Present: S. Barber, V. Brown, L. Gregg-Jolly, M. Montgomery, W. Moyer, R. Osgood, M. Schneider, J. Swartz, R. Vetter

The meeting came to order at 8:00 a.m. in the Nollen House Conference Room.

The minutes and excerpts of 5/5/04 were amended and approved.

President's Remarks

The President thanked the Executive Council members for their service this year, and in particular thanked M. Montgomery, M. Schneider, and S. Barber who are leaving Council this year.

Dean's Remarks

The Dean also thanked Council members for their service citing their many accomplishments during the year.

He updated Council on the status of faculty searches.

He noted that he had received salary recommendations from the Budget Committee on Sunday and that letters should go out next week. It was also noted that the reason that the process took longer than expected this year is that additional calculations and budget revisions were necessary in order to reach very close to the 100% peer parity objective for assistant professors.

Finally, the Dean noted that in the next few weeks the report of the Strategic Planning Committee will become final. He asked if there are some actions that can be taken by the Dean's Office this summer to prepare for further consideration of plan implementation by the faculty next year. It was agreed that some action can and should be taken and several Council members agreed to help the Dean identify those things.

Council Remarks

L. Gregg-Jolly remarked that campus-wide distribution of the diversity report has not taken place.

M. Montgomery noted that he has not received any comments on the draft strategic planning report but hopes to by the end of the month.

M. Schneider remarked, in light of recent student protests about smoking on campus, on news reporting of the success of New York City in reducing public smoking by subsidizing smoking cessation aids. He stated that he believes the College should so subsidize these aids for students and employees. The President responded that such assistance has been made available in the past as part of the Wellness program, but conceded it was not well known. M. Schneider asked the President to make a public announcement on the policy change.

Diversity Initiative

The Dean distributed a draft memorandum to the faculty on the new diversity initiative guidelines for departments to follow and asked Council for comments. There was considerable discussion about the fact that Council recognizes competing considerations in assessing departmental recommendations following a search. It was decided that Council will look for expression of realistic plans for locating qualified candidates in all departmental proposals for approval to conduct a search. Council members expressed concern that procedural shortcomings or departmental misunderstandings experienced during the previous round of the diversity initiative be avoided by clearly communicating to departments that they will be submitting proposals in a noncompetitive environment but that the process becomes more competitive during the stage at which recommendations of specific candidates are made. Presentation of a candidate does not equate to getting a tenure-track position. There was a protracted discussion of whether diversity (in its narrowest-color-definition) should trump all other considerations.

V. Brown noted that diversity in all its definitions continues to vex this campus. The conversation then broadened from the diversity initiative guidelines for departments to the larger issues of diversity on campus, especially among the faculty. Several Council members suggested that the policies and guidance in place (and which have been in place for some time) merely pay lip service to the diversity objectives of the institution and that it is past time to hold the line by putting in place mechanisms which require departments to take explicit action during the recruitment process. V. Brown moved, S. Barber seconded, approval of an Executive Council requirement that all job ads include a stronger statement asking candidates to express in their letters how they would be able and willing to contribute to diversity on campus, that every interview of candidates explicitly include a similar conversation, and that every letter from departments making recommendations of candidates include this specific discussion. M. Montgomery objected to the motion and stated that he does not support forcing departments to do something they do not or may not wish to do. There was considerable discussion. The motion was approved.

Curriculum Committee Proposal

It was noted that both the Dean and the Chair of the Faculty do not support this proposal. The Dean noted that he was most disappointed by the fact that the Committee (on this issue) could not embrace curricular objectives in making their proposal focusing only on the issue of faculty compensation for independent study. There was some discussion of the real value of mentored research and study. It was generally agreed that Council needs to revisit the issue of compensation for Mentored Advanced Projects and independent study next year.

Promotion of Library and Physical Education Faculty

M. Montgomery reminded Council that it had turned the matter over to the Faculty Organization Committee to draft new language concerning this issue for revision of the Faculty Handbook. He reported briefly on the Personnel Committee discussion of this issue. He stated that a major issue is whether or not faculty outside of these units would feel competent to judge on making promotions of faculty in these positions. There was discussion of whether or not these faculty should ever be considered for tenure. On this issue, he reported that while there was some support for promotion with tenure the majority strongly disagreed with the idea.

M. Schneider pointed out that the Faculty Organization Committee had not completed the mission given to them by Executive Council and that, at this time, there was no Council action. Montgomery noted that the FOC does not wish to make policy on this issue, but has completed a draft of changes to the Faculty Handbook. He reiterated a previous statement that he would like to see the matter of promotion to full professor that does not confer tenure go to the floor of the faculty for a complete discussion. The President noted that the draft language changes passed to him by the FOC has some problems regarding the suggestion that Library and PE faculty are in probationary positions which they are not. He believes that a member of the Executive Council should sit down with the FOC and discuss the policy position and then bring the document forward to the full faculty for discussion and approval.

S. Barber left the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

Athletics and Academic Performance

M. Schneider reported that he had studied the statistics regarding academic performance of athletes and found our situation to be consistent with the findings of Bowen and Levin. He stated that he considers this situation to be significant enough that it should be followed closely by some body. The Dean explained the various committees on campus with some responsibility with regard to the athletic program and asked which might be tasked to follow through. V. Brown noted asked if this is something that is really worth spending more faculty time on. It was decided to leave the matter to further consideration by Council in the fall.

Harris and Study Leaves

L. Gregg-Jolly distributed information on the women faculty at Grinnell. She reviewed the rate of proposal submission for research leaves and the rate of award to women, noting that it was significantly lower than their male colleagues. (see table below) She also reviewed the number of women holding the various ranks over the past eight years as reported in an old affirmative action report and the new diversity report. There has been no significant change in the percentage of female full professors despite consistently having about 50% female associate professors over that time period. V. Brown suggested that this disparity be dealt with directly and soon. She would like to start by holding a series of mentoring lunches with women faculty this fall. The Dean noted that resources exist for this type of faculty development. It was agreed that Council would take this matter up again in the fall.

Free Speech

All agreed that no progress has been made on addressing the faculty resolutions this year, although not for a lack of trying. It has not been possible to get the agreement of those inside or outside of the institution to speak publicly on the issue. The President offered to turn his attention to the matter this fall by weaving current affirmative action and free speech issues together for his convocation address. M. Schneider noted that this would address one of the resolutions passed by the faculty in the fall, but that further public discussion would be needed if Council were to fully address the faculty resolutions.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese

Harris Leave Applications 1999-00 through 2003-04
Year	#Eligible Male	#Eligible Female	#Apps Male	#Apps Female	#Award Male	#Award Female
1999-00	5	4	5	2	1	1
2000-01	6	6	5	4	1	1
2001-02	6	3	6	1	2	0
2002-03	5	3	4	3	2	0
2003-04	8	6	6	4	2	0

 

Study Leave Applications 1999-00 through 2003-04
Year	#Eligible Male	#Eligible Female	#Apps Male	#Apps Female	#Award Male	#Award Female
1999-00	63	32	3	3	2	2
2000-01	66	40	8	2	5	1
2001-02	66	42	4	2	3	1
2002-03	72	40	9	3	6	0
2003-04	69	44	5	1	3	1