Faculty Senate minutes - February 17, 2005 meeting
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL THIRTY-SEVENTH SENATE Report No. 7
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, FEB. 17At its meeting on Thursday, February 17, 2005, the Thirty-seventh Senate of the Academic Council took the following actions:
The senate approved the recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies to reauthorize the degree-nominating authority for the Master of Liberal Arts Program, in Continuing Studies, for a period of five years effective September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2011..
EDWARD D. HARRISAcademic Secretary to the UniversityMinutes, FEB. 17I. Call to OrderChairman Rob Polhemus brought the meeting to order with his usual vigorous slam of the gavel at 3:19, as a quorum assembled. "I wish," he said, "I could conduct you through Central Park to Christo's Gates, but since I can't, I now call this meeting of the 37th Senate to order."
Approval of Minutes - February 3rd meeting, SenD#5687, availableat http://faculty_senate.stanford.edu.
These were approved without additions or corrections. The Chair then frowned and said, "Against my better judgment, the Academic Secretary has requested the opportunity to make a comment. I shall permit this, but you can move for adjournment at any time!"
The Academic Secretary, equally unable to show Christo's Gates, recited a few lines from William Butler Yeats. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." His point was to emphasize that this sentiment does NOT apply to the 37th Senate, and that each Senator who does not find his or her words quoted verbatim in the minutes must realize that almost half of those spoken at each meeting of the Senate are inevitably deleted while the transcript is reduced from ~16,000 to approximately 8,000 words after each meeting. He added, "I really enjoy hearing comments of Churchillian stature that use excellent metaphors, showing superb insight and good usage. These will be recorded in full." He implied that in the future, awards for bon mots might, on occasion, be given, at his discretion.
II. Action CalendarThe action calendar for today was empty.
III. Standing ReportsA. Memorial Resolution
David Maurice (1922 - 2002) SenD#5673
The Chair welcomed Professor Peter Egbert, to present a brief memorial statement in honor of his colleague, David Maurice, Professor emeritus of Ophthalmology. The full text is in the Senate packet and will be published in the Stanford Report.
Professor Egbert began. "David M. Maurice, Ph.D., emeritus professor of ophthalmology, died July 20th, 2002, in New York at the age of 80. Maurice, a leader in eye research and the developer of the confocal ocular microscope, was born and educated in the United Kingdom. He joined Stanford in 1968 and established a world-famous laboratory for corneal physiology and pharmacokinetics. He became emeritus at Stanford in 1993 but moved on to Columbia University to continue research.
"David Maurice's enormous contributions to ophthalmic research earned him the prestigious Friedenwald Memorial Award from the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. To us at Stanford, he was a lively, crusty, and stimulating colleague who always sought the best in life, science, and music.
"Mr. Chairman, it's an honor on behalf of a committee consisting of myself and Michael Marmor to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late David M. Maurice, Professor of Ophthalmology."
B. Steering Committee
Professor Polhemus announced that "…the executive committee of the Planning and Policy Board composed of the current and the past two Senate chairs, Tom Wasow, Hank Greely, and myself, met last week to discuss the PPB. We made the decision that the Board won't be convened this year. But next year's executive committee will meet early on in the academic year to discuss possible issues for in-depth discussion. If you have any topics ripe for discussion by the Planning and Policy Board, please bring them forward to me or to the Academic Secretary in the coming weeks.
"The steering committee is considering last year's PPB report on Growth of the University, and the implications of growth. In upcoming Senate meetings the status, the fate, and merit in retrospect of the Policy and Planning Board's recommendations in 2004 and the potential for successful implementation of them will be discussed."
After a short recounting of the planned agendae for the next several meetings he noted that, "On March 31st, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, John Bravman, will present a report on the proposed changes to undergraduate housing that was outlined in last week's Stanford Report. Following this short meeting we will move to the annual meeting of the Academic at 4:30 in Cubberley auditorium where President Hennessy will present a retrospective of his first five years as President of Stanford University."
C. Committee on Committees
The chair of CoC, Professor Osgood, passed up his opportunity, but promised more words in the future.
D. President Report
President Hennessy had no report. He graciously accepted the comment from Professor Eric Roberts who thanked the President "for writing the letter along with the president of MIT," that emphasized the importance of providing capable women with better access to careers in science and engineering. "That was a really important thing to do!"
Professor Noll said that, "It seems to me that in the interest of transcontinental equity, we at Stanford should have a vote of confidence in our president." President Hennessy was grateful for this, as well.
Provost Report
"First," began Etchemendy, "I think you probably read that we have decided not to immediately fill the position of Vice Provost for Student Affairs because we want to wait until the Commission on Graduate Education submits its report so that we can determine whether a reconfiguration of that job is in order. The Student Affairs Organization has morphed through the years into a variety of different forms. During this upcoming interval I have asked Greg Boardman, our relatively new Dean of Students to become the acting Dean of Student Affairs. In the fall of 2005 we should be able to begin a search for the reconfigured relevant position."
The Provost also reviewed the recent decisions about Retiree Health Benefits that have been detailed recently in the Stanford Report. The plan is basically similar to the one presented to the Senate in May and recorded in the Senate minutes May 27, 2004. The major additions have been in the "grandfathering" arrangements, and the Provost has explained the plans in several "town hall" meetings to more than 900 faculty and staff. The administration has agreed to take the sum of all three possible plans and use them all in order to provide equity for the entire community. Please see page 1 of the Stanford Report of February 9, 2005 (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/february9/decide-020905.html).
The Provost reminded the senators "…that the new benefit varies by the number of years of service. One will receive, in equivalent 2004 numbers, about $100 per year of service annually toward the Medicare supplement plan….I think it's a very fair program. It remains a generous benefit, and it rewards people with longer-term service, which is, I think, a good thing.
"Finally, I promised Phyllis Gardner that I would give an update on the Munger project." Using a graphically pleasant PowerPoint presentation he reviewed the changes that have been made since the first iteration in September. The initial plan would have had floor area ratio (FAR - calculated by dividing the area of the site by the gross square feet of the buildings) that was much higher than the rest of the campus. In addition, people objected to the height of planned buildings along Campus Drive. Furthermore, the buildings as originally planned would have blocked many of the bike and pedestrian routes, and the façade design seemed to be insufficiently residential in character.
"In December," said the Provost, "we came back to the Board of Trustees with a revised site plan that added a fourth building and cut down the height of the tall buildings along Campus Drive. The new plan provided a nice new position for the eventual Law School academic building, which we will build in the future, replacing Kresge. This will provide a beautiful, well-defined law campus and a dramatic entry into the new Law quadrangle. The FAR for the entire project has been reduced to a very acceptable 1.36." In addition, it became apparent that one planned dormitory was too long, with what the Provost described as "infinite" corridors, "…making it difficult for students to describe where their apartments actually were." This has been separated into two reasonably sized dorms.
Exterior design was an additional problem for many, and after several versions, said Etchemendy, "The one that we ended up liking the most is what we call the 'dormer design.' It adds a partial floor into what used to be the attic space of each of the buildings, with some, although not as many, rooms as are in the rest of the floors. The 'dormer design' is a good idea, because, for one thing, it reduces the height of all buildings. For example, the five-storey building planned to parallel the Stern complex will now be the same height as a four-storey building. It harmonizes much more with the character of Salvatierra Walk and provides a graceful transition from the academic to the residential area. This plan allows us to get the full complement of rooms and beds that we needed, even though several of these buildings have been massively shortened."
Creative PowerPoint had done its job, and there were (most unusually) no questions for the Provost.
IV. Other ReportsA. Committee on Graduate Studies: Renewal of Master of Liberal Arts degree-nominating authority (SenD#5666)
Chairman Polhemus welcomed Professor Eamonn Callan, chair of C-GS, to
present his committee's recommendation. He also welcomed as guests the Dean of Continuing Studies and Summer Session, Charlie Junkerman, and the director of the MLA program, Linda Paulson.
Professor Callan said, "I have little to add to my memo to the Senate that indicates our strong support for the MLA program and our recommendation that degree granting authority be renewed for four or five years. One thing that that might be relevant is our three recommendations contained in the cover memo C-GS. One is that the program Director should consult with department chairs when recruiting current faculty to teach in the MLA program, avoiding junior faculty and enlisting emeriti faculty when it is feasible. A second is that a letter grade should be required for 45 of the 50 units that comprise the program. And a third is that students should receive normal Stanford transcripts and evaluations, and their records should be transferred to PeopleSoft, similar to other Stanford graduate students."
Dean Paulson pointed out "… a few changes that we've made in the last five years. We now have 117 graduates. We steadily now admit about 24, 25 students per year, all very fine students. We graduate 15 to 20 in June. We now completely cover our costs and we're able to cover the costs of the entire program as well as offer financial aid to any students who might need it. Our students pay for their degree a total of about $29,800 over the five years that they pursue the degree."
Questions and Discussion
Professor Noll wasn't convinced that the indirect costs of the program (e.g., transcript recording, etc.) are truly covered by tuition. "Just apropos to the last comment about covering its own costs." He added, "I believe that this is a perfectly fine program and I don't want to kill it. But it strikes me that masters programs at Stanford of all forms should be completely self-financing, and that includes the administrative burdens that they create on the registrar's office. I would prefer to see this program priced in a way that it not only recovered its direct costs to structure the running and program, but also the administrative costs." He urged that a detailed study be done to identify these indirect costs that may easily not be counted. The Provost agreed that this could be done.
Provost Etchemendy also pointed out that "…three years ago, using a methodology that the Consortium on Finance in Higher Education developed, we looked at the cost of undergraduate education and compared that to our tuition. Our full tuition covered at that time 58 percent of the cost of providing the education to the undergraduates. My guess is that the general masters program probably is roughly the same as undergraduate costs. What covers the remainder? Well, that's what the endowment and annual gifts do. These monies fill in the gaps, including the big one that exists because indirect cost recovery doesn't cover the whole cost of research done at the University."
In response to a question by Professor Burchat, Dean Paulson said that "…we are assuming that we will continue to admit about 24 or 25 students each year and we do not foresee much if any growth in the future."
Professor Hensler was enthusiastic about the many benefits of the MLA program to the University as a whole. As a member of C-GS she noted, "…this program seemed to many of us to really be fascinating and wonderful and just the sort of thing we would want the University to do, and it is a way that the University gives back to the community. And also, for some of us who are involved in the current Commission on Graduate Education, we also thought that this is an interesting model of kinds of education that the University might want to give more thought to develop in the future. There are many reasons to want to sustain this kind of program, including the opportunity to bring more diversity to the University."
Vice Provost Bravman followed-up on her comments. "I taught in this program twice. It turns out that there's a science requirement for the MLA program. The two times that I taught MLA were among the best teaching experiences I have had. These students are serious and committed. They're here to get a degree in liberal arts, but I taught them some quantum mechanics! I hope to teach in the MLA program again."
Somewhat worried that it was a sensitive issue, Chairman Polhemus, asked Dean Paulson, "What do you think of the recommendations that Professor Callan put in his cover letter? Are you in accord with them?"
Dean Paulson replied affirmatively. "Yes, absolutely. They really confirm changes we were thinking of making anyway. In addition, we are very concerned about the diversity of our population. We've been trying to increase it over the last number of years. This year we seem to have succeeded. We're right in the middle of our admissions process. And we seem to have achieved a more diverse population, which is good. And we're hoping to continue that."
Getting back to his committee's recommendation to require letter grades, Professor Callan added that, "…my colleagues and I on C-GS also thought it was very important not to hold this particular program to a higher standard with regard to grading than would be applicable to other masters programs in H & S. However, we were informed that the curriculum committee in H & S is now requiring all IDPs to have at least 45 credits taken to require a letter grade."
There was no more discussion, and the motion made and seconded from C-GS to reauthorize the MLA program to nominate candidates for the Master of Liberal Arts degree for five years, effective September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2011, was passed by a unanimous voice vote.
B. C-GS: Graduate Study Survey: Final Report (Senate#5683 and SenD#5667)
Comparing the full survey report, all 180 pages of it, as being the committee equivalent to Tolstoy's "War and Peace", Polhemus invited Callan to return to the floor to introduce the material.
Professor Callan began by saying, "I can't abide people who write material for a committee and then feel the obligation to repeat what they write one more time with feeling. Okay? I'm assuming that everyone read what I said about this report. And if you didn't, then you really don't deserve compensation for your dereliction of duty by having me read what you should have.
"When Luke Miller and I made our presentation to the Steering Committee, Doug Osheroff noted that when he was involved in writing the report on the Columbia disaster, the investigative committee provided no executive summary because those who were involved in the investigation felt very strongly that there was no way that they could distill the report itself into a brief document which contained in compressed form all the wisdom that the full text contained.
"Thinking back on the road not taken, maybe it might not have been a bad idea, notwithstanding the length of the report and the length of the appendices, for us not to have an executive summary because it captures in only a very superficial way some facets of this fascinating report. And speaking of "War and Peace," I think Tolstoy could have done with a pretty ruthless editor, especially regarding those rather boring chapters at the very end!" [For this and for his first paragraph, Professor Callan is awarded the "Definitive Comments" prize for this senate meeting]
"The good news is that you don't have to read the report from beginning to end, because it's very easy to go quickly to the material on your school and your department. What you find there will be quite fascinating, and should provoke very productive conversations at the level of departments and schools. Let us not let this report sit gathering dust on our shelves or within our hard drives. I hope, rather, that this report's delivery to the Senate is very much the beginning of an important process at the level of schools and departments."
Chairman Polhemus introduced Luke Miller, a graduate student in the School of Education to present the report. As well, he welcomed as guests Ann Porteus, lecturer in Education Services; Claudia Schweikert, Assistant Dean for Graduate Diversity; David Waddington, a member of the Graduate Student Council; Donna Winston, Graduate Student Council; and Grace Chang, last year's chair of the Graduate Student Council.
Mr. Miller pointed out that he would be reviewing the summary statistics and the summary of major findings. "The survey was conducted through the Internet one year ago this month. A link was sent via E-mail to all registered graduate students. It was a sizable survey, 182 questions. Certain sections wouldn't apply to certain students if they were not taking qualifying exams or if they were not doctoral students. Major areas covered were coursework, initial academic advising, communications with primary advisor, conflict resolution with advisor or advisors, the qualifying process, the dissertation, academic environment, and overall career preparation.
"The response rate was 32 percent, which, compared to previous attempts to survey the entire graduate student body, is high. I looked on the Graduate Student Council web site today, and in previous surveys at other schools conducted since 1997, response rates range from eight percent up to 30 percent. Of course, that still opens us up for potential response bias. The school-level response rates ranged from 23 to 51 percent. We took all of the degrees that are offered by Stanford University and combined them into three general categories, being the doctoral, the professional, and the masters. The professional cohort includes the J.D., the M.D., the MBA students, and the engineering degree students at the School of Engineering.
"The purpose of the survey was to identify strengths and weaknesses to help the University create policies and programs to address weaknesses while enhancing strengths. We didn't test any hypotheses. Each school has its own chapter, and within each chapter, there are sections for each department. As we began to analyze the data, we decided to pull out what we called the 'actionable items' found in responses to 41 questions. Most of the questions were on a five-point scale: 'very satisfied,' 'satisfied,' 'neutral,' 'dissatisfied,' and 'very dissatisfied.'
"In analyzing these data, we decided that we would pull up two types of results, those we called 'praiseworthy' and those we called 'concerning'. 'Praiseworthy' results are those for which at least 75 percent of the respondents said that they were satisfied or very satisfied. And the 'concerning' results were those where at least 25 percent of the respondents said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.
"We took H & S data and broke it up into its four divisions: humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, and the interdisciplinary programs. We had several requirements for analysis. To be analyzed separately a group had to have at least 10 respondents, or a 20% response rate. And for them to be considered 'praiseworthy', there needed to be at least five respondents to that question.
"Coursework: The respondents were quite satisfied with the overall quality of their courses. Six of the ten school units had satisfaction rates exceeding the 75 percent benchmark. Overall, those ranged from 54 to 86 percent. There were no schools for which more than 25 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the courses.
"Initial schematic advising: This category includes quality of the orientation programs, the clarity of the University requirements for obtaining degrees, the initial interactions with advisors, and the guidance received in selecting courses. Satisfaction in this category ranged across schools. No schools had 75 percent or more of the respondents saying that they were satisfied. The satisfaction rates at the school level ranged from 33 to 70 percent. It should be noted that one school had a dissatisfaction rate that exceeded 25 percent.
"Current academic advisor: There are two questions that I've pulled out here. One asked, 'How satisfied are you with your current academic advisor's ability to mentor you?' In six of the ten school units there were 75 percent or more respondents that were satisfied. The second question was, 'Overall, how satisfied are you with your academic advisor?' Three of the ten school units had very high rates of satisfaction. There was one school that on both of these measures there were more than 25 percent of respondents within that school who were dissatisfied.
"Conflicts with advisors: The rate at which students experience a conflict is not high, between zero and 21 percent. Those students who experienced a conflict with an advisor experienced very high rates of dissatisfaction with both the conflict resolution process and its outcome. Conflicts that students reported to us included: differences of research interests between advisors and them and feeling pressure to do research in one area or another; differences of opinion in terms of the correct career path; the amount of guidance and feedback and the quality received; the expectations of the work done while here; and the publications process surrounding authorship.
"Qualifying exams: There were high rates of dissatisfaction with the clarity of evaluation standards that schools used. There were eight of the ten school units that had dissatisfaction rates exceeding 25 percent.
"Topic for dissertation: There were high rates of dissatisfaction with preparedness for this. The limited amount of free response data that we received in this area tended to highlight research methodologies and training, and various methodologies needed to conduct dissertation research.
"Academic environment: Generally, students were very satisfied with several aspects of their academic environment, particularly the level of respect that they felt others in their school or department had for their values, the support that they received from departmental and administrative staff, the assistance that they received from other students and postdocs, and the physical resources available to them, such as computers, the library, and their lab space.
"Career preparation: Students tended to be more satisfied with their general career preparation than with their academic career preparation. The committee acknowledged that reactions to this question and to 'overall satisfaction about career preparation', are probably going to change the longer that a student has been here.
"Overall satisfaction: At the school level, results range from 71 to 85 percent of students saying that they are satisfied overall with the entire academic experience at Stanford. Many would recommend their program to others considering graduate studies. And if they were to do it over again, they would come back. The data say that students are content, overall, and that they tend to be very satisfied with their experience.
"The recommendations are that the school or the department should look further into issues that are of concern. The data are to be stored with Rana Glasgal at the Office of Institutional Research and Decision Support so that schools and departments can have additional analyses done of the data free of charge."
Chairman Polhemus thanked Luke Miller for his summation of the report, and the Senate expressed its appreciation as well.
Discussions and questions
Professor Knight was the first to respond. "First of all, this is excellent. Thank you very much for all of the work that you have done in order to provide this information. I'm just curious about any biographical information you acquired about the respondents, such as, did you sort them into U.S. citizens, foreign nationals, and genders?" Mr. Miller said that all who were interested in these data should look at the survey on the Website.
Chairman Polhemus, uncharacteristically, asked a question. "I'm not only Senate chair, I'm also a departmental chair. So this may sound stupid. Okay, what do I do now in order to get this information for my department? What do I do?"
Luke Miller responded that, "There are confidentiality concerns about releasing the raw data to anyone. That's why Rana Glasgal has offered to host the data. And the analyses will be done by her in her office. The full survey results are included in the appendix to this report." Professor Schweikert assured everyone that additional analyses would be developed on each of the sub-components of the groups now studied.
Professor Phillips said, "I was going to make the same point, that it is great timing that this has become available now. The message went out, I believe, to the whole of the graduate student community at Stanford that the Commission is going to be hosting some focus groups and look at many subgroups of the Stanford community. If you guys were in Britain or Australia you would have gotten knighthoods for doing this!"
Dean Matson agreed. "This is a great report. I'm wondering if you guys have dug into the data enough to have identified 'best practices'. Have you been able to identify departments that have particular things in common that students really appreciate?" This, said Miller, had not been done.
Vice Provost Jones said, "This is a question for Claudia Schweikert. I am very pleased to hear that the data will be analyzed for some of those demographic variables. Will that be by school or by division?"
Professor Schweikert responded. "The first cut of the data is going to be each school with H & S sub-divided into its four subsections."
Provost Etchemendy complimented Mr. Miller. "Luke, wonderful job and great presentation. I noticed at one point you said that the co-term students were excluded. Were they excluded from all the analyses?" Miller replied affirmatively.
Professor Callan pointed out that, "Many people contributed to the success of the survey over the last two years. I would be remiss for not mentioning the extraordinary contribution of three individuals: Grace Chang, Rob Sisten, and Luke Miller really made heroic contributions to the quality and vigor of graduate education on the Stanford campus through their labors over the last three years!"
Chairman Polhemus asked, "What was the most surprising thing that you found in the results of this survey?" Miller was ready for that one. "We were surprised that the satisfaction rates were as high as they were!" "Anecdotally," said Polhemus, "knowing that I was coming here I sought out a malcontent graduate student who I knew had many complaints, and I said, 'Are you satisfied with your graduate education?' She said, 'Yes!' "Would you recommend Stanford to potential graduate students?' I asked. 'Yes, I would!' she said. So, it surprised me, too."
Professor Hensler asked, "Luke, could you tell the Senate something about the free response comments so the report that's on the Senate web page includes some of those?"
Luke Miller assured the Senate that free response comments would be in the report on the Senate web page, and recalled that one recurrent comment was that students in small humanities departments wished that there were more of a feeling of community among students in various humanities departments.
Chairman Polhemus, putting on his psychometrician hat, pointed out that when there is only a 32 percent response rate to questions, the data are informative, suggestive, but not conclusive. Miller agreed, and reiterated that the graduate students hoped that these answers would feed development of conversations about the data in the departments. Along the same lines, Professor Porteus wondered whether contacting some of the non-respondents could be valuable.
Professor Bienenstock pointed out that Associate Dean Godfrey Mungal has introduced an 'exit questionnaire' with a large number of questions that are related to this survey that should yield almost a 100 percent response rate of those who complete the doctorate. Laughter rippled through the senate, as conjectures about the possible methods of coercion were imagined.
Grace Chang, one of the prime movers of the survey, hoped that subsequent surveys in four or five years could be done to see if positive changes had been effected, and with this, the discussion ended.
C. Religious Life at Stanford (SenD#5685)
The Reverend Scotty McLennan, Dean for Religious Life, presented this report of the Office for Religious Life (ORL). The web site for the office is http://religiouslife.stanford.edu. For the senators and guests McLennan provided a brochure that describes in good detail the activities of ORL.
Professor McLennan noted that, "The steering committee asked me to begin by describing my background to you. And specifically, I think they wanted me to admit to you that I am a lifelong joke! I had the fortune or misfortune of having a college roommate, Gary Trudeau, who created this comic strip, Doonesbury in which there is a red-haired and bearded minister, Reverend Scott. That's how I looked about 30 years ago. So, I bring that baggage or that privilege throughout my life. I'm a Unitarian Universalist minister and an attorney. For 16 years I was at Tufts University as the university chaplain before coming here. Before that, I practiced law for ten years under church sponsorship in a low-income neighborhood in Boston. I've been here at Stanford for four years. I'm very privileged to have two associate deans for religious life, Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann, Senior Associate Dean, and Reverend Joanne Sanders, Associate Dean for Religious Life. They're both here today."
McLennan went on to mention others in the office:
1. Cathy Jensen, administration manager
2. Elena Yujuico, operations coordinator
3. Debbie McDevitt, public relations and events coordinator
4. Robert Huw Morgan, University organist
5. Greg Wait, choir director
6. Pam Bergmann, sound technician
7. Julie Cheng, wedding coordinator (over 100 each year in Mem. Chu.)
Under the heading, "What We Do" he listed Ritual, Pastoral Counseling, Programming/Teaching, Public Service and Social Justice, Advising Stanford Administration, Church Music, and Supporting Stanford-associated religions.
He explained that " 'Ritual'…covers everything from Sunday services (the University public worship in Memorial Church), to preaching there and in other environments, to invocations and benedictions at commencement, to weddings and memorial services. 'Pastoral counseling' includes a lot of one-to-one work with students, faculty, and staff, as well as with groups needing help with grief and bereavement, spirituality, and sexuality. As for 'Programming and Teaching' we work with residential life by going into the dormitories. In addition, we teach in the regular curriculum. The three of us are doing a 'team teach' of a course this quarter called Spirituality and Nonviolent Social Transformation. In our 'Public Service and Social Justice' work we also work closely with the Haas Center, and we have a program on spirituality and service in the summer with summer interns. We work with Stanford administrators on issues of ethics and protecting rights of religious minorities on campus."
McLennan pointed out that "…there are 30 different religious organizations on campus that we provide an umbrella for and facilitate their work. These include the Bahá'í group, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Quakers, and the traditional communities. The largest of these is the Roman Catholic community on campus. There is a significant Jewish presence. Hillel supports twenty-three groups on campus. There are seventeen Protestant Christians groups and a number of other traditions."
The Dean moved to a recent emphasis by the ORL on promoting classroom inquiry to help students find meaning and purpose in their lives within Stanford's liberal arts mission. He presented data from a UCLA survey done in 2003 of more than 3000 students at 46 colleges and universities, comparing what happens to students in terms of spirituality between the time they enter as freshmen and the end of their junior year. The survey results revealed that while attendance at religious services declined substantially, almost by 50%, the "integration of spirituality into one's life" went up from 51 percent to 58, "developing a meaningful philosophy of life" increased from 43 to 52 percent, and "helping others who are in difficulty", rose from 60 to 74 percent. "Being very well off financially" declined from 71 percent of freshmen believing that to be an important or essential goal to 63 percent three years later.
"Student interest in the areas of 'struggling to understand evil, suffering, and death'," continued McLennan, " and 'searching for meaning and purpose in their lives' were at the 75 percent level, but 'opportunities to discuss the purpose and meaning of life' never happened in classrooms for 56 percent of junior students."
Dean McLennan then raised a number of questions to the Senate. "What is liberal education all about? What is important for discussion in the classroom? Does 'education' have to do with development of character, personal values, and ethics, and developing a sense of what is ultimately important in life? Should there be training for citizenship as much as for personal economic success?" He reminded the Senators of the Object and Purposes of Stanford University that were part of the Founding Grant in 1885:
Object: To qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life.
Purposes: To promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Quoting from panels that he had with Stanford faculty, McLennan made a case for "…personal transformation in the classroom being a part of intellectual transformation. How do we do that in the classroom? And when is it appropriate to ask students to actually reflect on their personal understanding and experience in the classroom environment? Students must learn how to take and maintain a personal stand, but at the same time to realize that values are not simply a matter of one's subjective opinion, and that there are issues of citizenship and community responsibility."
The Dean ended with the hope of engaging the Senate in answering the question, "…since students want to have discussions about the meaning and purpose of life in college, what is the faculty responsibility to provide it in the classroom setting?"
Discussion and questions
Dean Sharon Long asked whether there was evidence that Stanford students often find themselves in a situation where they feel real conflict between their personal beliefs and what's going on in the classroom on issues such as the doctrine of evolution, and, if they have these conflicts, are they open or silent about their conflicting beliefs? Professor McLennan agreed that some students were conflicted about their beliefs and that there are students who are silent about their turmoil, but that the numbers were not great.
Patricia Karlin-Neumann opined that the teaching of evolution clashes with religious commitments of our more conservative Evangelical students, and that classes where religious texts are used but are taught either as academic texts or as literary texts is another common area for conflicted views.
Vice Provost Bravman was concerned that students in his experience have been emotionally traumatized by offhand comments by faculty that "…utterly dismiss a spiritual life. We cannot underestimate the wound that these comments can inflict upon a student in this developmentally intense period of their life." He urged his faculty colleagues to be very careful about "…making what to the student appears to be a value judgment about their worth as an individual because of what they believe."
In response to a question from Professor Falkow, McLennan pointed out that in addition to religious offerings on the campus, there are "…many different places from which people develop their ethics that are not religious bases. We have a robust philosophical tradition, a secular tradition of ethics, and we can point people to all those opportunities that exist throughout the University."
Professor Gardner pointed out that with the increasing diversity of the student body and the large number of religions and beliefs on campus, it is more difficult to bring in spirituality to the campus, much more so than if Stanford were founded on a specific faith, as are Jesuit schools. Professor McLennan agreed. "What makes Stanford so exciting is, indeed, its pluralism and the kinds of resources that are available because of this. At the hospital, for example, the Stanford Hospital chaplaincy involves counselors from a very wide variety of traditions available for patients." Gardner appreciated this account of the diverse professionals available. "No matter what your personal faith is, you need to know that there are a variety of faiths and a variety of issues."
Dean Stipek complimented the ORL, remembering that when one of their first-year doctoral students was killed in an automobile accident last year, the Office of Religious Life "…came forward proactively and was an enormously important resource in helping the school and the students who were most touched by this death."
Professor Eric Roberts had been a participant in faculty and alumni panels with Dean McLennan. "I thought those discussions, both with the alumni, but particularly with the representatives from all the Stanford Associated Religions, were some of the most interesting, thought-provoking discussions that I have been involved in. It is clear to me that a discussion of these kinds of questions is perfectly appropriate for an academic setting. These are the critical questions that we all have to face at some point and they underlie any discussion of ethics and moral reasoning." He praised McLennan and the ORL and their efforts in helping bring discussion of important issues to the classroom, adding "… since so many of the issues that we face in the world today have to do with a failure to understand what other people with different religious beliefs are thinking, it is critical to have these kinds of discussion. I would like to see more coordination with the faculty, more involvement by faculty, not necessarily in
Professor McLennan was pleased. "This is from a professor of Computer Science! I really appreciate your joining in these panels and helping people understand that in an area where it is not obvious that issues of spirituality and values are critical, that's very much how you teach and what you see to be important.
"I also want to mention one of our programs that Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann, and Cathy Jensen are very much involved in organizing: Faculty are being invited to speak on what matters to them, and why. It is so important for our students, faculty, and staff, to have those opportunities. The more you can tell us and come forward and help us outside the classroom the better."
Dean Long wondered whether there was training available for faculty who want to develop more expertise in facilitating discussions in their classes of values and personal beliefs. Dean McLennan expressed interest in setting up opportunities for dialogue and training, if the faculty wanted it.
Professor Osheroff said, "Scotty, I must say that my own talk on 'what matters to me' I regarded as undressing in public, and, of course, it was in Memorial Church!" He suggested that having discussions on these important issues in life in the context of the student dormitory is a very good idea.
In response to a Professor Osgood query about the potential danger of "cults," McLennan pointed to the last page of the ORL brochure where there was printed "A Word of Warning" about aggressive or manipulative groups that use high pressure recruitment tactics, discourage critical or independent thinking, want to choose friends for students, or make unrealistic demands on a student's time or money. "Yes, indeed, these are a continuing concern on campus. I don't think our concern is at a very high level. Cults that I know to be operating on campus are below the radar. Although we have to be ever-vigilant about this problem, I don't think it's a great problem at this time."
Professor Mark brought to the floor "…a thought from my colleague, Professor Abernethy, who has suggested extending this type of discussion from the classroom and residential areas to faculty homes. These might be places where individual faculty members, of emeriti in particular, could invite small groups of students to their homes to discuss meaning of life issues, ethical issues, universal issues."
Professor Porteus recalled that when he and his wife Ann were resident fellows on campus twenty years ago, they had a strong bible study group in the dormitory. They had invited a minister to join them and were discussing different opinions. The minister said, "…that's your religion, not our religion," while refusing to discuss different opinions. He wondered whether this sort of intolerance was still a problem.
Professor McLennan admitted, "We do have groups that have a very clear view of the universe doctrinally, and promulgate a knowledge of who will be saved and how, and so forth. Part of the struggle for those of us who want to understand the phenomenon of religion is that within that wide framework of the religions of the world, there are major traditions and parts of major traditions that have dogmatic orientations. It is a challenge to deal effectively with these groups in this wonderfully pluralistic environment called Stanford while still respecting the fact that certain people do look at the world in very different ways than most of us do.
"In contrast, the groups that are part of Stanford Associated Religions meet once or twice each quarter to have discussions in which openness is, indeed, the coin of the realm. We have talked about homosexuality, about the Iraq War, and numerous other issues for which there are many different perspectives."
Chairman Polhemus, at this point, provided some recent history. "The reason for this discussion is because I'm opening my own dialogue with Scotty McLennan. As you know, I was upset by what I considered to be the censorship of the outdoor sculpture planned for the campus, "A Device to Root Out Evil." What Scotty says about spirituality, religion, and ethics is fine, except that there are contradictions between ethics, religion, and spirituality.
"I'm a little nervous about talking about what should go on in the classroom, because I respect my colleagues and I think that they have their own visions of what should go on in the classroom. When we look around the world now, we see that under the aegis of religion and spirituality, ethical horrors are perpetrated every day. I just get nervous about whether we should move this way in the classroom."
Professor McLennan smiled, and consoled him. "I appreciate that. And… a lot of religion makes me pretty nervous, too! I actually preach a sermon almost annually titled, 'Does Religion do More Harm than Good?' There's much that's done in the name of religion that is, indeed, horrendous. And I think that's part of what we need to keep in the dialogue."
Chairman Polhemus, perhaps pleased that the Dean was a Unitarian, closed the discussion and thanked McLennan for a fascinating discussion.
V. and VI. Unfinished and New Business - NoneVII. AdjournmentThis happened as dusk was settling on the campus at 5:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,Edward D. Harris, Jr. M.D.Academic Secretary to the University