FACULTY COUNCIL

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Lucas Dodge Room (256 IMU)

3:30 – 5:15 pm

~Draft~

MINUTES

Present:        C. Catney, J. Cox, D. d’Alessandro, D. Drake, T. Mangum, L. Richman, G. Russell, L. Snetselaar, R. Williams, and J. Woodhead

Absent:          G. Bulechek, V. Grassian, B. Justman, and J. Tomkovicz

Excused:       L. Boyle, Yi Li, J. Sa-Aadu, and B. Thompson

Officers

Present:        S. Kurtz (Past President), S. McGuire (Secretary), V. Sharp (President)

Officers

Absent:          M. O’Hara (Vice President)

Guests:          C. Drum (University Relations), G. Hennigan (The Gazette), P. Kelley (Emeritus Faculty Council), B. Morelli (The Press Citizen), and L. Troyer (Office of the Provost)

  1.     Call to Order  - President Sharp opened the meeting at 3:35 pm. Roundtable introductions  were made.

II. Approvals

  1. Meeting Agenda – President Sharp moved that an item on Sexually Explicit materials in the classroom be added under “Reports” – Professor Mangum seconded; motion carried unanimously.

  1. Faculty Council Minutes, April 3, 2007 – Professor Drake moved, seconded by Professor D’Alessandro to approve the minutes; motion carried unanimously.

 

  1. Reports –

  1. What is the role of the faculty senate? 

President Sharp seeks more open communication on campus and towards that end, reported that the focus of the Faculty Council/Administrative Retreat will be “relationships”—amongst senators, between both sides of the Iowa River, and with the Board of Regents. She wishes to engage the Regents, who have expressed an interest in attending Faculty Senate meetings.

President Sharp said the second issue she plans address this autumn is the Research Track.  She will involve as many people on campus as possible to make sure everyone is informed.

  1. Academic Freedom Statement –

1. Councilors reacted to an item that appeared, without their prior input, on the BOR docket proposing revisions to the section on academic freedom in Chapter 6 of the BOR rules and regulations. It was largely drawn up in the Office of the Provost and had been previously approved by the Council on Provosts.

The proposal concerned the adoption of a statement in the UI Ops Manual on academic freedom.  It is word-for-word the AAUP statement dating back to 1940. After reviewing the wording, a request was made to table it at the Regents’ meeting with the understanding that the provosts would have the opportunity to review it afresh.  Provost Hogan asked Councilors to furnish language which better reflects where we should be on this issue.

Two revisions were brought to the Faculty Council, one from the Faculty Policy & Compensation committee; the other, proposed by Shelly Kurtz, which was narrower in scope, designed to hone in on what the legitimate policy issue for the governing body ought to be, that is, when faculty speak outside of the institution they make it clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the institution.  AAUP Vice President Lois Cox spoke in favor of this second version.

Discussion ensued.  Kurtz, in consultation with Katherine Tachau, suggested this wording changed in Section A: “University faculty shall be entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing the teachers’ subject, but should not introduce into the teaching controversial matters that have no relation to the subject. ……” 

Kurtz noted that there would not be a full Senate meeting before these changes are due to the Provost.  The Council will act for the Senate during the summer months.  If the Provost approves the recommended language, he will take it to the Council on Provosts.

Associate Provost Lisa Troyer clarified that there had been an opportunity for Faculty Senate officers to weigh in, but none had attended the Council on Provosts meeting. She warned that it might not be ready in time to table at the next BOR meeting. She noted that any decisions involve all three Regent institutions. President Sharp plans to seek input from the other faculty senate officers before moving forward.

Donna D’Alessandro offered an amendment changing the word “teachers” to faculty, but Jeff Cox said the word “teacher” appears in the original AAUP policy. It was thought to be a more inclusive term since so many people teaching in the classroom are not serving faculty. D’Alessandro queried if legal matters related to academic freedom extend to all “teachers”, not just to “faculty.”

Professor Mangum said it is important to distinguish between academic freedom and “license”.  Less is more, she said. When speaking outside the university; faculty should clarify that they are not speaking on its behalf. What she found more troublesome were all the restrictions on speech in the classroom.  She called for fewer qualifications. She was in favor of keeping the word “teacher.” Where “research” is directly referenced, the word “faculty” is appropriate.

Discussion continued on aspects of academic freedom, including the faculty member’s freedom to define the subject of the course and the obligation of faculty-supervised TA’s “to teach the case.”

A motion was made by Professor Kurtz, seconded by Professor D’Alessandro to adopt the following wording.  It was unanimously approved; Motion carried.

  1. University teachers shall be entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing the teachers’ subject, but shall not introduce into the teaching matters that have no relation to the subject.

  1. University faculty are also citizens. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but they should remember that the public may judge their institution by their public utterances.  Thus they should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

  1. Regent universities shall not be or become an instrument of partisan political action.  The expression of political opinions and view points shall be those of individuals, not of institutions, because the official adoption of any political position, whether favored by majority or minority, tends to substitute one-sided commitment for the continuing search for truth.

2. President Sharp explained that at the BOR meeting, the whole of Chapter 6 was tabled.  It will not be discussed at length today, but is something that councilors will need to review.  Section 6.2.4.  The docket stated that the three Iowa institutions each have different policies on sexually explicit materials.  They want to have one policy to cover all institutions. 

It came up at the UI several years ago.  Not all institutions are the same, so we have our own policy.   Going forward with the one recommended (6.24) does not fit the UI well.  We need to look at it more thoroughly. 

Kurtz says they tabled all of Section 6 which, he believes, gives us the opportunity to go back to the Board and say, “we want you to take this language out and put this language back.”  Professor Troyer said it is technically due today to get to the Board, but June 6 to get to the Council on Provosts.  He asked if that section had been run past the Dean of the College of Medicine. 

What is there now is perfect, and we do not want to change it, said Kurtz.  It cannot be applied in Art or the College of Medicine, for example.  Professor McGuire commented on a case where an art student did not want to draw from a nude model. The result was that he was told, in order to graduate with an art degree from the university, you will have to be able to draw from a nude.  He was told to either take the class or change majors.

Professor Mangum felt that, because there are potentially even more troubling images than sexual ones, the Regents might find this policy too narrow.

President Kurtz said she would share it with the Faculty Senate officers at UNI and ISU.

Professor Mangum moved, seconded by Professor Drake to move forward to seek input from the other institutions, bearing in the mind the June 5 deadline for the Council on Provosts. The motion carried.

Shelly will draft the rationale for the changes.  Lisa will communicate the spirit of the business to Provost Hogan.

IV. New Business

  1. On-campus interviews—The presidential search committee is scheduled to meet this evening.  Faculty want to reinforce that on-campus interviews are very important.  Faculty councilors might get an opportunity to interview candidates.  Evalyn will provide dates and times as soon as the information is available.

  1. Getting to know you—President Sharp explained her desire for the Regents to present opportunities for Senators to get to know each other.  She suggested allocating approximately fifteen minutes at each Senate meeting for individual collegiate presentations, touching on what is unique about each one, what are the commonalities. Councilors suggested ideas for presentations, including a one-page document of facts and figures to distribute in advance and keep the discussion to 3 topics including the structure of the college, grants, and departments.  

Deans know that faculty senate officers get to see the provost more often.  It would be good to have the dean come and discuss faculty governance within their college—on one sheet of paper, some stats, what comes from grants, from the general fund; have the deans explain this.  Some communication with deans and Faculty Senate would be a good thing. 

  1. Faculty Senate Orientation - Councilors felt a Faculty Senate orientation session would be helpful at the start of the academic year.   Rachel Williams volunteered to coordinate such a session.   

V. Announcements

  • Faculty Council / Administrative Retreat, Thursday, August 23, 2007, 8:30 am - 2:00 pm, Seebohm Conference Room, 283 EMRB

VI. Adjournment

The meeting closed at 5:12 pm