SFSU Academic Senate
Minutes of November 2, 1999
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell
at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Alvarez, Alvin; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian;
Boyle, Andrea; Collier, James; Concolino, Christopher; Consoli, Andres; Corrigan,
Robert; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Edwards, James; Elia, John;
Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith,
Helen; Graham, Michael; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung;
Hubler, Barbara; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; Kelley, James;
La Belle, Thomas; Langbort, Carol; McKeon, Midori; Moallem, Minoo; OÃ±ate,
Abdiel; Raggio, Marcia; Sagisi, Jaymee; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Smith,
Miriam; Swanson, Deborah; Tarakji, Ghassan; Terrell, M. Dawn; Turitz, Mitch;
Vaughn, Pamela; Wick, Jeanne; Wolfe, Bruce; Yee, Darlene; Zoloth, Laurie.
Senate Members Absent: Ganji, Vijay(exc.);
Strong, Rob(exc.); Cancino, Herlinda; Wong, Alfred(exc.); Gonzales, Angela;
Eisman, Gerald; Avila, Guadalupe(exc.); Aaron, Eunice.
Guests: J. Sim, R. DeLeon, J. Bebee, G. Whitaker,
J. Kassiola, E. Pasaporte, G. West, N. Rabolt, A. Hallum, P. Lee, H. Modirzadeh,
A. Barnes, A. Saah, B. Smith, R. On.
Announcements and Report
- Terrell announced that nominations for the Search Committee
for the Dean of the College of Extended Learning are still open but need to
be in soon.
- Terrell briefly mentioned the attendance of herself and
several other Senators at the American Council on Education conference "Educating
All of One Nation: Diversity, Equity, and Democracy: Optimizing Our Future."
She also mentioned an upcoming conference that will bring together the CSU
Academic Senate with CSU Academic Senate Chairs, among others.
- Terrell commented that the Faculty Affairs Committee
and the Senate Executive Committee are valiantly working on the FMI policy.
A draft policy will be a discussion item at the next Senate meeting.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of the Agenda for November
As there were no additions or corrections, the agenda was
approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of the Minutes for October
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were
approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Pamela Vaughn, Chair - Programs
for AsiloCampus 2000 Retreat
Pamela Vaughn, Chair of the Program Committee for the AsiloCampus
2000 Retreat, reported that the committee has come to a consensus on the format
for the retreat: two days of workshops with a keynote speaker each day and one
day of special meetings. There will be a limited focus for the workshops: meeting
the challenges close to home in our changing relationships with our students
and meeting the challenges in higher education more broadly. The committee is
especially interested in interdisciplinary workshops--for example, bringing
together advisors, staff, and faculty to discuss implementation of new advising
or assessment plans. The hope is that workshops will be truly interactive and
solution rather than problem oriented. Workshops on coping with our changing
physical and emotional demands are also encouraged--serious workshops combined
with time for play. On the morning of the third day, there will be time for
special interest meetings (e.g., a chairs' meeting). This will be followed by
a closing session and reception. Vaughn closed by encouraging all Senators to
take the initiative in promoting these faculty development days: reach out,
share ideas, and rejuvenate ourselves for the semester ahead.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Changes to the Bachelor of
Arts Program in Political Science
Chair Terrell prefaced these proposed changes by
explaining why the Senate was taking this up for a second time: the version
passed last Senate meeting was not the version approved by the Curriculum Review
and Approval Committee (CRAC).
John Elia, speaking on behalf of CRAC Chair Alfred
Wong, introduced the proposed changes. Richard DeLeon, Chair of Political
Science, addressed the difference between the two versions: the theory course
was changed from an upper division 4 unit course to a lower division 3 unit
course, which provides better articulation with equivalent courses in the community
Darlene Yee asked whether there will be resources
to maintain courses dropped from the core as elective courses for non-majors.
DeLeon agreed that this is a problem in general with a shrinking faculty. He
added that the Department has addressed this in terms of overall program goals;
they decided this solution was the best use of resources, and PLSI 100 will
be offered as a GE course at least once a year.
M/S/P/ (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
M/S/P (Goldsmith, OÃ±ate) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Minor in Hospitality Management
Elia introduced this consent item from CRAC. The
new minor is designed to provide undergraduates focused exposure to a particular
area of business practice, Hospitality Management, rather than the broad exposure
of the General Business Minor. A minor in Hospitality Management provides the
non-business majors with some of the professional and technical skills needed
for the hospitality industry or serves as an alternative to a double major for
business majors wishing expertise in a second field.
Abdiel OÃ±ate asked for further information
on the general orientation of the degree. Janet Sim, Chair of Hospitality
Management, explained that there are 8 business minors but there has never
been one in this field. There is growing interest and an increased demand for
students in the industry. The program is interdisciplinary and uses existing
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
Yee asked why Accounting 100 & 101 is not just
an option rather than a substitution, and why there is a discrepancy between
the 21 unit minimum for a minor and the 24 here. Sim answered that they are
following the pattern of all the other business minors on both counts.
Helen Goldsmith asked about the phrase "prerequisites
may be enforced." Sim replied that there are some classes that have strict prerequisites.
Yee followed up that it's possible that the minor would be more than 24 units.
Sim explained that an advisor can help students select so that it stays at 24.
Bruce Wolfe asked about the conditions of taking prerequisites or not.
Sim answered that the prerequisites are specified in the bulletin but that information
is here since some non-majors might have to take more than 24 units, although
there are enough choices to avoid that. Goldsmith suggested some kind of notation
in the bulletin copy that says that certain courses have certain prerequisites.
M/S/P (Ferhman, Duke) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Bachelor of Science Degree
in Apparel and Interior Design
Elia introduced this consent item from CRAC that
comes from the faculty of the Department of Consumer and Family Studies/Dietetics.
Currently, the apparel and interior design subject matter is offered in two
separate concentrations under the B.A. in the Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS)
degree in the Department of Consumer and Family Studies/Dietetics. Under this
proposal, the clothing/textile and interior design/housing concentrations will
be removed from the current B.A. degree in Family and Consumer Sciences and
become a degree in Apparel and Interior Design. This follows the nationwide
trend to combine apparel and interior design subject matter.
Christopher Concolino asked what the change from
B.A. to B.S. means. Nancy Rabolt, Chair of Consumer and Family Studies/Dietetics,
explained that our faculty felt that this is a professional degree with an industry
orientation, and the students prefer that it be a B.S. There is no plan to increase
the units at the moment. Wolfe asked what distinguishes a B.A. from a
B.S. Rabolt replied that she understands it to be based on number of units and
whether the degree is more liberal arts or more professional.
Yee asked about consultation with the College of
Arts and Industry and removing the two concentrations from the B.A. in Family
and Consumer Science. Rabolt replied that there has been extensive consultation
at all levels; she explained that the concentrations would just go from one
degree to the other. The main difference is in the core with a change from a
family orientation to an industry orientation.
Laurie Zoloth asked about rationale for the new trend.
Rabolt explained that she looked through the directory of the international
textile/apparel association and found 15 or more colleges that are combining
these concepts. There are a lot of similarities for these fields, and it is
both industry-oriented and pedagogically driven.
M/S/P (Duke, Hom) to second reading.
Goldsmith raised a concern about the B.A. versus
B.S., suggesting that sounding better does not seem good enough justification.
Midori McKeon asked if we could be provided with
a table that listed all the required and elective courses in order to take a
look at the changes more concretely. Gail Whitaker, Associate Vice President
for Academic Program Development, explained where we are in the process:
this is a master plan projection; the actual courses and units come later in
the implementation plan. Wolfe commented that it sounds like the cart
is being put before the horse, and he would like to see a student pulse survey
on this, whether students really are interested in taking more units to get
this degree. Rabolt responded that they did an extensive survey, and the response
was overwhelmingly positive. We did not ask them about increasing units because
there is no plan for that.
Andres Consoli asked about the timeline, specifically,
with plans for Fall 2001, what will happen to students who come in Fall 2000?
Rabolt replied that students will have the option to do the requirements of
the old or new program. She added that the only differences are to the core
Marlon Hom reiterated that this is a master plan
projection, so we should be looking at the principles behind the proposal in
such a way that we know that we will have a second chance to look at specific
proposals. He added that from the point of view of Asian American Studies, this
department is making excellent revisions based on our urban university mission,
guaranteeing students employment in a larger sphere.
M/S/P (Edwards, Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of
Arts Degree in Dance
Elia introduced the revisions to the content of the
undergraduate core in the B.A. in Dance. Specific changes include removing Dance
306, Dance 431, and Dance 399, and adding the option of one of two courses,
Theatre Arts 315 or Dance 262, to the core courses.
Sung Hu wanted to make sure that we are voting for
establishment of the new core program and not on the elimination of concentrations.
Jerry Duke, Chair of Dance, explained that this is true; if this is approved,
we will have four concentrations. EPC will be looking at discontinuance. Duke
explained further that this revision came about through a number of factors:
program review, reduction in one full-time faculty, difficulty of scheduling
for three different concentrations, and a student survey.
M/S/P (Edwards, Fehrman) to second reading.
McKeon asked Duke about replacing the full-time faculty
member and cutting the curriculum. Duke added that we are not dropping any classes
in this process. We lost one full-time faculty member due to resignation but
have not asked for a replacement; the part-time faculty seem to be working out
M/S/P (Edwards, Kelley) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Minor in World Music and Dance
Elia introduced the following consent item from CRAC:
changes to the minor program in the College of Creative Arts currently entitled
"Minor in Non-Western/Cross-Cultural Musical Arts." The proposed new minor in
World Music and Dance provides educational resources for those students interested
in global perspectives of music and dance for varying careers as well as personal
M/S/P (Duke, Edwards) to second reading.
Wolfe asked if the electives will be expanded as
time goes on. Duke replied that the future of this will be to expand, but we
are trying to get it on the books now to work with the things available to it.
Hom asked for clarification on the change of title
from "non-western/cross-cultural" to "world." Duke answered that they did not
want to use "non-western." James Edwards added that this was a CRAC concern
as well and that it was explained that this term identifies a body of study
that is interdisciplinary and includes all dance throughout the world.
Goldsmith asked why the 1 unit Gamelan Ensemble was
required. Edwards answered that it is in there because it is a form of music
instruction that anyone can pick up and understand-- beginning rhythm and beginning
spirituality of world music. Zoloth added that world music does not speak
to any one world but is a specific title of a sub-discipline of music referring
to interdisciplinary fusion of musical styles with applications in other disciplines.
It is not a geographical identifier but identifies the interdisciplinary nature
of the fusion--the kind of music that deliberately takes elements from different
cultures and puts them together in interdisciplinary performance.
Terrell recapped the questions for Patricia Lee,
Chair of Music: the name change and MUS 387. Patricia Lee replied that the
non-western/cross-cultural minor is moribund. She added that a new faculty member
arrived who is very interested in this area and developed something with dance
that would be attractive to students and would provide a broader sense of artistic
involvement in other cultures. Lee also commented that the gamelan is one instrument
or ensemble that does not require prior study; the experience of playing as
an ensemble is very important, and the gamelan can also involve dance.
Goldsmith asked if neither music nor dance majors can minor
in this. Duke said that dance majors would be able to major in dance and minor
in world music and dance, but Lee stated that music students would not be able
to minor in this.
JoAnn Craig asked why "world" rather than "global"
or "cross-cultural." Lee answered that it seems to be something that people
understand that is simple and suggests something other than looking just at
M/S/P (Edwards, Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #F93-133
Procedures for Faculty Participation in the Academic Program Review Process
The Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee, Jerry
Duke, introduced this consent item from the committee: the old policy was
not being followed; this revision more accurately reflects what actually goes
on in the committee.
M/S/P (Ferhman, Wolfe) to second reading.
McKeon asked about crossing out 1 faculty member
from each school under review. Duke answered that, one, we look at up to four
different colleges in a given semester, and, two, there is no real advantage
to college representation. Miriam Smith added that could represent a
conflict of interest to have someone on the committee reviewing their own program.
Helen Gillotte spoke from the perspective of having sat on the committee
for five years, stating that she was able to give a lot of input when her department
was up for review, but she was not assigned that review to write up. She did
raise a concern about crossing out school representation, asking if this had
been crossed out because they cannot get representatives. Duke replied that
it was not the reason, reiterating that school representation really would not
benefit the program, for the same questions would be raised one way or another.
Gillotte added that persons from the school are also there for manpower and
assistance. Duke replied that we are not reducing manpower.
Jeanne Wick asked about assuring that the College
has opportunity to respond. Duke responded that this is part of the process,
and that the APRC report is only one part of the whole process that is sent
up to Academic Affairs.
Jaymee Sagisi asked if the new committee would have
students on it, suggesting that they should. Duke responded that there are not
students on the committee, and there were not in the previous policy. Marcia
Raggio commented that the self-report that colleges and departments do includes
extensive student input, as does the work of the external reviewers. Deborah
Swanson reiterated that there is a whole section that is nothing but student
concerns. Wolfe commented that surveying is distinct from having a student
at the level where the decision is made. This is not a specific faculty issue
that should exclude students in the decision-making process. Duke replied that
APRC is not a decision-making committee but an evaluative committee, but he
is open to, albeit cautious about, a student representative on the committee.
Whitaker commented on the issue of special members
from colleges under review. We are completing the fourth cycle of review and
beginning the fifth cycle. This issue harks back to the third cycle of review
where we did departments and then colleges as a whole, which we do not do any
more. Having a person on APRC from a program under review is neither an advantage
or disadvantage. Designating persons from programs under review might cause
logistical problems, and it is not quite under the context for which it was
Edwards returned to student representation on the
committee, suggesting it would provide a refreshing, enjoyable point of view.
Swanson seconded support for student representation: having a student to look
out for student interests makes sense for this committee. Raggio commented that
she is unsure what it would add. Hom added that all Senate meetings including
committee meetings are supposed to be open. When there is a program review from
a particular department, it just has to be announced. Sagisi commented further
that students not being from the department is not any different than the faculty
members on the committee. Swanson responded to Raggio's comment, echoing Sagisi
that we evaluate programs about which we know little, so students would not
be to any greater disadvantage than we are, and would be especially helpful
on items having to do with their academic life, like access to courses and advising.
M/S/P (Sagisi, Edwards) move to amend the motion to add
a student to the Academic Program Review Committee.
Sagisi commented that having a student sitting on the committee
is a different and important commitment than just having meetings open. Edwards
commented that this is a hard-working committee, and we should welcome a student
there; it is a wonderful opportunity to invite students into the decision-making
or report-writing or memo-engagement that we go through. Jan Gregory
encouraged us all to support this, given how we so often mourn the absence of
students on standing committees. Duke reiterated that he has no problem with
a student being on the committee but suggested having one oversee the work for
a semester before deciding since it may be a problem to find one who will attend
regularly. Fehrman supported the fact that students should be on all
committees, but wondered who will appoint and how we will make them come. Miriam
Smith agreed with Duke that we should open it up for a student on an experimental
basis before amending the policy.
Hom suggested caution in terms of the ideal versus reality
since APRC is a working committee: can the student afford to spend that amount
of time and share the responsibility and same charge as the rest of the faculty
members. Swanson reminded us that what we have before us is a policy not reality--what
we would like in principle to be true in terms of membership and the way things
work. She added that it is her understanding that when you create a policy like
this and a student does not show up that would not change what is in the policy,
which recognizes the valuable role a student should play in the work of the
committee. She concluded by suggesting we put forward that we want a student
be a part of the membership, at least making it part of the official charge.
As there was a time certain for the following agenda item,
debate on this item was temporarily suspended. This item will be returned to
at the next Senate meeting.
Agenda Item #10 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #S89-160
University Policy on Temporary Faculty
Marlon Hom, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee,
introduced this consent item from the committee, with the following rationale:
it brings the language of the policy into compliance with the current Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and it responds, where appropriate, to the recommendations
of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Lecturers, as well as to the comments from Senators
when this was brought up as a discussion item. This policy can be very controversial
with its legal implications, but FAC and the Senate Executive Committee have
worked on this in good faith to establish a policy that protects temporary faculty
welfare and reduces chaos in the appointment and reappointment process.
Gregory suggested that this not be sent to second
reading today so that people know what they are voting for and also because
she has a couple of non-substantive changes. She also asked that Hom pinpoint
those parts that are part of the CBA and not subject to change. Hom responded
that most of that is in italics; he added that there is still a window of opportunity
for language changes because the President can change this after it has been
dealt with by the Senate.
Gregory asked if we can agree that phrases like "appointments
being made on the basis of (program) needs and service to the university" are
editorial. Hom was open to this. Marian Bernstein suggested that there
are quite a number of problems and that these should be dealt with now: for
example, compare "the faculty on leave or to fill a temporary curricular need"
with "to fill a basic curricular need."
OÃ±ate praised the committee for the hard work
on this delicate topic but wondered more broadly how we feel about the notion
of basic curricular needs being filled by lecturers. Hom commented that there
are programs that don't have enough resources to hire full-time, tenure-track
faculty, which leads to the reality of temporary faculty teaching basic curricular
needs for the program. Gregory spoke from the perspective of Chair of the Ad-Hoc
Committee on Lecturers, first clarifying that she did not think there were lots
of problems in this policy, but adding that the broader questions are important.
Looking specifically at the two lines in the second paragraph, she commented
that they reflect something with which the committee struggled for two years,
which has to do with the ways in which temporary faculty serve the university
in fact. There are many "temporary" faculty who have been here longer than most
people consider "temporary"; there are a number hired to replace those on leave.
The committee's concern was to make the university a more user-friendly place
for both groups, but the attempt was not to perpetuate exploitation. She reiterated
her suggestion that we return in second reading when we are less rushed.
Kelley supported Jan's basic position but asked why
we are doing this, suggesting that with so much from the CBA, we'll just have
to change with a new one. It might be better to pick out of the policy those
things that are not related to the CBA and vote on those. Hom replied that this
is precisely the crossroads of shared governance. It's true that this policy
will be changed with a new CBA, and he hopes that the Senate will keep pace
with what's going on and that our interests will be recognized.
Gerald West asked about the meaning of service. Hom
responded that teaching one semester per year is counted as one year of service.
West asked further about the definition of "service," wondering if it only means
teaching in a department or working for the university in another service. Hom
pointed to p. 3, lines 1-2, explaining that if it is non-instructional, externally-funded,
the appointment will end as the project ends. The concept here is general-fund
funded position rather than special fund. Assigned-time is another difficult
issue in terms of lecturers and entitlement.
Terrell summarized: it appears that there still are
a number of questions even though this was brought up for discussion at the
previous meeting. This item is in first reading and will return at the next
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty