Meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Wednesday, April 25, 2001

President Rupp convened the meeting at 12:12 p.m.

1. It was moved, seconded and approved that the minutes of the February 14, 2001 meeting be adopted as posted.

1. He reported that, after discussion, ECFAS had reached a consensus on its view about procedures related to efforts to unionize graduate students. ECFAS has written a letter to President Rupp 1) stating its view that it is undesirable to have the Graduate School dean serve as the point person, 2) expressing the wish that the university not take unreasonable steps to delay the process, and 3) urging the administration to provide regular factual updates to the full faculty. President Rupp indicated that he had indeed received their very thoughtful letter and noted his strong agreement that it is important to have regular faculty updates that contain factual information and that the process should not in any way be contentious. He indicated, however, that the Graduate School dean is the person who has the interests and welfare of the school as his/her primary responsibility and is the one who needs to be centrally involved in issues that relate to the long-term future of the school. Acting GSAS Dean Gillian Lindt indicated that she felt an obligation to speak out on the issue, in part because of the expertise she brings to it by virtue of her personal and professional experience and, in part because of the absence of faculty willing to speak out on the issue and the limitations that the Graduate Student Employees United (GSEU) has placed on any efforts to have free and open discussions.

President Rupp noted that he could not agree with the point that the university should not take a position on graduate student unionization. He observed that it would be incorrect to suggest that the university has no interest in the matter and expressed the belief that it would be irresponsible for the university not to give it serious consideration. Unionization of students cannot be seen as a trivial matter and, as president, he has no choice but to vigorously press the position that is in the best interest of the university and its students in the longer-term.

President Rupp went on to note that the fundamental question being considered by the institution is not whether employees should be unionized, but whether students should be unionized. He reminded faculty that the university has a 30-year history of working successfully with unions and that graduate students were unionized at only one other private institution—New York University (NYU). He reminded faculty that the decision that students could unionize at private universities came about as a result of a five-to-three split vote of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

In response to a question from the floor, Vice President David Cohen noted that the stipulation of the covered group currently excludes research assistants uptown, at Nevis and at Lamont. He indicated that it was unclear to him why graduate students in the basic sciences programs or in DEES or Physics should somehow be differentiated in this matter. Professor Norma Gram asked if research assistants are unionized anywhere else. Vice President Cohen noted that, in public institutions, state rules determine who is and who is not in a graduate student union. He noted that many exclude those working only on their dissertations, and research assistants in science laboratories have tended to be viewed in this way. He went on to say that, if Columbia were to unionize, Columbia and NYU will be breaking new ground as they will be the only institutions governed by the National Labor Relations Act rather than by state law.

Professor Paul Anderer commented that the question of unionizing graduate students is one that needs serious faculty deliberation, with everyone feeling comfortable to speak out freely about the matter regardless of perspective. He noted that just because we do not have a consensus about the situation does not mean we should not have an open and deliberate discussion that explores all of the points of view. Acting Dean Lindt also expressed her deep desire that the conversation not become divisive, but she noted that it was critical for faculty to be fully informed about what would happen if the union is approved. She said that a major concern for her was that those expressing negative views on unionization or speaking out on what will happen if the union is approved not somehow become demonized. Provost Jonathan Cole agreed that faculty and administration must be able to speak out without fear of criticism on matters of national educational policy. He expressed his personal belief that unionization of graduate students would move us from a mentor/colleague model to one of supervisor/employee.

Professor Elaine Sisman observed that the faculty’s desire to engage in a wide-ranging civil dialogue on the topic seems to run counter to the circumstances in which it now finds itself. Another faculty member noted that she had come from a unionized training program and thought it was important for faculty to hear that it had been a terrible experience. She asked when there would be an opportunity for junior faculty to speak out on the issue. President Rupp reminded faculty that a large part of the difficulty they were experiencing in trying to have a meaningful discussion is because the terrain for the discussion is being defined by an entity entirely external to the university. A faculty member rose to ask why the move for unionization is occurring now. Vice President Cohen noted that the impetus for unionization is not the result of an internal drive, but rather grew out of pressure from the United Auto Workers seeking to increase membership. He acknowledged that graduate education at Columbia was not where the institution believed it ought to be and that the institution had begun making changes with the first iteration of the Graduate School Enhancement Plan in 1997. A good deal more has been done since then, and even more is planned. Professor Alice Kessler-Harris noted that more than 500 students had signed cards to hold an election, and she viewed that as a sign that at least some students had grievances. She noted that she had come from a unionized public institution where things seemed to work and said that it was not yet clear to her why the public/private institution distinction was so critical. Provost Cole reported that we do have a mechanism to represent the interests of graduate students—the Graduate Student Advisory Committee (GSAC). It has been in existence for some time, and has served effectively to express graduate student concerns to the Graduate School and to the broader institutional administration. Acting Dean Lindt agreed that good things have been coming out of such discussions and that she relies on GSAC to help her in thinking about graduate student needs.

Professor Gene Litwak said that be thought that the first thing that needed to be done was to clarify whether graduate students were students or employees, that it was important to make that distinction. Then, if it is determined that they are employees, the second question to be considered was whether or not they should be unionized. It seemed to him premature to have a vote for unionization first. Professor Richard Bulliet noted that he was a bit perplexed by the inconsistency of the administration’s position. It demonstrates strong institutional support for unions in general, but not for unionization of students. He asked whether unionized students at Columbia will somehow really be different from those at Berkeley and other public institutions. For him, the key question to be answered is whether being governed by the NLRB rather than by state law will somehow mean that the circumstances will be different at Columbia. He believes that faculty should make up their minds based on the comparison of the status of unionized graduate students operating under NLRB oversight as opposed to those governed by state law. President Rupp indicated that that analysis would be done and provided to the faculty. It was also mutually agreed that both the ECFAS letter on the subject of unionization, and the President’s response, would be circulated to the faculty.

2. Helfand reported that the Arts and Sciences deans had developed a fundraising proposal and that it had been submitted to the President. ECFAS has sent a letter to the deans noting its concern about the lack of priorities in the document and expressing the wish to have discussions on the topic. ECFAS reiterated that the two priorities which it believes have the most to do with the general health of the Arts and Sciences are support for substitutional chaired professorships and graduate financial aid. It recommends that the fundraising focus remain on those two goals for the foreseeable future.
3. ECFAS is continuing its deliberations on the role of lecturers in the broader instructional endeavors. It believes the issue requires careful faculty discussion and it is concerned that we not inadvertently find ourselves moving toward a situation where the teaching of undergraduates is shifted more and more toward non-professorial rank faculty. ECFAS intends to engage the faculty more extensively in discussions about this in the fall.
4. Professor Helfand as chair of the Executive Committee has written to the Presidential Search Committee. Henry King, chair of the search committee, has indicated that the search committee will meet with the Executive Committee and with the departmental chairs. He reported that the search committee was forming an advisory committee to the search committee and that two Arts and Sciences faculty had been appointed to the main search committee—Hilary Ballon and Koji Nakanishi.
5. Professor Helfand reported that a faculty-administration working group had been established to monitor Human Resources. As with the working group on UDAR and fundraising, this one will make regular reports to the full faculty.
6. ECFAS is continuing to look at the question of external fellowships and the costs associated with topping off such fellowships. Its report and recommendations on the topic will be presented in the fall.

1. Professor Henry Pinkham provided an update on the working group looking at issues of aging. He indicated that the committee had assembled a data base containing information on all professorial-ranked faculty appointed in the Arts and Sciences since 1993-94. They have been going through an extensive data cleaning process and are now ready to begin the analysis portion of the project. The hope is to complete these analyses over the summer. Provost Cole volunteered that his office would be happy to gather data from other institutions on retirement policies if the working group wishes.
2. Vice President Cohen discussed the FY 02-06 submitted budget. He called attention to the more extensive description about aspects of the budget which was included in his letter to the faculty that went out with the agenda for this meeting. He highlighted several of these items—the decrease in the indirect cost recovery rate, higher energy costs, the next iteration of the Graduate School Enhancement Plan, and investments being made in faculty and graduate student housing. He noted that, in previous multi-year budget plans, the Arts and Sciences had been budgeting faculty salary increase at 4%. Improving faculty salaries is among the highest priorities of the Arts and Sciences and with careful planning it was possible to grow the faculty salary budget for FY 01 by 5% and to do so again for FY 02. In FY 02 it was done by sacrificing establishment of a contingency fund and by making the decision to accept a less conservative budget than he would have liked. Professor Steven Kahn commented that the department chairs really appreciated the extra reach the Arts and Sciences had made to achieve the 5% growth on the faculty salary budget for FY 02. He expressed the hope that it would be possible to continue increases at 5% in the out years, even though they are now currently budgeted at 4%. Professor Dennis Hayes reminded the faculty that they should not confuse a 5% faculty growth rate with what is available for allocation for many continuing faculty once promotions, retentions, chair salaries and equity adjustments are taken into consideration. Vice President Cohen, however, pointed out that all of the individuals in those groups are also members of the continuing faculty and that those increases are going to them. Professor James Zetzel inquired about the reasons for the change in the ratio of the senior and junior faculty salary budgets. Vice President Cohen responded that this was the result of some limited effort to reduce tenure ratios through fewer senior hires and the explicit policy decision of the department chairs to focus on junior faculty salary increases.
3. Vice President Cohen expressed special appreciation for the contributions of the Faculty Budget Group this year. They devoted time and attention to the budget development process throughout winter and into spring semester. Professor Robert Jervis raised specific questions about several revenue and expenditure lines to which Vice President Cohen responded. Professor Helfand noted that in his twenty-four years at Columbia, this was the most transparent, easiest to understand budget ever presented in the Arts and Sciences. He pointed out that, when faculty hear colleagues and others claim that there must be monies hidden somewhere, it is just simply not true. The Arts and Sciences budget as provided to the faculty is an accurate reflection of reality.
4. New Business

By consensus, President Rupp adjourned the meeting at 1:57 p.m.

Prepared by

Roxie R. Smith