|
869
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
Following are the minutes of the special Faculty Council
meeting of October 30, 2000.
<signed>
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL FACULTY COUNCIL
MEETING OF
October 30, 2000
The first special meeting of the Faculty Council for the
academic year 2000-2001 was held in Room 212 of the Main Building on Monday,
October 30, 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
ATTENDANCE.
Present: Mark I. Alpert, Efraim P. Armendariz,
Neal E. Armstrong, Victor L. Arnold, Matthew J. Bailey, Joyce L. Banks,
Gerard H. Béhague, Douglas G. Biow, David G. Bogard, Daniel A.
Bonevac, Michael J. Churgin, Richard L. Cleary, Dana L. Cloud, Patrick
J. Davis, Desley A. Deacon, John D. Dollard, Minette E. Drumwright, John
R. Durbin, Sheldon Ekland-Olson, Larry R. Faulkner, Dorie J. Gilbert,
Lita A. Guerra, Marvin L. Hackert, Von Matthew Hammond, James L. Hill,
Martha F. Hilley, Sharon H. Justice, Karrol A. Kitt, Stefan M. Kostka,
William S. Livingston, Katheryn Coveley Maguire, Gregory R. Murphy, Melvin
E. L. Oakes, Patricia C. Ohlendorf, Thomas G. Palaima, Linda E. Reichl,
Elizabeth Richmond-Garza, Daron K. Roberts, David J. Saltman, Robert
N.
Schmidt, Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, Michael P. Starbird, Paul Randall (Randy)
Thompson, John W. Walthall, Ellen A. Wartella, James R. Yates, Katy B.
Zarolia.
Absent: Christopher O. Adejumo,
Anthony P. Ambler, Katherine M. Arens (excused), Joel W. Barlow, Phillip
J. Barrish, Brigitte L. Bauer, Harold W. Billings, Lynn E. Blais, Dean
A. Bredeson (excused), Cindy I. Carlson, Richard A. Cherwitz, Michael
B. Clement, Patricia L. Clubb, Donald G. Davis, Edwin Dorn, Shelley F.
Fishkin, G. Charles Franklin, Robert Freeman, Nell H. Gottlieb (excused),
Barbara J. Harlow, Thomas M. Hatfield, Sharon D. Horner, Judith A. Jellison
(excused), Arlen W. Johnson (excused), Manuel J. Justiz (excused), Elizabeth
L. Keating (excused), Ward W. Keeler, Kerry A. Kinney, Robert C. Koons
(excused), Richard W. Lariviere, David A. Laude, Steven W. Leslie, Laura
E. Luthy (excused), David R. Maidment, Glenn Y. Masada, Margaret N. Maxey,
Robert G. May, Francis L. Miksa, Alba A. Ortiz, Bruce P. Palka, Theodore
E. Pfeifer, Elmira Popova, William C. Powers, Mary Ann R. Rankin, Johnnie
D. Ray, Andrew M. Riggsby, Victoria Rodriguez, Juan M. Sanchez, Dolores
Sands, Roberta I. Shaffer, Joel F. Sherzer, Mark R. V. Southern (excused),
Lawrence W. Speck, Laura T. Starks, Salomon A. Stavchansky (excused),
Ben G. Streetman, Teresa A. Sullivan, Janice S. Todd, James W. Vick, N.
Bruce Walker, Barbara W. White.
| Voting Members: |
39
|
present, |
37
|
absent, |
76
|
total. |
| Non-Voting Members: |
8
|
present, |
24
|
absent, |
32
|
total. |
| Total Members: |
47
|
present, |
61
|
absent, |
108
|
total.
|
870
|
|
PRESIDENT FAULKNER'S RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL'S
LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE PROVISIONAL ADMISSION PROGRAM, APPROVED
BY THE COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 16.
At its meeting on October 16, 2000, the Faculty
Council took action on the University’s provisional admission
program that differed in part with proposals from the administration
and the Admissions and Registration Committee (D
860-868). The primary difference was that the administration
and the committee proposed an off-campus provisional program, while
the Council opposed such a program.
In a letter dated October 24, President Faulkner
informed the Council of his decision to propose to the Board of
Regents "a modification of the Faculty Council’s recommendation
to include the proposed new provisional program, but with a commitment
to undertake a thorough local review before continuing the program
into a fourth admissions cycle." The president’s letter
is attached as Appendix A (D 872-874).
As a result of the president’s letter, the
Council’s executive committee called this special meeting
in light of the following statement from the Rules and Regulations
of the Council:
"Should the President object to any recommendation
of the Faculty Council or of the General Faculty that requires
the approval of the U.T. System Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs or the U.T. System Board of Regents, he or she shall make
those objections known either directly to the Council or through
the Executive Committee so that the objections may be answered
and
the Council may have the opportunity to modify, withdraw, or reaffirm
the proposed legislation before it is transmitted by the President
to the U.T. System Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
The final version of the legislation that is approved by the Faculty
Council or by the General Faculty shall be transmitted by the President
to the U.T. System Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
and, if necessary, to the U.T. System Board of Regents, along with
such recommendations as the President and, if necessary, the U.T.
System Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs may choose
to make."
The president began the October 30 meeting by reviewing
the contents of his letter. He said it was part of his responsibility "to work the interface between the University and the outer
world," and his decision was made with that responsibility
in mind. He then left it to the Council "to talk it over and
decide whether you want to support this, or express your displeasure
with it, or remain neutral and remain with what you had before."
|
|
II.
|
DISCUSSION.
Chair Patrick Davis (pharmacy) said his interpretation
of Robert’s Rules of Order was that the Council could
either take no action, or it could rescind or ratify or renew its
previous action.
Mark Alpert (marketing) moved that the motion be
renewed so the Council could discuss whether it wanted to modify
it in any form. The secretary said the position taken by the Council
was a recommendation to the president, and he respected the procedure
allowing the president to make decisions taking other factors into
account. He then asked if there was a quorum. A count revealed that
36 voting members were present, with 39 required for a quorum. (Remark:
The official attendance shows 39 present, but some members arrived
late and some left during the meeting.)
Chair Davis said he thought it would be useful for
the Council to discuss the issues even though there was not a quorum.
Marvin Hackert (chemistry and biochemistry) wondered if the Council
had considered proxy votes. John Dollard (mathematics) said that
he favors the provisional admission program. Mel Oakes (physics)
said he thought that the provisional admission program, as it previously
existed, was laudable. However, under the new proposal, a transfer
student not in the provisional program could be denied admission
in spite of performing at a much higher level than another student
|
871
|
|
|
enrolled in the provisional program. He thought
it would be hard to explain that unfairness to parents, students,
and the faculty.
Michael Starbird (mathematics) said that he thought
it in the best interests of the University to eliminate the provisional
program in the long run, but he thought it important to take into
account outside realities, as the president had done in his recommendation
for an experimental off-campus provisional program in the short
run. John Walthall (student) liked the idea of a provisional program,
but given a choice would prefer it to be on campus. Gerard Béhague
(music) asked for clarification of whether the proposed new summer
admission plan at UT Austin (as opposed to the off-campus provisional
program) was in any way a provisional program. The answer was "no."
Béhague said he thought that the University could not be
a flagship institution without being selective in its admission
process.
Thomas Palaima (classics) asked the president if
the proposed provisional program would be limited to UT Arlington
during the three-year trial period, or if it would be extended to
other UT System schools. The president said the program might include
three or four of the UT System institutions. He pointed out that
some of the areas of the state, such as Houston, do not have UT
System four-year academic institutions. Katheryn Maguire (student)
favored extending the program to include institutions in the System
in addition to Arlington.
Daron Roberts (student) moved that the meeting be
adjourned, but the chair ruled that the motion was out of order
since there was no quorum. (After the meeting, a check of Robert’s
Rules of Order showed that a quorum is not required for the
adoption of a motion to adjourn.)
Linda Reichl (physics) said that, independent of
the current issue, it was important for the University to get the
very best students it can, just as it tries to get the best faculty
it can. Elizabeth Richmond-Garza (English) said the discussion
of
the provisional program, and the president’s letter clarifying
the issues and calling for a three-year assessment, had been very
useful. Oakes said he was a product of a junior college system,
and he thought it was very important for Texas to strengthen its
higher education institutions, other than UT Austin, so more students
could benefit from the result.
The secretary said he did not think it would benefit
the University to discuss all of the questions raised by the off-campus
provisional proposal. He did not think it wise to revisit every
issue on which the president disagreed with the Council based on
outside considerations, and mentioned intercollegiate athletics
as another example. Matthew Bailey (Spanish and Portuguese) expressed
support for the provisional program, especially in light of consternation
among parents over the state’s ten percent rule.
Hackert related his experience with the University
Interscholastic League science contest, and noted that students
from smaller schools have a very hard time competing successfully
in such a competition. He said that was unfortunate, and urged the
University to work hard to find policies that would admit talented
students and then make sure that they succeed.
Martha Hilley (music) said she hoped there would
be broad faculty input in planning for the summer program in light
of the new plan for summer admission. The provost said his office
was working with the deans, especially in liberal arts and natural
sciences, and they were to be working with individual departments.
At the end of the discussion, the president requested
that the chair write a commentary representing what had taken place.
|
|
III.
|
ADJOURNMENT.
The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
|
Distributed through the Faculty Council web site (www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/)
on November 8, 2000. Copies are available on request from the Office of
the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.
APPENDIX A
Return to President Faulkner's response.
October 24, 2000
Members of the Faculty Council
The University of Texas at Austin
Dear Colleagues:
Please let me use this vehicle to report my position with
respect to the Faculty Council's action of Monday, October 16, on the
proposal to change the character of summer admissions and the Provisional
Admission Program.
The essence of the Faculty Council's action was (a) to
accept the concept that the capacity for admission of freshmen in the
summer be converted from the existing provisional program to a new program
of expanded regular admissions and (b) to reject the continuation of the
provisional program in any form. The proposal initially before the Council
included a transformation of the existing provisional program into a new
provisional program of guaranteed transfer involving partnership with
other UT System institutions.
Over the past week, I have considered this issue carefully.
On Thursday morning of last week, I met at length with the members of
the Faculty Council Executive Committee, Professor Dan Wheat (Chair of
the Committee on Admissions and Registration), and several administrative
officers. The purpose was to discuss how best to proceed.
In that discussion and in the intervening period, I have
conceived the situation in terms of three basic options:
1. To accept the recommendation of the Faculty
Council and proceed with expansion of regular freshman admissions
into the summer, while discontinuing the provisional program.
2. To reject the recommendation of the Faculty
Council and to reaffirm the status quo, at least for another admissions
cycle.
3. To propose a modification of the Faculty Council's
recommendation to include the proposed new provisional program, but
with a commitment to undertake thorough local review before continuing
the program into a fourth admissions cycle.
873
October 24, 2000
Page Two
The first question to be addressed is whether provisional
admissions should remain. Our practice in this area appears to be unique
among selective American universities, but it is a practice of long standing
and has been important in the relationship of the University to the citizens
of Texas. By this policy, we have provided a path whereby graduates of
Texas high schools could earn regular student status at UT Austin by succeeding
in a prescribed curriculum during a summer session. There are certainly
problems with this program, and it is clear that the preference of the
Faculty Council is to discontinue it. However, my judgment, developed
from extensive discussion with people interested in the University from
across the State, is that we would be acting against the best interest
of the University to choose that path. Abrupt discontinuation is simply
too disruptive to our relationship with the public. Accordingly, I cannot
support any proposal that does not include a provisional pathway. Thus,
Option 1 is not viable.
On the other hand, indefinite continuation of the status
quo is also not viable. The rapid growth of the summer provisional program
has caused us to lose control of admissions and has resulted in unhealthy
consequences, including cancellation of admissions of new freshmen and
transfer students in January 2001. Early signs indicate that applications
will rise yet again in the admissions cycle just begun, so we can expect
a worsening of the problem. There are also educational reasons for seeking
an alteration in the existing provisional program. In my view, the program
must be changed.
But it is not essential that we change it now. We could,
if it were deemed the wiser course, continue in the status quo for another
admissions cycle while we undertook a more extensive local review of possibilities.
Many have asked about the possibility of retaining a summer
format for the provisional program and limiting its size somehow. This
is much easier said than done, simply because the essence of the program
is free election to participate by the student. Size could be limited
by eliminating the bottom half of the high school class from eligibility,
but that step would not reduce participation enough to address the problem.
It could be limited by admitting a fixed number of students into the program,
but that would remove the essence of the program and would retain an inappropriate
fixed curriculum for students who can work above the prescribed level.
Or we could be more restrictive about success by requiring a higher GPA
for continuation as a regular student in the fall; however this change
would greatly increase dissatisfaction among participants and would lead
to an unhealthy condition October 24, 2000
874
October 24, 2000
Page Three
where we would require a significantly higher GPA for
success in the provisional program than we require for continuation in
regular status.
Thus, the choice, in my mind, boils down to trying the
proposed new provisional program on an experimental basis (Option 3) or
keeping what we have while making a commitment to some kind of change
one year hence (Option 2). However, in the discussion on Thursday, there
appeared to be no sentiment for Option 2. With respect to these two choices,
the clear message given to me was that we should move right away to a
modified provisional program.
On the basis of these considerations, I am electing Option
3 and will be working immediately with the Faculty Council Executive Committee
to see that my concerns with the Council's recommendation are considered
in a manner consistent with our rules of shared governance. It is important
that our positions on this question be discussed before the Regents' meeting
in November, because that is our only opportunity to gain the required
regental approval for a significant change in admissions practice for
the cycle now under way.
I thank you for your careful review of the issue and will
value your advice.
Sincerely,
<signed>
Larry R. Faulkner
President
LRF/sts
| cc: |
Members of the Deans' Council
Executive Vice President & Provost Sheldon Ekland-Olson
Vice President James W. Vick
|
|
