|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive"Reinventing Tech" -- Past Senate President's Address
Reinventing Tech -- The Role of the Faculty By L. Leon Geyer Past Senate President's Address, 1994 Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens--and then everybody disagrees. BORIS MARSKALOA[1] Krugman[2] states there are three kinds of writing in economics: Greek-letter, up-and-down, and airport. Greek-letter is formal, theoretical, mathematical, and sometimes hides the banality of an economist's ideas. Up-and-down economics is the daily business page, TV market report--inflation up, real estate sales down, and revenue steady. Airport economics is the language of economics best sellers--prediction of impending economic disaster, thirty steps to financial independence, multi-nationals are bad, and so forth. Past Senate presidential addresses can also fall into one of these three categories. The University has been buffeted recently by "airport" bashing and "management" by press release. My remarks at one time included lots of up and down charts[3] and some may find my remarks formal, theoretical, but not, I assume, obscured with Greek letters. What to say in an outgoing address is a difficult task. One does not want to be trite, burn bridges or avoid the tough issues. I reviewed several of my predecessors' remarks and decided that I could not be a philosopher with the wit of some and the ability to turn a phrase of several of them. And when I contemplated that an address to the Senate, carried in the Spectrum, might actually be heard or read by colleagues and others who have great expertise as grammarians, communicators, and other learned individuals, I came close to ending my remarks at this point. But a lawyer and an economist would never stop at that point. One gets paid to talk and the other to make charts. So I shall do both and pray that the messenger be accepted for what he says and not how he says it. There are, however, no implied or expressed warranties in my remarks. I. THE SENATE--PAST AND FUTURE A. Accomplishments of the Senate Thanks to my officers, cabinet members, senators, and the kind people--administration, staff, and others who made my 1+ years as your president pleasant. A special thanks to Leisa Osborne for her work and my family (Janis, Bryce, and Scott) for all the patience. Thanks to the BOV and the President, the Senate President sits at the "big" table with the provost and the chief financial officer at the BOV meetings. The Senate president and other officers are routinely a part of BOV subcommittee meetings. The value of an informed faculty meeting on a routine basis with informed members of the BOV is an important step to assure mutual understanding and respect. It is necessary to be a part of the conversation if one is to have an impact. The yearly Senate dialogue with the student leaders and informal contacts with SGA, GSA, and faculty association presidents also facilitates understanding and a sharing of common goals. The remarks to the Senate of our Vice-Rector, State politicians, the meeting with the deans, the visit by the President, Provost, Vice President for Finance, and other administrators provided the Senate with insight and information. The role of the faculty on the University Budget Board is now cemented. These meetings also warned us that not all of society, including our political leaders, understand what we do. And thus, we have challenges for the future. The faculty Senate is more effective than most faculty may think.[4] Strong senators, faculty involvement in shared governance, and informed participation can be vehicles to better campus morale, improve decisions, reduce tensions, and share blame. Faculty now chair all the appropriate commissions and committees. The Senate itself should be reminded of several key roles that it currently undertakes--frequent meeting of senate officers with the top three administrative officers, senate cabinet meetings, the Senate meetings, and Senate representatives on all councils, commissions, and important committees. The role and importance of each of these elements to advocate for faculty, to resolve personnel issues, to inform and to share responsibilities cannot be over emphasized. My own agenda included a reaching by the Senate President to minority and women's groups on campus to assure the groups of the Senate's concern. The good news is that minorities and women are represented in the Senate, on budget committees, and in the faculty association. But it is always wise to reassure an open process and to let all faculty know that the Senate is there to share concerns, needs, and kudos. We must engage and involve as many groups and people as possible in contemporary reformulation of social aims. B. Governance: Improvements for Faculty and Administrators The role of faculty in university governance has resulted in the statement that "the faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process."[5] Governance is the structure and process of decision making. The issues are how to improve communication, how to strengthen the responsibility assigned to the faculty and how to strengthen the faculty (and the Senate as its representative) in advising the administration on matters of concern to the faculty. And governance will be more crucial, in my judgement, if the faculty is to be the positive catalyst for change. If an administrator makes a decision without consulting the faculty, we call him autocratic. If an administrator seeks our advice and then makes the decisions, we call him wishy/washy. I believe that it is time to recognize that there is a continuum of alternatives and it is the duty of the members of the academy to stand up and govern. Faculty need to continue to shape a more efficient and more effective university. The university will be shaped and reshaped in the near future. Will the shaping be done by default and by the "Planners" and the Provost because faculty, outstanding in our fields, stand by and watch. Or will it be shaped by the "grass roots" faculty working with the administration. Some colleges, some departments are light years behind in faculty involvement in budget and academic issues. I believe Jim, Fred, and Minnis are open for input. Will faculty step up to the challenge? II. THE UNIVERSITY--NOW AND THE FUTURE A. Reinventing the University--Who Will Lead? One inevitable event at the University is change. The University, the colleges, the departments, and the faculty are units of change. The issue is not will we change. The issue is how and who will control the change. External, internal, faculty, or others. In my judgement, there is plenty of evidence that if we do not make changes ourselves, others will do it for us and we probably will not like the results. The change may be external or internal pushed by external sources. We need to make the changes "bubble up" and not be imposed "top down." Through "right sizing" or "downsizing", today's private-sector managers have come to recognize that their greatest asset lies in the unrealized potential of their own workers. The Clinton-Gore proposal to "reinvent" government wants to emulate these changes by liberating workers from strangling supervisors and holding front- line employees accountable for the quality of their product. The state, parents, and students are asking us to be accountable. It is ironic because the historical model of the university is to place the responsibility and management on the faculty. We need only to reinvent our historical self. We need to make sure we don't fall into the "career administrator" syndrome. But to avoid a brave new world in which we are to be restricted to implementing pre-determined programs, we must assure our constituencies we are providing the appropriate degree of education that is expected of us. B. Rights and Duties of Faculty As in every bilateral contractual arrangement where promises of rights and duties are exchanged, faculty clearly have both rights and duties. Unfortunately, some faculty have taken the arrangement to be a unilateral contract and can decide whether or not they want to complete the contract or which portions they may complete. Make no mistake, the wake up call has come. If we choose to ignore it, someone will make the decisions. I would prefer that we in the academy take our responsibility, our rights and duties seriously and make the internal reforms necessary now. Let me then be so bold as to make a series of recommendations so that we can be in charge of our own destiny. My remarks will be directed at the faculty and the units within the University that make, review, confirm, or execute decisions. C. Social Contract--Renegotiating/Reinventing In my judgement, the "social contract" between the universities, and its constituents, the BOV, the legislature, the governor, the students, parents, the business groups, alumni and all other groups has become frayed. Positive renegotiation will succeed only if both the university and the external constituent groups assume responsibility in the process--solutions cannot be imposed unilaterally by either side. For example, over time, mandated class numbers will result in a reallocation of faculty teaching time but not necessarily quality of teaching. A 3-hour class of 200 can be reduced to eight 3-hour classes of 25 students to satisfy the number of classes taught myth. The role of graduate education, graduate courses, and class size must be factored into our informed decision-making process. Mandated class attendance will by itself not result in better learning. But each of us needs to address the issue by renewed vigor. I myself added the following duty to my syllabus: A Student's Duty: 1. To read before class. This allows the student to participate in the discussion. 2. To attend class so that they can: a. Share their knowledge with the class and instructor. b. Reinforce their readings. c. Know what is expected for the next class. 3. Be on time. Don't disrupt your fellow students. I also addressed the issue in class. Students live up to the level of expectation we set for them And, the state wants its money's worth. Add your issue of concern. I look forward to other positive suggestions. Research-based public universities have, in my judgement, the responsibility to create and extend new knowledge. That requires several ingredients. 1) The freedom to pursue research which may have no immediate relevance or application and 2) responsibility to extend that knowledge to those who pay the bill--students and taxpayers. The reshaping that needs to be undertaken can be done in my judgement in the old fashioned way--appropriate incentives to faculty and appropriate input from faculty. We need to find additional creative ways to do so. Make no mistake, the university will be reinvented, reshaped, reorganized, and remade. The Social Contract will be reinvented. The issue is who will reinvent the university. Faculty, the administration, the BOV, or the legislature; all have a role and a stake in a positive outcome. Faculty must participate in a positive way. Yes, I am preaching to the choir because the choir needs to rejuvenate itself. Faculty have a golden opportunity to direct the change. My concern is will we as faculty accept the challenge. III. FACULTY BASHING AND OTHER MYTHS The following myths are prevalent and must be dispelled. A. $300 an Hour Our efforts are only in the classroom and that our model is that of a high school with students changing classes on the hour.[6] If one reads the criticism of higher education, one would assume that hours in the classroom is the total of our workload and responsibility. But if the public does not understand, it our duty to inform their discretion. B. Richmond Will Seek Our Expertise to Solve the State's Problems If we care, have expertise, etc., we need to take the expertise to the policy makers and don't just wait for them to read our arcane journals. C. Tenure is a Guaranteed Lifetime Position To paraphrase Kay v. Board of Higher Education,[7] academic freedom, academic tenure does not mean an academic license for an unchanging, permanent job. It is the freedom to do good and be a vehicle for thoughtful contribution to an ever changing society. It is protection from unwarranted intrusion but not a license to ignore the needs of our constituency--the students and the Commonwealth. Make no mistake--tenure is under challenge and can only be defended if the academy arises to its responsibility and duty to police itself. Tenure may be next on the chopping block. D. Faculty Bashing Will Pass Without Harm While I may resent the recent rounds of prof-bashing in the Roanoke Times and I could paraphrase the governor's office by stating that the articles "were error-filled stories, attempting to discredit the quality work we faculty do on a regular basis" and the articles "were a slanted rehash of old charges,"[8] I prefer to call the articles a local call to arms. The current professor "bashing" shows us the need to engage the broader community in what we do. It is not enough to engage in intellectual combat. Rather, we must engage in conversation with several important constituencies. The Senate has done that with invitations to and visits with our political leaders. The Senate established the Faculty Response Committee to provide systematic, cogent, and informed responses. But we must do more. Because, even friendships are in constant need of repair. Our own Congressman[9] recently stated, "Universities must do a better job of explaining--to themselves and to the public--exactly what it is that they contribute to society." Highly publicized "airport" articles and confusing "up and down" numbers have obfuscated the public and outside decision makers like the "Greek letters" of economics. Perhaps the public believes that faculty are "socialized to publish, teach graduate students, and spend as little time teaching [undergraduates] as possible"[10] and that faculty pay consistently rises as undergraduate teaching loads drop. IV. REINVENTING THE FACULTY AND THE UNIVERSITY A. The Duty to Teach We need to find out what our constituents, our students, our consumers want and deliver. My policy class told me that they wanted an hour of learning, taking them beyond note copying and regurgitation. They wanted the professor to respect them, and share knowledge and be accessible to students. They were not looking for entertainers or technology to teach them. Students want to be challenged to have a broader and deeper understanding of real world problems. We have a duty to provide a high quality education and to provide access to students. The students were not critical of research. In fact, they were supportive if the research also benefitted their education. The solution is that we must inform them of the relevance of our research by sharing it as appropriate in the classroom. We must telegraph this information to the potential 26,000 future voters and their parents. In short, educate our students by sharing what we do in research--and not just at the graduate level. We must share our time. The excuse of "see my graduate student or I am too busy" won't cut it. The "I cannot talk to you because I have to consult" must be rephrased to "I have a prior commitment, when can I make an appointment to help you." The "those are my office hours and if you have a class at that time, its your problem" must stop. Anecdotes are killing us. B. The Duty to Research Our mission as a land grant university, our university mission, and our duty to society our duty to promote scholarship will continue to require us to do quality research. But, the "gravy" days of dollars are over. As Boucher put it, "advocating `more money' as the sole requirement for a healthy, happy research system is like prescribing `more food' as the solution to overpopulation"[11]. Cost-effective research with less duplication of expensive research facilities will require us to re- think how we research and what research is undertaken. Is one of our problems that we are paying for research out of 208 in some colleges. If so, should we not carefully review the "wisdom" of this policy. On the margin, some professors may excel at teaching. Therefore, should not the university/college/department encourage more teaching and place less emphasis on research for research sake, but hold the professor to an acceptable level of scholarship. The definition of scholarship may need adjustment or to be reinvented. Policies on publication numbers, teaching loads, expectations in promotions and tenure, outside sources of income will need to be reviewed and reinvented. We need to allow the faculty at the department level, in consultation with the college leadership, to set departmental teaching, research, and extension goals. We may find it preferable to expand the teaching load of some faculty to accomplish the departmental needs and reduce the "expected" departmental research which is funded out of 208 dollars for others. Others at the department level might be encouraged to increase 208 funded departmental research. But let me assure you that all faculty should be required to maintain a level of "scholarly research and publications." That includes those who have 100% teaching and 100% extension appointments.[12] Scholarly research is an absolute necessity if a teacher in the fields at Tech is to be viable. C. The Right to Expect "Reasonable and Competitive Compensation"-- The Duty to Pay." Creativity in financing of salary increases is needed to keep us competitive. For the year 1991-1992 while Tech faculty salaries were reduced by .6%, 17 of our benchmark institutions raised salaries (6 over 3%), one reduced .6%, and one froze salaries.[13] The economy was equally poor in many of the "benchmark states." In our own state, appropriations fell 13% from 1990-91 to 1992-93 while state revenues increased by 2.9% and gross personal income increased by 6.7%. (Up and down economics.) We are in trouble over competitive salaries. We all know that we have slipped from 60% to 28% of our peers. But we have also slipped in morale. To cover for adjustments needed for assistant professors being paid under the market price, in many cases full and associate professors working above average were given below average salary adjustments, adding to salary compression within the academy. This encourages quality faculty to seriously look for other opportunities. Even unsuccessful job searches are expensive to the university in terms of lost time and reduced productivity. In addition to the negative impact on morale, it will rearrange department expertise not on the basis of deliberative and consensus decisions, but on the random basis of who is left. The university will be managed by attrition. The ability of a department to manage its extension, research, or teaching mission, will be a function of who is left and not what area of expertise is needed. Holes in graduate program offerings and upper level class offerings due to departed expertise will be the major casualty. Solutions: 1) If the state does not return us to 60% of salaries through appropriations, we must look to less favorable internal solutions such as leaving positions open, teaching larger classes, less numbers of classes and courses to allow salary to increase to return us to our competitive position. We must find a solution to the problem before the hemorrhaging becomes worse and the Ross Perot "sucking sound" rearranges us on a random basis imperiling ability to function as a comprehensive university with comprehensive departments. 2) Urge early retirement of senior faculty who self select out. Advantage--high quality replacements are in the market now. They will have new tools and skills honed for the increase in students expected in five years. New hires may come at 1/2 the cost of current senior faculty. 3) Concern over young faculty coming in higher than previous hirees. Good news, it shows how out of whack our salaries are in a competitive market. It should be used to raise the level of all salaries. 4) Add your own creative idea. D. The Duty to Participate in Governance I believe that we have the support of this administration for the faculty to take a more active role (as in all great universities) in sharing in the governance of Virginia Tech. My concern is not that the administration will plot "control",[14] but rather, my concern is that we as faculty will abdicate our role in the governance process. Why? We don't understand the process or our role, inertia, let Jack and Jill do it, the administrator doesn't listen, I am too busy and more. Vigilance is the price of liberty at the university, too. The decision will be made. The issue is will we be part of the process. We will get the blame whether we participate or not. Recommendation: We renew our vows as members of the academy to shape, direct, and move the university forward. Efforts continue to be made at the college and department level to strengthen faculty participation in the governance and budget process. I believe that the system is open. The issue is will we as faculty flood the gate to participate. E. The Duty to Gossip--Extend and Internationalize The university and our land grant mission requires us to extend[15] and to internationalize.[16] The sharing of knowledge within the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world community is clearly a part of our mission. F. The Duty of Diversity In a pluralistic society, the duty to look like America is self-evident. The pipeline of opportunity starts before birth (pre-natal care) and continues through pre-school, grade and high school, through our colleges and universities and into the job market and our family structures. The academy cannot avoid the great issues of the day. We must, however, carefully craft solutions to enhance opportunities and fairness for all. We must address accessibility to the university by all the Commonwealth's daughters and sons, dual spousal employment for those who are to come and those who are here, expansion of opportunities for all qualified applicants regardless of race, creed, national origins, religious preference, and more. The task is monumental but not insurmountable. G. The Duty of Past Senate Presidents to Meddle Based on my six years of heavy participation in the University governance system, I am putting forward the following recommendations for the betterment of the University. 1. Reinventing the Senate Recommendations for the improved operation of the Senate and its role on campus. a. At the last senate meeting in the Spring of 1993, the Senate was provided with two documents to revise and update the Senate By-Laws and the Senate's own rules for handling grievance hearings. With due debate and a few changes, I would encourage the Senate to adopt the changes with due deliberation and speed. b. The Senate should amend its By-Laws to include the creation of the Faculty Association Presidents Advisory Group. It should be the role/duty of the President of the Senate to have a monthly meeting with the Faculty Association presidents. Institutionalize the role in the by-laws. It is an important information link between the association presidents to help the colleges strengthen their associations and communicate the activities of the Senate to an activist group. c. The Senate meet twice a month from 4-6 p.m. The one meeting be scheduled for Senate business with reports and Senate debate. The second meeting should consist of a continuing dialogue with the provost, and other administrators for timely presentations and dialogue. This dialogue could be based on the "parliamentary" quizzing of the "provost" and other administrators. Both meetings would automatically end at 6:00 unless 2/3 of the Senate voted to stay beyond. The goal is threefold. If the Senate is to have a meaningful role, it needs to be informed, to communicate, and to debate before and during on-going issues, not after the fact. d. When the Senate next changes the Senate Constitution, it should remove 1/2 or more of the material in its constitution and place the relevant material in the By-Laws. For example, the constitution embodied too many items that are out of date due to changes in the governance structure. The percent of faculty needed to change the Senate constitution should be reduced in a revised constitution. e. The Senate has moved to communicate among itself electronically. The next challenge is to communicate with the faculty at large as appropriate and in a timely manner. Reassertion of the Senate role in Spectrum or the use of E-mail may be useful. f. The Senate should appoint a committee to explore the need for and, if there is a need, how to channel our political collective needs. This exploratory group should focus on our role with other institutions in the state, with other educators, and the advisability of encouraging faculty participation with time, money, and ideas in the political process. We either play or pay. 2. Reinventing Student Advising We give lip service to advising. Although each department must develop its own model,[17] advising to date has not been adequately recognized. We don't have standards of advising. Therefore, it is difficult to judge and reward. When was the last time your pay adjustment contained a reward for an excellent job of advising. Unless dollars are put into advising and it is recognized as important, advising comes out of research, family, or service or isn't done up to standard. Recommendation--Standards for advising be created and rewarded with dollars at pay raise time. 3. Reinventing Administration No faculty member can maintain credibility without being critical of "administration"-- the undefined but guilty villain of all problems. I, too, shall retain some credibility. A few years ago, some of us took the phone book and counted one administrator for every eight faculty in our college. (And that was before they reinvented extension into the college.) How did it happen and why did it happen? This did not include the very capable support staff that really move the necessary paper. This was only the Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, Directors, and Assistants to the Assistant Assistant's Assistant. I recently received a letter from an unnamed division on campus with the letterhead listing a director and X assistants and associate directors. Not one "worker" was listed. It could be worse, the Washington Post reported that the University of the District of Columbia had 435 full-time teaching faculty in 50 departments with 395 full-time administrative positions.[18] That is 1 department for 8.7 faculty and one administrator for each 1.1 faculty member. As evidenced at the Senate meeting last fall, the Deans as a group were thoughtful and men of class. Since then, several have become Deans Emeritus, one a provost, one a vice president, and one lost his interim title. Diversity has struck the Deanships and more interims added. This is not bad. Deans, deanlets, and directors, evaluated as "administrators" on a systematic basis, with their own goals and aspirations, and in a changing University will and should return to the faculty, move up and/or out. Positive change is a hallmark of a dynamic university.[19] My three main proposals for reinventing the university administration in this area are as follows: a. Faculty must take on an informed advisory role on budget matters at the department level and college level just as we do at the University level. Unless we are a part of the budget formulation at all levels, as members of the academy and at the margin, we shall not have the ability to shape our destiny. Enlightened, we will often agree with the administrative decisions at the department, college, and university level. And, with vigorous and meaningful participation, we will 1) have a stake in the outcome, 2) assert the historical role of faculty in a bottom up as opposed to a top down university, and 3) share the blame and responsibility for the decisions and directions of the University. This process is beginning in some colleges and departments, but should be at all levels, patterned after the university budget and planning advisory committee, but modified as appropriate. Without access to the budget decisions, our efforts are futile. b. A Teaching and Research Model of Administration Academic administrators--deans, deanlets, heads, etc., by and large come from the academic faculty to which they should plan to return. With five year reviews and the current pressures in academia, many will return to the academy. Most of my colleagues will argue that the best position at the University is a Full Professor. (I'll let you supply the reasons why). A return to the hallowed halls of Ivy should be the goal of most if not all administrators. Therefore, we need to reinvent a model administration based on the in-vogue industrial model of teamwork where few are at the top and most decisions are made at the worker/faculty level, tempered by the historical model of the University. Deans, deanlets, and administrators with faculty rank and/or abilities should be encouraged to continue to research and teach during their administrative appointment. Non-tenure track administration may want to teach as appropriate to hone their own skills. Thus, when their time of service in administration is complete, a sabbatical to re-sharpen the tools will allow them to rejoin the academy and be on the cutting edge. The Vet School is currently using this model where as I understand it, the Dean has an ongoing research program with graduate student assistance and is preparing to teach an undergraduate class. Likewise, all of the assistant/associate deans and department heads teach and conduct research programs. Administrative chores are an add-on, not a career path.[20] c) Reinventing Administrative Appointments The Commission on Faculty Affairs should revise and amend Section 2.6.3 on the appointment of interim deans and associate and assistant deans and directors. i) A section on the appointment of interim deans should be added. The policy should require that the provost consult the appropriate faculty association or elected representatives if no faculty association exists. This would formalize a policy the Provost (to his credit) has started to follow. ii) The section on associate deans, assistant deans, or assistant to the deans should be revised to require that all such appointments require the use of search committees, the majority of which are from the appropriate faculty or faculty association. The current section only requires faculty approval of these positions when the individual's work involves responsibility for assignment or recommendations on salary and appointment. Reason for the change: 1. If the asst./assoc. Dean has no input directly or indirectly , then what is their leadership role in the college? Formally or informally, they do impact upon terms and conditions of employment. 2. It would give the academy more responsibility for budget issues including a check on expansionary minded deans. 3. It is the duty of the academy to collectively choose the leadership of the academy. 4. Reinventing Tenure or Preserving Tenure Boyer[21] states that "the Quality of Scholarship is dependent, above all else, on the vitality of each professor. Colleges and universities that flourish help faculty build on their strengths and sustain their own creative energies, throughout a lifetime." Performance expectations and responsibilities should be re-negotiated, redefined and re-invented within the department unit on a regular basis. In my judgement, there is little "deadwood" within the academy at Tech. But we should consider methods to assure the public and the BOV that it doesn't exist because when it is found, it is rehabilitated or sent packing. CFA and College Faculty Associations should give thought to how to implement this recommendation at once. RECOMMENDATION- Just as we systematically review assistant and associate professors, the academy should within the appropriate unit, review the tenured full professor( peer review and support). The goal for such a review should include the following: 1. Assure the public that tenure is not a license to stagnate, etc. 2. Encourage self evaluation and a vehicle for re-negotiation, re- definition and renewal of our responsibility to the academy. 3. Provide a "good samaritan" vehicle to re-habilitate those who have stagnated or lost their way. 4. Provide moral courage for administrator to do what should be done. 5. Regain the credibility of the academy and fulfill our duty as the academy. If we don't police ourselves, some one else will do it. 6. We periodically review the performance of the administration (formally every five years, informally daily) and a similar review of our own work might be appropriate. CONCLUSION Will the university survive our current turmoil? Yes Will the university be "reinvented"? Yes Who will "reinvent" the University? Faculty collectively and with dialogue must shape the University of the 21st century. Administrators who will return to the academy should carry out the creative wisdom of the academy along with the administrator's creativity. But if the academy, the professorate doesn't step up to the plate, someone else will. Prof-scam and outside pressures , unfamiliar with what we do and what needs to be done may impose improper, false and needless barriers to "higher" education. We can, with action, channel this problem. Inertia, cynicism and our own unwillingness to shape the university is my greatest fear. Yes, it is necessary to "preach to the choir". That is where the sin of omission, the breach of duty has and is happening. ENDNOTES 1 My address today may not be heard and some may judge it as saying nothing. But I hope it sparks debate. 2 Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminished Expectations, preface. 3 Only way to communicate to some colleagues. 4 See Saving the Senate: A Symposium, Academe, September-October 1991, pp. 16-36. I believe it is an effective body at Tech. 5 Governance of Higher Education, Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973, p. 212. 6 No disrespect to the many dedicated secondary and elementary teachers. Many in our community are spouses of faculty and my sons have been blessed with excellent teachers of great skill and dedication. 7 173 Misc. 943, 18 N.Y.S. 821 (1940). 8 Washington Post, September 17, 1993, B-4. 9 Rep. Rick Boucher, "A Science Policy for the 21st Century," Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 1, 1993, B1-B2. 10 James Fairwhether, Penn State. 11 Boucher, op cit, B2. 12 I can say this, I have 100% teaching appointment and routinely publish and teach in professional educational programs. 13 Academe, March-April 1992. 14 We can assume that all administrations will take the path of least resistance, try to make the right decision without input if allowed, etc. 15 Smith-Lever Act. 16 Findley-Humphrey Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger Act. 17 Should all faculty advise, a cadre of well-informed faculty should advise or should special advisors be hired. Perhaps it comes from those who "don't have time" for students, those who believe advice should be given in a dictatorial manner, and conflict with those who believe students should receive personal attention on career and other matters. In some programs with check-a-box graduation requirements, advising on course alternatives may be mechanical. 18 Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1993, B5. 19 And if we have enough administrators assistant administrators changing, resigning, etc., maybe we can leave a few slots open??? and help resolve budget problems. 20 Other examples include Ted Shultz, the Nobel Prize winning Agricultural Economist at the University of Chicago, D. Gale Johnson, the former University of Chicago Provost, Jim Wolfe, Associate Provost, Associate Dean Dave Smith and others do it at Tech. To have a home outside of administration frees one from "what do I do next syndrome." The issue should be, when my tour of duty is over, I look forward to my return to teaching, research, and extension. I am still an expert in my chosen profession because I have kept up. But these are the exceptions and not the rule--yet. 21 Boyer, Ernest Scholarship Reconsidered, Carnegie Foundation, 1990, p.43.
VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives
Send questions or comments to:
Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/fsm/1994/+Reinventing+Tech++--+Past+Senate+President+s+Address.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:56:16 EDT