Stanford Report, November 1, 2000
|Minutes from the October
26, 2000 Faculty Senate meeting
TO THE MEMBERS OF
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, OCT. 26
At its meeting on Thursday, October 26, 2000, the Senate of the Academic Council heard reports but took no actions.
SUSAN W. SCHOFIELD
Academic Secretary to the University
MINUTES, OCT. 26
Call to Order
Senate Chair Brad Osgood called the meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. There were 29 voting members, 6 ex-officio members, and several guests in attendance.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the October 26, 2000 meeting of Senate XXXIII (SenD#5134) were approved as submitted.
The Chair recognized Music Professor Chris Chafe who read a brief memorial statement in honor of Earl D. Schubert, on behalf of a committee consisting of himself, Carl Muller, and Max Matthews. Osgood welcomed Professor Schubert's widow and Matthews as Senate guests. The full text of the resolution was included in Senate packets and will be published in the Stanford Report. Following the memorial statement, members of the Senate stood for a traditional moment of silence.
Dr. Earl D. Schubert, Professor Emeritus of Speech and Hearing Sciences, was born in Iowa in 1916 and passed away on December 1, 1999. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in 1948. Substantial contributions to the new fields of audiology and psychological acoustics resulted from his initial academic posts in Michigan, Iowa, Western Reserve, and Indiana. He joined the Stanford University Medical School faculty in Speech and Hearing Sciences in 1964, serving for 23 years. After his retirement in 1987, he spent several more years as an active presence at the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics, offering to many students his wise advice and counsel in the areas of psychoacoustics, music, and speech processing.
Report from the Senate Steering Committee
Senate Chair Osgood commented on the wonderful inauguration celebration for President Hennessy, thanking the more than 300 members of the faculty who attended and formed such a colorful academic procession. "It's my duty as Senate Chair to encourage you all to do the same thing, in the same numbers, for Commencement," he added. Osgood next expressed the Steering Committee's appreciation for the many fine suggestions submitted by Senate members of potential Senate discussion topics. "We probably won't be able to do everything," he remarked, "and I might be calling a few of you to see if you would be interested in offering a brief individual statement on a subject that we might not have time to present for full Senate discussion." He highlighted some future agenda items, including a discussion of Faculty Housing Programs on November 9th and an Informal Executive Session following the regular Senate meeting on November 30th. The Chair advised that there was no report from the Committee on Committees and that President Hennessy was unable to be present.
Report from the Provost
Provost Etchemendy informed Senate members that two days earlier Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian had announced his preliminary thoughts concerning Stanford's long-term land use plans and its County application. These plans include 3,018 units of critically needed on-campus housing for students and faculty as well as academic space to allow the University to stay on the frontier of teaching, learning, and research, he reminded everyone. "Put simply, Supervisor Simitian is asking that for every 2,000 square feet of academic development, Stanford must set aside one acre of land outside the proposed academic growth boundary in an open space dedication for the next 99 years," Etchemendy reported. "If Stanford were to develop all the space for housing and academic facilities it envisions it will need in its ten-year plan, that would mean dedicating 1,000 acres in the foothills for the next century. Such dedication is unwarranted and, according to our lawyers, unlawful. To quote President Hennessy, 'I am disappointed that with less than a week left in a two-year process, unprecedented new conditions have been interjected into the proposed Community Plan and General Use Permit for Stanford that was adopted by the Santa Clara County Planning Commission last Thursday.'''
The Provost said that Stanford had compromised in good faith, in an honest effort to arrive at a solution that would benefit the University, the City of Palo Alto, and residents of all the communities surrounding Stanford. The University believed it had reached that compromise with the plan approved by the Santa Clara County Planning Commission on October 19th, the product of an extensive two-year study including 40 public meetings and hearings. "We have accepted this compromise package in its entirety despite the fact that it contains more than 200 conditions. Now, at the end of the process, Supervisor Simitian is suggesting that the County needs to require unrelated dedications of land for 99 years in order to achieve something that Stanford has been doing for decades, proposed to do in its original plan, and has always agreed to do -- concentrate all development in its core campus," Provost Etchemendy stated. "This has become an extraordinary and quintessentially political situation. And nothing less than the future of the University is at stake. With these new conditions, the General Use Permit and Community Plan are in jeopardy. As President Hennessy told the press yesterday, 'The Stanford University Trustees, under the terms of their duties, cannot surrender the rights to 1,000 acres of Stanford property for the next century.''' The Provost encouraged faculty, students, staff, and alumni to attend the October 30th hearing of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in San Jose.
Professor Noll (Economics) expressed doubt about the legal status of such a 99-year dedication, advising that he believed no elected body such as the County Board of Supervisors could commit a future Board without a referendum of the voters. The Provost pointed out that the environmental impact report had found that open space was not affected and no mitigation measures were required because all of Stanford's development was proposed in the core campus. In a friendly exchange with Professor Rehm, Provost Etchemendy clarified that Simitian's proposal would involve setting aside a bit less than half of the foothills area in Santa Clara County in order to gain approval of ten years worth of development on the central campus. "If we were required to continue that same ratio for our next ten years of development, after 20 years Stanford would have no land left to build on, period," he stated. He emphasized that Stanford has "no hidden agenda or plans for that space . . . what we have is the humility to realize that we don't know enough about what the future will look like at the turn of the twenty-second century to make a 99-year commitment now." Etchemendy suggested that anyone who is worried about Stanford development should carefully watch each ten-year plan, as it is proposed, and if they find something objectionable, object to it at that time.
Responding to a question from Professor Baugh (Education), the Provost said that Stanford had been entirely surprised by Simitian's latest suggestions and agreed that there seemed to have been an unfortunate general breakdown in relations with surrounding communities. Professor Monismith (Civil and Environmental Engineering) explained that he had been a member of a Community Resources Group that met a number of times and worked through "nitty-gritty details" of the Stanford plans. Having been quite involved in that way, he said he had been stunned to learn of Simitian's unilateral position, and, with Osgood's permission, read a letter he had just sent to Mr. Don Gage, Chairman of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
Dear Mr. Gage,
I am writing to urge you and your colleagues on the Board of Supervisors to adopt the recommendations of the County's planning staff and the County Planning Commission concerning Stanford's General Use Permit (GUP) and to reject those significant modifications and additions to it presented last night by Supervisor Simitian. In particular, I encourage you to reject Supervisor Simitian's proposal that building under the GUP be linked to 99-year open space easements of Stanford's lands in a ratio of 1 acre of land for every 2000 ft2 of building space developed under the GUP. As a participant in the Community Resource Group that Supervisor Simitian created, I find it strikingly unfair that he chose suddenly and unilaterally to propose a condition that Stanford could never accept. This action of his flies in the face of a year's worth of discussion and negotiation among Stanford, the County and neighboring communities. By setting such an obviously onerous condition, Simitian makes a mockery of the excellent job the county's planning staff did in adhering to State and County law in order to balance different, competing interests, to produce their recommended plan.
Throughout the GUP process, Stanford has offered numerous concessions, most notably the donation of valuable, developable lands in Palo Alto to help resolve the middle school problem, a pledge of considerable funds to the School District, a willingness to meet the tough "no new net trips" traffic formula imposed uniquely on Stanford, the continued community access to what is indisputably private land owned by Stanford, and even a 25-year commitment to preserve the foothills in their present state. I cannot speak for Stanford, but knowing the primary importance President Hennessy and the Board of Trustees have attached to constructing much-needed housing, I surmise that Stanford would even have accepted the housing-development linkage that the County staff proposed. It is essential to recognize that several of these concessions were made in the spirit of compromise and did not reflect Stanford's position at the outset of the GUP negotiations.
I think it is now time for the other groups involved in this process to make some compromises. Like many people I know at Stanford, I personally hope that Stanford never needs to build in the foothills. They are indeed majestic and compelling as oases of nature in our highly urbanized Peninsula. However, viewed objectively, the external demand for Stanford to permanently set aside its privately held lands as public open space seems neither prudent, fair, nor reasonable. It is understandable that Mayor Kniss and the Palo Alto City Council would like to see increased access for their residents to the foothills. However, they need to bear in mind that, when all is said and done, Stanford's lands are not public. I am convinced that while it is fair to regulate the impact that the use of those lands has on our neighbors, it is inappropriate for any government agency to dictate what the use of those lands should be beyond what is allowed by State law. In short, Supervisor Simitian's proposal amounts to little more than confiscation without compensation.
In contrast, the plan that was developed jointly by the University and the County reflects the realities of the competing pressures of the University's need to grow, albeit in carefully managed ways, and the legitimate concerns of our neighbors about the effects we have on them. The 25-year protection afforded the foothills by the plan seems to strike a compromise that would allow a re-evaluation of regional priorities and Stanford's needs in the future. Please vote to support this compromise and to reject Supervisor Simitian's unfair and ill-considered demand of land in exchange for development rights.
Monismith said he would present an abbreviated statement to this effect at the Monday hearing in San Jose, and urged his faculty colleagues to speak out as well. "We have a voice too," he said, noting that the County should not be hearing just from the people who want to control Stanford's future. The Provost thanked Monismith for his letter. He also explained that Simitian's proposal represents a particularly serious problem because he is the supervisor elected from the Palo Alto area, and in land use decisions the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors traditionally defers to the local supervisor.
Professor Polhemus (English) asked whether additional statements such as Monismith's, or even possibly a Senate resolution, would be helpful to the President and Provost. Stanford needs to convince the County Board of Supervisors to support the County staff's recommendations, and those of the Planning Commission, rather than those of their colleague Simitian, Etchemendy said. Statements of different sorts can be helpful, and everyone should write their own letter, he advised. Professor Rickford (Linguistics) observed that Stanford "seems to have become the bad guy" in local politics, and asked if the University had any plans for newspaper advertisements on its own behalf or for future efforts to achieve rapprochement with its neighbors. The Provost replied, "We should communicate who we are and what we really do in a natural way," and he underscored the importance of direct communication on a regular basis by the President and Provost with local political leaders. The Senate Chair urged Senate members, as the elected representatives of the faculty, to accept the President's encouragement to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, October 30th.
Report and Discussion on Undergraduate Advising (SenD#5133)
The Chair noted that several Senate members had expressed interest in having a general discussion regarding advising, and that background materials had been distributed in advance. He reminded faculty members that they could get involved in advising policy matters through the Committee on Undergraduate Studies and its Subcommittee on Residential Education and Advising. Osgood welcomed Dr. Lori White, Assistant Vice Provost and Director of Undergraduate Advising, joking that she'd changed her name to "John Lori White, like so many of us, reflecting the new leadership of the University." He also said he was pleased that the members of White's professional advising staff were present as Senate guests.
White thanked members of the faculty for their "counsel, wisdom, thoughts and time" during the four years since her appointment in Fall 1996. "We've made some wonderful strides in undergraduate advising," she said, "however these have in many ways been on the margins. What we haven't done is thought about the 'system' of advising. In other words, how can we leverage our faculty resources, our professional advising resources, our volunteers, our peers, and our departments, to build a sustainable infrastructure for advising at Stanford?"
Posing three important questions, White asked first, "What should be the role and level of participation of the faculty in pre-major advising?" She revealed that only 16% of over 300 freshman advisors were faculty members in the current year, 42 professors out of a faculty numbering about 1,700. White recognized, however, that faculty members advise Stanford students in a myriad of ways, as major advisors, as honors thesis advisors, and of course as graduate student advisors. "Additionally, at Stanford, we are very fortunate because we have a cadre of outstanding [non-faculty] volunteers who help us deliver the freshman advising program," she noted. "However, we need to be much more clear when we talk with students about who their advisors are going to be." White also reported that 42 additional faculty members who had taught in the Freshman Seminars Program or in Sophomore College had chosen to advise their students as "sophomore mentors," increasing to 27% the percentage of pre-major advisors who were faculty members.
White moved next to her second question: What are some strategies in which we can engage to develop the capacity of departments, particularly large departments, to offer quality advising? Common frustrations from the student's perspective, she said, include significant differences among departments in the processes for declaring a major, difficulty in securing a faculty advisor, and figuring out how to get answers to nuts and bolts questions. She commended the Spring 2000 C-US Guidelines and Best Practices documents concerning the evaluation of undergraduate majors, suggesting that consideration should be given to augmenting departmental advising with professional advising such as that provided by the UAC, and to broader application of successful peer advising models.
Building on her first two questions, White asked how the University might take its existing advising resources, its knowledge of what works well at Stanford, and its knowledge of the developmental stages of students, to think more systematically about an "advising model." Responding to a Steering Committee query as to how she herself would redesign the advising system at Stanford, White closed by offering several ideas:
Professor Efron (Statistics) asked White whether she thought the quality of pre-major advising had declined along with the discouraging statistics about the decline in faculty participation. UAC surveys indicate that freshmen want "good information" and a "mentor," White replied, and 80% of the freshmen respond that their advisors meet that expectation either "somewhat" or "fully." Professor Saldívar (English) pointed out that the creation of over 100 freshman seminars in the past few years has resulted in a majority of freshmen now having close contact with a faculty member. "What is the current thinking about the best use of limited faculty time?" he asked. "Do we want faculty members to serve as freshman advisors in the old format, or do we want them to serve as teachers and mentors in the format of the Freshman and Sophomore Seminars?" White concurred that this was an important question and said she hoped Senate members would offer their views. She also stressed that if freshman advisors come predominantly from non-faculty ranks, then the University needs to be very clear about that in communications to prospective and current students.
Serge Kassardjian (ASSU Undergraduate Senate Chair) noted that the bulk of the Advising Associates (AAs) now seem to be sophomores, and asked if different strategies could be used to recruit more knowledgeable juniors and seniors into that role. White welcomed assistance from ASSU leaders in changing student expectations and expanding the pool of upper class students serving as AAs. Kassardjian asked whether there could be modest compensation for AAs, or perhaps an annual cash award for exemplary service. Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Bravman explained that starting in Fall 2000 the 36 Head Advising Associates were receiving quite substantial compensation ($4,300 per year), but that introducing anything more than token compensation for the approximately 270 AAs would be a very significant additional cost.
Professor Abernethy (Political Science) identified three issues: 1. Is there any evidence that freshman advisors who are faculty members do a better job than non-faculty? 2. If Stanford wanted more faculty members to serve as pre-major advisors, departments might take a more active role through quotas, or monetary incentives. 3. Without changing the mix of advisors, the quality of advising might be improved if lateral communication were increased, for example by having faculty members involved in pre-major and major advising speak to non-faculty advisors about academic questions such as double majors and minors.
Professor Noll (Economics), speaking as a freshman advisor for 15 years, voiced the opinion that the faculty is best at giving academic advice and not particularly good at other aspects of the advising process such as extracurricular activities, social events and the like. "The fundamental problem is structural and institutional," he said. "The faculty, through its academic governing body the Senate, has never taken ownership of advising at the freshman/sophomore level." He urged the faculty to become involved and to take institutional responsibility, including developing a policy stating what the faculty's responsibilities ought to be in all aspects of advising.
Professor Hildemann (Civil and Environmental Engineering) expressed support for the idea of connecting sophomores with faculty teaching SIS seminars, but cautioned that students choose seminars based on a variety of interests, not always related to their intended major. White mentioned several additional initiatives targeted toward the specific advising needs of sophomores, including a sophomore-focus residence with live-in peer advisors as well as the Freshman-Sophomore College. She also noted that at least one sister institution uses a model where, at the end of the freshman year, all students are asked if they would like to be assigned to a new advisor in their current field of academic interest. Kassardjian conveyed the ASSU Undergraduate Senate's overwhelming support for de-coupling freshman and sophomore advising. He mentioned, to laughter, that his own freshman advisor had been a medical student who had left at the end of the year and had taken Kassardjian's freshman files with him.
Professor Taylor (Economics) voiced his strong opinion that it would be a real mistake to move completely away from having the faculty involved in freshman advising. He agreed with Abernethy that having faculty members interact more with non-faculty advisors would strengthen the academic advice provided. Noting that often students don't know whether their advisor is on the faculty or not, he agreed that Stanford's communications should be clear on this point. Bravman said that publications aimed at incoming students now state that advisors will be "members of the faculty or senior staff." This is misleading, he explained, pointing out that in recent years the UAC has had to recruit freshman advisors from among alumni living in nearby cities who are not even employed by the University. White stressed that she would welcome every faculty member in the room with open arms if they would volunteer to advise freshmen.
James Montoya, Vice Provost for Student Affairs, observed that since prospective students and their families tend to believe that faculty members make superior advisors, a good deal of parent education would be needed if Stanford moved to a different model. He also pointed out that over 40% of sophomores live in Row Houses or in the Suites, where there is almost no structured residential contact with the faculty. White agreed that it was important for UAC to begin partnering with Residential Education to bring advising resources to places like the Row. Professor Rickford (Linguistics) said that after many years serving as an advisor and a Resident Fellow, he seconded Abernethy's suggestions to evaluate data on students' perceptions of the value of faculty versus non-faculty advising and to pursue faculty members more assiduously as pre-major advisors. Rickford also drew attention to the fact that there were apparently some real problems in upper class advising as well, to which White responded that she knew of one large department in which 100 or so majors did not have a faculty advisor. It is very important for members of the faculty to provide advice and guidance to all declared majors, Rickford stressed.
Senate Chair Osgood thanked White for her report, and emphasized that the Senate discussion would be successful only to the extent that it continued. He encouraged faculty members interested in advising issues to talk individually to White and to participate in committees such as C-US that have purview over advising.
Report on the Campaign for Undergraduate Education (SenD#5135)
The Senate Chair joked that "the billion dollar cat is out of the bag" and recognized Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education John Bravman to speak about the Campaign for Undergraduate Education, announced by President Hennessy at his inauguration. Osgood also welcomed Vice President for Development John Ford and Tim Portwood, Director of University Campaigns.
Bravman began by recapping eight years of enhancements to undergraduate education, including initiation of Sophomore Seminars in 1992; 11 major recommendations of the 1994 Commission on Undergraduate Education; appointment in 1995 of Ramon Saldívar to the new post of Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education; and the May 1996 announcement by President Casper, to a standing ovation in the Senate, of the Stanford Introductory Studies initiative as well as the Stanford Graduate Fellowships. He reminded everyone that Stanford Introductory Studies (SIS) consists of: Freshman Seminars, Introduction to the Humanities, Sophomore College, Sophomore Seminars and Dialogues, Writing and Critical Thinking, Science, Mathematics and Engineering Core, and the Freshman-Sophomore College. Bravman described another cluster of programs he called "Stanford Advanced Studies," comprised of Undergraduate Research Programs, Departmental Grants for Independent Study and Research, Honors College, and Summer Research College. He said that these efforts, focused primarily on research opportunities for advanced undergraduates, would ramp up substantially through funding from the Campaign. Related undergraduate education enhancements touched on by Bravman were a Large Introductory Course Project, curriculum development in the major (especially gateway and capstone courses), mentoring in the major, Writing in the Major, an exciting new Stanford Writing Center under the direction of English Professor Andrea Lunsford, undergraduate advising, residential education, and the President's Scholars Program.
Major challenges result from all of this recent "program building," according to Bravman. First, these advances have to be sustained -- financially, by putting permanent endowment under the programs, and through necessary faculty, administrative and student support. Selected programs also need to be improved and extended, he said, for example technical education for non-technical students and undergraduate research and independent studies. He also stressed the need to improve the physical and non-physical "learning infrastructure," including advising and mentoring, technology, and taking better advantage of Stanford's four-year residential system. Bravman indicated that there were additional challenges across the University, such as raising substantial incremental endowment for undergraduate financial aid, to ensure access for all qualified and admitted students, and funding school-based programs in H&S, Engineering and Earth Sciences as well as independent programs such as the Haas Center. Funds are also needed, he said, to allow the President, the Provost, and the Deans to respond to new opportunities that present themselves.
Taking all of this into account, the Campaign for Undergraduate Education is divided into four major components totaling $1 billion, Bravman explained:
c Stanford Endowment for Under-graduate Education, $300 million
c Endowed Scholarships, $300 million (Need-based $250 million; Athletics $50 million)
c Undergraduate Programs Across the University, $300 million
c The Stanford Fund, $100 million
Bravman displayed lists of programs identified for Campaign fund raising by the Deans of Humanities and Sciences, Engineering, and Earth Sciences. "These are not all-inclusive lists," he emphasized, "but will develop over time." Listed items included: in H&S, Overseas Studies, language study, undergraduate programs in the arts, Stanford in Washington, Director of Writing and Critical Thinking, IHUM, technology and laboratory education; in Engineering, research experience for undergraduates, introductory CS and Systems Engineering, technical writing, curriculum development, diversity programs; in Earth Sciences, the Earth Systems Program; and in all three schools, professorships and faculty endowments.
The Campaign for Undergraduate Education (CUE) also has important non-financial goals, Bravman said. "A campaign such as this makes a bold statement about the importance Stanford places on undergraduate education." It also serves to extend the success of former President Casper's goal of increasing alumni participation in annual giving through The Stanford Fund, and provides an opportunity to realize better integration of the Alumni Association and the Office of Development. CUE will also allow Stanford to build a sustainable presence in key regions around the country, and to engage a new generation of volunteers and donors, he explained.
Bravman reported that five couples were Campaign co-chairs, spanning five generations of Stanford supporters: Anne and Bob Bass, Helen and Peter Bing, Susan and Craig McCaw, Helen and Charles Schwab, and Akiko Yamazaki and Jerry Yang. Collectively they have already contributed $200 million, he said, noting that Yang was challenging his wealthy compatriots in Silicon Valley to join him by stepping up to support Stanford for the long haul. Bravman identified Gerhard Casper as the Convening Co-Chair, and listed the Vice Chairs: Linda Meier, Young Boozer, Bill Landreth, Jeff Stone, and George and Leslie Hume. "Progress to date has been wonderful," Bravman said, with $229 million raised in addition to the $200 million generously committed by the co-chairs. He advised that a collection of faculty members has agreed to help "take this out on the road" over the coming three to four years.
Bravman closed by recognizing several key challenges facing the Campaign. Maintaining momentum and focus over a long period of time will be important, he said, as well as engaging new prospects, particularly in Silicon Valley. Recruiting and retaining development staff is also an issue, as is uncertainty in the economy. Bravman indicated that one of the biggest challenges is "overcoming the appearance of great wealth." Putting certain facts before donors can really help, he stated, such as: endowment income pays for only 16% of Stanford's budget; star faculty members make $20-40,000 less than they might at Berkeley or Harvard or Michigan; undergraduate financial aid is only one-third endowed; and tuition at $24,000 a year only covers 60% of the cost of a student's undergraduate education.
Bravman expressed his personal pleasure at being involved with such an exciting Campaign. Apologizing that there was not much time left for discussion, he assured Senate members that there would be wonderful reports ahead, and "in five years or less, we're going to substantially exceed this goal."
Professor Abernethy (Political Science) expressed concern that the number of Stanford students doing honors theses appeared to be declining, and asked how CUE funds might address that problem. Bravman replied that in his view any downturn was minimal, and said he finds greater cause for concern over the unevenness of the distribution of students who choose to pursue advanced work. "We have URO funds earmarked for students in the humanities that we cannot give away." He emphasized that CUE seeks $80 million for support of undergraduate research, honors work, and independent study, which will "put very strong financial support under advanced work, and will reset the balance."
Professor Baugh (Education) conveyed the enthusiasm of the faculty in his graduate school for the Campaign and their eagerness to participate in some way. Anticipating the arrival of their new dean Deborah Stipek in January, Baugh suggested at least one example: developing "pathways to teaching" for undergraduate majors interested in teaching careers to connect more easily with the School of Education. Professor Rickford (Linguistics), pleased to be one of the "Johns," asked how Professor John Smith, or Joan Smith, of Department A or B, might be able to "get on board the Campaign train with funding for some fantastic new idea in undergraduate education." Good ideas should be brought to one of the three school deans or to him, Bravman said, adding that he expected to retain a relatively substantial fund for on-the-spot innovation.
Professors Rehm (Drama) and Freyberg (Civil and Environmental Engineering) asked if the goals of CUE reflect a balance between the University's own priorities and its sense of the interests of its donors. Bravman said that by and large the CUE categories "represent Stanford's best attempt to reflect what it needs and to sell that to donors."
Encouraged by the Senate Chair to "kick in something between two cents and two million cents," Vice President for Development John Ford said that he believes the CUE goals represent the University's real needs, "tempered to some degree by our experience over 30 years of raising money for Stanford." For example, the $250 million target for need-based scholarships is extremely ambitious, he indicated, increasing by five-fold the amount raised in the previous Campaign for Stanford. "We tried to keep the presentation simple, rounding out the four categories," Ford noted. Bravman emphasized that when an existing program is endowed, University funds previously supporting it can then be released for reallocation to other activities that might not be of interest to donors. Ford described how he and other internal experts had concluded in June that $700 million was the right goal for CUE, "particularly in light of the fact that there's an awful lot of additional fund raising going on simultaneously around this university." However, one of the five volunteer co-chairs emerged and said, "I don't think we're being bold enough -- we need to strike a much higher goal." The Campaign jumped to $1 billion, "which took our breath away and made our job in Development more challenging," but the co-chairs themselves not only set a bold goal, but increased their own commitments, Ford and Bravman reported.
In response to a question from Professor Yarbro-Bejarano (Spanish and Portuguese), Bravman and H&S Dean Beasley emphasized that the category "Professorships and Faculty Endowments" was designed to endow chairs for existing faculty members, as well as to support others such as deans and junior faculty members. As has been the case for many years, donor preferences at the field or department or school level are clearly taken into account, they said. Bravman indicated that endowment was being sought for twenty SIS chairs, and of the first five raised, one was for former President Casper until his retirement, three were for H&S, and one was not designated. Beasley added that endowed chairs for deans, department chairs, and program directors produce discretionary funds for the incumbents to use in support of academic priorities.
Joking that he hoped CUE had "money for heating" (the Senate room being particularly frigid that afternoon), the Chair accepted a rapidly offered motion and a second, and declared the meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.