2012 Debates On The Jurisdiction of UChicago's Faculty Senate

THESE MINUTES ARE A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION AND SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
May 15, 2012
Attendance
The Council of the University Senate met at 3:40 p.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 in room 11 of
Rosenwald Hall. Present were Yali Amit, Clifford Ando, Leora Auslander, Laszlo Babai,
Raymond Ball, John Birge, Suzanne Conzen, Jane Dailey, Wendy Doniger, Martin Feder, Norma
Field, Anastasia Giannakidou, John Goldsmith, Ilya Gruzberg, Russell Hall, Stephen Hanauer,
Dorothy Hanck, John Huizinga, John Kelly, Michael LaBarbera, Bruce Lincoln, Daniel
Margoliash, Patchen Markell, William Meadow, David Meltzer, Clifton Ragsdale, Julie Roin,
David Rowley, Thomas Rosenbaum, L. Ridgway Scott, Mario Small, Wendy Stock, Wei-Jen
Tang, Robert Topel, Lisa Wedeen, Christian Wedemeyer, Amanda Woodward, Robert Zimmer,
presiding, and Carol Wilinski, the Secretary of the Faculties. Also present, as invited guests,
were the following newly-elected members of the 2012-13 Council of the University Senate:
Andrew Abbott, George Constantinides, Todd Dupont, Elliot Gershon, Melina Hale, Janet
Johnson, Gabriel Richardson Lear, Virginia Parks, Richard Rosengarten, Michael Schreiber, and
Nancy Stokey. Other invited guests who were present included the following members of the
2012 Committee on Faculty Governance: Robert Pippin (Chair), Michelle Le Beau, Anne
Robertson, Stephen Stigler, and David Strauss. In addition, the following guests were also
present: John Boyer, Dean of the College; David Fithian, Vice President and Secretary of the
University; Bruce Melton, Associate General Counsel; Martha Roth, Dean of the Humanities
Division; and Michael Schill, Dean of the Law School.
Welcome and Report of the President
Mr. Zimmer welcomed everyone, noting the presence of numerous members of the newly-elected
Council who were taking part in today’s meeting as guests. He also referenced the participation
of several Deans, as well as members of the 2012 Committee on Faculty Governance. For the
benefit of the newer attendees, he summarized the ongoing discussions that had occurred within
the Council and Committee of the Council over the past several years, regarding the appropriate
role for the Council as part of University governance and decision-making. He indicated that a
number of different points of view existed, which had recurred over time in connection with
particular issues and which had led to questions about the Council’s role in these considerations.
In order to clarify this matter, he had asked the Committee to create a subcommittee consisting of
Council members, for the purpose of producing a report that articulated the Council’s views on
this issue.
In addition, he noted the existence of particular clauses within the Statutes that addressed the
relationship and boundaries of authority between the Council and other Ruling Bodies (various
collections of faculty) within the University. He indicated that according to the Statutes,
questions about such boundaries were to be decided by the President. However, questions had
The Council of the Senate, 05.15.12
arisen within the Council as to whether this was the correct interpretation of the statutory
language. He also observed that the governance process would work more smoothly if common
understandings regarding such boundaries could be achieved, to the extent that this was possible.
He stated that in addition to the report that had been prepared by the Council’s subcommittee,
which was chaired by Mr. Topel, he had solicited the views of a committee of distinguished
faculty, chaired by Mr. Pippin, as well as the Deans. He noted that all three reports had been
distributed to Councilors, and were the subject of today’s discussion. He reiterated his earlier
commitment to publicizing the findings of all three reports online, to allow for review and
comment by a broader segment of the faculty.
Mr. Zimmer added that the Committee of the Council had discussed the Topel committee report
at its May 8, 2012 meeting, and Mr. Topel had also participated in today’s Committee meeting,
during which Mr. Pippin had presented his committee’s findings. He also acknowledged Mr.
Abbott’s involvement in Mr. Pippin’s committee. He noted that the members of Mr. Pippin’s
committee had been invited to attend today’s Council meeting, and most of them were present. In
addition, three Deans had been asked to take part in today’s Council meeting, to offer decanal
input to the discussion.
Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on April 24, 2012
Mr. Zimmer then asked for comments on the Minutes of the Council meeting held on April 24,
2011. As there were none, a motion was made and seconded, and the Minutes were approved as
submitted.
Report of the Spokesman
Mr. LaBarbera read the following report:
Your Committee has met twice since my last report to the Council of the Senate.
Our 8 May meeting was attended by all seven members of your Committee — Leora
Auslander, John Huizinga, John Kelly, Michael LaBarbera, William Meadow, Lisa
Weeden, and Amanda Woodward. Also in attendance were Provost Rosenbaum, David
Fithian (Secretary of the University), Robert Topel (Chair, Subcommittee on §12.5.3 of
the Statutes), and Carol Wilinski (Secretary of the Faculties). President Zimmer presided.
President Zimmer opened the meeting by reminding the members of your Committee of
the Ryerson Lecture scheduled for later that day and then introduced Robert Topel, Chair
of the Subcommittee on §12.5.3 of the Statutes.
Mr. Topel briefly reviewed the charge of the Subcommittee on §12.5.3 and outlined its
work over the past several months including two open meetings with members of the
Senate, a meeting with members of the Council of the Senate, and meetings with the
President, the Provost, and the executive heads of the various Divisions and Schools. Mr.
Topel noted that his subcommittee was able to agree on a number of substantive points
and had agreed to disagree on others; he then walked your Committee through each of
these points. Subsequent discussion explored the interactions between the Subcommittee
2
on §12.5.3 and the similar committee chaired by Robert Pippin (reported as minimal), the
number of axes within the Subcommittee on §12.5.3 (basically a binary split), the powers
of the President over research initiatives, and the President’s power to determine whether
issues fall within the Council’s jurisdiction. Further discussions addressed the question of
what the Council should do with the report of the Subcommittee on §12.5.3, but no clear
recommendations emerged before the meeting was adjourned.
Our 15 May meeting was attended by five members of your Committee —John Huizinga,
John Kelly, Michael LaBarbera, William Meadow, and Amanda Woodward. We were
joined by four newly-elected members of next year’s Committee, Andrew Abbott, Clifford
Ando, John Goldsmith, and Stephen Hanauer. Also in attendance were Provost
Rosenbaum, David Fithian (Secretary of the University), Robert Pippin (Chair, 2012
President’s Committee on Faculty Governance), Robert Topel (Chair, Subcommittee on
§12.5.3 of the Statutes), and Carol Wilinski (Secretary of the Faculties). President Zimmer
presided.
After mutual introductions, President Zimmer noted Provost Rosenbaum’s recent note to
members of the Senate on the launch of the quiet phase of the University’s next fund
raising campaign and urged the cooperation of all in this endeavor. President Zimmer
briefly reviewed the history of the discussions in the Committee over the past year on
issues of faculty governance and introduced Robert Pippin and Andrew Abbott to present
the report of the 2012 President’s Committee on Faculty Governance.
Mr. Pippin began the discussion by reiterating the charge of his Committee — to
determine the scope of the Council of the Senate’s jurisdiction. After reviewing the votes
of the Council over the past 67 years and the Statutes, his Committee was of the opinion
that the jurisdiction of the Council is limited to “educational work” and that such
limitation protected the academic freedom of the faculty. Subsequent discussion by
members of your Committee and Committee-elect touched on the advisory role of the
Council and whether such a role should be restricted to individual comments from
members of the Council, whether the academic freedom of the faculty is better guarded by
other members of the faculty or by members of the administration, and whether the
restriction of the Council to “educational” matters also extends, by the language of the
Statutes, to the other Ruling Bodies and the Deans. It will not surprise you that the
exchange of views was spirited, occasionally approaching heated. I expect a similarly
robust exchange in this afternoon’s discussion, but urge all involved to focus on the
numerous areas in which agreement exists among the various documents that will be
presented to you today. Lest members of the Council feel anxious about doing justice to
these three reports in the one hour and twenty minutes we have available today, I have
been informed that six members of the Council later in this meeting will request a special
meeting of the Council to be held in the next few weeks to permit this discussion to
continue. I have been assured by President Zimmer that all three of these documents will
shortly be distributed to the members of the Senate, permitting our colleagues to
communicate their opinions to members of the Council.
After a brief discussion of the revised version of the report of the Subcommittee on
§12.5.3 of the Statutes, it was moved and seconded to recommend to the Council of the
3
Senate that the Council accept the report of the Subcommittee. The motion passed
unanimously and I will introduce a motion to that effect later in this meeting.
In closing, let me say what a privilege and an honor — if not always a pleasure — it has
been to serve as the Spokesman of your Committee over this past year. I thank you for
your patience and commend you for your diligence and commitment to the principle of
shared governance.
Report of the Subcommittee on Section 12.5.3 of the Statutes
Mr. Topel began his remarks by outlining the charge given to his committee, namely the
interpretation of Section 12.5.3 and surrounding statutory provisions that were key to its overall
meaning. It had also met with various parties throughout the University, including the Office of
Legal Counsel, the President, the Provost, and the Deans. He noted that three open house forums
for discussion with members of the University Senate had been held, including one that was
oriented towards members of the Council. He confirmed that his committee had undertaken the
work that had been assigned to it, and summarized its main conclusions, the first of which was
that the Council was a Ruling Body, as were each of the faculties of the schools and divisions as
well as the University Boards. He noted that Ruling Bodies controlled the “educational work” of
the University, and identified this as representing a key phrase in the interpretation of the
Council’s authority. He explained that the Council could exercise three different types of power –
advisory, legislative, and administrative – and emphasized that the powers of all Ruling Bodies
were bounded by those vested in the President by the Board of Trustees, and ultimately by the
powers of the Trustees themselves. He underscored that all powers were delegated by the Board
of Trustees, which represented the sole source of power within the University. Mr. Topel then
proceeded with an overview of the many points of agreement among members of his committee,
as well as the relatively few (in number) areas of disagreement. He commented that these areas of
disagreement had resulted in differing interpretations of the jurisdiction of the Ruling Bodies and,
in particular, the Council.
The first area of agreement he cited related to the Statutes as an organizational design, which was
rooted in the concept of delegated authority by the Trustees. He pointed out that the President
serves as a Trustee and is a member of the Board’s Executive Committee, which meets monthly
and is engaged in the ongoing governance of the University. The President is the sole line of
communication between the Board of Trustees and the faculty and students. He noted that the
Statutes, as well as other documents of the University, express an unambiguous commitment to
academic freedom in both teaching and research, which applied to individual faculty members as
well as collaborations. Of the different types of power exercised by the Council, its advisory role
allows for the expression of opinions during deliberations and forums, which are then recorded
and publicized within the Minutes. The Council’s advisory power also allows for its issuance of
formal recommendations in certain circumstances. It also possesses a binding legislative power
that may be exercised with regard to certain areas, as well as administrative power.
Mr. Topel indicated that members of his committee had disagreed with regard to the types of
circumstances under which the Council could offer formal recommendations. He noted that,
similar to other Ruling Bodies, the Council’s legislative jurisdiction was limited to educational
work and policy, and within that realm, the Council had dispositive legislative authority over
4
“matters affecting more than one Ruling Body”, such as the creation of new University degree
programs that were not the initiative of any particular school or division. It also had the power to
review and approve or disapprove “actions of Ruling Bodies that affect the general interest of the
University”, such as the creation of a new degree program initiated by a school or division. He
noted that there had been disagreement within his committee regarding the meaning and extent of
the terms “educational” and “actions”. He also pointed out that the Council held the same
legislative and advisory powers with respect to other educational and research organizations of
the University, as with the Ruling Bodies.
Mr. Topel then stated that the Council did not have jurisdiction over decisions of the Office of the
President, including the Provost and other officers, except insofar as those decisions impinged the
Council’s legislative authority over educational matters. In such instances, questions of
jurisdiction between the Council and the President would be determined by the Trustees. The
President is the final authority regarding questions of whether a particular matter is in the
jurisdiction of the Council, or whether it is instead reserved to another Ruling Body. He pointed
out that past interpretations of the terms “educational”, “actions”, and “general interest” had
resulted in Council votes on matters relating to instruction, curriculum, and the granting of
degrees, including the creation of units such as departments with degree-granting authority.
Mr. Topel continued by noting that under Section 12.5.3.1, some educational matters fell under
the Council’s jurisdiction, for which a vote was required, only if they were judged to affect the
general interest of the University, such as a division’s action to create or eliminate a department.
In such cases, the question of jurisdiction was decided by the President. He also noted that the
Board of Trustees may choose to delegate a class of matters to the Council’s attention, even if the
Council did not possess formal jurisdiction over such matters. He indicated that there were many
ways of bringing matters before the Council for its consideration. He also pointed out that
determinations of Presidential jurisdiction by the Trustees may be informed by a Memorial to the
Trustees, submitted by the Committee of the Council through the President. The Committee of
the Council was also authorized to meet with appropriate subcommittees of the Board of Trustees,
if it so requested.
Finally, with regard to particular issues and circumstances of broad faculty consensus and
University interest, the views of the Council have sometimes been formally recorded through the
mechanism of a vote. As examples, he highlighted the unanimous consensus votes on matters
involving academic freedom in 1949, as well as endorsement of a report on racial issues in rental
policies in 1962 and a Center for Afro-American Studies in 1969.
Mr. Topel then summarized the three areas in which his committee had not achieved consensus.
There were differing views with regard to the meaning and interpretation of the terms
“educational” and “actions of Ruling Bodies” as used in the Statutes, as well as the meaning of
Section 12.5.3.7, which stated that the Council “may make recommendations to any Ruling Body
concerning matters within the jurisdiction of the latter”. With regard to the first point, he
indicated that his committee had agreed that the Council had legislative jurisdiction under the
Statutes that was confined to the “educational” work and policy of the University. He noted that
members of his committee had not agreed on the meaning of the term “educational” as used in the
Statutes, particularly in Section 12.1 that defined the general powers of the Ruling Bodies, and
Section 12.6.2 that allowed the Committee of the Council to “concern itself with all matters of
5
educational policy within the jurisdiction of the Council”. He stated that he, along with Dr.
Meltzer and Mr. Scott, interpreted the statutory usage of the restrictive modifier “educational” as
indicating a set of matters related to instruction and the granting of degrees, including the creation
of units with degree-granting authority. Other members of the committee, namely Messrs. Amit
and Markell and Ms. Shissler, advocated a broader interpretation of “educational” work and
policy that might include research and, possibly, other activities of the University. He then
invited Councilors to review the two appended reports associated with his committee’s findings,
which set forth the reasoning behind each of the stated positions.
Mr. Topel also referenced a similar division of opinion within his committee regarding the
meaning of the word “actions”, as part of the phrase “actions of Ruling Bodies that substantially
affect the general interest of the University”. He, along with Dr. Meltzer, interpreted the
statutory use of the term “actions” in Section 12.5.3 as referring to specific legislative actions by
Faculties (Ruling Bodies) within their jurisdictions defined by Section 12.3.2.1. These actions
regarding specified educational matters were subject to Council review and approval if they
substantially affected the general interest. In contrast, Messrs. Amit and Markell and Ms. Shissler
interpreted the term “actions of Ruling Bodies” as being inclusive of the Deans’ actions of a
legislative character, such as the creation of Centers and Institutes within their divisions or
schools. Under this interpretation, such decisions – but not Deans’ decisions of an executive
character, such as budgetary recommendations - could be subject to the Council’s legislative
review and approval.
Mr. Topel then mentioned that the final point of disagreement within his committee had related to
Section 12.5.3.7, which reads, “Either the President, the Provost, or the Council may make
recommendations to any Ruling Body concerning matters within the jurisdiction of the latter.”
He noted that along with Dr. Meltzer and Mr. Scott, he interpreted this phrase as restrictive, in
that the Council may make formal recommendations to other Ruling Bodies (as referenced in
Council Rule 10.3), but such recommendations were limited to matters “within the jurisdiction of
the latter”, as explicitly defined in Section 12.3.2.1 as covering admissions requirements,
curricula, instruction, examinations, grading, degrees, and related matters. They were also of the
view that a broad power to issue Council recommendations did not require the limiting phrase
“concerning matters within the jurisdiction of the latter”. Alternatively, Messrs. Amit and
Markell and Ms. Shissler interpreted this language differently. In their view, the Statutes were
intended to remind and clarify that the Council could make recommendations to a Ruling Body
even on matters that were agreed to be solely within the jurisdiction of the Ruling Body. It was
not intended to limit the ability of the Council to make recommendations on other matters. Mr.
Topel pointed out that, although not part of the Statutes, Rule 10.3 of the Council does envision
the Council making recommendations not only to the Ruling Bodies, but also to the President, the
Board of Trustees, and Institutes.
Mr. Topel then asked if any of his committee members wished to add anything to his remarks.
Mr. Scott explained that he had been unable to formulate an opinion with regard to one of the
points of disagreement. With regard to the meaning of the term “educational”, he clarified that
their focus had been on interpretations based on a careful reading of the Statutes, and they were
not intended to serve as a recommendation of what could or should be the case. Mr. Topel
underscored that the parties on both sides of these issues had attempted to focus on what the
Statutes meant, as opposed to a consideration of what they “should” mean. Mr. Markell indicated
6
that Mr. Topel had represented the committee’s various points of view well. Mr. Topel added that
Robert Kendrick had also served as a member of his committee during the earlier portions of the
process, and noted that this fact would be referenced in the final report.
Mr. Wedemeyer asked for additional feedback from Mr. Topel and members of his committee
about the meaning of the word “Council”, as there appeared to be some equivocation in that
regard. He identified the question at the heart of some of the disputes as being whether the
Council, in fact, had jurisdiction over its own opinion. He articulated his understanding of the
position of a portion of Mr. Topel’s committee that the Council was not allowed to express its
opinion except in certain very delimited circumstances or perhaps even at the will of the
President. He observed that what seemed to be offered as a sop was that individual Council
members could speak their own personal opinions, but that the Council itself could not express an
opinion as a body. He asked whether there had been any reflection within Mr. Topel’s committee
regarding that point, and reiterated that what was being offered was that Council members could
express their individual opinions, which was not the same thing as the opinion of the Council,
which presumably could only be expressed through consensus or parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Topel remarked upon the distinction between the advisory and legislative roles of the
Council, and clarified that votes on such matters could solely take place in the context of the
former. He explained that some members of his committee believed that motions and formal
votes initiated by the Council should only be held regarding matters that were within its
jurisdiction, while the other members believed that, even if Section 12.5.3.7 was interpreted in a
restricted way, expressions of views that were not being cast as “recommendations”, and were
neither “legislative” nor “advisory”, would be allowed. He indicated that his committee had left
this as an unresolved issue, as this question had only come up for discussion within the last week
of its deliberations. He shared his understanding that there was nothing to prevent a Council
member from expressing dissatisfaction with an idea, and asking for a survey of the individual
views of the other members in attendance. This would not constitute a formal motion, and would
not even have to be considered beforehand by the Committee of the Council. However, every
individual Councilor’s opinion would be recorded. He also pointed out that, according to the
Council’s Rules of Procedure, any Councilor could request roll call votes with respect to formal
motions, which would allow for the separate recording of each opinion as opposed to a total.
Mr. Wedemeyer asked why this distinction was important and to whom it mattered, given that one
way or another, whether formally or informally, a vote would be taking place that would convey
the general will of the Council as a body. Mr. Scott noted that it was possible to vote on a matter
without engaging in the issue, and to hide behind one’s vote. He observed that he had become
convinced of the relative importance and merits of engaging in discussion, as a means of
developing a better understanding of an issue, as compared with the conduct of votes, which
contained ambiguities leading to uncertainties about their meaning. To him, the process of voting
seemed to hold less value than the exercise of discussion. Ms. Wedeen asked why one action
precluded the other, and raised the option of holding in-depth discussions followed by votes. Mr.
Wedemeyer observed that absentee votes by Councilors who were not present for the full
discussion of a particular matter were not allowed for precisely this reason, as these Councilors,
by virtue of their absence from the accompanying debate, were not considered to be qualified to
vote on such a topic. Mr. Scott clarified that he was not arguing one way or the other, but spoke
of the appreciation he had gained for the value inherent in the process of discussion, and his
7
understanding of the danger associated with holding a vote.
Mr. Topel noted that as a result of their extensive review of many sets of Council Minutes dating
back to the 1940s, members of his committee had developed a greater appreciation for the detail
contained within, regarding the views of individual Councilors and the extent to which they were
well informed on particular topics. He stated that the advisory role of the Council, as expressed in
the recorded Minutes, was very powerful, and shared his general impression that many Councilors
believed that there was generally an under-appreciation of that power in the Council.
Mr. LaBarbera asked Mr. Topel whether, in his opinion, the same limitation would apply to the
other Ruling Bodies, with regard to a prohibition on advisory votes relating to matters outside of
their areas of jurisdiction. Mr. Topel replied that this would indeed be the case, unless delegated
to them by the Office of the President or the Board of Trustees.
Mr. Markell then remarked that, in the later stages of the committee’s deliberations, the
discussion of whether advisory votes were permitted had led to the consideration of whether or
not they were a good idea. He shared his view that the Statutes did not offer much concrete
guidance regarding the configuration of the Council’s advisory powers. He outlined his own
understanding of such advisory powers as being non-binding, and if the Council was to vote on a
“sense of the Council” resolution or undertake a poll of the views of individual members, in
neither case would the Ruling Body or the other agent or officer of the University involved be
obligated to respond to such a vote. He noted that the Statutes were more explicit about how
legislative jurisdiction was divided among various Ruling Bodies, and less so about the exercise
of advisory power. He shared his own view that this would be quite circumstantial, and that there
was nothing in the Statutes indicating that votes to express the sense of the Council in a non-
binding way could only occur in the context of initiation by some body outside of the Council.
Basing his remarks on an earlier review of the Minutes, Mr. Markell cited the example of an
actual vote that had taken place during the Sonnenschein administration, regarding a contract that
the University had envisioned entering into with Knowledge University. This proposed initiative
was a commercial venture in which the University would have provided curricular material to a
private corporation, for use in developing executive training programs. This matter had been
viewed by Mr. Topel’s committee as being outside of the legislative jurisdiction of the Council, as
it dealt with a contract between the University and a corporate entity. He noted that the Minutes
relating to the Knowledge University discussion had reflected that a Councilor had asked whether
a vote should be held, and Mr. Sonnenschein had responded that he had not anticipated such a
vote, but would entertain one if members of the Council felt it was important to have one. Mr.
Markell conveyed his understanding that ultimately, such a vote had not taken place and this
enterprise had not gone forward. He described this as an instance in which a member of the
Council had expressed the desire for an advisory vote, and in that particular case the President had
been receptive to the idea. He closed by saying that while members of the Topel committee may
have disagreed about who had final authority over whether such votes could take place, at the
very least it should not be assumed that the call for such an action had to come from the top down.
Rather, it might be worth making the suggestion and seeing what happened.
Mr. Topel returned to Mr. LaBarbera’s point regarding recommendations emanating from other
Ruling Bodies. As an extreme example, he outlined a hypothetical scenario involving objections
8
of Chicago Booth’s faculty regarding expenditures of that portion of business school tuition
revenues which had been transferred to central administration for its use. He shared his own
view that under this particular scenario, the President should not provide the Chicago Booth
faculty with any say over the matter.
In the context of Mr. Wedemeyer’s question, Mr. Amit noted that the Council was a voluntary
body that trusted in its membership to maintain the University as an excellent institution of
education and research. He suggested that arguments involving the use of extreme scenarios were
not especially relevant, and underscored his own trust in the judgment of all parties to these
discussions. In that sense, he noted that the Topel committee had agreed that the Statutes were
satisfactory as presently constructed, and that much could be accomplished within their existing
framework. However, he identified Mr. Wedemeyer’s earlier point as reflecting one area that
remained unresolved. He indicated that there were appropriate procedures in place relating to the
roles of the Spokesman, the Committee of the Council and the President, which would be
sufficient for addressing the vast majority of situations and which would be respected by all
parties. However, in the rare event of an issue of extraordinary concern, he raised the possibility
of allowing the Council to consider a motion that was outside of its jurisdiction or legislative
power. He also shared his puzzlement that such a body, which was trusted and respected by its
members and others throughout the University community, could not be assumed to be mature
enough to vote on such matters. He reiterated that this would not likely be an everyday
occurrence, and argued that such an elected body that was governed by rules of procedure should
be enabled to take such action. He noted that this sentiment had not been reflected in the Topel
committee’s final report, and advocated for creating a mechanism that would allow for the
consideration of pressing issues. In that regard, he cautioned against rejecting an idea based on
extreme scenarios, and argued in favor of creating a tool that could be used in certain
circumstances by a collection of people who trust each other.
Ms. Field then questioned the meaning of the Committee of the Council’s acceptance of a report
that reflected substantial differences among its authors. Mr. LaBarbera explained that typically,
whenever the Council charged a subcommittee to develop a report, the document it produced was
formally accepted by the Council. The result of this action was to make it an official part of the
Council’s record, to be drawn on for further discussion, inspiration, and where appropriate,
legislation. He clarified that this was not the same as an endorsement of the report, and offered
two examples to explain the distinction. The Committee for a Year of Reflection submitted a
report that was accepted by the Council, which also approved it as being reflective of the
Council’s opinions. In contrast, and despite much popular myth, he recalled that the Shils Report
was accepted by the Council, and a motion for its endorsement had been made, but the Council
had refused to take such action. Mr. Markell then expressed his understanding that the
parliamentary term “received” was synonymous with what was being referred to in this discussion
as “accepted”. He added that according to Robert’s Rules of Order, to “accept” a report that
offered opinions or statements of fact without making specific recommendations was the
equivalent of its endorsement. Mr. Topel added that the Council could be invited to concur with
the areas of agreement identified in his committee’s report.
Mr. Zimmer then noted that additional opportunities for further discussion of the Topel
committee’s report would be provided in the future, and introduced the next topic for discussion.
9
Report of the 2012 Committee on Faculty Governance
Mr. Pippin referenced the presence of nearly all of the members of his committee, and indicated
that it had reached unanimous conclusions, without any substantive disagreements. He described
his committee’s approach to gaining an understanding of the issues that had arisen within the
Council last year, noting that its members had reviewed the Statutes, Rules of Procedure, many
historical documents relevant to the 1944 formation of the Council/Committee structure, the
Kalven and Shils Reports, a listing of Council votes since its inception, and Council Minutes for
the period of time during which these matters had been heatedly discussed. In addition, his
committee had read the memorandum that had been prepared by Messrs. Markell and Wedemeyer
in December 2011, and had also met with a number of University administrators. He added that
he had spoken with Mr. Topel on several occasions. He also mentioned that while his committee
had been in favor of meeting with members of the Council’s subcommittee who favored a
departure from past practice and a more expansive interpretation of the Council’s jurisdiction, it
was later determined by the members of Mr. Topel’s committee that it would be preferable for the
work of the two groups to proceed separately and independently. However, he had met
individually with Mr. Markell, who had shared a preliminary version of his statement of opinion
that was filed as part of the Topel Committee’s report.
Mr. Pippin then outlined his committee’s conclusion that there was no statutory authority for
Council review of research institutes that did not have degree-granting or faculty appointive
powers. He indicated that his committee had interpreted the Statutes very similarly to the way
that Mr. Topel and Dr. Meltzer had understood them. Section 12.1 specified the Council’s
jurisdiction as relating to “educational work”, and Section 12.3.2 defined this term as consisting
of “admission requirements, curricula, instruction, examinations, grading, and degrees”. Section
12.5.3.1 anticipated two possible exceptions to Ruling Body jurisdiction over matters within their
own school or division, which had since become the basis for the Council’s tradition and practice
over the past 67 years. Initiatives that involved the granting of degrees or that possessed faculty
appointive power fell within the definition of “educational work” that substantially affected the
general interest of the University. He commented that, consistent with the position articulated
earlier by Mr. Markell, his committee had found it difficult to obtain direct guidance from the
Statutes themselves regarding this matter. The language was vague and required interpretation in
the context of the authority granted to the other Ruling Bodies, as well as the tradition and values
of the University, its past practices, and sound judgment about what would constitute a reasonable
application in a given situation. It was the belief of his committee that, even taking these factors
into consideration, there was no statutory authority for expansion of the Council’s jurisdiction to
address reviews of research institutes. He also remarked that the committee had devoted
considerable time to a discussion of whether it would be a good idea to expand either the
Council’s jurisdictional or advisory power to research institutes that did not have degree-granting
or faculty appointive powers, and in its collective judgment, it had been determined that this
would not be a good idea.
Mr. Pippin pointed out that the common culture of the University was unique and distinctive, in
that there was no faculty supervision or monitoring of the teaching or research activities of
colleagues. He contrasted this with the practices at other research universities that had institution-
wide tenure and appointment committees, and conveyed the sense of his committee that the
University’s structure contributed to a much more flexible, interdisciplinary, and exciting
10
intellectual environment. He also referenced his committee’s worries regarding academic
freedom, clarifying that this concern was not rooted in a belief that a predatory element existed
within the faculty, that was seeking to pounce on the research initiatives of others for the purpose
of rendering them null and void. Rather, the practice of having Council reviews of research
institutes, initiated by faculty members from other disciplines, was not viewed as being a good
idea. He argued that when faculty members were accepted into the University community, they
had the right to expect that they would be allowed to conduct their research, whether individually
or collaboratively, without interference from their colleagues. He then referenced the two
exceptions that had influenced the University’s interpretation of the Statutes during most of its
existence, and expressed his committee’s concurrence with this practice. He also noted that
members of his committee did not believe that there were hidden statutory provisions that could
be invoked, that would allow for such reviews. He portrayed this as being inconsistent with the
University’s present culture, and also as representing a potential threat to the academic initiatives
of individual faculty members who wished to collaborate with others as they saw fit.
Mr. Pippin emphasized that his committee was advocating for retention of the University’s
existing administrative structure, which allowed for the President, Provost and the Deans of the
schools and divisions to evaluate faculty research proposals and allocate resources. He
emphasized that while the potential for arbitrary decision-making by administrators or Deans
existed, his committee had found no evidence of a crying need, based on faculty anger, for a
change in existing practices within the University. He noted the existence of over 165 research
institutes and centers at the University that did not possess degree-granting or faculty appointive
powers, and stated that none of them had been voted upon by the Council. He reiterated his
committee’s belief that this was a good policy that should continue to be followed. He also raised
the question as to whether any events had transpired recently that had changed the situation to the
extent that reconsideration of this practice was warranted. He referenced increases in the pace
with which research centers and institutes were being formed, as well as the extent to which
resources were being dedicated to them, and acknowledged concerns on the part of some
Councilors regarding the future academic impacts of such entities on the University. However, he
underscored the extent of enthusiastic and committed faculty involvement in creation of these
institutes and centers, and remarked upon the fact that some initiatives were refused at the
departmental level, even though these would have brought about additional faculty appointments.
He confirmed his committee’s view that it had seen no danger relating to the creation of research
institutes and centers, or the pace of such activity, that would warrant a change in the University’s
traditional practices and the jurisdiction of the Council.
With regard to advisory matters, Mr. Pippin indicated that his committee had seen no statutory
justification for official Council votes regarding the research quality of an institute that would not
possess degree-granting or appointive powers. As noted in his report, the President was obligated
to bring important initiatives before the Committee and also, if the Committee determined as
such, to the Council. His committee was of the view that the practice of taking official Council
votes regarding the research initiatives of other colleagues represented too high a level of possible
constraint, and as such was not a good idea. While acknowledging the earlier discussion about
the levels of trust experienced within the Council, he noted that the distinction between
institutional assessments of the quality of research institutes and intellectual disagreements with
research objectives was too thin and potentially porous to allow for the initiation of a new practice
of Council review of Institutes that did not have degree-granting or appointive powers.
11
In response to a question from Ms. Auslander, Mr. Pippin noted that the Statutes did not explicitly
grant legislative authority to the Council regarding entities with degree-granting or appointive
powers, but acknowledged that this had evolved by tradition. Ms. Auslander observed that Mr.
Pippin’s remarks about research would also apply to the other forms of knowledge production.
Mr. Pippin expressed understanding of her argument, and referenced Section 12.5.3.1 as
indicating that any educational initiative that substantially affected the general interest of the
University should be brought to the Council for attention and a dispositive vote. He noted that the
traditional interpretation of this provision was first introduced approximately 18 months after the
Statutes were enacted, when the Biology Department sought to change the language requirements
associated with its Ph.D. program. The President had ruled that this proposal had University-wide
implications, and as such it warranted the consideration of the Council. He reiterated that his
committee believed that the traditional interpretation of this provision that had evolved over time
was appropriate and reasonable.
Ms. Auslander expressed continued puzzlement at the distinction Mr. Pippin was drawing
between research and pedagogy, and suggested that the dangers to each were parallel. Mr. Pippin
noted that the relevant analogy would be if the Council had decided that the exceptions granted by
Section 12.5.3 meant that it had authority over the educational content of the programs of the
divisions, which would in turn represent a serious threat to academic freedom. In accordance
with the tradition that has evolved, the matter would have to rise to a level of general interest with
respect to degree-granting activities by the University (not by departments or divisions) and the
appointment of future teachers and colleagues. He also reiterated his committee’s belief that it
was advantageous that the Council, or any other University-wide entity, not become involved in
the approval of tenured appointments, as was the common practice at other institutions.
Mr. Wedemeyer then thanked Mr. Pippin for his report. He characterized this as such an
important issue, and after commenting that he had attempted in the past, with mixed success, to
incorporate some ideas into the record, he proceeded to read the following formal statement:
Having read your report quite carefully, it appears to me that the report is arguing against
imaginary threats insofar as no one has suggested requiring a vote on all institutes, nor
advocating intervention in centers that are already operational and functioning properly
(both of which are suggested on p. 9 of your Report).
We should keep our eye on reality. In discussions on the jurisdiction of the Council that
have followed the one and only Council motion for action concerning a research institute,
not one person has ever suggested this extreme view. The most robust advocates of faculty
governance have only ever suggested that these bodies might legitimately be worthy of
Council action occasionally and under some circumstances. This is the quite measured
position of the Markell memo. I have only heard required review mentioned by those who
advocate an unchecked administrative authority.
Likewise, your report also seems to me to be arguing against an even greater but equally
imaginary threat to what you call “academic freedom.” Your report suggests that the
Council desires right of “approval,” “supervision,” and “monitoring”—terms it uses
repeatedly—the object of which is always “research” in the generic. The credulous reader
12
comes away from this report thinking that the Council is actively seeking to lurk in their
offices, look over their shoulders, and micro-manage their research, taking away their
“academic freedom.”
Once again, there has only been one motion in this regard, which was that the Council
should make a judgment (of some undefined sort) on a proposed institute. Having been
present when it was advanced, I can say that there is no way that this motion could have
possibly been construed as “I move that the Council of the Senate monitor and supervise
the research of Conrad Gilliam, John Cacioppo, and Jim Heckman” or “I move that
research on quantitative biology and human behavior be prohibited at the University of
Chicago.”
As I tried to get on the record in our May meeting last year, there is a crucial distinction
that is consistently elided by the Central Administration and those who argue on behalf of
its unchecked power. Academic freedom does not include the absolute right to set up
formal research institutes bearing the name of the University. Nor, were my dean or the
Council to reject an application of mine to set up such a center, would this affect in any
fundamental way my freedom to pursue and publish on whatever line of research I choose,
either alone or in collaboration.
In short, I find that your report is addressed to an odd assortment of hypothetical threats
that have not been suggested by anyone in the current Council, and proposes as a solution
that these be dealt with by silencing the Council, such that the “supreme academic body of
the university” is not to be allowed to even vote upon—much less pass—unbinding,
advisory opinions on vital matters of general interest to the University. This strikes me as
an extreme and unwise position and I urge you to rethink the questions involved and
proposed solutions in light of the actual issues at hand, rather than hypothetical situations
beyond all of our collective experience.
Mr. Pippin thanked Mr. Wedemeyer for sharing his views, and acknowledged their opposing
positions. He reiterated that he thought it was a bad idea for the Council to dispositively legislate
the existence of research institutions. Mr. Wedemeyer asked whether anyone had ever offered
such a motion. Mr. Pippin asked for clarification, and after confirming that he himself was not
offering a motion, Mr. Wedemeyer referenced Mr. Lincoln’s April 2011 motion regarding the
desire for a vote on the Institute for Quantitative Biology and Human Behavior (IQBHB), about
which there had been a great deal of discussion. He also recalled that there had been no actual
motion. Mr. Pippin asked Mr. Wedemeyer for additional explanation regarding his concerns. Mr.
Wedemeyer indicated that Mr. Pippin had put forward a rather extreme document. Mr. Pippin
inquired as to what types of policy changes Mr. Wedemeyer was seeking. Mr. Wedemeyer
replied that Mr. Pippin’s report indicated that the Council should not be allowed to assert its
opinions or to vote on issues. Mr. Pippin asked if he was proposing that the Council exercise
advisory votes about certain research institutes that would not have degree-granting authority or
appointive powers.
Mr. Margoliash interjected that the earlier focus of this conversation had been Mr. Pippin’s
presentation of his committee’s report, and it had since shifted towards a discussion of an
individual Council member’s views. He then suggested a return to the original matter at hand.
13
Mr. Pippin agreed, but also referenced the criticism that had been levied against his committee’s
report, and the allegation that it had objected to initiatives, proposals, and possibilities that did not
exist and were not part of the current set of debates. He asked how he might have come to
misunderstand the arguments of those who were in favor of an expanded Council review.
Mr. Amit expressed his agreement with Mr. Wedemeyer, and indicated that no one had asked for
a permanent policy relating to a required vote on Institutes. He questioned whether there was a
possibility of raising an issue for a Council vote in certain extreme situations which were believed
to be urgent, to allow for expressions of opinion. He noted that one of the positive outcomes of
the work of Mr. Topel’s committee was the development of a greater understanding that there
were many venues in which issues could be brought up. He surmised that if such issues began to
be brought up with greater frequency, perhaps the President and the Trustees would rethink this
matter and make a decision to delegate additional authority to the Council. He stated that no one
had expressed interest in either changing the Statutes or requiring that votes be taken regarding
any predefined category of matters.
Mr. Pippin asked how it would be determined when a potential research institute would be subject
to a full Council vote. Mr. Amit replied that this matter had been discussed within Mr. Topel’s
committee, and it had been determined, and agreed upon, that the President had the authority to
decide on the question of jurisdiction over matters that were brought to the attention of the
Committee and the Council. There had also been discussion of the question as to whether there
might be a possibility for the Council to express a further sense of urgency about particular
matters. He characterized this as being the most extreme situation that had been under
consideration.
Commenting on the implication that the Pippin committee’s report had suggested that the Council
be silenced, in a manner synonymous with not voting, Mr. Stigler emphasized that the committee
had strongly encouraged discussions and the exchange of ideas within the Council. Further, these
remarks and deliberations should be documented in the Minutes, for prompt and wide
dissemination, to allow for the communication of differences of opinion regarding matters before
the Council. He shared his view that, within this University, it had always been the case that what
ruled in matters of this nature were strong arguments, not vote counts. He referenced the example
of the Shils Report, which was not accepted by the Council and had never been voted on, but
which constituted one of the strongest documents within the University, purely because of the
intellectual case it put forth with regard to maintaining the strength of appointments. He
highlighted that this was the type of argument that achieved the respect and attention of the
community. With respect to voting, he concurred that the language of the Statutes was vague. He
indicated that Mr. Pippin’s committee had not attempted to resolve these ambiguities, but also
stated that it had not suggested that the Council be silenced. Mr. Pippin allowed that there may be
disagreements about when a matter would reach such a critical threshold that additional action
would be required, and remarked that this represented a judgment call for the presiding officer.
In response to Mr. Wedemeyer’s earlier remarks, Mr. Topel shared his understanding that Mr.
Lincoln’s April 2011 motion had been proposed in the context of the “general interest” clause of
Section 12.5.3.1, which, had it gone forward, would have been worded as “the Council approves
(or disapproves) …” Therefore, it could not have been interpreted as an advisory vote. Mr.
Wedemeyer recalled that one option was for the matter to be remanded to the relevant faculties
14
for further consideration. Mr. Lincoln then described his motion, indicating that in light of the
previous discussions of IQBHB that had taken place, it had appeared that there was widespread
opinion that the proposed Institute was of sufficient importance, and had problems attendant to it,
such that it was a matter affecting the general interest of the University. Therefore, under Section
12.5.3.1, he had sought the expression of the Council’s opinion. He also indicated that his motion
had not addressed the difference between a legislative and advisory opinion, because at the time
he had not been aware of such a distinction.
Mr. Pippin indicated that it was difficult to understand why so much time had been spent poring
over interpretations of the Statutes if what was being contemplated was only an occasional vote
that would provide advice to the President about an Institute, and expressed his understanding that
there had been more substantive issues at stake. Mr. Kelly remarked that it had been an arresting
moment when the discussion of a potential Council vote on IQBHB had taken place in May 2011.
Mr. Goldsmith recalled an example from the late 1980s, involving the Humanities Division Policy
Committee’s review of promotion and tenure cases. At the time, there had been a new Dean, who
had submitted a case during the time when he was still serving as a department Chair. Even
though he had initiated and presented the case, in his role as Dean he ultimately turned it down, as
the ensuing discussion process and associated arguments had convinced him to change his mind.
He cited this as an excellent example of the strength of the advisory role, as it introduced other
perspectives in a way that influenced the decision-making process. Mr. Pippin indicated that he
had no objection to this.
Mr. Zimmer then thanked the participants in this discussion, and indicated that there would be
additional opportunities to continue the dialogue about the Pippin committee report.
Report of the Deans Regarding Council Jurisdiction
Mr. Schill began by expressing appreciation for the extent of legal and textual analysis that had
taken place as part of the other committees’ work, and praised the reports for presenting the issues
in a very thoughtful and constructive way. He referenced his own prior experiences at three other
institutions, and confirmed that this University was indeed unique. He stated that the level of
autonomy, the extent of the celebration of academic freedom, and the absence of faculty oversight
over one another were extraordinary characteristics of the University, in comparison with other
institutions. He shared his view that there was no single model of faculty governance that was
correct, but rather there were a number of models that were well suited for different institutional
cultures. He remarked that a model that limited the ability of a body such as the Council to
second-guess decisions regarding research was important for maintaining the well-being of the
culture at this institution. He emphasized that research emanated from the faculty, and was best
decided at the local and sub-local levels. He also noted that Deans could not dictate or shape
research in an effective way. Rather, it resulted from the efforts of individual faculty members or
collaborative partnerships. He expressed concern about the prospect of allowing a majority to
opine about or legislate various research initiatives, and stated that given the distinctive set of
values embodied within the University and their interplay with the Statutes, the Pippin report had
reached the right conclusion.
Ms. Wedeen asked whether anything was currently taking place within the broader landscape of
15
higher education that was propelling this issue forward, in addition to the increasing numbers of
research centers that were coming into existence. As a possible example, she referenced general
trends in the evolution of universities, including the move towards donor-driven or donor-inspired
centers. She suggested that perhaps these issues were not related simply to the fact that research
derived from the faculty, but that it was increasingly influenced by new sets of interests. Drawing
upon his experiences in administration and fundraising at other institutions as well as at this
University, Mr. Schill replied that this was not generally the way research centers were created.
He explained that as Dean, he gathered input from his faculty regarding their interests and
objectives, and subsequently pursued funding opportunities in support of their desired initiatives.
He emphasized that members of the faculty were the drivers of all aspects of the research
enterprise, including the existence of centers.
Ms. Robertson added that the Logan Arts Center had its origins in the 2001 faculty report on the
Future of the Arts, which called for the identification of high priority programmatic and space
needs of arts programs, and recommended that the upcoming capital campaign address these
requirements. She surmised that many of the research initiatives that had unfolded in recent years
had stemmed from grass-roots initiatives by the faculty.
Referencing the earlier comments about the Shils Report, Mr. Boyer commented that this
represented an interesting example that brought the conversation full circle, in that the faculty
who were violently opposed to this document had been College loyalists who felt that there had
been an enormous privileging of research over teaching and education. He noted the irony
associated with the fact that it had been the activities in the College within the 1930s and 1940s
that, in his judgment, had led to the creation of the University’s current system of governance. He
reminded the Council that the President in the early 1940s, Robert Maynard Hutchins, was
considered by some to be an icon of educational reform, while others viewed him as a demon who
was bent on destroying the University. He noted that in January 1942 Hutchins had been
successful in obtaining faculty approval for a College program that stripped the divisions of the
power to offer baccalaureate degrees and to eliminate the role of the departments in the College.
He described this as having been an enormously destructive and painful episode. He also
referenced a January 1944 speech in which Hutchins had proposed the creation of an Institute of
Liberal Arts, which was viewed by many faculty members as an attempt to eliminate the right of
departments to offer the Ph.D. degree. He characterized these as very weighty and powerful
considerations involving curriculum and education, which had generated a great deal of
controversy. He also suggested the need to remain cognizant of the intent of the founders of the
University, that education was a matter that people fought over with a great deal of passion.
Mr. Margoliash clarified that situations did exist in which donor intent had played a major role in
the establishment of Institutes, citing the 2011 proposal for the IQBHB as one example. He
observed that the role of the donor intent in shaping its structure had proven to be a thorny issue,
which some were still struggling to resolve. He cautioned against dismissing that general concern
as being irrelevant, as it was indeed a factor in some instances.
New Business
Mr. Zimmer conveyed his understanding that some Councilors intended to request another
meeting. Ms. Field noted that there was a great deal that remained to be discussed, and expressed
16
some regret that the dialogue so far had focused on non-appointive and non-degree-granting
institutes. She reflected that there had been a narrowing of reflection on the meaning of
“educational work”, which was vital to the institutional mission, and then proceeded to read the
following statement:
In accordance with Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of the University
Senate, we six undersigned members of the Council call for a special meeting of the
Council to take place in addition to the last regularly scheduled meeting of the year.
The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the Report of the Subcommittee on Section
12.5.3 of the Statutes. Both the import of the subject and the complexity of the
deliberations warrant a dedicated meeting. We call for such a meeting to be held on
Tuesday 29 May, from 3:40 to 5:00p.m., in a suitable campus room. We expect that the
views of individual Council members will be considered and that the view and will of the
Council expressed through discussion and voting on pertinent motions, either at that
meeting or a subsequent additional meeting to be called should it be deemed that there is
insufficient time on 29 May.
We understand that Councilors-elect may speak, though not vote, at such special meetings,
and expect that they will be invited.
Ms. Field then identified the other Councilors joining her in this request as being Messrs.
Fleischer, Glaeser, and Ragsdale, and Mses. Shissler and Zorach.
Mr. Zimmer replied that this was fine, and concurred that the matters under discussion were
indeed significant. He indicated that a date and time for the meeting would be identified that took
into account pre-existing travel schedules and other logistical considerations.
Mr. Topel requested that the Minutes reflect his committee’s gratitude for Ms. Wilinski’s efforts
in support of its work.
Mr. Wedemeyer then offered his thanks to Mr. LaBarbera for his service as Spokesman this year.
He also referenced statements in the Deans’ letter about the potential for a majority vote of the
Council to somehow impede research efforts. He suggested that these were unresponsive, given
that a supermajority of 30 Councilors was required in order to take effective action, and at five of
the last ten meetings, attendance had not reached a level that would have allowed for this to occur.
He also referenced the requirement that motions must first be considered by the Committee of the
Council. Therefore, he suggested that the academic freedom argument set forth in the Deans’
letter should be reconsidered, in light of the actual procedural realities within the Council.
Mr. LaBarbera indicated that he would save his motion for another day. With that, Mr. Zimmer
thanked all for their participation, and adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.
Carol E. Wilinski
Secretary of the Faculties
June 5, 2012
17
THESE MINUTES ARE A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION AND SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
June 7, 2012
Attendance
The Council of the University Senate met at 3:40 p.m. on Tuesday, June 7, 2012 in room 11 of
Rosenwald Hall. Present were Yali Amit, Clifford Ando, Leora Auslander, Eric Beyer, John
Birge, Suzanne Conzen, Jane Dailey, Martin Feder, Norma Field, John Goldsmith, Russell Hall,
Stephen Hanauer, Dorothy Hanck, John Kelly, Michael LaBarbera, Bruce Lincoln, Daniel
Margoliash, Patchen Markell, David Meltzer, Clifton Ragsdale, Julie Roin, Thomas Rosenbaum,
Ravi Salgia, Holly Shissler, Wendy Stock, Wei-Jen Tang, Robert Topel, Christian Wedemeyer,
Roy Weiss, Donald York, Robert Zimmer, presiding, Rebecca Zorach, and Carol Wilinski, the
Secretary of the Faculties. Also present, as invited guests, were the following newly-elected
members of the 2012-2013 Council of the University Senate: Andrew Abbott, George
Constantinides, Elliot Gershon, Melina Hale, Reid Hastie, Janet Johnson, Gabriel Richardson
Lear, Virginia Parks, and Richard Strier. In addition, the following guests were also present:
David Fithian, Vice President and Secretary of the University; and Bruce Melton, Associate
General Counsel.
Welcome/Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on May 15, 2012
Mr. Zimmer opened the meeting by welcoming Councilors and noting that the purpose of today’s
special session was to allow for continuation of discussion of the report submitted by the
Subcommittee on Section 12.5.3 of the Statutes, which had been chaired by Mr. Topel. He then
asked for comments on the Minutes of the Council meeting held on May 15, 2012. As there were
none, the Minutes were approved as submitted.
Report of the Spokesman
Mr. LaBarbera then read the following report:
Your Committee has met once since my last report to the Council of the Senate, on 29
May. That meeting was attended by all seven members of this year’s Committee (Leora
Auslander, John Huizinga, John Kelly, Michael LaBarbera, William Meadow, Lisa
Weeden, and Amanda Woodward) and three members of next year’s Committee (Andrew
Abbott, Clifford Ando, and Stephen Hanauer). Also in attendance were Provost
Rosenbaum, David Fithian (Secretary of the University), and Carol Wilinski (Secretary of
the Faculties). President Zimmer presided.
President Zimmer called the meeting to order and opened the floor to further discussion on
the reports presented at the last Council meeting. Discussion focused almost exclusively
on the Topel report; the Dean’s letter and the Pippin report were each mentioned only
once, in passing. The points of universal agreement were few but interesting. All agreed
that there is no consensus on these issues addressed in the Topel report in either the
Committee or the Council. All also agreed that the Topel report was an excellent attempt
to come to grips with the issues in contention which lays out the alternative views with the
reasoned arguments and scholarship that this institution prides itself on. Discussion on the
issue of advisory votes from the Council was vigorous. All agreed that the President
could call for such a vote when he desired a formal record of Council opinion but opinions
differed strongly on how to handle a situation where the Council might wish to take a
formal stance and the President was opposed. One individual characterized such proposed
formal records of Council opinion as “the power to condemn,” but several members of the
Committee argued strongly that Council’s and the Committee of the Council’s discussions
and advice serve a positive role, increasing the rigor of proposals and identifying elements
overlooked by a proposal’s proponents because the proponents necessarily come from
only one segment of the University. As an example of the positive role advice from the
Committee and the Council could serve, President Zimmer noted the withdrawal and
reconsideration of the Harris School’s proposal for a program in Regional Conflict and
Global Security, based on the critical comments from the Committee of the Council. As
was noted, however, the Harris School’s proposal was for a degree granting program;
approval of the Council was required and your Committee’s advice could not be ignored.
As I mentioned in my last Spokesman’s report, at the 15 May, 2012 meeting of your

Committee, it was moved and seconded to recommend to the Council of the Senate that
the Council formally receive the report of the Subcommittee on §12.5.3 of the Statutes.
The motion passed unanimously. In the passion of the discussion of the last Council
meeting, I did not have the chance to introduce this motion, but will do so today as soon as
the presiding officer permits.
Upon conclusion of Mr. LaBarbera’s statement, Mr. Zimmer added that one of the topics of
discussion during the May 29 Committee meeting had been the importance of civil discourse
within the University community. During that dialogue he had mentioned that the University
embodied one over-arching culture that was comprised of many subcultures, and the nature of
existence and operation of many of these components varied from one another. He articulated a
desire for members of the University community to become more attuned and accustomed to
understanding the variety of subcultures, and pointed out that the values embodied within these
subcultures were not very different from one another, in that they were all rooted in a deep sense
of commitment to the University as a whole. However, he also noted that the nature of the
discourse and its expression varied quite a bit across these subcultures, and as a result, members
of the University community often heard and interpreted information through different lenses and
filters. This had created the possibility for the formation of gaps in understanding certain issues at
various points. In bringing this observation to the Council’s attention, he shared his belief that
this was an important underlying feature of some of the conversations and difficulties of the
recent past.
Hearing no questions regarding the Spokesman’s Report, Mr. Zimmer asked Mr. LaBarbera if he
wished to offer a motion, pursuant to his earlier remarks. Mr. LaBarbera then read the following:
2
I move that the Council of the University Senate formally receive the report of the
Subcommittee on Paragraph 12.5.3 of the Statutes (aka, “the Topel report”) in its entirety,
both the consensus section and the two sub-reports, and offer the Council’s sincere thanks
to the members of the Subcommittee on Paragraph 12.5.3 of the Statutes for their
exemplary service to the Council and the Senate.
After the motion was seconded, Mr. Amit asked for clarification of the use of the term “receive”.
After expressing appreciation for Robert’s Rules of Order, Mr. LaBarbera explained that the term
“received” meant that the Council was acknowledging that the report had been submitted, and had
therefore become part of the formal record of the Committee and the Council. He emphasized
that the use of this term did not imply endorsement in any sense, but rather it confirmed that the
report had been delivered. He then drew a distinction between “receive” and “accept”, the latter
being the word he had used in the Spokesman’s Report from the May 29 Council meeting. He
further defined the term “accept” as implying the endorsement of a report’s content. He
maintained that since the report did not make any particular recommendations for action, it was
appropriate to formally acknowledge its delivery, and to discharge the Subcommittee from further
obligations.
Mr. Zimmer invited further discussion, and Ms. Field offered an amendment to the motion, noting
her understanding that the report had already been “received” as such, by virtue of its placement
on the Council’s agenda for this meeting as well as the prior one. She then suggested that the
Council take the step of accepting the Subcommittee’s report in its entirety, as a proper way to
show the Council’s respect for the intellectual labor that went into its creation.
Mr. Strier asked for confirmation as to whether this proposal called for acceptance of the
Subcommittee’s report as a whole, and Ms. Field clarified that she was referring to the consensus
report as well as the sub-reports, the first of which was entitled “Views of Robert Topel and
David Meltzer”, and the second being “Memorandum on the Authority of the Council of the
University Senate”, which was written by Mr. Markell in conjunction with Mr. Amit and Ms.
Shissler. Mr. LaBarbera indicated that he would be happy to accept this as a friendly
amendment, although he also pointed out that this was not what the Committee of the Council had
explicitly voted upon previously. Mr. Zimmer affirmed that motions from the floor generally had
to be forwarded to the Committee, but allowed that in this particular instance, it did not appear
that this should be a major consideration, as he did not interpret Ms. Field’s amendment to
represent a substantive change. Mr. Markell then commented that the matter of the report and its
disposition had already come before the Committee, so the difference was between a motion to
“accept” the report and one to “receive” it. He also agreed with the view that the report had
already been “received”. Mr. Zimmer noted that the motion that was voted upon by the
Committee had referred to “accepting” the report, and suggested that Ms. Field’s amendment
could be taken as a correction. He asked Mr. LaBarbera whether he concurred, and Mr.
LaBarbera agreed, pointing out that this would acknowledge the remarkable scholarship that
served as the foundation of all three components of the Subcommittee’s report, and would convey
the Council’s gratitude to its authors.
Hearing no further discussion of this matter, Mr. Zimmer called for a vote on Mr. LaBarbera’s
motion, as amended by Ms. Field to denote “acceptance” of the Subcommittee’s report. The
motion was approved unanimously.
3
Continuation of Discussion Regarding the Report of the Subcommittee on Section 12.5.3 of the
Statutes
Dr. Gershon commented that, as a new member of the Council, he had studied the materials and
was attempting to take a broad view of the issues. He remarked that it seemed impossible to
separate out the different components of knowledge accretion and transmission within the
University, and opportunities for mischief would be created if some matters were determined to
be within the purview of the Council while others were restricted from its consideration. As an
example of such mischief, he cited the language in the Subcommittee’s report dealing with
research-related initiatives that are “substantially affected by the interests of outside funding
agencies or donors rather than faculty impetus”. He pointed out that a number of years ago, there
had been some controversy involving the Center for Middle Eastern Studies. In that particular
instance, the impetus of the donor, which was the United States government, had been very strong
and its particular emphasis had not been scholarly in nature.
Mr. Strier asked Dr. Gershon for further clarification of his remarks, questioning whether he was
arguing that the distinction being made between research and educational interests was not
helpful. Dr. Gershon replied that this could lead to difficulties in the future, as this was a research
university, and research was an inextricable component of the educational experience at this
institution.
Mr. Lincoln then observed that he had found the Subcommittee process to be an extremely
helpful one, and expressed appreciation for Mr. Topel’s efforts as well as the report that he
prepared. While acknowledging that he did not always see eye-to-eye with Mr. Topel’s
conclusions, he stated that he had learned an enormous amount from his research and his framing
of the issues, as well as from the Pippin Committee report and the Deans’ letter. He added that he
had come away from this process with a great deal of gratitude and respect for his colleagues. He
noted that initially he tended to react defensively towards positions with which he disagreed,
commenting that he took them to be overstated misrepresentations that he sometimes found
offensive. He explained that as he gradually worked through those reactions, he came to
understand that this debate had been marred on both sides by significant amounts of fear and
mistrust, which he characterized as being regrettable. He indicated that as he continued to study
the crucial passages of Section 12.5.3.1, he interpreted this language as giving fairly robust
powers to the Council. Through this process, he had gained a better understanding of the fears
experienced by those with whom he disagreed, relating to the doors it might open and the dangers
to academic freedom that had been pointed out. He noted that he took these views very seriously
and expressed gratitude for the education that he had received, and added that he still believed
those fears to be exaggerated. He also noted that there had been misrepresentations and
misrecognitions that Mr. Pippin had acknowledged in his report. In addition, he cited a very
revealing moment at an earlier Council meeting in which Michael Schill, Dean of the Law
School, had described his own understanding of some of the normal tasks associated with
fundraising and Institute formation, and Mr. Margoliash had called to his attention an incident
that contravened this understanding, relating to donor-driven initiatives, outside funding, and
influence from beyond the academy that ran the risk of playing an undue role in setting the
University’s intellectual agenda. Mr. Lincoln surmised that he, as well as others, might have
exaggerated the dangers to academic freedom, but he also underscored that he believed them to be
4
real. He remarked that the dangers to academic integrity, which was an equally sacred principle,
were also real. He shared his view that resolution of this spirited and consequential debate rested
in finding a means of ensuring that the Council would act rarely, but that its power to act would
not be abridged, and it would be particularly vigilant in acting when it perceived potential threats
to academic integrity, specifically so that questions could be raised and answered in public,
doubts could be put to rest, and actions of a protective nature could be taken if necessary. He
conveyed the hope that this was the direction in which the Council was heading, as a result of this
process.
Dr. Meltzer noted that there were differences in interpretations of statutory language, and
observed that at the beginning of the process he had not fully understood the functioning of the
Council or, in some respects, the University. He expressed his belief that everyone who
participated on the Subcommittee, as well as the broader Council membership, had learned a great
deal from this process. He also questioned how future Council members might be educated
earlier in their tenure, with regard to some of these particulars, and how this knowledge could be
extended to the entire University Senate. He pointed out that there were fascinating historical
lessons to be learned, some of which had been summarized in the documents that were generated
in the context of this process, and there were other informational resources available which would
also be useful for faculty members to familiarize themselves with. He commented that as faculty
members took on greater roles within the University’s governance, it was important to develop a
deeper understanding of how the institution worked. He suggested that it might be worthwhile to
invest some thought in how to better prepare faculty members to serve on the Council and the
Committee, as there was a great deal to learn, and members could serve more effectively if they
possessed a greater understanding of institutional context.
Mr. Zimmer commented that this was an extremely interesting point, and drew a connection with
his earlier remarks regarding the existence of multiple cultures within the University. He
emphasized the importance of gaining an understanding of these cultures and their institutional
context. He also noted that a number of Deans’ search committees had been constituted this year,
and they had reached a common conclusion regarding the benefits of enhancing the faculty’s
knowledge and experience base, as preparation for greater leadership roles such as department
Chair or Dean. He stated that it would be useful to encourage more people to recognize the value
of developing such understanding and expertise.
Mr. Abbott referred back to a discussion that had occurred at the May 29, 2012 meeting of the
Committee, which had elicited a suggestion for a possible half-day orientation session for Council
members in the fall, similar to what was already being offered by the Provost’s Office to
department Chairs. He asked those assembled for their opinions regarding this idea. Ms. Shissler
remarked that it might be useful for outgoing Committee members to brief the incoming cohort,
as a means of transferring institutional memory. Mr. Topel noted that, to the extent that there was
agreement as to how the Council actually operates, such information could be provided in written
form, in order to facilitate the educational process. He also commented that if he had possessed
an earlier understanding of some of the issues that had come to light in the course of the recent
jurisdictional discussion, this would have enhanced his own effectiveness as a Council member
over the years. Mr. Abbott emphasized that this orientation session would focus on how the
University actually works, as opposed to the Council’s functioning.
5
Mr. Goldsmith recalled that 10-15 years earlier, he had served on a committee that was involved
with matters pertaining to conflicts of interest, and learned that in an active faculty research
community such as the University, such conflicts of interest were inherent in the nature of the
enterprise, and were handled with openness and transparency. He also referenced his earlier
service on a disciplinary committee, which also dealt with problems relating to transparency. He
drew a correlation with some of the discussions he had heard over the previous few weeks. He
identified an over-sensitivity on the part of some, perhaps due to lack of experience, regarding the
danger of donor-driven activities, and noted that funders such as the National Science Foundation
and other federal agencies typically identify their areas of research interest and then solicit
interest. He cited the earlier discussions regarding the Grossman Institute, indicating that the
source of the problem was transparency and the manner in which the initiative had been
presented, rather than its donor-driven nature. He emphasized the importance of opening the
channels of communication and suggested that in this particular instance, issues relating to
transparency had been the primary contributor to the friction.
Ms. Auslander spoke in support of providing an orientation as well as additional written text, and
remarked that it would also be extremely helpful to offer an overview of how different units of the
University were funded. This would provide context with respect to the environments within
which the various units were working, including the consequences and local ramifications of
decisions relating to research that were made at the federal government level, and the influence of
national and international changes on the University. She also identified another issue that was
related to money, resources, and leadership, involving reward and recompense in exchange for
service as departmental Chair and other administrative housekeeping roles. She suggested that
this tied into efforts by the Provost to address matters of gender equity on campus, and observed
that the leadership pool would increase only if it was made possible to do so, and one means of
accomplishing this would be to address the macho culture of the University, which implied that
asking for further benefits in exchange for increased responsibilities was unreasonable and
excessive. She agreed that more openness and clarity were necessary, but also emphasized the
importance of addressing issues that were potentially uncomfortable.
Mr. Amit underscored that members of the Subcommittee had learned a great deal over the course
of their work, and that the portion of the report containing the areas of agreement should be more
widely circulated. He highlighted the importance of the information contained within, and noted
that while all of the documents were currently available online and accessible to all members of
the University Senate, it might be helpful to ensure that incoming members of the Council were
made aware of their contents. He recalled that when he first joined the University community,
materials were distributed following every Council meeting, and this practice had facilitated the
process by which faculty members could educate themselves about matters under discussion. He
pointed out that nowadays, faculty members had to actively search for Council Minutes and other
such information by accessing a Chalk site. He suggested the dissemination of e-mail messages
containing agendas from Council meetings as well as brief summaries or excerpts from the
Minutes, which might induce other faculty members to become more knowledgeable about and
involved in issues of faculty governance. Mr. Rosenbaum asked whether a direct link might be
forwarded via e-mail, similar to the method of notifying members of the faculty about the
availability of the reports regarding Council jurisdiction. Mr. Amit proposed that a brief
summary of content be provided, along with a link that would allow the reader to access
additional information. Mr. Rosenbaum commented favorably on this suggestion.
6
Ms. Field then characterized the summary portion of the Subcommittee’s report as containing a
discussion of both the areas of agreement and disagreement within the group, and commented that
having this information available side-by-side made it a distinctly valuable pedagogical
document. She expressed the hope that it would be widely used as a tool to help stimulate
vigorous discussion within the Council and the University Senate and to provide dignity to the
seriousness of these proceedings. She noted that in the course of discussions that had taken place
over the previous two weeks, all participants had felt a debt of gratitude to Mr. Topel for bringing
this information together in such a compelling and usable way. She reinforced Ms. Auslander’s
earlier remarks regarding the need for transparency regarding uncomfortable topics, and remarked
that showing disagreement was as stimulating and valuable as articulating the points of
agreement.
Mr. Margoliash then spoke, with reluctance, of an underlying context that he felt was somewhat
uncomfortable to discuss. He pointed out that over the past few years there had been a very active
and effective administration in place, led by Messrs. Zimmer and Rosenbaum, and this level of
activity had generated some concern among the faculty, as well as questions regarding the
existence of an appropriate mechanism for faculty response and input. He observed that much of
what had been under discussion in recent times had reflected such a concern, without identifying
it directly as such. He expressed the wish to consider this in the context of the Grossman
Institute, as he felt it presented a good avenue for this discussion. He clarified that he did not
think that the entire set of issues surrounding the Grossman Institute was related to donor intent,
and he expressed the view that those particular concerns were in the process of being worked
through. He noted that he was, in large part, very enthusiastic about the Institute, and expressed
gratitude to the administration for propelling this initiative forward. Mr. Margoliash then
acknowledged his involvement in the proposed Neuroscience Institute, which he described as
being a truly faculty-driven initiative that had been under development for 15 years, and
expressed the view that the issues surrounding it would eventually be resolved in a positive way.
He commented on the difficulties associated with gaining traction for this concept, as it had been
hard to attract the necessary level of administrative support. He contrasted this with efforts that
the administration had great enthusiasm for, such as the Institute for Molecular Engineering,
which had received some level of faculty support but was not particularly faculty-driven, but
which had moved forward in a very effective manner and commanded enormous resources. He
remarked that while one could argue whether this was an issue of quality or relative distribution
of resources, the reality was that many faculty members on campus had been advocating for the
Neuroscience Institute for a long time, and yet the initiative had experienced some difficulties in
gathering momentum. He suggested that the differences between those two processes might be
taken into consideration, in thinking about the types of matters to be brought before the Council.
Mr. Margoliash also shared his view that, with all due respect, the Council’s decision regarding
the extent of its authority would ultimately not make much of a difference. He observed that the
Council was not a radical body, and was not likely to change much. Thinking back across his
own tenure within the Council, he acknowledged that the effect of this body was fairly minimal.
He then referred back to earlier discussions of the Beijing Center, which had moved forward
much more quickly than implementation of the Midway Crossings project. He provided a
historical footnote relating to C. J. Herrick, who was offered a professorship by William Rainey
Harper in 1908, as well as “the opportunity to develop a comprehensive interdisciplinary program
7
directed toward ultimate solution of the perennial conjoined problems belonging to the fields of
psychology and neurology”, which Mr. Margoliash likened to the Neuroscience Institute. He
explained that Herrick had accepted the offer, but before he could assume his position as Chair, a
series of new professorial appointments was made, each of which was coupled with leadership of
an autonomous department. This fractionated the academic territory within which Herrick had
hoped to develop his interdisciplinary plan, and he resigned before reporting for duty. Mr.
Margoliash concluded by observing that the struggle over the Neuroscience Institute had therefore
been underway for a long time, and using this as an example, remarked that it would be useful for
the faculty to have an opportunity to have additional say with respect to the Council. He also
noted that he was not of the belief that this would radicalize the conversation.
In response, Mr. Ragsdale remarked that he was not as sanguine about the Neuroscience Institute,
but pointed out that he had long thought, and had mentioned to Mr. LaBarbera, that there had
been no indication that this matter had ever come before the Council for discussion. He declared
that it would have been an extremely good thing if the Biological Sciences Division, perhaps in
consultation with the Social Sciences Division, had brought the matter to the Council. This would
have resulted in the proposal being vetted not just by the administration, but also by other
members of the faculty, who would have asked difficult questions that would have forced
additional clarity regarding the structure of the Institute, and may have led to funding
opportunities. He remarked that even though this entity would not possess degree-granting
authority, it would have been useful if it had been vetted by faculty who held different
perspectives, from across the University.
Mr. Zimmer replied that this had been occurring all along, and expressed agreement that it would
have been good to have a Neuroscience Institute within the University. He noted that many
proposals of a similar nature were brought to the Council for discussion on a regular basis, and
that there was a struggle to determine the optimal timing of their introduction. He stated that no
one would question that a number of these types of proposals had been brought forward for
Council discussions, and concurred that a discussion of the Neuroscience Institute would likely
have added value. He also remarked that it was not too late for such a conversation, because even
though the proposal was gaining traction, there was still a lot of work that needed to be done with
regard to planning and organization. Mr. Ragsdale commented upon the length of time that Mr.
Margoliash and his colleagues had been advocating for this initiative, and Mr. Zimmer expressed
his understanding that it would have been beneficial if the matter had been brought to the Council
earlier. He reminded Councilors that there was a finite amount of time available for discussion of
both major and minor initiatives, and the Provost and Spokesman attempt to work out the agendas
in a systematic manner, to ensure that the right topics are brought before the assembly. He
restated his agreement that it was probably a mistake to have not brought this matter before the
Council earlier.
Mr. Strier then referred back to Mr. Lincoln’s earlier remarks, and expressed puzzlement
regarding the nature of the fears associated with the discussion of Council jurisdiction. He
questioned whether there were concerns that the Council would trespass on individual research
agendas, and expressed his view that there was no reason to believe that this would happen. He
noted that it was clear that decisions involving individual appointments and salaries were not part
of the Council’s jurisdiction, and inquired as to why proposals for all Centers and Institutes
should not regularly come before this body, for informational purposes and to determine whether
8
there was any input to be had. He acknowledged that there were a large number of such
proposals, but surmised that many could be discussed without controversy, and concluded that he
did not see the harm in this practice. He also remarked that the Council was the only body that
represented the faculty as a whole, and again queried what would be lost by following such a
process of informing the Council about these matters.
Mr. Zimmer referenced another discussion that had taken place earlier within the Committee,
regarding the possibility of scheduling a series of conversations with the Deans that would
provide additional context for proposed initiatives. He noted that no resolution had been reached
as to whether or not this was a good idea for implementation, but observed that it was similar in
nature to other ideas for providing a broader overview and understanding of the University as a
whole. He expressed the view that this would be a useful point to try to figure out.
Mr. Rosenbaum addressed Mr. Strier’s point by commenting that there was no disagreement
within any of the reports, or in his and Mr. Zimmer’s beliefs, about bringing intellectual matters
to the Council for full discussion and commentary by every member. Rather, the point of
contention was over whether the Council would vote on such Centers and Institutes, going
forward. He stated that he and Mr. Zimmer had tried very hard, though imperfectly, to bring
information about interesting new directions for the University, as vetted by faculty committees,
to the Council, and reaffirmed that he placed great value in the feedback and perspectives
obtained from discussions within the Council. Mr. Margoliash clarified that he had not intended
to suggest that the Council did not already perform this function on a regular basis.
Mr. Amit then commented that through the process of identifying points of agreement, the
Subcommittee had clarified that Councilors, as well as members of the University Senate, could
suggest items for placement on the Council’s discussion agenda through a memorandum or letter
to the Spokesperson. He emphasized that this was a tool that faculty members should be made
aware of, and shared his view that it was not likely to be abused.
Speaking as both a member of the Subcommittee as well as a Center director, Dr. Meltzer
speculated that as part of discussions of proposed initiatives, there was often a belief that the
pursuit of a particular direction resulted in foreclosure of other possibilities, which might result in
missed opportunities. His view was that while this was sometimes true, the existence of specific
Centers and Institutes was not to the exclusion of others, and it would be possible to establish
multiple entities that covered similar ground. He also observed that the lines between various
entities were constantly changing, based on the enthusiasm of the leadership and the faculty, as
well as collaborations, resources, and institutional support. He suggested that an appreciation of
the success of entities that were created through collaborations, in addition to individual faculty
research initiatives, was necessary in order to maintain the University’s competitiveness in the
marketplace of complex organizations. While noting that he occasionally saw some potential
weaknesses, such as the potential for redundancy or weak investments, he admitted that he had
not fully appreciated the importance of this point, prior to his service on the Subcommittee. He
recommended that this be taken into consideration as the role of the Council with respect to the
creation of Centers and Institutes was being debated.
Referencing Dr. Gershon’s earlier remarks relating to sharp, and often artificial, distinctions
between the intellectual lives of research and teaching, Ms. Shissler noted that she viewed these
9
as being deeply inter-penetrated and inseparable. She expressed some concern about focusing on
the research component, in the context of whether a Council vote on such initiatives would
represent a threat to academic freedom, and pointed out that teaching was also subject to such
challenges. She remarked that, to the extent that teaching was believed to be sufficiently
important to the University’s activity and that there was trust in the academic judgment and good
will of faculty colleagues, it might be possible to similarly consider institutional research
initiatives in the same light, and to collectively engage in thoughtful and reasoned debate that
arrived at an enumerated judgment, when called for.
Mr. Ragsdale added that one way in which he found the distinction between research and
education to be artificial was related to the training of graduate neuroscience scholars in the
laboratory environment. In such circumstances, research and teaching were completely
intermeshed, and it was unclear as to how these could be separated.
Mr. Topel then shared his understanding, gained through the Subcommittee process, that Council
votes regarding the creation of departments and new degree programs were not related to their
intellectual content, as much as a common understanding of a valid field of endeavor. He pointed
out that the architecture associated with various fields was very similar, and could be
appropriately assessed by those from outside of the discipline. He also expressed the opinion that
he was not qualified to comment on the intellectual content of fields outside of his own areas of
subject matter expertise.
Mr. Wedemeyer introduced his remarks by seconding Mr. Zimmer’s call at the start of today’s
meeting for a culture of civility and collaborative dialogue. He recalled that his point of entry
into these discussions was the non-vote on the Institute for Quantitative Biology and Human
Behavior (IQBHB), and explained that for him, it was not an issue of wanting to stop this
initiative, as his intention had been to vote in favor of the proposal if such a referendum had gone
forward. He explained that he had become more favorably inclined towards the proposal after it
had been revised to incorporate the Council’s initial feedback. Rather, what he objected to was
what appeared to be the silencing of the faculty and the failure to listen to the attempts of
Councilors to express their views, in their role as representatives of the faculty. He added that
while this might have been a misperception, this view was also reinforced in part by the fact that
what seemed to be a pending issue within the Council had subsequently been acted upon, as
publicized a week later through the issuance of a press release by the administration.
Mr. Wedemeyer also referenced the existence of a widespread belief among members of the
faculty from throughout the University that a breakdown in communication with the
administration had occurred, and added that this year’s emphasis on discussions of constitutional
issues seemed to be symptomatic of this. He pointed out that the Council was originally created
out of a conflict between the President and the faculty, and when the Trustees created the Council
as a more flexible body to deal with such matters, they were very clear about not resolving the
power issue in either direction. He noted that one of the features of the Subcommittee report that
he liked was its identification of this as being a gray area, where there was room for negotiation
and contestation regarding how the administration and the Council related to each other. He
added that the Trustees saw that the statutory framework would not be satisfactory for conflict
resolution between the faculty and the administration, but rather it would provide a structure for
collaboration. He also observed that it seemed appropriate that the Council would adopt the
10
Subcommittee’s entire three-part report, with its acknowledgement and identification of the
existence of gray areas with respect to the ways in which the faculty and the administration relate
to one another. He also noted its call for further listening on the part of all parties, and expressed
his hope that this year’s discussions had helped to clear the air in this regard, and to facilitate not
just civil discourse, but also collaborative communications between the faculty and the
administration.
Mr. Strier then observed that Centers and Institutes might regularly come up for discussion within
the Council, and expressed uncertainty as to why the issue of voting would make it more difficult.
He outlined a hypothetical scenario in which the President disagreed with the outcome of a vote
within the Council, noting that the Trustees would have the final say. He indicated that the
conduct of a vote would put the majority of Council members on record, and on straightforward
curricular matters this vote would be determinative. He questioned why having a vote with
regard to potentially-disputed matters would necessarily present a problem. Mr. Zimmer
responded that Mr. Pippin’s report attempted to address this issue.
Mr. Zimmer then summarized his understanding of today’s discussion, and expressed agreement
with those Councilors who had described the Subcommittee process as being very valuable. He
stated that Mr. Topel’s committee had done a great job in elucidating these matters, and the
additional clarity that had resulted represented a positive outcome. He also noted that Mr.
Pippin’s committee had added a valuable voice to this discussion. He remarked upon the
importance of continuing to work on the general question around multiple layers of
communication between the University administration, the Council, and the faculty as a whole.
He then identified several concrete issues to address, beginning with the need to improve and
enhance the process of informing the Council in a structured way about plans and initiatives
within the different units of the University. He suggested experimenting with various approaches,
remarking that the briefing books that had been distributed at the beginning of the academic year
had probably offered some value at the margins, but also noting that there were opportunities to
think through and identify more effective methods. He then referenced Mr. Lincoln’s earlier
remarks, and indicated that he agreed with quite a bit of what he said. He emphasized that the
issue around academic freedom was crucial, and the focus of the Pippin committee’s report on
this matter had been very valuable. Likewise, the issue around academic integrity was also
extremely important, as was the need for implementation of the right processes to ensure comfort
that these considerations were being addressed.
With regard to the question of funding for leadership positions, Mr. Zimmer remarked that the
practice varied across the different schools and divisions, and acknowledged the importance of
continuing to think through this matter. He also expressed interest in exploring whether a series
of conversations with the Deans would be a useful exercise, noting that all academic matters that
he and Mr. Rosenbaum deal with ultimately originate with one or more of the Deans. He
suggested that it might be useful to facilitate a greater understanding of how the Deans are
thinking about issues within their units, as well as their interactions with others. He speculated as
to whether these questions might be similar to or different from those relating to culture, money,
and national trends, and proposed that this idea be given additional thought. He noted that he
would continue to think through these matters over the summer, and would work together with
Mr. Abbott in his new role as next year’s Spokesman. He also recommended that the Committee
discuss these topics, as that forum represented a good venue for consideration of such matters.
11
Mr. Zimmer then invited further comments or thoughts, and hearing none, observed that these
processes were sometimes complicated, and while areas of concern and disagreement still existed,
he believed that the cause of civil discourse had been greatly advanced. He expressed his
appreciation to everyone for their participation and attention to this endeavor, and acknowledged
the level of engagement and passion that Councilors brought to these discussions, as a result of
their commitment to the University as a place of extraordinary and distinctive value. In closing,
he remarked that independent of individual points of view, he believed that this commitment
represented an important shared commonality. With that, Mr. Zimmer thanked everyone, and
adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Carol E. Wilinski
Secretary of the Faculties
October 18, 2012
12

2012 Debates On The Jurisdiction of UChicago's Faculty Senate

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2012 Debates On The Jurisdiction of UChicago's Faculty Senate

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THESE MINUTES ARE A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION AND SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

May 15, 2012

Welcome and Report of the President

Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on April 24, 2012

Report of the Spokesman

Mr. LaBarbera read the following report:

Report of the Subcommittee on Section 12.5.3 of the Statutes

Report of the Deans Regarding Council Jurisdiction

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

Welcome/Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on May 15, 2012

Report of the Spokesman

Mr. LaBarbera then read the following report:

As I mentioned in my last Spokesman’s report, at the 15 May, 2012 meeting of your

October 18, 2012

S-ar putea să vă placă și