Minutes of the University Assembly Meeting October 24, 2003
(Note: The fall term University Assembly
meeting is held in conjunction with Convocation)
President
Dave Frohnmayer welcomed everyone to the fall meeting of the University
Assembly and Fall Convocation.
Before continuing with the proceedings, the president noted that a
number of former faculty member were known to have passed away in the year
since last fall assembly for convocation:
Virgil C. Boekelheide, Professor of Chemistry
Kenneth
A. Erickson,
Professor, College of Education
David G. Foster, Professor of Art
LeRoy H. Klemm, Professor of Chemistry
Wolfgang A. Leppmann, Professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures
Lawrence C. Maves, Jr., Associate Professor of Music
Arthur
Mittman,
Professor, College of Education
Jesse L. Puckett, Professor of Physical Education
Emory F. Via, Professor and Director, Labor Education and Research Center
Christof A. Wegelin, Professor of English.
Shirley J.Wilson, Professor and Dean of Students
After
listing those tenure-related faculty members know to have passed away, and
providing a brief summary of their contributions to the university, he asked
for a standing moment of silence in their memory. (See Addendum A for memorial listings. The secretary also notes receipt of the
annual Faculty Personnel Report for inclusion with these minutes as Addendum
B.)
STATE
OF THE UNIVERSITY
The
president opened his remarks by recalling the monumental scientific work of professor
George Streisinger with zebrafish on our campus. He noted that professor Streisinger looked beyond what
seemed not to be possible and persevered in his beliefs and with his ideas. The president noted that we, too, must
continue to see what is possible, even in the face of naysayers. Mr. Frohnmayer continued his remarks by
noting the many bright spots in his 10-year presidency as well as a few
disappointments. He noted with
pride the recent opening of the new Lillis Business Complex and the upcoming
meeting of the prestigious AAU members on our campus. Finally, invoking the words of former UO President Frank
Strong, who declared that the university should be “the center of the
intellectual life of the state”, President Frohnmayer encouraged the faculty
to be dedicated to their individual tasks, assuring them that they, like
Streisinger, are just as capable of unlocking the secrets of life and of
radiating “streams of influence touching every part of the
commonwealth.” (See Addendum
C for full text of the president’s remarks.)
WELCOME
REMARKS FROM THE UNIVERSITY SENATE VICE PRESIDENT
University
Senate Vice President W. Andrew Marcus, standing in for Senate President Lowell
Bowditch, who was unable to attend, welcomed everyone to the beginning of the
new academic year, especially the new faculty members. Noting that although research is one of
the three main functions of faculty at AAU institutions, he wanted to focus his
comments on the experience of teaching and service at the University of Oregon. Mr. Marcus attested to a source of
pleasure for him at the UO, namely, the way in which staff, students, and
faculty work collaboratively to create a supportive, active and exciting learning
environment.
Mr. Marcus
reminded the assembled group of the rich liberal arts tradition of the University
of Oregon displays, and what such an environment contributes to faculty lives
as teachers. He noted several
personal experiences that he felt certain new faculty would experience as well:
that students, faculty, and staff take great pleasure in teaching and learning,
and that this attitude fosters an ethos of camaraderie and shared endeavor that
was different from any other institution at which he had worked. Mr. Marcus did not want to trivialized
problems that the university has so much as expresses his believe that there
are concerted, joint efforts by the campus community as a whole to address
issues and problems that arise.
Lastly,
Mr. Marcus encouraged the new faculty members to take full advantage of the
rich teaching support resources available to them, and, over time, to become
active participants in the campus system of shared governance. He concluded his remarks with a warm
welcome to the university.
INTRODUCTION
OF NEW TENURE-RELATED FACULTY MEMBERS
Provost
John Moseley and his personal welcome to everyone, especially the new faculty
members. He commented on the high
quality of the newly arrived faculty members, touting the strength their
credentials. He called on each of
the deans and department heads to introduce new members of their schools,
colleges and departments, noting a short biography of the new tenure-related
faculty members was included with the convocation program. He also reminded everyone of the
reception for the new faculty members immediately following the faculty
processional (See Addendum E for text of the new faculty biographies.)
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty
______________________________________________________________________________________
ADDENDUM
A – Memorials
for tenured faculty members known to the university who have passed away during
the past academic year (2002-2003).
· Kenneth A. Erickson, Died April 4, 2003. Professor,
College of Education. Professor Erickson joined the UO in 1967
as director of the Field Training and Service Bureau in the College of
Education. Erickson’s impact
on public schools in Oregon was far reaching. He received a Distinguished Service Award from the American
Association of School Administrators. After retirement, he continued to write books and remained
active in his church. Colleagues,
family, and friends have established the Ken Erickson Memorial Scholarship in
memory of his leadership and his ongoing commitment to students and
professional educators.
·
Arthur
Mittman, Died May
14, 2003. Professor College of
Education. Professor Mittman was recruited
in 1963 from the University of Iowa to a joint appointment by the UO Department
of English and the College of Education Education Psychology Program. Mittman was one of the early developers and
co-founders of the American College Testing Program (ACT College Entrance Exam). On campus he was a leader in designing
and delivering the college’s research and statistical sequence for
graduate students in a manner that made this content accessible and useable. A caring professor and mentor, he offered
his expertise related to statistics and research design to many graduate
students conducting quality theses and dissertations. He retired in 1987.
ADDENDUM B – Faculty Personnel Committee Annual Report
for 2002-2003
Faculty Personnel Committee
2002-2003
Report to the Senate
The
Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) has now completed its work for the 2002-2003
academic year. The FPC consists of ten elected faculty members and two student
representatives (when possible). The faculty members each have one vote and the
students are non-voting participants in the deliberative process. Five faculty
are chosen from the College of Arts and Sciences and five from various
professional schools. The faculty on this year's committee were: Dare Baldwin
(Psychology), Tom Bivins (Journalism and Communication), Dianne Dugaw
(English), Tom Dyke (Chemistry), Mark Johnson (Philosophy), Randall Moore
(Music), Chris Phillips (Mathematics), Ying Tan (Art), Jim Terborg (Business),
James Tice (Architecture). Mark Johnson served as Chair of the FPC, and the one
student representative was Mena Ravassipour.
During the
2002-2003 academic year, the FPC advised the Provost on thirty-six cases
involving tenure and/or promotion. The breakdown of the cases was as follows:
Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure 18
Tenure Only 4
Promotion to Professor 13
Senior Instructor with Tenure 1
The FPC
held seventeen meetings during the current academic year, each lasting from one
and one-half to two and one-half hours. In addition, each faculty member spent
approximately two to three hours per week reading files. Each member was
responsible for writing the FPC report on three to four cases, which required a
substantial additional time commitment beyond merely reading a file.
Most of
the files were very well prepared, adhering strictly to the guidelines found in
two key sources: (1) A Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the
University of Oregon (Office
of Academic Affairs), and (2) Timetable and Guidelines for Recommending
Promotion and/or Tenure for Faculty Members (Office of Academic Affairs). We strongly urge
everyone connected with the preparation of tenure and promotion files to follow
these guidelines carefully, which would remedy many of the problems encountered
by the FPC each year in evaluating the files.
Every year
the FPC Final Report includes a litany of complaints about the preparation of
files plus pleas for strict adherence to guidelines. This year's FPC is no
different in this respect. We have singled out the following issues for special
attention, based on specific problems we encountered with a small number of the
files we were reviewing.
·
Every
professional school that has a separate promotion and tenure document should
include a copy of it in the file. Because standards for research quantity and
quality may vary across fields and disciplines, it is crucial to have an
explicit statement of expectations and standards for research, as well as for
teaching and service. These standards should be applied in a consistent fashion
for all cases within a specific department, college, or school, and they should
be consistent with university-wide guidelines.
·
University
guidelines specify a maximum of six to seven letters from outside reviewers. We
believe that each file should contain at least five letters and not more than
seven, unless special circumstances dictate otherwise, in which case the
reasons for this variation should be provided. This year we saw the number of
external letters range from four to ten or more.
·
It is
important to explain the reputation of any schools and programs of the external
reviewers, within the candidate's field(s). It should be made clear why the
reviewer is qualified to evaluate the candidate's work.
·
The
same materials for review should be sent to all of the reviewers, unless there is
a compelling reason for not doing so, in which case an explanation for the
difference should be given in the Department Head's evaluation letter.
·
Ample
time for a considered response from external reviewers is crucial. The FPC
recommends a minimum of two months (and preferably longer) between the receipt
of materials and the deadline for the reviewer's report. We noted one case in
which the period between the date of the letter requesting the review and the
deadline for the review was less than a month!
·
The
FPC noted more than one occasion when there was an obvious discrepancy between
the assessment of external reviewers and that of the candidate's department or
school. When this occurs, the reasons for this should be addressed by the
Department Committee and/or Department Head's letter. Deficiencies and
strengths alike should be examined.
·
Connections
between the candidate and external reviewers should be explained in detail,
minimally in brief statements identifying the reviewers, but also, if
appropriate, in the Department evaluation. Some units did an outstanding job of
this, while others left us speculating, without evidence to resolve our doubt.
·
Each
evaluating unit (especially at the department level) should give explicit
guidance concerning the significance, if any, of the ordering of authors for
publications and grants. Also, the extent of the candidate's contribution to
publications and grants should be clarified
·
Each
department should provide an explanation of the relative weighting to be given
to various types of publications, such as peer-reviewed book chapters,
peer-reviewed articles, non-peer-reviewed articles, peer-reviewed conference
proceedings, extended abstracts, and so forth. The FPC members cannot be
expected to know these weightings for areas outside their fields.
·
In
support of the previous three comments above, we strongly recommend that each
department supply a list of publications (separate from that provided in the
c.v.) from the date of appointment or last promotion that (a) classifies each
publication according to such categories as: peer-reviewed article, scholarly
monograph, peer-reviewed book chapter, refereed conference proceedings,
textbook, non-refereed article, etc., and (b) indicates (with an underline or
asterisk) faculty co-authors.
·
It
should be made clear in the Department Committee evaluation how we are to
regard various types of books listed by the candidate. First, are they research
books, textbooks, or some other kind of scholarly publication? Second, what is
the department, school, or college's policy on the relative weighting of
scholarly research monographs versus textbooks? Third, to what extent are books
of various types to be considered scholarly or creative activity? It should be
made clear on the c.v. which books are primarily textbooks, and when
appropriate, information about such books should be included in the teaching
section of the file.
·
It is
extremely useful to have an account of how courses are grouped by various
departments and schools in calculating teaching averages and comparing them to
department means.
In
closing, the members of the FPC once again wish to express their gratitude for
the excellent work of Ms. Carol White. Her efficient and highly professional
handling of the details and mechanics of the processing of the files helped us
do our job better and kept us on track. Carol cracks the whip with a gentle
hand.
ADDENDUM
C – State of the University Address – President Dave Frohnmayer
CONVOCATION 2003
October 24, 2003
Dave Frohnmayer, President
University of Oregon
“THE ZEBRAFISH TALK”
Thank
you. Foundation Trustees,
Colleagues and Honored Guests.
This is the address you may remember as “The Zebrafish
Talk.” I would guess – perhaps even bet – that no other
college or university president in America – let’s say the world
– will offer a beginning of the year talk to faculty, staff and guests
that will be entitled “The Zebrafish Talk”, perhaps for good reason
– not withstanding this 50th anniversary of Crick and
Watson’s elucidation of the DNA double helix, and the dawn of the Age of
Biology – but we’ll see.
Let’s
look at the Zebrafish, because I believe that the zebrafish – Danio
rerio – and
its story at the University of Oregon, says a great deal about where and what
this university is. Zebrafish, Danio
rerio, are
freshwater fish that were originally found in slow streams and rice paddies and
in the Ganges River in East India and Burma. They were brought to the
University of Oregon by George Streisinger. George Streisinger is rightly considered by his peers to be
the founding giant of zebrafish research. At the end of his life, his evolving
research focused on how genetic mutations affect nervous system development in
lower vertebrates. Dr.
Streisinger’s research made major and lasting contributions in
deciphering the genetic code, understanding the nature of frameshift mutations
and the structure of the T4 phage genome.
He dreamed
of using the power of the same molecular principles to study the genetics and
development of a vertebrate. As a fish hobbyist who knew how easy it was to
raise and maintain zebrafish, he began using it as a model system. The fish was
small enough to keep the large numbers required for genetic studies and large
enough to do classical embryological manipulations such as
transplantations. It also was
especially suited to this work because the zebrafish female carries its embryo
outside its body and the embryo is transparent, therefore allowing scientists
to observe the development of life in a fertilized egg from the very first cell
division. Its genome is humblingly similar to homo sapiens. It is an extraordinarily powerful
investigative tool and it was brilliant of Streisinger to have selected it as
his model organism.
And, more
than 15 years before Dolly the Scottish sheep achieved fame, zebrafish had been
cloned here at this University – the first vertebrates to be cloned in
the history of science. This was a
daring step and Streisinger was keenly aware of the skepticism of some of his
colleagues. He had waited ten
years to publish his very first zebrafish paper in the eminent journal, Nature. It took courage, confidence and commitment to carry forward
with his work.
Following
Dr. Streisinger’s untimely death in 1984 from a cardiac arrest while
preparing for his scuba diving certification, his lab members strove to keep
his research progressing. In a letter written one week later, one of his postdocs,
David Jonah Grunwald, describes the loss to the lab. "Our lab and the
Institute were very devoted to George. He extended an enormous amount of
enthusiasm and support for our work and for our personal lives. George had very
broad interests that spanned beyond the borders of his expertise. Virtually all
members of the Institute (of Molecular Biology) discussed, sporadically or
often, their scientific results with him. His range of interests, his
willingness to reflect on the activities of others, and his generous spirit
combined to make him a central force in guiding and maintaining the communal
atmosphere of the Institute."
Fortunately
for the future of zebrafish research, Dr. Charles Kimmel, a professor in the
Institute of Neuroscience, who had been encouraged by Dr. Streisinger to work
with zebrafish, stepped in to "adopt" the lab and to continue the
work in developmental genetics.
George Streisinger’s research legacy is still being carried on by
his colleagues at the University of Oregon. These include the labs of Drs.
Charles Kimmel, Monte Westerfield, Judith Eisen, and John Postlethwait. Today, the Zebrafish International Resource Center main facility
measures 10,000 square feet. There are four additional research laboratories
and a significant data base facility for zebrafish-related research.
Professor
Streisinger’s proven use of the zebrafish in research has spread to 350
developmental and genetics labs in more than 30 countries. At least one has produced a Nobel Prize
winner. Many of the mutant strains
produced in the Streisinger Lab are still alive and well in labs throughout the
world and are being used to help provide answers to human and animal health
issues, therapies for genetic diseases, mechanisms for understanding human life
processes at their core – and providing a well-deserved legacy for a true
pioneer. During the course of his
scientific career, Dr. Streisinger was given several prestigious awards. He was
a Guggenheim Fellow in 1972. In
1975, after being at the University of Oregon for 15 years, he was selected as
a member of the National Academy of Sciences, making him only the second
Oregonian to receive this distinction.
And now,
as many of you may have read in the full-page article in the Oregonian science section on Wednesday, we
have just received grants totaling $15 million from the National Institutes of
Health to expand the Zebrafish International Resource Center -- $8 million for
our database from the National Human Genome Research Institute and $7 million
for the stock center from the National Center for Research Resources. We will double the size of our staff to
40 and be able to meet better the needs of the researchers working around the
world on zebrafish projects. The
number of NIH-supported projects in the United States alone has increased from
fewer than 25 to more than 200 in the past decade.
WHY
Why, you may have been asking yourselves
for the past several minutes, am I learning more about an animal called a
zebrafish than I will ever use for the rest of my life? One easy response is that convocations
such as this draw richness from recalling cultural legends and saluting the
heroic paths of daring discovery.
But I also believe that history is prologue, that what has been done
sets a tone for what can and will be done.
In 1925,
long before any of the current challenges facing Oregon could even be dreamed
of, the acerbic journalist from Baltimore, H.L. Mencken had some rather dour
observations about our state: “Oregon,” he wrote, “is seldom
heard of. Its people … hold that all radicals should be lynched. It has
no poets and no statesmen.”
I believe Mr. Mencken’s overview of the state was – perhaps
a bit of an overgeneralization - even at the time. Today, most would argue that at least some change has taken
place.
Yet, it
always is a struggle for any people to put bias aside, respect the beliefs of
others, and bring forth men and women who by their words and actions can truly
be called statesmen. It is a
struggle in which higher education – and specifically for Oregon, the
University of Oregon – has played a vital and historic role. Granted, looking back is, at times, of dubious value. Ambrose Bierce in his
“Devil’s Dictionary,” defined history as: “An account
mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers
mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.” But others have seen the value of history – its means
of enlightening, however imperfectly, the future by means of seeing the past:
its ability to inspire future deeds by example of past ones; its connection
with the men and women of the past, with their accomplishments (and their
failures); and its ability to clear the windshield to the future, if you will,
via the vision offered through the rearview mirror. “History,” wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.,
“by putting crisis in perspective, supplies the antidote to every
generation’s illusion that its own problems are uniquely
oppressive.”
One
hundred years ago Frank Strong was president of the University of Oregon. Shortly after becoming president in
1899, President Strong made a forceful statement on what the life of a
university may or may not become: “The state university,” he said,
“if it fulfills its function, must become the center of the intellectual
life of the state. It has no right to exist unless it becomes the center of
power from which radiates streams of influence touching every part of the
commonwealth.” He was
saying, in effect, that the university – this university – must
play its role in history, within the state and beyond. George Streisinger and his zebrafish
are but one example of that role.
And hard times do not get us off the hook – no pun intended.
10 YEARS
I have
only been president of the University of Oregon for 10 years – a short
time in the now 127-year history of this university – but a long enough
time to understand both the ways in which we have fulfilled that challenge laid
down by Frank Strong – and the ongoing challenges inherent in
“radiating those streams of influence touching every part of the
commonwealth.” In those 10
years. I have seen growth on this
campus unprecedented since the 1920s – growth directly connected to the
quality of the education we offer.
I have seen competitively awarded research grants increase from what could
kindly be called “modest amounts” to this year’s $78
million. I have seen professors in
mathematics, sociology, history, languages, economics, biology and many other
fields push themselves to create innovative classes that stretch the minds of
their students and set examples for their fellow teachers. I have seen the quality of our incoming
freshmen improve continuously as we attract more of the best and the
brightest. I have seen the Oregon
Campaign, the state’s largest fundraising drive ever, raise more than $255
million for student scholarships, endowed chairs, and building and renovation
projects. Each of these things
moves us closer to that ability to “touch every part of the
commonwealth.”
But I also
have seen the downside, the wrenching disappointments born of larger failures
in vision and wisdom. I have seen
state dollars dwindle to the point that we can no longer truthfully call
ourselves a “state supported university,” but rather a “state
assisted” one, and sadly, perhaps only “state located.” I have seen some of our faculty
following the understandable promise of higher rewards and greater investment
in their areas of interest to other campuses. I have seen the rising cost of education creating hardships
for students and families as they struggle to open that door of promise that is
higher education. I have seen the
long-term good of the commonwealth traded for short-term economic and political
gain.
In spite
of these challenges, the good outweighs the bad. Not, I believe, because of
luck or good fortune. Rather because of commitment – exemplified by
George Streisinger -- that enables each one of us here to look beyond the
naysayers, to look beyond “conventional wisdom,” to look beyond the
current “bad climate” . . . and in so looking to see what potential
lies in whatever your own zebrafish – your own passion - may be.
DISCUSSIONS
At the
start of this year, several groups of administrators and faculty gathered to
discuss the coming year. In those discussions we looked seriously and
realistically at the challenges and opportunities that lie before us. I’d like to share a composite of
some of the thoughts that came from these gatherings.
In
approaching the financial challenges of this biennium, we are in a
qualitatively different situation from some of our sister institutions because
of the strength and nature of our enrollment; the variety of our financial
resources; the strength of our capital campaign; and the prudent fiscal
management practices put in place in anticipation of this biennium. We have in our faculty, staff and
students all the resources we need in terms of people; thus we have
"capacity" to get through this biennium without loss of the quality
that is a distinguishing characteristic of the UO. We have some unique characteristics: our size, our beauty,
our collaborative nature and sense of welcome, and our commitment to
transforming lives through knowledge.
This year we are welcoming a new class that is smaller by design but is
the strongest academically and most diverse ethnically that we ever have
enrolled. Our administration makes
an effort to be responsive; to protect and enhance the teaching environment; to
acquire and manage the resources to finance the vision and mission of the
institution. Our faculty is
instinctively collaborative, welcoming, and simultaneously searching for and
creating a deep sense of shared community.
RIBBON
CUTTING
Earlier
today in a ribbon cutting ceremony we opened the UO’s new Lillis Business
Complex. The $41-million Lillis
Business Complex, more than a year and a half in construction, is already being
lauded for its bold design, energy-saving features and state-of-the-art,
innovative instructional capabilities.
This beautifully elegant 145,000-square-foot complex is fronted by a
four-story atrium that features scores of photovoltaic panels, which will
generate a portion of the facility's electricity needs. Carefully positioned
classrooms and offices will be used almost year-round without electric
lighting. In the best recycling
tradition of Oregon, materials salvaged from the site's previous building were
used, along with certified hardwoods and other sustainable resources.
But the
Lillis Business Complex's most significant design features are those that will
foster the high-quality experiential learning and small-group instruction for
which the College is increasingly recognized. Flexible class spaces and
small-group team project rooms are a strong departure from the mammoth lecture
halls that characterize many other major university business schools. But this is not just a business
school. Because of our traditions
of collaboration, almost twenty percent of our university classes will now be
taught in what, quite literally, is the world’s most modern learning
facility.
Perhaps
just as impressive for Oregon taxpayers is the fact that the Complex has been
funded almost entirely with private gifts, the most prominent of which was a
$14 million donation from MediaOne Group Chairman Chuck Lillis, who earned a
Ph.D. from the UO business college in 1972. He and his wife, Gwen—honored
guests with us today--led a fund-raising effort that has generated some $39
million in private support.
This is how we are growing –
through that same enthusiasm and dedication that George Streisinger
represented, only now through others who care that we “radiate those
streams of influence touching every part of the commonwealth.” We aim high . . . and we already have
brought in more than $200 million in private funding in the silent phase of our
next major capital campaign. I
will be back to you before the end of the term with the final details on
campaign priorities. I thank all
of you who have been involved for the work you have done to move it
forward. You will see the fruits
of your labors.
AAU
As you may
know, the University of Oregon is a member of the AAU – the Association
of American Universities. Its 63
members are North America’s premiere research institutions. For us, our membership in the AAU is a
point of pride. We are in the
company of such other institutions as Harvard, the University of Chicago, the
University of California at Berkeley, and the University of North Carolina. In
the nine states that loosely define the northwest corner of the United States,
the University of Washington is the only other member of the AAU. This places us among the elite
universities in the nation. But with that placement comes a challenge –
the challenge to live up to the calling of the AAU, its focus on high standards
and substantial contribution to knowledge discovery that makes a difference in
human lives.
In two
days, the University of Oregon will host the annual national meeting of the
AAU. As such, we will have a chance to show member presidents and chancellors
what makes us both proud and sure of our future. In the life of any university, but especially one facing the
challenges we do today, stress can become a debilitating factor. It can eat
away at the edges or strike at the heart of the work we do. It is a corrosive pathogen. But just as stress and its effects can
be contagious, so can enthusiasm, excitement, and the inner spark that moves us
to our best. George Streisinger
and the zebrafish are one representation – one model -- for how that
spark has been and is still realized the University of Oregon: Multitudes of “zebrafish
programs” thrive at the University of Oregon. I said that George Streisinger’s story might be a
cultural ritual. But that was a
facile answer. It was and is much
more!
A story
that repeats cultural legends gives you a ritual of respect and is worth
recounting. A story that goes
beyond repetition and retells and reassembles the vision of a group is a source
of renewal and therefore an inspiration to growth. But a story that celebrates new insights and a soaring
vision is a story that is transformative for both the individuals involved and
the institutions they serve. This
is why the zebrafish story ought to be important for us. It may be one way to explain a paradox
I have shared with you before: the University simultaneously is one of our
society’s last surviving medieval institutions and, when it serves its
highest function, is one of our society’s most revolutionary modern ones.
The Zebrafish story celebrates the
transformation that can happen at a university -- a transformation replete with
innovative new ideas replicated in the minds and lives of other people -- the
dogged persistence in pursuit of an understanding of life – the unselfish
mentorship of students and fellow colleagues – and the raw excitement in
the joy of discovery. From the
social sciences and the arts, the professional schools to the laboratories, we
are achieving that goal proclaimed by President Strong more than 100 years ago.
CONCLUSION
At the
early part of the 20th century – only a few years after those
remarks by Frank Strong, a former university president, Woodrow Wilson, had the
following thought:
“America,” he said, “is not anything if it consists of
each of us. It is only something if it consists of all of us.” All of us
– Oregonians and beyond – must continue to strive for and practice
this sense of “all of us.”
For 127 years, the University of Oregon has struggled to play its role,
to lead, to offer hope and careers – poets and statesmen – to
fulfill its function as “the center of the intellectual life of the
state.” This is why you and
I are here – this is why we are the University of Oregon.
If you do,
in fact, remember this speech as “the zebrafish talk,” please
remember that the work each one of you do is, in effect, your own zebrafish
because you, too, are unlocking the secrets of life. That is what this university does. A poet unlocks truths about life that may affect us as
profoundly as those a molecular biologist discovers. A legal scholar probes the genesis and interpretation of
social rules that determine whether people in a civilized society can live
peaceably with each other. A
social scientist looks for the patterns of human behavior that help us
understand how life is experienced and changed in groups and under governments. An art historian helps us to understand
life better by seeing how human spiritual quests are reflected in tangible
objects or the arrangements of shapes and colors. All of these things can be done with the same intensity,
same dedication and purpose, and the same flowering of both expected and
unexpected consequences as flowed from George Streisinger’s purchase of a
zebrafish in a pet store in Portland three decades ago. They may not be as dramatic as the
present receipt of $15 million in research support, but they may bear equally
on our understanding of the human condition. All of us, if we are dedicated to our tasks, are just as
capable of unlocking the secrets of life and of radiating those special and
powerful “streams of influence touching every part of the
commonwealth.”
Thank you.
ADDENDUM
D – Welcome Remarks from the University Senate Vice President W. Andrew
Marcus (Note: University Senate President Lowell Bowditch was unable to
attend the meeting.)
Convocation remarks by W. Andrew
Marcus
October 24, 2003
I am here today to welcome you on behalf of the University
Senate, which is the elected body representing students, staff and faculty at
the University of Oregon. Lowell
Bowditch, the President of the Senate, sends her regrets that she could not be
here, and adds her warm welcome to my remarks.
While I want to welcome ALL of you to the university, I
want to place special emphasis on welcoming faculty to this assembly, and
especially those of you who are new faculty. I myself am a relatively recent addition to the university,
having been here just two years.
As such, I can both empathize with the transition that you are making as
new faculty, and reflect on special qualities at Oregon you may find set it
apart from your experiences at other institutions.
Like all major public, liberal arts universities, we focus
our work lives on the triumvirate of teaching, scholarship, and service –
no surprise to you I am sure. And,
like the other 61 members of the Association of American Universities, which
represent the cream of the crop in terms of research, and produce approximately
2/3 of all Ph.D. degrees in the nation, there are many examples of brilliant
scholarship taking place at the University of Oregon. But today I want to concentrate my welcoming remarks on
experiences that are common to all faculty, staff, and students, regardless of
college, discipline, or subfield – that is, the experience of teaching
and service at the University of Oregon.
As a faculty member, and having taught at four other pubic
universities, I can attest that one of the real sources of pleasurable surprise
at Oregon has been the way in which staff, students and faculty work
collaboratively to create a supportive, active and exciting learning
environment. These words are often
mouthed by administrators at other institutions I have attended, to the point
where it can be hard to take such pronouncements seriously. But I am here as a fellow faculty
member to say that there ARE differences at Oregon that truly set it apart. One could go through a long recitation
of programs, activities, and student data to make this point, but I want to
focus on three recent and personal experiences that have captured – for
me – much of the essence of what makes teaching at Oregon a cut above the
rest.
Just this Monday, I was brought to a halt in front of 200 1st
year students, when asked a question that I could not even begin to answer
(which, perhaps, comes as no surprise to those of you who know me) But I was surprised –
o
surprised
because the question had been thought of on the spot by a student applying complex
concepts I had just presented
o
surprised
because the question revealed a deep knowledge of variations around the world
o
and
surprised because this is a course I have taught for 20 years, with no student
ever before raising this point,, including students at two other AAU universities
that will go unnamed.
My point from this experience, and other recent ones like
it, is that as a new faculty member at UO you can expect to be pushed by
students in a very positive manner, and pushed beyond what you may have
experienced in other public institutions.
As a quasi-new faculty member myself, I have found the transition to
teaching the students at Oregon to be, intellectually stimulating, at times
daunting, and always motivating.
Much of the enthusiasm for teaching that pervades the hallways of this
university relates directly to the students – we need to be passionate
about teaching simply to keep up with them.
My second experience, also this week, reminded me of the
rich liberal arts tradition of the University of Oregon and what it contributes
to our lives as teachers. I found
myself advising a new student who is leaving a successful 8 year career as a
computer analyst to embark on a graduate program structured around restoring
streams. What struck me was that
this student had intentionally shied away from Oregon State – which, on
paper at least, seems the more immediately obvious place for studying stream
work that often falls in the category of engineering. But this student, a now ex-computer analyst, had chosen UO
precisely because we ARE a liberal arts school. He wanted to learn not only about the mechanics of restoring
streams, but also about the humanistic traditions that are critical to
understanding how people characterize, use, and relate to streams and
nature. Without understanding this
humanistic component, he knew that his elegant plans might well fall on deaf
ears. Personally, I was also taken
by the rich symbolism of his decision.
Beavers, after all, are the greatest dam builders on earth. He knew that to undo the damage done by
Beavers, one had to become Duck.
My third experience relates to teaching a College
Connections class last year.
College Connections classes are small seminars for 1st year
students offered to help individuals make the transition to university
life. As I experienced this class,
however, I quickly became aware that I was probably learning more from the
experience than the students (although I felt they too gained a great deal from
it). To put it in crude terms,
expressed so eloquently 5 years ago by my then 13 year old daughter, I discovered
that I am QUOTE Terminally out of touch END QUOTE. This pronouncement occasioned by my asking who that voice on
the radio was. When told it was
Britney Spears, I made the fatal error of saying “Who?”
Fortunately, my College Connections students were kinder
and gentler in their treatment of me.
But the reality remained, that as I worked one-on-one with then, talking
about their aspirations, hearing their concerns, I realized that my aspirations
and concerns had perhaps become too far removed from those of this generation
of incoming students. This
discovery has since reverberated into my other classes, where I am now trying
to re-pitch my materials to a generation that – contrary to the
prevailing stereotype – is, I believe, far more socially engaged than
mine ever was.
I take several lessons from these examples.
o
One
is that students, faculty, and staff take great pleasure in teaching and
learning, and that this attitude fosters an ethos of camaraderie and shared
endeavor that is different than any other institution at which I have
worked. The words –
“We value teaching” – are not just words at the University of
Oregon.
o
A
second is that the liberal arts tradition is alive and thriving, and that
regardless of our field of specialization, we need to maintain an individual
commitment to helping our students perceive the value of and engage in a
classically broad education. As a
new faculty member, this has influenced how I advise students, the materials I
teach, and the goals I set for my work.
o
The
third is that we have remarkable tools available to us for teaching and that
these tools may transform us as much or more than the students. Whether it be College Connections,
Freshman Interest Groups, Pathways, the Student Teacher Effectiveness Program,
or one of the many other teaching/learning activities on campus, I encourage
you to participate. As new faculty,
you will find that these activities enrich your lives.
I
have to say, however, that I would be remiss if I pretended that everything
were perfect at Oregon. In
particular, as faculty or students new to the joys of the quarter system, are
any of you waking up at two in the morning, thinking “It’s not possible!
I can’t believe it! We’re almost halfway through the term! I’ll never
finish…” To those of
you encountering the gout-like pangs of mid-quarteritis, I offer these
reassuring words. Faculty who have
been here 30 years are waking up thinking “I can’t believe it! We’re almost halfway through the
quarter…” New faculty
– you are not alone. Some
view this as frazzling. I prefer
to think of it as… energizing.
Finally,
much of what makes the teaching and learning environment so supportive at
Oregon is an intangible that I have never before encountered at a large public
university – a remarkable sense of community within the campus. This sense of shared mission amidst
diverse perspectives comes from many sources, with shared governance being
perhaps the most important source of all.
There is remarkable work going on behind the scenes at this university
– work being done by faculty, students, classified staff, and
administrators. This work is
carried out by the 27 Standing Committees of the Senate, the 16 Administrative
Advisory Groups, and the 8 Externally Mandated Boards, not to mention
short-term task forces, internal committees, and working groups. Policies, recommendations, and actions
coming from these committees provide the framework for all aspects of
university life, ranging from ensuring our commitment to diversity to
overseeing curriculum changes. But
just as most of us don’t think very consciously about the structure of
the buildings we are in – I believe most of us are not conscious of how
much work is being done on our behalf by these many groups.
As
new faculty, or new students, or new staff, I ask that you consider how you
might contribute to the continuation of this structure – to making sure that this sense of shared
community continues into the future.
This is all the more critical in present times, when fiscal constraints
and the need for rapid change are pushing Oregon – and all public
universities – into uncharted waters. We literally have no guideposts or obvious existing models
for how a public university should evolve in order to respond to, and lead, the
world around us. How do we
maintain diversity at all levels, when escalating costs place limits on access
to the academy? How should we interact
with the private sector to replace lost public revenues – or if we should
at all in certain circumstances?
Should curricula respond to a workplace changing by the day? These decisions, and many more, are
upon us now. And decisions we make
now will reverberate far into the future.
By your participation, you can therefore help mold the future at Oregon
for many years to come. Never has
there been a time when it is more critical to have the diversity of your
thoughts, experiences, and imagination at work on behalf of our
university. Please join us in this
endeavor.
Lastly, word are words, and you may think it is easy for me
or administrators to stand up here and heap laudatory praise upon the
university. But actions say far more. What you will find at Oregon is an action
that – to my mind -overwhelms any other indicator of our deeply we
believe in the quality of this institution. That action is the sending of our daughters, our sons, our
loved ones, to this very institution, despite the fact that they had a host of
universities from which to choose. My daughter, the one who told me I am
terminally out of touch, is now taking first year classes - but not from
me. As I look across the stage and
out at the floor, I see many other parents whose loved ones are attending or
have graduated from Oregon. We are
all proud that our children are here.
We are proud of them and their accomplishments, but also proud that we
work in an institution which we regard so highly that we entrust to its care,
the people most precious to us.
To this special place called the University of Oregon, I
bid you welcome.
Welcome!
ADDENDUM E – New Tenure-Related Faculty Members
for 2003-2004
ANTHROPOLOGY
Lamia Karim, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Rice
University, 2001; M.A., University of Michigan, 1993; B.A., Brandeis
University, 1984. Professor Karim’s
research interests include globalization, postcolonial feminism, Islam, NGOs
and civil society in South Asia.
She is currently working on two invited academic projects, "Asian
Nationalisms" and "Feminisms and NGOs” as well as a book
manuscript titled, Development and Its Discontents: NGOs, Women and the
Politics of Social Mobilization in Bangladesh.
CHEMISTRY
Darren Johnson, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of
California at Berkeley, 2000; B.S., University of Texas at Austin, 1996. Professor Johnson and his group use the
new tools of self-assembly and supramolecular chemistry in guiding smaller
molecular units to form three-dimensional nanoscale cage molecules that can
completely surround smaller "guest" molecules. Nature uses a
similar strategy to protect viral RNA inside large protein cages, to store iron
inside of the protein ferritin, and to catalyze important reactions in
enzymes. With this as inspiration, they work to synthesize improved
agents for sensing and cleaning-up a variety of toxic metals and to develop
synthetic enzymes to act as new reaction catalysts.
COMPARATIVE LITERATURE PROGRAM
Jenifer Presto, Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and
Russian; Ph.D., M.A., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1996, 1989; B.A., Smith
College, 1985. Professor Presto
has published several essays on Russian Modernism in Russian Literature, Slavic and East European
Journal, and the Cambridge
History of Women’s Writing in Russia, with another article forthcoming in Slavic
Review. Her book
on gender and Russian Modernism, Beyond the Flesh: Alexander Blok, Zinaida
Gippius, and the Symbolist Sublimation of Sex, will appear soon with the University of Wisconsin
Press.
CREATIVE WRITING PROGRAM
David Bradley, Associate Professor; M.A.,
University of London, 1974; B.A., University of Pennsylvania, 1972. Professor Bradley is the author of two
novels, South Street (1975) and The Chaneysville Incident (1981) that was awarded the 1982 PEN/Faulkner Award
and an Academy Award from the American Academy and Institute of Arts and
Letters. Since 1985 he has worked
primarily in the emerging field of Creative Non-Fiction. A recipient of fellowships from the
Guggenheim Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts, he is currently
completing a non-fiction book, The Bondage Hypothesis: Meditations on Race,
History and America.
ECONOMICS
Robin McKnight, Assistant Professor; Ph.D.,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002; B.A., Amherst College, 1995. Dr. McKnight's research focuses on the
economics of health insurance, especially the government's role in health
insurance markets. For example,
her work has considered the incentives and consequences of different Medicare
provider reimbursement policies.
In addition, she has examined explanations for trends in employee
contributions to employer-provided health insurance.
ENGLISH
Michael Aronson, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., University of
Pittsburgh, 2002, 1997; B.A., Pennsylvania State University, 1990. Professor Aronson is an expert in film
studies coming to the Oregon from the University of Pittsburgh, where he wrote
his dissertation on, Nickels & Dimes: The Movies in a ‘Rampantly
American’ City, 1914-23. As this title makes clear, Mike is interested in archival
research in film history; he also has strong interests in production background
and new media.
Sara Guyer, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of California,
Irvine, 2003; Ph.D., M.A.,
University of California, Berkeley, 2001, 1999; M.A., University of Warwick,
1996; B.A., Brandeis University, 1994.
Professor Guyer is an expert in British and Continental Romanticism,
Philosophy and Literature, Rhetoric and Literary Theory, and Post-Holocaust
Literatures. Her more recent work
focuses on the relation between poetry and ethics in the Romantic period and
beyond as can be gathered from the title of her Irvine dissertation: Surviving
Figures: Romantic Rhetoric and Post-Holocaust Writing.
David Vazquez, Assistant Professor (Acting); M.A., University of
California, Santa Barbara, 1998; B.A., University of South Florida, 1988. David Vazquez is an expert in
Latino/Latina literature. He comes to Oregon from the University of California
at Santa Barbara, from which he will receive his Ph.D. this December. His work
concentrates on the ways in which autobiographical and other Latino/a writings
that focus on selfhood tend to be less expressions of individual identities than
entry points into the formation of communities.
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM
Ted Toadvine, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies and
Philosophy; Ph.D., M.A., The University of Memphis, 1996, 1995; B.A., Salisbury
University, 1990. Ted Toadvine's
specialization is in 19th and 20th century Continental philosophy, the history
of the philosophy of nature, and contemporary environmental philosophy. He has
a particular interest in the application of phenomenology and
post-structuralism to environmental issues. His current research concerns the
development of the concept of life in 20th century French thought.
ETHNIC STUDIES PROGRAM
Brian
Klopotek,
Assistant Professor (Acting) of Ethnic Studies and Anthropology; B.A., Yale
University, 1994. Brian will
receive his Ph.D. this fall from the American Studies Program at the University
of Minnesota. His research interests include Native American histories
and cultures, Southeastern Indians, federal recognition policy, Indian
education, gender, and cinema. His dissertation assesses the impact of
federal recognition policy on three central Louisiana Indian tribes.
GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES
David Schmidt, Assistant Professor; Ph.D.,
University of California, Berkeley, 2002; B.S., University of California, San
Diego, 1997. David employs
satellite-based remote sensing techniques to observe and quantify deformation
of the Earth's crust at a variety of scales, from individual basins to entire
continental margins. This work has applications to the study of Earth resources
such as groundwater, seismic and volcanic geological hazards, and the changing
configuration of the Earth's crustal plates due to tectonic forces.
JUDAIC STUDIES PROGRAM
Deborah Green, Assistant Professor of Judaic
Studies and Religious Studies; Ph.D., M.A., University of Chicago, 2003, 1997;
B.A., Brandeis University, 1984. Deborah
Green is expert in Biblical Hebrew language and literature and late antique
Jewish texts; she is also experienced in archaeology. Her dissertation, "Soothing Odors: The Transformation
of Scent in Ancient Israelite and Ancient Jewish Literature," explores the
ways in which the language and imagery of the biblical Song of Songs was
transformed by rabbinic midrashic literature. It also sheds light on the uses of spices and incense in
ancient Israelite religious practice.
MATHEMATICS
Marcin Bownik, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A.,
Washington University in St. Louis, 2000, 1997; Magister in Mathematics,
University of Warsaw, Poland, 1995.
Bownik’s areas of interest include analysis and wavelets. Bownik joins us after completing a
postdoc at University of Michigan.
Bernhard Krötz, Assistant Professor; Ph.D.,
University of Erlangen, 1998; M.A., Technical University of Darmstadt, 1995;
B.A., Technical University of Munich, 1993. Areas of interest include harmonic analysis. Krötz joins us after an extensive
postdoc at Ohio State and was recently awarded a prestigious Heisenberg
Fellowship.
Alexander Polishchuk, Assistant Professor; Ph.D.,
Harvard University, 1996; M.S., Moscow State University, 1993. Polishchuk’s areas of interest
include homological algebra, algebraic geometry and representation theory. Polishchuk is currently a Sloan
Research Fellow.
PHILOSOPHY
Bonnie Mann, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., State University of
New York, 2002; B.A., Portland State University, 1983. Bonnie Mann is a feminist philosopher
working mostly out of the continental tradition. She is concerned
with the viability of feminist philosophies of freedom after the postmodern
turn, and with resisting the elevation of discourse over the material
(understood broadly as the bodily, the spatial, and the social/economic).
Other areas of interest include aesthetics, environmental philosophy, and Latin
American philosophies of liberation.
Beata Stawarska, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., B.A., University
of Louvain, 2000, 1994, 1992. Beata’s
main research interests lie in the fields of phenomenology, philosophical
psychology and feminist theory. She is especially interested in issues relating
to embodiment and social cognition and has published mainly on Merleau-Ponty
and Sartre and contemporary empirical work in psychology.
POLITICAL SCIENCE
Joseph
Lowndes, Assistant
Professor; Ph.D., New School University, 2003; M.A., New School for Social
Research, 1996; B.A., Antioch College, 1990. Joseph E. Lowndes received his
Ph.D. in September 2003 from New School University (formerly New School for
Social Research), where he wrote a dissertation entitled The Southern
Origins of Modern Conservatism, 1945-1976. He
has published articles on George Wallace and southern populism, film and
antistatism in late twentieth century America, and African-American
politics. Professor Lowndes will
teach courses on a variety of topics in American politics, including the Presidency,
Race, and Political Culture.
ROMANCE LANGUAGES
David Wacks, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of
California, Berkeley, 2003; M.A., Boston College, 1997; A.B., Columbia
University, 1991. David Wacks specializes in Medieval
Iberian Literature. He is
preparing a book-length study on the Castilian, Hebrew and Arabic frametale
literature of Medieval Iberia. He has presented numerous talks on
questions such as the representation of minority languages in Medieval
literature and the interplay between Castilian, Hebrew and Arabic cultures both
as they coexisted on the peninsula and as they are mutually represented in
fictional and poetic texts. He is co-editor of a forthcoming volume of
essays titled, Wine, Women and Song: Hebrew and Arabic Literature in
Medieval Iberia.
Toby
Koenigsberg, Assistant Professor of
Jazz Piano, Associate Director of Jazz Studies. M.M., Eastman School of Music,
2003; B.M. University of Oregon.
While at the Eastman School of Music, Professor Koenigsberg received the
Schirmer Award for outstanding graduate jazz performer. He studied at the
Peabody Conservatory with pianist Ann Schein after double-majoring in jazz
studies and piano performance at the UO.
In addition to performing, he has written many compositions and has
scholarly and pedagogical writings published in Jazz Educators Journal. His forthcoming
CD, to be released in 2004, features saxophonist Rich Perry, bassist Ike Sturm,
and drummer Ted Poor.
Phyllis Paul, Assistant Professor, Music Edu