Faculty Senate minutes - May 18, 2006 meeting

The President and the Academic Secretary were observed to be admiring each other's distinguished and colorful shirts, especially in comparison with their colleagues in the Senate (Professor Abernethy was an exception, in a bright blue rakishly cut shirt), when Chairman Roberts gaveled the proceedings of this third to last meeting of Senate 38 to order. The left side of the chambers filled quickly, the right more slowly, and the center…not well at all.

The minutes of the May 4, 2006 meeting generated no suggestions for omissions or erroneous commissions, and were approved as submitted.

A. Memorial Statement Chairman Roberts introduced Professor Debra Satz to present this memorial statement about Stuart Hampshire (1914-2004) SenD#5845

Professor Satz came to the floor of the Senate and began. Stuart Hampshire, Professor of Philosophy, emeritus, died June 13, 2004 at his home in Oxford, England, at the age of 89.

Stuart Hampshire was one of the last members of the generation of Oxford academicians whose philosophies were shaped by the Depression, the Second World War, and the experiences of fascism, war and revolution. Working in British intelligence, he interrogated Nazi officers at the end of the war and wrestled with questions of ethics in war. He frequently used his encounters with these high ranking Nazi officers as a source of insights into the reality and nature of evil and the moral importance of rendering some actions literally unthinkable. In particular, Hampshire was horrified by the ease with which governments have been able to induce ordinary people to torture and murder.

His wartime experiences shaped his thinking not only in ethics and political philosophy, but also in metaphysics and the philosophy of mind. He was an "analytical philosopher" who broke the mold, showing in his writings a keen appreciation of history as well as psychology, literature and public policy. He combined rigorous philosophical analysis with passionate and humane political commitments. His philosophical work, infused by a literary flair and sensitivity, addresses itself to moral problems as they present themselves to us in our lives, as practical agents who must decide what we are to do.

Encounters with Stuart Hampshire were always pivotal: he opened up new ways of thinking, redrew conventional assumptions and caused many of us to rethink our fundamental beliefs and commitments.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of a committee consisting of Dagfinn Follesdal, Peter Stansky, Pat Suppes and myself, it is an honor to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late Sir Stuart Hampshire, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy.

Chairman Roberts thanked Professor Satz and her committee, and the Senate rose for a moment of silence.

B. Steering Committee

Roberts was pleased to announce that the elections by the members of Senate 39 for chair and members of the Steering Committee had been completed, counted, and approved by the Tellers Committee, the members of which are:

Sheri Sheppard, Chair

Russell Berman, Vice Chair

Timothy Bresnahan

Karen Cook

Luis Fraga

Stephen Hinton

David Stevenson

In wishing the new Steering Committee well, and noting that Professor Sheppard would be the first woman to chair the StC since Frances Conley held that office, he added that his relationship to the Senate would not suddenly stop. He has another year of membership, and will look forward to serving from his seat among other senators. It also should be noted that today ("Bike or Walk to Work Day), Chairman Roberts was observed, at 7:00 am, trudging on foot to the campus, and he should be applauded for that.

As for the last two meetings of Senate 38, the June 1st meeting will be dominated by the Provost's annual Budget Report, and in addition, C-GS will recommend a new graduate degree in Human Genetics as well as renewal of the IPER IDP in Earth Sciences. On June 15th David Abernethy will present the annual report of the Emeriti Council. Nancy Packer will be the representative of the emeriti for Senate 39. Jim Mark (the emeriti representative for Senate 37) will present a Memorial Statement for his colleague, beloved by many of us, Norman Shumway. Then, after an executive session, the Senate will adjourn to join the chairs of Academic Council committees and members of the University Board of Trustees at a reception hosted by President Hennessy at the Faculty Club.

C. Committee on Committees

Professor Sheppard, chair of CoC, was gratified to announce that the committee's work was almost finished. Only the roster of faculty to join the Committee on Review of Undergraduate Majors remained to be filled. Additionally, a breakfast meeting of the CoC at the Academic Secretary's Peter Coutts condo will be held to discuss with C-GS chair Sylvia Yanigasako some proposed revisions of the Charge to C-GS and possible changes in the mechanisms of IDP reviews. Menus for the event have been sent out and returned…it is probable that Professor Harris will be working most of the night on preparations.

D. Provost and President

President Hennessy was very disturbed about the two armed robberies reported on campus, and announced that extra security forces were now on patrol at night around campus, and that he and other members of the administration were working closely with Palo Alto police as attempts are made to apprehend these criminals. Additional material, including suggestions for night safety, were reported in the May 17th issue of the Stanford Report. Related to this episode, Professor Lunsford noted the irony of the admonitions that faculty, staff and students "…stick to walking in well-lighted areas", when, in reality the campus is a dark, poorly lighted place at night. The President agreed that this was a problem, and one being addressed, and added that carrying a flashlight and cell phone is a good idea for everyone on campus at night.

The Provost announced that Professor Bob Simoni would co-chair the search committee for a successor for the Dean of Humanities and Science, and that all were grateful to Sharon Long for agreeing to stay in the job until the successor was ready to take on these responsibilities that she has carried so well.

A. Committee on Research: Revision of the Scientific Misconduct Policy - (SenD#5830)

Chairman Roberts, before introducing the chair of C-Res, made it clear to the Senate that this material was being presented for "endorsement", and that there would be no vote requested for "approval", a pathway consistent with previous changes in this policy. In preparation for the presentation, senators had been given "red-line" copies (pointing out deletions as well as additions) and a clean final copy of the document dated May 1, 2006, now titled "Research Misconduct: Policy on Allegations, Investigations and Reporting."

Professor Elisabeth Paté-Cornell, (tres chic, toujours) is the chair of C-Res and she took the floor. She summarized the reasons for the changes that are being presented. C-Res, she said, had worked to construct the new document all year, with an aim to bring Stanford's policy into line with that recommended by the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy. The new version is much more focused and specific. "Indeed," interjected Dean Bienenstock, " when I was in Washington I led the move to change the federal documents on research misconduct." He noted that one reason was that the regulations at that time were so vague that they left open the opportunity for abuse of power.

There are two major changes in Stanford's policy:

1. To broaden the applicability of the policy to all research (not just that which may be characterized as "scientific") and removal of the vague and ambiguous phrase that included "…other practices that seriously deviate from those commonly accepted within the scientific community" as scientific misconduct. The new definition of Research Misconduct is "…fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." These nouns are defined as follows in the revised policy:

Fabrication means making up data or results, and recording or reporting them.

Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.

In addition, the new document states:

"A finding of research misconduct requires that:

there is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;

the misconduct is committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and

the allegation is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

2. The process and time frame for a school's dean to review allegation of research misconduct were explained in detail. The first step is for the Dean to assess the information to determine whether the allegation does indeed constitute an allegation of research misconduct as defined, and if so, potential evidence of research misconduct could be identified. At that point the Dean of Research would be notified and an inquiry initiated that would:

identify any outside funding sources for the research in question;

obtain custody of the research records;

inform the "respondent" of the allegations, allowing comment by him, her, or them.

Added to the policy is the paragraph saying that "…instances of alleged research misconduct by students in practicum-type courses, and in course work and classroom activities, may in many cases be better addressed through student Honor Code or Fundamental Standard procedures, rather than through the procedures of this policy."

Multiple other smaller additions and clarifications are in the final document.

Questions and Discussion

President Hennessy complimented Professor Paté-Cornell and the committee with great enthusiasm.

Professor Galli, his glasses tethered by his trademark cord (so that he can easily drop them to look at slides of tissues on the microscope), was concerned about the inclusion of "appropriation of another person's ideas" as plagiarism. He pointed out that this implied that one could go to a scientific meeting, hear a paper that triggered in one's mind a testable hypothesis, and be later accused of scientific misconduct for having "stolen an idea." In reality, he said, "Ideas are like money. You can't say where they have been, and the credit goes to the one who transforms them into good data." A number of responses were offered, including by Dean Bienenstock, who pointed out that this wording had been used in federal regulations to discourage scientists who reviewed grant applications in study sections or other review groups from taking away ideas from others' applications and working on them. This led to discussion of what it meant to have "plagiarism but not research misconduct" and the importance of what might constitute "honest errors" and "unintentional" plagiarism.

Dean Long brought up another good point, that if an outside agency (e.g., a drug company sponsoring a study) made substantial errors in setting up the protocols so that the Stanford investigators ended up reporting data that had errors because of flawed protocols, the Stanford faculty could possibly be charged with research misconduct. Dean Bienenstock reassured her that Stanford would not get into such a debate, and that it was the province of journal reviewers to find these errors, as well as our Institutional Review Boards for clinical research.

Worried that wordsmithing was beginning to dominate the proceedings, Chairman Roberts reminded the Senate that, after all, all that was wanted was endorsement of the new policy, not a voted approval of every word. Professor Noll noted that the explanations heard today for so many changes had so often been that it was because "…we took these words from a federal agency…" We should, he said, develop our own Stanford-constructed rationales for why and how we define these issues.

Chairman Roberts' requested and received unanimous approval that "It is the sense of the Senate to endorse the policy, entitled 'Research Misconduct: Policy on Allegations, Investigations, and Reporting.' "

B. Provost's Report on Faculty Gains, Losses, and Composition; Status of Women Faculty; and Faculty Recruitment and Retention (SenD#5815, SenD#5186, SenD#5842)

Chairman Roberts noted that "These three related reports will be presented, as has been the custom here in the Senate, by our colleague Pat Jones, Vice Provost for Faculty Development. As you know, a previous Senate resolution has mandated that the Status of Women Faculty report be presented annually to the full senate. Our invited guests include Professor Deborah Rhode, chair of the Panel on Gender Equity and Quality of Life, who will make some prepared comments later. Also, some of the very important members of the Provost's Faculty Affairs staff are here, including Megan Pierson, Jane Volk-Brew, Valerie Meeks and Scott Walters. We will have ample opportunity for questions after Pat Jones gives her report.

Professorial Gains, Losses, and Composition

Vice Provost Jones began with an overview, pointing out that "While the net annual growth in faculty at Stanford has been averaging two percent, last year the number of faculty dropped by 0.7 percent…a result of fewer hires and more than usual departures." There has been a net loss of 13 faculty. Of concern is the net loss of 25 untenured/tenure-line faculty.

During the '04-'05 academic year (the time frame for all these data) there were the following new appointments:

* Tenured 19

* Tenure line, not tenured 30

- significant drop from '03-'04

* Non-tenure line 8

* Medical Center Line 25

- net change in total numbers: zero

There were 95 departures this year (led by 26 leaving from the Medical Center Line) compared with 77 last year.

Vice Provost Jones went through demographics of the faculty in more detail, showing that the African-American faculty was still at 2.6 percent of the total, the same as in 1995, while there has been a small growth in Hispanic faculty over the same period (2.1 to 3.2 % of total faculty). She emphasized that there has continued to be valiant efforts to recruit underrepresented minority faculty, but in recent years the numbers of new hires have been balanced by departures, leading to small if any net gains. She noted that this has been the experience as well of other colleges and universities, as summarized in a recent report from the James W. Irvine Foundation. Considering all groups, including Asian faculty whose numbers have increased from 8.2 percent in 1995 to 11.8 percent in 2005, the net change in minority faculty has been five, increasing the aggregate percentage of the total minority faculty from 17.3 to 17.7.

Status of Women Faculty

Vice Provost Jones pointed out that 29% (24/82) of the new faculty hired as of Sept. 1, 2005 were women. Reflecting hires and departures, there was as of the beginning of this year, a net gain of 8 women and net loss of 21 men on the faculty, increasing the percentage of women faculty from 23 to 23.6 of the total of 1770 faculty. Of concern is that the percentage of untenured/tenure line faculty who are women declined slightly, reflecting reductions in the proportion of women among junior faculty hires in a number of schools and divisions. Of 39 faculty earning tenure, ten were women, and women continue to earn tenure at rates at least as high as men. Since 2000, all schools have recorded an increase in the percentage of women faculty except the Graduate School of Business and the basic science faculty of the Medical School, which showed small decreases. SLAC has increased its women faculty from 4 of 45 in 2000 to 8 of 49 in 2005.

Reason for enthusiasm was that seven of nineteen hires of senior tenured faculty last year were women.. This was balanced by a disappointing decrease in the proportion of women among junior faculty hires, falling from 11 of 32 in 2002 to 5 of 30 in 2005. The current year's recruiting cycle, while not yet complete, already is showing a larger number of women among the junior tenure-line hires, with nine already in H&S, including four in Economics.

Although the proportion of women who are chairs of departments fell last year from 24 % to 15%, women have solid representation in leadership positions. Three of seven school deans are women, as are 36% of associate deans, three of seven members of the Advisory Board, and 31% of the Faculty Senate.

Recruitment and Retention Survey

This year, a concerted effort to contact faculty who declined offers to either stay at Stanford or to come to Stanford was made. For the '04-'05 year the numbers of successful and unsuccessful recruitments and retentions were:

Successful recruitments 82

Men 58

Women 24

Unsuccessful recruitments 34

Men 21

Women 13

Unsuccessful retention at Stanford 23

Men 18

Women 5

The principal reasons cited for failure of recruitments and retentions of faculty at Stanford were the high housing costs and low availability of housing, with spouse/partner career opportunities, better opportunities elsewhere, and a broad term, "academic environment" being mentioned.

Pat Jones identified ten particular challenges to both recruitment and retention of the high quality and diverse faculty that we want at Stanford. They are:

Constraints on growth, resources, and billets

Slow faculty turnover

Inadequate 'pipelines'

Variable efforts of both departments and search committees in generating high quality, diverse applicant pools

Attractiveness of department/school/university

Recruitment - retention packages; timeliness of negotiation

Dual career issues

Work/family issues

Competition with other institutions

Location - including cost of living/housing

Current efforts by the University to enhance recruitment, retention and diversity include a number of initiatives. Vice Provost Jones enthusiastically thanked the leadership of the President and Provost…nothing would have happened were it not for their support. The Panel on Gender Equity and Quality of Life is continuing efforts to enhance the representation and success of women faculty. The newly formed Diversity Cabinet provides oversight of diversity in all segments of the campus community. Stanford belongs to two consortia of peer institutions that are discussing best practices for increasing faculty diversity, the Nine Universities group and the California Universities Consortium, which will have its spring meeting on May 19th. Brochures, including Building on Excellence -Guide to recruiting and retaining an excellent and diverse faculty at Stanford University and Family Matters @Stanford for faculty have been very useful.

Jones was particularly appreciative of the help and efforts of Sally Dickson in the Faculty Recruitment Office, and that of Bob Weisberg…a constant supporter of efforts to increase diversity in the University through help in finding job opportunities for spouses/partners of recruits. She emphasized that new strategies are needed to succeed in these efforts, and constant diligence and vigilance on the part of deans, department chairs, and faculty are essential.

At the close of her presentation the Senate was enthusiastic in praise for the fine job she did in integrating the three presentations, focusing on the important data, and leaving ample time for discussion.

Questions and Discussion

It was time for Deborah Rhode's comments. She spoke clearly and forcefully from her seat in the back row. A paraphrase of her prepared remarks follows. " My 'take away' follows first. We have many challenges, but we are making great progress. The data show slow but steady progress in recruitment and retention of minorities. Here at Stanford we have two strong assets in our struggle: the 'Johns'…Hennessy and Etchemendy. They are strong supporters of the struggle to enhance diversity here. In my day job I direct the Center on Ethics. Additionally, I chair the Panel on Gender Equity and Quality of Life. It is an honor and privilege to do this. We will be sponsoring focus groups, meeting with deans of the schools, and striving to generate a permanent high baseline level of activity for diversity enhancement.

"Now let me tell you a story. I went to a conference on leadership by and for women at Harvard last spring. In helping organize the program I recommended that President Summers be asked to give the keynote address. How could he refuse? He agreed. The day came. Who introduced him? A male dean at Harvard who said ' This speaker needs no introduction.' Another man gave a follow-up major talk…and all the other main speakers were men. The men were obviously supportive of women, but at a conference for women they knew that men could do a better job of both major speeches and introductions. They, the men, never noticed…but I assure you, the women took notice! Another memorable moment…I was talking with Evelyn Hammonds, chair of a committee on 'the Women Problem.' I asked her, 'What can others learn from you?…tell me. She chuckled, and said, 'Why are you asking me? We are following you at Stanford!' "

Peer Review - Recruitment of women at Harvard

The week before Thanksgiving, Harvard hosted the first of three nation-wide symposiums (cosponsored with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the NIH, and two other universities. On December 6th the presidents of Cal Tech, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, Penn, and Yale issued a statement to emphasize "the importance of full participation of women in academic fields throughout higher education."

On January 10, 2006, Lisa Martin (senior advisor to the dean on Diversity issues) reported on the recruitment of new professors. During the 2005-06 academic year, nine of 29 tenure offers were made to women. As of March, 2006 the rate of acceptance by men was 79 percent, versus 33 percent for women (with offers to three men and two women still outstanding). [Data from Harvard Magazine, May-June, 2006, p. 70]

Dean of Research Artie Bienenstock, delving into the memory of his past, provided some perspective. He has been here since 1971. There were fewer than 1% Hispanic faculty in that year. Admittedly, he said, the numbers of Hispanics now on our faculty are low, but we are making progress. His point: "Discouragement is self-defeating." His point was that we must begin to start thinking about how we can improve on what we have been doing.

Provost Etchemendy added that the message from all quarters, such as Nancy Hopkins at MIT, is that a university must continue pushing hard for recruitment of a diverse faculty, or nothing will happen. President Hennessy added that he was "worried to death" that the pipeline for African-American faculty is drying up all the way back to grade school for certain groups. This was reinforced by Professor Cook.

Professor Camarillo urged that, although it was not problem free, Pat Jones' office should disaggregate data, looking at where minority faculty and candidates for recruitment were born rather than just what their 'minority class assignment' was. Professor Fraga agreed, but also agreed that the challenges to find the data were significant. Jane Volk-Brew said that her office would be a helpful as possible in this effort, if asked.

Adam Beberg, the Graduate Student Council representative to the Senate, brought the focus back to what President Hennessy had spoken about: the dismal 'pipeline' that is being filled by minority candidates for science as well as humanities in universities. He called the situation "depressingly bad", and that "…the focus must not be on those graduate students leaving prestigious universities, but rather on the 12 year-old black and Hispanic girls…let's get them early!" President Hennessy agreed about the small pool and trickling pipeline problem. He built upon that by urging the faculty, when a promising candidate comes to the faculty's attention, "Don't drop the ball! Mobilize the search committee! Move quickly!"

Chairman Roberts urged everyone not to let the push for diversity backslide… but to keep the pressure on.

None was identified, nor suggested.

This was agreed upon by unanimous consent at 5:02 pm