SFSU Academic Senate Meeting

Minutes of November 3, 1998

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny,

Robert; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Corrigan, Robert; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers,

Susan; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fielden,

Ned; Flowers, Will; Ganji, Vijay; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham,

Minnie; Hammett, Jennifer; Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Jerris,

Scott; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Oñate, Abdiel;

Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Shrivastava, Vinay;

Smith, Mirian; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Valledaros, Juan; Vaughn, Pamela;

Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong,

Alfred; Zieff, Susan; Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie.

Senate Members Absent: Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Moss, Joanna;

Strong, Rob; Choo, Freddie; Simeon, Roblyn; Gonzales, Angela; Elia, John(exc.);

Jenkins, Lee; Tarakji, Ghassan; Barnes, Paul(exc.); Bartscher, Patricia(exc.);

Montenegro, Ricardo; Vega, Sandra, Collier, James.

Senate Interns Present: Happy Dayleg, Marvin Dumon

Guests: J. Kassiola, G. Whitaker, S. Taylor, G. West, D. Schafer,

A. Anton

Announcements and Report

Chair’s Report

  • Chair Phillips outlined several items that are on the horizon for the Academic

    Senate: a possible visit from David Spence, Vice Chancellor of Academic

    Affairs; a policy proposal on offering existing programs through the College

    of Extended Learning; and the Leave with Pay policy.

  • Phillips followed up on Chancellor Reed's visit, commenting that

    the visit achieved its primary purpose: for us to get a better sense of the

    Chancellor and for him to get a better, and perhaps positive sense of us.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of November 3, 1998

M/S/P (Vaughn, Ferhman) to amend the agenda as follows:

Change Agenda Item #4 to #4a and add agenda item #4b, Statement in Support

of Humboldt State Academic Senate Resolution.

The agenda was approved as amended.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for October 20, 1998

As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as

printed.

Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle

Provost La Belle addressed some of the issues in the Cornerstones implementation

plan with the goal of initiating as much discussion as possible.

La Belle summarized that at SFSU we are ahead of Cornerstones through the CUSP

and WASC processes, so it will not have that great of an impact. The groundwork

has been laid for better student assessment. We have more systematic program

review; we have redoubled our efforts to reach out to high schools and community

colleges; and we are developing plans to implement a first semester experience.

La Belle added that we have not done as much in some areas of Cornerstones.

This campus is ahead on initiation of new programs but behind on dis-establishing.

There will be a lot of discussion around time to degree and the relation between

120 units as variable as opposed to 8 semesters as variable as opposed to outcomes

as a variable. There is going to be concern with program/major articulation

among CSU campuses. The question of the best ways to support faculty in implementing

these changes needs to be addressed. A final area for further work is on post-baccalaureate

studies, where the document suggests that there will be additional resources

to support graduate education but couples that with differential fees for graduate

students and increased financial aid.

La Belle concluded that we should focus our efforts on those issues that are

most important to us.

Agenda Item #4A - Proposed Revisions to Minor in Global Peace, Human Rights,

and Justice Studies.

CRAC Chair Alfred Wong introduced the proposed revisions to the Minor

in Global Peace, Human Rights, and Justice Studies: replace NEXA 340 (The Nuclear

Revolution) as a core course with either GPS/PHIL 375 (Peace, Law and Human

Rights in the United States) or PHIL 435 (Human Rights in Global Perspective),

move IR 432 (Model United Nations) from the "conflict resolution" sub-heading

to the "international law and organizations" sub-heading, and add LABR 525 (Diversity

in the Workplace), LABR 550 (International Labor), and PHIL 340 (Society, Law,

Diversity) to the list of electives.

Co-director of the minor Anatole Anton (Philosophy) explained that NEXA

340 will no longer have the same strong component of peace studies that it had

when co-taught by Professor Mike Lunine, a long-standing member of Global Peace,

Human Rights and Justice Studies.

M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to move to second reading.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Vaughn) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #4B - Statement in Support of Humboldt State Academic Senate Resolution.

Phillips introduced the statement in support of the Humboldt State Academic

Senate Resolution that opposed the Humboldt State administration's action of

prohibiting the distribution of the CFA California Faculty magazine through

intra-campus mail. Phillips added that this statement would be forwarded to

Humboldt State, Senate Chairs, the State Academic Senate, Chancellor Reed, and

possibly the Board of Trustees.

M/S/P (Cherny, M.A. Warren) to endorse the statement.

Jan Gregory stated that this is a very useful statement of support from

colleagues and gives the Senate an opportunity to endorse a statement of unification.

M/S/P (P. Warren, Goldsmith) to close debate.

The statement was endorsed unanimously.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Policy on Timely Declaration of Major

APC Chair Helen Goldsmith introduced the proposed policy on timely declaration

of major, a consent item from APC, stating that the idea came from CUSP recommendations

and works well with many of the changes taking place on campus. The proposed

policy would require a student who enters the university as a freshman or lower

division transfer student to declare a major after completing 70 units. A student

who enters the university as an upper division transfer student would be required

to declare a major by the end of the second semester at SFSU. The intent of

the policy is to put some pressure on students to have a well-planned curriculum

in order to proceed towards graduation in a timely manner. This would also give

departments a more realistic identification of majors so they could advise students

as early as possible, as well as facilitate department planning. Goldsmith also

summarized how APC addressed the two concerns raised when this policy came to

the Senate in Spring 1998. The revised policy allows department chairs to appeal

for a group of students instead of each student have to appeal individually.

The revised policy retains the penalty of losing touch tone priority in order

to have some "teeth."

Jennifer Hammett expressed reservations about this policy, stating that

it sets up a cumbersome policy with a cumbersome appeals process for a small

amount of students.

Goldsmith answered that part of the goal of this policy is to get students

talking to faculty and advisers early, and the appeals process is a useful tool

to help get students talking to somebody.

Will Flowers commented that he supports this policy but wants to see

some marketing advice to make sure that it gets to the student.

La Belle suggested that if we are serious about program assessment and

we have a substantial number of students who appear at the last minute, it will

be very difficult to demonstrate that a program has made a difference for a

student's skills and knowledge. He added that all of these small incremental

changes--advisement, assessment, program review--come together as a totality

to enhance the university's opportunity to provide the experiences the student

needs.

Yu-Charn Chen supported the proposal and suggested that here are many

different ways to pass the message to student. Marian Bernstein added

that this policy dovetail with whole concept of advising.

Hammett reiterated her opposition to the proposal, suggesting that there is

a disjuncture between the goal that we are trying to achieve and the method

of achieving it. Given the figures, we are achieving our advising and timely

declaration of major goals, which makes setting up this process unnecessary.

Jim Kelley spoke in support of this policy, emphasizing that, especially

for highly sequential majors, it's important that students get early advising.

Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman addressed Hammett's comments. She suggested that

this policy does other things than just capture those lost 365 students. Sending

this kind of a letter creates a kind of attentive climate that impacts on everyone.

It sends the message that we care about rigorous and serious scholarship and

that we want to know what your goals are. These reasons supplement the bookkeeping

reason of making sure people are on track.

Pamela Vaughn spoke in favor of this policy, stressing two points: other

policies that encourage advising have lacked something that this one has--teeth;

in view of directions that we are going as a university that increase the distance

between campus centers and students, any policy that brings us closer together

is needed.

Robert Cherny spoke in favor of this policy, emphasizing the importance

of getting advising in a timely fashion and suggesting that if Broadcasting

and Cinema are disadvantaged by the policy they should work this out with appropriate

officials.

Gregory raised questions about what we really know about this group

of students and cautioned against assuming that this policy will solve the problem.

M/S/P (Ferhman, P. Warren) to second reading.

Goldsmith reminded us that the policy does not prevent students from changing

their major.

Several senators emphasized their support for this policy due to the possibility

of increased early advising. Marlon Hom discussed the problem of too

many students declaring at the very last minute and the difficulties of working

students at a commuter university. Scott Jerris stated that in accounting

most students need advising very early to plan for professional examinations.

Sung Hu reiterated that the policy is written for all students and all

future students. JoAnn Craig suggested that we take into account students

who come from systems where classes are scheduled out for them who particularly

need help on how to work this system.

M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to close debate.

The proposed policy on timely declaration of major passed. (To view

this policy, click here.)

Phillips added that there should be follow up with BECA and Cinema so

that no one is disadvantaged by this policy.

Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #F87-32, Graduate Student

Award for Distinguished Achievement

Vaughn introduced the proposed revisions to Academic Senate Policy #F87-32,

Graduate Student Award for Distinguished Achievement, a consent item from the

Executive Committee. The changes in this policy were motivated by a desire to

do away with an outmoded, pro-rated system. Since this is not a monetary award

but simply an honor, we feel that it should be in the purview of every degree-granting

program to, if they so desire, nominate an outstanding student. In the past

we were limited primarily by space limitations, and we are no longer limited

by space.

Cherny seconded getting away from pro-rating but raised concerns about

the proposed revisions: how do we pick just one if in a given year we have several

students of very high accomplishment? Why one for each program?

Associate Dean of the Graduate Division Donna Schafer addressed the

proposed revisions, pointing out that the proposed policy would mean we would

have fewer awards, giving an advantage to colleges with many programs but few

graduates versus those with few programs and many graduates. Schafer added that

from an operational point of view, it would be just as easy to operate the new

policy, but it does change the philosophy. She takes the point of view that

this should be thought of as awards to students and not departments, which makes

for some very difficult decisions at the college level.

Vaughn reiterated that this is a policy for inclusion rather than exclusion

that recognizes work in specific degree programs and suggested that an allocation

to each program with an additional pool for allocation might be workable.

Phillips commented that it might be best to return this to committee

for further consideration.

Chen concluded that more graduate students should be recognized; the problem

is how to set up a fair procedure.

M/S/P (Kelley, P. Warren) to refer the proposed revisions back to committee.

Agenda Item #7 - Draft of Cornerstones Implementation Plan

Phillips introduced the draft of the Cornerstones implementation

plan, reminding us of the many avenues for input but also that the campus

response needs to be in place by mid-December. In order that this process is

not a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing in terms of input in this

process, Phillips provided some background.

Cornerstones comes out of several forces, including a PEW foundation grant

on collective planning and the need to impress our excellence and foresight

upon the legislature. This is a very political document with substantive and

political purposes, with this version reflecting a working through of considerable

differences. Campus input included all parts of campus led by the Senate and

a Cornerstones task force, which will be reconvened to address the implementation

plan. The task force members are as follows: Robert Cherny, Jan Gregory,

Eunice McKinney-Aaron, Mark Phillips, Lorraine Dong, Susan Higgins, Diane Harris,

Susan Shimanoff, Richard Giardina, Dawn Terrell, Al Wong, Vicki Casella, Pamela

Vaughn, David Hemphill, Jean van Keulen, John O'Shaughnessy, Jose Gutierrez,

Hamid Khani, Lisa White, Tom Johnson, Ned Fielden, Marlon Hom, Brian Murphy,

Tom LaBelle, Peter Dewees, Jake Perea, Phil McGee, Jim Kelley, and Gail Whitaker.

Phillips recommended that we focus on a half dozen major aspects and hit hard

on those aspects. He suggested that we go beyond registering concern and frame

our response in the form of a suggestion about what can be added or changed

in the document since it is important that the way in which we respond be perceived

as constructive. As an example, Phillips suggested looking at the reference

to faculty development, which says nothing, but we have the opportunity to help

flesh that out.

Cherny reminded us that David Spence has repeatedly spoken in favor

of faculty involvement in a wide range of decision-making and has specifically

stressed the importance of faculty response to

Cornerstones. Spence also pointed out that the original Cornerstones document

says almost nothing about quality, but that changes here with item B having

to do with ensuring the quality of the baccalaureate experience. Cherny suggested

that it is crucial to put these two things together with the role of faculty

in maintaining the quality of the curriculum central. Cherny also suggested

that we look at two documents during this process: the final Cornerstones document,

bearing in mind that the Statewide Academic Senate endorsed only the principles,

and the Statewide Academic Senate statement on baccalaureate education in the

CSU.

Bernstein asked for clarification about how programs are discontinued.

Phillips answered that there is a process and a policy, and he would get her

a copy of that policy.

Hom commented that category G might be better as the first item rather

than the bottom. If Cornerstones is to be implemented, we should emphasize that

faculty should play the primary role. Phillips suggested that we look at how

role of faculty is defined throughout the document.

Sung Hu raised a concern about resources: what if the money doesn't

come? Phillips seconded his concern but suggested that you have to have the

goals to shoot for.

M/S/P (Turitz, Vaughn) move to adjourn.

The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty