REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON October 8, 1981

The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1532 on October 7, 1981 in room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of June 3, 1981 were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

President Olum announced that a special meeting of the faculty might be held on October 28, 1981 at 1530 in room 150 Geology. This meeting will be confined to an explanation and discussion of the University response to the Chancelloris request for budget cuts to be made in the 1982-83 academic year budget.

A special election to replace four faculty members on the Graduate Council will be held this quarter.

A special election to replace a faculty member who has resigned from the University Senate will be held within the next two weeks. The candidates are: Gordon Murphy, Biology and C. Bennett Pascal, Classics.

An election to fill a vacancy on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, a three-year term, will be held this quarter.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

NUMBERED 10 and 30 COURSES. The following motion, presented at the June 5 meeting of the Assembly by Mr. Jack Overley, Chair, Committee on Academic Advising, will be up for discussion at November 4 meeting.

'Courses number 10 and 30 shall be reserved for courses in Academic Advising and Orientation. Such courses shall carry one hour of credit and be graded on a pass-undifferentiated basis. Once approved, the courses may be implemented as desired by the various schools and departments of the University."

P.E. REQUIREMENT: Mr. Michael Ellis presented a notice of motion and the rationale for elimination of degree requirement. The motion is attached to these minutes.

This motion could be acted upon at the October 28 special meeting of the faculty as it relates directly to the topic that will be under discussion at that meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1545.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly

PE REQUIREMENT NOTICE OF MOTION

This is to give notice that at the November 4th meeting of the Assembly I will move on behalf of the Department of Physical Education the Following:

"Matriculated students at the University of Oregon shall not be required to satisfy the University bachelor's degree requirement of five terms of physical edUcation activity courses commencing with Fall term 1982, and that all previous University legislation relating to five terms of physical education as a requirement for a bacheloris degree be repealed with effect from Fall of 1982."

Rationale

The circumstances Under which we honor our mission to create opportunities for our students to contribute to their physical wellbeing have changed rapidly. We still believe in the importance of physical education and activity for all persons. Unfortunately, the recent budget actions and the unmistakable intentions of the notes attached to the bUdget indicates that the fUnding of such activity as a part of a well-balanced, liberal education no longer has legislative support.

The contributions to the edUcationa1 process of moving and learning with others in a variety of settings are still important. It is critical that students escape from the sedentary nature of academic life and be accorded the opportunity to act and exercise as a total person. It is imperative that we seek new ways of aGhieving this, and it is our belief that we need the freedom to create new modes of delivering these opportun~ities to students.

The passage of this motion will allow us the freedom to explore all types of delivery systems that meet the needs and interests of the students.

lv (10/5/81)
 

FACULTY PERSONNEL COMMITTEE, 1980-81 Annual Report to the Faculty

The Faculty Personnel Committee is charged by faculty legislation to review all academic promotion and tenure cases at the University of Oregon each year. It forwards its recommendations on each case to the Provost. Its eight faculty members are elected at large for two-year terms, four members elected each year. Two student members are appointed each year on recommendation of the ASUO.

The Faculty Personnel Committee's responsibilities are two-fold: (1) to represent the faculty's continuing interest in preserving and enhancing the academic quality of the University, and (2) to make a fair and impartial evaluation of the record of each individual whose case comes before it, such evaluations to be based solely on academic merit (teaching and scholarship) and service, without regard to budgetary or other considerations.

The Faculty Personnel Committee also reviews and recommends on all new faculty appointments in which indefinite tenure it to be granted upon appointment.

The 1980-81 FPC met as a whole 29 times during the year, generally for two hours. In addition, subpanels met four times with individual deans and the Provost to discuss promotion or tenure cases in which our recommendations differed from the deans,. The bulk of each committee member's time, however, was spent sp&~t outside meetings, examining and preparing reports on cases. Individual members also attended presentations by seven candidates for initially tenured appointments.

This year the FPC made recommendations to the Provost on 16 cases for promotion to Professor, 26 cases for promotion to Associate Professor and one case for promotion to Senior Instructor. In 25 of these cases indefinite tenure was at issue as well; we also dealt with four cases involving tenure alone. In 33 instances we recommended in favor of the proposed promotion or tenure, in 14 cases, including ten for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, our recommendation was to deny or defer promotion. The Provost's final action was consistent with our report in all but three cases, in which administration considerations had to prevail.

Committee recommendations in each case were based on review of the faculty member~s complete record at the University. Contrary to a widely-believed bit of local folklore, there is no standard formula for weighing contributions in the areas of scholarship, teaching and service. Each committee member voted in accordance with his or her assessment of the candidate's overall strength and past and expected contributions to the University.

Besides reviewing individual cases, we considered several broad policy issues. Evaluation of professional activity in the areas of public performance, the creative arts, and consulting has been a chronic problem in personnel reviews. We circulated a draft statement of policy on scholarship in these areas, modified it in the light of responses from deans and department heads, and submitted the revised version to the Provost for inclusion in the Faculty Handbook as a guide for faculty and administrators. We noted that in a number of promotion cases this year it was not clear that the candidate had been given a timely chance to waive access to materials in the file, and we asked the Provost to require in the future a statement by the candidate, either waiving certain rights of access or retaining all rights. He has agreed to do so, and we will see if the new procedure helps. We called the Provost~s attention as well to differing practices on early promotion among the various professional schools and colleges, and urged greater uniformicy.

No FPC report would be complete without a few home truths aimed at those who will be preparing and reviewing promotion files next year. Pay attention to the timetable and the explicit instrUctions in the May 14, 1981 memo from Richard Hill and the general advice in the March 20, 1979 memo from Paul Olum. Those statements are your absolute guide; you depart from them at considerable risk to the success of the department~s case. Most of this year~s dossiers were assembled following instructions, but there were exceptions which made for substantial, and wholly avoidable, problems of evaluation. Carryover members of the committee wish by this report to serve notice that in 1981-81 the FPC will return to deans or department heads, as appropriate, all ser~ously deficient files.

Some examples of what we-got this year: Unsigned student comments, some with the statement printed right on them that they were not to be inclUded in personnel files; slanted letters soliciting favorable evaluations from outside referees; long lists of referees, nearly all suggested by the candidate, with just enough biographical information to let us deduce that most were the candidate~s former students or teachers; very short lists of referees, all suggested by the candidate; wholly uncritical endorsements by deans and department heads, relying on what seemed equally uncritical departmental committees; cases apparently put together by the candidates themselves.

Cases which have such shortcomings give an immediate negative impression which may be hard to overcome. Moreover, weaknesses and gaps in preparation mean time and energy spent collecting additional materials, often under pressure of time. How much reliance one places on statements presented in the file can also be influenced by factors other than preparation details. Understandably, it sometimes happens that department heads write as advocates, rather than as impartial stewards concerned with departmental quality. Unfortunately, we have seen instances this year in which advocacy has crossed over into puffery and sometimes outri-ght misrepresentation. For the good of the candidate, department heads should be scrupulously accurate in any evaluative statements they make.

Finally, we wish to stress as forcefully as possible the need to get the files on time. It is impossible in a week or two tp give a personnel case the kind of thorough consideration on which this committee normally conducts and which the faculty expects. Judging is tough work, even for those of us with super-human ability. Time pressure doesn't encourage thoughtful deliberation.;

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the assistance the committee has received this year from department heads and deans, and from the Provost and his staff. Special thanks go also to the CAS Deanis Advisory Committee for their carefully prepared reports. Finally, there is no way we can express our debt to Mrs. Northrop of the Provost~s Office for her thoughtful assistance throughout the year.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter Berquist (Music) P. J. Powers (Romance Languages) Ronald Sherriffs (Speech) John Shepherd (Speech) Franklin Stahl (Biology) William Strange (English) Donald Tull (Marketing) C.R.B. Wright (Mathematics), Chairman Judy Owens, Student member (Fall and Winter) John Powell, Student member Kay Zaninovich, Student member (Spring)

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 28 October 1981

MinUtes for the October 28, 1981 Special University Assembly meeting. The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1530 on October 28, 1981 in room 150 Geology.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

PHYSICAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENT: Mr. Michael Ellis presented the following motion: "Matriculated students at the Univesity of Oregon shall not be required to satisfy the University bacheloris degree requirement of five terms of physical education activity courses commencing with fall term 1982, and that all previous university legislation relating to five terms of physical educatleon as a reqUirement for a bachelor's degree be repealed with effect from fall of 1982." The motion was seconded.

University Senate Secretary Holway Jones reported the results of the Senate vote as 28 in favor, 3 opposed and 2 abstaining. Mr. Ellis spoke to the motion by listing the negative aspects of the motion. They are: 1) a direct interference in curriculUm matters by the legislature because of the fiscal CUt in higher education, and 2) the Department of Physical Education at this University has been and will be disrUpted by this action. On the positive side, Mr. Ellis stated that Physical Education was too important to let die and other modes are needed to keep it alive. Self-support is the only method of continuation and the department shall present a package of courses that will deliver a program of high quality for the University and the students.

Mr. Ted Stern reported the substance of the Senate vote. The retention of physical education as a required curriculum offering will force the University to make cuts elsewhere in the budget, but the Department of Physical Education, through this motion, is accepting the challenge to establish a curriculum that will survive in the elective forum. Some Senators had voted "no" in an attempt to tell the legislature that interference in the Universitv curriculum is not acceptable.

Mr. Lewis Ward, Mathematics, presented an amendment to the motion: "The University Assembly recommends this action solely because of funding restrictions initiated by a legislative budget note and not for any academic reasons." Mr. Ward stated that external interference in curriculum matters was totally unacceptable; yet reality guides us to know that in this situation we have no choice but to accept the Ellis motion. The motion to amend was seconded, and the vote on the amendment resulted in an overwhelming voice vote of yes.

The motion as amended was put to the question, and it was approved by voice vote with a very few no votes.

NEW BUSINESS

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY BUDGET

President Paul Olum had a two-page document distributed to the Assembly which detailed the University response to the Chancellor~s requested reduction in the budget for 1982-83 President Olum went through the document item by item explaining the cuts and the rationale in arriving at these particular items and figures. Discussion followed the item-by-item walk thrpugh of the document. The President pointed out that the total CUt was targeted at $2,148,472. This included the underfunding and reductions from the 1981 legislature. Because of this budget reduction the University will leave a number of positions unfilled--some from the present year and more for the next academic year. The total of unfilled positions will be roughly 85 or ten per cent of the teaching force in 1982-83.

The single item that generated the most discussion was the suspension of the University's participation in the OSSHE International Education Program. This, the President stated, was a one year cut and it was also first in line for restoration if funds were to become available in the near future. The faculty reaction was directed toward the placing in jeopardy of a fine international program that benefited not only students between the University of Oregon but also promoted exchange of students between the University and the various participating foreign institutions. A question concerning how many students would be affected by this cut resulted in the answer of .'about 60." The cost of the program is mainly to pay the salary, housing, and office expenses of the various University faculty members that take part in the program as resident directors in the various foreign institutions.

A question was raised about the academic reductions in contrast to the administrative reductions, and the response was that the administration had taken a cut of over $240,000. A number of positions were going unfilled, and a number of searches have ceased. Some positions will be filled inbernally in agreement with the Office of Affirmative Action. The filling of faculty positions by junior level replacements following the departure of a senior level faculty member will result in a saving of money. It must be emphasized that, in total, the reductions mandated by the fiscal crisis cut directly into the quality of the University, President Olum stated. A larger cut will result in the actual closing of departments and schools.

President Olum suggested that all budget reductions and cuts should be reviewed in two years. In response to a question concerning whether the Chancellor's Office will ever take a serious look at unnecessary duplication in the system, President Olum stated that if the Chancellor did not do so,

the University might very well initiate the process. Richard M. Brown, Nistory, protested the cut in the history department faculty through lack of replacement of faculty. The enrollment has gone up ten per cent and the size of the faculty has been reduced by one and one-half and two GTF positions have been eliminated.

The meeting was adjourned at 1700 with the understanding that the subject of the budget cuts would be continued at the November 4, 1981 assembly meeting.

Minutes of the November 4, 1981 University Assembly meeting.

The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1535 on November 4, 1981 in room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes of October 7 were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

President Olum presented the names of the nominees for the Graduate Council and the Interinstitutional Senate. Interinstitutional Senate: Clarence Thurber, CSPA; Larry Ross, College of Business Administration; and Peter Ozanne, Law School. Graduate Council, Professional Schools: Fay Haisley, Education; Esther Jacobson, Frank Okada, and Kenneth Paul, Architecture and Allied Arts; John Suttle, Education; James Terborg, College of Business Administration. Graduate Council, College of Arts and Sciences: Roger Chickering, History; Thomas Dyke, Chemistry; Paul Holbo, History; James McGee, Sociology; Daniel Udiovic and James Weston, Biology.

Mr. Al Tarpenning, Director of the University Jog-A-Thon, encouraged the faculty members to get involved in the Jog-A-Thon to raise money for their specific departments, schools or colleges. He pointed out that last year the Jog-A-Thon had raised some $9,000 for the library and the event had actually produced more money in total for non-athletic particiPants than it had for athletic participants.

The Jog-A-Thon will be held on November 15, at Hayward Field. Those interested in raising money foc a particular University area are encouraged to call the Jog-A-Thon headquarters in McArthur Court, 686-5489 or 686--4481-.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
 

President Olum expressed concern that the non-tenured faculty members did not speat out during the discussion on the budget cuts at the October 28 meeting. To remedy this he proposed that a meeting of non-tenured faculty members be arranged. However, it was suggested and accepted that the best time to do this would be at the meeting of the non-tenured faculty with the administration when they discuss personnel procedures as they relate to promotion and/or tenure.

President Olum, in continuing the discussion from October 28, emphasized that the total cut for the University was actually a cut of 7.1/ for the 1982-$3 academic year Uni\/ersity budget. P`obert Albrecht, Vice Provost (En~lish), stated that the University v/as looking fc,r alternatives for University students to stucly abroc,d and that a number of meetings will be held to discuss these alternatives. A deadline of JanL~ary 1, 1982 must be met; thus the discussions and decisions must move alond rapidly.

The motion concerning the Number 10 and 30 courses, scheduled for discussion at this meeting9 was postponed to the December 2, 1981 meeting at the reauest of Mr. Jack Overly.

NEW BUSINESS

.AMENDMENT TO THE P/NP REQUIREMENTS: Mr. Peter R. Sherman, Chair, Scholastic Review Committee' made the following motTon: ''TITe legislation of June 1C, 1970 on the grading system, definition of P satisfactQry performance be amended as follows. Satisfactory performance is defined as deserving a grade of C- or higher*''

GROUP REQUIREMENTS: Mr. Jack Ewing, Chair, Curriculum Committee, stated that a piece of old business will be re-introluced for faculty consideration at the December 2, 1981 meeting. (Copies of this motion will be available prior to the meeting of that date.)

CURRICULUM REVISION: Mr. Jack Ewing, Chair, Curriculum Committee, stated that the Committee will introduce the curriculum changes for 1982-83 at the next regular meeting of the Assembly on December 2, 1981. (Copies of these revisions will be available prior to the meeting of that date.)

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY:
 

President Olum recognized Mr. Rick Bay, Athletic Director, to address the Assembly.

Mr. Bay in his address assured the assembly that the Athletic Department felt that the academic side of the life of the student athlete was more important than the athletic side. The future of the student athlete was the most important part of his attendance at the University and that a degree was the ultimate goal of the student athlete. Bay quoted various studi~es showing that the student athlete, nationally, completes a degree more often than a non-athlete once the two groups entered higher education. Mr. Bay made a strong statement in support of equal opportunity for both sexes in athletics at this University. Even if federal regulations or laws are relaxed concerning this subject, he will continue to push for full equality. He urged the assembly to accept the place of athletics in the University and to understand that most off-campus individuals view the University through the actions of the athletic teams. The pressure on the coaches and the athletes is great and they accept this. The fact that most gifts to an institution increase in proportion to the success of the athletic teams has been proven, and it also has been proven that gifts to athletics do not interfere with fund raising for the academic areas of an institution. The success of one, athletics, results in more success for the others, academic, in the area of fund raising. Mr. Bay also stated that the rules of NCAA and the Pacific-10 will be enforced on this campus and any viola-tions will be dealt with in the proper way. This is fully understood by the coaches in the athletic department. The Assembly gave Mr. Bay~s remarks strong endorsement as indicated by its applause following his address.

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1622. Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2 December1981

The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1535 on December 2, 1981 in room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes of the meetings of October 28 and November 4, 1981 were approved as distributed.

KENNETH W PORTER MEMORIAL Mr. Jack Maddex presented a memorial for Professor Kenneth W. Porter who died July 9, 1981. Professor Porter served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1958 until his retirement in 1972. The text of this memorial is included on page 6 of these minutes.

HAROLD K STROM MEMORIAL Mr. Donald Tull presented a memorial for Professor Harold Strom who died October 20, 1981. Professor Strom served as a member of the University faculty from 1965 until his death. The text of this memorial is included on page 9 of these minutes.

FREDERICK T HANNAFORD MEMORIAL Mr. George Hodge presented a memorial for Professor Frederick Hannaford who died October 5, 1981. Professor Hannaford served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from I946 until his retirement in 1969. The text of this memorial is included on page 11 of these minutes.

It was moved that the three memorials be entered in the permanent record of these minutes and that copies be sent to the families. In keeping with tradition o-f the Assembly, the President asked that the members stand for a moment of silent tribute.

CERTIFICATION OF FALL 1981 GRADUATES: Ms. Wanda Johnson presented the following motion: "That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommend that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Offical Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar after the close of Fall term, 1981, the degree for which they have completed all requirements."

Mr. George Struble, Computer and Information Science, stated he would oppose this motion because of the question of quality at the University under the recent budget reductions and the impact on the faculty and classes.

The motion was approved by a voice vote.

President Olum made a few comments concerning the budget situation which has become critical to the future of the University and the State System of Higher Education. Various suggestions to keep intact higher education have been made, and the Chancellor has taken to the finance committee of the State Board his recommendations on how the system could meet the 20 per cent cut would devastate the Oregon Board of Higher Education. In reply to a question concerning when an announcement on what departments and schools would close at the University of Oregon, President Olum stated that he felt now was the time to state the exact impact that the proposed cuts would have on the institutions in the OSSHE. However, he is alone in this stand as the other institutional executives disagree that now is not the time.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Jack Ewan, chair of the Committee on the Curriculum, presented the report of that committee. Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, announced the vote of the Senate as being in support of the report. Mr. Paul Rudinsky, SUAB, reported that the Senate had amended the report on page 17, I.B. "Endo-ceramics" to read "Creative-ceramics." It was moved that the course be deleted, and by a voice vote "Art 444 Endo-ceramics" was deleted from the report. An inquiry that the course listed on page llb, I.A. "C Lit 201, 202, 203, Comparative Literature: Epic, Drama, Fiction" appeared to be a duplication of a course presently offered by the English Department was made. After some discussion and an explanation that the course listed by Comparative Literature would be different from the offering in the English Department the move to delete the "C Lit" course was defeated by a voice vote. "PS 380 Introduction to Political Psychology" (page 9, Political Science, I in the Report), was challenged because the use of 'Psychology' in---the course title was a violation of the primary term 'Psychology' as it was not a course in the Psychology Department. Discussion centered on the use of primary terms in other departments outside of what would be assumed the home departments. The move to delete "PS 380" was defeated by voice vote. On page ix of the report "Mth 95" was noted as being changed to "Mth 100". It was stated and then moved to amend the report to show that "Mth 100" would not meet the group requirements. This amendment was approved by a voice vote. The Assembly then voted on the entire report, as amended, and approved it by a voice vote.

GROUP REQUIREMENTS Mr. Jack Ewan, Chair, Committee on the Curriculum, introduced the Group-Satisfying Courses and Clusters. Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary, University Senate, reported the vote of the Senate on the subject as 25 yes, 0 opposed, and one abstention. Mr. Paul Rudinsky, SUAB, reported the substance of the Senate debate on the subject. The date the clusters would go into effect was the crucial issue, and the Senate amended the report's preamble to state that it would go into effect upon order of the President, thus eliminating any set dates in the preamble.

Ms. Celeste ulrich, Health, Physical Education and Recreation, moved that the question should be divided-~into two parts": timing and content. President olum asked for unanimous consent to divide the question. Since no negative votes were recorded, the question was divided. Content was the first question under discussion. A motion to adjourn at this time was made and defeated by voice vote.

Ms. Esther Jacobson, Art History, stated that she had reservations on the content. She felt that the clusters still did not demand of the student the depth of hard subjects that should be part of the educational process. It was still possible to avoid the hard science, math, history and literature.

Mr. Jack Sanders, Religion, asked that the clusters on page 7 be expanded to include 321, 322, and 323 History of Christianity and 321, 324 and 325 History of Eastern Christianity. After some debate and explanation of the purpose of the request the motion was defeated by a division of the house.

Ms. Esther Jacobson, Art History, asked why the clusters would not be taught by full time faculty in all areas. It was a major understanding of the Assembly when the Clusters were previously on the floor of the Assembly that the courses would be taught by faculty and not Graduate Teaching Fellows. The answer was that in some areas, foreign languages and English, the number of faculty available was too small for the number of courses that would be offered because of student demand. Thus GTFs would teach the courses in some instances. The content question was called for and passed by a voice vote.

The question of when the clusters would go into effect was now on the floor. After a long debate on the date as given in the original proposal and that the two dates seemed to conflict--i.e., the entering student in Fall 1982 would have to meet the requirements, but the student could complete the degree prior to the other effective date Fall 1986. How come this was not questioned in the committee was discussed and several amendments were suggested to overcome this attempt to be specific in dates of effectiveness. An amendment to make 1983 and 1987 the dates for entrance and graduation failed by a voice vote. The matter was fin~lly referred back to the Committee on the Curriculum, to report back at the January 13, 1982 Assembly meeting, with some dates that will be acceptable to the Assembly.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. George Struble, Computer and Information Science, read two motions from the Student Conduct Committee to amend the Code of Student Conduct. "The first amendment is to conform the language of Sec 571-21-030(9) to the state statutes. This subsection defines as an offense, the use or possession of illegal drugs, and refers to the state statutes for the definition of such drugs. The statute, however, doesn't define the term 'illegal narcotic drugs', but uses the term 'controlled substances'. The proposed amendment will change the language of the code." A copy of the full amendment is attached to these minutes.

"The second amendment, or cluster of amendments, is intended to take care of the problem of a student avoiding academic sanction by dropping a course on receiving or when likely to receive an academic sanction. Briefly, it prevents a student from dropping a course pending resolution of an incident involving academic dishonesty. To accomplish this amendments are proposed for Sections 571-21-080 and 571-11-085, and a new Section, to be numbered 571-21-092." A copy of this amendment is attached to these minutes on pages 4 and 5.

Mrs. Katherine Eaton, Library, made the following motion: "The Faculty of the University of Oregon urges the Legislature and the Governor to consider every possible option in meeting the State's general fund shortfall, including reduction of property tax relief and basic school support and tax increases."

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1807.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT

571-21-030 (9) Illegal (use, possession, or furnishing of dangerous or narcotic drugs) creation, processing, cultivation or possession of controlled substances on university owned or controlled property or at university sponsored or supervised activites. (Narcotic and dangerous drugs) Controlled substances shall be as defined in (accordance with the statutes of the State of Oregon.)

chapter 475 of The Oregon Revised Statutes as amended.

SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR ACADEMIC DISHONESTY CASES

Student/Faculty Conference

571-21-080 Upon the discovery of an academic dishonesty incident--plagerism, cheating, or knowingly furnishing false information to a faculty or staff member--the faculty member in whose course the incident originated shall (confer with the student.) promptly notify the department head of the incident of suspected academic dishonesty and thereafter schedule a conference with the student. This conference shall include a discussion of the option of having the case referred directly to the coordinator of Student Conduct, and, if appropriate, a discussion of the alleged incident and supporting evidence: (l) In the event the student is unwilling to confer with the faculty member or is unable to do so within a reasonable time period, the case may be referred to the coordinator of Student Conduct for resolution; (2) If, for some reason, the faculty member is not availalbe for a conference with the student, the case may be conducted by the faculty member's department head or dean of the college or school, or referred for resolution to the coordinator of Student Conduct.

Non-Contested Cases

571-11-085 If the student admits to the academic dishonesty incident, the faculty member shall impose, within the context of the course in which the incident originated, an appropriate academic sanction up to and including an N or F. (The incident may also be referred to the coordinator of student conduct.) Written notice of the sanction or resolution without sanction shall be given the student and reported as provided in Rule 521-21-095. If, in the judgment of the faculty member, further dicsiplinary action is warranted, (.) the (student) report to the Coordinator of Student Conduct shall so ind~cate. The student may appeal the academic sanction to the faculty member's department head and, ultimately, to the dean of the college or school in which the incident originated.

Dropping or withdrawing from Course (All new)

571-21-092 The department head, on receipt of notice of an incident of suspected academic dishonesty, shall take such steps as appropriate to prevent the student from dropping or withdrawing from the course pending disposal of the incident as provided in either section 571-21-085 or section 571-21-090. If the incident results in award of the grade of "N" or "F" as a final grade for the course, the student shall not be permitted to drop or withdraw from the course. If no sanction results, or if the incident does not result in an award of the grade of "N" or "F" as a final grade, the student shall be free to drop or withdraw from the course by processing the drop or withdrawal notice at the later of (i) the expiration of the drop and withdrawal deadline for the course, or (ii) five business days after receipt by the student of notification of sanction or termination of the incident without sanction.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 13 January 1982

The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President Paul Olum at 154-0 on January 13, 1982 in room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of December 2, 1981 were approved as distributed.

MEMORIALS AND .ANNOUNCEMENTS

DAVID McCOSH MEMORIAL. Mr. David Foster presented a memorial for Professor David McCosh who died July 25, 1981. Professor McCosh served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1934 until his retirement in 1971. The text of this memorial is included on page 5 of these minutes.

Mr. Stan Pierson, Chairperson of the Faculty Advisory Council, read the following statement: "The Faculty Advisory Council wishes to express its deep concern over recent decisions to increase sharply the tuition charges for present and future students of the Oregon State System of Higher Education. These decisions have made oUr tuition rates among the highest in the nation. They threaten to change the character of the University of Oregon and the other public universities and colleges within the state for they will limit access to higher education not on the basis of ability to learn but in terms of ability to pay. We will endanger the commitment to equality of educational -opportunity which is vital to a free society; our public colleges and universities will become places for the privileged and the affluent. We call on the members of the Oregon legislature to reverse this process  and develop a revenue system which will spread the costs of higher education more broadly." Mr. Pierson stated that this Faculty Advisory CoUnci1 resolution would be sent to the various newspapers of the state as well as to the state legislature.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. George Struble, Computer and Information Science, asked that the last item on the agenda, a motion to forward a statement of concern over the financial plight of higher education in OregQn to the state legislature, be moved to the top of the agenda. The President stated that coUld be done with unanimous consent. The Assembly voted unanimously to bring the last item into the first position. Ms. Katherine Eaton, Library, read the motion: i'The Assembly of the University of Oregon urges the Legislature and the Governor to consider every possible option in meeting the state~s general fund shortfall, including reduction of property tax relief and basic school support, and including tax increases."

The motion was seconded. Mr. Clarence Thurber, Senate Reporter, stated the arguments in the Senate on the motion. Those opposed to the motion tended to emphasize that if the motion is passed it will create enemies for higher education. Those favoring the motion felt that further CUtS in the budget would be destructive to higher education, that the legislature and governor had to know how the faculty felt toward the proposed budget solutions, and that it was necessary for other options to be found to save higher education. Holway Jones, Senate Secretary, reported the vote of the Senate was 21 in favor, l opposed and O abstention.

The motion was supported by the AAUP and the AFT, but Thomas Brady, History, made a motion to amend the business on the floor. The amendment was read: ". . .be it further resolved that this faculty has no confidence in Chancellor Lieuallen or in the Oregon State Board of Higher Education." The President ruled that this amendment was not germane to the motion. Mr. Brady challenged the rule of the President, and a vote was called for. The President was supported in his ruling. The main motion was called for and passed without a dissenting vote. The Assembly also voted to have the motion sent to the appropriate members of the State Legislature and to the Governor.

GROUP REQUTREMENTS. Mr. Jack Ewan, Chair, Committee on the Curriculum, brought forth the revised statement of the effective date of the Group Requirements and Clusters that were passed in the Assembly meeting of December 2. "The new academic requirements will apply Fall 1982 and thereafter to all new students entering the University with fewer than 30 credit hours, they will apply to all students Fall 1985 and thereafter." The question was called, and the motion passed unanimously

NUMBERED 10 and 30 COURSES Mr. Jack Overley, Chair, Committee for Academic Advising, read the following motion: "Course numbers 10 and 30 shall be reserved for courses in academic advising and orientation. Such courses shall carry one hour of credit and be graded on a passundifferentiated basis. Once approved, the courses may be implemented as desired by the various schools and departments of the University." The vote of the Senate as reported by the Senate Secretary, Mr. Holway Jones, was 15 for, 14 opposed and 5 abstaining. Mr. Overley read a statement giving information on how the courses numbered 10 and 30 would be made a part of the curriculum and why it was necessary to have these coUrses available in certain departments as well generally available for advising. Mr. Helmut Plant, German, stated that the motion, if passed, woUld create a device for time scheduling advising time for students. The department could require the course if necessary, he replied, to a question on what control would be available to implement the courses.

A motion to amend the motion was made. This amendment would remove the words ''one hour of credit and be graded on a pass-undifferentiated basis," and replace it with "no credit." This amendment failed. The motion was put to a hand vote and failed by a decisive margin.

AMENDMENT TO P/NP REQUIREMENTS: Mr. Peter Sherman, Chair, Scholastic Review Committee, made the following motion: "The legislation of June 10, 1970 on the grading system, definition of P satisfactory performance be amended as follows: Satisfactory performance in elective P/NP courses is defined as deserving a grade of C- or higher."

The vote of the Senate was 18 in favor, 4 in opposition and one abstention. Mr. Sherman spoke to the motion. He stated that the P/NP basis for a grade has been made a part of the University grading policy prior to the acceptance of the + or - option on letter grades. Because of this, a problem of having a P equal a "C or better" was unclear. A particular ease was recently brought before the Scholastic Review Committee because of the C- in a course becoming a NP for a grade. The Committee reversed the NP to P and now wishes to have the legislation updated. Mr. Wilmot Gilland, Architecture and Allied Arts, stated that his school used the P/NP a great deal, and they preferred to retain the P/NP as a true option not directly equated to the letter grade system. An amendment to refer the motion to the Academic Standards Committee was made and seconded. This motion failed by voice vote. The motion was put to a vote and it passed by voice vote.

The President charged the Academic Standards Committee to report back to the Assembly with legislation that would resolve the issue now faced by those who prefer to keep the C as the lowest acceptable grade, e.g., Architecture and Allied Arts.

AMENDMENTS TO STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT: -Mr.William Randolph, Chair, Student Conduct Committee, read the following motions:

'IV. SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR ACADEMIC DISHONESTY CASES Student/Faculty Conference

ll571-21-080 Upon the discovery of a suspected academic dishonesty incident--plagiarism, cheating, or knowlingly furnishing false information to a faculty or staff member--the faculty member in whose course the incident originated shall (confer with the student.) promPtlY notify the department head of the incident of susDected academic dishonestv and as soon as practical thereafter schedule a conference with the student. This conference s~ha'll include'a discussion of the option of having the case referred directly to the coordinator of Student Conduct, and, if appropriate, a discussion of the alleged incident and supporting evidence:

Il(l) In the event the student is unwilling to confer with the faculty member or is unable to do so within a reasonable time period, the case may be referred-to the coordinator of Student Conduct for resolution;

Il(2) If, for some reason, the faculty member is not available for a conference with the student, the case may be conducted by the faculty member~s department head or dean of the college or school, or referred for resolution to the coordinator of Student Conduct. t'Non-Contested Cases

ll571-21-085 If the student admits to the academic dishonesty incident, the faculty member shall impose, within the context of the course in which the incident originated, an appropriate academic sanction up to and including an N or F. (The incident may also be referred to the coordinator of student conduct.) Written notice of the sanction or resolution withoUt sanction shall be qiven the student and rePorted as~ p'rovided~in Rule'571~-'21-0'95.~ If, in the judgment of the faculty member, further disciplinary action is warranted, (.) the (student) rePort to the Coordinator of Student Conduct shall so indicate. The These proposed amendments are necessary, Mr. Randolph stated, to bring the Student Conduct Code into compliance with the Administrative Rules of the State Board of Higher Education. Mr. Holway Jones gave the vote of the Senate as 18 for, 6 opposed and 3 abstaining. The discussion brought out questions of the punitive nature of a grade under the proposal when grades are not to be punitive. The magnitude of the offense might not be so great that such a drastic measure as an "F'' is required for the entire course. Some students do withdraw from a class and receive a "W" before the case is settled--making the settlement a moot point, thus endorsing academic dishonesty.

Mr. Clarence Thurber, reporting for the Senate, stated that the Senate heard the same arguments that had been expressed in the Assembly. A motion to refer the proposal was defeated by a voice vote. A motion to postpone was defeated, and the question was called for. By a show of hands the motion was passed; 28 in favor and 13 against.

The motion concerning 571-21-030 (9) Illegal (use, possession, or furnishing of dangerous or narcotic drugs) will be on the agenda for the February 3 Assembly meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Thomas Brady, History, made the following notice of motion: "Be it resolved that this faculty has no confidence in Chancellor Lieuallen or in the Oregon State Board of Higher Education."

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1732.
 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 3 February 1982

The meeting of the University-Assembly was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1538 on February 3, 1982 in room 150 Geology. President Olum recognized Mr. Stanley Greenfield, English, to make a correction in the minutes of January 13, 1982. The motion concerning the P/NP requirements on page 2 of the January 13, 1982. The motion concerning the P/NP requirements on page 2 of the January 13 minutes as passed should have beeni .'The legislation of June 10, 1970 on the grading system, definition of P satisfactory performance be amended as follows: Satisfactory performance in'elective P/NP courses is defined as deserving a grade of C- or higher.'' (Underlined part is the correction.) With this change recorded the minutes of the January 13 meeting were approved.

.MEMORIALS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, and QUESTIONS

Helen Sohren MemorialL. Mr. John Sherwood presented a memorial for Professor Emerita Helen Soehren who died in December, 1981. Professor Soehren served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1942 until her retirement in 1975. The text of th~s memorial is attached to these minutes.

HELEN SOEHREN MEMORIAL: Ms. Claire Meyer, Library, presented a statement urging the faculty to seriously consider the qualities of Charles E. Johnson in submitting nominations for the Johnson Memorial Award. This award '.is made annually to a faculty member who by action and word as teacher, scholar, and as a citizen of the academic community has, over a period of years, exemplified commitment . . . affirmed by the life and career of Charles E. Johnson.~' All nominations should be sent to Ms. Meyer in the Library. A supporting statement should accompany each nomination.

CHARLES E. JOHNSON MEMORIAL AWARD. Mr. Don Lytle, C8A, stated that the group requirements of the College of Business Administration will be those adopted by t-he Assembly on December 2, 1981 and January 13, 1982. These new group requirements will be used in place of those of the professional schools.

QUESTION CONCERNING UNITS TO BE CUT FROM  UNIVERSITY. Mr. James.Lemert, Journalism, asked President Olum if any decision had been m~de by him as to what areas of the University would be cut to meet the financial problems of the University. President Olum stated that no list had been prepared by him and that no consideration of unit closure had been undertaken. He previously had stated the names of some units to indicate what a certain amount of budget cutting would equal in cuts at the University. The President stated that the Office of the Chancellor had produced a list of proposed cuts for the entire State System of Higher Education on Tuesday, FebrUary 2. This list impacts on the University quite heavily and includes uniqUe programs to be cut. However, this list is not the University's and should not be taken as such. The University must respond to the list by the first of March.

Mr. Wilmot Gilland, Dean of Architecture and Allied Arts, asked if the priority of quality was taken into considerati-on when the Chancelloris list was composed. The response from the President was that the list had no relationship to any criteria of quality.

The President announced that a special meeting of the faculty would be held on Wednesday, February 10, at 1530 in room 150 Geology to discuss the University's response to the program elimination list from the Office of the Chancellor. -

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. James Boren, English, asked that the motion agenda be altered so that the motion concerning "No Confidence" be placed first on the agenda. Mr. Boren made a motion to Lay on the Table the motion concerning the Amendment to the Student Code of Conduct. This motion received a second. The President stated that a simple majority was required to Lay on the Table and to remove from the table. By a strong voice vote of yes the Assembly voted to Lay on the Table the motion concerning the Student Code of Conduct.

Mr. Thomas A. Brady, History, was recognized to read his motion. f'Be it resolved that this faculty has no confidence in Chancellor Lieuallen or in the Oregon State Board of Higher Education." Ms. Katherine Eaton, Library, rose to "Object to consideration of this motion." The Rresident explained that this action required no second and allowed no debate of the "Objection." A vote of two-thirds is necessary to support the objection and to kill the motion of "No Confidence.'' A hand vote was taken. Those who opposed the objection-were 20 in number; those who sUpported the objection were 78 in number. The objection carried.

AMENDMENT TO STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT.

Mr. George Struble read the following motion: 'i571-21-030. (9) Illegal creation, processing, cultivation, brokering, or possession of controlled substances on University owned or controlled property or at University sponsored or supervised activities. Controlled substances shall be as defined in Chapter 475 of the Oregon Revised Statutes as Amended." This motion would delete from previous legislation certain words that were not well-defined and would make the rule enforceable by the Uniyersity, Mr. Struble stated.

Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, rose to give the vote of the Senate on the motion. Abstentions 13; Yes lOi No 2. Mr. Sanford Tegfer, Biology, asked why so many Senators had abstained in the vote on the motion. Mr. Theodore Stern, Anthropology, stated that several Senators indicated that they did not want to get involved in the subject as it was not necessary for the University to be involved. Mr. Vernon Barkhurst, Student Services, stated that the proposed legislation makes enforceable a rule that had been a part of the Student Conduct Code for some time. The legislation is necessary to clean up the Code.

Mr. Chapin Clark, Law, stated that the non-enforceable rule will remain on the books if this motion is not passed. But if the motion is passed, the University would be able to so something about a problem if it proved necessary. The rule did not go so far as to involve i~reasonable doubt'. in any action the University would take and thus not conflict with the policy agencies actions in prosecuting the laws of Oregon as requi-red on University grounds or functions sponsored or supervised by the University. The question was called for and by a voice vote the motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Bayard McConnaughey, 8iology, gave the following notice of motion: "This Assembly recognizes that m~litary training is not an appropriate activity for the University of Oregon, and that it recommend to the President and to the State Board of Higher Education that all contracts and agreements between the University and the Department of Defense relative to the R.O.T.C. program be cancelled at the earl-iest date that is legally possible."

Mr. Mike Prothe, SUAB, gave the following notice of motion: '!The period known as dead week will be defined in the following manner: That there will be no examinations given or new projects assigned during the week prior to finals during the regular academic year.'.

Mr. Thomas A. Brady, History, has given the following notice of resolution: "Be it resolved that this faculty has no confidence in the Office of the Chancellor to plan for the future of Higher Education in the State of Oregon.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1640.

K. Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 10 March 1982

The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1635 on March 10, 1982 in rQom 150 Geology. Mr. Wilmot Gilland, Architecture and Allied Arts, submitted a correction to the minutes bf January 13, 1982 which was included in the official minutes of the February 3,.1982 meeti-ng of the Assembly.

Mr. Gilland has requested that this change appear in the distributed minutes. On page 2 of the JanUary 13 minutes, Mr. Gilland is quoted as stating that his school ''used the P/NP a great deal, and they preferred to keep the C as the bottom grade for P." The correction is that his school "used the P/NP a great deal, and they preferred to retain the P/NP as a true option not directly equated to the letter grade system." There being no other corrections the minutes were accepted as distributed.

JAMES BOOTH Mr. Martin Acker, Education, presented a memorial for Mr. James Booth who died December 11, 1981. Mr. Booth served as a member of the University faculty from 1962 until his death. The text of this memorial is included on page 4 of these minutes.

During the period of time set aside for questions and accouncements, President Olum stated that he had sent the Chancellor a letter stating that a plurality of the faculty preferred a delay in the salary increase as a method of meeting the $1.4 million deficit that the University must meet in 1982-1983. He also announced that this letter contained a statement that pursuing the educational leave proposal would be a mistake. In a related matter the President said that a $304 thousand deficit still had to be remedied through program cuts.

OLD BUSINESS

Mrs. Katherine Eaton, President of the University Senate, asked that the motion agenda be altered so that the motion concerning the Election Process Change be placed on the top of the agenda. The motion to Lay on the Table the first three items on the agenda was made and seconded. The President stated that a simple majority was required to Lay on the Ta-ble and to remove from the table. By voice vote the motion to Lay on the TabJe was supported.

Mr. Ho1way Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, read the motion from the Senate concerning the Election Process Ghange. Mr. Jones stated that the vote of the Senate was unanimous. Mr. Fred Andrews, Mathematics, rose to speak to the motion. It was felt that the required two percent of the voting faculty to sign petitions for nominees to the Faculty Advisory Council, University Senate, Faculty Personnel Committee, and Graduate Council had an adverse effect on getting sufficient nominees. The motion before the Assembly would redUce this to ten signatures.

Mr. George Struble, Computer and Information Science, rose to state that the motion on the floor did not inclUde the election of members to the University Senate from the College of Arts and Science. By a voice vote the proposal was adopted with little opposition. The election process legisleation of June 4, 1969, concerning nomination petitions, as amended on March 10, 1982, now reads: Section B(1): eligible candidates nominated by petition signed by ten voting faculty members currently in residence on the University campus. All such petitions and nominations will be filed with the Secretary of the Assembly not less than four weeks before the time of distribution of the first electing ballots. The motion to remove from the table all the other items on the Old Business agenda was approved by voice vote.

REMOVING ROTC FROM THE CAMPUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON. Mr. Bayard McConnaughey, Biology, read the following motion: ''This Assembly recognizes that military training is not an appropriate activity for the University of Oregon, and that it recommend to the President and to the State Board of Higher Education that all contracts and agreements between the University and the Department of Defense relative to the R.O.T.C. program be cancelled at the earliest date as is legally possible.~'

Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, reported the vote of that body as: 17 no; 7 yes; 9 abstentions. Mr. McConnaughey spoke to the motion at some length. He discussed the budget of the Defense Department, which he stated is putting an undue strain on the economy of our nation, and its failure to create new employment or long lasting employment in defense industries. The relationship of R.O.T.C. to the University is unique, he continued, in that the members of the R.O.T.C. faculty are appointed by an outside body, are not expected to meet scholarly demands, do not involve themselves in community activities, and must sign a loyalty oath. Mr. McConnaughey felt that it was time to say "NO'' to the military and that the removal of R.O.T.C., although a small thing, would be a symbolic gestUre in affirming academic freedom.

Mr. Kenneth Ramsing, Senate reported, stated that no real debate in the Senate took place on this motion. Mr. Ronald Rousseve, in reading a statement in support of the motion, made note of the fact that this Assembly has entertained this motion for many years. Persistence is necessary to bring aboUt change, he stated, and in fact the history of our nation and the history of the world are filled with examples of change brought aboUt by persistence--two examples would be the elimination of slavery and the more recent Civil Rights movement. The University must clarify the true purpose of a University and it would be found that R.O.T.C. did not fit into that purpose. The institution is compromised by the presence of R.O.T.C. on the campus.

One faculty member rose to oppose the motion by stating that R.O.T.C. is not the cause of the big defense budget and that citizen soldiers are needed now as in the past. Mr. Clarence Thurber proposed an amendment to the motion, which was seconded. The substitute motion read: 'tDirect the Administration through all appropriate channels, especially the A.A.U. and the A.C.E., to request the Department of Defense to establish R.O.T.C. at American Universities on a new basis by making grants to American Universities."

Mr. McConnaughey stated that the substitute motion was nothing more than a delaying move in getting R.O.T.C. off campus. Without further discussion the substitute motion was brought to a vote and defeated by a show of hands. The main motion was brought to a vote and defeated by a vote of 44 in favor and 70 opposed.

DEAD WEEK: Mr. Mike Prothe, SUAB, was recognized to read the following motion:
 

''I. In the week preceding final examinations during Fall, Winter, Spring terms:

A. No examination worth more than 20 per cent of the final grade will be given with the exception of make-up examinations.

B. No final examinations will be given under any guise.

C. No projects will1 be due unless they have been clearly specified on the syllabus within the first two weeks of the term.

"II. Take-home final examinations will be due no earlier than the day of the formally assigned final examination for the class in question."

A SUAB member replied that no problem would occur if the rules were followed and that no surprises were introduced at the end. The motion was called for and adopted by a clear majority.

RESOLUTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CHANCELLOR. Mr. Inomas Brady, History, read the following motion: "This faculty has no confidence in the Office of the Chancellor to plan for the future of Higher Education in Oregon." Mr. Holway Jones reported the vote of the Senate as: 1 yes; 23 no; and 3 abstentions. Mr. Brady, speaking to the motion, stated that the motion was introduced for the campus chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. The subject was appropriate for the Assembly to debate as no other forum existed for this faculty to debate such an issue:. The main issue, he stated, was the budget; but the faculty cannot debate the budget because the faculty was not organized into a collective bargaining unit. The resolution would be an expression of opinion by the University Assembly. Mr. Ramsing reported that no debate took place in the Senate. Mr. Alvin Urquhart stated that he favored the motion and that no success has been made in getting any notion on how this faculty feels about the decisions being made by the Chancellor's office. Mr. Robert Berdahl asked what the intent of the motion was, i.e., where is no confidence? Mr. Brady replied that the motion was intended to include the Chancellor and his staff. Mr. Richard Brown wanted the State Board of Higher Education included in the motion as it appeared that this motion, leaving out the Board, endorsed the actions of the Board. Mr. Nathaniel Teich stated that the Legislature has no confidence in the Chancellor at the present time. Mr. Frank Anderson felt that the Board should be included in the motion as the Chancellor is an employee of the Board.

Mr. Charles Wright moved to table the motion. President Olum stated that a motion to table needed a two-thirds vote. The motion to table and thus kill the motion was adopted by a vote of 46 in favor and 12 opposed.

NEW BUSINESS

No new business was introduced.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1738.

K. Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 7 April 1982

The meeting was called to order by Vice President for Academic Affairs Richard Hill at 1532 on April 7, 1982 in Room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of March 10, 1982 were approved as distribUted.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None.

NEW BUSINESS

PH.D. IN LINGUISTICS. Mr. Derry Malsch, Linguistics, presented the following notice of motion. "At the May 5 meeting of the Assembly Mr. Tom Givon will move, on behalf of the Linguistics Department, that a Proposal for the Initiation/RestrUcturing of the Program leading to the Ph.D. in Linguistics be considered.''

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjoUrned at 1535.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 5 May 1982

The meeting was called to order by President Paul OlUm at 1535 on May 5,1982 in room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of April 7, 1982 were approved as distribUted.

MEMORIALS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Kirt Montgomery: Mr. Ronald Sherriffs presented a memorial for Professor Kirt Montgomery who died March 29, 1982. Professor Montgomery served as member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1941 to 1943 and again from 1945 until his retirement in 1971. The text of this memorial is included on page 5 of these minutes.

It was moved that the memorial be entered in the permanent record of these minutes and that copies be sent to the family. In keeping with tradition of the Assembly, the President asked that the members stand for a moment of silent tribute.

Mr. Donald Smith, Library, introduced Ms. Patricia Silvernail to the Assembly. Ms. Silvernail, formerly of Columbia University, is the new Assistant University Librarian for Public Services.

President Olum informed the Assembly that Vice President Ray Hawk will retire on December 31, 1982 and that his position will be left vacant until July l, 1983. The financial condition of the University is such that the salary savings from this decision to delay appointment of a new individual to the position will be of great help to the University budget. A search committee will be appointed in the Fall to commence the search for a replacement for Vice President Hawk. The President also stated that he would be willing to receive letters and comments from individual faculty members concerning the organization of the central administration. It is possible that some reorganization of the central administration will take place and President Olum is very interested in hearing from the faculty any ideas they might have on restructuring or reorganization.

OLD BUSINESS

Ph.D IN LINGUISTICS. Mr. Russell Tomlin, Linguistics, presented the following motion for the Department of LinguistiGs: It is moved that a Proposal for the Initiation/RestrUctUring of the Program leading to the Ph.D. in Linguistics be considered by the Assembly.

Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, read the vote from the Senate: 27 in favor, O opposed and 2 abstentions. Mr. Tomlin spoke to the motion by stating that a positive vote on the proposal would only result in a change in status for the degree under discussion and would not result in creating a new program. No new funds will be needed to support the program and no new personnel will be required. The proposal aims at making clear and definite that the Ph.D. is a degree in Linguistics and not in English-Linguistics.

Mr. Gerald Bogen, Senate Reporter, stated that the University Senate approached this proposal as a restructuring and realignment and not as a new program. In reality the proposed change would be an administrative shift resulting in the Ph.D. coming from Linguistics and not from the Department of English. President Olum opened general discussion by stating that Mr. George Shipman, University Librarian, wanted a statement read by the Secretary of the Assembly concerning the motion from the Department of Linguistics. President Olum recognized the Secretary to read the following statement:

Library Statement on Linguistics Proposal

I deeply regret that my attendance at the Annual meeting of the Association of Research Libraries precludes my being here today and making these remarks in person. Circumstances, however, compel me to ask that my comments be passed on to you in this way.

Last year, the Assembly and the University dealt with a proposal for a doctoral program in Computer Science. While concern was expressed by several over the apparent lack of consultation of those preparing the proposal with the Library on its capacity to support doctoral level research, the motion was passed. The issue then and today is whether or not the University Library and its acquisition budget is adequate to meet the expectations of students and faculty in ensuing years should new gradUate programs be approved. As a result of last yearis experience, the Provostis Office emphasized the importance of this consultation by the addition of a sentence that reads, I.Consult with the University Librarian to determine library resources and new costs. In this case, this step was not pursued. Neither I nor Collection Development Librarian Robert McCollough nor anyone in the Reference Department have been consulted prior to the preparation of this document.

I am not suggesting that the Library be given the right to veto proposals, but I am suggesting that the University faculty should be aware of the impact of new academic programs on existing programs if the Library is not consulted and if the Libraryls collections need to be significantly upgraded. In times of financial duress, I submit that all departmental allocations may have to be reduced either in actual size or their rates of growth may have to be curtailed in order to accommodate what may be an inadequate acquisitions budget for a new program. This has happened time and again in this University as well as many other university libraries throughout the country. It will continue to happen until academic departments seeking approval of new academic programs pursue the appropriate consultative step with the Library in order to determine an accurate statement of library needs.

There is a statement in Item 12 of the Proposal that says, ItThere is no particular authorized list of books or periodicals for supporting a program in Linguistics at the PhD or any other level.ll It may be true that there is not a definitive bibliography for every program, but it is possible for us to provide an informal judgment based upon a variety of resources and the Libraryls assessment as to our capacity to support this program. A number of bibliographies might be employed. At this time, however, it is difficult for us to respond to this proposal since we have not had the opportunity to discuss this with the committee. It is safe to say, however, that additional funds will be necessary.

Frankly, I do not have a negative opinion regarding this particular doctoral program. The problem I have is that the statement contained in the proposal is at odds with the views of the Library faculty who deal with the Linguistics allocations and collection development and may be at odds with the results of measurements we are prepared to make in assessing this collection. OUr purpose is not to stifle
progress but tQ hope that progress is orderly and does not detract from the L;braryis capacity to support instruction and research in all approved academic programs. I hope that in your deliberation and consideration of this new academic program, you too will be supportive of the principle I have called for, that is, appropriate consultation and a more accurate determination of fiscal impact. I, therefore, ask that the proposal be deferred until consultation occurs with the appropriate Library staff and a statement on the Library's capacity to support this program in provided by my office.

George W. Shipman University Librarian

The President stated that Mr. Shipman could not make a motion without being present at the meeting of the Assembly. Vice President and Provost Richard Hill made a motion to defer action on the motion concerning the Linguistic Ph.D. until the June 2, 1982 meeting of the Assembly. This motion was seconded. Debate now concerned the motion to defer and Mr. Tomlin stated that this was not a 'inew programi' as stated by Mr. Shipman and that some informal discussion with the library did take place after the Department of Linguistics discovered they were to meet with the University Librarian. Mr. Don Smith, Library, stated that the University has rules to follow for new programs and that the Department of Linguistics should follow the rules as established by the Assembly and the Provost. Robert Berdahl, Dean, CAS, stated that the lack of consultation was an unintentional oversight and he was not aware of the requirement to consult with the Library. Resources would not be increased or decreased by the main motion and that the motion to defer should be defeated. Mr. Richard M. Brown, History, stated that as a member of the University Library Committee last year the committee took a strong stand against previous ignoring of the rule to consult the library when new programs were proposed. He also stated that technically this could be looked upon as a new program as they must gain approval for the transfer and thus it is on the agenda of the Assembly.

Mr. Fred Andrews wanted to know if English would be willing to surrender a part of its departmental library budget to Linguistics for support of the program? Mr. James Boren, Eng'lish, stated that a part of the English budget had already been given to Linguistics. He also supported deferral as the issue involved was not trivial and an important principle was involved. The quest~on to defer was called for and a division of the house showed that a clear majority favored deferral. The Ph.D. motion will be the'first item of business at the June 2, 1982 meeting of the Assembly.

NEW BUSlNESS

Mr. Glen Love, Chair, Academic Standards Committee, gave the following notice of motion: "On behalf of the Academic Standards Committee, I shall move the following at the June, 1982 meeting of the University assembly:

"That all individual departments or schools within the University granting their students the designation of graduation "with honors' shall observe the following guidelines:

"1. Each department or college honors program shall be described in the University Catalog. Each department or college shall determine its own requirements for awarding honors, within the standards set forth here.

"2. Honors gradUates in all fields shall have successfully completed a tangible senior project or accomplishment of some kind, such as a thesis, research report, paper, project, etc., as determined by the department or college in which honors is to be awarded. -

"3. The figure of 10 per cent of the graduating class of a department school or college should be used as a suggested upper limit guideline for the number of its students to be awarded honors.''

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1610.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2 June 1982

The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1535 on June 2, 1982 in Room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of May 5, 1982 were approved as distributed.

MEMORIALS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

DONALD TOPE MEMORIAL Mr. Max Abbott present a memorial for Professor Donald Tope who died April 25, 1982. Professor Tope served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1951 until his retirement in 1970. The text of this memorial is included on page ~ of these minutes. It was moved that the memorial be entered in the permanent record of these minutes and that copies be sent to the family. In keeping with tradition the President asked that the members of the Assembly stand for a moment of silent tribute.

CERTIFICATION OF WINTER, SPRING, AND SUMMER GRADUATES. Mr.Herbert Chereck presented the following motion for Mr. Stuart Rich, Chair of the Academic Requirements Committee. ''That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar after the close of Winter term 1982, and after the close of Spring term 1982, and after the close of Summer term 1982, the degrees for which they have completed all requirements.'' The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote of the Assembly.

REPORT OF THE FACULTY PERSONNEL COMMITTEE: Mr. Peter Bergquist stated that the complete report of the FPC would be available with the minutes of the Assembly in October 1982, as the Committee was still involved in determining a number of promotion and/or tenure cases. A total of 46 cases have been presented to the FPC this academic year involving promotion and/or tenure and one case of new hire with tenure.

REPORT OF THE FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mr. Stanley Pierson reported that the entire FAC report would be made available to the members of the faculty by June 9. The report will be divided into four parts--each part dealing with specific problems that the FAC has dealt with during the past academic year.

REPCRT OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE:. Ms. Katherine Eaton presented a statement outlining the activities of the Senate during the past year. The complete report is found at the end of these minutes.

REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE: The complete report of the Committee will be filed with the Secretary of the Assembly. Mr. Glen Love reported that the charge to the Committee from the Assembly meeting of January 1982 to define the relationship of the P/NP grades to the letter grades has come to an end without resoTution. The Committee recommends that no further action be taken on the subject and that the P/NP grades cannot be equated with the letter grades.

SPRING 1982 ELECTION RESULTS: President Olum announced the following individuals as elected to: The Faculty Advisory Council: 2-year term-Aaron Novick, Barry Siegel, Donald Tull, Shirley Wilson; 1-year term-Mike Ellis. The Faculty Personnel Committee: 2-year term-- Gloria Johnson, Robert Mazo, Becky Sisley, Daniel Weill; 1-year term-- Melvin Aikens, Ruth Waugh.

President Olum recognized Mr. George Shipman, University Librarian, to introduce two new members of the Library administration staff. Mr. William Schenck, Collection Development Librarian, formerly of the University of North Carolina; and Mr. Thomas Leonhardt, Assistant University Librarian for Technical Services, who comes to the University of Oregon from Duke University. Both individuals commenced work on June 1, 1982.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Ph.D. IN LINGUISTICS. Mr Tom Givon, Linguistics, was recognized by the President to report to the Assembly on the meeting of the Linguistics Department and the University Library as requested in the action of the Assembly on May 5. Mr. Givon stated that the problem was resolved and that the library now supports the motion. Mr. Givon went on to state that the Ph.D. in English Linguistics would remain in the Department of English. Mr. George Wickes, English, submitted the following statement for inclusion in these minutes. "This is to signify that the English Department supports the Linguistics Department's request for a separate Ph.D. program, with the understanding that the English Department would retain its own Ph.D. program in English Linguistics.'. Mr. George Shipman, Library, stated that the library now feels that the formal acceptance of the motion from the Linguistics Department should be passed by the Assembly. Mr. Shipman asked that future program proposals be given to the library at least three months in advance so an adequate response can be made to the proposals.

Without further debate, the motion was approved by voice bote without a dissenting voice to be heard. (The entire motion was made available to members of the Assembly on April 14, 1982).

GRADUATION WITH HONORS Mr. Glen Love, Chair, Academic Standards Committee, read the following motion: ~iThat all individual departments, schools or colleges with the University granting their students the designation of graduation iwith honors' shall observe the following guidelines:

'.1. Each department, school or college honors program shall be described in the University Catalog. Each department, school or college shall determine its own requirements for awarding honors with the standards set forth here.

'i2. Honors graduates in all fields shall have successfully completed a tangible senior project or accomplishment of some kind, sUch as a thesis, research report, paper, project, etc., as determined by the department or college in which honors is to be awarded.

''3. The figUre of 10 per cent of the graduating class of a department, school or college should be used as a suggested upper limit guideline for the number of its stUdents to be awarded honors."

Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, reported the vote on the motion in the Senate as: 22 ln favor, 2 nat in favor and 2 abstaining. Mr. Love spoke to the motion by pointing out that the standards on "honors'' presently are very lax in some areas and very stiff in others. The Academic Standards Committee felt that common standards were necessary if the designation of "with honors" was to reflect high academic standards. Ms. Celeste Ulrich, HPER, reported that the Senate debate was short and in support of the motion. Mr. Ted Stern, Anthropology, asked Mr. Love why no minimum GPA was included in the motion. The reply was that this would constitute the establishment of specific standards from the outside and that the concept of autonomy was important in the establishment of the general standards. Mr. Barry Siegel, Economics, presented the fol-lowing amendment to the motion: "That departments, schools and colleges report to the Academic Standards Committee at the end of each academic year on the results of their honors award programs." The motion to amend was seconded. The question of why another report was asked by several members of the Assembly. Mr. Siegel replied that it was necessary to see how the program was working. In reply to a question asked for a definition of the work "report" in the motion to amend, Mr. Siegel stated that it would be a narrative which would include GPA, what project or the natUre of the project, with the number of "with honors" granted. It was noted that the Registrar was a member of the Academic Standards Committee and could gather the information routinely and report it to the Committee without having to have another report from the departments, schools or colleges. The~Academic Standards Committee would make the information a regular part of its Annual Report. The vote on the motion to dmend was defeated by a voice vote. The motion was called for and the motion was approved by substantial majority.

FACULTY BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mr. Jack Sanders, Religious Studies, requested the postponement of this ~otion until details could be worked out. The original notice of motion shall stand and the motion will be on the agenda in November, 1982.

NEW BUSINESS

The University Senate, under the rules of the Assembly, introduced a motion concerning the disposition of the vacated Senate seat formerly given to CSPA. Ms. Katherine Eaton, President of the Senate, read the motion: .'The University Senate moves that the present seat held by CSPA and thus dedicated to the Professional School, be made an at large seat for the Professional Schools and that a vote of the Professional Schools be held each even numbered year to fill this seat." Mr. Holway Jones reported the unanimous approval of the Senate. Ms. Celeste Ulrich reported that this motion will retain the present balance in the Senate between the College of Arts and Science aud the Professional Schools. The motion was approved by the Assembly with very few dissenting votes.

ADJOURNMENT
 

The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1623.

Keith Richards Secretary, University Assembly

---

DONALD E. TOPE

1905-1982

In his 40 years as an educator Donald E. Tope contributed directly to the quaJity of education in the public schools and universities of America where he served in various administrative posts. Part of that service was with the University of Oregon when he was Professor of Education from 1951 until his retirement in 1970.

The College of Education is today nationally ranked primarily because of the research capability of its faculty. Donald Tope was instrumental in the College as the first steps were taken to build and sustain that research capability. He headed the Kellogg Foundation's Cooperative Research Program in Educational Administration at the University from 1953 to 1959 and directed the research of that very successful, landmark program. Had not Professor Tope given that research program the high quality leadership that he did, it is very questionable that the College woUld be nationally ranked today. In directing the Cooperative Research Program he had a clear sense of what should be done, he was charming in his presentation of that sense of direction, and he was gifted in getting the best effort from his colleagues.

Professor Tope was a positive force among his colleagues and students. He had a contagious enthusiasm for life and his work. Once he was fully committed to a task, whether it be an introductory lecture, an award, or recognition ceremony he fulfilled the task in an exciting, novel, engaging way. As a teacher, he was model. Students did not, could not, remain passive in his course. By his great authority and his personality he compelled his students to engage fully in good spirited discussions of ideas. A conversation with him was a conversation about ideas. As a colleague he could always be counted on.

His memory will have a long life here. His influence on his students and colleagues will be long felt.

Mr. Chairman, I move that this memorial of Donald E. Tope be entered into the permanent record of this meeting and copies be sent to the Tope family.

Richard 0. Carlson, Professor Division of Educational Policy and Management College of Education
 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Annual Report -- 1981-t982

This report is divided into four sections, each of which describes an important part of the Council's work. Budgetary problems, generated by the State~s fiscal crisis, have occupied so much of the Council's attention that they call for separate consideration. The remainder of the Report deals with 1) the Council~s discharge of its traditional responsibilities, 2) innovations and initiations by this yearis Council, and 33 major concerns which the Council would like to share with the Faculty and the next Advisory Council.

I The Budgetary Crisis

The crisis consisted of two demands for substantial cuts in the University's budget. Decisions by the State Legislature and the Govenor meant that the 1981-83 base budget for the lJniversity was reduced by a little more than 4 million dollars or 10%. These painful cuts, carried out during the summer and fall of 1981, resulted in a substantial reduction of our teaching force, sharp cuts in such activities as KWAX, the Labor Education and Research Center, and the Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, loss of support for the Study Abroad program and removal of funds for senior administrative positions, the physical plant and services and supplies. Moreover, the faculty was virtually forced, because of legislative pressure, to abandon the physical education gradUation requirement.

The second stage of the crisis came after the Ja-nuary, 1982 special legislative session, called to deal with the shortfall in State revenue projections. Decisions made at the session required substantial additional CUts in the LIniversity bUdget for the biennium. Policies adopted by the State Board of Higher Education and the llniversity meant that the bulk of these funds would come from a postponement until February or March of 1983 of the salary increases scheduled for the beginning of the 1982-83 academic year.

So much for the basic facts. What of the policies adopted by the University in response to the budgetary crises? Members of the Advisory Council, meeting both as a separate body and together with the President and Provost, spent many hours exploring the options. Given the time frame the options were limited. Should the administration undertake major surgery? Should it declare financial exigency and eliminate programs, including schools? Or should we attempt to ride out the crisis and make the cuts in such a way as to preserve the basic structure of the University? During the summer and fall of last year, after moving back and forth between these alternatives, the members of the Council, along with the President

and Provost, agreed- to-adopt--tl~-l-atter--st-r-ategy. --

The reasons were compelling. To close major programs or schools, while students were ;n midstream, raised serious ethical questions and probably legal issues. Moreover, present funding formuli would mean that the loss of students and their entitlements would have a ripple effect and require budget cuts well beyond those realized by the initial program closures. And what would the University of Oregon be in the future, for example, without a Law School, a Music School, or a School of Architecture and Allied Arts?

When the second state of the crisis hit in the early months of this year we presisted in our belief that the present structure of the University should be protected--this time at the expense of faculty salaries. We were convinced, too, that a delay in scheduled salary increases would do less damage to the health of the University than a 'furlough' or a withholding of faculty services.

Some members of the faculty have questioned the wisdom of the policies adopted in the fall and the decisions made in the winter. There is much room for honest disagreement here. But the members of the Advisory Council have agreed unanimously that these have been the best policies in the present budgetary situation, and they have worked closely with the President and the Provost in developing these policies. Whether such policies will serve the University well if the budgetary crisis continues, however, is open to question. Discussions about the proper response to a continuing crisis have indicated significant differences of opinion between some members of the Council and the Administration. These will be addressed in the concluding section of this report.

II Traditional Responsibilities

The:Advisory Council has traditionally served as a place where the President and Provost can gauge faculty opinion on various matters and seek advice. It has also been a means through which faculty concerns can be brought to the Administration. The present Council has attempted to balance these two roles. We have met an average of three to four hours a week, more than half of that time being devoted to sessions with the President and Provost. Our relationship with the President and Provost has been excellent. We have appreciated their candor in sharing sensitive and often confidential information, as well as the spirit of mutual confidence which has prevailed through our vigorous, sometimes heated, discUssions.

Customary responsibilities of the Council have inclUded the appointment of the Committee on Committees, and participation on the Ersted Committee and the Distinguished Service Award Committee. During the past year, in addition, members of the Council have served on the Administrationis new 8udget Committee, the Albrecht Planning Committee, and provided the chairer for the faculty committee appointed to interview candidates for the position of chancellor.

NumeroUs administrative proposals affecting the faculty have been presented to the Council. These inclUded new grievance procedures, a new affirmative action statement, a comprehensive planning document for futUre construct~ion at the University, revisions of sabbatical policies, plans for the allocation of faculty salary improvements, changes in parking lot fees for the coming year, the controversies arising over the Environmental Law Clinic and FBI visitation, and the efforts of the Administration, through special faculty meetings and convocations, to provide the University community with information about the continuing budget crisis. The Council also played an important role in the process leading to the appointment of a new PAC 10 Faculty Athletic Representative. Members of the Council undertook independent exploration of a number of issues -- new incentives for early retirement, the possible imposition of differential tuitions and fees for certain programs, and the policies for assigning classrooms. At the request of the Council the Provost issued a statement outlining procedures designed to end violations of faculty legislation regarding Finals Week

This year~s Council has also continued the efforts of previous Councils to strengthen relationships with the faculty community beyond this University. The COUNC;1 sent a representative to a fall meeting of the PAC 10 Advisory Council and senate representatives at Pullman, and four members of the Council joined delegates from OSU, PSU, and the Health Sciences University at Corvallis in May to discuss common concerns.

III Innovations and Initiatives

The present Council held an evening meeting at the beginning of each term in order to review its work and define future tasks. These meetings contributed greatly to the development of a common perspective and sense of purpose among Council members. We recommend this practice for future Councils.

President Olum's installation in October represented a special opportunity for our academic community to focus on general educational issues. To this end the Council organized an i~inaUgural symposium'' featuring an address by President Harold Enarson of Ohio State University, and two panel discussions composed of state-wide educational leaders and faculty members. Responses to the symposium, measured in terms of attendance and audience participation, were very positive.

The budgetary crisis has made the members of the Council especially sensitive to the difficulty of representing general faculty opinion or even ascertaining the views of faculty groups most directly affected by the policies adopted. We have attempted to convey general faculty concerns by means of letters to the State Board of Higher Education, public statements given to the press, and a formal letter to the new chancellor. We have also shared our concerns with the University~s representatives to the Inter-institutional Faculty Senate and the Association of Oregon Faculties. During the second stage of the budget crisis we met with representatives from the faculty's professional organizations -- AAUP, AFT, and OPEU. Two weeks ago the Council sponsored a forum off campus at which about sixty faculty members spent an afternoon discussing the major challenges facing the Vniversity in the eighties.

During the academic year the Council addressed a number of important issUes by inviting groups or individuals to its meetings. The Director of Admissions discussed the problem of stud~ent recruitment; the chairperson of last year's Committee on Committees shared his concerns about faculty willingness to serve on committees; Vice Provost Albrecht outlined the role of the speci-al committee on long term planning; two representatives from CSPA desGribed the development and goals of the School; the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences took part in a discussion about the improvement of undergraduate education; Vice President Hawk responded to our concerns about the deterioration of the University's buildings, classrooms, and grounds; and Associate Provost Moseley, with a group from the Registrar's Office, explained the reasons for the delay in moving to a system of pre-registration.

IV Continuing Problems

The Council wishes to call to the attention of the Faculty three matters of special concern.

1. Faculty Governance

The traditional role of the faculty in the governance of the University, a distinctive feature of this institution, appears to many to be in jeopardy. Each of the major components of the faculty governance system faces difficulties. The Faculty Assembly is poorly attended; the Senate has been weakened by insufficient nominations and absenteeism; the structure of faculty committees has been undermined by the reluctance of faculty members to serve; a similar reluctance has been evident in the low number of nominations for the Faculty Personnel Committee. Unless ways are found to reverse these trends, the faculty role, a source of great pride in the past, will give way to an increasingly centralized and authoritarian system of governance. The members of this year's Council urge next year's Council, and other faculty bodies, to consider the problem.

2. Undergraduate Education

Unlike many universities across the country the University of Oregon has not undertaken in recent years a serious reexamination of its undergraduate programs. The steady improvement in the quality of its faculty and increased commitment to its research and scholarly mission has not been accompanied by a systematic effort to translate that quality and commitment into a more demanding undergraduate education. There is a growing gulf between these two aspects of the University. The time is ripe for a new look at our undergraduate programs. Rising costs at private institutions and growing pressures for higher admission standards indicate that the University would be wise to take steps to increase the appeal of its undergraduate curriculum. To this end the Advisory Council has urged the President and the Provost to appoint a '~blue ribbon" committee on Undergraduate education and commit the resources necessary for its work and subsequent recommendations.

3. Strategies for the Eighties

Although the members of the CounciJ have supported unanimously the policies adopted by the Administration to deal with the budget crisis during the past year, some members of the Council doubt that policies which have been mainly 'ad hoc' or 'reactive' will be adequate in the years just ahead. The prospect of declining enrollments and the danger of a continuing fiscal crisis in the State, suggest that it would be wise to develop a set of alternative strategies, fitted to several possible scenarios, for the next two biennia. The present structure of the University has been preserved only through great effort and ingenuity on the part of the President and Provost. But the continuation of an 'ad hoc' strategy in the face of severe budget limitations or reductions will mean that future cuts will be made opportunistically, where retirements, resignations, and chance factors permit. Without more planning the University will suffer from serious imbalances in the allocation of resources.

Respectfully submitted, Fred Andrews Chapin Clark Maradel Gale Esther Jacobson Carolin Keutzer

Larry Pierce, Vice Chair and Secretary Stan Pierson, Chair Sandy Tepfer

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SENATE 1981-82

The two primary functions of the Jniversity Senate, as provided by Faculty legislation, are to consider motions prior to debate by the Assembly, and to act on nominations for the University's Distinguished Service Award. In its nine meetings during the 1981-82 academic year, the Senate has performed both functions, and has considered multiple motions at each session.

In addition, the Senate has had regular reports from the VicePresident for Academic Affairs regarding the state of the University, and from the chairperson of the Faculty Advisory Council. These reports and subsequent discussions have served as additional channels of communication to both faculty and students. President Olum responded to a request by the Senate to address the members concerning faculty involvement in the University's budget process.

This Spring, the Senate began a substantive review of its role within the governance of the University, consideration of its membership, and discussion of how it might be better involved with issues identification and intra-university communications. I hope this analysis will continue.

Since not all the Senators for the 1982-84 term,students and faculty, have been elected, the organization of the Senate will take place in September. My thanks to the Senate reporters this year and to the members who have served with me - Paul Rudinski, SUAB, Vice President; Holway Jones, Secretary, Shirley Wilson and Ted Stern, Rules Committee; and George Struble, Parliamentarian. Professor StrUble has been selected to convene the first meeting of the Senate in the Fall.

Katherine Eaton

President, University Senate  1981-1982

From minUtes of the December 2, 1981 Assembly meeting.

KENNETH WIGGINS PORTER 1905 - 1981

The death of Professor Kenneth Wiggins Porter on July 9 called forth a number of eulogies that reflected the-variety of Professor Porter~s roles and contributions. In his seventy-six years he made his mark as a poet, a political activist, an unforgettable person, and a vocal citizen of every community in which he lived. This memorial for the University Assembly will recall his career as a scholar and teacher, without attempting to capture the full range of his versatile life.

Professor Porter was born on February 17, 1905, in Sterling, Kansas. Beginning his education in local schools, he graduated from Sterling College in 1926. A year later he completed his Master of Arts degree at the Jniversity of Minnesota. He then entered the doctoral program in history at Harvard University. His mentors there included Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., and Samuel Eliot Morison in the History Department, and N. S. B. Gras, the Straus Professor of Business Wistory at the Harvard Business School. Professor Porter~s was an unconventional graduate career: the work that counted as his doctoral dissertation actually appeared in book form when he was hal fway through his degree program. His thi rst for knowledge and inclination to research led him into many projects before he received the doctorate in 1936.

Professor Porter began his teaching career at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas, where-he taught a wide variety of courses in European as well as American history, and served as department chairman, from 1936 until 1938. He joined the faculty of Vassar College in the latter year and taught there until 1948. At that time he accepted a research position with the Business History Foundation, to work on the company-sponsored

history of the components of the Standard Oil Company. Porter continued that work until 1953, bUt interrupted it to teach as a visitor here at the University of Oregon in 1951-52. In 1954 he was Fulbright lecturer at the University of Melbourne in Australia, and on his return he served for three years as a professor at the University of Illinois. It was in 1958 that he returned to the University of Oregon, this time as a permanent member of the faculty.

It would be hard to fix the limits of Kenneth Porter's research and writing for any period of his career. In his student years, thoUgh, he identified two fields of American history as his primary interests, and he went on to distinguish himself in both. One was the history of American business institutions and practices. Porter arrived at Harvard as a research assistant in Business History simultaneoUsly with the appointment of the first professor in that field, and three years before the first course in "Business History'' was offered. His first book--the widelyacclaimed biography John Jacob Aster: Business Man -- appeared in 1931 as the first two volUmes of the Harvard Studies ~n Business History series. In 1937 he contributed to the series another two-volUme work, The Jacksons and the Lees: Two Generations of MassachUsetts Merchants, 1765-1844, an annotated editibi~i~e correspondence with a study of the families and companies it represented. Both works have been reprinted as classic studies in recent years. The fruit of Porter's oil-company research was the History of the Humble Oil & Refininq Company: A Study in Industrial Growth, publ~sh~in 1959, which he wrote ~n associat~on with Henrietta M. Larson. Those works, with lesser publications, identified Porter as an important contributor to the history of American business.

While in graduate school Professor Porter set out as a pioneer in a second field of inquiry. In 1932 he published a monograph on "Relations between Negroes and Indians within the present limits of the [Jnited States" in The Journal of Neqro History. The Association for the Study of Negro Life an~awar~d the study its annual prize and reprinted it as a separate publication. A year later, the author added to his monograph a supplement about half as long as the original. He went on to explore the neglected subject in a succession of articles that continued throughout his life. Moving away from his initial focus on genetic exchanges between the two populations, he documented and discussed the roles of black people in frontier settlements from the cotton belt of the Old Southwest to the fur-trading posts of the Great Lakes. He concentrated particularly on the history of the Seminole people and the black members who figured prominently in their tribal life.

It was that research that Professor Porter principally pursued during his years of active service at the University of Oregon, from 1958 to his retirement in 1972 and subsequently as Professor Emeritus. His article, "Negroes and the Seminole War, 1835-1842" (The Journal of Southern History, 1964) has been cited and reprinted often as a major exposition of the centrality of the Seminole blacks and their fight for freedom in that conflict. That publication was only the capstone, however, of a great pyramid of articles that embodied Porter's research on the subject. He mastered the sourcies of Seminole history from the colonial Georgia frontier to the Crazy Snake Uprising of 1909, learning more than others had believed possible about people neglected by their contemporaries and forgotten by later generations. Individuals who appeared fleetingly in earlier accounts became subjects of biographical studies for him.

The article "Negro Labor in the Western Cattle Industry, 1866-1900" (Labor History, 1969) served as the "capstone" for another body of Porter's studies, on black cowboys and settlers in the Cattle Country in the late nineteenth century. He devoted a book-length manuscript, "Black Riders," still unpublished, to that subiect. In 1971, at the invitation of Arno Press, Professor Porter republished some of his most important articles, along with additional material on the subject, in the volume The Negro on the American Frontier. In the 1970s he served as a consultant to the editors of the Dictionary of American Negro Biography.

It would be impossible to Gategorize the continual stream of miscellaneous articles that issued from Professor Porter's typewriter during his years at the University of Oregon. Most were scholarly, but some were popular and antiquarian. Some dealt with Western regional history, others with folklore, and others with aspects of popular culture. Because he delighted in bringing to light events that other historians had overlooked, and correcting their errors, Porter invested effort in studies whose significance others might discount. His work bearing on racial subiects proved valuable to socially progressive historians in the 1960s, but Porter himself placed the inherent value of establishing little-known facts above any instrUmental purposes.

In his teaching at the University of Oregon, Professor Porter employer a number of styles. His most popular course was the 400-level Social Factors in American History that he introduced here. In one quarter of Social Factors he presented, in meticulously organized lectures,a historical survey of ethnic groups in American society; in the other quarter, he presented a similar survey of religious groups. In both cases the coverage was extensive, including groups of whose existence few students had dreamed before they enrolled in the course.

Porteris role in graduate instruction extended far beyond the classroom, but at that level also he introduced a characteristic course that he had previously taught at Illinois. He organized his ColloquTum on Interpretation of American History around a large bibliography, and structured every session around an important controversy between conflicting schools of historical interpretation. In the structure that Porter organized the students read widely and did most of the talking. Graduate students found his colloquTum an excellent resource in comprehensive field preparation.

Kenneth Porter excelled most of all in another kind of teaching. His lifetime of omnivourous reading and his retentive memory made him a resource for students and colleagues interested in a wide range of subjects. They would come to him with questions; and in receiving answers to their questions they would learn much more about the subject and several related subjects. Professor Porter's conversational style was casual and unstructured, and within the history of the United States his versatility was almost unlimited. Porter once joined a colleague and some graduate students who were driving to an academic convention two thousand miles away. During the long drive, the colleague later reported, Professor Porter talked at length--at one time for more than twelve consecutive hours, interrupted only by the colleague breaking in every half hour to suggest another topic. He tried diverse and esoteric topics, including the topic of his own research--but he never found a topic on which Kenneth Porter could not speak informedly for half an hour, nor one on which Porter's discourse did not enhance his own knowledge.

By his publications and correspondence Professor Porter educated many who never came into personal contact with him. Researchers studying the Lumbees of North Carolina wrote to him; so did those studying radical poets of the 1930s; so did a group of Cherokees who were trying to locate the grave of Sequoia. Porter provided helpful leads to all of them. His writings established contact with a younger generation of scholars who knew him only in print. In 1970, at a historical-convention session-. on IndiaP removal, a commentator threw out a series of questions--some rhetorical questions, and some as suggestions for research in future years. After he concluded, Professor Porter rose in the back of the room and, identifying himself by his surname, proceeded to state his definitive answers to the questions, providing extensive factual illustration. "I have only one question," the commentator responded after all this. "Are you the Kenneth Wiggins Porter?" The frequency of recent reprints of Porteris early writings sUggests that his role as an educator has not ended.

Jack P. Maddex, Jr. Professor of History December 2, 1981

HAROLD K. STROM

1930 - 1981

Harold Kjell Strom, Associate Professor of Transportation was born in Brooklyn, New York on January 21, 1930, and died in Honolulu, Hawaii on October 20, 1981. He had been a member of the faculty of this University and the College of BUsiness Administration since 1965. His areas of specialty were Transportation and Business Logistics. At the time of his death he was on leave and teaching at the University of Hawaii. Memorial services were in Seattle on October 26.

Professor Strom received his Bacheloris and Masteris degrees from the University of Washington, and his Doctorate from the University of California at Los Angeles. He taught at UCLA and California State University (Los Angeles) before coming to the University of Oregon. He set high standards of scholarship for himself, and expected the same from his students. In addition to his teaching, research, and consUlting, he was Director of the University's Transport and Logistics Research Center for foUr years and Associate Dean of the College for a decade.

Selecting the things that should be said to exemplify and capsulize the life of a valued friend and colleague at an unhappy occasion such as this is never an easy task. It is one that is perhaps particularly difficult for a person with the accomplishments and who had the enjoyment and the richness of living that marked the life of Harold Strom.

He was an intelligent man who spoke several languages, a lover of music (and especially opera), a respected professional in his field, a devoted father and husband, a man who enjoyed immensely being on his boat (but who could barely tolerate fishing), and a person who was loyal, and one who had courage.

This memorial will emphasize only the last two of these attributes, loyalty and courage. We all respect intelligence in a person, but it is something that one either has or does not have, and in either case, none of us finally deserve to be honored or blamed for how intelligent we are because we had little, if anything to do with it. His devotion to his family is something they know and feel deeply about, and which is properly considered a private part of his and their lives.

But loyalty and courage, or the lack thereof, are acquired traits for which we can be held accountable, and Marold Strom had large measures of both. He was loyal to his friends and to his colleagues, and we all understood and appreciated that. Perhaps the extent of his loyalty to us can best be illustrated by the degree of loyalty that he exhibited in another area, however - that to the country of his Mother and Father and the country in which he lived the early years of his life. That country is Norway. While he always considered himself to be an American, and was unhesitating in doing so, he nonetheless kept an identity with and a loyalty to his Norwegian heritage. He passed this feeling of respect and identity along to his children--each of them, like he was, is proud of his or her Norwegian ancestry.

If one were forced to choose a single attribute to characterize Harold Strom, however, it would have to be that of courage. Early evidence that he was a courageous person is given by the fact that he served as a courier of messages between Norwegian resistance forces as a teenager during Worid War II. His ability to speak German enabled him to pass through the check points established by the Germans without arousing their suspicians, and he did this successfully throughout the Occupation.

But the greatest example of his courage is the way he handled the illness that ultimately resulted in his death. Courage has been described as being "grace under pressure," and one of the greatest pressures any of us can face is the prospect of an early and untimely death. He knew that this was almost certainly what awaited him, and yet in the everyday interactions with his friends, colleagues, and students, he was casual about that eventuality almost to the point of seeming indifference. He rarely talked about his illness and when he did he always did it in a way that made it seem unimportant, often with a joke about some inconvenience it was causing him. As late as two days before his death when a friend talked with him by telephone; and when he had to know the time was short, there was again the wry joke, his way of saying that he was not afraid.

The ancient Greeks believed that a man could not be sure that he had lived a successful life until he was about to die and knew that he would do so courageously. By this or virtually any other measure one wants to use, Harold Strom lived successfully.

Donald S. Tull Professor of Marketing December 2, 1981

FREDERICK TIDYMAN HANNAFORD

1898 - 1981

Professor Hannaford was born December 24, 1898, in Marion, Kansas, and died October 5, 1981, in Eugene, Oregon.

We have all lost a good friend and a dedicated teacher.

Professor Hannaford lived in Marion, Kansas, until the age of four or, as he used to say - ''until he knew better.t' The family then moved to Mr. Vernon, Washington, where he spent the major part of his y-oUng growing years.

In 1916, at the age of 18, Fred enlisted in the U.S. Army and served almost two years in the Great War. He served overseas in France and Germany as a '~doughboy't and participated in several major engagements. His many stories of his experiences always were interesting to us ~'youngstersi' who served in the later war.

Fred has always been interested in buildings and construction and, after the war, began his studies at Washington State College - now Washington State University. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in Architecture, in 1924.

The next year he went to the University of Idaho to work under Professor Rudolf Weaver, University Architect and Planner. During this stay, he did advanced graduate work in structural design and in campus planning, under Professor Weaver. He also began his teaching career in the Fall Semester of 1925 as an Instructor in Architecture. This began a teaching career that spanned 44 years at three institutions.

During his WSU days, Fred met an energetic, attractive young lady (her brother was Fred's roommate), and on February 21, 1926, in Denver, Colorado, he married Frances Malmgren. Frances was the daughter of Architect Carl G. Malmpren of the old established Spokane firm of Kutter and Malmgren. Thus began a full and rewarding life which was not only successful professionally, but produced a son, George, now of Coquille, Oregon, and a daughter, Marise Hannaford Borter, of Seattle, 8 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren. Fred, as his many friends know, loved and enjoyed his family.

In early 1926 Rudolf Weaver left the University of Idaho to accept the position of Director of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, University of Florida, Gainesville, and to become University Architect to the University's Board of Control. In March of 1926, at Professor Weaver's urging, Fred accepted the position of Chief Structural Designer in Mr. Weaver's University Architect's Office. In should be noted that Fred and his new wife, Frances, arrived in Gainesville, Florida, on March 1, 1926 - eleven days after their marriaqe.

In 1927, after a year of full-time professional office work, he began a long teaching career at Florida which spanned 19 years. Starting out as a part-time Instructor, while he worked in the office, he worked his way through the ranks to a full-time teaching Associate Professor in 1939 and Professor of Architecture in 1942.

At Florida, Fred taught many courses in Reinforced Concrete and Building Construction. It was through his dedicated leadership and efforts that the architecture curriculUm was reorganized in the early days of his tenure. He also served on many committees and was very active in University life.

Between 1944-1946, upon Professor Weaver~s death, Fred became Acting Director of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. He held this position until coming to the University of Oregon, again, arriving in Eugene on March 1, 1946.

While at Florida, Fred paralleled his dedication to architectural education with an equally strong dedication to his profession. He was a licensed architect, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and a member of the Florida State Architects Registration Board. As a born leader, he held several elected leadership positions in these organizations, from President to Secretary-Treasurer. He also held a responsible position in the University Architect~s Office for almost 20 years and was involved in strUctura1 design, building inspection, material testing, and specification writing for many campus buildings - at Florida, the University Architect was commissioned to do campus construction.

In late 1945, Fred read of an opening on the faculty of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts at the University of Oreg-on. He quickly wrote Dean Ellis F. Lawrence and expressed a strong interest in the position and of his desire to return to the Northwest after a 19 year stay in Florida.

This began a period of correspondence between Fred and Dean Lawrence which resUlted in his appointment as Professor of Architecture, effective April 1, 1946. His trip from Florida in post-World War II days with a family, an old car, no tires or spare parts, was food for many interesting stories over the years. As noted earlier, they all arrived in Eugene on March 1, 1946.

Fred's arrival in EUgene on the above date also brought sad news. Dean Ellis F. Lawrence had passed away just two days earlier. This was a great personal shock to Fred since, having only known of him through reputation and correspondence, he had looked forward for 3,000 miles to their first meeting - a meeting that was destined to never take place.

Upon joining the faculty of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, Fred continued his dedication to and involvement ;n teaching, architectural education, and service to the University, School, and the profession of architecture. This dedication spanned the next 23 years of his life.

He taught the advanced structures courses and was directly involved in many curricular changes throughout the years. He was advisor for the Business and Construction option and, throughout the many years, his "love of teaching" was reflected in his strong personal contact with his students and the faculty around him. Many alumni, over the years, passing through Eugene or writing, visit or leave messages for Fred and Frances. He touched the lives of many who will always remember him.

As noted, Fred continued his active participation in all phases of University life. He served on many committees, such as Scholastic Review and Intercollegiate Athletics. In the Schoo1 he chaired the CoUrse and Curriculum Committee, directed the summer program, and served as Executive Secretary of the School Faculty. He also, in 1953, helped develop the new Business and Construction Program. Fred also was Acting Dean of the School on several occasions. He always provided wise counsel, mature judgment and strong, honest leadership in these positions.

Fred continued his strong professional interest started in Florida. In 1950, through his personal effort and dedication, the S. W. Oregon Chapter of the American Institute of Architects was formed. Along with being a charter member, he served in elected leadership positions with this group. He was also Secretary-Treasurer of the Oregon Society of Architects.

There was another side of the Hannafords that many will remember. Fred and Frances were avid gardeners. The Hannaford "pickles," a very special treat, their vegetables and flowers, were envied by all. In fact, Frances noted that Fred had worked in his garden the day he passed away.

An avid sports donor and supporter, Fred and Frances seldom missed a basketball, football, track or baseball game. They had reserved seats and many of the players always looked for them.

On JUne l5, l969, Professor Frederick T. Hannaford retired at the age of 71, after 44 combined years of dedicated teaching at three universities. For the past 12 years he maintained his interest in his garden and his sports. His friendship and counsel will be missed by his many friends.

George M. Hodge, Jr. Professor of Architecture December 2, l981

Mr. Chairman, I move that this memorial be made part of the permanent record of this faculty and that coples be sent to the family of Frederick T. Hannaford.

DAVID McCOSH 1903-1981

David McCosh, Professor Emeritus of Art, was born on July 11, 1903 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and died July 25, 1981. He had been a member of the faculty of the University of Oregon since 1934 until his retirement in 1971. He graduated from the Art Instietute of Chicago in 1927.

Those who studied seriously with David McCosh for any length of time learned that he was a very complex man, indeed, one who never saw things in a conventional fashion and who was always able to extend an idea in unexpected ways. Those who later became his friends and colleagues discovered that his interests were even greater than they had been able to grasp in their early experience.

David was many different things to many different people. But to those who knew him well he was a remarkably consistant man who brought a very wide range of ideas to his teaching and painting. His studies of anatomy, Chinese calligraphy, the natural camouflage of birds and animals, psychology, philosophy, all found their way into his primary study, painting.

Almost all students, serious or not, sensed the immense authority behind his teaching. His authority was genuine, deriving not from ego or pretention but from his own remarkable accomplishment as a painter. He was well aware of the strength of his painting but he was an extremely modest man, made so by a deep awareness of how demanding painting is and how much more could be done. Because of his modesty many students recognized his dedication as a teacher long before they realized that his ability as a practicing artist was equally great.

All who knew him recognized his uncompromising integrity. Students feared his impatience with sloppy thinking and easy acceptance of cliches about painting or reliance on fashionable tricks. Years later, many of these same students, some now full professors nearing retirement from their own teaching careers, keep him as their model of an intellectually honest man. Like many truly honest people he was sometimes criticized but al ways respected.

Today there are hundreds of artists who are much more than they might have been had they never stUdie~d with him. His direct influence is now extending to the third generation, passing through students of his students. And yet this influence is often unrecognized because David never allowed students to become disciples and instead insisted that the individual~s personal approach be honored

David McCosh was a genuine thinker who believed that the intellect has an essential role in the continuing growth of a painter and demanded that his students think clearly. Yet he did not believe that complete painting could ever be based on theory alone. Instead, for him, the mind was a tool to release personal responses to nature just as painting was a means for studying nature. Some individuals for whom painting must be either completely intuitive or entirely theoretical never could understand David McCosh~s position in this regard. But those who accepted the challenge of this interdependent complexity found themselves able to continue growing, using all of their human faculties in their painting.

As a painter, David McCosh is at the same time very well known and almost unknown. This is because in his work he was extremely aggressive, always experimenting and competing with himself to keep growing. But in terms of self-promotion he was not competitive -- never pushing his work in the market place of the art world. Even so, his list of exhibitions, one-man, juried invitational shows, the roll-call of museums and individuals that own his work is impressive.

But only those who have been privileged to spend hours in David~s studio looking through nearly fifty years of dra