Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
February 1, 2006
Tony Ahrens called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.
Present: Professors Ahrens, Becher, Bennett, Burke, Cochran, Durant, Flug, Gill, Girard, Jacoby,
Loesberg, Mardirosian, Petit, Richardson, Riley, Rosenbloom, Sampson, Schaeff, Weaver, Dean
Mardirosian, and Provost Broder.
Welcome and Introduction, Tony Ahrens
Both the November and December minutes were approved.
Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder
Spring ’06 Enrollment
Provost Broder is projecting some negatives in various aspects of enrollment for this spring.
Since fall ’05 enrollment was down by about 100 freshmen from budget, undergraduate
enrollment will subsequently be below budget this spring, although not by that much since
retention is very good. It is expected to be about $½ to $¾ million below budget for
undergraduate enrollment.
The Washington Semester Program was down about 90 students from their budget target, which
was unrealistically high for the time and the cycle. As a result, it is expected that there will be
well over $1 million below the budget target.
Graduate enrollment, which has been soft in terms of admissions recently, will also be down by
about $1 million below budget.
The spring numbers are soft in terms of where they are in the budget. There will be some cost
savings in some places, but it is not a good picture for the spring semester relative to the budget.
Fall ’06 Enrollment
There is some better news in the fall undergraduate numbers. Thus far, there have been 14,859
applications, and therefore one can expect to have well over 15,000 for the fall undergraduate
admissions cycle. This would make it the largest number of undergraduate applications in school
history, representing a 12.6% increase in applications from this last time year. The quality is
slightly ahead of last year. The average SAT this year is 1221 and 1220 last year; the GPA is
3.33 this year and 3.26 last year.
Transfer applications are also ahead compared with last year by about 4.5%. Of course, this is
well ahead of the transfer applications deadline, which is in the middle of the summer.
The weak area is graduate applications, which are down by about 9.3% from last year.
Katrina students
The university hosted 113 students and has retained 14, which is slightly over 10%.
Freshman Census
Almost 1100 students have filled out the census, about 90%. There is some very good news in
the results. Over 57% of this year’s freshmen said that AU was their first choice, up from 54.5%
last year. Additionally, 58% said that they came to AU for its very good academic reputation,
which is up more than 10 percentage points from 2002. They are also more likely to come to AU
because they say graduates get good jobs and they go to top professional schools. There are some
very positive implications for campus life as well. Almost 65% say they would participate in
student clubs and groups, which is up from 54.5% in 2002. They are slightly less likely to
indulge in risky behaviors such as drinking, smoking, and coming to class late. In general,
statistics show that AU does attract a unique student body that it is politically active, interested in
social issues, and developing an understanding of others. In fact, 72% of the students said that
keeping up with political affairs is important to them. These demographics which help define
what makes AU unique and distinctive continue to be in place.
Ph.D Program in Clinical Psychology
The Ph.D program in clinical psychology is in the final stages of its reaccredidation review. A
site visit team from the American Psychological Association visited AU in early December. Last
week they sent their report, which was highly laudatory. The program is truly a model of the
scientist/practitioner philosophy with a good balance of research and practice throughout the
program. They were complimentary about the curriculum; the use of the university’s counseling
center and other resources for the practicum placement, and the support provided by the other
doctoral program in the department of psychology. They made special note of the integration of
issues of ethics and diversity, calling that a strength of the program. They had very high praise
for the dissertations that they reviewed. However, there were a couple of things that they
mentioned that need attention, such as: issues of space, faculty teaching load, and graduate
student support.
M.S. Degree in Accounting
Provost Broder has received a request from the Kogod School of Business for the creation of a
new M.S. degree in Accounting, which was approved by KSB, the Deans, and the Joint
Committee on Curriculum and Academic programs of the Faculty Senate. Provost Broder has
also approved that degree and she is forwarding a request for final approval to the Board of
Trustees. There was an M.S. in accounting that was terminated in 2001 when the focus of the
graduate business school was put on the MBA program. Things have changed in graduate
business education in the last five years. And there is a new Dean of the KSB, who is stressing a
portfolio of programs rather than solely being limited to the MBA. There has been an increase in
demand for these kinds of programs over the last few years because of changes in credentialing
in the accounting profession. As a result, KSB was able to revive, review, and revise the former
degree.
Student Accomplishments
Eight students have been named National Finalists for the Fulbright Award. They have applied to
programs in Mexico, the U.K., Germany, Peru, Taiwan, Brazil, Turkey, and Zambia. The results
will be out later this spring.
Presidential Management Fellow Competition
There were 154 applicants from American University, 90 of which were semi-finalists, while last
year there were 80 semi-finalists and the year before 54. So this continues a positive trend.
Among the semi-finalists, there were 52 from SIS, 21 from SPA, 12 from the Law School, 2
from SOC, 2 from KSB, and 1 from CAS.
Pamphlet on Summer Programs
The summer programs have some very exciting and interesting course offerings, including study
abroad. KSB is doing a program called international management practices. SPA is doing two
programs, European Public Affairs and Advocacy and Europe 2006. SIS is doing four programs:
globalization in Southeast Asia, Democracy and Development in South Africa, Integrating
Europe in a Changing World, and Political Economy of the Gulf State. The Washington
Semester Program has put together one program in Sri Lanka, Community Based Development
and the Environment.
There are also some interesting new institutes and special programs across the campus. In CAS,
there is one program which discusses major African-American writers and musicians, in SOC
there will be a program on the digital media, and in SIS, human rights in the 21st century. As
well, there is a great set of pre-college offerings.
Open Discussion
Professor Richardson asked if there is a relationship with the Office of International Affairs and
the individual units that set up these programs. Provost Broder responded by saying that as far as
she knows, the programs are run and managed by the individual units.
Professor Riley asked Provost Broder if she knows the national admissions rates. Provost Broder
mentioned that thus far she does not because admissions directors are reluctant to offer data
during the admissions cycle. There is overall an increase in applications, part of which is due to
more students applying to more schools, as the application process has become easier and
virtually cost-free through the on-line application process.
Professor Wendell Cochran asked Provost Broder if financial aid will be held constant since
there was such a drop in admissions during fall ’05. Provost Broder explained that financial aid
cannot be increased, at least not this year. It is set by the Board of Trustees, and is currently fixed
at 29% of graduate revenue. For the future this percentage could be increased which would lead
to an increase in revenues. A marginal increase in financial aid would lead to more than a
marginal increase in tuition revenue.
Update on Governance Issues, Tony Ahrens
The Board of Trustees has asked the faculty to provide representatives for a number of
committees. This should be considered an interim step in that the Board understands the need to
have further dialogue with its campus constituents, and this can be done to support the process of
governance. There are going to be eight different committees. The Faculty Senate ad hoc
Governance Committee suggested that the members who are selected should be somehow
mapped to the different committees of the Faculty Senate. Although there is not a clear mapping
of the Faculty Senate’s committees to the Board’s committees, it would be a good idea to map
the members insofar as possible.
Open Discussion
Professor Riley asked what the role of faculty representation would be. Professor Ahrens
responded by saying that first of all, the faculty would be non-voting members. Furthermore, the
Board’s committee members could choose to go into executive sessions at any time, in which
case the non-voting members would be excused from those meetings.
Professor Richardson asked whether there are committees that make decisions of consequence.
Provost Broder said that one example is the Academic Affairs Committee. It reviews changes to
the faculty manual, and as such, there was a discussion on changes to the Rank & Tenure
Committee membership. The Academic Affairs Committee also reviews program terminations
and new programs, so it will be reviewing the new M.S. in Accounting Program. Also, they will
look at any recommendations for tenure when they come up in May. Basically, any significant
academic activities and legislation would be reported to the Academic Affairs Committee.
Professor Wendell Cochran asked if the Board has made any such offers to other campus
constituents. Professor Ahrens said he suspects that the answer is yes.
Update by Stephen Silvia on the Ad Hoc Committee
The Ad Hoc Committee had a meeting with the Board’s Governance Committee, in which there
are five members: Pamela Deese, Bishop Schol, Jeff Sine, Regina Muehlhauser, and Gary
Abramson. The objective of the meeting was framed by the consultant, Marty Michaelson. The
idea was to communicate to the Board a sense of what the experience of the faculty is like, what
problems exist, and the faculty’s perception of the Board. The ad hoc committee members have
found this process constructive, and in fact, it seemed that the members were listening and taking
note. Something that would be useful for the future is to find out what the Board members are
thinking with regard to reform to the bylaws and practices.
One area that has been brought up by the Board is confidentiality. The faculty members will
receive all of the paper and transactions, but will be non-voting members. For instance, with
regard to the issue of trusteeship, it seems that the faculty will participate fully in discussing
strengths and weaknesses of the nominees, but will not have a vote.
The ad hoc committee is in the process of trying to understand if there is consensus on the Board
about the exchange of confidentiality for information access and about faculty participation and
at what levels.
Furthermore, the ad hoc committee will discuss the issues with its constituents. There will be an
Open House with the faculty on February 13th to give the faculty an opportunity to express their
opinions.
Open Discussion
Professor Rosenbloom asked if the faculty members would vote on trusteeship. Professor Silvia
said that the Board has not yet fully aired the answer to this.
Professor Jacoby indicated that the issue of trusteeship is particularly important at this point for
the university, and especially dealing with integrity and personal character. Furthermore, he
made the following proposal:
It is the sense of the American University Faculty Senate that the most important criteria for
membership on the University’s Board of Trustees should be the candidate’s fundamental
integrity, reputation for exemplary moral character, and uncompromised values which are
consistent with the ideals and purposes of the University.
Events of the past year clearly demonstrate that these personal qualities should not be taken for
granted.
Professor Loesberg said that integrity is an expected characteristic and that it may be better to
deal with as needed if a problem arises. Professor Rosenbloom asked Professor Jacoby to define
moral character. Professor Weaver said that there are certain terms in the faculty manual that we
cannot define, and that as an institution there is a certain level of standards. Professor Jacoby
responded by saying that this is an unprecedented opportunity for the Faculty Senate which is
looking for a fundamental change in the composition of the Board. He added that if these
vacancies are filled with lawyers, business-people, and real estate investors that would not be
consistent with moral character and integrity. Professor Ahrens asked Professor Jacoby if he was
suggesting that having integrity is not associated with people in these professions. Professor
Richardson added that perhaps it is not necessary to make this link of moral character and
integrity, and he further suggested that there has been plenty of discussion from both sides of the
issue. There was a call to question. There was a vote on Professor Jacoby’s proposal; nine votes
in favor and 7 opposed. The motion carried.
Professor of the Practice, Richard Bennett
Professor Ahrens provided a bit of background on the topic, by saying that this is a matter of
great importance to the university and that there are very strong arguments on both sides. Thus, it
is vital for the Faculty Senate to air topics, discuss them, and then move forward. Professor
Bennett began by saying that there are many details about the Professor of the Practice that still
need to be worked out. He spoke with many faculty members and found out what the individual
concerns are. One of the most important questions related to this issue is what criteria should be
used for evaluating people. For instance, there should be criteria in place to ensure that they are
keeping current with their field.
Professor Riley asked if in the universities in which Professor of the Practice is already in place,
there has been any erosion of the tenure-track positions. Dr. Bennett mentioned that it is not in
the interest of the university to eliminate tenure-track positions, and that the best young
professors would not be interested in teaching here in that case.
Professor Jacoby asked how many positions this would pertain to, keeping in mind that there is a
cap of 10% of full-time faculty. Provost Broder said that there are 550 full-time faculty
members; therefore, the cap would mean about 55 potential positions. Professor Bennett noted
that the cap would apply to each school or college. Provost Broder noted that this number
includes a certain definition, for instance, some non-teaching positions and double-counted
faculty. Professor Jacoby emphasized the importance of specifying the number.
Professor Loesberg said that if this does go through, it will be at the expense of tenure-track
positions to some degree. There may be a justification in terms of certain positions because they
are teaching certain skills for which scholarship is an undesirable demand. But he argues that the
position before the Senate was broader than that. The courses that these professors would be
teaching would be the same as those taught by other professors. Under certain circumstances, a
Dean may propose to hire this type of position, rather than a tenure-track position, and it would
be difficult not to shade tenure-line requests in light of the new position. Perhaps, there needs to
be a newly defined proposal. Professor Schaeff mentioned that Professor Loesberg’s logic may
not convey and that the question is how many instructors do we have already here that are not
tenure-track and that this current proposal does not affect tenure-track faculty. Furthermore, this
new category does not define people as permanent, but rather, as just entitling them to renewable
contracts.
Professor Weaver asked if there are any safeguards in place to protect these people so that they
are not treated as second-class citizens and at the same time to protect the tenure-track positions.
For instance, if they are on renewable contracts up to five years, how many years could they
carry over if they were to apply for a tenure-track position? Also, they are teaching a six-course
load, courses which many of the tenure-track teachers may not be interested in teaching since
they concentrate on publishing. Professor Bennett replied that as of now a person in such a
temporary position would only be able carry over up to two years if they were interested in a
tenure-track position. There needs to be more work done on this proposal to work out these types
of details. Professor Gill raised a concern about whether a lack of protection for these professors
would erode academic freedom in the classroom. Janice Flug raised the issue of travel expenses.
Members of her committee wondered whether there should be similar salaries for people in these
new positions given they do not have the same job requirements. Melissa Becher suggested that
the issue of second-class citizens is really determined by the faculty itself.
Dean Durand of the KSB elaborated on how his former university, Lehigh, handled the Professor
of the Practice. He argued that such professors could be used for program development that
could then be used to justify tenure-lines. The bottom line was that by the end of the five-year
term, faculty found that it added a great deal of value and flexibility. Those teachers brought in a
different perspective to teaching, although they were paid much less than the tenure-track
teachers because producing scholarship requires a lot more work. Overall, the experience was
very positive at Lehigh University.
Professor Weaver wondered if the University does value teaching, why teachers in that category
are not paid the same. This actually does perpetuate the notion of the second-class citizens.
Moreover, the term Professor of the Practice may be confusing and needs to be clarified. In
particular, it could be referring to different types of professors. Professor Richardson agreed that
the terminology is very important. He added that perhaps one type of person who would be
interested in this position is the typical temporary faculty who may be a bit younger, who did not
“cut it” in the tenure process, who wants to gain experience, and who is hoping for a tenure-track
position. Or it might be a typical temporary faculty who simply has decided that teaching is their
focus. In that light, it is important to be clear on the terminology of the proposal.
Professor Gill believes that the creation of this position would promote the idea of second-class
citizens, in that many of the people who are applying actually are interested in tenure-track
positions but use the opportunity as a way to enter the University. Professor Loesberg argued that
up to a point departments could define positions so that faculty would not feel that they are
second class citizens. Additionally, he wondered who would fill these positions - perhaps
someone who did not get a tenure-track position. These people will get less money, teach more
classes, and not have the security of tenure. This will create a different class that for some
positions will be perceived as a lower class. There are numerous reasons to avoid it. Professor
Schaeff noted that these professors would not have the same job or same responsibilities or same
requirements. So, maybe it is just better to acknowledge that they are different and just define
them as such. Professor Sampson argued that there are already differences in classes among the
tenured faculty, so in some ways the class differences discussed here are not new.
Melissa Becher said that some faculty may want this type of arrangement and for various reasons
they prefer it. Professor Weaver mentioned that some very good faculty members came in this
way, such as Neil Kerwin. He wondered whether sabbaticals would or would not be appropriate
for these faculty. Professor Jacoby has mixed feelings about this because on the one hand, there
are many good temporary teachers who should not leave after five years, but there are many
sides to this issue. Perhaps the CFR could discuss it. Professor Loesberg responded that the CFR
has already discussed it and voted 6 to 1 against it. But, they could discuss it again, if necessary.
Professor Burke mentioned that the Law School has some teachers who are working in much the
same situation. For these people, starting their career or being ¾ into it, it seems to meet their
needs. In addition, Professor Mardirosian suggested that the Faculty Senate should look at the
way that Duke University has handled this situation because they have addressed certain issues
such as criteria for promotion, funding for travel, and sabbatical leave.
Professor Durant suggested that there are certain positive aspects to this other category. These
people may bring an added dimension to the quality of education. Because of their varied
backgrounds, they bring in an outside perspective and a new set of skills to the classroom. In this
way, they may fill in gaps where other teachers may not have been able to, thus improving the
quality of education being offered. Furthermore, Professor Cochran mentioned that professional
schools may have certain different needs that other departments may not. The ability to be
dynamic may be the key and having the ability to choose keeps the system open.
Professor Ahrens suggested that the CFR be involved in the evaluation of the Professors of the
Practice. Also, he suggested that there are three types of faculty who were described in the
discussion. Some are particularly excellent teachers, others bring a particular set of skills and but
are not involved with traditional academic scholarship, and others have particular professional
backgrounds whose experiences are valuable to share with the students. There is a need to make
clear definitions to correspond to the needs. Different programs see this position in different
ways. He also wondered what the effect on general education would be.
Professor Riley says that this category may or may not be an advantage, depending on the uses of
the particular position. Would the person function as a substitute, just by replacing a tenure-track
person or would the person fill in gaps that are not being filled. The category must be very welldefined.
Professor Jacoby asked where the Faculty Senate is going in terms of process. It is not useful to
keep going around in circles. It may be a good idea to gather together a group to look into this.
Professor Ahrens added that there could be committee and that he will ask for volunteers or just
appoint people.
Professor Schaeff suggested that by having temporary positions in place for more than five years,
it may not be best serving the students. She is concerned about the separation of teaching and
scholarship. She also indicated that it would be important for these professors to retain their
skills.
Professor Loesberg indicated that he heard a consensus involving a narrow definition of the new
category, somewhat like that of the college writing instructor, involving the teaching of
particular skills. This would be different from the sort of broad proposal that was made here.
Professor Richardson suggested that there should be included in this discussion people who are
actually in these roles to get their feedback. This would illuminate the discussion.
Professor Ahrens asked Professor Jacoby to make a formal proposal about the committee to look
into this proposal. Professor Jacoby indicated that Professor Ahrens form an ad hoc committee.
Peter Brusoe, graduate student, said that both the undergraduate and the graduate students would
like to have representative seats on the Senate’s committee so that they could show just how
much they do want this proposal.
Report of the Chair, Tony Ahrens
Lyn Stallings has included an attachment about the Student Evaluations of Teaching.
Elections are coming up and please encourage your colleagues to run for the various positions.
Good of the Order, Tony Ahrens
Janice Flug said that there is a Wellness Program study going on a subcommittee of the
University Benefits Advisory Project Team. A Wellness Survey will be circulated to the faculty
and staff in the next few weeks. This will help the group access where to focus their limited
resources. Dr. Stacey Snelling will then come to speak at an upcoming Faculty Senate meeting.
Melissa Becher announces that on February 16 at 2:00, the library be honoring four faculty
authors, two from SPA and two from SIS.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.