|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 98
Announced Agenda: 3 items
1. Approval of Minutes of February 28, 2001
(http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~facsec/facmin/01-02-28.html)2. Second VOTE on Foreign Language Proficiency Requirement (FLPR)
3. First VOTE on Revisions to Rice University Organization Policy 201-97, 8c, "Termination of Appointments"
Next Faculty Meetings: (all in Duncan Hall 1055)
Tuesday, April 3, 2001, 4:00 PM
Friday, May 11, 2001, 10:00 AM
President Malcolm Gillis called to order at 4:04 PM and chaired the meeting in McMurtry Auditorium of Duncan Hall. Alan Chapman served as Parliamentarian. Guests from both The Thresher and Student Government were present, including a photographer.
1. Minutes of 02-13-01 Faculty Meeting - On motion duly made and seconded, the Minutes were APPROVED as circulated in advance on the web.
2. Language Requirement - Representing the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC), Jack Zammito reminded the faculty that it had voted at the previous meeting in February to abolish the Foreign Language Proficiency Requirement (FLPR) which had taken effect at the beginning of the 2001-2002 academic year. Having been declared an important matter, the issue requires a second vote for implementation. Since the issue has such far-reaching implications, Zammito suggested that the faculty continue the debate before taking its second (and final) vote and returned the floor to Gillis.
Linda Driskill began the discussion by postulating that failure of the FLPR lies not with the requirement itself but with its implementation. She is convinced that all faculty recognize the importance of developing foreign language skills, but we adopted a plan that does not draw people into compliance in an acceptable manner. Had we delayed the implementation for a few years until we had developed financial packages to accommodate students with foreign language deficiencies and had worked with local high school teachers to involve them in this venture, Driskill thinks the program would have succeeded. The problem is one of misdiagnosis. Comments by her family (husband and daughter are both Rice alumni) have reinforced her conclusion that foreign language proficiency is crucial for the successful operation of engineers and others in the international community. She urged the faculty not to abandon the requirement but to declare a moratorium on its implementation until the time is right.
Curt Michel spoke in favor of retaining the language requirement because it makes Rice "look good academically" by taking a firm stand on an important but difficult issue. His experience with the language departments at Rice has convinced him that the big improvement in language instruction is due primarily to the recent emphasis on speaking ability in addition to the older reading only skills. He claims that when the two are combined, retention is much better. This is a good selling point for the Rice program which should not be abandoned.
Gordon Mutchler emphasized that in abolishing the foreign language requirement were were not de-emphasizing foreign languages per se but rather are removing the requirement that everyone must meet the standard. Jim Thompson spoke in favor of abolishing the language requirement but urged us to re-institute the policy of allowing first year language courses to count for distribution credit. Failure to do so would deal a severe blow to the language departments which have shown remarkable improvement in recent years in part through the creation for the Center for the Study of Languages. Gillis promised that this issue would be dealt with at the appropriate time, although it would not require two votes.
The VOTE was called, and by an uncounted show of hands the motion to abolish the Foreign Language Proficiency Requirement PASSED (for the second time) by a substantial margin (approximately 80 for, 10 opposed).
Zammito next raised the issue of the impact of this action on students who matriculated in 2000 or who will graduate in 2001. He noted that under current practice, students are allowed to graduate under rules in place either when they matriculated or when they graduate, but not under rules governing intermediate years. The UCC proposes that the 2000 matriculates be explicitly released from the FLPR but that those who will graduate this spring, if they wish, may satisfy the language requirement as they are legally entitled to do since it was officially announced in the General Announcements. Moreover, to avoid penalizing students who have already taken courses in anticipation of satisfying the FLPR, the Provost has ruled that students who matriculated in 2000 will be allowed to graduate under any of the Distribution Requirements in recent catalogues, including those that allow first year language courses to be used to satisfy the Humanities Distribution Requirements. The formal motion made by the UCC is the following:
"That the General Faculty, in light of its abolition of the Language Proficiency Requirement, specifically exempt students who entered Rice under the 2000-2001 General Announcements from the language proficiency requirement. 2000-2001 graduates may still elect to graduate under the complete 2000-2001 General Announcements, including the language requirement."
Additional information is included in APPENDIX A.
Thompson again urged that all first year language courses be allowed to count towards Humanities Distribution Requirements as had been the case for 25 years until recently. Gale Stokes vigorously opposed the suggestion stating that the faculty had voted to leave up to the Deans the decision about what courses should be eligible for distribution credit. Such a motion would undermine the process which had been effectively implemented by the Deans' Council. If it were decided to vote on such a proposal, Stokes would urge that it require two votes. Bill Wilson supported Stokes' plea to leave the Distribution Courses in the hands of the Deans, as voted many years ago by the faculty. To avoid acting hastily, Gillis ruled that the proposed motion was not on the written agenda and was therefore not in order at this time. He noted that there would be another meeting in April at which time the proposal may be formally introduced and would require two positive votes for implementation. Alan Grob called the first year language courses an "anomaly" because they really do not fit comfortably in any one category. He cited the old rules that did allow first year languages to count as distribution, but a person would be required to take both semesters in order for either to count. This process recognized "proficiency" in foreign language as a proper goal in itself even if the courses did not include a substantial component of culture.
Zammito urged faculty to keep in mind that the motion under debate was submitted to deal with the immediate problem of what to do with present students and would have no permanent impact on future policies. He pointed out that in approving distribution courses the Deans were not acting unilaterally but sought advice from committees. Results had to be approved by the entire group. He thus strongly supported Stokes' objection to the proposal made by Thompson. Speaking as a member of the Humanities Distribution Committee, Lynne Huffer also supported Stokes' arguments.
John Greiner asked if the provision to allow distribution credit for first year courses would apply to all languages, including Tibetan, Sanskrit, etc. As former director of academic advising, Mark Scheid replied that the answer was YES, providing the language instructor remembered to ask the Dean to make such a judgment.
Additional comments were made by Jim Thompson, Stan Dodds, Jim Kinsey, John Ambler, David Scott, Bill Wilson, Don Morrison, Stan Dodds, and others. At the invitation of Gillis, someone obliged by calling the question. The motion PASSED by hand vote with no obvious nay sayers.
3. Revisions to Rice University Organization Policy 201-97, 8c, "Termination of Appointments" - Robert Patten presented additions to Rice University Policy 201-97 that were drafted by a Committee of Faculty Council. The current governing document for 201-97, 8c is shown in APPENDIX B. The revision now under consideration is shown in APPENDIX C. Considerable work has gone into this DRAFT by Faculty Council and by the Rice General Counsel to make sure that the language was consistent with that in the AAUP Red Book. There being no discussion, the question was called and the proposed revision PASSED UNANIMOUSLY by show of hands. A second vote on this addition will be taken at the next meeting in April.
Patten also promised that revisions to other sections of Policy 201 specifically relating to how schools that are not divided into departments evaluate faculty for promotion and tenure will be introduced at the next General Faculty Meeting.
There being no additional business, Gillis declared the meeting adjourned at 4:59.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe W. Hightower, Secretary of the Rice Faculty
ATTACHMENTS - 3
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
APPENDIX A
Motion to Exempt 2000-2001 Students from
Foreign Language Proficiency Requirement
The Motion:
That the General Faculty, in light of its abolition of the Language Proficiency Requirement, specifically exempt students who entered Rice under the 2000-2001 General Announcements from the language proficiency requirement. 2000-2001 graduates may still elect to graduate under the complete 2000-2001 General Announcements, including the language requirement.
Additional Information:
Because of a special dispensation by the Provost, students entering this year have already been granted the option of adopting the distribution requirements of any of several catalogues. Under this dispensation, students will be able to count first year language courses toward the Humanities distribution requirement. Therefore, these students should suffer no significant impact on their overall curricular options from having followed the language requirement for this year. No policy change is required, though it would be prudent to remind students enrolled in basic language courses this year that they can use these courses for distribution.
The question of whether in future first year language courses should satisfy the Humanities distribution requirement is, in the understanding of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, a matter that has by policy determination of the general faculty been turned over to the Dean. A decision on distribution credit for first year language courses will have to come from that office.
The stipulation concerning this year's graduates takes into account that some students may have designed their graduation plans on the premise of substituting language proficiency for restricted distribution requirements. We are obligated to honor the requirements stated in the General Announcements for these students.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
APPENDIX B
Policy 201-97 - Existing Version 8.c.
Termination because of discontinued programs or departments notwithstanding the provisions of 8.a. above, it is specifically understood that the University may terminate an appointment before the end of a specified term or while the appointment is held with tenure if the number of faculty members must be reduced as a result of a good faith discontinuance or reduction in size of all or part of a program, department, or other segment of University operations. Such a discontinuance or reduction will be implemented only after consideration of the educational, economic, and other relevant aspects of the decision, and shall include Board of Governors review. An effort will be made to ease any dislocation experienced by the faculty members involved.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
APPENDIX C
Policy 201-97: Proposed Changes (corrected)
8.c. Termination of Appointments
A. Financial Exigency
1.a. Notwithstanding the provisions of 8.a. above, it is specifically understood that the University may terminate an appointment with tenure, or a probationary or special appointment before the end of the specified term, under extraordinary circumstances because of a demonstrably bona fide financial exigency, i.e., an imminent financial crisis which threatens the survival of the University as a whole and which cannot be alleviated by less drastic means.
b. If the administration issues notice to a particular faculty member of an intention to terminate the appointment because of financial exigency, the faculty member will have the right to a full hearing before a faculty Hearing Panel appointed by Faculty Council consistent with Policy 8.a.2-4. The hearing need not conform in all respects with a proceeding conducted pursuant to regulation 8a, but the essentials of an on-the-record adjudicative hearing will be observed. The issues in this hearing may include:
(i) The existence and extent of the condition of financial exigency. The burden will rest on the administration to prove the existence and extent of the condition. The findings of a faculty committee in a previous proceeding involving the same issue may be introduced.
(ii) The validity of the educational judgments and the criteria by which the University identified which faculty members would be terminated. The recommendations of the Hearing Panel will be considered presumptively valid.
(iii) Whether the criteria are being properly applied in the individual case.
c. Following the hearing, the panel will weigh the evidence and give to the president a written report, containing both its findings and recommendations. The president, after reaching a decision, will inform the Board of Trustees.
2. If the University, because of financial exigency, terminates appointments, it will not at the same time make new appointments in the same voting department or program. A faculty member with tenure will not be terminated while a faculty member without tenure is retained.
3. Before terminating an appointment because of financial exigency, the University, with faculty participation, will make every effort to place the faculty member concerned in another suitable position within the institution.
4. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial exigency, any non-tenured faculty member concerned will be given notice or severance salary not less than the following schedule: at least three months, if the final decision is reached by March 1 (or three months prior to the expiration) of the first year of probationary service; at least six months, if the decision is reached by December 15 of the second year (or after nine months but prior to eighteen months) of the probationary service; at least one year, if the decision is reached after eighteen months of probationary service.
5. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial exigency, a tenured faculty member will be given a severance package of one year's salary plus one month's salary for each year of service at Rice. The total package will not exceed two years salary.
6. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial exigency, the place of the faculty member concerned will not be filled by a replacement within a period of three years, unless the released faculty member has been offered reinstatement and a reasonable time in which to accept or decline.
B. Discontinuance of Program or Department Not Mandated by Financial Exigency
Termination of a probationary or special appointment before the end of the specified term may occur as a result of bona fide formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction. The following standards and procedures will apply:
1. The decision to discontinue formally a program or department of instruction will be based essentially upon educational considerations, as determined primarily by the faculty as a whole or an appropriate committee thereof determined by Faculty Council. "Educational considerations" do not include cyclical or temporary variations in enrollment. They must reflect long-range judgments that the educational mission of the institution as a whole will be enhanced by the discontinuance.
2. Before the administration issues notice to a faculty member of its intention to terminate an appointment because of formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, the University will make every effort to place the faculty member concerned in another suitable position. If placement in another position would be facilitated by a reasonable period of training, financial and other support for such training will be proffered. If no position is available within the University, with or without retraining, the faculty member's appointment may then be terminated, but only with provision for severance salary equitably adjusted to the faculty member's length of past service consistent with guidelines contained in 8.c.A.4,5, and 6 above. When the University proposes to discontinue a program or department of instruction, it should plan to bear the costs of relocating, training, or otherwise compensating faculty members adversely affected.
3.a. A faculty member may appeal a proposed relocation or termination resulting from a discontinuance and has a right to a full hearing before a faculty Hearing Panel appointed by Faculty Council as in 8.c.A.1.b above. The hearing need not conform in all respects with a proceeding conducted pursuant to regulation 8a, but the essentials of an on-the-record adjudicative hearing will be observed. The issues in such a hearing may include the University's failure to satisfy any of the conditions specified in this regulation. In such a hearing the Hearing Panel's determination that a program or department is to be discontinued will be considered presumptively valid, but the burden of proof on other issues will rest on the administration.
b. Following the hearing, the panel will weigh the evidence and give to the president a written report, containing its findings and its recommendations. The president, after reaching a decision, will inform the Board of Trustees.