Arizona Faculties Council Meeting Minutes

Date: Friday, March 9, 2007
Place: Ventana Room, UA Student Union
Time Frame: 8:00 a.m.

Present:
Marcus Ford, NAU, Arizona Faculties’ Council President (2006-2007) and NAU Senate Past President
Marsha Yowell, NAU Senate President
Blasé Scarnati, NAU
Liz Grobsmith, Provost, NAU
John Brock, ASU Polytechnic Academic Assembly and Senate President
Susan Mattson, ASU Downtown Campus Senate President
Betty Capaldi, Provost, ASU
Robert Mitchell, UA Vice-Chair of the Faculty and Presiding Officer of the Senate
J.C. Mutchler, UA South Faculty Forum Past President
William Alexander, UA South Faculty Forum President
George Davis, Provost, UA
Juan Garcia, Vice Provost, UA
Jacqueline Mok, Vice Provost, UA
J. Stephanie Jacobsen, ABOR
Christine Thompson, ABOR

AFC Chair Ford called the meeting to order at 8:29 a.m. Members introduced themselves.

Topic: Academic Bill of Rights:
C. Thompson updated AFC members that she along with public affairs personnel from each of the universities and the community colleges have met with Representative Verschoor, the sponsor of a bill that some view as a threat to academic freedom in Arizona’s public schools and universities. His concern is for students who feel coerced or indoctrinated by a professor’s views, or students who feel they are being punished for expressing their views in class or in a paper. This group has provided the legislator with extensive documentation about all of the existing the state statutes, Board and university policies prohibiting political activity in classes, and all of the student grievance procedures. Educators in the K-12 arena are equally concerned. Thompson says the window of opportunity to introduce new legislature is closing and she doesn’t believe he has broad enough support for this to pass even if it does make it to the floor of the Senate, plus the governor would never sign it. The grievance processes need to be clear and easy to find and Arizona’s student grievance processes are posted on the web, in the Catalog, and in student handbooks.

Some members feel that the real issue has more to do with a national movement to identifying left-leaning, liberal faculty than about student rights. There simply aren’t many students complaining. Faculty members are very concerned about how to support a faculty member who is “labeled,” such as on the Horowitz website. ASU hasn’t provided much public response at ASU about the two courses that were targeted, based on the ASU’s public affairs office’s recommendation. AFC members would like some assurance that academic freedom issues won’t continue to arise every year. Last year the issue was on course content. C. Thompson doesn’t believe it would be appropriate to target this type of grievance for a special policy. Last year’s concern had more support in the legislature, but the minority whip has voted against it, and the committee chairs have expressed that they have strong reservations about this bill. Some members believe this is legislation in search of a problem. C. Thompson believes it is a dead issue and that continuing to raise this issue in the press will engage and empower this individual and do more harm than letting the bill die quietly.

 

Nevertheless, faculty members believe that faculty are failing to reach out to the student body and the community. Keeping silent about such issues while this destructive climate exists empowers that side on the pretense of protecting our students. AFC members discussed that faculty, students and administrators should, in ways that are not strident, respond and bring forth the ideal democracy. UA Provost Davis acknowledged that going public will sometimes fan the flames, but he feels it is important to signal to the targeted faculty that the administration supports them. With the consent of President Shelton, Provost Davis and Chair of the Faculty Howell did prepare a public response about the UA faculty who were labeled on the Horowitz webpage, and did not inform the Office of External Affairs, which may have tried to block that response. It is important to realize that any such response may affect the whole university system. C. Thompson noted that the student associations also testified against the bill at the committee level. AFC is concerned that there may be more reasonable legislation being proposed, which this legislator may try to compromise with. AFC would like to partner with ABOR staff to be able to react more effectively when such issues arise. Although there is a time to let a bill die, sometimes someone such as a faculty member, provost or president ought to speak ought on behalf of the universities, to educate the community and to communicate the value of higher education. Fifty years ago, university presidents would take a public position on policies and issued position papers, acting as a moral voice, but in these times, presidents are afraid of alienating donors and public affairs personnel caution against it.

C. Thompson explained that the legislators are more supportive of higher education than in the past decade. The proof of that fact is in the number of bills with negative impact (only one) that were introduced this year. The Education Committee chairs, Burns and Haloran) are extremely supportive and furthermore, this is the first year that the universities haven’t had to defend their existence. Taking a defensive mode would be the wrong approach. Finding ways to reinvigorate the position of the universities and celebrate their accomplishments.

C. MacGonigle will be presenting an initative to ABOR this morning called “Solutions for our Future,” which is how to promote the value and need to support for higher education. With funding from someone in Texas, several commercials that have been created to promote higher education.

This meeting concluded at 9:07 a.m.

Recorded by Pam Bridgmon
Program Coordinator – UA Faculty Center                                                                    

 

AFC/2006-07/afc minutes 3-9-07