Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(04/19/91 9:00am)
Eight distinguished academics, artists and journalists, including a TV news anchor and a renowned choreographer, will receive honorary degrees at this May's commencement exercises. Recipients of the honor will be: · Harvard University Zoology Professor Stephen Gould · Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater Artistic Director Judith Jamison · ABC News anchor Ted Koppel · University Museum Curator Emeritus and Religious Studies Professor Emeritus James Pritchard · Renowned pianist and teacher Rudolph Serkin · Mathematician and communication educator Claude Shannon · New York Times Book Review Editor Rebecca Wharton Pepper Sinkler · Veterinary School Board of Overseers Chairperson Emeritus Charles Wolf President Sheldon Hackney yesterday lauded the choices, calling them "a good group of honorary degree recipients." "Each of the degree recipients is a person of superb accomplishments," Hackney said. "It's a way of communicating to our own degree recipients that they should set very high goals for themselves." Honorary degrees are awarded each year to people the Board of Trustees think embody the academic, social and cultural ideals of the University. They are chosen by the the Trustees Honorary Degrees Committee, which is advised by students and faculty on the University Council Committee on Honorary Degrees. While the two committees have, in the past, conflicted on procedures and on the actual list of candidates, Council Committee Chairperson Peter Freyd said last night the two groups worked closer together this year. Mathematics Professor Freyd said the Trustees accepted all the Council committee's suggestions and added a few of their own. He added that the selection process was a little different this year because he spoke directly to the Trustees in a conference call to convince them to accept his group's choices. "This year's list is much closer to what our committee's was," Freyd said. "I don't think anyone could complain about the list in the end." Second-year law student Darren Bowie, who served on the Council Committee, said last night he thinks the selection process could still use some improvement because "the Trustees a lot of times tend to have their own agenda of who they would like to see as honorary degrees candidates and that tends to conflict with our idea." "Our committee should have more control in deciding who receives them," Bowie said. But Bowie said he is pleased with this year's recipients, particularly because of their "diversity." "I think this year's honorary degrees candidates reflect diversity in terms of both their area of expertise and diversity in terms of a wide range of backgrounds as well," Bowie said.
(04/18/91 9:00am)
A U.S. House of Representatives committee is currently debating a bill that would give private university students the right to sue for a violation of their freedom of speech if they are punished under unconstitutional university codes. If passed, the bill, proposed by Rep. Henry Hyde (D-Ill.), could radically alter the way the University formulates and enforces its racial harassment policy. The proposed statute prohibits universities and colleges from "subjecting any student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech." The amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act also states that students may sue an institution if they are punished under a restricting policy. Under the bill, if a court deems a policy to be unconstitutional, the students' punishments would be repealed and the school would have to pay the students' legal fees. Currently, the University's private school status precludes it from having to comply with the Constitution's guidelines on free speech. In 1989, a state court ruled that the University of Michigan's harassment policy -- which is almost identical to the University's code -- was unconstitutional. But the University is not subject to similar court challenges. Under the proposed statute, however, the University would have to follow federal regulations protecting free speech. "If it were a law, it would subject private universities to the same sort of threat of litigation in these matters as the public universities," Law School Dean Colin Diver said yesterday. Diver said the proposed law would invalidate the University's current harassment policy because it would be subject to litigation for being "unconstitutionally vague" like Michigan's harassment code. "As a practical matter, the passage of the Hyde amendment would force the University to repeal the existing policy and develop a new policy that conforms to the First Amendment, and soon," Diver said. Because the code as a whole would be invalid, the University would have trouble punishing even obvious cases of harassment by speech, Diver said. Throughout the campus-wide debate over the University's racial harassment policy, faculty and students have debated what, if any, speech should be prohibited under the University code. Several people have argued that the policy should cover some speech, which they said has the same effect as harmful actions, while others argue that no speech should ever be punishable. If Hyde's bill becomes law, the tone of campus discussions may change, with administrators placing a greater emphasis on free speech to comply with the strict guidelines of the First Amendment. "A lot of people have been simply not willing to take the First Amendment concerns seriously," said Diver, who has advocated a narrow harassment policy throughout the year-long debate. "The prospect of liability for curtailing somebody's free speech would push to the top of the list to take into consideration." But the prospect of a law preventing the University from enacting a restrictive harassment policy scares some faculty and students, who say the bill may promote harassing speech. "I think students should have the fundamental right to sue for free speech and ought to have it protected," graduate student activist Elizabeth Hunt said last night. "I don't think it should include racial slurs, ethnic speech or harassment." "I hope it's not a smokescreen for striking down harassment [policies]," Hunt added. President Sheldon Hackney, who is responsible for rewriting and implementing the University's racial harassment policy, could not be reached for comment.
(04/17/91 9:00am)
A city review board decided yesterday it must hear more testimony before it can make a final ruling on whether to allow the University to demolish historic Smith Hall. The Licenses and Inspection Review Board is considering an appeal of the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Commission's January decision allowing the University to raze the century-old building to make room for a proposed science center. The board yesterday listened to only the opening arguments of lawyers from the Historic Commission, the University and the group of University members and Philadelphia citizens who filed the appeal. The lawyers estimated they would present a total of about five hours of testimony when hearings resume. At the end of the hour-long session, the three lawyers and five board members established two points upon which the case will hinge -- if the demolition is in "the public interest" or if it is necessary because the University would suffer a "financial hardship" otherwise. The Commission's attorney, Maria Petrillo, and an outside lawyer for the University, Joseph Crawford, argued that the Smith Hall site is in the public interest and the best location to build the labs. They said its proximity to the Chemistry and Engineering buildings will allow scientists to "creatively" work together in their research. Crawford also said the labs will bring economic advantages to the area, including construction and maintenance jobs for West Philadelphia residents. The lawyers also said the location will save the University $17 to $23 million because the new building could make use of some current research facilities. They also said the proposed site is important for the University's application for a $10 million Defense Department grant to build the new laboratories. But the appellants' attorney, Alan Kaplan, plans to refute these claims, saying he will show the University did not consider all options in preparing its plans. Kaplan said building the science center, to be called the Institute of Advanced Science and Technology, at another site will not be any more costly. Kaplan also argued that demolishing Smith Hall is not in the public interest because it would destroy a useful and historic building and has no advantages over other sites. The board instructed the three lawyers to determine which facts in the case they agree upon and to eliminate unnecessary arguments before the next hearing to shorten the length of the sessions. University administrators have said the appeal is directed against the Historic Commission, with the University playing only a supporting role in the defense. But Kaplan argued yesterday that the case is actually against the University, and said Commission attorney Petrillo should not be involved in the hearing. The board said they will rule on this issue in a later hearing.
(04/16/91 9:00am)
President Sheldon Hackney's Locust Walk Committee is expected to present its report next week, but Committee leaders said yesterday a group consensus may be impossible and Hackney may receive an opinion that ignores his "limiting" charge. The committee has been shrouded in controversy since the president commissioned it in September. Major campus governing organizations, including the Faculty Senate and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, have criticized Hackney for his stance that the Walk fraternities would not be relocated. Focusing on recent reports of abuses at fraternities, some committee members have threatened all year to submit a separate "minority" opinion, recommending the relocation of Walk fraternities. Committee Co-chairperson David Pope, chair of the Mechanical Engineering Department, said yesterday he hopes a separate opinion is not needed, saying "it is very very likely that in the report will be a commentary on the fact that a significant number of members are not pleased with the charge." He added that a final vote might show a majority of the committee members are unhappy with Hackney's charge. He said the committee would then submit a recommendation outside the president's suggested scope. "I don't think that would be useful," Pope added. Some committee members said yesterday they are satisfied with the committee's work, but added that time constraints may have prevented them from discussing specific issues. "If everything coming out of the committees is accepted, it will be a positive step," United Minorities Council President Nalini Samuel said. "There will be a definite change on campus in the future . . . It won't be as offensive an environment for minorities and women to walk down the Walk." Committee members said last night they have divided into several subcommittees to study separate aspects of diversifying the Walk, including how best to utilize space, set behavioral standards and increase "programming" on the Walk. The group's final recommendation to Hackney will consist of the combined reports of the individual subcommittees.
(04/16/91 9:00am)
A city review board will hear an appeal today by a group of University members and Philadelphia citizens trying to halt the University's planned demolition of historic Smith Hall. The appeal was filed in February in response to a January decision by the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Commission allowing the University to raze Smith to make room for the proposed Institute of Advanced Science and Technology. The city's Board of Licenses and Inspections Review, which will hold today's hearing in its downtown office, can overrule the Historic Commission's decision. The University will then be forced to file another appeal with a state court if it wants to go ahead with the demolition. Today's appeal is filed against the Historic Commission, not the University. While administrators may be called on to testify on behalf of the city, the Commission will bear the brunt of the defense. Alan Kaplan, attorney for the appealing group, said yesterday he will argue that the Historic Commission violated city laws by granting the University permission to raze the century-old building. Kaplan said the Commission did not follow a city ordinance that prohibits the destruction of historic buildings unless demolition "is necessary in the public interest," or unless the building cannot be used. He said the Commission failed to rule using either test, saying that the demolition is not in the public interest and that Smith Hall is used for classes. But the Commission's attorney, Maria Petrillo, defended the city, saying "the bottom line is the city had the authority and reviewed the records and concluded that the demolition permit could be granted." Petrillo would not elaborate on how the Commission would present its case. University administrators said they plan to use the Smith Hall site for the IAST, which will provide additional laboratory space for engineering and science departments, because its proximity to the Chemistry Building makes it a cheap and convenient location. The administration said in January that the city's go-ahead would help the University when it applies for a $10 million federal grant for the IAST. They said having a definite spot for the institute would show the University's commitment to the project. But Vice President for Facilities Management Arthur Gravina said yesterday the results of today's hearing will not impede the application process. "We're going to say that we have basically won in front of the Commission, and while this is an appeal, as far as we're concerned we have a decision and that will stand," Gravina said. He added that he thinks Senior Vice President Marna Whittington and Vice Provost for Research Barry Cooperman will be asked to testify.
(04/11/91 9:00am)
University Council members were split yesterday on the merits of President Sheldon Hackney's latest proposed definition of racial harassment, which will form the core of a new harassment policy. The definition is Hackney's third proposal since he started to revamp the University's racial harassment code last spring. Some Council members praised the proposal as "the best document" presented thus far, while others berated it for containing the same controversial elements of previous plans. Hackney, who defended this proposal more than any other in previous discussions, said after yesterday's meeting that he "is beginning to believe a lot in this policy." The new guideline is similar to his first definition proposed in October in that it restricts harassment to behavior which complies with three criteria. In the latest proposal, the action must be directed at an identifiable person or group, insult or demean the race, ethnicity or national origin of the person or group, and intend to "inflict direct injury" on the person or group. Hackney also listed under the definition other actions which are prohibited by existing University policies such as violence or threat of violence, discrimination in administering University policies and programs, prevention of access to University resources and threat to academic or work status. Hackney changed the concept of harassment as being words or actions that cause "real harm" -- which Council members criticized at last month's meeting for implying "false harm" -- to those causing "direct injury." But some Council members said this term is also misleading because behavior is often offensive even if it is not directed at the victim. The debate about the new definition focused on many of the same issues as previous discussions, such as the inclusion of "intent" and the idea that action must be directed towards the alleged victim. Several Council members also criticized Hackney's inclusion of another new element, a "reasonable, neutral observer" to judge the intent of an action. They said it would be hard to determine who is a neutral judge in a situation of alleged harassment. Yesterday's debate was less one-sided than previous Council discussions, with several faculty members speaking out on behalf of open expression. "I am dismayed that in an academic community like this there is such a disregard for free speech," Finance Professor Morris Mendelson said, referring to Council members' statements that certain types of speech should be prohibited to protect people from harassment. In other business, Hackney presented Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape with the first Meera Ananthakrishnan-Cyril Leung Award for Safety and Security. He commended the organization for its work in "alerting the University community about acquaintance rape" and for being "national leaders" in this area.
(04/10/91 9:00am)
President Sheldon Hackney will present University Council today with another definition of harassment, the third proposed definition since the campus-wide debate over the racial harassment policy began last year. The definition, which will form the core of the new harassment code, is expected to produce yet another round of debate on where open expression rights end and harassment begins. Hackney released his first proposed guideline in October and presented Council with an alternate definition at its meeting last month. Both definitions were criticized by students and faculty on Council for limiting the scope of harassing behavior either too much or too little. Assistant to the President Stephen Steinberg, who has been working with Hackney on the policy, said last week the new definition will reflect the advice the president has received throughout the debate. Besides several Council meetings, Hackney also received input in an open forum held last December. After last month's Council meeting, Hackney said he would consider removing the controversial element of "intent" from the new definition, reflecting many Council members' criticisms that proving a perpetrator's intent is often impossible. Hackney said he was pleased with Council's response to the idea of "real harm," the newest addition to last month's definition. Steinberg said real harm is a new concept among harassment policies. In other Council business, the Council's Safety and Security Committee will present Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape with the first annual security award for its efforts to increase safety on campus. The award, called the Meera Ananthakrishnan-Cyril Leung Award after two graduate students who were killed in the campus area over the past few years, will be given out every year to the "person or group that has done the most for safety and security." STAAR members accepted the award at an annual memorial service for the two students in November, but committee chairperson Jeffrey Jacobsen said he wants to set a precedent of presenting the award in front of Council. "STAAR over the last year contributed the most to safety and security on campus," Jacobsen said. "In addition to their valuable work on acquaintance rape, they also gave advice on all victim support policies at the University."
(04/08/91 9:00am)
The Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency which negotiates research overhead proposals with the University, has begun an audit of the University's spending practices as the first step in an expanding federal investigation. According to University Comptroller Alfred Beers, the department is currently reviewing the use of direct research funds. These funds are the basic grants universities receive for research. Health and Human Services receives audit information on universities receiving these grants on a regular basis, but reserves the right to audit on its own. But Beers said these audits are rare. Beers said the investigation was probably brought on by the Congressional probe into the use of indirect government research money at several universities across the country. The Congressional investigation uncovered gross misspending at Stanford University. Indirect research costs, which are determined by negotiations between the University and Health and Human Services, are maintenance and administrative expenses related to federally-funded research which the University charges to the government. The University charges 65 percent indirect overhead for every grant it receives from the government, which means that for every $100 the government gives to a University researcher, the administration charges an additional $65. When the Congressional committee investigates the University, it will look at the negotiated indirect overhead rates Health and Human Services approved. In this investigation, Health and Human Services will also be under scrutiny. As a result, the department will be in the position of auditing the University and facing investigation along with the University at the same time. A Health and Human Services official, who negotiates with the University, said last week the government has no reason to suspect the University has misused federal money, saying the ensuing investigation is a routine review of universities with high indirect overhead costs. The University has the 14th highest overhead research rate in the country, falling behind other schools under review such as Johns Hopkins University and Harvard University Medical School. The department official, who refused to be identified, said the administration's expenses fall within the guidelines set out by the federal Office of Management and Budget. He said negotiations between the administration and the department remove any "unallowable costs" before the University receives government money. Through the negotiations process, the university and the department weed out any extraneous costs and compromise on any questionable dollar amounts, he said. The official explained that the impending Congressional investigation will review the funding proposal approved by Health and Human Services. He said the misspending at Stanford was caused by a mis-negotiation between the Office of Naval Research and Stanford. He insisted that no such negotiations occurred between the University and Health and Human Services.
(04/08/91 9:00am)
Two hundred years ago, the nation's founders amended the United States Constitution to prohibit government from passing laws which would abridge an individual's freedom of speech. Three years ago the University implemented a racial harassment policy similar to one that a Michigan state court has since found violates that fundamental freedom. Now, as President Sheldon Hackney struggles to develop the "right" harassment policy, he faces the same dilemma as numerous university administrators across the country -- should free expression be preserved at the cost of injury to some, or should individuals be protected from injury at the cost of abridged speech? · Since promising University Council last spring he would change the outdated policy, Hackney has released two proposed definitions of harassment. The first, released in October, radically changed the definition of harassment by narrowing its scope. The second proposed definition, which was presented to University Council last month, eases off the narrow definition, forming a bridge between the October proposal and the current policy. Hackney plans to present Council with a new proposal this week. Throughout the year-long debate, students and faculty have repeatedly focused on the specific wording of the policy, with many campus discussions centering on pure semantics rather than the effects of the code. One controversial inclusion in Hackney's two proposed definitions is the concept of "intent," which some faculty and students said puts an "unfair burden of proof" on the victim. The October definition said an action would constitute harassment only if it had "malicious intent." And the latest definition listed "intentional interference with academic or work status" or "intentional stigmatization and villification" among the six behaviors that would be considered harassment. Graduate student activist Wayne Glasker said during one of the debates that it is often difficult to prove the intentions of an act, making the harassment policy useless. "There can be instances when unintended harassment or abuse may occur," he said at last month's Council meeting. But others say inclusion of intent as a component of harassment is important to protecting free speech on campus. City Planning Professor Anthony Tomazinis said at last month's Council meeting that proving intent of an act protects alleged perpetrators from punishment for non-harassing behavior. Tomazinis said if the term "intent" is removed from Hackney's policy, people could become subject to unfounded accusations. Former PPU Speaker Debra Cermele said yesterday that after a session of debate on the University's racial harassment policy, most of the 65 PPU members voted in favor of a plan that would uphold Hackney's strict intent clause. She also said most of the five "parties" in PPU submitted plans that included the clause. "The biggest debate was about intent," Cermele said. "It is unusual that PPU would come to a consensus, but it was voted by a majority that intent must be part of the official definition." Many PPU members supported another controversial tenet of Hackney's October plan which said the harassment must be directed at the individual it offends. The third stipulation said the act must constitute "fighting words" or their non-verbal equivalents. Hackney said last week he has not yet settled the question of intent or decided if he will include the term in the definition he will present this week. Others on campus, while conceding that the campus debate is healthy, have speculated that the actual wording of the code will not effect behavior on campus in the long-run. "In the end everything will be done case by case," United Minorities Council Chairperson Nalini Samuel said. "The message to students is that they will be protected. That's what the policy needs to exude." But Assistant to the President Stephen Steinberg, who is working on the policy with Hackney, said clearer wording of the policy will help to outline accepted behavior on campus. "A clear policy will help all members of the University community behave in ways closer to the ideals of the University," Steinberg said. "It won't change people's behavior, but it's an important communications mechanism." Law School Dean Colin Diver, however, said the wording of the policy could define how students and faculty members behave on campus. "I think actions will change, not simply because of the wording of the policy, but because of the use of the policy to hear certain cases," Diver said last week. "The language of the policy becomes critical because it becomes the basis of whether students can be punished or not." · The debate over how far to restrict free speech continues around campus. To students, staff and faculty who are willing to risk insult and harm for the sake of open discussion, the First Amendment is the primary value in developing the policy. Hackney himself has said repeatedly that he feels open expression rights take precedence at the University. But for the many others who believe the University's role is to always shield its members from harm, the key issue is an individual's protection from possible injury. Steinberg said the administration has tried to come to terms with the two ideas. He said the new guidelines will attempt to "integrate" the concepts of free expression and non-harassment, rather than just form a compromise between them. Steinberg added that the seemingly contrasting ideas may not be as conflicting as people have argued, saying they both actually center on freedom of expression. He said the policy will make it easier for individuals to speak out without fear of being harassed. "An academic community rests on the notion of free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas," Steinberg explained. "It is not free and open if everyone who's a member of the community can't participate." Some University professors, however, have maintained that a harassment policy which in any way limits speech goes against the ideal of a University -- that academic institutions should at least uphold the freedoms of expression which are fundamental to the Constitution. "The University is a part of the United States of America where we have a Constitution that guarantees free speech," Physics Professor Michael Cohen said last week. "The University should be a place that has at least as much free speech as the country, if not more." Cohen, who instigated debate on the issue last year, and others hold that universities are established to allow for debate -- in any form -- in order to encourage the discovery of new ideas. They say broad harassment policies, such as the current one, prohibit that debate and thereby limit new intellectual discoveries. "The purpose [of a university] is not to create a 'civil environment' -- we try to insist on that, but it's not our reason for being," Diver said. "We have to have full and robust discussion and debate. We have to tolerate both ideas and language that a lot of people are going to find quite offensive." Diver, who has stood on the side of open expression throughout the entire University debate, said he supports the specific criteria set out by Hackney's October proposal. The narrowness, Diver said, may allow for some hateful speech, but will protect harmless language that would otherwise be cut out entirely. But the voices in favor of a narrow harassment policy are often drowned out by those who think the University does too little to protect minorities from insult and injury. They say racial harm should not be tolerated at a University, claiming "harassment" takes away their rights to freely express themselves. Gloria Gay, assistant director of the Penn Women's Center, said the administration is moving backwards in its efforts to find the best harassment policy for the University. She said narrowing the policy's scope further burdens the victim of harassment. "The point of it is that you don't victimize the victim, so you try to be inclusive and let people have due process," Gay said. "You don't narrow something so you exclude people from using the policy if they need it." "My interpretation is that nobody has the right to be saying negative things to other people," Gay said. UMC Chair Samuel said last week she also supports a broader scope for the harassment policy, pointing out that the University's Guidelines on Open Expression sufficiently protect people's First Amendment rights. "We have an Open Expression policy to protect free speech," College senior Samuel said. "This one should lean towards protecting minorities. It will balance out then." Samuel said the policy should make it easy for victims to bring perpetrators up on charges. She said many minority students are reluctant to claim they were harassed because of the difficulty in proving so. "The person being harassed should be able to say he or she was being harassed," Samuel said. Another faction throughout the year-long debate has questioned the need for a harassment policy at all, pointing out that most of the restrictions under the code are listed in other University policies or in state and federal laws. "[The parts of the policy that overlap with existing codes] merely dignify the policy and make it look like it's performing functions already performed," Cohen said. "The purpose of the policy is to prohibit free speech and to pretend it is to prevent illegal discrimination is a fraud." · But regardless of their side in the issue, most people agree that developing the right type of harassment policy is not the solution to racism on campus. Some faculty, staff and students say the emphasis should not be on guarding speech or punishing ignorance, but on bringing all members of the University into the realm of participation. "As hard as it is to set up rules to say you cannot act a certain way, it's easy compared to finding ways to increase the participation of blacks in the community," Communications Professor Carolyn Marvin, who teaches a class on free expression, said last week. "We shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that the appearance of politeness is the way to solve problems." Marvin, who made headlines last year for publicly burning an American flag to support her First Amendment freedom of expression, said more energy should be spent on finding ways to increase minorities among students, faculty and administrators, rather than on limiting speech. And Black Student League President Jessica Dixon said yesterday the University should make a greater attempt to educate students and faculty members about different races and cultures. She said education is the best way to prevent racial harassment. "A lot of times people are accused of being racist, but they're not racist, just ignorant," College junior Dixon said. "I think the University needs to make a bigger effort to educate everyone about racial diversity, cultures, different peoples' standards and norms."
(04/04/91 10:00am)
Federal officials yesterday began investigating Harvard Medical School's indirect research costs as part of their extensive review of the research spending practices at several colleges, including the University. Harvard is the first university to be investigated by the federal government since a Congressional subcommittee uncovered vast misspending of federal research funds at Stanford University last month. The subcommittee will extend its review to the University, the University of Southern California, the University of California at Berkeley and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. University Comptroller Alfred Beers said this week the University has not yet received official notification of the impending review. He added he does not know when or if the University will receive notification. The investigations center around indirect overhead costs that universities charge to the federal government for maintenance expenses related to federally-funded research. Schools charge a certain percentage for overhead from every research grant awarded to a university researcher. At Stanford University, the administration charged the government $74 overhead for every $100 grant before the investigation started. The university has reduced its rate to 70 percent after allegations that administrators overcharged the government by as much as $200 million. Harvard's overhead charge is 88 percent, and the University has a 65 percent overhead rate. The Congressional committee revealed that Stanford officials used indirect research funds for illicit purposes such as refurbishing the university's yacht and constructing the school's shopping center. Harvard administrators met with a representative from the U.S. Government General Accounting Office yesterday to discuss the guidelines of the investigation, which officials said will last three to four months. Jan Goldstein, a regional manager for the GAO in Boston, said yesterday Harvard is being investigated because it has a high overhead research percentage. "Do they just have higher rates because this is Boston and costs are higher here, or are they mischarging something?" he asked.
(04/02/91 10:00am)
Vice President for Human Relations Barbara Butterfield, who has primary responsibility for overseeing the University's employees, will leave the University in June to take a similar post at Stanford University. Butterfield, who has held the position for four years, will be Stanford's first human relations vice president. In her post, she managed the second-largest workforce in the city. Butterfield said last night she "has mixed feelings" about the new position, saying she will miss her staff and the administrators she has become attached to during her tenure on campus. The human relations head said she is moving to Stanford to be near her husband, who will soon become an out-patient of a cardiology program in Palo Alto. He is currently a patient at Duke University's program, forcing Butterfield to travel between North Carolina and Philadelphia every weekend. "The position at Stanford lets me balance both sides of my life," Butterfield said. Butterfield's duties at the University include setting and accomplishing goals for the University's work environment and improving employee relations. She said she is most proud of her department's focus on ethics, equality, diversity and balance in the work place, saying those are the values she has tried to instill in the administration's human resources planning. She added that she has recently concentrated on "conservation of the University's assets." President Sheldon Hackney yesterday praised Butterfield's work at the University, calling her a "rare talent in the field of human resources in higher education." "She helped build a sense of community among University employees," Hackney said. "It's because of her set of values. She cares about how people deal with each other and she's able to transfer that to policies and programs." Hackney said Butterfield has provided University employees with more extensive career advancement activities, more rational salary policies and better equity studies. He also praised her for helping to organize diversity awareness programs. Staff and Labor Relations Director Rogers Davis, who worked in Butterfield's department, said the outgoing vice president is extraordinary at unifying employees and bringing "a positive attitude to the issue of staff relations." Stanford University Provost James Rosse, who said he hired Butterfield based on her experience and accomplishments, said she will be the highest level administrator involved in developing human resources policies and programs. He said her duties at Stanford will be roughly the same as those at the University. Hackney, who said he learned of Butterfield's resignation on Friday, said he has not yet begun to search for her replacement and said he is doubtful the administration will fill the position before Butterfield leaves in June. Hackney said he will search for someone with Butterfield's same values and abilities to bring employees together. "If I could clone her, I would do it," Hackney said.
(04/01/91 10:00am)
The Office of Academic Programs is now accepting applications for the Castle's community service living-learning program, which will begin next fall. Academic Programs Director Christopher Dennis said yesterday the program's advisory board will begin reviewing undergraduate and graduate applications for the 26 spots in the house next week. Applications, which can be picked up at the Office of Academic Programs in High Rise North, are due on April 3. Dennis, who heads the advisory board which is establishing guidelines for the living-learning program and which will select next year's residents, said approximately 100 students have picked up applications this week. He said the selection process will be similar to that of choosing resident advisors and graduate fellows. It will include applications, essays and an interview with the members of the advisory board. The house's new residents will be a part of the community service living-learning program which administrators decided to establish in the vacant Castle fraternity house, located at 36th Street and Locust Walk. The center-campus house has been vacant since the University's chapter of the Psi Upsilon fraternity was kicked off campus last May for the January kidnapping of a Delta Psi fraternity brother. Administrators said they hope to keep the program in the house until the fraternity petitions for re-recognition in three years. College sophomore Christopher Caruso, who plans to apply for the program, said last night he is most attracted by the "common ground" that the Castle will provide for community service groups on campus. He said the living-learning program will allow different organizations that are working towards the same end to come together in one unified group. "I think the reason it's such a good program is they're letting people in by what they do and not who they are," Caruso said. "But the biggest focus should still be diversity, both in background and in how [people] perceive community service." According to the program's application, prospective residents should show evidence of involvement in community service, a willingness to explore the significance of community service from an academic perspective and a commitment to a "cooperative and supportive house environment." Dennis said he does not think applicants need to have been very involved with community service programs in the past as long as they show a sincere interest in the Castle's living-learning program. He said committee members will have selected the program's participants by the end of April. Dennis said his committee is also reviewing the physical space of the Castle and trying to establish a program outline and an administrative system.
(03/25/91 10:00am)
The University's Board of Trustees struck down the administration's proposed undergraduate tuition and fee increase Friday, lowering the hike to 6.7 percent. The Trustees' Executive Board, which makes the final decision on tuition and fees, voted against President Sheldon Hackney's proposed 6.9 percent increase to undergraduate tuition and fees, keeping next year's rate of increase identical to this year's. Several long-standing administrators said Friday they could not remember any other time when Trustees have rejected the administration's tuition and fees proposal. To compensate for the slight decrease in anticipated revenue, the Trustees agreed to a $6.7 million budget deficit, $700,000 more than Hackney proposed in his preliminary budget presentation. The 6.7 percent increase will raise the cost of an undergraduate education to $15,894. The percentage is still a break in the University's four-year trend of lowering the rate of undergraduate tuition and fees increases. At Friday's meeting, University administrators proposed raising undergraduate tuition and fees by 6.9 percent for the next school year to counter the effects of Governor Robert Casey's proposed $18.6 million budget funding cut to the University. Hackney said Friday the University would have raised tuition 6.5 percent were it not for Casey's cuts. Hackney said the 6.9 percent increase would have provided the University with an additional $700,000 in revenue. This is the money the Trustees decided to add to Hackney's proposed $6 million deficit. Trustees Chairperson Alvin Shoemaker said after Friday's meeting the Trustees decided to lower the rate of increase in order to keep the University affordable. Shoemaker said administrators proposed a $6 million deficit because they thought that figure was the greatest loss the Trustees would approve. But he said the Trustees agreed maintaining the trend of lowering undergraduate tuition and fees increases was a priority for the University. "There is a concern on the part of the Trustees about the ability of students and parents to afford the University," Shoemaker said. "We wanted to support the administration by trying to keep that as low as possible." Hackney said he was not surprised by the Trustees' decision because "they have been worried about tuition increases for some time." He said that although their rejection of the proposal was unusual, it is typical of the "out of the ordinary circumstances" the University will face next fiscal year. Undergraduate Assembly Tuition Committee Chairperson Mitchell Winston said yesterday he is "delighted" by the Trustees' decision, calling it a "tremendous victory for the students." "I honestly feel the work of the UA had a direct impact on bringing [the increase] back down," College sophomore Winston said. "It shows students can make a difference." Winston, who appealed to the Trustees to lower the tuition and fees increase on Friday, said their move shows they are committed to lowering the costs for students. Hackney mistakenly told students last week that the administration had planned before Casey's announcement to raise undergraduate tuition and fees by 6.7 percent, but said Friday he actually intended to recommend a 6.5 percent hike. That figure would have been just under the increase for this academic year, and would have been the lowest percentage increase in more than 15 years. The full board must approve the rest of Hackney's budget proposal at its June meeting. Both Hackney and Shoemaker said they are confident Trustees will agree to the plan, which also includes cutting 300 faculty and staff positions and halting most University development and renovations.
(03/22/91 10:00am)
With the University facing severe government funding cuts, students, faculty and administrators have begun to take pen in hand to convince elected representatives in Harrisburg and Washington that the University needs the annual funding. Both Undergraduate Assembly leaders and administrators are organizing letter drives, asking University community members to write to their representatives in protest of proposed funding cuts. Last month, Governor Robert Casey announced his budget proposal, which, if passed by the state legislature, would slash appropriations to the University by $18.6 million. Recent proposed federal budgets have cut funding to college financial aid programs by nearly 30 percent. The administration plans to counter Casey's recommendation by enlisting alumni support. Administrators will send out approximately 10,000 letters to in-state alumni, asking them to oppose the proposal in letters to state legislators. The Veterinary School, which stands to lose the most funding from Casey's budget cuts, will recruit alumni, as well as owners of the animals treated in the hospital. Vet School officials said they hope to reach 20,000 potential letter-writers. Vet School and Dental School officials will also meet with state and local representatives to plead their cases. University Harrisburg lobbyist James Shada said that letters, especially from in-state residents, could help sway legislators' votes. "Legislators tend to listen to their constituents," Shada said. UA organizers said they hope their efforts will prevent the kind of drastic cuts Casey proposed. "Congress is responsible to its constituency," said UA member Ethan Youderian. "If we show them that we care about the issue, then they will respond." With cries of "support financial aid" and "send a letter to your congressman or senator," UA members this week kicked off their annual campaign to political leaders in Washington. The three-day effort, which began on Wednesday and concludes this afternoon, has netted several hundred letters so far, according to UA leaders. The letters, which students are being asked to sign and address to their congressmen and senators, ask the legislators to oppose the proposed federal financial aid cuts. "Washington is turning into just as much a crisis as Harrisburg," UA Vice-Chairperson Mike Feinberg said. In the past, UA letter drives have pressed legislators to increase funding for financial aid. But with the nation in the midst of a recession, UA leaders have shifted their focus to salvaging current levels. Feinberg said the annual campaign is one of the UA's largest projects, with nearly all members participating. "This is a function of the whole UA," UA Secretary Allison Bieber agreed yesterday. "This could not happen without total participation." Some UA members said however they are disappointed with the small percentage of students who have signed the letters. "Student walk by and say, 'Oh.' They don't realize that we're doing this for them," Bieber said. Youderian agreed that a larger turn-out would help the effort. "Of course, it would be great if everyone at the University would sign, but we know that is unrealistic," he said. "Who's going to do it for us, the administration?" Bieber added. "We have to show some proactive effort." Several students who stopped at the UA's table agreed the project was important. College freshman Eric Schwartz said financial aid for college students is indispensible. "Society as a whole gains when more people are able to go to institutions of higher education," he said. "It shouldn't be a question of whether they should spend money on education, it should be a question of how much they should spend." UA members will be soliciting participants on Locust Walk opposite Steinberg-Deitrich Hall from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. today. The UA will provide and mail the letters free of charge.
(03/22/91 10:00am)
Undergraduate Assembly leaders said yesterday administrators "misled" students when they said they would continue lowering the rate of increase in tuition and fees, while actually planning to keep the rise the same as last year. UA members pointed to President Sheldon Hackney's statement earlier this week that the University would have kept the rate of increase in tuition and fees constant next year if budgetary problems had not emerged due to possible state funding cuts. Hackney announced Wednesday a planned 6.9 percent raise in tuition and fees for next year, breaking a four-year trend of lowering cost increases. But student leaders said his announcement that the rate would have been 6.7 percent for the second straight year indicates that the administration did not plan to continue the pattern. Provost Michael Aiken countered the UA arguments last night, saying the total increase students would have paid next year would have been slightly lower than this year's rise. He said the students' complaint is not valid, insisting the University would have proven its commitment to lowering the rate of increase if the University was not faced with losing $18.6 million in state funding. UA Vice Chairperson Michael Feinberg said yesterday that while the 6.9 percent increase proposed after Casey's budget request is a "blessing," the University's initial plan to raise tuition and fees 6.7 percent showed a lack of effort to keep students' costs down. Budget Director Steven Golding said last night the 6.7 percent increase was never finalized, adding that it was proposed as a "maximum" figure. Golding said the rate would not have been lower because the University is not receiving enough unrestricted donations. These donations are generally used to offset operating costs, and thereby keep tuition and fee increases down. "We're not in a kind of economic period that promoted a policy of reducing tuition at a rate we saw in previous years," Golding said. But the budget director said the administration has had a firm commitment to keeping costs down for the past several years. Feinberg said he wants the administration to develop a long-term plan for keeping percentage increases down. He said he will ask administrators to outline the steps they will take to lower the rate for future years, saying he will request they set up a "cushion" to prepare for unexpected glitches. "I'm worried about the University's long-term commitment," he said. "Last year it was steam and electricity, this year Harrisburg . . . What's it going to be next year?" Feinberg said the UA will redouble its efforts to keep next year's rise in tuition down immediately after the Trustees vote on Hackney's proposal today. Golding said administrators would be willing to meet with students, adding that "the administration and the Trustees are always willing to talk about ways to keep tuition down." "It has to be done with the understanding that the University will be under considerable pressure if the governor's proposed cuts go through," Golding said.
(03/21/91 10:00am)
Administrators announced plans to raise undergraduate tuition and fees by 6.9 percent for the upcoming school year yesterday, ending a four-year trend of lowering the rates of increase. This year's increase, which is slightly higher than last year's 6.7 percent rise, will raise the annual cost of an undergraduate education $1,028 to $15,918. President Sheldon Hackney, who announced the proposed rate yesterday, will present the plan to the Board of University Trustees Friday. The Trustees Executive Board must give final approval on the increase, but administrators said the board normally approves the proposed rate. Despite the University's recent budget problems, the 6.9 percent increase is the second-lowest percentage rise in the last 15 years. Last year's 6.7 percent increase was the lowest in that time period. Graduate students' tuition and fees will rise 7.1 percent this year, also slightly higher than last year's increase. Graduate students will pay $16,604 next academic year, including a $6 surcharge for graduate activities approved last year by the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly. Administrators said yesterday that Governor Robert Casey's plan to slash $18.6 million from the University's state funding was a major reason for the rate's rise. This figure represents nearly half of the amount the University receives annually from the state. Hackney said yesterday the University had planned on a 6.7 percent increase until Casey announced his cuts. The added increase will only be a drop in the bucket compared to the loss in funding the University is facing. Hackney said the additional .2 percent increase will produce only an additional $700,000 in revenue for the University. "6.9 percent does not contribute a lot of money to the solution of the problem," Hackney said. "I think it is fair to ask [students] to bear a small burden of the cost." To make up the rest, Hackney presented students and faculty members with a five-point plan, including major expenditure cuts across the University. He said the relatively low hike in tuition and fees indicates administrators' decision to not make students bear the brunt of the University's financial problems. But Undergraduate Assembly Tuition Chairperson Mitchell Winston said he was "devastated" by the president's announcement, adding that his committee will continue attempts to lower the rate of increase until the Trustees vote on Friday. "President Hackney said students should share the burden," Winston said. "We are, through the decrease in services. We've been sharing the burden all along." Winston, who appealed to the Trustees in January to keep the rate of increase down, said he plans to speak to the board again on Friday. He said he will present the Trustees with a 4,000-signature undergraduate petition, calling for lower tuition and fees next year. "If the administration was told by the Trustees to abide by their commitment, then they wouldn't have [increased the rate]," Winston said. "They felt they could get away with it, so they did." Winston criticized administrators for "not honoring commitments made to students" to continue lowering the rate of increase in tuition and fees. He said since Hackney will ask the Trustees to approve a $6 million budget deficit Friday, administrators should be able to spread the $700,000 throughout the University. Hackney also said yesterday the rate of increase for the student financial aid budget will be reduced for the 1992-93 academic year to cushion the effects of Casey's proposal. He said the University will be able to maintain its policy of need-blind admissions next year, but said the policy will face greater hardships in the future.
(03/21/91 10:00am)
University Council members yesterday said President Sheldon Hackney's latest proposed definition of harassment, which he presented yesterday, is "a step in the right direction." The definition, which will make up the core of Hackney's soon-to-be-released racial harassment policy, is more specific than the current guideline's, which faculty members and students have said is "too vague." Under Hackney's latest draft, harassment consists of any action that causes "real harm," which he defines in six specific ways: incitement to violence, prevention of access to University resources, intentional interference with academic or work performance, discrimination in implementing University policies or conducting University programs, discriminatory threat to academic or work status, or intentional stigmatization or villification. The president said the proposed definition is a working draft which will be changed and discussed again in future University Council meetings. He said he hopes to release a complete racial harassment policy by the end of the semester. The current guidelines define harassment as behavior that causes a threat to a person's academic or work status, interferes with the the person's academic or work performance or creates an intimidating or offensive academic, work or living environment. Hackney released a dramatically narrower alternative policy last October, which students and faculty almost unanimously criticized for putting the burden of proof solely on the victim of harassment. Under the October proposal, victims had to prove a particular action met three criteria to prove harassment. Under the new proposal, an action constitutes harassment if it meets any one of the six criteria. Most Council members, who have been debating the University's racial harassment policy for over a year, said the proposal is a step in the right direction. But many found fault with the specifics of the new definition. Some members criticized the president's use of the term "real harm," which has never before been mentioned in University policies. They said it implies that some victims of harassment "cry wolf" about the harms they have suffered. "If someone determines that [a claim] wasn't a 'real' harm, does that mean it was a 'fake' harm?" Undergraduate Assembly Safety and Security Chairperson Jeffrey Jacobson said. Hackney stated in his proposal that the term was used to capture the balance between protecting open expression and preventing offensive behavior, the arguments which have formed the core of debate throughout the University's discussion of racial harassment. Graduate student representative Wayne Glasker, along with several other Council participants, also criticized the inclusion of "intentionality" in two points of the new definition. He said it is often impossible to prove the intention of an act and pointed out that "there can be instances when unintended harassment or abuse may occur." But others, such as City Planning Professor Anthony Tomazinis, said proving the harmful intentions of an act protects alleged perpetrators from being punished for non-harassing behavior. Hackney said after the meeting he will consider removing "intention" from the definition after hearing the criticisms from Council members. Finance professor Morris Mendelson more generally criticized the proposed definition, saying it would restrict free speech, which he said is the most important tenet of the University. Mendelson said he fears the restrictions will be extended to include politics, preventing a free exchange of ideas. "I don't see how you can reconcile the proscriptions outlined in the policy with free speech," Mendelson said. Members also debated the issue of "stigmatization" and "villification," many concluding that the terms are too vague. Hackney said he would consider including a definition of the terms in his final version of the policy.
(03/20/91 10:00am)
Researchers and officials at the University and four other schools facing a Congressional investigation into research costs defended their use of taxpayer money yesterday, but said some changes in the way research grants are administered may be necessary. "The tone of some of the stories that have appeared is that what is being revealed is that universities are ripping off the government," Physics Professor David Balamuth said. "I don't think that's precisely true." The probe by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations comes after federal auditors discovered that Stanford University may have overcharged the federal government for research overhead costs by as much as $200 million during the last decade. The probe focuses on the use of indirect overhead funds, which are the expenses universities charge to the government for use of buildings, maintaining research facilities and administrative costs associated with research. A congressional aide said this week that the subcommittee will extend its review of the use of indirect research funding to the University, Harvard University Medical School, University of California at Berkeley, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Southern California. Administrators at the five schools singled out for scrutiny said the government itself may be responsible for some of the problems at Stanford because of vague policies, which leave the door open for arguable claims. "It's important to note that part of the problem that all of us see is that a lot of [the research contracting guidelines] are open to interpretation," said Jesus Mena, a Berkeley spokesperson. "It's a two-way street." Dennis Dougherty, who is a former University comptroller, said that although any audits of the research institutions could be "time consuming and expensive," they may have positive results. Dougherty, who is currently senior vice president for administration at USC, said the investigation could result in clearer funding guidelines, which would ensure that university administrators use federal money prudently. "If the outcome of this investigation is to adopt more strict and more objective [funding guidelines] than are currently put forth, [the investigation] will have indeed succeeded," Dougherty said. A Congressional aide to Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan), who heads the subcommittee, said this week the investigations may indeed show that such policy changes are necessary. But Jim Culleton, vice president for financial operations at MIT, said the broad federal guidelines were developed to allow universities some freedom in research methods and to complement unique university research teams. Narrower policies may restrict that creative freedom, he said. "[Stricter guidelines] might produce more order, but it might make flexibility less possible and may lead researchers to sometimes miss opportunities," Culleton said. Administrators at the schools said they have not yet received official notification of the probes. Most, including those at the University, said they are not taking any proactive measures to prepare for the pending investigations.
(03/20/91 10:00am)
President Sheldon Hackney will present University Council members today with a new definition of harassment in preparation for the long-awaited release of a new racial harassment policy. The definition of harassment, which will form the core of the revised racial harassment policy, has been debated in Council and throughout the University since the president announced plans to revise the current guidelines last spring. Most of the discussion has centered on finding a balance between the University's commitment to open expression and the protection of racial minorities. In the current policy, which many students and faculty have said is too vague, harassment consists of behavior that causes a threat to a person's academic or work status, interferes with the person's academic or work performance or creates an intimidating or offensive academic, work, or living environment. Last October, Hackney released a draft policy with a narrowed definition of harassment. It said that an act would be considered harassment if it "villifies and offends" a person as determined by a three-part test. It must be intended to "demean, insult or stigmatize" a person on the basis of race, be addressed to the person or group to whom it refers, and make use of "fighting words" -- intended to incite violence -- or their non-verbal equivalents. Faculty, staff and students blasted the draft almost unanimously, saying it would not protect victims of harassment. Minority leaders said the proposed definition of harassment would make it easy for people to disguise offensive intentions. Hackney said last semester the proposal released in October was not intended as a final draft, but was only released for University comment. The president could not be reached for comment yesterday, but Stephen Steinberg, an assistant to President Hackney who has worked on the new policy, said yesterday Hackney plans to release the final draft by the end of this semester. Steinberg said he can not predict how Council members will respond to the proposed definition. "This is an issue with . . . widely divergent views," Steinberg said. "Whether we can reach any consensus is hard to say." Council members will also discuss Hackney's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1992, which will be presented to students and faculty in two separate sessions today. Budget Director Stephen Goulding said yesterday the president will outline the steps the University will take to make up for Governor Robert Casey's proposed $18.6 million budget cuts. Goulding said he expects there to be some discussion about the impact of the cuts and the University's budget.
(03/19/91 10:00am)
Congressional investigators have accused Stanford University of overcharging the government of up to several million dollars in indirect overhead costs related to research, in a review of spending practices which will soon extend to the University. The investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has revealed that during the past decade, Stanford officials misappropriated federal overhead money, using it for blatantly non-research purposes. Congressional investigators say that Stanford administrators used government money to purchase thousands of dollars worth of linen, buy a cedar-lined chest and refurbish a piano in the president's mansion, depreciate the university's yacht, and hold a reception for Stanford President Donald Kennedy's new bride. The university also charged the government over $100,000 for administrative costs of the Stanford Shopping Center. While Stanford officials have claimed much of the misuse is due to severe accounting errors, the university is now undergoing a criminal investigation. Members of Congress and educators across the country now fear that Stanford is not alone in its allegedly illegal use of government money. The subcommittee is expanding its investigation to include the University and several other peer institutions. Congressional aides said yesterday it is too soon to tell what the long-term effects of the prolonged investigations will be, but said the review may lead to a change in the government policy of allocating research funds to institutions. "We're not sure if there's a legislative procedure needed in this situation," an aide to the House subcommittee's chairperson said yesterday. "Through the investigations we will decide if governmental oversight should be increased." David Morse, who lobbies in Washington for the University, said yesterday he does not think the probe will have a dramatic impact on the dollar amount of federally-sponsored research grants, but said he is concerned that it will decrease the overhead needed to maintain the research in campus buildings. Some universities across the country have jumped the gun, auditing their books in preparation for a governmental probe of their spending practices. Officials here said they are not concerned about the impending probe and are not taking any special measures. The congressional investigations center around the use of indirect costs -- costs universities charge for the maintenance of buildings and for administrative services related to federally-funded research. Stanford charges the government 70 percent overhead on every research grant to cover these indirect cost meaning that for every $1000 a researcher receives, the university receives an additional $700. This indirect cost rate is one of the highest in the country. Due to negotiations between Stanford and the government agency handling their funding agreement, the school lowered its indirect cost rate from 78 percent this year. This difference amounts to approximately $10 million in revenue loss. In congressional hearings last week, government officials suggested further reducing the rate to 62 percent, which would amount to a $30 million loss. Congressional officials first became aware of Stanford's misuse of funds through the campus' representative to the Office of Naval Research, who accused past Navy officials of having a "cozy" relationship with the university. He said the government's inefficient supervision of the funds and the university's disregard for spending guidelines caused the severe misappropriation of funds. Representative John Dingell (D-Michigan), who heads the subcommittee, attacked the administrators at hearings last week, saying their actions raised "a serious question of criminal liability." "[This] is a story of excess and arrogance, compounded by lax governmental oversight," Dingell said. 5/89The Stanford Daily3/41 contributed to this story.
