Delayed by the slow exit of another group from 139 Social Sciences, the February Arts and Sciences Council meeting was convened somewhat belatedly  by its Surrogate Chair, Prof. Zannie Voss (Theater Studies) at 3:45 p.m.  Prof. Voss then reported that because the Council’s January meeting had been declared an executive session so as to encourage freer discussion of sensitive subjects, not only by Council members but also by visiting members of the faculty, the minutes of that meeting were not being circulated.  They had, however, been duly approved at the subsequent meeting of the Executive Committee of the Council on 15 February.

Prof. Voss next invited Vice Provost Judith Ruderman (Academic and Administrative Services) to address the Council on “Gearing Up for Review by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.”   Because a technical snafu made her power-point presentation impossible, Prof. Ruderman gamely proceeded to explain in some detail that the review required by SACS, undertaken every ten years, was required by all schools—large and small, public and private—in our region.  The process would extend over two or more years, and Duke was expected to have official reaffirmation of accreditation some time in 2009.  Having been Duke’s liaison to SACS and director of the process a decade ago, Prof. Ruderman would once again provide oversight.  Three committees had already begun their work: (1) the Leadership Team, consisting of the president, the provost, and other faculty members, students, and administrators, (2) the Compliance Certification Team, and (3) the Assessment and Working Group.  During the assessing, all of the departments and all of the professional schools, in fact every part and aspect of Duke, would be under scrutiny, from the financial health of the University to the nature and quality of student learning, undergraduate and graduate alike.  In short, Duke University would be accredited as a whole.

In gearing up for  the review, Duke had already begun to identify topics for a “quality enhancement plan.”  One of these concerned balancing the University’s roles as both a research and a teaching institution, and another how to fulfill its goal of focusing on and capitalizing on serious interdisciplinarity.  Other topics proposed thus far included:

>Making the most of a student’s final year

>Advancing knowledge in service to society

>Integrating disciplinary and interdisciplinary learning

>Maximizing the possibilities of a new Central Campus

>Exploring cross-institutional partnerships

>Re-visiting faculty-student relations

     (For a complete list, please see attachment on website.)

The process of collecting topics was currently underway, and Vice Provost Ruderman asked Council members, “What do you think of these subjects?  What will take us forward?”

Prof. Peter McIsaac (Germanic Languages and Literature) inquired whether Duke had responded to such issues as had been raised during the past review.

Associate Vice Provost Lee Willard remarked that the whole process was important for discerning and working toward particular goals, and, yes, the last review had had tangible and worthwhile results.  Moreover, UNC-CH had gone through the process recently and found the process was useful for them.

Prof. David Malone (Education) pointed out that the currently operative Strategic Plan appeared to bear a rather close relationship to some of the themes now being put forward.

Dean Margaret Riley (Study Abroad) suggested and hoped that some good and relevant ideas might be forthcoming from the recommendations of the current Campus Culture Initiative. 

There being no further comments on the subject, Prof. Voss thanked Vice Provost Ruderman for her spirited and “non-dry” remarks on “gearing up” for the review.

Next on the agenda was Ms. Michele L. Jones (Administrative Assistant, Office of the Divisional Deans), who came forward to describe and explain some of the details regarding the oncoming election of both a new Council chairperson and a number of new representatives from various departments. To facilitate the latter, all chairs would be notified by e-mail if their departments should be electing (or perhaps re-electing)  representatives.  The election itself would commence on Thursday, 1 March 2007, and close on Saturday, 31 March 2007, and  anyone who encountered trouble with the voting process was urged to contact Ms. Jones by e-mail (mljones@duke.edu) or by telephone (668-2728).

Moving on to the final item on the Council’s agenda, Prof. Suzanne Shanahan (Sociology) came forward to report on the findings of the faculty’s Joint Committee on Student Affairs and Athletics.  Reporting to  both  the Arts and Sciences Council and the Engineering Faculty Council, the Joint Committee had taken as its central theme the statement that “a stronger faculty voice in both student life and athletics would be helpful”–thus echoing the words that had been addressed to President Richard Brodhead by William Bowen (former president of Princeton)  and  Julius Chambers (former Chancellor of NCCU) in May of 2006.  The report now being presented to the Arts and Sciences Council was, in fact, entitled “A Stronger Faculty Voice: Engaged Teachers in Duke’s Community of Learning.”  The Joint Committee had been co-chaired by Prof. William Reichert (Biomedical Engineering) and Prof. Emeritus Peter Wood (History), and Prof. Shanahan herself, a member of ECASC, had served as one of the other members of the Joint Committee.    

Prof. Shanahan began by observing that the Joint Committee had “not agreed on much.”  There had been “little consensus.”  One of the major things that everyone did agree on, however, was that they were proud to be at Duke University.  As Prof. Kathy Rudy (Women’s Studies) had put it, “I am really lucky to be here.”  A second and also major point of agreement was that Duke’s faculty needed to be more engaged with “the whole student.” Prof. Shanahan therefore requested specifically that this be put into the record.

Prof. Wood then addressed the Council, pointing out that because the Joint Committee had not wanted to dilute its main message with too many details, its final report had proved to be “marvelously short.” 

Regarding faculty growth at Duke, he stated as a fact that “We have got both bigger and better.”  On the other hand, members of the faculty had come to dwell in separate “silos” that were not communicating at all well with one another.  Events in the Spring of 2006 had revealed and emphasized this problem.  Among the unfortunate effects of becoming “bigger and better” was a reduction of faculty involvement in undergraduate education.  The faculty was now in the process of discovering that “It’s not that easy to engage with pupils.”  Moreover, in our efforts to be scholars, we are already  “stretched thin.”  We need to become more mutually supportive and learn to talk with one another, but above all “Our central mission is to be good teachers.”

In the Spring of 2006 “We didn’t even know where to dial,” but now “We are at a crossroads” and in a position to choose directions.  We have become aware that we need to work together and guard against a “two-tiered” faculty.  It is clear now that the faculty as a whole must take a stronger role.  Prof. Wood himself most certainly did not see the committee’s recommendations as mere “window dressing.”  In fact, he believed that paying heed to them would be essential for building a stronger and better university.

Prof. William Reichert (Biomedical Engineering), co-chair of the Committee on Student Affairs and Athletics, observed that Duke University’s many divisions had become “fractionated” and that “One way we could go would be just to stay split.”  Clearly “It is very hard to put Humpty Dumpty together again.”  Nevertheless the committee had come to the major decision that there was a very real need to get the faculty involved in governance.  More specifically, the Joint Committee on Student Affairs and Athletics  had produced the following six recommendations:

(1)  Revise incentives regarding faculty leaves and teaching loads to make possible greater student-faculty engagement while still encouraging strong scholarly work.

(2)  Support and reward faculty service, as well as research and teaching, but streamline committee work in ways that waste less time and give individuals greater responsibility.

(3)  Work to assure greater faculty involvement, with responsible annual reporting, in the oversight structures related to Admissions, Athletics, and Student Affairs.

(4)  Given current admission policies, work to see that academically under-prepared students are given appropriate guidance and support both to ready themselves for the academic demands they will face and to earn the full measure of a Duke education.

(5) Ask academic deans and the athletic department to develop policies that will increase the opportunities for student athletes to excel in their class work.  These policies should, at a minimum, curtail the expanding time demands on student athletes by putting limits on extra and “voluntary” practices, reducing nonseason team travel, and requiring that game and practice schedules be set well before the advising period and class registration.

(6) In the interest of creating greater dialogue, understanding, and shared responsibility, set up in-house “external review committees,” made up of teaching faculty, to assess the Athletic Department and Student Affairs, reporting on strengths, weaknesses, and possible reforms.  Each committee should address a different important topic each year, such as Scheduling, Tier-by-Tier review, Judicial Affairs, Housing, and Greek Life.

The meeting then being opened for comments and questions, Prof. Paul Manos (Biology) asked “Are we hearing from the undergraduates?”  Prof. Wood: Yes, “a lot of student engagement” is resulting from the current Campus Culture Initiative.

Prof. Janes Gaines (Literature): Who charged this committee?  Various voices replied that Prof. Lee Baker, on behalf of the Arts and Sciences Council, had done so.  Prof. Gaines: And where do the recommendations go from here?  Are there to be some specific incentives to encourage faculty members to work toward these goals? 

Prof. Wood: Inner structures vary greatly from department to department, so such questions are difficult to answer in a general way.

Prof. Shanahan reminded the Council that Dean George McLendon had already and repeatedly expressed not only interest but also supportiveness regarding these matters. 

It was also pointed out that the Joint Committee’s report would be presented to the Engineering Faculty Council and, if approved, forwarded to Dean Kristina Johnson (School of Engineering).

It appeared to Prof. Malone that “There could be a real opportunity here.”  In order that the recommendations of the Joint Committee not be merely archived, however, the Council needed to consider how to “move to action steps.”

Dean Nowicki assured the Council that since it was an advisory body to the Dean of Arts and Sciences, and since Dean McLendon had already expressed positive interest in these matters, the Council might well go on record as endorsing the Joint Committee’s recommendations.

Prof. Robert Korstad (Sanford Institute of Public Policy) suggested that the faculty seemed to have delegated the Council’s powers to the Dean. Such action might suggest that the Council was “not happy with a governing role.”  Perhaps “we need to re-organize.”  Duke in the past had had a much more vocal faculty–e.g., back in the days when the faculty debated whether or not to welcome Richard Nixon’s presidential papers to Duke.  Somewhere along the line we “have ceded what should be our role.”

Dean Nowicki: This Arts and Sciences Council has done some fine work, and Dean McLendon has the power to enact some of its recommendations.  The report now before the Council could mark the beginning of a very positive and powerful message in a climate that is both listening and receptive.

Prof. Gaines asked that it be written into the record that Prof. Ronald Witt (History) once noted that Duke’s faculty had not been strong since the Nixon library struggle.  After that, there was a drop-off, “a  trickling down to nothing.”      Prof. Gaines was further concerned that at present “The usual suspects are always chosen to be on the committees.” 

Prof. Voss responded smilingly that during her current term of searching for candidates and structuring committees on the Council she had not only worked hard but also managed to acquire “a lot of new blood” on the Council’s quite numerous committees.  She assured Council members that she had gone out of her way to “find new people,” and, frankly, that had sometimes proved to be very difficult. 

In agreement, Dean Nowicki went so far as to say that some members of the faculty had abrogated their responsibility.

Prof. Wood had another sort of observation: he felt that the faculty needed to become much better about extracting information from the Council’s representatives.  Concomitantly, some Council members needed to become much more vocal and  consistent about passing on information to the people they represented.  Either that or they should abandon their posts and let different members step forward.

Following Prof. Wood’s bracing comments, and with general agreement that all of the afternoon’s information and commentary would be forwarded to Dean McLendon for his lucubration, the February meeting of the Council was brought to a close shortly before five p.m.              

Respectfully submitted,

Dale B. J. Randall

Executive Secretary

 

Caveat: All murmurers and shy speakers who lower their voices discreetly or forget to give their names and departments are urged to be forgiving with regard to all misattributions, non-attributions, and misinterpretations herein and henceforward.

The situation is especially dire when, as in this February meeting, both the audio and visual systems are out of commission.