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

The meeting came to order a 4:20 p.m. in the Nollen House Conference Room.

The September 3, 2003 minutes were held for approval to the next meeting.

President's Remarks

The President noted with pleasure that the Grinnell High School bond issue had passed.

Dean's Remarks

The Dean distributed the schedule and interview plans for the upcoming tenure-track and renewable term positions.

The Dean indicated that a department had requested that the Executive Council consider a proposal this fall to fill a tenure-track position rather than waiting until the normal April consideration. The Executive Council unanimously recommended that the proposal be considered in April as part of the regular process.

Council Member Remarks

M. Montgomery noted that the Curriculum Committee has been discussing faculty compensation for independent study in a manner similar to current practice with Mentored Advanced Projects. He noted that G. Adams had found minutes from a 2001 Curriculum Committee meeting which directed the Committee to examine the educational efficacy of MAPs and then bring a recommendation to Executive Council for determination of financial issues. V. Brown asked about the educational cost of MAPs and independents. M. Montgomery responded that MAPs pull about 20 courses a year out of the curriculum and noted that adding independents to the scheme of compensation would only serve to increase that number. The President asked whether there was consensus in the Committee that independent study is worthy of additional compensation. M. Montgomery stated that there is consensus that independents are a good thing but there is acknowledgement that they are of extreme variation in terms of student and faculty performance requirements. V. Brown noted that the emphasis of MAPs is research, whereas that is not necessarily or predominantly the case with independent study. The Dean noted that there is an additional issue involving departmental definition of sabbatical leaves in terms of the number of courses that are counted.

M. Montgomery suggested that the agenda for the next faculty meeting is boring and that he would like to begin including items for discussion that will attract more faculty to the meetings and spark more lively faculty discussion.

V. Brown requested that the Dean and Registrar develop a list of duties and schedule for Division Chairs.

Diversity Initiative

The Dean reviewed the major issues surrounding the open diversity appointment position. It is clear that the diversity initiative was far more successful in bringing faculty of color to Grinnell than our regular searches have been. If we are to pursue diversity searches this year then we need to act now in order not to miss a recruiting cycle. We could decide to hold the position in abeyance until the spring departmental proposal review session in order to consider all requests. Alternatively, we could decide to take the money and allocate it to the faculty salary pool. V. Brown asked how many departments that put forward diversity proposals receive permission to search. The Dean stated that in the first round nearly all departments that submitted proposals were allowed to continue because of our abysmal history in minority faculty recruitment Council thought that if we ended up with quite a few highly qualified candidates that would not be a bad thing. V. Brown asked why we ask departments to go through so much work in this process since our goal is not curricular, but one of diversification of the faculty. The President noted that from the legal viewpoint the diversity search procedures should mirror the regular search procedures. She suggested that it might be better to simply open the process up by telling the departments that we have a position and if they find the best candidate they can make an offer. The Dean argued that there are a few departments that would have no problem bringing a strong minority candidate, but where there is not strong curricular justification. M. Montgomery suggested that we could try recruiting at the senior level. A wide ranging discussion of strategies for successful minority recruiting continued. The President suggested that the potential for renewal of the diversity initiative in some form be included as an agenda item for the next faculty meeting.

Freedom of Speech

V. Brown asked what the Executive Council role is in addressing this issue. The Dean noted that the faculty voted to have the Council consider the issue with two motions presented and approved on the floor of the faculty meeting last spring. These two motions were initiated to address the flag flying incident and the apparently racist articles appearing in the GUM last spring. The Dean suggested looking at the AAUP policy statement in the Faculty Handbook. The President noted that there is no intention to create a free speech policy. The President noted that defense of academic speech is key to our mission, but speech can be subject to reasonable regulations as to place, time, and manner. For instance, Grinnell has a long-standing policy that nothing can be displayed on the exterior of buildings or grounds facing the surrounding community.

The meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese