Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Honorary Degrees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Faculty committee forwards two honorary‑doctorate nominations to regents; nominees kept confidential
Summary
The faculty honorary‑degree committee recommended two nominees — one a prominent female aerospace professional and one a long‑time Boeing engineer and WSU alumnus — for board consideration; the nominees' identities were not disclosed to the public at the committee stage.
The Board of Regents received faculty committee recommendations to confer two honorary doctoral degrees, the committee chair told the regents at the academic and student affairs meeting.
Dr. Erica Austin, professor and director of the Murrow Center for Media, Health Promotion and Research and chair of the honorary‑degree committee, presented the nominations on behalf of the 12‑member faculty committee. "Washington State University in all of the time of its existence has only conferred a total of 23 honorary doctorates," Austin said, underscoring the award's rarity.
Committee nominees and criteria: The committee described two nominees without publicly naming them. Candidate A is described as an aerospace engineering professor, a member of the National Academy of Engineering, who grew up in Eastern Washington, became the first woman astronaut from Washington State, flew five space‑shuttle missions, served as president and CEO of the Museum of Flight and delivered a 2008 Tri‑Cities commencement address. Candidate B is a 1974 WSU mechanical‑engineering alumnus who built a 35‑plus‑year career at Boeing as a test engineer and technical fellow, has served on nonprofit and education boards (including the Washington State Science Fair) and organized teacher training and mentoring programs for students.
Committee process and next steps: Austin outlined the committee's process: nominations come from the WSU community, the committee may forward up to three nominees per year, nominations are reviewed by faculty senate and the president and then submitted to the board for confirmation and ceremonial conferral at commencement or convocation. The regents were told the committee's recommendation will be brought as an action item at the next board meeting for a formal vote.
Why it matters: The committee emphasized exceptional public service, mentoring and contributions to students and the state as the reasons for the recommendations. Board members praised the faculty work to review nominations and asked about whether the university may broaden the criteria for future awards.
Ending: The regents received the report as informational; the board will consider the committee's recommendations at a future open session.
