The meeting was called to order by President David Frohnmayer in Columbia 150 at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the June 1, 1994 meeting of the Assembly were approved as distributed.
President Frohnmayer introduced the newly appointed Provost, Mr. John Moseley, formerly Vice President for Research. The Provost announced some reorganization and reassignments within the Office of the Provost which resulted in the elimination of the portion of Vice President for Research. The research aspect has been returned to the Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School. The title of this position has now been changed to Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Education and Dean of the Graduate School.
The President recognized Vice President Dan Williams and Vice President Brodie Remington who in turn introduced new members of their staffs. Vice President Remington noted that the Capital Campaign will be officially launched the weekend of October 14 17. The effort will be intense and the success of the campaign will take cooperation from all facets of the University, its alumni and friends. In addition, the President stated that no other effort in fund raising within the State of Oregon has had such a large goal as this campaign by the University. The campaign is expected to last six years.
Provost Moseley recognized each of the Deans who introduced their new faculty or introduced their Department Chairs who in turn introduced their new faculty.
The President bid the new faculty a sincere welcome and the University Assembly joined him with their applause.
Mr. Robert Hurwitz, Chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee, was recognized to present the report of this committee. The report can be found in its entirety in these minutes.
Mr. Ray Hull, Education, was recognized to read a memorial for Professor Emeritus Guy Shellenbarger. Mr. Shellenbarger passed away on June 4, 1994. This memorial is printed with these minutes and can be found in these minutes.
Professor Galen Rarick passed away on June 15 in Eugene. A member of the School of Journalism faculty as Dean or teacher for 16 years Professor Rarick retired in 1987. Mr. Arnold Ismach, Journalism, presented the memorial which can be found on page 15 17 of these minutes.
Dean and Professor Emeritus Robert M. Trotter, Music, died at his home in Eugene on September 1. Mr. Robert Hurwitz, Music, prepared the memorial and it will be found in these minutes. Professor Trotter was a member of the University faculty from 1963 until his retirement in 1975.
President Frohnmayer presented his first State of the University address to the University Assembly.
I greet you this afternoon with a message of gratitude, of affirmation, of concern and of challenge. The gratitude I can express briefly. My affirmation is of the values we share in our community. I voice concern because of some looming dangers we face together. And my words of challenge deal with what we can build together even amidst the dizzying and often divisive forces of change that surround us. First let me tell you a little about why I am here avoiding, if I can, any excess of autobiographical self-justification.
My immediate family has, I calculate, 201 years of living alumni association with the University.
I taught my first class here in January 1971 five days after I was married, after driving to Eugene in a record rainstorm.
I was legal counsel here to President Clark at the height of the student disruptions in the early 1970s a period of wrenching division that tragically claimed the life of Bob Clark's predecessor, Charles Johnson.
During that time, I got to know many of the giants of the University, administrators and faculty, from Luther Cressman to LaVerne Krause, Aaron Novick to Leona Tyler people who helped form the unique character of this place.
And I learned to appreciate first-hand how faculty governance worked.
The University was a different place then in many ways. It looked a little shabbier than it does now: fewer flowers; fewer dignified memorials that now provide the occasion for solitary reflection; more long-deteriorated temporary structures; and no magnificent science complex.
The debates were different then although we sometimes hear today an eery echo of their discordant ring of hyperbole and passion. In 1971 the arguments centered on the rights of students to join in governance and the university's role (real or imagined) in relationship to national policies in race relations and foreign wars. I rejoined this campus after pursuing other forms of public service in the Legislature and the Attorney General's office something like higher education's pale caricature of Rip van Winkle to find a new set of debates. This was the time of Allan Bloom and book titles such as ProfScam, years in which the academy was assaulted from without, and increasingly from within.
The discussions now focused on the validity of the Great Books approach to a liberal arts education; the perceived excesses of political correctness; the question whether there even exists a common canon of understanding; and the need to address diversity in our courses while retaining the core values of Western civilization even at a time when there is a palpable loss of confidence in our capacity to believe in shared values, and a narcissistic fascination with the deconstruction of every bond that might unite us.
This was, and is, a time of both deep reflection within the academy, and spirited criticism from without. This is a time in which we face threats to remove from our privileged, if impoverished, sanctuary the very capacity to define our society's ideal of good education. These challenges did not deter me from returning to the academy. They, ironically, were a magnet.
I believe profoundly in what we do here. When I see higher education threatened in any way, I respond to the challenge as if it were a threat to my children's future because it is. The opportunity to serve as President of the University of Oregon was an event that came as a total surprise, but one that I greet with unabashed enthusiasm. I do love this place. I love its 250 emerald acres and its century-and-a-quarter old traditions. But I do not belong here as a place holder, a steward only although stewardship of the traditions and values of the academy is indispensable. These are times of turbulent transformation and challenge of unsettling change that must be guided to the fullest extent of our abilities. I accept this assignment with a sense of urgency, because we must think wisely, act expeditiously, and risk courageously in order to maintain our core values before ill-considered changes are thrust upon us.
Today I call to you to join me in meeting the challenges we face.
As faculty, we understand sometimes far too incompletely the power that we possess as teachers to transform our students' lives. The discovery and development of original ideas through our research and scholarship and here I speak of all disciplines, from chemistry to the classics, medieval history to molecular biology enriches our civilization. Our research universities made the United States the technological and scientific leader of the world. On a more jarring note of reality, they helped win the Cold War. Our humanists, artists, and professional scholars add discipline and understanding to every endeavor of value. As we join together today to celebrate the beginning of the academic year, we can ask what better pursuits are there than these we enjoy: to spend one's life in the pursuit of learning, to experience the constant joy of discovery and to develop the teaching skill to bring that experience to others?
But we also share a commitment to public service, because we cannot be content to teach and perform research privately, in an ivy-walled tower, hermetically sealed from our state and our society. The good work we do here must be shared, shared not only because we have a societal duty to help our neighbors, but because we must constantly demonstrate to a wider community that our work has worth.
It is no longer adequate coinage to assert that our work has worth. We can no longer rest confident that a simple assertion of worth is currency in a society infected by cynicism born of the constant deceptions of large and distant centers of power.
Even the basic triad of the University teaching, research and service is evolving. We must think of them now not as separate, disconnected functions separate trees in the forest but as tightly interleaved, mutually enriching enterprises, each gaining strength from the others as the forest itself.
But perhaps the most important couplet we hope to achieve is also the simplest: The ability to change a student's life, and, as a faculty member, to enrich each others' lives with our discoveries.
I'll wager that you were attracted to your calling because you had a transforming experience under the tutelage of a great teacher. Perhaps your life was changed by something a gifted educator once told you. It might even have been an afterthought that opened some new window of your understanding. That is the gift we must now pass on to our students.
Transforming lives is the work we do the labor daily that we should cherish. These buildings around us, these lecture halls, laboratories and studios are important only to the extent that they serve as sites within which lives are changed for the better. We have the privilege, even the joy, of possessing the chance to effect that change.
The honor that accompanies the possession of that opportunity requires the continued dedication of enormous personal responsibility on our part.
You must sense my pride in the work we do here. You're right. We have created something extraordinary against odds that would defeat the most hardy at the UniversityÔ
This is a special place.
Those of you who are new to our ranks will soon learn that here faculty governance is more than a phrase, it's a reality written into the 19th-century charter of the University, and a peculiarity of the University of Oregon that has baffled observers and perhaps even some of us who work here for a century.
But it exists, and should be treasured and nurtured anew. It has been central in making this more than a simple way-station through which academic wanders pass. This University is a destination, not simply an oasis.
This is a special place because there is a community here. Our sense of community is rooted in the exquisite environment, and this University's nearly Utopian combination of lifestyle and learning style.
There is here what Oregon author and former UO student Barry Lopez calls "A sense of place," the tangible feeling of being woven into the tapestry of a creative environment, grounded in a rich geography that is spiritual and emotional as well as physical.
We are lucky to have that here few places anywhere ever do.
And from this sense of place can grow . . . must grow. . . a special sense of community, ever-widening concentric circles of relationships that start with you and your students, extend to include your colleagues in your school or department, then encompass groups like this, comprising colleagues from across campus and across disciplines, and finally beyond the University, to encircle the larger community throughout the state and the world.
This may sound a little too grand, too all-inclusive. But I mean it to be. The root of "university" is found in the etymology of the word "universal." Yet there is something about the nature of the knowledge explosion that tempts us to withdraw from a search for universal or at least enduring principles, to retreat into subspecialties that exaggerate the fragmentation of knowledge. One of the places in our society where we can all regroup for reflection is in the university. But it will only approach its universal purpose if we possess the courage to reach out:
We must reach out beyond narrow disciplines, regardless of their interior fascination, to link with colleagues across the campus also engaged in the process of fundamental discovery;
We must reach out to our students, regardless of differences in race, gender, ethnicity, appearance or life experience, to make connections, to appreciate diversity while recognizing commonality, to guide and help and enrich.
"Diversity" should not be a scary word that identifies a series of separate encampments marked by an unwillingness or incapacity to hear the voices of others. True diversity is the affirmation of identity within community.
We must extend the boundaries of the campus to exchange ideas with our neighbors in our region, state and world. This is not the excellent State University of Somewhere; it is the University of Oregon. We have an obligation to retouch the state that sustains us all, and, continuously, to give something back.
We must remember that in the economy of the 21st century, where knowledge is wealth and information will be power, a region that does not nurture a major research university in its midst is a region that will doom itself and its people to economic servitude.
Far from being an enterprise peripheral to the people of the state, we must be central, and central in the most ennobling sense: A center for the creation and dissemination of knowledge; a center for lifelong education; a center for discoveries that better our lives; a center as never before for helping energize Oregon's economy, Oregon's culture and Oregon's polity.
These are some of the ways to enhance our sense of community, our sense of place. We must be mindful also of ways we might destroy community. There are things that we, as an educational community, cannot tolerate.
We cannot tolerate the suppression of thought. This is a place for the free expression of ideas to those who desire to hear them, regardless of how distasteful or wrong-headed they may seem to us personally.
We cannot tolerate sexual harassment, a subject I address not as one steeped in legal technicalities, but as an advocate of human dignity. We all know that the possession of privilege and power can distort perceptions of reality and consent. Even the most ethical person amongst us can, unthinkingly, abuse a relationship of trust. Power is subtle, and its abuses can be hopelessly destructive. All of us have been witness to its temptations, and we must resist, indeed censure them.
We cannot tolerate discrimination in any form, in hiring or in the classroom, on any basis other than ability and commitment.
We cannot tolerate the by-products of insecurity. It is not surprising, given the pace of change, that the dominant mood in any community, and one of the forces that will tear it apart, is insecurity.
If any person in this community feels insecure, because she or he is treated unfairly or is simply unnoticed -- is one of the invisible people -- then we all suffer the unraveling of the ties that bring us together. We need to alleviate insecurity in others, and also be mindful of theÔ
These thoughts are not prescriptions for legalistic codes of conduct. They simply affirm our collective responsibility to observe the highest standards of personal and professional ethics.
Those of you who have been here awhile already know many of the things I've just said. And to you veterans I offer my special thanks, because you have maintained a loyalty to this University an extraordinary, unshakable loyalty through very difficult times.
I am deeply mindful of the costs individually that you have borne with dignity in recent years. I recognize that you have and continue to make financial sacrifices in a climate that has imposed a pay freeze and in which there is a looming threat to the capacity to attain retirement security.
I wish I could tell you that the hard times are over, but they are not. We will face new challenges as the final phase of Measure 5 comes into effect in the next biennium, cutting another $10 million in state funds out of our operating budget.
Faculty and administration together have anticipated and planned for this eventuality for years, and we have together developed a solid response a combination of cutting millions of dollars in administration costs coupled with the raising of funds from other sources that will enable us to absorb the loss in state revenue without further threatening the academic core of this University.
I know of no other university in the nation that has done a better, more inclusive and collaborative job of planning. Much credit for this goes to Provost John Moseley on the administrative side and a number of people who volunteered their time and expertise on the faculty side, led by Jim Terborg and his ARC committee. To these and the other faculty, staff and administrators who crafted such a fine response to these budgetary strictures, I extend my thanks.
The result of this planning process has been assessed in an independent review by a national consulting firm whose leader concluded that our university is "administratively lean" compared to our peers and she has seen how dozens of them operate. I should add that we are capable of being this administratively lean only because faculty of all ranks have shouldered so many of the burdens of the administrative process.
But that was not all. This summer, after completing her review of the University of Oregon, the consultant pulled me aside in a social setting a thousand miles from here and said, "You know, you have a really great university." This was not an off-the-cuff comment. It was an assessment founded on this consultant's intimate knowledge of dozens of the best universities in the nation.
This is a confirmation of something we know already: This is a great university. But if we rest on our laurels, we're dead. As Bob Dylan the original Bob Dylan once sang, "He who is not busy being born is busy dying." And in the apocryphal words of the inimitable Yogi Berra, "If you don't know where you're going, when you get there, you'll be lost."
I wish I could say that Measure 5 is the only threat to our well-being. But to mislead you in that way would be a serious ethical lapse on my part.
This November Oregonians will vote on a number of ballot measures that will, if enacted, further threaten our mission and our ability to help shape Oregon's future. I remind you that Measure 5 passed by a very small majority after many of those most affected had remained silent, and worse, inattentive. I hope that does not happen this time.
Our legal counsel Professor Pete Swan has just sent out his bi-annual memo outlining your rights and restrictions as politically interested state employees. We will also be sending out a copy of a special State System Bulletin issued after a line-by-line review by the state Attorney General with more informational background on the most critical measures.
Please educate yourselves about the ballot measures. How those votes are cast may well foreclose decisions that in ordinary times would be made in the normal course of legislative deliberation.
Civic duty requires as never before that we participate in this exercise of democracy via plebiscite.
If, in your own private reflections, you become as concerned about them as I am, I hope you will find a way to exercise your rights as a private citizen in Oregon; and that you will help support the things to which we are devoted here: the enduring values of higher education.
Sometimes it seems that we have done nothing for years but worry about the budget of this institution, and I don't want to linger over it. Tight budgets are not unique to Oregon: They are a fact of life in institutions of higher education across the country. Unhappy as the prospect is, we have managed better than most.
Our challenge now is not simply to respond to these demanding times, but to guide them, to lead and develop new responses.
I issue an obvious but fundamental challenge: We must change if we are to prosper. I do not mean wholesale change for the sake of change. We must maintain those parts of the University of Oregon that are central to our sense of place, community and academic purpose, while moving forward to adapt to our evolving environment. We cannot risk standing still, however, while the world rushes past us. Let me give you some examples of ways this University must change.
* We must raise more outside money. One way we are changing is in an increased reliance on private funds. In ten days we will launch the largest fund raising campaign ever mounted in the state of Oregon, with the dollars raised devoted primarily to teaching, to endowed chairs and scholarships, allowing us to continue to attract the best students, retain the best faculty and build the best academic programs possible.
We must do a better job of communicating among ourselves. I have profited greatly from the volume of communication that has come to me through e-mail and personal correspondence. While I haven't even been able to acknowledge all of it, these ideas from the faculty and the community have helped me form a rich mosaic of consultation and advice that not only enriches my job but informs my decisions.
This is a two-way process. As I speak, my initial reactions to many of your comments is being distributed in a new faculty/staff newsletter and calendar that started publication this week and will appear every two weeks through the academic year.
We must implement our productivity plan at every level. This is a financial and political imperative so fundamental to our success that we must own it all of us individually and collectively. It is not a centrist dictate from an uncaring administrator. It is a model of collaborative development that allows us to stretch thin resources widely and well.
We must make crisp, collaborative, and timely decisions on pressing problems. I believe in consultation, and I believe in the governance processes that are in place here at the University. But I also recognize that there is a sort of circadian rhythm of decision-making in academia, with small sounds of life in the autumn, a growing buzz of activity through the winter, and a grand chorus of committee reports and assembly debates in the spring. The pace of outside change may force us to make major decisions in a shorter time frame than that, to come to closure decisively, after due attention to discussion and proper attention to all views, and then move on. Your elected faculty Advisory Council and Senate leaders will have a crucially elevated role in this process.
We must be acutely mindful of the financial sacrifices being made by our students and their families. We must pursue as a moral imperative an undergraduate educational program in which students are recruited, retained, make timely progress toward their educational goals, and emerge with the ability to think critically and participate fully in the political, social, cultural and political life of this nation. We owe them a quality education in the fullest degree of excellence that we can exert. We cannot afford to treat students with any less than a maximum degree of individual respect, attention and care. Yes, care. The years spent at a college or university can be tremendously lonely. This is especially true for those of our students who differ from the majority, racially, ethnically, in terms of physicalÔ
These are some of the changes on campus now, and to you comes a series of challenges:
That your next lecture is not merely a rehash of last year's ideas, but the best you've ever given in your life.
That your next publication is not merely a minor note in someone else's career, but a pinnacle in your own.
That the scholarly insights of a colleague are not the occasion for envious silence, but the basis for shared collaboration and commendation.
That your office hours are not merely an afterthought, but an essential part of performing your instructional duties to your students.
That your interactions with students are not distant, but are occasions for a mutually enriching interaction.
That the administrative and support staff of this institution, who labor that we might succeed, know daily of our continuing gratitude for their helpful hands and watchful eyes.
That our new investment in instructional technology is not merely seen as a gimmick, but is a way to reach students in ways never before possible.
That our commitment to high-quality undergraduate education is not merely a catch-phrase, but essential to our core mission.
That your time with this faculty is not merely an occasion to enjoy a worthwhile calling, but an opportunity to achieve true and continuing growth, and to give something lasting back to your students and the people of the state of Oregon.
This list of challenges may seem daunting, but it has ever been thus. The process of building a great university is never-ending. In medieval Europe, the builders thought nothing of starting work on a cathedral that would take centuries to complete, an edifice that neither they nor their children would ever see standing. But it was to be a soaring monument to human endeavor that might connect unborn descendants to an eternal ideal.
Our challenge is no different. More than two hundred years ago, contrary to the history books, the nascent United States was split into thirds: one-third revolutionaries, one-third Tories,Ô
And that is the monument, the work and the worth of our great university. Thank you.
Keith Richard Secretary
Action Cases Cases Cases Other Considered Considered Approved Denied Outcome FPC vote inconclusive Internal Cases F M F M F M F M
Promotion to Professor 10 8 8 7 1 1 1 0
Promotion to Associate 6 17 4 16 1 1 1 0
Professor with Tenure External Cases Professor with Tenure 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0
Associate Professor 0 3
One of these cases arrived during the summer and was examined by as many of the 1993 94 FPC members as were available 1 3 0 0 0 0 with Tenure
The Provost's action was consistent with FPC's recommendations in nearly all cases, and in all instances when the FPC's vote was decisive. In cases where the FPC vote was less clear, the Provost devised some creative solutions, including delaying promotion in some cases, withholding raises while granting promotion in others, etc. FPC members commend the Provost for devising innovative approaches in a number of difficult cases. We also applaud the Provost's emphasis on effective teaching as a requisite for the awarding of promotion and tenure. During the course of the 1993 94 session, the FPC also discussed a number of issues related to the promotion/tenure process which members felt needed attention. (Many of these concerns have been expressed by previous FPCs.) At the end of its session the committee delivered a letter to Vice Provost Lorraine Davis, in which these issues were addressed. The following is a summary of the contents of that letter.
The Faculty Personnel Committee is concerned about a disparity in quality in promotion/tenure files it has been charged to examine. Since various units have different policies with regard to the evaluation of teaching, the solicitation of outside reviews, and the standards to which candidates for promotion and tenure are to be held, the FPC is often faces with the task of considering "apples" in one case and "oranges" in another. To be sure, we recognize that some aspects of the evaluation process are unique to particular disciplines, but there are others where uniformity is both possible and highly desirable. Below are some suggestions for attaining greater uniformity in these files. 1. We are generally concerned with the problem of evaluating teaching. New ways need to be devised to provide useful information for this appraisal. The FPC urges you to develop, and to require that all units employ, a method for reporting course evaluations which includes, in every case zscores which compare each course/instructor both to the composite scores of the entire department and to other offerings of the same course in recent years. The latter comparison allows the committee more effectively to determine the degree to which the approach of a particular instructor is responsible for particular scores, as contrasted with the degree to which a particular course generally receives ratings within a certain range regardless of who is teaching it.
Course evaluation questionnaires would be most useful if they contained a set of standard questions which were applied across all disciplines in the university in addition to discipline specific or course specific questions. It is difficult to evaluate student responses when answers to only two questions are supplied to the committee, as is the case with some departments.
Department heads should be required regularly to make copies of all signed student evaluations, with the original going to the individual faculty members. signed student evaluations should be included in promotion and tenure files.
We believe our evaluation of teaching would be enhanced by the inclusion of collegial class observation reports. Several units currently supply this information; it would be useful in all cases. We suggest that three such reports from colleagues be included in each file.
2. Regarding the evaluation of research and creative activity, the committee makes the following recommendations:
Those who are charged with sending out letters soliciting external reviews of candidates' research should observe a balanced set of criteria by which reviewers are chosen. In particular, we are concerned that in some files the number of reviewers recommended by the candidate was greater than the number recommended by the department.
All files should indicate the items which were sent to outside reviewers. We believe it would be helpful for reviewers to be provided with the candidate's statement in the packet which is mailed to them for evaluation, and we recommend that this be done in all cases.
We further recommend that letters soliciting outside reviews take the same form whether the addressee is recommended by the department or by the candidate. (We have recently dealt with a case where the letters, and the information requested of each category of reviewers, were very different.) We believe the standard letter should include two questions, the first of which asks reviewers to compare the candidate with other researchers at comparable stages in their academic careers, and the second of which asks the reviewers to indicate whether, in their opinion, assuming satisfactory teaching and service, the candidate would achieve tenure and/or promotion at their institutions.
The committee is also concerned about the large number of solicited letters appearing in some files. Inclusion of a great many letters is counterproductive. We recommend that each file include a minimum of five and a maximum of eight such letters. We further recommend that a minimum of three and a maximum of five solicited letters from students be included in each file.
3. Concerning the committee's role in the process of making outside hires, the FPC makes the following suggestions:
Information concerning outside hires often comes to the FPC in incomplete form, yet we are asked to apply the same standards and principles in judging the appropriateness of awarding tenure as we do for inside tenure cases. Most of us feel the current policy relegates our advice to "rubber stamp: status, and suggest either of the following modifications in procedure, with the second suggestion highly preferred: a) by pass the FPC entirely in making tenure decisions for outside hires; b) allow the FPC to examine the top three files of applicants in this category during the Fall quarter, when the committee's work load is minimal. The committee would vote on the appropriateness of each of the finalists to receive tenure at that time, thus eliminating the need to examine the files at the time of actual hiring. The 1993 94 Faculty Personnel Committee commends the diligence and dedication of is two student members, Ms. Susan Anderson and Ms. Sheri Bischoff. They took their responsibilities as committee members very seriously, reviewing each file thoroughly and contributing valuable insights to the discussion.
The FPC thanks Provost Norman Wessells and Vice Provost Lorraine Davis for allotting several hours to consultation with the committee on its lines of reasoning in several difficult cases. In addition the committee owes a debt of gratitude to Vice Provost Davis for her careful preparation of the files for committee review, and for making herself generally available to the committee when it sought her help and advice.
Finally, the committee thanks Ms. Carol Rydbom of the Provost's office for her expert organization of all the materials examined by the committee, for her diligence and good humor in working with scheduling problems, and for her regular provision of excellent refreshments.
Respectfully submitted to the University Assembly (October 5, 1994). Diane Bricker, Special Education Rogena Degge, Arts and Administration Robert Hurwitz, Music, Chair David Jacobs, Political Science Ronald Kellett, Architecture James Mooney, Law Theodore Palmer, Mathematics Warner Peticolas, Chemistry Jack Rice, Geological Sciences Carol Silverman, Anthropology Susan Anderson, Student Member Sheri Bischoff, Student Member
Guy Shellenbarger passed away on June 14, 1994 at the age of 86. He was preceded in death by his beloved wife, Marjorie Swayne Shellenbarger, on September 30, 1981. Guy served for over twenty years as a teacher (his favorite work), and principal in Marshfield junior and senior high schools in Coos Bay, Oregon, before moving to Eugene in 1965. He was much respected by both his professional colleagues and members of the community.
Guy first joined the University of Oregon as an administrator at the Astoria Tongue Point Job corps Center. the federally funded program was for young women from across the country who represented a number of minority groups. There were as many as 1200 women in residence at a time.
In 1965 he became a full time professor in the College of Education at the University of Oregon. His primary faculty assignment was supervising and advising graduate students and teaching courses on student activities. He worked closely with the faculty in the assignment of graduate faculty advisors and spent a great deal of time helping both students and faculty. He was appreciated greatly by all he came into contact with. The practicum portion of his course work in student activities gave rise to the Canadian Summer Picnic which celebrated Canada's independence day. the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, sent him a personal letter of appreciation for his work on the celebration.
Guy loved social gatherings of all kinds and he was a very clever humorist, which everyone appreciated. His droll comments never failed to cause gales of laughter. One of his favorite social events was the annual crab feed he put on for the members of the Oregon Association of Secondary School Principals. This was the best attended association meeting of the year. The crab and Guy's humor satisfied all those present.
Guy was a member of Coos Bay's Rotary Club and Country Club Bird Watchers Society, the Oregon Association of Secondary School Principals, and was a member and past president of the Oregon Education Association. These are only a few of his many affiliations. In 1961 he was named the Outstanding Citizen by the Coos Bay Lions Club.
Guy was an outstanding practitioner and valued member of the College of Education faculty. He enjoyed clamming and crabbing as well as walking the beach and along the Willamette river with his much loved dog Lady.
Guy is survived by his two daughters, Sally McCombs of Vancouver, Washington, and Anne Radford of the Dalles, Oregon; five grandchildren; and two great grandchildren.
Robert D. Gilberts Professor College of Education
Galen was a bridge, bringing together people from different and often competing disciplines. He spoke the languages of art and technology, of business and philosophy. Better still, he was known to students and colleagues alike as a warm, caring person a man who put other people first.
He also, fortunately, put the University of Oregon first. When he was recruited in 1962 to develop the School of Journalism's program in communication theory and research, the faculty recognized it was a coup to attract this Stanford Ph.D.with strong journalism credentials. He soon became one of the most respected journalism educators in the country.
It was almost inevitable that Oregon would lose him to a larger university. In 1967, he went to Ohio State, where he cemented his reputation for significant research into newspaper policies and practices. But he was persuaded to return to Eugene as dean in 1976, where his skills guided the school successfully through an era of dwindling resources.
Galen served as dean for five years, earning the trust and admiration of faculty for what one of his colleagues, Roy Paul Nelson, described as "uncommon patience and disarming determination." Another emeritus professor, Jack Ewan, called Galen "The Great Negotiator."
Galen returned to the teaching faculty in 1981, completing 16 years with the school before retiring from full time teaching in 1987.
He was born April 28, 1923 in Muncie, Indiana, into a devoted and close family that included five sisters and two brothers. After receiving a bachelor's degree from the University of Denver and a master's from Stanford, Galen embarked on a 10 year journalism career that included three years as the owner and publisher of a weekly newspaper in Mississippi and three years on the staff of the Congressional Quarterly in Washington.
After returning to Stanford for doctoral studies, Galen taught at Hardin Simmons University and UC Berkeley before coming toÔ
But the most significant and satisfying event in Galen's adult life was his marriage in 1952 to Betty Lou Johnson. They enjoyed a close and loving relationship until her death in 1992. Two sons, Jeff of Keizer, Oregon, and Ethan of Walnut Creek, California, survive them.
Galen Rarick will be remembered for many qualities, but perhaps no more endearing than his well developed sense of irony, his mastery of the art of understatement and his good natured wit. They combined to make him a master story teller. He will be missed.
Arnold Ismach Professor School of Journalism
A native of Charlotte, North Carolina, Trotter earned degrees in Piano and Musicology from Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, and the University of Southern California. He came to the University of Oregon from UCLA in the Fall of 1963, taking the helm of what was then a quiet and unassuming School of Music with a determination to create an institution in which scholarship, performance, education and humane benevolence would flourish. He set about tirelessly to achieve this goal, creating innovative programs and molding an organization which would attain a revered national standing through the strength of its faculty and its academic programs.
During Trotter's tenure as Dean, which spanned the years from 1963 1975, the faculty doubled in size, and many of the School's doctoral programs were instituted. It was during his tenure, as well, that the School of Mucic began to attract significant numbers of top quality graduate students.
Trotter's vision of the School of Music was one in which the making, experiencing, thinking about, and teaching of music would thrive in a supportive and nurturing environment. He strove equally strongly both for high scholarly and creative achievement and honest, human communication. His goal of creating an outstanding faculty which eschewed parochialism, factionalism and unbridled self interest has become one of his greatest achievements. A fervent believer in Buber's concept of I Thou mutually confirming dialogue, his personal support and encouragement of his faculty were acknowledged throughout the university community. At the core, Trotter was a humane and caring man who, while he loved the art of music, never thought of it as separate from people.
Trotter was first and foremost a musician, and his deanship stemmed from that self definition. He was interested in ÃÃallÄÄ music, and long before it became fashionable, he was urging his faculty to pay more than lip service to music outside the European American concern hall tradition, eagerly sharing his growing experience of world and vernacular music with all who would listen. He was also passionately committed to the music of our time, and encouraged both faculty and students, performers and scholars alike, to become more involved in the music of the Twentieth Century. He honored the best of what was traditional but was quick to deflate anything that was pompous and unnecessary.
Robert Trotter's broadening influence has been felt far beyond the University of Oregon. As a President of the College Music Society, a member of the International Society for Music Education, the Northwest Director of the Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education and an active participant in many other influential organizations, he was able to disseminate his forward looking agenda for music in higher education both nationally and internationally.
After stepping down as Dean of the School Music, Robert Trotter continued to teach part time at Oregon, also serving as visiting professor at Yale and Southern Methodist Universities and at the Shanghai Conservatory in China. He also spent one year as Provost at the North Carolina School of the Arts.
At the time of his death, Trotter was perfecting a computer program designed to help western musicians learn the intricacies of North Indian Ragas. That program has already been used successfully in several UO classes, and the School of Music intends to see that project through to publication, with profits going to the Robert M. Trotter Memorial Fund.
Robert Trotter has had a profound influence on the School of Music, and his loss has been keenly felt. He is survived by his wife, Claire, his daughter, Susan Claire of Kauai, Hawaii, his son Bruce Trotter of Seattle and five grandchildren.
Robert Hurwitz Professor School of Music