|
ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES March 13, 2008 |
_files/image002.jpg)
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,
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.
II.
URGENT
BUSINESS
None.
III.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
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
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 (
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
IV.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
M/S/P [Rhoten/Rumberger]
to approve the minutes of 12-6-07 and 1-31-08 as submitted.
V.
CONSENT
CALENDAR
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 [
VI.
TIME
CERTAIN
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
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
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
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.
Recommendation:
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,
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
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
Ø
Issue 4: Board
Recommendations on Student Requests for Exemptions
Recommendation:
The Study Group recommends that the
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.
VII.
STATEWIDE
ACADEMIC SENATE 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.
VIII.
CHAIR’S
REPORT
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.
IX.
NEW
BUSINESS
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.