Reaction to the Senate Resolution on the proposal for a Doctorate in Hawaiian and Indigenous Language and Culture Revitalization and Feeder Programs in Hilo
Committee on Research
Committee on Professional Matters
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 Law School Room2
Aune, Baker, Bley-Vroman, Bopp, Bridges, Brown, Cannon, Caron, Chen, Chopey, Cohn, Cox, Dator, Dawson, DeMattos, Desser, Fryer, Fujimoto, Gibson, Hawkins, Hilgers, Inazu, Judd, Kazman, Kim, Kipnis, Lee,L, Liebert, Lorenzo, Lu, Lukas, Magaard, McGranaghan, McKimmy, Moore, Nielsen, Nishida, Paull, Ramsey, Richardson, Ross, Rutter, Satsuma, Schroeder, Shiramizu, Singh, Staff, Stodden, Teves, Tiles, Uchida, Valliant, Ward, Warn-Cramer, Wilmeth, Yue
Ex Officio: Neal Smatresk
Aeby, Lowry, Mark,
Allen, Grace, Haning, Herring, Kasuya, Lee,CN, Lee,MT, Mottl, Nunokawa, Robinow, Singleton, Skouge, Speitel, Yates, Yu, Yuen, Zaleski
Others who signed in:
Sam Callejo, Heather Crislip, Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, C. Mamo Kim, Allen Hurley, Jon Osorio, Wendy Pearson, Mary Tiles, Myrtle Yamada
Chairman Tom Schroeder called the meeting to order at 3:10 PM.
1. The minutes of Wednesday, October 20, 2004 were approved as submitted.
Chair Schroeder began by noting that most of everyone's time recently has been taken up with dealing with the Manoa flood of October 30 and its aftermath. Many meetings, classes, and other activities had to be cancelled, postponed or delayed. Some thirty buildings were damaged to some extent by the flood, and four major buildings are still out, most notably Hamilton Library and the Biomed Building.
We need to understand there is a psychological reaction to disaster similar to that of the response to death. We are now past the heroic action period that happened immediately after the flood. While some people are still in denial, many others are in deep grief and despondency as the magnitude of the tragedy sinks in following day after day of backbreaking labor in the muck and mold. Noting that Vice Chancellor Neal Smatresk and Sam Callejo from the President's Office, will talk with the Senate later about this, Schroeder moved on to point out that the other major events since our last Senate meeting have been the Hilo meeting of the Board of Regents and their handling of the motion we presented to them on the proposed Hilo doctorate program; UHM and System plans for reorganization; Campus preparations for the impending visit of a WASC team; and meetings of the Council of Chancellors' Budget Advisory Committee dealing especially with tuition issues.
The Chair's report led into a lengthy discussion of the effects of the flood. Debate focused on whether the Manoa Administration has been sufficiently responsive and communicative to all the people impacted by this disaster. Vice Chancellor Neal Smatresk repeatedly stressed that he is eager to talk with anyone about the situation. Meetings were held every few hours after the disaster, and are now being held campuswide at various venues. No one person can be made a flood czar, he maintained. That would create a bottleneck, though the creation of a faculty ombudsperson is a possibility.
Roger Lukas pointed out that many researchers can't receive the email or website information since they are dependent on local servers that are still not functioning. David Lassner said this could be rectified, and Lukas responded that it should have been anticipated and done two weeks ago.
The administration said they were relying initially on deans and directors to get the word out to faculty. Since the insurance is by building, and deans and directors are responsible for their buildings, the line of communication should run through them from the faculty and staff to the central administration. However, several examples were offered where deans apparently gave misleading or erroneous information--or none at all.
Same Callejo, who is one of the three people (with Rodney Sakaguchi and Neal Smatresk) responsible for coordinating flood relief, told of his experiences with the New Year's flood of 1988 and the Waimea Bay rock slide a few years ago. He agreed that communication is the key. He also stressed the necessity of everyone taking pictures and writing down everything done so as to document damage, cleaning, and especially disposing of things for insurance purposes.
Fifty to sixty people still are without offices. Other faculty members are urged to share space with them, and also to identify space that can be used temporarily. VC Smatresk promised that any space would be returned to the people who loaned it after the emergency. Businesses downtown have offered space, but it is obviously better to have it on campus if possible.
Someone asked whether psychological depression was being addressed. Callejo said it was. The President has offered free counseling services to whomever requests it.
Robert Bley-Vroman reminded the Senate that at its previous meeting, it had passed a resolution urging the Board of Regents not to approve the Proposal for a Doctorate in Hawaiian and Indigenous Language and Culture Revitalization and Feeder Programs in Hilo. Since Chair Schroeder could not attend the Hilo meeting of the Board of Regents to present the Senate's resolution, Bley-Vroman went instead. His report was both poignant and wryly humorous.
The level of fervor and emotion at the BoR meeting was much more than he anticipated, Bley-Vroman admitted. It soon became clear that the Hawaiian program, as well as the doctorate in pharmacy, another matter before the Regents, was of immense importance to many people. Following approximately two hours of chants, singing, and testimony from people from Manoa as well as Hilo favoring the Hawaiian program, it was Bley-Vroman's turn to speak against it, as he had been instructed by the Manoa Faculty Senate. He observed that his testimony was not greeted with thunderous applause.
Ultimately, BoR member Byron Bender offered a resolution that the became Board policy that basically approved the Hawaiian proposal but with important restrictions. 1) The final form of the program must result from negotiations between the proponents and appropriate groups on Manoa. 2) The Board reaffirmed that Manoa is the locus for graduate programs and that 3) Manoa has responsibility systemwide for oversight of graduate programs.
Manoa and Hilo are thus jointly charged with working cooperatively on the Hawaiian proposal. In the meantime, the BoR will re-write the policies which reassert Manoa's authority over graduate programs.
The Manoa Chancellor has appointed a special administrator to see that the provisions of the Board's decisions are properly carried out, and, Bley-Vroman sheepishly said, "and I have agreed to do that."
Beginning the discussion of Bley-Vroman's report, Jon Osorio wanted to know if Manoa only has an opportunity to "review" and not to "approve" the final agreement.
Bley-Vroman replied that President McClain made it very clear that Manoa will only review the final product, not approve it. However Bley-Vroman is optimistic that the review process will be friendly and cooperative so that the final product will be satisfactory to all concerned.
President McClain is the "gatekeeper" here, Bley-Vroman reiterated. When he has determined that the process is completed, he will so inform the Board of Regents.
He also added that the Board corrected a point of confusion by re-affirming that the Hilo Graduate Program only has authority over its MA and other non-doctorate graduate programs. Doctoral programs remain the exclusive right and responsibility of Manoa, with the Hawaiian language doctorate being an exception to, and not a change in, this policy.
The Hawaiian Language doctorate will also be subject to the regular (usually 5-year) program review process.
Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, as a representative of the Kuali'i Council, stated that she and other members of the Council were in Hilo for the BoR meeting, and spoke in favor of the proposal. At the same time they also share the concern of the Senate because they want the Hilo program to be the very best program it can possibly be--to meet and exceed all standards of academic excellence. They do not want it said that the program was approved because of political reasons but because of its high quality, and because it went through every review that all other academic programs do. She added that one of her worries is that the President will want to hurry the process while it should not proceed to quickly. No one must ever be able to suggest that it is a political, and not an academic, program.
David Ross wanted to know if only the Manoa Graduate Division, and not the Manoa Faculty Senate, will be part of the review process.
Bley-Vroman responded that the MFS will be included as part of the normal review process. He added that while it is difficult to imagine exactly how the process will unfold, he feels confident that "if we say it sucks" then it will be difficult if not impossible for the President to approve it.
Someone observed that the Hilo program will always be viewed as having been pushed through by political pressure because it is not a real field. There are no other programs like it anywhere.
Osorio replied by re-emphasizing that no one wants a program that does not meet high standards. He pointed out that we do not have a PhD program in Hawaiian Language here at Manoa because we do not have enough MA graduates yet who are ready to go on. The same considerations need to apply to the Hilo program.
Chair Schroeder reminded everyone that some years ago, the Senate had a similar discussion about English as a Second language when it was new, and that there were no departments of Computer Sciences anywhere before 1960. This is the way new disciplines grow.
Steven Ward, Chair of the newest MFS committee, the Committee on Research, introduced a Resolution to appoint a full-time flood relief coordinator (FRC) in the Chancellor's Office.
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT A FULL TIME FLOOD RELIEF CO-ORDINATOR (FRC) IN THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
WHEREAS the UH Manoa campus suffered a disastrous flash flood on October 30, 2004 that resulted in the destruction of the Hamilton Library basement, the Biomedical Sciences Tower first floor and the first floor of all the annexes, serious flood damage to several other buildings, the temporary loss of power to 35 buildings and the long term loss of power to several buildings, including the Hamilton Library, Biomedical Sciences, Agricultural Science Institute, Sherman Laboratory, St. John Plant Science Laboratory, and Auxiliary Service Building.
WHEREAS all of the affected units are in dire and immediate need of temporary office space, computer and telephone connections, laboratory space, and electrical power,
WHEREAS hundreds of research projects have been slowed or halted altogether because of the short and long term impacts of the floods,
WHEREAS graduate and undergraduate teaching is also affected by this disaster,
WHEREAS in most cases the needs of the units are far beyond the capability of the individual unit Deans and Directors to provide relief,
WHEREAS in most cases the long term repair and restoration of the affected units is also beyond the capabilities of the individual units that are affected,
WHEREAS the funds that are available for flood and disaster relief are at the Manoa Campus and UH System levels,
WHEREAS efforts to respond to this disaster in a timely fashion would be much more effective and efficient if they were co-coordinated through one office,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Manoa Faculty Senate strongly requests the immediate appointment of a Flood Relief Coordinator (FRC) who will have the authority and responsibility to coordinate all flood related efforts. The FRC will report to the Chancellor of Manoa, and will provide direct liaison with the UH System in its efforts to provide flood relief. . The responsibilities of the FRC will include, but not be limited to, (1) identifying resources (such as space and administrative support) in units that are unaffected by the flood that can be made available to help the affected units, (2) coordinating the timely processing of insurance claims and developing mechanisms for immediate distribution of funds for repair and relief based on losses, (3) identifying other funds that might be available for the restoration of the campus from the State and federal sources, (4) prioritize the distribution of funds to units throughout campus that need it, and (5) develop a flow of information to the entire campus so that isolated faculty who were affected by the flood are identified and assisted.
Vassilis Syrmos, from the office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Education, said that he favored the resolution from the point of view of the many researchers who are still being heavily impacted by the aftermath of the flood.
Amarjit Singh commented that instead of creating a temporary coordinator to oversee the flood relief efforts we should have a permanent officer of disaster management. Not only will we have floods again, but also hurricanes, fires and other events that need to be anticipated and prevented if possible and ameliorated promptly if not.
Since the matter had also been discussed earlier in the meeting, Roger Lukas called for the question. This passed, 47 yes, 2 no and zero abstentions.
The resolution then was approved, 43 yes, 1 no, and 6 abstain.
Discussion then turned to the Applied Research Laboratory at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (ARL-UHM).
Ward reported that his Committee was only able to review the issue briefly, and was in favor of it in principle, but needed more information about it, and wanted to follow it closely as the details were worked out.
Tom Ramsey then introduced the Resolution on the ARL-UHM that the SEC had prepared at its Monday afternoon meeting
Whereas the University of Hawaii has initiated consultations with affected parties including the Manoa Faculty Senate about establishing an Applied Research Laboratory at UHM (APL-UHM),
And whereas these consultations are ongoing,
And whereas there are significant issues of institutional structure and research integrity still outstanding,
Therefore, be it resolved, the Manoa Faculty Senate requests that the Board of Regents make permanent status for any ARL-UHM contingent upon acceptance by the Manoa Faculty Senate.
Singh said that the kind of research the faculty do is none of the business of the MFS. Researchers can do whatever they want, classified or not.
Vassilis Syrmos replied that classified research was indeed a fit matter for the MFS to consider. He himself had experienced many problems caused by certain kinds of classified research on campus, including instances where research one is doing is later classified.
Lukas pointed out that VPR&GE has already sent a draft of a modified classified research policy to the CoR and SEC for consideration.
Ruth Dawson expressed considerable concern about the "therefore" clause. This presumes that the BoR will approve the ARL-UHM proposal even though the Senate has had no opportunity to consider it at all. She added that the resolution is far too positive, appearing to favor, or at least not oppose, classified research.
In order to make the "therefore" appear less positive, Tom Ramsey agreed as a friendly amendment to add "the" before "permanent" in the final sentence, so that the "Therefore" reads:
"Therefore, be it resolved, the Manoa Faculty Senate requests that the Board of Regents make the permanent status for any ARL-UHM contingent upon acceptance by the Manoa Faculty Senate."
The question was called, and passed, Yes 39, No 5, Abstain 5.
The resolution then passed, Yes 37-No 7, and Abstain 5.
Discussion of the Resolution on the Conduct of Classified Research at the University of Hawaii.
Ken Kipnis, chair of Senate Committee on Professional Matters introduced a resolution concerning classified research at UHM.
A resolution on the conduct of classified research at the University of Hawaii.
1. WHEREAS: The conduct of certain acceptable types of classified research, in the presence of proper governance and oversight, can benefit both the University of Hawaii and the polities of which we are a part;
2. WHEREAS: The conduct of classified research, in the absence of proper governance and oversight, can also significantly degrade the academic ambience of a university by, for example:
- Allowing external agencies to bar certain students from research activities for which they cannot obtain clearance;
- Permitting faculty and student research that may not be examined and properly taken into account in tenure and promotion decisions and in certification for academic degrees;
- Permanently preventing the publication of research findings and even wholly concealing the existence of research activities;
- Compromising the approval and review procedures routinely used to ensure that proper academic standards are observed: i.e., human studies, research ethics, animal care, hazardous materials, etc.
3. WHEREAS: There may be opportunities to support the conduct of classified research in ways that respect the four areas of concern listed above as A-D;
4. BE IT RESOLVED: That the UH Administration submit to the Manoa Faculty Senate, for its approval, a draft of policies and procedures that adequately address the four areas of concern listed above.
5. BE IT RESOLVED: That the Manoa Faculty Senate stands ready to cooperate with the Administration in drafting a satisfactory policy.
[Note: excerpts of classified research policies of several other universities were attached to this resolution, and are appended at the end of these minutes].
Kipnis began by noting that Ruth Dawson made a good point. There is something about classified research that runs counter to academic standards and practices. But what is it that is objectionable? Are there ways to structure the conduct of classified research so that these concerns are manageable? The resolution of the CPM, he said, does not come to any conclusions about classified research one way or the other. It just tries to deal with certain issues related to it. It is trying to find a middle ground acceptable to those who insist that classified research will be carried out "over their dead body" and those who find classified research to be perfectly acceptable.
Somebody from LLL said that since the resolution lists four areas where classified research might "degrade the academic ambience of a university", it would be good for the resolution to list how classified research might enhance the ambience. What are its advantages?
Daphne Desser wondered what the criteria were for determining what is acceptable or unacceptable.
Singh insisted that this discussion was nothing but about conservative vs liberal ideology. The Senate wants to ban classified research because it is full of liberals. It is classified research that has made America great. Conducting classified research is good, indeed, it is our duty.
Osorio stated that not everyone agrees that UARC is OK and that the list of concerns in the resolution leads to the conclusion we should never permit classified research.
There was a suggestion to postpone the discussion until the next meeting of the Senate. This became a motion which was passed, yes 28; no 2; abstain 7?
With many people starting to leave Schroeder quickly read the (Attached) Statement of System Reorganization. The question was called for and the vote was Yes 23, No 0, and abstain 1. Someone asked if we had a quorum; Schroeder said we did not need one unless someone asked for a count; that person wanted a count and since we were clearly below that number, no vote was taken.
Chair Schroeder declared the meeting adjourned at 5:25PM.
[The following material accompanied the resolution on classified research offered by the Committee on Professional Matters]:
University of Colorado
STATEMENT OF THE FACULTY COMMITTEE ON CLASSIFIED RESEARCH October 12, 1987
Petitions forwarded to the President for the conduct of classified research will be referred to the Faculty Committee on Classified Research (FCCR) for review and recommendation to the President. Each petition will have a Cover Sheet containing the following information:
Names of Principal Investigator and Co-Investigators
Address and Phone Number(s) of Principal Investigator
The Granting Agency
Proposed Funding Level
Time period of the research
The CU location of the research
Time deadlines (if any) for proposal submission
The recommendations of the FCCR will be based on its judgment of the appropriateness of the proposed research at the University and its evaluation of the following factors, which should be addressed explicitly in the petition in the order shown:
All petitions will be reviewed and approved on the local campus prior to review by the FCCR, utilizing a campus process defined by the Chancellor. The Faculty Committee requests explicit approval by the Department Chair in addition to any others specified by the Chancellor.
George Mason University CLASSIFIED RESEARCH
Among the major issues of concern in the performance of classified research are the maintenance of high intellectual quality of research, communication within the University community, and the opportunity to publish the results of research. In addition, there are costs involved in maintaining the secure facilities needed for classified work. To assure that research is performed so that the University's goals are met, the following conditions must be met by each proposed classified project before the University allows it to be submitted for funding:
1. The principal investigator must submit to a Committee of research-active faculty members appointed by the administration (presently the Research Advisory Committee, which may be augmented by technical experts as the Committee sees fit) a brief statement about the sponsor, the nature of the project, the personnel involved, the contractual conditions, and the projected impacts on the University. As required, the principal investigator will meet with the Committee.
The project review will be rapid, less than two weeks from the submission of the principal investigator's statement under normal conditions. The Committee must be satisfied that the benefits of the project to the University will outweigh any possible negative consequences, and that there are no conditions which undermine the University's overall intellectual integrity. The Committee's recommendation will be to the President or the President's designee(s) who will consider the Committee's recommendation as the most important input in deciding whether or not to allow the proposal to enter the customary proposal approval process of the University.
Among the major criteria that the Committee must consider in making its recommendation are the following:
2. The University central administration must not be required to provide funds to construct and maintain secure facilities for classified projects. These funds are to be guaranteed by the university unit sponsoring the proposal to the central administration prior to approval.
3. Every proposal must provide for substantive and procedural review by a designated University administrator of any project output or deliverables for compliance with University requirements.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MIT panel urges off-campus sites for classified research June 12, 2002
A faculty committee, mindful of U.S. security needs following the Sept. 11 attacks and of MIT's history of national service, recommended today that MIT provide off-campus facilities to help faculty perform classified public service or research involving the nation's security.
"MIT remains committed to a strong role of public service and, as appropriate, to expanding the scope of that service," the committee said in its report, "In the Public Interest."
The Ad Hoc Committee on Access to and Disclosure of Scientific Information also strongly reiterated MIT's long-standing policy of intellectual openness on the campus. "National security, the health of our nation and the strength of our economy depend heavily on the advancement of science and technology and on the education of future generations. The well-being of our nation will ultimately be damaged if education, science and technology suffer as a result of any practices that indiscriminately discourage or limit the open exchange of ideas," the committee's report said.
"We recommend that no classified research should be carried out on campus; that no student, graduate or undergraduate, should be required to have a security clearance to perform thesis research; and that no thesis research should be carried out in (intellectual) areas requiring access to classified materials."
The committee said the university's dilemma following the events of Sept. 11 is that "restrictions on access to select biological agents, the application of export control provisions to university researchers, and a growing pressure to treat research results as sensitive create a new landscape for faculty, students and MIT as an institution."
Institute Professor Sheila Widnall, who was Secretary of the Air Force in the Clinton administration, headed the committee. The members of the committee were Vincent W.S. Chan, professor of electrical engineering and computer science and aeronautics and astronautics and director of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems; Institute Professor Jerome I. Friedman, Nobel laureate in physics; Professor of Management Stephen C. Graves, chair of the faculty; and Professor of Political Science Harvey Sapolsky, director of the Security Studies Program.
Provost Robert A. Brown and Graves appointed the panel to examine MIT's policies dealing with restrictions on research, such as those arising from classified or industry-sponsored research.
Provost Brown, commenting on the report, said, "Professor Widnall and her colleagues have done an excellent job considering a complex landscape while focusing on MIT's core values of student education and scholarly exchange. The report will help guide our policies with respect to organization and governance of research for the years ahead."
"The fundamental mission of MIT rests upon four values: unfettered transmission of knowledge through educational activities, creation of new knowledge through research and other scholarly activities, service to the nation and service to humanity," the committee stated. "Openness enables MIT to attract, educate and benefit from the best students, faculty and staff from around the world. This is especially important, as competence in science and technology has grown throughout the world so that access to research and knowledge outside the United States is critical to our own progress.
"No foreign national granted a visa by the U.S. government should be denied access to courses, research or publications generally available on campus."
The committee said that allowing classified research on campus would require a dual research and management system. It would restrict faculty interaction and student involvement and "would inevitably create two separate classes of individuals on campus," the panel said. "In the end, we believe that the restrictions on the free flow of research results, as well as control of individual access, would negatively impact national security by hampering the progress of science in important areas of human health, economic growth, and in all of the other areas that science has brought benefits to our nation.
"We are moved by the obligation of public service to the nation. However, we believe that this is best met through an open and shared research environment on campus coupled with the operation of special facilities for classified research and the expansion of opportunities for faculty to engage in public service in significant ways."
The committee outlined MIT's history of public service in national defense, including the development of radar during World War II. During the Cold War, MIT developed the Distant Early Warning System and ballistic missile defenses at Lincoln Laboratory, a federally funded laboratory the Institute operates for the U.S. government. In the past decade, Lincoln Laboratory has developed sophisticated military communications systems, as well as nonclassified systems such as weather radar systems and an air traffic collision-avoidance system.
The committee anticipates that research currently being carried out on campus may have follow-on activities that require classification. The panel proposed that MIT provide nearby facilities off campus where faculty can work or advise on classified national security matters, and that MIT make arrangements for security clearances for faculty.
"For many faculty members, these clearances are an important enabler of their public service ... Since obtaining a clearance can take up to 18 months, responding promptly to public service opportunities is not possible without provision for the continuity of individual security clearances," the committee said.
"The national security implications of biological sciences are growing. It is not too hard to imagine a future Lincoln Laboratory-like entity conducting classified biologically related research in the Boston area."
The panel recommended that Lincoln Laboratory increase the involvement of MIT faculty in its research program and provide facilities for faculty to carry out classified research in compatible areas. Members proposed using the facilities of the independent Charles Stark Draper Laboratory in Cambridge for research and access to classified material. The heads of both laboratories were consulted in the process, according to acknowledgements in the report.
"We do not recommend that MIT provide facilities for storage and access of classified materials on the MIT campus," the committee added.
In the case of extraordinary national events, such as "the need for forensic analysis of biological materials," the committee recommended that MIT allow its unique campus facilities and expertise to be used for a short-term response to national emergencies.
Such an exception would require the permission of the provost, in consultation with a new standing faculty committee the report recommended which would monitor evolving federal legislation, any exception to MIT policy, and any issue of openness of research that might come to its attention concerning research sponsored by government or industry.
The panel supported the current MIT policy for on-campus research of not accepting prior review for possible disclosure of "sensitive information." The committee also expressed the view that restrictions on handling select agents may cause MIT to withdraw from affected areas of research.
[A version of this article appeared in the June 12, 2002 issue of MIT Tech Talk (Volume 46, Number 34).]