Present: L. Alpert, E. Campbell, S. Clark, S. Cohen, D. Conley, L. Dann, R. Davis, J. Dawson, J. Earl, M. Epstein, P. Gilkey, J. Grzybowski, K. Helphand, M. Hibbard, E. Housworth, B. Jenkins, S. Kohl, S. Kolwitz, C. Lachman, D. Levi, E. Luks, R. McGowen, G. McLauchlan, D. Merskin, P. Mills, R. Moore, G. Moreno, M. Nippold, M. Paris, E. Pfeiffer, C. Phillips, L. Robare, D. Sanchez, N. Savage, A. Schneider, J. Schombert, P. Southwell, F. Tepfer, J. Terborg, N. Tublitz, T. Wheeler

Excused: B. Altmann, J. Gray, R. Kellett, M. Weiner

Absent: C. Brokaw, C. Gary, L. Blake Jones

CALL TO ORDER

President Peter Gilkey called the first regular senate meeting of the academic year to order at 3:07 p.m. in 123 Pacific.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

The minutes of senate meetings held on May 12^th and May 24^th 1999 were approved as distributed.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Remarks from President Dave Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer welcomed everyone to the new academic year and thanked senators for their willingness to serve in faculty governance. The president reminded the senators that unlike many institutions, our history of shared governance began with our school's charter that states that, "The President and professors constitute the faculty of the University, and, as such, shall have the immediate government and discipline of it and the students therein." He went on to say that shared governance is most meaningful if there is serious participation.

President Frohnmayer referred the senators to his recent state of the university remarks made during the October 6^th University Assembly meeting. He did not reiterate those remarks, but noted that among the agenda items for this academic year are the topics of salary parity, employee benefits, diversity issues, curriculum matters, and implementation of the Process for Change. (Full text of the president's University Assembly remarks can be viewed at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~assembly/6oct99minutes.html#Frohnmayer.)

Remarks from Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley spoke to the issue of salaries. He indicated he met with the Senate Budget Committee to begin formulating a process that would involve faculty members in addressing the fact that salaries at the UO are about 85% of peer institutions. He acknowledged that with the legislature's increased funding for higher education, there was a high level of expectation that there would be some money available for salary increases. However, the provost indicated that the budgeted amounts for the biennium (2% Jan. 2000, plus 2% Jan. 2001) will not make up the salary gap, and that some ground even may be lost over the biennium. The provost provided a chart indicating where budgeted monies were allocated for this year. Essentially, $19 million in overall budget increases were initially expected, but because student enrollment is less than anticipated, the total amount will likely be between $17-18 million. Allocations are planned as follows, but may need to be adjusted depending on actual enrollments.

• 6.5 recapitalization
• 6.6 continued service level (does not include salary increase)
• 1.7 salary and insurance
• 0.8 state match (chancellor's office)
• 0.7 GTF insurance increase
• 1.0 reserves to rebuild what was used previously
• 1.8 program increases
• 19.1 Total

Remarks from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative Paul Simonds. Continuing with the faculty salary issue discussion, Mr. Paul Simonds, anthropology, reported that the IFS passed a resolution urging the chancellor to make funding requests that would raise faculty salaries to the median level of our 19 comparator institutions. Mr. Simonds noted that virtually no progress has been made regarding faculty salaries as compared with peer institutions: in 1974 OUS institutions were literally at the bottom of the average salary rankings of our peer institutions, and in 1998 the UO, OSU, PSU were still there. Questions were raised in the IFS concerning the need to continue educating the legislature, either by individual institutions or as a system, as to the long term devastation wreaked by Measure 5 budget cuts and years of inadequate funding.

The IFS also was concerned with the current budget's seeming lack of support for graduate education costs while emphasizing undergraduate education. In addition, they saw inherent conflicts arising from what may become institution's tendency to maximize student enrollment and minimize cost per student by increasing class size and increasing the number adjunct faculty. A final IFS concern was the role of the individual institutions versus the role of the system in working toward increasing support from the legislature: should faculties support a unifying role for the system as individual institutions gain greater system independence?

Remarks from Senate President Peter Gilkey. President Gilkey added his welcome to those of President Frohnmayer and Provost Moseley who spoke earlier. He indicated that he viewed his role as senate president as one primarily of facilitating the work of the senate. In that vein, President Gilkey announced his appointments to the Senate Budget Committee that has already begun working with Provost Moseley on the faculty salary issue. Additionally, Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, chairs an ad hoc committee to study faculty committee structures and their lines of reporting. Further, President Gilkey noted that Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, will conduct a survey among senators to identify agenda items the faculty wishes addressed by the senate this year.

In another item of interest, the president noted that after consultation with the Senate Executive Committee and the Student Senate he granted a request by Associate Vice Provost Jack Rice to delay until spring 2000 the implementation of University Senate Motion 97/98-10 (adopted May 13, 1998) which adds two questions to the course evaluation forms. Planned upgrades in course evaluation forms scanning software to become Y2K compliant and the financial burden placed on departments to order new forms before exhausting their current supplies were compelling reasons to extend the implementation date.

President Gilkey also noted two items scheduled for the November senate meeting, IFS elections and an update on insurance benefits. He concluded his remarks by introducing members of the Senate Executive Committee as well as members of the other internal senate committees.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

The single item of unfinished business was the addition of Mr. Julian Weiss, romance languages, to the Committee on Committees for a one year term to fill a vacancy. Because this is a committee elected by the senate, President Gilkey asked for a motion to elected Mr. Weiss. With the motion and second forthcoming, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Jim Long, chair of the Undergraduate Council, proposed the following motion concerning credits toward residency requirements:

Motion US99/00-1 -- Credits toward residency requirements

Moved that, credits earned at the University of Oregon by a non-matriculated student count toward the residency requirements for a baccalaureate degree.

As background in formation, Mr. Long noted that the Undergraduate Council had continued its discussion of whether to allow non-matriculated students to count credits toward meeting graduation residency requirements. Mr. Herb Chereck, registrar, distributed information sheets to the council concerning the enrollment patterns of non-matriculated students in three terms, fall 1995, fall 1996, and fall 1997. He also submitted statistics on the tuition differential between non-matriculated and matriculated students, and fall 1998 enrollment statistics. Mr. Chereck concluded that the change would have little financial impact.

During a brief discussion Mr. Chereck noted that less than a dozen students over three years would have been affected by this change, hence the limited adverse financial impact. Motion US99/00-1 allowing credits earned at the UO by non-matriculated students to count toward residence requirement for a baccalaureate degree passed by voice vote.

In the next order of new business, the Undergraduate Council proposed Motion US99/00-2 to amend previous senate legislation US97/98-11, passed in May 1998, which established criteria for satisfying group requirements. The motion's proposed amendments to the current 1998 legislation for group satisfying courses are in bold type as follows:

Motion US99/00-2 Amend Criteria for Satisfying Group Requirements

1. Group satisfying courses proposed by departments or individual faculty must be reviewed by both the College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee and the University Committee on Courses before submission to the Senate.
2. Group satisfying courses must be numbered at the 100, 200, and 300 levels. Lower division courses must be offered annually, and upper division courses at least biannually. Approved courses must be at least 3 credits each.
3. Upper division group satisfying courses must provide depth and rigor beyond that of typical lower-division general education courses. Departments must justify, in terms of content, workload, and method of instruction, the assignment of a course to the upper level.
4. No more than three courses with the same subject code may be counted by a student as satisfying group requirements.
5. Group satisfying courses in Arts and Letters, Social Science, and Science must meet the following criteria:

• Group satisfying courses in arts and letters must create meaningful opportunities for students to engage actively in the modes of inquiry that define a discipline. Proposed courses must be demonstrably liberal in nature and broad in scope. Though some courses may focus on specialized subjects or approaches, there must be a substantial course content locating that subject in the broader context of the major issues of the discipline. Qualifying courses will not focus on teaching basic skills but will require the application or engagement of those skills through analysis and interpretation.

• Group satisfying courses in the social sciences must be liberal in nature rather than professionally oriented or devoted in substantial measure to the performance of professional skills. They must cover a representative cross-section of key issues, perspectives, and modes of analysis employed by scholars working on the subject matter addressed by the course. The subject matter of the course will be relatively broad, e.g. involving more than one issue, place, or time. Courses with an emphasis on methods and skills will satisfy the requirement only if there is also a substantial and coherent theoretical component.

• Group satisfying courses in the sciences should introduce students to the foundations of one or more scientific disciplines, or provide a scientific perspective on a major problem facing society, or provide an introduction to scientific methods (including the use of mathematics and computers) used within or among disciplines.

• Courses designed primarily for majors are not excluded a priori from group status.
• Learning first year German could not qualify for group status in arts and letters, but reading Goethe in German might.
• Courses in methods or statistical analysis are excluded in the social sciences, but courses in theory construction are acceptable
• Laboratory courses are not excluded from group-satisfying status in the sciences.


6) Each request that a course be given group satisfying status must include a statement identifying the parts of the Purpose Statement for General Education Requirements at the University of Oregon that are covered by the course.
7) Departments which offer several general education courses should suggest groupings or sequences of these courses that present a coherent development of knowledge and skills. The departmentís suggestions shall be included, for advising purposes, in the Green Book and in the Faculty Advising Manual.
8) Group satisfying courses must be resubmitted for renewal of their group-satisfying status by the College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee and then the University Committee on Courses. Reviews will be conducted on a five year cycle. The committees will select departments whose group offerings are to be reviewed each year, and request information essential for the review. At the committeesí discretion, this information may include frequency of course offerings, course syllabi, statements explaining the manner in which courses meet conditions set forth in this motion, and an overview of the departmentís group offerings.

When the university had a cluster system, committees carefully examined proposed clusters but stand alone courses were often treated as an afterthought. When clusters were eliminated, it produced our current system with a large array of courses that in many cases were never measured against either the letter or the spirit of the 1981 legislation. The 1998 legislation attempted to solve this problem for new courses by having descriptions of group satisfying courses in each of three areas against which courses new since 1998 have been measured. The most important change in the current motion is a requirement that group satisfying courses be resubmitted for renewal of their group status every five years. Consequently, all courses will be measured against the new descriptions.

Finally, last spring the Undergraduate Council wrote and adopted a Purpose Statement for General Education at the University of Oregon. The statement is referenced in the proposed legislation to be used by oversight committees along with the three descriptions of group satisfying courses to certify courses for group status. (Text of the Purpose Statement for General Education Requirements at the University of Oregon referred to in item #6 of the proposed motion is provided as an addendum to these minutes.)

A brief discussion of the proposed motion resulted in minor editing of the amendments for greater clarification (the edits have been made in the amendments as listed above). Hearing no further discussion, Motion US99/00-2 to amend group satisfying requirements was put to a voice vote and passed. The new legislation for group satisfying requirement thus includes items #1-through 8, the previous 1998 legislation with amendments.

Discussion of a Licensing Code of Conduct. Mr. Duncan McDonald, vice president for public affairs and development, updated the senators on several issues regarding the royalties on manufactured goods bearing the universityís name and logo as it relates to manufacturers of goods licensed by the university meeting standards of conduct for manufacturing. Mr. McDonald remarked that there are many groups across the country who are attempting to set reasonable standards for working conditions in the manufacturing of such goods. He indicated that the university has decide to wait for a while before joining any group until a committee that President Frohnmayer has appointed to advise him on the matter has time to gather more information and study the situation. Mr. McDonald noted, too, that the NIKE Corporation is publicly disclosing its list of factories that make campus goods, thus leading the way for other companies to make similar disclosures of their manufacturing practices.

In a discussion period that followed, Senator Jereme Grzybowski, ASUO, stated that he was pleased with the disclosures NIKE has made and hopes other companies will follow. He wondered how this issue would be prioritized, saying that a fundamental policy for all licensing entities is needed for our campus. Senator McLaughlan asked if the UO has any mechanism currently in place to identify manufacturers with poor labor practices, to which the reply was that no university has disclosure from all licensees, nor does the university have the means to conduct its own investigations.

Report on Summer Diversity Internships. Mr. Jiannbin Shiao, sociology, reported on the work done over the summer through the diversity internships. He indicated that as a result of the several hostile emails sent last spring to female students of color, the president's office and the Faculty Advisory Council established 10 paid summer internships to address these events. The interns were charged to study ways to improve (a) university response to the bias related incidents, and (b) the community conditions that facilitated the spring events. The interns pursued topics from the long-term proposal for a diversity research center to more immediate interventions such as a bias response team and the development of a video and materials to facilitate campus diversity dialogues. Regular meetings were held throughout the summer with administrators, faculty members, staff, and ASUO representatives. A summary of their recommendations and more information about the summer diversity internships as well as drafts of their reports are available on the web at the following sites: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/diversity6oct.html. http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~asuomca/diversityinit.html.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
 
 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty
 
 

ADDENDUM

Purpose Statement for General Education Requirements at the University of Oregon

(Adopted by the Undergraduate Council; spring 1999)

The liberal arts and sciences form the foundation of the general education curriculum at the University of Oregon. The general education curriculum prizes a common educational experience for all students, and offers opportunities for mastery of linguistic, analytic and computational skills, as well as the development of aesthetic values. It fosters personal development and an expanded view of self. It offers a breadth of knowledge and a variety of modes of inquiry. It strives for coherence of learning through integration and synthesis. It seeks to impart enthusiasm for learning. It emphasizes critical thinking, logic, and effective reasoning along with a healthy skepticism. It encourages appreciation of heritage and culture and examines values and controversial issues.

The University of Oregon, as a comprehensive research university, offers opportunities through general education to develop an understanding of and appreciation for:

1. the centrality of effective communication and language facility

• oral and written communication
• group, interpersonal and technological communication

• ethical judgment, personal and social responsibility
• the increasing interdependence and diversity of world cultures
• the consequences of current actions and policies

• the common concerns and diverse responses of societies, past and present
• historical approaches to understanding contemporary issues

• culture and its tangible achievements
• creative expression
• critical approaches
• aesthetic standards
• oral and written histories

• science as an interrelated body of knowledge, rather than a collection of isolated facts
• scientific methods of discovery
• scientific perspectives on major problems facing society
• quantitative reasoning and computational skills

• human behavior
• perception and cognition
• diverse modes of thought and creativity
• self awareness
• health and physical activity