349
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
The minutes of the regular Faculty Council
meeting of February 21, 2000, published below, are included in the
Documents of the General Faculty for the information of the members.
<signed>
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR FACULTY COUNCIL
MEETING OF
February 21, 2000
The fourth meeting of the Faculty Council for the academic
year 1999-2000 was held in Room 212 of the Main Building on Monday,
February 21, 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
ATTENDANCE.
Present: Urton L. Anderson, Katherine M. Arens, Neal E. Armstrong , Phillip J. Barrish , Gerard H. Béhague, Harold W. Billings , Richard A. Cherwitz, Michael B. Clement, Alan K. Cline, Jere Confrey, Donald G. Davis, Patrick J. Davis, Robert A. Duke, John R. Durbin, Catharine H. Echols, Sheldon Ekland-Olson, Larry R. Faulkner, Rachel T. Fouladi , G.
Karl Galinsky, Sara C. Galvan, John
C. Gilbert, Linda L. Golden, Lawrence S. Graham, Sue A. Greninger, Thomas A. Griffy, Julie Hallmark, Tracy C. Hamilton, Barbara J. Harlow, Roderick P. Hart, James L. Hill, Martha F. Hilley, Manuel J. Justiz , Elizabeth L. Keating, Lester R. Kurtz, Richard W. Lariviere, Desmond F. Lawler, Steven W. Leslie, William S. Livingston, Dean P. Neikirk, Edward W. Odell, Patricia C. Ohlendorf, Eric C. Opiela, Alba A. Ortiz, Thomas G. Palaima, Bruce P. Palka, Atisha G. Patel, Theodore E. Pfeifer, Robert A. Prentice, Mary
Ann R. Rankin, Andrew M. Riggsby, Gretchen Ritter, Victoria Rodriguez, Juan M. Sanchez, M. Michael Sharlot, John E. St.
Lawrence, Michael P. Starbird, Alexa M. Stuifbergen, Janice S. Todd, Michael C. Tusa , James W. Vick, N. Bruce Walker, Ellen A. Wartella, Karin G. Wilkins.
Absent. Christopher O. Adejumo, Efraim P. Armendariz, Victor L. Arnold, Joel W. Barlow, Joseph J. Beaman , William D. Carlson , Loftus C. Carson, Richard L. Cleary (excused), Richard L. Corsi, Edwin Dorn, John S. Dzienkowski, Parisa Fatehi, G. Charles Franklin, James D. Garrison, Erayne N. Gee, Edmund
(Ted) Gordon, Thomas M. Hatfield, Vance R. Holloway
(excused), Sharon H. Justice (excused), Kerry A. Kinney, J.
Parker Lamb, Michael L., Lauderdale, Brian P. Levack, Laura E. Luthy, Vincent A. Mariani, Margaret N. Maxey
(excused), Robert G. May (excused), Gregory R. Murphy, David A. Nancarrow, Randall M. Parker
(excused), Shelley M. Payne (excused), Ana Cristina Pinto-Bailey, Elmira Popova, Johnnie D. Ray, Elizabeth Richmond-Garza
(excused), Charles A. Roeckle, Dolores Sands, Roberta I. Shaffer, Joel F. Sherzer (excused), Lawrence W. Speck, Ben G. Streetman, Teresa A. Sullivan
(excused), Lonnie H. Wagstaff, Barbara W. White (excused)..
| Voting Members: |
47
|
present, |
29
|
absent, |
76
|
total. |
| Non-Voting Members: |
16
|
present, |
15
|
absent, |
31
|
total. |
| Total Members: |
63
|
present, |
44
|
absent, |
107
|
total. |
350
| I. |
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY (D
264-269).
There were
no questions about the written report. The secretary talked briefly
about faculty memorial resolutions. He said they can provide
a source of renewal for one's belief in the importance of the
University, and commended them to others.
|
| II. |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Minutes
of the Faculty Council Meeting of November 15, 1999 (D
225-229), were approved by voice
vote.
|
| III. |
COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
| A. |
Comments by the President.
President Faulkner talked about additional
revenue coming to the University because of Proposition
17, approved by Texas voters in November of 1999.
He said the University should use this revenue not
just to handle growth in the cost of what it was
doing, but to try to take a step that would materially
improve the institution.
He said the Available University Fund
had provided about $70 million to $75 million for
a number of years. That had increased to $85 million
this year and is expected to increase to $102 million
next year. Although some growth is expected in the
future, it will be much smaller. Faulkner said the
increase this year provided an increment that was
used to help fund the compensation improvements made
during the current budget year.
He said the University should seize
the opportunity to improve programs that directly
affect the educational experience. He mentioned three
specific targets. First, to lower the student/faculty
ratio, by adding 20 to 40 faculty next year and as
many as 300 faculty over a period of time. The larger
increase will require support from the legislature.
An increase in tuition and fees will help. The second
target is to improve teaching facilities, including
technology and labs. The third target is to improve
libraries and information resources.
He said he remains committed to a ten
percent increase in support for graduate students.
|
| B. |
Questions to the President.
How will the University ensure that
invited speakers are not disrupted or forced to cancel?
How will the University ensure free and open intellectual
exchange at public lectures and events?
These two questions, the first from
Karl Galinsky (classics), the second from Barbara
Harlow (English) and Tom Palaima (classics), were
submitted before the meeting. A related question
came from Alan Cline (computer sciences). (The complete
texts of questions submitted before the meeting are
appended to these minutes.)
The questions arose from controversy
surrounding the cancellation of a speech Henry Kissinger
had been scheduled to give at the LBJ auditorium
on February 1. Faulkner pointed out that the LBJ
Library had sponsored the speech, which is a federal,
not a University, institution. He said the decision
to cancel had been made by Kissinger and the library's
director, Harry Middleton, based on Middleton's information
about possible disruptions at the meeting.
|
|
351
| |
| |
Faulkner said that he had called Kissinger, at the
suggestion of Middleton, to give Faulkner's appraisal of security
issues. Faulkner told Kissinger he thought the University had committed
adequate security resources for the meeting, and that disruptions
would probably occur but he did not know how extensive they were
likely to be.
In a press release on January 31, Faulkner said that "it
is tragic that threats of assault on a peaceable, academic assembly
will, in this instance, still public discussion on important issues
by a distinguished visitor. The tactics are both immoral and inimical
to the public interest. They must be rejected by our community.
As The University proceeds into the future, it will take new and
appropriate steps to meet its responsibilities as a major public
forum." (The complete text of the press release is appended to
these minutes.)
These statements and the questions posed to Faulkner
led to an extended exchange involving Faulkner, Galinsky, Palaima,
Cline, Dean Michael Sharlot (law), and Gretchen Ritter (government).
Cline
expressed concern about the role of Chancellor Cunningham in the
decision to cancel. Faulkner said it was advisory
to Kissinger, as a friend. Palaima and Cline thought Faulkner's
use of the phrase "threats of assault" was provocative. Palaima
also said that the people wanting to address Kissinger were not
immoral. Faulkner pointed out that he had not said that the people
were immoral, but that the tactics were immoral. He added that
shouting down a speaker is a form of assault, and that the threat
to do that at Kissinger's speech took place in a public forum.
Ritter said that democracy is not always neat and not always civil.
Sharlot
said that disrupting a speech with speech is a violation of the
first amendment. This was in response to
a reference to a speech by Ward Connerly at the Law School in March
of last year, which was sponsored by a registered student organization
and which could not be completed because of disruptions.
The discussion in the meeting was driven by the questions
to the president and by the president's answers. There was no general
debate by the Council. However, Faulkner made clear that the issues
would receive serious attention. Cline suggested the Committee
of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility would be one
appropriate source of input. The president said that was a reasonable
suggestion.
In the last question submitted to the president,
Catharine Echols (psychology) asked about the status of the Family
Leave Policy passed by the Council last year. Provost Ekland-Olson
said he expected that the administration would have a concrete
proposal responsive to the Council's action by the end of the spring
semester. The president said this was being looked at along with
related human resource policies. He also said that the policy as
proposed in the Council's action did not incorporate management
provisions that would bear up under the kind of scrutiny it might
get from the legislature and state government.
|
|
|
| IV. |
REPORT OF THE CHAIR.
Chair Hilley reported
on the work being done by the general faculty standing committees, some
of which will bring items to the
Council later in the semester. The annual reports of the committees will
be published at the end of the year.
Hilley also updated the Council on the
Business Field of Study Advisory Committee and the Music Field of Study
Advisory Committee,
which are to report to the Coordinating Board and which were created
as a result of Senate Bill 148. She said the Coordinating Board had yet
to create a Feasibility Committee, which was also mandated by Senate
bill 148 and was to have considered the feasibility of the field of study
committees.
|
352
|
V.
|
REPORT OF
THE CHAIR ELECT.
Vice Chair Pat Davis
reminded members of the joint meeting with the Faculty Senate of Texas
A&M scheduled for March 27 in College Station. He invited suggestions
for topics to be discussed at the meeting, and asked members to inform
the Office of the General Faculty if they could attend.
|
|
VI.
|
SPECIAL ORDERS – None.
|
|
VII.
|
PETITIONS – None.
|
|
VIII.
|
UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None.
|
|
IX.
|
NEW BUSINESS.
| A. |
Report of the Calendar
Committee.
At the
September meeting of the Council, the Calendar Committee
was asked to evaluate a recommendation from the Student
Assembly for the establishment of summer dead days. Catharine
Echols (psychology, chair of the committee) reported that
the Calendar Committee had investigated the issue, and
had concluded that because of various time and other constraints
the introduction of summer dead days is not feasible at
this time (D
257-259). The Council approved a motion supporting
the committee's conclusion.
|
| B. |
Report of the Technology
Enhanced Learning Committee.
This
item, which appeared on the agenda, was postponed until
the March 20 meeting of the Council.
|
| C. |
Report of the e-University
Task Force.
This
item, which appeared on the agenda, was postponed until
the March 20 meeting of the Council.
|
|
|
X.
|
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS – None.
|
|
XI.
|
QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR – None.
|
|
XII.
|
ADJOURNMENT.
The meeting adjourned at 3:43 p.m.
|
353
APPENDIX 1
Questions submitted to the president in advance of the
meeting.
Questions to the President
February 21, 2000
| 1. |
What concrete steps is the University taking to make sure
that invited speakers are not disrupted or forced to cancel? Two such
incidents in the past ten months are two too many and the University's
acquiescence will only encourage more of the same. This is plainly unacceptable.
What does the Administration intend to do about it? From G. Karl Galinsky
(classics).
|
| 2. |
We share Karl Galinsky's concern and his question regarding
the cancelled Kissinger lecture, but have further questions which we
ask that the president address explicitly. These are as follows:
| a. |
What standards does the University have for free
and open intellectual exchange at public lectures and events?
With respect to the Kissinger lecture, it was reported that questions
to Mr. Kissinger were "to be screened" in advance. Such a procedure
in and of itself violates our sense of open discourse. It also
puts individuals or interest groups who hold opinions opposite
to those of any speaker in a position of having to devise alternative
strategies to have their views heard. It thus would seem to create
the very situation one wishes to avoid..
|
| b. |
We are further concerned about your remarks as
cited in the Austin American Statesman (Sunday, January
30, 2000), that "we're going to have to develop some methods
that will allow us to proceed with these events with the threats." Could
the president: 1. clarify what is understood by "threats" and
how they are reported to and evaluated by the administration;
and 2. explain what is projected by way of "methods" that would "allow
us to proceed with these events?" This also seems to conflict
with a statement reported in the January 29 Statesman that,
in your view, University security was sufficient for the event
to be held. From Barbara Harlow (English) and Tom Palaima (classics).
.
|
|
| 3. |
First, I would like to know what evidence you, as a scientist,
had for the statements made upon cancellation of the Kissinger speech
suggesting "threats of assault." I'd also like to know about Chancellor's
Cunningham's role in the decision to cancel. Since many people believe
that embarrassment as opposed to violence was at the root of the cancellation
decision, Cunningham's dealings with Kissinger (e.g., serving on the
Freeport Board of Directors) certainly disqualified him as a neutral
observer. Lastly, I'd like to know if the UT police are sending informers
to meetings of campus organizations. From Alan Cline (computer sciences)..
|
| 4. |
What is the current status of the Family Leave Policy
passed by the Faculty Council last year? From Catharine Echols (psychology).
|
354.
APPENDIX 2
UT Austin President issues comment
on Kissinger lecture cancellation.
January 31, 2000
AUSTIN, Texas–Statement from President Larry R. Faulkner,
The University of Texas at Austin:
As President of the University of Texas
at Austin, I express my deep regret over the cancellation of the planned lecture
by Dr. Henry
Kissinger at the LBJ Library. In keeping with its public responsibilities,
The University committed itself to provide security for the personal safety
of the audience and for open discourse on issues of public concern. In the
end, it became clear that assurance of both in this particular setting probably
would not be possible. This cancellation reflects, first and foremost, legitimate
concern over public safety.
It is tragic that threats of assault on a peaceable,
academic assembly will, in this instance, still public discussion on important
issues
by a distinguished visitor. The tactics are both immoral and inimical to
the public interest. They must be rejected by our community. As The University
proceeds into the future, it will take new and appropriate steps to meet
its responsibilities as a major public forum.
Text taken from the press release
found on The University of Texas at Austin, Office of Public Affairs web
site.
|
