Faculty Teaching and Research

Links to Information and Resources for Yale Faculty

Provost's letter of October 17th in response to the Report of the Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty

Date:   October 17, 2003
To:       Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
From:   Susan Hockfield, Provost
Re:       Response to the Report of the Committee
             on the Economic Status of the Faculty

I write in response to the Report of the Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty for the Academic Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 that was presented at the meeting of the Yale College Faculty last May. Let me begin by expressing my thanks to the members of the Committee, and especially to its Chair, Professor Douglas Stone, for their thoughtful and helpful report. Since its creation in 1978, CESOF has played a crucial role in examining the salary, benefits, and support for members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and in advising the Provost and University Budget Committee on steps needed to sustain the excellence of the faculty. Like its recent predecessors, the 2001-2003 Committee performed what it called its "watchdog and lobbying function" with a perspective that is remarkably balanced between pursuing the interests of the faculty and being mindful of the institution's broader interests, for which I offer my admiration and thanks.

Year after year, CESOF and the Provost's Office find ourselves working toward the same goals, even on those occasions when fiscal restraints prevent the Provost from responding as positively as the faculty would like. This year is no exception. The Committee's report is excellent, and its recommendations are sensible and well presented. In keeping with recent tradition, I have composed a response to each of the Committee's recommendations, indicating which I am able to accept and how, as well as which I cannot and why. This response, which I presented orally at the meeting of the Faculty of Yale College on October 2, constitutes my official response to the CESOF Report presented to the Faculty last May.

Recommendation 1. That the University move as rapidly as is practical to expand the number of daycare slots available to faculty in subsidized Yale-affiliated daycare centers by 80-100 slots.

I certainly agree with CESOF's observation that adequate access to quality child care has been an issue of concern to the faculty for some time. As noted in the Report, the University has conducted an extensive study of child care at Yale to determine the quantity and nature of child care services available to the University population. The study included a review of the capacities and utilizations of both Yale-affiliated and greater-New-Haven-area centers, inquiries regarding the child care programs of peer institutions, discussions with a number of Yale internal stakeholders regarding their perceived needs, and a review of several internal proposals regarding child care services.

At the same time, the University explored with each Yale-affiliated child care center the feasibility of increasing the number of slots in its program. One center subsequently increased its capacity by ten slots. Another indicated a willingness to expand; however, a subsequent architectural analysis, conducted by the University, concluded that expansion of the current site is not feasible.

Based on the results of these activities, the University has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking to engage an organization with experience in child care consulting services and in child care facility and program development. The purpose of the engagement is to review and analyze the information the University has assembled, identify any gaps in that information, and make recommendations for a strategic plan for expansion of child care access and enhanced oversight of University-affiliated child care services. The University expects that the strategic plan will include the following: (1) recommendations regarding the capacity and services of a new on-site facility, which will expand center-based access and which may also address expansion constraints of the Yale-affiliated center mentioned above; (2) analysis and recommendation of options for other value-added child care services (e.g., back-up care and family-based child care networks); and (3) review and, where appropriate, incorporation of internal child care proposals in the strategic plan. Assuming that the strategic plan contains the expected recommendation for a new on-site child care facility, we anticipate adding a new center to increase the number of slots and have begun a preliminary assessment of possible sites. The RFP therefore also calls for the consultant to advise the University on the site selection and to participate in the conceptual design and development of new or renovated space.

The University discussed the RFP with a number of organizations nationwide, three of which requested copies of the RFP. Yale received one response to the RFP and is currently working with the responding organization to finalize the terms of the consulting engagement, which should commence later this semester.

Recommendation 2. That the University provide partial support for the cost of faculty daycare through one or both of two options:
A) The flexible use of the current college tuition benefit to allow faculty to use up to 50% of that benefit to pay daycare expenses (at faculty discretion). The program would be phased in over a multi-year period after feasibility issues (tax status, vesting rules, etc.) are explored.
B) The payment of subsidies to the Yale-affiliated daycare centers to reduce tuition either uniformly or with a sliding scale.

As noted in the report, the University currently subsidizes child care in a variety of ways:

1. The University directly subsidizes the five Yale-affiliated child care centers, through the provision of rent-free space, routine maintenance of center facilities, full subsidization of centers' utilities costs, subsidization of centers' accreditation fees, regular on-site consultations with mental health professionals from the Yale Child Study Center, regular on-site health and safety consultations with students and faculty from the Yale School of Nursing, access for center staff to health care coverage through the Yale University Health Services, and University-sponsored staff education and development programs. These subsidies produce indirect financial benefit to enrolled families by relieving tuition-bearing costs of centers.
   
   
2. The University employs a Child Care Coordinator. The Coordinator provides direct assistance regarding access and affordability to Yale parents seeking child care, publishes an annual directory of local child care centers (Yale-affiliated and non-affiliated), and maintains an informational web-site. The Coordinator also meets regularly with the directors of the Yale-affiliated centers and coordinates education and development programs for the collective staff of the affiliated centers.
   
   
3. The University sponsors a flexible spending account program to enable faculty and staff to fund child care expenses with pre-tax dollars.

We plan to explore with the consultant (described in the response to Recommendation 1) child care tuition-structure options (including sliding scale models) as well as the possible inclusion in Yale-affiliated programs of lower-cost child care options, such as family-based care networks and back-up care. Although the University does not plan to implement a direct child care tuition subsidy at this time, we will consider the need for and affordability of child care as we continue to monitor and make appropriate adjustments in faculty salary levels and benefit programs, particularly for faculty in the junior ranks.

Recommendation 3. That the University maintain a Chair's pool for Lectors at approximately the same level of increase as senior faculty.

It has been our recent practice to provide approximately the same level of increase for continuing lectors and senior lectors as we have for senior faculty, and it has also been our practice to invite and accept recommendations from department chairs for structural increases for those in the lector ranks. In addition, for 2002-03 we provided to certain departments a pool for increases slightly larger than that for senior faculty in order to bring the salaries of lectors in those departments into line with others.

While that is a reasonable practice, in any given year, other factors might well make it more appropriate for the percentage increases to be different, as is often the case for the different levels of increase provided to tenured versus non-tenured faculty. The most obvious difference would be the national "market" for different levels and kinds of faculty. It is always our intention to maintain an equitable salary structure within the institution from department to department, but at different times different departments or specialties command higher salaries and Yale would be unable to compete in those arenas if equity always took precedence over market. The administration (and CESOF) track and compare recent historical data about the salary levels of our peers at each of the major ranks. Although the comparisons are more difficult to make, we now track the salary trends in the lector ranks to the extent we are able to do so.

Other factors also enter into the decision about the levels of salaries, including the increasing level of preparation and credentials that characterize the professional cadre of language teachers that we hire from year to year. We will be developing FAS-wide ranges for the various ranks that will bring the same degree of formality to the salary structure of these ranks that we have established for the ladder ranks, including specified salary increases contingent upon promotion.

In short, we are in full agreement with the spirit of this recommendation and are committed to a salary process and salary levels commensurate with the important contributions made by this subset of our faculty.

Recommendation 4. That the University implement a system which will allow professional development leaves for Lectors on an ad hoc basis.

We have been considering this issue for some time. Already through the Center for Language Study, lectors and other instructors of language may apply for financial support for pedagogical projects, and we hope to be able to provide at least some relief from teaching, either on a per-course basis or for an entire term on an ad hoc basis. Since lectors are not expected to publish in order to remain at Yale or advance in rank and salary, the research leave system provided to ladder faculty is not the appropriate model. But it is our goal to provide the resources for leaves by application when those leaves will serve both to develop the pedagogical skills of the individual and the quality of the department's language curriculum. Given the growth in the number of languages taught at Yale and therefore the number of lectors, we have not yet identified the funds necessary to implement the leave opportunities we envision, but we will make them available as soon as we are able.

Recommendation 5. That the University provide dining hall privileges equivalent to those of the ladder faculty for lectors and possibly for other non-ladder faculty involved in teaching.

The current "free lunch" program for members of the ladder faculty is not working as well as or even in the ways it was intended, so we are currently looking into how that program might be improved so that it better accomplishes its pedagogical goals. We have discussed the question of lunch privileges for lectors, not in terms of compensation or perquisites, but as a way to integrate those teachers more fully into student intellectual life. As recommended by the Language Study Committee, we are supportive of the proposal that lectors and senior lectors with multi-year appointments be made Fellows of a Residential College, and in that capacity they be offered lunch privileges up to a specified number when they are meeting with students, conducting language tables, or otherwise contributing to college life. We hope this will be in place during the current academic year.

Recommendation 6. That the University attempt to expedite broadband off-site access to the Yale network through improved support and by exploring the possibility of obtaining reduced rates through Yale "bulk" purchasing of broadband services.

Without question, most of us are relying increasingly on access to the Internet, and through the Internet to the Yale campus network, from our homes. We use the Internet to conduct University business, to support personal research and scholarship, to connect with colleagues, students, and friends, and to carry out a wide range of personal business (and in many cases, family entertainment). Because of its high speed, an increasing number of Yale faculty and staff are shifting from dial-up modems to some type of broadband access, though the type and cost of this service vary according to availability and personal choice.

In this area, high-speed access to the Internet is provided primarily by three vendors - Comcast, SBC, and Cablevision. Support for this service is provided by the vendor, and subscribers report that the reliability and adequacy of this support have improved as the services have matured. As part of the Faculty Support Program, ITS provides general information on broadband connections at http://www.yale.edu/fsp/doco/dsl.html. Yale also provides a "Virtual Private Network" (VPN) connection for faculty, students, and staff to use when connecting from off-campus. The VPN service creates a connection directly to Yale, allowing use of Yale-specific services including library databases and more, just as if directly connected to the Yale network. Basic information on VPN is provided at http://www.yale.edu/fsp/doco/vpn.html.

In recent months, ITS has had discussions with some of our vendors about the possibility of making a "bulk purchase" of broadband service for our faculty, staff and students who live off campus, since so many of them live in the broad geographic area served by these vendors. We quickly learned that the Yale community simply does not represent a large enough potential customer base to attract much attention, particularly since the vendors are not in direct competition with each other for the same type of service, are barely able to keep up with current demand, and are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. We also investigated purported discounts at other schools in the area and discovered that these involved little more than co-promotion of the standard discounts for DSL service - in other words, if we let them use our mailing list and the Yale name in marketing, they would pay Yale (but not the customer) a small fee for each person who signed up. Finally, a member of my office discussed this recommendation with the Executive Director of Procurement, who pointed out that, unlike services such as cellular phones, the University has its own very high-speed connection to the Internet, so we do not have a contract with a vendor to which individual members of the community could "tag on." In sum, the technology and economies of broadband access give the University little leverage in negotiating discounted rates or premium service for individual members of the community, and the vendors have shown no interest in responding to our inquiries in this area.

Recommendation 7. That the University allow Term Associate Professors to hold Junior Faculty or Morse fellowships.

Although there are some complexities in implementation that result from the indentures of the endowments that make these leaves possible and the Yale terminology that places all associate professors in the category of senior faculty, we have accepted this recommendation and will ensure that beginning in the academic year 2004-05, no member of the faculty awarded one of these fellowships will have to postpone promotion to the rank of Associate Professor on Term in order to hold the fellowship.

In conclusion, let me once again thank the members of the 2001-2003 CESOF for their diligent effort over the past two years and the wise guidance provided in their report. I look forward to working with the next Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty as we continue to pursue strategies for ensuring that Yale continues to offer the salary levels and benefit programs that enable us to recruit the very best scholars and teachers to our faculty.