SFSU Academic Senate
Minutes of November 21, 2000
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn
at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe; Bartscher,
Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Boyle, Andrea; Cancino, Herlinda; Chan, Jeffery;
Cherny, Robert; Colvin, Caran; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Cullers, Susan;
Duke, Jerry; Elia, John; Ferretti, Charlotte; Garcia, Oswaldo; Garcia, Velia;
Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hu, Sung;
Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; Langbort, Carol; Loomis, Barbara; McKeon, Midori;
Nichols, Amy; Pasaporte, Erin; Raggio, Marcia; Sagisi, Jaymee; Strong, Rob;
Su, Yuli; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope;
Wong, Alfred; Yip, Yewmun.
Senate Members Absent: Flowers, Will(exc.);
Shrivastava, Vinay; Sayeed, Lutfus; Jerris, Scott(exc.); Smith, Miriam(exc.);
Edwards, James; Blomberg, Judith; de Vries, Brian; Concolino, Christopher; Hubler,
Barbara(exc.); La Belle, Thomas(exc.); Kelley, James(exc.); Scoble, Don(exc.);
Collier, James(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.).
Guests: J. Combs, P. Barnes, J. Kitses, J.
Kassiola, C. Dumont, S. Baltazar, A. Pelham, D. Zingale, K. Fehrman, N. Rabolt
Announcements and Report
- Chair Vaughn welcomed Yuli Su, a new senator from
the College of Business. She reminded senators of the Asilomar deadline for
registration: Monday, December 4. She also announced that the CFA-organized
volunteers registered 1,450 new voters, the highest on any CSU campus. In
an unrelated announcement, Vaughn announced that Gladiator has just
been released in the US in video and DVD.
- In her Chair's Report Vaughn reported briefly on the
Senate Executive Committee's continuing pursuit, with the Office of Academic
Affairs, for more campus involvement in summer semester planning. She also
previewed the proximate Senate celebration of the work of Hollis Matson and
Bernadette Pichay, and sent our good thoughts and prayers to Mark Phillips'
wife Jeannie.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for November 21,
2000
The agenda was approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for November 7,
2000
The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Proposed Policy on Observance of Religious
Holidays
This consent item from the Student Affairs Committee (SAC)
and the Academic Policies Committee (APC) was introduced by Rob Strong,
who chaired the subcommittee developing this policy. He provided some background
on the genesis of this policy, noting that SAC and Student Affairs had heard
some grievances on this issue while there was no campus-wide policy in place.
Jan Gregory asked how students will be informed of
their responsibility to notify instructors. Helen Gillotte, SAC chair,
explained that in part #3, Implementation, we have asked that this policy be
included in the University Bulletin and appropriate web sites' statement and
that faculty be encouraged to include the policy statement in their course syllabi.
Gillotte asked Sung Hu, APC chair, to amplify on
the use of the term "exemplar observances" in the implementation section. Hu
explained that the Office of Human Relations cannot provide an exhaustive list
of religious and ethnic holidays, but this list will provide broad examples.
M/S/P (Hu, Duke) to second reading.
M/S/P (Consoli, Duke) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the policy was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposal for Changes to Major and Minor
Programs in La Raza Studies
Alfred Wong, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval
Committee (CRAC), introduced this consent item.
Eunice Aaron complimented the department for their
work on these revisions, making the point that what we see here is student-focused.
Jeffrey Chan asked whether the second semester English
requirement could be offered under the category of RAZA 214. Velia Garcia
replied that this was a typo.
Robert Cherny asked where the minimum number of upper-division
units are stated, suggesting that if it is not here, it needs to be added. Garcia
replied that we have never specified it, but this could be taken up in the next
round of review.
M/S/P (Consoli, Duke) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revision to the Minor in American
Indian Studies
CRAC Chair Wong introduced this consent item.
M/S/P (Duke, M.A. Warren) to second reading.
M/S/P (P. Warren, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revisions to the Communicative
Disorders Program
Wong briefly introduced this CRAC consent item.
Helen Goldsmith asked if there is any prerequisite
for CD 300 and whether this change will affect the minor. Marcia Raggio replied
that there is no prerequisite for CD 300 and that it will not change the minor.
M/S/P (Duke, Hu) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Revised Curriculum for Cinema
MFA Program
Wong introduced this CRAC consent item briefly.
Mary Anne Warren asked about the concurrent enrollment
in 710, 711, and 721 while taking 701. Cinema Chair Jim Kitses explained
the first semester, summarizing that the first semester does have four concurrent
courses.
M/S/P (P. Warren, Aaron) to second reading.
Jerry Duke asked if 721 should really be 712 under
"specific changes proposed." Kitses concluded that 721 is actually correct.
Gregory wanted to know what AVID editing was, and
Kitses explained that it's a new digital editing system that makes it possible
to edit all material simultaneously; it's also called non-linear editing.
M/S/P (Aaron, Duke) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #8 - Accountability Indicator #11
Vaughn re-introduced this continuing discussion of
Accountability Indicator #11 "Faculty Scholarship and Creative Achievement."
She first read the statement from the Chancellor's Office on this indicator:
"The CSU will provide support for scholarship and creative achievement to enable
faculty to maintain the currency of knowledge and skills that are necessary
to provide students with a 'sophisticated knowledge base' in respective disciplines."
She reminded senators of their charge to review the recommendations from the
Executive Committee and to consult with their constituents. Vaughn asked for
general comments and indicated that these will be followed by straw votes to
get a sense of the body's response to the Executive Committee's recommendation.
Mitch Turitz reported that he had received comments
from two constituents, one of whom thought this was a great idea to make our
faculty look good by emphasizing all the good things that we have done and the
other of whom said that we are overburdened with our five year reviews, our
retention and tenure reviews, and our FARs--and now we're asked for another
accountability review of information that can be obtained from all the other
reviews.
Charlotte Ferretti summarized the response from nursing
faculty with the general comments asking for two different categories in the
initial response: whether the work was supported by university resources or
done independently.
Vaughn added that CSU-Los Angeles produced a 30 question
faculty survey and asked about Senate feelings on that. Turitz asked if the
chair was asking about sending a faculty survey on faculty surveys. Gregory
asked what we would ask people if we sent out a survey. If it were how much
they received from CSU in support of scholarly pursuits, that would be simple;
anything more than that seems immaterial. Duke wondered if the Chair
was suggesting sending out a survey. Vaughn reiterated that she was not advocating
a survey but that that was one model used. The campus has to reply to this indicator.
She added that San Diego State sent a survey to departments asking for a cumulative
count of number of books, articles, etc. These are the extremes: a simple numerical
counting of faculty work product that is not necessarily supported work and
a full-blown, multi-question survey of faculty.
Gregory insisted that we must pay attention to the independent
clauses in the original language, focusing on "support for" rather than "work
by." Penelope Warren suggested that if we go beyond an inventory of the
results of supported work the FAR process might be adapted for this. If the
FARs indicated supported versus unsupported work we would be able to make the
distinctions. Caroline Harnly agreed and spoke in favor of finding a
way to make a distinction between work done out of our own hide and work that
is supported; we also need to make this as simple as possible.
Duke asked if the Academic Senate is the only body responding
to this. Vaughn responded that we have been asked to suggest ways in which the
campus should respond to this.
Andres Consoli returned to Provost La Belle's comment
last time, focusing on the first line of the CSU document on CSU providing support.
The question is, what is the nature of that support, adding that his understanding
is that there is no budget line-item at CSU level for this, which would mean
there is nothing to report. He added that there is a gap between general discussions
of CSU support and the specifics at the campus level. All of the campus awards
have reporting responsibilities, which means that information can be collated
into a different document. Vaughn added that the Executive Committee recommended
exactly that. Turitz reminded everyone that Accountability Indicator #11 is
not required by the contract; therefore, such information might be considered
voluntary.
Midori McKeon suggested listing two sets of numbers:
achievements supported by the CSU system; those not supported by the CSU system.
But if we do well without the system's support, that figure could be read as
suggesting that our faculty do so well without support that support is not necessary.
She concluded that we should strictly limit our response to work with direct
support of the CSU system.
Cherny has been thinking about how meaningless this
is all going to be while thinking about a chapter of his that will appear in
a book this year--thinking back to how he paid for the process of doing this
chapter. There was a little bit of university support but many expenses paid
for out of pocket. Is this with university support or not? What part did the
university support? Is this meaningful? He concluded that he doesn't believe
this is meaningful; it is a catch-22 situation, a no win exercise.
Eunice Aaron spoke cheerfully about making this exercise
meaningful. She suggested looking at the Chancellor's and Board of Trustees'
indicators, which are nonsense, but we can help them with this. They have some
language about cooperation and shared-governance, and we have an obligation
to help them to see that there is a far far greater thing that we do than to
walk into this trap.
Vaughn reminded us all that we have suggested that it would
be useful for the various Statewide Presidents' and Provosts' groups to take
their own opportunities to educate the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees
and the legislature of exactly what is the meaning of these things. As Cherny
mentioned last time, there is statutory obligation on the part of the CSU. She
went on to seek direct response to the various Executive Committee recommendations:
"1) List the campus initiatives which provide financial
and assigned time support for faculty, the dates these initiatives were established,
the total amount of funding for each initiative, and what ranks of faculty are
eligible for each." The Senate voiced support.
"2) For any given classification of support, indicate the
number of faculty eligible for the award, the number of applicants from that
eligible pool, the number of awards granted, and the amount of each award."
The Senate voiced support.
"3) For the 'outcomes portion, refer the Chancellor's Office
to the required faculty reports." Vaughn added that this was considered less
than helpful, but we do have these reports as well as reports faculty are required
to file when they have completed mini-grants, summer stipends, etc.
Duke commented that if we refer them to FAR reports there
will be no indication of whether it is supported or unsupported. P. Warren stood
by that suggestion and added that in cases where the reports are not in, those
who administrate the programs could pursue them, leaving the rest of us to our
work.
Mary Anne Warren suggested it would be useful if
we did have clearly separated categories of work that has been fully supported,
partially supported and work for which there was no support.
Vaughn returned to the Executive Committee recommendations:
"4) For grants and contracts, distinguish between those
grants which are faculty initiated and those which are campus initiated--the
extensive amount of faculty work in these endeavors should be recognized." The
Senate voiced support.
"5) Ensure that the Chancellor's Office understands that
there is far more scholarly productivity than that supported by various campus
funding efforts and, in fact, that the majority of faulty still provide their
own support for professional development." The Senate voiced support.
"6) Recommend to the Chancellor's Office that it commission
a survey of all CSU faculty and that this survey include, at a minimum, the
opportunity for faculty (a) to assess the support they receive from their campus
and the CSU and (b) to comment on the quality and quantity of this support with
respect to the faculty member's own professional and scholarly productivity."
The Senate voiced support.
Harnly returned us to the FAR, suggesting that we could
indicate what kind of support we received.
In addition to the categories of "FS"--full support--"PS"--partial
support--and "NS"--no support, Aaron suggested adding a column, letter to be
designated later for "lot of lip service."
Vaughn noted that none of the Executive Committee recommendations
require further work for faculty, and she asked Aaron if she was proposing a
form. Aaron suggested revising the FARs, amplifying that senior administrators
need to understand that we are not twiddling our thumbs. If we are going to
do this, we want to do it well, and then we can go on to the business at hand,
which is educating our students and doing our research.
Vaughn suggested we can pursue a FAR revision and added
that the other items are basically the responsibility of campus administration,
and it does not imply additional work for the faculty.
Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Revision to Minor in Gerontology
Wong swiftly introduced this additional CRAC consent
item, a change into a Minor in Gerontology: Healthy Aging.
Goldsmith raised two questions, first one about numbers.
Nursing 112 is 1 unit and the Gerontology is variable units, which means the
minor could be from 17-23 units. Her other question was about the effect of
this changed minor on the Segment III cluster Perspectives on Aging. Anabel
Pelham replied that they are currently working with Judy Ott to get the
numbers accurate. It is a variable number in the internship but the numbers
will add up to a 21 unit minor with students being advised on what they will
need to take. Pelham replied to the question on the Segment III cluster stating
that their goal is to make this minor a parallel to that cluster and to supplant
that cluster, but she added that they we need to work with the Segment III committee.
M/S/P (Alvarez, Aaron) to second reading.
Marian Bernstein wondered whether the problems looming
with Segment III ought not to be worked out before this is passed. If this impacts
one of the clusters, it impacts a lot of students.
Gregory concurred with Bernstein's comment that it
is easier to fix things before they get fixed in a University Bulletin.
Cherny asked whether we need to take action on these
today so that they can be in the Bulletin or can we wait and take action in
two weeks when we have answers. Pelham elaborated that some of the Segment III
courses have not been offered, and students have been struggling. It is their
hope to get in the Bulletin.
Vaughn asked about feedback from the cluster coordinator.
Pelham replied that she is the cluster coordinator and that she will be recommending
that it be phased out.
Sharon Johnson asked which courses are in the cluster
and whether they will be changed. Pelham replied that she didn't have that information
with her, and Johnson suggested waiting.
Cherny checked with Dean Jerald Combs who suggested
that we do need to make a decision today if this is going to make it into Bulletin
copy. Cherny suggested passing this minor today if we have no difficulty with
the minor and let Segment III be dealt with in due course.
Duke spoke in favor of going ahead with this minor.
Paul Barnes spoke in favor of this proposal, noting
that he used to teach "Physiology of Aging," but no one is old enough to teach
it anymore, so it won't be offered.
M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #10 - Proposed B.S. in Apparel and Interior
Design
Wong concisely introduced this last consent item
from CRAC, a proposed B.S. in Apparel and Interior Design.
Aaron asked Wong if this has yet to go to Long Beach
and whether it can make the 2001 Bulletin. Wong replied that it is already in
the master plan and can indeed make it in.
Cherny was concerned whether this was the final approval
or not because this version has some problems that need to be addressed in a
more thoughtful arena. He raised the following concerns: page 15 says "see Table
I, next page," but there is no Table I on the next page, and this is a fairly
important issue since it deals with the need for additional faculty. Dean
Donald Zingale addressed this first question, explaining that Table I is
a system form that is filed whenever there is a new degree program, and what
one tries to accomplish is to say "zero" at the bottom of the form taking resources
to make new FTE while eliminating old FTE and faculty assignments. On some campuses,
Table I is done by the department seeking the approval of the degree; on this
campus, it is done by the administration. Zingale further explained that students
formerly associated with a general degree program in Consumer and Family Studies
with an option in Interior Design or Apparel will now be moving to their own
degree program. This is a no new resources program.
Cherny raised an additional question on pages 18-19 regarding
discrepancies in numbers of units based on the listing. Nancy Rabolt
thanked Cherny and agreed it should say 61-65 and that the program core is 15
and not 17.
Cherny asked why the "prerequisites" were called "prerequisites"
when they seem to be courses required as part of the major. He suggested calling
them a part of the course requirements or indicating that students must complete
them before being admitted to the major. Rabolt replied that these were prerequisites
to the previous major, explaining that they wanted the students to have a basic
economics and psychology class, for example. These can be taken as part of the
General Education program, but they want the students to take these particular
GE courses. Cherny reiterated his suggestion of folding those into the courses
required for each concentration.
Cherny made one final suggestion: it's clear that a student
could complete this program in 120 units, but he suggested adding a sentence
to that effect, that students will double count up to six units.
Harnly asked about the new classes discussed on pages
4-5. Rabolt explained that this new major takes the concentrations in Clothing
and Textiles, and Interior Design and Housing that are under the BA in Family
Consumer Sciences, reconfigures them, and puts them into a new degree. Since
they have a new core, it looks like there are a lot of new courses. But it's
only 6 new units because they will not be taking the old core. AID 445 "Business
Practices for Interior Design" is a new course for accreditation. AID 469 "Visual
Merchandising and Promotion" is another brand new course, something that was
missing from the old program.
Turitz raised a question about the library resources
listed on page 13-14, wondering why there is no mention of on-line resources.
Harnly explained that this is a continuation of the support she has been giving
all along to CFSD. Turitz rephrased the question, wondering whether there are
on-line resources and suggesting that they be mentioned. Harnly acceded.
Goldsmith returned to the issue of prerequisites,
first stating her understanding of a prerequisite, which is a course that you
have to take before you take something else; whereas, these courses just seem
like courses that have to be taken some time along the way.
Vaughn raised a question about the electives on page
19, specifically MS 730, wondering whether enrollment was restricted to Museum
Studies students or to graduate students. Marian Bernstein answered
that it is not restricted in either way.
P. Warren asked whether the old concentrations will
no longer exist. Rabolt replied that that is the case and that a program to
modify that program will be forthcoming.
M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to second reading.
M/S/P (Bernstein, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
The Senate was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dane Johnson
Secretary to the Faculty