Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
of May 15, 2001
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn
at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
de Vries, Brian
La Belle, Thomas
Warren, Mary Anne
Senate Members Absent:
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: Jenee Gill, Sarah Pizer-Bush,
Kara Hearn, Pranap Chatterife,
Lin Ming Yu, Chang Wan-Chao, Keith Monoire, Melissa Vashe,
Trevelyn K. Cox,
William Scout, Thomas Ramont, Leslie H., Chris Novak, Lisa
Swenson, Gregory Gavin, Ashley Grisso, Tina Landis, Kyle Knobel, Jillian O’
Connor, Tomas Almaguer, Dan Fendel, Paul Fonteyn, Jim Davis, Jerry Combs.
Announcements and Report
- CHAIR'S REPORT There was no Chair's Report, as
the Chair wanted to launch into the business at hand as quickly as possible.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for May 15, 2001
The agenda was approved as written.
Agenda Item #2 - Proposal on Intellectual Property Policy
and Procedures for the Development of Online Instructional Materials.
Hu re-introduced by summarizing
the changes, which are reflected in the revised proposed policy handed to
M/S/P (Edwards, Duke) to
second reading. Robert Cherny suggested that this policy should
be a model for others and that we should put it on our website should it be
Val Sakovich, chair
of ETAC, urged passing this policy:
campuses need an intellectual
property proposal like this, and this is a good one.
Miriam Smith asked
if the phrase "extraordinary resources" is defined somewhere else. Hu
answered that the policy says "beyond normal and customary." Smith
followed up wondering whether there is anywhere where
that is stated more explicitly;
is it the same for all departments, for example.
Hu responded that the
phrase is meant to be easy to understand and that "extraordinary" support
has to be for a specific project.
M/S/P (Sayeed, Shrivastava)
to close debate.
The vote was taken and the policy
Agenda Item #3 - Proposed
Discontinuance of Master of Arts in Creative Arts: Concentration in Interdisciplinary
Arts and Concentration in Creativity and Arts Education Vaughn introduced
the continued discussion of this matter by noting the speaker's list from
last meeting and that this proposal is still in first reading. Marian
Bernstein stated how important it is that we do not look
upon our university as a business;
we are in the "business" of educating, and this particular program is important
to enough people that we should retain it.
James Edwards noted that
he is from the College of Creative Arts and that has read everything submitted
on this matter. He recalled graduate council concerns about this program,
especially that tenured/tenure-track (t/tt) faculty must chair the culminating
experience. He added that Jim Davis is the only t/tt faculty for this program,
that Davis supports the discontinuance,
and that the graduate council
voted 8-0 in favor of discontinuance.
Downsizing in terms of faculty
support has been the one consistent thing in the IAC. Davis has been the constant,
and, given his hard work for the program, Edwards asked Davis directly to
address what has changed his mind. Jim Davis made a long statement
about his involvement with the IAC program and his view that discontinuance
is the only appropriate move at this point. He noted his 12 years as the only
t/tt faculty in IAC and his experience in stable programs. He recalled that
the program essentially ended in 1985 with the
squeezing out of five t/tt faculty.
He suggested a comparison with the humanities department--also broad-based,
interdisciplinary—and college-wide where they have 11 t/tt faculty. This program
does not have the basic core faculty to work. He insisted that he was not
coerced into this view. He then addressed some further problems: on-going
lecturers without terminal degrees and low number of applicants with a very
high percentage admitted. The miracle is that discontinuance did not happen
ten years ago.
Thomas La Belle made
the following remarks on behalf of President Corrigan and himself with
both endorsing discontinuance, their endorsement shaped by the following
five points: 1) students shall be guaranteed courses to complete
current program and new students
can pursue a special major; 2) faculty are not available to oversee
the master's level programs; 3) limited resources that could be better
used in other parts of the college; 4) lecturers are being aided in
seeking other teaching opportunities; 5) the college will continue
to maintain much of the IAC curriculum, and interdisciplinary will still be
alive in the
college. Saul Steier
remarked that he's tired of being told we can't do
everything because that avoids
discussing the choices of what we will or won't do. This is an incredibly
good program based on an important idea; it should be staffed to be viable,
and that's the kind of thing a university stands for.
James Kelley commented
on the history of interdisciplinary science within the college of science
and engineering as an example. It lost its way, was discontinued along the
lines here with some of the course offerings retained. His overall impression
is that there has been no loss in interdisciplinary activity.
Rick Houlberg spoke from
the perspective of someone from the college of creative arts who was on the
hiring committee that hired Davis, on the HRT of the IAC during the middle
1980s, and even almost attended the program long ago. The IAC resources were
used as a hammer by a dean who will not be named. On interdisciplinary courses,
he suggested that other departments have not taken as many interdisciplinary
courses because the IAC was there, but faculty is ready. It is not necessarily
the greatest program right now through no fault of the students or faculty,
and it has not been viable for a long time. Marlon Hom asked the question
he did last time, restating that we
are making a decision on a curriculum
issue, the MA program, and not a management decision, the state of the IAC.
Davis replied that the IAC began as an independent academic program
that was free standing, then it was attached to cinema, then it became a center
with the purpose of offering a degree program. Chris Novak spoke as a lecturer
in IAC and a graduate from the program. He contested the idea that the amount
of applicants means that this is not a quality program. He also noted that
in just a period of over two weeks there have been near 60 responses attesting
to how valuable this program has been to them. He suggested senators are here
to decide on that kind of viability, not just a particular financial issue.
He urged senators to not just rubber-stamp this for the dean, to make a decision
on what they
think is important to this university
academically. Eunice Aaron sought clarification about the 30 November
2000 letter from Jim Davis to IAC students and faculty. This refers to the
dean having already notified Davis that the programs will have to be phased
out. We also know that the secretary was instructed not to allow any students
to apply, yet EPC did not address this
matter until February 2001.
Davis said this was not a pre-emptive act but part of planning necessary
in moving toward discontinuance.
M/S/P (Cherny, Gregory) to
postpone a decision on this proposal
to the second academic senate
meeting of the next academic year.
Cherny explained that
the memo introduced by Aaron is very troubling; it does state that
the decision was made in November 2000 to phase out the program, and instructions
were given at that time not to admit more students. Our policy states that
the senate must approve the discontinuance, and then a program is phased out.
So this appears to be a violation of senate policy. This needs to be looked
at, and we do not have time to do this today. The vote was taken and the
motion to postpone the decision on the proposed discontinuance passed.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Statement of Concern
Regarding the Leadership of Chancellor Charles B. Reed
M/S/P (Vaughn, Duke) the
resolution on salmon to adopt the proposed Statement of Concern.
Vaughn commented that
the actions of the chancellor require us to make a statement. She noted that,
having sent the draft out electronically, she has heard from over 70 with
not a single dissenting voice. Gregory referred to a document from the statewide
senate on "seeking responsible communication." This was developed in response
to a letter and other statements from the chancellor where he had, in many
words, declared himself in opposition to
the faculty. Cherny
called our attention to further information that showed
numerous grave mis-statements
by the chancellor. He concluded from this the reinforcement of a previous
conclusion: the chancellor is a loose cannon, he does not represent us well,
and he shows no confidence in faculty. We should support this motion. Patricia
Bartscher spoke as a senator and not university counsel; she is troubled
by the loose use of language in calling what she
considers to be a vote of no
confidence a "statement of concern"; she is troubled that the outgoing senate
is using its last minutes on an act with considerable consequences. New senators
will have to face the music and deal with issues like the CBA and budget cuts.
She suggested that we would not gain anything from this except anger from
the chancellor's office that will impact upon those who do business with that
Don Scoble echoed the
sentiments of Bartscher and recalled the history of SFSU faculty demanding
Glenn Dunke's resignation in 1961; Dunke did not resign, he stayed on for
20 years, and we were punished for that. He added that we have some current
requests for assistance from the chancellor. He
concluded that this proposal
is ill timed and will probably not serve any useful purpose.
M/S/P (Goldsmith, Steier)
to close debate. The motion to close debate did not pass by two thirds.
M/S/P (Cherny, Aaron) to
The motion passed. Houlberg
stated that the administration's negative comments on this make the case:
he did not want to be buffaloed by a petty
bureaucrat who is in charge
of things and would take this vote
based on his actions and hammer
us with it. He would rather be
hammered and be true to what
Cherny recounted a presentation
at the plenary statewide senate
concerning an exchange at SDSU
during their debate over a
similar motion: a senator said
we may expect retribution from the
chancellor; the next morning,
the chancellor called her and said no
he would not do that. He suggested
that he is most concerned
about the consequences for the
CSU with this chancellor; the
trustees will evaluate the chancellor,
and this resolution will be
come part of the process by
which the trustees evaluate the
Gregory first noted that some
of the new people are also some of
the old people; then she added
that the chair of the statewide
senate sent the following message
to the board of trustees:
"intellectual honesty and integrity,
an avoidance of misleading
statements, and a scrupulous
regard for accuracy, are hallmarks
of academic discourse. This
should apply even in such a
contentious area as collective
bargaining. . . . This [the
chancellor's] letter did not
observe these fundamentals of
academic discourse." This speaks
to the point that the action
taken is borne of integrity.
?? Daniels commented that this
is the first time that he has heard
the suggestion that someone
who is incompetent should not be
criticized because they are
?? Williams commented that he
has been swayed in favor of the
resolution by what the administrators
said while remembering the
words of Frederick Douglass:
"Find out what the people will
submit to, and you have found
out the exact amount of injustice
and wrong that will be imposed
Bernstein) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the resolution
The 2000-2001 senate was adjourned at 3:05.
The 2001-2002 senate voted for standing committee chairs.
Secretary to the Faculty