The
Regular session – September 11, 2006 – 3:30 p.m. – Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789
e-mail:
The Faculty Senate was called
to order by Professor Roger Frech, Chair.
PRESENT: Badhwar,
Basic, D. Bemben, M, Bemben, Benson, Biggerstaff, Blank, Bradford, Brown, Brule,
Cramer, Croft, Draheim, Fincke, Forman, Frech, Gade, Ge, Greene, Gutierrez, Houser,
James, Keppel, Knapp, Kolar, Kutner, Lai, Lester, Livesey, Magnusson, Marcus-Mendoza,
Raadschelders, Riggs, Roche, Scamehorn, Schwarzkopf, Skeeters, Strawn, Tan,
Thulasiraman, Trytten, Vitt, Warnken, Weaver, Wei, Wyckoff
Provost's office representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Cook, Smith
ABSENT: Albert,
Civan, Elisens, Franklin, Hamerla, Miranda, Rambo
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcements:
Senate members for 2006-07 and schedule of meetings..................................................... 1-2
Faculty Senate and Regular Faculty parliamentarian......................................................... 2
2005-06 annual council reports........................................................................................ 2
Faculty appointments to committees................................................................................. 2
Disposition by administration of Senate actions for
2005-06............................................... 2
Resources in Faculty Senate office.................................................................................. 2
Senate Chair's Report:
Search, Honors dean...................................................................................................... 2
Task force to review process of appointing interim to
permanent dean............................... 2
Task force to review grade scale..................................................................................... 2
Retirements benefits.......................................................................................................
Library serials review..................................................................................................... 2
Task force to address legislation concerning textbooks...................................................... 3
Faculty Senate reapportionment....................................................................................... 3
Faculty retiree deaths..................................................................................................... 3
State of the University Address by President Boren...................................................................... 3
Statement on evolution................................................................................................................ 5
Issues for 2006-07...................................................................................................................... 7
________________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Journal
for the regular session of May 8, 2006 was approved.
A list of the Faculty Senate
members is attached. The new members were introduced at the
meeting.
The regular meetings of the
Faculty Senate for 2006-07 will be held at 3:30 p.m. on the following Mondays
in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102: September 11, October 9, November 13, December
11, January 22, February 12, March 12, April 9, and May 7.
The Senate Executive
Committee elected Prof. Hugh Benson (Philosophy) as parliamentarian of the
Faculty Senate and Regular Faculty.
The compilation of the
2005-06 annual reports of university councils was e-mailed July 21 to the
Faculty Senate members and to chairs, directors and deans to make available to
the general faculty. The reports are
available online at http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/cnclrep.htm.
The 2006-07 list of faculty
appointments to committees is available on the Faculty web site at http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/commem06.htm. Prof. Frech reminded the senators that they
could volunteer to serve on committees in the spring when the Senate office
sends out a solicitation.
The summary record of the disposition by
the administration of Faculty Senate actions for September 2005 to August 2006
is attached.
The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Academe and the Norman
campus budget are available in the Senate office.
“1. In early summer, President Boren requested
that the Senate Executive Committee meet with Professor R. C. Davis as part of
the process of appointing him as permanent dean of the Honors College. I asked both the old and new executive committees
to participate because of the timing (summer vacations, conferences, etc.). The meeting took place on June 15, and a
letter summarizing our impressions and suggestions was sent to the President.
“As
an outgrowth of that process and our participation in the previous two
appointments from interim dean to permanent dean, the Senate Executive
Committee decided to constitute a task force (chaired by Prof. Roy Knapp, who
was the previous Senate Chair) to review the nature of the Executive Committee
involvement in such a process and make recommendations to the President. That task force has now been empanelled.
“2.
The university is purchasing a new
student records system, which provides a window for changing the present system
of only allowing A, B, C. D, and F grades.
Therefore, a task force has been constituted to examine the grade scale
in use at OU and make recommendations to the Senate. The task force is chaired by Prof. Joe Rodgers
in Psychology and has faculty, administrative, and student representation.
“3. The faculty choice of staying with the OTRS
system or choosing another retirement benefit provider is still waiting on IRS
approval. Approval is projected to occur
sometime during the fall semester. An
OTRS calculator that will assist faculty members in making this choice is
expected to be ready at the same time IRS approval is received.
“4. The university library system will be
undergoing an extensive serials review.
The purpose is to ensure that we are spending our money wisely, with the
possibility of redeploying funds to other areas of the library to assist
faculty in their scholarly and teaching work. Provost Mergler has reassured us that there is
NO targeted cut in funds associated with this review. It is simply a look at how we do what we do to
see if we can do it better.
“5.
HB 2380, which was introduced last year,
would authorize the State Regents to establish and
implement a system to effect changes that include:
1)
provide low cost rental textbooks
2)
make textbooks available for purchase online
3) have
institutions purchase textbooks for resale to students in order to take
advantage of pricing discounts through volume buying.
This
bill would become effective fall 2007. A task force has been formed by Provost
Mergler to address parts of this proposal.
“6. It is now time for our triennial
reapportionment of the Faculty Senate. I
have asked Prof. Schwarzkopf to chair a small group charged with preparing
recommendations to be brought to the Senate for your approval. In addition, I have asked this group to make
recommendations about the nature of the OU-Tulsa campus faculty representation
on the Senate.”
[Although not reported at the
meeting, Prof. Frech wishes to acknowledge the deaths of the following faculty
retirees: James Mouser (Marketing), June
9; Eunice Lewis (Mathematics Education), July 31; and Richard Baker (Political
Science), September 6.]
President David Boren introduced
his daughter Carrie Boren, who attended the meeting. About two weeks ago, President Boren appeared
before the board of trustees of the OU Foundation to ask if they would consider
providing additional funds for faculty compensation. The trustees have a fiduciary responsibility
to manage the endowment in a way that will have intergenerational
neutrality. The university had been receiving
about $6 million a year from the foundation.
The president asked them to think about raising the amount to approximately
$8.8 million this year and by about another $700,000 next year. He explained that the grant would have to be
ongoing and urged that it be placed into the academic mission and specifically
faculty compensation to recognize merit and deal with problems of compression
within departments. Some departments
were as low as 75 percent of the median of their Big 12 and Big 10 counterparts;
other departments, as well as individuals, were deserving because of their
achievement. The board was very
receptive to the president’s request and made many positive comments about the
standards we are setting and the people we are recruiting and retaining. It is a statement of how strongly they
support the academic priorities and mission and specifically the faculty. President Boren said he hoped the grant sent
a signal to every member of the faculty of how much he cares and how strongly
the donor base is behind the priorities the university is setting.
Our five-year drive to raise
$50 million in scholarship endowment was met in one year. The scholarship committee decided to raise the
goal to $100 million. This year, we were
able to award 800 more Sooner Heritage scholarships. This is the first year that scholarship support
went up faster than the cost of attending OU.
We are now at $62 million in the campaign. Only seven percent of those who applied did
not receive Sooner Heritage scholarships, mainly because they were found not
qualified on the basis of financial status.
Scholarships were granted to all faculty and staff children who
applied. The grants were a little larger
than last year. Donors usually designate
where they want their gifts to go.
President Boren encourages them to make those gifts to the academic
program. He noted that we held our
academic fundraising drive first and the athletic fundraising drive
second.
President Boren distributed several
charts and a list of goals (available from the Senate office). He said many of the goals were put together
based on his discussions with the Senate Executive Committee. We have over $118 million in gifts, with $103
million in cash. This is the first time
in the university’s history that $100 million in cash has come into the
university in a single year. The contributor
base continues to grow in number (at 107,960 for FY2006). Many students, upon graduation, become
donors. Our endowment funds have reached
$960 million this year. Our number of endowed
chairs and professorships continues to grow; we now have 407. We have reached the $240 million mark in
research and sponsored programs. OU has
a $1.5 billion impact on the
The handout on goals
summarized some of the directions in which the president wants to go, not in any
order of importance. We hope to reach
the $1 billion endowment mark within 12 months.
If we do, we will be in the top 16 public universities, with
institutions like
Prof. Marcus-Mendoza thanked
him for the faculty raises. As
department chair, she appreciated being part of the process of making
recommendations. No one told her this
year that she was not doing enough to advance salaries. President Boren said we are not where we want
to be yet, but he hopes the faculty senses his appreciation for what they
do. He asked for an additional $200,000
for retention funding in case we have to make counter offers or head off counter
offers ahead of time.
Prof. Biggerstaff asked
whether President Boren had a particular goal in mind in terms of interaction with
the private sector. President Boren said
a lot of things are attractive to the private sector, not just joint
research. Companies give us scholarships
and endowed chairs and provide internships for students and opportunities for
our graduates. Because we were able to
change the state constitution a few years ago, the university can do joint
research with the private sector, while protecting the faculty member’s
intellectual property. For example,
Weathernews is working with our Meteorology program in the radar area. The university has developed radar capability
to detect the possibility of wind downbursts, which could help prevent train
wrecks in
Prof. Fincke said she had intended
to introduce a statement on evolution at the May Senate meeting, but the Senate
ran out of time. The Zoology faculty crafted
a statement because colleagues at OSU suggested that they support them in a
statement they had just crafted and that had been supported by the OSU Faculty
Council. About the same time, Roy Knapp,
former Senate Chair, asked whether Zoology could craft something that the OU
Faculty Senate could support. Moreover, bills
come up in the legislature every year that would weaken science education in
the state. The Zoology faculty believed that
rather than trying to fight the attempts each year, they wanted to make a statement
of their position. The statement is in
response to the current intelligent design issue but is also intended to educate
politicians and the public at large and offer support for the teaching of
evolution in secondary school. Zoology
passed a statement in April (attached: http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/evolution.htm)
and is seeking support from the Faculty Senate in order to have unified support
for the teaching of science and science standards in the state. She said the Senate Executive Committee had
some objection to the term, “supernatural mechanisms,” because it came across
as pejorative. If acceptable, “non-physical
mechanisms” could be substituted. The
zoologists wanted to get across the idea of why there is no controversy about
evolution among biologists and the difference between scientific theory and
non-scientific theory. Intelligent design
or creationism offers no scientific alternative to the theory of evolution
because it deals with non-physical mechanisms and is not science. Non-physical mechanisms offer no testable
hypotheses. The state of
Prof. Raadschelders said he
liked the statement and agreed with its contents. The idea of evolution versus creation is a
popular instrument in the hands of politicians who seek votes, and a sizable
portion of the public does not care what science is about. He agrees that as a university we have to make
a statement. Prof. Fincke said it is
extremely important to speak up. In a
recent survey of 32 industrialized countries, the
Prof. Badhwar suggested that
the last paragraph should read, “to broaden weaken the science curriculum…”
She suggested the addition of an analogy, but Prof. Fincke thought it would
complicate the issue. She said it took a
lot of time to draft the statement. Zoology tried to keep it as short as possible
and still get the major points across.
Prof. Vitt noted that the statement was put together by the entire
faculty in Zoology, which is composed of a lot of highly respected
scientists. If we do not do something
like this, given the state of science in the world, it could have an impact on our
ability to attract and keep high quality scientists in the biological sciences. Prof. Frech said he believed that as a
flagship university, OU had a responsibility to make a statement. This will be a political statement that will
resonate across the state. He said he was
happy to see descriptions of what science is and is not, but had concerns about
some of the wording. Prof. Fincke pointed
out that the Fordham Foundation reviews the academic standards in secondary
schools in every state (http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation).
Prof. Magnusson suggested an
umbrella statement on what is science and what is appropriate to teach as such
in the classroom and then a sub-policy on whatever happens to be the issue of
the day, e.g., evolution, global warming.
Prof. Keppel said our proximity to
Prof. Benson said he was
sympathetic to some of the worries.
Ideally the statement would be about science. This is a statement that will have political
consequences. He said he was skeptical
about making the kinds of changes that had been suggested. The senate could discuss some small issues
but should make a statement. If the
senate does not take this role, who is supposed to? The senate addressed this issue about five
years ago and was worried about the political impact then as well. He said he was confused about the motion that
the Faculty Senate would be voting on and whether the Senate was being asked to
adopt or support the statement. Prof. Fincke
explained that the OSU Faculty Council supported its Zoology Department’s
statement. Prof. Frech asked whether the
statement would be the original one or the modified one. Prof. Fincke said it would be the original statement
but with “non-physical mechanisms” substituted for “supernatural mechanisms.”
Prof. Gade said the Faculty
Senate could think about whether to craft its own statement. Prof. Schwarzkopf mentioned that the Executive
Committee had some substantial discussion of the statement. Nobody opposed the thoughts and principles
behind the Zoology statement, provided the Faculty Senate had another statement
that was more broadly written. He said
he hoped that by next month, the Senate would have two statements to look at,
this one plus one that the Senate could do more than just accept. He encouraged the Executive Committee to come
up with an additional statement to supplement the one from Zoology.
Prof. Skeeters said she wanted
to nail down exactly what the objections were: lack of expertise to stand behind the
statement or concern about political consequences. Prof. Magnusson said she was willing to
support the statement but would like to see it within the context of a more
general statement on what actually is science.
This is not the only issue where political pressure will be brought to
bear. She would like an additional, more
general statement to define what science is. What it is not is not appropriate to teach as
science in a science class. Prof. Forman
said this is a very important issue, the issue that is most in the public eye,
and the Senate should take a stand on it.
“Free speech and issues like that are issues we need to respond to when
they are threatened; we are the academy.
Evolution is an issue we need to respond to. Our schools do not teach evolution in the middle
schools and try not to teach it in the high schools.” Prof. Frech said a version discussed by the Executive
Committee was heavily drawn from Zoology’s but substituted language for
“supernatural” and re-ordered the text. The
Executive Committee thinks it is important to make a statement because of the
battle in the area of creationism and intelligent design.
Prof. Kutner commented that
in order for the statement to have any effect beyond the academic and
scientific community, the point at the end should be emphasized – that our
children are not getting a first-rate science education – and that has
consequences. Prof. Marcus-Mendoza said,
“It seems to me that our colleagues in Zoology are just asking us to vote in support
of the version they have written, with one change in wording.” This is something they have worked hard on
and would like the Senate’s support. At the
next meeting, the Senate should vote it up or down, and maybe it would be
appropriate for the Senate to have its own statement. Prof. Fincke said that was what Zoology would
like: have it voted up or down, with “non-physical” substituted for
“supernatural” wherever it occurs. Prof.
Houser said he would support the idea of such a vote, but thought it was
important for the Faculty Senate to be clear on whether the Senate wanted a
statement of its own. There are a number
of issues: the issue of science, the issue of academic freedom, and the issue
of evolution. Those should be stated
first and foremost.
Prof. Livesey said he thought
“non-physical” was imprecise and ambiguous.
He suggested the term, “contranatural.”
Prof. Badhwar said she thought “supernatural” should be left as is. Prof. Fincke said she would leave “supernatural,”
change “broaden” to “weaken,” and ask for a motion to support the Zoology
statement. Prof. Badhwar proposed that
the first sentence of paragraph three end at “…so well supported by facts.” There was some discussion about substituting
“a very well-supported theory.” Prof.
Fincke said what Zoology was trying to get at was one can never prove a theory
but cannot do any better than a well-supported theory. Prof. Forman said Prof. Fincke would have a
month to bring the statement back in motion form. Prof. Fincke pointed out that Zoology would have
to accept modifications. Prof. Frech said
he would distribute the version as amended in consultation with Prof. Fincke
and after discussion, ask for an up/down vote.
Prof. Forman urged that it be distributed in a motion form.
In the interest of time, Prof.
Frech delayed discussion of the issues for 2006-07 (attached). He said the list was the first cut at some of
the concerns. He asked the senators to contact
the Executive Committee or him if they had additional issues.
The meeting adjourned at 5:15
p.m. The next regular session of the
Faculty Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, October 9, 2006, in
Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Cecelia Brown, Secretary