PUBLICATIONS Inside Illinois Vol. 20, No. 17, April 5, 2001

Senate votes to establish committee to advise on research policy

Craig Chamberlain, News Bureau Staff Writer
(217) 333-2894; cdchambe@illinois.edu

For years, various committees and commissions of the Urbana-Champaign Senate have recommended that the senate should have its own committee on research policy.

It finally made a move in that direction at its March 19 meeting.

The new Research Policy Committee, approved by a 55-35 vote, will not be a senate committee. Instead, it will be a campus committee appointed by the vice chancellor for research – but mostly from senate nominations or after consultation with the senate.

The committee will advise the chancellor, the vice chancellor for research, and the senate on matters of research policy.

The votes that established the new committee came in the context of more than an hour of debate, in which senators voiced their support or opposition to two alternative proposals and various proposed amendments.

One proposal, from the senate’s Committee on University Statutes and Senate Procedures (USSP), would have established a senate committee on research policy. But it was a substitute proposal, sponsored by Senate Council chair Robert Rich, that the senate approved.

The debate started with several senators voicing their opposition to the substitute proposal, among them H. George Friedman and Geneva Belford, both professors of computer science. Friedman’s argument was that past cases of forming committees that report to both the senate and administration showed that they simply didn’t work well.

But a number of senators also voiced their support for the substitute proposal, among them Emily Watts, a professor of English, and Nancy O’Brien, a professor of library administration. One point made by several supporters was that the committee could be a positive example of shared governance between the senate and the administration.

Rich said one reason for offering the alternative proposal was that he thought the campus committee – rather than a senate committee – would give the senate a more effective role in deliberations over research policy.

Wes Seitz, a professor of agricultural and consumer economics, noted that there was general consent that a research policy committee was needed, and he thought the substitute proposal was the better of the two. But he also pointed out that the committee could always be changed at a later date if the senate did not feel it was working.

The makeup of the new 16-member committee:

• A chair appointed by the vice chancellor in consultation with the senate.
• A representative from the Campus Research Board, appointed by the vice chancellor, who will serve as a liaison between the board and the committee.
• The dean of the Graduate College.
• Eight faculty members, serving two-year terms, appointed by the vice chancellor from senate nominees. Four will be chosen each year from eight names approved by the senate.
• Two graduate students appointed in the same manner, also with alternating two-year terms. Student senators will be consulted on these nominees.
• Two faculty members appointed directly by the vice chancellor, also with alternating two-year terms.
• One undergraduate student with a one-year term, nominated and selected in a similar fashion to the graduate student members. (The slot of an undergraduate student was not part of Rich’s original proposal, but was approved as an amendment.)
  

In other business, action was suspended on a vote taken Feb. 12 regarding the Campus Research Board. Chancellor Michael Aiken, in his role as chair of the senate meeting, agreed to have the senate reconsider that vote at its next meeting after Peter Loeb, a professor of mathematics – who voted for the motion – raised concerns that several senators misunderstood what they were voting on at the time.

That 50-46 vote called for moving the Campus Research Board from the Graduate College to the province of the vice chancellor for research, along with several other changes.

The senate also voted to eliminate its Committee on External Affairs, through a proposal from USSP. The proposal noted that the Committee on External Affairs had recommended its own elimination in a 1990 report, and had not even reported to the senate since 1995.

During question and discussion time prior to the senate’s main agenda, Harry Hilton, a professor of aeronautical and astronautical engineering, raised an objection to the chancellor’s recent e-mail to faculty and staff members warning against contact with prospective student-athletes. The e-mail was sent after reports that critics of Chief Illiniwek were considering contacting student-athletes to inform them about the Chief controversy and maybe suggest they consider going elsewhere.

Hilton said the e-mail "puts a chilling effect on all we hold dear," including academic freedom and freedom of speech. He urged Aiken to revoke the message or tone it down.

In a prepared statement, Aiken responded that the university "values and defends the principles of free speech and academic freedom" and was not seeking to interfere "with the expression of views regarding matters of public concern."

But he also reiterated concerns raised in the e-mail and urged that faculty and staff members use numerous other means available to influence university policy. "We expect members of the university community to express their viewpoints without violating NCAA rules concerning contacts with prospective student-athletes," he said.

In the wake of the chancellor’s e-mail, the American Civil Liberties Union was expected to file a suit this week challenging the university’s position.