Paper Trail

A university is built of bricks and mortar, flesh and blood, and ideas. But it also constructed from paper. Over the years, countless University commissions and committees have churned out forests-worth of reports and planning documents. Today, one of those groups -- the Commission on Strengthening the Community -- will hold its final open forum, taking suggestions and comments on its preliminary report before presenting its final draft on March 31. The Commission was created by former University President Sheldon Hackney and Interim President Claire Fagin in the wake of last spring's Daily Pennsylvanian theft and 'water buffalo' incidents. Charged with finding a bold new way of creating an enriching, multicultural environment premised on the idea of free expression and civility, the 22-member Commission consists of members of the University's Board of Trustees, faculty, students and staff. It is chaired by Trustee Vice Chairperson Gloria Chisum. After six months of information gathering and discussion, the Commission released its preliminary report in January, recommending changes in almost all aspects of University life, ranging from the student judicial system to changes in freshman housing and intrastaff relations. Interim President Claire Fagin has said she wants the Commission report to be a landmark document in the University's history. But how does the Commission report stack up against earlier reports of the last half century? And why do so many of its recommendations sound all too familiar to faculty and administrators? Here's an overview of the major milestones of University planning in the last 50 years: ·The Educational Survey -- The granddaddy of University planning documents, the Educational Survey was commissioned in 1953, the same year Gaylord Harnwell became University president. It was conducted over the course of six years at a cost of $700,000. Conducted by both internal faculty committees and external review boards, the survey was funded through foundation grants. In its finished version, it consists of 25 studies, bound in five volumes, covering every aspect of the University. After the Educational Survey was released, an 18-member committee composed of Trustees, faculty and senior administrators used the survey to create an Integrated Development Plan. This plan contained projected figures on the size and makeup of the student body, tuition levels, budgets, salaries and called for both an aggressive capital campaign and the physical expansion of campus. The Educational Survey became the guiding document for Harnwell during his 17-year presidency. "Gaylord Harnwell used the [survey] as sort of his Bible," Executive Assistant to the Provost Linda Koons said. "The faculty became more international and the student body did to some extent as well." Koons, who has worked at the University since 1967, co-authored a chapter of the book, "Academic Transformation," with David Goddard, a former University professor, in 1973. The chapter detailed the University's transformation since the late 1940s. Using the survey as a guide, the Harnwell administration increased the diversity of both the faculty, which had previously consisted primarily of older men who were themselves graduates of the University, and the student body, which had been drawn mostly from Northeastern preparatory schools. Following the recommendations of the survey, the University completed its transition from a commuter school to a residential university, Koons said. Much of the survey eventually became embodied in another document released in 1962, the Integrated Development Plan. And under Harnwell, the University spent more than $200 million in new buildings and renovations and increased the endowment by more than $100 million. "[The survey] really changed Penn's impression of itself," Koons said. ·The Report of the Task Force on Governance -- While not fully implemented, this 1970 planning report was responsible for creating the School of Arts and Sciences and several other major changes in the face of the campus. Under the report's recommendations, the College for Women was merged with the all men's College to create the new co-educational school. One of the report's recommendations called for the elimination of the University's four undergraduate schools, consolidating them all into the new SAS. "The plan envisioned all the undergraduate schools in that one school," Koons said. "Wharton, for instance, could offer its undergraduate business courses through the College." Although Koons said the plan was widely debated, this recommendation was never implemented. ·The One University Report -- Released in 1973, the report entitled Pennsylvania: One University was drafted by a joint faculty, administrative committee called the University Development Commission. Over the course of the decade in which it was written, the One University Report became a guiding document for the administration of then-University President Martin Meyerson and his provost, the late Eliot Stellar. Contained in its 20 sections, which occupy 35 pages, were 93 recommendations affecting vast areas of the University's organization and student life. The ultimate idea -- to bring the University's 12 diverse schools and student body together into a more cohesive unit. Among its recommendations on undergraduate education, One University suggested that all freshmen and sophomore students be given the opportunity to take at least one course per term with fewer than 20 students, that living learning and residential college houses be established, and that the University Scholars program be created to give undergraduates a chance to participate in research. It also contains numerous recommendations for increasing the presence of African-American students and faculty on campus through redoubled affirmative action initiatives and increased funding to specialized African-American programming. And the One University report initiated the concept of responsibility budgeting. Under this decentralized budgeting system, each of the 12 schools is responsible for developing their own budgets and contributing to the upkeep of the central administration and commonly used resources. Since the report was released, some have ironically blamed responsibility budgeting for undermining the notion of One University by forcing the schools and budgeting centers to compete for dollars. Others say that the University has come closer to developing an integrated, unified university than any similarly-sized research institution in the country. "We wanted to bring the University closer together and to create a sense of common purpose," said Meyerson, who is still a University professor. "I think we had a great deal of success." Koons said Meyerson placed a great deal of emphasis on undergraduate and graduate education, using the One University report's recommendations to accomplish his goals in these areas. "[One University] set a theme for the whole Meyerson administration," she said. "Meyerson tried to implement as many of the report's recommendations as possible." Meyerson said the Commission report is more narrowly focused than One University, which was designed to build on the Educational Survey and the progress of the Harnwell administration without costing too much. "The times were not right for large expenditures," he said. "With modest expenditures we put the lens on curricular activities, University life activities, admissions of minorities and women, and we tried to be geared toward upgrading the quality of Penn academically and in terms of the campus activities, as well as in terms of organization and administration." ·Choosing Penn's Future -- This document was released in 1983 and came to characterize the early part of former University President Sheldon Hackney's administration, according to University Archives Director Mark Lloyd. Choosing Penn's Future continued to build on the concept of One University, increasing the University's efforts to improve undergraduate and graduate education. It also redoubled affirmative-action programs for both admissions and faculty hiring and instituted an aggressive campaign to build up the University's endowment. Following in the path laid by Choosing Penn's Future, several planning documents of the 1980s helped shape the current structure of the University and frame the debates that continue to this day. The Commission consulted many of these reports in coming up with its recommendations. · Report of the Seminar on the Freshman Experience -- Presenting their findings to the University Council in 1986, this group was one of three specialized committees designed to examine various aspects of undergraduate education. Among its recommendations was that all freshmen be assigned to specialized Freshman Halls and be excluded from living in other College Houses and learning/living programs, including W.E.B. DuBois College House. Some members of the seminar dissented and the recommendation lead to much discussion, Seminar Chairperson and Legal Studies Professor Nicholas Constan said earlier this semester. But ultimately the report's recommendation to exclude freshmen from College Houses and create specialized Freshman Halls was not implemented. Constan added that he was disappointed the recommendation was never acted upon and that the Commission Report's similar recommendation to assign first year students to designated housing would be implemented. · Report of the President's Committee on University Life -- The Commission Report echoes much of this 1990 document, better known in administration circles as the Faust Report, after the Committee's chairperson, History Professor Drew Faust. In its introduction the report laments "proliferating incidents of racial and sexual harrassment, bigotry and incivility." It also states that "many individuals, overwhelmed and often threatened by the scale and unfamiliarity of campus society, have retreated to groups that reproduce their own backgrounds or special interests." The report recommends expanding the curriculum to go beyond courses "focused on the achievements of white men of European origins." It also urges increased hiring of minority faculty members and urges all faculty take a more active part in teaching undergraduates, especially in smaller, seminar settings. And the report advocated further diversification of Locust Walk and increased support for student groups. The Faust Report also stated the need for improved faculty-student, faculty-staff and intrafaculty relations. In this period of discussion over the preliminary report of the Commission on Strengthening the Community, many have asked if the Commission is in the same league as the Survey or One University. Lloyd said he does not think so. While he said the Survey, One University and Choosing Penn's Future works were major academic planning documents, he said he is "not sure that Strengthening the Community fits into the same category." Lloyd said the Commission report bears closer resemblance to a 1967 Report on the Admissions Policy of the Undergraduate Schools of the University of Pennsylvania, better known as the McGill Report, after its chairperson Dan McGill. This report, and its later admendum known as the Wood Report, firmly established affirmative action admission standards for the University, Lloyd said. Fagin said she thinks the Commission on Strengthening the Community's report is of the same caliber as the earlier large planning documents because of its broad and encompassing scope. "I know that there have been peple who said it wasn't encompassing enough," she said earlier this week. "But in terms of their mandate I think that it is probably the most encompassing report of the last decade." Koons generally praised the Commission Report but said she is concerned that it will be costly to implement and that the University may have trouble maintaining its focus on so many varied suggestions. But Meyerson said he believes the Commission report has a good chance of being implemented fully. "I think its chances of success are rather good," he said. "I know that there are some that are cool to it, mostly the housing recommendation, but we have to see what these days ahead bring." And it is these days ahead which will not only determine the exact makeup of the Commission Report, but which will ultimately determine its proper place in University history.