Reporter Volume 25, No.11 November 11, 1993

Get Set for the Turkey Trot
Editor:

The 20th Annual Turkey Trot will be held Sunday, Nov. 14. The 2.2-mile
run will begin at 11 a.m. near the rear entrance of Alumni Arena on
Webster Road. This year's categories include: male undergraduate,
female undergraduate, male graduate, female graduate, male
faculty/staff, female faculty/staff, male team (four people), and
female team (four people).
	For more information and applications, stop by 130 Alumni
Arena, or call 645-2286. Entries are free of charge. Entry deadline is
10:30 a.m. the day of the race. 
	So, come on out and try to win yourself a T-shirt and/or a
turkey certificate. See you Nov. 14 at 11 a.m.!

Shelli Latham
Graduate Assistant
Recreation and Intramural Services

What's a Success

On Sept. 14, President Greiner spoke for 35 minutes on his vision of
how to make UB a "pathbreaking" university. The speech lays the
conceptual groundwork for a series of administrative actions that this
administration feels will achieve the goal of an outstanding
university. For many inside this university the speech is rich in
detail and implications for the way that faculty, students and staff
interact. But what about those outside UB? Or those who don't pay much
attention to administrative activities? How do they judge whether the
plans are a success? The speech was probably unfathomable for the
average taxpayer who knows little of the academic process and only
slightly more comprehensible for most students. So to fill this gap
and to stimulate discussion, debate or even angry invective, I propose
the following measures of success.

Happy Undergraduate Students
At the end of this process (should it ever end) undergraduates will
feel much better about this institution. They will be able to get
courses in majors they largely find intellectually stimulating. They
have good reasons to believe that whatever their race, ethnic
background or religion, they have as good a chance of success at UB as
anyone else. They will have fond memories of some professors and will
generally feel that their professors pay some attention to them even
if research takes a higher priority. They will have had a few
frustrations with student life but will not remember them for long.
Generally they will feel that sooner or later the institution responds
to reasonable complaints about whatever. They will be happy that they
chose UB over their alternatives which include many of the "Big 10"
schools. A few of their friends who went to expensive private schools
will wonder why they are paying all this money for the same thing they
can get at UB.

Happy Graduate Students 
Graduate students will feel that UB provides a rich environment to
develop their intellect to the point where they can hope to make
contributions to their fields. They feel that their work with the
faculty is important and influential to some audience. The probability
is reasonably high that they will be able to find a position that
utilizes the skills they develop here. The students who do the best
work have a good chance of achieving faculty positions at the best
academic institutions. While here they choose not to explore
opportunities for graduate studies at other institutions and are
enthusiastic when prospective graduate students visit campus.

Happy Faculty
Junior faculty are willing to come to UB as long as the level of
compensation is roughly equivalent to the better "research intensive"
universities. UB occasionally attracts new Ph.D.s who are thought of
as in the top 5% of all new Ph.Ds and typically attracts people in the
top 5-10%. Tenured faculty are always happy if they can get free
parking. The university pays for more free parking by charging an
exorbitant fee for an elaborate name plate on each faculty member's
door (that only tenured faculty purchase). For all faculty the
research environment is sufficiently stimulating so that faculty at
other research universities feel they must pay some attention to the
publications produced by UB faculty. Occasionally, there is an idea
that has wide influence and has a dramatic effect on how people in a
field think about an issue. Faculty try to talk their children into
studying at UB.

Happy Staff

Professional staff feel that they are an appreciated part of an
important enterprise. They are unlikely to pursue their opportunities
in the private sector because their compensation is sufficient and
their work is recognized as valuable by many in the university. When
they do receive offers from the private sector they are more likely to
reject them than to accept them.

The Bottom Line: Happy Taxpayers

Taxpayers have not only heard of UB but vaguely consider the
university important enough to justify the increasing demands for more
money made by the administration to finance its plans. (This makes the
administrators happy.) Taxpayers who are parents of students will feel
that whatever their race, ethnic background or religion, their
children have as good a chance of success at UB as anyone else.
Taxpayers are willing to tolerate the occasional idea that they
consider outrageous because many of them know of another idea,
generated by the intellectual environment at UB, that has influenced
their lives. Many of them have some very positive professional contact
with the faculty. Most have seen UB mentioned in the national press
during the past year. Many taxpayers know that in many surveys UB is
ranked higher than it was in 1993 and not just because it is a good
value for the tuition. Alumni think it important to keep track of a
surprising amount of facts about UB. More and more you hear that "UB
is a damn good university."

Charles Trzcinka
School of Management 


Clarifying A Statement on Speech Codes

Editor:

In the well-written article on the meeting of the Executive Committee
of the Faculty Senate (Reporter, Oct. 28, 1993), I was represented,
though not quoted as saying that I did not believe that UB needed a
speech code to address affirmative action issues. I believe that
statement could benefit from some clarification.
	In my formal statement, which I read to the FSEC, I confined
myself to two themes. One had to do with the make-up of the committee,
and the other called for introspection on the part of the FSEC itself
in the area of equal opportunity and affirmative action. I think those
two themes were well reported, particularly the latter.
	I believe the issue of a speech code is too complex to make a
categorical statement as to its need, or not, on our campus. Any
consideration of a speech code immediately invokes debate on First
Amendment Rights. Lawyers, jurists, philosophers, social scientists,
theologians and the less sophisticated like me, debate the issues and
argue, or argue about policies and litigation pertaining to First
Amendment rights. First Amendment rights of free speech are, and have
been jealously guarded.
	On the other hand, the courts have found occasions to declare
limits on such rights in the interest of the health and welfare of
society. These include the well-known restriction on the right to
"yell fire in a crowded theater" principle, when one knows no such
danger exists. Criminal and particularly tort cases recognize that the
right of expression is not unlimited.
	Increasingly, sexual harassment charges are being made mostly
(and rightly I daresay), aimed at offending males. The message is that
one is not vouchsafed to speak as one will without regard for the
feelings, and well-being of the opposite sex. So in sum, there are and
should be limits. The task is to balance rights and protection under
our legal system, and the best moral and ethical principles we know.
	I accept responsibility for lack of clarity on my part. I
believe that some misunderstanding grew out of a question put to me
outside the two themes to which I attempted to confine myself. In
response I went back a few years, cited vignettes of furtively written
expressions on campus that I found mean, despicable, and potentially
harmful. 
	On speaking with someone whose campus experience was more
global than mine, I found that such messages were not confined to my
area of observation. Of course I objected to such statements, then and
now. To me, such remarks have no place in a civilized society. 	That
may have invoked an image of speech code advocacy. When a comment was
made about the undesirability of a speech code, I pointed out that in
my remarks that I did not address that topic. I made the disclaimer
because I believe such a decision should be made only after careful
deliberations among and by, representative sectors on the campus. 
	But about the examples of which I spoke, I felt that timid
response or passivity was inappropriate. I still do. That does not
mean matching hatred with hatred or bitterness with bitterness. Hatred
and bitterness are destructive forces. They don't build the good
society. They erode our humanity and are to be avoided. Now I have no
illusion that anyone cares what I think about any of this but that is
my position.
	Finally, I am trying to say that whatever my personal stance
on the issue of a speech code for UB, it was not addressed at the
senate meeting, nor in the space of this letter. But justice,
fairness, equality, mutual respect, responsibility, and at time the
righting of some wrongs was, and is.


Edward S. Jenkins
Associate Professor 
Science Education