Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
Wednesday November 29, 2006 – 2:00 p.m.
Present: Patricia Search, Jeanne M. Keefe, Malik Magdon-Ismail, Larry Kagan, Achille Messac, Jim
Napolitano, Christoph Steinbruchel, Mike Fortun, Steve Breyman, Roger Grice, EJ Woodhouse, Paul Hohenberg,
J. Keith Nelson
Absent: Ning Xiang, Jacob Fish, Satish Nambisan, Julie Stenken, Lou Gingerella, William Randolph Franklin,
Bruce Nauman, Peter Persans
Guests: Matthew Weed, Erica Sherman, Kenneth Durgans, Prabhat Hajela, John Harrington, Mary Anne
Staniszewski, Nao Bustamante, Jose Holguin-Veras
Approval of Minutes from the 11/1/06
Minutes were approved with minor change: 11 Approved; 0 Opposed; 0 Abstention
Announcement:
Larry Kagan announced that two senators, EJ Woodhouse and Steve Breyman, will begin sabbatical in the spring
2007 semester and need to be replaced. Nominations by January 17, 2007. Vote at Faculty Senate Meeting on
January 24, 2007.
Information item: Library report was distributed and briefly discussed.
Announcement: Matt Weed, President of Phalanx
Matt requested student nominations for outstanding students be submitted to Phalanx which is Rensselaer’s
highest honor in terms of personal achievement in forms of dedication to Rensselaer. Nominations deadline is
12/18/06, which will be extended until the Friday after classes begin (January 19, 2007).
Nominations in four organizations:
Phalanx: Junior’s, Senior’s and Grads – Leadership and pride to institute
Honorary Phalanx: Faculty and Staff
Who’s Who: Junior’s, Senior’s and Grads national designation
White Key: Freshman and sophomores
Matt asked the Faculty Senate to please review the handout or visit online and to please share this information
with colleagues and nominate students to recognize them and your peers. If you have any questions, please send
email to: phalanx@union.rpi.edu; Website: http://phalanx.union.rpi.edu
Acting Provost Palazzo offered to send an email announcement to all Deans, Chairs and Faculty.
“Minority Faculty at Rensselaer”
Dr. Kenneth B. Durgans, Vice Provost, Institute Diversity
Prof. Achille Messac, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Achille Messac, Chair of the Faculty began by saying that this discussion is not typically a topic the
Faculty Senate would normally discuss. Additionally, it is not at all a reflection of the leadership of Rensselaer.
President Jackson has made this a very high priority, however in spite of the efforts made the outcome has not
been as good as we would have expected. We need to do more and do better. He stated that during his education
over nine years at MIT, he never had an African-American professor and only had one Hispanic professor who
was his advisor. This presentation is a follow-up to the “Women’s Issues at Rensselaer” discussion on October
18, 2007 at Faculty Senate meeting. The goal of this discussion is to brainstorm and foster innovative, interesting
1
solutions to this problem. The data that was reviewed for this presentation came directly from Ken Durgans,
Vice President Institute Diversity.
Where are we?
Fall 2001: Of the 334 tenure track out of a total of 422 faculty at Rensselaer, only 52*** were female.
* Two new hires ’01 – ’02
** One new hire ’01 – ’02
*** Seven of 24 new hires in ’01 – ’02 were female
Fall 2002: Total professors 444; of the 190 full professors who are tenure track only 55 were female.
Fall 2003: Total 457; Of the 197 full professors who are tenure track only 60 were female.
Professor Messac mentioned that he was member of the Campus Diversity Committee PEERR (Partner for Equity
and Excellence for Recruiting and Retention) a few years ago with practically no success despite the efforts. He
stated that if we review the situation from year to year, the numbers remain pretty much the same. As of 2006
Rensselaer has only total of three African-American full professors; two African-American full professors in the
classroom and the third full professor is President Jackson.
Professor Napolitano asked what the real issue - recruitment or retention?
Professor Messac responded that at the lower ranks the numbers appear good, but the problem is that many leave
Rensselaer shortly before or shortly after the promotion to Associate Professor. However, we are not recruiting
sufficiently at the other ranks, and we need to focus on Post-assistant ranks. This likely has something to do with
organizational climate. One strategy would be to improve the climate so that individuals will choose to stay after
they become tenured.
Professor Hajela stated that it would be interesting to know the composition of the US population and the
composition of the population seeking employment.
Professor Messac replied that the article he distributed addresses some of those issues. There are time constraint
issues, as we know it takes approximately twelve years to become a full professor. Rensselaer is doing better at
the junior ranks in terms of recruiting. However, we are not recruiting sufficiently at the other ranks and we need
to focus on assistant ranks. Rank is also an issue for females and Rensselaer needs to do more to retain them.
Professor Steinbruchel said how time constants works is that the bars on the left represent the response of the
system to the input that was there 10 – 15 years ago. We cannot just compare it that way. We don’t have
problems brining minority faculty to institution therefore, the correlation may not be as strong as one might think.
The interpretation should be based on the fifteen year time lag. The other aspect is that people come here at all
ranks. When people come in at different ranks, they are selected from different pools. He thinks the most
significant problem is retention.
Professor Hohenberg commented that in reading about similar problems in the economics field nationally, the
prominent twenty departments had about twenty tenured women as well as plenty of non-tenured tenure track
junior faculty but they did not go forward. The result was that there was recruitment from other relatively strong
departments.
Professor Keefe said it appears the women who leave have been at the assistant and associate level therefore it
appears that other factors are involved.
Acting Provost Palazzo commented on how that conclusion cannot be made because that assumes that we know
the number that came into the system, however that number is unknown. Insufficient recruiting utilizing standard
recruitment mechanisms which appear to be inadequate mechanisms is one problem. The real question is what
can we do differently to make an impact? We need as much open access as possible as much open entry as
possible to get into this university. Mentoring and retention are issues on all levels. Minority faculty is an
important issue for survival and well being of the institute not only in terms of our aspirations but also in terms of
the actual economic reality.
Professor Kagan asked if there was any comparable data from schools similar to Rensselaer.
2
Professor Messac responded that problem is not unique to Rensselaer; MIT is not doing that much better.
Georgia Tech is more aggressive in terms of how they do things they are more proactive therefore they do better.
There are some schools that step out of the box and try innovative approaches to address these concerns. People
love to support this concept of minority faculty however it is often off the radar screen. In terms of the aggregate
results he said he thinks we need to develop new strategies to get different results.
Professor Hajela commented that it would be useful to know the composition of the graduate student pool.
Professor Woodhouse stated that when he thinks of his own department he thinks that there is probably a
conflict between many departmental realities and the overall institute. He continued to say, we could propose to
hire NYS retirees such as a transportation planner, or someone of that sort; however the problem is that they
would not look like academics to us, so we would not think of hiring them. From the institutes point of view they
may not look distinguishable from us.
Professor Messac said that was a valid point and added that if such a person comes here there may be a problem
as the person may feel isolated from their colleagues. However, he suggested that some degree of changing of the
mindset would be in order. If we follow the purely traditional path in terms of measures, etc. our challenge might
be insurmountable.
Professor Napolitano asked if we know what the graph would have looked like six years ago. If it looks the
same we had many women who were assistant professors who have left.
Ken Durgans responded that it has not changed that much. In terms of women the numbers are where they were
in 1999, it appears that we have a revolving door effect and have hit a plateau at a certain percentage. Without
attrition factored in the percentages would be in the upper twenties.
Professor Napolitano asked if that attrition was because they were hired by other universities. Were they
flourishing here and then felt they could not find the path to do better at Rensselaer and decided to leave?
Ken Durgans responded that he understands that many left and found other faculty positions. Some were denied
tenure, although some left before they got to that point.
Professor Holguin-Veras stated that in last three years he has brought three female candidates to Rensselaer.
However, there were no faculty lines available to hire them. Both the department and Dean were supportive but
there were no lines. Basically we talked the talk but did not walk the walk. They ended up being hired elsewhere
- three were hired by Georgia Tech, South Florida and others. Mentoring is another topic we need to take
seriously. Currently, good mentors do their good work out of the goodness of their hearts--not as a response to
institutional policy. Conversely, bad mentors--which are a real problem--are not monitored. If the goals of the
institution are to improve retention and junior faculty success, we need to evaluate mentors and give good
mentors proper credit.
Acting Provost Palazzo stated all the factors mentioned contribute to the problem. Focusing on one issue will
not solve the larger problem. We need a comprehensive approach to address the problem and to raise the
threshold. Mentoring at Rensselaer is currently inadequate but we are doing better on recruitment on junior
levels however it is inadequate on intermediate and senior levels.
Professor Kagan asked if there was comparable data from other universities. Mentoring and creating support
groups (affinity groups) seems most important. The issue is how do we create a good environment for the people
who are here?
Professor Hajela asked how has the community changed in the last five years? What can we do differently?
How are we comparing to Georgia Tech? Georgia Tech has a tremendous advantage in terms of attracting
African-American candidates because they have a very hospitable support community that exists there. How are
we doing on that?
Professor Messac we have not done so well, we are not in Atlanta and Georgia Tech has more responsibility to
the state government, whereas Rensselaer is self-regulated. He continued saying that several years ago he had a
conversation with one of the deans who said the goals are met. To that he responded that if the goals were met,
the goals are not good enough. It’s not because we are not trying, but we need to try something new starting with
a review of what didn’t work and try new approaches to address the issues. Other schools do things differently
such as MIT in which there is a strong mentoring program even before individuals became professors.
3
Additionally in an effort to fill out the individuals’ record they are sent to work at other organizations such as
Boeing. Once they have enough practical experience they return to MIT as professors.
Professor Hajela asked what Rensselaer can do even though we are not Atlanta or Boston to create that type of
hospitable environment.
Professor Kagan commented that it appears that mentoring and creating support groups would be the key to this
issue. The question is how to create a hospitable environment for those who are already here and build on that in
terms of recruiting. Creating the community that is supportive and fun to be part of.
In response to questions from the audience regarding past activities, Professor Messac noted that he
was a member of the Campus Diversity Committee PEERR (Partner for Equity and Excellence for Recruiting
and Retention) when he first came to Rensselaer in 2001 , this committee worked extremely hard to help address
that issue. This committee was sanctioned by the President and Deans. He commented that the results were very
disappointing, because the resulting report appears to have been ignored, as in fact was the
committee. However, he also emphatically noted that he believes the current administration is strongly
supportive of addressing diversity issues, and that he strongly feels that the President herself wants to see more
meaningful results, and is not satisfied with the current situation. The main problem is that the initiatives
currently in place are inadequate. He feels that we must collectively think and act more creatively to address the
situation as a community -- with the commitment of required resources from the administration -- if we are to
have any meaningful degree of success.
Professor Hajela asked how the student groups we have brought here are they making out.
Ken Durgans responded by saying that he has worked at seven different institutions and has found that the
minority students at Rensselaer are probably the most happy of all the groups that he has been associated with at
any of those institutions. Not necessarily because of their environment but how they shape their own community.
Mentoring has a larger impact on an individual’s ability to make it through and thrive in the environment.
Professor Steinbruchel agreed that mentoring is the most important component. This is an issue that transcends
minorities that when he arrived from an industrial position there was no mentoring. He feels that mentoring at
Rensselaer has changed greatly. Because it is so expensive to hire a person in industry it is unfathomable that an
individual would be hired and that efforts would not be taken to ensure that persons’ success through mentoring
and other retention initiatives.
Professor Messac stated that it is helpful to realize that the minority population faces an additional set of
challenges relating to stereotypes, added scrutiny, low expectations, and potentially unfavorable prevailing
attitudes. He further stated that, unlike the overt situation of prior decades, these attitudes are now more
subliminal than conscious. Being aware of these realities, however, can help us all contribute to improving the
environment.
Professor Staniszewski mentioned her experience is trying to encourage a female professor candidate who
ultimately decided not to come to Rensselaer because she felt the area was lacking culture. When professors
come in they often do not stay because of the climate as it’s not conducive to staying. She asked what inroads to
growing culture services, resources, and library resources can be made.
Acting Provost Palazzo said this is a great discussion and faculty need to be part of the discussion and solution
because this is community problem, not just an administrative problem. Collectively we need to focus on the
things we do have control over. He felt that Rensselaer is moving in the right direction both on the women’s
issues and the minority issues. However there is need to be more dramatic and challenge ourselves to open the
doors.
Motions:
1) Senior Search Committee all senior search committees avail themselves to recruiting
2) Administrative Positions
3) Climate
4) Taking Initiative
VOTE: Due to time constraints members voted to table motions until later date: 9 in favor; 2 opposed
Professor Woodhouse: Proposed the creation of an ongoing search committee with authority.
4
Professor Nelson: Proposed formalized mentoring program.
Decision was to take motions to the FSEC shape them and bring them back to FS meeting.
Senate thanked Professor Messac and Ken Durgans for their time to make this report. Applause.
5