Minutes: November 16th, 2004

ACADEMIC

SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2004

    

Meeting Attendance:

CALL

TO ORDER: 2:16 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Vice-chair Williams reminded senators to

register for Asilomar, as registering as early possible to keep rates down and

lock in good residence rates. He announced that matching stipends were

available for BSS and HSS faculty. A substantial amount of funds had been

raised from two generous donors to help provide for some exceptional food and a

fine reception.

EPC chair Meredith spoke to the BSIT proposal

for discontinuance. He had received a report from the college that a secret

ballot had taken place, and with proportional voting done by time base, only

half a vote separated the department’s decision.

CFA chapter president Turitz announced that

from 5-7 PM on November 18 at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown San Francisco, there

would be a demonstration by supporters of local two of the union for hotel and

restaurant workers who had been locked out of 14 hotels in the city. He invited

participation of the senators, also requesting that they voice their concerns

by completing the bargaining survey on the upcoming contract, which would

provide useful input for the next round of bargaining.

Chair Colvin reminded senators of the special

session of the senate on December 14 to accommodate the unusually heavy senate

agenda for the semester.  

AGENDA ITEM #1—APPROVAL of

the AGENDA for NOVEMBER 16, 2004

Approved

AGENDA ITEM #2—APPROVAL of

the MINUTES

for NOVEMBER 2, 2004

Approved

AGENDA ITEM #3— REPORT from

the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: SUSPENSION of the CLINICAL LAB

SCIENCES INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

Senator Meredith called senators attention to

the suspension process, noting that when a program sought suspension, EPC would

vote not on the quality of the proposal but only whether all procedural details

had been handled properly. EPC had reviewed the proposal from the clinical

laboratory science program and had requested the proposal be returned for

revision. EPC was convinced that since the director had vacated the program,

the program was in a de facto suspended state, and the program should

forward their document on to for the campus. He observed that there were a

number of speakers from the community who were very concerned about the

program. None of the speakers seriously opposed the suspension, but wanted to

see the program return. They were worried that a self-support option would lock

out students, a concern shared by EPC, but there was a different process for

that.

John

Hafernik, chair of the Biology department, indicated that he

would make only brief comments in order to leave time for visitors to speak,

and sought to bring the senate up to date on the program. The program had

experienced the unexpected resignation of director Carola Howe, who had had a critical role in the

program as its chief administrator and outreach person, and without strong

leadership, it just was not possible to offer a proper program and provide

students what was needed. Given the current scenario, everyone thought it best

to suspend the program, search for new director, and then move forward with new

leadership. This could happen as early as the next fall, but might take longer.

One issue that was conflated with the current situation was the notion of

shifting the program to self-support. While this did not concern the purpose of

the program, it as an option would probably be explored in reviewing the program,

as the program needed to be handled in a sustainable way.

Vera

Rogers wanted to make two main points on the CLS program

regarding the background of the program and also make a clarification to the

proposal. As recently as three years ago the program required 40 weeks of

on-campus study for students to complete the program and the program had been

advised that it needed to adhere more closely to the university calendar,

subsequently reducing the program to 18 weeks. This was accomplished with the

continuing admittance of students and had had no impact on the program. She

thought the program willing and able to embrace change, perhaps emerging into a

new format such as online education. The response from the field was not

encouraging for this particular option, but she noted that the program

continued to evolve while continuing to train students. The regulatory

guidelines could not be handled by adhering to the university calendar, and she

asked if CLS was the only program that did not conform.

Regarding the proposal on the floor, she requested

clarification. Suspension would allow for improvement but currently almost 100

percent of graduates pass the certification exam, while staff runs the whole

program. How should the program improve, she asked, as the program was ready

and willing to change. She thought it possible to effect change without

impacting students, and this could happen without suspension. As soon as

appropriate changes are made, in document, she wanted to know who would

determine the fate of the program. She did not understand why staff could not

be informed and consulted. She hoped to keep opportunity open for CLS to stay

at SFSU.

Dora

Goto , an area medical patient advocate, noted that one

problem that suspension brought was the loss of at least one whole class of

students entering the workforce, making a huge impact. A recent study had

recommended that there were 1,300 CLS graduates needed per year through 2010,

and SFSU was the largest, still creating only a percentage of the needed positions.

Program grads are over 40 percent for licensed practitioners. The suspension of

the program would have a negative impact on workforce. Programs could be

restructured in progress. SFSU’s graduates exceeded the average passing grade

for program making for 46 percent of the California CLS graduates. The

program’s resources needed restructuring, but this could be done without

suspension and done internally. Needed was a recruitment director, and there

were pledges of in-kind and monetary support in place as long as the program

continued to be handled under general fund. She cited a list of supporters in

the field.

Patrick

Joseph, a physician, stated that the shortage of qualified

technicians was real. As the medical director of four northern California laboratories

and a doctor involved in private practice, he noted that two of his four labs

had unfilled positions for CLS members. All four were looking for lab workers,

those who conduct lab tests. Certain lab tests were not run every day, which

served to delay diagnosis. CLS graduates must do delicate work, often delayed

or batched due to a shortage of workers. In the past month two labs needed to

postpone results due to a lack of CLS graduates - a serious state of affairs.

He was not issuing any criticism of the program, but noted the great need for

CLS graduates, a large impact on the state.

Nancy

McClenny, the associate director of the program, indicated

that the decision on the program would affect her professional future and that

of staff members. The decision and its aftermath would affect students and

employers. She thought the process should seek input from the staff, and that

all current members of the staff be kept informed about the upcoming decisions,

so that accurate information could then be disseminated. She posed several

related questions: when the job director would be announced, who would select

the director, whether staff would have any input and who would define the

“appropriate changes.” She did not see why staff should not have input.

Judy

Wilbur represented one of the labs looking for

technicians. As result of the shortage of CLS graduates, she felt it a great

opportunity for SFSU students. The more CLS graduates SFSU could produce the

better. She commented on new opportunities in the biotech field, that there

were new labs with new, complicated tests. While it was easier to set up labs

in other states, California

had licensing requirements that were high.

Jan

Hunter, the manager of hiring for DiabloValleyMedicalCenter,

echoed comments from earlier speakers. She indicated that CLS graduates were 10

percent of the center’s workforce, many of who were nearing retirement, and new

workers were seriously needed. She expressed pleasure with the quality of the

SFSU graduates and commented that the suspension of the program was detrimental

all around.

Senator Axler had some comments as the

relevant dean. He thanked the community for their comments, noting that

regardless there was still a big problem, and even SFSU’s contributions were

insufficient. He thought that a lot more needed to be done. The resources were

not used for the suspension but for a director search, and he expressed hope

that a hiring would soon be in process. There was no cost for suspension. He

hoped to have a new director by January and further noted that restructuring of

the program was needed, as it was a strangely constructed program. The biggest

problem to him was that teaching was done by staff rather than faculty. No

Tenure/Tenure-track faculty was involved, and he thought that faculty positions

were necessary. At the end of the process, students received a certificate not

a degree. It was an expensive program, costing $1500 per graduate. He wanted to

take the suspension period as a time to explore other areas of support. He

noted the large demand from the community, and hoped that those companies might

be able to help support the program. One goal to give to the new director would

be this sort of collaboration. As a program of good quality, he expressed the

desire to keep it.

Vice-chair

Williams thanked the speakers

for some powerful input. He asked the senate about the suspension process,

especially EPC chair Meredith.

Senator Meredith responded that the committee

had spent an hour and a half listening to the dean and concerned members,

noting that the proposal had some problems, had been rewritten, and received

unanimous approval from EPC.

Senator Mak asked that because of the nature

of the program whether it might be better handled in HHS, and asked if it made

any difference which college housed it.

Senator Axler was open to that thought, but

did not have a high priority to move the program to a different college.

State Senator Yee indicated that as someone

with a BA in biology and a former assistant lab director, she appreciated the

need for lab workers. She indicated that senators be mindful that suspension

did not mean discontinuance, but was possible only when the intent was not to

discontinue a program, but give a chance for program to develop itself. She

hoped that industry could help out.

State Senator Gregory commented that she had

heard the CSU chancellor talk about a marketing program that outlined CSU

contributions to the workforce and society. She encouraged rapid resumption of

the program and noted how the commentary had suggested to the senate that all

of us operate in a much larger context than we are normally aware of.

AGENDA

ITEM #4—RECOMMENDATION from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: RUSSIAN MA

DISCONTINUANCE PROPOSAL

Meredith

Nichols m/s/p

Senator Meredith reminded the senate about

two proposals for discontinuance. The present one was unopposed from the

department, while the BA, which was to come next, was opposed by the

department. Both proposals involved no criticism whatsoever of the program or

faculty, nor of the worthiness of the notion of studying Russian at a

university level. The department had voted 17 - 0 to support discontinuance.

Historically there had been very low productivity from the department and very

few students. No pure graduate courses existed, and all the courses were paired

with undergrad, all of which were done in English.

Senator McKeon stated that the discontinuance

of the Russian program returned the campus back to 1964, when there was no

Russian program. Backdating 40 years, biting the bullet, the program simply did

not have the tenure/tenure-track faculty members to proceed. As recently as the

past spring, there had been one, but it was no longer possible to support the

program at the master’s level. Such a program must have tenured or tenure-track

remembers, and the department judged it best at this point, without any sign of

university support for a replacement position, not to sustain the Russian MA

program. However, she noted, after the university had foreclosed all admissions

to the MA program, six inquiries had arrived for admittance to the program,

making clear the continuing interest. The Russian program was just making its

recovery, and she expressed the opinion that it was extremely unfortunate that

the university would not replace positions, or show support at any level. All

this made it impossible to defend this program today, but she wanted to ask all

senators to carefully consider the upcoming rebuttal to the discontinuance of

the Russian BA program.

Moved to second reading.

Senator McKeon asked the Russian program

faculty to address the senate.

Catherine

Siskron, the acting coordinator for Russian program,

observed that eliminating this program would diminish CSU as it represented the

last MA in Russian Literature program in the CSU. Loss of seminars would affect

the MA students, creative writing, and English majors, and she indicated there

was not a rebuttal because enrollment was small and the program small. She

offered a minor correction to an earlier assertion - eight students, not six,

had expressed interest in the program after news of its potential

discontinuance. She asserted that the consequences of losing the MA were not as

catastrophic as the loss of the BA, a position held by the department faculty.

Gustav

Calderon, the coordinator of the Spanish program, preferred

to defend the Russian program. While the college council had voted against the

Russian program, the San Francisco

city council had voted support, and all around the CSU departments had issued

support for this program. He expressed displeasure at the process and the

questioning of EPC and other bodies, suggesting that questions had been

primitive and that committees had not done their “homework.”  When the current dean had arrived on campus,

he expressed pleasure at the Russian program but apparently did not now think

the Russian program was up to standards. He observed that seven Spanish majors

were also Russian majors. He thought the program had a right to defend itself

and it did not get that chance.

Senator McKeon spoke for the record, indicating two things: by discontinuing, the campus would

lose the only MA Russian program in entire CSU. The loss also belonged to the

Humanities dean, who when he first came to the college as a job candidate,

indicated right away that he thought the Russian MA program was fabulous.

Senator Meredith spoke to the procedures

followed in deliberation. For an hour and 45 minutes EPC had heard mostly

support from the community. The committee then deliberated for an hour, and he

rejected categorically the notion that the program did not get a fair hearing.

Senator Steier stated that we would not

oppose the discontinuance if the chair of the department did not oppose it and

there were no resources. He did suggest the importance of seminars, noting that

currently the best critical theorists included many Russian thinkers, and that

even if the BA continued, a certain academic balance would be undone, impoverishing

language and literature study on campus.

Dan

Illich, an undergraduate mostly at this campus, spoke from

the point of view of a student, noting that campus appeared to be choosing

quantity over quantity. Cutting programs limits choices for students,

especially in advanced study. Lots of resources went into remedial education,

but not into high quality program such as the Russian MA. He asked about the

question of quality in SFSU academic programs.

Dean

of Humanities Sherwin echoed the

concerns of student Dan Illich. He also responded to Senator Steier’s

comments, noting that all of the MA courses were paired with BA courses, and

that there were no freestanding Master’s level courses.

Senator Hom spoke to the notion of foreign

area studies, as he was a former graduate of such a program on this campus. No

longer was the emphasis on “foreign language” majors such as Russian, since the

population was so great in the city. The language was served well, and the MA

program was specialist training. By removing this program, we were eliminating

the possibility of SFSU ever serving specialist needs. He thought that Russian

studies did indeed have a future.

Vote

on discontinuance on MA in Russian:

25

for discontinuance.

15

opposed.

3

abstentions.

AGENDA ITEM #5—RECOMMENDATION

from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: RUSSIAN BA

DISCONTINUANCE PROPOSAL

Meredith,

Axler m/s

Senator Meredith

acknowledged the outpouring of support the Russian program received from the

community, both locally and internationally. Dean Sherwin had proposed a

reduction of language courses to nine from twelve, eliminating the major and

minor. There was currently no ability to support advising in the program. EPC

had voted 16-2 to discontinue. First, and most important, by accepting the

proposal campus still had the potential to have 1-2 lecturers. With few

students and no tenure/tenure-track faculty, a major question was whether this

represented the quality SFSU wanted to keep for a BA program.

Finally, EPC spoke of the need for humanities

courses in other areas, the difference of three course sections. As to the

question of why not to keep the BA alive, EPC’s answer was that instead of

serving the needs of 2-3 students per year, discontinuance could address much

higher needs elsewhere.

Sherwin

stated that this was not the topic he would have chosen as his first item to

speak to the senate about. He agreed with Meredith with respect to the

principle arguments. He was not convinced that they had compelling force. He

clarified that the proposal was not the discontinuance of the Russian program

but the degree. He spoke to the importance of language study, the symbolic and

real importance of this particular language’s study.

Fiscal considerations were the primary mover that

led to his recommendations and those of the Humanities college council. He

stated that the university could save 15 thousand dollars a year. Typically a

major required 6 courses per year, nationwide a minor required four courses a

year. Students could take courses in other departments in the move from 12 to 9

courses. The real cost was greater. He had been worrying about costs even with

permanent costs to departments, which would be considerable and permanent. An austerity

plan minimized the damage to the college. To do this BA right, the program

needed tenure/tenure-track faculty, at least two or three. He thought the

lecturers who had been carrying the program deserved heroic commendation over

last few years. He was not convinced that the lecturers would be competitive

for tenure-track hires. SFSU could get by without full time faculty, perhaps

resuming business in a few years. His position was that to offer a viable

program, at least two full time tenure/tenure-track faculty members were

needed. Aside from costs, there was the matter of a relatively small number of

students over the past years. He asked senators to consider that if these were

not hard times, and they were, whether it would be appropriate to introduce a

new BA program in Russian. The CSU had asked campuses to scrutinize any program

with less than 5 grads per year. He mentioned the illness of tenured faculty

and the fact that 11 BAs had been granted over five years. Over 20 years only

88 degrees had been offered, about 4.4 per year. Class sizes were small.

Factoring out the MA students, there was even lower enrollment. The final

question he posed, was how many students would be profoundly affected by the

discontinuance? Only one less class perhaps, maybe two more than normal. Many

majors were double majors.

Senator McKeon

invited faculty, students to speak.

Catherine

Siskron thanked senators for their thoughtful

consideration. It was a time of adversity for the university and the program.

In reviewing twentieth century Russian authors, she observed that what they had

in common was that they worked during the darkest moments of Russian history,

but also shared a creative spirit. She felt we were going through a difficult

time. Not losing ourselves was important and she thought we had much to learn

from them. It was vital to teach students, and what was happening in the

external world would not affect the spirit. The world needed a mixture of

perspectives for contemporary reality. Sherwin’s comments were not accurate. In

March or April they might have been true, but since then the community had

supported the program. The BA program received support from the CSU, the city

Board of Supervisors, the city council, legislatures, the immigrant rights

commission, and others. The program had this much support because Russian

studies matter. She listed several reasons to keep the BA in Russian:

Russian was a difficult language, and required more

time for mastery than Spanish or Germanic languages. Reducing the program to a

minor destabilized the structure of the major. Students often come from

transfer institutions, which are not well structured. Only one other MA degree

existed from San Diego

in Russian. The impact meant keeping articulation even if there was low enrollment.

Russian was a strategic language, and important to

national interest. There were economic impacts and a cadre of professionals was

needed. Students would go into important positions. Discontinuance would

undermine the department and faculty, and the ability to pursue strategic

languages. Skipping a semester or two makes skills atrophy and further it is

harder to do this at a graduate level. The crisis was due to faculty illness

and retirement - five years of crisis, but there were higher FTE now than

before with a general recovery nationally.

The Russian program preserved links with the local

community and other higher education institutions. There was a large Russian

community, beginning 14 years ago. The children of the Russian community were

just now coming to college to polish their literacy at SFSU.

The elimination of even a few courses meant the

curriculum would be limited. The minor was not even possible.

Student Amber Clark, a Russian major and the president of the Russian Club urged

the university to keep the BA program. Through summer study abroad, and

cultural immersion, it was a program offered by no other CSU. She planned to

use Russian in the community and urged retention of the program.

Rashovsky,

a junior and double major in Comparative World Literature and Russian, was a

former emigrant, and held Russian as having an intrinsic role in his identity.

Oxsana

Bobaykin was a native Russian who moved to OrangeCounty

as a political and religious refugee. Russian was essential to her heritage.

She wanted BA in Russian and the only CSU options were SFSU and San Diego, and she had

come due to SFSU’s reputation. She noted the large local Russian community and

found the discontinuance devastating to her personal goals.

Christy

Guys was a double major in Journalism and Russian, and

commented on the need to know the nuances of language and culture. She felt she

had a promising career ahead with these double interests.

Clifford

Berkman expressed concern about the program as SFSU was

surrounded by the Russian community. He had concern over his own career as

well. Russian was required for advanced study in mathematics. Cutting the BA

would damage his own study considerably, and reducing the Russian program would

limit access to Russian classes.

Tom

Blair the chair of foreign languages at CityCollege

and also the president of the community college council of foreign languages,

supported maintaining the program, noting that it was the only BA program in

the Bay Area. Community College students counted on the SFSU program, as only

five community colleges had an elementary Russian program,

He noted the impact the program had on articulation

issues, and that students should have available, at a minimum, the opportunity

to study the major languages of the world. A report cited the importance and

value of Russia

and Russian.  At CityCollege

there were three sections of first-semester Russian, which involved some 70

students. There were five courses per semester.

Senator Bernstein

noted the impressive student presentations. She asked in the current scenario

whether SFSU would shrink back and become a college, or would it still be a

university. She did not think that is was possible to live just by numbers, and

observed that here was a program that could do a better job, and the campus

should support it, in small programs as well as large.

Senator Heiman

noted the importance of the Russian legacy, and echoed Steier for the need to

pay more attention to major Russian authors, something that he likened to a biodiversity

issue. He asked what was needed to be offered at a major university and whether

SFSU was offering a gateway experience to nowhere. He appreciated McKeon’s

strategic thinking, also commenting that the BA created a visibility and

reputation. It seemed a “chicken and egg” scenario - was it better to create a

great program first or attract good people and then build a great program. He

posed the question of whether the campus should maintain academic biodiversity

and think to the future. Russia

was going to be very important to world.

Senator Langbort

commented that she had looked up enrollment at the university and noted that

many programs had low enrollments. She thought it wise to look to a balance.

This program seemed to serve students in other majors, and was not a

stand-alone program. It was ironic that just at the time that immigrants’

children were coming to college, just at a time when universities might be

growing, instead higher education seemed to be shrinking. She had questions on

the way this was handled, who in the department decided this route and how

faculty had voted - all process questions.

Senator McKeon

stated that the department solidly supported continuance. All faculty of

foreign languages supported continuance, all staff members, all GTAs had signed

a letter of support. The proposal had come from the dean’s office. The dean had

handpicked, not elected, a panel and held behind closed-door sessions, then

came with proposals to deal with reduction. It included innovative ways to handle

the budget, including mergers of departments, the elimination of chairs’

stipends, not replacing some college staff members, the elimination of the

associate dean position, etc. but the whole packet was presented without any

item-by-item scrutiny. It was voted on as whole, and Russian department faculty

members were never included in the decision process.

Sherwin

was not offended by the commentary and sought to clarify the process. His

subcommittee of the college council included five department chairs, with

representatives of six departments. He had asked the council if this approach

was satisfactory, and noted that many proposals for all sorts of curricular

curtailments were entertained, with 20 possible moves considered. The entire

plan was presented to the council, he asked if council could approve en

masse, and the council approved the package unanimously.

Vice-chair Williams

requested decorum from the floor.

Academic

Planning & Assessment AVP Giardina spoke to the discontinuance policy. In the process the dean can bring

the proposal forward. In reviewing three areas were considered essential:

societal need, student interest, and institutional capability. None was

significant in this case. He sought to distinguish between the need to study a

language vs. its culture and literature and maintained that Russian would

continue to be taught. He would not speak to second, but debatable, issue.

There was not much evidence of student interest for the Russian BA degree -

only five students in last five years, and never more than two at a time

graduated. SFSU would never consider beginning a new program with those kinds

of numbers. He questioned the need to study the language or culture from same

background as one’s ancestors. The third issue faculty capability. There were

no tenure/tenure-track faculty, no likelihood of that, it would cost 200

thousand dollars to do this, at a time of scarce money, and get candidates with

appropriate credentials. This kind of program could not be done without

tenure/tenure-track faculty.

Senator McKeon

attempted to clarify comments on Russian faculty input and indicated she would

speak more to this at the second reading.

Senator Avila

spoke to the need for students to study their ancestry, using the College of Ethnic Studies as an example. She

referred to the community college Russian classes and numbers as a measure of

interest.

Senator Steier cited some of the absurdity of

the argument that involved the situation where resources were cut and then the

rationale for discontinuance included lack of money. If resources had been

available before, they could be made available again - a situation replete with

absurd logic. He thought the need to debate Russian language and culture was

strong. He noted that at some level, the cold war had ended, and Russian was no

longer the player it was before. He hated thinking that way. He was shocked

with the proposal and could not imagine a university without Russian students

and area studies.

Senator Hom

noted that area studies were not the same as the need for the language. He

suggested not using enrollment as the reference.

The

proposal would return to second reading at the next meeting.

AGENDA

ITEM #6 —ADJOURNMENT at 4:29