University of Iowa
September 24, 2002
– 4:45 PM
Dodge Room, 256 IMU
Alvarez, S. Armstrong, Z. Ballas, C. Berman, J. Cowdery, M. Deem, D. DeJong, K.
Diffley, C. Dungy, S. Franklin, C. Green, G. Hamot, R. Herman, J. Hochstrasser,
E. Irish, J. Jew, W. Johnson, R. LeBlond, P. Lloyd, C. Lynch, M. Maktabi, U.
Mallik, T. Mangum, K. Marra, R. Miller, S. Moorhead, J. Moyers, P. Muhly, B.
Muller, T. O’Dorisio, L. Oakes, H. Paarsch, J. Polumbaum, R. Randell, M. Reno,
J. Ringen, P. Rubenstein, T. Schmidt, K. Southard, K. Tachau, T. Ton-That, R.
Valentine, C. Wanat, R. Weir, J. Westefeld, D. Whitaker, J. Woodhead
K. Abdel, J. Altman, D. Brown, P. Chang, E. Dove, B. Fallon, A. Hansen,
R. Hegeman, S. Kurtz, A. McCarthy, B. Phillips, D. Quinn, R. Slayton, L.
Snetselaar, P. Weller, H. Winfield
T. Boles, C. Creekmur, L. Dusdieker, P. Heidger, S. Stromquist
Senate Officers in Attendance:
J. Cox, President; M. Raymond, Vice President; C. Porter, Secretary;
Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President
Boyd (President), Phil Davidson (Daily Iowan), Tom Walsh (Iowa City Gazette),
Sam Becker (Campus Campaign), Heather Woodward (Press Citizen), Jon Whitmore
(Office of the Provost), Chris Squier (Office of the Provost), Irwin Levin (ADT
Committee), Della McGrath (UI Foundation), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost),
Alvin Snider (English), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Charlie Drum
(University Relations), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)
Call to Order
meeting was called to order by University of Iowa Faculty Senate President Jeff
Cox at 3:32 PM.
Minutes – Faculty Senate, April 30, 2002 (Attachment 1)
Maktabi moved the following, which was seconded.
To approve the minutes. Passed
by unanimous vote.
Approval of Recommended Replacements (Attachment 2)
Mangum moved and the motion was seconded to approve the Senate and Council
replacements as proposed by the Elections Committee in Attachment 2.
Prof. Raymond moved and Prof. Tachau seconded the recommendations of the
Committee on Committees for committee replacements as recommended in Attachment
2. The vote for both sets of
replacements was unanimous.
Report of the Capital Campaign (Sam Becker)
Becker, Emeritus Professor of Communication Studies, reported to the Senate on
the largest capital campaign in the history of the University of Iowa.
He identified the campaign as being the largest not only in the amount of
money that is intended to be raised but also in the breadth of activities that
will be funded by participant giving. Such
activities will include a specific endowment for staff development; monies
intended for restoration of the Old Capital and also for campus beautification
projects as three examples. By
meeting with the Senate, Emeritus Prof. Becker is continuing his attempt to
speak to every leadership group on the University of Iowa campus.
It is his intent that these discussions serve to encourage all campus
constituents to contribute to this important campaign.
The campaign has identified a $25 million fund raising goal for
contributions from faculty and staff. One
hundred percent participation is his goal in order to show our deep and abiding
commitment to our great university to our external constituencies.
All pledges, no matter how large or small, will help contribute to this
100% goal. Three ways of giving
were highlighted: 1) contributions
to one’s own unit; 2) contributions to university programs as exemplified by
support for KSUI, Hancher Auditorium and its programs or the campus
beautification project; 3) contributions to the staff development campaign that
might be made by either faculty or staff in the name of particular staff
members. The campaign began in 1999
and will continue to 2005. On
October 9, 2002 between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 PM there will be a kickoff
for the Campus Campaign for Good.
IOWA! The Campaign to
Advance Our Great University. Attendees
will have the opportunity to sign up to win various door prizes which will
include, among others, one year of free on-campus parking, tickets for two to
the madrigal dinner and seats for two in Bump Elliott’s Kinnick Stadium press
box for the Iowa vs. Northwestern football game.
Report of the Faculty Senate President (Jeff Cox)
President Cox began his remarks with an announcement that the proceeds
from the faculty bake sale of last spring were able to support two $410
scholarships for two students. Prof.
Maktabi asked whether the bake sale is intended to be a yearly event. President Cox responded that it certainly could be but at
present there were no plans for a second bake sale.
these opening comments the President gave his report to the Senate.
He recounted for the committee the many activities in which he and the
Faculty Senate officers, Profs. Bhattacharjee, Raymond and Porter, have
participated since the last meeting of the Faculty Senate and Faculty Council in
the spring semester of 2002. He then paused to introduce University of Iowa Interim
President Willard “Sandy” Boyd. Professor
Cox reminded the Senate that it was Professor Boyd who made the original
suggestion to then President. Bowen that the faculty should create a Senate body
whose core values would be exemplified by shared governance and a commitment to
due process and to tenure.
reviewed for the Faculty Senate that the Manual of Procedure mandates that a
presidential search shall involve faculty consultation.
Over the course of the summer of 2002 the President of the Board of
Regents, Owen Newlin was in close consultation with Pat Cane, former chair of
the Committee on the Selection of Central Academic Officials, and Senate
President Jeff Cox regarding the selection of the chair of the Search Committee.
Jonathan Carlson, Professor of Law was selected for this duty. Regent Newlin consulted extensively with the Senate
leadership in addition to the chair of the Search Committee and the Committee
for the Selection of Central Academic Officials on the composition of the rest
of the committee. At present the
committee is on target for its intended goal of recommending a handful of
candidates that might be brought to the University of Iowa campus for an onsite
interview process to the Board of Regents by the end of January 2003.
the interval between this and the last Senate and Council meetings the Senate
leadership has continued to have ongoing meetings with the president and the
provost as well as various vice presidents.
Items discussed during the meetings with the president have included:
1) ever increasing amounts of dollars being directed toward the athletic
program; 2) faculty concern over the welfare of our student body with respect to
the campus wide problem of alcohol abuse and the secondary problem of the
highest arrest rates of our sister institutions for problems related to alcohol
and other drug consumption; 3) a discussion in conjunction with the Chief of the
Campus Police, Chuck Green regarding alcohol related arrest rates on our campus
and the relationship between the number of bars available to our student body
(52 in Iowa City) as compared to Iowa State University (14 in Ames); 4) the
intent of the interim university president to greatly expand visible university
outreach activities to let the citizens of Iowa know how important higher
education is to the welfare of this state.
In meetings with the provost the Faculty Senate leadership discussion
covered less broad issues and focused on deliberations over more specific
proposals. Examples of such
deliberations included: 1) the proposal for the Academy of Distinguished
Teachers; 2) the
research track faculty proposal which is currently receiving much attention; 3)
and the proposal to abolish the Senate Budget Committee in order to create a
university-wide committee composed of faculty and staff with the chair appointed
by the president of the university. In
addition, the Senate leadership has discussed proposals coming forward for wider
discussion at the Council and the Senate with the provost.
Examples of these discussions including the Dispute Resolution Committee
revision of the policy on harassment, revisions of policies suggested by the
Office of the Vice President for Research including conflict of commitment and
intellectual property and patents.
of the more important roles of the Faculty Senate is its participation in the
ongoing review of central academic officials.
Last year the offices of the Vice President for Finance and the Vice
President for Student Services were reviewed.
Those reports have previously been posted on the university web site
however they are difficult to find. As
such the Senate will be posting them on its own web site.
The review of the Office of the Provost has been completed but the
distribution of the report has been held up for technical reasons.
It, too, will soon be posted on the university web site with the intent
to post it on the Faculty Senate web page as well.
The review of the Office of the Vice President for Research has been
postponed and there is ongoing discussion with the Faculty Senate leadership
regarding its timing. For the first
time in the history of the university there is an intent to review the Office of
the General Council. The self-study of this vice presidential position is in progress and should
be followed within another academic year by the posting of a committee review
the conclusion of these remarks President Cox entertained questions from the
floor of the Senate. Prof.
Westefeld inquired whether there was an intent to funnel the discussions on the
athletic budget and student substance abuse and its attendant problems back to
the senate for additional open discussion.
President Cox indicated that there was strong sentiment among some
senators to recommend action on these issues.
At present there is no intent to add these topics as specific agenda
items. It is possible that they may
be introduced from the Senate floor. In
his remarks regarding the “arms race” in collegiate athletics, President Cox
identified nationwide concern over the escalating costs associated with these
programs as wells as their commercialization.
There is ongoing Senate leadership participation in the CIC (Committee on
Institutional Cooperation), consisting of the Big 10 universities as well as the
University of Chicago and the University of Illinois at Chicago in discussions
on these very topics. The next
forum for discussion at the level of the CIC for the Faculty Senate leadership
will be in November of 2002.
Rubenstein questioned the lack of consistent information regarding the research
track faculty proposal. Information
promulgated within his own College of Medicine, a principal in discussion of the
need for such a track, has suggested to the collegiate faculty that this
proposal has been shelved. Subsequent
to this recent discussion at the College of Medicine Executive Committee, the
proposal was reviewed in the Iowa City press.
In the absence of distribution of this proposal directly to the faculty
of the university, Prof. Rubenstein wondered how the Council could adequately
debate its merits or lack thereof. President
Cox responded that the proposal was given to the university provost last year
and that it is, indeed, a public document, which will be openly discussed at the
Council and Senate. Prof.
Rubenstein continued his questioning in regard to the wisdom of discussing such
a proposal with the press before the faculty of the university had an
opportunity to do likewise. President
Cox reiterated that the proposal is not a secret in its nature nor is it
confidential. Continuing a similar
line of questioning Prof. Tachau wondered about the propriety of discussing the
report at Council since a large proportion of the faculty that would be directly
affected by this proposal (College of Medicine faculty) had not been made aware
of any of its details. President
Cox reminded the Senate that the proposal was a university-wide policy
and therefore needed full Council discussion, which would be forthcoming.
Immediate Past President Bhattacharjee reminded the Senate of the
historic-based need for the Faculty Council and Senate to proceed with
discussion as a matter of protocol. In
responding to a question by Prof. LeBlond about whether the actual research
faculty document is a report or a specific proposal, President Cox identified
its nature as more of the former rather than the latter.
It is a broad attempt to explain how it is the research track faculty
might function. He reiterated that
it is not a College of Medicine specific proposal.
President Cox further indicated that a campus-wide e-mail distribution
will be forthcoming to alert the university faculty of the existence of this
report and to direct them to a university web page where it might be found.
Provost Whitmore responded to a question from Prof. Berman who wished to
know who appointed the committee that wrote the research track faculty report.
While the concept primarily derived from the Colleges of Medicine and
Engineering the committee itself was appointed by joint efforts of Vice
President Skorton and Provost Whitmore and had campus-wide membership. The charge to the committee was to look at the concept of
having such positions and to make recommendations about whether or not the
proposal should be discussed more broadly.
The recommendation of the report is, indeed, to further consider this
proposal with additional, university-wide, study.
President Cox reminded the Senate, again, that the report is a public
document that directly affects faculty of the university and therefore needs
deliberation by the Faculty Senate officers, the Council of Deans and that it
needs discussion, by protocol, by the Faculty Council and subsequently by the
Faculty Senate. Prof. Tachau
endorsed this proposal but wondered whether the Council and Senate should seek
broader input from constituent groups prior to further discussion at its
meetings. In his concluding remarks
on this topic President Cox reminded the senators that the Faculty Council
meetings are open to the public and should provide a forum for expanded faculty
input as Prof. Tachau wishes.
Report of the Presidential Search Committee (Jonathan Carlson)
of an unintended and unavoidable conflict Prof. Carlson was unable to attend the
Senate meeting as he intended. He
provided a brief statement, which was read by President Cox.
The statement is provided as Attachment 3.
President Cox indicated that Prof. Carlson is more than willing to attend
future meetings as desired and as necessary.
Provost’s Annual Report to the Senate (Jon Whitmore)
Annual Report of the Provost is included as Attachment 4.
Following the delivery of his report, Provost Whitmore responded to a
series of questions. A senator
asked for information regarding the positions of the candidates for governor on
increased funding for higher education as a priority item.
Provost Whitmore responded that the university did not have specific
information that would help to answer this question.
It is the position of the Provost that the central university
administration will work any governor through the Board of Regents to push our
local agenda in concert with the collective agenda of the Regents.
Berman asked for an update on the Old Capital restoration.
The Provost responded that an agreement has been reached with a
contracting firm and that the campus should begin to see evidence of the
reconstruction of the dome in the near future.
Proposal for the Academy of Distinguished Teachers
Irwin Levin reported for Prof. Roberta Marvin, who was unable to attend the
Senate meeting. He briefly
identified the two components of the proposal as institutional recognition for
teaching and activities that will promote the dedication of financial resources
to support teaching activities. A
motion was made and seconded to approve the proposal, which received a unanimous
vote. Following this rapid approval
a series of modifications were proposed from the floor. Prof. Polumbaum expressed her displeasure with the proposal
for three significant reasons. She
believed that the title sounded pompous and that its pomposity may not play well
to outside constituents. Furthermore
she believed that the current celebration of teaching on campus is more than
adequate and does not require the creation of an Academy
of Distinguished Teachers.
In elaborating on this concept she suggested that selection to such a
body may provide potential for division amongst the faculty, some of whom will
not be elected to the academy, but all of whom are engaged in significant
teaching activities. Furthermore
because of the presence of a Center for Teaching and established support of the
Office of the Provost for teaching activities, the goals of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers
are currently being met. In his
response Prof. Levin recognized that teaching is an integral part of faculty
life. He further indicated that the
wished to create a cross-campus forum for celebration of teaching in the form of
an annual awards dinner. Immediate
Past President Bhattacharjee identified the source of the name that has been
proposed as having been a meeting between the University of Iowa and University
of Minnesota Faculty Senate officers with the University of Minnesota provost
and president. An Academy
of Distinguished Teachers
had been established at the University of Minnesota and the University of Iowa
proposal was created using the name they had chosen for their own academy.
Prof. Maktabi expressed his support for the proposal.
In his opinion it is based on a need for ongoing recognition of an
integral part of faculty life at a time when there is a significantly enhanced
emphasis on grant dollar generation. He
believes that the proposal clearly shows that University of Iowa faculty
leadership values teaching and that it also sends a clear message of the value
we place on this activity to the state of Iowa.
Prof. Randell asked about the funding source and amount of monies to be
committed to the Academy
of Distinguished Teachers.
Provost Whitmore indicated that he intended to invest up to $50,000 in
activities supporting the activities of the academy.
He envisioned incremental contributions over some time to achieve this
final goal. While Prof. Berman
agreed with the title she suggested that many of the needs for teaching
activities are more basic and include such mundane items as functional
blackboards and adequate erasers and chalk.
Prof. Tachau agreed that the title was appropriate and sees it as a
direct link to one of times greatest teachers, Aristotle and his academy.
She expressed concern that a negative faculty vote in support of the
creation of such an academy would send the wrong message to the state of Iowa.
Prof. Jew concurred and further elaborated that the importance of
recognition of our commitment to teaching could additionally be reflected in the
creation of a vice president for teaching.
Such an office could be a source of resources and could also advocate for
the kinds of needs that Prof. Berman indicated.
Prof. Mangum reminded the Senate that Lola Lopes currently holds the
office of associate provost for undergraduate education and as such oversees the
Council on Teaching as well as the nTitle and Twist programs and, as such,
serves the purpose proposed by Prof. Jew. Profs.
Lynch and LeBlond both supported the proposal.
Although they identified a lack of detail in its substance, they both
expressed great faith in the ability of a distinguished and creative group of
people to develop an academy that would be an important resource for the
university. Prof. Whitaker provided a motion to reaffirm support of the
prior vote. Only three negative
votes were identified and so the proposal to create an Academy of
The University of Iowa Convocation will occur on October 1, 2002.
that time the Senate will be able to celebrate the results of their
deliberations in the presentation of the Awards for Faculty Excellence and the
The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting will be held on
October 1, 2002 at 3:30 PM in the Penn State Room at the IMU.
The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting will be held on
October 15, in the Lucas Dodge Room at the IMU.
From the Floor
No additional items were identified by the Senate for discussion.
Following a motion by Prof. Whitaker and unanimous approval from the
floor, the University of Iowa Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:58 PM.
University of Iowa Faculty Senate
of Presidential Search Committee Chair
summer the Board of Regents appointed a 26-member Presidential Search and Screen
Advisory Committee. The Board also
contracted with Korn/Ferry International, an executive search firm with
extensive experience in higher education, to provide assistance to the Committee
and the Board throughout the search process.
Committee has three main tasks: First, to develop as large and strong a pool of
candidates as possible, by conducting a broadly-based and wide-ranging search.
Second, to screen the applicant pool and identify a handful of the
strongest candidates for the position. Third,
to recommend at lest four finalists to the Board of Regents and to provide the
Board with a written evaluation of each finalist.
this point, the Committee has begun the process of assembling a candidate pool
and has developed criteria for evaluating the candidates.
The evaluative criteria proposed by the committee were approved by the
Board of Regents on September 19. We
are now turning our attention to the candidate pool.
Over the next 6-8 weeks we will be focused on expanding that pool and
evaluating the candidates.
Address to the
We are living in
We are living in
devastatingly difficult financial times.
The University of
Iowa lost $65 million in state appropriations in the past eighteen months.
The very quality
of the University of Iowa, which has been built up over more than 150 years, is
being threatened by unprecedented financial hardships.
And yet, because
of the collective goodwill and extraordinary hard work of its faculty and staff,
the University of Iowa has much to be proud of.
You, the faculty,
have found ways to shine a light through the dark budget clouds that hang over
Even though our enrollments have increased by nearly 600
students, and even though we have 100 less faculty and 215 less staff, this fall
semester has gotten off to a strong start.
I will not pretend that the quality of learning is as healthy
as it was two years ago.
It is not.
But because of your sacrifices, our students have full course
schedules, and you are engaging them in vivid experiences in your classrooms on
a daily basis.
teaching more students.
The number of
papers to grade and the number of students to advise have increased.
classrooms are bulging with students—overflowing, in some cases.
Yet, in the short
run, through heroic effort, the University has found a way to cope.
What I worry
about, now, is the long run.
Next year and beyond.
is eroding the quality of education.
Of that I have no
And, the time for
faculty to make new discoveries in the laboratory, the library, and the
rehearsal halls is being squeezed in harmful ways.
been asked to put
into place this year will get us by in the short run…..
will not sustain the excellence of educational quality, research outcomes, and
service provision that have been hallmarks of Iowa’s educational reputation
throughout the nation.
We are known
inside the state and outside for having faculty who care deeply about quality
We are know as an
institution that has done everything it can to have our best faculty teaching
undergraduates in the smallest classroom groupings possible.
discussion over lecturing to the masses.
We value active
student learning over passive note taking.
We value sharing
cutting-edge research with our undergraduate students.
These things we
value, however, are in great jeopardy.
This is why the
centerpiece of the University’s request for new funding from the state
for the 2003-04 budget emphasizes two things--salaries and faculty positions:
#1 IS FULL FUNDING
Because the only real competitive advantage any truly great
University ever has is the quality of its people—the quality of its faculty,
its staff, and ultimately the students they attract.
University of Iowa must compete for faculty in a national and international
salaries rank 7th out of 10 Big Ten public universities.
And we rank 9th
out of 11 in our Board-approved comparison group of peer institutions.
place or 9th place is acceptable.
We must hire and
retain the best faculty, graduate assistants, and support staff.
We simply must.
People come first.
So, we put salary
#2 budget request from additional state support is RESTORING FACULTY POSITIONS
lost in four budget cuts over the past eighteen months.
Simply put, we
cannot sustain the quality of undergraduate and graduate education--the
centerpieces of this great University--without more faculty than we have now.
have sliced through the University’s skin and bone and have reached our
We cannot sustain
the historical quality of education that Iowa’s students demand and deserve
without additional faculty in our classrooms.
Therefore, RESTORING LOST FACULTY LINES is the university’s
When we receive
additional money from the state, these two items—faculty and staff salaries
and restoring faculty lines—will get our focused attention.
Let me add one more ominous note about faculty salaries.
We have had to make a double request for salary funding for
raised salaries on a merit basis approximately 3.76% this current year.
But the partial
funding that the state provided for our current raises (2.2%) was provided on a
This has required the University and the Regents to ask for
two doses of salary increase for the coming year.
First we must get the 2.2% provided by the state for this year’s salaries restored on an ongoing basis.
restoration would amount to $12 million.
The second part of
the salary request, then, is for the state to provide new, ongoing funding
so that we can provide merit raises for next year—2003-04.
A double hit of
salary funding in a single year is formidable, but it must be done if Iowa is to
maintain the quality of its higher education institutions.
reading David McCollough’s book, JOHN ADAMS, this summer, I was, time and time
again, struck by the clarity and depth of insight the founding fathers of this
nation had concerning the value of education and the long-term role it would
play in building a vibrant and free nation, and, by implication, healthy
and productive states.
John Adams was an advocate for public access to education,
not just for the rich, but for all classes of citizens.
In 1776 he wrote:
“Laws for the
liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so
extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for
this purpose would be thought extravagant (pg. 103).
Let me repeat that last phrase: “…no expense for
[education] would be thought extravagant."
Iowa and its
government officials must realize that public support for higher education is
not an expense, nor is it an extravagance; it is a necessary investment in the
future well-being of this state.
all that I have said so far, I remain optimistic about the future.
It was Alfred
North Whitehead who wrote, “The task of the university is the creation of the
Despite our current difficulties, we cannot let this sacred
trust, CREATING THE FUTURE, go by
diminishing state support, the University of Iowa cannot and will not stand
University provided well-deserved salary raises this year.
We opened a
stunning new Biomedical Research and Education building.
A new Honors building is rising out of the ground.
We dug the first
symbolic footings for a new Journalism and classroom building just last week.
groundbreaking ceremony for the much anticipated Art and Art History building is
scheduled for the very near future.
All is not bleak.
celebrated the acquisition of the 4 millionth volume by our libraries this past
And, nearly $500 thousand was added to the library
acquisitions budget—keeping alive our shared belief that our knowledge
infrastructure must be nurtured, even in hard times.
The University Foundation’s aggressive campaign to raise
$850 million has already realized $545 million in contributions and pledges.
Our alumni and friends are doing their part to advance the
And, through the
work of Vice President Skorton and his staff and you the faculty, the University
saw a breathtaking gain in sponsored research awards for 2002—an astonishing
23% increase for a total of $341 million.
All is not bleak.
Six new faculty
lines were made available to support new faculty hires for interdisciplinary
research and teaching and for diversifying the faculty with international expertise.
Six more lines are planned for next year.
Increased tuition dollars provided 10 new faculty positions
to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences this year.
the University were up 10.5% for freshman and 15% for graduate students.
Enrollments are up
on campus by nearly 600 students.
Diversity of the
student body and the faculty ranks has also made modest, but positive, gains.
All is not bleak
for the University of Iowa’s future.
Two of the bright
spots for this current year are our interim president Willard (Sandy) Boyd and
his wonderful wife, Susan.
We could not ask
for two more skillful and experienced advocates for the University of Iowa.
knows only too well how important state funding is to the health and well being
of this University.
He has plans,
already underway, to develop stronger outreach efforts to the citizens of the
You will hear more
about these plans directly from President Boyd.
exists a concern that the humanities have been relegated to a back burner
in higher education’s institutional priorities, pushed aside by a massive
infusion of grant funding for the life and health sciences and for digital
A similar concern for the wellbeing of the humanities exists
on this campus, especially in light of the recent budget cuts and loss of
I plan to host a series of discussions on the future of the
humanities at Iowa throughout the year (two discussions already took place this
Hopefully, the outcome of these discussions will be a
blueprint for reinvigorating the humanities at Iowa.
I would like
Iowa’s discussions to be informed by a series of recommendations on the
humanities that will be promulgated by the Association of American Universities
(the AAU) this fall.
A year ago, the AAU appointed an ad hoc task force to study
the state of the humanities and to make recommendations about how this core
discipline might be advanced at AAU’s 63 elite research universities over the
I serve on AAU’s
humanities task force and I plan to use its recommendations as a touchstone for
discussions on this campus concerning how a brighter future might be fashioned.
Excellence in the humanities is a core element of this
University’s past and of it future.
The timing is right.
With the help of the faculty, we will draft a blueprint,
which can then be considered early in the tenure of our new president.
It has been a
daily learning experience, and an invigorating one.
This is a first
class university, and you are a dedicated faculty—
-strong, committed teachers
-infinitely inquisitive researchers, scholars, and artists,
-and generous providers of service to the people of
Iowa, the nation, and around the globe.
(Parenthetically, a few of your colleagues are even reaching into far outer space.)
I would like to
take this opportunity to thank personally Amitava Bhattacharjee for the quality
of his service as president of the senate last year.
It was top notch
in my book.
And I look forward
to working with your talented new Senate President, Jeff Cox, as we continue the
tradition of shared governance that has made this University everything that it
distinctive place to teach and learn.