THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 36-----MARCH 25,
2003-----Number 6
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 2002-03.
The
publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building,
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
that 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. Individuals with
questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University
Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for
March 25, 2003
A. Summary of Agenda
Actions
B. Minutes and
Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A.
Documents
Distributed Prior to
March 25, 2003
Attendance
III. Tentative Agenda for April
22, 2003
FINAL AGENDA FOR MARCH 25,
2003
A. MINUTES
OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes
of the January 28/February 25, 2003 Meetings in The Senate Record
36:4/36:5
[www.psu.edu/ufs/recordx.html]
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of
March
11, 2003
[www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html]
Report
to the University Planning Committee
Subcommittee to Review the Circleville
Property RFP
C.
REPORT
OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 4, 2003
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS -
G.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS -
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS -
Committees
and Rules
Formatting
and Delivering Senate Reports
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE
REPORTS -
Student
Life
Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities
J.
INFORMATIONAL
REPORTS -
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission
Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit
Limit for Non-degree
Conditional Students
Committees and Rules
Nominating Report – 2003-2004
Faculty Rights
and Responsibilities
Standing Joint
Committee on Tenure
University
Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Election Commission
Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2003-2004
Faculty Affairs
Promotion and Tenure Summary 2001-2002
Faculty Benefits and Intra-University Relations
Report on Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2002-2003
Intercollegiate Athletics
Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic
Scholarships for 2002-2003
Senate Council
Update on the Grand Destiny Campaign
Senate Council Nominating Committee Report – 2003-2004
Senate Officers
Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Senate
Faculty
Advisory Committee to the President
Undergraduate Education
Annual Grade Distribution Report
Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit, or
Location
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
The Senate heard one legislative report, one advisory/consultative report, and eleven informational reports.
Committees and Rules – “Formatting and Delivering Senate Reports.” Sixty-five percent of items presented at Senate meetings are Informational or Mandated reports. In this legislative report the Senate will consider several proposals to reduce the amount of time spent on such reports while guaranteeing that they continue to convey important information that pertains to the educational interests of the University. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 8 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)
Student Life – “Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities.” This advisory/consultative report helps faculty and students better understand the University’s policies on classroom disruption, the Senate will discuss a proposal to distribute that information in the most effective way. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 8-15 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission.” This informational report provides an overview of the use of on-line technology for grade submission for all undergraduate and graduate courses, as well as future opportunities to further improve the eLion Faculty Grade Entry application. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 16 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students.” Students who have been dropped for poor scholarship are limited to twelve credits a semester while they work to gain reinstatement. The informational report will review the exceptions to that limitation granted during AY 2000-2001 and AY 2001-2002. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 16 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)
Committees and Rules Nominating Report – 2003-2004. This informational report provides a list of nominees for Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee; nominations may also be made at the March 25, 2003 Senate meeting. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 16-19 and Agenda Appendix “G.”)
Senate Council – “Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2003-2004.” This informational report provides a list of Senators elected by each voting unit. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 19 and Agenda Appendix “H.”)
Faculty Affairs – “Promotion and Tenure Summary 2001-2002.” This informational report provides data on faculty tenured in 2001-2002. Of cases forwarded by the deans, 71 of 73 tenure cases were eventually approved. 61 of 63 candidates for promotion to Professor were approved, and 71 of 73 candidates for promotion to Associate Professor were approved. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 19 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)
Faculty Benefits and Intra-University Relations – “Report on Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2002-2003.” This informational report provides comparative internal and external salary data, including median salaries and ranges; salary competitiveness, growth and compression; and cost of living at various campus locations. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 19 and Agenda Appendix “J.”)
Intercollegiate Athletics – “Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2002-2003.” This informational report will include data on graduation rates, overall academic performance, the number of Academic Big-Ten Honorees, and the number of student athletes in various academic majors. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 19 and Agenda Appendix “K.”)
Senate Council – “Update on the Grand Destiny Campaign.” In this informational report Rodney Kirsch, Vice-President for Development and Alumni Relations will provide the Senate with an update on the Grand Destiny Campaign. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 19 and Agenda Appendix “L.”)
Senate Council – “Nominating Committee Report – 2003-2004.” This informational report lists candidates for offices of chair-elect and secretary of the Senate, as well as Faculty Advisory Committee to the President; nominations may also be made from the floor of the Senate at the March 25, 2003 meeting. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 20 and Agenda Appendix “M.”)
Undergraduate Education – “Annual Grade Distribution Report.” In this informational report the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education’s extensive analysis of data shows that “meaningful changes in the distribution patterns have appeared since 1987 and this pattern is in the form of grade inflation as the term is defined in a number of national studies.” (See Senate Record, Page(s) 20 and Agenda Appendix “N.”)
Undergraduate Education – “Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit, or Location.” This informational report provides data on the types of student petitions (drop/add, withdrawal, late registration, etc.) by college and location for 2000-01 and 2001-02. (See Senate Record, Page(s) 20 and Agenda Appendix “O.”)
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John W. Moore, Chair, presiding. One hundred and eighty-eight Senators signed the roster.
Chair Moore: It is time to begin.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing full transcriptions of the proceedings of the January 28, 2003, and February 25, 2003, meetings has been sent to all University Libraries. In addition, it has been posted on the Faculty Senate web page. Are there any corrections or additions to these documents? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Moore: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for March 11, 2003. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.
The Report of the University Planning Subcommittee to Review the Circleville Property RFP is presented as a communication to the Senate. Our thanks go to all members of this Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on University Planning for their good work. The Subcommittee was Chaired by Robert Pangborn. Rob will you please stand for a minute? Yesterday at the annual Faculty/Staff Awards luncheon ceremony, Rob received one of the two McKay Donkin awards given this year. The other went to Vice Provost and Dean Emeritus John Cahir. Rob received the award for his many important contributions to the “emotional, physical, mental, or social welfare of Penn State faculty.” Congratulations, Rob.
Senators: Applause.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of March 4, 2003, which appears as an attachment to the Agenda for today’s meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Moore: Our nation is now at war. Several weeks ago, members of the Senate were as divided as the American people on the topic of whether such a war was justified. But, now that a decision has been made, I am sure that this body is united in a common hope that the several hundred members of the Penn State community--students, faculty, and staff who have been called to active duty and all other members of the armed forces will return home soon, safe and unharmed. They have our prayers.
The sixth issue of the Senate Newsletter has been distributed. We welcome all suggestions for improvement.
The Senate Officers visited the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences on March 3, 2003, and the Schreyer Honors College and the Division of Undergraduate Studies on March 24, 2003. The officers will visit the College of Agricultural Sciences on March 31, 2003; this visit will conclude the spring visits.
Please encourage your faculty colleagues in the College of Agricultural Sciences to attend. These meetings go best when ten or more faculty are present to express their views. We, of course, look forward to seeing all the Ag Sciences Senators at this meeting.
On March 24, 2003, the Senate Office began the process of having Senators submit online their preferences for committee assignments for next year; we ask that you return your preferences by April 9, 2003.
This year Senate elections will be held online as well. A pilot election is now being conducted and to date it seems to be going quite well. In the course of just three days two-thirds of the 120 ballots were completed and returned, and we think of that as a very high return rate. We have received many positive comments about this new methodology and words of encouragement for the technological innovation for which we are all grateful to Susan Youtz and her staff for initiating and completing.
The George and Judy Bugyi Renaissance Fund has now collected $10,000. It needs to reach $15,000 before it becomes activated. So, dig deeper into your reserves and help this special fund raising effort reach its goal.
At yesterday’s Faculty/Staff Awards Recognition luncheon three other Senators also received awards. Joan Thomson, are you here? No, Joan Thomson, College of Agricultural Sciences and on the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, received the Graduate Program Chair Leadership Award.
Is Art Miller here today? No, Art Miller received the President’s Award for Excellence in Academic Integration. What academic integration means is extraordinary achievement in the integration of teaching, research or creative accomplishment and service.
And finally, I think I saw Laura Pauley. Laura please stand. Laura received the Undergraduate Program Leadership Award. So, congratulations to all those three.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Moore: Additional good news is that the legacy of one of Penn State Harrisburg’s longest serving faculty members, Professor of American Studies and History Irwin Richman, is being honored with a graduate scholarship in his name. To commemorate his contributions to the School of Humanities, the Richman Scholarship will be awarded to an incoming or continuing full-time American Studies graduate student with a grade point average of 3.5 or above. Dr. Richman, who has been stamping out ignorance at the college since 1968 by teaching courses in American Art and Architecture, will retire in Summer 2003. The scholarship is being funded with the generous support of alumni and friends who credit Dr. Richman with having had a significant influence in their lives and careers. Congratulations, Irwin.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Moore: On March 5, 2003, Vice Provost Janis Jacobs and I charged the Task Force to Review the First Year Seminar Requirement. Valerie Stratton, Altoona, Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, chairs the First Year Seminar Task Force.
On April 4, 2003 Laura Pauley, Chair of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, and I will charge a subcommittee of Undergraduate Education to be called the Subcommittee to Review the Bachelor of Arts Degree Requirements. Jack Selzer, Liberal Arts, will chair the Subcommittee.
We were, at this point, to honor Professor Masatoshi Nei, Evan Pugh Professor of Biology and Director, Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, who recently received an award from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Unfortunately, Dr. Nei is ill and is unable to be with us today, and perhaps we will be able to have him here at some other time.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Senators: Aye.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
Chair Moore: Agenda
Item I, Advisory/Consultative Reports.
We have an Advisory/Consultative Report from the Senate Committee on
Student Life. It appears on today’s Agenda
as Appendix “D” and is titled, “Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities.”
Bill Ellis, Chair of the Senate Committee on Student Life, together with
Irwin Richman, Chair of the subcommittee that prepared the report, will present
it. Rubina Javeri, President of the
Undergraduate Student Government, and Josh Troxell, President of Undergraduate
Student Government Academic Assembly, have requested and received permission to
speak on this piece of legislation.
Bill Ellis, Hazleton Campus: Thank you. I would like to start by acknowledging Irwin Richman’s role in getting this report to the floor. He was the head of the subcommittee, and I credit him for going through a great deal of material and finding what I think is a useful strategy for bringing this issue to resolution. I would also like to thank Jose Ventura, who is no longer a member of the Senate but who was the Chair of the subcommittee last year who also was responsible for getting together a great deal of this information. The intent of this report is not to propose new policies relating to the classroom. It is not intended to require faculty to do anything necessarily that they are not already doing. What it is intended to do is to sum up existing Penn State policy relating to this issue and give the best advice that we could find both within Penn State and without. Obviously, good advice is intended for those who want or need it. Many locations do not have a classroom disruption problem. Many faculty are not especially concerned with this. This report will not affect these locations, these people, in the slightest. However, this is a topic that has been repeatedly referred to this committee, and there are a large number of faculty who are concerned about this issue, and there are locations that have reported a significant disruption problem. So this report, and the model statement that goes with it, is intended to be a concise statement of the rights and responsibilities that bind us all--faculty and students alike--as part of the academic community.
Let me call your attention to the door handout. This is some additional language for the model statement that was recommended to us by the Undergraduate Student Government Academic Assembly. It does not affect the recommendation on which you are voting. This is something that was brought to us because there was a concern that faculty could possibly, shall we say, extend their privileges in defining classroom behavior to the point that they were trying to enforce what are, essentially, personal preferences rather than confronting a problem of disruption. Disruption, as the report makes clear is something that compromises the atmosphere for both the faculty and the students alike. And I would also want to stress that the recommendation on which we are voting recommends that faculty and students receive copies both of the model statement and also of the existing Penn State policy statement on free expression and disruption, which makes it clear that students cannot be considered disruptive simply for expressing ideological differences with faculty members no matter how irritating or offensive these ideological differences may be. Thank you.
Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: How do these guidelines follow the Code of Conduct, and is there overlap with the Code of Conduct for students now?
Bill Ellis: The Code of Conduct is really the cornerstone of these. The Code of Conduct specifically defines obstruction or disruption of classes as one of the prohibitive actions among students and also gives a definition of disruption--of actions that unreasonably interfere with, hinder, obstruct, or prevent the operation of the university in particular classroom activities.
Laura L. Pauley: I know the Code of Conduct is about a page long, very detailed. I am wondering if it is more appropriate to make reference to the Code of Conduct instead of trying to summarize or approximate it in a syllabus?
Bill Ellis: In this case we are trying to get together information that specifically relates to one particular issue. The Code of Conduct is already made available to all students and is summarized in a useful way in the Penn State Principles, which likewise are distributed to students and posted widely. So what we are doing here is we are getting together not just policy statements, but also some advice on how to manage the problem both from the student and the faculty point of view so that the Code of Conduct really should not be relevant. That is, the situation could be managed to the point that no disciplinary charges need be made. And I think that would be the ideal situation.
David Breslin: In here you have some layout as far as some steps that need to be taken from the faculty’s point of view. And you mentioned that this is not designed to hinder the academic or the intellectual process with regards to conflicting ideas. Looking over it, I have not seen any explanation of if that case comes up, or at least any in depth explanation of what the students can do in order to go and, if they cannot resolve it by confronting the academic involved, what the chain would be as far as department or what have you, at the academic level.
Irwin Richman, Penn State Harrisburg: Actually, that is handled in the handout that you have.
David Breslin: It is explained in here?
Irwin Richman: Yes, it explains right in that. From the students themselves and that has the explanation.
David Breslin: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that because it is very clear for faculty.
Bill Ellis: I might point out that any time a disciplinary charge is made due process is provided to the students. The students have the right to confront the charges and present witnesses on their behalf, and the decision is not made by the faculty member, by the administrator, but by a hearing board. Hopefully, this would be a very rare instance, but if that is the case that would be one of the primary defenses of student rights.
Leonard J. Berkowitz, York Campus: Bill, I would like to make sure I understand exactly what we are voting on. I understand the first part that says, “That all Penn State faculty and students receive copies,” of that first document. It is the second document; I want to make sure I understand that we are voting on that we receive copies of. Is that a reference to the model statement that appears earlier in this report?
Bill Ellis: Yes, with the proviso as the introduction points out that this model statement should be adapted appropriately to fit the needs and structures of departments and campuses.
Leonard J. Berkowitz: So that we are saying that every faculty member and student will receive some statement about procedures dealing with inappropriate classroom behavior sort of modeled on this, but not necessarily exactly like it. Perhaps including the changes suggested by the students, so it is sort of an indefinite kind of thing that we are voting on for the second part?
Bill Ellis: I would say the recommendation indicates that the procedures for dealing with classroom behavior under the following four headings here are going to be distributed to all students and faculty. This model statement will be part of The Senate Record and will be available for everyone to view. I want to emphasize the appropriately adapted part because there are some locations that we reviewed that already have statements on the record dealing with classroom disruption that are entirely agreeable to this model statement, and we are not intending to force these locations to replace those statements. But if they want to look at their statements and see some of the information that we have gathered that they do not have in their statements they are welcome to do so.
Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: I think the information that is available in this report is relevant and appropriate, but I think the format of it is inappropriate. You mentioned, Bill, that there are no more policies involved in here, and basically what you are saying here, and what I think, is that it would be more appropriate that we just provide the information to the faculty and the students where relevant policies and procedures are housed, where they can find the information if they so wish. But I really do not think that an Advisory/Consultative Report on this is appropriate. And I do not know what the next sort of step is, but I do not think this is the appropriate format for this kind of information, and I think it is just sort of onerous at this point.
D. Joshua Troxell, Academic Assembly: The intent, I know, that we had as students when we looked at this was not to create a situation where it is a student versus faculty mentality where everything has to be written down and be legalistic. Rather, to encourage the faculty and the staff to work together towards a mutual respect of each other. I think that this report is very necessary. I have seen instances even in the past week of students coming to the Undergraduate Student Government Office with concerns about what is classroom disruption. If you will just permit me a brief example, we had a student come in just this week saying that they had been asked not to return to a classroom because they were wearing a peace symbol on their shirt. They did not stand up and say anything. They did not create any sort of disruption for the class, but they were told that, if they came in in this attire again, they would not be permitted to stay in class. The student came because they were not sure what to do. I think that example defines the need for students and faculty alike to be at least aware of what the proper procedure is to handle differences of ideas but yet handle it at the lowest possible level, without having to get emails to President Spanier or to the department head directly but rather that the faculty and staff deal with it first.
Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: I wonder whether the intent is to distribute this information once or whether it should be distributed every semester, or every year? What are your thoughts?
Irwin Richman: I believe it would be distributed to new faculty and new students. So in other words, to incoming students and incoming faculty members, but not every year to the whole student body or the entire faculty.
Peter Deines: We do have a Faculty Handbook that incoming faculty is not aware of. I would say, if I read this and understand your comments, it is a continuing effort. So I would raise the question of cost in view of the comments that were made earlier on the budget constraints that we have. I would wonder whether anybody has paid any attention to how much a continuing effort actually would cost the institution?
Bill Ellis: The report does not say the form in which the material should be distributed. I would imagine that at most locations it would be simply folded into existing Faculty Handbooks. It could be distributed electronically. It could be incorporated into the date books that are often given out at many locations to entering students. So we are not intending any kind of spectacular publishing of this in any form. The documents here are relatively short. The statement on free expression and disruption takes less than half a page for instance. So there are many ways in which it could be put in the hands of faculty and students, and we are simply asking that it be incorporated into existing procedures. So I think the costs would be minimal.
Peter Deines: So your bottom line would be that the costs would be minimal. There would be no reoccurring costs on this?
Irwin Richman: I do not expect so.
Caroline D. Eckhardt, College of the Liberal Arts: I hope I understand the intent of this report, but I would like to join other colleagues who have expressed some reservation about voting for this in its present form. As legislation it seems to me it includes not only what is in the recommendation but because the second part of the recommendation refers to the longer document it seems that if we are being asked then, to endorse everything in the longer document. And procedurally, I for one am uncomfortable with that and substantively I have a problem with the sentence, “If a faculty member feels that eating in class, using cell phones, spitting smokeless tobacco, or any other such behavior is inappropriate this should be explained in the syllabus.” Now, there is no way that I can in advance identify in my syllabus all the forms of behavior that I might find to be inappropriate. But if I vote for this including the recommendation that says we are going to be distributing this statement and subsequently I am dealing in my role as department head with a student who says, “Well, yes I did X, Y, or Z in class, but the instructor did not say on the syllabus that I could not do that.” Then I think we are boxing ourselves in.
Irwin Richman: It was never meant that that is the list or that you should use such a list. The point is, however, that if there are certain issues that a faculty member finds offensive that are not generally considered by everyone to be offensive, it is always best to let students know up front if you consider this offensive. If you have never had a problem with someone spitting tobacco in a jar in your classroom, which several faculty members at my campus have come to me and said, “What can you do about that? I find it terrible and the students around me find it terrible.” Well, you have rights to take care of this. This is a guide to the faculty. It is not a mandate to the faculty. If these issues have never come up, God bless you, and you do not want to put them in. But these are merely examples of some behaviors which people find offensive. I personally, for example do not mind if students eat soft food in class, but I sure do find it offensive if they eat very crunchy potato chips.
Bill Ellis: May I remind us what it is that we are voting on. We are not voting on smokeless tobacco; we are voting on recommending to incoming faculty that they should set clear standards of behavior at the beginning of the class and then consistently enforce them as a way of avoiding the most serious problems dealing with classroom disruption farther along.
P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: This is beginning to look like the United Nations. I would like to echo some things that have been said before, but let me first point out that I think this document confuses two basic issues. One is freedom of speech and expression. The other one is actual physical behavior. Those two ideas are lumped together like they are interchangeable, and I think that there is a very clear difference between that. Secondly, if we have policy statements that are in effect, they should not even be published. I think that we should expect our faculty to be reasonably educated to understand what disruptive behavior is. We do not have to list every single circumstance, because I could see my street-wise students say, “But I didn’t spit the tobacco in a cup, I spat it on the floor. You don’t have that in your syllabus, hence that is permitted.” I think it is very dangerous to begin to list specific behaviors. I think we ought to trust our faculty to make the decision what is physically disruptive and what is not physically disruptive.
I was told in Senate Council that this is merely an advisory report. If we look on page two of one of the reports in today’s Agenda, advisory proposal specifying the actions the Senate would like to implement, so it is not merely a document that you pass and you forget. Unfortunately, examples also become case studies. I looked at the addition that the Undergraduate Student Government Academic Assembly added to it, which talks about the recourse that students have in these cases. Unfortunately, the example that is used is, for instance, if an academic penalty is to be imposed as a result of the prohibited action, for instance, being late you have the right to appeal to Judicial Affairs. Is that really the example that we appeal to Judicial Affairs? If I have a policy that continued lateness would cost you a grade, do I really have to write another two pages in my syllabus like I do on academic integrity that explains this? I understand students have already found ways of not being academically integrious by new technological means that are not written up among the cheating parts of our last Agenda, so are we one step ahead of the students? I would seriously urge the Senate to defeat this measure. It is a mixture of freedom of expression ideas and physically rude behavior, and it will become a document which we recommend to the administration that they should implement. One of my colleagues here suggested that they could vote for part one, that we publish the official Office of Judicial Affairs policy statement, but it is really part two that is the nasty one. And I could see separating those two motions out if the body so desires. Thank you.
Bill Ellis: Concerning the issue of being late, this is simply a summary of existing Penn State policy. You are required to give students say an explanation of how their grade is determined. If a faculty member chooses to deduct points for some activity because a student does not attend, is late or some other reason, then you are already obligated to explain that in the syllabus. This is not a new idea. As for the nature of the report, there are some things that, frankly, cannot be legislated. Faculty can reasonably differ on what is disruptive and what is not disruptive, as we have mentioned before. What we are representing in this is the best advice that Penn State can give, the best advice that we have found in statements existing in the literature on the topic, and this is intended to be the quickest way for most new faculty to avoid problems. I think trying to make it more specific than that would turn this into something like a legislative report, and I think we already have too much legalism in our syllabi and in our procedures, so we are simply trying to give people some advice on how to avoid problems rather than come up with new policy statements.
Al Mueller, Mont Alto Campus: I am referring now to the supplement to the report that was handed out at the door that a number of other people have already referred to. It says, “The recommendation on which the Senate is asked to vote is not changed.” However, I would argue that this handout substantively changes what we have received, not only in the statement, “If a faculty member feels that eating in class, etc., etc., should be explained in the syllabus.” I would say that it turns it from an advisory report to a legislative report, and let me just use an anecdotal situation to illustrate what I have in mind. Just yesterday in one of my classes, although I clearly spell out that if you are not in class it does count as an absence, I had a student ask me if it counts as an absence because he was not there simply because his roommate unplugged the alarm clock. Now that does not mean that I believe that student is representative of all students, far from it, but you do have those cases come up and if I do not have something very specific, as Senator Rebane has already said, in my syllabus…if I say I do not allow cell phones to be used then students will start bringing in pagers simply because it is not in the syllabus and then I have to continually add to the syllabus. I would also encourage my fellow Senators to vote this down on that basis.
David Breslin: With regards to the last few Senators that spoke before me, I would also like to ask that my fellow Senators vote this measure down. I am hearing a lot of mixed messages with regard to areas of classroom disruption versus acceptable forms of speech. The anecdote that was given prior by the member from Academic Assembly, that is simply a protected action from our understanding of the United States Constitution and the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court upheld this during the Vietnam War for armbands. We should not be producing any type of legislation here that goes and limits any one of our student’s freedoms with regards to any of those ten particular rights under the Bill of Rights. As regards the classroom disruption aspect, if you want to put that through, that is an honorable thing, but lets send it either back to committee or revise something and separate what is acceptable behavior from disruptive behavior. You cannot put these two together because you are going to either open the university to a lawsuit from students or it is just never going to get off the floor. Thank you.
Bill Ellis: I would just say I think the report is fairly clear in saying that ideological differences cannot be defined as disruptive, and the students do have a first amendment right to express these in class so long as it does not interfere with the reasonable conduct of the classroom. So a student who gets up in the middle of say an Art History class and wants to, for no particular reason, harangue the rest of the class on the evils of the war in Iraq could be disruptive. But a student who walks in with a peace symbol or who writes a paper in an English 15 class on a current event saying that he dislikes or opposes the war certainly cannot be considered disruptive for that reason alone, and I am surprised that the report is read in that vain.
Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona: I have heard enough debate on this issue, I think, and I think the Senate is ready to vote so I call the question.
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: All in favor of closing discussion, please signify by saying, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Moore: Any opposed, “nay?” The aye’s have it, and the discussion is over. We move to a vote. Since the proposal comes to us from a committee it has already been moved and seconded. All those in favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Student Life titled “Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities,” please signify by saying, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Moore: Any opposed, “nay?”
Senators: Nay.
Chair Moore: The nay’s have it, the motion does not pass.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
The report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission was introduced by Committee Chair Mark Casteel. University Registrar J. James Wager responded to questions about how the Registrar’s Office could create new solutions to report independent study courses.
The report titled Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students was received with no comment.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Report of Nominating Committee – 2003-2004
Valerie Stratton, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
Valerie N. Stratton: Thank you, John. As John said we have the three separate categories for Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. The names are presented to you in Appendix “G,” and we will deal with each section separately. Are there any additional nominations for the Faculty From University Park. We need to elect three (3) members. Two (2) will be members and one (1) will be an alternate serving three-year terms.
Chair Moore: If not, is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?
Senator: So moved.
Chair Moore: Second?
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that we close the slate of nominees. The slate is closed.
Valerie N. Stratton: Faculty Other Than University Park. We have one (1) to be elected which is an alternate for a three-year term.
Chair Moore: Are there any additional nominations? If not, is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?
Senator: So moved.
Chair Moore: Second?
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that we close the slate of nominees. The slate is closed.
Valerie N. Stratton: Finally, the third category is Deans. There are two (2) to be elected, one member and one alternate with three year terms. Are there any additional nominations?
Chair Moore: Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?
Senator: So moved.
Chair Moore: Second?
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that we close the slate of nominees. The slate is closed.
Valerie N. Stratton: We can move onto the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. I do have a correction to make to the slate that has been presented. Keith Burkhart has withdrawn his name, which leaves us with three (3) people. Two (2) to be elected, one member and one as an alternate for three-year terms. Are there any nominations from the floor?
Chair Moore: Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?
Senator: So moved.
Chair Moore: Second?
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that we close the slate of nominees. The slate is closed.
Valerie N. Stratton: Finally, we have the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. Four (4) members to be elected for two-year terms. Are there nominations from the floor?
W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture: While I applaud Education and Engineering, the lack of Arts in the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee is apparent, so I would like to nominate Eliza Pennypacker, Professor of Landscape Architecture, for the election as well.
Chair Moore: Is there a second?
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that the name of Eliza Pennypacker, College of Arts and Architecture, be added to the list of nominees.
Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: I would like to add to the list of nominees Philip Baldi, Professor of Linguistics and Classics. He has agreed to stand for election.
Chair Moore: Is there a second?
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that the name of Philip Baldi, College of the Liberal Arts, be added to the list of nominees. Any other nominations?
Kim C. Steiner, College of Agricultural Sciences: I would like to nominate Shannon Stokes, Professor of Rural Sociology.
Chair Moore: Is there a second?
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that the name of Shannon Stokes, College of Agricultural Sciences, be added to the list of nominees. Any other nominations? Is there a motion to close the slate of nominees?
Senator: So moved.
Chair Moore: Second?
Senator: Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that we close the slate of nominees for the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The slate is closed. Is there a motion to approve the entire slate of nominees?
Senators: So moved. Second.
Chair Moore: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the entire slate of nominees. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Moore: Any opposed, “nay?” The aye’s have it and the motion passes and the slate of nominees to these three committees has been approved and the slate is closed. Thank you Chair Stratton and thanks to the Nominating Committee of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.
ELECTION COMMISSION
Senate Secretary Melvin Blumberg presented the Roster of Senators by Voting Unit for 2003-2004. The report was received with no comment.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
The report on the Promotion and Tenure Summary 2001-2002 was presented by Committee Chair Kim Steiner. There were no questions or comments.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS
Dennis Shea and Robert Walters on behalf of the parent committees gave a PowerPoint presentation: Report on Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2002-2003. A recommendation was made to utilize statistical regression techniques to discern information on gender and campus salary disparities. A question was raised about the existence of fixed-term professorial faculty; Robert Secor noted that some colleges appoint fixed-term faculty to professorial rank. Other questioners commented on the incompleteness of College of Medicine data, faculty turnover, and staying competitive among AAUDE comparison institutions.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
The Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2002-2003 was presented by R. Scott Kretchmar, Faculty Athletic Representative to the NCAA. The report was received with no comment.
SENATE COUNCIL
Rodney P. Kirsch, Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations provided an update on the Grand Destiny Campaign. A question was asked about the status of the university’s endowment and investment portfolio.
SENATE COUNCIL NOMINATING COMMITTEE
Report of Nominating Committee – 2003-2004, John Nichols, Chair, Senate
Council Nominating Committee presented the nominees for Chair-Elect, Secretary
and Faculty Advisory Committee to the President. No additional candidates were nominated.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
The Annual Grade Distribution Report was presented by Terry Engelder. Questions were asked on the following topics: utilization of part-time/full-time faculty and relationship of appointment type with grade inflation; concern about over emphasis on grades; individual unit’s/department’s need to review grade trends—40 percent of all grades awarded are A’s; do faculty still use a normal curve for grade distribution; examine the correlation of grading practice and SRTE’s; and have the committee return to the Senate with recommendations for future action.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
None
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
None
ADJOURNMENT
The March 25, 2003, meeting of the University Faculty Senate was adjourned at 3:48 PM.
DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO MARCH 25, 2003
Committees and Rules – Formatting and Delivering Senate Reports (Legislative)
Student Life – Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities (Advisory/Consultative)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission (Informational)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students (Informational)
Committees and Rules – Report of Nominating Committee –2003-2004 (Informational)
Senate Council – Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2003-2004 (Informational)
Faculty Affairs – Promotion and Tenure Summary 2001-02 (Informational)
Faculty Benefits and Intra-University Relations – Report on Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2002-03 (Informational)
Intercollegiate Athletics – Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2002-03 (Informational)
Senate Council – Update on the Grand Destiny Campaign (Informational)
Senate Council – Report of Nominating Committee – 2003-2004 (Informational)
Undergraduate Education – Annual Grade Distribution Report (Informational)
Undergraduate Education – Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit, or Location (Informational)
THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE
MARCH 25, 2003, SENATE MEETING
Abmayr,
Susan
Achterberg, Cheryl
Althouse, P. Richard
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard
Arnold, Judd
Atchley, Anthony
Atwater, Deborah
Aydin, Kultegin
Baggett, Connie
Barbato, Guy
Barnes, David
Barney, Paul
Barshinger, Richard
Bazirjian, Rosann
Beck, Laura
Becker, Paul
Benson, Thomas
Berkowitz, Leonard
Berner, Thomas
Bhargava, Hemant
Bise, Christopher
Bittner, Edward
Blasko, Dawn
Blumberg, Melvin
Boehmer, John
Boothby, Thomas
Breakey, Laurie
Breslin, David
Bridges, K. Robert
Brinker, Dan
Browning, Barton
Brunsden, Victor
Burchard, Charles
Burgess, Robert
Calvert, Clay
Cancro, John
Cardamone, Michael
Carlson, Richard
Carpenter, Lynn
Carter, Meshawn
Casteel, Mark
Catchen, Gary
Cecere, Joseph
Challis, John
Chorney, Michael
Chu, Chao-Hsien
Clark, Paul
Cohen, Jeremy
Coraor, Lee
Corbets, Jeff
Cranage, David
Curran, Brian
Curtis, Wayne
Davis, Dwight
De Jong, Gordon
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
Disney, Diane
Donovan, James
Eckhardt, Caroline
Elder, James
Ellis, Bill
Engelder, Terry
Erickson, Rodney
Esposito, Jackie
Evans, Christine
Evensen, Dorothy
Falzone, Christopher
Fisher, Charles
Floros, Joanna
Fortese, Ryan
Fosmire, Gary
Franz, George
Freeman, Sean
Geiger, Roger
Georgopulos, Peter
Gilmour, David
Glumac, Thomas
Gouran, Dennis
Gray, Timothy
Green, David
Greene, Wallace
Hanes, Madlyn
Hanley, Elizabeth
Heinsohn, Robert
High, Kane
Holcomb, E. Jay
Holen, Dale
Horwitz, Alan
Hufnagel, Pamela
Hupcey, Judith
Irwin, Zachary
Jacobs, Janis
Jago, Deidre
Johnson, Ernest
Johnstone, Christopher
Jones, Billie
Jonson, Michael
Kane, Eileen
Kennedy, Richard
Kephart, Kenneth
Kramer, John
Kunze, Donald
Laguna, Pablo
Larson, Daniel
Levin, Mark
Lodwick, Kathleen
Love, Nancy
Macdonald, Digby
Mara, Cynthia
Marshall, Wayne
Marsico, Salvatore
Mason, John
Mattila, Anna
Maxwell, Kevin
McCarty, Ronald
McCorkle, Sallie
Mengisteab, Kidane
Meyers, Craig
Milakofsky, Lou
Miller-Hooks, Elise
Moore, John
Mueller, Al
Myers, Jamie
Nichols, John
Oliver, Mary Beth
Pangborn, Robert
Pauley, Laura
Payne, Judy
Pearson, Katherine
Pell, Eva
Perrine, Joy
Pietrucha, Martin
Poole, Thomas
Pugh, Frank
Pytel, Jean
Rebane, P. Peter
Richards, David
Richards, Winston
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Bob
Ritter, Michael
Romano, John
Romberger, Andrew
Rupp, Dawn
Russell, David
Sachs, Howard
Sandmeyer, Louise
Sathianathan, Dhushy
Scanlon, Dennis
Scaroni, Alan
Schaeffer, Stephen
Schengrund, Cara
Seabright, Kristen
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas
Shea, Dennis
Simmonds, Patience
Simpson, Timothy
Smith, Carol
Smith, Edward
Smith, James
Sommese, Kristin
Spanier, Graham
Spychalski, John
Stace, Stephen
Steiner, Kim
Stoffels, Shelley
Stratton, Valerie
Strauss, James
Su, Mila
Szczygiel, Bonj
Tempelman, Arkady
Tormey, Brian
Troester, Rodney
Turner, Tramble
Urenko, John
Wager, James
Wagner, Kristy
Walters, Robert
Watkins, Marley
White, Eric
Wiens-Tuers, Barbara
Wijekumar, Kay
Willits, Billie
Zervanos, Stamatis
Ziegler, Gregory
171 Total Elected
7 Total Ex Officio
10 Total Appointed
188 TOTAL ATTENDING
TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 22, 2003
Senate Self Study Committee – A Concept for Restructuring and for Improving the Operation and Procedures of the University Faculty Senate (Forensic)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Change to Policy 34-68 (Auditing a Course) (Legislative)
Intercollegiate Athletics – Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes (Legislative)
Faculty Affairs – Revision to Policy AD-53, Privacy Statement (Advisory/Consultative)
Undergraduate Education – Defining Grading Standards (Advisory/Consultative)
Curricular Affairs – Status of General Education Implementation: Certification/Recertification of New, Changed, and Existing Courses (Informational)
Faculty Affairs – Time in Rank of Associate Professors (Informational)
Research – Update on Graduate Education (Informational)
Senate Council – Report on Spring 2003 College Visits (Informational)
University Planning – Status of Construction (Informational)
University Planning – Parking Rate Structure (Informational)
Report of Senate Elections
Senate Council
Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
Senate Secretary for 2003-2004
Senate Chair-Elect for 2003-2004
Comments by Outgoing Chair Moore
Installation of Officers
Comments by Incoming Chair Bise