Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, November 2, 1995
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Dan Feeney, Virginia
Gray, James Gremmels, Roberta Humphreys, Laura Coffin Koch, Geoffrey Maruyama,
Fred Morrison, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Lester Drewes, Robert Jones
Guests:
President Nils Hasselmo
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate), Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: (With President Hasselmo:) his trip to East Asia, the National Research Council
rankings, tenure; Committee discussion of tenure]
1.
Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 10:00 and welcomed the President back to the
University; he asked the President to talk briefly about his trip to the Far East.
The President replied that he could hardly resist talking about it! He told the Committee that the
University has over 10,000 alumni in mainland China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan; the relationships with
China go back to 1914. One of the alumni he met was born July 2, 1895, a member of the Chinese
Academy of Science and was one of the founders of agricultural research in China; he obtained his Ph.D.
from the University in the 1920s. Even though he was over 100, he came to the alumni gathering.
The President described in glowing terms the intellectual vitality of the alumni, their deep
affection for the University, the life-shaping experience they all had at the University, and the willingness
to help the University.
Nine of the members of the Chinese Academy of Science are University of Minnesota alumni; four
came to the alumni gathering he attended, the President related.
The alumni are government ministers and other officials, business people, and leading academics.
The President said there is an extraordinary network of Minnesota alumni in important positions in these
countries. They face difficult problems, but they have buoyant economies and strong positive beliefs
about the future.
*
These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota
Senate or Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes
represent the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 2, 1995
2
The Far East alumni want to work with the University; some exchange agreements were signed,
the President reported, and contacts were made with a number of leaders. The University needs to have a
lot of its own students who are getting an education in agriculture, engineering, management, education,
and the sciences also acquire a knowledge of East Asian languages and culture; it must build the
programs that offer this education. If it does so, it will attract students to the dual experience of both
professional development and international cultural experience.
The President said he also met with the representatives of Minnesota corporations located in East
Asia, such as 3M, Cargill, and Norwest Bank. They see a demand for students with the kind of training
he outlined. There are exciting programmatic opportunities available; it is also an economic, cultural,
and political necessity that they be offered, as the world moves into what has been called the "Pacific
Rim Century" with the vital economies and populations in East Asian countries.
Asked if Minnesota's position is unique among research universities in its relationships with East
Asia, President Hasselmo said the University has a lot of competition but Minnesota has two relative
advantages. One is the length, depth, and strength of the connection to the Chinese, dating to 1914; the
University has been educating Chinese students for many years, building a network that the University
continues to cultivate.
The other is the University's unique advantage in Korea, the President said; it has over 5,000
Korean alumni, a number probably not matched by any other research university. In 1954, when the
United States was helping to rebuild the South Korean economy, it contracted with the University of
Minnesota to help; the University sent 60 faculty to South Korea and they sent 229 faculty to the
University. That network remains in place; they recognize it and want to maintain it.
The University must also cultivate these relationships; it needs to develop a coherent strategy with
respect its East Asian connection.
The President noted that the local expenses of the trip were paid from local sources. They would
hardly invest the thousands of dollars the trip cost if they were not interested in the connection. The trip
was an eye-opener, he concluded, in terms of the enthusiasm and gratitude the East Asian alumni feel
toward the University; they told him they feel they owe the University a great debt that they would like to
repay, for example, through mentoring of students, but also through other forms of collaboration.
The Pacific coast universities would seem to have an easy time building relationships with East
Asia, noted one Committee member, but one Minnesota advantage is Northwest Airlines (NWA) and the
direct travel available; can that be cultivated as well? It is, the President assured the Committee, and
NWA helped pay for the trip. It has played a major role in facilitating the links and its contributions are
quite important.
Professor Adams, on behalf of the Committee, congratulated the President for undertaking the
venture, acknowledged both the short-term and long-term benefits for the University; the Committee
thanked the President by acclaim. The President expressed gratitude for the support and said that the
issues raised by the trip will be built explicitly into the strategic planning process, including the
coordinate campuses. The President also noted the important role played by Linda Mona, President of
the Alumni Association, in helping cement the relationships with East Asian alumni.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 2, 1995
3
The President next turned to the National Research Council ratings recently issued. Acting Vice
President Brenner will be presenting a report to the Board of Regents on the ratings; there have also been
individual faculty analyses of the rankings. It is important to take them seriously, the President said. It is
clear that the competition has increased. In 26 of 39 fields the University was judged to have improved
in quality in the past five years, but it has, nevertheless, slipped a little bit in the rankings of departments.
This shows that the competition is even more fierce than in 1982. To stay one of the top 20 research
universities will require a big effort; to move into the top 10, which the University seeks to do, will
require a Herculean effort.
One Committee member asked the President how he will approach the discussions of the rankings.
He responded that there are three points to be considered. First, the national competition has stiffened;
although two-thirds of the programs in the University were judged to have improved, it slipped in
rankings because of the competition. California has a half-dozen institutions competing in the top 20.
This means the University will have to redouble its efforts to stay where it is, let alone move up in the
rankings.
Second, this is a top 20 university, but unevenly so; it is 7th in engineering, 13th in the social
sciences, 17th in the biological sciences, 26th in the physical sciences, and 29th in the arts and
humanities.
Third, Dr. Brenner has appointed a committee to evaluate the rankings; the President himself is
working with the provosts and others on the implications of the rankings for U2000. Some investments
made in recent years are clearly paying off, but the University has not really invested the way it needs to
in order to move disciplines forward, especially in the arts and humanities.
The agenda is cut out for the University, the President said; the ratings must be evaluated and the
U2000 agenda must be honed in order the ensure the University invests in programs. That means, he
pointed out, that the focus must be narrowed; the University cannot carry all its graduate programs into
the next century. This issue must be taken seriously and investments made selectively to protect and
increase program quality. And that will not be cheap, he concluded.
One Committee member said the President's analysis of the rankings is better than others that have
been made; some believe the University "did OK." The analysis by Professor Swan, however, suggests
the University has slipped from 16th to 21st; by that calculation, is no longer accurate to say the
University is in the top 20. That confirms what most faculty believe: the University has slipped and
something must be done. One social science department was the smallest of the top ten in earlier
rankings; it has now slipped to 13th. Much of that slippage has to do with size; it is difficult to be in the
top ten when the programs are so small. The President agreed.
Looking at another of the fields, in the sciences, one Committee member was struck by two things.
First, the top group of schools in the field had 54-58% tenured faculty; Minnesota is over 70%, which
says that top schools are hiring a lot and getting new faculty. They also use post-docs and non-tenured
faculty, pointed out another Committee member.
In addition, there are different tenure policies at some of the private medical schools; the fields are
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 2, 1995
4
changing so fast, and the competition is hiring a lot, while the University has not had the money to do so.
The second point is that Minnesota and other midwestern schools are ranked lower, on reputation,
but have higher productivity. The faculty work hard, and do a lot, but these are not fertile institutions for
stars--which hurts the reputational rating.
That shows up when the University does well in strong programs but not as well in second-tier
programs, the President said. The number of Nobel prize-winners who have been at the University, and
left, hurts.
Another Committee member said one could see this same thing in another of the colleges: there is
a discrepancy between the visibility of individual faculty and the visibility of programs. In the case of
one department, it is ranked seventh in citations but 23rd in reputation. The question is how to translate
the productivity and visibility of individual faculty to the programs. Either they have to hire and retain
stars, or they have to do a project that attracts national attention, which also gets stars. Both require
dollars.
One question sometimes raised in the legislature and elsewhere is about the cost of being 15th
rather than being 10th; maybe the state or University does not or should not want to pay what it costs to
be 10th, and it can be "pretty good" instead of excellent. How does one respond to that question?
President Hasselmo said that is a good question, and noted that private institutions often have
options the University does not. The public institutions often have other responsibilities, such as
undergraduate education (in which the University has put $15 million in the last few years), many
professional schools, outreach, the extension service, the experiment stations; they cannot ignore those
responsibilities. The tension among the various objectives for funding is difficult; it is a tough agenda to
create leadership in a range of disciplines, carry out undergraduate education, and fulfill land grant
responsibilities.
There are subtle aspects to the ratings that need to be considered, said one Committee member. A
recent article in THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION noted that there are a number of fields
not in traditional disciplines. If an institution competes in the traditional disciplines, it may do one thing;
if it wants to look ahead and compete in emerging fields, it will do another thing. The University must
decide where to put its money. In addition, there is much done at the University that is not ranked by the
NRC, and the concern about the rankings must be balanced with the other responsibilities that private
institutions do not have. This muddies the issue of how to be first in 40 categories, rather than 15th,
when the University does so much more than what the rankings cover.
From that perspective, the President said, the University is doing remarkably well. But one must
not paint too rosy a picture; Minnesota must make renewed efforts if it is to remain a leading research
university.
What is the University going to do about emerging areas, asked one Committee member? The
biological sciences are confusing; the University has a lot of good people in areas that are not ranked.
The President said the biological sciences are being evaluated; the question is what to do on the frontiers
to be a leader. The University does not want to compete in yesterday's classifications.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 2, 1995
5
One Committee member said the University spends too much money bringing in department chairs
in the biological sciences, rather than the faculty taking a collective responsibility for the field. The
University of Washington is doing things Minnesota hasn't even thought of. Minnesota dissipates too
much money in searches; in some cases, the chair is important, while in others it is not. Another
Committee member agreed, pointing out that this occurs because of the tradition of life-time tenure for
chairs. That means someone who was good 30 years ago runs a department into the ground; there needs
to be a policy on chair tenure. They may need to be included in the reviews of administrators, said one
Committee member; another concurred on the need for a policy, saying that the administrator review
policy is not good at identifying creative leaders.
On the rankings, it is amazing what the University accomplishes with only half the faculty of its
peers. But this burns people out. The message should be noted. The productivity of the faculty is very
high but the load that they carry is very heavy, the President said.
Asked how the University stood if one looked only at the public institutions or the land-grant
schools, the President said the University ranked fourth in the Big Ten, behind Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Illinois.
Another piece that does not get into the rankings is the professional schools, pointed out one
Committee member. These are a major piece of the institution, and the whole needs to be considered.
That is another dimension of the breadth of the University, the President concurred; if one includes the
professional school ratings, the University is better than the NRC rankings. Pharmacy, Agriculture, and
Education, for example, rank very highly nationally; in totality, the University is better than what it is
considered only on the basis of its graduate fields.
The point, however, is not to try to make things look good, the President's original point. The
President said that has been the theme of his presidency: the University is doing well, as a very complex
institution, but there is a stiff agenda if it is to maintain its position. It is doing well, and has improved
since the last rankings in 1982, but the competition has improved even more. That dual message must get
through.
The President then turned to the subject of tenure. He said he wanted there to be no
misunderstandings about the current discussions: academic freedom is the foundation of universities,
and without it the institutions would not be the resource to society that they must be. But the University
absolutely must review tenure; that is the best defense for tenure as the protection of academic freedom.
How tenure comes to be job security must be evaluated, as must the ways tenure is granted and removed
and the extent of its application within the University, especially in the Medical School. It is in this spirit
that he is pursuing the tenure discussions, he told the Committee, and said they are off to a good start in
the collaboration among the faculty, the administration, and the Board of Regents.
In response to a short series of exchanges, the President agreed that there are a lot of cross-currents
on the issue of tenure, from those who would abolish it to save higher education (which would destroy
higher education, in his view) to those who want NO change. He said he believes the institution must
talk about tenure and take a hard look at it; that, he repeated, is the only way it can be defended. There is
also diversity of opinion on tenure within the institution that must be sorted out. It is important to engage
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 2, 1995
6
the faculty in a dialogue among themselves and with administrators.
In some parts of the University, it was argued, there is no mechanism for such a dialogue to occur.
Discussion touched upon steps being taken first in the Academic Health Center--because it is the focus
of attention--to set up a dialogue on tenure; the same discussions will be held in the other provostal areas
as well.
One Committee member expressed concern that workers--faculty and others--would lose their jobs
because of bad management decisions in the past; bad management is being used as a justification for
eliminating tenure. The President responded that there is a tremendous need for change in the health
sciences, and that change agents must be supported, but the change must be evaluated so it does not occur
in ways that are incompatible with the institution.
Another Committee member suggested that the problem is that administrative policies with respect
to tenure are not those being enunciated today by the President. To the extent he can control it, it will be,
the President assured the Committee. In a time of change and turmoil and a sorting of alternatives, a
dialogue must keep going at several levels of the University.
The problem, it was said again, was that in some places in the University there is no established
structure for the dialogue to occur. In some places, an ad hoc structure is in place, but there could be
misunderstandings, with no way to correct them.
One way this is being approached, Professor Adams reminded his colleagues, is through the series
of lunches organized by Professor Gray with deans and faculty senators. Moreover, some things may
"roll on" in different units, but some things cannot be changed without approval. There is also a problem
when faculty governance is not highly developed, the President observed, to which one Committee
member responded that faculty governance will only work if administrators value it. That is not a
problem in the central administration, but it is in some of the units.
The President then invited comments on the candidates for senior vice president for finance and
operations. He also observed that in the current labor negotiations the University is trying to get a
reasonable contract; he wants it to be fair and equitable as well as competitive with the market. Things
do heat up in the process, but the University is trying for a fair contract. Asked if the public sector
salaries are higher than those in the private sector, the President said it is very mixed--higher in some, not
in others. There is the difficulty that there is no new permanent state money for salaries after this year,
and discussions about the pros and cons of further layoffs to cover permanent salary increases for faculty
and staff are critically important.
If there is a need for additional time for discussion of critical issues, the President concluded, he
would make himself available. Professor Adams thanked the President for joining the meeting.
2.
Chair's Report
Professor Adams then itemized a number of issues he wished to report to the Committee on.
He first reported on the meetings with department heads; he and a few other FCC members are
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 2, 1995
7
meeting weekly with about 6-10 department heads to talk about the agenda of FCC, things on their
minds, and the major issues of the day (semesters, tenure, re-engineering, and so on). There has been
good communication, and most seem to appreciate the opportunity both to learn and to contribute their
views. It is his view, he said, that it is in departments where things are really going on, and the meetings
will continue at least to the end of the quarter. Committee members discussed the meetings briefly.
Professor Gray then reported on the meetings with deans and faculty senators, of which three had
taken place thus far. In parallel with comments about the department chair meetings, they seem to be of
value, but they are very time-consuming and at some point they will have to be evaluated.
There may be times in the history of the institution, observed one Committee member, when it is
important to make the investment of time. Another said that Professors Adams and Gray are bearing the
brunt of the investment of time, but touching base and community building is important; the University is
fragile right now and whatever can be done to reach out is important.
On the issue of provostal governance, Professor Gray reported that nothing new had taken place
and discussions would be held shortly.
Professor (Carl) Adams asked Professor (John) Adams to report on the tenure discussions. He (J.
Adams) recalled that there is a joint faculty-administrative committee to think about the issues before the
Board of Regents, at their request; it will meet in the near future. Professor Adams said he is preparing a
memo for the committee to lay out starkly the choices on personnel with respect to tenure,
acknowledging the Tenure Code rules as well as the financial realities and organizational structures. He
said he hopes the committee works quickly; they know that initiatives will be coming from the Academic
Health Center, because Provost Brody believes they only have 12-18 months before they must act with
respect to tenure commitments with no funds and because the Board of Regents wants a review of tenure
and personnel policies. His committee is expected to say something at the December Regents' meeting,
so has about four weeks to develop a statement; Professor Adams said he would share it with FCC. He
reported that a similar review of tenure is taking place in the CIC (the Big Ten plus the University of
Chicago) and a joint faculty-administration statement will be issued by the end of the year.
One vexing issue about tenure at the University is its location, said one Committee member; is it
held in the department or the University? What is the legal situation?
It was explained that tenure technically resides in the University: if a unit is abolished, the
University has an OBLIGATION to reassign a faculty member, under the Tenure Code. This was
discussed at length in the early 1980s and agreed to by the administration. This was the understanding
that prevailed in the case of Waseca, although the administration went further in acquiescing with
individual faculty wishes than the Code required.
How tenure is tied to salary should be looked at in the health sciences, it was said; in the clinical
departments, it does not appear that this was taken advantage of. Professor (John) Adams said he is
trying to do his homework; according to senior faculty with long memories, there was a long discussion
of this in the late 1960s, and it was concluded that tenure appointments should be on permanent funds.
The practice in the 1970s began to be something else; since then, a mixture of funds has been used in
tenured appointments. One possible conclusion, he said, is that the permanent funds could be the basis
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 2, 1995
8
of considering what is permanent, and not the other funds.
One Committee member recalled discussions in the meeting with the CLA senators; in 1973 the
rest of the University bailed out the Medical School, and it promised not to put tenured appointees on
soft money. It appears that promise has been forgotten. It is not clear what the Tenure Code says.
The common understanding is that the tenure is linked to whatever is on the appointment form,
said another Committee member. The issue was raised when the Tenure Code was discussed; the
administration adamantly took the position that the amount of money provided by state dollars and the
amounts from other sources was an administrative detail. The administration began to fiddle with the
rules, and everything fell apart with CUFS. Before CUFS, a unit had to justify the funding for an
appointment, and if there were not sufficient 0100 funds, it was not approved. After CUFS, human
resources and budgets were divorced and units could appoint anyone. Three areas were most affected:
the Medical School, which appointed a lot of people on soft money; IT and grant funds, but they were
more careful; and Agriculture and federal funds, but they were also more careful.
Another Committee member agreed and suggested that Professor Adams' committee not be
preoccupied with clinicians in the Medical School. One reason there are problems with tenure in the
United States, it was said, is because the faculty have not policed themselves. The Medical School must
sort out its issues, and there will be grief; Professor Adams' committee should look at overall principles.
It was agreed that this issue would be brought back to the Committee at its November 30 meeting,
before the December Regents' meeting.
At this point the Committee closed its meeting to discuss the candidates for Senior Vice President
for Finance and Operations. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that FCC would not take a
committee position on the candidates. Professor Adams then adjourned the meeting at 12:00.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota