* Self-Study Report (1987)
* Long-Range Planing Meeting (1991)
* Budget Task Force (1993)
* Constitutional Review Committee (1993)
Self-Study Report, 1987
Prepared for the accreditation process of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC)
Special Topics for the Visiting Team
In this self-study, we will address all important aspects of Hampshire College's operations, but we wish the accrediting team to focus especially on four questions and themes that are raised in the self-study....
Special Topic #1: An Alternative College or an Experimenting College?
A recurring question on campus, and one often raised by students, concerns our continuing commitment to innovation and experimentation. There is a strong agreement on campus that Hampshire no longer is an "experiment," because the experiment has succeeded and is now codified and regularized (analogous to Thomas Kuhn's definition of "normal science"). That is, we have a system that works extremely well and that has some marked advantages over systems organized around course credits, grades, and departmental majors. One conclusion drawn from this is that faculty energy is now properly devoted primarily to teaching, advising, and exploring new substantive areas of inquiry with students and colleagues in the ways encouraged and made possible by Hampshire's structure. We should now take advantage of the long years spent in creating a new approach to education and in establishing the institution on solid footing to realize its potential more fully for students and faculty.
But as noted above, some argue that this path, as comfortable as it might seem, is dangerous. Becoming an accepted, established, successful alternative college brings with it a tendency towards stolidity, smugness, and a loss of the spirit of adventure and risk taking that animates much of what has made a Hampshire education distinctive and attractive. In this view, Hampshire needs to continue to be truly experimenting, and we now need to find the next new major experiments that can be attempted precisely because the earlier ones worked. These experiments might entail fashioning new off-campus delivery systems to serve very different constituencies, dedicating substantial academic resources to a newly emerging intellectual field (corresponding to Hampshire's promotion of Cognitive Science in the early 1970s), creating a truly international educational experience appropriate for the next century, or whatever. Irrespective of the particular direction, Hampshire must strive to be at the forefront of educational thinking and practice in order to maintain its special qualities and to be responsible to its principles.
These clearly are not mutually exclusive propositions. We indeed have and will continue to take advantage of not having to start from the very beginning with every issue and thus to consolidate some of our programs and procedures, but this does not preclude reaching out in new directions. On the other hand, whether or not we take new institutional risks will obviously depend on the attractiveness and apparent feasibility of the new directions. The more important question, however, is how committed we should be to seeking out new experiments....(p.9-10)
Special Topic #2: Two Faculty Personnel Arrangements
As noted in the end of the first chapter, this special topic has two parts: the faculty contract system; and the faculty salary model.
2a. The Faculty Contract System
Hampshire has never had faculty tenure, and it opened in 1970 with a short-term contract system for faculty. The system quickly evolved into that which existed at Hampshire at the time of its last accreditation review: a new faculty member was initially given a four year contract and reviewed for reappointment in the third year. In the case of strong faculty performance, the second contract (first reappointment) was for five years and the third contract (second reappointment) was for seven years. Three or five year contracts, however, could be granted for faculty at any reappointment as a type of extended probation. While not a functional imperative of the inquiry-oriented, individualized academic program, the faculty contract system was a consistent step for an administration and faculty with very strong convictions about flexibility, student-centered education, and fairness.
The Hampshire faculty's support for this set of arrangements demonstrated a singular commitment to the educational ideals of the College. But the commitment was not dogmatic, and after seven or eight years, many faculty came to appreciate that the short-term faculty contract system was not vital to the College's educational mission and even to believe that it contained unhealthful tendencies. The contract system indeed seemed to work to reduce faculty entrenchment and hierarchies, but there was a strong suspicion that the initial system allowed too many faculty members to be retained with a succession of short contracts and that the institution needed a "crunch decision" point. In addition, the short contract system did not give the faculty sufficient employment security, with the consequence that even very good faculty members were too cautious, politically and pedagogically. The number of reviews required by the initial system was simply too time consuming (and anxiety producing). Once convinced, the faculty quickly redesigned the system in ways that successfully resolved some of the most serious of its problems.
While the introduction of a tenure system had its advocates, the faculty rejected it in favor of a revised form of contract system. The new contract system, adopted by the faculty in the fall of 1980, grants an initial contract of three years (with a fourth year in the event of not being renewed), and a second contract (first reappointment) of four years. The second reappointment leads either to a third contract, which must be for ten years, or to a terminal year...
The introduction of the new system has gone smoothly, and there appears to be overwhelming agreement that the revised faculty contract system is performing in generally desirable ways. This is not to say, however, that there has been complete agreement about every decision. Virtually every year since the new system's inauguration, there have been loud outcries by segments of the community against one or more of the negative decisions. As is common in other colleges, sometimes these protests are directed primarily at the President and sometimes at the members of the College-wide reappointments committee. This leads us into a consideration of the criteria for reappointment and promotion.
There is no serious debate about teaching effectiveness properly being the primary consideration In reappointment and promotion decisions, and at Hampshire, teaching includes three dimensions: classroom teaching; divisional examination work; and advising. Although there is strong consensus on the proper weighting of teaching, some faculty believe that scholarship has become unduly important in considerations of reappointment and promotion. As a means of explicitly signaling the centrality of teaching effectiveness and perhaps of reducing some pressures on the faculty, there was initially no research and publication criterion for reappointment and promotion. (For the sake of brevity, terms like scholarship, research, and publication are used as a shorthand for the whole range of faculty professional activities, which in the arts also includes showings, performances, and other public demonstrations of creative vitality.) After about ten years, however, it was clear that questions about publication had become a part of faculty evaluation, especially for promotion to full professor. This change was by faculty instigation, but there continues to be a lively controversy about the desirability of such standards....
2b: The Faculty Salary Model
From the opening of the College, salaries had been set by individual negotiation between faculty members and administrators, and a policy of confidentiality led to uncertainty about the fairness of salaries among faculty. In the late 1970s, the School deans initiated a study of the pattern of faculty salaries. The deans did find salary differentials that experience, rank, or other easily determined criteria did not explain and they began to redress what they saw to be some blatantly unfair discrepancies. Their efforts, however, were hampered by the lack of generally agreed-upon principles of salary determination. Without such a standard, they could make only ad hoc adjustments in what seemed to be the worst cases.
In the early 1980s, the then dean of the School of Natural Science proposed a straightforward, explicit salary model, which with some modifications by the other deans seemed to be a useful set of principles for determining salaries. The deans used this model rather informally to allocate a portion of increments to the salary pool for redressing inequities as defined by the model, and in 1983-1984, they presented the model to the Schools for discussion, refinement, and possible adoption. The faculty formally adopted it in the spring of 1984, and from that point bringing individuals' actual salaries to the levels of each individual's model salary was the first priority in the use of salary pool increments....Within a couple of years, the pattern of faculty salaries conformed very closely to the model, which continues to be the major instrument of determining relative faculty salaries.
The fundamental principles of the "equity model" are easily described. The principal variables that govern salary levels in the model are years of experience and faculty rank. This has two major corollaries: merit is considered only to the extent that some faculty are promoted earlier than others and thus move up the salary scale more rapidly; and academic discipline and market forces are not factors in determining salaries...
There is little dissent among the faculty that the salary model has served us well. Now that the pattern of salary distribution appears to be satisfactorily in hand, however, there are questions about the need or even desirability to continue to adhere to the model (at least as it is now constituted)....
To a considerable extent, the debate reflects different visions of the constitution of the College. On the one hand, there are those who believe that the salary model importantly restrains administrative influence, reduces divisiveness and competitiveness among faculty, and thus contributes to better faculty morale and to a more coherent and cooperative community even if there is greater turnover of membership. On the other hand, there are those who worry about the vitality of an institution that is unable to reward in tangible ways its most valuable members or to attract and keep people whom others value. What is the likelihood of such a situation fostering among the faculty a dangerous insularity and a decline in quality?
This debate is not unique to Hampshire, although the particular context affects its meaning. We look forward to discussing this issue with the members of the visiting team.(p.20-26)
Special Topic #3. Relating Faculty Resources to Patterns of Student Interest
Students have to complete Division I examinations in all four Schools, and although attrition leads to some unevenness, the absolute numbers of Division I examination completions among the Schools are roughly equal. This means, however, that the per-faculty full time equivalent (FTE) workload from Division I examinations in NS and CCS, the two smaller Schools, is often one and one half or twice that in H&A and SS.... The small size of NS and CCS also means that these two Schools must devote larger proportions of their courses to the Division I level, and the failure to do so would put them at a disadvantage in recruiting concentrators.
In Division II and Division III, absolute and per-FTE patterns of student numbers reflect student interest rather than general institutional policies...the relative numbers of per FTE examinations by Schools, and some shifts are evident. For instance, there has been an increase in the numbers of students working in fields within CCS (especially video and communications) and that to some extent this shift has been at the expense of Social Science.
Throughout these shifts, study fields in the School of Humanities and Arts continue to be in heavy demand even on a per FTE basis, in spite of the fact that the School contains well over one third of the College's FTE. There appears to be little prospect of this pattern of student demand changing in the near future; ...the proportion of entering students listing Humanities & Arts as their principal interest has been increasing. It has been our experience that many students listing H&A (and other Schools) misunderstood where particular study areas fall (e.g., journalism and most video and philosophy teaching are in CCS; most historians are in SS) and that irrespective of initial understandings, many students listing H&A as a preference ended up working primarily in SS.
This mechanism does not seem as reliable as it was, and the pressure in the School of Humanities and Arts is most strongly felt on the arts side (including video and communications in CCS)....
The academic organization of Hampshire, with its blurred lines among fields, lends itself to redefining what constitutes the humanities and the arts, and to some degree we do this without locating the historians of science, physiologists, sociologists, and whatever in the School of Humanities & Arts. Without doing so, however, such support is likely to be of marginal importance. Doing so to any substantial extent, however, would be resisted by the H&A faculty, whose integrity as an intellectual unit would be called into question, and it might run the risk of misrepresenting to outsiders the composition of faculty resources at the College. (p.47-48)
Special Topic #4: The Size of the College
The FPC [Facilities Planning Committee] report bears directly on the question of what should be the size of the College, which of course is interrelated with the decisions about physical facilities. The size of the College is of considerable importance to Hampshire. Since about 75% of the College's income comes from tuition, room and board, the financial health of the College is directly related to enrollment. Enrollment is determined by the size and quality of the applicant pool, College policies about standards, graduation rates, and the number of students who leave before graduation. Hampshire's historic enrollment maximum was reached in 1973-1974 with an annual total of 1,335 (including a few field studies enrollments, counting as .33 FTE) and its minimum enrollment (after the initial years) was 936 in 1985-1986. Enrollment in 1986-1987 was a bit over 1,000 and will be close to 1,080 in 1987-1988. We anticipate a housing shortage in the fall of 1987.
Now that we are building in enrollment, we are facing a different (and certainly more pleasant) set of decisions than characterized the period between 1981 and 1985. There are strong budgetary reasons to continue to build back at the current rate, as the revenue derived from each additional student exceeds the extra costs of educating, housing, and feeding that student, at least up to the point that the construction of new facilities is necessary.
In addressing the question of proper size and the desirability of growing beyond, say, 1,200 students, the financial questions, including the construction of new facilities, are extremely important, and we will also have to make judgments about how highly we value admitting only a few over half of our applicants. Before discussing them more fully, however, it is useful to raise some additional considerations that bear on the choice to stick at 1,150-1,200 or to grow to a size of 200-300 students more than that.
There is the sentiment that bigger really is better. This is not due merely to the fact that more people mean a more diverse, less parochial, and therefore a richer and more interesting community, although that certainly is part of it. The central idea is that more faculty and students working together in a coordinated fashion on campus means a greater number of new academic connections are possible and likely. We now know that the fluid organization of Hampshire's academic program is such that the dimensions of new intellectual possibilities increase geometrically, not arithmetically, with increased numbers of faculty and students. The character of Hampshire's program ensures that growth does not merely add on more of the same but heightens the likelihood of new types of transformations.
But this type of stimulation is not the only element that grows more than proportionally to the growth of students and faculty. As the College grows, the greater complexity of the institution also grows, and with that complexity, the bureaucratic nature of the institution increases. Such is the case both in terms of procedures as well as in the numbers of people performing specialized, necessary support functions. This reduces the ease with which College business can be conducted in an informal, face to face manner, and increased size and impersonal procedures work against the sense of community that is essential for the functioning of Hampshire's peculiar type of education.
The concern here is not merely the continuation of a general environment that is comfortable, although the need to support students' ability to take genuine intellectual risks does at least in part depend on a supportive, comfortable milieu. The concern includes the effect of size on the faculty's knowledge of other faculty's backgrounds and abilities (as well as temperaments) in order to advise well, which is a key ingredient in our system. Beyond this, however, is the worry that, parallel to the discussion of bureaucracy in non-academic areas, a larger college might nurture a style of institution that is less willing to respond to individual student interests and to accommodate idiosyncratic study programs. This may involve the rise of stricter divisions of labor and responsibility among faculty, and whether or not it took the form of tightening up School and program lines or whatever, a loss of flexibility would strike at the center of Hampshire's academic program. It is difficult to know how real the various potentials are, and if real, what their thresholds might be....
Now that the College is in a stronger position, it needs to maintain momentum. This momentum comes through enhancement of the physical facilities, as well as through the continued development of the academic program. Unlike new academic facilities or a student center, student housing has a self-financing capability.
To summarize, the matter of significant expansion should not be given serious consideration at this time. However, the question of whether the College should grow back to its size of four or five years ago is important and should be decided this year, so that the policies and goals of the admissions office can be set accordingly.
The issue will be considered by the Board and by the community during the coming year, and a decision should be reached by May. We look forward to discussing these issues with the visiting team. (p.81-84)
Long Range Planning Meeting, June 1991
DATE: June 6, 1991
TO: Hampshire College Board of Trustees
FROM: Gregory S. Prince, Jr.
SUBJECT: Long-Range Planning Meeting: Introduction and A Programmatic Strategy for Strengthening the Enrollment Base, Achieving Financial Stability, and Expanding the Academic Core
One year ago at our retreat, we examined Hampshire's mission in light of our financial needs and identified areas in the budget requiring major structural changes...Because we effected most of these changes during the past year, we are able to propose a balanced FY 1992 budget, with a small reserve. In that process, two premises accepted last year became even clearer this year: 1) Hampshire College has at its center a distinctive academic philosophy and program that sustain the institution in the midst of external forces beyond its control such as regional demographic trends and national economy; and 2) that enrollment success, as much as any factor, will affect our ability to strengthen that program and extend its contribution to higher education.
In this year's long-range planning board meeting, we will focus on the conclusions we drew last June that enrollment represents our most crucial area of concern, and that expanding our pool of applicants would strengthen our overall stability and financial health. Given that our financial health is not yet robust, to deem enrollment an area of "crucial" concern is no overstatement, and central to that concern is, of course, admissions. It is also true that admissions policy is critical, but it alone cannot achieve our long-term goal of enrollment and financial stability. Admissions must continue to expand the applicant pool and develop prospects for the College; converting prospects into applicants and matriculants, however, requires drawing on and, in some cases, enhancing college-wide programmatic strengths....
We build from a solid base: the quality and accountability of Hampshire's faculty and curriculum are of the highest order. Hampshire's distinctive approach to undergraduate education, moreover, enables us to amplify and extend our strengths in areas of academic programming, community service, and faculty-student research. This memorandum outlines for discussion specific short-term and long-range means of extending those strengths through which Hampshire can address enrollment, secure greater financial stability, and enhance the intellectual life of the College.
II. A Focus on Enrollment: Problems, Goals and Assumptions
A. The Problem
Our review of Hampshire's effort to create an adequate enrollment base has identified a range of factors that operate primarily to discourage individuals from applying to Hampshire. Some of these factors have the potential to move into the positive column. The factors are:
1. Costs and the perceived value received
2. Size of financial aid awards
3. Breadth of programs
4. Perceived sense of homogeneity, in terms of ethnicity and in terms of the campus social and political culture
5. Isolation of the campus
6. Perceived lack of community because Hampshire's sense of community exists in strong, small-group associations rather than the more visible, larger group activities of traditional campuses
7. The isolation of intense independent study
8. Deferred maintenance
9. Lack of parental confidence
10. Difficulty communicating or understanding Hampshire's distinctive educational program
To address these concerns requires an institution-wide effort that includes, as a critical component, the strategies of the Admissions Office, but which also must include broader programmatic efforts that affect underlying problems, such as financial stability and national recognition.
Board Chair Henry Morgan recently noted that colleges and universities must balance opportunities of the moment with long-term strategies and goals, and should select only those opportunities that best fit their long-term goals. The following goals and assumptions provide criteria by which we can measure the appropriateness of our programmatic strategies to see if such a fit indeed exists.
1. A larger, more diverse group of students wanting to enroll at Hampshire is Hampshire's greatest need. Meeting that need is the College's highest priority. For academic, cultural and social reasons, the goal is a student body culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse. Expanding both the prospect and applicant pools is necessary to achieve this goal. This effort, however, also must recognize that the energy with which the College pursues minority and low-income prospects and applicants must be matched by its ability to enroll students across the entire economic spectrum. Failure to do so will over-tax our financial aid base.
2. Financial stability, which affects prospective students' perceptions about Hampshire, and which is affected, in turn, by those perceptions, remains our second priority.
3. The quality of Hampshire's faculty and its distinctive approach to education are two of the most important factors attracting students to Hampshire. The greatest threat to each is the faculty's work load. Hampshire now has a 13:1 student-faculty ratio, a ratio insufficient for adequate implementation of an instructional program oriented to the individual. Our five year goal therefore remains to reduce the student-faculty ratio to between 11 and 12 to one. Exceeding this ratio strains Hampshire's small faculty and reduces our ability to achieve essential educational goals, create appropriate diversity in the curriculum, support professional faculty development, and compete with other competitive liberal arts colleges whose ratios are less than 11 to one.
4. We must create a more balanced perception of our programs and strengths. The outside world needs, for example, to understand that discipline and structure as much as choice and freedom characterize the academic program; that the education Hampshire offers is at the same time classical in its central premise and a form of alternative education because it is so much more classical than traditional forms of education; that our strength in science education is comparable to our strength in the humanities; that recreational athletics and outdoor programs are alternative forms of "sports," not merely weak substitutes; and that Hampshire's sense of community exists in the strengths of small groups as much as in institution-wide activities.
This perceived lack of breadth and the apparent invisibility of active forms of community and of extra-curricular activities are threats to our enrollment. So, too, is the absence of key facilities, such as a student center. Relative to colleges with which we compete for students, we can appear unkempt, lacking, or "thin." At some instances such appearances are out and out misperceptions; in others, they are simply facts. In either case, they eliminate students.
Misperceptions can be corrected, and, if Hampshire expands its "critical mass" intellectually and physically, students and others will perceive "lean" and "efficient" where once they saw "unkempt" and "thin." During the past year, we have tested a number of options that show the promise of providing support necessary to expand critical mass and achieve our overall goals.
It is important to keep in mind that no single program can address all the needs listed above, and that a single program addressing one need, as viable as it may be, will not create the energy to move the whole system. We are therefore developing concurrently a series of activities and programs that, in their totality, have the potential to establish a stronger financial base, move Hampshire to a new level of national recognition, and, finally, to achieve an improved enrollment base.
Utilizing a group of "opportunistic" programs that build upon and extend our central strengths emerges from four premises:
1. Hampshire's considerable strengths must become more visible to a more diverse audience in order to expand our enrollment base and its diversity.
2. Prospective students, and the people who influence them must be able to recognize that Hampshire offers a distinctive approach to education that is demonstrably more effective than that of traditional colleges. The quality and accountability of Hampshire's academic program are in the first rank and worth the price Hampshire charges. This is not, however, a general perception.
3. Hampshire must attract new and different kinds of financial support. While "traditional" support must continue to grow, it is unlikely that it can grow at a pace fast enough to solve continuing problems.
4. Programs and strategies must grow out of Hampshire's core academic programs and strengths and must enrich, rather than drain, that academic core....[p.1-4]
Budget Task Force, 1993
Date: December 6,1993
[From: Penina Glazer]
The Budget Task Force Interim Report
...Like many other colleges, we are confronted by inadequate revenues to address rising costs, price resistance (which particularly manifests itself through ever-increasing demand for financial aid), a stagnant economy with declining public support for higher education, and a demoralization on the part of community members who feel overworked and under-rewarded. Clearly, there will have to be some substantial changes if we are to achieve a healthy equilibrium.
As the Budget Task Force has considered the details of revenues and expenses, we quickly agreed that we must do more than find budget cuts to accommodate anticipated deficits for next year. We are committed to recommending an integrated strategy that will focus on all possibilities for revenue enhancement, emphasizing the significance of expanding the applicant pool, and examine new ways of accomplishing our goals. Our purpose is to plan for more than short term cuts, and we are looking for structural changes that will maximize our possibility of financial stability to provide the context for great flexibility and diversity.
The opportunity to build for a vital period as we approach our second 25 years is before us. It will take the determination and cooperation of all members of the community who must join in our commitment to build on the attractiveness of the school as a place to study and as a place to work
While it is true that we share many problems with our colleagues at other institutions, it is important to remember we have some crucial institutional strengths that give us a strong platform on which to build.
1. We are known as the premiere alternative college in the United States. This gives coherence to our mission and high visibility among those who are interested in inter-disciplinary, individualized education.
2. Our structure enables us to have a high degree of curricular flexibility and respond quickly to new opportunities (eg, Lemelson Program) and to new intellectual currents (e.g, cultural studies, multi-cultural education, etc.).
3. We have a highly sophisticated and flexible faculty and staff who understand more about budgets and organizational functions than most college faculty and staff. We are accustomed to adapting to new tasks and job definitions with talent and confidence.
4. We have the capacity to use new technologies in the curriculum as well as in administrative functions, which gives us the possibility of rethinking some of our services (e.g., new phone system, new library computer).
5. We continue to attract creative, independent students with a broad range of interests and whose work is of high quality.
6. We benefit from growing success among our alumni/ae in many careers and professions. The alumni/ae association is growing in size and sophistication and is developing an increasing commitment to helping the college.
These are only a few of our many strengths but ones that are particularly relevant for a first phase of strategic financial planning.
There are also distinct weaknesses that we must address in order to capitalize on our strengths
1. Our reputation as a first-rate alternative college is still hampered by youthfulness, too limited visibility and by a belief in many high schools that we are appropriate only for the most radical and individualistic students.
2. Our ability to expand enrollment is restricted by: a) difficulty in conveying our distinctiveness and the substance of our first year program; b) a high drop out rate among first and second year students.
3. Our exclusive focus on full-time traditional college age undergraduates further restricts the potential diversity of our student population.
4. Our financial viability is threatened by anticipated deficits that outstrip our ability to increase enrollment and total revenue quickly. Our small endowment is likely to increase only as our youthful alumni/ae body is able to assume a more major role in fundraising.
These are the issues that I believe we must address within the next two to three years to achieve some stability, position us for the future, and allow us to build our curriculum in ways that have recently been forestalled.
1. Significant energy and resources must be applied to address the problem of attrition with the goal of reducing the number of students who leave in the first two years by 50%. All our data point to a substantial portion of the entering class that do not make it through the first two years....[p.1-3]
We must recognize that there are many hidden costs to a high dropout rate, ranging from the higher rate of default on bills and loans to the increased cost of recruiting students who only stay one, two, or three semesters.
As we refocus our energies on increasing the success of the last year, we need to reinforce our most successful experiences in teaching 100 level courses and to encourage experimentation with the development of new approaches....[p.3-4]
2. As a first step, we must eliminate deficits quickly to ensure viability, to encourage enrollment stability and to facilitate fund raising. Cutting the budget alone will not be sufficient. It must be seen in the context of the other proposed strategies.
Balancing the budget entails a combination of budget cuts and extraordinary fund raising. The cuts will require us to rethink the ways in which we are organized.... Unlike our normal procedures, when positions are filled, we should look much more aggressively for departmental reorganization, internal combinations and reallocations. This should be our first priority and we should offer retraining opportunities where appropriate.
Other reductions must be sought in such areas as utilities and auxiliary services provided by the college. Financial aid is a particularly sensitive area. It is a necessary financial and educational tool that we must preserve. At the same time, we cannot afford the rate of growth of financial aid that we have experienced in the last five years. Our goal is to find a balance between the need to make Hampshire affordable to students of all economic levels and the requirement of a stable budget. Salaries and benefits should be the last place to look for additional cuts.
3. We must continue to develop new admissions initiatives-- including professional market research, innovative use of new technology, and enhanced public relations to achieve broader recognition, with the goal of increasing the number of applications we receive from 1500 to 2000 per year....[p.4]
4. Strategic initiatives designed to work toward Hampshire's fundraising goals include: targeting two special constituencies--alumni from Hampshire's first five entering classes and parents of current and former students; designing special motivational giving programs that focus on the 25th Anniversary to support solicitations for annual and capital gifts; strengthening support for faculty-initiated grant proposals; and renewing Hampshire's relationships with its former trustees and members of the National Advisory Committee in an effort to encourage deferred/endowment building gifts.
5. We need to develop programs that address new audiences and expand our potential applicant pool. We need to assess the market potential, pricing structures, possibilities of off-site instruction or weekend institutes that might enable us to attract a more diverse population, including adults and part-time students who might flourish in our kind of academic program. We currently have a proposal for an intitute on socially responsible business, suggestions for a fifth year in visual arts, a master's program in the teaching of science, an animal behavior institute, etc. There is a history of success with elderhostel programs taught by a number of our faculty. The creation of such new directions would require the allocation of scarce resources--specifically hiring a person knowledgeable about establishing this form of education and creating an initial budget to invest in the early stages.
Together, a joint commitment by faculty, staff, administration and the Board of Trustees can build the college's future. These strategies, outlined above, offer us the chance for a stable environment. Not all the strategies will be equally successful, but within three to five years we will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the various programs.
With this kind of stability we will be able to assess our programs, invest some money in faculty, equipment, the campus infrastructure, and salaries and continue the curricular experimentation that has been the hallmark of our success for over 23 years.
Constitutional Review Committee, 1991-1993
To: Constitution Review Committee
From: Greg Prince
Re: Charge to the Committee
The college has changed over the years resulting in administrative, academic and student life structures somewhat different than those described in the constitution and related documents. Because of these changes, constituencies have changed, jurisdictional issues are less clear and proscribed procedures may be difficult to follow. In addition, several years of experience have pointed out areas in these documents that are unclear or even contradictory.
Because of a growing concern at several levels, I am convening a Constitution review committee which is charged with the following:
The Constitution Review Committee is asked to review the Constitution of Hampshire College and related documents (By Laws of the Faculty, Senate, Community Council and Judicial Council) to determine if these documents meet and reflect the current needs and structures of the college. If additions or revisions are needed, the committee is asked to propose such additions and revisions to the senate, community council, faculty, and president for approval.
Constitutional Review Committee
Minutes, Feb. 20, 1992
Present: Larry Beede, Susan Dayall, John Foster, Sura Levine, Jay Maroney, Marion Taylor, Stan Warner.
We talked about the cumbersome nature of the current governance structure, and the immense load of people time required to staff it. We discussed the Evergreen model of "disappearing task forces", and the advantages of that model. We talked about the problem of fossilized governance bodies, still constitutionally required, but with most of their functions taken over by newer groups. We also raised the problem of administrative changes not reflected in the Constitution: the Houses are no longer autonomous policy making bodies, and the relationship between the Dean of Students Office and Community Council is nowhere made clear.
Some general goals we came up with were: reduce the number and size of governance bodies; avoid duplication of function/effort; clarify relations between governance bodies and between governance bodies and administrative units; and revise the Constitution.
We considered taking up the academic freedom/dispute resolution bodies, which seem particularly byzantine, but realized that the separate Task Force on Reappointment Issues/Procedures was a more appropriate forum. (To date, we believe that all academic freedom disputes have come out of the reappointment process.) So we agreed to focus on: 1) Community Council/Houses/Dean of Students problem; 2) Educational policy bodies; and 3) Judicial Council.
Looking back to the original Hampshire College Constitution, it is clear that Community Council and Academic Council were to be parallel policy-making bodies, each in its own sphere, with the faculty (in the form of the Faculty Meeting) retaining the right to veto any decisions. Stan Warner, currently on Community Council, thinks it very important that Council be maintained as the policy making body as opposed to the Dean of Students Office taking over that function. We agreed that this was reasonable. We also looked at the Constitution, and agreed that the sections on the Houses could just be deleted.
We next looked at the educational policy function. There seems to be a clear duplication of effort between the Senate and EPC. Given the question raised in the Senate this fall (Why is there a Senate, anyway?), we suggested that all we need is EPC (very slightly expanded by adding a staff representative), subject to veto by the Faculty Meeting. EPC works very well, is focused, and uses only one faculty from each School--clear advantages over the Senate. We could call the new body the Educational Policy Council.
We looked at the various dispute resolution bodies next. There was clear agreement that Judicial Council no longer served a useful function and should be disbanded. Each constituency now has (or is about to have) working dispute resolution bodies, and the Constitution should endorse these. Appeal from most of these bodies is to the President anyway. If disputes arise between constituencies, we suggested that a mechanism for a "disappearing task force" representing both constituencies be put in place.
It felt like we made progress (at last!)
Respectfully submitted, Susan A. Dayall
The Constitution of Hampshire College
Proposed; Revised 3/31/93
Hampshire College is committed to responsible participation in governance by members of all constituencies of the College: faculty, students, staff and administration. The purpose of governance is to bring the collective wisdom of the community to bear on decisions that affect the life of Hampshire College. Deliberations shall be informed with respect for all members of the community, and with tolerance for divergent viewpoints; the furtherance of the educational mission of the College and the welfare of the institution and its members shall be their goal....[p.1]
Article III: Community Council
The Community Council shall be responsible for matters relating to the quality of life on campus and the well-being of the College community. Such responsibilities shall include determination of social policy, regulation and funding of student organizations, and determination of standards for remaining in the community (other than those determined by the Educational Policy Council) as embodied in the Code of Student Conduct and the Norms for Community Living. Changes in policies such as housing, health and safety that are detailed in Non Satis Non Scire (exclusive of fees) shall be proposed and administered by the Dean of Students with the advice and consent of Community Council. Community Council shall also serve as an advocate for student concerns; pursue or create Task Forces to undertake whatever short-term investigations are needed to explore community-related issues; and initiate and encourage innovative solutions to perceived problems....[p.2]
[The Proposed Constitution drafted by the Constitutional Review Committee was ratified by the Senate and Community Council, with the exception of the preceding paragraph describing the powers of Community Council, and the relation of Council to the Dean of Students Office. This version of the Constitution disappeared into conference committee, and was never heard from again, at least in the time period covered in this volume of the Documentary History. A new Constitution was approved by the Trustees in 1998.]