Minutes: November 30th, 2004

ACADEMIC

SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 2004

 Meeting Attendance:

Senate

Chair Colvin called the Senate to

order at 2:13

Agenda Item #1—Approval of the Agenda for November 30, 2004

Abella, Bernard-Powers m/s/p

Agenda Item #2—Approval of the Minutes

for November 16, 2004

Approved

Agenda Item #3—Report from John M. Gemello, Provost & VP for

Academic Affairs: San FranciscoStateUniversity:

A Bridge to Opportunity—DraftUniversity Strategic

Plan—Cusp II

Provost Gemello began by noting that the

current draft of the CUSP II strategic plan had been three years in the making.

He hoped to outline the process that had been followed in its formation and the

implications of implementing the plan, with enough time for questions at the

end. He noted that representatives of the commission were present to answer any

questions, including commissioners Ned Fielden, Don Scoble, Vanessa Sheared and

Jason Cole who headed the four subcommittees. He drew senators’ attention to

the list of participants at the back of the document, which included not just

the commissioners but also the other members of the campus community who were

part of subcommittee deliberations.

The CUSP II

draft had roots from three sources: the initial CUSP I report from 1995-98, the

self-study for the WASC 1998-2000 report, and the WASC response to that

self-study. Several comments had surfaced including two main points about

student learning outcomes and graduate programs. This triggered the notion of a

second round of strategic planning. The endeavor incorporated a broad-based

constituency, with administrators, staff and faculty, who meet weekly beginning

in 2002 on into Fall 2004. The commission began by looking at all WASC and

previous CUSP documents, and developed some 50 “driving questions,” which

helped direct the group’s focus. While the first CUSP had used themes as the

organizing device, CUSP the second focused on experiences, and spun off four

groups about the academic; student; employee; and university and its

environment experiences. This generated a comprehensive vision statement and

the challenge for the four planning groups was to develop goals, outcomes, and

strategies. These were woven into a comprehensive plan.

Gemello

noted that the first goal stated the university’s commitment to equity and

social justice.

Goals two

and three were academic goals, the first placing writing as a central piece of

higher education, a notion deemed very important to the commissioners. Goal

three suggested that SFSU offer a high-quality baccalaureate education, that it

support high-quality graduate programs, with a small number of superb ones. The

highest quality should receive appropriate support, which suggested strong

assessment measures. Goal four was the international goal. Goal five recognized

that necessary resources be allocated to allow students, faculty and staff the

capacity to participate fully in university life, addressing accessibility both

to physical and curricular planes. Goal six recognized the importance of

leadership to the community, and goal seven addressed external and internal

constituencies.

The report

was to be endorsed by the commission next month, and if endorsed by the

president would be rolled out at Asilomar. With the approval of the plan,

implementation would begin in Spring 2005. The plan would implement the

university’s avowed role to bridge to the future. Gemello concluded by

expressing pleasure at the chance of working with the entire campus on this

effort.

State

Senator Yee thanked Gemello for the

comprehensive report, which seemed thoughtful and thorough. She was impressed

by the diverse input. As someone who taught in a graduate program she noted language

in the report that spoke to the high quality of graduate programs and the

notion of “signature” programs. She asked what such programs would look like,

and how they were to be identified.

Gemello responded that he had predicted

high interest in this area. If senators referred to Strategy three under the

graduate goal, they would note it stated the need to establish a process to

identify such programs. The Commission had not felt that it was their role to

do so, but rather this required the university as a whole to do so.

Senator Heiman commented on goal two, as he had

been on the academic planning group, and applauded the inclusion of this goal.

He thought that perhaps SFSU was the first university to even tacitly admit to

the problem of student writing and to try to grapple with it. While it would be

difficult to raise everyone to an adequate level of written communication, it

still was ambitious goal. He gave credit to CUSP for this stance and recognized

the need to address writing inadequacies.

Senator Bernard-Powers was dazzled by the

amount of work that went into the document. As she had been part of the first

CUSP, she had questions about how the university would implement such an

ambitious strategic plan. She asked how other institutions had done this.

Gemello did not find this an easily

answered question. CUSP had worked hard to go beyond just establishing goals,

but also to consider how they would be implemented. Most strategies had been

written in a way that meant they could be accomplished. The campus would need

to set priorities, and identify who would implement what. The campus community

would need to work together, and perhaps it was possible to break the plan into

pieces that were manageable.

 

Senator Vaughn echoed the provost, as she had been

a commissioner as well, and noted that the document was not a theoretical

document, but had realizable goals and strategies. She expressed the hope that

the university finds a home in this framework.

Agenda Item #4—Report From the Curriculum Review & Approval

Committee: Degree Change

from MA to MS in Biology

Chair Colvin noted that Senator Boyle, as the

representative of CRAC, would present this report, an information item.

Senator Boyle spoke as a representative from

CRAC and the Graduate Council, and stated that the degree change was initiated

by the faculty and had the support of the college, and constituted no change to

the actual program.

Biology

department chair Hafernik sought to

put the degree change into context. The department of Biology offered a MA

degree in six concentrations. This was largely the result of tradition from the

beginning of the university, and he noted that over years that the Biology

degrees had changed, and had become more intensive, with a thesis required of

all students, and required increasing amounts of research. The program had high

quality students, whose conference participation and publication was often seen

by others as at a doctoral level. He thought the MS a higher-level degree than

the MA, and that most other universities offered the MS. At SJSU the biology

department had merged with center for Clinical Laboratory Science and offered

the MS degree. Most other science degrees are MS not MAs, excepting

mathematics, and this was an attempt to align degrees. It followed earlier

changes in the undergraduate curriculum moving from a BA to a BS degree.

Chair Colvin pointed out some typos in the

agenda.

Gail Whittaker, the AVP for CEL, noted that when

this proposal first arrived to Academic Affairs, there had been lots of

discussion and general support for the main ideas of the change. The only

serious concern was connected to the original senate policy, which only

specified what would happen at the BA level. She suggested a change to the

policy.

Senator Meredith noted that this proposed

change was only approved by the CSU if new policy was developed.

Senator Yee commented on the vast difference

between the MS and MA degrees.

Senator Axler noted that the change had begun

with graduate student concerns, and that the degree change was very important

to them. Their degree often had more work attached to it, and really was an MS.

Present practice was really just a freak of history and it was time to correct

that.

Agenda Item #5—Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Discontinuance

of the Russian BA Program, 2^ndReading

Chair Colvin indicated that the first ten

minutes of discussion had been allocated to the chair of Foreign Languages,

Senator McKeon.

Senator McKeon took the chance to speak as

both a senator and a chair, and indicated her position represented the united

and unanimous choice of department faculty in support this program, one of only

two Russian BAs in the CSU, the only one in northern California. She noted that senators had

heard the main points of the rebuttal already, and she sought to supplement

those ideas with her current speech, and not duplicate what had been said

before. She sought to respond to some comments made by AVP Giardina.

Her first

observation was that Russian program faculty had not been a part of the

discontinuance proposal. The process had not been as transparent as presented

Her second

comment concerned quality, which she stated was the best in the CSU. Senators

had heard the testimony of the students on the superior reputation of the

program at SFSU, which she regarded as a “crown jewel.” When dealing with

language study, three curricular pillars existed: study of the language itself,

its culture, and its literature. The list of SFSU courses was innovative.

Truncating the program to a minor status meant many upper division courses

would not be offered. She commented on the high quality of the Russian faculty

and observed that lecturers received high marks in their student evaluations.

Her third

point in response to Giardina involved the question of the need to study the

language of one’s ancestors. The statistical summary indicated that of 2229

students of Russian, only 600 came with an ethnic background, only a third of

the total.

The fourth

point of Giardina questioned the resolutions of the city council and

supervisors. She read from a letter from a lawyer supporting the Russian BA program.

This document stated that of the best places to provide opportunities, SFSU was

the best place for students. The program explored all aspects of a complicated

language and culture. To study properly it is vital not to only take classes

without a degree possibility. SFSU was the only state university that offered

this degree in the northern part of state. Russian speakers formed an ever

larger percentage of the community.

McKeon

sought to address the issue of numbers. It had been a huge and difficult task

in the past five years to operate this program when both full professors were

at retirement age, and both had health problems. She understood the college had

difficulty in accommodating the missing faculty. Although the program lost

students, the Modern Language Association had statistics that indicated that SFSU

had 60 students in the Russian BA program, while Stanford had 64. Despite SFSU’s

problems, the department’s options curtailed by the university, and without

admitting new majors, the program numbers were all the more impressive, and

were currently up to 80 students. She found it particularly difficult to

understand the closing of admissions. She spoke to extensive community

outreach, and that while the numbers might not be large, they increased despite

all odds. She directed senators’ attention to San FranciscoCityCollege students’ banner

in support. There were 70 students in their first semester of Russian there,

many of whom had come to show their support.

Senator Klironomos spoke in support of Russian.

If SFSU was truly the city’s university, this program merited retention. The

program was needed to serve our diversity. There was no question that Russian

was vital to the community, which had undergone rapid growth. Discontinuing

went against the grain. Language, literature, and history are all intertwined

and this was a prime opportunity for SFSU to develop ties to the community. The

program needed full-time faculty and more resources, exactly what had happened

in Modern Greek studies. There was excellent quality in the Russian program.

Its discontinuance would have an impact that would stretch throughout

humanities, to all language and literature programs, and would diminish student

choices. At present it was probably the most cost effective program on campus.

As to scholarly research, she noted that lecturers were not evaluated the same

as tenure-track faculty. She thought it best to give it an opportunity to

continue with the addition of at least one tenure-track position, which would

insure its vibrancy.

Senator and

EPC chair Meredith sought to bring

the discussion down to earth. He mentioned that senators had heard a lot about

what would be lost, and pointed out that the campus was not considering

discontinuing the language but the program. The College was better served and

made stronger by this change. He invited EPC members to speak. He reminded

senators of the very small number of students and wanted to hear more about

what would be gained positively from the discontinuance.

Humanities

Dean Sherwin responded to these

comments. He reminded senators that a budget plan had been approved by the

college council. He had worked with six of the thirteen department chairs,

which included large and small departments and included faculty well disposed

to language and literature programs. He expressed surprise about number of

votes supporting the MA program, even when the department did not even contest

this. Senator Steier had noted that there were two positions, and that surely

the college could rehire. Most resources were in fact not there, or would not

be. Substantial permanent cuts to budget were a reality. The faculty in

college, the subcommittee and the council had had to make an austerity plan to

minimize fiscal damage. The plan included eliminating staff positions, reducing

classes and eliminating positions. There were many hungry mouths to feed, and a

desperate need to hire tenure-track positions. Also this college, unlike

others, had a four-course norm for teaching. If the program were to continue,

two tenure-track positions would be necessary if quality was desired and the

college would need to dig deeper. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of dollars more

would be necessary. Instead of this, the college could offer 25-30 more

classes: GE, upper-division, and graduate classes. Courses in creative writing

and women studies had high demand, and this might allow the hiring of two full-

time faculty members in other areas or shift to a three-course load. He had

heard last time and continued to hear arguments supporting Russian program. He

addressed what would be lost with the degree and minor. The BA program had

greater visibility, but discontinuance would not significantly affect a large

number of students. As for the impact on the community college system, there

was no evidence of large numbers of community college students coming to SFSU

to do more advanced Russian studies. At the other extreme, it was not true that

those with a minor in Russian could not go on to graduate work.

A

comparison to Comparative Literature might be helpful, as there many

opportunities still existed, study abroad for example, and 9 instead of 12

classes per year. There was not the pressure to have graduates do the teaching

in secondary schools the way it happens in some other languages such as

Spanish.

Senator Abella, as an EPC member, supported a

vote to discontinue. No one would argue that the Russian program was not an

asset. He spoke of an issue that drove his decision - the difference between

taking courses and actively pursuing a degree. The numbers showed that very few

students earn the MA or BA degree. He offered some anecdotal evidence that

suggested a need for more 214 classes, other humanities classes, and that the

need was greater elsewhere.  He thought a

Russian Minor would suffice.

Senator Ulasewicz, also a member of APC and

EPC, mentioned some factors in the EPC decision. She noted that the Russian

community had provided many letters of support, some 243, and with such major

documentation, no one on committee had felt this was an easy task nor taken

lightly, but one factor was that this was the only program on campus without

tenure-track faculty. She noted the great need not to have this program

whither, but without tenure-track faculty there was already a withering, and

she supported discontinuance.

Senator Steier spoke as a baseball fan and made

metaphorical comparisons to baseball. He also spoke to the value of people.

Something that does not appear to have value may indeed possess it. He observed

that there had been faculty with health problems who were unable to run the

program, thus leading fewer people to stay in the program, and that using math

in this situation was disingenuous.

As a

general point he did not like the university having its market plan direct

programs. If literature courses were replaced with composition courses this was

not the same. If there was an idea of the university, it had to include a

certain constellation of programs, and the institutional program should be

supported, whether numbers were great or not. Otherwise this whole business

seemed like cold war stuff, and that Russian was not important anymore.

Move to

extend debate 15 minutes

Carrington, Heiman m/s

Senator Bernstein echoed Steier. CityCollege

seemed to have many Russian sections, and she asked what was SFSU’s problem.

The university could move this program back into solvency. Once upon a time it

had core faculty, but the campus seemed to be losing sight of what this place

was all about. SFSU was not a college but a university. All through the CUSP

document there were statements made about internationalizing the campus and yet

getting rid of Russian went against this. If the community realized what SFSU

had, the program would grow.

Senator McKeon stated that SDSU’s Russian

program offered only four courses, and yet kept the BA and MA. SFSU was able to

do more courses, and maybe do the same with their program. Another comparison

between the two programs: there were 16 FTE there and here were over 23. The

university traditionally approved a position for around 20 FTE. When she

queried the department chair at SDSU as to how the program could be maintained,

the answer was that the university would support the program because it was

central to the mission of the university. In the new CUSP document, it seemed

important that theory and practice would go together.

Senator Hom also commented on the CUSP report,

and asked how canceling Russian could be consistent with its principles.

Senator Heiman reminded senators that they had

already voted to discontinue the MA in Russian at their last meeting. He recognized

that the Foreign Languages department had taken a strategic stance to preserve

the BA. Repeating some statements he made at the last session, he thought that

having a BA program created legitimacy to allow the creation of a critical

mass. He was troubled by the notion that class size and number of students

determined decisions. When he considered the senate’s role as a visionary body,

and considered what kinds of programs a great university should offer, he felt

that a BA in Russian should be on the list.

Senator Meredith summarized what he regarded as

the three possible options: keeping the minor but with reduced classes; offer

12 classes with the addition of one or two tenure-track faculty to jumpstart

the program; or discontinue. He did not see large numbers of community college

transfers coming if the Russian program were to grow. The program could always

be brought back if discontinued, but as long as interest was at its current

level, he did not see a need to continue.

Senator Steier requested a roll call vote.

22 votes

for discontinuance

26 against discontinuance

1 abstention.

Chair

Colvin explained that the Academic Senate would recommend against discontinuance.

Agenda Item #6—Recommendation from the Academic Senate Executive

Committee, SFSU: Resolution In

Support Of Re-nominating Kathy Kaiser for Faculty Trustee -1^st

& 2^ndReading

Chair Colvin noted that Williams would introduce this item.

Williams, Chelberg m/s/p

Vice-chair Williams spoke of the issue of

re-nominating Kathleen Kaiser as the faculty trustee, and that this resolution

was being distributed throughout the state. Kaiser stood up for the CSU, she

was outspoken, supported faculty, and was an outstanding scholar and

spokesperson.

Cherny remarked that he had served with

Kaiser during his term as statewide senate chair and they had visited half the

campuses together, with her stated goal to visit every campus at least once. He

found the description of her in the resolution solid and Williams’

characterization of her as accurate.

The resolution was unanimously

approved.

Agenda Item #7—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review & Approval

Committee: Revision of the

Masters in Public Administration—A Consent Item—1^st & 2^nd

Readings

Chair Colvin noted some

typographical errors in

the agenda, and that the degree in question was the MPA, the Masters in Public

Administration. In the absence of CRAC chair Nichols, Senator Boyle would

introduce the proposal.

Boyle,

Carrington, m/s/p

Senator Boyle stated that the proposal came to

senate as a consent item from the Graduate Council and CRAC. This was a

graduate program only, and the proposed changes were improvements to program.

She drew senators’ attention to the accreditation process, with the target date

of 2006, which were summarized in the senate documents. Attention could be

directed to the following items: The

total number of units for the degree would be increased from 37 - 41 to 39 - 43

although the number of units (when including prerequisites) would be decreased

by 6 units and the total number of courses will remain the same. The

number of courses would remain the same. No new resources were needed, and

Stowers, the program director, was prepared to answer any questions.

Moved to

second reading.

Unanimously passed.

Agenda Item #8—Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Discontinuance of the BA in

Liberal Studies: Concentration in NEXA 1^st Reading

Meredith, Boyle m/s

Senator Meredith observed that the senators had

two proposals in front of them, one on a concentration, and one on a minor.

NEXA was a very old program, the courses largely offered through GE, with an

option of a concentration, although fewer than one student a year took this

option. The Liberal Studies council had made no attempt to rebut this program

change. EPC had voted 17-0, with one abstention, to discontinue. He reviewed

the arguments from EPC: the program was richly endowed with a superstructure,

which included a .75 staff position, and...4 release time for the director. The

practice of team-teaching with tenure-track faculty was no longer the norm and

was unlikely to be resumed.

Dean Sherwin offered abbreviated remarks.

Contrary to a statement in the first paragraph of the rebuttal, the discontinuance

proposal had been up-front and did not concern a degree program. The deans did

understand the impact on the GE program. If the rebuttal’s claim that their

vision was unique, there would be cause for worry. But in fact there were

multiple programs around the country that involved multidisciplinary

approaches. Even if they did not emphasize convergence, they did similar

things. The rebuttal chided deans for their lack of commitment to the

convergence model, and argued that discontinuing would land a devastating blow

to interdisciplinary study at SFSU. Yet he thought that the university’s

commitment was built into the Segment III and GE courses. NEXA played a

prominent role in several Segment III clusters. Hundreds of courses on campus

presented multidisciplinary perspectives. Back in 1970’s the program took the ideas

of dysfunction between science and humanities and generated a very innovative

program that bridged the divide between the sciences and humanities. The only

significant conceptual change in NEXA he noted was that courses had moved

further on. The rebuttal suggested NEXA was a strong advocate for innovation, but

this was not borne out by action. He

noted that Axler and he were chided in the document for advocating for college

specific programs. He noted that SFSU faced financial problems, which had not

existed for NEXA before, and that difficult decisions for academic programs

were necessary.

Sherwin

observed that the operating budget and the actual cost to university were

different. NEXA complained that its goals could be reached without budget

reductions. Other programs did manage to reach or exceed their reenrollment

while keeping costs down, often by cutting back courses. Savings that might

have been realized, in fact were not in NEXA’s case. There were high administrative

costs for a program this size. If the Segment III courses were dropped, there

would be lots of problems, and the university had not yet generated an

implementation plan, which more appropriately was the province of other

offices. The university would need some substitutions for the GE courses and a

lot of the impact would depend on NEXA, or NEXA type courses. Many courses could

remain. NEXA reached 800 students, or more accurately really only about 500 per

year. There was little to say about minor or liberal studies, with very few

students - with only 3 in the last 9 years for the minor. NEXA did not have either

a long or good enough track record.

Science Dean

and Senator Axler added some

additional comments. He noted that the external review had recommended that the

degree programs be discontinued for lack of numbers, and that of the liberal

studies concentration in NEXA, of the thousands of liberal studies students,

only five took the minor in the last five years. This had been discussed in the

college councils of Science and Humanities but had garnered no support from the

chairs. The resource costs were high for the program, some 15,000 dollars a

year, and chairs knew that that sum only accounted for 5/6 of the costs, which

were closer to 18,000 dollars, which also did not include such items as fringe

benefits. The rebuttal understated the real costs to the university, as costs were

distributed at a lecturer not a tenure-track rate, meaning actual costs were

greater. With .4 release time, the director scheduled for 56 FTES, and did no

hiring. In comparison, in Geosciences, the department chair received the same

release time, arranged a larger number of classes (48) classes with 428 FTES

and had to do RTP work, hiring, and all else that went with department chair

life. The NEXA website indicated that courses were taught cooperatively, but this

was no longer true. Of the 19 courses, only 6 were team taught. NEXA was reliant

on lecturers, and as of Fall 2003, in the eight classes offered, six were

taught by lecturers. The university had a stated goal of more tenure-track

faculty. NEXA recognized many of these issues, and had responded that it could

do more with more resources. But these would need to come from somewhere else.

NEXA offered some good courses, and had some good faculty, but was not

attracting new tenure-track faculty. 

NEXA could

preserve some courses with some enrollment increase money. He did not see a

problem with the courses but with the superstructure. The rebuttal had stated

the enrollment numbers inaccurately. There were problems not making target, any

tenure-track hires. EPC had voted 17-0 with one abstention.

Geoffrey Green,

director of NEXA, summarized the rebuttal, which focused on the entire

discontinuance of the program. NEXA was willing to discuss growth money, and

augmentation to keep the program alive. The concentration and minor were

secondary functions of the program, and the mission addressed disciplinary and

interdisciplinary themes. NEXA brings disciplinary together with interdisciplinary

perspectives and involved hundreds of students. It contributed 16 Segment II

courses and constituted a large percentage of courses in three Segment III

clusters. The deans were proposing to eliminate all NEXA courses, and had not consulted

with GEC until NEXA had requested them to do so. 

Green

expressed willingness to work to address each item mentioned in the MOU. The

program could address any and all paradigms, and issues of budget. The deans

had had secret consultations, and NEXA had never been consulted. The deans

encouraged secrecy. The deans alleged that NEXA had not meet target, but this

was true for many other programs. NEXA was caught between a rock and a hard

place, and it did not look like the university would support it. The arguments

for discontinuance could be used against any other department or program. This

was an inherently unfair situation. NEXA contributed to GE and enriched the

whole university. The impact would be considerable. He asked if fiscal

considerations should drive everything. He asked about other interests. He

asked if a hasty and secretive process was collegial. The welfare of the students

was not taken into account by the deans. No program was perfect, but when a

program enriched whole university, it should not be jettisoned. He drew senator’s

attention to students and faculty showing support at the rear of the senate

floor.

Senator Axler refuted that the welfare of students

had not been considered by the deans. Many things were fair to debate in the

senate, but this was not one of them. Deans can act in a manner that can be

disagreed with, but their motives should not be questioned.

Green apologized, but spoke of the programmatic

secrecy.

Senator Bernstein indicated that she had taught

in NEXA for a long time, that the concept was marvelous, but that the current

situation was abysmal. Leadership was the problem and the program needed an

entire restructuring.

Senator Klironomos had a question for the

deans. She asked how the funding for the program had worked out over the span

of the time of the program. The funding obviously got diminished and the

program turned to general fund.

Senator Axler observed that NEXA had obtained

no external funds for twenty years, a sign of problems.

Sherwin stated that an initial grant had given

a certain level of support, but since mid 80s the university had done its best

to keep the program going, but could not maintain it at same level.

Green indicated that the initial grant

was to set up NEXA program, but as an entire program. While initially

administered by academic affairs, it had migrated into the colleges of humanities

and science. NEXA raised funds for conferences, but since the early 90s, funds

have diminished in the humanities.

Senator Abella had two questions. The first was

whether anyone from liberal studies could answer why they did not offer any

support.

Associate

Dean of Liberal Studies Goldsmith

responded that when the whole proposal came up there had been some confusion

about NEXA which seemed like a liberal studies major, NEXA had not been a part

of the liberal studies council. She went into some history. When NEXA first came

into being, administrative choice allowed it to be a major, an easy choice for liberal

studies students. However, it was governed by the NEXA steering committee.

Liberal studies never addressed NEXA except at they meshed with the general

program. When approached, the liberal studies council had no great sense of the

impact of this discontinuance on liberal studies.

Green responded that NEXA had never been invited

to the liberal studies council. NEXA had participated in everything they had

been invited to.

 

Goldsmith responded that the Liberal Studies

council was not responsible for the NEXA concentration in NEXA, which was not

their purview, and was a NEXA program. If NEXA went away, there would not be a

great impact on the liberal studies program.

Senator Abella observed that there was insufficient

faculty support, but this program appeared to play by different rules. It

sounded like faculty needed to develop a new curriculum.

Senator Axler observed that no support came

from the department chairs. That did not mean that all faculty feel this way.

He sought to clarify one point - the accusation of hasty and insufficient

consultation with faculty. There had been several meetings with faculty, and

there had been discussions over a long period of time. NEXA’s traditional

funding pattern was to provide release time to develop new courses. When deans

complained that no new development was taking place, NEXA responded that it no

longer had the budget to develop. He found other faculty across campus were expected

to do this but NEXA had not.

Green made a clarification that the

program had had two directors and since he arrived in 2002, he could only speak

from that time. The program recruits faculty from departments, and compensates

those faculty. If support was not coming from chairs, it seemed that the chairs

were not encouraging this during this time of trouble, which was not the same

as no support. He had indicated to the deans that with a new money scenario it would

take some time to do this, but our rebuttal made clear that there were plenty

of plans in the works to keep the program alive. Meetings with the provost and

deans occurred only after discovery of the secrecy of previous meetings.

Dean of

Undergraduate Studies Buttlaire spoke

to consulting with liberal studies program about this impact, with a two-fold motivation.

One was the concentration, the other the emphasis on liberal studies. There

were three students in the last nine years with BA in Liberal Studies with a concentration

in NEXA. The second issue was the emphasis within liberal studies program, and

only four out of thousands opted for this. Discontinuing would not have any

impact on liberal studies.

The

proposal would return in second reading on December 14.

Agenda Item #9—Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Discontinuance of the NEXA Minor, 1^st

Reading

Meredith Ulasewicz m/s

Senator Meredith noted that EPC had voted 16-1,

with one abstention for this discontinuance. He thanked students for their

participation;

Senator Ulasewicz pointed out that there were two

separate proposals, which might require clarification in future discussions.

Senator Meredith observed that constitutionally

the senate would vote on the discontinuance of a degree program. His

understanding was that in this case the discontinuances of degrees would mean the

ultimate elimination of the whole program, with perhaps some courses migrating

to other departments.

Green asked if it were possible to give

visiting faculty and students a chance to speak.

Renae Smith indicated that she would not have

come to SFSU without NEXA, a program she found unique in whole bay area. While

it was asserted that something similar could be taken at MIT, this was not

true. Here there was a thesis and a BA. The program required students to think.

Other liberal studies courses were much easier than NEXA. A doctorate in

education was her plan, and NEXA was not something found in other affordable

institutions. The thesis was unique and appropriate to the program. It required

students to create something from their program of study.

Terri Kramer was a student assistant at NEXA

soon to graduate. He had noticed NEXA right away, especially the Segment III

clusters which captured his interest and was exactly what he wanted to learn.

Six NEXA courses had all profoundly influence his perspective. It seemed a

shame to see the program go, especially as it seemed to be on technical points.

Marcia Green spoke in support of the program. It

made great difference to her as a teacher and scholar. It provided many

services that should not be eliminated. Good programs take time to develop, and

need dialog.

Maxamilian Rankenberg was a graduate student in English. While the deans argued for

reforming, they needed to consider what elimination would mean. NEXA could not

be compared to geology or physics, as it was not exactly a program nor a field

of study, but more a way of study, a method. There was no wonder people did not

major in this. Eliminating NEXA would eliminate the only venue taught by

faculty from different disciplines, and it taught how to communicate, and see the

story from another side. He considered the criticism of lack of students

inaccurate. It was not a field of study but a way of study - a different way of

approaching the university.

Ruth Mahaney was a part-time lecturer in NEXA

for four years, and had taught in interdisciplinary programs for much longer.

One interdisciplinary problem was that faculty had no home. For many years NEXA

had been adopted by humanities, but with no representation at the chairs’

council, there were issues of where NEXA lived, and who represented it. One

confusion was what was being proposed, which affects whether NEXA exists or

not. It was not realistic to think NEXA courses would magically find a home.

NEXA provided one of the most diverse teaching experiences ever. Her courses

were overenrolled for four hears, and her experience of the students was

interesting, the best. Elimination seemed shortsighted.

Agenda Item #10 —Adjournment

at 5:05 pm.