Minutes: December 9th, 1997

Minutes for December 9, 1997 Academic Senate Meeting

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present: Aaron, Eunice; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher,

Patty; Bernstein, Marian; Blank, Mark; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny,

Robert; Consoli, Andres; Craig, JoAnn; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman,

Ken; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Hammett, Jennifer;

Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Homan, Bonnie; Houlberg, Rick; Hu, Sung; La Belle,

Thomas; Lee, Wanda; Leitao, David; Lyles, Lois; Mallare, Marie; Nicholson, Joel;

Oñate, Abdiel; Pestrong, Raymond; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Rivas,

Mario; Scoble, Don; Smith, Nina Jo; Swanson, Deborah; Thomson, Lana; Turitz,

Mitch; Verhey, Marilyn; Warren, Mary Ann; Warren, Penelope; Wilkinson, Nancy;

Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Wong, Yim Yu; Yee, Darlene, Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie

Senate Members Absent: Wade, Patricia(exc.); Woo, George(exc.);

Terrell, Dawn(exc.); Choo, Freddie; Wong, Alfred; Haw, Mary Ann(exc.); Smith,

Erna; Tarakji, Ghassan; Flowers, Will; Hammerstrom, Gary(exc.); Kelley, James(exc.);

Collier, James; Corrigan, Robert(exc.); Chang, Paul(exc.); Shouse, Amy.

Senate Interns Present:

Guests: T. Rutter, G. Whitaker, H. Matson, M. Kasdan, J. Kassiola,

J. Curtin, D. Bianchi, P. Saffold, D. Schafer, R. Kahn-Hut, W. Bonds, B. Macher.

Announcements and Report

Chair's Report

The faculty meeting scheduled for December 10, 1997 is to provide a faculty

forum for discussion and information updates on CETI. No presentations will

be given. David Ernst, Don Scoble, Gary Hammerstrom, and Peter Dewees, who are

all involved in the SIP/CETI process, will be there to respond to questions

and concerns. Faculty and students will have an opportunity to speak through

an open mike.

Phillips read a letter from the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate

to the President of the State Board of Education (SBE) opposing the proposed

math standards for schools. The letter strongly urged the SBE to revise their

proposal in accord with the work of the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic

Senates, the California Education Round Table and the Standards Commission.

He stated that the issue is obviously a larger one than math in terms of who

and what drives public education in California.

The Cornerstones principles document has been completed and is available via

e-mail and the web.

The Faculty Leadership Conference will be held on January 21. The conference

will consist of centralized meetings at Seven Hills and the Guest Center. Expected

attendees include administrators, the Executive Committee, Department Chairs,

and representatives from each department. The morning will consist of a panel

discussion and a plenary session focusing on how we meet the challenges facing

faculty given the level of stress and time constraints. The afternoon will consist

of another panel with the focus on alternative solutions followed by a plenary

session. The morning panel, Perspectives on the Challenges Facing

SFSU Faculty, will consist of Teresa Carrillo (La Raza Studies), Marlon

Hom (Department Chair, Asian-American Studies), Joel Kassiola (Dean, BSS), Hollis

Matson (former Senate Chair, Director, Space Management), Vanessa Sheared (Administration

and Interdisciplinary Studies), and Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman (Department Chair,

Jewish Studies). The moderator will be Pamela Vaughn (Department Chair, Classics

and Comparative Literature). The afternoon panel, Opportunities and Solutions,

will consist of Ron Compesi (BECA), Jerry Eisman (Department Chair, Computer

Science), Bonnie Homan (Business Analysis and Computing Systems), Phil McGee

(Dean, Ethnic Studies), Mario Rivas (Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies),

and Yim Yu Wong (International Business). Carlos Cordova (La Raza Studies) will

be the moderator.

December marked a very special occasion - Lana Thomson's 30th anniversary

at SFSU. The Senate honored Lana with a standing ovation and a lovely bouquet

of flowers. Phillips said that this is Lana's 11th year as the 'Real Head of

the Senate' or 'She Who Really Knows'. The Senate plans an extended period of

celebration for this significant event. Phillips said that there is probably

no one who better knows the ins and outs of this University and that Lana is

almost indispensable in her role. Phillips said that Lana is truly one of the

major reasons why he agreed to serve in his present role. He values her insightful

intelligence, her incredible commitment to the University and especially the

Academic Senate, her sharp wit, her wise judgments, and her deep human warmth.

He asked the Senate to join him in saluting the woman who best represents the

heart and soul of the Academic Senate. The Senators responded with another standing

ovation. Lana thanked everyone.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of December 9, 1997

As there were no objections, the agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of November 18, 1997

As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as


Agenda Item #3 - Report From Vice President for Academic Affair Tom La


La Belle offered his congratulations to Lana Thomson. He reported on

enrollment related issues because there are implications for how we conduct

academic business. He introduced Tom Rutter and Penny Saffold

as additional resources.

He spoke of three types of enrollment - 1) enrollment on this campus funded

by the general fund, 2) enrollment off campus funded by the general fund, and

3) enrollment off campus funded through the College of Extended Learning (CEL).

The projected SFSU enrollment for AY 97/98 is 19,807 Full Time Equivalent

Students (SFTE) and 20,050 SFTE for AY 98/99. That means that next year enrollment

will be capped on this campus. SFSU is not permitted to have more than 20,050

students on this site. So there are questions about what happens when that cap

is reached. How does the University admit students into the institution and

on what rationale are students turned away? The Enrollment Management Committee

is looking into these issues.

One step might be to stop lower division transfers, which would eliminate

about 500-700 students per year. Another step might be to require students to

have completed an AA degree in a Community College before transferring. These

steps might slow the flow of students without having to go through the labor-intensive

process of reviewing every application. La Belle guessed that, over time, admissions

to higher education will become more labor-intensive. Future admissions could

be reviewed for the breadth of courses taken, travel experiences, community

service, student leadership, and other criteria.

The CSU asked the campus to project enrollment for the next several years

annually through 2006/7. These enrollment numbers include both on- and off-campus

figures. The CSU has said that on-campus enrollment is capped. However, the

CSU will continue to fund, from the General Fund, off-campus students at off-campus

sites, at the same funding level as on-campus students. This refers to supervision,

typically associated with professional programs such as student teaching, nursing,

and social work. Other off-campus offerings could be through technology or face-to-face

offerings of SFSU classes at a different location (for example at a community

college campus). The projects are for relatively modest growth off-campus so

that by 2006/7 there will be 23,096 projected SFTE.

Assuming that this happens, SFSU will become more of a regional institution

with off site courses offered more frequently. Decisions will need to be made

as to what courses will be offered off site. It is possible that community colleges

might become a host to degree granting programs through a four-year university.

SFSU is working with the College of San Mateo, Diablo Valley College, and College

of Marin to potentially offer courses on those sites. These courses will be

funded by the General Fund. The SFSU academic units will still have complete

responsibility for what courses are offered, their content, instructors, and

other course attributes.

La Belle felt there would be implications for the use of instructional resources

and who those instructional resources are. He felt that it may be advantageous

for some because they live near the off-campus site, for some it may be perplexing,

and it might be something that CFA would take to the bargaining table. However,

he said that he didn't know what the implications will be. He said that this

is one possible income stream for the University. One question is at what level

will off-campus courses be funded.

A third opportunity for income is through the College of Extended Learning

(CEL). Since 1991, $6.5 million has been passed back to the colleges through

the initiative of faculty teaching courses through CEL. The colleges have used

these funds for travel, support (clerical and secretarial), and other needs.

The incentive to continue to cooperate with CEL is through the profit sharing

that comes back to the colleges. CEL pays a tax to the system and will support

the University in its General Operating Fund this year with $650,000. CEL operates

on its own bottom line and operates the Downtown Center, summer and winter sessions,

and the weekend college. CEL is an extremely important resource and we need

to recognize this.

With the three potential funding sources, there are interesting policy issues

including matriculated and non-matriculated students, fee structures, course

and program types, on- and off-campus offerings, and graduate, undergraduate,

and professional students. He questioned how do you assure equity and access?

Equity includes fee structures since it is conceivable to have two students

in the same class paying different fees. The fee structure for distance learning

is another issue. There are a lot of policy questions related to this.

One option is to take the 20,050 SFTE and stay there. The cost of this option

is that any growth, change in curriculum, or new ventures would have to come

from reallocated funds. The trade-off of an existing program for a new one is

the cost.

He felt that this is a very important time for SFSU with the enrollment cap

next fall. Some of the issues include the selection process on campus, growth

process off campus, policy issues, and relationships with community colleges.

Jerry Eisman asked about professional supervision courses. He asked

if some of the community service learning efforts could be funded this way?

Would there be a way to recapture some of the funds by having CEL courses share

a classroom on campus with a community service course if the latter does not

meet on campus every week? La Belle replied that some courses are already being

counted as off-campus such as the business courses that are taught at Stonestown.

If a service learning course is conducted off campus, then it could be offered

either through the General Fund or CEL. He continued, how do you build risk

taking into off-campus offerings? CEL is now trying to build a multimedia studies

program. The program is well known, but very costly and risky. He asked how

do we treat risk in the future? Do you use CEL to originally create opportunities

and then spin the course off into the General Fund or the other way around?

Robert Cherny asked if students who pay full fees (non-resident) count

towards the 20,050 SFTE or only students funded through the General Fund? La

Belle replied yes.

Tom Rutter stated that the new subject requirements will increase the

number of eligible students, increase the preparedness of students, and exclude

some students.

Agenda Item #4 - Report From Statewide Senators

Cherny reported that the Statewide Academic Senate passed five resolutions.

The Sonoma campus admissions policy passed since the report addressed all the

previous concerns. Another resolution passed regarding a new high school course

pattern for admission which is aimed at making CSU and UC patterns more consonant.

The CSU will now require a second year of social sciences, which is required

for high school graduation and add a second year of lab science to bring the

CSU in alliance with UC admissions requirements. The first change will probably

make no difference in admissions since it is a high school graduation requirement.

Studies have shown that 66% of high school admissions have completed the second

year of science, so it will not affect those students. The new requirements

will make it easier for high school guidance counselors to advise students about

what they need to do for admission. There has been considerable flexibility

from UC by moving in the direction of accepting the visual and performing arts

requirement. He said that he hoped the admission patterns will be the same for

both systems in the near future.

The revised Statement of Baccalaureate Education in the CSU was attached to

the agenda and he said that he would be glad to answer questions. The Statewide

Academic Senate approved a resolution on CETI, urged the CSU to go more slowly

and that ample information be made available to all campuses and faculty.

The Teacher Education Committee introduced three resolutions that will be

dealt with in January. All of them concern teacher preparation. A resolution

was introduced concerning Boalt Hall admission policies. Since that time, changes

were made by Boalt Hall, so the resolution will not be considered in January.

Most of the November meeting was spent reviewing the Cornerstones document.

The Cornerstones group accepted most of the proposed revisions. Several resolutions

were written opposing legislative measures concerning the way that teachers

teach reading.

Eunice Aaron reported that the Board of Trustees received and accepted

the Faculty Affairs Committee revision on the Policy on Selection of Presidents.

The statewide faculty felt that individual campuses should have more of a voice

in presidential selection. CSU Long Beach anticipates having to replace about

five presidents in the next 7-9 years, and there was a lot of publicity about

the role of faculty in the Chancellor's search, so it was felt that both policies

needed to be examined. The discussion on this policy was vigorous. The committee

felt very strongly that faculty have the right to be elected by other faculty

to serve on these committees and NOT to be selected by the Chancellor or a group

of Trustees.

The revisions that were proposed and accepted include that there be added

a Vice President or an Academic Dean to the Advisory Committee. It modifies

and specifies the rationale for appointing up to two additional members to the

Advisory Committee based on the complexity of the search. It allows the Trustee

Chair of the selection committee, after notice and an opportunity for a meeting,

to dismiss any member that violates the rule of confidentiality or whose behavior

is deemed unethical, unprofessional, or disruptive to the conduct of business.

The revisions permit the naming of a second panel to meet confidentially with

a short list of candidates to determine compatibility of the candidate with

the campus. It makes clear that only the Chancellor has the responsibility to

determine how reference and background checks are conducted. The policy maintains

the practice of announcing the names of the candidates being presented to the

Board of Trustees. Of the proposed revisions, only the naming of second panel

was not accepted.

The principle of the Merit Pay Task Force Report was attached to the agenda.

The full Senate accepted the report in the plenary session. Aaron stressed the

comment on the front page "No one we contacted, including presidents and

a former Trustee, could clearly state the rationale for the PSSI." In a

parallel process, the Outstanding Performance Program committee is considering

other performance award mechanisms. It was accepted without comment that until

the salary gap is closed, the notion of merit pay will not be well received.

Cherny said that the complete text of the Merit Pay Task Force Report is on

the Statewide Academic Senate web site. Phillips thanked Cherny for work

done on Merit Pay Task Force.

Rick Houlberg asked Aaron about the problem with confidentiality. Did

Long Beach still consider that the faculty leaked this? Aaron replied that this

was the case and the language was included in the policy so the faculty members

could have protection. The policy includes holding Trustees and the Chancellor

to the same rules. Houlberg asked about the prediction of five presidents leaving

and how that was determined. Aaron replied that this is called future forecasting

and the CSU anticipates that 5-6 presidents will begone within 4-5 years, but

no specifics were given.

JoAnn Craig asked what was leaked. Aaron answered resumes, pictures,

and home addresses. Someone evidently handed off files to a journalist and no

one would condone that. But Munitz insisted it was a faculty person and it was

dreadful. Cherny added that across the country there is a concern about making

these searches highly secretive. Even revealing the names somehow compromises

the search process and he seriously questioned these assumptions.

Agenda Item #5 - Resolution on the California Education Technology Initiative


Phillips introduced this consent item. The Executive Committee endorsed

this resolution and had consciously taken a middle course. The concern was over

time lines and about the degree to which issues are addressed as opposed to

other concerns. The passing of resolutions on CETI has not been high on Executive

Committee's priority list. The resolution from Sacramento State was received.

That resolution is before the Senate is with minor changes and with credit given

to Sacramento State.

M/S/P (Cherny, Ferhman) to move second reading. M/S/P (Barnes, Gillotte)

to close debate. The vote was taken and the resolution passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #6 - Revision to BA in Sociology

CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which includes several

curricular changes in the requirements for the degree. Three specific changes

include 1) that a lower division course be replaced by an upper division course

in order to better introduce students to the major and the lower division course

may still be taken as elective, 2) a third Area requirement on Institutional

Perspectives will be required, and 3) one or two capstone courses will be required

so that students can integrate prior experiences to better prepare for their

future career. The number of units was increased from 35-36 to 41-42. She introduced

Rachel Kahn-Hut, Sociology Chair, and Joel Kassiola, Dean of BSS,

as resources.

With no one seeking recognition on this consent item, the item was automatically

moved to second reading.

Cherny commended the Sociology department for taking the External review

so seriously and Phillips agreed.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was taken and the

item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #7 - Revision to Sociology Minor

Yee introduced the proposed curricular changes to revise the minor

to bring it into closer alliance with the revised major. The changes are 1)

to replace a lower division course with an upper division course, 2) to require

a research design course, and 3) in addition to the Area requirement on Interpersonal

Perspectives (which is also required for the major), a second area requirement

was added. The unit requirements increased from 21 to 23-24 units.

Helen Goldsmith asked a question. If the Additional Elective Units

in Sociology are 1-4, then the numbers do not add up. Kahn-Hut replied

that it should read 3-4 units not 1-4.

Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman asked about the title of SOC 484, questioning

whether Population Problems is the current way of thinking about the issue.

Kahn-Hut replied that yes, that is the old nomenclature or old pattern of naming

courses. Currently there is a search for someone to teach Urban Demography and

they are holding off changing the name until it is known what that person would

like to call their course.

With no one else seeking recognition on this consent item, the item was automatically

moved to second reading.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was taken and the

item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 - Revision to the BA in Chemistry

Yee introduced the proposed curricular changes in the requirements.

Biochemistry I or General Biochemistry would be required as a core course since

it serves as a prerequisite for elective courses. This change would essentially

be truth in advertising since students will have to take the course to complete

their degree. The second change would be to include Inorganic Chemistry and

Advanced Organic Chemistry as elective courses. The number of overall units

would increase from 51-55 to 55-57. She introduced Bruce Macher, Chemistry

and Biochemistry Chair, as a resource.

Houlberg said that when the major is up to 57 units, he would suggest

to train advisors about the 60-unit limit. Unless the advisors are on top of

the issue, the students can get through the major and not be able to graduate

from the University.

Cherny asked what is the maximum number of units in a BA program? Yee

replied up to 60.

M/S/P (Houlberg, Fehrman) to move second reading.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was taken and the

item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Master Plan Projection for an MA in Human Sexuality


Yee introduced this proposed Master Plan Projection for an interdisciplinary

degree. The faculty of the Human Sexuality Studies Program and the College of

BSS proposed this degree which would be housed in BSS. This new degree program

would offer courses from at least 25 faculty from across the University. It

would consist of three basic components: 1) Background and Foundations, 2) Three

Major Subdivisions including sexual populations, community health and services,

and policy issues in schools, and 3) learning derived from community participation

and service. This is a recommendation from CRAC since some members of CRAC have

concerns about: 1) why can't this be offered as a concentration, certificate

program, or bachelor's degree, 2) what is the anticipated employer demand for

graduates with an M.A. in Human Sexuality Studies, and 3) what is the availability

of faculty and other resources, especially for advising and instructional activities.

She introduced Bill Bonds, Acting Director, Human Sexuality Studies,

and Dean Kassiola as resources.

Kassiola stressed that since this is a program that goes throughout

the University, attempts were made to consult with all the departments that

would be interested. In the last two days, a Department Chair, who had been

consulted, asked that the proposal be withdrawn. However, he could not reach

the Chair to discuss the Chair's concerns. He asked the Senate, in the spirit

of collegiality, to consider and adopt the proposal with the assurance that

he would get back to that Chair and consult before the proposal leaves the campus.

Lois Lyles had a question about the first paragraph on page 2 which

reads "Besides the sexual minorities, the Bay Area is comprised of large

African American, Asian, and Latino communities of adults and young people,

many of whom are immigrants or first-born American children, whose sexual and

gender cultural traditions are at odds with those of mainstream North American

society." She felt that the term "at odds with" implies that

there will automatically be conflicts, while there may or may not be conflicts.

She suggested the use of a more neutral term such as encompassing the variety

of cultural traditions, for example.

Andrés Consoli expressed his support of integrated studies and

commended all the people who worked on the proposal. He also expressed support

for CRAC and the questions that they raised. He expressed his specific concerns

since the proposal extends to a number of areas, particularly counseling. In

order to practice counseling or psychotherapy, one must be licensed. He felt

it was not clear how this proposal will meet those requirements. The first paragraph

on page 7 states that some of the prospective students are already established

professionals. Those students might already meet the licensing requirement,

but he felt that it should be better articulated in the proposal.

Cherny asked why this is not a consent item. Yee replied for specific

concerns, previously presented, that CRAC had.

P. Warren said that she didn't wish to close off conversation, but

in view of the concerns that Kassiola expressed and other concerns, she hoped

that this item would not move to second reading so that it would come back to

the Senate in January for further discussion. She asked about the implications

if the proposal was approved, what is the process that is followed for Master

Plan Projections? Donna Schafer replied that, if approved, the proposal

would go to the Vice President for his signature. Following that, the proposal

would go to Long Beach where it would be put on the Master Plan Projection.

If approved by Long Beach as a concept or idea, then it would be up to the proposing

faculty to come up with the curriculum. That curriculum would go through the

normal curriculum review process on campus. She said that the question before

the Senate was "Is offering this program an idea that the campus wants

to do?". The implications are that there is one time per year that Master

Plan Projections can be received by Long Beach. If the proposal were not approved

at the current Senate meeting, then it likely would not be considered by Long

Beach for another year.

Nina Jo Smith commended the people involved for their work and specifically

for including Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender communities, violence against

women, and the feminist perspective. She asked about the community services

section and the degree of consultation and coordination with social work, health

education, and counseling and how inclusive is that process?

Bonds replied that consultation has taken place with various departments since

there have been a faculty of 25 who include health education, social work, counseling,

women's studies and others who have worked for 5 years to put together this

idea. If the proposal were approved by the Chancellor, then consultation about

curriculum would also take place. Many of the courses in the program would be

cross-listed in several departments. In terms of advising, there are 25 faculty

on the current roster of the program and at least 20 are tenured/tenure track

and all would available to serve as advisors of theses. With respect to concerns

about duplication of courses, because the program is so interdisciplinary, it

will involve the collaboration of many programs. In some cases, the duplication

is its greatest strength since courses that already exist do not have to be

duplicated. The program is able to draw from the talent around the university.

In terms of wording, Lyles' point is well taken, and he forgot to make that

change after it was previously brought up. He indicated that other wording changes

would be made if needed to make it more felicitous and more intelligible.

Gail Whitaker said that she did not want to exert any pressure on the

Senate, but the Board of Trustees only looks at Master Plan Proposals once a

year. The materials for the annual report are due January 12 in order for the

Trustees to look at it at the March meeting. If the Senate is not ready to act

on the proposal at the current meeting, it will be a full year before the proposal

could be considered by the Board of Trustees. She stressed that this is the

conceptual phase. The Senate should consider if this is a program that we would

like to proceed with developing for this campus and that actual details would

be worked out subsequent to the acceptance of the Master Plan Projection. She

felt that CRAC had done an excellent job of raising key issues. She had seen

enough response from the makers of the program to be assured herself that it

is a sound idea. She asked that the Senate focus on whether this master's degree

would be a good idea for the campus.

Zoloth-Dorfman was puzzled by some of the conceptual issues and suggested

that some of her confusion might arise from the program's strength as an interdisciplinary

program. Referring to the employer's part, people with expertise in Sexuality

and Gender Theory generally work in discrimination; however the degree is not

in Gender Theory. She said that in other places Sexuality is a part of Queer

Theory, which is a subdiscipline of Cultural Studies. Since Queer Theory is

a strong and important academic discipline, she felt that it should be honored

if that is what the program covers. In some places the proposal seemed to be

about Feminist Studies, so she questioned why that is not part of Women's Studies.

She expressed concern that the program included Counseling and asked if that

then suggested that some sexualities need therapeutic intervention? She said

that she felt confusion about the meaning of the program and was concerned that

a random Trustee might also be confused.

Cherny asked which department wanted to withdraw the proposal and why. Kassiola

replied the department was Women's Studies but he didn't know why. He said that

the Chair was consulted, and from his perspective the discussions seemed to

be concluded successfully. But he wasn't able to discuss the recent memo and

phone call with the Chair, so he didn't know why since the reasons were not

included in the memo or phone call.

P. Warren felt deeply troubled by the fact that the Senate was having to make

a response to a proposal for a substantive and important addition to the curriculum

without having the time to give it the thought that it deserves.

Lee expressed some concerns that someone who wanted to become a sex

therapist could take this program and then call themselves an expert in sexuality

and then provide unlicensed therapy. Sex therapy is not mentioned in the proposal

but she felt that somebody reading into it might want to do that. When the proposal

gets to trustees there could be some confusion since the proposal is unclear

on that issue. She was also concerned about licensing.

P. Warren was recognized for a point of personal privilege. M/S (P. Warren,

Barnes) to extend the time of the Senate meeting to 4:15. The vote was taken

and the motion was defeated.

Lyles said that she supported the need for a Master of Arts in Human Sexuality

Studies but the design of this program needed to be rethought and reworked.

She felt that its strength, its global emphasis, might be its greatest weakness.

She questioned whether all the disciplines had been worked into a cohesive package.

She also asked the reason for the use of the term sexual minorities and suggested

that the term be rethought.

M/S/P (Houlberg, Homan) to move the agenda.

Agenda Item #10 - Proposed BA in Criminal Justice

Yee introduced this proposed new degree which would be housed in BSS.

The new degree would replace the present concentration in Criminal Justice for

the B.A. in Social Sciences. The unit requirement would increase from 31-33

for the concentration to 41-44 for the new degree. CRAC had ongoing concerns

about the availability of faculty especially for mandatory advising and for

teaching new courses. She introduced Jack Curtin, Director of Criminal Justice

and Dean Kassiola as resources.

Cherny asked if CRAC had any concerns other than the availability of

faculty for advising. Yee replied that perhaps a concern was the philosophical

understanding of why it should be changed from its current status to a degree.

Cherny said that the full proposal makes clear that this would change the name

of an existing program and that the purpose is to enhance marketability of the

degree for graduates. Most, if not all, of the content would continue, the change

would be to the name only. He said that he had a large concern. There are existing

criminal justice programs at many CSU campuses and that all of the existing

Criminal Justice programs differ substantially from the proposed SFSU program

in terms of orientation and content. The existing Criminal Justice programs

explicitly carry a training emphasis as preparation for careers in law enforcement.

The proposed SFSU program would be first a Liberal Arts program and secondarily

would provide for a broad spectrum of occupational and post graduate opportunities.

This would not be a 'cop shop' nor would it be designed for its graduates to

enter law enforcement, it would be a Liberal Arts program. He felt that calling

the program a Criminal Justice program when it would really be a Liberal Arts

program would provide confusion and questioned whether such a program would

serve the students' needs.

Sung Hu echoed Cherny's comments and felt that he had valid concerns.

He said that he felt there was a typo in the second paragraph on page one. The

first line read eleven courses and 41-44 units. He felt that it should be or.

Lyles asked what populations would be served by such a program and

what would be the substantial difference between a Liberal Arts degree and a

Criminal Justice program. Kassiola replied that it was not so much who receives

the instruction but what the nature of the instruction is. 'Cop shop' is vocational

training down to how to take pictures of arrested suspects. Professionals in

this field would gain a great deal from the nature of the proposed instruction.

Many of the involved faculty feel that it is the Liberal Arts - the political,

economic perspective - that people in the profession need perhaps more that

anything else. He felt that the majority of the faculty and perhaps CRAC wanted

to recognize the positive side. The reason that it was designed not as a "cop

shop" was not so that Police Officers should not take the degree program,

but that the nature of the instruction would be very different than in the other

programs. He felt that Police Officers and others involved need this broad-based

education much more than the technical based vocational education.

N.J. Smith said that her concern was on the interdisciplinary options.

She noted the absence of issues addressing women, youth, prisoners rights and

victims rights, which all might need to be addressed.

Phillips said that, in the absence of a motion, this item would return

in second reading at the next Senate meeting.

The Senate was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie Homan

Secretary to the Faculty

Meeting Date (Archive)