Allsopp, Bangert, Baroni, Bley-Vroman, Bridges, Brown, Comcowich, Cox, Diamond, Duffy, Ericson, Efird, Fassiotto, Fritzinger, Fujimoto, Haig, Halagao, Hawkins, Hudson, Inazu, Kamakawiwoole, Kazman, Kent, Kipnis, Lampe, Liebert, Lorenzo, Magaard, Manshardt, Mark, Minatodani, Nitz, Paull, Port, Rieder, Russo, Rutter, Scanlon, Shiramizu, Sipes, Staff, Stark, Stimson, Tiles, Valliant, Weinstein, Yates
Buenconsejo-Lum, Chang, Coimbra, Decarlo, DeMattos, Donegan, Garcia, Greene, Herring, Hijirida, Kennedy, Lee (L), Lee (M.T.), Lopes, Madey, Raleigh, Ramos, Sanders, Skouge, Stodden, Ward, Weems, Yu
Baker, Bingham, Fryer, Grandy, Roberts-Marlow, Sansone, Satsuma, Weiczorek, Yuen
Ex Officio: Neal Smatresk
Invited Chancellors & Other Administrators: Denise Konan, Myrtle Yamada
Chair Robert Bley-Vroman called the meeting called to order at 3:06 p.m.
1. The Chair introduced Chancellor Konan who had asked to make remarks. She thanked the MFS and the MFS Chair for their respective roles in the UARC decision, and noted that the decision had been difficult for her. In some ways it took on a meaning that went well beyond the contract itself. She hopes that administration and the Senate will together find ways to be constructive in moving on in positive ways.
Konan noted that the UARC discussion had brought out tensions and disagreements across the faculty and campus community. She noted that the academic and instructional mission of the university is critically important and under-funded. She is trying to address these needs to some degree in the year of student initiative. But, the university also has an important research mission, with researchers working under less-than-ideal conditions. Because the researchers have worked so hard the infrastructure has expanded dramatically and is now near capacity. Konan promised to share some new ideas in January and noted that recent strategic planning highlighted research as a major concern on campus. The research enterprise deserves respect and a continuing concern for research scholarship. Konan noted that people think about research differently in different colleges, and we need to together build understanding and respect for these perspectives. Konan would like to establish a commission on research.
Konan noted that the university does little to advertise and promote ourselves; thus, the stellar quality of our research is unknown, and promotion is very uneven. She has been talking to the deans and directors about building more public support and they are very enthusiastic. Konan believes that the tone and quality of campus dialogue improved this semester from what it had been the last couple of years, but UARC also pointed out the need to find more constructive ways to disagree. Konan wants to hear from any faculty directly adversely impacted by her UARC decision.
Next semester, she wants to continue to build a functional chancellor's office and to form a council on sustainability which faculty can serve on. Also in the works is a campus environment committee to improve our physical plant, focused on building pride in the campus. Konan recently visited UC Irvine student housing to see what our new housing contractor has done there. She was impressed at those efforts to build community and hopes for similar success on our lower campus.
2. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes of the November 16, 2005 meeting were approved with a few corrections. The Chair stated that any minor corrections found later should be emailed to the Secretary (firstname.lastname@example.org).
3. Chairs Report:
3.1 UARC: Bley-Vroman stated he needed to comment on the UARC decision. Some faculty have asked what it would take for the decision to be reversed. He described two possible ways: A resolution could be introduced to rescind, or 100 faculty signatures on a petition submitted within a certain timeframe would bring the matter before the Faculty Congress for a second vote that would include all faculty. To correct earlier information given out, instead of a 10-day window for such a petition, there is a 14-day window, which started when the decision was published in News@UH on Dec. 5. Thus, a petition received by December 19 would be necessary for Congress to take action.
3.2 Funding Concerns and a Cultural Split Among Faculty: Bley-Vroman shared a statement he had written. The full text follows:
A number of University research faculty, especially in the organized research units, are responsible, as a part of their normal job expectations, for obtaining funding--often full funding--for their own salaries, and also for the support of research units that indirectly support many others, including graduate students and regular employees. Their research requires expensive equipment and infrastructure which must be externally funded.
In contrast, other faculty members, especially faculty in traditional "instructional" Arts and Sciences departments do not bear a burden of bringing in external money as part of their core responsibility. For them, there are few sources of large-scale external funding, and they themselves frequently pay their personal research expenses out of their own pockets (their research is "self-funded"), or the more modest funding needs are expected to be met from internal university sources. (These faculty also tend to be paid less.) If they obtain external grants, that is of course admired, but it is not absolutely essential.
This split among types of faculty affected attitudes toward the UARC proposal. Those faculty and administrators deeply involved with obtaining external funding tended to see it as a funding vehicle, generally to favor it, or at least not to oppose it on principle, concentrating instead on its technical advantages and disadvantages. Those few faculty in this group who actively opposed the proposal did so because they thought it had technical features that might not promote--indeed might threaten--their own military-related work or its eventual commercialization.
Faculty of the other type were less inclined to view the proposal simply as a funding vehicle. Those in this group tend to be much less well-acquainted with the realities of funded research and especially about the sorts of research supported by defense-funded science agencies and the ways in which researchers interact with these agencies. When they think of defense funding, they may often think of weapons. They saw the proposal in ethical terms; they considered it in light of the freedom not to be told what to research and the freedom to publish freely; they were concerned about the "encroachment" of the military into academia, and into Hawaii.
Faculty dependent on external funding are worried that their own freedom to pursue research might be threatened by the moral scruples of others--others who seem quite naive, even misguided, about the research. These research faculty see refusal of support for defense-funded science as part of a larger threat to academic freedom, from creationism, religious fundamentalism, politics of both the left and right, jingoism, etc. More concretely, they are worried about future sources of funding, which their jobs and those of their research groups depend on. (End of text).
Prof. Diamond (JABSOM) commented that it would be good to have organized debates when we have complex conflicts such as UARC. Bley-Vroman commented that the real action is in standing committees. Certain committees might recommend, or SEC could propose restructuring certain actions.
3.3 Changes in Degree-Granting Text (Chair's Report, continued): Bley-Vroman stated that the SEC had recommended changes in the wording for granting a degree. Chancellor Konan approved. (New text to be inserted).
3.4 Areas of Principle:
Bley-Vroman stated he had been reflecting on five principles relating to research and future deliberations. He wrote and wished to share the following text:
The administration's proposal for a Navy UARC prompted a campus- and community-wide debate that touches on important matters of the acceptability of military-funded research, the role of the academy in developing weaponry, the extent to which the existence and nature of projects can be kept secret, and the right and responsibility of individual faculty members to set their own research agenda and to develop effective relationships with funding sources.
It is too easy for larger issues of principle to get lost in the sometimes acrimonious debates about a particular proposal, the way it was presented, and the people that participated in the discussion. By tying our rhetoric too much to an individual case, we may miss the larger picture. By focusing on the larger picture, we may be able to find common ground and agreement on certain general principles, even when maintaining differing views on others and disagreeing about a particular case or the way it has been handled.
As I have listened to debates and discussed these matters with colleagues of varying views, I have discerned about five broad areas of principle. In some cases, there are positions which I believe are widely, though perhaps not universally accepted.
1. Funding sources. Is the decision to accept or not to accept funding from a particular source or funding vehicle entirely the prerogative of an individual faculty member? I believe that the consensus view is yes. In particular, University policy must not impose blanket constraints on accepting funding from military or intelligence sources, or from the defense establishment, broadly construed.
2. Purpose of research. In general, faculty members use their own judgement in deciding what topics to research. Nonetheless, some faculty feel that it is inappropriate for research directly related to weapons development to take place under University auspices. In particular, some think that University policy must definitely prevent the acceptance of research projects intended to develop military weapons that promote the destruction of human life or the incapacitation of human beings. It is not clear to me whether it there is widespread consensus on this matter, or whether the concept of "military weapon" can be defined with enough precision to make the statement of a policy in this area possible. Nevertheless, some universities have attempted to do so.
a. Informed discussion within the University concerning the appropriateness and significance of research requires such information about what sort of research is in fact being done. Therefore, for every research project undertaken at the University, the University must be able to disclose the existence of the project, the identity of the sponsor, and the general purpose and scope of the research. b. There is widespread agreement that University policy must be written and procedures implemented that are consistent with the Senate resolution of March 2005 regarding publication-restricted research and also with other applicable Senate resolutions. c. Some research projects which require security clearance on the part of the investigator(s). There is probably consensus that the researcher has the freedom to accept such projects, as long as such research is otherwise consistent with University policy.
Some feel that a system of faculty oversight should be set up to ensure that research undertaken by the University is consistent with policy; faculty members participating in this oversight system should not require security clearance.
5. Freedom act in a private capacity.
Nothing in University policy should restrict the research of faculty members acting in their private capacity and outside the University as consultants to off-campus agencies and organizations. (End of text.)
Bley-Vroman suggested these points be further explored at a later time.
4. Resolution on Distance Learning Graduate Certificate Program on Telecommunications and Entrepreneurship:
The text was presented by CAPP Chair Fujimoto. Discussion ensued with faculty members Port (CBA), Weinstein (SOC), Kipnis (PHIL), Bley-Vroman, Brown (A & H), (?)Weems (CTAHR), and Lampe (NS) commenting. There was some confusion as to the purpose of the resolution; some thought it was about how to put on a distance learning program, rather than a structured program There is currently a Graduate Certificate in Telecommunication and Information Resource Management that may be to some degree overlapping or competing. Fujimoto commented that there is some problem on campus with unapproved certificates. In becoming an official approved program, the program will show on a student's transcript.
By voice vote, the resolution passed with none (0) opposed and 3 abstentions.
5. CAPP Law and Society Undergraduate Certificate Proposal: The text was presented by CAPP Chair Fujimoto, who noted a few minor corrections. Minatodani (LIB & IFS) commented she was glad to see a statement about library support, but unfortunately the statement is not entirely accurate. In fact the library may not have the appropriate books and journals needed to support the program. Fujimoto responded that emails to several of library faculty who had been asked to address resources, and no problems were mentioned. Diamond (JABSOM) stated library resource access is a touchy subject. A few years ago, he tried to use the law library but couldn't get access because he isn't a law faculty. This hasn't changed.
Minatodani moved to change the wording. Fujimoto says if the statement isn't true, it should be struck. It was moved and seconded that this "whereas" statement be struck. In favor of amendment by voice vote, it appeared to pass with 2 abstentions. However, as there were some nays, the Chair asked to recount hands and the tally was 27 in favor, 3 opposed, 2 abstentions.
The discussion returned to the resolution:
Kipnis (PHIL) noted that he regularly teaches law/society issues and wanted to find out more about the administration of this certificate. How will the list of courses be administered? Philosophy is not listed, and he is not asking that his department be added. But to whom would one go regarding administration, such as to add a course to the designated list later?
Fujimoto responded that additions/changes would be handled by a committee.
A voice vote was taken and the resolution passed with unanimous approval.
6. CPM Resolution on Non-Permanent Resident Faculty:
Rick Case, CBA, asked to waive reading the text aloud; the Senate concurred. He stated that green card processing time has been increasing dramatically, and it sometimes is still in process after a faculty member's probationary period. Existing policy does not allow a faculty member to be tenured prior to receiving approve the immigration status of legal permanent resident. There is a reason: a person without a resident status can't be employed in the US in a permanent position. However, other universities do offer tenure/promotion to those in pending green card status. Case noted that there is a bewildering set of federal rules and procedures related to this matter and that there is a definite need to improve the university's services because some senior faculty have had to wait for tenure for several years.
Discussion ensued with Prof. Mince, Kipnis, Maggard (SOEST), Staff (OSA), Comcowich (SOEST), Paull (CTAHR), Lampe and VC Smatresk contributing. All were in favor of the spirit of the resolution, but there was general agreement that the current language was too detailed, too legally imprecise, and could not be implemented. Several faculty suggested amendments to remove various clauses and whereas statements. Smatresk noted that he had tried last year to get the BOR interested in supporting conditional tenure, but it didn't go anywhere. He commented it could be expensive and tricky. Several faculty mentioned the possible role of UHPA in this area. Mary Tiles (UHPA) was present and stated that if MFS favored changing the tenure eligibility, then UHPA would be empowered to push for this and would follow up.
The CPM Chair stated he wanted to table the motion until next semester and discuss it with administration to come up with a more acceptable resolution. Bley-Vroman asked for unanimous consent to defeat all amendments so that postponing the issue can occur. It was moved and seconded to refer the resolution and suggested amendments back to committee with instructions that a revised resolution be prepared.
Magaard (SOEST) asked to make a historical remark. He was hired as an alien in 1975 without a green card. Soon after, there was a personal agreement between Harold Matsumoto and the director of INS to implement the policy that is now in effect. This agreement is not a requirement under federal law.
Lampe stated he was against deferring because he thinks the resolution could be cleaned up today.
Ward (JABSOM) asked if the resolution was for Manoa or the system? Kipnis stated he supports putting it back to the committee and asked if Smatresk could help the committee. Hawkins (LLL) noted her department was unfamiliar with this problem, and stated it should go back to committee. Case noted there are people on the committee who have had this problem. Port agreed that he strongly supported it going back to committee to sort out the complexities. M. Tiles also said she favors it going back committee since we need a resolution with clear language so we can go to the regents with solid support.
The vote was called and the motion passed.
In favor 34; opposed 3; 0 abstain.
7. CoR Resolution on Freedom to do Research:
The CoR chair stated he was asked by SEC to come up with Resolution and it was written in less than a day. There is concern in the research community on the future of research at UH. CoR wants to allay concerns. Many believe there is no cause for alarm; another group says MFS is not a place for solution. The chair asked the Senate to support this resolution as an effort to rebuild the bridge between a divided community of scholars.
Brown (A&H) supports the spirit; but questions the fourth paragraph wording. One could say "limits in teaching and research" to eliminate the dichotomy. It was moved and seconded to amend in this way.
Tiles suggested deleting references to teaching if the resolution is about research. Magaard stated that teaching and research are inseparable. Ward suggested removing the phrase "within the limits of law" since it is implied and unnecessary. Efird mentioned that stem cell research is limited by federal law.
Bley-Vroman called for a vote on the amendment; it passed.
In favor of the amendment: 17
Fujimoto noted that the resolution has no "resolved" clause. Kent (SOC SCI) commented that the resolution is a libertarian and extreme approach, without responsibility and accountability. He suggested striking the word "unfettered" and adding some text on responsibility. Fujimoto pointed out that the word unfettered was used in previous values statements. Tiles asked if the resolution was really an amendment to the 2002 resolution or a re-affirmation in part, wondering if the earlier amendment was inadequate? Lampe suggested that in light of the 2002 resolution on the same matter, this resolution should go back to the CoR for more work and to clarify what is new and how this new text relates to the earlier text. He so moved and it was seconded. A vote was called; it passed.
32 favored sending it back
8. New Business: Kipnis Resolution
Kipnis asked the Senate to recognize and congratulate Chair Bley-Vroman for his even handed approach over the last few months. He suggested the following resolution be passed.
"The Manoa Faculty Senate formally acknowledges the exemplary service of Robert Bley-Vroman, Chair of the Manoa Faculty Senate, and congratulates him for his evenhanded and judicious leadership."
Bley-Vroman reminded the Senate that at least 2/3 of senators must approve considering. Lampe asked if the senate could approve by acclimation. The above resolution was unanimously approved.
9.SEC Resolution on Legislative Budget:
Tiles read the proposed resolution and asked for approval by acclimation. He stated the resolution was uncontroversial and that we should forward it on to the legislature; it was approved unanimously by acclimation.
The chair stated that people were leaving and there would not be a quorum for any other business. Therefore the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.