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; OÃ±ate, 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,
Announcements and 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Secretary to the Faculty