Faculty Senate minutes - April 28, 2005 meeting

TO THE MEMBERS OF

THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL

THIRTY-SEVENTH SENATE

Report No. 11

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, April 28

At its meeting on Thursday, April 28, 2005, the Thirty-seventh Senate of the Academic Council heard reports but took no actions.

EDWARD D. HARRISAcademic Secretary to the UniversityMinutes, APRIL 28

I. Call to Order

Chairman Polhemus gaveled the meeting to order at 3:20, saying, "Welcome to the third meeting in the spring quarter of the 37th Senate. I remind you to look at the flowers that are planted around the campus as you walk or drive on the roads. Appreciate how lucky we are to have the kind of care that goes into keeping our surroundings beautiful." President Hennessy was quick to add, "And stop to thank one of the grounds keepers that does this work, because they're the ones that really make it possible for us to enjoy this natural beauty!"

II. Approval of Minutes of Senate meeting on April 14, 2005 (SenD#5725)

The minutes of the Senate meeting of April 14th (SenD#5725) were approved without comment, and are available for perusal at http://

facultysenate.stanford.edu.

III. Action Calendar

This was empty today.

IV. Standing Reports

A. Memorial Resolution

There were three today. Each was followed by having the Senate rise for a moment of silence. Full statements will be published in the Stanford Report.

David Regnery (1918-2001

) SenD#5659

This was presented by Professor Pat Jones, who began,

Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate, David Regnery, Professor emeritus of Biological Sciences, died in May 2001 at age 82. A Stanford alumnus, David joined the Stanford faculty in 1947. He will be remembered as an inspiring teacher who introduced thousands of beginning students to modern biology. His scholarly interests were wide-ranging, including the use of algae as a genetic model, the genetics of transplantation immunology in fish, population genetics of animal communities, and the genetics of disease resistance which he studied in small mammal populations in the hills near the campus. A devoted teacher and scholar, an original and independent thinker, and a modest and considerate colleague, he is missed by those who had the pleasure of working with him.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of a committee consisting of David Perkins, Donald Kennedy, Charles Yanofsky and myself, I have the honor to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council this statement in the memory of David C. Regnery, Professor of Biological Sciences.

Eugene Robin (1919-2000) SenD#5681

Professor emeritus Saul Rosenberg rose to present this.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, Eugene Debs Robin, Professor of Medicine and Physiology, died at age 80 at Stanford Medical Center from complications of cancer.

After a distinguished career at Harvard Medical School focusing upon cardiopulmonary physiology, and at the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Robin joined the Stanford faculty in 1970. He served as chief of the division of Pulmonary Medicine in the Department of Medicine, acting chairman of the Department of Medicine, 1971 to 1973, and acting chairman of the Department of Physiology, 1977 to 1986. Dr. Robins served as president of the National Thoracic Society in 1970 -1971.

Of his many accomplishments, he may have been best known for his classic description, with Dr. Sydney Burwell of Harvard, of the "Pickwickian syndrome" and for his classic studies of diving mammals. In later years, Dr. Robin became an advocate of patients' rights and wrote "Matters of Life and Death," a widely-used book by patients. He often challenged standard medical practices.

Mr. Chairman, I have the honor on behalf of Professor Halsted Holman and myself to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a statement in memory of Eugene Debs Robin, Professor of Medicine and Physiology.

After the moment of silence, Professor Rosenberg explained the nature of the Pickwickian Syndrome. "It is characterized by somnolence of obese individuals when sedentary, a phenomenon I have noticed in the faculty senate for many years!" Almost all were amused….

William Goode (1917-2003) SenD#5722

This was presented by Professor emeritus of Sociology, Morris Zeldich.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate, William Josiah Goode, always known as 'Cy', died in Washington, D.C., on May 4th, 2003, at the age of 85. One of the outstanding sociologists of his generation, he made fundamental contributions to understanding a very broad array of behavioral and social phenomenon. He was most famous for reinventing, reinvigorating and reshaping the sociological study of the family. But he also made notable contributions to the study of religion, professions, social stratification and political sociology. Three of his books won national awards. He was twice awarded lifetime awards for scholarship. But he was never, even into his eighties, content to rest on his laurels. He was always questing. He had an endlessly creative career.

Mr. Chairman, I have the honor on behalf of a committee consisting of Alex Inkeles and myself to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late William Josiah Goode, Professor of Sociology in the School of Humanities & Sciences.

Chairman Polhemus thanked each presenter and their committees for the effort and pleasing presentations.

B. Steering Committee

Chairman Polhemus was pleased to announce that "…the Academic Secretary has confirmed eleven members to stand for election to the Steering Committee of Senate 38. Two of them, Al Camarillo and Eric Roberts, will be running for senate chair. The ballots have been mailed to the members of the 38th Senate. Please be sure to vote. The deadline for receiving these ballots is Friday, the 13th of May…and bad things will happen to you that day if you don't vote!

"The Advisory Board election is closed. The Committee of Tellers will meet soon to verify the results, which will be announced at the next meeting and published in the Stanford Report. Now, I'd like to draw your attention to the bottom of today's printed agenda, where the final spring quarter meeting up dates and topics are noted. Prior to the next regular meeting of the Senate, we'll meet in administrative session at 2:15 to pass judgment on items that the Steering Committee believes do not need full senate scrutiny. The agenda and materials will be sent to all senators, and each of you is invited to come to that meeting.

"At the regular session on May 12th, the Senate is going to vote on a proposal brought to you by the Committee on Review of Undergraduate Majors and the Committee for Graduate Studies for new graduate and undergraduate degrees in Film Studies. Consistent with our artistic agenda that day, Professors Bryan Wolf and Jonathan Berger and Dean Arnold Rampersad will preview the Arts Initiative that will be included in the upcoming campaign. In addition, there will be a Senate discussion on selected topics from the Planning and Policy Board report that was presented to Senate 36 last spring. Following adjournment on May 12th we will convene an Executive Session upstairs in the Law School faculty lounge at which there will not only be goodies to eat and drink, but extremely interesting conversation and discussion.

"On May 26th, the Provost will present his annual budget report…be prepared to duck!" Hearing this, Provost Etchemendy turned to his senate neighbor, Professor El-Gamal, and whispered, "You…or me?"

Polhemus continued, "The Senate also will vote on a proposal for a new Earth Science interdisciplinary program and we will hear from the very busy professors Jeff Koseff and Buzz Thompson about the Environmental Initiative contained in the upcoming campaign.

"And then, on June 9th at the final meeting of Senate 37, the agenda for the meeting is going to be heavy, weighty, and tasty. Following those discussions, the President is going to host an annual reception at the Faculty Club for members of the outgoing and incoming Senate, the hard-working chairs of the committees of the Academic Council, and members of the Board of Trustees."

C. Committee on Committees

The chair of the CoC, had arrived today fifteen minutes early to prepare his report. As was often his wont, he spoke in a Haiku, explaining to those who wanted to know that he was using the form established in Masaoka Shiki's reform of 1892 that established haiku as a new independent poetic form.

Our search has ended

all committees are now full

see you down the road

D. President's Report

President Hennessy said that it would be too time-consuming to give his report in poetic form, and, instead, chose flowing prose. "I'm happy today to announce that we are ready to formally launch the International Initiative that we have been planning as our third major interdisciplinary initiative, accompanied by early commitments of $95 million in new gifts. Those of you who have been following some of the discussions about this initiative will know that it is focused on three major areas:

(1) Pursuing security in an insecure world, including issues of catastrophic terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;

(2) Issues of performing and improving governments at all levels, including current ongoing initiatives such as the joint activity between the Institute for International Studies and the Law School named the Center for Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law;

(3) Advancing human well-being, including areas such as economic development, global education, and health.

"As mentioned, we have received gifts totaling almost $95 million for this new initiative, led by a magnificent lead gift from a Stanford alumnus and current member of the Board of Trustees, Brad Freeman, and another Stanford alumnus, Ron Spogli. That gift will serve as the cornerstone for the entire initiative and will provide matching funds for a number of activities, including new faculty appointments and research funding.

"Gifts from Brad and Ron are joined by four other groups of individuals:

Craig and Susan MaCaw will give us the largest gift we have ever received for supporting scholarships for international undergraduate students.

A gift from Susan Ford Dorsey will support scholarships for students in our International Policy Studies program, offering masters level degree opportunities to students from around the world.

An anonymous donor who will give us a gift that will help build bridges between the GSB's Center for Global Business and the Economy and the IIS.

A gift from a long-time friend, Walter Shorenstein, will create a permanent endowment for the Asia Pacific Research Center in the Institute for International Studies.

"These will be joined also by a contribution from the President's Fund to enable us to create a seed research fund to encourage collaborations across the university. These funds will be open to faculty from all schools, the current institutes, and other relevant parts of the university for collaborative research across various parts of the University in topics of interest to international affairs.

"Finally, I want to thank Chip Blacker and Elisabeth Paté-Cornell for their efforts in leading this effort. They will continue to play leading roles. Chip is the director for the Stanford Institute for International Studies, and Elisabeth Pate-Cornell is the chair of the advisory committee for the Institute. I think this initiative is off to a great start. I hope that in 20 or 30 years from now we will look back on it and see that Stanford has really made important contributions in making our world a better place around the globe."

After hearing all this good news, Chairman Polhemus opened the floor for questions and comments.

Professor Harvey Cohen was pleased at what he had heard. "I want to applaud both the President and the University for examining what it is that Stanford can do for the world. Stanford is at a stage now where it is incumbent on us to use who we are and what we are to make global differences. And, clearly, this international program will help us achieve these goals. I think the time is right. Our leadership will get us to an even better place as a university."

Professor Simoni echoed this sentiment, and asked, " …who will implement the programmatic components?" The President answered that IIS will have a major role in implementation. "But we expect also to have, through the faculty advisory committee, representation from the entire University in developing the agenda. We expect that the International Comparative Area Studies program within H & S will also play a major role in accomplishing our objectives. If there's anything we've learned over the last 50 years about the area of international studies, it is that one cannot approach these problems in isolation. The intermingling of issues that are economic and policy-related, together with an understanding of the historical, cultural, and social traditions of an area, are critical to finding effective working solutions. At the end of the day, what really matters is to do research that can lead to improvement over the long term in the conditions around the world.

Professor Phyllis Gardner emphasized the logic behind having the Medical School very much involved in contributing to solutions of global health issues of both public and private health, perhaps, in part, by working with the World Health Organization in Geneva. The President agreed.

Chairman Polhemus finished the discussion by saying

"…that as a passionate, if doddering, advocate for the humanities, I was worried that this campaign was beginning to unfold in a way that the humanities would not be represented. I no longer have that worry. I do believe that it will be in all these initiatives."

Provost's Report

Provost Etchemendy addressed a very important and serious issue. "At our last meeting, my distinguished colleague, Denis Phillips, asked a question about the clock in the tower that was not functioning well. Uncharacteristically," he added, modestly, "I did not know the answer off the top of my head. I have discovered, what I'm sure most of you know, but I didn't, that the machinery is from the pre-1906 Memorial Church tower clock that was salvaged after the 1906 earthquake. It has been maintained for years by an ad hoc committee! So I think that we need to blame the chair of the Committee on Committees for this dysfunction!" Taken aback, Osgood went to work on another haiku. The Provost continued, "But we have it under control. We do have a repair person lined up. Unfortunately, he has not had time to come repair it. There are not many repair persons out there who work on pre-1906 clocks, but we have spoken to one man who works on the Tribune clock in Oakland, and another who works on the Ferry Tower clock in San Francisco. We will have it under control and get it running for Denis." Professor Phillips was only partially reassured, adding, "The ferry clock was stopped for about 60 years."

Professor Simoni pointed out the difficulty in maintaining and repairing something that old, noting the parallelism "… of our change from our old legacy core financial systems to the new Oracle system. And I'm wondering if you're willing to say that the clock fixing project will not follow the course of that venture?" The Provost said, reassuringly, "We are not replacing the old clock tower with a new Oracle clock tower."

V. Other Reports

A. Emeriti Council Senate Representative

Chairman Polhemus introduced the Emeriti Council Senate representative, Professor emeritus James B.D. Mark. "I want to thank him for all of the work that he's done to communicate with the rest of the emeriti locally, and to create the Emeriti Council that's now up and working. And the members of that council are Dick Lyman, Eleanor Maccoby, Larry Ryan, Ken Scott, Tony Siegman, Al Hastorf, David Abernethy, and himself."

Professor Mark stood before the Senate. "Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and before I begin my report, I just want to remind Professor Phillips that even a clock that doesn't work is right twice a day!

"Mr. Chairman, Mr. Academic Secretary, and members of the 37th Senate of the Academic Council, and guests, I first want to thank you for the opportunity to present a progress report on the activities of the Emeriti Council for the past year. You have just heard the membership of the council and recognize that the membership has remained unchanged from that time for what we think are sound reasons. This is a group of people who represent different disciplines, who are wise and are interested in emeriti roles, functions and activities. Membership on this council will quite certainly change over the years. I want to recognize the presence of both Professors Hastorf and Abernethy, who came today to listen to the report and support me.

"The ranks of emeriti are growing. About 440 emeriti live in the Bay Area. More than 30 faculty are 'promoted' to emeritus status each year, a Vanderbilt University term for moving to emeritus status. And I think it has kind of a nice ring to it.

"The emeriti council has met on several occasions during the past academic year. In September, we met with Provost Etchemendy. The main topic for the discussion at that time was housing for emeriti on campus. As many of you know, about a third of the homes on campus are owned by emeriti or surviving spouses. Were there smaller or equally convenient campus housing available, it is our belief that a number of present homeowners would move to smaller quarters, thereby providing an inventory of campus homes for younger faculty members to purchase. The Hyatt Residence is not the solution for the great majority of us. The stable site has been discussed and put far on the back burner for the present. There may be an opportunity to build homes on a piece of property on California Avenue that may come under University control, but if that does happen, it will be far in the future, at least too far for the interests of most of the present emeriti. We do not have in mind a 'faculty retirement community.' Quite to the contrary. The strong opinion of most emeriti is that there are major advantages of living in an environment with families of all ages and stages, much like the mix on the campus at the present time.

"In November, we met at lunch with Victor Fuchs, because, as a group, we wanted to know more about the economics of health care, a topic which is front and center nationwide at this time. As you might imagine, and as usual, Victor was informative and interesting, and presented us with data from his paper, now published in the New England Journal of Medicine on possible solutions for the health care funding crisis in this country. We came away with a better understanding of a complex problem.

"In January, we met with Jan Thompson, director of the Faculty and Staff Housing office. The discussion covered lots of ground, including rules and regulations, lease provisions, and turnover rates. Did you know that in the academic year 2004, 49 campus housing units were sold, 32 of which were single-family homes? The latter number is almost as great as the number of single-family homes sold during the preceding three years. Quite certainly, this increase is due to the fact that 20 or so emeritus faculty campus homeowners have moved to Hyatt. During 2004, the lowest selling price for a single-family home was $850,000. The highest was $2,550,000! Those are large numbers, indeed. There are many policies that affect campus homeowners and those who wish to buy homes on the campus. In brief, these policies in practice are subject to change at the discretion of the University. Much of this information is available on the Faculty/Staff Housing Web site at http://fsh.stanford.edu.

"In March, the Emeriti Council met with Scotty McLennan, dean of religious life at Stanford, to explore further some of the ideas he brought to the Senate at the time of his report a few weeks ago. In particular, we wanted to see if it would be useful for emeriti to meet in their homes in the evening with students to explore what I will refer to as 'meaning of life issues.' This discussion is ongoing.

"During the winter quarter, Al, David, and I met with two groups with a common or at least similar agenda, to discuss how emeriti be both used and useful in the academic community at Stanford. First was with the Committee on Faculty and Staff Human Resources; the other was with the department chairs at their winter workshop. David was our point person at these meetings, particularly at the chairs' workshop. Both meetings were useful and may even prove to be productive.

"One of the highlights of my year as emeriti representative was the opportunity to visit the Henry Koerner Center for Emeritus Faculty at Yale. Yale used $2 million of a $10 million gift to renovate a lovely old house on the New Haven green and install a dozen offices, a library, a common room, audiovisual facilities, monthly lectures, occasional sponsored trips to theater in New York, and, of course, sherry each afternoon. Interest from the remaining $8 million, about $375,000 a year, is used for ongoing expenses, including full-time staff.

"Here at Stanford, we have had an offer of help by a knowledgeable person in our own more modest fund-raising efforts. At this time, we have no source of funds and have relied on the good graces of the Office of the Academic Secretary for support of our occasional little needs. We would like to be able to offer small stipends or honoraria to emeriti who participate in undergraduate or graduate teaching. We think advising of students or even young faculty can be carried out without compensation.

"It has been an honor for me to serve as emeritus representative on the 37th Senate of the Academic Council, and I thank you sincerely. We look forward to having all the senators and deans assembled here join us as time goes on and find the same satisfactions that we have over the years. Emeritus status is a new and different gear that one should plan to shift into and anticipate doing so with enthusiasm!"

Chairman Polhemus thanked Dr. Mark, and noted that "Next year's emeriti representative is David Abernethy, and the new alternate and representative-elect for next year is Nancy Packer, professor emerita of English, who has an interesting story. She sold her house and she's moved off campus.

B. Graduate Student Diversity

The Chair was pleased "…to invite Vice Provost and Dean of Research and Graduate Policy Artie Bienenstock to present a brief report on graduate student diversity. Guests invited to be here for this report are Sally Dickson, Claudia Schweikert, Roberta Katz, John Rickford, Cullen Buie, Erica Riddle, John Davis, Alice Lincoln, and Dan Perez."

Beginning with a thank-you note, Professor Bienenstock said, "I'd first of all like to express my gratitude to those guests who have just been named. They have influenced me considerably.

"I'd like to say I have been influenced more than I realized by those three years that I spent in Washington at Office and Science and Technology Policy on these issues. I arrived in 1997. It was the period of court orders restricting affirmative action, referenda around the country restricting affirmative action. We were facing, constantly, requests for increases in the number of H-1B visas. We were facing a very low unemployment rate, and statements that unavailability of science, technology, and engineering workers was limiting economic growth. I have to say this goes on. Today's San Francisco Chronicle has an article about Bill Gates going to Congress, speaking for more H-1B visas. The issue remains.

"At that time I asked the question, are these short-term phenomena or are these long-term phenomena? We set up a little committee to study these questions, with all of the major agencies involved in research participating. Let me remind you of the demographics of the United States. First there continues to be a decline in the fraction of non-Hispanic whites of working age in the United States. Increasing markedly is the fraction of the population that's Hispanic. We see that clearly in California. Increasing at a slower rate is the African-American population. Increasing as well is the Asian-American population.

"We asked a very simple question: What happens if we stop affirmative action and the participation in science and technology continues at the rate that we saw it in about 1995? In that year the percentage of various groups earning science and engineering degrees in science and engineering was:

African-Americans: 5.7

Asians: 21.6

Hispanic: 4.8

Non-Hispanic (N-H) white women: 11.8

Non-Hispanic (N-H) white men: 13.8

The calculated fraction of 22 year-olds receiving bachelors degrees in science and engineering if award rates of various groups remained constant predicted a drop from 11.1% in 1995-2005 to 10% in 2050.

"I want to point out, though, that the nation has made enormous progress. Whereas the numbers of BS/BA degrees in science and engineering earned by N-H white men declined from ~208,000 in 1977 to ~175,000 in 1995, those earned by N-H white women rose from ~105,000 to ~138,000 in the same period. Numbers earned by underrepresented minorities and Asians rose as well. Had we not had those three groups increasing, the problems of the nation in that period and to this day would have been aggravated by a great deal. All the efforts that went into affirmative action in the '70s and the '80s were paying off in the science, technology, and engineering field, as well as other fields, at the bachelor's level.

"Let's look at the undergraduate class of 2007 at Stanford. It is almost fifty-fifty men and women. African-Americans form 12 percent of the class; Asian-Americans, about 25 percent; Hispanics about 12 percent; and Native Americans about 2.2 percent. We have significantly increased the diversity of our undergraduate body compared to when I first arrived at this institution in 1967. And that reflects increases around the country at our peer institutions in undergraduate bodies.

"The situation is not nearly as good in our graduate schools. And our experiences are typical of our peer institutions. The ratio of men to women is 64:36. The problems are with African-Americans forming only about 3.1 percent of graduate students; Asian-Americans, about 12 percent; Hispanic, 5.2 percent; Native Americans, 0.4 percent.

"Another statistic is that slightly fewer than 40 percent of our graduate students are in engineering, and slightly fewer than 50 percent are in engineering plus the natural sciences. Each of these groups is heavily peopled by students from other countries. That's part of the reason I also worry so much about export control, as I mentioned in my talk reported in Senate minutes of December 2, 2004, (https://www.stanford.edu/dept/facultysenate/2004_2005/minutes/12_02_04_SenD5664.pdf).

Our statistics are not too different from those of our peers. We have a slightly lower percentage of African-Americans, a higher percentage, as you would expect, of Hispanics, and about the same of Native Americans.

"What about distribution in the various graduate schools at Stanford? Even in engineering, we are now up to 25 percent women, perhaps the highest fraction of women in engineering in graduate school in the nation. And we are certainly a leader in graduating women in engineering with Ph.D.s in the country."

At that point, Dean Pizzo took the opportunity to mention the demographics of M.D. students contrasted with other graduate students in the Medical School. "For the M.D. students, our underrepresented minority population is about 23 percent, which is among the highest, if not the highest, in the country. We are about 55 percent women compared to men, on average. On the other hand, we have a ways to go if you look at our Ph.D. students, about 12 percent of whom are women."

Bienenstock went on to show that, nationally, whereas U.S. white men granted doctoral degrees has declined since 1973, numbers for foreign students, U.S. white women and under representative minorities have climbed dramatically, especially African-American (350 to 750) and Hispanic (208 to 700). He emphasized that although the percentage increase in these groups is impressive, the total numbers are very small. He continued, "I point this out because if we and our peers each year increase the number of Ph.D.s awarded to African-Americans and to Hispanics by something of the order of ten, we would affect these statistics enormously. Every person counts. Every person we bring to the institution, every person who stays and gets a Ph.D., matters a great deal."

Bienenstock presented a list of actions that we all can take to enhance growth of minorities in science and engineering:

Encourage our undergraduates. Let those students with potential know that they have the potential and encourage them to consider graduate school. I would not be here today if faculty had not given me such encouragement

Encourage undergraduate research participation. Help students design projects that will be useful and exciting for them.

Increase links with institutions that serve minorities.

Reconsider departmental policies against admitting Stanford undergraduates

"I leave that," he added, "to the individual departments to think about. I know I was fortunate to be booted out of my institution and sent to Harvard, where my horizons expanded considerably. There are real advantages to sending students elsewhere. But there are advantages to keeping some of our students. Many of our minority students are rooted in this area and would like to stay in this area."

California University Pipeline Project (CUPP), an endeavor to trade information among all California schools.

Graduate Life. More effort, he said, was needed to make underrepresented minorities feel at home on the Farm

Retention. It is crucial to retain every student that we admit.

Questions and Discussion

Professor Michael Kirst had an observation and a question. The observation was that in California, our public school children are 45 percent Hispanic now, of the total 6.4 million. And that will increase by a percentage a year for about at least ten years. So our own labor base here is changing dramatically. "Of those Hispanic students," Kirst said, "80 percent go to community colleges when they go to post-secondary education, suggesting that linkages there are very important because that's a point of entry for that population in this state. About 78 percent of the Hispanic graduates of Cal State University come from community colleges. So I would urge to put that on your radar screen and develop the links with Cal State.

"My question is, why were the minority data not broken down by sex? We do know, for example, that African-American women college graduates are twice as many as the males. There's a similar huge gap between Hispanic males and females, and the numbers for males keep dropping all the time."

Professor Bienenstock assured him that, "I think you'll find us increasingly sophisticated in dealing with these statistics and trying to analyze them."

Professor Tom Wasow spoke next. "In the 1990s, an organization was started out of Brown University called the Leadership Alliance that was a consortium of elite research universities and historically black colleges and universities, to try to address this pipeline problem, provide research opportunities, trade names, and so forth. Stanford joined the Leadership Alliance in the late '90s. And I was wondering, are we still part of that? Is anything happening with that?" Claudia Schweikert responded to this, noting that "Every summer, Stanford hosts students for summer research and we send students to other universities as well. The program has been very successful in that we have a number of our graduate students who participated either here at Stanford doing research or at other universities within the Leadership Alliance. The primary issue is funding, because it was turned down on one of their grant applications. So this summer, we will be forced to decrease the number of students we have in the summer programs."

Professor Simoni expressed his concern that the massive majority of undergraduate Biology majors want to go to medical school, and not pursue careers in science. He had no quarrel with the reality that the country needs good doctors, but hoped that an effort to increase the numbers heading for Ph.D. and M.D. programs could be increased. He noted that, "I've decided, frankly, that it's an admissions problem. And how is that? These students are coming with their life's work predetermined. So the task for us who advise them is to change their minds, not to help them make up their minds. When you come with a family background that values medical school and being a physician, it's a very difficult direction to change. It's true for all of our students. It's especially true for our underrepresented minority students. And I must say, I am not going to tell them being a doctor is not a good thing for you! It's a very good thing for them and for all of us as well." He went on to state that there are lots of schools that send most of their students on to Ph.D. programs, such as Reed, Oberlin, Swarthmore, and other small liberal arts colleges. I think some of the other research universities send a bigger fraction to Ph.D. programs as well."

Dean Bienenstock had no clear answer for why this would be the case at Stanford and not some other institutions, but did have a relevant insight. "I was really struck by a young person from our underrepresented minorities at a meeting that John Hennessy and I went to, who said, 'You know, before we can expect to supply an appreciable number of scholars, we've got to build up an economic base.' I have the sense that as the economic base is built up we will see the next generation in the scholarly fields."

Dean Pizzo had a couple of comments addressing Bob Simoni's point. "I think that the data from most undergraduate programs in this country, is that 40 to 60 percent of students come in with an interest in medicine. And that usually falls way off. Here at Stanford I think here it starts at around 40 percent and goes down to about 12 percent in several years." He pointed out that at our Medical School "…we've changed our criteria for admission to be geared toward taking students who are going to be oriented toward having more of the science-based focus in their future.

"We're also partnering with a program in Baltimore called the Meyerhoff program at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County, a college that has had a startling success in producing underrepresented minority students who go into science and engineering. Their president, Freeman Gronski, is one of the most charismatic and exciting individuals whom we have encountered. He has worked with us for several years, and he is beginning to send us students who are applying to our M.D./Ph.D., M.D., or Ph.D. programs and sending us undergraduates who are coming here for summer courses. I think your question is worthy of future study and we'd be happy to work with you on this."

Professor Al Camarillo added, "As you know, some years ago, we moved to a decentralized system of graduate admissions and financial aid. I think we lost something there. At one point, we had as many as five staff members that went across the country trying to find the best minority candidates for admission. I believe that during that time the numbers improved, but then we began to fall down with decentralization. My hunch is that with Claudia Schweikert and with Joseph Brown in H & S, we're going back up. I see some appreciable difference. What does that suggest? We really need to have the staffing to go across the country to seek out the minority-producing institutions. I think that will make a difference." Camarillo also observed that some schools have been more successful in minority recruitment than others, e.g., Medicine and Education, and certain departments in H&S, such as Cultural and Social Anthropology and Modern Thought and Literature. "We must find out," he continued, "what's happening in those schools and those departments where success has been achieved in recent years and think about how other schools and departments can benefit from that knowledge."

Provost Etchemendy was given the last word. "I hesitate to say this, because I don't remember the exact numbers, but our most recent senior survey actually showed data that disagrees with your anecdotal impression about the number of under-represented minorities intending to go on to Ph.D. programs." He promised to find the data for the senate. "I do remember that a larger percentage of our African-American seniors declare that they have an interest in or are planning to go on to a graduate program than our white seniors."

C. Provost's Report on Faculty Gaines and Losses (SenD#5714)

Chairman Polhemus announced, "We have these two interrelated reports which will be presented by our colleague Pat Jones, Vice Provost for Faculty Development. The report of the status of women faculty was mandated to be presented annually by a prior Senate resolution. The other report is normally presented each year as well. A number of guests have been invited here for these reports. And we welcome several, including the chair of the Panel on Gender, Equity, and Quality of Life, including the committee and the chair, Professor Deborah Rhode, who will speak briefly following the end of Professor Jones's second report. The members of the Faculty Women's Forum and the Provost's Faculty Affairs group have been invited to attend as well.

"I hope that you had the chance to read these reports, to dig around in them. It's pretty hard-going, pretty dense. There's lots of information there. I understand that Pat is not going to be speaking about all of the tables and charts, but you are welcome to ask questions about any of them."

Vice Provost Jones admitted that "…putting these reports together is a lot of work. We were revising slides up until the last minute. But, as Rob mentioned, these have become traditions of presentation to the Senate, and hence to the broader Stanford community. Stanford is among few institutions, if not the only one, where not only are our data released, but are presented by the administration to a body of the faculty for discussion, and hence to the broader community. We feel that that is a very important part of the Stanford culture and reflects the real commitment of this administration and previous ones, to issues regarding the faculty and faculty diversity."

Vice Provost Jones gave special acknowledgement to Jane Volk-Brew and Emily Chow from Faculty Affairs; they keep the faculty databases. Rana Glasgal from the office of Institutional Research has been of great help.

The report on the Faculty as a whole demonstrated that there was a net increase of 42 faculty from September 2003 to 2004, representing 119 new appointments, and 77 departures due to retirement (33) or for other reasons (44), a net growth of 2.4 percent in the numbers of faculty of all lines, ranks, and schools. The highest number of added faculty has been in the Medical Center Line. That was an increase of 20 net faculty, or 5.7 percent, which is the same percentage increase as in the untenured faculty in the tenure line.

Since 1992/1993, the number of faculty has grown from 1400 to 1785 at a relatively steady rate of increase each year. In the past year, in addition to the Medical Center Line, H&S has also grown significantly, adding 12 faculty. But, as Vice Provost Jones pointed out "…this balances a net reduction in numbers of humanities faculty in the previous several years. Thus, over the last few years there's a net loss of two in H&S."

In 1994 the tenured faculty of 890 represented 62 % of the faculty, whereas in 2004 the 952 tenured faculty was 53 % of the faculty. There has been, said Jones, "…no significant increase in the proportion of the faculty overall who are the untenured/tenure-line faculty, though the numbers have grown a little bit over the last ten years."

The Medical School now has ~650 faculty. The next highest number by school is Engineering with ~220, and Humanities in H&S with ~212. Except for the Medical School there has been very minimal total growth within individual schools, none more than 12 percent. The Medical Center Line (non-tenured) now represents 57% of the faculty in the clinical divisions of the school in which the tenured line faculty has increased only from 167 to 172 in the last ten years. In many of the rest of schools there is a high percentage of tenure. For example, 79% of Law School faculty are tenured; in the GSB, the school with lowest tenure percentage, 37% of faculty are in the nontenured/tenure line.

Because the Medical School represents a striking outlier in these data, Vice Provost Jones invited Dean Pizzo to comment, and he was happy to do so. "First of all," he began, "Stanford is among the smallest, if not the smallest of first rate medical schools. We are less than a quarter of the size of Harvard, for example. Second we have been operating under a different venue with regard to faculty billets during the last two to three years, with a cap of our faculty at 900. And, in fact, when this report was done, I think there were about 750 faculty. As of today, we're at 739. So we're actually managing our faculty pretty carefully to make sure that they're meeting strategic needs.

"The strategic recruitments, as you stated, have been in two venues. First of all, they have been in the clinician/scientist line, which is our Medical Center Line. Those recruitments have been very strategic and very much related to the increased overall productivity of the medical center. Compared to four years ago, when I arrived and the hospitals were suffering from the merger and divorce with UCSF and other factors, both hospitals were losing money. Today, both have net profit margins which are quite significant, in the $50 to $100 million range.

"We are very cognizant of the balance between the clinical and our research faculty. And we are adjusting for that in two ways. One is by being strategic in the areas in which we are recruiting. Specifically, these relate specifically to our Institutes of Medicine and related centers of excellence in the clinical programs. And those are guiding, together with departmental needs, many of our forward-looking recruitments. We predict that over the next handful of years that there will be a 'right-sizing', bringing on more tenure-line faculty. A great limiting step on that now, unfortunately, is space. We simply don't have enough research space. We hope that will be adjusted in the years going forward."

In the second part of the Gains and Losses part of the presentation, Vice Provost Jones showed data on representation of faculty of color. "Basically," she said, "I think it was a somewhat disappointing year in terms of recruitments or net increases of faculty of color. As of September 1, 2004, there was a net loss of one African-American faculty member, although we should say that last year's recruitments yielded two additional faculty who didn't start until January 1st, and will be credited in the 2004-2005 data. In addition there has been a net increase of 14 Asian faculty and one Hispanic faculty member.

"Over the past ten years the number of African-American faculty has been stationary. And, of course, as the total faculty is growing, that results in a net drop in the percent of African-American faculty, which currently is at 2.5 percent. Asian and Asian-American faculty now make up 11 percent of our faculty. Half of these are in the clinical sciences division of the Medical School, which probably simply reflects that that's been the part of the faculty that's been growing the most and has had the opportunity to undergo a greater rate of change. 0.2 percent of the total are Native American faculty; Hispanic faculty are currently at 3.4 percent of the total; 44 percent of those individuals are in the clinical division of the Medical School. In general, women are well-represented among the groups of faculty of color in the institution. One-third of our black faculty are women.

"To summarize the gains and losses, during the 9/1/03 to 8/31/04 year the faculty grew by 42 to 1785, reflecting rates of appointments, departures, and net gain similar to those of the previous ten years, on average. Over the last five years, the only schools to increase faculty by more than ten percent were Earth Sciences (12%), GSB (12%) and Clinical Sciences (19%). The Medical Center Line now represents 29 percent of the Stanford faculty, 50 percent of the School of Medicine, and 57 percent of the clinical sciences faculty.

"Growth in the representation of faculty of color has been either close to zero or very slow, except for Asians and Asian-Americans, who now comprise 11 percent of the faculty, with half being in the clinical sciences. And, again, Hispanic faculty have almost doubled in number in the last ten years, but still make up only 3.4 percent of the faculty. And black faculty comprise only 2.5 percent of the faculty. Over the last five years, the new appointments that we've made have been offset by departures. So there's been really no increase in number."

Questions and Discussion

After a brief discussion of the ways in which some data could be presented, Professor Goldsmith asked, "Is there a commonality to the reason for the departures of the black faculty? And also, are there significant efforts to hire more and retain black faculty?"

Vice Provost Jones reminded the senate of the report from Sally Dickson given in January that focused "…specifically about efforts of Sally and the Faculty Recruitment Office within Faculty Development to work with the search committees and the chairs and deans to basically further diversify our applicant pools. As for your first question, there is no solid answer. There have been some retirements. There was one death of a prominent African-American faculty member, some departures to other institutions, some failure to get tenure. None were significantly different from the rest of the faculty."

Provost's Report on Status of Women Faculty (SenD#5715)

Vice Provost Jones began the second part of her presentation, the Status of Women Faculty. "Over the last ten years, the proportion of women on the faculty, University-wide, has increased from 17.1 percent to 23 percent. All of the different lines have increased in the proportion of women except the untenured faculty in the tenure line, which has actually dropped slightly over the last ten years. This is actually quite surprising and not something that we would hope for, even though this is a population in constant flux, as we hire new untenured faculty, they then get tenure or don't get tenure or otherwise leave. Indeed, we hope that over a period of time, we would be more successful in hiring a higher proportion of women into the assistant professor and other untenured ranks.

"In the 9/1/03 to 8/31/04 year, there's been a 0.4 percent increase in the representation of women on the faculty, 22.6 to 23 percent, within the range of our recent increases in recent years. Of more interest, as well as being a slight disappointment, is that the proportion of women among the tenured faculty stayed constant at 17.3 percent. We did hire some senior faculty, and several became senior by acquiring tenure. But there were also some departures. Note the five retirements, perhaps the highest number of retirements of women faculty we've ever had. Of course, as we get more senior women faculty, some of them will eventually retire.

"Over the last five years, from 1999 to this September, there has been an increase in women faculty in all schools and divisions within the University. Several units have passed key thresholds; the School of Education is now more than 40 percent women. Humanities in H&S and the School of Law now have passed the 30-percent level. So we've kicked ourselves into the next decade, which is good.

"One impressive thing that I like to point out is that the number of women over the total number in a particular unit is the representation of women in the net increase, which reflects, of course, the appointments minus departures. For example, the School of Education increased by five women, with the net increase in the size of the faculty of only one. In Engineering there was a net increase of five women but a net increase in total faculty of only six. Similarly, in the School of Law there was a net increase of four women but a net increase of one. SLAC and the independent labs and institutes had a net increase of six women with a net increase of four total faculty. More of the people who leave are men because of the age structure of the faculty.

"The percent of tenured faculty who are women went up in most schools, highest in Education and SLAC and the independent labs over the five year period. The Law School dropped from 9 of 39 faculty (23%) to 13 of 68 (20.5). The percentage of women among the untenured faculty in the tenure line is more variable probably reflecting the slight drop-off in hiring. In the future, we must pay a lot of attention to identifying qualified and appropriate women to hire as junior faculty. In this past year, 25 percent of the junior faculty in the untenured hires were women, a low number relative to the previous four years in this table. In the natural sciences, H&S, and Engineering, the success we had several years ago was not duplicated.

"In our senior tenured faculty in this past year, 24 percent of the tenured hires were women, which is good relative to the current steady-state number across the institution, which is about 17 percent women among the tenured faculty. Several years ago it was down at the 13 and 12 percent. So this isn't bad."

Dean Long got up to leave to give a teaching award, but Vice Provost Jones caught her going out the door. "Sharon, all of the tenured women hires last year were in H & S." As she slipped away the Dean was heard to say, "A third of our senior offers were to women… and they all accepted!"

For faculty hired since 1975, the same percentage of men and women who came up for a tenure decision have received tenure, around 75 percent. For faculty arriving since 1990, it's a very similar number for men and women. Also showing little change are the numbers of faculty getting tenure recorded by individual hiring year cohorts.

For faculty hired since 1975, the percent tenured of all of those faculty is actually somewhat higher for women (44 %) than for men (41%). However, in the cohorts of faculty hired since 1990, there is a lower percent for women being tenured (40.7%) than men (54.9%). Jones continued. "We tried to look at where these individuals are who fall into different categories and what are the differences are that have led to these different numbers. The data really reflect slightly higher proportions of women in the resigned category and in the 'other' category. But it's not consistent. If one looks from year to year, sometimes men are higher in the resigned category and at other times women are higher in the resigned category. Again, the numbers are fairly small. Whether this reflects a trend or variation around the mean is unknown. For faculty who come in as untenured faculty, we see that the rates of achieving tenure have actually declined a bit over the recent years for both men and women. We'll see where these numbers end up when all the faculty have had their 'final decision'.

"Even though we're down one in our number of women deans, 38 percent of our deans being women is still quite good. And we have all-time highs in the representation of women among our associate and cognizant deans at 29 percent, our department chairs at 24 percent. Thirty-six percent of senators this year have been women. In the representation among holders of endowed professorships, 16 percent are women, a number which is very close to the 17 percent which is the proportion of women among our tenured faculty, which, of course, is the pool that endowed chair holders are usually taken from.

"Just to wrap this up," concluded the Vice Provost, "women now comprise 23 percent of the faculty, up from 20 percent five years ago. The net number of women increased by only 16 last year, with no or small increases in all faculty lines. Over the last five years, all schools and divisions showed increases in the numbers and percents of women faculty, with women comprising high proportions of the net increases in faculty in many parts of the institution. The proportion of women among tenured faculty increased in all schools and divisions except in the Law School. Over the last five years, 29 percent of the junior faculty hires have been women, though last year's 25% was the lowest of the five years. I also actually should mention that I know of at least three junior women faculty who were recruited last year who didn't start until this year or next year. Among faculty hired from 1975 to 1997, the proportion of male and female faculty coming up for tenure decision who received tenure was the same, about 75 percent. For all untenured faculty hired from 1975 to 1997, the proportion of male and female faculty receiving tenure was similar, but in the last two hire cohorts, the percent tenured was higher for men than women, reflecting somewhat higher proportions of women in the 'resigned' and 'other' categories. And you should also look at the tables by individual school and division, because both the tenure rate for all faculty and the relative tenure rates for men and women varies a lot from one school or division to another.

"We are developing 'best practices' for recruitment of disadvantaged minority and women faculty. We've circulated the best practices for recruitment and retention of a diverse faculty to you, at that meeting where Sally reported. And we're interacting in a number of venues with peer institutions to exchange information about best practices and also to perhaps exchange information and databases about up and coming young scholars who might be potential candidates for positions at Stanford.

"Our success or failure is dependent upon the efforts of the faculty. In order to develop the kind of faculty that we want to have at Stanford, those of the highest possible quality, top scholars in their field, faculty doing the most exciting kinds of research, we must also recruit and keep a diverse faculty who will add a variety of experiences, backgrounds, perspectives, and areas of interest to the faculty.

"How do we reach these goals? The two words that I like to use are: 'Diligence' and 'Vigilance.' The diligence is really on the part of the faculty who are doing the searches, that it's up to you to identify and attract the applicant pools that will let us recruit the best and the brightest and also the most diverse faculty. In terms of vigilance, there's also vigilance on the part of the faculty as a whole. Even though we charge our search committees to do the searches, it's really up to the departmental faculties and school faculties to make sure the search committee is doing the right thing. Our department chairs, division chiefs, cognizant deans, and deans must make sure that all of these efforts are proceeding as they should and that we enhance our rate of progress in recruiting the kinds of faculty we want here."

Questions and Discussion

Chairman Polhemus thanked Vice Provost Jones for a "wonderful report", and then asked Deborah Rhode to add whatever she wished.

Professor Rhode took the long view. "I guess I've been at Stanford now over a quarter of a century, and involved with women's issues here for most of that time. So I put this report in broad perspective. And from that vantage point, I think we have a lot to be grateful for. We have made substantial progress, especially in recent years.

"I think our progress is, of course, all the more impressive in light of recent revelations from an impeccable Harvard source about women's innate inabilities, especially in math and the sciences. It's now rumored that Harvard is thinking about initiating a program in home economics for all the girls who can't hack it in the real thing! [headlined by Andy Borowitz, Harvard '80, in his daily on-line column on January 26th]. And the fact that we have not had to resort to similar measures here is perhaps at least partly a testimony to the good faith and many efforts of our own leadership, for which we are all even the more appreciative after seeing what some of the relevant comparisons are. Obviously, the support begins with President Hennessy and Provost Etchemendy. And I'm particularly pleased to report that their response to the 18 recommendations in the Provost's Committee report that was presented last year has been uniformly positive. We are now implementing those.

"One of the recommendations was to appoint an ongoing evaluative body. It's now the Gender/Equity Panel, which, because no good deed goes unpunished, I'm continuing to work on. But fortunately I have the very able assistance not just of Pat Jones, but also of Bob Weisberg and Cecilia Ridgeway and Milbrey McLaughlin. What we have focused on this year is to follow up on some of the disparities in the non-salary forms of compensation and also the quality of life issues on a school-by-school basis. So we've been meeting with each of the deans in the respective schools to identify the challenges that they face. In preparation for that, we've looked at all the specific data to their school, including reading all the comments by faculty members who volunteered them in that quality-of-life survey. It has been a labor-intensive project.

"The meetings with all of the deans have been uniformly productive. We've identified a number of strategies and follow-up ideas. This summer, we're going to be developing a set of focus group interview questions to try to pursue some of the concerns that didn't get amplified enough in the quality-of-life survey but that the quantitative evidence suggests are out there and which the deans thought would be productive. Any suggestions that people have for what those interviews should consist of and how they should be conducted would be most welcome.

"One other initiative I'll just briefly mention is the Faculty Women's Forum. It is now up and running. We've got a steering committee. We've had several programs this year focusing primarily on leadership development, and one next week will focus upon negotiating skills. We're planning a 'Women in Leadership' conference, cosponsored with the Institute for Research in Women and Gender, and the Ethics Center next year. Send ideas that you may have to Pat or to me. But I think that in comparison with what we hear from other institutions and what we know have been some of the challenges in the past, it is a very good time to be working on these issues at Stanford."

Professor Eric Roberts spoke to "…the enormous changes that I have seen in the years that I have been on Senate in this area. There is a lot to be proud of. And I think that the leadership not only at the University level, but as well in the deans' offices, has had a lot to do with that. But I do want to offer a caution. We still have some people here at Stanford, I think, who would give Larry Summers a run for his money in terms of their perspective on what should be the University's response to faculty recruitment and hiring. This may actually be dominant in certain departments. I think we have to retain the vigilance that says that the University has to take affirmative steps to make sure that where there is systematic pressure against the hiring of both minorities and women, that some action must be taken to rein in those search committees that are not paying attention to this."

Professor Hensler focused upon the table listing percent tenured by hire year for all untenured faculty hires. She found it troubling. "I know that we're dealing with small numbers, and I'm sure each of these have particular stories. But it is kind of striking on this chart that the latest period of the chart, in fact, the period when we seem to think we're making the best progress and we've had the best leadership, doesn't look like a big success story. I'm not sure what I'm asking to you say about that. I guess I would want to hear that there's some effort going into trying to understand some of those individual issues and to see if this is just some kind of anomaly or if, indeed, it reflects an internal bias, similar to what Eric just mentioned."

Vice Provost Jones agreed, and added, "…we're also trying to enhance mentoring and counseling for all junior faculty, because there are issues that women junior faculty face that are also faced by men. We are now being much more direct in the expectations for schools and departments in terms of mentoring programs and have developed a set of guidelines for junior faculty mentoring and counseling. This is a topic of discussion at the annual meeting that I and someone from the provost's office have with each dean and associate dean from each school to discuss mentoring and advising. In addition, using programs that the Provost and the rest of us organized, we hope to make the tenure process and what the expectations are for young faculty as transparent and clear as possible, and to provide them with resources to assist them as they make their way through that challenging time of life."

Professor Yanagisako thought that those efforts were laudable, but was not hesitant to say "…what Eric Roberts is pointing to is perhaps the need for a little more mentoring and advising of the older male faculty who are involved in these decisions. I'd like to see more proactive advising, mentoring, whatever we'd want to call it, of senior faculty so that they're aware of the best ways to support junior faculty, whether male or female, regardless of color or not."

Vice Provost Jones answered. "For those of you who are chairs or deans who come to the quarterly workshops that the Provost and I run, these issues are commonly discussed with the chairs and deans and associate deans at those workshops. They have received guidelines for advising as well as our best practices for recruitment and retention, which came out of the recommendations of PACSWF's report last year."

Professor Rhode added, "That is one focus, Sylvia, of the Gender/Equity Panel. And we're looking at specific schools and problem areas within the schools and hope to get some additional data through confidential focus group interviews that will enable us to go back and target specific areas where there really are the concerns that you identify."

Professor Yanagisako appreciated that, but said, "I'm thinking of something more like a small, intimate lunch rather than the large meeting, that that might be the kind of place to properly mentor some of these …." [ Professor Yanagisako never was able to complete her sentence as a variety of laughters, each age dependent, drowned her out.]

Professor Ridgeway focused upon the lower hiring rates of junior faculty during recent years. "That's a red warning light flashing in the system….There's always a risk when you're essentially trying to change traditional practices that anytime your mind wanders things will shift back to traditional practices. One classic example of mind-wandering is to say, 'We've done enough. Good. Okay, the problem is kind of over. We've got that fixed. Put that on automatic pilot.' Immed