The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1535 on
October 6, 1982 in room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes
of the meeting of June 2, 1982 were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Olum announced that the motion offered by Mr. Jack Sanders, Religious Studies, concerning the establishment of a Faculty Budget Advisory Committee, and on the agenda for November 1982, has been withdrawn.
Elections for positions on the Graduate Council and for vacancies on the
University Senate will get underway soon.
President Olum introduced Mr. Robert Friedman, Speech, who will serve as the Parliamentarian for the University Assembly.
Mr. George Shipman, Library, was recognized to introduce three new members of the Library faculty. They are: Ms. Alice Allen, Associate Professor, Head Catalog Department, formerly of the University of Michigan Library; Ms. Karen Griffin, Assistant Professor, Serials Librarian, formerly of the University of Texas, Austin; and Ms. Isabel Stirling, Associate Professor, Head Science Library, formerly of the University of California, Riverside.
Mr. Robyn Dawes, Psychology, introduced two new faculty members in Psychology. Mr. David Riefer, Visiting Assistant Professor in Experimental Psychology and Ms. Judith Fox, Assistant Professor in Clinical Psychology.
President Olum announced that the November 3rd meeting of the Assembly will be the time that he will give the State of the University address with emphasis on the budget problems facing the University--especially for the 1983-1985 biennium.
NEW BUSINESS
Granting of a formal minor. The following motion was read by Mr. Joe Hynes, English; "Beginning in Fall 1983, any degree-granting unit shall be entitled to offer a formal minor, which must be described in the Catalog. Any minor will consist of at least 24 credit hours, a minimum of 15 to be upper-division. Granting options will be determined by individual schools or departments. Any proposal for the minor must be reviewed by a school or college course committee and by the University Committee on the Curriculum, and will be included in the annual University curriculum-change request. Minors will be noted on transcripts.
"A minor will affect the group requirements as does the double major: i.e., a minor, like a second major, will reduce the number of required clusters by one; however, in such cases, either a minor or a cluster is required in each of the three groups."
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1543.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
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
makes recommendations on all new faculty appointments carrying indefinite
tenure.
The 1981-82 FPC met 29 times during the year, generally for two hours. The bulk of each committee member's time, however, was spent outside meetings, examining and preparing reports on cases. Each of us spent at least six hours a week on committee business, sometimes a great deal more, it is fair to say.
This year the FPC made recommendations to the Provost on 9 cases for promotion to Professor, 27 cases for promotion to Associate Professor, and one case for promotion to Senior Instructor. In 26 of these cases indefinite tenure was at issue as well; we also dealt with eight cases involving tenure alone. Two cases were withdrawn after reaching us. In 33 instances we recommended in favor of the proposed promotion or tenure; in 12 cases, including four for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, our recommendation was to deny or defer promotion. The Provost's action was consistent with our recommendation in all but two cases, in which administrative considerations had to prevail. At the Provost's request, we also considered an appeal from a decision made in 1980-81.
Committee recommendations in each case were based on review of the faculty member's complete record at the University. Despite a persistent belief to the contrary, there is no standard formula or assignment of percentages for weighing contributions in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service, although service almost never is given as much weight as scholarship and teaching. Each committee member voted in accordance with his or her assessment of the candidate's overall strength and past and expected contributions to the field and the University.
Besides reviewing individual cases, we conducted an open meeting to answer questions and discuss concerns about the promotion and tenure process. This meeting was apparently helpful to those who attended, and we urge strongly that future Faculty Personnel Committees hold such a meeting every year. Promotion and tenure reviews inevitably cause anxiety, and if this can be lessened by informing the faculty about the nature of the process, the time is well spent.
- The committee also considered several broad policy issues during
its meetings. We completed action on a statement of policy on scholarship in the areas of creative and performing arts and professional consultation. This statement in its final form has been accepted by the Provost as University policy. We also expressed our concern about lack of uniformity among various academic units in the administration of student evaluations of faculty and in standards for early promotion and tenure. We urged the Provost to seek greater uniformity in these areas.
Every year the FPC has issued recommendations for improvement in the process of preparing and considering promotion and tenure cases. The repetitive character of these recommendations over the years might lead the FPC to wonder if its reports are ever read, but we can point to some changes for the better this year. The Provost, at our request, asked that a clear statement by the candidate of waiver or non-waiver of access to all or any part of the file be included, and this has been done quite consistently. Unsigned student evaluations were sent to us less often this year than in the past, but some administrative units still seem to be unaware that it is illegal for us or for them to read such statements. We called attention to this problem where necessary in our reports on individual cases. We noted some other irregular or questionable procedures in our reports on individual cases or in separate correspondence, but there is no need to enumerate them here.
All of these irregularities can be avoided by following carefully the instructions in the memo dated June 9, 1982, from Richard Hill to deans and department heads. This is the absolute guide for preparation of promotion and tenure files, and departure from it can delay or even jeopardize a case that might otherwise easily win approval on its merits. The FPC of course tries to sort through such problems when they arise, but they do make extra work for us, and they can unnecessarily prejudice our view of a case despite our best intentions.
During the year we encountered some problems and situations that previous committees have not reported, and these deserve special notice:
1. In several cases the assertion was made that constructive credit had been granted for service prior to employment at the University of Oregon, that is, prior service was counted as one or more years of the six normally required before consideration for promotion or tenure. Some files contained no documentary evidence of such an agreement, and the FPC had great difficulty evaluating the claims. Constructive credit can be granted only by a written agreement signed by the Provost; no other agreement is valid or binding on the FPC. We believe that these problems arose out of past rather than present administrative practice, but anyone involved in hiring with constructive credit should be sure that a written agreement is on file.
2. The candidate's statement of accomplishments, goals, and plans is an important part of each promotion file, and we urge candidates to give the statement careful thought. Although technical language is necessary in describing one's work, we urge that at least a brief summary in general terms be included so that non-specialists can understand the work's significance. This would be helpful to the FPC, whose ten members can not possibly represent every discipline on this campus.1
3. We would like to stress the importance of student evaluations in judging the quality of teaching. The accuracy and even the applicability of numerical ratings and statistical comparisons are subject to debate, but they are useful in conjunction with other evidence, such as narrative statements by students and faculty. Schools and departments should take pains to gather and preserve evaluations, far from being a meaningless exercise, are useful and important in the evaluation of faculty members.
Our final concern is one that has been expressed by every Faculty Personnel Committee preceding us. This is the importance of getting promotion files to us on schedule. This year almost half of our files reached us only in spring term, the last eight after May 1. Even a well prepared file for a faculty member who unquestionably deserves promotion takes the FPC at least three weeks from receipt to bring to a vote; circulating a draft and completing our report requires another two weeks or more, then the Provost's office needs time to examine the file and reach a-decision. If the FPC needs to obtain more information than is contained in the file, the process can take much longer. We realize that committees and administrators in departments, schools, and colleges all suffer from the universal malady on this campus, too much to do and not enough time to do it. We urge, though, that promotion and tenure deliberations be given the highest priority and set in motion early in the year. The losers otherwise are the colleagues whose cases are submitted too late.
It is our pleasure to acknowledge the assistance we have received from department heads and deans and from the Provost and his staff. Our special thanks go to the CAS Dean's Advisory Committee for its thorough and carefully prepared reports. Finally, it is impossible to express adequately our gratitude to Mrs. Keena Northrop of the Provost's office, whose cheerful help has been indispensable to the committee all year.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara Bateman, Special Education Peter Bergquist,
Music (chairer) LaVerne Krause, Fine Arts Richard Noyes, Chemistry John
Shepherd, Speech Ronald Sherriffs, Speech Donald Tull, Marketing (vice-chairer)
Louise Wade, History David Lesser, Student member John Powell, Student
member (fall and winter terms) Deborah Romerein, Student member (spring
term)
The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President
Paul Olum at 1538 on November 3, 1982 in room 150 Geology. There being
no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of October 6, 1982 were approved
as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Olum called the Provost, Mr. Richard Hill, to briefly explain the OSSHE course and admission requirements which the University administration requested the Admissions Policy Committee to react to and prepare a statement for the general faculty. (This report is attached to these minutes.) Mr. Hill explained that the proposal came from the central administration of the OSSHE and because of time limits the University administration decided the Admission Policy Committee would be the most logical group to have a University response formulated.
OLD BUSINESS
GRANTING OF A FORMAL MINOR. Mr. Joe Hynes, English, read the following motion: "Beginning in Fall 1983, any degree-granting unit shall be entitled to offer a formal minor, which must be described in the catalog. Any minor will consist of at least 24 credit hours, a minimum of 15 to be upper-division. Grading options will be determined by individual schools or departments. Any proposal for the minor must be reviewed by a school or college course committee and by the University Committee on the Curriculum, and will be included in the annual University curriculum change request. Minors will be noted on transcripts.
"Beyond the original major, each additional major or minor in a general education area approved by the Assembly may be substituted for one cluster requirement. Any such substitution, however, must be consistent with the Assembly policy on cluster distribution."
President Olum recognized Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, to report the vote of the University Senate. Mr. Jones stated that the vote was: 24 in favor, 0 opposed, and l abstention. Mr. Hynes briefly explained the motion by pointing out that it would make formal recognition of a minor possible and that the student transcript would so indicate when a minor was completed. Mr. Hynes stated that the second paragraph of the motion had been rewritten and that the motion under discussion was the final version. Mr. Nathaniel Teich, University Senate Reporter, explained that the Senate had given approval to the motion a£ter looking at the specifics of the motion and discussing each part and voting on each part.
Mr. Robert Mazo, Chemistry, asked Mr. Hynes what a degree-granting unit was. Mr. Hynes stated that any school, college or department would qualify and that the criteria, etc., for the formal establishment of a minor rested entirely in the hands of the lowest constituted body in an academic area. No unit was obligated to create a minor.
The question was called for and by voice vote the Assembly approved of the motion without dissent.
NEW BUSINESS
No new business was introduced.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY ADDRESS.
The text of President Olum's address is included as a part of these minutes.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 1650.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
NOTE: Course requirements as proposed below are the same for all
State System colleges and universities. Levels of performance as demonstrated
in the overall high school grade point average and/or scholastic aptitude
tests required of entering students will vary as now) among the institutions.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS YEARS (UNITS) SUBJECT OF STUDY REMARKS English
4 All four years in preparatory composition and literature with emphasis
on and frequent practice in writing expository prose. Mathematics 3 Must
include algebra, geometry, and advanced algebra (one of these or an advanced
mathematics course recommended in the senior year). (Algebra taken in the
eighth grade accepted.) Science 2 Must include a year in each of the following
fields: biology, chemistry, or physics (one recommended as a laboratory
science). Social Studies 3 Must include one year of U.S. History, one year
of global studies (world history, geography, etc.), and one-half year of
government. Other College Prep 2 May be foreign language (highly recommended);
computer science; additional mathematics, science, humanities, or social
science; fine arts; or other college prep elective, which may, at the discretion
of the admitting institution, include a comprehensive sequence of units
in a vocational- technical area of study.
TOTAL REQUIRED COURSES 14
3 November 1982 A REPORT TO THE GENERAL FACULTY ON PROPOSED OSSHE COURSE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION
FROM: THE ADMISSIONS POLICY COMMITTEE Robert Grudin, Patricia Gwartney-Gibbs, Joe Stone, Michael Utsey (Chair), Marion Walter, Jim Buch (ex officio)
On the opposite side of this page is the new freshman admissions standard proposed by the State System. The standard establishes course requirements for admission in addition to GPA and/or test scores. The State Board is seeking faculty discussion prior to their presentation for adoption. The UO Admissions Policy Committee has reviewed the standards and agrees with their intent. We also recommend the following change in language. In the remarks column for '.Other College Prep", change "may be foreign language (highly recommended)" to:
"Must include two years in one of the following or at least one year each in two of the following: foreign language;..."
The following is a short synopsis of our discussion:
Required Foreign Language: A two year foreign language requirement is generally favored by members of the committee, and we suspect that it would also be favorably received by a majority of Oregon faculty. The State System's "student-driven" funding model would seem to prohibit this requirement at this time. Jim Buch, Director of Admissions has indicated that more than forty percent of our freshman class would be excluded by a two-year foreign language requirement. We do, however, feel that a year of contact with any of the course areas included with foreign language under "Other College Prep" would constitute minimum involvement in a required area. It is on this basis that we suggest the above change.
Enrollment Impact: According to the Director of Admissions, the proposed requirements would, "if implemented for Fall, 1986, cause no problems."
Grandfather Clause: Students who graduated prior to the effective date of the suggested rule, but who meet other admissions standards, may be exempted from the requirements. This is especially important to the admission of "non-traditional" students.
Familiarity: The suggested requirements are similar to those which were required in Oregon prior to the sixties and to those in other states and university systems which have introduced, or reintroduced, course distribution standards in recent years.
Circumventing the Standards: The larger problem with the new freshman admission standard, in our view, is in relation to transfer admissions. At this time, a transfer may be unconditionally admitted to the University of Oregon after having earned a minimum GPA in fifteen credit hours at an accredited institution without regard to the institution's freshman admission standard, and without submission of high school records and test scores. The current transfer GPA requirement is 2.00 for residents and 2.25 for non-residents. An examination of the transfer admission standard is expected to be the committee's principal goal for the year.
Performance: The committee intends to examine the impact of calculating
the High School GPA for purposes of admissibility using only courses which
meet the required course distribution standards. This could conceivably
lead to a substantially lower GPA standard than the present 2.75.
Introduction
My friends and colleagues, this will have been the third time that I have addressed you at the beginning of the academic year. Tradition holds that I should tell you now what is -- at least in my own view -the state of the University. But how shall I do it -- on a scale of 1 to 10? It is really difficult to pin down that state with any precision, so let me begin by expressing in a general way what I feel, and then turn to some of the details after that.
We have recently held a beginning-of-the-year academic convocation, an event that we intend shall have established a tradition to be followed in future years. It was an exciting experience, a declaration of what we are as a University, and what we believe in -- a public restatement of the importance of our existence. It was an upbeat affair and left us -- all of us, I hope -- with a positive feeling about ourselves. We have, indeed, with great effort and great pain, survived the horrendous fiscal blows of the past two years -- and we are still here, with our commitment and our aspirations substantially intact. The central core of quality and strength of the University are still there -- and it is still a University worth believing in.
Can we now have an upbeat feeling about the future, a feeling that if we just hang on and hold everything together through the present year, then, perhaps with the coming 1983-85 biennium, things will at least begin to improve? Possibly, just possibly, it may be so. But no one should be at all complacent about it. There is a long road back to adequate funding; in fact, that road goes to a place where we have never yet been. It is going to take enormous dedication and hard work on the
part of all of us to make it happen. I will come back to this below, but one thing is clear -- we are going to have to convince our present students, our prospective students, their parents, the people of this State, the legislature and the Governor, that the University of Oregon is a vital resource for the State, a resource which can make a critical difference to the future of all of them.
Let me turn now to a more specific discussion of the main features of where we are.
Present Budgetary Situation
It is regrettably true that a central feature of our lives during these past few years has been the budgetary situation. I will assume that all of you are more or less familiar with what had happened up to the special session of the legislature this past June. Our original adjusted base budget for the present year 1982-83 had been reduced substantially, first by the Governor, then by the regular session of the Legislature and finally by a January special session of the Legislature. All of this required massive budget reductions throughout the entire University of which I am sure you are only too painfully aware. I see no reason to reopen those wounds by going over it all again here.
But I do need to remind you that an additional budget reduction was made at the very end of the January special session, a reduction which we could not have met out of our regular budget without seriously curtailing or abandoning significant University programs, together with extensive terminations of faculty and staff. By what I believe was a rather general consensus at a large meeting of faculty, staff and students (approximately 1,000 were present) it was agreed that we would achieve this entire reduction by decreasing all faculty and staff salaries by about 3% from what they would have been during 1982-83. For faculty, this was to be done by postponing the starting date of the 5.3% faculty salary increase from September 15 until early in February; for the staff it would have been accomplished by a number of days (about eight, I believe) of unsalaried interruption of work.
But then in June there was once again a projection of a revenue shortfall for the State and yet another special legislative session. This one resulted in a 6% salary reduction for all classified staff, by imposing a freeze on all classified salaries for 1982-83; in fact, for management service employees the action amounted not only to a salary freeze but, in addition, a 2% rollback from 1981-82 salaries. There was also a further cut in program funds for higher education, amounting to around $600,000 for us.
For the sake of the record, I should note that, in what was fast becoming a tri-monthly event, there was another shortfall projection and still another brief special legislative session in September, but for the first time in two years the legislature succeeded in meeting without cutting our budget, the bulk of the funds this time coming from what is a still controversial charge against the surplus in the State Accident Insurance Fund.
I shall return shortly to the problem presented by the June reduction in program funds, but we must first deal with the consequences of the 6% cut in classified salaries for 1982-83. All of this was discussed in some detail at a special July meeting of faculty organized by the Faculty Advisory Council, consisting in part of a plenary session of all those present and in part of a number of small group meetings. It was clear to everyone, I believe, that the classified staff could hardly be expected to take both the 6% State-mandated salary cut, together with their earlier voluntary one of 3%. As a consequence, I am proposing to you now that the funds involved be saved by a further postponement of the faculty salary increase of 5.3% from about February 4 to about March 25; the extension of time is relatively short (a matter of seven weeks) because much more money is involved in the total faculty salary pool than in that for classified. There are two reasons for doing this: First, that further program cuts for 1982-83 are nearly impossible to make and (even in-July) would have been most damaging, and trying to capture the funds at this point elsewhere in the budget, e.g., from faculty travel, service and supplies or such sources, ends up amounting essentially to a faculty salary cut without the tax benefit; second, there is the question of fairness, namely, that at the large meeting of faculty and staff when the 3% cut was generally accepted, much was made of the fact that the whole University community was in this together, the survival in strength of the University mattered to all of us, faculty and staff alike, and the sharing of the burden ought to fall as fairly as possible upon everyone. The July small group meetings generally agreed that there was really no acceptable alternative to having the faculty assume this burden, although there were a number who wanted at least some portion of the funds to come from the general budget. For the two reasons I have stated, it seems to me best that the cut be absorbed by the additional salary increase postponement of about seven weeks, and this is what I am proposing. Some of you may not agree with both of the reasons I have stated; it is enough that you agree with one of them. But this is a matter for discussion and, when I finish, you should have an opportunity to comment and to disagree and, if you wish, to make provision for further action.
Incidentally, I have been informed of certain rumors going around recently that the 5.3% faculty salary increase was going to be postponed until May or June -- or longer. That is not so, and I know of no intent for the postponement to go beyond the end of March, which was what was presented at the time of the July consultation with the faculty. It is important if you do hear rumors of that kind that you inform my office, as in fact Jim Tattersall did in this case, so that we can respond to them.
Perhaps I should for clarity summarize just where we stand now on the plans for faculty salary improvement. There will be, as just indicated, a 5.3% across-the-board increase (as always, based on fully satisfactory service) on March 25; that date incidentally (by a rather remarkable numerical coincidence) applies not only to 9-month faculty, but also to those on 12-month appointments, except for deans and other senior administrators whose salaries are frozen for the entire year. There will then be a 6% increase in total faculty salaries on June 1, with the distribution based on considerations of merit and equity. The two together (compounded) yield an increase in the faculty salary base. It should be noted that this is 2% more than the amount originally agreed to by the Executive Office, but it is the figure currently being planned for by the State System.
I should say a word also about the proposed cut in program funds of around $600,000 (later reduced to %550,000) coming from the June legislative session. As most of you presumably know, something of a problem was created by Chancellor Lieuallen's announcement that the State System institutions would be able to handle this budget reduction out of their so-called "discretionary funds." That was, in the judgment of both the Provost and myself, clearly not possible for us, and I said in a letter to the Senate chairman of Ways and Means that in order to meet that cut I would come before this Assembly and propose the discontinuance of four of our outreach functions. That situation was put on "hold" early in July when the new Chancellor, Bud Davis, wrote to say that the State System budget has been prepared on the basis of a very conservative estimate of enrollment and he had reason by then to think that enrollment, and hence tuition income, would be somewhat better than that prediction, and this might significantly ameliorate the problem.
Right now, I still do not know the full details of State System tuition income for 1982-83. It is clear that tuition receipts have been high enough to remove at least a large part of the difficulty created by the June budget reduction. Most of the problem is, I believe, gone, but exactly how much may be left I do not know.
I am sorry not to have written to you over the summer to make clear just where things stood. I did try to work out with the Faculty Advisory Council an appropriate time for writing, but our joint feeling was that it was better to wait until the fall. For one thing, the situation with the possible program cuts would obviously remain unresolved until fall enrollment was established; for another, it seemed inappropriate to propose formally the further postponement of the faculty salary increase into March, even though it had been extensively discussed at the July meetings, until the faculty were on campus and able to respond. It had not occurred to me that this might give rise to concern that something worse was happening. I would like to assure you once again that it is not the intention of this administration ever to take any kind of action which broadly affects the faculty -- or indeed the staff or the students -- without adequate consultation with those concerned.
Present Institutional Strength
I would like now to leave the budgetary concerns for the present year aside and to say just a few words about our institutional strength. We have in the past year or so lost some faculty members -- some indeed that we would much prefer not to have seen leave. This happens, of course, every year and this past year may have been somewhat, but not very seriously, worse. Many of the losses -- but not all -- have been replaced, and we have brought to the University some extremely good younger people. I believe that, on the whole, the major academic and scholarly strength of our faculty is still intact, and in some areas we have surely grown in quality.
The recent rankings published in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the standing of major research university in the physical sciences were most gratifying. The rankings in the biological sciences will appear soon and I have no doubt that we will do at least as well in those. I am told also that the ones for the Humanities have just been issued but I have not seen them yet.
More important -- and of much greater concern -- than our losses are the numbers of our leading faculty members who have in the recent past received offers of positions -- or clearly convertible offers -from major American institutions, including Harvard, Cornell, Pennsylvania, Princeton, Chicago, Michigan, Johns Hopkins, Cal Tech and many others. In all cases these offers represent significant salary increases. For the present all of these people are staying with us. They do so out of a sense of loyalty and caring for the University, out of recognition that this is where they have done their major work, and out of a sense of devotion to their colleagues and their students. It is this remarkable dedication on the part of the faculty and the staff that has built this University to its present level of quality.
But there are grave risks in this. Our faculty continue to function under most adverse conditions of salary, space, research funds, support services, etc. If our quality rankings in the Chronicle of Higher Education were high, our funding rankings lie close to the bottom. This is a dangerous situation, for if our best faculty should start to leave, there would surely be a serious domino effect, and a level of excellence that has taken many years to build could be severely damaged in a very short time. This is a most urgent concern, and we must do something about it. In doing so we shall need all the help and support we can get from the Chancellor's Office and from the State.
The Future
Having said this much, it is natural to ask what we can expect in the coming 1983-85 biennium. A budget has been submitted to the Governor's Office by the State System of Higher Education and there are many things in it which could greatly help our present situation: significant salary improvement, no further increases in tuition for the biennium, funds for program improvement in critical areas, funds for research support, for instructional equipment and for economic development, funds for the library, computing, and facilities maintenance. There are also things in it which are not so good, notable a failure to restore most of the devastating base budget cuts of the present biennium, accompanied by (at the insistence of the Executive Office) a continuation of enrollment based funding.
As you know, the revenue outlook for the State remains quite grim and it is not at all clear yet just what our final budget for 1983-85 will look like. We should know better by the first of the year, and I will report to you then on whatever information we have at that time. In the meantime, it is important that all of us do everything in our power to educate and inform the citizens of Oregon and their legislative representatives about the true nature of this University and its importance for the future of this State. At the same time, some of us will be raising, as strongly as we are able to, our objections to the whole range of mechanisms and formulae by which higher education is funded in this State, mechanisms and formulae which have had a particularly negative impact on the University of Oregon.
Incredible as it may seem, there are, of course, other things of interest for our future than just the budget. One of the most important of these is the new "Campaign for Excellence" announced on October 22 by Chancellor Davis. It includes a special program of merit-based scholarships, a change in admission requirements involving strong academic course prerequisites, improved teacher training and general education programs, and a revitalized approach to high school and community college relationships. Its purpose is to strengthen the quality of education in the colleges and universities of the State System and, above all, to attract to these schools the best and brightest young minds of the State. We support enthusiastically the Chancellor's goals and we will be eager participants in this campaign.
For ourselves we must place the highest possible priority on a concerted effort toward the recruitment of new students and the retention of our present ones. We have here at the University of Oregon a faculty capable of giving an undergraduate education which, in most fields, compares favorable with that offered by the best institutions in the country; the same can be said in many fields at the graduate level. We need to make this known to the leading high school students in the State, and to their parents. For some reason the image of the University of Oregon within the State has never corresponded to the reality of the educational quality which is available here. It is high time we got this message out.
This recruitment and retention effort will be led by Gerry Moseley, the Assoc. Provost for Student Affairs. He and Jim Buch and others in Student Affairs have developed a whole program of actions directed at this purpose. You will be hearing more about it in the days to come.
For the moment, however, I want to emphasize just one aspect of the educational life of the University which is critical for the view which students have of us. We are committed to what is surely a noble endeavor, the intellectual and personal growth of the young people who come to the University. It is essential then that we communicate to these students that we care deeply about their education and that we are here to help them to learn and to understand. It is not enough to say it, of course; it must be shown in the way we respect them as individuals and encourage them in the achievement of academic goals. This kind of carring.g for our students may well be the greatest single influence in attracting the best young scholars of the State to come to the University, and in changing that image of the University of which I spoke earlier.
Planning
At this point I want to turn to a rather,r different consideration, namely, the general matter of institutional planning. Such a discussion is not out of place here, since it is intimately related to our budget and to the state of the University, or at least to its future state. The subject seems to me to take on a special importance since it has been raised frequently of late in so many discussions, for example, in the faculty, group sessions last July, in Advisory Council meetings, and elsewhere among the faculty.
Let me begin by saying that there is a good deal of mythology and perhaps even of wishful thinking, in much of this talk about planning. There seems to be a feeling that somehow everything would be all right, our problems would be neatly solved, if only we were "planning" -- and this is accompanied by a belief that, because faculty do not know in detail what is being done along these lines, then we must not be doing anything. Perhaps it would be best, therefore, if I were to begin by describing what we are doing and what we are not doing.
There are in fact various planning processes currently underway. One of these is the long range academic planning I asked for in my inaugural address a year ago. It is an effort to get a reasonable clear picture from the colleges and departments, and from the faculty in general, of what we believe this University should be some five to ten years from now. This must come initially from the teaching and research faculty, because only they know and understand the major changes in their disciplines and the expected central topics of academic interest in the next few years. I did not ask that this be done either as a budget reduction exercise or, on the other hand, as an ideal wish list for the future. The latter is unattainable; the former (and we have had experience of this) does not call forth a balanced evaluation of an appropriate academic future, as we would wish, but rather stimulates only a circling of the protective wagons to defend presently held territory. What I did propose is that this be carried out on the hypothesis of roughly stable funding.
The process is now partly completed, with a broad range of college, school and departmental proposals currently in hand. Some of these overlap, or are in conflict, or make unreasonable demands on other units, but the next step is to try to examine and work out these difficulties and disagreements, and arrive at a fairly comprehensive, but undoubtedly still incomplete, view of what we might reasonable want to achieve in the coming years. This is being carried forward under the direction of the Vice Provost in charge of planning, Paul Holbo. His view, and I am sure that it is the correct one, is that our goal is more a process than a fixed plan, because we shall surely be adjusting it and changing it constantly as we go along. But this then represents a central effort at a modest examination-= tion of the long range academic goals of the University, so that we shall have a standard or purpose against which to measure our decision-making.
A second, and shorter term, planning process is being carried out in the Provost's Office where our current budgetary planning takes place. For the last two and a third years, which is the full life span of the present administration, these budgetary planning procedures have been almost entirely concerned with the need to respond to frequent, large reductions in our funding.
The methodology used has been first of all to have immediately available in the Provost's Office complete data on all college and department budgets, and also on the faculty and student FTE, student credit hours generated, critical academic and other needs, and everything else which might be relevant to the decisions which have to be made. When the long range academic planning process described above has produced a description of what we would like to achieve in the next several years, that too will become a central part of this assemblage of data.
Then, when a budgetary decision is required as a result of a change in our funding, a proposal for such a decision, or even a number of alternate proposals, can be made quickly on the basis of the data at hand. Any decisions on budget cuts which have a broad effect on the University are then presented to the Faculty Advisory Council, the Council of Deans, and the University Assembly for discussion and comment. In general, alternative possibilities will be available. For example, last June when I was prepared to go before the Assembly to discuss the possible discontinuation of a number of outreach functions, the Provost had several alternative possibilities ready for consideration -- although I should add here that every one of them included a gradual phasing out of the outreach activities in one way or another.
At this point, the issue of "planning in advance" for budget cuts customarily gets raised. In fact, the usual form (and this was proposed at several of the faculty's July sessions) is to argue that the President ought to have in hand a predetermined priority list of what is to be cut. For some reason this seems to be regarded as better for everyone and less painful. But how and why? We do not know in advance whether, how large, and of what nature the cuts will be. Surely then the President's priority list should not be made public, for the all-too-familiar reason of the self fulfilling prophecy. We could destroy whole programs that perhaps need not have been destroyed.
Should we then have secret priority plans, known only to a few in central administration? For us to take actions privately in accord with such secret plans is, of course, totally unacceptable in a university such as ours. But if the plans are not acted on until the budget reduction has been announced, we can just as well wait until the specific need is there. Having the data available that I referred to earlier, there is always time enough to make the necessary decisions in response to the actual situation -- and to make them then at least as well as we could far in advance. Realistically, of course, those of us involved in such planning have inevitably been discussing all along various alternative possibilities, but, for all the reasons I have stated earlier, we avoid actually making fixed decisions in advance of the time when we can begin to discuss them publicly.
I should make note here of one additional feature of our present budgetary process. We now have in place a new and thoroughly detailed budget reporting system, in which the Director of the Budget presents monthly (and, in certain periods of the year, twice monthly) a complete, written report on the status of our budget, including all the various.s reserves and the uses to which those reserves are dedicated. This report is made to a newly created Budget Advising Committee, chaired by the President, which includes a number of members of the central administration, as well as a representative from the Faculty Advisory Council and two of the deans. This committee will help in monitoring the budget and its changes, and will be involved in budgetary planning based on proposals coming from the Office of the Provost and the other Vice Presidents. It should help to make the budgeting process more regular and more open. We hope also, before long, to have in place a programmed budget cycle which will specify the precise times, inputs, and procedures for the various unit.s of the University in the preparation of our annual and biennial budgets.
There has also been one rather more special planning exercise recently undertaken, which was occasioned by the comming retirement of Vice-President Ray Hawk on December 31 of this year. We decided to take a fairly careful look at the central administrative structure of the University and see what changes might be appropriate. A number of people, including the Faculty Advisory Council and the Council of Deans, have been involved in this effort, and we also received many related communications from others in the University. Along the way we did consider several fairly extreme departures from the present structure, but, not too surprisingly, ended up with something pretty close to what we have now.
Nonetheless, a number of specific changes will be made. Let me describe just a few of the more important of these: (1) In the future the Budget Director will report directly to the President and will serve as staff for the new Budget Advisory Committee; (2) the Vice-President for Administration, rather than the Director of Business Affairs, will be the Contracts Officer for the University; (3) there will be, when we can afford it, a new position of Internal Management Analyst under the Vice President for Administration, charged with examining whether we are using our work force intelligently and efficiently; and (4) the Museum of Art, which has been under the Vice-President for Administration, will report to the Vice-President for University Relations, with the clear understanding that the Museum also plays an important role as a teaching function for Architecture and P.Allied Arts. There are some other changes as well which need to be indicated here.
Other things are happening, of course, such as extensive formal planning efforts in many of the individual units of the University, and various administrative discussions and retreats aimed at identifying, and seeking solutions to, some of our major institutional problems, but I will not take the time now to describe all of that.
Finally, however, I do not want to leave this subject without dealing with one troublesome belief that is held by a fair number of the faculty, namely, that there exists a significant deficiency in our planning. The criticism asserts essentially that the future, for the long term, will be based on much lower funding for the University, and that we should now be doing comprehensive, systematic, strategic planning to prepare for this -- but we are not doing it. Please note that the reference here is to an anticipated long-term, lower support level, as distinct from the sudden budget cuts, triggered by immediate revenue crises, which we discussed earlier. The point of this criticism is, in a word, that we ought to begin at once the gradual process of more or less permanently cutting back the University. Clearly, such cutting back would have to be done openly, involving the faculty and, indeed, the whole University community.
This sounds fine in the abstract, clear, well-organized and efficient. But how would we do it? Everyone's favorite model is to cut out some whole piece of the University, normally someone else's piece. But it isn't that simple. If the plan proposed to discontinue one of the professional schools, we would, of course, save all of the salaries and the other costs of running it. On the other hand, we would lose the tuition paid by the students who come to that school. For several of the schools this would, in fact, already eat up all of the savings. For others it would not, but surely the State would not continue to pay the entitlement for the students who no longer came to that school and, in every case, for the professional schools this is just about as much or more than it costs to run them. The State would, of course, save the money previously spent on this entitlement, but I do not regard it as credible, if the State's purpose is to reduce funding, that they would accept this alone as a way to save money and would continue to fund the rest of the University precisely as before.
Equally clearly, we could not eliminate major Arts and Science departments. We might perhaps be able to discontinue a few of the smaller ones and we could cut outreach functions, but the savings would be minimal.
The only way we could successfully plan to cut back the University would be to do so by a program of removing positions everywhere throughout the institution. This could not be a uniform, across-the-board reduction, of course; it would have to be selective, department by department. And I remind you that the whole idea is that this systematic reduction be done in anticipation of the funding reduction, that is, at least a year or more in advance.
What effect would this have on the quality of the University of Oregon? There are those who argue that this whole process would be accompanied by an enrollment reduction (indeed, it would undoubtedly help to stimulate such an enrollment reduction) and they say that if the faculty decrease and student decrease were proportional, then quality will have been maintained. But the quality of a university is not the student-faculty ratio. The quality is, above all, the quality of the faculty. I have referred earlier to the remarkable number of first-rate teacher/scholars on our faculty and the offers they have been receiving from many of the leading research universities in the United States. They are joined here by an excellent group of younger faculty for whom outstanding academic colleagues are the principal attraction. If we were to embark now on the orderly decline I have described above, we would quickly lose all of these best people -and our young faculty scholars with them. The resultant effect on the strength and quality of the University is so obvious that the usual angry adjectives would not do it justice.
There is an additional important sense in which cutting back now in anticipation would be a self-fulfilling prophecy beyond just the fact that most of our best people would quickly leave. It is that we would have paralyzed our ability to fight for the strength and quality of the University. How can we argue with our Governor and legislators, and with the citizens of the State, for the importance of the University of Oregon, for the need to receive adequate support and funding, for what a University of this excellence can contribute to economic development and to the quality of life of=the State, how can we go out (as proposed in Chancellor Davis's Campaign for Excellence) and try to attract the best young minds of Oregon to the University -- how can we be doing all of this if at the same time we have set publicly in motion an essentially automatic plan for the decline of the University. We would hardly be taken seriously.
Lastly, let me come back to the question of what is the reason for creating comprehensive, systematic plan to cut back the University severely in anticipation of long term reduced support. It is only to make the process of decline more orderly. And that is probably true -- it would, indeed, make it more orderly -- but the plan itself would guarantee the decline, and in my judgment that is simply not worth the price. I believe we must continue to take the risk of fighting to preserve and to build the University. We must have faith that we have something of real quality, something worth saving, and that we can save it, not just for ourselves, but also for the sake of our future students and for the people of Oregon.
Before closing, I want to make one remark in a completely different vein. It is more or less personal and I speak out of my own feeling, not in any way as a matter of University policy.
We are here today discussing and planning the future of the University. We care about the students we will teach and the research that will be done, and we are worried about funding cuts, enrollment drops, the University's image -- anything at all that might imperil our basic educational and scholarly purpose. We are properly concerned about the future of this institution, its faculty, its staff and its students. Yet all of these things -- funding, enrollment, image -- can change, and even if we should perchance fall on the worst of times, there is always the hope that our lot can eventually be made better.
But there is now facing us a threat utterly unlike anything we have known, so terrible, so total, that there may be no possibility of recovery, indeed no possibility of survival at all. I refer, of course, to the menace of nuclear war.
Everything we believe in for the University and its people -- and for the whole world about us -- could be destroyed, in the most utterly literal sense of that word. And yet the nuclear arms race goes on and the superpowers of the world continue to seek marginal advantage in the ability to annihilate a little bit more that which they already have the power to annihilate many times over. In the face of this, all of our others concerns seem trivial and insignificant.
If there is any sense at all in our caring for the future of this institution
and its students, then it seems to me that the first, the most consuming,
priority for all of us must be to work for the elimination of all nuclear
weapons and the total end to the nuclear arms race. The vote across the
nation yesterday in support of the bilateral nuclear arms freeze is heartening
evidence of how widely this feeling is shared. I believe that only the
concerted will of the people of this country and the world can end this
horror -- and we are all a part of that people.
The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President
Paul Olum at 1535 on December 8, 1982 in room 150 Geology. There being
no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of November 3, 1982 were approved
as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CERTIFICATION OF FALL TERM GRADUATES. No representative of the Academic Requirements Committee was present to read the motion for Certification so President Olum made the following motion: "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 Fall term 1982 the degrees for which they have completed all requirements " The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote of the Assembly.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
DISCUSSION
President Olum introduced Mr. Lies Anderson, a past member of the Oregon Governor's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, to make a short presentation on the work, findings and recommendations of the Commission. Mr. Robert Wilner, who is on detail from the U. S. Department of State to work with the Commission and now with the Oregon International Council, joined Mr. Anderson in this presentation.
The University of Oregon and the State System of Higher Education are
impacted by the recommendations of the Commission as it has made specific
recommendations on curriculum offerings in the schools of this State in
foreign languages, social science, and international studies, as well as
teacher preparation for these areas. The Chancellor of the State System
has also presented admission requirement changes for the System that tie
into the recommendations of the Commission. Together the two sets of recommendations
attempt to chart a course for education in Oregon in the future and the
Chancellor has given specific dates for the alteration in the admission
requirements. The State Board of Higher Education will vote on these requirements
at its December 17th meeting in Portland. The
faculty discussed the issue of admission requirements at some length
and in a straw vote of those present (about ten percent of the voting faculty)
indicated unanimous support for the Chancellor's recommendations with the
exception of foreign languages, and that 1985 should be the year for implementation.
The vote on the foreign language requirement had some negative votes, but
the overwhelming majority of those present voted in favor and the year
1987 for the date of the requirement. President Olum emphasized that the
vote was non-binding and not a representative vote of the entire faculty.
In the discussion on the questions raised by the State of the University address in November meeting of the Assembly, President Olum stated that the salary increases would be on March 25 and June 1. The total amount would be 11.5% and has been built into the budget for the next biennium by the Governor as part of the base salary. The Governor has added about 2% to the June 1 increase, thus increasing what had been a 9.1% increase for the academic year 1981-82 to the above mentioned 11.5%.
President Olum announced that the College of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance has been changed to the College of Human Development and Performance with the approval of the Chancellor. This new title for the College more correctly describes its academic mission.
NEW BUSINESS
President Olum recognized Mr. Dan Allen, SUAB, who read the following motion:
"that this university assembly should adopt the following motion:
"1) Graduating seniors with at least sixty credits earned in residence prior to the term of graduation at the University of Oregon will be awarded university graduation with honors based on the following criteria:
Cumulative GPA of:
3.55 - 3.69 Cum Laude (10%) - graduation honors 3.7 - 3.79 Magna Cum Laude (5%) - graduation honors 3.8 - 4.00 Summa Cum Laude (2%) - graduation honors
"2a) That these predetermined figures correspond with a distribution of the following
top 10% for Cum Laude top 5% for Magna Cum Laude top 2% for Summa Cum
Laude
"2b) In addition, these honors would not substitute for, nor would
it supercede, the program by which some departments and schools of the
University designate graduation "with honors".
"3) That the interpretation, review and correspondence to cummulative grade point averages be delegated to the Academic Standards Committee and that committee's decision on such matters be included in the University Catalog. This legislation asks that this committee review the GPA requirement regularly, but in no event less frequently than every four years.
"4) That this enabling legislation for graduation with honors shall be effective at the end of the term in which it is enacted by the University Assembly and that every effort shall be made to include the notation on the student transcript, in the graduation program, and on the diploma as appropriate."
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 1710.
K. Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR SUAB LEGISLATION FOR UNI\'ERSITY POLICY CONCERNING GRADUATION WITH HONORS
WHEREAS:
1) That in noting that until around 1971, the University did have a program of recognition for high scholarship among graduating seniors. Those with a GPA of 3.75 - 4.00 were awarded "Recognition for Highest Scholarship"; candidates who achieved a GPA of 3.50 - 3.74 received the award of "Recognition for High Scholarship". This program ceased to exist when a new grading system was adopted, one which precluded compilation of GPA's.
2) That research into all other Pac 10 universities and the public universities which are members of the AAU (consisting of the top 20 public universities in the nation) reveals that the University of Oregon is the only institution in the Pac 10 without a university-wide policy of graduation with honors.
3) That the Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, and Summa Cum Laude, are nationally recognized graduation honors and have received widespread support from the students at the University of Oregon. Further, that most of the Pac 10 universities use the Latin titles and so the University of Oregon would be consistent with other nationally recognized universities by doing so.
4) That upon implementation of these Latin titles that the following benefits will result:
a) Encourage prospective students to matriculate at the University of
Oregon.
b) Complement the Chancellor's current campaign for excellence.
c) Provide further incentive for enrolled students to maintain
a higher standard of academic achievement.
d) Assist graduates in gaining admission to graduate schools and in
attaining employment.
COSTS:
The Office of the Registrar has estimated that the costs to determine and affix honors on the diplomas as approximately $1,000. The costs to include honors within the graduation pro,ram and on the transcript have not been estimated.
The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President
Paul Olum at 1535 on January 12, 1983 in room 150 Geology. There being
no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of December 8, 1982 were approved
as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEMORIALS
VAL LORWIN MEMORIAL. Dr.. Stanley Pierson presented a memorial for Professor Val Lorwin who died December 7, 1982. Professor Lorwin served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1957 until his retirement in 1973. The text of this memorial is included on page 3 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.
PROMULGATED RULES REGARDING THE LICENSING, USE, AND PARKING OF BICYCLES ON THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS. President Olum announced that the proposed rules on the licensing, use, and parking of bicycles on the University campus have been officially promulgated and went into effect on January 6, 1983. Copies of the rules are available in the offices of the Vice Presider.t for Administration, Public Safety, and Secretary of the Faculty. These rules, if violated, could cause a citation to be issued or the impounding of the bicycle.
VICE PRESIDENT FOR UNIVERSITY RELATIONS. A memorandum has been sent to each member of the faculty asking for suggestions on the composition of the office of the Vice President for University Relations. Faculty members who wish to make comments or suggestions have until the end of January to do so.
THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN OREGON. The University has reproduced the proposed plan for higher education in Oregon, 1983-87 and sent to each faculty member. A public hearing on this plan will take place on campus in Fenton Hall Room 110, January 20, at 7:30 p.m. Persons wishing to make comment at this meeting will be able to sign up to do so the evening of the meeting. Written comment can be sent to the Office of the Chancellor.
POSTPONEMENT OF THE MATH REQUIREMENT. President Olum announced that fiscal considerations have prompted the University Administration to postpone the scheduled date of the implementation of previously enacted legislation creating a math requirement for the B.S. degree in the Fall of 1983.
The decision to postpone the requirement prompted considerable debate in the Assembly. Questions about the actual cost of implementation were raised and the Dean of the College of Arts and Science, Mr. Robert Berdahl, stated that the figure was roughly $130,000. Mr. Theodore Palmer, Mathematics, disputed this figure and said that his department could, with very little added money to the Math budget, absorb the additional enrollment. Mr. Thomas Brady, History, asked if this was not really a curriculum decision and should not the faculty make the decision in accordance with the University Charter. President Olum agreed that the faculty had a right to discuss the decision to postpone and that if members of the Assembly wished to have the item discussed it could be placed on the agenda for the February meeting of the Assembly.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, was recognized to present the Report of the Curriculum Committee. Mr. Jones made a motion that the Assembly accept the Report of the Curriculum as amended by the Senate. The amendment deletes the names of the instructor after the course description in the catalog. The Senate vote was unanimous on the Report as amended.
Mr. Richard Brown, History, was recognized and he asked that the amendment be rejected by the Assembly as the instructorís name in association with the course description is too valuable for on and off campus use and should remain. Provost Richard Hill stated that he felt that some legal implications might be attached to the fact that the course was taught by someone other than the person listed and thus the name should not appear. The question was called for after a short debate, and the amendment was defeated by a very strong voice vote of "no".
President Olum proceeded to go through the Report page by page and some minor corrections were made in the copy. The Chair of the Committee on the Curriculum, Mr. LeRoy H. Klemm, recorded the changes/corrections as they were made. The question was called for and by a voice vote unanimous approval was given to the Report.
The motion concerning the "Formal Noting of Summa, Magna and Cum Laude on Diplomas" was postponed until the University Senate reports the results of the study they are making on the motion. This motion will be on the agenda at the February 2 meeting of the Assembly.
Mr. Glen Love, English, read the following resolution: "We, the University Assembly, support Governor Atiyeh's budget of 3.3 billion dollars for the coming biennium. The level of funding for higher education in this budget represents an important first step in reversing the long and serious decline in state support for higher education in Oregon. We urge the legislature to support the Governor's budget and to provide the means necessary for funding essential state services." Mr. Alan Kimball, History, stated that he would support this motion as he saw it as a positive step and that it is the proper business of the faculty to express themselves in such matters. Mr. Robin Dawes, Psychology, felt that the proposal was self-serving and that it would not do the University any good by taking a stand on the budget of the Governor. Mr. Sanford Tepfer, Biology, moved to table the motion. This was seconded. (the parliamentary rules of the University Assembly requires a two-thirds vote to table a motion and no debate on the motion to table is allowed.) The vote of the Assembly showed 32 in favor of the motion and 29 opposed. The motion to table failed. Debate continued for a short period. Mr. Tom Brady, History, moved to postpone indefinitely. This was seconded and the vote was a clear "no". The question was called for the Resolution passed by an overwhelming majority.
MATHEMATICS DISCUSSION: Mr. Theodore Palmer, Math, introduced the following Resolution for consideration at the February 2 meeting of the University Assembly: Resolved that this Assembly wishes to implement the mathematics requirement for the Bachelor of Science degree in Fall 1983 as previously decided."
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1650.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
With the death of Val Lorwin a few weeks ago the University community
lost one of its outstanding figures. Val was a historian and social scientist
with an international reputation. He was also a man of rare charm, wit,
and sensitivity.
Val Lorwin joined the faculty of the University of Oregon in 1957, one of a number of appointments in the middle and late fifties which greatly strengthened the scholarly mission of the University. He had recently completed a major study of the French labor movement, published by Harvard University Press. It remains a standard work in the field. As a member of the History Department Val taught courses in general European history, the history of France, European economic history, as well as seminars in comparative labor movements and the development of the European economic community. In his teaching, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, Val established many close and enduring relationships, his students can be found on faculties of colleges and universities across the country.
Val was born July 21, 1907 in New York City. His father, Lewis Lorwin, was an economist and scholar active in international labor organizations. Following Val's graduation from Cornell University, he gained a Masters degree at Ohio State and later returned to Cornell for his doctorate. In 1930 he married Madge--well known to many of you as a wonderful hostess, cook and gardener, and author of a beautiful book on Elizabethan cooking.
Val started a career with the federal government during the 1930's serving as an economist under the National Recovery Act and later working for the departments of Labor and Agriculture. During World War II, like a number of the outstanding historians and social scientists of his generation, he served in the Office of Strategic Services. After the war he became an official in the State Department, with special responsibilities in the field of international labor. He also helped to lay the economic groundwork for the Marshall Plan. The Lorwins provided hospitality in these years for many of the European labor leaders who visited Washington.
In 1950 Senator Joseph McCarthy named Val as #54 on his list of known communists serving in the government. For the next four years Val was a victim in one of the ugliest episodes in American history. During this period he was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury and accused of perjury in denying his Communist ties. Val bore this ordeal with courage and dignity and, I think, came through it without personal bitterness. Mr Lorwin was subsequently cleared when it was demonstrated that the evidence against him had consisted of lies used by a Justice Department lawyer.
In 1954 Val joined the Department of Industrial Relations at the University of Chicago, a position which he held until he came to the University of Oregon. During his years at Oregon Val wrote articles dealing with various aspects of European economic and political life, articles which have been much cited. Several have been anthologized. In the nineteen sixties he worked with a small and prestigious circle of social scientists in Europe and America who were engaged in a comparative study of the smaller democracies of Europe. Val's own contribution to the study of Belgium was recognized in 1969 when the King of that country made him an "Officer of the Order of Leopold." Val's achievements as a scholar earned him many grants and fellowships including awards from the Social Science Research Council, the Center for Behavioral Studies at Stanford,the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, the Guggenheim, the Ford, and the Rockefeller foundations. He also served as a visiting professor at the Universities of Lyon, Cornell and Harvard.
Following his retirement from the University in 1973 Val continued his work as a scholar -- bringing to that activity the passion for social justice which was one of this distinguishing characteristics of his life. He also served on the Eugene Women's Commission, set up to promote affirmative action in this community. And he began a major collaborative study dealing with the role of women in the trade union movements of Western Europe. Just a few weeks before his death the book length manuscript was sent off to a publisher.
Stanley Pierson, Professor History Department
Mr. Chairman, I move that this memorial of Val Lorwin be entered into
the permanent record of this meeting and copies be sent to the Lorwin family.
The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President
Paul Olum at 1537 on February 2, 1983 in room 150 Geology. There being
no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1983 were approved
as distributed.
MEMORIALS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
ALFRED LOMAX MEMORIAL. Mr. Donald Watson presented a memorial for Professor Alfred Lomax who died December 29, 1982. Professor Lomax served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1919 until his retirement in 1959. The text of this memorial is attached to 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 silence.
MATHEMATICS REQUIREMENT. President Olum announced that the Mathematics requirement, that had been originally passed by the Assembly on November 7, 1979 with an effective date of Fall 1981, and postponed from that date to Fall 1983 in April 1981, will be in effect with the beginning of the Fall Quarter 1983. The question of fiscal impact had been studied and the estimated amount of additional funding is around $35,000. President Olum feels that the University will be able to fund the amount. It was noted that the course listed in the original legislation, Computer and Information Science 202 will change to CIS 234. CIS 202 is no longer offered. The Mathematics requirement for the B.S. degree will be effective Fall term 1983 and through Summer term 1985 all new enrolled students who are admitted with 0-29 credit hours will meet the mathematics competency requirement for the Bachelor of Science degree. Effective Fall 1985 and thereafter all new students will meet the mathematics competency requirement for the Bachelor of Science degree.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
President Olum recognized Mr. Dan Allen, SUAB, to read the following motion:
"l) Graduating seniors who have earned at least 90 credits in residence at the University of Oregon and have successfully completed all other University degree requirements shall be eligible for University graduation with honors: Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, Summa Cum Laude. These distinctions shall be based on students' percentile rankings in their respective graduation class, as follows: Top 10% - Cum Laude Top 5% - Magna Cum Laude Top 2% - Summa Cum Laude
"2) The following mechanism shall be employed to determine which students fall into each of the honors categories:
A) the Grade Point Index (GPI's) shall be rounded off to the nearest .05.
B) the GPI groups corresponding most closely to the top 10%, 5%, and 2% of the graduating class shall be awarded their degrees Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, and Summa Cum Laude, respectively.
"3) These University graduation with honors would not substitute for, nor supersede the program or method by which departments and schools of the University determine and designate graduation 'with honors'.
"4A) This legislation implementing the designation of University Graduation with Honors -- Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, Summa Cum Laude -- shall become effective at the end of Spring term 1983, and every effort shall be made to include the notation on the student transcript, in the graduation program, and on the diploma as appropriate.
"4B) The review and compilation of the Grade Point Indexes (GPI's) corresponding to the predetermined percentiles shall be on an annual basis and under the jurisdiction of the Registrar and the Academic Standards Committee. Upon alteration of the corresponding GPI figures with the percentile categories, action will be taken to include this new information in the next succeeding printing of the University Catalog."
Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary to the University Senate, reported that the Senate had voted to approve the motion with only one abstention and no nay votes. Mr. Allen spoke in support of the motion by reporting that an investigation of the distribution of grades by Colleges, Schools, Colleges and Departments did not support the previous assertion that some disciplines would overwhelm the others as they tend to have higher grade ratios. After a short discussion the motion was put to a voice vote and passed with very few dissenting votes.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Bayard H. McConnaughey, Biology, was recognized to read the following:
"whereas the military approach to the solution of human problems is inherently immoral and now poses a clear and immediate threat to the continued existence of humanity -- and whereas military training is inconsistent with the objectives of a good university -- I shall move at the April meeting of the University Assembly:
"That this Assembly recognized that military training is not an appropriate function of the University of Oregon, and that it recommends to the President of the University and to the State Board of Higher Education that all contracts between the University of Oregon and the Department of Defense relative to the ROTC training program at the University be terminated at the earliest date at which this is legally possible."
Mr. Stanley Greenfield, English, was recognized to make a statement to the Assembly concerning the recently circulated memorandum discussing the scheduling of classes. Mr. Greenfield felt that the departments should have been consulted prior to any such change in scheduling procedure as proposed by this memorandum. He stated that he felt the change will prove too detrimental to the educational process and have a major impact on already crowded classes in English and Mathematics.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1622.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
With the death of Professor Alfred Lomax on December 29, 1982, one
of the longest terms of service of a faculty member in the history of the
University of Oregon came to an end A1 Lomax came to this University in
the Fall of 1919 when he was 27 years old and the University was only 43.
He retired from active teaching in 1959 but he continued to attend faculty
meetings and to come to his office in Gilbert Hall until late in the 1970's.
His association thus extended over more than 60 years. He was witness to
the major part of the history of this University up to this time.
Professor Lomax taught courses in foreign trade, transportation, and marketing in the College of Business Administration. In his first years here he was a student as well as an instructor. He earned a Bachelor's degree from this University in 1923 and a Master's degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1927. His publication began even before he had his first University degree. He wrote a large number of articles about trade, transportation and business history. He was the author of a history of woolen mills in Oregon.
He was an earnest student of business history of the Pacific Northwest. He was an active member of the Lane County Historical Society and assisted in the operation of its historical museum.
A1 was an inveterate writer of letters to the editor. He derived pleasure from either adding to an article which he had read or from occasionally correcting what he perceived as errors about events, places, or dates in Northwest history. He felt quite strongly that it was important to record history accurately and as completely as possible.
Professor Lomax was fond of the out-of-doors. He related stories of brown bag lunches on the banks of the Willamette (about where the Autzen bridge is now) with colleagues of the 1920's and '30's either discussing University events or trout fishing. He hiked Cascade trails, tied flies for fishing in streams and lakes, and camped with his family. He thoroughly enjoyed a day at the Coast. He was an accomplished gardener and shared the bounty of his efforts generously with friends and neighbors.
He never wavered in his loyalty and affection for the University of Oregon. As the recent financial troubles were related to him, one could sense a feeling on his part that these are unhappy circumstances, but for one who had survived the growing pains of the 1920's, the depression of the 1930's, and the low enrollments of the 1940's, this situation was perhaps not the worst that he could recall. He did not doubt that we would also survive this time of trouble and emerge in good condition.
Professor Lomax's private life can be characterized as one of stability and constancy. A faculty member at the same institution, for 63 years, living in the same house for 60 years, happily married to Nancy for nearly three quarters of a century, "Pop" as he was affectionately known by both children and grandchildren lived a long and good life. This University and A1 Lomax both benefited from their long association.
Donald A. Watson Professor of Finance College of Business Administration
Mr. Chairman, I move that this memorial of Professor Alfred Lomax be entered into the record of this meeting and copies of the memorial be sent to his family.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2 MARCH 1983
The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President Paul Olum at 1528 on March 2, 1983 in room 150 Geology. There being no corrections, the minutes of the meeting of February 2, 1983 were approved as distributed.
MEMORIALS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
HENRY COOPER MEMORIAL. Mr. Richard Desroches presented a memorial for Professor Henry Cooper who died January 24, 1983. Professor Cooper served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1960 until his death. The text of this memorial is attached to 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 TERM GRADUATES. Mr. John Reynolds, Chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, read the following: "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, 1983, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.'' The Assembly approved by a unanimous voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
President Olum recognized Mr. Sanford Tepfer, Biology, to read the following motion: "It is resolved that the University move to a semester system in which the academic year will begin not earlier than in mid September and will end in early June. This change will take effect in the academic year 1985-86"
Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary, University Senate, reported that the Senate had voted 21 in favor, 13 opposed and 3 abstentions on the motion. Ms. Linda Green, Law, spoke to the motion by reading the information that she had presented to the University Senate during its debate on the motion.
Mr. Gerald Bogen, President of the University Senate, rose to move that the Assembly vote to go into a committee of the whole. The motion was seconded and by voice vote approved. Debate on the main motion took place in an informal manner after which a motion by Mr. Lewis Ward to "Rise and Report an Interesting Discussion" was made and seconded. The Assembly voted to return to formal proceedings and the main motion was put to a vote. By a show of hands the result was 169 in favor and 122 opposed. The motion to move to the semester system was approved. President Olum will make formal application through the Chancellor's office to the State Board for approval to make this change.
President Olum stated that the motion firmly established a mid-September starting date for the academic year.
NEW BUSINESS
In April the Assembly will have the motion by Mr. Bayard H. McConnaughey, Biology, on ROTC, presented at the February meeting, on the floor for discussion and a vote.
Mr. Cheyney Ryan, Philosophy, read the following notice of motion:
"(1) Whereas the practices of the United States Army in the awarding of scholarships are in contradiction with University policies on discrimination, it is resolved that the Military Science Department not involve itself in any way in the awarding of those scholarships.
"(2) Whereas the qualifications for admission into the upper division program of the Military Science Department are in contradiction with University policies on discrimination, it is resolved that the Military Science Department terminate its upper division program.
"(3) Whereas the procedures for the appointment of faculty to the Military Science Department are in contradiction with University policies on discrimination, it is resolved that the Military Science Department cease its involvement in such discriminatory practices.
"(4) The faculty of the University of Oregon reaffirms its commitment to the principle of equal opportunity. If the Military Science Department can not comply with the above directives, it is resolved that the Military Science Department be terminated."
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1707.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
1928 - 1983
For those of us who came to the campus after the mid-sixties, Henry Cooper had seemed almost a "permanent fixture" (so to speak) of Friendly Hall because he was for so long associated with the language laboratory that he directed.
With his death on January 24, 1983, the Romance Languages Department lost a quiet, but faithful, faculty member whose twenty-two years of service were ended by sudden illness.
Henry Cooper was one of those rare individuals one seldom meets these days -- a native Oregonian. He was born in Salem in 1928, attended high school there and received his B.A. degree in French from Willamette University in 1950. He then saw four years of service in the U.S. Air Force before resuming his studies at Middlebury College, and while completing his work in France, he met his future wife, Paulette. After receiving his M.A. degree from Middlebury, Henry was employed for four years as an Instructor at Willamette University where he taught language courses and was instrumental in helping with their newly installed language laboratory. It was no doubt his interest in the benefits of laboratory work in the teaching of foreign languages that led to his eventual employment at the University of Oregon.
Henry enrolled at the University as a graduate student of Romance Languages in the summer of 1959 and continued as such until 1964, but as his initial appointment as half-time Instructor of French became more demanding, his status changed to full-time Instructor in 1963. At that time, large sums were being spent by the federal government on foreign language teaching and the installation of language labs, but interested and trained operators were not easily found. Henry's experience and enthusiasm, his skill with the technical requirements of the lab, and his patience and methodical attention to detail eminently qualified him to assume-the directorship of the UO Language Laboratory, a post he held from 1963 to 1974 and again this year until his death. In 1966 he received recognition of his work by promotion to Senior Instructor.
Henry's service to Oregon was not limited to the language laboratory. He taught various French language courses and for years was responsible for the French-for-reading-knowledge course that enabled so many graduate and undergraduate students of other disciplines to master the skills in French needed to complete their degree requirements. From 1967 to 1982 he also was in charge of the French course by correspondence for the Division of Continuing Education. In our department he was the first faculty member named as Head Adviser for undergraduate majors.
Henry Cooper was a quiet, unassuming and unobtrusive person, but he was always ready and willing to help out wherever he could. During the recent tight financial situation, he could be counted on to teach an extra section of a language course or to explain to new GTFs how to use audio equipment in class. On occasion he served as interpreter and translator in Lane County Circuit Court. Because he was such a private individual, there were sides to Henry that we as faculty did not get to know. I, for one, who knew him better than most, was not aware that he participated actively for ten years in the Friendship Family program, often helping foreign students that were not officially assigned to him. After Henry's death, one of his former students paid him perhaps the highest compliment that can be made to one in our profession when he said to me, "Mr. Cooper was such a caring and loving teacher."
Richard H. Desroches Associate Professor of Romance Languages
Mr. Chairman, I move that this memorial be entered into the record of
this meeting and copies of the memorial be sent to the family of Henry
Cooper.
The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President
Paul Olum at 1528 on April 6, 1983 in room 150 Geology. There being no
corrections, the minutes of the Meeting of March 2, 1983 were approved
as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Olum discussed the University Excellence Program and announced that in two weeks the University will have the students fill out a "course demand" statement. This will allow the University to see which courses will be overfilled in the Fall 1983 term.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Bayard McConnaughey was recognized to read the following motion: "That this assembly recognizes military training is not an appropriate function of the University of Oregon, and that it recommends to the President of the University and to the State Board of Higher Education that all contracts between the University of Oregon and the Department of Defense relative to the ROTC training program at the University be terminated at the earliest date at which this is legally possible." Mr. John Sherwood, English, rose to "Object to Consideration of this Question." This required no second and vote of two-thirds to pass. The objection is not debatable. The hand vote on this objection was 37 to consider and 45 not to consider. The objection failed. Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, read the vote of the Senate on the McConnaughey motion: 5 yea, 23 no, and 5 abstentions. Mr. McConnaughey spoke to his motion pointing out that the military expenditures are harmful to a viable economy, that the danger of nuclear war was ever increasing and that the time for people to demand a stop to this danger must start somewhere. He concluded by stating that military training is inappropriate to the purpose of education. Mr. Gordon Murphy, Biology, read the report of the University Senate on the debate concerning this motion. After further discussion Mr. Paul Holbo, History, call the previous question. This was brought to a vote, requiring a two-thirds majority, and was passed 76 yes, and 24 no. The motion was called for and the hand vote showed 27 in favor of the motion and 86 opposed. The motion was defeated.
Cheyney Ryan motion was postponed.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Vernon Barkhurst, Student Affairs, was recognized to read the following motion: "Proposed changes of Student Code of Conduct: Legal Authority 571-21-010 (1) (f) Referees. Upon recommendation of the Student Conduct Committee, the President shall appoint a panel of persons as referees for the Student Conduct Program. The referee shall be authorized to impose any disciplinary sanction listed in Rule 571-21-020 of this Code with the exception of revocation of degree, expulsion, suspension, or negative notation on record (or eviction from University owned or supervised housing.)
Jurisdiction
571-21-015 (2). For the purpose of enforcing the Code of Student Conduct,
student is defined as any person who has submitted an application for
admission, housing, financial aid, or any other service provided by
the University which requires student status; any person who is registered
for one or more credit hours, or who is enrolled in a special non-credit
program approved by the University. Jurisdiction is maintained between
periods of enrollment unless the individual gives written notice to the
Office of Registrar of an intent to withdraw prior to the expiration of
the published deadline for registration for the succeeding period of enrollment.
For students enrolled in the spring term, jurisdiction is maintained until the expiration of the published deadline for registration for the succeeding fall term. Student organization is defined as any group of University of Oregon Students applying for and meeting the criteria for group registration or recognition established by the ASUO or its designee. Conference with Coordinator
571-21-045 (d). Impose any sanction listed in Rule 571-21-020 of the Code of Student Conduct except expulsion, revocation of degree, (suspension) or negative notation on transcript; and may use suspension only to enforce the execution of unfulfilled sanctions meted by authorized persons under the Code of Student Conduct.'
Mr. Douglas Straton, Religious Studies, was recognized to read the following resolution: "Be it resolved by this faculty that the following open letter be sent to the President of the United States, and that copies be sent to our sister faculties of the Association of American Universities, with a message urging them to adopt a like-minded resolution to send to the President. "Dear President Reagan:
Whereas we recognize that the Russian homeland has suffered invasion-from foreign conquest three times within a period of 130 years -- under Napoleon, under Allied forces at the close of World War I, and under Hitler in World War II -- with, in the most recent invasion, the loss of some twenty million citizens of the Soviet Union;
And whereas we realize that these experiences have caused a great fear of the West in the minds of the Russian people, and the build-up of their armaments to match our own:
We therefore urge that the United States under your administration move forthwith to an international, summit meeting with the Soviet leadership; with the express purpose of acknowledging the necessity, and exploring the possibility of achieving a phased reduction, and ultimate elimination of the atomic armaments that now threaten the ongoing history of the human race, and perhaps the existence of all life on this planet Earth.
We further urge specifically that the conference determine ways whereby such a reduction and elimination may now commence, and be achieved, in terms of a pledged, balanced, mutual dismantling of a given number of nuclear launch missiles each year (with the warheads factor included); with procedures of mutual, verifiable inspection agreed upon, and operative until the task of nuclear disarmament is accomplished.
Finally, we recognize that a process of reduction must begin with a moratorium in the production and emplacement of such weapons; that at some point the momentum to build and to deploy nuclear weapons has to be terminated.
Respectfully yours, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. John Sherwood, English, has presented the following motions and resolutions to the Secretary for inclusion to these minutes so that they will be on the floor at the May 4, 1983 meeting of the Assembly. Notices of Motion: "Any motion intended to alter the status or internal organization of any instructional unit of the University shall be ruled out of order unless it originates with the instructional unit itself or with the University Curriculum Committee. This motion is not intended to refer to actions concerning University requirements or to administrative decisions based on budgetary considerations."
"Ordinary standards of academic freedom shall apply equally to the classroom and to the Assembly. Faculty members should feel free to express their personal political convictions in a political context but not to use the classroom or the Assembly as a captive audience."
Resolutions: "The Assembly politely requests the President to convey to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second their hearty congratulations on the glorious resolution of the Falklands crisis."
"The Assembly equally condemns the Nicaraguan persecution of the Moskito Indians and the actions of those Americans who support murder and vandalism in Northern Ireland."
"The Assembly supplicates the President to open meetings with the following prayer: O Almighty Lord God, who for the sin of man didst once drown all the world, except eight persons, and afterward of thy great mercy didst promise never to destroy it so again; we humbly beseech thee, that although we for our iniquities have worthily deserved a plague of rain and waters, yet upon our true repentance thou wilt send us such weather, as that we may receive the fruits of the earth in due season....Amen. (If the weather changes, the prayer for rain may be substituted.) Meetings will conclude with the singing of the Star Spangled Banner."
"Be it resolved, that structural incongruity is essential to a liberal university."
"Though it may not be common knowledge, the Soviet Union, and Tsarist Russia before it, have had a dismal record of unprovoked attacks on weaker nations. (Insert here a history of Russia from any standard encyclopedia.) Accordingly, the Assembly earnestly exhorts the President of the United States to use the greatest circumspection in arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. (To be moved as a substitute for Professor Straton's motion)""
"In view of the alarming incidence of Herpes, the Assembly strongly recommends to members of the University community who do not have the gift of continence that they confine their sexual activities to monogamous relationships, preferably within the bonds of holy matrimony. Furthermore, pitying the plight of university graduates who cannot get teaching jobs because of the decline in the school population, the Assembly recommends that, where qualifications are equal, preference in new appointments shall be given to candidates who give promise of raising large families; and to reconcile this principle with affirmative action, the Assembly urges free child care facilities for married faculty. (To be moved as a substitute for Professor Ryan's motion.)"
Motion: "Be it moved, that one can of worms is equal to any other can of worms."
ADJOURNMENT
the meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1635.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. John Reynolds, Chairman, Academic Requirements Committee, was recognized to read the following: "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 Spring term, 1983, and Summer term, 1983, the degree for which they have completed all requirements." President Olum called for a vote and it passed without dissent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Cheyney Ryan, Philosophy, was recognized to read the following motion:
"(1) Whereas the practices of the United States Army in the awarding of scholarships are in contradiction with University policies on discrimination, it is resolved that the Military Science Department not involve itself in any way in the awarding of those scholarships.
"(2) Whereas the qualifications for admission into the upper division program of the Military Science Department are in contradiction with University policies on discrimination, it is resolved that the Military Science Department terminate its upper division program
"(3) Whereas the procedures for the appointment of faculty to the Military Science Department are in contradiction with University policies on discrimination, it is resolved that the Military Science Department cease its involvement in such discriminatory practices.
"(4) The faculty of the University of Oregon reaffirms its commitment to the principle of equal opportunity. If the Military Science Department cannot comply with the above directives, it is resolved that the Military Science Department be terminated i' The Secretary of the University Senate, Mr. Holway Jones, was recognized to read the vote of the Senate on this motion: 20 in favor, 6 opposed, and 2 abstaining. Mr. Ryan was recognized to speak to the motion. He read a long statement that outlined why the motion was necessary and quoting at various times from the University Catalog, University rules and Army regulations. The Army ROTC Unit must meet the requirements of the Defense Department in Commissioning officers and the granting of scholarships. Because the Defense Department does have rules that are in conflict with a part of the stated University Affirmative Action plan the motion is necessary to bring the ROTC Unit into compliance with University procedure and practice or the Unit will have to vacate its position on campus. Mr. Richard Schmuck was recognized to give the report of the University Senate. Discussion on the motion followed. Mr. Paul Holbo, History, was recognized and he moved "the motion be postponed indefinitely." This motion received a second and the President explained that it would take a two-thirds vote to pass and was a debatable motion. The motion to postpone was in fact a motion to kill the original motion. Mr. Holbo stated that his proposal should have universal appeal as it allowed people to decline taking a position and yet kill the main motion.
President Olum surrendered the Chair to Mr. Richard Hill, Provost. Mr. Olum joined the Assembly so he could read a statement on the main motion. Other individuals spoke to the main motion at some length. Mr. Jim Lemert, Journalism, moved the previous question. This was seconded. A number of individuals who wished to speak to the main motion still had not been recognized to speak at the time the question was called for. The vote was by a show of hands: 176 in favor and 98 opposed. The motion to "Postpone indefinitely" was passed and the main motion was dead.
President resumed the Chair at this time.
RESOLUTION. Mr. Douglas Stratton, Religious Studies, read the following resolution:
"Be it resolved by this faculty that the following open letter be sent to the President of the United States, and that copies be sent to our sister faculties of the Association of American Universities, with a message urging them to adopt a like-minded resolution to send to the President. "Dear President Reagan:
Whereas we recognize the number of invasions that the Russian homeland has suffered from foreign armies within a period of 130 years since Napoleon; and particularly the enormous loss of life to the Soviet Union in the war with Hitler: -
And whereas we realize that these experiences have caused a great fear of the West in the minds of the Russian people, and the build-up of their armaments to match our own: -
We therefore urge that the United States under your administration move forthwith to an international, summit meeting with the Soviet leadership; with the express purpose of acknowledging the necessity, and exploring the possibility of achieving a phased reduction, and ultimate elimination of the atomic armaments that now threaten the ongoing history of the human race, and perhaps the existence of all life on this planet Earth.
We further urge specifically that the conference determine ways whereby such a reduction and elimination may now commence, and be achieved, in terms of a pledged, balanced, mutual dismantling of a given number of nuclear launch missiles each year (with warheads factor included); with procedures of mutual, verifiable inspection agreed upon, and operative until the task of nuclear disarmament is accomplished.
Finally, we recognize that a process of reduction must begin with a moratorium in the production and emplacement of such weapons; that at some point the momentum to build and to deploy nuclear weapons has to be terminated.
Respectfully yours, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Straton spoke in support of his motion and urged the Assembly to vote in favor as it was necessary for people to speak out at this crucial time in the history of the earth and all living things. After a short discussion Mr. Ivan Niven, Mathematics, moved that the motion be tabled. This was seconded and by a hand vote the necessary two-thirds to table was counted: 66 in favor and 26 opposed. The motion was tabled.
STUDENT CONDUCT CODE. Mr. Vernon Barkhurst, Student Services, stated that he wished to postpone consideration of his motions on the Student Conduct Code until the June 1 meeting of the Assembly.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Vernon Barkhurst, Student Affairs, was recognized to read the following motion: "At the June meeting of the University Assembly, in behalf of the Student Conduct Committee, I will move that the Student Code of Conduct be amended to add a section regarding enforcement as follows:
"571-21-071. Dispositions of conduct cases prepared by hearings officers, referees, the Conduct Program Coordinator and minor tribunals authorized under the Code will provide clear instructions regarding the time limit within which prescribed sanctions are to be fulfilled. In the absence of mitigating circumstances the Coordinator of the Conduct Program shall block further registration of a student who has an unfulfilled sanction as long as the student continues to be delinquent in that respect."
This new motion will replace "571-21-045 Conference with Coordinator" motion that was introduced at the April 6 meeting of the Assembly.
Ms. Katherine Eaton, Chairwoman, Committee on Committees has submitted the following series of motions for the consideration of the University Assembly at the June 1, 1983 meeting:
"On behalf of the Committee on Committees, I move the following:
"1. To amend the legislation establishing the Distinguished Service Awards committee by substituting "University Senate" for "Faculty Senate" and deleting reference to the Academic Occasions Committee (which no longer exists.)
"2. To abolish formally the Educational Experimentation, Innovation and Improvement committee established by Assembly legislation since it no longer functions.
"3. To amend the legislation establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity committee by deleting the appointment of a member representing the Classified Affirmative Action Committee as this committee no longer exists.
"4. To amend the legislation establishing the Council for Minority Education by striking "appointed by the President for overlapping three-year terms" after the words "faculty members are to be" and inserting "appointed by the Committee on Committees under terms in operation for faculty committee appointment".
"5. To amend the legislation establishing the committees on Ethnic Studies,
Medical Technology, Patent Policies, Radiation Safety, Student Health Service
Advisory, Teacher Education and Traffic Appeals Board as follows:
a. Transfer the administration and jurisdiction of the Ethnic Studies
committee to the College of Arts and Sciences.
b. Transfer the administration and jurisdiction of the Medical Technology
committee to the Department of Health Education.
c. Transfer the administration and jurisdiction of the Patent Policies
committee to the Graduate School.
d. Transfer the administration and jurisdiction of the Radiation Safety,
Student Health Service Advisory and Traffic Appeals Board committees to
the office of the Vice-President for Administration.
e. Transfer the administration and jurisdiction of the Teacher Education
committee to the School of Education."
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting of the Assembly adjourned at 1730.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order by President
Paul Olum at 1535 on June 1, 1983 in room 150 Geology. The President recognized
the Secretary to make a correction in the minutes of May 4, 1983. On page
1, line 7 from the bottom of the page the words "two-thirds" should be
"majority." The line should read "...and the President explained that it
would take a majority vote to pass and was .." There being no further corrections,
the minutes of the meeting of May 4, 1983 were approved.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MEMORIALS
IRMA SHERWOOD MEMORIAL. Mrs. Thelma Greenfield presented a memorial for Professor Irma Zwergel Sherwood who died May 3, 1983. Professor Sherwood served as a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1946 until her death. The text of this memorial is attached to 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.
ELECTION RESULTS. The Secretary was recognized to read the results of the recently concluded faculty election. Elected to the Faculty Advisory Council to serve a two-year term: Michael Ellis, Glen Love, Mavis Mate and John Moseley; to the Faculty Personnel Committee: Roger Chickering, Collette Craig, Richard Schmuck and Donald Van Houten. Elected to the University Senate from the College of Arts and Science: Ross Anthony, Gerald Fry, Emmanuel Hatzantonis, William Loy, Barbara Mossberg, David Moursund, Jean Stockard, Alvin Urquhart, and Louise Wade. Elected to the University Senate from the Professional Schools and Unaffiliated Group: Gerald Bogen, Lorraine Davis, Janet Descutner, Katherine Eaton, Larry Neal, David Povey, Lawrence Ross, Robert Sylwester, and Lois Youngen.
FACULTY PERSONNEL COMMITTEE. Mr. Benton Johnson, Chairman of the Faculty Personnel Committee, was recognized to make the annual report for that committee. Mr. Johnson's full report will be attached to the minutes of October 1983. In his oral report the Chairman stated that the caseload remains heavy, deadlines for submission are being ignored and the University must do a better job of reviewing candidates for tenure at hire. At present the standards for those on the faculty going for promotion and/or tenure are much more rigorous than those applied to outside candidates for positions on the faculty who are granted tenure at hire.
FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Mr. Aaron Novick, Chairman of the Faculty Advisory Council, was recognized to give the annual report of the Council. The full report is attached to these minutes and commences on page 7.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES. Ms. Katherine Eaton, Chairwoman of the Committee on Committees, was recognized to make a statement from that committee concerning the status of committees on this campus and faculty participation. The full report is attached to these minutes on page 10.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The President recognized Mr. Vernon Barkhurst, Associate Dean of Students,
Conduct Coordinator to read the following motion: "Proposed changes
of Student Code of Conduct:
Legal Authority
571-21-010 (1) (f) Referees. Upon recommendation of the Student Conduct
Committee, the President shall appoint a panel of persons as referees for
the Student Conduct Program. The referee shall be authorized to impose
any disciplinary sanction listed in Rule 571-21-020 of this Code with the
exception of revocation of degree, expulsion, suspension, or negative notation
on record, [or eviction from University owned or
supervised housing.]
Jurisdiction 571-21-015 (2). For the purpose of enforcing the Code of Student Conduct, student is defined as any person who has submitted an application for admission, housing! financial aid, or any other service provided by the University which requires student status; any person who is registered for one or more credit hours, or who is enrolled in a special non-credit program approved by the University. Jurisdiction is maintained between periods of enrollment unless the individual gives written notice to the Office of the Registrar of an intent to withdraw prior to the expiration of the published deadline for registration for the succeeding period of enrollment. For students enrolled in the Spring term, jur~sdiction is maintained until the expiration of the published deadline for registration for the succeeding Fall term. Student organization is defined as any group of University of Oregon Students applying for and meeting the criteria for group registration or recognition established by the ASUO or its designee.
Conference with Coordinator
571-21-045 (d). Impose any sanction listed in Rule 571-21-020 of the
Code of Student Conduct except expulsion, revocation of degree,
[suspension] or negative notation on transcript; and may use suspension
only to enforce the execution of unfulfilled sanctions meted by authorized
persons under the Code of Student Conduct."
"571-21-071. Dispositions of conduct cases prepared by hearings officers, referees, the Conduct Program Coordinator and minor tribunals authorized under the Code will provide clear instructions regarding the time limit within which prescribed sanctions are to be fulfilled. In the absence of mitigating circumstances, the Coordinator of the Conduct Program shall block further registration of a student who has an unfulfilled sanction as long as the student continues to be delinquent in that respect."
The President stated that each of the three parts would be voted upon separately. Mr. Holway Jones, Secretary of the University Senate, gave the vote of the Senate as unanimous on part I. Mr. Barkhurst spoke to the motion and Mr. Mike Prothe, Senate Reporter, gave the report of the Senate. After a short debate the question was called for and Part I received unanimous approval from the Assembly. Part II was now under discussion and Mr. Jones reported that the vote of the Senate was 27 yes, 3 no. Mr. Prothe gave the report of the Senate and stated that the Senate had inserted the letters A, B, and C to designate the definition of a student more clearly. Mr. Barkburst stated that the amendments were viewed as friendly and were accepted as a part of the motion now under discussion as well as other changes. Part II now reads: "Jurisdiction. 571-21-015 (2). For the purpose of enforcing the code of student conduct, student is defined as: A: any person who has submitted an application for admission, housing, financial aid, or any other service provided by the University which requires student status; B: any person who is registered for one or more credit hours; or C: who is enrolled in a special non-credit program approved by the University. Jurisdiction is maintained between periods of enrollment unless the accused individual's official record in the Office of the Registrar shows a complete withdrawal prior to the expiration of the published deadline for registration for the succeeding period of enrollment. For students enrolled in the Spring term, jurisdiction is maintained until the expiration of the published deadline for registration for the succeeding Fall term. Student organization is defined as any group of University of Oregon students applying for and meeting the criteria for group registration or recognition established by the ASUO or its designee." As altered, Part II was passed by a voice vote without any dissent. PART III was now presented for discussion. Mr. Jones reported that the Senate had passed Part III by a vote of 18 in favor, 10 opposed and one individual abstained. Mr. Barkhurst made a short statement explaining Part -III and why it was needed as an addition to the Student Conduct Code. Mr. Prothe reported the Senate debate. After a short discussion Mr. Sanford Tepfer, Biology, moved that Part III be referred back to the Student Conduct Committee for an overhaul. After a second the question was called for and the Assembly, by voice vote, agreed to refer Part III back to the Committee.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES. The president recognized Ms. Katherine Eaton, Chairwoman of the Committee on Committees, to read the following motion: "1. to amend the legislation establishing the Distinguished Service Awards Committee by substituting 'University Senate' for 'Faculty Senate' and deleting reference to the Academic Occasions Committee.
"2. to abolish the Educational Experimentation, Innovation and Improvement Committee established by Assembly legislation. (no longer functions)
"3. to amend the legislation establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee by deleting the appointment of a member representing the Classified Affirmative Action Committee. (no longer exists)
"4. to amend the legislation establishing the Council for Minority Education by striking 'for overlapping three-term terms' after 'appointed by the President'. (provides for recommendations by Committee on Committee with usual terms)
"5. to amend the legislation establishing the committees on Ethnic Studies, Medical Technology and Teacher Education as follows:
"a. transfer the administration and jurisdiction of the Ethnic Studies Committee to the College of Arts and Sciences.
"b. transfer the administration and jurisdiction of the Medical Technology Committee to the Department of School and Community Health.
"c. transfer the administration and jurisdiction of the Teacher Education Committee to the School of Education."
The President ruled that all five parts would be considered individually. Mr. Holway Jones reported that the Senate had passed all five parts of the motion. Mr. Kenneth Ramsing, Senate Reporterr made a short statement concerning the debate in the Senate. Ms. Eaton stated that the Committee on Committees felt that the motions would help clean up the committee structure on the campus.
Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 were passed by the Assembly by voice vote. Part 5 caused considerable debate and was broken into its natural division of three parts. Debate continued and questions concerning the intent of the motion was raised and when the question was called for each of the three parts (a, b, and c) were voted upon individually and defeated. The Assembly accepted only Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of these motions All of Part 5 was defeated.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. James Lemert, Chairman of the Committee on Faculty Governance, was
recognized to read the following motion which will be on the agenda
at
the November meeting of the Assembly: "1. Changes in Voting Membership
in the University Assembly. "2. Establishment of a Quorum in the University
Assembly.
"3 Changes in the University Senate
"A. Delegation of legislative authority to the University Senate.
"B. Redefinition of Senate membership.
"C. Changes in procedures for nomination and election of senators.
"D. Limiting regular meetings of the University Assembly to four per
year.
"4. Transfer of Committee on Committees and Standing Committees to
the Senate.
"5. Provides Recognition for Service to the University.
"6. Provides Release Time for Senate President. (To be presented only
if
motion 3 is approved.)
"7. Adoption of the Proposed Rules of Governance, Draft VIII, Dated
6/1/83."
The entire proposal on Faculty Governance is attached to these minutes starting on page 11.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the University Assembly adjourned at 1708.
Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly
1918 - 1983
To the Medieval poet Geoffrey Chaucer, May the third was a day of ill omen. To the English Department of the University of Oregon, May third, 1983, was a day of irreparable loss. On that day, Dr. Irma Sherwood, one of the best of our colleagues and teachers, died at the age of sixty-four; and to move forward two centuries from Chaucer to Shakespeare, we must acknowledge with Hamlet's sad certainty that we "shall not look upon her like again."
Dr. Irma Zwergel Sherwood was born in Queens, New York, in 1918, and educated at Barnard College and Yale. She taught briefly at Sophie Newcomb College of Tulane University and at Cornell. She came to the University of Oregon in 1946, helping among other things, to bring fresh improving winds of innovative change to the English department writing program.
Dr. Sherwood raised a family of three children, Martha, Jerry, and Sarah, and then launched a full-time career at the University in 1965. A diligent University and department committee woman, she also served as director of department graduate studies from 1975 to 1977. She taught introductory courses, often enormous ones, with the same success that she achieved among upper division and graduate students, proceeding with an honorable respect for her subject matter and her students alike. It was a measure of her mind and temperament that in her area of Eighteenth Century studies, her special interest was with that great conversationalist, scholar, man of letters, and noble individualist, Dr. Samuel Johnson.
If Dr. Johnson had been a woman he might well have been Irma Sherwood, for Dr. Sherwood, too, was a noble individualist, a learned "original," with no self-consciousness or pretense.
Humorous and anecdotal, her teaching was at the same time intellectually weighty; still she could startle a drowsy afternoon freshman class awake with a sudden rendition of the Dentyne chewing gum commercial; and I have seen her in her younger years making a dignified journey across the old campus on roller skates. Always innovative, she kept up with scholarly developments, as is testified to by her course in Eighteenth Century women writers.
Beyond the boundaries of the campus, Dr. Sherwood was active at scholarly meetings; she helped to bring Shakespeare to the community through public lectures in Eugene and, for many summers, in the Ashland area. She and her husband, Professor John Sherwood, were the model wife and husband academic team, sharing an interest in the same literary field, surprising us with their unexpected insights into the human comedy at large, and yet maintaining independently the pursuits of their respective professional careers.
Despite accumulating health problems, Dr. Sherwood taught energetically and incisively a full load of classes until the day she died. At the end, to a group of devoted students, she taught Johnson's "Vanity of Buman Wishes," and one of the students has asked me to include in these remarks the following six lines from that poem:
Pour forth thy fervors for a healthful mind, Obedient passions and a will resigned For love which scarce collective man can fill; For patience sovereign o'er transmuted ill; For faith that, panting for a happier seat, Counts death kind nature's signal of retreat.
"Simply and splendidly competent," "scholarly," "thorough," "inspirational," are the words students apply to her teaching style. "A gallant spirit," wrote her colleague George Wickes, announcing Irma Sherwood's death to the department, and to such praises one may add that she was a woman with a full measure of what Dr. Johnson called "a healthful mind."
Thelma Greenfield Professor of English
Mr. Chairman, I move that this memorial be entered into the record of
this meeting and copies of the memorial be sent to the family of Irma Sherwood.
In addition to expecting to respond to the flow of events of the
year, the Faculty Advisory Council at its first meetings in the Summer
of 1982 decided to consider matters of importance which would not be expected
to appear on the continuing agenda of issues of the day.
The major areas the Council decided to address during the year included (1) undergraduate education, (2) governance, and (3) planning. Concern for improving undergraduate education carried over from the 1981/82 FAC. That Council left a proposal to create a task force which would be supplied with staff assistance. The Task force would be asked to study undergraduate education at the University with the objectives of finding ways of improving our curriculum and recruiting more outstanding students, of devising means of allocating more resources for teaching but not at the expense of research, of seeking ways of increasing leadership responsibility for administrative faculty, and creating a better sense of unity among our diverse curricula. Unfortunately, the continuing budget crisis made it impossible for the President to allocate the requested staff support.
The Council studied the matter further and recommended that a more limited study be made. It asked the President to appoint a committee which would consider how our present governance structure and often isolated decision making affect the coherence of our undergraduate program. It would also examine whether the present rewards system adversely affects excellence in teaching and advising. This committee has yet to be appointed.
The Council early recognized the major problem with governance - low faculty involvement in the Assembly and in the committee system. It appointed a task force of seven faculty, including two members of the FAC and asked it to (1) survey faculty opinion of present governance, (2) examine models with a more powerful delegate senate and consider the role of the Assembly in each, (3) review the eligibility for participation by the various sectors of the University, (4) consider how the committee system could be improved, (5) examine the scope of faculty governance, (6) examine the role of the various advisory committees, and finally, (7) if it sees fit, prepare and introduce legislation for improving governance.
This Task Force conscientiously and skillfully engaged these changes throughout most of the year, a task requiring far more time than at first expected. It succeeded in preparing a comprehensive set of recommendations. At the - suggestion of- the Council, the Task Force presented its proposals for informal review by Faculty and Students at a public forum on May 18. After hearing the reactions of Faculty, Students and some of the Administration, the Task Force redrafted its proposals. It plans to introduce them as a Notice of Motion to be considered at the November 1983 Assembly.
The Council, in appointing th