Reporter Volume 26, No.9 November 3, 1994

By STEVE COX
Reporter Staff
If you listened to the Faculty Senate debate a proposed University
Mission Statement at their Oct. 25 regular meeting, it would be easy
to see why the university has been without such a statement for over
20 years.
	Described metaphorically during the debate as suffering from
"intellectual dyslexia" and "severe adverbial dysentery," the proposed
one-page mission statement, which already has been edited several
times, appeared to draw little support from the senators. It was
alternatively criticized as being too simplistic or too brief.
	Dennis Malone, chair of the Academic Planning Committee, which
considered early drafts of the document and brought this one forward,
urged that something be done, because the Middle States Association in
part predicated its reaccreditation of the university last year on the
promulgation of a mission statement. President Greiner, who may
implement a mission statement unilaterally, has deferred action on it
since last spring to allow the Faculty Senate to consider it.
	"However imperfect it may be," Malone said, "it is still a
pretty good statement." He held out little hope that the Senate would
be able to draft a better document. "Getting faculty to agree on
something like this," he said, "is like herding cats."
	Fearing that minutes alone might not adequately convey the
group's feelings about the document to President Greiner, Faculty
Senate Chair Peter Nickerson announced that the discussion was being
tape recorded. Carrying a cordless microphone during the debate,
Nickerson resembled Phil Donahue, scurrying from one side of the
semi-circular meeting room to the other as questions arose.
	Claude Welch, of the Political Science Department, criticized
the document for its omissions. Athletics, campus construction and
relations with SUNY Central were among the topics Welch felt needed to
be addressed in a full-scale mission statement. Also high on his list
of corrections to the document, as well as that of other Senators who
spoke, was a lack of emphasis on undergraduate education.
	Management Professor John Boot called the statement, simply
"grim." Boot adamantly called the proposal an "embarrassment" and said
he planned to completely dissociate himself from it. "I'll write my
own," said Boot. Judith Adams, of University Library Services, warned
of dire circumstances the omission of any reference to our "arts and
sciences mission" could cause.
	"If retrenchment becomes an issue, what happens to arts and
sciences if it is not even in the mission statement?" asked Adams
rhetorically. "Some politician looking to cut spending some day could
pick this thing up and say 'Look, arts and sciences are not even part
of their mission; why are we spending so much money on it?"
	Due to act in November, the Faculty Senate could vote on a
lukewarm resolution of endorsement, or simply "take cognizance" of the
document, basically recognizing its existence without comment.