Penn State University Home

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D

Volume 33-----FEBRUARY 29, 2000-----Number 5

The Senate Record is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing Rules of the Senate and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, The Pennsylvania State University 1999-00.

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.

Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.

When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.

Reports which have appeared in the Agenda of the Meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the Meeting or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Final Agenda for February 29, 2000

A. Summary of Agenda Actions

B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

II. Enumeration of Documents

  1. Documents Distributed Prior to February 29, 2000
  2. Attached

Door Handout - Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions

Corrected Copy - Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions

Corrected Copy - ARSSA/UE - Revision of Policy 51-50 Cumulative Grade Point Average

Corrected Copy - Joint Committee on Academic Integrity - Academic Integrity Report

Door Handout - Faculty Affairs - Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1998-99

Attendance

III. Tentative Agenda for March 28, 2000

FINAL AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 29, 2000

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the February 1, 2000, Meeting in The Senate Record 33:4

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of February 15, 2000

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of February 15, 2000

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

Faculty Affairs

Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure
and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS -

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Proposed Change to Policy 14-00, Nondegree Students

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid/Undergraduate Education

Revision of Policy 51-50: Cumulative Grade Point Average

Committees and Rules

Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 7(b)

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity Report

Report on Improving the Academic Integrity Climate (A/C)

Undergraduate Education

Revision of Senate Policy 42-50: Credit by Examination/Proficiency Examination

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

Faculty Affairs

Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1998-99

Faculty Benefits

Activities of the Penn State Travel Services Office

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Annual Report for 1998-99

Undergraduate Education

Grade Distribution Report

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -

M. ADJOURNMENT -

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

The Senate passed five Legislative Reports:

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - "Proposed Change to Policy 14-00, Nondegree Students." This report changes the maximum limit of credits that can be taken by a nondegree conditional student from 10 to 12. (See Record, page(s) 5-6 and Agenda Appendix "B.")

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid/Undergraduate Education - "Revision of Policy 51-50: Cumulative Grade Point Average." This report changes the policy so that all courses taken by a baccalaureate degree candidate who is changing to an associate degree program will remain a part of their GPA. Thus, the GPA will not start over again (as it has in the past) with only those credits taken while in the associate degree program. (See Record, page(s) 6-7 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

Committees and Rules - "Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 7(b)." This report mandates an annual report from the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies to the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits. (See Record, page(s) 7 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity - "Academic Integrity Report." This report sets up committees on academic integrity at the level of the colleges. It also describes the procedures to be followed when academic dishonesty is suspected. (See Record, page(s) 7-24 and Agenda Appendix "E.")

Undergraduate Education - "Revision of Senate Policy 42-50: Credit by Examination/Proficiency Examination." The purpose of the report is to eliminate the notation that students must have completed three credits at Penn State before credit by examination or proficiency examination results are recorded on the student's transcript. (See Record, page(s) 25 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

The Senate passed two Advisory/Consultative Reports:

Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions." The presumption in this report is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor is sufficient to warrant promotion to associate professor, but does not eliminate the possibility of tenuring without promoting. (See Record, page(s) 2-5 and Agenda Appendix "H.")

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity - "Report on Improving the Academic Integrity Climate." This report lays out 5 principles to underpin the climate of academic integrity at the institution. (See Record, page(s) 24-25 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

The Senate received four Informational Reports:

Faculty Affairs - "Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1998-99." This report presents a series of charts showing the promotion and tenure decisions made in the academic year of 1998-99. (See Record, page(s) 26-30 and Agenda Appendix "I.")

Faculty Benefits - "Activities of the Penn State Travel Services Office." This report describes the organization, functions, and policies of the Travel Services Office. (See Record, page(s) 30-33 and Agenda Appendix "J.")

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities - "Annual Report for 1998-99." This is the mandated annual report on the number of cases addressed by this committee. (See Record, page(s) 33 and Agenda Appendix "K.")

Undergraduate Education - "Grade Distribution Report." This mandated report reviews the distribution of grades for baccalaureate students for each spring semester from 1975 to 1999. (See Record, page(s) 33 and Agenda Appendix "L.")

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, February 29, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Murry R. Nelson, Chair, presiding. One hundred and fifty-five Senators signed the roster.

Chair Nelson: It is time to begin. A first in Senate history and I know you'll be glad to be a part of this. The Senate has never met on February 29th. So you can tell your grandchildren you were here for that, of course you'll probably have forgotten by then. It is exciting.

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the February 1, 2000 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries and posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for February 15, 2000. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of February 15, 2000. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

Chair Nelson: I refer you to my remarks to Senate Council contained in the minutes attached to today's Agenda.

You may notice that Christopher Bise is not here, or maybe you didn't notice. But Christopher Bise is in Salt Lake City receiving a lifetime achievement award from the Society of Mining Engineers. He thought that was an acceptable excuse. I did ask him to bring a note.

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President met on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 and discussed the following agenda items: Update on Searches; Budget Hearings; Microsoft Software Restrictions; Consultation and General Education, that was a follow-up to what we discussed earlier; a follow-up to Prerequisite Issues; a follow-up update to Emeritus Faculty Teaching Fellows; Faculty Handbook; Distance Education Policy; and Post Doctoral Fellows; there were also some brief comments about Domestic Partners Benefits. The next FAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 14, 2000. If anyone might have any items to be included on the FAC agenda, please contact any of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members: Peter Deines, Linda Miller or Gordon De Jong.

The Senate Officers visited the College of the Liberal Arts on Tuesday, February 8, the Smeal College of Business Administration on Wednesday, February 16, the College of Communications on February 22 and the University Libraries on February 24. The last visit for the spring semester is scheduled for Tuesday, March 21 to the Eberly College of Science.

I wanted to make one other comment, and that was there was a meeting held yesterday regarding clarity about computer implementation issues for the fall. Some of the faculty have been asking, and are concerned about this particular issue and we will have a report presented by John Harwood in April: I just wanted to let you know that the Senate will be informed about what is going on regarding that implementation. I guess that's all for now.

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

Chair Nelson: We do not have President Spanier nor Provost Erickson here today. They are at budget hearings in Harrisburg. There is a chance that they will be back in time for the Senate meeting. The hearing was scheduled for 11:00 a.m., it could go long, it could go short, they could have other demands, so if President Spanier does arrive then he will make some comments but we do not count on that. If you are interested in seeing those hearings, they are on television this evening on PCN. So you'll probably want to watch PCN all night... As we begin our discussion of reports, I will remind you to please stand and identify yourself, and the unit that you represent before addressing the Senate. There are a couple of people today that have been given the privilege of speaking to the Senate, although they are not members. I will identify them later during various discussions that we may have on the floor.

FORENSIC BUSINESS

None

UNFINISHED LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

Chair Nelson: We do have one piece of Unfinished Business which was originally put in your Agenda as Advisory/Consultative report Appendix "I". Because it was not a new piece of business, and in fact is unfinished, we will be changing that to discussion right now unless I hear some tremendous objections, because there was no prior notice for that. I hear no tremendous objections, so that being the case, we will be dealing with the "Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions". As in the last meeting, February 1, John Nichols and Louis Milakofsky are here. You also should have received a door handout on this report when you entered the room.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions

John S. Nichols, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

John S. Nichols, College of Communications: Thank you, Murry. First of all, the editorial gremlins are conspiring against us. First Caroline Eckhardt, and others at least three times, have noted an error in the preamble preparatory material. Second paragraph under Changes in Practice on page one. We still don't have it right. It seems every time we introduce a correction, we also introduce an error. So it should read, "In the past three years, 161 assistant professors were recommended for tenure. Of those, only six (two each year) did not also receive promotion." In other words, 161 were recommended for tenure, 155 are tenured associates, and only six were tenured and remained assistant professors. Now that's an editorial correction on the preparatory material, not on the recommendation that you'll be voting on today and I apologize for the repeated mistakes on that. On the door handout there's a couple of typos, we're dealing with the second paragraph the revised version midway through there's an unnecessary quotation mark after "during the provisional appointment". That quotation mark should be deleted. Two lines down "warrant promotion to associate professor," period. That other stuff there should be crossed out. And in the third to last line in the bold face caps, it should read, "however, the burden would be on the committee(s) or administrator(s)".

At the February 1, 2000 meeting the Senate voted to postpone a vote on this report, so that you folks had an opportunity to return to your units and consult with them regarding substantive changes that were made that some felt would make this report more likely to pass. The report with those changes was posted on the Senate web page on February 7, 2000, and as a result of that, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs received additional comments and suggestions. In a response to that feedback, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has made additional changes to the recommendation and voted unanimously today to forward them to you in the form of a door handout, in the second paragraph in the door handout. It's the Faculty Affairs Committee's view that these changes do not change the intent or the substance of the proposal, but rather they are intended to clarify questions that have come up as a result of the comments from the material posted on the Senate web page. Also, it is frankly to be a confidence builder for those that have doubts about the intent or the eventual implementation of this report. In affect, believe it or not, the revised wording simplifies the report. Wording from the original HR-23 has been taken out, or original wording has been left in including what the committee believes are some useful statements about promotion and tenure. A quick reminder, the intent of the proposal is to change the presumption regarding the relationship between tenure and promotion to associate professor. HR-23 would be changed so that a positive tenure recommendation for an assistant professor would be presumed to be sufficient for promotion to associate professor. And if the committee or administrator feels that it's an exceptional case, the burden of proof shifts to that committee or administrator to demonstrate why. So it's back before you and what I'd like to do is to move that the second paragraph be the substitute motion.

Chair Nelson: The second paragraph?

John Nichols: The door handout.

Chair Nelson: The second paragraph that is the revised version would be the new motion. We don't need a second because that comes from the committee. The vote is only to substitute this not necessarily approve it. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? Okay, thank you. Now we will deal with the substance of the motion. John, any more comments? Okay, comments from the floor?

Sandra R. Smith, Fayette Campus: I guess I'm curious what would happen to this if it's passed today. Does this become a public document?

Louis Milakofsky, Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley: It's policy of the university, so I suppose it does.

Sandra R. Smith: It then becomes a public document. There are some very insulting statements in here to faculty who have been at the university for quite some time and I feel that it needs to be changed. For example, in your third sentence it says, "Faculty on our campuses particularly was not the strong faculty it is today". Now faculty that have been here I know at our campus for some 25-30 years, they were highly offended with this.

Chair Nelson: Sandra, I'm going to rule this for the moment as out of order. Not because the substance of what you're saying so much as that this is already a public document. What we're dealing with is the substance of the motion, rather than the preparatory remarks.

Tamble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: I'd like to start as a former member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, in commending the committee on being sensitive to the very thorough discussion of this topic at the last meeting, and also to take note that the crux of the issue seems to be the last paragraph of the recommendation, and that an exception statement is crucial to the number of faculty and Faculty Senators courting this topic. However, in light of Senator Smith's comment and the response from a number of faculty throughout the campuses, I realize that the first paragraph was probably written with all the best intentions in the world. However, I do not think it is necessary to address the issue of the exception situation therefore, as a friendly amendment I would suggest that the first paragraph, the history paragraph, simply be deleted.

Chair Nelson: That's really not a voteable part because that comes from...

Tamble T. Turner: I'm offering it as a friendly amendment.

Chair Nelson: But it's not part of the motion.

John Nichols: It's our report. We'll take it out.

Chair Nelson: Other comments or questions? Seeing none, then we will move to vote. All those in favor of the motion as presented, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senators: Nay.

Chair Nelson: Okay, "ayes" have it. Thank you very much John and Louis.

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

Chair Nelson: We move to legislative reports. Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, the first is a Proposed Change to Policy 14-00, Nondegree Students it is listed as Appendix "B". JoAnn Chirico is here and will present the report.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Proposed Change to Policy 14-00, Nondegree Students

JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus: Good afternoon. Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid has two legislative reports today. The first one is Policy 14-00, and what we recommend in this policy is increasing the limit for nondegree conditional students from 10 to 12 credits per semester.

Chair Nelson: Questions or comments for JoAnn? Seeing none, then we will move to vote. All those in favor of the recommendation, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? Thank you. Next, JoAnn is still here. Revision of Policy 51-50: Cumulative Grade Point Average. JoAnn is here along with Renata Engel who's the vice-chair of the committee, and Renata will present the report.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID/SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Revision of Policy 51-50: Cumulative Grade Point Average

JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Jamie M. Myers, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Renata S. Engel, College of Engineering: Actually, I and Jamie Myers will present the report.

Chair Nelson: They keep switching on me. Jamie Myers who is the Chair of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. Can you explain what he's doing here, Renata?

Renata S. Engel: Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education co-sponsored this report as well as an adhoc committee that was formed by John Cahir. Briefly, the intention of this policy was to provide a uniform and consistent means of recording and reporting a students' GPA. The report has the details about how we would strike certain elements of the current policy, and provide a more consistent and uniform policy.

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: As co-sponsor policy between two committees, it becomes rather complicated when you begin to think about amending a policy, particularly in receiving friendly amendments to this policy. Since this was printed in your Agenda, we have received email concerning several aspects of this policy in its printed form. And through consultation in our committees this morning, and consultation together after that trying to bring synthesis, I believe we are at a position, unless a member of either of our committees objects. That note occurs on page two, item number three, it's in caps and it begins, "Note: A student who is changing from a baccalaureate degree," etc., we are going to eliminate that note from this policy. So you can strike it out unless there's some objection from a committee member from either of the committees. The rationale for that is we put this in here as information for students and we created a complicated loop hole and the easiest way to eliminate that is to eliminate the note and it doesn't change students' ability to apply for academic renewal on an earlier basis.

Chair Nelson: We're ready for questions for Renata or Jamie, or JoAnn. Seeing none, then we will move to vote. All those in favor of this policy as proposed, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? Thank you. Next is Senate Committee on Committees and Rules. Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 7(b) is attached as Appendix "D". Nancy Wyatt, Chair of the committee is here, and will present the report.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 7(b)

Nancy J. Wyatt, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Nancy J. Wyatt, Delaware Campus: The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules is proposing that the Joint Faculty/Administrative Committee to Monitor Travel Policies report annually to the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits. The Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits then will either sponsor that report to the Senate, or sponsor it with comments or make their own report as they see fit.

Chair Nelson: Comments about this or questions? What a happy group. Seeing none, then we will move to vote. All those in favor of this policy recommendation change, please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? Thank you. We're assuming that you're saving up yourselves for something. We now move to the Joint Committee on Academic Integrity for the Academic Integrity Report, which has been a long time in coming. It is Appendix "E." Cara-Lynne Schengrund is here, who was the Chair of this particular committee, and Bill Ellis is also here. Some of you may remember Bill as former Senator for many years; he spearheaded the effort of academic integrity as Chair of the Senate Committee on Student Life. He was also a member of this committee and continued his work. We are very appreciative of that fact. He will respond to questions, or slings and arrows depending on what you have to offer.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Academic Integrity Report

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, Joint Committee on Academic Integrity

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, College of Medicine: And we wouldn't mind if you were just as quiet. Normally I would just say you all have the report in front of you, but I decided that this time I actually would give an introduction, so you're blessed. The Joint Committee on Academic Integrity, as you know, was appointed by both the Senate Chair, Murry Nelson and by the Provost, Rodney Erickson. We were charged to clarify and streamline the policy and procedures for handling dishonesty at Penn State. To make the steps for faculty to follow as clear and simple as possible in pursuing cases of academic dishonesty, retaining the fundamental right for faculty to assign grades while preserving necessary due process and rights of students, we were also to examine legal liabilities and the counsel that assisted us in this area was Michelle Katz of McQuaide et al, and we were to propose a clear procedure and proposed assignment of responsibilities for implementation of the process. Historically, the need for a more effective policy to deal with academic integrity infractions was first raised in a 1996 report that came from a committee that was chaired by Vice-Provost Secor. This report recommended that academic dishonesty cases should be handled through the colleges with perhaps some involvement by the Faculty Senate and Student Affairs administrators to ensure procedural consistency across the university. The Senate Committee on Student Life then established a subcommittee on academic integrity to study changes in policy. This committee was initially chaired by Dr. Eakin, then it was subsequently chaired by Joseph Puzycki. They brought a report forward to the Senate, and many of you were here last spring when a forensic session was held to discuss that report. There were many, many comments made and changes suggested, so the Senate Committee on Student Life decided to just sort of do that report in and write a new report that was brought to Senate Council in October of 1999 and approved by Council for inclusion in the Agenda for the October Senate meeting. After many comments were made by interested parties, the Senate Committee on Student Life agreed to withdraw it from that meeting. It was after that that the Joint Committee was appointed and that committee was made up of deans, faculty and students. At this point I would like to acknowledge all of the work that that committee did because everyone contributed to it and we had many vigorous discussions. While all of this was going on, there was a Pulse Survey taken. In that Pulse Survey over 700 students from University Park responded and their responses added to the feeling that there was a need for the development of a policy to deal with academic integrity. We also have a second report that is advisory/consultative, in which we are making recommendations to enhance the climate for academic integrity within Penn State. The legislative report that we're discussing actually makes a number of recommendations. It first starts with the definition of academic integrity and expectations, and then it goes on to recommend the following: each college dean or campus executive officer as determined by college policy should appoint a committee on academic integrity and define the responsibilities of the committee. Each faculty member will be responsible for recommending academic sanctions in cases where they feel a student is guilty of an academic infraction. A student can appeal the faculty member's finding to the college committee and the college committee's decision will be final when it's an academic decision. There is the description of the use of an "XF" grade. An "XF" grade is given as a disciplinary sanction. Finally, we described the role of Judicial Affairs in the application of the "XF" grade and we reiterate the fact that under current university policy and practice, Judicial Affairs has the authority to initiate disciplinary sanctions for repeat offenders. And on behalf of the committee I would like to recommend that the recommendations proposed be adopted.

Chair Nelson: It is unnecessary to second that motion for adoption of this, since it comes from the committee.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: I'm sorry, there's one thing that came up that I'd like to indicate. There is an editorial correction on page eight, the last line under the "XF" grade. Where is says, "would allow a student to change an "XF" mark to an "F". We didn't want the student making the change, so the editorial correction says, "would allow the "XF" grade to be changed to an "F". I'll repeat that, "would allow the "XF" grade to be changed to an "F". We didn't want the students just doing that on their own. Thank you.

Chair Nelson: Remember we were only dealing with this first report which is a legislative report. So if there are questions and comments, please confine yourself to that report. We will discuss and vote on the second report following the first report.

Todd D. Ellis, Student Senator, Eberly College of Science: The comments I'm going to make are a little bit lengthy, kind of in three parts, but I want to make sure that I kind of put a basis on where these comments are coming from before I make an actual question for you to respond to. First of all, a great number of the Academic Assembly met last night, and we feel that the proposal being put forth as it is right now is probably by far the best representation of how we all felt the system should be working. It accomplishes equity and fairness, and still keeps due process, and it's better than any draft that we've seen so far. Marginally, and with a few reservations, we give our support to it as a whole. My question is going to relate to the procedures that start on page seven and go over to one paragraph on page eight. Our interpretation of the way this works is kind of as follows, and I'm going to let you make sure that I have the right idea before I make my comments. If a student agrees with a sanction that the instructor recommends, the student can sign off, and then the case is closed, and all records are just for record keeping purposes to be forwarded to the next level.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: To Judicial Affairs.

Todd D. Ellis: To Judicial Affairs and to the college committee. They both receive the records but cannot act on them?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: That's correct.

Todd D. Ellis: If the student does not agree, then it goes to the college committee who then reviews the case, administers what they deem to be appropriate academic sanctions, and those are final. And then if they deem that there are necessary disciplinary actions, they then recommend it to Judicial Affairs. Okay, that's all right. So my question is this, in reading that if a student is facing an academic sanction of an "F," the instructor says that you deserve an "F" in the course and the student then signs off in agreement to that sanction, then the "F" is the worse thing that they can get at that point because the case is closed. But if the student appeals, say that I know I don't agree that I should be getting an "F" and it goes to the next level for review, then not only does the student get the "F" but now they can also get an "XF". Which if they've just signed off on it from the beginning they couldn't get, and so there is almost an encouragement for the student to just forgo their appeals process because I can take the sure thing "F," whereas if I appeal it, I run the risk of getting an "XF" assignment as well.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: If you look on page eight under the "XF" grade. "To record an "XF" the instructor, college committee and Judicial Affairs must concur." Now if the instructor only wanted to give you an "F," something must have happened when you appealed to cause him or her to change their mind to agree to the "XF". Because they're recommending an "F," the student is appealing what the college committee should be discussing is that "F" not the "XF".

Todd D. Ellis: But the "XF" is a disciplinary sanction?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: That's a disciplinary sanction, it's not an academic sanction. If the instructor has only recommended an "F" as an academic sanction, that's what the college committee would discuss. They would look for your guilt or innocence on that point.

Todd D. Ellis: I understand that, but it says in the first paragraph, "The instructor may assign an academic sanction". It says nothing about the instructor being allowed to recommend a disciplinary sanction of an "XF". So the worst thing the instructor can give me is an "F" according to this...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: On his own, yes.

Todd D. Ellis: So what I'm saying is that if I sign off on that "F," then there is no way I can get an "XF"?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Actually there is. And this becomes a little more complex. If you are a repeat offender and that "F" goes forward and Judicial Affairs sees that you have committed a number of academic infractions, they may reopen the case. It's not the instructor, it's Judicial Affairs at that level.

Todd D. Ellis: But can you understand where the concern is coming from in this case? If the instructor can only assign an academic sanction according to what this says, if so, unless I'm a repeat offender, then the only way I can get an "XF" is if I appealed?

Bill Ellis, 1998-1999 Chair, Senate Committee on Student Life: I believe the instructor could recommend the "XF," but the instructor cannot take that action because that is a disciplinary action, and therefore you need these extra levels of appeal. So if you have a case and we're talking here about really gross flagrant acts of dishonesty. I do not anticipate that there is going to be a large number of "XFs" recommended. But we're dealing with for instance, exam pedaling schemes, we're dealing with cases where a student has broken into a professor's office and stolen exams. We're dealing with things that are not your garden variety dishonesty. I would imagine that virtually all cases that are going to be handled under this are going to be the kind of garden variety cases of copying, plagiarism and the like and these are going to be "Fs" on the assignment or "Fs" in the course. So I would want to encourage the Senate not to put too much emphasis on the parts of the policy that are going to be dealing with a really distinct minority of the cases here. We do need this for the really serious cases, but this is not going to be the standard.

Todd D. Ellis: Just to finish up then. I'd just like to recommend that maybe in that first paragraph that you mention that the instructor can recommend disciplinary sanctions. Just so everyone's clear that "XF" sort of has to initiate with the instructor. The way it's written now I can easily contest that all they are allowed to do is say academic sanction, and even if I've done something terribly wrong the case is closed and I can sign off with an "F". I think maybe we just want to clarify that statement.

Richard F. Nath, Student Senator, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: Just to clarify what Todd is trying to ask. If I would do something terribly bad would I be given the opportunity to sign off with an "F"? Or would the instructor just recommend the "XF" and it would go to the committee and on so forth? I think that might be another question that came up. I also have a few other questions.

Bill Ellis: My understanding is that if a student signs off on an academic sanction then that closes the case. Disciplinary sanctions require another level of appeal because we're dealing with penalties that will follow a student past graduation. An "XF" may for instance, disqualify a student for employment in his or her chosen career. And so therefore, the extra level of review is necessary in those cases.

Richard F. Nath: Two quick questions. Along those same lines with the "XF" where it says that each college will have a committee. The committee must develop conditions to change it. I just wanted to know will each campus, because you know that Penn State is comprised of many campuses, will each campus have a committee? Or will there be just a Commonwealth College committee and also will conditions across the university be universal? Meaning that at each college the conditions won't be different so one college you do so many hours of community service, yet other colleges say you have to do so many other things?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: The way this is written, the Commonwealth College can have local campus committees that operate under a given set of guidelines. As far as the conditions to remove the "X" from the "XF" grading and convert it to an "F," initially we had it worded so that each college may do so. After a question was raised about the legality of that, I contacted Michelle Katz. While she said that the university could do that, since one of the things we were aiming for was consistency we changed the may to must. Now if you look in the document, one of the things that will occur is that to ensure fairness and consistency, and process and outcomes university-wide, college committees will work with the Office of Judicial Affairs and the Office of the Provost of the university to develop procedures for handling and sanctioning dishonesty infractions. And it's the committee's intent that by putting that sentence in, the Office of Judicial Affairs and the Provost's Office would work together to ensure that there was consistency. Hopefully you wouldn't be able to just go to a one-hour seminar in one case and do 300 hours of community service in another.

Mark A. Casteel, York Campus: A follow-up to the question from the student Senator about the "XF" grade. We chatted during the Commonwealth Caucus today and I'm a little bit more concerned now than when we chatted at noon. Bill just said that the "XF" grade will be reserved for the most egregious and severe cases of disciplinary sanction. It makes all kinds of sense you only apply it in the most severe cases. And the way this is worded it says the instructor, college committee, and Judicial Affairs must concur. Then what is the underlying logic in such a severe case to have a condition where a student can then remove such a disciplinary sanction? Explain the underlying logic?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: The underlying logic was that the committee felt that it should not, if a student truly recognized that...you come in as a freshman you're an 18 year old or a 19 year old you went out, you partied, you didn't know you needed to study. You cheat on your mid-term exam. You do a series of things that when you are 25 you're going to look back and recognize were pretty stupid. Should that follow you all your life? Every place you take your transcript? And we felt that the student should be offered a second chance. If it's felt by the college committee that this really should have a very high bar there is no reason why the college committee cannot set a very high bar before that "X" can be removed. But in most cases in this world, you're given three strikes before you're jailed for certain things permanently, and we felt that a student should be given a second chance.

Mark A. Casteel: Just a follow-up? So the college committee could say that there are some offenses that are so severe that meaning the "XF" could never be removed, such as breaking into an instructor's office?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: That could be done.

Bill Ellis: Let me point out that this is something that will be decided by the college committee when they sit on these cases. The conditions may not be the same for all cases, but the college committee has to in general create a procedure for offering that for the cases that they feel where that second chance is merited. Otherwise you would have a cheating case in one college involving a death penalty, and a cheating case in another college may be the class that you take over in the next period having that opportunity. And the consensus was that we needed to have a consistent policy system-wide on that.

Louis F. Geschwindner, College of Engineering: I wonder if you would clarify something for me. The document says very clearly on page three that 49-20 is Academic Integrity and the ACUE Procedure G-9 is not Senate policy. Yet so far we've spent all of our time talking about what you listed under procedure, and I think it's important that we know what it is we're going to be voting on? Are we voting on 49-20 revised and procedures or procedures implemented by ACUE? If that's the case, then it seems to me we need a totally separate legislative item to discuss "XF" as a grade. Because that is a modification of the grading system, and probably ought to be costed as to how it changes the computer record, grading, and all the forms and all that kind of stuff.

Bill Ellis: I can at least answer the last question. The "XF" was costed last spring. I don't have that version of the report with me, but in the opinion of the University Planning Committee, the only additional cost that would be involved would be a one-time cost in the printing of the transcript forms. And if the change happened to fall at the right time, it could simply be incorporated in the regular reordering of those forms. So there were no significant costs in the change over. As far as the question on the procedures, we discussed this a number of times in committee. We felt that it was important that we make certain procedural outlines university policy, rather than having them in a separate document that could theoretically be changed at any moment. So there are a number of things here that are interfacing with material that is being revised from the old Senate policy, and we felt that this was an integral document. It needed to be voted on as a whole rather than piecemeal. So we do not have a document dealing with a definition of academic integrity and a procedure, we have a new expanded Senate policy 49-20.

Chair Nelson: Let me just make sure from Cara-Lynne and from Bill and for the Senate, what it is we're actually voting on. Are we voting on the policy here as on page six and seven or are we also including the procedures in the voting?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Six, seven and eight.

Chair Nelson: Six, seven and eight, thank you. Because there is precedence for including procedures.

Kevin Berland, Shenango Campus: I'm asking for a point of clarification. Mention was made of signing off for an "F," and this is a procedure I know nothing of. In the very few occasions I've had to deal with academic dishonesty from students, I assign an "F" in the course and that's it. I didn't ask the student's permission to assign the "F". In one case the student said I don't understand this "F," and I handed the paperwork to which I'd written a note explaining that if you have any questions come back. And there's a formal procedure to review this, and of course the student did not come back. But I don't consider that signing off. Is there a document that we're talking about?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Previously, if you look under the existing language of 49-20, "if students believe they've been falsely accused, they should seek redress through informal discussions," and this is where it becomes a little murky, with not only the instructor but they could go to the department head, the dean or the campus executive officer. Or if the instructor wanted to, he or she could refer the case to Judicial Affairs. So you didn't have a very clean-cut thing. Now what will happen is if the student agrees with what you're doing, you call the student in, you explain to him or her what you think they did and why. And if they say, "yes I did it," they will sign off and that is the end of it. They agree. If they don't, they appeal, it goes to the college committee. It's very clean, it's very well delineated. John do you want to say something?

John J. Cahir, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education: The reporting part...the reason...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: And that goes to the Office of Judicial Affairs, and is stored. And that way you have a permanent record in a sense, while the student is at Penn State of previous infractions.

Kevin Berland: There's two new procedures. One procedure is documentation of the instructor's reasoning for citing an "F"...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Well, no you tell that to the student so you don't have to write that down, if the student accepts it.

Kevin Berland: Okay, but we're using this word signing off...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Well, they accept the fact that you are giving them an "F" in whatever, for whatever.

Kevin Berland: It's declining to pursue it further...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: They will sign that they accept what you're doing, however you would like that phrased.

Kevin Berland: The second procedure is that the faculty member, who has assigned an "F" then has the right to pursue it further. That's to say, the right to petition to the committees that it should be pursued? You can assign an "F," and still pursue it further as an instructor?

Bill Ellis: I'm not sure what you are asking. Because if you assign an "F" and the student accepts that "F," and you put the "F" on the transcript, I'm not sure what need there would be for involving a committee in this. Unless the student contests that "F," in which case the committee meets and listens to your reasoning and says, "yes this is a fair sanction".

W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture: I'm just curious if the student leaves, and that he or she did not accept responsibility in this case, the instructor forwards all the documents to the committee, the committee takes it to Judicial Affairs...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: No, the college committee...if the instructor wanted to give an "F" the student said, "I'm not guilty," then it goes forward to the college committee. And the college committee gives the final decision if it's an "F".

W. Travis DeCastro: I was kind of glossing over to what my role was. Why is the instructor brought back in on the "XF" grade? He has forwarded all the documents, right? So he's now removed and now he comes back in as part of the jury?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Because we were asking that the instructor agree with the disciplinary...that's a disciplinary sanction, it's not just an "F". So therefore you're asking that the instructor concur with the college committee, and Judicial Affairs in the administering of that "XF". That's all you're asking at that point.

W. Travis DeCastro: But I thought you said...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: They cannot give it on their own. Because that's a disciplinary sanction, therefore we are trying to afford the student due process and not make it unilateral.

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: If my understanding is correct, the instructor can recommend an "XF" but not assign it. But the other question I have is I'm a little concerned, I'm still on the "XF" topic, about this definition of serious act. And I would really ask that somewhere along the line before this becomes somehow imbedded in stone, that there will be some guidelines and some examples given to the colleges. So that what constitutes a serious act is consistent, especially across the university. I would really like some consistency there. I would also like to recommend that in giving students options to expunge an "F," that this will also be consistent across the university. Perhaps you could provide some useful university office such as Student Affairs, something that is viewed as much more objective?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: I know we're discussing the Appendix "E," if you look in Appendix "F," item five. This is one reason why it's somewhat difficult to split these two. One of the things we have recommended there is that the University Faculty Senate Student Life Committee and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education regularly assess the effectiveness of the Academic Integrity policies and procedures and recommend changes as necessary. That goes along with the fact that we also are recommending in the actual Appendix "E," that Judicial Affairs and the Provost's Office be involved.

Patricia A. Book, Outreach and Cooperative Extension: I guess just to pick up on opportunity, it seems to me that a student has the opportunity to avoid an "XF" if they've done something extremely egregious. They can avoid it by signing off on an "F" and the instructor can only give them an academic sanction if...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: The instructor can only give them an "F" if they are just stopping at the instructor level. But the instructor can recommend an "XF" in which case they cannot sign off it must go through the college committee and Judicial Affairs.

Patricia A. Book: It doesn't say that in the report...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: It says that the "XF" grade is a formal university disciplinary sanction. That to record an "XF" the instructor, the college committee and Judicial Affairs must concur.

Cheryl L. Achterberg, Dean, Schreyer Honors College: I want to try to clarify this speaking on the "XF" grade in particular. There are two different kinds of cases where an "XF" might be assigned. One case is when a student has established a habitual record of cheating that any given individual course instructor would be unaware of, unless the student has established a pattern which can be established because of the recording and the recording has occurred. If they have cheated in numerous classes, numerous times, the recording would make that clear when Judicial Affairs reviews it, so when the college committee reviews it, then an "XF" is recommended because this student has established a pattern that we would want to acknowledge and break. Other kinds of cases where an "XF" might be assigned, is when something especially egregious occurs. But in cases where one of those acts might have been enacted, they will usually also be accompanied by a criminal act. For example, if a student breaks into a professor's office and steals exams, there's a criminal act involved there. Where he entered the office does not involve just a matter of cheating, it's a much bigger case. We don't anticipate very many of those, and we hope there aren't very many habitual cheaters. But in the case of habitual cheaters, that's where you want that "XF". The "XF" would come up after the fact. The individual instructor wouldn't know that at first. The record would go in and a habitual cheater would be identified, and then they would go back to the instructor so the instructor would know.

Michael J. Navin, The Dickinson School of Law: I think I know what people want to happen but I'm not sure it says that. I'm reading from the report starting on page seven. What it says is, "the instructor will offer to meet". Does that mean I must? Does that say shall offer to meet or will offer to meet? And that was the question I think Kevin asked earlier. Do I have to do this? Or can I just hand in an "F" and wait for you to come back to me and ask why? That's the question. I don't know that this tells me the answer to that.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: I thought will meant that they would meet. I did not know that will could be construed as an iffy word.

Michael J. Navin: Well...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: My apologies on my grammar but...

Michael J. Navin: ...difference between will and shall. I mean, shall is the imperative. Shall do this...

Bill Ellis: Excuse me but my high school English teacher said exactly the opposite. "I shall," was optional and "I will," meant I fully intend to.

Michael J. Navin: ...defined as if you must do it I'm told that. But assuming that I must do it. I must meet with the student. I must confront the student before I give them the "F," now this is the question that was asked. Is it intended that before I assign the "F" because somebody has cheated in my class, I must meet with them first?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: You will offer to meet with them. If the student declines to come in to see you, obviously you are not going to meet with them.

Michael J. Navin: Let's assume the student comes in. The student shall be told what the allegation is, I'll hand out a copy of the procedure, a drop or withdraw may be reversed, may be...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: That is if the student... Well it depends. If the student's not found guilty and they've dropped the course, you obviously won't reverse it.

Michael J. Navin: The next paragraph is the troublesome one. "If the student accepts responsibility...the instructor will have the student sign the Academic Integrity form which closes the case." To me that's period, forever and it doesn't limit it to academic sanctions. It's in all cases involving academic dishonesty because that's the heading on that paragraph. That's what it says...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: That's involved in that particular case.

Michael J. Navin: But you then keep telling us that the "XF" grade could still be given if the instructor, if the college committee and Judicial Affairs agrees, but that's not possible if the case of academic integrity has been closed. That's what you're saying.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: The case is closed if it is just the question of the instructor giving an "F" on the assignment, the test or the course. Yes, because the student signed off and that's a case of academic integrity.

Michael J. Navin: That's academic dishonesty...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: And the student has signed off. It is closed. It then gets filed in the Office of Judicial Affairs, correct?

Michael J. Navin: Review the "XF" grade. The "XF" grade is a formal university disciplinary sanction that indicates on the student's transcript that failure in a course was due to a serious act of academic dishonesty. You already said earlier that if a student signs off on a case of academic dishonesty whether serious or not, the case is closed.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: That is, when the instructor has recommended giving an "F" and only an "F".

Michael J. Navin: Then you ought to put that in there...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: It's not a disciplinary sanction...

Bill Ellis: Can I add something here? I think I understand your objection but I believe the relevant line here is the one immediately above the "XF" grade. "Under current university policy and practice, Judicial Affairs has the authority to initiate disciplinary sanctions for repeat offenders." The case may well be closed and it will darn well be closed as far as the faculty member is concerned. But Judicial Affairs may well see a pattern, and on the basis of that pattern may initiate disciplinary sanctions.

Michael J. Navin: But only for repeat but not for serious...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: But if it was serious in the first place, the instructor would have recommended the "XF" and not an "F".

Michael J. Navin: Well that depends on my definition of serious...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: ...which will go under your college guidelines.

Michael J. Navin: I'm concerned that you haven't expressed in the language of the report your intention. I'm not objecting to your intention but only the way in which it is stated. And I can see later, making an argument with some course, that closed means closed. Now they may lose that eventually but it will be a long drawn out process that I submit to you now could be corrected, if you just added a little more explanation and the difference between an academic sanction and a disciplinary sanction.

P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: I do agree with the student Senator and most of the colleagues, that the way it's written, when something is closed, it's closed. I can't see any way around that. I'm not swayed by the argument that you told us that we are passing on general ideas and I unfortunately have a former history with this body to pass things and don't, five years later remember the original legislation. I don't want to repeat what already was read, but I'd like to look at it from the faculty point of view. So if you look on page seven, "it is the responsibility of the individual class instructor to provide the student with a statement clarifying the application of university and college academic integrity policies to that course". However, if I choose to flunk the student for cheating on one mid-term, and the college committee feels that that's not the case and they provide guidelines, then it takes the penalty case out of my hand. And the college committee also has to confer with university guidelines. So where do I stand as an instructor? Before I can write that third syllabus that I have to get ready I've got to check with the college committee and university, correct? It's also interesting if you go back to the "XF". That in order to be an "XF" the instructor and committee and Judicial Affairs must concur. But to remove it only the committee has to recommend it. Why not all three parties? Do you understand? I'm recommending the "XF" but now the committee says five hours of an ethics course is enough to do away with it, but I don't think it's the case, but now it's out of my hands but I recommended the "XF," am I correct? I have no say in this particular committee. I think that the thing that is confusing is you're using two sets of terms. If you look we talk about academic integrity, academic dishonesty, academic sanctions. But look on page eight the first paragraph "Referring Cases to Judicial Affairs". Now all of the sudden we talk about university disciplinary action. Which we have been told are somehow separate from academic sanctions. And I think some of us are confused. When does the disciplinary sanction come in as opposed to the academic sanctions? And I'm glad I didn't decide to be a lawyer, but I do really think that that's part of the confusion. We go from academic discipline, academic sanctions, then you have disciplinary sanctions. And those seem to be two different things.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Actually Peter, if I may inject a little bit of levity, I think you would have been a great lawyer. In response to your question...and I can say that we went to the same school, and graduated in the same class, so I can pick on Peter safely. If I can, I'd like to respond to the disciplinary sanction as opposed to the academic sanction. The academic sanction falls within the purview of the faculty. The disciplinary sanction you must have due process up through Judicial Affairs. You cannot stop at the college committee level. There is a distinct difference between a disciplinary sanction and the academic sanction which is basically the giving of a plain "F," no "X" in front of it. The "X" immediately makes it a disciplinary sanction and you must go through Judicial Affairs.

Bill Ellis: Disciplinary sanctions can involve things such as putting a student on probation, suspending a student, even in extreme cases expelling the student. So these are sanctions that involve the student outside of the classroom and actually directly involve a student's relationship with the university.

Dennis G. Shea, College of Health and Human Development: I'm responsible for about 50 percent of the academic dishonesty cases that went before Judicial Affairs over the last few years. I speak with a little bit of experience and I think the real problem here is the lack of clarity in the initial procedures statement. Separation between the academic sanctions and the disciplinary sanctions. There's no statement here to the faculty member when they are assigning the academic sanctions. Can they also talk to the students about disciplinary sanctions? The student comes in and lies to the faculty member in the course of investigating them. They intimidate other students into lying for them. And so I think there needs to be a statement right up front, that when the faculty member assigns academic sanctions, that doesn't prevent them from assigning disciplinary sanctions in relation to or at our reservation. And additional sanctions for disciplinary actions in incidents that are related to this academic dishonesty case. Secondly, it's not clear at all in this statement how the "XF" is initiated. I think you need to say that right up front. That the instructor may assign or may recommend an "XF" that then goes straight forward to the college committee. You don't say that at all. There's no statement here of the faculty member's responsibilities in a disciplinary case. I know those are separate but I think you need to make that clear so that faculty understand the difference between academic sanction side of things and the disciplinary side of it.

Victor C. Romero, The Dickinson School of Law: I sense a consensus here about at least clarifying the distinction between academic sanction and disciplinary sanction. So I'd like to suggest a friendly amendment on the language to get us closer to our goal. In the second paragraph on page seven under procedures that ends with, "which closes the case". I suggest adding the following, "which closes the case as to the academic sanction, but not with respect to any disciplinary sanction that may be pursued". At least that gets you closer to a point that you want to achieve.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Could you read the last part of that please?

Victor C. Romero: "Which closes the case as to the academic sanction, but not with respect to any disciplinary sanction that may be pursued."

Chair Nelson: Cara-Lynne and Bill is that acceptable?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Yes.

Chair Nelson: If you would like to note that if you haven't. This is on page seven, second paragraph under procedures and the first sentence ends with, "which closes the case," it will now end with, "which closes the case as..." Cara-Lynne do you want to read it?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: "To the academic sanction, but not with respect to any disciplinary sanction that may be pursued." Thank you, we'll accept that one.

Todd D. Ellis: I'd like to recommend something else that I think sort of is off, here and may be proposed as a friendly amendment to the first paragraph under procedures. After the sentence, "The instructor may assign an academic sanction ranging from failure on the assignment to failure in the course," an additional sentence which says, "The instructor may also recommend the pursuance of a disciplinary sanction relating to the infraction". I think the sentence in there clarifies that the instructor has the authority to recommend such a sanction, and that that can actually initiate from the instructor. As it's worded right now I would be really upset as a student if the instructor recommended such a thing.

Bill Ellis: How about simply...

Alison A. Carr-Chellman, College of Education: Can I suggest some wording for that? When you suggested there might be better wording for that, at the end of that sentence, I think it is important to add something in there that has to do with quality of the faculty member. So you might add to the end of that sentence under the first paragraph of procedures, the sentence that ends, "assignment to failure in the course and/or opt to pursue a disciplinary action in conjunction with the college committee and Judicial Affairs (see section on "XF" grades).

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Could you read that more slowly? "And/or opt to pursue a disciplinary...

Alison A. Carr-Chellman: "...action in conjunction with the college committee and Judicial Affairs (see section on "XF" grades).

Bill Ellis: Does that say what you want to say?

Todd D. Ellis: That says it much better than what I did.

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: My colleague said essentially what I wanted to say.

James E. May, DuBois Campus: You gave us time to take this back to our campuses to discuss and to accept these facts and the caucus was overwhelmingly opposed to the new legislation. The policy reduces faculty's flexibility and how it wants to deal with a case of dishonesty, and feel it's an increased threat and wouldn't have the likelihood to deter students from cheating. It also increases the likelihood of faculty actually accusing, to respond. We felt that by increasing this very punishment, you create a greater range of punishments. We thought we were there on ground zero in January. And finally, we dislike putting damaging strikes against our students for foolishness and immaturity, criminal acts that happened when they were 19-20 years old. Here it goes on the record and that doesn't frequently get removed from the record.

Jeanne Krochalis, New Kensington Campus: In which college? If I teach a course in the College of the Liberal Arts, and the victim is Commonwealth College, which college committee do I go to?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: It depends on which class the student decides to commit the academic infraction. This is why we recommend that the guidelines be given at the beginning of each course. If you are a student in the college of, I forget which college the student was in, but taking the course in Liberal Arts, and you cheat in Liberal Arts, then you have to follow the rules that were put out in that syllabus and you go and do the Liberal Arts rules.

Jeanne Krochalis: Well I'm in the Commonwealth College, and I teach a course in the College of the Liberal Arts which guidelines do I use? Do I use...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: You follow the ones set by the Commonwealth College.

Bill Ellis: Obviously if it's at a commonwealth campus, location is going to be primary here. So you would go...

Jeanne Krochalis: But they are Commonwealth Campus design courses, therefore shouldn't the College of the Liberal Arts stay relevant to where you define cheating...punished by what means?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: What you're going by and what we're recommending here is that the colleges set the guidelines, the college committees. Therefore if you're in the Commonwealth College, the Commonwealth College is the one that will set the guidelines.

Jeanne Krochalis: The course is taught in the Liberal Arts, so that's not really relevant?

John J. Cahir: If a student is registered in a course by college, it's that college location...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: By location... If you're in Abington you're under the Abington guidelines. If you're at Capital, you're under Capital.

John J. Cahir: The College of Liberal Arts is offering this course you follow this procedure...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: No, John... If you're in the Commonwealth College, remember we have the Commonwealth College as the college committee. So you go under the Commonwealth College committee guidelines.

John J. Cahir: If this course was taken in the Commonwealth College...

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Yes. If it were taken in the College of the Liberal Arts up here then you would go under the College of the Liberal Arts.

Philip A. Klein, College of the Liberal Arts: I think that raises a serious question in equity. If you plagiarize a term paper, your punishment for plagiarizing that term paper could be very different from one college to another college.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: This is why we have the Provost's Office and the Office of Judicial Affairs overseeing the guidelines that are established by each college.

Philip A. Klein: Then you're getting closer to what I've always heard is the problem. When you're trying to accuse students of cheating, the amount of time the faculty member has to end up devoting to it, is so severe that it is a very daunting process to get started in the first place.

Kevin Berland: I have one further question. If you confront a student with a case of extreme plagiarism for instance, in the middle of a semester, and that student opts to drop the class. Can you pursue that student?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Yes you can and you can remove the drop if you give them an "F" and put the "F" on the record.

Todd D. Ellis: I just wanted to stand up one more time, no more changes.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Actually your change was good.

Todd D. Ellis: I'd like to reiterate what I said at the beginning. The students on the Academic Assembly and the students that we represent have been calling for this process, for as long as it's been possible. What's on the floor right now represents I think, something that everyone can live with. We have a due process, we have a fairness. Dr. Erickson came to one of our assembly meetings in the last month and expressed his concern about the fact that all college committees should be equitable from the get go. He's excited, genuinely excited about overseeing it...

Senators: Laughter.

Chair Nelson: That's why you become a provost.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: But it is nice to know that. And he did actually request that we put this in.

Todd D. Ellis: It's so important to us. And I think that was the thing that eventually sold it to the students is that we have somebody who's just making sure that everything is equitable. And as long as that's the case that one college...granted things may be different from college to college. What one college says is plagiarism, another may have a slightly different view on it, we accepted that from the beginning. But as long as things are generally equitable we have no objection, and we support it. I mean the changes that have been made, what's on the floor right now.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: Thank you.

P. Peter Rebane: May I still go back to the "XF" grade. I understand that the college committee may develop a method to remove that "XF". May I ask, has the committee considered any kind of time limit on this to which should it be before the student's graduation, should there be a year limit? Is it possible that a student drops out eight, nine years later, finally becoming a mature person and then decided to take a course in ethics and the instructor is retired, the college committee has a different composition, perhaps situations have changed. Has there been any thought of any kind of time limit to this to have that "XF" expunged from the record?

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: We did not set a time limit.

Bill Ellis: I would just say I think that we're again dealing with an unusual case and I would leave that to the discretion of the college committee at the time that the "XF" is imposed. So I would assume that any college committee that knows what it's doing will say as part of the conditions that this shall be done within a certain period of time. I don't think that's necessary to legislate as university policy.

Dennis G. Shea: One quick question about the "XF" grade. As a faculty member, I'd like to see the key, as by actually contacting the student before I find out this is the third or fourth time that you cheated. Not simply come in where I can assign a separate responsibility. I can call them in to discuss this without forwarding it to the college committee and it will go on to Judicial Affairs perhaps for disciplinary sanctions. Again, to assign and accept responsibility for an "XF" it has to go forward correct?

Bill Ellis: That's right.

Dennis S. Gouran: I think we're supposed to be discussing the merits of the proposed legislation. Not some complications that I consider to deal with the interpretation.

Louis F. Geschwindner: I disagree with that. Based on the question I asked earlier, we're voting on the recommendation which is policy that is now being discussed, and that we will all be voting on procedures. So all those procedures are appropriate. I don't like the "XF". I will vote against this because I do not believe that we should allow our grading system to take on more than an academic assessment. And I don't think that we should be putting disciplinary actions on our grading system published outside the hands of the instructors.

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: It may be partially published outside. But it's not totally, because to give an "XF," the instructor must agree.

Chair Nelson: Any other comments or questions before we vote? Okay seeing none, all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"?

Senators: Nay.

Chair Nelson: Thank you, "ayes" have it. We have another report that is being taken out of order. Senate Council voted to change the order, so that we could deal with these seriatim. This is an advisory and consultative report regarding academic integrity. I see it following the legislative report. It is now listed as Appendix "F". Cara-Lynne do you want to make any comments on this before we have questions?

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Report on Improving the Academic Integrity Climate

Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, Joint Committee on Academic Integrity

Cara-Lynne Schengrund: At the risk of being very long winded, yes, I would like to make a few comments. This report was developed by the Joint Committee on Academic Integrity, even though it fell outside their charge. Because the committee strongly believed that steps should be taken to establish a stronger climate of academic integrity at Penn State. And therefore, they made a series of five recommendations to try to establish this strengthening. And on behalf of the committee that actually I think felt stronger about this report than they did about the first one, I'd like to move the acceptance of these recommendations.

Chair Nelson: It's been moved and since it comes from the committee it's seconded. Are there any questions? We did have about an hour of discussion. If you were not exhausted from that and wish to ask questions regarding these particular recommendations, this is advisory and consultative, now is a good time to ask. Okay seeing none, all those in favor of this report please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? Thank you very much, the "ayes" have it. I knew you were waiting to make comments for some report. Next is Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. This is Revision of Senate Policy 42-50: Credit by Examination/Proficiency Examination. It is listed as Appendix "G" in your packet. Jamie Myers will present the report.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Revision of Senate Policy 42-50: Credit by Examination/Proficiency Examination

Jamie M. Myers, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education: It's nice to have the pleasure to stand up. I'd be glad to answer any questions over this report.

Chair Nelson: Seeing none all those in favor of this particular report please signify by saying, "aye."

Senators: Aye.

Chair Nelson: Any opposed, "nay"? The "ayes" have it. Thank you.

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

None

Chair Nelson: We are now at informational reports. The first one is from Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs. It is the Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1998-1999. It is listed as Appendix "I" in your packet, John Nichols is back to present this report.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1998-1999

John S. Nichols, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

John S. Nichols: Thank you, Murry. The annual Promotion and Tenure Summary is a mandated report. The 1998-1999 data appear in the Senate Agenda but in addition to that, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs asked the administration for some additional information which was recently supplied to us. And because that additional data sheds important light, and places in context the mandated report, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs authorized a door handout that all of you should have. Vice-Provost Secor is here to explain the door handout and to answer any questions you have on the mandated report.

Chair Nelson: The door handout was the three-pager that says date February 21st and it looks like that.

Robert Secor, Vice-Provost: Thank you and thank you, John. To turn to Appendix "I" first, the cover sheet indicates that 57 faculty members were forwarded by deans for promotion and tenure review for tenure. And 57 faculty members were given tenure in the past year, and in the last year there were 50 members who were recommended for promotion to professor, senior scientist and librarian and 48 received it. Fifty-nine were recommended for promotion to associate professor, senior research associate and associate librarian and 58 received it. Just let me walk you through the first chart to give you a sense of how this works and some interesting revelations. On page one we have here what happened to faculty members who are reviewed provisionally in their second, third, fourth, fifth or final sixth year. The third and fifth year reviews obviously were special reviews. So if you look at those faculty members who were reviewed in their second year last year, 125 such faculty were so reviewed. If you go down to the column which total reviews started at campus while we're told there's 21 of those 125 faculty members began at a campus were reviewed because they were located at a campus and had their tenure at a campus. Now of those 125, when you go down to the department line, one faculty member was recommended only by the department committee and 113 by the department head as well as the committee, so 114 of those faculty then of the 125 were recommended for continuation. Which means in the second year last year, 11 faculty were not recommended for continuation at the department level. But at the college level, now remember at the college level on the second year it is up to the college policy to decide whether or not to use the college committee. Your note tells you that 60 of the faculty reviewed did not come before a college committee. So what you have here is 59 faculty recommended by the college dean, only that doesn't mean 59 did not receive a positive recommendation from the college committee because they voted negative they probably weren't reviewed. And 63 received it from the dean and the college committee, 59 from the dean only, that's right, so 59 probably not of the college committee. The total though is 122 were recommended ultimately by the dean for continuation. The interesting note here is that the dean of the 11 faculty members who were recommended not to be continued, and recommended that all but three be continued. So finally, 122 faculty members were continued in the second year--63 plus the 59. And you get the same kind of result when you look at the fourth year where 89 cases were reviewed, 15 started at the campus level, 79 got positive recommendations from the department or the department head and committee. Which means that 10 were not recommended for continuation, but yet if you add up at the college level the 22 and the 61 and the 4, you get 87 who were recommended continuation by the dean. The interesting fact here is that looking at these figures is counter intuitive, and to realize that the dean was recommending continuation where the faculty and the department are recommending stoppage at the second and fourth year level. Now at the college level you have 22 with the dean only and again, it's possible the college committee was not used there because it's not mandated and 61--the college dean and committee--so you've got 83 recommended for continuation. Four of the faculty who were recommended for continuation to fourth year were actually recommended for early tenure, that's what that four represents. And of those four that were recommended for early tenure the provost and the president accepted three. Of all the people that the university recommended for tenure the four, fifth and sixth year, the seven in the fifth year, the four in the fourth year and the one in the third, the provost reversed it only in that one instance in that fourth year review. The third year review was an early tenure review because that comes all the way out the other end. And in the fifth year, there were 17 faculty who were reviewed for tenure, and of the seven of those, one got early tenure. When you get to the sixth year the figure is interesting because of the 46 people who came up for review, 45 got tenure. And if you look at the college committees' line you got the dean recommending tenure for 44, yet 45 got tenure, 46 came out of the department. So how do you go from 46 coming out of the department to 44 being recommended by the dean and 45 ending up with tenure, and that's because of the dean's veto legislation that was passed several years ago. What happened was the college committee recommended two cases that were not recommended by the dean, and the college committee recommended favorably on one. And that one case the college committee recommended tenure for every other group, an administrator also recommended tenure and as a result the university ended up with the 45 coming out with tenure. So that's how to read the pages. All the other pages give you essentially the same way of reading them all the way through, and I won't go through them. The question becomes of course, if you're told that out of the 46 people who came up for tenure, 45 received it, now we have more levels of review than anybody else and I give more workshops than anybody else, and what's the point, if we end up actually tenuring 45 of the 46. And is there something wrong with our procedures that would suggest that if you come in and want tenure, you get it. Well, that's not what happens. It doesn't happen for a couple of reasons. One is, decisions are made at the second and fourth year, and what we're seeing is in both years having seen this throughout the last several years when we made these studies, more tenure denials are happening at the second and the fourth year than in the sixth year. But beyond that, and that's the reason for the handout which I'd like to go to with you, 99 percent of the faculty who come hoping for tenure seven years later, do not get tenure. In fact what our figures are showing is it is 59 percent. Now the door handout gives you the first page, the results of the last three years then you break it down for the past year, and it's pretty consistent. The 1990 cohort seven years later was tenured at a 57 percent rate in seven years. The 1991 cohort was 59 percent and last year's cohort was 59 percent. When I've given cohort figures in the past and I've done at workshops I've said the figure was more like 55 percent and at one point I'd gone down to 50 percent. There's one difference for this different figure and that is that those other figures are based on six years and this is based on seven. Initially I based it on six because that's the tenuring period. What happens after six years? We weren't picking up the people who had a stay of tenure or a leave and therefore did not have a decision made in six years. And as the footnote says we have something like 6 to 12 such cases a year of those. Now what happened was, those people we were told were not tenured in six years, but what we weren't picking up is that they may have been tenured in the seventh year. So when we've redone these figures now to pick it up in a seven year period and the figure has gone up to 59 percent which is a more accurate figure. Now it's broken down by college. Be very careful in interpreting these figures because it's a one-year snapshot and because we're often dealing in very small numbers. I would not be overly concerned in looking at the tenure rate for Behrend because it's broken down by gender and minorities for finding that Behrend has tenured zero percent of its minorities in the 1992 cohort since there was one woman in that cohort who didn't get tenure. So be very careful with these numbers. Similarly I wouldn't be overly concerned I don't think, unless you think I should be, that only 14 percent of the men in the Smeal College of Business Administration were tenured. Because again, we're dealing with as opposed to 50 percent of the women because you had two women and one of the two got tenure which gave it 50 percent. If that other case was close and she went down, it would be zero percent and you'd be faced with a very different set of figures. The more interesting figure is that only two out of the nine people who came through Smeal College of Business Administration were tenured in seven years. That does not mean though that Smeal College of Business Administration has been refusing to recognize its good talent or has not been bringing in good talent. It may well mean that people in business are enticed away by other opportunities at other salaries and it's a much more mobile world in business. What we're seeing here is that this 59 percent does not correlate with the tenure acts and it relates to advising out, it relates to mobility, it relates to self-advising. My guess is in most cases, is that the very fact that we have all of our careful reviews of faculty, where we indicate in the second and fourth year what our expectations are at the next level, and that we do have a lot of self-advising out. Where faculty are told you've got a lot to do by the fourth year if you're going make it through that year or the sixth year. And faculty are saying you know maybe this isn't the place for me. You also have a lot of advising out I think, by department heads and deans saying there is no point in making a negative decision. I also think that advising out often happens very close to the point of decision. So much so that the tenure denial decision figures would be up if we didn't have deans and department heads saying you are coming up into your sixth year, there's no way you're going to make it, it's going to be a negative review, I advise you to look for a job now and not go through it. So it's very blurry. So I think in some ways the seven-year cohort is a much more accurate picture of what it takes to get tenure at the university. And the odds are really more like 60 percent that you come in and be able to ultimately get tenure at the other end although a lot of this has to do with other factors as well. The concern in these figures may well be that the seven-year tenure rates are better for white males than they are for women, and better for minorities. Now what that means I think you know again, one has to be careful. It may mean that we're not giving the right support for women and minorities. It might mean that minorities have more mobility at the provisional stage. It might mean that when couples leave for other opportunities that the male is liable to be older and tenured and the woman liable to be younger and provisional. And therefore, the male leaving does show up in this figure and the woman leaving does not. Or it might mean that we're not giving the right support among those levels. So it's something to be aware of but we don't have the conclusions all we have is the figures.

Ernest W. Johnson, College of Medicine: How does the success rate here compare to other Big Ten schools?

Robert Secor: Others haven't done that in this way. Anecdotally, I think it's very comparable. Where it is not comparable, I think Michigan State as I recall had a much higher tenure denial rate than we had. So I think there is a trade off. Where people didn't drop off earlier the tenure decision was tougher.

Jean Landa Pytel: Reflecting on your comments regarding cause and effect. I recall a discussion about doing exit interviews when faculty leave, and I wondered if you could bring us up to date?

Robert Secor: Sure. By the way, Michael Dooris is here and I want to thank Michael because he's the one who punches all these figures and gets them out to us and he's also been working with me on exit interviews. We have a set of questions which we ask people who leave for any reason. And my recollection, Michael and you can add anything, is that the one thing that we've been getting from minorities and women in their exit interview when they are leaving was their concern about a greater mentoring program and I think that is something we have to work on. I know the Commission for Women is doing something strongly about it and I think we need to do something more proactively for minorities as well. That's the only thing I picked up. Michael is that about right? But that does come through.

Beno Weiss, College of the Liberal Arts: How many people get instant tenure? Do you have any figures on that? Because that would certainly rectify some of the weaknesses of those scores.

Robert Secor: I don't have that figure but how would that rectify...?

Beno Weiss: Not only 59 percent of incoming junior people get tenure but there is a large number of senior members who are hired by the university who come here with tenure.

Robert Secor: Frankly, I don't see that as part of the same issue. I mean the one issue is what happens to the faculty who come as provisional faculty whom we nurture over a period. And how many of them actually get tenure? The other is affording tenure to people who have tenure essentially where they are and come in and are given immediate tenure.

Beno Weiss: I think there's a tendency to prefer hiring someone with tenure rather than someone without tenure. It is more difficult in theory to obtain tenure.

Jacob De Rooy, Penn State Harrisburg: Robert you gave us one set of tables on promotion and another set of tables on tenure. Could you relate them together and tell us what is the success rate of people who achieve grants in tenure if there was a split decision? In other words, they were recommended for tenure but not for promotion.

Robert Secor: We have those figures and I think they are actually buried in the other documents that we looked at relating to changing the language in HR-23. In each of the past three years there were two cases and I think the total is 163 is that what we figured it was? The total for the last three years there were six cases. If those 163 where tenure was granted, where promotion was denied it breaks out into two each of the past three years. In each of the past three years there were two cases where tenure was offered and promotion denied. Totally in those past six years there were 163 cases where tenure was granted and six of those did not involve promotion.

Jacob De Rooy: But the question I phrased might have been a little bit different. Of those cases where tenure was recommended without promotion, in how many cases was that tenure in fact granted? In other words I'm really trying to get to the issue of a hidden agenda if the issue was in fact a split decision would it in fact jeopardize a chance of tenure?

Robert Secor: Again, I can't answer that because I don't know at what stage. But I think there's something amiss in putting it that way. Because to say that in a case where tenure was recommended and not promotion, if it was not granted it's because the person was put in jeopardy by a split decision, I would suggest to you that that is per se the weakest case. The weakest cases that would be made would be those in which the faculty member was not judged to be promotable at the same time. And if tenure was denied I would expect that those would be the cases which would be most vulnerable because they were weaker.

Chair Nelson: Any other questions? Okay, that's all then, this is an informational report. It's not voted on. Thank you very much, Robert and John. Next report is Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits. This is Activities of the Penn State Travel Services Office, it is Appendix "J" in your packet. Allen Phillips will present the report. If there are questions and you wish to have details from the Travel Services Office, Marguerite Gustkey and James Dunlop are both here, and Allen may ask them to speak if there's something really tough that you ask him.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Activities of the Penn State Travel Services Office

Allen T. Phillips, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits

Allen T. Phillips, Eberly College of Science: The report you have before you was developed as a result of a meeting that the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits had with Marguerite Gustkey who is the Manager for Travel Services. This was a meeting we held back in October of last year. Our purpose in this meeting was to gain some insight into the policies and procedures that Travel Services follows. In order that we could as a committee understand a little better how that unit operates. We had some specific questions that we addressed to Marguerite and the answers to some of those to probably to all of those questions along with a lot of other information we gathered is what is in this report. We hope that you find this report informational and I think almost everyone who has looked at some of it has found one or two things they probably didn't know about Travel Services and I hope that Marguerite and I can clarify any other points that you might have that aren't included in the report. Marguerite is here and if she would join me down here in case there are questions, I'd be glad to try to answer any or defer to her for questions you might have about Travel Services.

Vasundara V. Varadan, College of Engineering: I have a comment here. It says that "Occasionally it is possible to find less expensive fares from non-contract agents". This is actually usually the case in international travel. There I can probably get a ticket for half the price that the university travel agents can cost me for that. It's also possible now that if you want to go directly on the Internet, you can get very special cheap fares. The fact is that you can go directly on the Internet, directly with the airline, and there's no travel agency involved and you get very good fares. And it seems to me that the university travel policy of always going through a university travel agent makes all this very difficult.

Marguerite Gustkey, Manager, Penn State Travel Services: To address your comments about the consolidator fares. I think in all the different opportunities I've had to talk about those over the years of being here, we've always recognized that they are an issue and that our agencies that are under contract are able to get those fares. But certainly we recognize that there are times when those of you who go directly to the consolidators find a price that may be lower. And so I think we have tried every way possible to make sure that folks know that if you find a consolidator that you cannot get through any of our agencies, we have at our office facilitated time and again the purchase of those lower fares to make certain that no one has lost a fare. It's a matter of our being aware of what you've found and making certain that it is a legitimate fare and that there's no other issues involved in that fare. As far as the Internet is concerned, certainly that's an ongoing issue that comes up and we watch those very carefully as well. I would acknowledge that that is certainly happening at times that there are fares out there that are lower. But you may find it amazing but those folks who call our office and ask about those Internet fares quite often we find that same fare, we had an instance of that yesterday where we actually identified something that was better without going on the Internet. So I think that can go both ways and James may want to address how we're going to deal with that and the fact that we are very much aware of that issue and looking into that in a more thorough review process.

H. James Dunlop, Director, Procurement and Material Management: Thank you. Through the Joint Faculty/Administrative Advisory Committee we are now looking at the whole travel process. We would agree that in the last few years there's been many changes in the travel industry, through the Internet fares, through commissioning with travel agents the whole environment has changed dramatically. We are going to look at the way Penn State handles travel for faculty and staff in total within the next month. We've already decided that we will probably bring a consultant in from the travel industry to look at the way not only other universities but business and industry is doing it. And my guess is I don't have an end result, but probably the way we handle travel at Penn State will probably be quite different in the near future than it's handled in its current state. Things like self-booking products, Internet fares, all those things will become available and be part of a different way that you can handle travel. I think what will happen is you will be able to go from a first full service travel agency to going out and being able to go on the Internet and go direct to consolidators, direct to airlines whatever you choose. So that's the direction we hope to go in the near future.

Marguerite Gustkey: If I might just add though, in the interim as we go through this review process, we always encourage people if they find a scenario where they really feel strongly, that what they have is exactly what it appears to be and that is the best fare they can get, that you please touch base with our office so that if that's the case we're certainly not in the business of having you charge more and we will do everything we can to facilitate that direct billing of that charge.

Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: I just want to say I think many people would appreciate whatever you can do to help move in that direction. With the very rapidly changing technology many new opportunities, whatever can be done to make it really fast for people to act on their own. I think we would greatly appreciate it and save a lot of us a great deal of money.

Marguerite Gustkey: I can assure you that not only in our university here, but as a part of all of the Big Ten and different organizations that I'm involved in, we all spend every waking moment reviewing every piece of technology that's out there that's being created, and all the different ways to try and find the best way to get that flexibility, and make sure that our people can get the best price, and still make sure that they are not putting themselves at risk in thinking they've purchased something that isn't what it appears to be.

Allen T. Phillips: I'd like to just have the last word. One of the things that the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits I believe learned, as a result of this process, was how much information actually is being provided by Travel Services. I think the problem for most people, is knowing where to find it. Hopefully in this report you will have some help in locating where they are putting information on available discounts, hotel operations, and car rentals and all this. And I think many of the people on the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits at least, just really didn't know, as I think many others don't know, where this information was. Hopefully by a better communications process, it will make it a little easier for those of you who have to travel a lot to get the best fares. And I am convinced Travel Services is on our side in this, but of course it's always good to keep them honest.

Chair Nelson: Other comments or questions? Thank you, Marguerite and James. Allen thank you very much. Faculty Rights and Responsibilities has an annual report which is Appendix "K". Gary Fosmire will present the report.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Annual Report for 1998-1999

Gary J. Fosmire, Chair, Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee

Gary J. Fosmire, College of Health and Human Development: Well I'm pleased to present to you this afternoon, the report that summarizes the activity of the Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities during the academic year 1998-1999. I hope the report is clear and I'd be happy to answer questions if you have them.

Chair Nelson: Questions for Gary? Seeing none, Gary we thank you. Appendix "L," Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, is a Grade Distribution Report. Jamie Myers has returned to answer any questions you might have.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Grade Distribution Report

Jamie M. Myers, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Jamie M. Myers: This is an annual report and I'd be pleased to attempt to answer any questions you have.

Chair Nelson: Seeing none, Jamie thank you very much and we thank your committee.

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

None

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

None

ADJOURNMENT

May I have a motion to adjourn? The February 29, 2000 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:31 PM.

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 29, 2000

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Proposed Change to Policy 14-00, Nondegee Students (Legislative)

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid/Undergraduate Education - Revision of Policy 51-50: Cumulative Grade Point Average (Legislative)

Committees and Rules - Revision of Standing Rules, Article III, Section 7(b) (Legislative)

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of February 15, 2000

Faculty Affairs - Promotion and Tenure Summary for 1998-99 (Informational)

Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relations of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions (Advisory/Consultative)

Faculty Benefits - Activities of the Penn State Travel Services Office (Informational)

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities - Annual Report for 1998-99 (Informational)

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity - Academic Integrity Report (Legislative)

Joint Committee on Academic Integrity - Report on Improving the Academic Integrity Climate (Advisory/Consultative)

Undergraduate Education - Grade Distribution Report (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - Revision of Senate Policy 42-50: Credit by Examination/Proficiency Examination (Legislative)

D O O R H A N D O U T

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the

Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions

Presented to Faculty Senate:

Promotion and tenure decisions are separate decisions, although these general criteria apply to both promotion and tenure. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for future advancement in the several areas enumerated above as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment. The presumption is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT promotion to associate professor; in. In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; HOWEVER, THE BURDEN WOULD BE TO SHOW WHY PROMOTION IS NOT WARRANTED.

Revised:

Promotion and tenure decisions are separate decisions, although these general criteria apply to both promotion and tenure. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for future advancement further achievement in the several areas enumerated above as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment. The presumption is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT promotion to associate professor.; in In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; HOWEVER, THE BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE COMMITTEE(S) OR ADMINISTRATOR(S) WHO WISH TO SEPARATE PRMOTION FROM A POSITIVE TENURE DECISION TO SHOW WHY PROMOTION IS NOT WARRANTED.

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of

Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions

(Advisory/Consultative)

[Implementation Date: July 1, 2000]

Rationale

One sign of strength in our tenuring process is that all of our units assume that tenure is to be granted only to faculty who can be advanced in rank, either at the time of tenure or in the immediate future. Historically, this has not been the case. There are still 169 tenured assistant professors at Penn State--21 at University Park. These are largely long-time assistant professors, mostly tenured before the "modern" period. Most of these tenured assistant professors have served us well for a number of years, and we do not mean to undervalue their contributions and what they have given Penn State over the years. However, if they were tenured with an expectation that promotion was just a step away, this has not been the case as the years have passed.

Over the years, however, as we have become a stronger University system-wide; we have been reducing our proportion of tenured assistant professors because we have been making significantly fewer decisions to tenure without promotion. In the PAST three years, 161 assistant professors were reviewed RECOMMENDED for tenure. and promotion. Of those, only six (two each year) did not receive promotion. At the same time, 21 other assistant professors received promotion, even before their tenure decision. (See records for 96-97, 97-98, and 98-99, attached.) Clearly, there is no longer an assumption that tenure and promotion is a two-step process, with tenure the first step in the process and promotion granted at a later date.

Reason to Review Policy

Why is this important? To begin with, to change our language so that policy is not at odds with practice. The statement in HR-23 is as follows: "Promotion and tenure decisions are separate decisions, although these general criteria apply to both promotion and tenure. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for future advancement in the several areas enumerated above as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment." The language, passed by the Senate in 1974, and never revised, was once behind an assumption of a two step process for tenure and promotion, and mirrors a world where many faculty were tenured and then had to earn promotion at a future date. (There would frequently be two committees, one to consider tenure--and often consisting of largely tenured assistant professors--and another to consider promotion.) It was this policy that led to assumptions behind the creation of a cadre of 168 tenured assistant professors. Some still point to this language as justifying tenure decisions based on "promise" but little achievement. However, over the past 25 years, the recognized "performance" that the statement says is necessary to signify promise for tenure has risen to a level where it is reasonable to assume that promotion to associate professor is also warranted.

Benchmarking with the CIC

Our counterparts in the CIC either tie tenure to promotion absolutely by policy (Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin), or by practice (Michigan State says that they haven't had separate decisions in 15+ years and Minnesota says that, while its policy says only that "the granting of tenure will ordinarily be accompanied by promotion," "our current practice is that tenure is granted with promotion to associate professor"). Only Purdue suggests that it is still possible for a decision to be made to tenure without promoting, but only rarely and in exceptional circumstances. Several of these schools talk about old codes that separated the two decisions before they were replaced by the new ones that have tied them. Penn State is now the only CIC school to have a statement--placed in our P&T policy document over 25 years ago and never revised--that makes separate decisions the basis of understanding.

Reasons for Changing the Presumption from Separate Decisions to Linkage

The reasons to consider changing the presumption behind the current wording are therefore twofold: 1) Major universities, like Penn State and our counterparts in the CIC, do not wish to create a faculty that is identified as not promotable beyond the assistant professor level; and 2) if we can make the case for tenure for a faculty member in a University where that case has to be multiple times stronger than it was in 1974, then we should assume that the case is also strong enough to promote the faculty member under review. We do not create a happy, productive, and loyal faculty by recognizing them with tenure while withholding the rank that most of their counterparts at Penn State--and virtually all of their counterparts at other major universities--receive with it.

Arguments for the Presumption of Separation

The arguments for the present language are usually as follows:

1) Faculty being reviewed are disadvantaged if it is an "up or out" presumption, since many of our valued faculty members today would, by that presumption, not be with us. In any case, it is easier to achieve tenure if the case is not strong enough for promotion if only a tenure recommendation is being made.

Response: The policy as it is applied in practice probably does more to benefit the faculty member whom we want to tenure than it does to disadvantage them. In the few cases where we have granted tenure without promotion in recent years, it is more likely that both would have been granted if the candidate had been recommended for both tenure and promotion, than that the candidate would have been denied both if both decisions had to be made to agree. Moreover, it is not true that a weak candidate has a better chance of receiving tenure if promotion is not simultaneously recommended in the sixth year. A weak candidate is a weak candidate, and calling attention to that weakness by not recommending promotion does not strengthen the case, even though tenure and promotion are, by policy, separate decisions.

2) Faculty members at campus colleges teach more and more is expected in the way of service than is true of their colleagues at University Park; they therefore have fewer hours, as well as fewer resources, for research, and so should be allowed more time before a promotion decision is made.

There are two responses to this consideration. First, efforts in faculty development need to be made to give provisional faculty at all locations the best opportunity to succeed, and success should include promotion as well as tenure. Campus administrators need to monitor candidates' service time and teaching schedules so that neither are all-consuming, and initiatives should be taken to support and advise faculty in their research agendas.

Second, where expectations for promotion are not reasonable within a six year period, they need to be made reasonable, rather than assume that the timetable for promotion to associate professor should extend beyond the provisional period (with the possibility that such promotion may never be achieved after the tenure decision). All campus colleges are now tenure-granting units, and they should construct tenure and promotion guidelines in the context of their mission, with reasonable expectations for what faculty in a research university at a campus location with a strong mission for teaching and service should achieve in the provisional period before the granting of tenure.

The Faculty Affairs Committee, therefore, recommends that the language in HR-23 be changed so that the presumption is that a positive sixth-year tenure decision of an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT FOR promotion to associate professor, although in exceptional cases a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote.

Recommendation

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs Committee recommends that the language in HR-23 be changed as indicated below so that the presumption is that a positive TENURE decision of an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT FOR promotion to associate professor; in an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote. The change in wording has no impact on the possibility of promoting before tenure.

Promotion and tenure decisions are separate decisions, although these general criteria apply to both promotion and tenure. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for future advancement further achievement in the several areas enumerated above as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment. The presumption is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor will be accompanied by IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT promotion to associate professor.; in In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; HOWEVER, THE BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE COMMITTEE(S) OR ADMINISTRATOR(S) WHO WISH TO SEPARATE PRMOTION FROM A POSITIVE TENURE DECISION TO SHOW WHY PROMOTION IS NOT WARRANTED.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Shelton S. Alexander
Syed Saad Andaleeb
Melvin Blumberg
Robin B. Ciardullo
Travis DeCastro
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Sallie M. McCorkle
Louis Milakofsky
David J. Myers
John S. Nichols, Chair
Amy L. Paster
Denise Potosky
Victor Romero
Robert Secor
Jeffery M. Sharp
Stephen W. Stace
Kim C. Steiner
Valerie N. Stratton, Vice-Chair

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y

SENATE COMMITTEES ON ADMISSIONS,

RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

and

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Revision of Policy 51-50 Cumulative Grade-Point Average

(Legislative)

Effective Fall Semester 2000

BACKGROUND

Policy 51-50 addresses the computation of a student’s cumulative grade-point average. The current policy resets the grade point-averages to zero for students who move from baccalaureate to associate degree programs, but not for those who move from associate to baccalaureate programs. This policy was first introduced when the University had a two-tier system of undergraduate programs, a baccalaureate tier and an associate tier characterized by an 800-level numbering system. At that time, 800-level courses were considered less rigorous than baccalaureate courses and were not accepted into baccalaureate programs.

In the late 1980s (1988 for associate degree engineering technology course work), the 800-level course designations were changed to 100 or 200 levels for all but one program, the associate degree in Forest Technology (2FORT). As it is now offered at Penn State Mont Alto, the degree in 2FORT has four courses numbered at the 800-level.

Because associate degree programs currently articulate into designated baccalaureate programs at the campus colleges, because the renumbering of 800-level courses was intended to support the acceptance of associate degree courses into designated baccalaureate programs, and because students in some associate degree programs (e.g., Letters, Arts, and Science) take identical courses as their baccalaureate colleagues, Policy 51-50, as it stands, no longer reflects the goals or mission of the University.

RECOMMENDATION

51-50 Cumulative Grade-Point Average

A student's cumulative grade-point average is the weighted mean value of all grade points (see Section 51-30) earned either by enrollment or examinations in courses at the University, except for the following: (Note: the words student and undergraduate student are used to designate a baccalaureate or associate degree candidate, a provisional student, or a non-degree student.)

  1. a baccalaureate degree candidate WHO HAS COMPLETED 800-LEVEL COURSES— whose cumulative grade-point average is WILL BE based on all courses completed, other than 800-level or their equivalents;
  2. A candidate who is changing his or her major from a baccalaureate degree program to an associate degree program-cumulative grade-point average will be based only on courses completed after enrolling in the associate degree program;
  3. A candidate who is changing from an associate degree program to a baccalaureate degree program or a candidate who completes the requirements for an associate degree and who is re-enrolled as baccalaureate degree candidate-cumulative grade-point average will be based on all courses numbered under 800, except as described in item 4;
  4. A candidate who completes the requirements for an associate degree and is re-enrolled to a baccalaureate program which awards at least 60 credits' standing to candidates who have completed the associate degree--cumulative grade-point average will be based on all courses completed after enrolling in the associate degree program;2. a baccalaureate degree or an associate degree graduate who is re-enrolled to a sequential degree program in accordance with section 61-00—cumulative grade-point average for this program will be computed using only the grades earned in courses taken after re-enrollment to the second degree program;

3. a student who has been approved for academic renewal—CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGE WILL BE COMPUTED in accordance with Senate Policy 58-60. NOTE: A STUDENT WHO IS CHANGING FROM A BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAM TO AN ASSOCIATE DEGREE PROGRAM MAY PETITION FOR A SPECIAL CASE OF ACADEMIC RENEWAL WITHOUT FOUR YEARS IN ABSENTIA FROM THE UNIVERSITY.

RATIONALE

The present policy of resetting grade point averages to zero when students move from baccalaureate to associate degree programs implies that course work in baccalaureate programs is of greater academic rigor than that in associate programs. The movement away from a two-tier system of academic programs, began with the renumbering of 800-level courses and continues with the on-going articulation of associate degrees into designated baccalaureate programs at campus colleges, supports a revision to Senate Policy 51-50. As of fall semester 1998, a total of 3,523 students were enrolled in associate degree programs that articulate directly into baccalaureate programs at the junior level (2BA, 2ENGR, 2FS, 2LAS, 2OT). This number constitutes 74% of all associate degree enrollments university-wide.

In an effort to understand the impact of the recommendation the committee reviewed data from four different time frames (S96 to F96, S97 to F97, F97 to S98, F98 to S99) for students who moved from a baccalaureate degree program to an associate degree program. (Refer to the Appendix for the data summaries.) Not surprisingly, most of the changes in the four time frames are generated by students in DUS, followed by either Engineering or Health and Human Development. While most of the changes occurred for students within their third semester standing, some students were waiting until their 7th, 8th, and even 11th semester standing before formalizing the change from a baccalaureate degree program to an associate degree program. The majority of students are in good academic standing when their GPA's are reset (11% were above a 3.50 while only 7% were below a 2.00). Of the 7% (37 students in four semesters) whose GPA's were lower than 2.00, 15 were below a 2.00 during the following semester, 22 were at 2.00 or above (some significantly). All students in the sample were categorized as nc (no change), +, or -, based on whether the GPA the semester following the change of program was within ± 0.25, increased by 0.25 or greater, or decreased by 0.25 or greater, respectively. The distribution is split fairly evenly in each category.

The current provisions in policy 51-50 are outdated with regard to the present university goals. The recommended changes reflect a more uniform and consistent policy for cumulative grade point average for all students.

Submitted by:

ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

I. Blood
J. Chirico, Chair
L. Drafall
R. Engel, V-Chair
H. Floros
P. Georgopulos
A. Griswold
G. Harford
J. Krochalis
A. Miller
R. Mitchell
S. Paladini
B. Power
J. Romano
J. Wager
A. Wanner
G. Zayas
Ad-hoc committee appointed by J. Cahir
E. Danis, Chair
G. Gilchrest
E. Hovanec
S. Meyer
R. Williams
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
C. Achterberg
G. Bugyi
J. Cahir
W. Campbell
J. Crawford
J. Cecere
G. Farber
E. Fullerton
M. Galligan
C. Harmonosky
L. Hendrickson
G. Hile
W. Lasher
J. Mayer
J. Meyers, Chair
L. Miller
M. Munn
R. Ricketts, V-Chair
T. Seybert
C. Smith
J. Sutton
E. White
U. Yucelt
R. Zelis

APPENDIX

Data set summary that includes information about college and program, and grade point average before and after change. The data set includes four time frames (S96 to F96, S97 to F97, F97 to S98, F98 to S99)

Table 1. Number and percentage of students in the colleges when the program change originated

College

S96-F96

S97-F97

F97-S98

F98-S99

Combined

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

DUS

43

31.6

44

29.1

49

35.3

31

29.8

167

31.5

ENGR

21

15.4

37

24.5

37

26.6

19

18.3

114

21.5

HHD

28

20.6

22

14.6

12

8.6

10

9.6

72

13.6

BUS

7

5.1

7

4.6

5

3.6

7

6.7

26

4.9

ED

8

5.9

8

5.3

6

4.3

5

4.8

27

5.1

LA

17

12.5

17

11.3

10

7.2

3

2.9

47

8.9

Others

12

8.8

16

10.6

20

14.4

29

27.9

77

14.5

TOTAL

136

100.0

151

100.0

139

100.0

104

100.0

530

100

Table 2. Number and percentage of students categorized by academic semester standing at the time of program change

Academic Standing

S96-F96

S97-F97

F97-S98

F98-S99

Combined

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1

6

4.4

4

2.6

15

10.8

10

9.6

35

6.6

2

30

22.1

35

23.2

32

23.0

30

28.8

127

24.0

3

55

40.4

62

41.1

25

18.0

20

19.2

162

30.6

4

22

16.2

19

12.6

35

25.2

26

25.0

102

19.2

5

14

10.3

16

10.6

17

12.2

7

6.7

54

10.2

6 or above

9

6.6

15

9.9

15

10.8

11

10.6

50

9.4

TOTAL

136

100.0

151

100.0

139

100.0

104

100.0

530

100.0

 

Table 3. Number and percentage of students in different GPA categories at the time of program change

GPA

S96-F96

S97-F97

F97-S98

F98-S99

Combined

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

<2.00

9

6.6

7

4.6

13

9.4

8

7.7

37

7.0

2.00-2.49

31

22.8

45

29.8

48

34.5

30

28.8

154

29.1

2.50-2.99

39

28.7

40

26.5

35

25.2

33

31.7

147

27.7

3.00-3.49

42

30.9

40

26.5

27

19.4

24

23.1

133

25.1

3.50-4.00

15

11.0

19

12.6

16

11.5

9

8.7

59

11.1

TOTAL

136

100

151

100

139

100

104

100

530

100

 

 

 

Table 4. Numbers and percentages of students categorized by the change in their GPA the semester immediately following the change in program

Change in GPA

S96-F96

S97-F97

F97-S98

F98-S99

Combined

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

No change

 

48

35.3

57

37.7

47

33.8

32

30.8

184

34.7

increase by 0.25 or more

38

27.9

40

26.5

60

43.2

47

45.2

185

34.9

decrease by 0.25 or more

50

36.8

54

35.8

32

23.0

25

24.0

161

30.4

TOTAL

136

100.0

151

100.0

139

100.0

104

100.0

530

100.0

 

Figure 4. Distribution of students based on the GPA comparison from before to immediately following the program change

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Academic Integrity Report

(Legislative)

[Implementation date: Upon approval by the President]

Introduction

The following report recommends a substantial revision of Penn State University's definition of academic integrity and its procedure for handling allegations of academic dishonesty. It is based on several years of internal study and consultation with university lawyers, administrators, students, and faculty.

The issue of academic integrity has concerned the university for many decades. In 1915, Penn State President Edwin Erle Sparks attempted to deal with it by installing an honor system, but this program was discontinued shortly after his retirement in 1920. While Senate Policy 44-40 continues to allow colleges and campuses to create "a formal honor system under the supervision of an honor council," for the most part student dishonesty has been handled through a Byzantine system of potential charges, hearings, and possible appeals.

Finding it confusing, internally inconsistent, and legalistic, many faculty are reluctant to invoke it even in blatant cases. The majority of honest students likewise find the policy ineffective. Meanwhile, cheating is becoming commonplace: a recent Pulse survey to which 734 full-time Penn State students at University Park responded, showed that 17% said they themselves had cheated on tests and 44% said they had cheated on class assignments. For these reasons, all parties have called for an overhaul of the policy.

On June 12, 1996 a report was forwarded from the Judicial Affairs Process Review Working Group, chaired by Vice Provost Dr. Robert Secor, to President Graham Spanier. Several of the report's recommendations encouraged the Colleges and the Office of Judicial Affairs to take more leadership in responding to academic integrity and related issues. In particular, the report recommended that "Academic dishonesty cases should be handled through the Colleges, with perhaps some involvement by the Faculty Senate and Student Affairs administrators to insure procedural consistency across the University, regardless of where the offense occurred." The working group therefore asked the University Faculty Senate Student Life Committee to establish a Subcommittee on Academic Integrity to study changes in policy.

In fall 1996, this group was formed with Dr. Tom Eakin, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs as chair. Dr. Eakin led this group for a year until spring 1998, when Joseph Puzycki, Director of Judicial Affairs, replaced him as chair. In April 1999, the subcommittee presented its preliminary report to the University Faculty Senate for a forensic session. Discussion showed that many faculty were confused by the legalistic language of the present policy, so the sense of the proposed revisions did not come through clearly. Rather than continue to patch over the language of existing policies, Student Life chose to rewrite the policy from scratch.

The revised report initially was approved at the October 6, 1999, Senate Council meeting for inclusion on the Senate agenda, but was withdrawn from the October 26, 1999, Senate meeting by the committee in response to a request for further simplification and streamlining.

A joint committee was formed that included members from the two previous committees, the University Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life and a committee of academic deans appointed by former Executive Vice President and Provost John Brighton, that had been addressing the academic integrity issue in parallel. Representatives from the Undergraduate Student Government were also involved. Dr. Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair-Elect of the Senate, was appointed Chair of the committee.

The charges of the joint committee were:

1. Clarify and streamline the policy and procedures for handling allegations of academic dishonesty at Penn State, building upon the previous Report of the Senate Committee on Student Life (Revision of University policy on Academic Integrity [Senate Policy 49-20 and ACUE Procedure G-9] completed earlier this fall.

2. Make the steps for faculty to follow as clear and simple to use as possible in pursuing cases of academic dishonesty, retaining the fundamental right of faculty to assign grades, while preserving necessary due process rights of students. These elements are critical if faculty are to be expected to aggressively pursue cases of academic dishonesty, and students are to be expected to understand the consequences of dishonest behavior and their avenues of recourse to challenge sanctions that are imposed.

3. Examine, with the assistance of counsel, the legal liabilities for faculty and the University of this process as well as any other implications for faculty that need to be covered.

4. Propose a clear procedure and proposed assignment of responsibilities for the implementation of this process.

The proposed academic integrity report may be viewed as the first important step toward a system that will present a positive message to students and faculty about the value of academic integrity. The success of such a system will require a common effort among students, faculty, and staff to substantially elevate the expectations, the visibility, and the importance of academic integrity.

The legislative report on academic integrity is accompanied by an advisory/ consultative report that includes recommendations on how University faculty, administration, and students should foster a broader understanding of academic integrity and develop specific programs to promote it. 

To implement the above conclusions the Joint Committee on Academic Integrity and the Senate Committee on Student Life make the following recommendation:
That the definition of academic integrity and the process governing alleged infractions of academic integrity be amended as follows:

EXISTING LANGUAGE

49-20 Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity free from fraud and deception and is an educational objective of this institution. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, fabricating of information or citations, facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others, having unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, or tampering with the academic work of other students. At the beginning of each course, it is the responsibility of the instructor to provide a statement clarifying the application of academic integrity criteria to that course. A student charged with academic dishonesty will be given oral or written notice of the charge by the instructor. If students believe they have been falsely accused, they should seek redress through informal discussions with the instructor, department head, dean, or campus executive officer. If the instructor believes that the infraction is sufficiently serious to warrant referral of the case to Judicial Affairs, or if the instructor will award a final grade of F in the course because of the infraction, the student and instructor will be afforded formal due process.

ACUE Procedure G-9 (not Senate Policy; given here for reference)

Committee on Academic Integrity. Each college dean/campus executive officer, and provost and dean of Penn State-Behrend and Penn State Harrisburg, shall appoint a committee on academic integrity, which may be an existing committee with related functions. The committee has no authority to impose sanctions. Its duties include (a) the communication of scholarly expectations to all members of the college or campus; (b) the promotion of attitudes and practices to fulfill these expectations; (c) the review of cases of academic dishonesty referred to it by faculty or students for consultation and recommendations to resolve the disputed case; and (d) the referral of cases that are sufficiently severe to warrant disciplinary actions beyond academic sanction to Judicial Affairs for further review.

2. Distinction between Minor and Major Infractions. The University Faculty Senate has made a distinction between minor and major infractions of academic integrity. Minor infractions or misunderstandings are considered less serious acts of academic dishonesty as described in Section 49-20 and are to be treated informally. Major infractions are acts of academic dishonesty considered sufficiently serious to warrant either an academic sanction of an F for the course or a referral to Judicial Affairs for possible disciplinary sanctions. Formal due process procedures should apply for major infractions.

3. Academic and Disciplinary Sanctions. Academic sanctions are actions taken by an instructor that affect the student's grade and/or enrollment in a course in which an act of academic dishonesty was committed. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed only by Judicial Affairs or by the University Hearing Board. They include warnings, probation, suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or loss of privilege, and may be imposed for acts of academic dishonesty or for other misconduct.

4. For Minor Infractions. For cases of alleged minor infractions of academic integrity, the instructor and student should informally seek resolutions. Informal discussions about minor infractions may involve others, including the department head, campus director for academic affairs, or the College/Campus committee on academic integrity. Academic sanctions short of assigning an F grade for the course may be imposed if deemed appropriate by the instructor.

5. For Major Infractions. Formal due process procedures should apply for major infractions of academic integrity. The student accused of academic dishonesty will be given oral or written notice of the allegations by the instructor.

If the allegations of academic dishonesty are not denied by the student, the instructor may impose academic sanctions or refer the allegations for review for more stringent disciplinary sanctions to Judicial Affairs. The instructor should not immediately impose an academic sanction if a referral is being made for possible disciplinary sanctions. Both academic and disciplinary sanctions may be imposed later if deemed appropriate.

a. A student charged with academic dishonesty will not be allowed to drop the course under Section 34-89, nor will the symbol W be reported for the course if the student withdraws from the University under Section 56-30.

b. By memo, the instructor informs the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or campus director of academic affairs of the action to be taken: Assign an F if only an academic sanction is to be imposed or assign a DF if the case is to be forwarded to Judicial Affairs for review.

c. The department head or the campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken. If referral for possible disciplinary action is being made, Judicial Affairs is to be supplied with the written allegation and any other supporting evidence.

If the student denies the allegations of academic dishonesty, the student is to be provided an explanation of the evidence in support of the allegations. If the student continues to deny the allegations, the instructor or the student may seek the services of other offices to help reach a resolution. The department head, the campus director of academic affairs, or the college or campus committee on academic integrity may be asked to review the evidence and positions and to recommend possible resolutions. Ultimately, either the instructor or the student may refer allegations to Judicial Affairs to bring formal academic dishonesty adjudication procedures into operation.

a. The instructor, by memo, should inform the Office of the University Registrar and the department head or campus director of academic affairs that the student should be assigned a DF symbol for the course and that the student should not be allowed to drop the course under Section 34-89 nor be assigned a W symbol if the student withdraws from the University under Section 56-30.

b. The department head or campus director of academic affairs informs the student, the student's college dean, and Judicial Affairs in writing what action has been taken.

c. If the case has not been adjudicated by the end of the semester, the instructor should submit a DF symbol for the course. At the end of the sixth week of the following semester, the Office of the University Registrar will contact the instructor's college dean or the campus director of academic affairs and request the status of the case. If adjudicated, the appropriate grade should be submitted. If not adjudicated, the college dean or campus director of academic affairs should inform the Office of the University Registrar to extend the deferred grade until a specific date; on that date, the University registrar will again request a grade.

d. For all cases of academic dishonesty referred to it, Judicial Affairs is to determine the nature of the charges, evidence, and any recommended sanctions up to that point, and is to contact the instructor and student involved to confirm their positions. When appropriate, the office refers cases to the University Hearing Board.

e. Judicial Affairs shall maintain records of major infraction cases in which academic sanctions or disciplinary sanctions have been imposed under allegations of academic dishonesty. Such information may be used by Judicial Affairs to initiate its own proceedings when an individual has been involved in multiple infractions. The College/Campus committee on academic integrity may request information about whether individual students currently involved in particular cases of alleged academic dishonesty have been given academic or disciplinary sanctions for previous acts academic dishonesty. The information from the files is not to be used as a basis for judging the student's guilt in the current case; it may be used only as a basis for deciding whether the current case should be referred to Judicial Affairs for adjudication and for possible disciplinary action. All entries in the record for a particular student are removed when the student graduates.

f. The University Hearing Board is to adjudicate only those cases of academic dishonesty that cannot be resolved at the College/Campus level or for which a disciplinary sanction is recommended or required. The hearing board may recommend academic or disciplinary sanctions for acts of academic dishonesty.

g. Judicial Affairs informs the student, the student's college dean or campus director of academic affairs, the instructor, and the instructor's college dean or campus director of academic affairs of the outcome of the formal adjudication procedures and what actions are recommended.

h. The instructor submits an appropriate change of grade to the University registrar: an F if the academic sanction is to be imposed; the earned grade if no academic sanction is to be imposed. If the instructor chooses some action other than that recommended by the hearing board, the student may appeal to the dean of the college in which the violation occurred. If not resolved at that level, the executive vice president and University provost shall make the final decision.

PROPOSED REVISION

49-20 ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Definition and expectations: Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity in an open, honest and responsible manner. Academic integrity is a basic guiding principle for all academic activity at The Pennsylvania State University, and all members of the University community are expected to act in accordance with this principle. Consistent with this expectation, the University's Code of Conduct states that all students should act with personal integrity, respect other students' dignity, rights and property, and help create and maintain an environment in which all can succeed through the fruits of their efforts.

Academic integrity includes a commitment not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.

To protect the rights and maintain the trust of honest students and support appropriate behavior, faculty and administrators should regularly communicate high standards of integrity and reinforce them by taking reasonable steps to anticipate and deter acts of dishonesty in all assignments.1 At the beginning of each course, it is the responsibility of the instructor to provide students with a statement clarifying the application of University and College academic integrity policies to that course.

Committee on Academic Integrity: Each College Dean2 shall appoint a

Committee on Academic Integrity made up of faculty, students, and academic administrators with faculty being the majority. This committee shall:

1. Promote expectations for academic integrity consistent with the definition in this

policy.

2. Ensure fairness and consistency in processes and outcomes. To ensure

University-wide consistency, College Committees will work with the Office

of Judicial Affairs and the Office of the Provost of the University to develop

procedures for handling and sanctioning dishonesty infractions.

3. Review and settle all contested cases in which academic sanctions are

applied. If necessary, further disciplinary action will be taken by Judicial Affairs.

4. Record all cases of academic dishonesty within a college and report them

to Judicial Affairs.

PROCEDURES

When Academic Dishonesty Is Suspected: The instructor will offer to meet to discuss the situation and give the student an opportunity to respond. The student should be told what the allegation is and what the college procedure is for handling such cases. A drop of or withdrawal from the course after this point may be reversed3. The instructor may assign an academic sanction ranging from failure on the assignment to failure in the course AND/OR OPT TO PURSUE A DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COLLEGE COMMITTEE AND JUDICIAL AFFAIRS (SEE SECTION ON "XF" GRADES). College Committees will provide guidelines on ranges of appropriate sanctions for given types of infractions.

If the student accepts responsibility for the violation and the proposed academic sanction, the instructor will have the student sign the Academic Integrity form, which closes the case AS TO THE ACADEMIC SANCTION, BUT NOT WITH RESPECT TO ANY DISCIPLINARY SANCTION THAT MAY BE PURSUED. The instructor will forward this form to the College Committee, which will forward it to the Office of Judicial Affairs for record keeping.

If the student signs that he/she did not accept responsibility, the student can appeal the case to the College Committee. In this case, the instructor will forward all relevant case materials to the Committee, which will review the facts of the case and/or the proposed academic sanctions. For academic sanctions, the decision of the College Committee is final. At the close of proceedings, the College Committee will notify all relevant parties of its decision and (if the student is found responsible) forward the outcome to the Office of Judicial Affairs for record keeping.

Referring Cases to Judicial Affairs: Cases must be referred to the Office of Judicial Affairs when the College Committee recommends the application of formal University disciplinary sanctions. In these cases, in accordance with University procedure for handling disciplinary incidents,4 Judicial Affairs will review the facts of the case and assign disciplinary sanctions when appropriate. Under current University policy and practice, Judicial Affairs has the authority to initiate disciplinary sanctions for repeat offenders.

The "XF" Grade: An "XF" grade is a formal University disciplinary sanction that indicates on the student's transcript that failure in a course was due to a serious act of academic dishonesty. To record an "XF," the instructor, College Committee, and Judicial Affairs must concur that this penalty is appropriate. Each College Committee must develop conditions that, if met to the Committee's satisfaction, would allow THE a student to change an "XF" mark GRADE TO BE CHANGED to an "F."

Record Keeping: The appropriate Assistant or Associate Deans5 shall be responsible for convening Committees of Academic Integrity and seeing that students and faculty have ready access to such bodies. They shall also be responsible for seeing that all cases handled on the college level, in which a student was found responsible for dishonesty, are reported to Judicial Affairs. Judicial Affairs alone will be responsible for central record keeping of all academic dishonesty cases. These records are confidential and kept for five years, or in accordance with University guidelines concerning students' educational records.6

A Committee on Academic Integrity, dean, or faculty member may request information from Judicial Affairs on whether students found responsible for academic dishonesty had previously been sanctioned for other acts of dishonesty. This information may not be used as a basis for judging a student's guilt; but it may be used as a basis for imposing sanctions or deciding whether disciplinary action is warranted.

1 See Senate Policy 44-40: Proctoring of Examinations.

2 Or Campus Executive Officer as determined by College policy.

3 If the student is found guilty and assigned an F for the course the drop or withdrawal from that course will be reversed.

4 Office of Judicial Affairs "Procedures for the Discipline System 1999-2000." November 4, 1999. Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/procediscp/html

5 Or Directors of Academic Affairs at other locations.

6 Penn State Student Affairs. Office of Judicial Affairs. "Student Discipline Records." August 10, 1998. Available: http://www/sa/psu.edu/ja/records.html

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
Henry Abromson
William Asbury
John Bardi
David Barnes
Dennis Calvin
Nicholas Carter
Wayne Curtis
Joanna Floros, Chair
Arthur Goldschmidt, V-Chair
Nichola Gutgold
Laura Munro
Deborah Preston
Joseph Pyzycki
Mario Sznaier
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Cheryl Achterberg
William Asbury (ex officio)
John Cahir
Bill Ellis
Tonya Faust
Joanna Floros
Lynn Hendrickson
Jan Jacobs
Daniel Larson
Joseph Puzycki
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Valerie Stratton
Linda Trevino

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

FEBRUARY 29, 2000 SENATE MEETING

Achterberg, Cheryl L.
Alexander, Shelton S.
Andaleeb, Syed Saad
Aydin, Kultegin
Bagby, John W.
Bardi, John F.
Berland, Kevin
Bernecker, Craig A.
Bettig, Ronald V.
Blumberg, Melvin
Book, Patricia A.
Borzellino, Joseph E.
Bower, Phillip R.
Bridges, K. Robert
Browning, Barton W.
Burchard, Charles
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Calvin, Dennis D.
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carey, J. Christopher
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Carter, Nicholas
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Chao, David
Carr-Chellman, Alison A.
Chirico, JoAnn
Clariana, Roy B.
Coraor, Lee D.
Crowe, Mary Beth
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
DeCastro, W. Travis
De Jong, Gordon F.
Dempsey, Richard F.
DeRooy, Jacob
Diehl, Renee D.
Donovan, James M.
Drafall, Lynn E.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Todd D.
Engel, Renata S.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Erickson, Rodney A.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Floros, Joanna
Fosmire, Gary J.
Foti, Veronique M.
Frank, Thomas A.
Franz, George W.
Fullerton, Erika R.
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Goldschmidt, Arthur E.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Gutgold, Nichola
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
Hill, Charles W.
Holt, Frieda M.
Hufnagel, Pamela
Hurson, Ali R.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jones, W. Terrell
Kenney, W. Larry
Kissick, John D.
Klein, Philip A.
Krochalis, Jeanne
Lasher, William C.
Lilley, John M
Lippert, John R.
Lukezic, Felix L.
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
May, James E.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
Milakofsky, Louis
Miller, Arthur C.
Minard, Robert D.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moore, John W.
Myers, Jamie M.
Nath, Richard F.
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Nixon, B. Tracy
Olson, Jon
Ovaert, Timothy C.
Ozment, Judy P.
Patterson, Henry O.
Pauley, Laura L.
Pell, Eva J.
Phillips, Allen T.
Potosky, Denise
Power, Barbara L.
Preston, Deborah
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David R.
Richards, Robert D.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Robert D.
Rodriguez, Lola
Rogers, Gary W.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor C.
Roth, David E.
Sandler, Karen W.
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Schott, Adam
Schuelein, Derek R.
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Sharp, Jeffrey M.
Shea, Dennis G.
Shifrin, Dennis
Smith, Carol A.
Smith James F.
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Stace, Stephen W.
Steiner, Kim C.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Strasser, Joseph C.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Sutton, Jane S.
Thomson, Joan S.
Tormey, Brian B.
Trevino, Linda Klebe
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Vickers, Anita M.
Wanner, Adrian J.
Weiss, Beno
White, Eric R.
Willits, Billie S.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Zelis, Robert
OTHERS ATTENDING
FROM SENATE OFFICE
Bugyi, George J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.
141 Total Elected
5 Total Ex Officio
9 Total Appointed
155 Total Attending

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 28, 2000

Committees and Rules - Revision of Bylaws, Article III, Section 5 (Legislative)

Committees and Rules - Revision of Constitution, Article I, Section 2 (Legislative)

Faculty Affairs - Proposal to Change the Language in HR-23 Concerning the Relation of Tenure and Promotion in Tenuring Decisions (Advisory/Consultative)

Research - Report of the Committee on Postdoctoral Fellows (Advisory/Consultative)

Undergraduate Education - Toward a More Vibrant Learning Culture (Advisory/Consultative)

University Planning - Parking Report (Advisory/Consultative)

Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 2000-2001 - Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (Informational)

Election Commission - Roster of Senators for 2000-2001

Intercollegiate Athletics - Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1998-99 (Informational)

Intra-University Relations - Non-Tenure-Line Faculty (Informational)

Research - A Primer on Indirect Costs (Informational)

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2000-2001 - Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary, Faculty Advisory Committee to the President (Informational)

Student Life - Report on Credit Card Overuse (Informational)

Undergraduate Education - University Advising Council Web Site (Informational)