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:

Aaron,

Eunice

Alvarez, Alvin

Avila, Guadalupe

Bartscher, Patricia

Bernstein, Marian

Blomberg, Judith

Boyle, Andrea

Cancino, Herlinda

Chan, Jeffery

Cherny, Robert

Collier, James

Colvin, Caran

Concolino, Christopher

Consoli, Andres

Contreras, Rey

Corrigan, Robert

Cullers, Susan

de Vries, Brian

Duke, Jerry

Edwards,

James

Elia, John

Ferretti, Charlotte

Flowers, Will

Garcia, Oswaldo

Garcia, Velia

Gillotte, Helen

Goldsmith, Helen

Gregory, Jan

Harnly, Caroline

Hu, Sung

Hubler, Barbara

Jerris, Scott

Johnson, Dane

Johnson, Sharon

Kelley, James

La Belle, Thomas

Langbort, Carol

Loomis, Barbara

McKeon,

Midori

Nichols, Amy

Pasaporte, Erin

Raggio, Marcia

Sagisi, Jaymee

Sayeed, Lutfus

Scoble, Don

Shrivastava, Vinay

Smith, Miriam

Strong, Rob

Su, Yuli

Turitz, Mitch

Vaughn, Pamela

Warren, Mary Anne

Warren, Penelope

Wong, Alfred

Yip, Yewmun

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

all senators.

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

adopted.

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

was approved.

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

office.

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

extend debate.

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

we believe.

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

chancellor.

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

also vindictive.

?? 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

upon them."

M/S/P (Goldsmith,

Bernstein) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the resolution

was approved.

The 2000-2001 senate was adjourned at 3:05.

The 2001-2002 senate voted for standing committee chairs.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty