Members Present:
Dr. David R. Burgess, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
Dr. Luis Echegoyen, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Dr. Beverly Karplus Hartline, Lemont, IL
Dr. J.K. Haynes, Division of Science and Mathematics, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Robert L. Lichter,CEOSE Vice Chair, Merrimack Consultants, LLC, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Samuel L. Myers, Jr., HHH Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Indira Nair, CEOSE Chair, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr., Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Carol Halpert Schwartz, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY
Dr. Telle Whitney, Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology, Palo Alto, CA
Dr. Lilian Shiao-Yen Wu, IBM Corporation, Somers, NY
Ms. Sara Young, American Indian Research Opportunities,Montana State University, Bozeman,MT
Members Absent:
Dr. Joyce Bennett Justus, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
Executive Liaison/CEOSE Executive Secretary:
Dr. Margaret E.M. Tolbert, Senior Advisor, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation (NSF)
Non-Members Who Presented Oral or Written Statements or Interacted in Other Substantive Manners:
Mr. Anthony A. Arnolie, Director, Office of Information and Resource Management, NSF
Dr. Walter Collier, President and CEO of C&A Technologies, Inc., Alexandria, VA
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation
Ms. Sandra Gartrell, The Reporters, Inc., Washington, DC
Dr. Jawanza Kunjufu, President of African American Images, Inc., Chicago, IL
Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts, Director, Office of Integrative Activities, NSF
Ms. Marilyn Suiter, Program Director, Human Resources Development Division, EHR/NSF
Dr. Judith Sunley, Executive Officer, Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate, NSF
Dr. Thomas Windham, Senior Advisor for Science and Engineering Workforce,
Office of the Director, NSF
Dr. Bruce Umminger, Senior Scientist, Office of Integrative Activities, NSF
February 18, 2004
The meeting of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) was held February 18-19, 2004 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia. Dr. Indira Nair, CEOSE Chair, began the meeting at 9:05 a.m. with an opening statement. She introduced the new CEOSE Vice Chair, Dr. Robert L. Lichter, and congratulated Dr. Thomas Windham on his NSF appointment. She expressed appreciation for Dr. Colwell's tenure as NSF Director. Also, she briefly discussed her February 17th informal interactions with Drs. Nathaniel G. Pitts (Director of the NSF Office of Integrative Activities), Michael S. Turner (NSF Assistant Director for the Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate), and John A. Brighton (NSF Assistant Director for the Engineering (ENG) Directorate).
Upon review of the CEOSE meeting agenda, the committee made two changes: Dr. Beverly Hartline will give her ad hoc subcommittee report on February 18th instead of the 19th, and Dr. David Burgess will give a report on small populations.
A discussion of the October 7-8, 2003, CEOSE meeting minutes resulted in the identification of two needed changes (The addition of Ms. Mary Jo Dively's title to the text, and the correction of the name of Dr. Myers' institution). The committee confirmed the approval of the minutes with the above changes.
In the discussion session, a few reports relevant to the CEOSE mandate were covered. Dr. Burgess suggested and other CEOSE members agreed that Dr. Donna J. Nelson be invited to discuss with CEOSE members her diversity study of the top 50 academic departments. ACTION: Dr. Donna J. Nelson is to be invited to make a presentation on her publication at the October 2004 meeting of CEOSE.
Report of the Executive Liaison: Dr. Margaret E. M. Tolbert presented to the committee a report, which included a chronology of the results of action items that resulted from the October 2003 meeting. She called the attention of committee members to the National Science Foundation FY 2005 Summary of Budget Request to Congress and a new NSF brochure titledNational Science Foundation FY 2003 Performance Highlights (NSF-04-011). Both of these publications were made available to CEOSE members at the meeting. With the mentioning of the BEST report, a request was made for copies for CEOSE members. ACTION: Dr. Windham is to find out how the green rating was determined on page 13 of the NSF FY 2003Performance Highlights publication. ACTION: When the AAAS embargo is lifted, send copies of the BEST (Building Engineering & Science Talent) report titled A Bridge for All: Higher Education Design Principles to Broaden Participation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics to CEOSE members.
The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Mentoring: Drs. Burgess, Hartline, Haynes, Lichter, Myers, Nair, Pearson, Schwartz, Whitney, Wu, and Young discussed issues pertinent to the mentoring initiative and the variety of way in which mentoring is conducted. For example, Dr. Wu advised of issues on mentoring from the private sector perspective. Dr. Myers called the attention of the committee to mentoring programs sponsored by organizations. Dr. Burgess focused on the professional societies (e.g., SACNAS, ACCESS, and National Organization of Black Chemist and Chemical Engineers) as providers of mentoring services. Dr. Whitney called the attention of the committee to the advantages of cooperative education, internships, and other academic programs that include mentoring. Dr. Hartline mentioned research programs, such as REU. Dr. Haynes commented on the network of mentoring experiences. Dr. Whitney advised of the need to adapt the mentoring report into a useful project. Questions: Is mentoring included in NSF programs? Is funding provided for mentoring components of proposed programs? Dr. Haynes stated that the goal of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Mentoring is to make recommendations to NSF on the permeation of or the need for mentoring throughout its programs. The subcommittee needs to make sure that mentoring is defined and that the mentoring pipeline is clearly focused. According to Dr. Myers, the subcommittee is to reflect on the varieties of mentoring in reference to the education continuum. The goal is to produce a recommendation as advisement to NSF on mentoring. Dr. Pearson suggested that the AWIS, BEST, and AAAS reports on mentoring be reviewed. Dr. Windham advised of his efforts to obtain follow-up information on the mentoring workshop by AAAS. A AAAS draft report is expected to be available by the end of March. Part of this report should address the definition(s) of mentoring. ACTION: Dr. Haynes is to obtain and share with CEOSE members definitions of mentoring. ACTION: The Mentoring Subcommittee (Drs. Myers - Co-Chair, Whitney - Co-Chair, Burgess, Haynes, and Pearson) is to make its report at the October meeting. This report is to include information on NSF programs that contain mentoring components, as well as details from the AAAS report on the mentoring workshop if that report is received from AAAS by that time.
Reports on NSF Advisory Committees:
Guest Speaker: Dr. Jawanza Kunjufu, President of African American Images, Inc. in Chicago, Illinois, served as guest speaker for the meeting. He spoke on the topic of "The Crisis of African American Males". He emphasized several points: More Black boys die at infancy than Black girls. More Black boys are placed in special education than girls. There is a relationship between special education and prison, Ritalin and cocaine, Ritalin and the excessive consumption of sugar. Black boys have shorter attention spans and higher energy levels, and the education system needs to address that. Children learn in different ways, and it is better to intervene at the 4th grade level for Black boys in order to keep that in the learning mode. He discussed the effectiveness of several projects (e.g., KIPP Academy Experiment, Robert Moses Project, and the Meyerhoff Program at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County) and success stories of Black males (Dr. Ben Carson and Dr. George Washington Carver) who succeeded against all odds. The point is that something needs to be done to save our Black males. One focus could be on their education and career development in science, mathematics, and engineering. Think: What can NSF do to address the crisis of African American males? The Committee agreed afterwards that, while some of Dr. Kunjufu's perspectives are controversial, the issue is important.
Meeting with Dr. Rita R. Colwell: A statement of appreciation (projected on the screen) was read to Dr. Colwell and a small gift was given to her by CEOSE members as tokens of appreciation for her tenure as NSF Director. ACTION: The Certificate of Appreciation is to be given to Dr. Colwell during her farewell gathering at NSF.
Dr. Colwell reminded CEOSE members that she challenged them to take action, and they did. CEOSE actions have been cerebral and intense. NSF has used the advice given by CEOSE. She spoke on some of the efforts by NSF directorates to address the broadening of participation of underrepresented minorities in science and engineering. Dr. Colwell advised that there is much success, some of which can be quantified in terms of millions of dollar. The focus of NSF on women is a serious effort. The Foundation has invested in minority schools too, but the amount is very small. CEOSE should focus on the big bucks in reference to its mandate. Also, CEOSE should be proactive relative to embedding funding for community colleges and minority colleges and universities into NSF programs. Emphasis on all aspects of the CEOSE mandate should intensify.
NSF will do extremely well in the coming years. Dr. Colwell advised that her six years at NSF have been the most successful part of the Foundation's history. People at NSF are the best. They work hard, and they are smart. She expressed satisfaction that the past six years of her life were well spent, and this statement is supported by the National Science Board reports. During her NSF tenure, the science and engineering communities came together and spoke with one voice. The impact was on the budget. It is clear that NSF is the best-managed federal agency. The focus of NSF is documented in writing, and its portfolio is interdisciplinary. Balance in that portfolio is important. Dr. Colwell commented that CEOSE should not let up in its efforts to address its mandate.
In response to a question from Dr. Nair, Dr. Colwell stated that CEOSE should focus on the Workforce for the 21st Century and facilitate its funding at the level of, at least, $25 million. The effort is to mirror America, but there are needs that must be addressed. For example, the science and engineering account needs attention. More NSF staff members are needed. NSF has not had a staff increase in 20 years. Yet we can point to some key successes. We exceeded our goal of 70% proposal responses in six months. There are several successful programs and components of programs that should be highlighted. The results of a NAPA study reinforce that what NSF is doing is right. Dr. Colwell called on Mr. Anthony A. Arnolie to briefly comment on the NSF shift from a task-based to a competency-based environment in the NSF Academy. Following Mr. Arnolie's comments, Dr. Colwell continued responding to questions, comments, and compliments from CEOSE members (e.g., Drs. Lichter, Wu, Burgess, and Pearson).
Former CEOSE Member: Dr. Thomas Windham told the committee that February 17th was his first day at NSF. He is a Senior Advisor for Science and Engineering Workforce. Dr. Windham said that he could not have asked for a more attractive opportunity, and the move from CEOSE into a position at NSF will prove to be seamless. The work that he will be doing will certainly be one of the major priorities of CEOSE and a major priority of the NSF. Dr. Windham elaborated that in his NSF position, he will be addressing the vertical and horizontal integration within the Foundation in the service of diversity so that programs will hopefully increase their communication among one another so that there can be more effective approaches used for synergy and mutuality of interest and the sharing of resources. He will represent the Director's office on matters pertinent to diversity with HBCUs, Tribal Colleges, and Hispanic Serving Colleges, as well as whatever topics relative to minority serving institutions may arise. Upon completion of his comment, Dr. Nair presented to Dr. Windham a Certificate of Appreciation for his service and past membership in CEOSE. ACTION: Dr. Windham is to be kept in the communication loop relative to CEOSE activities.
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Reports: Dr. Hartline, Chair of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Reports, presented the proposed plan of work of the subcommittee, including the background on the reports required of CEOSE by Congress. After she introduced Dr. Walter Collier, President of C&A Technologies, Inc. - the contractor who is assisting CEOSE in preparing the reports - he presented in brief the results of his work. He advised that he has been reviewing documents of the committee, some of which date back to 1981; however, this is his first opportunity to meet with the committee - a different experience indeed. Dr. Collier reviewed with the committee the progress he has made in completing the project for which he has a contract. He has completed the initial steps (i.e., logistical aspects, constraints on his company, the teleconference with the ad hoc Subcommittee on Reports, and information gathering) required by the contract. The initial product was a refined schedule of deliverables, which contained only one change-January 1st to the 16th for one deliverable. This enabled the contacting of all of the people necessary for information gathering. There are still some current and former CEOSE members that have proven difficult to contact and schedule appointments. The proposed meetings would facilitate the gathering and reporting of accurate information in the required reports. CEOSE members should expect to be contacted in reference to the reports.
Phase 2 of the project consists of producing a draft report of the findings and recommendations of the committees since its inception. In order to complete this Phase, several documents (e.g., biennial reports, selected memoranda, and CEOSE meeting minutes) were recommended as information sources. Actually, the major findings of Dr. Collier's assessment is that the challenges, the obstacles to accessing education, and employment and advancement opportunities in STEM did not change over the 22-year period. These findings were surprising. After so many years one would expect that a more dramatic change would have taken place. These findings do not mean that CEOSE did not do all it could in terms of carrying out its charge, which was to fact find relative to its Congressional mandate and to make recommendations to NSF with regard to increasing the participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities in STEM. There were no systematic on-going evaluations conducted to determine the impact of CEOSE recommendations on the problem of underrepresented groups. Dr. Collier recommended that CEOSE pay more attention to formally evaluating its effectiveness in addressing its Congressional mandate. Admittedly, it is difficult to prove that a given change (i.e., an increase in the number of female or minority Ph.D.s in a given scientific or engineering field) at NSF is associated with or due to CEOSE actions.
Dr. Collier suggested that CEOSE actually assess some of the NSF programs that are thought to be exemplary of best practices and some that are thought not to be good examples of best practices. This will be one step in the assessment of CEOSE in the fulfillment of its mandate. Drs. Burgess and Lichter voiced their agreement with the call for the identification of best practices and the assessment of NSF programs. The lack of data may have negative impact in the future of the Foundation and the committee. There is marketing value to evaluation data. In 1980, Congress saw the need to broaden participation in STEM, and CEOSE was established.
In the discussion period, Dr. Pitts spoke of the efforts of the U.S. Department of Defense to encourage universities to produce more scientists; however, it was unable to push them into any dramatic actions. Perhaps repetition of pushing for action will cause a change for the better.
Dr. Collier suggested that CEOSE publicize itself more and be more visible and proactive. Although CEOSE is mandated to serve as an advisory committee to NSF, it affects the entire country-the entire American citizenry. Dr. Pearson brought to the attention of the committee that there is an assessment unit at NSF and that CEOSE has funding issues that must be addressed when plans are made to conduct evaluations. Dr. Myers made the observation that the outcome variable of NSF programs has not been consistently applied. Other CEOSE members joined in the discussion focused on the report of the contractor. ACTION: CEOSE members, especially those of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Reports, are to provide comments on the contactor's draft reports by February 25, 2004. ACTION: The contractor is to separate facts from comments in the reports. Recommendations, if any, by the contractor are to be provided to CEOSE in separate documents from the reports. As was indicated in an earlier meeting, Dr. Whitney suggested that NSF nuggets be included in the reports.
Dr. Collier reported that Phase 3 (i.e., the development of a strategy for identifying past and present NSF policies and activities for equal opportunities in science and engineering) is going smoothly and that he needs input from CEOSE members on Phase 5 for the biennial report. In completing the project, Dr. Collier was advised to seek information on NSF programs, as well as doctoral data for the report. ACTION: Dr. Hartline requested copies of cover graphics prior to the April meeting. ACTION: The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Reports is to hold a June or July telephone conference if funds are not available for subcommittee members to meet at NSF. A date for this meeting/conference call is to be selected soon. The benefits of a face-to-face meeting were discussed, and that is the preferred meeting mode.
Dr. Myers advised of the need to add qualitative value to the data collection. If possible, assess the degree to which program officers understand the importance of broadening impacts. If possible, determine the staff's perceptions of data collected, and determine if the data are representative and complete. A discussion of analytical outputs with someone is important. According to Dr. Hartline, the data are to be collected in five-year periods, and where possible, the report should contain what happened in between those periods. ACTION: For Phase 3, Task 3, Dr. Collier is to define a successful outcome and to obtain CEOSE agreement on the definition. ACTION: CEOSE members are to decide who will write different parts of the biennial report during the April meeting. ACTION: Grantee data are to be discussed in the biennial report per Drs. Myers, Burgess, and Echegoyen. ACTION: Comments on the Phase 3 Task 3 and Phase 5 Task 7 reports are to be sent to Dr. Tolbert for forwarding to Dr. Collier. ACTION: Dr. Collier is to write the revised versions of the reports and submit them to Dr. Tolbert for review and forwarding to the subcommittee. ACTION: Dr. Collier is to meet with senior level NSF officials to obtain the required information for the report. These meetings are to be coordinated through Dr. Tolbert.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
February 19, 2004
Dr. Nair opened the meeting at 8:45 a.m. and expanded on her and Dr. Lichter's informal interactions (with Dr. Tolbert as observer) of February 17th with Drs. Pitts, Brighton, and Turner. Further, she called the attention of the committee to page 3 of the NSF budget book, noting the following: a 6.1% decrease in the "Peoples" goal funding, a 2.0% increase in funding for the "Ideas" goal, a 7.6% increase for the "Tools" goal, and a 26.4% increase for the "Organizational Excellence" goal. The latter represents 6.0% of the overall FY 2005 budget request. A $16 million cut in funding to minority serving institutions is a serious concern. Dr. Burgess expressed concern that embedding funds for minority programs across NSF will take funds away from targeted programs. This will be viewed as a cut in funding. ACTION: Dr. Windham is to report to CEOSE on the NSF survey that resulted in the identification of $500 million awarded to minority programs. The results are to be presented for each NSF directorate.
The committee briefly discussed the agenda for the March 16, 2004 "Summit on Science" sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education (DoE). An invitation to participate in the summit had been received from Dr. Rod Paige, Secretary of DoE, by Dr. Pearson (see letter from Dr. Paige dated January 29, 2004). ACTION: Try to get invitations for Drs. Nair and Wu to attend the Summit on Science sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education.
Drs. Nair and Wu focused the committee on NSF-sponsored Centers, and the discussion unfolded on diversity in those Centers. During that discussion, the method of funding and the diversity policies for Centers (e.g., Engineering Research Centers) were among the topics covered. Dr. Bruce Umminger explained Science and Technology Centers and the cooperative agreement method of funding. He explained the complexity of the Science and Technology Centers , which are multidisciplinary, and the single-discipline Engineering Research Centers. He also addressed questions relative to the lack of across-the-board diversity policies for Centers and presented information on the awards to the Quality Education for Minorities Network and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities to facilitate increases in diversity in the Science and Technology Centers. Dr. Judith Sunley explained the difference between cooperative agreements and standard grants, and she talked about the balance that NSF is trying to create in its programs. Several CEOSE members participated in the discussion stimulated by the comments by Drs. Umminger and Sunley. ACTION: Dr. Windham is to find the answer to the matter of why there are diversity requirements in Centers but not in regular NSF grants. ACTION: Send to CEOSE members copies of the Abt & Associates (a contractor) report on Science and Technology Centers. This report contains diversity data from the Science and Technology Centers that were funded in year 2000. RECOMMENDATION: That members of CEOSE be considered for inclusion among the panelists who will evaluate the Science and Technology Centers Program proposals.
Report on Small Populations: When Dr. Burgess began his presentation titled "Why Do We Need Better Information on Small Populations?", his opening statements were given in his native language. His presentation included information on the Indian people, health disparities, reservations, education, needs, the workforce, efforts to increase participation in SMET, Tribal and Tribally-Controlled Colleges, students, attainment of degrees, and faculty. Dr. Burgess told meeting attendees that all tribal colleges are accredited but underfunded and that some of the poorest areas are American Indian reservations. The NSF Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP) has benefited Tribal Colleges. He concluded that more appreciation is needed for American Indian cultural issues and traditions and that more data are needed for strengthening all parts of the education pipeline. More American Indians need to choose careers in SMET, and better information is needed on small populations.
During the discussion that followed Dr. Burgess' presentation, Dr. Myers told about the problems encountered in the implementation of an ancestry information survey. He concluded that census data may be inflated due to incorrect indications by Asians checking the box on the form, which calls for Indian ancestry. The government defines Indians based on blood quanta. There is also a problem in the way persons who indicate multiple races are placed in the census data (see OMB Circular 0002). ACTION: Invite Dr. Shirley McBay, president of Quality Education for Minorities Network, Inc. and a former CEOSE Chair, to discuss lessons learned from programs (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program, Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, and Science and Technology Centers Program) that she has evaluated.
Planning Report on the First Off-Site Meeting by CEOSE: Ms. Young invited all CEOSE members to attend the Pow Wow, which is scheduled for April 16th from 6 p.m. to midnight, April 17th from noon until 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. until midnight in Bozeman, Montana. This activity precedes the CEOSE meeting.
Ms. Young (who was among those who paved the way for the chartering of Little Big Horn College in 1980) advised as follows in reference to the CEOSE meeting to be held in Montana. Informal interactions of CEOSE members are scheduled for April 18th at the Sheraton Hotel in Billings, Montana. At 2:30 p.m. the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Reports will discuss the reports prepared by the contractor, C&A Technologies, Inc. Members will have dinner beginning at 5 p.m. while informally reviewing their plans for the 19th and 20th. On the 19th of April, the meeting will begin with a welcome address by the President of Little Big Horn College in Crow Agency, Montana. There will be presentations on the history of the Crow Tribe, Little Big Horn College, and the impact of NSF funding on the college. A student panel will be held, and there will be opportunities for interactions. Also, priorities, challenges, and needs will be discussed. Students will cater the lunch for CEOSE members. At Chief Dull Knife College, where the committee will meet on April 20th, there will be similar types of presentations and other activities, and discussions will be focused such that CEOSE members will obtain the information needed.
CEOSE members will attempt to obtain information about the colleges and the relationship between the science and technology needs of the reservation and the interest of the American Indians. The overall effort will be to develop recommendations that can be presented to NSF to benefit American Indians. Several CEOSE members raised questions about the culture(s), sensitivities of American Indians, and capabilities of the Tribal Colleges. ACTION: CEOSE members are to make their plans and attend the first off-site CEOSE meeting after the Executive Liaison provides logistics details. This meeting is to be held in Montana at two Tribal Colleges.
ACTION: The Executive Liaison is to distribute potential dates for the October meeting of CEOSE. Members are to submit their selections, and a date is to be set based on the highest number of votes for a set of two meeting days.
ACTION: Following NSF advisory committee meetings, CEOSE liaisons are to send copies of their reports to the Executive Liaison.Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Recommendations: Dr. Echegoyen stated the charge of the ad hoc subcommittee for which he serves as Chair. The subcommittee is to concentrate on how to improve minority representation at Top Tier Institutions. Also, he distributed an information sheet titled "Ideas/Recommendations: Increasing Representation at Top Tier Institutions". Dr. Myers expressed his concern about combining disabilities with race and ethnicity issues and about the low budget for underrepresented minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Dr. Echegoyen stated that the connection between funds and accountability is critical. Dr. Nair suggested that the focus be on the NSF Top 100 Institutions. ACTION: The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Recommendations is to define "Top Tier Institutions". ACTION: The subcommittee will establish the wording for a recommendation that focuses on all institutions that receive NSF funds and the proposed requirement for them to address broader participation (a part of Criterion 2) in their NSF funded programs, projects, and activities. Comments from CEOSE members are to be sent to Dr. Echegoyen.
ACTION: Drs. Wu and Pearson will conduct research on the diversity policies of NSF-funded Centers. Success stories will be sought.
ACTION: When they are made available, copies of the BEST report (i.e., The Talent Imperative: Meeting America's Challenge in Science and Engineering) are to be sent to CEOSE members.
A Diversity Report: Dr. Hartline presented data for 1999 on Diversity of the U.S. Population and the Science and Engineering Workforce".
New CEOSE Members:Members of CEOSE selected the following persons for membership:
ACTION: Drs. Pearson and Windham are to review the data on persons with disabilities, including the needs of the NSF Program for Persons with Disabilities, and report to CEOSE on their finding(s) and recommendation(s).
ACTION: Invite NSF staff member(s) responsible for preparing the GPRA and the Performance Highlights reports to give presentations to CEOSE on strategies (i.e., the methodology for scoring) used in preparing those documents.
ACTION: Prepare the CEOSE meeting agenda for April 2004, and submit it for publication in the Federal Register in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended).
In her closing remarks, Dr. Nair spoke of the need to do more for community colleges. She also mentioned the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation and the Bridges to the Doctorate Initiative, which funds "the road to graduate school". She reminded everyone of the March 29-30 Joint HRD Program Directors' meeting and the April CEOSE meeting in Montana.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:38 p.m.
Dr. Indira Nair, who is Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, approved the meeting minutes on April 19, 2004. The membership of CEOSE concurred with her approval.
Link to minutes in WORD