|
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
AGENDA
Tuesday, April 27, 1999, at 1:30 PM in
112 Kern Graduate Building
[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, you may call the Senate Office
at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be
done after normal office hours by calling the same number and a voice mail announcement can
be heard concerning the status of any meeting. You may also leave a message at that time.]
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 13, 1999
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
(H.) LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -
Resolution for Provost John A. Brighton
WHEREAS John A. Brighton has served The Pennsylvania State University since July 1, 1991 as the Executive Vice President and Provost with honor and distinction, and
WHEREAS John A. Brighton served as the Dean of the College of Engineering with creativity and vision from 1988 until 1991, and
WHEREAS John A. Brighton has served Penn State as an Assistant, Associate, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering from 1963 to 1965, and
WHEREAS John A. Brighton, as both Provost and Dean, has continuously worked to enhance the general welfare of the faculty by providing wise and enlightened guidance to the University Faculty Senate, and
WHEREAS John A. Brighton has been a firm believer in the principle of shared governance of this University and has developed close professional and personal ties with many of the faculty, and
WHEREAS John A. Brighton has provided extraordinary leadership, setting by his own example a quest for excellence in the academic community as a whole, and
WHEREAS he is a revered colleague and friend, a man of integrity, vision, and principle, who is universally admired, respected and trusted,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, on this 27th day of April, 1999, expresses its gratitude to John A. Brighton for all of his accomplishments on behalf of the institution and its faculty, and affectionately wishes him Godspeed as he moves to other duties as University Professor.
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -
Student Life
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS – (continued)
Resolution in Support of A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign
WHEREAS "A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign" is being officially initiated as of April 1999, and
WHEREAS this philanthropic effort on behalf of our institution has a campaign objective of $1 billion, and
WHEREAS there is $388 million being projected for "Ongoing Support" and $612 million being projected for "Featured Objectives" such as Undergraduate Student Support, Graduate Student Support, Program Support and Faculty Support, and
WHEREAS it is a part of the mission of the faculty to foster in our students those qualities of intellectual curiosity, seriousness of purpose, civility, and civic responsibility, and
WHEREAS it is the mission of the University to extend high-quality teaching in a wide array of undergraduate and graduate programs in the arts, humanities, and sciences, as well as a balanced offering of programs in professional and technical disciplines, and
WHEREAS our goal is for Penn State to be the top institution in the United States in the integration of teaching, research, and service, and
WHEREAS "There are moments in the lives of educational institutions when mission, heritage, quality, and aspirations combine to create an almost irresistible momentum toward national and even global leadership,"
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The University Faculty Senate, which represents the faculty of Penn State, strongly expresses its endorsement on behalf of "A Grand Destiny: The
Penn State Campaign" and urges the members of the faculty to support this campaign with their time, efforts, talents and material gifts.
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
-----------------
Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, September 14, 1999, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
Birch Cottage
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-0221 – phone (814) 863-6012 – fax
Date: April 16, 1999
To: Leonard Berkowitz, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
The Senate Curriculum Report, dated April 19, 1999, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu, on or before May 20, 1999.
The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). Since the Report is available on the web, printed copies were not distributed to the University community. An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication. Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.
The Bachelor of Arts Requirements Subcommittee recommended and the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs endorsed the following change to the description of "Other Cultures" courses in the Baccalaureate Degree Programs Bulletin. The revised description shall read:
SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
Revision of University Policy on Academic Integrity:
Senate Policy 49-20 and ACUE Procedure G-9
(Forensic)
INTRODUCTION
The following report recommends a substantial revision of Penn State University's definition of academic integrity and its procedure for handling allegations of academic dishonesty. It is based on several years of internal study and consultation with university lawyers, administrators, students, and faculty.
For some time the existing policy has been criticized as ineffective. Many faculty members are reluctant to sanction students for acts of dishonesty, feeling that the complicated process asks them to take on a prosecutorial role that they do not feel qualified or willing to adopt in addition to their other duties. Many students feel that the university sends a mixed message about integrity, giving it lip service but in fact enforcing it randomly. Anecdotal reports claim that cheating is widespread, but it is in fact impossible to tell how common it is.
Therefore, all parties have called for an overhaul of the policy. However, revisions will affect faculty and students at all locations. Just sanctions for academic misconduct need to be balanced with students' right to explain their actions and contest accusations when appropriate. Ultimately, the policy should create dialogue between students and faculty, and operate in a context of education, not retribution.
The present report includes the best advice received so far through consultation. But the Student Life Committee believes that the proposals can be further improved through system-wide input from faculty. We therefore present the following draft report, soliciting comments and suggestions. The report will be resubmitted to the Senate next September for a final vote.
HISTORY
On June 12, 1996 a report was forwarded from the Judicial Affairs Process Review Working Group, chaired by Vice Provost, Dr. Robert Secor, to President Graham Spanier. The report outlined fifteen change recommendations for the University's discipline program.
Several of the report recommendations encouraged the Colleges and the Office of Judicial Affairs to take more of a leadership role in responding to academic integrity and related issues. In particular, the report recommended that "Academic dishonesty cases should be handled through the Colleges, with perhaps some involvement by the Faculty Senate and Student Affairs administrators to insure procedural consistency across the University, regardless of where the offense occurred."
After the recommendations were forwarded to the ACUE Deans, discussions took place, which showed lack of support for decentralizing the process for responding to academic misconduct. This being evident, the working group looked for other options for addressing these issues. One option was to ask the University Faculty Senate Student Life Committee to establish a Subcommittee on Academic Integrity.
In Fall 1996 this group was formed, with Dr. Tom Eakin, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs as chair. Dr. Eakin led this group for a year until leaving the University; in Spring 1998, Joseph Puzycki, Director of Judicial Affairs, replaced him as chair.
Senate Council directed Student Life to provide the Faculty Senate with a report and recommendations regarding the following five charges:
After discussions with Dean Achterberg, the committee agreed to proceed with its conclusions under the first three charges, while deferring an advisory and consultative report on the last two pending the CADs Committee final report in May. This report will be submitted to Senate along with the final version of this legislative report in September 1999.
BACKGROUND
Senate Policy 49-20 presents a definition of academic integrity, along with a general description of the procedure to be followed in case of misconduct. ACUE Procedure G-9 also describes a process for dealing with cases of alleged infractions. These statements, however, contradict each other, are internally inconsistent, and confuse both the student accused of dishonesty and to the faculty member making the accusation. As best can be understood, both from the policy language and the way in which it has been implemented over the past years, this appears to be the gist of current policy:
I. The Accusation.
The faculty member accuses the student of misconduct orally or in writing and decides if the infraction is major or minor. Following current Senate policy, "minor" infractions are those that receive a sanction of less than failure in the course; "major" infractions merit failure in the course and possible disciplinary sanctions.
Note: the faculty member is not required to meet with the student in making such accusations, and there is no standard procedure for informing students of their rights under current University policies.
II. Minor Incidents.
If the student does not contest the accusation:
the faculty member may settle the matter informally by imposing an academic sanction. In so doing, informal discussions may occur with other College/Campus officials who recommend academic action to the instructor.
Note: No consistent procedure seems to be followed and no record keeping occurs when handled in this way.
If the student does contest the accusation:
Senate Policy 49-20 advises him/her to "seek redress" through informal discussions with the faculty member, department head, dean, or campus executive officer. A College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity may become involved in these discussions.
Note: the College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity can only recommend an action; it has no authority to resolve such cases.
Although not likely, the student or faculty member may refer the incident to Judicial Affairs, which does have power to resolve the case. However, the faculty member may challenge Judicial Affairs' decision and request an academic sanction review by the department. And the student may challenge any decision by appealing the grade at the end of the semester.
III. Major Incidents.
If the student does not contest the accusation:
The faculty member informs the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or DAA what action is to be taken: to assign an F or to assign a DF grade and refer to Judicial Affairs for disciplinary action.
Note: unless the incident is referred to Judicial Affairs, no consistent procedure seems to be followed, and no record keeping or documentation occurs.
If the faculty member refers the case to Judicial Affairs, he/she provides a written allegation and supporting documentation. The student can then accept the proposed sanction or request a hearing. If the student accepts the sanction, the College or Campus is informed of the outcome and a record is kept. If the faculty member is not satisfied by this outcome, he/she may challenge the recommendation and request an academic sanction by the department.
If the student requests a hearing, all parties are brought together for fact finding. If the student is found responsible, Judicial Affairs assigns a sanction and informs the College. The College or Campus may either accept the outcome or request a review of the academic sanction by the department.
If the student does contest the accusation:
The faculty member, as before, sends a memo to the Office of the University Registrar and to the department head or DAA stating that the student should be given a DF as grade and not allowed to drop the course. The student first seeks redress locally through discussions or petitions to the faculty member, department head, Dean or Director of Academic Affairs, or Committee on Academic Dishonesty.
Note: as seen before, the Committee has no power to resolve such cases.
If efforts to resolve the matter locally do not succeed, the student must be afforded formal due process rights, and typically the case will be referred to Judicial Affairs. Judicial Affairs contacts both the faculty member and the student to confirm their positions. It then reviews the nature of the accusations, the evidence, and the recommended sanction.
If the student at this point decides not to contest the accusation:
Judicial Affairs may recommend a sanction in an informal Disciplinary Conference. If the student accepts this sanction, the case is closed, unless the faculty member contests this resolution, in which case it returns to the department for review.
If the student continues to contest the accusation:
Judicial Affairs sends the case to the University Hearing Board who makes a determination and, if the student is found responsible, assigns an academic and/or disciplinary sanction. As before, the faculty member may challenge an academic sanction and request a review by the department. And the student may, as before, appeal the grade at the end of the semester. However, any disciplinary sanction imposed by Judicial Affairs stands.
IV. Record Keeping.
Under present policy, a College/Campus may presently ask Judicial Affairs if it has a record of a previous act of dishonesty committed by a student. This information may not be used to judge the student’s guilt in the present case, but it may be used to determine case direction and sanctions.
However, this policy is ineffective, as in 1997-98 only seven cases of academic dishonesty were brought to the attention of Judicial Affairs. Clearly, most cases are being settled informally or at the College/Campus level, with no consistent policy on keeping or sharing records.
CONCERNS AND GOALS
Consultation.During the last two years, information, input and feedback was collected formally and informally from various sources to direct the sub-committee’s efforts.
Documents:
Discussions:
Concerns Identified. Through such fact-finding, the Subcommittee identified the following concerns:
1. Consistency. Although the committee believes it is everyone's interest that most academic misconduct be resolved informally (between the student and the faculty member), we recognize that there are potential problems when this occurs. When any complaint occurs and the complaint is managed informally, there is an inherent lack of consistency within the following:
a. How incidents are managed. This lack of consistency affects student's due process rights. From discussions, it is clear that faculty do not clearly understand the steps for initiating the current policy for handling academic misconduct. Many who do understand it believe it to be complicated and too cumbersome. Because of this, many faculty choose not to initiate the process.
b. Specific academic sanctions. There are no specific guidelines or standards for academic sanctions across the University, which raises the consistency issue. This inconsistency affects fairness and the promise we have made to students to apply just punishment.
In the University Student Discipline System, when nonacademic sanctions are applied, similar behaviors yield similar outcomes. In cases that have been handled in the colleges, it has been suggested that it is not uncommon for two students who exhibit similar misconduct to be responded to very differently. One instructor may assign a failing grade for a course and another instructor may assign a failing grade for the assignment, not the course.
If there is a lack of guidelines and precedent followed, treatment of students from academic departments to department or college to college will differ greatly. This is not to suggest that we need to treat students exactly the same, but once all the facts are known, we must respond to students equally and justly.
c. Willingness to sanction misconduct. Faculty do not typically believe it is worth the trouble to formally report incidents of academic misconduct. Some do not have the time to "figure out how it all works" or they simply do not believe it is worth the effort. The Judicial process is often viewed as too laborious, and faculty are not confident that the sanctions applied will be appropriate for the misconduct. Many feel re-victimized by the process.
Often, faculty feel they need legal expertise to understand the present policy, and worry that if they initiate the sanctioning process, they will open themselves to litigation. (In fact, University lawyers have advised, litigation is a much likelier outcome when faculty do not follow standard procedures and settle misconduct cases in an individualized ad hoc fashion.)
Also, it was reported that with the rising incidents of violence and disruption in the classroom, many faculty fear physical retribution from angry or irrational students.
For all the above reasons, anecdotal evidence suggests that many faculty simply overlook probable cases of cheating or handle detected cases in a token way that does not deter students guilty of dishonest behavior from engaging in the same misconduct over and over.
2. Record Keeping. Currently, there is no standard practice for tracking cases or creating student discipline records related to academic misconduct when resolved at the College or Campus level. Some individual Colleges maintain records within respective departments, but others do not. Students enroll in classes across different programs and communication and access to accurate information from program to program or within each College is difficult and in most cases, non-existent.
There is no consistent reporting of incidents to the registrar or Judicial Affairs; therefore, academic dishonesty information concerning individual students is not available from a central source. If the college or campus wants a student to receive a formal disciplinary sanction, as well as an academic sanction, it may refer an incident of misconduct to Judicial Affairs, but this rarely occurs. In 1997-98, only seven cases were so referred. The lack of tracking behavior and record keeping limits the University's ability to:
3. Due Process. In any other violation of the University Code of Conduct, such as cases of assault, theft, and alcohol abuse, the University Hearing Board will apply the consistent tests and measures regarding evidence in order to provide students with due process. In academic dishonesty cases, students ought to be afforded similar safeguards. With the present process this does not always happen.
So long as the faculty member defines the case as "minor" and assigns a penalty less than failure in the course, students are told of no formal recourse outside of informally "seeking redress" from persons or groups at the campus, department, or college level. There is no set procedure, furthermore, for informing students about the academic integrity policy.
Even with "major" cases, due process is not guaranteed unless Judicial Affairs becomes involved.
4. Lack of Education and Stated Expectations. Students voice concerns that there is no consistency in regard to what faculty expects of them in the classroom. Students find that the University has not clearly articulated the shared norms and values related to academic integrity or other scholarship needed to lessen the confusion as to what it really means to embody academic integrity at Penn State.
Given the continuum of unfair behaviors, academic misconduct is not easily defined. Students perceive that the definition of cheating varies greatly from faculty member to faculty member. Many expressed a need for more communication on these issues.
Currently, how students are educated on these issues varies greatly within the colleges and with specific faculty members. Some faculty members never mention these issues in class and others spend a whole class period on integrity issues. Depending upon course content and time available, efforts to set clear expectations and engage students in critical thinking exercises about academic integrity issues may never occur. In general, faculty and students are confused as to what the University process entails when a student has been accused of cheating.
There has been no comprehensive approach to educate students, faculty and staff in regard to academic integrity issues. Across the University, we are not collaborative in our efforts to proactively and systematically educated and/or utilize resources.
Past efforts have been limited in coordination of applied programs for establishing an academic culture that supports the virtues and ethical standards we would come to expect in the classroom and outside in the student communities of Penn State.
Goals. Through discussions, the following goals were identified to provide solutions to the problems identified:
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS
I. Definition of Academic Integrity.The Subcommittee thought that the University statement of academic integrity should be positive, not negative in construction. The revision should link the definition to the University's four essential values that are stated in the University Student Code of Conduct. The Student Guide to General University Policies and Rules: Rights and Responsibilities of Community Living (1998-1999) defines these as:
As before, the definition should include a list of student behaviors that clearly articulate those actions that fall into the realm of academic misconduct and University Code of Conduct violations. But this list needs to be clarified and updated to include a number of practices that reflect new concerns such as abuse of collaborative learning opportunities and misuse of Internet information.
While the present policy asks instructors to provide clarifications of their personal definitions of academic integrity, it does not make it clear in what form this should be provided. The Subcommittee felt that this clarification should be provided in both written and oral form, and should include opportunity for students to respond to or ask for further clarification of these course policies. A common excuse provided by students is that they were not aware that a certain action was a breach of academic integrity; this policy would reduce such acts of inadvertent dishonesty.
II. THE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY CONFERENCE. In every case, when an incident occurs, the faculty member should meet with the student in a College Academic Integrity Conference. In this conference, the student should be
As in the present policy, the faculty member would choose whether to pursue the matter further and decide what the appropriate level of sanctions should be. However, this conference could also serve as a "teachable moment" in which the instructor could clarify his/her definition of integrity, and the student could respond with his/her understanding of the act in question. If this dialogue serves to clear the air, and the faculty member is satisfied that the matter was a misunderstanding, this conference could conclude the process with no sanction or further records.
However, in more serious cases, the conference should serve as an opportunity for both faculty and student to review their rights and responsibilities in the sanctioning process. Students should know that they have rights even in minor cases and should know what the appeal process involves. Under the present policy, a faculty member can simply assign an "F" to a paper and notify the student only in writing. This procedure may confuse students and in any case does not allow for the possibility of a misunderstanding. No sanction, however minor, should be imposed in a way that leaves students without an opportunity to respond to the allegation in person or challenge the proposed sanction.
III. MINOR INCIDENTS. The Committee felt that "minor" should indicate all cases when the faculty member feels that the infraction deserves an academic sanction less than an "F" for the course and the College/Campus does not want to pursue formal disciplinary action. Such cases should be decided at the local level only.
If the student did not contest the accusations and accepted the sanction, then the faculty member would have the student sign an academic conduct disposition form accepting responsibility for the misconduct and the academic sanction offered. [Judicial Affairs has devised such a form; or one may be created by Colleges or Campuses.] This information would then be sent to Judicial Affairs for the creation of a student file, and Judicial Affairs would close the case as being handled according to College/Campus procedures.
If the student contested the accusations or did not accept the academic sanction, then he or she would indicate this decision on the academic conduct disposition form. This information would be forwarded to the College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity, who would have final judgment over responsibility and the sanction. (In the absence of such a Committee, the Department Chair or Campus Director of Academic Affairs would settle such cases.)
IV.MODERATE INCIDENTS. The Committee suggests that this new category be created for cases in which infractions do yield an academic sanction of "F" for the course but the College/Campus does not want to pursue formal disciplinary action. At present, such cases are classed under the "major" category, but the policy distinguishes two different courses of action for these cases and those in which disciplinary action is considered. Creating this category therefore is not a policy change but a clarification that reflects current practice.
In such cases, the faculty member and the student would meet in an Academic Integrity Conference, during which the student would be told that the proposed sanction is failure in the course and that he/she may not drop the class.
If the student did not contest the accusations and accepts the sanction, the process would be the same as with a Minor Incident. The faculty member would have the student sign the academic conduct disposition form, the information would then be sent to Judicial Affairs for the creation of a student file, and Judicial Affairs would close the case as being handled according to College or Campus procedures.
If the student contested the accusations or did not accept the academic sanction, then information on the matter would be sent under cover letter to Judicial Affairs, and the College/Campus would assign a "DF" for the course, pending disposition of the case.
Judicial Affairs would meet with the student in an academic integrity conference, parallel to that held with the instructor. The student would be informed of the allegations, have a chance to respond, and be informed of his/her rights and about the University procedures for handling such cases.
If the student at this level did not contest the allegations and accepted the academic sanction of an "F" for the course, then the policy would mirror that for Minor Infractions. Judicial Affairs would have the student sign a conduct disposition form accepting responsibility and also accepting the academic and any disciplinary sanction. The College/Campus would be informed, and Judicial Affairs would create a student file and close the case as handled according to University procedures.
If the student still contested the accusations in the Judicial Affairs academic integrity conference or does not accept the academic sanction, then the case would be heard before a University Hearing Board. The Board would decide the outcome according to University procedures.
If found responsible and the disciplinary sanction is greater than deferred suspension, the student could then appeal the case to the Vice President of Student Affairs or to the Campus Executive Officer for final review of the disciplinary sanction. (This is currently not stated in the policy but existing case law indicates that such an appeal process is necessary.)
V.MAJOR INCIDENTS. The Committee recommends that this category be restricted to the very serious cases in which the instructor recommends an academic sanction of "F" for the course and the College/Campus also wants to pursue formal disciplinary action.
During the College/Campus academic integrity conference the student would be told that the incident is being forwarded directly to Judicial Affairs for disciplinary review. Information on the case would be sent under cover letter to Judicial Affairs and the College/Campus would assign a "DF" for the course.
As before, Judicial Affairs would also meet with the student in an academic integrity conference. If the student at this level does not contest the accusations and accepts the sanction, the case would end in the same way as a Moderate Infraction. ;If the student continued to contest the accusations or did not accept the academic sanction, then the case would be heard before a University Hearing Board, as above, which would decide the outcome according to the same University procedures described above:
As before, if the student is found responsible and the disciplinary sanction is greater than deferred suspension, the student could appeal the case to the Vice President of Student Affairs or the Campus Executive Officer for review of the disciplinary sanction.
Note: The existing Senate Policy 49-20 made no effort to legislate which incidents of academic dishonesty are "minor" and which are "major." Similarly, the Student Life Committee does not wish to legislate any system-wide decisions on what is "minor," "moderate," or "major." Ultimately, this decision will continue to be made by the faculty member making the allegation in consultation with the College/Campus Academic Integrity Committees. However, these Committees should work collaboratively with students and faculty and with Judicial Affairs in creating precedent guidelines, so that similar infractions are sanctioned in similar ways.
VI. THE "XF" GRADE. As a final step in the revised procedure, the Student Life Committee recommends that any grade of "F" imposed as a result of an academic dishonesty procedure be designated on the student's transcript as "XF." According to J. James Wager, University Registrar, such a move would be easy to implement but may require a modest one-time cost (see "COSTING" below).
This is not a new University policy, however, but a move to make the result of academic dishonesty cases consistent with the result of all other disciplinary hearings. When a student is sanctioned for violating any other University policy, such as those on alcohol use, theft, assault, etc., a notation is placed on his or her transcript. This notation can be removed by carrying out some form of extracurricular activity intended to address the ethical issue involved. These include some form of public service, attendance at workshops, participation in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Instituting an "XF" grade would provide for central record keeping for students prone to repeated acts of academic misconduct and make the outcome of such behavior consistent with the results of all other forms of misconduct.
The Student Life Committee does not feel that the specific procedure for removing the "XF" should be legislated centrally. Taking a course on ethics might be one option, if such a course were available at the relevant location. Such a decision ought to be under the purview of the Colleges or Campuses, which would have a clearer idea of what resources would be available or appropriate for their students.
In September, Student Life, in tandem with Dean Achterberg's CAD Committee on Academic Integrity, will present an advisory and consultative report including suggestions for a wide range of opportunities to educate students on the issues of ethical behavior. These can form the basis of College- and Campus-level decisions on how the student can remove an "XF" grade from his/her transcript.
VII. COSTING. Changes in the proposed policy will not add significant costs to the Judicial Affairs program. Initially, there will be a need for extra staff time to be put into the development of specific initiatives. An example of this would be the development of sanction ranges within each College or Campus or any educational program or class that we might have a student attend to remove an XF from his or her transcript.
Clearly, if a large number of academic dishonesty cases were detected, and if most students contested these allegations, some new costs would be incurred. However, the intent of the policy is to avoid as many acts of dishonesty as possible, and to continue to handle most of these informally at the College/Campus level. Therefore no major expenses in record-keeping or disciplinary action are foreseen.
Establishing the "XF" grade may incur a one-time expense in the Registrar's Office. Transcripts are printed on paper that includes various security features imbedded, and thus is rather expensive. This paper contains a printed explanation of special grades on the reverse side. When this policy is implemented, this office would need to order a new stock of this paper, adding a new legend to explain the meaning of "XF." This could cost several thousand dollars, but, depending on the timing of implementation, this expense could be absorbed in the regular cost of reordering the stock of transcript paper.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To implement the conclusions above, the Senate Committee on Student Life makes the following two recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION #1. That the definition of academic integrity (Senate Policy 49-20) be amended as follows:
EXISTING LANGUAGE:
49-20 Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity free from fraud and deception and is an educational objective of this institution. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, fabricating of information or citations, facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others, having unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, or tampering with the academic work of other students. At the beginning of each course, it is the responsibility of the instructor to provide a statement clarifying the application of academic integrity criteria to that course. A student charged with academic dishonesty will be given oral or written notice of the charge by the instructor. If students believe they have been falsely accused, they should seek redress through informal discussions with the instructor, department head, dean, or campus executive officer. If the instructor believes that the infraction is sufficiently serious to warrant referral of the case to Judicial Affairs, or if the instructor will award a final grade of F in the course because of the infraction, the student and instructor will be afforded formal due process.
PROPOSED REVISION (new or altered language is given in bold face)
49-20 Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity free from students' unfair advantage, fraud and deception. Academic integrity is an educational objective of Penn State and includes students' adherence to the values stated in the university's code that governs academic conduct. When accepted at Penn State, students accept the rights and responsibilities of membership in the academic community and are expected to support the following essential values:
Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to:
At the beginning of each course, it is the responsibility of each instructor to provide students with a written statement clarifying the specific application of academic integrity criteria to that course. In addition, each instructor should verbally engage students in dialogue concerning his or her specific expectations of academic integrity before the first quiz, exam, or similar evaluation.
RECOMMENDATION #2. that the process governing alleged infractions of academic integrity (ACUE Procedure G-9) be amended as follows:
EXISTING LANGUAGE:
Procedure
1. Committee on Academic Integrity. Each college dean/campus executive officer, and provost and dean of Penn State-Behrend and Penn State Harrisburg, shall appoint a committee on academic integrity, which may be an existing committee with related functions. The committee has no authority to impose sanctions. Its duties include (a) the communication of scholarly expectations to all members of the college or campus; (b) the promotion of attitudes and practices to fulfill these expectations; (c) the review of cases of academic dishonesty referred to it by faculty or students for consultation and recommendations to resolve the disputed case; and
(d) the referral of cases that are sufficiently severe to warrant disciplinary actions beyond academic sanction to Judicial Affairs for further review.
2. Distinction between Minor and Major Infractions. The University Faculty Senate has made a distinction between minor and major infractions of academic integrity. Minor infractions or misunderstandings are considered less serious acts of academic dishonesty as described in Section 49-20 and are to be treated informally. Major infractions are acts of academic dishonesty considered sufficiently serious to warrant either an academic sanction of an F for the course or a referral to Judicial Affairs for possible disciplinary sanctions. Formal due process procedures should apply for major infractions.
3. Academic and Disciplinary Sanctions. Academic sanctions are actions taken by an instructor that affect the student's grade and/or enrollment in a course in which an act of academic dishonesty was committed. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed only by Judicial Affairs or by the University Hearing Board. They include warnings, probation, suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or loss of privilege, and may be imposed for acts of academic dishonesty or for other misconduct.
4. For Minor Infractions. For cases of alleged minor infractions of academic integrity, the instructor and student should informally seek resolutions. Informal discussions about minor infractions may involve others, including the department head, campus director for academic affairs, or the College/Campus committee on academic integrity. Academic sanctions short of assigning an F grade for the course may be imposed if deemed appropriate by the instructor.
5. For Major Infractions. Formal due process procedures should apply for major infractions of academic integrity. The student accused of academic dishonesty will be given oral or written notice of the allegations by the instructor.
If the allegations of academic dishonesty are not denied by the student, the instructor may impose academic sanctions or refer the allegations for review for more stringent disciplinary sanctions to Judicial Affairs. The instructor should not immediately impose an academic sanction if a referral is being made for possible disciplinary sanctions. Both academic and disciplinary sanctions may be imposed later if deemed appropriate.
a. A student charged with academic dishonesty will not be allowed to drop the course under Section 34-89, nor will the symbol W be reported for the course if the student withdraws from the University under Section 56-30.
b. By memo, the instructor informs the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or campus director of academic affairs of the action to be taken: Assign an F if only an academic sanction is to be imposed or assign a DF if the case is to be forwarded to Judicial Affairs for review.
c. The department head or the campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken. If referral for
possible disciplinary action is being made, Judicial Affairs is to be supplied with the written allegation and any other supporting evidence.
If the student denies the allegations of academic dishonesty, the student is to be provided an explanation of the evidence in support of the allegations. If the student continues to deny the allegations, the instructor or the student may seek the services of other offices to help reach a resolution. The department head, the campus director of academic affairs, or the college or campus committee on academic integrity may be asked to review the evidence and positions and to recommend possible resolutions. Ultimately, either the instructor or the student may refer allegations to Judicial Affairs to bring formal academic dishonesty adjudication procedures into operation.
a. The instructor, by memo, should inform the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or campus director of academic affairs that the student should be assigned a DF symbol for the course and that the student should not be allowed to drop the course under Section 34-89 nor be assigned a W symbol if the student withdraws from the University under Section 56-30.
b. The department head or campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken.
c. If the case has not been adjudicated by the end of the semester, the instructor should submit a DF symbol for the course. At the end of the sixth week of the following semester, the Office of the University Registrar will contact the instructor's college dean or the campus director of academic affairs and request the status of the case. If adjudicated, the appropriate grade should be submitted. If not adjudicated, the college dean or campus director of academic affairs should inform the Office of the University Registrar to extend the deferred grade until a specific date; on that date, the University registrar will again request a grade.
d. For all cases of academic dishonesty referred to it, Judicial Affairs is to determine the nature of the charges, evidence, and any recommended sanctions up to that point, and is to contact the instructor and student involved to confirm their positions. When appropriate, the office refers cases to the University Hearing Board.
E. Judicial Affairs shall maintain records of major infraction cases in which academic sanctions or disciplinary sanctions have been imposed under allegations of academic dishonesty. Such information may be used by Judicial Affairs to initiate its own proceedings when an individual has been involved in multiple infractions. The College/Campus committee on academic integrity may request information about whether individual students currently involved in particular cases of alleged academic dishonesty have been given academic or disciplinary sanctions for previous acts academic dishonesty. The information from the files is not to be used as a basis for judging the student's guilt in the current case; it may be used only as a basis for deciding whether the current case should be referred to Judicial Affairs for adjudication and for possible disciplinary action. All entries in the record for a particular student are removed when the student graduates.
f. The University Hearing Board is to adjudicate only those cases of academic dishonesty that cannot be resolved at the College/Campus level or for which a disciplinary sanction is recommended or required. The hearing board may recommend academic or disciplinary sanctions for acts of academic dishonesty.
g. Judicial Affairs informs the student, the student's college dean or campus director of academic affairs, the instructor, and the instructor's college dean or campus director of academic affairs of the outcome of the formal adjudication procedures and what actions are recommended.
h. The instructor submits an appropriate change of grade to the University registrar: an F if the academic sanction is to be imposed; the earned grade if no academic sanction is to be imposed. If the instructor chooses some action other than that recommended by the hearing board, the student may appeal to the dean of the college in which the violation occurred. If not resolved at that level, the executive vice president and University provost shall make the final decision.
PROPOSED REVISION (new or altered language is given in bold face)
Procedure
1. Committee on Academic Integrity: Each University Park college dean and Executive Officer or Provost or Dean at other locations shall appoint a committee on academic integrity, which may be an existing committee with related functions.
The committee has authority for, but not limited to, the following:
The department head or director of academic affairs at other locations may assume responsibility for items d and e in the committees absence.
2. Distinction Between Minor, Moderate, and Major Infractions: The University Faculty Senate has made a distinction between minor, moderate, and major infractions of academic integrity.
Minor infractions or misunderstandings are considered less serious acts of academic dishonesty as described in Senate Policy 49-20 and are to be treated informally and resolved at the College/Campus level only.
Moderate and major infractions are acts of academic dishonesty considered sufficiently serious to warrant either an academic sanction of an F for the course or a referral to Judicial Affairs for possible disciplinary sanctions. Formal due process procedures should apply for only those moderate infractions that are contested and cannot be resolved between the student and faculty member, and to all major infractions. All major infractions will be directly referred to the Office of Judicial Affairs.
3. Academic and Disciplinary Sanctions: Academic sanctions are actions taken by an instructor that affect the student's grade and/or enrollment in a course in which an act of academic dishonesty was committed. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed only by Judicial Affairs or by the University Hearing Board (UHB). They include warnings, probation, deferred suspension, suspension for a specific period of time, indefinite suspension, expulsion, and/or special conditions for enrollment, and loss of privilege. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed for acts of academic dishonesty or for other student misconduct.
For Minor Infractions: For cases of alleged minor infractions of academic integrity, the instructor will discuss the incident with the student in an academic integrity conference. In this meeting, the faculty member and student should informally seek resolutions.
In the academic integrity conference, the student should be:
a) informed of the accusations,
b) given a chance to respond to the accusations, and
c) be informed of his/her rights and College/Campus procedures for handling such cases.
Informal discussions about minor infractions may involve others, including the department head, campus director for academic affairs, or the College/Campus committee on academic integrity. Academic sanctions short of assigning an F grade for the course may be imposed if deemed appropriate by the instructor.
When the student meets with the faculty member, the student will be asked to sign an academic conduct disposition form indicating whether he/she accepts or contests the allegations and/or sanction.
If the student accepts responsibility for the misconduct, the conduct disposition with other appropriate documentation is sent to Judicial Affairs for the creation of the student record. If a student contests an accusation of minor misconduct or the academic sanction imposed, the student can appeal to the College/Campus Committee on Academic Integrity, or in the absence of the committee, the Department Chair or Campus Director of Academic Affairs. For minor infractions, the decision of the committee, chair, or DAA is final.
At the conclusion of committee or department process the conduct disposition with other case materials is sent to Judicial Affairs for the creation of the student record.
4. For Moderate Infractions. Formal due process procedures must apply for all moderate infractions that a student contests. The student accused of moderate acts of academic dishonesty as in minor incidents, will be given oral or written notice of the allegations by the instructor in an academic integrity conference. The faculty member should follow the procedures described in Section 4 above.
In moderate infraction cases, where the student does not deny the allegations of academic dishonesty, the instructor will impose academic sanctions in line with College/Campus sanctioning guidelines and procedures.
If the student contests the allegations, the case is forwarded directly to Judicial Affairs. When a case is reviewed in Judicial Affairs, the staff will determine the nature of the accusations, evidence, and any recommendations up to that point. The Judicial Affairs staff will meet with the student in a university discipline conference and try to resolve the matter informally. If the student accepts the accusations and sanction in the discipline conference Judicial Affairs will close the case according to university procedures. The outcome of Judicial Affairs, whether resolved in a discipline conference with staff or in a university hearing, is final pending any disciplinary sanction review.
Appeals will be heard by the Vice-President for Student Affairs or the Campus Executive Officer, and only in regard to disciplinary sanctions of deferred suspension or greater.
5. For Major Infractions: in all major infraction cases, the faculty member or College/Campus representative will meet with the student in an academic integrity conference but then must immediately refer the major allegations for review for more stringent disciplinary sanctions to Judicial Affairs.
The instructor should not immediately impose an academic sanction if a referral is being made for possible disciplinary sanctions. Both academic and disciplinary sanctions may be imposed later if deemed appropriate.
As in moderate cases that are contested, Judicial Affairs staff will meet with the student in a University Discipline Conference and try to resolve the matter informally.
If the student contests the accusations and/or sanction, Judicial Affairs will refer the case to the University Hearing Board who will decide the case according to university procedures. The decision of the University Hearing Board is final except in those cases where the student is found responsible, and the discipline sanction is deferred suspension or greater. In this case, as in contested moderate cases, the student has the right to appeal the disciplinary sanction to the Vice-President for Student or to the Campus Executive Officer.
In preparation for the discipline conference or a university hearing, before assigning an academic and/or disciplinary sanction, Judicial Affairs will consult with the faculty member or College/Campus academic representative to ensure a just response and
encourage cooperative decision-making. In moderate and major incidents the academic sanction of "F" for the course grade would typically apply.
a. In all cases where a student contests allegations of misconduct, whether a minor, moderate or major incident the instructor must inform the Registrar's office and Department Head or Campus Director of Academic Affairs, that the student should be assigned a "DF" symbol for the course until the case has been resolved.
b. The instructor should also inform the Registrar's office and the student involved that the student may not be allowed to drop the course under Senate Policy 34-89 nor be allowed to be assigned a "W" symbol if the student withdraws from the university under Senate Policy 56-30.
c. The instructor by memo informs the Registrar's office and the department head or campus director of academic affairs of the action to be taken: the faculty member will assign an F if only an academic sanction is to be imposed or assign a DF if the case is to be forwarded to Judicial Affairs for review. If a student is found responsible for a moderate or major violation an "XF" mark will be placed on the student's transcript. An "XF" mark can be removed from a student's transcript when the student meets certain sanction conditions agreed upon by the College/Campus.
d. The department head or the campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken. If referral for possible disciplinary action is being made, Judicial Affairs is to be supplied with the written allegation, the academic conduct disposition form, and any other supporting evidence.
e. If the case has not been adjudicated by the end of the semester, the instructor should submit a DF symbol for the course. At the end of the sixth week of the following semester, the Registrar's office will contact the instructor's college dean or the campus director of academic affairs and request the status of the case. If adjudicated, the appropriate grade should be submitted. If not adjudicated, the college dean or campus director of academic affairs should inform the Registrar's office to extend the deferred grade until a specific date; on that date, the Registrar will again request a grade.
f. Judicial Affairs shall maintain records of all infraction cases in which academic sanctions or disciplinary sanctions have been imposed under allegations of academic dishonesty. Such information may be utilized by Judicial Affairs to initiate its own proceedings when an individual has been involved in multiple infractions. The faculty member or College/Campus committee on academic integrity may request information about whether individual students currently involved in particular cases of alleged academic dishonesty have been given academic or disciplinary sanctions for previous acts of academic dishonesty. The information from the files is not to be used as a basis for judging the student's guilt in the current case; it may be used as a basis for deciding future sanctions or whether the current case should be referred to Judicial Affairs for adjudication and for possible disciplinary action. All entries in the record for a particular student are confidential and are removed when the student graduates.
g. Judicial Affairs informs the student, the student's college dean or campus director of academic affairs, the instructor, and the instructor's college dean or campus director of academic affairs of the outcomes of the formal adjudication procedures and how the case has been resolved, including any sanctions imposed.
h. The instructor submits an appropriate change of grade to the Registrar: In most cases, an F if the academic sanction is to be imposed; the earned grade if no academic sanction is to be imposed. Outcomes from a University Hearing Board are final with the
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 4 [5 (d)]
(Legislative)
[Implementation upon passage by the Senate]
Introduction
In nominating faculty to serve on the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the Senate Committee on Committee and Rules has traditionally excluded not only Deans but also faculty holding positions with signatory authority in promotion and tenure matters, e.g., division heads and department heads. The following legislation proposes bringing the Standing Rules into line with actual practice.
Recommendation
The Committee on Committees and Rules recommends that the following section of the Standing Rules be modified as follows:
Article III, Section 4
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Rationale
In order to avoid even the appearance of possible conflicts of interest, the Committee on Committees and Rules has traditionally refrained from nominating certain faculty to the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. These faculty are those with signatory authority in promotion and tenure matters. This change to Article III, Section 4 recommended above is meant to clarify the faculty categories that are not eligible for membership on the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Edward W. Bittner
S. Diane Brannon
Barton W. Browning
Mark A. Casteel
Caroline D. Eckhardt, Vice-Chair
Donald E. Fahnline
Louis F. Geschwindner
John H. Harwood
Murry R. Nelson
Laura L. Pauley
Jean Landa Pytel
Nancy J. Wyatt, Chair
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Senate Committee Structure
(Legislative)
[Implementation upon passage by the Senate]
INTRODUCTION
Administrators responsible for the areas represented by Senate committees have traditionally provided information and support to enable these committees to function and prepare reports. Currently, the Committee on Faculty Benefits is the only committee of the Senate that does not have the related administrator named to the committee. The Assistant Vice President for Human Resources has frequently been invited to provide assistance and information to the Committee on Faculty Benefits without being officially on the Committee. There is a need to standardize and formalize the relationship between the Committee and the university administrator responsible for benefits. Therefore, the Committee on Committees and Rules proposes the following legislation to add the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources to the membership of the Committee on Faculty Benefits.
RECOMMENDATION
ARTICLE II: SENATE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
SECTION 6: Senate Committees:
*nonvoting unless Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws applies
RATIONALE
The above change is recommended in order to bring the Committee on Faculty Benefits in line with the other Senate committees and to formalize the relationship between the Committee and the administrator responsible for the area of benefits.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Leonard Berkowitz
Edward Bittner
Dianne Brannon
Barton Browning
Mark Casteel
Caroline Eckhardt, V-Chair
Donald Fahnline
Louis Geschwindner
John Harwood
Murry Nelson
Laura Pauley
Jean Landa Pytel
Nancy Wyatt, Chair
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
A Grand Destiny: The Penn State Campaign
(Oral Informational)
INTRODUCTION
The Senate Committee on University Planning has heard briefings on various aspects of The Campaign for Penn State earlier in the semester. Because of the importance of this ambitious Campaign for significantly enhancing the academic excellence of the University both immediately and in the future, the Committee on University Planning is sponsoring this oral informational report to the Senate. The report describes the main elements of the Campaign emphasizing those that affect the faculty.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Shelton S. Alexander, Chair
P. Richard Althouse
William J. Anderson, Jr.
Anthony J. Baratta
Alison A. Carr-Chellman
Kellyann Cragin
Gordon F. De Jong, V-Chair
William M. Frank
Kevin Gleeson
Rodney Kirsch
Larry J. Kuhns
Philip Masters
Jeffrey S. Mayer
Rajen Mookerjee
Richard C. Pees
Deborah Preston
Robert D. Richards
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Michael C. Saunders
Donald Schneider
Gary C. Schultz
Jeffrey R. Tranell
Linda K. Trevino
Richard A. Wilson
R. P. Withington
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Revision of Policy HR-13: Recommended Procedure for Hiring New Faculty
(Advisory and Consultative)
RATIONALE
HR-13 describes procedures for hiring new faculty. The addition of the proposed guidelines is recommended in order to ensure faculty involvement in the process and to have uniformity in the procedures used.
Policy HR-13 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR HIRING NEW FACULTY
POLICY'S INITIAL DATE: May, 1962
THIS VERSION EFFECTIVE: July 1, 1997
Contents:
Purpose
Recruitment of Candidates
Selection of Candidates
Notification of Candidates
Forms to be Completed by New Regular Faculty Appointees
Optional Forms to be Completed by New Employee
Processing the Forms
Memorandum of Personal Service
PURPOSE
To outline responsibilities in the process of hiring new regular faculty members.
RECRUITMENT OF CANDIDATES
The dean of each college is responsible for the staffing of teaching and research positions within the approved budget of that college. Questions regarding the budgeting of such positions should be referred to Budget Resource and Analysis.
1. Within the framework of a college, the recruiting of candidates to staff these positions primarily is the responsibility of the department head, division head, or chief executive officer, as appropriate.
2. As a part of the recruiting procedure, candidates shall be furnished with a copy of the memorandum, Conditions of Academic Employment, prepared by the Office of Human Resources that includes information about:
b. Personal benefits; group life insurance, health care coverages (including hospital/surgical/major medical, dental and vision care), retirement and social security, tenure and the like.
SELECTION OF CANDIDATES
While the practices in selection of candidates differ in the several colleges, a position will be offered to a candidate only upon the prior approval by the dean as to the candidate and as to the terms of employment.
National advertising is required for tenure-line or tenured faculty positions. Exceptions to this policy should be approved by the Executive Vice President and Provost in consultation with the Affirmative Action Officer.
GUIDELINES
The following general guidelines will apply in searching to fill such faculty positions:
1. Advisory search committees, appointed by the unit’s academic administrator after appropriate consultation, will be formed to identify candidates.
2. The majority of members of a search committee should be faculty members from the academic unit or those who hold joint appointments with the academic unit in which the appointment will be made.
3. Faculty members from other academic units, administrators, members of the staff, and students may be included on search committees as appropriate.
4. The general charge to search committees will be to identify qualified candidates. The unit’s academic administrator will provide specific charges, as appropriate, within the framework of this general charge applicable to all advisory search committees.
5. The search committee will present its recommendations of candidates to the unit’s academic administrator, who will choose candidates for further consideration from these recommendations. (If the search needs to be continued or reopened, it will be according to the procedures outlined in these guidelines.) At the request of either the committee, the unit’s faculty, or the academic administrator, a meeting to discuss recommendations should be held.
NOTIFICATION OF CANDIDATES
It is the responsibility of the dean to notify a successful candidate in writing of the offer of employment.
Three copies of a Memorandum of Personal Service will accompany the letter of offer. (See page 4.23 of the General Forms Usage Guide.)
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Syed S. Andaleeb
Albert A. Anderson
James J. Beatty
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Joseph L. Cavinato
Wayne R. Curtis
Travis DeCastro
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Philip A. Klein
Louis Milakofsky
John S. Nichols
Effy Oz
Amy L. Paster
Victor Romero
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
Tramble T. Turner, V-Chair
J. Randall Woolridge
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Parking Facility Financing and Vehicle Registration Policy
(Advisory and Consultative)
BACKGROUND
The Committee on Faculty Benefits met with representatives of the University Park Parking Office and Transportation Services at the December 1998 and March 30, 1999, committee meetings. The Committee was informed that parking operations are self-supporting from a combination of vehicle registration fees, visitor permit fees, meter revenues, event parking receipts and parking violation fines. Although the Parking Office funded the construction of surface lots around Beaver Stadium and the Bryce Jordan Center, it receives no revenue from the Athletic Department for parking fees assessed at football events, and receives only 50% of the net parking receipts from Jordan Center activities.
Until relatively recent years, employees at most campuses were not charged for parking but were required to register their vehicles as a means of assigning available spaces in some organized fashion. Construction of surface parking lots and their upkeep (repair, snow removal, line painting, etc.) were funded from general sources and this practice largely remains at those campuses which do not have parking fees. With the introduction of parking fees at University Park and several other locations, the University's Parking Office was able to borrow funds for construction of parking deck structures as well as new surface lots, retiring the debt on these mainly from registration fees, visitor fees, and event parking receipts. Currently about 60% of the University Park Parking Office budget is devoted to debt service.
The Master Plan for the University Park campus (UPMP) proposes several new or remodeled parking structures containing 3,200 new spaces to accompany the loss of 1,700 currently used surface parking spaces on central campus in order to provide sites for new academic buildings or to fulfill the overall landscaping design plan, and with the additional goal of reducing vehicular congestion. Upon construction of these facilities at the campus perimeter, as recommended in the UPMP, the fraction of the Parking Office budget committed to debt service will be significantly increased. Cost projections to complete the UPMP parking recommendations include a roughly 100% increase in monthly registration fees by 2005 for many but not all registration classes.
Opening of the Bryce Jordan Center most notably has allowed construction of dual purpose parking areas, used during normal working hours for commuter parking and routine or overflow employee/student parking, while providing event parking for evening and weekend Jordan Center activities. Since parking operations at University Park function as a system, these lots work in conjunction with others and it is difficult to segregate costs for the different lots and uses. The Parking Office's share of event parking fees is used to cover the cost of providing event parking, including personnel, along with a portion of the total maintenance and debt service expenses. The fact that maintenance and debt service costs are generally decoupled from event revenues, however, leaves open the possibility that registration fees supplement event parking receipts in order to fund parking operations for non-academic, revenue-producing entertainment activities, particularly at the Jordan Center.
At University Park and other locations, employees must register a vehicle in order to park. Where this involves a monthly fee, there are very limited options available to employees who routinely use alternative transportation modes (walking, bus, bicycle) and thus opt not to register their vehicle but who need occasional on-campus parking for brief periods. Unlike visitors, employees whose vehicles are not registered are not allowed to park in metered lots or in pay-as-you-go parking garages, but must purchase a day permit from a kiosk or the Parking Office in order to park in an Orange lot or in red metered lots, with additional payment required at the meter. This policy is intended to minimize pressure on the parking available to visitors by insuring that employees with unregistered vehicles do not compete with visitors for parking spaces, but it may aggravate the overall parking situation by encouraging monthly fee payment and thus more frequent vehicular use than would be otherwise necessary. Moreover, it may impact parking in adjacent areas, especially the Borough of State College, by increasing the likelihood that non-registered student or employee vehicles will instead utilize short-term parking in these community locations where no registration is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Actions related to new University initiatives.
• The Faculty Senate advises the Administration to modify the current philosophy that parking operations be completely self-sufficient, especially with respect to the funding of new facilities. To the extent that new structures, such as those proposed under the UPMP, are simply replacements for existing parking areas being taken over for academic or esthetic purposes, it is recommended that these be provided mainly from general funds rather than through increased fees for current users.
Rationale: Current employees should not be required to fund new parking facilities primarily to advance the infrastructure needs of the University. For many employees, parking is a necessity, not a luxury, and without plans to link parking fee increases with salary increases, the proposed parking rate increases will likely be very burdensome. Where these facilities provide additional parking spaces for new faculty/staff and visitors, parking receipts from the new users should generate much of the revenue needed to build and operate the expanded facilities.
• In light of suggestions that the effect of the planned user parking fee increases to build new facilities will be moderated by improved transportation services (i.e. free buses), to be paid for in part from those parking fees, it is recommended that faculty/staff parking fee uses be limited to maintaining and operating parking facilities. The utilization of parking fees for an expanding variety of transportation needs may be inappropriate..
2. Modifications in Parking Office policies.
• Construction and maintenance of parking structures and paved lots used primarily for non-academic (entertainment) event parking, including revenue-producing sports events, should be funded through event parking receipts or athletic program revenues rather than through vehicle registration fees paid by employees and students.
• Parking facilities utilized both for employee/student parking and for event parking should be funded from monthly parking fees and event parking fees in proportion to the respective use by each group. Thus, areas sparsely utilized during the day for employee/student parking but heavily employed in evenings for event parking should be funded predominantly from event parking revenues.
• All event parking receipts should go towards the expenses incurred in providing parking, rather than shared with the event sponsor, even where this may be another University unit.
• Alternatives to a mandatory registration with fixed fee requirement for faculty/staff need to be developed so that occasional use needs can be met without encouraging persons to drive/park more often than is needed or to park in adjacent community spaces. In addition to current day permits, opportunities to use meters directly (without a permit) or to choose pay-as-you-go parking should be provided. Since it is a stated goal in the UPMP to encourage use of alternate forms of transportation, including the CATA bus system, car-pooling, bicycle, and walking, so as to reduce traffic congestion on campus, policies of the Parking Office should be consistent with this intent. If rates for these uses are appropriately set, the operation can be both self-supporting and convenient for the occasional user.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Keith Burkhart
Thomas Daubert
Gregory Farber
Charles Gunderman
Jamie Myers, Vice-Chair
Mary Nicholson
Timothy Ovaert
Allen Phillips, Chair
Gerhard Strasser
Donna Testa
Anita Vickers
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Faculty Salary Report
(Advisory and Consultative)
Each year, Faculty Benefits is charged with reporting on faculty salaries, alternating every other year between external and internal salary comparisons. The 1999 report provides several internal comparisons based on Unit, Rank, Gender, Years in Rank, and Years of Service. Disparities are apparent when examining Penn State faculty salaries based on Fall 1998 faculty salary data. Beyond the examination of current 1998-99 faculty salaries, the report evaluates salary trends, using Fall 1996 salary data, to determine if the Administration has been able to enact the recommendations of the 1996 Report on the Status of Faculty Compensation at Penn State issued by the Special Subcommittee on Faculty Compensation, Senate Agenda Appendix C, 9/10/96.
Several Tables, Charts, and Graphs are appended to this report as the basis of observations and recommendations concerning faculty salaries. A brief description of these appendices should facilitate the examination of salary issues.
• Appendix One: Box-plot graphs, with data on the number of faculty, mean salary, and mean years in rank, compare salary distributions between University Park Units, Non-University Park Units, and Commonwealth College Locations. The shaded area of a box plot represents the 25 to 75 percentile ranks of the distribution, and the tail on each end represents the 1st to 25th and 75th to 99th percentile. The solid line is the median and 50th percentile, and if the distribution is normal will fall in the middle of the shaded box. The mean is not indicated, but would fall in the middle of the shaded portion.
• Appendix Two: Fall 1998 Salaries of Full-Time Faculty (Standing and Fixed-Term Appointments) are reported by Unit, and for the Commonwealth College by location. Salaries by gender are reported for only Standing Appointments. A box plot compares the distribution of faculty saris on the basis of gender within the Unit.
• Appendix Three: University Salary Allocations for 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 include permanent reallocations, the salary base for allocations, the standard increase allocated, and additional funds allocated for general salary increases (including the Presidents Excellence Fund). This general salary increase data is reported by Unit.
• Appendix Four: Mean salary percentage increases between Fall 1996 and Fall 1998 (3 years of salary data) for standing faculty divided into thirds based on their 1996 salary, unit, and rank.
• Appendix Five: For each Unit and Location, line graphs track the mean 1996 salaries and the mean 1998 salaries according to the number of years of service grouped by 0-6 years, 7-12 years, 13-18 years, 19-24 years, 25-30 years, and 31+ years. Faculty salary data for 1996 and 1998 are reported on the graph according to their 1998 rank and unit.
Unit Comparisons
The variation between faculty salaries by unit and location is often difficult to understand or to fully justify. The intent of this report is to identify those areas of difference that warrant further research into the causes for variation. The following comparisons use salaries rounded off to the nearest 100 dollars, and refer to Appendix One that displays the salary distributions in the form of separate box plots for combined, full, associate, and assistant ranks.
Units at University Park coalesce into four groups based on the salary distribution data. The Smeal College of Business is the sole member of the top group, with a salary mean of $95,700. The next group of Engineering, Earth and Mineral Sciences, and The Eberly College of Science has salary means between $80,200 and $73,900. Most of the University Park Units belong to the third group with salary means between $64,700 and $52,900: Agricultural Sciences, Liberal Arts, Health and Human Development, Education, Communication, and Arts & Architecture. The lowest group finds the Libraries alone with a mean salary of $40,800. The salary gap between each of the four groups is approximately $10,000, and the range within each group approximately $10,000.
Table 1: University Park Units Mean Salary Groups
|
Group One |
Business Administration |
$95,700 |
|
Group Two |
Engineering Earth & Mineral Sciences Eberly College of Science |
$80,200 $74,900 $73,900 |
|
Group Three |
Agricultural Sciences Liberal Arts Health and Human Dev. Education Communication Arts & Architecture |
$64,700 $64,600 $61,500 $58,500 $54,900 $52,900 |
|
Group Four |
Libraries |
$40,800 |
In Appendix One, page 1, each box plot presents the quartiles for a unit's salary distribution. In the plot for combined ranks, the top half of the Business faculty have salaries higher than 75% of the faculty in the second group, and higher than nearly 100% of all the faculty in the third and fourth groups. All Business faculty have salaries higher than approximately half of the faculty in the third and fourth groups.
The box plots of the second group (Engineering, Earth & Mineral Sciences, and Science) indicate half of the faculty in this group have salaries higher than three quarters of the faculty in Agricultural Sciences, Liberal Arts, and Health and Human Development, and 75% of the faculty in this second group have salaries higher than half of the faculty in Communications, Education, Arts & Architecture, and the Libraries.
The four groups of University Park units fluctuate slightly when comparing mean salaries for Full, Associate, and Assistant faculty. With Full Professor salaries, Liberal Arts faculty, with a mean of $84,200 are more comparable to those in the second group with means between $85,300 and $90,700. With Associate Faculty salaries, Engineering faculty move further ahead of Earth and Mineral Science and Science faculty who fall back within the third group of units, and the Libraries remain far behind. At the Assistant Faculty rank, Business faculty salaries even exceed the mean salary levels for Associate Faculty in their own unit. Additionally, the Business Assistant Faculty salaries far outdistance salaries in any of the other units, $15,000 ahead of the mean salary for Assistants in Engineering, who are in turn $10,000 ahead of the rest of the University Park Units that pack themselves between $44,000 and $48,100. Arts and Architecture salaries fall back joining the Libraries in the fourth group.
Across these comparisons by rank, the number of years in rank is highly similar between units, and does not appear to be a cause for the disparities. Whenever these variations between University Park Units are noted, the first explanation usually involves market forces which are beyond the control of the university. Both higher salaries in the particular occupations outside the university and the scarcity of qualified individuals in particular fields are noted as explanations. However, similar circumstances also develop when Commonwealth College locations attempt to hire qualified faculty but cannot be competitive with other universities or the private sector. It is questionable if the work of faculty in teaching, research, and service varies across units as significantly as salaries differ.
With the Non-University Park Units (Appendix One, pp 3-4), disregarding the professional units of the College of Medicine and Dickinson School of Law, two groups of Units form based on the salary distributions for combined ranks.
Table 2: Non-University Park Units Mean Salary Groups
|
Group One |
Great Valley Capital/Schuylkill Erie |
$65,800 $58,000 $57,500 |
|
Group Two |
Abington Commonwealth College Berks/Lehigh Altoona |
$49,000 $48,700 $47,200 $45,700 |
The group with higher mean salaries includes the Great Valley Graduate Center, Capital/Schuylkill, and Erie. These three units existed as independent locations before the restructuring of the Commonwealth Education System, and their salary distributions have much in common with the University Park group three units. The group with lower salary distributions includes the new units of Abington, Berks/Lehigh, Altoona, and the Commonwealth College. Salaries for Full Professors remain different between these two groups by approximately $10,000; salaries for Associate Professors in the higher group exceed the lower group by approximately $8,000 to 15,000; and salaries for Assistant Professors in the higher group exceed the lower group by $5,000 to $10,000 even though the Assistants in the lower group of Abington, Altoona, and Berks/Lehigh have double the length of years in rank. The salary data in Appendix two, page 18, for the new Capital/Schuylkill unit presents a similar situation for faculty salaries at the Schuylkill half of the unit. This variation between Non-UP Units would seem to easily qualify as an inequity in salary compensation resulting from the transition of the two-year commonwealth education locations into four-year degree granting units, and the quality of these four-year programs might be compromised if faculty are not rewarded in similar fashion to the other Penn State four-year units.
Commonwealth College Locations (Appendix One, pp 5-7) range in salary means from $44,600 to $52,400, making a fairly similar grouping of salary distributions. Along with the three new non-University Park units in group two above, these locations of the old CES (Commonwealth Education System) have salary means which begin at the lowest end of the University Park group three and move downward to meet the Libraries in group four. If the mission of the university is to be held in common by all faculty no matter the unit or location, then these differences become problematic because they systematically result in lower salaries at locations other than University Park for faculty whose workload is different, yet expectations the same.
At the Commonwealth College Locations, a few anomalies exist at the Full Professor rank with salaries lower at DuBois and noticeably higher at Fayette and Shenango. These differences are likely a result of a variation in the years in rank; however, they should be investigated further. Differences in Associate Faculty salaries range between $49,200 and $54,600 with higher salaries accompanied by longer years in rank, except for Wilkes-Barre at which faculty average $52,000 with only 3 years in rank. Assistant Faculty salaries range between $39,900 and $46,000, again with higher salaries associated with longer years in rank. What is notable at the Assistant rank is the many locations at which Assistant Professors have 9, 10, 12, 15, even 17 years of service in the Assistant Rank. Certainly this pattern of non-promotion directly suppresses the salaries of these individuals over their years of service to Penn State. These cases in particular are likely to involve issues of compression as new faculty at the Assistant Rank are brought in at salaries much higher than their colleagues at a similar rank.
Standing Appointments at the rank of Instructor are most common in the Commonwealth College (Appendix One, page 7). Across locations, these salaries vary the most of any rank, with a high mean of $48,000 at McKeesport and a low mean of $34,500 at York. Although the mean years in rank between this high and low vary dramatically between 27 years and 10 years, the box plots suggest the distributions of salaries for Instructors at different locations varies significantly enough to warrant further investigation to assure faculty in this rank are being compensated equitably.
Gender Comparisons
Salary difference by gender within units, ranks, and across locations s evident in the faculty salary data displayed in Appendix Two. The box-plots for these salary distributions help compare the spread of salaries between the minimum and maximum. For an equitable situation, you would expect the box-plots to have fully overlapping shaded areas and tails that are similar for the bottom and top 25% of salaries. When the quartiles of the box-plot do not overlap, and are out of line by at least 25%, or another quartile, then a significant difference in the distributions of the two groups is suggested. However, the number of years in rank must be considered to fully interpret any instances of such a difference. When University Park faculty are taken as a whole, the different salary distributions of male and female are quite similar considering males have longer years in each rank. The Table below reports the individual units in which salary distributions differ by 25% or more, and includes the difference in years in rank within parentheses (since men have longer years in rank, the number indicates Men's years-Women's years, with a negative number representing longer years for the Women in that case).
Table 3: Units with Salary Distributions different for Gender by 25% or more
|
Difference favors Male |
at Full Rank |
at Associate |
at Assistant |
Difference favors Female |
|
50% M > All F |
E.M.S. (8) Libraries (1) |
E.M.S. (6) H.H.D. (5) Science (5) Berks/Leh. (3) Erie (3) |
Altoona (1) |
|
|
25% M > All F |
Business (6) Arts & Arch (1) Liberal Arts (5) |
Communic (2) Medicine (2) Abington (1) |
H.H.D. (0) |
|
|
75% M > 75%F |
Berks/Leh. (3) |
|||
|
50% M > 75%F |
Medicine (1) |
Arts & Arch (1) Commwealth (2) |
Business (1) Abington (1) Capital (5) Commonwealth(5) |
|
|
75% M > 50%F |
Medicine (1) |
H.H.D. (5) Education (2) Engineering (1) Capital (2) Erie (3) Medicine (2) |
H.H.D. (0) Capital (5) Berks/Leh. (8) |
|
|
Communic (0) Great Valley (3) |
25%M < All F |
|||
|
Engineering (0) H.H.D. (3) |
Altoona (3) |
50%M < 75%F |
||
|
Capital (5) |
25%M < 50%F |
|||
|
Abington (-3) |
Business (7) |
Libraries (-2) |
All M < 25%F |
The vast majority of units and ranks do not have significantly different salary distributions between males and females. Out of 90 possible instances (30 units with 3 ranks in each), 26 instances of a different salary distributions between male and female was noted. When such a difference does occur, it is far more likely according to the chart above to find the male with higher salaries. If we discount the eleven cases above (in which the difference in years in rank exceeds three, twenty-two cases remain in which males have higher salary distributions and nine cases remain in which females have higher salary distributions. It is interesting to note that when female salary distributions are higher, there are only two cases when they have more years in rank (-3 and -2, suggesting important issues concerning the retention of female faculty members at Penn State).
Certain units appear to have several instances of significant difference in salaries based on gender that cannot be fully explained by differences in years in rank; therefore, salaries based on gender should be examined soon in the cases of Full rank in The College of Medicine, of Associate rank in The College of Medicine, Erie, and Berks/Lehigh, and of Assistant rank in Health and Human Development. The remaining cases in which years in rank are comparable with this summary data should be examined case by case to ensure some justifiable explanation for different salaries between men and women. In addition, this analysis did not attempt to factor years in rank into the identification of difference; for example, when years in rank are not similar we would expect to see a difference in salary distributions. This question needs to be examined in the future.
Evaluating Equity Adjustments made in 1997 and 1998
In September of 1996, the Special Subcommittee on Faculty Compensation made the following recommendation to the University President:
Starting in 1997, the Provost's office will review the salaries of those faculty, at all locations, who's salary, by rank, falls within the lowest one-third of the department's salary structure, for the purpose of reducing unjustifiable disparities that are due to college, location and compression. A significant percentage (e.g., 25% per year) of the salary increase funds should be made available for this purpose for a three-year period to make meaningful adjustments in individual faculty salaries and to reduce disparities that are due to one of the above factors. In the Fall of 1997 and each of the following three years the Provost should review for the Faculty Senate what the general results of his review were and what overall adjustments were made. (Senate Agenda, 9-10-96, Appendix C, page 17)
The President subsequently accepted this recommendation with the provision that he might not be able to set aside the full 25% of salary increase funds for resolving salary inequities (see letter in Appendix Three, Page 2). The administration has had an opportunity to act on this recommendation for salary increases in 1997 and 1998. In September 1997, Provost Brighton reported to the Senate on 549 faculty cases reviewed by the unit deans. Of these cases, the deans recommended adjustments for 232 faculty. For these salary adjustments, unit deans were asked to "recommend adjustments, where appropriate, from the pool of funds allocated to their unit for salary increases or from the allocation the unit received from the President’s Excellence Fund" (see letter, Appendix Three, Pages 3 and 4). Therefore funding for equity adjustments was constrained by allocations given to units based on the May salary base of each unit.
In July 1998, each unit was allocated 3.0% of their May salary base, and an additional 1.0% from the President's Excellence Fund. The additional 1.0% would, on the surface, fulfill the Faculty Senate recommendation that 25% of salary increase funds be set aside for equity adjustments based on college, location, and compression. However, as this 1.0% was defined, it was given to each unit and could be used for many purposes beyond general salary increases. This appears to follow the same allocation procedure used for July 1997 raises. Based on Table 4 below, many units used this additional 1% for other unit needs, instead of increasing current faculty salaries to alleviate unjustified equity differences. Overall, what is important to note, is the distribution of the President’s Excellence Fund equally to units by percentage could do nothing for salary disparities between locations or colleges, since the 1% was based on the already existing salary bases.
Table 4 below is drawn from data in Appendix 3 to calculate the portion of the 1% allocation from the President’s Excellence Fund actually used by each unit for general salary increases in 1998, and 1997 if the additional percent allocated to each unit in 1997 was 1%.
Table 4: Percent of Excellence Funds used for General Salary Increases
Unit 1997 % of Excellence Funds 1998 % of Excellence Funds
Used for Salary Increases Used for Salary Increases
Agricultural Sciences .47% .97%
Arts & Architecture .23% .35%
Smeal College of Business .55% .73%
Communications 0.00% .80%
Earth & Mineral Science .01% 1.00%
Education .62% .72%
Engineering .16% 1.05%
Health & Human Development .56% 1.01%
The Liberal Arts .54% .89%
Eberly College of Science .26% .32%
Commonwealth College .95%
Great Valley 0.00% .00%
Erie .57% 1.06%
Harrisburg .23% .22%
Schuylkill .59%
Berks 1.16%
Lehigh Valley .93%
Altoona .45%
Abington 1.31%
Total Univ. (Excl. HY & DN) .39% .81%
Given the earlier examination of unit salary distributions in Tables 1 and 2, it is important to note that some of those units with salaries in the lower groups did not use a significant portion of this additional 1% for salary increases: Arts & Architecture used only .35%; Altoona used .45%; Schuylkill used 59%; Education used .72%; and Communications used .80%. Engineering and Earth and Mineral Sciences, already in the next to highest group used the full 1.0% for general salary increases for faculty.
However, even if several units used all of the President’s Excellence Fund for salary increase allocation, the percentage increase varied drastically within units. Data in Appendix Four suggests that salary increases from 96-97 levels awarded in July 97 and July 98 vary dramatically because each unit has different priorities and salary procedures. Appendix Four presents the mean % increases in salary for faculty in each unit and rank, using their Fall 96 salary as the basis to group faculty into thirds: bottom, middle, and top. This analysis directly addresses the 1996 Faculty Senate recommendation to the President to focus salary adjustments on the bottom third of faculty by unit and rank.
In Appendix Four, for each rank, the highest percentage salary increase over the two years is underlined. Table 5 summarizes the mean salary % increase for the bottom, middle, and top third to determine which groups most often received the highest mean % increase over the two years.
Table 5: Summary of the Highest Mean Percent Salary Increases by Faculty Thirds/Ranks
|
Bottom Third |
Middle Third |
Top Third |
|
|
Full Professor |
9 times (2 >10%) |
9 times (3>10%) |
7 times (3>10%) |
|
Associate Professor |
11 times (4>10%) |
13 times (4>10%) |
4 times (0>10%) |
|
Assistant Professor |
10 times (2>10%) |
10 times (6>10%) |
9 times (6>10%) |
The distribution of the largest salary increases across the bottom, middle, and top third of faculty by rank suggests that very little was done to systematically address salary inequities for faculty in the bottom third. In fact, if the size of the mean percent increases in each group is considered, 13 groups from the middle and 9 groups from the top third received mean percent increases that exceed 10%. Only 8 groups of faculty in the bottom third had mean increases above 10%. When the data is viewed by rank, 8 Full professor groups, 8 Associate groups, and 14 Assistant groups received mean percent increases above 10% for the two years. When these higher percentages are applied to higher salary dollars, the raises equate to a vastly larger dollar amounts for faculty in the middle and top third of salaries over those in the bottom third. And because Assistant Professors overall received the greatest number of increases above 10%, the problem of compression may have been even further exacerbated. It would appear that inequities in place in 1996 may have only been furthered by the unit decision making.
Several units appear to have made some concentrated attempt to adjust the lowest salaries beyond the standard 3% salary increases each of the two years, suggested when a majority of their highest mean % increases occur in the bottom and middle third of faculty by rank. Capital/Schuylkill, Abington, DuBois, and Wilkes-Barre mean percent increases are highest for the bottom third of the faculty in three out of four ranks in their unit. Berks-Lehigh Valley, Mont Alto, Worthington-Scranton, Health & Human Development, Agricultural Sciences, and Hershey all have highest mean percent increases for the bottom third in two out of four ranks. Those units that dedicated more salary increase dollars to raises in the middle and top third do not seem to qualify for units who attempted to enact the Faculty Senate recommendation. In particular, Business Administration and Communication concentrated their salary increase dollars in the top third of their faculty.
Related to the issue of compression, what is especially disturbing about the data provided in Appendix Four, is the size of mean percent increases for Assistant Professors in the Top Third of faculty salaries by rank and unit. Six of the nine largest increases exceeded 10% over two years suggesting that the higher salaries received by these Assistant Professors at appointment are even further accelerated by these large two year % increases. As noted in Appendix One, page 3, the mean salary of Assistant Professors in Business exceeds the mean average salary of Associates, even though Assistants only average 2 years in rank as compared to the 9 years of Associates. Compression may be a better framework for examining salary inequities and these differences in % raises awarded to the bottom, middle, and top thirds of faculty. It is logical to suggest that faculty who have salaries in the bottom third are there because the merit process for awarding salary increases indicates they have not been as productive as faculty in the top and middle thirds. But, compression examines the relationship of salary with the number of years of service to the university. Even those who receive minimum evaluations for merit raises would expect their salaries to steadily increase over their years of service. However, if faculty hired after them receive higher initial salaries, and the raises for faculty already in service do not keep up with base salary inflation, older faculty will be quickly, if not initially, passed by younger faculty, and never have any chance of catching up.
The line graphs in Appendix Five present a clearer picture on the issue of compression by relating the mean salaries in 96 and 98 to the number of years in rank. The years of service are grouped in six year categories because this time frame parallels the normal life cycle of promotion from Assistant to Associate in 6 years, and then Associate to Full around 12 to 24 years of service. It could be argued that faculty that remain at the Assistant rank for more than 12 years, or the Associate rank for more than 24 years have not been productive enough within the promotion and tenure system to warrant substantial merit salary increases. However, if we examine the pattern of salary difference between 1996 and 1998 alone, not going back farther than 1996 to examine compression, it remains evident that faculty at each rank with fewer years in service, within the reasonable number of years of satisfactory service, have mean salary levels in excess of faculty who have a greater number of years of service.
Table 6 below summarizes those units in which compression appears to exist at particular ranks, has lessened or become greater between 1996-1998 at particular ranks and years of service (numbers in parentheses refer to years in service). The line graph data was interpreted for compression by examining the slope of each line between data points, and the difference between slopes between 1996 and 1998. Three kinds of lines are evident. First, declining lines in relationship to years in service indicate compression effects as faculty with longer years in service receive lower salaries. Second, inclining lines indicate that faculty receive higher salaries with more years in service. Third, between data points at six-year groupings of faculty salaries, the entire line may both decline and incline. In Table 6 below, sharp declining slopes represent High compression effects, slightly declining slopes represent Moderate compression effects, and rather parallel slopes, or lines with both declining and inclining slopes, represent Low compression effects. Inclining slopes are not noted. When the distance between points on the 1998 lines changed the slope of line segments between years of service groupings, compression effects were judged to lessen or increase.
Table 6: Compression Effects by University Unit
|
UNIT |
EXISTING 98 |