University of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, September 9, 2010
Senate
Members: R. Berls, R. Bowen, G.
Ettari, V. Frank, E. Gant, G. Kormanik, B. Larson, T. Meigs,
S. Mills,
K. Moorhead, L. Nelms, K. Reynolds, L. Russell, B. Schaffer, S. Subramaniam,
M.
Sidelnick; J. Fernandes.
Excused: G.
Boudreaux, G. Nallan.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, L.
Friedenberg, C. Galatioto, E. Katz, J. Konz, K. Krumpe, L. Langrall,
M.L. Manns,
P. McClellan, R. Pente, A. Shope.
I. Call
to Order and Announcements
Dr. Frank called the meeting to
order 3:16pm and welcomed new Senators and guests.
The agenda was modified.
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of May 6, 2010 (3:15pm and 4:30pm) were approved
with editorial corrections.
III. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Volker Frank reported for the Executive
Committee.
Standing
Rules and Rules of Order
Dr. Frank said the Senate is required to adopt Standing Rules and Rules
of Order at its first meeting for the purpose of conducting its business. (The requirement is in the Constitution under
Section 5. Such rules shall be in
accordance with the Constitution.) The
Standing Rules and Rules of Order passed without dissent and became SD0210F. See SRRO at:
http://www3.unca.edu/facultysenate/2010-11/Standing%20Rules%20and%20Rules%20of%20Order201011.htm
Letter from Chancellor Ponder
Dr. Frank read an open letter
from Chancellor Ponder.
Good afternoon.
Because of my obligation as
Chancellor to attend the UNC Board of Governors meetings in Chapel Hill, I am
unable to join you for the first faculty senate meeting of the year. I have asked Volker Frank to read my letter
to you in place of my being with you.
First, I’d like to share,
once again, my deep respect for the difficult work you as faculty have
undertaken in the last year or so, as we have faced budget constraints that were
unheard of in the recent past. These constraints have forced us to make
difficult choices between competing goods. And when we were successful in
making those choices, it hardly felt like victory, since it required us to say
no to some really worthwhile endeavors. Thank you for your continued focus on
our students and their well being, as you help to prepare them for the many
challenges of this new century.
Second, I’d like to lend my
full support and confidence in Provost Jane Fernandes, as our leader in the
Reaffirmation of Accreditation process. There will not be a more important
endeavor for us to undertake in the coming year. Provost Fernandes has outlined what she believes we
will need in order to be successful in meeting the SACS requirements, and the
senior staff and I have assured that funding will be available for these
crucial needs. Each of us will have multiple opportunities to become part of
this process, and I hope that you will enthusiastically participate in as much
of this process as possible.
Third, I’d like to
acknowledge the early and important advances we have made on our goal to
improve both the diversity of our membership and our inclusive practices on
campus. Our overall student body is reporting a slight increase in racial diversity
(from 8.7% to 9.3%). Our inclusive practices, led by the Diversity Action
Council, have included the campus climate study just completed last spring,
several focus group studies to learn more about how we might be a more
welcoming campus to specific groups, and a recent initiative to create gender
neutral and family friendly rest rooms all across campus. Each of these steps
represents a hopeful shift in our perspective on the possibility of real
change. Thanks to each of you for your efforts in this area.
Finally, I want to share my
excitement and enthusiasm for our newly-elected president of the UNC system,
Tom Ross. As the current president of one of the most widely respected liberal
arts colleges in the nation, he is someone who understands at a fundamental
level the lifelong values of a liberal arts education. He recognizes UNC
Asheville as the gem that it is. We will not need to make our case to our new
president – he will be making that case for us.
You should know that I have
a deep and abiding respect for Tom Ross’s integrity and leadership. As a North
Carolinian, he has served our state in many capacities, including chairing the
Board of Trustees at UNC Greensboro and participating in the UNC Tomorrow
Commission, the study that outlined our university system’s future. He is also
kind, insightful and resourceful individual.
As soon as the opportunity
presents itself, I intend to invite him to UNC Asheville so he can witness
firsthand the standard of excellence that you have established and the model
that UNC Asheville serves among four-year liberal arts universities. I am very proud of the educational experience
that you provide and look forward to joining with you in hosting President Ross
on our campus once he takes office in the new year.
I look forward to a time
when the faculty senate meeting doesn’t conflict with the Board of Governors
meeting. To that end, I will work with the chair of the faculty senate to ask
for time to speak with you at an upcoming meeting. Until then, I wish you, each and all, a
wonderful 2010-11 academic year.
Faculty Senate Representative on SGA
Dr.
Subramaniam volunteered to attend SGA meetings once a month to provide
representation and answer questions or bring issues to the Faculty Senate. Mr. Berls and Dr. Frank will serve as
alternates.
IV. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr.
Gary Ettari reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
Dr. Ettari said he is honored to work
with his colleagues in FWDC who have already provided valuable insight and
advice.
The FWDC committee is concerned with
faculty welfare and with development.
They see themselves as a resource, a group of people who want to help
with issues relating to faculty welfare or development. It is safe to say that on some level we are
facing an institutional identity crisis of sorts and that directly affects
faculty welfare. Dr. Ettari called upon
his colleagues in the Senate to spread the word, along with FWDC, that FWDC is
here to help inform faculty, be an advocate for them, and to make certain that
faculty play a vital role in whatever changes this institution decides to make
or not make.
Committee Assignment
The
Senate appointed Dr. Blake Hobby to the Intellectual Properties Committee in
place of Virginia Derryberry.
First Reading
The following document was
distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 1: Editorial changes to the Faculty Handbook
FWDC response to Senate mandate regarding electronic Student Rating of
Instruction
Dr.
Ettari presented FWDC’s response to the Senate mandate regarding electronic
SRI.
Highlights
of the discussion:
•
A major issue is the need
to follow the Faculty Handbook regarding whether or not there is any distinction
between evaluating junior and senior faculty.
(Moorhead, Ashburn, Friedenberg)
•
According to
Institutional Research, it is easier to set the default at 100% and therefore
one would have to make an active selection of what not to evaluate. We should continue to follow our current
procedures. Chairs will need to be
proactive or all courses will be evaluated.
(Kormanik)
•
Chairs/program directors
will receive a spreadsheet and it will be up to them to consult with faculty
and to send it to Institutional Research so they know which CRN numbers to
either exclude or set up as faculty-view-only.
(McClellan)
•
Regarding course sections
to be evaluated, the sciences have classes where the lab section involves one
faculty member, but the lecture portion may be partially from one’s and
partially from another’s lecture. When
students are asked to evaluate the course there could be some confusion, as the
evaluation involves more than one faculty member. Perhaps these types of courses should be
patently excluded. (Meigs)
•
It should be explicit to
the Chairs that this conversation with the faculty member in terms of making
that selection is mandatory. Perhaps we
should institute a process where that is clearly adhered to. (Subramaniam)
•
Dr. Karin Peterson, chair
of the Tenure and Reward Committee, will be invited to meet with FWDC before
the committee completes its report and makes its recommendations so we will
have important input and feedback into their recommendations. A low response rate is a major concern,
particularly for untenured faculty. Another concern of faculty is whether or
not the new system adequately measures what they do. (Frank)
•
For clarification, the
instructor has to send a reminder email to students. (Mills)
•
In the program it will be
defined when reminder emails go out to non-respondents. If an instructor wants to send out a reminder
email to the non-respondents they can do that.
It will have to be clear to students that faculty will not be able to
identify non-respondents. What is probably
more valuable is to talk to the class as a whole about the value of the student
ratings of instruction and the feedback that they give. (McClellan)
•
There will be an
opportunity soon for faculty to look at the system online so they can see how
they can add questions of their own choosing and what they can do with the data
analysis. (McClellan)
•
Will students not have
access to their grades until they do this electronically? (Schaffer)
•
We make no suggestion
that students should be denied grades or anything of that sort. (Ettari)
•
Does this represent a
change? Students can access their grades
once they are posted, regardless of whether or not they have completed the
evaluations. (Moorhead)
•
If we need to motivate
students we can say: “When you do this, you will get to see your grades
immediately.” However I would prefer not
do this in the first semester. Let’s
wait and see how things are going before we use our options. (McClellan)
•
It is important to
explicitly communicate to faculty that they communicate with the Chair in terms
of which courses will be evaluated.
(Subramaniam)
•
There will be a prior
agreement between the Chair and the faculty member on which courses will be
evaluated. Faculty can expect in general an announcement: “Consult with your chairs
about your course selection.” (Frank, McClellan)
Dr. Larson said FWDC has fulfilled
the request that was made of it. It may
not be perfect, but we have a reasonable starting point. He made a motion that the Senate adopt FWDC’s response.
Dr. Russell seconded the motion.
Dr. Moorhead said that Dr. Ettari was going to follow up on some
questions that were raised that might modify the response. Dr. Ettari agreed that the Senate needs
clarification on the Faculty Handbook before voting.
Dr. Kormanik made a motion to amend
the document by deleting everything in section B, starting with
“Currently.” The motion was seconded by
Mr. Berls and it passed unanimously.
Dr. Larson made a motion that the
Senate adopt FWDC
2 as amended in a Sense of the Senate Resolution. Dr. Russell seconded the motion. The motion passed without dissent and
became SD0310F.
FWDC’s report, as amended, follows:
FWDC 2: Response to Senate mandate regarding Student Rating of Instruction
Background:
In the March 2010 Faculty Senate meeting, the FWDC was charged to
address these issues regarding Student Rating of Instruction:
A. The
percentage that defines a low response rate.
B. The
procedure that an instructor uses to choose the courses that are to be
evaluated.
C. An
incentive system that encourages students to fill out the electronic
evaluations.
FWDC will present this at the first Senate meeting
in the 2010/11 academic year.
Response:
A.
Because we are implementing a new technology for the student rating of
faculty, it is difficult to determine a minimum or low response rate. The majority of available data suggests that
there will be an initial, significant decline in response percentage. With paper surveys, the average response rate
for UNC-Asheville classes was 83.8% in the 2008 – 09 academic year. There is
evidence to suggest that we may initially see that response rate cut in half.
According to the April 7, 2010 issue of The Boston Globe, for example,
Northeastern University experienced a steep decline in response rate in the
first year of electronic SRI implementation, falling from 80% to 54%. However, there is also evidence to suggest
that the percentage will rise over time and likely
reach (or even eclipse) the paper rate.
Harvard University, for example, began using an electronic rating
instrument in 2005 has, after providing the incentive of students receiving
their grades early, has seen their response rate rise to 96%, as opposed to the
65% rate earlier in the process. Given
the evidence available, the FWDC recommends considering a range of 40% to 60%
response rate as low and, in addition, notes that department chairs and program
directors, in consultation with their faculty, should have the final say in
determining a class evaluation’s validity with respect to response rate. Such consultation is especially vital in the
case of adjuncts, lecturers and untenured assistant professors, whose retention
depends significantly on their teaching effectiveness. It is also worth noting that other studies
have shown that though response rate percentages may initially decline, the
deviation from the average scores an instructor received via paper evaluation
were statistically insignificant, with one study noting a standard deviation of
only .09 on a scale of 1 – 5.
B.
The FWDC notes that the default setting is that all courses of
the instructor will be listed for evaluation, and Chairs should
actively select courses for evaluation, per our current practice. However the FWDC suggests that the change in
format (paper to electronic) does not call for a change in policy.
C.
Research has shown that incentivizing electronic surveys can
substantially boost response rates. The
FWDC suggests that any or all of the following be employed:
•
Allow at least a two-week window of time
for the evaluations to be completed.
•
Send reminder emails to students who have
yet to complete the survey.
•
Students who have completed the course
evaluation will have immediate access to their grades on OnePort once they have
been posted.
•
Encourage faculty to take class time in
order to explain both the change from paper to paperless evaluation and the
importance of evaluations in general.
•
In the case of junior faculty, or those up for
PTR or promotion, it may be advisable to book space in a computer lab or
computer integrated classroom to facilitate a greater response rate.
V. Institutional
Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports
Ms.
University Planning
Committee (UPC)
Highlights of UPC’s introductory meeting:
•
Discussed the planned
focus for the 2010-2011 academic year
•
University budget
decisions will be on the table for consultation and advice. These would involve expenditures, cuts and
possibly tuition policy.
•
University fundraising
priorities will be on the table for consultation and advice.
•
What are we currently raising money to accomplish?
•
What would be ongoing priorities (i.e.,
scholarships)?
•
What would be one-time priorities?
§ The Culture of Evidence for information and feedback
§ The highest priority is the reaffirmation of accreditation
§ Second is promoting institutional effectiveness
§ Third is strategic plan accountability
§ Provost Fernandes noted that we would need to be more explicit about who
would be responsible for achieving the strategic plan goals, and who would hold
these people accountable. It is not clear in the current framework of the
strategic plan. As the plan is a living
document, those issues will be addressed on an ongoing basis.
§ Chancellor Ponder returned from Chapel Hill and reported that Tom Ross
(current president of Davidson College) was unanimously elected as the new
President of the UNC system, beginning January 1, 2011. His background gives him an insight into a
liberal arts campus that is a novel experience for us.
§ Budget:
Chancellor Ponder said that we had known that it would be a difficult
few years coming up, but did not know that we would need to plan for it so
soon. Currently, the state is expecting
a $3.3 billion shortfall on the $19 billion budget, which is a 17% shortfall.
§ The UNC Board of Governors has asked each campus to submit a plan for a
10% budget cut over current expenditures.
In addition, we are asked to project what a $500 increase in tuition for
2011-12 (over and above the increase already planned for 2011-12) would do to
mitigate this cut. For some perspective,
UNC Asheville’s state budget is approximately $40 million, which means we would
plan for a $4 million cut. ‘Business as
usual’ will not be remotely possible at this level of cuts.
§ We have been asked to make two opposing arguments:
§ We were making this 10% cut plan so as to preserve our most important
priorities and to inflict the least possible harm; and
§ It should be clear that a 10% cut presents a dire scenario for our
campus with potential for irreparable harm.
§ Also in this plan, we will be asked for three things:
§ 2011-2013 enrollment projections
§ Requests for campus safety funding
§ Capital priorities (will little hope of getting this funded)
§ UPC can be most helpful in suggesting what we need to invest in, even as
we make substantial cuts across campus.
Even though we will be using our University Strategy for Resource
Allocation document as a guide, such a dire circumstance will require that we
get even more clarity on priorities.
Chancellor Ponder suggested that we discuss that document and how we
will use it at our September meeting.
§ UPC members were asked to think of other things we might research and
bring to the group for consideration, as we prepare to make difficult budget
decisions going forward. Operating
budget priorities are due to GA from Chancellors by September 15.
§ Strategic Plan:
Christine Riley reviewed the UPC role in stewarding
and monitoring the Strategic Plan to date.
Questions were raised on what the work groups are responsible for, and
what role UPC has in holding them [or anyone else] accountable for meeting the
targets. When we do not meet a target,
who makes the plan to revise the work and who actually does the work? This has not been established in the
implementation phase of the Strategic Plan, and needs to be determined and
communicated.
Institutional
Development Committee (IDC)
Highlights of IDC’s
introductory meeting
§ There are only two continuing faculty
members are on the committee: Kevin Moorhead and Linda Nelms. Jeff Konz has become an administrator and Dan
Pierce, Amy Lanou, and Bill Haas rotated off the Faculty Senate. Ted Meigs, Eric Gant, Lorena Russell and Gary
Nallan are the new members. Gwen Ashburn
is the new administrator.
§
Issues to examine for the Senate and for the
Faculty:
§ What is the role of the faculty in building a Culture of Evidence within
an environment of austerity?
§ Does a culture of evidence require homogeneity or is there room for a
variety of standards as it impacts both tenure and resource decisions?
§ How do the issues brought up in the Delivering the Curriculum report and
the current study of promotion and tenure process intersect? What should the faculty response to these
issues be? IDC will review the
Delivering the Curriculum report and will invite Karin Peterson, chair of the
Committee of Tenured Faculty and Post Tenure Review, to work with her on time.
§ What role does faculty play in the various
decisions of the University: Centers, non-UNCA residents on campus, and
anomalous decisions?
§ How can IDC best represent the faculty on UPC?
§ Review of ongoing assessment as it relates both to SACS and to the
Culture of Evidence.
VI. Academic Policies Committee
Mr. Rob Berls reported for the Academic Policies Committee
Dr. Kitti Reynolds has agreed to be the APC represent on
ILSOC.
First Reading
APC 1: Absence from Class Policy (Revision of
SD2002S) (Handbook 3.1.4.3.4)
This is in response to the
mandate from General Administration that students receive a minimum of two
excused absences for religious observance.
These absences can be rolled into our current attendance policy in our
syllabi. Faculty can not ask for proof
of religious affiliation.
Dr. Gant asked for
clarification of the term “bona fide”.
Mr. Berls said it was in our current policy. We may consider removing it as faculty can
not ask for proof of religious affiliation.
Dr. Mills said it meant “in good faith.”
Dr. Meigs asked for
clarification of “significant absences.”
Mr. Berls said this
phrase was put into place to deal with sports teams’ travel. If students miss multiple classes, it can
affect their grades. It was left
nebulous so it could be interpreted by any given instructor.
VII. Administrative
Reports
Academic Affairs: Provost Jane Fernandes
Faculty Senate
chair Volker Frank asked me to talk about the budget situation as well as our
resolution to the issue of reassigned time.
He also invited me to make some comments about priorities for our work
together this year.
Budget
Ms. Linda Nelms
covered the matter quite well in her summary of the University Planning Council
meeting. With the possibility of a
statewide hiring freeze later this year, I anticipate working closely with
department chairs and programs directors to assure that our curriculum is
delivered. Chancellor Ponder and I will
need to remain vigilant regarding the economy and its potential impact on our
budget for the next biennium.
In what I am about to say regarding
priorities for our work together, I have adopted the word “enough” as a theme
from a provocative little piece written by Pat Shipman, an adjunct professor,
in The Chronicle Review. (Enough Already! - The Chronicle Review - The
Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com/article/Enough-Already-/124143/) Pat Shipman says
that the defining idea of the next decade is “enough.” Through the concept of “enough,” we learn how
to discipline ourselves to arrive at a place of contentment where we recognize
when we have done “enough” and seek satisfaction in promoting the common good
rather than striving for more and more in a rising spiral of ambition. It struck me as an idea that would resonate
with us and our university’s commitment to sustainability.
Many of the priorities I created for us are grounded in the idea of what
will make the education we provide at UNC Asheville sustainable. Gone from most of our minds is the idea that
the American economy will come roaring back.
We are now beginning nobly our third year of no raises and an increased
work load by virtually everyone on campus.
If our economy ever recovers, we now understand that is probably a
decade away. In the wake of the economic
recession, the whole world seems different.
And now that it does, what is our response?
Academic Policies Committee (APC)
Our curriculum –
upon what shared principles do we offer the university curriculum? I think our ILS and majors programs are on
strong foundations – solid roots, strong trunk and branches that reflect
commitment to liberal arts and interdisciplinary teaching and learning. But the curricular tree that I see has shoots
all over. Some branches are growing in
haphazard directions. We need
pruning. At what point is our curriculum
enough?
Is it permissible for our faculty to
have four separate preparations as some do now in the name of our
curriculum? Why do we carry courses that
we offer one time per year? Courses that
we offer one time every other year?
Courses that we offer one time every five years? When should some course be offered as special
topics once in a while and not carried as regular parts of our curriculum?
In a climate of shrinking resources,
how can we continue to sustain majors and the resources they require when they
have only one or two graduates, and sometimes no graduates, per year?
Can we revisit the policy for how
many credits a transfer student needs to earn at UNC Asheville to be eligible
for Latin Honors at graduation? We
accept transfer students with their documented record of academic work and—even
if it is perfect – we discount it because it was not done here. Is this policy really reflective of our
university values? Is it a fair and
sustainable policy given current resources?
Advising – there is a lot of room
for improvement in the way that we do advising – now may be a time to look
inward and improve the quality of what we do (e.g., advising) rather than the
quantity.
We have adopted university Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for the first time ever in our history. How does our curriculum support our SLOs, for
majors, and for ILS, and for the work of APC?
Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee (FWDC)
How do our University Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs) align with and support the work of FWDC?
Are the FWDC members well attuned to
the work of the Committee on Tenure and Rewards Systems? I anticipate important recommendations from
this committee. I hope that our tenure
and rewards systems can be designed to support our values. It would be excellent to begin looking at the
Faculty Record form and discussing how we could modify it so that it reflects
what we value about our work.
And it is a good time to make
revisions to the Faculty Handbook that may needed – especially in light of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools reaffirmation of accreditation
that is coming up soon.
Institutional Development Committee (IDC)
How does the work of the IDC align
with and support the University Student Learning Outcomes?
What is the role of the IDC in
shaping a culture of evidence on campus?
The work of IDC
should be integral to the Institutional Effectiveness process. We are going to establish an Institutional
Effectiveness Committee and I wonder how that will impact IDC’s current role on
the University Planning Council. Is the
role of IDC primarily planning, primarily institutional effectiveness, or is it
a combination of both?
IDC should be the faculty voice in
budgeting and planning. I would like to
better understand how IDC is linked to important university budgeting and
planning processes; to understand the connections between these university
processes and our Institutional Effectiveness work.
Delivering the Curriculum/Reassigned Time
We have agreed with several major
recommendations from the Delivering the Curriculum task force. We confirmed the priorities for hiring adjunct
faculty; we agreed to focus on student contact hours in equitably quantifying
faculty; the remaining point needing clarification is related to reassigned
time.
In an effort to address faculty
mental health, we will seriously explore awarding reassigned time to about 65
faculty members for the 2011-2012 academic year. This is about one-half of the faculty who do
not have reassigned time from any other source (for example, serving as
department chair, holding an endowed professorship, etcetera). The program area deans will work this
semester with department chairs to develop guidelines for awarding one
reassigned course each to 65 faculty members.
We hope to have this decision made by the end of this semester.
In the meantime,
Chancellor Ponder and I will work on arguments to the Board of Governors
regarding the unique nature of faculty work at UNC Asheville in an attempt to
seek a more reasonable teaching load standard from the Board of Governors.
Thank you for the opportunity to
share ideas with the Faculty Senate about the budget, reassigned time and
priorities for our work together in the coming year.
Notes: See also “The Logic of Sufficiency," by
Thomas Princen (MIT Press): http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10635
See Guidelines
for Reassigned Time 2011-12: http://www3.unca.edu/facultysenate/2010-11/Guidelines%20for%20Reassigned%20Time%202010-2011[1].htm
Questions/Comments
•
Dr.
Russell said she is glad to hear that there is an effort to try to put a number
to the non-tangible work that we do, such as undergraduate research.
•
Dr.
Moorhead asked for clarification: I
assume the policy on faculty reassigned time is not suggested as a permanent
change but as a response to the current economic climate.
•
Dr. Fernandes said it is in response to our
economy. Without an improvement in the
economy everything that is paid for by the state will be under scrutiny. She could not say it is a temporary change
right now.
•
Dr. Moorhead asked for clarification: he assumed that Provost Fernandes was not
going to purpose this change into the Faculty Handbook.
•
Dr. Fernandes:
No, but without clear sign of something changing, we do need to think
about what our response to a completely changed environment.
QEP report
Highlights of Mary Lynn Manns’s QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan) report:
•
The QEP leadership team is now complete and the 13
members have been assigned tasks.
•
The broad area survey had wide participation: 76.5%
of faculty, 31.7% of staff, and 35.7% of students.
•
Three bodies will look at the data and will
announce the broad area by October 1st:
o SACS working group
o QEP Leadership Team
o SACS Executive Committee
•
Once we have our broad area, more time will be
devoted to gather ideas from the community on the specific topic within that
broad area. By November 15th
the qualitative data will reveal the common themes. There will be more opportunity for people to
comment on themes as potential topics. The
topic will be announced by January 31 whereupon we will start Phase II.
•
For more information on the process, see: http://sacs.unca.edu/sacs-qep-related-links
Student Government
Highlights of SGA President Courtney Galatioto’s report:
•
SGA is working on its constitution and by-laws.
•
SGA is working to understand the needs of our
non-traditional students.
•
SGA will have an advising fair to help students
now.
•
SGA will be transparent and visible so students
know who we are and what we are working on.
•
Budget cuts:
it is imperative that students give input in what they consider to be a
priority.
•
Students are excited about undergraduate research,
the arts, and athletics.
VIII. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
IX. New Business
Major
challenges of 2010/2011 academic year
Comments from Faculty Senate Chair
Volker Frank:
Colleagues, I
want to use the opportunity of the beginning of this academic year to share with
you some thoughts on what lies ahead.
Today I do not wish to enter into a detailed list of challenges and
opportunities or tasks that we will be dealing with throughout 2010-11. My comments today will be a bit more
abstract, but rest assured, there are a number of specific areas or issues we
will have to work through. And several
of these are not new. Till Dohse, in his
last address to this Senate, mentioned a number of items he identified as
on-going Senate projects: campus
response to the budget crisis, review of tenure and reward systems, SACS,
managing larger workloads with smaller budgets, and more.
In due time, we
will address them. Today FWDC presented their response to a Senate mandate
regarding Student Rating of Instruction, which was also a theme mentioned by
Till.
Colleagues, I
want to emphasize that what I am about to say comes from a deep personal
concern for UNC Asheville’s mission.
What I am saying I am saying as a professional Sociologist.
At the core of
many of our difficulties is the increasing bureaucratization of our
institution. It is not only UNCA that
has this problem. All universities have
it, all education institutions have it, all institutions the world over have it
and are affected by this “virus.” Many
of our ongoing problems, such as the budget crisis or SACS, put us on the
defensive and are, in a real sense, simply the current and most pressing
expression of this “virus.” Once the
economy gets better and SACS is a thing of the past, there will be other
challenges. For us think that we only
need to get past SACS and the economic crisis to be “back on track” is an
illusion. Like all social facts,
bureaucratization cannot be wished away.
Bureaucratization,
the nasty twin of rationalization, is here to stay. In the United States, the will of the people
is usually called “the administration” and the health and well being of our
children, parents, husbands, wives and partners, is accomplished by “managed
health care specialists.” An increasingly amount of UNCA’s time, energy, and
creativity is being consumed by the need to respond to the demands of those
higher up in the state’s educational bureaucratic structure -- the State
Legislature, the Board of Governors, and UNC’s General Administration. A good recent example is their concern with
“productivity.” The final report of the
“Delivering the Curriculum” committee, for example, states ”The UNC Board of
Governors (BOG) uses two performance indicators to evaluate faculty productivity”. Remember how much we struggled with that
report? “Delivering the Curriculum”
response is framed to fit their expectations rather than a statement of our
understanding (and explanation) of what we here at UNCA are and do!
My diagnosis has
important implications for UNCA, specifically, the Senate and the
administration and what we call co-governance.
Now Jane, and if Chancellor Ponder were here I would also reassure her,
please understand that I am not here to question an arrangement we have had for
some time. I am merely situating that
arrangement between administrators, faculty representatives, faculty, students,
and staff, in a context or process which I happen to be worried about.
But what is it
that we want to do here at UNCA? In our mission statement we promise that
“UNC Asheville is distinctive in the UNC system as its designated
liberal arts university. Our practice of the liberal arts emphasizes the
centrality of learning and discovery through exemplary teaching, innovative
scholarship, creative expression, co-curricular activities, undergraduate
research, engaged service, and practical experience.”
And a little later it continues, “At UNC Asheville, we respond to the
conditions and concerns of the contemporary world both as individuals and as a
university.”
I ask you my colleagues, let us take this collective responsibility
seriously, very seriously. In fact, let
us take it more seriously than SACS and other bureaucracies that become
obsessed with the notion of “culture of evidence.” Let us reinvestigate ways of
putting more creativity and passion into that which is so dear to us: teaching
and learning. We cannot wish SACS away; to do so would be foolish and
irresponsible. We cannot afford,
however, to neglect our core mission. We
cannot allow the ideal to be defined by, or sacrificed to, the pressing needs
of the time. Here I stand with Max Weber, perhaps the greatest Sociologist of
all time, when he warned us that the progression of bureaucratization
increasingly reveals a tension between the demand for
technical efficiency of administration on the one hand, and the human values of
spontaneity, autonomy, liberty, tolerance, integrity, and diversity, on the
other.
X. Adjourn
Dr. Frank adjourned the
meeting at 5:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra
Gravely
Executive
Committee