Open Access at Penn State: Scholarsphere

I have been thinking about open access issues at universities.  E.g.,  Between Scholar and University--Sharing Knowledge, Protecting Revenue and Control--Is the UCSF Approach Worth Considering (May 28, 2012); Opening Access: Course Proposals Archive at Penn State (June 1, 2012); Digital Humanities From the CIC (Oct. 6, 2012).

 (Pix from http://www.psu.edu/)

I was pleased to note that Penn State has been moving to embrace open access. 

"ScholarSphere is a secure repository service enabling the Penn State community to share its research and scholarly work with a worldwide audience. Faculty, staff, and students can use ScholarSphere to collect their work in one location and create a durable and citeable record of their papers, presentations, publications, data sets, or other scholarly creations. Through this service, Penn State researchers can also comply with grant-funding-agency requirements for sharing and managing research data. " (Penn State, What is Scholarsphere))

Set our below is a draft of an Informational Report recently repared by our Penn State University Facult Senate Committee on Libraries, Information Systems and Technology discussing Penn State's Scholarsphere. Please cionsider sending comments and suggestions.  In any case I  hope our community takes advantage of the opportunity and provides the sort of feedback necessary to make it better.

Statement From the Penn State University Faculty Senate Chair

("Penn State's Chi Omega chapter apologized for this photo that was posted on Tumblr." From Moni Basu, Penn State sorority sisters denigrate Mexicans in party photo, CNN Dec. 5, 2012)

 Like many people in this country, I was chagrined to see, yet again, what is altogether too common--an "innocently" offensive playing out of what is an unconscious part of the larger socio-cultural landscape of this Republic. A close look at the picture suggests the innocence--the effort to invoke items of clothing associated with the people of the Mexican Republic.  It also, however, slaps the viewer with its quite conscious offensive meanness, one rooted in racism and ethnocentrism (even if mindlessly so)--the reference to the willingness of people, whose common denominator appears to be these items of clothing, to exchange thankless menial labor (in which they have traditionally been exploited in the U.S.) for marijuana. The double offense is clear--violators of immigration and drugs laws, a lawless group fit only for humor and expulsion.

This innocent double offense is also quite perverse.  It is well known that demand in the United States drives the drug trade with respect to which Mexico sadly serves as a gateway if only because of its geographical connection to the United States. Worse, it suggests an understanding of economic relationships with immigrants that is grounded on the assumption that base exploitation is both expected and acceptable. It damns a people and a culture with the wrongs--social, moral and legal--of those doing the damning. 

The picture struck home to me quite personally.  That sort of humor was quite common when I came to this country as a young immigrant from another humorously exploitable nation--Cuba.  I well remember the mindlessness with which people of my parents generation would generate "humor", humor that almost invariably crossed from the good natured to the deliberately mean and mean spirited.  I watched my peers learn to mimic their parents and to absorb their bad behavior and even more perverse attitudes masked by the "innocence" of humor.  But my family and I knew precisely what was going on--and so did these "humorous folks".  The young adults in this picture are the heirs to a tradition that continues to sting those of us who came here only a few generations after their own ancestors. We understand the point and "get" the humor.  We feel the insult nicely buffered by a smile and a laugh.  We continue to feel the way this humor is meant to reinforce and remind some of us of our "real" place in the social and economic (and perhaps even the moral) order of this Republic.  We know the "place" reserved for us very well.  We are less willing to pay the price of earlier generations who hoped that laughing along with this sort of innocent thing is a "price" that we are expected to pay for getting along and moving up.  I am not a probationary member of this country and neither are many of the people who were the object of this humor.   

So, even decades later, when I am well protected form this sort of thing, "this sort of thing" still hurts, and it still threatens.  I appreciate the sensitive efforts of our administration to both condemn and protect these young adults. Their "Open Letter to the Penn State Community" is reproduced below.  It is both heartfelt and sensitive to the legal context in which a large institution like Penn State operates. Yet I believe that it is worth emphasizing that though these young adults are the bearers of constitutional rights in which we all believe and which we all dedicate our professional and personal efforts to protect--they are also burdened with a host of social responsibilities that they have violated consciously and deliberately and with little consequence other than the need to make an apology.  This is not to suggest that punishment is in order--I suspect that punishment would merely reinforce the cycles of antagonism that produces, in this most benign form, the sort of meanness that produced the event and the photo. But it does suggest that the social responsibilities of these young adults and students ought to lead them to something more than a "sorry."  Some sort of public expression of a "lesson learned" and an understanding of the problem might be in order, the specifics of which are not for me to say. 

As Chair of the Penn State University Faculty Senate I join with President Erickson and his administration colleagues in the "Open Letter."  I am grateful for their sensitivity and for the content of that letter. I expect that many of my colleagues on the Senate will also join in.  Yet, as someone who has been the target of this innocent "playfulness" and whose family, some of whom are more darkly complected and less able to navigate the English language,  have suffered more when innocent play becomes something more ominous, I hope that these young adults do more than find comfort in their constitutionally protected rights. 

Larry Catá Backer
W. Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar &
 Professor of Law, Professor of International Affairs
2012-13 Chair University Faculty Senate
Pennsylvania State University

Informal Report: Faculty Senate meets for final meeting of 2012

-->

In its final meeting for 2012, Penn State’s Faculty Senate on Tuesday (Dec. 4) held a forensic session on faculty appointment ratios; considered a motion supporting university leaders, heard a report on initiatives to address student alcohol issues; approved revisions to standing rules pertaining to faculty athletics representatives and received several informational reports.

 
This post summarizes the events of that meeting and provides links to more information.

Statement of Senate Chair Made at the December 4, 2012 Penn State University Faculty Senate Meeting--Is the Senate Fatally Ineffective?

The Penn State University Faculty Senate held its third meeting of this academic year on Tuesday December 4, 2012 (e.g. Faculty Senate December 4 Meeting Agenda).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I used the occasion to speak to an important issue raised by our Senators at the last meeting of the University Senate Council--Why does the Senate appear to be ineffective? This post includes the remarks I made at the start of the meeting.

 

Comments on the Consideration of a Senate Resolution in Praise of University Leaders

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

In a prior post, Senate to Consider Resolution in Praise of University Leaders (Oct. 31, 2012), I announced that at its December 2012 meeting, the Penn State University Faculty Senate will consider the following resolution, proposed at the October Senate meeting by Senator Thomas O. Beebee, Liberal Arts: 

In light of the Freeh Report, the NCAA sanctions, and the conviction and sentencing of Jerry Sandusky, the Faculty Senate of the Pennsylvania State University wishes to convey its deepest sorrow in the face of these crimes, and to extend its sympathy to all victims of these proven criminal actions. The Senate furthermore hereby:

·   Expresses its support for President Rodney Erickson and the Board of Trustees in their efforts to bring greater transparency and accountability to university governance;

·   Affirms its commitment to furthering the cultures of excellence at Penn State: cultures of teaching, of scholarship and research, of service, of student philanthropy, and of student athletics;

·   Pledges its own best efforts, through its committee work, Senate Council, shared governance, and plenary meetings, to continually making Penn State a better place to work and live, and an environment where cultures of excellence can flourish.

I invited comments to aid the Senate in its deliberations.  I received many.  Some of them were posted as comments to the original message.  I received many more.  This post includes a number of comments received but not posted, along with those posted earlier as comments.  I note the following as you consider these posts: (1) a number of commentators feared to provide identifying information because they thought retaliation would be likely; that this feeling still runs so deep ought to cause us great concern; (2) the more intemperate comments were omitted; (3) emotions still run deep among some members of the Penn State community; it is not clear that ignoring or marginalizing this group is the best way top deal with the emotion; (4) it is not clear what others who declined to write in think; it would be a mistake to think that these comments express the universe of reactions. 

Without more ado, here are the comments.  I hope they help senators decide how they will approach the issue of the approval of the resolution.

Faculty Senate to Consider Issues of Administrative Bloat at Penn State in Wake in of Similar Action at Other Universities

 U.S. universities employed more than 230,000 administrators in 2009, up 60 percent from 1993, or 10 times the rate of growth of the tenured faculty, those with permanent positions and job security, according to U.S. Education Department data.

Spending on administration has been rising faster than funds for instruction and research at 198 leading U.S. research universities, concluded a 2010 study by Jay Greene, an education professor at the University of Arkansas. (From John Hechinger, Bureaucrats Paid $250,000 Feed Outcry Over College Costs, Bloomberg, Nov. 14, 2012.)

I have been looking at administrative boat and suggesting its ubiquity within large public universities.  My counterpart at Purdue, J. Paul Robinson, has made an eloquent case for the perversions of administrative bloat--advanced, of course, for all of the most innocuous reasons.  (e..g. Administrative Bloat by Deans and Other Unit Administrators--An Overlooked but Important Source of Direct Attack on Shared Governance and Administrative Bloat and Managing Faculty-Administrative Conflict; Address of J. Paul Robinson, Chair of the Purdue University Faculty Senate.

“Why is it that we can’t find any money for more faculty, but there seems to be an almost unlimited budget for administrators?” asks J. Paul Robinson, a Purdue University professor of biomedical engineering and chairman of the school's faculty senate. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg 

This post provides more information on the work of tracking administrative bloat at our CIC sister university--Purdue University. John Hechinger, Bureaucrats Paid $250,000 Feed Outcry Over College Costs, Bloomberg, Nov. 14, 2012. It also announces efforts by the Faculty Senate at Penn State to look at the issue as well.

Senate Agenda for Dec 4 2012 Meeting

Here is the Senate Agenda for the December 4 2012 meeting.  Please send email comments in especially for the information report.  Too often they go un-noticed when a few sharp questions can bring out the issues that they are seeking to bring out.

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

Thanks!

Upcoming Forensic on Fixed Term Faculty Policy at Penn State

The issue of fixed term faculty--nontenured faculty working under contracts of fixed duration-- has proven to be among the most stressful in shaping the contours of shared governance at many institutions, including now Penn State.  That was recently suggested at the November 2012 Senate Council meeting, at which even a fairly generic effort to begin an engagement in policy discussion suggested the sensitivity of issues of faculty composition, the relationship between contract and tenure faculty and the balance of authority to participate in the elaboration of policy with respect to these issues  (e.g., Informal Notes of November 13, 2012 Senate Council Meeting).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

At its root, perhaps, is a misguided application of a powerful insight developed in recent academic study of the issue of faculty composition.  That insight has suggested that the current patterns of faculty mix, between tenured and contract faculty, are determined by market forces that exceed the ability of any single university to control, though perhaps they may manage the effects at the margins.  See, e.g., Monk, David H.; Dooris, Michael J.; Erickson, Rodney A., "In Search of a New Equilibrium: Economic Aspects of Higher Education's Changing Faculty Composition," Education Finance and Policy, v4 n3 p300-318 Sum 2009

(Abstract: This article examines the interconnected phenomena of recruitment, retention, and utilization of faculty at research universities, with special emphasis on the changing mix of tenure track and contingent (i.e., fixed term) faculty members. The authors argue, based upon both national data and detailed information from a particular institution, that powerful economic forces are prompting research universities to rethink fundamental strategies about the core academic workforce).

But assuming the validity of these findings, it does not follow that the only appropriate response is to do nothing.  More troubling would be to cede authority over faculty composition to mid-level administrators, deans and chancellors, by characterizing it as nothing more than a budgetary issue--a technique that increases the temptations to end run shared governance. Instead, the insight of the power of markets to control the character of faculty hires suggests most powerfully only the context and constraints within which decision making must be made--it does not suggest limits on the institutional stakeholders who ought to be engaged in decision making relating to the character of faculty composition. Thus, in an institution committed to deep shared governance, even were external forces substantially affecting the changes in the landscape of the character of faculty hiring, the faculty ought to have a voice in considering both the shape of those changes and the responses, even at the margin, to the these forces as they shape the character and hiring patterns at the university.

To that end, the Penn State University Faculty will be sponsoring a forensic discussion.  This post includes a short discussion of the forensic, the forensic report, and a call to engage in the discussion about fixed term faculty in advance of the December 3, 2012 University Faculty Senate meeting at which the forensic will be conducted.

Informal Notes and MInutes of the November 13, 2012 Senate Council Meeting

On November 13, 2012, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I was unable to attend and Chair Elect Brent Yarnel chaired in my place (my thanks to him!). My Thanks to Tram Turner for excellent note taking.  Most interesting was the discussion on the report by the Intra University Relations Committee on fixed term faculty--a topic that continues to be sensitive.  Most interesting in that regard is how sensitivity appears to affect a willingness toward open discussion of issues. But the issues are important and could profit from a wider engagement by interested people.  Please send in your comments.  If there is sufficient interest I will circulate the report.  

Rulemaking From the Bottom Up--The Student Conduct Code Moves Forward Led By Our Students--And that is a Good Thing

At the Penn State University Faculty Senate second meeting of this academic year (e.g. Faculty Senate October 16 Meeting Agenda) I spoke to the work of the Senate in helping consolidate and make more relevant the Student Conduct Code at the University. See Statement of Senate Chair Made at the October 16, 2012 Penn State University Faculty Senate Meeting.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

Not all members of the administration or of the Senate have welcomed this move.  I am pleased to see, though, that students have been taking the initiative--something that has been long overdue.  As Senate chair I welcome this initiative; if shared governance means anything it should mean that the objects of regulation should have a substantial voice in organizing the rules  which will bind them.  It is time for faculty and administration to show less arrogance and more humility in the face of students who smarter, better directed and more willing to engage in the process of self governance than at any time before.  Like any other group, including faculty, at the university, if we expect students to embrace conduct rules, they ought to feel invested in their construction and operation--and not not as photo opportunities. And because they are students, the rules that ought to bind them  ought to be focused on their needs, rather than on the social engineering or management control agendas of others.

This post  includes parts of a story recently posted to the Penn State Collegian Online about student efforts at participating int he reform of the conduct code (Jess Savarese, CCSG to Talk About Honor Code, Collegian OnLine, Nov. 9, 2012)and the charge to the Student Conduct Code committee. You comments about this Honor Code project is actively solicited!

Senate to Consider Resolution in Praise of University Leaders

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

At its December 2012 meeting, the Penn State University Faculty Senate will consider the following resolution, proposed at the October Senate meeting by Senator Thomas O. Beebee, Liberal Arts: 

In light of the Freeh Report, the NCAA sanctions, and the conviction and sentencing of Jerry Sandusky, the Faculty Senate of the Pennsylvania State University wishes to convey its deepest sorrow in the face of these crimes, and to extend its sympathy to all victims of these proven criminal actions. The Senate furthermore hereby:

·   Expresses its support for President Rodney Erickson and the Board of Trustees in their efforts to bring greater transparency and accountability to university governance;

·   Affirms its commitment to furthering the cultures of excellence at Penn State: cultures of teaching, of scholarship and research, of service, of student philanthropy, and of student athletics;

·   Pledges its own best efforts, through its committee work, Senate Council, shared governance, and plenary meetings, to continually making Penn State a better place to work and live, and an environment where cultures of excellence can flourish.

What do you think?  Please either post comment here or send comments to me for distribution prior to the meeting.

Advisory Group on Freeh Group Recommendation Implementation

 

This from Penn State Live on the establishment of a University wide Freeh Group Recommendation Implementation Committee:

Statement of Senate Chair Made at the October 16, 2012 Penn State University Faculty Senate Meeting

The Penn State University Faculty Senate held its second meeting of this academic year on Tuesday October 16, 2012 (e.g. Faculty Senate October 16 Meeting Agenda).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I used the occasion to speak to a number of important initiatives that have been commenced by the Senate in furtherance of shared governance.  These include:

Senate Self-Study Committee Charge 9/17/12
Student Conduct Code Task Force Charge 9/17/12  (Academic Integrity/Honor Code Task Force Charge 11/1/11 - Final Report 1/9/12)
Task Force on Student Research Charge 9/17/12
External Matters Subcommittee Charge 9/4/12
Special Senate Council Task Force Charge 8/28/12
Special Committee on University Governance - Charge and Membership 3/15/12

 This post includes the remarks I made at the start of the meeting.

Michael Bérubé: On the Road From the Paterno Family Professorship in Literature at Pennsylvania State University

Michael Bérubé explains why he resigned the Paterno Family Professorship in Literature at Pennsylvania State University.

The explanation appears in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Michael Bérubé, Why I Resigned the Paterno Chair, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 2012.  The article is reproduced below. Professor Bérubé is now the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Literature at Penn State.

Too Little but Maybe Not Too Late: Association of Governing Board's Report on Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics

The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) "is the only national association that serves the interests and needs of academic governing boards, boards of institutionally related foundations, and campus CEOs and other senior-level campus administrators on issues related to higher education governance and leadership. Its mission is to strengthen, protect, and advocate on behalf of citizen trusteeship that supports and advances higher education." About AGB.

(Pix from AGB website)

The following is a link to a new report from the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) on board responsibilities for intercollegiate athletics released yesterday by the Knight Commission: Trust, Accountability and Integrity: Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics (2012) ("AGB Report". It was put together by a group representing university presidents and board of trustees members.  It included no other constituencies and so remains very much an insider's project for insiders.  That alone should give pause.  To some extent this Report can be understood as a step forward.  However, for the most part it presents the sort of timid and overgeneralized approach that both creates  the appearance of forward movement and enough ambiguity to protect boards in their desire to change nothing but appear to speak to changing everything. If this is the best these grandees can do, then the locus of evolution of both the university and of college sports is much more likely to originate from others--principally the state, the media and critical consumer and user constituencies. That the university would willingness ceded control of its fate to others is sad, indeed. 

Here Comes Generation A: What Faculty Say About Adult Learners

Here Comes Generation A: What Faculty Say About Adult Learners

Thursday, October 25, 2012

1:30p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

508 Rider

Panelists: Martha Aynardi, Director of Academic Support and Special Projects, Penn State Berks; Martha Jordan, Director of Admission Services for Continuing Education and World Campus and Adult Learner Advocacy; Jane Owens, Senior Director of Continuing Education, Penn State Abington; Karen Pollack, Director of Academic Affairs for Undergraduate Programs, Penn State World Campus; and Patricia Shope, Prior Learning Assessment Coordinator, Continuing Education and World Campus

The Penn State Commission for Adult Learners, composed of faculty, staff, and students from across the University system exists to increase enrollment of and improve the adult learner experience at Penn State. In the fall of 2011 a total of 4,807 faculty members were invited to participate in a survey to gather information relative to (1) current attitudes toward adult learners at Penn State, (2) perceptions of the unique needs of adult learners, (3) the types of accommodations necessary for adult learners, and (4) identifying the needs of adult learners that are not currently being met. This panel will present the results of this survey, the background and methodology, and action steps that came about as a result. The panel will also focus on two specific initiatives – a joint effort with Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence to produce a faculty workshop that will inform and prepare faculty to better understand and work with adult learners and the Prior Learning Assessment Initiative.

To register for this free event call the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment at 814-863-8721 or email psupia@psu.edu. Penn State campuses interested in participating in Quality Advocates via videoconference should contact the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment.

The Quality Advocates Network meets several times each semester to share ideas and examples of improvement and change. To join the Quality Advocates Network mailing list or to learn more about the meetings scheduled, contact the staff at psupia@psu.edu.

Emeriti Faculty--An Underutilized Resource or a Spent Asset?

The issue of emeritus faculty remains an object of conversation in may institutions.  On the one hand, older faculty can be seen as an impediment to the hiring of "new blood" and on the other they can be viewed as a highly exploitable commodity by deans and other unit administrators whose budgets, to of whack, can be served by the re-hiring of emeriti for course teaching at very very favorable rates.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

This post summarizes a very interesting piece by Seth Matthew Fishman a visiting lecturer in the higher education program at the University of North Texas. The article appeared in the May-June, 2012 issue of Academe, Volume 97, Number 3, published by the American Association of University Professor (AAUP) [http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe], The Merits of Emeriti: Providing Campus Community to Retired Faculty.  The COMMENTS are also worth reading.

General Education at Penn State--Responses to the Gen Ed Report

Penn State is beginning what may be an exciting discussion relating to the revamping of general education at the university (e.g., Designing General Education for the Future: Penn State Report on General Education).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

This post includes a reaction and set of suggestions to get the discussion going.  My thanks to
Bernadette A. Lear, Behavioral Sciences and Education Librarian Coordinator of Library Instruction and Outreach, Penn State Harrisburg Library.

Digital Humanities From the CIC

The CIC was pleased recently to announce the report by the CIC Digital Humanities Committee that is the product of the first CIC Digital Humanities Summit, held at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in April 2012. The paper is said to reflect the consensus reached by the sixty faculty, librarians, and administrators attending that there are significant shared requirements necessary to foster thriving Digital Humanities communities, and a common belief in the importance of interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and open access and open source models.

Read More HERE.

From the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE): Diversity, Climate and More at Penn State

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) annually collects information at four-year colleges and universities about student participation in educational and cocurricular programs and activities.



NSSE data is meant to be used by participating institutions to aid in data driven planning.  At Penn State this is focused on (1) responding to the University’s First-Year Experience plan requirement for assessment; (2) measuring change in student engagement since the last NSSE administration in 2008
Measure student-centeredness; (3) examining involvement in educationally enriching experiences; and (4) supporting the assessment requirements of accreditation.  (See Penn State, Student Affairs, Research and Assessment website).  This post provides links to that data for 2011.

Designing General Education for the Future: Penn State Report on General Education

It s my great pleasure to circulate A Report based on an Invitation from the President, the Provost and the Chair of the University Faculty Senate to Examine General Education – August 2012.  It is the product of the work of a Committee, headed by Jeremy Cohen and including Cynthia Brewer, Cary Eckhardt, Tanya Furman, Cynthia Lightfoot, Tom Litzinger, Mark Munn and Mary Beth Williams.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

 I hope that all members of the Penn State community will vigorously participate in the conversations that we hope to initiate on the future of general education at the university.The Report will be presented to the Penn State University Faculty Senate at its October 16, 2012 meeting to be held in the Kern Building at 1:30 P.M. The presentation will be led by Associate Vice President and Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education Jeremy Cohen.

Informal Notes of October 2 2012 Faculty Senate Council Meeting

On October 2, 2012, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative.  

 

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

The slides of the PowerPoint Presentation made by Chair Backer at the meeting may be accessed HERE.  

Administrative Bloat by Deans and Other Unit Administrators--An Overlooked but Important Source of Direct Attack on Shared Governance

I have been looking at administrative boat and suggesting its ubiquity within large public universities.  My counterpart at Purdue, J. Paul Robinson, has made an eloquent case for the perversions of administrative bloat--advanced, of course, for all of the most innocuous reasons.  (e..g. Administrative Bloat and Managing Faculty-Administrative Conflict; Address of J. Paul Robinson, Chair of the Purdue University Faculty Senate.

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

But administrative bloat is at its most pernicious when the number of administrative roles metastasize at the unit level--college, schools and campuses.  It is in the vast expansion of administration at the unit level, where deans, chancellors and the like seek to surround themselves with something that approaches the courts of medieval fief holders in imitation of the royal courts, that both the university and its commitment to shared governance is put most effectively at risk. 

Administrative Bloat and Managing Faculty-Administrative Conflict; Address of J. Paul Robinson, Chair of the Purdue University Faculty Senate

Shared governance from the faculty side tends to be a lonely business.  The institutional voice of faculty governance tends to work in isolation.  Though some universities have sought to reduce the isolation of their institutional faculty governance units, most still tend to work in relative isolation, at least relative to the sort of cooperation and collaboration networks that haves been developing among administrators and boards of trustees that have been developing among university organizations.  Within CIC universities, there have been some efforts made to provide a space for developing faculty research/teaching networks, developing administrative leadership skills from within faculty ranks, and for collaboration among CIC university faculty senates.

J. Paul Robinson, SVM Professor of Cytomics, Professor of Biomedical Engineering Chair, Purdue University Senate

It makes sense for CIC University Faculty leaders to engage in more vigorous sharing of experiences and approaches to shared governance issues and perhaps to work together toward shared approaches to meeting these issues. This post takes a stab in that direction by highlighting the University Faculty Senate at Purdue University. Like Faculty Senate leaders elsewhere in the CIC, Purdue faculty leaders are seeking to respond to frustration from various senators about administrative bloat, and difficulty with managing faculty-administration conflict.  The Chair of the Purdue University Faculty Senate, J. Paul Robinson, has been kind enough to share two documents that might give some perspective on issues at Purdue that can affect all faculty governance organizations. One was a presentation to the Purdue Board of Trustees, and the other an address to the Purdue Faculty Senate.

There area lot of lessons here for Penn State with respect to its governance, its relationship with administration and the form and nature of its engagement.  It suggests the great extent to which our isolation, insularity, and our reticence has impeded the sort of robust and positive exchanges that contribute to the joint construction of a more aggressively and cooperatively forward moving institution. One thing worth emphasizing from Professor Robinson's Report that especially resonates at a Penn State increasingly obsessed with the financial impacts (and costs) of its operations and prone far too often for its own long term good to indulge in the characterization of faculty as a cost item on the fnancial ledgers rather than as the engine (and really the only engine) that produces value at the university.

Faculty impact every aspect of the institution. However, we are a moderately small group of individuals in the big picture. If you consider the graphic below, dividing Purdue into 4 groups of individuals, faculty represent the smallest group. However, if you consider the impact that faculty have, their contribution to the total income of the institution is very significant indeed. It is of course obvious that it is the faculty who deliver the education and bring a very significant share of funding to this institution. (J. Paul Robinson, Chair University Faculty Senate, Purdue University, Report by the Chair of the Senate to the Board of Trustees on the State of the Faculty, July 2012)

 

The Obligations of Transparency--Omnidirectionality, Mutuality and Good Faith

I have been writing of the obligations of transparency in its two principal forms.  As communicative transparency, this embodies the obligation on the part of the speaker to provide a sufficient amount of information in a timely manner that conveys what is necessary for stakeholders to understand actions undertaken, or that acknowledges communication received or that explains the nature of basis of a decision.  As engagement transparency, it provides  information sufficient for stakeholders to fully participate in decision making to the extent appropriate to the decision.  I have also suggested the challenges to institutional programs of actions in the face of failures of communicative and engagement transparency, and the potential for significantly adverse distraction from even significantly positive institutional objectives.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

Both forms of transparency assume only the perspective of the holder of information.  It suggests, in effect, that transparency involves a unidirectional activity from a harvester and distributor of information to a set of information consumers.  But reality paints a different picture. First, every participant in transparency activity serves simultaneously as a producer and consumer of information. Second, interactivity posits not merely the obligation to produce information but also the obligation to receive it.

In a prior post I suggested the consequences of a failures to produce and distribute information in a unidirectional context (e.g., On the Importance of Transparency and the Relentless Pursuit of Knowledge in the Sandusky Affair--Governance in a New Era). This post suggests the consequences of failures of interpretation, and the distortions of transparency possible where transparency is conducted as a uni-directional exercise and where the parties acknowledge a right to information but not the obligation to receive it.  Failures of mutuality can distort the communicative and engagement aspects of transparency. Penn State again provides a good illustration of the failures of mutuality in communication--in which the production of communication that adheres to the forms of transparency might mask agendas far removed from the formal object of a transparency project.

On the Importance of Transparency and the Relentless Pursuit of Knowledge in the Sandusky Affair--Governance in a New Era

The longer I serve as Chair of the Penn State University Senate the more convinced I am of the importance of transparency.  And I do not mean the simpleminded sloganeering that passes for transparency among administrators eager to sound good but change none of their habits, or of faculty who like the word as a fetish but fail to embrace the obligations inherent in the concept.  I mean transparency in its two forms: engagement transparency and communicative transparency.  The former requires the production and dissemination of information necessary for key stakeholders to fully participate in shared governance.  The latter requires the publication of information that clearly provides information justifying or explaining actions taken.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

It is not enough to speak transparency as some sort of rhetorical trope or to wave it about like a wand that makes everything better.  Transparency is work,.  In stressful times, failures of transparency, especially where such failures go to the legitimacy of decision making and to the legitimacy of the system of governance in place, can make a bad situation worse.  Penn State provides a lesson in the good and bad of movement toward a more transparent governance structure.  Large institutions, in today's world, are constantly monitored by external organizations even if they are successful in reducing the effectiveness of internal monitoring and even as they seek to severely control the flow and content of information.  This post provides examples of the good and bad that is emerging as a result.  There are lessons here for all large organizations.

And Now for Something Completely Different: The University of Akron's Adhoc Post-Tenure Under-Appreciated Band Composition: "Bored of Trustees"

Penn State and the University of Virginia have been at the center of movements producing changes in the relationships between Board of Trustees and senior administration.  In the case of the University of Virginia, the changes were ignited internally; in Penn State's case the changes were forced from outside. These are serious matters that will re shape post secondary education for a generation.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

Now comes the University of Akron's Adhoc Post-Tenure Under Appreciated Band (Steve Aby, Joseph LaRose, and David Witt) to remind us that even the most important subject can be observed from a variety of perspectives, some of them providing a momentary smile in the middle of the serious business of governance.  And so, without more ado I invite you to listen to the mp3 recording of their song, "Bored of Trustees" which may be accessed below.

Donald Ford on Football Culture at Penn State

Donald Ford, Dean and Professor Emeritus at Penn State, has shared with me an important assessment, viewed through the critically important lens of history, of Penn State faculty culture surrounding PSU football.   

(Pix from This is where the Joe Paterno statue used to be)

Dean Emeritus Ford has kindly given me permission to post his thoughts, and I am extremely pleased to be able to share them.  These comments add a significant nuance to the "Statement by a Group of Past Chairs of The Pennsylvania State University Faculty Senate Regarding the Freeh Report, the NCAA Consent Decree, and Their Academic Implications August 28, 2012" and to my own critical endorsement of that statement (e.g., A Critical Endorsement of the Past Chairs Statement Regarding the Freeh Report and NCAA Consent Decree).   I really appreciate it.  I welcome comments and reactions.

A Critical Endorsement of the Past Chairs Statement Regarding the Freeh Report and NCAA Consent Decree

During the course of the University Faculty Senate Meeting held Tuesday August 28, 2012 (e.g. Faculty Senate August 24 Meeting Agenda) Kim Steiner an eminent former Chair of the University Faculty Senate introduced a  "Statement by a Group of Past Chairs of The Pennsylvania State University Faculty Senate Regarding the Freeh Report, the NCAA Consent Decree, and Their Academic Implications August 28, 2012." On motion made at the end of the meeting, the Senate will consider endorsing this statement at its October 2012 meeting.

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I have given this Statement sustained and serious consideration, analyzing it critically.  There is much in that Statement that is worthy of serious consideration, but there are also important lacunae that weaken the analysis and misdirect its focus. Putting aside questions of the utility of this exercise (e.g. Statement of Senate Chair Made at the Aug 28, 2012 Meeting), I conclude that I will support the motion for Senate endorsement of the Statement at the October 201232 meeting.  This post includes a copy of the Statement and my critical assessment. 

Statement of Senate Chair Made at the Aug 28, 2012 Meeting

The Penn State University Faculty Senate held its first meeting of this academic year on Tuesday August 28, 2012 (e.g. Faculty Senate August 24 Meeting Agenda).  I have spoken to the forensic discussion requested by one of our Senators to consider the NCAA sanctions and the university's response (e.g. My Thoughts on the Questions Posed for the Senate Forensic Discussion on the NCAA and Big 10 Sanctions).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

This post includes the remarks I made at the start of the meeting,

My Thoughts on the Questions Posed for the Senate Forensic Discussion on the NCAA and Big 10 Sanctions

The Penn State University Faculty Senate's first meeting of this academic year is scheduled for Tuesday August 28, 2012 (e.g. Faculty Senate August 24 Meeting Agenda).  Among the many important items up for consideration, and one that has generated a substantial amount of interest (e.g. Chris Rosenblum, Penn State Faculty Senate questions NCAA sanctions, Freeh findings, Centre Daily Times, August 23, 2012) is a forensic session to discuss the NCAA sanctions and the report of the Freeh Group, the university's response to the sanctions and the role of the Senate.

(Pic (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

This post sets out the materials provided by for forensic convener, Senator Keith Nelson, Penn State Liberal Arts: (1) brief description (from the Senate Meeting Agenda; and (2) the extended statement and forensic questions.  And because I will not have a chance to participate in what is likely to be a very interesting and useful discussion, I have provided some of my own thoughts here about the important questions raised by Senator Nelson.

Faculty Senate August 24 Meeting Agenda

The Penn State Faculty Senate has moved to a paperless agenda system (e.g.,Implementing Strategies for More Sustainable Meeting Practices--The Senate Moves To Paperless Meetings, The Faculty Voice,  Aug. 9, 2012).  Our first meeting of the 2012-2013 Academic Year is scheduled for Tuesday August 28, 2012.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I have included below the Agenda of the matting that may also be accessed here.I encourage those interested to send comments to their unit Senators or otherwise to the Senate officers. We expect a lively meeting. 

The AGENDA MAY ALSO BE ACCESSED HERE.

Faculty Senate Welcome Message

Set out below is our standard form-welcome message in anticipation of our first full Senate Meeting of the 2012-13 Academic Year.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012))

FAQs About the Accreditation of Penn States--The Word From the Middle States Commission on Higher Education

As can be imagined, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education action against the accreditation status of Penn State, a global 50 university, has raised eyebrows and elevated stress.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

In order to minimize the inflammatory nature of its action, perhaps, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education has issued a FAQs about their action against Penn State.  This is reproduced below.
Traditional information about the accreditation may be accessed HERE.

Informal Notes of August 14, 2012 Senate Council Meeting

On August 14, 2012, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative. 

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012))

My thanks to my colleagues for the great job of organizing the informal notes from which this summary was prepared. The slides of the PowerPoint Presentation made by Chair Backer at the meeting may be accessed HERE.

Board of Trustees Meeting Scheduled for Sunday to Discuss NCAA Consent Agreement

It appears that the Penn State Board of Trustees continue to change the shape of their governance habits and are becoming more intimately involved in shaping policy for the university.  

This from the Penn State Alternative Website--Onward State: "The Penn State Board of Trustees will hold a special phone conference Sunday evening at 5 p.m. to discuss the consent decree with the NCAA accepting the sanctions, a board source confirmed to Onward State earlier today."

Implementing Strategies for More Sustainable Meeting Practices--The Senate Moves To Paperless Meetings

This message is being sent to all members of Senate Council:

(Pix (c ) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

Effective with the August 14, 2012 Senate Council meeting, agendas for all Senate and Senate Council meetings will no longer be provided in a print-based format.

A link to the Senate and Senate Council agendas will be sent approximately one week before each Senate and Senate Council meeting. As with past practices, the Senate meeting agenda will be posted on the Senate homepage at http://www.senate.psu.edu/.

The August 14 Senate Council agenda is posted at http://www.senate.psu.edu/about_senate/committees/sc/scagenda.pdf. The unit constitutions listed under Action Items are posted in ANGEL under Senate Council/2012-2013/August 14, 2012.

My statement on the move toward less paper follows:

Penn State Senate Council Meets; Votes to Establish a Task Force to Consider Imlementation of Freeh Group Recommendations

On July 12, 2012 the Freeh Group delivered its report to Penn State (see, Statement of the Penn State University Faculty Senate Chair and Chair-Elect on the Release of the Freeh Group Report).  The Freeh Group Report contained a findings and conclusions based on its reading of the evidence it was able to collect and also provided a substantial number of recommendations for governance changes at the university.  Because the University Faculty Senate is an important stakeholder in governance, a special meeting of the University Faculty Senate Council was held on July 18, 2012 for the purpose of considering the Penn State University Senate's response to the recommendations of the Freeh Group Report. 

At that meeting, the Senate Council voted ot establish a committee to consider the Freeh Group recommendations and to help develop proposals for changes grounded in those recommendations ot the extent appropriate.  The official minutes of the meeting may be DOWNLOADED HERE. The official minutes set forth the authoritative record of the meeting. 

This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative.  My thanks to my colleague Dr. John Nousek for the great job of organizing these informal notes. The slides of the PowerPoint Presentation made by Chair Backer at the meeting may be accessed HERE.

Practicing Transparency at Penn State and the Consequences of Failure

The recent meeting called by the Penn State board of Trustees (The Penn State Board of Trustees and the NCAA: "Punitive" Sanctions and "Unfortunate" Process Choices) reminds us that transparency and engagement--even at the highest administrative levels of the university remains merely a work in progress.

(Pix from http://www.psu.edu/trustees/governance.html)

But a failure of university officials and board members to practice what they are now preaching, and more importantly, a failure by our senior administrative leaders to "drill down" that culture of transparency and engagement to unit and department administrators, and soon, can have some repercussions with respect to which the university will have little control.  This post considers two of them--the first is legislative action by the state, increasingly impatient with what appears to be an "all talk no action" strategy and the press, frustrated by an inability to work, as it must, as a medium for transparency in its information dissemination aspect.  The NCAA Consent Decree can be DOWNLOADED HERE.

The Penn State Board of Trustees and the NCAA: "Punitive" Sanctions and "Unfortunate" Process Choices

On Wednesday July 25, 2012, the Penn State Board of Trustees met for discussion in a non-scheduled and informal session.  The object was a consideration, after the fact, of the NCAA sanctions and the decision to accede to them.  "A person who was not authorized to talk about the meeting and spoke on the condition of anonymity told AP the trustees were to confront Erickson over his acceptance of NCAA sanctions that will cost Penn State tens of millions of dollars and likely cripple its football team for years." Report: Penn State trustees question signing of NCAA decree, USA Today Sport, July 25, 2012.

(From Andrew J. Rohterham, A Penn State Trustee Searches for Answers, Time, Nov. 15, 2011)

What emerged appears to be reassuring but surprising:  the board appears to consider the sanctions punitive, the board considers that the decision itself might suffer from procedural infirmities, and the board conceded that in the face of procedural regularities their choices were unpalatable.  Decide for yourselves.  The official statement from the Board of Trustees is set out below along with portions of a news report of the event published in the Miami Herald.

Statement of the Penn State University Faculty Senate Chair Larry Catá Backer Regarding the NCAA Consent Decree and the Sanctions Declared by the Big 10

(Pix from Faculty Senate 101: An Introduction, Onward State, August 2010)

The Pennsylvania State University Faculty Senate renews its expression of deep sorrow for the pain and suffering of the victims of sexual misconduct, a sorrow we share with the Penn State community. The University Faculty Senate also renews its commitment to doing its part to help rebuild the University’s administrative and governance culture, ensuring that athletics remains a strong and vibrant part of an internationally reputed university that is equally well regarded for its cutting edge scholarship and research, excellence in teaching and service to our communities in Pennsylvania and beyond.

The University Faculty Senate is also specifically committed to helping to right the wrongs that were done and to improve policies to guide members of the university community in doing the right thing. To that end, individually and collectively, the University Faculty Senate rededicates itself to incorporating the highest ethical values in its own operations and in the conduct of each of its members throughout the three components of our mission—research, teaching and service. We also believe in the importance and educational value of athletics as a core part of that mission.

Like others, we believe that the Penn State University must accept responsibility, collectively, institutionally and, with respect to those who failed in their individual duty, personally as well. We understand that our academic peers and others will judge us, perhaps no less harshly than we will judge ourselves. We understand that the institutional failures of our leadership over the past decade and more will have significant consequences for the university community. The University Faculty Senate acknowledges its own failures—it must be more vigorous in affirmatively engaging its role in university shared governance.

Part of accepting responsibility involves accepting the judgment of our peers. On July 23, 2012, we have received the decisions of the NCAA and the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors on the scope of sanctions to be imposed on Penn State. We will respect those decisions and join President Erickson in accepting their consequences for the university and its athletics programs.

We appreciate the emphasis in the NCAA’s decision on the importance of guarding against unchecked and unaccountable power, and welcome the greater willingness of our Board of Trustees and senior administrators to include the University Faculty Senate in discussions and decision-making. This inclusion, which we expect to increase in light of the recommendations of the Freeh Group Report, the import of the NCAA decision, and the renewed commitment to open, transparent shared governance, will contribute to the stronger integration of the highest ethical standards, from the top of our administrative structures to departmental and athletic team officials. The University Faculty Senate has already begun to work with our athletics leaders to forge new and innovative ways to integrate athletics into the academic life of the university, innovations that we expect will respect the highest aspirational objectives of both sport and academics. We believe that Penn State will create the template for academic-athletics integration for the coming decades. That leadership role, we hope, will serve as a model for U.S. universities, whose programs may also require change to avoid suffering from the same structural deficiencies.

Going forward, the University Faculty Senate will continue work with the senior administrators and members of the Board of Trustees in implementing the decisions of the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors and the NCAA. We will be active participants in the construction of a more robust and integrative structure to incorporate athletics more intimately into the life of the university. This includes implementation of the Athletics Integrity Agreement, the Compliance Council it envisions, and the implementation of related recommendations of the Freeh Group Report.

This is a very sad moment in the history of this great institution. But this is an institution that can learn from its mistakes and emerge all the stronger for the experience. We cannot undo past harm, we can just do our best to do right by those who have been hurt; we can, however, improve ourselves to better avoid future harm. Along with all of the members of the Penn State community—faculty, students, alumni, administrators, board members and supporters—we will do our part to ensure a better future for Penn State.

Larry Catá Backer
2012-2013 Chair University Faculty Senate
W. Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar & Professor of Law,
Professor of International Affairs