Academic Standards Committee Minutes
April 4, 2001
Present: Suzanne Barnett, Jo Crane, Alyce Demarais, Julian Edgoose, Ron Fields, John Finney,
Robin Foster (chair), Tom Goleeke, Doug Goodman, Kristi Hendrickson, David Lupher,
Steve Rodgers, Jack Roundy, Brad Tomhave
Absent: Scott Bailey, Katie Danielson, Houston Dougharty, Karen Porter
Visitors: Terry Cooney, Matt Pickard, Rand Worland
ROLE OF INSTRUCTORS
Foster convened the meeting at 8:05 a.m. and announced that Academic Vice President and
Dean Cooney had joined us for this meeting and thus we would proceed directly with the main
item of business, the Faculty Senate charge to the committee regarding the role of Instructors.
Foster reminded that this charge is from the Senate meeting of 27 November 2000, and Cooney
was at that meeting. Foster then invited Cooney to start off the committee’s discussion.
Cooney explained that he was not at the ASC meeting as the interpreter of the Faculty Senate’s
intent in creating the charge to the committee. As for why the charge came to the ASC, he
pointed out that the Faculty Code states that the Academic Standards Committee periodically is
to review the utilization of Instructors [and other non-tenure-line faculty] (Faculty Code, II.A.2.b
and Appendix A, item 1) If a general discussion of Instructors should take place, Cooney
continued, it should be in the ASC. Cooney invited the committee to review the role of Instructors
“with an eye to” several other matters. The effort of the Faculty Senate in creating the charge to
the committee was to open discussion. Cooney said that he would be glad to speak to whatever
is the committee’s interest.
Different kinds of faculty appointments. In response to Foster’s inquiry about varying contractual
arrangements that might distinguish different kinds of faculty at the University, Cooney spoke to
the historical context of Instructor appointments. The new core curriculum in the late 1970s
created a need for more faculty to help deliver the needed courses, for the most part courses at
the introductory level, often in multiple sections. The effort was to hire people who might not have
the same credentials, namely, the PhD, as those expected of tenure-line faculty. The pattern
expected and characteristic of the early days of non-tenure-line appointments was that
colleagues in such positions taught for a short time and then moved on, perhaps back to graduate
school or to something else. The next step in the progression of Instructor lines was the creation
of positions as Instructors in Occupational Therapy or Physical Therapy. Such appointments
involved particular specialties and generally went to people with several years of experience as
practitioners. The Faculty Code does allow the Dean to create new positions [see Faculty Code,
II.1.b-c], and defining positions for Instructors was the choice of the Dean at the time [Tom Davis].
The distinction in Instructor positions, with reference to tenure-line positions, is level of pay.
Barnett recalled the former (and longstanding) cap on the number of tenure-line positions at the
University, and Cooney affirmed this point. Cooney reminded that in the late 1970s the future of
the University was uncertain, and the Board of Trustees instituted the cap on tenure-line
positions. Trustees did not want to entail an added obligation to the long term.
The Instructor rank was available for added positions to expand foreign-language instruction
beginning in the early 1980s, Barnett said. Cooney pointed out that foreign language study
became part of the core curriculum and also that across the country foreign-language enrollments
are bunched at the lower level.
Role of the ASC re: Instructors. Finney asked if Cooney knew what the faculty had in mind in
identifying the Academic Standards Committee as the place to consider the role of Instructors.
Cooney said he understood that some faculty members had concern that the Deans would use
Instructor lines to undermine tenure-line positions; provision for review of Instructors was a
“protection against administrators’ misuse of” Instructor lines. The Code provision in Appendix A
2
[“clarifying terms and conditions of employment of Instructors”] seems to have been in the
expectation that misuse could occur.
Barnett asked if the University now has procedures that add up to a “policy” to reduce or eliminate
Instructor hirings? Cooney replied that “policy” is too strong a term, but we do need to look at
Instructor positions department by department. Some Instructor positions recently have become
tenure-line positions; these changes were initiated by departments. With regard to non-tenure-line
faculty positions Cooney said that he senses that departments have developed a preference for
three-year visiting positions, rather than Instructor positions. Demarais asked if the timing of a
visiting appointment varies by department. Cooney said “yes,” that the terms may be three or two
years and vary according to department and the pattern of replacement needs. Barnett asked if
three-year positions can be extended, and Cooney said “yes,” but the University has a limit of two
three-year appointments of the same faculty member in order to follow other parts of the Faculty
Code. Crane asked if a break from the University would permit rehiring of a faculty member who
had served in two three-year appointments, and Cooney said “yes,” that the pattern can be
broken with time away.
Role of Instructors. Foster asked if “departmental autonomy,” then, is the basis for arrangements
for Instructors. Cooney replied in the negative, emphasizing discussions between Deans and
departments, not autonomy at the departmental level. Instructor positions are not for the creation
of new curriculum but for the delivery of the curriculum in place, usually at the lower level of
departmental offerings. He added that sometimes an Instructor has taught at the upper lever, but
this is an exception and may connect with tenure-line faculty being on leave. Goleeke asked if
part-time teachers in Music hold “Instructor” appointments, and Cooney said “no,” the discussion
here is not about part-time and affiliate faculty, but full-time non-tenure-line faculty.
Edgoose asked when the University last hired an Instructor on a one-year basis. Cooney said that
he could not remember when, although Mathematics has an open position right now. At a certain
point, Cooney continued, Instructors “stopped leaving.” Foster reported that her review of the
Bulletin shows 35 Instructors now at the University; what was the number in the beginning?
Cooney said that the numbers have been about the same, 34-35, allowing for some shifts in
where Instructor positions have been located; the number probably will be down by two next year.
Barnett called attention to what seems to be the “desideratum” of the report on Instructors
prepared by Connie Hale, that the University should “treat instructors already here fairly,
and…hire no more faculty into such an inherently unfair system” (p. 10). Barnett said that perhaps
we are in fact doing this now. Cooney said that he does not accept the idea of “inherently unfair
system,” especially if one compares the University’s record of hiring non-tenure-line faculty with
national statistics; but Cooney said he does agree that the University has no “intention of hiring
anyone into ‘an inherently unfair system.’”
Foster asked about the role of Instructors in the proposed new core curriculum, even though this
inquiry may be too soon. Would the ASC be addressing this matter? Cooney said, “yes,” that the
ASC could be involved in the question of how and where to use Instructors [in delivering a
changed core curriculum]; but the committee would not have a role of changing evaluation
procedures or other arrangements for Instructors. Cooney said that he sees an ongoing need for
Instructors, for example, in Foreign Languages.
Foster invited Cooney to stay for the remainder of the meeting and open discussion of the
Instructors matter. Cooney declined to stay but said that he remains available to the committee
and would be happy to come back. [Note: The committee did return to the Instructors topic at the
end of the meeting; see below.]
***
Foster then invited the committee to attend to other agenda items.
Minutes. Crane M/S/P acceptance of the minutes for the meeting of 22 March 2001.
3
Announcement. Barnett pointed out that committee member Scott Bailey is to be the student
Commencement speaker this year.
PETITIONS COMMITTEE
Tomhave reported on the PC meeting of 7 March 2001 and said that the report on the PC
meeting of 3 April 2001 would be available at the next ASC meeting. The PC approved eight
petitions, one of which was handled in the Office of the Registrar, and denied two petitions. The
statistics through 26 March 2001 appear on two printouts submitted to Barnett and summarized
below.
Date
03/7/01-03/26/01
Approved
8 (1*)
The year-to-date figures are as follows:
08/24/00-03/26/01
211 (80*)
Denied
2
39 (1*)
No Action
0
2 (1*)
Total
10
252
* The parenthesized number indicates the number of the stated approvals, denials, no actions
done by the Office of the Registrar as authorized by the Academic Standards Committee for
resolution of specified issues of registration.
INSTRUCTORS. Observing the time, Foster invited brief discussion of the Instructors issue and
offered a document entitled “Demographics of Instructors by Department at UPS,” which she
compiled from admittedly “incomplete data.” After clarification that part-time “Activities Instructor”
faculty (Physical Education) and part-time “Affiliate Artist” faculty (Music) are not in the count of
Instructors, who, as Rodgers pointed out are “ongoing,” at least in Foreign Languages and
Literature, Foster said that she will provide a modified document for the next meeting of the
committee.
Rodgers questioned the singling out of the ASC to deal with the matter of Instructors and offered
the view that at the time these positions were introduced uncertainty existed as to the ongoing
need for the positions. Rodgers asked “numerous people,” not just his departmental colleagues,
about which standing committee of the faculty should consider the Instructors issue. Rodgers
then M/S/ motion later withdrawn to request that the Faculty Senate redirect the charge
regarding Instructors to the Faculty Salary Committee with reference to Instructors’
salaries and to the Professional Standards Committee with reference to Instructors’ role at
the University. In brief discussion of the motion Barnett said that the Faculty Salary Committee is
not a standing committee, and Foster added that the Salary Committee already is dealing with the
issue of Instructors’ salaries. Foster also pointed out that the Faculty Code, in both the body of
the Code and in Appendix A, assigns consideration of non-salary issues involving Instructors to
the ASC.
As time moved swiftly on, at 8:59 a.m. Rodgers M/S/P to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne W. Barnett
13 April 2001
WY144;attach;asiabook1:ASCmins4 Apr01