TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL THIRTY-FIRST SENATE
Report No. 10
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, MARCH 30
At its meeting on Thursday, March 30, 2000, the Senate of the Academic Council heard reports and took the following actions:
By unanimous voice vote, conferred bachelors degrees on the Winter Quarter candidates listed in Senate Document #5057, as recommended by the Committee on Academic Appraisal and Achievement. By unanimous voice vote, also conferred the various advanced degrees on the Winter Quarter candidates listed in Senate Document #5058, as recommended by the Committee on Graduate Studies, and as further amended from the floor by the Registrar who informed the Senate of the addition of two GSB candidates for the recently created degree of Master of Arts in Business Research.
By unanimous voice vote, upon recommendation of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, reauthorized the Advisory Committee of the Honors Program in Ethics in Society to nominate candidates for Honors Certification for a period of five years from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.
SUSAN W. SCHOFIELD
Academic Secretary to the University
MINUTES, MARCH 30
Call to Order
Senate Chair Mark Zoback called the Senate meeting to order at 3:22 p.m. in Room 180 of the Law School. There were 34 voting members, 8 ex-officio members, and several guests in attendance.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 2, 2000 Senate meeting (SenD#5056) were approved as submitted.
Action Calendar: Conferral of Degrees
The Senate, by unanimous voice vote, conferred bachelors degrees on the Winter Quarter candidates listed in Senate Document #5057, as recommended by the Committee on Academic Appraisal and Achievement. The Senate, by unanimous voice vote, also conferred the various advanced degrees on the Winter Quarter candidates listed in Senate Document #5058, as recommended by the Committee on Graduate Studies, and as further amended from the floor by the Registrar who informed Senate of the addition of two GSB candidates for the recently created degree of Master of Arts in Business Research.
Zoback welcomed Professor and former Provost Albert Hastorf to present a memorial statement in honor of Gerald J. Lieberman, Professor Emeritus of Statistics in the School of Humanities and Sciences and of Operations Research in the School of Engineering. The full text of the memorial resolution, authored by Professors Richard Cottle, Pete Veinott, Ingram Olkin and Albert Hastorf, was included in Senate packets and will be published in the next issue of the Stanford Report. Following the statement, Senators stood for a traditional moment of silence.
Professor Lieberman was born in 1925 in Brooklyn, New York and died May 18, 1999. A fellow of the National Academy of Engineering, Professor Lieberman was one of the great citizens of this university. He served as the founding chair of the Department of Operations Research. He also served as an associate dean in the School of Humanities and Sciences and as Chair of the Senate of the Academic Council. He was Vice Provost and Dean of Research, and served as Stanford's Provost. Jerry endured ALS with grace and courage. We shall miss him.
Report from the Senate Steering Committee
The Chair welcomed a new Senator, School of Education Professor John Baugh, replacing Professor Edward Haertel for Spring Quarter and the following year. Zoback drew attention to SenD#5064, at desks, reflecting an excellent group of newly elected Senators for 2000/01. "Unfortunately I must also report that voter turnout was somewhere between abysmal and pathetic -- 29 percent overall, but in some areas as low as 17 percent. I don't want to make too much of this," he said, "but it would be useful certainly for all of us to encourage our colleagues to be more involved in matters of faculty governance."
Zoback also pointed out that a copy of a letter he had written to Senators regarding IDP review processes had been placed at desks. The letter described the ways in which the Steering Committee had pursued concerns expressed by several people following the March 2nd Senate review of the Modern Thought and Literature program. He expressed willingness to discuss these issues at the next Senate meeting if anyone desired.
The Chair advised that Spring Quarter would be busy for the Senate, as usual. He indicated that the April 27th meeting would include two reports from the Provost, on Professorial Gains and Losses and on Women Faculty, and would be followed by an Informal Executive Session, President Casper's last. Zoback announced that the upcoming April 13th Senate meeting would be held jointly with the ASSU Graduate Student Council. Following regular Senate business, the two bodies would jointly discuss the topics of graduate student life at Stanford, especially in relation to academic performance and recruitment, and the Best Practices document on the respective responsibilities of graduate students and their faculty advisors. "I'm hopeful that the opportunity to discuss these matters with graduate students from throughout the university will be productive and beneficial for all of us," he said, adding that an informal reception in the courtyard would follow the joint meeting.
Report from the Committee on Committees
Chair Ewart Thomas advised that the CoC had completed nominations for the University committees, panels and boards. Nearing the end of its work for the year, CoC still needed to compose a recommended slate for the Senate XXXIII Chair and Steering Committee election, and provide nominations for the Trustee committees, he stated.
Reports from the President and the Provost
President Casper was out of town. Provost Hennessy reminded Senators that the recently revised Faculty Appeal Procedures include provision for a group of Fact-Finders who can be called upon to investigate matters of fact surrounding an appeal of a promotion or a tenure decision. He announced that the first six Fact-Finders had been appointed: Gavin Wright (Economics), Eve Clark (Linguistics), Barbara Gelpi (English), Bill Reynolds (Mechanical Engineering), Oscar Salvatierra (Surgery), and Rick Aldrich (Molecular and Cellular Biology). Noting that he hoped to have between eight and twelve Fact-Finders in all, and that the role had been defined so that it would not be unduly burdensome, the Provost encouraged faculty members to consider this important service.
Renewal of the Ethics in Society Interdisciplinary Honors Program (SenD#5054)
The Chair turned to Professor Russell Fernald, Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, to present his committee's recommendation for a five-year renewal of the Ethics in Society honors program. Zoback noted that fellow Senator Debra Satz is the Program Director, and welcomed H & S Associate Dean Russell Berman as well as members of the Ethics in Society Advisory Committee. Fernald reported that C-US was very enthusiastic about the program and commended Satz on her leadership. He mentioned that there had been one abstention from an otherwise unanimous vote, for procedural reasons. Associate Dean Berman indicated that H & S found the program to be excellent, due in large part to Satz's leadership. He said that they hoped to see more bridges built to other parts of the university as well as a larger number of students participating.
Satz commented that she was very happy with the report, and added that the program has "great students -- lots of Marshall and Rhodes scholars, students with publications and prizes. And we play an important role in preparing our students to become active citizens." She lamented however that the program was small, because it was poor in financial and faculty resources, and said she wanted to "throw an idea onto the Senate floor." There have been numerous curricular innovations at Stanford, she noted -- freshman seminars, sophomore dialogues, General Education Requirements covering world cultures, gender issues, and exposure to natural sciences. "But a student can leave Stanford never having encountered a course that uses moral reasoning. It is possible to go through Stanford, learn how to build a bridge, how to blow up a bridge, but not have to think about the ethical, political, and economic contexts in which decisions are made to build a bridge. This is a brief for expanding the light of this program throughout the curriculum. I hope we'll get support from the faculty and the administration to make this program a larger part of the life of undergraduate and graduate students."
The following motion, moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, was approved by voice vote without dissent:
The Senate reauthorizes the Advisory Committee of the Honors Program in Ethics in Society to nominate candidates for Honors Certification for a period of five years from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.
Update on Residential Education Programs
The Chair expressed pleasure that Vice Provost for Student Affairs Jim Montoya had agreed to give the Senate a brief, informal report on changes in residential education. He noted that Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education John Bravman would have participated, but was out of town. Zoback advised that the report had been scheduled in part to provide some context for the following agenda item concerning Academic Theme Houses within the residence system.
Montoya began by reminding everyone that three years earlier President Casper and then-Provost Rice had charged a task force to evaluate the proper relationship between residential programs and undergraduate education as well as the system of housing assignments. The task force found that Stanford's undergraduate residential programs should be modified to respond to the deep curricular and other academic initiatives that had reshaped undergraduate education in recent years, he said, and to improve the ways that academic and residential programs complement each other. Montoya highlighted the goals that guided the task force's recommendations: to create the best possible integration between academic programs and undergraduate housing; to foster faculty and student interaction both intellectually and socially; to enhance undergraduate academic and social programs, supported by differential resources according to need; and to foster the creation of university, community, and class identity.
Of the 30 wide-ranging recommendations, he joked that he found the last one particularly interesting -- that new Vice Provost for Student Affairs Montoya should implement all of the recommendations. Working with former Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Ramon Saldivar, they determined that the highest priority recommendations for early implementation were: increasing the number of all-freshman houses and enhancing the academic programs within them; creating a freshman/sophomore college pilot program; enhancing academic support structures for upper class houses; and creating a premier year in the housing draw and simplifying the room selection process. Implementation proceeded, Montoya said, resulting in an increase to 875 spaces in all-frosh houses, still well below the demand of 1,200. The creation of more all-frosh housing meant that several four-class houses would need to become three-class, and one of those houses, Toyon Hall, was turned into a sophomore-focus house. Montoya asked Jane Camarillo, Director of Residential Education, to speak briefly about Toyon.
Camarillo explained that increased academic mentoring was being provided in Toyon, in an effort to address specific sophomore academic needs and to encourage students' independence and academic decision-making. The Undergraduate Advising Center (UAC) was testing a new sophomore advising model in Toyon, she said, and the Resident Fellows wanted to enhance social as well as academic programs. To accomplish these objectives, the prior residence staff of 14 was increased by five -- four live-in peer advisors trained by the UAC and an additional Resident Assistant. Focus was placed on exploration of possible majors, including numerous faculty visits, and on the process of declaring a major. A survey of Toyon and non-Toyon sophomores in May 1999 was designed to assess whether high ambitions for the sophomore-focus house were being met. Would a larger percentage of Toyon sophomores have declared their major by May? Unfortunately, only 35 percent of Toyon residents, compared to 56 percent of the general sophomore population, had declared their major, she reported. Students in both populations gave similar reasons for not having declared, and in both groups about one-third of the students reported consulting with faculty members, while the majority said that residence staff members served as their academic mentors and advisors. Both Toyon and non-Toyon sophomores reported great satisfaction with the social atmosphere in their house and 79 percent of both groups said that they would recommend their house to their peers. Montoya reiterated that the emphasis in Toyon was on increased faculty interaction and mentoring of sophomores. "We will continue to do assessments to determine whether or not there is value in having an all-sophomore house," he said.
The implementation group examined the feasibility of creating a "freshman/sophomore residential cluster and learning community," which has become the Freshman/Sophomore College, Montoya advised. The hope is to provide a residential complement to Stanford Introductory Studies; roughly 90 freshmen and 90 sophomores live in two houses in Sterling Quad, and the freshmen will be able to stay there as sophomores without going through the draw. Montoya asked Sherry Palmer, one of the college directors in residence, to share her observations. Palmer said that the general goals of the program are to integrate academic and residential life and to encourage stronger connections between faculty members and first- and second-year students. A unique feature of the program is that the college dean, Professor John Bravman, lives in a home across the street and hosts small dinners for students with faculty members who are invited to speak about their research interests. Palmer indicated that 120 students have participated in 23 dinners so far this year, some multiple times, and that the dinners had been quite successful. Other attempts to eliminate the dichotomy between students' academic and social lives include having seminars and sections taught in the college and training the six members of the student staff (called "college assistants") to serve the dual roles of RA and Advising Associate. There are also peer tutors in residence and a lecturer has been hired to focus on oral communication skills next year. The fact that the students all choose to live in the college increases their readiness to become engaged in these various programs, she remarked. On recent surveys, 86 percent of students in the Freshman/Sophomore College agreed or strongly agreed that "my residence is a place where I have the opportunity to meet faculty," compared to 20 to 30 percent in other dorms. Palmer observed that the students in the college engage naturally in intellectual exchange and take advantage of the opportunities offered.
Montoya voiced the opinion that the residential nature of Stanford is one of its great assets, and influences students' choice of Stanford over other universities. He reminded everyone of Stanford's diverse housing options: ten all-freshman houses, 19 four-class houses (four of them Ethnic Theme Houses), 45 upper class houses (six of those Academic Theme Houses), six Focus Houses, five fraternities, two sororities, and seven Co-ops, in addition to the two pilot programs of an all-sophomore house and the Freshman/Sophomore College. "I am convinced that we have incredible potential to use the residences to support the academic mission of the institution," Montoya stated. "We will continue to asses these pilot programs, to achieve a better understanding of which models indeed will bring us closer to the ideal."
Professor Sheehan (History) questioned the proposal to increase the number of freshmen living in all-freshman dorms. Montoya said that a growing number of incoming freshmen are requesting all-freshman housing. He also reported that a survey had confirmed, to his surprise, that students who had lived in all-frosh dorms expressed a higher level of overall satisfaction with their undergraduate experience than those who had lived in four-class houses. He said it is a struggle for Student Affairs to decide whether they ought to meet that demand. Increasing the number of all-frosh houses has come with a commitment to explore different models of advising in those houses, "to help better connect freshmen to the academic side of their experience," he stated.
Vice Provost Kruger remarked that the Toyon data might call into question the general assumption that anything Stanford can do to connect faculty members with undergraduates is desirable. Montoya pointed out that they only have one year of data, and speculated that the Toyon results might be less surprising if it were true that the sophomore-focus program in Toyon was attracting those students who are particularly challenged by choosing a major in the first place. He indicated that additional questions would be posed in future surveys to try to get at such issues. Both pilot programs represent a commitment to better understand how to create a healthier environment for faculty/student interaction, he said.
Professor Rickford (Linguistics) also questioned the wisdom of expanding all-frosh housing, since he and others who had served as Resident Fellows had observed the curious phenomenon that houses that lack freshmen often lack intellectual energy. "The presence of frosh, like some special ingredient, seems to promote ideas," he remarked. "First of all, they come to dorm programs the first quarter because they think they have to. And they come with great enthusiasm and many ideas. They tend also to infect the rest of the population, and to reduce the sense by upperclassmen that they can sojourn, without doing any deep thought outside of regular classes." Montoya indicated that the number of all-frosh houses had been increased by three two years earlier and agreed that achieving the right balance is difficult. He commented that it should also be valuable to have houses where students are more secure in their academic abilities and have a sense of direction. When freshmen are removed from a house, there are opportunities to establish an academic theme or focus, he noted.
Professor Efron (Statistics) encouraged the student representatives at the meeting to express their views and Mike Levin (ASSU President) eagerly obliged. He explained that he was in the last group of freshmen to live in Kimball Hall, where Rickford serves as Resident Fellow. "There is no better demonstration of how a community can be formed and how upper classmen and freshmen can bond and breed a wonderful educational environment." The decision at the end of 1997 to take freshmen out of Kimball was very disheartening, Levin said, "and if you go in there now, it's like a mausoleum." Levin also offered an explanation for why so many entering freshmen choose all-freshman housing -- because a large portion of them stay in all-frosh dorms when they attend Admit Weekend the prior April and this is the image that sticks in their mind of what Stanford should be for them. "I don't think that choice is necessarily as relevant as it might seem at first," he advised. Levin stressed that four-class dorms should remain an essential part of undergraduate life, and that the student voice must be taken into account when changes in residential configurations are being considered. Meredyth Krych (ASSU Representative-at-Large) described the benefits of a four-class dorm in which she lived all four years at the University of Pennsylvania, explaining that the informal interactions that occur naturally between freshmen and upperclassmen are as valuable as the more structured experiences of obtaining advice from designated people.
Professor Monismith (Civil and Environmental Engineering), also a Resident Fellow, revealed that at the most recent Faculty Night no one in his house invited a faculty member to dinner. He said, however, that inviting students and faculty members to small dinners in the RF apartment works well, like those described at Frosh/Soph College, and suggested that more resources should be aimed in that direction. Earth Sciences Dean Orr recalled that when he was a freshman, Wilbur Hall was populated by 800 freshman males, adding, "I can only say that it was completely uncivilized." He indicated that for both he and his wife, the freshman dorm was a place "of intense learning about ourselves and making friendships that have lasted a lifetime." Orr said that he has also spent 15 years as an advisor in a four-class dorm and sees many of the benefits Krych mentioned. Both options should be maintained, he concluded, because students can benefit from both kinds of experiences. As housing configurations have been changed recently, has anyone considered reviewing the entire system of the annual housing draw, Orr asked. Montoya reminded everyone that there is a great deal more variety in Stanford's housing and food service options than for example at Harvard. This means, he said, that the housing draw is quite complicated, and probably "captures too much of our students' attention every year." However, after three years of attention by a student, faculty, and administrative task force, Montoya asserted firmly that "the current system is as acceptable to our student body as any system we could come up with."
Professor Shachter (Management Science & Engineering), a Resident Fellow for ten years, spoke to the value for students of being able to live in quite different residential environments each of their four years. He agreed with Monismith that it is difficult to get students to feel comfortable interacting with faculty members, commenting how sad it is when a senior in his dorm comes to him for a graduate school recommendation even though he has no idea of the student's academic qualifications. Shachter also stressed that many intellectually stimulating things go on in the dorms that are not strictly academically focused. Chair Zoback thanked Montoya, Camarillo, and Palmer for their contributions and the Senate for an interesting discussion.
Guidelines for Academic Theme Houses (SenD#5041)
Zoback introduced Professor Russell Fernald, Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, to present proposed new guidelines for Academic Theme Houses. As legislative history, Zoback noted that in 1986 the Senate had discussed SenD#3047, a report of the C-US Subcommittee on Residential Education and Advising (S-REA). No action was requested of the Senate at that time, but the Senate discussion was used as a general endorsement of the theme house guidelines contained in the report. Zoback explained that C-US was again seeking feedback from Senate, on new guidelines for Academic Theme Houses, but that the Ethnic Theme Houses would still operate under the 1986 guidelines.
Fernald advised that a year and a half earlier C-US had charged its subcommittee, S-REA, to take a look at academic theme houses, because they were the principal place where the academic mission intersects with residential life. He thanked Professor Robyn Birdwell (Radiology) for chairing the subcommittee, and said that C-US had responded to the April 1999 subcommittee report by asking the six academic theme houses to comment on the document. Based on their replies and insights into what an academic theme house could be, C-US has proposed new guidelines, Fernald said. He explained that there are currently six Academic Theme Houses (four on the Row and two in Governor's Corner), four Ethnic Theme Houses, and several additional Focus Houses. The latter, he clarified, are houses in which the person serving as Resident Fellow chooses to introduce a certain theme (e.g., Public Policy, Environmental Issues, and Arts and Performing Arts), as opposed to Academic Theme Houses, which are associated with an academic department and may offer courses for academic credit. Fernald said that there had been vigorous discussion within C-US aimed at insuring that if Academic Theme Houses are to remain, they must have real content and serve as an extension of the academic program.
Reiterating that C-US was seeking Senate advice and discussion, Fernald outlined their proposals:
* That the Academic Theme Houses be renamed Language and Culture Residences -- reflecting the increased number of students taking languages (approximately 1,600 in any given quarter) and the fact that these houses have primarily been focused on language and culture in the past
* That each house have an oversight committee to set the intellectual agenda and criteria for residence -- to combat student cynicism and dispel the notion that "these are really just nice houses on the Row"
* That each house have a residence for academic staff (with preference for a member of the Academic Council) from the relevant department
* That each house be regularly reviewed, and considered every four years for renewal
* That the physical location be contingent on and appropriate to the number of students who apply
* That applications from departments for new Language and Culture Residences be encouraged and reviewed by C-US.
Fernald emphasized that C-US's goal was to ensure a certain amount of structure and academic content for the theme houses. Several Senators, including Efron, Rickford, Thomas, and Satz, questioned the wisdom of narrowing the definition of academic theme houses to only language and culture. Allowing any academic department to attempt to meet specified academic criteria was seen as preferable by many. Fernald reported that C-US had come to the conclusion that language and culture was really the only discipline where significant academic benefits would be derived through integration of the subject into residential life, for example by speaking the language at meals. Of the six existing Academic Theme Houses, the only one that could not qualify is American Studies, whose director agreed that it really was not serving the academic goals of the earlier or proposed guidelines. Fernald pointed out that the Focus House category is well suited to a number of areas identified by Senators, including "American literature" and "science". Responding to a question from Professor Harrison (Graduate School of Business), Director of Residential Education Jane Camarillo said that student demand for the theme houses is high. It is difficult, however, to ascertain whether this is due to genuine interest in the theme or because they occupy prime real estate on the Row. She also advised that requests over the past several years for new Academic Theme Houses had been accomplished through Focus Houses instead, where only 30 percent (rather than 100 percent) of the spaces in the house can be dedicated for that priority in the draw.
ASSU President Mike Levin volunteered that, after having lived as a freshman in Kimball, he had moved to Casa Italiana, an academic theme house. He said that though he had had a wonderful sophomore year experience, he did not feel the students were learning much about Italian language or culture. He therefore strongly supported the proposed guidelines, suggesting that a full review every two years rather than four might even be preferable. Levin also cautioned that asking the theme house residents if it is working might not be the most accurate method of assessment and urged that the staff members in the house be required at least to meet the same academic standards as the students. Fernald indicated that the Director of the Language Center would be responsible for assessing what the students in these houses had learned. He and Camarillo concurred that student staff members as well as the Resident Fellow should be associated with the language department. Professor Bernhardt, Language Center Director, expressed her commitment to the new guidelines and her desire to work to strengthen the academic nature of the programs. Replying to a question from Professor Baugh (Education), Bernhardt said that an assessment plan would probably include the simulated oral proficiency interview, to determine how much a student's language skills had progressed since entering the theme house, and some kind of cultural assessment.
Fernald commented that one of the reasons for changing the name from Academic Theme Houses to Language and Culture Residences was to signal clearly to students that a new system was being put in place. Professors Ramirez (Education) and Satz (Philosophy) stressed that with the unevenness of housing at Stanford, students will continue to display extraordinary pragmatism and cleverness. If the number of students interested in a particular language is not high enough, and the program gets moved to the basement of Stern Hall, "then we'll see whether it was the language or the location," Fernald quipped.
Professor Monismith (Civil and Environmental Engineering) suggested that crossing "the forbidden barrier" and mixing undergraduates with graduate students from the language departments (in addition to any who might hold residence staff positions) could significantly strengthen these academic programs. Professor Thomas (Psychology) expressed strong opposition both to the name change and to the notion of proficiency testing. He urged that "continued interest" in any designated field of study be the criterion for residence in these preferred houses. Ramirez disagreed, remarking, "It is hard to measure proficiency. It is even harder to measure interest. I for one could bluff interest a lot better than I could bluff proficiency." Thomas also voiced a concern that one might infer incorrectly from the proposed name change that languages and cultures are more important to Stanford than engineering and computer science, for example.
Meredyth Krych (ASSU Representative-at-Large) commented that like Levin she had a special perspective on this issue, because the dorm she had lived in for four years at Penn was a modern language house. A basic level of language proficiency and a statement of academic interest were both required there, she said, and helped to ensure a wonderful, dynamic experience. She also pointed out that students in the house all spoke another language, but came from many different disciplines, not just language departments. Krych suggested that Stanford might give students in less desirable housing who want to stay there the option to do so, as well as considering such an option for students who demonstrate a high level of commitment and contribution to a program even if it is in more desirable housing.
Rickford returned to the issue of a name change, relating that the high point of his 20 years at Stanford had been a summer teaching a special session at Oxford on Britain and the Third World with Professor Abernethy. Having a group of 37 students all reading the same books and intensely interested in the same issues was truly fantastic, he said. Rickford and Satz argued that the name 'academic theme house' properly leaves this possibility open to a wide range of disciplines. Ramirez queried Fernald as to whether C-US was trying to make the case that Academic Theme Houses really are more conducive to language and culture, whereas topics such as politics or ethics can be accommodated in Focus Houses. Fernald affirmed that C-US members had concluded that the cooperative living experience was uniquely beneficial for students studying languages and cultures. Professor Moin (Mechanical Engineering), the only engineer on C-US, quipped that a house full of engineers was the last place he would want to live. The Provost heartily agreed. Professor Wright (Economics), also a C-US member, volunteered that he had been ready to make the identical comment about any proposed economics house. Moin and Wright expressed the view that Stanford is becoming an increasingly international place and that language learning is the area where one can make a plausible case for positive academic value in a residential setting.
Zoback complimented C-US and S-REA for having done an excellent job in placing a renewed emphasis on what Academic Theme Houses are supposed to be about and ensuring that they carry out their intended function. Because the only serious contention seemed to be about the renaming issue, Zoback called for a straw vote to provide guidance to C-US on whether or not Senators believe the proposed name change from Academic Theme Houses to Language and Culture Residences would be beneficial. The "ayes" and the "nays" appeared to be about equal in number, "a house divided," Zoback remarked. The Chair thanked Fernald and Senate members for an informative discussion.
After a motion and a second, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
Susan W. Schofield
Academic Secretary to the University
Note: The background documents
and reports distributed to the Senate are available on the Academic
Secretary's Office website at http://facultysenate.stanford.edu, by clicking on the relevant Senate meeting