THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 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 -

Minutes of the April 24, 2001, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:7

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)

of August 28, 2001

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of August 21, 2001

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS –

Senate Council

Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar – Initial Findings

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit

for Non-degree Conditional Students

Awards and Scholarships

Senate Council

Free Speech

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,

October 23, 2001, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 865-5789 – fax

Date: August 24, 2001

To: John S. Nichols, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report, dated August 28, 2001, 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 sfw2@psu.edu, on or before September 27, 2001.

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 are 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.

Publication of the 2002-2004 Undergraduate Degree Programs Bulletin
Work is currently underway for the next paper publication of the Undergraduate Degree Programs Bulletin. The cut-off date for changes to the Bulletin is February 15, 2002. Curricular changes that are to appear in the 2002-2004 Bulletin must be through the approval process (academic and administrative) by February 15, 2002. Proposals that need to go through both the academic approval process and the administrative approval process should be submitted to the Senate Office by September 24, 2001. Other changes should be submitted by the November 5, 2001, deadline

Prerequisite Class List
The first phase of the automated prerequisite checking system, initiated by the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs, has been implemented. All faculty members are encouraged to use the faculty page on eLion to gain access to a list of those students who do not meet the listed prerequisites for their courses. For information on the policy regarding prerequisites and disenrollment, use the help link on the Prerequisite Class List page. Feedback on the usefulness of this feature would be welcome at the Senate Office.

JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

Initial Findings

(Forensic)

Background:

Comments received during the Senate Officers’ visits to colleges and campuses as well as communication directly to the administration highlight several problems with the present academic calendar. Items mentioned by students and faculty include:

· absences during the three days prior to Thanksgiving

· a “telescoped” orientation period at U.P. prior to fall semester

· the lack of designated exam days in the summer sessions (UP)

· the disruption of fall semester caused by three “breaks” (Labor Day, fall break, Thanksgiving)

· the availability of sufficient orientation time (especially if “diversity” orientation is to be added)

· the adequacy of study days.

Questions have also been raised whether more effective use could be made of time at the end of the semester, instead of traditional final exams, as many faculty adopt active and collaborative learning models. Alternative forms of assessment throughout the semester have become common in many disciplines. The Calendar Committee was asked to review the University calendar to respond to these concerns.

When the Senate last conducted a comprehensive review of the university calendar (presented in “The Bennett Report” 1985), there was considerable divergence of faculty opinion regarding the optimum semester timetable. At that time more faculty supported the idea of a “14-week semester” with extended class periods than any of the other alternatives discussed, including the present 15-week semester.

To facilitate discussion, the Calendar Committee has operated on the assumption that alternatives to the present calendar should be considered. We have also assumed that a new survey of faculty opinion would reveal a diverse range of opinion, similar to the Bennett survey, and therefore is impractical, particularly since the charge included the expectation that recommendations on calendar be brought forward in the fall. The intent of this report is to share with the Senate as a whole the findings of our investigation of the calendars of comparable institutions as well as to suggest alternative calendar configurations that Penn State might consider. We hope that the discussion not only will express the opinions of our academic community regarding possible changes in the calendar but also will provide suggestions for improving on the alternatives we have proposed.

Foundations:

In the course of our deliberations, the Calendar Committee quickly reached consensus on several principles brought forward by its members:

· The University calendar should provide flexibility in serving the academic interests and needs of students and faculty.

· The calendar should provide appropriate time for examinations and other assessment activities as part of the fall and spring semesters and each summer session.

· The fall and spring semesters should be as symmetrical (i.e., equal in length) as possible.

· There should be an appropriate “break” during each semester.

· A post-Labor Day start is highly desirable.

· The fall semester should end before the traditional December holiday season.

· National holidays should be recognized if possible.

· Arrival day (UP) should occur on a Saturday.

· Commencement (UP) should occur on a Saturday.

· There should be provision for orientation time at the beginning of each semester.

The principles above are open to discussion; however since they arise from pro and con comments regarding the present calendar and from various practical considerations of scheduling, they constitute the framework against which our committee has tested various calendar configurations.

The committee conducted benchmarking to examine the calendars of comparable institutions both within the Commonwealth and around the country. According to the academic calendars posted on their websites, Temple and Pitt schedule classes using the following arrangement of instructional days:

Institution Fall Spring Total

Temple University 70 70 140 + final examinations

Univ. of Pittsburgh 71 69 140 + final examinations

Penn State 74 75 149 + final examinations

Fall 2001 Temple Pitt Penn State

First Day of Fall Classes 8/27 8/27 8/21

Labor Day Holiday 9/3 9/3 9/3

Semester Break N/A N/A 10/8-9

Thanksgiving 11/22-25 11/21-25 11/22-25

Study Days 12/6-7 N/A N/A

Classes End 12/8 12/7 12/7

Final Exams 12/10-15 varies 12/10-14

Spring 2002 Temple Pitt Penn State

First Day of Spring Classes 1/22 1/7 1/7

MLK Holiday -- 1/21 N/A

Spring Break 3/11-15 3/4-8 3/4-8

Classes End 5/6 4/19 4/26

Study Day 5/7 N/A N/A

Final Exams 5/8-14 varies 4/29-5/3

Current “Big Ten” comparisons appear in Table 1. During the past academic year the University of Michigan, in its own calendar study, compiled national comparative data on instructional days (Table 2). Current practices at Penn State, including the use of final exam days, were examined as well. The analysis of this information led the committee to the following conclusions:

· There is no universal standard for class days/hours in class per credit hour, nor is there one standard for state or state-related institutions in Pennsylvania.

· There is no universal standard for a minimum number of “instructional days” per course or for counting the instructional days since some institutions include final exam days while others do not.

· Within the “Big Ten” the present calendar places Penn State among the highest-ranking schools on the semester calendar in terms number of “instructional days” whether or not exam days are counted.

· Similarly, compared to other national research universities, Penn State semesters are among the longest, with several outstanding institutions having significantly fewer instructional days per semester.

· At University Park, approximately 40% of classes actually schedule final examination periods.

· Because of increased pedagogical diversity (e.g., active and collaborative learning) and alternative means of assessment (e.g., group project presentations), the number of classes needing final examinations has declined and may decline further.

· If there is no change to the class schedule (i.e., minutes per class), the impact of calendar change on scheduling classrooms and laboratories will be minimized.

· It would be possible to maintain the total number of instructional minutes in a shortened semester by lengthening class minutes (e.g., to 55/80 minutes), though a lengthened class day complicates the scheduling of facilities.

· Considerable precedent at other institutions and residual support at Penn State exist for shortening the semester to 14-weeks of “instructional days.”

· Fall semester issues are much more troublesome than spring semester issues.

Possible Calendar Configurations:

The Calendar Committee has discussed several alternative configurations for the Penn State academic calendar. Among the possibilities not advanced are models including asymmetrical semesters, usually scheduling a significantly shorter fall semester always beginning after Labor Day and ending before the December holiday season. Another modification discussed would be to shorten the final examination period, possibly to as few as two days to accommodate only those courses needing extended-period or common exams; however there are scheduling problems at all locations as well as the potential for dramatically increasing conflicting exams for students. We offer the following four configurations as the most likely alternatives for our consideration:

1. A 15-week instructional semester, plus 5 days of final exams.

This alternative maintains the status quo. Depending on the particular year, classes begin during the third or fourth week of August and continue until early December, followed by a week of final exams. While some modification of the Fall Break and Thanksgiving recess may be possible, the other issues prompting the review of the calendar will remain unresolved.

2. A 15-week semester, including final exams and all forms of final assessment.

This alternative maintains the current class duration (e.g. 50 or 75 minutes) for the 15- week semester, but does not include a separate final examination week. This recommendation can provide flexibility for various types of instruction and assessment: activities that can occur throughout the duration of the semester (such as group projects or research papers) as well as those (such as comprehensive exams) which occur at the end of the semester, perhaps using more than one class meeting for long exams. This calendar would have the net effect of shortening the semester by a week, allowing classes to start later in the fall and to begin later in the spring (assuming the current semester end-dates). A post-Labor Day start would be possible in some years, and additional time could be available for expanded orientation activities for freshmen. To implement this plan requires the revision of Senate policy 44-20 regarding final exam days. The 40% of classes at University Park which schedule final exam periods would need to schedule exams during class periods or alter their methods of final assessment. Common exam periods and alternate rooms (for exam seating configurations) would be difficult, if not impossible, to schedule. The last days of the 15^th week will likely be “exam heavy” and using time during the final week for assessment activities will shorten the traditional “instructional” time.

3. A 14-week instructional semester (extended class times), plus 5 days of final exams.

As with Alternative 2, this schedule has the net effect of shortening the semester by a week, but it maintains a separate final exam period. The “Bennett Report” offered a similar scenario as part of its survey of faculty opinion, and while at that time no alternative received a clear majority of opinion, more faculty supported an extended-period 14-week semester than any other alternative schedule. The number of instructional minutes would remain unchanged, as would the ability to schedule final examination periods. However, the re-engineering of daily classroom schedules to accommodate 55/80-minute class sessions will not be an easy task at University Park and at other locations. Additional minutes may be found at the beginning of the day and at the end of the day. Changing the passing time between classes (to increase class minutes) may not be practical since many faculty feel that the time between classes is compressed to the limit now. Students are often reluctant to schedule classes that meet very early or very late in the day. At some locations where a full schedule of evening classes begins immediately after the last “day” period ends, there may not be adequate flex time available to extend the day without postponing evening classes to start/end times that will discourage students from enrolling.

4. A 14-week instructional semester (established class times), plus 5 days of final exams.

This schedule is similar to Alternative 3, but because the current schedule of class times is maintained, it has the effect of reducing the number of instructional minutes in order to shorten the semester by one week. Other institutions, such as Temple and Pitt, use such a schedule, and this type of semester still offers at least 69 days of instruction in the fall semester, comparable to the schedule at the University of Michigan. However, we recognize the concern that current courses would need modification to fit this shortened schedule.

Fall Break/ Spring Break

The Calendar Committee did not consider a recommendation to change Penn State’s traditional Spring Break. However, our charge prompted considerable discussion regarding the current Fall Break and the traditional Thanksgiving holiday. It is widely held that these recesses during the fall semester provide the occasion for informal extension of the breaks due to student absences in spite of the University's efforts to discourage the practice.

The University established a mid-semester Fall Break in 1999, responding to student concerns and recognizing that similar practices at other institutions were found to have academic value. One way to consolidate the interruptions of the semester and to provide a week-long break parallel (in length) to Spring Break is to combine Fall Break with Thanksgiving recess, offering students and faculty a class-free week late in the fall semester (typically the 12^th week). Although the break would occur past the mid-point of the semester, such a configuration would still provide time for “catch up” and “stress relief” prior to the end-of- semester-activities while minimizing the temptation to cancel/cut classes adjacent to the two partial-week breaks we now have. This redefinition of Fall Break could be included with any of the four semester configurations described above.

Summer Session Final Exams:

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 for the semester calendar maintain the current policy of designated time for instruction and separate time for final exams or other final assessment activities (see Senate Policy 44-20). Currently the University Park summer sessions do not designate a specific, separate final exam period, while summer sessions at other university locations may do so. We suggest that if our practice is to keep final exams separate from instructional days, this practice should be applied consistently for the summer sessions as well.

Conclusion:

This report reflects the thinking of the Calendar Committee to this point in time. We look forward to using the information gained during the discussion prompted by this report to frame a recommendation to be forwarded to the Senate Committee on University Planning and Undergraduate Education for appropriate action.

JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

Anthony Baratta

George Bugyi

John Cahir

Peter Emigh

Donald Leslie

James Smith, Chair

Jane Sutton

Josh Troxell

James Wager

2001-2002

Big Ten Calendar Summary

Instructional Days

Universities on the Semester System	Fall Semester Instruction	Fall Semester Exams	Spring Semester Instruction	Spring Semester Exams	Total Inst Days	Total Inst + Exams
Illinois	72	6	72	6	144	156
Indiana	72	5	74	5	146	156
Iowa	75	5	74	5	149	159
Michigan	69	6	68	6	137	149
Michigan State*	71	5	71	5	142	152
Minnesota	72	6	74	6	146	158
Penn State	75	5	75	5	150	160
Purdue	73	6	75	6	148	160
Wisconsin	72	6	74	6	146	158

Universities on the Quarter System	1^st Quarter Instruction	1^st Quarter Exams	2^nd Quarter Instruction	2^nd Quarter Exams	3^rd Quarter Instruction	3^rd Quarter Exams	Total Inst Days	Total Inst + Exams
Northwestern	53	6	50	6	49	6	152	170
Ohio State	50	4	49	4	49	4	148	160

*Spring 2001 figures; Spring 2002 not available

University of Michigan Calendar Survey

INSTITUTION	TERM TYPE	FALL	SPRING	Total Days
ARIZONA	SEM.	74	75	149
BRANDEIS	SEM.	65	65	130
CARNEGIE-MELLON	SEM.	71	72.5	146.5
CASE WESTERN	SEM.	70	70	140
CATHOLIC UA	SEM.	70	70	140
COLORADO	SEM.	75	75	150
DUKE	SEM.	70	70	140
EMORY	SEM.	69	69	138
FLORIDA	SEM.	82.5	85	167.5	INCLUDES 6 DAYS OF EXAMS
HARVARD	SEM.	63	62	125
ILLINOIS	SEM.	72	72	144
IOWA	SEM.	76	74	150
IOWA STATE	SEM.	74	74	148
KANSAS	SEM.	75	75	150
MARYLAND	SEM.	72	72	144
MICHIGAN	SEM.	69	69	138
MICHIGAN ST.	SEM.	72	74	146
MINNESOTA	SEM.	70	74	144
MISSOURI	SEM.	75	77	152
MIT	SEM.	65	65	130
NEBRASKA	SEM.	74	74	148
PENN ST.	SEM.	74	75	149
PITT	SEM.	72	72	144
RICE	SEM.	70	67	137
ROCHESTER	SEM.	69	71	140
SUNY-BUFFALO	SEM.	83	84	167
TULANE	SEM.	68	71	139
UC BERKLEY	SEM.	71	75	146
UNC	SEM.	74	75	149
USC	SEM.	72	72	144
VANDERBILT	SEM.	70	70	140
	TERM TYPE	1st	2nd	3rd	Total
CHICAGO	QUART.	53	53	54	160
STANFORD	QUART.	51	47	46	144
UC DAVIS	QUART.	49	48	?	?
UCLA	QUART.	?	?	?	146
Except as noted exams and other non-instructional days are not included in these figures.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,

SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit

for Non-degree Conditional Students

(Informational)

Students who have been dropped for poor scholarship are commonly called non-degree conditional students. These students are limited to twelve (12) credits per semester/session while working to improve their cumulative average for reinstatement to degree candidacy. Exceptions to the twelve-credit limitation may be requested of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. Exceptions might include: difficulty scheduling courses to stay in sequence for the student’s program; or, the student has shown evidence of improved academic performance.

A summary of the actions of these petitions follows:

For the Period Submitted Granted Denied

08-01-99 - 08-31-00 29 26 3

09-01-00 – 07-31-01 13 10 3

A detailed breakdown by college, unit or location is attached for your information.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Deborah Atwater, Vice-ChairIngrid

Edward W. Bittner

Ingrid M. Blood

Kevin R. Cheesebrough

JoAnn Chirico, Chair

Peter Deines

Anna Griswold

Geoffrey J. Harford

Chau-Luen Li

Annette K. McGregor

Katherine Neimeister

Victor Nistor

Martin T. Pietrucha

P. Peter Rebane

John J. Romano

James Wager

Summary of 12-Credit Limit Petitions

1990-2000 2000-01

College or Unit Approved Denied Approved Denied

Agricultural Sciences 5 1 1

Abington 1 2 1

Beaver 1

Berks Lehigh 6 1 2

Eberly College of Science 1

Engineering 1

Health & Human Development 2 3

Liberal Arts 0 2

Penn State Harrisburg 2

Registrar’s Office 3

Scranton 3

Smeal College of Business Adm. 2 1 1

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING

AND STUDENT AID

Awards and Scholarships

(Informational)

This committee is charged with selecting the recipients of those awards and scholarships that come under the jurisdiction of the University Faculty Senate. Awards were made based on the following guidelines:

1. Scholarship and need were the primary criteria.

2. In the selection of recipients, the committee follows the

donor’s specifications as approved by the Board of Trustees.

3. Awards were made beginning with those students with the

highest cumulative grade point average and most substantial

need.

The following is a summary of the committee’s work. It should be noted that the committee awarded all available funds. A list of the students receiving awards is on file in the Senate Office.

Senate Committee on Admissions, Records,

Scheduling and Student Aid Committee

Deborah F. Atwater, V-Chair

Edward W. Bittner

Ingrid M. Blood

Kevin R. Cheesebrough

JoAnn Chirico, Chair

Peter Deines

Anna Griswold

Geoffrey J. Harford

Chau-Luen Li

Annette K. McGregor

Katherine Neimeister

Victor Nistor

Martin T. Pietrucha

P. Peter Rebane

John J. Romano

J. James Wager

	SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING
	AND STUDENT AID
	Awards and Scholarships
	(Informational)
	Total Amounts		Number of Awards
	2001-01	2001-02	2000-01	2001-02
Alumni Christian	$ 1,500.00	*	1
Wilson C. Baily	$ 3,087.00	$ 3,840.00	3	3
Charles W. Borgerding	$ 13,208.00	$ 14,224.00	13	14
Louise Carnegie	$ 4,964.00	$ 5,345.00	4	5
Class of 1920	$ 6,870.00	$ 7,399.00	6	7
Class of 1922	$ 81,500.00	$ 87,500.00	163	125
Mary Thompson Dale	$ 1,129.00	$ 1,216.00	1	1
Jay Richard Ellenberger	$ 1,505.00	$ 1,622.00	1	1
Theodore & Rita Glou	$ 1,815.00	$ 1,954.00	1	2
Harry Huber	$ 2,054.00	$ 2,214.00	2	3
Fred Merlin Kecker	$ 1,428.00	$ 1,538.00	1	1
Bayard Kunkle #1	$ 34,200.00	$ 35,280.00	57	58
Betty J. Lockington	$ 1,538.00	$ 1,657.00	1	1
Donald MacIntire	$ 4,276.00	$ 4,608.00	4	4
Lockheed Martin	$ 9,468.00	$ 10,730.00	9	10
Jesse McMannes	$ 952.00	$ 1,032.00	1	1
Murray Meiselman	$ 769.00	$ 828.00	1	1
Gordon Edward Myers	$ 1,402.00	$ 1,510.00	1	1
Lawrence W. Ostermayer	$ 7,784.00	$ 8,937.00	7	9
Garner Rothrock	$ 817.00	$ 881.00	1	1
Edna R. Schwab	$ 8,504.00	$ 9,153.00	8	9
C. E. Ray & R. A. Warnock	$ 3,738.00	$ 5,268.00	3	6
Lt. Harry E. Wagner	$ 7,063.00	$ 7,609.00	7	7
Totals	$199,571.00	$214,345.00	296	270
	*Alumni Christian awards have not yet been awarded for 2001-02

SENATE COUNCIL

Free Speech

(Informational)

        The First Amendment protects free speech, but it does not provide absolute protection.  Professors Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert, co-directors of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment in the College of Communications, will present an overview of general principles of free speech, especially as they relate to speech in a university setting, speech that is offensive, and speech that falls outside the scope of First Amendment protection.  The purpose of this presentation is not to discuss specific speech-related issues at Penn State, but rather to articulate major theories and principles that underlie free speech and the regulation of some speech and that might be used to inform future policies.

SENATE COUNCIL

John W. Bagby

Connie D. Baggett

Robert L. Burgess

Alison Carr-Chellman

Wayne R. Curtis

W. Travis DeCastro

Gordon F. De Jong

Caroline D. Eckhardt

Rodney A. Erickson

Dennis S. Gouran

Elizabeth A. Hanley

Deidre E. Jago

Peter C. Jurs

Alphonse E. Leure-duPree

Salvatore A. Marsico

Ronald L. McCarty

Louis Milakofsky

John W. Moore

John S. Nichols, Chair

P. Peter Rebane

Winston A. Richards

Alan W. Scaroni

Cara-Lynne Schengrund

Loanne L. Snavely

Steven W. Stace

Graham B. Spanier

Brian B. Tormey

SENATE COUNCIL

First Amendment Points & Authorities

I. General Overview

A. The First Amendment provides in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,

or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and

to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

B. "Congress" encompasses federal, state, and local government officials and entities, including Penn State University. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that "Penn State, created by statute, funded to a significant extent by the state, and built in large part by the Pennsylvania General State Authority, provides the element of state action necessary to trigger an inquiry into the First Amendment values that may be triggered by Penn State policies . . . “

C. "Speech" may sometimes include conduct/activity for purposes

of the First Amendment, but only if:

1. The person engaging in the conduct intends to a convey a particular meaning through the conduct; and

2. There is a substantial likelihood under the circumstances that the audience will understand the meaning as it was intended.

D. Content-Neutral Time, Place and Manner Regulations: Restrictions on speech that apply evenhandedly or equally to all topics, ideas and subjects. Content neutral regulations can be justified by an important or substantial interest, but must leave open ample alternative avenues for communication. A law is much more likely to be upheld as constitutional if it is content neutral rather than content based (laws that single out particular topics or ideas for regulation but not others).

II. Marketplace of Ideas

A. Colleges and Universities: These institutions have long been considered quintessential marketplaces of ideas -- places where ideas can be developed, discussed, debated, and ultimately accepted or rejected. The United States Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized this function of higher education:

•" . . . the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas'"

Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967)

•" . . . the college classroom with its surrounding environs is

peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas.'"

Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972).

• " . . . essentiality of freedom in the community of American

universities is almost self-evident . . . teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.”

Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957).

B. Penn State and the Marketplace of Ideas:

• Policy AD 51 (Use of Outdoor Areas for Expressive Activities):

"A university is inherently a marketplace of ideas, and Penn State encourages and protects the rights of members of the University community to express divergent viewpoints and opinions on matters of concern."

• Pattee Library (Inscription Carved Outside Entrance Way):

"The true university is a collection of books."

III. Offensive and Distasteful Speech

A. Some ideas may be considered offensive, but that should have no bearing on whether it may be considered within the marketplace of ideas. It is well settled that offensiveness is not a sufficient reason to censor those ideas—however distasteful. Justice William Brennan wrote in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989):

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First

Amendment, it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because

society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

B. The Supreme Court has protected the ability of an individual to wear an anti-draft message containing profane language on the back of his jacket in a Los Angeles courthouse. The Court wrote in that case, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), that "it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual." (25)

C. Universities that have tried to stop expression because the content is distasteful or offensive have been stopped by the courts. (Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989 ).

D. Universities that have tried to limit demonstrations by students also have been stymied by the federal courts because such measures typically amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on expression.

Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972); Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 272 F. Supp. 947 (D.S.C. 1967).

IV. Speech Not Protected by the First Amendment

A. Notwithstanding its otherwise absolutist language, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect all forms of expression. For instance, speech that is obscene falls outside the ambit of First Amendment protection, as does child pornography and expression that is directed to inciting or provoking imminent violent and unlawful conduct. In addition, so-called fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment. Fighting words, as defined by the United States in 1942, are words that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" and that are encountered in direct, face-to-face personal confrontations.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL

Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:30 PM 102 Kern Graduate Building

MEMBERS PRESENT

J. W. Bagby

C. D. Baggett

R. L. Burgess

W. T. DeCastro

C. D. Eckhardt

R. A. Erickson

D. S. Gouran

E. A. Hanley

D. E. Jago

P. C. Jurs

S. A. Marsico

R. L. McCarty

L. Milakofsky

J. W. Moore

J. S. Nichols

P. P. Rebane

A. W. Scaroni

C. L. Schengrund

S. W. Stace

G. J. Bugyi

B. S. Hockenberry

V. R. Price

ACCOUNTED FOR

A. Chellman

W. R. Curtis

G. F. De Jong

A. E. Leure-duPree

L. L. Snavely

G. B. Spanier

B. B. Tormey

GUESTS

J. Cahir

C. Calvert

G. Franz.

B. MacEwan

L. Pauley

L. Pierce

R. Richards

J. Romano

R. Secor

J. Smith

S. Youtz

Chair John Nichols called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM on Tuesday, August 21, 2001, in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building. The minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2001 were approved as distributed on a Jurs/Scaroni motion.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

Dr. Nichols welcomed the new members of Senate Council for 2001-02. They are Robert Burgess (Health & Human Development); Louis Milakofsky (Berks-Lehigh Valley); Winston Richards (Penn State Harrisburg); Steven Stace (Abington); and Peter Rebane as the newly elected member to the Faculty Advisory Committee (which seats him on Senate Council). He also announced that George Franz is continuing as Parliamentarian and Carey Eckhardt will be the Senate Council/Graduate Council Representative again this year. He recognized John Moore as Chair-Elect and Deidre Jago as Secretary of the Senate. Lastly, he thanked all the members of Council for agreeing to serve.

Professor Nichols shared with Council that this spring he gave the Committee on Committees and Rules two contradictory charges. On the one hand, he asked it to appoint standing committee chairs and vice-chairs that were experienced and proven. Conversely, he also asked CC&R to appoint some fresh faces with new ideas and to build the Senate leadership of the future. He reported that CC&R, under the leadership of Jean Landa Pytel, had successfully achieved both goals. The breakdown of the sum total of officers, chairs and vice-chairs, about half are from University Park and the other half are from other locations. About half are male and half female. Roughly half are continuing in their appointments and half are new to their positions. Well over two thirds of the vice-chairs are in their first leadership post in the Senate.

Dr. Nichols indicated that the challenge for this year is remaining focused on the core values and missions of the Senate and the University despite potential turmoil. The Senate best serves all students by maintaining, building and enhancing academic quality. To the extent that the Senate deviates from these ideals to deal with an immediate flash point, we will be diluting the academic quality for all students.

Next, Chair Nichols shared with Council those thoughts that he had expressed to the standing committee leadership in the charge meetings this past summer. First, all committees were charged to do a top-to-bottom review on the issue of educational equity, as it is broadly defined. A second initiative is a self-study of the Senate. It has been approximately ten years since a self-study was last done and thus we should be reviewing the structures, rules, procedures, etc., of the organization. We also should be asking how can we make the Senate more relevant to the faculty and the University and how can we have our faculty colleagues feel they have a greater stake in what the Senate is doing. He has asked Dr. Franz to chair this self-study committee. The committee membership and the charge are being developed. Also on the list of issues to be addressed is the General Education re-certification. The deadline regarding this effort is coming close. Reform of the academic calendar -- which will affect 100 percent of the students, faculty and staff -- is another important issue to be addressed this year.

Another initiative that Chair Nichols wishes to address that directly affects Council is to reduce the number of “dumb, dull and doomed” reports. We will have to be careful not to place ourselves in a lose-lose situation regarding reports. He reminded Council that they are the final authority and it is incumbent upon this body to be a fair but effective gatekeeper on the worthiness of reports.

Chair Nichols said that, in his opinion, one of the best moments in last year’s Senate year was when the Rhodes Scholar spoke and would like the Senate to continue, whenever appropriate, to acknowledge faculty, staff or students who have accomplished things that may help us celebrate the academic core mission of the institution. He asked Council and others to send him nominees who could be so recognized during the Chair's announcements to the Senate. In this regard, Professor Nichols recognized Chair-Elect John Moore as the recipient of this year's Schreyer Honors College Excellence in Teaching Award.

Next the Chair spoke of the retirement of the Executive Secretary George Bugyi and the need for a smooth transition to his replacement. He distributed a document entitled “Report by the Chair to Senate Council Regarding the Executive Secretary Search” detailing the search process for a new Executive Secretary. Dr. Nichols noted that the Senate Constitution grants the responsibility for appointing the Executive Secretary to the Provost and that after that appointment the Executive Secretary is responsible to the Senate Chair. He thanked Provost Rodney Erickson and Vice-Provost Robert Secor for recognizing the importance of this appointment not just to the Senate but to the University as well. Dr. Nichols indicated that this was a splendid search with a large pool of highly quality applicants. He also thanked the Provost for agreeing that the appropriate time to announce the appointment of the new Executive Secretary was at the first Council meeting and having the announcement made by the Chair of the Senate. Chair Nichols stated that he was very pleased to announce that the new Executive Secretary of the Senate is Dr. Susan C. Youtz. Dr. Youtz is the Special Projects Associate in Outreach and Cooperative Extension. She is a former Director of the Rural Nursing Center and has extensive Senate experience. She served as Chair of the Curricular Affairs and Intra-University Relations committees and also served on Senate Council. Her appointment starts on September 1.

Chair Nichols next reported that, during the occupation of HUB-Robeson in April, he was called upon to participate in the discussions between the Administration and the Black Caucus with respect to three items under Senate jurisdiction -- academic amnesty, a mandatory racism course, and revision of the so-called diversity requirement. The outcome of that process was “A Plan to Enhance Diversity at Penn State (Revised),” in which the parties agreed to -- among many other things -- a process by which the Black Caucus' concerns would be considered by the Senate. No specific outcome was promised. Chair Nichols updated Council as to the status of these three matters within the Senate.

With the backing of the Chair, the Administration declined to grant academic amnesty to the student protesters but guaranteed that they could avail themselves of all options available to every other Penn State student under existing academic policies. The overwhelming majority of cases were resolved between the students and their instructors or through the good offices of undergraduate deans at the college level. Only a trickle of petitions was forwarded to the Senate. Some were approved by the Subcommittee on Academic Standards of the Committee on Undergraduate Education; some were not approved. The Subcommittee's decisions were based solely on the merits of the petitions. In sum, existing Senate policies and University procedures worked well under difficult circumstances.

In response to the students' demand for a six-credit mandatory course on racism, the parties agreed to continue the Gye' Nyame process. Gye' Nyame is the name of the committee that the Black Caucus students created after their appearance at the December Senate meeting. The committee's membership includes the students, Senate officers, faculty from the Department of African and African American Studies (AAAS), and key Black faculty. Prior to the events of April, Gye' Nyame had reached a consensus that a mandatory course on racism was neither desirable nor feasible. In lieu of such a required course, the committee had agreed to pursue the following three initiatives: establish a Pre-Freshman Seminar designed to acquaint all incoming students with issues related to racism and diversity; include one session devoted to the topic of diversity in all First Year Seminars; and encourage AAAS to write a proposal for a course on the History of Racism to be considered for possible inclusion on the list of courses that fulfill the Intercultural and International Competence (GI) requirement. The status of those initiatives is: The Office of Undergraduate Education (with Senate participation) launched this fall a Pre-Freshman Seminar devoted to diversity; the Chair has charged the Committee on Undergraduate Education to consider including a diversity component in the FYS; but no AAAS course proposals have yet been submitted to the Senate for review.

Regarding the recommendation to revise the GI requirement, Chair Nichols reported that he has charged the Committee on Curricular Affairs to examine the criteria being used for approving new GI courses to determine if they are consistent with the Senate's intent to effectively teach students about diversity issues. The Chair also charged the Committee on Undergraduate Education to consider whether further changes in the intent and mission of the GI requirement are appropriate.

Chair Nichols said, in summary, that he has met all of his obligations to date under "A Plan to Enhance Diversity." The Chair further committed himself to ensuring that all reasonable curricular proposals developed by a consensus of Gye' Nyame in the future would receive full and fair consideration when -- following normal curricular procedures -- they reached the Senate. However, he emphasized that no specific outcome was promised; no agreements other than those outlined in his remarks were made; and no corruption of Senate authority and procedures had occurred.

He concluded by saying that perhaps the most important lesson learned from these events is that Senate policies and University procedures worked well and, therefore, should be further relied upon during any future difficulties.

Chair Nichols next reminded Council that their duties, as a body of the Senate, are listed in the Constitution. He encouraged both old and new members to read them carefully.

Dr. Nichols next announced that the New Senators’ Workshop will be held on Monday, September 10, 2001, at 7:00 PM in the Faculty/Staff Club of the Nittany Lion Inn. He asked the Council members to encourage new Senators from their voting units to attend.

He also announced that the Senate Constitutions for 2001-02 are being printed and Senators should receive their copy prior to the September 11 Senate Meeting.

Going on with his announcements, Professor Nichols informed Council that the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) has met several times since the last report to Senate Council took place. FAC met on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 and discussed the following topics – Faculty Consultation Regarding AD-57 and Other Administrative Policies; College Diversity Plans; Proposed Courseware Policy; Revisit Faculty Role in Searches for Academic Administrators; Penn, Temple, and Graduate Student Unionization; Implementation of the Faculty Senate Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries; Academic Hall of Fame; LGBT Minor; Commonwealth Educational System Reorganization.

FAC also met on Friday, June 15 and discussed the following: Update on Race Issues and Diversity Curriculum; Budget Cuts Prior To Strategic Planning; Ideas to Quell Riots and Other Behaviors that Impact Negatively on Penn State; Changes in Academic Calendar; Status of Courseware Policy; Report on New Senate Leadership.

The latest meeting of FAC was on August 21, and they discussed the following: Domestic Partners Benefits; Calendar Joint Committee Report; Diversity Curriculum Student Issues; Early Communication on Senate Reports; State’s Master Plan for Higher Education.

The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for October 2, 2001. If anyone has any items for the FAC agenda, please contact one of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected members: Gordon De Jong, Betz Hanley and Peter Rebane.

Visits by the Senate Officers to campus colleges for the fall semester are already set. The first visit is scheduled for Tuesday, October 16 to Penn State Dubois. Please view the Senate’s Web Site (WWW.PSU.EDU/UFS) for the schedule of visits.

The Senate has received several memos from the President regarding implementation of reports passed by the Senate. From the March 27 meeting, the President denied implementation to the foreign language report sponsored by the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid.

From the March 27, 2001 meeting, a report was presented by Senate Council entitled “Resolutions on Free Speech.” The President responded that this report is noted and received with thanks.

Also from March 27, a report from Faculty Affairs titled “Recommendations on Policy Governing Copyright Clearance and Royalty Payments” was passed by the Senate. The President is asking the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources to revise Administrative Policy AD-46, “Policy Governing Copyright Clearance” and to develop a new administrative policy regarding the second recommendation on royalty payments for course materials.

In regard to the report passed by the Senate on March 27 from the Faculty Benefits Committee titled “Adoption Benefits,” the President accepts the recommendation that paid parental leave for faculty who adopt children should uniformly be six weeks without regard to the child’s age and referred this to the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources for implementation. However, the President is unable to accept the recommendation for blanket reimbursements for costs associated with adoption of up to $4000.00 because, he said, it would be inappropriate for the University to use public funds for that purpose.

Also from March 27, a report from the Faculty Benefits Committee titled “Recommendations for Internal and External Reports to the Senate on Faculty Salaries.” The President has concerns about this report and Dr. Nichols has asked the Faculty Benefits Committee to take another look at this in collaboration with the administration.

On March 27, from the Student Life Committee, the Senate passed a report titled “Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures”. President Spanier supports the University’s efforts to provide an improved learning environment for students and has shared this report with Vice President Asbury.

Next from our April 24, 2001 Senate meeting, the report titled “Courseware Policy,” the President reviewed the report and concurred with the committee’s findings. The Vice President for Research will oversee the implementation of this policy. Included in the implementation of the policy will be the establishment of an advisory committee for courseware to provide guidance for courseware issues that arise. The Committees on Faculty Affairs and Computing and Information Systems will review the Courseware Advisory Committee actions as appropriate.

Also from the April 24 meeting, a report from the Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems entitled “Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State” was reviewed by the President with numerous comments, but no clear acceptance or rejection.

Provost Erickson welcomed everyone back and took time to share his thoughts on the importance of the role of shared governance at Penn State. He informed Council that the student enrollment is very close to where we wanted to be this fall with the largest freshman class ever, somewhere between 6,250 to 6,300 students. The number of minorities is also holding its own, despite the media coverage last spring.

Dr. Erickson noted that the state allocation to the University was a 0.86% increase in our operating budget that nets an increase of only a couple million dollars. This caused a very high 7.94 % increase in tuition.

He also reported that there are a lot of planning activities going on this fall with new guidelines for strategic planning for 2002-03, which provide a lot of flexibility for units to develop individual plans. Dr. Erickson has also asked the colleges to be responsive to Senate legislation such as hiring faculty members off the tenure track. He went on to state that we will continue to have a 1% recycling internally.

In the way of a progress report on plans to enhance diversity, there has been a great deal of activity over the summer. The Africana Research Center has been established with Dr. Roy Austin as the new director. There is also a new system for reporting hate/bias incidents.

Professor Erickson closed his remarks by thanking Professor James Smith and the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar for an excellent effort in bringing the options for a new calendar to the table.

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

Professor Caroline Eckhardt, the Liaison to the Graduate Council, reported on the Graduate Council meetings of April 18, 2001 and May 9, 2001. Summaries of those meetings are attached to these minutes.

AGENDA ITEMS FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Legislative Reports

Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades.” Laura Pauley presented the report. Council expressed concern in the way the recommendation is worded. The impression is given that even though a grading policy is provided during the first ten calendar days of a semester, the instructor can change that grading policy at any time during the course and even after the course is over. Professor Pauley indicated that the report is written so that the options of the instructor can remain open. After considerable discussion, Dr. Pauley withdrew the report for further consideration by her committee.

Undergraduate Education – “New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus.” Dr. Pauley also presented the report. Council expressed concern on how the principles of “ Promoting a Vibrant Learning Culture” could be integrated into the syllabus. There was general agreement that there should be a syllabus for all courses, but asked that the recommendation be stated in a more straightforward way. Professor Pauley withdrew the report so that her committee could edit the recommendation.

Informational Reports

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students.” Dr. Nichols introduced the report, and Council passed it on a Scaroni/DeCastro motion without discussion.

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Awards and Scholarships.” Chair Nichols brought the report to the table, and it was passed on a Jurs/Scaroni motion with slight editorial changes.

Senate Council – “Free Speech.” Professors Robert Richards and Clay Calvert presented the document and stated the objective of the report is to educate the faculty as to what the law currently is with respect to the First Amendment. Some Council members questioned the need to bring this topic up considering that there had been a resolution thanking President Spanier for his defense of free speech and also considering the incidents from last academic year that drew considerable negative press to the institution.

Council agreed with the value of bringing this report to the Senate floor and passed it for the Agenda on a Jurs/Scaroni motion.

Forensic Reports

Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar – “Initial Findings.” Professor Smith introduced the report by stating the joint committee quickly came together with a set of principles to adhere to, and amazingly came to the consensus on what the options are. He made an editorial change and then asked for questions from Council. Chair Nichols noted that after the September forensic session the calendar committee will quickly turn around a final recommendation that would be discussed by the University Planning and Undergraduate Education Committees at their October meetings and those two committees well bring a report with recommendations to the December Senate meeting. After a short discussion, Council passed a Jurs/McCarty motion to put this report on the Senate Agenda.

ACTION ITEMS

Chair Nichols asked Council to address proposed changes in the Beaver Campus Constitution. Secretary Deidre Jago reported to Council that these proposed changes adhere to the established criteria for constitutions and recommended that the changes be ratified. Council voted to approve these changes on the recommendation of the subcommittee. This was done on a Milakofsky/Scaroni motion.

Professor Jago next reported that her subcommittee had reviewed the proposed changes in the Capital College Constitution. These changes also adhere to the established criteria. Council also ratified these changes on a Jurs/Scaroni motion.

Dr. Nichols asked Council to approve the membership of the Senate Council Subcommittee on External Matters. That subcommittee will be chaired by Cara-Lynne Schengrund as Immediate Past Chair and Alison Carr-Chellman, Connie Baggett, Peter Jurs, Alphonse Leure-duPree and Brian Tormey will make up the membership along with Tony Wagner as a member-at-large. Council approved this subcommittee membership on a Scaroni/Marsico motion.

Finally, Chair Nichols asked Council to approve the membership of the Senate Council Subcommittee on Unit Constitutions. Deidre Jago will chair the subcommittee by virtue of her position as Senate Secretary and the membership will be the Executive Secretary, Salvatore Marsico (representing the campus colleges), Dennis Gouran (representing University Park). There is a provision for an ad hoc member from the voting unit submitting the constitution under consideration. A Milakofsky/Scaroni motion was passed appointing this membership.

NEW BUSINESS

There was no New Business for the Council to consider.

ADJOURMENT

Senate Chair Nichols thanked Council for their attention to their duties and adjourned the meeting at 3:47 PM

Respectfully submitted,

George J. Bugyi

Executive Secretary

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

Date: August 24, 2001

From: George J. Bugyi, Executive Secretary

To: All Senators and Committee Personnel

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, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 7:00 PM

NEW SENATORS’ WORKSHOP FACULTY/STAFF CLUB, NLI

Immediately followed by

Officers' and Chairs' Meeting (Faculty/Staff Club)

8:00 PM

Commonwealth Caucus CANCELLED

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 7:30 AM

Intercollegiate Athletics 330 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

8:00 AM

Faculty Affairs 106 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Outreach Activities 502 Keller Building

Student Life 301 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

8:30 AM

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 233 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Research 201 Kern Building

Undergraduate Education Assembly Room, NLI

University Planning 322 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

9:00 AM

Faculty Benefits 101-A Kern Building

Libraries E510 Paterno Library

9:30 AM

Computing and Information Systems 114 Kern Building

1:30 PM

University Faculty Senate 112 Kern Building

There will be a Commonwealth Caucus meeting at 11:00 AM on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, at the PENN STATER. At approximately 12:00 Noon, a buffet luncheon will be served.

The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Building (814) 863-0221

Fax: (814) 863-6012

Date: August 24, 2001

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, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001

THERE WILL BE NO COMMONWEALTH CAUCUS MEETING ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 -- 11:00 AM --

AT THE PENN STATER – a shuttle will leave from the nittany lion inn at 10:45 am

The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at the Penn Stater. A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

The tentative Agenda includes:

I. Call to Order

II. Introduction of New Senators

III. Introduction of Executive Secretary of the Senate, Susan C. Youtz

IV. Announcements and Reports from co-chairs of the caucus

(Richman & Marsico)

V. Reports from Committee Chairs

VI. Other Items of Concern/New Business

VII. Adjournment and Lunch