To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

1920 Minnesota lieutenant gubernatorial election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minnesota lieutenant gubernatorial election, 1920

← 1918 November 2, 1920 1922 →
 
George H. Mallon - WWI Medal of Honor recipient (cropped).jpg
Nominee Louis L. Collins George H. Mallon James P. McDonnell
Party Republican Independent Democratic
Popular vote 432,226 224,601 79,414
Percentage 57.36% 29.81% 10.54%

Lieutenant Governor before election

Thomas Frankson
Republican

Elected Lieutenant Governor

Louis L. Collins
Republican

The 1920 Minnesota lieutenant gubernatorial election took place on November 2, 1920. Republican Party of Minnesota candidate Louis L. Collins defeated Independent challenger George H. Mallon and Minnesota Democratic Party candidate James P. McDonnell.

Captain Mallon was the nominee of the young Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. However, the Farmer-Labor nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor in the general election of 1920 were unable to use the Farmer-Labor party designation and ran as Independents instead.

Also among the defeated candidates was Lillian Friedman of the Socialist Party of Minnesota, who was the first woman ever to be nominated for the office of Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota, and the final nominee of the Socialist Party for that office. The 1920 general election—the first held since the ratification of the 19th Amendment—also saw the first nomination of a woman for the office of Minnesota Secretary of State: Lily J. Anderson of the Farmer-Labor Party.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    1 299
    310
    809
    22 147
    954
  • ✪ University of Minnesota Board of Regents meeting
  • ✪ Atlantis The Lost Continent
  • ✪ Celebrating the 125th Anniversary of the US Board on Geographic Names: Traditions & Transitions
  • ✪ The Noose: An American Tradition
  • ✪ RSC 2012 Governor General Lecture Series: We Are All Treaty People: Accepting the Queen's Hand

Transcription

- Alright, I sense a readiness for us to jump in here, so I will call to order the March meeting of the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents and we'll begin our meeting today with the recognition of one of our most critical faculty leaders, so President Kaler, do you wanna join me at the podium? - Good morning, we're here today to recognize the contributions of Joe Konstan as the outgoing chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee. And Joe, if you'd come join us at the podium, please. The University of Minnesota's model of shared governance is nationally recognized and for a good reason. For over 105 years, the University Senate has moved the ball forward on many issues of critical importance. And as President, I found that consulting with faculty early and often is a key factor in developing and implementing successful initiatives and policies. So in that space to chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee is a crucial person and plays an important role at our University. And I wanna recognize Professor Joe Konstan for his outstanding leadership of the FCC beginning in academic year of 2017 and finishing in the fall of 2018. Joe stepped down as FCC chair a little bit early this spring because, for a very good reason. He accepted a position as the new associate dean for research at the Twin Cities campus College of Science and Engineering. We're really very pleased to continue to have Joe's contributions to leadership at the University in April. I've appreciated his sage advice in a number of important issues over the years. He is a deep thinker, a significant strategic thinker, and we're all better for his service. Thank you for your service, Joe. And let me turn the podium to Chair McMillan to read the citation. Congratulations and thank you. - Alright, here is the text of the citation, Professor Konstan. The Regents of the University of Minnesota recognize with great appreciation the exceptional achievements and dedication of Professor Joseph A. Konstan, 2017 and '18 and fall 2018 chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee and the Senate Consultative Committee. As chair, Professor Konstan has been an advocate for faculty while providing effective leadership and consultation with the Board of Regents. The president and senior leader, he has skillfully led governance involvement and several important university issues, including the President's Initiative to Prevent Sexual Misconduct, implementation of the Student Mental Health Taskforce report recommendations, Faculty Consultative Committee membership, and structure updates, Twin Cities Liberal Education curricular redesign process and Systemwide Strategic Planning and priorities. The University has benefited greatly from Professor Konstan's thoughtful stewardship of faculty governance, and his integrity, commitment, and contributions to the greater good. On behalf of the entire University community, the Regents of the University of Minnesota expressed their deepest gratitude to Professor Joseph A. Konstan for his outstanding leadership and tremendous service presented this eighth day of March, 2019. There ends this -- and to that -- I will add an off-script note of my personal appreciation for the thoughtfulness and the perspective that Professor Konstan brought to the table with me and from early in his tenure, he demonstrated a great willingness to engage whether it was at Brueger's in the morning for coffee and a bagel, at Northern Minnesota site that he traveled to before assuming the FCC leadership or in his room, you were always engaged and very very articulate and thoughtful on how you express your leadership responsibilities. From a grateful University, thank you. (applause) - Can we have a photograph? - OK, before we move to an item of action here, I wanna recognize and make sure the audience is aware and thank Regent Steve Sviggum for his participation by phone. Regent Sviggum, can you confirm you're there? - Good morning, Mr. Chairman and all members. I just wished I was there to give Joe a sincere handshake and a warm hug. - Alright, thank you for being aboard this morning telephonically, and I presume none of my colleagues have any objection to Regent Sviggum participating by phone, correct? Very good. I think we updated our rules and Bylaws to take into account the advancement of technology and to specifically enable opportunities like this. Our first item of action this morning is approval of the minutes, which you have had the opportunity in your docket materials to review. I would welcome a motion in a second. - So moved. - Second. - Moved and seconded minutes before you, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? - [Multiple voices] Aye. - Opposed? President Kaler, please share your report with us. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. Just as it is still winter, we are still in the legislative session. As a refresher, the university's asking the state for an $87 million increase funding over the next two years. As you know, that's enough to fund our core operations and our most pressing needs, while keeping cost reasonable for students in terms of parallel modest tuition increase request. A couple of weeks ago, Governor Walz proposed $39.2 million in increase of our base budget funding. And if you're keeping track, that's less than half of what we asked for. Governor also propose $150 million investment in capital improvement projects across the University system. While that figure is below our request for capital improvements, it obviously gives us a lot of space to work with. The governor's budget recommendation will create challenges on the operating side and on the capital side, but we will continue to move those conversations forward with legislative leaders, the process is not yet over. But without a reasonably increased investment from the state, we will face difficult choices, such as diminishing the scope and quality of the University, or asking the Regents for tuition increase beyond the two and 2.5% level. I remind you that we face the same cost pressures as other organizations in an inflationary environment, such as rising healthcare and utility cost. And we will need to go back to our exceptionally confident senior vice president and our budget director and have some tough conversations about deeper cuts to units at the University. We are always searching for innovative opportunities to fund our University, and I will remind you over the past seven years, we've reallocated over $91 million to mission related priorities. The new M Health Fairview agreement will contribute $68 million to the U in its first year alone. The driven campaign is passed the $3.2 billion mark. The U's Office of Technology Commercialization has grown to the number sixth public research university tech transfer office in the country, and our research enterprise in on track to pass the $1 billion mark next year. By keeping the University of Minnesota both excellent and affordable requires investment from the State of Minnesota. So members of the Board of Regents, I'm asking for your help. Please help me, help our faculty, staff, and students, and help our University Relations team. Be an advocate. Carry the message that the University of Minnesota's essential to the future of our state. We cannot maintain our excellence without robust paid support. Around the system, there's a lot of good news to report. I'll just share a few highlights. After an in depth examination of student enrollments, current and predicted budget trends and feedback from faculty, staff, and students, the University of Minnesota Crookston will transition to a new organizational structure. Among the intended outcomes are greater budget efficiency and structural excellence, scholarly and creative activities, and improved retention and graduation rates. The University of Minnesota Duluth is proud that six students from our Labovitz School of Business and Economics were accepted in prestigious 3M Frontline Sales Initiative Program and will be immersed in internship sales of business training this summer. At Morris, they are proud to be selected to participate in evergreen energy's quote roadmap to carbon neutrality. Only one, one out of only three schools selected nationwide to participate. Morris will receive free energy planning services as part of this pilot program as the campus' works to become carbon neutral by 2020. And just yesterday, the University of Minnesota Rochester hosted Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan and Higher Education Commissioner Dennis Olson. During their visit, UMR displayed first year student research posters, 100% of UMR students conduct original research as first year students. Undergraduate research is a high impact practice with demonstrated contributions to retention. UMR continues to connect students and industries, demonstrated in a women's history month event this past Monday. At the event, women who are currently in healthcare connected with UMR students who are the healthcare leaders of tomorrow. And here is one comment from Dr. Nneka Comfere, the medical director of Mayo Clinic Quality Academy. And she said, quote, "It didn't matter that no one "looked like me, it mattered that I was surrounded "by people with a growth mindset "and they were eager to learn. "We learn and grew together." On the Twin Cities, David Hahn, U of M Law School class of 2019, won a national award, the 2019 Distinguished Legal Writing Award from the Burton Foundation. In the 20 years since the national awards creation, U of M law students have received that 11 times. Only two other law school, two other law schools, Georgetown with 13 and the University of Pennsylvania with 12, had won with the award more than the U. And impacting the whole U of M system, we're continuing our work on strategic system enrollment, which we will briefed on in June. Late January of this year mark the passing of the University of Minnesota's 13th president, Nils Hasselmo. We're holding an event to honor him on May 11th, here in this building, and I welcome to come and celebrate his life and legacy with his friends, family, and university colleagues. Nils was known for his outstanding sense of humor, and he had a Scandinavian sense of joy and acceptance amidst the bleakness that feels all the more valuable this winter in Minnesota. And in recalling Nils' service to our University, Professor John Adams, former dean of the Humphrey School, reminded us of the story that he liked to tell: It seemed that a certain University president died and ended up in Hell. Hard to believe. He was met at Hell's gate by Satan, who welcomed them and began showing him around. The sun was shining, the sky was blue, the temperature was pleasant and there was no windchill. The landscape was gorgeous and Satan pointed at a house that the president would reside in. It's much larger and more attractive than Eastcliff, more stately than Pillsbury Hall, and with less deferred maintenance than Glensheen, The president looked over the scene and remarked, "Isn't -- this isn't at all what I was expecting." He said to Satan, "what's the catch?" Satan replied, "you're gonna be our new university president, "and we have two football teams and two medical schools." (audience laughter) With that, I conclude my report. (audience laughter) - Thank you, President Kaler. My report, I'll talk quickly about process for those of you that keep an eye on our calendar. We didn't have our regular committee meetings scheduled yesterday, and instead, the Board spent the past two days together participating in other activities. And I believe, I'm not, haven't counted every meal, but I think the 12 of us or some majority thereof may have eaten every meal together since Wednesday morning. But at any rate, we on Wednesday had our winter retreat, which has become something of a tradition and a productive one at that. We had time together with President Kaler and had the opportunity to work and listen and to dialog with him as he reflects back on, reflected back on his tenure as president and more importantly on his plans for completing the critical work remaining in this academic year. And as is typical in our March meeting, we took some time, the time we normally would spend yesterday, Thursday, on committee meetings, instead to engage in visits and dialog with the University community. We spent the day on the West Bank of our Twin Cities campus visiting the Carlson School of Management, the Humphrey School of Public Affairs and my alma mater, the Law School. Throughout the day, we engaged with professional students, faculty, and staff, and as you all know, under Regent Omari and Provost Hanson's leadership, the Mission Fulfillment Committee has focused considerable time this year on graduate and professional education. Our time yesterday helped us bring a practical and current perspective to that ongoing dialog at the Mission Fulfillment Committee. These visits provide us with a firsthand, with firsthand knowledge and context that assist us in carrying out our governance responsibilities. I know I speak for the entire Board when I say that we learn a lot at this table, the one we sit around now, but we learn even more when we're able to get out and interact with the students, faculty, and staff, who comprise our University community. Yesterday was exactly that. We discussed the unique qualities of each of those three schools' professional programs, how the programs are meeting student demand and workforce needs, and how they're achieving their research and outreach missions. We also learn a great deal about the experiential learning elements that are at the core of these impressive professional programs on the West Bank. We concluded our day yesterday with dinner at Eastcliff with agricultural and natural resource leaders from across the state. Our land grant legacy begins with agriculture and natural resources, nearly 170 years later, these sectors remain critical to advancing our mission in the state, the nation, and the world. Finally, we have a number of consequential items on the agenda today. I wanna call attention to one of those. Item 8, enrollment plans for Crookston, Duluth, Morris, and Rochester campuses. This Board has had a strong interest in enrollment planning for a long time. We've add campus specific enrollment management conversations in Mission Fulfillment Committee over the last two years. Those discussions have provided us with the opportunity to learn more about each campus, each unique attributes and the challenges on each of those. But today, we're eager to dive into the conversation about enrollment goals, areas of opportunity and growth, and recruitment strategies that each campus is planning to employ in order to meet their enrollment goals. I look forward to that conversation. That ends my report and move us on to item 5, which is simply to note and to receive in file items in the docket materials. Item 6 is an action item and that is our typical Consent Report, and to entertain a motion to bring that before us? - So moved. - Second. - Moved and seconded to bring the Consent Report which is gifts, Finance & Operations Committee Consent Report items on the All University Honors Committee before us. Is there a discussion on anything on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I'd entertain a vote, to all in favor? - [Multiple voices] Aye. - Opposed? Item 6 carries. That brings us to another consequential element of today's agenda, the Report of the Student Representatives to the Board of Regents. And I'd like to invite our chair, Marta Dean, and our vice chair, Alexandra Ulland, forward, to present the Report of the Student Representative to the Board. Thank you both for being here. And you have the floor. Welcome. Unless, of course, you need my technological help to get something started. Would be an oxymoron. We have professional help in the back coming forward, maybe? There we go. - We're good. - Thank you so much, Chair McMillan, members of the Board. Good morning, my name is Marta Dean. I use she/her pronouns. I am a senior on the Crookston campus studying agricultural business and communication and I have the pleasure of chairing the Student Representatives to the Board of Regents. - And I'm Allie Ulland, I'm a senior at the Duluth campus, I use she/her pronouns. I am a marketing major with a communication minor. I have the honor of serving as vice chair of the fellow reps to the Board. - And on this report, we worked alongside our fellow representatives, Anne Barnes from the Twin Cities. Agleska Rebecca Cohen-Rencountre from the Twin Cities, Mckenzie Dice, Morris, Jael Kerandi, Twin Cities, Austin Kraft, Twin Cities, James Pathoulas, Twin Cities, and Mason Schlief, Rochester. - We're very pleased to be here with you this morning to discuss the Student Report to the Board. The three topics that we chose to cover in this report are centered around the wellbeing of the State of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota, and the students, faculty and staff that call this institution and state home. While each campus is unique without a doubt, we offer a glimpse into topics and issues that are present on all campuses, giving you a system wide lens to look through, if you will. The topics that we're covering today are pertinent to the success of everyone at this institution and to the success of the state. We ask that you view our topic of sustainability as a vital investment in the future of both students and citizens of Minnesota. We ask that you view our topic of mental health as the epidemic that it is, with people across the state and nation looking to the prestigious University of Minnesota that has again and again been innovative and groundbreaking in the healthcare field to continue that reputation with mental health. And we ask that you view our topic of campus climate as fulfilling the commitment that the University has made to creating an environment in which all people feel welcomed and respected. An environment that continues to produce leaders and students in the many fields that students choose to pursue. Let's start with sustainability. In the report, you read about the incredible things happening around sustainability at each campus in respect to the three folds listed in the mission. This demonstrates the ways in which these actions add value to the University for fulfilling that mission statement. But I'd like to use this time instead to highlight the student's stories and recommendations we propose around sustainability. Priscilla Trinh is an undergraduate student majoring in sustainable systems management at the Twin Cities campus. Priscilla has been taking part in hydroponic research as a part of Professor Tom Michaels' research project. The static hydroponic systems that Priscilla develops allow produce like kale and carrots to grow while suspended in water without needing any soil at all. Looking forward, Priscilla and Professor Michaels will be sharing their spring hydroponic crops with the Nutritious U food pantry on the Twin Cities campus. The UMD Solar University Network delegation or SUN for short, is a team of students working to increase the amount of solar on Duluth campus. In just six months, they were able to secure $100,000 in funding through student service fees and an external grant. The SUN Delegation project was a major contributor to a drastic 900% increase in solar capacity at the Duluth campus over the past year. SUN not only gives students an incredible learning opportunity, but they're also helping to engage the broader community in a conversation about innovative approaches to sustainability. Sydney Bauer is a biology major with an emphasis in environmental leadership and stewardship from the Morris campus. Sydney was hired as an energy intern in the Office of Sustainability. Throughout her time in that position, she was able to support a local high school robotics team fundraiser for solar PV panels, connect with Morris City Council and manager to lead discussions on local sustainability and even connect with student interns from Germany and Australia who went to Morris to learn about the sustainability initiatives that are being practiced there. There are incredible things that are happening in sustainability system wide, that benefit both the state and the University of Minnesota. To continue this excellence, we offer three system wide recommendations. First, the centralization communication of campus specific and system wide goals for carbon neutrality and emissions. This would provide a single and visible location that would reflect the university's commitment to and pride in its sustainability goals. Second, the reinstatement of the system wide Strategic Sustainability Committee as a standing committee. The size of the University is one of our biggest advantages. Without this committee, however, university members who are in the community, the sustainability community, often experience challenges in assessing sustainability opportunities, or knowing how the University is tackling a particular issue across the system. Finally, identifying and prioritizing critical utilities and maintenance projects. These projects include continued effort on the Twin Cities campus, targeting buildings each year for replacement of inefficient utilities and supporting the need of an alternative energy plan for heat on the Duluth campus, without which leaves the campus lacking options as it continues to expand and grow. - Next, we would like to address mental health. As Student Representatives to the Board of Regents, we recognize that this is not the first time we have brought this topic forward and it will likely not be the last. We would like to commend the student representatives of the past for the excellent work done on this topic, as well as thank you, members of the Board, for recognizing the importance of that work and responding to it. However, there's still more that can be done to address mental health on campus. Higher ed institutions across the country have been adapting to respond to the increased need for mental health services over the past 10 years. In 2018, a Boynton Health survey showed that 39% of students reported having at least one mental health diagnosis. 41% of students reported having unmanageable stress. These are factors that can greatly impact a person's ability to perform academically. In fact, over half the students who leave college and do not return do so because of reasons related to mental health. However, given the right resources, students with mental health diagnosis can thrive at the University level. To improve mental health services across the University of Minnesota system, we recommend a long term strategic plan be put in place. The first step of this plan is an external expert review. We recommend that the university work with a group of outside mental health experts to assess our current methods of mental health services on all campuses and determine what will work long term and what may need to be restructured. Next, we recommend that the president present a comprehensive system wide action plan to address student mental health long term that is informed by the findings of the expert panel review discussed in the first section of this process. To continue to best serve the students of the University of Minnesota, we recommend that the University have a review of system wide student mental health every five years to assess effectiveness and best practices as we move forward. Furthermore, we ask that Boynton Health continue to administer the college student health survey every three years to ensure University approaches to student mental health are data-driven and well-informed. Finally, we recommend continued close communication regarding student mental health between chancellors and vice chancellors at Crookston, Duluth, Morris, and Rochester, as well as the dean of students at the Twin Cities. We recommend the incoming president consider either formal changes to reporting structures or informal co-reporting structures that facilitate regular dialogue of student mental health between the Twin Cities dean of students and the University President. Mental health is something that impacts students on all five campuses, and working together as a system to improve how it is approached will be beneficial. The final topic we have addressed in this year's report is campus climate. In recent years, campus climate has become a pressing issue at the University of Minnesota and at many other institutions. Students have a variety of options when it comes to their college education. There are many choices of public and private universities available, as well as online education. There's so many options available for education. Students are not likely to attend college on a campus where they do not feel safe, welcomed, or respected. Students at the University of Minnesota attend college for more than just an education. Each of the five campuses that make up the University of Minnesota system have a unique vibrancy and many opportunities for students to get involved both on campus and within the surrounding communities. Each of the University of Minnesota campuses has been taking steps to make sure that all of their students feel welcomed on campus. Campus climate issues vary campus to campus, but ways to address that can be similar. All five campuses working together as one strong system to improve campus climate will help the University of Minnesota move forward as a whole and make each campus a place where students, faculty, and staff, feel welcomed. Each campus in the University of Minnesota system is actively working to develop a better understanding of what campus climate is, what issues may impact the climate on their campus, and what can be done to improve climate and create a better environment for all students, faculty, and staff, to have the opportunity to succeed. Students deserve to feel safe and respected on the campus where they choose to learn, live, and work. Steps needed to be taken on each campus to make sure that students of all backgrounds, ethnicities, identities, beliefs, and abilities feel they are valued in and out of the classroom. In order to be successful, students also need to feel safe on campus, at their place of residence, and in between. Moving forward, we feel that it is vital that the groups working to address campus climate on each of the campuses in the system work together and share information. Issues that have only come up in discussion on one campus may be important on all five. We recommend that the leaders on each campus come together to form a systemwide taskforce on campus climate. Using what they've learned through interviews, observations, surveys, focus groups, and other methods of collecting information on their own respective campuses, this group can work together to recreate a campus climate survey to be administered to the entire system. This survey will be able to demonstrate the general campus climate of the University, as well as show where issues regarding campus climate may differ or remain the same campus to campus. We recommend that the survey be administered every two years to continue to track the progress of campus climate at the University and make sure efforts to improve it are effective and focused on areas of need. Thank you so much for your time this morning. We will now answer any questions you may have. - Thank you for that thoughtful and articulate presentation of the report. I'm guessing and expecting that there's some Board interest here. I've already had one expression, so I'll let Regent Omari begin. - Thank you Chair McMillan. First, thank you very much. Secondly, wish everyone the recognition and then also a happy International Women's Day, which we are celebrating today. So I wanna just touch a little bit on the mental health aspect of the report. I think it's fascinating to see the Student Representatives in how the synergies between what we're thinking about on the Board come together and we recognize that in the past, the reason we've been able to make the progress that we have made came directly from the efforts of student representatives. And over the last year, in Mission Fulfillment, I've had conversations with everyone in the campuses about the needs to make sure that we're providing the resources around mental health that's necessary. So I look forward to continuing that conversation. A question regarding the external review. So I'm just wondering if in your research, you uncovered any examples of where institutions did that and some of the findings that they may have come up with that we can begin to think about as we perhaps take up this recommendation. - Student representative Dean or Ulland? - Thank you, Chair McMillan. If you'll just give me one second, Regent Omari, I can pull up that information for you. - We can move on and come back if you want to. Otherwise, you can even just send it to me, if that's easier, if folks wanna add. - Yes, absolutely. We did cite an external review in the report that I can send you our resources for. - Alright, Regent Johnson. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Regents -- and thank you for you presentation and for your work and diligence. My comments are gonna sound negative and you're gonna say this Regent, time has passed him by. (audience laughter) Please bear with me, OK? I'm probably one of the oldest person sitting up here, OK? I've lived a lot of life and a lot of experiences, and take this in the correct way. I do not doubt for a moment that students today across the wide spectrum of the University across America have mental health challenges. In fact, going back to my college days, 1965, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa, two months into my time at Luther, I was having a real struggle. My dorm counselors suggested I see someone in a professional way. I did. And Dr. Cluster said, "Dean, "you're not taking care of yourself. "You're not getting proper rest. "I don't think you're exercising. "I don't think that you are doing this and that. "I suggest the following," and he sent a report to my parents. And things began to turn around. What I'm getting at is I'm curious about, and I understand the generational gap, things are different now than they were in '65, '66. I'm trying to understand the issue of, I hear often from young people, mental health, is it caused by the technology? Is it caused by over expectations? Is it caused by culture? Is it caused by environment? Is it caused by your parents? Is it caused by us? Where has it risen to this level? And I agree, we need to deal with it. I'm trying to figure out the symptoms. 'Cause I'm so old that the drill sergeant said get over it, move on. Just move on. That's the generation I came from, and a generation before men and women who came back from war, I'm sorry that you went through it, get on with your life. That's the way we dealt with our mental health. Just move on. So I'm just try, I'm not being punitive, I'm not being judgmental, I'm trying to understand universities, young people's idea about mental health. And you're looking at me like where did he come from? Can you, I'm sure your parents have maybe weighed in. Am I wrong? Help me understand this. - Student Representatives, either of you on the drivers and the underlying causes of increasing mental health challenges? - Thank you, Chair McMillan, and Regent Johnson, I very much appreciate your questions and your concerns. I don't take that as a negative at all. I think that's a very common question in our world today, because clearly we are seeing a huge uptick in mental health issues on campus and off. I'm an agriculture major, I can't really speak to the causes of mental health in our world today, but as a college student, I can definitely say that it is causing issues for students and their success on campus. And I think that as a university, we ought to be addressing that. - And then I'll just say, Chair McMillan, members of the Board, I would agree with that. I think it does come from a variety of different areas, and I think that something as the University that we should investigate. Where is this coming from, and address this epidemic from the stem of it. You know, a lot of it, a lot of mental health people wonder where it comes from. A lot of it comes from chemistry in people's brains. And that's why medication is prescribed and such to correct that, and I just think it's something that as a university that is, that has such a strong health care background and history, that's something that we should be investigating. - Mr. Chairman, just to follow up. - Yes, Regent Johnson. - Students, I don't disagree. I think you're right on. And my question is how did we get to this point of a healthy mental health culture society. You're under tremendous stress. The stress to succeed, the stress to get good grades, the stress to find a job and vocation, to be successful in life. The expectations of your family, of this Board, of the President, it's all there. At some point in time, you have to take a step back, say I'm doing the best I can. Because a long term mental stress takes its toll on the human condition. We all feel it in how we deal with it. And I'm pleased that the university is providing more mental health counselors. I think we're moving in the right direction. But I'm trying to get at the symptoms. Why it is that we're moving in this direction. But I thank you for your comments, for your work, and again, I do not intend to be judgmental or punitive, I'm trying to be analytical about the situation of mental health in our society, in our culture, and in the university setting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. - Thank you, Regent Johnson. Before -- President Kaler has some thoughts, but I'm gonna ask him to hold those and he's gonna provide some closing thoughts here as well. Got three regents that still have questions, Regents Lucas, Cohen, and Rosha, and we'll turn to Regent Lucas. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. Thank you for your report. I love that all three parts are so forward looking and that's, helps us to think that way too. But we're all focusing on mental health here. Because it's an epidemic that we really wanna understand. I'd like to see research in whatever department looking at social media as one of the potential new things that's causing some of this. And I don't have the research, I don't have the answers, but as I look around to the young people I know, I think that's a potential, potential indicator, and I'd like to see research. I know that we can do better. At the West Bank yesterday, when we were talking to the schools on the West Bank, we found that we don't have a mental health touchpoint on the West Bank, and so we can do better. That's about to happen and we can keep thinking about things like that. And I'm still fascinated by the fact that some of these colleges, like Yale, and so forth do these, where happiness is a credit course, and it's standing room only. I think we have to start talking to people at that level about things that they can do to take care of themselves. So I think your report was great, and thank you. - Any replies? You don't need to. - Thank you, Chair McMillan, Regent Lucas. I agree with you. I think that, again, kind of echoing Regent Johnson's comments, there's a lot of change that's happening in our world today, our young people have been influenced by a variety of different stimuli than the last generation and that's definitely something that's worth looking into. - Regent Cohen. - Thank you, Chair McMillan, and thank you, Student Reps for the really hard work that you've done all year and the report. I'll take a quick whack at seeing if I can answer a couple of questions of Dean Johnson. I think our university is trying to answer those questions of what's changing and what's different and why do we have so much more mental health, and I think they're doing an extraordinary job in that area. But a lot of, one, people are realizing that early child experiences if they're traumatic have an affect on adolescence and adults, and so you can't just say sort of, it's gonna go away, it doesn't. And secondly, there's so much work being done on brain chemistry and that effect, and that complicates the mental health and the approach to that. My question is, because this topic came up last year too and we appreciated the report, have things improved in terms of waiting list, times that students can be seen, and so on? Because I think we did react to what was said last year and I'm wondering if things are any better as far as getting help? - Student Representative Dean? - I'm gonna defer it to -- - To Student Representative Ulland. - Chair McMillan, Regent Cohen. You know, the ratios are improving. We see that. We did report on this topic two years ago, and since then the ratios have improved. But also we're seeing that the students entering the university level each year, the symptoms of mental health are worsening. So as the ratios improve, there are more people who are suffering with mental health. So it's kind of just becoming a bigger problem. We, I do believe there's incredible things that are happening on all five of the campuses to try and address mental health. I just think that there's more to be done just because this problem is worsening as more students do come in to the, on the university level with mental health problem each year. - Thank you. - If I could just add on to that. I would say that in response to our report topic two years ago, campuses were able to hire either their first counselor or additional counselors which are excellent, ratios have improved. But student to counsel ratios are a great place to start, but they are just a place to start, especially with the evolving mental health conditions we're seeing on campus. - Thank you. Follow up, Regent Cohen, or? Ok, Regent Rosha. - Thank you Mr. Chair, and I wanna thank our Student Representatives and particularly as Regent Lucas pointed out this very thoughtful explanation of this vision, for setting things up to communicate better. As you are transitioning into the next year of student representation, I would make the appeal to you to not be shy as a group in communicating. You don't have to wait until you have our attention here. We have email and other opportunities to communicate with us. I think that you help inform our decisions, and the earlier we have that input, the more effectively we can process the position of those of you who know what's going on on the field, how you're thinking about these issues. I will just offer a thought in a bit of a transition generationally, although I'm closer to yours now than I am to theirs, Regent Johnson. You know, it's, what's striking to me, when the issue of mental health first hit me as I came back to this Board a few years ago, I, my first reaction was pretty similar to my colleague in thinking that, well, this is just stress. Obviously, the peaks are at midterms and finals, and this is just, people aren't able to handle it, and that's part of what the college experience is, 'cause your employers are gonna expect you to handle stress and I was a, my first reaction was somewhat abrupt in that regard, but as I really looked into it more and listened more to the students who were talking about this issue, I just realized that I don't envy students today compared to the experience that I had. We fancy ourselves as being enlightened beings, but we really are part of this millennia of, kind of this evolution where we're DNA coded to look for threats, survival, we were built to survive, and for students now, from a resource stand point, I mean we do have issues with food insecurity, we do have issues for housing, but those are pretty small and they oftentimes have some overlying issues with respect to mental health and otherwise, but the general population, we got it pretty good compared to a couple generations ago where my ancestors were digging into a hillside to survive the Minnesota winter sort of thing. And at least in the '80s, we had the Soviets to worry about. We had our nuclear drills and so on and so forth, and when we look at these kinds of things, we're kind of constantly looking for threats, and then I would agree with you, I don't think that humanity was ready for the Internet. When you look at the way we communicate with each other. And one other advantage that we had at the time which was before email was widely used, and I long for those days at times, is that when the expectations of your generation I think are greater from an achievement standpoint, from an education standpoint. When I got a bachelor's degree, not only had I exceeded anything anyone else in my family had done directly through the line, but I also was in a pretty small percentage of the population, but now a much larger percentage has this. And so the stress and the drive for you to succeed I think is really, is really an incredible pressure and so I would ask that you and your successors be forceful in talking to us about what's you're experiencing, what you're going through, and how we could try to address those things, because I think this is gonna be one of the great issues that we have to deal with as an educational institution, as higher ed as a whole is making sure that we're not gonna lose a generation to our inability to understand. And that we don't over rely on chemicals, although certainly there are values there, but this has been on my mind and I give you guys tremendous credit for bringing it to the forum, ensuring that we're thinking and talking about it. Thanks, Mr. Chair. - Thank you, Regent Rosha. Regent Beeson, the last Regent on this, and I'm gonna ask President Kaler to provide some responsive thought. - Thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you presenters. We wouldn't be where we are without you and your predecessors bringing the issue to us. It's a real testament to the report and the research and the work that you do. This has been, this has really been a defining issue. I wanna go back to Regent Lucas' comment. I think the takeaway to me is making sure that we, why shouldn't we be a national leader? We do research here and we occasionally connect dots between research and the daily lives of our students and the practical realities on campus. And so, having, we have national renowned psychology program here and we have new head of psychiatry and Regent Cohen mentioned there's brain science going on. I think, I think elevating over this understanding that we're doing the real research, not just treating the symptoms through ointment, dealing with resources to help manage the problems that are being presented. Thank you. - Thank you, Regent Beeson. Regent Omari, I saw you trying to get my attention there. Before I call on President Kaler. - Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just say, you know, one of the reasons why we see this spike is because the great research that we are going away with it, to see these things happening. Social media, there's tons of research on it. Particularly with instant gratification and the like button, and then what happens when a grade is not the equivalent of the thousands likes that you just got on your last post and how that impacts our mental status in a given time. And then I just wanna quickly draw attention to the other two components of the report. We focus primarily on the mental health conversation in section of the report, but the sustainability component and the campus climate, all of these from which are a system wide approach also should be pulled out and make sure that we give due credit to those as well, so thank you for that. - Thank you, Regent Omari, and I wanted to bring up sustainability and energy consumption, but I would have been roundly criticized for getting into a topic of which I care too much about at times, so thank you for doing that. President Kaler, some concluding thoughts? - Thank you, Chair McMillan, both for the chance to speak and your calm refusal to talk about energy or taconite this morning. Thank you, Marta, and Alexandra, and many thanks to your colleagues for a lot of hard work. Several of us around this table have actually served in your position when we were younger than we are now, and do now that the Board and I value very much your input and your contributions to our conversation, so thank you for your service. A couple of your points, I strongly support, particularly the communications around campus specific and system wide goals for a carbon neutrality and emissions. I'm a big fan of efficiency and effectiveness so that looks to me like an easy win and a good gain for us. So we'll certainly move that forward. In the mental health space that we've been discussing, I do think we've been effective in addressing the needs, but I appreciate you noting that the demands are ever increasing, a really remarkable percentage of our entering freshman class have reported a history in this space. And pragmatically, at some point, we can't provide all that's needed for that population, and so I think we need to look with private health insurance, with other venues that enable students to get the kind of support without the university being able to provide all of it. I'm a little neutral to negative on the external expert review, I'm not sure that we would get what we would want out of that, but I'm, would be ear to get additional follow up as you suggested to Regent Omari about what is come otherwise. I think we probably can do that internally pretty well. And finally, I would note in your written report, pages 104-105, your group expresses complete support for the recommendations on the Taskforce for Building Names and Institutional History which we will talk about in later agenda, item number 9 today. So again, thank you very much for your input, your service, and your guidance to this Board. - Well, to our chair and vice chair, I trust you can glean from the reaction of the Board, and, oh, did I hear Regent Sviggum? - Uh, no. I'm good, David. - Alright, very good. You can discern that we do appreciate and value your role in this reporting process, and as Regent Rosha said, don't wait for next year. Keep that comin' as a steady dialog to us, thank you. Alright, that brings us to a close of that item and on to enrollment planning, and I know we're gonna prepare some materials and bring, change out the presenters here, so we'll just slow down for a second, let's you get situated. Ok, as the last glass of hydrating water is poured, I'm gonna turn directly to President Kaler and have him provide our framing remarks here. - Thank you, Chair McMillan, members of the Board, I'm happy to introduce this conversation about enrollment plans at the University of Minnesota Crookston, Duluth, Morris, and Rochester campuses. Each of the University's five campuses has distinctive enrollment strategies and goals. And at the same time, we have shared objectives, to attract the best and the brightest, to maintain access and affordability, support diversity, and maintain a uniformly high quality experience. These are the values of principles affirmed in the Resolution Related to Undergraduate Enrollment Management that you approved in 2016, and it is summarized in your docket materials. As Acting Provost, McMaster will expand on a moment enrollment planning is especially important as we see a decrease in high school graduates eventually over the next 10 years in Minnesota in the upper Midwest continue, and intense competition for students nationally and internationally, facing an out migration from Minnesota. And with these challenges, we must continue to be smart, planful and strategic. If you look at your docket materials, in this space, you saw that our Crookston campus proposes to discontinue its standardized test requirement in its admissions process. I support this proposal because it fits with the Crookston campus, its size and mission scope, student demographic and enrollment contacts. Crookston will focus on its holistic admission to review in the development of new first year student programs. All of this work at UMC is being proposed and serve as to strengthening enrollment, retention and graduation rates. While I support Crookston's test optional admissions plan, I wanna be very clear, the standardized test are still an important component of the admissions processes on our other larger University of Minnesota campuses. I'm also supportive of the Morris campus' enrollment goal of 1,700 degree seeking undergraduates by fall 2024. That is the vision and leadership we need from our chancellors. Grateful to all of our presenters who've worked thoughtfully to bring these plans to your review today, they need no introduction perhaps, but they are Dr. Michelle Behr, Chancellor of the University of Minnesota Morris, Dr. Lendley Black, Chancellor of the University of Minnesota Duluth, Dr. Lori Carrell, Chancellor of the University of Minnesota Rochester, Dr. Mary Holz-Clause, Chancellor of the University of Minnesota at Crookston. Joined by Dr. Bob McMaster, the Acting Executive Vice President and Provost. So thank you, Chair McMillan, and with your permission, we can hand the presentation to Acting Provost McMaster to provide the introduction and context. - Outstanding. Thank you, Provost, or Acting Provost McMaster. - Chair McMillan and members of the Board of Regents. The purpose of this agenda item is to review a resolution to affirm undergraduate enrollment plans for the University of Minnesota Crookston, Duluth, Morris, and Rochester campuses. Each campus will present plans that outline distinctive enrollment strategies and goals, guided by the Board of Regents' framework outlined in the March 2016 undergraduate enrollment management resolution. As you've heard -- oh excuse me -- since 2016, the University has also developed a preliminary system level strategy plan for enrollment management. As you've heard in several presentations, the System Enrollment Council was convened by Executive Vice President and Provost Hanson to establish avenues for regular collaboration in recruitment, admission, and retention strategies in order to reach system enrollment goals. System wide enrollment planning is intended to improve cross campus collaboration where possible and appropriate and complement individual planning on each campus. The focus of the presentation today is on individual campus plans at the four campuses identified, but I will share a brief overview of the system planning efforts taking shape, the overarching plan for what you're going to hear. You'll hear additional detail at the June meeting with our second system enrollment planning presentation. While each campus faces unique enrollment challenges, the strategies outlined in the enrollment, system enrollment plan are guided by four main factors driving the current enrollment landscape that are faced by all University of Minnesota campuses. The first factor has to do with changes in the geodemographics and incoming student population of the nation, and in particular, the upper Midwest. From 2015 to 2020, approximately 80% of growth with 15 to 19 year-olds in Minnesota is projected to occur in the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area, feeding the expected high school graduates number for the next few years. After that, the number of 15 to 19 year-olds is expected to decline in Greater Minnesota with a slower growth in the Twin Cities. By '24, '25, the number of high school graduates in Minnesota is expected to peak, after which they are expected to decline. This map, with the normal shift of Alaska and Hawaii for geographical convenience depicts regional changes in high school graduates from-- - Only a geographer can add that footnote. - I have a cartographic license to do that. - (laughter) As we've noted before, the major growth will be the in the southern states and the west, where a 5% increase is still expected. Where there is growth in our state and region, the majority increase in high school graduates is expected to be in the traditionally underserved racial and ethnic groups. Over the next six years of projected total growth, more than 2/3 is expected to be among students of color. More than 1/3 of the increase is projected to come in the Latinx Hispanic graduates. And nearly 1/4 projected to come from the African American graduates. Minnesota continues to experience significant differences in the academic preparation of traditionally underrepresented students and White students which results in highly problematic achievement gaps which we all have heard about. This gap can be found between White students and students of color, low income students, and first generation students. Strategies to maintain and grow the diversity of the student body while at the same time improving graduation and retention rates of traditionally underserved students will be a significant component of the system plan and represents one of our major challenges. All higher education institutions in the nation are experienced in responding to the slow growth or decline of incoming students, thus creating a market of heightened competition among our institutions. The University of Minnesota system enrolls approximately 1/3 of the freshman that attend four year institutions in Minnesota. The remaining share enroll in the Minnesota State system, and private college sector with a smaller percentage, less than 1% at the for- profit institutions. This chart which you're looking at shows the top 20 education destinations for Minnesota high school graduates. You're not surprised to see North Dakota State, University of North Dakota, and Iowa on this graph, since we've discussed these before. We have discussed the enrollment impact of these institutions on a number of occasions. Specifically, a growing share of Minnesota high school graduates are enrolling in neighboring state institutions. This map, which you've seen before, shows migration patterns of new freshmen entering four year public universities in the region and demonstrates a problematic and somewhat stunning outflow of 2.85:1. This out migration is a result of four primary factors. The high quality of K-12 education in Minnesota, the relatively large population compared to the surrounding states, the aggressive recruitment of Minnesota's students by these institutions and the significant discounting of tuition provided by our competitors. The system enrollment planning efforts have begun to foster collaborative thinking among the five campuses in recognition that enrollment decisions of one campus may impact the enrollments on the other institutions. Part of the systemwide enrollment planning effort is to limit inter system competition and work together to differentiate our unique qualities from competitor institutions. The areas that the systemwide enrollment plan will focus on directly address, in directly addressing factors in the current enrollment landscape. Strategies will emphasize redirecting out migration, increasing enrollment among growing populations continued recruitment of out of state students, and enhance cooperation among all five campuses with the goal of helping students understand their options among all University of Minnesota institutions. Thus, we must provide a clear articulation of the distinctive qualities of each campus and the mission match between student and campus. We look forward to sharing more in the system enrollment planning with you in June, and with that, I'll turn things over to Chancellor Holz-Clause. - Thank you, Chair McMillan, and members of the Board of Regents, thank you for the opportunity to present to you highlights of our enrollment management plan. First and foremost, we're focusing on ways to enhance and build upon our budget efficiencies. This past month, we restructured our four departments into two new academic units, devised to allow greater faculty autonomy and responsibility related to both academics and curriculum. It will also engage the heads of academic units more fully around efforts of program enhancement and development, faculty's professional development, and student success strategies. Once fully implemented, this will result in annual savings of more than a quarter of a million dollars. In 2018, 2019, we combine several positions and then permanently eliminated seven staff positions, again, saving more than half a million dollars annually. We've merged our on campus and online admission process, and in the meantime streamlined our online recruitment messaging and admission process along with our online student registration. We've restructured our admissions department, and on the process of hiring a new leader. As you probably know, there's been a constant turnover of more than 16 directors in the last 18 years in that department. We are confident that we will bring stability and continuity to that area. Additionally, we are developing strong mentoring and succession planning programs to provide ongoing leadership stability in our admissions arena. And we've taken deep dives into improving workflow efficiencies. Among them include both internal communication, external messages to our students, and enhanced advising, and providing more focus, attention, on student services for recruitment and retention. We are totally revamping our student success programs to recreating a required first year experience for all incoming campus first year students. Included in the curriculum will be a continuation of our financial literacy program we've launched this past year, career readiness skill development, honing of communication skills and other social success skills that our students need. We're gonna be focusing more on the stronger community engagement and attention to teaching students about the values of access and inclusion, which are core to our land-grant mission. We will be starting a centralized professional advising group in fall 2019. Our faculty will continue to provide career advising where the pathways to determining the correct classes to take, sequences, will be conducted by our professional advising team. The professional advising team will also help us to monitor students closely, ensuring that they are on the pathway to progress towards degree proactively, and intrusively engaging students when problems begin to emerge. Our advising will be informed upon data and metrics. You see, student success is paramount to our engagement management strategy. Simply increasing our first to second year retention by 5% will lead to approximately 50 more students for us over four years. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. And our growth is based upon a strategy of doing what we do well and doing it better. We serve a population that is distinctive within the University of Minnesota system. We are proud of the contribution that we make to the broader portfolio of the system, especially in terms of achieving our land-grant mission of access. We have the highest proportion of first generation students in the system. This past year, more than 48% of our incoming students were the first in their family to attend college. And we also serve the highest percentage of Pell-eligible students in the system. Overall, more than 40% of our students are Pell-eligible, and among our students from greater Minnesota, that percentage increases to well over 50%. We are working very aggressively within our local school systems to provide pathways for our students of color. The Latinx population in Crookston elementary schools is nearly 20% and 30% of our students in K-12 in that school district are students of color. So we're being very intentional through various programs and outreach to ensure that students consider and are prepared to attend a four year school. Of course, preferably, we want them to attend the University of Minnesota Crookston. And as I suspect, at least one Regent may have seen, we're proposing to go to a pilot, a test-optional approach for admissions beginning this fall. I want to assure you that we have taken a thorough critical and in-depth look at our admissions practice. We're taking this step because we're fully convinced it will help us to raise the bar of what really matters in selecting students who will be successful at the University of Minnesota Crookston. Students who are more than anywhere else in the system are first generation students who come from rural Minnesota and low income families. Our online growth as you probably have been watching over the last 10 years has grown annually at a very wonderful rate. In 2008, we had 147 students online. Today, it's more than 1,100. And we're proposing a 3-5% growth per year. Most importantly, since the median age of our online students is 32, our online programs help us to maintain strong annual enrollment even when there are dips in the number of high school graduates in the region. We, this past year have had a two new online majors, one in agricultural business, and the other in English, which is designed to work as a double major with our programs in education, communications, and management. As I'm sure many of you know, there's an adage in marketing: You can position your product to be cheaper, better, or different from the competition. In our marketplace, we are affordable, but not always less expensive, and don't want the connotations of that marketplace niche. We always aspire to be better than the others. And we are focusing ours on our distinctiveness or different from the competition in the credit college marketplace. Some of our distinct programs include our pre-veterinary program where our students have a placement rate of 40% which is approximately four times the national average. Our equine science program and our facilities, which we affectionately refer to as the "Horse Mahal" are similar, are some of the most premiere of the country and provides students hand on experiential opportunities. We have the only agriculture and natural resources aviation program in the United States. And our health care service management program is one of two accredited by the National Association of Long Term Administrative Boards in the United States. Our criminal justice and education programs are distinctive because our program, our students acquire credentials while at the University of Minnesota Crookston that allows them to go immediately into the workforce after they graduate. Our strategies to accomplish this target marketing and recruitment for these areas of distinctiveness is a movement that we've been doing, and also those that have capacity for growth. So as an institution, we have really benefit from the greater attention from the system wide coordination over the past years. Moving forward, we see even greater opportunities based on the coordinated system wide marketing. In particular, we know that the single website landing page for online programs across the University of Minnesota has been a great recruiting tool for us. And we are confident as we go forward that similar website landing pages for on campus programs, another things which we are proposing and work that we're doing we'll bring to you in June can really help us all to be much more competitive in our marketplace. Thank you, and now let's turn the microphone over to Chancellor Black. - Good morning, Chair McMillan, and members of the Board. It's a pleasure for me to be with you today and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you for a few minutes. I wanna begin by echoing Acting Provost McMaster's earlier comments regarding the current and future enrollment challenges and the inherent need for all five University of Minnesota campuses to work closely together to enhance our enrollment, and particularly to enhance our students' success. At your December meeting, the Duluth campus presented this structure and purpose of enrollment management on our campus, shared historical enrollment trends, and highlighted current priorities and challenges. In the last five years, we have enhanced structures and practices supporting the recruitment, enrollment, and persistence of undergraduates. We have implemented data informed practices and have realized positive outcomes with larger freshman classes and improved persistence and four year graduation rates. For example, our fall 2018 undergraduate degree seeking student headcount of 9,109 was 180 students higher than the fall of 2015. In addition, UMD's four year graduation rate increased 6.7% over the same time period. The University of Minnesota Duluth 2018-2023 undergraduate enrollment plan builds from this work and summarizes the eight overarching themes that comprise our current enrollment and student experience priorities. So allow me to give just a few highlights. A hallmark of the Duluth campus is our strong commitment to undergraduate education. Our students routinely benefit not only from excellent instruction, but also personal attention and participation in research with faculty. Maintaining these quality experiences is a priority consideration as we assess the enrollment capacity of our academic programs. As was highlighted to you at the December presentation, UMD Swenson College of Science and Engineering top 3,300 undergraduate students this fall and has experienced growing demand in all of its programs. Building capacity, while maintaining quality experiences required additional faculty, graduate teaching assistance, instructional space, and academic advisors, among other things. And we are working to make changes in order to support this growing demand, as well as to shore up all of our schools and colleges at UMD. And we will continue to seek resources in order to enhance our progress in this area. The Duluth campus is also keenly aware of the challenges many families face in affording higher education. We work closely with our perspective students and families to educate them on financial aid processes and to increase their understanding of the true cause of attendance when looking at our, as well as our competitors' financial aid packages. Our internal research also shows that students with significant levels of unmet financial need persist at much lower rates. To that end, we are currently working with central administration to free existing resources for supplemental need-based aid awards for our most impacted students. In 2016, UMD Strategic Enrollment Management Committee established the goal of reaching a campus retention rate of 80% by 2020. UMD's most recent first to second year campus retention rate was 78.8%, which represents nearly a 3% improvement since 2016. A number of department, unit, and campus initiatives have launched in support of our goal of 80%, including actions to address high D/F/W rates in gateway courses, expanding mentorship programs, strength based advising, financial literacy, textbook support, emergency grants, marketing initiatives, a campus mobile app and many other outreach initiatives. Beginning this past fall, beginning this past fall, a cohort of new freshman students was invited to participate in what we call "success coaching." After being identified potentially higher rates for attrition. Success coaching proactively connects first year students with professional staff who serve as consultants during the students' transition to UMD. Providing tools and nudging students toward resources supporting personal, academic, and financial success. This initiative is based on analysis conducted by the UMD Office of Institutional Research and best practices identified by the newly formed Bulldog Resource Center and involves numerous campus partners. This brief overview of program capacity, affordability, and student success barely touches on the array of complexities within our enrollment planning. Our plan and the December Board presentation demonstrate that UMD is keenly aware of these complexities and will continue particularly in partnership with our other four campuses with central administration and with this Board to meet the challenges ahead. Thank you. - Chair McMillan and Regents, thank you so much for the opportunity to discuss a few of the highlights of the Morris campus' five year enrollment management plan. As shared in our docket materials, the University of Minnesota Morris has a five year goal of reaching an enrollment of 1,700 degree seeking students. We believe that this is a reasonable goal after evaluating housing, classroom, and program capacity, enrollment trends, and revenue needs. As you know from my earlier enrollment presentation, Morris has had a history of fluctuating enrollment. Our objective was to determine a number that is attainable and sustainable and we believe that we have landed there with this goal. Our enrollment plan is, at its core, fairly simple. We expect to modestly increase the number of new students we enroll each year. To do this, we will continue to recruit students across the state of Minnesota, expand relationships in our current markets, and strategically develop relationships in new markets including those in key non reciprocity states. We are focused on improving our first to second year retention rates from around 80% to 85% and we hope eventually to 90%. And most importantly, we will continue to provide the high quality education and student experience that Morris is known for and in which we take great pride. This work requires campus wide prioritization, intentionality, and the development of a shared commitment to this endeavor. The plan document that was provided to you in the docket materials reflects our current and anticipated work to evaluate, refine, and enhance our recruitment efforts, and identify, create, and coordinate retention efforts that will best support and retain those students who choose to enroll at Morris. The success of the sum of these efforts is essential for us to reach our goal. Because our time here this morning is limited, I have selected just a few examples of the ongoing campus work that supports our plan. No, that's this one. When I came here before you to talk about Morris enrollment planning in December of 2017, a couple of you suggested that we should be bold in terms of thinking about Morris' future. And so we have taken that very much to heart in terms of our strategic visioning and planning process. We're currently in the midst of a strategic visioning and planning process that began in the fall of 2017, the results of which will propel the University of Minnesota Morris forward in our plan to build a model 21st century public liberal arts college. In the last year and a half, we have worked quickly but purposefully to boldly reimagine what the public liberal arts, and more importantly, the University of Minnesota Morris is today and how it will evolve into the future. Based on campus conversations, iterative feedback, and input from almost 200 campus constituents, we have adopted a vision statement that imagines our future campus undergirded by eight aspirational statements that will guide us to achieve our vision. Although most of the aspirational statements impact enrollment management in one way or another, one of them is explicit in recognizing that we must develop integrated strategies to build and maintain an optimal and sustainable student body. The campus, through both administrative units and governance groups continues to work to develop coordinated campus wide priorities necessary to achieve our vision and to execute on our aspirational statements. By the end of this semester, campus assembly will be asked to endorse the outcomes of this phase of the visioning planning process. We also, so, we're, no, we're back, we're still back there, sorry. We also have been working on an integrated three year long campus wide initiative focused on understanding and improving the first year experience. This was launched in the fall of 2017. Three groups of students, staff, and faculty are working on each of these three areas listed here. I'm happy to report that we're piloting a happiness and wellbeing course this semester. I will tell you that when it was, when registration was opened, it filled up almost instantly. So we're working on that, we have another course planned for next fall. The work of all three of these groups will collectively help us to improve our first year student experience, leading to increase success and student persistence, which is a key component of our enrollment plan. Next. The Morris campus is committed to the success of all of its students and we are proud to enroll 30% of our students from rational and ethnic groups traditionally underserved in higher education. This fall, 31% of our entering first year students were Pell recipients, and 34% will be first in their families to complete a college degree. Over the last four years, we have saw and received funding to support our efforts in closing persistence in graduation gaps. The Morris campus has been awarded three US Department of Education funded grant programs, including a Ronald E. McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement Program grant. This fall, we received an award from the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, WICHE, with the support of the Lumina Foundation to close college attainment gaps for nNative American students. In partnership with other efforts on campus, this additional programming will strengthen our campus' support of this growing student populations. Lastly, the Morris campus is committed to strengthening partnerships among the University of Minnesota campuses, especially as they relate to matriculation and retention. We believe there is great value in the University of Minnesota system working together to recruit, retain, and graduate Minnesota residents. Members of the Morris campus have been active participants in the Systemwide Enrollment Management Council, and are eager to continue the promising work reflected in the system wide plan, about which you will hear more in June. The campus has developed partnerships with graduate programs on other University of Minnesota campuses, and looks forward to creating stronger pipelines and partnerships between the Morris campus and each of the other system campuses. - Thank you. Chair McMillan, Regents, President Kaler. Thank you for the opportunity to present highlights of the UMR enrollment management plan. Because you heard from UMR in February more recently than the other campuses, I'm hopeful the details of our short and long range planning are still fairly fresh for you. As a reminder, we're in the midst of implementing our 2016 five year plan. The timing of UMR's plan is aligned with the UMTC plan, and has us growing by 50 students per year through increased enrollment and retention. In addition, we have completed our long range blufftop view planning, seeking to grow in both size and influence. A reminder of our distinctive vision and our aim to address Minnesota's escalating healthcare workforce demands while also implementing and testing innovative educational practices that drive student success. In our 10th year of serving students, we have many points of pride. This slide highlights three of those. Over 90% of UMR alumni completed their degree in four years or less. Given a finish in four goal and public campaign that was established at the inception of our campus, we report this additional stat, which is different from retention numbers. Two other outcomes by now perhaps familiar, our health professions grads who are all employed in their fields and a diverse successful student body with ongoing research to discern the set of educational practices that are making that difference. As we move forward into the first bold phase of our plan to sustain this quality while increasing the quantity of students, we are making several commitments. First, to reach current enrollment goals and in the process, to exceed our diversity goals. With one time investment in recruitment and key personnel and additional needed space, we can continue to grow toward the bold and bolder targets. Second, our ongoing enrollment planning is based in our drive to sustain these early outcomes. While faculty ask what are the practices that fuel students' success, we continue curricular innovation based on student learning evidence for examples, include the current year modifying the chemistry series and additional coursework in the science of resilience and wellbeing. One course entitled Positive Psychology. Third, as you heard in detail in February, our academic expansion within health made possible by our efficient and creative curriculum has been explicitly aligned with healthcare workforce demands. To that end, we are seeking to leverage existing university programs and creative new partnerships, the P3 for Discovery Square space is such a partnership opening in fall '19 to provide needed lab space and our physician assistance program partnership just garnered four times the qualified applicants as we had room to accommodate. And finally, our five campuses commitment to cooperate with system wide enrollment enhancement is central to the success of our system. There is great promise in a collective impact approach, and UMR is keen to participate in system recruitment efforts as they emerge from the system enrollment management council and will be shared with you in June. At UMR, relationships and research will continue to drive today's students' success for tomorrow's health innovation. We thank you for this opportunity, and we all welcome your questions. - Alright, well thank you, and I note it's a good thing we don't have more than any more system campuses, 'cause there isn't room at the table for any more people as you all jockey back and forth. I have a comment and a two part question to follow it and I'm very interested in the opportunity for the Board to jump in with all of you here. So I can say that nothing in the grand dialog that is our governance role here with the administration causes me more joy with the possible exception of seeing our land-grant mission as it related to natural resources fulfilled, than hearing about complementary and coordinated approaches to system wide enrollment planning and system wide enrollment management. That is my number one takeaway here and I'm thrilled to hear Acting Provost McMaster talked about that and when it isn't competitive or completely independent. The opportunities for it to be coordinated and complementary are outstanding, so I just, I can't say enough about that. Here's the two questions, and as I go to that, and I know that we need the slide up but where does price fit into that four part strategy for keeping Minnesotans home, and perhaps Dr. McMaster, this is best headed your way, but others may have something to say about it. And then secondly, are we doing more things like the land-grant legacy where we chased, I use that term, we pursued students who had been aggressively pursued by our neighboring states with scholarship opportunities, and I believe I have the name right, but that seemed like a particularly creative and I don't know about effective, but more of that, I think would be great as we try to keep students from heading south and west, particularly, so those two questions make sense. And then I'll look to my members for more questions. - Chair McMillan. Can you say just a bit more about what you, what you're asking about, around price? - Well, as I saw those four pages, or those four approaches to addressing the underlying causes of why we've got out migration, I didn't see the competitiveness of our price. And as President Kaler alluded to in his residence report, we're gonna probably be looking at price increases, i.e. tuition, and wrestling through that, and I just wonder how much time we spend in addition to those enrollment management plans there, what are we thinking about the competitiveness of our pricing. And I know that's hard from a system standpoint, 'cause there's four or five different price points there, but it seems to me we've gotta be mindful of the fact that we are more expensive than our Dakota neighbors. I don't know about Iowa, but you know, Wisconsin's got the reciprocity thing wrapped around it, but talk about price and how much this Board needs to be thinking about competitiveness as we work to keep Minnesotans home. - Very good, Chair McMillan, members of the Board, I'll comment on the Twin Cities situation, perhaps my colleagues can join me in terms of their competitiveness. And I think part of this, much of this you've already heard. If we look at our resident competitiveness, we do quite well, we're approaching, we're basically in the middle of the Big Ten now. And so as we look at ourselves in that environment, we're doing quite well. We're obviously much more expensive than the Minnesota's state institutions. We often will see, at the freshman level, students going to a community college or Minnesota State for cost reasons and transferring back to the University. We'll be talking about transfer students much more, I think in May. So in terms of resident tuition, my senses were well positioned in about where we should be. In terms of the non resident competitiveness, that's a place where I think we've approached or perhaps have exceeded a bit our logical place. And we've seen that with the applications for two years in a row, we've seen that with the confirms two years in a row, and so we have to be very mindful of where we sit, especially in comparison to our Big Ten peers and others. And so that's a place where after a number of years of significant increases and we discuss this a lot, I think we have to be very careful moving forward not to exceed our place in the marketplace. - Thank you. Chancellor Black. - Yes, thank you, Regent McMillan, and members of the Board. Just a couple of thoughts about that. One, I did mention briefly that we were putting more and more emphasis on the true cost of attendance at UMD versus our competitors. And certainly, as I've spoken with you numerous times, and other members of the Board, we are very much aware and concerned about the tuition price point at UMD. However, what we've discovered is that we are cheaper in terms of, or I say, we have more value, in terms of residence hall cost and typical room and board kinds of cost and other costs. And to give an example, St. Thomas is one of our major competitors. And if you look at our cost versus theirs, they tend to get very very large scholarships and that attract students initially. But if we can sit down with those students and say, Ok, you have this multiple thousand dollar scholarship to Saint Thomas, but look at your overall cost there versus Duluth, we compare very favorably, and even with some of our out of state competitors, the price difference is not as great as that initial sticker shock seems to be. So we're trying to work harder to get our message out and to communicate to families the true cost of attendance. The other thing I'll mention briefly too, is thanks to the support of President Kaler and Vice President Burnett and others, we have joined Midwest Student Alliance that allows us to charge an out of state tuition that is very affordable for students from other state, non reciprocity states, and we're beginning to see some positive results there as well. - So I guess I would-- - Good. - Oh, excuse me. - Go ahead, Chancellor Behr. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. I would say that, I would echo some of the remarks that Dr. McMaster and Dr. Black made. Our competitors often are more costly than Morris' and so part of this is an educational process. At the same time, I would say that as we continue to move into the future, students with greater and greater need are going to be part of our calculus. And so one of the things that we're doing is looking at how we deploy our scholarship money in order to make sure that we're making the most effective use of that. And then finally I would say, we also have joined the alliance so that we are hoping to attract some non reciprocity out of state students. - Chancellor Holz-Clause, thought on pricing and competitiveness? - Thank you, Regent McMillan and Regents. We do not charge any out of state tuition at the University of Minnesota Crookston. And frequently, what, again, as part of that messaging, when we spend time with various parents and students, oftentimes, we will come in, depending upon the family income to be less expensive than our Dakota neighbors. So part of it is a lot more effective messaging when we leverage those resources that are given to us and we can be much more competitive. So what we're doing for the first time this year is being incredibly strategic about where those financial aid packages go, how they're deployed, and looking at students that would be most likely to come to us and really doing more probability analysis with that financial aid package. - Thank you, and Dr. McMaster, on the efficiency, or the, not efficiency, the effectiveness of things like that legacy program, if I'm naming that correctly. Any observations for the board? - Sure, yeah, Chair McMillan, members of the Board. The program is a Land-grant Legacy Scholarship program. We started that about three years ago. We're piloting it in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences, CFANS. It's a very generous scholarship that provides $5,000 a year times four years for students from greater Minnesota, rural Minnesota. It's been a slow start, we've only had 10 to 15 students over the first few years. We have the resources to bring in 25 students a year. The plan was to grow that to 100 total students over a four year period, but for complicated reasons, we're not yielding the number we'd like. But we still have high hopes for that and the plan is to push that out to other colleges and to the other, to the other Twin Cities colleges and the other campuses as it matures. - Good, well, thank you again for this complementary and coordinated approach. I just find that so critical. Regent Beeson. - Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, presenters. I'm gonna key off of the Chair's comments about cost. I mentioned this last year that I think we needed more radical pricing policy and need to be linked, some of the cost, particularly the two western Minnesota campuses and we should be able to predict, and Vice Provost McMaster, this would be coming out of your office, we ought to be able to predict what impact an enrollment we would be able to achieve if we drop, if we drop cost 5% or 10% at Morris and Crookston, we should be able to predict within a fairly close number, how many additional students we would have and what that payback would be. And I would vote today to increase the Twin Cities tuition to help give those two campuses in particular help with enrollment. I would pick that up here. So I think we need something much more radical for working around the edges. These strategies are great, but price does matter, and we're dealing with, and the Dakotas across the border with more subsidized and some cases, bigger schools we're competing with. So we can't neglect the issue of cost for those, for all the campuses, but for those two in particular right now. - Ok. Unless there's a specific targeted response here, I'm gonna move on and you give my attention any of the five of you if you wanna jump in. I've got five regents teed up here, Regent Johnson next. - Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chancellors, all, for your presentation and willing to do very analytical, surgical approach to enrollments and the challenges before you. As I'm listening to you and you all have great ideas moving forward, it strikes me that one of the assets of each institution, including years are your students. Students that are there successful, I'm thinking of a young man from my hometown who's a student at the University of Minnesota Morris. Every time I see him, he talks about the University of Minnesota Morris, what a great place it is, he loves being there. So my thinking is, how to use these ambassadors who are there to recruit, that's not to take away from their studies or other activities, but it seems that back to their respective high schools, that strength of communication is very very strong. It's true in any of the organization. I don't care what it is, if someone has a good experience, come join me, they're gonna take a good look at it. I don't know all of you provide financial incentive, or whatever it is you do, but I'm hopeful that that's one of the strategies you use, existing students, I love it here, come join us, you're gonna get a degree from the University of Minnesota. Anyone care to comment? - Chancellor Behr, you grabbed the microphone first. - Chair McMillan, Regent Johnson, Parker's a great student and we're happy to have him. And we do, we do use our students, maybe I should re-frame that, we do ask our students to speak on our behalf on occasion, and certainly we welcome perspective students to campus and a big part of that conversation is having them interact with current students who are joyful and exuberant and tell a great story. So we absolute do that. - Chancellor Holz-Clause. - Thank you, the mic was cast my way, so thank you, Regent McMillan. One of the things which we really began to initiate earlier this year was helping our students kinda provide them the financial means to go back to their high schools to do that and make sure that they have appropriate marketing information. And I thought we might need to train them as to what to say, but that was totally wrong. Each one of them has a very unique story and are really our best ambassadors, and one that as we're going forward this coming year, we're trying to build upon that even more. - Very good. Chancellor Carrell. And I wanna be sure you don't all feel compelled to answer each of these, or we'll never get to our item nine, so go ahead, Chancellor Carrell, and then I'll be on to Regent Omari. - Chair McMillan, Regent Johnson, we do have established ambassador program, and students are volunteers in that program and we love to listen to what they have to say about their experience in Rochester. - As do we. - Very good. - Mr. Chairman? - Yes, Regent Johnson. - I always wondered for many years, I said successful, happy students. I was never asked at Luther College to be an ambassador. I've always been curious about that. - I was just about to ask you, if your alma mater never called upon you. Alright, Regent Omari. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the presenters, thank you all. We've had the opportunity to kick this off throughout the past year and a half or so in the Mission Committee, so we appreciate that. I'm thinking about cost from a slightly different perspective than what's been said here, but more so, all the things that we wanna do and the plans that we're creating, but actually how much are those gonna cost to implement the things that we're looking at. And I'm interested in that for several reasons. One is, there's not always a direct measure for the outcome of what we spend money on. And so as we think about retention, we might not be able to directly link how spending money on another staff person that's gonna work on retention has some sort of direct financial outcome, but yet we know it's important. And so, as we go into June, I'd be interested, and not down to the penny, but I'd be interested in some estimates of what some of this is gonna cost, and then perhaps a long term linkage that we might be able to relate as we heard from Chancellor Holz-Clause at Crookston is if that retention leads to 50 more students for three more years, there's also a revenue factor that comes from that on the back end. So as we move forward, I'd be really interested in some cost estimates and perhaps even some estimates around what we might create around savings and or revenue. So no need to comment, but just something that I'd be interested in. Thank you. - Good, Regent Rosha. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanna build a little bit off of Regent Beeson's announcement of his campaign for seventh district Regent. I really appreciate this presentation, thank you. I look forward to us maybe being able to explore each campus individually. It's hard, there's so much here to really get into the depths of what your planning is putting forward but I think this is a really good step and I'm hoping, Mr. Chair, as we go forward, in the systemwide strategic planning, that this is very much a part of that driving point. Because who you admit, how many you admit, for what you're admitting, will dictate who you are. And I would also say that even though from a total budgetary and even student population perspective, there are obviously many units within the Twin Cities campus that are much larger than, at least three of our other campuses, but the impact that you have in your region, in your community is really profound. And so, when I think about what we're doing out there, especially when you think about the changing market for higher education, especially in rural areas, which is seeing some challenges, there's not a great margin for error. You have to be doing things right. And so from that standpoint, as I've had a chance to see the campuses, and I have an obligation to come see one soon, I think that we need to be providing those resources for facilities in particular. I'm always concerned about putting a plywood door on a custom home. If you wanna make sure that when somebody comes in, it is the jewel that it's intended to be. And so you know, we spend money on the Twin Cities campus that by itself could deal with the physical needs of our other campuses for decades, and we don't really always think about that because we're always kind of focused on Rome. And so as we go forward, I wanna understand even better about this enrollment strategy, how we're going to continue to deal with this changing market, but also wanna make sure that from a physical plan standpoint, again, you wanna make it, you want the wow factor. You want people to say, I'm taking a chance by moving into an environment that maybe I'm not used to as our population becomes more urbanized. But hopefully we'll get a chance to do that more in-depthly with each of your campuses and I, but I really appreciate you're asking all the right questions and seeking all the right results at this point. Thanks. - Alright, we'll continue. Regent Simonson. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. Thank you, Chancellors and Provosts. I really appreciate this presentation as well. I've said in the past, this idea of competition between the campuses, I like the idea of one University of Minnesota, five campuses. I've talked to students before that said that well, I didn't get into Twin Cities campus, but I got in over here and it's kinda like secondary thing and they're not equal. So I really like that idea. I like what Chancellor Black talked about aligning services at Duluth. So my question gets down to, is how do you look at aligning services, each campus, I've had the privilege of being on four of the campuses in the last year. I've learned things I've, the unique, this, that you have, the specialties that you have, it's really really a privilege to have been able to do that. But looking at aligning resources and services across five campuses, not just within Duluth, how could we, is that something we should look at doing? And how do we get that message out? You know, we can, how do we get that message out to, we talked about, Dean mentioned, talking about get the ambassadors out there, and I think you've mentioned that too. How can we use the term market that idea? That we are one university specialties, but how do we get that out? - Go ahead. - Dr. McMaster or one of your colleagues there? - Chair McMillan and Regent Simonson. One of the ways we can do this is by sharing best practices, and that's been a major goal of this system council, is to identify for instance, if we have a best practice on the Twin Cities, an example I'll use is a leaver study where we try to determine why students either after the first semester, the first year, are leaving. Is it financial? Is it a family situation? Is it health? Is it mental health? And so we've developed a strategy for working on that and we're trying to share that strategy with the system campuses. Another example where we haven't implemented this yet, but it's certainly a goal of ours as we move forward, is we've had a very successful President's Emerging Scholars program on the Twin Cities campus. It's really an access program that brings in students, and you've heard this before, I'm sure, don't have the typical kinds of metrics one might expect in terms of an ACT or high school rank, but they bring in leadership and a strong curriculum and they've overcome adversity and we think they've got the grit to succeed. And this program, President's Emerging Scholars brings in close to 500 freshmen a year. A very high percentage of students of color, low income students, first generation students. It involves a scholarship, it involves peer mentoring, it involves programming, and it's really been able to change our first year retention rates for that group. That's a program that is fairly costly, but since we've learned how to pilot it on the Twin Cities, we should be sharing that now with the system campuses. So I think there's a number of examples like that where each of our campuses has programs like that where we can share practices, processes, experiences to help lift up the retention, graduation, and success. - Chancellor Black. - Yes, thank you, Chair McMillan, Regent Simonson, and I appreciate the question and the comment. I think it's a balance, where there's an important balance between sharing services, the things we can do in a like manner, but also having distinctive activities and services because of who we are at UMD. Which is different, obviously than the other campuses. But certainly, the examples that Dr. McMaster gives are important. I appreciated Regent Omari's interest in funding. We'll certainly provide many cost estimates gladly. And I think we have good examples of some past funding that we've received at UMD for specific program initiatives. President Kaler, Senior Vice President Burnett has provided, have provided funding over the years for some programs, I think, have helped us have the kinds of success we've had recently in retention and improved graduation rates. So I think it's a balance between what we can share in our distinctiveness. - Alright, I'm gonna give Regent Hsu the last opportunity here to raise a question or comment, and as I do so, just note for our colleagues, the resolution, and I don't have the page in front of me, is for action in May, not this month. So we're just discussing today. Regent Hsu. - Thank you, Chair McMillan, thank you, Doctors, Chancellors, and Provost. It's a very interesting discussion, but I do wanna point out that I think it is a little bit cart before the horse as we are in transition and we are bringing in a new President with the, I would hope the idea that we're gonna see a system wide strategic plan finally. And I think all of that is actually going to inform, better inform what our enrollment goal should be going forward. So the fact that we're talking about a five year enrollment plan is a little bit odd to me, but I would say as long as we are going to be able to pivot if we need to when we drop the new strategic plan, I think that would be okay. Another thing is, on the test optional topic, I wanna make sure everyone understands what that is. Test-optional does not mean students will not be submitting test scores. It just means that we will be processing applications even if they don't submit a test score. Most kids will submit a test score. And as we know from the experience of other universities and colleges, a lot of good things happen when you have the test optional approach. You get more applications, you have more diversity, you have a lot of things that I think we are trying to achieve in other ways. And when you have more applications, you have more revenue from those applications, which can help you, if you need to increase support to process these applications. And so I would like to congratulate Chancellor Holz-Clause for being courageous and bold in this area and I would hope that the other campuses also look at this approach. One other thing I wanna discuss is we had a previous discussion today on mental health. And we, one of our goals in admissions is to admit for success. But yet I don't know that we actually know what the mental health condition of our applicants are and obviously those who we admit and ultimately enroll, because either we're admitting them with a problem, and then trying to deal with it, or we're actually causing a problem after they're admitted. And I don't know which is which, but that's something I think we should look at. And you know, Rochester, if you look at the success number, I would like to understand better what the mental health needs of your students are, because obviously they're all succeeding in a big way. No achievement gap, 90% graduation within four years or less, and 100% job placement afterwards. Maybe my interpretation of what that metric was, but. And lastly, I would like to see something related to, obviously, I think the ultimate strategic plan would have something that would include price and value and all those things, and also in our retreat, we talked a lot about reciprocity, which I'd like to understand kind of what the, what the laws are around reciprocity. I think as we discussed being autonomous from the state, we're not necessarily bound to grant reciprocity. So that's something I think we should look at. - Thank you, Regent Hsu, and for the benefit of the audience, one of the topics that came up at our retreat and has come up often in the context of broader system wide strategic planning is a better understanding of the how, what, when, and where reciprocity comes to us and ups and downs and advantages and disadvantages of changes, and then just the legal realities of how it was implemented, how it could ever be changed, and what it would mean should that happen. So administration will be working on some white papers for us to bring that into context. Anybody at the table with anything specific to respond to Regent Hsu's several items there? Otherwise, we're going to move on. Well, thank you all, and thanks for bringing us to a point where next in May we can act on this. Alright, the next item is historical namings. And once again, we will rearrange the participants and I'd invite all of them forward. - Well, Provost Hanson, how delightful to have you back here ahead of your official return. Thank you for finding time in the midst of your leave to come help set this up for us, Dean Coleman, Professor Blumenthal, Julie, thank you all for being here. And I've got some, I don't wanna call 'em extensive, but some framing remarks that I wanna begin with before I turn this over to President Kaler and then ultimately to all of you, but I'd like to begin by prefacing this with perhaps the unnecessary commentary that there's varying views on this subject. Today, we won't be taking any action. Our objective today is to listen, learn, probe, and better understand the preliminary recommendations from the administration. We'll consider action at a future meeting and as we prep ourselves and prepare for this conversation, just some again, framing thoughts from me. This is consequential and important stuff for this University, it's governing board, and the state and the people that reside in it. That's one overarching thought of mine. Another is that I wanna recognize the extensive work that's been done to date. I know Provost Hanson's gonna help us remember and think about just how extensive that is walking through the chronological history, so I won't do that, but know that this board is very mindful of the commitment of time and resources and how extraordinary that commitment's been. So a second thought of mine is a thank you to the student, staff, faculty, senior leadership, team members who've invested countless hours to date, and I'm guessing there's more hours, not countless, perhaps, but there's more work to be done. Another framing thought is that building names are squarely inside the realm of this Board's responsibility and it's with that responsibility in mind that we begin, again, I emphasize, our governance process, moving towards an outcome, and we begin that today. A fourth perspective that will perhaps be helpful to some, maybe not to others, is just to think about the collective breadth of how it is each of us and now I'm speaking for myself, come to approach and come to address, and ultimately frame and formulate a decision. It all comes with various elements, and those elements to me, forming my perspective and helping me formulate an outcome are one, my personal tour of the Campus Divided exhibit and Andersen Library, and I had an opportunity to do that with Professor Riv-Ellen Prell. I don't think she's here today, but she maybe, oh, she is. I never thanked you for that. And I'm doing that now, grossly tardy on my part, but that is one key point. A second is my intensive review of the taskforce report, and the Board policies it references. A third is, and this one will grow, it's largely unsolicited, and to date somewhat limited input from external communities that I have had some of that, my colleagues have too. A fourth is my discussions with President Kaler and members of his leadership team. And fifth, importantly, conversations with most, but not everyone of my colleagues, and to the extent I didn't get to every one of you, that's my mess but there's time yet as I said, we're only beginning this governance dialog on our side. So that's the inputs from me, and before I move forward, I think it's really important that we all stop and recognize that every person who thoughtfully evaluate, propose, request like this, like these preliminary recommendations from President Kaler, understandably brings their own unique perspectives to that analysis and those perspectives ultimately will be framed and informed by their life experiences. And with that in mind, I ask all of my colleagues as well as the University community and those outside our University community who are watching and interested in this to be understanding of and accepting of differences in perspective. Healthy debate conducted in a respectful manner leads to good decisions, especially on issues like this that touch the very core values of our University. Also, this isn't simple or easy, despite what some may say. This Board is being asked to view historical figures with complex legacies. That term was used repeatedly in the report. And those historical figures, with their complex legacies, took actions 80 and 90 years ago and we're being asked to view those through the lenses and social norms of today. Whatever our judgment of the past and our current beliefs may be, we need to thoughtfully assess the significance of building names for the future of the University and importantly the future generations that this University will serve. In other words, let's make room for discussion by all on this challenging and sensitive question that's come in before the Board. So where do we stand today procedurally? Today, we will take the following formal action. We'll receive a report which comes to us in the form of preliminary recommendations from President Kaler. We'll take no action today. We're here as I said to listen, ask questions, and better understand the recommendations before us. And as we do that, it is my framing thoughts, I think first we need to assess whether the record before us needs to be supplemented. Have we heard enough from, input from the University community and from the four people's families? Do we understand the governance context for each of these decisions and how these individuals acted? Do we have clarity around the legal environment of the time? Would it be helpful to know the historic policies of our Big Ten colleagues? If we determine, this Board determines more information is needed, I believe we should consider a process by which this input in context can be added by our next meeting in May. And, I think we should consider and recognize that the weight of any one chapter of our history does not rest on any one individual alone. Overcoming prejudice remains an ever present challenge for our society as a whole. These four men acted against the backdrop of public biases and prejudice with regents of that time accountable as well. Nevertheless, four buildings bear their names, the recommendations before us centered upon their actions and those building names. Secondly, I think we need to give consideration to each of the names individually. The four buildings and the stories of the men they're named for are interconnected by time and circumstances, but they are all unique. This Board can, and I believe should and will, consider these separately rather than as a block of four. And finally, I think we have to be mindful of the precedent that we create. We need to be certain that as we proceed, we create a process and apply standards that can be looked to by future Boards, if and when issues like this rise again. It's equally important that the standards we apply are reflective of basic principles of fairness and equity. The individuals involved can't speak to their actions and we wanna be sure we are evaluating the actions fairly and appropriately at the same time. All of us should appreciate that this Board is considering their conduct for a larger public and University purpose. Beyond their actions as individuals, should the names adorn university buildings, what is most consistent with the mission and values of this University, the considerations are in other words, broader than any judgment over individual conduct. President Kaler, that's what I have to say in my role as Board Chair, and as I said, some of that reflects various inputs I've had to date and I throw this open to you and I appreciate the time commitment and investment that you and your leadership team have made. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. Before we hear from Provost Hanson, and co-chairs Blumenthal and Coleman, I'd like to take just a small moment to remind everyone of our purpose in this undertaking. We are not erasing history. We are constantly having dialog and learning more about our institutional history. We're asking new questions and with a high degree of intellectual rigor, we're asking about the history of our institution. I don't believe there is one definitive history of the University of Minnesota, and knowing this community as I do, we will continue to wrestle with future questions and have more dialog. This taskforce report is not focused on establishing individual fault, but I'm considering how we commemorate our institutional history, values, and ideals. An honorary building name is one of the highest honors granted to an individual by the University of Minnesota. When we learn new information, we have an opportunity to reflect on our past and ask ourselves a simple question. Do these names continue to convey the ideals we hold for ourselves? During this process, we should continue to dialog and continue to learn. And with that, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask our Executive Vice President and Provost to say a few words. - Very good. Thank you, President Kaler. Provost Hanson. - Thank you, Chair McMillan, President Kaler, members of the committee. Let me just say a few words in many ways following on what Chair McMillan said to remind you about the origin of the taskforce report. In September of 2017, the President and I charged an Advisory Committee on University History, help guide our thinking about appropriate current responses to salient historical issues. The committee's creation was part of a response to the exhibit A Campus Divided, progressives, anticommunist and antisemitism at the University of Minnesota, 1930 to 1942, which was curated by Professor Riv-Ellen Prell and Doctoral Student Sarah Atwood. The exhibit generated widespread interest, both within and outside the University, and the committee was formed at that time and it was very large, nearly 40 people, and very diverse. Its membership included not just student, staff, and faculty, from all the University of Minnesota campuses, but also prominent members of our larger community. A high school history teacher, a board member of J Street, a corporate and civic leader who's also a lifetime trustee of the Carlson School, a program director of the Native Governance Center. That group was asked to lead a system wide conversation that would first examine the process by which buildings are named and statues and other commemorative symbols are commissioned and dedicated, and two, develop a rationale for a process that might involve a change or modification of a building name or a commemorative statue or symbol. That advisory committee was mindful of Board of Regents policy on namings. And specifically called upon that policy to illuminate its understanding of the way in which naming should reflect the institutions or values. That the integrity, history, and behavior of the named individual should be consistent with the mission and values of the University. The committee noted that the Board of Regents Policy: Code of Conduct enumerated a set of core values, including the valorization of the diversity of community and ideas, and integrity, and some standards of conduct, including being fair and respectful to others, and acting ethically and with integrity. In addition, the Student Conduct Code and the Board of Regents Mission Statement were thought to offer guidance on core values and the committee noted that the latter, the Board's Mission Statement, calls for the University working environment to be one of neutral respect, free of racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice and intolerance. For the environment to embody the values of academic freedom, responsibility, integrity, and cooperation. Based on their understanding of the Board's policy statement and statements of values, the committee, in its May 2018 report, recommended five key principles to guide honorary naming, renaming, and removing names of buildings, spaces, and significant University assets. The short headings for these principles are change, diversity, preservation, exceptionality, and deliberation. And these principles are explained and discussed in the May 2018 advisory committee report, and then quoted and explained again and applied in the report you're taking up today, the Report of the Taskforce on Building Names and Institutional History. This taskforce was convened by President Kaler and me in the fall of 2018, following on the advisory committee report, but waiting until students and faculty return to campus. Chaired by dean of CLA, John Coleman, and Susanna Blumenthal, William L. Prosser, professor of law and professor of history, the taskforce included seven additional faculty, all with relevant disciplinary expertise. For example, in history, heritage studies, architecture, Jewish studies, African American and African studies. Along with one undergraduate and one graduate student, both of whom could help connect the committee to the experiences of current students who live and learn in these buildings. The taskforce undertook a scholarly inquiry without prejudgment. They reviewed documents, followed the archival threads, and pursued ramifying investigations into the actions and reflections of the University and its communities in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s. The members of the committee then worked together to consider the product of their inquiry. Aligning what they discovered in the historical record with the criteria articulated in the earlier advisory committee report. President Kaler and I are pleased to be joined today by the co-chairs of the taskforce, John Coleman, Professor of Political Science and Dean of our College of Liberal Arts, and Susanna Blumenthal, William Prosser Professor of Law and Professor of History. We're grateful to them and to the other nine members of the taskforce for their extremely careful, diligent and thoughtful work over the past four plus months. So that they can tell you more about that work and their report, I yield the floor to Dean Coleman and Professor Blumenthal. - Welcome and thank you. - Thank you, Provost Hanson, and Chair McMillan and the members of the Board. I wanna thank you as well. It's a great privilege to have this opportunity today to speak with you about the work of the President's and Provost's Taskforce on Nuilding Names and Institutional History. We live in a time in which widespread controversies are all around us, that how we as Americans choose to memorialize our history and also attempt to construct a unifying present. Some have suggested this is a uniquely true feature of our present moment, but debates about what should or shouldn't be written in stone, figuratively or literally, are nothing new in our country. The felt need to remove monuments was exhibited by the American revolutionaries in 1776 as they took the toppling statutes of King George III using the lead from them to make bullets to fight the British. Such examples could easily multiplied across time, and they illustrated an essential truth that's put rather pivotally by the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He said, "We live by symbols." Justice Holmes also was alive to the distinction between man and myth, and he insisted upon the importance of critical historical analysis. In this regard, he emphasized that we cannot take a man apart from the circumstances which in fact were his. And he further recognized that we might well be forced to rethink and consider whether or not such a person's actions reflect our highest ideals as we dig into and try to understand critically the history that the person we're studying represents. Now, these kinds of questions about our past have been occurring and playing out in campuses across the country as you well know. And so we've had the benefit of surveying the ways in which different universities have grappled with this question, you see reflections of that on this slide here in terms of different kinds of questions that arose for instance, at the University of California Berkeley, their School of Law named Boalt Hall, sort of involves a namesake who was a leading advocate of Chinese exclusion, the dean at that law school has recommended removal of that name. The University of Michigan, they have considered several different buildings. The one that you see represented here is C. C. Little, who is, put motion of eugenics as well as work on behalf of the tobacco industry led to proposal to remove the name, his name from the building and in that case, the Regents did vote to remove that name and the other slide, I guess, we have, is of the University of Maryland which involves the Byrd Stadium, there again, there was evidence unearthed that he had been involved in maintaining segregation at the University of Maryland, and they have indeed renamed that stadium. These are only sampling of many different and diverse ways of grappling with these kinds of questions, and in some cases, they haven't removed names, the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton is of course an example of that. And we were the beneficiaries of their hard work and hard thinking as we took up the task ourselves and as my coach here, John Coleman will explain as well, one of those things that was I think important to our process was that it was preceding in two parts, the initial work of identifying and articulating principles, independent of cases was done before we took up our task as a taskforce, and we had a framework by the time we were operating of principles, of considerations, that animated our thinking before we started digging into the archives to look at the specific cases that we had before. So as a lawyer and legal historian, I was helped by having that kind of framework to think about, to have a kind of principle bases for proceeding. And with also, I think very valuable, is the extent to which because we have so many universities that have been working similarly in the way they've thought through these problems, there's almost a common law of cases that we can look to and think about as we're thinking about our own situation and that definitely informed our approach to this whole process. In taking up these four cases at once, that was a daunting task in and of itself to be sure, but what weighed more heavily on our minds were the stakes of the enterprise itself. Recognizing as we do that renaming often and understandably raises concerns about erasure of the University's history. Which we emphatically take to the antithetical, to the spirit of this institution. Erasure's not what we're about. Yet to change is not always to erase, and this campus has seen tremendous and tremendously positive change since it was established in 1851. Change that has made this a more inclusive and equitable place for those who lived and worked on this campus. The imperative that guided our work was that our recommendations regarding the four buildings that are before us, be aligned with the mission of the University, its complex history, and its promising future. We proceeded with a strong conviction that the posture of humility was the right one that would lead us in the right direction. At a university as old as this one, those who occupy the campus today are the stewards of an intergenerational project. Hubris in undoing the past decisions encourages future generations to disrespect the choices of the current generation. In this regard, it bears emphasis that the changing of a building name is importantly distinguishable from the burning of a book or other sorts of infringements on academic freedom. Because the function of a building name is not to set the bounds of permissible speech on campus. Building names instead communicate values, they mark achievements, and they express admiration and gratitude to those who have advanced the University's mission. One of those values, which can and should be communicated by means of building names is the vital importance of diversity and inclusiveness to ensure that we will continue to be a leading center for research and teaching in the years to come. - Chair McMillan, members of the Board, I wanna thank you for the time today. Chair McMillan, thank you for your opening. Very thoughtful comments and our thanks to Provost Hanson and President Kaler as well. I wanna walk you back a little bit through the process, Provost Hanson talked about this some, but so just that we are all in the same page of the history of our, looking at our history and how we got to where we are right now. In 2017,-2018 academic year, the University with the benefit of the research done with the Campus Divided exhibit began to think more extensively about its history. And our University, I think quite wisely, chose to follow a two stage strategy, as Professor Blumenthal mentioned. First, we were looking to establish a process for how we think about these issues of naming, renaming, and also thinking ahead to how cases might be brought to the University's attention for possible consideration. We were then in a later stage, as Provost Hanson mentioned to use that process in the guidelines established in the first stage to apply to specific cases. I think this was an excellent way for the University to proceed because we did see examples of other universities that try to combine these processes and at least in one rather notable case, that failed. There was no way to generate the principles at the same time that they were attempting to be applied. So I think we, as an institution, followed the right strategy. That first committee was the President's and Provost's Advisory Committee which has since then come to be referred to in short hand as the Coleman Committee. And that began meeting in November of 2017, and we issued our report in May of 2018. Our charge was to examine the University's naming process to develop a rationale for a process that might involve changing a name on a building or other significant asset, and to propose a process by which that rationale could then be implemented. As Provost Hanson mentioned, this was a wide and diverse committee of nearly 40 members, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community members. We had representation from all five system campuses as well, which we thought was quite important in generating a new set of policies for the regents to consider at some later date. The Coleman Committee reviewed current University naming policy and we examined core university values as articulated by the Board of Regents. And then those application, the application of those values to the naming process. We also, as Professor Blumenthal mentioned, explored the process at a number of other institutions including Michigan, Berkeley, Maryland, Georgetown, Yale, Brown, and others. They all had different sets of issues that they had on the table. But this helped us gain insights on the ways in which universities around the country had wrestled with these questions. And based on our discussion and on our examination of other institutions, the Coleman Committee described and recommended five guiding principles to guide honorary naming, renaming, and removing names of buildings, spaces, and significant University assets. These, as were mentioned previously, and the shorthand were changed, diversity, preservation, exceptionality, and deliberation. And as Provost Hanson mentioned, these are discussed fully in the Coleman Committee report and are also repeated and applied in the taskforce. On values, we took our lead really, from Regents policy, which states the following, and I'm quoting, naming for an individual or organization is an honor that forges a close link between the individual or organization and the university. As such, it is critically important that the integrity, history, behavior, and reputation of the named individual or organization be consistent with the academic mission and values of the university. The Coleman Committee recommended a permanent Advisory Committee on University History be established to consider renaming and name removal issues going forward and the possibility for a future more diverse naming opportunities. We also thought that this committee could foster ongoing public discussion and dissemination of knowledge about University history, and that is the next stage in this work for the University. The committee made a number of recommendations of which I will mention just two. First, all inquiry into building name changes, including name removal or renaming should consist of an informed review of the history of the naming, the major legacy of the individual or individuals, the rationales for and against changing the naming. This examination should be rooted in institutional values and guiding principles for considering renaming. Secondly, the naming, name removal or renaming of any building or significant asset should be accompanied by a public display outlining the history of the naming including the individual's major achievements and impact on the university and an open and candid discussion of the rationale for name removal, renaming, or retaining a name. We think there's a great opportunity for education regardless of whether a name is removed or not. And frankly, very few of us have much knowledge about the buildings that we walk into, the names that are on them, why they got there, what was being honored at the time, and what else it might be in a person's career and legacy. So in the Coleman report, we had some suggestions about how we might be better at doing that kind of work going forward, even absent consideration of renaming or unnaming on a building. We were, in that round of the works, specifically asked not to review any buildings, offer any particular comments or recommendations on specific buildings that might be under question on campus. And we did abide by that request. The next phase of our work is with the taskforce that has presented the report to President Kaler and Provost Hanson, and is now in your hands. The taskforce charge received in October, and the work beginning in October of 2018, asked us to make recommendations regarding recommended actions with regard to Coffman Memorial Union, Coffey Hall, Middlebrook Hall, and Nicholson Hall. In the announcement of the creation of the taskforce, the President and Provost also asked the taskforce to consider how we might link our University history to contemporary issues on our campuses where there are opportunities for further scholarship, and how might we institutionalize and support these reflective practices of the University history. We provide suggestions about potential initiatives in the concluding section of the taskforce report. As noted, the taskforce was comprised of 11 members, nine faculty, and one undergraduate student and one graduate student, all from the Twin Cities campus this time, since the buildings were all on the Twin Cities campus. We also had available to us consultants and research and staff support to assist our efforts. Our work was guided by the previous, the Coleman Committee report, our consideration of University values and scholarly perspectives on history and memory. To that last point, the nine faculty members were appointed to provide a range of scholarly expertise and questions from different disciplinary traditions. The faculty on the committee brought their scholarly training in law, political science, architecture, art history, anthropology, history, Jewish history, African American studies and history, public history and heritage studies, and language and culture. That adds up to more than nine people, there's some double dipping in the expertise that I just mentioned. About half of the taskforce members have been on the Coleman Committee, so we began by reacquainting ourselves and our new members, with that report and examining some of the broader issues connected to possible renaming. For example, what would the financial cost be of changing the name of the building? Are there restrictions due to architectural preservation rules or regulations? What's been done at other institutions? What was the history of the namings themselves and what was acknowledged at the time of the individual's career and legacy when the naming was done? We then moved into our research phase on the four cases, which Professor Blumenthal will speak about more in a moment. One aspect of our process that I would like to highlight upfront is that we did not take any measure of the thinking of the members of the taskforce, which way people were leaning about names or unnaming, until about three months into our four month process. So this is not a case where we took a straw vote at the beginning to see where people's minds were. We wanted to go into this as open minded as possible. I certainly could say that that was true for me coming into the process. I didn't have any particular leaning, pro or against the changing of names on these particular buildings. We really wanted to let the process and the research unfold. So we did not do any kind of temperature taking until fairly late in the process. I think that allowed our research to unfold and go where the questions took us as Professor Blumenthal will discuss. We also discuss how to think about our times and their times. We had extended conversations on that topic. We talked about how to think, we discussed how to think about both the positive and maybe problematic aspects of individual legacies among many other topics. And lastly, I'll turn it back over to Professor Blumenthal, I will say we approach this work with a great deal of humility and perspective about evaluating the past from the context of the present. - Speaking with respect to the research and deliberation pieces as well as the unnaming pieces, I would note that the taskforce work was animated by two connected beliefs. First and foremost, that we are wedded to our past with all that is inspiring and disturbing about it, and second, that increased knowledge and greater understanding of our past can provide very good reasons for changing the way we commemorate a person in our history. It's worth underscoring that historical memory and historical commemoration can and should be distinguished. The past is given to us to remember and understand. What we can now commemorate from the past, however, is a choice that we make, and one that must reflect our institutional values. Mindful of those considerations, we preceded to develop a sense of the historical context within which Lotus Coffman, Edward Nicholson, William Middlebrook, and Walter Coffey lived and worked. We read institutional histories of the University of Minnesota, as well as the work of the historians of higher education, the civil rights movement, housing and urban development among many other topics. This body of scholarship informed the way that we went around about our work doing sort of extensive research in both the University Archives and archival collections at the Minnesota Historical Society. We also did an enormous amount of reading into the newspaper sort of archives that we have not only from Minnesota Daily, but the mainstream press and also the Black press in the region. It was on the basis of this kind of historical inquiry, this emergent and the sources that we came to our conclusions. This kind of emergent involved reading letters, involved reading memos, involved reading reports, it involved reading the marginalia of reports, and it was only through that kind of reading of how they talked and thought about things at the time that we were able to develop a sense collectively of how these particular individuals operated as officers of the University. And as we developed this collective sense amongst ourselves, we did so through an iterative process of interrogating our sources and each other as we researched and wrote our report. We had divided, it's important to note, into work groups that we're building specific, but it was a truly a collaborative process throughout at every stage of it, we were kind of engaged in a lot of conversations across the work groups as we read and discovered different things that had bearing on different parts of the research that we were all doing together. And the collaborative process continued into the last phase that Dean Coleman just mentioned, which was when we, after having mostly been focused on simply developing a sense of what the archive could tell us about the questions we had before us, it was only at that very late stage in the process that we started to think about the recommendations phase. Which I will say as historians, was not sort of at the front of our minds and is not a process that I'm sort of inclined to take in my own work. I don't make recommendations at the end of my sort of historical writing, often presented with law faculties that want me to give a policy prescription at the end, and I always kinda bristle at that, because that's not the nature of my discipline and that's not what I do. And it's only once we had a context as a group, historical context, that we began to feel comfortable talking together about what kinds of recommendations we thought were appropriate and responsive to the charge that we have been given. And at that point, with a working draft, we sort of all proceeded to read all the way through it and put comments on the Google Docs and so it was a process of kind of further interrogating each other about what we had written together. And then we came together to talk and ultimately make a set of recommendations that you find in the report, and the recommendations reflect our considered judgment that a change in the way a community memorializes its past in this case is warranted, because it offers a way to recognize important alterations in this community's values. I'll have a word about the unnaming. The aim of our recommendations is ultimately not merely to call for replacement of one set of symbols with new ones. Our report communicates the importance of sustained engagement with all our University's history and all of its complexity as we think both about and beyond renaming. It is in that spirit that the conclusion of this report offers a set of types of initiatives and programming for the University's academic administration to consider in the ongoing effort to explore our university's history, bringing the past and dialog with the president in advancing our educational mission and strengthening and enriching campus life. We envision a ray of curricular innovations, archival projects, creation of new signage and historical exhibits and other collective endeavors to better understand our institutional history and institutionalize these reflective practices. I'll close with a final observation. In many of our conversations over the last several months, members of the University community and all sides of the issue warned us against symbolic politics. Move on, some urged, to the traditional work of the University. Move on, others said, to more tangible questions of justice and injustice. Despite such injunctions, we persisted with this work because symbols matter. We do indeed live by them, which is precisely why we must maintain a critical distance from them, lest they blind us to the everyday inequities in our midst. But I hasten to add that if University of Minnesota with its mission which urges us to assist individuals, institutions, and communities in responding to a condition, continuously changing world, it will need to do more than just reconsider symbols. It will need to continually dedicate and rededicate itself to carrying out its mission of excellence and teaching, research, and learning. Therein lies the vital task of this University. - With that, we are, we are finished with our presentation. We'll turn things back over to President Kaler. - I think President Kaler is good with us preceding at this point, and I have two more thoughts. One is, restating my, and this Board's gratitude for the work that the two of you and your, I think nine other colleagues, if I counted right, there were 11 of you, I doubt I'd find this sort of work in anybody's job description should I crack it open and look at it, so thank you. 'Cause it's been a lot and we're grateful. And secondly, to my colleagues, we do have another action item today, and we need to get to that with University Village, and I mentioned that not to compare and contrast, but only to, we're not gonna go on forever today, we have a considerable amount of time between now and May or June as possible dates for action and grant given that we do not have regents appointed by the legislature or elected yet. We're gonna have more members of this Board onboard in all likelihood before we can get to a decision. So I want robust conversation, and our faculty leaders and members are here today to interact with us but we're not gonna be still going at 12:30. So I just ask people to keep that in mind as we go forward. I've already had one Regent expressing interest in talking, and Brian and I will start looking to see who's next, but Regent Beeson, I'd open with you. - Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much presenters and everyone who's involved with this work. In the time that's been expended, the researchers, the taskforce. Last fall, so I did have an opportunity to tour the exhibit with Professor Riv-Ellen Prell which I really appreciate. This is a story that needs to be told. We live and serve a sanitized version of our own history. Maybe not unique to universities but it is definitely the case in higher education. And this report, I think is a step in telling a more realistic view, or the viewpoint of those who didn't get to write, who didn't get to participate in the writing of what actually happened. I do wish there had been earlier efforts to reach out to families to obtain their papers, or at least anecdotal information. This is an extremely personal matter that, and it's not just a research project. And in this case, I think the research should be broaden. The case in the Nicholson family, they have been connected with the University for 100 years. Last fall after to the exhibit was completed, the family provided me, and I forwarded dozens of letters of appreciation the dean received on his retirement, testimonials from captains of industry and alumni who truly love this man. On the other hand, the allegations against the Nicholson are serious, and frankly, shocking, and constitute the most serious set of allegations. I believe the family understands that. They simple want a fair process and they want balance. The Middlebrook family has just delivered a letter from a Jewish group in the 1940s. That didn't get included in the report because the family wasn't contacted. We're dealing with people who can't defend themselves obviously and who's the senates are concerned about the revisiting of history eight decades later with the full force of the University's administration behind it. I do appreciate the President's willingness to meet with families before a final decision is rendered by this Board. So generally, I'm looking for more information, more thinking about historical context. The dynamic of the Board of Regents, we had a Chair who ran this place for 36 continuous years, Dr. Mayo, who was on the Board for 32 years, I just, there's other ways this research could go. I just purchased a copy of Roy Wilkin's autobiography. He was here during the '20s, he was head of the NAACP for 40 years, you would've had -- his papers might have some. Most of my comments here will be around President Coffman. He has a second longest tenure in the history of the University, he accumulated a big record. There's a lot of material around his service. He clearly missed an opportunity to integrate University housing, and he worked hard to maintain the status quo. It's disappointing to see the University as having been a laggard in racial justice, but we were. It's not the last time we've been in that position. I'm reminded of the takeover of Morrill Hall in the '60s after unsatisfactory negotiations with President Moos over very basic and reasonable demands. Through today's lens, that was poorly handled as well. President Coffman would have known about the targeted Jewish students during the Red Scare years and that's a problem. However, I'm unclear how much he knew about those particularly aggressive tactics allegedly deployed. Was this work straight out of the President's office, or was this single operation? And I'm struggling with the context and nuances related to Coffman. What do I mean by that? Number one, Twin Cities was a completely segregated communities, relates to housing, both ownership, through our own study, and rental. Number two, segregation of public accommodations were prohibited by law, but the practice was altogether different. African American are unwelcome in fine restaurants, certain establishments and the best hotels. Number three, the Twin Cities were considered to be one of the most antisemitic areas in the country and it exploded in the '30s as Jews began to obtain political power that Professor Bergman's research documents. Country club excluded Jews and Blacks. Discrimination in employment was everywhere, as evidenced by our own nursing student and two medical students. Regent Cohen, not to put you on the spot, but your family was between the community and the University, that was '20s and '30s, we always appreciate your wisdom, but your family lived through those years, I look forward to your comments. But could it be, was the University more progressive than the community that surround it? That's the question I've got, 'cause as I look around the community, I see nothing but segregation and discrimination. Number five, the report mentions but does not focus on the fact that 70% the Big Ten schools had segregated housing, including approved rooming houses. Integrated housing was not the norm at American universities and that did not start to happen till the '40s. Number six, I do not see overt evidence of discrimination of admissions although there was quotas, but this is a gray area in my opinion. Number seven, and I think this is the most overlooked part of Coffman's legacy. He created General College, and General College was the legacy that was the new college experiment, general education. And this University was a completely Caucasian and upper income university and one that was closed in 2006, it was the communities of color who were outraged, and that who are still angry at the University for having done that. So I think Coffman's legacy needs to include the fact, and these are the men who participated in establishing the General College. They deserve to get credit for that work. It's so transformative, in my view, around the University. So going back to the Coleman report, this has to be based on exceptional events, it behooves us as you quoted in the report, to understand that it's impossible to hold somebody accountable for failing to share our contemporary ideas and values. That's the conundrum in front of us. One final comment I'll make, I think we should look at renaming the housing buildings, those names are really inappropriate for today's world in terms of Pioneer, that was the subject of the segregation in the first place and Frontier, I would hope we could move to look at those buildings almost immediately. Than you, Mr. Chair. - Thank you, Regent Beeson. I don't know if anyone, no need to react, but if there's anything that you heard and while you're deciding whether you want to, I will note Mr. Steves, that I trust between you and your counterparts in the administration will be capturing and collecting observations and request for additional information. I highlighted twice in my remarks what I believe is a majority of this Board's interest in more research and record development around the context, the governance context for this. So I'm not speaking for the Board, 'cause there are some who don't want that, but most would like, and Regent Beeson identified that along with the community context and some other things. But if I highlight what I've heard, the governance context in which these precedents in particular made their decisions is something that most regents would like to see, record embellishment and enhancement. So thoughts and reaction? Again, not necessary, but you can if you'd like. - Go ahead. - Before I turn to Regent Hsu is next. - Thank you, Chair McMillan, Regent Beeson. Let me just make a couple of comments. We certainly did think about this question. We're scholars, so we'll never say that there's been enough research done. So you could always convince us that more research can be done on virtually any topic we might come up with. But in the sense here of thinking about the governance, governance context of the University at the time, we certainly did think about this and one of the things that's notable in the records that we did look at at great length is what we see as sort of animating the decisions and the conversations that the presidents, deans, chancellors are making. And while there's certainly a sense of the overall University governance level, very little indication that we saw even directly in the files of kind of strong push from regents around particular issues. We'd certainly expect with this kind of work, you'd expect that to show up in the files of Presidents and so on, that we wanna keep note of those records to guide future behavior. It was not very extensively there. That doesn't mean it's not something to think further about, but it was not something very heavily in the document. I do wanna just mention that we do, I would say we try to be extremely fair in this document about acknowledging the contributions of the four men in question. We did talk extensively about general college, for example. This isn't a case of whether people are good people, bad people, the legacy is all negative, the legacy is all positive. As was mentioned, they have complex legacies to report of the period of their careers. We try to reflect that in the report as we were describing kind of the arc of their careers, and particularly some focus periods, especially around campus housing. - And most-- - Professor Bluementhal. - Thank you, Regent McMillan. I wanna address a couple other questions that you had. I certainly wanna echo what Dean Coleman has said about the way that we approached this question of each of the individuals. We did consider them case by case, even though there were interconnections that obviously came up in the course of the research. We took each case individually and considered seriously the pros and cons that was a part of the structure of the analysis for us. And so we spent quite a bit of time reviewing the contributions of these individuals as Dean Coleman has suggested the general college in the case of Coffman, which is described and discussed in our report, and in the case of Nicholson, I would add as well, we did read extensive praise for him, we note that in the report, and we did find quite a lot of evidence of that that we also record and they did weigh very heavily in our analysis. And we certainly believe very strongly in the proposition that whatever be done here, we'd like to see exhibits that fully reflect the complexity of the moments that we're studying and the people that we're studying. That's first and foremost the highest goal, I think that we have as scholars is to enhance knowledge about what we're studying, and we very much hope that the work that we've done will be reflected in the sort of landscape of memory that is our built environment. I also wanted to address what Regent Beeson was suggesting about the community surrounding the University at the time. I certainly agree that there was a significant amount of segregation in housing on public accommodation, and certainly there was a lot of antisemitism. And we also note that in our report. And yet, we also note that there was quite a lot of public contestation around these issues. There wasn't a sort of, everyone thought this way at the time, and these characters were men of their times who thought in the same way that everyone else did. There was contestation then as there is now. And we reflect that in the report. And we also note what I think is important, is the extent to which and the ways in which members of this larger community beyond the University were calling on the University, quite rightly in my view, to exercise more leadership and in the face of laws, that we're not being fully followed, in the face, as you pointed out with the public accommodations law. And in case of federal laws like Plessy v. Ferguson. The University was called upon to conform its practices to the letter of the law and its spirit. And that was not done, and the criticism came from this community as well as from a national community. And so what we're trying to reflect is the amount of contestation at that time. That being said, the analysis is about what we want to hold out today as our values, and so it's not judging them against our standard and holding them accountable for not reaching our standard, we are now thinking about how today we want to reflect our own values. And so that's I think an important distinction to draw out here. And I would add, I guess on a personal note that I understand how personal this is. I grew up in this community, my father was a member of the Medical School faculty. There's a named lecture in my family's name at this University. I grew up in learning about the antisemitism that my grandparents and parents endured in this community and so I understand what's involved and I understand the sensitivities involved. And it was with that sort of set of considerations in mind that I certainly proceeded with this work. - Thank you. Regent Hsu. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. Thank you, co-chairs. You've answered some of my questions regarding the process in how you went through this. And my initial impressions, preliminary impressions of the report are that it did not come off as fair as I expected. And my concerns are that it was important material that was left out, including the governance of the University at the time, the chair of the Board, Fred B. Snyder, who served on the Board and as Chair for almost 39 years, I believe, and certainly during this 12 year period. Also William Mayo who was on the Board until 1939 through this period when he died. My concern is that I went to view the exhibit and I did see a letter that did make it into the report, I saw the whole letter in the display, and it's the 1935, August 1, 1935 letter from President Coffman to the, to Theodore Christianson who was the junior who was president of the, All-University Council Committee on negro discrimination. And also to the All-University Council of the University of Minnesota. The problem is that the sentences that are in the report exclude all references of the Board of Regents. And I noticed in the student's report today, they also scrubbed out these, the part of the sentence that included the Board of, reference the Board of Regents. In fact, in the student's report, there was a quote attributed to Coffman, which was taken out of this particular letter, but omitted the fact that he was actually referring to Regents when he said that. So I'm gonna read the parts of this letter that didn't make it into the report just quickly, and this is just one letter that I found that actually has these references in it that were actually omitted. So Coffman says, "Gentlemen, last May, "I received a copy of a report from the council "suggesting that a negro be admitted to Pioneer Hall "this year as an experiment. "This report has received careful and thoughtful "consideration by me and the Board of Regents. "The Regents are unanimously of the opinion "that the general policy with regard "to the races which has been followed "at this institution since its beginning "has been rational and should be continued. "The University has maintained consistently "that it should provide residential "conditions, insofar as possible for the accommodation "of the students of the University "and the final judgment as to share, as to where students "may live and may not live, should reside with it." The next part that was omitted. "It is the unanimous opinion of the Board of Regents "that the housing of Negro students in Pioneer Hall "at present would not be conducive "to their best interest nor to the interest "of the other students who may be residing there." So these are I think important sentences from a letter that was actually in the original presentation of Campus Divided. Yet, I don't know how they got omitted from your work. And this is just one letter. There are other letters, I'm not gonna take up time right now to discuss these, but I just have a concern that the quality of work here is not quite what we need it to be before we make these decisions. So I hope that we go back and do further work. I think maybe we should have other people doing work on this. I personally spent over eight hours, over two days in the Andersen Archives looking at the files of Fred Snyder. And I barely scratched the surface. But I was able to find all sorts of interesting information about how the governance of the institution actually occurred at 1430 Grand Tower, Downtown Minneapolis, that's where his office was. And that's where a lot of this work happened. And I would also say that there are all sorts of troubling things in the university's past. For example, Folwell was the co-founder of the University's eugenic society. We have a relationship with slavery from Board members and people that we dealt with in terms of financing the University originally in the 1850s. And I just think we need to carefully look at all of the information, we have to have a fair treatment of this, because these people aren't around anymore. And their families are, their sons and daughters are mostly deceased, and maybe there's grandkids around who don't know anything about this history. And I wanna just say one more thing. So Fred Snyder, one of the documents I found actually showed the, it was letters back and forth about the inscription on Northrop Auditorium. And Snyder actually put in to, he edited the inscription right before it was finalized, and he inserted the words search for truth. That came from him. And I think we need to search for truth in this endeavor. Thank you. - Dean Coleman. - Chair McMillan, Regent Hsu, thank you for the comments. I just wanna make a couple of comments, for additional context. I do wanna assure the committee that we did do intense review and examination of documents. We have excellent scholars on this committee who know how to do this work very effectively. And whether a particular document was quoted or not in the report is a different matter. The document that you mentioned, Regent Hsu, that was in the preliminary version of the report. The full quotes weren't in, we were still in copy editing phase, that actually is now reflected in the report on page 23. So that is in there at this point, but that doesn't address all of the other documents that you mentioned. So we were making decisions about what to put in and what not to put in, certainly as scholars, as any group of people writing a report would have to do. Thinking again about this issue of the Regents and the relationship with the President, there was President Ford later on made the following statement, this is on page 69 of the report, he sends a letter to William Middlebrook. He says, "The Board of Regents has never "taken any actions excluding negros "from housing facilities controlled by it." So that statement suggests at least some degree of flexibility and autonomy on the part of leadership at the University. Leaders are in a position to lead and make decisions. I don't think we would, we certainly argue that that's the case here, understanding they're operating within a governance system, certainly. And just one last, one last comment. Well, let me say two things. One, with regard to Fred Snyder. Thank you for pointing our attention to that, we did have a chance to look a little bit further at that this past week with your encouragements, we thank you, thank you on that. There's a very interesting letter between, exchange between Fred Snyder and William Mayo, very concerned that President Coffman is about to leave the University, that he's had very good outside offers. And in reading that, it suggests to me that they think of this person as a leader, he's making decisions who deserves credit both for the great things that he accomplished and maybe when things are more problematic. It was just a very interesting exchange between the two, so thank you for bringing that to our attention. And I completely understand the concerns about maybe it's a slippery slope kind of concern. I think we're hardened by our institutions around the country, that has not really been the case. We haven't seen that happen at other institutions that have done this work. I fully trust the University of Minnesota could show the same judgment and discernment in assessing different cases as we go forward. Thank you. - Professor Blumenthal, quickly. Sorry. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. - I've been saying that to the Regents too. - Understood. I will just simply add that it is our impression from having looked at the exchange. We were attentive to the ways in which different administrators were working in relationship to the Regents and the archival evidence that we found generally suggested to us that there was an area of discretion. That Presidents had, the University history that was done by James Gray describes most of the presidents in great deal of depth and chronicles the relationship with Regents, including Fred Snyder and as Dean Coleman has just said, it's fairly clear to us from these different accounts that there was a realm of discretion. And it certainly to some extent revealing, it seems to me that President Ford took a different path than President Coffman and President Coffey did on the question of housing. And so from what we can see and indeed even in the Regents' minutes that we have regarding that incident that you're quoting, the letter that Coffman wrote to Christianson, the Regents are effectively ratifying it in administrative decisions as I read that text. They locate the discretion within the administration and ratified as regents, so it just suggests to us that they have understood and located at least with respect to housing, quite a bit of discretion in the president and his administration. - Thank you, Professor Bluementhal, and I'll add, this will be the second time I've added what I hope is helpful context around this governance perspective. I think we as a Board are simply interested in a more complete record about what we know and don't know. Every regent will probably draw different inferences from that, but as it stands now, except with respect to President Coffey, where there's more, probably because of chronology, we could use a little bit more. That's how I look at it. Every Regent will have to capture that and then see what, how they think that influences their perspective, but I don't look for that personally, I don't look for that evidence as something that would exonerate, explain, substantiate, or otherwise, I simply look to it so that I have the more complete picture in which to view these decision and this behavior. To me, I'm looking for leaders and leadership and that's impacted by, but not driven by governance outcome. So thank you. I need to keep moving. We have to be, we have to be moving on at 12:20 here to another item, of critical governance importance, so I've got Regent Rosha, and then Regent Omari, and then Regent Cohen right now, so Regent Rosha. And there will be more opportunity here too. This isn't the final opportunity to raise issues and go forward as I already said. We'll be back at this in May and I would hope we could supplement the record and address some of these things outside of the boardroom and then bring it back. But Regent Rosha, the floor is yours. - Thank you Mr. Chair and I will, I will do my best. I wanna express my appreciation to the chair, your comments about taking this deliberately, taking it one case at a time, doing what we need to get there. I fully support that. I would say it's more important that we get this done right than fast, but we also are not, certainly would not want to take any longer than necessary, the community, I think deserves that. First I wanna, it was actually kind of a pretty good segue. I wanna talk about this exchange that we just had about these documents with Lotus Coffman. And then I'm gonna go and I wanna ask a couple questions, I'm gonna have to skip a lot based on our unfortunate time issue. That's just a remarkable leap, I think, to suggest that a letter between these Regents would indicate their concern about him leaving because he exhibited leadership. You could just as easily say they were disappointed he's leaving because they have been able to quietly give their opinions about controversial topics and he carries the water and keeps them from being publicly outed. If you look at Ford, and this is not hard math, really. No, Ford makes this comment, and if you remember, he says, have never taken action. When Coffman's talking, he says, the Board is of the unanimous opinion and to my mind, you may very well likely had President Ford calling the Regents out. Look, I'm not gonna take the fault for you on this policy. If you want to exclude black students from the dormitories, you need to take action. And it's sort of this unique thing where Middlebrook gets this letter and it gets released to the daily. It was sort of like an open letter from the president, right? So when you're talking about inferences, and you're talking about essentially a defendant who has been dead for decades, the idea that you can take inferences against that individual, I think is troubling. And so when I look at, when I look at us moving forward on this, I wanna make sure that we don't sacrifice fairness and integrity to reach an end that validates other values that seemed to be particularly present right now. I don't know, Mr. President, members of the panel, did any of you check all of the citations in this document? Did you cite check this thing? Did you go back and validate every citation? I don't know who wrote it, I mean, 'cause it was a group effort, because I've gone back, and quite frankly there's some things that were very very surprising to me. I, again, on short time, Mr. Chair, and hopefully, we could get the presenters back so we could actually have a more thorough, I wanna know what your standard was for evidence. For instance, and I'm gonna jump right into it, and this is some harsh dialog here, but on page 57, this is in the Nicholson file, and I haven't even fully got through Coffey. There's just to doggone much here for us to digest in just a few days from when we receive this. "Building up to the 1938 election, Nicholson "used his position to assist Chase's quest "to have Republicans gain control of state government." No citation, no quotes, no authority. What a bold statement. "Nicholson informed Chase that Dryer, a quote, "Jew Communist agitator and publicist, unquote, "and former campus radical who quote, look like "a typical Jew, was now a speechwriter for Benson." No citation. Whose quotes are those? Who said that? And so here's the thing. I went back. - We're doing the analysis after the whole evidence. - Professor Blumenthal, I went to the history center and I looked at the Chase files. There's not a document that has any of this coming from Mr. Nicholson. The letters that are used, the letters that are used are from Nicholson, but the inferences that are drawn, and then this this broad brush accusation of all of these different things, they don't stem from those letters. I mean, I was, I've been physically affected by them and looking at how can this possibly be. How can this gust group that's taking on this very important work, how is this not being tracked? Mr. Chair, I do wanna have one indulgence here. And this just gives you, this is the letter that Professor Bergman kinda cites in the middle of crux that somehow Nicholson was responsible for assisting Mr. Chase in his pursuit of communist, and apparently this antisemitic underpinning to Mr. Chase's perspective. 'Cause I do note that there's not a single document that suggests Mr. Nicholson knew anything. In fact I've got the letter from Chase asking for the information about Langston Hughes speaking on campus. There's no reference to what it's gonna be used for. In fact, in the Chase files, he asks multiple university administrators for information about money from a football game and other things which we get requested that variety all the time, and we provide this information. What they use it for, I don't think should defacto mean that we were trying to affect a negative or nefarious purpose. You need something more than just the fact that he gave this information that ended up in this document. There's nothing to suggest that Nicholson had anything to do with that other than providing a public, a public participant with information about what the University was doing. And by gosh, if you can prove me wrong, and if you can show me there are documents, please do, I will gladly reconsider my position. But let me read you this letter. "My dear Ray, thank you for your "very nice letter of December 10th. "I have been waiting to see how things were shaping up. "To me, the most vital thing in connection "with the University at the present time "is the appointment of the Regents. "There will be four new Regents appointed this year. "The basis of the appointments will be the important thing. "If they are sound substantial men," and apologize for the exclusionary language on behalf of Mr. Nicholson, "if there are sound substantial men "pledged merely to use their own judgment "and do the best they can for the state "and for the university, it is immaterial, "it is immaterial, whether they are "Farmer-Labor, Republican or Democrat. "But I very much fear that Floyd's policy "is to be followed out and that men are to be appointed "who will be obligated to party interests. "By that, I mean that an attempt will be made "to fill the University with Farmer-Labor people "making it a tool of the party "instead of an independent educational "institute of the state, institution of the state. "It is too early as yet, as I see it, "to do much planning on the matter "of appropriations, but I do feel "that if there is any way in which we can bring influence "to bear in the matter of appointment of regents, "it is exceedingly vital that we do so." Talks about Ernest Lundeen, asking for help because Mr. Lundeen apparently is a Farmer-Labor party member and therefore might have some influence with the new governor. And yet your report talks about he was incensed about Sherman Dryer, which I now realize you have corrected too, 'cause Sherman Dryer was never a Regent, so saying he was incensed by his appointment would certainly have been inapt. As the first Jewish Minnesota member of the Board of Regents followed by a reference to this letter, but this letter was actually before the appointment of the Regents. This was the day that Governor Benson was inaugurated. So quite frankly, Mr. Nicholson's letter would stand the test of time. We could say we want people appointed to this Board who are not gonna be partisans, but are actually gonna be acting in the best interest of the state. Could somebody please tell me where the antisemitism is in this letter? I know we don't have time for this, Mr. Chair, I could go on. But you know, I wanted to say that when I first heard about A Campus Divided, and I have so much respect for the students, and I'm so frustrated for them because when I read their resolution, it is based on faulty claims. It is, it talks about Coffman surveilling Black students and Jewish students and the report has nothing of that variety. And again, you'd have to make these leaps. I don't believe that anybody was assigned to challenge the orthodoxy. I don't believe that the accused were provided any opportunity for counsel representation so I'm going to speak on their behalf. I'm fairly confident that nobody interviewed the accused. - I don't think so. - But let's face it. This was a trial. And when I head about this, I was expecting, you know, white hooded brown shirt wearing racist spewing all these kind of vitriol against these people. And quite frankly, I saw administrators struggling with what appears to be a Board that was holding to older positions under Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court had determined that separate but equal was not racist. Now we look at that as an absurdity. But this is the time that they lived and Brown v. Board wasn't for 16 years after Lotus Coffman died. And yet that sort of doesn't seem to play a role here. But we're, what you're talking about is the sentencing phase. We're sentencing these people. This is not just a function of renaming, this is attacking an individual's legacy, the individual's name, his or her family. I certainly would expect that this Board will have an opportunity to hear from the family members who still reside in the area in relation to what the impact this will have on them. 'Cause this isn't just a renaming of a Pioneer Hall. This is the unnaming. This is telling the public, which, and this damage has already been done, and this breaks my heart. Because the media, which I would hope would dig in to some of the underlying materials, and again, if I'm wrong, I mean, please show me I'm wrong. I'd feel much more comfortable with that than the frustration I feel with what I feel is a process that was seeking an end. And doing it in a way that from an academic and scholarly standpoint is foreign to me. The papers have already reported, considering renaming buildings named after racist and antisemitic people. But we've never actually established the facts. We've never established what the standard is. I don't know what your standard is. This was a trial. This was a trial. You have given us the finding of fact. I don't know what the charges ever were. I know that there's a finding of fact and then there's a sentence. And I find this whole experience, again, I came in to this with an open mind, saying we may have to make some really tough decisions. If there's some information here, we talk about primary legacy, even the report talks about Coffman, for instance. You say, well, we should focus on someone's primary legacy. In multiple places it says, Coffman is primarily known for expanding the campus and opening general college. So that answers the question. But then to go through and take every negative inference of every factual pattern within this thing, I don't think that's appropriate, I don't think it's fair. Look, if we're an institution named after someone involved in the slave trade, and it's sort of generally understood that this is the role this person played, you don't have to sell me on it. But when we start getting into the nuances about is it a, is it a thought crime for this person to have been exploring changing attitudes towards women, as we sort of sully Coffman with his academic work, from 20 years before the events that are a part of the report. I think these are really really important questions. I was deeply concerned about the fact that when I went back to do the cite checks to verify the allegations that were made, whether it was through the scholarly article that was used for much of the support or if I went over an actually looked at Mr. Chase's papers and so on, I was really really surprised. And I would hope that as we go forward, we're gonna have a clear standard, we're gonna verify the factual bases, we're gonna understand what inferences should be drawn, particularly when someone's been dead for decades and is not here to represent him or herself. And then we will have an opportunity to say with this fact pattern, let's judge this against the standard that we think we should apply in deciding whether the remarkable event of unnaming something after somebody that has been in place for many years needs to occur for this University to move forward. Thanks, Mr. Chair. - Regent Cohen. - Regent Omari I thought was on the list before me. - Either way, you both came to me at the same timeframe there. - Go ahead. So you two can choose. - I can close. - Alright, Regent Omari. - I was actually you know, wonder if there were any responses from up there. - I didn't go there because we don't have time. So we'll capture the remaining Board input and then we will create an opportunity here so that this isn't one sided. And I don't know quite what that looks like yet. But we have to keep moving today and finish the University Village. And we don't have a vice chair today. I need to be out the door for another University function that I'm speaking at at one o'clock. So that's one of the drivers and we also have a lot of other calendars and people impacted. So again, that is why I didn't look to the panel for a response. It isn't because we're taking anything that anybody said as a fact at this point, so I'd like to capture Regent Omari, Regent Cohen, and then Regent Anderson, and then we are gonna be done and we're gonna move on to University Village. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have tons of things that I could say, but I will try to do this very quickly. One is, I'll just generally say that Regent Rosha should write the next report, and I don't say fastidiously, I actually would love to see what you would come up with, so I would look forward to that. Secondly, I think that having been trained here as a PhD student and having seen the academic rigor with which our faculty and researchers have, the concerns that are shared by some of these board members, particularly accusations of intentionally omitting things from a document that actually are in there, and some of the concerns that Regent Rosha has, I think if that's the case of this Board that we feel that way, then we have a much bigger problem about the faculty that we have here in general. And perhaps we should be having a conversation about that. Well, I find that quite troubling. And from what I have read, and I did not go to the archives, but what I have read and what I have seen suggest that there certainly was overt racism and antisemitism taking place on campus from several members, and likely more who are on buildings. I don't see a context or a time where that's okay. I don't really care what was happening, I shouldn't say I don't care. I'm not as concerned about what was happening in the time because discrimination is discrimination and a big piece of this for me is actually not about rewriting the past, but owning the past and recognizing the past and actually deciding whether or not in 100 years, people are gonna look at this Board and this institution and say they recognize some things that happened and they try to do something about it. And I think that's what the calling by this report is actually for us, it is looking forward, not so much as rewriting the past. And I'll just stop there, because there's, I have notes and notes, but. - Thank you, Regent Omari. Regent Cohen. - Thanks, Chair McMillan, and I'll try to be very very brief because this maybe my, who knows, last chance to talk, since-- - We don't know. - We don't know, and I keep reappearing. But anyway, first -- (audience laugter) -- First of all, I wanna say how much I appreciate the work and the report of the taskforce. It's clearly, I have learned a lot from the discussion and it's clearly from my colleagues also, it's clearly a very very complicated issue. I particularly noted what you said, Professor Blumenthal, about the past is given to us, and it's what we do with it where we have a choice. And we own it and, my, question I would have, not to be answered is can we honor it by learning from it? And there are many different ways to learn from it, I believe. I also feel that there was tacit approval from the Board of Regents and clearly they'd be smart enough not to have a vote on it, and so if, I wonder, if we change, if we change names, do we take down the pictures of those Board, that Board of Regent also? Just a question. I just wanna, just answer quickly one of the comments Regent Beeson made in terms of what I have experienced. Clearly, the Twin Cities was the antisemitic capital of the world, many years ago, and one quick story when I was 16 years old, many of our classmates in high school were having a sweet 16 party and one of them was having a sweet 16 party at the Automobile Club. The AAA did not allow Jewish members at that time, so if we were stuck in the snow or somewhat, our family couldn't call the AAA. But anyway, we couldn't go to that birthday, my sister and I couldn't go to that birthday party unless this classmate got special dispensation, because we were Jewish students and they didn't allow Jews to come into the AAA building. So despite that, I wanna be cautious, despite many other incidents also, I wanna be cautious and look thoroughly what we are doing. So thank you again, committee and taskforce, I really appreciate your work. - Regent Anderson. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. A brief question and then a brief comment. I think I learned today that there's 11 or 12 people on the committee and every one of them resides in the Twin City metro area. Is that a yes or no answer? - All in Twin Cities campus, because we're, to this committee, because we're-- - We still are the University of Minnesota? - I'm sorry? - We still are the University of Minnesota? - Yes. - Ok. I just wanna point out that in this day of inclusion, you left out about 90% of the geographic diversity of the state. I understand it was maybe a knowledge based committee, but I just wanna point that out. And I did have a longer, longer statement, but I'm just gonna spend the last minute on my conclusion. I, like Regent Rosha and Regent Hsu, I checked out a lot of these things. I was really troubled, really really troubled by what came forward. But I'm gonna tell you, I'm a pretty simple guy. I'm just from rural Minnesota, I don't understand everything. We're being asked to judge individuals on how they judge others almost 100 years ago. Yeah, we live in a different society than they did, and they are not here to defend themselves from questions we would have asked. The irony of today is that we're being asked to do exactly what these men are being accused of. We're being asked to pass judgment without getting opinion from or listening to and responding to all sides viewpoints. We may ask to go back almost 100 years and decide if these men beliefs and actions fit within a moral parameter of the times. Quite frankly, I wish we could have a university and an America for that matter that celebrated one's achievements rather than trying to limit one's accomplishments by their faults. I tried my entire life to be nonjudgmental. I'm just, I'm wired that way. I don't know if I could fairly and accurately pass judgment on individuals who are not here to defend themselves. I don't know if I'm qualified to administer a ruling on someone's place on a morality scale. I think that's actually a decision left for a higher power. Chair McMillan, that ends my statement. - Thank you, Regent Anderson. And before me move on, I note, this came to us as a preliminary recommendation from the President. I noted earlier that we do not have, and we don't know when new Regents will be named or who they might be, we have an opportunity over the ensuing two months to supplement this record and I think that this Board would like to see it supplemented. I don't know that we've created enough concreteness around how we might go forward with that. My suggestion, and I'm free forming right now is that President Kaler and Board leadership work on a handful of those supplemental frameworks and let us then comeback in May depending on where the legislature's at with respect to new Regents that we find time in our agenda to make sure that in the middle of setting biennual budgets, and the rest of the heavy lifting that needs to be done, that we can have a more detailed conversation about this. And that we then prepare for action in the June meeting, perhaps, assuming we've got new regents onboard before then. If we don't, we'll rethink. But I wanna reiterate, I'm deeply grateful for the work that's been done. Some of it's been criticized, some of it's been complimented, but it is scholarly work and this Board is grateful for the effort. I think that there is more scholarly work to be done, refinements, additions, and that's our next step. President Kaler, does that loosely framed opportunity to supplement and refine this record make sense and do you think that you and I can get that straight? - Mr. Chair, that does sound like the right next steps and we will work with the leadership of the taskforce and the number of Provost that we have here and formulate a response both in matters of fact and context, and matters of scope that we will work with you and the Vice Chair to make sure it fits the need of the Board. - Thank you. We're gonna finish that and we're gonna invite Vice President, Senior Vice President Burnett and Vice President Berthelsen forward to have what will hopefully be a quick action and decision on discussion and then action on the University Village matter. And I'll wait for you to get yourselves positioned. - Mr. Chairman, would you like me to proceed? - Yes. Senior Vice President Burnett. - Thank you, Sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, we're here today to ask for your action on the purchase of 2515 University Avenue South East known to most as University Village. As you will recall, we presented the resolution and financing plan for the purchase to the, you, at the February finance and operations committee meeting. Very little has changed. We won't take the Board's time today to go over the entire presentation again, but I will ask Assistant Vice President Leslie Krueger to quickly go over some minor changes that have occurred since your February meeting. She'll be working from pages 203 and 204 of your docket materials. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to turn it over to Vice President Krueger. - Very good, and welcome, Vice President Kruger and Mason and I see Mr. Berthelsen didn't come forward, he's just in reserve, so go forward, thank you. - Thank you, Chair McMillan and members of the Board of Regents, if we will quickly go over the overview of the changes since the February meeting. On page 185 of your docket cover, we have clarified that the regents oversight related to the 2515 LLC. And we are actually asking for the regents to review and approve at their May meeting the LLC operating agreement, which will clarify the LLC's accountability to the Board of Regents and it will include specific reservations and delegations of authority. The second change from the February meeting clarifies that only one of the loans is secured by a lien on the property. And the third change in the docket cover clarifies that Great Lakes Management will act as an owner's agent and provides an overview of what services that Great Lakes will provide as the property manager. In the resolution there are some very minor changes that reflect those conditions as well. Again, clarifying that Great Lakes Management acts as the owner's agent in the role of the property, clarifies again the security of the lien from one of the loans. And then finally, an oversight that we were actually, we are clarifying that the Board's authorization is for the purchase and the ongoing operations of the property and not just the purchase of the property. And I do want to add a late breaking news, early this morning, we did receive notice letter from the MPCA that we received our notice, our non association determination, which limits our legal liability for the statutory liability for the ongoing operations of the property, which is great news. So we appreciate that expedited review from the MCPA. - Very good. - So with that, Mr. Chairman, we, happy to take any questions, but we do recommend your approval of this purchase in operation. - Alright, the matter is before us. I would note in addition to what Vice President Krueger just mentioned, Regent Hsu and I also had an opportunity to tour the property. It's one many of us see from the outside but not so often from the inside. It was informative and I think conveyed a sense of a very well maintained and well invested in the property. Not that that's relevant here, but it was something that he and I wanted to add to our repertoire of knowledge as we vote on this. I'll open it up to the, well I'd ask for a motion to consider the resolution. - So moved. - Second. - Moved and seconded. Questions, comments, further input, requested from our panel? Regent Hsu. - Thank you, Chair McMillan. We did get a chance to visit the building. It is a fine building, it's great location, great parking in there, very inexpensive parking compared to what you're paying, I understand. I think, I'll support this but I don't really support the structure of the transaction. I think it's way too complicated, way more complicated than it needs to be. I don't see the liability concerns that maybe we were lead to believe were there originally. So I'll just say I'll support it, but I don't really understand why it's so complicated. - Alright. Other Board comments, questions? Regent Omari. - I agree. - Alright, that being the end of the comments and questions, I'd call for a vote. Regent Sviggum, we're now voting on the motion that's on, I think page 204 or page 14 of this presentation, 204 of your electronic docket materials. All in favor? - [Multiple voices] Aye. - Opposed? Very good, that motion carries. I will entertain any old, any older new business? Seeing hearing none, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. - I'll move. - Seconded, all in favor? Aye. We stand adjourned.

Results

1920 Lieutenant Gubernatorial Election, Minnesota
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Republican Louis L. Collins 432,226 57.36% -1.04%
Independent George H. Mallon 272,669 29.81% n/a
Democratic James P. McDonnell 79,414 10.54% -18.04%
Socialist Lillian Friedman 10,629 1.41% n/a
National C. H. Hubbell 6,695 0.89% -12.13%
Majority 159,557 27.55%
Turnout 753,565
Republican hold Swing

External links


This page was last edited on 12 April 2019, at 20:16
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.