Both proposals were forwarded to the full Faculty Senate for consideration at the body's Feb. 4 meeting.

The New Paltz resolution approved by the FSEC was a revised version of a draft first introduced last semester by Faculty Senate Chair Peter Nickerson, professor of pathology. The senate's Academic Freedom Committee revised the earlier draft, which had supported academic freedom in more general terms, after the SUNY report was made public.

The review committee found that the decision by New Paltz President Roger Bowen to allow the conference to proceed "was based on the time-honored tradition of free expression of controversial subjects within higher education" and that Bowen's judgment (in not canceling the conference) "was correct, as distasteful as he anticipated some of the conference activity and content might become."

Support for Bowen urged

The revised resolution, presented to the FSEC by John Boot, professor and chair of the Department of Management Science and Systems and chair of the Academic Freedom Committee, endorses the review committee's report, but urges a stronger defense of Bowen's actions.

"The (UB) Faculty Senate would have preferred if the (report's) last recommendationÉ 'that presidents who act in the best traditions of academic freedom and its responsible exercise should receive the staunch support of their faculty, students, system administration, college council and the Board of Trustees' had been concluded with a sentence affirmatively stating that President Bowen had, in the matter at hand, indeed acted in such best traditions," the resolution states.

During the discussion about the resolution, many senators grumbled about a statement on the fact-finding report issued by Chancellor John Ryan on Jan. 27 in which he criticized Bowen for allowing the conference to take place.

"He (Ryan) says early on (in the statement) that there is no attack on freedom of speech and academic freedom, and then proceeds to show that there is," said Dennis Malone, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, calling the statement "very disappointing."

"Double chilling effect" feared

Claude Welch, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Political Science, worried that Ryan's statement could have "a double kind of chilling effect," both on open discussion at the campus level and on the conduct of campus presidents who might now become "overly sensitive" to certain topics of discussion.

Boot noted that when members of his committee most recently discussed the resolution, they were "unaware of the latest development (Ryan's statement).

"At that time, it seemed not altogether unreasonable" to let the matter drop, given the conclusions of the fact-finding report, he said.

However, "with the latest development, I believe that the (resolution) might be useful, especially if it is sent to President Bowen and forwarded to Chancellor Ryan," Boot said.

President William R. Greiner agreed, pointing out that "it very quietly and very politely says to both chancellor and trustees 'this is where we wished you would have come down'" on the issue.

The resolution establishing procedures for review of restructuring of academic units on campus also was a revised version of an earlier proposal. Boris Albini, chair of the Governance Committee and professor of microbiology, noted that while the earlier version specifically addressed the reorganization of the arts and sciences, the new resolution addresses any restructuring that might happen in the future.

Since the Faculty Senate "has the responsibility to review all formal plans for the future of the university and review all proposals regarding the formation, reorganization or dissolution of academic units," it "would be useful to have a structured process for this review," said Albini.

But it is important, as evidenced by the senate's experience with the reorganization of the arts and sciences last spring, to have flexibility in the process, he noted. "If there are items that are obviously acceptable and not controversial," the chair of the senate should recommend approval directly to the Faculty Senate.

Were procedures needed?

James Faran, associate professor of mathematics, wondered why such procedures were needed, since administrators have been soliciting "constant feedback from faculty as they are developing these plans. It's not clear to me how appropriate this particular plan (resolution) is," he said.

Albini noted that the process Faran described is a rather informal one, controlled by the administrator in charge of the plan. "It would be nice to have another venue" to ensure "that the full Faculty Senate is made aware of proposed plans."

The resolution states that all proposals for reorganization are to be reviewed initially by the FSEC, which may charge the relevant standing committee of the senate, or appoint an ad hoc committee, to study the proposal. The committees would report their recommendations to the FSEC, and subsequently, to the full Faculty Senate.

Should the FSEC, in its initial review of a proposal, find that it is unobjectionable, it may recommend the matter directly to the full Faculty Senate for endorsement, without referral to a committee.