URBANA-CHAMPAIGN SENATE MEETING
December 9, 2002
12/09/02-01 The minutes of the November 4, 2002, Senate meeting were approved as written. SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Senator Robert Fossum (LAS), Chair of the Senate Executive Committee (SEC), moved that today's Executive Session be considered immediately after Questions/Discussion; the motion passed by voice vote. Dr. Fossum moved that any agenda items whose consideration is not concluded today be placed on the February 17, 2003, Senate agenda under Old Business; the motion was approved by voice vote. Senator Fossum moved that floor privileges be extended to Emeritus Professor Belden Fields (History), Visiting Associate Professor Carl Estabrook (Sociology), and Ali Ammoura, ISG assembly member, to speak to RS.03.01. Senator H. George Friedman (ENGR) objected to the Senate providing a forum for non-Senate members to express their political views; he urged senators to vote against providing floor privileges to these individuals. Senator Al Kagan (LIBR), speaking in favor of floor privileges for Drs. Fields and Estabrook, responded that, as experts in their respective disciplines, they are able to provide thoughtful commentary on the subject at hand. Senator Felipe Hillard (CBA) provided a similar defense for Mr. Ammoura. By show of hands (48-43), floor privileges were approved for these individuals. Senator Fossum moved, without objection, that floor privileges be extended to Brian Colgan, ISG assembly member, to speak to EP.02.26. Dr. Fossum announced that the following senators have agreed to serve as tellers: Rolando Romero (LAS), Barclay Jones (ENGR), Leslie Phinney (ENGR), and Terry Weech (LISC). CHANCELLOR'S REMARKS
Dr. Herman reported to the assembly that the results of the recent GEO election will be certified on December 11. Provost Herman then asked Krystal Fitzpatrick, Police Captain in the Division of Public Safety, to update the Senate on the investigation into a series of recent assaults on campus. Captain Fitzpatrick reported that a person was apprehended on November 29 who fit the description of the assailant in a number of the campus assaults, but not all of them. She urged all present to continue to take appropriate safeguards and report suspicious activity and non-working street lights to her office. The Provost then turned the podium over to Vice-Chancellor for Research Charles Zukoski, to speak to a few initiatives within his portfolio. Dr. Zukoski began by talking about well-known projects, such as the Post-Genomic Institute (PGI), as well as programs such as the Critical Research Initiatives, Scholars Travel Fund, Research Scholars' Program, and others. He reminded the Senate that research takes place in all disciplines. The Vice-Chancellor cited the growing importance of "engagement" and described the limitless opportunities for cross-disciplinary endeavors. He welcomed any questions or comments. QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
There were none. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Senate approved a motion to enter Executive Session for purposes of discussing honorary degree nominations. The Senate exited Executive Session at 3:45 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA
The Provost announced that the following proposal was approved by unanimous consent: 12/09/02-02 SC.03.04*, Deadline for Filing Nominations for the Faculty Advisory Committee. PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
12/09/02-03 Dr. Herman presented for action CC.03.06*, Nominations for Membership on Standing Committees of the Senate. Senator John Prussing (ENGR), Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees, moved approval of the nomination. There were no floor nominations and nominations were declared closed. 12/09/02-04 By voice vote, CC.03.06 was approved. 12/09/02-05 The Presiding Officer presented for action CC.03.07*, Nominations for Membership on the Research Policy Committee. Senator Prussing moved approval of the slate of nominees. There were no floor nominations and nominations were declared closed. 12/09/02-06 By voice vote, CC.03.07 was approved. 12/09/02-07 Provost Herman presented for action SC.03.05*, Approval of the Campus Budget Oversight Committee (CBOC) Nomination Slate. Senator Fossum, Chair of the Senate Executive Committee, moved approval of the slate of nominees. In accord with procedures approved by the Senate, floor nominations were not in order. 12/09/02-08 By voice vote, the slate was approved. 12/09/02-09 The Provost presented for action GP.03.01*, Code of Conduct. Senator Richard Schacht (LAS), Chair of the Senate Committee on General University Policy (GUP), after directing the Senate's attention to the explanatory background materials included with the proposal, moved its approval. 12/09/02-10 By voice vote, GP.03.01 was approved. 12/09/02-11 Dr. Herman presented for action RS.03.01*, Resolution Against War with Iraq. Senator Joseph Finnerty (CBA) called for a point of order, indicating that he believed consideration of this item was outside the objects of the Senate. He requested that the Presiding Officer rule on this matter. The Provost ruled that consideration of RS.03.01 was within the parameters of the business of the Senate. Senator Finnerty appealed the Provost's decision. By show of hands (66-37), the decision of the Presiding Officer was upheld. Senator Al Kagan (LIBR), co-sponsor of the resolution, described his rationale for presenting this item for Senate debate and vote at this time. He explained that other universities are considering or have passed similar resolutions, as have at least 22 American cities. Senator Kagan moved approval of the resolution. Senator James Campion (ACES) expressed his strong opposition to the measure because he believed it contained specious reasoning and distortions of facts. He added that the language contained in the second resolution was tantamount to sedition. Senator Schacht stated his personal opposition to a possible conflict with Iraq, but he added that he also opposes any Senate resolution on the matter. He encouraged fellow senators to vote against this resolution. Belden Fields, Emeritus Professor of History, delivered the following prepared remarks: "What is the university? Under what conditions can the university survive as a university and under what conditions does it cease being a true university? Universities have ceased being so under certain external political conditions (e.g., the conversion of the fine German universities into institutions in the service of the Nazi empire). The university is a universalistic knowledge-seeking institution and community. The knowledge it seeks is both cognitive and moral. It is concerned with understanding our physical and social universe and probing the ethical implications of such understanding. The phenomena it studies are universal, even though some of the manifestations of them in the social universe display specific cultural characteristics. Indeed, the members of the university community come from all over the world and demonstrate those cultural variations. The university accepts, even seeks, that cultural variation as it seeks out people on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and motivation to participate in this universal search for knowledge. The most beneficial environment for such a universalistic endeavor is a world-wide peaceful one. War impedes the universalistic mission of the university. Sometimes nations have little choice about engaging in war. While pacifists might be right in holding that under no conditions is it ethical for a nation to make war regardless of the impact on institutions such as universities, others argue that certain extreme conditions (for example, defending against attack) could justify war. But this is not what we are facing today. Today we are facing the possibility of:
1. an attack on a nation that has not attacked us,
2. such attack being clearly presented to us as the opening shot in a global strategy of "preemption" which clearly violates international law and a variety of human rights. As a graduate student, I myself benefited from a dissertation grant under the National Defense Education Act. Will future graduate students benefit from a National Offense Education Act? If so, the costs to universities will be great. They will include the following:
1. A restriction of the pool of possible members of the university community. This is happening with Iranian scholars and students right now. This undercuts the universalism of the university.
2. Surveillance of select people within our university community based upon
(a) their nationality, ethnicity, religion or
(b) their politics Cold War measures (e.g., loyalty oaths, dismissals, people of conscience leaving the university like political science Prof. Mulford Sibley) of the 1940s and 50s, and COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 70s including the FBI framing and the firing of Prof. Morris Starsky at Arizona State University in 1970. Administrators will be pressured into complicity both by the government and their Boards of Trustees. 3. What federal funds that will still be allocated to the university will likely be targeted to areas with military application. This will distort the cognitive and moral missions of the university. We have already added a new mission-in addition to teaching, research, and service-economic development. Will we add yet another, military development, and put ourselves completely at the service of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against? 4. The more we sell/lend ourselves to that, willingly or through government coercion, the more we will be seen as tools of a formally declared military empire. Our devotion to universalistic understanding and our moral high ground will be destroyed. 5. Our technical and training importance to the imperial enterprise will not go unnoticed by those who will seek violent revenge. As members of this intellectual community, an important foundation of our civil society, we should make our collective voices heard." Dr. Carl Estabrook, Visiting Associate Professor of Sociology, delivered the following prepared remarks: "I appreciate the chance to speak in support of the resolution proposed by Professors Kagan and Barrett. One of the best historians I know says that the first question to ask about any human affair is cui bono? Who profits? Whose interests are being served?  No serious observer believes that Iraq is now a threat to the US or even to its neighbors, as the resolution points out. Even if it were, generations of international law are shredded -- knowingly and intentionally -- when the US takes vigilante action. It's generally recognized that the motives for this war are, first, the US government's desire for control over Iraq's oil resources - the consolidation and extension of its control over the world's greatest geopolitical prize, Mideast energy -- and not simply for American use but because of the control those resources grant over competing economies in Europe and East Asia. Nine eleven provided a pretext for the resort to force, not only by the US, but also by Russia, China, Indonesia, Israel and many others. But the casualness with which the Bush Administration proposes mass murder is amazing. To paraphrase James Connolly, "One great source of the strength [of hegemonic powers] has ever been their willingness to kill in defense of their power and privileges. Let their power be once attacked either by foreign foes or by domestic revolutionaries, and at once we see the rulers prepared to kill and kill and kill. The readiness [of dominant polities] to order killing, the small value [they have] ever set upon human life, is in marked contrast to the reluctance of all [true] revolutionaries to shed blood."  The second great reason for this war is the Administration's need to divert the attention of the US populace from what is being done to them at home, where war and deficits are constructed excuses for cut-backs in social support. The recent elections showed the success of this vicious policy. The US should support -- not hinder -- UNSC Resolution 687, which calls for disarming Iraq through inspections. Its Article 14 -- usually excised when this resolution from the end of the Gulf War is mentioned -- calls for regional disarmament.  It is surely appropriate that this Senate consider the Kagan/Barrett resolution -- especially on the eve of International Human Rights Day. Corporate bodies across the country are expressing the general skepticism about this war. For example, The Ann Arbor City Council last Monday approved a resolution opposing the war, with specific mention of the importance of local governments' voicing opinions that get no coverage in the press. The mayor condemned TV and newspaper reporting and said that the Ann Arbor resolution -- and those of some two dozen other cities -- help to counterbalance the lopsided media view that there is no opposition to the Administration's rush to war. We're told that the US populace supports the President, and given the media's efforts to convince them to do so, that's not surprising. But in a recent congressional campaign in this district, I found a remarkable amount of disquiet about, and opposition to, this war. Noam Chomsky, who knows something about objecting to US policies, has said that the level of dissent is higher in this country now than at any time during the Vietnam War. Then it was news; now it's not. It's worthwhile for the Senate to express the discretion of our community." Senator Friedman expressed his displeasure with the inflammatory rhetoric in evidence on both sides of this argument. He recapitulated his earlier position that consideration of this matter has no business on the Senate floor. Senator Joshua McClure (GRAD) thought that reference to a relatively small number of colleges and cities that are considering or have passed such resolutions is meaningless. He advised senators to be careful what they go on record as supporting or opposing. Senator Norm Denzin (COMM) could not understand how anyone could think that this was not a matter for the Senate to consider. He declared that politics should not be kept out of the classroom or any other academic venue. Senator Nicholas Burbules (EDUC) agreed with some of the sentiments expressed in the resolution. However, because he did not accept some of the arguments embedded in it, he stated he would vote against it. Senator Emily Watts (LAS) thought the form of the resolution was less than ideal, and that it raises questions without providing answers. A motion to close debate was approved by voice vote. 12/09/02-12 By show of hands (35-57), RS.03.01 was defeated. ACADEMIC CALENDAR REPORTS
12/09/02-13 Provost Richard Herman presented for information EP.03.05*, Report of Information on the Academic Calendar. Senator Peter Mortensen (LAS), Chair of the Senate Committee on Educational Policy, briefly described the background of this informational report on issues related to the academic calendar. He pointed out the various constituencies, on and off-campus, that have been consulted in these matters. 12/09/02-14 The Provost presented for action EP.02.26*, 2005-2006 Academic Calendar. Senator Mortensen, in light of the Senate's receipt of the informational report above, which spelled out the need for units to plan events a few years out, as well as the due diligence with which the Educational Policy Committee worked to consider alternatives to the calendar, as charged by the Senate last year, moved approval of this proposed calendar. Senator Mark Roszkowski (CBA) thanked the Educational Policy Committee for their thorough efforts to consider alternatives to existing calendar policies. He voiced his continuing opposition to the policy requiring the fall semester to begin 13 weeks before Thanksgiving week and proposed a later start date for the fall. Senator Friedman admitted that the calendar and its policies were not perfect, but he thought it was important for the Senate to at least adopt the 2005-2006 calendar now and allow the Educational Policy Committee to continue working on improving calendar policies. Senator Hillard asked the Presiding Officer to determine if a quorum was present. A count of the tellers indicated that there were 66 senators present, short of the quorum of 100. The meeting was declared adjourned at 5:00 p.m. As previously agreed to, consideration of EP.02.26 will continue at the February 17, 2003, Senate meeting, under Old Business. A motion was made and approved for the Senate to convene as a Committee of the Whole for purposes of receiving the informational reports remaining on the agenda. 12/09/02-15 SP.03.06*, Revisions to the Bylaws, Part D.1. (b) - Senate Executive Committee Membership,
12/09/02-16 AB.03.01*, Update on the Academics of Student Athletes at the University of Illinois,
12/09/02-17 SC.03.06*, Report of the November 14 BOT Meeting,
12/09/02-18 HE.03.04*, Report of the November 1 FAC/IBHE Meeting,
12/09/02-19 UC.03.02*, Report of the October 25 USC Meeting. Senator Joseph Finnerty (CBA), Chair of the Senate Committee on University Statutes and Senate Procedures (USSP), directed the attention of senators to the survey appended to SP.03.06. He urged senators to think about how they might want to respond to this instrument, and he pointed out the different methods of returning it (hand to tellers, mail to Senate Office, or e-mail the Senate Clerk). Senator Burbules expressed his opinion that the survey should possibly include an Option #4, indicating that all committee chairs are now invited to all Senate Executive Committee (SEC) meetings and most attend on a regular basis. A motion was approved for the Senate to Rise and Report for purposes of exiting the Committee of the Whole. The meeting was concluded at 5:10 p.m.
Robert C. Damrau, Senate Clerk
*Filed with the Senate Clerk and incorporated by reference in these Minutes.