Minutes
of the Academic Senate Meeting of
April
30, 2002
The
Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:12
p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron,
Eunice Alvarez, Alvin Avila, Guadalupe Bartscher, Patricia Bishop, Anna Blomberg, Judith Boyle, Andrea Cherny, Robert Collier, James Colvin, Caran Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Duke, Jerry |
Edwards,
James Fung, Robert Garcia, Oswaldo Gerson, Deborah Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Henry, Margaret Higgins, Susan Hom, Marlon Houlberg, Rick Hubler, Barbara Jerris, Scott Kassiola, Joel |
La
Belle, Thomas Langbort, Carol Luft, Sandra McKeon, Midori Nichols, Amy Oñate, Abdiel Pong, Wen Shen Raggio, Marcia Sayeed, Lutfus Scoble, Don Shrivastava, Vinay Smith, Miriam Steier, Saul |
Strong,
Rob Su, Yuli Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Wolfe, Bruce Yip, Yewmun |
Senate
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 |
Announcements
Chairs
Report
Report
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
ways
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
unacceptable
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 Devils
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 Reviewers
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.
Jerry
Duke
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
Amy
Nichols
,
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
Californias 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
College
of
Education
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
Voting
on the proposal - Passed
Agenda Item #5: Proposed
New Graduate Certificate of Clinical Competence in Physical Therapy
Amy
Nichols,
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
Andres
Consoli
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 masters 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
Voting
on the proposal - Passed
m/s/p (Saul Steier,
Mary Ann Warren) to move agenda item 8 to become item 6
Agenda
Item #6: Proposed First Year Retention Report and Recommendation form for
Tenure-Track Teaching and Library Faculty
Caran
Colvin,
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 departments 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
dont 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
Alvin
Alvarez
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 doesnt 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
Amy
Nichols
,
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
Voting
on the proposal Passed
Agenda
Item #8: Proposed Revision to the BS in Biochemistry
Amy
Nichols,
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
Orenberg.
Mitch Turitz called the
question.
Voting
on the proposed changes - Passed.
Agenda
Item #9: Proposed Academic Calendar for 2003-2004
Marlon
Hom,
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 students
families to travel to San Francisco. She would like
to see graduation on Memorial Day weekend. Dean Kassiola asked why
we couldnt have graduate on the 29th. Why dont 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.
The
Senate adjourned at 3:27 PM
Respectfully
submitted,
James
Edwards
Secretary
to the Faculty