7:00 p.m. | Attendance
7:03 | Report from the Committee on Curricular Policies (CCP) from Academics and Strong: Academics explains that the Committee has been researching peer institutions that administer their Course Evaluation Questionnaires (CEQs) online. The College has been exploring this option with the hope that students would complete the CEQs more thoughtfully at their leisure at home, rather than in the last or second to last day of class. Academics also said that she is on the sub-committee that is looking into team teaching. This year, there are a minimum of 34 team-taught classes; last year there were 42 and the year beforethere were 52. ”The decrease already happened last year,” says Academics.
7:12 | Academics introduces a memorandum which, she explains, attempts to “walk the line between endorsing the sentiment presented in [the letter written by Judy Nichols] last week,” and also clarify inaccuracies, says Academics in reference to the letter that was drafted by Adjunct Associate Professor of English Judy Nichols and presented to the Council on Nov. 22 by representatives from the Campus Solidarity Working Group. During that meeting, members of the Council endorsed the letter in a 16 to 5 vote which followed at least three hours of discussion. “Ms. Nichols’ letter criticized the reductions in tenure lines, adjunct and visiting faculty members, and course sections as a result of the financial crisis,” reads the letter. “The document demonstrated a clear concern for the long-term health of Vassar’s multidisciplinary curriculum, our flexible course offerings, and our retention of excellent scholars and teachers. The Council voted to endorse this letter because we believe these are core properties of a Vassar education that our constituents value deeply.”
“Beyond these sentiments,” it continues, “which earned the support of the majority of Council, we feel it is our responsibility to acknowledge the inaccuracies within Ms. Nichols’ letter. As representatives, deep sympathy with a problematic or a cause cannot be an excuse to avoid the facts. The document presents a problematic interpretation of Vassar’s financial planning. We seek to highlight just some of the instances where the letter marshals false or incomplete evidence to make its case.”
7:25 | Noyes: “I really think we should vote on this letter tonight. We’re not going to agree on every single point of this memorandum, and I think that’s okay. I think that part of the point of this is that we all have different opinions.”
7: 30 | Operations explains that one of the concerns of last week’s endorsement was that constituents weren’t consulted before the Council voted in support of Nichols’ letter. “That’s not really an issue this week,” notes Operations, since the memorandum addresses actions of the Council and therefore only speaks for the Council members themselves, not their constituents.
7:36 | 2010: “It seems a little bit like we’re backpedaling or that we’re criticizing their letter.”
7:43 | According to the letter, the Dean of the Faculty released the information to the Executive Board that to the best of his knowledge 10 fewer sections will be offered next year, a much lower figure than the 30 to 40 estimated earlier this year.
8:00 | Council members propose small amendments to the wording of particular paragraphs or sections of the memorandum.
8:40 | Five-minute recess
8:58 | The Council unanimously endorses the memorandum, which will be sent to the Board of Trustees on Wednesday, Dec. 2.
A copy of the memorandum can be found at the bottom of this post.
9:08 | Allocation of $1000 from Mid Hudson Valley Fund to Hip Hop 101: Motion passes.
9:09 | Allocation of $1295 from Mid Hudson Valley Fund to Town Houses: Motion passes.
9:11 | Allocation of $875 from Great Works Fund to Vassar Public Art Committee: Motion passes.
9:14 | Open Discussion. Council adjourned.
—–
ACADEMICS MEMORANDUM
From: The Vassar Student Association Council
To: The Board of Trustees and Students of Vassar College
Cc: President Catharine Hill, Dean of the Faculty Jonathan Chenette, Dean of Planning and Academic Affairs Rachel Kitzinger, Dean of the College Christopher Roellke, Vice President for Finance and Administration Elizabeth Eismeier, Vice President for Development Cathy Baer, Vice President for Computing and Information Services Bret Ingerman, Vice President for College Relations Susan DeKrey, Chair of the Faculty Policy and Conference Committee Steve Rock
Date: November 29, 2009
We, the VSA Council, wish to elaborate on our 11.22.09 endorsement of the Campus Solidarity Working Group’s letter to the Board of Trustees. The letter, written by Adjunct Associate Professor of English Judy Nichols, was presented to Council by a group of five students. After a heated discussion of nearly four hours, Council voted 15-6 to endorse the document. We seek here to frame this endorsement in the context of our nuanced discussion.
Ms. Nichols’ letter—the second in a series of similar documents—criticized the reductions in tenure lines, adjunct and visiting faculty members, and course sections as a result of the financial crisis. The document demonstrated a clear concern for the long-term health of Vassar’s multidisciplinary curriculum, our flexible course offerings, and our retention of excellent scholars and teachers. The Council voted to endorse this letter because we believe these are core properties of a Vassar education that our constituents value deeply.
Our endorsement of this letter was, to some extent, a reflection of the mood of the student body. Council is comprised of 24 full-time students. We study in every academic department. We compete on varsity athletics teams. We do research with our professors, learn from the life experiences of our staff, and benefit from the multifaceted diversity within our own student body. Council’s views on Vassar parallels the views of our 2,450 constituents. Many Council members felt that they lacked accurate financial information; many felt unsure of the future of their department or their favorite professor; many felt annoyed that, while members of the Executive Board are routinely consulted on confidential financial planning, the broader student community is left in the dark until after decisions have been reached. These feelings, reflected by our 15-6 endorsement, are all reflective of broader concerns on campus.
We also respect the student contingent of the Solidarity Group who attended our meeting. We are their representatives, and it is our responsibility to channel their feelings to the College’s decision-making bodies. Even if we disagree on policy and approach, we applaud these students for caring about our College so deeply. Indeed, a consistent frustration among Council members is that surprisingly few constituents come to us with institutional concerns—unfortunate, in a financial climate inevitably filled with such concerns. We are often discouraged when students are apathetic about the state of the College, and do not seek information easily available through campus-wide e-mails, our VSA site, the Economy site, or The Miscellany News. We admire the commitment of the students in the Solidarity Group and appreciate their efforts to make Vassar a more conscientious, egalitarian institution.
Nevertheless, we harbor no unrealistic expectations that Vassar can remain unchanged. In this economic climate, the VSA Council is fully aware that the curriculum we all value must shrink. So too must our teaching staff. However, as members of the community, we cannot help but feel saddened when our teachers are let go. And as representatives of the student body, we cannot help but agree with the Solidarity Group’s sincere concern for the effect of the financial crisis on academic life and on the lives of community members.
Beyond these sentiments, which earned the support of the majority of Council, we feel it is our responsibility to acknowledge some of the many inaccuracies within Ms. Nichols’ letter. In its accusatory and hyperbolic tone, the document presents a problematic interpretation of Vassar’s careful financial planning. We seek to highlight just some of the instances where the letter marshals false or incomplete evidence to make its case.
The letter makes several inaccurate claims about the staffing and curricula of specific departments. Computer Science will actually be teaching four more course sections next fall compared to this year.[1] Film too will be one course ahead of the level of staffing they requested for 2010-11 because a new tenure-track appointee would have had a reduced course load in the first year.[2] As for the languages, the Dean of the Faculty office has indeed asked that tenure-line faculty members engage in teaching at the 100-level on a regular basis. Students at the 100-level deserve and benefit from contact with our tenured scholars, and our tenure-line faculty benefit from regular engagement with the challenges and rewards of teaching at that level. We disagree with the letter’s implication that this trend is negative. Further, we take issue with the letter’s baseless accusation that the administration has illegally forced faculty members to retire. While the College’s financial situation has no-doubt resulted in some retirement-age faculty feeling pressure to leave the institution, we have no reason to believe that the administration is the source of that pressure.
Most significantly, beyond these specific points, the letter conveys both implicitly and explicitly that decisions have been made by a small group of administrators without regard to community input. This is misleading. While our Senior Officers (most of whom are also teaching faculty) have directed financial planning, students and faculty also had direct input into decision-making. Two elected students—the VSA President and VSA Vice President for Operations—sit as full members on the Priorities and Planning Committee. The members of this group sit as equals, debating the College’s many noble aspirations alongside its financial restraints. The students, faculty, and administrators come together with optimism for what Vassar should be and realism for what Vassar can be. Through this committee, we have had (and continue to have) substantive and specific input into the financial decision-making process. On curricular issues, the VSA Vice President for Academics sits on the Advisory Group for the Allocation of Faculty Resources (AGAFR) and the Committee on Curricular Policies (CCP), and is a vocal advocate for multidisciplinary programs, the reduction of administrative course releases, and the general maintenance of our broad and diverse curriculum. The letter fails to acknowledge the substantive input that students have had into the current financial plan through their elected representatives.
Moreover, the letter implies that Vassar’s financial planning was reached haphazardly—that the senior administration hacked away at the budget without care for the curriculum or respect for the College’s employees. In fact, we recognize that the process was thoughtful and deliberative. Dean of the Faculty Jon Chenette has worked (and continues to work) with departments to ensure that we are making academic reductions in ways that will affect the broader curriculum as little as possible. We recognize that some members of the community, including some members of our own Council, object to staffing decisions in certain areas. However, the Senior Officers, CCP and AGAFR reached these decisions after long and careful consideration. This important work should not be dismissed.
We agree wholeheartedly with the document’s concern for the curriculum, and are pleased that since the Council’s endorsement, the most recent estimates suggest that the curriculum will lose only 10 course sections next fall, rather than the 30 previously estimated. It is important to realize that the damage done to the curriculum by these changes is not nearly as catastrophic as Ms. Nichols’ letter implies. By almost any measure, Vassar’s curriculum will remain flexible and diverse.
We would also like to clarify the conditions under which Council voted to endorse the letter. The members of the Solidarity Group told Council that Ms. Nichols planned to send her letter on Wednesday, November 25. As we later discovered, she did not plan to send it until Wednesday, December 2. This false date essentially prevented us from delaying the vote by one week to consider the motion in greater depth. While we do not believe that we were intentionally misled, this significant miscommunication put pressure on Council to act quickly. Many representatives saw this as a choice between “doing something” to advocate for the curriculum or “doing nothing.” Under this tight timeframe, the majority of Council elected to endorse the document. In some cases, this endorsement was more for the sentiments behind it than for the facts underlying it.
The feelings we express here are nuanced, but the issues facing the College are complex enough that such nuance is required. Unlike the Solidarity Group’s letter, we lack a unified thesis. We are instead left with competing and simultaneous thoughts—irreparable sadness for the loss of professors and staff, concern for our characteristically dynamic curriculum, profound respect for the College’s senior leadership, and a determination to mend our community and build an unshakable foundation for Vassar’s next 150 years.
[1] The following information is drawn largely from the Schedule of Classes and sheds light on the appropriateness of the staffing levels approved for Computer Science. CMPU offered 23 class sections in 2008-09, and is offering 17 this year. Most of the reduction involved cutting back on under-subscribed multi-section courses. CMPU is offering 14 different courses this year, as compared to 16 last year. All areas of the curriculum required for the major are well represented. None of the class sections have reached their maximum size. In 2008-09, 13 of the 23 CMPU course sections had fewer than 10 students; this year only 3 of the 17 have fewer than 10. The total number of students served in this year’s 17 sections exceeds the number served in last year’s 23. Because of these healthier enrollments, the College is adding sections back for next year. The Computer Science department has been approved for 22 teaching equivalencies next year — four more than this year. Note that teaching equivalencies differ slightly from course sections because of the way labs count into faculty teaching loads.
[2] Film is indeed losing a tenured retiree, and that line may indeed be restored in the future. For the short term, the College is replacing all the courses that person would have taught by a combination of other types of appointments. Overall, the department will be one course ahead of the level of staffing they requested for 2010-11 because a new tenure-track appointee would have had a reduced course load in the first year.
