Academic Senate
Minutes
November 15, 2000
Present: K. Alexander, D. Bohlinger, A. Crigler, W. Dappen, G. Davis, W. Dutton, M. Fusi(alternate for M. Apostolos), J. Gates, R. Goodyear, N. Hanel, H. James, C. Julienne (alternate for S. Sobel), H. Kaslow, P. Knoll, B. Kosko, J. Kunc, R. Labaree, D. Larsen, W. Mack, J. Manegold, J. Moore, S. Murphy, P. Nosco, M. Renov, B. Sarter, H. Schor, W. Tierney, D. Walsh, M. Weinstein, W. Wolf, B. Zuckerman
Absent: F. Feldman, D. Ghirardo, B. Knight, A. Mircheff, J. Nyquist, J. Peters, E. Saks, D. Sloane, B. Solomon, D. Stram
Guests: M. Bolger, M. Cohen, M. Levine, J. Moore, R. Mostellar, M. Pearce, L. Pryor, M. Remy, M. Safonov, K. Servis, H. Slucki, B. Tippin, C. Zachary
Senate called to order at 2:50 p.m. by President William Dutton.
Meeting adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
Action taken by the Senate:
1. Approval of Minutes of the October 18, 2000 meeting (Agenda item #2)
Motion by Prof. Kaslow to include his amendments to the minutes was not accepted (yea=5, Nay=18, Abstain-1). October 18th Minutes were approved as written (Yea=23, Nay=4, Abstain=0).
2. Senate President Dutton to write letter to Vice Provost Sullivan
Senate President Dutton stated he would write a letter to Vice Provost for Research Sullivan expressing the Academic Senate's concern that the Zumberge Faculty Research Grant funds have not increased over the past years, despite its apparent success.
Announcements by Senate President Dutton (Agenda Item #1)
1. Senate Membership: The School of Music remains the only school or academic unit without representation on the Senate. The President indicated that he will contact members of their faculty, and urged other Senate members to do likewise.
2. Tenure Clock: Membership in the specially tasked group on the Tenure Clock is being finalized. The President had been optimistic last month in hoping that this group would have met by this time. He was pleased to report that Professor Timor Kuran, Department of Economics, and Chair of the University's Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Committee has agreed to chair this group.
3. Retirement: Members of the Senate encouraged President Dutton to communicate with faculty concerning the status of retirement policy in light of a recent court ruling with respect to status of early retirement programs; thus, President Dutton wrote faculty via the USCFORUM listserve (Copy attached).
4. Senate Speakers: The Senate co-sponsored lectures by Professor Anthony Giddens, Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science, on October 24, 2000, and by Manuel Castells, Department of City and Regional Planning, UC Berkeley, on October 26, 2000, were very well received. The Senate has agreed to co-sponsor another event on November 28, 2000, focused on issues of intellectual property and information technology. Professor Randy Davis, MIT, and Chair of a National Academy of Sciences committee, will summarize their report on the Digital Dilemma. An announcement was distributed at the meeting.
5. Future Meetings: The December 13, 2000 meeting of the Academic Senate will be one of two open meetings this academic year. It has been opened in part to ensure wider discussion of issues concerning compliance with the increasing number and complexity of federal regulations governing the conduct of research, generally, and the treatment of human participants in research, including informed consent. These developments are expected to have an increasing impact and it is hoped that this discussion will begin to identify issues of relevance to the faculty and university as a whole in the conduct of high quality research. Issues of Distance Learning and the libraries are also anticipated items for the agenda. Another open meeting will be the last Senate meeting of the year, held in May on the University Park Campus.
6. Zumberge Grants: In light of discussion of the Zumberge grants, distributed at last month's Senate meeting, and subsequent comments forwarded to the President, Professor Dutton believes it would be appropriate to write Vice Provost Sullivan and suggest that more funds be devoted to these grants, given their apparent success in generating outside funding. There were no objections to this suggestion.
7. Status of Senate Resolution 00/01-03 (Process for Amending the Faculty Handbook): This resolution was sent to the Handbook Committee, with a proposed amendment. The resolution sought to approve the process that has evolved overtime in how a joint formulation of language can be developed with the Provost's Office. The proposed amendment seeks to change that process in major ways. Therefore, the Committee wished to discuss and evaluate the amendment so that it can offer a considered opinion for or against the proposed amendment.
Discussion Items (Agenda Item #3)
1) Discussion of Provost Lloyd Armstrong's manuscript "Distance Learning: Challenges and Questions"
The discussion emphasized the need for Senators to encourage discussion of these issues within their respective units. There should be more informed debate about distance education and distributed learning among all faculties.
Discussion Highlights
• Distance Education and Distributed Learning Committee: This committee is scheduled to meet on December 8. Members of this committee and Committee on Information Services were invited by President Dutton to attend this meeting to participate in the Senate’s discussion of Provost Lloyd Armstrong's manuscript on "Distance Learning." One objective of the Senate’s discussion is to help guide these committees.
• Centralization vs. decentralization: The paper stressed centralization. What functions should be centralized - the development and operations functions or those supportive functions such as accounting, marketing, and "branding"? Some individuals expressed concern over any centralization of distance education, in favor of the `1,000 flowers blossoming', while other were concerned if there were the resources to permit much decentralization.
• Cost factors: Discussion focused on the high cost of providing high quality distance learning options. It was noted that this is the primary rationale for the University now recruiting an individual who is capable of developing a promising business plan for distance learning. In addition, it was noted that the University is assessing the potential for raising funds, such as through venture capital, and/or through identifying a clear and promising market for particular educational offerings.
• Adequate infrastructure and resources: There was general concern that central resources, such as the libraries and information services, were not sufficient to support distance education. Some argued that we do not have the resources to fertilize a ‘thousand flowers’ and that some central quality control and accountability needs to be created. It was noted that no one at the University knows the full range of offerings now underway by various individuals, departments, and schools. ISD could remain a bottleneck in any effort to develop a centralized or University-wide infrastructure for the delivery of distance education or distributed learning activities unless it is more adequately supported.
• Copyright issues: It was noted that copyright and courseware were not a focus of the Provost's manuscript and these issues should be a key concern of the faculty. It was mentioned that courseware and copyright is a central topic of the Research Committee and the Committee on Distance Education and Distributed Learning.
• Profit vs. nonprofit enterprise: Concerns were expressed about creating a for-profit entity and whether this will be compatible with the qualities of USC and other universities that set them apart from commercial enterprises. Can a for profit enterprise maintain high academic standards and protect academic freedom?
• Competition for what markets? A point raised was the importance of identifying a unique market that would enable USC to compete successfully. Some felt that the report was too alarmist about the competitive threats to the traditional university. Others wondered if we should go into competition with profit-oriented companies while noting that "dotcoms" are already gearing up to compete for our students, and that they are capitalized at a level that they can pose a real threat to traditional universities entering the distance learning market.
It was pointed out that universities, such as Harvard, are moving aggressively into distance learning; therefore, they are becoming an even greater competitive threat to USC than before as they move beyond the boundaries imposed by their physical location and facilities. It was noted that we do not want to see USC compete at the level of Phoenix University, nor will be able to compete in the same market that Harvard is focusing upon with their distance learning efforts; so we will have to find our own unique niche in the market if we want to succeed in this new market place.
• Workload and quality issues: Several faculty noted the problems that confront many distance education courses and programs. There is a need to put as much or more thought and training into the preparation, techniques, substance and conduct of an online course as any traditional course. Concern was expressed over whether distance education would increase the workload on faculty, such as in answering increasing volumes of e-mail, as well as re-engineer what faculty do in relation to the development and offering of courses.
It was noted that a commitment to quality should be the primary mission of the Senate and faculty involvement in new initiatives surrounding distance learning. This is in line with efforts to maintain the value attached to USC as a "brandname" in education.
2) Digital Technology, Distance Learning, and the Library: An Emerging Priority?
Discussion Highlights
• Challenges to the traditional library in the digital age: A focus of the discussion was the fact that new information technologies, such as the Internet and Web, along with trends in distance education and distributed learning, are challenging traditional models of the library. Discussion focused around the uncertainty over what should be the exact nature of the library in the digital future (the relative dependence on electronic versus books, and how widely the library's resources should be decentralized versus centralized). It was pointed out that the costs of access to information resources are likely to increase over the years in spite of entering the digital age.
• Support for the library: Many Senators voiced concern that the library has deteriorated in terms of quality as well as services for scholarship due the chronic lack of support (funding) by the administration. Some expressed great concern for the University’s future in distance learning if it can not support core central resources, such as the libraries and information services. Many felt that a great university has to maintain a traditional as well as an electronic library system.
It was pointed out that the President and Provost are unlikely to support increased funding without a more compelling vision of what a world class library for USC should be in the next 5-10 years.
• Senate Working Group on the library: President Dutton stated he will appoint Prof. Schor to chair a small group of faculty to work with the Committee on Information Services to clarify the most pressing problems with library resources at USC. An aim of the group might be to help develop a vision for the library, and with that vision gain the support of the faculty, the various schools and departments, the CIO and Librarian, and the administration as a whole.
3) Information Studies: A new interdisciplinary program for USC?
This idea has evolved out of discussions with the Provost Office and Executive Board. Individual faculty would need to take this idea further if it is to have any future since the Senate has only a limited role in developing new programs
Discussion Highlights
• An interdisciplinary program in information studies could be one mechanism for creating the "intellectual capital" versus venture capital required to succeed in distance education, distributed learning, and the reinvention of the library. Such a program would not only bring together expertise on our campuses, but also enable us to bring top academics to USC. Information Technology and information studies fits within the pathways identified by the University’s Strategic Plan
• Continuing discussions at the next Senate meeting on the Health Science Campus. The Senate President mentioned that he planned to continue these discussions (distance education, distributed learning, the libraries, and information studies) at the next meeting at the Health Sciences campus. It is hoped there might be lessons to learn from the experience with telemedicine, and continuing medical education, as well as the perceived value of the Health Sciences library resources.
Reports of Committees and Task Groups (Agenda Item #4)
1. Whistle Blower, Ombudsman and Mediator
Prof. Marshall Cohen outlined to the Senate his role as the University Mediator.
• A major role is to help the parties find solutions in order to avoid a grievance and/or law suit.
• A mediator has to be completely neutral and must avoid being confused with other roles such as ombudsman, advocate, or arbitrator.
• Proceedings are confidential and cannot, by law, be made available in any future court hearings, etc. Neither can a mediator be compelled to testify in court.
• In helping to find solutions, a mediator does not: advocate, make findings, defend rights, make determinations of justice, or report the outcomes.
• A mediator does not make reports (to the administration, Senate, or any other body), nor does a mediator advocate for institutional change.
• Often individuals come to the mediator later than desirable because parties often tend to get suck in their positions. But is it never too late to come to mediation. Mediation can occur after a grievance is filed or even during a law suit.
• Not every issue lends itself to mediation.
• Junior faculty often have no or little idea of where to turn or even what to do when they have an issue. Often just talking with junior faculty or directing them to other resources is helpful.
• He deals with 1-3 individuals at any given time, and about 12 cases per year.
Discussion Highlights:
• Since the office of the University mediator is not well known among the faculty, it was proposed that the Senate should develop ways to better inform faculty of the existence of a mediator and other avenues for resolving conflicts and disputes .
• It was suggested that deans and departmental chairs should have to attend training so as to understand the role of a mediator, and perhaps then serve as a mediator when issues arise within their units.
• The role of an ombudsmen varies in the academic community from mediator, to arbitrator, to advocate. An ombudsman can advocate, make findings, seek justice, defend rights, make reports, and advocate for institutional change.
• Are the USC faculty well served by the mediator?’ This was considered to be the core question. Prof. Cohen stated again, that not every issue is appropriate for the mediator. It was further pointed out that there are several other mechanisms open to faculty with issues including: 1) the Senate's Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee, 2) the Senate President, 3) formal grievance, and 4) the counseling center.
• The idea of introducing arbitration as a mechanism to settle disputes was raised. It was pointed out that the University Administration rejected this concept a number of years ago. One Senator mentioned that his school does have an internal mediation/arbitration process. Some felt it might be good to revisit this idea.
• The idea of an Office of the Ombudsman was suggested as a device for bringing together related mediation, advocacy and ombudsmen activities under one larger umbrella. Prof. Greg Davis will consider the report of his committee on Academic Policies and Procedures in light of this discussion and get back to the Senate Executive Board with any refinements or revisions of his recommendations that might be warranted.
• It was noted that Prof. Cohen has been effective as the University Mediator since he is well respected by both the administration and the faculty and that anyone filling this role will have to have these qualities as well.
2. Issue Grid Questionnaire: Priorities and Uncertainties
Senate President Dutton distributed the summary results of the 85 completed Senate Issues Grid questionnaires. Time did not permit discussion of the grid and this item will be carried over to the next Senate meeting. President Dutton invited comments via e-mail. The ratings obtained from the questionnaire will enable users of the Grid to sort issues by their perceived importance, and the Senate Office is creating a means for individuals to rate the issues over the Web.
Office of the Provost: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Levine (Agenda Item #5)
Due to the extended discussions of the other agenda items, there was not sufficient time for a report by the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. However, Vice Provost Levine commented that he appreciated the previous discussions of important academic issues.
New Business (Agenda Item #6)
Ms. Tippin, a representative of the Graduate and Professional Student Association, mentioned that the Association is discussing the issue of having an advocate for students. It was noted that students are in greater need of an advocate, since they are often dealing in negotiations with professors in an unequal relationship.
Ms. Tippin also announced a forthcoming conference organized by the Graduate and Professional Student Association that is focused on diversity.
Posters were made available to the Senate Office Senate President Dutton will announce this conference in the forthcoming issue of the Faculty Forum which will focus on diversity, and via the faculty's listserve.
Handouts distributed by the Executive Board at the meeting:
1. October 18, 2000 minutes for Senate
approval
2. Approved September 20, 2000 minutes
3. Academic Senate Issues Grid survey results
4. Two Memoranda sent to Senate President William Tierney in
April, 2000 addressing the need to create an ombudsman for the
faculty, and does USC have a whistle- blower policy?
5. Announcement of an upcoming presentation by Prof. Randall
Davis, "The Digital Dilemma: Eighteen Characters in Search
of an Authority"
Respectfully Submitted,
Jerry D. Gates, Ph.D.
Secretary General of the Academic Senate
Attachment A: Retirement: Distributed via USCFORUM Listserve
Dear Colleagues:
A Personal Note on Retirement in the Interim'
Given my office in the Academic Senate, I
have received calls and notes of
concern over how the various schools and colleges at USC will
handle
issues of retirement in light of recent court rulings. I am not
an expert
on retirement (yet), but I have spoken with a number of key
people within
USC, including members of the faculty and the administration. I
cannot
speak for USC, and I am not speaking for the University, but I
can provide
my own personal perspective on the current situation.
Background
In the Spring of 2000, the Board of
Trustees approved a package of early
retirement health care benefits. It was based on principles
supported by
the Senate and the Benefits Committee of the University, which
includes
faculty. It was to be announced in September of this year last
month.
However, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled an early retirement
package violates the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act
by
giving those who retire before age 65 more financial support than
retirees
over age 65.
This ruling has led to great uncertainty.
It is likely to be appealed and
it may either stand as precedent or be reversed. Employers do not
wish to
expose themselves to lawsuits and are rightfully conservative in
not
wishing to get embroiled in a costly test case for this ruling.
Consequences for USC
USC cannot adopt a policy that is likely to
violate these same
criteria. Therefore, the proposed retirement package is on hold
(James
Manegold, Sub-Committee on Faculty Retirement, University
Benefits
Committee memorandum to Academic Senate, September 20, 2000).
Does this mean that there is no retirement
package available for faculty
at USC? Have we been left policy-less?! No. Any faculty member
wishing to
consider retirement should discuss this with his/her Dean. The
administration is in the process of consulting with Deans and
other
administrative officers on how to negotiate through this period
without a
policy per se. This situation actually provides faculty with more
flexibility than might have been the case with the enactment of
the
proposed policy.
In my personal opinion, there is no reason
to panic or feel abandoned. You
are not set adrift. As has been often said over the last few
years, USC
has never had a retirement policy. What's new?
In addition to your Dean, you can speak to
individuals within the Benefits
Office, and to our Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, Professor
Martin
Levine.
If you think I'm wrong, or wish to speak
with me about any aspect of this
matter, don't hesitate to contact me.
Regards, Bill Dutton, President of the Faculty at wdutton@usc.edu
_____________________________________________________________________
Professor William Dutton
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281 USA
Telephone (213) 740-2759
Fax/Message (310) 379-9250
E-mail: wdutton@usc.edu
Web: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~wdutton/
Information, Communication and Society http://www.infosoc.co.uk/
Prometheus http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~wdutton/prometheus.html