Faculty Senate Chairs'
University Faculty Meeting
Speeches
Howard Neufeld, Chair, Faculty
Senate
Fall 1998 General Faculty meeting:
Good morning and welcome to the fall faculty/staff
meeting. I hope everybody had a productive and enjoyable
summer. I can't believe the summer is over, but here we are
- hopefully rejuvenated and refreshed. This morning
I want to do several things: first, I want to let you know what
the Senate did last year, and what it hopes to accomplish this
year; second, I want to address some issues that have come up over
the summer; and lastly, I want to offer some musings about teaching
and learning as we prepare to enter the new millennium.
The Faculty Senate at ASU has generally had a
good working relationship with the administration - one which continues
to the present. This does not mean that the Senate has a
record of capitulation and subservience, but rather, has established
lines of communication and understanding that enable both sides
to accomplish tasks that otherwise would not be possible. One
indication of this cooperation is our success rate regarding Senate
resolutions. Last year, the Senate passed 18 resolutions
requiring administrative approval. Seventeen of the 18 were
approved or sent to the Board of Governors, without change, by
the administration. This high approval rate comes in part
from the hard work done by the Senators you elected, and also because
the administration does value the input it receives from the Senate. While
we may not always get our way on all issues, our voice is important,
it is heard, and when we make recommendations on matters, action
follows. Sometimes it seems to take forever, but we persevere
and get results. What were some of the more important resolutions
passed last year? The Senate passed a resolution stating
its dissatisfaction with the manner in which the administration
handled certain changes to the Handbook, resulting in a letter
of concern being sent to the Board of Governors (from whom we have
not heard back). The Senate has created a Faculty Grievance
Assistance Committee, made up of former members of the Grievance
Hearing Committee, which will informally advise faculty members
about the potential merit of their grievances, and on ways to improve
their presentation at a formal grievance hearing. This committee,
whose use is optional, will be available to faculty members starting
this semester. The Senate is on record opposing the new funding
formula being developed by the GA, which, if approved in its current
form and applied to all classes, would mean the loss of millions
of dollars in appropriations to this university, effectively wiping
out the equity funding we just received. It is the Senate's
opinion that the new funding formula (in its most recent incarnation)
discriminates against the comprehensive university in favor of
the research universities, and that this is unacceptable. The
Senate has also formed an ad hoc committee on Faculty Privacy Rights,
whose mission is to investigate those actions that affect a faculty
member's privacy, such as receiving and storing email and phone
messages, saving computer files, and obtaining regular mail. The
ultimate goal is to establish a set of rules by which the administration
and faculty operate so that if actions are taken against faculty
members, they are done so in accordance with whatever privacy rights
are available, and with due process. If any of you have comments
regarding faculty privacy rights, please contact either me, or
the Senate office, and I can pass these on to the committee, or,
I can have you meet directly with the committee. In addition,
the Senate will be continuing its study of various other issues,
such as child care facilities, pay raises for part-time faculty,
and recommendations concerning departmental personnel committees.
At the Board of Trustees retreat, held in July, a
small number of vocal alumni asked the University to study the feasibility
of moving our football team up from Division I-AA to I-A. Although
I have not polled the faculty, or even the Senate on this, my
conversations with various faculty members suggest to me that
there is little support for such a move. To put this into
perspective, let me provide you with a story about another school, Rutgers
University, my alma mater, that made the move several years ago to "the big-time". Rutgers
has the distinction of having played the first intercollegiate football game,
against Princeton, in 1869, a tradition that continued right up through the
1980's, at which time Rutgers decided to join a league and play the big boys. Prior
to this, the program at Rutgers was moderately successful, and they played
such schools as Lehigh, Cornell, Columbia, Princeton, and Delaware. However,
when Rutgers moved into the big leagues, it found that it had to spend millions
on its stadium and athletic facilities, and had to begin paying its coaches
extremely high salaries, including some that exceeded even the most senior
administrators at the school. And ever since they moved up, they have
had losing seasons almost every year, going 0-11 last year. More importantly,
the program, which was probably solvent in the early days, now officially
loses some $3.3M/yr, and if hidden costs are added in, more likely $7M/yr. Over
the past decade, Rutgers athletics has lost over $30M of state appropriated
monies, while at the same time having losing season after losing season.
Well, I could go on and on, but the point here
is that moving up to big-time football is having an adverse impact
on the academic reputation of one of the finest state universities
in the country. Well known for its high academic standards, Rutgers
is is often compared favorably with Berkeley in the west, and Ivy
League institutions in the east, to which many
people think Rutgers belongs. Some alumni are concerned that the emphasis
on athletics, and the monetary drain, will make people think of Rutgers first
and foremost as an athletic power, and only secondarily as an institution of
high academic quality. Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize-winning economist,
and a Rutgers alum, wrote recently, "Universities exist to transmit knowledge
and understanding of ideas and values to students, not to provide entertainment
for spectators or employment for athletes."
So how does this apply to Appalachian State? I
think the tragedy is that Rutgers athletics serves as a clear warning
of what can happen at this institution if we move to go big-time. Oh,
you say, but Rutgers is the wrong example. Better
to compare us to ECU, which has successfully made the transition. I
counter that argument with a simple statistic: of the 2300 athletic programs
in the United States, 98% do not break even or make a profit. How likely
is it that Appalachian State, with its remote location, difficult geography,
and poor weather, will be in that 2% that breaks even? Not likely at
all.
Recently, one of our alums stated that this move would "increase the
credibility of the university." What credibility is he referring to? If
by this he means athletic credibility, then we must ask, but by what standards
does he rate our credibility? Our athletes currently graduate at the
same rate as our overall student body, and their SAT scores are close to
the general student body, not something we could probably maintain under
the pressures that exist at the Division I-A level. And under the current
situation we generally have winning seasons. That's athletic credibility. But
if by credibility this alum means our academic reputation, then I consider
his statement to be highly offensive. Are we currently without academic
credibility because we are Division I-AA? Do we, the faculty, perform
unsatisfactorily because we are not Division I-A? This kind of thinking
is an insult to the faculty of this university, who work hard at their teaching,
who spend long hours doing research and scholarly activities, and who devote
many hours to community service, all while being paid significantly lower
than faculty at other member institutions in the state system. And
what is the result of all this dedication? Appalachian currently ranks
number one in student satisfaction among all 16 institutions of higher learning
according to a recent Board of Governors survey. And I should note
at this point the contributions made by staff employees here at ASU, who
work hard to accommodate both our needs and those of our students, and who
have contributed to that satisfaction rating. Thank you all for your
hard work and dedication. In
measures of academic achievement, we rank 3rd or 4th in SAT scores, retention
rates, and graduation rates. You want credibility, that's credibility
- but a Division I-A football team in no way improves academics at any institution,
and in fact, most often detracts from it.
Moving to Division I-A would entail enlarging
the stadium to accommodate 30,000 people, raising average attendances
to 17,000, and awarding more football scholarships. Lets
start by first making the existing program financially solvent. Currently
athletics loses almost $1.1M each year at Appalachian State, $660,000
of which comes in the form of a subsidy from Academic Affairs to
pay coaches who do absolutely no teaching. These monies should
be going to support the academic mission of this university, by
providing additional positions or higher salaries. So until
athletics gets its present fiscal house in order, there can be
no serious discussion of moving to an even more expensive program
at this university.
Now, a change of subject - low faculty salaries. According
to a recent Chronicle of Higher Education Report, ASU ranks 3rd from
the bottom in average salaries for professors, 2nd from the bottom
for associate professors, and 5th from the bottom for assistant professors. Only
Winston-Salem State and Elizabeth City State pay their professors
less then we do. On a national
basis, we fall in the bottom 40% in terms of pay. If you add in compensation
in the form of our benefits package, we're even worse off. Our low
pay here at ASU is said to result in large part from the fact that we have
the highest proportion of full professors of any institution in the state,
(48% vs a state-wide average of 24%) and the resultant salary comprehension. But
I'm not so sure that is the total picture. Promotion to full professor
does not yet come with a substantial financial reward, and simple promotion
therefore can not greatly impact the salary structure. What can and probably
does impact the structure is if retention of professors is much higher at
Appalachian than elsewhere, something Bobby Sharp is looking at right now. If
true, then our salary compression results more from longevity than a pattern
of premature promotions, as the GA accuses us of doing. So, how do
we get out of this situation? Retirements and attrition are not expected
to reduce the number of full professors anytime soon, and without such a
reduction, there are few options available to address the situation. However,
we must ask the administration here, and at Chapel Hill - how long will our
current faculty have to suffer with low salaries for actions taken by administrations
of years gone by? At what point will the GA realize that low salaries
will eventually (if not already) impede our ability to attract and retain
high quality faculty? I
think it is time to conduct a salary equity study across institutions within
the state-wide system, and to ask them how they can justify our low pay. Something
needs to be done. We complain year after year about our low salaries,
but nothing is every accomplished. Now, the situation is getting worse
to the point that a creative solution must be found before it deteriorates
even more. Each morning, administrators should wake up and ask the
following question: What can I do to promote and facilitate the work
of the faculty? After
all, that is their prime mission. But as long as salaries at this university
continue to fall behind those at other institutions, I think every administrator
should feel some sense of failure and be thinking very hard about what creative
solutions can be found. Based on our academic success, and our fine
faculty, we deserve higher salaries.
Finally, permit me some short speculation
concerning the direction of education in the coming century. Next
year is our Centennial year, a milestone for any institution, and celebrations
are planned throughout the year. However,
as we celebrate the past, we must also prepare for the future. And
for the faculty, I think that means taking an introspective look at what
we have been teaching our students the past several decades, and then asking
ourselves, what could we do in the coming years that is new and innovative,
that addresses the perceived needs of students for the 21st century. This
is not an easy task, as hindsight is always better than foresight.
In
his book, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, E.O. Wilson, professor
emeritus of biology and Pulitzer prize winner, argues that unification
of the major fields of study (the sciences, the arts, the social
sciences, and the humanities), is the great challenge for the next
century. Wilson calls this unification "consilience",
derived from a 19th century treatise by the philosopher William Whewell,
who wrote, "The consilience of Induction takes place when an Induction,
obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained
from another different class. This Consilience is a test of the
truth of the theory in which it occurs." Consilience will not be
easy, argues Wilson, but is necessary to replace what he considers the
moribund liberal arts curriculum found at most universities. I
quote from Wilson's book, "During the past
thirty years the ideal of the unity of learning, which the Renaissance
and Enlightenment bequeathed us, has been largely abandoned. With
rare exceptions American universities and colleges have dissolved their
curriculum into a slurry of minor disciplines and specialized courses. While
the average number of undergraduate courses per institution doubled,
the percentage of mandatory courses in general education dropped by more
than one half. Science was
sequestered in the same period.... only a third of universities and colleges
require students to take at least one course in the natural sciences....Win
or lose, true reform will aim at the consilience of science with the
social sciences and humanities in scholarship and teaching. Every
college student should be able to answer the following question: What
is the relation between science and the humanities, and how is it important
for human welfare?" I
would hope, as we study organizational changes at this university, and
as we contemplate future needs of our students and ourselves, that we
heed the words of Wilson, and in some small measure, strive to reach
across the colleges to colleagues in different departments, and to ask, "Can
we develop courses that bridge the intellectual gaps between us, building
on what is being tried in Interdisciplinary Studies?" Can we achieve
consilience, and in doing so, better prepare our students for the century
to come? If we get institutional
support for such courses, and work out the logistical problems, then
I think the answer to these questions is unequivocally yes! And
more than anything else, innovations such as these will in the end act
as attractors for the best and brightest students, and faculty!, thus
solidifying our reputation in the coming years as one of the best public
comprehensive universities in the southeast.
Thank you very much, and
I hope you all have a good year!
<< BACK TO FACULTY MEETING SPEECHES
