The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)
Regular session - March 20, 2000 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206 phone: 325-6789 FAX: 325-6782
e-mail: facsen@ou.edu web site: http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/

The Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Hugh Benson, Chair.

__________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Announcement: Faculty awards ceremony

Senate Chair's Report:
Search, Chief Information Officer
Expanded grading scale
Budget

Textbook disclaimers

Shared leave

__________________________________________________________________________

The Senate Journal for the regular session of February 14, 2000, was approved.

The faculty awards ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, at 3:00 p.m. in Meacham Auditorium, with a reception following in the Beaird Lounge of the Oklahoma Memorial Union. Invitations will be sent to faculty later this month.

Dr. Dennis Aebersold accepted the position of Chief Information Officer. His appointment begins May 1, pending regents' approval.

After Dr. Aebersold is on campus, the Senate Executive Committee will ask him to address the issue of the plus/minus grading system for graduate students, which was approved by the Graduate Council several years ago (see 2/00 Senate Journal). Prof. Benson reminded the group that he had encouraged the senators to ask their colleagues if they were interested in an expanded grading scale at the undergraduate level. If there is strong support for such a system for undergraduates, senators should contact the Executive Committee so that the issue can be put on the agenda to discuss. The senators who have discussed this with Prof. Benson so far have reported mixed support. The Executive Committee's preference is to get the graduate level system in place first.

The budget outlook for next year is unclear. Recent newspaper articles suggested some salary inequities in state government and higher education in particular. Some lobbying efforts are taking place to explain the salary difficulties that higher education faces in Oklahoma. Prof. Benson encouraged the senators to lobby their state legislators. The state should be reasonably well off economically, but a large percentage of its funds has been committed already.

The Executive Committee met with President Boren this month. Salaries remain the number one priority, but it is too early to report what kind of salary increases, if any, there are likely to be.

See 2/00 Senate Journal for last month's discussion. Prof. Benson explained that House Bill 1876, which would have given the State Textbook Committee the authority to specify disclaimers in textbooks, failed in committee. After a number of discussions about this, the Senate Executive Committee decided to recommend in light of the fact that there is no legislation pending, that the Senate table the motion from the last meeting. As a tabled motion, the Senate would not have to wait two months before voting, should the issue come up again in the legislature. Voting now could have the unintended consequence of calling attention to the issue.

Prof. Hutchison read an excerpt of the proposed bill: "If the State Textbook Committee determines that significant inaccuracies exist in the contents of a textbook which has been bid or that information contained in the textbook is not current, the Committee may adopt the book on a provisional or conditional basis. The Committee may specify the conditions which must be met for final adoption of the textbook." Prof. Hutchison said he saw this as a major attempt at censorship and an attempt to get a certain ideology in textbooks. At the last meeting of the State Textbook Committee, the newly elected chair said they planned to consider history and social sciences textbooks at their next meeting and that he was disturbed at what is left out of such textbooks. Prof. Hutchison pointed out that although HB 1876 failed in committee, it could come up again at any time, and it will be back next year. If the bill comes up at the end of the session, this body will not have time to react.

Prof. Benson noted that the motion pending was that the Faculty Senate go on record in opposition to textbook disclaimers in general. Prof. Hutchison suggested the addition of "provisional approval of textbooks." Prof. Beasley remarked that it would be cleaner to vote the current motion up or down and then worry about the language. Prof. Patterson commented, "this issue will not go away." Librarians have fought these kinds of things for years. She urged the Senate to be proactive and go on record against disclaimers. The legislature could decide to add disclaimers to college texts.

Prof. Hart asked about the power of the textbook committee. Prof. Hutchison said the current statute says the committee has the authority to issue a list of approved textbooks. That is one of the reasons why the state Attorney General declared the action on the disclaimer unconstitutional. Five biology texts were not approved by the committee, which means that school districts in Oklahoma that wish to use any of those books must buy them with their own funds. Prof. Benson clarified that what the committee approves is the textbooks the state will fund. Prof. Russell said he was uncomfortable with this body criticizing the constitutional authority of the state. He said there was nothing offensive in the changes proposed in the house bill. He said he thought the Senate was worrying the motives and was stepping out of its bounds. Prof. Benson said the issue was whether or not to register opposition to textbook disclaimers. No one is disputing the authority of the committee to list textbooks that are approved or not approved. Prof. Russell said he was surprised at senators who were ascribing motives that were not clear in the language read by Prof. Hutchison.

Prof. Schwarzkopf said his concern had little to do with motives as with the thought that extra-disciplinary incentives could define an intellectual discipline like science. Science should be taught as a process, not as an answer. What bothers him is the use of provisional acceptance to dictate the content. Prof. McInerney said he was very concerned about unqualified individuals trying to change the content of textbooks.

Prof. Deming noted that faculty members have a legitimate interest in high school education in this state because high schools prepare the students that faculty will teach. He reiterated his suggestion that someone should be present to explain what is in the textbooks that the committee finds so objectionable. Prof. Hart said he was not uncomfortable with this body making a statement since faculty members have a vested interest in this issue. The people who are going to read these textbooks will be students here in two or three years. Prof. Benson added that this institution would also be preparing them to teach those textbooks as well. Prof. Beasley suggested that the Senate craft a statement that would capture Prof. Schwarzkopf’s concerns, be more general, and include an explanation. The statement should contain some language about the freedom to inquire and including experts in the field. Prof. Benson commented that other organizations, such as the Oklahoma Academy of Science, have made rather long statements of their positions. Prof. Beasley said the statement also should address what this issue has to do with the Senate. Prof. Abraham said the senators have a vested interest as scholars because textbooks are works of scholarship that should not be censored without the scholar's permission.

Prof. Gross remarked that the Executive Committee's concern about a backlash was a genuine one. On the other hand, the reasons already stated for taking action were strong. Another reason was the broader issue of academic freedom, which a Faculty Senate and faculty have a vested interest in. In this state and others, it has been hard to separate the whims of politicians from the freedom of faculty to espouse openly different positions. High schools do not have the academic freedom that colleges do. Textbook disclaimers show a concerted attempt to force a specific view on the broad teaching of science and other disciplines. In the interest of academic freedom, we must protect the intellectual endeavor from the encroachment of politicians at the risk of seeming arrogant. Tabling the motion would send the wrong message. Prof. Harrison said he thought the motion should be tabled until there was a legitimate bill. Prof. Benson said the pending motion was not directed at pending legislation. Prof. Hutchison had recommended an amendment that would also register opposition to the proposed legislation. However, the motion as it stands would register opposition to disclaimers, whether or not the bill passed.

Prof. Hutchison explained that the committee already had the right to approve a list of textbooks. The point of HB 1876 was the conditional approval. The committee could use that language to disapprove any book that did not have creationism as an option along with evolution. Prof. Butler asked how disclaimers would be operationalized. Prof. Hutchison replied that the disclaimer would be permanently affixed or printed by the publisher in the book. He said this was not an issue just about evolution and biology. It was an issue about a certain minority religious viewpoint being imposed in all subjects.

Prof. Knapp asked Prof. Hutchison how he knew his very strong assertions to be fact. Prof. Hutchison said he had correspondence from the current chair of the textbook committee and records of the committee meetings. Prof. Schwarzkopf said he felt uncomfortable getting into the specifics of any of these decisions. His concern was about the use of political devices to dictate the content of a non-political discipline. He offered to draft a two or three sentence motion to consider next month. He then moved to table the motion he proposed last month. Following some discussion about parliamentary procedure, Prof. Schwarzkopf explained that next month, he would either propose a new motion or an amendment of last month's motion, which would capture the concerns expressed at this meeting. The motion would include language about the Senate's opposition to disclaimers that dictate content and give reasons why the Senate thinks it has the right to speak on this issue, but it would not refer to anybody’s particular agenda. The motion to table was approved 22 to 9.

Prof. Kunesh remarked that given the focus on censorship and academic freedom, the motion also should refer to instructional materials other than textbooks that are utilized in other disciplines. This is a global issue that goes beyond biology textbooks. Prof. Schwarzkopf encouraged the senators to e-mail suggestions for the motion to him.

Prof. Benson explained that a shared leave proposal had been put forward by the HSC Faculty and Staff Senates and Norman campus Staff Senate (Appendix I). The Faculty Senate was being asked to register its endorsement or lack of endorsement. The vote will be at the next meeting. When an OU employee is on a 12-month appointment, one of the benefits is paid leave. This proposal would permit an employee to donate paid leave to another employee who had a catastrophic illness and had used up his paid leave. The proposal lists the conditions under which an individual could request shared leave and explains how eligibility would be determined. Two proposals are included because of a compromise between the two Staff Senates. Proposal B would allow the employee to request shared leave only for herself; Proposal A would allow the employee to request shared leave for herself and her dependents. The HSC Faculty Senate and the Staff Senates would like both proposals to go to the President. Prof. Benson encouraged the Senate not to amend the proposal. If the Senate believes some changes should be made, then it should choose not to endorse the proposal and let the relevant bodies know what changes would be necessary for endorsement.

Prof. Scherman pointed out that some faculty members transferred from a 12-month to a 9-month appointment and maintained their paid leave. Prof. Benson said he did not know how that situation would be handled. Prof. Hofford asked whether any protection was written in for the person who donated paid leave and then needed it later. Prof. Benson answered that an employee could not share more than 50% of his/her annual accrual. Once leave was donated, it was gone. Any hours not used by the person specified by the donor would go to a pool.

Prof. Hutchison asked how much the program would cost. Prof. Benson said the HSC estimated that Proposal B, the employee-only proposal, would cost about $25,000 a year for that campus. However, nobody really knows. Prof. Kunesh asked how the person’s job would be covered while s/he is gone. Prof. Okediji noted that federal law requires employers to provide a certain amount of leave to employees who take off for serious health conditions. The law also says the employer has to reinstate the employee to the same or equivalent position under certain circumstances. This proposal actually would provide a way to pay for the unpaid leave that federal law requires. Prof. Benson added that the unit would cover the job just as it would when someone takes regular paid leave. The university, not the individual unit, would pay the cost of the leave. Prof. Cline pointed out that someone with a catastrophic illness would not be at work anyway. Prof. Benson said a Shared Leave Committee would address any questions. Prof. Horton said he would like information from other universities that have tried this kind of program. Prof. Benson said he had been unable to get that information. Prof. Harrison noted that individuals who needed leave could buy disability insurance. Prof. Hofford remarked that most of the HSC faculty on 12-month appointments. Prof. Benson said the proposal would affect more faculty members on that campus than the Norman campus. Provost Mergler said she thought that about 10% of the Norman faculty were in administrative positions. She asked whether the donation would be a dollar amount. Prof. Benson said the donation would be in hours. The Norman Staff Senate delayed bringing the plan to the Norman Faculty Senate until certain details had been worked out. This would not cost much in terms of the time involved in keeping records, but it would cost units some money to replace individuals while they are on leave. Prof. Kutner observed that this program would not have much effect unless there were significant numbers of employees who did not use the paid leave they have. Prof. Benson said any time accrued beyond the maximum allowance is deposited in a short-term disability account.

The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m. The next regular session of the Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, April 10, 2000, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.

____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator

____________________________________
William H. Sutton, Secretary

--------------

Appendix I

University of Oklahoma

Proposed Shared Leave Program

1. Purpose

The Shared Leave Program is a means for a University employee to donate paid leave to a fellow University employee, who is eligible for and requires leave while experiencing a serious health condition as defined, or to care for a spouse, child, or parent with a serious health condition, and which has caused, or is likely to cause, the employee to take leave without pay.

 

2. Definitions

University of Oklahoma

Proposed Shared Leave Program