Minutes: April 30th, 2002


of the Academic Senate Meeting of


30, 2002


Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:12


Senate Members Present:



Alvarez, Alvin



Bartscher, Patricia



Blomberg, Judith

















Fung, Robert

Garcia, Oswaldo

Gerson, Deborah













Hubler, Barbara

Jerris, Scott

Kassiola, Joel


Belle, Thomas



Luft, Sandra





Oñate, Abdiel


Wen Shen





Scoble, Don





Steier, Saul



Su, Yuli








Mary Anne








Members Absent:Corrigan, Robert A.(exc), Adisa-Thomas, Karima

(abs), Daniels, Robert (abs), Ganji, Vijay (exc),

Garcia, Velia (exc), Gillotte, Helen (exc), Levine,

Josh, Moallem, Minoo

(exc), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs)

Guests:David Hemphill, Ruth Love, Dan Buttlaire,

Gail Whitaker, Marsha Melnick, Lisa Jordan,

Ray Esquerra, Jim Orenberg, Barbara Luzardi,

Paul Barnes





from Chair Pamela Vaughn.Reading from the book titled Academic

Keywords, Chair Vaughn reminded us all of the importance of Academic Freedom.

“Academic freedom is the glue that holds the university together,

the principle that protects its educational mission. It is the principle that

guarantees faculty members the right to speak and write as they please without

interference from the university, the state, or the public. It is the principle

that gives both students and faculty in the classroom the right to say whatever

they believe is pertinent to the subject at hand. It is the principle that

affirms there are no limits to what subjects and issues educational institutions

may study, investigate, debate, and discuss. As Louis Menand writes in The Future of Academic Freedom, it

‘is not simply a kind of bonus enjoyed by workers within the system, a philosophical

luxury universities could function just as effectively without. It is the

key legitimating concept of the entire enterprise.’

“Even tenured faculty, however, cannot assume their academic

freedom will withstand all forms of assault and all historical conditions.

All faculty members lose their academic freedom in a dictatorship, as faculty

members did in Nazi Germany. The guarantees academic freedom offered were

also widely abandoned in the United States during the 1950s, in the long postwar

inquisitions that culminated in the McCarthy period. As Ellen Schrecker demonstrates in No Ivory Tower, many progressive

faculty members lost their jobs during this period and none were able to speak

freely without fear of punishment. Academic freedom must thus be relearned

and defended continually.

“In summary, then, how is academic freedom being threatened

[not here on our campus, but in general] today? Here are a number of the major


1. By

the ongoing shift from full-time tenure-track to part-time faculty

2. By

attempts to decouple academic freedom from tenure

3. By

attempts to redefine and restrict academic freedom conceptually

4. By

politically motivated attacks on how faculty members use their academic freedom

5. By

efforts to limit and narrow academic freedom contractually and legally

6. By

the resurgence of restrictions on academic freedom at religious institutions

7. By

surveillance of faculty communication by electronic mail

8. By

the corporatization of institutions of higher educational

9. By

efforts to enact speech codes on campus that restrict or punish speech deemed


10. By

efforts to police or criminalize consensual personal relationships on campus

11. By

occasional political surveillance of classrooms

12. By

attacks on the major national organization that defines academic freedom and

investigates abuses of it, the American Association of University Professors.

“The combined effect of all these forces does a good deal

more than threaten the privileges of tenured faculty; it puts at risk the

very core educational and cultural missions of the university. For the academic

freedom of the tenured faculty anchors everything else the university does.

It spreads outward to protect the free speech of students and the development

of the disciplines. It underwrites the difference education can make in training

the young and evaluating social policy. It preserves the possibility of a

reflective historical memory and of a critical difference from contemporary

opinion. Academic freedom is the university, as we know it. Anything we put

in its place would have to go by another name.”Academic Keywords: A Devil’s

Dictionary for Higher Education (Nelson & Watt, Routledge

1999, 22-36).

m/s/p (by acclamation)

to approved the agenda

Agenda Item #2: Approval of Minutes

for Meeting of

March 16, 2002

m/s/p (Duke, Houlberg)

to approve the minutes as amended.

Agenda Item #3: Report from Jerry Duke-Chair,

Academic Program Review Committee

Jerry Duke, Chair of Academic Program Review Committee

(APRC) reported that during the 2001-02 academic year

the APRC completed reports to the Associate Vice President for Academic Program

Development for the following programs and/or departments: Urban Studies,

Geography, Economics, and Ethnic Studies M.A. The charge of the committee

is to synthesize all levels of program review to clarify and outline all concerns

and recommendations.The APRC report is the primary instrument used by the

Academic Program Development office in developing a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) with the program or department.This MOU becomes the tool of guidance

to the program/department until the next review cycle. The chair of APRC serves

on the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate and as liaison to the University

Assessment Advisory Committee. The chair, or a committee representative, in

addition to the regular committee meetings, attended introductory and second

day meetings with external review teams for Economics, Ethnics Studies, International

Relations, Psychology, and American Indian Studies. The APRC chair, with AVP

Gail Whitaker and Faculty Liaison Jim Bebee held an orientation

meeting with the Colleges of Humanities, Creative Arts, and Health and Human

Services to begin the 5th cycle of program review. The chair of APRC also

met regularly with AVP Gail Whitaker and faculty liaison Jim Bebee,

to discuss issues involving program review. For the four departments and program

reports completed, committee members examined the Self-Study, External Reviewer’s

report, as well as chair and dean responses.A list of questions and/or concerns

was then sent to the program head and/or department chair and the dean as

a guide for discussion. The chair, dean, and interested faculty were invited

to a committee meeting for this discussion. APRC then developed a report,

which was sent to the Associate VP for Program Development, Gail Whitaker.

APRC make the following recommendation for the coming year: There is a concern

that the APRC did not have a full schedule this year and that this will create

a delay in completing the Fifth cycle of review.This problem exists because

several programs have not completed their Self Study according to the deadline.The

APRC requests that the Senate office and the Academic Program Development

office assist in the effort to keep this cycle of review on schedule. The

APRC also applauds the efforts of AVP Gail Whitaker to have data for

the Self Study provided to the program under review in the format, which is

required by the Program Review guidelines. The APRC is concerned that the

time-consuming chore of re-formatting this information may be a reason that

a program under review may be late in completing the Self Study. The APRC

applauds the efforts of the university to avoid requesting duplication of

information in the various reports that programs are requested to provide

and urge a continuation of this effort. The APRC recommends that programs

under review be advised that the committee will continue to limit its attention

regarding the numerous requests for resources to two considerations: 1) Whether

there is an appropriate fit between available resources and the scope of the

program under review, and 2) Whether the program has clearly delineated its

priorities for new resources. The assistance and guidance of the ad hoc members

of this committee, AVP Gail Whitaker, and the Faculty Coordinator for

Program Review, Professor Jim Bebee, has been exceptionally helpful.Additional

members of the APR committee include Caroline Harnly, Library; Yewmun Yip, Finance; Miriam Smith and

Vinay Shrivastava, BECA; Oswaldo Garcia, Geosciences; and Saul

Steier, Humanities.Please join me in a round of applause for their dedicated

work. I am happy to announce that at least three members of the committee

have asked to continue next year.It has been a great pleasure for me to serve

as chair of this committee for the past six years and I will continue to be

of assistance as faculty Coordinator for Program Review.



finished his report and six years as chair of the Academic Program Review

Committee by demonstrating the fancy footwork of the Hungarian national dance.

Chair Pamela Vaughn thanked Senator Duke for the outstanding job he

has performed for the past six years as both chair of APRC and a member of

the senate!

Agenda Item #4: Proposed Joint Doctorate

in Urban Educational Leadership




chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the

proposal as a consent item from both CARC and the Graduate Council. The proposed

Joint Doctorate in Urban Educational Leadership from the

College of Education. This well-done

proposal is coming before you for consideration as a unanimous consent item

from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee and Graduate Council. Attached

is the program implementation proposal for the Joint Doctoral Program in Urban

Educational Leadership. The joint doctoral program in urban educational leadership

builds upon the mutual strengths of four university campuses to prepare future

educational leaders for

California’s urban public

school systems. Please let me emphasize that: There is considerable evidence

of campus consultation and support by Dean Fonteyn, AVPsWhitaker and Giardina, as well as library

colleagues LaVonne Jacobsen and Christy Graham. The CSU/UC Ed.D

board has already provided planning funds for the current year, and is now

reviewing the proposal for final planning and startup funds pending campus

level approval. The faculty from the




here to provide additional information and answer any questions are

: Associate

Dean David Hemphill, Professor Ruth Love, and Dean Perea.Rick Houlberg,

speaking in support of the proposal, acknowledged that this is the best proposal

that he has seen in six years. Robert Cherny commended those who had

put this report together and acknowledged that this is the very first new

generation of joint doctorial programs between the CSU and UC. He also pointed

out that the funding for this doctorial program would be at the same level

as is found in the UC system. David Hemphill indicated that he would

watch very closely to assure that the UC level of funding, approximately $10,000

a head, is there. Bruce Wolfe was concerned about the cost for students

enrolling in the program. He asked if students would be required to pay UC

level fees. David Hemphill indicated that they were concerned also

about the cost to the students. He indicated that they are actively pursuing

sources of fellowships and grant and they have several solid leads. Bruce

Wolfe pointed out that the cost of this program might drain funds from

the larger university population. Mitch Turitz acknowledged the fine

job that was done on the report and indicated that it is the best report in

terms of the library part that he has seen. The detailed library review should

serve as an example to all future proposals. Ruth Love indicated that

the library is very important for scholarly work in a doctorial program.

m/s/p (Houlberg, Duke)

to second reading

m/s/p (Duke, Shrivastava)

to close debate


on the proposal - Passed

Agenda Item #5: Proposed

New Graduate Certificate of Clinical Competence in Physical Therapy



chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the

proposal as a consent item from CARC and the Graduate Council. The purpose

of this certificate is to provide physical therapy students in the SFSU/UCSF

Graduate Programs in Physical Therapy on this campus with clinical practice

under supervision and unit credit consistent with the other four CSU campuses

offering programs in physical therapy. The proposal is for the New Graduate

Certificate of Clinical competence in Physical Therapy. This is a well-done

proposal coming before you for consideration as a unanimous consent item from

the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee and Graduate Council. The proposed

graduate certificate program will lead to a certificate of clinical competence

in physical therapy.All graduate students in the physical therapy program

prior to awarding the MSN will require this 24-unit certificate. The purpose

of the certificate is to provide the physical therapy students in the UCSF/SFSU

program with unit credit for their clinical clerkship as opposed to the current

system of receiving 0 units. Here from the faculty from the College of Health and

Human Services here to provide additional information

and answer any questions are: Marsha Melnick, Sandra Radtka,

Linda Wanek, and Associate Dean Ann Hallum. Bruce Wolfe asked

if there is a license required for these students and can there work in the

certificate be applied toward getting the license? Marsha Melnick,

students have to complete The MS program and the certificated, which has a

minimum of 24 weeks of clinical internship. The work can be applied toward

their requirements.

m/s/p (Duke, Houlberg)

to second reading



acknowledge the fine effort that was put into the proposal and asked why do

these students have to do the additional 24 unit certificate after they have

completed the master’s program? Marsha Melnick indicated that originally

the certificate was placed in CEL. We are moving it to regular university

to save the students the cost. The certificate is important to certify the

required internship.

m/s/p (Houlberg, Duke)

to close debate


on the proposal - Passed

m/s/p (Saul Steier,

Mary Ann Warren) to move agenda item 8 to become item 6


Item #6: Proposed First Year Retention Report and Recommendation form for

Tenure-Track Teaching and Library Faculty



chair of the Faculty Affairs committee introduce

the item. She indicated that the Faculty Affairs Committee urges approval

of the attached First Year Retentions Report and Recommendation form for tenure-track

teaching and library faculty in order to encourage necessary discussion between

first year probationary faculty and their department regarding relevant criteria

for retention, tenure and promotion. She reported that several of the recommendations

that were made in the last senate meeting are included in the report. Jan

Gregory pointed to some minor changes and recommend that the Senate accept

the new form. Midori McKeon indicated that as a department chair she

would not be able to attach her department’s criteria since they have not

developed criteria for first year faculty review and there is no time left

this semester to develop them. Additionally, University policy does not required

departments to develop criteria. Chair Pamela Vaughn point out that

the form does not required departments to attach department criteria if they

don’t have any. Saul Steier indicated that just a one-year review was

not a good notion and recommended that we go to a two-year contract for all

our hires like most other universities in the country. Rick Houlberg

agreed with Steier and strongly recommended that all departments develop department

criteria. Scott Jerris urge the Senate to approve the new form. He

indicated that is very beneficial to give the first year faculty member to

have some sense of what is expected of them. Lutfus Sayeed indicated

that since this is just an early fall semester check on the candidate and

they would not be actually reviewed on the criteria until their second year

then what we have is a two-year contract. Chair Pamela Vaughn indicated

that this does not change the calendar for review, but changes the form. The

Collective Bargaining Agreement sets the calendar for review. Susan Higgins

indicated that setting department criteria is a good idea and would encourage

all levels of review to talk about the same criteria. She asked why we could

not do the first year review at the end of the first year?

It seems premature to review the new faculty after they have only been here

a few weeks. Paul Barnes indicated that we are required to submit the

first year review by February. Jan Gregory indicated that it is the

Collective Bargaining Agreement that sets the calendar for review. The Collective

Bargaining Agreement is negotiated between the faculty union and the CSU administration.

The Senate cannot revise the agreement.

m/s/p (Alvin Alvarez,

Oswaldo Garcia) to second reading



indicated that this is a good first step in a long-term process and would

aid in clarifying department expectation of new faculty. Jan Gregory

indicated that this form will help to clarify department values and would

benefit all players in the system. She also indicated that department criteria

is not irreversibly binding on any person. It is an opportunity for the candidate

to know what the expectations for the faculty role is within the department.

It doesn’t preclude subsequent changes in the future. Marlon Hom indicated

that the document would aid in the development of collegiality within the

department. All concerned need to understand the department baseline definitions.

Andres Consoli asked for clarification on the document checklist recommended

that the Senate approve the document.

m/s/p (Duke, Houlberg)

to close debate

Agenda Item #7: Proposed Revision to the

BA in Chemistry




chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the

proposal as a consent item from both CARC. The proposal is a request to increase

the units for CHEM 300 and 301 (General Physical Chemistry I and II) from

two units to three units. This change increases by 2 units the BA Biochemistry

major. This next proposal from the

College of Science and Engineering/Department

of Chemistry and Biochemistry is coming before you as a consent item from

the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee. Agenda items #7 and #8 are proposing

the same changes for 2 separate Majors. First lets consider agenda item #7 the proposed change to the Bachelor

of Arts/Chemistry major. The proposed change is to increase the units for Chem

300 and 301 (general Physical chemistry I and II) from two units to three

units.This change increases the Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry Degree by 2

units. The faculty from the

College of Science and Engineering

here to provide additional information and answer any question is: James

Orenberg. Robert Cherny asked for clarification on the number of

units required for the degree. He noted that it appear to be more than the

maximum of 45 units which is university policy. Jim Orenberg indicated

that they will double count 12 unit for both the major and general education

requirement, which will bring the major to 45 units. We will also remove one

of the elective units so that the total number of units required will be 120.

m/s/p (Duke, Houlberg)

to second reading

m/s/p (Hom, Colvin)

to close debate


on the proposal – Passed


Item #8: Proposed Revision to the BS in Biochemistry



chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the

proposal as a consent item from both CARC. The proposal is a request to increase

the units for CHEM 300 and 301 (General Physical Chemistry I and II) from

two units to three units. This change increases by 2 units the BS Biochemistry

major. This is the same proposal as agenda item 6 except that it is their

BS degree in Biochemistry. The proposed change is to increase the units for Chem

300 and 301 (general Physical chemistry I and II) from two units to three

units.This change increases the Bachelor of Science in Chemistry Degree by

2 units. The faculty from the College of Science and Engineering

here to provide additional information and answer any question is James


Mitch Turitz called the



on the proposed changes - Passed.


Item #9: Proposed Academic Calendar for 2003-2004



Chair, Academic Policy Committee introduced the proposed academic calendar

for 2003-2004. Rick Houlberg asked why the graduation date is set for May

22, 2004

that will place it the weekend before Memorial Day weekend?

He recalled that graduation has almost always been on Memorial Day weekend.

BarbaraLuzardi indicated that the proposed

calendar appear to be correct with the appropriate number of days. Mitch

Turitz asked if the proposed calendar was an attempt to move the campus

closer to year round operation (YRO)? He understood

that we are mandated to move to YRO. Barbara Luzardi

indicated that the proposed calendar is similar to calendars in the past and

that YRO was not considered. Robert Cherny noted that if we had graduation

on Memorial Day weekend that we could have a longer winter break and possibly begin

the semester in February. Barbara Luzardi indicated that she could look into that but would

have to assess what effect it would have on the students. Eunice Aaron

indicated that having graduation on Memorial Day weekend allowed for student’s

families to travel to San Francisco. She would like

to see graduation on Memorial Day weekend. Dean Kassiola asked why

we couldn’t have graduate on the 29th. Why don’t we send this back

to APC for review? Barbara Luzardi indicated

that we had plenty of time and we could, if there is another senate this semester,

to look at this issue with APC.

m/s/p (Houlberg, Aaron)

to return the proposed calendar to APC and bring it back to the senate meeting

on May 14th. Passed.


Senate adjourned at 3:27 PM






to the Faculty

Meeting Date (Archive): 
Tuesday, April 30, 2002