Simpson to faculty:

UB President John Simpson's message at Tuesday's annual meeting of the voting faculty was that higher education is in trouble.

"Every state is getting out of the business of supporting their public higher education," Simpson said.

After the address, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee debated UB's policies concerning academic dishonesty.

Simpson said that per capita, New York is second or third in the country when it comes to how much it spends on its public education, from kindergarten to 12th grade. When it comes to spending money on public higher education, colleges and universities, New York is 47th or 48th.

UB receives only 31 percent of its budget from New York State and, based on these figures, the state spends 50 percent more each year to send a child through a Buffalo City Public School than it does for an undergraduate at UB.

It seems backwards that it would cost less for a student to go to college than it would for a child to attend grade school, Simpson said.

Last year, Simpson visited Singapore with about 30 other presidents from universities in the American Association of Universities to meet with presidents of Asian universities. The purpose was to show them how North American universities view and facilitate education.

What he got from that experience, Simpson said, was that Singapore has a long-term plan to make its universities the best in the world and the United States simply doesn't have that.

He pointed out that since Sept. 11, 2001, UB's enrollment of international graduate students has dropped by four percent and by much more at other universities. He believes it is important to once again make American universities attractive to international students and lift the recent notion that the United States is an unfriendly place to study.

Twenty years ago America was the country in which the highest percentage of people had bachelor's degrees. Currently, it is ranked seventh, Simpson told the faculty. American universities in general are in decline as the country is taking a passive role when it comes to its higher education.

In light of these conditions, Simpson pointed out that it would be possible for him to just manage this university, thus passively contributing to the decline of the university system locally and nationwide, but he would rather take an active role by facilitating change and growth.

Simpson again leaned on UB2020, saying the comprehensive plan will keep UB on pace with, and ahead of, other universities of similar size offering similar programs.

"This university offers the same breadth of programs and services as any university though it has half as much faculty," he said.

Simpson said he was sure his "agenda of change" would cause some growing pains but that is natural.

"My job as president is to...goad, cajole, argue with, push my faculty," he said.

His final point was that he saw the future of UB as being one deeply tied with globalization. He emphasized the implementation of a "curriculum that transcends the United States-centric interpretation in the classroom."

Furthermore, he wanted it to be as easy as possible for students to travel abroad and for international students to come to UB.

FSEC addresses academic dishonesty policies

After Simpson concluded his remarks, the weekly meeting of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee turned to a clause of the Academic Grievance Policy and Procedures that says that if a student is accused of academic dishonesty, they may not seek the advisement of an attorney in their hearing.

Under the clause, an attorney may advise him or her only if that attorney is a member of the UB community and if that attorney does not "act as a member of the bar."

The purpose of that rule, accord to its proponents, is so that an academic hearing does not turn into something more than it is, like a courtroom-style issue.

Some professors want to get rid of the clause so deny students representation, while others want greater student access to defense in academic honesty situations.

Many students, when told about the clause, said although they would want the right to representation, the clause infringes upon the right to due process.

"I think it's unfair because if you have to bring in a member of the community, they might be biased," said Eli Pena, a senior electrical engineering major. "You might not get a fair trial. You need somebody new to balance the equation out."

Others said they feel it's a matter of fairness to a student sitting in front of highly educated professionals that could potentially destroy a student in a hearing-type situation.

"You should be able to use any type of representation you want if you're being accused of academic dishonesty," said Steve Gerard, a freshman pharmacy major.

The FSEC did not vote on the clause because it did not have quorum.