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 minutes and excerpts of 9/3/03 and 9/10/03 were approved.

President's Remarks

The President noted that the discussion of diversity in the latest faculty meeting was a good one and thanked M. Montgomery for his leadership.

Dean's Remarks

The Dean noted that a first draft of important dates for division chairs has been posted on the Dean's website. He is also working on creating a list of duties for these chairs including the course change procedures set out by the Curriculum Committee. V. Brown thanked him for his quick response to her request.

Council Member Remarks

L. Gregg-Jolly asked what Council members would like to do with a memo from a faculty member regarding people's fear of candid speech on campus. M. Montgomery provided some background on how the issue of the homogeneous composition of focus groups (the consultant's recommendation for structuring the discussion of the six remaining strategies arising from the strategic planning process) apparently led this person to raise this issue. There was some discussion of silencing on campus and strategies for enabling those who might feel pressure not to speak freely or those who feel the need to express themselves anonymously.

Faculty Diversity Initiative

M. Montgomery asked Council how it wished to proceed in making decisions with regard to the diversity recruitment procedures to be followed this year. He argued that the previous focus on diverse domestic candidates was ill-considered and expressed his desire to have the process opened up to include foreigners and remove preference for domestic candidates. There was considerable discussion of his position.

The President noted that under current regulations concerning equal protection and labor relations there is not protection provided to non-citizens. Our affirmative action policy articulates our interest in diversity and places an emphasis on domestic groups that have been historically underrepresented or underprivileged in American life. M. Montgomery suggested that this interest be more broadly argued as cultural diversity thereby including foreigners. The President noted that arguments for diversity have included under-representation in American life, cultural traditions, enrichment for students and curriculum, social justice, role models, but being foreign is not normally among them. He stated that the institution needs to articulate its objectives. M. Montgomery suggested that the current court ruling moves away from justification based on the need to redress past wrongs. The Dean noted that prior Council's have viewed our experience with making foreign national appointments as reasonably successful, but not so with domestically underrepresented and thus this is where their focus was placed for implementing the diversity initiative.

V. Brown noted that one faculty member's position is that we so narrowly structure our curriculum that we make recruitment more difficult. She suggested that we might bring in a couple of people from institutions which have been successful in this regard to help us rethink the curriculum when writing position descriptions. Another view is that when, as a result of our lust for diversity, we make an appointment of a person who is not qualified to teach what the core departmental curriculum demands we are setting that person up for failure. She asked that in this case could we offer that person a different tenure clock that gives them the time and space necessary for development. She also noted that, at the administrative end, we are extremely deferential to department decision-making and believes that as long as this is the case we may never meet our diversity objectives. The Dean asked Council for guidance on how "tough" he should be in requiring departments to make the maximum effort during the recruiting process.

M. Montgomery suggested that Council discussion had gotten off topic and asked that they turn their attention to the question of whether we will or will not exclude non-U.S. citizens. M. Schneider argued strongly for continued focus on domestic candidates from traditionally underrepresented groups stressing that they are more likely to be seen as role models for the greater majority of our students. V. Brown noted that current policy provides the trump to a domestic candidate. R. Vetter noted that departmental appointment decisions are multifaceted considerations with background/culture being only one.

M. Montgomery insisted that the matter be brought to the faculty. M. Schneider sought confirmation that this vote would not necessarily bind the Executive Council. Montgomery moved, Sig Barber seconded, that each division hold a secret ballot vote on whether to maintain a focus in our diversity initiative on domestic candidates as exemplified in the Dean's memo of April 9, 2001 to department chairs. The motion was approved. The specific language to be voted on follows.

The President left the meeting at 6:05 p.m.

M. Montgomery noted that there are additional issues regarding how we proceed with this diversity hire initiative which need to be decided next week in order to be able to proceed this year.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese