April 22, 2025

 April 22, 2025

 

2:00-2:05 PM: Open Floor Period: The Open Floor Period provides an informal opportunity for campus community members to raise questions or make comments directed to Senators, Senate officers or to university administrators. Please arrive promptly at 2:00 PM. Please limit comments to not more than three minutes per topic. Senators may make announcements under Item 3 below.

 

Guest Jordan Calley shared about the student parent experience and requested support from the Academic Senate to move to have faculty include this resource in their class syllabi. https://wellness.sfsu.edu/parenting-student-resources

 

Sen. Obayashi shared AACARES Event with food influencer, Kristina Wong, hosted by AACARES and Dr. Christy Lao on May 5^th from 3:30-5:30 in McKenna Theatre. 

 

 

2:05 PM: Call to Order

 

 

1. Approval of the agenda 

 

The agenda is approved by general consent.

 

1. Approval of minutes from the previous plenary

 

The minutes are approved by general consent.

 

1. Senator announcements: Any senator can speak to no more than 3 minutes per topic.  This is a good time for senators who are college representatives to share announcements from their respective colleges.

 

1. Reports

 

1. Senate chair's report

 

Chair Wilson reported that elections for the Academic Senate are currently underway through Friday, and encouraged everyone to participate in shared governance through voting.

Chair Wilson also shared that the Academic Senate and Sen. Green were hosting a Question of Interest Session on Wednesday, April 23^rd from 1:00pm-2:30pm in Library 121 for a discussion on how breaking down academic silos can help us reimagine academia and create a more meaningful student experience. 

They also noted that the Exceptional Time Awards were ongoing and that additional applications were welcome.

Chair Wilson reminded everyone that there were only two plenary sessions remaining for the Spring 2025 semester: May 6^th, final items and second reading, and May 13^th, end of current Senate, welcome of new Senate, elections for leadership roles, and award recognitions.

The Chair also asked for feedback for the consideration of the recent resolution passed supporting a role for a legislative liaison. The Chair suggested dedicating one of the two at-large positions to serve as liaison for legislative updates and communication. He noted that he is open for feedback via discussion or email.

 

4.2. University president's report

 

Pres. Mahoney noted that the governor’s budget is expected in three weeks, and advocacy is ongoing across all CSU groups. She also praised the powerful video produced by the CSUEU that highlights the value of staff and the university’s mission. 

Pres. Mahoney emphasized that higher education is facing serious national threats, particularly to academic freedom, research funding, and institutional autonomy due to federal interference and censorship efforts. She reaffirmed the university’s commitment to uncensored teaching, research, and dialogue.

Pres. Mahoney referenced Harvard’s legal resistance as a model and noted CSU’s own legal actions since January. She signed an open letter from the American Association of Colleges and Universities titled  A Call for Constructive Engagement,  defending academic freedoms and rights against censorship and political retaliation. She also contrasted California’s legal support for DEI, ethnic studies, undocumented students, and non-involvement in immigration enforcement with the dismantling of similar efforts in other states. She stressed the urgency of discussing academic freedom and continued collective action at the state and national levels to defend higher education.

 

3. University provost's report

 

Prov. Sueyoshi shared that there are a number of Earth Week activities being hosted by Climate HQ, including a flea market, job fair, meditation, and campus cleanup. Everyone is encouraged to support student engagement and campus vibrancy.

She also noted that the CSU has partnered with ChatGPT for classroom and administrative use, with a beginner-friendly workshop  being held on Friday, April 25^th from 11:00am-12:00pm. 

Prov. Sueyoshi also shared upcoming CEETL programming available on April 29^th, 1:00-2:30pm in Library 260. 

She also noted that on Tuesday, April 29^th, 3:00-5:00pm, CHSS would be hosting  At the Crossroads of Turk and Taylor: Transgender History in the Present, and the Future We Need with Susan Stryker, Ph.D. 

 

3. Associated Students President's report

 

Sen. Foley shared that Governing Gators will have their final one or two meetings will occur within the next two weeks, followed by a thank-you celebration for the interns recognizing their contributions to shared governance.

He also noted that Gator Groceries year one fundraising goal of $50,000 was met on Gator Give Day, with nearly $2,500 raised that day. Efforts will continue to increase the total raised by year-end.

Sen. Foley shared that he will be returning to the Academic Senate through re-election and will continue advocating for basic needs and campus resources, including the expansion of the Gator Pass to cover summer and winter breaks. He also looks to establish an advisory board, which is an initiative underway to establish advisory boards in each college to give students input on elective course offerings, particularly in response to course reductions due to campus downsizing.

Sen. Collins asked if there was a QR code for faculty to be able to donate. Sen. Foley shared a donation link in the chat. 

 

 

3. Standing committee reports

 

 

1. Academic Policies Committee

 

Sen. Islami noted APC is bringing one item to plenary in second reading; the policy on restructuring academic units. APC is also bringing into first reading the policy on requirements for graduate students and revisions for the syllabus policy. 

Sen. Islami also shared that EPC will be bringing three program suspensions into second reading today including the MA in Women and Gender Studies, the MA in Anthropology, and the concentration in the flagship Chinese Language BA in Chinese.

 

1. Campus Curriculum Committee

 

Sen. Harvey shared that CCC has no items for today’s plenary. 

 

1. Faculty Affairs Committee

 

Sen. Brown gave notice that FAC has two items in plenary today, a resolution supporting equitable service for lecturer faculty and the retention, tenure, and promotion policy.

 

1. Strategic Issues Committee

 

Sen. Trousdale gave notice that SIC brings two items to the floor today. In second reading, are the proposed changes to the all-university committee on International Programs in second reading. In the first reading, SIC presents proposed changes to the academic freedom policy.

 

1. Student Affairs Committee

 

Sen. Christensen announced that SAC brings two resolutions in first reading including a resolution calling for a report on the instruction of reading and writing, a second resolution in support of student-parent success at SFSU.

 

Informational Items: An informational item is a statement announcing the completion of a process, carried out in accordance with Senate policy, and requiring formal notification of the Senate at its conclusion. 

 

Consent Items:  A consent item is one deemed by the initiating committee and the Executive Committee to be non-controversial, requiring no debate. Any Senator may request to debate the item, in which case it is considered as new business in first reading.  If there is no request to debate, the Chair will declare debate closed and the motion adopted by “General Consent.”  It may be read into the record, or we may move directly to the next agenda items.

 

Continuing Business: Continuing (once called Old) Business involves items returning to the Senate, usually in Second Reading, but occasionally still in First Reading. Items in the Second Reading belong to the Senate as a whole rather than to an individual or committee. Comments on Second Reading items should be confined to those for or against or proposing specific amendments. We ordinarily limit each speaker to three minutes. Senators may yield their time to non-Senators if needed. Amendments and the final document are passed or not passed by majority vote. 

 

On the Table in Second Reading

Strategic Issues Committee

 

4. All University Committee on International Programs, #S20-151

 

Chair Wilson shared that this is the all-university committee on International Programs which was tabled in second reading at the previous plenary on April 8th. A motion to table was made, and a motion to take an item off the table will be required.

 

Sen. Trousdale made a motion to take item number five off the table and back into second reading.

 

Sen. Anderson seconded the motion.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote to take the item off the table.

 

Yes: 41

 

No: 0

 

Abstain: 2

 

Chair Wilson shared that the motion to take item number five off the table and into second reading has passed. 

 

Sen. Trousdale moved to speak on the item, noting that these proposed changes to the all-university committee on International Programs stemmed from that group itself, and it was just being reviewed by the SIC. The changes clarify AUCIP's role in remit, and it clarify the role of individual members. The changes add one ex officio member from the College of Professional and Global Education as well as allow the provision for two co-chairs instead of a chair and a vice chair. It also establishes a set meeting day and time for that committee.

 

 

Sen. Trousdale offered an amendment to amend the language that begins with the campus faculty representative to the CSU Academic Council on International Programs ex officio serve for three years instead of two.

 

Sen. Anderson seconded the amendment.

 

Sen. Collins asked if the committee considered, before this amendment was proposed that the inconsistency this would create with the normal term limits on the SFSU campus as most terms in Senate are usually two years. Sen. Trousdale shared that this was not discussed in the SIC. That could have been one of the reasons that AUCIP originally proposed, that it only served for two years. Sen. Trousdale also shared that students in this group only served for one year, creating an inconsistency in the standard practice of the Academic Senate, but SIC believes that it makes sense for these positions to serve for a full three years, as this would match the Chancellor’s Office.

 

 

Yes: 34

 

No: 0

 

Abstain: 9

 

Chair Wilson noted that there are three speakers in favor of the motion, none against. Seeing no hands, call the question on the main motion to accept all revisions, as outlined on the attachment, but to also the change on the amendment that was previously accepted.

 

Vice Chair facilitated the vote to accept and approve the amendments and all revisions. 

 

Yes: 40

 

No: 0

 

Abstain: 4

 

 

4. University Policy on Written English Proficiency, #S19-014

Chair Wilson asked Sen. de Barros if they would like to move to take Item number six, university policy on written English proficiency off the table.

Sen. de Barros would not like to move it forward to take it off the table and noted that APC would like more time to work on changes to accommodate the evolving list of courses affected by this policy.

 

Sen. Islami noted that the committee received Sen. de Barros’s feedback. APC also asked colleagues from CWEP to assist with revisions to put the suggested revisions in, but at this very moment, it says the revisions are way more major than the committee anticipated because they want to take out all the names of specific courses And the work that CWEP has done on one section of the policy. APC will need more time to process all of the proposed changes to remove all the specific course numbers, which APC is looking to do in the next academic year and will be presented in the future. 

Chair Wilson noted that there were no motions to take it off the table and it will be returned to APC.

 

Second Reading

Academic Policies Committee

 

4. Policy on Restructuring Academic Units, #S21-290

 

Chair Wilson asked if Sen. Islami would like to move this item.

 

Sen. Islami moved the item.

 

Sen. Takagi spoke to the item, stating that APC discussed the suggestions provided at the last plenary meeting and made some revisions to the policy. 

The first suggested change was to consider impact on students and the community. It was determined that the current language in the principle section, fourth bullet point provides a sufficient guideline to consider the impacts on students. The second suggestion was to consider the sentence in the same principle section which said that any decisions are made during the summer or other times when the university is not in full session should be avoided. APC recognized the importance of this and decided to add new sentences to the same place in the last bullet point in the principal section to reiterate the point and then clarify it. There was a suggestion to clarify that any financial analysis for the unit restructuring should be limited to instructional budget APC decided to use that and inserted this in the the policy document.

 

Chair Wilson clarified that on page six, the financial analysis of the proposed reorganization should focus on the instructional budget and be provided by department chairs in consultation with the college financial officer or business manager. 

 

Sen. Harvey shared some edits for the policy. 

• On the top of the on top of page one of eight, replace HR, which is an acronym with human resources or It's just an acronym.
•  On the bottom of page five, it should say faculty and staff, not faculty and faculty.
• On the bottom of page six of eight, sort of in the middle of the page, just before the word financial analysis of the proposed, there's the etc, but before that, it says these issues must include, and if you have a must then get rid of the etc. as it is not specific.

 

Chair Wilson proposed that these are copy editing rules and that unless someone wishes to debate these, we can accept these as copy changes that we can accept through consent. 

 

Sen. Trousdale suggested an additional edit at the bottom of page three on the document, that there needs to be a space between two words, proposed and restructure.

 

The edits were accepted by general consent.

 

 

Educational Policies Council

 

4. Suspension: MA in Women and Gender Studies

 

Sen. Islami moved and spoke to the item, sharing that the information or feedback regarding this suspension was shared in the previous plenary. 

 

Chair Wilson called into question the vote for the resolution.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote for the suspension.

 

Yes: 34

No: 2

Abstain: 9

 

9. Suspension: MA in Anthropology

 

Sen. Islami moved and spoke to the item, sharing that the information or feedback regarding this suspension was shared in the previous plenary. 

 

Chair Wilson called into question the vote for the resolution.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote for the suspension.

 

Yes: 38

No: 2

Abstain: 4

 

10. Suspension: BA in Chinese: Concentration in Flagship Chinese Language

 

Sen. Islami moved and spoke to the item, sharing that the information or feedback regarding this suspension was shared in the previous plenary. 

 

Chair Wilson called into question the vote for the resolution.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote for the suspension.

 

Yes: 39

No: 3

Abstain: 6

 

New Business: New Business items are brought by a committee or individual to the Senate in First Reading, during which open discussion and debate may occur. We ordinarily limit each speaker to three minutes. Senators may yield their time to non-Senators if needed. The item is then returned to the Committee for further revision, to be brought back as Continuing Business in Second Reading. 

 

 

Student Affairs Committee

 

11. Resolution Calling for a Report on the Instruction of Reading and Writing

 

Sen. Christenson moved the item.

 

Sen. Collins spoke in favor of the resolution as the rationale behind my support is that about 15 years ago, this campus took a great stance.on ensuring and enabling our students to be college-level writing competent before they graduated or by the time they graduated. This resolution actually calls for a report that will encourage us to maintain that standard, as well as find out what the strengths and weaknesses of our current approach.

 

Sen. de Barros asked for clarification on whether the campus has the resources to assess the success of a writing program.

 

Sen. Christenson ceded time to Guest Roeder.

 

Guest Roeder shared that CWEP is interested in this, and there have been concerns regarding student reading and writing on this campus. CWE{P wanted to study and understand how things stand what are opportunities the campus has to mitigate any concerns there might be with the changes that have been happening. CWEP has been working on this with faculty and is in touch with writing programs on other CSU campuses. 

 

Chair Wilson noted that there were no other requests for speakers and the item will return to the SAC for second reading.

 

 

12. Resolution in Support of Student Parent Success at San Francisco State University

 

Sen. Christenson moved the item and spoke to it sharing that this resolution recognizes the unique challenges faced by parenting students across the university. This resolution is championed by ASCSU Sen.; Rob Collins and Associated Students Director of Facilities and Operations, Jordan Calley, who is an advisory committee member of the California Alliance for Student Parent Success. The resolution acknowledges work that has already been done by many across campus in support of parenting student success. It advocates for addressing and reducing barriers to parenting student success through invaluable campus supports. Such as the Associated Students Early Childhood Education Center, Wellness Programs, as well as many of the library services shared previously. It urges faculty and staff to inform parenting status, students of their priority registration status, and it encourages campus faculty to include links to resources like the ASI Early Childhood Education Center on their syllabus or their course canvas page to aid in student-parent knowledge of these resources. SAC is in broad support of this resolution and believes it's important to acknowledge and continue to allocate resources for unique supports needed for parenting students to thrive on campus.

 

Sen. Hellman spoke in favor of this resolution and suggested that it be moved to second reading today.

 

Chair Wilson noted that a motion to move this item to second reading requires a two-thirds majority vote.

 

Sen. Collins spoke to the item in favor and encourages colleagues to support student parents on our campus these students are models of student success. Sen. Collins also asked faculty to consider highlighting parenting student resources on their class syllabi so that all SFSU students are made aware.

 

Sen. Sohler speaks in favor of this resolution. 

 

Chair Wilson noted that there were no other requests for speakers and the item will return to the SAC for second reading.

 

 

Academic Policies Committee

13. Policy on Requirements for Graduate Students, #S21-295

 

 

Sen. Islami moved item number thirteen and spoke to the item, sharing that APC has changed the language on the requirements for graduate students in two places. The change includes changing the policy from students needing to reapply after taking two semesters would be changed to three semesters, providing more time and ease for students to return.

 

Sen. Way shared that their office has been working to get students to return to SFSU after being gone for a little while. The thought behind this change was to streamline and maintain the same policy across graduate and undergraduate students to be able to return. 

 

Sen. Landy spoke in favor of the policy, noting that this will aid students in returning.

 

Sen. Sohler spoke in favor of the policy change.

 

Chair Wilson noted that there were no other requests for speakers and that the item will go back to APC for second reading.

 

14. Course Syllabus Policy, #S24-257

 

Sen. Islami moved the item and spoke to the policy, sharing that the policy revisions have been presented to APC by ExComm and Vice Chair Holschuh, noting that a statement in the course syllabi on how generative AI tools can and cannot be used. This revision, instead of specifying exactly what that statement should be, as other parts of the course syllabus policy specify, is to give the faculty more freedom to determine how they want AI tools to be used in their courses.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh shared that this issue was brought to Senate ExComm from the advisory group on student AI programming, co-facilitate by Vice Chair Holschuh, Andrew Roderick from Academic Technology, and Anusha Chowdhury, Senior Director of CEETL and other campus community stakeholders. This group was looking for a way to respond to the ongoing use of AI by students on campus. Vice Chair Holschuh noted that the intention is to ensure that there is some guidance on AI for each class. It is a starting point so that students have some sense of what is okay and what is not okay in terms of using AI. 

 

Chair Wilson asked for clarity that the change that's in policy stat that's showing includes the phrase unanimously passed. He wanted to clarify if this was typo or if it was meant to be included. 

 

Sen. Islami clarified that it was a typo and that the currently proposed policy is not inclusive of unanimously passed. 

 

Vice Chair Holschuh ceded time to Guest Trainor. 

 

Guest Trainor noted they speak in part regarding CEETL’s AI guidance syllabus policy. 

That guidance is very much in accord with what has already been said. It is not a one size fits all approach or a blanket policy approach and is rooted in a recognition that disciplines and levels matter in terms of what is appropriate AI use and what is not in each class and that these are issues that for now at least are best addressed at the individual course, program, and department level. CEETL's guidance encourages a teach, don't police approach to academic integrity, which follows existing Senate policy. They also noted that the policy encourages faculty to emphasize to students the purpose of academic integrity, that it's foundational to learning and intellectual growth, creativity, and knowledge building.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh noted that with the quickly evolving technology that there will likely need additional work. She also noted that in terms of the conversation within the advisory group on student AI programming, this is very much viewed as a first step. It's something that the working group believed could be accomplished before the end of the semester and to have in place for the fall. 

 

Sen. Chou spoke in favor and requested information for faculty to be directed to CEETL’s language.

 

Chair Wilson noted that there were no other speakers and this policy will return to APC for second reading. 

 

Faculty Affairs Committee

 

15. Resolution Supporting Equitable Service for Lecturer Faculty

 

Sen. Brown moved the item.

 

Sen. Obayashi spoke to the item and noted that the resolution was brought to FAC by CFA president, Brad Erikson. Sen. Obayashi noted that this resolution addresses a long-standing issue on this campus regarding a two-tiered labor system between T/TT faculty and adjunct faculty. She also noted that this policy is meant to assist in addressing the impact on shared governance sharing that according to the Fall 2024 statistics, adjunct faculty were 56% of the total faculty on campus with 38% having full-time equivalent status. They emphasize that adjunct faculty mentor our students and ensure that our campus programs and departments thrive with little formal support for their participation in their contribution to campus and community life. This resolution seeks to address this by calling on SFSU to review how it organizes adjunct faculty who already make significant and meaningful contributions to shared governance. Additionally, it calls upon the academic senate, college deans, and the university administration to let organize and support adjunct faculty explicitly and to change SFSU’s operating processes to ensure this.

 

Sen. Trousdale inquired into whether the resolution could include all of the staff unions across the campus in addition to CSUEU. 

 

Chair Wilson noted that there were no other speakers and this resolution will return to FAC for second reading. 

 

 

16. Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Policy, #S24-241

 

Sen. Brown moved the item.

 

Sen. van Kampen spoke to the policy noting that the revisions based on input from multiple sources, including Faculty Affairs, the Professional Development Council, faculty members, and the Academic Senate. They noted that the revisions include addressing parts of the RTP policy that no longer align with the current online process. The policy includes provisions to guide RTP evaluations during disruptions like COVID-19 and current budget cuts as well as offer clearer guidance on how student evaluations are used by both candidates and reviewing committees. The policy provides additional direction on developing service-related criteria at the department level, with language informed by equity-focused work from the Professional Development Council. The policy also explains the role of service credit in the RTP process and defines department chair service as a primary assignment, consistent with recent policy updates.

Chair Wilson noted that there were no other speakers and this policy will return to FAC for second reading. 

 

Strategic Issues Committee

 

17. Academic Freedom Policy, #F13-267

 

Sen. Trousdale moved the item and spoke to the item, noting that there was an update to the link on the Canvas page for the policy. He explained that the university’s academic freedom policy serves both a symbolic and a practical function including as a symbolic role – it articulates the university’s values and commitment to academic freedom, shaping campus culture, and as a practical role – it acts as the governing framework for decision-making when academic freedom is challenged (for example, in disputes over teaching content or speech), potentially affecting faculty discipline or termination. Sen. Trousdale noted that the purpose of the revisions was to: 

• Clarify what is protected – The proposed updates aim to clearly define what types of speech and curricular decisions fall under academic freedom.
• Strengthen protections – The revisions reinforce protections for faculty, especially in response to recent political threats.
• Address federal threats – New language was added in response to growing federal challenges to academic freedom, particularly in the last few months.

Sen. Trousdale shared that the policy revisions have been in development for nearly two years and are now in the first reading stage.

 

Sen. Hellman expressed strong support for the revised academic freedom policy, especially acknowledging the importance of the new language added in response to current threats. However, he raised a concern about a specific phrase in Section 3, Clause 4 of the policy.

His issue was with the clause:

"...insofar as such material is relevant to the topic of instruction."

Sen. Hellman questioned the subjectivity of determining what is considered "relevant," suggesting that this could be interpreted differently by different parties, potentially weakening faculty protections. As a solution, he recommended removing that phrase entirely, or at least considering its deletion to strengthen the clarity and enforceability of the policy.

Sen. Trousdale noted this line was in the original version of the policy, but that it would go back to SIC for discussion. 

 

Sen. Obayashi raised two questions regarding the proposed revisions to the policy: 

1. Sen. Obayashi asked how faculty members should engage with students who disagree with instructional content or viewpoints expressed in the classroom under the protection of academic freedom. She sought guidance or examples of how to frame such dialogue productively, especially when a student feels uncomfortable or challenged by the material.
2. She referenced a faculty retreat session where she led a discussion on academic freedom and recalled that members of the Academic Freedom Committee expressed concern about internal threats—namely, from within the campus community, including students. Sen. Obayashi asked for clarification on whether the motivation for the policy revision stems more from external threats (e.g., the federal government) or internal campus pressures, and how both concerns are being addressed in the new language.

 

Sen. Trousdale responded, noting that he was not in attendance at the retreat session referenced and therefore couldn't directly comment on what was said there. He clarified that while he isn’t on the Academic Freedom Committee, he is speaking from his role on SIC. Sen. Trousdale emphasized the SIC’s core principle: that the policy aims to protect speech, not to protect individuals from speech. This distinction underscores a key tension in academic freedom—balancing open intellectual exploration with sensitivity to potentially controversial content.

 

Sen. Ellis emphasized that SIC has deliberately moved away from focusing on whether threats to academic freedom come from internal or external sources. Instead, their priority has been to develop a policy that builds broad consensus and provides the strongest possible protection for academic speech. She explained that the SIC version of the policy reflects extensive collaboration, including consultation with FAC and engagement with speakers representing diverse viewpoints. The outcome, according to Ellis, is a significantly evolved policy that balances the protection of academic freedom with the inclusivity of campus perspectives. Sen. Ellis reinforced that the process was deliberative, inclusive, and centered on clarity and protection, rather than reactive to any single type of pressure.

 

Sen. Trousdale yielded his time to Guest Jeff Greensite, Chair of the Academic Freedom Committee. 

 

Guest Greensite shared a defense of the proposed revisions to the academic freedom policy citing several motivations highlighting the urgency to the policy. He referenced the current federal administration’s antagonism toward academic freedom, emphasizing that suppressing speech in return would be hypocritical and undermine principled resistance. Guest Greensite shared that a recent survey of 220 respondents showed that 1 in 5 faculty reported experiencing a violation of academic freedom, with many comments indicating a climate of fear—particularly around discussing controversial topics in class. This in combination with community feedback revealed discomfort with free expression, especially around political views. He argued that academic freedom must protect dissent—even unpopular or politically controversial views. He cited specific cases where faculty endured lengthy investigations over relatively minor issues, like religious imagery or pronoun usage, causing significant stress and legal involvement. Guest Greensite closed by expressing concern over new administrative guidelines from the CSU Chancellor's Office in Long Beach, suggesting they could expand the suppression of academic freedom. He argued that this policy revision aims to prevent such misuse.

 

Sen. Hellman asked for clarity on previous controversy surrounding the policy for better understanding of the proposed revisions.

 

Sen. Ellis emphasized the collaborative nature of the revised academic freedom policy. She noted that SIC welcomed and appreciated a wide range of perspectives, which she viewed not as controversial but as healthy and valuable to the process and noted that the current version of the policy is significantly different from what was previously presented, due to extensive input and revision. Sen. Ellis expressed gratitude to the Academic Freedom Committee and other contributors who worked diligently on the document. She underscored the inclusive and consensus-driven process behind the policy’s development.

 

Sen. Cyr seconded Sen. Elli’s sentiments on the process of re-envisioning the policy. 

 

Sen. Wang commented noting that they shared in the sentiments presented by Sen. Ellis and Sen. Cyr. 

Chair Wilson noted that there were no additional speakers and that this policy would go back to the committee for second reading. 

 

 

Adjournment: Time Definite 3:59PM

 

Alesha Sohler

Secretary

 

 

 

Attendance

 

 

 

 

Absent

 

 

Guests

 

 

Post-Plenary Floor Period: This is ordinarily an informal opportunity for senators and guests to meet, exchange information, or follow up on items or questions emerging from the meeting. It will ordinarily run for thirty minutes from the end of formal business, but not beyond 5:00 PM, if people remain online or in the room.