Approved: September 5, 1996


Faculty Council Meeting

February 1, 1996

School of Dentistry, Room S115

3:30 p.m.

PRESENT: Administration: Trudy Banta, Chancellor Gerald Bepko, Dean William Plater. Deans: John Barlow, P Nicholas Kellum, Angela McBride. Elected Faculty: Larry Abel, W. Marshall Anderson, Margaret Applegate, Susan Ball, Lynn Broderick, Paul Brown, Kenneth Byrd, Lucinda Carr, Jeanette Dickerson-Putman, Karen Gable, Patricia Gallagher, Bernardino Ghetti, Carlos Goldberg, William Hohlt, Nathan Houser, Dolores Hoyt, Elizabeth Jones, M Jan Keffer, Missy Dehn Kubitschek, Miriam Langsam, Rebecca Markel, Dana McDonald, Fred Pavalko, Michael Penna, Richard Peterson, Richard Pflanzer, Rebecca Porter, Ken Rennels, Edward Robbins, Bernadette Rodak, Jane Schultz, Erdogan Sener, Stephen Stockberger, Karen Teeguarden, Charles Yokomoto. (Parliamentarian) Harriet Wilkins.

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Deans: Steven Jay for Robert Holden, Pat Fox for Doris Merritt. Elected Faculty: Robert Rigdon for Charalambos Aliprantis, James Baldwin for Jana Bradley, Richard Patterson for Bart Ng. Ex Officio Members: James Baldwin, S Edwin Fineberg, Paul Galanti, Carlyn Johnson, Robert Lehnen, Byron Olson, Carl Rothe, Marshall Yovits.

Visitors: Paul Bippen (Dean, IUPU Columbus), Erwin Boschmann (Dean of the Faculties Office), Mark Grove (Registrar's Office), Mark Sothmann (School of Allied Health Sciences),

ABSENT: Deans: A James Barnes, Trevor Brown, H William Gilmore, Roberta Greene, Kathy Krendl, Norman Lefstein, John Rau, Robert Shay, David Stocum, Philip Tomkins, Donald Warren, Charles Webb. Elected Faculty: Merrill Benson, Joseph Bidwell, Diane Billings, Ulf Jonas Bjork, Zacharie Brahmi, Thomas Broadie, Timothy Brothers, David Burr, Timothy Byers, David Canal, Michael Cohen, Paul Dubin, Naomi Fineberg, Joe Garcia, Robert Havlik, Antoinette Hood, Henry Karlson, Michael Klemsz, Raymond Koleski, Stephen Lalka, Golam Mannan, Debra Mesch, William Orme, David Peters, Virginia Richardson, Brian Sanders, Mark Seifert, Anantha Shekhar, Jay Simon, Akhouri Sinha, Jerrold Stern, James Wallihan, Karen West, Kathryn Wilson, Richard Wyma, Mervin Yoder, Susan Zunt. Ex Officio Members: Henry Besch, Ronald Dehnke, Juanita Keck, Steven Mannheimer, Martin Spechler, Rosalie Vermette.


TURNER: Before we get to the approval of the minutes I would like to announce that the vote taken regarding the representatives from the Senior Academy, President of the Staff Council, and the President of the Student Assembly as ex officio members of the Faculty Council was passed and will now become part of the Bylaws.


TURNER: The next item is the approval of the November 2 minutes that were mailed to you. At this time I would like to open the floor for any corrections or revisions.

SPECHLER: I am shown as absent but I should be marked as present.

TURNER: Is there a motion to approve as amended? [Motion made] All in favor of approving the minutes as amended, please say "Aye." Opposed? [None] Abstentions? [None] The minutes will stand approved as amended.


TURNER:: Before we get to the Administrative Report, I would like to announce that we are going to wait for Agenda Item VI until Larry Wilkins, the chair of the Budgetary Affairs Committee, arrives to discuss the Financial Difficulties document which should be sometime after 4:00 p.m. Now we turn to the Administrative Report.

BEPKO: I have three relatively short points. First, I have just come from a meeting of the Purdue University Board of Trustees, who are meeting on this campus today and tomorrow. One reason for meeting on campus was to have a seminar this afternoon on the subject of Biological and Medical Engineering highlighting the cooperation that is taking place between the two campuses -- West Lafayette and Indianapolis, highlighting the various types of Biological and Medical Engineering programs that are developing, that have attracted grant funding, and that very much fill a need for a Ph.D. program in engineering that will allow Ph.D. candidates to come and work at the labs that are being funded by external grants and that will support the work of faculty on this campus. The Purdue University Board of Trustees, just a moment or two ago, were briefed on the joint Ph.D. program in Biological and Medical Engineering. Actually, it is a broader set of degree programs in that it will include both Master's degrees and Ph.D. degrees. We already have a Master's degree program in both electrical and mechanical engineering on this campus. The B.M.E. degree will fit into those two existing programs, but there will be a brand new Ph.D. awarded by Purdue University jointly by West Lafayette and Indianapolis that will be available for Ph.D. degree candidates doing their work on this campus. Dick Schwartz, the dean of the schools of Engineering at West Lafayette, spoke with pride about the program. When asked about how many people were going to be subscribing to this degree program, he said, "Our worry is not about applicants; it is about resources to support them with, all of the high quality candidates that we can handle in very short order. At least one dozen right away." I think it is a very important step forward for both universities (Purdue and IU) and a very important step forward for this campus, which has long held the promise to be the place of concourse for biology, medicine, and engineering. That is coming closer now to reality.

My second point is that there is nothing sadder or more moving than to lose a member of our University community, especially someone as young as the female basketball player whose life was lost the other night in a tragic automobile accident on I-65. Shannon Renee McPherson was a second-year student who was returning, along with the women's basketball team, from a victory over IU Southeast at New Albany late Tuesday night. The van in which she was riding, one of two vans that were bringing the players and coaches back from New Albany, hit a patch of ice on I-65, spun out of control into the median, and flipped over. Shannon was lying on the backseat sleeping or resting and was thrown out of the van and suffered fatal chest injuries.

As I said, there is nothing sadder than to lose a member of our University family, especially someone who is just at the beginning of adult life and filled with promise and hope. We will be seeking to raise support from the community for an appropriate memorial to benefit her child. We will also be thinking about an appropriate memorial that would be created within the University community to recognize both the terrible tragedy which has happened as well as to recognize the extraordinary things that she was doing with her life until it was ended so tragically short.

TURNER: I would like to ask you to rise with me in a moment of silence in memory of Shannon McPherson. [A moment of silence was observed] Thank you.

BEPKO: Finally, we have reported on intercollegiate athletics a couple of times here within the past few months. I thought I should bring you up-to-date. Last Friday at the IU Board of Trustees meeting there was a session held on the subject of moving IUPUI's intercollegiate athletic program from NCAA Division II to NCAA Division I. It was a good session. There were several challenging questions presented by the Trustees. A couple of Trustees, it is clear, are not very warm to this proposal. We think that we should continue to deal with the questions that they have raised, such as how we will be able to finance the intercollegiate athletics? Whether students will continue to support intercollegiate athletics? How important is intercollegiate athletics really to the academic community here? Is it worth the extra resources that will have to be invested in order to take the program to Division I? We are going to respond to those questions and continue to respond to respond those questions. We did in the Trustees' forum. Several of us were there, including Kathy Warfel, to speak on behalf of the proposal to go to Division I. We hope that the Trustees will see, and we trust that a majority will, the critical value of moving the intercollegiate athletic program to a level that is commensurate with our size and the quality of our academic programs. We think the other alternative is really not to have any intercollegiate athletic programs at all, and at this stage of development, that is not a very attractive or perhaps even an acceptable alternative. We think we must go forward to Division I. We will continue to press that case.

In the interim, there is lots of conversation about this mostly, oddly enough, not in Indianapolis, but in Monroe County. There was an editorial in the Herald Times opposing Division I athletics at IUPUI. We will keep you posted. The Trustees are to take up the matter again at the February meeting which will be here in Indianapolis. I believe the discussion of this will take place at the public meeting [the business meeting] of the Trustees, which is in the afternoon of the second day of the Trustees' meeting. I think that will be Friday, February 23, in the afternoon. If you are interested, that is when it is expected that there will consideration of the proposal and a vote on whether the Trustees approve or disapprove of IUPUI going to Division I. Thank you.

We decided that we should give you a report on enrollment. We gave you a glimpse of it last time but we didn't have the final figures and we certainly didn't have the figures for other campuses of IU. Bill [Plater] has those figures for you today.

PLATER: We reported the figures for Indianapolis at the last meeting, but just to remind you, we were down very slightly in headcount despite hopes and expectations that we might actually hold even in comparison with last spring. We were down about .6 of one percent. The good news is that we were up about 1.6 percent in credit hours. So, perhaps, in the most important measure, we actually had an increase. By comparison, in headcount, all of the other campuses were down just like Indianapolis. Bloomington was down by the same percentage point (.6 of one percent). Other campuses were down more than that except for IU East which was down by only a small one-tenth of one percent. Two campuses were significantly down -- Northwest by almost six percent and South Bend by four percent. Kokomo was down by about five percent with corresponding decreases in credit hours.

I think one of the things that most of us were concerned about was the undergraduate enrollment because that has been the area of greatest volatility over the past several years.

There is encouraging news and I wanted to report on that by comparison with the other IU campuses. Indianapolis had an increase of six percent in its first-year students. All other campuses except IU East had a decrease in first-year students. We also had a slight increase in sophomores. The area of the biggest decline for us was in juniors. We lost about five percent of the junior enrollments, which means that, if we are successful on attracting additional first-year students, we should be able to continue the growth that we began in the fall. So, I think there is good news and the efforts which many of you made through individual schools both to improve retention and to attract new students is paying off. I want to encourage you to continue those efforts. We are not over the hump yet but we can see the moment when we will be.


WARFEL: I have only two items. The first concerns the Task Force on The Status of Women Faculty. Dean Plater and I have received from Professor Rebecca Porter a copy of their report which they refer to at this stage still as a "Draft." It will be disseminated broadly and they are seeking campus reaction to their draft. So, please watch for this document and comment on it in a timely manner I presume that after we have responses, the Task Force will report back to this body.

PORTER: We will be glad to conclude its work.

WARFEL: Good. The other topic is Clinical Ranks. As you will recall, our document on Clinical Ranks went to the University Faculty Council last year and was tabled until the February 1996 meeting of the UFC. That meeting is coming up and we are working very hard to come up with language on the Clinical Ranks that will be something that everybody can live with and accept. There are many constituencies in this discussion. In the back of the room there is a copy of draft language which was put together by myself and Ed Greenebaum, the other co-secretary of the University Faculty Council. We are asking many people throughout the University to comment on that language to see if we can get to language that can be passed at the UFC, if not this month, sometime before the end of this academic year. If any of you want to comment, please send your messages to me or to Ed Greenebaum. That is the end of my report.


TURNER: The next item on the agenda is the resolutions which have been suggested by the Board of Trustees. The Academic Affairs Committee has considered these and reported on them. Rick Ward cannot be here but Mark Shermis is here to lead the discussion on Grading Policy. We are not going to discuss the Grade Indexing today.

SHERMIS: My name is Mark Shermis and I am from the Testing Center in the department of psychology. The Academic Affairs Committee looked at both of the resolutions and if you would like I can restrict my comments just to the first one. Is that what you would like?

TURNER: We thought we would look at Indexing next month.

SHERMIS: Some of you may have received a memo that is a response to the Trustees' October resolution on Grade Inflation. however, I will limit my remarks to the first resolution..

In part, and due to a response to the resolution last October, Dean Plater commissioned a Task Force to report on its investigation of Grade Inflation. Some of you have had an opportunity to look over that report. While I did note differences in grading practices among schools, overall there is little evidence to support the fact that grade inflation even exists. If you look at the trend nationally, grades have actually dropped since 1972. In trying to scope out the impetus for the Trustees' resolution, we weren't too sure Of their motive. The only thing we could figure was that a few schools did have a larger proportion of A's and B's. The reasons for that are articulated in part by the Commission's report, but primarily we suspect that the difference in the grade distribution among the schools is a reflection of philosophies of grading rather than any symptomatic problem. That is, a number of the professional schools, for example, look at taking a mastery approach or a criterion reference approach. So, for example in the health field, we really aren't so concerned that your performance falls along some sort of distribution, but rather we want to make sure that you have mastered a technique. If you have this kind of philosophy, then what you are grading against is an absolute criterion. This general philosophy now pervades professional education that comprises a big part of what we do here at IUPUI. A number of faculty members in the liberal arts and sciences have also adopted this philosophy as well and that could in part account for some of the differences in the grade distributions.

As we looked at the resolutions, we tried to imagine what might be the underlying cause for the Trustees' concern. We weren't exactly sure, but we think the phenomena of the different distribution can be explained by the differences in grading philosophies.

With respect to the first resolution, there were two interpretations or readings of that resolution. It reads:

The faculty of every department or division shall, for the guidance of individual faculty members, establish a policy for the awarding of letter grades, which policy shall be filed in the office of the Dean of the Faculties or Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

One interpretation of this was simply to have the various academic units articulate for the general publics at large what we mean when we say "What constitutes an 'A'? That is, an 'A' constitutes superior academic achievement. Most of you probably know what an A, B, C, D, and F are or what a Pass/Fail constitutes. We suspect that everyone else does as well.

The second darker interpretation of this resolution was based on the suspicion that the Trustees wanted to force a normal distribution of grades so that only 'X' percent could be A's, 'Y' percent could be B's, and so on. We hope this isn't the interpretation because, if you look at the reasons for grading, there are about 10 which have been articulated in the research literature, but only one has to do with forcing a distribution across academic performance. There are a lot of other reasons that we might award grades in addition to simply forcing a distribution of academic achievement.

It is for this reason that we hope what the Trustees' meant was that we should communicate with the public perhaps through the bulletins that all of us produce. We hope it was not the intent of the resolution to get faculty to force the distribution because that would be inconsistent with the various philosophies underlying the grading process. It really steps beyond the balance of what the Trustees are here to do unless there is some compelling emergency. There has been no evidence that this is something that has been of main concern across the various campuses here at IU or anywhere else. So, with that in mind, I will be glad to answer any questions that anyone may have.

TURNER: This is a resolution which the Trustees will consider and pass, or not pass. What they have asked is that the faculty representatives who attend the meetings come with some sense of the faculty's response to this. What we are doing today, in a sense, is not approving it or disapproving it, but rather discussing it, gathering a sense of our own position on the matter of grading. With that in mind, we will open discussion.

SHERMIS: If I could just make two points. First, Rick [Ward] asked me to convey or help dispel a rumor that the Bloomington campus somehow endorsed or gave credence to the Trustees. He has information which suggests that, that has not occurred. The second is, there is a Faculty Development Workshop on Friday, February 16 which will address grading practices and grade inflation phenomena.

SPECHLER: I haven't had a chance to read this, but as chair of the Academic Standards and Policies Committee of the School of Liberal Arts, we have dealt with this so I have a few remarks. First of all, it is not true that there is no evidence, and Rick Ward knows it very well. There are major differences in the grading among the departments in the School of Liberal Arts. I don't know what happens in other schools. Within school variation bothers me far, far more than across schools. The reason is that a student can be induced in the search for high GPA to move from department to department, from course to course on the basis of likely GPAs. When some departments have a full grade higher than others as their normal philosophy, as you say, this gives a nearly irresistible temptation to students who need a high GPA. This also has been documented in the literature which is not cited. But, I think it is just common sense that students do this. The idea that there has been no grade inflation is a false issue and not really the point. Over the very long term maybe there hasn't been for the group of students who attend the university. That really is not the issue. The most dangerous part about grade inflation is that it is selective. Some departments do it and other departments do not. Incidentally, you would have been surprised had you seen which departments do and which do not. It was against my intuition when we did the research. But, the students know who is giving the easy grades and they are very concerned about their GPA. So, selective grade inflation, not the long term, is the thing that ought to bother us because it is giving an extrinsic and irrelevant reason for students to take courses in which they are less interested in order to "beef" up their GPA. If you don't think so, talk to some students in the undergraduate division. They do it all the time.

I don't believe that this problem can't be solved. We in the department of economics, for example, have easily agreed to have broad guidelines about grades. We simply don't allow some instructor to come in which a philosophy of giving all A's. What is more, the main point here is Rick Ward does not give out degrees. We, as a faculty, give out degrees and our name is IUPUI. We have to develop enough consensus to certify that a student has passed the requirements at that level. If Rick Ward were giving out degrees, Rick Ward could grade just as he likes. It would be his reputation. But, we have to be concerned about our joint reputation at IUPUI which, fortunately, has been improving. I think we have to be concerned about our joint reputation and we have to develop some kind of consensus. Now, my friend says that we have enough consensus because we all know what an A means, what a B means. Why then do students in different classes get so different grades? It certainly cannot be accounted for, I can tell you, by the quality of the students going in. It is rather simply the grading standards. Now it is pie in the sky, I am afraid, for you to say that the Trustees are going to be satisfied with this document. I have talked to the Trustees. They are a lot smarter and a lot tougher than this document will satisfy. I really think that in the interest of being responsive to the Trustees, we have to do a lot better than this. Thank you.

SHERMIS: Let me respond to one component of what you just mentioned. I think you have a number of important points, but I think the main point is that, as a faculty within a department you can decide what grading philosophies you want to support. But I think to try to specify a range of the normal distributions always constitutes an "A, etc. To assume that all distributions are always the same every semester every time you teach the course, I don't think is a reasonable assumption. I think you can articulate standards of absolute performance as do those who believe in criterion reference approaches to assessment. You can decide what constitutes good performance in a particular class, but I don't think you necessarily have to force that into a normal distribution of grades. I think if you get too specific in any response to the Trustees or anyone else, you are going to end up doing yourself more damage in the long run than you would otherwise.

SPECHLER: I don't know whether my friend teaches statistics, I do. I am afraid I have to disagree head on with what he says. No one has talked about a normal distribution. There are many other distributions. He assumes that statistics say that a sampling gives you the same result. It actually gives you just the reverse. Every sample will be different in some way providing there is a well drawn sample. Those of you who teach statistics know this very well. Practically, what does this mean? If we all adopted a broad distribution, it would still permit us a degree of latitude from semester to semester to recognize that this or that groups of students, especially small samples, could differ from that long term norm that we call the population distribution. That is the first thing.

If you will permit me, I have heard these arguments especially the argument about competency from the School of Nursing and, of course, I respect that. I wouldn't want a C or D nurse either. I want a competent nurse. So, what is the answer to that? I think the honest answer among colleagues is to say, "We are a rather different kind of school. We have a pass/fail or a satisfactory/unsatisfactory standard. If you are a satisfactory nurse, fine, you get certified. And, until you are a satisfactory nurse, you don't get certified. I think that is the honest way and I would be perfectly comfortable if the School of Nursing were to say that. What gives me trouble is not so much across schools, what gives me trouble is where students can and do substitute easier graded courses for harder graded courses despite the fact that in very many cases those harder graded courses are quite essential to their program. I have never heard from any of the people of the opposite persuasion any effective answer to this point.

BALDWIN: Speaking as a member of the Academic Affairs Committee, we were not in opposition with this. We thought it was a good idea that discussions like this happen and that the policies on grading be put in writing and sent to the Vice Chancellor and placed in the bulletin or whatever. This is exactly the kind of thing the Board of Trustees were wanting. Even on the school-by-school basis, the problem is that it is not within the power of the Academic Affairs Committee to discuss within school matters. We have to ask the schools, those who have departments, to sort out these differences.

LANGSAM: As someone who deals with students as frequently as Martin, I am amazed at this tremendous information flow because I find that most students are very confused about a lot of things including the name of their instructor. In fact, I had a student sit in my American History class for two weeks and then said, "This is not an algebra class, is it?" [laughter] More to the point, and I can't speak to other schools, our students in liberal arts have an option of taking courses pass/fail. So, there is no need for them to avoid these harder classes. All they have to do is, for one area of their general requirements all of their electives, they can take as many as eight courses pass/fail. TI don't think we should reduce how students do things. I have been working them for 31 years and I am still confused. I think we need more discussion about this before we make ascertains.

GOLDBERG: I think when calculating the statistics on grade distribution, we have to make a distinction between lower level courses and upper level courses. In upper level courses students get serious and dedicated and it shouldn't be surprising if half get As. The same thing would apply to the professional schools. It shouldn't be surprising that half of the class gets A's. So, we have to have these kinds of distinctions -- lower level and upper level.

BYRD: One model that is still existing, and I am pretty sure it is - this was debated at the University of Washington in Seattle when I was a graduate student (early 1970s). The Vietnam War was obviously still going on, but they were concerned about grade inflation and what they had, and as far as I know they still have it - someone might be able to check this - is the decimal point grading system. You can get everything from a 4.0 for a course down to a 0.7. The only thing that is constant is that it is flexible but also has the decimal option for the technical courses. The professions like it because they can discriminate between a high 'A' and a low 'A' all the way down to a D- (decimal grade of 0.7.) The only thing carved in stone, by consensus, is that one agrees that 'A' is a 4.0, a 'B' is a 3.0, a 'C' is a 2.0, and a 'D' is a 1.0. So, a student, and I was a recipient of these, can get a grade of a 3.7 in a course or whatever. At that time faculty handled a much similar situation; I imagine the trustees in Olympia were concerned about grade inflation and where money was going for some of the kids to try to stay out of the war and the whole bit. They essentially handled this debate. So, that might be an option if someone wanted to contact the University of Washington at Seattle and see if it is still there.

On the other hand, Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington has all written evaluations, but that's a liberal arts-type school. That might be a way out without us flagellating ourselves and agonizing about all of this other stuff.

WARFEL: I wanted to clarify something. Mark, I think, had indicated that IU Bloomington had or had not done anything about this. I think what the confusion may be is over the two resolutions. We are really talking about Grading Policies today, although the resolution is entitled "Grade Inflation. IU Bloomington has not to date officially done anything about that. The other resolution, which we have put off until our next meeting, is Grade Indexing and the Bloomington campus has, as a matter of fact, already adopted internal grade indexing. So, let's be clear about that.

The other point I wanted to make was that I think we have got extremes here from, "I am a faculty member and you can't tell me what grades to give" down to the other extreme of the spectrum. Having been at the Trustees' meetings where this resolution has been discussed to some extent already in the University Policies Committee, I think what the Trustees on that Committee are trying to get at with this resolution isn't so much a policy in the sense of 'There shall be five percent A's at Indiana University.' I really do not hear that coming from the Trustees. I think what they are after is exactly what this has stimulated. They are after an annual discussion of what grades are we giving? What are the implications to our academic programs? What are the implications to the academic programs of the whole institution? Of course, there are reasons for their multiple components that go into an individual student earning a high grade or a low grade. I think what they are after is the annual discussion and reflection on grades.

PLATER: What I want to say is very consistent with Kathy's remarks. I think it is important this body know that a number of faculty have been concerned about grades for some time. It was out of the faculty concern, I think it was over two years ago, that we offered at least one and maybe two faculty workshops on Grade Inflation, not unlike the one which is coming up later this month. The group of faculty who participated in that workshop were so interested in it that they continued to meet and in effect became an ad hoc committee. Later we asked them to look at data and make some recommendations because it seemed to be a matter of broader concern than just a few individuals. It was that committee, chaired by Bob Orr in the School of Engineering and Technology, that, in fact, issued a report looking at the data for all of the schools.

Despite what Mark says, I think there is an indication that grades have tended to rise over the past decade. There are more A's being given than there were. It varies somewhat from school to school and that is the key point. I think the conversation here, and my observation is, that this is a matter that really needs to be discussed within each school and possibly within each department, Marty, but, certainly at the school level. To reinforce that, we have asked that each school take up this issue. We have distributed a copy of the report prepared by the Orr Committee, with all of the data so that each school now has that information. You could look at your grades over a period of time. You could look at them department by department. And, you could look at them in comparison with other units on campus. Our hope is that each school will decide that this is an important enough matter that you should discuss and do as the committee has recommended -- adopt a policy that will be clear to everyone on what the grading practices of the unit are. I would also say that some schools have already done this. I believe, Larry, that the School of Law has a policy that in fact suggests what a distribution of grades might be. It is not mandatory, but it is there as a guide for faculties and it will be some sense of what the standards are for a professional school. The point is that we are going to have quite different practices from school to school and it is appropriate that students understand what those differences are as they consider liberal arts versus science versus nursing. I think it is important for us to do this, but within the school context.

LEHNEN: I have had difficulty interpreting the fact that you just mentioned, Bill, that maybe there have been more A's given in the last 10 years than previously. In one sense, that could be interpreted as we are doing a better job, we are teaching more, and the grades reflect that. The reason I bring that example up is not to be factious, but I am sitting here thinking as I was listening to the various comments by Marty and others, that I have been experimenting with a different approach to teaching in my courses in the last couple of years and I have tried to apply a total quality management model to teaching a course, up streaming defects, in other words, and finding the problems students have and try to fix them before the end of the semester. So, in other words, I have changed my teaching methods and I think I am getting a few higher grades now because I am doing a better job.

The difference here is that I have measured explicit competencies. I have listed the competencies and defined them in operational measures of what I expect out of every course. I basically go in saying that "If you meet these competencies, you will get at least a 'B', and an 'A' if you exceed them. Every time, depending on the luck of the draw of the students who are in the particular section, I could have all A's in some semester. I can imagine how that would be interpreted out of context. I would agree with Miriam that we definitely need to discuss this further because it seems to me that we cannot interpret grades without talking about what the faculty members goals, values and purposes were. Can you have a department or school policy when you get to something as individual as this, I don't know. Maybe we ought to have that conversation.

PLATER: I think that is what we are all saying. We need to have the conversation probably at the school level, but maybe at the department level. The only thing I would say is that I think if you have the kind of grade practices that you have, your colleagues should be aware of it and understand that in your class students may have all A's, and that they should be able adjust their grading practices accordingly. There needs to be some accountability to each other as colleagues within a department or a school as to what it is that we are using grades to signal. It seems to me that conversation has to go on in the unit and that it is most meaningful at the school or department level. Periodically, probably not every year, but every few years we ought to talk about grading and what we mean by it and how we are using grades and what they signal. In a very large measure this is the problem that I think Marty was trying to identify. We ought to understand how students are perceiving grades and grading practices.

WARFEL: The language of the resolution does not say what the policy is to be. The department's policy could state, 'it is the policy of this department that faculty will give letter grades to differentiate the work of their students and that annually the faculty will discuss what they do in each of their courses' or something like that. It is not a policy that says everybody is going to do the same thing. It is just a policy about how rating happens.

PETERSON: One of the issues that alarms me is when Bill Plater says we could see some increases in the number of A's that we are giving at IUPUI or some such comment, I would hope that we would, over a period of time, become recognized by students and that our admissions criteria would be increasing over time and that we would be getting a better quality of students here at IUPUI. It is a multi-faceted subject. I don't think we could say we have more A's therefore our standards are going down or more F's and therefore we are getting poorer students.

PLATER: Dick, that isn't what I said. I said that the data indicates there are more A's being given. We should look at the data.

LANGSAM: I recently was serving on the Challenger Scholarship Committee and one of the ways that we distinguished between a group of outstanding students was that one of our students had 17 A+ in a wide variety of courses. I wonder if, while we are discussing grade inflation or these other issues, whether we could look into the question Why, a student who gets an A+ gets a 4 and a student who gets an A gets a 4?" One way to resolve grade inflation very quickly is to drop an A to 3.7 and only give 4s to people who receive A+. I don't know where that came from and why a student who gets an A+ doesn't get anything beyond the 4 that an A student gets. I find that to be a very interesting issue as well. There are some students who are superior and in some ways we do not reflect that in their GPAs. I would like to add that to the discussion if we are discussing grades.

ROTHE: I have a question. I noticed that the departments are to file a policy with the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, or the Dean of the Faculties. Why not also provide grade distribution data at that time? It seems to me that the data are needed as well as the policy, if you are going to do anything about the policy. That would be a question for whoever put this resolution together.

TURNER: The Trustees put this resolution together. We have to move on; however, we will take the elements of this discussion forward to the Trustees. The Executive Committee is going to take up the matter of, beyond what the resolution suggests, how the conversation might be pursued on campus and through the structures of faculty governance? So, you will be hearing from us again. Thank you


TURNER:. I would like to move to the next item on the agenda. I will remind you that we have two items which need some careful consideration. The first is entitled Draft Policy on Dealing with Financial Difficulties which is the next item and then the discussion on the Faculty Work Memorandum that was postponed until this meeting. I will now turn the floor over to Larry Wilkins and Becky Porter.

L. WILKINS: We are circulating some handouts which are intended to be responsive to some of the questions and comments that were raised last time in conjunction with various parts of the draft. One of the concerns that was raised last time had to do with the provisions regarding Faculty Boards of Review over the question of dismissal. Some specific statements about faculty board of review appear on page 10 on the original draft. The main item of concern expressed last time was that because of the provision in the proposal that allowed information from previous faculty boards of review to be admitted into subsequent review, that perhaps there would be a loss of confidentiality which would be inconsistent with University policy and the Bylaws of the Faculty Council on Faculty Boards of Review. To address that concern and to assure the protection of confidentiality, the drafting committee is proposing an amendment of paragraph 2, section A of that provision which appears on page 10. To make it clear that we don't want the matter of who was being involved with a faculty board of review and we wish to add the following language:

issues of the adherence to policy and procedures for declaring financial exigency may be introduced in subsequent board of review hearings, if but only if all information identifying the grievant has been removed from the findings to be introduced.

I think that will adequately address the concern about confidentiality. Do you want to go through all of these proposed amendments or do you want to take them up one at a time?

TURNER: Let's have some discussion and then if it looks like it is contentious, perhaps we should take them one at a time. If not, then we can add them all in and then vote on them. Could we do that?

L. WILKINS: Yes. The second concern had to do with another statement lower down on page 10 in section 2, paragraph 2 in which the original stated:

The merits of the overall Financial Exigency Plan shall not be subject to review by a Faculty Board of Review convened for the purpose of hearing an individual's petition.

One of the comments made last time was that in essence puts the document at war with itself. You are allowing faculty boards of review but you are foreclosing meaningful review by excluding this term from consideration. We are proposing to strike that language and replace it with the following language:

The purpose of a faculty board of review proceeding upon an individual's grievance shall be to determine if the individual's selection for dismissal has been made fairly and in accordance with the policy and procedures specified in the Financial Exigency Plan. It is not for the purpose of opening up, on a wholesale basis, the merits of the declaration of a financial exigency, or the plan for addressing the financial exigency.

We think that clarifies the purpose of a faculty board of review where a faculty who has been dismissed wishes to have his or her peers consider whether they have been treated fairly under the policy of the plan.

GOLDBERG: I have no problems with that, but I do have a problem with Section 2b for similar reasons that you have stated, following the first part of the statement but the recommendations of a faculty body on these matters will be considered presumptively valid. The first section it says the validity of the judgements and the criteria for identification for termination,... There is conflicting language there as I see it. In other words, the issue of this hearing may include "the validity of the judgments and the criteria for identification for termination, but the recommendation of a faculty body on these matters will be considered presumptively valid." I see an inconsistency there unless you can clarify it for me.

L. WILKINS: I am not sure I see your inconsistency, but let me address your concern and try to clarify what the meaning of that subsection is. It is intended to put some credence by a faculty body that has considered the issue of whether one of their peers should remain on the faculty and to treat it as a special fact. That is, it is given a presumption. That doesn't mean that the presumption can't be overcome, but it does place a burden on the grievant to overcome the presumption of validity. That is all that is intended. It is not intended to block any consideration or review by a faculty board of review on the issue of fairness.

ROTHE: Would you define what you mean by faculty body? Does that mean a departmental promotions and tenure committee?

L. WILKINS: It may very well be. It depends on how the school or the unit has decided to render that kind of decision. It was an intentional decision on the part of the drafting committee to avoid putting that kind of detail to dictate to the schools on how they should reach the decision.

PORTER: It is referring back to the involvement of a faculty or faculty body in the development of the financial exigency plan which has to identify individuals to be dismissed. So, it is referring back to a faculty body that is talked about earlier in the document.

L. WILKINS: We didn't want to harden, by way of definition, a particular concept in this document but rather leave it up to the schools and departments to decide for themselves.

GOLDBERG: Could you be more specific about my concern which was the inconsistency? The first of Section 4b states that the Board of Review can question and deal with the validity of the judgements that have been made and then in the second parts it says the recommendation of a faculty body will be considered presumptively valid.

L. WILKINS: Right. In other words, there is a higher threshold that a grievant must reach to overturn a decision by a body of his or her peers.

TURNER: We will now go to the amendments and see where we are. Is there concern or discussion about the amendment that is suggested?

L. WILKINS: The third amendment is intended to address a concern that was raised last time that the proposed language would allow pressure to be exerted on a dismissed faculty member to accept a part-time position for reinstatement. The proposal is to strike the original language and substitute the following language:

For at least three years following dismissal, no unit shall engage in replacement hiring on either a full-time or part-time basis until all tenured faculty or librarians have been offered full-time reinstatement and a reasonable time in which to accept or decline the offer.

TURNER: Is there discussion on this amendment?

PLATER : When we talked about this the last time I the made argument, and I would again, that I think this places an unreasonable restraint on a school or unit's ability to recover from a financial difficulty if it does not have the flexibility to use part-time faculty because, as we all know, part-time faculty cost less and can help subsidize the salaries of full-time faculty. We are placing a burden on ourselves that I think in some units will cause financial exigency to increase or to accelerate rather than to help. I don't think we should restrict ourselves in this fashion. It will be a burden that some schools simply won't be able to live with if they find themselves in a situation that we have defined as a financial exigency.

BARLOW: I would like to second that. I think we are more dependent on part-time faculty than any unit in the on the campus. I can't imagine how awful it would be if we couldn't hire part-time when we are in financial straights.

PORTER: The Faculty Affairs Committee at our meeting this week did not come forward with specific language but in the discussion it expressed a concern that the document, as it is currently written, does not preclude dismissing tenured faculty and retaining part-time instructors. That was a concern that if a unit has the option of eliminating tenured faculty and keeping part-time instructors, that is not consistent with the principles that should be included.

WARFEL: The following up on Dean Barlow's point that the reality is that we rely on part-time faculty to teach a lot of course sections which generates income which helps keep us going. I am having trouble figuring out why we would want to make our financial difficulty even worse by eliminating that as a way to help. While I understand the concern, it seems to me that in the previous 10 pages we have had so much faculty involvement in the planning process that it isn't clear to me how the faculty would let that sort of thing happen. I would speak against this last amendment.

L. WILKINS: If I could offer some clarification. This statement is addressed at replacement hiring. Except for what Becky just mentioned, what we have in front of us in the form of a proposed amendment pertains to replacement hiring only. It is not a blanket prohibition against having part-time faculty members.

TURNER: There is always quite a turnover in part-time faculty. If that turnover continues and the replacement of those part-timers is prohibited, then the condition that Bill has been speaking about obtains.

WILKINS: that is true, but it forces the school or the unit to consider whether waiting until the next part-time position becomes vacant and combining the two sections and making it a full-time position.

WARFEL: How many would it take?

WILKINS: That may have been a bad example.

TURNER: So, in effect, it does prohibit the continued use of hiring part-time because there is a large turnover of part-timers.

WILKINS: That is correct.

APPLEGATE: I would speak against the final amendment. Of course, another option that you have is to increase the workload in terms of numbers and sections on the number of people that you have remaining. In some disciplines there are educational problems which develop. In fact, in some instances, it would even become unsafe because you are dealing with clinical courses. If you cannot have the alternative available to you for part-time, you cannot safely teach the clinical course.

LANGSAM: Perhaps what we could do is to split the concept of the full-time and part-time. I think it is relatively reasonable to suggest that rather than hiring six new historians we go to those people whom we had dismissed. So, if the sentence just said, "...on a full-time basis until all..." then we could develop another sentence to address the part-time issue which not tie the hands of individual departments or units where there is an absolute necessity to hire part-timer and such hires have been s a part of their normal operation. If we had 30 full-time faculty and we fire 25 of them and suddenly go out and hire 50 part-timers, something is wrong. But, if the English department regularly uses 90 part-timers, they regularly lose some of their part-timers. Even in a state of financial exigency it does not seem unreasonable to allow them to continue to hire those part-timers. So, I think splitting that sentence would alleviate part of the problem by not shackling people who are definitely dependent and have always been on as part-timers.

TURNER: Could I suggest something? We were going along smoothly and we said that we would continue going smoothly until we hit a bump and I think we have hit a bump. [laughter] Can we back up and look at the first two amendments that seem to be okay and then we can move to the discussion of this third amendment where it seems to require a good bit of thought and care and perhaps new wording.

So, let's return to the first proposed amendment and I would ask if we could address this with the idea of accepting it at this time. Is there discussion on accepting this amendment?

SPECHLER: I am against this and let me tell you why. It is not because I don't value confidentiality as much as everyone in the room. Under the circumstances, it is much to be wished, but I think it would, in such extreme circumstances, be unrealistic. We have had inflamed personnel problems on campus, and they don't remain confidential. They should, but they usually don't. I fear that if we adopt this language which requires that all information identified about the grievant be removed, the result would be the opposite of the one intended. There might be letters from the grievant in the file. How can you remove entirely the identification? I don't think it would be realistic to do that and actually might harm the case of the grievant especially if the grievant has a high degree of credibility on campus. If, for example, a grievant would say, "Well, the dean told me so and so in camera." Some faculty members you would believe implicitly and others you might not, depending on whether they have been generally credible. That is the principle of our annual review and law. I very much fear that the objective is good but actually in practice it would work against the grievant. Perhaps someone could convince me that is not so.

TURNER: Are there any other comments on Amendment 2A? If there is no further discussion, maybe we could ask for a vote on this. All in favor of the amendment as presented here indicate by saying "Aye." Opposed? [a few] The ayes have it. That amendment is passed.

If we could now move to the Proposed Amendment 2, original page 10, Section 2, Paragraph 2 and open this for discussion. Is there any discussion of this amendment at this time?

KUBITSCHEK: I think I agree that the proposed amendment here does in fact contradict 2b. The amendment seems to suggest that the purpose of the faculty board of review is to make sure that the policy set out in a plan for addressing financial exigency for each unit has in fact been followed. That is a different thing than opening up the validity of the criteria that plans puts forward. So, I think there is a contradiction between 2b and the proposed amendment.

WILKINS: All I can tell you is that, if the view is that the proposed amendment is functionally inconsistent with 2b, I think it misapprehends the affect and the operation of 2b which is simply to raise the level of proof on the part of the grievant with respect to decisions that are made by peers. It seems to me that 2b is a question of the level of proof that is required. The proposed amendment has to do with the jurisdiction or the power of the board of review.

YOKOMOTO: Larry, I wonder if part of the confusion might not be in the choice of words? In the main part it says, "In the criteria for identification and termination which can be looked at..." and in the new addition it says "...or the plan for addressing the financial exigency." I wonder if "criteria" and "the plan" are to be taken as synonymous so that in one place you are looking at the plan and the other place you are addressing the criteria.

WILKINS: It is pretty clear that they are separate sections of that area. In one, we are looking at whether the issue of the proprieting of the financial exigency plan. We are trying to limit the jurisdiction of faculty boards of review so that the entire process of the declaration of financial exigency and the development of the plan is not opened up for wholesale review. We are trying to limit the jurisdiction of the faculty board of review. Then, the second subsection that has pressed its nose into the tent here has to do with the burden of proof upon the grievant. The intended effect of Section 2B is to have the effect of giving some extra credence to a decision by a faculty unit that has decided to dismiss the grievant and to give it presumption. That presumption can be overcome, but it is not going to be overcome by simply complaining about it.

YOKOMOTO: Maybe I should ask it in another way? Is the criteria that you mention in B in "the plan" that you mention in the amendment?

WILKINS: No. That is why you don't see "the plan" in that document.

LANGSAM: Is the "or the plan" the school plan that you are talking about? In other words, you have a campus policy and then you have asked each school to have an entire policy. Now, within that policy there are procedures and criteria. What this amendment says is 'While we are deciding whether Charlie fits the specific school criteria for termination, you may not turn around and drag in and question the entire campus plan or even the over-arching plan of the school but all you may do is deal with 1) the assumption that the faculty decision is going to be considered valid, and 2) whether or not the individual fits into the criteria established by the plan." Isn't that what we are saying? Would it help to say in the amendment, ...or the school plan or unit plan for addressing the...? Would that help?

PORTER: The difficulty is that as you are moving through the various levels of generating the financial exigency plan, you move through a series of stages. At the end stage we actually have the specification as to who is going to be dismissed. But, that decision is to be made based on criteria that is talked about on page 8 in relationship to policies and procedures that should have been established prior to the generation of the financial exigency plan. So, when you are getting to the faculty board of review, you are looking at 'were these policies and procedures that were generated before we had to worry about who it was that was going to be dismissed fair and equitable, and were they applied in a fair and applicable manner?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Call for the question.

TURNER: Is there further discussion on this amendment?

APPLEGATE: It might help me if you could clarify the criteria. On the one hand, on here it is saying we just want to be sure people are not treated arbitrarily. On the other hand, I need to know about t6hose criteria. If the criteria are not in the plan, where are they?

WILKINS: The criteria of which we have been speaking in isolation and taken out of the context of Section 2b are the criteria for identification for termination. It is at the unit or the school level that the criteria are developed. Section 2B refers to that level of the process.

TURNER: The question has been called. All in favor of the amendment to the document before us indicate by saying "Aye." Opposed. [none] That amendment passes. We can now turn to the third amendment. Let me just say that we have only got about another 5,7, or 8 minutes on this.

FINEBERG: I think the discussion about the change in wording of that amendment is very apt. I think it could be simply changed to replacement hiring for a full-time faculty position, as the suggestion which was already made by Professor Langsam, that it would be replacement hiring on a full-time basis until all tenured faculty, etc. Since it is a full-time position that is being filled then certainly it should be offered to someone who has been dismissed because of a financial exigency.

TURNER: So the wording you are suggesting is: engage in replacement hiring on a full-time basis and the you would strike on either a full-time or part-time. So, basically you are amending that to read replacement hiring on a full-time basis and striking out the other words?

FINEBERG: That is correct. Is that amendment acceptable to you?

WILKINS: That is acceptable.

TURNER: Is there any other discussion?

BALDWIN: Could we charge the committee to do something else and then come up with a 4B to cover how part-timers would fit into this so the part-timers are not forgotten? I would like for it to be somewhere in the general philosophy that in financial exigency, you don't throw the crew overboard and buy galley slaves.

TURNER: I thought the distinction had already been made that this wasn't a matter of buying galley slaves, but we already have galley slaves.

BALDWIN: It is not clear.

PLATER: I think the original language does what everybody is asking for. I don't see why we wouldn't go back to the original language because if you read it, it addresses both Miriam's point and the concern that several have raised here today.

SPECHLER: I am in favor of this amendment. However, I interpret it differently. I think Miriam's point is very well taken. Suppose we have five part-timers and there has to be some financial exigency. Would it be a violation of this if we choose the identity of those five? Would that be replacement? In my view, it would be a replacement but in a contrary view it would simply be changing their identity but not the number. Those are two very different things. I remain in favor of this, indeed, along with the majority of the Faculty Affairs Committee of this body, I would go even further and say that no tenured faculty member may be fired unless all or substantially all part-timers are terminated. Why? Well, let me refer back to the basic point that our dean, John Barlow, made which is very important. It has to be confronted I think, philosophically. In my view, the university is the faculty first and foremost. We are constituent of what we mean by the university or the unit. So, to talk as if you can preserve the unit by firing the tenured faculty is a contradiction in the terms, as I would use them. We can always get a faculty member to serve as dean, with respect, although perhaps not as good a dean as we have, but there will be people. I might say that I am not an administrator and after what I say in a moment you will see that I will never be an administrator. [laughter] I have to tell you truth; that is the duty of faculty. If we cut tenured faculty -- and personally I don't believe we will come to this in the academic life of people sitting here -- unless there are very adverse developments. I really don't believe that any of the deans sitting here would take such a very serious measure knowing what it would do to our reputation locally and abroad, what the AAUP would say, what union might rise, etc. It would offer serious consequences that everybody here who had such a responsibility would take into account. Nor do I believe that even though it is sometimes said that 20 percent of us are brain dead, I don't think that 20 percent could be so easily identified so as to fire them . [laughter] So, that is why, since I think the faculty is the constituent part of the university, along with the students, of course, it doesn't make any sense to say that you are saving the unit by firing the tenure faculty. That is why I am for this and even a stronger version, along with the majority of your Faculty Affairs Committee.

FINEBERG: Under the time constraints, I move we table Amendment 3.

TURNER: Is there a second to that motion? There is no second.

PORTER: I did want to make sure that, as you are considering this issue related to part-time individuals, you look back to the final paragraph on page 8. If we walk ourselves through the process dealing with financial difficulties, by the time we get to financial exigency only those administration, support personnel, and non-tenured faculty deemed essential to the central mission will still be around. Retaining an untenured individual while dismissing a tenured individual can only be justified in the extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academic program results. If you are going to retain the untenured personnel, you have to clearly and convincingly justify the departure from the policy. That language was put in, in recognition that at least for some of the academic units, a certain distribution of expertise is required if you want to maintain the program. There are some times of untenured personnel that, if you don't retain them, you will not be able to offer that academic program. At the same time, the drafters are saying tenure is supposed to mean something and we have tried to build in the language to protect individuals with tenure.

LANGSAM: I would like to propose some language change which I don't think we can take up at this time, but at least I would like to propose it. In the existing new sentence: For at least three years following dismissal, no unit shall engage in replacement hiring of full time faculty until all tenured faculty or librarians have been offered full-time reinstatement and a reasonable time in which to accept or decline the offer. Replacement of part-timers: When such part-timers have been a regular component of a school's workforce shall not be construed as a contradiction of this policy. In other words, we are not going to tie the hands of the English department because they have to replace their part-timers who have always been part of that program because we will in fact go down the drain even further.

TURNER: Would that same language have to be added to the other section?

LANGSAM: I don't know. I would turn that over to Larry and the people who have smoothed and tailored this. I think the key component is "that have been a regular part of the ongoing program" because what that does I think is it addresses the underlying fear that people have that we are going to kick out the regular faculty and bring a load of galley slaves or part-timers on. All this does is say, if those people who were already there as galley slaves and have an objection to them, we are not going to start at this point to cripple the departments or the programs from doing that. That splits the issue and I think would solve our problem is people would reflect on it.

PORTER: It seems to me that we have gone as far as we can today due to the time restraints. We will have to come back to this next month. We have some progress today. I hope that next month we will be ready to look at any revised language that the committee can bring us to respond to these concerns and then address the document.

GALANTI: I hate to bring this up, but I have been comparing the Financial Exigency document with the Clinical Ranks document. I wonder, if on the last page of the Clinical Ranks proposal, four lines up from the bottom, where it states "...a clinical rank faculty member holding a long term appointment shall be dismissed only for reasons of professional incompetence, serious misconduct, extreme financial exigency of the university, or closure or permanent down-sizing of the clinical program." whether this language is consistent with what we have been discussing?

PORTER: There are a couple of problems in terms of not limiting. There is an upper limit on the length of the probationary period but not a lower limit so you can have them be probationary for a week and then give them the seven year contract. In comparison, the individual who is on tenure probationary is at a disadvantage. As I interpret the Clinical Ranks, if you are in the midst of a contract period, that would be dismissal while you in a contract and they would be protected under this. There is some language changes that I would hope will be introduced in the Clinical Ranks so that, while we protect them, we don't want to protect them preferentially to tenure probationary faculty.

TURNER: I have to call an end to this discussion. We are running out of time and we have another lengthy and important item on the agenda that we have already postponed completely. If I may, I would like to ask you to look for the continuation of this discussion next month and turn to the next item on the agenda which is the Memorandum on Faculty Work.


TURNER: Our purpose in discussing the Faculty Work Memorandum is to respond first of all to what the memorandum presents us. Dean Plater, at the request of the Chancellor, has articulated the nature and the responsibilities surrounding faculty work within the parameters of present policy and practices as best as he can determine. What we are asking you to do, now that you have read it and considered it, is to respond to it. We have two questions here. One would be whether or not the document follows from University policies as it is suggested by Dean Plater? That is one item for discussion. The other one would be if, in fact, it is true that it follows from present policies, then presumably our discussion might focus on whether or not those are the policies we want to have? The floor is open for discussion of this document. It is a document that touches on some very important aspects of Faculty Work. Therefore, let me open the floor for comments, suggestions, or questions about the Faculty Work Memorandum.

KUBITSCHEK: On page 12, at the end of the first full paragraph on that page, "The department chair and dean are thus responsible for making these assignments based first on the need to meet unit obligations and second on the assessment of a fair and equitable distribution of work among all faculty." Are those intended to be prioritized or is the intent simply to say "both of these must be considered?'

PLATER: I can respond as to what I meant here. My sense of it is that ideally they would be co-equal, but if there is a choice between being fair and equitable and meeting the obligations of the unit, meeting the obligations come first. That may mean that some faculty members might have to teach, for example, more sections than some others if the sections have to be taught.

KUBITSCHEK: Do you not think it is the unit's obligation to be fair and equitable to its members?

PLATER: Sure. But, I think if we have offered the sections to students that we have an obligation to meet them first rather than saying that everyone will teach, for example, the same number of sections. I am not suggesting the baseline criteria, but I am suggesting that meeting the obligations should have a higher priority.

YOKOMOTO: Dean Plater, there are some statements in here that tell whether they are philosophy or if they are becoming policy. The wording leads me to wonder about this. For instance, on page 6, end of the first paragraph, you say things like "They are expected to contribute to all of these at a satisfactory level at all times." When you say they are expected to be satisfactory in all of these, are these statements of your beliefs and expectations or are these going to become statements of some kind of evaluated measures? I find those statements in several places. For instance, where you say, on page 7, about one inch from the bottom of the first paragraph,'...but they must meet their other assigned academic duties--including research...' So, this sounds as if now a chair is going to assign research to faculty and if they don't do it, then what?

PLATER: Charlie, I think that you are right. There is a combination here. There is no way to separate what I believe from what is written here. I understand our policies to say that there is an expectation that faculty will be satisfactory in teaching, research, and service. That is what I believe the policies say. If the faculty here disagree and say that is not what our policies say, then we should perhaps change our policy and say you have to be satisfactory in two of the three areas. But, I understand our policies to say you are to be satisfactory in teaching, research, and service.

WARFEL: I think the first part of Charlie's question may have been the 'at all times." There has been quite a bit of talk in the last several years about how a professor goes through phases in a career and maybe research intensive at one time and teaching intensive or service intensive at other times. That little trailer, the phrase 'at all times,' could convey that every semester you had better teach a course, do some service, and publish a paper because that is what we expect all the time. I would hope that is not what it means but the language doesn't make it clear.

BALDWIN: The Handbook does say 'satisfactory.' At the point of evaluation that is what counts. The thing that Charlie referred to on page 7 is a bit scarier. When a faculty member's research goes off on its own, what the department is really evaluating is not the research itself but value of the research to the department. The department or schools' "mission" can change. I know cases where people have rewritten mission statements overnight. Beyond that, there is an implication here for academic freedom. One of the things that academic freedom does give faculty is the ability to let the research go where it will, and if suddenly you find yourself getting too far away from your unit's mission statement -- which in essence is a political document -- then you can be corralled back to the fold in spite of the direction that your research is going, whether it is AIDS research or the causes of The American Civil War. I am not sure we want that kind of action.

KUBITSCHEK: I do think that is a serious point. Women's Studies developed out of Sociology and English in the early days and many, many departments did not welcome research in those areas. They are now established parts of the university.

PLATER: I don't think mission statements change overnight and mission statements aren't written by individuals. A unit has to agree upon what its mission is. If it is not as suggested throughout this document. If collective judgment of the department or the unit that is creating the mission for itself and carrying out a mission is not valid, then none of this holds. If there is an arbitrary action by an individual; by a department chair who goes to his or her office at night and writes a mission statement announcing how colleagues must conduct their affairs, then I don't think this holds. It can't hold because the mission has to be of the unit and has to be legitimized by the unit. Missions do change and I think Missy has given a very good example of how they change over time. It would seem to me that the unit as a whole has to be the arbiter of those expectations, and the mission is indeed important and research has to be related to the mission of the unit. That is not to say that the mission of the unit can't change. Indeed, it needs to change over time.

LANGSAM: On page 7, there is a statement that bothers me as well. It says "There is no entitlement and no right to one day per week for scholarship or research, except as this assignment of time may be approved by the chair or dean within the context of the individual faculty member's overall responsibilities." I have been here since 1964 and I don't remember a chair or a dean ever saying anything like that to me. We might have occasionally talked about my teaching. Occasionally my arm has been twisted to serve on a couple of committees but I don't ever remember anybody, and I am glad, telling me what my assignment of time and having some kind of approval by my chair or dean. This suggests to me, at least from my school, a very different thinking or assumption about the relationship of faculty and chairs. I guess I am very uncomfortable about this assignment and this approval. In fact, if anything a lot of new faculty will say that nobody tells them enough about what they should be doing. So, this strikes me as quite different to the whole nature of the operation. It seems to me a real micro-managing kind of an assembly line foreman of the whole nature of the faculty as a cooperative enterprise of self-motivated, seriousenia. I am at a loss for words. But, it sounds to me much more like a factory. I appreciate the need for direction. I understand that an institution faces flack from outside and we do need to rethink and take more seriously and change, as you have yourself suggested, mission statements that we all participate in, but this doesn't sound like an "all participate in," this sounds like something from camp where the counselor assigns people to do stuff. I don't know that sets the tone that I am think you were probably implying about collegial working common goals.

TURNER: I think that the issue comes up not so much as a general practice, but as a response to specific situations. An example would be if an administrator says, "We need a class on Wednesday afternoon" or something done and a faculty member says, "That is my research day." It seems to me that this is an attempt to formulate a response to that. I don't mean to suggest that what you have said is untrue. It is just that the situation that we are responding to is not a vacuum but rather the people say that is my research day and it is bracketed with that kind of absolute uncertainty.

LANGSAM: If you are correct, Richard, then perhaps a more frontal assault on that issue, which is to say that faculties' teaching responsibilities must be given and the needs of the department for teaching need to be given priority. Other needs such as research and service must take second place in establishing schedules. I don't have any problem with that. That addresses what you are talking about, but at least to me the wording of this has other overtones which I am not sure really were intended but I think, at least they struck me wrong.

PETERSON: I have some problems with that statement also relative to the last statement that we related to satisfactory in all areas. If you take this statement which says you have no right for time for research, yet you have to remain satisfactory in research. That could be grounds for "dismissal" if you don't continue to remain satisfactory when you have been given some time to do those activities that are satisfactory. I am sure that is not the intent, but it could be interpreted that way.

S. FINEBERG: I have been involved in this kind activity for a long time now and I know that departments of medicine are never democracies. I think they are really autocracies or dictatorships. [laughter] In fact, at my last institution my head department of medicine refused to give me a contract and told me that if he would write one, it would be meaningless. Aside from that, there is no question that in schools of medicine and in their divisions the mission of the units is predominant and the tenured and tenure-probationary are expected to do research, but they are expected to accommodate their research activities to the overall mission of the unit. I think that a statement could be written in such a way that would say that the mission of the unit determines activities but should not preclude research activities of the tenure and tenure-probationary personnel. What the division is obviously up to the missions of those units.

PORTER: It is on a slightly different issue, but on page 6, Roman Numeral I, RESEARCH. It does not mention creative activities. The foreground is research and I think that is problematic for those faculty members who are not doing research in the traditional sense.

TURNER: Since this is an important conversation, we will continue this next month. Let me move on with the agenda.


TURNER: You can address questions and answers to the Chancellor but he won't answer so we can skip that agenda item. [Chancellor Bepko had left the meeting to attend another meeting]


PORTER: If any faculty member did not receive a copy of the new IUPUI : Supplement to the Academic Handbook or should wish another copy, to whom should they address that inquiry?

CHUMLEY: They can call the Council Office at 274-2215 and I will be glad to send them a copy.

PORTER: Thank you. I wanted to clarify that.


[There was no New Business due to the lack of time]


turner: I would welcome a motion to adjourn. [A motion was made.] There has been a motion to adjourn and it has been seconded. All in favor say "Aye." Opposed? The meeting is adjourned.