University of Denver
President Leon Giles opened the meeting at 12:11.
Approval of Senate minutes for November 14, 2003
Approval was delayed until after the introduction of the new senate secretary and the Branding Initiative presentation.
Introduction of new senate secretary
President Giles introduced Jessica Sullivan, the new senate secretary. Additionally, he reported that the new senate office hours will be MWF 11:00 4:00.
University Branding Initiative -- Carol Farnsworth , Rex Whisman, K. L. Berry of Monigle Associates
Highlights: Coombe offered a report on the enrollment picture and the budget model. We are a little down from past years with regard to returning students. At the graduate level, there are ups and downs regarding returning students. In terms of making the budget and holding steady, we are in fine shape. Enrollments have been growing rapidly. The quality of the entering class is expected to improve. With regard to the budget model, he reminded the senators of the efforts to build DUs cash reserves following 9-11. We restructured in more recent years. We havent put a whole lot of dollars into the academic enterprise in the last few years. In building budget for next year and a few years out, we will have a number of new funds that will address the academic enterprise. $ 750,000 will go into GTA supporta stipend increase and health care. $200,000 will go into faculty research, $150,000 to enhance new hires, $100,000 for initiatives associated with the public good goal, $100,000 into a diversity initiative, and $4.5 million into the Cherrington Global Scholars programtotaling 6.5 million in academic initiatives. The programs correlate very strongly with the 11 goals identified by UPAC. Additionally, the operating dollars in the academic units also will be enhancedprimarily at the graduate level, as that area represents an area for growth for DU. Coombe expressed the hope that DU will be able to continue funding such programs while holding tuition down. The tuition increase recommended to the board for next year is 6.97%. This is the second year of a nearly 7% increase with future increases anticipated at about 5%. The principle risk we face next year is enrollment in the undergraduate program. The graduate figures look solid. The big uncertainty is what effect requiring the Hyde interview for all applicants will have on the yield rate. The yield rate in the past two years was about 8 points higher for the early action pool. We dont know what the yield rate will be for the entire pool.
Discussion: Bill Anderson asked what makes the provost confident that the quality of the entering class will improve. Coombe responded that ACT/SAT scores are up.
Policy concerning Enhanced Faculty Research FundingBill Anderson
Highlights: Anderson deferred to Andy Divine to talk about the Enhanced Faculty Research Funding. Divine reported that an Academic Planning and Personnel work group met over the break. He referred senators to the document, Funding for Scholarship, and called for comments (exclusive of wordsmithing). The work group felt strongly that there needs to be better feedback to those who were awarded grants and those who were not. Giles interrupted as a point of order to call for a motion.
Motion: It was moved and seconded that the senate approve the Funding for Scholarship document.
Divine noted that funding has gone down. Spring funding last year was put in abeyance for this year. The committee expects to have a similar amount for this spring. A similar review process will be used. The divisions will come up with a review committeein response to the expressed concern that there is no peer review of proposals. There will be a fund of approximately $200,000 with the goal of merit awards for excellent proposals. A key element is the development of the peer review process within the divisions. Then there will be a committee at the senate level that would review all of the divisional recommendations. One of the problems that theyve encountered is that the proposals are always attached to glowing administrative comments. The new divisional committees will be asked to judge the proposals and rank them. The expectation is that all proposals will be good, and some will be excellent. Another goal will be to find balanceso that one division will not receive the bulk of the funding. The application process is outlined in the document. Divine noted that the sabbatical leave application requirements have been strengthened somewhat by the Senate, and reported that the provost looked favorably on the pool of applications this year. Coombe concurred that he was very pleased with the sabbatical applications he read this year.
Discussion: Lois Jones asked if there are provisions for grants between the funding levels of $ 2,500 and $5,000. Divine said the funding levels were set to respond to the problem of faculty having to cobble together grants in order to meet their needs. The expectation is that the $5,000 level should help cut down on that need. Chip Reichardt asked what the committee felt about judging the quality of proposals from areas outside of ones expertise. He said that strikes him as difficult. Divine responded that the divisional reviews will be helpful in that regard. Christophel noted that the senate will retain responsibility for awarding the grants though they might rely on divisional input. Jones asked if the new funding is expected to be in perpetuity. Divine said the expectation is that the fund will grow over time. Giles commended the work group that developed the plans. Dennis Barrett asked whether at-large senators will be included to represent their divisions. Divine said yes.
Senate Statement: Academic Values, Rights, and Responsibilities Bill Anderson. (See Appendix A)
Highlights: Anderson called for Dean Saitta to speak about the draft of the Academic Values, Rights, and Responsibilities statement. When the draft was distributed initially, Saitta invited comments about substance, language, and audience. The call for comments got only one response. Given the lack of faculty response, Saitta thought the question of the day should be whether to drop the whole enterprise or to continue. Giles called for a straw vote, with the majority voting to continue. Saitta reported that he attended the Dec. 18th hearing on capital hill. It disturbs him that names are being named, as it suggests McCarthyism. He believes it is important to support those colleagues whose jobs are jeopardized by this issue. Reichardt said that he spoke with his colleagues who thought the draft was fine. He noted that open calls for comment generally receive only negative responses rather than positive ones. People often do not bother to respond if they are okay with the draft. His sense is that most viewed the statement positively. Jenny Cornish asked Saitta to circulate the draft once more and call for comments. Barrett asked Saitta to say more about the direct implication of DU faculty. Saitta explained that a student from GSSW reported a chilling environment for airing conservative views but also said that GSSW was handling her concerns effectively. DU Law School students have started a Students for Academic Freedom committee. There also is information circulating regarding the political affiliations of DU faculty. Don Hughes asked if Saitta would be willing to share the comments he had written to the chair of the Capital Hill hearing. Saitta said he would bebut not in a mass e-mailing. Those interested might contact him. Helga Watt complimented Saitta on his letter to the Post. Giles said the topic will be continued.
Administrator EvaluationsRon DeLyser.
Giles asked senators if we might rethink our time line and set aside two hours for the senate meetings. Watt suggested limiting presentations.
Highlights: DeLyser directed the senators attention to the summaries of conversations he distributed. The most common suggestions were to make the evaluation available on the web, provide a comment area for each question, and make the comments available to all administrators. Sheila Summers-Thompson will add a comment to the evaluations that faculty should leave blank anything that doesnt apply to their unit. DeLyser asked for input regarding the suggestion to supply comments to administrators. The executive committee of the senate will formulate a proposal on how to do the evaluations this year. The first reading of the proposal will be in February, and the vote will take place in March so that evaluations will be ready for Spring Quarter.
Discussion: Reichardt said that making the comments available to all administrators would be great. Catherine Sailor asked whether there was any concern that people might lose anonymity if the comments are made available to all administrators. DeLyser said yes, hence there is a need to inform faculty that administrators will see the comments so they can make the choice of whether or not to include comments. Giles said that using simple syntax should help to preserve anonymity more effectively than previously when handwritten comments were used. DeLyser said to let him know if there are additional comments.
Barrett announced that NCR will meet next Friday from 12 1. He then called for adjournent.
Giles adjourned the meeting at 1:40.
DRAFT Academic Values, Rights, and Responsibilities
Colorados colleges and universities are currently in the eye of a national storm concerning the state of academic freedom on American campuses. Faculties have been accused of harboring a pervasive liberal political bias, discriminating against conservative viewpoints in the classroom, and using their power to indoctrinate, rather than educate, students. Efforts are afoot in the Colorado state legislature and by private organizations to watchdog the behavior of professors within our institutions of higher learning. This has serious implications for academic freedom on both sides of the teacher-student relationship, and for the university as a site of critical, creative, and ethical inquiry.
The University of Denverthe oldest private university in the Rocky Mountain Westvalues and promotes independent thought, critical inquiry, ethical behavior, and an education that serves the public good. Accordingly, the Faculty of the University of Denver reaffirm their longstanding commitment to:
the principles of
intellectual diversity, academic freedomcivil discourse
(2) exposing students to the full range of paradigms, theories, and methods at play in a field of inquiry;
(3) learning from the accumulated body of human wisdom, which has established that:
(a) knowledge is provisional and open to reinterpretation;
social institutions including
universities are part of and interactive withwider
political, economic, and cultural forces, and
ideal and professional obligationbest served when teachers and
students are free to examine, clarify, and express societal commitments that
influence the production, dissemination, and internalization
(4) respecting the ability of students and teachers to contextualize, critique, and compare different approaches and contributions to human knowledge;
(5) evaluating students solely on the basis of their academic performance, and our peers solely on the basis of their contributions to scholarly and creative activity, teaching, university service, and the wider public good.
(6) and, finally, inspiring and communicating the joy and excitement of intellectual endeavors.