University Times

In law, Nathan Hershey said, there are freedom of information acts that start with the premise that everything is available, but then list a number of exceptions. Similarly, there are privacy laws built on the premise that everything is private, also with an accompanying list of exceptions.

"In the context of this University," Hershey said, "with regard to events that occur or actions taken by the University, I think one question is: Which is the appropriate starting point when we talk about an open University?"

Hershey, who is president of the University Senate, moderated the Feb. 15 Senate plenary session titled "The Open University: Is Pitt Open Enough?"

Presenters included Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg and six faculty members.

"The presenters are free to define [an open university] as they wish," Hershey said, but he pointed out that the word "open" carried nearly a page of definitions in his dictionary, including "having no enclosing or confining barrier, exposed to a general view or knowledge, not restricted to a particular group of participants, characterized by ready accessibility and usually generous attitude, willing to hear and consider, responsive, free from reserve or pretext," to name just a few.

"You have to be careful with some words. Take the word 'open.' You know the expression: Someone 'has an open mind.' But one of the definitions or substitute words for 'open' is 'vacant.' So you have to be careful about what someone means if they say you have an open mind," Hershey quipped.

Each presenter, in one way or another, wrestled with the definition of what constitutes an open university.

Chancellor Mark Nordenberg: Openness as meaningful participation Chancellor Nordenberg quoted essayist Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), who wrote in 1841, "The true university of these days is a collection of books."

"If that had remained the standard of university status," Nordenberg told the assembly, "clearly the University of Pittsburgh in the year 2001 with its collection of more than 4 million volume equivalents would have qualified. And in that context, an open university is one where everyone has equal access to the [books]."

But a university today is much more than its library collection, the chancellor said. "We are accustomed to such phrases as 'multi-versity.' We are familiar with pronouncements that American universities sit at the center of social evolution, and we have come to accept a list of community and economic responsibilities, as well as oversight and accountability related to most aspects of our work."

Pitt might better be defined as a small city, he said, with its 32,500 students, 3,900 faculty, 450 research associates and 5,500 staff members, plus "200,000 alumni and countless neighbors, partners and friends."

Moreover, the cast of characters in this "city" is ever-changing, with nearly 7,000 students earning degrees, 8,500 new students enrolled, 800 new staff hired and 400 new faculty members appointed in a typical year.

A natural question under these circumstances, the chancellor said, is: "How do we continue to share information appropriately and work effectively together? Obviously, we are well beyond the town meeting size."

Instead, the University relies on governance groups such as Faculty Assembly and Senate Council and the 15 standing committees of the Senate, as well as ad hoc committees appointed to address specific short-term issues.

"Most dramatically, we opened our planning and budgeting process," which is broadly participatory, the chancellor said. He cited development of the 10-year facilities plan and the information technology plan as other examples that drew on a University-wide base of input.

"But what I think we most frequently overlook when we discuss openness in the sense of meaningful participation is that this large and complex institution is pretty easily broken down into functional, manageable sized units," referring to schools and departments where many of the most important decisions are made.

"These include what courses to teach and who teaches those courses; what faculty to appoint, retain, tenure and promote; what staff to employ; and what students to admit, as well as what research to pursue. It is in the schools and departments that most of the action takes place and where we participate most directly in what is at the core of our institutional mission."

Nordenberg said his job keeps him in contact not only with leaders and high achievers at Pitt but with a substantial number of faculty, students and staff, in formal and informal settings. "The one common thread is a sense of pride in Pitt, a sense of satisfaction in their work and a sense of connection to the institution and the broader community. But we can be even better. In fact, pursing that goal should be our objective each and every day."

Audrey J. Murrell and Richard E. Wendell: Using business techniques to increase openness Audrey J. Murrell and Richard E. Wendell, professors in the Katz Graduate School of Business, offered separate suggestions for improving openness at Pitt by employing certain business techniques.

Murrell, associate professor of business administration and secretary of the University Senate, said that, contrary to common wisdom, the business model is not necessarily a bad one for education and openness.

"I've heard colleagues complain the University is run too much like a business; it's not being run like a university. But the notion of separation between the academic side and the business side is fuzzy," and getting more blurred all the time, Murrell said.

She said there is a set of management techniques that are compatible with what universities have valued and protected historically, including participation, inclusion, shared knowledge and education.

"The technique is called 'open-book management' and it is a different way of thinking about how to do business. It means both open the books and open the management."

Murrell said participants in this model, from top to bottom, are empowered and have access to financial, operational and strategic information that affects the bottom line for their comment and critique.

"But it's more than that. It means providing a process for facilitating working together, where systems, structures and processes are in place that ensure participation."

The key principles in the open-book management model, according to Murrell, are information, communication, education, participation and leadership. "The information has to be accurate, clear, relevant and timely. Communication must be two ways, not top down, and it must involve the feedback of all stakeholders. Education must involve using the expertise within the organization. Participation means shared decision-making and shared power. And leadership, in organizations that succeed, is one that is compelled, passionate and with a vision that is good for the organization and good for the larger community."

Murrell cited Southwest Airlines, Sprint, Intel and Wal-Mart as examples of successful companies employing this technique.

Is Pitt open enough? "Yes and no," Murrell said. "On the yes side, there are structures [in place] for input in decisions both academic and business: committees, like the planning and budgeting process that have representatives from key stakeholders."

On the other hand, some processes are "much more closed than when I started here: the decision to demolish Pitt Stadium; the issue of same-sex partner health benefits, or the issue of taking away the faculty vote on Board of Trustees committees."

To move toward more openness, she said, the University should continue a dialogue to re-evaluate its structures, including Senate Council and Faculty Assembly, and should restore voting representation of faculty on Board of Trustees committees. "Does it facilitate input or make us watch the game and not be players?" is the question to ask, Murrell said. "We also should eliminate barriers between faculty and administration, between faculty and students, etc. And we need a commitment to do it all the time. It can't go away when the issues become controversial."

Open-book management is not a panacea, Murrell acknowledged. "But it is a reflection of how the nature of competition is changing, and that's true for education. There's little power in keeping a secret, because power stems from the ability to combine others' knowledge with your own."

q Richard E. Wendell, professor of business administration, did not attend the plenary session to complain, he said, "but to suggest an openness in which faculty and staff and all stakeholders participate in trying to change the University."

Wendell, who teaches proactive process management and process improvement at the Katz school, said it's fair to view a university as a collection of processes, such as admissions, placement, food service, library lending and teaching. "The question is, are we managing these processes as best we can?"

While focusing on the teaching process, Wendell said there are issues that should be addressed to ensure the best learning environment possible, ranging from the proper chalk, to a classroom's lighting, to appropriate seating arrangements, to good sightlines, to desks without sharp edges.

"Notice I'm not calling them problems. These are symptoms. The basic principle [in addressing these symptoms] is that management must be customer-focused; that management must proactively seek input on a regular basis, of its suppliers, producers and consumers and use that input to continually improve its operations."

Reflecting on a recommendation made by Senate President Hershey in a column in the Oct. 26 University Times that urged faculty who wish to gain the administration's ear to be "squeaky wheels," Wendell said that the onus is on the administration to seek faculty views.

"I would encourage the University administration to solicit the views of consumers of the services the University provides," and to look at the "best practices" of the companies who are most customer-focused, including, Toyota, General Electric and Nokia.

"This is just the opposite of what [Hershey] suggested: These companies go out of their way to solicit opinions of their customers."

Wendell further encouraged the administration to focus on process improvement.

"Start with pilot processes. Pick a few, don't try to change the world all at once, but involve everybody. Have a customer focus, view faculty and students as customers. When I am a teacher in a classroom, I and the students are customers. Take a look at what the best businesses are doing, benchmark the best practices, not to copy someone, but to understand what they're doing and how to apply [best practices]. Develop an incentive mechanism and make sure results are audited."

The business prof said the possible consequence of process evaluation is significant organizational restructuring. "Sometimes the organizational structure needs to be changed."

He cautioned that, "These things won't happen by themselves. They won't happen unless top management wills it to happen. It has to come from the top administration."

Michael B. Spring:

Openness in the context of the Information Age Michael B. Spring, associate professor of information science and telecommunications in the School of Information Sciences, raised what he called "a structural issue, not a personal management style issue. I would like this to be a 'means' discussion, rather than an 'ends' discussion. I'm happy with the ends. I can't think of a single major decision that's come from a Senate committee that I have found a problem with. But sometimes [the decision-making process] is not as open as it should be."

Spring said that shared governance is the cornerstone of an open university, and that while Pitt has proper structures in place to facilitate shared governance, established processes are not always followed. "We (faculty and administrators) have a responsibility to maintain shared governance. We need to be vigilant, we need to nurture it or we face the possibility that we'll end up as two opposing forces," Spring said.

"The University Senate is the proper mechanism for shared governance. We have elected faculty who are engaged and committed. The Senate can solicit the advice and input of faculty when it's appropriate; I think we do it sometimes, not so much at other times."

Spring's advice for the administration was to make better use of the University Senate standing committees, which he felt were sometimes ignored. He said that too many ad hoc committees were formed to address issues that were the purview of Senate standing committees.

Spring advised the Senate to adjust committee size and composition as necessary; to be more proactive in seeking out specially skilled colleagues with expertise on specific issues facing the Senate and its committees, and to alleviate the administrative role of standing committee chairs by supplying more staff support.

He also suggested that the Senate consider establishing new committees in light of the Information Age, including one he dubbed the committee on the e-University.

He said that with the proliferation of academic uses and ramifications of the Internet for research, publishing and information exchange, Pitt should be studying the situation in a formal, ongoing way.

"I'm continually amazed at how many of my colleagues are still ignorant of what can be done through the Internet and how we can engage in those activities [that are relevant to our jobs]. In 1453, we invented the classroom because we were able to make cheap books. The fact of the matter is the printing press was an agent of revolution.

"We don't know what's going to happen over the next 50 years. But I am convinced that this new communication medium we have, that we once thought was a computational medium, is going to change fundamentally how we do work."

So the University should study how to manage the e-University efficiently and harness the potential of information and venture capital projects and new opportunities for cooperative research. "We know, for example, there are new publication forces at work; well, let's take a concerted look at them."

Finally, Spring suggested that there is an openness in the possibilities of alternative futures for members of the University community that also merited attention. He said faculty are living and working longer; the nontraditional student population is growing; research funding patterns are changing; family patterns are changing, and there is a rapid globalization of education.

How all that changes educational work styles is well worth looking into, he said.

Margaret Mary Kimmel: Openness as access "Why am I here?" began Margaret Mary Kimmel, professor of library and information science at the School of Information Sciences.

"It goes exactly to the purpose of this session. What I mean by open is a slightly different view; mine is specific, representing a view in which I have a personal stake. I think of the term openness in the concept of welcoming, of access, even of safety in crossing the street. I think of openness as access for everyone, not just those with limited mobility," said Kimmel, who uses a wheelchair.

Although Kimmel stressed that she was happy in her job, loved teaching, felt her students were reasonable and was sure her discipline was in good hands, she also recounted some personal barriers to openness, as she defined it, in her experiences both on and off campus.

"I'd like to think that my UPMC Health Plan would be open to service. It is curious to me that I must pay for these shoes, even when they are attached to braces. Why must I pay for corrective shoes, even with a prescription?

"I think of openness in terms of safety in my building — oh, those elevators! But at least [in the event of fire or elevator malfunction] they would only have to carry me down eight floors."

She described teaching in a classroom where she could use only half the white-board. And teaching in a multi-media classroom where the technology controls were above her sightline. "What about University events held off campus [in facilities] that are not ADA-compliant?

"How open is this University? How do you measure when someplace is welcome and accessible? If I have to wait for a security guard to move a vehicle parked next to my van" that is blocking the wheel-chair access door? Or, if I hear irate people who say people like me take all the good parking spots at the mall?

"So my concern for openness is not just limited to this University audience. But we have the opportunity here for openness and access and to set the tone and the spirit of acceptance. We have curb cuts at all intersections; we have an active, effective and creative Office of Disability Services; there is a transportation system in Oakland that is truly wonderful. And now we have access to Heinz Chapel for all of us to be a part of celebrations held there."

Pitt has complied with the letter of the federal disabilities law, but what about the spirit? she asked.

"Sometimes openness depends on not much more than good will and respect. We would never ever consider using a racial epithet, but 'gimp' or 'crip' used thoughtlessly or even as a jest shows a lack of respect.

"Respect is a statement in your syllabus about special needs students. It's as simple as opening a door for someone behind you, or pulling up a chair to greet someone who cannot meet you on eye level.

"So that's why I'm here. I've had wonderful opportunities and the joy of doing what I love most: teaching. And I have a debt to pay to those who have helped me and to those who might not have helped me.

"I am here because I have access to you, as one of you — we, the people of this University. I am here to remind us that openness means tolerance for those whose abilities are different, and respect for those whose ideas or lifestyles may differ from our own, for all of us who have a right to dream about possibilities."

Anne R. Medsger: Openness as conflict resolution "This is the definition I'll use," said Anne R. Medsger. "I mean open in the sense of opportunities for discussion and negotiation to resolve differences."

Medzger is a senior research associate, Health Services Administration, Graduate School of Public Health, and chair of the Senate's anti-discriminatory policies committee.

"I am here today with reservation. I can't answer the question: Is Pitt open enough? But it is clear to me that the matter of same-sex domestic partners' health benefits should be on the agenda" at a forum that asks that question.

Medsger said she was not there to rehash differences or argue in favor of granting the benefits, although she acknowledged she was a supporter of granting them.

"I do want to focus on how openness may have helped to prevent the present standoff and may help avoid one in the future."

Medsger summarized the protracted legal stalemate that started in 1994 with a request by a former Pitt legal writing instructor for health benefits for her lesbian partner. When the University denied the request, the former employee filed a civil suit charging discrimination. The suit was later joined by six other current Pitt employees and continues in litigation.

"[This summary] does not begin to describe the financial and social toll this has cost the University," Medsger said. "I feel frustration and, I imagine, so does the administration. And there still is not closure on this impasse. But the present standoff could have been avoided had there been more open discussion of the topic eight years ago."

Medsger said that at the time of the employee's health benefits request the University "had a non-discrimination policy that was clear on sexual orientation. Pitt already offered some benefits [to same-sex domestic partners]. It was a policy of inclusion. This could have been a sound basis on which to discuss the issue."

She cited the role in the early 1990s of an ad hoc committee in tackling the problem of whether to divest Pitt's assets from South Africa as an example of a successful engagement of open dialogue among faculty, administrators and other stakeholders.

Instead, the current situation has deteriorated into "a destructive polarization," she said.

Looking ahead, Medsger said that sooner or later the legal battle of same-sex health benefits will be over. "We'll still be left with how will we deal with the [Pennsylvania] legislature," which has made it clear to Pitt that it does not want these benefits granted and might take fiscal action against the University if they are.

"I don't know what that solution is. But we need to avoid the polarization after the lawsuits."

As possible alternatives, Medsger suggested that the University could offer health benefits to the individual employee, that person's children and one other adult in the household of the individual's choosing; could create an endowment to pay for the benefits, or could work in concert with other state-related universities to form a united front.

"The possibilities will depend on open discussion, in a setting of mutual respect. I hope that Pitt will be open enough that that will happen with the issue of same-sex benefits."

Gordon R. Mitchell: Openness as the opposite of secrecy Gordon R. Mitchell, assistant professor of communication in Arts and Sciences and director of debate for the William Pitt Debating Union, delved into Pitt's past to make a point about its present.

According to documents Mitchell uncovered, Pitt faculty were involved in government-classified chemical and biological weapons research for the U.S. Army in the 1960s at two University-affiliated centers, one in Pittsburgh and one in Washington, D.C.

Two University documents in particular trouble him, Mitchell said, because they seemed to suggest a contradiction in policy that is still unresolved.

One, an amended report of the University Senate's academic freedom and tenure committee, dated March 21, 1968, and touching directly on the theme of the plenary session, said "secret research is inconsistent with an open University." The report added that the discovery and dissemination of knowledge is free and open and that therefore secrecy and objectivity are mutually exclusive. That document appears to ban secret research at Pitt, Mitchell said.

But a second Pitt document, however, issued by the chan-cellor's office in 1968, titled Policies on Secret Research, said that the University may engage in classified research of "overriding public importance," subject to the approval of the chancellor.

These documents, coupled with a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review account dated Aug 1, 2000, quoting U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-PA) as saying that Pitt and Carnegie Mellon would play key roles in the revitalized government ballistic missile defense system project as centers for software and biotechnology expertise, raise the possibility that Pitt would again enter secret military research contracts.

Mitchell said he asked George Klinzing, Pitt's vice provost for Research, about the apparent contradiction in Pitt's policies.

According to Mitchell, Klinzing replied that to his knowledge Pitt was not conducting secret research and Pitt's policy was to not conduct classified research.

Klinzing referred to a policy dated April 3, 1992, that seemed to rule out secret ballistic defense research of the sort alluded to in the Tribune-Review article.

Mitchell asked the administration: "Does the University have a flat ban on all classified research? Or, is it in the chancellor's power, in effect, to approve ad hoc projects?"

The administration responds Provost James V. Maher told those in attendance at the plenary session that there was no secret research being conducted at Pitt, "nor has there been, in many, many years. In the '70s it was reported every year that there was none, and I'm pretty sure there's been none since then."

In response to other presenters, Maher said, "The role of the Senate is a difficult one because it's an institution with a rather rigid structure, in terms of bylaws and so forth." So there are occasions when an ad hoc committee is called for, he said.

"But I think you can discern a pattern with almost everything that's been accomplished at the University in the last five or six years [where we were confronting] a problem: We reach out and ask who knows something about this, and we recruit faculty who know about it for these ad hoc committees.

"Usually, there are three or four and sometimes more of the 15 standing Senate committees who appropriately think they should be involved, and that's when we bring the chair or another member of that committee into an ad hoc committee along with other experts we recruit and along with administrators who are relevant."

Maher said that when an ad hoc committee prepares a report, it is shared with the Senate and distributed to all standing committees for review and comment. Typically, suggestions are incorporated into a report before it is considered final, he said.

"That, coupled with it being an ad hoc committee that will go out of existence, is a real attempt to move in the direction that several of the speakers were recommending.

"I invite all of you to work with us to perfect this model, to make it something that will continue to produce results for the University in a way that, No. 1, will draw on the expertise of the faculty, staff and students, and, No. 2, will get something done in a confined period of time."

After the plenary session, Chancellor Nordenberg told the University Times that he was particularly moved by Kimmel's remarks.

"I was particularly touched by her presentation on how well we as a University community are being respectful, how we can be and should be respectful. It's the type of thing we should be thinking about.

The chancellor said: "I also sensed an overriding appreciation for the University among the panelists."

Nordenberg noted that the presentations of Murrell, Wendell and Spring underscored the value of useful feedback on Pitt's processes and structures. "Overall, I thought it was a very good session."

–Peter Hart