April 30, 2002
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:12 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
| Aaron,
Eunice
Alvarez, Alvin
Avila, Guadalupe Bartscher, Patricia Bishop, Anna Boyle, Andrea Cherny, Robert Collier, James Colvin, Caran Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Duke, Jerry |
Edwards,
James
Fung, Robert
Garcia, Oswaldo Gerson, Deborah Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Henry, Margaret Higgins, Susan Hom, Marlon Houlberg, Rick Hubler, Barbara Jerris, Scott Kassiola, Joel |
La
Belle, Thomas
Langbort,
Carol
Luft, Sandra McKeon, Midori Nichols, Amy Oñate, Abdiel Pong, Wen Shen Raggio, Marcia Sayeed, Lutfus Scoble, Don Shrivastava, Vinay Smith, Miriam Steier, Saul |
Strong,
Rob
Su, Yuli
Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Wolfe, Bruce Yip, Yewmun |
| Senate
Members Absent:Corrigan, Robert A.(exc), Adisa-Thomas, Karima
(abs), Daniels, Robert (abs), Ganji, Vijay (exc),
Garcia, Velia (exc), Gillotte, Helen (exc), Levine,
Josh, Moallem, Minoo
(exc), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs) |
| Guests:David Hemphill, Ruth Love, Dan Buttlaire,
Gail Whitaker, Marsha Melnick, Lisa Jordan,
Ray Esquerra, Jim Orenberg, Barbara Luzardi,
Paul Barnes |
Announcements
Chair’s Report
Report from Chair Pamela Vaughn.Reading from the book titled Academic Keywords, Chair Vaughn reminded us all of the importance of Academic Freedom.
“Academic freedom is the glue that holds the university together, the principle that protects its educational mission. It is the principle that guarantees faculty members the right to speak and write as they please without interference from the university, the state, or the public. It is the principle that gives both students and faculty in the classroom the right to say whatever they believe is pertinent to the subject at hand. It is the principle that affirms there are no limits to what subjects and issues educational institutions may study, investigate, debate, and discuss. As Louis Menand writes in The Future of Academic Freedom, it ‘is not simply a kind of bonus enjoyed by workers within the system, a philosophical luxury universities could function just as effectively without. It is the key legitimating concept of the entire enterprise.’
“Even tenured faculty, however, cannot assume their academic
freedom will withstand all forms of assault and all historical conditions.
All faculty members lose their academic freedom in a dictatorship, as faculty
members did in Nazi Germany. The guarantees academic freedom offered were
also widely abandoned in the
“In summary, then, how is academic freedom being threatened [not here on our campus, but in general] today? Here are a number of the major ways…
1. By the ongoing shift from full-time tenure-track to part-time faculty
2. By attempts to decouple academic freedom from tenure
3. By attempts to redefine and restrict academic freedom conceptually
4. By politically motivated attacks on how faculty members use their academic freedom
5. By efforts to limit and narrow academic freedom contractually and legally
6. By the resurgence of restrictions on academic freedom at religious institutions
7. By surveillance of faculty communication by electronic mail
8. By the corporatization of institutions of higher educational
9. By efforts to enact speech codes on campus that restrict or punish speech deemed unacceptable
10. By efforts to police or criminalize consensual personal relationships on campus
11. By occasional political surveillance of classrooms
12. By attacks on the major national organization that defines academic freedom and investigates abuses of it, the American Association of University Professors.
“The combined effect of all these forces does a good deal more than threaten the privileges of tenured faculty; it puts at risk the very core educational and cultural missions of the university. For the academic freedom of the tenured faculty anchors everything else the university does. It spreads outward to protect the free speech of students and the development of the disciplines. It underwrites the difference education can make in training the young and evaluating social policy. It preserves the possibility of a reflective historical memory and of a critical difference from contemporary opinion. Academic freedom is the university, as we know it. Anything we put in its place would have to go by another name.”Academic Keywords: A Devil’s Dictionary for Higher Education (Nelson & Watt, Routledge 1999, 22-36).
Jerry Duke finished his report and six years as chair of the Academic Program Review Committee by demonstrating the fancy footwork of the Hungarian national dance. Chair Pamela Vaughn thanked Senator Duke for the outstanding job he has performed for the past six years as both chair of APRC and a member of the senate!
m/s/p (Houlberg, Duke) to second reading
m/s/p (Duke, Shrivastava) to close debate
Amy Nichols, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the proposal as a consent item from CARC and the Graduate Council. The purpose of this certificate is to provide physical therapy students in the SFSU/UCSF Graduate Programs in Physical Therapy on this campus with clinical practice under supervision and unit credit consistent with the other four CSU campuses offering programs in physical therapy. The proposal is for the New Graduate Certificate of Clinical competence in Physical Therapy. This is a well-done proposal coming before you for consideration as a unanimous consent item from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee and Graduate Council. The proposed graduate certificate program will lead to a certificate of clinical competence in physical therapy.All graduate students in the physical therapy program prior to awarding the MSN will require this 24-unit certificate. The purpose of the certificate is to provide the physical therapy students in the UCSF/SFSU program with unit credit for their clinical clerkship as opposed to the current system of receiving 0 units. Here from the faculty from the College of Health and Human Services here to provide additional information and answer any questions are: Marsha Melnick, Sandra Radtka, Linda Wanek, and Associate Dean Ann Hallum. Bruce Wolfe asked if there is a license required for these students and can there work in the certificate be applied toward getting the license? Marsha Melnick, students have to complete The MS program and the certificated, which has a minimum of 24 weeks of clinical internship. The work can be applied toward their requirements.
m/s/p (Duke, Houlberg) to second reading
Andres Consoli acknowledge the fine effort that was put into the proposal and asked why do these students have to do the additional 24 unit certificate after they have completed the master’s program? Marsha Melnick indicated that originally the certificate was placed in CEL. We are moving it to regular university to save the students the cost. The certificate is important to certify the required internship.
m/s/p (Houlberg, Duke) to close debate
Caran Colvin, chair of the Faculty Affairs committee introduce the item. She indicated that the Faculty Affairs Committee urges approval of the attached First Year Retentions Report and Recommendation form for tenure-track teaching and library faculty in order to encourage necessary discussion between first year probationary faculty and their department regarding relevant criteria for retention, tenure and promotion. She reported that several of the recommendations that were made in the last senate meeting are included in the report. Jan Gregory pointed to some minor changes and recommend that the Senate accept the new form. Midori McKeon indicated that as a department chair she would not be able to attach her department’s criteria since they have not developed criteria for first year faculty review and there is no time left this semester to develop them. Additionally, University policy does not required departments to develop criteria. Chair Pamela Vaughn point out that the form does not required departments to attach department criteria if they don’t have any. Saul Steier indicated that just a one-year review was not a good notion and recommended that we go to a two-year contract for all our hires like most other universities in the country. Rick Houlberg agreed with Steier and strongly recommended that all departments develop department criteria. Scott Jerris urge the Senate to approve the new form. He indicated that is very beneficial to give the first year faculty member to have some sense of what is expected of them. Lutfus Sayeed indicated that since this is just an early fall semester check on the candidate and they would not be actually reviewed on the criteria until their second year then what we have is a two-year contract. Chair Pamela Vaughn indicated that this does not change the calendar for review, but changes the form. The Collective Bargaining Agreement sets the calendar for review. Susan Higgins indicated that setting department criteria is a good idea and would encourage all levels of review to talk about the same criteria. She asked why we could not do the first year review at the end of the first year? It seems premature to review the new faculty after they have only been here a few weeks. Paul Barnes indicated that we are required to submit the first year review by February. Jan Gregory indicated that it is the Collective Bargaining Agreement that sets the calendar for review. The Collective Bargaining Agreement is negotiated between the faculty union and the CSU administration. The Senate cannot revise the agreement.
m/s/p (Alvin Alvarez, Oswaldo Garcia) to second reading
Alvin Alvarez indicated that this is a good first step in a long-term process and would aid in clarifying department expectation of new faculty. Jan Gregory indicated that this form will help to clarify department values and would benefit all players in the system. She also indicated that department criteria is not irreversibly binding on any person. It is an opportunity for the candidate to know what the expectations for the faculty role is within the department. It doesn’t preclude subsequent changes in the future. Marlon Hom indicated that the document would aid in the development of collegiality within the department. All concerned need to understand the department baseline definitions. Andres Consoli asked for clarification on the document checklist recommended that the Senate approve the document.
m/s/p (Duke, Houlberg) to close debate
m/s/p (Duke, Houlberg) to second reading
m/s/p (Hom, Colvin) to close debate
Amy Nichols, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the proposal as a consent item from both CARC. The proposal is a request to increase the units for CHEM 300 and 301 (General Physical Chemistry I and II) from two units to three units. This change increases by 2 units the BS Biochemistry major. This is the same proposal as agenda item 6 except that it is their BS degree in Biochemistry. The proposed change is to increase the units for Chem 300 and 301 (general Physical chemistry I and II) from two units to three units.This change increases the Bachelor of Science in Chemistry Degree by 2 units. The faculty from the College of Science and Engineering here to provide additional information and answer any question is James Orenberg.
Mitch Turitz called the question.
Voting on the proposed changes - Passed.
Agenda Item #9: Proposed Academic Calendar for 2003-2004
Marlon Hom, Chair, Academic Policy Committee introduced the proposed academic calendar for 2003-2004. Rick Houlberg asked why the graduation date is set for May 22, 2004 that will place it the weekend before Memorial Day weekend? He recalled that graduation has almost always been on Memorial Day weekend. BarbaraLuzardi indicated that the proposed calendar appear to be correct with the appropriate number of days. Mitch Turitz asked if the proposed calendar was an attempt to move the campus closer to year round operation (YRO)? He understood that we are mandated to move to YRO. Barbara Luzardi indicated that the proposed calendar is similar to calendars in the past and that YRO was not considered. Robert Cherny noted that if we had graduation on Memorial Day weekend that we could have a longer winter break and possibly begin the semester in February. Barbara Luzardi indicated that she could look into that but would have to assess what effect it would have on the students. Eunice Aaron indicated that having graduation on Memorial Day weekend allowed for student’s families to travel to San Francisco. She would like to see graduation on Memorial Day weekend. Dean Kassiola asked why we couldn’t have graduate on the 29th. Why don’t we send this back to APC for review? Barbara Luzardi indicated that we had plenty of time and we could, if there is another senate this semester, to look at this issue with APC.
m/s/p (Houlberg, Aaron) to return the proposed calendar to APC and bring it back to the senate meeting on May 14th. Passed.
The Senate adjourned at 3:27 PM
Respectfully submitted,
James Edwards
Secretary to the Faculty