View in portable document format.



The Minutes of the Faculty Council meeting of October 20, 1997, published below, have been prepared for the immediate use of the members of the Faculty Council and are included in its Documents and Proceedings. They are also included in the Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty for the information of the members.


H. Paul Kelley, Secretary
The General Faculty

OCTOBER 20, 1997

The second meeting of the Faculty Council for the academic year 1997-1998 was held in Room 212 of the Main Building on Monday, October 20, 1997, at 2:15 p.m.


Present: Mark I. Alpert, Patricia A. Alvey, Gerard H. Behague, Kirsten L. Belgum, Roger D. Bengtson, Daniel A. Bonevac, Roger T. Bonnecaze, Carolyn P. Boyd, Oscar G. Brockett, Julie H. Burnett, Ralph C. Cain, Loftus C. Carson II, Harry M. Cleaver, Jr., Alan K. Cline, Patrick J. Davis, David L. Deming, Kenneth R. Diller, Edwin Dorn, Robert A. Duke, John R. Durbin, John S. Dzienkowski, Wendy E. Erisman, Linda Ferreira-Buckley, William L. Fisher, Peter T. Flawn, Marye Anne Fox, Alan W. Friedman, Karl Galinsky, Teresa Garcia, John C. Gilbert, Michael H. Granof, Sue A. Greninger, Lisa C. Henken, Martha F. Hilley, Joseph M. Horn, Sharon H. Justice, H. Paul Kelley, Kerry A. Kinney, Stefan M. Kostka, Michael L. Lauderdale, Brian P. Levack, William S. Livingston, Cindy Y. Lo, Reuben R. McDaniel, Jr., Alvin H. Meyer, Stephen A. Monti, Dean P. Neikirk, Kimberly Nixon, Melvin E. L. Oakes, Alba A. Ortiz, Patricia A. Parker, Robert G. Paterson, Theodore E. Pfeifer, Robert A. Prentice, Pedro Reyes, Gretchen Ritter, Thomas D. Russell, Edwin R. Sharpe, Jr., James Sidbury, Lawrence W. Speck, Janet Staiger, Patricia A. Stout, Ben G. Streetman, James W. Vick, Bruce Walker, Ellen A. Wartella, Marlen D. Whitley, Patricia Witherspoon, Jacqueline D. Woolley.

Absent : Jay L. Banner (excused), Joel W. Barlow, Frank D. Bean, Jr. (excused), Harold W. Billings (excused), Steven R. Cooke, Ann Cvetkovich (excused), David S. Dolling, James T. Doluisio, Sheldon Ekland-Olson, G. Charles Franklin, Susan H. Gamel (excused), James D. Garrison (excused), Lawrence E. Gilbert, E. Glynn Harmon (excused), Julie Hallmark (excused), Thomas M. Hatfield, Manuel J. Justiz (excused), Robert D. King, William J. Koros, Desmond F. Lawler (excused), Raul G. Longoria (excused), Robert G. May (excused), Lisa L. Moore (excused), Donald P. Newman, Shelley M. Payne (excused), Mary Ann Rankin, Johnnie D. Ray, Dolores Sands, M. Michael Sharlot, Alexa M. Stuifbergen, Teresa A. Sullivan (excused), Barbara W. White (excused), Paul B. Woodruff (excused),

Voting Members:
54 present,
18 absent,
72 total
Non-Voting Members:
15 present,
15 absent,
30 total
Total Members:
69 present,
33 absent,
102 total



The Secretary's written report had been distributed in advance as D&P 16404-16424.

Secretary H. Paul Kelley (Educational Psychology) reminded Council members that the annual meeting of the General Faculty would be held at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, in Flawn Academic Center, Room 21.

Because of the urgent nature of the item under New Business, and at the request of the Faculty Council Executive Committee, Secretary Kelley moved that the Order of Business be changed and that Section X, New Business, be taken up by the Council immediately before Section IX, Reports. The motion was APPROVED by a voice vote.


A. Minutes of the Faculty Council Meeting of September 15, 1997. (D&M 22091-22115/D&P 16428-16452). (APPROVED)

The Minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of September 15, 1997, on D&M 22091-22115/D&P 16428-16452, were APPROVED as distributed.


A. Comments by the President.

President ad interim Peter T. Flawn said: "In about a week I am scheduled to address the General Faculty. I do not expect a quorum, so, as in the past, I shall prepare remarks for circulation. I do not want to anticipate today what I shall say to the General Faculty except to make a few comments on the capital campaign, which I am now thinking of in my own mind as the Flagship Campaign.

"Today at the Deans Council I shared with them an article in the Yale magazine, called Made It. It reports on their five-year capital campaign, which was successful and raised some 1.7 billion dollars. What I thought was very interesting is that the campaign ranged over the tenures of three presidents…. I think that should be reassuring and should point again to the reality that this is an institutional campaign, and it transcends any individual. There [is a historical quotation], 'The University is greater than the shadow of a single individual.' I commend that to you.

"It is essential, I think, that the funds we raise in this campaign be used to insure our status as the flagship for a long time to come. While we look to the legislature for basic support, I am of the opinion that the resources needed to preserve and enhance the flagship will have to come through our own efforts. The three essential elements of a flagship institution are (1) distinguished faculty, (2) the very best students, and (3) state-of-the-art facilities. To me, this means that the priority for new resources has to go to supporting a distinguished faculty and superior students.


  "What I would like to see us do in this capital campaign is substantially increase endowed positions for mid-career faculty. It is hard to raise money for Chairs when we have so many of them that have been vacant for so long. I think the real need is at the mid-career point-for people in the upper end of the Associate Professor range and the lower end of the Professor range. I think this would halt the drain of our best Associate Professors and recently- appointed Professors.

"I would also like to see us endow a very significant number of new Graduate Fellowships and new Undergraduate Scholarships. We have not been competitive in recruiting graduate students, and we have got to do something about it. I think with perhaps 500 new Graduate Fellowships we can solve that problem.

"I would also like to see us establish a very substantial fund to take the University out into the public schools of Texas to improve teacher training, to improve motivation of students, to provide incentives to highly-qualified high school students from all over this state to come to this university. To put it simply, we have got to get out more. If we represent ourselves as a state-wide university, we have got to be visible in more than Austin and Houston and Dallas.

"With these kinds of investments, I think our Flagship Campaign will make a long-term difference. After five or six years of work on this capital campaign and a successful conclusion to it, I would not then want to face the question, 'Well, so what; how did this campaign really help the University?' and not be able to give the answer that, 'This campaign has given us a competitive edge in recruiting and holding faculty, and as a result we are without question among the top five public institutions in this nation.'

"Now, these are just my personal views at this time. They are going to be discussed at the Development Board meeting early next month, and at some point we will try to put together a statement of University purpose in this campaign that is focused and concise. I think in the past where we have had 35 or 40 needs listed, that is not the right approach, in my view.

"Now, that is all I have to say today; I wanted to bring you up to date on this. I have told Reuben McDaniel that I would like to schedule a meeting with the faculty Development Policy Advisory Committee at an early date…."

B. Questions to the President — None.


Chair John C. Gilbert (Chemistry and Biochemistry) commented on the amount of legislation on which action had been completed and expressed his hope that in the future the Secretary's written report will be much shorter. "A number before us have suffered devastation over the last two or three years because of issues [approved by the Faculty Council] that have been lying moribund somewhere in the [UT] System for a long time [awaiting final action]…. I took a look at the range of times during which some of these issues had been under consideration. The earliest I found was something that probably [was approved by] the University Council in October, 1991, and [has now been] finally acted upon. But more recently there was an issue that [was approved by] the Faculty Council in April, 1997; [it] found its way to the System offices on September 25 and was approved that very day. I hope that represents the kind of turn-around time we are going to have on a number of issues in the future….


  "[Chair Elect] Shelley Payne and I attended the Fall meeting of the UT System Faculty Advisory Council; this is the body that is comprised of…governance officers from every academic and health-related institution [in the UT System]. Briefly, one of the items that was passed on into the hands of the administration now for implementation was an exit survey of faculty, trying to get a sense of why…faculty leave institutions within the System…. The faculty in all of the institutions felt they had had adequate consultation with regard to development of post-tenure revue policies. I view that as a healthy sign of shared governance, because even though administrations were asked, or instructed, to consult with faculty, that would not necessarily guarantee that [faculty were consulted]….

"As you may know, [at that meeting] there was considerable discussion of [Prof. Graglia's remarks about minority students], and a resolution was passed by the Faculty Advisory Council which reads as follows:

The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council deplores Professor Lino Graglia's remarks denigrating minorities. While we unequivocally support the right to free speech, we believe that these and similar remarks undermine the faculty's goal to increase diversity and understanding on our campuses.

Although you can clearly see aspects from [the] original resolution [that we considered at our] last meeting, [neither Chair Elect Payne] nor I was on the subcommittee that developed this particular resolution.

"As a point of information, as part of [that] meeting we had a dinner at the Bauer House, courtesy of the Chancellor. Following the dinner, the Chancellor talked about the retreats that President Flawn made us aware of at our past meeting and then was asked by a member of the audience about [Prof. Graglia's remarks]. In the course of that discussion, our Faculty Council came under a great deal of fire from Chancellor Cunningham; basically, [he] publicly [berated us] for failure to pass a stronger resolution. Personally, I felt as though the Chancellor [criticized us] in a forum where it was not possible to respond in a meaningful manner. Suffice it to say, I was very upset- and continue to be.

"Passions [concerning Prof. Graglia's remarks] continue to run high, as you may know. I would like to share with you a few quotes from a presentation made by Dr. Joaquin Cigarroa, a member of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, at [its] recent meeting [on October 16]. He said, among other things:

It is troubling that some consider Professor Graglia's comments a non-issue, when it is very current in the minds of minorities. It certainly is a very current issue in the South Texas press, where the readership is predominately Mexican-American. No comment made by people in leadership positions makes all of us who are members of minority groups feel invisible. To be silent in the face of such degradation makes all that are affected feel insignificant and small. We are not invisible, we are not insignificant, and we are not small.

A university (and, by extension, its faculty) which does not nurture diversity becomes a stagnant enclave benefiting only itself, rather than being a vibrant part of the pluralistic society in which it is centered.



  Mexican-American and black communities do want access to a university of the first class. Some may choose to have their university

experience closer to their homes by attending a regional university, and that should always remain a viable and excellent alternative. But the original first-class university, The University of Texas at Austin, deserves to be within the reach of all of us without bias or prejudgments of racial incompetence.

All of us involved in education should encourage Texans of every background to attain the highest level of education possible. We should make it possible for each individual in our pluralistic society to have access to professional schools and to universities of the first class, access with confidence and with rightful self esteem.
"Another meeting that I attended this past week-end was the Texas Council of Faculty Senates, which is comprised of leaders of faculty governance organizations from all publicly-supported institutions of higher education. We heard a presentation from Henry Cuellar, the member of the House of Representatives who was responsible for carrying the post-tenure review bill in the House. He is to be credited, as I understand it, with many of the modifications which made this particular bill much more faculty friendly. One of the things he encouraged, as part of his presentation, was greater faculty interaction with legislators [in order] to educate legislators about the various issues…. I will try to get more [information]….

"There is a [public] meeting of the Higher Education Committee later this week…. Issues such as the Hopwood case [and] the general issue of diversity in higher education will be discussed by this committee. So, if you have the time and the interest, I would encourage you to attend this meeting….

"Your Executive Committee has not been idle in the interim since our first meeting of the Faculty Council. We played a role in establishing the five task forces which are designed to address diversity at the University of Texas at Austin. Some of you have been contacted by us and asked to serve, and I am pleased that…we got an excellent faculty response, in the face of [the] number of commitments that you have to do other things. So I publicly express my appreciation to all of you that [are] able to serve at this time.

"The rosters for committees on the status of women and minorities are complete, and the administration is presently contacting individuals to gain their acceptance of the appointments; hopefully in the next week to ten days those committees can be formally announced.

"[Concerning] the Athletics Committee…, the President's Office has responded in the usual Flawn manner that they are ready to go, and it is my fault that we have not proceeded further. I [hope] that by our next meeting…this committee [will have] been appointed and [will have started working]….

"I [have been told], with regard to the presidential search, that…the short list [of candidates is to be selected] some time this month, but I honestly do not know for sure….

"We have not received as yet a response from the Board of Regents regarding our request that not only there be interviews on campus, which I am convinced there will be, but that there be input accepted from the faculty in making the final decision. We can obviously provide that input; whether or not they pay any attention to it, of course, is up to the Board members…."






IX. NEW BUSINESS. [Taken up out-of-order by a vote earlier in the meeting.]

A. Resolution Concerning Minorities and the University Environment (D&P 16427). (APPROVED)

Gretchen Ritter (Government) and Alba A. Ortiz (Special Education) had submitted the following resolution concerning minorities and the University environment (D&P 16427):

Recognizing that African Americans and Hispanics have historically been underrepresented at The University of Texas at Austin, the Faculty Council, on behalf of the faculty, reaffirms its commitment to remedying this imbalance. As teachers and mentors of minority students, we attest to the intellectual distinction they bring to the University and value their contributions to this community. We therefore deplore statements that denigrate the culture and academic qualifications of racial and ethnic minorities. We are united in the University's efforts to increase minority enrollment and to create a welcoming and supportive environment for all students.

After reading the resolution, Prof. Ritter moved that it be approved. She then said: "Why have we brought this resolution before you today? Because we believe that the larger community is unclear about where we stand, not only because of what has happened over the last few weeks, but because of what [has] happened over the last couple of years. The truth is that the Hopwood decision has changed things at UT. Most of us wish that the Hopwood decision had never happened, but it did. Not only does the Hopwood decision mean that it is now harder for the University to recruit minority students, it also means that the public wonders where the UT community stands on racial matters.

"The events of the last six weeks have been trying for all of us. Within the context of the Hopwood decision, rightly or wrongly many people wonder whether we are committed to the full inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities into our community. That is why I believe that [Prof.] Lino Graglia's statement set off such a furor, and that is why it is important for us to present our views clearly.

"More recently, the position of the Faculty Council has been called into question. The broader community now wonders about our commitment to minority enrollment and retention and questions whether we silently tolerate statements which disparage whole groups. My feeling is that that is not the sentiment of this body and that some of our actions have been mischaracterized and misunderstood. Nonetheless, I think it is time for us to go on record with our views.


  "At a time when the entire University is being asked to come to terms with these issues, I am a major supporter of academic freedom and free speech. Academic freedom is important to us, I think, because it encourages intellectual diversity and dialogue. That is why I think we were right last time to pass a resolution that supports academic freedom and free speech. That is also why I am sensitive to concerns that free speech might be harmed by this resolution.

"To the contrary, though, I believe that this resolution promotes free speech and academic freedom. I think this for two reasons. First, respecting someone's right to free speech is different from agreeing with what they have said. We are now using our speech to respond to certain statements; in this we are contributing to an important discussion about racial matters on this campus. It would be wrong to feel that a respect for free speech requires us to be silent about statements we find disagreeable.

"Second, real dialogue requires a context of trust and good faith. I do not believe that statements which disparage entire groups contribute to such an atmosphere. We must begin, I think, by showing respect for each other. Once that is done, then it will be easier for us to have the dialogue that is needed here.

"Finally, I would like to ask you to resist the temptation to tinker with or soften this resolution. It is not because I think this resolution is perfect; rather, I believe that we should stay focused here on the general principles at stake and not focus on the minor things that we might disagree about. If we try to amend or improve this resolution then we run the danger of voting for something the implications of which we have not carefully considered. Please decide on the resolution before you-yes or no.

"One final remark I will add, just in response to [Chair Gilbert's] report. I would also like to say do not vote for this resolution because [of what] Chancellor Cunningham or anybody else has said to you; vote for this resolution, if you believe it, because it is right."

John R. Durbin (Mathematics) moved that the following resolution be substituted for the one introduced by Prof. Ritter:

The Faculty Council affirms the University's commitment to distinguish itself as one of the premier universities in the country and to offer a first-rate education to talented and dedicated students irrespective of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background.

In response to recent events, the Council wishes to express its disapproval of statements that denigrate the culture and academic qualifications of racial and ethnic minorities or of other student groups. We value the contributions of minority students and attest to the intellectual distinction that many have brought to the University. We endorse the University's efforts to increase minority enrollment and to create a welcoming and supportive environment for all students.

In support of his motion to substitute, Prof. Durbin said: "I agree with essentially everything that Prof. Ritter said. It is a question of how to deal with it, and my feeling is that it should be dealt with in a more positive manner….


  "Since we are now discussing whether to substitute this, I would like to make remarks about the differences between the two. First, I would like to address the question of the University environment, which I gather pertains to Prof. Graglia's remarks. The basic difference between the two statements is the difference between the words deplore and disapproval, and I will admit that I do not have strong feelings about that difference. The reason I used disapproval in place of deplore was that I think the decibel level needs to be lowered. I think once the basic issues have been heard, …strong language does not help; I do not think one finds strong language helpful in Northern Ireland or the Middle East, and I do not think it helps in the State of Texas. That is my own view. Again, I do not have strong feelings about that difference, but that is just my preference….

"The original motion has a statement in it (and I am just trying to point out what the differences are): As teachers and mentors of minority students, we attest to the intellectual distinction they bring to the University and value their contribution to this community. My feeling about that statement is that it is weak because it is not true. This is not putting down minorities. I think the words intellectual distinction should have meaning, and if I were talking about Plan II students or the people who receive Ph.D's from this institution, I would also say…, as I say in my motion, and attest to the intellectual distinction that many have brought to the University. I think the other statement is weaker because it overstates [the case] and loses credibility.

"Beyond that, let me speak especially to the first paragraph of [my resolution], because to me that is the main difference. To me it is not useful to deal with the past. The Athletics Department, …whatever else one may think about it, has a clearly defined goal-they want to be the best; my guess is when they recruit students they explain clearly what they are about, and they do not dwell on the past. To me the way the University can best address this issue is to lead with a statement that says what the University stands for as an educational institution. I think that is the best way to recruit faculty, to keep faculty, to attract donors, and most important, in the present context, to attract students. To me it would be easier to recruit if one can tell students of whatever race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background that this is the kind of institution we are and we want you to come here, and here is why we should want you to come here.

"The last statement is just to mention the last [sentence] of mine …., We endorse the University's efforts to increase minority enrollment and to create a welcoming and supportive environment for all students. The University has done a lot to try to recruit minority students and to make a welcoming atmosphere for all students…, and as was rightly pointed out, we are not to blame for Hopwood. I do not think we need to recall all of the past to deal with that."

In response to a point of information raised by Alan K. Cline (Computer Sciences and Mathematics), Chair Gilbert reported that the motion to substitute had been seconded by Joseph M. Horn (Psychology).

Alba A. Ortiz (Special Education) spoke against the motion to substitute.

"Prof. Ritter and I have had numerous discussions with Prof. Durbin, most of them over e-mail, and as you can tell, we have reached somewhat of an impasse. I hope you will vote against the [motion to substitute] because [Prof. Durbin's resolution] omits or skirts several issues which I think are critical and which, I think, will raise further opportunity for misinterpretation about the intent of the Faculty Council.


  "The first omission is an acknowledgment of underrepresentation of minorities at UT Austin. We do offer a first-rate education here, but that is not the issue; rather, it is that minorities are not present in significant numbers to profit from that quality education. I believe it important that we as a faculty acknowledge this underrepresentation and affirm our commitment to remedying the imbalance.

"Professor Durbin argues that the words express [its] disapproval make the case and are softer. The word deplore is a strong word, and it is intended to be. The first resolution passed by this body, I think, was a soft stance. We now need the strongest possible statement for the reasons that Prof. Ritter articulated when she introduced the resolution.

"I do not understand why Prof. Durbin insists on inserting the word many in the sentence that we attest to the intellectual distinction[minorities] bring to the University. That is a subtle change in wording, but it communicates volumes.

"Prof. Durbin argues that if it is to have real meaning, the term intellectual distinction should be used with restraint. He says he thinks that sticking with the truth makes a statement stronger and that he would use the same term, that is, many, for Plan II students, graduates of Westlake High, or Ph.D's in Mathematics. In a statement such as the one we have offered, it is understood that there may be some who do not meet the standard; that is why we did not say all or each and everyone.

"I urge you to vote against the substitute resolution."

Linda Ferreira-Buckley (English) said: "Despite my respect for the proposal, I too want to speak against the [motion to substitute], since it does not specifically signal African Americans and Hispanics, and I believe that the absence of that articulation is noticeable and damaging.

"I would like to speak largely as someone who has worked in the public schools for the past five years in the Rio Grande Valley, helping to improve the curriculum there and teaching honors students a college-level course. I have heard, in the last several weeks, from many of these students who are appalled and have said, 'Professor, this is why we have chosen to go to UT San Antonio' and so on, though several of them were accepted at UT Austin. There is a perception, fair or not, that UT Austin is not a welcoming environment to minorities, and that is why I do think that before we move on from the past we have to deal with these very powerful past statements. I think it is fair to say that this resolution will not get the play that Prof. Graglia's comments have won, but I do think that we need to make a strong statement affirming our commitments specifically to and belief in African Americans and Hispanics.

"I can also say that, in my own department, faculty members who are African Americans and Hispanics have wondered why the Faculty Council did not approve the [previous resolution]. Graduate students -I am currently Chair of the graduate program in English- have also wondered why the Faculty Council has not stated it more strongly. I, too, worry about academic freedom as a principle, but I know that just as we guarantee academic freedom, academic freedom entails, demands even, that we have a strong responsibility to answer those claims."

Kirsten L. Belgum (Germanic Languages) also spoke against the motion to substitute. "I think the most important thing here is that [the] resolution…proposed by Profs. Ortiz and Ritter [does] not retract the resolution that was [approved at the last meeting], which states explicitly [that the Faculty Council strongly affirms] the right to free speech. I think the problem with the resolution that was passed last time by this body is that…it emphasized only the things that were not [the subject of Prof. Graglia's]


  comments-the things that caused the outrage…. We insisted on our right to free speech, highlighted the positive, as opposed to addressing in a very direct manner the problems with the comments by Prof. Graglia. I think voting [to substitute the second resolution for the first] would make that same mistake again. Simply affirming the excellence of this University is not what we are being asked to do right now; we are being asked to make a statement on a specific issue, and I think the initial resolution does that far better."

Marlen D. Whitley (Student Government) said: "I want to speak on behalf of students of color, particularly African Americans, in support of the resolution [proposed] by Profs. Ritter and Ortiz.

"Specifically, I have designated myself for the past year as a spokesperson for this university, and I am sure many of you know, being in the particular position I am in, [that] is not very easy to do. As a matter of fact, it has been extremely difficult, in that being a student of color I have been a front-line defender of this university through the Hopwood decision, recognizing that the University is not, has not been, and was not responsible for the decision itself but still maintains a responsibility to recruit the best and brightest minds from around the state and from around the nation, which includes African American and Hispanic students. Over the past few weeks, having had to endure a series of events, particularly the remarks made by Prof. Graglia, has put me in the very interesting position as to which line I will step on-continuing to defend and support and promote The University of Texas throughout all communities around the state, or to sit idly by and watch the University crumble in its effort to improve and promote diversity on this campus. I am reluctant to give up my stance to defend and to promote this university because my education here has been, without a doubt, the best I could have imagined having attained at any university, whether it be Harvard, whether it be any Ivy League school, or any school around in the state of Texas. So I think it is especially important that you hear from students that this resolution will affect ultimately.

"The resolution [proposed] by Profs. Ritter and Ortiz is more meaningful to me because it speaks to the facts. I think it is important in this instance that you do not hide history, especially the history of this university. I think all too often that is the problem. We try to sweep those inconsistencies and those things that we abhor under the rug and try to ignore those things and try to focus on what is good. I think that if [you] put the past and all of its horrors in perspective, you can appreciate where you have come from so you can acknowledge and work towards where you want to go. I think that is the message this Faculty Council would want to send out-that, recognizing the years of adversity that this university has had as far as the perception and the coverage that it had in the communities of people of color, particularly African Americans and Hispanics, …the Faculty Council is dedicated to making sure that all students feel comfortable at this university. I, as a student…working as an advocate of this University, feel more powerful with a resolution like this in my hand when I go into the Houston Independent School District and the Dallas Independent School District, or go into the Rio Grande Valley, and recruit students, knowing that I have a body of faculty that are concerned and committed to diversity on this campus, and can show them this, feeling that I know in my heart that this Faculty Council and all the administration support overwhelmingly something as powerful as this, as opposed to something that is a little bit more watered down and a little bit safer.

"I honestly feel that the resolution that has been proposed by Profs. Ritter and Ortiz speaks more to what we have overcome in the past and where we want to go in the future as a body. So I urge you to [vote against the motion to substitute and to]support the resolution [presented] by these two professors."

Chair Gilbert recognized a motion to close debate and to vote immediately on the motion to substitute. The motion to close debate was APPROVED by a voice vote. Then the motion to substitute


  was DEFEATED by a voice vote, and debate returned to the original motion to approve the resolution presented by Profs. Ritter and Ortiz.

Chair Gilbert recognized a motion to close debate and to vote immediately on the original motion. The motion to close debate was APPROVED by a vote of 33 to 15.

The motion to approve the Ritter-Ortiz resolution was then APPROVED by a voice vote.


A. Development Policy Advisory Committee (D&P 16453-16463).

Reuben R. McDaniel, Jr., (Management Science and Information Systems), representing the Development Policy Advisory Committee, said that the Committee "is an ad hoc committee of the President's Office originally appointed by President Berdahl as part of two events: 1. His general effort and the general effort of the Executive [Officers] to involve faculty more closely in advisory committees to Executive Officers. Some of you will remember that there are now such advisory committees, for example to the Provost. 2. In the wake of some of the discussion of the Moffett Building, it was thought by many that a faculty advisory committee on development would be a useful thing. Such a [Presidential ad hoc] committee was appointed in January, 1996. The Committee has made a written report to the President [D&P l6453-16463]…. We are sharing this report with the Council so that you can have information about what has been going on. I think all of you have received copies of the document; I will be glad to answer any questions about [it]. I want to make two comments before I open to questions:

"1. The recommendations that we made, I think, have been fairly carefully considered, and I commend those to you on page 4 of the report.

"2. Since the report has been submitted to President Flawn, I have received a letter from him (which he has already mentioned today) asking to meet with the Advisory Committee to discuss the capital campaign and to continue to work with Vice President [ad interim] Ray and President ad interim Flawn in having faculty input to the development process. "

Chair Gilbert commented that there is a perception that interdisciplinary programs, such as Women's Studies, have no advocates at the development level, and he asked if the Committee had any suggestions.

Prof. McDaniel replied: "I do not know if there are any advocates at the Development Office for Women's [Studies], but…the Development Office has assigned specific members of the Office staff to work on various interdisciplinary programs. For example, Joe Youngblood, I know, is working with the people in the Gerontology Program, so they have been sensitive to the need to assign someone specifically in the Development Office to work with the leadership of interdisciplinary programs in the raising of funds. So one thing I would suggest is that anybody who is involved in interdisciplinary programs…contact that Office; I am sure they will be glad to assign someone to help you and to work with you in fund-raising activities.



  "We have made a number of other suggestions in terms of how interdisciplinary programs might be better supported through the Development Office. For example, we have talked with people in the Development Office about the appropriate role of the Provost's Office in the support of interdisciplinary programs."

Alan K. Cline (Computer Sciences and Mathematics) said: "In the report it was mentioned that when the Committee was originally appointed there was a question of [the] faculty role in the naming of buildings. To remind people of the situation back then, the Regents' Rules called for a faculty role in the naming of buildings, although the Regents retain the right to overrule faculty decisions on that. In the report that I have here, I notice there is a good deal about the present committee commenting on building namings, but I do not understand what the present committee is recommending for the future with respect to a faculty role."

Prof. McDaniel replied: "First, you should be reminded that the Regents' Rules have since changed. This committee had a significant role to play in the design of the new rules, and those rules had been previously circulated to this group for its comment and debate. I do not think any actual debate took place, but the new Regents' Rules regarding a name of a building have been fairly widely circulated.

"The Committee…debated in a fairly lively way…what is the faculty role, and I think comes down pretty well on it is not the faculty's role to decide building names…. What we want to have is an opportunity to be consulted in a systematic kind of fashion…. Depending upon who is involved, …deans, …the President's Office, …the Chancellor's Office, the strategy for that involvement may vary. I have listed a number of cases where, in fact, through one channel or the other, somebody came to the committee with, 'We are contemplating this idea,' or in one case it was, 'We have somebody on the phone on the other line, almost, and is there any particular reason why we shouldn't try to do X or Y or Z?'

"I think there has been a very active effort on the part of Deans, on the part of the President's Office, and on the part of the Chancellor's Office with respect to the Longhorn Foundation questions, in terms of involving members of the Committee. There has also been faculty involvement at the Dean's level in specific college efforts and activities or with advisory committees, for example, in the case of the Humanities Library."

Prof. Cline then asked: "Do you think the new policy will avoid the problems from the past?"

Prof. McDaniel replied: "Yes, I really do. I think just the fact that people realize that they have some obligation to consider and to confer with others makes people more cautious about what they do, even if they do not have to get…approval to do anything. I assure you Dr. Flawn does not need my approval to name [anything] whatever he wants to name it, but the facts are that he recognizes the role of the Committee, and I think the whole Development staff recognizes the role of the Committee, and they try to work very hard with us on these issues. And there is a policy on building naming, which has also been distributed previously to the Faculty Council, that specifies pretty clearly certain kinds of criteria and certain kinds of concerns and interests that I think really guide all of us in our thinking about these matters. So I think we are in good shape."

Karl Galinsky (Classics) asked about the newly approved minimum endowment levels listed in the report (D&P 16455). "The one that I particularly have concerns about is…one that President Flawn mentioned in his brief remarks to us earlier, …a Graduate Fellowship. I hope you are not under the illusion that a $50,000 endowment is going to fund a Graduate Fellowship for every year. I mention this only because that is really, I think, one of the biggest drawbacks that we have at the moment in terms of


  recruitment of graduate students…, where it is simply routine that very often they get four or five years of fellowship from another institution at $14,000-$15,000 a year. I do realize the constraints here; I do not think that is a very glitzy kind of thing to ask donors for. Perhaps that is why [the minimum] has been kept low, [with] the understanding that we may have to pool some of these fellowships when it actually comes to attracting graduate students. But I think it is really one of the major issues in this capital campaign. This is where we completely fall short at the moment."

Prof. McDaniel said: "I think that is a reasonable question. First, let me point out…that these numbers [on D&P 16455] are not intended to be the maximum amounts that anybody can give. Some schools and colleges, in fact, at the Chair level and the Professorship level have already set significantly higher levels than this as the minimums that they are trying to get from donors.

"What we were trying to do [was], starting with the policies we had in the past, [to determine what we thought] was a reasonable increase…so that we could begin to say to folks, 'This is the absolute minimum that you should think about if you are interested in funding a Graduate Fellowship. There would not be any expectation that the interest off of that endowment would provide for a graduate student and [her or his] baby, but it may provide the margin that would make a big difference for some people.

"I should also point out…that…one of the things that we are very interested in [are] programmatic endowments and the funding of programmatic efforts which really include graduate student support as well as faculty support. It is something that would be absolutely different than a Professorship or a Graduate Fellowship, so we are looking at something like Women's Studies program having an endowment that would include in it operating [funds and] funds for faculty development, for example."

Chair Gilbert added: "I think the cooperation between the administration and this committee with regard to naming of buildings is another very positive sign of shared governance at this university. One hopes it will continue with the next President, and I would urge any of you who have the opportunity to speak one-on-one or in a group with the candidates …that certainly one of the major issues you would address with the individuals is their sense of faculty governance, the role of the faculty in terms of defining the direction of a university or the day-to-day operation of a university."

B. Report on Admission Procedures (D&P 16464-16470).

Bruce Walker (Director of Admissions) submitted in advance materials that were distributed to Council members as D&P 16464-16470. Copies of the transparencies he used during his presentation appear as Attachment 1 to these Minutes on D&M 22187-22197/D&P 16545-16555.

Dr. Walker said: "It is my understanding that the Provost gave a report to this group [recently] about the numbers [of students admitted and enrolled] and how this year compared to last…. I would like to talk to you about …some of the new challenges we face and how we are adapting to those challenges in our admissions process, so I would like to spend my time talking with you in the next few minutes about admission to UT Austin in Fall 1998 and beyond.

"I [talked] with you [last year] about the changes that were made in the admissions process…. I had hoped that those changes would remain in place for two years to let everyone get used to them, but since that meeting the legislature has met, so we have some [more] changes to talk about….

"Let me just briefly go through House Bill 588 [on D&P l6468-16470]…. There are actually two parts to the bill; I want to talk about the top ten percent [part] first. House Bill 588 gives an entitlement to


  students who graduate in the top ten percent from Texas high schools; …if they apply within two years of having graduated and if they are in the top ten percent, then they are automatically admitted. The bill gives rule-writing authority…to the Coordinating Board, and the Coordinating Board rules have [now been approved]. This entitlement is good if the high school reports the rank as a specific number and a specific class size. The committee of the Coordinating Board was concerned that this entitlement be administered evenly across all high schools, so it [specified that] no more than ten percent of a graduating class can be in the top ten percent. Now that seems so obvious…, but in fact there are ways to get as much as a third of a graduating class into the top ten percent; we have seen it done, so we know it is possible….

"One of the obvious questions is, how many students are we talking about?…. Well, we know that there are about 17,000 graduates this past year who were in the top ten percent. We bought the names [of the 13,092] students who are currently in a senior class who took the SAT and wrote to them about the top ten percent bill…. The ethnic breakdown of that group was [68% White, 15% Hispanic, 9% Asian American, 4.5% Black, 3% not reported, and less than 1% American Indian]….

"Then you might ask, …how many of those students are likely to apply to UT Austin? I cannot say for sure, but we do have information about what happened in the past. The seven-year average was 4,597 top ten percent Texas residents applying to UT Austin; [breakdowns for each of] the various ethnic groups [are shown in Attachment 1 on D&M 22190/D&P 16548]…. So we would expect that this year will not be too different from past years, and somewhere in the range of 4,500 to 4,600 top ten percent students will apply to UT Austin.

"Now, how will that impact enrollment by college, or number of offers of admission by college…? We wanted to find an answer to that, [so we] took this year's class, since we had information about it by college, and asked that question. [See Table III in Attachment 1 on D&M 22191/D&P 16549.] These are the numbers of students…who were in the top ten percent, who applied, who were Texas residents, [and who were admitted to each college or school]. We can see that this particular year there were [about] 3,800….

"We wanted to [find out] if we [had] admitted all of those students would there [have been] any spaces remaining [unfilled]? The last column [in Table III, Attachment 1, D&M 22191/D&P 16549] answers that question…; for example, in Communications, 51% of the spaces would [have been unfilled] after we admitted all of the top ten percent, and so forth down the line. It varies from 46% of the spaces [would have been unfilled] in Business after we admitted the top ten percent to…93% in Social Work and 83% in Education [would have been unfilled] after we admitted the top ten percent. Overall, 65% of our spaces would [have been unfilled] after [we] admitted the top ten percent; said another way, about 35% of the spaces [would have been] taken by the top ten percent had this bill been in effect for this year.

"These are the top ten percent guidelines under which we will be operating. [See Attachment 1, D&M 22192/D&P 16550.] Top ten percent students do have to complete the application [for admission]; you will see in the bill that is required. They have to meet our application deadline, which is February 1. A complete application includes the transcript, SAT, essays, and the fee. We are going to attempt to accommodate…[the applicant's] first choice [of college or school] except for Architecture, Fine Arts, and Honors Programs. Architecture faculty evaluate applications; …they are looking for creativity [and] for commitment to the profession. In Fine Arts, Music is an example of a major that requires an audition….. And the Honors Programs are not [automatically] open to the top ten percent….


  "The bill requires us to evaluate the files of students admitted in the top ten percent and look for ways that will strengthen the chance that they are going to succeed at the University. So we are going to be looking for mathematics readiness, for example, in Business Administration, Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Sciences, and …Physics…; mathematics readiness is preparation for the study of calculus, and we are going to work with the students who may not have met that requirement to get them ready by the time they enroll at the University. We are asked to review for general college readiness; [that is] why, even though the SAT or essays are not used in the decision for the top ten percent, we are asking for them so that we will have something to evaluate to try to help the students prepare themselves to succeed at UT Austin….

"We have four high school courses that we require, but those courses are not required of the top ten percent because the bill does not permit that. But in our general review of students, we will see if they have met the core requirements; they are admitted if they have not, but we try to give them advice about finishing those core requirements in order to ensure their success at UT.

"Now that is just the first half of the bill…. [Page 3 of the application for Freshman Admission, which is shown in Attachment 1 on D&M 22194/D&P 16552,] is a new section of the application, and it was designed to accommodate page 2 of [House Bill 588], where there is a long list [of] things that were suggested that institutions use in order to admit students not in the top ten percent…. We are asking about…the educational level of the parents, … whether [applicants] are living in single-[parent] homes. We are asking [applicants] to estimate their [family's] income, …if English is their first language, …if they have family obligations that might have kept them from participating in extracurricular activities (such as [having] to work to supplement family income or [having to provide] primary care for family members). We ask how many people, including themselves, live in the home, and then we ask if they have participated in any of [the] programs [that are listed], many of which have to do with programs that we sponsor here on our campus that bring large numbers of minority students and low socioeconomic students to our campus….

"Putting all of this together, the factors used in admissions, then, to UT Austin are not very different from the factors I talked with you about last year. We will be using class rank, high school units, SAT, essays. We had three essays last year; we are only requiring two this year. I think those of us who read essays realize there is not much you can learn on the third essay after having read the first two….

"Another change having to do with essays…[is that] we are allowing students to use their essays for several different purposes. Plan II requires essays, scholarships require essays; in the past it was possible for students to have to write a dozen or so essays if they applied to a lot of programs within the University. We have [the maximum number of essays] down to five now, and students who apply only for admissions will write two…. Particularly since we wanted to attract… applicants who are very strong students, we wanted to make it a little bit easier for them to use the essays in their application process.

"[Another factor being used is] personal achievement, which is leadership, honors and awards, community service, work experience, and something called special circumstances…. In student resumes we ask [the applicants] to tell us about themselves. What we are trying to do with special circumstances is to put the student's achievement in some sort of context-that is, we believe that socioeconomic status, responsibilities at home, single-parent family, first generation language other than English at home impact the circumstances under which students achieve, and we who are making judgments about students' personal achievements need to understand what the contexts of those achievements [were]….


  "[The last page in Attachment 1, D&M 22197/D&P 16555] is a decision grid we use in making admission decisions. The Academic Index [is] along the bottom, and the Personal Achievement Index is [on the left side]. As we score essays, and as we score student resumes, students get placed in these cells, and then when it is time to make our offers of admissions, we make offers of admissions in these cells. [We do not draw] a vertical line, which would eliminate the use of the Personal Achievement [Index]…, and we do not draw [a] horizontal [line], which would eliminate the use of the Academic Index…. Instead [we draw] a stair step: the lower the Academic Index [is], the higher the Personal Achievement Index has to be.

"That is just a quick review to let you know how these characteristics are used in the admission process. Let me stop now and take any questions."

Karl Galinsky (Classics) asked about two of the items listed on page 2 of the Senate Bill. "Item 5 concerns the financial status of the applicant's school district, and [item] 6 is the performance level of the applicant's school as compared to others. Could you give us some illustrations on how that kind of information is being factored in…."

Dr. Walker replied: We have not worked out the details on how socioeconomic [status] is going to be factored into our decision, though that is something we are still working on. I suspect it will be similar to how it is used in calculating the Adversity Index used to award scholarships. We are looking at that formula; we think that might have some great possibilities for how we would use it."

Joseph M. Horn (Psychology), Chair of the Admissions and Registration Committee, said that "some parts of the House bill ask us to do contradictory things. [The bill] asks us to select a good class, one that can achieve at high levels, and we should strive for excellence. At the same time it indicates that we should or could utilize various indicators that, as a matter of fact, happen to be negatively correlated with graduation rate; one of those happens to be first in your family to go to college. The evidence on that is pretty strong that those kids graduate at very low rates. I noticed on the [transparency] you had there that you indicated first in family; how is that going to be determined?…"

Dr. Walker replied that if the father and mother have no higher education, then it will assumed that the applicant is the first generation from that family attending college.

Prof. Horn said that seemed problematical, because all of the applicant's brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, might be attending college. He suggested that topic might be considered by the Admissions and Registration Committee.

Michael H. Granof (Accounting) asked if Dr. Walker had "any idea how many students will be admitted under these procedures that would not have otherwise been admitted, particularly minority students." Dr. Walker replied, "I do not think I have [those] data with me, but we did look at, over the last seven years, for example, how many more minority students might have been admitted if the top ten percent [bill] had been in effect. Some years it was a very small number…; other years it was a higher number…. Over the last seven years it varied from a low of 12 to a high of 85."

Carolyn P. Boyd (History) pointed out that Dr. Walker was assuming that the rate of applications to UT Austin from students in the top ten percent will be similar to that experienced over the last seven years. She asked: "Is there any reason to think that a larger fraction of those students will apply, since they know they will be automatically admitted?" Dr. Walker said: "There was a time, 1988 to 1994, that we admitted top ten percent students without regard to test scores. So they knew then, if they were in the top ten percent, they were going to be admitted, and [the number] did not get beyond 4,700 or 4,800 in any


  one of those years. Now,…if [the number] does not change, the bill has not been effective. You have to expect some change, but how much it will change, I just do not know. This is something we are going to have to monitor each year as we go along to see what changes are occurring."

He agreed with a comment by Prof. Boyd that conceivably the number of places available to other students could go down.

Prof. Boyd then asked about the need for remediation. "You are asking for essays and other pieces of information to see if students are ready to undertake coursework here; what plans are there for remediation, and what funds will be used if remediation becomes necessary?" Dr. Walker said that he is serving on a committee that is trying to address this issue. The Chair of the committee is Vice President Vick, and Dr. Walker asked him to comment on the work of the committee.

James W. Vick (Vice President for Student Affairs) said: "I am not ready to give a report from the committee because we have not finished our work, but the committee has representatives of major colleges…, Dean's offices, some of the…programs that have worked on retention in the past (the Success and Preview programs this summer, and the Gateway program in the fall), and representatives from the Learning Skills Center that have worked with students who needed help…. What we are trying to do is to anticipate the kind of student problems that may occur-for example, a top ten percent student who is coming to the University without the [high school courses] that we normally [require] for all students, and how we will treat those students…. The bill…says that we can require the students to do work in the summer before they enter in the fall if they need that work, but…the committee [probably will decide that] our chances for success are [better] if we work [with the students] in the Fall. So I would expect to see some programs similar to what is called Gateway where students are advised carefully, or advised into smaller sections of classes, perhaps given some outside guidance and tutoring, and so on to help them adjust in that first year. That is the way we are going right now. We do not anticipate that it will require a lot of additional resources right now, we hope."

C. Report from Student Government.

Marlen D. Whitley (Student Government) said: "I…want to update you on some of the initiatives that Student Government has been and is continuing to work on for this academic year.

"First and foremost, the three areas that we are targeting right now are Admissions, Recruitment, and …assisting the Admissions Office with recruitment efforts. Student Government official Annie Holland has organized a campaign called the HORNS; it is an acronym that stands for Helping to Organize and Recruit New Students. Basically what she has done is to assemble a group of volunteer students from around the campus to call all top ten percent students from around the State of Texas; I think [it is something] like 30,000 students. So far we have reached over 10,000. [It is an] outstanding program started by one student, Herb Ranchild, and it has been very successful. We have had a chance to reach a number of students, answer their questions, and make sure they receive their admission material. This is not reinventing the wheel; it is just an effort for us to assist Dr. Walker with some of the arduous tasks of recruiting students.

"Another program that we have implemented is one I call Long Distance Longhorns. This was a brainchild I came up with; basically it is an electronic pen pal program, and…what it is intended to do is to showcase the diversity of this campus and allow students to have first-hand interaction with students that currently attend the University. Students sent out applications to students to fill out their … name, major, hometown, and classification. The information has been forwarded to the Office of Admissions. Mike Orr


  [Assistant Director of Admissions] is helping with this project. These students will be taking a picture; it will printed [beside] their name, hometown and e-mail address. Posters will be made and disseminated among the various high schools around the state so potential students will have the ability to look at the students from various backgrounds, from various hometowns, and various majors… and have the ability to e-mail them and to ask them what life is like here at The University of Texas at Austin. We think this is an excellent way to…circumvent a lot of negative attention that we have received from some of the circumstance that we have endured over the past years.

"[Second, one area of interest and concern of] Student Government and the Cabinet of College Councils is the retention of students and introducing them to agencies and resources on campus to help improve their academic and learning abilities. One of the resources that we thought was most valuable to students is the Learning Skills Center…. Lisa Henken, Chair of the Cabinet of College Councils and [I] are going to meet with the Learning Skills Center and then meet with various Deans of colleges [and schools] to organize a fund raiser whereby Student Government and Cabinet will fund one hour of free tutoring for all incoming students. Right now the tutoring per hour is at $8.50, and so we feel if we can at

least offer one hour of free tutoring for each incoming freshman, not only will it introduce them to the resources that Student Government and Cabinet provide, but it will be an ice-breaker step of introducing them to the Learning Skills Center, which has ample resources to help improve the retention of students around this campus. This is a mission that is going to require the support of not only Student Government but the Deans of various colleges [and schools]…and other constituencies around campus.

"Another issue that we are working on…is the Post-Hopwood Summit. This is in conjunction with an initiative that Lisa [Henken] again and [I] have been working on with [Vice President] Sharpe's office to create [a] task force to address some initiatives [concerning] undergraduate recruitment, graduate student recruitment, diversity issues on campus, and public school outreach. So I want to commend the faculty that have responded to assist us in this initiative and look forward to working with you soon.

"Finally, just a side note, we are revisiting our proposal with the shuttle bus committee…. As you know, the driver breaks have been eliminated to create more efficiency for students who are experiencing difficulties in getting to classes on time, and so we are revisiting [the] proposal that was submitted to the Office of Parking and Traffic to open up Manor Road by the Police Station out across IH 35 [in order] to make the Campus Loop Route a little more efficient. What this will do is to allow us to reallocate [two] buses from the Campus Loop Route…and offer those to the problematic routes, particularly the Wickersham Lane Route and the Far West Route.

"So these are a few of the initiatives we are working on. If you have any questions or concerns you can please feel free to e-mail me; my address is I will be more than happy to answer any questions that you may have."

X. NEW BUSINESS. (Taken up earlier, out of order; see D&M 22174-22179/D&P 16532-16537 above.)





The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Faculty Council is scheduled for Main Building, Room 212, on Monday, November 17, at 2:15 p.m.

Distributed to members of the Faculty Council December 3, 1997.