The Stanford University Press took center stage at the Faculty Senate assembly on Thursday, with Senate members carrying out an active discussion about the function of a college press, the challenges of academic publishing, and the future of Stanford University Press. At its last assembly of the instructional year, the Senate also heard an update from President Marc Tessier-Lavigne on the university’s utility to Santa Clara County for a General Use Permit. And in a longstanding Stanford lifestyle, the Senate bade a lighthearted farewell to its outgoing chair, Stephen Stedman, professor of political technology, proposing a humorous quiz on Faculty Senate records.
Also, the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity released its Annual Report on the Faculty, which outlines the Faculty’s profits, losses, and typical composition.
Stanford University Press
Most of the Senate assembly was focused on Stanford University Press, and senators concluded the meeting by approving the advent of an additional faculty committee that proponents argued would offer additional transparency and an invigorated function for college governance in topics concerning the Press.
The Press moved into the spotlight in April when Provost Persis Drell introduced that, while Stanford would continue to aid the Press with base investment, the college did not intend to fund the Press’ request for five additional years of $1.7 million in one-time support.
Following college worries, Drell clarified that the university had no goal of lasting the Press. She encouraged the formation of a college committee to increase an extended-time period plan to bolster the Press’ financial and operational model. The provost made extra one-time funds of $1.7 million available to the Press for fiscal year 2020 to assist with this method.
The Press acquired about $900,000 annually in institutional aid from the college’s base preferred budget and profits from a small endowment. At the Senate meeting Thursday, Drell stated that assistance could be maintained. The Press additionally receives about $five.One million in revenue from e-book income and other assets; however, that income does not cover its annual prices.
“The challenge we’ve been confronting is that the Press is working with a structural deficit, which became $1.7 million in 2008, and that has prompted a succession of requests for a one-time investment,” Drell stated. “There were attempts to cope with the structural deficit that has now not been a hit in the past. We want a strategy and a plan to ensure that our Press is great and supported over the long term, and we can be running with the school on that.”
She noted the recent formation of the faculty committee, chaired by Judith Goldstein, chair of the Department of Political Science. The committee seeks insights from the campus community and outdoor professionals on numerous troubles relating to the Press, assessing its most suitable length, economic desires, fundraising capability, organizational shape and governance, and reporting relationships in the college.
Drell reassured the Senate members of the press’s important role. “Academic presses are a vital part of the academic atmosphere, and I believe they may be vital to supporting surroundings of highbrow freedom,” she said. There are areas where the Stanford Press is having a decisive effect on precise instructional fields. And we virtually need to keep supporting that.
“There isn’t any purpose in finalizing the Press. On the contrary, our goal is a healthful and notable Press.”
Background on Stanford University Press
Providing history and context for the discussion, Alan Harvey, director of Stanford University Press, gave a presentation on its records and operations.
The Press publishes a hundred twenty-five books yearly in various fields, from anthropology, sociology, and politics to literary research, philosophy, and faith. Books inside the records and enterprise/economics fields generate the maximum income, in keeping with Harvey.
Noting the press’s function in launching the careers of younger students, he said that 35 to 40 percent of the titles are first books. “The publishing we do in this kind of numerous areas is, in reality, fundamental to the careers of many students,” he stated.
Harvey highlighted some current award-winning titles and showed comparative facts about different educational presses. While presses such as Oxford and Cambridge post many more titles consistent with the year, he mentioned that Stanford University Press is much more specialized and notably aggressive in the marketplace. “We punch properly above our weight,” he said.
In the discussion that observed Harvey’s presentation, several senators requested the effect of the recent elevated focus on the Press’ operations and finances. Harvey acknowledged that it changed into “tough, morale-sensible” and that he was worried that scholars could hesitate in filing books.
Other senators asked for their thoughts on different sources of earnings for the Press. Harvey said that many college presses derive enormous earnings from journals and distribution packages, but those had been mounted many years earlier. It might be extraordinarily expensive to create such programs now. He stated that fundraising probably became the maximum source of different earnings for the Press.
In response to a query about why Stanford doesn’t submit books on computer science, Harvey replied that the overhead in running a technology publishing program is very high, which can be offset by producing a large number of books. To begin this kind of application at Stanford could require extensive funding, he said.
Motion through the Senate
A movement emerged calling for the establishment of an ad hoc committee, similar to the provost’s committee, to make recommendations to the Senate regarding college governance and oversight of Stanford University Press. The committee might check the press’s instructional value and more effectively outline the role of faculty governance in topics concerning the Press.
Adrian Daub, Professor of Comparative Literature and German Studies who introduced the motion, commented on the resolution’s spirit. “We need the Press to thrive, to make certain it’s on a more stable footing than occasional cash infusions can provide, and we want it to be terrific,” he stated.
The motion additionally requested that each committee finish their paintings before any selections were made about the future of the Press. It becomes clarified in dialogue that for the committee’s work to inform the financial system; their paintings might want to be completed by December. After a few debates about which body would set up the committee’s charge, the resolution was modified so that the committee’s rate would be mounted by the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Committees. Following discussion, the movement was handed via the Senate.
General Use Permit replace
Tessier-Lavigne updated the college’s software for a new General Use Permit, which is now earlier than the Santa Clara County Planning Commission. The proposed permit would authorize educational facilities and housing at Stanford over roughly the subsequent many years and address transportation, sustainability, and different troubles essential to Stanford and the network.
After the Planning Commission hearings, the Board of Supervisors will conduct the last examination classes and hearings beginning in the fall, during which the supervisors will vote on whether to approve the utility.
This week, the university submitted its reaction to the county’s draft Conditions of Approval, which can be the implementation guidelines for the General Use Permit. Tessier-Lavigne stated that during its response, the college was willing to deliver sufficient new housing to fulfill the demand for over 2,000 housing units generated by its proposed new instructional development.
“We are embracing the possibility of providing extra housing because looking after our team of workers is one of our highest priorities,” he said.
Tessier-Lavigne stated that the university is asking for changes to some of the other situations proposed by the county that made on-campus housing improvement infeasible to attain additional housing.
Also, he emphasized that Stanford remains seeking to work with the county on an improvement settlement—a contract that specifies advantages that Stanford would offer to the broader community over the lifetime of the General Use Permit—in exchange for the certainty that the college might be able to complete its lengthy-time period improvement.
He stated that there could be additional opportunities to interact in the coming months as the application continues through the county’s approval process.