WILLIAM MARSH RICE UNIVERSITY Minutes of the Faculty Meeting

October 29, 2002 (second Faculty Meeting of academic year 2002-2003)

Attendance: Approximately 70

Announced Agenda: 4 items

1. Approval of the minutes of September 11, 2002 (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~facsec/facmin/02-09-11.html)

2. Students' Concerns About Spring Break

3. New business

a) suggested language for revision of Policy 214-96 regarding mid-term review of tenure-track faculty (Attachment 1)

b) suggested language for a new policy on Honorary Titles (Attachment 2)

c) proposed language for a resolution of the general faculty regarding unauthorized alteration of degree requirements in the Shepherd School of Music (Attachment 3)

d) proposal to amend the faculty governance bylaws to reduce the term of office for junior faculty on Faculty Council from four to two years (Attachment 4)

4. Announcements

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Malcolm Gillis called to order and chaired the General Faculty Meeting in McMurtry Auditorium of Duncan Hall at 4:00 PM.

1. Minutes of 09-11-02 Faculty Meeting - On motion duly made and seconded, the Minutes of the September 11, 2002 Faculty Meeting were APPROVED as circulated in advance on the web.

2. Students' Concerns About Spring Break - With the agreement of President Gillis and Faculty Council, Matt Haynie, President of the student body, presented student concerns regarding spring break.

Haynie expressed the importance this issue has to the student body and recapped the action taken by the faculty at their last meeting in approving the 2003-04 academic calendar with the stipulation that the 2004 spring break would be tied to Houston Independent School District’s spring break. He pointed out in 2003, HISD's spring break will be the third week in March. This situates spring break with eight weeks of classes preceding it and six weeks of classes following it. If the same week is chosen again in 2004, Rice's spring break will be situated with a nine week / five week breakdown. The first nine weeks would be uninterrupted except for the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, falling on the second Monday of classes. He mentioned last year's spring break fell in a seven week / seven week apportionment.

Students feel that placing the break so late in the semester will cause undue stress and be detrimental to academic performance. Haynie explained that students’ stress levels are highest in mid-March, both academically and socially, with exams and numerous extracurricular activities, such as changeovers for student organizations, beer bike, and O-week selections. When the break is late, stress levels go unalleviated for too long a time causing academic performance to suffer. The students are requesting the 2004 spring break to be fixed now, at a date no later than the second week of March, in order to serve the academic needs of the student body.

Pat Reiff asked if a spring break that fell in the second week of March 2004 would create an eight week / six week split. Haynie answered affirmatively, adding that if the break were the first week of March, it would make a seven week / seven week split. Students feel a seven week / seven week division is a fair breakdown; an eight week / six week separation is nearer the breaking point; with a nine week / five week division beyond the point where students are comfortable. Bob Patten inquired if students wished the break be situated in this manner into perpetuity or if it is only on this occasion. Haynie replied that having a late break, such as the third week of March, is something students feel should never be considered. Patten suggested one way to adjust the time load was to start the second semester later. In that way, even the third week in March could be the 8th week of the semester; he added that other various ways could also accommodate students' concerns about the loads scheme quality and still map to HISD.

Jerry Montag reported unverified information that HISD's spring break was tentatively set for March 15. If verified, the date still won’t be finalized until HISD's January board meeting. March 15 would situate the Rice break in the third week in March 2004.

President Gillis suggested the Student Association contact the Curriculum Committee to begin working on this issue.

3. New business

President Gillis began with an issue of important new business which arose this week. The business is a response to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled "The Loneliest Athletes", in which the Rice football coach was quoted as having made statements contrary to University policy. President Gillis made exceedingly clear that the views attributed to the coach represent neither Rice University policy nor practice. He reiterated that Rice University is committed to carrying out to the fullest its policy of nondiscrimination for students, faculty and staff.

A resolution to that effect (see Attachment A) was jointly brought forth by the President and Speaker of Faculty Council for approval.

Patten called attention to the bracketed dictionary definition of the word "repudiates" at the end of the resolution, and made clear the reason for using this particular word was to put as much distance as possible between the Rice faculty and any statement that would call into question Rice's commitment to carrying out to the fullest its policy of nondiscrimination. Speaker John Zammito conveyed this resolution strongly reaffirmed existing University policy and the bracketed dictionary description of "repudiates" was presented below the resolution in order for the faculty to understand what the drafters of this resolution meant by the use of that word. It was not intended that the resolution, as promulgated in the minutes, necessarily include that definition. Gene Levy argued that the definition should be included in the resolution and formally moved that the explication of the word "repudiates" be part of the text as published. The motion was seconded.

Deborah Harter asked the position of the football coach on this situation. President Gillis relayed the coach acknowledged having the interview but denied that the final sentence of the section accurately represented his words. Zammito noted that a letter of apology was sent by the coach to the Chronicle of Higher Education to be included in their online edition, and in a later print version, along with a letter from President Gillis repudiating the statements of the coach.

There being no further discussion from the floor, the resolution was voted upon and PASSED unanimously.

President Gillis asked Speaker Zammito to present the remaining business to the faculty. To expedite moving through the day's business, Zammito requested agenda item 3.d) be moved to the forefront of discussion. There were no objections.

3.d) The proposal to amend the faculty governance bylaws to reduce the term of office for junior faculty on Faculty Council from four to two years

Speaking for Faculty Council, Zammito described the difficulty during the last several years of recruiting assistant professors to serve in the currently established four-year term, as set forth in the bylaws of faculty governance at Rice University. Junior faculty have been reluctant to take on this important task due to the time commitment and strain on their careers. When the possibility was raised of reducing terms for junior faculty from four years to two years, there was almost ubiquitous agreement that the two-year term would be more viable. Similar enthusiasm for this idea came from the chairs and deans. The change would reduce the term of an assistant professor and would bring a larger number of assistant professors into the experience of faculty governance. With ratification by the necessary margin, this adjustment to terms of office for junior faculty on Faculty Council could begin with elections next spring. In the interim, Faculty Council has been able to recruit volunteer members to serve on Council.

The motion to amend was made and seconded. With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion PASSED by the necessary margin. (See Attachment B below.)

3.a) Suggested language for revision of Policy 214-96 regarding mid-term review of tenure-track faculty

In the course of the work in the faculty Appeals and Grievance Committee and elsewhere, it was established that there was an inconsistency between the expectations expressed in the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, which mandated or presumed annual reviews of all junior faculty, and the specific provisions of Policy 214-96, the policy governing official reviews. According to the Policy 214-96, only a review in the third year is required for tenure-track faculty, shortly before the actual deliberations for renewal of contract. This has resulted in concerns about informing colleagues of problems and allowing them sufficient time to remedy any problems before being evaluated for contract renewal. The policy revision was undertaken to ensure a systematic and appropriate level of information be conveyed to junior faculty regarding their performance and any problems detected, and at the same time not impose a severe burden on administrators.

It was moved to adopt the revision to Policy 214-96 and seconded. The vote was called and the policy revision PASSED. (See Attachment C below.)

3.b) Suggested language for a new policy on Honorary Titles

Zammito explained that the President of the University has the authority and power to revoke or remove honorary titles. The purpose of this new policy was to give the President a structure and to give the faculty a set of recourses through which to handle the unfortunate circumstance when those provided with honorary titles are deficient in their level of performance. The language for this new policy defines the provisions of recourse in such cases.

A question asked how this policy would impact a named chair? Zammito responded that a named chair was precisely the kind of title that would be at stake in this policy, as well as financial and other privileges that go along with a named chair. Reiff remarked that since such a title removal would be something of great concern to the person having to undergo such a removal, instead of saying "deficient", the wording should be "substantial deficiency" or made otherwise clear that this is not a temporary or minor infraction. She added her belief that this should be fairly well considered, should only occur under relative infrequent circumstances, and should not be something that would be under review periodically or routinely. Zammito responded that the whole tenor of the policy related to the understanding that this was an extraordinary concern and not something that would be taken on lightly.

A faculty member remarked on the last paragraph of the policy which states two tenured members of the faculty, holding honorary titles, are selected by the Convener of the Appeals and Grievances Committee to make up the committee and felt two members seemed like an inadequate number for such a committee. Harter agreed two-person committees can be very difficult, by their structure, and felt a friendly amendment of making it a three-person committee was appropriate. The friendly amendment to make the committee composed of "three tenured faculty members" was introduced and seconded. With no further discussion, a vote was taken. The proposed friendly amendment PASSED. It was moved and seconded to vote on the proposed policy on faculty honorary titles. The proposed policy PASSED. (See Attachment D below.)

3.c) Proposed language for a resolution of the general faculty regarding unauthorized alteration of degree requirements in the Shepherd School of Music

Based on the understanding that the general faculty charged the deans with the approval of selecting courses to satisfy distribution requirements for Groups I, II and III, the Deans’ Council altered the degree requirements in the Shepherd School of Music. These altered distribution requirements appeared in the General Announcements for the University without being submitted to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or the general faculty for ratification. Faculty Council viewed that action of the deans, and the inclusion of this change in the General Announcements, as improper and unauthorized and, therefore, should be null and void.

A central question in the debate of this issue is how students will be impacted and the importance that students adversely affected by this change in degree requirements be held harmless for what was an administrative error. President Gillis, in his capacity as a faculty member, offered a friendly amendment to hold students harmless. It was seconded.

Steve Baker referred to the standard procedure for dealing with cases of students being adversely affected by certain kinds of errors and believed the Examinations and Standing Committee (EX&S) could look at the situation and decide whether students were adversely affected and make recommendation to the faculty. John Hutchinson attested that students would be adversely affected and felt the faculty should not change the rules that have already been published in the General Announcements.

Kathy Matthews provided a brief history of the issue stating that since the deans were charged with the approval of courses for distribution, the deans of science and engineering convened a committee of faculty in science and engineering who recommended a list of courses to be approved for Group III distribution. In response to presentations from the Dean of Music and the Dean of Architecture, specific courses in music and architecture were approved for distribution. That committee was uncomfortable using this as a permanent solution to what was a difficult problem for students in Architecture and Music and requested that this not be a continued activity. She pointed out there is a long-term problem to be addressed in this regard. Zammito stated that Faculty Council was aware of the problem, but the current concern was the manner in which the University’s governance provided for that problem to be addressed: 1) through the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee; 2) to Faculty Council; and 3) to the general faculty. Stan Dodds added that these were two separate issues. One being the question of the approval or disapproval of particular courses for distribution, which is something the faculty delegated to the deans. They have chosen and published for this year, two music courses among others, as carrying Group III distribution credit. That is not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is a change in the wording of the GA’s without approval of the faculty.

The question was called and seconded to end the debate on the amendment. A vote was taken and the friendly amendment to hold students harmless PASSED.

John Hutchinson moved to amend the draft resolution by striking the third sentence of the first paragraph. Hutchinson suggested the change on the grounds that this sentence deliberately generated extenuating circumstance to require EX&S involvement and removal of this sentence could avoid that involvement. Hutchinson was not convinced that the General Announcements could be modified in this way. Even though it was argued that errors in the General Announcements could be corrected, he questioned if this matter could be regarded as a correction of an error since these distribution requirements were not inadvertently placed in the General Announcements. Baker believed removing the sentence materially changed the meaning of the resolution. Harter commented that removing the sentence did not take away the central point of the resolution, which in her opinion was "Proposals for degree requirement changes need to go to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee."

A request was made for clarification of how the rules were transgressed in the alteration of the degree requirements. Dodds related the pertinent part of the catalog under the "Distribution Requirements" section and the new portion that was added for the first time this year. He pointed out the substantial change in the general education requirements which was never discussed by the appropriate faculty committee nor by the general faculty, and he added there may be good reasons for this change but that was a separate argument. Dodds repeated the fact that the General Announcements does not correctly convey the faculty’s choice of curriculum for all students. He added that the Dean of the Music School should make a representation to the proper bodies, who could evaluate the issue and move from there. In the interim, he believed the faculty should invoke the correction passage at the beginning of the General Announcements. Patten added there are other issues involved in this change. Distribution courses in each school are approved by an advisory committee to the dean and open to all students. He felt some of the courses that are available for distribution under those additional 4 courses taken by the Shepherd School are not available to other students as distribution. They, therefore, don’t fall in the same definition of what constitutes a distribution course for every student in the University the way other courses do. This would make a particular difference if a student would transfer into the Shepherd School or out of the Shepherd School in the course of his/ her career and find these distribution requirements at odds with their changed major. He believed it necessary to return to the prior degree requirements in effect before this error was created, deal with the problems of the error, and then go forward to address substantive issues and make the changes necessary.

Don Ostdiek pointed out that students' lives would be affected by the decisions made and the difference between approving a curriculum and deciding on a curriculum, which is a faculty prerogative and has to be defended, and administering a curriculum in a rational and sane way. Ostdiek did not see how the faculty could now decide to change the rules and send students through an ad hoc, arbitrary process where they must make their case and see if that committee would vote to accept it. He felt students must be exempt and then the discussion could focus on whether or not this was the right process, how distribution courses should be decided, and proceed to send the matter through the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. There should be separation in deciding the curriculum versus administering the curriculum in making the decision.

At Zammito's request, General Counsel Richard Zansitis spoke to the issue that, inspite of the language in the General Announcements regarding errors, the general principle is that publications such as the General Announcements are a contract between the institution and the students. Courts in other jurisdictions have been more inclined to forgive minor mistakes and ministerial errors. Major substantive errors are more of a problem because of issues of prejudice to the students or detrimental reliance of students.

The question was called and seconded to vote on the amendment to strike the last sentence of the first paragraph of the resolution which reads: "The prior degree requirements for the Shepherd School remain in force." The amendment to strike PASSED by a vote of 41 to 20.

Baker asked what effect this amendment had in relation to necessary action by the faculty. Levy contended there is an unsatisfactory situation and advised he had submitted a proposal to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, on behalf of the Deans, to alter the distribution requirements. If the proposal passed in Committee and was brought to the general faculty, he maintained this problematic situation would be solved. Jim Pomerantz, chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Curriculum, affirmed receiving this proposal, but thought it unlikely the committee would be able to have a recommendation for the general faculty by the conclusion of the semester.

When the question of ambiguity was raised, Hutchinson countered that he saw no ambiguity on the position since faculty just removed the statement that the General Announcements as written do not apply; therefore, they do apply as published. Huffer suggested that passing this resolution would create a bigger problem than the one already existing because the rules were unclear. Harter felt the ongoing discussion indicated the current resolution did not leave the faculty in a clear situation.

Baker asked if it was appropriate to add language to this resolution saying that absent any other action by the faculty that next year the catalog would revert. Although Levy believed the resolution as it is currently worded, would automatically revert degree requirements to be those printed in the previous General Announcements in the next catalog, he moved for an amendment to contain specific language addressing this issue. The motion was seconded. Zammito clarified that the amendment under discussion was to include a sentence to the effect that the General Announcements, barring any future action by the appropriate bodies, would revert to its prior conditions next time it’s published.

The question was called and seconded. The amendment PASSED by the necessary margin.

Baker restated the importance of faculty governance, and due to the importance of this issue, requested this resolution require two readings. He added that Rice faculty collectively had the authority to establish new degree programs, to establish and to modify graduation requirements, and to approve candidates for Rice degrees. Other than teaching and research, faculty governance was the the principal function of the faculty. Therefore, the faculty should have ample time to consider this very important issue. Zammito requested a ruling from President Gillis.

Gillis spoke of his concern for students between now and the next faculty meeting, but having seen a high degree of consensus to hold students harmless, however the remediation is done, he ruled that this resolution would take two votes.

The question was called. Zammito recapped the three amendments that had been passed: 1) amendment to hold students harmless; 2) amendment to strike the last sentence of the first paragraph; and 3) amendment to add a sentence that the General Announcements will revert to prior degree requirements in future years barring any future actions by the appropriate governing bodies. The vote was called and the motion PASSED on its first vote.

4. Announcements

President Gillis announced the date set for recognition of department coordinators on November 5 and encouraged all the faculty to attend the event at the Baker Institute.

There being no further announcements, the meeting was adjourned at 5:38 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Janis L. Cain
Secretary to the Faculty

Attachment A

WHEREAS a story in the 1 November 2002 Chronicle of Higher Education might mislead the public into believing that Rice University condones discrimination,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Rice University faculty repudiates any statement by a Rice official that might seem to imply that the University discriminates, and

BE IT THEREFORE FURTHER RESOLVED that the Rice University faculty unanimously reaffirms the University’s non discrimination policy 815-96, which states:

Rice University does not discriminate against any individual on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, age, disability,
or veteran status in its admissions, its educational programs, or employment of
faculty or staff.

["repudiates," from repudium divorce: 1. to divorce or separate formally from; 2. to refuse to have anything to do with: disown; 3a. to refuse to accept: esp. to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force; 3b. to reject as untrue or unjust; 4. to refuse to acknowledge or pay]

Attachment B

To: Rice General Faculty
From: Faculty Council (FC)
Date: October 24, 2002

Re: Bylaws Change

Faculty Council and University Council have for years found it difficult to fill their Assistant Professor positions. Some Deans and Chairs consider such service too heavy for untenured faculty. Some Assistant Professors feel the present four year term to be too long of a commitment. Finally, Council would like to have more faculty experience the way faculty governance works at Rice. Thus, Faculty Council has unanimously recommended that the FC service terms for Assistant Professors be reduced from 4 to 2 years. The following Bylaw changes are therefore submitted for a vote by the general faculty.

The FC Elections Committee proposes the following amendments to our Bylaws:

Article I, B, 1, last paragraph, change from "Elections are for terms of four academic years." to

"Elections for Professors and Associate Professors are for terms of four academic years. Elections for Assistant Professors are for terms of two academic years."

Likewise the election schedule for FC (only) shall change from:

to:

and the election to University Council (UC) and thereby also to FC shall change from

to

n is a U.S. Presidential Election Year

Attachment C

PROPOSED REVISION TO POLICY 214-96:

Each non-tenured tenure-track faculty member should receive an initial written performance evaluation by his or her department chair during the fourth semester of a first four-year contract. In the event that deficiencies are noted, the chair should provide a written statement to that effect to the faculty member and copies should be entered into the departmental files and forwarded to the Dean and to the Provost.

By the end of the first month of the sixth semester of a first four-year contract term, a second written performance evaluation should be provided by the department chair to each candidate for renewal, and this evaluation will serve as a partial basis for the departmental recommendation, later that semester, about renewal to a second term. The evaluation should be forwarded to the Dean and to the Provost as a part of the departmental dossier relating to renewal.

In schools without a departmental structure the written performance evaluation shall be the responsibility of the dean of the school, who may delegate that responsibility to the chair of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee (see Policy 201-01, section 6.d) or to the tenured faculty of the research area identified in the candidate's appointment letter.

Such performance reviews are advisory in nature, and are part of the overall review a faculty member receives about his or her performance, including verbal comments and teaching evaluations. Such performance reviews are also not necessarily determinative of future outcomes of promotion, tenure and retention decisions. The deliberation associated with a promotion and tenure case entails searching inquiry of a nature, range and depth that are beyond the scope of interim performance reviews and involve the consideration of many additional materials and sources beyond the interim performance review; thus, as all faculty know, such deliberations may lead to outcomes not anticipated in prior performance reviews.

Attachment D

Policy on Honorary Faculty Titles (Faculty Council, Draft 6)

Honorary titles are awarded to, and withdrawn from, faculty at the pleasure of the President in consultation with the corresponding Dean.

Rice University recognizes the four tenure track faculty ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, and University Professor, the two non-tenure track faculty ranks of Instructor and Lecturer, and the three non-tenure track research faculty ranks of Faculty Fellow, Senior Faculty Fellow and Distinguished Faculty Fellow. These positions are governed by Rice Policies 201-01, 214-96, and 327-90. Additional non-tenure track professional research staff titles are identified in the General Announcements.

Faculty in the above-cited ranks may on occasion be awarded additional honorary titles by the President based on past performance and with the expectation of future performance that meets expectations for such honorary titles. Such titles are often referred to as endowed chairs and are typically entitled as the "[Funding Source] [Rank] in [Program]" such as the "J.S. Abercrombie Professor in Engineering".

The decision to award such honors will involve the Dean of the school in which the honor is expected to be awarded and/or is currently held. In addition, the Dean of each school should appoint an Honorary Title Committee selected from among tenured faculty holding honorary titles. For awarding new honors the Dean should consult with that committee for its recommendation of a faculty member to be suggested to the President.

When an honorary titleholder is perceived to be deficient in his or her level of performance, the cognizant Dean shall have the Honorary Title Committee review the performance and prepare a report to the Dean. If a deficiency is identified, the committee should suggest a way for the honor holder to remove the deficiency and, if feasible, set a reasonable date by which to accomplish that change. The Dean should so inform the titleholder of such negative findings. If, at the end of any such remediation period, the Dean deems the performance to still be deficient the President shall be informed in writing. If the President then decides to withdraw the honor then the honorary titleholder shall be so informed.

If the honorary titleholder feels that his or her academic freedom has been infringed or has procedural objections then that faculty member has 30 days in which to request the Convener of the Appeals and Grievances Committee Faculty Council to form a review committee. That committee shall consist of two three tenured members of the faculty, holding honorary titles, selected by the Convener. That committee shall carry out an inquiry and submit its confidential recommendations to the President, with copies to the grievant and to the Convener and Speaker of Faculty Council. The President will then inform the faculty member of the final disposition of the honorary title.

Attachment F

DRAFT RESOLUTION: On the Shepherd School Degree Requirement Changes

In the spring of 2002 the Dean’s Council unilaterally altered the degree requirements in the Shepherd School of Music and placed these revised requirements in the General Announcements for academic year 2002-2003. This was in violation of the general faculty’s authority to determine curriculum and degree requirements. The prior degree requirements for the Shepherd School remain in force.

Proposals for degree requirement changes must be submitted to the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. Upon that committee’s recommendation, Faculty Council brings the matter before the general faculty for consideration.

Amendments PASSED to the above draft Resolution:

1) amendment to hold students harmless;

2) amendment to strike the last sentence of the first paragraph; and

3) amendment to add a sentence that the General Announcements will revert to prior degree requirements in future years barring any future actions by the appropriate governing bodies.