Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, September 9, 1993
131 Conference Center
Crookston Campus
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), John Adams, Lester Drewes, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller,
Robert Jones, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Irwin Rubenstein
Absent:
Mario Bognanno, Karen Seashore Louis, Toni McNaron, Shirley Zimmerman
Guests:
Paul Holm, Marvin Mattson, Gary McVey, Cleon Melsa, Vice Chancellor Rita Meyer,
Lynnette Mullins, Vice Chancellor Bob Nelson, Bernard Selzler
Others:
None
[In these minutes: the strategic plan; bylaw amendments]
Members of the Committee arrived in Crookston at 9:30, toured the campus, and were then met for
lunch by several members of the faculty and campus administration. Following welcoming remarks by
Vice Chancellor Meyer and lunch, Professor Garrard convened the meeting of the Committee at 1:20.
1.
The Strategic Plan and Process
The Committee, she said, needs to discuss both the substance of the plans presented at the Tuesday
meeting of the Finance and Planning Committee as well as ways to involve the larger faculty in the
discussion. The main issues of substance revolve around the University's mission, campus specialization,
the dual campus in the Twin Cities, academic unit evaluation, and the "clusters." The majority of the
comments, another noted, were about the Twin Cities campus; he then reviewed the six points the
President had made (the mission, clusters, University College/the research university, financing, unit
evaluation).
This proposal represents an "unbundling" of two functions that the University/Twin Cities has
always handled together: the urban university (a la Wayne State) and the research university (a la
Madison). Doing them together has harmed both of them; in trying to unbundle them, the President is
trying to get the University to do better at both.
Another Committee member agreed and expressed concern that the conversation the preceding
Tuesday had jumped to the "nitpicky" details rather than stay with the overall view. And there should be
concern that not all will agree--a lot of people, after all--including may faculty--disagreed with
Commitment to Focus. He personally, he said, had no argument with the fundamental statement of the
President's proposal; the University mucked up both functions by trying to combine them. The research
*
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
September 9, 1993
2
university, for example, has--with a smaller faculty--been trying to compete with peer research
institutions that have larger research faculties in Arts and Sciences without the "University College"
function. Confusion at the top of the University about what it is has contributed to the problem, as has a
Board of Regents that has not been willing to bite the bullet and admit that the University cannot be all
things to all people.
This step may clarify the University's functions, but it must be taken for the right reason: because
it addresses the values of a research university in an urban area. The University must say it right and
must get it right early--or people will be further confused. And unless it reflects academic values, and
people really believe in it, the plan will fail.
Many students, contended one Committee member, come to the Twin Cities campus to obtain
something a research faculty are not prepared to deliver--and who do not believe it is their job to deliver,
namely, vocationally-oriented bachelor's level programs. The result is a culture clash. The research
university has taken priority, however--the commitment to renew its intellectual resources--and those
funds have not then gone to remedial or job-oriented education. This plan clarifies those different roles
and leaves up to the units the decision about how to implement it, given limited resources. Moreover,
there could be additional funds--additional tuition income, for example--so the pie will not necessarily be
smaller. This plan fits together well--and fits in the local culture better than Commitment to Focus.
A lot of structures could accomplish what has been sought; this is a restatement of the University's
roles, objected one Committee member--the research university, the land-grant university, the University
as the pinnacle of the higher education system in the state. This is different from Commitment to Focus,
responded another member of the Committee; people thought President Keller proposed to abandon the
urban university function. This plan says it will be retained and made better. It is inaccurate to pose this
plan AGAINST Commitment to Focus; the University has been performing both functions all along,
bundled together--and both suffered.
This is a complicated plan, it was observed, and each unit hears it differently. The majority of the
complaints about undergraduate instruction have come about IT and CLA, because they do most of the
undergraduate teaching. The burden should be on them to think more sensitively about their "customer"-to be a bit more demand-oriented and less supply-sided. The professional schools have been doing so
for a long time. Some departments are notorious for making decisions, in order to compete with peer
research institutions, that have long-term negative consequences for students and their views of the
University (e.g., relying extensively on TAs to teach so research faculty do not have to). This has been a
problem in certain CLA departments; in other units, it is a different story.
One Committee member, recalling that Commitment to Focus was widely seen as elitist, suggested
this plan should be crafted so that students could enter the wide funnel of University College and work
their way into the research university. Other Committee members cautioned that the plan does not
provide that path--in which case, it was responded, the plan runs the risk of being seen as creating a
second-class institution.
Why? queried another Committee member. Why is it that people persist in attaching negative
connotations to a new undergraduate opportunity--including the Senior Vice President when he speaks of
high church and low church? Why cannot there be alternative ways to take the high road, depending on a
student's needs? It is NOT the high road to get a degree in English, end up driving a taxi "and bitch about
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 9, 1993
3
it for ten years"; nor is it the low road to get a more job-oriented degree that slips one neatly into a
professional career. The very vocabulary being used creates problems.
One can also ask of this plan "where's the beef?" It appears in some way to be all smoke and no
fire. What is a first-rate university? Students on the Twin Cities campus are not happy, for several
reasons: the divergence of interest on the part of the faculty and students (research versus job-oriented
education), heavy reliance on TAs and lack of contact with professors, and so on. Much of it comes
down to resources--if the University is to be a top-ranked research university, it must put in the resources;
then it will get the top students. But the top students will not come without the top faculty and quality.
There is no indication in this plan that students will get a new product. The President must indicate
where the substance behind the plan is--and that some faculties will be expanded. Faculty are smart
enough to recognize that if funds are to go somewhere, they must COME from somewhere, and there is
the potential for considerable paranoia if all are left with the feeling that THEY could be cut.
The idea of separating the two different kinds of educations that can be offered is a worthy one,
especially if it means students won't be fobbed off on second-rate teachers. Whether a student comes to
University College or the research university, however, they will expect a faculty that cares about
teaching. That kind of faculty, incidentally, can readily been seen on the Crookston campus--and the
Crookston student body could resemble the clientele of University College. It is true that Morris, like
Crookston, has a sense for its accomplishments, but neither corresponds to the research university
exemplars. No one has been able to accomplish that dual function in the same institution--a highlyranked research university that provides a Morris undergraduate education.
The point was made again that the objective could be accomplished through any of several
structures, and that this will not provide for a separate structure but will make explanation clearer; it
recognizes things that the University has always done. But there must a concern about the adding and
separating and taking out the middle range of students (from the 25th to 75th percentile of their class).
That middle group, responded another Committee member, had to be served by the University 30 years
ago, when there were no other options. Now, especially with financial aid, there are many options. Even
so, it was rejoined, there is only one research university, with other multi-purpose schools, the latter of
which are supported by their legislative contingents. Only the research university is not well-supported;
compared to other states, the flagship campus in Minnesota is underfunded. But people do not want a U
of California System (explicitly tiered); kids from affluent suburbs want to go to the University, not a
community college--and they will try to find ways to do so, even if the University says they cannot.
There are two questions at hand, said one Committee member. First, does the differentiation
between the research university and University College better articulate the University's mission?
Second, how do the clusters relate to this plan? It was said, in response, that the two units will have
separate admissions, separate student bodies (but one football team!); the research university will take
students primarily from the top 25% of their class while University College will be open and there will
be only limited transfers between them. This is not a great deal different than at present, one Committee
member pointed out; credits do not all transfer for a student who wishes to change from English to
Electrical Engineering. It is the COLLEGES that control degrees and it makes sense for University
College to have its own rules. This will, a number of Committee members concluded, be much more
than simply a change in the way the University is presented.
When concern was again expressed about losing the "middle" group of students, another
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 9, 1993
4
Committee member declared that this will be different, not better or worse, and there is no reason to
think the "middle" will not be interested in job-oriented degrees. The University College education will
be different, just as a Twin Cities campus education is different now from one obtained at Crookston or
the State Universities or a community college. Maybe so in principle, it was said, but not in practice; the
college prep track continues to exist in secondary schools.
What the President has said, added another Committee member, is that for students serious about
their education, the door remains open. For those who are not, the door will begin to close, because the
University does not have the resources for those who just want to "hang around." Experience elsewhere,
it was observed, suggest that some doors will open or close in effect, if not by intent. As resources start
to be allocated, plans will be amended or scrapped and new alternatives adopted.
Attention of Committee members was drawn to one of the tables distributed at the earlier meeting.
If one looks at Minnesota compared to the four peer institutions selected for "best practice" comparisons
[UCLA, Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin], the Twin Cities campus not only has the smallest
faculty, it also has a small staff. But as one looks at the number of students graduating at all levels--not
the rate, but the actual numbers--Minnesota looks VERY good. This is an important point, because
graduation is the important outcome measure--by this measure, the University is doing very well by its
students. Is there a risk that the plan is throwing out the baby with the bath water? There are a lot of
part-time and transfer students, but they are graduating.
On the other hand, students on the Twin Cities campus are dissatisfied; the University is turning
out graduates who do not support the institution. There is an important message there; if alumni will not
support the University, it is doomed. It must retain the affections of its graduates.
There is a paradox in the numbers, said one Committee member. The number of degrees granted
may not be that significant. The President has said that with undergraduate education stretched out as it
is, the college experience is peripheral for many students. It is not the 4-year experience, and that is why
many alumni are not loyal. The number of degrees is good, but given the role of a research university, it
is only one measure.
Knowing the way the University works for students in granting degrees is difficult. The
University takes on a lot of students--and something happens that we do not know about. The right thing
is happening but the University does not know the process.
In addition to student dissatisfaction, there is the problem of the University's "low" and falling
ranking as a research university. A lot of universities are putting a lot more money into their research
programs. If the goal is a better undergraduate experience, it will be necessary to increase the research
presence. But graduation rates must be watched in order not to destroy what the Twin Cities campus
currently is.
One Committee member turned to one of the handouts and noted that the President had outlined
three strategic initiatives for the Twin Cities; he said he believed that there were, in fact, four, and they
are long-term goals: (1) ensure the position of the University as one of the leading global research
universities offering world-class educational experience; (2) provide leadership in developing and
offering career-oriented educational programs; (3) improve the Twin Cities undergraduate experience;
and (4) make the University in the Twin Cities more accessible, responsive, and user-friendly. The
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 9, 1993
5
question for the faculty governance system is whether or not it agrees that these are the four goals upon
which the University should focus. If the process is carried out correctly, it is these four goals that will
drive resource allocation--they are the ones that will be funded. Do the faculty buy into these higherorder directions that the President has set out? It may be that there are others, or a fifth.
How will the dual campus accomplish the goals? inquired one Committee member; it will make
possible the second one, said another. Some would argue, it was said, that the first and third conflict.
One cannot have the first and third, in Minnesota, without the second, it was also said. The University, it
was maintained, wants to be a high quality research university--which it cannot do without first-rate
graduate and undergraduate students; the faculty CANNOT ignore undergraduate students.
In conversations with colleagues, said one Committee members, it seems that this may be a way to
give the state a different perception of the University. Students now cannot see the distinction that this
plan is drawing about places to go; this plan makes that clear. Students in the middle group with
academic interests will be attracted to the University.
Another task that FCC has in addition to reacting to or developing the plans, Professor Garrard
then noted, is to provide a means for faculty to communicate their reactions. She outlined a proposal for
an email system to be established that would be available to all faculty on email (faculty can also use the
traditional means of telephone call, fax, or letter to their faculty senators, FCC members, or committee
chairs, she noted). The Committee endorsed this idea [and subsequent to the meeting, arrangements were
made to establish the electronic bulletin board--entitled FacultyWrites--which is available on Gopher for
those with computers and electronic mail access].
Important dates in the schedule of discussions will be these:
--
October 4, 4:00, the President's State of the University Address (in the Humphrey Center
Atrium). The President will respond to questions after the speech; faculty are especially
encouraged to attend.
--
October 21, the Faculty Senate Forum, 2:30 - 4:30, Room 25 Law Center (to which ALL
faculty are invited to attend and participate and in which the President will participate)--a
gathering where votes will not be taken and the discussion will not become tied up in
procedure.
--
November 11, Faculty Senate meeting, 2:30 - 4:30, Room 25 Law Center--where motions
can be made and votes can be taken. ALL faculty are invited to attend.
--
December 2, University Senate meeting, 2:00 - 5:00, Room 25 Law Center--again, where
motions can be made and votes taken.
The proposals will go to the Board of Regents for information at their November 9-10 meeting;
they will be voted on at the December 7-8 meeting. What it is that the Board will be presented is now
being developed and will be provided when it is ready, she said. This Committee, she also recalled, will
have dinner with the Board of Regents on November 9, at which time they will have the opportunity to
discuss the proposals with members of the Board.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 9, 1993
6
She wants the faculty voice to be heard, Professor Garrard told her colleagues--faculty, students,
and staff must be heard distinctly, she said.
The Committee spent some time deliberating the format and conduct of the Faculty Senate Forum
on October 21 and agreed that four Senate committees should analyze their parts of the plans, present the
pros and cons, and say whether or not they endorse the plan or have questions or other points that need to
be addressed. The President should have an opportunity to respond to these presentations. The dialogue
should be between the President, the committees, and the faculty; if the committee system means
anything, it should consider the issues in which it specializes and bring those perspectives to the faculty.
Committees have often been reluctant to take on the job of thinking for all faculty--but they should, doing
the best job they can to bring the faculty point of view. In the second hour of the Forum, faculty will
have the opportunity to pose questions and make statements to the President about the proposed plan.
2.
Bylaw Amendments
Professor Garrard then asked Committee members to consider two bylaw amendments:
--
To create a vice chair of the FACULTY Senate to serve as presiding officer and ex-officio
(voting) member of the Faculty Consultative Committee in those years when a student is
elected vice chair of the UNIVERSITY Senate.
--
To move the chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs from ex-officio
membership on the Finance and Planning Committee to ex-officio (non-voting)
membership on the Faculty Consultative Committee (membership parallel to the exofficio, non-voting membership of the chairs of the Educational Policy and Finance and
Planning Committees on FCC).
Following a short discussion, the Committee agreed unanimously to recommend these bylaw
amendments to the Senate Consultative Committee for placement on the docket of the December 2
Senate meeting. It was noted that these bylaws would NOT affect the membership of the Senate
Consultative Committee.
Inasmuch as the pilot was waiting at the Crookston airport for the Twin Cities Committee
members, Professor Garrard then adjourned the meeting without further ado. She extended deep thanks
to Professor Peterson and his colleagues for arranging the wonderful treatment the Committee received
during its visit.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30.
Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota