Minutes of
the University Senate Meeting October 13, 2004
Present: E. Chan, C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L.
Feldman, S. Gary, P. Gilkey, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P.
Keyes, L. Lindstrom, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, A. McLucas,
C. McNelly, K. McPherson, R. Moreno-Villamar, L. Moses, L. Nelson, G. Psaki, L. Robare, G. Sayre,
P. Scher, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, S. Simmons, E. Singer, D. Sinha, P. Swangard,
J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman
Excused:
L. Freinkel, J.
Hurwit, M. Raymer
Absent:
G. Epps, C.
Lachman, M. Pangburn
CALL TO
ORDER
Senate
President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate
to order at 3:05 p.m. in 207 Chapman.
President Marcus welcomed all to the first senate meeting of the year
and commented that he looks forward to hearing thoughts from senate members on
how we all can contribute to maintaining and improving the academic environment
and excellence of the UO campus.
APPROVAL
OF THE MINUTES
Minutes
from the May 12, 2004 regular senate meeting and the May 26, 2004
organizational senate meeting were approved as distributed.
Remarks
and plans for the year. President Marcus began
his welcoming remarks by introducing new senators as well as recently appointed
Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Gregory Vincent. The president provided a brief overview
of the senate’s operation and structure, its committees, and the procedures
for bringing motions before the senate.
In describing the work of the senate, he noted that it is a formal and
deliberative body intended to address and establish broad policies related to
university governance and function.
He also outlined various reports and action items that likely will come
before the senate this academic year, such as the proposed General Education
Transfer Module, salary issues, library cutbacks, the diversity action plan,
student conduct code revisions, the campus planning process, as well as
maintaining and improving academic excellence. Many of these topics were discussed during the annual
Faculty Leadership Caucus held in late September. President Marcus concluded
his opening remarks with comments about the general spirit of the institution,
saying that the sense of shared governance, community, and mission unique to
the UO comes with a very real price of obligation, participation and engagement
in the dynamics of the university.
Remarks
from University President Dave Frohnmayer.
President Frohnmayer provided highlights regarding the general topics of
budget, enrollment, and the fundraising campaign before outlining plans for the
year ahead. Financially, state
appropriations are approximately the same in absolute dollars now as ten years
ago, evidence of public disinvestments.
Tuition and fees now provide more than 2/3 of the UO’s
instructional budget. Overall, the
UO will have an education and general operating budget that is close to being
balanced for the FY 2003-2005 biennium.
He noted that expectations from the governor for proposals in the
upcoming legislative session are positive and hopeful, and the university is
comfortable with the direction of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education.
With
regard to salary increases for the next biennium, the president said that the
governor is on record as supporting a salary increase in the next biennial
budget. This will cover all
employees, although there is no detailed information available at this time,
and the results of the collective bargaining process will determine the amount
for employees covered by these agreements. Similarly, following the governor’s request, the board
has agreed that there will be no additional cost to employees for health
insurance coverage through calendar year 2005.
President
Frohnmayer noted that enrollment is a crucial issue for the UO, given our
financial dependence on tuition dollars.
Enrollment at the University of Oregon is expected to increase to more
than 20,200 students this fall, which are nearly 200 more than last year. Both resident and non-resident numbers
are up. He explained that careful
planning and strategic course management are enabling the university to provide
access to classes and to services for students at the anticipated level of
enrollment despite funding limitations, and he thanked all faculty and staff
for their efforts to meet the academic and service needs of our students.
Moving on
to the current fundraising campaign, the president remarked that ten years ago
we completed the largest capital campaign in the history of the University of
Oregon, raising $255 million. Now
we are in the silent phase of Campaign Oregon: Transforming Lives, with a goal of raising $600
million. The public phase of the
campaign will open with a gala event on January 29, 2005. He noted that the need for the campaign
should be self-evident, but provided several raw facts to underscore the
campaign’s importance. In
1990 the state provided 32% of the UO's total budget, and tuition accounted for
23%. In the current year the state
portion was 13%, and tuition accounted for 33%. The remainder is made up of grants and contracts, as well as
auxiliary funds, which have both increased significantly.
Over
a ten-year span (1994-1995 to 2004-2005), overall full-time undergraduate
tuition and fees have increased more than 160%.
The
president reflected on his investiture at the UO ten years earlier. In remarks made at that time, he stated
that we must constantly dedicate ourselves to the development of a better university—the
same remains true now, ten years later.
The president cited a number of changes and accomplishments that have
transpired over the ten years to make the university a better one. Specifically, he commented on: the
nearly completed renovation of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, the new Law
School building and Lillis Business Complex and their concomitant increase in
program quality, the doubling of federal grant contracts to $90.2 million in
2003-04, undergraduate programs that safeguard small class freshman experiences
with First Year Interest Groups and Freshman Seminars, new affordable housing
created for student family living, established a better, robust partnership
with OSU, and attracting and hiring 396 top quality tenure-related faculty members
over the last 10 years to help ensure quality of the institution, which remains
foremost among our goals. The
president concluded that he looks forward to working with the new Vice Provost
for Institutional Equity and Diversity as he works to develop a diversity plan
for the campus. (See Addendum A
for full text of President Frohnmayer’s address.)
Report
from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS). IFS representative Nathan Tublitz, biology, reported that
the IFS has started to communicate with the state board and its working group
subcommittee members on a regular basis.
Recent budget cuts and resulting reorganization of the
Chancellor’s Office moved many of that offices’ responsibilities
the Board. A number of issues are
under current consideration: the General Education Transfer Module, which will
have faculty input from all the OUS campuses; the initiative to fund all new
student enrollment growth; moderating tuition increases; faculty retention and
recruitment, which includes retaining the best faculty and also money for
increasing average salaries for everybody; and retention of the top students in
Oregon via a plan to increase the number of honors colleges throughout the
state. These initiatives represent
a budget request of $105 million for the upcoming legislative session. Mr. Tublitz also mentioned that the
state is predicting a shortfall of $800 million to over $1 billion this next
biennium. Although the governor
already has asked for a 10% cut from every state agency, he is trying to
insulate higher education from these cuts. Mr. Tublitz reminded everyone that OUS is gearing up to work
diligently to try and help our legislators think more positively about higher
education and its contribution to our society and our state; consequently, IFS
representatives may be asking faculty to begin contacting legislators to
support that positive message.
IFS
President Peter Gilkey, mathematics, added that OUS will have a meeting on the
Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) on Friday, October 22, 2004. One proposal is a technical proposal
that puts into law the current “fix” now being used, and the other
is a more ambitious proposal that decouples ORP from PERS.
General
Counsel Melinda Grier spoke about the USA Patriot Act and how it has affected
the university. She said during
the past year she worked with a senate appointed committee to make certain the
General Counsel’s Office was notified and involved whenever the
university received any subpoenas under the Patriot Act or similar acts. She noted that updates in OARs and UO
policy statements on this topic became effective May 17, 2004. Ms. Grier reported that no subpoenas
have been received from the Patriot Act or similar acts. The only law enforcement subpoenas that
have been received from governmental agencies are for criminal matters. She also noted that all new faculty
members have been made aware of the policy requirements surrounding subpoenas
during new faculty orientation, that is, the General Counsel’s office
must be notified of all subpoenas received so that the subpoenas can be
properly reviewed and validated.
Senator
Jon Jablonski, library system, brought to the senators’ attention the
current period of public comment with the National Institute on Health (NIH)
regarding a proposal that any NIH funded research is published online for
free. NIH would like comments
about the proposal especially from faculty members. Senator Jablonski noted that the librarians support this
proposal and it is endorsed officially by the Association for Research
Libraries and the American Association of Universities. He noted that there are a variety of
options and plans out there to help ease the burden of journal subscription
costs, and this is probably the most encompassing one. Nevertheless, he has heard some
negative comments from the National Chemical Society, who likened the proposal
to socialized science. Senator
Jablonski noted that the proposal is not solely for the scientific community, but
ranges to social sciences and the humanities as well. He encouraged faculty members to review the proposal and
comment.
President Marcus asked for a resumption of the discussion begun during the regular May senate meeting about Motion US03/04 – 10, which concerns convening the University Assembly with full legislative authority when petitioned to do so by 33% of the Voting Faculty. Mr. Frank Stahl, biology emeritus, who sponsored the motion, spoke in support of the need to create legislation to regulate the petitioning, notification, and meeting time process in order to facilitate the likelihood of garnering the required quorum (half the assembly membership plus one) necessary for the assembly to act with full legislative authority. He noted that when an attempt was made to convene such a meeting in January 2003 (concerning a resolution opposing the war in Iraq), a quorum was not met. Mr. Stahl went on to say that the proposed motion was divided into sections to facilitate understanding and discussion regarding regulating the petition process, setting a meeting time that will facilitate attendance, ensuring assembly members are well notified of the meeting and their responsibilities to attend, identifying those from whom petition signatures can be obtained, providing contact information that will facilitate petitioners’ quest for signatures, having timely meeting notices, and ensuring the appropriate web links are established to the relevant legislation. Full text of the Motion US03/04-10 follows:
WHEREAS: Section 6.6 of the Enabling Legislation of the
UO governance document requires that a UO Assembly with full legislative power
shall be convened after a petition to do so has been signed by 33% of the
"Voting Faculty", and
WHEREAS: convening the Assembly with "full
legislative power" requires the attendance of a majority of the Assembly
members as prescribed by the Oregon Public Meetings Law, and
WHEREAS: in the absence of explicit provisions, this
quorum cannot be met, be it
MOVED THAT: The University adopt the following procedures to enable an Assembly to convene with full legislative power:
(a)
Prior
to circulating a petition to convene the Assembly with full legislative power,
Petitioners will submit the text of their petition to the University Secretary
who will forthwith give notification of the petition to those Members of the
Assembly who have e-mail. The announcement shall include the text of the
petition and item (b) of this motion.
(b)
Deans,
directors and department heads will adopt practices, appropriate for their
administrative units, that promote the face-to-face accessibility of their
Assembly Members to petitioners.
(c)
In
order for the petition to go into effect, petitioners must submit sufficient
valid signatures to the Secretary within 100 days of the announcement described
in item (a).
(d)
A
meeting of the UO Assembly called by petition of 33% of the Voting Faculty
shall be held at 3:30 PM, on a Wednesday, not less than 10 nor more than 25
days from the time of submission of the petition, except that no meeting shall
be scheduled for exam week, between quarters or during the summer quarter.
(e)
The
University shall send notification of the meeting time and place to all members
of the Assembly by mail. The notification shall remind recipients that they are
Members of the Assembly, that their attendance at the Assembly meeting is
expected, and that attendance at the Assembly Meeting takes priority over
routine obligations. This first notice shall be timely, permitting Assembly
Members to make the best possible arrangements. The mailed and e-mailed notices
(section f) shall include the text of the WHEREAS section of this Motion plus
items (d) - (g).
(f)
Assembly
Members shall be further notified of the meeting by notices in the Daily
Emerald and on the University Calendar, Senate, and Assembly Web sites. On the
Monday immediately prior to the meeting, Audix and/or email will be used to
remind members to attend.
(g)
A
list of Assembly Members (without phone numbers or e-mail addresses), organized
alphabetically, shall be maintained and posted on the UO Assembly Web site. The
list shall be updated annually, as early in the Fall Quarter as is feasible.
Faculty on sabbatical leave who are not in residence are not Assembly members
during their leave.
(h) An annually updated list of the Voting Faculty with office addresses and phone numbers, organized by department, shall be maintained and posted on the UO Assembly Web site. Faculty on sabbatical leave who are not in residence are not Voting Faculty during their leave.
(i)
The
UO Secretary shall maintain an annually updated list of Assembly Members with
phone numbers and e-mail addresses. The list shall be used only to forward
communications, from the University President, the University Secretary, or the
UO Senate President, that are relevant to the business of the Assembly.
(j)
A
link to the text of this Motion, entitled "Assembly with Legislative
Power" shall be maintained as a discrete item on the UO Assembly Web site.
A secondary link to the "Charter, Enabling Legislation and Bylaws"
shall be found there.
Senator
Gina Psaki, romance languages, proposed amending the motion by adding sections
(k) and (l) as follows:
(k)
The
UO Faculty Handbook shall include the following sentence: "The Assembly
also shall be
convened, with full legislative power, after a petition to do so has been signed by 33 percent of the voting faculty (those
faculty who are eligible to vote for the election of non-student university
senators).”
(l)
In
the event that an Assembly called by petition fails to gain a quorum, the
Assembly will be adjourned with instruction to meet one week later at the same
time. In the interim, the University President shall take all steps in
his/her power to ensure that a quorum will be realized. This legislated
adjournment to gain a quorum is applicable to only the first meeting called by
a given petition.
Speaking
in support of the proposed amendment, Senator Psaki said that section (k)
reflected the precise language of the enabling legislation and makes it clears
that a meeting must be convened if petition requirements are met. Section (l) was added as a follow-up
attempt to reconvene the assembly with a quorum if unsuccessful in the initial
effort.
President Marcus opened the discussion on the proposed
amendment. Senator Gilkey began by
asking a technical question, asserting that the University Senate does not have
legislative authority to legislate what the University Assembly would or should
do if an Assembly meeting called by petition fails to gain a quorum. He opined that only the Assembly could
make such determinations, not the Senate.
Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, anthropology emeritus, responded by saying
if the Assembly meeting quorum was not met, adjournment of the Assembly would
be automatic, and thus was not needed in the amendment. Further, he concurred with Senator
Gilkey’s point that the Senate cannot legislate actions for Assembly,
only the Assembly can do that. Given
the ruling by the parliamentarian, President Marcus ruled section (l) out of
order, and it was removed from the proposed amendment.
President
Marcus indicated that section (k) was still on the floor and asked for any
further discussion on it. Mr.
Stahl commented that versions of the Faculty Handbook that have appeared since the
reorganization of the Senate in 1995-96 have omitted the statement found in the
enabling legislative charter that gives the Assembly full legislative authority
if called by petition of 33% of the voting faculty. When he brought the omission to the attention of the
Provost’s Office, the on-line version of the handbook was updated to
correct the omission and include the relevant text, but was the language was
not cited exactly as stated in the enabling legislation. Mr. Stahl reasoned the only way to
assure that the exact legislation is included in the handbook is to legislate
how it is to appear there.
The
secretary commented that once the omitted text was brought to the attention of
the administration, a correction was made that followed the general writing
style of the handbook. She noted
that typically, the handbook highlights policies and practices rather than
citing verbatim policies that are found elsewhere in their full text. She disagreed with Mr. Stahl’s
suggestion that the text in question was purposefully omitted, and said that as
near as she could determine, it was a genuine oversight that was promptly
corrected once identified. She
thanked Mr. Stahl for bringing the oversight to the attention of Academic
Affairs, and noted that she had written the recent handbook update, using the
word “may” instead of “shall” in the sentence in
question.
President
Marcus asked if there were any further comments on the floor. Hearing none, the motion to amend
US03/04-10 by adding section (k) was put to a voice vote and passed. Section (k) was added to the main motion, and the floor was
opened for further discussion on the main motion.
Senator
Gilkey, speaking as the Assembly webmaster, spoke of his concerns about posting
a list of Assembly members, voting faculty members and their offices and phone
numbers on a website (section g and h), saying that it might encourage
harvesting of faculty information and unscrupulous “spamming” the
members listed. He questioned why
the information had to be posted publicly rather than simply complied and
available from the secretary by request.
Senator Gilkey acknowledged that he could understand that
senators’ names are posted, since they are elected by the faculty to
serve on the University Senate; but assembly members and voting faculty are not
elected to serve in legislative positions. Mr. Stahl replied that the University Assembly is a
legislative body under certain conditions (when called by petition of 33% of
the voting faculty) and thus its membership should be public knowledge. He added that the voting faculty, too,
is a body that is empowered by university legislation to take certain actions,
and its membership should be public knowledge. He commented that when there was interest in calling an Assembly
meeting with full legislative authority in January 2003, it took the secretary
some time to compile the list of assembly members and voting faculty, and he
had some questions about its complete accuracy. If the lists were on the Assembly Website, he went on to
say, the names could be read and challenged to make certain they accurately
reflect the membership of the Assembly and the voting faculty. Senator Gilkey disagreed that having
huge lists of names, office locations and phone numbers on the web would be a
valuable use of the space.
Senator
Gilkey also asked for clarity regarding the inconsistent use of the
notification methods in section (a) using “email” and later in
sections (e) and (f) which talks about mail, Audix ,and/or email used to remind
members to attend. Is campus mail
or US mail meant by the term “mail”? Senator McPherson commented that all sections regarding
notification methods should read the same. The secretary noted that in the January 2003 notifications,
campus mail was used primarily, and because some Assembly members were not on
campus regularly, she used US mail when those members’ home addresses
were known. To help satisfy the
intent of the motion, President Marcus suggested amending the sections dealing
with notification to read that “all methods of communication be
utilized” in all relevant sections of Motion03/04-10. The motion to approve the change in
notification of the Assembly and voting faculty passed.
President
Marcus then asked if there were any other comments in regards to the main
motion. Senator Susan Gary, law,
shared her concerns about having phone numbers on the Assembly Website. Mr. Stahl suggested phone numbers be
deleted from Section (h). Senator
Gary moved to amend the motion to remove phone numbers from Section (h); the
amendment was put to a voice vote and passed.
Returning
again to the main motion, the secretary voiced concerns regarding section (a)
requiring her to give notice to all assembly members that a petition was being
circulated before the petition had been signed by anyone other than the
petitioner. Her reservations were
first, that notification prior to a petition’s circulation was a new
procedure, and second, the motion as currently written opens the door for
possible abuse by frivolous petitioners in that it requires the secretary to
send out notification to all assembly members on the simple request of anyone
who says he or she is going to circulate a petition. There is no screening safeguard or vetting the legitimacy of
the petition or its appropriateness as an assembly topic. Previously, notification of meetings
was made after
a petition had been circulated with the reason for calling the assembly stated
and signed by 33% of the voting faculty.
The present motion has no vetting system in place, thus the secretary
would have no choice but to send out notification messages regardless of
whether the petition is legitimate, frivolous, or gains the necessary
signatures to convene a meeting.
Some kind of screening mechanism should be in place that functions in a
way similar to a priori signature gathering.
Senator
Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, expressed concern regarding who screens the topics
on which the assembly legislates, that is, who decides whether the topic is one
about which the assembly has legislative authority. Mr. Stahl replied that the Chair of the Assembly (the
president of the university) could answer that. In response, President Frohnmayer said the problem, as he
sees it, is that he would not be chairing the Assembly at the time that the
petition in question was presented for circulation to the faculty by the
secretary’s notification.
His authority to make a ruling on the topic of the petition comes by
virtue that there is a quorum present and business pending before the
Assembly. Since, by definition,
there is no Assembly meeting at the time the petition is being circulated to
convene a meeting, the President would then be asked to effectively censor or
to make a determination without people present and without a process for appeal
(which is available during an assembly meeting). President Frohnmayer remarked that it strikes him that this
is a power the senate many not wish to give to the president; in fact, he was
uncertain if he possesses such power of a chair before there is an Assembly
constituent of which he is then the presiding officer.
Mr. Stahl
commented that the purpose of the email notification is to alert the community
that petition gatherers will be canvassing to gather signatures on the petition. He noted that when he and others tried
to gather signatures to convene an assembly meeting in January 2003, there were
a number of people that did not want to talk to them because they did not know
who they were or their purpose.
Senator Psaki suggested that the email notification must only say that a
petition was being circulated, to which the secretary clarified that the rules
of convening an Assembly (with legislative power) are such that the topic of
proposed legislation must be part of the petition. And, there remains the problem of not vetting the petition
before notification is given of petition circulation. If required to send out notification prior to petition
signature gathering, the secretary should be able to supply the Assembly
members with the appropriate reason for convening a meeting. Senator Gilkey suggested that the
president of the University Senate would be a more appropriate person to act as
a clearinghouse before instructing the secretary to give petition circulation
notification. Senator Lise Nelson,
geography, suggested that instead of the senate president, perhaps there should
be a number of faculty signatures already gathered that shows there is some
consensus of the voting faculty for the issue. In response, Mr. Stahl suggested that 20 voting faculty
signatures would be an appropriate number. Senator Wagenknecht again voiced concerns that assembly
members may receive petitions for where it has no legal or appropriate reason
for convening to discuss topics beyond the legislative authority of the
assembly.
President
Marcus asked that that debate on the motion be postponed to allow more time for
thoughtful review of the motion and amending, as needed. Senator Gilkey requested that an Ad Hoc
Committee on the Assembly Motion be created, chaired by the senate president,
to discuss the issues raised regarding the assembly motion. Further, he volunteered to serve on the
committee along with the motion’s submitters, and suggested that the
secretary and general counsel also be included. President Marcus asked Senator Gilkey, Senator Psaki,
Secretary Steigelman, and Mr. Stahl to meet as a senate ad hoc committee to
make recommendations on the motion.
University President Frohnmayer added that if there were any question
about the role or appropriateness of the university president making a ruling,
he would like the ad hoc committee to discuss it before it is brought back to
the senate floor. He also felt
that legal counsel should be contacted on the legal aspects of the issue and that
the authority of the president should not be left unaddressed, one way or the
other. President Marcus agreed and
appointed the ad hoc committee. Senator
Gilkey then moved to postpone Motion US03/04—10 until the November 10th
senate meeting. The motion to
postpone US03/04-10 to a time certain (November 10th) was put to a
voice vote and passed.
Senator Gilkey, on the behalf of the Undergraduate Council, gave notice of Motion US04/05-1 concerning a proposal to university policy governing the mark of Incomplete for undergraduate students. He asked that the motion come before the senate at its regular November meeting.
With no
other new business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary
of the Faculty
a.
Financial Picture. State appropriations are approximately
the same in absolute dollars now as ten years ago—a striking comment on
public disinvestments. More than
two thirds of the UO’s instructional budget is now provided by tuition
and fees. Overall, the UO will have
an education and general operating budget that is close to being balanced for
the FY 2003-2005 biennium. Student
numbers are expected to be slightly higher than last year. Expectations from the governor for
proposals in the upcoming legislative session are positive and hopeful. We are comfortable with the direction
of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education and the energy and intelligence
of its new members. We extend our
appreciation for the level of commitment to higher education from the governor
— as recently as last Friday when he gave his valedictory comments as
temporary chairman of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education.
b.
Salary Increases for next biennium. The governor
is on record as supporting a salary increase in the next biennial budget. This will cover all employees although
there is no detailed information available at this time, and the results of the
collective bargaining process will determine the amount for employees covered
by these agreements. The governor
has requested that all state agencies cover the increased costs of health
insurance benefits through calendar year 2005. The State Board has agreed to cover this per the
governor’s request and there will be no additional cost to the employees
for health insurance coverage through calendar year 2005.
III. The Campaign. Ten
years ago we completed the largest capital campaign in the history of the
University of Oregon at $255 million.
We are now in the silent phase of Campaign Oregon: Transforming Lives with a goal of $600 million. We are opening the public phase of the
campaign with a gala event on January 29, 2005. The cornerstones — and categories for which funds are
being raised — are: (1) inspiration (teaching and learning), (2)
discovery (research and scholarship), (3) connections (to our various
communities), and (4) opportunity (financial support for students). The need for the campaign should be
self-evident, but a few raw facts underscore its importance: In 1990 the state provided 32% of the
UO's total budget, and tuition accounted for 23%. In the current year the state portion was 13 percent, and
tuition accounted for 33%. The
remainder is made up of grants and contracts, as well as auxiliary funds, which
have both increased significantly. When we compare 1994-1995 to 2004-2005
(a ten year span): overall full-time undergraduate tuition and fees have
increased more than 160%. This makes it all the more vital that, as part of our capital
campaign, we intend to raise $100 million for scholarships.
Some may think that on occasions such as
today’s, the president-to-be should appear unshaven and unkempt,
descending from a high mountain peak bearing freshly inscribed tablets, or
emerging red-eyed from a vast desert in flowing robes . . . proclaiming in the
gravelly cry of the prophet that we have lost our path, and must be guided by
an exalted new vision.
This might seem, I said, especially
important now, when critics of higher education have sharpened their knives,
thrusting and cutting at the efficiency, relevancy and values of our academy.
But today, I added, I offer no
Utopian vision of a vastly different university. I do not think we need
one. Ours is an ancient
enterprise, refined and proven through the tests of two millennia. The worth of our great modern research
universities like this is reckoned over and again in the currency of great
teaching, invaluable research, and outstanding public service.
We do not need, I stated then, a
different university. But we must constantly dedicate ourselves to the
development of a better one.
I say the same thing today. We do not need a different university.
But we must constantly dedicate ourselves to the development of a better
one. I believe, in the past ten
years we have done that. It has
not been easy. It has not been
simple. It has not been everything
we wanted. But I believe, in that
time, we have brought about some incredible transformations —
transformations that have changed us — and that reach out to change the
world. And when I say we, I mean we . . .
V. A
Lot Can Happen. A
lot can happen — and a lot has happened — in this past 10
years. Let me recite some
benchmarks. And, lest there be any confusion, I want to make clear that I do
not intend these remarks as my tombstone epitaph — rather, they serve as
more of a mileage check to see just how far we have come — and also how
far we have to go. Ten years ago we lived in a different world. The word “Monica” had not
entered our vocabulary. “e-Bay”
was just a place to dock your boat.
No one had ever been asked “is that your final answer?” More seriously: We had just ended a war with
Iraq. The economy was taking
off. With the recent fall of
the Soviet Union, it was declared by some that “history was at an
end.” The Twin Towers stood
in New York City. In many ways it
truly was a different world.
Ten years ago on this campus: Different faces — many somewhat
younger-looking than today — greeted me as I walked our tree-lined walks
and paths or met some of you for the first time. Our Museum of Art was small, overcrowded and lacked
environmental controls that would allow major works to be shown here. Attendance was sparse and hopes for
improvement seemed bleak. Our Law
School was facing accreditation challenges, mostly based on lack of space. Federal grant figures were not that
impressive. Our Business School
was crammed in unsightly and unfriendly Gilbert Hall, along with more than 20
percent of the other classes taught on campus. Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs), while established, had not
reached the vitality they now exhibit.
In the wake of Measure 5, we had just cut one-and-one-half
colleges. The College of Education
was a shadow of its former self — some even thought it was dead. We were deciding — amid
controversy and hostile city counselors — to tear down the
“temporary” Amazon housing that had been in place for nearly half a
century. Our relationship with our
sister university Oregon State was to become shaky — and to get
worse. Our efforts at becoming a
truly multicultural campus were just beginning to take shape, but had far to
go. We had not yet published one
of the truly landmark books of the decade, the Second Edition of the Atlas
of Oregon. And — lest I give short shrift to athletics — we
had not gone to a Rose Bowl game for nearly half a century — and we had
not yet been able to turn Autzen Stadium into the venue that today enables us
to gain a large part of the external visibility we now enjoy.
In the last 10 years the world we know has changed
dramatically. I don’t have
to spell out to any thinking person the changes and the challenges. But in the
face of these changes and challenges we — and I emphasize WE — have
accomplished much.
VI.
Ten Years of Accomplishment.
To return to the points I just
mentioned. In the past 10 years,
396 new tenure-track faculty members have been hired. The Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art will open soon as one of
the best designed and most eagerly anticipated museums of art on the West
Coast. Our Law School has moved
far beyond any accreditation questions to become a leader in the nation, one of
the country’s most technologically advanced law centers, and one that is
recognized world-wide for academic excellence and extensive public
service. Our federal grant figures
are becoming impressive, having doubled in the past decade, with researchers earning
a record $90.2 million in contracts, grants and other competitive funding in
2003-04, a 16 percent increase over the previous year and a 56% jump in just
three years. The Business School,
now the Charles H. Lundquist College of Business, is housed in the spectacular
Lillis Business Complex and offers nationally recognized programs in all its
departments, as well as such innovative programs as the Lundquist Center for
Entrepreneurship and the James H. Warsaw Sports Marketing Center. For our freshmen, we now offer First
Year Interest Groups and Freshman Seminars, providing small class settings to
our first year students that focus on specific majors or career interests, or
introduce them to new areas of interest.
In addition, Pathways links students with faculty in innovative and
creative ways of pursuing their general education courses. Unlike many sister universities, our
undergraduate lower division program has intellectual coherence, a product of
the “Process for Change” led several years ago by Provost John
Moseley. Our colleges are
growing. The College of Education
has brought itself back from what seemed to many to be the precipice —
and it continues to garner external support at an extraordinary level. It is the nation’s leader in
education research, both per capita and often in absolute dollars. We have replaced what was substandard,
unsafe and unattractive housing with comfortable and affordable family housing. The relationship we now have with
Oregon State University is a robust partnership that strengthens both
institutions and gives increasing opportunity to Oregonians. For the first time in 50 years the
University of Oregon last year hosted the annual meeting of the Association of
American Universities, the most prestigious university organization in the
world. In our efforts to create a
truly more multicultural university — one that reflects our world and its
peoples and cultures, we have worked diligently to come to where we are.
VII.
A Magnet. Quality
is a magnet . . . and probably our lifeline . . . there is no success without
our belief in that quality . . . and this faculty is the heart and soul of that
quality . . . It was my pleasure to meet so many of the new faculty at the
McMorran House at the beginning of the new academic year. They bring new vitality to a warm and
accepting faculty culture.
VIII.
What is to be done? Now
our job is to get the legislature to heed the governor’s call to reinvest
in higher education . . . We must continue and conclude our Campaign –
everyone has a responsibility. We
must work with new Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity, Dr.
Gregory Vincent, as he works this year to develop a diversity plan for campus.
. . .
this university has been an enduring source of inspiration and renewal in my
life, and in the lives of my loved ones. I love not only the beauty of these
emerald acres, not merely the stones and bricks of its architecture, but the
memories, dreams and hopes that give life to our vibrant and eternal spirit. I
pledge that this great university and those people who give it sustenance and
meaning will continue to have my most profound and continuing affection.
Having so pledged, it remains only for me to ask you
all now to join me in continuing to build, in continuing to nurture, and in
continuing to celebrate this great enterprise, this heritage, and this promise,
our University of Oregon.
I do the same today . . . this is our University of
Oregon.
| Web page spun on 22 November 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises |