April 8, 2025

 

 

 April 8, 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.

 

Sen. Harvey shared that there will be a mindful movement tomorrow, 12-1pm. 

 

Sen. Brown shared "Alternatives to Incarceration Fair" and subsequent Film Screening of the documentary The Strike is scheduled for Tuesday, April 15, in Jack Adams Hall, which is located within the Cesar Chavez Center. This event is open to all students and the public. 

 

 

2:05 PM: Call to Order

 

 

1. Approval of agenda 

 

The agenda is approved by general consent.

 

1. Approval of minutes from 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 Chair Wilson reported that nominations for the Academic Senate are currently underway, including the verification of candidate eligibility.

 

Chair Wilson also provided an update on the University Budget Committee (UBC), which met on March 20. During that meeting, the committee selected the “middle option” for budget planning. A subsequent town hall was held to share this decision and gather campus feedback.

One key issue that emerged during the town hall was the need to foster cross-disciplinary and cross-college collaboration. In response, the Spring Academic Senate Question of Interest session will focus on this topic. The session, titled "Let's Connect: Creating Synergies across Colleges and Disciplines," will take place on April 23, from 1:00 to 2:30 PM in LIB 121.

Chair Wilson emphasized that there are only three plenaries left this year.  April 22^nd will be the final day to introduce items in first reading.  May 6^th is the final day to have items in second reading.  May 13^th will be in-person and include thanking the current year’s senators, welcoming the new senators, voting on ExComm members, and a reception.

 

4.2. University president's report

 

Pres. Mahoney shared recent advocacy efforts along with AS President, Brandon Foley, Washington, D.C., focused on support for Pell Grants, undocumented students, and related issues. Meetings are being held with Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The delegation is advocating for continued legislative support on these matters.

 

As part of these discussions, the recent federal travel advisory was addressed, with explanations provided on its implications for students, faculty, and international travel.

 

Pres. Mahoney reported that approximately 3,300 student visas have recently been revoked, including visas for four former students from the university. An email communication is being drafted to inform the campus community about these developments, provide guidance on how to respond, and offer support resources.

 

Sen. Lynch shared that the impacted individuals were identified through a regularly run report. This report is now being generated daily to ensure ongoing guidance and legal support can be provided to affected students and faculty.

 

Sen. Brown noted that immigration-related concerns are also affecting faculty members, particularly those with vulnerable or uncertain status.

 

Guest Maricel Santos inquired about support for individuals preparing to begin OPT. Sen. Lynch advised that such individuals should be referred to the Division of International Education and Faculty Affairs for coordinated and up-to-date assistance.

 

Sen. Hellman reported that the library has also been targeted in recent actions, underscoring broader concerns regarding academic freedom and institutional safety.

 

Sen. Raggio asked whether permanent residents (green card holders) have also had their immigration status revoked. This question was noted for further clarification.

 

Sen. Yoo shared that a  Defend Your Rights training session is scheduled for Monday, 4/14.

 

Human Resources shared a Link to the HR website, highlighting the top tab for Immigration Resources and CSU International Travel.

 

Guest Chaudhuri contributed a link in the chat to an additional  Immigrant Student Inclusion and Solidarity Resources 

 

3. University provost's report

 

Prov. Sueyoshi emphasized the importance of faculty seriously considering the risks associated with international travel at this time. Particular concern was expressed for individuals who are not U.S. citizens, as they appear to be especially vulnerable to scrutiny and detainment during immigration procedures. It was noted that individuals with any record of criminal activity—or even participation in protests—may be flagged upon reentry into the United States.

 

A recent incident was cited in which an immigration attorney from Michigan, who is currently defending a detained protester, was herself detained—despite being a U.S. citizen. Additionally, there have been documented cases of non-binary and transgender tourists, traveling on legal visas, being denied entry to the United States and sent back to their countries of origin. In response to these developments, countries such as Canada and members of the European Union have issued travel advisories for non-binary and transgender individuals.

 

Faculty were reminded that the university does not require international travel for conferences or research, and that caution is advised. The deans will be asked to communicate this advisory to their respective faculty, and those present were also encouraged to inform their colleagues.

 

Prov. Sueyoshi reported encouraging trends in higher education, particularly the growing popularity of certificate programs and three-year degrees among prospective college students. The campus has made significant strides in the development of certificate programs, which are being increasingly recognized for their value and relevance.

 

During a recent meeting of the Strategic Enrollment Management Team at the Chancellor’s Office, it was shared that combinations such as an English major paired with a cybersecurity certificate are particularly attractive to students. However, it was also noted that a single campus may not have sufficient enrollments to sustain certain niche programs independently.

 

Prov. Sueyoshi reported that recent literature and national trends indicate a growing interest in three-year baccalaureate degree options. In response, DuAP has been asked to begin mapping potential three-year degree pathways for the campus.

 

Vice Provost Lori Beth Way provided insight into the characteristics of degree programs most suitable for this model. These typically include:

• A lower total unit requirement for degree completion
• Significant overlap with General Education (GE) coursework, either at the lower- or upper-division level
• The ability to award credit for prior learning and Advanced Placement (AP) coursework

 

Four departments were invited to consider participation in a pilot initiative for the three-year degree model. The goal is to launch a pilot program that will enhance the campus’s appeal to prospective students seeking accelerated degree options.

Two departments have confirmed their willingness to participate:

• Race, Ethnicity, and Health in the College of Ethnic Studies
• Criminal Justice Studies in the College of Health and Social Sciences

 

Prov. Sueyoshi also shared updates on systemwide academic planning efforts led by the provosts of the 23 CSU campuses. These include:

• ADN to BSN Pathway Optimization
  Efforts are underway to enhance and streamline the existing Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN) to Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) transfer pathway. While this pathway is already active on campus, further alignment is being pursued at the system level.
• Reduction of Baccalaureate Unit Requirements
  A systemwide working group is evaluating the feasibility of reducing the standard baccalaureate degree requirement from 120 units to a lower total. This proposal is in the exploratory phase and would require extensive analysis and coordination.
• Development of Consortium Degrees
  The CSU is also exploring the creation of inter-campus consortium degrees. These would allow students to complete baccalaureate programs across multiple CSU campuses, particularly in cases where a single campus cannot sustain a program due to limited enrollment. Such degrees would be awarded collaboratively under a CSU designation.
  
  3. Associated Students President's report

 

 

Sen. Foley was not in attendance.

 

3. Standing committee reports

 

 

1. Academic Policies Committee

 

Sen. Takagi noted APC is bringing two items to plenary today. The policy on written English proficiency is in the second reading and the policy on restructuring academic units is in the first reading. 

 

1. Campus Curriculum Committee

 

Sen. Harvey shared that CCC has no new curricular matters. 

EPC will represent three suspensions later in the agenda Lastly, the committee is also currently working on a resolution in relationship to acknowledging direct and indirect

influences from the instructional cross-cutting strategies that are being discussed.

 

1. Faculty Affairs Committee

 

Sen. Brown gave notice that FAC has two items in second reading today. The department chair and equivalent unit policy and the policy on emeritus faculty. FAC is currently working on a resolution to support equitable service for lecturer faculty and the RTP policy.

 

1. Strategic Issues Committee

 

Sen. Trousdale gave notice that SIC is bringing three items to the floor today. In second reading are changes to the All-University Committee on International Programs charge and the resolution endorsing AS3609-23, encouraging campus faculty legislative liaisons.

In the first reading, SIC has proposed changes to the academic freedom policy.

 

1. Student Affairs Committee

 

Sen. Christensen announced that SAC brings two items in first reading to plenary including a resolution calling for a report on the instruction of reading and writing. The second resolution is in support of student-parent success at San Francisco State University.

 

SAC continues working on a mentorship resolution, a student survey, and a continued investigation into low student SETE response rates.

 

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. 

 

Faculty Affairs Committee

 

4. Department Chairs and Equivalent Unit Directors, #S24-145

 

Sen. Brown moves the Department Chairs and Equivalent Unit Directors policy.

 

Sen. Roehrman noted that the Faculty Affairs Committee incorporated constructive feedback from the Academic Senate's first reading, which meaningfully guided the revisions.

Key revisions presented during the first reading included:

• Encouragement of chair rotation
• Requirement for a transparent mechanism to calculate chair time base
• Clarification that serving as chair is a primary assignment
• Specification of procedures for midterm chair reviews

 

FAC has made additional updates, particularly regarding staff participation in chair selection. Following extensive discussion and feedback from staff, the policy now allows for staff voting, with the option for departments to determine whether the vote is prorated by time base—paralleling existing practices for lecturer faculty voting.

 

Further clarifications were made to language regarding the calculation of chair time base, which is now required to be determined during the fall semester for the subsequent academic year. This change aims to ensure clarity for chairs when preparing the fall course schedule.

 

Additional minor edits were made throughout the document to improve clarity and consistency.

 

Sen. Brown proposed an amendment to line 125 to strike through HRT/P and replace it with hiring, retention, tenure, and promotion. 

 

Sen. Harvey seconded this motion to amend.

 

Chair Wilson noted that there were no additional speakers and called into question the vote for the amendment. 

 

Vice Chair Holshuch facilitated the vote for the amendment to the policy.

 

Yes: 39

No: 0

Abstain: 1

 

Sen. Pogrow offered an amendment in the chat.

 

Sen. Harvey seconded the amendment. 

 

Sen. Pogrow noted that lines 58 to 64 of the policy have been revised to include the phrase "The EDD Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership" under the provisions of this policy. He shared that although this is currently the only SFSU doctoral program, it is neither a department nor an equivalent unit, as determined by an arbitrator's ruling.

Sen. Pogrow shared that he believes that the program does not, and must adhere to SFSU policy for several reasons, the primary one being that it has previously violated these policies, as determined by a faculty panel and a former president. According to Sen. Pogrow, this ruling concluded that the director of the program was not required to follow Senate policy because the program is not classified as an equivalent unit. Additionally, the search process for the current director did not align with the policy.

Sen. Pogrow emphasized the importance of maintaining program quality and shared governance standards, particularly in the context of this flagship doctoral program. As one of the program's founders and an educator in educational leadership at multiple universities, the speaker expressed concern over the lack of comprehensive study for students in the program. He further expressed perceived concerns of the program and university suppressing diverse scholarship and thinking within the discipline, with no recourse for faculty.

 

Chair Wilson shared a point of information in that there are other doctoral programs at SFSU. He then inquired if there were members who would like to speak for or against the proposed amendment.

 

Sen. Brown spoke against the amendment and shared that this amendment was discussed during its first reading and also in FAC last week. FAC found it highly unusual to refer to a specific program within the text of the department chair policy. Additionally, FAC found it problematic to use a policy that is intended to clarify how chairs are selected, trained, evaluated, and, if necessary, removed as a mechanism to force a program to become a department. 

 

Sen. Collins requested a point of clarification if it was possible to know the extent to which the director and leadership of this program had been consulted regarding their inclusion in this policy. He shared that in the spirit of shared governance if such a consultation had not occurred, then they speak against this amendment.

 

Sen. Pogrow responded regarding the point that there are other doctoral programs noting that those programs are offered in conjunction with UC, and the degree awarded is a UC doctoral degree. He shared that there is no provision to convert those programs into departments; they are simply included as separate entities.

He also noted that in terms of identifying specific programs or units within policy, there is precedent. Dr. Pogrow specified that one of the related policies includes specific language stating that the library is considered an equivalent unit. He believes that there does appear to be precedent for including specific programs or units in institutional policy language.

Sen. Pogrow addressed the point of clarification regarding the matter of consultation with the director and shared that last year, the dean of the College of Education, who was then a member of this body, spoke against the inclusion of the program. Her argument was that the program already meets the provisions of the policy, and therefore inclusion is unnecessary. Dr. Pogrow shared that if that is the case—if the program already meets the policy's requirements—then there should be no issue with formally including it. He does indicate that this has been presented directly to the director of the program. 

 

Sen. Sohler spoke against the amendment and noted that the remarks appear to be influenced by personal agenda rather than objective facts and that it is critical that this body maintain a fair and respectful environment where personal conflicts do not cloud professional judgment. They expressed that this is particularly important considering the director, dean, and students are not here to speak to the claims made. 

 

Vice Chair Holshuch spoke against the amendment, but it was clarified that there were three against the amendment already and Chair Wilson called into question a vote on the amendment.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated a vote on the amendment. 

 

Yes: 2

No: 26

Abstain: 11

 

Sen. Pogrow spoke against the policy with the reasoning that it allowed the appointment of assistant professors as department chairs. He argued that it places undue pressure on junior faculty, interferes with their ability to establish a research agenda, and contributes to the overburdening of the most vulnerable faculty members. He also expressed concern that someone could achieve tenure without significant scholarly work if chair service is treated as their primary role. He noted that this issue appears limited to small departments, which may be eliminated in the upcoming reorganization.

 

Sen. Brown provided a point of information that the provision to allow faculty who are probationary to serve as department chairs is not a revision promoted by FAC. That is something that was already in the policy. 

 

Sen. Hellman spoke for the current policy, emphasizing the importance of maintaining flexibility—particularly as the university moves forward with resizing efforts. He also noted an example of where this may be needed.

 

Sen. Edwards spoke for the current policy, shared that it is important to consider that some assistant professors may view leadership roles as a meaningful part of their career development. The policy does not mandate such appointments but allows for the possibility. Removing this option entirely could limit flexibility and reduce opportunities for those who are interested in pursuing administrative experience early in their careers.

 

Chair Wilson called into question the vote for the policy as it stands.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote for the proposed policy presented by FAC.

 

Yes: 31

No: 1

Abstain: 7

 

4. Policy on Emerita/Emeritus Status, #F14-147

 

Sen. Brown moved the policy on Emerita/Emeritus status.

 

Sen. Klein spoke to the policy sharing that the primary changes from the first reading that remain include updates to gendered language and the revised criteria for awarding emeriti status—specifically, changing the requirement from 10 years full-time service to 10 years at 0.6 time, or 15 years at 0.4 time, or an aggregate thereof.

For the second reading, the following revisions were made:

• In response to feedback from the first reading, FAC revised the section on revocation after consulting with ExComm, the Provost, and HR. This consultation led to the removal of that provision, as ExComm cannot be privy to personal decisions.
• Based on further consultation with the Provost, FAC added that emeriti faculty must be in good standing.
• Lastly, in response to concerns about the revocation of privileges for retired faculty continuing to work at SFSU, FAC revised the policy to retain the free parking permit, which was confirmed with Parking and Transportation as still available.

 

Sen. Ellis inquired into the removal of the opportunity for retired faculty to retain office space.

 

Sen. Brown shared that the president can provide office space as it becomes available or upon request. However, FAC felt it was important to acknowledge that some colleges routinely share office space among multiple faculty members and emphasized that this should not be seen as an expectation.

 

Sen. Chou requested for clarification the eligibility parameters for faculty to attain this status.

 

Sen. Brown clarified the primary reason for this change is to better recognize the contributions of lecturer faculty, who often have served many years at the university, but not always at a full-time (1.0) capacity. Under the previous policy, if a lecturer worked 10 years at 0.6 time, they would not have been eligible for emeriti status, despite their significant service and integral role in supporting students. The revised policy now allows for eligibility with a minimum of 0.6 time or higher, whether at 0.6, 0.4, or an aggregate combination of time.

 

Sen. Chou spoke in favor of this policy revision.

 

Chair Wilson called into question a vote on the revised policy.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote for the policy.

 

Yes: 39

No: 0

Abstain: 1

 

Strategic Issues Committee

 

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

 

Sen. Trousdale moved the charge for the All University Committee on International Programs and spoke to the item stating that AUCIP has proposed changes to its charge. These revisions clarify the committee’s role and remit, define the responsibilities of individual members, and add an ex-officio member from CPaGE. The proposal also introduces two co-chairs instead of a chair and vice chair, and establishes a set meeting time and day. It is important to note that while the Senate is reviewing these changes today, all revisions were proposed by AUCIP itself. Most of the changes simply formalize practices that were already in place, ensuring that the charge accurately reflects the committee’s current operations.

 

Sen. Chou spoke in favor of this change of the AUCIP charge.

 

Sen. Collins spoke in favor of this change to the AUCIP charge.

 

Sen. Green requested a point of clarification regarding the verbiage that a campus faculty representative of the Academic Council on International Programs ex officio serves two years or three years as presented in the current presented version.

 

Sen. Trousdale motioned to table item seven to the following plenary on April 22nd to review the charge and confirm if the Academic Council on International Programs ex officio serves a two or three-year term.

 

Sen. Hellman seconded the motion. 

 

Chair Wilson called a vote to table agenda item seven until Aprill 22^nd.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote to table agenda item seven.

 

Yes: 41

No: 0

Abstain: 1

 

4. Resolution Endorsing AS-3609-23 Encouraging Campus Faculty Legislative Liaisons

 

Sen. Trousdale moved the resolution endorsing AS-3609-23; encouraging campus faculty legislative liaisons to the floor and spoke to the item sharing that two years ago, the statewide Senate passed Resolution AS-3609-02-3, encouraging each campus to create a faculty legislative liaison position to focus on campus-specific legislative outreach. The resolution we’re considering today endorses this initiative. While it doesn’t create the position on our campus, it begins the conversation about how to establish a direct line of communication between our Senate and legislators.

 

Sen. Collins spoke in favor of this resolution stating that the ASCSU created this resolution to encourage campuses to directly share their experiences with the legislature, especially since broad discussions often lack concrete examples of how funding decisions affect tenure lines, student enrollment, and staff development. This resolution aims to start that conversation and build on the efforts of former Chair Goldman to amplify the campus community's voice in legislative discussions.

 

Chair Wilson called into question the vote for the resolution.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote for the resolution.

 

Yes: 38

No: 1

Abstain: 1

 

Academic Policies Committee

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

 

Sen. Takagi moved item number nine, the University Policy on Written English Proficiency, and spoke to the item, noting that it is in second reading. The previous revision addressed GWAR course offerings, and the current revision allows these courses to be offered either within or outside a major department, responding to the growing demand for flexibility in course offerings. The revised language reflects feedback received by the APC, and while it's a subtle change, it ensures departments have the necessary options.

 

Sen. Takagi noted that there was an error on the displayed policy sharing that APC had voted to change the language from “may” to “can” wherein departments can choose and motioned to amend the policy to reflect this. 

 

Sen. Brown seconded this motion to amend. 

 

Sen. Obayashi spoke in favor of this amendment.

 

Chair Wilson called this amendment to a vote.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote for the amendment to the language.

 

Yes: 34

No: 1

Abstain: 7

 

Sen. Ellis proposed an amendment to the policy stating that the policy currently outlines four pathways to satisfy the first-year composition requirement, but starting in Fall 2025, a fifth course, International Relations Global Journeys (IR 205), has been approved to satisfy the GE requirement in written communication. Senator Ellis proposes that this fifth pathway be included in the policy.

There are three sections in the policy document that need to be updated:

1. The title “Undergraduate Written English Policy” in capital letters.
2. In the section under “First-Year Composition Requirement,” where it currently lists four pathways, it should be revised to say five, with IR 205 Global Journeys added at the end of the sentence following “CMS.”
3. The paragraph addressing credit/no credit grades, where the text “students who earn a grade…” needs to be adjusted to reflect the inclusion of this fifth pathway.

 

Sen. Brown seconded the amendment. 

 

Sen. Ellis spoke in favor of the amendment noting that the course had been approved and that this would reflect that change.

 

Sen. Anderson spoke in favor of the amendment to include this course although noted that the policy should likely not contain actual course numbers to ensure that repeated amendments not be needed in the future.

 

Chair Wilson called into question the vote on the proposed amendment.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the amendment to include the course into the policy.

 

Yes: 27

No: 1

Abstain: 13

 

Chair Wilson stated that the body would return to the original item with the recently included amendment at a later time as the schedule for presentations needed to proceed. 

 

Chair Wilson noted a return to item nine at 4:27 pm. 

 

Sen. de Barros raised a concern about the language used in the policy and suggested potentially amending it or tabling the motion for further examination. He requested to cede his time to Guest DeWitt to clarify that the term "Cal-GETC" should not be used because it specifically refers to a transfer student pathway, and the policy affects both freshmen and transfer students. She suggested that the CWEP might be the appropriate body to weigh in on this issue and help modify the language to make it more universally applicable.

 

Sen. De Barros moved to table item nine until the next plenary meeting on April 22^nd, to give CWEP time to review and provide feedback.

 

Sen. Hellman seconded the motion to table the discussion and postpone it until April 22^nd.

 

Chair Wilson noted that the motion to table is non-debatable, meaning it doesn’t involve further discussion or amendments at this point, and it moves to a vote.

 

Vice Chair Holschuh facilitated the vote to table item nine until April 22^nd.

 

Yes: 30

No: 0

Abstain: 2

 

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. 

 

Academic Policies Committee

 

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

 

Sen. Takagi moved the Department Chairs and Equivalent Unit Directors policy and spoke to the item discussed revisions to the policy governing the restructuring or merging of academic units at the university. She explains that the policy addresses two scenarios: when the restructuring is initiated by higher-level administration (the president, provost, or deans) and when it is initiated by faculty members themselves.

The background context includes previous restructuring efforts, which led to the gathering of feedback from faculty involved in those cases. APC was tasked with reviewing the feedback, analyzing the issues raised, and proposing revisions to improve the process.

Some of the revisions already proposed include:

1. Staff Inclusion: Adding staff to the policy document to ensure they are clearly involved in the process.
2. Timeline Clarification: Specifying that the restructuring should be completed by the end of the fall semester, with everything becoming official at the beginning of the next academic year.
3. Independent Committee Role: Clarifying the role of an independent committee to oversee the process, ensuring fairness.
4. Voting Process: Providing clearer language on how voting will take place, specifically indicating that unless otherwise specified in departmental bylaws, the process should be plan-based.

 

Sen. Harvey spoke in favor of the policy while proposing a minor revision to the policy regarding financial analysis of a proposed academic reorganization. He suggests that the focus of the financial analysis should be specifically on the instructional budget, rather than on broader financial considerations, since the instructional budget is most relevant to the policy’s aims. He highlights that the policy currently mentions financial analysis in two sections, on pages three and six (around line 127), and recommends that the language be updated to emphasize the instructional budget.

Senator Harvey also notes that, while there are many indirect and other costs associated with such reorganizations, it's the instructional budget that is likely to be the primary concern for this policy, and information related to it would be more readily available. He has already provided proposed language to be included in the policy document, which he dropped into the chat. Sen. Takagi indicated that APC would review the suggested change at committee.

 

Sen. Brown spoke in favor, but expressed concerns about the division of resources and staff input. She emphasized that staff should have a say in how staffing resources are allocated during reorganizations, as faculty and staff lines directly affect individuals. She also highlighted the potential risk of faculty voting to block reorganization for non-curricular reasons and urged careful consideration of how to handle such scenarios.

 

Sen. Christenson suggested that the policy could benefit from further consideration of student involvement, particularly in terms of communication and the impact on students. She recommended consulting student leaders, such as the AS student president, to ensure student perspectives are incorporated, especially in terms of timelines and student assistance during reorganizations.

 

Sen. Kavuri-Bauer expressed concerns about the policy’s recommendation regarding decisions made over the summer when the university is not in full session. She suggested that if such decisions are necessary, they should involve faculty and staff consultation, even during the summer. She proposed that the policy could be more explicit in avoiding these decisions during the summer to ensure transparency and shared governance.

 

The item will proceed to the second reading.

 

Educational Policies Council

 

4. Suspension: MA in Women and Gender Studies

 

Sen. Takagi moved to suspend the MA in Women and Gender Studies and spoke to this suspension being supported by the declining enrollment trends. 

 

Sen. Harvey spoke to the suspension process and mentioned that many programs that enter suspension do not often reactivate but are eventually discontinued. He emphasized the importance of having a process in place for potentially reactivating a suspended program.

 

Sen. Anderson raised a point about how the suspension should be characterized, stating that it should not be seen as a faculty-driven decision but rather a necessary one due to curricular limitations, specifically the inability to offer classes. He suggested this distinction be made clear to avoid mischaracterizing the reason behind the suspension.

 

Sen. Sueyoshi inquired if there had been any consideration of merging the Women’s Studies program with the Sexuality Studies program, suggesting that it could be a potential solution since many graduate programs merge these fields. Sen. Takagi, responding, clarified that this possibility had not been discussed at the committee level but might be considered while the program is under suspension.

 

The item moves to second reading by general consent.

 

4. Suspension: MA in Anthropology

 

Sen. Takagi moved to suspend the MA in Anthropology and spoke to this suspension being supported by the declining enrollment trends.

 

 

The item moves to second reading by general consent.

 

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

 

Sen. Takagi moved to suspend the BA in Chinese: Concentration in Flagship Chinese Language.

 

Sen. Green provided clarification on the suspension of the Chinese BA program, specifically one of its tracks, which had been funded by a grant. 

 

Sen. Takagi explains that the suspension is due to a loss of funding for the grant that supported the program, particularly a specialized track for heritage speakers and honors students.

 

Sen. Green explained that the program is not being discontinued, but is in suspension due to the loss of the funding. The Department of Defense had provided funding for 13 years, but due to budget realignment within the DoD, the grant was lost. However, there is a possibility that the funding might return, and if it does, the program could be reinstated. Sen. Green reassures that current students in the affected track are still being supported, including a cohort studying abroad in Taiwan. He emphasizes that other tracks in the Chinese BA program are still running, so students affected by the suspension of the specific track have other opportunities to complete their degree.

 

Chair Wilson noted that quorum was lost and that this item would be tabled to April 22^nd and that the agenda would close for the day.  Items that were on the agenda to be in first reading, but were not hear before the meeting was adjourned included:

4. Academic Freedom Policy, #F13-267
5. Resolution Calling for a Report on the Instruction of Reading and Writing

 

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

 

 

Presentation(s)

 

 

17. Website Redesign: Christopher Clark, Director of Integrated College Communications (Time approximate 3:52-4:12PM)

 

1. Presentation

Guest Clark provided an update on the web redesign project, highlighting efforts within Strategic Marketing Communications to improve how academic programs are represented. The university is merging over 220 subdomains into one flagship website, with a focus on prospective students. A key goal is to present academic programs clearly, engagingly, and in a user-friendly way from exploration to application.

Guest Clark explained that the redesign includes a centralized academic program finder, making it easier for prospective students to discover programs. Currently, the website’s structure and independent subdomains cause confusion, and the bulletin outperforms department pages in search results. The new design will improve usability by providing a streamlined, marketing-focused program landing page with filters, testimonials, internship opportunities, and consistent call-to-actions like “apply” or “request information.”

The next steps involve content audits and revisions across departments, with work continuing through the end of the year, and college-specific meetings to refine the process.

 

 

 

Questions/Comments

 

Sen. Sinha suggested that an editorial board be formed to ensure impartiality in the website's content placement, particularly ensuring equal representation of all programs and colleges. He noted difficulty in finding the engineering program and emphasized the need for fair visibility across all departments.

 

Sen. Christensen praised the redesign but expressed concern for current students, asking about navigation for resources and support services. She emphasized the need for a user-friendly, mobile-first, and responsive site. Guest Clark reassured her that the redesigned website would benefit both prospective and current students by improving usability and making resources more accessible.

 

Sen. Dorie raised a concern about the impact on existing web addresses, especially with efforts to rank high in search results. Guest Clark confirmed that redirects would be in place to ensure these efforts aren't undone.

 

Guest Clark shared his contact information: cclark@sfsu.edu

 

18. ASCSU Update: Rob Collins & Dipendra Sinha, ASCSU Senators (Time approximate 4:13-4:27PM)

 

1. Presentation
2. Recent Resolutions

 

Sen. Collins and Sen. Sinha shared updates surrounding discussions from the March 2025 ASCSU plenary meetings, touching on various important topics, including curriculum, funding, Title IX updates, lobbying activities, and resolutions related to student and teacher support.

Key points discussed include:

• The implementation of Cal-GETC and its impact on ethnic studies, as well as the importance of communication within the CSU system.
• The challenges of securing effective funding for CSU institutions, especially given the state budget crisis.
• Updates regarding Title IX policies and faculty resources, particularly involving retired faculty.
• The importance of lobbying for higher education issues, especially advocating for the rights and resources of undocumented and LGBTQ+ students.
• A proposed change to lobbying practices, allowing the Executive Committee to act quickly on behalf of the ASCSU in response to legislation.
• Resolutions on teacher retention and prior credit for students entering teacher credential programs.

The senators also sought feedback from the members of the ASCSU on these resolutions, particularly those related to teacher retention and credit for prior learning.

 

 

Adjournment: Time Definite 4:54PM

 

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.