Stanford Report Online


Stanford Report, December 6, 2000
Faculty Senate minutes from the November 30 meeting

TO THE MEMBERS OF
THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
THIRTY-THIRD SENATE
Report No. 5

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, NOV. 30

At its meeting on Thursday, October 30, 2000, the Senate of the Academic Council heard reports and took the following actions:

1. By unanimous voice vote, on recommendation of the Committee on Graduate Studies, reauthorized the Executive Committee of the Interdisciplinary Program in Cancer Biology to nominate candidates for the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees for a period of five years, from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.

2. Accepted the 1999/2000 Annual Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid, chaired by Professor Matthew Snipp.

SUSAN W. SCHOFIELD

Academic Secretary to the University

MINUTES, NOV. 3

Call to Order

Senate Chair Brad Osgood called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. There were 39 voting members, 6 ex-officio members, and numerous guests in attendance.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the November 9, 2000 meeting of Senate XXXIII (SenD#5143) were approved as submitted.

Memorial Resolution

The Chair introduced Professor Pan Yotopoulos to present a brief memorial statement in honor of Dudley Kirk, on behalf of a committee consisting of himself and Emeritus Professors Bruce Johnston and Sanford Dornbusch. The full text of the resolution was included in Senate packets and will be published in the Stanford Report. Following the memorial statement, those present stood for a traditional moment of silence.

Dudley Kirk, the Dean and Virginia Morrison Professor of Population Studies Emeritus in the Food Research Institute and Professor Emeritus of Sociology, died on March 14, 2000. He served at Stanford from 1967 until his retirement in 1979. Dudley Kirk was a major figure in the scholarly analysis of the demographic transformations that have shaped societal change in the industrialized societies and the less developed countries of the world. His contributions to policy-making, to scholarship, and to Stanford fall into three categories. First, early on after World War II he predicted the coming of the population explosion. In doing so, he influenced generations of researchers and political actors. Moreover, he was among the first to stretch analyses of the etiology of the demographic transition to include socioeconomic development, a holistic process that encompasses education, urbanization, literacy, health facilities, communication media, plus increases in per capita income. Second, as one of the most influential demographers in the world, he helped to determine the disbursement of funds, both for scholarship and for the implementation of international policies to reduce poverty and population growth. Finally, as a teacher, he influenced a generation of future researchers and consumers of information about demographic change in the world. He discussed the population explosion wisely, with genial equanimity and unflappable reassurance.

Report from the Senate Steering Committee

Osgood noted that the meeting was the last one of Fall Quarter and Senate would reconvene on January 11th at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). That meeting would include regular Senate business, a report from SLAC Director Jonathan Dorfan, and a tour, he said.

Information about shuttle buses and parking would be distributed, and over 35 Senate members had already signaled their intention to attend, he advised.

Report from the President

President Hennessy reported briefly that the University had a preliminary form of a new General Use Permit (GUP) about which he was "cautiously optimistic" pending approval of a final written document on December 12th by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. He said that he would speak more about the GUP during the Informal Executive Session to follow.

Professor Polhemus (English), on behalf of his colleague Professor Peter Stansky, expressed concern about the Hoover Institution Library. "In the library community and beyond, there is a persistent rumor that the Hoover Library (not the Archives) will be closed at the end of this academic year . . . and the collections amalgamated with Green Library. In the process it is likely that one of the great research centers in the world will be drastically weakened, as Green will have neither the staff nor the mandate to pursue the concentrated collection development that has characterized the Hoover Institution." The President deferred to Provost Etchemendy, who confirmed that a proposal was under consideration to move the "non-rare" Hoover collections to the Stanford University Libraries. He said that if approved, the advantages would include alleviating a serious library space shortage within Hoover, reducing some duplication, and improving access to the collections. He said that the library staff would not be decreased, and that saving money was not a motivation. Michael Keller (University Librarian and Director of Academic Information Resources) added that the realignment, if approved, would allow increased emphasis by Hoover on the special collections while improving access to the general collections. The proposal was originated at the request of then-Provost Rice several years earlier, Keller said, had been supported by the Hoover Board of Overseers, and had been reviewed positively the day before by the Committee on Libraries.

Report from the Provost

Provost Etchemendy announced that the Dean of Humanities and Sciences, Mac Beasley, had decided to step down at the end of the academic year. "Having been an associate dean before Mac, a department chair under Mac, and now the Provost in Mac's last year," Etchemendy said that Beasley had done a wonderful job of "understanding the school's financial condition and what needs to be done in the future" and thanked him for his service to H & S.

Professor Rehm (Drama) asked the Provost several questions about the Athletic Department's contracts with Nike. It was his understanding, he said, that Stanford has 15 contracts with Nike, related to separate sports and coaching staffs, which expire in July 2001 and are scheduled to be renegotiated soon. "What is Stanford's attitude toward the continuation of these contracts?" he asked. Rehm identified three specific concerns, which he said he had raised to little avail with the previous Provost and President. First: A kind of free speech issue ­ do we want 700-plus student athletes compelled to wear athletic apparel with the highly recognizable Nike corporate logo, the swoosh? Second: Does Stanford really belong in the corporate advertising business? (Rehm noted that he applauded the recent steps taken to remove advertising from the stadium and the basketball pavilion.) Third: If we do belong in the corporate advertising business, do we really want to be in the business of advertising Nike, given serious labor issues and human rights violations in Nike assembly plants in the third world? Rehm also observed that since he had previously been told by Athletic Director Ted Leland that corporate sponsorship permitted 45 athletes to receive scholarships, and since the Campaign for Undergraduate Education as presented to Senate by Vice Provost Bravman will be providing endowment for athletic scholarships, "perhaps we no longer need this relationship with Nike or anybody else."

Joking that he had answered Polhemus's question for the President, Provost Etchemendy bounced Rehm's question to the President, who quipped, "But Rob's was easier!" Hennessy advised that the University, rather than Athletics, would lead the upcoming Nike contract renegotiation process, to remove any potential conflict of interest. He also reminded everyone that Athletics is an auxiliary activity at Stanford. The University allocates $4 million of unrestricted funds, roughly the cost of physical education courses and recreation programs, but does not provide any funding for varsity sports. He said that it is a financial challenge for Athletics to mount an entire athletic program, with equal opportunities under Title IX for both women and men. Noting that they were already suffering an income reduction of about $0.5 million annually due to the University's direction to reduce the role that advertising plays, Hennessy advised that a balanced athletics budget must be maintained, as well as the quality of life for student athletes. "Over the long term, we will see if we can extract ourselves from having to use corporate sponsorship to keep our athletic teams on the field and correctly outfitted. But it will take us some time, realistically, to accomplish this," the President stated.

Professor Satz (Philosophy) asked, "If a student as a matter of conscience does not want to wear the Nike logo, is he or she free not to?" The President said that he was not aware of such a request ever having been made. He added that Nike and other sponsors such as Speedo occasionally do not provide specialized equipment required by a particular athlete, and Stanford then purchases that equipment separately. Satz also inquired whether the University has any "minimal standards" governing the kinds of entities it will contract with. A whole range of issues is contemplated, Hennessy said, and vendors other than Nike will be considered, though many companies have dropped out of the college athletic sponsorship business for financial reasons. Responding to a question from Professor Schatzberg (Psychiatry), Hennessy and Rehm indicated that a few universities had switched from Nike to other sponsors, and that students had been active in protest against such arrangements on some campuses. If Stanford wants to do business with Nike, Rehm said that he could offer some proposals concerning a "code of conduct." Professor Abernethy (Political Science) remarked that he thought it was strange that Stanford was moving away from "institutional sponsorship," for example by removing advertisements in Maples, but continuing with "individual sponsorship" (Nike logos on student athlete uniforms). He said that he found the latter morally more problematic because students have no say in establishing the arrangements.

Report From the Committee on Committees

Chair Joe Lipsick (Pathology) advised that the CoC would meet the following week to recommend faculty members to serve on the Dean of H & S search committee. CoC welcomes suggestions, he said, which could be sent to the Academic Secretary.

Renewal of the Cancer Biology Interdisciplinary Program (SenD#5141)

Osgood welcomed the chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies, Professor Steven Zipperstein, along with Medical School Associate Deans Phyllis Gardner and Ellen Porzig, Professor Brian Hoffman, who led the review committee, and Professor Martin Brown, Cancer Biology Program Chair. Zipperstein reported that C-GS had found Cancer Biology to be an exemplary program, with very high national ratings and great intellectual coherence. He said that the program had acted on the review recommendations made five years earlier and noted that it had superb executive administration. "If everything I do as C-GS Chair is as easy as this, I thank you for the appointment," he joked. Zipperstein noted for the record that the review was a year behind schedule, due to administrative changes in the dean's office, "probably no surprise to this body."

Professor Saldivar (English) commented that it appeared from the report that C-GS still had concerns about the continuity and coherence of the program's core course. Zipperstein clarified that significant improvements had been made, and any remaining concerns were endemic to interdisciplinary programs, which can not make faculty appointments and must rely on what Tennessee Williams called "the courtesy of strangers." Gardner volunteered that the Medical School leadership was putting more rigor into the planning of the core graduate curriculum and more emphasis on areas such as course review and faculty performance. Professor Walbot (Biological Sciences) said that Cancer Biology was a terrific program, whose courses were complemented by in-depth common courses in genetics, biochemistry and cell biology taken by about 80 percent of the life science graduate students at Stanford.

The following recommendation, moved and seconded by C-GS, was approved by unanimous voice vote:

The Senate reauthorizes the Executive Committee of the Interdisciplinary Program in Cancer Biology to nominate candidates for the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees for a period of five years, from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.

1999/2000 Annual Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid (SenD#5110)

Senate Chair Osgood said that unfortunately C-UAFA Chair Matthew Snipp (Sociology) had had a death in the family and could not be present. Professor Palumbo-Liu (Comparative Literature), both a Senate and a C-UAFA member, would be making the report and speaking about upcoming committee agenda items. Osgood noted that the annual report had been mailed in advance, and a five-year comparison of statistics concerning matriculated students had been placed at desks. He also welcomed to Senate the new Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, Robin Mamlet, "barely a month on the job," who would also make a few remarks.

Palumbo-Liu summarized briefly four principal areas of C-UAFA attention during the prior year: financial aid policies and practices, including impacts on middle/upper-middle class families and merit-based aid; minor revisions to the policy on Selection Criteria for Undergraduate Admission; discussion of the role of the faculty in the admission process; and review of the effectiveness of the President's Scholars Program. Looking forward, Palumbo-Liu said that committee members are enthusiastic and had actually asked for more meetings than the required two per quarter. He advised that they would be looking at a number of issues, including geographical outreach and yield, merit-based aid, aid for international students, and results of a periodic survey of admitted students including those who enrolled at Stanford and those who chose to enroll elsewhere.

Mamlet said that since arriving from Swarthmore a month earlier, she had engaged in very helpful conversations with faculty members and department chairs about Stanford and its admission and financial aid programs. "I believe firmly that the extent to which an admissions dean is plugged into the faculty is the extent to which admissions is connected to the heart of the university. And it is central to doing my job truly well," she stated. She said that C-UAFA members, with whom she had met the day before, were enthusiastic and energetic, and she was excited to work with them on the issues Palumbo-Liu had mentioned as well as on a review of admissions publications. "We have to be vigilant," Mamlet said, "in examining whether Stanford is attracting, selecting, and enrolling the students that we ought to be ... including the very best students from across all cultural and socioeconomic groups." She remarked that she was thrilled to be at Stanford and looked forward to getting to know the University and the faculty better.

Professor Cohen (Mathematics) asked about the effects of Stanford's early decision program (a binding commitment), particularly in light of changes to non-binding "early action" programs this year by several of the Ivies. Mamlet agreed that the competition for the very best students was getting more heated and said that C-UAFA could certainly discuss possible changes in Stanford's approach. Responding to encouragement from Seth Newton (ASSU President), Palumbo-Liu said that C-UAFA is interested in Stanford's methods of recruitment and the yield of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Professor Rickford (Linguistics) expressed concern about what seemed to be a slight trend over the past five year toward more students from private high schools and fewer from public high schools. Mamlet agreed that this trend should be watched, but warned that the data are complex. As Stanford attempts to be national rather than western-dominated, a higher percentage of excellent students from the east will be found in private schools, she said.

The Senate Chair accepted the 1999/2000 Annual Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid and thanked Professor Snipp for his leadership as chair both the prior year and the current year.

Report on Child Care (SenD#5146)

Osgood expressed the Steering Committee's pleasure that Kathleen Sullivan, Director of the WorkLife Office, could present an important report on child care to the Senate. A child care needs assessment had been requested by the Provost and carried out in two phases, he noted, and the executive summary was mailed in Senate agenda packets. The Chair welcomed several guests from the staff of the Provost, President and Human Resources, as well as members of a child care advisory group.

Sullivan reminisced about arriving at Stanford just before the Loma Prieta earthquake and gave special recognition to two emeritus faculty wives, Dorothea Almond and Phyllis Craig, who she said had started child care at Stanford in the early 1970s.

Sullivan explained that Provost Rice had first requested a needs assessment, in response to indications that the scarcity and high cost of child care were beginning to impact faculty recruitment and retention. As that first study was carried out, it became clear that staff and students were similarly impacted, and Provosts Rice and Hennessy asked that the needs assessment be expanded to the full community. The voluntary response survey received a 30% response rate from the faculty, 21% from staff, and 12% from graduate students. Sullivan pointed out that a task force is also looking at the unique child care and financial aid needs of a small group of undergraduate students with young children.

Stanford has two large child care centers offering part-time and full-day care for infants through pre-schoolers, with 300 spaces serving about 350 families: Children's Center of the Stanford Community (CCSC) and Stanford Arboretum Children's Center (SACC). The Bing Nursery School is a part-day program not included in the child care system, Sullivan noted. In 1999 there were 485 children of faculty, staff, and students on the centralized waiting list for the two centers; in 2000 there were 500. This is a very large unmet need, Sullivan said, approximately 60% of whom need full-time care. Stanford can not look to the surrounding community to meet that need, she explained, because Palo Alto has no child care openings and is itself in desperate need of more child care space. Across Santa Clara County, a recent study showed that licensed day care meets only about one-third of the need, citing a shortage of 11,000 spaces. More and more large employers are responding to this problem by building on-site child care centers for their employees.

Sullivan advised that a second serious problem is that child care is becoming increasingly unaffordable. This is because center budgets are about 85% salaries and benefits for the child care providers, who locally average about $11-12 per hour. Because these wages, quite good in the child care industry according to Sullivan, still are not high enough to afford local housing, providers need to commute and it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit and retain high-quality, well-trained providers. In the Stanford centers, full-time care costs about $1,200 per month for an infant and $800 for a preschooler, she said, "meaning that a family with two children can easily be spending $2,000 a month just on child care."

The study offered 11 recommendations, Sullivan said, three addressing availability, three addressing affordability, and five aimed at strengthening Stanford's current child care system. She said that she was extremely pleased to report that "President Hennessy has agreed to several specific child care initiatives in principle, with the details to be hammered out by a working group formed in the next few weeks." Those initiatives are:

c allocation of University funds for capital improvements to the existing full-day centers (e.g., replacing 30-year old modular buildings at CCSC)

c opening of a new center in Stanford West in Fall 2001 (the University's first child care venture with an outside contractor, which will be carefully monitored)

c an additional center to open in 2002 or 2003 (location to be determined)

c GUP allocations for child care with all new faculty and student family housing

c creation of a new needs-based child care benefit for faculty and staff (different models will be explored, including the Harvard annual scholarship model)

c further study of child care affordability for students, including post docs

Sullivan concluded her report, and she and the President offered to answer questions.

Responding to a question from Professor Palumbo-Liu (Comparative Literature), Sullivan and Jim Franklin, Director of Staff Recruitment and Retention, explained that the new faculty/staff benefit would probably be in the form of a taxable pay supplement but the money could then be put into a "dependent care spending account" thus converting it into a tax-free benefit. Professor Traugott (Linguistics) applauded the effort to assist undergraduates with children and asked how many there might be. There are approximately 20 undergraduates who have self-identified so far, Sullivan said. Professor Satz (Philosophy) asked when the new employee benefit might be available. Franklin explained that the benefit had to be designed and approved by the government for inclusion in the benefits pool, for implementation either September 1, 2001 or January 1, 2002.

Satz also expressed concern about the turnover in child care teachers, most of whom can not afford local housing, and asked if they would be eligible to live in Stanford West. Sullivan indicated that they are now in the lowest category of eligibility for Stanford West, along with Shopping Center employees, for example. She said that the centers were developing a proposal that child care providers should have the same priority as hospital nurses, making them eligible for the below-market-rate units. Sullivan replied to Professor Zoback (Geophysics) that a given number of full-time slots could accommodate more than that number of children since some were part-time. She also answered questions from Zoback and Professor Harrison (Graduate School of Business) by explaining that fairly reliable formulas were in place to predict the number of child care slots likely to be needed in the various new housing developments Stanford is planning. She agreed that continued monitoring and strategic planning are important, however, and pointed out that until the mid-1990s Stanford had excess child care capacity and was accepting non-Stanford children in its centers.

Professor Parsonnet (Medicine/Infections Diseases) said that she lived in Half Moon Bay because housing was affordable there, and that her two-year-old had only recently been accepted at CCSC. She applauded the efforts to address child care for pre-school-age children, but encouraged Stanford to focus on school-age children as well. She suggested that the University might build a K-12 school on campus for their faculty and staff, as Columbia had done, or might try to negotiate to allow faculty/staff children to attend good schools nearby. Sullivan said that that used to be possible, but the relatively recent overcrowding of schools in Palo Alto and other cities has eliminated that option.

Seth Newton (ASSU President) spoke on behalf of undergraduate students with children, asking what the breakdown was of the users of existing child care services, and whether a priority system among the faculty, staff, graduate student and undergraduate student categories had been considered. Sullivan responded that currently 25% of the children in the centers are faculty children, 36% are staff children, and 24% are student children, 9 % are from the hospitals, 2% from SLAC, and 4% fellows or post-docs. On the wait list, 22% are faculty, 26% staff, 39% students, and 13% hospitals. Priority systems have been discussed in the past, but acceptance is essentially based on date of application, she said, agreeing that there were special circumstances concerning undergraduate students that should be examined by the working group. Parsonnet pointed out that siblings are currently given priority, and suggested that this works against undergraduate students who are less likely to be able to take advantage of that feature. Professor Polhemus (English) thanked Sullivan for her work and observed that Assistant Professors with children have a much harder time than those without children. President Hennessy agreed, stating that Stanford is ready to commit increased funds to child care in order to ensure that faculty members with children have an opportunity to succeed in their professional careers.

Provost Etchemendy said that in his three months as Provost it had been a great delight to work with Kathleen Sullivan, who he was sad to report was taking early retirement and moving to Arizona. He added, however, that she would continue to work with Stanford at a distance to help implement the new child care programs in the right way. Senate members gave Sullivan a warm round of applause.

Osgood reminded Senate members of the Informal Executive Session to follow, and noted that he, Mark Zoback and Brad Efron hoped to receive suggestions of potential subjects for Planning and Policy Board consideration. Obtaining a motion and a second, he declared the meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan W. Schofield

Academic Secretary to the University