academic senate meeting€¦ · web viewacademic senate . summary . monday, september 25, 2006....

Academic Senate Summary

Monday, September 25, 2006

3:15 – 5:00 p.m.SCOB 210

Present: Acereda, Allen, Allison, Alpers, Arredondo, Blasingame, Broman, Bruhn, Burg, Bush, Colbourn, Comfort, deLusé Burstein, Capaldi, Duerden, Fabricus, García-Fernández, Gelb, Gonzalez-Santin, Gustavsson, Harlan, Haynes, Hutt, Ismeurt, Johnson, Keim, Kihl, Kingston, Komnenich, Kopta, LaFaro, Maris, Mathur, Mattson, McPhee, Mitchell, Moorhead, Mossman, Rez, Roen, Rose, Schaeffer, Schultz, Simon, Smas, Stewart, Sushka, Swadener, Valenti, Vandermeer, Vernon, Verdini, White

Substitutes: Dan Stanton for Deborah Koshinsky

Guests: Charles Elliot, Dick Jacob, Ruth Jones, Myles Lynk, Liz Simonhoff, Scott Smith, Samantha Winter, Marjorie Zatz

1. CALL TO ORDER.Senate President Duane Roen called the meeting to order at 3:16 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES The Senate Summary of August 28, 2006 was approved without objection. If you have corrections on this summary (9/25/06) please notify [email protected] and copy [email protected]. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS

A. Senate President's Report (Duane Roen)Task Force to Revise ACD and ACDW Manuals into one manualSenate President Roen asked Marjorie Zatz to give the update on this item.

Vice Provost Zatz: The Senate wanted to know the composition of the committee: Joni Adamson, Polytechnic campus; Craig Allen, Downtown campus; Fran Bernat, West campus; Stephanie deLusé, Downtown campus; Gary Grossman, Polytechnic campus; Lisa Kammerlocher, West campus; Mary Rothschild, Tempe campus; Rob Spindler, Tempe campus; and Mary Stevens, Barbara Mawhiney, and Marjorie Zatz. The senate presidents at the campuses provided names. The task force met for the first time, and our process is that when we finish working with a section we will send it out to the campus personnel committees to give input and then we will bring the final first draft document back to the Senates. The timeline for this project is that we want it approved this year by the Senate, and we intend to bring it in draft form in February The New American University - Spring Event

Senate President Roen: Last week Darby sent an email message to all members of the Assembly about honoring colleagues between now and February 13; if there are people you would like to have recognized, please send their names to Courtney Tinnan ([email protected]) in the Office of University Initiatives. The form of the recognition is that there will be stories on the university web site about these colleagues.

Request from the Executive Director of Memorial Union Brent Perozzi, Director of the Memorial Union, has asked for a Senate member to participate in the Memorial Union Advisory Board, or if you know of a colleague who would be well suited to that position, please contact Aimee Gipper ([email protected]) to volunteer.

Academic Senate Summary - September 25, 2006 -

mailto:[email protected]




University Academic CouncilThe Senate Executive Committee has written to John Brock, the new chair of the University Academic Council, to recommend that the UAC begin considering the possibility of having a university-wide governing body--whether that be a university-wide senate, university-wide assembly, or both. That proposal would include input from all of the senates on the ASU campuses. We might talk about that later on the agenda if there is time. If not, we will put it formally on the agenda for October 23.

President and Provost ReportThe Senate Executive Committee has also requested that when the University President and University Provost are here at our Senate meetings that both a report and a forum are listed. Both have agreed.

B. University President's Report and Forum (Michael Crow) No report

C. University Provost’s Report and Forum (Betty Capaldi)I would like to work with the Senate, and rather than talk at you I would prefer that we discuss things

together. I asked Duane how we can get this done at Senate meetings, and this is why we will have a question- and-answer period listed as a forum following my report beginning today. Sometimes I may need to depart right after that, and you have my apologies ahead of time. Sometimes, though, I will be able to stay through the entire Senate meeting. I am going to visit each campus on a regular schedule, as University Provost, and meet with the deans and provosts from that campus on my visits. I am trying to make things more collegial across the entire university. Today, I will talk to you about one item, and then I would like you to tell me what is on your mind. Now is the time to tell me as Provost the critical issues that you think I should be working on.

I wanted to inform you that at the Board of Regents meeting this week we will be putting our budget request forward. In that request we have asked for just under $17 million in enrollment growth at this university, for all campuses, and about $5.6 million in increased utility costs. We have asked for $15 million in what we call “Student Success.” We’re doing this because we are relatively under-funded, meaning that our student-to-faculty ratio is rather large. We are also working hard on getting a very large number of students to succeed. We have asked for money to help us with that. There are other requests but these are main ones. The tuition discussion will begin earlier this year, and we are talking about what kind of tuition increase to request at both graduate and undergraduate levels for in-state and out-of-state, but there are no decisions yet. We are looking at what is going on in the country, talking to students, and I want you to give me any input you may have as faculty in this process. We need to have a recommendation by the next Board meeting.

Tracking is another thing that we are working on. The student advisement system is going very well. I appreciate everyone who is helping with that. In the long run, we want to have the majors that we have on all the campuses made clear to the students so they can be advised appropriately into a major—one in which they will succeed. We look for undergraduate growth at West, Polytechnic, and Downtown Phoenix campuses, and graduate growth is planned for Tempe. Now, I would like to hear from you.

Q- The tracking system came up at Curriculum and Instruction on Friday, and I would like to hear a little more about your recommendation that freshmen declare a major at orientation? If you look at professional schools, there is a two-step admission, and we are curious about how this will work.

First, as you know, the U.S. Department of Education, not the university specifies what the requirements are for our professional schools. We are trying to have students graduate and to be in a major where they can succeed. The data show that students are more likely to graduate if they are in a major earlier. The freshman year can be difficult, but if you feel that you belong and you feel you are making progress, you are more likely to succeed. Therefore, principle number one is the sooner you can get students into a major, the better. Second, we know that many students do not know what they want to major in. We have to make room for students to choose and be able to change easily and choose undecided-type majors as an option. We will probably have undecided majors in three to five categories--for examples, art and humanities undecided, science and engineering, and social sciences undecided. Gail Hackett from University College has a good assessment tool for students who are truly undecided. I took it myself this weekend, and it said that I should be in finance, and part of my job really is financial.


On your question of professional schools that have two admissions--we have for instance 2,500 pre-business majors, and we know that only one-third will actually be admitted. To me, it is not fair to the students--to keep them around for two years knowing that you were going to tell two-thirds of them, sorry, you are not in this major. I asked if we could determine earlier which students are going to succeed. We prefer not to use grade-point average; I prefer a critical course that students can take in their freshmen year that determines whether or not they are well suited to be admitted to a certain degree. In psychology, statistics is such a diagnostic tool for the psychology majors that we have on this campus. In a professional school where there are two admissions, I would prefer students are in until they are out--not out until they are in. A whole bunch of freshmen may say that they want to be in education, so, I would like the faculty in the College of Education to see what courses they can be offer in the freshmen year to diagnose whether these students are going to succeed in Education. If you cannot do this, there is another option to consider and that is to have another major that allows students to get a degree and graduate from your college; if not their chosen major, then a closely related major. We want our students to complete and get a degree and that is our real aim. If you cannot figure out something for the freshmen year in the way of critical courses, and you really need to wait until students are juniors to determine whether or not to admit them to the professional degree, please make sure we have a way for those students to succeed, and do not throw them out on the university saying, you are on your own, go find something else to do when they are a junior because that is two years of their lives.

Q - Could the Registrar's Office help us in getting at data that will help us choose the right courses to evaluate freshmen?

Yes, they can, and I agree with this. You should not have to find your own data.

Q - What kind of data could be used to choose such courses? You could have a placement test, and we are trying to have students do this even before they register,

perhaps a Kuder Assessment, and then get them in a major from that. This would not prevent them from changing their major at orientation.

Q - I teach a large lecture lab and this semester one-third of our teaching assistants are undergraduate students and they are not supervised. Are you concerned about that problem?

If they are well qualified, I do not have a problem with that. I also do not know how they are being compensated. I am familiar with having undergraduates as assistants in classes, but if they are actually teaching and they are not under supervision, I am concerned about that.

We have said that we guarantee any student a seat in the required courses, and that means that we have to teach those courses. If you do not have the ability to teach those courses for the lack of faculty, or too many students are teaching, I need to know about that.

Q - I disagree with the use of a diagnostic tool in taking a difficult course such as statistics in the freshmen year to decide if a person can succeed in a major. This happens to many freshmen students, if they eliminated because they do not do well in statistics at first, they may later develop the maturity to do better. Meanwhile, they are labeled thereafter as not being a good candidate.

I misspoke if you got that impression. Let me clarify that if in psychology you need to get a B in statistics, and they get a C, what happens next is that the student must see an advisor. Nothing else happens automatically, except that they cannot register until they see an advisor. They can talk to their advisor and say, I had a very stressful time and I think I could do better, and try again. It is up to the advisor and the department to decide how to actually deal with a student who is off track. We hope to have courses available in the summer for students who need to take them again, statistics, physics, and chemistry, as these are courses that students usually do not do as well in as they thought they would. We hope to have a chance for them to do it again, and not get off the regular academic sequence by offering those courses in winter or summer sessions.

Q - Do you plan do visit all departments in Design? I am in Interior Design. The reason I ask that question is because we were completely re-organized--we went from five-year programs to four-year programs and placed most all hard courses into the freshmen year, so we increased our allocation from 30 to nearly 90 and there are only 22 slots.


Yes, I do plan to visit departments. I had a very interesting conversation with someone in that college who said, if we have freshmen assigned to a major by the end of the first year, credit hours will be lost from the second year. What we are trying to do is get students to graduate, so we should not worry about credit-hour generation at the undergraduate level, particularly because our main issue is retention there. We are not funded on the basis of credit hours.

We do want to increase our number of graduate students, both Masters and Ph.D.s. at this campus as well.

Q- Do you think the university would ever support a psychological test as part of the admissions process?I myself would not, and I am an experimental psychologist.

D. Senate President-Elect’s Report (Bill Verdini) Mr. President, I received such a resounding congratulation on my report last time, I will repeat it. No

report. But look out next year, I am saving up.

E. USG President’s Report (Ross Meyer) (Samantha Winter) (Elizabeth Simonhoff)Samantha Winter and Elizabeth Simonhoff gave a presentation on the student's perspective on retention. Key points they want to emphasize: pre-orientation homework, orientation, retention services, and

academic culture. 1) We want to revamp the pre-orientation evaluation and make it more career as well as major based; meaning that when a student takes this evaluation we want it to be concise but also to indicate what their emphasis should be. If you know what your interests are, and if you know what major and direction that you are going into, you will enjoy your courses. That is what we want students to do, to enjoy their courses and be excited about going to class.

2) We want to have students more connected to the university. As soon as they get their letter of acceptance, we want them to be proud and excited to go to ASU, to expand their mind academically and socially and to prepare them for what they will do after they graduate.

In addition to orientation, we want to have an event where students can come and get connected to the University so they do not have to wait until the fall to meet their professors and the other students.

Beyond this we want to change some things during orientation. Students need to understand what a course schedule is, what a handbook is, and if they could come out of orientation with a strong course schedule they were able to do themselves online, that would be better. That does not mean it will be an 8-semester plan to graduation but it should mean that the first semester they are doing interesting things that will help them be an ASU student. Beyond that, we want them to have a general understanding of the university. They need to know where the residence halls are, and where they are going to eat, and to understand what is important about being a student here. We want them to come out of orientation excited about one or two courses, whether that is about a particular professor they will be taking or a book they will be reading. Orientation is the only time where all students come in on the same playing field. They really do not know many people at orientation, and that is one of the most important aspects of orientation, finding out what type of social environment you are entering into.

3) We want students to make a lasting connection with their advisors, as well as understand the mandatory DARS report. Students widely vary on their experience with advisors. Some are not very happy with their advising. Some express that theirs was excellent. What we want to do is create accountability for both students and our advisors. We want to have advisor evaluation, comparable to professor evaluations, so we see what advisors are doing well, and we want to continue that, and other things we may need to change to work toward a better academic setting at the university. With the DARS report, some students come into their advisors and the DARS report is already printed out but they did not have a chance to see it before they get advised. What we want to do is restrict registration for classes until they see their DARS report and print it out, know what classes they need to take, and then know how to map out their academic career at ASU from it. DARS is a degree audit program that you take online and it shows you what you need to take to graduate so you do not actually need to see an advisor to get this handout. It shows you what you are missing.


4) We want to change ASU's academic culture from a student's perspective. We want to challenge students to be engaged in their education, to hold them accountable for what they are doing, and why they are going to class. We want graduation to be an expectation not an eventuality. We want students to be expected to do quite a few things. We want them to go to class and not just read the text online while missing the education that occurs in the classroom and the interaction that it provides with other students and professors. ASU has an entrance survey and an exit survey that all incoming and graduating students take and we have analyzed some of that data. One thing that stands out is that students do not seem to like to collaborate very much. Forty-one percent of the students said they sometimes or never asked questions in class, 65% said they sometimes or never worked with classmates outside of class, 79% said they had sometimes or never talked about career plans with an advisor, and 54% said that they sometimes or never worked harder than initially thought to meet a professor's standards. We would really like to see students working together to graduate, working together to change what ASU is, and what it means to them. Group projects need a study group even in classes where discussion is not possible during class because interaction enriches the learning process.

So, we are looking forward to finding out what you as faculty think about our project ideas and working together this year because we will not be successful without your collaboration.

Q - You mentioned preparing students for the real world--and we in academia hope that some of you are preparing yourselves for our world here!

Academic is a real world and we include that as a part of our concept. Your point is well taken.

Q - Students have a lot of freedoms at the university--is there something at orientation that addresses this?Orientation is a day program and there is no overnight component. One of the titles we had in our

presentation was "at the moment of acceptance" and that is one of the things we want to emphasize, that from the moment you receive your acceptance letter you are a member of ASU and you are entering this culture. Students need more ready access to find out what they are going to be doing in their first year.

There needs to be a balance between academics and social setting--we do have Passport and Welcome Week, and events where students come as freshmen to get engaged in the ASU Community, and I think we need to have those kinds of things as well as stress academics at orientation. F. GPSA President's Report (Brian McNamara) No report

G. Polytechnic Senate Report (John Brock) Our Senate will meet for the first time on Friday, September 29, 1:30 p.m., and we have several motions

before us and we will be getting our house in order.

H. University Academic Council Report (John Brock) The UAC will meet next Tuesday, October 3, 1:30 at the Fulton Center, and we will meet on the Tempe

campus first and then rotate our meetings among the campuses throughout the year. At that meeting we will choose up sides as far as where we will meet the next time and what my role will be in morphing this group into a university wide governance body that will work more like a camel than a racehorse.

There is only one more thing that I want to say today, and that is that at the academic community at the Polytechnic campus we do train our students in success, deep knowledge, and competency.

I. West Senate Report (Gary Anders)President Roen said that Gary Anders could not attend today, but he sent this email message: Yesterday

the West Senate voted for a rules suspension to allow for the first and second reading of several motions, among others, the University Academic Council guidelines and the Sensitive Course Content were passed. J. Past Senate President’s Report (Susan Mattson) No report.

K. Downtown Senate Report (Susan Mattson)


Just to give you an update, we will be having an election next month when we get the electronic ballot details worked out, for President and President-Elect and a set of bylaws, a constitution, which will be voted upon by the Assembly, which we are considering providing to all faculty in the schools that are based downtown. That is a portion of the University College, the faculty in the College of Nursing and Health Care Innovation and the Cronkite School of Journalism, even though they are not officially physically down there yet and the faculty in Public Programs. The problem is that within the University College, the Master of Disciplinary Studies is housed and it is also spread around, so, we having a challenge in making sure that we reach everyone that needs to be part of our voting process. Hopefully, I will have some results to announce at our next meeting but we just starting from scratch and busy locating our faculty and then we will vote.

L. Report from Faculty Athletic Representative (Myles Lynk)I asked to be put on the agenda to talk a little bit about some of my experiences and some of the lessons I

have learned and observations I have made during my first and second year as Faculty Athletic Director. I began my third year this fall. This is not my annual report to the Academic Senate. That report is usually made in January or February. It is heavily data-based and is prepared as a report on academic performance for the university President and the Athletic Department, on the academic performance of our scholarship student athletes. I also report back to the faculty on this subject as well.

First, it is interesting that we now enroll over 60,000 students at ASU, of whom only approximately 500 are student athletes, yet these 500 are among the most visible of our students to many in the public and beyond this university. Their actions are scrutinized not just on the playing field but in the classroom and off campus to a much greater degree than the actions of other students, including other students who receive scholarships to attend ASU. What is striking is that by and large despite this scrutiny, most of these students deport themselves in a manner that brings pride to the institution. We therefore must be careful not to let the exceptions define the rule. There will always be exceptions, we read about them all the time. By and large these are a fine group of young people, representative of the students that we admit to ASU and we can be proud them.

Second, by becoming an NCAA Division I institution, ASU, or more precisely the Arizona Board of Regents, made a decision that athletics would play a major role in the life this institution. For example, many people around the country know ASU primarily as the home of the Sun Devils sports teams in intercollegiate competition. As a consequence of this decision, ASU recruits student athletes who are very good athletes. For many of them their athletic scholarship is a ticket to a college scholarship and that scholarship is the ticket to a college degree which will help them compete successfully in life.

One of my jobs is to certify the academic eligibility of all of our student athletes at ASU each year. I am just amazed by the number of student athletes that have undergraduate GPAs of -- 3.0, 3.25, 3.50, 3.75, and above. It is a testament to their focus, their determination, and their intelligence that they are able to compete at the highest level of athletic competition while also maintaining outstanding academic grades. These students will be as well prepared for life after college as any that we graduate from this institution. Again, we should never forget the sacrifices that so many of these students make to succeed both in the classroom and on the playing field. At the same time, however, it also should come as no surprise to us that for some student athletes, college is a cost, a burden, or a price that must be paid in order to play their sport at the highest level of collegiate competition. For some, no matter how small the chance is of playing professional sports, it is that chance they are focused on, not their college degree. We have an obligation to help these students as well all our students to succeed as students, to the greatest extent possible and perhaps the best way to do so is to begin not by helping them select majors and courses that fit into their schedules as athletes, but by helping them recognize the value and understand the requirements of a college education.


Finally, I have been very impressed by the interconnectedness of the relationship of so many of our coaches with the student athletes they coach. They get to know these students as people to a far greater extent than faculty get to know these students in class. In part, this reflects the fact about a coach's success or failure is judged by the wins and losses of the team that he or she coaches. The coaches' livelihood, the coaches' security, and professional reputation rest in the hands of these 19, 20, and 21-year old students. That dependence of the professional on the student is unique on a university campus. This creates incentives for the coaches to get to know and understand their athletes well and to be good teachers, leaders, and motivators. While I would not want to replicate that dependence relationship in my own school, we as professors have recently discussed whether we really want to be judged primarily by the number of our students that pass the bar exam and we do not. However, I believe that we on the faculty can learn lessons in motivation, leadership, and teaching techniques from some of our coaches.

These are just a few observations I wanted to make after serving for two years as your Faculty Athletic Representative, and I am privileged to have this opportunity. I look forward to continuing to work with the Academic Senate in this endeavor, and I look forward to presenting a detailed and focused report on the academic performance of our scholarship student athletes when I next come before the group in January or February. Q - What happens if one of your students receives an academic warning? What actually happens after that point?

The notification that the student received will also go to the Office of Student Athlete development in the Intercollegiate Athletics Department. They have academic coaches who are assigned to the different teams and who work with the different students. I will be notified, and I will work with the Office of Student Athlete Development (OSAD) to make sure that they have someone who is actually working with the student to make sure that the student understands both what that warning means, and then what we will do to give the student the tools to address the deficiencies that created the warning in the first place. Normally, in the first instance I would defer to the academic coaches who work with the students more directly. I would get involved in extraordinary circumstance where a student is having major difficulty.

Q - Although most student athletes are given the instruction by their coaches as to what makes them successful in the classroom and on the playing field, there have been those students who come into class with a tremendous sense of entitlement. They may simply get up and walk out, or pay no attention to having to turn in assignments on time, etc. I am just wondering if we are in a situation like that who the proper person is to contact, before that student gets into trouble on paper.

That is an outstanding question. First of all, feel free to call me. I am your faculty representative, and I should be your conduit. Also, many of you may not realize that in each of your colleges or departments there is a dean's designee who represents the dean, who might do work on a regular or continuing basis to address these and a variety of other issues. If this happens in your class to you or your colleagues, please tell them to call me or email me. I would be delighted to follow up. The other person to contact would be the assistant athletic director or the associate athletic director in charge of student athlete development, Gene Boyd, and he may have spoke to you before at the Senate. I would urge you to contact us right away because that is a situation that we would like to address sooner rather than later.

M. Personnel Committee Report (Doug Johnson) (See unfinished business and new business)

4. ADOPTION OF ALL CONSENT ACTION ITEMS, INFORMATION ITEMS, AND REPORTS

A. Curriculum and Academic Programs Committee (Mary Kihl)

Senate Motion #3 (2006-2007) (Second Reading): Proposal from the W.P. Carey School of Business to establish an undergraduate certificate in Honors Business Modeling and Analysis (Attachments, Page 13).

Senate President Roen asked if anyone wanted to remove an item from the consent agenda. There was no request. All in favor please say aye, all opposed say nay, are there any abstentions? The motion passes.


The motion to adopt the consent agenda item--Senate motion #3 to establish an Undergraduate Certificate in Honors Business Modeling and Analysis, was approved by a voice vote of those present. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

A. Executive Committee (Duane Roen).

Last spring there was a resolution brought to this body dealing with classified research, and those of you who were here then may recall that we sent that to a committee; the chair of the Task Force on Classified Research, senator Peter Crozier, is prepared to say a few words about what that group is doing.

Update from Task Force on Classified Research (Peter Crozier).We are in the information-gathering phase, and I want to draw your attention to a web site that was

developed by one of our committee members, Senator Joe Comfort, which is mentioned in the agenda (http://www.public.asu.edu/~comfort/ClassRes/index.html). Senator Joe Comfort's web site is fairly comprehensive and gives all the existing policies at ASU as well as policies from other institutions.

We did have one meeting on September 14, and we discussed some of the issues raised by adopting the proposed motion. We have also been spending time looking at existing policies that ASU has regarding classified research. There is an old policy, RSP 108, approved by the Academic Senate in 1984. In that policy it mentions classified research and proprietary research whereas the new policy separates theses two sections (RSP 404 - Classified Research and RSP 405 Proprietary Research). The previous policy involved the Vice President for Research making a report to a faculty committee. As far as we can see and we still are researching this, that faculty oversight committee was effectively disbanded in 1993, and the reason is we were told that the committee was not being used and there was no classified research being done on campus. The policy did remain on the books. The current policies we have are RSP 404 and RSP 405. The oversight of classified research is being done by a management group that consists of administrators and a member of the Board of Regents with no faculty participation. According to the current policy, the Vice President for Research has to report to the Senate every year on what classified research is currently going on. To find out if there ever has been any done on this campus, we have asked Sponsored Programs to help us out. We are still gathering information and hopefully we will have something more to share next time.

Q - As someone who does a good deal of government research, with all the sources and international security, one of the things that I have noted is that the main issue is one of what is the purpose of a university? Does the university do research and openly publish it? I am not opposed to classified research, the question is should it be done on campus? My own personal belief is that classified research is perfectly appropriate and people involved in it should not be doing it on campus.

That is what we have been discussing in the task force. The only scenario that seems to emerge is that in cases of national emergency, there could be an exception made to the rule. Beyond that, because of the security requirements for doing classified research it is very difficult to lease a building where you can have open access and also have classified research. The web site is a good review of this topic.

[Senate President Roen: Here I would like to request permission to reorder the agenda, to go to New Business item (6.A) Personnel Committee, so that Senator Johnson can leave for class. We will put things in the correct order for the published minutes.]

Senate Resolution #1 (2006-2007) (Second Reading). Sensitive Course Content The version that we looked at last time is on page 4 of your agendas. There are also slips of paper placed

on your tables that contain a more formal resolution to consider substituting for Senate Resolution #1: "WHEREAS faculty members are responsible for determining the content and requirements of their courses, And, WHEREAS they thus can best judge whether some course material might be especially sensitive to some students, BE IT RESOLVED that, if the faculty member feels it is necessary, the syllabus should communicate to students that some course content may be considered sensitive."


http://www.public.asu.edu/~comfort/ClassRes/index.html

That substitute motion requires a second. (Seconded). Is there discussion of the substitute motion?

Q- In my department there were mixed views expressed. Some felt this motion is redundant, and they objected because faculty are already responsible for making up a syllabus, and they felt that the instructor could do so without this motion. The second objection was the use of the word sensitive opens debate on what can be considered offensive in any class, and the third objection was that we may be going down a slippery slope in trying to appease the legislature here.

Senate President Roen: I invited Vice Provost Ruth Jones and Scott Smith, who is a liaison to the Legislature, to come to this meeting and add their input as they have been following this issue at a state and national level for some time now.

Ruth Jones and Scott Smith: Our statement of responsibility does presume that the faculty are already doing creating a comprehensive syllabus, but what this statement does is put it into writing what we are already doing in practice. This language has been in place at the UofA for a while, but I am not saying that we are going to follow the UofA model. What I am saying is that the Board knows there is a problem and they have found this language meets their need. The Offensive Course Content bill last year was defeated in the legislature, and the adoption of this suggested language will help us dramatically with any action the legislature may take again.

Discussion: I will vote against this resolution. It is not the job of faculty to get into the minds of students to find out what they would be sensitive about, nor is it our job to mollify the legislature. It is a matter of principle to create an accurate syllabus on a course you and I will be teaching. It is up to the students whether they are offended or not--not us.

Agreed. Use the word "may" because it would be better than the word "might." The instructor does not decide for the student what is offensive, the student must decide.

Discussion continued on how this problem began originally. It began with an instructor assigning reading of the Ice Storm and the request by a student's parent for an alternate assignment because it was highly offensive to them. The coursework bill last year in the legislature was defeated but it had been passed, it would have then made it possible for students to opt out of any assignment they thought offensive. The concern is that any assignment could be perceived as offensive, by somebody. Another example of what we are talking about was the assignment of viewing of the movie, "Saving Private Ryan." This issue is almost guaranteed to come up again, and if we have a policy in place, we can work through this hopefully on a case-by-case basis. However, in some disciplines, there are no alternative assignments for R-rated materials and again the student must decide. A detailed syllabus is the best route to take. The instructor will still decide if they want to put this statement in their syllabus and the instructor will say what he or she wants to say.

We do hope that students enrolling in these and other courses, can still do so, even though some areas of study push out into the streets, to study homelessness, poverty, hunger, unemployment, prisons, prostitution, drugs, teen pregnancy and other "sensitive" topics - social work is a professional school that is full of these topics. So, what do we say on our syllabus? Shall we say, Warning, Danger, Thinking Required? That would be a more accurate reflection.

But this motion is simply saying that if the faculty member feels it necessary, they can do put this statement in their syllabus. I think we should just go ahead and vote on the substitute language.

But if this is approved, and I do not choose to do that, will I receive support anyway? There are procedures to handle complaints in every college.

Who will define what "sensitivity" means? Usually things that seem subtle then become large later in life. Slavery was a sensitive issue in this country, so was whether women should get to vote. To me this is a dangerous slippery road.

In all good conscience whether we say to our colleagues, no one is forcing you to do this; it is interesting how group pressure really works. It may be subtle at first, but then it could become a demand for compliance, rather than a choice. I understand having a good relationship with the legislature but we also have to stand away from them and look for the greater good on this.

If you recall the actual wording of the bill that was introduced last year, it said that if any student found


anything to be offensive to them, regardless of whether it was sex, the color of the faculty member's hair, or anything else, they could then have a right to an alternative assignment. What we trying to avoid is the production of a similar bill, because if that happens and it gets passed, then we do not have much choice. This is a relatively mild policy to have in place. And we do not want our legislature to define what students might find offensive.

The point is that faculty are responsible for the content of their courses, and to have a detailed syllabus of that course is merely truth in advertising. Faculty can teach whatever they want you just need to tell the students up front what is in your course and we have been told that this will satisfy those concerned legislators and regents. They are asking all the three universities to have a policy in place. It is still your own judgment as to what goes into your syllabus. This matter has been brought to our attention, and this is our response.

Senate President Roen: Are we ready to vote on whether to substitute this language for the original language? There was no objection. All in favor say aye? (There was a request for a show of hands.)

The vote was taken by a show of hands of those present, and the substitute amendment for Senate Resolution #1 failed.

At this time, consideration returned to the main motion. Senate President Roen called the question, a vote was taken, and a majority voted in favor of Senate Resolution #1, with no abstentions.

Senate Resolution #1 (2006-2007) "Proposed Resolution from Executive Committee on Sensitive Course Content" was approved by a show of hands of those present:"The Tempe campus Academic Senate endorses the following practice: If the instructor believes it is necessary, a syllabus should communicate to students that some course content may be considered sensitive."

Senate Resolution #2 (2006-2007) (Second Reading). CAPC Items Senate President Roen read the resolution into the record: "For the sake of efficiency, the Tempe

campus Academic Senate will consider a CAPC agenda item, rather than a CAPC recommendation, as a first reading of a curriculum proposal. Subsequently, the second reading will consist of CAPC's recommendation on that curriculum proposal."

There was a correction to page two on this item, which said that the two readings of CAPC proposals would be combined. That is incorrect and changes the meaning of the resolution.

Senate President Roen asked that this correction be reflected in the minutes that there will still be two readings of CAPC items by the Senate.

Senator Kihl clarified that the resolution was to bring the agenda items of the CAPC committee to the Senate before the CAPC committee actually meets. That way the Senate would be informed as to CAPC proposals that are forthcoming. The Senate may want to give the committee input, or they may have questions or concerns that need to be addressed, as CAPC reviews each proposal. We now have the CAPC agenda on a temporary web site that will list all of the critical issues coming before the committee. We are seeking more involvement from the Senate with this resolution and also to make these proposals known to CAPC at the same time the Senate hears about them. Then when CAPC acts on a proposal we will bring it back to the Senate for a second reading.

Discussion: This is a better way to handle our discussion in the Senate. It also helps to shorten the time between initial proposal and final approval by the Senate. There will still be two opportunities for this body to consider CAPC items.


Q - Maybe I am missing something here, as to why we are approving this process if nothing has changed?

Before, CAPC reviewed a proposal, and then approved it, and it was introduced to the Senate for a first reading. A whole month had to go by before it received a second reading and vote. We can now actually have input to CAPC's discussion before the act upon a proposal this way. Rather than just telling them when they have approved a proposal and it comes to us for a second reading that "We don't like what you did."

Are there other questions? Hearing none, we will move to a vote. All those in favor please say signify by saying aye. All opposed say nay. There were no abstentions. The resolution passes."For the sake of efficiency, the Tempe campus Academic Senate will consider a CAPC agenda item, rather than a CAPC recommendation, as a first reading of a curriculum proposal. Subsequently, the second reading will consist of CAPC's recommendation on that curriculum proposal."

Senate Resolution #2 (2006-2007) was passed by a voice vote of those present: B. Personnel Committee (Doug Johnson).Senate Motion #4 (2006-2007) (First Reading)

The Personnel Committee brings to you for first reading, a proposal for University Promotion and Continuing Appointment Review Committee (Draft - 07/19/06). It is a four-page document that was attached to the agenda (Attachments, Page 14 - 17). This process essentially does for Academic Professionals what the University P&T Review, which we went through last year, does for Faculty. It is a parallel process. We ask you to look this over and come back and consider it again next month.

6. New Business - (Committee Reports and New Motions)

A. Executive Committee (Duane Roen). Nothing further.

B. Committee on Committees (Marcia Anderson and Judy Grace).The committee is meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 3:00-4:00 p.m., ADM B365. We are working on

the design and delivery of the Preference Survey. We hope to get the word out sooner and to get an increased number of responses this year.

C. Curriculum and Academic Programs Committee (Mary Kihl).These are information items that you will not be voting on. Senator Kihl read the items for the record.

Information Items (no further Senate action required). On August 30, 2006, the Curriculum and Academic Programs Committee, recommended approval of the following items:

Mary Lou Fulton College of EducationDivision of Psychology in EducationEstablishment of a Concentration in Arts, Media, and Engineering

Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass CommunicationDisestablishment of Concentrations within the B.A. Journalism & Mass CommunicationJournalismMedia Analysis and CriticismMedia Management


Media ProductionStrategic Media and Public Relations

D. Personnel Committee (Doug Johnson).Next Personnel Committee meeting is Wednesday, October 4, 1:40-2:40 p.m., ADM B365.

E. Student-Faculty Policy Committee (Rojann Alpers). No report.

F. University Affairs Committee (David Burstein). No report.Senate President Roen mentioned that the ballot that went out to the Academic Assembly for admitting

the Emeritus College members to the Academic Assembly passed by a ration of approximately four to one. We have with us today, Dick Jacob who would like to say something about that.

Dr. Jacobs said that in view of the hour, on behalf of the 280 colleagues in the Emeritus College, Thank you! (Applause followed). Senate President Roen said that in the spring the University Affairs Committee will be looking at the Bylaws for revision so they will have a very busy semester. We have run out of time so we will dispense with the open forum today. The meeting is now adjourned.

7. OPEN FORUM

8. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Submitted by: Final Editing by:Darby Shaw, Executive Assistant Anne Kopta, Secretary of the Senate


ATTACHMENTS

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY Second Reading -- APPROVED 9/25/06ACADEMIC SENATEFall 2006 SESSION

Senate Motion # 3 (2006–07)

Motion Introduced by: Curriculum and Academic Programs CommitteeSummer Electronic Meeting, July, 2006

Date of Introduction August 28, 2006for First Reading:

Date of Second Reading: September 25, 2006

Title of Motion: Request from the W.P. Carey School of Business for the Establishment of an Undergraduate Certificate in Honors Business

Modeling and Analysis

1 The Curriculum and Academic Programs Committee recommends Academic Senate approval

2 of a proposal submitted by the W.P. Carey School of Business for the establishment of

3 an Undergraduate Certificate in Honors Business Modeling and Analysis

Rationale:

The Certificate in Honors Business Modeling and Analysis is designed to enhance skills acquired in the student’s major, and add to the student’s understanding of the complexity of business strategy in the global community. The certificate will provide students with general skills in problem solving and data analysis that employers often complain are lacking in undergraduate education.


Introduced 09/25/05

Senate Motion #4 (2006-2007) (Second Reading) Introduced by the Personnel Committee on 8/28/06

Proposal for the University Promotion and Continuing Appointment Review Committee

Draft - 07/19/06

Ad hoc committee: Deg Farrelly, Judy Grace; Lise Hawkos, Kurt Murphy, Barbara Trapido-Lurie, Victoria Trotta and Ellen Welty, Marjorie Zatz

I. Charge of the ad hoc committee

ASU’s Academic Policies and Procedures Manual mandates creation of a University Promotion and Continuing Appointment Review Committee (UPCARC). ACD 507-07, p. 34, describes the committee as follows:

The University Promotion and Continuing Appointment Review Committee will conduct a review and will consider the reviews from prior levels. Individuals appointed to this committee will serve as voting members on all cases from all the university campuses for the duration of their appointment. The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University, upon recommendation by deans/university administrators, will appoint members for staggered three-year terms of appointment. The committee shall consist of an odd number of members, including at least one member from each of the university campuses.

University Vice Provost Marjorie Zatz charged the Ad hoc Committee to define the role and charge of UPCARC and develop a plan for its implementation, dealing with composition of the committee, selection of committee members, and evolution of the committee over time.

The committee’s proposal follows.

II. Charge of the University Promotion and Continuing Appointment Committee

UPCARC will review and evaluate files of all promotion and continuing appointment cases, as described in the following section, to make summative recommendations in each case to the university provost and university president, guided by the unit promotion and continuing appointment criteria and college bylaws. The committee’s written recommendations will include a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the case, outcome of a vote and, when necessary, a minority opinion.


III. Cases to be reviewed by UPCARC

1. UPCARC will review continuing appointment cases for all probationary academic professionals.

2. UPCARC will review promotion cases for academic professionals with continuing, probationary, multiple-year and year-to-year appointments.

IV. Principles of committee composition

1. The committee will include at least one member from each campus employing academic professionals on continuing or multiple-year appointments. For the 2006-2007 year, these campuses are

Tempe Polytechnic West Downtown

2. Members of the committee will be at associate rank or higher.

3. Members of the committee will have continuing appointment or multiple-year contracts.

4. The committee will have a diverse membership reflective of the gender and racial/ethnic diversity of Academic Professionals and of the four types of Academic Professional positions:

Information and Materials Management - Library Information and Materials Management – Non-Library Pedagogy Research

5. There will be no more than two members from any department or administrative unit of the University.

6. The committee will have 9 members, serving 3-year staggered terms, so that each year 3 members will leave the committee and 3 will be added.

7. In the first year, three UPCARC members will be appointed for 1-year terms, three for 2-year terms, and three for 3-year terms. This will establish staggered appointments for future years.

V. Selection of committee members:

Selection will be assisted by an UPCARC Nomination Committee. For 2006-2007, this group will consist of the members of CAPS (Committee on Academic Professional Status, representing the Tempe, Polytechnic and Downtown campuses), and a representative from ASU West, elected by academic professionals at that campus. When CAPS is restructured to represent all campuses, CAPS will serve as the UPCARC Nomination Committee. To accommodate small numbers of academic professionals at some of the campuses, individuals serving on the Nomination Committee may be considered for UPCARC membership.


1. The UPCARC Nomination Committee will call for eligible individuals to indicate their willingness to serve on the committee, and the Office of the University Provost will consult with Deans, to develop a list of potential committee members.

2. The University Vice Provost for Academic Personnel and the UPCARC Nomination Committee will create a list of candidates for the committee, following the principles of committee composition listed in IV above. For the first year this pool of candidates will be 22-25 names, with a minimum of two names from each campus. In subsequent years the pool should exceed twice the number needed for replacing staggered appointments, and include sufficient names to maintain the principles of committee composition.

3. Either the UPCARC Nomination Committee or the University Vice Provost may delete those candidates who are clearly unacceptable.

4. The UPCARC Nomination Committee will meet with the University Provost and University Vice Provost to determine a final list of 9 committee members. .

5. The University Provost will issue letters to those selected to serve on the committee and will publish a list of committee members.

VI. Review procedures and decision-making practices

1. All members of the committee will familiarize themselves thoroughly with each candidate’s file and with the appropriate unit criteria for promotion and continuing appointment.

2. For each candidate the committee will identify lead and secondary presenters. The lead presenter is responsible for conducting discussion of the case. The secondary presenter is responsible for supplementing the work of the lead presenter, as needed.

3. The committee will operate under a two-thirds quorum rule.

4. In accordance with ACD 507, no individual shall participate in more than one level of review. Thus an UPCARC committee member who has participated in a lower level of a candidate’s review will recuse him/herself from discussion, deliberation, and votes for that candidate in the university committee.

5. Except as noted above, all committee members will participate in all deliberations, but only committee members with continuing status will vote on continuing status decisions. All members will vote on promotion decisions.

6. All matters pertaining to candidates, files, committee discussion, or any other matter pertaining to the work and process of this committee are to be treated with the strictest confidentiality.

7. During the review process, one set of candidate files will be maintained on a secure web site, or with strictest confidentiality at each campus, to be returned to the “home” personnel office at conclusion of review.

VII. Suggested timeline for selection of UPCARC members

1. For the first year of review (2007):


a. By November 1, 2006: The UPCARC Nomination Committee puts out a call for eligible individuals to indicate their willingness to serve on the committee and the University Vice Provost consults with Deans.

b. By November 22, 2006: The Nomination Committee and University Vice Provost finalize the pool of candidates.

c. By December 15, 2006: The Nomination Committee and University Vice Provost select names to recommend for the committee, and forward this list to the University Provost for approval. Following approval, letters are sent to selected individuals inviting them to serve on the committee of 9. Once the list of members is finalized, it is published on the University Provost's web page.

2. For subsequent years:

a. By February 1: The UPCARC Nomination Committee puts out a call for eligible individuals to indicate their willingness to serve on the committee and the University Vice Provost for Personnel consults with Deans.

b. By March 15: The Nomination Committee and University Vice Provost finalize the pool of candidates.

c. By April 15: The Nomination Committee and the University Vice Provost select names to recommend as replacements on the committee and forward this list to the University Provost for approval. Following approval, letters are sent to selected individuals inviting them to serve on the committee. Once the list of members is finalized, it is published on the University Provost's web page.

VIII. Re-evaluation of the plan

All the above policies, and any other relevant policies and procedures, will be re-evaluated in one year, and every 3 years thereafter.


academic senate meeting€¦ · web viewacademic senate . summary . monday, september 25, 2006....

Documents