ROLL CALL:

Present: Belitz, Bennett, Bybee, Davis, DeGidio, Dugaw, Engelking, Gibson, Harvey, Haynes, Holland, Isenberg, Kevan, Kintz, Lesage, Leavitt, Maxwell, Park, Owen, Ravits, Ryan, Soper, Tedards, Watson, Welch, Westling, Wood.

Excused: Anderson-Inman, Blandy, Ferguson, Girling, Hurwit, Moreno, Tublitz.

Absent: Clark, Schachter.


CALL TO ORDER

The April 10, 1996 meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:09 p.m., in Room 221 Allen Hall by Senate President Paul Simonds. The minutes of the March 13 1996 meeting of the University Senate were approved as distributed.

SENATE FORUM

Although it was unusual to commence the meeting of the Senate with the Forum portion President Simonds explained that many of the faculty and administrators attending as faculty/visitors would not be able to stay for the business meeting followed by the forum period. With this President Simonds introduced Provost John Moseley to make a presentation on the University Academic Productivity Plan after its first year of implementation.

Provost Moseley distributed the following document.

ACADEMIC PRODUCTIVITY PLAN: A PROGRESS REPORT

Mr. Moseley commenced his presentation by pointing out that the University had a responsibility to use its resources efficiently and effectively. No single solution to the problems facing the University, since the passage of Measure 5, was available. With the passage of Measure 5 the University crated the document titled "A Vision for the Future," (1992). This was a strategic plan that was to be an outline of the UO response to Measure 5. In 1993 the State Legislature mandated the each institution in the OSSHE develop "productivity plans" and the "University of Oregon Academic Productivity Plan" of March 1994 was the UO response to this mandate. A faculty committee created this document.

The goal of the University in the 1994 document was to increase productivity of the faculty and the students while increasing the quality of the classroom experience for each student.

The Provost summarized and expanded upon parts of the handout. Part of the dilemma facing us is "cost-quality-access." It is very difficult to succeed in all three, yet we must try as the mission of the University is tied to the results. The students educational goal is the objective and the question we face is how to get this done well and efficiently. The University or the other OSSHE institutions cannot look to Salem for a major increase in budgets.

The development of the Freshman Interest Groups has proven successful as it is an important part of the student goal portion of the productivity plan. Parallel to this is to encourage students to stay on track toward a degree and enforcing the 90 hour degree credit analysis has proven to be of great help in keeping students on track.

At one time we were seeing resident student enrollment falling while non-resident enrollment increased, but we now have an increase in resident enrollment and a flattening-off of out-of-state enrollment. Within the immediate future the increase in students graduating from Oregon high schools will impact higher education significantly. We are preparing for this anticipated influx of resident students--but without any increase in state financial support.

The ratio of student to faculty is about the same today as it was in 1990-91. This with a disinvestment in higher education by the State and increased enrollment. The UO is the only OSSHE institution that has been able to balance its budget and to increase very slightly its teaching faculty numbers.

Senator Mary Wood, Humanities, noted that the pressure seems to be toward producing credit hours and that upper division and graduate students will suffer. The reply from the Provost was that each department must access its programs and find its answers. The quest is to increase productivity and efficiency and each separate part of the University must seek and find its own answer. He noted that English had done much to change and have opened junior and senior level classes so students can complete degrees on time. Large classes generate student credit hours, but this is not the answer. This concentration on SCH will kill us, he stated. We need quality not just numbers. The two must be tied together if we are to survive.

Senator Stephen Kevan, Natural Sciences, asked if the legislature would continue to be intrusive. Mr. Moseley stated that with the passage of the legislation that gives OSSHE more independence the legislature is giving public higher education more flexibility to find its own solutions to its unique questions and problems. Higher Education is not just another state agency and the legislature is commencing to accept this fact.

Senator Wayne Westling, Law, read the following statement from Senator Jeff Hurwit, AAA. Senator Hurwit was absent as he had a professional commitment. The statement:

As the senator who first asked President Simonds to invite John Moseley to visit the Senate, I believe I am obliged to ask some questions about, and to comment upon, the model of productivity that seems to be in force at the University, even though I am (as you hear these words) flying back from the J. Paul Getty Museum, having given what I hope has been a very productive lecture. I would like, first, to thank the Provost for graciously accepting the Senate's invitation, and Wayne Westling for reading these remarks (I absolve him of any blame or guilt by association). Second, since I cannot know what Provost Moseley has already said, or what questions he may have already answered, I ask his and the Senate's indulgence if any of my comments are at this point moot. Finally, if any of may assumptions are based on misinformation, it is probably because we as faculty have sorely needed the public presentation that Provost Moseley offers today.

In fact, if my understanding of the University's model of productivity is inaccurate, than I shall be very glad of it. For I am deeply concerned over the adoption of model whose most conspicuous pedagogical idea seems to be: the more students we cram into classes, the better. Departments have now been assigned Student Credit Hour targets or quotas to aim for over and above past performance--quotas that had better be reached, we are told, lest the department or the unit to which it belongs be denied monies with which to fund, for example, future salary increases or equipment purchases. The consequences of such a "carrot-and-stick" approach--intended or unintended--are to pit unit against unit, department against department, in a raw competition for student credit hours.

If allowed to continue, this policy will seriously devalue the education the University of Oregon provides in several ways. It will force--it has already forced--departments to offer more and more large classes, rather than smaller ones, de-personalizing the educational experience sill further: in certain years departments may not be able to "afford" to offer more than a few upper-level courses or seminars in order to reach the goal artificially imposed upon it. The model will discourage interdisciplinary and team-teaching, since one department may not have the flexibility to split the produced student credit hours with another. It will tempt departments struggling to reach their quotas to "dumb down" and offer courses that will attract students simply because they are flashy or easy rather than rigorous and challenging (to reply that we are too pure to do so is disingenuous). Most troubling, this model of productivity may compel faculty to structure their departmental offering not for sound academic or curricular reasons, but with a view to the next salary increase or computer purchase. When we plan our courses, we should have the education of our students, not our pay-stubs or laptops, in mind. All in all, this not the Oregon Model that many of us though we were constructing just a few years ago--a model that was supposed to stress smaller classes and more intense learning experiences. The current, narrow definition of productivity is a perversion of the Oregon Model, not an instrument of it.

While I certainly believe that every department should constantly strive to improve its curriculum and offer courses that are appealing as well as educational, I, for one, do not understand what difference it makes to the fiscal health of the University whether Student X, who pays the same tuition no matter what courses he/she takes, enrolls in an Art History or an English class. I do not understand how nationally accredited departments or programs can be expected to increase their numbers formulaically each year when their accreditation partly relies on maintaining low faculty-student ratios. I do not understand how the administration can threaten to withhold salary increases or other enhancements from dedicated faculty in colleges or departments that, for reasons quite beyond their control, may not reach their quotas (if hordes of students in the age of MTV and Bill Gates choose not to take Latin or Descartes, should we punish the Classics or Philosophy departments?). I do not understand how every department on campus can be expected to increase its student credit hour production by the same 3% (which I believe is the operative number) when total enrollment remains constant; in a zero-sum game , an increase over here must mean a decrease over there. But perhaps not all departments are being given the same targets (if not, why not?), or we are subtly being told to expect a massive increase in total University enrollment. Now, even under President Brand there was a broad understanding that the student body would have to grow to fund necessary programs. But there are rumors that the enrollment target is now 20,000 or even 22,000, and I, for one, do not understand how the U of O (absent a flood of new funding, additional faculty, and new classrooms) can over the next few years expand to that extent without collapsing. But even if we could rationally manage such growth, would not student credit hour production correspondingly increase of its own accord? Perhaps the provost can answer (or has already answered) these questions, but there are one or two final points that must be briefly raised.

The faculty of the University of Oregon is the hardest-working faculty of any institution I have seen in my thirty years in higher education, and it is nothing new to say that they already work much harder, and produce much more, than Oregon, which has chronically underfunded Higher Education and thus and thus mistreated its own children, deserves. Still, it is interesting to note that in the most recent U S. News and World Report on "America's Best Colleges 1996" (such as it is), the U of O ranks very poorly in student/faculty ratio and in expenditures per student, but relatively high in academic reputation: the only explanation I have for that is that a lot of people think we already are more productive than we have a right to be, given our resources.

Productivity simply cannot be measured by one standard alone, and the effect upon faculty morale when salary raises or other benefits are first distributed on the basis of SCH quotas is likely to be severe. I fear that this model of education is potentially as divisive and destructive as anything forced upon us by Measure 5 or by an uncomprehending legislature. It is a model that puts market values over pedagogical ones, quotas over quality, numbers over knowledge; it promotes assembly-line education, and it treats students as widget. It is a model that has been constructed by this administration, then, fortunately, it can be rather easily rebuilt. It is a model that has been imposed upon us by the State, then it is my fervent hope that the administration will lobby Salem for the revisions and the funds necessary to strengthen rather than weaken the educational experiences of our students. And if the faculty is to be judged by the sheer numbers of students who pass through the turnstiles of our classrooms, rather than by the quality of the instruction they receive, then perhaps we should be allowed to judge the productivity of our officers of administration by the increased quantity of state dollars they bring back with them to Eugene.

Again, I thank Provost Moseley for his patience and I regret that I am not here to learn from his presentation and response.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeff Hurwit
Jeffrey Hurwit

The Provost, in reply to some of the points and questions-inquires raised by Senator Hurwit, pointed out that the student-teacher ratio is lower now than it was before Measure 5; the number of teaching faculty has increased and the number of non-teaching faculty has decreased; the plan has flexibility, much more than other suggested plans. Mr. Moseley said he would meet with Senator Hurwit to discuss his concerns.

Senator James Isenberg, Natural Sciences, brought up the point that some departments have historically had small classes because of the difficulty of the subject or the specialization of the subject. The plan being implemented seems to ignore these facts. Provost Moseley said that the SCH has always been a critical factor in guiding expenditures, it just was not discussed or written about, but it was always there and budgets were adjusted to an extent on SCH. The only change is that we are now out in the open as to the influence of SCH on expenditures.

Senator Davison Soper, Natural Science, raised the point that rigorous courses might "bite the dust" as they will attract fewer students than easier courses. This would harm the quality that is suppose to be a part of the plan. Mr. Moseley replied that the Deans and Department Heads must be alert to this--the UO cannot allow its curriculum to be watered down and the Committee on the Curriculum is charged with being a watch dog in this area. The Committee must be ever alert to the quality of the curriculum and move constantly toward demanding quality in the curriculum. This Committee is a crucial link in maintaining the quality that we have now. It cannot be forgotten that a part of this whole issue of productivity will include electronic access and this must also be planned for as it develops in the next few years.

Senator Kevan asked if an increase in faculty would be balanced against the electronic classroom. Provost Moseley said this should be a discussible issue.

Senator Paul Engelking, Natural Science, pointed out that the impact of Measure 5 on the UO was not as severe as the other OSSHE institutions as the UO was able to tighten its belt, implement creative thinking of how to get through, developed a very basic plan on the future of the UO over the period 1992-1997 and proceed to implement the plan as devised. Mr. Moseley pointed out that this was true and that when adjusted for inflation the UO saw its state support cut by 50% through the implementation of Measure 5.

Senator Martha Ravits, Social Sciences, asked how we were going to measure student satisfaction, viz a viz the increases in tuition--the investment and the return for the student. In answer, Mr. Moseley pointed out that the UO is doing a survey on satisfaction. He also referred to an earlier statement he had made in the discussion that the non-resident enrollment was flattening out and that current projections see an increase in resident enrollment. This means a drop in tuition money. The future job market will force more and more high school students to continue their education at the college/university level, he said.

The Provost asked rhetorically how the University Senate could deal with the dilemma of cost-quality-access and to help the University as a whole reach its goals as stated in the "Vision" Plan of 1992, and the "Academic Productivity Plan" of 1994. He suggested that at the present time too much attention/focus is on the SCH situation. The "Academic Productivity Plan" report is very positive and it is clear that sound financial recognition must be given to where students are being taught, Mr. Moseley concluded.

Senate President Simonds thanked the Provost for his presentation and the Provost urged individuals to contact him if they had other questions or points to be raised. The discussion will continue as the productivity plan progresses and matures.

Senator Julia Lesage, Humanities, submitted statement compiled by the Department of English on the productivity issue. The statement follows:

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT CONSTITUENCY REPORT ON PRODUCTIVITY

SCH or productivity is not really a zero-sum game. It relies on the number of new students enrolling at the U of O. Two years ago, before SCH became an obsession, the administration said funds lost through measure 5 could be recouped by raising total enrollment to 18,000--presumably enough students to fill everyone's class. But enrollment has not risen to 18,000; it has barely grown at all. It's hard to say who is responsible for recruiting more students, but this administrative analysis of "productivity" has been shifted from this larger context of enrollment, which is the truly meaningful one, to the zero-sum game of "academic darwinism" by which departments compete with one another for students. This is not saving anyone any money.

I'd like to add my voice to those who deplore this corporate/marketplace fundamentalism, which supposes that higher education is foremost a business and that the market template of Reality to which all human activities and institutions must conform. And to call it academic darwinism belittles darwinism. At least Darwin believed in biodiversity, not an ecological monoculture.

Competition is unhealthy in a "closed system" like the University of Oregon. We only can get new "bodies" from each other's classes. It is doubly unhealthy insofar as it measures only one dimension of a productivity that is supposed to be multiple in a Research University. The English Department, for instance, was regarded as over-extended in the past. It had too many students, by everyone's definition, which meant that the general quality of teaching suffered and also that our ability to function as effective scholars did, too. That was one reason we (with the Central Administration) encouraged new Gen Ed courses from certain units that in the past conspicuously shirked their teaching obligations to the general undergraduate population in order to protect their productivity elsewhere. Now, under the Darwininistic SCH productivity model, those units are being rewarded for correcting past errors while we are being punished for returning from super-high teaching numbers to merely high ones. Note also that it is easier for small units to register gains under this model than large ones. Both CAS and English are set up to lose.

This model also has predictable "corrective" behavior. We are already asked to "look closely" at such low-yield SCH areas such as graduate courses and "specialized" courses at the 400 level. Although the faculty is reassured that no one wishes to threaten the graduate program or the major, it is clear that the department can "score" best by shifting faculty to serve the general university population in group-satisfying courses. Other questions arise. SCH measures encourage us to dumb down our classes: less reading, easier grading, kinder and gentler course design in general. Why not streamline major requirements (e. g. historical distribution?) Again, no one precisely asks for this. But like any smart rats in a behavioral maze, we'll find the fast route to the goodies.

The productivity model seems already assumed in place given our endless worries about bodies in seats in courses. This is a pernicious model. Implicit is the idea that the largest course is the best and the smallest the worst. This affects this department's ability to offer the range of courses that reflects our diverse and distinctive strengths; it potentially affects our ability to provide sound intellectual coverage of all areas which currently come under the rubric "English."

Academic darwinism comes from setting units in competition with each other in what is essentially a zero-sum system. The English Department's success in drawing students has to mean some other unit's failure--hardly a cooperative model which would foster collegiality or interdisciplinarity. The concept of productivity sets departments in competition with one another, and the smallest departments--those always vulnerable in any time of financial crisis--are bound to lose. The university must maintain essential disciplines which can never be cost-efficient, especially "minor" languages, including Greek, Latin and other dead languages, as well as third-world languages like Thai, Hindi, Swahili, etc., which can never draw large classes.

The productivity model disadvantages CAS as a whole, bound to compete within the "market" of the university just as our departments are bound to compete with one another. What I would like to know is what happens to the idea of a liberal education, or of academic excellence. all defenses of the model thus far are purely financial. Yet, if UO continues to tend its reputation for huge courses with less and less faculty contact, students will find somewhere else to go.

A truly healthy productivity model would aim to increase TOTAL university enrollment by making courses, degrees and university life more attractive to Oregonians and others. But such a model would necessarily place strong emphasis 1) on graduate programs (so the University could retain its AAU status and regain prominence in research) and 2) on excellence in undergraduate teaching. Both of these emphases would require tougher rather than easier courses and admissions standards. And both imply the opposite of what we're being encouraged to consider "productivity."

OLD BUSINESS

President Simonds introduced his motion concerning membership on the Faculty Advisory Council:

In addition to the elected members, the President of the University Senate or designated representative shall serve on the Faculty Advisory Council.

The President explained that with the changes in faculty governance the establishment of a line of communication between the FAC and the Senate should be established. This motion has as its intention the establishment of such a line. Senator Soper, Chair of the Senate Rules Committee, pointed out that the FAC takes very few votes and thus the Rules Committee did not feel it was necessary to say the position being proposed would be non-voting.

The motion passed without objection.

The next item of business was to make some corrections in the Curriculum Report the Senate approved in January. The course "Knowledge and Power in China" should have been listed with the course numbers HIST 488/588. This correction was approved.

Along the same line Comparative Literature 411/511 should have been titled Classicisms. The s was left out of the Report. This correction was approved.

The Senate also voted to approve that such corrections in grammar, spelling, omission, numbers, should be approved by the Senate Executive Committee. This approval does not include the any changes in substantive matters, e.g., course descriptions.

NEW BUSINESS

Associate Vice Provost Jack Rice was introduced to commence the preliminary discussion of the two motions titled "Peer Evaluation of Teaching and Learning" and "Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning," that was prepared and submitted by the Faculty Advisory Council. The statement of purpose attached to the first motion states:

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to set forth a policy structure that assists in the systematic and equitable evaluation of both teaching and learning, and in the encouragement and reward of good teaching at the University of Oregon. The recommendations set forth below grew out of the report of the Teaching Workgroup of 1993, and have been modified and enhanced by the Faculty Advisory Council.

The preamble gives the scope of the motion:

To define expectations regarding evaluation of teaching by faculty peers at the University of Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty reviews and the promotion, tenure and post-tenure review process.

The purpose of the second:

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to set forth a policy structure that assists in the systematic and equitable evaluation of both teaching and learning, and in the encouragement and reward of good teaching at the University of Oregon. The recommendations set forth below grew out of the report of the Teaching Workgroup of 1993, and have been modified and enhanced by the Faculty Advisory Council.

This motion proposes to repeal the present legislation of December 6, 1978 concerning Evaluation of Teaching and to replace that legislation with the following.

Legislative history: ORS 351.065(f) and OAR 581-22-090(d)

And the preamble:

To define expectations regarding student course evaluations at the University of Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty reviews and the promotion, tenure and post-tenure review process.

At this point President Simonds stated that the Senate would not act on this motion at this meeting, but that the action would take place at the May 8, 1996 meeting of the Senate. The purpose of this discussion was to get input from the Senators, suggested changes, explanation or definitions and to give some direction to the perfecting of this motion. He further pointed out that the precedence for this action can be found in the Senate deliberation on the motion last year concerning the Faculty Reward System. This preliminary discussion to allow for the perfection of the motion was also something the this Senate had requested in February in a general discussion of how the "New" Senate would like to approach major legislation.

(The motions were distributed and the discussion commenced. As the motions are in a preliminary form they are not a formal part of these minutes. However, copies are available from the Secretary (6-3077) and the Office of the Provost (6-2047). Other material relating to the motions has been received by the Secretary and it will also be made available to any voting faculty member or student senator who contacts him or the Office of the Provost. The final motions will be distributed to all Senators and voting faculty members with the Agenda for the May 8, 1996 University Senate meeting.)

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the meeting having concluded the Senate adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Keith Richard
Secretary