From: Duane Windsor
To: SEN-FAC@rice.edu
Subject: Senate notice (faculty plenary meeting; faculty survey; information links)
Dear Faculty Colleagues,
A petitioned special plenary meeting of the faculty is now scheduled for December 10 (3-5 pm) in McMurtry Auditorium (Duncan Hall). Information concerning order of business will be sent out as soon as finalized.
Various non-confidential documents or links concerning the potential merger can be found at three websites:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/rice/ [you must be on campus to access]
http://staff.rice.edu/staff/RiceBaylor_Home.asp
http://preparingfuturefacultyatrice.blogspot.com/2009/10/links-on-proposed-ricebaylor-merger.html
Duane Windsor
Speaker, Faculty Senate
The following resolution was introduced:
ReplyDeletePreamble (from the V2C):
"As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this mission by cultivating a diverse community of learning and discovery that produces leaders across the spectrum of human endeavor".
Resolution:
For several decades, the Rice Faculty, Administration, and Board of Trustees have shared a common vision for the University. This shared vision has empowered us to steadily advance the quality and impact of our research enterprises while maintaining our core commitment to unequaled undergraduate education. We, the Faculty of Rice University, believe that merging with Baylor College of Medicine poses unnecessary and unacceptable risks to the University, and is incompatible with the vision that has served us so well. We reaffirm our commitment to this longstanding vision, and to the aspiration to stand among the world's greatest universities.
The resolution did not pass; the vote was 59:61. President Leebron, Provost Levy, Vice Provost Coleman, and Vice Provost Quillen, in an unusual action, asserted their right to vote as faculty members and voted against the resolution.
See http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/12/14/rice
ReplyDeleteThe description, in the comment above, of the resolution and the vote left an important element out of the story. A very prominent faculty member spoke up and framed the resolution as a vote of no-confidence in the Administration. This means that the president and his top team essentially voted to express confidence in themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe minutes of the meeting are here: http://www.professor.rice.edu/professor/December_10,_2009.asp?SnID=1959459137
ReplyDeleteQuoting: "Neal Lane said that he felt that this resolution was not as strong a statement as the survey commissioned by the Faculty Senate. He said the resolution will be seen by some individuals as a vote of “no confidence” in the Faculty Senate and in the Rice administration. Lane said that he had not decided if he was for or against the merger, but he felt that the resolution was not necessary."
So it was Neal Lane who turned an anti-merger motion into a no-confidence motion. This seems to have backfired, making the President vote against a virtual "no-confidence" motion.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite possible, however, that without Neal Lane's no-confidence argument the motion would have passed. After all, the recent Senate-sponsored faculty survey showed that 50% of the faculty oppose the merger, and only 39% support the merger.
ReplyDeleteThat is not the full picture. A majority of the faculty supports the merger if the conditions assumed by the Rice Administration are met. See http://www.staff.rice.edu/staff/RiceBaylor_FAQ.asp?SnID=949251051
ReplyDeleteThis is not the full picture either. Only 53% of the Rice faculty support the merger assuming the conditions are met. That is a very weak level of support for the Rice Administration's best-case scenario.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most significant question in the survey is "How confident are you that the Rice-BCM merger would be implemented effectively?"
ReplyDeleteThe response to this question is 49% negative and only only 35% positive. Neal Lane raised the confidence issue. This question answers it.
These leaks are ridiculous. The Senate might as well release the survey. It is not really clear why it is confidential
ReplyDelete