Faculty Senate minutes - May 1, 2008 meeting
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL FORTIETH SENATE Report No. 10
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, MAY 1
At its meeting on Thursday, May 1, 2008, the Fortieth Senate of the Academic Council heard reports..
REX L. JAMISON, M.D. Academic Secretary to the University Minutes, MAY 1 I. Call to OrderThe Chair, Professor Eamonn Callan, called the second Spring Quarter meeting of the 40th Senate to order at 3:20 PM. In attendance were 36 voting members and 12 ex officio members.
II. Approval of Minutes (SenD#6062)The minutes of the April 17, 2008, meeting of the Senate were approved.
III. Action CalendarThere were no action items.
IV. Standing ReportsA. Steering Committee
Chair Callan summarized the recent actions of the Steering Committee (StC).
1. At last Tuesday's StC meeting, Registrar Tom Black met with the Steering Committee to discuss the procedures for the Senate's granting of baccalaureate and advanced degrees. In the past the Senate met and conferred degrees at the first meeting of each quarter, which occurred in the same week as the first week of classes. For several reasons during the past several years the Senate has cancelled the first meeting of the Senate in Fall, Winter and occasionally Spring quarters. This action created a recording issue for degree-granted dates, because the Senate was now voting to approve (or not to approve) the conferral of degrees after the degree completion was officially confirmed by the registrar's office.
Reviving Senate meetings during the first week of classes was unlikely to be a satisfactory solution, because the difficulty of mustering a quorum at the very beginning of the term was one reason why these meetings were cancelled in recent years. Alternatively, delaying the work of the registrar's office in certifying degree completion would be an intolerable inconvenience for students.
The Senate Steering Committee on Tuesday unanimously agreed to the following solution: Henceforth, at the beginning of the Fall, Winter and Spring quarters the Steering Committee will vote on the list of candidates for undergraduate and graduate degrees provided by the Registrar's office. The voting will be done electronically. The full Senate will continue to approve the Spring Quarter degree lists at its final meeting in June.
2. The Academic Secretary reports that the election for the Senate Chair and for the Steering Committee of the newly elected Senate will be underway within the next week. Only the 55 voting members of the 41st Senate participate in this election. The roster of the newly elected 41st Senate was distributed to the Senators.
3. The second-stage of the Advisory Board election is also complete. As soon as the results of this election are verified by the Committee of Tellers, the results will be published in the Stanford Report.
4. The final composition of the Committee to Examine Non-academic Council Appointment Processes is almost complete. The members of the committee will be announced at the next Senate meeting.
The Committee on Committees selected severa5. l candidates from members of the 41st Senate to be asked to stand for election as members of the Steering Committee and as Chair of the next year's (41st) Senate. The Academic Secretary has advised me that the slate of candidates is complete and that the election process will begin next Monday, May 5th.
6. The agenda for the three remaining meeting dates and topics are as follows:
May 15th—In a shorter-than-usual meeting, Professor Hester Gelber, Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy, will present a report on Area One of the General Education Requirements.
At 4:20 p.m. we will adjourn to join our colleagues in Cubberley Auditorium for the annual Academic Council meeting, at which President Hennessy will preside and lead a panel discussion on "Building the University Campus for the 21st Century."
May 29—The Provost will present his annual report on the budget, and the Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy will present a Senate mandated 10-year review on the Undergraduate Program in Writing and Rhetoric.
June 12th—At the final meeting of the 40th Senate, Dean Richard Shaw will present a report on undergraduate admissions and financial aid. Following adjournment of the meeting, at 4:30 p.m., President Hennessy will host the annual reception at the Faculty Club for the members of the incoming and outgoing Senates, Chairs of the Committees of the Academic Council and members of the Board of Trustees.
B. Committee on Committees
Chair Callan asked Professor Gordon Chang if he had a report from the Committee on Committees.
Professor Chang smiled, "There was a short report, but you already preempted it with the information you've provided."
C. President's and Provost's Report
The president had no report. There were no questions.
The provost had no report but had some comments: "We do have a basketball coach who we hired from Duke. I think he will be a wonderful coach…His family is a wonderful family, and they will be great additions to the community.
"We also have…a freshman class [for the coming academic year]. Today is the deadline for the admitted students to notify us whether they're coming or not. As of this morning, we had 1645 acceptances. That's [already] a full class, which is a little bit worrisome, because [we still have the rest of the day].
"The 'Admit Weekend' [during which prospective students offered admission visited the campus] was extremely successful…probably the best yet, from everything I've heard from our own students, the admittees and their parents. All the people who worked on [the event] ought to be thanked. I would particularly like to thank the faculty who made phone calls to admitted students...I think that's very helpful to recruit the very best students."
There were no questions for the provost.
V. Other ReportsA. Professorial Gains, Losses and Composition; Recruitment and Retention Survey; Status of Women Faculty (SenD#6071, SenD#6072, SenD#6073)
Chair Callan introduced this report, by commenting,
"We now have three inter-related reports, which will be presented by…Senator Pat Jones, Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity. These reports were included in your Senate packets.
"A number of years ago the Senate requested in a Senate resolution that 'a report on the status of women faculty will be presented annually'. The other complementary reports are usually presented as well….I understand that Pat will not be speaking about all of the tables and charts [distributed to the Senators], but you are welcome to ask questions about the material in your packet during the discussion period.
"There are many guests in attendance to hear this report.
"When Pat Jones has finished her report she will ask Senator Al Camarillo, in his role as Special Assistant to the Provost on Faculty Diversity, to comment on his work with Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity (CCSRE) on the faculty diversity project announced last year. Following Professor Camarillo, Deborah Rhode, Professor of Law, will offer a few comments in her role as chair of the Panel on Gender Equity and Quality of Life."
Professor Jones began her presentation with the help of slides a copy of which had been distributed.
She explained that the Senate has had a provostial report on the status of women faculty since 1977, and studies [of factors] affecting faculty recruitment and retention have been carried out since 2002 to monitor the reasons why individuals turn down offers to come to Stanford or be retained at Stanford and in particular, what role the cost of housing plays.
Faculty Diversity in Race and Ethnicity
Professor Jones introduced this subject by emphasizing that faculty diversity is an important contributor to the excellence of the institution.
She quoted from a new edition of a brochure, "Building on Excellence", about the president and provost's reaffirmation of Stanford's commitment to faculty diversity,
"For many years, Stanford University has had a commitment to enhancing the diversity of its faculty. This commitment is based first and foremost on the belief that a more diverse faculty enhances the breadth, depth, and quality of our research and teaching by increasing the variety of experiences, perspectives, and scholarly interests among the faculty. A diverse faculty also provides a variety of role models and mentors for our increasingly diverse student body, which helps us to attract, retain, and graduate such populations more successfully." (End of quote)
Professor Jones stated that, "…Stanford seeks to be a leader in many aspects of its research and teaching missions, and this is an area where we should also play a leadership role. We value diversity, broadly defined, as we recognize the contributions of a wide variety of individuals, backgrounds, cultures, interests, and perspectives to our teaching and research missions. In these reports…we focus on certain aspects of diversity, namely, gender and race and ethnicity, which are areas that have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education."
She then turned to her presentation and started with the yearly changes in total faculty, appointments and departures from 9/1/1993 to 9/1/2007. Total faculty grew from 1400 to 1829. The number of new faculty varied by year but exceeded the number of faculty departing, so that the net change was positive in every year but one.
"We had 121 new hires last year…a 6.8% addition. We had a loss of 5.4%... resulting in the net increase of 1.3%, or a net [addition] of 24. In recent years, the growth of the faculty has averaged 1 to 2%, though in the '90s, it had been somewhat higher…departures have been relatively constant.
"The major growth, as it has been now for quite a few years, has been in the clinical sciences…in the School of Medicine, in particular, the Medical Center Line (MCL) [which was instituted] around 1990. [Other than that] only in the School of Engineering …was there significant growth this past year."
She showed a slide illustrating faculty demographics—Black, Asian, Native American and Hispanic—for 1997, 2002, and 2007. "The numbers of Asian faculty continue to increase steadily. This is true across most segments of the campus community. The numbers of black faculty have grown recently. We're now at 48. But [there has not been a] a net increase in the percentage of faculty [who are black], currently 2.6%... Native American faculty have not grown [above] the three that we've had for some years. [The number of] Hispanic faculty was higher a few years ago, [but the number has] dropped down a little bit.
"…In many of our schools and departments, there is a lot of effort to identify, recruit, and retain faculty of color, but despite the numbers that we recruit, we also lose some… From 9/1/06 to 9/1/07…across the university, we recruited three black faculty and lost one, leading to a net increase of two. [Similarly] we recruited three Hispanic faculty and lost four."
The process of recruiting a few and losing a few had been the experience for several years. Over the last three years, eleven blacks were recruited to the faculty and eight departed, leading to a net increase of three. Eight Hispanic faculty were hired and 14 left. Professor Jones concluded that, "…Attention to faculty retention—which includes providing an environment in which faculty can be successful--is as important in increasing representation of faculty of color as is faculty recruitment."
This [opposing effect of recruitments and departures, resulting in only modest net gains in faculty of color,] has been called the "revolving door" by the James Irvine Foundation, which for a number of years has supported campus diversity initiatives in California colleges and universities. [Its] study of the experiences of institutions, including ours, has led to the understanding…that [colleges and universities]…need to focus [not only] on more attempts on the recruitment side, but also on the retention side.
Gender. The representation of women on the faculty.
Professor Jones showed a slide that summarized the data for all faculty ranks across the institution and with the numbers of women faculty broken down by rank.
"Clearly, more women are now entering academia. We would expect there to be higher proportions in the assistant professor population [as the graph showed]. We're at 448 [i.e.] 24.5% of the faculty are women, a small increase over the previous year. Twenty years ago, in 1987 we were 10%. Obviously, we've been making progress. The numbers [and percentage] of assistant professor women…increased dramatically from 1997 to 2002. Interestingly, the associate professor population has been [at a plateau a little] above 30%. I think...it reflects a very large number of MCL associate professors in 1997. The [women] full professors across the institution are slowly increasing in number--currently 181 out of 1020—about 18%. That doesn't seem a lot, but we [started with] very small numbers not many years ago."
A table of one year gains and losses of women faculty from 9/1/06 to 9/1/07 showed a net increase of ten women. Professor Jones commented, that, "Over the last ten years, the 42 women faculty that we hired [this past year] was the highest number…we have ever hired…that's good news for all of our schools and departments who are identifying and recruiting these individuals.
"But we also had the highest number of women retiring--eleven. We're getting enough women in the full professor ranks that some are now retiring. And we also had a high number, compared to previous years, of women departing for the [various] reasons that faculty choose to leave.
"Almost 35% of the new appointments last year were women...[but] 25% of the retirees were women…and of the people who left the university for reasons other than retirement, 39% of were women. That's something we want to understand [better]."
Looking at the percent of total faculty who are women by school in 2002 and 2007, for all of the schools and divisions except [one], there were increases in the total number of women as well as in the proportion of women in this five-year period.
With this overall picture, Professor Jones then turned to tenured women faculty positions. "In most of the schools, there were increases in both the number and the percent tenured women faculty with the exception of one school where the number of tenured women stayed the same but some men were hired or promoted during this time, so the percent went down a little bit. In one other school the number of tenured women declined."
With regard to the percent of women who are not tenured, the numbers were small and there was a lot of fluctuation.
The next slides showed more details about the hires going back to 1997. Professor Jones, continued, "What we can see is that this past year, we actually did pretty well, with 30% or so of the untenured faculty hired in the tenure line, as well as the tenured faculty hired in the tenure line, being women…A few schools and divisions did particularly well over the last five years [Earth Science, Education, Humanities, Social Sciences, and Law]. This [survey] is a little unfair to those fields where women are not as highly represented either in recent PhD's or among senior faculty that we might recruit as 'lateral hires' [faculty recruited from another school at the same professorial rank]. The School of Engineering did very well in the last five years in junior faculty hires, at 20%...[While that may not] seem like a lot, based on the pools and their current junior faculty population, it's actually good progress. In Natural Sciences and Humanities and Sciences (H & S) 25% of the junior [ranks] in the tenured line were women."
The next slide illustrated tenure decisions by periods of five years. Professor Jones emphasized, "Retention is important. For the tenure line, that means eventually--tenure decisions…We look at tenure rates in two ways. One [way] is…the proportion of women and men who come up for a tenure decision and end up receiving tenure…The take-home message is that…if one stays and has a tenure decision at Stanford, one has a reasonable chance of receiving tenure. The rates, overall for the last 25 years and in the most recent five-year cohort, are similar [for] male faculty and female faculty."
The second way to look at tenure rates was outcomes for all untenured faculty hires by periods of five years. Professor Jones said that, "We call [this] 'tenure outcomes'. [This includes] the number who were denied tenure, the number who received tenure, the number who resigned before coming up for tenure and an 'other' category, which reflects other things that can happen to faculty…For the first time we separated the subset for whom the tenure decision was postponed due to tenure clock extensions, [for example] for new faculty parents or people who take leave without pay."
The results showed "…for the most recent five-year hire cohort and overall for the 25-year period [that] women have as good an outcome in terms of earning tenure as do men." Professor Jones stated her view that these data say good things about recruiting to Stanford junior faculty who go on to succeed, and the support and mentoring that Stanford provides them to fulfill their potential and earn tenure.
Professor Jones then considered the number and percentage of women in positions of institutional leadership (department chairs, deans, members of important committees, etc). "…First of all, there's a correction…We now have a Vice Provost for Graduate Education, so these cabinet-level administrators should be increased one woman for Patti Gumport. So it's now three of six, or 50% of the non-dean cabinet members, president, provost, and vice provosts. We do quite well in terms of percent of women in these areas of leadership, with the exception [this year] of one area which is department chairs. Only 14%, ten out of 71 department chairs, are women--and this is actually down a little bit from couple of years ago.
"This has important consequences for H & S, where Dean Richard Saller has instituted a new [system] of the appointments and promotions committees [that is]…similar to [that used] by some of the other schools…[Now, there are] separate Appointments & Promotions committees [composed] of department chairs for each of the three divisions [of H & S]. Given the small number of women chairs in H & S, the set of three A&P committees has only two women out of 17, or 12%. We hope that…in coming years we'll have more women in chair positions."
Recruitment and Retention of Faculty
Professor Jones next considered overall the number of successful and unsuccessful recruitments and retention of faculty by school. "One of the things we look at is the ratio of successful [to unsuccessful] recruitments, [which is impressive]… "We contacted [these people to determine] why they didn't accept our offers to come to Stanford or…why they left, if we tried to retain them…Of the unsuccessful recruitments, 31% cited 'other personal issues', family reasons in particular; 29%, 'housing costs' and 23% 'location'. [Those citing the last reason were largely] from the East Coast."
Summary
In summary Professor Jones said that there had been modest growth in diversity of the faculty. Of faculty of color, the Asian faculty are growing at a reasonable rate, now at 13.9%, but there has been no real progress in increasing the proportion of underrepresented minority, which is at 5.7%. There has been continued growth, slow but steady, in numbers of women faculty across the institution.
"Why is progress in increasing faculty diversity so slow? There are many reasons."
Constraints on growth, resources and billets
Slow faculty turnover
Inadequate pipelines for women and people of color in many fields
Variable efforts among the schools and departments towards generating diverse applicant pools
Attractiveness of department/school/university recruitment/retention packages
Location
Dual career issues
Competition.
Professor Jones commented, "Some of these things we can't do much about. We can't do much about our location for faculty whose families are in the East Coast, for faculty who prefer an urban environment to our suburban environment, and for faculty who like winter or humid summers, we can't do much about that.
[Laughter]
"But there are things that we can do... [in terms of] advertising; seeking potential individuals who can bring diversity to our faculty; using resources and databases … to identify candidates; using a broad variety of networks to identify individuals that we can target for recruitment efforts. Clearly, the recruitment packages and the processes are important."
Professor Jones identified additional factors outside the University's complete control, such as low faculty turnover: "Our faculty tend not to leave once they're here. 'Dual careers' is becoming a growing issue. It makes it challenging for chairs and deans to recruit faculty that they want who want positions for spouses or partners. And clearly, in many of these aspects, we're in competition with other institutions.
"Our office and many other offices are very engaged in efforts to increase faculty diversity. The university is investing significant resources. [Professor] Al Camarillo will talk…about some new resources to [aid in] identifying and recruiting the faculty…[We] are trying to provide assistance to the schools and departments and search committees doing the recruitment. [While] the provost's office is not involved, per se, in the search efforts… there are some things we can help with in terms of suggesting strategies, resources, where to look, and how to do outreach. Some of that is described in the brochure.
"Our office, and the office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and other offices are working together to encourage our own students--our own diverse students--to consider academic careers. We hope other institutions are doing the same thing…and talk to them about those efforts through a number of peer institution consortia.
"The basic message hasn't really changed. We recruit outstanding faculty, really terrific scholars and teachers. But we're not …at the level of progress in increasing faculty diversity that we'd like….Additional efforts beyond our standby, old-time processes are needed to achieve progress in recruiting and retaining women and faculty of color."
Professor Jones turned the floor over to Professor Al Camarillo.
Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity
Professor Camarillo described the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity [CCSRE]. "Last year…Provost Etchemendy announced the allocation of ten full incremental billets to the Center to be used in collaboration with the School of Humanities & Sciences and other schools. This was in recognition of the second decade of the development of CCSRE, a center that, in its 11th year since its inception in 1996, has over 100 affiliated faculty in five schools across the university …and in 16 departments in H & S. [It is] a center that has a vibrant undergraduate teaching program, and, starting in the fall, will have four policy research institutes as part of it. So there's been spectacular growth. The Center has emerged as a premier center of its type in higher education across the country."
Professor Camarillo turned to the goals and objects of CCSRE.
"First--very important--the resources. Those of us…involved in faculty recruitment and appointment know what those scarce resources, those billets, mean. To have these resources provided by the provost's office has really [helped] in a significant way the ability to make this work. The allocation of these ten billets for appointments [may actually enable creation of] ten to 20 appointments. I see [Provost] John Etchemendy squirming over there...if I give you ten billets, how can that possibly be ten to 20? Well, with some creative matching--
[Laughter]
--some creative collaboration between departments and schools that may have half billets, [or] spousal appointments that we can rely on, [or through use of the] Faculty Incentive Fund. So, yes, 20 may be dreaming. But 15 is certainly within the realm of possibility [over] a five-year effort.
"The second goal, of course, is…that we're looking for the very best people" (especially junior professors, but also senior targets of opportunity) doing research on race and ethnicity, both domestic and international. And we hope that out of this, because of the high number of faculty of color that engage in the study of race or ethnicity, this will inevitably help the university's efforts [toward achieving] diversity."
Professor Camarillo described the strategy of engaging in multiple searches. "From the get-go this year, we have multiple searches--four or five, even more next year--knowing that if we can get to a success rate of 50%, that's an enormous achievement. And it looks like we're going to be at 50% this year.
"This is a collaborative arrangement between the provost's office, CCSRE, and Pat Jones' office. The school dean, Richard Saller, has been incredibly supportive. Deborah Stipek [Dean of the School of Education], has been incredibly supportive. And we're reaching out to other deans, department chairs, and chairs of search committees. This has been a truly collaborative arrangement and [there has been] an enthusiastic reception of this initiative.
"What a difference a billet will make when you go to a department chair or a school dean!"
Professor Camarillo described the search process: "We...use regular authorized searches, but we need to expand them, because they alone will not work.
"For example, in my department a couple of years ago, we searched for someone [specializing] in 19th Century America. Had we not emphasized a particular aspect of that [field]--civil war and reconstruction -- we would not have attracted the person we ended up hiring--a brilliant young woman from the University of Chicago who is going to join our faculty in the fall and will teach civil war and reconstruction--African-American experiences in the 19th century.
"So we need to think about those job descriptions and expand them, cast the net more broadly than we do regularly.
"'Pre-search recruitment' [means] consultation with departments, starting discussions early with your colleagues across the country [about] who are the people doing this work [on the assumption that if] we're able in the following year to authorize a search, we have an understanding of who's out there. That's already in process with three departments this year [that are] very likely to be authorized for searches in the fall.
"Targets of opportunity…have to be part of the initiative for senior faculty…If senior colleagues are movable, the target of opportunity has to be used.
"In addition the Center has proposed to both the deans and Provost Etchemendy, to develop themes, areas in the gaps of the research and teaching [about the subject of] race and ethnicity…We used two themes this year which allowed us to identify some outstanding candidates in two different departments. One area that we greatly need at this institution is the study of immigration…So we contacted several departments [to ask] 'Are there candidates that you would be willing to identify in a search process on immigration in the second generation?' The [second] theme this year was the literature of the African diaspora. [The English department decided to create a search for candidates with this interest]. Karen Cook, Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology, and her colleagues implemented a search for an immigration specialist.
"Steeples of excellence and cluster appointments…Historically, how did Stanford become one of the world's great research institutions? Fred Terman, Wally Sterling and others had a vision to develop a world-class university faculty. …by hiring a number of people in a particular department or school, or adding new faculty to areas of strength. We want to implement those [ideas] in the current structure. For example, the political science department has [identified] three people as a result of that [kind of] search…One has already been appointed. We hope a second one will accept our offer sometime next fall.
"The idea of bringing people together, to support each other to build a capability, in [a particular area, in] this case, American politics, is going to attract graduate students and maybe additional faculty. At the same time, we are also bringing in one or two other people that might build on an existing strength in a department. [This is what I mean by a] 'steeple of excellence'.
"We even [look for] people who are not even finished with their dissertation and identify them through colleagues. We did this in a department of H & S before the candidate went on the job market. It's preempting the competition--hiring them, bringing them to Stanford for a predoctoral fellowship, allowing them to finish, and then hiring them as part of a search process.
"Some departments aren't clear where they want to search. We will give them the opportunity and the resources to bring their faculty together or invite faculty from other institutions, to have them [identify] the areas of research where there are good people in the field -- in a sense, a 'presearch' organized around a research colloquium.
"We're just nearing the end of the first year. It's a five-year process. Five offers have been made across several departments. We are hoping that we get our second acceptance soon. We'll be two for four, batting .500--not bad… Next year, there is the possibility of as many as ten or 11 search processes, [including] three that will be continuing from this year in several departments, with as many as seven additional new searches."
Professor Deborah Rhode, Professor of Law was the third speaker. "I don't need…to say more than a couple of words, [which are] variations of the same theme…that of partial progress. The signs of progress are apparent in the very slow but still fairly steadily consistent upward trend that Pat [Jones] mentioned. The fact that we're still at a point of partial progress is reflected in the significant pockets of under representation of women in some parts of the university and the fact that we still need a panel to respond to concerns and monitor gender equity.
"The panel has done two main things in the last couple of years. It's conducted an in-depth survey of quality-of-life issues with focus groups and it's begun to collect data on non-salary forms of compensation along the lines that we reviewed in our 2004 report.
"We expect to have the data completed and a thorough report by next year. It will also include some findings from the quality of life in-depth focus group survey…supplemented by a questionnaire we hope to put out in the fall that will be a general survey of quality-of-life issues from all faculty members.
"What we learned thus far from the focus group interviews is…similar to what emerged in the 2004 report on quality-of-life issues. Basically, it's that the university…made substantial progress in responding to concerns, but that more could and should be done. Among the areas targeted [in which] we're doing a better job is communicating about the policies that are available, making sure that all the deans know about those policies and are accountable for their implementation, and dealing with what many continue to feel is a substantial child care problem.
"I'm happy to report that the university, in response to that last concern, has authorized the construction of two new child care centers and some additional programs. I have [with me] copies of 'Summary: Study on Strategies for Improving Professional Quality of Life: from the Panel on Gender Equity and Quality of Life.' The report is also available on the faculty women's forum Web site.
"A word about the forum, which I co-chair. We've had a…series of really good programs;…more are planned for the rest of the year. We're always eager for suggestions from you about ideas…for initiatives for that group.
"Any questions I'd be happy to take after the meeting or now, if there's time."
Chair Callan opened the floor for questions.
Professor Patricia Burchat began the questions: "In recent years, I think the primary reason that people gave for unsuccessful retentions or recruitments was 'spousal issues'. That didn't show up this time. Has that been folded into other personal or is it just below the bar?"
Professor Jones replied, "It's number four on the list [of reasons]. What we're hearing from the deans this year is that perhaps the majority of their searches and recruitments involve issues surrounding spouse or partner positions. It is a huge challenge, certainly for resources, especially if the individual is looking for a faculty position at Stanford. [Professor of Law] Bob Weisberg, special assistant to the provost for faculty recruitment and retention, does a great job of brokering arrangements. Many department chairs who are knowledgeable about the institution are taking it upon themselves, and the deans' offices are working very hard. [But] it is a big challenge."
Professor Karen Cook asked about the table showing recruitment and retention for 2006 and 2007 which showed in one school a large disparity in the ratio of successful-to-unsuccessful recruitments between male (high ratio) and female (low ratio) candidates. Vice Provost Jones said she would check the underlying data spreadsheet [Note: follow-up after the Senate meeting revealed that the numbers of unsuccessful male and recruitments for H&S were switched i.e., the correct numbers are 12 unsuccessful male recruitments and 1 unsuccessful female recruitment].
Professor Larry Marshall noted that in Professor Jones' remarks about challenges to recruiting and retaining high-quality faculty there was no mention about the issue of "cognitive bias" in terms of faculties' and committees' considerations of potential candidates. [Note: A "cognitive bias" is a pattern of deviation in judgment that may occur in particular situations. In social situations, an example is "Ingroup bias", the tendency for people unconsciously to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.]
"The provost had a program in the medical school a couple of years ago on that [topic]. I was wondering if there are any efforts to expose more faculty across the university so they could be more self-aware as to whether their own assessment of a potential candidate's qualities is in any way affected by those cognitive biases."
Professor Jones nodded. "Yes, definitely. We're trying to come up with approaches that will engage the faculty…effectively about those issues. One under development is an interactive theatrical sketch on the search process, which [illustrates] some of those issues, that …we'll be rolling out for the coming search season."
Professor Philip Lavori, expanding on Professor Marshall's point, "Do you have any idea of what could be done about that cognitive bias on the part of the referees [and their] letters?"
Professor Jones responded, "Information suggests that being made aware…that this bias exists, especially with [regard to] a research basis, is illuminating and encourages people to consider that as they're [writing] the reviews. We do have a series of reports that document unconscious bias. Making that information available can probably help as part of the tool kit we're developing to give to search committees."
Professor Philippe Buc commented, "As anecdotal evidence from my department, when we have retention and promotion cases under discussion, I have noticed…that when we talk about the women, we tend to call them by the first names more often than the men. The men are always 'Professor so-and-so--last name.' [This has gotten] to the point that our administrator systematically edits it out in the documents that go to the deans."
Professor Jones agreed, "That's the kind of thing that is the responsibility of all of us not only to monitor in our own evaluations, but to make friendly suggestions to our colleagues about the appropriate way of discussing these issues."
Vice Provost John Bravman weighed in with a longer-term question. "…The overall growth of the faculty is pretty linear…over a long span of time. [At that growth rate] I would estimate that in roughly 38 years, we'll double the faculty size to 3,600 faculty, which is highly unlikely to eventuate. In 15 years, it's going to be 2,300 or 2,400, which is also hard to imagine…At some point, there's going to have to be a very serious consideration about [what's going to happen] over this span of time, a topic we've never dealt with--which is some kind of constraint on faculty size. I don't know to what extent discussions of when we do that will occur, but I'm sure the departments and the deans and the Faculty Senates of the future will be very interested in that."
Chair Callan called a halt to further discussion because of the constraint of time. "Thanks very much to Pat, to Al, and to Deborah--first names for everyone!"
The Senate applauded.
B. Committee on Research (C-Res): Army High Performance Research Computing Center (SenD# 6085)
Chair Callan introduced the subject:
"Included in your packets - Senate Document # 6085 are the cover memo from Professor Steve Monismith submitting a report from the Committee on Research, requested by last year's Steering Committee, on the Army High Performance Computing Research Center (AHPCRC) research project funded by the US Army. In addition to the report are five attachments:
1. Letter to the Stanford Daily editor, June 1, 2007, signed by over fifty faculty members, expressing deep concern over the recent announcement that Stanford had been chosen to lead the Army High Performance Computing Research Center consortium….Stanford's current "Openness in Research" policy.
2. Stanford Report article, April 25, 2007, titled "$105 Million goes to Computing Center," that describes the project and the director, Professor Charbel Farhat (Mechanical Engineering), who will head the multidisciplinary center.
3. The U.S. Army AHPCRC Program Announcement Executive Summary.
4. A memo from Professor Bernard Roth to the C-Res, describing the signing group's seven points of concerns regarding the project.
"I hope you've all have a chance to read these documents.
"The StC issued invitations to attend this Senate meeting to Professor Farhat and Professor Roth. Professor Farhat could not attend, but Professor Roth is in attendance and, with the approval of the Senate, will be invited to say a few words later in the meeting.
"In addition to the C-Res members, other guest include Meredith O'Connor, Senior Contract and Grant Officer, Steve Eisner, Export Control Officer, and Tom Fenner, Deputy General Counsel.
"It may be helpful for me to say a few words at the outset about the history of the petition and why it took so long to come to the Senate. The petition was received late in the Spring quarter of 2007 by the Chair of the Senate, Sheri Sheppard, and the Chair of C-Res, Bernd Girod. Sheri and Bernd quickly convened several meetings that included the incoming Chairs of the Senate and C-Res because it was immediately apparent that the complex matters addressed in the petition could not be adequately addressed in the little that remained of the academic year. One decision we did reach quickly was to distinguish between the questions raised in the petition about whether the research proposed for the Army Computing Center was in keeping with the university's policy on openness in research and the more general questions about military research at Stanford. The former questions were within the jurisdiction of C-Res, and would require detailed and meticulous investigation before a report to the senate could be made; the latter, broadly ethical questions could be posed directly to the senate when C-Res was ready to make its report, and it would be up to the senate to decide what to do with these. Last year's controversy about research funding from the tobacco industry might elicit an unwelcome sense of déjà vu among some senators, though others might be very happy to return our attention to deep questions about our moral responsibilities as scholars. The point I would emphasize is that though all regret the delay in bringing the petition to the senate, the importance of C-Res discharging its responsibilities with the utmost care made delay inevitable. And the senate should be very grateful for the intensive work that Steve Monismith and his committee have done over many months. This item is before you today for Senate discussion only."
"Professor Monismith, please come forward to present your committee's report."
Professor Monismith with the aid of slides began his presentation:
Introduction
"First of all, you'll be tested on the acronyms after my presentation is done. And second, I apologize; I don't have any equations in my presentation. Usually when I give PowerPoint presentations, they're loaded with equations.
"I want to give you an overview of our report.
What was the review about?"
"Professor Charbel Farhat was the leader of a consortium, with Stanford identified as the lead organization that won a competitively awarded proposal research grant to establish a high-performance computing center. This had been at Minnesota for about the previous decade. It was really quite a coup to get this away from Minnesota. [However] not too long after [the award] was announced, there was a petition by a large group of faculty, led by Professor Bernie Roth, to basically address the question--is this [grant] consistent with Stanford's principles, in particular with our principles of openness in research?"
"So we [the Committee on Research] took this on." Professor Monismith then described the voluminous documents reviewed (including the request for proposal, the proposal documents and the final agreement) and the care given to that review.
"The bottom line is the proposal is consistent and the agreement is consistent with our policies. That's the conclusion. Now I'll just quickly go through the pieces. I want to emphasize that we only looked at the proposal from the standpoint of compliance with Stanford's policies." Professor Monismith noted that the committee did not address "the issue of appropriateness of the military research outlined in the proposal. You can discuss that later."
What is the Army High Performance Research Computing Center (AHPCRC)?
Professor Monismith described the AHPCRC. It is a consortium of universities that includes Stanford, along with the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), Morgan State University, and New Mexico State University (NMSU), which he described as high-quality universities with high minority student populations. The consortium also includes NASA/Ames, and a private company, High Performance Technologies Incorporated (HPTi) which is a key part of how the project is structured. This consortium was formed to do basic, unclassified research on high-performance computing…in a wide range of areas, from basic computer science to computational fluid dynamics.
Professor Monismith continued, "It [the project] also funds summer programs for high school and undergraduate students, for example, taking students from UTEP, Morgan State, and NMSU and bringing them to Stanford, where, a year or two later, they might end up as Stanford graduate students… HPTi also manages a large computing facility for the Army, based at NASA. In fact, one of the large sets of documents is a detailed list, down to every keyboard, of the equipment the center includes.
"Finally, it includes a plan for technology transfer of the computer codes, numerical methods, et cetera, to Army labs. A big part of this plan involves people known as 'Staff Scientists', who are actually employees of HPTi."
What were the issues of concern?
"The issues of concern were, first, [Stanford has] an explicit ban on classified research. Does this [project] involve any classified research at Stanford? Does AHPCRC involve use of any classified materials that either will be used or kept at Stanford? Do you have to have a security clearance to work on this research or to use the computers involved? And here's an important point: As listed in the project announcement, the Staff Scientists actually are required to be able to get a security clearance. And, finally, there's a position identified as the Cooperative Agreement Manager (CAM)…Does the CAM essentially impinge or interfere with academic freedom? Does this person basically have too much authority as to what goes on in the project?"
Professor Monismith summarized the findings of C-Res regarding these issues.
"There will be no classified research at Stanford. All the work done at Stanford will be openly publishable.
"Are there classified materials that will be used or kept at Stanford? No. In fact, the documents make clear that we will not accept as part of this project any classified materials.
"Is a security clearance required to participate in the research or use the computers? No. The use of NASA-based computers actually does require some screening, but [this requirement] applies to everybody."
Professor Monismith noted the potential effect of such across-the-board screening, which could conceivably limit access to participating in the research by some people, such as (for example) those from Iran or from China. However, to address this possibility and to alleviate this concern, "Professor Farhat was able to get the Army to fund a separate new computing facility at Stanford."
"What about the Staff Scientists? Yes, Staff Scientists are required to get security clearance. But the Staff Scientists aren't Stanford employees, they're employees of HPTi, so our rules don't apply to them…Our research policy …contemplates projects where some people involved have security clearance. It's not against the rules. They can participate in our programs. So Staff Scientists having security clearance in and of itself is not a violation of Stanford's policy." [Note: as described in the C-Res report, RPH 2.6 allows for situations where some members of a research team have security clearances, where those without such clearances "would nevertheless be able to participate fully in all of the intellectually significant portions of the project," which C-Res found was the case here.]
"Does the CAM, the cooperative agreement manager, interfere with academic freedom? No. The CAM in a lot of ways functions like the way normal Department of Defense (DoD) program managers function. I have, myself, worked on projects sponsored by Office of Naval Research. DoD program managers, in my experience, participate in a more hands-on way than do others. In the AHPCRC, in fact, they've got quite a detailed structure set up for formulating an annual research plan which actually fulfills the role of an annual proposal. That proposal, in fact, is produced by a collective effort in the consortium. It's overseen by the CAM, but the director of the center, Professor Farhat, has a large say about the annual proposal in collaboration with other members of the consortium. So it's not out of the ordinary."
Summary
"To summarize, this is a complex and voluminous proposal and agreement…It's not a straightforward kind of single investigator DoD or NSF or NIH grant…But it is one that's consistent with Stanford's policy.
"Secondly, the consortium research may actually lead, in the future, to classified work by others, particularly at the Army Research Labs. This is something that is contemplated by the program. But it's not part of the project, and so it's not contrary to our research policy.
"Third--and this is a major point--the proposal was vetted by Stanford's research administration...There's a very well-established process for submitting proposals for sponsored research that basically ensures compliance with Stanford policies. That procedure was followed and the result is that the AHPCRC does conform to our policies.
"Finally, this review [by C-Res], in our opinion, was unprecedented. It involves one group of faculty looking at another group of faculty's proposal. We had this debate last year in the context of tobacco funding." Using a slide that quoted from Research Policy Handbook 2.1 (Principles Concerning Research), which articulates the freedom of Stanford faculty members "to select the subject matter of their research, to seek support from any source for their work, and to form their own findings and conclusions", Professor Monismith commented, "We hope that we all remember that each of us is free, subject to our own ethics and conscience, to seek support from anyone that we choose that's legal, and to form our own findings and conclusions." In closing, Professor Monismith expressed the hope of the Committee that it would not be called upon to review another proposal in the future.
Chair Callan invited Professor Ann Arvin, Vice Provost and Dean of Research to comment.
Dean Arvin replied, "I'd like just to thank Stephen [Professor Monismith] and the Committee [C-Res] and the staff for doing this very complex and demanding review."
Chair Callan invited Professor Roth to speak.
Professor Roth commented, "First of all, I want to thank the Steering Committee of last year for bringing this issue up and giving it to the committee [C-Res]. I know it's a lot of work, and I do appreciate your doing it. And I thank also the staff and Ann [Dean Arvin]. I think they all did a very diligent job. I know it was a 'humongous' job, and I know they have other things to do with their time. So I appreciate all of that.
"In your report, given here, you didn't mention a few things which pleased me a lot. They are in the written report. I hope I read it correctly. [The first] is that you agreed there are causes for some concern that in the future some things might happen and that, in fact, we should exercise extreme vigilance in this case. I hope I'm not misquoting you. Okay?" [Professor Monismith nodded in assent.]
"I think I read that Professor Farhat himself agreed that there could be difficulty and he would, under some circumstances, withdraw his activities [from] this project. It pleased me that the people involved and thoroughly looking at the proposal saw some issues that one has to be concerned with regarding Stanford policy.
"The things that didn't please me so much were [as follows]: I don't agree that the role of the CAM is sort of like [the counterpart in a project sponsored by the] DoD. This person has veto power of a lot of things. The CAM may or may not choose to exercise that power, but these are functions that we normally associate with [the responsibility of] Stanford faculty. I think [the CAM's role] is somewhat extraordinary. For example, in the summer programs, [the CAM] can veto who the faculty are…what the curriculum is and who participates. I am troubled by that.
"I'm also troubled about the role of the Staff Scientists. This is a very complex consortium proposal, and on the face of it, if you read the Army Call for Proposals, it wouldn't pass Stanford muster at all. What was done, in my view, is that the proposal was 'tweaked' to make it fit the letter of the law, cleverly. But, really, it depends very much upon how it gets implemented down the line.
"There are 11 Staff Scientists who have security clearances. Their job is technology transfer, that is, working on secret things. Three of them, according to the call for proposal, are stationed at consortium sites, which would possibly be Stanford, whereas, in your review, they would occasionally visit…" [Note: the C-Res report stated its finding that under the consortium's proposal none of the 11 Staff Scientists would be based at Stanford.]
"The third [concern] is the computer at NASA. It's like we have 'separate but equal' facilities--one is secret and this one isn't. I think this [project] is going to last for five, maybe ten years. I think there's a lot of cause for concern down the line.
"[The C-Res wasn't] charged to look at anything but the technical details…You do mention the 'tobacco thing.' The big issue for me is the moral and ethical one—the use of university resources [for this project]. If you take the 'tobacco thing' and you 'tweak' it into what's going on here, [this it what it looks like:]…They're taking young children, high school children [and] running them through a program to get them…into the pipeline to work at Army Research Labs. Now [for 'Army Research Labs', substitute] 'tobacco research'. You take the tobacco companies [funds], run [a project] under Stanford's name, and take smart kids…and teach them how to smoke when they get older, [and] they become good smoking customers. It's a little bit absurd, but that's kind of what the analogy is. [The aim] is not to teach these people math skills, it's to get them tuned into this kind of work so they will choose that as their career. I don't think we should be doing that and Stanford's name should be used for that."
Finally Professor Roth complained about lack of access to the entire proposal. "We've gone to Dean Arvin [and] we've gone to the Principal Investigator, [Professor] Charbel Farhat in my department, as a colleague. No one has shown us virtually anything. Dean Arvin gave us [a few] pages from a memorandum of understanding. Stanford's rules are that if it's not secret, it's supposed to be available to be seen. It's in the report. You quote that in your report exactly that way. Stanford, by blocking us from [access to this proposal] is violating its own rules and makes it seem more secret than apparently you found it [to be]. It's not that I don't trust you, it's [that] I think we have a right to see it.
"I think the issue is unresolved. I think there are big moral issues. And I think the [proposal] should be made available. I'm willing to read it. I don't care what people's salaries are; you can cross those out…But what I do care about is what [the participating Stanford faculty] promised the Army they're going to do in terms of lethal things--and then come back and talk about 'technology transfer'. If you read the press reports, it's half 'technology transfer' to civilian things, and it's kind of white washing what's done. I don't think that's the kind of moral, ethical thing for us to do.
"I thank you for your time."
Chair Callan thanked Professor Roth and asked Professor Monismith if he would care to respond.
Professor Monismith replied to Professor Roth, "I disagree on [your characterization of] CAM. I disagree on the 'pipeline' issue...from my reading of it, this is a fairly 'vanilla' attempt to [train] people [in] computational mathematics. The idea goes back to the Vannevar Bush Doctrine that we strengthen our defense capacity [by the support of scientific research]. [Vannevar Bush was an engineer who in effect was the first presidential scientific advisor during the Cold War and a proponent of the military support of science.] I don't think it's specifically focused on a pipeline to Army Research Labs. The idea is, by having a pool of U.S. citizens, particularly from underrepresented minorities, who can do advanced computation computer science, that's in the nation's interest."
Professor Roth rejoined, "The program announcement specifically uses the word 'pipeline' for that."
Professor Monismith continued, "The second point was about the Staff Scientists. None of them are Stanford employees, period. The third point, which probably is worth bringing up, we took it as a matter of principle, and I think I speak for the whole committee on this, that since individual faculty don't have the right to see each other's proposals, we weren't prepared to release the proposal. That's our feeling. If Professor Farhat wants to give Bernie [Professor Roth] the proposal, that's his business."
Chair Callan opened the floor for discussion.
Professor Phillip Buc. "…Unlike tobacco, national defense is vital and it can involve some secrecy. We admit that we have a national defense. It's 'Utopian' not to think that secrecy does not have to be involved. Secondly…I found it remarkable that there were no 'zones of doubt' left…I don't have any sense of what kind of debate may have occurred [within the C-Res]. I'm glad that Professor Roth was here to question you. Finally, I think I would disagree with your last slide.
[The slide states in part …'all Stanford faculty recognize and reaffirm a freedom of faculty members …to select the subject matter of their research, to seek support from any source for their work, and to form their own findings and conclusions.']
"Ethics and conscience are seldom integral things. Of course, we're responsible [to our] conscience, but we're also responsible to ethics."
Professor Malcolm Beasley was next to comment. "I think I know the answer, Steve, but I think it would be useful to have it on the table. If we regard this, really, mammoth undertaking as a case study in our policies and our procedures, is there anything…that would lead you to think we need to change any policies or examine our procedures for ensuring compliance?"
Professor Monismith responded, "Probably not, aside from increasing the staffing, simply because these agreements are huge and take up an enormous amount of time…"
Dean Arvin commented, "The committee looked at all of the procedures as well as the policies. I didn't, myself, identify, nor did I think any of the committee members, any specific revisions or recommendations for revision."
Professor Monismith acknowledged Professor Roth's point that the Army has interests related to its own mission in funding this research. He also acknowledged that, "it is conceivable that down the road the Army could classify things that were done as part of this proposal. That can happen with all kinds of things in research. And Professor Farhat was most adamant that he would stop the center if that happened. It's amazing that this kind of thing is probably more [common] than -- probably many of us [realize]. I was [once] involved in a Navy research project. At a dinner years later, a program manager told me that the final report from this program had been classified. We had published papers out of it. So there's always this tension that this can happen. If that happened, that would be major adjustment to lose a $100 million center."
Professor David Burke asked, "Can you comment…on what safeguards are in the agreement that protects research being done by students that they may [rely on as part of meeting a requirement for]… a degree from [being] stopped or transferred by the private company or CAM person?"
Dean Arvin replied, "I think the whole tone and tenor of the agreement repeatedly through the agreement assures [us] that everything that is an outcome of this research will be freely publishable. So if the Army decided to back away from the explicit terms of the agreement…we would have to make a major response."
Professor Monismith added, "The cover letter makes it very clear at the start that we do openly publishable work and that this is the greatest public benefit—and…to the Army….So I think it's in the Army's own interests not to do that."
President Hennessy commented, "Just a point of clarification. The government can classify something, whether or not they're financing it…This is an ongoing source of tension, because, of course, to start doing that would effectively shut down university research and thereby undercut the technical accomplishments that I think the defense industry relies on."
Professor Burke was concerned, "In this case, there seems to be a mechanism in place within the construction of this consortium, including this technology transfer."
President Hennessy replied, "I think on the national front, there's a struggle how the military is going to deal with certain things where it needs to move it beyond, say, academic research, into military application. And the way they're pursuing it is very similar to this. They're setting up technology transfer organizations within the research laboratories where they can take the freely-published academic work and begin to apply it more directly to its explicit application. So, really, what they're worried about is the explicit application. And by doing that transfer, they hope to allow the universities to make their contribution in the open setting and subsequently harvest it for military."
Professor Burke had another question, "Can you say something about the nature of this company. Is it a profit or not for profit?"
Professor Monismith responded, "It's a for-profit consulting firm…HPTi does a lot of consulting about…various aspects of computational technology with the military."
Professor James Plummer, Terman Dean of Engineering commented, "Since Professor Farhat couldn't be here today, I wanted to make the point that very early on in the process when he was thinking about competing for this large Army center, he came to see me, Dean Ann Arvin and a number of other people. His perspective from the very beginning was--he wanted to do this. He thought it would be a great program for Stanford and for its faculty and students. But he would only do it if it would be done in such a way that it would clearly be consistent with Stanford policies. So…he was sensitive to these issues and tried to make sure that the agreement was thoroughly discussed with the sponsored research people to make sure it could be crafted in a way that…everyone will be comfortable with. I'm sure if he would have been able to be here, he would have said that."
Professor Jerry Harris wondered, "Since this is a consortium, as far as you know, are the agreements with the other consortium members as open as the one that we have here at Stanford?"
Dean Arvin replied, "The agreement was signed by representatives from each of the institutions."
Professor Monismith added, "All of the institutions in the consortium agree that the consortium's activities are open and fully publishable."
Chair Callan thanked Professor Monismith and Dean Arvin for all their hard work. He also thanked Professor Roth and his fellow petitioners for bringing their concerns to the attention of the Senate and C-Res.
The Senate applauded.
VI. Unfinished BusinessThere was no unfinished business.
VII. New BusinessThere was no new business.
VIII. AdjournmentThe motion to adjourn was moved, second and approved. The Senate adjourned at 4:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted, Rex L. Jamison, M.D. tAcademic Secretary to the University
