ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

M I N U T E S

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004

Attendance:

Abella, David

Garcia, Oswaldo

Nichols, Amy

Avila, Guadalupe

Gonzales, Dan

Noble, Nancy

Axler, Sheldon

Gonzalez, Marty

Palmer, Pete

Bartscher,
Patricia

Gregory, Jan

Pong, Wenshen

Bernard-Powers,
Jane

Guerrero, Jaimes

Ritter, Michael

Bohannon, Tara

Heiman, Bruce

Scoble, Don

Boyle, Andrea

Hom, Marlon

Smith, Brett

Carrington,
Christopher

Kim, John

Steier, Saul

Chelberg, Gene

Klingenberg,
Larry

Stowers, Genie

Chen, Yu Charn

Klironomos,
Martha

Suzuki, Dean

Colvin, Caran

Langbort, Carol

Todorov, Jassen

Contreras, A.
Reynaldo

Liou, Shy-Shenq

Ulasewicz, Connie

Corrigan, Robert

Mak, Brenda

Van Dam, Mary Ann

Daley, Yvonne

Midori, McKeon

Williams, Robert

Fehrman, Kenneth

Meredith, David

Yang, Nini

Fielden, Ned

Monteiro, Ken

Yee, Darlene

Fung, Robert

Morishita, Leroy

Parliamentarian:  Cherny, Robert W.

Absent:

Alvarez, Alvin (exc), Edwards, James (exc), Irvine, Patricia
(exc),

Visitors:

Susan Alunan, Elise Earthman, Ann Hallum, Barbara Luzardi,
Richard McKeethen, Minoo Moallem,  Enrique Riveros-Schafer, Chris Treadway, Todd
Swenson, Donald Taylor, Trujillo, Mitch Turitz, Pamela Vaughn, Marilyn Verhey, Jennifer
Wissink, Yenbo Wu

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS Senate Chair Colvin welcomed new and returning
senators to the 2004-2005 Academic Senate. She indicated that the microphones
had been reconfigured from previous years. When speaking into them, senators
will not be able to hear their own voices, but the oratory will still be
recorded.

Chair
Colvin

indicated that directly following the regular senate session would be an
orientation session for new senators or any returning senators that wished a
review of senate policy and procedures.

Chair
Colvin

announced that Bob Cherny, former SFSU and CSU State Academic Senate
chair would be serving as “parliamentarian” for the senate for the fall
semester, which helped explain his presence at the senate table.

Chair
Colvin

indicated that at the next senate meeting, on September 21, the current
statewide academic chair David McNeil would be present to talk about the issue
of lower division transfer students. A wine and cheese reception on the 5th
floor of the Administration building would follow.

Chair
Colvin

urged senators to visit the senate website to view discontinuance documents,
and to inform their colleagues of their presence on the site.

Vice-chair
Williams

spoke to the Asilomar bi-annual retreat plans for January 2005. He indicated
that the theme of the retreat this year would be “The Making of A Scholar:
Staff and Faculty Contributions.” Currently there are almost 60 participants so
far and the retreat needs another 150 attendees to achieve a critical mass. He
mentioned two information items: When he inquired around campus as to why
people came to Asilomar, the answer invariably was that attendees sought to
establish a connection with their peers. He urged senators to have the courage
to connect with other colleagues, to remake old friends and find new friends.
The conference days were divided into categories of scholarship and teaching,
scholarship and research, and scholarship and service. Presenters are needed,
and he suggested that faculty who had received Fulbrights or other grants might
want to talk about their experiences. The deadline for proposals would be 29
October and he hoped that there might be some supplemental funds from the
administration to help offset retreat costs.

Senator
Chelberg announced that there was a new version of the campus “access
guide and map” and senators had been furnished copies. He urged senators to use
guide, and welcomed any feedback. More copies could be had at the DPRC office.

AGENDA
ITEM #1—APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR September 7, 2004

Senator
Chelberg asked that item number 11, the meeting schedule for spring
2005, not come as consent item, but rather in first reading.

The
Agenda was approved by consent as amended.

AGENDA
ITEM #2—APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE LAST MEETING OF THE FORMER
SENATE ON May 11, 2004

Senator
McKeon noted that on Page five, in the middle of the page, a
question mark should follow the phrase “college dean.”

The
Minutes for May 11, 2004 of the senate were approved by consent as amended.

AGENDA
ITEM #3—APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST MEETING OF THE NEW
SENATE ON May 11, 2004

Approved
by consent.

AGEND
ITEM #4—INTRODUCTION OF NEW ADMINISTRATORS

Chair
Colvin introduced the new administrators to the senate, who included Marilyn
Verhey
, Faculty Affairs; Ann Hallum, Graduate Studies; William
Perttula
, Acting Dean of Business; Don Taylor, acting Dean of HHS; Kenneth
Paap
, ORSP; Enrique Riveros-Schafer, Academic Resources; and Susan
Alunan
, acting director of the Urban Institute.

AGENDA
ITEM #5—REPORT FROM MARILYN VERHEY, DEAN of FACULTY AFFAIRS & PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT—BOYER MODEL & SCHOLARSHIP RECONSIDERED: PRIORITIES OF THE
PROFESSORIATE

Dean
of Faculty Affairs Verhey noted that in the fall of 2002, Provost
Gemello and then Senate Chair Cherny had charged the Professional
Development Council to consider the issue of professional development on
campus, who then made both administrative and conceptual recommendations. She wished
to outline the latter part of their recommendations.

The
committee addressed a program of services that would affect faculty across the
spectrum of their careers, as outlined in the senators’ handouts. The committee
developed a philosophy of faculty development, known nationally as the Boyer
model, and created by a former president of the Carnegie foundation. This model
includes several facets: the scholarship of teaching, the scholarship of
discovery, often thought of as “research,” the scholarship of application, and
the scholarship of integration. The committee floated a “trial balloon” program
at the last Asilomar regarding this model. The committee generated a report in
2003, which then went to the Faculty Affairs Committee for discussion, and was
endorsed as a planning model for faculty development activities. The handout
has additional resources listed, keeping in mind this particular model,

AGENDA
ITEM #6—REPORT FROM YENBO WU, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS—INTERNATIONAL
EDUCATION WEEK

Due
to extraordinary efficiency in the senate, this agenda item was reached before
the principle presenter had arrived, and so the Senate moved to item 7 with the
identical result. Therefore Item number 8, a report from Cherny was
heard, in part, until presenters for items 6 and 7 arrived. Their reports,
while not presented in strict chronological order, are listed in their proper
places in the agenda.

Yenbo
Wu

director of international programs sought to remind senators that nationwide
International programs week was on the calendar for the Fall, November 15-19, 
the fourth time for our campus. This year would also have a busy week, and he
sought the senate’s assistance.

Jennifer
Wissink

also spoke to international education week, noting that the week highlighted
not only the cultural understandings of international life, but also was a part
of the university’s mission as outlined in CUSP II. The week would include a
series of foreign films and talks, and would continue to serve as a campus-wide
event incorporating everyone. There were several ways to participate:
coordinating or developing an event, and there were proposal forms available
for involvement; she also wanted to remind the campus of the plans that were
already in place. She encouraged senators as faculty to participate, to take
their classes to the events, and to incorporate themes of internationalism into
their courses. Her office would be forming a campus-wide committee, and future
meetings would be scheduled shortly. Contact information was listed on the
proposal form.

AGENDA
ITEM #7—REPORT FROM CHRIS TREADWAY, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT & COMMUNITY
RELATIONS—VOTER REGISTRATION

Chris
Treadway, Susan Alunan
and David Abella were also present. Treadway indicated
that the campus had been active in voter registration in the past, including
various student groups and CFA. She stated that campus had tried to coordinate
voter registrations efforts this year.

Treadway listed several of the ways
the office had been working to this aim: working with external groups that do
voter education, to help distribute voter education material; working with the
San Francisco Department of Elections to do presentations; providing forums for
student education; working with the San Francisco mayor’s office; hosting a
voter rally; hosting an education forum including the School Board and the
Superintendent of schools; creating a website with information, key deadlines
for registration, etc.; working with political science students to create an
information fact sheet on the election for the District 7 Board of Supervisors;
and working on developing some free incentives for students to register.
Finally an exit survey would help inform campus on how well the efforts worked.

Senator
Abella
indicated that the Associated Students were working to target
students living on campus to register. He thought that an additional polling
place on campus would be a good idea, with a possible second precinct. The goal
for registration was 3,500 students over 10% of the campus population.

Alunan
stated
that
in
collaboration with other organizations the Urban Institute was pushing for
civic and political engagement, and all of these efforts were strictly
non-partisan. Several projects urban institute clear project brownbag with dept
of elections and professor cook next week. There has been some collaboration
with Democracy Matters, a national organization from the East coast. Adonal
Foyle, the center for the local NBA basketball team the Warriors would lend his
support to a gathering in Berkeley on September 18th for a rally for
democracy, possibly coming to campus on the 30th. CFA was planning
to do registration tables. Plans were in place for a “proclamation for San Francisco youth” vote day. Just prior to the election the radio station KMEL would have
a rally in quad. She was very anxious to encourage our students to be
politically and civically engaged.

Treadway indicated she would be
presenting a Calendar of activities, and would have dates and times of the CFA
tables, and urged senators to contact her with details.

AGENDA
ITEM #8—REPORT FROM ROBERT CHERNY, IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR, CSU ACADEMIC
SENATE—ACADEMIC FREEDOM: RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Cherny indicated that the main
focus of his report was a bill that came to legislature last spring, whose
central issue was something about which all of us need to be informed. Senate
Bill 1335, sponsored by senator Morrow, known colloquially as “the student
bill of rights” has as its central premise the notion that students need
protection from faculty attempts at indoctrination.
http://www.noindoctrination.org/
Supporters of the bill produced testimony from around the state that suggested
patterns of faculty indoctrination. The senate Bill was purported to solve this
problem. Opponents to the bill pointed to evidence that suggested that
protections were already in place and alerted the group to the issue about
adequate protections to students’ rights. However; the bill came to the
legislature via a nationwide student association, with the same idea. It almost
certainly will come back again in the near future, and the community needs to
be prepared in several ways. Cherny suggested checking the student
website for further information.[Secretary’s note - http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/]
Among other things, it showed how to detect political bias in hiring. David
Horowitz [Secretary’s note - http://www.frontpagemag.com/AboutHorowitz/index.asp]
has links at his own site for this organization, and very likely serves as a
mentor to the organization. SFSU faculty appear on the indoctrination website,
and Cherny urged senators to be aware of what is out there.

Cherny interrupted his report
while the senate moved to agenda items 7 and 8.

Cherny resumed by noting that
these groups made the argument that faculty have behaved improperly, introduced
political bias into classes, and consequently have asked for a whole series of
countermeasures - balanced reading lists, balance in hiring, assurances that
punitive measures not be directed against students with differing political
views. He urged faculty to think carefully about this, as it is often very
tempting to use the classroom to air one’s own political views.

Cherny suggested that students
might come to department chairs with complaints. He thought that the correct
response would ideally not be “there is nothing to do, that faculty member has
got tenure,” which would only encourage students to go to the legislature.
Rather, he suggested that chairs point out to the student that there are
guidelines to student rights and responsibilities. Campus already has a student
grievance procedure, and students need to make aware that they have a process.
If no students file grievances, then that would be important data. Campus needs
to be able to say that there was a process, with guarantees, that classrooms
would not be used inappropriately and that student rights have protections.

The
Student Affairs Committee would be looking at this, seeking updates as needed.
Last semester a student organization wanted to revise the campus mission
statement. If campus does not respond in a meaningful way, comments would
simply around or beyond us.

Senator
Gregory stated that this was an issue that would come before the
statewide senate through FAC. One of the problem areas was that the bulletin
copy that outlined this issue needed to be in greater proximity to the section
on student rights and responsibilities. She did not find any of this
information easily accessed on the campus website. Other campuses either have
one grievance mechanism for all kinds of issues, or identify different
processes depending on the issue. She thought it best to leave it to the SAC to
determine what was best for SFSU.

Senator
Bernard-Powers found that this discussion reminded her of attacks on the
academic cannon some fifteen years ago, and thought that we must have some
experience in dealing with similar issues. Perhaps a larger effort was needed.

Cherny responded that indeed
senate chairs had discussed this.

Bernard-Powers asked about other
resources of information.

Cherny responded that AAUP
[Secretary’s note http://www.aaup.org/] was a good source.

Senator
Abella
observed that as a student senate representative he had had
experience in his committees on this topic and that as a political issue it was
real. CFA has recognized that students should have as many safeguards as
possible. One of the standing committees he is on is in fact working on its own
student bill of rights was being developed, and he found it encouraging as
other organizations were looking into this.

Senator
Steier
asked Cherny for the list of websites, so that senators could
find them. [Secretary’s note, these are included in the minutes.] As testament
to his own devotion to academic balance in the curriculum, he expressed
willingness to teach, outside his normal specialization, a course on “The Flat
Earth.” He thought it might be particularly appropriate for misguided
geoscience students intimidated by the dominant scientific paradigm.

Cherny indicated that AAUP
documents were now coming to senators via the generosity of that organization.

AGENDA
ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from the Curriculum Review & Approval Committee—PROPOSED
REVISIONS TO THE WOMEN’S STUDIES PROGRAM

CRAC
Chair Nichols moved approval of agenda item 9, copies of which were in
the senate packets, a proposal for revision to major and minor in Women’s
Studies, a consent item. The proposal grew out of a 1999 program review,
discussions by faculty in the department, and results from an external review.
The basic pieces of the revision were a reduction in the number and units of
the core courses from 18-12, with the addition of a Senior Seminar to the core.
Minoo Moallem from Women’s Studies was present to summarize the
proposal.

Nichols,
Steier, m/s

Moallem emphasized that the
department was not changing the program substantially or eliminating any
courses. The revision was based on recommendations of the program review in 1999
- an action plan response. The proposed changes reflected the evolution of
three decades of women’s studies scholarship. The revision was aimed towards a
more integrated format, with greater consistency throughout. Central issues.
The revised major and minor would encourage greater student collaboration, and
create more space for faculty to teach and provide better advising. The
revision allowed faculty more room to operate in their special areas of
interest.

Senator
Steier
indicated that he always had troubles with any programs with the
word “studies” in their titles. These invariably tend to be very social science
oriented, whereas often the core scholarship is more humanities based. The
revision included no humanities courses, and he wanted to know why.

Moallem stressed that the program
took an interdisciplinary approach, and was not about social science vs.
humanities.

Senator
Carrington spoke as member of the CRAC committee and as a social
scientist, and expressed concern about the removal of research methods course.
Secondly he had concerns about the jettisoning of the sexuality courses

Moallem responded that these
topics would be handled in core courses, although they were 200 level classes.
Although an uneasy change, the department had decided to go along with
recommended program changes.

She
indicated that the program was moving from non-integrated format to one more
fully integrated. Sexuality was integrated into the core courses as part of the
redesign, and research methods would be included in all courses. A critical
perspective was included, and logic was added to all components, but it is
better to be included in the classes themselves.

Senator
Chen posed a minor question: what would be the minimum unit requirement
for minor program?

Moallem answered that it would be
18 units.

Senator
Heiman echoed concern about the replacement of the research methods
class. Students often needed these kinds of classes on their transcripts for
graduate school. He asked whether students would be able to think and act
critically with current scholarship.

Moallem responded that
interdisciplinary methodology had its own legitimacy and importance, and
students would by definition have to approach their studies from a variety of
perspectives.

State
Senator Gregory moved to second reading.

Second
Steier.

Motion
passed with dissent.

State
Senator
Gregory
deduced that these concerns must have been discussed by CRAC and she would
yield to their judgment. She made an observation that the majority of speakers
had been of a certain category.

The
revision was approved.

AGENDA
ITEM #10—RECOMMENDATION from the Academic Policies Committee—PROPOSED SUMMER
SEMESTER CALENDAR FOR SUMMER 2005

Meredith, Abella m/s/p

Chair
of APC Meredith noted that the proposed calendar was very much like all
the other summer calendars in past few years. There was an open week between
summer and graduation, plus a similar open week at the end of instruction
before fall semester.

Meredith indicated that Barbara
Lazardi
was present to address any questions.

Senator
Axler had some concerns about having 2 five-week sessions and one 8-week
session. The general principle is that during a regular semester, for each
class unit, 1-2 hours of work be done outside of class. Student taking six
units in the five week system would need to do 54 hours per week on classes,
which is unrealistic. Some subjects require time for absorption, and he found
the 8-week program preferable. He urged chairs and others to do a schedule for
what made academic sense.

Senator Steier suggested
that in his experience, a proposed course that was deemed inappropriate for a
given schedule would be weeded out by a dean or department chair.

Senator Gerson noted that
in past summer schedules had included five weekends, while this one only
provided four and that this was not enough. Her own experience indicated that
summer classes often had non-native speakers of English who had special
difficulties with this format. Everyone would be shortchanged, and she proposed
a 7-week schedule double what we do with attention to hours outside class.

Steier, Abella m/s to
second reading.

The
summer calendar was approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #11—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—SENATE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SPRING 2004

Meredith, Steier m/s

APC Chair Meredith indicated that the agenda
item could not come as a consent item since there had been mixed discussion in
the Executive Committee about the schedule.

Senator Steier asked why the status had changed.

Meredith responded that he had proposed swapping standing
committee meetings with senate meetings, so that final meetings would not be
standing committees with no business to do.

The
proposed schedule will return in two weeks to the senate for second
reading.

AGENDA ITEM #12—ADJOURNMENT
to be IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED by SENATE ORIENTATION.

Senator McKeon posed a procedural question. In voting during the
session, the chair had never asked for abstentions, and she thought that even
with voice votes there was a need to ask for abstentions.

Chair Colvin noted that Roberts Rules does not explicitly ask
for this action, but she took the point.

Senator McKeon noted some inconsistency from
year to year in the senate, and asked for greater clarity.

Senator Steier wanted the record to reflect
retroactively any senator’s voting abstentions.

Respectfully submitted,

Ned Fielden, 10 September 2004