Present: A. Crigler, M. Dudziak, W. Dutton, F. Feldman, J. Gates, V. Henderson, C. Julienne, H. Kaslow, D. Kempler, R. Koda, B. Kosko, J. Kunc, L. Laine, J. Manegold, A. Mircheff, J. Nyquist, N. Petasis, G. Schierle, H. Schor, M. Schuetze-Coburn, W. Thalmann, W. Tierney, M. Weinstein.

Absent: G. Davis, W. Dehning, T. Habinek, A. Hendrick, M. Kinder, P. Heseltine, M. Kann, B. Knight, L. Laine, S. Lund, N. Lutkehaus, M. Mazon, L. Miller, P. Nosco, D. O'Leary, R. Patti, W. Petak, A. Pope, K. Price, G. Salem, N. Stromquist.

Guests: H. Belzberg, J. Landolph, M. Levine, H. Slucki, D. Stram, C. Sullivan, C. Synolakis, W. Wolf, S. Ying, J. Zernik.

The meeting was held at the Doheny Eye Institute at the Health Sciences Campus. President William Tierney called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

Agenda Item #1: Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the March 22, 2000 Senate meeting were approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #2: Tenure Clock: Resolution 99/00-05

President Tierney introduced Resolution 99/00-05 on behalf of the Executive Board.

Resolution: 99/00-05: Tenure Clock

WHEREAS, faculty of a School (or the College) may after collegial deliberation and consultation conclude that a six year tenure decision date is too short to evaluate their probationary faculty for tenure,

BE IT RESOLVED THAT,

1. The faculty of a school (or the College) be able to petition for an extension of the probationary period for its faculty to a maximum of 10 years,

2. Any change in the probationary period would apply only to newly hired probationary faculty of the school (or the College) once the policy is promulgated, and

3. The Senate President and Provost discuss the implementation of the resolution with the understanding that a subsequent resolution for a Handbook change will be submitted in fall, 2000.

In introducing the resolution, President Tierney said that this issue was the subject of a white paper (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/wp_TenureClock.html) by an Academic Senate Task Force consisting of Profs: V. W. Henderson (chair), R. A. Farley, R. E. Kaplan, S. R. Nutt, and M. I. Weinstein. The Senate Special Committee on Promotion and Tenure, chaired by Prof. L. Brand, had reviewed this white paper and submitted a response to the Senate. Both of these committees recommend that the tenure clock be extended. The Executive Board has discussed these reports but did not reach a concensus on these recommendations, although it was agreed that this was an important issue for the Senate to consider. President Tierney then explained that if the Senate rejects these recommendations the tenure clock will not be extended and the issue will stop here. However, if the Senate endorses this resolution, it will then open discussions with the Provost to figure out if and how this can be implemented. The final proposal will require a Handbook change and will have to come back to the Senate for further discussion and approval.

President Tierney then asked Senator M. Weinstein of the Marshall School of Business, a member of the Senate Task Force on this issue, to elaborate further on the background of this resolution. Senator Weinstein said that the key issue is the freedom of individual academic units to establish different tenure clock times. For example, while the Law School often prefers a shorter tenure clock, most faculty at the Marshall School of Business would prefer a move towards a longer tenure clock, in line with other Business Schools around the country. Referring to a hand-out showing the tenure clock times for the Business Schools at different universities, Senator Weinstein indicated that many of the top Schools have longer tenure clocks than USC's 6-years. For example, some of the Business Schools that rank higher than USC at the US News & World Report, including: UCLA, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Michigan, MIT and Stanford have 7-year clocks, while Chicago, Harvard and Yale have 9 year clocks. One School (Rochester) has a 10-year tenure clock. He explained that due to the difficulties in granting tenure, the Business School often prefers to hire more experienced people. Most of the beginning Assistant Professors are hired directly after their graduate work and it takes several years before they are able to demonstrate their teaching abilities and to establish their own independent identity to qualify for tenure. The current tenure clock requires that letters are solicited after 5-years and due to incomplete data there is a tendency not to grant tenure. Moreover, tenure letters from Schools that have longer tenure clocks, in responding to the question whether the candidate would be granted tenure at their institutions they typically reply no, since they have greater expectations.

Senator V. Henderson, the chair of the Task Force, clarified that for a 6-year tenure clock, the probationary period is actually 7-years. He added that any change in the tenure clock would have to be unit-wide (e.g. School) and it will have to involve the faculty of that unit. Therefore, if the Senate supports this resolution it would not mean that all units will have longer tenure clocks.

A senator from engineering then made two procedural remarks before he commented on the resolution. First he registered his personal protest over the fact that the Senate, a secular body, had rearranged its schedule for the sake of a religious practice (by convening an hour early so that the Senate would adjourn in time for Passover). He added that, while he respected the intentions behind this action, the actual effect was a direct affront to the principle of separation of church and school and that this will set a troublesome precedent for the scheduling of future Senate meetings. His second remark reflected comments from faculty in the school of engineering who have had a chance to review the Senate's new web site. He indicated that it is "problematic on its face" the fact that every resolution so far in this Senate's term has come from the Executive Board and not from any of the 19 schools. Moreover, all such resolutions have passed. The senator then said he supported the current resolution's call for flexibility in granting exceptions to the tenure clock for different units.

Other senators then took the floor to oppose or support the resolution or to ask clarifying questions to the proponents of the resolution. In expressing his opposition, one Senator said that any lengthening of the tenure clock will encourage weak faculty, by allowing faculty to let less productive faculty to stay, and making it more difficult to vote against tenure after a ten year career. He also pointed out, that universities with longer tenure clocks also have a clock for Assistant Professors to put up for promotion within 6 years. Failing promotion, they would then leave. This is essentially two decisions on their qualifications, but the resolution does not entail an up or out for Associate Professors. This motion will therefore weaken the faculty.

Another Senator asked if a solution to this problem would be to create lecturer positions or to encourage postdoctoral work prior to being hired, as is often the practice at other units. Senator Weinstein responded that this approach was not common in several fields and it would make USC less competitive for fresh Ph.D.'s. In expressing concerns about the resolution, another senator said that the proposed 10 years is a long time and a rather extravagant response to the outlined problem. It is also an indication of a lack of confidence in the faculty.

Another senator expressed strong opposition to the resolution saying that it's real impact would be the dilution and potential diminishing and even elimination of the concept of tenure. By denying tenure to Assistant Professors for longer time and by having more promotions to Associate Professors without tenure, this would result in only Professors having tenure and an increasing number of faculty at the University will be without tenure. He also suggested that by allowing any one unit to change the tenure clock, other units will follow using similar arguments, and ultimately the tenure clock will be changed university-wide. The longer tenure clock will also result in the gradual increase of tenure standards and expectations, and it will make it harder and harder to achieve tenure, resulting in an increasing number of faculty leaving without tenure and ultimately to a diminishing number of tenured faculty. Overall, the university will have an increasingly greater control over the faculty, fewer of which will have tenure, thereby diluting academic freedom and lowering the impact of the faculty to the administration. The same Senator also pointed out that a shorter tenure clock may actually provide USC with a competitive advantage, since it may be possible to offer tenure sooner to promising faculty. He pointed out that if we take this proposal to its next level, we should extend the tenure clock indefinitely, since that would allow us to continuously have even more data and make an even more informed decision. He noted that the issue of granting tenure within the current limits is not the available time, but the challenge in making such a difficult decision and the obligation of the faculty and the university to nurture and mentor young faculty how to pursue more successful careers.

In support of the resolution, another senator said that a longer tenure clock would be helpful for many faculty at the Medical School who need extra time to also set-up their clinical practice, in addition to their teaching and research. Several senators expressed support for the idea of flexibility for different units and schools, suggesting that this may be complimented with some controls on how it can be implemented. It was pointed out that the key issue is whether there is sufficient diversity within the different fields to warrant flexibility regarding the tenure clock. This issue can be more important for some schools that need such a change to be more competitive. Since the Provost would have to sign-off to such changes, this would assure that they have a change in the tenure clock will have to be justified.

Another Senator said that he sympathizes with the concerns raised and then offered the following amendments to the resolution in order to make it more acceptable:
(a) in the first paragraph change "too short" to "inappropriate",
(b) change part 1. As follows:

1. The faculty of a school (or the College) be able to petition by amendment to the Faculty Handbook for a probationary period different from 6 years.

In support of his amendments the Senator said that this change would reiterate the principle that tenure is held at the University level and not the School level, and that furthermore it should be difficult to change the tenure clock.

In opposing the above proposed amendments, a Senator said that such decisions should be best made by the faculty of the affected unit, and that this would give the Academic Senate a veto power over this issue. Another Senator agreed that tenure resides at the University level, and suggested that proposed changes in tenure clocks require approval by the Provost, who speaks for the University and has responsibilities regarding these standards.

At this point, President Tierney indicated that time was running out and the Senate would have to move on with this issue. He pointed out that the university is a decentralized institution with great variability and that it may make sense that different Schools have a different rationale for a shorter or longer tenure clock. Despite the opposing views, the Provost and the faculty would ultimately determine how this is implemented. President Tierney then called for a vote of the proposed amendments. While the amendment to replace the words "too short" with "inappropriate" was accepted, the second amendment, requiring a Faculty Handbook change, did not pass, with 3 voting yes, 11 no and 1 abstention. President Tierney then called for a vote for the resolution, which was passed with 9 in favor, 7 opposed, and 2 abstentions.

Agenda Item #3: Announcements (W. Tierney)

President Tierney distributed some articles that he characterized as interesting reading materials for the senators. After saying that the Provost was not able to attend, he introduced Vice Provost Levine who offered a brief remark regarding the open meeting of the Senate on Distributed and Distance Learning. He praised Academic Senate Vice President William Dutton for organizing this meeting, saying that it was quite successful and also used the latest technology to allow people to participate from remote locations.

President Tierney then made the following announcements:

(a) Senate Retreat: It was not possible yet to reach a consensus on a date and participation. Further report will be made in the next meeting.

(b) Allegation of Faculty Handbook adulteration: Many faculty learned from a listserv message that the recent version of the Faculty Handbook differs from the 1987 Faculty Handbook in the section dealing with the conditions of tenure and faculty dismissal. More specifically, the language in the two documents is as follows:

§ 2.4(g) Conditions of Tenure

"Tenured faculty may be dismissed, demoted, or prematurely retired for adequate cause (See section 2.5(b)) only upon proof of one or more of the following: serious neglect of duty; incompetence; major violations of academic freedom; misconduct, dishonesty, or conflict of interest that brings severe injury or discredit to the University; moral turpitude related directly and substantially to the fitness of the faculty member in his/her professional capacity as a teacher or researcher."

1998 Handbook (http://www.usc.edu/policies/facultyhandbook/):

§ 3-6 Conditions of Tenure

"Tenured faculty may be dismissed, demoted, or prematurely retired for adequate cause (See section on Faculty Dismissals) only upon proof of one or more of the following: serious neglect of duty; incompetence; major violations of academic freedom; misconduct; dishonesty; conflict of interest that brings severe injury or discredit to the University; or moral turpitude related directly and substantially to the fitness of the faculty member in his/her professional capacity as a teacher or researcher"

The difference between the two documents is the replacement of two commas ("misconduct, dishonesty, ") with semicolons: ("misconduct; dishonesty; "). These seemingly minor changes may have the effect of significantly broadening the conditions sufficient for the dismissal of tenured faculty. President Tierney said that the above noted listserv message further alleged that this change was the possible result of a conspiracy by the administration to unilaterally change the Handbook against faculty interests. On the other hand, if the change took place and the Senate did not know about it, this would be an indication of negligence or incompetence.

Recognizing the potential severity of the alleged adulteration of the Handbook by the Administration, President Tierney said that he consulted with Past President Thalmann, who is well-knowledgeable with the recent revision of the Handbook, to find out how this alleged change took place. This investigation revealed that a draft proposal of the Handbook distributed to the Senators at the April 1998 Senate meeting, mentioned in the minutes (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/min0498.html), had the same punctuation as the final version (with semicolons). Therefore, this text was actually proposed and also approved by the Academic Senate at its meeting in May 1998. Further examination of the records showed that these edits took place during February of 1997 and were approved by the Senate when it passed Resolution 96/97-12 (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/res969712.html). In concluding his remarks, President Tierney said that the allegation that this change was done by the administration is clearly false. He also said that making such allegations without supporting evidence is highly inappropriate and does not serve the interests of the faculty. He also said that an important role of the Senate is to monitor academic integrity and responsibility and we should not allow the unfair tainting of individual faculty or administrators.

One Senator pointed out that the quotation of the 1987 Faculty Handbook in the resolution was apparently incorrect and he wondered if Senators should trust quotations in documents provided to the Senate for consideration. President Tierney replied that this section was in fact revised by a Senate Committee who apparently assumed that this change was not significant. He also noted that the important point is that these edits were made by the faculty, not the administration.

A question was then raised about the differences among the online edition of the Handbook and the document that was actually passed by the Senate and signed by President Sample. President Tierney replied that the issue of archiving and authenticating these important documents was discussed last month. Secretary General Nicos Petasis commented that the March 2000 minutes refer to this issue, indicating that the web edition of the Handbook should be considered a fascimile of the authentic version signed by the President.

(c) Medical School Task Force update: Referring to the recent report by the Senate Medical School Task Force, President Tierney said that he asked all Schools and the College to comment on the report and that he also had talked with the Provost and Dean Ryan on this matter. He indicated that only the Medical Faculty Assembly (MFA) provided substantial comment on this issue. President Tierney then introduced MFA President, Senator L. Laine, who described a recent meeting of the MFA regarding this issue. Senator Laine said that the MFA has recently decided unanimously with one abstention not to endorse the report of the Task Force. Although the MFA faculty did not view the report in a totally negative light, some of the recommendations were strongly opposed. The MFA felt that they could not accept the 9-month salary guarantee, since they operate on a continuous 12-month basis. Moreover, it was felt that the level of salary guarantee should correspond to national averages for the particular field. For example a surgeon should have a different salary guarantee than someone in the basic sciences. Finally, Senator Laine said that the section referring to the non-tenure track faculty (clinical faculty) is not relevant and should be removed, while the overall document appeared too long and could be simplified.

Other Senators provided further comments on this issue, suggesting that the principles outlined in the report appeared fair and reasonable. It was also said that the 9-month guarantee was not meant to be the actual salary, but that it corresponds to the same protections given to other faculty regarding tenure and academic freedom. Past President Thalmann, the chair of the Task Force, commented that the intent was not to define salaries but to address issues of university-wide significance. It was important to make a link between tenure and compensation and to also help improve the atmosphere of distrust among the administration and the faculty. He said that despite some initial reluctance, the administration seems ready to accept the principles described in the report. Past President Thalmann concluded by saying that the intent was not to lower anyone's salary, but to suggest some possible mechanism of how to set up salary guarantees. Senator Laine replied that the intent of the MFA was not to reject the entire document, but it was felt that it could not endorse it in its present form.

Agenda Item #4: Department Chair resolution

Due to the lack of time this item was postponed until the next meeting.

No new business was discussed.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

_______________
Respectfully Submitted,

Nicos A. Petasis
Professor of Chemistry
Secretary General of the Academic Senate