March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
Alan Friedman, professor, English, chair elect:
Welcome. For those who have not attended a council meeting recently: I am not Dean
Neikirk. Dean is dealing with affairs in Northern Africa at the moment. Actually, he is at a
conference in Morocco. Which seems to have kept him longer than Spring Break. But he will be
back for the next meeting. In the meantime, I’m filling in as best I can. I’d like to ask you at any
point in the meeting, if you have something you’d like to say or ask, please just come to the
microphones. I think, recognizing people that way, makes things move more expeditiously. So
please do that. And then identify yourself, and you’ll be recognized. We’ll start off with the
secretary’s report. Sue.
Sue Alexander Greninger, associate professor, human development and family sciences,
secretary:
Thank you and welcome back. The secretary’s report is on D 8578-8582. I looked
through it. Really, there wasn’t anything that had been checked off, other than the fact that our
resolution was sent up to the president, and they accepted it. So, if anybody saw anything that
needed to be added or changed, please let me know now for the secretary’s report. Otherwise, we
will file it. I go on with the minutes then. We have two sets of minutes, basically. The January
minutes, I know, they were quite long, and the February minutes. Is it possible, Alan, if I go
ahead and do them both.
Friedman:
Yes.
Greninger:
Okay. The minutes for January 24th were posted last week. I know it was over break, but
8583-8611, there were a lot of attachments. And the minutes for the regular faculty member (sic)
of February 14 were posted 8612-8618. Did anyone see corrections or additions or changes that
needed to be made to the minutes? If not, then I would accept a motion to approve the minutes as
they were posted. Thank you, Martha. Okay. Thank you, Janet. All those that would approve the
minutes as posted, please say aye. (Audience answers, “aye.”) Anyone opposed. (No one
answers.) Anyone want to abstain? (No one answers.) Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Trying
not to rip off your stuff here. I think this is all. Thank you.
Friedman:
Thank you, Sue. The next item on the agenda is communication with the president. Our
president is here now. Fresh from the wars. Come to fill us in on the latest.
William Powers, president:
Well, thank you, Alan. Normally I give comments and then answer questions. With your
permission, I’d like to take them in the reverse order, cause I do have some comments on budget
and some other kind of general issues that I have talked with the faculty council executive
committee about, but maybe kind of fill you in on some of that. So first the questions. Let me also
welcome you back from Spring Break. It’s hard to believe it’s this time of year, halfway through
the spring semester, but time goes quickly. There are two questions to the president from faculty
members. I think Tom Palaima. There are six parts of them. I go through them. They are really in
two general categories. One is a survey the Times of London does, and the other is on the ESPN
network. Let me just give some background. There are a plethora of surveys that we are asked to
participate in from individual colleges to student life on the campus to academic rankings,
probably as you know the most notable is the US News and World Report. And certainly the
graduate school rankings, done by the National Science Foundation. We get lots and lots of those
1
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
requests. One of them that we have participated in in the past was a survey by the Times of
London. We actually, back in 2004, I think, did extremely well on it. A number of universities –
Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, some other extremely good universities over the last several years
have fallen dramatically, as have we, in that survey. And there was a real concern about the
methodology being used in that survey. And a new survey came out this year that we did not
participate in. And so Tom Palaima’s questions are about that. Let me go through them. Why is it
that our main public university competitors can participate and excel in this survey, yet we
participate and embarrassingly are absent from the rankings? There were two reasons for that. It
does - the request came in, there were, as I said, a number of very prominent peer universities
who sort of formed a group, talked by email, phone. This was… the people on our staff that kind
of get these surveys talked to a number of people, and there was tremendous concern about where
this survey had gone. And they do cost us, to fill out all these forms. It’s not just filling out some
check boxes. You have to gather information and report to them. They are quite burdensome. So
this group had sort of… let’s not participate this year. It turned out that over a period of time, the
Times of London called and worked with some of those other groups. And this took place over a
period of time. And some of those other institutions were persuaded to get back into the survey.
And during that period of time, I think, made some progress in the methodology that’s used. And
there was a dramatic change where the universities we would think would be very highly ranked
universities, went up. I don’t know all of the details, but that process did not take place with us. I
think they focused on Stanford and Berkeley and MIT and Michigan and those sorts of places. I
think with the new methodology, it is likely, we will participate in this survey, when it comes out
next year. I think it’s a real improvement with the new methodology, I don’t know, I might have
made a different decision, going back several months ago, when this decision was made. At any
rate, that’s why we did not participate in that survey. And this is not alone. There are a number of
surveys, any survey, that sort of takes data and divides it by the number of students, as US News
and World Report does on a lot of financial data, things of that sort, we don’t do well on. We’re
okay, if we’re gonna come out poorly on academic rankings, we’ll let the chips fall where they
may, but if the methodology really is designed against a big state research university, we very
often look at those with some scrutiny. Okay, by what measures as a whole, by what measure are
we as a whole institution even close to our main public competitors to dream about being “the”
university. I’m sorry, I skipped ahead. Let me make sure I’ve answered all the questions on this
one. Oh, can you give a ballpark estimate on how much money it would have cost to participate
in the survey. It’s not that we have to pay money, it just takes up bandwidth of quite a few people
in our office that collects data, and we have not gone back and calculated similar survey takes so
much time - it is considerable - and then converted that to salaries and things like that. We don’t
have a figure, a dollar figure, on that. I will say, this is not just somebody sitting down for twenty
minutes and filling something out and sending it in. It requires gathering a great deal of data. And
then third, what is conspicuous in every institution I studies that participated in the 2010 survey
rows and rankings conducted with the new criteria over the rankings in 2009, etc., would you
discuss what aspects of the new survey methodology you viewed as problematic and other
institutions came up better and I’ll say that after we made the initial decision, we really didn’t
either have the opportunity or certainly did not go back and scrutinize the new methodology. It
does appear to be better and, as I said earlier, it is certainly possible, maybe even likely, that with
the new methodology, we’d go back and participate in this survey.
Okay, the second set of questions is on the ESPN network. Let me just read them. In
announcing the deal that was closed to establish a longhorns network, in collaboration with ESPN,
you were quoted as saying, we want to define what it means to be the public university. Will you
please explain what you mean by the public university, what criteria would you use, in what pool
of institutions do you want us to be the university? That comment, by the way, I think we do need
to aspire and work toward being the leading public university in the country. I said that on many
occasions. I’ll explain what I mean by that in a moment. This comment was made in the context
2
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
of… we are going through in higher education around the United States, as you know, budgetary
issues and questioning whether higher education is worth it and some things I’ll expand on in a
minute when I get to my comments. The point there was I think we do need to be creative in
being entrepreneurial, where it fits the image and benefits the university, of working for income
strength. And I think part of being the public university going forward will be looking at ways
that we can start to get income strengths from some of the assets we have. Whether it’s the
commercializable research we do. Things we do in licensing. Things we do with athletics. Things
we do on the cultural and academic side of the network. I think we will have to be more creative.
Always keeping in mind that there are certain kinds of entrepreneurial activities a university
probably ought not get involved in. But nevertheless, I do think we will need to be much more
entrepreneurial about the income strengths that we looked at. As far as being in an academic
sense the leading public university in the country, I think that involves a number of things. What
we want, is for people to look at Texas and say, that’s the way we ought to do it. Now that’s in
our, mostly in our departments, in our research and our teaching programs. Let me mention the
teaching. When SACS came through, a big part of what they looked at was our new
undergraduate curriculum. And they went away saying, every university in the country ought to
be looking at the approach you took and the way we went about it. Remember the faculty council
was heavily involved in that. That’s an example. Certainly we want as many of our departments
to be top 10, top 5, ranked in their research. I think we want to be the place that people look to to
manage through these budgetary crises, and how are we gonna offer undergraduate courses and
redesign courses in a way that’s not just University of Phoenix style, but really uses cognitive
science and technology in a way that our students come out with more proficiency and better
results. But the main criterion in terms of nationally being thought, when we think of the great
public universities in the country, certainly Berkeley, certainly Michigan, people say to a graduate
student, to a young Ph.D. going on the market, to an undergraduate, and they are getting advice,
where should I go. To the history department, to the biomedical engineering department, to the
music school, wherever. Go to Texas. Or there ought to be a very short list. Berkeley, Texas,
Michigan. Of the public. Of course, we are competing with Princeton, and we’re competing with
MIT, and those other places as well. I think in the academic realm that’s the criterion. And we
can work at NSF ratings or other ratings. NSF, rough, not very perfect, but rough. Reflection of
that. I think that’s what we all ought to aspire to, to be the, THE great public university in the
United States.
Okay, he goes on by what measure as an institution, by what measure are we as a whole
institution even close enough to our main public competitors to dream about being the public
university. Well, let me give… I gave the example of the undergraduate curriculum. I think it has
gotten noticed around the country. Research. Right? Public universities without a medical school.
We’re second in federal peer-reviewed research that we get. MIT is number one. We’re number
two. Berkeley, a staunch competitor, a great university, is number three. We are 75 million
dollars ahead of Berkeley. And opening that gap. Are we there? No. Do we have enough
departments that are in the top 10? No. But this needs to be the beacon. I said on many occasions,
I think our biggest enemy, as a university, is B+. Well, we’re a great university. We’re okay. B+
is good enough. Frankly, when I got here in 1977, that was a little bit more of the attitude. So I do
not think, we’re there yet. We may not get there in the next five years. But the beacon in every
department, this is done, department by department, in every department. What’s the plan in
hiring, in tenuring, in allocating resources, in designing the curriculum. You know, what’s the
plan to be at the very, very top? If we don’t have that goal and aspiration, and then operationalize
it in the decisions we make, we’re assigning ourselves to B+. And that is not what the University
of Texas is or what it ought to aspire to be. Shortly after I got her, Peter Flawn was the president,
and he had the war on mediocrity. And it had mixed reviews. But I think he was exactly right.
That… if we don’t have the goal to self-define what it is, what we aspire to and then say, we’re
gonna be the very best. And that may be a different approach in the music school, from what it is
3
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
in physics, from what it is in history. But if that’s not the goal, and then operationalizing it.
Operationalizing it in the way we invest our resources. The way we allocate our resources, and
the decisions we make. I probably believe in that goal stronger than any goal that I would put for
the university.
Okay and then sixth and finally, what impact do you think the 5 million dollars a year
from the longhorn network, which will mainly focus on sports, will have on counterbalancing
cuts in funding, capping of tuition, and out-of-state student enrollment numbers and rumored
take-away by UT athletics of revenues. The university co-op is used to support academic
programs and awards and the general entertainment culture in big-time athletics, the longhorn
network will promote. There’s a lot there. Let me just make some comments. I’ve, on many
occasions, was I discussing the roll of athletics in a major university. I won’t go through all of
that. I do think the academics, obviously, is number one. Whatever we do in the athletics side has
to be compatible with that. It has to support that. The role of the student athlete, graduation rates,
doing it with integrity, not having a pathway through the university for athletes that really isn’t
going to the university, and all of that. The academics, I say, obviously, but emphatically, comes
first. I do think athletics is a window and a connection to alumni. I won’t go through all of the
statistics, but, you know, the number of people that get connected through athletics and then
continue to give to the university is astounding. The people that you read about down at the
stadium, the Red Zone, Jamail Field, Tex Moncrief, Field House. All of that. They’ve given far
more to academics. They got connected through athletics and far more to, through… given far
more to academics. But the role, right, if it can’t be done with integrity, that is not cheating, and
can’t be done with academic comes first, then there’s got a problem. We’ve got to make sure that
that occurs. The 5 million dollars from the longhorn network… the net to the university will be
about 10 million dollars a year. We are going to take half of that and put it into academics. Some
arrangement like that will continue. The exact division is a five-year division, but that, something
like that will continue. This will be a tremendous support to academics. Now, how that will be
used, how it will affect the budget, and the shortfalls, and balancing the budget, we’ll have to see
until after the budget comes out. But I think it would be a wasted opportunity to just let that
money pay the light bills. And so, when we announced the ESPN network, I’ve stated that we’re
gonna start with two chairs, one in philosophy, and one in physics. We’ve been talking with some
deans in some other areas as well. I would like to use this money not to pay the light bills, but to
focus on that issue about B+. Making sure we’re getting the best faculty and retaining the best
faculty here. So, my plan would be to use it in chairs, or chair-like sorts of endowments that
support faculty work. Will we be able, given the budget challenges, to protect it all from that? I
can’t guarantee that. We’ll have to see how the budget comes out. At some point, you do need to
operate the university and pay the lecturers and pay the TAs and etc. We’ve got 5-year plans from
the colleges. There is pain in those 5-year plans, given the economic challenges. There are some
balances that people can use, I think we are going about that financial planning through the
provost’s office in a much more sophisticated way. The deans and the department chairs are
working on that. I am cautiously optimistic that we’ll be able to protect those 5 million dollars a
year for faculty chairs and other kinds of endowments that set the stage for recruiting and
retaining the best faculty over a long period of time.
I may not have answered every detail and every question, but those would be my answers
to the questions.
Okay, let me, and I know… Yes…
Molly Cummings, associate professor, integrative biology:
May I ask another question?
Powers:
Yes.
4
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
Cummings:
I am curious what kind of resources are allocated to currently, or you are considering
allocating resources, to polling UT faculty, students, and staff, regarding the handgun bill
legislation. Certainly other universities who are facing the same dilemma have polled their faculty
with impressive results. University of Arizona. 95% of faculty are against such handgun bills.
Clearly it would not be effective in tomorrow’s fight in the senate. However, if this bill does get
passed, there is talk of amendments regarding local control. And I think if UT, the premier
university in this state, showed significant numbers regarding opposition to this bill, we might
actually have some effect in whether that amendment passes.
Powers:
Yeah.
Cummings:
Oh, excuse me. Molly Cummings, integrative biology.
Powers:
Thank you. Let me say, I am very concerned about that bill. I made my views known last
session, this session. I’ve talked to legislators about that. I’ve talked to a legislator over lunch
about it. I have been quoted in the newspapers. I think the faculty council, the joints session of the
A&M council passed a resolution. Has the council passed a resolution?
Friedman:
Today.
Powers:
Today. The students have spoken. I don’t think there is any doubt among legislators that
the campus is overwhelmingly opposed to that. Now, would some numbers tactically help in that
regard?
Cummings:
I believe so. I was at the hearings last Wednesday, and there actually is a mixed batch of
viewpoints from the students.
Powers:
That’s right. The students are not uniform, but they are, I believe, overwhelmingly.
Cummings:
Well, there is no numbers out there, unfortunately.
Powers:
I agree with you.
Cummings:
And I believe I was the only UT faculty present. So there wasn’t an overwhelming
representation for faculty one way or the other. So, I do think numbers matter, and the largest
university in the state having numbers behind it... Besides you and the chancellor, coming out
very strongly, and I’m very grateful for you doing that. I think it’s a numbers game.
Powers:
5
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
I don’t disagree with that. I do… I will say… I’ve talked to a lot of legislators about that.
The UT view… I don’t want to disagree, because some numbers and some data would help. But I
do think the UT view is clearly known in the leadership and across the membership of the House
and Senate. So, by the way, our chief of police, the same thing. It’s not just a bunch of academics
who write law enforcement. I think he’s been very effective. Okay. Thank you.
Okay, let me just make some comments. I don’t want to take too much time, but these are,
I think, important times. Let me talk about where we are on the budget down at the legislature,
just to keep you informed. We really… you know, a lot has been done, there’s been a lot of
legislative work. If you just look at where the legislation is… not a lot has happened since the
legislature opened. This is the House’s turn to write the budget first, and then the Senate to
respond to it. But they were introduced both, Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 1, on the first day of
the legislature. We do better in Senate Bill 1. There’s about a 10% GR reduction. There’s about a
15% GR reduction in House Bill 1. House Bill 1 is about ready to go to the floor. And it will look
roughly like it did when it was introduced. There’s going to be a lot of work, not just by us, there
certainly will be work by us, and has been work by us, but in the Senate itself. The mood in the
Senate is more optimistic. I think they are working toward something like, certainly single digits,
and maybe even in the middle of single digits, as a reduction. So that’s a wide spread, and the
way political and legislative things get done, is probably likely to come out somewhere in the
middle of that. We’ve worked very hard, the provost leading the way. And the deans, the VPs are
all going through 5-year planning. What resources do we have to manage this? If we get a singledigit GR cut, by the way, that’s not a single-digit percentage cut in our budget. It’s from the GR,
the general revenue, we get from the legislature. There will be significant challenges to
departments. There will be pain. But it will be manageable. I don’t mean by manageable, okay. I
mean, it will be manageable. There’s a big difference between a 4% cut and an 8% cut, and that’s
kind of where we’re looking. I don’t have a crystal ball on the legislature. Could come out that
when these bills go to conference, there are a lot of other bills, health and human services. Even
in the budget. Other state agencies. There’s a lot of horse-trading that goes on there. So, the
Senate certainly will make a pitch for education and higher education in these, sort of,
negotiations between the House and the Senate. There are many people in the House who are
favorable to being a little more generous with higher education. But all it takes is, that there is an
impasse on health and human services, and things get traded off. So it is very hard to predict. I
just want to give you the best view of where we are at the moment. You are likely to see
something in the newspapers over the next week. The House Bill has gone through the House. It’s
likely, as I said, to be not very favorable. But the real work will get down when the Senate passes
its bill, and then they go to conference and work out these details. So it’s still a work in progress.
And it’s sort of job one for a lot of people here, myself included, on the campus.
Let me talk about just one other issue. And you have been reading about it in the papers
and we had very lengthy discussions in the Faculty Council Executive Committee, which Alan
and Dean and everybody on the Faculty Council Executive Committee I very much appreciate. I
don’t know how many of you were at the joint A&M/UT meeting. That really dominated the
discussion. You have read in the papers about the 10,000-dollar degrees and the Chevy’s and the
Cadillac’s and the… we need more Chevy’s, etc., etc. And you read around the country really big
budgetary attacks on higher education. Make no mistake; there is a movement across the country
that is very antagonistic and skeptical about the value of higher education. You see, and this has
been going on for three or four years, articles: Is higher education really worth it? Is a college
degree really worth it? The big point for us is the value of research that goes on at a research
university. That is not to say the teaching that goes on is not critical. But that’s not what the
debate is about. The debate is about: why don’t they teach students and forget about the research.
That is why, when Texas A&M went out with a way of evaluating faculty, and cost of the faculty
was offset against the benefits of individual faculty members, the benefit of individual faculty
members counted money coming in because of student credit hours and commercializable
6
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
research. Now what that does, is to say, the research that goes on at a major research university, at
least if it’s not commercializable, and that must be 98% of our research, on purpose doesn’t count
on the benefits side of a major research university. That is why the American Association of
Universities wrote a letter, as you read in the papers, to Texas A&M, copied us, sort of a shot
across the bow. This is just inconsistent with the core idea of a major research university. It
combines teaching and research. Those two go hand in hand. That’s why an issue like separating
out the teaching and research budgets, it’s not just a comment that you don’t manage your money
very well. Or you’re not very efficient about using your buildings. You are not very efficient
about the way you purchase stuff. Those critiques of a major university, which have some truth to
them... We can always organize how we do things in more effective ways. But those don’t cut at
the core of what a major research university is. These reforms, that I’ve talked about, do. Because
they purposely say that the research you are doing is not valuable. But we are not going to count
it on the asset side. That’s what this debate is about. This is more important than the budget. Four
points one way or the other on the budget, it’s painful, and we are going to work at it, but this is
what we are as an institution. And I’ll tell you, to our development board, which I had a similar
kind of conversation with our development board. It came up at the A&M joint meeting. We’ve,
we have alumni out there who are outraged, and have been extremely helpful. Legislators. And
again, if you follow the papers. I won’t go into all the details. Legislators. Who have been very
helpful on this. And you’ve seen statements in the newspaper backing away from… we didn’t
mean, UT was a Chevy. We value the research, etc. I tell you, the provost and I, have probably
talked and spent more time talking to people… I just came from a meeting with one of our friends,
an alumnus. The reason I was late. There are a lot of people out there who are energized and
gonna go to battle for us. We are evaluating… it’s had some positive effects, at least in the
rhetoric that’s been used over the last week or so. Certainly since the A&M joint meeting. And
your question, Professor Coleman, right. Carrington, I’m sorry. At the meeting: why is this so
different. These critiques go to the core of who we are. And they are coming from inside, they are
coming from our friends. This is a very serious situation. And I think even more serious than the
budget. I can pledge to you, we are in this together. I just got an email if you know ways we can
show some solidarity on this. We can… The wording of the grievance rule, we can negotiate over,
this one, I can pledge from the provost, from me, from the entire administration, and the deans
have been extremely active in helping rally support for this. And y’all can be very helpful in this
as well. I’d be remiss if I came to faculty council and did not, one, bring this topic up, and say
this is… there is nothing more important than this deal. We will see how it comes out. So, those
are my questions and comments. Mr. Chair. I appreciate… Thank you. [clapping]
Friedman:
I want to say thank you, Bill, on behalf of faculty and staff and students. Many of us
know how well and hard you’re working on behalf of the campus. I just hope, on a personal note,
that you’re taking as good care of yourself. We need you. On the job and we need you doing well.
Thank you.
Bill has indeed, with Steve, called in faculty council leadership. We’ve met with him a
couple of times to talk about some of these issues in depth. And I think, at the moment at least,
there are some good signs. One of the questions that has arisen – a number of faculty have raised
it to me and I know to others. Has to do with what exactly is the role the faculty can play in the
public arena. There has been some confusion on the question, I think. So I have asked Patti
Ohlendorf, chief legal council on the campus, to speak to this issue and clarify it for us, if she
would. Thank you, Patti.
Patricia Ohlendorf, vice president of legal affairs:
Thanks, Alan. Patti Ohlendorf, legal affairs. And thanks to Bill Powers for answering all
those questions. I am going to be late for my 3 o’clock meeting with IRS agents who are auditing
7
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
our university, and I would much rather be here. So I would be happy to answer any questions
that you have [laughter]. The question about the faculty’s role or your role as an individual is, I
think, in theory clear. It may not be in practice. So, if you have any specific questions about what
you are planning to do or wanting to do, call me or email me in my office. I say Gwen Grigsby a
minute ago. Is she still here? Maybe not. But Gwen Grigsby and Carlos Martinez and the office
of governmental relations here on the campus can also answer your questions. But I think
basically, if you want to raise concerns, etc., about legislation as a member of the faculty or as a
group of faculty, then there are opportunities for that to be done through governmental relations.
Contact Gwen or Carlos, and they can tell you the type things that are being done. It could be that
the president is going to be testifying at a hearing, and they can help channel your comments or
your group comments to him. It’s fine, as the president did when he answered your question
about the gun legislation a minute ago. He said that he thinks that the legislature clearly has the
information from the university that if the handgun legislation were passed, it would cause
considerable concerns on the campus all the way from research labs where there are materials that
could interact from a safety perspective and appropriately with guns. Or guns being discharged to
problems in the dormitory, to problems that the police chief and his staff have said they would
have in trying to decide whether someone has a gun appropriately or whether he or she is
defending himself or herself or what’s happening. You have the letter from Chancellor Cigarroa.
Either in your packets, or it was handed to you when you came in, and you see that the wrote the
governor and he said that he wanted to express concerns that he had personally, and also that
members of the university and system communities had. And again, he said we would like you to
consider these as you make your decision. He’s saying, these are the facts of some things that
could happen that would be detrimental to the campus. I didn’t really see anything in his letter,
nor have I heard him saying there would be any benefit. If he thought there was a benefit, he
could say that, too. In this case, he has just talked about the detriments and again, that’s fine. The
university or staff or faculty or administrators of the university can, within the appropriate
channels, express… give information in response to questions from the legislator, or at hearings,
or that type thing. I do ask that you work through the president’s office or through governmental
relations. And I know that today the faculty council has before it a resolution that you will
consider possibly supporting the letter from Chancellor Cigarroa. And that’s entirely appropriate.
As state employees, we are… we must refrain by law from lobbying for or against legislation,
meaning, going down and asking a legislator either to vote against something or vote for
something, or that type thing. That’s different from providing information about what the impact
might be if something is passed or not passed. And so, you need to just keep those roles separate.
And I know that it’s easier sometimes said than done. Which is why I said, you can always call
one of us and ask a question. In terms of your role as an individual person, you certainly may
express opinions and lobby to the extent that you wish as an individual. Go to rallies, or whatever,
as an individual. We have to ask two things: one, that you not use any university resources when
you do so, and when interacting as an individual, that also means, your email, if it’s on a UT
server or UT account. Even though, we, as a policy, authorize incidental personal use of email for
purposes of your personal activities, it is really advisable not to use that for political purposes,
because it can run into issues, where people are trying to bifurcate the two. And it becomes
muddy. And then the second is that if you are, for example, at a legislative hearing and testifying
as an individual, you’ll get a form to fill out, just like everyone does who testifies in it, says:
where are you employed? If you say you’re employed at The University of Texas at Austin. They
say, are you for or against. If you… Or are you neutral. When we testify, we always say we are
neutral. If you are there as an individual, and you have said on the statement of fact you are an
employee of the university, and you want to say, for or against something, you can do that. But
you need to explicitly say on the form that you are there as an individual and you are not
representing the views, nor otherwise representing your employer. So, that’s my advice. Again, as
8
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
I said, sometimes it’s easier theoretically than in practice. So, let us know if you have any
questions. And are there any questions now?
Cummings:
I am so glad you’re here. My name is Molly Cummings. Thank you for being here. You
just said at the end. I just want to make it clear to everyone here, because I was gonna urge them a
little later to do this. But it’s perfectly acceptable for us to go down to testify, check the ‘as an
individual’ representation box. When it says, what is your occupation, all you put down was
professor, you’ll be fine.
Ohlendorf:
Yes, I would suggest that you still, someone may ask you during the course of your
testimony, where you are employed, and I would still suggest that you say that you are there on
behalf of yourself and not on behalf of, or not representing, your employer.
Cummings:
Well, that’s the first question they ask you: Who are you representing? So, if I right away
say, myself. And then subsequently say, I am a professor at the University of Texas. Is that
alright?
Ohlendorf:
Yes. That’s alright. Just be clear. And the reason I say, my suggestion is, that you write it
on the form is because, what people hear. The only people who have the forms are either the clerk
or the person calling those who are going to testify, which is usually the chairman of the
committee. And others in the room, especially media, will not necessarily know that the form has
said, what the form says. So, if there is ever a question, if we get a question, why was so-and-so
down there representing the department of integrative biology, saying they are for the gun
legislation, which I know is not going to happen, but we would be able to say, the form was filled
out, saying that the professor was there as an individual, not representing the university. Yes.
Philip Barrish, associate professor, English:
Thank you also for being here. Philip Barrish, department of English. I think I know the
answer to this. I think you have already made it clear, but just to double-check: if we claim we are
representing ourselves as an individual, not representing the university, although we state, that
that’s where we‘re employed, I assume that we can draw on our professional experiences as
teachers, as researchers, if that’s pertinent to our data. For example, I can talk about what I
believe the effect would be in a classroom if students were carrying concealed weapons. I can talk
about an experience I had on September 28, when Colton Tooley, the Colton Tooley tragedy, as
long as I’m clear that I am talking about my experiences, based on personal and professional
prospective. Is that okay?
Ohlendorf:
Yes. As long as, as you said, you’re clear you are talking as an individual and also that
you don’t disclose any information that’s confidential that you have come in contact, in your role
as a faculty member.
Barrish:
Okay. Thank you.
Ohlendorf:
Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
9
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
Friedman:
Patti, thank you. That’s very helpful. One or two people, Patti, did suggest, that if I
caught you and got you to do this, I should then ask if you would be willing to put it in writing.
So that there is a clear statement that people can refer to. As you said, it’s good to have it in
writing. Yes. That would be terrific. Thank you.
Ohlendorf:
[response in background inaudible] [laughter in the audience]
Friedman:
Of course. Phil. Yes.
Barrish:
I think so. Yeah. This may be something that’s already been worked out in the Faculty
Council Executive Committee. If so, I apologize for being redundant. If someone from the
Faculty Council wants to introduce the resolutions that we’ve passed into the record at the
hearing. Is that possible? Say, I am here. I just want to read a resolution passed by the Faculty
Council at the University of Texas.
Ohlendorf:
Oh, if you are at a legislative hearing and you want to read that?
Barrish:
Yeah.
Ohlendorf:
I would really leave that up to the Faculty Council leadership, as to whether or not they
would like that.
Barrish:
I understand.
Ohlendorf:
I think they want to choose the method by which they would like things to be
communicated. But from a legal perspective, if it was a public resolution, and you were reading it
as just a statement of facts of what had happened, then there would not be any legal issue with
you doing that.
Barrish:
Okay. Thank you again.
Ohlendorf:
Thank you.
Friedman:
Yeah.
Edmund T. Gordon, associate professor, African and African Diaspora studies:
What about petitions? Supposing there is a petition that is against the passage of the right
to have guns on campus. And I am a faculty member. Can I sign that petition? As an individual?
10
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
Ohlendorf:
You can sign it as an individual. If someone is using university resources to create or
circulate the petition, and again, I know there are some grey areas, but then it could be viewed
that you as a state… someone as a state employee taking part in illegal activity. And so just be
careful how it’s done.
Gordon:
And what about a petition coming from the faculty?
Ohlendorf:
If it’s coming from the faculty? As a group?
Gordon:
Say a faculty member decided to circulate a petition: we are the faculty members of The
University of Texas at Austin and we oppose such and such…
Ohlendorf:
Yeah, I think that that would probably be read as you representing the institution.
Gordon:
So that would not be acceptable?
Ohlendorf:
Yes, if you wanted to do it as: we, x, y, and z, who happen to be faculty members at The
University of Texas at Austin, but not representing the university in any way, wanna do it, then
you can certainly do it… I know that sounds a little silly, but that’s kind of how things are. So…
Elizabeth Cullingford, professor, English, chair:
Liz Cullingford, English. Just a very small question. If you are using university email to
organize opposition. Is that falling within the grey area? I mean, you are not sending something to
a legislator from a UT email account, but you’re using a UT email account to get together with a
group of like-minded faculty and strategize. Is that, in fact, illegal?
Ohlendorf:
If… I kind of bifurcate your question. If, what you said at the end, which is you just want
to have a meeting of people and talk about what some concerns might be from a factual
perspective and what some strategies might be to get that information to the appropriate parties, I
don’t think that would be a problem. But the first part of your question was, if you wanting to
organize people in opposition, and I think that that would, at least on first blush, be considered to
be illegal.
Cullingford:
That actually is a very big grey area in the middle. Like if the faculty are all informing
themselves of things that are happening, times when we might go down to testify, ridiculous
things said by ridiculous people, all that kind of thing. I don’t quite see where you draw the line
between information and organizing. So, are you saying, we should all hasten to get ourselves
Gmail accounts?
Ohlendorf:
11
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
Well, I was talking to Alan Friedman about that before the meeting. And I said, I try to
tell my children when you get a Gmail account, you are giving up all your privacy rights. Because
Google keeps everything in a cloud. But, setting that aside, it’s probably advisable to conduct
those activities as an individual on a private email account. If you legitimately have a faculty
group that really wants to talk about what are some issues that the legislature is talking about, and
you want to have a meeting to talk about that, and it’s not, let’s get together and organize against
something, etc., it’s perfectly fine to invite your colleagues to a meeting. But if you know that the
actual goal of the meeting is going to be: let’s organize against this; then I would suggest that you
do it privately. But you, as faculty members, you have a perfectly reasonable position on wanting
to know what’s going on. And informing groups to talk about things. So, I guess, the other thing
is, I’ve actually heard very ridiculous things said by very reasonable people, too, not just
ridiculous people. But I think that’s what keeps lawyers in business [laughter].
Cullingford:
Thank you. Thank you.
Ohlendorf:
Anything else?
Erika Bsumek, associate professor, history:
Yes, Erika Bsumek. I have a question regarding what you said at the end of your
statement. We can’t talk about things that are confidential. But what if we have had in our own
classrooms students with mental illness who have threatened other students. Can we talk about
that? At least in sort of vague detail to the legislature? Or…
Ohlendorf:
Certainly. Without identifying particular individuals.
Bsumek:
Okay, so you just can’t…
Ohlendorf:
Yes. Anything else? Okay, great, good luck. And call if there is anything we can do to
help.
Friedman:
Thank you, Patti. We’re not only hoping that the resolutions passed by the council get
wide circulation, but organizing to see that that happens. Okay. The next item of business is the
report of the chair, and Dean has asked me to mention two things: one is, he wanted to be sure
everyone knew… Thank you, Patti… everyone knew about the correspondence that’s been
alluded to between AAU and Texas A&M, that took place last November and that was released
only, I think, about a week ago. You’ve all got that in the handout for today’s meeting. In case
you hadn’t seen it before. The second item from Dean is: he wanted me to announce that the ad
hoc Committee on Excellence has been… the selection of that committee has been nearly
completed. We’re waiting for a few other people. And that Dean will convene that committee
when he returns. The initial charge to the committee: three items. To explain to the public what
faculty productivity and accountability mean. Oh, I see it’s up there, so you can just read it
yourselves. To suggest ways to facilitate faculty efforts to improve productivity, and to suggest
ways to improve data collection and other methods for assessing productivity. Okay, and there is
the list of those who have been asked to serve and their responses.
12
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
The report of the chair-elect: I have two items as well. The first is to mention that we did,
indeed, have a meeting, a joint meeting with the A&M counterparts, which I think most people
who were there agreed, went very well. Although, the A&M faculty tended to be rather unhappy
and feistier, I think, than our faculty here, given the circumstances they’re facing rather unhappily
and with a lot less sense that the administration is, indeed, on their side, than we have here.
Alba Ortiz, Michael Domjan, and Janet Staiger each co-chaired a different session. The
first on shared governance, the second on faculty accountability and evaluation, the third on
faculty rights in times of financial crisis. I wonder if either of the three of you would like to say
anything about those meetings? To the body as a whole? Many people would have been there. Is
there anything you want to say? Michael?
Michael Domjan, professor, psychology:
Michael Domjan, psychology. Indeed, the meeting was quite fruitful. There was a lot of
good discussion. I must admit, though, that I walked away from it with somewhat a sense of
futility. Because at the end of the meeting each of the subgroups was asked to suggest action
items, and there were no notes taken, there were no minutes, there is no sense that any of these
action items were gonna land on anybody’s desk or be followed up in any way. So, I would
suggest that in the future, at least the action items be at least listed and recorded someplace, so we
can go back and see what they were about. Thank you.
Friedman:
I took away from that meeting, two things specifically, in regard to what Michael is
saying. One is that I agreed with my counterpart at A&M, and we’ll find some way to get this in
the record to continue, that whenever there is business coming up at either campus, that the other
campus would be interested in, we would try to coordinate and come up with the same wording,
if possible, for both bodies to agree to. And in the event… the second item, we did do that with
the resolution that was introduced by Mary Rose and Ben Carrington in support of Chancellor
Cigarroa’s letter to the governor about handguns. And that will be coming up later this meeting,
because it was approved at that joint meeting with A&M. Okay. Anything else about that?
Under new business, two items. One is that I’ve been asked to announce the slate of
candidates for position on the university co-op board: Diana DiNitto, professor of social work;
Thomas Palaima, professor of classics; and Shelley Payne, professor of molecular genetics and
microbiology. That’s the slate being proposed by the Faculty Council Executive Committee to
you. And so that comes to you as a motion. Are there additions or comments from anyone?
[pause] If not, the motion to approve the slate is before you. All in favor, please say aye.
(Audience answers, “aye.”) Opposed, no. (No one answers.) Motion carries. Thank you.
And then the other item is the resolution of support for the chancellor’s letter on the issue
of concealed handguns on campuses, and Mary Rose will be introducing that. It comes to you
with the endorsement of the Faculty Council Executive Committee. I was down to present that,
but since I am chairing the committee, Mary Rose, who is one of the presenters, or Ben, or both,
will be presenting it now. And the chancellor’s letter is in your handout as well.
Mary Rose, associate professor, sociology (and Ben Carrington, associate professor,
sociology):
We want to make this very brief to just say that Ben and I spoke with colleagues in
sociology who are very concerned about this legislation and trying to figure out ways to be
helpful. As we learn there are limits on what we can do as faculty, but I think there is an
important role for getting out information. A colleague of ours strongly believes that Chancellor
Cigarroa took a risk by writing this letter. Felt that, you know, he knew that Governor Perry
might not share his views and that he laid out a case in that, it seemed important to us to support
that. Do you want to add anything to that?
13
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
Carrington:
The resolution basically endorses Cigarroa’s letter. So it’s us in a sense standing behind
the chancellor. Showing solidarity with him. And again, expressing more clearly that the faculty’s
position on this. Because sometimes, what we think is our clear position doesn’t always translate.
At this stage, it’s merely symbolic, but symbols are important, so… Before we get into some
other forms of action, we thought this was an important step to take.
Rose:
And the goal then is to read this into the record at the Senate hearing tomorrow. I will
take time to do that. And make sure that that gets accomplished. Anyone who wants to join me
and I’ll be coordinating with those who may also go.
Cummings:
Sorry. One more… This is the last time I’m talking. I’m probably breaking the rule,
because this is a UT microphone.
Friedman:
Identify yourself.
Cummings:
Molly Cummings, integrative biology. The reason why I am about to break the rule is
because I am propa… I am proselytizing, trying to get people to actually show up tomorrow to
these meetings, to this meeting, these hearings. This is the last time, as we heard, that we are
allowed to speak as individuals, in our capacity as faculty and without getting in trouble for doing
so. Last week I went, there were six hours of hearings. This is gonna be a great step forward, but I
think warm bodies, one at a time, going up there, and saying, why we are against this bill, or if
you are for it, why you are for this bill. There were a lot of people showing up from all over the
state in support of this bill. And a lot of students against this bill, but not a lot of mature
professional folks up there. And I think faculty have a whole other set of concerns that students…
in addition to students. And I think that has to be voiced. And the more bodies we have doing that,
the better. So, sorry for breaking the rules.
Friedman:
Paulie.
Pauline Strong, professor, anthropology:
Paulie Strong, anthropology. Thank you for the leadership you’ve shown in getting this
resolution together. And I would just like to propose a slight change. Could it say: Chancellor’s
Cigarroa’s letter of February 24th, 2011, to Governor Perry? It’s a lot…
Rose:
With the … Chancellor Cigarroa’s letter…
Strong:
No, the letter of February 24, 2011, to Governor Perry. Since it’s coming from a
university, I think it will be a smoother way to do it.
Rose:
Okay.
14
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
Friedman:
Anything? Ted.
Gordon:
Ted Gordon, African and African diaspora studies. I also had a kind of wording change.
Why are we putting “on balance”? Shouldn’t we be saying: “we share all the concerns expressed
and concur that concealed handguns will make each campus a less safe environment”?
Rose:
I think I followed the chancellor’s wording. Yeah, I was following the chancellor’s
wording. That was all.
Carrington:
Yeah, I mean, the first sentence says, “strongly and unequivocally.” Maybe we undercut
that with “on balance,” but it’s kind of saying… yeah, maybe that could be changed.
Barrish:
Phil Barrish, English. I want to speak in favor of that particular wording. I think the
chancellor tried very hard to show that he had thought very hard, that he really thought these
things through, that he understood that there were some arguments that could be made, that might
sound rational, whatever one’s opinions would be. I think that it’s important to strongly and
unequivocally support him, but I think it might be counterproductive to… not to take that tone
of… we have really given this a lot of mature consideration, we’re not saying there is nothing to
be said on the other side, just my opinion.
Friedman:
Ted, do you actually want to make an amendment, offer an amendment?
Gordon:
Sure…
Friedman:
Is there a second? [pause] Did I hear a second? Yes. The amendment as I understand it is
to drop the phrase “on balance.” Is that correct?
Gordon:
Yes.
Friedman:
Okay. Any further discussion? Are you ready for the vote? [pause] All in favor of the
amendment, please say aye. (Some audience members say “aye.”) Those opposed. (Some
audience members say “no.”) I couldn’t tell. Hands please for those in favor of the amendment.
[Counting.] Seven. Those opposed. [Counting.] Twelve. The amendment is defeated. So we are
back to the motion as submitted. Is there further discussion? Are you ready for the question?
Hearing no objection, we will move to a vote. All in favor, please say “aye.” (Audience: “aye.”)
Those opposed, say “no.” (Audience is silent.) Motion carries. Thank you.
I would suggest, Mary and Ben, that you talk to Phil and maybe Molly, about
coordinating tomorrow. Making sure that this resolution is introduced into the record as an
expression of faculty council sentiment. And perhaps at the same time, you might also read into
the record the resolution that we passed earlier, which says the same sort of thing, but in a slightly
different way. Okay? Phil.
15
March 21, 2011 Faculty Council Meeting
Barrish:
Sorry, this is my last time as well. I just want to say that anybody who would like
information about what time to get there, or how the procedure will work, can email me or ask
any of us. My email is pbarrish… just ask me if you want my email. [laughter]
Friedman:
Okay, I have three quick announcements, before we adjourn.
One is the final voting phase of the online elections for membership of the council for
next year is March 28 through April 15th. Please vote! Please urge your colleagues to vote! It’s
very important that we get a significant show of voters in the election.
Second, annual reports of the general faculty standing committees are due in the office of
the general faculty yesterday. Today. As soon as possible. So, please get those in as soon as you
can. If you are chairs of standing committees, and at the same time, indicate, if there is anything
in your report that is an action item. So we can get those on the agenda as soon as possible. And
then third, the next council meeting will be on April 11th.
Anybody any comments or questions on anything that came up today, that you would like
to raise before we adjourn? If not, thank you very much.
We are adjourned.
16