REGULAR MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
DECEMBER 5, 1994
MINUTES
Senators excused were: Ardeshir Faghri, Calvin Keeler, James Kirby, Daniel
Rich, Duane Milne, David P. Roselle, Michael
Rosenberg, Carolyn Thoroughgood, Raymond Wolters
Senators absent were: Martha Carothers, John Cooper, William Daniels,
Richard Geider, Carol Hoffecker, Roger Kobak
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted without revision.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The minutes of the November 7, 1994 meeting were approved as submitted.
III. REMARKS BY UNIVERSITY PROVOST SCHIAVELLI
Provost Schiavelli announced that he just had met with the Academic
Priorities Review Committee, the newest committee of the Senate. The
Provost plans to meet with this committee at least several times each
semester to discuss academic priorities further out than one fiscal
year. The Academic Priorities Review Committee will sort out the
overlapping jurisdictions with the Committee on Budgetary and Space
Priorities.
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS
President McLaughlin called attention to the current issue of Academe
which is devoted to the "post-modern university," the issues and
technology of distance education. He also reminded faculty of the
$10,000 challenge grant of Professor Sussman in support of the library.
The Library Committee has modified the procedures to be used in
obtaining a Library Assessment Statement in support of new or modified
academic programs. The deadlines are particularly important. The
Library Assessment Statement is given below.
Library Assessment Statement
A formal written assessment from the Director of Libraries of the
Library's ability to support a proposal for a new or expanded academic
degree or program is required as a part of the formal proposal. This
includes a degree or program at a non-Newark site.
The assessment statement may include but is not limited to the
strength of collections; access to electronic and networked information;
access to collections not owned by the University of Delaware; library
space and library computer requirements; language and subject
capabilities of library staff; and nature of service and increased usage
demands resulting from the proposed new degree/program.
The request for the library assessment, accompanied by details of
the proposed degree or program, needs to be received by the Library at
least one month before the Library's assessment of a proposed degree or
program is required. The Library will respond in a timely manner,
usually within two weeks, in order to allow time for faculty discussion
of the library assessment and possible further discussion and/or
interaction with the Director of Libraries, if desired.
ANNOUNCEMENT FOR CHALLENGE
The proposed revision to the requirements for the B.A. in Women's
Studies was approved without comment.
V. OLD BUSINESS - None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Recommendation from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee
regarding the Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression in Public
Events.
The Committee was appointed in 1993 and worked diligently to
provide recommendations for the five areas of concern assigned to
it. These recommendations were reported orally by Robert Brown to
the Senate at the May 2, 1994 meeting and in a written report of
May 16, 1994. The report was attached to the December Senate
agenda and is attached to these minutes as well. This substantial
body of work was acknowledged with the following resolution which
was passed unanimously:
WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression in
Public Events has filed its final report with
the Executive Committee, and
WHEREAS, the Executive Committee has received and
discussed that report, and
WHEREAS, an open hearing on the contents of the report
was held on October 5, 1994, be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of
Expression in Public Events is hereby discharged
with the thanks of the Faculty Senate.
B. Recommendation from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee for the
adoption of a Statement on Freedom of Inquiry and Expression.
In the interest of clarity, the minutes of this resolution are presented
in the following order: (1) the resolution introduced by the Executive
Committee and contained in the agenda, (2) summary of remarks by Robert
Brown concerning the resolution, (3) amendments introduced by Hilton
Brown and subsequently discussed seriatim, (4) the resolution as finally
adopted, and (5) other discussion.
(1) The Original Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate
has discussed the report of the Ad Hoc Committee
on Freedom of Expression in Public Events, and
the comments made at the Open Hearing on October
5, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the Statement on Freedom of Inquiry and
Expression as stated in the Official Student
Handbook, pages 25-26 addresses the problems
raised in those forums, be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the following modified version of the
Statement on Freedom of Inquiry and Expression be
adopted by the Faculty Senate for
inclusion in the Faculty Handbook, after
paragraph 2 of Section II.II, page II-3:
Members of the University Community are free to examine and to
discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions
publicly and privately in a responsible way. They are free to
support causes by orderly means including any means of peaceful
assembly or advocacy which do not infringe upon the rights or
freedoms of others.
Members of the University Community are allowed to invite and to
hear any person of their own choosing. Guest appearances must
not interfere with the University's regular instructional,
research, and service programs. Except for ceremonial
occasions, invited speakers should be prepared for a
reasonable public discussion of their expressed views.
Invited speakers are accorded the full courtesy and protection
appropriate to a University community. Individuals or groups who
engage in actions designed to obstruct or in any way to prevent
the speaker from speaking are subject to discipline and to
financial responsibility in the event of damage to property or
person.
The institutional control of campus facilities is not to be used
as a device of censorship. Sponsorship of guest speakers does not
imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by
the sponsoring unit or the University.
(2) Remarks by Robert Brown:
Robert Brown gave general comments on the resolution above:
a. Placing the resolution in the Faculty Handbook in the
location proposed may not be appropriate because this
section deals primarily with instruction while public events
are mainly extra-curricular activities.
b. The Faculty Handbook also may not be the most appropriate
place for University policies concerning academic freedom.
The Ad Hoc Committee assumed that it was to develop
University-wide policy which includes others besides
students and faculty.
c. The policy statements of the Ad Hoc Committee begin with a
rationale for the policy. This statement is intended to be
useful to outsiders and is missing in the above proposal.
d. The statement of the Ad Hoc Committee was careful to protect
curatorial judgment, a distinction absent in the present
proposal.
(3a) Amendments proposed by Hilton Brown: (Additions, strikeouts and
deletions are in bold and underlined.)
Paragraph 1:
Members of the University Community are free to examine and
to discuss all questions of interest to them and to express
opinions publicly and privately in a responsible way.
(Remainder unchanged)
Paragraph 2:
Members of the University community are allowed to invite
and to hear and to see the artistic expression of any person
of their own choosing. Guest appearances must not interfere
with the University's regular instructional, research, and
service programs. Except for ceremonial occasions, invited
speakers and art presenters should be prepared for a
reasonable public discussion of their expressed views.
Paragraph 3:
Invited speakers and art presenters are accorded the full
courtesy and protection appropriate to the University
community. Individuals or groups who engage in actions
designed to obstruct or in any way to prevent the speaker
from speaking and the art presenter from presenting or
displaying any form of artistic expression are subject to
discipline and to financial responsibility in the event of
damage to property or person.
Paragraph 4:
The institutional control of campus facilities is not to be
used as a device of censorship. Sponsorship of guest
speakers and art presenters does not imply approval or
endorsement of the views expressed, either by the sponsoring
unit or the University.
(3b) Seriatim discussion of the amendments:
Paragraph 1--"in a responsible way"
Hilton Brown proposed dropping this phrase because it could
lead to censorship. He also was joined by others in noting
that the definition of responsible conduct is uncertain.
After some discussion, the Senate voted to strike the
phrase.
Paragraph 2--"invite and, to hear and to see the artistic
expression of any person"
Margaret Andersen suggested revision to "are allowed to
invite, to hear, and to see speakers, creative performers
and artistic presenters of their own choosing." This
version was adopted unanimously after some discussion not
directly related to the amendment.
Paragraph 2--"and art presenters"
This insertion was adopted with little discussion.
Paragraph 3--"and art presenters"
This insertion was adopted without discussion.
Paragraph 3--"Individuals or groups who engage in actions designed
to obstruct or in any way to prevent the speaker from
speaking and the art presenter from presenting or displaying
any form of artistic expression are subject to discipline
and financial responsibility in the event of damage to
property or persons.
The discussion addressed the original wording rather than
the amendment. After extended discussion the sentence above
was adopted.
Paragraph 4--"and art presenters'
This insertion was adopted without debate.
(4) The resolution as adopted:
The final wording of the resolution, which was approved with
little opposition, is:
WHEREAS, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate
has discussed the report of the Ad Hoc Committee
on Freedom of Expression in Public Events, and
the comments made at the Open Hearing on October
5, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the Statement on Freedom of Inquiry and
Expression as stated in the Official Student
Handbook, pages 25-26, addresses the problems
raised in those forums, be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the following modified version of the
Statement on Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
be adopted by the Faculty Senate for inclusion
in the Faculty Handbook, after paragraph 2 of
Section II.II,
page II-3:
Members of the University Community are free to examine and to discuss
all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and
privately. They are free to support causes by orderly means including
any means of peaceful assembly or advocacy which do not infringe upon
the rights or freedoms of others.
Members of the University Community are allowed to invite, to hear, and
to see speakers, creative performers and artistic presentations of their
own choosing. Guest appearances must not interfere with the
University's regular instructional, research, and service programs.
Except for ceremonial occasions, invited speakers and art presenters
should be prepared for a reasonable public discussion of their expressed
views.
Invited speakers and art presenters are accorded the full courtesy and
protection appropriate to a university community. Individuals or groups
who engage in actions designed to obstruct or in any way to prevent the
speaker from speaking and the art presenter from presenting or
displaying any form of artistic expression are subject to discipline and
to financial responsibility in the event of damage to property or
person.
The institutional control of campus facilities is not to be used as a
device of censorship. Sponsorship of guest speakers and art presenters
does not imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by
the sponsoring unit or the University.
(5) Other Issues:
The wording of the resolution follows that of the Student Handbook
by design. Senator Joyce reported that DUSC is opposed to the
resolution, and Bonnie Kime Scott withdrew a proposal to include
this resolution in the Student Handbook.
Several Senators expressed concern over the ways by which
dissenting viewpoints may be expressed at University events. The
line between allowable exchange of viewpoints and prohibited
obstruction is vague and the mechanisms for enforcement are
unstated.
C. Introduction of New Business
No new business was introduced.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Olson
Secretary
University Faculty Senate
JO/rg
Attachment