Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
of May 15, 2001
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
| Aaron, Eunice Alvarez, Alvin Avila, Guadalupe Bartscher, Patricia Bernstein, Marian Blomberg, Judith Boyle, Andrea Cancino, Herlinda Chan, Jeffery Cherny, Robert Collier, James Colvin, Caran Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Contreras, Rey Corrigan, Robert Cullers, Susan de Vries, Brian Duke, Jerry |
Edwards, James Elia, John Ferretti, Charlotte Flowers, Will Garcia, Oswaldo Garcia, Velia Gillotte, Helen Goldsmith, Helen Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Hu, Sung Hubler, Barbara Jerris, Scott Johnson, Dane Johnson, Sharon Kelley, James La Belle, Thomas Langbort, Carol Loomis, Barbara |
McKeon, Midori Nichols, Amy Pasaporte, Erin Raggio, Marcia Sagisi, Jaymee Sayeed, Lutfus Scoble, Don Shrivastava, Vinay Smith, Miriam Strong, Rob Su, Yuli Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Wong, Alfred Yip, Yewmun |
Senate Members Absent:
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: Jenee Gill, Sarah Pizer-Bush, Kara Hearn, Pranap Chatterife,
Lin Ming Yu, Chang Wan-Chao, Keith Monoire, Melissa Vashe, Trevelyn K. Cox,
William Scout, Thomas Ramont, Leslie H., Chris Novak, Lisa Swenson, Gregory Gavin, Ashley Grisso, Tina Landis, Kyle Knobel, Jillian O’ Connor, Tomas Almaguer, Dan Fendel, Paul Fonteyn, Jim Davis, Jerry Combs.
The agenda was approved as written.
Agenda Item #2 - Proposal on Intellectual Property Policy and Procedures for the Development of Online Instructional Materials.
Hu re-introduced by summarizing the changes, which are reflected in the revised proposed policy handed to all senators.
M/S/P (Edwards, Duke) to second reading. Robert Cherny suggested that this policy should be a model for others and that we should put it on our website should it be adopted.
Val Sakovich, chair of ETAC, urged passing this policy:
campuses need an intellectual property proposal like this, and this is a good one.
Miriam Smith asked if the phrase "extraordinary resources" is defined somewhere else. Hu answered that the policy says "beyond normal and customary." Smith followed up wondering whether there is anywhere where
that is stated more explicitly; is it the same for all departments, for example.
Hu responded that the phrase is meant to be easy to understand and that "extraordinary" support has to be for a specific project.
M/S/P (Sayeed, Shrivastava) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the policy was approved.
Agenda Item #3 - Proposed Discontinuance of Master of Arts in Creative Arts: Concentration in Interdisciplinary Arts and Concentration in Creativity and Arts Education Vaughn introduced the continued discussion of this matter by noting the speaker's list from last meeting and that this proposal is still in first reading. Marian Bernstein stated how important it is that we do not look
upon our university as a business; we are in the "business" of educating, and this particular program is important to enough people that we should retain it.
James Edwards noted that he is from the College of Creative Arts and that has read everything submitted on this matter. He recalled graduate council concerns about this program, especially that tenured/tenure-track (t/tt) faculty must chair the culminating experience. He added that Jim Davis is the only t/tt faculty for this program, that Davis supports the discontinuance,
and that the graduate council voted 8-0 in favor of discontinuance.
Downsizing in terms of faculty support has been the one consistent thing in the IAC. Davis has been the constant, and, given his hard work for the program, Edwards asked Davis directly to address what has changed his mind. Jim Davis made a long statement about his involvement with the IAC program and his view that discontinuance is the only appropriate move at this point. He noted his 12 years as the only t/tt faculty in IAC and his experience in stable programs. He recalled that the program essentially ended in 1985 with the
squeezing out of five t/tt faculty. He suggested a comparison with the humanities department--also broad-based, interdisciplinary—and college-wide where they have 11 t/tt faculty. This program does not have the basic core faculty to work. He insisted that he was not coerced into this view. He then addressed some further problems: on-going lecturers without terminal degrees and low number of applicants with a very high percentage admitted. The miracle is that discontinuance did not happen ten years ago.
Thomas La Belle made the following remarks on behalf of President Corrigan and himself with both endorsing discontinuance, their endorsement shaped by the following five points: 1) students shall be guaranteed courses to complete
current program and new students can pursue a special major; 2) faculty are not available to oversee the master's level programs; 3) limited resources that could be better used in other parts of the college; 4) lecturers are being aided in seeking other teaching opportunities; 5) the college will continue to maintain much of the IAC curriculum, and interdisciplinary will still be alive in the
college. Saul Steier remarked that he's tired of being told we can't do
everything because that avoids discussing the choices of what we will or won't do. This is an incredibly good program based on an important idea; it should be staffed to be viable, and that's the kind of thing a university stands for.
James Kelley commented on the history of interdisciplinary science within the college of science and engineering as an example. It lost its way, was discontinued along the lines here with some of the course offerings retained. His overall impression is that there has been no loss in interdisciplinary activity.
Rick Houlberg spoke from the perspective of someone from the college of creative arts who was on the hiring committee that hired Davis, on the HRT of the IAC during the middle 1980s, and even almost attended the program long ago. The IAC resources were used as a hammer by a dean who will not be named. On interdisciplinary courses, he suggested that other departments have not taken as many interdisciplinary courses because the IAC was there, but faculty is ready. It is not necessarily the greatest program right now through no fault of the students or faculty, and it has not been viable for a long time. Marlon Hom asked the question he did last time, restating that we
are making a decision on a curriculum issue, the MA program, and not a management decision, the state of the IAC. Davis replied that the IAC began as an independent academic program that was free standing, then it was attached to cinema, then it became a center with the purpose of offering a degree program. Chris Novak spoke as a lecturer in IAC and a graduate from the program. He contested the idea that the amount of applicants means that this is not a quality program. He also noted that in just a period of over two weeks there have been near 60 responses attesting to how valuable this program has been to them. He suggested senators are here to decide on that kind of viability, not just a particular financial issue. He urged senators to not just rubber-stamp this for the dean, to make a decision on what they
think is important to this university academically. Eunice Aaron sought clarification about the 30 November 2000 letter from Jim Davis to IAC students and faculty. This refers to the dean having already notified Davis that the programs will have to be phased out. We also know that the secretary was instructed not to allow any students to apply, yet EPC did not address this
matter until February 2001. Davis said this was not a pre-emptive act but part of planning necessary in moving toward discontinuance.
M/S/P (Cherny, Gregory) to postpone a decision on this proposal
to the second academic senate meeting of the next academic year.
Cherny explained that the memo introduced by Aaron is very troubling; it does state that the decision was made in November 2000 to phase out the program, and instructions were given at that time not to admit more students. Our policy states that the senate must approve the discontinuance, and then a program is phased out. So this appears to be a violation of senate policy. This needs to be looked at, and we do not have time to do this today. The vote was taken and the motion to postpone the decision on the proposed discontinuance passed.
M/S/P (Vaughn, Duke) the resolution on salmon to adopt the proposed Statement of Concern.
Vaughn commented that the actions of the chancellor require us to make a statement. She noted that, having sent the draft out electronically, she has heard from over 70 with not a single dissenting voice. Gregory referred to a document from the statewide senate on "seeking responsible communication." This was developed in response to a letter and other statements from the chancellor where he had, in many words, declared himself in opposition to
the faculty. Cherny called our attention to further information that showed
numerous grave mis-statements by the chancellor. He concluded from this the reinforcement of a previous conclusion: the chancellor is a loose cannon, he does not represent us well, and he shows no confidence in faculty. We should support this motion. Patricia Bartscher spoke as a senator and not university counsel; she is troubled by the loose use of language in calling what she
considers to be a vote of no confidence a "statement of concern"; she is troubled that the outgoing senate is using its last minutes on an act with considerable consequences. New senators will have to face the music and deal with issues like the CBA and budget cuts. She suggested that we would not gain anything from this except anger from the chancellor's office that will impact upon those who do business with that office.
Don Scoble echoed the sentiments of Bartscher and recalled the history of SFSU faculty demanding Glenn Dunke's resignation in 1961; Dunke did not resign, he stayed on for 20 years, and we were punished for that. He added that we have some current requests for assistance from the chancellor. He
concluded that this proposal is ill timed and will probably not serve any useful purpose.
M/S/P (Goldsmith, Steier) to close debate. The motion to close debate did not pass by two thirds.
M/S/P (Cherny, Aaron) to extend debate.
The motion passed. Houlberg stated that the administration's negative comments on this make the case: he did not want to be buffaloed by a petty
bureaucrat who is in charge of things and would take this vote
based on his actions and hammer us with it. He would rather be
hammered and be true to what we believe.
Cherny recounted a presentation at the plenary statewide senate
concerning an exchange at SDSU during their debate over a
similar motion: a senator said we may expect retribution from the
chancellor; the next morning, the chancellor called her and said no
he would not do that. He suggested that he is most concerned
about the consequences for the CSU with this chancellor; the
trustees will evaluate the chancellor, and this resolution will be
come part of the process by which the trustees evaluate the
chancellor.
Gregory first noted that some of the new people are also some of
the old people; then she added that the chair of the statewide
senate sent the following message to the board of trustees:
"intellectual honesty and integrity, an avoidance of misleading
statements, and a scrupulous regard for accuracy, are hallmarks
of academic discourse. This should apply even in such a
contentious area as collective bargaining. . . . This [the
chancellor's] letter did not observe these fundamentals of
academic discourse." This speaks to the point that the action
taken is borne of integrity.
?? Daniels commented that this is the first time that he has heard
the suggestion that someone who is incompetent should not be
criticized because they are also vindictive.
?? Williams commented that he has been swayed in favor of the
resolution by what the administrators said while remembering the
words of Frederick Douglass: "Find out what the people will
submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice
and wrong that will be imposed upon them."
M/S/P (Goldsmith, Bernstein) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the resolution was approved.
The 2000-2001 senate was adjourned at 3:05.
The 2001-2002 senate voted for standing committee chairs.
Respectfully submitted,
Dane Johnson
Secretary to the Faculty