skip page navigationOregon State University
OSU Home.|Calendar.|Find Someone.|Maps.|Site Index.

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » May 4, 2000

Faculty Senate Minutes

2000 No. 557
May 4, 2000

For All Faculty

The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order on May 4, 2000, at 3:00 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center by President Gordon Matzke. There were no corrections to the minutes of April 2000.

Meeting Summary

– Discussion Item: Difference, Power and Discrimination Report, A. Walker
– Special Reports: University Goals - Compelling Learning Experience, K. Schaffer; and Valley Library Journal Cancellations, K. Butcher
– Action Items: None
– New Business: None

Roll Call

Members Absent With Representation:
Obermiller, B. Rettig; Sproul, M. Legler; and Witters, C. Vasconcelos.

Members Absent Without Representation:
Abbott, Ahern, Arp, Braker, Breen, Brooks, Bruce, Cluskey, Cornell, Cromack, DeCarolis, Downing, Freitag, Gamroth, Green, Gregory, Hardin, Hoogesteger, Horne, Jepson, Jimmerson, Kerkvliet, King, Ladd, Lomax, McDaniel, Merickel, Mix, Murphy, Nelson, Plant, Powelson, Raja, Reed, Rosenberger, Scott, Sorte, Stang, Strik, Tesch, Trehu, Tynon, J. White, Winner, and Yim.

Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-Officios and Staff Present:
G. Matzke, President; H. Sayre, President-Elect; K. Williamson, Immediate Past President; Ex-officios: T. White, C. DeKock, and P. Risser; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Staff.

Guests of the Senate:
G. Beach, R. Brumley, L. Burns, K. Butcher, I. Delson, B. Edwards, C. Jones, C. Ottow, M. Scanlan, K. Schaffer, and K. Willingham.


Difference, Power and Discrimination Report

Alexis Walker, Difference, Power and Discrimination (DPD) Task Force Chair, discussed the recommendations and report related to the DPD Baccalaureate Core requirement. The Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) has endorsed the DPD Task Force recommendations.

Walker noted several concerns the task force wanted discussed. One concern relates to the DPD recommendation that the course have a United States focus. She explained that this focus was approved by the Senate in May 1992. This focus does not mean the entire course must be exclusively focused on the U.S. and she stated that the course can draw from experiences in other countries. She noted that one of the criteria states that historical issues must be brought to the forefront. Reasons to maintain the U.S. focus include students indicating a need to focus attention on contemporary society and students desiring an emphasis directly related to their everyday life. Some disciplines may have difficulty incorporating into the DPD, but the DPD seminar would help to bring the content to the U.S. experience. She also noted that there are other categories in the Baccalaureate Core that provide non-U.S. experiences.

Walker also mentioned that a new Baccalaureate Core category in which to place DPD is being proposed. She noted that the BCC endorsed the proposed criteria and rationale, but neither endorsed nor disagreed with the separate category. After examining the purpose of DPD and the means for which to achieve the purpose, the group felt that the proposal would not fit very well in the current categories since Perspectives courses are about skills, particular disciplines, and interrelationships among disciplines (DPD is beyond that); and Synthesis courses do not focus on difference and power. In addition, the BCC currently approves Perspectives courses only at the lower division and DPD courses should also be available at the upper division. Walker noted that DPD courses were originally approved as both lower and upper division in 1992, but have been only approved at the lower division with the change in BCC membership. The task force feels that the Senate should decide whether a category should be offered at upper or lower division.

Irma Delson, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, suggested DPD in the U.S. or DPD - An American Perspective as an alternative title since the current title implies something much broader than it actually is. She did not disagree with the content or intent. Walker responded that the title had not been discussed.

Senator Landau, Science, felt that the program could be stronger and made less-self-contradictory if #4 was changed to draw attention to activities in the U.S. He sees #4 "focus primarily on the United States, although global contexts are encouraged", to be contradictory with the aspiration to "free people's minds from ignorance, prejudice, and provincialism and to stimulate a lasting attitude of inquiry." Walker noted that the aspiration comes from an OUS publication and applies to all higher education in the State of Oregon. Landau argued for as broad a view of diversity as possible. He recommended changing the wording in #4.

Jim Foster, Liberal Arts, explained that one of the original goals of Affirming Diversity (prior to the DPD title) was to create a safe space in the classroom for students to ‘think outside the cultural box’. He noted that these are transferable skills and not ethnocentric skills targeted strictly to American students. He argued that having a U.S. focus does not mean that it's about the U.S. For example, the U.S. treatment of particular ethnic groups can be combined with a discussion about the Holocaust.

Senator Shaw, Liberal Arts, spoke of DPD providing an opportunity for students to distance themselves from what is familiar. It also encourages mathematicians and scientists to think creatively.

Senator Robson, Science, suggested that there be an explicit requirement that the point of these classes is to confront and educate faculty and students about what is happening and how it relates to today and not to some historical facts.

Senator Tolar Burton, Liberal Arts, supported the proposed wording and argued that the category specialness of DPD is different because it is not presumed that faculty are already experts in this area.

Senator Gardner, Science, was opposed to the U.S. focus.

President-elect Sayre spoke in support of the proposal and encouraged faculty to view ‘U.S. focus’ broadly and generally.

Senator Wood, Health & Human Performance, supported the wording in #4 and suggested deleting the United States reference in #6 and #7 of the criteria.

Leslie Burns, Undergraduate Academic Programs, noted that there are areas in both Perspectives and Synthesis that focus on international issues.

Senator Lee, Associated, agreed that the issue is one of semantics. She felt there is a need to both include international perspectives and to be inclusive in all disciplines.

Walker emphasized that this course can be part of a university effort to respond to DPD issues, which are global.

The recommendations will be voted on at the June Faculty Senate meeting.


University Goals - Compelling Learning Experience

In the third, and final, report related to the University Goals, Dean Kay Schaffer, College of Liberal Arts, gave a progress report on the Compelling Learning Experience. All three task forces related to University Goals were established for "defining, refining, clarifying and communicating the University's three goals."

She explained that the Compelling Learning Task Force was appointed by former Provost Arnold in July 1999. The membership consists of: Andrew Hashimoto and Kay Schaffer (co-chairs), Leslie Burns, Joe Hendricks, Kathleen Moore, Donald Parker, Larry Roper, Kyle Shaver and Ariana Sulton (students), Janine Trempy, and Jack Van de Water. They were charged with "planning an appropriate strategy to enhance campus-wide understanding of the Compelling Learning Experience Goal and its implications for OSU's units, programs, services and activities."

Schaffer then reviewed the task force activities to date, including definitions and dimension, the focus and scope, and the task structure and components.

The focus and scope involves undergraduate and graduate students, as well as international and minority students.

The task structure included reviewing external reports, discussing the OSU culture and experience, and determining recommended actions and institutional commitments required.

The Task Force listed ten ways to change undergraduate education, some of which have already been implemented at OSU: 1) Make research-based learning the standard; 2) Construct an inquiry-based freshman year; 3) Build on the freshman foundation; 4) Remove barriers to interdisciplinary study; 5) Link communication skills and course work; 6) Use information technology creatively; 7) Capstone experience; 8) Educate graduate students as apprentice teachers; 9) Change faculty reward system; and 10) Cultivate a sense of community.

The actions recommended include:

1) Immediate and short-term (next two years) actions

a) Collaborative programs/workshops for OSU faculty, students, staff and administrators
b) Engage OSU faculty in process
c) Engage OSU students in process
d) Identify OSU's "best practices": build on our strengths/successes
1) Long-Range Plan (five years)
a) Establish benchmarks for measuring progress and change
b) Outcomes Assessment (exams, capstone courses, exit interviews, alumni surveys, etc.)
Institutional commitments required include:

1) Shared campus responsibility for student learning is necessary to make significant progress and build on existing strengths
a) Academic Affairs
b) Student Affairs
c) Faculty
d) Students
e) Staff
2) Align institutional planning and resource allocations with the learning mission. Use evidence of student learning to guide program improvement, planning and resource allocation.

Schaffer noted that, in terms of progress, OSU is doing very well, but could do better in some areas. She acknowledged that doing things better will mean making some hard decisions, but that students will ultimately benefit.

Senator Cloughesy, Forestry, was disturbed that this appeared to be focused on resident instruction. He argued that Extension, outreach, and continuing education can be just as compelling and, perhaps, more demanding. He encouraged the task force to look beyond resident instruction for examples of compelling learning. Schaffer responded that she did not mean to imply that it was limited to on-campus.

Senator Lee, Liberal Arts, questioned what is meant by a compelling learning experience when there are 150 students in a class. She noted that enrollment needs to be addressed in the report.

Senator Landau felt that the document focused primarily on undergraduates and noted that graduate students are very much a part of research institutions. Schaffer noted that the report will focus on both.

Valley Library Journal Cancellations

Karyle Butcher, University Librarian, discussed the proposed journal cancellations which can be found at:

She explained that it's necessary to cut journals since there is always a yearly 7% gap between budget increases of 3% and journal increases of 10%. In 1999-2000 the cost of the current journal subscriptions increased by $250,000 (approximately 10%).

Butcher noted that she is often asked why more journals are not available electronically. She explained that most electronic journals require that a paper journal also be kept, which results in no savings. In addition, many journals are not available electronically and some disciplines don't lend themselves to electronic versions.

She explained that when the building is paid off in October, some money from the campaign may be redirected to the library collections. The Valley Library will receive $200,000 in Technology Resource Fees this year and has requested $300,000 next year for collections. The current budget is slightly under $7 million, with about $4 million going for collections and the remainder goes toward services and supplies (technology) and salaries. The technology component allows the Valley Library to access ORBIS, which is an on-line catalog of most of the Oregon libraries and some in Washington.

Butcher explained that, without making any cuts, assuming that the budget increases 3% per year, journals increase 10%, and books increase 3%, by 2003/04 there will be a deficit of $959,000 resulting solely from price increases.

The primary reason for the journal cut is because for-profit publishers continue to control more of the journal publishing. Faculty relinquish their copyright when publishing through a for-profit publisher who then sells back to the institution at an inflated rate. When faculty published through associations, which are not-for-profit, the journal prices remained relatively low. She felt this was an academic problem that faculty need to be aware of and to work on resolving.

She noted that the problem of increasing journal costs is not unique to OSU and that the U of O is cutting $300,000 this year.

The Valley Library determined what to cut using statistics for journals that had generally low use and high cost. Journals for potential cancellation were selected according to the following criteria:

– Journal subscription costs over $2,800 per year; and
– Journal was on few or no faculty survey lists in 1998/99 journal review (faculty were asked to submit a personal list of journals important for their teaching and research); and
– Journal was rarely cited by OSU faculty (based on ISI journal citation report covering 1981-1995).
Senator Robson, Science, requested information on the plan to deal with the situation and to increase input and dialogue from faculty. Butcher responded that the dialogue is starting and encouraged faculty on editorial boards to talk about it at the editorial board level and go as far as resigning from the board in protest, as she has done. There is also a need to deal with issues surrounding electronic publishing, web publishing and promotion and tenure. She noted that faculty should not be penalized, in terms of promotion and tenure, for publishing electronically.

Senator Shor, Engineering, requested that a list of overly expensive for-profit publications be distributed; Butcher agreed that it would be.

In response to Senator Lee, Science, Butcher responded that there will be a $300,000 journal cut this year. They are working with PSU, OHSU and the U of O to share titles, but there are still more titles than available money.

Butcher explained that journal costs are not decreasing as a result of institutions canceling subscriptions since the primary market is pharmaceuticals and hospitals. She suggested that if faculty were to withdraw their product, editors would not have a journal to publish.

Butcher invited faculty to call her at 737-7300 with comments.


– Barbara Balz, Registrar, requested assistance from faculty to participate in Commencement. Since Commencement will consist of two ceremonies this year, participation from at least one faculty member from every department is critical.
– A proposed Department of Intercollegiate Athletics Mission Statement may be viewed on the web at Comments should be directed to Henry Sayre, NCAA Compliance Committee Chair for the Athletics Certification effort, at or 737-5018.


Interim Provost White's report included the following items:

The Post-Tenure Review document has been through review at the Chancellor's Office and will be available soon. A plan to engage in the process will be implemented for faculty affected by this document. He acknowledged that there is a defacto backlog which will require flexibility in implementing. He stated that OSU's document is very strong as compared to other OUS campuses.

The President's Cabinet retreat focusing on diversity was postponed to May 30.


President Matzke's report included the following items:

Faculty Salaries - Matzke noted that the salary increases at OSU (2% + 2%) were the lowest in OUS. Although the cell values were funded, no money went toward salary increases. The unionized faculty at PSU have noted that they could not figure out who they were negotiating with under the new budget model, whether it was the institution or the system. The lobbyists present at the recent joint AOF, AAUP, IFS meeting felt it would be more productive to negotiate directly with the legislature.

Education Issue - Faculty have informed Matzke that they are concerned about conversations surrounding restructuring of teacher education. There are a variety of plans and documents being discussed in relation to teacher education at OSU. Although Matzke has learned that there are ongoing conversations, President Risser has assured him that there is no plan in place regarding teacher education. Matzke encouraged faculty to contact him with rumors and he will follow-up on them.

PEBB - OUS will be held without harm in 2001 and basically the same package will be continued. OUS still has the option of changing providers and plans in the future.


There was no new business

Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted:

Vickie Nunnemaker
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant