March 13, 2008


11:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.                                                                           ACADEMIC SENATE CHAMBERS

Members Present: Altar, Alva, Arnold, Bhattacharya, Bruschke, Bullock, Burgtorf, Carroll, Dabirian, Drezner, Fidalgo, Fromson, Gass, Green, Grewal, Guerin, Hewitt, Hickok, Junn, Kanel, Kantardjieff, Klassen, Liverpool, McMahan, Mead, Nyaggah, Oliver, Palmer, Randall, Rhoten, Rumberger, Sage, Shapiro, Smith, Spitzer, Taylor, Walicki

Absent: Bedell, Buck, Gordon, Jarvis, McConnell, Pasternack, Stang, Stein, Williams


I.              CALL TO ORDER

            Chair Guerin called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m.






Senator Rumberger announced that campaigning for the ASI elections began yesterday. There are three teams of candidates running for the offices of ASI President and Vice President and one student from every college running, so ASI looks forward to having a full board in the fall. Faculty members are encouraged to allow students to speak on their issues and platforms during their campaigning.


         Senator Rumberger also announced that the Student Recreation Center opened yesterday with a great deal of success; 1,770 students visited the building. Use of this facility is free of charge to all students.


         Senator Nyaggah invited the campus community to attend the CSUF campus-wide meeting regarding the CSU budget scheduled to take place on March 25th, 11:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Titan Student Union Pavilions. An announcement of this meeting will be sent to the campus shortly. Pat Carroll, on behalf of President Gordon, added that the theme of this meeting is “CSU is the Solution”. He encouraged everyone to attend this effort of the CFA, President Gordon, the CSU Board of Trustees, and students to persuade the legislature to reconsider the proposed budget cuts. Senator Randall commented that this is more than an informational meeting; it is a call to action to be visible and vocal.


         Senator Hewitt congratulated the Men’s Basketball team on earning the Big West Conference co-championship. He also mentioned that Scott Cutley received the award for Big West Co-Player of the Year, Frank Robinson was named Big West Best Defender of the Year, and Coach Burton received the District 15 Coach of the Year Award. The men’s team will play this evening at 6:00 p.m. The women’s team has a game today at 12:00 noon.


         Senator Hickok encouraged faculty to serve on the judging panel for the Library’s Undergraduate Research Scholarship Award in which $1,800 in prize money is available. Faculty members can contact Senator Hickok or Will Breitbach if they are interested in University service on this cross-disciplinary panel.


         Senator Dabirian reported that the CMS student module went live on Monday. The conversion has been flawless. He congratulated his team, who worked hard on this project. The bigger task comes on March 17th, when the financial aid module goes live.  


         Senator Walicki encouraged all to the performance of the Namaad Arabic Music Ensemble tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. in the Recital Hall (Performing Arts Building).


Senator Smith mentioned that due to the conversion to CMS Student Module, there will be an estimated three-week delay for when course schedule books will be available for purchase in Titan Shops. However, course scheduling information will be posted online on schedule.


         Chair Guerin announced the birth of Senator Stang’s new baby, Madeline Kay Capp. She was born at 1:50 a.m. on Thursday, March 6th. A card was passed around for Senators to sign and congratulate Kristin and her husband.


         Chair Guerin also announced the news that Senator Junn has accepted the position as Associate Provost at California State University, Fresno. Her last day on campus will be June 11th. Senator Randall, Senator Fidalgo and Chair Guerin congratulated and praised Senator Junn for the various contributions she has made to campus in her 17 years at CSUF. Senator Junn stated that she has enjoyed her time at CSUF and that it will be difficult to leave her wonderful colleagues and friends.



         M/S/P [Rhoten/Rumberger] to approve the minutes of 12-6-07 and 1-31-08 as submitted.



         M/S/P [Burgtorf/Gass] to approve as submitted. [Approved unanimously]

5.1 ASD 08-40 Proposed Transformation: M.S. in Nursing (Nursing Leadership Concentration) [Grad Ed Committee]

5.2 ASD 08-41 Revised UPS 330.124 Leaves of Absence for Graduate and Credential Students [Grad Ed Committee]

5.3 ASD 08-42 Proposal to Revise M.S. Education Concentration in Special Education [College of Education]




Time Certain

12:00 noon

Subject: Second Language Graduation Requirement Report (See ASD 08-43)

Radha Bhattacharya and Bradley Starr, Co-Chairs, Ad Hoc Study Group on the Second Language Graduation Requirement

Chair Guerin provided context for this report by reminding the body of the following:

·        On May 16, 2002, the Academic Senate approved UPS 410.107 with a long “lag period” to allow students to plan for this new requirement at CSUF.

·        On April 6, 2006, the Academic Senate passed ASD 06-67, a resolution to suspend implementation of the Second Language Graduation Requirement until studies were conducted. The ad hoc study group was advised to report to the Academic Senate in March 2008.

·        On September 13, 2007, the Academic Senate voted to delay implementation another year because students who planned to apply for admission next year wanted to know if they were going to be held to this requirement.

·        The Executive Committee met to discuss a process for handling this report and follow-up. It recommends that we listen to the report by the co-chairs, follow with a question and answer period, and then debate each of the study group’s major recommendations through a series of motions.


         Co-Chairs Radha Bhattacharya and Bradley Starr were introduced. They reported the following:

·        In ASD 06-67, the Academic Senate commissioned the administration to gather statistical analysis of the impact of UPS 410.107 on transfer students and first year students, and other studies to be done as issues become known. The study grouped worked heavily with the substantial amount of data that were provided by the Office of Institutional Research and Analytical Studies. The data are available for review in an appendix located in the Academic Senate office.


Part I: Issues and Recommendations Related to the SLGR as a University Graduation Requirement

UPS 410.107 provides exemptions from the SLGR for programs and majors that meet the criteria. Section I.B.1, discusses programs that have 120+ units; Section II.B.2 deals with courses that have 110-120 units. In both cases, requests for exemptions are to be submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by way of the Dean of the College.


Ø      The issue: Whether or not it is appropriate to exempt significant numbers of students from graduation requirement to which other students are held.


Programs currently eligible for exemptions:

·        CBE: (All programs except Economics)

·        ECS: (All programs)

·        NSM: (All programs)

·        HHD: (Nursing, Kinesiology with Athletic Training Certificate, students enrolled in Streamlined Teacher Education Preparation [STEP])

·        COTA: (All BFA and BM programs)

·        HSS: (STEP)


Programs currently ineligible for exemptions:

·        HSS: (All programs except STEP)

·        COMM: (All programs)

·        HHD: (All programs except those listed above)

·        COTA: (All BA Programs)

·        CBE: Economics


All eligible programs requested and have been granted exemptions.


From spring 2006 census data, it was discovered that of undergraduates, 39.8% (11,266 students) would have been in exempt majors. (Undeclared majors were included in the non-exempt category)


In significant respects, the issue of exemptions lies at the heart of the very rationale for the SLGR. Accordingly, the Study Group spent more time discussion this issue than any other.


Summary of deliberations:


Case Against Exemptions

We believe that the original rationale rested explicitly on the principle that if the SLGR is a necessary mark of academic excellence. If this is true, then it is a requirement that should apply to all CSU graduates. Other than the reference to the high number of unit requirements for affect programs, the study group could find no rationale in that document for the original adoption of exemptions.


Given the reasoning in ASD 02-12, there seems to be no coherent rationale by which the university could adopt a graduation requirement on grounds that it is fundamental to excellence, a mark of a CSUF graduate, and then exempt 35-40% of its students from the requirement. By the same token, there is no rationale provided (other than units) that justifies the imposition of this requirement on a 60-65% selection of students.


If there is a university university-wide commitment to the SLGR as a mark of academic excellence, the commitment should find expression in a university-wide requirement. The fact that all eligible programs chose to exercise exemptions may well indicate that other academic and practical factors outweighed the added value represented by the SLGR. By extension, however, one might wonder if this argument could be applied to the goals of students and faculty in every department and discipline.


Finally, it should be noted that of the five CSU campuses that currently require some level of university-wide second language proficiency for graduation, no programs provide exemptions.


Obstacles Associated with a No-Exemptions Policy

Approximately 25% of freshman students (over 1,000 students) and 40% of transfer students (approximately 1,600 students) would need between one and three MLL classes. The practicality of such a requirement poses several difficulties, especially in three areas:

(1)   Units and time to graduation: CSUF has steadily held its ground at or near the lead with respect to time to graduation for both native students and transfer students. CSUF has consistently out-performed its CSU peers over the last few years. High unit majors cannot accommodate up to 13 units in addition to units already required. For example, in Biology, the total number of specified course units is 124, leaving students in this major with no free electives. The case is similar for majors in Chemistry, Biochemistry, Geology, Math, and Physics. In the College of Engineering and Computer Science, all programs are high unit majors with specific accreditation requirements. The College does not have the flexibility to accommodate a second language requirement without increasing the total units. In the College of Business and Economics, some of the concentrations have zero free units available and others have a maximum of three units available. This assumes that an incoming freshman is eligible to go directly into calculus. However, the majority of incoming freshmen are required to take Math 115 before taking calculus. The units earned through Math 115 use up the free units, leaving most business majors with zero free units.


                                                            Removal of exemptions would cause a significant increase in the time to                                                      graduation in currently exempt majors, causing discrepancy with                                                                   the CSU wide directive on facilitating time to graduation.


The increase in time to graduation may not be justified. For example, a study conducted by Wake Forest University, involving deans, recruiters, and alumni of undergraduate business schools, indicated that knowledge of a second language is at the bottom of the list of desirable student competencies, but the ability to work effectively in a culturally diverse work environment ranks higher in the list. Also, a statement from the CSUF College of Engineering and Computer Science emphasized that a second language requirement on engineering and computer scientists “…is not warranted by the accreditation standards of ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology), is not mandated by the professions, and is not welcomed by the faculty and students of the college.”


(2)   Loss of enrollment to our institution: 40% of transfer students would need to complete the second language graduation requirement based on based on data obtained from the IR&AS survey conducted in 2008. Given this requirement, the enrollment management experts on campus, as well as community college administrators and counselors, project a substantial reduction in the number of students who will transfer from community colleges to CSUF.


      In comments from an April 2007 survey of 34 area community college       counselors, 29 indicated that the SLGR would have a negative impact          on transfer enrollments. “If students have to take a third semester of           language,” one wrote, “it is more likely that they will have an interest in       another CSU. The majority of students don’t even take a foreign      language. ”


In an IR&AS poll of 936 current CSUF transfer students, 20% (189) reported that if the SLGR had been in place when they were preparing to transfer, they would have considered another university or would definitely not have come to CSUF. Another 13% (124) said they weren’t sure what they would have done.


At a September 18, 2006 meeting hosted by the CSUF office of the Dean of CH&SS, 11 Humanities and Social Sciences Deans from CSUF “feeder” campuses unanimously predicted enrollment losses for CSUF. “Counselors would hate it,” one commented. “They would direct students to an institution where they would graduate in less time.” This prediction was echoed by administrative counterparts in the Science and Math programs at feeder community colleges.  “The fact that there are exceptions for high unit majors will go unnoticed (counselors will advice ECS majors to elsewhere even though they would be exempt from the requirement here).”


(3)   Exempt programs under category 1.B.2 need to use elective units for supporting courses that are essential to the success of graduates and their future careers.  The courses are not expendable as part of the academic preparation of majors.


The Study Group Conclusions and Recommendations on Exemptions

The Study Group holds that a coherent university graduation requirement should apply to all students, and if genuinely supported should be embraced across the various academic programs in the university. The current requirement does neither.


Nearly 40% of students are exempt, and every eligible program asked for an exemption. The practical consequences of the SLGR for current exempt programs in terms of time to graduation, program enrollments, and use of elective units are matters of serious concern. Imposing the SLGR on these programs would result in ongoing division and controversy. At the same time, the current policy (as indicated in UPS 410.107) results in an uneven and arbitrary requirement that contradicts the original rationale for the SLGR.


Accordingly, the consensus of the Study Group is to recommend the formulation of a more flexible and more comprehensive alternative to replace the SLGR as in UPS 410.107. The replacement program would strongly promote second language proficiency, but would take seriously the concerns that led to the adoption of exemptions in the first place.


The goal would be to build internationalizing features and option into existing programs without increasing program unit loads.



Ø      Issue: The Study Group was asked to consider the impact of changing the SLG         from a 3 semester-college/3 year-high school (3-3) to a 2 semester-college/2 year       (2-2) requirement.


                                    (3-3) Requirement

                                    First Year Students (Freshmen): Assuming a class size of 30 students, 26 sections of                                               third semester SLGR courses would have been required for fall 2007 to meet needs. If                                 exemptions were lifted, an additional 15 sections would be needed.


                                    Transfer students: Assuming a class size of 30 students, 38 sections of                                                         third semester SLGR courses would have been required for fall 2007 to meet needs.


                                    With exemptions, a total of 64 (26+38) sections would be required to meet the needs of                             both first year students and transfer students. Without exemptions, 100 sections would                               be needed.


                                    (2-2) Requirement

With exemptions, a total of 35 (freshmen = 0 + transfer = 35) sections would be                                         needed. No courses would be necessary for freshmen since they will have met the entry                               requirement upon admission. Without exemptions, 46 sections would be needed for                                                transfer students.


The above calculations assumes at 41% of incoming transfer students would submit their high school or community college transcripts to be cleared for their coursework. It also assumes that 47% of the 1,600 students who need to clear the requirement at CSUF might possibly obtain certification of intermediate proficiency through other means, such as passing the speaking and listening components of the intermediate proficiency test.  These numbers are self-reported by students who completed the fall 2007 IR &AS survey.


Issues that should be carefully weighed in determining the implications of the 2-2 requirement:

1.      The perceived impacts mentioned in the results of the survey of community college counselors at the conference sponsored by the CSUF Academic Advisement Center in April 2007.

2.      If exemptions are removed, a 2-2 requirement would still have a direct impact on colleges that have no free units available by adding extra units needed for their graduation. For example, transfer students constitute 58.8% (2,259) of students in the College of Business and Economics. Of them, 49% (1,107) would need to complete the SLGR.

3.      As is the case with a 3-3 requirement, a 2-2 requirement for transfer students will have a restrictive influence, with double counting, on the selection of Humanities courses.  However, moving to a 2-2 requirement would maintain the current CSU-wide two-year foreign language admission requirement for first year students and not require these students to take any additional MLL classes. A move to a 2-2 requirement would remove the problem of program exemptions with respect to native CSUF students because they have already met it as an admissions requirement.



A reduction of the requirement from 3-3 to 2-2 would eliminate the impact on all incoming freshman and lessen the impact on transfer students. However, if exemptions are removed, transfer students into exempt programs who do not test out by passing the listening and speaking tests of the second language, for example, will face unit requirements in excess of 120 units. Even if exemptions are left in place, however, the possible impact on transfer enrollments remains a concern. The majority of community college counselors and administrators, when surveyed on the issue, cautioned CSUF in this regard.


The Study Group does not recommend a 2-2 arrangement as a solution to the complications created by the SLGR. Rather than a 3/3 or 2/2 requirement, the Study Group prefers a more flexible and comprehensive approach to global competency that includes and promotes second language proficiency as one of a number of possible options. The Study Group again recommends revisiting ASD 00-169 as a guide to the construction of a comprehensive, university-wide “global competence” requirement.




Part II: Recommendations Related to Issues Internal to UPS 410.107

The two issues internal to the policies defined in UPS 410.107 are (1) double counting, and (2) internal inconsistencies. The Study Group discussed and prepared recommendations related to these areas, as directed by ASD 06-67. These recommendations, however, do not remedy the larger issues, analyzed above, that prompted the study group’s recommendation to replace the SLGR with a more flexible and workable approach to “global competence.”


1. The Role of Double Counting in Completing Graduation Requirements

Ø      Issue: General Education category III.B.2 includes MLL courses that meet the SLGR. Students will meet the SLGR and GE II.B.2 with one MLL course, precluding them from choosing from other lower division Humanities courses offered by departments such as Anthropology, English and Comparative Literature, Comparative Religion, Liberal Studies, Linguistics, Philosophy, and Women’s Studies.


According to IR&AS data from fall 2006, double counting in GE III.B.2 would have resulted in a migration of 790 (37% of FTES) students enrolled in non-MLL courses into MLL courses.


Double counting will result in a large scale alteration of student choice and learning in the lower-division GE humanities, effectively redefining the category. Since lower division GE-breadth categories are intrinsic to the definition of a CSUF liberal arts education, these curricular consequences should be subjects of principled reflection and not just unintended consequences.


None of the five CSU campuses with university-wide foreign language graduation requirements allows the required foreign language courses to substitute for alternatives in the lower division humanities. For example, Sacramento State, CSU Monterey Bay, and CSU Bakersfield resolved the issue by removing the required foreign language courses from the General Education requirements. However, we do not believe this is a feasible option for CSUF. The department of MLL objects to that arrangement. CSU San Marcos and CSU Channel Islands avoid the problem by placing the required foreign language courses in a separate lower division Humanities category. This solution is not possible for CSUF since the available lower division Humanities GE units are already devoted to the World History requirement, leaving only 3 units for III.B.2, and no units for a separate foreign language GE category.


A proposal offered spring 2006, and approved unanimously by the Chairs of CSUF Humanities departments, as well as by the University General Education Committee, provides another way to resolve this matter. Similar to the IGETC transfer plan, this proposal stipulates that no course can be double counted to meet the SLGR and GE III.B.2.


The Study Group unanimously recommends prohibition of double counting classes required for the Second Language Graduation Requirement and GE III.B.2. If the SLGR is an enhancement of the excellence of a CSUF degree, it should be added to current requirements, and not substituted for some of those requirements for significant numbers of students. Given that the proposal mentioned above, is the most feasible avenue toward resolution of the double-counting issue, the Study Group recommends that this proposal be adopted.


2. Possible Internal “Inconsistencies” in UPS 410.107

Ø      Issue 1: The Definition of “Intermediate” Proficiency


      Recommendation: The SLGR University Board should examine the operational       definitions of “proficiency”, “intermediate”, and articulate a consistent, coherent       definition based on CSU goals and expectations.


Ø      Issue 2: Placement Examinations


      Recommendation: The Study Group recommends the use of placement exams         for incoming students with some language coursework who have not met the            SLGR requirement.


Ø      Issue 3: Board Recommendations on Program Exemptions


      Recommendation: The Study Group recommends that the SLGR University Board develop criteria by which program requests for exemptions should be       evaluated.


Ø      Issue 4: Board Recommendations on Student Requests for Exemptions


      Recommendation: The Study Group recommends that the SLGR University Board develop criteria by which student requests for individual exemptions         should be evaluated.


Ø      Issue 5: Board Requests for Unmet Instruction Needs: Implications for University Resource Allocations


      Recommendation: The Study Group recommends clarification of the processes        and resources through which the Board funding requests for additional sections         are to be handled and met.


Ø      Issue 6: AP Unit Credits and SLGR


      Recommendation (from hard copy report): It is acceptable to separate the issue       of awarding units for AP exams from the issue of the use of AP exams to meet a      graduation requirement. The Study Group sees no inconsistency in this matter.



Part III: Overall Conclusions

The strong consensus of the Study Group is that the SLGR is not feasible as a university-wide graduation requirement:


1.      The extensive necessity for and use of exemptions by university programs is itself evidence of the impracticality of the measure as a graduation requirement. For high unit majors, the additional units cannot be absorbed, and the added benefit of second language proficiency is outweighed by other educational goals. The result is an uneven and arbitrary requirement that falls on some but not others.


2.      The resources required for staffing course section, processing student transcripts and certification, and providing placement and proficiency testing are substantial.


3.      Counselors and administrators at our feeder community colleges have cautioned us that the SLGR will weaken the attractiveness of CSUF as a potential transfer destination. IR&AS student survey data support this concern.



Part IV: Overall Recommendations:

The Study Group recommends that serious consideration be given to an alternate, more comprehensive university-wide requirement that would actively promote, rather than require, second language proficiency, and that would not add further units to programs.


The Study Group recommends revisiting ASD 00-169 (from fall 2000) produced by the International Education Committee which recommended a comprehensive approach to internationalization that included:

§         Promoting the integration of a global perspective in existing courses

§         Expanding courses and programs that develop global and intercultural skills

§         Encourage the use of information and communication technologies that facilities access to global resources and cross-cultural interaction

§         Support international and cross cultural activities

§         Promote the learning of a foreign language

§         Encourage semester or year long study abroad programs

§         Develop and encourage other international programs


                        The Study Group notes that there are other pressing issues that could be used to for criteria to                    meet this requirement such as human rights issue in an international context; labor relations;                                   responsibilities of governments and workers; global environmental issues and responsibilities;                              sources of conflict, peace, and violence; and global issues related to poverty, health, and                                         educational opportunity.


                        The Study Group also notes that last week, the CSU Academic Senate adopted a resolution that                 mirrors ASD 00-169 from CSUF.


The Study Group recommends a “value-added” formal certification program that would provide university acknowledgment of proven second language proficiency and enhance the marketability of our graduates. We believe that this will be appealing to students. In an IR&AS poll of a cohort of 476 CSUF transfer students, 276 (58%) reported that they believed that they had already met the proficiency standards for the SLGR. Of those, 195 (41%) expressed interest in obtaining CSUF certification of their proficiency.


In summary, the Study Group recommends replacing the SLGR with an approach that would require all graduates to demonstrate a range of global knowledge and skill, while at the same time, allowing programs and students to select the skill that best fits their own educational and career goals. In many cases, these goals will include foreign language study; but in other cases, other internationally relevant skills and coursework may be considered more essential to student preparation. In such an approach, all programs would be required to foster, and each student to acquire, a range of international competency that is relevant to the specific educational and career goals of the student or program. We believe that in gaining an international perspective, this would, in turn, effectively increase student demand for foreign language proficiency.



M/S/P [Drezner/Nyaggah] to thank the Ad Hoc Study Group for producing this report and the Office Institutional Research and Analytical Studies for providing the data for this report. [Approved unanimously]


Members of the Ad Hoc Study Group and the Office of IR&AS were acknowledged. Chair Guerin added that colleagues from the Department of Modern Language and Literatures and those who served on the Second Language Graduation Requirement Board devoted a great deal of time to studying the policy.


The following questions from the floor were addressed by Co-Chairs Bhattacharya and Starr of the Ad Hoc Study Group:


Senator Taylor: How would you “operationalize” the Study Group’s recommendation?

   Chair Guerin: An ad hoc task force or committee would be given a charge to study the report and               make recommendations.

   Starr: If you consider the cultural diversity requirement, which had a transformative effect on          curriculum, it was done within the context of curriculum that already existed without adding additional    unit requirements. Our idea for the SLGR was to take a similar approach.

   Senator Taylor: Would this be an additional GE requirement?

   Starr: Consideration of that is beyond the scope of what the Study Group was asked to do. However, it    could be program based or it could be GE based.

   Senator Bhattacharya: The Study Group was not charged to look at ways to make the          recommendations operational. (Also reinforced the point that in the business world, it is sometimes        more useful to have knowledge of international politics, boundaries and sensitivities           [global awareness]        rather than the    ability to speak a foreign language.)


Senator Mead: The report states that 39.8% of students would be exempt from the requirement. Undeclared majors were calculated as “non-exempt”. Do you have any idea of how many of undeclared majors are non-exempt and how many of them may decide to declare an exempt major?

   Senator Bhattacharya: The undeclared majors usually go into low unit majors. If we used the same proportions as the undeclared majors as a representative sample of students, that would scale up the         40% exempt category to roughly 43%.

   Senator Mead: In the assumption in the number of sections of MLL needed, the class size was 30. Is           this number practical?

   Fidalgo: Yes.


Senator Burgtorf: The charge given to this committee was probably incomplete. Time to degree and enrollment were mentioned frequently throughout the report. Consideration should have been given to CSUF’s motto that “Learning is Preeminent” when the Study Group made its recommendations. He stated that our message will be that students high unit majors will graduate on time and enrollment will be maintained, but they will be denied access to excellence in internationalization. We are being told that we have to prepare students to be globally competent. What is our definition of global competence?

   Starr: Global competence should be defined by the various programs, in terms of what they feel is preparation, and the goals of a specific program. He reiterated the fact that every program that qualified    for exemption, requested exemptions. Therefore, the Study Group felt that the idea of [including in the         global awareness in the curriculum in place] would be more appealing to those programs.

   Chair Guerin: Reminded the body that the Academic Senate gave the Study Group its charge.


Senator Fidalgo: Page 13: How do you come to the conclusion of the number of MLL classes that would be needed and was our diverse student population taken into consideration? Was consideration given to student comments regarding the requirement?

   Senator Bhattacharya: Yes, we did take the diversity of the student population into account. That is    reflected in our calculations on page 12 of the report (lines 457-464). We received the 45% figure   from IR&AS survey data. Students provided positive and negative comments on the requirement. We did not want to focus on the number of positive comments versus negative comments. The fact that so many   students had positive comments is a good sign because an additional recommendation of the Study Group is to have a “value added” certificate formally recognized by the University. Therefore, that          certification might be successful.

   Starr: Most of the nearly 2,000 students did not comment. Statistically, the comments were as significant, but valuable to read. We focused more on the actual survey responses.

   Senator Fidalgo: Did you consult Director of Outreach? What was the response?

   Senator Bhattacharya: Yes, we met with Dawn Valencia, Director of Outreach. In terms of freshmen,        she was upbeat and with ongoing recruitment over the coming years, students would get the         message           of the time. But regarding transfers, she had serious concerns about loss of enrollment.


Senator Walicki: Is there a university-wide SLGR requirement for graduate students?

   Answers from the body: No.

   Senator Walicki: Most doctorate programs require a second language. I agree with Senator Burgtorf.           How do we expect our students to excel when they go to grad school?


Co-Chairs Bhattacharya and Starr will be invited to the next Senate meeting to continue answering questions about report.



Chair Guerin announced that the March 2008 report prepared by ASCSU Vice Chair John Tarjan was sent via email to all CSUF faculty. The report listed 23 resolutions recently passed last week by the ASCSU.


Chair Guerin affirmed Senator Nyaggah’s and Pat Carroll’s comments regarding the Alliance for the CSU and encouraged all to learn more about the campaign to prevent the Governor’s proposed budget cuts and to share the information with colleagues, students, and families.



         Chair Guerin announced the following:

·        35 half-year and 5 full-year sabbaticals were awarded this year (40 total). There were 57 applicants for half-year and 5 for full-year.

·        Another open hearing on creating a Department of Social Work will be held on Monday, March 17th, 1-2:00 p.m. in the Academic Senate Chambers.

·        The chairs of the Graduate Education and University Curriculum Committees are coordinating an open hearing on the proposal to change the degree name for the Bachelor and Master of Speech Communication to Communication Studies.

·        Election season is forthcoming; Marilyn Miller is contacting all Senators whose terms are expiring. If interested in reelection, complete a nomination petition. They are available in the Academic Senate office. Senators were asked to contact the Academic Senate office if they are unable to complete their terms so that we can fill any empty seats during the upcoming election.

·        Petitions for the Statewide Academic Senator election are due to the Academic Senate office on March 21st at noon. One seat is available.

·        37 new faculty have been hired

·        An internal search will be conducted to replace Ray Young, Associate Vice President, Graduate Studies and Research; he is entering FERP. Nominees for this search committee for the will appear on the Consent Calendar for the next meeting agenda.

·        Senators will vote on items for statements of opinion at the next Senate meeting using electronic transponders.

·        Chair Guerin met with the chair of Faculty Research Committee this morning. The committee has proposed to change the due date for proposals for intramural grants from fall to April 21st (spring). Proposals will be submitted online. The timeline for awarding the grants will remain the same.

·        There are two MPP searches in progress; one for Dean for the Irvine Campus and Director of Freshman Programs.





9.1 M/S/P [Drezner/Hewitt] to approve ASD 08-22 Revised UPS 100.300 Policy & Procedures for Naming Facilities, Properties, & Programs [UAC] as submitted.


9.2 It was M/S [Kanel/Drezner] to approve ASD 07-183 Revised UPS 103.004 Computing Facilities Use Policy [ITC] as amended:   


      It was M/S [Taylor/Shapiro] (Page 2, line 12, #4) to reinsert “Intentional”.


Discussion of this item was halted when the 12:00 noon time certain was reached.


Items 9.3 – 9.5 were not discussed due to lack of time.

9.3 ASD 08-44 Revised UPS 106.100 The President’s Medallion [Senate Executive Committee]

9.4 ASD 08-45 Revised UPS 410.103 Curriculum Guidelines and Procedures: Programs [UCC]

9.5 ASD 08-46 Revised UPS 450.300 Summer Session Policy [EEC]


X.           ADJOURNMENT

         Meeting adjourned at 12:59 p.m.