Minutes of the University Assembly Meeting May 21, 1997
 


CALL TO ORDER
 
President Dave Frohnmayer called the Spring Term meeting of the University Assembly to order at 3:10 p.m. in 150 Columbia.
 
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
 
Hearing no corrections to the minutes of the January 8, 1997 assembly meeting, the minutes were approved as distributed.
 
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MEMORIALS
 
Memorials were received by the secretary for Ms. Jean Muir Woods, professor emerita of German, Mr. Charles E. Klopfenstein, professor of chemistry, and Ms. B. Corlee Munson, professor emerita of physical education. Ms. Woods passed away on December 2, 1996 and served on the faculty from 1969 to 1990. Professor Virpi Zuck, head, Germanic languages and literature, read her memorial. Mr. Klopfenstein passed away on March 12, 1997 and served on the faculty from 1967 to 1991. Professor LeRoy Klemm, chemistry, read his memorial. Ms. Munson passed away July 6, 1996 and served on the faculty from 1959 to 1982. Full text of her memorial will be entered in the minutes along with those for Mr. Klopfenstein and Ms. Woods. President Frohnmayer asked for a moment of silence in remembrance of these former colleagues.
 
REMARKS FROM PRESIDENT FROHNMAYER -- STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
 
President Frohnmayer focused his remarks on concerns surrounding the budget of the university. He indicated that although final figures were not in, preliminary expectations were for a necessary 2 percent cut for schools and colleges and a 3 percent cut for other programs and units. The president went on to say these cuts were due to state funding levels that were better, but not good enough to make up for past years of inadequate funding, lower enrollment figures for out of state students, and use of the state boardís BAS model for allocation of state higher education monies.
 
Further, the president stated that the university was currently lobbying the legislature for "addbacks" to higher education that may result from higher than projected revenues in the state budget. The final budget has not been approved, so there may be some gains yet unrealized. Both the chancellorís office and the presidentís office have made securing funding for increases in faculty salaries the highest priority.
 
Additionally, the university continues to explore ways to increase access of nontraditional students through distance education, more flexible hours, and targeted programs. President Frohnmayer also reminded everyone of the success so far in the UO Capital Campaign; for example, endowed chairs have increased almost tenfold.
 
Finally, the president thanked all the faculty and students who have traveled to Salem to testify, demonstrate, and lobby on behalf of higher education and the university in particular.
 
REMARKS FROM UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESIDENT CARL BYBEE
 
University Senate President Bybee first thanked President Frohnmayer for initiating the opportunity for the senateís president to address the assembly about the ongoing work of the senate. He continued his remarks with comments pertaining to two main points: the health of the senate and the changing relationship of the senate to changes occurring in the university.
 
President Bybee was pleased to report that the newly reorganized senate has weathered its first full year of operation in robust condition. Schools, departments, and administrative units have taken the work of the senate seriously as it has dealt with issues ranging from day-to-day operation as well as the long-term health of the university. It worked especially hard to ensure that all voices were heard and issues were debated before actions were taken on such topics as curricular change, endorsing domestic partner benefits, making safety changes in the student conduct code, and restructuring its own bylaws.
 
Similarly, the senate has raised questions about the impact of budgeting on curriculum, about how deans and administrators are reviewed, about the relationship between increasing use of technology to educational quality, and about university efforts toward alternative transportation and parking solutions. Gradually over the course of the past year, the senate is earning the universityís trust and confidence as a university wide forum for debate and governance.
 
President Bybee then spoke of the changing relationship between the senate and its initial charge as caretaker of the curriculum and student conduct matters. After reflecting on the topics discussed and debated on the senate floor this year ñ topics involving the budget (the productivity plan), administrative issues (review of deans), personnel matters (domestic partner benefits), and even parking ñ President Bybee remarked that such issues found their way to the senate because they were of importance to the senators and needed to be discussed by a representative university body.
 
The profound effects of budget shortfalls on the curriculum, the unintended consequences of the productivity plan, and the increased role of deans as fund raisers means that the senate must take a hard look not only at the external relationships between the university and the state, but at the changed reality of our internal structure. In other words, to be effective caretakers of the institutionís educational mission, the faculty and students ñ that is , the University Senate ñ must follow the money in ways that were unnecessary five or ten years ago. President Bybee suggested that this new role of the senate not be seen as adversarial by the administration, but rather as cooperative in problem solving to intentionally create the best educational environment possible.
 
In closing, President Bybee acknowledged that the best strategy for working successfully within the current budget constraints is to work together at every level of institutional organization. There is a need to bring the faculty and the rest of the university community into a real partnership in charting our future, and the University Senate stands ready and willing to do its part.
 
President Frohnmayer replied to Senate President Bybeeís remarks saying that he found nothing threatening in his remarks and was appreciative of the degree to which faculty have shouldered many of the administrative burdens associated with running a university and maintaining its recognized quality. It is particularly appropriate that the senate has taken up, debated, and passed motions concerning issues such as domestic partners benefits and conflict of interest and abuse of power. He indicated he would adopt those two widely debated motions. Additionally, President Frohnmayer agreed that if people do not own the problem, they would never own the solution. The issues that we face are significant. If we do not as administrators, faculty, and students "own the problems" in the sense of understanding their depths and explore with daring and honesty the various ways in which we can approach solutions to those problems, then we would have not only adversarial relations, we wou! ld have a stalemate. And that is not in the interest of the student whom we are here to serve. Thus, President Frohnmayer indicated he looks forward to continued dialogue with the senate on matters of mutual concern to us all.
 
NEW BUSINESS
 
Ms. Susan Fagan, chair of the Academic Requirements Committee introduced the following motion to confer degrees for the 1996-97 academic year and 1997 Summer Session. Moved 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 for the academic year 1996-97 and Summer Session 1997, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.
 
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously without discussion.
 
In other new business, Mr. Steven Chatfield, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, was called on to report on the first year of the year round review cycle for the curriculum committee. As chair, Mr. Chatfield has been trying to reintroduce to the faculty the concept that the curriculum is theirs, to work with and enhance. The business of the committee was conducted year round, that is, quarterly curriculum reports were presented to the senate for action. There is however a good amount of confusion surrounding the year round strategy. For example, when the senate approves something, when exactly is it implemented? And when we have a new course, when does it appear in the schedule of courses , when may it appear electronically, and when does it appear in the university bulletin? These concerns will take some time to work through, but nevertheless, things have quickened and some courses approved early in the year are operational by the end of the year.
 
The committee made a couple changes this year. The membership now includes a representative from the Graduate School and the Call for Proposals has been revamped with an April 1997 edition. The new edition comes with a packet of information helpful in leading the preparers to provide the appropriate information and consider all the ramifications in proposing the curricular change for review and approval.
 
Three of the largest challenges this year have been getting the committeeís schedule in sync with the University Senate in time for the senators to review the proposed curricular changes. Particularly difficult are the fall reports because of the relatively early holiday break, and the spring report because of the truncated month of June in which there is no senate meeting. A second challenge was to streamline the amount of paper used for presenting proposals by reducing the numbers of copies submitted to the committee. Unfortunately, the committee suffered quite a bit in not being able to get the materials circulated effectively. As a consequence, once again twelve copies of each proposal (one for each committee member) are requested. Finally, with quarterly reports from the curriculum committee and ensuing course approvals, it will fall to the chair of the UCC to manage any business that goes past the senate that need to go through the provostís office to the state board.! So, we must be more careful that a change such as a new major that gets approval in the fall of one year does not get forgotten inadvertently until the final curriculum committee report comes out in the fall of the following year.
 
Mr. Chatfield next discussed the effect of the budget on the curriculum. Student hour counting ñ the desire to accrue more student credit hours on the campus -- has become something of a "driver" for curricular business. We have just recently approved an increase in the number of credit hours for required writing courses from 3 to 4 credits. For some students, such changes result in many fewer electives available to them through the four years of study. The UEPCC is proposing the elimination of "double dipping" on language course, for example, which will increase the prescription of courses students must take, again limiting their elective options. Mr. Chatfield was quick to note that these two issues are not necessarily coupled, but he simply wants to point out sensitivity to these curricular issues. Another issue that has arisen is conversations about the duplication of courses across different units in their efforts to increase student credit hours -- a form of competiti! on for students between units to take courses within their own units which were formerly taken elsewhere.
 
Mr. Chatfield then opened the floor for discussion of curriculum issues. Mr. Paul Engelking, chemistry, asked how the accreditation reportís suggestion to revisit the general education requirements would be handled. Mr. Chatfield replied that the UCC is working with the College of Arts and Sciences to better define the criteria that we use to classify courses for the existing groups under the existing requirements for group satisfying courses. Mr. Chatfield believes that a discussion needs to occur concerning what we call group satisfying courses and what model should be used for the general education requirement. Over time there has been a certain amount of tinkering with the model; some benefit might be gained from looking at an overview of the general education model. Further, we might look at the kinds of experiences students get in these courses, content versus inquiry based information.
 
Ms. Esther Jacobson, art history, noted a concerned about the curriculum appearing "watered down", that is, that student credit hours were being "upped" with no more real work required. Mr. Chatfield concurred there is currently at least the perception that some abuse of credit hours has occurred, but his committee has not undertaken any direct investigatory action into the matter. Perhaps a task force is a better group to approach this problem. The important thing is for faculty to become reinvested in curriculum and be willing to look for creative solutions for such problems. In other words, if the faculty sees a real or perceived problem with the curriculum, they need to get involved in solving it.
 
President Frohnmayer joined the discussion by noting that although concerns have come to him about the perception of some units "stealing" credit hours, the reality of it having occurred is, in his view, inaccurate. Nevertheless, if the perception is there, it is a matter that will be taken up by the deans and perhaps by more than one faculty committee. Mr. Greg Bothun, physics, noted that while student enrollments are flat, such circumstances help to advance the perception of student hour theft when in fact no study has been done to see if this is really the case. President Frohnmayer agreed, noting there were only four strategies he envisioned to deal with tight fiscal circumstances in institutions like ours with an AAU reputation. These are (1) to increase revenues which we have done via recruiting out of state students, and which has run out of steam; (2) cut costs, which we have done to the point that the BARC report noted we are administratively thin so we would have ! to look elsewhere for cuts; (3) reduce services that we offer, which would likely have an adverse impact on the very students we are trying to attract ; and (4) find ways to get more value from what we have in place, that is, to increase productivity. The productivity strategy is the one that is solely within our capacity, but we do not want to pursue it while losing the quality which in turn effects our reputation. He added, we cannot abandon any one of the strategies ñ they are intertwined in our success. And therein lies the challenge of working collegially together.
 
ADJOURNMENT
 
Hearing no further discussion or other new business, the president adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.
 
 
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty
 

ATTACHMENTS
 
Full text of remarks by University President Dave Frohnmayer
 


Some critical pieces of information from the past several weeks have helped clarify, at least in broad outline, what our budget is going to look like next year. While not all the numbers are in yet, we do know enough to understand the need for small, but significant cuts in budgets across campus: 2 percent for the schools and colleges and 3 percent for other programs and units.
 
We've been prudently planning for these cuts with deans and directors across campus for some time. But I must admit to feeling -- and I'm sure some of you might as well -- a certain level of cognitive dissonance that comes from cutting budgets in a year when the state finally seems to be coming around and funding higher education.
 
The cuts are needed for three basic reasons: State funding is better, but not good enough; we're not meeting our projected goals for out-of-state student enrollment; and the budget allocation model the Chancellors Office uses funds University of Oregon undergraduate students at a lower level than any other State System institution but one.
 
Let me say more about each of these. First, at the state level, the current budget proposed by the Oregon legislature stitches up many of the cuts we've endured for the last six years - but not all of them. Right now, the proposed state system of higher education budget is lacking in three areas:
 
 
Second, on our campus, student applications are down somewhat this year compared to last year, especially for out-of-state undergrads. While our yield is up, it is likely that we will still fall short of the enrollment numbers we projected for full funding. Tuition dollars now provide approximately two-thirds of our general fund budget, and the financial effect of not meeting out-of-state goals is immediate. This emphasizes the need for our best efforts in recruiting new students, and retaining the ones we have.
 
And third, because we budgeted in the past to accommodate planned growth that does not look like it is going to happen, our budgeted spending is higher than our income.
 
As a result, we are going to have to cut just more than $3 million from our university budget next year. That is not good news. But keep in mind that the situation is still fluid, there are some positive signs, and our long-term funding situation could change by next fall.
 
The new revenue forecast adds tens of millions of dollars to the state's general fund, which we are seeking in support for addbacks. We already know that a small faculty salary increase is built into the next biennial budget, and we're fighting for more. We are exploring new ways to open our doors to nontraditional students through distance education, more flexible hours, and targeted programs.
 
The UO's Capital Campaign is an outstanding success. By the time it ends, we will have increased our endowed chairs almost tenfold. We are in continuous, tough negotiations with OSSHE over the way the somewhat outdated way the system allocates its dollars to individual schools, with hope that we'll get fairer treatment.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Full text of remarks by University Senate President Carl Bybee
 
If I were to choose a title for my remarks to today, it would probably be something like, "Can the University Senate save Higher Education at the University of Oregon?"
 
I know this sounds like a rather pompous question, certainly outside the mission of the Senate, but the hour is getting late and no one else seems to have showed up on a white horse with saddle bags filled with gold. Or even sandwiches and soft drinks.
 
The legislature seems in the process of delivering to higher education one of the best budgets we have seen in over a decade and we still have all been told to prepare for across the board budget cuts.
 
I know our administration has been furiously at work on the problem, lobbying the legislature, fighting for a more equitable distribution of funds from the Board of Higher Education, working to recruit new students and retain existing ones; not to mention succeeding handsomely in external fundraising.
 
And still I have heard a sense of embattlement from faculty and department heads across campus.
 
Can the Senate save the day? Probably not, at least by itself, but we can certainly think carefully about what the Senate can do. In this regard I want to make two points --- one about the health of the Senate, the other about the changing nature of the Senate in relationship to the changing structure of the university.
 
First I want to say that at the end of the first year of our newly reorganized faculty government, I find the Senate to be in robust condition.
 
Schools, departments and administrative units seem to have taken the Senate seriously this year, both in sending their best representatives and in bringing to the Senate floor questions of critical substance to the day to day operation of the university as well as to its long term health.
 
The University Senate has taken up issues of curriculum, engaged in significant debate and changes in its own structure, and debated and acted on issues identified by many faculty as central to the working life of the university, from endorsing domestic partner benefits, to passing changes in the student conduct code which will hopefully improve the quality of academic life for all students, to endorsing rules making the university community a safer and more welcoming environment for all of its members.
 
At the same time the Senate has raised questions over the impact of budgeting on curriculum: over how deans and administrators are reviewed; over the relationship between the increasing use of educational technology and educational quality, and over the adequacy of university efforts in the examination of alternative transportation solutions.
 
And the Senate has managed to do all of this as a University Senate, not just a faculty senate, and with a process that worked to the utmost to ensure that all voices and arguments were heard before actions were taken.
 
All of this, I think is to the good. I think it demonstrates the degree to which the university community is slowly allowing the Senate to earn its trust as a university wide forum and the place of university wide governance. All of which leads me to my second and final point about the status of the Senate as we come to the close of this academic year.
 
Thinking over the list of Senate activities I just mentioned, one might ask, "Wait a minute here, what does all this have to do with the charge to the Senate in its By-Laws to address matters of curriculum and student conduct?"
 
Surely the Senate has dutifully engaged in its curriculum work and tackled matters of student conduct. But what about sticking their collective nose into budget matters like the productivity plan, or seemingly administrative issues like the review of deans, or personnel matters like domestic partners benefits? Or parking for heaven's sake? Why did these issues see the light of day on the Senate floor?
 
The easy answer is simply that Senators felt that these were important issues, whether or not they technically fit our charge, and that they needed to be discussed by a representative university body. Whether or not that answer can hold up for long I don't know. I think the more difficult response is that all of these matters point to the emerging secondary effects of the ongoing budget crisis faced by this university and by universities across the country. The wall between budget issues and curricular issues, if it ever was a wall, has grown paper thin.
 
The productivity plan may have saved the university from immediate budgetary disaster, but has lead to important and unintended consequences. The role of deans is changing to more and more of a managerial role and a fund-raiser role and less of a role as the buffer between budget and curriculum, where a dean could generally be counted on to put curriculum first.
 
Are these changes wrong? Maybe. Maybe not. But they are happening and demanding that we take a new hard look not only at the external relationship between the university and the state, but the changed reality of our internal structure.
 
Faculty, students, the University Senate, are going to have to follow the money in ways that were unnecessary five or ten years ago, to be effective caretakers of the institution's educational mission.
 
It is a new challenge for the Senate and one that I hope will be seen not as adversarial by administration, but as cooperative in problem solving how to intentionally create the best educational environment, the best programs possible with the resources we have to work with.
 
Can the Senate save the University? Of course not. At least by itself. Can the administration save the University? No, not by itself. Will the state save the University as a public institution? That depends on the relationship they see between education and economic development and hopefully, also on the relationship between education and citizenship.
 
So what do we do? We work together at every level of the institutional organization. And we remember the words of the preliminary report of the 10 Year Accreditation Committee: The human impact of the last five years of budget cuts at this institution has been inadequately assessed. I don't know if we need the grisly details of that assessment, but we do need to bring the faculty and the rest of the university community into a real partnership in charting our future. Looking over the list of newly elected Senators and continuing Senators, I think it is clear that the Senate is ready to do its part.
 
Thank you.

Memorials
 
Charles Emmett Klopfenstein
July 6, 1940 - March 12, 1997

Charles Emmett Klopfenstein was born in Los Angeles, California on July 6, 1940. He attended Santa Monica Junior College in 1958-1960, whereupon he transferred to the University of Oregon to complete a B.A. degree in chemistry in 1962 and a Ph.D. degree in organic chemistry in 1966. He conducted undergraduate and graduate research under my supervision and proved to be a highly productive worker. During his graduate career he independently developed strong interests in the emerging areas of nuclear magnetic resonance and computer science and the application of these tools to the solution of chemical and allied problems. His prowess in the latter area can be measured by publication, together with contemporary chemistry graduate student Charles Wilkins, of an article on "Computers as Teaching Devices" in the Journal of Chemical Education in 1966. He held an NDEA Fellowship during the 1965-6 academic year. Meanwhile, he married JoAnne LaRocco (also of Southern California) who played the typical role of a graduate student's loving and impecunious spouse by typing the first draft of his Ph.D. thesis. During 1966-7 Chuck (as he was known to his colleagues) and JoAnne spent the year in Europe while he held a NATO postdoctoral fellowship for study at the E.T.H. in Zürich, Switzerland.

Upon his return to the United States, Chuck was hired as an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oregon for the express purpose of supervising the development of sophisticated instrumental methods (including computing) in chemistry and the training of students in their usage. He served for some years as a member of a university committee on computing and was frequently consulted by students and faculty in various departments. At one time he was recruited by Roy Lieuallen, former Chancellor of the Oregon State System of Higher Education, to spend several weeks in China instructing science faculties in the operation of instruments provided to them by the World Bank. When he left the university in 1991 he held the rank of Associate Professor and Director of the Chemical Laboratories.

Following closely in the footsteps of their father are the Klopfenstein children, Bethany and Shaun, both graduates of the University of Oregon. Bethany, an honors student in chemistry, is currently studying toward an M.D. degree at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland. Her brother, Shaun, is a very successful computer programmer in the Portland area.

Chuck Klopfenstein died in Eugene on March 12, 1997.

Mr. President, I request that this memorial be made a part of the official and permanent minutes of this meeting and that copies of the memorial be sent to the immediate family by the Secretary of the faculty.



Blodwin Corlee Munson

July 30, 1927 - July 5, 1996
 

Blodwin Corlee Munson, retired Associate Professor in the Department of Physical Education and Human Movement Studies, a department in the former College of Human Development and Performance, died at the age of 68 on July 5, 1996 after an extended illness.

Dr. Munson was born on July 30, 1927 in Sterling, Colorado and completed her Bachelor of Arts degree at Northern Colorado University in 1948 with majors in health, physical education, and social studies. She received the Master of Arts degree in 1956 from the University of Washington and a Doctor of Philosophy in 1966 from the University of Iowa in child development and physical education.

In 1959 Corlee Munson joined the faculty of the University of Oregon as an Instructor in the Department of Physical Education for Women in the School of Health and Physical Education. Having spent nine years in the Bend, Oregon, public school system as an elementary school physical education specialist and subsequently as the supervisor of elementary school physical education, Corlee was eminently qualified to design and teach undergraduate courses in physical education for prospective elementary classroom teachers. Working with the College of Education, Corlee developed a curriculum that met Oregon Elementary School Teacher Certification requirements. This program included a sequence of three, two-credit courses: Games and Sports Skills, Posture and Development, and Rhythm and Dance for Elementary School. In addition to teaching each of these courses, Corlee co-authored the textbook Basic Guide to Teaching Physical Education in Elementary School specifically to meet the needs of students taking these courses. For many years all proceeds from the sale of this textbook were placed in a scholarship fund that benefited undergraduate majors in physical education.

The success of this program, due to the leadership provided by Corlee Munson, lead to the implementation of the undergraduate elementary school physical education specialist program which was designated as the K-12 teaching certification. It was working with the highly motivated undergraduate students in this program and helping them develop into competent teachers during their student teaching experience that gave Corlee great joy and satisfaction.

As the size of these programs grew, faculty and Graduate Teaching Fellows were added to manage the increasing number of courses. Corlee took great pride in personally mentoring new faculty and Graduate Teaching Fellows who became a part of the "elementary" teaching team. With the addition of graduate courses, Dr. Corlee Munson became graduate advisor to numerous masters and doctoral degree students whose studies were related to child development, teaching effectiveness, and elementary physical education curricula.

During her twenty three year tenure at the University of Oregon, Corlee Munson was active in a variety of professional organizations. She gave leadership to district and state committees "whose activities directly impacted the professional lives of public school teachers and improved the status of public school physical education programs.

Dr. Corlee Munson considered herself a teacher educator. She was dedicated to preparing the highest quality elementary physical education teachers and to improving the health and fitness of all children. She will be remembered for her love of teaching, her loyalty to colleagues, and her positive influence on hundreds of students.




Jean Muir Woods

August 1, 1926 - December 2, 1996  


Jean Muir Woods, Professor Emerita of German in the Department of Germanic Languages, passed away on December 2, 1996 in Portland at the age of 70. Woods was a member of the UO faculty from 1969 until her retirement in June 1990.

Jean Woods was born in Osceola, Iowa on August 1st, 1926 where her father was serving as the pastor of the First Christian Church of Osceola. Her childhood years were spent in Marion, Illinois and her high school years in Seattle. Upon graduation from high school she received a full scholarship to Wellesley College in Massachusetts where she graduated with honors in English Literature in 1948. After living and working in the Los Angeles area for six years, she married and moved to Eugene where her husband was a member of the faculty of the University of Oregon School of Music. For the next few years she had a variety of jobs on campus: teaching remedial English to reluctant freshmen, being secretary to the Director of the Museum of Art and cataloguer of the collection, and working as the assistant to the Director of Public Relations of the State System of Higher Education.

In her mid-thirties she started work towards a master's degree at the university and began the study of German, completing the requirements for an M.A. in German language and literature with distinction in 1965 and a doctorate with distinction three years later, in 1968. Ever since her undergraduate years at Wellesley, Woods had been interested in 17th- century literature. During her graduate studies in Oregon. she discovered many parallels between English and German literature of that period and consequently wrote her doctoral dissertation on Georg Rudolf Weckherlin. Although Weckherlin's poetry was primarily in German, he lived most of his mature life in England. German baroque literature retained Jean Woods's scholarly interest for the rest of her life.

In 1968, Woods joined the German department faculty, first as a part-time instructor and the following year as an Assistant Professor. She retired twenty-three years later as a Full Professor, having served the last six years as the Head of the Department.

In the mid-1970s, Woods began to specialize in literature by German women of the 17th and early 18th centuries having discovered meritorious and virtually unknown literary works which gave a quite different view of the age. Over the next fifteen years she became one of the leading authorities in the world in this area, helping to change completely what we know about the position and attainments of women during this period in German-speaking countries. During her numerous stays at the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel, Germany, the center of German baroque literature, she came in contact with the leading scholars of the German Baroque and actively participated in the Wolfenbüttel scholarly community. Her original intention had been to write a literary history of works by women between 1640 and 1740 until she realized that the preliminary research necessary for such an undertaking was lacking. As a result, in collaboration with a colleague from the University of British Columbia, Woods spent the next seven years compiling an authoritative list of literary women in German-speaking countries. This bio-bibliographical lexicon was published in Germany in 1984 under the title Künstlerinnen und gelehrte Frauen des deutschen Barock. In addition to the 700 women covered by the volume, Woods later located nearly a thousand additional names of German women writers, which she intended to include in a subsequent volume. Because of her work, younger scholars now have the tools to investigate and evaluate in more detail the intellectual life of these women. She continued her research during her retirement years publishing articles in scholarly journals. Among her projects was a book on Aurora von Königsmarck, a German noblewoman, whose poems she unearthed from archives across Europe. Jean Woods was always very generous in sharing her information with others. When she found out about her terminal cancer, she put her research material in order and sent it along with her professional library to a younger colleague at the University of Illinois where it is now available for use by both students and scholars.

Jean Woods was a person of great intellectual attainments as well as being an inspiring teacher and outstanding administrator. Her students respected her for her vast knowledge and loved her for the concern and genuine interest that she exhibited in each one's ideas and problems. There are many quotables in her student evaluations. Where one student refers to her "fabulous techniques that prevent students from being either bored or afraid," another expresses admiration and awe by noting that "she seems to be able to quote almost any famous work in any language!" Greatest appreciation comes from a Freshman who ends her comments by exclaiming: "Professors can be real people, too." True erudition and overall competence, suffused with much human warmth and a ready sense of humor, made her a much missed friend and colleague. Literature, music and art nourished her spirit: she believed that great art in whatever form it may appear should enrich a person's life and make it more meaningful. All of her scholarly work was really directed toward this end. A haiku, written by Jean Woods during her last year of life, captures, in all its modesty, perhaps best her life philosophy:

Limited Aim

To get through with grace
Is perhaps life's greatest gift.
Love, joy, laughter help.