The
University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in room
112 Kern Graduate Building with Christopher J. Bise, Chair, presiding. There
were 181 senators who signed the roster.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
We will
begin our meeting today with Agenda Item A, minutes of the preceding meeting.
The March 16, 2004, Record, which provides a full transcript of the proceedings,
was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate web
page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? May I hear a
motion to accept?
Senators: So
moved.
Chair
Bise: Second?
Chair
Bise: All in favor of accepting the minutes of the March 16, 2004, meeting
please signify by saying, “Aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair
Bise: Opposed, say, “Nay.” The ayes have it and the motion carries. The
minutes of the March 16, 2004, meeting have been approved.
COMMUNICATION TO THE
SENATE
Chair Bise: Agenda
Item B, Communication to the Senate, The Senate Curriculum Report,
the blue sheets of April 13, 2004, is posted on the Faculty Senate’s web
page.
REPORT OF SENATE
COUNCIL
Chair
Bise: Agenda Item C, Report of Senate Council. The minutes of the Senate
Council meeting held on April 13, 2004, appear as an attachment for today’s
meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE
CHAIR
Chair Bise:
Agenda Item D, Announcements by the Chair. Out of courtesy to our presenters,
please turn off your cell phones and pagers at this time.
I refer you to the
minutes of Senate Council at the end of your agenda for announcements that were
made at the Senate Council meeting on April 13, 2004. I especially want to call
your attention to the University Ombudsman Report that is appended to the Senate
Council minutes. Included in the minutes are topics that were discussed by the
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President at its meeting on April 13, 2004.
The next meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee is scheduled for July 29,
2004.
I want to take this opportunity to introduce a new staff
member in the Senate Office. Cherry Lee Fisher, please stand. Cherry Lee began
working as a staff assistant in the Senate Office on March 22. She was formerly
employed by Eastern Industries Inc. in Winfield, PA where she held various
office positions for 30 years. Cherry Lee is serving as the office receptionist,
working with Senate Committee leadership, processing travel expenses, and
handling a wide variety of other responsibilities. Please join me in welcoming
Cherry Lee Fisher to the Senate Office. (Applause.)
It is becoming a tradition at the last Senate meeting of the
year to recognize students for their academic achievements. In the April Senate
Newsletter, we highlighted six students who received a John White Fellowship
awarded annually by the Student Life committee chaired by Carol Smith. Today we
have three students with us, and they are accompanied by Vivienne Wildes,
Director of Undergraduate Fellowships in the Office of Undergraduate Education
and International Programs. Vivienne, will you please stand.
I would like to invite Lee Basset to come forward and join me
at the podium. Lee Basset is a physics major with minors in astronomy,
astrophysics and mathematics, and a Schreyer Honors College student. Lee was
selected as the first student to receive the Annenberg Marshall Scholarship to
study in the United Kingdom. Lee will attend Cambridge University. To receive
this distinction, Lee placed first of more than 150 applications and 20
interviews in the New York region. The Marshall Scholarships began in 1953 as a
gesture of thanks from the British government for the United States’ assistance
in rebuilding Europe after World War II. Each year, 40 scholars are selected to
spend two years in graduate school at a British University, with all fees,
living expenses, books, cost of thesis and research, fares to and from the
United States, and daily travel paid by the British government.
Lee currently works with Professor William Brandt, studying
X-ray observations of some of the most distant objects in the universe. He also
has conducted research in cosmic ray astrophysics with Professor James Beatty.
Last summer, Lee collaborated with Professor Richard Robinett on two papers. Lee
is active in music as a pianist, organist, and tubist. He regularly performs at
Penn State as soloist and accompanist, and provides worship music for the
Lutheran Campus Ministry services at the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center. He is an
avid surfer and studied abroad at the University of Sydney in Australia.
Congratulations, Lee. (Applause.)
I would now like to ask Danielle Perry to please join me at
the podium. Danielle Perry is a senior physics major and mathematics minor at
Penn State and is a Schreyer Honors College scholar. Danielle has won a
Fulbright Scholarship to work at the Brain Dynamics Centre in Sydney, Australia
and a National Institutes of Health—University of Cambridge graduate fellowship.
This is the first time a Penn State student has won the five-year, fully funded
fellowship for study and research at Cambridge University in England. The
approximate value of a NIH-Cambridge Fellowship is $250,000. Danielle has also
won the Winston Churchill Scholarship for a fully paid year of academic study at
Cambridge University. Once again, Danielle is the first Penn State student to
win this award that is presented to only 11 students nationwide each year.
At Penn State, Danielle works on National Science Foundation
(NSF)-funded research in the laboratory of Christine Keating. She had also
conducted NSF-funded research in a collaborative effort between Bucknell
University, Geisinger Medical Center's Neurology Unit, and the Weis Research
Center, under the direction of Martin Ligare, on the physical modeling of nerve
impulses.
Danielle enjoys playing the flute, surfing, skydiving and
cooking. Danielle is one of ten home-schooled siblings. Danielle’s twin sister
Alyson and younger sister, Kristin will study at Oxford University in England
this fall. Congratulations, Danielle. (Applause.)
Will Sara Ryan please join me at the podium? Sara Ryan is a
junior in political science and African-American studies and a member of Penn
State's Schreyer Honors College. Sara has won the Harry S. Truman Scholarship,
one of the most prestigious scholarships awarded nationwide for leadership and
service. Sara is president of Allies: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Ally
Group and is Pride Week coordinator. She has also served on USG, the Black
Caucus Curriculum Committee, and the Student Union Board. Sara has worked to
develop partnerships among various campus groups. She has held internships in
Philadelphia, working on Pennsylvania Hate Crimes Bill for the Human Rights
Campaign, and on the Pennsylvania Anti-Discrimination Bill for the Center for
Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.
Sara will graduate in May 2005 with honors in political
science. The Truman Scholarship provides $30,000: $3,000 for Sara’s senior year
and $27,000 for graduate school. Sara’s research thesis focuses on strategies of
state LGBT organizations to pass pro-LGBT legislation. She works under the
direction of political science professors Marie Hojnaki, Michael Berkman, and
Frank Baumgartner. Congratulations to Sara and congratulations to these three
outstanding students. You make Penn State proud! (Applause.)
At the end of each academic year, a number of senators
complete their terms of office. I now will read the list of our valued senators
who will not be returning next year.
College Of Agricultural Sciences:
Phyllis
Adams
Stephen
Smith
Joan Thomson
College Of Arts And
Architecture:
Brian Curran
Behrend
College:
Paul Barney
Charles
Burchard
Smeal College Of Business
Administration:
Charles Enis
Capital College –
Harrisburg:
Gautam Ray
Commonwealth
College:
Bill Ellis, Hazleton
Rajen Mookerjee,
Beaver
Robert Walters,
McKeesport
John Cancro, New
Kensington
College Of
Communications:
Clay Calvert
College Of Earth & Mineral Sciences:
Peter Deines
David Green
College Of
Education:
Daniel
Marshall
Marley
Watkins
College Of
Engineering:
Michael
Jonson
College Of Health & Human
Development:
Elizabeth
Hanley
Semyon
Slobounov
Dagmar
Sternad
School Of Information Sciences & Technology:
Chao-Hsien
Chu
College Of The Liberal Arts:
Gordon De
Jong
Irene Harvey
University Libraries:
Jacqueline
Esposito
College Of Medicine:
Edward
Bollard
Margaret
Goldman
Wallace
Greene
Kane High
Military Sciences:
Robert
Malloy
Eberly College Of
Science:
Charles
Fisher
David
Gilmour
Pablo Laguna
Luen-Chau Li
Victor Nistor
Retired Faculty
Senator:
Judd Arnold
Ex Officio Senator:
Robert Secor
Appointed Senators:
William Cale
David Monk
Student
Senators:
Christopher
Adams
Valerie
Earnshaw
Timothy Gray
Rodney
Horton
Matthew
Keefe
Gene
Petriello
Scott Rhoads
Erica
Schwartz
Alexandra
Sullivan
Colleen
Stimpson
We appreciate all that you have contributed to the Senate and
we will miss each one of you. Let us show our thanks to these senators for their
good work. (Applause.)
We are pleased today to offer special recognition to four
senators who will not be returning to the Senate next year. We will present them
with a certificates signed by President Spanier and me acknowledging their years
of dedicated service to the Senate. Together they have 76 years of combined
service.
I would like to first ask Bill Ellis to come forward. Bill is
a Commonwealth College senator at the Hazleton Campus. He has served the Senate
for seven years and was chair of the Student Life committee for two years and
vice chair for one year. Bill also served on the former Commonwealth Educational
System committee and Faculty Affairs. Thank you, Bill. (Applause.)
I’d now like to ask Margaret Goldman to come forward.
Margaret is not here?
Will Gordon De Jong please come forward? Gordon is a senator
in the College of the Liberal Arts. He has served the Senate for 11 years and
was vice chair of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, University Planning, and
the Research committees. He has also been an elected member of the Faculty
Advisory Committee, Senate Council, University P&T and the Standing Joint
Committee on Tenure. Gordon also served as a member of University Planning and
Academic and Athletic Standards committees. Thank you, Gordon. (Applause.)
Will Peter Deines please come forward? Peter is a College of
Earth and Mineral Sciences senator. Peter has served the Senate continuously
since 1980 when he first served on the Research committee. His years of service
total 24. Peter’s leadership in the Senate is truly outstanding. He chaired the
University Planning committee in the 90s for five years; he also chaired the
Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs for four years in the mid 80s and two
additional years from 1997-1999. Peter has been a member of ARSSA, Undergraduate
Education and has been elected to CC&R, Senate Council, Faculty Advisory
Committee and Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. Between 1989 and 1992 Peter
was an officer of the Senate, servicing as chair in the 1990-1991 year. Peter,
we are grateful for your years of service and are a better organization because
of your commitment to faculty governance. Thank you, Peter. (Applause.)
Without objection, I would like to present to the Senate for
its consideration the following resolution regarding a person who has had a very
special relationship with the Senate for an extended period of time. Bob Secor,
will you please come forward? Now I would like to ask John Moore to read a
resolution acknowledging Bob Secor’s many contributions to the Senate and the
faculty of the University.
John Moore: Whereas Robert Secor—hereafter referred to
as Bob Secor—has been a distinguished member of the Penn State faculty since
1969, and
Whereas Bob Secor has published five books and monographs and
has written more than 30 articles and chapters for various literary journals
that have won him distinction as a scholar in both British and American
literature, and
Whereas Bob Secor has served the Department of English as
Director of Undergraduate Studies, Graduate Studies, and Associate Head, and
then as its Head from 1990-95 ushering in what one distinguished professor
called “the era of good will,” and
Whereas Bob Secor during his headship fully involved the
campus English faculty in reviewing and voting on departmental governance and
curricular reform proposals, thereby tapping their wisdom and winning their deep
appreciation, and
Whereas Bob Secor has served the University Faculty Senate
since 1986 as chair and vice chair of Admissions, Records, Scheduling and
Student Aid, an elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the
President and Committees and Rules, and from 1989 through 1993 as an elected
Officer of the Senate, and from 1996 to 2004 on Senate Council and Faculty
Affairs involving him in thousands of hours of Senate meetings, and
Whereas Bob Secor has served the entire University community
for nine years as Vice Provost for Academic Affairs in such a manner that his
retirement has brought about widespread regret, and
Whereas Bob Secor has brought order and clarity to the
University’s Promotion and Tenure procedures thereby benefiting all faculty as
well as all department and division heads and deans, and
Whereas Bob Secor has brought his leadership skills outside
the University to the Committee on Institutional Cooperation where he has guided
the Academic Leadership Program, and
Whereas Bob Secor in all his positions has won the
admiration, affection, and gratitude of those whose lives he has touched,
Therefore, Be It Resolved that the University Faculty Senate
of the Pennsylvania State University on this the 27th day of April
2004 expresses its deepest gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Robert Secor for
his many accomplishments on behalf of the University and its faculty. The Senate
offers its affectionate and heartfelt best wishes to him as he now turns to
bringing order, harmony and good fellowship to other parts of this world.
Finally, it wishes him a happy and productive retirement. (Applause.)
Robert Secor, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs: Does
this have to be voted on?
Chair Bise: Yes, it does
Robert Secor: I was afraid of that. Thank you all very
much. It has been a ride. When John Brighton offered this position to me, one of
my major concerns in accepting the position was the ability to be in a position
to continue working with the Senate. This is a wonderful Senate. There are
things that the University could not do with it, and could not do without it. I
just want to end by telling a story that I told the Faculty Affairs committee
this morning. It is an indication of what kind of Senate this is and how
different it is than some of our peer institutions. Last Wednesday, I came back
from Michigan State. I had been there for four days as a reviewer for their
English department. While I was there the student newspaper and people were in
an uproar, because the provost had sent out a paper several weeks earlier saying
she wanted to make several changes. Those changes included taking the Humanities
and College of Liberal Arts and putting them in the College of Communications.
She wanted to move the Medical School to another location where there were
donors, etc. The faculty got very upset, because they were never consulted. Then
they decided the Senate had to meet and say something about this. The only thing
was, the Senate had not met since 1989. As I was leaving, I was amused to read
in the student newspaper that the Faculty Senate would be meeting, and their
first order of business would be to approve the minutes from their last meeting
in 1989. Thank you all. (Applause.)
Chair Bise: I now would like to ask the Senate for a
vote of affirmation on the resolution. All those in favor of affirming the
resolution, please signify by saying, “Aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Bise: Bob will also receive a certificate
acknowledging his 18 years of service to the Senate. Bob, thank you very
much.
I realize that we have a lengthy agenda today, but I would
like to take a few minutes to recognize a few individuals before the entire
Senate. You have met Cherry Lee Fisher, who recently joined the Senate office
staff, but I wish to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who works in the
Senate office to provide the University, as a whole, and the Senate, in
particular, with high-quality service. Coming in as Senate Chair, I knew that I
would enjoy working with Susan Youtz, our Executive Secretary, but her ability
to serve as an advisor and as a sounding board for my ideas far exceeded my
expectations. Even though she does tend to exaggerate my fondness for Krispy
Kreme donuts, her encouragement and wise counsel has been highly valued. Thank
you, Susan. The members of the Senate office staff—Patty Poorman, Sherry Walk,
Diane Mills, Anna Butler, Kadi Corter and now, Cherry Lee Fisher—are a great
group. While handling a workload that would stagger most offices, they handle
their jobs with such a pleasant attitude. The Senate is lucky to be supported by
such loyal individuals, so I would like to ask Susan, Patty, Sherry, Diane,
Anna, Kadi, and Cherry Lee to stand so that the full Senate can express its
appreciation. (Applause.)
In my opening remarks last September, I stated that we should
strive to be good citizens of the University. One memory I will keep as I step
down as Senate Chair is the fact that no senator ever turned me down when I
asked for advice or support. High on that list are the committee chairs and
vice-chairs. When we were assembling this year’s team eleven months ago, some
people in this group had not had an opportunity to demonstrate their leadership
skills. I wanted to see more people get involved in the work of the Senate, and
since most of the work gets done in committees, I figured that this is where the
opportunity should be provided. You didn’t let me down, and I thank you for your
diligence.
I want to thank George Franz for agreeing to serve as
Parliamentarian, and Dennis Gouran for serving as acting Parliamentarian during
the self-study session.
An individual I would particularly like to thank is John
Moore. I often said to him that he was working as hard at being Past-Chair as he
did as Chair. I am grateful for John’s efforts with the GI legislation, which we
will take up later, first-year seminar, and other curricular issues; as well as
facilitating the discussion after the Self-Study Report was debated. John has
set the bar very high for Past-Chairs, and represents the best in a faculty
member and as a citizen of the University. Thank you, John, and thank you to
these senators who have worked so selflessly for the good of the Senate!
(Applause.)
Finally, there is one more person I would like to acknowledge
who is not even a senator. When I think of the type of person who is a student
and a citizen of the University, I can think of no one more deserving of that
title than Josh Troxell. Josh has stepped down as president of the USG Academic
Assembly, but in his years as a “resource person” in the Senate, many have
looked upon Josh as the “go-to” guy for student input and membership on various
committees, such as the GI report. I do not believe Josh is with us today. Josh
is a wonderful and hard-working individual, and a role model for how a student
can work within the system to facilitate positive change. Even though Josh is
not present, let us show our appreciation for his years working with the Faculty
Senate.
Immediately following today’s meeting, you are invited to a
reception in 102 Kern to celebrate the completion of another Senate year.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY
Chair Bise: Agenda Item E,
Comments by the President of the University. President Spanier is with us today.
I am pleased to invite him to come forward and address the Senate. President
Spanier.
President Spanier:
Thank you Chris. Someone told Chris he
needed to get more exercise, so he is moving back and forth between podiums
today. I feel a little inadequate standing up here after hearing the credentials
of these students, which are quite amazing, and hearing the resolution about Bob
Secor and his incredible career at Penn State. I would like to begin by adding
my congratulations to the students and my sincere thanks to Bob for his
incredible service to the University and to all of you that have been recognized
here today. This Senate does work. It is the best model of faculty governance I
know of in this country. Bob’s story about Michigan State might be on one end of
the extreme, but more universities are closer to that model than the one we have
here. I continue to be grateful for having the Faculty Senate we do, and for the
hard work all of you provide on the behalf of the University. Also there will be
other opportunities for you to hear this, but I want to take just a moment to
thank Chris Bise for his service as Chair of the Senate this past year. We have
a tradition of excellent leadership in the Faculty Senate, but Chris, in my
mind, will rank up there among the very best. (Applause.) We actually have a
student here who has attended three and a half years as representative from the
Abington campus. Isn’t that longer than the typical term of a faculty member? He
travels up here by himself for every Senate meeting. Will you please stand. That
is an amazing story. (Applause.) Thank you for your excellent
example.
In the interest of time and the
Agenda today, because it is the last Senate meeting, and because I have been
told some of you do have questions, I am going to forego a more formal report.
At this point, I would like to see what topics you would like me to address
today.
Chair Bise: Are there any questions for President Spanier? I remind
you to stand and wait for the microphone before you give your name and
unit.
Leonard Berkowitz, York: President Spanier, you are
no doubt aware that a number of non-University Park locations are facing the
possibility of some serious budget problems for the coming year. I have two
related questions about that situation. Could you tell how central
administration is thinking about working on this problem?
President Spanier: First of all, budget problems are not exclusive to the
campuses. We have many units throughout the University that are going through
some strains at the moment. At the same time, it is probably true there is
nowhere in the University where they are as exasperated as within the
Commonwealth College. This is due to a combination of circumstances. If you go
back to my fall report, regarding the change in demographics of Pennsylvania,
take a look at some of the enrollment challenges that exist at the campuses. For
other reasons there are strains on their budget. We are dealing with that in a
number of ways. First, we are looking for a way in which we can supply
additional permanent support from within the University budget overall to the
campuses. There is a plan in the works to try and deal with some of the problem
that way. Secondly, we are looking at temporary support, while the Commonwealth
College transitions itself to a budget plan that is workable over the long-term.
In addition, there are budget cuts and cost savings programs that are going into
place at the campuses. Meanwhile, we have added staff to the admissions office
dedicated to working harder in attracting students coming out of high school to
the Commonwealth Colleges. We hope we can help on the income side that
way.
Leonard
Berkowitz: Thank you. You mentioned two or
three times what may be the most important part of that, which is, recruitment
of additional students. Are there plans for the University to increase efforts
in advertising campuses around the state? Specifically, to state clearly in that
advertisement that there are 20 multiple entry points into Penn State.
President Spanier:
Yes, there is a marketing program that we
have. We do some advertising and I do not expect we will back away from doing
that. I do not know what the specific messages will be. The folks who do the
marketing and advertising in cooperation with your dean and others in the
college will pay attention to that fact. Yes, of course, that is an important
part of what we want to try to do.
Winston Richards,
Harrisburg: Dr. Spanier, are you in the
position to tell us anything about pending legislation related to the
investigation of faculty before they are hired?
President
Spanier: What would you like to
know—specifically the status of the legislation?
Winston
Richards: Yes,
please.
President
Spanier: I do not know if all of you know
this. There has been legislation introduced in Harrisburg, which would require
all colleges and universities to do what Penn State is already voluntarily
doing. In our opinion, the legislation started out with much more intrusive
requirements than we had settled on in consultation with this body. I am glad to
say there has been a willingness by the sponsor of that legislation to amend the
legislation to be more consistent with the practices that we have voluntarily
adopted. I think that will be good for us, because we like the plan we have
settled on. Actually, the checking we have already started doing has paid off.
Not so much on the criminal side, but one of the problems we see in higher
education today is an individual’s credentials turn out not to be what they have
alleged. In the very first batch of checking, we found someone who did not have
the academic credentials that were shown in the vita. We were very pleased. For
those of us in that room, this was a very important finding, more than what some
people might have worried about on the criminal background checking. I think the
legislation will probably pass, but we are hoping that when all is said and
done, it will pass in a way that is close to where we ended up here. Of course,
that will be to the benefit of other colleges and universities who have not
thought this through, and might have had something imposed on them that might be
very difficult. I am not certain we are all the way yet. There is still a little
fussing about certain issues that make us nervous, but our governmental affairs
officials, Bob Secor, and others are on top of that.
James Alcock,
Abington: Our Senate Council has asked me,
to raise the issue of termination of tenured faculty. In particular, a
clarification about the protection that tenure brings and the procedures that
are in place to help protect tenured faculty.
President
Spanier: The protection of tenured faculty
is pretty well known to most people in this group. Tenure accords certain
privileges, responsibilities, and protections, which has been a practice, a
custom, a tradition, and a policy of the University that goes pretty far back at
Penn State. In all of my years as a university administrator, I never had a
single case that I had to act on until this semester where I had two. In both of
those cases, they went through a system that is in place, approved by the
Faculty Senate, and studiously followed in every way. One that has been talked
about previously was resolved by removal of tenure, and then more recently,
another faculty member was removed after he was found guilty of engaging in a
practice of plagiarism over a period of time. The second one went through the
first level of committees, which I can’t remember the name. I believe it is
named the Research Scientific Misconduct Committee. After that committee
unanimously found that the person had engaged in plagiarism, it then went to the
next process. The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure also had a unanimous
finding for how that case should turn out. I feel pretty good about the process.
I do not think because there have been two cases anyone should be worried about
a change in the University’s commitment to tenure. If anything, it should cause
faculty colleagues and the Faculty Senate to wonder on the responsibility side;
if we are sufficiently diligent about faculty members discharging their
responsibilities to their colleagues, to their students, to their universities.
When there is plagiarism, scientific misconduct, or behavior that is so
egregious that it affects the ability of the rest of the University faculty to
do their jobs, that is an issue we should be equally concerned about. So, I hope
we think very broadly about the consequences of having had a couple of cases
within one semester, which is fairly unprecedented for this University and its
history.
Chair Bise: Any other questions?
James May, DuBois: As a follow up to that
discussion, I wanted to ask if there was any discussion with regard to a three
to two decision, as not showing a sufficient consensus in favor of dismissal or
revocation of tenure. I mean if you have five judges and two think the person
should stay, as compared to say the American jury system or certain other means
of disqualifying a person, it might be felt that is to close too revoke a
person’s tenure.
President Spanier: That is an interesting question. You know when we elect
people into office in this country, you need a majority vote. Of course, in some
cases you do not need that. All of the courts in the land, the Supreme Court and
the Commonwealth Court in Pennsylvania just handed Penn State a victory in a
case that was contested by a three to two vote. We did not go back and say,
because it was not a majority we feel like we lost, so let us say we lost—we
won. That is just the way the system works. If we thought all votes had to be
unanimous, then we would set the policies to say there must be unanimous votes.
This is a university, and you are not going to get everyone to agree on
everything. Occasionally, there will be close calls. One of the responsibilities
I have, which I exercised in this case, is when I see there is a close call; I
take a special interest in it and look even harder at the process and content. I
want to make very sure that where the majority turned out is my opinion right.
Sometimes a close call makes you take a little harder look. We see that in
promotion and tenure cases all of the time. You know I do not need to get
involved in very many of those cases, except the ones where after six levels of
review, where it is back and forth, back and forth, or every vote is close. You
say there must be something going on here, that good people can have honest
differences of opinion about. In the end you just have to make a judgment. In
that case, the majority was the correct judgment in my
opinion.
Chair Bise: Any other questions?
Howard Sachs,
Harrisburg: Dr. Spanier, I wonder if you had any reaction to the vote
of the faculty senate at Princeton, with the respect to awarding of “A” grades.
President Spanier: Princeton is a different place than Penn State. I
think giving someone a “B” at Princeton must be a serious issue. I think many of
you have been quite willing to give “B” along the way. I do not see it as the
same issue here. At a general level, yes, if you go back and trace the history
of Penn State in the last 20, 30, certainly 40 years, there has been grade
inflation. There is some percentage of that, which does not worry me, because we
are attracting better students. In fact, we are attracting better-prepared
students. It is more competitive in the classrooms as our faculty get better,
and we may be teaching better, so students are responding to that and performing
better. So it is not inherently bad that there would be a little grade inflation
that way. What we are concerned about is the other part of grade inflation,
where faculty are reluctant to give a grade that honestly should be a “B”, “C”,
“D” or “F.” Clearly, looking at the data, Princeton’s grade inflation appears to
be much more exacerbated than here. Frankly, I do not know how you can mandate a
particular array of grades. I do not know how they do that there. If you would
all like, I would be happy to prescribe to you what I think your grade
distribution should be, however, I think that would not work because faculty do
not listen to presidents when it comes to that sort of thing. I think it is
something we need to be mindful of. One of the ways in which we are, is one
committee of the Senate produces a report regarding grade distribution and how
we are doing. I am aware we have a few crackpot faculty members, taking a little
license here, who have certain policies that make me nervous. There are some
faculty members who are known for giving “A” to just about every student. There
are also some faculty members who take great pride, I think, in the number of
students they give low grades to. Those kinds of things, where there is a
certain philosophy attached to it, makes me a little nervous. I think you are
talking about a very small number of individuals. Most of our faculty have good
standards, a pretty open mind, and try to do the right thing.
Chair Bise: Are there any other questions for President
Spanier? Seeing none, thank you President Spanier for meeting with us today.
FORSENSIC BUSINESS
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Chair Bise: We now turn to Agenda Item H, Legislative
Reports. Our first Legislative Report comes to us from the Senate Committee on
Committees and Rules and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix B and is
entitled, “Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing
Rules: Constitution Article II, Section 4; Faculty Senator Representation
Ratio.” Because this report proposed a change to the Senate Constitution, it
appeared on the March Agenda and has been tabled until this meeting. Pamela P.
Hufnagel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, will present
this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing
Rules: Constitution
Article II, Section 4; Faculty Senator Representation
Ratio
Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair Senate Committee on Committees and
Rules
Pamela P. Hufnagel: Thank you. We presented this report
last month, so if you thought of any questions in the meantime, this is your
last chance.
Chair Bise: Are there any questions? Seeing none, since
this report comes to us from a committee, it has already been moved and
seconded. Are we ready to vote? As many as are in favor of the proposal from the
Senate Committee on Committees and Rules entitled, “Revision of Faculty
Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules: Constitution Article II,
Section 4; Faculty Senator Representation Ratio,” please signify by saying,
“Aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Bise: Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes.
The Senate has approved the proposal from the Senate Committee on Committees and
Rules entitled, “Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and
Standing Rules: Constitution Article II, Section 4; Faculty Senator
Representation Ratio.” This report will now be sent to the President for his
approval. Thank you, Chair Hufnagel and thanks to all members of your
committee.
Chair
Bise: The next Legislative Report is a joint report from the Senate
Committees on Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education and appears on
today’s Agenda as Appendix C and is entitled, “Proposal for Revising the
Intercultural/International Competence Requirement.” John Moore, Chair of the
special Conference Committee charged last December, will present this report.
Laura Pauley, Chair of Undergraduate Education and Laurie Breakey, Vice Chair of
Curricular Affairs, will join John at the podium and respond to questions.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS AND
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Proposal for
Revising the Intercultural/International Competence
Requirement
John Moore, Chair
Conference Committee
Laura Pauley, Chair
Undergraduate Education
Laurie Breakey, Vice
Chair Curricular Affairs
John Moore: I need as much help as I can get. I am
surrounding myself with people so I won’t get assaulted if they throw things at
me. Let me begin by saying, you have a handout entitled, “Revisions to the
Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement,”
and it contains three revisions. The first revision on Page 7, Paragraph 2 asks
you to revise the following: “A course that fulfills the United States Cultures
requirement must strive to increase students’ understanding of contemporary
United States society.” There will be a period after the word “society.” Then
cross out the last three words and almost all of the next line down to the next
sentence. Such courses need not focus exclusively on the present and may concern
a historical subject. This is done in order to make that statement parallel to
the statement below on International Cultures, and constitutes a friendly
amendment from Undergraduate Education.
The
second revision on Page 9, under Item Number 2 entitled, “Other Existing
Courses,” count down six lines from the top of that page to the sentence that
begins: “For courses taught at multiple locations.” That sentence should read:
“For offerings of the same course at multiple locations, the college offering
the course will determine the designation.”
Finally on Pages 8 and 9, just to indicate that people have not
yet recovered from re-certification shock, there has been a desire that we spell
out clearly what process will be used if we approve this proposal. Basically,
what it says is that the Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident
Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those
courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International
Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a
request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation
for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to
the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction, who will convey that information to
the University Curriculum Coordinator. At the request of a number of senators,
we are asking that this appear after Item Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6, just so there
is no confusion on that point.
The Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Education, propose that the Senate adopt its
recommendation found on Page 6 of Appendix C in today’s Agenda. The heart of the
recommendation reads as follows: “Replace the current
Intercultural/International Competency requirement (three credits) for
baccalaureate degree students with the following two requirements: United States
Cultures (three credits) and International Cultures (three credits) as described
below and as implemented according to the Principles of Implementation stated
below. Associate degree students will continue to have a three-credit
requirement and may choose either a United States Cultures course or an
International Cultures course.”
Why are we making this recommendation? We do so for the following
reasons: The Senate voted in December 1997 to review continuously each part of
the General Education program. Today we review one part of that, the GI
requirement. In the pipeline there are reports on the First Year Seminar and on
the Health and Physical Activity requirements with more to come in future
years.
The Intercultural/International requirement, or GI, contains a
slash that means either Intercultural or International. Events of the past few
years including 9/11 have made it clear that our students need and want a course
in both United States Cultures as well as International Cultures. In that
respect, we are fulfilling what the 1997 report was moving towards but had not
yet reached.
In April 2001, there was a student sit-in at the HUB. At that
time, the President, Provost, and Chair of the Senate promised that the Senate
would review the GI requirement. Today, we are fulfilling that promise made
three years ago.
In the process of reviewing the current GI requirement, a series
of Senate committees have concluded that our students would have a much better
General Educational experience if they had both a United States Cultures course
and an International Cultures course. What we propose will make General
Education a richer educational program. We also think that the proposed changes
are the right thing to do.
The Conference Committee appointed by Chair Bise has worked hard
to make what is academically desirable also academically feasible. The changes
we propose can be accomplished without increasing graduation requirements, and
without requiring lots of paperwork on your part. The committee has consulted
widely and learned a lot through these interactions. We are pleased that the
Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity, the leadership of Gye N’Yame, a
division of the black caucus, and the Commission on LGBT Equity have all
signified their enthusiastic support for this proposed enrichment of the
curriculum.
For all these reasons, we are pleased to present this proposal to
you for your approval, and for what we hope will be your support. Are there any
questions?
Peter Rebane, Abington: John, I know the answer to this
question, but I would like to read it into the Record. Are we to understand that
courses designated as Cultural Diversity courses, that are initiated and
proposed at any location at University Park, will be accepted at other locations
if the student transfers to those particular locations? It will make no
difference whether they start at one location and come to University Park or if
they start at University Park and come to another location. For example, this
section of history has a designation of Cultural Diversity at Abington, but it
doesn’t meet the requirements of Liberal Arts at University Park. I know what
your answer is going to be, but I would appreciate this read into the
Record.
John Moore: The answer is yes. If Abington designates a
particular section of a course as United States, that will be accepted as such
wherever the student goes. Let me provide a good example of what we are talking
about. Let us imagine that a student takes a first-year seminar at Abington in
History 083S. Some sections of that history seminar will be United States and
some sections will be International. It will be the responsibility of the dean
and staff at Abington to give the proper designation to that first-year seminar.
Some will be 083S, or whatever icon or marker we come up with, called United
States and others will be called International. That will be on the transcript,
and therefore, will go with that student wherever they go. It will be accepted
at every location.
John Hannan, Engineering: I was actually rather
disappointed with the report, specifically the justification. We are looking at
not a major change, but a significant one in that it impacts all four-year
undergraduate students. For that reason, you should be clear on the facts of the
justification. You listed three points in your justification. One is to provide
a better education, which sounds good to me. The next one states the current
title has created some confusion. That is not a justification for changing
requirements. That is a justification for changing the title, so that one is
irrelevant. The third one states, you provide students with more choices. You
are actually providing them with less choice by dividing the requirements into
two groups and they choose one from each. So that one is not really important.
The first one is important, to provide a better education. Unfortunately, you
provide two paragraphs with no facts in them. Specifically, if I look above to
the 1997 legislation on Page 3, Item Number 4, it specifically says, “to assess
the impact of these courses through students’ or graduates’ perspectives on the
influence the courses had on their attitudes, behavior or academic choices.” My
understanding is that no assessment was done. It that correct? So why was no
assessment done and why did you not use any statistical data in deciding this
proposal?
John Moore: First of all, in 1997 when the Special
Committee on General Education submitted its report in this room it had ten
recommendations. Recommendation 10 called for assessment. I had the opportunity
to serve on the General Education Implementation Committee and for a variety of
reasons we did not institute assessment. Allow me to establish that you are
absolutely right. There is no assessment, there is no statistical data operating
behind this report. However, the justification we are operating on was a very
emphatic sit-in by the students in the HUB calling for a review of this
requirement. They spoke loud and clear during that time, and we heard them. When
we listened to them, what was discovered is the precise absence of a United
States requirement. That was the hole in our curriculum. I must tell you that
three committees came to that conclusion. We do not have a sufficiently broad
program in regard to preparing students in multi-culturalism. So the idea that
there was no data, no assessment, you are absolutely right. However, did we have
evidence, did we have reasons for what we are doing? Yes, we did, and it was
loud and clear and sustained by three separate Senate committees who have
reviewed this topic.
John Hannan: I would argue that is all the more reason to
do the assessment. Then you would get a full scope of the entire student
population, not a specific group. To put it into perspective, the point of
providing better education, we are all for that. I can list three items that
could also provide a better education. For example, we have a General Education
requirement (GQ) that does not involve computing, but I could argue we would
have a better education if we required everyone to know computers because we are
all going out into the world computing. There is no requirement for United
States history. Now this would be a dramatic change, but I could argue very
strongly that we should have a United States history requirement. In fact, the
United States Senate in July 2000 issued a resolution asking all universities to
revise their curriculum to contain United States history. So there are plenty of
other opportunities and I am hopeful other committees will do that. However,
every time we make one change it makes it more difficult to make future changes
if we are adding more requirements. I am wondering did you really consider all
of this?
Laura Pauley: The University has not had assessment of
these two objectives, but different colleges have. For example, the College of
Engineering has gone through extensive assessment of their entire programs. They
have surveyed their current graduates and graduate seniors who are graduating
this semester. In addition, alumni surveys have asked those students to evaluate
their preparation in working on international pr
