Faculty Senate minutes - January 20, 2005 meeting
TO THE MEMBERS OF
THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
Report No. 5
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, JANUARY 20At its meeting on Thursday, January 20, 2005, the Thirty-seventh Senate of the Academic Council took the following actions:
By unanimous vote, the Thirty-seventh Senate reauthorizes the Executive Committee of the Program in Cancer Biology to nominate candidates for the Master of Science and the Doctor of Philosophy degrees for five years, effective September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2011.
EDWARD D. HARRIS
Academic Secretary to the University
MINUTES, JANUARY 20I. Call to OrderChairman Polhemus crashed his gavel upon the table at 3:19 p.m., bringing the first meeting of the winter term to order. Professor Greenberg, standing with his back close to the epicenter of this thunderclap, was more than a little surprised! Polhemus welcomed all present (a fine turnout of senators) and noted that "…our first piece of business is the minutes, approving the minutes. But before we officially do that, let me say that if you read the minutes, you know that no one could actually 'approve' of the minutes, with their levity and humor about the most serious things in the world… ourselves. So it's just a nominal approval. But I do approve of them, because I find that people actually do read Ted Harris. They actually read him in the Campus Report, looking for cheap laughs! So I egg him on. That will be the way it goes this year. I egg him on, because it's a way of getting attention for what we do here."
Approval of Minutes (SenD#5664)In spite of, or because of, that introduction, the minutes of the December 2, 2004 meeting (SenD#5664) were approved.
II. Action CalendarThe very important responsibility and opportunity of the faculty senate, approving both the list of candidates for the Baccalaureate degrees (SenD#5671) and Advanced degrees (SenD#5672) were approved as submitted by the Registrar, Roger Printup.
III. Standing ReportsA. Memorial ResolutionProfessor Mauro Cappelletti, 1922-2003 (SenD#5665) Chairman Polhemus introduced Professor John Merryman, Professor of Law, emeritus and a former chair of the Senate, to present this.
Professor Merryman began. "Mauro Cappelletti, the Lewis Talbott and Nadine Hearn Shelton Professor of International Legal Studies, emeritus, died in Fiesole, Italy, on November 1,2004, at the age of 76. Professor Cappelletti was a distinguished, innovative, and prolific scholar who bridged the two worlds of European and American law and influenced a generation of scholars on two continents.
He was an active participant in projects to further the comparative study of law and improve the place of law in the modern world. He directed an important international research project on access to justice that produced a four-volume series of reports and edited a major study on integration through law, "Europe and the American Federal Experience," which underlined much that has gone on in the European Union since it was published. Among his more-than-thirty books were two important works written for American English-speaking audiences, with coauthors, 'Civil Procedure in Italy' and the 'Italian Legal System, an Introduction.' In these, he introduced English-speaking readers to the Italian legal system.
Cappelletti was an imposing figure and a strong personality. He sponsored many young scholars and started them on their way to careers in academic life and in politics in the United States and in Europe.
Mr. Chairman, it is my honor, on behalf of a committee consisting of Lawrence M. Friedman and me to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of Mauro Cappelletti, the Lewis Talbott and Nadine Hearn Shelton Professor of International Legal Studies, emeritus. 'Potersi riposa nella pace.''
After the traditional moment of silence, Professor Polhemus thanked John Merryman, who then left the senate with the word, "Arrivederci!"
Cedric W. Richards 1913-2002. Chairman Polhemus asked Professor Richard Luthy from Civil and Environmental Engineering to present the resolution (SenD#5654).
Professor Luthy began. "Cedric W. Richards, emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, died on October 22nd, 2002, at his home in Portola Valley. Cedric served on the Stanford faculty from 1953 to his retirement in 1978. During his tenure at Stanford, Cedric's teaching and research focused on the engineering properties of structural materials such as cement, concretes, and polymers. He authored a major textbook on engineering materials that emphasized why such materials behaved the way they do, rather than merely describing the properties of such materials. This book helped to change the way material courses were taught, and it was widely adopted at engineering schools in the U.S. and many other countries.
Cedric was active both in national engineering societies and in the academic affairs of his Stanford department. He was popular with students and faculty, and his death was a sad occasion for his many friends.
Mr. Chairman, I have the honor on behalf of a committee consisting of emeritus professors James M. Gere (Chair), Joseph B. Franzini, Haresh C. Shah, and Professor Helmut Krawinkler to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late Cedric W. Richards, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering."
At the Chair's request, the Senate stood for a moment of silence. Polhemus thanked Professor Luthy for filling in for the memorial committee.
B. Steering Committee"Maybe you heard the inauguration speech today," began Professor Polhemus. "In this country this is a day to think about and to celebrate the power of freedom and liberty and life. I hope that, as well, it is a day for us in our vocation in this University to ponder and renew our dedication and to broaden our particular institutional freedom…the freedom of the inquiring mind and pursuit of the liberty of intellectual inquiry. Our institution was founded and exists for these things.
"Okay. I know that the holidays and New Year's have become fuzzy memories for you, but I hope you all had a good, long break, from the Senate, at least. And now that you are back in harness, I can tell you that our agenda this quarter is going to be full. At our next meeting in two weeks, we will have an administrative session of the Steering Committee prior to the Senate committee in these chambers at 2:15 p.m. Three academic committees' annual reports from 2003-04 are going to be presented: the Committee on Libraries, the Committee on Graduate Studies, and Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies. All senators are free to come, and are encouraged to come.
"At our regular 3:15 meeting of the full senate, we will hear a report from the Director of Libraries, Mike Keller, on the HighWire Press. He will also give us a brief update on the new digitization project for the entire collection of the libraries, and some details of the arrangement with Google that makes it possible. Following this, the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies is going to recommend the adaptation of its proposal for a revision of the current GER, General Education Requirements.
"At the February 17th meeting, our fellow senator Scotty McLennan, Dean of Religious Life at Stanford, will present a report on his unit's activities at Stanford. Also, the Graduate Student Council will present a report on the graduate student Quality of Life issues survey, and make recommendations for change to us. Finally, the Committee on Graduate Studies is going to present its recommendation for a renewal of the Master of Liberal Arts in Continuing Studies.
"At the final meeting this quarter, March 3rd the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid will present its annual report. After this short meeting, the elected members of the Senate will convene upstairs for an informal executive session. I should note for you that if we have time, an executive session of the Senate will be held in this room…without refreshments or delay.
"On March 31st, at the beginning of the spring quarter, after a short Senate meeting, President Hennessy will preside over the annual Academic Council meeting in Cubberly Auditorium, providing for us a five-year retrospective."
There were no questions for the Steering Committee.
C. Committee on CommitteesProfessor Osgood had no report, but noted that work of the CoC was about to begin in earnest.
D. President and Provost ReportPresident Hennessey The President shared the news that, "After completing a record fund-raising month in the month of December, we passed our one billion dollar goal for the Campaign for Undergraduate Education one year ahead of schedule! This is a real testimony to the quality of the changes we've made in undergraduate education and the loyalty of our alumni. I just want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all my colleagues that participated in the 'Think Again' program. That was a really novel way of bringing to our alumni the excitement of what we've done and are doing in undergraduate education. It made the campaign take off like a rocket.
"We will be continuing the campaign through this calendar year in order to complete some goals that we have had in mind but have not fully achieved. For now we can have a small celebration of reaching this milestone as we begin to think about what's next for Stanford and what we want to have on the horizon. I thank each of you all for all of your help in getting to this point."
Chairman Polhemus said, "Great! Are there any questions for the president?"
Dr. Gardner's hand was raised, and seeing the knowing smile on her face, the senate began to chuckle even before her words came forth. "Would you care to opine on your peer president's comments on women?" This was, of course, in reference to the remarks by Harvard University President Larry Summers that perhaps women were somehow different in composition from men in ways that made them less likely to continue in academic careers in science and mathematically-based fields.
President Hennessy assured "…all my women colleagues and potential future faculty members that I have no doubt that they are equally intellectually capable as my male faculty colleagues. This policy is one that we will hold and adhere to within the University."
Report of Provost Etchemendy "I have three announcements, two of them a bit lengthy." said the Provost, The senators settled in, and began to concentrate.
"One is that I'm happy to announce that we have successfully completed negotiations with the Ford Foundation about the Foundation's new grant conditions related to terrorism. The award conditions relate to antiterrorism measures that many foundations believed were required by Executive Order 13224 entitled "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism," that was signed by President Bush in September 2001. Stanford's problem has been with grant letters required from the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.
"The Ford Foundation's new grant letter requires that the grant recipient, i.e., Stanford University, certify that, 'You agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.' The Rockfeller Foundation requires that grant recipients, '…certify that your organization does not directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activities.'
"Both of the foundations were quite explicit that what they meant by sub-grants was that the restrictions applied to all of our funds, not just the funds that were received from the foundations. So, for example, their rules applied to all of the salaries we pay, all of the scholarships we provide to students, and all of the payments we make to outside vendors.
"When you look at that language and think about what this means, we could not, for example, give scholarships to any student who might in fact, directly or indirectly, support something that the Foundations construed as a terrorist organization. Well, that's very hard for us to certify, because it is very likely that we do so support individuals who support such organizations by the simple process of giving 'need-blind' scholarships.
"In response to this, a group of university provosts, including the provosts of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, five other peer institutions, and me began negotiating with these two foundations to try to see whether we could get them to change the language of the grant conditions to make them more acceptable. In particular, we asked the foundations whether they would change the wording to simply require that we comply with all applicable antiterrorism legislation, which, of course, we do and we will continue to do.
"Most foundations that we spoke to agreed to do this. The Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, however, weren't willing to change the language of their basic grant/award conditions. Stanford, therefore, had no choice but to place temporary restrictions on submitting grants to them. We told the deans that we would not accept any grants from either Ford or Rockefeller Foundations until we had reached resolution on this, and that we were placing a moratorium on submitting new grant applications to either of these foundations.
"In response to the nine provosts' collective efforts, the Ford Foundation agreed to accompany the grant letters with a 'side letter' but not change the language of the grant letter itself. The side letter gave us Ford's interpretation of the conditions of the grant letter and reaffirmed the Foundation's support for academic freedom and freedom of speech. It further specified that the Foundation intended its restrictions to apply only to official speech and conduct of the University and to speech and conduct that the University explicitly endorses. Unfortunately, they would not clarify exactly what that meant. For example, if John Hennessy makes some remarks in the Senate, off the cuff remarks, would that be 'official speech' of the University?
"John Hennessy and I didn't feel comfortable with this. We were concerned about a couple of things. One is the ambiguity of the language. The other is simply the fact that we would be accepting a grant that puts constraints on the speech and conduct of the University as a whole. Please understand, we don't intend to endorse or promote terrorism. But we have assiduously not taken gifts or grants that placed restrictions on the University's speech or the speech of members of the University. Suppose, for example, we were offered a grant that required that we not take a position, such as endorsing affirmative action or endorsing stem cell research or something similar. Currently, we would say, 'Sorry, we don't accept any grants that place such restrictions on the University's speech.' But if we did accept the Ford and Rockefeller grants, then we would have accepted such conditions.
"At the time that these new conditions were placed, there were some Ford Foundation grants that the faculty had received; we temporarily refused to accept them. I funded them temporarily out of Stanford accounts while we were continuing our negotiations. In October, at the Board of Trustees meeting, we brought this issue to them to discuss, because if we agreed to this, they, too, would be constrained by the restrictions. The Board was very concerned and agreed with our position; it agreed that we should not accept the grant language as it was stated.
"We have now reached an agreement with the Ford Foundation. We have agreed to accept a 'side letter' with somewhat revised language. We notified the Ford Foundation that although the University does not anticipate taking any positions that the Foundation would consider violations of the conditions that we agreed to, we wanted them to understand that we do not intend to modify our speech or behavior because of these conditions. What this means is that we would tell the faculty that if a grant is accepted from the Ford Foundation, the applicant takes on the risk that if the University or a member of the faculty or administration adopts a position that the Ford Foundation considers objectionable, this could lead the Foundation to cease funding that grant or cease future grant funding. That is a risk that the faculty member must be willing to take. It was a difficult process, working through these negotiations, but I am pleased with the outcome. Let me read to you the new 'side letter' we have agreed to. It says: 'Ford supports and endorses the principle of academic freedom as it is generally understood in American colleges and universities. We recognize that the lawful expression and activities of colleges and universities by faculty, students, and others relating to a broad range of views and opinions may be controversial, unpopular, or offensive. We value and support free and open debate. We do not intend to interfere with discussions in the classroom that express the views of individuals. Our grant letter relates only to the official speech and conduct of the University and the speech and conduct that the University explicitly endorses. It is not intended to change the academic or intellectual values of the University nor to interfere in student admissions, faculty appointment, curriculum, or academic program development or establishment of research programs.'
" 'The sixth paragraph of the grant letter [the "anti-terrorism clause"] applies to activity of the university limited, as stated above, to the official speech and conduct of the university and to speech and conduct that the university explicitly endorses whether or not funded by the Ford Foundation. In the event of a violation of the sixth paragraph, Ford will cease further funding of Stanford but will not seek a return of grant funds already disbursed to Stanford unless (and only to the extent) that such grant funds were expended for the prohibited activity. Ford may resume funding for Stanford if it determines that Stanford has addressed the issues that gave rise to the violation.'
"So that's the new 'side letter'. It still contains the restriction, but Ford understands how we are construing it, and we were comfortable accepting the grant under those conditions. We have not come to a resolution with the Rockefeller Foundation, partly because the Rockefeller Foundation is in transition to a new president. We hope to be able to come to some resolution when the new president comes on board. You can now apply to the Ford Foundation, if you so desire!"
Questions….At the invitation of Chairman Polhemus, Professor Hensler asked, "John, I'm not very good at following this kind of language when I don't have it in front of me to read. Let me ask you a question about a situation that may or may not be covered as 'official speech.' Suppose that I invite a speaker to campus in a series, as indeed I do, to speak about issues of international conflict, some of which, in fact, clearly touch on terrorism in a world where there is terrorism. It evolves that the speaker has a particular position. Is the University endorsing the position because I have invited the speaker for an official university event?"
The Provost replied, quickly. "Pretty clearly not, according to the Ford Foundation. However, there are other cases that are less clear. What about a Presidential Lecture? Is the content in one of those something that's officially endorsed by the University? That has not been clarified. Exactly what the line is between 'non-official speech' and 'official speech' is not very clear. Nonetheless, I'm comfortable because Ford understands and now all of my colleagues who accept Ford grants understand that they are taking the risk. If you receive a Ford grant, you have to understand that it is possible that the Ford Foundation will be unhappy with something that is done or said at the University and that their grant funding will stop. It is a risk of accepting that grant but not something that will constrain any of our behavior at Stanford."
Professor Inan asked, "What's the total volume of Ford Foundation grants?" The Provost estimated that it was "…on the order of $1 million a year."
Professor Cohen was curious about whether "…there other areas besides terrorism that Stanford can't officially talk about? Is this the only area where Stanford officially cannot speak?"
The Provost pointed out, "No. We cannot engage in illegal behavior. And to the extent that some speech is illegal behavior according to the laws of the country, then that is precluded." He turned to his colleagues in the Law School for help…they remained silent.
"The second announcement is that we have named a search committee to search for the next Dean of Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid. John Bravman and I will co-chair the committee. Also serving on the committee are Professors Judy Goldstein, Brad Osgood, Godfrey Mungal, Steve Sano, Adina Payton and Hazel Marcus. Eric Hse will serve as the student representative.
"Regarding the third announcement, at your desks you have a copy of the academic calendar proposed for 2005/2006. Last year, we changed the academic calendar and we lengthened it in light of Jewish holidays that occurred during that period. That change had several unexpected positive effects that led Roger to think about the possibility of changing the schedule. He has made this proposal to the cabinet, to C-GS, and to C-USP. I'll let Roger describe it."
Registrar Roger Printup explained what will happen. "The new schedule tries to take advantage of what occurred this past fall quarter where classes began on a Monday. The down side of this past fall quarter was that it was shorter than in the past because we started on the Monday instead of the usual previous Wednesday start. For many of us who deal with undergraduates, particularly freshmen, the beginning of classes on Monday was a particularly positive thing. Classes that have sections were able to meet during that week. Our fabled shopping period seemed to calm down a bit sooner than it has in the past, and students got involved in their studies in a more serious and deeper way than when classes began on Wednesday, because in the past students would go to only one class because many of our classes meet only on Monday/Wednesday, or Tuesday/Thursday. However, we did not want to continue the practice of having a quarter that's shorter than our normal quarter. We only had 48 days this past fall quarter. The challenge was to devise a way that we could have a quarter that's the same length, 51 days, but also one that begins on a Monday.
"The plan is to begin classes during the regular week that we would normally begin our fall quarter this coming 2005 quarter, but begin classes on Monday instead of Wednesday. We have a legacy of not having classes on Monday and Tuesday because of what used to be registration. But students don't register that way anymore, going into Maples Pavilion. Students now actually begin registering for classes in August, on line.
"The proposal is to begin classes on that Monday and to have ten weeks of five days of classes. This would give us the week of Thanksgiving off. That does not mean, of course, that the University will be closed, but classes would not be held during the week of Thanksgiving." Classes would end the day before The Big Game.
The registrar added that, "I'm doing this as something that we would try for this coming academic year as an experiment. We will assess the good points and any 'down sides,' and then come back with a formal proposal if we hope to make this a long-term reality for approval or rejection by the Senate."
Discussion and QuestionsScores of hands shot into the air at this point. Chairman Polhemus recognized the distinguished chair of Senate 36, Tom Wasow. "In recent years, we've introduced a lot of activities in September before classes start, such as Sophomore College and Honors College, among others. How would this plan affect those?" Printup noted that, "There are some little scheduling fixes that would have to be made. But the intention is certainly not to injure those programs in any way. I've talked with the people who are involved in those programs. They think that they can accommodate this change and still have a Monday start.
Professor Simoni was partly thankful. "This looks fine to me. I must say, having a short quarter this last fall was troublesome. It is good that we will regain those lectures. We have fairly elaborate plans for next fall already. But I want you to know that we have scheduled a departmental retreat for that Sunday, Monday, and part of Tuesday. Five years ago we made the reservation in advance to go to Asilomar. Okay, we'll manage. Our little department shouldn't determine how the University behaves. But this is really short notice! And it makes me more worried when you said 'we'll see how this turns out,' which means that there is a potential for still future change. I think the calendar can't be diddled with great frequency. This short lead time produces real inconveniences!"
The senate was energized by this topic. Many other concerns as well as awareness of benefits of the Monday start surfaced.
Professor Sherri Sheppard appreciated the Monday start for undergraduate courses, but felt that masters degree students, arriving on Friday, had insufficient time over the weekend for orientation, particularly the needed time to connect with faculty. From the perspective of freshman advising, Vice-provost Pat Jones liked the Monday start that enabled the academic advising to be started during the week, leaving the weekend free for the new students to "…sort of blow off steam and get ready for their courses… a good feature of the plan."
Professor Goldsmith initiated a discussion of "…the week off at Thanksgiving, as much as I would like that. Quarters are pretty short anyway. There will be a whole week off, then a return for the last two weeks of class. Potentially that is very disruptive to the continuity of the class." Professor Siegmund shared that misgiving, although the Registrar pointed out that the Thanksgiving week would give students "…the opportunity to catch up." "Faculty, too!" added Simoni. Printup continued, "As we all know, in the quarter system, particularly humanities and social sciences, the ability to write long papers is difficult because of the short period of time. Perhaps this will help. Many other universities are giving the full week off at Thanksgiving. Some of our students who live farther away don't go home over Thanksgiving because there is too little time to go and come back. I happen to live in a freshman dorm because I'm a resident fellow. And the students that I have talked to who live farther away indicated that, in the proposed plan, they would probably go home rather than stay on campus."
Professor Eaton raised concerns about "…the advising, not of the freshmen, but of all the other undergraduates. My office is always full on that Monday and Tuesday with undergraduates. I don't think they'll really show up on Thursday and Friday the week before the quarter starts. And I don't think they're going to decide in June what they're going to take during the next fall term. It may generate chaos for students and advisors when students arrive here on Sunday afternoon and must be in class at 9:00 a.m on Monday."
Professor Paula Moya voiced the same concern about the full week off leading to "…a loss of momentum in courses." She asked if the alternative of canceling Wednesday before Thanksgiving might depressurize things. Not in favor of this, Professor Phillips pointed to the reality known by all professors, "… 'Thanksgiving Creep'. It's useless having a class on Wednesday, particularly Wednesday afternoon or Wednesday evening, as I sometimes do. No one turns up except me!" He admitted that, coming from Australia, "…I wondered what the hell Thanksgiving was for about 20 years. But it's a major American holiday, and people really seem to miss their families. It does seem to me that this is just giving in to the inevitable and is a sensible thing to try, particularly if there's a two-week period of classes after they come back."
Chairman Polhemus asked the Provost if this could definitely be declared an 'experiment' that we will re-visit next year right after Thanksgiving? Etchemendy replied with a definite "Absolutely!" He pointed out that the Senate was not being asked to vote upon it because the changes were, indeed, an experiment, and not final.
Moriah Thomason (Graduate Student Council representative) urged the administration to make sure that professors realized that indeed this was an "experiment." She also spoke in favor of having the full week of Thanksgiving off. Professor Markman agreed, pointing out the poor attendance in large undergraduate courses during the three days before Thanksgiving.
The only clear agreement in this discussion came when Professor Fortmann, from the medical school, asked whether it could be optional to the individual professor whether he or she wants to schedule classes on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of Thanksgiving week. A resounding "NO!" rose from all quarters to this suggestion.
Professor Rosemary Knight pointed out that Roger Printup had brought this discussion to the last meeting of the committee she chairs, Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy, and that C-USP had given "…cautious approval. There was a lot of discussion about the potential loss of 'academic momentum.' It is crucial to present this plan correctly to both faculty and students, making sure that all realize that this Thanksgiving week off from classes should not be considered a full vacation, but rather a chance for completion of term projects, supplemental reading and writing, as well as recharging batteries with family at home." C-USP also expressed concern about "…those students who now, due to expense or time, do not leave for the Thanksgiving holiday and now, if they stay on campus, may feel even more isolated unless taken in by faculty or friends."
Chairman Polhemus agreed. "It's a great plan for humanities professors, because we schedule novels throughout the quarter, and now the English professors will have a week to read them!"
Provost Etchemendy, realizing that his "Report" was being taken away from him, pointed out that there were still many unanswered questions, as many senators had pointed out, but he asked for a "sense of the Senate" about trying the plan as an experiment, accepting the reality (underlined by Professor Eaton) that it would make scheduling for that week more than one year ahead difficult.
Therefore, Professor Simoni, after a rather complex introduction, made the motion that "…we determine the sense of the Senate about agreeing to approve the change for the 2005-06 year…starting the term on Monday and having the full Thanksgiving week without classes." The "straw vote" was divided, but more voted "yea" than "nay." The Provost was grateful for the information.
IV. Other ReportsA. Committee Graduate Studies (C-GS): Renewal of Degree Authority for Interdisciplinary Program in Cancer Biology (SenD#5660)Chairman Polhemus was pleased to welcome "…Professor Eammon Callan, who is chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies, to present the committee's recommendation for Senate approval for the renewal of the degree-nominating authority for the Interdisciplinary Program in Cancer Biology. He's joined today by Professor John Boothroyd, Senior Associate Dean for Graduate Training, and Professor Joe Lipsick, the director of the Program in Cancer Biology."
Professor Callan said, " I am here in lieu of Ellen Porzig, the Associate Dean of Graduate Education. I have nothing to add to the very laudatory letter that I wrote on behalf of the Committee on Graduate Studies. I won't waste the time of the Senate by repeating what I said in the letter." Professor Boothroyd was brief, as well. "This is a stellar program. It has always been one of our largest and one of our strongest, and under Joe Lipsick's leadership under the last several years has become even stronger. There were several recommendations that the review committee made. I'd like to publicly thank them for the work. They had some specific recommendations, and we are trying to address those. I think out of the four, we're now pretty comfortable we have addressed three of them, and there's one, the nasty business of money, that we're still trying to figure out."
Professor Lipsick added, "Most of what I would say is in the report. But in addition, I think there are aspects of the structure of graduate education in the medical school and biosciences that really ought to be addressed. In some ways, this program does very well in spite of the regulations imposed upon IDPs."
Vice Provost Jones picked up on these issues. "I think that every time we see a review of an interdisciplinary program in the biosciences, the same issue surfaces: the funding for administrative support for those programs is very limited. This is in part because of the way the school distributes tuition income. For example, even though a course may be developed by an IDP for its own graduate students, and is a course available to any and all graduate students, the income from the tuition goes not to the program, but it goes to the departments of the faculty that teach it. That is coupled with chronic under funding of these programs. John Boothroyd, is this dilemma being seriously looked at now that it has come up yet again in the context of this review?"
Professor Boothroyd agreed that, "All are good points. First, please realize that not all the tuition goes back to the departments. About ten percent is taken out before it is distributed and used for the administrative efforts. You are saying, of course, that is not enough money. Second, this year we have added a person to support the general administration of our three large IDPs as well as to provide some salary for someone to provide financial management. In essence, we've added more bodies at the school's cost to try and support our big three, which are Neurosciences, Immunology, and Cancer Biology. As you know, the tuition money goes to the departments because those faculty who organize those courses are paid by the departments, not by the IDPs. It would be awkward to take the money away from the departments and yet leave them with the burden of paying the faculty salaries.
"For all three of those large programs I just mentioned, there is a very convenient but not accidental one-to-one correspondence between them and our three major institutes that the school is launching in the coming years. Cancer Biology is aligned to the Institute for Stem Cell and Cancer Biology. The Immunology IDP is linked to the new Immunity and Transplantation Institute, and Neurosciences is linked to the Neurosciences IDP. Our plan is that they will be the foci of our major efforts in fund-raising over the next several years when the University's next campaign is launched.
"We fully expect that there will be not just a trickle-down, but a flow, if not a flood, of funds that come into those institutes, because they will include the education components. They will get major institutional funding. These institutes will have a physical identity and a very strong academic identity.
Professor Simoni echoed Pat Jones' comments. "Remember, this Cancer Biology Program is not only interdisciplinary, it is interdepartmental and it is interschool. It is part of a really big biosciences Ph.D. training program. So whatever happens to them affects all of us, not just people in the medical school. As you can see from the material at your desks, the review committee did point out problems. One is administrative infrastructure. Another is that there are insufficient stipends for allowing more students to enroll in the program. The applicant pool is large and good. We could have more of these fabulous students. But I want to dwell on a third problem for a moment: graduate tuition which has gone up substantially in the last two years as has the rate for partial Ph.D. tuition. The TGR rate has gone up substantially. How can we fund it? This program is substantially funded by an NIH training grant which does not cover full stipends or tuition. And worse, there's a prohibition upon supplementing those funds with money from other federal sources. So one has to have discretionary funds in order to do it."
Professor Simoni kept at it, adding, "…the reason I want to bludgeon this to death is that we're at sort of a crossroads. We now have a new Commission on Graduate Education. I would hope that these issues, the IDPs in particular and how we finance our graduate programs, ought to be a central piece of discussion within the Commission."
Professor Boothroyd came back to the floor. "Two or three years ago each IDP was administratively isolated. Each had a particular budget that was based on a formula that we thought was fair. In the last two years, two things have changed. One is that we have now brought all of those individuals into one office so that they can share intellectual and physical resources with each other. And, more important, as I said earlier, we have added a person to help those three programs, plus another portion of a person's time on the financial side. This represents a 40 percent increase in the administrative help that those programs have."
As for Simoni's concern about graduate school tuition, Professor Lipsick added, "TGR has gone up 50 percent each of the last two years. By my calculations, it's a net flux of $750,000 a year from our research grants to your office, John Booothroyd. And I don't know what we get for it. It's coming out of our research grants. The NIH is not funding only 25 percent of grant applications. The funding level is now in the low teens, and is likely to go lower."
Professor Boothroyd said what had been iterated earlier. "Where most of that money goes is back to the departments. Those departments could choose to use that money to support graduate programs. Pathology, for example, has chosen to put some of the tuition money that comes into their department into the Interdepartmental Program in Cancer Biology. The school keeps a small amount for general services, but it certainly is not a cash cow for us."
Professor Simoni's temperature was rising. "The tuition has gone up and we don't have enough money to pay it. How are you going to mitigate the tuition increase to allow us at the very least to maintain current population of graduate students which otherwise is going to be reduced because we don't have enough money to pay their tuition?"
Provost Etchemendy jumped in at this point, saying again what he had mentioned in his budget presentation to Senate 36. "One of our objectives is to reduce the graduate student population who are long-term students because they do not have enough incentive to finish in a timely fashion. Compared with any of our peer institutions, we have the lowest TGR tuition. Most schools demand full tuition all the way through to the finish. We expect that a higher TGR will decrease the population of graduate students, decreasing the pressure on our housing, and decreasing other costs of the University. This will be, in fact, an intended consequence.
"I reiterate again, Bob. I have said it several times to you, Bob, and you know it very well. We remain at the bottom of the tuition scale in comparison with other private universities for graduate student tuition rates. I do realize that the change has caused a disruption in your grants that are in place. I apologize for this. I also hope that if the problem is a serious unsolvable problem for a particular program, that that program could get some assistance from either the relevant department, relevant dean's office, conceivably even the relevant provost. The problem will fade away as faculty begin planning with this new tuition rate in mind.
Professor Gardner lamented that "…from my experience, education gets a lower priority in some of the basic sciences. But it's even worse when you get to an IDP, because it has no department that can kick in. A training grant may cover 60 percent, and P.I.s have to come up with an unrestricted account to pay the rest."
In response to a plea from Professor Inan to enable students who have been here for several years to have a lower TGR "grandfathered," the Provost replied, "…we do not have a tradition of grandfathering students when we make tuition increases. Tuition does not remain fixed during time here moving towards a degree. My best answer for each of you is that we need to deal with the problem on an individual student case-by-case basis. I apologize, again, for their being no other solution now."
In closing this exchange which had nothing directly to do with approving renewal of the Cancer Biology IDP, Professor Boothroyd pointed out that the School of Medicine puts over a million dollars of general funds "…into what we call 'flex funds' which go to students, not departments. This year, those funds follow the IDP students directly. This is an example of the mitigation that you, Bob, would like to see. In the future, we must raise money, and that is one reason that we have formed these institutes…to give the IDPs a home. The Dean has invited the IDP program directors to send a representative to the Executive Committee. No volunteers have appeared yet."
With no further discussion, the request that had been moved and seconded by C-GS to renew degree-nominating authority for the IDP in Cancer Biology (SenD#5023) was approved unanimously.
B. Report on Faculty Recruitment and Faculty Diversity (SenD#5670) by Sally Dickson, J.D., Associate Vice-Provost for Faculty Development and Associate Dean in Humanities and Sciences.Before introducing vice-provost Dickson, Chairman Polhemus pointed out that he had hoped to have a report from a leader of one of our sister and peer institutions on the east coast, but that this individual had a podiatric emergency: A distal extremity had wedged between his mandible and maxilla. Polhemus added that there were some data suggesting that this was often an affliction of the male gender, a "man thing." This ignited generous laughter, particularly from the sopranos and altos in the Senate.
He began again. "Today we have this report from Sally Dickson," and she came forth to sit at the front table with a colleague who set up the PowerPoint.
"Before starting," began Ms. Dickson, "I want to thank many people in my office, especially Pat Jones, Marshall Perry, Lisa Stotlar, and Jane Volk-Brew, for providing major assistance for me today. I want to review for you the general function of the Faculty Recruitment Office (FRO), describe the activities we've been involved with, and outline what it is that our office would like for faculty to do to help us and yourselves. To answer that question, I will briefly go over some points that are in the 'best practices' document that was drafted by the Provost's Advisory Committee on the Status of Women and Faculty, PACSWF.
"The basic function of the FRO is to provide assistance to all departments for all searches that you are engaged in for faculty. We provide information to newly hired faculty and also to prospective faculty. Our objective is not to duplicate services that departments will provide, but to have a centralized place of information that new faculty and recruits may go to for answers to questions such as 'What are some of the schools in the area? What are some of the services here at the University for faculty and their families?' We help department administrators as well by arranging for child care for a recruit, for example, through our WorkLife Office, and arrange for appointments at the Housing Office.
"Many of you have been asked about the spousal/partner employment issue. Bob Weisberg and Pat Jones have been particularly helpful here, and recently we have had conversations with Santa Clara University officials who have indicated that they would be very interested in helping us with spousal/partner employment needs.
"Why do we need a faculty recruitment office?" She showed a graphic demonstration of this. Although Asian faculty has increased from 99 to 197 since 1993, African-American faculty has risen from 36 to only 45 in the same period. Hispanic faculty is up from 33 to 61, which is less than 4 percent of the total faculty of all schools, faculty lines, and ranks.
"Included in the packet of information you have," said Dickson, "is the Statement on Faculty Diversity from our president and provost, John and John. Written in May of 2001 it reads,
For many years Stanford University has had a commitment to enhancing the diversity of its faculty. This commitment is based, first and foremost, on the belief that a more diverse faculty enhances the breadth, depth, and quality of our research and teaching by increasing the variety of experiences, perspectives, and scholarly interests among the faculty. A diverse faculty also provides a variety of role models and mentors for our increasingly diverse student population, which helps us to attract, retain and graduate such populations more successfully.
Clearly, this statement, to my understanding, was driven by a number of factors. First was the data that we just saw. Second was the work of the diversity committee that Professors Al Camarillo and Claude Steele directed so effectively several years ago, and continue to be involved in. This statement clearly indicates that we do have a commitment. And most importantly, we have a commitment from individuals who are so important… our president and our provost.
"The office is partially funded by a grant that we received from the Irvine Foundation as part of their Campus Diversity Initiative program. It was while writing that grant that we as a university recognized that we needed to be doing something different. You know, there's a saying, 'If you keep on doing things the same way, you get the same results.'
"An important part of the mission of the FRO is to explore and create strategies and services for you, your search committees, to help you in three stages of the search. You and we must start focusing on the diversity of our faculty at the very beginning of a search. The FRO has been set up to provide you with assistance on how to develop a more diverse applicant pool. If we don't have diverse applicants applying, we won't be able to hire a diverse faculty. The FRO has a number of databases of scholars of color and women in all different fields including those who have received grants and fellowships, and lists of scholarly publications and organizations that target diverse populations. There's a group called Faculty for the Future, which is particularly designed as an online site for women and people of color who are interested in getting teaching positions at research universities.
"We sit down with the search committee and we ask, 'What are some of the prestigious awards that you look for in your recruits?' Often there may be a list of individuals who have received those grants or awards who are women and/or others who offer diversity.
We have the women and minority doctoral directory, a list that has their undergraduate and graduate degrees, their dissertation subjects, their Ph.D. advisors, and so forth.
"The second stage of the search process, which you know is so important, is what happens when you have a short list and you want to invite candidates out to the campus. Often, we will meet with the individuals, tell them about Stanford, and answer any questions they may have. At the very beginning of a candidate's introduction to Stanford, we want to be friendly. We want to let them know that while we are not at all implying anything about their prospects of being hired, we want them to know that we are committed to diversity. Then, when an offer is made to candidates, we get very involved. Last year I think that our efforts resulted in several of the positive acceptances of our offers. When an offer has been made, I will sit down with that recruit. I ask the question very clearly, 'What is it that would bring you to Stanford? We want you. We want your talent. We want your expertise. And we want your scholarship, and we want to engage you in an entire community.'
"Finally, and I'm calling it my 'radar list,' is following up with recruits who decline our offers. I think that it is very important that none of us ever accepts 'no' for an answer. I consider the declining of our offer as something temporary! I say, 'You're just saying 'no', now. But we're going to come back and ask you, 'How are things going? Don't you want to come to Stanford now? Have you had enough cold weather?' I've had these conversations this year. The responses have been very cordial. The individuals have been both surprised and pleased. Again, it's us doing something different from what our competitors are doing. Not too long ago GSB informed us of two people to whom it had made offers years ago. And I said, 'Let's call them. Let's see how they're doing. Are they ready now to come to the West Coast?'
"Okay. Equally important is the retention of a diverse faculty. Look at African-Americans, for example. With 45, if we lose two, you know what that does to the percentage of them on the faculty. We ask you to make every effort to really retain a diverse faculty by being supportive, by seriously considering how can we continue to create an environment within which faculty want to stay. What we never want to happen is that someone feels that he or she is pushed out, or that he or she didn't think that this was a place that really cared about their work, or their ability to progress, to achieve tenure. For me, retention is equally important as recruitment. To facilitate this, I have meetings with newly hired faculty of color to find out how things are going. If there's information that I think is important to share with the dean, I do that, with the person's permission, of course, so that they have a sense of trust. When, later, they get that little e-mail saying, 'Checking in,' they feel good about my follow-up.
"We all know that there are some disciplines in which the numbers of scholars of color and women needs to improve. In the FRO we are constantly thinking about how we can be more strategic and creative in developing the pipeline, how we can support our own students in encouraging them to consider a career in academia. I have meetings with all of the offices on campus that are involved in diversity efforts regarding our graduate students and our faculty. We want to see the linkage between the development and the support of our graduate students as a way of training future professors.
"The California Universities Pipeline Project is an idea that Pat Jones and Artie Bienenstock and I are evolving. As all of us travel across the country we hear that our peer institutions and most major universities are experiencing the same challenges that we have. In response to this, next month we are hosting a meeting and have invited representatives from each of the U.C. campuses including UCSF and from the private schools such as Cal Tech, USC, to sit with us. Dr. Michael Drake, a professor of color who is Vice-Chancellor for the UC system, talked yesterday with me, and he is very excited about this idea. Instead of us trying to compete all the time with each other, let's sit down and talk about ways in which we can work together to improve the diversity of our faculties and graduate students. I want us to do the same thing here on the West Coast that collaborations between Harvard and southeastern schools are doing back east.
"Now, the question is, have we been successful thus far? The data that you have before you is for September 2004. I think we have. Last year was busy! At one time, we had 15 people whom we were trying to recruit. We made eight offers to faculty who would offer diversity. In departments in which we've not been successful before, such as Economics, there were several candidates that we made offers. The same for History, thanks to good efforts by Carolyn Lougee-Chappell. Had we the time today, I would thank more of you. Of those eight offers, we signed four. Those four that didn't accept our offers are on our radar screen, though. They are now receiving calls from me and also from some of the department chairs, saying, 'Hello, how are things going?'
"Finally, what is the role that faculty can play in improving our recruitment and retention of a diverse faculty. These are the 'Best Practices for recruitment of a diverse faculty."
"Another point that is very important for chairs of search committees at the very beginning is to not define a position so narrowly that it may preclude us from getting applicants from people of color and also from women. I also want to emphasize the third bullet, 'Create a diverse search committee.' As we all know, it is human nature for us to look warmly at people like ourselves. As a New Yorker, if I see a resumé and I see someone who has graduated from my alma mater or is from New York, my subconscious says, 'Hey, all right!' Therefore, I think giving a lot of thought to having people from different perspectives, different outlooks, men, women, people of color, a true diverse search committee will improve our applicant pool. You can always go outside your department to find diversity for your search committees.
"Lastly, these are the 'Best practices for the retention of a diverse faculty':
"I urge you to be particularly mindful of issues that may exist among people of color and women and to find out exactly how it is that we can go about creating a more supportive environment for each faculty member. The other point that's listed on this sheet is to recognize and reward faculty for research and teaching excellence and the contributions that people make to the University. I think that's critical. We all like to be recognized and thanked. If a dean or a chair walks into my office and says, 'Sally, you did a great job,' that means something! Sometimes women and people of color don't think that our contributions are recognized or supported.
"I leave you on this note. At a conference that I went to not too long ago, the speaker said, 'I get asked so many times…when are we going to stop doing this diversity work?' He answered, 'That's like saying that if you vote only once, then that means democracy will be forever.' The struggle for diversity, the work that we're doing, has to be continuous. We cannot stop. It has to be the way we do business, not for a year, not for two years, not for one search, not for three searches, but every single search that we are involved in."
Chairman Polhemus joined in the enthusiastic reception by senators of Sally Dickson's report, reminded the senate that the planned executive session would be postponed because of the late time, and opened the floor for discussion and questions.
Discussion and QuestionsPresident Hennessy was very enthusiastic. "Rob, I just wanted to say 'thank you' to Sally, to Pat Jones, to Al Camarillo, to Claude Steele, and so many of our colleagues that have been involved. We are approaching our recruiting effort with a degree of intensity that I certainly don't remember having. The successes we've had are really attributable to that. And I think that your persistence, Sally, not letting people say 'no' the first time around is a great strategy. When the Provost and I wrote this Statement on Faculty Diversity, we tried to make it clear that a whole variety of strategies would be necessary, both in terms of retention and recruitment. That is still the case. We tried to make it clear that we need the broad support of all of our faculty colleagues, not only deans and department chairs, but all of you who are involved in searches, a much larger number than those of us who are in administrative roles.
"Second, this is not a short-term process. It's a long-term commitment. We are going to make progress. Sometimes that progress will be slow; sometimes it will be a little faster, but never quite as fast as we'd like. So, thank you for all of your help. We just need to keep at it!" Sally Dickson was very pleased with that vote of confidence.
Professor Wasow, from his back row, said, "You started out by saying that unless we change the way we do things, we'll keep getting the same results. I'd like to suggest something to the President and the Provost that might lead to change. Stanford has had a policy for as long as I've been here that billets have to be housed in departments, that interdepartmental programs cannot have faculty billets housed in them. I think there are a lot of non-traditional candidates who would lend diversity to the faculty who aren't going to be considered by departments because their work is too interdisciplinary, but would be very attractive to interdepartmental programs. When I was in the H & S dean's office, we failed to recruit one very distinguished person we were trying to hire because he was being recruited to head up an IDP and he wanted to make faculty appointments there. So he went to Harvard instead, where they let him do just that."
The President responded. "There's a distinction between who puts forward and votes on an appointment, which is the cognizant department. And where a billet is housed does not necessarily mean that the billet, the ability to hire a faculty member financially, needs to be housed in that department. As we go forward with some of these new initiatives, it will be the case that there will be billets that are not housed in departments, and this could lead to recruiting faculty who are, perhaps, at the edges of convention in departments."
Professor Gardner brought up again the inaccuracy and inappropriateness of implying that women have limited interests and abilities in certain fields. "I refer you to Malcolm Galdwell's new book, Blink. This whole sublevel consciousness, I think, is very difficult to change, and probably harder regarding minorities than for women. The pipeline isn't the same. But I think it's still there. I see it all the time. I see it both for recruitment, but also retention. And it just goes on year after year. We need to make sure that our faculty are exposed to training or renewal of their commitment to diversity all the time, and to try to unearth those subliminal reactions and delete them.
"I spent many years investigating ion channel biophysics, and I can tell you to this day that is a field that many men do not deem appropriate for women. It was so obvious going to Gordon conferences."
President Hennessy was proud to point out that, "Dr. Gardner is sitting next to one of my faculty colleagues, Andrea Goldsmith in Electrical Engineering, a discipline in which 20 years ago there was a widely held perception that women should not be involved. What we just need to do is build role models like Andrea and Phyllis and others of you here in this senate, the successful ones."
Professor Goldsmith, clearly appreciative of that comment, agreed that role models were important, but added that heavy emphasis on stressing diversity must be a top priority in every search committee, and that the subliminal biases against women and minorities had to be rooted out.
From the standpoint of the Graduate Student Council, Moriah Thomason echoed the sentiments expressed. "The GSC has been working with Sally's office, and we have a diversity subcommittee, as does the graduate student commission." She added that she had been disappointed that the only available funding for a student group in Chemistry that wanted to bring role models representing minorities into the department was from ASSU itself. "Having to use student fees for this is inappropriate…there should be other sources."
Professor Eaton expressed his support for Sally Dickson and the FRO, but was curious about why only four of the eight "diversity recruits" that she had mentioned finally chose to come to Stanford. Sally felt that a major reason was the "…lack of a critical mass. For example, in one case the department in the east coat university that was successful in recruiting this person had several other people of color doing the same kinds of research that the candidate was interested in. That's a big draw and hard to overcome. Minority candidates who are from the East Coast, when recruited at Stanford, often get a feeling of isolation when they look around and realize, 'Gee, I'm going to be the only one!' Additionally, in at least one case the individual was coming up for tenure at the home institution."
Cecilia Ridgeway, speaking from her background in sociology to the discussion, reinforced what Professor Gardner had said. "There is well-established evidence not simply from observations, but from detailed statistically rigorous studies, showing that the major form of discrimination that occurs in these kinds of situations is stereotype bias, which is an implicit cognitive process. And the only way to fight it, to change it, is using constant iterative processes. We have to do it to each other all of the time. And if you lose focus, if you stop doing it, you're just back in the same old hole. That is the moral challenge. Bringing in role models is important, but most important is to press against our own biases, constantly resisting our latent, and sometimes not so latent, stereotypic biases."
Professor Bienenstock reminded the Senate that, "…we and our peer institutions have done well in increasing the diversity of our undergraduate bodies. But we've not done as well with our graduate student groups. And as a consequence of that, we don't have the flow of applicants that we'd like to see. I hope to come back to you later in the year with some proposals for things that we might do about this. But there's one thing for sure that we can do. Please urge each of those minority students to whom you have offered places in your graduate programs to come to 'Graduate Diversity Admit Weekend.' Their attendance at this weekend can help us attract the students that we really want."
Chairman Polhemus, after adding a special thanks to the President and the Provost for the Diversity Statement that they created in 2001, thanked Sally Dickson, asked for new business, and there being none, asked for a motion to adjourn.
V. Unfinished BusinessVI. New Business - None was offered.VII. Adjournment - This happened at 5:15 pm<i