Members Absent:
Barbara Struempler, Immediate Past Chair; Ted
Tyson, Biosys Engineering; David Bransby,
Agronomy & Soils; Werner Bergen, Animal Sciences; Robert Norton, Poultry
Science; Robert Ripley, Aviation Mgmt & Log; Joseph Buckhalt,
Couns & Couns Psy; Karen Rabren, Rehab and
Special Education; James Guin, Chemical Engineering;
Brian Bowman, Civil Engineering; Richard Good, Music; Christa Slaton, Political
Science; Paul Starr, Socio/Anthro/Social Work; Marllin Simon, Physics; Ralph Henderson, Vet Clinical Sci; John J. Pittari, Jr., Architecture; Scott Fuller, Building
Sciences; Daowei Zhang, Forestry & Wildlife Science;
Thomas Smith, Human Development/Family Studies; John Rowe, Nursing; Jack DeRuiter, Pharmacal Sciences; Kem Krueger, Pharmacy Care Sys; Jesse LaPrade,
Cooperative Extension Service; James Bannon, Agri Experiment Station; Thomas White, Air Force ROTC; CPT
Ted McMurtrie, Navy ROTC; Don Large, VP for
Business/Finance; Wes Williams, VP for Student Affairs; Dean June Henton, College of Human Sciences; Interim Dean Rebekah Pindzola, College of
Liberal Arts; Dean Larry Benefield, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering; Interim Dean John Jahera, College of Business; Kathy Harmon, A&P Assembly
Chair.
Members Absent (Substitute): Curtis Jolly (Norbert Wilson),
Ag Econ & Rural Soc; Dennis DeVries (John
Grizzle), Fisheries & Allied Aqu; James Kaminsky (Susan Bannon),
Leadership & Technology; Emmett Winn (Julie Huff), Comm/Journalism;
Joe Cherry (Roland Dute), Biological Sciences;
Tin-Man Lau (Rich Britnell), Industrial Design;
Douglas White (Robin Fellers), Nutrition and Food Science .
The meeting was called to order at
Call
to Order
John
Mouton, Chair of the Senate: I would like to call the meeting to order – I
apologize for the false start. The first item that is listed on the agenda is
the Approval of the Minutes. The minutes of the last meeting were just
posted today. There has not been enough time for people to review them. So, we
are going to pass on the approval of the minutes for today, and we agree to
bring it back up at the next Senate meeting on May 6 – when we will also have
the minutes from today’s meeting. The first item under Announcements is the
announcements from the President’s Office. Acting Provost John Pritchett will
come to handle that.
Announcements
John
F. Pritchett, Acting Provost: Thank you so much, John. We have four things
we would like to share with you today. John [Mouton] had indicated, and Paula
[Sullenger] also, they would like the status as far as the national searches in
those areas that we currently have interim deans. That is the
Conner
Bailey, Steering Committee:
Dr. Pritchett, I understand from the College of Ag that they have met,
but they are going to postpone taking any action other than developing a job
description pending conclusion, do I understand that correctly?, of the search
for our new Provost.
Pritchett: That was not the plan – essentially, Dr.
Walker wanted to move the search for Provost ahead at such time – or so that
you would have a new person identified for that office – prior to short-listing
individuals for those four deans’ positions.
I would visualize short lists, at the earliest, for the deans’ positions
coming forward in the fall – and that is even before interviews. Hopefully, Dr.
Walker will have made a decision as far as the Provost position prior to
that. That was the whole reason for
staggering the process. But, my charge to the committee is to move ahead
expeditiously.
Bailey: You may want to clarify that with Dr. Brinker. I did not speak with him, but I received a note
from our departmental representative indicating that was the timing.
Pritchett: The charge I gave the group this morning was
move together expeditiously, realizing though the magnitude of the task.
Certainly, there should be a decision on the Provost search prior to
short-listing deans candidates.
The second issue that John and Paula asked me to address a
little bit: we have received the preliminary information now on faculty salary
adjustments for the current fiscal year. Sam’s [Lowther]
office has not yet had a chance to break it down into the finest detail, but I
do have some information for you here – and then, John ,
hopefully at the next meeting we can give you a complete breakdown by unit.
University-wide our salaries moved from 88% last year of the regional average
to 95% of the regional average in so far as full professors. For associate
professors, we moved university-wide from 91 to 98% of the regional average.
For assistant professors, we moved from 88% to 94%, but, please bear in mind
that those are university-wide averages. We have many academic units on our
campus that now meet or exceed the regional average in one or all
categories. We have some units that are
now 102 or 103% of the regional average. So, I think we did a lot of good moves
as far as the regional average from last year is concerned. Dr. Walker has
pledged this year that he hopes to make up the additional ground. Are there any
questions on the salary information?
John and Paula asked me to say a little bit about
enrollments projected for this coming fall. We have been working very hard on
this since this past June. Of course, you will remember that we had almost
4,200 new freshmen this past year, which exceeded our capacity to take care of
those students and we had to put in some truly heroic measures to handle that.
Let’s don’t forget that many of those students are still with us, and we have
to take care of their needs for their second, third, and fourth years. I put into place an Enrollment Management
Oversight group to work with Dr. Williams’ people and ensuring that we hold
enrollments within manageable limits.
The recommendation of that group is, we shoot
for a target of about 3,700 new freshmen for this coming year. That is slightly
below what we have averaged for the past three years -- this immediate past
year excluded. The projections at this point in time range from 3725 to around
3800 new freshmen. One thing I will
point out is after we were shutting down enrollments for this coming year, we
had a rash of highly qualified applicants, probably individuals who had
indicated
The last thing that John asked me to talk a little bit about
is the upcoming SACS Review this fall.
What I would like to ask Linda Glaze to do , since she is one of the
coordinators of the overall effort . Linda, if you could share the general
schedule and any other questions that anyone might have.
Linda
Glaze, Chair, Core Curriculum Oversight Committee: Okay.
Do you want me to come …?
Mouton: Please.
Glaze: During … can you hear me? During Spring Break, I received notification
from our liaison officer that they have rescheduled the visit for the fall and
the days we’ve got now are October 12 – that’s a Sunday – they will be on
campus Monday and Tuesday, and they give the report on Wednesday morning. Normally, how they work, and I’m basing this
based on their handbook and also the fact that last year I served as a member
of a site team that went to the
Bailey: Will there be a password or any other
difficulties that we would encounter wanting to gain access to the exact report
when it is on the web?
Glaze: I don’t think so – we learned the last time.
Bailey:
… And in the report that will be put on the web, will there be responses to the
comments? The comments that various of us submitted on the draft, will they be
available on the web – or is it only the committee’s responses to those? How
will our…?
Glaze: Okay, what we did, what happened is, the
committee revised the draft that was out on the web. They revised on 6.1, and
one of the things that was determined is for those, I guess I would call them
“Letters of Comments” that were received, they were directed to Gene [Clothiaux] that were
received by the Steering Committee. They
are going to be – they are referenced in the resources that will be available
for the visiting committee, and they will be available for the person who is
assigned to read that section and write that response. So, those responses will
– those comments – based on the comments that were basically spelling and
editorial in nature (we had wrong names of colleges and schools) – those were
made directly into the text. But those which the Steering Committee decided not
to incorporate as in the text – it’s not really a response – they will be
available … in the … what we call the
resource or the visiting [Inaudible] and that ‘s referenced in the list of
sources. John?
Mouton: Who’s the chairperson for the committee?
Glaze: I don’t know yet. That information is, goes
through Dr. Walker. Mainly, I was, I
needed to have some dates so we could reserve the hotel reservations because I
was worried about fall, for obvious reasons.
Mouton: Dr. Pritchett.
Judy
Sheppard, Steering Committee: A couple of questions for Dr. Pritchett.
Mouton: Oh, I’m sorry. Dr. Pritchett.
Sheppard: I was going to ask if you could provide us any
information since you’re here for Dr. Walker about the state of the lawsuit and
the revision to the Bradley report, and any of that information. Since it kind of emphasizes that we are in
this lawsuit, it would be nice as faculty, students, staff, everyone to be
given some of the information – as clients – that we should be receiving.
Pritchett: I understand, Judy. I do not have any
information on that piece of it. Is Lee Armstrong here? I was asked a similar
question about two meetings ago, and my office is just not into that piece of
it. If Lee were here, he may be able to
address it, but I don’t see him.
Mouton: I communicated by email with Jim Bradley,
who’s chair of the JAC. I was going to
include it in my remarks. Evidently, SACS made inquiries into three areas in
this regard, and all Jim could tell me was that Mr. Bradley was investigating
those three areas – but Jim did not know a timeline. I’ll try to pursue it
further before the next meeting , but, I had asked Jim because I think he had
contact, perhaps, with SACS.
Cindy
Brunner, Pathobiology: Dr. Pritchett, you mentioned that the
university had to take extreme measures or emergency measures to accommodate
the excess number of freshmen this past year. You mentioned that we are
assuming they will be retained. What accommodation is the university making as
an emergency measure for these students as they proceed through their second,
third, and fourth years at the university?
Pritchett: We are prepared to carry out some of the same
strategies as we did last year. The first strategy … deals with giving out,
continuing to give out to the existing faculty to take on additional sections
of courses as an overload – and be compensated for that overload. We are fully
prepared again to go to AUM to recruit faculty from there to come here to teach
on an overload basis. But, let me point out that any faculty who come here from
AUM are first passed on by our faculty here and approved before they actually
take on our classes. Those were the two
strategies we followed this past fall, and they seemed to work pretty
well. We are prepared to do that again
for this coming year. Anything else? Thank you, John [Mouton].
Mouton: Thank you, Dr. Pritchett. Can you hear me in the back? Am I speaking
loud enough? Paula [Sullenger] said that I don’t speak loud enough. I’m the
fourth of five children – and I think when I was growing up I spoke loud
enough. I’ve got a couple of introductions to make starting out. One of the
things that we announced in the Senate this past year was that the President
had provided resources for us to get some staffing for the Senate. So, we have
an Administrative Assistant. Is that the right term? … Cheryl Hulsey. Cheryl,
please stand up. Cheryl has joined us just in the past two weeks, and she is
working, not full time for us, but, pretty busily for us. So, anyway, we are
glad to have her aboard. Is Kathy Harmon here? Kathy is the chair of the
A&P Council. I saw Vic – Vic Walker – Vic is the chair of the Staff Council
just elected, and as a chair of the Staff Council, of course, is a member of
the Senate with us. Jonathan McConnell? Jonathan is the new SGA President and
also a member of the Senate. Is Melissa Brooks here? Melissa is the chair of
the Graduate Student Council and a member of the Senate. Is Will here? Will
Gaither – who is the Vice President of the SGA. So, we welcome you all to join
us, and with the exception of Will, we have new members of the Senate.
I’ve got a couple of announcements that I want to cover. One
of the things is that for our meetings in June and July I’d like to pre notice
everybody that we need for the Senators that are not going to be here to see to
it that they have the substitute Senators from their department. We seemed surprised in June of every year
that the Board takes action. Let’s don’t be surprised this year, and then in
June and July, we need to be able to respond and have a quorum. So, those of
you that are planning to be away in June and July please see to it that your
department, by the handbook, your department is supposed to select the
substitute …the Senator doesn’t select the substitute – the department does,
and I would encourage you to perhaps bring them to the May meeting as we start
picking up [Inaudible] for the summer. I
might mention something else, everybody please notice that the May meeting is
May 6, which is the Tuesday during finals week which is a week early. We moved
it up trying to catch more people here. So, the Tuesday of finals week, May 6,
is when we will have our next meeting. We have been discussing back and forth,
and it had been on the fringes of our meeting here, about the Administrator
Evaluations. David Bransby is the chair of the
Administrator Evaluations Committee, and we are not going to do Administrator
evaluations this year – we will do them next year. We couldn’t quite get to the
point that we needed to be this year.
A couple of updates of the Senate and University Committees.
The Rules Committee has been meeting. We are going to need some additional
volunteers and nominees. As we
distribute out that work, the Senators from selected Colleges where we need
assistance, you’ll be contacted by some of the members of the Rules Committee
to get us some additional nominees or volunteers for the committees. As of right now, we’ve got nine of the Senate
committees and nine of the University committees completed.
I want to touch on enrollment management a little bit,and those who are around me during lunch get tired of
me saying it, but I see some fresh faces here.
I’ve been very, very concerned about enrollment management. As we [Mouton and Sullenger] went around and
visited faculty last year, and many,
many of the various issues … various consequences of the enrollment management
came up — and they weren’t all consistent. I asked Dr. Pritchett, and I was
actually allowed to sit in on the Enrollment Management Oversight Committee to
get a sense not only of the work they
are doing – how the process is now, but hopefully, to be able to make a
contribution to the process in the future.
It is the topic of discussion at this afternoon’s meeting, and I’m
looking forward to hearing what people have to say because I think it is
something that is critical and important to the faculty. And so, anyway, I don’t think this will be
the last time we will actually deal with enrollment management, and I am very
much concerned about the fact, Cindy, about what happens to the second year
students – we typically have 82% retention so we are talking about over 350
students that are now sophomores and next year will become majors in the
various departments of colleges in the university, and I think that we need to
…
I want to mention another topic that is near and dear to a
lot of people’s hearts – as we visited – and it’s a topic that I’ve coined
Academic Day Parking. Last year we spent
a lot of effort on Game Day Parking, and so we have coined the phrase Academic
Day Parking. There was an ad hoc committee that met. They passed, I guess, proposals/proposed
changes that I’m going to bring to the Steering Committee meeting
tomorrow. The Steering Committee is
meeting twice a month right now trying to get a look at it. We will bring it to the Steering Committee
tomorrow to look at it, and then we talked to Dr. Curtis about coming. I think Dr. Curtis will probably be coming to
our May meeting or our June meeting to actually talk about some of the master
planning issues that are going on. There is a discussion about having a
pedestrian campus which a lot of faculty are in favor of. There are issues about how much parking we
have, and so, that’s an area where we are going to do some work on – academic
parking – and as the Steering Committee sets kind of a course for the Senate,
we’ll be coming back to you and hopefully bringing Dr. Curtis in a
meeting.
I’ve already made the observation I made a minute ago, I
have not dealt with the Richard Bradley investigation. I will meet with Jim Bradley before the next
meeting and see if we can get some updates for this side of the house – if we
can’t get it otherwise.
I am going to go through something real quickly and I’m
actually headed to a specific point. I think a lot of the members of the Senate
are not really aware that the Senate Chair and Senate leadership are not just
here in front of this meeting infrequently.
Every week I get to sit in an Administrative Council meeting which is
the President’s meeting with all the vice presidents and senior administrators
who have very enlightened, lively discussions – the President wasn’t here – but
we had fun anyway. Really, it’s an opportunity to get the faculty’s voice
out. I did make some observations that I
won’t go through in this meeting, but I actually had some senior administrators
come up to me later and say, “I’m glad you were there to make that point,
because sometimes we lose sight of that.”
The President’s Cabinet meets before each Board meeting to discuss the
agenda of the Board meeting. By the way, both the Administrative Council and
the President’s Council,both the Senate chair and the
Faculty Advisory to the Board, both sit on those two councils. I am also
participating in the Budget Advisory Committee which is, I guess, is another
enlightening place. I sit ex-officio on the Academic Affairs Committee [of the
Board of Trustees], and I’m gonna come back to that …
but, anyway, these are opportunities that we have now as a Senate that I’m not
sure that we’ve had all along to have our voice at the table … and have
representation for the faculty issues.
So, there’s two things that are important. One, it’s a great opportunity
for me. The other thing is, I think it’s a great responsibility to understand
what the faculty issues are and be able to clearly articulate them in an arena
maybe where I make some difference. I
guess now, maybe it was a year and a half ago – or two years ago – as I started
considering, Do you want a leadership role in the Senate? I went and I reread the purpose of the
Senate. It says,
The University Senate is
advisory to the President. In that capacity it is the body having primary
concern for the general academic policies of the University, including those
involving curricula, programs, standards, faculty appointment, evaluation and
development, student academic affairs, and libraries. The University Senate is
also concerned with issues that affect all members of the University community,
such as the budget, employee welfare programs, the calendar, and facilities.
One of the things we have the opportunity to do in addition
the meetings I just referenced is that the leadership meets weekly with the
Provost and monthly or twice a month with the President -- depending on our
needs and our wishes and at his discretion.
I think probably in the short term that I have been Chair of the
University Senate, the best opportunity I had was last Thursday. The Academic
Affairs Committee appears to me, that is the Board’s Academic Affairs
Committee, to have some seriousness about understanding the academic issues of
the university, and raising the visibility of the academic operations. So, what
Dr. Pritchett and Dr. McFarland have done is they have developed a concept of
doing workshops with the committee before they start doing committee work —
actually start showing them the university — helping them understand the
university in the light in which they need to see it. I sit ex-officio on that, but then I have an
opportunity to sit at the table. At one point in time, we got into a pretty
good discussion about the roles and responsibilities of faculty. I asked for
the opportunity over the next several workshops to do some presentations – to
try to shed a better light on the Board’s understanding of what kind of
contributions faculty make. It was
well-received, and we actually had some debate and interaction where I asked
the chair of the committee to actually explain what kind of work he did,
because I don’t think we understand them any better than they understand us,
and vice versa. I think what happens is that one of the opportunities that really
exist for us, if we can be prudent about it, is to try to better their
understanding of who we are and maybe make it more difficult for some of the
offhanded comments that we have gotten through the years.
There are two other things that I want to touch on real
quickly. Marcia Boosinger, Paula [Sullenger], Willie
[Larkin], and I are going May 1and 2 to the SEC Conference on Governance and
Athletics. It’s being put on by the Faculty Governance Collaborative, a group
from the SEC. The commission of the SEC will be there, as well as the President
of the NCAA. In October, I will go to, and I’m sure some of these folks will
attend, the AAUP-NCAA Conference in
Finally, I want to conclude my remarks with an
observation. Right after we took office,
Paula [Sullenger] and I hosted some lunches.
I guess it was five lunches, we had 37 Senators come in small groups and
sit around and chat about the things that we are interested in. I learned a great deal and picked up a
lot. When fall starts we will start
doing that again. So those of you that we missed somehow will get an invitation
to have the opportunity to participate.
We are at the one month mark, 28 days now, I’d be glad to entertain any
comments of questions anybody might have.
We are going to move to the Action Items. The next
action item – let me give you the justification for this – we are right now
trying to get our committees for next year staffed. A few weeks ago we were
approached by Linda Glaze, who is the chairperson of the Curriculum Oversight
Committee, Core Curriculum Oversight Committee, and there are some needs
determined by the committee. Actually, to change the composition to that
committee. We would like to get the
Senate to look at it. If we can make a decision on it today, we can do the
staffing next week. If we decide not to pass on it, we re-staff as it’s
currently designated. The sense of urgency in bringing it to the Senate was to
either staff it as it is now or make the changes before next year. So, Linda,
please come.
Linda Glaze, Core Curriculum
Oversight Committee Chair: I met with John [Mouton] and
Paula [Sullenger] and Willie [Larkin] about two or three weeks ago. This is not
a rash decision – this is something I have been thinking about over a long
period of time. I’ve chaired this
committee for the Senate ever since I have been in the office, and I’ve served
with different, varying groups. Last
fall, I posed to the current membership, now that they, and many of them had
been with me a while because my previous committee I had asked for them to
serve an extra year. I asked them whether they felt this committee – given what
we our meetings were concerned with – whether we should enlarge the committee.
That was their recommendation and the breakdown in terms of increasing the size
of the committee was recommended by the faculty members who currently serve on
that committee. As I put in the
justification, the reason for this change is partly the charge of this
committee was established when the core was just being put into place, and many
of the issues of the charge I can give you the old one [Charge] … the parts
that are struck. The charge reflected the fact that the Core was new and they
were really looking at implementation issues. So, basically there are two
issues. One – to reflect the need that we have to have a faculty committee
whose charge is to principally look at the assessment and evaluation of the
Core Curriculum. Then also, to have a body that is large enough that not only
represents the units that offer the courses, but also responds to the units
whose students study in the Core...because the Core forms about one-third of
the student’s degree. So that’s the
basic justification, and this would be the final charge. I can answer any
questions that you have later.
Proposed new charge for Core Curriculum Oversight Committee
Section 11. Core Curriculum Oversight Committee: The
Core Curriculum Oversight Committee shall consist of the Provost or designee as
chair, and eleven faculty members, to be distributed as follows: There shall be
seven representatives from the core areas: 1) composition or literature 2) fine
arts 3) history 4) mathematics 5) natural sciences 6) philosophy 7) social
sciences. In addition, there shall be one representative from the faculty of
the University Libraries and three representatives, selected from colleges or
schools that are not represented by the seven core areas. The Director of
Assessment shall serve as a non-voting, ex officio member of the
committee. The committee shall have the responsibility of recommending
educational goals for the Core Curriculum and monitoring the effectiveness of
the Core in fostering student achievement of those goals. Toward this end, the
committee shall oversee the assessment of student learning in the Core,
including the evaluation of courses, and may recommend changes in the
Core Curriculum, including the admission or deletion of courses and other
changes to the Core.
Glaze: So, I’m requesting these changes to the Faculty Handbook
because this is in fact basically what the Core Committee has been doing during
the past four or five years, basically in preparation for the SACS Visit,
because general education is perceived as if it is a degree program. In other
words, we have to present information on the assessment of the Core, just as
you all have to provide assessment data on individual degree programs.
Mouton: Linda …
Paula Sullenger,
Secretary: She needs to move it.
Glaze: I move acceptance of this change to the
charge and structure of the committee.
Mouton:
We don’t need a second because Linda is the committee chair and this was
brought to the Senate by the committee. So, we’ll open it up for discussion and
questions. Jim.
Jim Gravois, Library: I am a new member of this group. I’ve read this, and I don’t
see any particular problems with it. I’m wondering, though, I’m not involved
that much with some of these Core groups – but I’m wondering why this might not
be a good idea, or if there are issues from people with the Core departments?
Mouton: Jon.
Jon Bolton, English:
I’m one such person. Jon Bolton, English Department. My colleagues really don’t have any concern
about the majority of changes. They, though, do see the possibility that
additional members for departments outside the Core could potentially be
hostile to some Core requirement. Especially if they have the power to delete
Core courses. I think that is the main
concern in our department.
Glaze:
If you read the wording, it doesn’t say that they have the power to
delete – they have the power to recommend.
And so any decision would be brought to this body to make changes in the
Core, because it does reflect, it is part of every single degree program on
campus. I do believe, I’m originally
from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, and the operative
word is “Literatures” so my department does participate in the instruction of
the Core. But I do, coming from that perspective, I do believe that this
committee needs to be responsive to the rest of the campus. So, I do feel that
by presenting and having representation by those units that provide the instruction,
we need to have a real voice on that committee of those departments – and
that’s the majority of departments on campus – whose students are required to
take these courses. We’ve always had some representative, I see, I think
Charlie’s back there ... hey, Charlie [Gross]. We’ve always had some representation from outside – from
what I’d call a non-Core department. That doesn’t mean that they are
necessarily hostile – in some ways, they are very, very supportive. But, I
think the committee needs to be responsive to what
Mouton: Steve.
Stephen McFarland, Acting VP/Dean,
Linda Glaze: I guess the way the committee works is that the
recommendation – anything that comes out of the committee – Academic Standards
... I don’t know if it states in the Handbook ... I’d have to look. Recommendations always come through this
body, then go to the Provost, and then go to the President – because everything
is advisory to the President. So, I
don’t know that ... I have no objection that it needs that approval ... but
that’s ... anything that comes out of Standards, I know, follows that. The only committee that I work with, and I
know this – or we would never do anything – is the University Curriculum Committee
basically, is charged to make these changes … I would perceive ... and that’s
why we worded this recommendation – that a change in the university Core is
sort of like a Standards change … so it doesn’t – it’s not the action of that
committee. So, that’s the way I’ve always perceived all university or Senate
committees working. If it affects the entire campus, then it comes to this body
and then gets the sign-off by the Provost and President. You might want to
check the wording ... I have no objection to that, but that’s the normal route
for changes ... of that magnitude.
John Mouton: I defer to Paula [Sullenger].
Sullenger:
I haven’t been able to find the Core in the Handbook, but that’s not a
surprise.
McFarland:
I will say – and the reason I am saying this is – some of you will
remember this after we created the Core ... I remember Marcia Boosinger, in fact, standing up here and very dramatically
saying, “Anything that affects the Core has got to come through the Senate.”
So, if you will, the founding fathers and mothers ... if I can use that analogy
... made a very distinct point about all ... anything ... that affects the core
would come to the Senate. I just raise
that issue because I think – hearing that fear – we might want to include that
statement. It would certainly take care of Michael’s [sic] concern about
changes versus deletions that would come through this body.
Glaze: Sure. I have no . . .
Sullenger: Someone needs to make a motion at this point.
McFarland:
Okay. I’ll move the friendly amendment if that is all right.
Glaze: Where do you want that?
McFarland:
Well, I was hoping you would help me with that. It’s kind of tough there with several clauses
... recommend “to the Senate – University Senate – changes in the Core
Curriculum”
Gravois: Subject to approval by …?
Glaze: That was the intent of the wording.
McFarland: I know it was . . .
Glaze: But, it is fine to have that explicit.
Mouton:
Any other comments or questions? Okay, if you are ready to vote. Paula
[Sullenger], would you read the revised motion?
Paula Sullenger:
Okay. The Core Curriculum
Oversight Committee shall consist of the Provost or designee as chair, and
eleven faculty members, to be distributed as follows: There shall be seven
representatives from the core areas: 1) composition or literature 2) fine arts
3) history 4) mathematics 5) natural sciences 6) philosophy 7) social sciences.
In addition, there shall be one representative from the faculty of the
University Libraries and three representatives, selected from colleges or
schools that are not represented by the seven core areas. The Director of
Assessment shall serve as a non-voting, ex officio member of the
committee. The committee shall have the responsibility of recommending
educational goals for the Core Curriculum and monitoring the effectiveness of
the Core in fostering student achievement of those goals. Toward this end, the
committee shall oversee the assessment of student learning in the Core,
including the evaluation of courses, and may recommend to the University Senate
changes in the Core Curriculum, including the admission or deletion of courses
and other changes to the Core.
John Mouton: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
Senate: Aye.
John Mouton:
Opposed – Nay. (No Nay’s) The motion passes. Thank you.
We have a resolution ... I am going
to ask Conner Bailey to come up, as a member of the Steering Committee …
resolution was provided by the Steering Committee.
Conner Bailey, Steering
Committee: Resolution regarding the
Auburn University Trustee Selection Committee ... some of you may remember the
nominating committee for the trustees put forward two nominations ... Neil
Christopher, medical doctor, and Elmer Harris, ex-CEO of Alabama Power. Both nominations were forwarded to the State
Senate and were rejected by the Senate Confirmation Committee. A third
nomination was pending, but has not yet taken place. The intent of a couple of
individuals on the nominating committee was to nominate an African-American
forester from [Inaudible] named Jerry Smith, but that nomination has not gone
forth to the Confirmation Committee. So,
those ... we are back to square one with no nominations and the concern was
that the State Senate might not take any action and therefore the three
trustees whose terms have expired would continue on for another year. It’s in
response to that scenario that the Steering Committee presents the following
resolution:
Resolved, That the Auburn University Senate calls upon Governor
Riley, as Chair of the Auburn University Trustee Selection Committee, to
convene the committee to expeditiously complete the identification and
selection of three nominees to serve on the Auburn University Board of Trustees
so that action can be taken by the Alabama State Senate’s Confirmation
Committee and the Alabama State Senate during the current legislative term; and
Resolved, That the Auburn University Senate urges the Auburn
University Trustee Selection Committee to give due consideration to all
candidates in order to identify nominees who, as a group, satisfy the need for
diversity of race, gender, and expertise to serve on the Auburn University
Board of Trustees.
Copies will be sent to the Members
of the Trustee Selection Committee.
Bailey: I move adoption of this resolution.
Mouton:
We don’t need a second because it comes from the Steering
Committee. Do we have any comments or
questions? Hearing none, we will go ahead and vote on this resolution. All in
favor signify by saying Aye.
Senate: Aye.
Mouton:
Opposed – Nay. (No Nays) The
resolution carries.
I am very happy to get to this part
of today’s agenda. Keenan Grenell, who is the Interim ... I guess ... Associate
Provost for Multicultural Affairs has been invited to the Senate a couple of
time to make a presentation, and we’ve not quite gotten him and today we have.
Dr. Grenell.
Keenan Grenell,
Interim Assistant Provost for Office of Diversity & Multi-Cultural Affairs:
Good afternoon. Can everyone hear me? It is indeed
a pleasure to once again have an opportunity to speak to
1. The
weekend of
2. On
3. On
4. Paperwork has been submitted to the
appropriate curriculum committees to establish an Africana Studies minor. For many of us, this has been a ten year
struggle to get to this point. I am
proud to say that the efforts of the late Doris Ford and the efforts of Wayne Flynt and recent initiatives of Tony Carey have not been in
vain. To get us to this point, we
solicited the wisdom of Dr. Lucius Outlaw, Director
of the African-American Studies Program at
5. On
Immediate
Transformation Plan
To get a
handle on Auburn’s extremely complex diversity scheme and assist with
structuring a system that is more manageable, more easily understood in terms
of who’s doing what in the name of diversity, and a system that clearly spells
out accountability which will ultimately clear a visible path to engage in
assessment. Late next month, I will be
attending a conference of my peers at
Future Transformation Plans
1. Assist
AU Colleges with establishing Assistant/and or Associate Dean Level Positions
in each Dean’s Office using Dr. Dennis Weatherby’s
appointment in the College of Engineering and Dr. Overtoun
Jenda’s appointment in the College of Science and
Math as models.
2. Assist
the University with expanding its international education opportunities by
developing solid relationships with five South African universities and
universities in the
1. The University of the
2. The
3.
4. Penisula Technikon
All four Vice Chancellors are
Black. I wonder if this student got a
chance to tell Mom and Dad about meeting Gayle Kaylor
who is Harvard trained and the Chief Director of Policy and Strategic
Management in the Office of the Premier for the
3. Work
through the African American Recruitment and Retention Committee to create
administrative opportunities campus wide.
4. As
part of my overall re-engineering efforts, develop a stronger Minority Student
Support Services Component in the Office of Diversity and Multi-Cultural
Affairs to assist the Administration in its attempt to retain minority students
and make sure they are academically successful while at
5. Take
leadership on the tough issues such as sexual orientation, expansion of
religious inclusion, AU’s Greek system, and Minority
and Women Businesses Enterprise Opportunities.
While we are engaging in big picture thinking there are some serious
realities that make the attainment of our diversity goals crucial. When we compare ourselves to certain SEC
member schools in terms of diversity among students
Miss. State Univ. African-American 19%
We are competitive with:
We need to be real careful in being
compared to the
At
On the
other hand, if we fail to take the path toward a new day of glory and
prosperity, and we’re only concerned about outshining other SEC member schools
with regards to the revenue generating sports, then the perception will be that
However,
creating the atmosphere is not and cannot be the job of the Administration
alone. The faculty has an active role
responsibility. Faculty should take
active and visible leadership in diversity issues. According to a recent published American
Council on Education report entitled “The Continuing Significance of
Racism: U.S. Colleges and Universities, there are several continuing issues in
higher education:
1. Campus Climate Issues
2. Feeling “Out of Place” (on campus as a
person of color)
3. The Painful Reality of Stereotyping
(unintended sexist and racists remarks that
really hurt)
4. Questioning Abilities
(“Did
that Hispanic or Black student really produce that quality paper?”)
5. Spokesperson
for the Race
(Putting
the entire race on the shoulders of students, faculty and administrators of
color.)
6. Encountering
Racism Off Campus
(Auburn business owners and their
treatment of Black students and attitudes of
7. Questioning
and Challenging Black Professors
(Outright
disrespect by students and even peers.)
However, the report goes on to say
that there are solutions to address these problems:
1. Improve
the Campus Climate
2. Dramatically
Expand Education on Racism
3. Recruit
More Faculty and Staff of Color
4. Recruit
More Students of Color
5. Expand
Mentoring Programs, and
6. Develop
Family, School, and Community Partnerships
However, I am going to ask
I remember as a small child growing
up in the Mississippi Delta during the turbulent days of the 60's my mother
took me on my first train ride. We
caught the Illinois Central Railroad in
Since August, I’ve received feedback
suggestions, input, and recommendations from a great number of people. Some have accused me of going too fast, while
others have said that I am moving too slow.
I guess truth can be found somewhere in both of those critiques, but all
I know is that when you are behind, you have to run faster to catch up. Diversity and Transformation
are not casual options, we must achieve them fairly quickly because our
livelihood and stature as a major research university depends on it.
Thank you.
Applause
Ruth
Crocker, History: Dr. Grenell,
thank you very much for your remarks.
You mentioned early on that … [Inaudible] … I know what you’re referring
to. Can you explain more about, or make suggestion, about these different
communities and how they can be made to work together – or what needs to be
done to improve the mechanism of the train?
Grenell: First of all, we are taking a very proactive
opportunity this week on Thursday with the Diversity Leadership Council. We
basically asked just about every major diversity group on campus to come and
make a presentation ... because the biggest problem is that there are a lot of
groups out there doing a lot of different things and the right hand does not
know what the left hand is doing. So,
therefore, these groups are going to come together to at least make each other
knowledgeable about what types of activities are being done so we can start
looking at how to build the best type of infrastructure for assessment
purposes. Because to me, it is very
important for the President and the Provost to be able to make public comments
and to make public speeches wherever they want to go within the United States
and clearly have an idea of what is going on at the university as relates to
diversity and be able to clearly articulate that outside the university’s
campus – as well as inside.
Mouton:
The next item is listed as an Information Item. One of the things in the Steering Committee
we have looked at is when things are … when there’s not a time consequence of
something, it would be a good idea to bring it to the Senate for discussion and
then bring it back for a vote. Because
we have lots of discussions as to why we would get to a proposal that is being
made ... a policy that is being made … and there were a lot of questions as to “Why?” at a time we should have been
directing that stuff directly to the proposal.
So, Dr. Stephen McFarland is going to make a presentation on a proposed
classroom behavior policy and after the discussion today, we will take it under
advisement and then plan to bring it back for a vote. So, the real issue today is not something we
are going to vote on, but something we are going to look at and try to have our
questions resolved. Steve.
Stephen
McFarland, Acting Dean of the
•First –
that early intervention is the key to preventing escalation. That in the case
of Robert Flores at the
•Second –
they recommended that we adopt stepped sanctions; stepped sanctions that would
identify problems early and then hopefully head them off before they
intensified.
•Third –
They recommended that we establish a policy that would establish that we would
create a policy that would establish acceptable and unacceptable behavior in
the classroom.
•Interestingly
at the last, the fourth item they recommended is that we establish a policy to
protect faculty in the classroom. A
policy so that if faculty experience litigation as a result of actions in the
classroom, that they will be enforcing university policy and will therefore
will have the entire weight, authority, and resources of the university behind
them when they go to court.
So, with
that behind me, I then formed the committee to examine behavior in the
classroom. These are the representatives
on that committee: [List projected onto screen]
Steve McFarland, Acting Dean of the
Joe Kicklighter, Faculty - History
Jack Brown, Faculty - Math
Elizabeth Senger, Faculty -
Curriculum and Teaching
Stephanie Miller, Student - Biological Sciences
Michelle Toncic, Student –
Criminology
After
several months of activity, we developed a draft policy. It was than sent to
Student Life, Jim Hardin, who made recommendations – changed and modified – it
then went to the University General Counsel for his consideration and
recommendations. The final step, of course, was to bring it to you … where we
are today. [Policy projected onto screen]
AUBURN UNIVERSITY POLICY ON
CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR
§ INTRODUCTION
The
goal of
At the
classroom level, clear guidelines for behavior and early intervention are the
foundation for an intellectually stimulating experience for students and
instructors alike. Instructors are
encouraged to include in their syllabi guidelines for classroom behavior. Instructors who state these guidelines early
and enforce them at the first appearance of disruptive behavior prevent minor
episodes of classroom misconduct from escalating into serious confrontations
and help transgressors to avoid the more serious consequences of such actions.
Examples of
improper behavior in the classroom (including the virtual classroom of e-mail,
chat rooms, telephony, and web activities associated with courses) may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
* arriving after a class has begun
* eating or drinking
* use of tobacco products
* monopolizing discussion
* persistent speaking out of turn
* distractive talking
* audio or video recording of
classroom activities or the use of electronic devices without the permission of the
instructor
* refusal to comply with reasonable
instructor directions
* employing insulting language or
gestures
* verbal, psychological, or physical
threats, harassment, and physical
violence
§ POLICY
1. When confronted with disruptive, but
non-threatening behavior, the instructor should issue a general word of caution
to the class as a whole rather than to a particular student so as not to
exacerbate the problem.
2.
If a general caution directed to the entire class does not stop the
disruptive activity, the instructor should endeavor to meet in private with the
disruptive student. The resulting
discussion should include a description of the problem, the reason it is disruptive,
and the consequences of continued violations of classroom behavior guidelines.
3.
If the disruptive behavior is preventing further instruction, the
instructor is authorized to ask the disruptive student to leave the class
immediately for the remainder of the class session. Removal from the classroom for more than one
class period, for an extended period, or on a permanent basis normally requires
the instructor to file charges of a violation of the Auburn University
Discipline Code with the Vice President for Student Affairs. The department head/chair or dean may
negotiate a withdrawal from the course or a transfer of the disruptive student
to a different course section or course, if, in his or her opinion, a different
instructor and different classmates would defuse the situation and provide the
disruptive student with a new learning opportunity.
4. If threats have been made or physical
violence is imminent, the instructor should notify the Auburn University
Department of Public Safety immediately.
The instructor should also notify the course department head/chair or
dean promptly, followed by a memo to the department head/chair or dean
documenting the incident and actions taken.
Instructors and administrators are
encouraged to maintain records of all disruptive incidents and any actions
taken concerning them. Nothing in this
policy is intended to infringe or restrict the educational process or the
academic freedom of
***
I don’t think I will take the time
to read this to you. It’s two pages long – if I can just point out several
major points here though. The first is, that this is a policy designed to
enhance the learning experience in the classroom. It is not intended to be vindictive; it is
not intended to
squash; it is intended to create the
most constructive environment possible in the classroom.
It goes on to describe examples of
improper behavior, and then sets a series of steps ever increasing sanctions
against individuals who are violating this policy. Following up on the
q
early
interventions prevent escalation
q
stepped
sanctions to identify problems early, and
q
to
head them off before they intensify.
Well, John [Mouton], that’s it.
Mouton:
Comments or questions, please.
Brunner:
Dr. McFarland, and Paula [Sullenger], help me on this – don’t we have a
university Student Disciplinary – a standing committee?
Sullenger:
Yes.
Brunner:
I would like to know what role that committee ... that committee would
hear concerns of the kind expressed in here ... and probably those even more
extreme than this. Did that committee
have any role in drafting this policy, and what role did the students play ...
the SGA representatives play in discussion about this policy and the drafting
of this document?
McFarland:
Well, first, my second catalyst, if you will remember, Dr. Brunner, was
that the current student discipline policy is too slow. It takes weeks and months before they can
act, and in almost all cases I have dealt with in the last couple of years,
it’s simply too late. It doesn’t deal
with those problems. The Student
Discipline Policy is more about punishment for an action that took place,
rather than preventing that action from taking place – or from dealing with it
in an immediate sense where it is disrupting the classroom experience. Now, did it go before that student committee?
No, it did not. It did go to Student
Affairs of course.
The second question you asked was
about student involvement. Miss Miller
and Miss Toncic on this list are both students. Miss Toncic is an
undergraduate, and Miss Miller is a graduate student. She was also specially
identified as a Graduate Teaching Assistant – so she was literally looking at
it from both sides. Now again, I do want
to emphasize, the great frustration that so many feel is that if a student if
disrupting the class, the Student Discipline Committee ... it will generally
take a minimum of three weeks and occasionally, a maximum of up to six months
before action is taken. In the interim,
the classroom is disrupted, and the learning experience is disrupted. I really don’t want to get into anecdotes but
that was the purpose behind this. As far
as to why we didn’t go to the Student Discipline Committee, the committee never
raised that issue. It wasn’t done
consciously – it was done, I guess, unconsciously.
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology:
I guess I’m a little confused about why this is seen as necessary
discipline at this time. I entered the
academic profession in the 1960’s at a time in which classroom disruption was
very common. Some of you are my age, and
probably remember being queried by students quite directly as to why you had
the audacity, for example, to assign the textbook that you did ... on the
grounds that, “What did you know that was so superior, and why was this not a
collaborative effort?” I think the
history of the academy is also replete with numerous examples of tragedies that
have occurred in academic classrooms.
So, this particular event in
Bailey:
I have some concerns about the introduction which claims things that may
be included:
● Arriving after a class is
done ... has begun ... I don’t know, I’d hate to be any
instructor … because there are some bloody-minded individuals amongst us who
... to say that walking in too late is by
definition disruptive. I think that
there are students who have various reasons why having a bottle of water or
something to eat in class ... I have a woman who is very pregnant right now,
and I have a three hour class ... and she’s going to have food – and I want her
to have food in that class. So, again
... a bloody-minded individual comes to mind here.
● Monopolizing discussion ... well,
some of us can be incredibly monopolizing.
But, my point is that’s a judgment call and I think we need to have some
kinds of ways of defining what we mean by that.
● Finally, I don’t know ... maybe you
can tell me what the problem is with having audio or video recording of what
goes on ... but in a case where a student and a faculty member are having some
disputes – some serious conflict of personality – and that does sometimes
happen ... it seems to me the student might well be advised to have the tape
recorder running to protect themselves in any future disciplinary hearing. The
ability of a university faculty member to say, “No, you cannot record this
class’’ strikes me as unrealistic and unreasonable.
Bill Hames,
Geology & Geography: I’m afraid
I will lapse just a little bit into anecdotes to speak, or say that. I think it’s good to discuss the
things that we have here, and this is an appropriate exercise to be going
through to try and get faculty guidelines which perhaps should have come from
department heads or [Inaudible] … We’ve recently begun to teach very large
introductory classes and faculty, just yesterday, were bringing up the fact
that students will talk on cell phones in class, students will talk in back
rows of large classrooms … very distracting. In fact, one of our faculty finds
it necessary to have a teaching assistant to run around and be a bit of a
police person while he’s teaching so as to not disrupt the class. I think it’s
unfortunate but I think he’d appreciate some of the items that are here. But,
different faculty have different levels of tolerance to disruption of
classroom. One faculty member might not
mind at all what … [Inaudible] … I remember, as well, having students who would
become somewhat threatening about a grade he was given on a test. [Inaudible] It was handled fairly well. We
went outside to talk in the all, but it was a pretty nerve-wrecking experience
– and having a little bit more solid set guidelines – I would have a bit more
confidence that what I’m doing is the correct procedure [Inaudible].
Mouton:
Judy.
Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee:
I do too like the steps – if this is necessary. In Academic Honesty
cases, it’s nice to have [Inaudible] … to have the students know exactly what
to do so that’s a very reassuring thing.
Are we not … I’m just asking … number three...are we not authorized now
to ask a student to leave the classroom if they are disruptive? I’m not sure … I mean … well, I’ve never
gotten a straight answer on – can you tell a student, “Don’t come back “…if
that were to happen to happen?
McFarland:
Dr. O’Leary referred to mechanisms, but I would ask her to show me those
mechanisms. They don’t exist. Everything
is being done on an ad hoc – extemporaneous basis. One of the fears and concerns that the
University General Counsel has is that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of
consistency – especially as leadership changes take place. There are mechanisms, but again as I’m
saying, we are making them up as we go … and that is part of the frustration. I wish I could identify them for you – but we
don’t. I think there is a lot of people who say, “Of course we do.” Well, sorry … we don’t know of any … and what
you are also doing – and I’ll say this is somewhat self-serving – we ask
administrators to make decisions like this … and we’re sticking our necks out.
Because if I say, “Yes, you have the authority to do this,” I’m not enforcing University policy when I
say that … and, of course, when you’re not doing – then you are really in a
legal gray area. Even if the power in
authority at the University is behind you, that doesn’t necessarily mean that
you are okay. So, that again, is part of the motivation here … so, again, I
don’t know how to answer that – we don’t.
The only thing we have is the Student Discipline Policy which is spelled
out in the Tiger Cub, and in many instances, what we are relying on is that a
statement that was put into the Tiger Cub Behavior Policy … or Discipline
Policy for the Vietnam War era demonstrations … and essentially refers to
destruction of University property and this type of thing. We are using that, in a very general sense,
for individual, specific issues inside the classroom … that we just feel so
uncomfortable using that as some sort of blanket justification for the actions
that we take. So, I have to say, that
the primary motivation again was for the faculty, because I get to listen to
all the stories that all come to the Provost’s Office … and very rarely are
faculty willing to step up and tell these stories, because they are
embarrassed, they’re shocked, they lose sleep over the issues, and they’ve
pleaded – and that’s where this came from – the pleading that takes place …
give us something that tells us what we can do.
The often times asked … question that is asked is, “Am I allowed to tell
a student they have to leave my class?”
I’d like to say, “Of course,” but I don’t know … and I don’t know of
anybody else who really knows because we don’t have a policy. So, we are really playing it by ear when I
say, “Sure, you are.” When we have to
have uniformed policemen escorting students into class – then something is
wrong, and that’s what this is about.
Mouton:
Please.
Mike Reinke,
Pharmacy Practice: I would like to rise in defense of the need
to discuss this. I’m not necessarily
agreeing with every item. Like
McFarland:
I’d like to respond. In these policy steps themselves … number two –
number one is that you start with a general warning of caution to the entire
class – rather than the individuals … and this is a recommendation from the
University of Arizona … that identifying the student, a malcontent, immediately
is to intensify and exacerbate the situation rather than calm it down … and, it
is a poor substitute or poor answer for what you are suggesting, I agree with
you … but I did put that in there for that specific reason. It started out at
the class level, to make sure everyone understands the rules, and certainly
when we person or persons … [Inaudible].
Reinke: One more
comment … if I could. I do want to point
out that I am hardly an advocate of unreasonable policies. [Inaudible] I’m hardly an advocate for the
iron-fisted approach to calming classroom behavior. I am sorry to say, that just, as my opinion,
things have really begun to deteriorate over the last few years and it’s worse
obviously [Inaudible], but I do think it’s appropriate to address this concern.
Mouton: Cindy.
Brunner: Second comment.
Steve, all I ask … this policy appears to be on the fast track … and it
appears to circumvent some obvious sources of your plights about such things.
Before we are asked to vote on this in May, I would like to hear what
our SGA representative and his colleagues have to say about it, and I would
like to hear what our Student Disciplinary Committee has to say about it.
McFarland: I can only respond that we began last May, so in
fact, it’s been on-going for ten months.
Brunner:
Can we still hear from those groups?
McFarland: I’ve turned it over to the Senate, you will need to direct
it this way.
Mouton:
We’ll do that. In the back …
Sridhar Krishnamurti,
Communication Disorders: I think this policy is important
… Despite all the [Inaudible]. They
mover from one instructor to another, and they make life for several
instructors miserable. And each instructor thinks, “This only happened to me.” [Inaudible] … Normally, a profile of a
student in trouble – and we certainly are teaching them a lesson in terms of
the teacher [Inaudible] that this behavior is appropriate. [Inaudible] This has a lot of bearing on what we do on a
day-to-day basis. [Inaudible]
Mouton:
We’ll take maybe two more comments, please.
O’Leary: Well, it hurts me having heard this discussion that … it
seems to me, what we really need … is not this kind of codification of policy,
but it points, once again, from quite a different perspective … that is usually
done for the crying need for a center for faculty development to assist
individual faculty members in being able to handle these kinds of situations
when they do arise. There are some ways
of handling this kind of disruption … whether its at the individual or the
collective level in group settings … and, there’s training that can be done,
and in fact, Dr. McFarland refers to the recommendations of the … was it the
University of Arizona or Arizona State? … the
Mouton: We’re closing on
Sullenger:
Oh, okay.
Mouton: He [Inaudible] … it’s our turn … and then, get the feedback
from your faculty. The next item on the
agenda is New Business. Do we have anyone here who has new business
to bring before the body? We have
changed the process that we adjourn before the discussion, and I sense that
when we adjourn we will have a mass exodus … but, please, all those who are
ready to leave … if there’s not any objection … the meeting is adjourned. [The
meeting adjourned at
Adjournment
[The following discussion was not
part of the official meeting and is included for information. These notes were not in the minutes as
approved by the Senate. – PS]
Discussion Topic:
Provost Search Process
John
Mouton: Those of you who are
still here and haven’t lost interest, we might ask for some comments about
enrollment or enrollment management.
Please, someone in the audience.
Cindy
Brunner: John, the reason I asked
the question earlier about accommodating these students who survive their
freshman year was because, as you know, that exact question was asked by some
of the people who met with you at our informal luncheon a few weeks ago. It doesn’t affect me at the
JM:
I would say so, yes. [Laughter]
Cindy
Brunner: It doesn’t affect me
if we control enrollment, but clearly, it affects some of the people who are
teaching Core and the lower division courses – and as someone else pointed out,
those students are gonna – some of them will survive even if there are upper
division classes. And it looks like we
may be just shoehorning them into what we already have unless we make some
long-term commitment to supporting that increased level of instruction.
JM: We’ll
come back to that.
Paul
Schmidt, Mathematics:
I was pleased to hear Dr. Pritchett’s statement that the university is
prepared to provide funding for emergency measures just like the ones we [Inaudible] last year. [Inaudible] it rationally follows
that [Inaudible] that occurred last year and will continue to move through the
system. I would just like to point out
as someone in mathematics who is very much in teaching freshman courses,
service courses [Inaudible] I’d like to point out that these emergency measures
may be effective short-term, but long-term they tend to hurt our programs. For
example, faculty teaching overloads for extra compensation – though they may
like that, but faculty research suffers when you do that. Graduate students
teaching extra courses is a cheap solution, but when graduate students teach
extra courses their academic progress suffers.
If we hire a lot of temporary instructors, as we did in mathematics, of
course we got some people from AUM, and those are-quality people, but we hired
people off the streets – people who bounce from one college to the other
teaching courses – If we do that on a regular basis with lots of temporary
instructors teaching these low-level courses, we lose control of the quality of
instruction. And at a
very critical juncture. These
entry-level courses are really important for the incoming students. So there are lots of consequences in these
emergency measures that we would not like to see long-term. So, I’m very much in agreement with Cindy
when she says that we need long-term planning in order to accommodate these
students who will continue to move through the system. We need faculty positions, we need GTA slots.
John
Pritchett:
John, let me address that. There
are two ways to manage the size of your upper division classes because there
are two sources of students. Number one
– are our native students who attend as freshmen and then progress
through. It is true that we have a bolus
that we have not had in the past. We
have reached capacity. The other source
of students – your transfer students – normally we let in 1200 to 1500 transfer
students who come in at the upper levels.
The plan is to restrict transfers and give preference to the native
students. So that we level this thing out until that bolus is out the other
end.
What we’re doing at this point in time – Linda [Glaze] is on
the Oversight Committee, Steve’s on the Oversight Committee, people from both
Science & Math, and Liberal Arts.
We’ve tightened the screws down and said, essentially no, unless you’ve
got just an exceptionally high [Inaudible] I don’t have the heart to turn away
somebody with a 3.6 [GPA] and a 29 [ACT] – but, I think we’ve got a better handle
on that this year. We’ve been talking to
John [Mouton?] about it, and we’ve learned some things this year. Basically, we have three bands for students. We have automatic admission, we have a maybe,
and then we have an absolute no. John,
for the coming year, what we are going to do is narrow that automatic admit –
so we’ll be putting more people on waiting lists and backfilling those waiting
lists. But we have had some variables
that have occurred in the past two years that we didn’t know what they were
going to do to us.
JM: Well, I think that one of the things
[Inaudible] We need to separate the discussion. There is a discussion about freshmen
admissions for this fall, and then there’s a discussion about continuing
students. [Inaudible] I think the idea about managing transfers-- I think it
would be good for the faculty to understand that when we reduce the number of
transfers, how many we would reduce [Inaudible] the problem because [Inaudible]
The other thing is when we look at admissions, and I’ve been researching
[Inaudible] with other universities, and our admissions tended to run about
3200 [until 1995?] and all of a sudden there’s a giant leap. I assume somewhere there’s a rationale
[Inaudible] My question is [Inaudible] measure
the capacity of the university and the number of students we’re going to
have. The opportunity is to manage
freshmen, and the opportunity is to manage transfers. You guys [Inaudible]. The
department I’m in has the opportunity to manage admissions. But, the rest of the people rely on the
University.
JP: John [Mouton] just
brought up a good point. I remember pre-1996, we were running 3200 new freshmen. I don’t believe that we were really at
capacity at that point in time, but we had a catalyst, and the catalyst was Fob
James’ budget cut, which really diminished state allocations. Dr. Muse at that point in time worked with
Don Large, you know, to let the enrollment float and I remember the hue and cry
when we went up to about 3600.
Linda
Glaze: I do too.
JP:
The idea of many
areas, well, we’re permanently funded, this was Liberal Arts primarily, we’re
permanently funded to do 3200, but we’ll temporarily fund you to do the
rest. Now that strained Liberal Arts,
there is no question about that. Then
when these students started floating into the majors, I think that we are
probably about right. For a number of
years, what we did was admit around 3600, 3650, 3700, 3650. The year that we transitioned into semesters,
there was a conscious effort...you know … to let in a few more, because other
places dropped in a bowl…and then this past year, we were back to about 3700 or
3750, so right in that 3600-3700. We
were pretty budget capacity. But this
thing this past year almost killed us, and that is why we are holding back to
about 3700. We are letting the air out
of the balloon gradually. A lot of
people have been working hard for the past nine months. John, it is still not perfect, but we are a
hell of a lot further along than we were before.
John
Mouton: The real thing, I
think, is the issue that I’m going to raise.
Even at 3700 with the number of transfers, how are we actually, as a
university looking at [Inaudible] year?
I am still not convinced that 3700 is the right number. I am not convinced that our university has
the faculty capacity to [Inaudible]. I
think that what is happening is that, we were 3200 and we went to 3700 and the
faculty [Inaudible]. I think that we
have been doing that for a long time. I
think that what has happened now is that, with this blip, all of a sudden, it
is causing us to stand back and look at this.
[Inaudible].
Cindy
Brunner: Dr. Pritchett, when was [Jim Golson]
hired to be director of Enrollment Management?
Was that about that same time [Inaudible]?
John
Pritchett:
Jim was brought in as an assistant Vice President of Enrollment
Management in Dr. Burkhalter’s last year, Bettye [Burkhalter] left in 98.
Cindy
Brunner: I think that there may be a credibility issue here too. At least…I was on the Budget Advisory Committee
at about that time and I at least had the understanding that the director of
Enrollment Management could actually figure out a way to manage
enrollment. What happened instead
was…correct me if I am wrong…he was figuring out ways he could increase enrollment
to generate more revenue from incoming students. And we …
John
Pritchett You bring out an
excellent point. Most of the people in
the country were scrambling to get students and the culture is, how do we get more?
And in fact, in the discussions that I have had with Dr. Williams over
the past 18-months, when he was in [Inaudible] before that in
John
Mouton: Well, I think another piece of it is that, I’ve been
listening to faculty talk about ... well, what their question is, Is the driver
economics? And after visiting with Don
Large, I’m actually convinced that it isn’t.
Don will never turn away money. [Laughter]. I don’t
think that there is a catalyst coming out of Don’s office saying that he wants
[Inaudible]. I will say this, that these
students that we have that are coming back as sophomores next year – if they’re
the average mix -- we are going to pick up a couple of million dollars in
tuition. We have the resources with
which, on a short term basis, to deal with some of those issues. My fear is that we addicted to the two
million and then when we start trying to let the air out of the balloon, it
makes pressure on the other side, because when we do our budget, [Inaudible]
basically we take every penny that’s available to us and allocate it to
something because we have needs that exceed the budget.
John
Pritchett: Let me say this, I told Dr. Large that
he can sure teach accounting. We have
got some other Vice Presidents that can teach some other courses, too.
[Laughter] I have got to go meet with ....
Paul
Schmidt: [Inaudible] Not only these millions of dollars, we may also
get addicted to the idea that we can have cheap [Inaudible] instructors to
teach these low-level courses. I see
that as a big danger for our program.
John
Pritchett: Let me say this…Dr. Large has a way of
not spending money in the first year. He
has this wonderful thing that – Is there anyone here from the Budget Advisory
Committee? He has the money allocated to
tuition reserve, which he holds back, so you don’t get addicted.
John
Mouton: I think that Paul’s point...[Inaudible
interruption by another speaker] What I want to say is that I have heard a lot
of discussion where we are saying what we did last year is okay.
Linda
Glaze: It is not desirable.
John
Mouton: But
that is not the message that is necessarily out there. I think that some of the people’s
interpretation was….well, okay… we got that done, and so what I want to make sure of is
that the message is very clear, that this should never be repeated.
Linda
Glaze: I think no…actually,
John, you just attended the last meeting.
I think, uh… …I come from Languages and Literatures and I was in a
similar situation, and I was a former department head that had to beg for
money. My department has depended for
many years on temporary money. I do not
believe that the people sitting around that table, from the academic side, see
this as desirable. The issue is [if] we
have allowed these students in -- that was not necessarily our choice -- but we
have to provide them classes. That is
the reason for cutting back in terms of….it may not look like a cutback at
3700….but in terms of, -- that isn’t the
final number, but it is again -- not wanting to let out the air too fast. But I don’t think that anyone sitting around
that table, John, thinks that we have enough to sustain that for any length of
time.
John
Mouton: I want to divide the two questions.
Linda
Glaze: Sure. But I did
think that they are related in a sense of….we have to deal with the temporary,
which really is a response to enrollment fluctuation. But I do think that we need to look at the
number of FTEs that we have to accord the various departments. But I can also say, being that I work with
all of the colleges and schools, that the pressure is
not coming from COSAM and Liberal Arts.
The pressure is coming from other colleges and schools, who want more
majors and they are saying that we can handle more.
John
Mouton: They being?
Linda
Glaze:
John
Mouton: Not faculty, the deans?
Linda
Glaze: [Inaudible] go back
to your two deans, because...
John
Mouton: And I am going to.
Okay, I am definitely going to…
Linda
Glaze: But I assume that it is coming from that: programs want to
be bigger. And it is not…I don’t think
that it is a University issue. One of the things that we are looking at is that
the colleges and schools identify how many majors that they can handle. That total is more that we can handle in the
first two years. And I have constantly
said…
John
Mouton: That
is why we have transfer students.
Linda
Glaze: I have constantly
said that there is one driver that people do not like, and that really is the
capacity, in terms of the size of the Freshman class,
is the capacity of basically the Department of English and the Department of
Mathematics. That is what we have to
look at because all students take, within the first couple of years, Math and
English. And that is what we try to give
them, Math and English. But part of the
problem is the request that are coming from the
colleges to allow in more Freshmen, because by the time they get into their
majors, they don’t have that pool of students.
They may be admitted at, wanting to be in Engineering, but by the time
they are really ready for Engineering, they have gone through Math and
Chemistry and they are no longer going to be Engineers. And that is another problem...that is another
issue. It is not what we admit at that
level, it is also the capacity of what units are saying they have in terms of
the various colleges and schools. The number of majors.
John
Mouton: I think that we hear programs saying they want to be
bigger. When I talk to faculty, programs
want to be better. Not that those things
are diametrically opposed, but I think that what happens is, that as I go
around campus and talk to people, that some of the [Inaudible] enrollment is
shifting. We’re producing more output
than ever, true or false?
Linda
Glaze: I would assume it is true.
John
Mouton: And
more research.
Linda
Glaze: I agree with that.
John
Mouton: It
is all coming out of the same pool, it’s coming out of
the faculty. I think Paul’s point about we give these people an overload, what
we’re doing is we’re reducing their capacity to [Inaudible] I think that maybe,
you know, I understand that [Inaudible] the deans would say, there’s a
knowledgeable person to do this, but then one of the things we end up with is
[Inaudible] Human Sciences. Crank up
their enrollment. Now we are back to
[Inaudible] And
the thing that I look at, is this burden has been on the faculty through the
years, they’ve carried that burden, that creates that demand. So, I am just
wondering…understand that I agree that freshman capacity is being driven by
English and Mathematics is exactly right.
What is the marker for the capacity of the rest of our university? Is it a dean’s ambition?
Linda
Glaze: What I am saying, in terms of ….I think
what you are talking about is where you really need to look at is, the driver
is at the major level in colleges and schools.
Obviously, and I think that depends, too, on the profession. I know, for example, the discussion of one of
the programs that is like yours is very closed is Graphic Design. At one point, someone said that we need to
provide more faculty in that area…but it is also
whether that profession wants to…I think that there are many factors that come
in…. Can the profession sustain graduates
in that area? The students may be desiring to go into that field, but can that profession
maintain it? [Inaudible] if our students
can eventually go out and get a job, I don’t think that we should consider
producing the majors, because that is what they want necessarily to do. I think what you really need to look at
is…you really need to look at the academic discipline, in terms of their
capacity and where their limits are.
Cindy
Brunner: Are the academic departments getting any kind of financial
incentive to increase their capacity at those higher levels? You know, that just a few years ago, there
was an administrative sense that, that was the wave of the future in budgeting
academic institutions. I don’t remember
what the buzzword was...production?
Speaker
#1: We have the ACHE formulas too.
Linda
Glaze: We never played by those...I know what you are talking
about.
Cindy
Brunner: If
you increase the attractiveness of you program and recruit more students. You get the whole batch. More of that new money, and it was intended
to be a clear incentive to drive up enrollment and “devil may care” what
happens to those students once they get in….and whether there is a market for
them when they get out. I remember lots
of objections down in the trenches about that and there were those of us who
can’t operate our program that way. We
can’t accept all of the hundreds of students that want to be veterinarians just
so that we have increased tuition revenues.
I’m wondering if we have any administrator that still subscribe to that
philosophy and are motivating this...
Linda
Glaze: I
don’t know. But what I am saying is, I
really think in terms of…from the point of view of general university
enrollment….I see it centrally, and obviously my concern is to make sure that
we are not [Inaudible] for the general education. But I really have some serious concerns, and
I have expressed those, that we have got some problem areas, and it is not the
Core…where I see more basic problems is in the College of Business and in
departments like Communications that are providing what people call service
courses, support courses -- and that because they are really pushed by
enrollment issues and again there are not enough faculty and there is no new
faculty positions. They are putting in
GPA requirements not for majors, but to take their courses, and that is a real
problem. [Inaudible] I really think that we need to look at the indicators by
nature – and look at the colleges and schools…because really, I know that in
terms even for allowing in any student, we at the central level, said in
January….no new students for spring and then we’d get requests from colleges
and schools and I assume that those weren’t just from the Deans offices, that
they were from the department heads who had been working with individual
students…..and can’t you let in one more?
So I really think that issue has to be looked at.
John
Mouton: What seems to me, and I said in that meeting, is what seems
to me, is at the time that they’re doing whatever this cutoff is, Why can’t we
allow each dean to look at their slots?
We know that they are going to do that.
We act like it is a big surprise.
Linda
Glaze: No it is not.
John
Mouton: It is not a surprise, you know.
Linda
Glaze: Sometimes the amount that they ask for is.
John
Mouton: Well, what happens is that we have no agreement, when the
presumption is zero, [Inaudible]. I
agree with you wholeheartedly and that is one of the things that we’re dealing
with. In fact I had lunch today with
somebody who is going to look at it at the department head in their college and
then they will call us and give us some information [Inaudible]. But the real thing that I know,
is that I have been around this campus for a year and I have talked to 585
faculty. Across the board, there’s some
fatigue at this university. Our teacher
loads are not diminishing, our class sizes are increasing. We are producing more Research and Outreach,
particularly if you want to move up the faculty advancement ladder. I think
that what happens is that our university has increased to 21,000 to 23,000
students over some number of years, essentially with the same faculty.
Linda Glaze: I am not arguing with you. I think that one thing is….in being where I am and seeing what I see, and having been a department head, and having been a department head that has had to beg a lot to central administration. I do think that one issue we will be looking at is class size, and yes there are some classes that are really big but in many cases they are there to offset classes that do not meet university standards for minimal enrollment. So I think you need to look at the whole spectrum. I assume that what you are probably going to get to, which is what I understand came up at Academic Affairs is an issue in dealing with the whole issue of faculty workload. I’m just saying the way I see, the lay of the land, the lack of funding .I think that is an issue that you or the Senate needs to be able to answer, is the faculty workload.
[Conversation drifted off at this point and people did not use the microphones, so much of the remainder is fragmentary. – PS]