DOCSLIB.ORG

Board Meeting Thursday June 20, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Board Meeting Thursday June 20, 2013 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argument by Epithet
    Acad. Quest. (2018) 31:322–330 DOI 10.1007/s12129-018-9720-6 ARTICLES Argument by Epithet Mark Bauerlein Published online: 10 July 2018 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018 It is now obvious that one of the longstanding criticisms conservatives have lodged against progressives is incorrect. Leftists politicize everything, conservatives have charged, and for a long time the allegation has held true. After all, the assertion that everything is always already political followed logically as soon as Karl Marx defined history as class struggle. If every social condition is the result of groups competing to control limited resources, then even seemingly simple and natural human relations have a political genesis. All areas of human affairs from the pure regions of high art to the private sanctuary of the household are fraught with political structures and values. The personal is political, and so are beauty and truth, professors on the Left have said (while their liberal colleagues stayed silent). I have heard them voice that dogma in one way or another hundreds of times over the years. It’s why the National Association of Scholars was founded. The first members wanted to halt the politicization of the humanities during the 70s and 80s that aimed to reach all the way down into academic norms of objectivity, evidence, and reason. In recent times, however, a change in the manner in which leftists and, increasingly, liberals have treated conservatives has unfolded. In the past, a conservative might appeal to tradition, God, empirical science, or aesthetic judgment as a ground that stands apart from politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Calling to Account American Council of Trustees and Alumni 2016
    CALLING TO ACCOUNT AMERICAN COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI 2016 1 Committed to ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE, ACADEMIC FREEDOM, and ACCOUNTABILITY at America’s colleges and universities. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is an independent, nonprofit organization committed to academic excellence, academic freedom, and accountability at America’s colleges and universities. Founded in 1995, ACTA is the only national organization dedicated to working with alumni, donors, trustees, and education leaders across the United States to support liberal arts education, uphold high academic standards, safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus, and ensure that the next generation receives an intellectually rich, high-quality education at an affordable price. Our network consists of alumni and trustees from nearly 1,300 colleges and universities, including over 22,000 current board members. Our quarterly newsletter, Inside Academe, reaches over 13,000 readers. from the President CTA friends know well the passion we bring to strengthening our Neal, now our senior fellow, Anation’s colleges and universities. Thanks to your support, ACTA is continues to be on the front turning the tide and calling colleges and universities to account. Our goal lines of this campaign. is for America to be again able to say our nation’s higher education is the In 2010, we released an envy of the world. expanded edition of our ACTA turned 21 in 2016, and our message reverberates louder and louder signature study of core in the media, in governors’ offices, and, most importantly, at the meetings curriculum requirements: of higher education governing boards. What Will They Learn? It grades schools on how In July, I began my first year as president of this dynamic organization, many of the essential taking up the responsibility of building upon the strong foundation that undergraduate subjects Anne Neal and Jerry Martin laid.
    [Show full text]
  • Coping with Democracy, Coping with the Culture War: a Policy History of the National Endowment for the Humanities
    Coping With Democracy, Coping with the Culture War: A Policy History of the National Endowment for the Humanities Author: Daniel Francis Geary Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:108118 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2018 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Coping With Democracy, Coping with the Culture War: A Policy History of the National Endowment for the Humanities Daniel Geary A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the department of political science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Boston College Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences Graduate School June 2018 © Copyright 2018 Daniel Geary Coping with Democracy, Coping with the Culture War: A Policy History of the National Endowment for the Humanities Daniel Geary Advisor: R. Shep Melnick, Ph.D. Abstract: In 1965, at the height of the Great Society, when there was also a consensus about the importance of the humanities to edify American life, Congress established a federal agency to support them: the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH). Shortly thereafter arose a sea change in scholarship and education in the humanities, which by the 1980s became an issue in the broader U.S. culture wars. Many scholars and intellectuals became sharply divided over such questions as the authors and books to prioritize and include in liberal arts curricula, modes of interpretation of texts, and perspectives on the goodness (or lack thereof) to be found in Western civilization and American history.
    [Show full text]
  • Informational Item South Dakota Board
    SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF REGENTS Full Board REVISED AGENDA ITEM: 2 DATE: June 26-27, 2019 ****************************************************************************** SUBJECT Intellectual Diversity Public Conversation CONTROLLING STATUTE, RULE, OR POLICY House Bill 1087, 2019 Legislative Session BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION During the 2019 Legislative Session, new legislative requirements were developed that obligate the Board of Regents to “prepare … a[n annual] report that: (1) Sets forth all the actions taken by each institution to promote and ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas; and (2) Describes any events or occurrences that impeded intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas.” As a note, the state statute defines “Intellectual diversity” as “a learning environment that exposes students to and encourages exploration of a variety of ideological and political perspectives.” IMPACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS In order to develop the most effective and responsible means of fulfilling the new legislative requirements regarding intellectual diversity, the Board will host an intellectual diversity public conversation from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 26. The purpose of this hearing is to solicit assistance in gathering the best means of achieving the intent of the new legislative requirements. Invitations were sent to legislators, South Dakota Chamber of Commerce members, public university representatives, special interest groups and national associations asking them to participate in the public intellectual
    [Show full text]