Minutes of the 10/21/05 Meeting of the College of Arts & Sciences
Proxies were held by:
Joe Dennin for Joan Weiss
Johanna Garvey for Jim Simon
George Lang for Kathryn Nantz
Qin Zhang for Gisela Gil-Egui
Call to order: Prof. Crabtree called the meeting to order at 3:37.
Crabtree asked for a motion to invite No‘l Appel to attend because we would again be discussing the Board of Advisors. There was some discussion of whether Appel should have a standing invitation or be voted in when necessary. Prof. Lane moved to invite Appel to attend this meeting, and Prof. Davidson seconded. The motion carried unanimously with 3 abstentions.
Approval of the minutes: of 9/21: Prof. Mulvey moved to approve, seconded by Prof. Bowen. The minutes were unanimously approved with 4 abstentions.
Dean Snyder presented an outline of his remarks, reminding faculty of the salient points.
Prof. Dennin expressed his puzzlement and concern regarding the split hires in the sciences. He was particularly concerned about the effect on the individual faculty hired and the departments they would be hired into. He gave the example of Biology, a department of about 9 faculty, scheduled to get 1/3 of each of 3 new hires, each of whom would then be entitled to vote on academic issues in the department. In other words, 3 people with only limited involvement in the Biology department, would have a strong voice in it. Snyder didnŐt think that the College governance document allocated voting rights as Dennin, supported by Mulvey, said it did, but promised to look into the matter. He also mentioned the 2 votes accorded the existing split position in Biology, but Prof. Lang later explained that when that split was approved by the Academic Council, it was with the express statement that it was not to serve as a precedent for future hires.
Snyder provided the update that the Bioinformatics position is now completely within Biology and the Biostatistics position is now on hold, so 7 of the previously listed split searches are underway. He explained that the goal of these hires was to generate more interdisciplinary conversations within and among the sciences. He envisioned these positions as modeled on positions in International Studies and Black Studies, in which faculty have full appointments in one department and some teaching responsibilities in a program.
Prof. Epstein asked about the advantage of interdisciplinarity. He suggested that it implies a problem with disciplinarity, which may not be warranted. Snyder argued that interdisciplinarity does not imply a criticism of disciplines. If knowledge is a tree, he began to explain, and shortly thereafter, your Secretary got lost in the leafy verdure and fragrantly fertilized soil of the Dean's arboreal metaphor. Epstein argued that split hires arenŐt necessary to enhance interdisciplinary thinking, because such thinking often happens within disciplines. Snyder turned to the Biologists present to ask about EpsteinŐs argument regarding the relationship between disciplines and interdisciplinary thinking. Profs. Klug and Osier agreed with Epstein, noting that Biochemists consider themselves either Biologists or Chemists. Snyder pointed out that these hires are already generating more interdisciplinary discussions in the departments, and they could open the door for student research across disciplinary lines. He further suggested that outside granting agencies view us as out of date on these issues. He conceded that these hires are an experiment, and Epstein suggested that attempting 7 such hires in 1 year is a pretty big experiment. Prof. Mielants said that from a European perspective, these hires are not particularly radical, and interdisciplinary research should be supported in a variety of ways.
Lang expressed that concerns that these hires, which represent long-term commitments, are not being driven programmatically, as, for example, are the hires in International Studies. He further noted that the Math and Computer Sciences department has a history of working with other departments, including Biology and Psychology, and currently has a faculty member with a specialty in the interdisciplinary field of Bioinformatics, another faculty member with a Ph.D. in Chemistry, and another who did his dissertation with a Psychologist, all without split hires. He argued that, unless there is a programmatic need to define a position narrowly, it should be defined as broadly as possible. In this way, hiring pools are bigger, and therefore, generally better. The restrictions placed on these split hires may weaken the pool of applicants. For example, he pointed out that it was unnecessary to restrict a search to someone with a specialty in Biostatistics, when current personnel could address undergraduate Biostatistical needs. Snyder agreed that the pools for these hires would be smaller, but insisted that the bar would not be lowered. If acceptable candidates are not found, the searches will have to be rethought and/or reconfigured. With regard to Biostatistics, he had found the Math argument compelling, and cancelled that search. The MACS department was left with the option of splitting a position with another department.
Prof. Rakowitz asked about how the teaching responsibilities would play out. Using the example of the Environmental Toxicologist scheduled to teach 2/3 in Biology and 1/3 in Chemistry, she suggested that such a person would, with a degree in Biology, be able to offer a range of course in that department. In Chemistry, this person would presumably offer an upper level toxicology course, which would be wonderful for the handful of interested and qualified students who might take it, but would do nothing regarding the lower level courses Chemistry needs to cover each semester. Similarly, Mulvey pointed out that about half of math classes are now taught by high school teachers. Presumably someone with a 1/3 load in math would be expected to teach an upper level interdisciplinary course, rather than an introductory course, so how would these hires reduce the departmentŐs reliance on adjuncts? Snyder replied that some of these concerns about teaching would have to be addressed in the hiring interviews and might further narrow the pools. He also suggested that some of the adjunct pressure in math might be addressed by revising the parts of the curriculum that provide specialized, generally low enrollment, courses to other programs.
Prof. Thiel questioned whether the fact that all but one of the split positions involves Biology is a function of the number of majors and/or premed students. Snyder said that it was not. Instead, he said that the goal in allocating positions was to maintain at least the same number of course opportunities and people, or equivalents thereof. The proposed structure would actually add one person.
Bowen expressed surprise that with the many hires happening throughout the College, none were authorized for the English department. Snyder said that he was working on that issue.
At this point, the conversation shifted from hires to the Board of Advisors. Crabtree said that Prof. Boquet was at a conference, but had emailed concerns about whether the new Board of Advisors represented a move away from direct democracy, in that it arose, not from the College, but from above. Epstein noted that the Advancement Committee, at their initiative, would be meeting with Snyder in the next week to discuss issues related to the Advisory Board. He further said that the committee was setting up meetings with each of the Deans who has a Board.
Lane asked how many members of the Board were previously on the Trustees Advisory Council (TAC). Appel answered that about 50% had been part of the TAC. She further explained that TAC has been completely revamped over the last year, and its new charge can be seen on the universityŐs website. She said that the selection for the College Board had been a very careful process, and each member of the Board had been assigned a major gifts officer, with ŇmajorÓ defined as at least $25,000. Lane expressed concerns that because the School of Business had formed their Board first, they had some College alumni on their Board. Appel noted that the College Board includes some Business alumni who have interests in the College. Snyder reminded the faculty that the Board makes the College a development entity for the first time; he read the part of the BoardŐs charge that makes fundraising an explicit and major component.
Prof. McCarthy asked about the identity of the 25 Board members, and complained that in the past, development was kept in the hands of a small number of people, despite the fact that faculty may be the members of the university community who are closest to alumni donors. Snyder said that he planned to release the list, but was worried about the possibility of inappropriate attempts to contact Board members. Crabtree suggested that it would be helpful to have guidelines from the Advancement Committee about releasing membersŐ names and bios, and about how to maintain clear lines of communication among Board members, faculty and Development. McCarthy acknowledged the need to be careful in handling interactions with potential donors, but resented the sense he gleaned from prior experiences that faculty could not be trusted in these situations. Snyder said that these concerns are part of a broader historical lack of communication among the divisions. He noted that the Strategic Plan calls for increased communication and the formation of the Board is an early move toward increasing communication between the College and Advancement. Snyder, Lane and McCarthy agreed that more trust was needed on all sides and that none of this discussion should be seen to reflect poorly on Appel. Prof. Hannafey reported positively on the interactions the Religious Studies department has had with the Board, echoing SnyderŐs claim that these issues of communication are improving.
Prof. Naser asked about the balance among the 4 school Advisory Boards and Advancement at the university level. Appel said that the Boards are asked for school-specific gifts and that upcoming strategic fundraising goals will include the school Boards. Snyder suggested a larger importance to NaserŐs question. He broadened the question to whether the Dean of the College should be just 1 of 6 Deans, when the College services roughly 5/6 of student needs. He said that he felt the answer was Ňno,Ó and thatŐs why he was constantly fighting for things like 5/6 of the pictures in the Catalogue, and why he had talked at the last meeting about branding the College. He noted that the BoardŐs charge also includes representing the College and advocating for the College internally.
At this point, Prof. Humphrey expressed concern that, despite the impending deadline for feedback on the strategic plan, we had not yet gotten to that agenda item.
Discussion of the University Strategic Plan with implications to College Planning
Lane offered some prepared comments on the draft Strategic Plan. Beginning with challenges for the College, he noted that undergraduate enrollment isnŐt changing so the primary source of revenue for the College isnŐt expanding. Graduate programs, however, may expand, and they often lose money, so their expansion may be a threat to the College. He then offered some hermeneutics, suggesting that Ňfiscal responsibilityÓ means balanced budget, Ňcompetitive compensation to all employeesÓ means reduced faculty share, and the discussion of athletics means more resources for that area. He noted that attempts to diversify the faculty and the student body culturally and economically are expensive; more resources will be required for financial aid. He wasnŐt sure what it meant to talk about changes in the culture of higher education, but figured that it would cost money. Regarding the culture of accountability, he pointed out that we still have 5 fiefdoms and nothing in the draft pulls them together (like a provost would). He wasnŐt sure what integration of the core would entail, beyond lots of time spent in discussion, perhaps duplicating prior work on the core. Assessing the core would certainly mean resources, and based on the history of assessment at Fairfield, he had no confidence that such resources would be forthcoming. Similarly, he wondered about the availability of funds to subsidize faculty living closer to the university in order to support living and learning initiatives.
On a somewhat more positive note, Lane suggested that the top strategic goal in the College should be to get new positions and reduce our reliance on adjuncts. He endorsed the idea that Catholic/Jesuit is our brand and we need to use it to our advantage. He commented on the planŐs call for the Finance division to assess departments and for the expansion of Advancement. He concluded by urging people to read the plan.
Snyder, a member of the drafting committee, said that their goal was to create a strategic vision; they were not charged with identifying strategies and tactics. He noted, though, that possible tactics are presented in the reports from the task forces. He further indicated that the College neednŐt be the only body responding to the draft; departments and programs could do so as well. He contended that we can accomplish the CollegeŐs goals through this plan. The budget process will favor goals from the plan, so we should make arguments for new lines based on core integration and living and learning initiatives.
Dennin, seconded by Davidson, moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:12.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Rakowitz