The University of Texas at Austin- What Starts Here Changes the World
Services Navigation

UT Direct

View in portable document format.



Following are the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of September 23, 2002.


John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty


September 23, 2002

The first regular meeting of the Faculty Council for the academic year 2002-2003 was held in Room 212 of the Main Building on Monday, September 23, 2002, at 2:15 P.M.


Present: Lawrence D. Abraham, Kamran S. Aghaie, Gerard H. Béhague, Daniela Bini, David G. Bogard, Jennifer S. Brodbelt, Joanna M. Brooks, Neal M. Burns, Michael J. Churgin, Alan K. Cline, Melba M. Crawford, Ann Cvetkovich, Donald G. Davis, Andrew P. Dillon, John R. Durbin, Sheldon Ekland-Olson, Larry R. Faulkner, Linda Ferreira-Buckley, Kenneth Flamm, Alan W. Friedman, Charles N. Friedman, James D. Garrison, John C. (Jack) Gilbert, Michael H. Granof, Lita A. Guerra, Marvin L. Hackert, Julie Hallmark, Kurt O. Heinzelman, James L. Hill, Archie L. Holmes, Sharon D. Horner, Raymond Bert "Rusty" Ince III, Julie R. Irwin, Judith A. Jellison, Martin W. Kevorkian, Katherine Ann King, Anastasia "Stacey" Kounelias, Elliott W. Kruppa, Amarante L. Lucero, Arthur B. Markman, Dean P. Neikirk, Melvin E. L. Oakes, Edward W. (Ted) Odell, Melissa L. Olive, Eric C. Opiela, Bruce P. Palka, Theodore E. Pfeifer, Elmira Popova, William C. Powers, Anna Coons Pyeatt, Esther L. Raizen, Linda E. Reichl, David J. Saltman, Diane L. Schallert, M. Michael Sharlot, Mark R. V. Southern, David B. Spence, David W. Springer, Janet Staiger, Salomon A. Stavchansky, Sharon L. Strover, Sarah Elizabeth Tierney, James W. Vick, John M. Weinstock, Mary F. Wheeler, Darlene C. Wiley, James R. Yates, Michael P. Young.

Absent: Phyllis R. Akmal, Urton L. Anderson (excused), Begona Aretxaga, Brigitte L. Bauer (excused), Glen S. Baum, Harold W. Billings (excused), Daniel A. Bonevac, Teresa Graham Brett, Johnny S. Butler, Patricia L. Clubb, Edwin Dorn, John D. Downing, Robert Freeman, George W. Gau (excused), Sue A. Greninger (excused), Carl T. Haas (excused), Donald A. Hale, Barbara J. Harlow (excused), Thomas M. Hatfield, Kevin P. Hegarty, Joseph M. Horn, Manuel J. Justiz (excused), Richard W. Lariviere, Steven W. Leslie, William S. Livingston, Patricia C. Ohlendorf (excused), David M. Parichy, Mary Ann R. Rankin, Johnnie D. Ray, Charles R. Rossman (excused), Juan M. Sanchez, Dolores Sands, Frederick R. Steiner, Ben G. Streetman, Janice S. Todd (excused), Jarrad Allen Toussant, Daniel A. Updegrove, N. Bruce Walker, Ellen A. Wartella, Barbara W. White.

Voting Members:
absent, 1
Non-Voting Members:
Total Members:

1 Attendance record corrected on October 21, 2002.



There were no questions about the written report (D 2133-2142a).


A. Minutes of the Special Faculty Council Meeting of May 6, 2002 (D 1987-1988) were approved by voice vote.

B. Minutes of the Regular Faculty Council Meeting of May 6, 2002 (D 1989-1991) were approved by voice vote.


A. Comments by the President.

President Faulkner gave a formal address on the state of the University at the September 18 convocation celebrating the institution’s 119th birthday. The text of that address is in Appendix A of these minutes.

At the Council meeting the president said he would soon appoint a special task force to review the University’s enrollment, in light of the enrollment figure of 52,273 on the twelfth class day. He had expressed concern about increasing enrollment in his address on September 18.

B. Questions to the President.

Professor Michael Churgin (law) submitted the following question before the meeting: "Please comment on the story, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 27, 2002, 'Student Loans 101: Ignore Schools' Advice,' as it pertains to UT Austin and the statement made by Larry Burt, Director, UT Austin Student Financial Services." The complete text of the Journal story is in Appendix B of these minutes.

The president asked Vice President for Student Affairs James Vick to address this question since Dr. Burt was out of town. Vice President Vick discussed the background of the story, and indicated that the questions it had raised could be attributed to the story’s omissions and misleading statements. Dr. Burt brought these issues to the attention of the editor of the Wall Street Journal in two letters, both of which are reproduced in Appendix C of these minutes.

In follow-up remarks, the president praised Dr. Burt’s dedication to the improvement of student financial support, and said he had told various audiences that he did not believe there was a better financial aid director in the country.


Chair Michael H. Granof (accounting) thanked members for agreeing to serve on the Council and on the various committees to which they had been appointed. He also urged committee chairs to bring any business requiring Council action to the Council as early in the year as possible.


Chair Elect Marvin L. Hackert (chemistry and biochemistry) announced that the annual joint meeting with the Faculty Senate of Texas A&M would be held on our campus on February 24.





A. Report from the Intercollegiate Athletics Councils for Men and for Women.

DeLoss Dodds, director of intercollegiate athletics, said that a recently completed strategic plan had five objectives: to continue to improve academic performance for all UT athletes in all sports; to improve the competitiveness of Longhorn sports, and interest in and attendance at Longhorn sporting events; to improve the relationship and communication between UT athletics departments and other segments of the University community; to become a national leader in reforming college athletics; and to maintain and enhance the solid long-term financial backing for UT athletics. He talked about construction and renovation at the Erwin Center, for which the athletics departments are now responsible. He also said it is hoped that the subsidy the University has given women’s athletics since the mid-70s could be retired over the next five or six years.

Christine Plonsky, interim women’s athletics director, talked about the progress the University has made in women’s athletics since the initiation of Title IX and after Donna Lopiano became the director of the women’s program in 1975. She talked about the opportunities given to women athletes under Title IX, and about efforts being made to increase financial independence by the women’s program.

Professor Shelley Payne, chair of the women’s athletics council, reported that the overall cumulative GPA for female athletes is now 3.01, compared with 3.06 for all undergraduates. She said that the graduation rate is 96% for female athletes who complete their eligibility. She expressed special appreciation to Dr. Randa Ryan, associate athletics director, for her contribution to this success.

Brian Davis, assistant athletics director, said that the overall cumulative GPA for male athletes is now 2.7, and the graduation rate is 77% for male athletes who complete their eligibility.

Professor Alan Cline (computer science) said that he had three questions based on his experience on a Faculty Senate committee approximately ten years ago. He first asked for the definition of academic “in good standing” as applied to athletes. Vice President Vick said that an athlete could be enrolled but not in good standing and therefore not be eligible to compete. He said the definition of “in good standing” for athletes was the same as it was for membership in student organizations, and that in this context a student could be in good standing with less than a 2.0 GPA.

Professor Cline then said that the NCAA requires 24 hours of progress per year, and asked if developmental (remedial) courses could be counted in that 24 hours. Vice President Vick said that a developmental or prerequisite course could count in the 24 hours, but only during the freshman year.

For his third question, Professor Cline asked about academic dismissal for athletes. From his earlier experience, he was aware that athletes qualified for academic dismissal were in fact not dismissed; he wondered if that is the current norm. Vice President said that, based on his experience as a student dean, academic dismissal decisions are very difficult—sometimes the decision made turns out to be correct and some times it does not. Brian Davis added that at the end of the fall semester of 2001, three football student athletes were dismissed from the College of Liberal Arts.


  Professor Jack Gilbert (chemistry and biochemistry) said he did not understand the rationale for incentive bonuses for coaches based on the academic success of their student athletes—it seemed this should be considered part of the job. DeLoss Dodds said the practice was based on the belief that coaches and others performed better when their compensation was based on their level of success. He said the practice might be good or bad, but it is the practice now in effect.

Professor Salomon Stavchansky (pharmacy) said a recent story in The Daily Texan made him curious about whether the University (Longhorn) logo could be used by student and academic organizations, or just by the athletics department. President Faulkner said he had appointed a committee consisting of Vice Presidents Ekland-Olson, Hale, Ohlendorf, and Vick to look at this question and to recommend a consistent policy on the use of the logo.

B. Recommended Name Change for the Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) to the School of Information (D 2127-2132a)
This item had been circulated to members of the Council on a no-protest basis. A protest was then filed by the secretary (D 2148), so the item was put before the Council for discussion in the form of a motion to approve the proposal.

Dean Andrew Dillon of GSLIS presented the case for approval. He indicated that library professional education has changed, due largely to developments in information and information technology. He argued that the school and its graduates would benefit from a name that could encompass new areas outside of traditional library science and information science. He also offered assurance that the faculty was committed to educating future generations of librarians and serving the library as a great public institution. The basic arguments are covered in the original proposal (D 2127-2132a) and in an email message which is reproduced in Appendix D of these minutes.

The secretary then summarized his reservations about the proposal, influenced in part by conversations with others (D 2148). The secretary added that he was concerned about the strategic goals for the school, as published on the GSLIS Web site. He felt they suggested a move too far in the direction of information technology at the expense of some of what is most valuable about traditional libraries.

President Faulkner said that the central question for the Council should be whether “there is a compelling institutional reason why that proposal should not be accepted.” He also said that the Council should not attempt to edit the name; if the name was not acceptable, then it should go back to the school for reconsideration.

Professor Donald Davis (GSLIS, member of the Council) read a statement raising points he felt should be on the public record. He said that the school “will need to make extraordinary efforts to assure … that it stills cares deeply about libraries and the preparation of new generations of professionals who will want to serve them.” He also said “the school will run the risk—a risk that is real—that the significance of libraries will appear to be minimized.” Professor Davis’s statement is reproduced in Appendix E of these minutes.

Professors Philip Doty, Ron Willis, and Glynn Harmon (GSLIS, not members of the Council) all spoke in support of the proposal. Harold Billings, director of the general libraries, who was unable to attend the meeting, provided a written statement in support of the proposal; it is repoduced on D 2131 as part of the original proposal.

Professor Daniela Bini (French and Italian) believed the current name (GSLIS) was more comprehensive and included “information” in the title. She was skeptical that the proposed change would give the graduates a better advantage in the job market. Professor Linda Reichl


  (physics) believed the proposed name was too broad and general. She said “the whole of modern society is based on information” and said she believed the name needed another word.

Kurt Heinzelman (English) had originally filed a protest to the proposal, but then had withdrawn it. He joined Professor Reichl in believing the name was missing a word, but felt the decision should be left to the school. He said he supported the proposal. Professor Miksa (GSLIS, not a Council member) argued that to add anything to the proposed name would make it too narrow to fit the broad goals of the school.

Professor Larry Abraham (College of Education) asked if the school intended to add an undergraduate degree, and if the school had in mind any programs that would conflict with programs in other schools or colleges. Dean Dillon said the answer to both questions was No.

The proposal was then approved by a show of hands.




The meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.M. 

Distributed through the Faculty Council web site on October 16, 2002. Copies are available on request from the Office of the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.



SEPTEMBER 18, 2002

Forty years ago, in November, 1962, the citizens of Texas elected John Connally as Governor. He was a visionary, and he was persuasive. He changed Texas, and in so doing, he changed the nation and the larger world. John Connally had been on the national stage and was coming home. He was ambitious for Texas, but he had learned that Texas would have to improve its own competitiveness to share fully in the America of the future. On his first day in office, he set the tone by saying this:

The talisman of this new age is education. Throughout history, man has always searched for the uncommon ingredient or objective, whether it be new lands, gold and silver, or oil. Today, this uncommon ingredient is brainpower, the coin of the realm of this new age.

Governor Connally had served as Secretary of the Navy for the two years before his return to Texas. While in Washington, he observed that many federal contracts were going to states without the natural resources and advantages of Texas. This puzzled him. "Probing deeper," he would later write, "I found that an assured supply of skilled workers and technicians, and the proximity of research centers which drew leading scientists and scholars, were the deciding factors. In short, a concentration of brainpower spelled the difference."

And so, as governor, he made education a major focus of his administration. He challenged the educational leaders of Texas and the state legislature to join in partnership with him to raise the state's standard of learning to the nation's most competitive levels. There was a lot of work to be done in our state in 1963. But it was a cause that John Connally embraced and promoted vigorously until the end of his governorship. "All that we seek to do for Texas," he said, "must rest on a basis of excellence in education."

It was in higher education that his leadership had the most lasting impact. He began by broadening the public's understanding of the critical role that universities play in our society. Under his leadership, Texas developed a master plan for higher education, established a formula funding system to improve consistency, created the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, originated a state-operated student loan program, raised faculty salaries from below the national average to among the highest in the country, and, for the first time in Texas history, focused serious attention on libraries and research. He had a vision of a more productive, better educated Texas, and he won the confidence of political and educational leaders across the broad spectrum of our state. With adequate funding, new loan programs, and the lowest tuition of any of the 50 states, John Connally opened the doors of higher education to generations of young Texans.

The story of John Connally's mere six years at 10th and Colorado is a reminder that individual leaders matter and that they can exercise tremendous leverage, for good or ill, on the future of generations unborn. Governor Connally was, to be sure, aided by able allies and supporters, but in the perspective of decades, his personal leadership seems to have become bolder, not fainter, on the backdrop of history. There can be little doubt that his choices and his skill brought into being a Texas far more prosperous, far more diversified in its economy and its cultural life, far more influential on the national stage, and far better equipped to face the challenges of its own complex present. John Connally gave Texas indispensable tools with which to meet the future. And it was because he believed, fundamentally, that brainpower would be "the uncommon ingredient."


When Governor Connally began his work to improve the colleges and universities of Texas, the conditions were not ideal. Here is what he said to a group he had commissioned to develop a plan:

Higher education in Texas faces tremendous problems. Enrollment is increasing enormously. The frontiers of knowledge are expanding fantastically, creating problems of what and how to teach. There


is a relative shortage of teachers, and we face ever-increasing costs. As never before, these factors and problems endanger the quality of our entire educational process.

His words could have been spoken yesterday. Forty years later, we are facing many of the same challenges that Texas faced then. Rising operating costs, expanding enrollment, new frontiers of knowledge and research that demand our immediate attention, our best thinking, and our financial support. One might ask why we now face again the problems of the 60's, after all of the progress in the intervening decades. It is a good question. The answer is that the earlier successes in building better institutions supported a much larger and more sophisticated Texas, with a vastly enlarged economy and population and a much greater understanding of the power of knowledge and developed intellect. Success bred the problems we now face. Now it is our turn to meet them on behalf of those who will come in the decades after us.

We are a state with grand ambitions and tremendous pride, but these are tough times. Current projections warn us of an impending budget deficit, more uncertainty in the markets, and an atmosphere of slow growth and belt-tightening. We've been here before—as recently as the Texas depression of the 80s and 90s. But if we take a page out of history and look at what John Connally accomplished in six years—and the partnerships he forged—then perhaps we will succeed as he did in using the power of higher education to strengthen our state. Under his formula for success, challenge becomes opportunity. And opportunity seized with shrewdness and wisdom leads to progress. I am convinced that if we use our existing resources wisely and if the institutions of higher learning in our state work effectively with the Governor, the Legislature, other state officers, corporate leaders, and private supporters, we can advance the cause of education in Texas and, in the process, gain the regard of the nation.


The University of Texas at Austin continues to play its role as a great public research university through outstanding teaching and research and through our commitment to serve all the people of Texas and society at large. And we have had a very good year.

In academic year 2001-2002, we set ambitious goals for student progress in retention and graduation rates. Freshman retention is a major success story. It increased to 92 percent last year. Our freshmen succeed at rates that are now superior to the norm for the nation's top public universities. The four-year graduation rate has increased from 29.4 percent in 1995 to 36.5 percent last year, but it remains far too low. The six-year graduation rate rose above 70 percent for the first time, up by 2 percent over the year before.

To help improve our four-year graduation rate, a flat-rate pilot program was authorized by the Legislature and has now been implemented in the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Natural Sciences. Students who take more than 12 hours will get those extra hours free of charge. If we are successful in encouraging students to take more hours per semester, the result will be more openings for new students in the future and significant cost reductions to students and their parents.

The Coordinated Admissions Program was inaugurated last year in cooperation with five other UT System campuses. Under the terms of this successor to the old Provisional Admission Program, a student is offered admission to UT Austin upon completion of 30 hours of course work, with a minimum grade point average of 3.0, at a participating UT component. In the summer of 2001, some 500 students enrolled, most at UT Arlington and UT San Antonio. Of those, about 170 transferred to the Austin campus this fall. This program is an effective way to preserve our tradition of allowing motivated graduates of Texas high schools to "earn their way in," but in a way that enables the University to manage the overall total of new students.

The Donald Harrington Fellows Program was launched with the appointment of four faculty fellows and nine graduate fellows. Mrs. Sybil Harrington, whose generosity enabled this opportunity, set her sights on creating a fellowship program competitive with the most famous worldwide. The Harrington Fellows Program has already taken great steps toward that goal. For this academic year we have appointed two faculty fellows and 20 new graduate fellows. The level of talent is extraordinary, as is the opportunity presented to the each appointee.

The Department of Biomedical Engineering came into being and was immediately successful in competition for large-scale support from the Whitaker Foundation. This unit has been built by some of the most talented faculty members in the College of Engineering and it involves a strong, exciting collaboration with colleagues and


programs at M. D. Anderson and the UT Health Science Center, Houston. The department has already attracted several hundred new majors.

Also gaining momentum last year was the Center for Nano and Molecular Science and Technology, led by Paul Barbara, which is positioning itself strongly in a burgeoning new field, and the Institute for the Humanities, led by Evan Carton, which is creating a new forum for intellectual activity on the campus.

The University of Texas at Austin, Just for the Kids, Inc., and the Education Commission of the States formed a partnership to create the National Center for Educational Accountability, which is based at UT Austin. This partnership, chaired by Tom Luce, will help educators, policymakers, and the public to identify and to expand the use of effective educational practices aimed at improving schools. A superb national board was recruited and convened, and the list of engaged states has now grown to include California, Michigan, and Massachusetts. The Center is ideally positioned to play a large, constructive role in the efforts to improve educational performance nationwide.

Compensation of our faculty and staff remains a focus of concern. It is now pretty clear that we have been able to gain ground against our employment markets in all categories in each of the last three years. For the fiscal year 2002-2003, we provided a 3.25 percent centrally-funded pool for faculty and staff, which, with additional local funds, produced average raises of about 4 percent for all groups. This result may not be high enough to actually gain further ground, but it probably will allow us to hold our own
Also, we launched a very successful premium sharing program to neutralize increases in health care insurance for employees.

The first Staff Council was elected last year and had a productive first year of operation. Frank Simon offered excellent leadership and continues now for a second year as Chair.

I congratulate Associate Vice President Kyle Cavanaugh and his staff for the national acknowledgement they will be receiving this fall. The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources recently awarded UT's OHR the National Recognition for Excellence in Human Resource Practice Award, the highest accolade in the field of higher education. Congratulations to Vice President Pat Clubb, Kyle Cavanaugh, and their entire team for being the best in the country.

A major accomplishment was the development of a 5-year comprehensive financial plan for the University, which has helped us to make important decisions about operations, repair and renovation, and strategic investments. Creating the capacity for more effective financial planning has been a major goal of mine and was a particular target in the recent administrative reorganization. I am quite pleased with the progress. The Provost's office is now taking the lead on strategic allocation of resources, and the new Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Hegarty, is providing much enhanced financial forecasting and modeling. The University Budget Council has become a strong, effective team.

A significant contribution to our strategic planning was the completion of two building-by-building surveys of our physical plant, one focused on fire and life safety and the other on the condition of building systems. These efforts, undertaken by Vice President Pat Clubb's organization, give us a much clearer view of our requirements.

An outgrowth of the financial plan was the creation of a Task Force on Efficiency, which is now at work under the leadership of Randy Diehl. All corners of the campus are finding ways to reduce costs and improve efficiency in our operations. It is in our own interest, because we cannot otherwise meet our strategic needs. Besides, in the coming era of state budget reductions, we will be judged by how wisely and efficiently we make use of existing resources. We cannot expect the state to provide additional support unless we demonstrate our ability to run a lean and cost-effective organization.

I will say more on budgetary issues later.

In the spring we reached the $1-billion mark in the We're Texas Campaign. This was a tremendous milestone. At the celebration ceremony we announced the largest gift in the history of the University, from John A. Jackson of Dallas, which is valued at approximately $150 million and will ensure our preeminence in the geosciences and the study of the environment.


The Campaign exceeded its seven-year goal in less than five years. Total contributions as of August 31, 2002 amount to $1.25 billion. This success is the result of hard work by folks across the campus, and especially our outstanding Resource Development staff—led by Vice President Johnnie Ray. I am grateful to them, to all of you, and to the wonderful donors and volunteers who have helped to make this an exceptional campaign.

We are not done yet. Our emphasis for the final two years is "Value and Connection." That is, to illustrate and to enhance the University's value to the people of Texas and to strengthen our connections to every citizen in the state.

We also have, within the Campaign, a focus on building our private endowment to a value equal to the UT Austin share of the Permanent University Fund. This is a long-term goal that will outlive the Campaign. But when we achieve it, we will have two powerful engines for excellence for this university--the Permanent University Fund and a matching private endowment. There is progress to report. When the Campaign began in September, 1997, our private endowment was valued at 62% of the UT Austin share of the PUF. Now, with pledges included, the value is assured to reach almost 89%.

For the most part I have talked about facts and figures, finances, initiatives, and organizational improvements. These are important parts of the UT success story of 2001-2002, but they don't show the human face that makes this a special place in which to work and learn. Our members distinguish themselves and their university every day through their contributions to the academy and the world at large. When Professor George Georgiou of biomedical and chemical engineering, and Professor Brent Iverson of chemistry, strive to develop a potential anthrax antibody, we all benefit. When Professor King Davis in the School of Social Work serves on a presidential commission on ethnic and racial disparities in mental health, the nation listens to his wise counsel. When Gerald Torres is elected president of the American Association of Law Schools, we share his honor. When Helen Lee, a graduate student in Radio -TV-Film, wins the Student Academy Award for Best Narrative Film from the Academy of Motion Pictures, we applaud her rare and wonderful achievement. When our law school team wins three national titles in moot court competitions, we light the Tower orange. When anthropology grad students Lev Michael and Chris Beier and linguistics grad students Mark Brown and Lynda de Jong travel to the Peruvian Amazon to help revive the Iquito language and build a language center, we salute their courage and selfless endeavor. When Longhorn Athletics has its best year in a proud and storied history -- winning national championships in baseball and men's swimming and diving, finishing 5th in the nation in football, and being rated by the Sears Cup committee as second in the nation in overall sports achievement -- we show up early, get loud, and wear burnt orange. And when Kay Sewell, George Cogswell, and Joe Lucas and their administrative services support staff in the General Libraries do the quiet work of moving 90,000 volumes during a library renovation, we lift our hats to them -- and to the tens of thousands of other staff members, students, and teachers who perform a little magic every day to meet the challenges that come their way.


Of special interest during the year was the infrastructure charge that I had proposed—and the Board of Regents had enacted—as a means for addressing the impending needs for repair and renovation. It is appropriate for me to report now on the current status of these matters.

In early summer, the Attorney General provided a fairly intricate ruling concerning the Board's authority to impose such a fee. Even though it did seem legal for the University to proceed with the infrastructure charge in a modified form, I judged that it was inappropriate for us to go forward on the basis of the technicalities of the ruling, because broad understanding and acceptance of the action could not have been gained. In consequence, we are not levying the charge this year, but the obligations still lie before us.

It is important for everyone to understand that this issue is not at all about a large backlog of repairs left irresponsibly undone. It is largely about a looming, predictable rise in the need for repair and renovation that will come about because of the ages of the structures on our campus. To a much smaller degree, it is about changes in standards concerning environmental health and about requirements for special academic facilities in evolving technical areas.

The critical point is that we will not be able to dodge these demands; "irresponsible" is the label that we will deserve if we even attempt to do that. We have inherited a physical plant that builds opportunity and


advancement every day for millions of Texans. It is the center of our activity, an indispensable enabler of the scale and quality of our contribution. Generations before us put it here. Generations after us will depend on its being here for them. In the wake of the Attorney General's ruling, we must engage the Governor and the Legislature to help us to work out a permanent solution, but we cannot exit the summer of 2003 without one. It is the most urgent item on the University's agenda.

In the meantime, the University Budget Council has developed a plan for addressing what we can with what we have in the current year and beyond. Here are the main points:

  • The annual repair and renovation budget will be funded for the next three years at the level of the last couple of years—about $13 million annually.
  • The following, most critical, capital projects will be continued or begun:
    • Fire and life safety improvements for the Erwin Center
    • The first year of planned fire and life safety improvements elsewhere on the campus
    • The completion of the Biology Wet Lab Building now under construction.
    • Reconstruction of half of the Experimental Science Building to accommodate the program in nanoscience and nanotechnology.
    • Construction of the first building of the Blanton Museum
    • The renovation of two thirds of Batts, Mezes, and Benedict Hall
  • To accomplish these ends, we are committing two thirds of the University's cash reserves. Moreover, we are dedicating $8 million per year of tuition income to 20 years of debt service for bonds that will be issued to finance the capital projects. These steps leave us vulnerable to unexpected developments of all kinds, but I believe that we have chosen the lesser evil by taking action on infrastructure to the maximum possible extent.
  • There is no more money in sight to address anything else. We know that we will be underfunding annual repair and renovation by about $20 million per year for each of the next three years, but we have no alternative. Nor do we have the capacity to do anything about the second phase of the Batts-Mezes-Benedict renovation, the second phase of reconstruction of the Experimental Science Building, the upgrading of air handling in laboratories, or other pressing matters. These are the reasons why we cannot exit the summer of 2003 without a long-term solution to our infrastructure requirements.


Higher education is a tough, competitive business. Every year, UT Austin is sized up by agenda-setters everywhere, both inside and outside our state, to see if we have the brainpower, the skill, the facilities, the organizations—the competitiveness—to contend at the highest levels. I believe we are competing effectively. Our people and the quality of their work are impressive and admirable by any standards. But this is another academic year, another hurdle to cross, and we have work ahead of us.

My personal attention will be dedicated in the coming year to these items:

  • The legislative session opening in January
  • The Commission of 125
  • The Knowledge Gateway project
  • Financial planning through 2006-2007
  • The Task Force on Enrollment strategy
  • Efforts to build minority participation among our faculty staff and students
  • The We're Texas Campaign
  • Enlarging the national presence of the University
  • Developing academic initiatives critical to our future
  • Continued emphasis on Latin America, improved public education, and the changing economy
  • Resumed expansion of the faculty with the intent of reducing our student/faculty ratio
  • New targets for student progress
  • Continued improvement of administrative structure and practice
  • Further improvement of the employment climate

Let me briefly amplify six of these topics.

First, the legislative session: Our goals are two. We must emerge with a solution to the urgent needs concerning infrastructure, and we must gain a better capacity to invest for the future. Since I have already


covered the infrastructure issue, I need say no more about that, but I do want to comment on our capacity to invest.

One of the weakest aspects of our competitiveness is the paucity of resources with which to handle startup costs for new faculty members, to provide matching funding for federal grant proposals, and to seed new programs, especially if they require special facilities. These actions determine the quality and quantity of talent that we can recruit, and they relate critically to the University's ability to develop a commanding presence in fields that will become a part of the economic future of Texas. State leadership needs to help. There are practical solutions, including changing current State policy to allow universities to retain 100% of recovered indirect costs.

Next, let me highlight the Commission of 125, which will soon begin a two-year process of examining the current state of the University and setting goals and priorities for the next two decades. This is the third time that we have convened a commission of citizens for such purposes. The earlier work, undertaken on the occasions of our 75th and 100th anniversaries, paid tremendous dividends. Our graduate programs, libraries, and collections were strengthened immensely in the decades after the work of the Committee of 75. And the quality of our faculty—and its national reputation—soared as the initiatives of the Centennial Commission were implemented in the 1980s.

The new commission will be chaired by Mr. Kenneth M. Jastrow II, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Temple-Inland, Inc. He is among the ablest and most dedicated supporters of higher education in Texas, and he will provide strong, imaginative leadership for the Commission of 125. I am grateful for his willingness to make this special commitment to Texas.

We are in the process of recruiting state and national leaders to serve on the Commission of 125, which will begin work in February. Delivery of the final report is scheduled for the University's birthday in September 2004.

The Knowledge Gateway is third among items that I wish to highlight for the coming year. The vision is to find innovative electronic means to project the University's wealth of holdings and services to all citizens of Texas. This university began 119 years ago as The University of Texas; the idea of the Knowledge Gateway is to make more real than ever before the very idea of our being a university for all of Texas.

The project is being led jointly by Vice Presidents Johnnie Ray and Dan Updegrove and will be developed vigorously during the year ahead. The target is to make the first services available by the end of next summer. The initial focus will be on materials and services for teachers and students in the public schools. Through this first effort alone there is enormous potential for the University to make a powerful new contribution to the citizens of Texas, and even to people well beyond the borders of our state.

Let me turn now to the need for financial planning over a five-year horizon. I choose it simply to emphasize that we can succeed with the natural and proper mission of this university only with shrewd use of our financial resources. Without fear of error, I make one point for every member of our community to hear: In the next five years, it will not be possible for us to finance our highest priorities—reduction of the student/faculty ratio, investment in critical new academic programs, development of special facilities, competitive compensation of faculty and staff—without redeploying existing resources in serious measure. In other words, we must find every improvement in efficiency that we can, and we must make decisions to stop doing some things in favor of doing others. The year 2002-2003 will inevitably be the time when we map out the scope of the requirements and the possibilities for realizing them.

We also need a fresh look at our policies concerning enrollments. Because of rapidly rising demand for admission and improved retention of students who enter our programs, our enrollment continues to grow, and it is now well beyond the avowed target of 48,000. In fact, we are at present one full Rice University beyond that target. But the reality is that we do not have any explainable basis for the target. We do not know the financial implications or the educational consequences of becoming smaller or larger, and we do not understand, in any explicit way, the capacity of our educational spaces and tools. Consequently, I will shortly appoint a Task Force on Enrollment Strategy to examine all of the relevant issues and to recommend policies for the admissions cycle just beginning and for management of the size of the University in the years ahead.

My final comments about goals for 2002-2003 are about the progress of students. I continue to lay high personal priority on improving the indices of success. We can be very proud of the wonderful steps forward in


the past few years, but better results are possible. This university is good enough, and our students are talented enough, to expect freshman retention to reach 94% and perhaps even 95%, the four-year graduation rate soon to reach 40% on the way to 50%, and the six-year graduation rate to reach 72% on the way to 75%. We will be a better university overall, a better value to our students, and a more powerful servant of Texas when these goals are reached. They are worthy of close attention.

Time is not available here for me to comment, even briefly, on the remaining eight items in my list for 2002-2003. All are nonetheless important to the future of The University of Texas at Austin. It will require our whole community to make progress across the broad front of efforts through which we build a stronger, more valuable, more worthy institution. I thank all members of our community for their dedicated work to make us better.


And so we arrive at this moment in September 2002 with pride in what the University was able to accomplish last year, despite national tragedy and economic downturn, and with confidence that the coming academic year will bring inspiration and transformation to 52,000 young minds and opportunity to countless other citizens. We can be confident that many accolades will come to our faculty, students, staff, and programs, and we can expect that some stunning achievement will punctuate the year. Thus, I can assure our friends and supporters that the UT experience will remain the remarkable adventure it has always been.

There are formidable challenges to running the largest university in America, but I am reminded of John Connally's wise determination to turn challenge into opportunity. What he said in a speech to the Economic Club of New York in April 1964 could be our call to action in the year 2002: "States such as Texas—with a booming population, rapid industrial growth, a wealth of resources—must be the pacesetters in educational and economic achievement rather than the laggards who must always catch up."

This is sobering advice. And the truth is, Texas still has some catching up to do. UT must continue to support the best ambitions of Texas by competing nationally with the best, while at the same time exploring ways in which to present new value to the people of Texas. In the months ahead we must build a more effective relationship with the Governor and the Legislature in order to gain fuller support for higher education in Texas. This will mean working with lawmakers to make our state a leader—a pacesetter—in the competitive world we face. As Governor Connally said in the 1960s, "The time has come for Texans to elevate their vision beyond institutional, community, and regional limits toward much wider horizons of state and national greatness—and choose the course that takes us there."

I am optimistic about the progress that can be made, even in the year ahead. Thank you all for your support, your commitment, and your attention today.




The Wall Street Journal
Copyright (c) 2002, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Tuesday, August 27, 2002

Student Loans 101: Ignore Schools' Advice

Colleges Tout 'Preferred Lenders' On Their Web Sites, but There Are Better Bargains; How to Find Them
By Anne Marie Chaker

Like many colleges these days, the University of Texas at Austin has put together a list of "preferred lenders" to guide students seeking student loans. No. 1 on the list: Nellie Mae, a lender in Braintree, Mass.

But does Nellie Mae have the best deal around? Hardly. Anyone who ignores the university's list can find far better packages, such as a $15,000 loan from Mohela, a nonprofit lender in St. Louis, that could save a student about $1,200 over the full term of the loan compared with Nellie Mae.

With families' college savings taking a hit in the stock-market slump, more students are seeking financial aid. But the preferred-lender lists posted on many universities' Web sites often don't include anything close to the best deal.

The universities say the listings are intended as a convenience to students, to help them choose a lender that offers superior service over the decade-long life of the typical undergraduate loan, and they don't claim to list the best bargains. But their criteria for picking the lenders are murky. Part of the reason Nellie Mae landed on the University of Texas' list, says Larry Burt, director of financial aid, is that it gave his department free software. He says he "thought it was appropriate."

Students clearly rely on the lists. Financial-aid offices at the University of Texas and the University of Cincinnati, for instance, say that more than 90% of students select lenders that appear on their lists.

But a review of the lists nationwide shows that college-recommended lenders rarely offer the best deals. Seeking loans from lenders that weren't on the preferred lists, in fact, can net big savings, from about $1,000 for a typical undergraduate to more than $18,000 for a graduate student, according to Versura Inc. The company, an independent financial-aid consultant in Washington, analyzed data at The Wall Street Journal's request using publicly available figures.




September 4, 2002 1

Dear Mr. Bartley,

I have just read a copy of the “Student Loans 101” article written by Anne Marie Chaker. She indicated to me her article was to be written about the creation and use of preferred lenders by educational institutions across the country. I was interviewed quite extensively by Ms. Chaker, and in fact gave her my home telephone number so that if she had questions I could assist her in insuring accuracy in the article. She did not call me at home, the article contains errors. She apparently was not interested in the preservation of accuracy in her article.

In her reference to the creation of the lender list at the University of Texas I provided an extremely lengthy and detailed response indicating the importance of the level of service, the use of local lenders, multiple secondary markets, the use of the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (our state guarantee agency), a high level of electronic capability and other factors as well. In addition I provided information regarding how we advise students on our "Choosing a FFELP Lender" page ( You will note none of those items were included in her article as important factors used by me or any of the other financial aid professionals interviewed. Indeed, she described the criteria as "murky." While her recollection of the facts may be murky the information provided was anything but. Ms. Chaker's article reads as an advertisement for Mohela, the ALL Student Loan Group and Versura, pointing out discounts that are available through those entities while failing to mention the majority of lenders across the country (and all those listed by the University of Texas) also offer some form of discounts. In my lengthy conversation with Ms. Chaker I explained the differences between the various benefits that are available to students. Again it appears as though she was only interested in promoting the ALL Student Loan Group and Mohela. In fact her reference to Mohela as a lender is inaccurate. They are a holder and servicer of student loans not a lender. The ALL Student Loan Group only provides loans to California residents or non-residents enrolled in California, an important fact to note given the national scope of her article and your newspaper.

Ms. Chaker indicates that "part of the reason Nellie Mae landed on the University of Texas list said Larry Burt Director of Financial Aid is that it gave his department free software." This is not a factual representation of my statement. I informed Ms. Chaker that Nellie Mae had been on the UT lender list and proved itself to be an excellent lender, providing superior service to the students and to the institution. Nellie Mae performed all the functions required for lenders to be on the lender list in an exemplary fashion. Further, I indicated in quite some detail that the University of Texas investigated several different electronic award letter presentation software possibilities and that Nellie Mae's software fit most closely to the award letter presentation that we felt was necessary at the University. Use of the software is free to the University of Texas just as it is for any educational institution, without any strings attached. It was my decision, based on all the characteristics that Nellie Mae brought to the University as well as going the extra mile by producing software that significantly eases students' access to financial aid, that some recognition was in fact appropriate. Ms. Chaker took my comments, altered them and abbreviated them to such an extent that they are factually inaccurate as she presented them. Frankly, Ms. Chaker should print a retraction and apologize for her inaccurate article and the misstatements attributed to me. I am disappointed that such a prestigious entity as the Wall Street Journal would use such duplicitous techniques and that publishing the facts now appears optional.


Lawrence W. Burt

1 The original letter was sent by Dr. Burt, director of student financial services, to Mr. Bartley, editor of the Wall Street Journal, by e-mail in late August after failed attempts at faxing. A hard copy was sent by postal mail on September 4.


September 4, 2002

Attn: Robert L. Bartley
The Wall Street Journal
4300 Route 1 North
South Brunswick, NJ 08852

Dear Mr. Bartley,

Attached you will find the correspondence that was emailed to the Wall Street Journal. This correspondence is in regards to "Students Loans 101" article written by Anne Marie Chaker. I also attempted to fax the document to the Wall Street Journal on virtually an hourly basis over 2 days and was never able to get through. I have yet to receive a response nor have I seen that the letter has appeared in your publication.

In the time since I have written the letter I have obtained additional information that Ms. Chaker's journalistic integrity is even worse than I originally imagined. I have found that my assumptions that she did not check her sources well and/or did not understand the topic she was writing about when she referred to Mohela as a lender was not correct. What I found out was that Mohela told Ms. Chaker quite specifically they were not a lender. Her response to this information was that it "would be too complicated to explain to her readers". I guess if the truth is complicated the Wall Street Journal has chosen to print non factual information instead.

Other information obtained reflects directly to the heart of her article which is that better deals are available when families do not rely on lender lists. In fact Ms. Chaker goes on to chide UCLA for its use of only Sallie Mae lenders. Again Ms. Chaker is playing fast and loose with the facts indicating that the ALL Student Loan Group is an example of a lender that provides low cost options when in fact they are on the UCLA lender list.

I am very disappointed that the Wall Street Journal employs an individual that appears to be devoid of professional integrity. I am not interested in contacting my attorney to deal with the less than accurate quotes printed in your publication, however, given the nature of Ms. Chaker's carelessness with the truth you may wish to be prepared for others who exhibit litigious tendencies.


Lawrence W. Burt, Director





From: Andrew Dillon <
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:10:22 -0700
To: <
Subject: The name issue


I have followed the discussion of the name change with some interest and want to make a few observations and hopefully reassure some of you who have worries about where the School is going.

Despite what others may say, I want to assure you that we, as a faculty, are committed to educating the future generations of librarians and serving the library as a great public institution. The name change is not a bandwagon-jumping attempt to become trendy, nor is it a signifier that we are becoming some second rate I.T. School. That will not happen here. It is easy for others to paint the issue in those extreme terms because that plays on people's insecurities and concerns but I can assure you these were not aspects of the discussions we had as a faculty. Instead, the name is a very real choice that we have made to raise the profile of the school and to gain attention for our skills, our values and our research across the university, the state, and beyond. For many reasons, the current name does not help us get our message across to many people who need to know more about us. The direct consequences of this are a loss of employment opportunities for students, a lack of competitiveness in gaining grants, and a perception among many people in this university and elsewhere that we have little to contribute to certain areas of work that we ourselves consider central to our role.

My personal view is that our field offers the best hope for a better web, a better school system, a better public information policy, a better national archive, a better way of harnessing information technology - a way that truly serves people, not machines or big companies. We have the ideas, the methods, the skills, and, very importantly, the values that matter for people and society. But all this amounts to far less than it could do if others ignore us, stereotype us, or fail to see our relevance. The LIS field has spent years trying to get people to understand better what we do. We have failed to change public perception, which is why most people do not know that librarianship requires a masters degree, can be highly technical, or can add so much value to an organization or culture (see e.g., Harris and Wilkinson, 2001) The choice then facing us is clear. If we cannot make the world use the library word as we use it and understand it, then we should find a way of communicating what we do in language others do understand. Most of us believe the new name helps us to do just that. It is but one part of our growing effort however, and success or failure will not hinge solely on this.

Historically the School has not been strongly positioned or supported at this University, and one of my first tasks when I became Dean was to make central administration aware that we are here, we are valuable and we warrant investment. The name change is part of that process. Others who were here before me can tell you what they tried to do, I can only speak of events since January this year.

When President Faulkner announced the creation of a Knowledge Gateway at UT ( I was immediately pressing for our involvement as The School on this campus with the natural intellectual skills to enable his vision to become a reality. Others were skeptical of our involvement for no good reason other than our name which conveyed little to them of what we could provide and accomplish in such an undertaking. I can assure you that people, upon learning of the name change, now take more interest in us, or at least give us their attention for longer than they otherwise might. I have been at meetings all over this campus and beyond discussing this, talking about what we do and how our graduates can help. We have not changed. Our curriculum has not changed. We have not changed our graduates. It is others' perceptions of us that are changing, and this is opening doors. Could we have done this without changing the name? Perhaps, but I do not believe so. The history of previous attempts by others in the field seems to support that view.

Since my arrival here many students have expressed to me their dissatisfaction with aspects of the the program. I am committed to addressing these concerns and working with faculty on improving the quality of the program for all our students. I want us to train the best librarians in the nation. I want us to offer high quality education


to those who come here. I do not want us to be the biggest School (how un-Texan of me, I know), I just want us to be the best. But we don't only educate librarians. We have students who have many motivations, many ambitions, many career plans. Some have asked for a new MLS, some for a separate PCS degree, a new Archives degree, some for an Info Architecture degree etc. The new name is deliberately chosen to be inclusive of these diverse interests, all of which are part of the great mosaic of themes and careers in the information world.

Some of you do not like the new name. Some of you love it. Some hate the current name, others love it. That is the way with change, there is no single name that everyone will love. The goal is inclusion, not narrowing or phasing out. We will continue to graduate librarians, a great many of them I hope, regardless of the name of the school because being a librarian is more than just a label or a title, it is a set of skills and a set of values; skills and values that I assure you we cherish; skills and values that will provide to equip people to work in a variety of contexts, for a variety of employers, including libraries. These skills and values are what we must keep alive, refine, grow, and communicate to others through our work. Now these are issues worth fighting for, and this School is committed to that fight.

Thank you

Andrew Dillon
Dean and Professor

Ref: Harris, R. and Wilkinson M. (2001) (re)Positioning Librarians: How young people view the information sector. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science. 42,4, 289-307.




Remarks on GSLIS Name Change
Donald G. Davis, Jr.

A proposal to change the name of the Graduate School of Library & Information to the School of Information has come up for discussion at the Faculty Council meeting of 23 September. The full eight pages, containing the proposal and supporting documents, are included at the Faculty Council website. Since I do not recall having seen these documents in advance of their posting on 30 August 2002, I hope you have taken time to read them. I speak to remind my colleagues of the significance of their action.

Whether the degree of consensus of the GSLIS faculty is as complete as the GSC vote on 5 March 2002 reflected is only a matter of conjecture now. Just two years earlier, however, the GSC agreed to retain the name of the School, but to change the title of the master’s degree. But this Spring the pressures for conformity were understandably enormous. The litany of arguments for retention and change is lengthy. Prestigious schools and trendy labels are not always congruent. It is the quality of the programs that are important. This forum, however, is not the venue to discuss in detail the relative merits of various possible names.

Though the arguments for change appear persuasive to many, possibly most, members of the Faculty Council, they are troublesome to at least a few. Though all professional schools are a blend of practice and theory, the creative tension between practice and theory is called “an unhappy marriage,” by the proposal. “Information Science, which focuses on information as computational but very human process” has been the primary locus for “theory building in the field over the past 40 years.”—words not calculated to support the value of practice or put it in a positive light. To be sure, the comforting words—“umbrella function,” “diversity,” and “inclusive” appear—as do the challenging words—“energizing mechanism,” and “re-positioning.”

So while the proposal is called a “Nonsubstantive Administrative Change Request,” one can see clearly the agenda of the School to engage new priorities and emphases in funding, recruitment, etc., as reflected in the name School of Information and the supporting rationale. Now no one doubts that change and relevance are necessary, but will the School, in fact, continue to be faithful to its longest and most loyal constituencies? The question arises, “Will these continue to receive the support they have received in the past?” The commercial information industry is a powerful engine, to be sure, and eager to assist in driving the curriculum. But who supports and prepares practitioners for the not-for-profit, broadly-based, library and archival service professions that, in fact, continue to employ the majority of our master’s graduates and will likely do so for some time to come? I trust it will continue to be our School, under whatever name it adopts. That is the assurance one expects.

While I do not intend to stand in the way of “progress,” I cannot let this moment pass unnoticed. With almost every change there is something to be gained, but something to be lost. The name change is less important in itself than what may be signified, or perceived as significant, by the change. I would be remiss if I did not suggest that the word “Library”—rather than being considered by some to be hopelessly traditional, sadly limited, and narrowly antiquarian—is an honorable one with a great tradition about which this University, nor its administrators, need not be ashamed. It has served particularly well the liberal arts ideal of higher education. It should not be jettisoned without a slight pause or at least a footnote.

Will a renamed School, for example, find room in its curriculum for discussion of the new scholarship on the social nature and act of reading, a human behavior that libraries continue to facilitate in growing numbers each year? Will it provide room for discussion of the uses to which increasing numbers of visitors put the cultural space libraries supply? (Ironically, circulation rates and numbers of visitors to all types of libraries have increased faster in the past decade than database reference transactions.) I trust that it will.


The very word “information” is a ubiquitous one that is used by many, but defined by few. It is a high-energy word in our time that many invoke. However, in isolation, and without a context, it is ambiguous and meaningless. Unless it has environmental or social boundaries, it does little to define, by itself, the realistic domain that a professional school claims. Nor does it communicate to the public, legislative bodies, or funding agencies what a school does. It may have boundless appeal in some quarters, but it is so broad as to be an enigma in others.

An example illustrates this. Despite the fact that librarians in public schools in Texas changed their name to the more sophisticated term, “learning resource specialists,” a number of years ago, they recently reverted to calling themselves “school librarians” because that was commonly understood by the constituencies supporting them.

Another, though perhaps an imperfect, comparison will underscore my point. One apparently would not suddenly change the name of the School of Nursing to the School of Auxiliary Health Practitioners, or some such term, simply because of the advances that that profession has made in the past generation—or the past decade. I suspect that there is a great deal of affection and loyalty invested in the title and name. The word “Library” evokes similar feelings.

Members of the Faculty Council, as a faculty member in my 32nd year at this great university, I will do my best to explain the new name, and the intent of the name change, to our 4,000 alumni—the vast majority of whom have made a life commitment to libraries and related institutions. They and others will likely want to know that libraries—as well as archival administration, preservation and conservation—are still welcome and valued parts of the School’s domain. But it may take more than an image of a card catalog and a person shelving books prominently displayed on the School’s new and improved website to do this. It will require all of us in the School, with the University’s support, to articulate regularly and enthusiastically support for libraries and librarians and what they have meant, and continue to mean, to our society.


16 September 2002



  Updated 2013 August 19
  Copyright | Privacy | Accessibility
  Comments to or
  Contact Sue Alexander Greninger, Secretary,
  General Faculty and Faculty Council