Minutes of the University Assembly Meeting October 25, 2004
(Note: The fall term University Assembly meeting is held in conjunction with Convocation)
University President Dave Frohnmayer welcomed everyone in attendance to the fall meeting of the University Assembly and Fall Convocation. He noted that Dr. Raymond Diamond, professor of law at Tulane University, is the honored invited guest speaker for the meeting. However, before continuing with the proceedings, the president noted that a number of former faculty member were known to have passed away in the year since last fall assembly and after listing their names with a brief comment regarding their academic contributions and service to the university, asked the audience to stand for a moment of silence in their memory.
· Gordon G. Goles, Professor Emeritus, Geological Sciences
(See Addendum A for memorial statements). The secretary also notes her receipt of the annual Faculty Personnel Report for inclusion with these minutes as Addendum B.)
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
In place of the customary State of the University address, which the president gave before the University Senate at its October 2004 meeting, the president introduced Dr. Raymond Diamond, professor of law at Tulane University. Professor Diamond spoke in reference to the 50th anniversary celebrations surrounding the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which changed the prospects of equal education for all Americans. He remarked it was perhaps the most important case during his lifetime as well as in the lives of those who were not even alive when Brown was decided, for the case changed America. Professor Diamond spoke of the history leading up to the decision, the delays in desegregating schools, the efforts to do so, and the current state of public schools, which remain largely segregated do to “white flight” to the suburbs. He suggested that the success of Brown v. Board of Education was less in desegregating public schools as it was in disestablishing racial caste in America. He commented that outlawing segregation is far easier than accomplishing integration, and there is much work to do. Nevertheless, he concluded that Brown helped to create an America that does not seek to limit opportunities, but to expand them, saying that we must work to preserve such opportunities in institutions of higher education such as the University of Oregon. (See Addendum C. for full text of Professor Diamond’s remarks.)
INTRODUCTION OF NEW TENURE-RELATED FACULTY MEMBERS
As is traditional, Provost John Moseley added his personal welcome to all in attendance, especially the new tenure-related faculty members. He commented on the high quality of the new faculty members and the richness of their academic strength and credentials. The provost then called on each of the deans and department heads to briefly introduce the new faculty members, and reminded everyone of a reception for the new faculty held immediately after the meeting’s conclusion. (See Addendum D for text of the new faculty biographies.) At the conclusion of the introductions, the assembled group adjourned to the reception.
Secretary of the Faculty
J. Spencer Carlson, Registrar Emeritus and Professor of Psychology, died May 28,2004. Born May 7, 1912 Spencer was a 1935 UO alumnus and went on to earn a master's degree from the University of Minnesota in 1937. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi. After jobs with the U.S. Employment Service and with Pan American Airlines, he worked at the university from 1943 until retirement in 1977. His employment at the UO began with a position as assistant professor of psychology. Over the years, he was promoted to associate professor and expanded his duties to include the first acting director of the Counseling Center. Later, Professor Carlson became director of admissions and finally, registrar of the university. He held a Fulbright professorship at the University of Tehran in Iran in 1963. A charter member of the UO Alumni Association, he also chaired the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District board of directors in the 1950s.
Gordon G. Goles, Professor Emeritus of Geological Sciences, died November 9, 2003. He was born March 6, 1934 in Chicago, IL. He graduated from Harvard in 1956 with major in chemistry and a minor in archaeology and from the University of Chicago in 1961 with a doctorate in cosmochemistry and activation analysis. He worked at the University of California – San Diego prior to joining the UO faculty in 1967 as associate professor of chemistry and became professor of chemistry and geology in 1972. While at the UO, he set up research facilities to undertake analyses of moon samples returned by the Apollo project astronauts and from other manned lunar landing missions. He authored or co-authored more than 100 scientific papers, many of which revolutionized important concepts in the field of geology, and introduced powerful scientific research tools. His personal research interests included studies of terrestrial igneous rocks, nature and causes of tectonic events, and aspects of geoanthropology. Professor Goles retired in 2002.
Steven D. Lowenstam, Professor of Classics, died Dec. 12, 2003. Born December 14, 1945, he was a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard University. Steve joined the UO faculty in 1975. He was the author of four books, two forthcoming at the time of his death, and was the recipient of numerous academic fellowships and teaching grants. During fall 1989, he taught two Northwest Interinstitutional Council on Study Abroad courses, on ancient Greeks and Romans, in Siena, Italy. His research interests included Greek and Roman literature, the Homeric tradition in poetry and art, and Platonic studies.
William G. Loy, Professor Emeritus of Geography, died November 15, 2003. He was born October 13, 1936, in Dawson, NM. A graduate of the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota, Bill was a member of the UO faculty from 1967 until he retired in 1997. He served as department chair and taught various geography classes including cartography and the physical geography of Oregon. He was awarded two Fulbright grants to study and teach in Ireland and Austria. Bill was the director and cartographer of the prestigious first edition Atlas of Oregon and 25 years later, the second edition, using computerized cartography techniques. Both books won numerous awards including the Globe Book Award from the American Geographers in 2001 and the Best Book and Atlas Award from the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping in 2002. He helped found the UO Infographics Lab and personally received many professional awards including a Distinguished Alumnus Award from the University of Minnesota in 1990, a Distinguished Service Award from the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers in 1991, Oregon Scientist of the Year in 1997, and a Distinguished Service Award from the UO in 2002.
John L. Powell, Professor Emeritus of Physics, died in April, 2004. John was a 1943 graduate of Reed College and earned his doctoral degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1948. He worked on the Manhattan Project at MIT and the University of Chicago and taught at the University of Wisconsin from 1948-53 before joining the UO faculty in 1955. In 1961, Professor Powell co-authored with colleague Bernd Crasemann the successful textbook Quantum Mechanics, which remains in print overseas and is frequently cited by researchers. Crasemann described John as an incisive theoretician with an uncanny command of mathematical techniques. John grew up near Independence, Oregon, and as the last child of an Oregon pioneer family -- those people who settled in the Oregon County prior to statehood in 1859 –he was especially proud of his Oregon heritage.
Raymond "Max" Wales, Professor of Journalism and Communication, Emeritus, died Dec. 11, 2003. Max was born January 21, 1912, in Topeka, KS, and graduated from Washburn College (now University) of Topeka. He later did graduate work at Harvard and received a master's degree from the University of Iowa. After stints as a sales promotion manager and analyst, owner-operator of an advertising agency and an advertising instructor at Iowa and Michigan State University, he joined the UO faculty in 1957 where he taught advertising until his retirement in 1977. He co-authored an advertising textbook in 1958 and was a Fulbright lecturer in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1963.
The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) has completed its work for the 2003-2004 academic year. The FPC consists of ten elected faculty members and two student representatives (when possible). No students participated in this year’s committee. Each faculty member has one vote. Five faculty are chosen from the College of Arts and Sciences and five from the professional schools. The faculty on this year’s committee were: Keith Aoki (Law), Tom Bivins (Journalism and Communication), Katharine Cashman (Geology), Dianne Dugaw (English), George Evans (Economics), Ellen Herman (History), Sana Krusoe (Art), Randall Moore (Music), Peter Wright (Business), and Yuan Xu (Mathematics). Dianne Dugaw served as FPC Chair.
During the 2003-2004 academic year, the FPC advised the Provost on thirty-seven cases involving tenure and/or promotion. The breakdown of the cases was as follows:
Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure 17
Tenure only 2
Promotion to Professor 14
Promotion to Professor with Tenure 3
Promotion to Senior Instructor with Tenure 1
The FPC held fifteen meetings during the current academic year, each lasting from one and one-half to two hours. In addition, each member of the committee spent approximately two to three hours per week reading files and was responsible for writing the FPC reports on three to four cases, a task which required substantial time beyond the commitment to reading and assessing the files.
The committee appreciated those files that were well prepared and adhered strictly to the guidelines found in two sources: (1) Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the University of Oregon (Office of Academic Affairs), and (2) Timetable and Guidelines for Recommending Promotion and/or Tenure for Faculty Members (Office of Academic Affairs). We strongly urge everyone connected with the preparation of tenure and promotion files to follow these guidelines carefully. This would remedy many of the problems encountered by the FPC each year in the evaluation of cases.
Each year the FPC Final Report includes complaints about the preparation of files and pleas for strict adherence to guidelines. This year’s FPC is no different. Based on problems we encountered with a number of the files this year, we make the following recommendations:
1. Every department and professional school should include a copy of its promotion and tenure document in the promotion file. Because standards for research quantity and quality vary across fields and disciplines, it is crucial for the FPC to have for each case an explicit statement of the expectations and standards for research in each field, as well as for teaching and service. These standards should be applied in a consistent way for all cases within a department, college, or school, and they should be consistent with university-wide guidelines. In addition promotion and tenure guidelines should be sent by departments to all outside reviewers.
2. If a department or program requires that candidates meet standards and expectations beyond those printed in the unit’s standard guidelines for promotion and tenure, these further expectations must have been given to the candidate in writing. If the current printed guidelines function for the department or program as a “minimum” requirement, this expectation must have been explicitly stated to the candidate.
3. We encourage departments and programs to revisit and revise their written guidelines for tenure and promotion and to communicate these to their faculty.
4. University promotion guidelines specify a maximum of six to seven letters from external reviewers. Each file should contain at least five letters and not more than seven, unless special circumstances dictate otherwise, in which case the reasons for this variation should be provided. The clear majority of outside reviewers should be chosen by the department, not by the candidate. Candidates for tenure and promotion should be counseled against submitting the names of collaborators or mentors as possible outside reviewers.
5. It is important to explain the reputation of the schools and programs of the external reviewers and to make clear why each reviewer is qualified to evaluate the candidate’s work.
6. Departments and programs should send the same materials to all of the external reviewers, unless there is a compelling reason for not doing so, in which case an explanation for any differences should be given in the department head’s evaluation letter.
7. Connections between the candidate and the external reviewers should be explained in brief statements identifying the reviewers, and, if appropriate, in the department evaluation.
8. Each department or program should provide an explanation of the relative weighting to be given to various types of publications: research books, textbooks, such as peer-reviewed book chapters, peer-reviewed articles, non-peer-reviewed articles, peer-reviewed conference proceedings, extended abstracts, and so forth. The candidate’s cv should make clear what kind of publication each item is. The evaluative report of department committees likewise should make clear how the different kinds of publications in the candidate’s record are to be evaluated in the field.
9. It is useful to have an account of how courses are grouped by departments and schools in the calculation of teaching averages in comparing individual teachers to department means.
10. Departments are reminded that peer reviews of teaching are a required part of the each file.
11. In cases where there are long periods of research inactivity (i.e., ten years or more), it might be helpful to have some explanation for this in the file.
12. The FPC strongly recommends that the tenure and promotion cases of minority faculty members be monitored as a group by the administration, beginning at the point of the third-year review. Reasons to do so include: (1) obtaining full and accurate aggregate data about institutional patterns across disciplines and schools; and (2) using that data to more effectively recruit, mentor, and retain outstanding faculty members. We believe it makes sense to place this responsibility in the new office of the Vice-Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity, headed by Greg Vincent. We further encourage that this office regularly report on its general findings, with due respect for the privacy issues involved in individual cases, and to share these reports with the Provost’s Office, the Faculty and Staff of Color Coalition, and the diversity planning office of the Oregon University System. The FPC was alarmed by the apparently routine expectation that minority faculty members will shoulder service burdens that are heavier than those of other faculty members.
13. This year’s committee recommends that the registrar’s office arrange a regular weekly time for committee meetings in the winter and spring quarter schedules of the individual faculty members who have been elected to the committee in order to ensure that weekly meetings are possible.
In closing, the members of the FPC express our gratitude for the excellent work of Ms. Carol White, whose professional handling of the details of processing the files helped us in our work. Her efficiency, attentiveness, and good humor were unflagging and very much appreciated.
Invited Speaker Professor Raymond Diamond, Professor of Law, Tulane University
Greetings to the University of Oregon community, and thank you, President Frohnmayer, for that generous introduction. I want to also thank the Provost, Dr. John Moseley, and the Director of the Wayne Morse Center, Margaret Hallock, for inviting me to speak at this splendid gathering this afternoon. It is a welcome thing for me to be here to meet new friends, and also to renew old friendships. Some of those friends have welcomed me already, and I expect to be welcomed by others in the next day. You, President Frohnmayer, have welcomed me on behalf of the entire University community, here, to your home, and this community has made me feel at home, and again thank you.
My task, as it has been put to me, is to speak for thirty minutes, to speak provocatively, and, to make no one too mad or too sleepy to go back to the office or the library later to do more work, and I’ve said I am happy to do this, but I must let you know that my that my being here this afternoon is not a matter of universal approval, and in fact is the subject of significant disappointment in two quarters. I will tell of the second of these quarters near the close of my address, but by way of explanation of the first, let me say that among my greatest accomplishments is a nearly nine year old son, who shares his father’s name, looks, and sense of humor, and when reminded of this fact, has been known to comment that he is doomed. Well, my son Raymond was not happy to be losing his dad for a few days this week, which ends with his submission at school of his very first book report, for he wanted me to be sure to read it before he gave it to the teacher. When I not only assured him that I would be there to read it before its submission, but also I insisted that he write most of it before I left, he relented. But Raymond wanted to know why I had to go to the University of Oregon, and I told him that I had to go because it was important. He accepted this without further explanation - as I said he is not quite nine and still trusts me - but I was prepared to say that it was important to address the convocation of the University of Oregon, in this the year of the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. I was prepared to say that addressing the University upon such an occasion, about the subject of Brown and its promise for the future, represented a moment to remember the frustration and the sacrifice of so many in the past. Being here to speak on Brown v. Board at the University of Oregon, one of America’s great state universities and the progenitor of so many of the next generation of leadership, I might have told my son - had he insisted on it - represented an opportunity to make a grand statement about the past and about the future of this nation as I speak on a case that changed his life and mine and indeed all of our lives, and made it possible for us and for our nation to reach out to be the best that we can be.
I have been known to describe Brown as the most important case of my lifetime, and perhaps the most important case in the lives of those who were not even alive when Brown was decided, for this was a case that changed America.
America had been ruled since 1896 by the permissive mandate of Plessy v. Ferguson, which interpreted the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to allow for state mandated segregation, for black people and white people to be separate, so long as the facilities provided were equal. Plessy freed the states, and effectively encouraged individuals and private entities, to engage in the widespread conduct that came to be known as Jim Crow.
Jim Crow involved an almost ritual like separation of white and black, with the list of separations both ingenious and endless - separate bathrooms, restaurants, water fountains, separate Bibles in the courtroom, and most significantly for our discussion, separate educational facilities. This separate but equal formula did not go unchallenged, but was the subject of a litigation push implemented by the NAACP, intended to push the limits of the separate but equal formula. This push was aimed at educational facilities, and it focused not on elementary and secondary education - the subject of Brown - but on higher education, particularly graduate and professional schools. This push began in 1936 with a case ultimately decided by the highest court of Maryland, admitting a black person to the University of Maryland’s law school instead of allowing a plan to educate black people to the law outside the state. It continued, with peregrinations throughout the state and federal courts in the southern and border states, with important stops before the United States Supreme Court.
What these stops, these cases, established was a new formula. If there were no separate program for black students in, say, law or engineering or journalism, at the state’s Negro university, the state would have admit black students, or establish a separate program for them.
This modus operandi continued to be challenged by the NAACP, but without notable forward progress - the courts maintained that separate but equal did not include separate but non-existent - but continued to allow the choice of separation. That is, until 1950, when the Court decided two cases on the same day, one, Sweatt v. Painter, that dealt with a separate but supposedly equal law school established by the state of Texas, and the other McClaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, that dealt with a student admitted to a doctoral program at the University of Oklahoma but who was effectively forbidden to eat with, study with, or do anything other than learn in the same classroom with his white classmates - sort of a racial time out, but for adults. The Supreme Court invalidated both of these forms of segregation, but largely in the Texas case and entirely so in the Oklahoma case, because of intangibles, because McClaurin and Sweatt could not take the same advantages from their education as their white class mates.
At this point, the NAACP raised the ante considerably, and let forth a call for cases that previously it had rejected, cases on the desegregation of elementary and secondary schools. Bands of courageous parents from around the nation, in South Carolina, Washington DC, Delaware, Virginia, and from Topeka, Kansas came forth, challenging the segregation of their children. The NAACP was unable to get even a single trial court to agree that it was impossible for separated education to be unequal - they all felt bound by Plessy v. Ferguson - but they did get findings of fact in several that suggested that the harm done to black school children was inconsistent with equality.
The story of the appeal itself is a story of its own. Suffice it to say that the story is filled with artful lawyering by many, backroom manuevering at the Court that resulted in a second argument, skullduggery and arguably unethical behavior by another giant, Justice Felix Frankfurter. It includes a return from a deathbed by Justice Jackson, the death of Chief Justice Vinson, the cheapest shot in the history of cheap shots - Now, Justice Frankfurter said of Vinson’s death, there is evidence that there really is a God - and the coming of the superchief, who wrote the opinion in Brown, Earl Warren.
The decision in the school desegregation cases was announced on May 17, 1954, to an overflowing courtroom. Chief Justice Earl Warren read the opinion for a unanimous Court. Given the events which lead up to Brown; trials lasting several days in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia; testimony presented by dozens of witnesses; and several days of intense arguments in the Supreme Court over a two-year period; the opinion in Brown is remarkable in its brevity and simplicity. It was written in a straight-forward style that could be understood by the most unsophisticated reader.
The opinion commenced with a recitation of the history of the cases from the trials to the arguments in the Supreme Court. The Court found, as a threshold matter, that the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment on the question of segregated schools was not clear. The Court then traced the evolution of the separate-but-equal doctrine from Plessy through McLaurin. After describing the importance of education to a democratic society, the Court framed the issue as whether “segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race. . . deprives the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities.” The court found that it did, concluding that “[t]o separate [black] children from others of similar age and qualifications generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in ways unlikely ever to be undone.” Relying heavily on social science evidence as well as the foundation developed in earlier cases, the court held that “[s]eparate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” With this pronouncement, America stood at the dawn of a new era in race relations.
What that day would look like was not clear, for two reasons. One of these was intuitive, and had been expressed by justices on the Court from the time of the first conference to discuss the case the first time it had been argued two years earlier. Schooling was sensitive, the roots of segregation ran deep, and there was doubt that white Southerners would accept a decision. A second reason was in the very terms of the opinion in Brown. While the Brown opinion had declared segregation in education to be unconstitutional, it did not set forth a remedy. There would be yet another re-argument, this one focused on the question what the remedy would be imposed.
We all know the result of what became known as Brown II. On another Monday in May, this one in 1955, the Supreme Court declared that desegregation would take place not immediately, not instantly, but with “all deliberate speed.” When Brown I had been issued, Thurgood Marshall had been heard to crow, Free by 63!” His prediction was not only incorrect, but if not the result of a poetic device, unrealistic, for Brown I had not ordered the integration of even a single school. And now under Brown II, the district courts were to take account of local conditions, local peculiarities, local interests, in fashioning remedies. And if the two Brown cases together equivocated on the issue of when school desegregation would ever take place, they encouraged a resistance already telegraphed by Southern political leaders.
In point of fact, it was not until 1968 in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County that the Supreme Court - sufficiently impressed by the by the extraordinarily slow rate of desegregation occasioned by a time honored Southern formula of recalcitrance, cleverness, and good lawyering - rejected the formula of “all deliberate speed” and declared that school boards would have to “come forward with a [desegregation] plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.” Whether it was a realistic expectation that school boards would have been able confect such plans is quite uncertain and perhaps naive. By 1968, the phenomenon of white flight had been well established. Some of this white flight, particularly in the South, was to escape integration. Some of it was to seek better living in the suburbs. All of it, together with patterns of housing segregation and the establishment and popularity of private schools, helped bring about the current state of the law: No longer are school boards tasked to rid their districts of the present effects of past discrimination in their entirety - “root and branch” - but instead they are tasked to do so to the extent practicable. Demographic shifts which are the result of white flight from cities and schools are that over which the courts have eschewed further supervision of local schools in desegregation, at least when there is a history of good faith on the part of school boards. The result has been an appalling set of statistics showing the re-segregation of America’s schools. If it is said that Sunday at church is the most segregated time of the week, Monday through Friday in public schools is not far behind.
None of this is to say that Brown v. Board was not a success. It is to say that Brown’s success was less in establishing desegregation of schools - some would say that Brown was a failure in this regard, among them Derrick Bell, the former dean of the University of Oregon’s law school and a man who’s views on civil rights command universal respect - Brown’s success was less in establishing desegregation of schools than it was in disestablishing racial caste in America. Bear in mind it is after Brown that the lynching of Emmet Till became a cause celebre and subject of near universal condemnation. It is after Brown that the freedom riders took their seats to challenge segregation throughout the land, after Brown that the sit-ins took place to challenge segregated lunch counters, after Brown that Negro consumer boycotts would change commercial practices throughout the South, that Martin Luther King, Jr. would come to prominence. In many ways, Brown v. Board is not simply a harbinger of things to come, but instead that which prepares the way, for it is Brown with those mighty words that “separate facilities . . . are inherently unequal” that points out and raises to universal consciousness the inherent contradiction of segregation in a nation that as part of its civic faith holds that all us “are created equal.”
The story of Brown at its simplest suggests that while outlawing segregation may have been easy enough - though surely it was not - accomplishing integration is difficult. There is a much more subtle and in my view more important teaching of Brown, however. Brown is a case that not simply calls for a desegregated America, but it suggests the reason why. Segregated schools, we were told, were bad for black schoolchildren, for it affected the way they thought, how they perceived the world, how they perceived themselves. A desegregated education, one in which black children would have access to the full richness of all of the people and ideas in their surrounding world, was a better educ5ation. Social sci5entists have established since then that this is true not simply for black children but for all, and educators across the board hold to the wisdom that diver5sity in education makes for better education.
Judicial recognition of diversity as that which makes education better is a recognition that predates Brown. In 1950 the Supreme Court in Sweatt v. Painter admitted a black student to the all white University of Texas law school in spite of the existence of the law school at - and this is the name - the Texas State University for Negroes - in part, it said, because an education in which one was denied the opportunity to trade ideas and concepts with those of another race, with those who were different, with those of differing perspective, was an inferior education.
This is the tact that the Supreme Court has taken in allowing for the kinds of choices that many universities have undertaken to increase opportunities available to minority students, to enhance the educational atmosphere of their campuses, and to further their mission. Most if not all of us are familiar with at least the fact that the Supreme Court decided the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan law affirmative action case. Some of us are less well familiar with another affirmative action case decided by the Supreme Court 25 years prior to Grutter. I refer to the case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
The Bakke case involved a quota that was used to guarantee diversity at a state run medical school. The Court struck down the quota, but did not do so with a single voice, for there was no majority. Four justices thought that the quota was just fine, four thought that it was the functional equivalent of separate but equal, and then there was Justice Powell, who wrote that the attainment of a diverse student body . . . clearly is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education,” but that “Ethnic diversity, however, is only one element in a range of factors a university may properly consider in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous student body.” He spoke approvingly of the kind of admissions program wherein “race or ethnic background may be deemed a ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file . . .[but would not] . . . isolate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats.” Such a program, Powell said, would be “flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant . . . [such that each applicant’s] qualifications would have been weighed fairly and competitively, and he would have no basis to complain of unequal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Again, the Powell opinion was not the opinion of the Court, and though universities in many instances depended on it to justify affirmative action policies, it spawned much litigation, including Grutter v. Bollinger, in which a majority of the Court accepted the wisdom of Justice Powell. Affirmative action plans, based on broad based diversity concerns, are constitutional.
And if such plans are constitutional, the question is left whether they are wise. Let me speak to wisdom with an acknowledgment, and a few thoughts that are specific to another institution of higher learning, but that are generally applicable nonetheless. You have heard in my introduction that I am a graduate of Yale University; what you have not heard is that I started my Yale career one year after President Bush ended his. You have also not heard what is beyond any doubt the truth, that both President Bush and I were the beneficiaries of affirmative action in the admission process, I as a black kid from a deep South city who had lived under American apartheid for the majority of his life, George Bush as an alumni son of a wealthy and politically connected family. And lest you accuse me of being overtly political, I would point out that Senator John Kerry, who graduated from Yale two years before George Bush, was the beneficiary of that same sort of advantage.
We cannot predict that whether I would have been admitted to Yale, but it is possible that I might not and maybe that would have been a good thing, just as it is possible that Ben Carson, the nation’s pediatric neurosurgeon or Henry Louis Gates, Harvard’s and America’s maven of Afro-American studies. It is certain that George W. Bush would not have been admitted, and would be unfortunate for Yale as think it would be unfortunate for
My thirty minutes are nearly up, and I wish to spare myself and President Frohnmayer the indignity of him having to remove me bodily from the podium. As I close, however, let me recall that earlier I said that there was a second quarter from which there was disappointment at my being here. My stepson Brent is a young man who, three years ago today, having decided that there was a need, was spending his last two months as a civilian and who today is an Army medic who makes his living in Baghdad. About ten days ago - forgive my familial pride here - Sergeant Brent showed up on our doorstep, surprising us with a two-week leave. He will be going back on Thursday, and I like to think that the look I saw on his face when I left was disappointment in not being able to spend more time with me, though I do concede it might just have been that bad logistics meant that he wouldn’t be able to use the car I would be leaving at the airport.
My stepson joined the military after the terrorist attacks in September 2001 for the same reason that many young people have joined and that many older ones stay. No, not for the benefits, but because he saw something about this country, this people, this land worth protecting, and whether we believe that this war in Iraq is the right war or the wrong war, fought in the right place or the wrong place, at the right time or the wrong time, or even whether the mission has been accomplished or the war really has been won or that peace is ever achievable, I think we can agree with my stepson Brent that there is much in this country to protect and to come home to when, fourteen months from now, God willing, he does come home. The America that he would protect is an America as different from that which greeted my father when he took off an Army uniform after World War II and before Brown v. Board, as night and day. It is not insular; it is open. It does not seek to limit opportunities, but to expand them. It is not divided, but diverse. It is an America where all of us can live with and talk with and work with and learn from each other, and build America in common cause. It is an America that Brown v. Board helped to create and that not only institutions of higher education such as the University of Oregon but which we as individuals - as stakeholders in this enterprise that we hold in trust for future generations - must maintain.
Thank you for listening.
New Tenure-Related Faculty Members
University of Oregon, Fall 2004
NANCY ANDREW, Assistant Professor of Flute. D.M.A. Peabody Conservatory of Music, Johns Hopkins, 1994; M.M. SUNY at Stony Brook; B.A. and B.M University of New Mexico. Dr. Andrew most recently has taught flute at the University of Arizona and Youngstown State University. Her long list of national and international performances include the New England Bach Festival Orchestra, the Baltimore Opera, and the Aspen Music Festival Orchestra. She has been a member of the Arizona Wind Quintet and the Dana Wind Quintet, and has given master classes and lecture presentations in the US and abroad. Dr. Andrew began publishing articles in 1984, and has other projects in progress.
JAMES BUNTE, Assistant Professor of Saxophone and Jazz Studies. D.M.A. (expected 2004) and M.M. University of Cincinnati Conservatory of Music. Mr. Bunte’s undergraduate degrees from the University of Colorado at Boulder are a BME with K-12 instrumental emphasis and a B.M. in performance. Prior to joining the UO, he had taught at the Cincinnati Conservatory since 2000 and Northern Kentucky University since 1999. He has performed with the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra/Cincinnati Pops (principal) and the Dayton Philharmonic Orchestra, among others, and at the Colorado Music Festival. Mr. Bunte has four compact discs on the Telarc label, two each with the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and the Cincinnati Pops.
HARRY PRICE, Professor and Chair, Music Education. D.Ed. Syracuse University, 1981; M.M.E. and B.M.E. Florida State University. Dr. Price was department head of music education at the University of Alabama for more than a decade before coming to the UO as chair of music education. His major areas of interest include research methodologies in music, techniques of conducting and rehearsals, teacher preparation, and psychology of music. Recent research includes ensemble conducting, rehearsal methods and techniques, classroom management, and international applications of research in music education. Dr. Price has made many national and international presentations, served as editor of the Journal of Research in Music Education, and is widely published.
DAVID RILEY, Assistant Professor of Collaborative Piano. D.M.A. The Eastman School of Music, 2000; M.M. Cleveland Institute of Music; B.M. Ithaca College. Dr. Riley has been a vocal coach and staff accompanist at the Manhattan School of Music and sight-reading class instructor at Eastman. Chamber music concert performances include the National Gallery of Art (live broadcast on NPR), Merkin Hall with the New York Philharmonic Chamber Players, Weill Recital Hall/ Carnegie Hall with Eastman alums, among many others. Since 1994, he has participated in many residencies, music festivals, and premieres. Dr. Riley¹s recordings include Stravinsky: Complete Works for Violin and Piano, Endeavor Classical Label.
CHARLES TURLEY, Assistant Professor of Voice and Opera. D.M.A. University of North Texas, 2002; M.M. University of Tennessee, Knoxville; B.M. Jacksonville University. Dr. Turley has taught at Mercer University (Georgia) and Ouachita Baptist University (Arkansas), as well as directing church choirs in Georgia and Texas. His performance experience includes the LaGrange Opera Theater, Opera in the Ozarks, Canto Opera, the Des Moines Metro Opera, the Texas Gilbert and Sullivan Company, and Teatro Accademico (Italy), among many others. Dr. Turley¹s directing experience includes Opera in the Ozarks, Ouachita Baptist University, University of North Texas, and Crested Butte Mountain Music Institute.
ROBERT C. ILLIG, Assistant Professor, J.D., Vanderbilt (Coif), 1996; B. A., Williams, 1991. Professor Illig’s areas of research include mergers and acquisitions, and business associations. After graduating from law school, where he was a John W. Wade Scholar and senior managing editor of the Vanderbilt Law Review, Professor Illig practiced corporate and securities law for seven years in the New York and London offices of Nixon Peabody, LLP. While in practice, he handled a wide range of negotiated transactions in the U.S. and overseas, including public and private mergers and acquisitions, securities offerings, and private equity transactions. Professor Illig began his academic career at the University of Missouri, Columbia, before joining the UO faculty.
DAYO NICOLE MITCHELL, Assistant Professor of History. Ph.D., M.A., University of Virginia, 2004, 1999. B.A., Williams College, 1997. Working in the broad field of Atlantic history, Professor Mitchell studies the intersection of race and citizenship in the early 19th century Caribbean, focusing on free people of color in Trinidad and Dominica.
SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATION
KATHRYN CAMPBELL, Assistant Professor. Ph.D., University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2002; M.S. University of Oregon, 1996; B.A., California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo. Professor Campbell’s expertise includes the area of news-editorial, communication history, and civic journalism. As a visiting assistant professor at the UO in 2001 she coordinated the Snowden Program for Excellence in Journalism and directed the Summer Journalism Workshop of Minority High School Students. She joins the tenure-related faculty this fall combining her teaching in the newspaper journalism program with teaching and research in communication history and related areas. Dr. Campbell is an award-winning teacher and an academic leader in the field of civic journalism. Her dissertation, “More than a Metaphor: The Challenge of Civic Mapping,” examines the historical roots and theoretical assumptions of civic journalism.
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND ALLIED ARTS
PLANNING, PUBLIC POLICY & MANAGEMENT
NEIL BANIA, Associate Professor, PhD., 1985, University of Oregon; M.A., 1983, University of Oregon; B.A., 1980 University of Oregon. Professor Bania’s research interests include poverty, welfare reform and income policy, institutional and organizational aspects of social services delivery, public policy analysis, public housing, urban neighborhoods, low-skill labor markets and job access, and nonprofit organizations. He has been a reviewer for The Journal of Political Economy, Review of Economics and Statistics, Economic Development Quarterly, Journal of American Planning Association, Journal of Nonprofit Management and Leadership, The National Science Foundation, and The Joyce Foundation.
PATRICIA DEWEY, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 2004, Ohio State University; M.A.S., 1998, International Center for Culture & Management (Salzburg, Austria); M.A., 1997, Webster University (Vienna, Austira); B.M., 1990, Indiana University. Dr. Dewey has held positions as a professional classical singer, opera administrator, artist manager, foundation programs administrator, marketing communications consultant, and instructor. Research interest areas are arts administration education, international cultural policy, and cultural development. Professor Dewey’s teaching interests include public policy and the arts, international cultural policy, principles of arts management, management of nonprofit organizations, sociology of culture and the arts, and performing arts management.
LORI HAGER, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 2003, Arizona State University; B.A., 1990, Western Washington University; M.P.A., current, Arizona State University. Dr. Hager’s research interests include historical and contemporary community youth arts theory and practice, education and outreach in performing and community organizations, arts education policy, teaching artist preparation, digital archiving, arts-based research and interactive arts pedagogy. She has published numerous articles about youth arts policies, and drama and has taught at Arizona State University.
ESTHER HAGENLOCHER, Assistant Professor, M.ARCH, 1998, The Bartlett School of Architecture (London, UK); Diploma, 1994, State Academy of Art and Design (Stuttgart, Germany); Certificate, 1987, Technical College (Stuttgart, Germany). Professor Hagenlocher has professional experience in building and furniture design. She will be teaching primarily in areas of furniture design.
ROXI THOREN, Assistant Professor, MLA, 2002, University of Virginia; M.ARCH, 2001, University of Virginia, M.A., 1996, Wellesley College. Professor Thoren has a joint appointment with both the Department of Architecture and the Department of Landscape Architecture. She has experience organizing course development in areas such as environmental choices, architectural theory, building systems, and lessons of the lawn.
KARTZ UCCI, Assistant Professor, Diploma, 1997, University of Toronto; M.F.A., 1995, York University; B.F.A., 1991, York University. Professor Ucci is interested in multimedia and has conducted research utilizing various combinations of visual and sound media. Among other projects, she currently is working on an interactive streamed video project, and will be teaching Digital Foundations within the multimedia program at the UO
KEVIN YATES, Assistant Professor, M.F.A, University of Victoria; B.F.A, Nova Scotia College of Art and Design. Professor Yates is a sculptor whose art practice involves developing intimate small-scale sculptural objects, which to varying degrees, reference the human body. He previously taught sculpture departmentat the University of Victoria and the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design before joining the UO faculty.
JAMES BEAN, Professor and Dean, Ph.D., Stanford University, 1980; M.S., Stanford University, 1979; B.S., Harvey Mudd College, 1977. Dr. Bean's background includes experience as a professor, academic administrator, fundraiser, and scholar. He was associate dean for academic affairs and professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan College of Engineering where he managed faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure, and the budget. He was also extensively involved in joint programs with the school of business and private industry, specifically co-directing the Joel D. Tauber Manufacturing Institute. Bean's extensive scholarly record has been supported by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, National Science Foundation, Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Departments of Education and Transportation, AT&T Foundation, and a variety of private corporations and organizations.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 1996, University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1992, Princeton University, B.A., 1989, Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Williams’ research focuses on the financial market effects of taxes from both a theoretical and empirical perspective. Dr. Williams has published in the Journal of Accounting and Economics and the Review of Accounting Studies and has taught at UCLA and Yale University.
ANNE PARMIGIANI, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 2003 and M.A., 2000, University of Michigan; M.B.A., 1996 and B.S., 1987, The Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Parmigiani conducts research involving vertical interfirm relationships, procurement decisions, and firm capabilities. Her dissertation won the INFORMS/Organization Science Dissertation Proposal competition, the APICS/Plossl Dissertation Research competition, and the Institute for Supply Management Doctoral Dissertation award. Formerly a market analyst and then a procurement manager, she has worked in various manufacturing industries for ten years and is certified as a professional purchasing manager (CPM).
STEPHEN FROST, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., City University of New York, 2001; B.A., California State University, Long Beach, 1994. Stephen has two principal areas of research: human and primate evolution and paleontology, and the quantification and analysis of biological shape. His use of digital 3-D laser scans of complex biological shapes permit high resolution comparisons of individual and species differences. He is engaged in active paleontological fieldwork in East Africa and Europe focusing on the relationship between global climatic change and evolution.
VICTORIA “TORY” HERMAN, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998; B.A., Harvard-Radcliffe College, 1989. Tory is interested in the molecular mechanisms that ensure that neurons form synapses with the correct neuronal targets; that is, how is the wiring of the nervous system established? She uses genetic and molecular analysis of the Drosophila (fruit fly) visual system to address this problem.
PHILIP WASHBOURNE, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of Padova, Padova, Italy, 1999; B.S., Imperial College London, London, U.K., 1995. Philip is interested in the development of the nervous system. In particular, he would like to understand how a functional synapse is formed. In the past he has studied this question using rodents, but he plans to take advantage of both the strong zebrafish research community here and the rich genetic and developmental biology underpinnings available with that organism to begin to address these questions in zebrafish.
DEJING DOU, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.S., Yale University, 2004, 2000; B.E., Tsinghua University, China, 1996. Dejing’s research is in information representation, in a field known as "the semantic web." Whereas the internet and basic facilities of the world-wide-web provide a means to share data, the semantic web aims to provide shared ontologies and a semantic system to interpret that data as meaningful information. His dissertation and most recent papers treat merging of ontologies, and his current research is in ontology and data integration for biomedical informatics.
LAURIE DRUMMOND, Assistant Professor; MFA, BGS, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 1991, 1986. Laurie Lynn Drummond, a former police officer, is a fiction writer whose first book, Anything You Say Can and Will Be Held Against You, has just won the Violet Crown Texas Book Award in Fiction for 2004. She has published numerous essays and short stories, is the recipient of several competitions and awards, also writes creative non-fiction, and is currently working on a novel, The Hour of Two Lights, and a book-length memoir, Losing My Gun.
NICOLAS MAGUD, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., University of Maryland at College Park, 2004, 2001; M.A., University Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1997; B.A., University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1995. Dr. Magud's research is in the area of International Finance and Macroeconomics with a special emphasis placed on the macroeconomic dynamics of financial market imperfections. His work has characterized the effects of choosing alternative exchange rate regimes for developed and developing economies, specifically showing that in the presence of financial frictions the choice of an exchange rate regime in a developing country is conditional on its economy's degree of openness.
SANGITA GOPAL, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., University of Rochester, 2000, 1995; M.A., B.A., University of Calcutta, India, 1992, 1990. Dr. Gopal works in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century British Literature, Postcolonial Literature and Theory, Literature and Globalization, and Film Studies, especially the cinema of Bollywood.
ADRIA IMADA, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., New York University, 2003, 2000; B.A., Yale University, 1993. Dr. Imada’s research and teaching interests are in Asian American and Pacific Islander American Studies, with particular emphases on race, popular culture, and performance and the gender and sexual politics of U. S. Empire. She has recently published “Hawaiians on Tour: Hula Circuits through the American Empire,” in American Quarterly, the leading journal in the field of American Studies.
AMY LOBBEN, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1999; M.A., B.A., Georgia State University, 1996, 1991. Professor Lobben’s research focuses in the area of human map and spatial interaction. Specifically, she is interested in environmental mapping abilities, spatial perception within these environments, and different map uses and needs of both the general as well as special needs populations.
JEFFREY LIBRETT, Professor; Ph.D., M.A., Cornell University, 1989, 1984; M.A., Columbia University, 1981; B.A., Yale University, 1979. Dr. Librett’s research focuses on Jewish Studies and literary and philosophical discourses of the 18th through 20th centuries; contemporary critical theory and psychoanalysis. His book entitled, The Rhetoric of Cultural Dialogue: Jews and Germans from Moses Mendelssohn to Richard Wagner and Beyond, was published with Stanford University Press in 2000. Jeffrey has published numerous essays on German literature and contemporary theory, and is currently working on a book titled, "Orientalism and Groundlessness: the Pantheism Panic from Lessing to Kafka."
ELLEN REES, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., University of Washington, 1995, 1992; B.A., The Evergreen State College, 1989. Dr. Rees began her research career investigating the relationships between Scandinavian women writers who experimented with prose fiction in the period between the two world wars and the larger cultural field of literary modernism. This work has brought to light forgotten writers, and created a new context for understanding the works of writers such as Isak Dinesen, who were previously viewed as important but anomalous. More recently, Rees' research focus has turned to contemporary Scandinavian cinema as a tool for exploring radical changes in Scandinavian culture during the 1990s.
DANIEL DUGGER, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999; B.A., University of Michigan, 1994. Dr. Dugger is an algebraic topologist specializing in motivic homotopy theory. He is especially well known for his applications of motivic cohomology to classical problems such as sums-of-squares formulas.
VICTOR OSTRIK, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Moscow State University, 1999. Dr. Ostrik works in the broad area known as representation theory. He has made substantial contributions to such diverse areas as the classification of simple Lie algebras, the cohomology of tilting modules and the theories of fusion and tensor categories.
DANIEL STECK, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 2001; B.S., University of Dayton, 1995. Dr. Steck works in experimental optical physics, including investigations of quantum chaos, quantum transport, and decoherence in atom optics. His work addresses fundamental questions at the border between classical and quantum mechanics. Daniel also has significant accomplishments in theoretical optical physics, including investigations of continuous quantum measurement and feedback control of atomic motion in cavity quantum electrodynamics.
REGINA BAKER, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., A.M., A.M., B.S., University of Michigan, 2002, 1993, 1992, 1983. Dr. Baker is a specialist in international relations. Her research involves the interdisciplinary study of the political economy of international trade and finance, with a particular focus on relations between developing countries and the developed world. She also has published work in statistics, where she has a special interest in time series analysis.
ERIC MCGHEE, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., University of California, Berkeley, 2003, 1998; B.A., Stanford University, 1995. Dr. McGhee studies U.S. Politics, Congress, elections, and public opinion. He is currently researching the role of national politics in elections to the House of Representatives, as well as differences between men and women in how and when they run for Congress. Future projects include comparing the Canadian Parliament and the U.S. Congress, and examining why incumbent members of the House hold such a large advantage over their opponents on election day.
CRAIG PARSONS, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., University of California, Berkeley, 1999, 1994; C.E.P., Institut d’Études Politiques, Paris, France, 1993; B.A., Stanford University, 1992. Dr. Parsons is interested in the construction and evolution of modern Europe. His first book, A Certain Idea of Europe (Cornell University Press, 2003; winner of the Alger Prize in International Organization from the International Studies Association), argued that today's European Union reflects the victory of one elite ideological movement over a wide range of historical alternatives. His future research will focus mainly on European democratization, both within the current EU framework and in national polities in the 19th century.
SCOTT FREY, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Cornell University, 1993; Ed.M., Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1988; B.A., Utica College of Syracuse University, 1987. Dr. Frey is a cognitive neuroscientist who is studying how perceptual information and representations of past experiences are used to guide complex action in natural environments. He uses state-of-the-art brain imaging techniques as well as behavioral methods to investigate the selection, planning and execution of actions involved in the use of tools by normal subjects and neurological patients. Dr. Frey is the recipient of a Research Career Scientist award from NIMH and was a Research Associate Professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Dartmouth before joining the UO faculty.
CLIFFORD KENTROS, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., New York University, 1996; B.A., New College of the University of South Florida, 1988. For the past several years, Dr. Kentros has worked at Colombia University as a Research Scientist. Dr. Kentros investigates the processes involved in acquiring and retaining memory for the spatial layout of a new environment. In particular, he studies the organization and functioning of space cells in the mouse hippocampus and investigates the extent that the stability of an animal's representation of space is related to attentional or motivational state.
SANJAY SRIVASTAVA, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 2002; B.A., Northwestern University, 1995. Dr. Srivastava studies the dynamic interplay between personality and social contexts, with a particular focus on emotion. He is interested in the changes that take place in personality during adulthood and in the processes that affect how people view themselves and others. Sanjay was a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University prior to his arrival at the UO.
MICHAEL AGUILERA, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., State University of New York, 1999, 1995; B.S., University of California at Irvine, 1994. Dr. Aguilera has been a postdoctoral Fellow at both Rice University and SUNY Stony Brook. His research interests include social networks and economic behavior, labor markets, immigration, and ethnic relations. He has published extensively on topics such as international migration and U.S.-Mexico border issues.
DOUGLAS D. READY, Assistant Professor (quantitative data analysis, politics and sociology of education). B.M.E., 1990, Ohio State; M.Ed., 1997, Virginia; Ph.D., 2004, Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Ready joins the college from the University of Michigan where he completed his Ph.D. in sociological foundations of education. He currently teaches courses in quantitative data analysis and the politics and sociology of education. Research focuses on educational stratification and the role of schooling in social and economic reproduction. Recent work investigates the influence of school social and academic organization on educational opportunity and access. Two books are forthcoming examining high school reform, and, reporting race and social class gaps in early elementary school academic achievement.