TO THE MEMBERS OF THE
ACADEMIC COUNCIL THIRTY-SECOND SENATE
Report No. 14
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, MAY 25
At its meeting on Thursday, May 25, 2000, the Senate of the Academic Council heard reports and took the following actions:
1. Upon recommendation of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, and by voice vote without dissent, authorized the Executive Committee of the Interdisciplinary Program in African and African-American Studies to nominate candidates for the A.B. degree for a period of five years, from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.
2. Upon recommendation of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, and by unanimous voice vote, authorized the Executive Committee of the Interdisciplinary Program in African and African-American Studies to nominate candidates for the A.B. degree for a period of five years, from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.
3. Upon recommendation of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, and by unanimous voice vote, authorized the Department of Management Science and Engineering to nominate candidates for the B.S. degree effective September 1, 2000 and without limit of time. Students who complete the "Industrial Engineering" track will receive an ABET-accredited degree.
4. Upon recommendation of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, and by voice vote without dissent, authorized the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering to nominate candidates for the B.S. degree in Environmental Engineering, effective September 1, 2000 and without limit of time. This degree is in addition to the department's ABET-accredited B.S. degree in Civil Engineering
SUSAN W. SCHOFIELD
Academic Secretary to the University
MINUTES, MAY 25
Call to Order
Senate Chair Mark Zoback called the Senate meeting to order at 3:23 p.m. in Room 180 of the Law School. There were 32 voting members, 8 ex-officio members, and several guests in attendance.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the May 11, 2000 Senate meeting (SenD#5099) were approved with one correction.
Zoback welcomed Physics Professor Steve Chu to present a memorial statement in honor of his colleague Arthur Schawlow. Breaking with tradition, Chu accompanied his remarks with overheads, noting that "physicists are incapable of talking about anything without a view-graph machine." The full text of the memorial resolution (SenD#5087), written by himself and Professors Blas Cabrera and Walter Meyerhof, was included in Senate packets and will be published in the Stanford Report. Following the statement, Senators stood for the traditional moment of silence.
Arthur Leonard Schawlow was born in 1921 and grew up in Canada, showing early on both a scientific aptitude and a love of tinkering with gadgets. He received his bachelor's, masters, and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Toronto. In 1949 he accepted a post-doc position at Columbia University with Charles Townes, with whom he wrote the seminal book Microwave Spectroscopy. Art married Townes' youngest sister, Aurelia. Joining Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1951, Schawlow began doing work on superconductivity. Beginning in 1957 Schawlow and Townes collaborated on extension of the maser concept to the optical region. The basic patent for the laser (an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) was awarded to the two of them in 1960. Schawlow joined the Stanford Physics Department in 1961, where he remained until his retirement in 1996. He co-invented with Ted Hansch at Stanford an extremely precise form of optical spectroscopy called saturation spectroscopy. In 1981 Art was awarded the Nobel Prize for "his contributions to the development of laser spectroscopy." His public lectures were full of jokes, and he was always the first to laugh at them. Art's many contributions not only had a profound impact in physics, but also in chemistry, biology, and medicine. In recognition of his work, Art received numerous awards, honorary degrees, election to honorary societies, and had two national prizes named after him. Art was a beloved mentor who attracted a large number of students and post-docs who affectionately called him "the Boss.""Having been infected with his charm and vision, many of his flock have gone on to do great science. Art was a devoted husband and father of three children. He died on April 28, 1999, succumbing to a virulent form of leukemia. Arthur Schawlow was not just admired, he was cherished by those who knew him. He was a great scientist of remarkable modesty, a supportive teacher, a gentle leader, and above all, a caring human being.
Report from the Senate Steering Committee
The Chair remarked that it was the next to last Senate meeting, and joked that "if John Bravman had taken this job, he'd be almost done by now." Zoback announced with pleasure that the next Senate Chair would be Professor Brad Osgood (Electrical Engineering), and that those elected to the Senate Steering Committee were David Freyberg (Civil and Environmental Engineering), Charlotte Jacobs (Oncology), Hazel Markus (Psychology), John Rickford (Linguistics), Debra Satz (Philosophy), and John Taylor (Economics). He also reported that Professors Richard Zare (Chemistry) and J. Michael Harrison (Graduate School of Business) had been elected to the Advisory Board for three-year terms. He reminded everyone that the final Senate meeting on June 8th would include a report on the School of Humanities and Sciences by Dean Beasley, and encouraged all to attend not only the meeting but also the reception afterward honoring President Casper. Zoback advised that there was no report from the Committee on Committees, and that the President was away from campus.
Report from the Provost
Provost John Hennessy reported steady progress on the four dean searches under way. He expressed the hope that appointments of a Dean of Religious Life and a Dean of Admission and Financial Aid would take place around the time of graduation. He indicated that the searches for the Dean of Medicine and the Provost were not as far along, though he said that in both cases they were aiming for appointments before the end of June.
Professor Noll (Economics) drew attention to the report just submitted to the Dean of Humanities and Sciences proposing administrative and organizational changes in interdisciplinary programs (IDPs). He asked the Provost if he intended to play a role in the organization of IDPs, so that procedures could be made uniform for IDPs outside as well as inside H & S, and asked the Senate Chair if he intended to refer the IDP recommendations to C-US and C-GS for further study. Hennessy said that he assumed schools other than H & S would consider the recommendations on their merits and could decide whether or not to adopt them. He advised that the next logical step was a meeting planned by Dean Beasley with the H & S IDP Directors to discuss the report and its recommendations. "Realizing that we're reaching the end of the school year, and that several of the recommendations are likely to be contentious, I would imagine that it would be difficult to put them in place in anything other than an experimental way before next year," he said. Noll stressed his view that broad IDP policy issues, which were supposed to have been addressed but did not seem to have been, were matters of Provostial concern. Zoback advised that the Steering Committee would be meeting with Dean Beasley the next day and would like to find a way to follow the year's several Senate discussions of IDPs with a discussion of the Zare committee report. Professors Efron (Statistics), R. Fernald (Psychology) and Satz (Philosophy) added their voices as IDP Directors to Noll's, calling for a discussion on the Senate floor of the report and its recommendations. Efron remarked that the report "had an aspect of 'it isn't broken but we're going to fix it anyway' and the fix doesn't seem sympathetic to me." Fernald and Satz expressed concern that the promised opportunity for a pedagogical dimension to the review had been missed, noting as an example the difficulties IDPs encounter in recruiting faculty to teach courses and the related criticism that too much teaching is done by non-Academic Council faculty. Professor Yarbro-Bejarano (Spanish and Portuguese) asked that the irregularity in the recent Modern Thought and Literature IDP review concerning lateral letters be revisited. Senate Chair-elect Osgood advised that the next year's Steering Committee had met briefly and had agreed that continued discussion of IDPs should take place in Fall 2000.
Report on the University Budget (SenD#5095)
Zoback referred to background materials placed at desks and advised that copies of the printed budget book would be provided to anyone who wanted them. "This is an annual event," he said, "the Provost's opportunity to explain Stanford's budget process to the faculty, and our opportunity to try to understand it." He welcomed Vice Provost Tim Warner and others from the Budget Office as guests.
Provost Hennessy said that he wanted to lay the groundwork for a better understanding of the budget process and budget tradeoffs. Using Powerpoint slides, he began by explaining that the University's consolidated budget includes all income -- from grants and contracts, student income (tuition, room and board), gifts, endowment payout, other -- and all expenditures -- academic salaries and benefits (20%), staff salaries and benefits (21%), auxiliary activities such as Housing & Dining and Athletics, institutional support, other. The 1999 consolidated budget totaled $1.6 billion, he said, explaining an apparent $116 million surplus of revenues over expenditures as "not real money," representing transfers to plant and increases in restricted fund balances in schools and departments. Looking next at annual compound growth rates of various revenue and expenditure categories for the period 1996 through 2000 (in nominal dollars), Hennessy pointed out large increases in endowment and investment income (15.7%) and a 7.4% overall increase in revenues. Responding to a question from Professor Shoven (Economics), he explained that expendable gifts had experienced negative year-to-year growth, but that gifts to endowment and plant were not included in that figure. On the expenditure side, academic salaries and benefits had shown the most growth (10.3%), with auxiliary activities, primarily Housing & Dining, close behind. Although the figures indicated growth in expenditures outpacing growth in revenues, the Provost assured everyone that "we do not spend more money than we take in."
Moving from the larger consolidated budget level down to the actual money funding departments and operations, Hennessy explained that the $1.7 billion of 1999 consolidated revenues included only $503 million of unrestricted income "for the poor Provost." Of that, the formula schools (Medicine and Graduate School of Business) received about $90 million, leaving $413 million of "general funds" controlled directly by the Provost -- a base budget of $401 million and a one-time reserve of $12 million. Looking at the period between 1996 and 2000, 96% of the general funds budget was predetermined based on the prior year's base, with about 2.3% ($56 million) allocated in incremental first year base funds and 1.8% ($43 million) in one-time funds. "Over the five years, we have had a growth of $151.6 million in incremental expenditures in the base budget," he said, reminding everyone that once committed, for example to faculty salaries, the funds are encumbered on a permanent basis. Thus the first-year allocations of $56 million since 1996 translated into an additional $95 million of base budget by 2000. Hennessy showed charts indicating the uses of the incremental base funds -- faculty salaries and academic programs consuming the largest piece, with debt service close behind, then technology infrastructure investments, planned maintenance, new building operations and maintenance, and other categories. He spelled out the uses of the one-time funds as well -- faculty housing largest by far, then faculty support and academic programs, graduate student housing, and other categories.
Provost Hennessy next outlined the priorities established for the 2000/2001 budget:
- Faculty and staff compensation --
42% of the incremental base general funds, including a "deferred
maintenance scheme" for staff salaries
- Faculty and graduate student
housing assistance programs
- Graduate student support -- stipends increased by 6% and TGR status changed to 9 units
- c Undergraduate education and financial aid
- Academic and administrative
infrastructure -- including incremental funds to H & S to
address a budget deficit and continued investments in
- Research support
Displaying the breakdown of revenues in the $1.9 billion 2000/2001 consolidated budget, Hennessy identified the general funds base budget as $419 million with one-time allocations of $23 million and proposed incremental base allocations of $29 million. He showed charts breaking down the $29 million by initiative:
- Cost increases - $4 million
- Faculty & staff salary program
- $12 million (general funds portion only)
- New base commitments to non-formula units - $13 million
The $13 million of new base commitments represented less than half of the budget requests received from throughout the university, Hennessy said, holding up a very thick black binder containing those proposals. "At least 75% of what was requested were things we would really like to do," he said, "so we are constantly in a crunch." Showing the breakdown of the $13 million by unit, he noted that about one quarter was allocated to Humanities and Sciences and about 20% to an administrative systems reserve. Other significant increments went to the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and to administrative purposes, he noted.
The Provost also provided a high-level picture of the capital budget for 2000/2001. The $280 million of capital expenditures would be spent roughly half on academic buildings and 25% on infrastructure, he indicated, noting that a little more than half would be for new construction. Hennessy emphasized that 53% of the funding for the capital budget would come from gifts, a larger portion than in the recent past, because the University is reaching its limit in debt carrying capacity. The $280 million figure includes some large projects, he said, such as $68 million toward the new Clark Center.
Concluding his presentation, Hennessy described the following future budget challenges:
- Increased endowment support for the
budget -- "we are under-endowed compared to our competition,
particularly on the east coast"
- Cost pressures driven by the local
economy -- faculty and staff salaries, housing programs
- Undergraduate campaign -- permanent support for Stanford Introductory Studies, undergraduate research programs, and financial aid.
He also displayed a high-level summary of the 2000/2001 consolidated budget totaling $1.8 billion. A forecast $27 million surplus was initially identified as a deficit, causing Director of Libraries Mike Keller to exclaim, "Wow, you just made $54 million, quite a swing!" and Hennessy to joke, "I know, you want a new library."
In response to a question from Professor Efron (Statistics), Hennessy said that construction projects getting started the next year include the Clark Center, graduate student housing, and a Medical School parking structure. Professor Monismith (Civil and Environmental Engineering) asked what portion of the growth in salaries and benefits was due to growth in number of people versus increases in salaries. Hennessy replied that personnel growth outside the Medical School continues at about one percent per year, but the majority is salary increases. Professor Shachter (Management Science and Engineering) asked for clarification of debt service limitations. Hennessy said that the University has internal controls embodied in a Trustee policy that limit the fraction of income spent on debt and the debt-to-equity ratio. Senate Chair Zoback thanked the Provost for a very informative budget presentation.
Renewal of the Interdisciplinary Program in African and African-American Studies (SenD#5091)
Zoback advised that Professor Russ Fernald, Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies (C-US), would be presenting the next four recommendations for Senate action. He noted that Senate member John Rickford (Linguistics) was the Chair of the Program in African and African-American Studies (AAAS), and welcomed Associate Director Diann Mccants and H & S Associate Dean Russell Berman as guests. Fernald reported that C-US had both approved a minor name change and, more importantly, found the program to be in very good hands under Rickford's energetic leadership. Berman said that the H & S Advisory Committee on the Curriculum found AAAS to be a vibrant program and was pleased to recommend it for a five-year reauthorization. Rickford commented that they were proud to be the first "Black studies program" at a major university, begun in 1969 under the direction of Professors St. Clair Drake and Jim Gibbs. He advised that AAAS students, while not many in number, are of extremely strong quality -- seven of nine majors and minors doing an honors thesis, and five Phi Beta Kappas. Rickford also mentioned several recent program innovations including an excellent lecture series, learning expeditions to places of significance in the African-American world, and a new course by Professor Arnold Rampersad on W. E. B. DuBois.
Professor Baugh (Education) said that as a member of the African-American faculty he wanted to commend Rickford on his tremendous leadership of AAAS as well as the transition achieved within the program and its integration into the Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity (CSRE). Responding to a question from Professor Simoni (Biological Sciences) about the small number of AAAS students, Rickford pointed out that the Departments of Classics and Drama, like AAAS, had seven majors, noting that he believes "we do important work but don't necessarily attract large numbers of students." AAAS has grown significantly since its beginnings he said, particularly after the creation of double majors. "There is room for growth, but we will probably not be able to reach Harvard's numbers -- but then again, they are a complete department and a major research center focused on African-American studies." Professor Efron (Statistics) asked what AAAS students tend to do after graduation, and Rickford indicated that the program has a fairly normal variety of students who pursue graduate studies in law and medicine, or a doctorate, or go into teaching.
Professor Noll (Economics) asked Rickford to comment on problems AAAS may have encountered with CSRE, as reflected in the review document. Noll said he thought this was a particularly important matter since similar organizational changes might face other IDPs. Rickford indicated that there were a few "early-stage collaboration" issues which were being ironed out, such as the small number of CSRE core courses as compared to a larger number in AAAS, but stressed the real benefits of integration into CSRE. "Money would solve some of these problems," he said with a smile. "I guess it was a friendly question, then," Noll replied.
The following recommendation, moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, was approved by voice vote without dissent:
The Senate reauthorizes the Executive Committee of the Interdisciplinary Program in African and African-American Studies to nominate candidates for the A.B. degree for a period of five years, from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.
Renewal of the Interdisciplinary Program in Urban Studies (SenD#5092)
Zoback welcome Senate guests Professor Len Ortolano, Director of the Program in Urban Studies, and H & S Associate Dean Berman, turning again to C-US Chair Fernald to present his committee's recommendation. Fernald reported that they had found Urban Studies to be an important program, providing a remarkable service to undergraduates. Fernald and Berman agreed that reliance on a single dedicated and energetic leader, in this case Ortolano, often presented IDPs with leadership succession problems. Berman also mentioned two other issues common to many IDPs: reliance on non-Academic Council members for teaching (though in Urban Studies the teaching was by practicing professionals in architecture and urban planning, he said, areas not covered at all by the Stanford faculty); and a mismatch between the curricular needs of the IDPs and those of the departments. "Nonetheless, this is a program that works; it doesn't need fixing; and we recommend its reauthorization," Berman stated. Ortolano remarked that "If the only criticism of the program is that I'm getting old ... I think we should move this forward and get on with it, and leave me the next few years to figure out how to find a replacement."
Professor Noll (Economics) pursued the issue raised by Berman about non-Academic Council member participation, emphasizing that Urban Studies "is really two things." As an interdisciplinary social science degree, combining economics, political science, and sociology to study cities, it has a large amount of faculty involvement, he said. But, Urban Studies is historically rooted in the fact that Stanford decided many years ago to eliminate architecture and design from the Department of Art. Therefore staffing an Urban Studies program, and retaining the ability to attract strong undergraduates with interests in architecture, will necessarily mean relying on persons other than Academic Council faculty to teach advanced design and architecture courses, he stated. "I've seen Len's program reviewed three times in the Faculty Senate. All three times the reports have come back and said 'no Academic Council members are teaching architecture.' Give him a rest," Noll pleaded, to general laughter. Ortolano revealed that this message had been so strong in the previous review that he had stopped hiring architects. "And to my great surprise, they kept teaching without being paid." He said that if the Senate were to send a clear signal endorsing the hiring of architects to teach one course per quarter, at a cost to the program of perhaps $15-20,000, he could then recruit people and tell them what needs to be taught. "Right now we're relying on an army of volunteers who love working with students," he commented.
Professor Simoni (Biological Sciences) asked how many of Stanford's Urban Studies majors go on to graduate study in architecture. Ortolano responded that a substantial number do so, gaining admission to the top graduate schools in the field. However, six out of ten students who say they are committed to architecture as sophomores will actually end up in related areas such as city planning or real estate development, he said. Stanford is not positioned at the pre-professional end of the spectrum, he noted, because studio courses can not be required of majors while the program is relying on volunteers. Berman offered his assurance that H & S recognizes the reality of the teaching situation and regards it as successful.
The following recommendation, moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, was approved by unanimous voice vote:
The Senate reauthorizes the Executive Committee of the Interdisciplinary Program in Urban Studies to nominate candidates for the A.B. degree for a period of five years, from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006.
Chair Zoback thanked C-US and urged Professor Ortolano "not to age more rapidly than the rest of us."
Undergraduate Degree Authorization for the Department of Management Science and Engineering (SenD#5093)
Zoback turned once again to C-US Chair Fernald to present his committee's recommendation that the new School of Engineering Department of Management Science and Engineering be authorized to nominate candidates for the B.S. degree. He noted that Senate colleagues Elisabeth Pate-Cornell, serving as chair, and Ross Shachter were members of the new department. He welcomed Professors Richard Cottle, Jeffrey Koseff, and Engineering Associate Dean John Bravman as guests.
Fernald commended the faculty members from previous Engineering departments on having put together a challenging set of undergraduate major concentrations within Management Science and Engineering. He said that C-US encouraged the department to make clear to students interested in business how this major is similar to or different from Economics. Pate-Cornell emphasized that the new department has a very strong core in engineering, such as electronics and programming methodologies, as well as the engineering pre-requisites like physics. She advised that the Industrial Engineering degree accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) had been retained, for students who desire an accredited degree. The other four tracks "are born out of the rich talents of the heritage departments: Operations Research, Technology and Policy, Financial and Decision Engineering, and Technology and Organizations." Though still uncertain of how many students they were likely to attract, she said they look forward to a very interesting group. Bravman advised that this program broadened undergraduate students' options, since two of the departments involved had previously offered only graduate degrees.
Professor Brauman (Chemistry) launched what turned into a series of remarks about the MSE acronym, which evidently is shared by three departments/programs in Engineering and will no doubt confound the postal service and telephone operators. The Registrar, however, is apparently prepared to cope, with various designations on the transcript and on the diploma. Professor Shoven (Economics) observed that most of the course topics described under the Financial and Decision Engineering track were also offered in the Economics Department, and agreed that it would be important to provide useful guidance to undergraduates.
The following recommendation, moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, was approved by voice vote without dissent:
The Senate authorizes the Department of Management Science and Engineering to nominate candidates for the B.S. degree effective September 1, 2000 and without limit of time. Students who complete the "Industrial Engineering" track will receive an ABET-accredited degree.
Chair Zoback thanked C-US and wished Professor Pate-Cornell and other faculty members success in their new department.
Authorization of a New Undergraduate Degree in Environmental Engineering (SenD#5094)
Zoback turned for the fourth and last time to Fernald for presentation of the C-US recommendation that the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, which had added "Environmental" to its name in 1997, be authorized to offer a second bachelor's degree in addition to its accredited B.S. degree in Civil Engineering. He welcomed guests Bob Tatum, Department Chair, Lynn Hildemann, Associate Chair, former chair Jeffrey Koseff, and Engineering Associate Dean Bravman. Fernald said that C-US had found the proposed new major to be coherent, progressive, and well structured. He got himself in a bit of trouble commenting on "the unusual degree of flexibility, for an engineering major." "Within the context of the demanding engineering major, you mean," interjected the Provost, to laughter. Fernald joked that C-US also congratulates the department on changing the name from "sanitary engineering" to "environmental engineering." He added that C-US encourages conversations with related majors such as Earth Systems and Human Biology, to clarify for students the various paths in environmental studies. Tatum acknowledged Hildemann's very important role in designing the new major and creating flexible options. She agreed that it was important to provide good advice to students about different environmental studies options, noting that the differences inherent in the requirements for all engineering degrees would help sort out students' choices.
Responding to a question from Professor Simoni (Biological Sciences), Bravman and Hildemann explained that the existing Civil Engineering degree had to meet the strict requirements of the accrediting body (ABET), whereas student interests in environmental engineering could be better met by having a separate degree. Koseff added that having a separate, non-accredited environmental engineering degree gives students some space to pursue areas like molecular and conservation biology in more depth. "You've got my vote," quipped Simoni. Koseff also pointed out that Stanford had created its "environmental engineering" program four decades earlier, when most programs around the country were still calling themselves "sanitary engineering." Vice Provost Kruger asked for clarification of the intended breadth of the environmental engineering curriculum and possible careers of graduates. Hildemann indicated that a broad introduction to diverse areas such as air pollution and water pollution was the goal at the undergraduate level, whereas a specialized master's degree was the more sought-after degree for those intending a career as a consulting environmental engineer.
The following recommendation, moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Studies, was approved by unanimous voice vote:
The Senate authorizes the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering to nominate candidates for the B.S. degree in Environmental Engineering, effective September 1, 2000 and without limit of time. This degree is in addition to the department's ABET-accredited B.S. degree in Civil Engineering.
Zoback thanked Fernald and C-US members for their hard work throughout the year.
There was no new business. With Simoni waving his hand to move adjournment before Brauman could claim the honor, Zoback gaveled the meeting to a close at 4:55 p.m.
Susan W. Schofield
Academic Secretary to the University
Note: The background documents
and reports distributed to Senate are normally available on the
Academic Secretary's Office web site at http://facultysenate.stanford.edu, by clicking on the relevant Senate meeting