GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
SPECIAL MEETING
December 3, 1997
Senators present:
A. Berry, P. Black, E. Blaisten-Barojas, D. Boileau, M. De Nys, E.
Elstun, C. Fuchs, D. Gantz, J. Hale, D. Kaplan, J. Metcalf, L. Miller, S. Muir,
J. O’Connor, W. Perry, J. Reid, R. Ruhling, J. Scimecca, A. Taylor, C.
Thomas, E. Thorp, T. Travis, P. Wilkie, S. Zoltek
Senators absent: L. Bowen, R. Carty, R. Conti, J. Crockett,
K. Clements, M. Deshmukh, T. Domzal, S. Eagle, G. Galluzzo, M. Grady, L. Griffiths,
A. Merten, E. O’Hara, A. Palkovich, D. Potter, D. Rine, J. Sanford, A.
Sofer, D. Struppa, J. Tangney, K. Vaughn, J. Walsh, S. Weinberger
Guests present: A. Cary (CNHS), G. Foster (Chemistry), C. Gibson
(Libraries), M. Karina (University Publications), M. LeBaron (ICAR), E. Todd
(History and Art History), A. Torzilli (Biology), M. L. Vance (Academic Support
and Advising Services)
Senate Chair Esther Elstun called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm. Prior to
getting on with the business of the meeting, she introduced the new Senate Staff
Secretary Scott Petitto.
She announced that the single item of business for this special meeting is a
discussion of “Engaging the Future,” the Report of the President’s
Faculty Task Force on the Future of the University. Her hope is that the Senate
will reach a collective response to that Report. She suggested that one alternative
for proceeding was an orderly sequential discussion of the five scenarios in
the report; however, she preferred to use the content of a memo to the Senate
from Jim Sanford as a point of departure. She requested comments on the method
of proceeding. Anita Taylor suggested that the response to the “Futures”
Report drafted by the College of Arts and Sciences Department Chairs would be
a good point of departure for the Senate discussion. Don Boileau stated that
the Senate could make a statement or get a committee to draft a statement or
just pass good meeting minutes to the Task Force Chair, Joe Wood.
A. Taylor read the following five point statement from the CAS Chairs; copies
were made and distributed.
We accept the importance of flexibility, but not in the terms laid out by Plan
E, “Flexible Response.” We advocate a flexibility that puts the
quality of education and research at GMU first, rather than one that treats
flexibility and growth as ends in themselves.
We believe that excellence in research and teaching are mutually reinforcing
and that we cannot build a great university without strengthening both. We strongly
advocate increased support for both, but we believe it is one of the strengths
of CAS that it has never sacrificed teaching to research, and we wish to preserve
the balance between them. Before it can improve the quality of teaching and
research, the university will need to address current inadequacies in basic
infrastructure, staffing, student support, and undergraduate admissions standards.
We believe that “Learning Clusters” can function most productively
when voluntarily integrated into the pedagogical options of local academic units,
where they could allow for more flexibility in scheduling, staffing, and curriculum
development for interested faculty.
We acknowledge that it is important for the university to respond to the needs
and interests of our constituency, but we also believe that it is the role of
the university to offer intellectual leadership to society. We think that a
wholesale adoption of Plan C, “Consumer Sovereignty,” would reverse
this role by allowing the latest needs in training to displace our mission of
preparing students for life-long learning. We think that the kinds of training
programs imagined by Plan C should remain strictly limited and subordinated
to the university’s mission.
We take seriously our responsibility as faculty to insure the integrity of our
curriculum and degree requirements, and we strongly oppose any changes that
would weaken faculty governance. To protect this commitment to faculty governance,
we think that it is crucial for administration to collaborate with faculty when
implementing pedagogical experimentation and flexible responses.
In response to a question regarding the strength of CAS Chair support for this
statement, A. Taylor stated that it was universally supported and that non-signers
had not expressed disagreement.
E. Elstun summarized the memo from J. Sanford saying:
If the Senate takes a position, he hopes it is in opposition to plans C, D and
E. And that any position taken be flexible enough to increase the strength and
quality of graduate and undergraduate programs; Plan B by itself is not appropriate
for GMU since it implies a relative reduction of efforts at the graduate level,
does not provide potential business partners for graduate programs and is not
likely to retain and attract top faculty.
He proposes a continuing movement toward the undergraduate goals of B but encompassing
a revised A which defines scholarship in multiple forms.
The Chair then requested comments on these various statements. The comments
are summarized:
An amended CAS Chairs’ response should include support for tenure and
a statement on the use of part-time faculty members noting that increased utilization
of part-time faculty seems to be where the University is heading.
What are the hidden agendas? What are the goals? Should the Senate naively provide
a position and give approval to a finding or is the Senate discussion part of
a strategic negotiation?
E. Elstun responded that she knows of no hidden agenda. The Senate Executive
Committee thought that the Senate should have its own meeting outside of the
town meetings, and that it would be inappropriate for that meeting to have the
same format as the Task Force’s scheduled meetings where the Task Force
fielded questions and engaged in debate. This special meeting was called to
hear what Senators really think.
The University must provide incentives for innovative designs. For example,
ad hoc interdisciplinary clustering must have an overlay that encourages people
and rewards them. Where is the benefit? How do the plans intend to get people
to volunteer and reward them?
A. Taylor stated that the CAS Chairs’ response doesn’t set forth
how to do actions, but rather that local academic units are best suited to implement
clustering.
It was suggested that in plan C - consumer sovereignty option - consumer influence
cuts against the University’s sovereignty; there is a distinction between
being sensitive to new fads and chasing them. The university has something to
offer in leadership rather than always chasing the dollars. The chase always
seems to lead to being a step behind and never getting us to where we want to
be.
It was suggested that we’re not here to choose a scenario, but to think
and create new ideas, identifying the good and bad of all the scenarios, and
come up with a best alternative.
It was noted that the “Futures” Report does not propose that we
choose among the scenarios, but rather that we think about the values and assumptions,
both good and bad, of the scenarios. This is hard to do since each scenario
has abstract presuppositions as well as actual examples that are concrete and
less benign. The last three scenarios are problematic in their concrete
details and need a lot of critical rethinking. A combination of plans A and
B seems the best scenario. The research scenario of A, aimed at soliciting funding,
emphasizes sciences but does not prioritize the humanities; however, GMU is
not prepared to handle this scenario in the hard sciences such as biology, chemistry,
physics, etc. An integration like the CAS chairs suggest is therefore a good
choice.
Exception was taken to the statement concerning the ability of current biology
resources to support doctoral research; an assertion was made that, given current
potential, it is not an unreasonable goal to expand doctoral research in biology.
There was support for the assertion in J. Sanford’s memo that research
equals scholarship; further, there was belief that Plan A supposes research
may not be scholarship.
Several statements were made in support of the CAS Chairs’ response. Further
comments were made which were specific to the five scenarios. An A and E combination
is appealing; Plan A is explicit with clear guidelines for scholarship and research
although it is not clear that it takes a broad view of scholarship. Plan E provides
a flexible response which allows an infusion of resources to increase infrastructure
and doctoral research. GMU’s current implementation of Plan E has not
had the infrastructure to support doctoral research. Plans A and B show a forward
moving approach. Plan C is an abomination. Plan D supposes that there is always
a role for clusters, interdisciplinary study and flexibility, and Plan E allows
for flexibility but chases fads and the ever-changing hot topics. The CAS Chairs’
address Plan C well, but they should be sensitive to who the students are and
what they want and expect.
The discussion focused on several “How do we do it” issues, and
what are the tough issues we will have to deal with? First, an issue introduced
earlier was reiterated – what kinds of faculty roles and appointments
will there be in the future? It was noted that the CAS has previously used second
and third tiers of faculty workloads and part-time faculty. Second, undergraduate
admissions was identified as one of the “How do we do it” issues.
It was noted that a lot of things need to happen together and that the reality
of transfers has to be factored in.
It was mentioned that the recent newspaper article on the University of Maryland’s
improvement included comments on the metropolitan universities. Also, a SCHEV
report had a high percentage of students satisfied with their GMU education
but put GMU at the bottom of state schools relative to satisfaction with advising
for students. GMU was first in students graduating without debt. These were
all presented as casting a challenging atmosphere for marketing and carrying
implications for our choices of where to go. It was stated that the University
of Maryland has been cutting back on enrollments even though it means less money.
This was followed by a comment that as long as GMU undergraduates and graduate
students pay the same tuition, our undergraduate enrollments impact our ability
to make graduate offerings; we cannot service our undergraduate program any
cheaper. There was then a discussion concerning varying the charges for programs.
How do you attract better students, without the expectations of “betterment?”
How do you reach the goals from a resource perspective? Third, multi-campus
utilization introduces the question of roles played by various locations in
the dispersion. An expanding multi-campus university such as this still has
infrastructure needs on the main campus that should be addressed.
A question was raised regarding the role the Senate would play in the decision
making processes of where GMU will go. There was a general agreement that the
Senate should be part of the decision making process. E. Elstun responded that
the Senate Executive Committee will discuss the Senate’s role in the next
steps of the “Futures” at their meeting this Friday (December 5).
She then asked Task Force Chair Joe Wood to comment on the next steps.
J. Wood said that in his new position as Associate Provost he will probably
play some role in the “Futures” implementation. The scenarios arose
because the President asked for them when charging the task force. The scenarios
reflect things we are already doing in some way somewhere on the campus. There
was a deliberate intent to make sure everyone sees something offensive in the
scenarios. The desired agenda to get faculty, staff, and others to discuss the
future, question assumptions and identify shared values is playing out in the
current meeting. The next step is to report on those responses to support the
President in decision making for directing new funds and making allocations.
J. Wood sees the Senate playing its traditional role of commenting on and/or
voting on degree programs, openings and closings, etc..
The Senate discussion then turned to the question of where resources come from
and how the scenarios need to be amended accordingly. Some Senators saw GMU’s
position to be a high growth university missed in the early ‘80s and questioned
how that opportunity was lost. In light of that history, what good does it do
to discuss the scenarios and what we’ve already missed once before? The
comment was made that Plan E doesn’t require we do anything. There was
general agreement that it would be disillusioning to talk about the scenarios
without discussing resources, expenditures, allocations and planning.
Senators reported that the town meetings they attended reached the same agreement
that we should be less concentrated on the scenarios and more concerned with
resource issues and the quality of education. Some Senators complained that
the quality of student performance has gone down over the past ten years, and
we need to find out how to provide appropriate education to the students who
come here.
This turn in the discussion spawned a number of comments:
The scenarios allow flexibility in creative ways to think but still keep us
in a box – bounded in the ideas of what external future lies ahead. That
is, assumptions are being made concerning where the world outside the institution
is going in the 21st century. The scenarios lack a view of the future. They
amplify one or more directions GMU has been taking but lack a vision of what
the 21 st century bodes for us all and an understanding of the things we need
to deal with, particularly as a public institution.
We must recognize that choices have to be made, ones not necessarily liked or
even presented yet. It is our responsibility as faculty members to make the
choices, and we must be an integral part when any future changes and plans are
implemented. It all comes down to money. If the money is the same, then choices
have to be made. If improvements come from additional money, then where does
the money come from? We must recruit to improve students and faculty, and how
do you do that?
John O’Connor responded that $1500 per student is all it takes to recruit.
We have the numbers and that’s all it takes to get the student here instead
of Wake Forest or wherever. There are four appointed senators and four elected
senators on the resource allocation committee; they can have an impact. The
faculty liaisons to the Board of Visitors need to share the statement from the
President regarding what we’ll do with additional funds from Governor-elect
Gilmore.
We have to address the nature of the students, why are they worse not why are
they different. First, the student base here is 18-75 not 18-24; that requires
a different perspective. Second, the faculty is different. What you are researching
is a big question; we want to be like our mentors, but perhaps our research
should address real problems and issues or at least have some balance.
Third, the nature of faculty could be different in the future. Fourth, the nature
of teaching is changing rapidly, and we must determine how to evaluate and identify
new teachers. Fifth, the nature of the university in society as a whole needs
to be examined. We aren’t and shouldn’t be a contained unit, and
we can’t give in to becoming something too external; there must be a balance.
Sixth, the nature of communication within the university is important, letting
everyone know appropriately and efficiently what is going on; both governance
and sharing of information must be maintained in any avenue taken.
D. Boileau made the motion: I MOVE to endorse
the CAS Department Chairs’ statement with T. Travis’ addition that
special attention needs to be paid to the categories of full-time and part-time
appointment. The motion was seconded by R. Ruhling.
There were some comments that the CAS Chairs’ statement is too conventional.
There are concerns that GMU is just continuing the smoke and mirrors of the
last ten years. The students are different today; they give us less of their
time and attention placing more importance on their 40 hour/week jobs. There
needs to be a culture change for students and faculty. Values need to be resurrected,
and we need to re-establish some of the more traditional foundations of education
for the future of the university.
A Senator asked if the CAS Chairs’ statement endorsed a combination of
Plans A and B or, in fact, was a new vision not outlined in any of the scenarios.
A. Taylor responded that it is the latter.
An addition was made to the end of the CAS Chairs’ response: A first step
would be some discussion of budgeting and resource consequences of various scenarios
with the Faculty Senate.
The vote to endorse the CAS Chairs’ statement as amended was unanimous
among those senators present.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30pm.