Minutes of the University Assembly Meeting October 24, 2003


(Note: The fall term University Assembly meeting is held in conjunction with Convocation)





President Dave Frohnmayer welcomed everyone to the fall meeting of the University Assembly and Fall Convocation.  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 for convocation: 


Virgil C. Boekelheide, Professor of Chemistry

Kenneth A. Erickson, Professor, College of Education

David G. Foster, Professor of Art

LeRoy H. Klemm, Professor of Chemistry

Wolfgang A. Leppmann, Professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures

Lawrence C. Maves, Jr., Associate Professor of Music

Arthur Mittman, Professor, College of Education

Jesse L. Puckett, Professor of Physical Education

Emory F. Via, Professor and Director, Labor Education and Research Center

Christof A. Wegelin, Professor of English. 

Shirley J.Wilson, Professor and Dean of Students


After listing those tenure-related faculty members know to have passed away, and providing a brief summary of their contributions to the university, he asked for a standing moment of silence in their memory.  (See Addendum A for memorial listings.  The secretary also notes receipt of the annual Faculty Personnel Report for inclusion with these minutes as Addendum B.)




The president opened his remarks by recalling the monumental scientific work of professor George Streisinger with zebrafish on our campus.  He noted that professor Streisinger looked beyond what seemed not to be possible and persevered in his beliefs and with his ideas.  The president noted that we, too, must continue to see what is possible, even in the face of naysayers.  Mr. Frohnmayer continued his remarks by noting the many bright spots in his 10-year presidency as well as a few disappointments.  He noted with pride the recent opening of the new Lillis Business Complex and the upcoming meeting of the prestigious AAU members on our campus.  Finally, invoking the words of former UO President Frank Strong, who declared that the university should be “the center of the intellectual life of the state”, President Frohnmayer encouraged the faculty to be dedicated to their individual tasks, assuring them that they, like Streisinger, are just as capable of unlocking the secrets of life and of radiating “streams of influence touching every part of the commonwealth.”  (See Addendum C for full text of the president’s remarks.)




University Senate Vice President W. Andrew Marcus, standing in for Senate President Lowell Bowditch, who was unable to attend, welcomed everyone to the beginning of the new academic year, especially the new faculty members.  Noting that although research is one of the three main functions of faculty at AAU institutions, he wanted to focus his comments on the experience of teaching and service at the University of Oregon.  Mr. Marcus attested to a source of pleasure for him at the UO, namely, the way in which staff, students, and faculty work collaboratively to create a supportive, active and exciting learning environment.


Mr. Marcus reminded the assembled group of the rich liberal arts tradition of the University of Oregon displays, and what such an environment contributes to faculty lives as teachers.  He noted several personal experiences that he felt certain new faculty would experience as well: that students, faculty, and staff take great pleasure in teaching and learning, and that this attitude fosters an ethos of camaraderie and shared endeavor that was different from any other institution at which he had worked.  Mr. Marcus did not want to trivialized problems that the university has so much as expresses his believe that there are concerted, joint efforts by the campus community as a whole to address issues and problems that arise.


Lastly, Mr. Marcus encouraged the new faculty members to take full advantage of the rich teaching support resources available to them, and, over time, to become active participants in the campus system of shared governance.  He concluded his remarks with a warm welcome to the university.




Provost John Moseley and his personal welcome to everyone, especially the new faculty members.  He commented on the high quality of the newly arrived faculty members, touting the strength their credentials.  He called on each of the deans and department heads to introduce new members of their schools, colleges and departments, noting a short biography of the new tenure-related faculty members was included with the convocation program.  He also reminded everyone of the reception for the new faculty members immediately following the faculty processional (See Addendum E for text of the new faculty biographies.)



Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty




ADDENDUM AMemorials for tenured faculty members known to the university who have passed away during the past academic year (2002-2003).


·       Kenneth A. Erickson, Died April 4, 2003. Professor, College of Education.   Professor Erickson joined the UO in 1967 as director of the Field Training and Service Bureau in the College of Education.  Erickson’s impact on public schools in Oregon was far reaching.  He received a Distinguished Service Award from the American Association of School Administrators.  After retirement, he continued to write books and remained active in his church.  Colleagues, family, and friends have established the Ken Erickson Memorial Scholarship in memory of his leadership and his ongoing commitment to students and professional educators.

·       Arthur Mittman, Died May 14, 2003.  Professor College of Education.  Professor Mittman was recruited in 1963 from the University of Iowa to a joint appointment by the UO Department of English and the College of Education Education Psychology Program.  Mittman was one of the early developers and co-founders of the American College Testing Program (ACT College Entrance Exam).  On campus he was a leader in designing and delivering the college’s research and statistical sequence for graduate students in a manner that made this content accessible and useable.  A caring professor and mentor, he offered his expertise related to statistics and research design to many graduate students conducting quality theses and dissertations.  He retired in 1987.



ADDENDUM B – Faculty Personnel Committee Annual Report for 2002-2003


Faculty Personnel Committee


Report to the Senate


The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) has now completed its work for the 2002-2003 academic year. The FPC consists of ten elected faculty members and two student representatives (when possible). The faculty members each have one vote and the students are non-voting participants in the deliberative process. Five faculty are chosen from the College of Arts and Sciences and five from various professional schools. The faculty on this year's committee were: Dare Baldwin (Psychology), Tom Bivins (Journalism and Communication), Dianne Dugaw (English), Tom Dyke (Chemistry), Mark Johnson (Philosophy), Randall Moore (Music), Chris Phillips (Mathematics), Ying Tan (Art), Jim Terborg (Business), James Tice (Architecture). Mark Johnson served as Chair of the FPC, and the one student representative was Mena Ravassipour.


During the 2002-2003 academic year, the FPC advised the Provost on thirty-six cases involving tenure and/or promotion. The breakdown of the cases was as follows:


Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure                      18

Tenure Only                                                                                 4

Promotion to Professor                                                     13

Senior Instructor with Tenure                                                           1


The FPC held seventeen meetings during the current academic year, each lasting from one and one-half to two and one-half hours. In addition, each faculty member spent approximately two to three hours per week reading files. Each member was responsible for writing the FPC report on three to four cases, which required a substantial additional time commitment beyond merely reading a file.


Most of the files were very well prepared, adhering strictly to the guidelines found in two key sources: (1) A 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, which would remedy many of the problems encountered by the FPC each year in evaluating the files.


Every year the FPC Final Report includes a litany of complaints about the preparation of files plus pleas for strict adherence to guidelines. This year's FPC is no different in this respect. We have singled out the following issues for special attention, based on specific problems we encountered with a small number of the files we were reviewing.


·       Every professional school that has a separate promotion and tenure document should include a copy of it in the file. Because standards for research quantity and quality may vary across fields and disciplines, it is crucial to have an explicit statement of expectations and standards for research, as well as for teaching and service. These standards should be applied in a consistent fashion for all cases within a specific department, college, or school, and they should be consistent with university-wide guidelines.


·       University guidelines specify a maximum of six to seven letters from outside reviewers. We believe that 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. This year we saw the number of external letters range from four to ten or more.


·       It is important to explain the reputation of any schools and programs of the external reviewers, within the candidate's field(s). It should be made clear why the reviewer is qualified to evaluate the candidate's work.


·       The same materials for review should be sent to all of the reviewers, unless there is a compelling reason for not doing so, in which case an explanation for the difference should be given in the Department Head's evaluation letter.


·       Ample time for a considered response from external reviewers is crucial. The FPC recommends a minimum of two months (and preferably longer) between the receipt of materials and the deadline for the reviewer's report. We noted one case in which the period between the date of the letter requesting the review and the deadline for the review was less than a month!


·       The FPC noted more than one occasion when there was an obvious discrepancy between the assessment of external reviewers and that of the candidate's department or school. When this occurs, the reasons for this should be addressed by the Department Committee and/or Department Head's letter. Deficiencies and strengths alike should be examined.


·       Connections between the candidate and external reviewers should be explained in detail, minimally in brief statements identifying the reviewers, but also, if appropriate, in the Department evaluation. Some units did an outstanding job of this, while others left us speculating, without evidence to resolve our doubt.


·       Each evaluating unit (especially at the department level) should give explicit guidance concerning the significance, if any, of the ordering of authors for publications and grants. Also, the extent of the candidate's contribution to publications and grants should be clarified


·       Each department should provide an explanation of the relative weighting to be given to various types of publications, such as peer-reviewed book chapters, peer-reviewed articles, non-peer-reviewed articles, peer-reviewed conference proceedings, extended abstracts, and so forth. The FPC members cannot be expected to know these weightings for areas outside their fields.


·       In support of the previous three comments above, we strongly recommend that each department supply a list of publications (separate from that provided in the c.v.) from the date of appointment or last promotion that (a) classifies each publication according to such categories as: peer-reviewed article, scholarly monograph, peer-reviewed book chapter, refereed conference proceedings, textbook, non-refereed article, etc., and (b) indicates (with an underline or asterisk) faculty co-authors.


·       It should be made clear in the Department Committee evaluation how we are to regard various types of books listed by the candidate. First, are they research books, textbooks, or some other kind of scholarly publication? Second, what is the department, school, or college's policy on the relative weighting of scholarly research monographs versus textbooks? Third, to what extent are books of various types to be considered scholarly or creative activity? It should be made clear on the c.v. which books are primarily textbooks, and when appropriate, information about such books should be included in the teaching section of the file.


·       It is extremely useful to have an account of how courses are grouped by various departments and schools in calculating teaching averages and comparing them to department means.


In closing, the members of the FPC once again wish to express their gratitude for the excellent work of Ms. Carol White. Her efficient and highly professional handling of the details and mechanics of the processing of the files helped us do our job better and kept us on track. Carol cracks the whip with a gentle hand.



ADDENDUM C – State of the University Address – President Dave Frohnmayer



October 24, 2003


Dave Frohnmayer, President

University of Oregon




Thank you.  Foundation Trustees, Colleagues and Honored Guests.  This is the address you may remember as “The Zebrafish Talk.” I would guess – perhaps even bet – that no other college or university president in America – let’s say the world – will offer a beginning of the year talk to faculty, staff and guests that will be entitled “The Zebrafish Talk”, perhaps for good reason – not withstanding this 50th anniversary of Crick and Watson’s elucidation of the DNA double helix, and the dawn of the Age of Biology – but we’ll see.


Let’s look at the Zebrafish, because I believe that the zebrafish – Danio rerio – and its story at the University of Oregon, says a great deal about where and what this university is.  Zebrafish, Danio rerio, are freshwater fish that were originally found in slow streams and rice paddies and in the Ganges River in East India and Burma. They were brought to the University of Oregon by George Streisinger.  George Streisinger is rightly considered by his peers to be the founding giant of zebrafish research. At the end of his life, his evolving research focused on how genetic mutations affect nervous system development in lower vertebrates.  Dr. Streisinger’s research made major and lasting contributions in deciphering the genetic code, understanding the nature of frameshift mutations and the structure of the T4 phage genome.


He dreamed of using the power of the same molecular principles to study the genetics and development of a vertebrate. As a fish hobbyist who knew how easy it was to raise and maintain zebrafish, he began using it as a model system. The fish was small enough to keep the large numbers required for genetic studies and large enough to do classical embryological manipulations such as transplantations.  It also was especially suited to this work because the zebrafish female carries its embryo outside its body and the embryo is transparent, therefore allowing scientists to observe the development of life in a fertilized egg from the very first cell division. Its genome is humblingly similar to homo sapiens.  It is an extraordinarily powerful investigative tool and it was brilliant of Streisinger to have selected it as his model organism.


And, more than 15 years before Dolly the Scottish sheep achieved fame, zebrafish had been cloned here at this University – the first vertebrates to be cloned in the history of science.  This was a daring step and Streisinger was keenly aware of the skepticism of some of his colleagues.  He had waited ten years to publish his very first zebrafish paper in the eminent journal, Nature.  It took courage, confidence and commitment to carry forward with his work.


Following Dr. Streisinger’s untimely death in 1984 from a cardiac arrest while preparing for his scuba diving certification, his lab members strove to keep his research progressing. In a letter written one week later, one of his postdocs, David Jonah Grunwald, describes the loss to the lab. "Our lab and the Institute were very devoted to George. He extended an enormous amount of enthusiasm and support for our work and for our personal lives. George had very broad interests that spanned beyond the borders of his expertise. Virtually all members of the Institute (of Molecular Biology) discussed, sporadically or often, their scientific results with him. His range of interests, his willingness to reflect on the activities of others, and his generous spirit combined to make him a central force in guiding and maintaining the communal atmosphere of the Institute."


Fortunately for the future of zebrafish research, Dr. Charles Kimmel, a professor in the Institute of Neuroscience, who had been encouraged by Dr. Streisinger to work with zebrafish, stepped in to "adopt" the lab and to continue the work in developmental genetics.  George Streisinger’s research legacy is still being carried on by his colleagues at the University of Oregon. These include the labs of Drs. Charles Kimmel, Monte Westerfield, Judith Eisen, and John Postlethwait.  Today, the  Zebrafish International Resource Center main facility measures 10,000 square feet. There are four additional research laboratories and a significant data base facility for zebrafish-related research.  


Professor Streisinger’s proven use of the zebrafish in research has spread to 350 developmental and genetics labs in more than 30 countries.  At least one has produced a Nobel Prize winner.  Many of the mutant strains produced in the Streisinger Lab are still alive and well in labs throughout the world and are being used to help provide answers to human and animal health issues, therapies for genetic diseases, mechanisms for understanding human life processes at their core – and providing a well-deserved legacy for a true pioneer.  During the course of his scientific career, Dr. Streisinger was given several prestigious awards. He was a Guggenheim Fellow in 1972.  In 1975, after being at the University of Oregon for 15 years, he was selected as a member of the National Academy of Sciences, making him only the second Oregonian to receive this distinction.


And now, as many of you may have read in the full-page article in the Oregonian science section on Wednesday, we have just received grants totaling $15 million from the National Institutes of Health to expand the Zebrafish International Resource Center -- $8 million for our database from the National Human Genome Research Institute and $7 million for the stock center from the National Center for Research Resources.  We will double the size of our staff to 40 and be able to meet better the needs of the researchers working around the world on zebrafish projects.  The number of NIH-supported projects in the United States alone has increased from fewer than 25 to more than 200 in the past decade.




Why, you may have been asking yourselves for the past several minutes, am I learning more about an animal called a zebrafish than I will ever use for the rest of my life?  One easy response is that convocations such as this draw richness from recalling cultural legends and saluting the heroic paths of daring discovery.  But I also believe that history is prologue, that what has been done sets a tone for what can and will be done.


In 1925, long before any of the current challenges facing Oregon could even be dreamed of, the acerbic journalist from Baltimore, H.L. Mencken had some rather dour observations about our state: “Oregon,” he wrote, “is seldom heard of. Its people … hold that all radicals should be lynched. It has no poets and no statesmen.”  I believe Mr. Mencken’s overview of the state was – perhaps a bit of an overgeneralization - even at the time.  Today, most would argue that at least some change has taken place.


Yet, it always is a struggle for any people to put bias aside, respect the beliefs of others, and bring forth men and women who by their words and actions can truly be called statesmen.  It is a struggle in which higher education – and specifically for Oregon, the University of Oregon – has played a vital and historic role.  Granted, looking back is, at times, of dubious value.  Ambrose Bierce in his “Devil’s Dictionary,” defined history as: “An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.”  But others have seen the value of history – its means of enlightening, however imperfectly, the future by means of seeing the past: its ability to inspire future deeds by example of past ones; its connection with the men and women of the past, with their accomplishments (and their failures); and its ability to clear the windshield to the future, if you will, via the vision offered through the rearview mirror.  “History,” wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., “by putting crisis in perspective, supplies the antidote to every generation’s illusion that its own problems are uniquely oppressive.”


One hundred years ago Frank Strong was president of the University of Oregon.  Shortly after becoming president in 1899, President Strong made a forceful statement on what the life of a university may or may not become: “The state university,” he said, “if it fulfills its function, must become the center of the intellectual life of the state. It has no right to exist unless it becomes the center of power from which radiates streams of influence touching every part of the commonwealth.”  He was saying, in effect, that the university – this university – must play its role in history, within the state and beyond.  George Streisinger and his zebrafish are but one example of that role.   And hard times do not get us off the hook – no pun intended.




I have only been president of the University of Oregon for 10 years – a short time in the now 127-year history of this university – but a long enough time to understand both the ways in which we have fulfilled that challenge laid down by Frank Strong – and the ongoing challenges inherent in “radiating those streams of influence touching every part of the commonwealth.”  In those 10 years.  I have seen growth on this campus unprecedented since the 1920s – growth directly connected to the quality of the education we offer.  I have seen competitively awarded research grants increase from what could kindly be called “modest amounts” to this year’s $78 million.  I have seen professors in mathematics, sociology, history, languages, economics, biology and many other fields push themselves to create innovative classes that stretch the minds of their students and set examples for their fellow teachers.  I have seen the quality of our incoming freshmen improve continuously as we attract more of the best and the brightest.  I have seen the Oregon Campaign, the state’s largest fundraising drive ever, raise more than $255 million for student scholarships, endowed chairs, and building and renovation projects.  Each of these things moves us closer to that ability to “touch every part of the commonwealth.”


But I also have seen the downside, the wrenching disappointments born of larger failures in vision and wisdom.  I have seen state dollars dwindle to the point that we can no longer truthfully call ourselves a “state supported university,” but rather a “state assisted” one, and sadly, perhaps only “state located.”  I have seen some of our faculty following the understandable promise of higher rewards and greater investment in their areas of interest to other campuses.  I have seen the rising cost of education creating hardships for students and families as they struggle to open that door of promise that is higher education.  I have seen the long-term good of the commonwealth traded for short-term economic and political gain.


In spite of these challenges, the good outweighs the bad. Not, I believe, because of luck or good fortune. Rather because of commitment – exemplified by George Streisinger -- that enables each one of us here to look beyond the naysayers, to look beyond “conventional wisdom,” to look beyond the current “bad climate” . . . and in so looking to see what potential lies in whatever your own zebrafish – your own passion - may be.




At the start of this year, several groups of administrators and faculty gathered to discuss the coming year. In those discussions we looked seriously and realistically at the challenges and opportunities that lie before us.  I’d like to share a composite of some of the thoughts that came from these gatherings. 


In approaching the financial challenges of this biennium, we are in a qualitatively different situation from some of our sister institutions because of the strength and nature of our enrollment; the variety of our financial resources; the strength of our capital campaign; and the prudent fiscal management practices put in place in anticipation of this biennium.  We have in our faculty, staff and students all the resources we need in terms of people; thus we have "capacity" to get through this biennium without loss of the quality that is a distinguishing characteristic of the UO.  We have some unique characteristics: our size, our beauty, our collaborative nature and sense of welcome, and our commitment to transforming lives through knowledge.  This year we are welcoming a new class that is smaller by design but is the strongest academically and most diverse ethnically that we ever have enrolled.  Our administration makes an effort to be responsive; to protect and enhance the teaching environment; to acquire and manage the resources to finance the vision and mission of the institution.  Our faculty is instinctively collaborative, welcoming, and simultaneously searching for and creating a deep sense of shared community.




Earlier today in a ribbon cutting ceremony we opened the UO’s new Lillis Business Complex.  The $41-million Lillis Business Complex, more than a year and a half in construction, is already being lauded for its bold design, energy-saving features and state-of-the-art, innovative instructional capabilities.  This beautifully elegant 145,000-square-foot complex is fronted by a four-story atrium that features scores of photovoltaic panels, which will generate a portion of the facility's electricity needs. Carefully positioned classrooms and offices will be used almost year-round without electric lighting.  In the best recycling tradition of Oregon, materials salvaged from the site's previous building were used, along with certified hardwoods and other sustainable resources.


But the Lillis Business Complex's most significant design features are those that will foster the high-quality experiential learning and small-group instruction for which the College is increasingly recognized. Flexible class spaces and small-group team project rooms are a strong departure from the mammoth lecture halls that characterize many other major university business schools.  But this is not just a business school.  Because of our traditions of collaboration, almost twenty percent of our university classes will now be taught in what, quite literally, is the world’s most modern learning facility.


Perhaps just as impressive for Oregon taxpayers is the fact that the Complex has been funded almost entirely with private gifts, the most prominent of which was a $14 million donation from MediaOne Group Chairman Chuck Lillis, who earned a Ph.D. from the UO business college in 1972. He and his wife, Gwen—honored guests with us today--led a fund-raising effort that has generated some $39 million in private support.


This is how we are growing – through that same enthusiasm and dedication that George Streisinger represented, only now through others who care that we “radiate those streams of influence touching every part of the commonwealth.”  We aim high . . . and we already have brought in more than $200 million in private funding in the silent phase of our next major capital campaign.  I will be back to you before the end of the term with the final details on campaign priorities.  I thank all of you who have been involved for the work you have done to move it forward.  You will see the fruits of your labors.




As you may know, the University of Oregon is a member of the AAU – the Association of American Universities.  Its 63 members are North America’s premiere research institutions.  For us, our membership in the AAU is a point of pride.  We are in the company of such other institutions as Harvard, the University of Chicago, the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of North Carolina. In the nine states that loosely define the northwest corner of the United States, the University of Washington is the only other member of the AAU.  This places us among the elite universities in the nation. But with that placement comes a challenge – the challenge to live up to the calling of the AAU, its focus on high standards and substantial contribution to knowledge discovery that makes a difference in human lives.


In two days, the University of Oregon will host the annual national meeting of the AAU. As such, we will have a chance to show member presidents and chancellors what makes us both proud and sure of our future.  In the life of any university, but especially one facing the challenges we do today, stress can become a debilitating factor. It can eat away at the edges or strike at the heart of the work we do.  It is a corrosive pathogen.  But just as stress and its effects can be contagious, so can enthusiasm, excitement, and the inner spark that moves us to our best.  George Streisinger and the zebrafish are one representation – one model -- for how that spark has been and is still realized the University of Oregon:  Multitudes of “zebrafish programs” thrive at the University of Oregon.  I said that George Streisinger’s story might be a cultural ritual.  But that was a facile answer.  It was and is much more! 


A story that repeats cultural legends gives you a ritual of respect and is worth recounting.  A story that goes beyond repetition and retells and reassembles the vision of a group is a source of renewal and therefore an inspiration to growth.  But a story that celebrates new insights and a soaring vision is a story that is transformative for both the individuals involved and the institutions they serve.  This is why the zebrafish story ought to be important for us.  It may be one way to explain a paradox I have shared with you before: the University simultaneously is one of our society’s last surviving medieval institutions and, when it serves its highest function, is one of our society’s most revolutionary modern ones.


The Zebrafish story celebrates the transformation that can happen at a university -- a transformation replete with innovative new ideas replicated in the minds and lives of other people -- the dogged persistence in pursuit of an understanding of life – the unselfish mentorship of students and fellow colleagues – and the raw excitement in the joy of discovery.  From the social sciences and the arts, the professional schools to the laboratories, we are achieving that goal proclaimed by President Strong more than 100 years ago.




At the early part of the 20th century – only a few years after those remarks by Frank Strong, a former university president, Woodrow Wilson, had the following thought:  “America,” he said, “is not anything if it consists of each of us. It is only something if it consists of all of us.” All of us – Oregonians and beyond – must continue to strive for and practice this sense of “all of us.”  For 127 years, the University of Oregon has struggled to play its role, to lead, to offer hope and careers – poets and statesmen – to fulfill its function as “the center of the intellectual life of the state.”  This is why you and I are here – this is why we are the University of Oregon.


If you do, in fact, remember this speech as “the zebrafish talk,” please remember that the work each one of you do is, in effect, your own zebrafish because you, too, are unlocking the secrets of life.  That is what this university does.  A poet unlocks truths about life that may affect us as profoundly as those a molecular biologist discovers.  A legal scholar probes the genesis and interpretation of social rules that determine whether people in a civilized society can live peaceably with each other.  A social scientist looks for the patterns of human behavior that help us understand how life is experienced and changed in groups and under governments.  An art historian helps us to understand life better by seeing how human spiritual quests are reflected in tangible objects or the arrangements of shapes and colors.  All of these things can be done with the same intensity, same dedication and purpose, and the same flowering of both expected and unexpected consequences as flowed from George Streisinger’s purchase of a zebrafish in a pet store in Portland three decades ago.  They may not be as dramatic as the present receipt of $15 million in research support, but they may bear equally on our understanding of the human condition.  All of us, if we are dedicated to our tasks, are just as capable of unlocking the secrets of life and of radiating those special and powerful “streams of influence touching every part of the commonwealth.”


Thank you.



ADDENDUM D – Welcome Remarks from the University Senate Vice President W. Andrew Marcus (Note: University Senate President Lowell Bowditch was unable to attend the meeting.)


Convocation remarks by W. Andrew Marcus

October 24, 2003


I am here today to welcome you on behalf of the University Senate, which is the elected body representing students, staff and faculty at the University of Oregon.  Lowell Bowditch, the President of the Senate, sends her regrets that she could not be here, and adds her warm welcome to my remarks.

While I want to welcome ALL of you to the university, I want to place special emphasis on welcoming faculty to this assembly, and especially those of you who are new faculty.  I myself am a relatively recent addition to the university, having been here just two years.  As such, I can both empathize with the transition that you are making as new faculty, and reflect on special qualities at Oregon you may find set it apart from your experiences at other institutions. 

Like all major public, liberal arts universities, we focus our work lives on the triumvirate of teaching, scholarship, and service – no surprise to you I am sure.  And, like the other 61 members of the Association of American Universities, which represent the cream of the crop in terms of research, and produce approximately 2/3 of all Ph.D. degrees in the nation, there are many examples of brilliant scholarship taking place at the University of Oregon.  But today I want to concentrate my welcoming remarks on experiences that are common to all faculty, staff, and students, regardless of college, discipline, or subfield – that is, the experience of teaching and service at the University of Oregon.

As a faculty member, and having taught at four other pubic universities, I can attest that one of the real sources of pleasurable surprise at Oregon has been the way in which staff, students and faculty work collaboratively to create a supportive, active and exciting learning environment.  These words are often mouthed by administrators at other institutions I have attended, to the point where it can be hard to take such pronouncements seriously.  But I am here as a fellow faculty member to say that there ARE differences at Oregon that truly set it apart.  One could go through a long recitation of programs, activities, and student data to make this point, but I want to focus on three recent and personal experiences that have captured – for me – much of the essence of what makes teaching at Oregon a cut above the rest.

Just this Monday, I was brought to a halt in front of 200 1st year students, when asked a question that I could not even begin to answer (which, perhaps, comes as no surprise to those of you who know me)  But I was surprised –

o      surprised because the question had been thought of on the spot by a student applying complex concepts I had just presented

o      surprised because the question revealed a deep knowledge of variations around the world

o      and surprised because this is a course I have taught for 20 years, with no student ever before raising this point,, including students at two other AAU universities that will go unnamed.

My point from this experience, and other recent ones like it, is that as a new faculty member at UO you can expect to be pushed by students in a very positive manner, and pushed beyond what you may have experienced in other public institutions.  As a quasi-new faculty member myself, I have found the transition to teaching the students at Oregon to be, intellectually stimulating, at times daunting, and always motivating.  Much of the enthusiasm for teaching that pervades the hallways of this university relates directly to the students – we need to be passionate about teaching simply to keep up with them.

My second experience, also this week, reminded me of the rich liberal arts tradition of the University of Oregon and what it contributes to our lives as teachers.  I found myself advising a new student who is leaving a successful 8 year career as a computer analyst to embark on a graduate program structured around restoring streams.  What struck me was that this student had intentionally shied away from Oregon State – which, on paper at least, seems the more immediately obvious place for studying stream work that often falls in the category of engineering.  But this student, a now ex-computer analyst, had chosen UO precisely because we ARE a liberal arts school.  He wanted to learn not only about the mechanics of restoring streams, but also about the humanistic traditions that are critical to understanding how people characterize, use, and relate to streams and nature.  Without understanding this humanistic component, he knew that his elegant plans might well fall on deaf ears.  Personally, I was also taken by the rich symbolism of his decision.  Beavers, after all, are the greatest dam builders on earth.  He knew that to undo the damage done by Beavers, one had to become Duck.

My third experience relates to teaching a College Connections class last year.  College Connections classes are small seminars for 1st year students offered to help individuals make the transition to university life.  As I experienced this class, however, I quickly became aware that I was probably learning more from the experience than the students (although I felt they too gained a great deal from it).  To put it in crude terms, expressed so eloquently 5 years ago by my then 13 year old daughter, I discovered that I am QUOTE Terminally out of touch END QUOTE.  This pronouncement occasioned by my asking who that voice on the radio was.  When told it was Britney Spears, I made the fatal error of saying “Who?”

Fortunately, my College Connections students were kinder and gentler in their treatment of me.  But the reality remained, that as I worked one-on-one with then, talking about their aspirations, hearing their concerns, I realized that my aspirations and concerns had perhaps become too far removed from those of this generation of incoming students.  This discovery has since reverberated into my other classes, where I am now trying to re-pitch my materials to a generation that – contrary to the prevailing stereotype – is, I believe, far more socially engaged than mine ever was.

I take several lessons from these examples. 

o      One is that students, faculty, and staff take great pleasure in teaching and learning, and that this attitude fosters an ethos of camaraderie and shared endeavor that is different than any other institution at which I have worked.  The words – “We value teaching” – are not just words at the University of Oregon. 

o      A second is that the liberal arts tradition is alive and thriving, and that regardless of our field of specialization, we need to maintain an individual commitment to helping our students perceive the value of and engage in a classically broad education.  As a new faculty member, this has influenced how I advise students, the materials I teach, and the goals I set for my work.

o      The third is that we have remarkable tools available to us for teaching and that these tools may transform us as much or more than the students.  Whether it be College Connections, Freshman Interest Groups, Pathways, the Student Teacher Effectiveness Program, or one of the many other teaching/learning activities on campus, I encourage you to participate.  As new faculty, you will find that these activities enrich your lives.

I have to say, however, that I would be remiss if I pretended that everything were perfect at Oregon.  In particular, as faculty or students new to the joys of the quarter system, are any of you waking up at two in the morning, thinking “It’s not possible! I can’t believe it! We’re almost halfway through the term!  I’ll never finish…”  To those of you encountering the gout-like pangs of mid-quarteritis, I offer these reassuring words.  Faculty who have been here 30 years are waking up thinking “I can’t believe it!  We’re almost halfway through the quarter…”  New faculty – you are not alone.  Some view this as frazzling.  I prefer to think of it as… energizing.

Finally, much of what makes the teaching and learning environment so supportive at Oregon is an intangible that I have never before encountered at a large public university – a remarkable sense of community within the campus.  This sense of shared mission amidst diverse perspectives comes from many sources, with shared governance being perhaps the most important source of all.  There is remarkable work going on behind the scenes at this university – work being done by faculty, students, classified staff, and administrators.  This work is carried out by the 27 Standing Committees of the Senate, the 16 Administrative Advisory Groups, and the 8 Externally Mandated Boards, not to mention short-term task forces, internal committees, and working groups.  Policies, recommendations, and actions coming from these committees provide the framework for all aspects of university life, ranging from ensuring our commitment to diversity to overseeing curriculum changes.  But just as most of us don’t think very consciously about the structure of the buildings we are in – I believe most of us are not conscious of how much work is being done on our behalf by these many groups.  

As new faculty, or new students, or new staff, I ask that you consider how you might contribute to the continuation of this structure – to  making sure that this sense of shared community continues into the future.  This is all the more critical in present times, when fiscal constraints and the need for rapid change are pushing Oregon – and all public universities – into uncharted waters.  We literally have no guideposts or obvious existing models for how a public university should evolve in order to respond to, and lead, the world around us.  How do we maintain diversity at all levels, when escalating costs place limits on access to the academy?  How should we interact with the private sector to replace lost public revenues – or if we should at all in certain circumstances?  Should curricula respond to a workplace changing by the day?  These decisions, and many more, are upon us now.  And decisions we make now will reverberate far into the future.  By your participation, you can therefore help mold the future at Oregon for many years to come.  Never has there been a time when it is more critical to have the diversity of your thoughts, experiences, and imagination at work on behalf of our university.  Please join us in this endeavor.

Lastly, word are words, and you may think it is easy for me or administrators to stand up here and heap laudatory praise upon the university.  But actions say far more.  What you will find at Oregon is an action that – to my mind -overwhelms any other indicator of our deeply we believe in the quality of this institution.  That action is the sending of our daughters, our sons, our loved ones, to this very institution, despite the fact that they had a host of universities from which to choose. My daughter, the one who told me I am terminally out of touch, is now taking first year classes - but not from me.  As I look across the stage and out at the floor, I see many other parents whose loved ones are attending or have graduated from Oregon.  We are all proud that our children are here.  We are proud of them and their accomplishments, but also proud that we work in an institution which we regard so highly that we entrust to its care, the people most precious to us.

To this special place called the University of Oregon, I bid you welcome. 



ADDENDUM E – New Tenure-Related Faculty Members for 2003-2004





Lamia Karim, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Rice University, 2001; M.A., University of Michigan, 1993; B.A., Brandeis University, 1984.  Professor Karim’s research interests include globalization, postcolonial feminism, Islam, NGOs and civil society in South Asia.  She is currently working on two invited academic projects, "Asian Nationalisms" and "Feminisms and NGOs” as well as a book manuscript titled, Development and Its Discontents: NGOs, Women and the Politics of Social Mobilization in Bangladesh.



Darren Johnson, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley, 2000; B.S., University of Texas at Austin, 1996.  Professor Johnson and his group use the new tools of self-assembly and supramolecular chemistry in guiding smaller molecular units to form three-dimensional nanoscale cage molecules that can completely surround smaller "guest" molecules.  Nature uses a similar strategy to protect viral RNA inside large protein cages, to store iron inside of the protein ferritin, and to catalyze important reactions in enzymes.  With this as inspiration, they work to synthesize improved agents for sensing and cleaning-up a variety of toxic metals and to develop synthetic enzymes to act as new reaction catalysts.



Jenifer Presto, Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Russian; Ph.D., M.A., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1996, 1989; B.A., Smith College, 1985.  Professor Presto has published several essays on Russian Modernism in Russian Literature, Slavic and East European Journal, and the Cambridge History of Women’s Writing in Russia, with another article forthcoming in Slavic Review. Her book on gender and Russian Modernism, Beyond the Flesh: Alexander Blok, Zinaida Gippius, and the Symbolist Sublimation of Sex, will appear soon with the University of Wisconsin Press.



David Bradley, Associate Professor; M.A., University of London, 1974; B.A., University of Pennsylvania, 1972.  Professor Bradley is the author of two novels, South Street (1975) and The Chaneysville Incident (1981) that  was awarded the 1982 PEN/Faulkner Award and an Academy Award from the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters.  Since 1985 he has worked primarily in the emerging field of Creative Non-Fiction.  A recipient of fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts, he is currently completing a non-fiction book, The Bondage Hypothesis: Meditations on Race, History and America.



Robin McKnight, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002; B.A., Amherst College, 1995.  Dr. McKnight's research focuses on the economics of health insurance, especially the government's role in health insurance markets.  For example, her work has considered the incentives and consequences of different Medicare provider reimbursement policies.  In addition, she has examined explanations for trends in employee contributions to employer-provided health insurance.



Michael Aronson, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 2002, 1997; B.A., Pennsylvania State University, 1990.  Professor Aronson is an expert in film studies coming to the Oregon from the University of Pittsburgh, where he wrote his dissertation on, Nickels & Dimes: The Movies in a ‘Rampantly American’ City, 1914-23. As this title makes clear, Mike is interested in archival research in film history; he also has strong interests in production background and new media.


Sara Guyer, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 2003;  Ph.D., M.A., University of California, Berkeley, 2001, 1999; M.A., University of Warwick, 1996; B.A., Brandeis University, 1994.  Professor Guyer is an expert in British and Continental Romanticism, Philosophy and Literature, Rhetoric and Literary Theory, and Post-Holocaust Literatures.  Her more recent work focuses on the relation between poetry and ethics in the Romantic period and beyond as can be gathered from the title of her Irvine dissertation: Surviving Figures: Romantic Rhetoric and Post-Holocaust Writing.


David Vazquez, Assistant Professor (Acting); M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1998; B.A., University of South Florida, 1988.  David Vazquez is an expert in Latino/Latina literature. He comes to Oregon from the University of California at Santa Barbara, from which he will receive his Ph.D. this December. His work concentrates on the ways in which autobiographical and other Latino/a writings that focus on selfhood tend to be less expressions of individual identities than entry points into the formation of communities.



Ted Toadvine, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy; Ph.D., M.A., The University of Memphis, 1996, 1995; B.A., Salisbury University, 1990.  Ted Toadvine's specialization is in 19th and 20th century Continental philosophy, the history of the philosophy of nature, and contemporary environmental philosophy. He has a particular interest in the application of phenomenology and post-structuralism to environmental issues. His current research concerns the development of the concept of life in 20th century French thought.



Brian Klopotek, Assistant Professor (Acting) of Ethnic Studies and Anthropology; B.A., Yale University, 1994.  Brian will receive his Ph.D. this fall from the American Studies Program at the University of Minnesota.  His research interests include Native American histories and cultures, Southeastern Indians, federal recognition policy, Indian education, gender, and cinema.  His dissertation assesses the impact of federal recognition policy on three central Louisiana Indian tribes.



David Schmidt, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 2002; B.S., University of California, San Diego, 1997.  David employs satellite-based remote sensing techniques to observe and quantify deformation of the Earth's crust at a variety of scales, from individual basins to entire continental margins. This work has applications to the study of Earth resources such as groundwater, seismic and volcanic geological hazards, and the changing configuration of the Earth's crustal plates due to tectonic forces.



Deborah Green, Assistant Professor of Judaic Studies and Religious Studies; Ph.D., M.A., University of Chicago, 2003, 1997; B.A., Brandeis University, 1984.  Deborah Green is expert in Biblical Hebrew language and literature and late antique Jewish texts; she is also experienced in archaeology.  Her dissertation, "Soothing Odors: The Transformation of Scent in Ancient Israelite and Ancient Jewish Literature," explores the ways in which the language and imagery of the biblical Song of Songs was transformed by rabbinic midrashic literature.  It also sheds light on the uses of spices and incense in ancient Israelite religious practice.




Marcin Bownik, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., Washington University in St. Louis, 2000, 1997; Magister in Mathematics, University of Warsaw, Poland, 1995.  Bownik’s areas of interest include analysis and wavelets.  Bownik joins us after completing a postdoc at University of Michigan.


Bernhard Krötz, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of Erlangen, 1998; M.A., Technical University of Darmstadt, 1995; B.A., Technical University of Munich, 1993.  Areas of interest include harmonic analysis.  Krötz joins us after an extensive postdoc at Ohio State and was recently awarded a prestigious Heisenberg Fellowship.


Alexander Polishchuk, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Harvard University, 1996; M.S., Moscow State University, 1993.  Polishchuk’s areas of interest include homological algebra, algebraic geometry and representation theory.  Polishchuk is currently a Sloan Research Fellow.



Bonnie Mann, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., State University of New York, 2002; B.A., Portland State University, 1983.  Bonnie Mann is a feminist philosopher working mostly out of the continental tradition.  She is concerned with the viability of feminist philosophies of freedom after the postmodern turn, and with resisting the elevation of discourse over the material (understood broadly as the bodily, the spatial, and the social/economic).  Other areas of interest include aesthetics, environmental philosophy, and Latin American philosophies of liberation.


Beata Stawarska, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., M.A., B.A., University of Louvain, 2000, 1994, 1992.  Beata’s main research interests lie in the fields of phenomenology, philosophical psychology and feminist theory. She is especially interested in issues relating to embodiment and social cognition and has published mainly on Merleau-Ponty and Sartre and contemporary empirical work in psychology.



Joseph Lowndes, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., New School University, 2003; M.A., New School for Social Research, 1996; B.A., Antioch College, 1990. Joseph E. Lowndes received his Ph.D. in September 2003 from New School University (formerly New School for Social Research), where he wrote a dissertation entitled The Southern Origins of Modern Conservatism, 1945-1976.  He has published articles on George Wallace and southern populism, film and antistatism in late twentieth century America, and African-American politics.  Professor Lowndes will teach courses on a variety of topics in American politics, including the Presidency, Race, and Political Culture. 



David Wacks, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 2003; M.A., Boston College, 1997; A.B., Columbia University, 1991. David Wacks specializes in Medieval Iberian Literature.  He is preparing a book-length study on the Castilian, Hebrew and Arabic frametale literature of Medieval Iberia.  He has presented numerous talks on questions such as the representation of minority languages in Medieval literature and the interplay between Castilian, Hebrew and Arabic cultures both as they coexisted on the peninsula and as they are mutually represented in fictional and poetic texts.  He is co-editor of a forthcoming volume of essays titled, Wine, Women and Song:  Hebrew and Arabic Literature in Medieval Iberia.




Toby Koenigsberg,  Assistant Professor of Jazz Piano, Associate Director of Jazz Studies. M.M., Eastman School of Music, 2003; B.M. University of Oregon.  While at the Eastman School of Music, Professor Koenigsberg received the Schirmer Award for outstanding graduate jazz performer.  He studied at the Peabody Conservatory with pianist Ann Schein after double-majoring in jazz studies and piano performance at the UO.  In addition to performing, he has written many compositions and has scholarly and pedagogical writings published in Jazz Educators Journal.  His forthcoming CD, to be released in 2004, features saxophonist Rich Perry, bassist Ike Sturm, and drummer Ted Poor.


Phyllis Paul, Assistant Professor, Music Education.  Ph.D., 2003, and M.A., 1990, Florida State University; B.A., 1983, Lenoir-Rhynes College.  Dr. Paul taught courses in elementary music methods, classroom management, psychology of music, and children's literature prior to her appointment at Oregon.  She has elementary school general music teaching experience as well as ten years experience with rural, at-risk, and university laboratory school populations.  Her areas of research include children's emotional responses to music, music teacher preparation and continuing education, and music learning partnerships.  Additionally, Professor Paul is active as a clinician, presenting numerous workshops.


Ian Quinn, Assistant Professor (music theory). Ph.D., 2002, M.A., 1998, Eastman School of Music; B.A., 1993, Columbia.  Dr. Quinn comes to the UO from the University of Chicago, where he held a postdoctoral fellowship in music theory.  An avid supporter of new concert music, Ian has been involved with composition, performance, and production for the ensembles Ossia and Alarm Will Sound, with whom he has recorded for the Nonesuch and Cantaloupe labels.  Some recent scholarly projects include a study of Steve Reich's harmonic language, a translation of an essay by Gyorgy Ligeti on form in new music, a series of lectures addressing the characterization of tonal theory as "the grammar of music," and an extended philosophical and mathematical treatment of the taxonomy of atonal harmonies.






Lisa Bryant, CPA, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 1999, University of Colorado at Boulder; B.S., 1995, Chapman University.  Professor Bryant’s research interests are on the use of financial accounting information by investors and regulators. She has published articles in the Journal of Accounting and Economics and the Review of Accounting Studies and taught at The Ohio State University.



Grant Castner, Assistant Professor, L.L.B., 1998, Queensland; Ph.D. (pending), Queensland; B. Com., 1994, Queensland.  Professor Castner spent the previous six years teaching at The University of Queensland, Australia.  His research interests include technology adoption and diffusion, accounting information systems, electronic commerce, and information-technology infrastructure best practices.  He has publications in the Information Systems Journal, the ICAA monograph series and others.  Grant is an active member of the Association for Information Systems special interest group on accounting information systems.


Nagesh Murthy, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 1997, M.A. 1994, and M.S., 1988, The Ohio State University; M.M.S., 1983, and B.E., 1982, Birla Institute of Technology and Science.  Dr. Murthy is interested in empirical and normative research at the interface of operations, marketing, and engineering design.  His key areas of interdisciplinary research include supply chain management, revenue management, new product development, and operations planning and control.  He has held faculty positions at Georgia Institute of Technology and Michigan State University.




John Godek, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 2003, University of Michigan; MBA, 1993, University of Houston - Clear Lake; B.S. 1987, US Coast Guard Academy.  Professor Godek conducts research on consumer decision processes and human judgment, product design, and the role of e-technology in marketing.  He also has ten years experience as a Coast Guard officer and has founded two high tech startup companies. At the Lundquist College of Business he teaches courses in new product development and consumer behavior.


Susan Golicic, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 2003, and MBA, 1997, University of Tennessee; B.S., 1989, Wayne State University.  Dr. Golicic does research on the interface between marketing and supply chain management, and on sales forecasting practices.  She has seven years of industry experience in environmental management and supply chain management. She was also associate director of the Supply Chain Forum at the University of Tennessee.



Roberto Gutierrez, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 1999, University of North Carolina; B.S., 1992, Tulane University.  Professor Gutierrez’s research focuses on the pricings of stocks and bonds, the informational efficiency of the financial markets, and the efficacy of trading strategies.  He has been published in the Journal of Business and the Journal of Finance, and has taught at Texas A&M University.


Jon Reuter, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 2002, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; B.A., 1995, Johns Hopkins University.  Dr. Reuter’s research focuses on the allocation of shares in initial public offerings of common stock, known as IPOs, and the influence of advertising and the media on mutual fund investors.





Krista Chronister, Assistant Professor, B.S., 1992, University of Florida; M.S., 2000, University of Oregon; Ph.D., University of Oregon, 2003.  Dr. Chronister’s research focuses on a broad range of issues related to domestic violence including: battered women’s economic and career development; treatment interventions with perpetrators of domestic abuse; and community mental health interventions with ethnic minority and immigrant families experiencing domestic violence.  Her career intervention research with battered women has won recognition from the American Psychology Association.






Jessica Greene, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., 2003, New York University; M.P.H., 1996, Columbia University; B.A., 1989, University of Michigan.  Professor Greene’s research interests include access and quality of health care, in particular for vulnerable populations; chronic illness self-management; the impact of managed care on consumers and providers, as well as research methods for evaluating public and nonprofit programs.  She has published article about collaborative interdisciplinary team education, and use of preventive care services, beneficiary characteristics, and Medicare HMO performance in addition to reports analyzing primary care practitioner capacity. 



Kingston Heath, Associate Professor, Ph.D. and M.A., Brown University; M.A. University of Chicago; B.A., Lake Forest College.  Dr. Heath comes from a multidisciplinary background with graduate degrees in Art History and American Studies.  His previous work experience includes serving as the State Architectural Historian for the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, directing historical interpretation at Mystic Seaport, Connecticut, and teaching at Montana State University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Dr. Heath's research interests include vernacular architecture of the American West, New England worker's housing, American building construction history, and vernacular architecture theory. His recent book, The Patina of Place: The Cultural Weathering of a New England Industrial Landscape, won several national awards.



Kevin H. Jones, Assistant Professor, Multimedia Design. M.F.A., 2000, Yale University; M.F.A., 1995, University  of Texas – Austin; B.F.A., 1992, Virginia Commonwealth University.  Professor Jones works as a designer and artist blurring the distinction between these two fields.  He has been focusing his studio work (research) on interactive installations that question our understanding of the physical world and seek to undermined scientific authority.  Kevin has exhibited throughout the United States and Asia and his work has been featured in ID Magazine, Idea Magazine, Neural Online (www.neural.it) and The New York Times. Most recently Kevin has exhibited his work at Lump Gallery in Raleigh, NC, Artists Space in New York City, The University of the Philippines in Quezon City, and on-line at Le Musee di-visioniste (www.le-musee-divisioniste.org).





Valerie S. Terry, assistant professor (public relations, lobbying and public affairs, international public relations). B.A., 1982, M.S. 1989, Texas, Austin; Ph.D., 1998, Purdue. (2003).  Professor Terry served as a Fulbright Scholar in the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan, where she lectured on public relations to educational institutions and media organizations; helped develop public relations curricula for area educators. She has been a member of the faculties at Oklahoma State and at Boston University. Her professional experience includes service as a lobbyist, a campaign manager in Texas politics, a political consultant, and as an account executive with a worldwide advertising agency.





Andrea Coles-Bjerre, Assistant Professor, J.D., 1987. Brooklyn Law; New York bar, 1988; B.A., 1984, Barnard.  Before joining the UO faculty, Andrea Coles Bjerre practiced for seven years with the Wall Street law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, where she represented corporate debtors, lenders and acquirors in a variety of complex Chapter 11 and other insolvency matters.  Her experience also includes two years as law clerk for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jerome Feller, Eastern District of New York, and her teaching areas are creditors’ right, bankruptcy law, and civil procedure.


Thomas G. Lininger; B.A., 1988, Yale; J.D., 1991, Harvard. Professor Lininger worked as a federal prosecutor in various cities, and also as a litigation attorney with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom in San Francisco. He also served as a county commissioner in Lane County, Oregon, and as chair of the Lane School Boards Association. In September 2003, Governor Ted Kulongoski appointed him to serve as the acting chair of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, which writes Oregon's sentencing guidelines and formulates criminal justice policy for the state. He has drafted bills for both the U.S. Congress and the Oregon Legislature. Professor Lininger's teaches evidence, criminal law, and legal ethics, and his research interests focus on the federal criminal justice system.


Judd F. Sneirson, B.A., 1992, Williams; J.D., 1996, Pennsylvania (Coif). Professor Sneirson teaches corporations law and contracts. Before joining the faculty he clerked for U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas in the District of New Jersey, then practiced litigation in New York City with Willkie Farr & Gallagher. His practice involved mostly corporate and securities matters, and his scholarship focuses on the intersection of corporate and contract law. His research interests lie in the field of corporations law.


See also Faculty Personnel Committee Report for 2002/3.
Web page spun on 21 June 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises