skip to main content
Faculty Senate
University of Mississippi

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Meeting held in Bryant 209

 

 

Agenda

  • Senator Albritton opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
  • First order of business: Approve minutes of late meeting
    • Approve minutes of late meeting
      • Moved
      •             Seconded
      •             Passed unanimously
  • Second order of business: Role of tenured/untenured faculty and representation
    • Chair of AAUP Nat’l Governance to speak on issue
      • AAUP est. 1950
      • Created many professional norms/standards, including tenure
      • “Contingent” faculty is AAUP term
    • AAUP concern for contingent faculty goes back to 1980
      • Back then, typical faculty member was tenured
      • 1.5 million people involved in teaching today
      •             70% of these people are untenured and not tenure track
    • AAUP believes that many of those positions should be tenured and not contingent
      • Tenure as “essential mechanism for academic freedom” and its “best protection”
      • Good for recruitment, teaching, and iron content of healthy bones
      • This is “base” position of AAUP
    • AAUP does not ignore reality of current situation, has attempted to address
      • AAUP has joint subcommittee working on a report at the moment
      • Builds on past statements
      • Policy has not yet been adopted, but recommendations are pending
    • People who are involved in the word of the professoriate need to have some voice
    •             What about the person who is teaching one course a year?
    •                         Perhaps a period of service for involvement in governance as a criterion?
    •             What about the person who teaches part-time for years on end?
    •             One exclusion: contingent faculty should never be involved in tenure and promotion committees, etc.
    •             Allowing them to run for governance positions is currently on the table
    •                         1-2 institutions allow this already
    •                         Voting issue (e.g. nonvoting delegates) also under discussion
    • If contingent faculty do not have tenure, what pressure do they face from administration
    •             Coercion by administration is a possibility in that context
    •             Institutions need explicit policies and procedures to protect academic freedom of contingent faculty to combat this
    • Compensation is another option
    •             Some contingent faculty may ask why they should assume governance responsibilities without commensurate pay and research hours
    •                         May have little interest
    •             Nevertheless, long-term appointees may still wish for involvement, perhaps with recognition or compensation
    • Questions
      • Question: have any institutions made contingent representation a policy rather than an option?
      •             Answer: Yes, some set aside a small number of positions, especially with a large senate
      •                         However, AAUP committee does not think maximum quotas are a good idea (though minimum might be allowable)
      •                         No token representation; could run for any seat
      • Question: how many such institutions are there? Is that a best practice?
      •             Answer: not just 2-3, but not a majority; not rare. No exact figures
      • Question: are the schools in question research or teaching institutions?
      •             Answer: Research
      • Question: Is there a best solution at this point?
      •             Answer: Until now, the answer was to ignore the problem
      •                         Contingent faculty have been active in issue
      • Question: so there is no prevalent approach?
      •             Answer: some allow equal voting status; this is not common
      •                         More common for places to set aside seats, perhaps with some term-of-service requirements
      •                         Not unlike the way votes were phased in for tenure faculty back in the day
      • Question: what about contingent faculty forming their own governing body?
      •             Answer: in unionized places, sometimes, but only in a collective bargaining sense.
      •                         Not aware of any such organization such as those for staff
      • Question: Was the separate body solution ever broached?
      •             Answer: There are problems with that; segregating contingent faculty is unlikely to be in AAUP policy or its draft
      •                         As much as there are differences between tenured and nontenured people, solidarity is ultimately important
      • Question: How does AAUP reconcile the conflict between tenure and contingency?
      •             Answer: as noted earlier, “tenure=good” is ultimate AAUP position
      •             Trend away from tenure should be reversed
      •             Has keeping contingent faculty out of governance helped that position?
      • Question: What about contingent faculty “doing qualitatively different jobs?”
      •             Answer: is partially answered in current policy, notably in their exclusions from matters of tenure; would go for all research-related areas and teaching faculty as well
      •                         Would involve discussions in the individual senates concerned
      • Sen. Albritton: What is the feeling among the AAUP committee on faculty appointments (e.g. supervision), and how does one distinguish between research and non-research career tracks among contingent faculty?
      •             Answer: Even contingent faculty can be enriched by research, and should participate in it; different institutions have different standards
  • Third order of business: William Berry with COIA report
    • COIA is a group of senators from schools with big football programs
      • Amateur model vs. professional model for student athletes discussed
      •             90-95% of total
      • Worries about athletic eligibility at the expense of post-college employability and academic preparation
      • Academic misconduct is on the rise
      • Coach salaries are skyrocketing
      • $9 million budget is average
    • Proposed reforms from NCAA
      • $2000 stipend per student
      •             COIA split on this issue
      • Multi-year scholarships
      •             Commit to 4-year rather than 1-year scholarships
      •             COIA generally in favor
      • VCS
      •             To what extent is TV money influencing conference participation (e.g. Texas in the “east” for TV ratings)
      • Antitrust discussions on coach salaries
      • No resolution, but 14 hours of discussion
    • Questions
      • Question: Are coach salaries the reason that athletics are in the red?
      •             Answer: Yes, largely; unless there is congressional action, NCAA salary caps are impossible under antitrust rules as interpreted.
      • Question: Coach salaries; aren’t some of the monies from Donations and foundations?
      •             Answer: Yes, but there are shortfalls
  • Fourth order of business: Committee reports
    • Executive cmte.
      • No report
    • Academic affairs
      • No report
    • Academic support
      • No report
    • Finance
      • Brian Reithel on questions from last semester
      • How much tuition was transferred to Athletics in FY 2012?
      •             $1,912,000 to athletics
      •             $1,869,000 from athletics
      •             $43,000 net to athletics
      •             $7 million to athletics at USM, $4 million at MSU, $2.2 MVS by way of comparison
      • How are these transferred funds used?
      •             They go into a general fund, with some money to “spirit” activities like cheerleading (but not the band)
      • Are there any recommendations from the committee?
      •             No, $43,000 is reasonable in light of IHL policy which allows up to $7.5 million transfer to athletics
    • University Services
    •             No report
    • Governance
      • No report
  • Fifth order of business: Old business
      • None
  • Sixth order of business: New business
    • ASB students to ask for support on smoke-free campus policy
      • Question: does previous DOPA resolution that passed in December count?
      •             Answer: may nor may not
      • Question: what about game days?
      •             Answer: may or may not be enforced
      • Question: Were any faculty
      • Moved to pass
      •             Seconded
      •             Resolution will be taken up at next meeting
    • Second Tuesday in March is during break; could we meet the following Tuesday?
      • E.g. March 20
      • Moved
      •             Seconded
      •             Passed by acclimation
  • Senator Albritton closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.