University Times

University Senate President Thomas Smitherman called upon Faculty Assembly to be messengers for a June 2012 National Academies report on maintaining the competitive position of the nation’s research universities.

The report, “Research Universities and the Future of America:  Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security,” was compiled at the request of Congress to answer the question: “What are the top 10 actions that Congress, the federal government, state governments, research universities and others can take to assure the ability of the American research university to maintain the excellence in research and doctoral education needed to help the United States compete, prosper and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environment and security in the global community of the 21st century?”

Smitherman urged faculty to share the report with colleagues.

“I think this is a powerful report. My hope is that this will be another Morrill Act, it will be another Eisenhower interstate highway [act], it will be another Jack Kennedy call to go to the moon,” he said.

The report recommends 10 actions toward accomplishing three broad goals:

• Strengthening the partnership among universities, federal and state governments, philanthropy and the business community in order to revitalize university research and speed its translation into innovative products and services.

• Strengthening institutions by streamlining and improving the productivity of research operations within universities.

• Ensuring that America’s pipeline of future talent in science, engineering and other research areas remains creative and vital, leveraging the abilities of all of its citizens and attracting the best students and scholars from around the world.

In a special report at Faculty Assembly’s Oct. 3 meeting, Smitherman highlighted the document’s 10 main points:

1. Federal action

The report’s authors recommended that the federal government “adopt stable and effective policies, practices and funding for university-performed R&D and graduate education so that the nation will have a stream of new knowledge and educated people to power our future, helping us meet national goals and ensure prosperity and security.”

The authors stated: “The federal government should review and modify policies and practices governing university research and graduate education that have become burdensome and inefficient, such as research cost reimbursement, unnecessary regulation and awkward variation and coordination among federal agencies.”

2. State action

The authors recommended state governments “provide greater autonomy for public research universities so that these institutions may leverage local and regional strengths to compete strategically and respond with agility to new opportunities. At the same time, restore state appropriations for higher education, including graduate education and research, to levels that allow public research universities to operate at world-class levels.”

3. Strengthening partnerships with business

The report recommended strengthening the business role in the research partnership, facilitating the transfer of knowledge, ideas and technology to society, and accelerating “time-to-innovation.”

4. Improving university productivity

“Increase university cost-effectiveness and productivity in order to provide a greater return on investment for taxpayers, philanthropists, corporations foundations and other research sponsors,” the authors recommended.

5. Creating a strategic investment program

The program would fund initiatives at research universities critical to advancing education and research in areas of key national priority.

6. Providing full federal funding for research

The report recommended that federal government and other research sponsors strive to cover full costs  — direct and indirect — of research projects in a consistent and transparent manner.

7. Reducing regulatory burdens

The report recommended reducing or eliminating regulations “that increase administrative costs, impede research productivity and deflect creative energy without substantially improving the research environment.”

8. Reforming graduate education

The authors recommended action to “improve the capacity of graduate programs to attract talented students by addressing issues such as attrition rates, time-to-degree, funding and alignment with both student career opportunities and national interests.”

9. Developing STEM pathways and diversity

The authors recommended improving education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology (STEM) fields, both at the undergraduate and K-12 levels.

10. Utilizing international students and scholars

The report advocated streamlining visa processing for those who wish to study or do research in the United States as well as the processes for obtaining green cards or permanent residency for individuals in areas of national need. In addition, the report recommended the federal government proactively recruit international students and scholars.

*

The report can be found at: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/bhew/researchuniversities/index.htm.

*

In other business, tenure and academic freedom committee (TAFC) co-chair Lisa Borghesi said the committee has four ongoing cases: two involving denial of tenure and promotion; one in which the faculty member’s salary was reduced following a long-term lack of research funding, and one in which the tenure-track faculty member was removed as a project leader on a collaborative grant.

The committee closed one case in which a tenured faculty member complained about a lack of due process. The committee investigated and provided a report to the faculty member, she said.

In response to questions, Andrew R. Blair, former vice provost for faculty affairs, said TAFC is a mandated first step before a grievance may be filed with the provost. In cases of denial of tenure or contract renewal, the committee has an advisory role, which the faculty member may or may not choose to use, he said.

The discussion moved into conversation on whether Pitt faculty and administrators had reached full agreement on a statement of academic freedom, prompting Smitherman to request that the relevant documents be collected in order to inform discussion.

Following the meeting, Carey D. Balaban, vice provost for faculty affairs, provided links to documents on the Office of the Provost web pages (www.provost.pitt.edu/leadership-in/academic-freedom.html) that pertain to the Pitt’s position on academic freedom.

He called attention to Pitt’s “Statement on Academic Freedom” (www.pitt.edu/~provost/afstatement.html), which was prepared by a committee that included two members of TAFC, and to a broader discussion of academic freedom in the “Academic Freedom and the Environmental Law Clinic” link (www.pitt.edu/~provost/update.html).

—Kimberly K. Barlow