|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveJanuary 21, 1991
Minutes University Council Meeting January 21, 1991 Dr. E.F. Carlisle called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Present:E.F. Carlisle, J. Hillison, T. Goodale, C. Steger, P. Gherman, L. Harris, G. Hooper, G. Jubb (for J. Nichols), G. Crofts (for H. Doswald), R. Sorensen, J. Buffer, S.J. Ritchey, J. Osborne (for G.W. Clough), L. Moore, D. Hewitt, R. Small, C. Carrig, F. Thye, R.A. Heller, L. Geyer, N. Eiss, D. Kingston, J. Crittenden, N. Marriott, S. Batie, A. Snoke, L. Barroso, D. Adams, J. Budd, W. Kuster, P. Radcliffe, M. Byrne, K. Konopka (for P. Larkin) Guests: Brian McConnell, SGA; Pat Hyer, Provost's Office; Cornel N. Morton, Office of EO/AA; Tom McAnge, University Commu- nications Resources Committee; Lud Eng, Faculty Senate; Elizabeth Alexander, M.D., Student Health Services; Landrum Cross, Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs Absent: J. McComas, C. Forbes, M. Ridenour, R. Smoot, R. Heterick, P. Eyre, A.J. Davis, L. Rees, C. Vargo 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda as distributed. The motion PASSED. 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 1990 The University Council minutes of the meeting of December 3, 1990 were approved with minor changes. 3. FIRST READING, COMMISSION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS RESOLUTION 1990-91A, CONCERNING THE ADDITION OF A NON-DISCRIMINATORY SEXUAL ORIENTATION CLAUSE TO THE VIRGINIA TECH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION STATEMENT. Dr. Carlisle prefaced the discussion of this resolution by reminding Council that this item was referred to the EO/AA Committee during the last meeting, so it now comes before Council for First Reading. He called on Dr. Goodale, who reiterated that the Commission on Student Affairs passed this resolution with a vote of 10 in favor, none opposed, and four abstentions. He voiced his strong support for the resolution, framing it as a human rights issue that ought to be included in this university's non-discrimination statement. Dr. Morton then summarized the EO/AA Commit- tee's discussion of this item during its December 11th meeting, stating that both Dr. David Kingston and Mr. Brian McConnell, author of the resol- ution, spoke effectively to the issues. He reported, however, that the EO/AA Committee voted by secret ballot not to approve the resolution by a five to three margin. When asked to elaborate on the reasons for the failure of the resolution, Dr. Morton responded that several concerns were raised about its legality -- especially concerning personnel decisions. Dr. Morton indicated that he believed no single factor resulted in the negative vote, and stated that he felt the complexity of the issues, especially those concerning legal and personnel questions, resulted in its veto. Dr. Kingston then reported the result of the Faculty Senate's discussion of the resolution. He noted that the Senate had a lengthy debate on this issue that resulted in two separate votes -- the first on wording to amend the resolution and the second on the revised version which removed the phrase "sexual orientation" and added a clause to the effect that Virginia Tech does not discriminate on any non-academic and non-employment related grounds. The Senate, he reported, voted against the amended resolution by a vote of 10 to 9. Dr. Kingston then stated his own objections to Council passing this resolution. He stated that he found it philosophically objectionable, unnecessary, unwise, and unclear. First, he reiterated his objection to a statement that includes an increasingly longer list of people against whom the university does not discriminate. Second, he noted that the preamble to the resolution states that "gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, faculty and staff are the subject of frequent and overt harassment and discrimination at universities nationwide," and added that the new sexual harassment policy would, in principle, protect gays and lesbians from harassment. He added that Dr. Morton had previously reported no knowledge of any personnel decision that had been affected by such discrimination. Thus, he concluded, it does not appear to be a pervasive enough problem to warrant the resolution. (Dr. Morton later noted that he did know of a personnel decision at the University of Maryland that had been affected by discrimination; he also reported knowledge of several instances of gays and lesbians being "harassed" on this campus and others.) Dr. Kingston also noted that state and federal guidelines do not require that we include "sexual orientation" on our statement, and that by so doing, we would be in conflict with other statutes. Third, he listed four reasons for his opinion that the resolution is unwise. 1) Because sodomy is still a felony in the state of Virginia, it is inappropriate to adopt language that appears to condone it. 2) There might be potential conflicts if both this and the sexual harassment policy are approved. 3) The "awkward question" of measuring our conformity to the policy could require very personal questions on application or admissions forms. 4) Occasions when deliberate, but highly selective, "discrimination" might be advisable, such as avoiding hiring a homosexually or heterosexually promiscuous person as a resident advisor. Fourth, Dr. Kingston stated that because the resolution is not binding "in matters of conflicting jurisdiction with the United States Department of Defense," it is unclear and unworkable. Dr. Small noted that many of the arguments voiced by Dr. Kingston could apply equally well to political or religious affiliation, even though the university does not demand such information on application or admissions forms. He added that the resolution rightly sends a signal to gays and lesbians that there are avenues available for recourse should harassment occur, and also sends a message to potential discriminators that this university does not condone such harassment. Dr. Kingston responded that (unlike sexual orientation) political and religious affiliation are mandated by the state. Dr. Batie then clarified the vote of the Faculty Senate. She noted that the Senate never actually voted on the contents of the original resolution, but rather on the amended version. She also added that she knows of several senators who voted against the amended version to show support for the original resolution. Dr. Batie reiterated her support for the resol- ution and advised that it be referred back to the Faculty Senate. Mr. McConnell then requested time to counter Dr. Kingston's concerns. Regarding his philosophical objections to the current statement's "piece- meal approach," Mr. McConnell stated that Federal statutes currently mandate an item-by-item list. To the charge that the resolution is unneces- sary, Mr. McConnell responded that the sexual harassment policy deals primarily with unwanted sexual advances, while this resolution concerns employment and admissions discrimination and harassment within the univer- sity community. He stressed that it is not related to sexual behavior. He also objected to Dr. Kingston's comments about homosexual promiscuity, stating that homosexuals are no more promiscuous than are heterosexuals. To the charge that the resolution is unwise because it appears to condone sodomy, Mr. McConnell noted that sodomy laws apply equally to heterosexuals. He again stressed that the resolution deals with sexual orientation, not behavior. He added, however, that he would be willing to amend the resolution to read "gender preference," if that was more accepta- ble. Mr. McConnell agreed that Dr. Kingston's concern about enforcement and conformity issues was viable. He explained, however, that last year he sought assistance in developing and conducting an anonymous survey to assess the extent to which discrimination against homosexuals is a problem, but because the resolution was not in place at that time, Institutional Research was reluctant to conduct the survey. He concluded that if the policy were in place, viable ways could be developed to assess conformity while maintaining confidentiality. In countering Dr. Kingston's comments about justifiable discrimination, as in the case of resident advisors, Mr. McConnell again stressed that gender preference should not be confused with sexual behavior. Mr. McConnell then addressed the question of the resolution's conflict with Department of Defense policies. While he agreed that this issue could not easily be resolved, he maintained that the final resolve clause in the resolution would protect the university in the unlikely event of a lawsuit. He added that the disclaimer reflects a difference in policy between the military and civilian sector that he hoped would be eliminated. Mr. William Kuster, a student senator, informed Council that although the resolution was extensively debated, it was passed by the Student Senate by a sizeable margin. Ms. Paula Radcliffe, President of the Class of 1991, endorsed the resolution on behalf of her class officers. Mr. Budd then reinforced Mr. McConnell's argument that homosexuality deals with more than sexual practices. He also stated (and was supported by Dr. Morton) that this university is at liberty to expand the non-discriminatory statement beyond the minimal Federal and state guidelines. He, too, endorsed the passage of this resolution. Dr. Hillison moved that the resolution be referred to the Faculty Senate for further discussion. The motion FAILED. The resolution was carried forward for Second Reading. 4. FIRST READING, UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION RESOLUTION 1990-91A, SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY. Dr. Pat Hyer reminded Council that this item appeared on First Reading at the previous meeting, but was referred to the Faculty Senate. Dr. Hyer noted that while the overall tone and substance of the policy were subse- quently approved by the Senate, she stated that senators were most concerned about the lack of peer review in complaint resolution. The policy was then referred to the Commission on Faculty Affairs which assisted in developing a panel review system (second paragraph of item 2A in the "Formal Complaint" section) that could be initiated if the Director of EO/AA finds evidence to support the charge. Dr. Hyer stated that the Committee decided on this sequence because involving a panel from the onset of the complaint would make the process "unworkable." It would also destroy the important aspect of confidentiality. She then described several minor changes to the policy. She concluded her report by stating that the revised policy had been approved by the Faculty Senate and the Commission on Faculty Affairs. Dr. Crittenden asked Dr. Morton to estimate the number of formal sexual harassment complaints per year. Dr. Morton responded with a figure of 2-3 complaints. Dr. Crittenden indicated that he did not view this as too many cases to ask a group of peers to review. He also objected to the fact that the Director "is the investigator, judge and jury" of sexual harassment complaints. Dr. Morton responded that he works with a group of colleagues during each phase of the investigation, adding that he is "relatively comfortable with the quality control part of the process." Dr. Crittenden asked if the panel review process could be initiated before the Provost is informed of the final decision to avoid the possibility of bias. Dr. Morton responded that he would not support that modification because, as Director of EO/AA, he feels he pays full attention to detail and fairness, as is demanded of the principal investigator. Mr. William Kuster reported that the Student Senate unanimously approved the early draft of the policy. Mr. Gherman asked if records were kept for an informal complaint and also wondered whether the "accused" was notified of a complaint at the informal level. Dr. Morton responded that records were kept as needed, adding that the accused was not notified unless the complainant decided to formally pursue the charge. Ms. Lisa Barroso then inquired what would happen if several "informal" complaints were filed against a single individual. Dr. Morton responded that if he felt suffi- cient reason existed (he gave the example of 3-4 complaints against a single individual in the course of 18 months), he would contact the proper authorities. The resolution was carried forward for Second Reading. 5. IN SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS. a. Commission on Extension, October 5, 1990. b. Commission on Faculty Affairs, October 5 and November 2, 1990. Dr. Hillison briefly commented on the revision of the grievance procedure which has been approved by CFA and will be on the February agenda of the Faculty Senate. He also noted that the CFA is beginning to work on the involuntary transfer policy and, given the complexity of this issue, he welcomed input from colleagues. c. Commission on Graduate Studies, November 7, 1990. Dr. Hooper announced that the Graduate School is now open on Wednesday evenings with limited services available. d. Commission on Research, October 24 and November 14, 1990. e. Commission on Student Affairs, November 1 & 15, 1990. Dr. Goodale noted that the Committee for University Security for Student Events is under further consideration by CSA and will come before Council for its approval. Dr. Goodale also thanked members of University Council who attended the convocation related to the war in the Middle East. f. Commission on Undergraduate Studies, November 12, 1990. 6. FOR INFORMATION a. University AIDS Policy Dr. Cross reported that the State Council for Higher Education had encour- aged the development of an institutional policy. In response, the AIDS Education Committee of University Student Health Services was formed several years ago and has recently completed its charge. Dr. Elizabeth Alexander, chair of the committee, provided some epidemiological informa- tion about AIDS. In particular, she noted that because the incubation period is so long (8 to 10 years), at the present time health workers would be more likely to treat faculty and staff than they would students. Thus, this policy was purposefully written to include these constituencies in order to provide education and to protect employees who may come into contact with the disease. Dr. Hillison inquired whether a strong enough statement was made on the subject of safety precautions? Dr. Alexander responded that if an individual is adhering to the "Universal Precautions to Prevent Transmission of HIV," as advised in the policy, he or she would be sufficiently protected. Dr. Marriott wondered whether the Committee had addressed the food services area? Dr. Alexander noted that both Dining Services and Residential Programs have been provided with AIDS education programs. b. Minutes of the Computer Committee, September 5, October 10, and November 7, 1990. Dr. Sorensen noted that the Committee is collaborating with the University Library Committee and the University Communications Resources Committee to develop a mission statement for computer utilization in the future. c. Minutes of the University Committee on Athletics, October 11 & November 8, 1190. Dr. Ritchey made reference to the issue of admissions requirements. He stated that while the minutes describe the issues quite clearly, they do not resolve two important issues. First, is Virginia Tech justified in requiring a third year of math prior to admission? And second, should this institution accept earth sciences to meet its laboratory science require- ment? Dr. Ritchey noted that Virginia high schools count earth science courses toward graduation. He concluded that the Committee was still discussing these issues and would keep Council informed of its progress. Dr. Crittenden inquired about minimum admissions requirements in the case of student-athletes. Dr. Ritchey responded that Virginia Tech has not admitted any student that does not meet the NCAA guidelines for academic performance, although he agreed that these are generally low standards. Dr. Ritchey added that there are other groups on campus, such as Performing Arts, who are also interested in the two issues he mentioned earlier. In response to a question from Dr. Heller concerning graduation rates for student athletes, Dr. Ritchey noted that students on athletic scholarship graduate at about the same rate as non-student-athletes. d. Minutes of the University Committee on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, November 13, 1990. e. Minutes of the University Communications Resources Committee, October 31, 1990. Mr. McAnge reported that the Committee had clarified its charge (page 2 of the minutes). f. Minutes of the University Library Committee, September 6, October 3, and November 7, 1990. Dr. Gherman noted that serial subscriptions will face approximately $200,000 in cuts. He briefly elaborated on ways that the Library is seeking to cope with these losses. 7. QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION Dr. Crittenden requested that, in the future, convocations such as the one devoted to the Gulf Crisis, be scheduled after normal class hours. Dr. Eng asked why the University AIDS policy had come to Council for infor- mation only and not for approval? Dr. Carlisle responded that because this is an administrative policy, Council approval was not required. He added that the policy had undergone review by the Commission on Student Affairs, the Commission on Faculty Affairs, and the Classified Staff Affairs Commit- tee. Dr. Cross then noted that because the AIDS policy was state mandated, and does not contain any controversial material, the AIDS Education Commit- tee did not think it necessary to seek Council's approval. Dr. Harris added that a similar situation exists with the state mandate on recycling. He agreed with Dr. Eng that the approval process for such policies as this and similar issues is not always clear. Further discussion on the proper routing of policy matters would be helpful, he said. Dr. Marriott asked Dr. Carlisle if there was any news concerning the budget. Dr. Carlisle stated that Governor Wilder has submitted a series of amendments to the appropriations act, which will be dealt with by the General Assembly. Many of these amendments, he explained, simply institute into law the reductions that the university has already made. Another amendment authorizes the Governor to make an additional 3% reduction in the state budget, depending on revenue projections available in August, 1991. In addition, Dr. Carlisle described the Governor's proposed six-day furlough of all state employees. These two further reductions would amount to another 4.5% cut in state expenditures. A proposed early retirement program has also been submitted by the Governor, but Dr. Carlisle explained that this university and others are attempting to work with the legislature to make it a more attractive package for both the employee and employer. Dr. Carlisle also stated that the state's contribution to TIAA and VRS retirement plans is being discussed by the General Assembly and may be reduced to 10.2% (from the current level of approximately 12%). Dr. Carlisle then described several amendments that the university has submitted that would result in $3.5 million additional support. These amendments seek support for various fixed-cost items (such as insurance and workmen's compensation), mandated programs, and several acute program needs, as well as amendments for capital projects that were removed from the lottery funds. Dr. Heller requested further information about this university's recycling efforts. Dr. Harris responded that Mr. Spencer Hall, Assistant Vice Presi- dent for Facilities, has been appointed as coordinator of these efforts and is now in the process of studying the costs and means of implementing an institutional plan. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Larry A. Harris Executive Assistant to the President LAH:lg
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/ucm/1991/January+21++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:49 EDT