April 23rd, 2024

Academic Senate

Plenary Meeting Minutes

Tuesday 23 April 2024

Hybrid – Seven Hills & Zoom

2:00 pm

 

 

 

 

OPEN FLOOR PERIOD:  2:00 - 2:05 pm

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.

 

CALL TO ORDER: 2:05 pm

1. Approval of the Agenda for 23 April 2024

The agenda was approved as read at 2:06 pm

 

2. Approval of the Minutes for 9 April 2024

The minutes was approved as read at 2:07 pm

Sen Chou (Chair of the Academic Policies Committee) acts as the minutes-taker for today's plenary meeting.

 

3. Announcements from the Floor

No announcements

 

4. Reports
   1. Chair's Report

Chair Goldman commented on the success of the Explore SF State event on 4/20/2024 and had the opportunity to see colleagues and students from around the campus and expressed gratitude to the management team and departments for organizing the event.

 

Chair Goldman reported that item #16 will not be presented in detail today. The Excomm is working on a resolution and will try to distribute it well before the next meeting. The resolution is to reaffirm a few things in a difficult budget situation like ours. We are in a difficult budget situation at the California state level with a deficit of 38-78 billion dollars. This is true at the California State University system, which has a slight deficit in enrollment. Although the base funding will hopefully be maintained, we don't know how much longer the Governor will stick to a compact that's given us an increase in funding each year. At the level of our university itself, we are 21% approximately below our enrollment target, which means that we're also moving toward 20% below our usual budget. So, this situation is very real, and all of us must do some work to meet certain challenges. One of these works is that we, as the faculty and staff in various departments, are going to have to think about our programs, such as "Is there a way that we can consolidate some of our offerings or programs?" "Are there ways that we can make them more efficient yet still maintain the high quality that we want to give our students?" And ultimately, that is what's going to attract more students to our campus in the future.

 

It's also important that we recognize that we have to work as teams and together. Our deans and the upper administration have to work with chairs and departments in order to make sure

that we are actually bringing shared governance and planning responses to a brand new level of intensity that we've probably never seen before. So, the situation is real. It's important that we adjust to it. We can avoid downstream emergencies if we all collaborate and if we give as much power to solve these problems to the departments, the chairs, and the faculty as we possibly can.

 

So we're working on a resolution that will put some of that in writing and also will set it in motion. The formation of a committee to oversee some of these works, as provided in some of our policies, so that we're ready to deal with the situation should things require action, let's say over the summer or more quickly than we are expecting.

We hope to act ahead of time and, in reality, really keep things under control on our campus. We've managed to do it many times in the past, but many of those times haven't been quite as intense as the situation we're in right now.

 

1. 2. President's Report

President Mahoney thanks the whole campus for coming together for the event on 4/20/2024, particularly Amy, Miguel, and Katie. The president encouraged people to follow SF State on social media.

 

President Mahoney echoed with Chair Goldman that it is a hard time for CSU, SF State, and higher education in so many ways. President Mahoney expressed her gratitude for the role of student activism in supporting faculty, staff, and students' freedom of expression and academic freedom. President Mahoney also emphasized that hard times require us to work together in the hope of transparent and collaborative ways. We've been modeling since we 1st started going through hard times together. The university needs faculty and staff help to lead the necessary changes. The administration commits itself to shared governance as we always have.

 

President Mahoney appreciates the partnership of the Senate Executive Committee, the Senate, and the UBC and the level of engagement in the work that's facing not just us but almost every other campus.

 

President Mahoney shared that the words from the State are that the Governor and representatives in the Senate and Assembly budget processes are all in agreement that the compact should hold. The Governor's budget will come in the middle of May. So far, our advocacy does seem to be having an impact during a really hard state budget year.

 

President Mahoney shared that the debacle of the FAFSA process caused a delay in financial aid across the country and commended the work done by Katie and the Financial Aid team. The president also praised the exemplary retention efforts, particularly closing opportunity gaps, of a joint Desi proposal put together by the Department of Equity and Community Inclusion and the College of Ethnic Studies.

 

Sen. Collins asked, "Are there any strategies for effective communication you would recommend us as a Senate report out?

 

President Mahoney commented that we can put the information in the Friday report. We try to make it easy for you to contact your own assembly members. So that, 1^st and foremost, it's your assembly members or senators. We have a tendency to always be self-critical, which I think is good, but there are moments for self-criticism and then there are moments for unfiltered pride and arrogance about the value of our mission.

 

1. 3. Provost's Report

Provost Sueyoshi shared that she was also moved by the event on 4/20/2024. All the incredible services lined up in the event, and thanks to all faculty and staff for coming out and being standing cheerleaders for SF State.

 

Senate Lynch reported that over 1000 financial aid services and 160 housing applications were completed. All the colleges participated in an open house or tabled at the academic showcase along with nearly 300 other academic campus partners. Over 150 students accepted their offers of admission on the spot, over 50 students registered for summer orientation sessions, and 50 student clubs were tabled at the student showcase. And on Instagram, we have a highlights reel that provides a snapshot of the day and a couple of student stories from admitted students.

IG Reel: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5_sa5iv65g/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

Provost Sueyoshi also encouraged the campus to check out the craft fairs and applauded the staff council's efforts.

 

Provost Sueyoshi shared the UTPC's input on the amount of interdisciplinary and student-centered work happening across the campus based on reviewing the tenure and promotion files this year.   

 

The provost commented that retention is the key to the campus's success. We want to focus on retention so that enrollment can stay stable.

 

Chair Goldman: The Provost's personal work will be featured in the next craft fair.

 

Sen. Chaudhuri: Next Wednesday, there is a crafting circle. If you want to get started as faculty, please come on May 1st at 3-4 pm in LIB 240

 

(Guest) Nancy Ganner: Please attend the last AY' 23-'24 meeting of the University Budget Committee on Thurs., May 16th, from 10 am – 12 pm via Zoom. Email ubc@sfsu.edu for the Zoom link.

 

1. 4. Standing Committee Reports
      1. Academic Policies Committee

Sen. Chou: APC has one second-reading item, one first-reading item, and one item from EPC scheduled for today.

 

1. 1. 2. Campus Curriculum Committee

Sen. D'Alois: CCC has several items in the second reading. Sen. Hellman will be shepherding you all through the second reading.

 

1. 1. 3. Faculty Affairs Committee

Sen. Holschuh: The first reading will include two items. The first will be a resolution on the use of generative AI in teaching and learning, and the second will be a brief revision to the policy on lecturer faculty range elevation.

 

         4.4.4.         Strategic Issues Committee

Sen. Trousdale: No item is from SIC. The SIC continues to discuss the budget, the fall 2024 schedule, and ideas raised in the last plenary, matters arising.

 

1. 1. 5.              Student Affairs Committee

Sen. Olsher: One first reading item is presented today.

 

5. Matters Arising – An opportunity for Senators to say what's on their minds.

Chair Goldman introduced the matters arising, and Vice Chair Harvey. 

 

Sen. Harvey introduced that the senators will be randomly assigned to 11 different electronic breakout rooms for a 15-minute discussion. One ExComm member will facilitate each room.

The discussion topic: "What do you feel can be done to improve your morale/campus morale?"

 

Sen. Holschuh clarified that in the breakout room, the person with the most recent birthday would be the person to report for that group, and the person with a birthday next would be the timekeeper.

 

Reports from the breakout room sessions:

• 2016-2018 HR Emerging Leaders program including faculty and staff was excellent and would be good to bring back. Good bonding among people.

 

• Catering to support people to get together to think creatively about programs. Gather around food.

 

• Well run meetings could assist with morale. Increase staff voice in meetings.

 

• Do projects like murals together. Physical signs of unity.

 

• • Knowing about Fall schedule classes for lecturers: our names have yet to be added (2 of us)
  • 4/3 work schedule
  • More opportunities to meet people across campus, perhaps on the Patio
  • Tickets to symphony/ballet…cultural events around the city…discounts
  • Buy defunct movie theater on West Portal: hosting events there, lecturers, showings of student and alumni work: getting us out into the community
  • We've lost a lot in terms of in-person connectivity. More opportunities for reconnecting with one another informally in spaces we don't often meet one another: opportunities for making friends
  • Faculty Hiking

 

• CSUEU is doing a coffee break tomorrow for Administrative Professionals Day (9:45-11 am) but it would have meant a lot if it had come from the university.

 

• Extra work leads to burnout. Humanizing the discussions.
• There are things we can change and some we can't. 

 

• Would morale be better if we had a Friday/Saturday environment?

 

• Microinteractions become fraught. Examples:  We do a lot of work by email by necessity, when people are spread so far by commuting; email culture is an important part of morale and is perhaps taken for granted.

 

• Best advice: It's if more than two sentences, it should be a meeting.

 

• Some people have strong opinions and push it too much and don't listen to others. For me, it's complicated. What is our main goal? The campus is so empty and there are not so many students in the classroom. Undergrad students just disappear from campus. You project your understanding and it's not just material in the instruction.

 

• Saying "Thank You" to recognize appreciation and good work.
• Small in-person interaction
• Informal Social event gathering.

 

• Miraculously budget improves but that might now be the real problem

 

• • Reorganize colleges in terms of offerings
  • Commitment to programs from the admin
  • Take away the insecurity that we feel (as a result of cuts), even tenured faculty
  • Meeting in person with a prospective students and their parent - talking about the experience of being a student; how great to campus is. Feels so fulfilling. Can we do more of those?
  • SF Explore was great – maybe we need to do more of those. But moral is so low and getting faculty to engage is difficult.
  • Faculty scholarship does not seem to be valued by admin.

 

• Sense of belonging, acknowledgement and appreciation of work from departments but all school and university
• More community building activities and celebrations, sports and recreation
• Clean bathrooms, more forgiving parking tickets, open doors, common rooms, opportunities to meet up by chance

 

• We talked about offering more opportunities for informal conversations between departments and between colleges, to promote information sharing to reduce the feeling of being siloed. We also discussed creating some sort of incentive for lecturer faculty and staff to engage more with the Senate and shared governance.

 

• It is important to have a working committee on the concerns of employees, especially staff, in the campus community. 
• It is important for all to know that lines are not being approved for replacement and these lines represent jobs that are imperative to maintain the infrastructure of the departments, etc.
• It is important to remember that while the situation has changed, expectations of workload completion and teaching, research, and service have not.
• As people leave, they are not being replaced. Doing less with less may be reducing resources. It is important to examine what this means for our university? Are we actually doing less with less or doing more with less? The work still has to be done.
• It is important to note that expectation have not changed and a group working on employee concerns is needed. It is particularly important to stress that current employees taking on additional work need to be compensated. We may not be where we were 10 years ago, but in reducing, we need to support those doing the work to bring us back.
• The following were central in ways to improve personal morale:

 

• It is important to prioritize socialization opportunities.
• It is important to have regular planning for socialization. This does not have to include all of the campus community. This can be done through mixers between faculty and staff, faculty and students, and all three with activities.
• Increasing enrollment may also boost morale. It is good to see students on campus.

 

• It's difficult to have a conversation about morale when we're so worried about lecturer faculty possibly losing their jobs, not being reappointed in a couple of months. Are these people going to be back with us next year? We need to allow ourselves to accept the reality and just be real with it - be sad about it…

 

• Let's find more opportunities get together in creative social ways, more collaborations. Supporting each other through a time of change, hearing about what others are doing, is encouraging And improves morale.

 

• Morale is affected by running into barriers for good ideas, or even barriers to efficient operations. It's so discouraging to work for months on something that will be an improvement for students, and then it gets shut down due to barriers - or trying to what's the point? Let's find ways to identify and resolve barriers and allow good ideas to flow forward - that will improve morale.

 

• For participants in CEETL activities - have offered stipend/honorarium - perhaps badging in the future?
• With new faculty, easier to have faculty participate in learning communities or trainings - can fit in their schedules. But with tenured faculty, not as much space in their schedules for their participation in learning communities/trainings because doing more service.

 

• For faculty, RTP needs to be expanded/updated to make room to allow professional development or trainings or participation in say Explore SF State or other forms of invisible work. Note that Professional Development Council is looking more at service and RTP (I think).
• How to accommodate folks that want to participate in CEETL activity such as WeWednesdays or the Writing Meetups (example of making activity inclusive) - WeWednesdays stay on Wednesday, but the time for the activity will shift. Writing Meetups occur in person for one schedule, and online for another schedule.

 

• Morale for staff? Should there be/ Can there be more flexibility in the minimum of three days per week on campus? Also, what can you do for an event like Explore SF State - and a staff member wants to participate (show and tell, meet/greet, give a tour). How can they be compensated?

 

• And…whether we are talking about teaching classes, on campus activities, or formal meetings (say Academic Senate, Department Meeting, Committee Meeting) — discussed how teaching/meetings in person are better than on Zoom. And perhaps part of the morale issue is that we are missing that in person contact.

 

• Remembering our mission: we are doing well, and recommended that we highlight innovative faculty work, initiate blasting out good news, go to campus events, talks, planetarium, performances, take a class, and increase appreciation for one another,
• Students in IR won an big award in excellence in diplomacy.
• SF State Explore was a great event.
• Be kind to each other.
• Thank people with love.
• Lots of faculty and student events in the School of Design in the past week, including a show on sustainable materials in the Design Space Gallery, several publications by faculty, also documented in posters in the halls of the department, and a "Portfolio Nite" event where alumni critique current students' portfolios.
• Others mentioned that faculty could receive 1-credit for courses that they now audit.
• Giving ourselves permission to take a break, maybe wait to answer emails, as this can help with personal morale: to not think that we would be penalized otherwise. It was mentioned also that something more could be done for retirees so they should not feel sad when they leave. Provost Sueyoshi mentioned that a program for emeritus status for staff was just started, and that there is in fact a ceremony for retiring faculty (May 16th in the Vista Room).

 

The Matter Arising activity was concluded at 2:59pm.

 

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.

No Informational Items.

CONSENT ITEMS

A consent item is one deemed by the Chair to be non-controversial, requiring no debate. Any Senator may call the item to the floor, in which case it is considered as new business in first reading. If no Senator calls it to the floor, it is considered approved. It may be read into the record, or we may move directly to the next agenda items.

6. Recommendation form Educational Policies Council: Discontinuance for the MFA in Theatre Arts: concentration in Design/Technical Production (non-emergency), consent item.

 

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 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.

3:00 pm

7. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: New Policy- Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities Pathways Policy, in second reading.

 

Sen. Chou reported item #7 in the second reading and the revision made in the current version, which is in lines 68, 81, and 102. The change proposes a clarification on which committee should review the RSCA pathways.

 

Sen. Grutzik proposed an amendment motion to change the word "encouraged" to "required" in line 88. As noted in our WASC review, this is the direction we are taking with all things on the campus, and this is an opportunity to elevate the work and learn how the RSCA pathways are going.

 

Sen. Platas commented that changing the assessment measures required will add to the workload of the assessment work.

 

Sen. Harvey suggested using the word" directed."

 

Sen. Grutzik: We encourage the RSCA pathways outcomes to be solidified with the student outcomes.

 

The amendment's adoption was then held to a vote.

Yes:26

No 5

Abstain: 11

 

(Guest) Prof. Hamel asked the reasons for the rationale for having the University RSCA council as the body to review the RSCA pathway, not SF State Create. The original purpose is for the RSCA pathways to be done by SF State Create because it has 3 faculty co-directors supported by ORSP.

 

Sen. Chou: The APC proposed that the RSCA pathways be reviewed by a university-wide committee. 

 

Sen. Scott proposed an amendment motion to change "responsible for reviewing" to "responsible for approving" in line 81.

 

Sen. Way: The SF State Create is an initiative on the website in its own words. As the APC Chair mentioned, we were just concerned that there is no official body. We wanted an official committee to do the final approval for something that will be on a student's transcript. If it is changed to "approve," which is Sen. Scott's recommendation, that would be fine.

 

The amendment's adoption was then held to a vote.

Yes:35

No 0

Abstain: 4

 

The revision was adopted. The item itself was then held to a vote:

 

Yes:37

No 1

Abstain: 5

 

 

4:15 pm

Chair Goldman: Items 8-15 will all be presented by the Campus Curriculum Committee.

 

Recommendations from the Campus Curriculum Committee, in second reading:

 

8. Minor in Russian, name and other changes

Sen. Hellman presented the item 8

Yes: 29

No: 1

Abstain: 2

 

9. Certificate in Financial Analytics, new
10. Certificate in Real Estate, new
11. Certificate in Fintech, new

Sen. Hellman presented the items 9-11 as a group together.

Yes: 31

No: 0

Abstain: 1

 

12. Certificate in Data Science for Biotechnology Professionals, new

Sen. Hellman presented item 12 and moved the item to the second reading.

Sen. Collins spoke in favor of the proposal.

Yes: 32

No: 0

Abstain: 0

 

13. Certificate in Business Analytics, new

Sen. Hellman presented item 13 and moved to second reading.

Yes: 35

No: 0

Abstain: 0

 

14. Certificate in Paralegal Studies, reduce by 20%

Sen Hellman: This reduction in 20% of the credits is being done to facilitate graduation.  

Sen. D'Alois: The reduction of units also aligns with the accreditation body.

Sen. Wilson asked about whether the AI was included in the discussion.

Sen. D'Alois: No discussion of AI in CCC, but the department will consider it.

Yes: 33

No: 0

Abstain: 0

 

15. Graduate Certificate in PK-12 Climate Justice Education, new

Sen. Hellman gave the floor to Sen. D'Alois. 

Sen. D'Alois presented item 15 and advocated the theme of social justice in climate change issues emphasized in the proposal.

 

Sen Collins spoke in favor of this proposal and appreciated the work done on the proposal.

 

Sen. Grurtzik expressed strong support, especially regarding the interdisciplinary work. 

Yes: 33

No: 0

Abstain: 0

        

4:34 pm

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.

16. Recommendation from the Executive Committee:  Resolution to form Institutional Review Committee under F19-177 Academic Program Discontinuance Policy, in first reading.

Chair Goldman: Item 16 is deferred until the next plenary meeting.

 

17. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Revision to F18-146 All University Program for Educator Preparation, in first reading.

Sen Chou presented item 17 in the first reading.

Sen Chou reported that the main area of the revision was to merge two committees into one and change the committee's membership (lines 139-150). The change reflects the accreditation requirement by CTC, which is the California Commission on Teaching Credentialing.

 

Sen. Grutzik appreciated the APC's review and suggestions and Associate Dean Tammy Spencer's legwork in revising this policy. Sen Grutzik shared the background of the policy revision and commented that there were a lot of constraints across the GCOE and the others and viewed education preparation as a university-wide effort. The education preparation and credential programs may not undergo the same consultation process as other programs. In consultation with Associate Dean Dewitt (DUEAP) and the team, GCOE realized there needs to be a group to look at proposals related to education. The proposal addresses the consultation from the departments of the subject reviews.

Sen. Goldman: please send your comment to the APC chair. We look forward to hearing the second reading in our next meeting.

 

18. Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Resolution on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Teaching and Learning, in first reading.

Sen. Holschuh presented the resolution and commented on the rationale of bringing attention to the use of AI in the teaching and learning process among faculty and staff. In particular, the rationale is meant to provide a bit of additional guidance since our existing academic integrity policy does not specifically address the use of generative AI at this point. With this resolution, the FAC hopes to emphasize the importance of collaborative work, collaboration between faculty, and collaboration between faculty and students as we all learn. The FAC hopes to encourage a climate that is open to learning about AI.  

 

Sen. Wilson asked about the digital divide and the impact of inaccessible tools on student equity, which is partially addressed in lines 54-55. Sen. Willson suggested that FAC further explore what it means for students to participate in different ways with a tool that privatizes their information in our current capitalist model.

 

Chair Goldman: Please send feedback to Sen. Holschuh. We look forward to hearing the second reading in the next meeting.

 

19. Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Revision of policy on Temporary Faculty Range Elevation S00-211, in first reading.

 

Sen. Holschuh: This revision updates the language to bring the policy in line with the recent Memorandum of Understanding signed by the CSU in January 2024, which extended the timeline for a particular condition under which faculty range elevations can take place through 2024, 2025, and to be specific.

 

Sen. Pogrow spoke against it and expressed concerns that the policy's language is exclusionary. The policy talks about faculty involved in this as being only those in a department or equivalent units. However, there are 9 academic programs that are neither departments nor equivalent units, for example, MBA, EdD, and CPaGE programs. The language means that faculty who teach in these programs do not experience any of the benefits of this policy, such as being eligible for the range elevations. Sen. Pogrow recommended the language be changed so the policy applies to departments, equivalent units, and all faculty units that offer academic degrees, reminding the current revision to the policy has not been voted on, and proposed that this item goes back to the FAC.

 

Sen. Erickson commented that the amendment proposed by Sen. Pogrow would be consistent with the CBA because it's applied to all Unit 3 employees and agreed that the language should be inclusionary and not even suggest that they would be excluded.

 

Sen. Pogrow asked if an amendment could be made.  

 

Sen. Holschuh mentioned that the issue has been brought up and has been under consideration in the FAC for this entire year. It is part of a larger discussion.

 

Sen. Wilson clarified that this item is in the first reading. An amendment can be made in the second reading.

 

Sen. Pogrow commented that this is an opportunity to make the language clearer in both CBA and the policy so no faculty will be left out.

 

Sen. Olsher commented that this is a consulting process at this point. The policy will go back to the committee, and they will have a chance to consult with others. Senators can send comments in written format to the FAC.

Chair Goldman thanked everyone for the comments and the committee.

 

         4:55 pm

20. Recommendation from the Student Affairs Committee: Resolution on SF State's Renewed Commitment to Multilingualism and Internationalization, in first reading.

 

Sen. Olsher presented the item 20. The resolution recognizes the value of SF state as a multilingual and multicultural community where students from immigrant families, international students, and indigenous students feel welcome, valued, and included. It seeks to renew the university's commitment to a wide range of support for such diverse students, including the composition of multilingual courses, support from the TASC tutoring center, the Office of International Programs, and a number of different courses and academic programs. We also extend this to the support and value of the study of modern languages. In other words, valuing multilingualism as an important part of being a student at San Francisco State and the value of indigenous languages, cultures, and study abroad.

Through this resolution, we also seek to encourage the recognition and value of the range of academic programs and support services on campus that are part of creating this rich campus culture, a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose for students, and preparation for our students for success in the multicultural society of San Francisco State, San Francisco Bay Area, and beyond.

 

Sen. Trousdale spoke in support of this resolution and suggested an edit on line 96 to change the name of the "Office of International Programs" to "Office of International Education."

 

Sen. Ellis spoke in support of this resolution. This resolution reflects our commitment to internationalizing our university and creating added value for our students in San Francisco that they can't find anywhere else.

 

PRESENTATION(s)

21. Mary Beth Love, Executive Director Metro College Success Program, and Alycia Shada, Metro Communications and Special Projects, "The Metro Success Program." Time approximate 3:10 pm.

3:18 pm

(Guest) Prof. Mary Beth Love presented slides and summarized that the Metro program started in 2007 and has been with the campus for 17 years. The Metro's mission is to increase equity and excellent excellence in college graduation through engaging in supportive, rigorous, and socially responsible education. The Metro has won numerous national state and CSU awards for our project. Prof. Love introduced Prof. Malik.

(Guest): Prof. Savita Malik presented the slides about the metro program and introduced Alycia Shada, one of the program directors.  

The Metro program has 4 major components, all critical to our success. Each student enrolled in Metro becomes a part of a small learning community with 4 semesters of courses and peer support. The Student Services team is responsible for tutoring, mentorship, and support for students from the application phase all the way through the 2 years that they are part of our program in Metro. They also provide early intervention and academic advice for our students. The components for the curriculum and faculty development arm embed social justice curriculum with faculty training and support.

Metro uses interconnected real-time data systems, which allows the program to provide just-in-time support and individualized planning for each of our students.

91% of our students are low-income, 1st gen, college-going and/or underrepresented. We represent 35% of SF State 1st year students. 35% are in Metro, and 50% of our SF state students are underrepresented in higher education. That equates to about 1,000 first-time freshmen each year that we work with.

Our students are the most historically marginalized in higher education. You can see from this graph how Metro students compared to their non-metro counterparts among the equity groups that Metro serves. Pell-eligible students are one of our equity groups, so we are serving the most historically underserved in higher education.

We have a coordinator in every college on campus. They are retention specialists. We often think of them as the principal of their academy. They teach their academies 1st-year experience courses.

They meet one-on-one with each of their students, and there are 140 of those students, 70 in the 1st year and 70 in the second year students each year that come through. Those coordinators continue to work with students all the way through graduation. They help facilitate student check-ins with their advisors UAC advisors, and also helped them create education plans for their 1st 2 years and then again as they enter their major. They serve as the student's point of contact for students who are navigating their university in those 1st 2 years when they're taking their GE courses.

Our faculty development focuses on equity and social justice practices in the classroom, and actually, a number of our faculty now are engaging in alternative assessment practices, which is where we've kind of evolved over the years through contract grading. We provide a lot of resources and curriculum for our faculty teaching these courses, and as you all know, as faculty, the curriculum takes a lot of revisions and continued improvements. We have an ongoing partnership with CEETL, including work with the Jedi curriculum development, and we continue to help support faculty in a lot of ways with our work.

(Guest) Prof. Mary Beth Love continued the presentation and highlighted that Metro retention in the 1st and second years has been consistent. The additional annual enrollment revenue attributed to Metro is estimated to reach about 5 million a year.

 

Sen. Wilson: Who are the students in the non-equity group?

(Guests) Prof. Love and Shada: These students are low-income, pell grant eligible, but they would not be eligible. For example, some Asian subgroups are not considered as the underrepresented minority group. So poor or first-gen White and some Asian students are not eligible. We target our recruitment at local high schools that generally fit that demographic but don't exclude anyone from the program, so we accept everyone who applies until we're full.

Closed at 3:33 pm

22. Anoshua Chaudhuri, Director of the Center for Equity and Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Andrew Roderick, Assistant Vice President of Academic Technology, with Professors Dragutin Petkovic, Jennifer Trainor, and Denise Kleinrichert, "AI: Sensemaking for Our Academic Community." Time approximate 3:30 pm.

3:35 pm

 

(Guest) Prof. Chaudhuri (CEETL Director) introduced AVP Nish Malik.

(Guest) AVP Nish Malik presented slides to summarize Generative AI and highlight opportunities for AI in education. The arrival of ChatGPT, designed by Open AI, is perhaps the biggest cultural flash point of the AI revolution for the common man. ChatGPT's ability to deliver college admission essays and life-advancing signals is a breakthrough for AI. While raising many worries about its misuse, SF state-like campuses across the CSUs and the country grapple to understand the impacts of generative AI. It is predicted that 19% of the workforce would see half of their task impacted by AI. It is no surprise that people's feelings regarding air are mixed. Specific to education, the market is massive, and with the increased adoption of digital learning and the digitalization of various business processes, there are now many opportunities. As technology becomes more specialized, each industry, each field, and each discipline will experience change, some more than others. Artificial intelligence is not going to bring an end to education. However, institutions will have to strategize on how to use AI to enhance efficiency, encourage learning, and foster creativity.

(Guest) AVP Andrew Roderick presented slides summarizing the areas where students can use AI in positive ways and concerns raised, such as academic integrity. Students hear mixed messages in the classroom and feel guilty about using the technology even when they think they're using it in benign ways. Students are also feeling that AI is an important part of their future. Assumptions we may make around Gen Z students growing up in the digital age and all being proficient in technology, and here lies the real digital divide issues that we're facing with generative AI. SF state must balance its response to AI to meet the risks and take advantage of its opportunities. If we don't, we risk leaving our digital divide students behind. Students are already feeling pressure to learn AI and integrate it into their skill set for fear of being left behind, particularly for their future role in the workforce. We're beginning to see AI's impact on specialized tasks, and we should expect and plan for our disciplines to be disrupted and transformed in the coming months and years. These changes will impact the fields of work into which our students will graduate. So, the stakes are high. SFSU must take the opportunities so our students will not left behind. The changes are impacting multiple disciplines, and there is no turning back. AI technology is here to stay.

(Guest) Prof. Chaudhuri shared that the CEETL started the conversation in the fall of 2023 and developed the goals to create a balanced campus perspective on AI, meet faculty where they are, foster student responsible behavior, think about equity, and maintain standards. The CEETL tried to reach out to every single stakeholder in this, and you'll see from this picture that we've reached out to Senate faculty leaders, student leaders, departments, and even the student affairs' student conduct office. We've tried to be as inclusive as possible of everyone on this campus who might have been interested in AI. We also created workshops and discussion circles to introduce faculty, staff, and students to what we might be using AI for in our professional work. We also have an AI operational task force along with our CEETL Faculty Fellow, to invite speakers from across and beyond campus to inform the campus about our work. We now have a campus AI website, which is like a clearing house for resources, events, and workshops. In addition, we've created teaching guidance for faculty (https://ai.sfsu.edu/).

Guidance for Teaching: https://sfsu.box.com/s/nfy1v9eum9x20cxqbtpzqw6nh9rqm2ss

We have a serial mini-symposium where faculty will showcase what they have been doing with AI (https://ai.sfsu.edu/event/meeting-moment-using-ai-classroom).

 

(Guest) Prof. Jennifer Trainer: Academic integrity is a concern with AI with many faculty. Faculty are concerned about AI detection in a world where detection software does not work. And in fact, many software, you know, a lot of the software has a built-in bias. It identifies multilingual writing as AI-generated even when it's not, and thus, using that software to detect AI can exacerbate equity gaps. On the CEETL website, we have resources to help faculty teach instead of policing the use of AI in the classroom. Students shared concerns about being unable to use the AI software and would like to have guidelines and transparency regarding using the AI tools.

What does it mean to teach rather than to police academic integrity? Some of the themes that have emerged in our work with faculty this year. AI creates different impacts and needs across different disciplines and professions. We're going to need to teach students how and when to use AI ethically at each level of the curriculum and in each of our disciplines. Also, we will need to build AI learning into existing SLOs, scaffolding students' AI learning needs by discipline across the curriculum. I believe this is a primary need for us in the next year. This moment presents possibilities and challenges for an equity approach to the classroom.

On the one hand, AI may democratize education. It may provide new pathways for accessibility. At the same time, especially if we ban AI for our students in a blanket way, we may see widening equity gaps as students from more resourced universities zoom ahead with these technologies.

The discussions with students reveal that, as AVP Roderick said, students have already used a myriad of AI tools and technologies to navigate their academic lives. Students also shared some of our same worries about these tools and technologies, and they are anxious to avoid a plagiarism accusation. Students are worried that they don't know how to use the technology appropriately for school or work. They worry that they will be left behind in the workforce and the world if they don't know how to use these tools. Students also share our concerns about cultural, artistic, creative, and linguistic erasure, the loss of their voice and creativity, and threats to their learning.

You may be heartened to hear that many students have expressed to me their concern that teachers will be replaced with machines and that this is a future they do not relish. We've learned from students that they value frank and open conversations in class with their teachers about academic integrity and AI. They want guidelines and transparency from us. Students appreciate being able to explore the range of technologies available to them and discuss how they can use the tools.

Finally, one of the most consistent themes to emerge in all of the work we've done with faculty this year is that the best way forward may be found by embracing a burgeoning field of study called critical AI. Critical AI centers on these ethical and equity questions. It asks,

"What does equity look like when technology shapes decision-making?" Who is creating the future, and how can we ensure that these creators reflect our communities?"

"How do your tools shape knowledge production and consumption?" "Whose voices are centered, and who's our marginalized? What is gained and lost?"  

Critical AI means examining AI tools with students through the lens of these questions of ethics and equity.

As we build AI into our curriculum next year and beyond, I think we want to continue to address these ethical questions so that we and our students can realize the potential, the democratizing benefits, and the learning access the technology provides. The ways technology may help us solve new problems or old problems make the world a better place. We can retain our skeptical stance, demanding maybe more of these tools, limiting their use when appropriate, and remaining clear-eyed about their potential harms.

CEETL faculty engagement recordings: https://ceetl.sfsu.edu/teaching-generative-ai

National trends and opportunities with GAI - https://techgovernance.sfsu.edu/MayEABMeeting2024

 

(Guest) Prof. Dragutin Petkovic shared that he has been in AI for 40 years and shared his concern but was impressed with how fast it came and the impact of it in terms of adoption. There are 100 million users in 2 months. Facebook took 4 and a half years for full adoption. The second big thing, which is actually of my biggest concern, is that this is the 1st, and many people say this is the most consequential technology ever invented by humans. Its impact is now mostly in white-collar jobs, such as tech jobs, coding data analytics, media, content creation, journalism, advertisement, legal, paralegal, market research, teaching, finance, trading, accountants, customer service agent, and then look at what we teach our students.

Employers will expect their future employees to learn how to leverage those tools. They may not need to know exactly how they work, but they will need to know how to use them. Secondly, our students are already using it big time, and they told me in my software engineering capstone course that they expect us to teach and help them. This will definitely cause some changes in teaching. Prof. Petkovic shared his experience that faculty have to adapt and give students a home assignment to summarize the paper, which will take them 2 seconds of charge GPT, and check students' learning on hard copy paper with a pencil in the classroom, no internet, no mobile. Prof. Petkovic encouraged students to use charge GPT, but they have to document and do self-assessment, which also helps the faculty learn about it.

Prof. Petkovic encouraged people to look at their certificate in Ethical AI and strongly recommended that faculty encourage and motivate students to use AI, as there is simply no way out of it. The EU is putting legislation to regulate, and President Biden and the White House are issuing guidance on the use of AI. So, some regulation will definitely happen and be necessary.

(Guest) Prof. Denise Kleinrichert presented the importance of teaching ethics. An important aspect that we expect of students is that when they do research, they find their sources and cite those sources appropriately. This would be important as we continue with our curriculum development. Teaching students to take responsibility for where their information is derived.

Closed at 4:09 pm

 

Adjournment: Time approximately 5:00 pm

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.