other big message from PPB. Our growth will be managed. It will be managed by the outside community if we don't manage it. I don't think that will be necessary, because I think that building 10 and the administration has their eyes firmly on this ball and they will manage growth well.
"But, whether the faculty is involved in the management or not will depend in large part on whether the faculty wants to be, tries to be, or insists on being involved in it. It is very important for the future of the University. I hope that if there is one crucial message from our PPB report, it is that the faculty should be involved in thinking about ways in which we can grow smart from now into the future.
Professor Simoni wanted to make a brief comment. "I enjoyed the report and I think it's something we all have to be concerned about. Something missing was the opportunity to juxtapose this to the Quality of Life survey that we recently finished discussing. It seems to me that they are inextricably linked. And they bring us to what is clearly the fundamental, ongoing issue: How does one sustain the parts that have made us excellent and continue to make us excellent and still move ahead in areas where we need to move ahead?
"I took the survey, saying basically that two-thirds of the faculty respondents were happy here. I thought that was pretty good. I thought to myself, you know, there aren't many organizations which could claim that two-thirds of their people are happy. But then Pat Jones told me of other universities where, in fact, that number is much higher. If you looked at that Quality of Life survey, probably the biggest issues were economic issues: housing, salaries, and cost of living. All of those are intertwined. There is, like it or not, a direct tradeoff between a new Institute for the Environment and sustaining the things that we're currently doing in terms of quality of life. Did the PPB talk about those issues?"
Zoback responded. "It was almost our starting point, I would say. It was acknowledged by our reference to incremental shortfalls, the cumulative effect of incremental shortfalls. And as we do new things, it often shifts the burden back onto the things that we're already doing and trying to maintain and, therefore, it makes academic life a bit more stressful for faculty and staff. So I think that was kind of our starting point, Bob, we didn't talk about it much. Maybe we should have. But it was almost the premise for undertaking the study to begin with."
Professor Holloway said, "I agree with Bob. There's a lot of good information in here, and you are all commended for taking the time and effort to assemble it and then making the added attempt to try to put it in terms of recommendations. The question I have for you, and maybe it's in here and I haven't reached it, where does this report go now? There's a legacy around here of good reports that end up on people's desks and staying there. There are issues in here that have fairly significant implications for the governance of this University. And I would hate to have either of two things happen. One is that these recommendations would be implemented without thoughtful discussion. And the other is that the report just sits on a desk and does not get any discussion. So...can you give us a little bit of your hopes or maybe fears about what may happen?"
Professor Zoback responded, "One of the recommendations is directed to the Provost. He has indicated his willingness to add faculty members to the Capital Planning Group. And I think that will happen. That's something that we know will be a direct result of our efforts. With respect to the other five recommendations, a number of them should be referred to this Senate next year and in subsequent years for consideration. For example, the issue of how the faculty will be engaged with deans and administrators in setting sustainable rates of growth...we have talked about various mechanisms to manage this. We did think of some ideas that might work. But we also thought there are lots of ways of doing this. And, you know, our job has been to make a recommendation that something should be done, but then leave it to other bodies to figure out the optimal way to do it. I hope that Senate 37 will take these recommendations and move to take action on them."
Vice Provost Jones said, "My comments are very much along the lines of Chuck Holloway's. One is that I think this report is very useful. I think it's useful, to ourselves and to our colleagues on the faculty, because a lot of the impetus for new programs and initiatives comes from us, such as setting up new interdisciplinary interactions with other colleagues. I think that this gives a useful perspective to faculty who, if they were forced to think about it, might come up with a lot of the same recommendations.
"Here we are at the end of the academic year. I know that Ray will write a terrific article for the Stanford Report. But it will be buried in the Commencement issue. I would encourage the Academic Secretary's office to think about how the report itself might be distributed to all faculty, even if it's just an E-mail with a link to the Senate Web site where the document will be available for the faculty to take a look at it.
Â
"But the second point, again, is similar to what Chuck raised, which is how faculty, indeed, are to be involved in thinking about prioritizing new initiatives vis-Ã -vis old initiatives. It seems to me that once a project gets to the Capital Planning Group, decisions really have been largely made.... I think that faculty need to be involved earlier in the process at the department, the interdepartmental, and the school level, about what the faculty of the school, together with the dean and associate deans, think are the priorities for that school, and, of course, all the schools. I would encourage the deans to engage their faculty in thinking about how faculty as a whole can be involved in prioritizing new initiatives. There are lots of wonderful things that have been going on, and faculty, I'm sure, have been involved. But I think as we go forward, if this is going to be partly a faculty responsibility now, then I'd like to see that planning groups be engaged at the school levels to help make decisions on where to go."
Professor Cohen added some comments from the perspective of the medical school. "I also want to thank the PPB for taking the time and effort to try to understand the issues that are related to the medical school, and the importance of having the kinds of programs that make it an excellent medical school. I'd just like to comment on the two last statements in the report on the School of Medicine, where it says it is not clear that there will be anything inherently wrong in having the Medical School represent such a high portion of the University's faculty, and that nonetheless, the predominance of faculty from any one part of the university could be seen as a threat to the interests of other schools, departments, and individual faculty.
"When the reality is that there is nothing wrong but the perception is that there may be something wrong, do we always deal with the perception and not with the reality? I don't see a threat any more than I would see a threat from the School of Earth Sciences or the School of Humanities and Sciences. I think that the realities are that some schools are bigger and some schools are smaller...nothing more, nothing less. I would hope that we could decrease the 'threat level' while dealing with the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with a sustainable growth. I do believe that growth has to be sustainable."
Dean Pizzo followed up on Professor Cohen's comment. "I certainly agree that the PPB is to be commended for the work that they did in producing this report. As the report relates to the School of Medicine, however, I think that many of the comments, or at least a number of the comments, from my point of view, are unnecessarily provocative. I think that that they set a tone that really is not in the best interests of the University. We have offered, I think, fairly credible perspectives to the PPB about what we thought was the extent of growth that was manageable from the point of view of the Medical School. We have done a lot of work to achieve and to accomplish that. I think what appears in the report is less analytic and more impressionistic. It offers a view of the future that is not necessarily consistent the one that I and others have been considering.
"I tried to point these views to the PPB by writing a letter after I saw an earlier draft of this report. I asked that the letter be included as an appendix to the report. I'd be happy to make that request again in order to offer a different perspective of the Medical School and the Medical Center. And in doing so, because I did address some of the high-level issues in the report, I hope that we can also fix some of the factual errors that are part of the PPB report relating to the medical school."
Professor Goldsmith added some comments. "My comment is about the part of the report expressing concern about the rapid growth in medicine, science, and engineering. It is unfortunate that I am the part of the campus that benefits from that. Much growth is coming because there's funding in those areas, there's interest among faculty and among students, and there are broad initiatives in these fields nationwide. Those are likely to continue. I don't think that there is a consensus about how to balance future growth in those areas against growth in other fields. Should not we have dialogues going forward to discuss this issue in better forums, or do we really want to put the brakes on initiatives in areas that are important and becoming more important?"
Professor Zoback responded, "I would like to welcome my colleagues to respond as well. You know, we recognize that issue, as one of an issue of concern. We see that medicine will grow, science will grow, technology areas will grow. Areas in the humanities and social sciences that perhaps are not growing as rapidly...faculty in these areas will wonder whether the fundamental nature of the institution is being changed. There is a quote in the report from one person we spoke to who said, 'Is Stanford becoming MIT? Or has it already?'
"We did not sit around talking about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is something to watch and it is something to think about as we look at the University in a holistic manner. How is it evolving from year to year and perhaps from decade to decade? And you know, maybe at some point there might be action taken as a result of these perceived changes. We talked about all of these issues. But what we didn't want to do is establish any sort of mechanism or filter for good ideas. For example should there be a growth committee, meaning that if you have a good idea the 'growth committee' has to admit it's good before it goes forward so as to prevent some part of the University from getting any bigger than it already was? We thought that would be contrary to the very spirit of the institution, the spirit that's made us what that it is."
Professor Umran said, "My concern was the same one. I want to be sure, as does my colleague, Dr. Cohen, that it probably is a perception rather than a real threat or something wrong in terms of medicine or science or engineering growing versus the other areas. In the end, it might be that some relative growth is needed for what we need to become in the 2025 and be responsive to the societal needs."
Chairman Wasow asked Professor Rickford, a member of PPB, to respond to some of these issues. Professor Rickford began. "Two comments. One, in relation to the medical school, there is an important line in the report that represents an understanding that I think the committee reached very clearly. It is 'The Medical School does not have that luxury.' I think that we all recognize that departments pick and choose among areas that they need to specialize in. And I think we were very convinced by the evidence and their argumentation that they are treating disease and research and treatment of diseases, and that we could not afford to leave out some parts of the entire enterprise. So, while some parts of the report may seem more negative, I think we came to recognize the special nature of the medical school.
"The other point is that the PPB recognized a very strong sense of the importance of innovation and dynamism within the University. Suppose somebody shows up and says, 'I've got $10 million, how can you use it?' That won't happen, as we know. But I think that we have to continue to be innovative and dynamic in every area. It may be that deans can help to remind those of areas that aren't growing with dynamism and innovation.
Chairman Wasow intervened to say, "...the final word on this, for now, will go to Provost Etchemendy."
Provost Etchemendy had two things to say. "One is that I want to thank the PPB for a lot of hard work and a good job of listening to many people and codifying remarks. I think that the recommendations certainly will be considered and many of them implemented.
Chairman Wasow intervened to say, "...the final word on this, for now, will go to Provost Etchemendy."
Provost Etchemendy had two things to say. "One is that I want to thank the PPB for a lot of hard work and a good job of listening to many people and codifying what they learned. I think that the recommendations certainly will be considered and many of them implemented.
"The other comment is about decision making and planning at the university. What you would want, ideally, if you were running a university, would be a faculty group to be involved in all planning, but not a faculty group that comes without any knowledge of the various academic priorities of the university, the various financial constraints upon the university, and the long term goals of all the departments. You would need a group of faculty that could spend almost their full time understanding the goals of the departments, the financial constraints of the schools, and so forth and so on. So you might want a group that had, for example, a member of the computer science department [Etchemendy pointed toward President Hennessy], a member of the pediatrics department [pointing toward Dean Pizzo], a member of the biology department [pointing toward Dean Long], a member of the philosophy department [toward himself], and so forth. And that, of course, is exactly what we have now: it is called the Executive Cabinet. We must keep in mind that Stanford is already an institution run by faculty, indeed remarkably so. Calls for faculty involvement in planning decisions have to be tempered by a recognition of this basic fact. Okay, we can continue discussion of this over drinks and hors d'oeuvres at the Faculty Club.
VI., VII., VIII.
There was neither unfinished nor new business and, indeed, Senate 36 adjourned itself to the Faculty Club.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward D. Harris, Jr., M.D.
George DeForest Barnett Professor, emeritus
Academic Secretary to the University
Share This Story