ACADEMIC PLANNING
COUNCIL
Bulletin #63
October 3, 2003
I.
Introductions
II.
Enrollment Planning
III.
Task Force on Faculty
Instructional Activities Update
IV.
Academic Freedom and Homeland
Security – The Publication Issue
I.
Introductions
At the first Academic Planning
Council meeting of academic year 2003-04, Provost and Senior Vice President Jud
King welcomed several new APC members: Lisa Alvarez-Cohen, chair of UCEP;
Manuel Gomez, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Irvine; Richard Goodman,
chair of UCPB; Luke Hasty, graduate student representative; Dan Neuman,
Executive Vice Chancellor, UCLA; Jan Talbot, Division Chair, San Diego; and
Walter Yuen, Division Chair, Santa Barbara.
II.
Enrollment Planning
The Academic Planning Council discussed
the myriad issues affecting enrollment planning, particularly in the short
term. Assistant Vice President Jerry Kissler described the
magnitude of the State's budget problem, only partially addressed in the
2003-04 budget. Language in that budget act instructed UC and CSU not to
request funding for enrollment growth in 2004-05. In addition to the
magnitude of the budget shortfall (the size of which is still unknown, in part
due to court challenges to the 2003-04 budget actions) further uncertainties
about what the kind of budget a new governor might develop have led UC to
decide not to ask The Regents to vote on a budget request this November.
Rather, The Regents will be asked to establish some principles on which to base
negotiations once the Governor's budget is released (scheduled for January 10,
2004).
Normally UC would be requesting
funding for about 5,000 additional students in 2004-05, about half of whom
represent an increase in continuing students. The University of
California continues to support the Master Plan for Higher Education but the
"no growth" restriction raises important questions about whether the
University can continue to admit the top 12.5 percent if the State does not
provide the resources to accommodate all eligible students. Related
to this question, CPEC's eligibility study, due next spring, will assess
whether UC's eligibility criteria are yielding 12.5 percent of California's
high school graduating class. BOARS will then recommend whether and how to
modify eligibility criteria.
In addition to the no growth
instructions, the Department of Finance has asked UC (as well as all State
agencies) to consider how they would take a 20 percent cut in 2004-05, representing
the magnitude of the State shortfall if there are no tax increases. A cut that size ($575 million) is equivalent
to cutting 63,000 students, which exceeds the number of new students (freshmen,
transfer and graduate) that enroll each year.
The final complication in this uncertain fiscal context is that the
final 2004-05 State budget will not be known until well after the admissions
cycle for fall 2004 has been completed.
APC members discussed various
aspects of the problem and possible enrollment options that might be
considered. For example, student enrollment might be deferred to later in
the year or to the next year, with students taking courses at a community
college or UNEX while they await UC matriculation. Students could also be
expected to graduate more expeditiously, yielding space for additional new
students. APC members suggested working cooperatively with the
other public segments of higher education if eligible students have to be
turned away from UC, even if through a deferred enrollment program.
III.
Task Force on Faculty
Instructional Activities Update
The APC has discussed at several
previous meetings the progress being made toward changing the way faculty
instructional activities are characterized and reported to the State. Sandra Smith reported that while Senate
committees and campus administrations are preparing commentary on
recommendations regarding instructional reporting and campus policies, (http://www.ucop.edu/planning/taskforceonfacultyinstructionalactivities.htm)
campus Institutional Research directors are testing the recommended reporting
approaches which are intended to demonstrate a wider array of teaching
activities than previous methods.
The difficult California budget
situation makes the issue of faculty workload more central because many
legislators believe that the University could address part of its budget cuts
by expecting faculty to teach more.
Some Regents have also asked for more information about faculty
instructional activities. These new
reports that are being developed may satisfy the State that what UC expects of
faculty is comparable to what
competitor universities expect.
The reports are also expected to provide valuable information for
departments to use, comparing themselves to others within the campus and at
other campuses.
IV.
Academic Freedom and Homeland
Security – The Publication Issue
Vice Provost Larry Coleman discussed the
growing concern within the University and other academic institutions about
potential government-imposed restrictions on federally funded research that is
deemed "sensitive" based on national security concerns. He noted that UC’s policy has long been that
faculty research should be publishable—a contract or grant normally is
unacceptable to the University if it limits the freedom to publish or
disseminate results. Exceptions based
on national security concerns require approval by the UC President, regardless
of whether the award containing such a publication restriction is classified or
unclassified.
The University has long endorsed the
principle that classification is the appropriate mechanism for exerting control
over federally funded research, a principle embodied in national policy (as
stated in National Security Decision Directive 189). There is considerable concern that this principle no longer is
being applied consistently by all federal agencies. Language is beginning to appear in unclassified awards stipulating
that agency approval must be obtained before publishing research findings in
areas deemed "sensitive."
The web of potential categories of "sensitive" information is
confusing and not consistently defined.
To date, UC has refused to accept grants with such conditions. In addition to fundamental concerns about
academic freedom and preserving an open research environment, there are related
concerns that accepting awards with such restrictions could trigger federal
export control regulations (which, among other things, restrict disclosure of
certain information to foreign nationals).
The question to the APC was whether
further University review of the subject is warranted. The Senate will be addressing the
issue. Vice Provost Coleman reported
that national associations including NASULG have encouraged UC to hold the
line, because otherwise it would be difficult for other universities to resist
such constraints on their freedom to publish.