Contact Stanford Report

TO THE MEMBERS OF
THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
THIRTY-FIFTH SENATE
Report No. 7

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, FEB. 6

1. At its meeting on Thursday, February 6, 2003, the Thirty-fifth Senate of the Academic Council heard reports but took no actions.

EDWARD D. HARRIS, JR., M.D.

Academic Secretary to the University

MINUTES, FEB. 6

Call to Order

Senate chair, Professor Henry Greely, gaveled in this session to order at 3:16 p.m., amidst general grumpy comments from senators and staff about how COLD it is in the Law School auditorium.

There were 27 voting members, 10 ex officio members, and several guests in attendance.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the meeting of the Senate on January 23, 2003 (SenD#5413) were accepted without comment or recommendations for change.

Action Calendar

No action items appeared on the action calendar

Steering Committee

Professor Greely reported on several items from past Senate meetings. He assured Senator Simoni that his concerns about room scheduling has been referred to C-USP... "along with the thought that it might be a good time for C-USP to think about the change that was at least allegedly made several years ago to try to move scheduling into more defined time blocks. It's not clear to the Steering Committee whether that happened, and whether it had good or bad results."

Greely was also happy to report that, after the report from Dr. Grace Chang on graduate student issues, that "...Professor Luis Fraga, chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies, has set up a new subcommittee to look at graduate study issues, particularly some of the issues that were raised by Dr. Chang's report."

As for the agendae for the remainder of the Senate meetings, Greely said, "At the next Senate session on February 20th, we will have an executive session with the report on mental health at Stanford, as well as review of our first two IDPs of the year. On March 6th, our last session of winter quarter, we will have a report from John Raisian, director of the Hoover Institute on the programs and plans for that Center. We will also have a short report from Mark Zoback, chair of the Planning and Policy Board on what it is doing, and another IDP report. On April 3rd we will have our executive session for spring quarter. The executive session is being planned as a panel discussion of the processes of faculty salary-setting. The Steering Committee predicts that the Senate will find this topic an interesting one.

"On April 17th we will have our first comprehensive review of the IHUM program, as well as a report on VPUE from our Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, John Bravman [who was shivering in his front row seat from blasts of cold, conditioned air]. The May 1st will be a short session because we have the Academic Council meeting that day, and it will be devoted primarily to a report from the Diversity Action Council on minority and other diversity issues in faculty recruiting, and other hiring policies and their results at Stanford.

"On May 15th, we will have a report from the Provost's Committee on the Status of Women Faculty, as well as one on current status and proposed changes, if any, in the GER system for undergraduate requirements. May 29th is the provost's budget report, which he may feel that he has given several times already this year, as well as a report on last year's committee realignment that produced C-RUM and C-USP from C-AAA and C-US. Our final session on June 12th will be a short one because of the traditional reception with the trustees that follows. We plan to have a report on the effects of college admission standards and requirements on high school life."

Committee on Committees

The chair of CoC, Professor David Kreps reported that he was "sorry to have to announce two members of the Planning and Policy Board, Claude Steele, and Linda Darling-Hammond have found it necessary to step down from the committee. But, we are fortunate to replace them with John Baugh, from the School of Education, and David Brady, from practically everywhere!"

Reports from President Hennessy and Provost Etchemendy

President Hennessy had no report and there were no questions for him. The Provost admitted that he had been spending much time on the budget and on the Capital Plan...and had nothing else to report. There were no questions for him, either. "A first?" wondered Greely.

Open Forum

The Senate awakened from its silent acceptance of all that was going on. Dean Sharon Long asked, "Has the University received feedback about the discussion and the resolutions either related to the national security issues from two sessions ago, or to the support for the University of Michigan in the affirmative action case? Have we feedback from other institutions? As they say, 'what is the word on the street?'"

Chairman Greely answered that he had not received any feedback as Senate chair on either of those actions. President Hennessy answered that "we have been in conversations with a number of our peer institutions about the preparation of various briefs for the University of Michigan case. But that's probably the limit of the conversation there. And I haven't received any feedback about the national security issues."

Greely did point out that "there was a very nice story about the Patriot Act-related resolution in the Stanford Daily, in which, according to the reporter, who did a very thorough job, we appear to have been the only university thus far to have taken a position on this. In interviewing and talking to people from other universities, the main reaction the reporter received was, 'Gosh, what a great idea. Maybe we should do that, too!' We have not yet received any response to the letter sent personally from the Academic Secretary and me, accompanying a copy of the resolution, to about 100 people. We sent it to the entire California delegation in Congress, the chairs of the most significant committees in Congress, the President, the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Security Advisor (who, I think, remembers us), Governor Davis, a number of university presidents and chancellors, and heads of academic associations. I rather hope that out of a hundred, we'll hear something back from someone."

Changing the subject, Professor Karl Blume commented that, "I cannot claim to have a representative sample, but those members of the professoriate in the Medical Center Line that I spoke to deeply appreciated the positive decision by the Senate to grant them privileges to be principal investigators."

Dean Pamela Matson asked whether Stanford has a voice about the funding of the Palo Alto School District, particularly since so many faculty and staff families are parts of that system?

President Hennessy replied that, "We have considered that and have prepared a letter to go to the governor arguing that the University's interest in this is that the retention and recruitment of high-quality staff and faculty is dependent on a high-quality school system, and that the budget cuts proposed would clearly damage the quality of the Palo Alto as well as the Menlo Park school system. We have made the argument that way rather than try to weigh in on the fairness of this versus other alternative budget tradeoffs, where we're clearly not the experts."

Dean Matson was pleased. "Right, that's the argument I would want to see us make."

Adding to the discussion, the Provost said, "I might mention something that's not very widely known. Last year, I wrote a $10 million check to the school board. The Stanford West complex pays property taxes specifically to support the school district, although that's in some sense a voluntary decision on my part. We think that because we have children of our families there that are using the Palo Alto school district, and it is the right thing to do."

Greely, knowledgeable about these things, asked "Is it also not the case that Stanford land is used for five or six local public schools... both of the Palo Alto high schools and several elementary schools?"

"Five," replied the Provost.

Other Reports

Report from Director of Public Safety Laura Wilson SenD#5390

Chairman Greely introduced Chief Wilson, apologizing for bumping her from the first scheduled time on November 21st. "I thank her for her forbearance and her willingness to come back. Chief Wilson graduated in Human Biology from Stanford in 1981. She has been with the department for a decade, and was named last year head of the department after the retirement of longtime chief Marv Herrington and the subsequent tragic death of his successor, Marvin Moore. The Steering Committee thought that it would be useful for the Senate to get acquainted with and learn more about Chief Wilson, her philosophy, and plans for her department." Greely added that the Steering Committee was particularly interested in having her address the problems of bicycle safety, particularly "...after the very tragic death of the little girl, Amy Maltzbender very close to campus last week in a bicycle accident."

The expectation of most citizens for the appearance of a police chief is someone like...well...Athletic Director Leland. Not so at Stanford. Laura Wilson is small and lithe. She began, "Given your schedule for the remainder of the year, I'm very honored to be able to have some time to speak with you.

"As mentioned, I graduated in 1991 with a degree in Human Biology. Like many Stanford students, I thought I was going to be a doctor. However, I took a lot of different classes and when I graduated, I had absolutely no idea what I was going to do when I grew up. In college, I had worked for the Athletic Department, so it is appropriate that Ted Leland is speaking today as well. I did actually leave the University for a short period of time, working in outdoor education and at the Stanford Sierra camp during the winter. But, I always migrated back here, working for the athletic department where I seemed to set off alarms quite often. The police would respond, and that is literally how I got involved in police work!

"I was more or less recruited into the business and my first response was, 'No... no way! Thank you very much, but police work is the last thing I would ever want to do with myself.'

"However, a little peer pressure and the need to put food into my body and a roof over my head convinced me to try it." At the beginning, she did not enjoy law enforcement, but after getting started, and issuing her first ticket (to a poor soul with a burnt out brake light) she eased into her new life, and "the rest is history. Part of the reason I stayed in police work is that four or five years into my career, I became a training officer, and could have the opportunity to shape the way that police officers conduct themselves on this campus. I realized that I might not be able to change police work all over the country, but I could at least ensure that the officers who worked on this campus were trained to the standards that I thought they should be, and to treat the community the way that I would want the community to be treated. It was about that time that I began to set my sights on being a chief. I have held every rank except that of captain and in July of 2002 I was named the Director of Public Safety, more commonly known as 'the Police Chief.'"

Organization. In addition to overseeing law enforcement and public safety on the Stanford campus, an ancillary responsibility is to oversee the fire services contract held by the city of Palo Alto. The Department has 32 sworn officers, 25 community service officers, and 20 civilian support staff (those who do logistics, accounting, computing, etc.) There are an additional 80 Special Events Patrol personnel called "SEPs." She added, "We absolutely could not function without this group. We are a small department, and yet we are at a very prestigious university with a lot of special events, visits of dignitaries, football games, things of that nature. Some work six times a year, some will work 60 times a year. They range from civilians interested in security to police officers from other jurisdictions. They don't do it for the money. They really do it because they love the esprit de corps of the department."

The department has a field service division (e.g., police officers), an investigation group, and a community services group (responsible for parking enforcement... and Chief Wilson remembers that being a "Parking Sergeant" was the most contentious position that she ever held). This group also manages security at the field sites and does building and dormitory security. A support services group includes logistics, special events, computing, accounting, and crime prevention. There is also an administrative services group that manages police records, personnel and training, recruiting, payroll, and human relations.

Statistics. Last year the Department handled 12,000 service calls, wrote 2300 reports, made 417 arrests (including 43 felonies, 154 structural burglaries, 89 vehicular burglaries (many were golf carts), 55 motor vehicle thefts, 3 hate crimes, and 32 "minor possession"). 1500 bicycles were "abated" (i.e., collected after being discarded by students when they leave). Most impressive, and generating "Wow!" from many senators, were the 42,000 parking tickets issued. Unfortunately, Chief Wilson pointed out, "the money that's collected for parking violations does not go back to the University. It all goes to Santa Clara County. The real reason we're out there issuing citations is to change behavior, so those of you who purchase that A parking permit may actually be able to find a space that isn't occupied by someone with a C permit or no permit at all. We're trying to change behavior."

Dean Philip Pizzo broke in at this point to ask, "I'm curious about the felonies you have listed. Can you describe who is involved? Are these felons from the University (faculty or students) or are they from off campus? Can you describe what kinds of activities would be counted as a felony on this campus?"

Chief Wilson answered that the felons came from both on and off campus. An example of a felony, she added, is "Grand theft, which is theft of anything over $400. Burglary is the most common one on our campus. Those are probably the most significant. Some drug arrests, things of that nature.

"And, finally, we handled more than 200 special events. And those were all as of the 1st of December. One of the responsibilities of the University is to report to the Department of Education statistics on certain types of crime that we encounter on this campus. We had no murders last year. (This pleased the senators). We had two aggravated assaults." Getting back to golf carts, Chief Wilson pointed out that since these are considered vehicles, Stanford rivals Oakland for vehicular theft, with one cart being stolen almost every week. They are moved and recovered, but "usually they're not in quite the same shape that they were when they were stolen."

Dean Pizzo described this as moving "from one hole to another," and Chief Wilson picked up on this to note that "Lake Lagunita is unfortunately one of the places where they are found.

"The two reported hate crimes," she said, "involved defacing posters. The last category includes minor possession arrests, weapons arrests, and drug arrests."

The Philosophy and Values of the Department. The Senate was particularly interested in Chief Wilson's emphasis on her philosophy of what a department should be and how it should relate to its constituency.

"In a nutshell," she continued, "what we try to stress is that public safety is the goal. Law enforcement is one tool that we have at our disposal to achieve this. We really strive to be educators, just like the rest of the University. Sometimes our education is real life; spending the night at the San Jose jail is real-life education for anyone. I very much believe in a multidisciplinary approach. We work with the Dean of Students office, with students, with the athletic department, and with other groups within the University to accomplish our goals. TEAM, for us, stands for Together Everyone Achieves More.

"The foundation of our department is our Core Values. They are as follows:

The members of the Stanford University Department of Public Safety

are committed to the goal of providing high quality services with

a positive, cooperative attitude.

To achieve that goal...

We pledge to honor the spirit and letter of the laws

we are charged to uphold.

We will strive to maintain and improve our professional

skills and knowledge.

We will project a positive and courteous image towards our

clients and fellow employees.

We will dedicate our full attention to our duties to

earn and maintain the public trust.

The hallmarks of our service and conduct will be a dedication to the principles of honesty, integrity, fairness, courage and courtesy."

Chief Wilson credited the background of the Core Values to Marv Herrington and the superb book by Professor Jerry Porras, Built to Last.

Another acronym for helping her officers and staff keep focus on the Core Values is ROOTS ... Responsibility, Ownership, Opportunity, and Teamwork. Her metaphor is that since the symbol of the University is a tree, roots are the foundation of the tree. Early on in her career on the force at Stanford, she realized the need for education of students about what the Department really was, not how it was perceived in stereotypic ways. "I remember being a brand-new officer and I was so proud. I'm wearing my uniform and can't believe I'm a police officer. And I walk down the hallway of the dorm where I lived as a freshman. I was responding to a call for service. I wasn't there to bust anyone. I was going to serve and protect... but the students started shutting the doors and saying, 'Cop, cop, cop!' And it wasn't even a Friday or Saturday night! I was astonished that students had that reaction to police officers and I have made it a personal goal to change people's perceptions and attitudes about police officers. Now that I am Chief, I get to impose these values on people that work for me."

Staffing problems. In discussing staffing of her officer staff, she noted that up until recently her cadre of deputies had been operating at 50% occupancy, principally because of the flourishing economy. With the down-turn in fortunes of Silicon Valley, many more applicants for police work have surfaced. Ten to 12 new officers will join the department in the next couple of months, after their five months at the police academy, and four months of in-house training.

Up until recently, the Chief pointed out, "when you want to be at a prestigious university for academics, you go to Stanford. If you want to be at a world-class place for athletics, you go to Stanford. When you think about police work, people don't think of Stanford!" [Amidst the laughter that followed this, several senators noted that since the Department often hired more "mature" candidates, that this work might be appropriate for emeritus professor/provost Hastorf].

In response to a question from Professor Ball, Chief Wilson assured the Senate that her recruits go through the same rigorous training as all police officers in the area. She also was pleased that her force was not guilty of racial profiling. She used data showing that arrests and citations matched for race and ethnicity paralleled the make-up of the student population on campus.

Chief Wilson moved on to the alcohol situation at Stanford. Statistics from 2002 revealed 38 cases from her Department for minor possession, eleven cases of public drunkenness, five for DUI, and fifteen who needed acute medical help (down from 35 in 2000). She admitted her concern that this last number represented only those that had police contact, and she knows that the true number of students presenting to the hospital emergency facilities for acute alcohol-induced problems is much higher, and that she and her department are distressed by this.

She noted that "I now find it humorous that at the start of every academic school year, we hear from the Daily about the alcohol crackdown on campus. It happens every year."

One problem is that at the "freshman welcome," early in the fall, older students occasionally bring a keg to the dorm at which they were frosh. The Chief pointed out, "Okay, we have a problem already, because most freshmen aren't 21. And we got involved with such a situation this year. We really tried to look at it as an educational experience. But you hear about this 'crackdown.' I want to emphasize that just because we're present does not mean that there's a crackdown. We do try to work with other university departments to address the alcohol issue. Law enforcement alone is not the solution. It is going to take a collaborative effort.

"And finally, bicycle safety and bicycle theft...a hot topic these days. The President's office asked that my department look closely at bicycle safety. This has become one of my top five priorities for my officers. Our goals for ourselves for the year may not seem very impressive, but, for example, we're looking for a 25 percent compliance with stop signs; our statistics say that it's at two percent right now."

Dean Pizzo suggested that this two percent was much too high an estimate, and the Senate agreed. As for bike lights, the goal is 50% with 60% registration so that bikes when stolen and retrieved, can be matched to the rightful owner. A current strategy is to stop dark riders and make them an offer: "You can have a citation...or a free bike light and registration." Only a few senators were surprised to hear that some students would rather have the citation instead of the free light.

Another problem is not stopping at stop signs. Fifteen to sixteen percent of bike riders on campus actually come to a full stop at a sign (i.e., putting a foot down and looking both ways). Sixty percent do a "rolling stop." When Chief Wilson estimated that 50% of students have a bike light, Dean Pizzo took exception. "I'm just very surprised that it's 50 percent. Just the experience of driving on this campus every night, the number of kids who are not using lights, in my experience, is way above 50 percent. I think if you would be willing to deputize some of us, I'd be happy to start handing out summonses!" [The Provost forbade him, however, to moonlight.]

Chief Wilson is working with Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to allow commission of a "public officer" rank that isn't at the same standard or level of training as a deputy. She said, "They would not carry a weapon. But they would be enabled to issue bicycle citations and help us with our efforts in that area. They would also be able to do trespassing citations, things of that nature." President Hennessy immediately offered up Dean Pizzo to testify before the Board of Supervisors, and the Dean accepted the challenge. Professor Osgood suggested that the Dean should be able to have a weapon, but Chief Wilson pointed out that he would have to go to Police Academy first.

Just from the recent efforts, about 2,000 people have registered their bicycles, and a few more than 2300 people have been issued bike lights. Only 243 "lack of light" citations have been issued, although there have been ~4800 contacts with people regarding bicycle safety.

As for the implications and reality of a citation, Chief Wilson explained, "A moving citation is basically considered the same as if you run a stop sign in a vehicle. We would like to work with the County to have that penalty decreased because we believe that $190 is too much for a student to pay for a bicycle stop sign violation.

"Bike registration and bike light citations are what we call a 'sign-off.' So as long as you can prove to an officer that you have fixed the problem, it's about a $10 processing fee with Santa Clara County. Finally, bike theft is one of the biggest problems we have on campus. It is amazing that people can come onto campus and steal a bicycle and no one knows and no one sees. One of my officers went out for a walk at lunch the other day and she said, hundreds of people walked by this guy and he's there banging on a bike lock, and finally she called it in and the guy was stealing a bike. But no one paid any attention!"

The Senate was very impressed with her data showing a striking positive correlation of bicycle thefts over ten year with unemployment rates in Silicon Valley. The Chief admitted "I'm not sure that any of our efforts towards improving bike theft are really going to matter unless we can keep the unemployment rate down."

Professor Naimark inquired about ways to minimize the high danger of being clobbered by a bicycle within the quad while simply walking to class. The Chief sympathized but allowed as how the County is in charge of special lane development, etc. and has refused to do more in this regard. The same applies to roads (e.g., Stanford Avenue) where the County determines where stop signs, speed bumps, etc. will go, but where the University police must do the enforcement of the law at this time.

In response to Grace Chang's question (representing the Graduate Student Council) about the unfairness of the high cost that one student is bearing for being ticketed for a skateboard violation, Chief Wilson reiterated one part of the Core Values of the Department...that "We pledge to honor the spirit and letter of the laws....," and pointed out that skateboards are not allowed in the inner quads, even though the signs that are put up to alert students to this keep getting stolen.

Professor Wasow felt the need for confession. "I got a ticket for running a stop sign, you know, and I was riding very carefully. I ran the stop sign with a car going next to me so that I was protected." He denied the Provost's suggestion that the car had been a police car, and was able to get to his point. "So I wondered, is the emphasis on enforcing the law or on public safety, which aren't always exactly the same thing?"

Chief Wilson was glad to re-emphasize that "Our emphasis is on public safety. However, as I tell a student who is walking down the street with a beer, if you're under 21, you may not be creating a huge public safety issue, but you are still violating the law and that doesn't mean that we are not going to take action. We tell our officers on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday night that we would prefer that you look at the big parties where the people are falling off the balconies, where things are being thrown, where people are passed out on the lawn. But it doesn't mean that when someone staggers in front of them and that someone is violating the law, they can look the other direction."

Professor Ball also confessed...to working in her office very late, sometimes until 2:00 a.m. And although she feels safe on the campus...should she? The Chief encouraged her, or anyone else, to call the department if she felt unsafe some night or early morning. The "blue light towers" help the feeling on campus of safety, although they are only rarely used for legitimate calls. She added that "many years ago we had Community Service Officers who patrolled not only the dorms, but also the academic areas. Budget cuts several years ago eliminated them.

Blake Naughton (ASSU representative at large) was sorry to hear that the Community Service Patrol program was being cut back, principally because when "as both an undergraduate and a graduate here, I found that to be the strongest relationship that students have with your department." Chief Wilson sympathized with him, but pointed out that with impending budget cuts it was more important to have sworn deputies. She nevertheless hoped that somehow that program can be salvaged in some way.

Provost Etchemendy summed up the feelings of all present. "Laura, I just want to say that we are so lucky at this University to have the best Public Safety Department and police department of any that I know of, and certainly of any university. It is a tradition here, and I think you do a great job. Thank you." Vigorous applause followed his words of appreciation.

Report from Director of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation Ted Leland

Chairman Greely handled the introductions. "The last item on the agenda for today is a report from the Director of Athletics, Edward (Ted) Leland. We have also invited to this meeting Professor John Eaton, chair of the University Committee on Athletics, Ramon Saldivar, Professor of English and the Faculty Athletic Representative, and Deputy Director of Athletics, Debi Gore-Mann.

"It has been about five years or so since Ted last reported to the Senate. He has asked us for an opportunity to speak to the Senate about developments in college athletics and Stanford's response to them.

Leland began by explaining his fears about presenting to the Faculty Senate. "I have been chairman of the NCAA committee on 'opportunities in athletics' that is really about Title IX. The meetings have been raucous, and I have been chairing them. The last one was so acrimonious that I said to everyone, '...gee, people are going to think we're a U.S. Olympic Committee.' At that point one of our committee faculty members from Johns Hopkins said, 'No, this is like a Faculty Senate meeting."

Activities of the Athletic Department. After showing an overhead of a clever cartoon, and apologizing for not having PowerPoint presentations, he described the scope of activities in athletics at Stanford. "First of all, our annual budget for the department of athletics is $50 million a year. We have about 190 full-time employees, and 400 part time. We have 34 varsity teams and 850 athletes who play on them. We teach 256 physical education sections each year, representing fitness programs, life skill programs, and team sports programs for 5,263 participants. Students get credit towards graduation for these, and a lot of graduate students also sign up as well. We have had tremendous success with our golf program, for example, as we have hired some people there to teach. We have 42 different intramural activities every year involving about 2000 undergraduates. We have 18 "club sports" in which 900 students are enrolled. These are teams that compete against other colleges and universities as well as other outside entities. These are more informally organized and are not varsity sports.

"I am proud to add that every year we have two or three Olympic athletes. We are very famous for medical students who are cyclists. The golf course, which we manage, hosts about 60,000 rounds of golf each year, a huge number. A lot of people are going out there to play golf. We run 18 of what we call 'community outreach programs.' The biggest one, of course, is our Summer Camp program. It's a very popular program here on campus except for the cheerleaders, who...although we love them... tend to get up at 6:00 in the morning and chant through different housing developments and drive everybody nuts!

"We raise about $20 million a year from fund-raising thanks to a full staff of fund-raisers who work with about 5,000 donors. In addition to 570 athletic contests a year, we have six major outside events. For example, we are hosting the U.S. track and field championships this year. We have big U.S. tennis matches, averaging about six each year, including the Senior Tour in which John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors play. We have about 25 press conferences coordinated within a press liaison area that employs six or seven full-time people.

The Athletic Department budget. "We have averaged about $20 million in new construction over the last year. Our endowment is about $340 million, and we have an investment fund. I am proud to say that we have had some success. In the last couple years, 26 of our 34 teams have been ranked in the top 20 nationally, and we always seem to win the Sears Cup.

"On the income side of our budget of $50 million, we net $8 or 9 million from our financial aid endowment each year, and get another $3 million from fund-raising. Football gate is about $4.2 million. Football television and other sources of revenue (e.g., the Rose Bowl, etc.) is another $4 million. All of the gate receipts from our other sports plus some other things is about $3.5 million. When you hear people say that economically, football drives the athletic train, you can see that it really does! The general funds allocation to Stanford athletics of $4.6 million pays for the student recreation and faculty/staff recreation programs. We cost account it carefully each year to make sure these funds aren't being siphoned off to buy football helmets or to pay for the intercollegiate program. I want to emphasize strongly that the intercollegiate varsity team portion of our activities is, in fact, self-supporting and is not dependent on University funds. $2.3 million comes in from marketing, down from $3.3 million, at one time. But please remember that we took all of the advertising signs out of our stadium, and, as we all know, marketing dollars are not what they were four or five years ago.

"Golf course income is $5.3 million. We get $2.5 million from the Pac-10, primarily from NCAA basketball. $1.4 million is accrued from the faculty staff benefits pool and this pays for faculty/staff recreation on the campus.

"Each year we give out ~$12 million in financial aid, equivalent to 300 full scholarships to student athletes, and we pay for extra books for student athletes and pay for some of their summer sessions. We pay some fifth-year tuition and expenses as well as for students who have been injured. Of those 300 scholarships, about 150 of our athletes get what we call 'full scholarships': room, board, tuition, and books. Those are principally men's and women's basketball players, football players, and a number of women playing volleyball, tennis, and a few other sports. These are what the NCAA calls 'head count sports', and most of those students get full rides. We spread the equivalent of those other 150 scholarships among about 400 of the remaining 850 student athletes. It is important to know that we have about 200-300 athletes each year that are on the varsity programs who receive no aid. These include the 'walk-ons.' The $11 million in compensation is a big cost center, and we also pay all of our operations and maintenance, including heat, light, and air conditioning, heat for the swimming pools, Roble gym expenses, and upkeep of Tresidder Fitness Center that is reserved for faculty, staff, and student recreation."

Athletic facility construction. Leland went on to describe some of the current and planned construction for athletics. Tennis courts across Campus Drive from the Arrillaga Sports Center are up and playing, although a lot of people were peeved about losing those parking lots.

The new Steuber Rugby field is almost complete and it will be used for many club sports. The Morrison Boat House is an elegant structure (two-thirds completed) in the Port of Redwood City. Leland described it as being where the old Cargill salt piles were years ago, and visible coming south on Hiway 101. "It is a gorgeous building very much for campus use over a period of time, because it has a second story to it that overlooks the nature preserves and a great view of downtown San Francisco. It will house men's and women's sailing, men's and women's crew, including our new women's lightweight crew program. We'll also have a community program for Stanford alumni and children.

"We are just completing the intramural fields. There are two sets of these. One is on the outside of the Schwab Center on the corner of Serra street and Campus Drive where there are two new beautiful basketball courts. John Arrillaga gave us most of the money to do that, and our staff built them. They are arguably the two best outside basketball courts I have seen in a long time. We're also completing the intramural fields that are towards the corner of Serra Street and El Camino Real. The University paid for those out of their funds. It's been great!

"In the planning stages," continued Leland, "is a renovation of Maples Pavilion which we are hoping to begin next year at the end of the 2004 basketball season. We have always had a long-range plan to build a new student recreation center; the planned site is the old Encina gym. That one is far from being funded and a long way from being approved. But it is almost on the master plan." Leland is hopeful that the Athletic Department's portion of the GUP square footage allocation will be ~150,000 square feet.

Athletic emphasis at an academic university .Continuing right along at a fast clip, Leland said, "The next thing, if I were a faculty member, I would want to hear from me is how can we make sure that Stanford athletics are not subjected to the kind of issues of loss of integrity and public embarrassment that happens so many times at other schools. I think you should feel comfortable that there are significant controls here over the activities of the athletic program. Both presidents John Hennessy and Gerhard Casper have noted that a large and successful athletic program unleashes uncertain forces that we have to be able to manage. And I think we have worked very hard at Stanford to manage those, and continue to do so.

One mechanism is through University oversight. The Athletic Department at Stanford is clearly under the purview and control of the University. There are multiple different reporting channels to different overseers who are not in the Athletic Department. Among those involved in looking over the athletic program are the Provost, CAPER, the University Committee on Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation, and various organizations that are responsible for student activities, including housing.

Leland noted that, "We have tried to structure it so we can operate as an entity, but our senior administrators have outside reporting lines. We also have at Stanford a strong faculty representative. Ramon Saldivar is that now. We had Jerry Porras for many years. We have relied upon the Faculty Athletic Representative (FAR) to determine all eligibility for student athletes. I don't determine who is eligible. Ramon does. He makes sure that compliance with NCAA issues and investigations and stuff are handled by a faculty member who is appointed by the President and the Provost. You should know that the faculty athletic representative at Stanford has our vote in the NCAA. So when somebody says the Pac-10 voted to do such and such, it is the faculty member from Stanford voting. The CAPER committee, made up of faculty, staff, students, who are appointed by the Provost and the President oversees the activities of the athletic department. It is especially important to be compliant with NCAA rules.

"On-campus student disciplinary issues involving student athletes are the purview of the Dean of Students and the Vice Provost's office. We do not get involved in issues surrounding athletes' behavior on campus. We have some extra help in student advising for athletes, but it's run through the Undergraduate Advising Center (UAC). The person that helps our athletes sort of get to the right advisor does not do a lot of advising herself. She's more of a traffic cop. And she doesn't work for us. She works for the Undergraduate Advising Center.

"Of note is that Stanford is the only school in the Pac-10 conference that does not give student athletes a preference in housing. The same is true with student registration; we don't give our students any special day to register. We also have spent a lot of time with our internal audit, having auditors come in and take a look at us and the way we're operating to make sure we are complying with NCAA and University regulations."

"I think we have more compatibility in terms of what are the right values than does any other college or university The way I like to say it is as follows: I stood up in front of a Stanford group and said, 'We're going to go to the Rose Bowl,' they'd all say, 'isn't that great.' But if I would say, 'We're going to go to the Rose Bowl, but in order to get there, we may have to take some shortcuts in terms of admissions or curriculum,' they'd throw me out of the room. We want to be successful, but we want to do it the right way! And this is what has made us the only school in the Pac-10 conference to never have been issued an NCAA violation."

At President Hennessy's recommendation Leland presented the Senate with some idea about the complexity of NCAA regulations. Leland said, "It's about a 375-page manual, and it has all kinds of difficult interpretations. We struggle all the time, and probably turn ourselves into the NCAA ten times a year for minor violations. For example, one NCAA player of the decade in the '90s, an Olympian, a tremendous person, was asked to have her picture taken with an alumna's children. The pictures were taken; this is a violation because they were prospective student athletes. There's a lot of those little things."

Stanford and the Ivys. Leland went on to compare Stanford with the Ivy League. He spent a number of years as Dartmouth's Athletic Director and knows the systems back there in the east. One big difference is that the Ivy's don't give athletic scholarships, but only money based on need.

Stanford's varsity programs are self-funded, the Ivys are not. Although the undergraduate numbers are about the same, Stanford has fewer admitted frosh (~10 percent) identified as student athletes whereas at Yale and Princeton the numbers are 18 and 23 percent, respectively. The reason Stanford competes so well is because of the athletic scholarships. Whereas scholarship-funded athletes stay on the teams, the rate of attrition in the Ivy's is very high. Starting with 16 hockey players at an Ivy League school as freshmen, the coach would be lucky to end up with four in the senior year. One aspect that is not different is the academic quality of the student athletes. There have been student athletes who don't get into Stanford and have to go to Harvard. Leland said that one year there were eight who were forced to go east to Cambridge.

One difference between Stanford and the Ivys is the time commitment that our athletes are forced to make. Leland recognizes this as a substantial problem. In the Ivy League there is a rule that there must be seven weeks during the school year when the student is completely free from formal or informal work-outs. Not so at Stanford, where the "captain's workouts" go practically year round when there are no formal practices.

Salaries for coaches. Leland is proud that Stanford has not succumbed to paying coaches inordinately high salaries, setting them up as real outliers, where they make much more than the President or the heart surgeons. He noted that "we have made a decision not to pay market salaries for our highly visible coaches. Many of us at Stanford... think that these astronomical salaries that coaches are getting are way out of line with what is appropriate. This creates these 'hero' coaches that all of a sudden become really hard for everyone at the university or outside it to deal with."

In the question and answer period, Vice Provost Bravman said "Ted, I'm glad you highlighted the time commitment problem, because it's something I'm very concerned about and I know a lot of my faculty colleagues are, too. I always feel compelled to give the typical disclaimer: 'I love sports.' But I know, for instance, what captain's practices are; the NCAA says 20 hours a week and that's when the coaches are there, but the captains, say 'Hey, we're also having this toss around, why don't you come?' Basically, if you don't come around you don't play. The nominal time is 20 hours, which translates to 30 hours, just because of locker room time and recovery. I have talked with a lot of students, and have been told that their athletic time commitment is 40 to 50 hours a week.

"I don't think our faculty know that. We don't have time to talk about it today. But a 40 to 50-hour week commitment to a sport makes it extremely unlikely that our student athletes are getting many of the benefits of a Stanford education. I'm sure they would trade that off against the benefits they are getting from their athletic participation, which I love. But I urge you to keep looking at this issue, because 40 to 50 hours a week is a huge commitment.

Leland agreed, and he brought up the professionalization of college athletics as a driving force. "The reality is that we have some water polo players who are going to make a pretty good living playing water polo and women's basketball players who are going to make a good living playing basketball in the WNBA. So it's not just Borchard and Jacobson. The way I have explained it to a couple alumni groups who have been angry about some of our visible athletes going pro, is that in 1970, when we won the Rose Bowl, Donny Bunce, had a choice: get drafted into the NFL, probably second or third round, or go on to be an orthopedic surgeon. He went to Medical School, became an orthopedic surgeon, and practices in the area. Today, 30 years later, that would have been a dumb decision, financially. In 1970, you made more money as an orthopedic surgeon; right now, you are going to make more money as a football player. The world has changed.

Professor Ball asked about comparative graduation rates of our students and those at other schools. Leland responded that "Our graduation rate for athletes has been pretty much what the student body has been: 91 to 92 percent. There's been a couple years where our best story is Mike Montgomery. Until this year, every student who ever played for Mike Montgomery in basketball has graduated." Leland expressed some confidence that Teo Johnson and Casey Jacobson would come back to complete their degrees.

Professor Simoni said that he believes that the Ivy league shifts their scholarships, presumably based on need, by subjective criteria including athletic accomplishments in high school. Simoni also wanted to mention Title IX. "It has been, to my mind, something about which we can be most proud.... Not only has it been the right thing to do, but it has contributed to our great success. So it was clearly good. In your committee, what changes have you recommended and what are the chances that they will in fact be implemented?"

Leland gave a brief Title IX tutorial. First, Title IX only applies to schools that give scholarships. Then there are eleven program support areas in which you must be equal. These include equipment, supply, scheduling, coaching, and all the goods and services that you might provide to an athlete. Then, in Division 1-A there are three "Prongs" that should be met.

He explained. "Prong One means that there must be proportionality between the sex of the athletes and the sex of the students. That means that if you have 25 percent women students, your available participation in women's athletics and your scholarships should be 25% of your total (plus or minus two to three percent).

"Prong Two says that if you can't do Prong One, then you must demonstrate a history and continuing practice of expansion of the women's program. Prong Three is that the current program accommodates the interests and abilities of women. Thus, there are three ways to meet compliance. It's Prong One that bothers everybody because nobody believes in quotas; we hate quotas. Nevertheless at Stanford we meet Prong One.

"The government has gone so far in a couple of correspondences to the NCAA to say there's only one safe harbor, and that is Prong One. Title IX is basically an anti-discrimination clause. It says you may not discriminate. No one should be discriminated against based on their gender in any activity that receives federal funding. Prong One makes you comply with equal outcome. And there are very few pieces of civil rights legislation that require equal outcome. That bothers certain people on my committee in the NCAA.

"I happen to be a person who likes this three-pronged test, and I like Prong One. I like the fact that we have goals and numbers. I like it because I think it's moved us forward. At Stanford we've gone from 27 percent female athletes in 1990 to 46 percent in 2002. And we have done it without dropping any men's sports. We have gone to the same ratio for scholarships. We've added, I think, 50-some scholarships to the women's side during that period. And we have done it without having to cut back the scholarships for men.

"No one is attacking the basic premise of Title IX. This is one of the most popular laws in the history of American society. 98 percent of the American public support Title IX, and 90 percent of the American public support Title IX even if it means dropping sports for men. So the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people over Title IX has been won. It was not supported when it first came out, in the early 1970s.

"The best part of this whole thing was when Stanford and Cal hosted a celebration that Debi coordinated for us to celebrate the 30 years of Title IX. We had a panel discussion with six panelists. The older ones spoke first, recalling how they each were pioneers fighting for this and that. Natalie Coughlin, probably the best college athlete today, looked around and said '...not my problem.' She basically said, 'Look, I don't think you understand. I don't know what Title IX is, I've been treated equally. And if I weren't, I would want to know why. My predecessors in this job at Stanford got way out in front of the wave.' We said to our pioneer women athletes, 'We want you here; we respect what you do, we appreciate your talent as part of our student body, and let's go!' We did not say to those early pioneer women, 'We are only doing this because the laws forces us to.' In contrast, there are many schools who said, 'We really don't want you, we're only letting women in because we have to.' If you talk to women about female college athletes, they will say Stanford is number one if you are a female athlete.

President Hennessy said "I'd just like to say that I think Ted highlighted the importance of setting the right values for the athletic program. And I think we are blessed with having an athletic director who has articulated those values so clearly and hired and recruited coaches that support those values. And I think that's the number one thing that's made our program retain a balance between the academic and athletic endeavors. So, thank you!"

After the applause settled down, Greely asked his question. "You mentioned the increasing professionalization of sports. And certainly there's been increasing expenditures at a number of universities on coaches, on facilities, on our athletes doing 'voluntary' practices for many hours more a week. A student at Northwestern died, in a voluntary football practice, doing a mandatory time trial. It would be a lot easier if we could get the overall system to pull back on this 'arms race'. Now, the new head of the NCAA is, I think, Miles Brand, who was the president of Indiana University; indeed, he has the distinction of having fired Bobby Knight. Do you think there is hope that the NCAA, under Miles Brand, led by the universities that are committed to trying to keep college sports in an appropriate perspective, can actually effect significant reform?

Leland responded, saying, "I am not optimistic that the NCAA is going to be able to get its hands around what people are referring to as the 'arms race'. It's an arms race for time of the student athletes, an arms race for salaries, an arms race for just the sort of opulence that some of the athletics departments enjoy. We sort of play that game. We're not immune to being in the arms race ourselves. I'm not a believer that the NCAA, being structured the way it is and having these competing forces that we've discussed, is the right place for being the genesis of change. I do think that the university presidents such as John and the Duke people are all important. But I do remind you that there seems to be sort of a collision course developing between the faculty senates of the universities and the trustee governing bodies.

Greely had interesting news. "The Big Ten faculty senates have formed a coalition to try to continue to press on this. They have asked the Pac-10 faculty senates or faculty senate chairs or their equivalents to participate. Every chair of a senate or senate equivalent has said 'yes'. There a small, informal committee that I am on that is charged with coordinating these efforts I feel a little tardy in reporting this, but we are part of it. The Big Ten and the Pac-10 faculty senates support reform, although I don't know that any of us is terribly optimistic that we'll be successful."

Adjournment

After the Senate expressed vocal thanks to AD Leland for his detailed presentation, requests for old or new business were made by Chairman Greely. None surfaced, so Professor Simoni said "I would like to move adjournment"...and so it happened that the Senate was adjourned at 5:11 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward D. Harris, Jr. M.D.

Academic Secretary to the University