|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 50
Announced Agenda: 6 items
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:02 PM in McMurtry Auditorium of Duncan Hall. Alan Chapman served as Parliamentarian. Guests from the media were acknowledged as being present.
1. The minutes of the September 6, 2001 Faculty Meeting were APPROVED as circulated in advance.
2. Proposal from Jamie Lisagor and Gavin Parks
After an introduction by Bob Patten, the following remarks were made.
Jamie Lisagor:"We have come here to ask that you cancel classes for a campus-wide observance on September 11, 2002. The attacks on America, which began on September 11 and the events that have followed have had a significant emotional impact on the students of this University. As student leaders we have observed increased levels of depression as our fellow students attempt to cope with the meaning of these events. Our generation has finally lost its innocence. Yet there is a reluctance to openly discuss the problems that we now face and the new emotions associated with the images we have repeatedly seen on television and the words we read in our newspapers. This has led to many of our peers feeling a sense of anxiety far above and beyond what is normally experienced by the average Rice student who is dealing with the stresses of academic life. We have engaged in countless conversations trying to figure out what we, as students, can do. From the beginning, Masters, RA’s, Associates, trained peer councilors, and the Rice Counseling Center have made themselves available, and they continue to make themselves available to students. On that Friday, the Rice community came together at noon for the National Day of Mourning to hear from President Gillis, Dr. Martin, and student leaders. That moment was an important step in the healing process of our community. Student leaders have set up donation boxes in colleges and a group of students have organized the sale of holiday cards this weekend, during the Homecoming, in order to send relief to those in need. But we think that it is time that we do something bigger and broader and something that will affect all facets of the Rice Community."
Gavin Parks:
"We are here today to ask you to cancel classes for a campus-wide observance on September 11, 2002.We don’t know what this day will be like, however we do know that many students will benefit from that day of observation, reflection and discussion. First, let us explain why we think that it is important that it is on that day in particular. We believe the day of observance should not be on a weekend. It will be difficult to bring the community together on a day that will be consumed with recreation and events like athletics and conferences that have schedules that we can’t control. It is fortunate that this day lands on a Wednesday, as this will eliminate any possibility for a three day weekend. By making a decision this far in advance, we can easily avoid scheduling unrelated activities on that day. Further, most importantly, that day will be the hardest for our community. We believe classes need to be canceled on this day of observance much like a day taken off for a religious observation or spiritual reflection. This will allow the Rice Community, undergraduates, graduates, staff, faculty and administration, the time and space to think about why we are stopping our regular activities. Yes, if we have classes on that day, we will still plan events. However, they will not be in as large a scale nor with as high a level of participation. Simply put, they can not hold the same meaning. Were classes to be cancelled, the time to reflect and discuss our feelings and opinions would begin now. The planning of the day of observance would be a part of the healing process. We could do so much with this day. We could have lunches with the associates in the colleges, roundtable discussions with professors, religious group meetings for prayer and reflection, a Baker Institute event or a performance at the Shepherd School, a student art exhibit displaying work about feelings surrounding September 11, a university-wide blood drive, or a night-time candlelight vigil. The ideas are limitless. What we hope is that the different organizations and groups around campus will spend the next ten months discussing what they want to do to contribute to this day. The decision to cancel classes would be a profound statement. It would send a message from the Faculty to the student body that there are times when it is appropriate to stop and to reflect. Students are willing to be as flexible as necessary to make this work because we feel that the health and well being of the Rice Community comes first. And so we ask you to please take the time to figure out how a day of remembrance on September 11, 2002 can fit into our academic calendar. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you today."
Herb Ward raised the question of involvement with the greater Houston community. Dennis Houston felt that this was a worthwhile idea and "that we can all spare one class." Jim Kinsey felt that this is an idea not without danger, we must be careful not to make anyone feel excluded. Alex Byrd felt that having ten months lead time could be quite valuable. Bob Patten pointed out that there are various ways to exchange that day with some other day during the semester. Alan Grob moved that we support the proposal and submit it to the Faculty Council with the understanding that they will make what ever changes are necessary to make this work. Peter Hartley amended the motion to state that the day be replaced with some other day in the academic calendar. Marty Wiener spoke in favor of the amendment. The amendment PASSED by a very large margin. The amended proposal PASSED by unanimity.
3. Resolution from Faculty Council expressing concern over aspects of intercollegiate
athletics.
Speaker Bob Patten introduced the issue with the following comments:
In June 2001 the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics released a report. In the decade since the last studies, issued in the early 1990s, the Commission finds that while some improvements have taken place, "the problems of big-time college sports have grown rather than diminished." The Knight Commission identifies three particular problems: academics, the arms race and commercialization. Institutions in the Bowl Championship Series—the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big East, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Pacific-10 and the Southeastern Conference—are the "winners" in the competition for revenue from conference and post-season play. But, as the Knight Commission notes, quoting from William Bowen and James Shulman's book, The Games of Life, "the skewed priorities of top programs have infected men's and women's sports at all levels, including, perhaps most remarkably, the Ivy League and elite private liberal arts colleges. "
The Knight Commission report calls for a "concerted grassroot effort by the broader academic community" to support a Coalition of Presidents charged with responsibility for getting intercollegiate athletics under control. Faculty, the Commission declares, "must defend the academic values of their institutions…. There are scattered signs of faculty awakening, but on many campuses, faculty indifference prevails even when informed critics make their case." The Knight Commission offers an explanation for this indifference. "To the cynic, corruption has been endemic in big-time sports as long as they have existed. To the rationalizer, reform is already under way and things are not nearly as bad as the critics make them out to be."
Among members of this Commission were William C. Friday, President Emeritus of UNC, and Theodore M. Hesburgh, President Emeritus of Notre Dame. Both presided over institutions heavily invested in big-time sports. And both concede that the "indictment of the existing situation" makes them "painfully aware that it calls us, no less than others, to account." Cedric W. Dempsey, President of the NCAA, is a signatory to the Commission report.
So too, is R. Gerald Turner, President of SMU, which competes, along with Rice, in the Western Athletic Conference. The strikingly urgent language of the report reflects his view of the participation even of schools much less caught-up in the arms race and commercialization than the big-time sports competitors. The last sentences of the report issue a forthright call to action: "Surely the colleges and universities of the land have within their community the concerned and courageous leaders it will take to return intercollegiate athletics to the mainstream of American higher education. If not, it is not the integrity of intercollegiate sports that will be held up to question, but the integrity of higher education itself."
One of those who testified before the Knight Commission, who spoke eloquently and persuasively about the potential for intercollegiate athletics to overrun academic integrity, was President Malcolm Gillis. We'll hear more about that testimony in a moment.
Even while the Knight Commission was formulating its report, many faculty senates were passing resolutions supporting the continuing efforts to bring NCAA athletics under control. Eight of the ten Pac-10 schools faculties had, before the report was published, urged presidents and chancellors to begin serious discussions aimed at moderating the exponential growth of athletic programs and budgets. They have also embraced Indiana University President Myles Brand's call for an "Academics First" movement: "fundamental commitment to…elevate the academic mission and integrity of the university to absolute first priority." The faculty senate of SMU sent to me, as Speaker, an "Executive Committee Joint Resolution on Athletics" that endorses these positions. The SMU senate asked us, along with other WAC schools, to adopt supporting positions. I referred this matter to Faculty Council. An ad-hoc committee consisting of Tom Haskell and Steve Baker, who both participated in the 1991-1992 Faculty Council study of intercollegiate athletics at Rice, drafted a resolution which was then modified through discussions with the whole Council. The last version of that resolution (attached), which is before you today, received the unanimous support of the Council.
Tom Haskell reminded the faculty that we are responding to a request
from SMU, as well as doing what we have done about every ten years, which is
to evaluate our athletic program. He also noted that one can go to the NCAA
web site and view the Knight report. Tom also pointed out conflicts between
the athletic program and activities scheduled at the end of the semester. He
also quoted from some of Malcolm Gillis’ comments made before the Knight
Commission on October 18, 2000. Alan Grob spoke against the proposal.
He felt the Knight Commission would find us a model of what should be done.
He also felt that the resolution is insulting to our student athletes. He feels
that there has been reform in our program. Alan also asked for a "bill
of particulars". Steve Zeff reminded the faculty that the resolution
of about ten years ago was primarily directed at the men’s basketball schedule
which was especially problematic at the end of the semester. Malcolm Gillis
pointed out that his office would never overrule an EX&S decision regarding
athletic appeals. Jim Castaneda recalled that there was an evaluation
of the athletic program in 1999. We have a graduation rate of 82% for our athletes,
as compared to 89% for the general student body. He also noted that this kind
of study would have a very negative impact on our recruiting efforts. Robin
Sickles (chair of the Rice University Athletic Committee) noted that the
reformed Athletic Committee was as a direct result of the 1999 NCAA certification
review. He noted that the Faculty Council did not contact his committee regarding
this resolution. Robin went on to outline the responsibilities of the RUAC,
and felt that they dealt with the issues raised by the resolution. Joel Wolf
raised the issue of RUAC involvement with the NCAA review. The chair of RUAC
was apparently not involved in the review. He also felt that a study of the
athletic program was a worthwhile endeavor. Bob Patten pointed out that
faculty committees report to the President, not to the Faculty Council. Alan
Grob suggested that a faculty committee should look into these issues instead
of a full review which would include the Board of Trustees. Doug Schuler
did not like linking the Knight Report to our program. He felt that there is
very little in the report that looks like Rice Athletics. We should study the
program, but not invoke the Knight report. Jim Kinsey felt the resolution
showed a certain lack of clarity. Joel Wolf suggested sending the resolution
back to Faculty Council. He felt we should take a look at the status of the
program. Peter Hartley expressed concern about student athlete absences
from class. Alex Byrd asked if we need a resolution to have Faculty Council
and RUAC work together on looking at the athletic program. Bob Patten
asked whether we should look at intercollegiate athletics as a systemic problem,
or as a Rice specific issue. Tom Haskel expressed the concern that many
student athletes are able to get by in sheltered programs. Alan Grob asked
what are we submitting to the Board? He felt that the resolution was unclear.
Herb Ward expressed the idea that any program we have should be subject
to periodic review. Bob Brito recalled that a student of his was pressured
to spend more time on athletics and less on trying to excel academically. Gale
Stokes moved to refer the proposal back to the Faculty Council for further
consideration. Provost Gene Levy stated that he would vote against the
proposal based on its wording, and moved the question on sending the resolution
back to Faculty Council. The motion PASSED.
The meeting was adjourned.
Bill Wilson