Minutes of 9 October 2006
Circulated:  10 October 2006
Re-Circulated:  20 October 2006
Approved:  23 October 2006

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs
6048 Fleming Administration Building
Ann Arbor, Michigan  48109-1340
Phone: (734) 764-0303
Fax: (734) 764-6564
Internet Address: http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/
Approved minutes: http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/sacmin/sacuaminutes.html

MINUTES OF THE SACUA MEETING OF 9 OCTOBER 2006

Present:   Combi, Frier, Giordani, MacAdam, Meerkov, Potter, Riles, Seabury, Smith (Chair); Lehman, Leu, Schneider

Absent:  none 

Guests:  President Coleman, D. Collins, J. Howell, M. Krislov, J. Lee, D. Gershman

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

1. Draft Agenda

2. Draft minutes of the SACUA meeting of 2 October 2006

3. Electronic mail message from Erika Hrabec to Tom Schneider dated 3 October 2006 regarding the SACUA minutes of 25 September 2006

4. Approved minutes of the SACUA meeting of 25 September 2006

5. Electronic mail message from Tom Schneider to Mary Sue Coleman dated 6 October 2006 regarding topics for Monday’s SACUA meeting

6. SACUA/Senate Assembly Planning Schedule, updated 6 October 2006

Chair Smith convened the meeting at 2:30 P.M.; the draft agenda was approved. 

VISIT OF MEMBERS FROM ETHICS IN PUBLIC LIFE INITIATIVE
            The chair welcomed guests Collins, Howell, and Krislov.  Vice president Krislov reported that the President’s Ethics in Public Life initiative now has a steering committee.  He said there goal is to hire a permanent director.  The ideal candidate would have a primary appointment in Philosophy, with one or more joint appointments elsewhere.  He said that a number of topical programs have been held, and that they will continue.

            Professor Howell said that the steering committee wants to stimulate activities around the university.  He noted that they put out RFPs for programs, and have already awarded $25K total; he said the second round RFP deadline is 13 October.  In addition, there is an RFP for research opportunities, likewise with a deadline of 13 October.

            Professor Collins remarked that one goal for this year is to generate more undergraduate interest.   He said they and the provost sponsored a seminar about teaching ethics last week, and that they partnered with the Michigan Daily to produce a blog site on ethics. He added that Consider Magazine will devote a quarterly issue to ethics.

            Vice president Krislov commented that the president wants the discourse about ethics to go across schools, and that in an additional aspect they will try to reach out to the community.  Professor Potter responded that the mosque on Plymouth Road might be receptive to outreach efforts; the vice president thanked him for the good idea.

            Professor Seabury asked what was meant by the phrase "public life."  Professor Howell replied that he thought of it as the way ethics is engaged in the practice of public discourse.  The vice president said that he felt the president was thinking about recent scandals in business, religion, and government, as well as somewhat about academic integrity.  Professor Frier responded that he was not sure he saw a distinction between ethics in public life and in private life.  Vice president Krislov said that the topic would be an excellent one for a program.

            Professor Potter said that because the U-M has a ROTC program, it might be interesting to have a discussion about codes of ethics in military.  The vice president agreed that the suggestion was a good one. 

            Professor Meerkov asked how the steering committee intended to measure the success of its activities.  Professor Collins replied that they conduct surveys after programs to see if the audience was engaged.  He said they are open to finding better ways, but that they have received good feedback.  Professor Meerkov suggested that what was needed was a metric of ethical growth in our students.  Professor Collins expressed agreement, but pointed out that students are not required to take the same courses.  Absent a standard, he said, it is not easy to measure before and after conditions. 

            Professor Meerkov suggested that in his personal opinion, one cannot teach ethics but rather can exemplify the quality through personal behavior.  Professor Howell replied that he disagreed in part.  He said that students come here from multiple backgrounds, and that maybe they should leave somewhat less certain and more confused that only one perspective is right. 

            Professor Meerkov cited reports that cheating on exams may be widespread in LSA, but less so in Engineering owing to the existence of the CoE honor code.  He suggested that one suitable metric of initiative success could come from measuring the prevalence of cheating today as well as several years hence.  The steering committee members replied that such a study would be worthy of support from their budget.

            Chair Smith noted that plagiarism is said to be wrong, but that some faculty and administrators plagiarize with impunity; he asked what message is thereby given to students?  Professor Collins replied that for students maturing in the age of the internet, there is a perception that anything posted there is public information.  He added that the perspective is likewise fostered by a culture of collective learning.  Professor Frier asked whether the group was focusing on ethics on campus, or off-campus.  He suggested that our capacity to preach to our adult students is limited.  Professor Collins replied that by providing programs, there was an opportunity to transmit information and perspectives.

            Professor Riles asked if the group was addressing medical and public health dilemmas, and specifically the prospect of a flu pandemic.  Professor Howell responded affirmatively to the general question, but acknowledged that the specific issue of flu has not been proposed.

            Professor Seabury asked how much money was committed to the initiative.  The vice president replied that the president has committed $500K over 5 years, plus a faculty line.  He said there was the possibility of future funding, as well as of development initiatives.

The guests left the meeting at 3:25 P.M.

VISIT OF PRESIDENT COLEMAN
The university president arrived at 3:25 P.M.

Proposition 2-
            Members asked the president if her administration is making contingency plans to comply with Proposition 2 if it passes.  She replied that she is optimistic that it will not pass.  She said her administration would adhere to the law, whatever it is. 

            Professor Riles remarked that if the ballot initiative passes, admissions would have to be revamped.  He suggested that it would be good to have elected faculty involved in that process.  He noted that there is a diversity of opinions about how admissions should be run.  The president replied that she and Riles have a difference of opinion.  She said that the U-M has a very good admissions process, and that dedicated faculty work in the admissions process.  Regarding Proposition 2, she noted that a broad coalition opposes the initiative, including both political parties.  But, she said, she worries about the chilling effect its passage might have, in that many people may simply not even apply for admission.

Weekend School-
            Professor Meerkov said that he has been trying for nearly a year to find some interest within the central administration in supporting a volunteer effort by faculty to offer a free weekend school for economically disadvantaged children, to no avail.  The president replied that she did not know why interest was low, but that perhaps the administrators are committed to their own outreach initiatives.  She noted that there are many existing outreach efforts, some of which are grant supported, but that there is no comprehensive focus.  She said it might be good for SACUA to hear from School of Education Dean Ball about what she is doing. 

Official Language regarding Gender Expression-
            Professor Frier asked the president to discuss her reaction to proposed changes in the way the U-M announces its non-discrimination policy regarding gender expression.  The president said that she is firmly committed to achieving a campus climate that is respectful to everyone.  She said that she encourages faculty governance to have another conversation on this topic.  Professor Frier replied that the U-M is beginning to look conspicuous by not have adopted the Assembly’s proposal, and that actions suggest the U-M is not committed, but rather is playing only lip service.  The president replied that she is doing everything that she can.  Professor Meerkov pointed out that he made inquiries to learn if there is in fact any discrimination under the status quo, and that he was assured there is none. 

Globalization-
            Professor Seabury remarked that the U-M administration's focus on China seems narrowly aimed.  He noted that there are many other world events, including human rights atrocities, where the U-M might have a moral impact if it makes statements.  He said the existing practices seem to be more consistent with the behavior of corporations.  The president replied that the question of the day was "what does it mean to be a global university?"  She said that the U-M has faculty connections with many countries, but that the institutional connections with China seemed most developed.  She suggested that they could potentially evolve into a joint degree some day.  She said she considered using China as a pilot for what could be done in the rest of the world.  She added that she is considering a potential trip to South Africa, where long time relations exist, as well.

            The president stated that U-M administrators try to make ethical decisions in everything they do.  She said that an institutional position about world events requires careful thought.  She said the university has acted twice in recent times: once in the case of South Africa investments prior to the abolition of apartheid, and once in the case of tobacco company investments.  She suggested that it is appropriate for the university to provide a forum where anyone can come and talk without fear.

Spellings Commission Report-
            Professor Potter asked where major challenges for the U-M lie in the wake of the Spellings Commission Report.  President Coleman pointed out the there is a spectrum of institutional models within higher education.  She said that the commission recommendations regarding federal aid are probably good.  She said, as well, that challenging institutions to be more transparent is probably good.  The president noted that it is always appropriate for faculty to devise new methods to assess student learning and to evaluate what they are teaching.  However, she expressed concern about the report's logic regarding value added, especially when a top university admits good students at the outset.  She noted that the AAU and sister organizations have been proactive in their response to the report.

The guest left the meeting at 4:15 P.M. 

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
The minutes of 2 October 2006 were approved as submitted.

RECONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
The minutes of 25 September 2006 were reconsidered at the request of the president's office.  Entry 7 in Announcements was amended to include the fact that both the office of the president and the office of the provost co-sponsored the Fall Summit on Diversity.   

ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES
The chair announced:

1. He and Professor Riles met with the president the preceding Thursday.  The president said that she was agreeable to proposed changes in the bylaws for the Davis-Markert-Nickerson visiting professorship.  She suggested that Chair Smith meet with G. Krenz later this week to work out details.

2. Professor Riles asked the president about her willingness to support the University Senate’s evaluation of academic administrators.  She responded that the AEC effort is a faculty initiative, and that she uses multiple sources of information to evaluate administrators.

3. Riles and Smith discussed the report about endowment investment earning that vice president Slottow and chief investment officer Lundberg provided to SACUA.  The president reported that the administration feels its endowment is doing well.

4. Professor Potter and the chair will meet with the provost from 2:00 to 2:30 on 18 October.

LIAISON REPORTS

Tenure-
Professor Frier reported that the committee discussed (1) process issues with respect to Regents’ Bylaw 5.09 proceedings, (2) preliminary reaction to the McDonald-Weiss committee report, and (3) governance representation for assistant librarians and clinical faculty. 

AAAC-
Professor Potter reported that AAAC has appointed a subcommittee that is assembling material for a written response to the McDonald-Weiss report.  The committee is scheduled to meet with the provost on 11 October.

Development-
Professor Meerkov said the committee met on the previous Wednesday.  He said that vice president May described his program, and that a staff member delivered a presentation.  Meerkov suggested the idea of a scholarship fund sponsored by faculty, but that the idea was not warmly received by the vice president.  Professor Meerkov transmitted a committee suggestion that the vice president be invited to talk with SACUA or the Senate Assembly to encourage giving by faculty.  He said that vice president May is willing to attend such a meeting. 

Weekend School-
Professor Meerkov reported that the dean and an associate dean of the College of Engineering proved receptive to the idea and have invited a detailed plan.

Grievance Task Force-
Chair Smith reported that the task force met last week, and set its schedule.  The task force plans to submit a report to SACUA by 1 December.

OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Professor Meerkov inquired about the status of the University Shared Governance taskforce.  Chair Smith replied that the scheduled meeting of Professor Berent and D'Alecy with the provost was cancelled, and will be rescheduled.

Professor Meerkov reported that an invitation to the SACUA chair will be forthcoming from the College of Engineering, in order to hear about the Assembly’s proposed Unit Governance Initiative.  Chair Smith reported that he would likewise be attending an upcoming meeting of the LSA executive committee for the same purpose. 

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M.