Chair of the Faculty

FACULTY POLICY COMMITTEE

The Committee began its work with a full-day retreat in September, during which members discussed faculty involvement in re-engineering and other potential near-term FPC agenda issues with consultants and members of the Administration. A large portion of the day was devoted to the consideration of three models for faculty involvement in re-engineering: a) individual consulting; b) a faculty group associated with each task to give perspective and feedback; c) a larger faculty advisory committee charged with providing faculty input for all of the re-engineering teams.

With regard to the first model, FPC members agreed that although it would be useful for faculty with relevant expertise to be engaged as consultants, this would not significantly enhance general faculty understanding of re-engineering nor insure that general faculty needs would be recognized in the design of new systems. The second model received wide support. FPC members pointed out that faculty should be viewed as "customers" for those processes supporting core faculty activities (teaching and research) and should be asked for input and reaction to redesign proposals at the appropriate stage in their development. The group was less enthusiastic about the creation of a standing advisory committee, arguing that no small group would have expertise in all the areas undergoing re-engineering and that the commitment would be very time consuming. On the other hand, it was pointed out that a small group might identify and recruit faculty to participate in the feedback groups recommended under the second model.

The FPC summarized two levels of necessary community involvement: 1) involving clients (students and faculty) to ensure that the final outcome suits their needs and 2) building a constituency in the community that will support and understand re-engineering and not confuse it with other budget-cutting efforts. The FPC expects to continue to be involved in discussions and updates of re-engineering activities during the upcoming years.

The FPC continued discussions begun last year pursuant to the closing of the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE). During the spring of 1994, the President and the Chair of the Faculty appointed an ad hoc faculty committee chaired by Professor Peter A. Diamond to examine the process followed in arriving at the decision to close the CMRAE. The Diamond Committee presented its report to the President and the Chair of the Faculty and then to the Faculty at the May 1994 meeting, identifying a number of significant flaws in the decision-making processes and the way in which the decision was communicated to the affected parties. The Diamond Committee noted that past decisions to close a center or laboratory have not been subject to the same faculty oversight as the reorganization of an academic unit, yet it concluded that establishing a new set of procedures for laboratories and centers would be too constraining, given their diverse natures. The Committee made a number of recommendations focused on providing a better mechanism for administration consultation with faculty and students who would be affected by the closure of centers or laboratories.

This past fall, Diamond Committee brought to the FPC its recommendations on the various ways that the Faculty impact and interact with administrative decisions at the Institute. The Committee also met with Professor Judith J. Thomson to discuss the motion voted at the May 1994 Faculty meeting which asked the FPC to reassess MIT's faculty grievance procedures.

In response to these concerns, Professor Jaffe appointed an FPC Subcommittee on Grievances. The Subcommittee concluded:

• that there are opportunities to improve MIT's grievance procedures, but there is no need for complete restructure or redesign as the basic mechanisms in place are well suited to the MIT culture and environment;

• that MIT's and other universities' procedures are similar in content (Upon looking carefully at other universities' procedures, the Subcommittee learned that faculty committees are used quite sparingly at other universities as the goal in most systems is to mediate and arrive at solutions before cases proceed to the standing faculty committees. An Association of American Universities [AAU] report compliments MIT as the most mediation-oriented system); and

• that there would be little to gain by appointing a standing committee which might hear cases infrequently as this system would be very similar to MIT's existing ad hoc committee system.

The Subcommittee recommended:

• that the President and/or Provost, when contemplating the closing of a laboratory, center, or academic unit, be encouraged to seek the advice of the Committee on Faculty Administration (CFA) on ways to involve those who might be affected by the decision;

• that Policies and Procedures be amended in the case of centers and laboratories to follow the requirements recommended by the Diamond Committee which closely parallel the process already found in Policies and Procedures for the closing or reorganization of academic units such as schools and departments; and

• that the Subcommittee carefully review, take account of, and report to the Faculty the recommendations of the Jacoby Committee, which is considering ways to strengthen the Institute's resources for investigating difficult cases of harassment.

In response to heightened community awareness of faculty grievance issues, the President and Faculty Chair appointed the Ad Hoc Committee on Grievance Investigation Procedures, chaired by Professor Henry D. Jacoby, to consider and make recommendations to accomplish three objectives: 1) to provide for more prompt resolution of unusually difficult or complex formal complaints, 2) to avoid real or perceived conflict of interest in resolving such complaints, and 3) to develop a larger group of Institute citizens who have expertise in investigating complaints.

The Committee reported to the FPC its recommendations concerning two components for grievance investigation: 1) a system to train people who handle investigations of harassment complaints; and 2) an independent investigation procedure (utilizing a "Gateway Panel") which provides an alternative to the current system of investigation. FPC members generally endorsed the report after discussing with Professor Jacoby some concerns regarding scope, training, student membership, and possible legal ramifications. The Faculty Chair passed the FPC's comments on to the President who has taken the Committee's recommendations under advisement.

During the spring of 1994, the Graduate Student Council (GSC) prepared a report entitled Proposal for Improvements to MIT's System for Dealing with Harassment, which it presented to the FPC. In response to the GSC'S efforts, the FPC convened a subcommittee to consider implementation of their suggestions. The Subcommittee worked over the summer and presented its report in September. The report was divided into sections along lines similar to the original GSC document: 1) Education and awareness; 2) Faculty facilitators; 3) Complaint-handling handbook; 4) Record keeping; and 5) Changes to the present Guide, Dealing with Harassment at MIT. As the FPC discussed each of these subjects, suggestions emerged for implementation strategies and/or further study.

Education and awareness

Because certain groups in the MIT community have not been reached by existing education and training initiatives, efforts should be made to find ways to reach out to these groups which have significant contact with undergraduates. Support should likewise continue for existing training programs for all members of the community. TA training at the beginning of the academic year should be expanded to reach more incoming graduate students, and more harassment policy information and training should be included in that activity. The Personnel Office should develop a program to inform new MIT community members of the Institute harassment policy.

Faculty Facilitators

Faculty facilitator systems should be established in all academic units, with guidance and coordination through the offices of the Institute ombudspersons, Dr. Mary Rowe and Dr. Clarence Williams. An electronic mail discussion group could provide helpful feedback to facilitators.

Complaint Handling Handbook

MIT should publish a small, practical handbook for complaint handlers containing answers to questions such as what constitutes: (a) a timely response to a complaint; (b) a prompt, thorough and fair investigation of a complaint, and (c) a timely resolution to a complaint. Specific information on resources and on alternatives for the uneasy complaint handler should be available to the community. Examples and case studies would be particularly helpful.

Record Keeping

Steps should be taken to improve record keeping of harassment cases at the Institute. For generic or statistical records, the policy (newly reinstated last year) of annual reports to the Faculty by the DUESA, the COD, and the ombudspersons should be continued.

The Subcommittee also presented several thoughtful and well-worded suggestions for changes and additions to Dealing with Harassment at MIT, which dealt in a sensitive way with some of the most difficult questions raised by harassment policy. The FPC recommended adopting these changes in future printings of the Guide.

The FPC also heard from and coordinated the work of several other committees and reviewed several changes in academic policy and programs and in Institute procedures, some of which were forwarded to the Faculty for approval.

• The FPC considered and forwarded to the Faculty a proposed change to the Institute's academic calendar such that the fall class holiday be held on "a Monday in September on or after the 15th (except when Labor Day is September 6th or 7th) to be determined annually by the Registrar in consultation with the Faculty Policy Committee." The faculty approved the change at its May meeting.

• The FPC approved and recommended to the Faculty the proposals for new Masters of Engineering Programs in Aeronautics and Astronautics and Civil and Environmental Engineering and the undergraduate minor degree program in Biomedical Engineering (discussed more fully in the Report of the CUP).

• This spring, the FPC approved and recommended to the Faculty the CUP's proposal for a revised freshman performance evaluation system. The new procedure for evaluating freshman performance requires that at the beginning of the sixth week of each term, instructors of first-year students notify in writing those students performing at a non-passing level that they are at risk of not passing the subject. Each notification should request that the freshman meet with the instructor immediately and may include additional relevant information about the student's performance. At the end of both Fall and Spring terms (and at the end of the Independent Activities Period), the Office of Undergraduate Academic Affairs will send temporary letter grades to freshmen through their advisors. The grades will not appear on students' official internal grade reports or transcripts, but will be used for internal advising only.

• In May, Professors Edward F. Crawley and Thomas L. Magnanti presented to the FPC a description of the proposed program in System Design and Management. Similar to an MBA for engineering, the program was created in response to changes in industry's organization and competitive structure and the clear need to provide engineering education in the professional and scientific arenas. The FPC discussed the proposed program's goals, structure, target audience, and anticipated process toward implementation and pin-pointed problems the program may encounter. The FPC designated FPC member Professor William L. Porter as the liaison between the Program and the FPC. Members also considered the possibility of appointing a working subgroup consisting of FPC members and other faculty.

• The FPC met several times with members of the Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) to discuss the CAP's work on intermediate grading. The CAP polled both students and faculty on their preferences on grading systems. In response to evolving opinions and more complex and controversial arguments on both sides, the CAP modified its original proposal for full implementation of intermediate grades to propose a three-year experiment in which the plus and minus form of intermediate grades would be used at MIT, but not reflected on external transcripts or in the student's grade point average. A joint subcommittee of CAP, CUP, and CGSP will be established to monitor this experiment.

• During the fall of 1993, the FPC formed a subcommittee to review proposed changes to the terms of appointment for adjunct faculty. The proposal originated in the School of Engineering to allow Schools more flexibility in hiring experienced practitioners from industry on a temporary basis. Last spring the subcommittee made a series of recommendations which were forwarded to the Academic Council for review. After discussion at Academic Council, minimal changes were made in the existing policy, which, it was felt, allows considerable flexibility. In September, the FPC discussed the modified criteria for appointment and reappointment of adjunct professors, and agreed that a policy of requiring review by Academic Council would improve help maintain the quality of the adjunct faculty. These changes were reported to the Faculty at its September meeting.

The FPC also discussed several issues and events with a broad impact on MIT:

• The FPC held several discussions with members of the Parking and Transportation Implementation Task Group on future options for the Institute's parking and transportation policy. The Task Group, chaired by Stephen D. Immerman, Director of Special Services, was charged with developing recommendations for the implementation of a paid-parking system. FPC member Professor Lienhard was appointed in October as a faculty representative.
  
  After reviewing projected cost and utilization figures for the service, other universities' policies, and federal regulations, the Task Group recommended that MIT charge for parking and use some of the income to create a more equitable commuter system which would include subsidizing T passes. Although the Task Group asserted that this plan would provide a more equal benefit distribution and would encourage community members to commute via public transportation, most FPC members felt that this might be perceived as a salary "takeback." Since the community has not been accustomed to a significant parking charge, a parking fee may be perceived as a way to balance the budget at the expense of its employees. Members expressed concern that this decision might set a precedent for other reductions in benefits and subsidies. Many also inquired about the decision-making pathway and suggested that at some point the community be advised of and involved in determining the options. The Report of the Parking and Transportation Implementation Task Group was reviewed this spring by the Academic Council, which approved implementation of a parking fee beginning January 1996.

• The FPC again devoted time to discussing issues of cultural and racial diversity at the Institute. Last year, the FPC supported the establishment of the presidentially-appointed Committee on Campus Race Relations, chaired by Professor Ellen Harris, which has provided funding and leadership for activities to promote diversity and cultural understanding on campus. Professor Harris visited the FPC in December and reported on the Committee's activities during its first year. The Committee has created and published two editions of a curricular guide to MIT courses pertaining to race relations. The Race Relations Committee also administers a Grants Program which has funded projects ranging from outside lecturers to course development. The Committee has also discussed sponsoring a single headliner event on campus, regular forums, dinners in MIT living groups, or a coffee house.

• In March, the FPC met with Deans Margaret A. Jablonski, Robert M. Randolph, and Arthur C. Smith, Professors Suzanne H. Corkin and Charles Stewart, and Mr. Stephen D. Immerman to discuss the activities of the Strategic Housing Planning Committee and to discuss how to involve faculty committees and students in the housing strategic planning process.
  
  To facilitate the Institute's consideration of the portion of its resources allocated to housing, Vice President Dickson commissioned the Strategic Housing Planning Committee, chaired by Dean Randolph. The Committee was charged with gathering information on physical resources, standards, and finances, with hopes of stimulating community interest in the housing issue and provide background for an anticipated student and faculty group examining student life at MIT. Although the Committee's initial report and recommendations brought some notoriety to student housing efforts, subsequent meetings have provided both students and administrators an opportunity to discuss priorities and share ideas for long-range planning.

  Although the student life study was postponed until the appointment of his successor, Dean Smith encouraged the Committee on Student Affairs (CSA) to address housing in its discussions of student life. Professor Corkin, Chair of the CSA, reported that her committee had been discussing housing issues over the past year and expressed concern that the Housing and Food Services need more input from students and faculty. FPC members suggested that the CSA explore ways to integrate interested faculty into these planning processes, stressing that the Institute has a chance of involving faculty if the housing issue is raised within the larger context of student education and student life. The group discussed the possibility of an oversight committee or mechanism (which would include faculty), which might address the conflicts between the academic mission and the operational mission. FPC members agreed that housing strategic planning efforts should proceed immediately and approved a mandate that the CSA focus its efforts on housing issues, encouraging the CSA to add members as necessary to represent all interested groups.

• In May, Ms. Annette Jacobs, Executive Director of the MIT Medical Department, Professor Paul L. Joskow, Professor of Economics and member of the Blue Ribbon Panel, and Dr. Arnold N. Weinberg, Director of the MIT Medical Department, briefed the FPC on the Medical Department's strategic planning process. Mr. Culliton, Vice President for Administration, updated the FPC on the formation and activities of the Blue Ribbon Panel, commissioned to perform an extensive review of the Medical Department. The Blue Ribbon Panel will interface with the Committee on Faculty Administration, the Committee on Family and Work, the FPC, and with various groups within the MIT community during the next year through advisory groups appointed to address specific issues on an as-needed basis.

As MIT's relations with the federal government continued to dominate Institute business, the FPC invited Dr. John C. Crowley, Special Assistant to the President and Director of the MIT Washington Office, and Mr. Ronald P. Suduiko, Assistant to the President for Government and Community Relations, to report on the activities of the Washington Office. Dr. Crowley and Mr. Suduiko explained the mission of the Washington Office and briefed the Committee on the current political climate in Washington DC. They also reported on a number of programs that the Washington Office has sponsored or co-sponsored in coordination with the Government and Community Relations Office, which share President Vest's vision of educating politicians in the areas of science and technology. They also discussed better ways of gathering and disseminating time-sensitive information and material to the Faculty. Professor Jaffe asked Dr. Crowley and Mr. Suduiko to work with Professor J. David Litster, Vice President and Dean for Research, and Ms. Julie T. Norris, Director of the Office of Sponsored Programs, to consider models for communications networks linking the faculty with the Washington office.

President Charles M. Vest visited the FPC twice to discuss a broad spectrum of issues. During his first visit, he discussed with the FPC issues important to the continuing development of the Institute: the student experience, faculty life, race and identity, continuity and change, communications, the view from inside and outside the university, and electronic information. During his second visit the group discussed outside opinions of universities and the Institute's commitment to diversity. The group also discussed the Institute's outlook on housing and an anticipated effort to examine broadly undergraduate life and learning. During Provost Mark S. Wrighton's visit during the second semester, the group discussed new education and research initiatives, searches for new academic officers, new international initiatives, Institute finances, and potential sources of funds for RA/TA funding.

Many thanks to all FPC members for their thoughtful participation on the Committee throughout the year, especially to the Committee's departing members: John H. Lienhard (faculty member), Raajnish A. Chitaley (undergraduate student member), and Anand Mehta (graduate student member). Special thanks go to Professor Jay Keyser and to the FPC working group he chaired on the GSC recommendations; to Phil Clay, Joan Rice, Leigh Royden, and Jake Jacoby (chair) who served on the Ad Hoc Committee on Grievance Investigation Procedures; to Judith Thomson for her participation in the review of faculty grievance procedures; to Larry Bacow (chair), Raaj Chitaley, and Tom Kochan who served on the FPC Subcommittee on Grievances; and to Deans Margaret Enders, Margaret Jablonsky, and Travis Merritt for their advice on many issues concerning undergraduate education and student life.

COMMITTEE ON THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM

MIT Reports to the President 1994-95