Stanford University - Quad Yearbook (Palo Alto, CA)

Page 27 text:

 ] Anne S. Miner 1 Affirmative Action Officer Stanford’s Affirmative Action program is instrumental in shaping student's learning experiences, their attitudes towards their fellow men. and their own self-esteem while here at the university, says Affirmative Action Officer Anne Miner. “Affirmative Action’s long-range purpose.” she stated, is to change the nature of this institution by making it culturally diverse and truly free from sexual stereotypes. Stanford’s explicit commitment to overcome institutional racial discrimination and sexism came after Martin Luther King. Jr.’s death in 1968. Originally, the program dealt primarily with problems concerning black white issues, but Affirmative Action has since expanded to include other ethnic groups and questions of sex discrimination which have risen to the awareness of the public. During the 1975-76 academic year, the A.A. staff found that career development did not produce enough minority candidates for new job openings. A search for talented people, with an emphasis on women and minorities, was begun. Ms. Miner strongly contends that minority students profit greatly from having minority adult role-models around them in their educational environment. It’s true. maintains Ms. Miner, that minority women faculty get a very heavy counseling load — which indicates that undergrads do seek them out. However, since they do carry a very strong counseling role. . . these profs may have more counseling to do than their colleagues, and therefore less time to publish. Another benefit of Affirmative Action, less often articulated but equally important, is the value which the traditional upper-middle class, white male student obtains from observing people unlike himself holding traditional professional positions like doctor, lawyer or engineer. A graduate of Radcliffe and Stanford graduate school. Ms. Miner handles programs dealing with hiring, training and promotions — issues that involve over 8000 people on campus, at the university hospital. and at SLAC. She began at Stanford in 1967. working with Stanford alumni. In 1971, work on a study of women in the university caused her to become deeply interested in issues of institutional change concerning discrimination and exclusion of minorities and women, which eventually led to her present position as head of Affirmative Action. A lot of my work is on a very day-to-day basis,” she remarked. There are the constant problems of someone being fired or wanting a job. I continue to have a theoretical interest in those aspects of the problem, but intellectually. Affirmative Action has a certain fascination because you’re trying to keep an institution healthy at the same time you're trying to change it. It's interesting to watch how it can and cannot be done. We’ve got to go on trying to emphasize the direct value of Affirmative Action to Stanford. We'll deal better with a diverse student body with the same diversity of staff.” 23

Page 26 text:

No one individual understands the complex inner workings of the university’s governing system better than Eric Hutchinson, academic secretary. In addition to a rigorous teaching schedule as a professor of chemistry. Hutchinson has a three-fold responsibility: he serves as secretary to the Academic: Senate, secretary to the Senate's Steering Committee and secretary to the Senate Committee on Committees. Once appointed to his position by the Board of Trustees. Hutchinson’s primary responsibility is to the academic council, although he is officially a member of the president's staff. I have no single employer.” states Hutchinson. Instead I’m accountable to 1100 faculty members. As secretary to the three academic bodies. Hutchinson prepares agendas and minutes, checks the legality of all information relating to these documents, properly distributes and disseminates all information, and acts as advisor to the chairmen of all the Senate committees on questions pertaining to parliamentary procedure. Hutchinson also serves as official parliamentarian at all Senate meetings. Virtually every issue related to the academic side of the university and presented to the Senate, falls under Hutchinson's careful scrutiny. The accreditation of the SWOPSI and SCIRE programs for the upcoming three year term and the approval of changes in the titling of degrees were a few of the numerous issues confronted by the 53 members of the Senate. From the body of the Senate, six professors are elected to head the steering committee. That chairman in turn appoints a Committee on Committees. and various members on the academic council and ASSU representatives are selected to staff the committees. ’’Three students have the right to sit on the Senate. remarked Hutchinson. The students have a right to speak. They cannot vote, but they do have the right to move certain proposals. This year's representatives are Bill Houk, chairman of the ASSU Senate: Lee Rosenbaum. President of ASSU: and an elected student body representative. I'd say that at fifty per cent of our meetings, one or two — or even all three of the students will comment on various issues. Eric Hutchinsor Academic Secretary 22

Page 28 text:

Who can lay claim to having Stanford University as his legal client? James Siena, legal advisor to the president, is one of several lawyers at the University held accountable to such a complex and demanding client. Siena tackles legal and quasi-legal matters pertaining'to University government and areas of student rights. In his advisory capacity. Siena greatly affected student disciplinary matters by working in conjunction with the combined ASSU and the Senate of the Academic Council committees in revamping the composition of the Stanford Judicial Council. The final proposal for changes within the council were submitted and approved in the spring of 1975. A major controversy centered around whether students should dominate the judicial council when student disciplinary matters were being reviewed. The SJC hears and decides contested student disciplinary cases. (All student disciplinary cases not contested are instead heard by the dean of students.) Eight people — three faculty members, three students. one faculty chairman, and one student chairman — comprise the SJC, with the presiding chairman casting the deciding vote in case of a tie. Siena was instrumental in equitably determining the voting majority in cases presented to the SJC. The proposed amendments approved in 1975 allow the student chairman to preside over all honor code violation issues, thus creating a student majority in honor code cases. Previously, a faculty majority ruled in all cases before the SJC. Some students are still dissatisfied. Siena remarked, and want a student majority in all cases, not just in honor code cases.” The 1975-1976 academic year brought legal issues concerning the University affirmative action program and the federal government’s attempts to intervene in University affairs. Siena commented, “There is a growing tendency on the part of federal government to regulate what we do. We're trying to resist where it seems appropriate by modifying federal regulations to meet the needs of higher education, and we’re trying to manage where we can't resist. Siena, a Stanford Law School graduate in 1961, came to his position five years ago after practice in the political whirl of Washington. D.C. When the Nixon Administration came in. I went out!” related Siena. As a freshman advisor to Alondra in Florence Moore Hall and with a daughter at the Overseas Campus in Italy, Siena is easily accessible to a number of Stanford students. James Siena Legal Advisor to the Presiden 24