Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
March 5, 2003
Patrick Kehoe called the meeting to order at 1:50 p.m.
Present: Professors Ahrens, Brenner, Burke, Doolittle, Douglass, Forst, Hakim, Heintze, Irvine
Belson, Jennings, Jernigan, Kehoe, Kravetz, Langbein, Olmsted, Riddick, Riley, Rosenbloom,
Rubenstein, Schaeff, Sha, Williams. Provost Kerwin.
The minutes of the February 12, 2003 meeting were approved.
Report of the Provost
Neil Kerwin’s report to the Senate covered the following topics: the action of the Board of
Trustees at its February meeting; the status of the Middle States review; a communication from
the Provost to the faculty about issues related to the possibility of war.
Board of Trustees
Dr. Kerwin reported that the Board of Trustees had approved, without change, the multi-year
budget presented by President Ladner for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. He said the revenue
recommendations approved by the Board included a tuition increase of 6 percent for 2003-2004
and a tuition increase of 6 percent for 2004-2005. Residence hall fees will increase by 5 percent
in 2003-2004 and by 5.5 percent in 2004-2005. On the expenditure side, the Board approved the
following recommendations:
• A 4 percent merit increase for faculty and staff salaries. Those increases, based on
performance, will be administered through the normal merit review processes in the units.
• $1.2 million in base funding for new full-time faculty positions, with $1 million available in
2004 and an additional $200,000 available in 2005. Provost Kerwin said the funds should enable
the university to hire 16-18 new full-time faculty over the next two academic years, reducing the
reliance on adjunct faculty. While some of the new hires may initially be temporary positions,
they will convert to tenure-track positions.
• $250,000 in fiscal year 2004 to enhance graduate financial aid.
• Funds for the replacement, on a three-year cycle, of desktop computer equipment for faculty.
Those funds will also allow for a periodic upgrade of the infrastructure needed to support the
instructional and research work of faculty.
• $400,000 in additional base funding for the Library.
• Funding to begin a program of facilities improvement, and furnishings and capital equipment
renewal.
• Funding for the quasi-endowment and the enrollment contingency fund.
Provost Kerwin reported that the Board also approved a recommendation from Kogod School of
Business to terminate the Master of Science in Information Systems and replace it with a new
degree, the Master of Science in Technology Management.
Middle States Review
Dr. Kerwin reported that the Middle States task forces were continuing to meet and work on the
draft of the self-study that will be submitted to the university community for comment. The
Middle States Commission had not, at that time, he said, confirmed who will serve as chair of the
site visit team. Provost Kerwin said he hoped to have that information after spring break.
Issues Related to the Possibility of War
Provost Kerwin informed the Senate that he had distributed to faculty a communication
regarding issues related to the possibility of war, i.e., the affect of such an event on classes, on
student-teacher dynamics, and on faculty responsibilities. He said he underscored the importance
of continuing the educational process. He also indicated that the Center for Teaching Excellence
and the Office of Campus Life were the essential resources available to provide faculty with
assistance. He emphasized that the students in the World Capitals Program were a special
concern, and he advised that a sophisticated protocol was in place for communicating with those
students and their parents.
Finally, on a sad note, Dr. Kerwin announced that Thomas Slivinski, an assistant professor in
Kogod School of Business, had died suddenly on March 4th. He said Professor Slivinski was an
extraordinary teacher who had a tremendous impact on his students. Grief counseling would be
available to Professor Slivinski’s students, as needed.
Report of the Chair
Pat Kehoe reported that the ad hoc committee was continuing to work on the revision of
Academic Regulation 50.00.04. He said the April meeting was the target date for the Senate’s
consideration of the proposed changes. Hard copies of the document will be distributed prior to
that meeting.
Professor Kehoe also spoke about the forthcoming at-large elections of the Senate, noting that
the deadline for self-nominations was Friday, March 7th. He urged the senators to help educate
their colleagues about the importance of faculty governance and to encourage their colleagues to
step forward and play an active role in the governance process.
Graduate Program Review
Cathy Schaeff, chair of the Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs, opened the
discussion by reporting on the committee’s deliberations and its initial recommendations. She
noted first that the committee’s understanding was that it was charged primarily with the
assessment of potential cross-unit implications. The committee interpreted this, she said, to
include a consideration of the potential impact of cancellation of courses required for other
programs and for possible feeder program relations.
Professor Schaeff advised that the committee had found no indication that any of the proposed
terminations, except possibly the termination of the doctoral program in the School of Education,
would have cross-unit implications. The committee had therefore requested additional
information from the School of Education; that information was received and would be reviewed
at a meeting later that evening. She also advised that the dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences had indicated that courses in Education that are needed for other majors in and outside
of the college will still be offered.
Continuing, Professor Schaeff reported that the Curriculum Committee had also considered the
proposed changes in light of their impact on the university as a whole, specifically how the
decrease in the number of programs producing Ph.Ds would change the university’s national
standing. She said that particular point had been raised a number of times, including in the
Senate, so the committee assumed that Provost Kerwin and President Ladner were aware of that
implication.
Further, she said the committee had also considered how the termination of programs would
affect the diversity of AU’s student body. After deliberating that point, the committee decided to
make the following statement: “The Curriculum and Academic Programs Committee feels that
the diversity of the graduate student body is an important factor when reviewing the quality and
success of graduate programs at American University. Efforts for improving or maintaining
diversity cannot override the focus on academic excellence. However, just as a weak but diverse
program is considered unsuccessful, so too should be a strong program without appropriate
minority representation.”
A copy of the committee’s written report is appended to the minutes.
Russell Stone, chair of the Department of Sociology, then addressed the Senate with regard to
the recommendation to terminate the Ph.D. in Sociology. He made two key points during his
remarks.
• He noted that Sociology strongly protested the manner in which the Curriculum Committee
conducted its review, both on grounds of procedure and substance. And he requested that the
Senate ignore the input of the committee and take up on its own the merits of retaining the
program.
• He said the cancellation of the Ph.D. in Sociology would have a direct impact both on the
diversity of the graduate student body and the diversity of the institution as a whole. It would
also have a impact on profitability and on AU’s distinctive identity, which he said were
university-wide considerations.
He also read an excerpt from a letter from the Association of Black Sociologists, which noted, in
part, that “the Ph.D. program in sociology is nationally recognized.”
The complete text of the Sociology Department Council’s memorandum to the university
community questioning the advisability of eliminating the Ph.D. in Sociology, and proposing
that the degree be refocused to concentrate on race, gender, and social justice, is appended to the
record copy of the minutes.
Fred Jacobs, School of Education, also addressed the Senate, commenting on the
recommendation to terminate the Ph.D. in Education. He made several specific arguments in
support of retaining that program:
• American University has a commitment to the District of Columbia and its citizens to provide a
cadre of trained professionals to build and strengthen the public schools.
• The School of Education has achieved the most important student-based criteria for excellence
in doctoral education, as described by the Council of Graduate Schools.
• The elimination the program would decrease the number of doctoral students at AU from
under-represented minority groups.
• With regard to the program review process, there was evidence of the incompatibility of arts
and sciences criteria being applied to a professional program that is rooted in the social sciences
and committed to linking theory and practice.
Professor Jacobs noted that School of Education faculty had also circulated an open letter to the
university community. A copy of that letter is appended to the record copy of the minutes.
The Senate then deliberated the issue of Graduate Program Review. In an exchange of diverse
views, the discussion centered upon several specific topics: (1) the need to assess more deeply
the overall implications of having fewer graduate programs at the university; (2) concerns about
the disproportionate affect the program cuts will have on the diversity of the graduate student
body; (3) the need to also consider the broader strategic issue of the resource allocation. Excerpts
of some of the comments follow:
• Bob Jernigan, Mathematics and Statistics, stated that there was no ratification, no faculty
overall vote on the basic premise that set up the graduate program review, President Ladner’s 15point plan. He said there was no sense of how the faculty views the fact that the university is
going to cut graduate programs and simultaneously become a more undergraduate institution.
• Brian Forst, School of Public Affairs, observed that there are benefits for undergraduate
programs that accrue from having a strong graduate program. The irony, he said, is that in the
name of strengthening undergraduate programs by reducing graduate programs, the university
may end up with the unintended consequence of having a weaker undergraduate program as
well.
• John Douglass, School of Communication, encouraged the Provost to look at the process by
which the School of Education was evaluated, in terms of how other schools of education are
evaluated throughout the country. And if there is a variance between that and the way the
College of Arts and Sciences evaluates its other programs, he asked that the Provost take that
variance into consideration.
• Cathy Schaeff, Biology, observed if one is doing a graduate review, one has to consider quality
first, and then other factors, such as diversity. She said that if AU decides that certain programs
are a fit with the university’s mission, then AU needs to put in the resources to get those
programs to the point where they pass the quality measure.
• Leigh Riddick, Kogod School of Business, pointed out that the university faces a strategic
decision of some magnitude. As long as she had been at the university, she said, AU had had too
few resources for the things it decided it wanted to achieve. The whole point of the 15-point
plan, she emphasized, is to identify the few things toward which the university can devote its
resources.
• Roberta Rubenstein, Literature, also commented on resource allocation. She said it was her
understanding that one implication of the review would be to try to increase resources in strong
programs so that they will be more competitive for better students, which then does have an
immediate impact on program quality.
Action: Paul Williams, School of International Service, introduced a motion calling for the chair,
Pat Kehoe, to draft a letter to the Provost, as a means of crystallizing the debate. He suggested
that the letter should reflect the report of the Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs
and also note the different views on how the terminations will affect the university overall.
The motion was approved, and Professor Kehoe agreed to draft the communication to the
Provost. A copy of the memorandum to Provost Kerwin, dated March 21st, is appended.
Strategic Issues
Leigh Riddick once again led a discussion on strategic issues that the Senate might consider.
There was a consensus that the next step in the process should be to identify a half dozen topics
as priorities. Jim Heintze, University Library, proposed that the final document might be
considered as a three-year strategic plan.
For the Good of the Order
Paul Williams introduced three motions that he said the SIS Council had asked that the Senate
consider:
1. A request for the Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs to prepare a plan to
promote teaching excellence and scholarship by finding some means of reducing the overall
teaching load.
2. A request for the appropriate Senate committee to start working on creative ideas for further
increasing the allocation for graduate financial aid.
3. A request for a written clarification about the formula for the distribution of fellowships and
financial aid.
It was proposed that the Curriculum Committee should be asked to consider the second point.
Provost Kerwin said that the Dean of Academic Affairs could provide information about the
third point.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Report from the Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs
The Curriculum and Academic Issues Committee considered two main issues for the graduate
program review:
1) cross-unit implications of terminations and
2) other aspects of the review that might require consideration.
1) The only program targeted for termination that we felt might need to be considered for further
review due to cross unit issues was the PhD in SOE. We have requested additional information
about the program from this unit.
2) The Curriculum and Academic Issues Committee feels that the diversity of the graduate
student body is an important factor when reviewing the quality and success of graduate programs
at American University. Efforts for improving or maintaining diversity can not override the focus
on academic excellence. However, just as a weak but diverse program is considered unsuccessful
so too should be a strong program without appropriate minority representation.
To: Dr. Cornelius Kerwin, Provost
From: Patrick E. Kehoe, Chair, Faculty Senate
Date: March 21, 2003
Subject: Senate Comments on Graduate Program Review Recommendations
Neil, you requested that the Faculty Senate provide you with our views and counsel regarding the
Graduate Program Review recommendations you have received from the colleges and schools.
Here is a brief summary of some of the comments which were made at the March 5 Senate
meeting.
We began our discussions with comments from two colleagues and a report of the Joint
Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs. Since you were present and heard these
comments I will not restate them here. Rather I will focus on items from the report of the Joint
Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs and highlight a few of the comments of the
Senators.
The Committee reminded the Senate that its charge is to determine if there are cross-unit
implications with any of the Graduate Program Review recommendations. Only then does the
Committee have jurisdiction to conduct a full review. In the case of the recommendations now
before you, the Committee determined, with the possible exception of the School of Education
PhD, that there is no cross-unit impact. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee interpreted its
task to include consideration of potential impact from the cancellation of courses in programs
being discontinued that may also be required for other programs. The Committee also considered
the potential impact of discontinued programs on any possible feeder program relationships. The
Committee following receipt of information requested from the School of Education will make a
final decision on the Education PhD program. I will inform you should the Committee determine
that there is cross unit impact from discontinuing the Education program.
The Committee also considered the proposed changes in light of their impact on the university as
a whole. Specifically it looked at one concern that many faculty, including several Senators, have
raised. This is a possible adverse affect on the reputation and standing of the university that
might result from any decrease in the number of programs producing PhD’s especially when so
many are being discontinued at one time. The Committee did not believe this to be a significant
possibility. The Committee noted that the provost had stated previously that the decrease in the
number of programs did not necessarily mean an overall decline in the number of PhD graduates.
The committee notes that new resources and strategies may be required, in addition to the
planned increase in graduate awards, to increase the number of graduates from the ongoing
programs and recommends that this be a budget priority.
The Committee looked at one other frequently expressed faculty concern. This is possible
negative effect on the overall diversity of the university that might result from discontinuing
these programs. While supporting the view that program quality must be the first consideration
when determining which programs are considered successful, the committee suggested that
robust programs that lack the appropriate diversity in their faculty or student body should also be
considered unsuccessful and encouraged to rectify their profiles. The question was raised as to
whether the university would benefit from providing additional resources to programs that were
deemed to fit well with the university’s mission but not to be of sufficient academic quality to be
maintained as is.
The committee did not believe, however, that it was in a position to nor charged with redoing the
deans’ reviews. Thus it presumes that this was considered by the deans and will also be
considered by you when you make your decisions about the recommendations. The Committee
did recommend, however, that steps be taken to ensure that the programs that will be continued
after the review concludes will, in fact, enroll students so that there will be no adverse effects on
overall minority representation in the university’s graduate degree programs.
The discussions by the Senators focused on several topics. Here are some highlights.
The Senate recognized that many of the discussions that have been recommended to discontinue
or alter programs were made for strategic development reasons related to the use of scare
resources in the best way for a college or school. In particular, the decisions to discontinue some
programs are being made in order to allow for the university to invest more effectively in others.
There is an expectation that the continuing programs will improve our overall institutional
reputation. Members of the Senate felt that they do not have the information needed to properly
evaluate such trade-offs. Thus the Senate felt that we must rely on the Deans, the Provost and
ultimately on the President to do that. What the Senate can do is suggest some areas that we
would like you to consider.
Many faculty including several members of the Senate have expressed concerns about the
process that lead to the Graduate Program Review. This was raised at the Senate meeting. More
specifically the concerns are about the process by which President Ladner developed his fifteen
points one of which, of course, was the call for the Graduate Program Review. The sense of these
colleagues is that when the President conducted the conversations on campus from which he
formulated his fifteen points, he made no effective communication of what he was undertaking.
Yet after the President announced the points they were not submitted to a further vetting on
campus when faculty could have provided their views and council about them. Rather, the
President quickly submitted all the points for endorsement by the Board of Trustees. This
process has raised serious concern by many faculty members that there has never been a real
faculty vote on the basic premises contained in the fifteen points including the one that set up
this Graduate Program Review. This is not to say that the President and his fifteen points do not
have the confidence of the faculty (though the Senate has not decided this point one way or the
other) nor that any of them ought not to be pursued. Rather faculty believe that a more open
process should have been used when the points were developed and should always be followed
in the future. To add emphasis to this observation, one Senator said “I know we had the
conversations, but there was no overall [faculty] ratification. There was no sense of how the
faculty views the fact that we’re going to cut graduate programs, and then simultaneously
become a more undergraduate institution.”
Another comment was about a view held by some, perhaps even many, faculty that the overall
reputation of the university is more dependent on the quality of its graduate programs than on its
undergraduate programs. One Senator stated that this means there are benefits to undergraduate
programs that accrue from the university also having strong graduate programs. He went on to
say “The irony is that in the name of strengthening undergraduate programs by reducing graduate
programs we may end up with the unintended consequence of having a weaker undergraduate
program as well.”
There have been many concerns expressed about the way the Graduate Review Process was
conducted, at least within the College of Arts and Sciences and perhaps other colleges and
schools. Although there was some difference of opinion on this, the Senate did not believe it had
the information that would make it the appropriate body to consider these charges. The
consensus is that you, as Provost, are and we suggest that you consider these concerns.
Since quality of a program is one of the criteria used to evaluate and compare specific programs,
we ask that you consider whether the process in CAS properly took into account the differences
between professional programs, such as those in the School of Education, and the more
traditional academic programs that are found in CAS. One Senator suggested, “that you look at
the process by which the School [of Education] was looked at and as it was evaluated in terms of
how other schools of education are evaluated throughout the country.”