Penn State University Home

The University Faculty Senate


Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 1:30 p.m.
112 Kern Graduate Building

[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, please call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to determine if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be done after business office hours by calling the Senate Office number and a voice mail message can be heard concerning the status of any meeting.]

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING - Minutes of the January 28, 2003 Meeting in The Senate Record 36:4


Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of February 11, 2003 -- Appendix A

Senate Calendar for 2003-04 -- Appendix B

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of February 11, 2003






Committees and Rules

Revision of Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9: The Senate Record -- Appendix C



Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees -- Appendix D


Computing and Information Systems

ANGEL Course Management System -- Appendix E
[5-minute discussion]

Outreach Activities

Penn State's World Campus -- Appendix F
[10-minute presentation and discussion]

Student Life

Intergroup Dialogue: A Means for Promoting Understanding in a Diverse Community -- Appendix G
[5-minute discussion]

Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking -- Appendix H
[3-minute presentation, 5-minute discussion]

Undergraduate Education

Academic Integrity Case Data -- Appendix I
[5-minute discussion]



Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building.

Appendix A

The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-1202 - Fax: (814) 865-5789

Date: February 14, 2003

To: John W. Moore, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report dated February 11, 2003, 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, 101 Kern Graduate Building, e-mail ID, on or before March 13, 2003.

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the Web. It can be accessed at

Appendix B

University Faculty Senate
Senate Calendar

August 19, 2003
September 2, 2003 
September 16, 2003
September 30, 2003  
October 14, 2003 
October 28, 2003
November 11, 2003  
November 25, 2003
December 9, 2003
January 6, 2004   
January 20, 2004  
February 3, 2004
February 17, 2004
March 2, 2004
March 16, 2004
March 30, 2004  
April 13, 2004
April 27, 2004

Appendix C


Revision of Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9: The Senate Record



The current Standing Rules require that all reports to the Senate be transcribed verbatim and included in the minutes. This applies to informational and mandated reports as well as legislative reports. Over the last six years (1996-97/2001-02), there were a total of 319 reports presented to the Senate--148 of these were informational and 59 were mandated reports. Thus, sixty-five percent of the total reports given to the Senate in this six-year period were either informational or mandated. The current practice of transcribing the entire Senate meeting for The Senate Record requires four to five working days for a Senate Office staff member. A good portion of this time is spent on the informational and mandated reports. It would be a great savings to the Senate if these reports did not have to be transcribed verbatim.


Informational and mandated reports are usually accompanied by printed materials appearing in the Senate Agenda or as a door handout, and PowerPoint presentations are becoming common. This informational material can be entered into The Senate Record in conjunction with a brief executive summary of the report that would include links to the full report and contact information. All reports to the Senate are also available on audiotapes made during the meeting. These audiotapes could be burned onto a CD which would take up less space and could be sent electronically and downloaded onto a computer. Thus, the content of informational and mandated reports is easily accessible in various ways besides the verbatim transcription.

It is becoming more common to streamline minutes. A January 2003 Web and telephone survey of Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) faculty governance organizations showed that only Indiana University at Bloomington and Penn State do verbatim transcriptions of Senate meetings. Further, neither Temple University nor the University of Pittsburgh transcribes their Senate meeting minutes. The Penn State Board of Trustees meetings are audio taped. A record of information or action is included in the Board of Trustees minutes. With easy electronic access to full reports, the benefits of saved time and effort justify the elimination of verbatim transcriptions of informational and mandated reports from The Senate Record.

Additionally, the timeline for publishing The Senate Record is unworkable and is not currently being followed. Changing the deadline from seven working days to 14 days after the Senate meeting will be more feasible and in line with current practice.


The current Standing Rules Article 1 Section 9 reads as follows:

Under the direction of the Senate Executive Secretary of the Senate shall publish an official record (The Senate Record) of its proceedings within seven (7) working days after each meeting, and this record shall contain:
(a) actual agenda of the meeting including all Appendices
(b) verbatim minutes of the meeting
(c) documents distributed at the door of the meeting
(d) tentative agenda for the next meeting
(e) such other items as the Chair shall direct.
Copies of The Senate Record shall be deposited in the University Archives of the University Library and in the library of each other Penn State campus.

This section should be changed to read as follows:

Under the direction of the Senate Secretary, the Senate shall publish an official record (The Senate Record) of its proceedings within fourteen (14) days after each meeting, and this record shall contain:
(a) agenda of the meeting
(b) verbatim minutes of the meeting except for informational and mandated reports. An executive summary of informational and mandated reports will be included in The Senate Record unless a verbatim transcription is requested by the Chair and or the Executive Secretary.
(c) documents distributed at the door of the meeting
(d) tentative agenda for the next meeting
(e) such other items as the Chair shall direct.
Copies of The Senate Record shall be deposited in the University Archives of the University Library and in the library of each other Penn State campus.

Deborah F. Atwater
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Lynn A. Carpenter
Joseph J. Cecere
Peter Deines
Joanna Floros, Vice-Chair
Pamela P. Hufnagel
J. Daniel Marshall
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols
Andrew B. Romberger
Stephen M. Smith
Valerie N. Stratton, Chair

Appendix D


Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees


The Principle

The Faculty Senate Committee on Libraries supports the philosophy that access to library collections by all faculty and staff is a critical component of academic life. This includes respecting library policies requiring renewal of materials, payment for lost materials so that similar materials can be purchased, and making materials accessible when "recalled" if others need materials that are checked out.

The Problem

While the majority of faculty and staff act responsibly in this regard, a visible minority have not been responsive to overtures from the University Libraries to either return material or pay for material declared lost. This has resulted in a serious "accounts receivable" problem.

The issue brought to the University Libraries by Financial Reporting was one of a poor accounting practice that needed to be rectified. The problem is that once bills are sent out by the Libraries, it has no procedure for actually enforcing the collection process. This situation has resulted in a six digit outstanding "unbooked accounts receivable" and a misstatement of the university's financial position (See Appendix 1). In recent months, steps have been taken to alleviate this situation. Student bills are now referred to the Bursars Office and handled through that collection process. For patrons classified as "other," including faculty and staff who have left the university, a collection agency will be used; selection of a collection agency is under way. The remaining category to be resolved is for current faculty and staff.

While the auditing problem must be addressed, the larger issue from the perspective of the University Libraries is return of materials and access to materials by all faculty and students who need them. Most of the unreturned material is irreplaceable, as books go out of print very quickly under current publishing cycles. In addition, individuals who have these materials sometimes ignore recall requests for use by other faculty and students, thus denying access.

In selecting a collection process, the first objective is to encourage return of the materials. Secondarily, fees should return as directly as possible to the Libraries to replace materials. Finally, the process must treat all faculty and staff in an equitable manner. A variety of collection alternatives have been under discussion for several years, and an option for the selection of a payroll deduction was discussed before the Faculty Senate in 1998. In May 2002 a system of payroll deduction was instituted by the University Libraries. At that time it was believed that the available software made this the only realistic option. After some objections were raised to this procedure, it was agreed to suspend the policy pending additional consultation among Libraries staff and the Faculty Senate. Since that time, a number of proposals have been discussed. Meetings were held between the Senate Officers, the Provost, the Dean of University Libraries, and the Senate Libraries Committee.

The Policies

1. New Policies Now Being Implemented

Overdue Notice/Billing Cycle - At the suggestion of the Committee on Libraries and the Faculty Senate Council, the billing cycle is being reduced from 18 months to 6 months, with a fine instituted at 30 days that is revocable if material is returned within 60 days of date due. The expectation is that a more compressed billing cycle and additional reminder notices will result in a more responsive outcome. Provisions will be made for faculty on sabbatical to renew materials remotely.

Appeals Committees - All campuses had an Appeals Committee in place by the end of Fall Semester, 2002. Each includes representation from faculty and staff. Any bill will be suspended pending the outcome of an appeal.

2. Collection Options Analyzed

For faculty and staff currently at the university who do not respond to notices and bills within six month, four options (summarized below) have been discussed extensively.

It is important to understand that for the purposes discussed in this report, payroll deduction requires an individual to give permission. This has been verified by the Corporate Controller. Under federal and state law, it is illegal to garnish wages without permission except for very specific cases - child support, back taxes, and unpaid federal student loans. Everything else is considered an "assignment" which requires permission from the individual. Laws that pertain include the State of Pennsylvania - State Assignment and Garnishments, the Federal Labor Relations Act, and the Consumer Credit Protection Act. For example, at Penn State individuals give such permission on the Faculty/Staff Vehicle Registration form to deduct parking fines via payroll deduction, as a condition for use of a university credit card, and for automatic savings deductions. The Libraries is required by the Payroll Office to obtain permission from each individual to utilize any form of payroll deduction for overdue fines and lost book fees.

Payroll deduction (optional) - Due to objection to comprehensive payroll deduction by some faculty, the Libraries investigated whether faculty and staff could be offered the option of payroll deduction, with collection agency as the default for those who objected to this option and did not sign off. However, the Payroll Office raised questions that were reviewed by the Corporate Controller. In an email dated 12-11-02, the Corporate Controller verified that "Neither the Library's systems nor the central systems are prepared to support a voluntary deduction approach whereby employees would be able to make or revoke their election to withhold at any time; and I am not convinced that the outstanding dollars involved would justify the efficiencies of such a system anyway." Thus, optimal payroll deduction has been eliminated from further consideration.

Holding of final paycheck - On November 22, 2002 the Provost asked the Corporate Controller to investigate another option, that of holding the last paycheck of an employee until all fines and fees are paid and all property and keys are returned. The Corporate Controller concluded in the 12-11-02 e-mail that "…a final check out procedure … still amounts to a voluntary process that the employee may or may not accept (and we would be unable to withhold the final check unless the employee agrees)." This option has also been eliminated from further consideration.

Payroll deduction (required) - The Libraries, Payroll Office, and Corporate Controller agreed to the use of required payroll deduction last spring and began the process of faculty/staff sign-off. Because of concerns expressed by some faculty, the process was suspended pending further discussion with the Faculty Senate. Compared to use of collection agencies, its virtues include:
o Best chance of getting materials back
o No impact on individual's credit rating
o Process stays within the University
o Funds collected remain with the Libraries to replace material
o Payroll deduction already in place for other University services
o Automatic process - least labor intensive & least expensive

Collection Agency - The Libraries and the University may use collection agencies. Use of a collection agency requires no action from the faculty or staff member at any time and will only affect those individuals who do not respond to repeated notices and bills. Drawbacks include:
o More stringent timelines for collection (some collection agencies require collection at 60 days)
o Affects individual's credit rating
o Less money to Libraries to replace material - fees go to collection agency (up to 40%)
o More labor intensive process

President Spanier has expressed that he does not support the use of external collection agencies for the collection of fines that are imposed as an internal matter for employees that are on our payroll.

3. Conclusions and Recommendation

The use of payroll deduction (required) or collection agency are the two options available to the University Libraries to address the collection of unpaid library fines and fees by current faculty and staff. The Committee on Libraries concludes that payroll deduction (required) is the preferable option. All campuses now have appeals committees in place to deal with contested bills, providing due process.

Recommendation: (1) payroll deduction (required) for the collection of Libraries fines and fees from current faculty and staff, and (2) the establishment of an Appeals Committee at each Library location providing due process. This committee will include representation from faculty and staff and will be in place by the time of implementation.

Richard N. Barshinger
Aida M. Beaupied
Charles L. Burchard
Meshawn Carter
Michael J. Chorney
David A. Cranage
Brian A. Curran, Chair
Nancy L. Eaton, Ex Officio
Bonnie MacEwan
Wayne K. Marshall
James E. May
Annette K. McGregor
Elise D. Miller-Hooks
Wilson J. Moses
Dagmar Sternad, Vice-Chair
Reiko Tachibana

Appendix 1:
Fees owed to University Libraries

End of Spring Semester
# of current Faculty who have outstanding fees
Current Faculty
Current Staff
Current Students
Non-current Faculty/Staff/Students and all other patrons (e.g., visiting faculty, etc.)
Current Balance
$ 9,994

Overdue Notice/Billing Cycle

Notice Type
Days Overdue
Months Overdue
Replacement cost = Average market value as per Yankee Book Peddler price list.




Courtesy Reminder - mailed to email recipients only.
3 days before due



If book is returned at this point there is no fine.  
No notice produced on the due date.



If book is returned at this point there is no fine.  
First Overdue Notice: "The following items are overdue.  Please renew or return these items as soon as possible."  The URL for online renewal is included.
10 days



If book is returned at this point there is no fine.  
Second (Final) Overdue Notice. 
20 days



If book is returned at this point there is no fine.  
Notice: Intent to payroll deduct in 5 months.  This notice is produced once.  This notice will serve as a warning that the amount indicated will be forwarded for payroll deduction 6 months past the due date of the book.             
Plus replacement cost of book. This will be the "intent to bill notice."   If book is returned at this point there is no fine even though a fine appears.  Text will indicate that for items returned before the 60-day notice all fines and replacement costs will be cancelled.  This is a new 60-day grace period.    Borrowing Privileges are blocked from this point until book is returned and any applicable fines paid.
Bill 1 - intent to payroll deduct in 4 months. 
Plus replacement cost of book. If book is returned at this point there will be a $25.00 fine.  If the patron declares the book lost and pays for a replacement, the Libraries will refund the replacement cost only up to one year from due date if the book is subsequently returned.  The $25.00 fine is non-refundable once the item has become 60 days over due.       THIS CONDITION CARRIES FORWARD FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT NOTICES.                          
Text indicates intent to payroll deduct in 3 months.
Plus replacement cost of book. Repeat until payroll deduction occurs.
Text indicates intent to payroll deduct in 2 months.
Plus replacement cost of book. Repeat until payroll deduction occurs.
Text indicates Intent to payroll deduct in one month.
Plus replacement cost of book. Repeat until payroll deduction occurs.
The amount of this bill will be forwarded to payroll for deduction.  A file transfer is transmitted to financial services on a pre-established schedule.  Text of notice provides an explanation.
Plus replacement cost of book. No refund of replacement cost or fine will be issued once the cost has been payroll deducted, if book is subsequently returned.

University Libraries
Plan for Payroll Deduction of Library Materials and Fines

February 12, 2003

Appendix E


ANGEL Course Management System


During Spring Semester 2001, the Provost asked a committee to recommend a course management system that could be used throughout Resident Instruction and the World Campus. A course management system makes it easy for faculty to use the Web in teaching by automating many of the steps necessary to create Webpages, manage a class roster, and communicate with students. The committee (chaired by John Harwood and Gary Miller) recommended that Penn State enter into a consortial arrangement with Indiana University, which had developed and deployed a very successful course management system several years earlier. The purpose of this adoption was to create a common learning environment available to faculty and students at all locations.

This report summarizes the usage of ANGEL (A New Global Environment for Learning) for the Fall Semester 2002. We are happy to report that ANGEL is being widely used. Of the nearly 14,000 sections of courses offered this semester, nearly 3,500 of the sections are taught by faculty who are using their "ANGEL" accounts. Nearly 47,000 students are taking at least one course using ANGEL. Two-thirds of the ANGEL sections are lower-division (001-299), but nearly 25% are 400-level courses. The adoption rates for University Park and the campus colleges (24% vs. 22%) are very similar. Adoption rates by college and discipline vary sharply.

While a few of these sections are being taught entirely online (e.g., Meteorology 101 is being offered to students at multiple campuses), most sections are using parts of the system for particular instructional goals (e.g., low-stakes quizzing or threaded discussion groups).

A new feature this semester is a joint project with the University Libraries and Information Technology Services to provide nearly 60 department-level subject guides and e-reserves to students via ANGEL. Faculty who request this service can have these resources made available to students who are enrolled in classes for which particular subject guides are relevant. The prototype of this service involves 104 instructors; the goal is to make these resources widely available in future semesters.

A surprisingly popular feature of ANGEL has been the "groups" option. Nearly 1,000 groups have been created and are being used by nearly 5,000 individuals. Most of the "groups" are study groups related to courses, but a large number are being used to facilitate communication and collaboration among researchers, units (e.g., Student Affairs), and even Faculty Senate committees. We believe that in future years, more units will find ways to use these tools.

The next release of ANGEL (Summer Sessions 2003) will have many new features. It will have a MathML editor, which makes it easy for faculty and students to create equations. Major improvements in the gradebook, the syllabus, and the quizzing tool are expected as well as new flexibility in the management of teams. Finally, there will be new tools for departments, divisions, and campuses to share teaching resources. For more information about ANGEL, visit the website at:

Anthony Ambrose
Paul E. Barney, Jr.
R. Thomas Berner, Chair
Hemant K. Bhargava
Edward R. Bollard, Jr.
David Breslin
Victor W. Brunsden
Lee D. Coraor, Vice-Chair
John T. Harwood
Alan L. Horwitz
Michael L. Jonson
Anna S. Mattila
Dawn M. Noga
Joy M. Perrine
Semyon (Sam) Slobounov
John B. Urenko
Russell S. Vaught
Kay Wijekumar

Appendix F


Penn State's World Campus


Since its founding in January 1998, the World Campus has grown steadily and has matured into an increasingly important element of Penn State's service to adult learners.


The World Campus program of offerings has grown to include two professional master's degrees, two baccalaureate degrees, two associate degrees, and a number of undergraduate and post-baccalaureate credit certificate programs, in addition to a small number of noncredit professional development programs. Additional undergraduate and professional master's degrees are in development.


The vast majority of World Campus students are adult, part-time learners who take one or two courses at a time. Two-thirds live beyond Pennsylvania; they come from every state in the United States and from more than 40 countries and all seven continents. This year, the World Campus is projecting more than 9,000 course enrollments; unduplicated student headcount had exceeded 3,000 by the end of January 2003. Student satisfaction with this learning environment is high. Ninety-two percent report overall quality as "average" to "excellent" on a five-point scale. Many report that they could not have taken a similar program elsewhere.


Eighty percent of faculty report that their World Campus courses are "about the same" or "better than" the classroom equivalent. Two-thirds of faculty report that they have developed new ideas that they have applied to their classroom courses.


The World Campus is a cost-center of the University and is expected to recover all costs for instruction, infrastructure, and support services. Over the past three years, annual tuition revenue has grown by an average of 35%. The World Campus is expected to break even within two years. Meanwhile, this year it turned back to the Colleges more than $211,000 in net revenue generated by mature programs.


A Sloan Foundation grant to the World Campus has supported ten faculty research projects this year, as well as an invitational workshop on faculty workload in e-learning that brought Penn State faculty together with peers from around the United States and as far away as England, Spain, and Australia. A Faculty Advisory Committee has been formed to provide advice and guidance on teaching and learning issues.

Policy Issues

The Provost has charged a Course Sharing Working Group to make recommendations on issues related to internal competition, refining the campus course exchange, and offering degree programs where there are multiple academic sponsors. The goal is to ensure student choice in a way that is mutually beneficial to both the local campus and the World Campus. The Working Group is co-chaired by Vice President James Ryan and Dean James Thomas and expects to make its report early this spring.

Theodore R. Alter
David E. Barnes
Ryan Fortese
Thomas E. Glumac, Chair
Julia C. Hewitt, Vice-Chair
James W. Hilton
Kenneth B. Kephart
Donald E. Kunze
Pablo Laguna
Kevin R. Maxwell
James H. Ryan
Ladislaus M. Semali
Keith Verner

Appendix G


Intergroup Dialogue: A Means for Promoting Understanding in a Diverse Community



In Fall 2001, in the wake of disturbances on campus and a widespread feeling that Penn State needed to do more to promote mutual understanding of ethnic groups on campus, the Student Life Committee was charged to investigate practices used at other major universities to successfully promote educational equity. This is not an issue limited to Penn State; increasingly, major universities have found that creating a diverse environment involves more than simply recruiting greater numbers of minorities. "Educators say the goal is not just to improve race relations and make minority students feel more welcome," a recent New York Times essay said, "but also to create a new category of graduate - one they describe as culturally versatile, or culturally competent, attributes they expect will become more useful as the nation becomes increasingly diverse" (Rimer 2002).

As part of this investigation, the committee discussed Penn State's needs with W. Terrell Jones, Vice Provost for Educational Equity. He noted that many students were coming from K-12 schools at pre-1964 levels of integration. This leads to a problem in that students are coming from segregated schools and experiencing multiculturalism for the first time at the university level.

It is necessary, Dr. Jones said, for there to be a "safe area" in the curriculum, enabling transformation and change. At present, there are not many academic environments where diversity issues are discussed in depth. The University needs to create flexible programs to deal with these issues, he concluded.

In the Student Life Committee's survey of best practices, the program known as "intergroup dialogue" repeatedly came up as being a new idea that had been received well at a number of institutions comparable to Penn State. In addition, this program has been piloted here in a modest way. As a means of drawing attention to this practice, the Student Life Committee presents a summary of its history and the results it has produced.

What is Intergroup Dialogue?

It is an educational experience that matches students from groups that have a tradition of conflict or mutual suspicion and allows them to learn to communicate with each other in a safe, structured environment led by an experienced moderator.

Key features include:

Where does it come from?

The Intergroup Dialogue model originated at the University of Michigan in 1988, when the university experienced a period of racial conflict analogous to the one experienced at Penn State's University Park campus during the 2000-2001 academic year. Using money from a federal grant that was obtained to explore solutions to this conflict, a team of faculty from the Sociology department put together a small non-credit program that was originally offered in residence halls. It was well received by students and grew quickly to a sizeable program.

Ideas from the Michigan program were adopted by a variety of other major universities, and in 1998, the first of a series of meetings was held at the University of Michigan for campus leaders interested in developing such programs at their own institutions. It has since been repeatedly identified as a promising model for managing diverse populations in such sources as One America in the 21st Century (1998), the report of President Clinton's Initiative on Race.

Where else has it been used?

Universities who have used this or a similar program include:

Arizona State University
University of California, Long Beach
University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
University of Michigan
University of Washington, Seattle

What are some of these programs like?

The program consists of 6 two-hour weekly meetings. Approximately 14 different groups are given per term, including African-American/White, Latino/White, Female/Male, Gay-Lesbian-Bi/Straight, Women-of-Color/White-Women. In order to participate, students are required to make application, since only 200-250 spaces are available per term. The session is led by two specially trained facilitators, who may be staff members, regular faculty, or a graduate or undergraduate student. Faculty are encouraged to allow students to use the dialogue for an additional credit with a class that is taken concurrently. Attendance is taken. When the course is taken for credit, students complete journals or papers.

Most dialogues are held for 6 weeks for two hours. Sections offered in Fall 2002 included "People of Color & White People," "Dialogue in the Global Village," "Men and Women," "Blacks & Jews," and "Rural, Urban, and Suburban." These dialogues carry one academic credit, and Illinois also offers a 3-credit course (EdPsy202: Exploring Cultural Diversity) that incorporates intergroup dialogues into the class. Students can also take a sequence of courses to learn to help facilitate dialogues.

This program consists of 6-7 weeks of two-hour sessions. The dialogues may carry one academic stand-alone credit or may be used as a requirement for a class taken concurrently. All dialogues are facilitated by graduate students, staff, or faculty who have been trained in the practice of dialogue moderating. Also, facilitators are chosen to reflect the social and cultural identities of the participants: for instance, the "Black People/Jewish People" dialogue is co-facilitated by a Black and a Jewish leader. Grades are based on attendance, weekly journals, reading assignments, and a final reaction paper.

The flagship and most fully developed program. First run through a living and learning program in residence halls, it developed into an academic initiative fully integrated with student life and now ranges from one-time dialogues held within student organizations and dorms to full semester courses. It has an adiminstrative staff of 4½ full-time positions, supervising typically 12 instructors (from other units). There is a first-year seminar based on intergroup dialogue, and a number of 3-credit sociology and psychology courses follow this up. There is an entire intergroup dialogue relations course sequence for those with deeper interest, and a course to train undergraduates interested in facilitating these dialogues. Per semester, the dialogues draw about 230 students, with the other courses reaching another 385 students. Around 200 additional students participate in co-curricular options.

What benefits have been seen at these institutions?

While quantitative results have not been compiled, a survey of 30 University of Michigan students who had served as dialogue facilitators indicated profound qualitative benefits. Carolyn Vasques Scalera commented:

These students describe a deep and lasting impact that the program had on their personal and professional lives, their relationships with others, and their commitments to social justice. They describe developing awareness and more complex understandings of their own and others' multiple identities and their roles as individuals and group members in systems of oppression. They describe learning to value the role of conflict, critical compassion, and empathy in building communities within and across difference. Research also suggests that they are using the communication, conflict, and facilitation skills they learned in the program to translate their learning into action in a variety of settings.

Charles Behling, one of the directors of the same program, commented that the program's structuring meant that it may not be swift enough to use in an intense, tension-ridden situation. But the training and long-term commitment to dialogue did help create a cadre of leaders who could take charge in a crisis and better create the kind of communication that helps avoid such flare-ups in the long term. He also noted that "when hate incidents occur, our students are disproportionately represented among those who take action against the incidents" (personal communication).

What resources are needed to maintain or expand the program?

Most programs began small, as non-credit co-curricular offerings, with limited start-up budgets. These were mentioned as common needs for successful maintenance of Intergroup Dialogue programs:

1. A small group of faculty and staff committed to making the program work. Early stages could be low in costs but by the same token labor-intensive.

2. A formal training program for facilitators (which can be done on weekends or during breaks between semesters).

3. Cooperation and joint funding between Student Affairs and a home academic department.

4. A planned curriculum to provide more than a "let's talk" structure to the dialogues. Participants need to learn to listen to the other side and hear how what they say sounds to others.

Given the support that this initiative has received from students at the institutions where it has been instituted, it is possible that Intergroup Dialogue could grow to be a major program. At Michigan, the program grew from a residence hall program using graduate students and handling about a hundred students per semester to a highly visible program with a half-million dollar budget, 4½ academic lines, an academic minor in Intergroup Relations, and, at present, some thirty groups per semester.

What has Penn State's experience been with Intergroup Dialogue?

At the initiative of Arthur W. Carter, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, a pilot program began at University Park in Spring 2001. Three groups met for eight weeks during the Spring 2001 semester. The six graduate student co-facilitators met weekly for 1½ hours of training/supervision for twelve weeks, and the dialogue groups themselves met for 8 weeks in 2-hour weekly sessions. Evaluation of this trial program showed that there was student interest in the program (several had to be turned away due to lack of facilities). In addition, many students reported "life-changing experience" as a result of their participation.

The program was repeated in Fall 2001 and Spring 2002, serving a total of 110 students. Ethnic groups represented included Caucasians, Africans and African Americans, Latinos, Bi-racials, Asians and Asian-Americans and Muslims. Interest and student satisfaction have increased each time, and the short-term goal is to serve 50-75 students per semester. Under Carter's leadership, Student Affairs has requested continuing support for this program from the Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity, and that office has supported funding for the effort.


Gorski, Paul. "A Guide for Setting Ground Rules." Multicultural Supersite: Intercultural Activities. McGraw-Hill, 2000. <>

Kachwaha, Tanya, Chad Beyer, Gisella Zúñiga, and Ximena Zúñiga. "Successfully Communicating Across Difference: Methods for Engaging Students in Dialogue." Material prepared for the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity, New Orleans, 2002.

Rimer Sara. "Colleges Find Diversity Is Not Just Numbers" New York Times November 12, 2002.

Schoem, David and Sylvia Hurtado, eds. Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

Stephan, Walter and Cookie Stephan. Improving Intergroup Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001.

Vasques Scalera, Carolyn. "What Happens Next? Examining the Long-Term Impact of Diversity Education." Diversity Digest. 1999. <>

Zúñiga, Ximena. "Fostering Intergroup Dialogue on Campus: Essential Ingredients." Diversity Digest. 1998. <>

Zúñiga, Ximena, Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda, and Todd D. Sevig. "Intergroup Dialogues: An Educational Model for Cultivating Engagement Across Differences." Equity & Excellence in Education 35:1 (April 2002): 7-17.

William W. Asbury
Arthur W. Carter
James M. Donovan
Bill Ellis, Chair
Charles R. Enis
Andrzej J. Gapinski
Timothy N. Gray
Wallace H. Greene
Dale A. Holen
Andrew K. Masters
Gwenn E. McCollum
Irwin Richman, Vice-Chair
Kristin Sommese
Jennifer Tingo
Bridget Van Osten
Alexandros N. Vgontzas

Appendix H


Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking



In March of 2001, the Department of Justice provided a grant to The Center for Women Students (CWS) at Penn State to educate students, staff, and faculty on how best to respond to relationship violence and to create campus/community collaborations to address sexual assault, relationship violence, and stalking. These issues affect both male and female student populations at Penn State.

The CWS effort calls on all constituencies of the Penn State community to work together to address this problem. Partners in the grant who have received funding include the Women's Resource Center, CAPS, University Health Services (especially Women's Health), and Judicial Affairs. Additionally, there has been funding for police training both on and off campus. This is the first in a series of reports addressing how faculty can respond to issues relating to sexual assault, relationship/domestic violence, and stalking.

Why does Penn State need to address the issue of relationship violence?

Current Penn State University policies, including the Code of Conduct (section 2) and Policy AD 41, make it clear that non-consensual physical contact of a sexual nature is intolerable in an academic setting. In addition, the Code of Conduct (section 3) forbids harassment, including sexual harassment, any "course of conduct which subjects a person or group of persons to unwanted physical contact or the threat of such contact, or which seriously threatens or alarms a person or group." The University's Policy Statement on Sexual Assault and Abuse says, "While the University cannot control all the factors in society that lead to sexual assault and abuse, the University strives to create an environment that is free of acts of violence." Thus the current project clearly builds on an existing commitment by Penn State to protect students, male and female, from abusive sexual relationships and to maintain a safe environment for their social and academic life.

A first step in the process of assessing the problem was a PULSE survey on Relationship Violence, published in February 2002. This report, which was based on 1569 responses to phone and e-mail queries, indicated that approximately one-tenth of female Penn State students had experienced various forms of relationship abuse, ranging from stalking to sexual assault. Many more, amounting to nearly two-thirds of women polled, said they had experienced some kind of coercion to have unwanted sex.

Although the Student Life Committee's previous report to the Senate entitled "Student Perceptions of Safety" (February 2002) indicated that Penn State students feel relatively safe compared to comparable institutions, it concluded that some concerns remained. A female survey respondent from a focus group wrote, "Just because I feel safe does not mean that this is a safe campus. . . . We need to acknowledge that this campus is not safe for everyone, and we need to find out why so that we can work to improve it."

What is the Center for Women Students doing to curb the problem?

The Center for Women Students provides educational programming about Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking. They visit classrooms, residence halls, and student meetings to educate both men and women about the issues. CWS also provides workshops for faculty and staff about how to help students when it is suspected that this is occurring. In addition, a pamphlet entitled "Relationship Violence: What You Need to Know" is being distributed widely.

Data is currently being collected from students who present with these issues at the Center for Women Students, Women's Health and University Health Services, CAPS, Judicial Affairs, in residence halls, and with University Police. Off campus, the Women's Resource Center sees student victims as well.

Why are faculty being called upon to help as part of this overall effort?

The PULSE survey pointed out that two of the most common side effects of relationship abuses were missing classes and a drop in grades. Therefore, faculty may be in a special place to see when a problem exists and should have in hand guidelines for handling students who may volunteer details about such concerns.

Based on experience, the Center for Women Students has found that students are more willing to share these issues initially with faculty members than with many other authorities. In many cases, students turn to faculty for support and guidance. Faculty awareness of the problem has been identified as being a critical factor in the effort to responsibly address these issues. It is important that the faculty learn to recognize danger signs and know to whom and where to direct students in the event they are approached.


At the start of Fall Semester 2003, The Center for Women Students will distribute to all Penn State Faculty a Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking Resource Card (see attached), containing easily accessible information that is adaptable for all Penn State locations. In the future, this card will be distributed to faculty at the start of their Penn State employment.

William W. Asbury
Arthur W. Carter
James M. Donovan
Bill Ellis, Chair
Charles R. Enis
Andrzej J. Gapinski
Timothy N. Gray
Wallace H. Greene
Dale A. Holen
Andrew K. Masters
Gwenn E. McCollum
Irwin Richman, Vice-Chair
Kristin Sommese
Jennifer Tingo
Bridget Van Osten
Alexandros N. Vgontzas

Resource for Helping Students Who May be Experiencing
Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Relationship Violence

Relationship violence is a potential problem that may impact the safety and self-confidence of both male and female students. Faculty and staff members spend a great deal of time with students and for that reason should have information readily available to them to assist students in need. While students of both sexes may be victims of abusive relationships, a recent PULSE survey found that 10% of women at University Park reported they had been victims of sexual assault, 12% reported being stalked, and 9% said they had experienced relationship violence. Expanded information on sexual assault and relationship/domestic violence can be found at

1.) Look for potential signs of trouble, some of which may include:
o An abrupt attendance problem
o A sudden change in classroom participation
o Missing assignments when this had not previously been a problem
o Unusual patterns of coming late to class and/or leaving early
o Signs of bruising or injuries
o Reasons for absences include multiple hospital or doctor visits

2.) Approach the student - let him or her know you are supportive and can be trusted
o Ask the question - most victims welcome your concern and have been hoping someone would notice
o Some examples of questions to ask include:
--- "I hope you don't mind my asking, but is something going on that concerns your safety?"
--- "I have noticed that you've been missing classes for ____ days now which is unusual for you. If there is something going on that you would like to talk about, I'm here."
--- "I have noticed a lot of bruises on you lately. Is everything ok, or is something happening that you need to talk about?"

3.) Be supportive - try using one of the following statements:
--- "I am so sorry this happened to you."
--- "You are not alone - there is help."
--- "You are very courageous for sharing this with me - thank you."
--- "How can I help?"

4.) Refer the student to the Center for Women Students or another appropriate resource
o CWS can help students obtain information about all available options
o Additional resources on reverse side can be used to aid students who may request specific services

5.) Let students know you are a safe person to approach with concerns
o Talk about these issues in your classes - relate them to the course outline. For example, a business class could discuss measures to take when workplace violence becomes a threat to an employee. An English class could incorporate articles on sexual assault or stalking as reading assignments, or a criminal justice class could assign students to take part in court watch.

o Invite CWS staff to your class - CWS staff can relate these issues to topics in your course. It will show students that you, as a faculty member, can and are willing to talk about issues currently facing them. CWS often co-presents with campus and community partners.


Below you will find programming services and web links with information about sexual assault, rape, stalking, and relationship violence. These sites also provide other campus and community resources that may prove helpful to victims.

PROGRAMMING/SERVICES: The Center for Women Students

Staff is available for:

o Advocacy - networking with other PSU units/locations. Helping students get connected.

o Consultations - meetings to discuss student(s) you are concerned about. These can be anonymous. If the student wishes, staff can visit your location to talk about concerns s/he may have as well.

o Resources and Referrals - providing options and accurate information for students -- staff and faculty, too!

o Educational Programming -staff can come to your class, staff meeting, or department meeting to speak on any number of topics - sexual assault, relationship violence, sexual harassment, stalking, and healthy relationships

o Facilitated Educational Programs - a variety of videos can be presented and followed by staff-facilitated discussions on topics such as: images of women in advertising and media, date rape, eating disorders, the acculturation of men in modern society and the impact on violence.

Sexual Assault/Rape/Relationship Violence Information:

Protocol to assist victims of relationship, domestic, and sexual violence:

Stalking and Chilly Classroom Information

Resource Directory

Video and Book Collection


Center for Women Students
102 Boucke Building

Counseling and Psychological Services
221 Ritenour Building

Centre County Women's Resource
Center (24 hours) Hotline:
Day time - 234-5050

Centre Community Hospital
Emergency Department

University Health Services
Women's Health - 863-2633
General Medicine - 863-0774

Police Emergency Number

University Police
Eisenhower Parking Deck

Judicial Affairs
135 Boucke Building

State College Police
243 S. Allen Street

Ferguson Township Police
3147 Research Drive

Patton Township Police
100 Patton Plaza

Victim/Witness Advocate
Eisenhower Parking Deck

District Attorney
Centre County Courthouse

Escort Service (dusk to dawn)

National Domestic Violence Hotline

Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network Hotline

National Center for Victims of Crime
(Service Referral line)

This brochure was developed by the Center for Women Students Violence Against Women on Campus Grant office. Points of view found among the various web sites mentioned in this document are those of the creators of those sites and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of The Pennsylvania State University. (2002) Funding for this brochure was provided through a grant from the Department of Justice Violence Against Women Office, Grant 2000-WA-VX-0003.

(NOTE: Local Resources will be included on this page with individual campus and community information.)

Appendix I


Academic Integrity Case Data


In 2000, the Faculty Senate approved significant changes to the Academic Integrity Policy, 49-20. The Judicial Affairs homepage has a navigation bar which links to Policy 49-20 and ACUE Administrative Procedures G-9. This informational report reviews the effect of the Academic Integrity Policy changes.

A major change in the new policy was to require each college to formulate a process to review academic integrity cases. Each college was to have an Academic Integrity Committee to oversee the process and to make final decisions on cases if the student denied cheating or was unwilling to accept the sanction chosen by the faculty member. The new Senate Policy 49-20 places clear responsibility on the colleges for promoting academic integrity and for dealing with any situations that involve academic sanctions. All Penn State colleges and campuses have submitted Policy and Procedures for Handling Cases of Academic Integrity and Academic Precedent Guidelines. The Director of Judicial Affairs has reviewed and approved them from a conduct policy and procedures perspective. Most colleges have posted their Policy and Procedures for Handling Cases of Academic Integrity and Academic Precedent Guidelines on their college Web site.

A second major change was related to the role of the Office of Judicial Affairs. That office now has responsibility for maintaining a University-wide database concerning academic sanctions to identify patterns of cheating across courses and across colleges that may not be apparent within one college. According to Judicial Affairs records, there have been 2 multiple offenders of Academic Integrity from August 22, 2000 through August 21, 2002. In addition, the Office of Judicial Affairs can impose disciplinary sanctions in exceptional cases and may conduct hearings if repeat offenders are found. In such cases, an XF-grade may be assigned. The XF designation on the transcript indicates that the F grade was received for academic dishonesty.

Figure 1 is a five-year summary of academic dishonesty cases sent to Judicial Affairs from University Park. The data for the academic years before 2000-01 include only University Park cases because other campus locations did not report academic dishonesty cases to Judicial Affairs before Policy 49-20 was changed. The data for 2000-01 and 2001-02 include cases from all campus locations. This table shows that the new policy is making a difference. The number of reported breaches of academic integrity has increased in the past five years, and the increase was greatest during the 2001-02 academic year. This increase shows that faculty are more willing to report and follow up on infractions because we now have a clear policy that is easy to follow. It should be noted that faculty members who resolved cases prior to the 2000-01 academic year were not reporting such to the Office of Judicial Affairs. This allowed many cases to be undocumented and allowed repeat offenders to not be identified. Anecdotally, based on the number of consultations to Judicial Affairs, the new policy and current structure for processing and reporting cases appears to have increased the number of cases that are addressed by faculty in addition to an increase in the number of cases being reported.

Figure 1. Number of Reported Academic Integrity Cases.

Tables 1-3 show the breakdown of adjudicated cases by college from August 22, 2001 to August 21, 2002. It should be noted that the numbers at University Park include both undergraduate and graduate students. Also note that the colleges listed in Table 1 are the colleges where the infraction occurred, not the college in which the student is enrolled. Another sign that the policy is working is that most cases were handled within the colleges, as hoped. In fact, over 86 % of the cases (n= 233) were handled directly by faculty in the 2001-02 academic year and another 11.5% were referred to a College-level Academic Integrity Committee. Only seven cases or less than 3% of the total number of last year's academic integrity cases were handled by the Office of Judicial Affairs.

The most common academic integrity violation during 2001-02 was plagiarism, accounting for 74% of the total number of cases handled. Cheating and copying accounted for almost one-fifth of the total. The "other" category includes violations such as taking the test for someone else, fabricating information or citations, facilitating academic dishonesty by others, and submitting work previously completed by a group and then taking sole credit.

The result of most of the reported violations was receiving a '0' for an assignment or test (47%). This was followed by 28% of the cases receiving a failing grade in the course. As can be seen, very few of the cases resulted in an XF grade on the transcript.


The revised Academic Integrity Policy has significantly increased the number of dishonesty cases that are reported to Judicial Affairs. It cannot be known if the overall number of cases identified by faculty has increased since many faculty would address the issue in the past without notifying Judicial Affairs. Reporting all cases to Judicial Affairs will allow repeat offenders to be identified.

As Distance Education and World Campus courses increase, it will become increasingly important that College Academic Integrity Procedures address the additional issues that arise in these delivery methods.

The Undergraduate Education Committee recommends that the Academic Integrity data continue to be reviewed by the committee over the next few years and a report prepared for the Senate at that time.

Cheryl L. Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Laura M. Beck
Thomas E. Boothby
John P. Cancro
Paul F. Clark
Terry Engelder
Cheryl Gallagher
Peter D. Georgopulos
Robert S. Hill
Janis E. Jacobs
Richard R. Kennedy
John H. Kramer
Amy E. Locke
Nancy S. Love
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Robert D. Ricketts, Vice-Chair
David W. Russell
Dhushy Sathianathan
Dennis C. Scanlon
Julia B. Simon
James A. Strauss
D. Joshua Troxell
Eric R. White
Susan C. Youtz

Table 1.  Academic Integrity Cases at University Park 2001-2002




# of Cases Sent by College



Agricultural Sciences




Arts & Architecture


Judicial Affairs


Smeal College of Business Administration








Earth & Mineral Sciences










Judicial Affairs


Health & Human Development




Information Sciences & Technology




Liberal Arts


Judicial Affairs


Eberly College of Science


Judicial Affairs




Judicial Affairs


* The colleges listed are the colleges where the infraction occurred, not the college in which the student is enrolled.

Table 2.  Academic Integrity Cases from Campuses and Campus Colleges  (non-UP)  2001-2002 


# of Cases

Level Handled














































Lehigh Valley


Judicial Affairs






Mont Alto




New Kensington








Shenango Valley








Worthington Scranton










Judicial Affairs



Table 3.  Academic Integrity Cases  


University Park

Campus Colleges






Number of Cases








Cases handled by:












Judicial Affairs








Violation Type




Cheating of Copying








Altering Test




Unauthorized Test Use












Sanctions Assigned




No Action








Redo Work




Reduced Grade for Assignment/Test




0 for Assignment/Test




Reduced Grade for Course




Failure of Course








Dismissed from the Program




University Faculty Senate
Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 1:30 p.m. - 102 Kern Graduate Building

Members Present: C. D. Baggett, C. J. Bise, M. Blumberg, R. L. Burgess, W. R. Curtis, W. T. DeCastro, C. D. Eckhardt, J. R. Esposito, D. H. Evensen, D. S. Gouran, P. C. Jurs, A. Leure-duPree, R. L. McCarty, L. Milakofsky, D. G. Mills, J. W. Moore, J. S. Nichols, J. L. Pytel, P. P. Rebane, W. A. Richards, A. W. Scaroni, J. C. Spychalski, S. W. Stace, B. B. Tormey, S. C. Youtz

Members Accounted For: R. A. Erickson, S. A. Marsico, G. B. Spanier

Members Absent: E. A. Hanley

Guests: L. Coraor, B. Curran, W. Ellis, K. Grigsby, J. Hewitt, J. Jacobs, T. Jones, D. Kirch, L. Pauley, J. Romano, R. Secor, L. Semali, K. Sommese, V. Stratton


Chair John Moore called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, in 102 Kern Graduate Building.


The minutes of the January 14, 2003 meeting were approved as presented on a DeCastro/Esposito motion.


Chair Moore announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met on February 11. The following items were discussed: Faculty Salaries and Tuition Increases; Status of GI Requirement Discussions; Senate Self-Study Progress; Dean/VP Search Update; Faculty Travel Arrangements; Library Fines Policy; Intercollegiate Athletic Reform Update; Increasing Number of Penn State Policies that Assume Faculty Wrongdoing; Faculty Participation in Circleville Farm Utilization; and Recertification Update.

The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for March 4, 2003. Any items for discussion at FAC may be submitted to a Senate Officer or one of the three elected members: Wayne Curtis, Elizabeth Hanley and Peter Rebane.

The Senate Officers visited the College of Arts and Architecture on January 27 and the College of Engineering on February 6. Upcoming visits are: February 18 - the College of Education; February 19-20 - The Graduate School; February 24 - the College of Agricultural Sciences; and March 3 - the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. The list of dates and locations for the remainder of the Spring visits is posted on the Senate's web site (

Chair Moore announced that the Senate Committee on University Planning was asked by assistant vice president Dan Sieminski to review the draft request for proposal for Circleville Farm. The following committee members will serve as a subcommittee and will provide feedback to Mr. Sieminski: Rob Pangborn (ENGR), chair; John Boehmer (MED), Dan Brinker (A&A), Peter Everett (BA), Dan Hagen (AGSCI), and Chris Johnstone (LA).

Provost Erickson was not able to attend the Senate Council meeting.

Immediate Past Chair John Nichols reported on the meeting of the Nominating Committee held earlier that morning. Following is the roster of nominees for 2003-2004:

Chair-Elect: Melvin Blumberg (HBG); Kim Steiner (AGSCI)

Secretary: Deborah Atwater (LA); Sallie McCorkle (A&A); Jamie Myers (ED)

Faculty Advisory Committee: Travis DeCastro (A&A); Renata Engel (ENGR); Harvey Manbeck (AGSCI) (elect one)

Committees and Rules: Joseph Cecere (HBG); Travis DeCastro (A&A); Peter Deines (EMS); William Ellis (CC/HN); Joanna Floros (MED); George Franz (CC/DE); Zachary Irwin (BD); Robert Pangborn (ENGR); Stephen Smith (AGSCI) (elect 5)

Electronic Elections--Chair Moore announced that it is anticipated that the 2003-2004 Senate elections will be conducted online later this spring. In the next two to three weeks, the Senate Office will conduct a pilot election to test the process of an online election. Many Senators will be invited to cast an electronic ballot for this pilot election. The Senate Office invites feedback on the new process.


Dr. Caroline Eckhardt, the liaison to the Graduate Council, referred Council members to the meeting summary attached to the agenda.


Legislative Reports

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Senate Standing Rules, Article I, Section 9: The Senate Record" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a Pytel/Esposito motion. The importance of
having the Senate Record still be sent to the University Archives was noted by Councilor Esposito, as was a differentiation between public minutes and secretarial minutes. Valerie Stratton will present this report.

Advisory and Consultative

Libraries - "Policy for the Collection of Library Fines and Fees" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a McCarty/DeCastro motion. Committee Chair Curran gave an overview of the history of this report including consultation and controller concerns. Several questions were asked related to details associated with implementation and if faculty will need to sign-up again. Councilor Rebane asked if signing up for payroll deduction was a requirement of employment.
Immediate past-chair Nichols spoke in opposition to the report and expressed concern that the report does not reflect all points of view. He noted that the recommendations mandate payroll deduction with no guarantee of due process and that this represents a violation of federal and state legal rights. Several councilors asked how the 317 current faculty who have outstanding fees and have not returned books are being handled. Will they be asked to sign-up or will their names be turned over to a collection agency?

Chair Curran advised Senate Council that Dean Eaton would be asked to address these issues at the Senate meeting. Chair Moore encouraged Councilors to limit their comments to the readiness of this report to be placed on the Senate Agenda. Councilor Pytel asked that a statement about an appeals committee be included in the recommendation and chair Curran agreed to this. Councilor Esposito suggested that in the future the Libraries Committee in collaboration with the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs discuss strategies to deal with those faculty who do not return books.

A vote was called. Thirteen councilors voted in favor of placing this report on the Senate Agenda and 5 councilors voted against the motion. Committee chair Curran will introduce Nancy Eaton.

Informational Reports

Computing and Information Systems - "ANGEL Course Management System" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a DeCastro/Baggett motion. A question was asked about having an
explanation on how ANGEL and Course-Talk are similar or different. John Harwood will stand for questions. Five minutes was allocated for discussion.

Outreach Activities - "Penn State's World Campus" - This report was placed on the Agenda on an Esposito/Burgess motion. A question was asked about having additional information in the report about total numbers of faculty participating in World Campus instruction. Committee chair Tom Glumac will introduce Gary Miller. Ten minutes was allotted for presentation and discussion.

Student Life - "Classroom Civility: A Student-Faculty Responsibility" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a McCarty/Jurs motion. Councilors observed that the report lacked focus and clarity. It was also noted that the report could be Advisory and Consultative. Vice-Provost Jones noted the need for discussion on student-student interaction/disruption. Senate Council voted to return this report to Committee for additional work and the inclusion of web sites from Behrend.

Student Life - "Intergroup Dialogue: A Means for Promoting Understanding in a Diverse Community" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a Scaroni/Milakofsky motion. It was noted that "Intergroup Dialogue" is not an academic program. Committee chair, Bill Ellis will introduce Arthur Carter, who will stand for questions. Five minutes was allotted for discussion.

Student Life - "Sexual Assault, Relationship/Domestic Violence, and Stalking" - This report was placed on the Agenda on an Esposito/Scaroni motion. Questions were asked about how campus men were being educated about this issue and noted that men, too, could also be the victims of sexual violence. A contradiction was noted in the third paragraph of the report. Vice Provost Jacobs requested that existing University policies and websites related to stalking and date rape be referenced in the report. Councilor Pytel questioned the purpose of the report. Maureen Jones will make a three-minute introduction, and Kristin Sommese will stand for questions. Five minutes was allocated for discussion.

Undergraduate Education - "Academic Integrity Case Data" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a McCarty/Pytel motion. Dr. Pauley introduced the report and made two revisions to the report. Laura Pauley, Janis Jacobs, and William Huston will stand for questions. Five minutes was allotted for discussion.


The Agenda was approved on a Jurs/Scaroni motion.



College of Medicine - Proposal for Establishment, Reorganization, and Discontinuation of Academic Organization Units at the Penn State College of Medicine.

Chair Moore introduced Dean Darrell Kirch and Dr. Kevin Grigsby. They were invited to make comments. Following Dean Kirch's comments, Senate Council members asked several questions. Following are the questions and a summary of Dean Kirch's responses in parentheses:

1. Will there be an increase in administrative costs/resources with the reorganization?
(It is expected to be cost neutral.)

2. Please address the teaching of anatomy. (Anatomy is an orphan subject, there is limited research and it is difficult to find faculty to teach anatomy because it doesn't fit into a traditional academic home. All College faculty who teach anatomy will have an academic home.)

3. Was there a vote taken by the faculty who are directly affected by this reorganization? (Faculty were consulted extensively with individual and group meetings. There was general acceptance of these changes.) Councilor Leure-duPree noted there was considerable consultation with faculty and that this reorganization represented a trend in the disciplinary area.

On a Gouran/Pytel motion Senate Council approved the following: In accordance with our duties as prescribed in Bylaws, Article II, Section I (d), it is the advice of Senate Council that the Proposal for Establishment, Reorganization, and Discontinuation of Academic Organization Units at the Penn State College of Medicine be implemented as described in the documents we have received.

Correspondence will be sent to Provost Erickson informing him of Council's action.

The 2003-2004 Senate Calendar was presented to Senate Council for approval. The calendar was accepted on a Spychalski/Pytel motion and will be presented as a Communication to the Senate in the February 25, 2003 Senate Agenda.


There was no New Business.


Senate Chair Moore thanked Council for their attendance and participation and accepted a motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan C. Youtz
Executive Secretary

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012

DATE: January 31, 2003

TO: Senate Council Members

FROM: Caroline D. Eckhardt, Senate Liaison to the Graduate Council

The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building, with Dean Eva Pell presiding.


Dean Pell reported that Cynthia Nicosia, Director of Graduate Enrollment Services, has been informed by ETS that 900 students presented analytical writing samples that were not original at a recent Graduate Record Examination (5200 samples were authentic). The entire exam is void for those 900 students. She is working with the CIC Deans to encourage ETS to not allow these students to re-take the exam for a specified period of time. Dean Pell also reported that the University is now on SEVIS (a tracking system for international students), and she urged all faculty working with international students to ensure that the students are following procedures and are currently and correctly registered.

The Graduate School is hosting a workshop on February 13 on international opportunities in graduate education. Dean Pell also noted that many credible institutions are now undertaking joint programs with international institutions.


Christopher Brown, Chair, Committee on Academic Standards, reported on the proposed "Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines for Post-Baccalaureate Credit Certificate Programs." There is growing interest in such programs. At a previous meeting, Council had requested information on whether other CIC schools permitted certificates to be called "graduate level" (rather than "post baccalaureate) without requiring coursework beyond the 400 level, as our proposal, at the time, would have permitted. The requested information was distributed for Council review. Regina Younken indicated that the national trend varies across institutions: a survey of CIC institutions showed a mix of 400- and 500-level courses required for certificates at those institutions; a report from the Council of Graduate Schools also shows variance among credits required for master's certificates. After discussion, Council agreed that our proposed guidelines should be revised to require that at least half of the credits for a "graduate" certificate be at the 500-level. Exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis by the Graduate Council Committee on Programs and Courses, if the norm (by discipline) was to require less than 50%. The proposed guidelines and attachments were tabled until the February meeting, so that revisions could be reviewed by the Council before action is taken.

Michael Verderame, Co-Chair, Committee on Graduate Research, reported on continuing plans for the Graduate Exhibition. High school students and members of the local chamber of commerce will be invited, as well as members of the University community. Judges in all areas are needed; Council members were encouraged to volunteer and to publicize the need for judges.

Michael Eracleous, Co-Chair, Graduate Student and Faculty Issues, reported on plans for the faculty workshop to be held on February 13, and indicated that the Committee will be changing its membership to add three ex-officio members: a representative from the Student Affairs Office, the Financial Aid Office, and the Office of International Programs.


Resat Bayer, representing the Graduate Student Association, reported that Ozgur Tunceli, President of GSA, has indicated she will submit her resignation at the next GSA Assembly meeting. The Vice President will step in until a new President has been identified. Dr. Pell encouraged graduate students to participate in the GSA as there are numerous opportunities within the University for students to provide input, including to the Faculty Senate and the Graduate Council.


Cyber-Plagiarism - John Harwood, Senior Director for the Center for Education Technology Services

Dr. Harwood presented information on cyber-plagiarism. He noted that a big problem is "mosaic" plagiarism, or cutting information from the Web and pasting it into student papers or other documents. He added that many faculty are not aware of the problem and recommended that the University organize procedures for alerting faculty. He provided several examples of Web sites where students can also purchase theses or dissertations from the Web.

Dean Pell reported that a staff person has been added to the Office of Research Protections, Michelle Strickler, who is developing a presentation on responsible research conduct that will be offered in each academic college. A draft document has been written on research and scholarship code of conduct, which will be shared with the colleges.

It was suggested that information on the unacceptability of plagiarism be disseminated to students early in their graduate career. Dean Pell suggested that both the student and the student's mentor must assume responsibility for documents produced by the student. It was suggested that programs could be provided a "code of ethics" statement regarding plagiarism that would be signed by each entering graduate student and the faculty member who distributed and explained the statement.

Another issue concerns cyber-plagiarism by students who are taking on-line courses and programs. A short document on best practices and strategies needs to be developed by faculty working with students whether on-line or in residence. For example, when papers are required in a class, an initial meeting could be held for the student to present an outline for any paper, followed by meetings to go over changes as the student works through finalizing the paper. This might ensure that the student is not "cutting and pasting" from the web.

Dean Pell reported that approximately 280 cases on academic integrity were handled by Judicial Affairs last year. Of that number, very few students were dismissed from the University, but a significant number (though not all) failed the class where the infraction occurred. It was reported that some faculty are concerned about reporting plagiarism cases because the process of proving that plagiarism occurred may seem difficult. Concern was raised regarding asking faculty to become "enforcers" of these policies. Dean Pell remarked that faculty have to take responsibility for setting expectations. She would like to explore developing a document for faculty to share with students regarding plagiarism. She suggested that a draft document be developed and brought to Graduate Council for consideration.

There being no further discussion, Graduate Council adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012

DATE: February 17, 2003

TO: All Senators and Committee Members

FROM: Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary

Please note the scheduled time and location of your committee. If you are unable to attend, notify the Senate Office prior to Senate Day, if possible.

Monday, February 24, 2003

7:00 p.m.

Officers and Chairs Meeting - 102 Kern Building

8:30 p.m.

Commonwealth Caucus - Penn State Room, NLI
(Speaker: David Richards, Chair, Intra-University Relations Committee, Accompanied by Subcommittee Representatives: Dawn Blasko, Alfred Mueller, and Zachary Irwin)

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

7:30 a.m.

Intercollegiate Athletics - 301 MBNA Career Services Center
(note location change)

8:00 a.m.

Faculty Affairs - 129A HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Outreach Activities - 502 Keller Building

8:30 a.m.

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - 203 Shields Building

Curricular Affairs - 102 Kern Building

Committees and Rules - 16 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Intra-University Relations - 325 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Research - 106 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Undergraduate Education - 330 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

University Planning - 322 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

9:00 a.m.

Faculty Benefits - 114 Kern Building

Libraries - 510A Paterno Library

Student Life - 107 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

9:30 a.m.

Computing and Information Systems - 201 Kern Building

1:30 p.m.

University Faculty Senate - 112 Kern Building

There will be a Commonwealth Caucus meeting at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, in the Assembly Room (note location change) of the Nittany Lion Inn. A buffet luncheon will be served at approximately 12:15 p.m.

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012

Date: February 17, 2003

To: Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

From: Salvatore Marsico and Irwin Richman

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2003 - 8:30 p.m.

(Speaker: David Richards, Chair, Intra-University Relations Committee, Accompanied by
Subcommittee Representatives: Dawn Blasko, Alfred Mueller, and Zachary Irwin)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 - 11:30 a.m.

A buffet luncheon will be served at 12:15 p.m.

The tentative Agenda includes:

I. Call to Order

II. Announcements and Reports from Co-chairs of the Caucus

III. Reports from Committee Chairs

IV. Other Items of Concern/New Business

V. Adjournment and Lunch