Board Meeting Thursday June 20, 2013
Regents: Michael Carrigan, Chair Steve Bosley Glen Gallegos James Geddes Irene Griego Kyle Hybl Stephen Ludwig Joseph Neguse Sue Sharkey
Distinguished Guests: Kathleen Bollard, University of Colorado, Vice President & Academic Affairs Officer Professor Mark Bauerlein, Emory University Philip DiStefano, Chancellor, CU Boulder Professor Robert Nagel, Rothgerber Professor of Constitutional Law, CU Law School Professor Paul Chinowsky, Chair, Boulder Faculty Assembly Professor Patty Limerick, Chair, Center of the American West Pam Shockley-Zalabak, Chancellor, CU Colorado Springs Lilly Marks, Vice President for Health Affairs, Executive Vice Chancellor, Anschutz Medical Campus Bruce Benson, President, University of Colorado Patrick O’Rourke, Vice President, University Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Regents
Carrigan: I would ask the Board members to come forward and take your positions. (gavel pounds) We’ll go back into session and continue with our agenda. We are now on Part F of our agenda, and we have an action item: Revision of Policy 5(L)—Policy to Approve of Faculty Titles. And, I do not see Regent Bosley… Regent Bosley is coming forward. I believe Vice President Bollard is going to introduce the item.
Bollard: Can you hear me? 1
Hybl: Where are we?
Carrigan: We are on Item F (1). Regent Bosley, is there anything you wanted to say before we invite Vice President Bollard?
Bosley: Kathleen was going to...
Carrigan: Okay.
Bollard: Okay. This is a proposed change that involves the creation of new faculty titles: Professor of Clinical Practice, Associate and Assistant Professor and Instructor of Clinical Practice. It's not a tenure-track line, and it addresses needs of the medical school to be able to hire clinicians and offer them a professor title when they don't necessarily have to do scholarship. And so, they've done an analysis. They don't believe there will be any significant cost involved in this. And, that's pretty much an overview.
Carrigan: Thank you. Regent Bosley.
Bosley: I appreciate that Kathleen. I would add that this process took 18 months—
Carrigan: Perhaps we should move it and second it, and then we discuss it.
Bosley: I so move.
Ludwig: Second.
Carrigan: Thank you. Moved by Regent Bosley, seconded by Recent Ludwig. Thank you. Regent Bosley, discussion?
Bosley: That there was a significant discussion and 86% of the faculty approved it. The Faculty Council has approved it, and in the discussion, what I’ve particularly noted is I’d asked about ability to attract perhaps other faculty members to come that because other universities don’t have the same thing, and I got an enthusiastic positive on that, so.
Carrigan: Wonderful.
Bosley: I think this is well done.
Carrigan: Other discussion? Any questions for the Board? I see none. All in favor.
Various: Aye.
Carrigan: Any opposed?
2 (inaudible or no response)
Carrigan: Chair abstains. It passes 8 to 0 to 1. The next item on our agenda is F (2): Discussion and possible action item. And, do we have anyone to move that item?
Geddes: I move that the item F (2).
Carrigan: Moved by Regent Geddes.
Sharkey: I’d like to second.
Carrigan: Second by Regent Sharkey. Discussion? Regent Sharkey.
Sharkey: I’d like to present an opening statement if I can. I’d like to start by saying that the American Association of Colleges and Universities wrote in 2009: “In any education of quality, students encounter an abundance of intellectual diversity, new knowledge, different perspectives, competing ideas and alternative claims of truth.”
Benno Schmidt, former President of Yale University and Chairman of the Board of the City University of New York recently said it even stronger: “The freedom to challenge widely-held beliefs and to speak one’s mind, these are the indispensable habits and practices of any university worthy of the name.”
Today, the Board of Regents will consider two resolutions and hear information about an issue that is vital to the University of Colorado: intellectual diversity and to ensure an education of quality. For years, the Board of Regents has stressed the importance of eduction that prepares students to work and live in a complex society where people hold diverse viewpoints. Our guiding principles call for the University of Colorado to promote faculty, student and staff diversity to ensure the rich interchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth in learning, including diversity of political, geographic, cultural, intellectual and philosophical perspectives.
Even more simply, the Laws of the Regents have long contained the principle: “The fullest exposure to conflicting opinions is the best insurance against error.” Regent Geddes and I have brought forth two resolutions, which we hope that the Board of Regents will support, but we also hope the University of Colorado community will lend its full support to them as well. Neither resolution is designed to impose an ideological agenda. And, let me repeat that. Neither resolution is designed to impose an ideological agenda upon the University of Colorado, its campuses or its faculty. Both resolutions ask the University of Colorado community to embrace broad scholarly principles, create an environment where the marketplace of ideas flourish and prepare our students to fully engage in a society that cherishes its differences as much as its similarities.
The first resolution calls for the University of Colorado to conduct a climate survey across each of the campuses to determine how well the campuses have implemented the guiding principle that encourages the rich interchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth in learning, including
3 diversity of political, geographic, cultural, intellectual and philosophical perspectives. Without data, the Board of Regents and the University community cannot gauge how well it is meeting this goal.
Consistent with the principles of academic research, rather than relying upon anecdotal evidence or urban legend, this climate survey will tell us where we have succeeded and where we have opportunities to make the University of Colorado stronger.
The climate survey is not designed to target any particular department, faculty or viewpoint. Instead, the resolution calls for the faculty to participate in selecting a nonpartisan organization to conduct the survey. It calls for the organization to look across the campuses to determine how well we embrace diversity in all of its forms. We want the University of Colorado to be welcoming to faculty and students of all races, genders, religions, sexual orientation and, yes, political affiliations and political philosophies. It calls for the organization to assess whether our faculty and students believe the University has created an environment where people of all beliefs can engage in a rich exchange of ideas.
When we receive the data from this survey, the University of Colorado community can assess the best ways to guarantee that every student receives the highest quality educational experience. Naturally, the principles of academic freedom will always allow for spirited debate in the classroom, and no faculty member should fear that the Board of Regents intends to use this survey as a means to dictate the curriculum or methods of instruction. Those are matters where the Board should not tread, but we can help provide data that will allow the faculty to provide the fullest educational experiences.
The second resolution calls for the Regents to amend the Laws of the Regents to prohibit discrimination based upon either political affiliation or political philosophy. And, I wish to be clear about why I have offered this resolution. It is not to insert the Board of Regents in the decision to hire particular faculty members. It is not to impose a litmus test on any particular intellectual issues. As an individual Regent, I would never attempt to tell any department, whether it is chemistry, sociology or education, how to assess a candidate’s scholarship.
But, here’s what I would say, and what I would understand this resolution to accomplish. The University of Colorado will hire the best faculty based upon the merit of their scholarship. The University of Colorado will promote faculty and grant tenure because they have earned those promotions and demonstrated their excellence in teaching and research. The University of Colorado will not terminate or non-renew a faculty member because of his or her race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation or political philosophy. The University of Colorado will have mechanisms to investigate whether any student or faculty member has been discriminated against, and where discrimination exists, it will be remedied.
None of these principles is controversial. None marks a change in the course that the University of Colorado set for itself long ago. And, again, let me repeat that statement because I think it’s very important that this is heard: None marks a change in the course in the University of Colorado that it set for itself long ago. At the end of the day, we all share a fundamental goal,
4 which is that no one, whether within the University of Colorado or beyond, should question whether our students receive a broad and challenging education.
The University of Colorado must stand for academic excellence and embrace the best scholars and students no matter whether they are men or women, Christian or Muslim, gay or straight or conservative or liberal. I invite each of you to embrace these concepts and support the resolutions offered today. Thank you.
Carrigan: Thank you, Regent Sharkey. Regent Geddes.
Geddes: Thank you, Regent Sharkey. I’d like to, for the record, read the first recommended action. And, this has to do with what I term the campus survey resolution:
“Resolved: The Regents of the University of Colorado—“
Carrigan: You have the right to read this. I don’t know that you have to. We have it all in writing.
Geddes: Well, we have a lot of folks here that don’t have it. Maybe… I don’t see it on the screen up there, but…
Carrigan: Can we put it on Board docs?
Geddes: I will be… I’ll try to read it quickly.
Carrigan: Okay.
Geddes: Alright.
“RESOLVED, The Regents of the University of Colorado call for an objective and nonpartisan evaluation by a professional external survey company to assess the efficacy by which the University of Colorado campuses have implemented the principle that they ‘respect diversity in all of its forms,’
“RESOLVED, This survey shall collect and analyze data on the extent to which competing ideas, perspectives and claims of truth are presented and the extent to which member of the University community feel safe and supported in exploring and articulating their beliefs and viewpoint.
“RESOLVED, The Regents of the University of Colorado direct the President of the University of Colorado to commission a Request for Proposal by which qualified nonpartisan firms may compete for the opportunity to conduct this survey.
5 “RESOLVED, The Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Regents appoint a search committee with appropriate faculty representation to review the proposals and select a firm that will conduct the survey.
“RESOLVED, The Regents of the University of Colorado direct that search process to be completed and an appropriate contract implemented with the successful firm on or before September 1, 2013,” which is just two months away.
There is a Statement of Information I’m going to skip over for the moment, and I propose that I read the second resolution subsequent to the conversation.
Carrigan: There’s one on the table… Right, subsequent to conversation.
Geddes: Subsequent to this conversation, and I would like to simply review—and, again, I’ll be as brief as I can—some written statements that were submitted to the Board of Regents by parties that have been divulged to the Board of Regents and to the other participants in this conversations.
Carrigan: You have some written statements that you’ve going to summarize, right?
Geddes: I’m going to summarize them.
Carrigan: Okay. Very good.
Geddes: The first is from a professor Donald Downs, who holds an Endowed Chair at the University of Wisconsin Madison and is an expert on First Amendment freedom issues. And, his statement is several pages long. I’m just going to read the first, roughly half of it. And, you know, I found that, in all due respect to everyone in this room, that sometimes faculty can be a little bit verbose. And so, I will truncate it a little bit.
“The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities.” And, that was a quote by Allan Bloom.
“A great university has two basic moral characters: To pursue the truth in knowledge in a professionally responsible and qualified manner and to teach young adults. Successful teaching has many aspects, including presenting students with the best works and ideas in a subject or field, instilling habits of critical thought and respect for knowledge and truth and preparing students for the demand of intellectual citizenship in a free society.
“Three connected intellectual virtues are necessary conditions in order to achieve these estimable ends: reliance upon reason and objectivity, intellectual honesty and intellectual freedom. Reason and objectivity are vital to the pursuit of truth because they entail respect for evidence and the need to justify conclusions, rather than asserting them in an authoritarian fashion.
6 “Intellectual honesty is important in two respects. One is self-evident. Intellectual honesty obviously means the absence of intellectual fraud. Fraud is self-evidently harmful to truth. Another aspect of intellectual honesty is equally important: honestly speaking one’s truth.
“Truth suffers when one is reluctant or afraid to conclude what one truly believes is true because of political or social pressure. All great dissenters who eventually changed the course of history have had the courage of their beliefs. Without intellectual honesty, the pall of orthodoxy can reign, which is the end of truth.”
He goes on for several more pages and embellishes on that concept. He basically warns us that intellectual diversity cannot legitimately be had in the presence of speech codes or invasion of privacy.
The next submitted writing is from Professor Mitchell, and I am not going to read his. He basically spent a number of years at our university here teaching and has felt that he was in a very uncomfortable situation while serving here in the university and felt that his… He is a strong conservative and a strong, very strong Christian also. And, that he was uncomfortable in the midst of our current milieu here.
I’m going to choose to go on to the final one. There is a professor that I will certify to you that is currently teaching here on the Boulder campus, who has asked that I not divulge the person’s name or any identifying information, but I will certify to you all as a Regent of the University that this is, he is a professor.
Ludwig: Regent Geddes?
Geddes: Yes?
Ludwig: As a point of order—
Carrigan: Yes, Regent Ludwig.
Ludwig: We had a guest present something to us from someone that anonymous, and from the description of the young woman, it was kind of clear who that was. But, I’m challenged as a Board member by taking testimony from someone that’s not identified because it doesn’t occur to me as more than hearsay. I don’t doubt—
Geddes: It’s not hearsay, it’s from me. And, it’s… I’m certifying that this is a professor on this campus.
Carrigan: Excuse me, Regent. I recognized Ludwig to make a point of procedure order, which I am going allow him to do, to finish.
Geddes: Sure.
7
Ludwig: Yeah, so, Regent Geddes, I don’t doubt that it’s a legitimate professor; however, the Board, trying to make policy decisions, accepting anonymous information is challenging.
Geddes: Well, I think you’re free to delete from your consideration.
Carrigan: Regent Geddes, why don’t you summarize it as briefly as you can, so we can—
Geddes: It’s very brief.
Carrigan: —move this discussion forward.
Geddes: This is a communication given to me by this person after the most recent meeting, and I have kind of written this up to be prepared. After our most recent meeting, I had the opportunity to communicate with a UCB faculty member who disagreed with the Chancellor’s statement that differences in politics, backgrounds and experiences are abundant across the campus. This faculty member told me that those who do not share liberal opinions are often in hiding because their views are made of fun of by their peers. Conservatives are viewed as, not just having another point of view, but as being stupid and ill-informed. In this faculty member’s opinion, when Senator Hank Brown left the University, there seemed to be housecleaning of conservatives in positions of power across the campus. So, I offer it for what it’s worth.
And, that’s the end of my summary of the written statements, and we do have, as you know, two professors who have joined us for this discussion. And, about now, we should expect to be in communication with a Professor Mark Bauerlein who currently is a professor at the University of… Emory University, and… Would I… Would we know whether or not he’s joined us or…
Carrigan: I believe he’s available. So, that concludes your remarks, Regent Geddes?
Geddes: That concludes my remarks, but I was going to introduce Professor Bauerlein.
Carrigan: Would you do that?
Geddes: Sure.
Carrigan: And, all the Board members know, and Regents Geddes and Sharkey had informed us they’ve invited two guest speakers who will be addressing the Board, one via video who has a time constraint, so the proposal is that he would go first. Second, Professor Nagel is here in person. But, I… Professors Sharkey and Geddes, who have been very generous in giving their time, before we turn it over to the guest speakers, any comments or questions, or do you want to wait, hold your discussion until after they’ve spoken?
(none heard)
8 Carrigan: Okay. Very good. So, I believe Professor Bauerlein will be addressing us by video. And, when he is brought up on the screen, why don’t you read the introduction like you do…
Geddes: Sure. Professor Bauerlein spent about a year on our campus recently, and he has agreed to simply describe his experiences while on our campus. But, I thought I’d read his biography. Mark Bauerlein is a professor of English at Emory University, where he has taught since 1989, after receiving his Ph.D. from UCLA. He served as Director of the Office of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts in 2004 and 2005, and he has worked on projects for the Council of Chief State School Officers, the College Board, ETS, the Arts Education Partnership and other organizations, including assisting in the development of English language arts standards for the Common Core Initiative and chairing the Commission to Review and Revise the AP English Literature Curriculum.
He has written or co-written seven books, edited or co-edited five books, and published dozens of scholarly essays in PMLA, Partisan Review, Yale Review, Wilson Quarterly, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Philosophy and Literature and other prominent journals. He has produced research reports for Pioneer Institute, American Enterprise Institute, National Endowment of the Arts and the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. His commentaries and reviews have appeared in the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, London Times, Toronto Globe and Mail, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, CNN.com, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Journal of Constitution, The Weekly Standard, Bloomingburg News, Commentary Magazine, Reason Magazine and other periodicals.
In the last four years, he has conducted more than 350 radio and television interviews, including CBS News with Katie Couric, Lou Dobbs and so forth, NPR’s All Things Considered, BBC’s World Today, Canadian Public Radio, Fox and Friends—oh, my gosh—and C-Span’s Booknotes. Is Professor Bauerlein on the line?
Gallegos: Can I get a quick answer to a question?
Carrigan: Give Regent Gallegos a point of privilege.
Gallegos: The people we’re going to listen to, are they talking about Boulder campus? Or, are they talking about all campuses at once?
Geddes: Boulder campus in these two.
Gallegos: Boulder campus, in particular. And, the resolution as you read it, is it for all four CU campuses or only for Boulder?
Geddes: All campuses.
Gallegos: All campuses. But, we’re only going to hear about the Boulder experiences? Okay.
9 Geddes: Well, these two professor only have had—
Gallegos: That’s answered my question.
Geddes: —Boulder experiences, so…
Carrigan: Okay. Professor Bauerlein, is he coming up?
Bauerlein: I am here. Am I coming through?
Carrigan: Yes. Thank you, Professor Bauerlein, and thank you for joining us. And, I’ll just remind you and all of our guest speakers, you’ve been asked to keep your comments to ten minutes or less. Thank you.
Bauerlein: Sure. I should be able to keep this to seven minutes. Am I on the screen, or no?
Carrigan: We are not seeing you be video.
Geddes: Is there a way to get him on the screen, Sheryl?
Unidentified Speaker: If you can share your webcam, then we’ll be able to see you.
Bauerlein: You know I’m… We did this morning, but I’m not getting the same windows that I got… I have a box that says, “Successfully connected. Waiting for Organizer.”
Geddes: Well, that wouldn’t be me, so…
(laughter)
Carrigan: Professor Bauerlein, why don’t you begin your remarks via… I apologize for the video difficulty.
Bauerlein: Okay. Well, what I’m here to do… I speak as essentially recounting a little bit of my experience last year when I was a visiting professor on the Boulder campus. And, some odd things happened that I’m not quite sure myself of how to explain them. I was contacted by Tom Lucero a year before to talk about some things, and he mentioned the issue of me coming out to Boulder, maybe coming for a year, serving as a visiting professor and perhaps bringing some programs to campus, teaching courses that might introduce some conservative content. I’m known as a conservative in education circles. And, I thought, “Oh, well, okay. This sounds interesting.”
And so, I came out to campus for two days. I had 16 hours. This was in the spring of 2011. I was told by Tom that my name had come up in discussions with President Benson and Chancellor DiStefano and some other Regents and that the dean, Todd Gleason at the time, sort of served as my unofficial host. And, he had me come out. I had 16 hours of meetings with
10 people, and they went very well. I met with many different faculty members and some administrators, people who run centers and with the dean, and it sounded very… People were very enthusiastic, very interested.
I met with Susan Kent, who’s a Chair of History, I believe, at the time. And, we had a very good lunch and an informative one. She said, at one point, that… “Let me tell you what this is about. This is about the prospect of bringing you here, maybe taking this conservative chair, or bringing conservative issues to the campus. And, Mark, I’ll be honest. You and I are… We are different politically. We have different opinions, but I’ve asked people about you. I’ve checked you out, and from what I have heard, you are a very reasonable person. You work with people. You’ve done some good things. And, that we would like to… I think this would be great.”
I had my final meeting was with the Chair of English, William Kuskin. Did I come up now?
Unidentified Speaker: No. Try to (unintelligible, feedback)
Bauerlein: Okay. So, I said, “Okay. I will do this for a year, and maybe this will evolve into something more long-term.” So, I moved my family out to Boulder. We got settled in. And, I had a long walk with the Chair of English, William Kuskin. I was going to be teaching courses in the English Department, but through the Honors program, officially, and my office would be in the English Department as well. And, I’m an English professor. So, this was the natural home for me.
I met with Chancellor DiStefano, and with Steve Bosley and Tom Lucero. Had very good conversations with them as well. I had a long lunch with President Benson that was enjoyable and informative as well. He seemed enthusiastic. But, when I took a long walk with the Chair of English, William Kuskin, who lives near where we were living, William had said in my last meeting with him, “Mark, we really—“ on my visit the preceding spring, “—we really need someone like you here in the department.” Well, this time, when I took a walk with him, he said, “Now, Mark, what is this about? School starts in a couple of weeks. What do you think you’re here for?” And, I said, “Well, I’ve been asked to come, bring my teaching, my record and some resources to campus.” I’d started programs at Emory, and I had a lot of contacts with funders, and maybe this would turn into something, if it went well, something long-term. And, William said, “Well, Mark, look: Around here, people regard you as nothing but a polemicist, and you’re never going to get hired here on that basis.”
This, you can imagine, was a surprise. The school year hadn’t even started yet. And, the word “polemicist” is a pretty loaded term. A polemicist is someone who engages in partisan arguments, who looks for targets and selects evidence to try to hit that target. Ann Coulter is a polemicist, for instance. A polemicist is not to be trusted in a classroom. A polemicist is not going to be fair and impartial with students. A polemicist is not going to be trusted as a researcher. He’ll pick and choose the evidence. And, use rhetoric often when the person should use reasoning and academic protocols.
11 So, this was, as I said to William, “Well, William, have people looked at my record? I’ve published in scholarly presses and the leading quarterlies and done a lot of consulting work for federal and state agencies and so on.” Anyway, he said, “That’s just where it is.” So, I went back and proceeded through the year with the teaching.
I mentioned to him, “You know, I’ve got an idea for a program that I think might work well. If I could have some support, we might do something like take 10 courses in freshman writing and organize them around the theme of The Great Debate: Liberalism versus Conservatism. We could take these 10 courses around certain issues, and have students read and write about the best arguments on both sides of the issue. At the end of the semester, we could bring in people—a liberal and a conservative—to debate. To not only present the sides, but also model for students how a reasoned argument happens over these issues. And, I have a funder lined up. It’s all set. They’re enthusiastic about this idea. It’s ready to go.” And, William said, “Well, we don’t really need that kind of teaching program here on campus. Now, if you could get the funder to support a research professorship in English, that would be great.” So, that wasn’t going to go anywhere. So, that was that. There’s more to it, but I’ll stop on that score.
With the dean, who was my host, after a few weeks on campus, I sent him a note and said to Todd, “Hello, I’m settled in. I’m enjoying the teaching. I like the students. It’s great here.” And, Todd said, “Oh, yeah. I know I owe you a call. Well, let’s get together and talk about things.” And, I wrote back to Todd saying, “Sure. I’m on campus several days a week, and I also have some programs and some funding opportunities that I think might interest you very much.” Todd never replied. And, I didn’t hear another word from him for the rest of the year.
So, here’s my summary of how things work. I had very strong and collegial support and interest from the President and from the Chancellor. But, at the faculty level, whatever resources and opportunities I presented for the University, they were simply dismissed with the explicit charge that I’m just kind of a political hack. And, I think that William, the Chair of the English department, who I think is a good guy, I think he was simply reporting what many people had told him.
So, I don’t know any of the backstory about what was going on. I’m not sure what the explanation was. I simply worked through the year. I had a few meetings with Phil DiStefano, who was very encouraging. He wanted to see something happen. And, it ended. (laughs) We moved back to Atlanta, where I’ve been teaching at Emory again, for the year. So, it was a nice year in Boulder. We enjoyed it. I enjoyed my classes and like the campus. But, it just… Whatever I had to offer, I simply got stalled. I think it would have been a good thing for the undergraduate curriculum, and I think it would have modeled the best of reasoned dispute, and we would have gotten a broad range of opinion about things. And, we would have shown how these complications and controversies are worked through in a civil society. But, it didn’t happen. So, I’ll stop there and try to answer questions if people have them, and we can move on.
Carrigan: Thank you, Professor Bauerlein.
Geddes: Professor Bauer—
12
(electronic feedback)
Geddes: Professor Bauerlein, during your time you were here, it sounded like that there was some resistance, maybe to the agenda that you wished to put in place with this teaching. And, did you have any opportunity to speak with the other professors in the English department or get any feeling for what their thoughts were about this project?
Bauerlein: I had extraordinarily little contact. My office was in the English department. I invited some faculty members to lunch, four or five of them over the course of the year, we sat down for lunch, but nothing ever was discussed. I wanted to keep the discussions collegial about intellectual issues, academic issues in the field of literary studies and cultural studies in general. I didn’t feel that it was my role to start trying to lobby or form alliances with individual faculty members without going through channels, without raising some of the issues, I didn’t want to cross any turf matters.
I came expecting that the English department would do what you always do with a prospective hire. That they would come and observe my teaching, that they would look at my teaching evaluations and form a judgement, that they would ask me to give a lecture before the department, and then hit me with some tough questions and see how I handled those. Those things didn’t happen. And so, I didn’t feel comfortable pushing without some feel for an invitation. Nobody ever asked me to do anything. With the exception… A communications professor asked me to give a talk about media to a group one evening, which I did, which I did do. I’ve written recently about youth and social media, and that’s what I talked about.
But, I wasn’t invited to anything at the English department, you know, to a lecture or to a dinner. It really was the experience of being something of a stranger (laughs) amidst… I had very good relations with the Honors staff, but otherwise, it was a pretty, a pretty cold occasion.
Carrigan: Thank you. Regent Ludwig had a question.
Ludwig: So, Professor Bauerlein, were you promised a position by Tom Lucero or Steve Bosley when you came here?
Bauerlein: No. No, no. What they said was, “You come for a year, and you see how it goes.”
Ludwig: So, they helped you get a job on the… They helped… They helped you get a job for a year with our Boulder campus?
Bauerlein: Well, I’m not sure how that worked. I think it was primarily through Phil, that it was through the Chancellor’s Office that the official hiring came about. And then—
Ludwig: Were you recruited by Tom Lucero and Steve Bosley?
Bauerlein: Oh, no. I didn’t meet Steve until I came campus. No, Tom—
13
Ludwig: Were you recruited by Tom Lucero?
Bauerlein: I think… Well, I’m not sure if recruited is the right word. He said, “Would you be interested if there were a year visiting professorship?” Because my name, I think, had come up before in the discussions with the Chancellor and the President. But, I would say that what Tom did was start the discussion with Phil and then down to Todd Gleason about me just being a visiting professor for a year and seeing if I could initiate some programs, meet the faculty, do a good job with teaching, and then we would see if that would be something that would interest the faculty. I believe—you can check with Phil on this—it was my understanding that if I were hired, it wouldn’t come out of the English department’s budget, that it might be the… I mean, again, you’ll have to verify this, but it may have been something through the Chancellor.
Ludwig: Okay. So, a member of a Board—was Tom still a member of the Board at the time?
Bauerlein: You know, I’m not quite sure. This would have been in early 2011, I believe, when we had a couple of phone calls.
Ludwig: Okay. So—
Bauerlein: But, you’ll have to… I’m… I wish I could be more precise, but I’m not sure.
Ludwig: That’s fine. So, the… The sense I have is that you’ve been invited here as sort of a witness to share that conservatives are not welcome on the Boulder campus. And, I’m wondering if it’s fair to extrapolate from one person’s less-than-great experience with us, who happens to be a conservative, if it’s a fair extrapolation to say, “That’s the campus climate,” from your personal experience where someone that used to be on the Board lobbied for you to be hired. And then, that hiring didn’t work out. Is that… Is that—
Bauerlein: I don’t think that the characterization of lobbying to be hired… I couldn’t say that… Tom… It was—
Ludwig: But, the real question is, is it fair to extrapolate from your personal experience that this is an endemic situation across the campus?
Bauerlein: Well, that… That, again, that’s not for me to say. That’s why I opened my remarks by saying, “All I am doing here is simply recounting my experience.” If you know of an explanation why the… Why I received the reception I did, I… I mean, I’m pretty much in the dark about that. I found that the characterization of me as a polemicist was something that is hard to explain. So, this is… This really is something for you to decide whether one should extrapolate from this very far or not. It could be that maybe the Chancellor or the dean would know more about this than I do. But, this is... You know, my perspective is one person’s perspective working with a small range of the faculty in the undergraduate world of the Boulder campus. So, that’s really for you to… I mean, that’s my… That’s as far as my witnessing goes.
14 Geddes: I appreciate you taking the time to share with us.
Carrigan: Regent Sharkey has a question.
Sharkey: Professor Bauerlein, thank you for taking the time to talk with the Board of Regents today. We sure appreciate your story, hearing about your story. A question I have is that, you know, you’ve mentioned you’ve met with Phil DiStefano, Chancellor DiStefano and Dean Gleason, who is no longer with us, and also with Regent Bosley. With the experience that you had, as it was coming to a conclusion, and you had made a decision to leave—and, I’m sure with some frustration and disappointment—had you expressed your experience with any of those individuals before you left?
Bauerlein: I didn’t… Did I express my frustration with… To the dean or to the Chancellor? Was that your question?
Sharkey: Or, to Regent Bosley? Your frustration or even just your experience and how that had been.
Bauerlein: Sure, sure. I simply… I had a few meetings with Phil. I believe I only met with Steve… I think Steve and I had had breakfast once early in the year, and I think I said to him, “Well, Steve, I’m not sure if the English department is really favorable toward me,” (laughs) and said that with a bit of a laugh. And, I mentioned that to Phil, as well. And, but we didn’t go into it. And, I actually did not want to allege anything because, again, it’s very hard to find, to figure what goes on in faculty meetings, what is the motive behind faculty conversations. I simply reported what I’d heard. And, I didn’t go any further than that. And, they were very brief conversations.
Carrigan: Thank you. I want to let you go in just a moment here. Chancellor DiStefano, would you want to respond to anything before Professor Bauerlein departs?
DiStefano: Yes, but first of all, Mark, thank you. And, when Mark was hired as a visiting professor, one of the things that we were looking at at Boulder was the Chair in Conservative Political Thought. And, Mark, I do believe we talked a little bit about that position, that we were going to be moving toward that Chair. And, at the time, we didn’t have all of the funding for the Chair. And, I thought it would be a good idea to have someone like Mark on the campus to talk to the faculty, but to talk to others about the Chair, which we ended up funding after Mark left and had a search. And so, that was the context for bringing Mark as a visiting professor in the Honors department.
And, both the dean and I agreed to that, to bringing Mark out for a year. So, we did that, and obviously, Mark, as he said, didn’t get what he was looking for from the, his colleagues in the English department, but there was no guarantee that there was going to be a position the following year. I think Mark was somebody that we were looking at the time that could in fact be a candidate at a later time for the Chair in Conservative Political Thought.
15 Carrigan: Thank you. Thank you, Professor Bauerlein. We’ve got other speakers, and I don’t want to have them wait any longer. I appreciate you taking time to participate in our meeting.
Geddes: Chair Carrigan?
Bauerlein: Let me just say one thing. The head of the Honors program, the professor of history there, he actually asked me in the spring to apply for the Conservative Chair. And, I told him, “Well, that’s impossible. It’s a one-year renewable position. I’m a tenured professor at Emory University. That’s a no-go for me.” (laughs) So, just to make that qualifier.
Carrigan: Thank you.
Bauerlein: Okay.
Geddes: Is he welcome to continue to participate or…
Carrigan: He is welcome to listen. We are getting some feedback, so hopefully, he would mute the phone.
Geddes: Okay. Professor Bauerlein, you’re… Is this thing on? Professor Bauerlein, you’re sure welcome to continue to participate in the conversation, if you wish. And, you’re very welcome to continue with us. We would ask that you mute your phone, though, because there’s some sort of electrical feedback occurring. Alright, thank you.
Bauerlein: Alright. Thank you.
Carrigan: And, I believe the other speaker you’ve invited is…
Geddes: I would ask Professor Nagel to please come to the podium if you wish, and while he’s coming up, I’ll… Many of you know Professor Nagel. He’s been with us 38 years. He is a law professor here at our campus, and that’s really remarkable. Professor Nagel, it’s Robert Nagel, is our Rothgerber Professor of Constitutional Law. Again, he practices in his academic position here with our law school. He graduated with his B.A. at Swarthmore College where he was a Phi Beta Kappa and went on to get his law degree at Yale Law School. He joined the faculty of the Colorado Law School in 1975, leaving a position as a Deputy Attorney General in Pennsylvania. Since that time, he has focused on constitutional law and theory.
For an audience of legal scholars, Professor Nagel has written prolifically, including four books and over 50 law review articles. He has also contributed to the popular debate on constitutional issues, including free speech, hate codes and federalism by addressing his ideas to the general citizenry in articles and opinion pieces in publications such as The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal, First Things and the Weekly Standard. Much of his work has focused on the relationship between the judiciary and its interpretation of the constitution in the wider context of American political culture.
16 Professor Nagel has testified before several Congressional committees. He was formerly the director of the law school’s Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law. In 2003, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Welcome, Professor Nagel. Thank you.
Nagel: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I am very pleased to be here and have the opportunity to address you because I think the topic is a very important one. This coming through alright?
Various: Yes.
Nagel: Yeah? Despite my status as a faculty member, I intend to be very brief.
(laughter)
Nagel: I thought I might preface my remarks by calling your attention, perhaps somewhat oddly, to a letter to the editor that was published in The Daily Camera on May 29. The writer of the letter argues that a restaurant chain called Chik-Fil-A should be excluded from participating in the famous Boulder event called the Boulder Bolder because that organization is, said the letter-writer, “a hate-filled organization.” What is arresting to me is the reason the writer gives for trying to ban Chik-Fil-A from this important community event. I quote from the letter: “Boulder is a city about inclusion and acceptance.”
(laughter)
So, what this letter proposes is that an organization whose political position the writer disagrees with should be dismissed as hate-filled and should be silenced because Boulder is about acceptance and inclusion.
The issue I want to talk about today is the extent to which this kind of mindset dominates the climate at the University of Colorado and why. The observations I am going to make are based on my experiences in higher education over some 38 years, mostly at the CU Law School, but also at several other law schools and as a participant in the larger University community. My observations are certainly not uniformly relevant to every department in the University, nor do I claim that my experiences provide a definitive picture. A systematic study of the sort being proposed today would provide some useful basis for further assessment of my comments.
I have two basic points to make. First, in some departments, certainly the Law School, the homogeneity of political views, that is the homogeneity of views about political values and goals, limits and even degrades the educational experience. The second point is that, despite the heartfelt commitment of most faculty members to diversity in many forms—and, in particular, to the vigorous and wide-ranging exploration of ideas—the faculty cannot be relied upon if left to its own devices to address in any significant way the problem of political homogeneity.
17 So, I’ll start with talking about the educational costs of homogeneity. A faculty of homogeneous political views can provide a decent educational experience. And, through professional self- discipline and intellectual imagination, it is even possible for it to provide an excellent education. But, too often, at least in some subject areas, political homogeneity tends to impose real and pervasive limitations on the quality of the educational experience.
It can slant the nature of the subject matter covered in curriculum and also affect how it is taught. It can skew the kinds of students attracted to a school, and then affect the tone and content of class discussions. In some cases, dissenting students are subject to subtle forms of ridicule from other students and even to insults, and in rare cases, to outright harassment.
It can lead to the rejection of high-quality faculty candidate, who could have enriched and diversified not only the curriculum and the classroom, but also the intellectual life of the faculty and its scholarly creativity. It can slant collegial evaluation of scholarly work, undervaluing some work and overvaluing other work. It can make it harder to retain those high-quality faculty members who want a more vigorous, open-minded professional environment. It can limit the range of adjunct programs offered, as well as the sorts of outside speakers invited to lectures, graduations and other settings. It can affect the structure and functioning of faculty governance. It can tarnish the reputation and value of a public institution among the people who are asked to support it.
With all these educational costs, why hasn’t the faculty, committed as it is to diversity and to a rich intellectual life, acted to reduce the degree of political homogeneity to any significant extent? I want to suggest four reasons. First, in some departments, a limited number of faculty members believe the University should be a vehicle for achieving certain of their political objectives. For such people, political beliefs are, in fact, a qualification or a disqualification because those beliefs will either help or obstruct the achievement of their goals, such as battling economic inequality or protecting the environment and so on. My impression is that such unapologetically programatic individuals are disproportionately influential because they tend to be drawn to leadership and administrative positions.
Second, there is a tendency for the relatively minor intellectual differences that exist and are debated among homogeneous faculty members to seem large and significant. Freud, among others, called the phenomenon “the narcissism of small differences.” On the other hand, the ideas that are not represented can seem too vague or foreign to be potentially valuable. So, there is a natural intellectual complacency that sits in on the faculty. A faculty can even come to believe that their community, as the letter-writer said, “about inclusion and acceptance.”
Third, many of the disagreements that take place among politically homogeneous faculty members, while perhaps superficially exciting because of the narcissism of small differences, are actually reassuring because basic assumptions are shared and much admiration and approval is possible. This lack of serious intellectual challenge is pleasing, but it also saps confidence. Although largely protected by shared values, faculty members know that very fundamental intellectual challenges to their positions do exist, and they must wonder if they could effectively
18 respond to serious dissenting positions. One way to protect against the possibility of intellectual embarrassment is to maintain homogeneity.
Fourth, since an overwhelming number of faculty colleagues share the same political values and aspirations, these values come to seem even more solid and attractive as supported people reinforce one another. Serious dissent then, whether in the form of an unusual faculty candidate or a political outlier among the faculty itself, seems odd and in need of explanation. One available explanation familiar to anyone who has experienced small town life is that there must be something wrong, perhaps sinister, perhaps hate-filled about the dissenter. So, the urge to diversify the faculty is reduced even further.
For these reasons, I think the attention of the Board of Regents to the issue of political homogeneity is entirely appropriate, and indeed, I think it is essential if the University is to achieve its full potential as an educational institution. Thank you for your attention.
Carrigan: Professor Nagel… Regent Neguse, do you have a question?
Neguse: I do. And, thank you, Professor Nagel. I’ve been dreaming of the moment when I could question Professor Nagel, since he was my constitutional law professor years ago. And, that moment is now, apparently. So…
(laughter)
Nagel: I think I’m gonna go sit down, if you don’t mind.
(laughter)
Carrigan: Give him The Bluebook, Joe. Give him The Bluebook.
(laughter)
Geddes: But, thank you for your remarks. I guess one question I have, I know you’ve spent some of your scholarly work or some of your time, as well as activities with respect to speaking on the issue of affirmative action and whether or not affirmative action, with respect to racial and ethnic and other protected categories is the right, wrong, effective approach. Given that, I guess I’m curious as to what your recommendations would be, or by what means are you proposing the Board, to the extent that the Board were to approve the climate study, and it showed that your impressions are prevalent campus-wide, by what means would you suggest the Board address that problem? I guess I’m just curious about the…
Nagel: That’s a good question. And, to be fully candid, I have to say that I think this problem does not lend itself to easy or sort of administrative kinds of answers, including the kinds of answers that a lot of affirmative action programs involve. In theory, I’m not against those programs, and if you’ve read my writing on that subject, you know that I actually, surprisingly, have defended them against some of their critics. But, I don’t… I think they’re very clumsy,
19 and that they do some harm and that ought to be acknowledged. And, I think importing those kinds of solutions to this kind of problem, the problem of political homogeneity, would not be terribly effective.
And so, it really is difficult to know what a practical, non-harmful remedy would be. The nondiscrimination proposal, it seems to me… I’m not sure if it will do a great deal of good. I doubt that it would do a great deal of harm. And, at least, it’s a step in the right direction. The study, I am hopeful about, actually, because I think, as people often say, that sunlight is a great disinfectant. And, my observations about my faculty colleagues is that—and what I’ve said here—is that, to some extent, it’s difficult for them to get outside themselves and see their own motivations and see their own limited vision. When we’re self-interested, you know, it’s always hard for all of us. And so, I think more information and more exposure and more attention to this matter, as vague as that may sound, I actually think that is the most hopeful corrective action.
Carrigan: Regent Ludwig is next.
Ludwig: Thank you for being here, Professor. You’ve been called as an expert witness, sort of, on campus climate and being. So, I’m going to ask you a few questions, if you don’t mind. So, when you—
Nagel: I didn’t have you as a law student, did I?
(laughter)
Ludwig: And, I’m not an attorney, so I’m sure you’ll be fine.
Nagel: Oh, good. (unintelligible, laughter)
Ludwig: So, you mentioned… You made some very… So, the challenge is—I appreciate your comments—you said these are your personal views that don’t necessarily pan out, but then you really made some very strong allegations that were very broad and general.
Nagel: Yes.
Ludwig: And sweeping. When you say political homogeneity, what exactly do you mean?
Nagel: Well, I’m glad you asked that question because I actually wrote a footnote to my written statement that deals with that. Trying not to be verbose, I left it out. Here’s the footnote.
Ludwig: Okay.
Nagel: Just to be clear, by political homogeneity, I mean, for instance, beliefs about the wisdom of increasing federal regulatory power or reducing income inequality or establishing the right to same-sex marriage. Among law professors, political beliefs often take such forms as approval of
20 the judicial work of Justices like William Brennan and disapproval of the work of Justices like Antonin Scalia.
Political beliefs, obviously, are related to larger belief systems, including party identification, jurisprudence, political philosophy and so on. So, I am talking specifically about the goals and aspirations that an individual holds about proper public policies, but those specific goals and beliefs and aspirations, while they’re programmatic in that sense, are related to more, broader philosophical and political commitments.
Ludwig: Great. Thank you. So, one other thing, I am going to support the notion that we should do a campus climate survey. So, I’m voting yes for that today, period. But, what we’re sort of talking about and we’re dancing around is, earlier, at an earlier meeting, Regent Geddes actually called for some sort of structure to be put in place so more conservative professors could be hired. And, I asked the question at the time, and I couldn’t quite get an answer, what is a conservative?
So, if you’re… You’ve described, here’s this group of people that believe in the efficacy of government intervention and a certain political point of view to the courts, and you’re saying, that is the prevalent philosophy on campus. And, you’re suggesting that the other philosophy, a conservative philosophy that people have been arguing in favor of, is not represented. And, other people here have suggested that. What is conservative?
Nagel: If you don’t mind, I’m going to answer that question in the context of legal education, which is what I know about, but it gives you an idea—
Ludwig: You made broad sweeping comments about the entire campus.
Nagel: But, what I say—
Ludwig: I would invite you to be as expansive in that answer as well.
Nagel: Yeah. I’ll be expansive without taking too much of your time. An example of what I am referring to in legal education would be, for example, is the Law School. Does its environmental law program have an active scholar who is skeptical of central regulatory solutions? That is something that requires detailed understanding about, for example, the Environmental Protection Act and the regulatory regime that that sets up. And, it requires… And, to have someone who’s skeptical about that requires someone, more broadly, who has a generally, a free market orientation and understands free markets and understands some of the problems with central regulation or command governance, as they sometimes call it.
Now, the sort of thing I’m talking about is, does the Law School have that point of view represented? From a curricular point of view, you should have it represented. You can’t teach the subject of environmental law well unless you have that expertise well-represented on the faculty. Now, would a person of that orientation likely be a conservative in some broader sense, you know, in terms of political philosophy or… Yes, I would say probably so.
21 But, what I am particularly concerned about is the kind of variety that assures that you get proper subject matter and proper coverage of the subject matter, so that students, not only in the classroom, but when they’re deciding to come know that they’re going to be exposed to lots of competing ideas about how to improve the environment.
Now, you could explode what I’ve just said to the curriculum of the whole University, I think. I’ve given you an example, but I hope you see the sort of thing I’m getting at. The sort of thing I’m getting is, do we have people whose political beliefs, in the way I’ve defined that, enables them or motivates them to be expert in areas, and interested in areas, that need to be covered, need to be explored and aren’t being explored right now. So, I hope that response—
Ludwig: Well, I’m still sort of at a loss of what a conservative is. Because there seems to be a conversation in society, some people are fiscal conservatives. Some people are Libertarians. Some people are social conservatives. And so, when we say, “We need more of those on campus,” I’m not sure what “those” mean. And so, then it comes to the question of who is conservative enough? Again, Regent Geddes is advocating we hire more conservatives and sometimes it’s like specifically. But then, I think Regent Hybl and Regent Bosley are conservatives. And, Regent Geddes has said in public that they’re faux conservatives. They’re not conservative enough. So, I’m left at the, at a loss of if we move forward with that, you know, how do we… How do we figure out what to do if we’re going to hire conservatives on campus.
Nagel: Well, I’m glad you have this concern because it’s also a concern of my own. I’m not primarily interested in expanding, for its own sake, the number of conservatives, to use that term. I’m interested in widening the range of political views, getting more interesting thinkers, more unorthodox thinkers, more original thinkers onto the campus. And, one way that you just have to explore if you’re going to do that, that broader objective is that you have to include some conservative thinkers because they are largely unrepresented.
Now, you say again, okay, so what does conservative mean? One of the frustrations of being at a campus that doesn’t really have a conservative thought represented very well is that a lot of people make exactly, make the mistake that your question does not make. And, that is that they think there’s just one thing that’s conservative. And, you’re exactly right. And, I find this, by the way, over the years, I’ve had my colleagues who supposedly know me and my work, they will attribute positions to me because they think I’m conservative that I don’t hold and have never written about. For example, I’ve never been a strong free market person. And, I have some skepticism about the more broad-ranging free market solutions, but people tell me I’m a free marketer because I’m a conservative.
So, I appreciate the fact that you realize that when people say they want to increase the number of conservatives, they’re not saying they want to increase a particular thought. There are lots of kinds of thought that we need on this campus that are not represented now, including every aspect of conservative thought that you have outlined. There are important free market philosophies and economic thinkers like Hayek, that are very important people, very important thinkers.
22 There are social conservatives of the sort you’re talking about who appreciate the role of private associations in community life. So, you need all of that. You need all of it. And, I’m not… I’m not espousing, I’m not promoting any narrow category of conservative thought. What I’m in favor of is breaking down what is a narrow focus today on this campus.
Carrigan: Okay. Regent Ludwig, anything else? Regent Griego.
Griego: First of all, I’d like to thank you so much for coming here today.
Nagel: Thank you.
Griego: And, I too, have… You know, one of my backgrounds definitely is in multicultural education, and I agree with you in terms of that we have to have multiple perspectives in terms of how we look at our content, how we deal with issues, how we do problem solving. And, in doing so, it is also important, as we go through that, that everybody brings a different perspective based on their own cultural background. And so, my question to you is that, in your research— and, I can show my research, too—but, we all bring a different perspective to the room to view a problem, to look at content. And, that is based on our own biases. That is based on our own cultural upbringing. It is based on who we are and how we’ve been brought up, and the culture that we bring into that piece.
And, I think that’s really valuable in terms of looking at any issue from the multiple perspectives. And, that’s what I’m hearing. Because I really value that. I value that all voices need to be heard. Not just two, not just liberal and not just conservative. All voices need to be heard. And also, in doing some of my homework, I was looking at all the different political affiliations and ideologies… I mean, it goes on and on and on. So, my question to you, in looking at this from that deeper perspective, is that, how do we create an environment that is representative of all thinking? Again, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just liberals, not just conservatives, everyone’s thinking that’s going to help us as a nation to become a better nation.
And, I agree with you. No one should be excluded. Ideas should not be excluded. That’s how we’re going to grow and be a stronger nation. So, how do we go about doing that? Because it isn’t black and white.
Carrigan: And, we do have… We have other speakers. Please respond, but please recognize our time constraints.
Nagel: Well, first of all, I agree with just about everything you’ve said. I don’t agree that literally all points of view should be represented because they have to be educationally important to be represented. And, the difficult judgements are figuring out if there are some perspectives that are not educationally useful. You know, the example that’s always given is, if you have a Holocaust denier who wants to teach in the history department. Well, that’s an unusual perspective, but it’s not one that’s educationally useful.
23 But, other… But, within the realm of educational usefulness, I agree with you that you want a very wide range of perspectives. I don’t know how you achieve it. Primarily, it’s a matter of putting moral pressure on the faculty because, realistically, that’s where the hiring is going to take place. You can do anything you want, but if the faculty is not moved to enlarge the range of views, and if they don’t… If they’re not convinced of the advantages of doing that educationally, and the excitement of doing that, then I think it’s pretty hopeless.
So, the Board of Regents somehow—and, I think this study, for example, maybe the nondiscrimination provisions—provide a kind of moral impetus to re-think what you’re doing. Rethink whether it’s educationally sound. In other words, motivate the faculty through your leadership. That’s why I said I think this is terribly important that you’re all addressing this problem. Sorry to be verbose.
Carrigan: Regent Geddes has one more question.
Geddes: Yeah, I’ll be brief. First of all, thank you very much for… I’ve learned a lot in the last few minutes. Thank you very much.
Nagel: You’re welcome.
Geddes: I know you’ve already—by the way, I share your pain about sometimes having things attributed to you that you didn’t necessarily deserve to be attributed—but, in any event, would you focus just for a minute, and I know you’ve already discussed, but focus on… You know, my thought is—and others. Not just mine—but, is that the quality of education is at stake here. What… The quality of the educational experience for our students is at stake here in this issue and this discussion. Can you focus on that just for a minute and your 38 years of observation in the school?
Nagel: Well, I think it is, that is what is at stake. And, you have to distinguish two things. One is, is it theoretically possible to have a really first-rate education with homogeneous people? Yes. It is. If they are disciplined enough, if they are imaginative enough, if they are professional enough, I think you could have a university populated by, you know, the same kind of people. But, they are making this constant extraordinary effort to consider a wide range of points of view.
In real life, that’s not going to happen, despite the best efforts of faculty members. And, I think they do make their best efforts. I know I do. But, you fail because you’re human. And so, we have to be realistic. And, realistically, the way you can get that full education with the enriching sort of sharp interchange of views, the rich appreciative understanding of views you disagree with, the way you get that, realistically, is by having a lot of points of view. And, we know this in society at large. Places that are too homogeneous become tedious, boring, and they fall flat. You need a wide range of views, both in the polity and in the university, just as a realistic matter. Because that’s what promotes rich interchange. It’s a big question you’re asking me, but that’s the short answer.
24 Geddes: Thank you very much.
Carrigan: Professor Nagel, I want to thank you. I do want to, as a legal professional, respond to one point that you made. As a graduate of CU Law School and as a partner in a law firm that hires CU graduates, for the specific example you made about the EPA regulatory framework, I would hope that, first and foremost, that our law faculty is not talking about is that framework good politically? Bad politically? But, what it is and how do you practice it and how do you advise clients and how do you… What actually that policy is, so… I will obviously give you the courtesy to respond to that comment, but if you don’t… I don’t know that it necessarily calls for a response, but if you would like...
Nagel: Well, I don’t disagree with that.
Carrigan: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time.
Nagel: Thank you, sir.
Carrigan: So, we have two other speakers who have been invited to address the Board. And, I’d like to move this to them next if I could, so if we have—
Unidentified Speaker: Michael? Michael?
Carrigan: Oh, I'm sorry. Chancellor DiStefano.
DiStefano: Thank you. Before I introduce the two speakers, because this is focused on the Boulder campus, I’d like to make just a few remarks.
Carrigan: You… I think you’re absolutely entitled.
DiStefano: I’ll keep them very brief. And, first of all, I want to thank the Board for Regents for this discussion. And, I’d like to give a special thanks to two professors who will be joining us briefly in the next couple of minutes, Paul Chinowsky and Professor Patty Limerick.
And, as Chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder, I am committed to diversity in all forms. Diversity prepares students to work and live in a complex society where people hold a variety of intellectual, moral and cultural views. And, at CU Boulder, I believe we foster an environment where faculty and students are invited to explore difficult questions. And, some of these questions are political in nature, some are scientific and others are economic. And, as those topics are explored, each student and each faculty member needs to have confidence that the discussion will occur professionally and in accordance with the principle of academic freedom.
25 Our faculty are committed to this principle and know they must fulfill certain rights and duties to uphold this principle. We know that debate can be passionate because the most important questions will provoke passionate responses, and we know our most rewarding discussions are those that welcome a diversity of views. And, as we have this discussion today, it’s important for all of us to remember how we currently operate and what’s already contained within the Laws of the Regents, for there are many important guideposts.
The Law of the Regents define academic freedom as the freedom to inquire, discover, publish and teach truth as the faculty member sees it subject to no control or authority, save the control and authority of the rational methods by which truth is established. This entire definition is important because it recognizes the ability of our faculty to pursue all types of intellectual study, but it makes intellectual pursuit subject to the control and authority of the rational methods by which truth is established. And, our scholarship, as well as the processes that evaluate that scholarship, is aimed at ensuring that our faculty produce the highest quality research and intellectual work.
The Laws of the Regents further states that students likewise must have freedom of study and discussion. And, I wholeheartedly agree and want our students to have the fullest intellectual experience. Part of that experience is having faculty members test the validity of their arguments and assertions and for students to test the validity of the faculty’s arguments and assertions, for it’s only through that process that students learn to develop their intellectual capacities and critical thinking.
The Laws of the Regents state that the fullest exposure to conflicting opinion is the best insurance against error. Again, I agree, and I support vigorous respectable debate on the campus. Not just the political theory, but across every academic discipline.
The Laws of the Regents state that a faculty member is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing the subject but should be careful not to introduce into teaching controversial matter that has no relationship to the subject. And, we all recognize that there appropriate times and appropriate places for intellectual debate, but we also recognize that students have chosen to take particular courses. Each of our faculty has an obligation, consistent with the Laws of the Regents, to ensure that students receive instruction in areas that are appropriate for the course.
And, at CU Boulder, we’ve implemented these Regent laws in all of our campus policies and procedures. We operate in accordance with these laws and have mechanisms to ensure compliance with them. Under consideration today is a Board resolution to conduct a climate survey. If the Board adopts this resolution, you will have our full support in its implementation.
You’re also considering the resolution that proposes that the Regents add political affiliation and political philosophy to the list of protected characteristics under the Laws of the Regents. Again, we can look to what’s already contained in the Laws of the Regents implemented in our campus policies and procedures, for the intersection between academic freedom and intellectual diversity is important.
26 The Laws of the Regents already state that faculty members can meet their responsibilities only when they have confidence that their work will be judged on its merits alone. For the University of Colorado to remain a center of academic excellence and academic integrity, faculty and students must have confidence that a professor is not hired because he or she holds a particular political view, but instead that the professor is hired because his or her scholarship has demonstrated him or her to be an intellectual leader.
And, the Laws of the Regents further state that the appointment, reappointment, promotion and tenure of faculty members should be based primarily on the individual’s ability and teaching, research and creative work and service and should not be influenced by such extrinsic considerations as political, social or religious views or views concerning departmental or University obligations, operations or administration. And, I again agree with this statement without reservation. For this reason, I support the amendment that adds political affiliation and political philosophy to the Laws of the Regents. Doing so is consistent with the requirement in the Laws of the Regents that the campus not base its hiring and tenure decisions upon such extrinsic considerations as political, social or religious views.
The University of Colorado should not allow its decisions to be influenced by political, social or religious views. And, we need to ensure that we create mechanisms that allow us to promptly investigate and remedy any complaints that are brought to us in a timely manner. If people believe CU Boulder uses a measure other than merit in our hiring and tenure process decisions, they are wrong. This amendment makes explicit that our faculty shall continue to make their academic decisions based upon merit. Combined, our merit-based approach and the Regent Laws, as amended, operate to protect the rights of political belief, the concepts of academic freedom and our students’ expectation that they will receive instruction from the finest, most qualified faculty in the state of Colorado.
So, thank you for letting me make that statement.
Carrigan: (unintelligible, both speaking at once) faculty members who will speak to us.
DiStefano: Pardon me?
Carrigan: Do you want to introduce your speakers?
DiStefano: Yes, I do.
Carrigan: Thank you.
DiStefano: I’d like to introduce, first of all, Paul Chinowsky, who chairs our Boulder Faculty Assembly. He actually starts July 1, so I’ve asked Paul to just share a very brief comment with you.
Carrigan: Thank you. Welcome, Professor Chinwosky, and congratulations on your (unintelligible)
27 Chinowsky: Thank you. Well, good afternoon, members of the Board of Regents, Chancellors, guests. So, as Chancellor DiStefano said, my name is Paul Chinowsky. I’m the incoming Chair of the Boulder Faculty Assembly. I’m also Director of the Mortenson Center for Engineering in Developing Communities. I’m starting my twelfth year here at the University of Colorado Boulder. Previously, I taught for eight years at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
On behalf of the faculty here at the University, and really, on behalf of shared governance, I’d like to provide our perspective on this very, very important topic of intellectual diversity. You’ve heard some very compelling statements from the other faculty on their experiences here on this campus with intellectual discrimination. I’m not here to dispute their statements. I’m not here to dispute their perceptions. Rather, I would like to provide the faculty’s perspective on this issue, as well as a little bit of my own personal experience.
For the faculty, I can unequivocally state that, discrimination of any type is not tolerated. Our hiring, promotion, reappointment and tenure processes have been developed to reduce bias of all types. The number and diversity of individuals involved in these processes is designed specifically to reduce bias. It would be very difficult for any individual to influence or control these processes. Every person at this University focuses on building a community that fosters diversity of all types. A core philosophy of this pursuit is to enhance diversity wherever we can. The BFA works closely for our diversity committee with the administration, the student government, to address any instance of perceived discrimination.
From a personal perspective, I can without hesitation state that I have never witnessed nor encountered any intellectual discrimination on this campus. I have had the distinct pleasure, through my role in shared governance, to work with a diverse group of individuals from many departments all over this campus. It is one of the things that makes this campus a fantastic place. I do not believe that any of these individuals enter a classroom or a faculty meeting or a student meeting with the intent to discriminate or advocate for an individual political point of view. Rather, I believe that every faculty member enters the classroom with one simple objective: to produce thoughtful participants in our society.
Personally, it is my responsibility to challenge every one of my students to analyze every angle of an argument. Singular, ideological arguments are not supported and never rewarded. I teach my students to analyze problems, every type, whether it is in my course in global development or my course in infrastructure investment. I believe understanding multiple perspectives is how a student becomes an informed and educated individual. It’s also the belief of the many employers that come and hire our students. I believe that is the same goal that every person in this room shares. This is the basis for how I teach, how we implement shared governance and how we provide our students with one of the best educational experiences in the country. We’re committed to this, and we don’t stray from it. Thanks for your attention.
Carrigan: Thank you, Professor Chinowsky. Regent Sharkey has a question.
28 Sharkey: Thank you, Professor, for being here and making your statement. It’s sounds as if you’ve never experienced… Either witnessed or experienced personally any discrimination because of political philosophy and political affiliation. Is that correct?
Chinowsky: That’s correct.
Sharkey: So, it… Then, is it your assumption with a climate survey that it will prove 100% that political affiliation and political philosophy discrimination does not exist on this campus?
Chinowsky: I don’t think any… Any academic or researcher would assume that a hundred percent of anything would exist. We are a community, we are a large community, we’re diverse, complex. I say we continuously strive to find better ways. And, if we were to have such a survey and find something, I would stand 100% behind it to say we need to eliminate it.
Sharkey: Yes. So, if it does exist, you would want to be aware of that. Is that correct?
Chinowsky: Absolutely. And, do something about it.
Sharkey: Yeah.
Chinowsky: Now, the question is what should be done. That is a very important question that needs to be debated.
Sharkey: Well, there’s a lot of questions that need to be debated. So, we just had a professor give a statement about being called at polemicist?
Unidentified Speaker and various: Polemicist.
Sharkey: What?
Chinowsky: I can’t pronounce that either, so…
(laughter)
Sharkey: Yeah. It goes back to the, you know, the speech defects. So, would you say that that is a discriminatory statement for a renowned professor, an accomplished professor who’s proven himself in his writing, in his scholarly work?
Chinowsky: I think it’s a descrip—it’s one faculty member’s description of another individual. I think there are many writers who… Who would put forward that trying to create discussion is what their role is. If he took it as discriminatory, I think that’s an individual perception, and I won’t characterize it either way.
Sharkey: Oaky. Thank you.
29 Carrigan: Regent Ludwig.
Ludwig: I was very forceful with your colleague, so I feel it’s only fair, so that people don’t think I’m some sort of screaming liberal, although I (unintelligible, both speaking at once)
Chinowsky: Go right ahead. I won’t take it personally.
Ludwig: Yeah. That’s a good question, too.
Unidentified Speaker: (unintelligible, both speaking at once)
Ludwig: Yeah, right. So, in response… I think Regent Sharkey was on a good thing. You’ve made some very broad statements.
Chinowsky: I have.
Ludwig: Never all… We’ve all been to college. We’ve all taken college courses, and we’ve had professors that we know, you better write what the professor likes if you want a decent grade. That just happens, yes?
Chinowsky: Sure, it does. Yeah.
Ludwig: So, you can just acknowledge that it’s not all rainbows and kittens on the Boulder campus, correct?
(laughter)
Chinowsky: No. Absolutely not. I… There are (unintelligible)
Ludwig: That… It just… So, what I’m asking for… We’re talking… And, this is why I like Regent Sharkey suggestion to do a campus climate survey. And, she made some very good arguments about we’re lacking data. And, you support that, and I support that as well. I just want us to have that same rigor when we discuss things in public, that there are nuances, and we don’t always understand. And, we’re missing data to support a… To figure out the extent, if there is… If there is a problem, one. The extent of the problem, two. So, that’s all I’m sharing is you just made some very broad statements. I challenged your colleague. It didn’t feel fair to him not to have the same reaction, like this is a little overstated.
Chinowsky: Absolutely. And, I agree. I think data always is helpful. I think the issue that the… A concern of any person, any faculty member would always be the question of, once we have the data, what are we going to do with it?
Ludwig: Well, we’ll get there when we get there.
30 Chinowsky: Yeah.
Carrigan: Very good. Regent Geddes.
Geddes: Well, I had to look up the term polemicist, I have to admit. And, that was a while ago.
(laughter)
Sharkey: At least you can say it.
Geddes: After I figured out how to spell it, which was the first step. But, it’s a very derogatory term. It is, no question. It is an insult. So, I’m a surgeon. It’d be like somebody saying to me, “You’re just a technician. You know, you just know how to tie knots and cut and sew,” which I know how to do. But, also, I’ve got to decide who to operate on, what disease they have and so forth. There’s a little more that goes into it. It’d be sort of like a similar insult.
Chinowsky: Let me answer that by stating, this is an issue that I find personally very important. One of the main reasons I left Georgia Tech to come to Colorado was I did not agree with the very polemic political environment that still existed there. I came to Colorado because I believed it was—and, I still believe—it’s an open environment that is welcoming to every individual, to… From kids at all levels through faculty at all levels. I think that every person here—and, you’ll find that faculty come from every type of university—come here… One of the main reasons they come here is because they believe that the right to air their views and honest academic discourse exists.
Now, if you want to find individual instances where this occurs, as I said, it’s a large campus. I absolutely would not disagree with the need for data. But, I would say, I think in my experience around this country… I’ve taught in the northeast, I’ve taught in the south, I’ve taught here. I think Colorado is one of the absolutely most open campuses to academic discourse. And, I think we need to recognize that.
Carrigan: Thank you. Regent Griego.
Griego: Thank you so much for coming here today and sharing your thoughts, as well as our other speakers today. First of all, I wanted to talk about the importance of what you talked about in terms of shared governance because this topic that we’re conducting today is critical. It’s important. It’s important not only to the University of Colorado, but it’s important to our citizens in the United States. And, it is also a topic that shouldn’t be done in isolation. I mean, if we have five speakers today, and we have nine Regents here discussing this, it is a conversation that’s broader… I have to say, it’s broader than all of us.
Chinowsky: I agree.
Griego: And, if we’re going to speak on behalf of the importance of this topic, which it is, and I thank so much the individuals for bringing it to the table and for us having this conversation, we
31 have to expand this conversation beyond, beyond us. And, that’s why I totally appreciate your thoughtfulness in talking about shared governance because that’s what this institution is about. And, I think it’s important that we model what shared governance is. And, if we expect our faculty and staff to constantly incorporate shared governance, it’s important for us to do it, too. Because every viewpoint that has been shared today, and every viewpoint that we have not heard today needs to be heard. And so, I want to thank you for bringing that issue to our… Or, that concept, I should say, to our attention. Thank you.
Chinowsky: Thank you.
Carrigan: Thank you, Regent Griego. Any other questions? I think we have one more guest speaker.
DiStefano: Yes, it’s… Thank you very much, Paul. It’s my pleasure to introduce Patty Limerick, who directs our Center for the American West and is a professor on our campus. Patty.
Limerick: Sorry, I was just passed a note… The humor of my timing today. I’m needing to get out of town pretty fast to go to the Colorado Municipal League, where I’m going to give prizes to students who have written… Middle school students who have written essays on, “What I Would do if I Were Mayor.” And, the Colorado Municipal League, which is directed by Sam Mamet, who is a CU graduate, the rhetoric used all the time at CML, very bipartisan organization is, “We do not fix Republican potholes. We do not repair Democratic stoplights.” You hear that at every single meeting. (laughs) Now, that’s a little bit (unintelligible) because of where I’m going to be going, that it might be interesting to have joint meeting sometime of the University with the CLM, CML.
So, I have submitted these remarks, and I’m going to go through them for the people who have not had a chance to read them, but I’ll try to be brisk in doing that. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. To the best of my knowledge, the only other time when I spoke officially to the Board of Regents was on the occasion of my receiving the MacArthur Fellowship in 1995. This left a very happy and pleasant aura around the idea of standing at this podium. I’m kind of eager to check my messages after this to see what might have happened, if it’s the same good fortune.
In the years since I received that fellowship, I have put a lot of energy and effort into testing my own version of the hypothesis that universities can and should serve society as places of fair, open, civil, lively and productive exchange. At the risk of immodesty, I will assert that our Center of the American West has an exemplary record in the terrain of making sure that conservative perspectives receive a respectful hearing and consideration on this campus. I believe we have an equally exemplary record in the terrain of making sure that liberal perspectives receive a respectful hearing and consideration on this campus.
In our “Inside Interior” series, we held public programs with Democratic Secretaries of the Interior Stewart Udall, Cecil Andrus and Bruce Babbitt. We held equally successful public
32 programs with Republican Secretaries of the Interior James Watt, Donald Hodel and Gale Norton. And, at the risk of a small violation of confidence, I will say that persuading Jim Watt to visit this campus was not a minor undertaking.
After 10 or 11 energetic and energizing phone conversations that would end each time with my saying… He would say, “Patty, you know I’m not gonna come.” And, I would say, “I’m gonna work on this. Can I call you back in a couple of weeks?” He would say, “I enjoy these conversations, but I’m never gonna say, agree to do this.” Well, fortunately, at a certain point, he changed his mind. He agreed to come to CU where he enjoyed himself so much that he returned a year for a second visit, this time in the company of Secretary Udall. So, the conversation between them was the best eavesdropping I ever took part in in an airport van.
A day or two after Secretary Watt’s first visit, a friend from Boulder fell into a conversation with an acquaintance who was a University of Wyoming graduate. My friend said, “You know, CU Boulder’s image as a hotbed of left wing intolerance is not accurate.” He then started to say, “Why, just last week, your fellow Wyoming alum, Jim Watt, visited Boulder and was very respectfully received.” But, he did not finish this sentence because his conversational companion interrupted after the word Jim. “Oh, yes,” he said, “We heard that Jim Watt visited Boulder. What we heard was that some woman in Boulder has seen the light.” I believe that I was the women referred to in that lively conversation. And, I am happy to have this opportunity to be very specific about what light I saw.
Like many other Americans, I have felt increasing dismay over the state of our public discussions of controversial issues. Unlike many other Americans, I have a job as Faculty Director of the Center of the American West that allows me to experiment with remedies for the crummy state of our public conversations. I have chosen to take the role of umpire or referee and to construct an arena for discussion with clearly defined customs, rituals and habits that minimizes and often enough eliminates the blaming, denouncing, demonizing and attacking that far too often characterizes discussion of issues that have been poisoned with political polarization. This experiment has worked far more often than it has failed, though the failures need full recognition, some complacency would sound the death knell for the whole undertaking.
To pull off the role of umpire and referee, you must be thinking every second and complacency will leave you in jeopardy. For instance, when Secretary Watt came, we yielded not an inch to complacency and we thought hard and imaginatively about what might go wrong during his visit. At one point, I worried about the custom practiced once or twice on this campus of throwing cream pies to express disagreement. It seemed very unlikely that anyone would use this medium of protest, but complacency requires alertness. During every second of Secretary Watt’s visit to CU Boulder, there was a Center of the American West person stationed next to him, alert and ready to leap forward and take the pie on his behalf.
(laughter)
33 Unneeded, as it turns, out but still… I thought that the Director was wearing a very nice suit. I thought, “Maybe you should have dressed down a little bit for this,” but we would pay for the dry-cleaning. I think that would be a personal contribution (unintelligible).
We have hosted former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson several times. Just a week or two ago, we were honored to host former Oklahoma Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards, and thus we have for each Regent—and, these can be distributed at this moment—for each Regent, we have an autographed, personally autographed copy of Congressman Edwards’s excellent new book called The Parties Versus the People: How to Make Republicans and Democrats into Americans. These were purchased by funds from private donors and not from University sources.
Perry Pendley of Mountain States Legal Foundation and Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute have been guest speakers in my courses. This gave rise to one story that I hope will convey to you the surprises and satisfactions that this whole enterprise in refusing polarization has delivered to me. When Jon Caldara visited my class, one very lively student, Sam Chapman—and, he has given me permission to use his name—peppered our guest speaker with challenging questions. Afterwards, I said to Sam Chapman, “You seem to be rather critical of Mr. Caldara’s position.”
“No,” Sam replied, “I actually agree with much of my position. I felt that by asking him tough questions, I had the chance to look at and examine my own beliefs.” As I listened to Sam speak about how he thought he would benefit from hearing his ideas appraised in that manner—not just in a conversation in his own head, but an exchange with a noted public figure—I reached the unmistakable conclusion that Sam Chapman is one impressive kid. I am proud that Sam has worked for the Center of the American West for much of his undergraduate career, and with my limited time today, I tell you this story about Sam because it is the key to what I want to see happen more in this University and in every other university.
I want more people, faculty as well as students and citizens and public officials to match Sam Chapman’s remarkable performance and put their own assumptions up for a rigorous examination. I was so emphatic that I lost my place. There’s a thing in… And, it is possible to position universities so that they more fully develop the standing of places where differing perspectives can be aired, considered, evaluated and sometimes reconciled. The key activities for realizing that hope, the key activity is for faculty to be on constant alert for confirmation bias, that habit of thought by which human beings find claims and assertions to be very credible and convincing when they confirm preexisting assumptions and beliefs. Because they are human beings—this is kind of the counter to the kittens and bunnies, flowers thing— because they are human beings, professors in universities are as vulnerable to those temptations of confirmation bias as members of any other occupation, and they are equally able to recognize these temptations and to refuse them.
I have not myself had the luxury of practicing confirmation bias in years. Thanks to the wide range of perspectives that converge in the Center of the American West program, in our reports and writings, in the deliberations of our faculty advisory council, in our external advisory board,
34 and in the often wise-beyond-their-years comments of students like Sam Chapman, I have not been able to settle into a familiar point of view long enough to let it tempt me into succumbing to confirmation bias.
In October of 2012, a consortium based at the University of Colorado Boulder received a five- year, $12-million grant to study the benefits and costs of natural gas production in hydraulic fracturing. The Center of the American West holds the responsibility for outreach in public communications for this grant. Hydraulic fracturing is a topic of enormous public controversy.
From late February to late May, I hosted a series called “Fracking Sense.” Lecturers covered topics ranging from air quality to water quality, public health to jurisdictional conflicts between state and local government. Audience members wrote down their questions. Just before the end of the lecture, at quite demanding pace for a late middle-aged person, I organized and stacked the questions and read them to the speaker. With the exception of one event, we covered every questions submitted. The exception was my interview with Governor John Hickenlooper, when we simply overwhelmed with questions and couldn’t get anywhere near presenting them all. I am pleased to say that the Governor has agreed to return for another round in the fall, so I will have a chance to redeem myself with the audience members who felt—accurately—that I did not give them a chance to be heard.
The audience at all the “Fracking Sense” talks was respectful and intensely attentive. Some made a strategic use of what one of my students called “exasperated sighs” to express their disagreement, but surely expressive respiration is thoroughly protected under the First Amendment. I sat next to the speaker during the talks and watched the audience, and I know that people listened very intensely. In fact, a few of my students remarked on the great surprise they felt when they saw so many adults taking notes on a lecture, even though they would not be tested or graded.
Did everyone express admiration for my performance as moderator? No. But, hearing from a few critics, and then talking individually with those critics afterwards, did provide the inspiration for a pretty good autobiographic limerick: “When you try to be neutral on fracking, you’re a quarterback set up for sacking. You can assert and declare that you’re going to be fair, but you cannot escape frequent whacking.”
(laughter)
My performance was far from perfect, but I will say this on my own behalf: I worked very hard to set up a situation in which people could examine problems from several perspectives, and then think about whether they could conjure up a solution or two for those problems. And, that is my recommendation to you, the Regents. By all means, encourage diversity of opinion at the University. But, when it comes to setting priorities for hiring or encouraging a more open climate in hiring matters, encourage the hiring of problem-solvers. They can be conservatives or liberals, free market advocates or strategists of government regulation. But, put a premium on professors who will keep watch on their own susceptibility to confirmation bias and will pause to
35 reconsider the assumptions before finding an argument to be convincing because it confirms a preexisting belief.
In past decades, an unfortunate term received frequent use in humanities circles. Historians, among others, took to declaring that their mission was to “problematize” the subjects of their research. Thankfully, this term has faded from use. But, I will resurrect it in a modified form for one more, last outing. Problem-solvers would be preferable to those old-fashioned problematizers. We are, as a nation, sufficiently problematized for the time being.
Far more to the point, it is my happy opportunity to affirm and declare what you already know: The University of Colorado’s faculty ranks are already well-populated with credentialed, committed and creative problem-solvers. Build on this already substantial strength in the University. Take this as your goal: To add to the abundance of problem-solvers on this faculty, a goal that serves the best interests of our students, of our state, our nation and of humanity. Thank you.
Carrigan: Thank you. And, Professor Limerick, you’re description of being an umpire qualifies you to try to take this job as being Chair of the Board of Regents.
(laughter)
Limerick: “Fracking Sense” would be easier, I think.
(laughter)
Limerick: I shouldn’t say that. We need to compare notes (unintelligible, both speaking at once)
Carrigan: I appreciate it, and I’ll take it as a compliment. Regent Hybl.
Hybl: Thank you. Dr. Limerick, first of all, you’re to be thanked and commended for the work that you’ve done and the Center of the American West had done because what you do is you model civil discourse in learning to the benefit of our democratic societies. And, you know, that’s not unlike what I want to see in higher education, which is the presentation of the broad waterfront of ideas on the topic at hand. And so, what you do is sort of a model. You’re modeling the way. And, I believe that, you know, the same would be good and useful for our colleagues in Congress. And, you know, they have ideas, but the difference is, they’re not willing to smash their ideas together for the benefit of the American people. Instead, they’re taking their ball and going home when they can’t have it all their way.
Limerick: Could I just interrupt for a second and tell you how much you are going to love Mickey Edwards’s book?
Hybl: Oh, good.
36
Limerick: Oh, boy, are you gonna be happy with that book.
Hybl: I hope it doesn’t qualify me as not a conservative, though.
(laughter)
Hybl: So, thank you, for everything that you do.
Limerick: I’m glad I set you up for that one. That was a straight man’s line.
(laughter)
Hybl: I’ll ask him after I read the book.
Carrigan: So, uh…
Unidentified Speaker: I can tell you.
Limerick: Did you… Is there a… Would you like me to say anything?
Hybl: Sure. Well, no. I just wanted to thank you because I honestly believe that you and your Center are modeling the way of what higher education is and should be.
Limerick: And, I would like to just add to that, that I am a maverick in some circles of the academic world. And, I am proud to tell you on behalf of my profession that, in the last, oh, five or six years, I have been… Nominating committees and electorates have made me Vice President of the American Historical Association, President of the Society of American Historians, President of the Organization of American Historians and nominated for the National Humanities Council, which I—God willing—will finish the paperwork someday and actually get that moving. So, I would like to say, on behalf of my profession, that even though I am an odd bird—we’ll just say that—the profession has really said, “This is what we want.” And, often with nominating committees I say, “I’m in a rather unusual form of practice now.” And, they say, “That’s why we called you.” So, yea, historians.
Carrigan: Any other questions?
Limerick: Oh, you have… Oh, you must ask a couple of questions. Oh, you must.
Carrigan: Well, I’m sorry.
Limerick: It’s certain. I know that Regent Geddes want to ask if I’m typical.
Geddes: If you’re what?
37 (laughter)
Geddes: Will you spell that?
Limerick: I’m not a polygamist, that’s certainly true. Although my Mormon… Like I said, I do have Mormon ancestry on one side, so (unintelligible, laughter)
(laughter)
Limerick: But, I would think someone would want to ask if I think I’m typical. Would anyone want to…
Carrigan: Regent Ludwig.
Limerick: Oh, Regent Ludwig. Okay.
Ludwig: So, you’ve described something that you do that’s very unique. Is that typical?
(laughter)
Limerick: You’re a good soul. Um, no.
Carrigan: You talked about “very unique.”
Limerick: But, no… It is not typical. Partly because I am in a field—I would say, much of the time, I would call it applied history—which is not typical. We divide between the pure academic researchers and the public historians who work at museums. And, I am neither of those… Well, I’m certainly the academic historian. I certainly have been that, but I think I’m in an exciting new growth area because we are able—as I think you can tell from a $12 million NSF grant where the Center is a big part—we’re able to bring in outside resources in applied history. I hope it’s a growing thing. It does mean you have to swerve from a lot of the customs of a humanities professor, but it is so rewarding and so much more intellectually stimulating, that I think it’s worthwhile.
But, I also would like to put out for… Well, I hope that this survey will ask for age because I believe that a lot of the phenomenon that we’re seeing, or have been seeing for a number of years on campus, I believe that’s an age cohort moving through a system. I started college in 1968, prime time for certain kinds of attitudes and customs. Every once in a while, there is a comical episode where I am invited to speak at a university campus under the assumption that I am Patricia Nelson Limerick of 25 years ago. And then, the pleasant… As I sometimes say, “I used to be contentious and controversial and then I turned congenial and collaborative.” If you invited the contentious and controversial, multicultural Patricia Limerick, you can very bitterly disappointed that you put in money for plane fare when I show up on that.
38 But, mostly, I would say that’s really generational. And, the professors in their… Well, I guess they would have to be 50? But, 50 and under, I believe that you will find some very different attitudes. To a large degree, I think those people will say, “Those are old, old battles. Those are not where we live. That is not…. That does not help us with the world we live in now.”
Ludwig: But, Regent Hybl said something really helpful, like you model what we… The best of to other people. Are you seeing it across campus? People are willing to bring in these diverse voices and have excellent discourse over the… Because I think that’s part of what the conversation is. And, I think the entire Board would support… Like, civil discourse is something we’re all desperate for.
Limerick: Well, I would say… And, it’s so important. Thank you for reminding me to say: There are, I think, 86 faculty affiliates of the Center of the American West. So, it is not the Patty Limerick show. There’s 86 faculty members who have been willing to put their reputation online with the Center. So, and of course, we are limited because it’s Western American studies. We have stretched to include Peter Hunt from Classics because as a freshman, I read Herodotus and went wild for that, and so we have to do a program on how you cannot understand the American West without reading Herodotus. And so, I had to recruit the Chair of Classics. Who turns out to be rock climber, and he cares a lot about the Western outdoors, so every once in a while, we just go veering off after somebody we want.
It saddened me to have Mark—I assume he might still be online—that Mark Bauerlein did not reminisce about the pleasant conversations we had while he was here, and I regretted that he was not in a Western American studies category. I found him very interesting, and I would have… When he mentioned the invitations he didn’t receive, I thought, “Well, then do water issues in the West for a moment,” or something. So, if I could have brought him in, I would have done that. And, it was probably just a failure of my imagination to think how I could have brought his perspective to bear on that, so I feel that we are indeed well-represented on this campus of people who share this with me.
And, I will say that bringing Jim Watt, some people… Well, a few faculty members refused to clap on that occasion, but they recognized that there was extreme value in seeing a very legendary person and to hear him speak for himself. So, even a few who were needing to say, “I shall not clap for this man,” still recognized that that had been a great chance to go beyond the stereotype that they’d seen in the paper.
Carrigan: Thank you, Dr. Limerick. We have a number of other parts of the presentation. So, I want to thank you for making time today.
Various: Thank you.
Limerick: Okay, good. Thank you. Do you think I’ll get another exciting fellowship like the MacArthur after…
Carrigan: I hope so.
39 Unidentified Speaker: Nah.
Unidentified Speaker: You betcha.
Carrigan: Check your messages.
Limerick: Yes, I will.
Carrigan: I believe Regent Sharkey has a PowerPoint presentation that I’ll ask her to do as quickly as she can.
Sharkey: I will.
Carrigan: That she’s prepared for our meeting. And then, we’ll see what additional discussion there is on this resolution.
Sharkey: I was going to say… Okay, here we go. So, I’d like to talk about the goals of the climate survey. And, it’s going to… The goals are to determine how well the University of Colorado has implemented its guiding principles related to diversity. We need to establish a baseline on how well we respect diversity in all its forms. And, prior climate surveys have suggested that we can create a more welcoming campus environment. Also, climate surveys from other institutions provide potential metrics that we haven’t explored.
The survey needs to generate data that the University community will accept and use. The climate survey will involve faculty input and be conducted by a nonpartisan organization. I’m not going… You know, I’ve got some graphs here from other institutions and some of the questions that were asked in their climate surveys. I’m not going to go through all of this data. But, just to maybe mention some of the questions that have been asked on other climate surveys:
• Readings that only presented one side of a controversial issue, and as you can see, we have four other AA universities here with some pretty high statistics showing that the readings only presented one side of a controversial issue. • Again, in non-CU institutions, courses that present social and political issues in an unfair and one-sided manner. I believe that these are fairly high statistics. Now, they don’t represent the University of Colorado, but they do represent some AA institutions. • Professors who use classrooms to present their personal political views. • Students have to agree with a professor’s social or political views to get a good grade.
So, those are just some of the questions that have been asked at other universities, and questions that I think we should ask of our own.
And, I would hope that no student would ever feel that their grade is dependent upon agreeing with the professor’s personal views. And, I would hope that the response to this question would be 0% at the University of Colorado.
40 Unidentified Speaker: I don’t know.
Sharkey: But, we won’t know until we ask. And, in the professor that just talked, it sounds like it’s never. We never have discrimination. I would probably dispute that. I think that was a pretty broad statement. I think it does happen. To the degree it happens, I think is what we need to discover. And, I hope that it is a very small percentage. And, if it is, then we have something we can boast about but also find an area where we can continue to improve.
So, you know, again, I’m not going to go through this entire PowerPoint presentation. I think the points have been well made, and I appreciate the time that everyone has put into this. And, I appreciate that the Board of Regents have had the patience to allow this presentation to be made as well.
Carrigan: Regent Gallegos.
Gallegos: Sue, when you talked about what the study would accomplish, and you have here, “We need to establish the baseline on how well we respect diversity in all its forms.” What is all included in that?
Sharkey: Well, I think that has to be determined. And, this is… When we—
Gallegos: Good answer. I like that.
Sharkey: —when we decide, and this is going to have to be a committee of people that come together to determine what kind of questions do we need to be asking.
Gallegos: I don’t want it to be so narrow that we don’t get the—
Sharkey: It should not be narrow. This needs to be a broad survey. But, within that survey, in the context of that survey, we are looking at political diversity—
Gallegos: Well, sure. That’s one of the (unintelligible, both speaking at once), right?
Sharkey: —and intellectual diversity, of course. But, it is a broader… I would hope for a broader survey than that.
Gallegos: Sure. As I heard all of the different speakers today, I think they were talking about various things, multicultural—
Sharkey: That’s correct.
Gallegos: —religion, race, women and so on and so forth and—
Sharkey: That is the educational quality that we seek. The education… You know, when… As a parent who’s sent three kids away to college, the one thing that I wanted to have my kids
41 experience—besides just the academics of the University and getting their degree—was to go away from home. Go live in a dorm. Go live with kids who are different than what they grew up with in their local high school.
Gallegos: Sure.
Sharkey: And, because that is part of the academic educational experience. It’s not just walking into a classroom and being taught by an instructor or faculty professor, taking a test and getting a grade. And, so to understand people of different background and cultures, that diversity is an enriching educational experience. And, I hope and I believe that that happens at the University of Colorado. That’s why I encouraged my kids to come here.
Gallegos: One other thing that I would say is that, as a new Regent, I’m pleased to be sitting here, having this discussion. Because it is about students and the quality of education. And, I hope no one will construe this discussion to mean that the University of Colorado is not quality, that good education doesn’t already happen there, that it has for many years, and it will continue to. I am pleased to be a part of this group, to have this discussion because it’s improving on what I believe is a quality university already. So, I hope no one will construe that to say, “Well, they’re broken,” or, “They don’t do things well there,” or, “They discriminate all the time.” That just isn’t what this discussion’s about.
Sharkey: No, I think that—
Gallegos: It’s about quality of educations.
Sharkey: That’s right and—
Gallegos: And, about us wanting to do more with it. Really important to me that that comes out.
Sharkey: I think that the leadership of the University, that we have allowed this conversation to take place, is something that we can feel good about. And, this is certainly not an attack on the University of Colorado. We are seeking… There is always, always going to be room for improvement. And, that’s what we seek to do is to make this the best institution, not only in the state of Colorado, but in this country. And, by having rigorous debate, we’re proving that we seek that.
Gallegos: As a new Regent, I am pleased to be having this discussion. Thank you.
Gallegos: Very good.
Carrigan: Regent Neguse.
Neguse: So, with that in mind, I think—to the extent we’re going to do a climate survey—in order for it to be an effective one, I think it should be comprehensive and should include gender,
42 religion, veteran status. And so, I’d offer the following amendment to the first resolution that I hope would be accepted as friendly, but I would propose that it would—
Ludwig: Has it moved and seconded?
Neguse: I thought it moved or…
Carrigan: It’s been moved and seconded, yes.
Sharkey: It… Yes.
Neguse: Okay. So, it would be at the end of the first RESOLVED paragraph, prior to the semicolon, would just add the following language: “As well as diversity based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation and veteran status.”
Gallegos: And, Joe, I don’t know if we could include this or not, but we really talked about the Boulder campus, and I would like our Chancellors from the other univers—from the other campuses to weigh in as well. And, hopefully, they’ll think that it will be good for them also. But, I think that they should have a say in it. Maybe not today, but as this thing moves on.
Neguse: Yeah, and I don’t disagree. I think maybe what we could do is, first the amendment—
Carrigan: We have an amendment.
Neguse: Yeah. And, then we can…
Carrigan: There is a motion for an amendment. Is there a second to the motion?
Geddes: I second it.
Carrigan: Second by Regent Geddes. Is it accepted as a friendly amendment by Regents Sharkey and Geddes?
Geddes: Yes.
Carrigan: Accepted as a friendly amendment.
Neguse: Thank you.
Carrigan: And, Joe, I had written almost the same thing, so (unintelligible, inaudible)
Neguse: Think alike.
Carrigan: Just so we’re clear that the survey would involve more than just that particular guiding principle. Regent Griego.
43 Griego: Yeah, and Regent Neguse, I really appreciate you bringing this up and adding that amendment. I really appreciate it. And, what also I think is important—I’m just going to back to the shared governance—in developing this survey, it—I feel—it is critical that the individuals that are involved in developing that survey represent all factions of our community. And, that means, you know, and we have a… We have great resources in our diversity department. There’s resources there we can use. But, again, to make sure that this is an inclusive process, and it is part of shared governance, again, I think it’s critical that we make sure that we have the appropriate representation in developing this survey.
Carrigan: Thank you. Alright, at the risk of prolonging the discussion more, I will invite the two representatives of campus leadership who are still at the table, if you have brief remarks or things you think the Board should consider for this particular resolution. Chancellor Shockley.
Shockley: With regard to the survey, because I of course am a social scientist specializing in statistical psychometric properties, I would… I know that to achieve the purpose of the survey, it not only has to be part of an inclusive process, shared governance process, for the selection of its development, but I want to emphasize—and, some of this comes from my academic background, but also as the Chancellor—that the properties of this survey, and therefore the data on which we are going to take direction is very, very solid. And, I will be happy to try to work from that data to move into what needs to happen in Colorado Springs.
We have done climate surveys regularly. They are not as broad as what this undertaking is probably going to be. And, I will welcome working with it, but I want to urge us to have the kind of survey from which we can legitimately then use the data.
Carrigan: Thank you. Vice President Marks, anything you want to add?
Marks: I would just say that I found this conversation incredibly rich, and in many respects, really inspiring to talk about how we all can be broader and better in our thinking and in our receptivity to new ideas. And, I thank you for the conversation.
Carrigan: Thank you. And, I know Chancellor Elliman had a conflict he could not change and had to… So, I know he sends his apologies. A question for the sponsors of the resolution: Do you have any idea of the fiscal impact of the survey?
Geddes: Well, before we expanded to… I don’t if expanding the survey would make it more costly or not, but I had one person tell me it’d be in the range of $40 or $50,000, but that’s just a… I’m not very confident of that number.
Sharkey: I’m not either. I think we need to increase that number.
President Benson: I think, like the Missouri survey, you’re going to spend a lot more than that.
Geddes: How much, Bruce?
44 President Benson: I can’t tell you. I wouldn’t be surprised by $100,000.
Sharkey: Let’s set that as the limit.
Geddes: The, uh… Our—
Carrigan: I would… Another thought would be to… It’s clearly (unintelligible) fiscal impact, but it’s all campuses would be $100,000 or less, and that will be a criteria, also, on the… For the organization that’s chosen. That… I don’t know that we need that in the resolution, but if anyone wants to add… Regent Hybl.
Hybl: Well, I suppose that depends upon if that gets the job done in an appropriate and wholesome fashion. And, it probably will, and I think it’s good guidance, but I think it’s… That’s…
Carrigan: But, are you willing… If it’s $10 million, are you willing to vote for this resolution?
Hybl: Well, I would consider it.
(laughter)
Geddes: Now, see that’s something… That’s something a liberal would say.
Sharkey: (unintelligible, several comments at once, laughter)
Carrigan: (unintelligible) Regent… Vice President O’Rourke
O'Rourke: If I might offer a suggestion, which is that… It could be that we would build out an RFP, request information from various firms, and before we enter a contract, we could bring it back to Board of Regents with a cost estimate—
Sharkey: I like that.
O'Rourke: —in order to have the Board of Regents ultimately authorize us to incur that cost.
Carrigan: And, we have a special meeting already scheduled in August, so you might even know something by them.
O'Rourke: We might. It depends on the response time.
Carrigan: Well, we have a September 1 data.
O'Rourke: I would suggest that this is going to be a broader survey than before, and I don’t have any ability to make an amendment because I’m not a regent, but you could resolve… You
45 could change the last WHEREAS clause to resolve at the September meeting to bring the responses to the RFP back to the Board.
Sharkey: Jim?
Carrigan: Regent Geddes.
Geddes: I’m sorry.
Carrigan: The proposal is to the move and second that the deadline that’s set forth in the last RESOLVED, that be amended so that the proposals would be brought to the Board at the September meeting, so we would know what the fiscal impact would be.
Geddes: Yes, with the hope being the survey would be performed during the fall semester.
Carrigan: Perhaps—
Geddes: With the expectation that the survey would be performed perhaps in November.
O'Rourke: Yes, that would work.
Geddes: Yeah.
Carrigan: Okay.
Geddes: Okay.
Carrigan: So, we’re clear that the specific last RESOLVED would be amended that… “shall direct the search process to be completed…” or, “search process involve delivery of responses to proposals at the Board’s September, 2013 meeting with the goal of having the survey completed during the Fall, 2013 semester.”
Geddes: And, that our results would be available, say at the winter retreat.
Sharkey: Mm-hmm.
Carrigan: “And, that the results be available in the January, 2014 retreat.”
Geddes: Right.
O'Rourke: Which is pretty quick.
Sharkey: Yeah, it is.
Geddes: Well—
46
Sharkey: We… I don’t know that we can set an exact date of—
Hybl: $10 million.
Sharkey: Well, I think, the RFP that we—
Carrigan: Regent Geddes, I would suggest perhaps if we could not have that deadline, it might even give us more (unintelligible, several speaking at once)
Sharkey: Let them work out the logistics…
President Benson: Let’s just get some bidders, as Patrick talked about, and then we can put the details to it.
Geddes: Yeah. That’s just a goal. How’s that?
Carrigan: Okay. With a goal… Did you get that, Cheryl?
Espinoza: No. I need to know exactly what the wording is.
Carrigan: Okay. So, the last RESOLVED would read, if what is being suggested would be hopefully accepted as a friendly amendment:
“RESOLVED, The Regents of the University of Colorado shall direct the search process be conducted with responses to proposals received for the Board’s review at its September, 2013 meeting.”
And then, perhaps, we’ll know more about the timeline at that point, Regent Geddes. Is that acceptable?
Geddes: Fine. Sure.
Carrigan: Is that a friendly amendment?
Geddes: Mm-hmm.
Carrigan: Regent Sharkey, agreed?
Sharkey: Yes, yes.
Carrigan: Okay. So amended.
Sharkey: And so, then you would take out the rest of that and just…
47 Carrigan: Yes. Yup.
Sharkey: Okay.
Carrigan: Okay. So, that’s the resolution, which now has been amended twice. Any more discussion? Okay. I’ll take a vote. All in favor, please say aye?
Various: Aye.
Carrigan: Any opposed?
(none heard)
Carrigan: The Chair abstains. Passes 8 to 0. Okay.
Geddes: You ready to get this one going?
Carrigan: Professor…uh, Regent Geddes has a statement—
Geddes: I’ll take that term Professor. That sounds good. I like that.
Carrigan: —will submit… You have a statement you’re going to submit to Cheryl for the record. Is that right?
Geddes: Yes. And, I’ll again read quickly. The second resolution is:
“RESOLVED, The Regents of the University of Colorado—“
Carrigan: Regent Geddes, you have to bring a motion to suspend the rules first.
Geddes: Oh, does that go before I read the proposed—
Carrigan: (unintelligible, both speaking at once)
Hybl: I move to suspend the rules.
Carrigan: Moved by Regent Hybl to suspend the rules to do what?
Hybl: And, take this vote in order without the required notice period.
Carrigan: Okay.
Sharkey: I’ll second that.
48 Carrigan: That’s moved by Regent Hybl, and we have been advised that that requires a unanimous vote to move forward with the consideration of the second resolution that is on our agenda as F(3). Since that’s a unanimous vote, let’s do a roll call, if we could.
Geddes: Are we going to discuss it?
Sharkey: Yes, we’re going to discuss it.
Carrigan: Okay. Well, there’s been a request for discussion, and that’s… It is debatable, so any discussion on that motion.
Gallegos: I probably won’t vote for that resolution the way it stands because I think that the hard work now is in introducing a resolution that means something, that doesn’t come across as a top-down deal. I think it’s going to need to take some (unintelligible, broken) thought, some process. And, therefore, I would vote for it if it was kicked back to the Policies committee for 60 days, while we have our opportunity to do that, get our wording in order, get input from our Chancellors, from other people so that… I know in my experience is that top-down kinds of things don’t work. I think we need to be about as thoughtful as we can be with them. The research will talk about when you do top-down kinds of things, it’s forgotten about in eight or nine months. I don’t want it to happen to this resolution.
Carrigan: Thank you. Further discussion? Regent Hybl.
Hybl: Thank you. You know, the way I see the resolution is, thanks to our University counsel’s drafting of it, it is basically a restatement of the law as it currently exists in the United States, but it just puts it at the forefront that says, “Yes, we the Regents of the University of Colorado support the law of the United States of America,” and because of that, I wouldn’t imagine that this particular measure should or would be that controversial.
Gallegos: I think it sets precedents by altering Regents’ policy as well.
Carrigan: Regent Griego.
Griego: I believe that we need to continue to remember and understand our role and function as the Board of Regents, and is that to make the most informed decisions on behalf of those that we serve. And, there are processes and procedures and representative committees that follow, that are very thoughtful and inclusive. And, again, this subject is so critical and so important that it warrants the time that it needs to be discussed in a shared governance model.
And, I also feel that the impact and the results that we get from collecting data from the survey is critical to how we see this. And, again, I believe it is just… It is so important that we need to give it the time that it needs for that inclusiveness on campus. Because this, this motion is about being inclusive. And, again, I think it’s important that, as the Board of Regents, that we are inclusive and that we involve our staff and our faculty involved in discussion. And, I believe it should go back to Laws and Policies.
49
Carrigan: Regent Sharkey.
Sharkey: To kind of tag onto what Regent Hybl said, and agree with you, Regent Hybl. I think the laws of our county have been very straightforward as well as the language of this resolution in not having antidiscrimination in political philosophy and political affiliation. I don’t think it requires a lot of discussion. I think this has been debated and discussed and the law of our land has determined that this is not acceptable discrimination. And, I think that we as Regents and as leaders of this University can be as straightforward in making a statement against this discrimination.
Carrigan: Thank you. Regent Ludwig.
Ludwig: The way I see it now, I agree with Regents Hybl and Sharkey that this is sort of a no- brainer, but I believe that we’re not in a crisis, and doing something against Regent Law that’s not a crisis does set a bad precedent as my colleagues have shared. So, my vote today is not a vote against the amendment or the resolution. It’s just a vote against the process.
Carrigan: Regent Griego.
Griego: And, I would just like to say the same thing. I just think it warrants the time and the discussion. And, I believe that discussion would be just as valuable as our vote whenever we, when we make that vote. And, I just think it warrants the time, and I agree with Regent Ludwig. This isn’t a… It is… It’s important because we don’t tolerate discrimination, but it’s also just as important as shared governance and getting the information from all of our stakeholders.
Carrigan: Regent Neguse.
Neguse: I think Regent Geddes is first, but…
Geddes: Go ahead.
Neguse: Oh, well, thanks. It may be a question for Cheryl, and I don’t know if she’ll be able to answer it just positively, but have we given unanimous consent to a resolution previously? Or, in the last… I don’t know…
Espinoza: Since I’ve been here, we have not given unanimous consent—
Neguse: To waive the…
Espinoza: —to waive the—
Ludwig: Well, we did once.
Espinoza: We did try on the resolution that you brought forward.
50
Neguse: We don’t need to bring up my failures from the past, but yeah…
(laughter)
Neguse: I do recall that failing. That’s true.
(laughter)
Neguse: Okay, alright.
Carrigan: There was a time that I… I’m trying to remember what you were trying to amend, but Regent Neguse brought a resolution, and we would have… Because we had a special meeting—
Neguse: It was the Laws—
Carrigan: —we were going to be debating it 57 years, 57 days later…
Neguse: Yeah. It’s the Laws with respect to the Chancellors delegating responsibility.
Carrigan: Right. So, that was one time because, otherwise, we would have had to have a special meeting three days later.
Neguse: Yup, yes.
Carrigan: So, I do recall one time that that—
Neguse: But, we didn’t vote on it.
Carrigan: But, that issue never went forward.
Neguse: Gotcha. Okay. Alright.
Gallegos: Again, my vote has no bearing on how much I believe in it. I think it’s the process as well.
Carrigan: Thank you. Regent Geddes.
Geddes: I certainly respect…
Carrigan: Call the question. I’m sorry, go ahead.
Geddes: I certainly respect the three opinions to follow the previous instructions, if you will, for how this is to be done. I think it is a no-brainer, and it’s something I think we’ll pass, certainly.
51 We’ll be delaying it a couple of months. That probably won’t make any big difference. But, we’ve heard a couple folks talk to us today about concerns that there has been discrimination on this campus in this arena that we’ve been talking about today.
You know, the… I’m a student now of the concepts of academic freedom and intellectual diversity, but I’m not a scholar. So, don’t misinterpret what I’m going to say. The professors cherish, above all else, the concept of academic freedom. It’s a very important concept that separates our United States type of universities from many that have existed in the world previously that have not cherished free speech and the exchange of ideas freely. And, they also, you know, have asked for certain privileges, like tenure and protection for themselves from the authorities of the University, such as ourselves, in any manipulation whatsoever in their responsibilities of teaching and determining what they can and can’t say. And, that’s all something we all support in this room, I’m sure.
But, there’s an obligation that goes along with it. And, the obligation is that their makeup includes representatives of all the important fields of thought, opinion and knowledge. That goes hand in hand. And, my concern is there’s enough evidence now at this institution and many others in our country where that part of the responsibility has not been shouldered by the faculty. And, the… You know, it’s a type of discrimination.
Carrigan: Okay. Regent Griego.
Griego: Just one more, last thing. One of the reasons that I feel it’s so important to have shared governance is because I think we… There is so much that still needs to be defined, that needs to be clarified through this process that I think is important for us. Because even today, we still do not have a clear definition of what “political affiliation” and “political philosophy” means. And, that’s critical to us to be able to at least have clarification. And, we don’t have that clarification. And, I think that clarification comes through a shared governance process and the conversations and discussions and the research in terms of what that means.
And, you know… And, I… And, like I said, I mean we’re talking about 60 days to be able to do our homework. And, 60 days to make sure there’s clarification, so that everyone clearly understands what that means. I mean, just now, we just added one piece of it regarding, you know, religion, ethnic minorities, all those other different perspectives. And, I also believe it’s important for people to understand the impact of that because everyone in this room brings a different perspective to how we see these. And, again, it’s based on our own personal culture.
And, believe me, I’m an advocate of our civil rights and our Constitution, and I want it to work for every single person. And, part of that means that we need to have the voices in the room to make sure there’s clarity in terms of what this will evolve to be. And, I have great hopes for it.
Geddes: Thank you. I would like to withdraw. I think the simplest thing would be to withdraw the motion I made, I believe—
Carrigan: (unintelligible, both speaking at once)
52
Geddes: —to , for this resolution at this time and agree that it should go to the Laws and Policies.
Carrigan: And, I will take—
Hybl: And, I’ll withdraw my—
Carrigan: Your second?
Hybl: —my resolution.
Carrigan: Regent Geddes, I will then, as Chair, recognize it as a Notice of Motion to be acted on in our September meeting and, in the interim, refer it to Laws and Policies and whoever is chairing Laws and Policies will hopefully convene a meeting this summer to look at it. And, with consultation with the governance groups. Okay? Very good.
Hybl: And, I withdraw my motion, which preceded the one he was gonna make.
Geddes: It did precede it.
Hybl: Yeah.
Carrigan: Alright.
Geddes: Alright.
Carrigan: We have other action items on this portion of our agenda. My suggestion would be, since we’re close to our adjournment time, that we take those up tomorrow morning, rather than beginning a discussion that will have to be shortened. I’m putting everyone on notice that, although our public starting time is at 8:30 tomorrow, we have a number of items that we still have to conduct in executive session, so while the public notice is at 8:30, it is very unlikely, and it’s more likely that it’ll be nine or 9:15 before we convene in public.
So, I’d like to thank everyone. I’d like to thank the University community, our guest speakers, Regent Sharkey and Regent Geddes for all their hard work in presenting this and all the Board for their respectful tone in discussion. I think we’ve set a good example for the University community that we’re trying to lead.
Espinoza: Regent Carrigan? I apologize. We have a scheduled—
Carrigan: Right. What time?
Espinoza: At 8:30.
53 Carrigan: Can you call him?
Espinoza: He has people that are coming to be with (unintelligible) presentation. We could have—
Ludwig: We could do that, and then go into (unintelligible, both speaking at once)
Espinoza: (unintelligible), and then go back into executive session.
Carrigan: Okay.
Espinoza: Or, we could start your executive session early.
Carrigan: We are doing that, too.
Espinoza: Okay.
(laughter)
Carrigan: Executive session, seven a.m. or 7:30?
Various: Oh… Oh, gosh. Nope.
Unidentified Male Speaker: Nope.
Unidentified Male Speaker: I’ve got a long drive.
Unidentified Male Speaker: (unintelligible) at 4:30.
Ludwig: So, I… So, hold on a second. So, we have… We’re scheduled to finish at noon tomorrow, right?
Carrigan: That’s not gonna happen, either, obviously. I’m trying to fit all this in and take the movement on—
Unidentified Male Speaker: Okay. I won’t be here until 8:30. So, I have work obligations. I won’t… So…
Hybl: Can’t we just continue tonight?
Sharkey: Yeah. Can we just continue tonight?
Carrigan: Reconvene after the dinner?
Sharkey: Just continue now.
54
Neguse: Or, right… What time’s the dinner? Let’s go right now.
Espinoza: Dinner’s at 5:30.
Carrigan: The dinner’s at 5:30.
Unidentified Male Speaker: Oh…
Sharkey: Can we come back?
Carrigan: And, we have action items that we have to talk about in executive session before we can (unintelligible, inaudible), so…
Sharkey: Can we come back this evening after dinner?
Carrigan: After dinner?
Hybl: Have a couple beers…
Neguse: People could be on conference calls if they’re away, if they’re not staying the night.
Unidentified Male Speaker: Yeah, we…
Carrigan: What’s the Board’s…
Sharkey: If we’re going to come back (unintelligible)
Griego: Reconvene tonight?
Carrigan: We probably have an hour or more of executive session.
Geddes: My thought would be honor the professor, go back into executive session, then come back into session.
Carrigan: And, go late in the day?
Geddes: Later.
Sharkey: You’re going to go past twelve?
Carrigan: Tomorrow?
Sharkey: Uh-huh.
55 Carrigan: Absolutely.
Sharkey: Okay. I have a commitment at one.
Carrigan: Okay. Well, that’s… I’m sorry. You know, that we were overly optimistic, so…
Gallegos: Well, is anyone opposed to coming back at 7:30?
Sharkey: Well, can we reconvene tonight, I guess, is my question.
Gallegos: Coming back at 7:30 tonight and finishing it up.
Carrigan: Who’s available at 7:30 tonight?
Sharkey: It looks like we’re all available.
Gallegos: Just have a… Just have some cold beer around.
Carrigan: Can the staff accommodate that?
Espinoza: Sure, you’re going to come back in executive session tonight?
Ludwig: Yes. Not public session.
Carrigan: Correct.
Espinoza: Yes. We can accommodate that.
Carrigan: Okay. That’s the plan.
Gallegos: The lesser of two evils. Just have some cold beer…
Geddes: So, we’re going to the dinner. Where’s it at?
Sharkey: You know where to go, right?
Carrigan: We’re in recess.
END OF FILE
56