Skip to site navigation

Committee on Research and Scholarship

December 3, 1997

The following report details the activities and recommendations of the Committee on Research and Scholarship concerning the three charges given to it by the Faculty Senate Executive Council. The faculty believes that the intellectual community at the University must be enriched. At the Faculty Senate Retreat on September 5, 1997, elected members of the Senate deliberated over ways to improve and develop the intellectual community of the University. It was felt that in several areas particularly programs and space we needed to marshall our energies for change. The University contains un- or under-used spaces which can be transformed into areas where faculty and students can meet in formal and informal settings for the sharing of mutual knowledge and mutual goals. While we do have a faculty club (the Colonnade Club) which meets certain articulated needs, we believe that the concept of a Faculty Center needs to be expanded in order to reach out to a wider group (in age, discipline, and space) and, accordingly, to provide different services. Those services would include exciting intellectual programs which drive the use of those spaces (see the appropriate sections below). With that in mind, the Committee has been working on programming and physical space which we think will enhance intellectual community, increase interdisciplinary contacts, and advance the intellectual mission of the University.

I. Committee members: David T. Gies (chair), Paul A. Cantor, Julian W. Connolly, Daniel J. Larson, Paul G. Mahoney, Susan M. McKinnon, Kenneth Schwartz, Barbara Parker, Craig L. Sarazin, Craig L. Slingluff, Martha E. Snell, Houston G. Wood, Gene D. Block (ex-officio).

II. Committee Charges

The Committee on Research and Scholarship has been given three specific charges by the Executive Council of the Faculty Senate, all having as a focus the "Intellectual Community" initiative. These are:

  1. To investigate the creation of opportunities (programs) for building intellectual community.
  2. To investigate the feasibility of establishing common spaces as a mechanism to foster intellectual community.
  3. To investigate the feasibility of establishing a Faculty Center as a mechanism to foster intellectual community at the University.

These three charges provided us with a structure for beginning our research into the various issues. Below you will find a brief highlights of the already numerous hours of work and meetings which have gone on. What you read below are working plans; we are open to all suggestions and comments.

III. Activity and Research

In research for and discussions of the three charges, the committee met at crucial junctures with many members of the University community, including Faculty Senators and the Executive Council of the Faculty Senate, general faculty colleagues, the office of the Dean of the Faculty (Mel Leffler, Dick Sundberg, Alison Booth), the office of the University Architects (Pete Anderson, Murray Howard, Mary Hughes), the office of the Provost (Peter Low) and the Associate Provost for Academic Support (Shirley Menaker and Wynne Stuart), Wayne Terwilliger from the U.va. Bookstore, the Director of Food Services (Edward S. Gutauskas), the officers of the Colonnade Club (Charles Dunkl, president), the Assistant Vice President for Business Operations (Richard A. Kovatch), the parking consultants (Rich and Associates), the directors of the Theory Seminar (Daniel Ortiz and Richard Rorty), the director of the Commonwealth Center for Literary and Cultural Change (Ralph Cohen), the director of the Shannon Center (Steve Schnatterly), staff in Clemons Library and Alderman Library, the University Librarian (Karin Wittenborg), Gene Block (Vice Provost for Research), and the Vice President for Management and Budget (Colette Copone). These meetings were informative, invaluable, and productive. We continually refined our ideas, added new ones, researched new possibilities, and posed questions to pursue. The results are synthesized below.

I. Programming

We will be proposing a set of initiatives designed to stimulate scholarly interaction among faculty members from different disciplines and different schools at the University.

a. Faculty Senate Speakers Series

We recommend the creation of a Faculty Senate Speakers Series, specifically designed to organize events with an appeal that cuts across disciplinary lines and engages faculty members from all the schools at the University. The Series would serve as the organizational tool for many of the programmatic activities of the Faculty Center, and would work closely with departments, deans, and the Provost to insure that the broad scholarly interests of the faculty are being addressed in an interdisciplinary fashion. We have contacted the organizers of seven current speakers' series, and all were enthusiastic about participating in an "umbrella" series which would have the capacity to complement their own individual efforts. This program will support three types of activities:

1. It will invite nationally and internationally renowned speakers to the University for lectures and workshops on topics of broad interest.

2. It will provide support to speaker programs already in existence at the University. Such support would range from helping with travel arrangements and publicity to increasing the amount of financial support available to other programs so that invited speakers could stay longer and engage in more intense contact with faculty and students. The Faculty Center could offer office space and accommodations, as well as a suitable location for such activities.

3. It will encourage the initiation of public presentations by new holders of endowed chairs. These presentations could range from formal dinners and talks in the Rotunda to smaller events that might be targeted to faculty whose research and teaching interests lie in related areas. Similarly, presentations by current chair holders could be organized in venues outside the University to make the general public and alumni aware of the faculty's current teaching and research activities.

b. Synergistic Connections and Other Initiatives

1. We recommend that the current University of Virginia News Office Web Site be modified to make it more useful for faculty seeking information on speaker events, colloquia, etc. We will encourage the development of e-mail lists that will automatically alert subscribers of upcoming events in areas of interest to them.

2. We propose that each school consider blocking out and reserving a regular time period each week that would be dedicated to a defined set of activities, including faculty meetings, University lectures, seminars, etc. Ideally, this block time would be consistent throughout the University in order to provide faculty members with the opportunity to participate in interdisciplinary programs in other schools.

3. It will encourage and support other intellectual activities such as reading groups, work-in-progress groups, workshops, seminars, and common table luncheons organized by discipline and research interest.

II. Common Grounds

a. Rationale and Initial Questions

The University contains at present few spaces in which faculty and students can congregate to meet and exchange ideas in a relaxed manner. Where The Cave used to serve a similar purpose on Central Grounds, there now exists no such facility or facilities for informal gathering and conversation. The creation of such common spaces can enhance the exchange of ideas; they can serve as magnets to bring people together in many interdisciplinary ways. What might those common spaces be? Can the University's libraries and bookstores be adopted to these ends? What can be learned from the creative use of such common spaces in the different areas of the University? Can changes be made immediately which would help us reach our goals quickly?

b. Research Phase

The committee made an extensive tour of both inside and outside spaces, primarily around Central Grounds, to assess the current availability of "common spaces." We found that at the departmental, inter-departmental, and inter-school levels, such common spaces were rare. Where they do exist, the food is of low quality (the Colonnade Hotel) or caters to undergraduate tastes (Pav XI, the Castle), or the atmosphere is uninviting (the Colonnade Hotel, the Castle, the coffee stand at the entrance to Cabell Hall, the Greenberry's shop at the entrance to the bookstore). We looked in high-traffic areas both inside buildings and in outside areas which might be transformed into "common spaces." We envision cafe-like facilities which would offer high-quality drinks (good coffee, tea, juices) and "adult" snacks in an inviting atmosphere. While vending machines clearly meet certain needs, they are cold and sterile areas; we would like to see more accommodating spaces created around Grounds, perhaps serviced and staffed by small independent enterprises, student-run businesses (as happens at Cornell, for example), or at least something more creative than is currently available.

c. Possible sites (considered)

The major inside spaces we looked at included the U.va. Bookstore, Newcomb Hall, Cabell Hall, Gilmer Hall, the foyer in Clarke Hall, the Colonnade Club Library, the end rooms of the Amphitheater, and the Colonnade Hotel Garden Room. The major outside spaces included Clemons patio, in front of Peabody Hall, in front of the Rotunda (facing Madison Hall), the lower plaza between Newcomb and the Bookstore, the backside of Brown College, the plaza between Chemistry and Gilmer, the grassy area behind Ruffner and Physics, Darden Court, the Dell, the roof over OCPP (next to Garrett Hall), the space behind the Amphitheater wall facing Bryan Hall, behind Old Cabell (facing JPA), Campbell Hall Courtyard, and the rooftops of Old Cabell Hall, Wilson Hall, Bryan Hall, Cocke Hall, and Kerchoff Hall.

d. Possible sites (recommended)

For one reason or another, several possible sites were taken off the list (impossible to find space in Cabell Hall or Gilmer Hall, for example). Lack of indoor space has limited our options, but it is believed that the weather in Charlottesville is pleasant enough at the beginning and the end of the academic year to justify outdoor Common Grounds. If these areas prove to be successful, we might consider making them more accommodating in the colder months (tents and heaters, or glass-enclosures). The remaining spaces include:

1. (Inside): The Reading Room of the Colonnade Club (Pav VII), transformed into a Library Cafe as part of the scheduled renovations, serviced with a cappuccino cart containing high-quality drinks and snacks. The Cafe should be open to all faculty.

2. (Inside): The library will be constructing a new Special Collections Building near Alderman. After consultation with Karin Wittenborg, there exists the strong possibility that a Library Cafe might be included in the design plans.

3. (Outside): The Garrett Terrace, provided with a covered arbor (or glass panels or tent), seating, and high-quality drinks and snacks.

4. (Outside): The Clemons Patio, landscaped with shade trees, provided with additional chairs and tables, and serviced with high-quality drinks and snacks.

5. (Outside): The Chemistry-Gilmer Plaza, landscaped with trees and shrubs, provided with chairs and shaded tables, and serviced with high-quality drinks and snacks.

6. (Outside): Rooftop Terrace Cafe on the top of Bryan Hall or Kerchoff Hall, outfitted as a cafe and serviced as above. (Kerchoff Hall formerly had a rooftop facility, which might be renovated).

7. (Outside): The Courtyard Cafe at Campbell between Campbell, Fayerweather, and Culbreth, landscaped, provided with chairs and shaded tables, and serviced as above.

In addition, we will recommend the installation of selected benches and seating areas in gardens and other landscaped areas around Grounds which would accommodate conversation among smaller groups, including small classes.

The University's Arboretum and Landscape Committee has offered some financial support toward the realization of these goals.

III. Faculty Center

a. Rationale, Initial Questions, and Background

A Faculty Center would provide the central focus for many of the initiatives designed to address the "Intellectual Community" goal. It would be a place to meet, dine with colleagues, listen to lectures, participate in seminars, workshops, reading groups, and other activities. This is clearly the most complicated of the three charges. First, the committee needed to ask itself and faculty colleagues several key questions: Does U.va. need a Faculty Center? Do we already have one in the form of the Colonnade Club? What services should a Faculty Center provide? What spaces should it contain? What would the financial and programmatic obstacles be to renovation of the current club or the creation of a new center? What might we have to give up in order to get a Faculty Center? How can we be sure that the Faculty Center will draw faculty members in from all areas of the University community?

What do other universities do? We have collected information from colleagues or faculty club managers at several institutions. We also talked with Crystal Thomas, President of the Association of Faculty Clubs International, and with the managers of the Carolina Club (Chapel Hill) and the Ohio State University Faculty Club. While there has been a decline of faculty clubs at some institutions, and some universities do not have a faculty club, many places do have active clubs. Cal Tech, Berkeley, Harvard, UNC, Ohio State, Tennessee, Princeton, Kentucky, Stanford, and Columbia are among the institutions which have active faculty clubs. Most faculty clubs offer food and social events for their members, but many also contain space for academic and social functions. (The Duke University Faculty Club is primarily a sports club). Membership at the financially successful clubs is not restricted to faculty; staff, alumni, and community members are encouraged to join. Most charge initiation fees plus monthly dues.

b. What Would the Faculty Center Contain?

The Faculty Center would be a place for meetings, discussions, sharing of ideas, lectures, workshops, small conferences, reading groups, and the like. While primarily designed with the intellectual needs of the faculty in mind, it would also logically be a place which would welcome student participation and interaction. Programming would be the driving force behind a vital Faculty Center, but a quality restaurant stands out as an essential component of such a facility. It is believed that a Faculty Center would enhance intellectual life at the University by providing a space for interdisciplinary contact among faculty members, and between faculty and students. The Faculty Center must include:

1. a restaurant with high-quality food;

2. appropriate lecture/meeting space;

3. extended hours;

4. offices for visiting scholars;

5. lounge/reading space (stocked with recent publications by University faculty); and

6. parking.

c. Possible Sites (rejected)

Many sites were considered, but after consultation with colleagues, administrators, and the University architects, several were deemed inadequate for our needs, either because of location, parking problems, size, or structural condition. Among the possibilities which were eliminated were Carr's Hill, Madison Hall, Birdwood, the house on Thompson Road (near the Dell), other Lawn Pavilions, and Mem Gym. (Details can be provided for the reasons these spaces were eliminated if anyone is interested).

d. Possible Sites (under consideration)

The University currently has a Faculty Club: the Colonnade Club, located in Pavilion VII on the Lawn, with associated food service in the Colonnade Hotel (Hotel A). The attractions of the Colonnade Club and Hotel are obvious they are centrally located in two of Mr. Jefferson's historic buildings, and they already serve some faculty needs. However, due to space limitations, the lack of parking, and the unsuitability of the restaurant service, many faculty members do not view Pavilion VII and Hotel A as the ideal place for a revitalized Faculty Center. Major renovations are now being planned, and we recommend that space and food service be significantly improved as a result of those renovations. We will work with the University administration (in particular, Vice Provost for Academic Support Shirley Menaker), the building committee, food services, and the Board of Governors of the Colonnade Club and Hotel in order to insure that the renovations meet the needs of a wide spectrum of faculty members. We believe that substantive changes can be made immediately to increase the attractiveness and use of these facilities.

Some believe that a combination of several Lawn Pavilions might serve the articulated needs of the faculty, but size, parking restrictions, and structural concerns make this seemingly attractive proposition unrealistic, and for those reasons it is being eliminated from our considerations. Renovation of existing structures seems to be a short-term solution at best because of the problems and needs stated above.

The most compelling idea to surge forth to date is the creation of a wholly new facility on the top of (or integrated into) a new parking structure in the B-1 lot on JPA , which would be linked to the Lawn via colonnaded bridges on both sides of Cabell Hall. This idea has advantages (proximity to Central Grounds, ability to serve faculty from all over the University, parking, open design, and a plan which fits well with the overall long-range planning guidelines of the University) and disadvantages (cost, traffic problems on JPA). Pete Anderson, the University Architect, has written, "we found your ideas to be remarkably consistent with and supportive of the major thrust of our (still somewhat conceptual) thinking on the long range plans for the University" (see his statement, below).

We recognize, of course, that there are many competing capital needs and that a Faculty Center could not be seen to take away from other more pressing University needs. Still, we believe this concept should be given serious consideration and should be a priority in future plans. We believe that funding can be found for such a facility, or at least, that the University should seriously consider including such a facility in its funding requests, either to private donors or to for-profit entrepreneurs. Is it feasible to design a faculty group to explore funding possibilities? It might be contracted out to a private business enterprise (as is done at many other Faculty Centers) and opened to a broader University community which includes not only faculty and students, but also staff, alumni, and even members of the local community.

e. Status

Parking and Transportation will be making decisions about the new parking structures by the end of 1997; at that juncture we will know if the B-1 idea is at all viable.

f. Is a New Structure the Only Option?

No. The Colonnade Club and the Colonnade Hotel already provide some services that a new Faculty Center would offer. The added fact that they are located in centralized, historical space could be a powerful attraction to faculty and alumni. However, the Committee feels strongly that as they currently exist, the Colonnade Club and the Colonnade Hotel do not meet the articulated needs of the faculty. The parking problem is significant (there is no parking for faculty colleagues from other schools of the University), space in both areas is inadequate, the restaurant food is of unacceptably poor quality, the kitchen is too small to offer better food, there is no lecture space in the Club, no office space exists in either, the rooms in the Hotel are poorly lighted and designed, and structural problems exist with both. Only a massive redesign and reconceptualization would enable them to approximate the characteristics we envision in a new Faculty Center, and even a complete redesign would leave us without parking.

g. Colonnade Hotel

We see exciting opportunities in the short run for improvements in the restaurant facilities in the Colonnade Hotel. We would like to work with the University to find ways to improve this service and space, perhaps by expanding the kitchen, moving the dining area upstairs to the Garden Room, and even subcontracting food providers. Such improvements would most certainly increase use of the Colonnade Hotel by faculty members on central Grounds. However, we believe that even such renovations will not permanently solve the larger problems we are trying to address, such as providing services to include a wide range of faculty from all schools of the University.

h. Statement from Pete Anderson, University Architect

"In general we found your ideas to be remarkably consistent with and supportive of the major thrust of our (still somewhat conceptual) thinking on the long range plans for the University. As we discussed, one of our major goals for the University is that it become a "walking environment," where people on foot take on a higher importance than people in cars. In our view the very essence of collegiality lies in seeing other people face-to-face on a regular and casual basis [...] the idea of a grounds spotted about with a network of well-landscaped and convenient places where faculty and students might casually enter into conversations is a very appealing one. We are at about the 75% point of a new Landscape Master Plan so your approach to this office was timely. I have mentioned your Faculty Center location to the architect team working on the parking study and I know you have as well. [...] I can say they were taken with the idea, and I'm quite sure that the next iteration of their planning will show some version of a Faculty Center on top of [or integrated into] their proposal for the B-1 site."

i. We intend to pursue both initiatives at this time: the renovation of the Colonnade Hotel and the creation of a new Faculty Center.

IV. Epilogue

A vital and stimulating intellectual environment is essential for the well being of any University. While the University already has a number of exciting programs, lecture series, interdisciplinary courses, and inter-departmental connections, we believe there is room for improvement. For that reason, we believe that in three areas the University needs to do more to improve intellectual community.

While we realize that there exist substantial pressures for available funding if the University is to remain vital and competitive, we underscore our belief in the importance of the areas we have outlined above: 1) the expansion of programming to reach out to all members of the community;

2) the creation of outside and inside café-like spaces which we are calling "Common Grounds"; and 3) the creation of a lively, well-staffed, and well-serviced Faculty Center.