Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Friday, December 15, 1995
12:00 - 1:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Virginia Gray (chair pro tem), John Adams, Carole Bland, James Gremmels, Roberta
Humphreys, Geoffrey Maruyama, Fred Morrison, Harvey Peterson
Regrets:
Carl Adams, Victor Bloomfield, Lester Drewes, Dan Feeney, Robert Jones, Laura Coffin
Koch, Michael Steffes
Absent:
none
Guests:
Regents' Chair Thomas Reagan
Others:
Steven Bosacker & Kim Isenberg (Regents' Office); Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate)
[In these minutes: Discussion of tenure and other issues with Regent Reagan]
Professor Gray convened the meeting at 12:05 and welcomed Regent Reagan to the FCC. She
explained that Professor Adams was attending a conference, and then called for introductions. She then
noted that there is much interest in tenure and learning what the Board of Regents has on its mind and
what it expects to get from its study of tenure.
Regent Reagan expressed appreciation at meeting with the Committee and then explained that
tenure has been brought to the attention of the Board by a lot of people, including the legislature, the
Governor, and others who are watching how things get done at the University. The Board understands
the need for tenure and that it must be VERY careful when it looks into tenure. They are committed to
working WITH the faculty and administration, rather than having the Board push on the issue.
He said the Board is aware the faculty have been studying the issues of tenure and have prepared a
schedule for considering revisions in the Tenure Code (a copy of which he brought to the meeting). He
said the schedule makes good sense and appears to be the right approach. He said he hoped there would
be a continuous connection with the Board as the faculty deliberate so they Board knows where things
stand. He said he does not expect the Board to drive the agenda but he would like to have the Faculty
and Staff Affairs Committee of the Board apprised as the work is being done.
Regent Reagan emphasized again that the Board wants to work with the faculty and
administration; the Board will take its lead from the faculty for the most part. The Board wants the
faculty to find ways to revise the Tenure Code in ways that the University needs. He told the Committee
he does NOT see anyone who wants to harm the parts of tenure that protect academic freedom. Some
say that if one tampers with job security, that affects academic freedom; can the appropriate changes be
*
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
December 15, 1995
2
made, he inquired? Can the University obtain the flexibility it needs, to do the things it must because of
funding inadequacies? He said he would like to see revisions that allow flexibility. That is where the
Board stands, he concluded.
He said it is IMPERATIVE that the Regents, faculty, and administration work together; if they
work separately, "we will have a mess" and will not address the issues. He asked that as the Committee
follows the calendar that has been set, to keep the Board apprised of its thoughts, and said that his door
will be wide open during the process and that he should be called anytime if he could be of help. He
pledged his absolute support for being fully available to the Committee as it tries to meet its agenda.
He also said he was VERY pleased at the way the process had begun; he said he has receive no
calls saying that the Tenure Code should not be examined, which is surprising, given the acrimony and
tension that could be engendered. The leadership has done well and it is to be hoped that continues so
that the faculty, administration, and Board can continue to work together.
Professor John Adams, chair of the tenure working group, said it is proceeding in the way Regent
Reagan described and that it shares the same hopes about the outcomes. Most faculty do not think very
much about tenure on a daily basis, don't pay attention to these issues. In the next ten days, he reported,
he would have prepared a draft summary of the issues and a description of how they interlock. The
problems are complicated because the issues are all connected: academic freedom is related to job
security, which are related to the mission of a research university and the budget realities the University
faces.
The discussion is moving fast, Professor Adams said; during January the tenure working group
will solicit comments from Senators and others about the issues, possible courses of action, and their
implications. Items will be brought to the February Faculty Senate meeting for discussion; they will then
work for several weeks responding to comments.
There is the thought that things are being pushed too fast; others maintain that getting attention
focused on an issue and pushing it along can lead to more constructive outcomes.
Regent Reagan said he had talked about the issue of timing with Dr. Bognanno. He likes the
calendar but said it may be overly ambitious. That is acceptable; sometimes these discussions can drag
out too long. He assured the Committee that the Board would understand the need to extend the
discussion, but that the goal was a good one.
One Committee member noted that the Board of Regents had set the September date for the
President to report on actions taken to revise the Tenure Code. Nine months sounds reasonable, but
when one considers the academic calendar, which ends in June, there are only six months. There is much
in the Tenure Code that could be improved, it was said, but there are also administrative practices that do
not take advantage of the present Tenure Code provisions; administrators could do more. Regent Reagan
said he was glad to know that, and had reached a similar conclusion in his own reading of the Code.
Another Committee member observed that many point to the Tenure Code as the source of
problems when other things could be fixed. The same point was made in the radio piece: there is a
perception that tenure protects people who are not doing their job, but the problem is administrative
difficulties at the unit level--THAT is what needs to be fixed.
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 15, 1995
3
Regent Reagan told the Committee that he and Professor Carl Adams had discussed tuition and
tenure; he noted that he has consistently taken the position the he is interested in fixing the fundamental
situation. He wants to do what is meaningful to prevent downsizing across the University so that it is
weakened; he would rather identify what it does well and make contingency plans to take "bigger bites."
That does NOT necessarily mean closing colleges or departments--although that could also be
considered--but could be reprogramming. He said he has no interest in closing a department or college;
when dealing with tuition and tenure, he wants to do what is necessary for the University to remain one
of the best in the country.
He recalled that in his "inaugural" speech as Board Chair, he said he wants to turn these adverse
conditions to the University's advantage. On the issue of faculty salaries, the University should aim to be
number one and identify how to get there--and have contingency plans to do so. If the University could
find $34 million, it would be number one in the Big Ten; it should try to do that, he affirmed. Doing so
would give it the opportunity to keep the best and attract others of high quality. It is that goal that should
drive the University. If tenure provided the flexibility to close units, that would be helpful, rather than
reducing every unit by 5-10%. But the objective should be to upgrade the institution, not just stay in
business.
The faculty will always support seeking new heights and not new cuts, one Committee member
observed. With respect to tenure, that will depend on what happens. The University's actions in the case
of closing Waseca were a surprise; this is a case of the administrative practices referred to earlier. When
the University reassigned Waseca faculty, it was far more restrictive than the Tenure Code required;
there was flexibility, but the administration chose not to use it. There is more flexibility available than
has been used in the past.
What the University must do is move away from thinking about next year's budget and biennial
request and toward longer-term planning that is not vague, maintained one Committee member. Such
plans should identify what the University must do over the next 5-7 years and what steps should be taken
next year--rather than act in response to shortfalls. The University always talks a good game on longterm planning, but always falls into short-term decision-making.
Regent Reagan agreed with the need for longer-term planning. The Board must deal with daily
issues as well, but the recent vote on the additional $10 million in cuts was a way to get the message out,
in his view, about planning. This would make sense to the Board.
The nexus between tuition and long-term planning highlights the tug of war, observed one
Committee member. If one looks out ten years, what kind of University should this be? One can nibble
around the edges on tuition, but the place will fall apart in the meantime. The faculty are often asked at
the legislature why tuition is so low. Board members often ask why it is so high.
Regent Reagan agreed, and said that financial aid must be factored in. Because the University is a
land-grant school, some legislators believe it should be wide open to everyone. High tuition closes out
many people, so aid money must be found.
This subject can be debated, it was then said, but a "high tuition, high aid" policy actually
improves access for some who cannot otherwise get in. One can attend Carleton more cheaply than the
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 15, 1995
4
University, in some instances.
One Committee member reminded Regent Reagan, apropos his comment that he had heard nothing
from faculty about tenure, that the faculty have just finished exams and were not aware the issue was
being raised. The faculty perception, according to this Committee member, is NOT that the changes are
not needed, but want to know what the rush is. The faculty also perceive that this is being driven by the
Medical School problems and statements by Provost Brody. A number of faculty say "solve the Medical
School's problems, don't go after the whole University." Some believe that even minor revisions in the
Tenure Code would allow the Academic Health Center to make the corrections needed. So the faculty
ask why this is all so visible, and why not make the changes in the normal way, rather than have this
grandstanding? Several FCC members expressed surprise at how fast these changes seem to be
occurring. Are there other motives involved? Suspicions are raised.
Regent Reagan said it was his sense that the Board's interest in tenure does not arise solely from
the Medical School; they have talked about tenure for a long time but done nothing. Questions about it
are usually brought up at the legislature and others that members of the Board talk to; they finally
decided this year to take a look at it. It may look like the discussion is driven by the Medical School
needs, but it is not.
There is a perception that the Board has been like a corporate board, and that it has tried to do too
much micromanagement, said one Committee member. This is clearly an issue where it should not do so.
The Board must realize that faculty will have a HUGE amount of work to do on converting to semesters;
there is a lot all coming at once, most of which the faculty will have to carry.
Members of the Board do not live in the faculty's world or culture, Regent Reagan commented, and
Board members may expect things that cannot be produced. Board members do not have the constraints
that faculty do. It is more difficult to adhere to a timeline in a university than in other places, he said; he
repeated that while the goal may be ambitious, he liked it, but the Board will understand if there is a need
for delay. There is no intent to micro-manage, and the Board understands the need to work together if
anything is to be accomplished--and it understands that if it could be detrimental for the Board to get too
involved in the matter.
One Committee member expressed appreciation for the thoughtful way in which the Board was
approaching the review of tenure, something that is not true across the country. The University is
fortunate to have such thoughtful partners. Tenure is an amazing privilege that few in society have; it is
worth saying over and over that tenure serves a social good. The concept is so abstract but must be
repeated out loud; the more that Board members can do to explain that, the more believable the position
becomes. Is this an appropriate expectation for members of the Board? Regent Reagan affirmed that it
is.
One can be fearful, it was then said, that the faculty may give away more than is necessary in the
Medical School, because the wolves are at the door; under those circumstances one forgets about abstract
principles that have served the University well. The faculty need the help of the Board on this, because
most of them do not think that much about it--none of them takes a course in academic freedom. (Nor do
members of the Board, Regent Reagan observed.) One hears that because of the possibility of
bankruptcy, especially in the health sciences, the University needs a corporate model.
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 15, 1995
5
Regent Reagan said he knew of nothing that would preclude the Board helping out on these issues
and that the faculty could expect the Board to be a conduit to the public that accurately states what the
University is about. The Board does not want to destroy the University--it wants to see if there is some
flexibility within the Tenure Code.
The University is the economic engine of the state, exclaimed one Committee member, and tenure
undergirds it. Regent Reagan said that sounded like the start of his economic development speech about
the University and how vital it is to the state. He tells people there is no greater endeavor and that they
must get behind the University if they believe in the state.
Many do not see the connection with tenure, said one Committee member; 3M is also productive.
One difference between the University and other sectors is perhaps typified in the extreme by the tobacco
industry, where one cannot say that which is not permitted. There was recently a report about a faculty
member who reported on research about tobacco industry advertising; the tobacco industry tried to get
her fired. There was recently a roundtable at the University where faculty talked about the times they
could have been fired. There are many reasons to worry about tenure and academic freedom.
Regent Reagan observed that if a faculty member who was studying tobacco advertising is laid off,
he or she will say they were targeted. There can be no doubt that academic freedom and tenure are
linked. If the example cited had occurred at the University, there would be NO QUESTION that the
faculty member could do whatever work he or she was doing. There are no Regents who want to
diminish academic freedom. Getting through the connections between tenure and academic freedom and
job security is tricky, he acknowledged, and said the Board will need the help of the faculty.
It is positive to have an open discussion on the myriad constituents the faculty must deal with,
groups that make demands on the faculty every day. As a member of the academic family, "I am as
embarrassed as anyone about the dirty laundry." As with a family, the academic community must take
care of it. The appeal process in death row cases can be 12-14 years; the one-to-two-year appeals in
tenure cases is not so long.
Some believe that faculty spend all their time doing research, learn more than anyone else in the
world in their subject, and cash in on it, while sending their TA to class, Regent Reagan observed. That
is not true, and this discussion is an opportunity to get the facts out. If it is found that some faculty are
not productive, that would serve the University's interest as well.
Where there are a limited number of faculty teaching broad fields, said one Committee member,
their first eight hours of the day are spent teaching and the next six are spent doing all the other things
faculty are supposed to do in outreach and research and so on. For many tenure means not having to
worry about their job, they just go do it. It keeps people at the University, doing their work. Some see
faculty as ivory tower egoists, but others put in a call when their steer is dying because they cannot get
help anywhere else.
The other point about tenure, said another Committee member, is related to moving the University
into the first ranks. He is VERY serious about that, Regent Reagan said; he is not just throwing the idea
out to make the faculty think he's a good Board chair. He said he believes in setting goals high and trying
to achieve them.
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 15, 1995
6
Whatever changes are made in the Tenure Code, said one Committee member, the University's
competitive position must be kept in mind. When people chose academia, they take less money and opt
for the life of the mind. One can nibble around the edges, but if big changes are made, the University
will not get the best people--they will go to other institutions with a strong tenure system. Both the
Board and Professor Adams' working group need to keep in mind the young person's perspective.
Regent Reagan agreed, but pointed out that Minnesota is the only Big Ten institution undertaking
this kind of review and that the others are watching. There is a positive side to what is being done, he
maintained; if a bright, promising scholar at another institution sees the University looking at tenure, not
to destroy it but as part of trying to lift the entire institution up, that would be attractive as well--the
institution would be seen as dealing with tenure and biting the bullet, setting a goal and working to
achieve it.
Many in academia give up a lot for the intellectual life, and one attraction is "job security," said
one Committee member. That isn't seen by people in the street, Regent Reagan pointed out. The
academic profession, it was continued, is not as attractive as it was 20 or 30 years ago, and some would
not choose it again. One hears this from students all the time.
Is it because there is not proper recompense, asked Regent Reagan? That is part of it, it was said,
but many students see more opportunities in the business world and fear the long-term downgrading of
faculty.
Regent Reagan said he wanted to throw out an idea to get a reaction. He recalled reading in the
CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION that institutions would not have trouble retaining and
supporting the best and the brightest faculty and that tenure does not mean much to such people. If their
position does not work out at one place, they can move. How good is that argument?
One Committee member asked Regent Reagan to imagine himself with the possibility of job
security at institution X but not at institution Y, which would he choose? Would he not pick X, to be on
the safe side? He agreed that he would.
This issue came up when the Tenure Code was last revised, recalled one Committee member; one
Regents' Professor was concerned about his job security and feared that the revisions would undermine it.
Of all the people who do NOT have to worry about job security, it would have been him.
By agreement with Regent Reagan, the Committee then closed the discussion to take up the
presidential search and the relations between the University and the legislature and Governor.
Professor Gray thanked Regent Reagan for meeting with the Committee; they agreed that another
meeting should be scheduled soon. She then adjourned the meeting at 1:15.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota