Penn State University Home  





T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D


Volume 38-----April 27, 2004-----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, 2003-2004.


The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (telephone 814-863-0221). The Senate Record is distributed to all libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at 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 for the meeting are not included in The Senate Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting, or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussions 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.



I.     Final Agenda for April 27, 2004                                                                Pages ii-iv

II.    Minutes and Summaries of Remarks                                                          Pages 1-28

III.   Enumeration of Documents

            A.  Attendance                                                                                     Appendix I

            B.   Door Handout–Revisions to the Proposal for Revising                     Appendix II

                  The Intercultural/International Competence Requirement

            C.  Corrected Copy–Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/                  Appendix III

                  International Competence Requirement

            D.  Corrected Copy–Revision of Senate Policy 67-00,                         Appendix IV

                  Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes




A.  MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING                                                     Page 1


            Minutes of the March 16, 2004, Meeting in The Senate Record 37:4



B.   COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE                                                           Page 1


            Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of April 13, 2004



C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL – Meeting of April 13, 2004                           Page 1

            And Ombudsman Report


D.  ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR                                                               Pages 1-9


E.   COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY                             Pages 9-12


F.   FORENSIC BUSINESS                                                                                       Page 12


G.  UNFINISHED BUSINESS                                                                                   Page 12




            Committees and Rules                                                                                      Page 13


                  Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and

                  Standing Rules: Constitution, Article II, Section 4

                  Faculty Senator Representation Ratio


            Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education                                                Pages 14-21


                  Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International

                  Competence Requirement


            Intercollegiate Athletics                                                                                     Pages 21-22


                  Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition,

                  Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes


I.    ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS                                                          Page 22




            Intercollegiate Athletics                                                                                     Page 23


                  Integration of Intercollegiate Athletic Within the University

                  Community [Fifteen minutes allotted for presentation and

                  ten minutes allotted for discussion.]


            Faculty Affairs                                                                                                  Page 23


                  Promotion and Tenure Summary 2002-2003

                  [Five minutes allotted for presentation.]


            Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits                                                                   Page 23


                  Paid Parental Leave for Faculty

                  [Ten minutes allotted for presentation.]


            Faculty Benefits                                                                                                Page 23


                  Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2003-2004

                  Tables may be reviewed at the following UR:L


                        [Five minutes allotted for presentation.]


            Intra-University Relations                                                                                  Page 23


                 Report on Salary Equity, Academic Year 2003-2004

                  [Five minutes allotted for presentation.]


                  Trends and Patterns in the Use of Full and Part-Time Fixed-

                  Term Faculty [Ten minutes allotted for presentation.]


            Senate Council                                                                                                 Page 24


                  Summary of Spring 2004 Officers’ University Park Visits

                  [Five minutes allotted for presentation.]


            University Planning                                                                                            Page 24


                  Status of Construction at Locations Other Than University Park

                  [Ten minutes allotted for presentation.]


            Report of Senate Election                                                                                 Pages 24-25


                  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 2004-2005

                  Senate Chair-Elect for 2004-2005


            Seating of the New Officers                                                                              Page 25


            Comments by Outgoing Chair Bise                                                                    Pages 25-26


            Comments by Incoming Chair Steiner                                                                Pages 26-27


K.  NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS                                                                        Page 27


L.  COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD                        Page 27



M.  ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                 Page 28


The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Christopher J. Bise, Chair, presiding. There were 181 senators who signed the roster.




We will begin our meeting today with Agenda Item A, minutes of the preceding meeting. The March 16, 2004, Record, which provides a full transcript of the proceedings, was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? May I hear a motion to accept?


Senators: So moved.


Chair Bise: Second?


Chair Bise: All in favor of accepting the minutes of the March 16, 2004, meeting please signify by saying, “Aye.”


Senators: Aye.


Chair Bise: Opposed, say, “Nay.” The ayes have it and the motion carries. The minutes of the March 16, 2004, meeting have been approved.



Chair Bise: Agenda Item B, Communication to the Senate, The Senate Curriculum Report, the blue sheets of April 13, 2004, is posted on the Faculty Senate’s web page.




Chair Bise: Agenda Item C, Report of Senate Council. The minutes of the Senate Council meeting held on April 13, 2004, appear as an attachment for today’s meeting.




Chair Bise: Agenda Item D, Announcements by the Chair. Out of courtesy to our presenters, please turn off your cell phones and pagers at this time.


I refer you to the minutes of Senate Council at the end of your agenda for announcements that were made at the Senate Council meeting on April 13, 2004. I especially want to call your attention to the University Ombudsman Report that is appended to the Senate Council minutes. Included in the minutes are topics that were discussed by the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President at its meeting on April 13, 2004. The next meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee is scheduled for July 29, 2004.


I want to take this opportunity to introduce a new staff member in the Senate Office. Cherry Lee Fisher, please stand. Cherry Lee began working as a staff assistant in the Senate Office on March 22. She was formerly employed by Eastern Industries Inc. in Winfield, PA where she held various office positions for 30 years. Cherry Lee is serving as the office receptionist, working with Senate Committee leadership, processing travel expenses, and handling a wide variety of other responsibilities. Please join me in welcoming Cherry Lee Fisher to the Senate Office. (Applause.)


It is becoming a tradition at the last Senate meeting of the year to recognize students for their academic achievements. In the April Senate Newsletter, we highlighted six students who received a John White Fellowship awarded annually by the Student Life committee chaired by Carol Smith. Today we have three students with us, and they are accompanied by Vivienne Wildes, Director of Undergraduate Fellowships in the Office of Undergraduate Education and International Programs. Vivienne, will you please stand.


I would like to invite Lee Basset to come forward and join me at the podium. Lee Basset is a physics major with minors in astronomy, astrophysics and mathematics, and a Schreyer Honors College student. Lee was selected as the first student to receive the Annenberg Marshall Scholarship to study in the United Kingdom. Lee will attend Cambridge University. To receive this distinction, Lee placed first of more than 150 applications and 20 interviews in the New York region. The Marshall Scholarships began in 1953 as a gesture of thanks from the British government for the United States’ assistance in rebuilding Europe after World War II. Each year, 40 scholars are selected to spend two years in graduate school at a British University, with all fees, living expenses, books, cost of thesis and research, fares to and from the United States, and daily travel paid by the British government.


Lee currently works with Professor William Brandt, studying X-ray observations of some of the most distant objects in the universe. He also has conducted research in cosmic ray astrophysics with Professor James Beatty. Last summer, Lee collaborated with Professor Richard Robinett on two papers. Lee is active in music as a pianist, organist, and tubist. He regularly performs at Penn State as soloist and accompanist, and provides worship music for the Lutheran Campus Ministry services at the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center. He is an avid surfer and studied abroad at the University of Sydney in Australia. Congratulations, Lee. (Applause.)


I would now like to ask Danielle Perry to please join me at the podium. Danielle Perry is a senior physics major and mathematics minor at Penn State and is a Schreyer Honors College scholar. Danielle has won a Fulbright Scholarship to work at the Brain Dynamics Centre in Sydney, Australia and a National Institutes of Health—University of Cambridge graduate fellowship. This is the first time a Penn State student has won the five-year, fully funded fellowship for study and research at Cambridge University in England. The approximate value of a NIH-Cambridge Fellowship is $250,000. Danielle has also won the Winston Churchill Scholarship for a fully paid year of academic study at Cambridge University. Once again, Danielle is the first Penn State student to win this award that is presented to only 11 students nationwide each year.

At Penn State, Danielle works on National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded research in the laboratory of Christine Keating. She had also conducted NSF-funded research in a collaborative effort between Bucknell University, Geisinger Medical Center's Neurology Unit, and the Weis Research Center, under the direction of Martin Ligare, on the physical modeling of nerve impulses.

Danielle enjoys playing the flute, surfing, skydiving and cooking. Danielle is one of ten home-schooled siblings. Danielle’s twin sister Alyson and younger sister, Kristin will study at Oxford University in England this fall. Congratulations, Danielle. (Applause.)

Will Sara Ryan please join me at the podium? Sara Ryan is a junior in political science and African-American studies and a member of Penn State's Schreyer Honors College. Sara has won the Harry S. Truman Scholarship, one of the most prestigious scholarships awarded nationwide for leadership and service. Sara is president of Allies: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Ally Group and is Pride Week coordinator. She has also served on USG, the Black Caucus Curriculum Committee, and the Student Union Board. Sara has worked to develop partnerships among various campus groups. She has held internships in Philadelphia, working on Pennsylvania Hate Crimes Bill for the Human Rights Campaign, and on the Pennsylvania Anti-Discrimination Bill for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.

Sara will graduate in May 2005 with honors in political science. The Truman Scholarship provides $30,000: $3,000 for Sara’s senior year and $27,000 for graduate school. Sara’s research thesis focuses on strategies of state LGBT organizations to pass pro-LGBT legislation. She works under the direction of political science professors Marie Hojnaki, Michael Berkman, and Frank Baumgartner. Congratulations to Sara and congratulations to these three outstanding students. You make Penn State proud! (Applause.)

At the end of each academic year, a number of senators complete their terms of office. I now will read the list of our valued senators who will not be returning next year.


College Of Agricultural Sciences:

Phyllis Adams

Stephen Smith

Joan Thomson


College Of Arts And Architecture:

Brian Curran


Behrend College:

Paul Barney

Charles Burchard


Smeal College Of Business Administration:

Charles Enis


Capital College – Harrisburg:

Gautam Ray


Commonwealth College:

Bill Ellis, Hazleton

Rajen Mookerjee, Beaver

Robert Walters, McKeesport

John Cancro, New Kensington


College Of Communications:

Clay Calvert


College Of Earth & Mineral Sciences:

Peter Deines

David Green    


College Of Education:

Daniel Marshall

Marley Watkins


College Of Engineering:

Michael Jonson


College Of Health & Human Development:

Elizabeth Hanley

Semyon Slobounov

Dagmar Sternad


School Of Information Sciences & Technology:

Chao-Hsien Chu


College Of The Liberal Arts:

Gordon De Jong

Irene Harvey


University Libraries:

Jacqueline Esposito


College Of Medicine:

Edward Bollard

Margaret Goldman

Wallace Greene

Kane High


Military Sciences:

Robert Malloy


Eberly College Of Science:

Charles Fisher

David Gilmour

Pablo Laguna

Luen-Chau Li

Victor Nistor   


Retired Faculty Senator:

Judd Arnold


Ex Officio Senator:

Robert Secor


Appointed Senators:

William Cale

David Monk


Student Senators:

Christopher Adams

Valerie Earnshaw

Timothy Gray

Rodney Horton

Matthew Keefe

Gene Petriello

Scott Rhoads

Erica Schwartz

Alexandra Sullivan

Colleen Stimpson

We appreciate all that you have contributed to the Senate and we will miss each one of you. Let us show our thanks to these senators for their good work. (Applause.)


We are pleased today to offer special recognition to four senators who will not be returning to the Senate next year. We will present them with a certificates signed by President Spanier and me acknowledging their years of dedicated service to the Senate. Together they have 76 years of combined service.

I would like to first ask Bill Ellis to come forward. Bill is a Commonwealth College senator at the Hazleton Campus. He has served the Senate for seven years and was chair of the Student Life committee for two years and vice chair for one year. Bill also served on the former Commonwealth Educational System committee and Faculty Affairs. Thank you, Bill. (Applause.)


I’d now like to ask Margaret Goldman to come forward. Margaret is not here?


Will Gordon De Jong please come forward? Gordon is a senator in the College of the Liberal Arts. He has served the Senate for 11 years and was vice chair of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, University Planning, and the Research committees. He has also been an elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee, Senate Council, University P&T and the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. Gordon also served as a member of University Planning and Academic and Athletic Standards committees. Thank you, Gordon. (Applause.)


Will Peter Deines please come forward? Peter is a College of Earth and Mineral Sciences senator. Peter has served the Senate continuously since 1980 when he first served on the Research committee. His years of service total 24. Peter’s leadership in the Senate is truly outstanding. He chaired the University Planning committee in the 90s for five years; he also chaired the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs for four years in the mid 80s and two additional years from 1997-1999. Peter has been a member of ARSSA, Undergraduate Education and has been elected to CC&R, Senate Council, Faculty Advisory Committee and Standing Joint Committee on Tenure. Between 1989 and 1992 Peter was an officer of the Senate, servicing as chair in the 1990-1991 year. Peter, we are grateful for your years of service and are a better organization because of your commitment to faculty governance. Thank you, Peter. (Applause.)


Without objection, I would like to present to the Senate for its consideration the following resolution regarding a person who has had a very special relationship with the Senate for an extended period of time. Bob Secor, will you please come forward? Now I would like to ask John Moore to read a resolution acknowledging Bob Secor’s many contributions to the Senate and the faculty of the University.

John Moore: Whereas Robert Secor—hereafter referred to as Bob Secor—has been a distinguished member of the Penn State faculty since 1969, and


Whereas Bob Secor has published five books and monographs and has written more than 30 articles and chapters for various literary journals that have won him distinction as a scholar in both British and American literature, and


Whereas Bob Secor has served the Department of English as Director of Undergraduate Studies, Graduate Studies, and Associate Head, and then as its Head from 1990-95 ushering in what one distinguished professor called “the era of good will,” and


Whereas Bob Secor during his headship fully involved the campus English faculty in reviewing and voting on departmental governance and curricular reform proposals, thereby tapping their wisdom and winning their deep appreciation, and


Whereas Bob Secor has served the University Faculty Senate since 1986 as chair and vice chair of Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid, an elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President and Committees and Rules, and from 1989 through 1993 as an elected Officer of the Senate, and from 1996 to 2004 on Senate Council and Faculty Affairs involving him in thousands of hours of Senate meetings, and


Whereas Bob Secor has served the entire University community for nine years as Vice Provost for Academic Affairs in such a manner that his retirement has brought about widespread regret, and


Whereas Bob Secor has brought order and clarity to the University’s Promotion and Tenure procedures thereby benefiting all faculty as well as all department and division heads and deans, and



Whereas Bob Secor has brought his leadership skills outside the University to the Committee on Institutional Cooperation where he has guided the Academic Leadership Program, and


Whereas Bob Secor in all his positions has won the admiration, affection, and gratitude of those whose lives he has touched,


Therefore, Be It Resolved that the University Faculty Senate of the Pennsylvania State University on this the 27th day of April 2004 expresses its deepest gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Robert Secor for his many accomplishments on behalf of the University and its faculty. The Senate offers its affectionate and heartfelt best wishes to him as he now turns to bringing order, harmony and good fellowship to other parts of this world. Finally, it wishes him a happy and productive retirement. (Applause.)


Robert Secor, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs: Does this have to be voted on?

Chair Bise: Yes, it does


Robert Secor: I was afraid of that. Thank you all very much. It has been a ride. When John Brighton offered this position to me, one of my major concerns in accepting the position was the ability to be in a position to continue working with the Senate. This is a wonderful Senate. There are things that the University could not do with it, and could not do without it. I just want to end by telling a story that I told the Faculty Affairs committee this morning. It is an indication of what kind of Senate this is and how different it is than some of our peer institutions. Last Wednesday, I came back from Michigan State. I had been there for four days as a reviewer for their English department. While I was there the student newspaper and people were in an uproar, because the provost had sent out a paper several weeks earlier saying she wanted to make several changes. Those changes included taking the Humanities and College of Liberal Arts and putting them in the College of Communications. She wanted to move the Medical School to another location where there were donors, etc. The faculty got very upset, because they were never consulted. Then they decided the Senate had to meet and say something about this. The only thing was, the Senate had not met since 1989. As I was leaving, I was amused to read in the student newspaper that the Faculty Senate would be meeting, and their first order of business would be to approve the minutes from their last meeting in 1989. Thank you all. (Applause.)


Chair Bise: I now would like to ask the Senate for a vote of affirmation on the resolution. All those in favor of affirming the resolution, please signify by saying, “Aye.”

Senators: Aye.


Chair Bise: Bob will also receive a certificate acknowledging his 18 years of service to the Senate. Bob, thank you very much.


I realize that we have a lengthy agenda today, but I would like to take a few minutes to recognize a few individuals before the entire Senate. You have met Cherry Lee Fisher, who recently joined the Senate office staff, but I wish to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who works in the Senate office to provide the University, as a whole, and the Senate, in particular, with high-quality service. Coming in as Senate Chair, I knew that I would enjoy working with Susan Youtz, our Executive Secretary, but her ability to serve as an advisor and as a sounding board for my ideas far exceeded my expectations. Even though she does tend to exaggerate my fondness for Krispy Kreme donuts, her encouragement and wise counsel has been highly valued. Thank you, Susan. The members of the Senate office staff—Patty Poorman, Sherry Walk, Diane Mills, Anna Butler, Kadi Corter and now, Cherry Lee Fisher—are a great group. While handling a workload that would stagger most offices, they handle their jobs with such a pleasant attitude. The Senate is lucky to be supported by such loyal individuals, so I would like to ask Susan, Patty, Sherry, Diane, Anna, Kadi, and Cherry Lee to stand so that the full Senate can express its appreciation. (Applause.)


In my opening remarks last September, I stated that we should strive to be good citizens of the University. One memory I will keep as I step down as Senate Chair is the fact that no senator ever turned me down when I asked for advice or support. High on that list are the committee chairs and vice-chairs. When we were assembling this year’s team eleven months ago, some people in this group had not had an opportunity to demonstrate their leadership skills. I wanted to see more people get involved in the work of the Senate, and since most of the work gets done in committees, I figured that this is where the opportunity should be provided. You didn’t let me down, and I thank you for your diligence.


I want to thank George Franz for agreeing to serve as Parliamentarian, and Dennis Gouran for serving as acting Parliamentarian during the self-study session.


An individual I would particularly like to thank is John Moore. I often said to him that he was working as hard at being Past-Chair as he did as Chair. I am grateful for John’s efforts with the GI legislation, which we will take up later, first-year seminar, and other curricular issues; as well as facilitating the discussion after the Self-Study Report was debated. John has set the bar very high for Past-Chairs, and represents the best in a faculty member and as a citizen of the University. Thank you, John, and thank you to these senators who have worked so selflessly for the good of the Senate! (Applause.)


Finally, there is one more person I would like to acknowledge who is not even a senator. When I think of the type of person who is a student and a citizen of the University, I can think of no one more deserving of that title than Josh Troxell. Josh has stepped down as president of the USG Academic Assembly, but in his years as a “resource person” in the Senate, many have looked upon Josh as the “go-to” guy for student input and membership on various committees, such as the GI report. I do not believe Josh is with us today. Josh is a wonderful and hard-working individual, and a role model for how a student can work within the system to facilitate positive change. Even though Josh is not present, let us show our appreciation for his years working with the Faculty Senate.


Immediately following today’s meeting, you are invited to a reception in 102 Kern to celebrate the completion of another Senate year.



Chair Bise: Agenda Item E, Comments by the President of the University. President Spanier is with us today. I am pleased to invite him to come forward and address the Senate. President Spanier.

President Spanier: Thank you Chris. Someone told Chris he needed to get more exercise, so he is moving back and forth between podiums today. I feel a little inadequate standing up here after hearing the credentials of these students, which are quite amazing, and hearing the resolution about Bob Secor and his incredible career at Penn State. I would like to begin by adding my congratulations to the students and my sincere thanks to Bob for his incredible service to the University and to all of you that have been recognized here today. This Senate does work. It is the best model of faculty governance I know of in this country. Bob’s story about Michigan State might be on one end of the extreme, but more universities are closer to that model than the one we have here. I continue to be grateful for having the Faculty Senate we do, and for the hard work all of you provide on the behalf of the University. Also there will be other opportunities for you to hear this, but I want to take just a moment to thank Chris Bise for his service as Chair of the Senate this past year. We have a tradition of excellent leadership in the Faculty Senate, but Chris, in my mind, will rank up there among the very best. (Applause.) We actually have a student here who has attended three and a half years as representative from the Abington campus. Isn’t that longer than the typical term of a faculty member? He travels up here by himself for every Senate meeting. Will you please stand. That is an amazing story. (Applause.) Thank you for your excellent example.


In the interest of time and the Agenda today, because it is the last Senate meeting, and because I have been told some of you do have questions, I am going to forego a more formal report. At this point, I would like to see what topics you would like me to address today.

Chair Bise: Are there any questions for President Spanier? I remind you to stand and wait for the microphone before you give your name and unit.

Leonard Berkowitz, York: President Spanier, you are no doubt aware that a number of non-University Park locations are facing the possibility of some serious budget problems for the coming year. I have two related questions about that situation. Could you tell how central administration is thinking about working on this problem?

President Spanier: First of all, budget problems are not exclusive to the campuses. We have many units throughout the University that are going through some strains at the moment. At the same time, it is probably true there is nowhere in the University where they are as exasperated as within the Commonwealth College. This is due to a combination of circumstances. If you go back to my fall report, regarding the change in demographics of Pennsylvania, take a look at some of the enrollment challenges that exist at the campuses. For other reasons there are strains on their budget. We are dealing with that in a number of ways. First, we are looking for a way in which we can supply additional permanent support from within the University budget overall to the campuses. There is a plan in the works to try and deal with some of the problem that way. Secondly, we are looking at temporary support, while the Commonwealth College transitions itself to a budget plan that is workable over the long-term. In addition, there are budget cuts and cost savings programs that are going into place at the campuses. Meanwhile, we have added staff to the admissions office dedicated to working harder in attracting students coming out of high school to the Commonwealth Colleges. We hope we can help on the income side that way.

Leonard Berkowitz: Thank you. You mentioned two or three times what may be the most important part of that, which is, recruitment of additional students. Are there plans for the University to increase efforts in advertising campuses around the state? Specifically, to state clearly in that advertisement that there are 20 multiple entry points into Penn State.

President Spanier: Yes, there is a marketing program that we have. We do some advertising and I do not expect we will back away from doing that. I do not know what the specific messages will be. The folks who do the marketing and advertising in cooperation with your dean and others in the college will pay attention to that fact. Yes, of course, that is an important part of what we want to try to do.

Winston Richards, Harrisburg: Dr. Spanier, are you in the position to tell us anything about pending legislation related to the investigation of faculty before they are hired?

President Spanier: What would you like to know—specifically the status of the legislation?

Winston Richards: Yes, please.

President Spanier: I do not know if all of you know this. There has been legislation introduced in Harrisburg, which would require all colleges and universities to do what Penn State is already voluntarily doing. In our opinion, the legislation started out with much more intrusive requirements than we had settled on in consultation with this body. I am glad to say there has been a willingness by the sponsor of that legislation to amend the legislation to be more consistent with the practices that we have voluntarily adopted. I think that will be good for us, because we like the plan we have settled on. Actually, the checking we have already started doing has paid off. Not so much on the criminal side, but one of the problems we see in higher education today is an individual’s credentials turn out not to be what they have alleged. In the very first batch of checking, we found someone who did not have the academic credentials that were shown in the vita. We were very pleased. For those of us in that room, this was a very important finding, more than what some people might have worried about on the criminal background checking. I think the legislation will probably pass, but we are hoping that when all is said and done, it will pass in a way that is close to where we ended up here. Of course, that will be to the benefit of other colleges and universities who have not thought this through, and might have had something imposed on them that might be very difficult. I am not certain we are all the way yet. There is still a little fussing about certain issues that make us nervous, but our governmental affairs officials, Bob Secor, and others are on top of that.

James Alcock, Abington: Our Senate Council has asked me, to raise the issue of termination of tenured faculty. In particular, a clarification about the protection that tenure brings and the procedures that are in place to help protect tenured faculty.

President Spanier: The protection of tenured faculty is pretty well known to most people in this group. Tenure accords certain privileges, responsibilities, and protections, which has been a practice, a custom, a tradition, and a policy of the University that goes pretty far back at Penn State. In all of my years as a university administrator, I never had a single case that I had to act on until this semester where I had two. In both of those cases, they went through a system that is in place, approved by the Faculty Senate, and studiously followed in every way. One that has been talked about previously was resolved by removal of tenure, and then more recently, another faculty member was removed after he was found guilty of engaging in a practice of plagiarism over a period of time. The second one went through the first level of committees, which I can’t remember the name. I believe it is named the Research Scientific Misconduct Committee. After that committee unanimously found that the person had engaged in plagiarism, it then went to the next process. The Standing Joint Committee on Tenure also had a unanimous finding for how that case should turn out. I feel pretty good about the process. I do not think because there have been two cases anyone should be worried about a change in the University’s commitment to tenure. If anything, it should cause faculty colleagues and the Faculty Senate to wonder on the responsibility side; if we are sufficiently diligent about faculty members discharging their responsibilities to their colleagues, to their students, to their universities. When there is plagiarism, scientific misconduct, or behavior that is so egregious that it affects the ability of the rest of the University faculty to do their jobs, that is an issue we should be equally concerned about. So, I hope we think very broadly about the consequences of having had a couple of cases within one semester, which is fairly unprecedented for this University and its history.

Chair Bise: Any other questions?

James May, DuBois: As a follow up to that discussion, I wanted to ask if there was any discussion with regard to a three to two decision, as not showing a sufficient consensus in favor of dismissal or revocation of tenure. I mean if you have five judges and two think the person should stay, as compared to say the American jury system or certain other means of disqualifying a person, it might be felt that is to close too revoke a person’s tenure.

President Spanier: That is an interesting question. You know when we elect people into office in this country, you need a majority vote. Of course, in some cases you do not need that. All of the courts in the land, the Supreme Court and the Commonwealth Court in Pennsylvania just handed Penn State a victory in a case that was contested by a three to two vote. We did not go back and say, because it was not a majority we feel like we lost, so let us say we lost—we won. That is just the way the system works. If we thought all votes had to be unanimous, then we would set the policies to say there must be unanimous votes. This is a university, and you are not going to get everyone to agree on everything. Occasionally, there will be close calls. One of the responsibilities I have, which I exercised in this case, is when I see there is a close call; I take a special interest in it and look even harder at the process and content. I want to make very sure that where the majority turned out is my opinion right. Sometimes a close call makes you take a little harder look. We see that in promotion and tenure cases all of the time. You know I do not need to get involved in very many of those cases, except the ones where after six levels of review, where it is back and forth, back and forth, or every vote is close. You say there must be something going on here, that good people can have honest differences of opinion about. In the end you just have to make a judgment. In that case, the majority was the correct judgment in my opinion.

Chair Bise: Any other questions?

Howard Sachs, Harrisburg: Dr. Spanier, I wonder if you had any reaction to the vote of the faculty senate at Princeton, with the respect to awarding of “A” grades.

President Spanier: Princeton is a different place than Penn State. I think giving someone a “B” at Princeton must be a serious issue. I think many of you have been quite willing to give “B” along the way. I do not see it as the same issue here. At a general level, yes, if you go back and trace the history of Penn State in the last 20, 30, certainly 40 years, there has been grade inflation. There is some percentage of that, which does not worry me, because we are attracting better students. In fact, we are attracting better-prepared students. It is more competitive in the classrooms as our faculty get better, and we may be teaching better, so students are responding to that and performing better. So it is not inherently bad that there would be a little grade inflation that way. What we are concerned about is the other part of grade inflation, where faculty are reluctant to give a grade that honestly should be a “B”, “C”, “D” or “F.” Clearly, looking at the data, Princeton’s grade inflation appears to be much more exacerbated than here. Frankly, I do not know how you can mandate a particular array of grades. I do not know how they do that there. If you would all like, I would be happy to prescribe to you what I think your grade distribution should be, however, I think that would not work because faculty do not listen to presidents when it comes to that sort of thing. I think it is something we need to be mindful of. One of the ways in which we are, is one committee of the Senate produces a report regarding grade distribution and how we are doing. I am aware we have a few crackpot faculty members, taking a little license here, who have certain policies that make me nervous. There are some faculty members who are known for giving “A” to just about every student. There are also some faculty members who take great pride, I think, in the number of students they give low grades to. Those kinds of things, where there is a certain philosophy attached to it, makes me a little nervous. I think you are talking about a very small number of individuals. Most of our faculty have good standards, a pretty open mind, and try to do the right thing.

Chair Bise: Are there any other questions for President Spanier? Seeing none, thank you President Spanier for meeting with us today.









Chair Bise: We now turn to Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports. Our first Legislative Report comes to us from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix B and is entitled, “Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules: Constitution Article II, Section 4; Faculty Senator Representation Ratio.” Because this report proposed a change to the Senate Constitution, it appeared on the March Agenda and has been tabled until this meeting. Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, will present this report.





Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules: Constitution

Article II, Section 4; Faculty Senator Representation Ratio


Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Pamela P. Hufnagel: Thank you. We presented this report last month, so if you thought of any questions in the meantime, this is your last chance.

Chair Bise: Are there any questions? Seeing none, since this report comes to us from a committee, it has already been moved and seconded. Are we ready to vote? As many as are in favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules entitled, “Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules: Constitution Article II, Section 4; Faculty Senator Representation Ratio,” please signify by saying, “Aye.”

Senators: Aye.

Chair Bise: Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved the proposal from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules entitled, “Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules: Constitution Article II, Section 4; Faculty Senator Representation Ratio.” This report will now be sent to the President for his approval. Thank you, Chair Hufnagel and thanks to all members of your committee.


Chair Bise: The next Legislative Report is a joint report from the Senate Committees on Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix C and is entitled, “Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement.” John Moore, Chair of the special Conference Committee charged last December, will present this report. Laura Pauley, Chair of Undergraduate Education and Laurie Breakey, Vice Chair of Curricular Affairs, will join John at the podium and respond to questions.





Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement


John Moore, Chair Conference Committee

Laura Pauley, Chair Undergraduate Education

Laurie Breakey, Vice Chair Curricular Affairs

John Moore: I need as much help as I can get. I am surrounding myself with people so I won’t get assaulted if they throw things at me. Let me begin by saying, you have a handout entitled, “Revisions to the Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement,” and it contains three revisions. The first revision on Page 7, Paragraph 2 asks you to revise the following: “A course that fulfills the United States Cultures requirement must strive to increase students’ understanding of contemporary United States society.” There will be a period after the word “society.” Then cross out the last three words and almost all of the next line down to the next sentence. Such courses need not focus exclusively on the present and may concern a historical subject. This is done in order to make that statement parallel to the statement below on International Cultures, and constitutes a friendly amendment from Undergraduate Education.

The second revision on Page 9, under Item Number 2 entitled, “Other Existing Courses,” count down six lines from the top of that page to the sentence that begins: “For courses taught at multiple locations.” That sentence should read: “For offerings of the same course at multiple locations, the college offering the course will determine the designation.”

Finally on Pages 8 and 9, just to indicate that people have not yet recovered from re-certification shock, there has been a desire that we spell out clearly what process will be used if we approve this proposal. Basically, what it says is that the Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction, who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator. At the request of a number of senators, we are asking that this appear after Item Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6, just so there is no confusion on that point.

The Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, propose that the Senate adopt its recommendation found on Page 6 of Appendix C in today’s Agenda. The heart of the recommendation reads as follows: “Replace the current Intercultural/International Competency requirement (three credits) for baccalaureate degree students with the following two requirements: United States Cultures (three credits) and International Cultures (three credits) as described below and as implemented according to the Principles of Implementation stated below. Associate degree students will continue to have a three-credit requirement and may choose either a United States Cultures course or an International Cultures course.”

Why are we making this recommendation? We do so for the following reasons: The Senate voted in December 1997 to review continuously each part of the General Education program. Today we review one part of that, the GI requirement. In the pipeline there are reports on the First Year Seminar and on the Health and Physical Activity requirements with more to come in future years.

The Intercultural/International requirement, or GI, contains a slash that means either Intercultural or International. Events of the past few years including 9/11 have made it clear that our students need and want a course in both United States Cultures as well as International Cultures. In that respect, we are fulfilling what the 1997 report was moving towards but had not yet reached.

In April 2001, there was a student sit-in at the HUB. At that time, the President, Provost, and Chair of the Senate promised that the Senate would review the GI requirement. Today, we are fulfilling that promise made three years ago.

In the process of reviewing the current GI requirement, a series of Senate committees have concluded that our students would have a much better General Educational experience if they had both a United States Cultures course and an International Cultures course. What we propose will make General Education a richer educational program. We also think that the proposed changes are the right thing to do.

The Conference Committee appointed by Chair Bise has worked hard to make what is academically desirable also academically feasible. The changes we propose can be accomplished without increasing graduation requirements, and without requiring lots of paperwork on your part. The committee has consulted widely and learned a lot through these interactions. We are pleased that the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity, the leadership of Gye N’Yame, a division of the black caucus, and the Commission on LGBT Equity have all signified their enthusiastic support for this proposed enrichment of the curriculum.

For all these reasons, we are pleased to present this proposal to you for your approval, and for what we hope will be your support. Are there any questions?

Peter Rebane, Abington: John, I know the answer to this question, but I would like to read it into the Record. Are we to understand that courses designated as Cultural Diversity courses, that are initiated and proposed at any location at University Park, will be accepted at other locations if the student transfers to those particular locations? It will make no difference whether they start at one location and come to University Park or if they start at University Park and come to another location. For example, this section of history has a designation of Cultural Diversity at Abington, but it doesn’t meet the requirements of Liberal Arts at University Park. I know what your answer is going to be, but I would appreciate this read into the Record.

John Moore: The answer is yes. If Abington designates a particular section of a course as United States, that will be accepted as such wherever the student goes. Let me provide a good example of what we are talking about. Let us imagine that a student takes a first-year seminar at Abington in History 083S. Some sections of that history seminar will be United States and some sections will be International. It will be the responsibility of the dean and staff at Abington to give the proper designation to that first-year seminar. Some will be 083S, or whatever icon or marker we come up with, called United States and others will be called International. That will be on the transcript, and therefore, will go with that student wherever they go. It will be accepted at every location.

John Hannan, Engineering: I was actually rather disappointed with the report, specifically the justification. We are looking at not a major change, but a significant one in that it impacts all four-year undergraduate students. For that reason, you should be clear on the facts of the justification. You listed three points in your justification. One is to provide a better education, which sounds good to me. The next one states the current title has created some confusion. That is not a justification for changing requirements. That is a justification for changing the title, so that one is irrelevant. The third one states, you provide students with more choices. You are actually providing them with less choice by dividing the requirements into two groups and they choose one from each. So that one is not really important. The first one is important, to provide a better education. Unfortunately, you provide two paragraphs with no facts in them. Specifically, if I look above to the 1997 legislation on Page 3, Item Number 4, it specifically says, “to assess the impact of these courses through students’ or graduates’ perspectives on the influence the courses had on their attitudes, behavior or academic choices.” My understanding is that no assessment was done. It that correct? So why was no assessment done and why did you not use any statistical data in deciding this proposal?

John Moore: First of all, in 1997 when the Special Committee on General Education submitted its report in this room it had ten recommendations. Recommendation 10 called for assessment. I had the opportunity to serve on the General Education Implementation Committee and for a variety of reasons we did not institute assessment. Allow me to establish that you are absolutely right. There is no assessment, there is no statistical data operating behind this report. However, the justification we are operating on was a very emphatic sit-in by the students in the HUB calling for a review of this requirement. They spoke loud and clear during that time, and we heard them. When we listened to them, what was discovered is the precise absence of a United States requirement. That was the hole in our curriculum. I must tell you that three committees came to that conclusion. We do not have a sufficiently broad program in regard to preparing students in multi-culturalism. So the idea that there was no data, no assessment, you are absolutely right. However, did we have evidence, did we have reasons for what we are doing? Yes, we did, and it was loud and clear and sustained by three separate Senate committees who have reviewed this topic.

John Hannan: I would argue that is all the more reason to do the assessment. Then you would get a full scope of the entire student population, not a specific group. To put it into perspective, the point of providing better education, we are all for that. I can list three items that could also provide a better education. For example, we have a General Education requirement (GQ) that does not involve computing, but I could argue we would have a better education if we required everyone to know computers because we are all going out into the world computing. There is no requirement for United States history. Now this would be a dramatic change, but I could argue very strongly that we should have a United States history requirement. In fact, the United States Senate in July 2000 issued a resolution asking all universities to revise their curriculum to contain United States history. So there are plenty of other opportunities and I am hopeful other committees will do that. However, every time we make one change it makes it more difficult to make future changes if we are adding more requirements. I am wondering did you really consider all of this?

Laura Pauley: The University has not had assessment of these two objectives, but different colleges have. For example, the College of Engineering has gone through extensive assessment of their entire programs. They have surveyed their current graduates and graduate seniors who are graduating this semester. In addition, alumni surveys have asked those students to evaluate their preparation in working on international projects, working with other people, other groups of people, and other cultures. Those are just two questions from pages of questions on the survey. The results from those two questions were some of the most dramatic. They showed these were very important skills that the students needed in their job. However, they were not well prepared through their education. So although they are not University assessment, I think individual groups have concrete evidence as well as anecdotal evidence.

Chair Bise: Any other questions?

Paul Becker, Behrend: I wanted to repeat a question one of my students asked. Yesterday in class I gave them a quick overview of this and asked what they would think about it. One of my students said, “Why should we care? What is really going to happen is they will add a little fluff to a freshman course and call it General Education?” Would it be possible for this to be done without Paragraph 2 on Page 9? Which essentially says, one option is to add a little fluff to a freshman General Education course. Is that possible?

John Moore: Let me talk about Paragraph 2. When we were working our way through this report there were several engineers on our committee. What was continually stressed to us is engineers have a highly structured curriculum. So we supposedly had this student, who I will call Nicole Nittany. Nicole is a first year engineering student at York campus. Her intention is to request a change of assignment to University Park for her junior year. Those of us who are not engineers on the committee were told it is very important for Nicole to have completed most of her General Education courses prior to coming to University Park. With that in mind, we realized we had to make a lot of courses available, which up to this point, were not.

Notice the language in Item Number 2, Paragraph 2, “Departments offering General Education skills courses that are not now included in GI will be encouraged to designate a limited number of sections in which at least 25 percent of the material satisfies one or the other requirement. Such sections of skills courses will be taught primarily by faculty or by specially trained instructors. This option will be primarily useful for those locations where it may be hard to meet the requirement by way of Knowledge Domain courses.” In other words, it is not our intention, nor are we suggesting that it is our intention, that suddenly 100 percent of English 15 courses would be taught under this rubric. Our intention is to provide this option to academic administrators and faculty at certain locations. They will have to make the judgment on the needs of their students.

For example, would Nicole’s need be best met by offering several sections of 15 that met United States Cultures or International Cultures. For a variety of reasons, it is unlikely that we would offer many sections like that here at University Park. One reason being that we don’t have experience tenured line faculty teaching English 15. The English Department has committed itself to training a number of people to take on this task, if necessary. We see this as an option, as a safeguard, as a way of making sure that people like Nicole do not lose out. It is not regarded as a standard section of English 15.

I would tell your student back at Erie, that we are not trying to water down this requirement, we are not trying to think of a way to do it on the cheap, we are not trying to be unconscientious in making sure that these courses are not all that they should be. That is how I would respond to her or him.

Laurie Breakey: There are currently sections of English 15 that are taught in this way. I think is appropriate to recognize that those courses are taught with an emphasis in United States Cultures or International Cultures.

Chair Bise: Any other questions?

Jeffrey Corbets, Engineering: Let us put a name and face to this student Nicole Nittany. I am Jeff Corbets and my major is aerospace engineering. To graduate I have to have ever so slightly less than 140 credits, which means to graduate in four years I have to take somewhere between 16 ½ and 18 ½ credits per semester. In the Aerospace Undergraduate Handbook it lists out exactly what courses I need to take in each semester to graduate. One of these semesters might look like ED&G 100, E MCH 013, M E 030, PHYS 213 and 214, one course with 1.5 credits from the General Education’s health and physical activity requirement and one GH course. Somewhere in that schedule, I will have to find a way to put in another three credits to count as United States Cultures or International Cultures. So obviously, I am going to have to double dip.

John Moore: At the current moment every student at the University has to take a three credit GI requirement. It was the intention of the General Education Committee that GI courses would always be double counted. That was our intention at the outset. This is not an additional three credits on your education. This indicates one way of fulfilling your 18 credits that are required of you in arts, humanities and social sciences, by taking one of those six courses that was both Humanities and a GI. This proposal is asking that you take two courses that you would normally take anyway, lets say, arts, humanities and social sciences plus either United States Cultures or International Cultures. This does not increase your graduation requirement.

Jeffrey Corbets: Correct, it does not add credits but it limits the number of courses I can select to fulfill the three credit GH requirement.

John Moore: Yes, you are correct. You can either say it limits, or you could it say it helps you define more precisely what you have to do.

Jeffrey Corbets: How you word it is just semantics. In the end, if the goal of this is to make our students more broad, every aerospace engineer is going to be in the exact same boat. We are all going to take the same class that counts, double dips for the United States Cultures or International Cultures. How is that making aerospace engineers that graduate from Penn State more broad? I think it is making them all the same.

John Moore: Let us just say for a moment, that the section of English 15 that all of the aerospace engineers were taking was a section devoted to United State Cultures. That 80 percent of the readings in that course where going to be in African American literature and another 20 percent where going to be in Latino literature. My feeling is that would be a profitable way to spend 15 weeks. Everyone would sit and have a chance to talk, think, and write about these issues.

Laurie Breakey: You have to consider other existing courses. It doesn’t always mean General Education courses. It also could mean upper level courses. You might have an International Aerospace Course.

Jeff Corbets: Could you elaborate how many structures in aerospace engineering courses are going to be International courses?

Laurie Breakey: It could have 25 percent of an international focus. You could study other space stations. For example, I teach business and you could say Intro Marketing has 25 percent of United States Cultures with emphasis on demographics. We need to propose that to our dean and get the designation. It is not all focused on General Education courses. It is wide open for every class.

Jeff Corbets: Right, with business and marketing courses it is a little bit easier than when you have a demographic of 150 worldwide astronauts. It is going to be really hard for some majors to implement. I am wondering how well did you really look at aerospace engineering and chemical engineering, the majors that have 139 credits to graduate?

Howard Sachs: I have to say when this proposal was first discussed a couple of years ago, I wasn’t wildly enthusiastic about it. However, in the last year or so, my colleagues developed two courses in the field of engineering. One of the courses is qualified already. The other one will qualify undoubtedly for GI requirement. One is in a sustainable development area in mechanical engineering. The other is a course in environmental engineering, which will have 25 percent or more of the material on social issues attendant with technology, alternative technology, and socioeconomic issues. You see, it can be done. Now maybe it cannot be done in aerospace engineering, and then you use the English 15 or arts and humanities. I can tell you, with some thought by my colleagues in engineering, we can rethink how we teach some of these courses to broaden the focus and apply for the appropriate GI designation.

Beverly Vandiver, College of Education: I am really glad to hear this discussion today, and for my colleagues to be entertaining and asking such tough questions. I served on the special Conference Committee and I must say it was a challenge to try to figure out how to hammer this out. I hope that one of the things we think about, especially the aerospace engineering student, is whether the challenge of a good education is to build an infrastructure around inclusiveness. I feel that is what this report is all about—one of trying to develop an infrastructure of inclusiveness, and that we have to start some place. You need to be visionary, hoping that it builds to another place. There are going to be wrinkles in this, but I hope that people will try to figure out ways to make it work and I agree with the person. I teach statistics and there are ways to contextualize numbers, otherwise, even science is lived in a vacuum. I would hope that if you are going to be interacting with astronauts and people from other countries, that a little bit of history with a dose of diversity and a little bit of Women’s Studies will go a long way in terms of translating that scientific knowledge in a positive way. Thank you.

Leonard Berkowitz: The discussion that has been going on makes me think it may be useful to get on the Record the discussion you and I have had over the last couple of days. That is how courses get onto this list. In the first group would be those currently designated GI, they are automatically on this list if this passes. The second is courses that already meet these requirements under their current versions, but are not GI. They can easily get on the list, if I understand this correctly, but that is when no change is made to this course. The third kind is specific sections of versions of courses that are made in that offering to fit these requirements. There is also an easy way to get those offerings onto the list. The final one is the one you were just talking about, which is if you want to modify a course on a permanent basis so it gets on to the list, that one would take a full curricular review, and the reason that becomes so important is then that would require that all the faculty at all locations that are involved in teaching that course be involved in that review process. Is that correct?

John Moore: That is correct.

Chair Bise: Any other questions?

Joseph Cecere, Harrisburg: John, I think I asked this to you earlier. If a student was transferring from another college to a Penn State campus for their baccalaureate degree, and had already met all their General Education requirements, and they came to Penn State and found out they now need something called a GI course in United States history. Will they need to complete six more credits?

John Moore: I am sorry, could you please repeat that question?

Joseph Cecere: If a student is transferring into a Penn State baccalaureate and he or she already has all their General Education completed, and he or she is coming to a major that does not have any GI or United States Cultures in the major, then he or she will have to take six more credits of something, is that correct?

John Moore: As a long time academic advisor, I think what would likely happen when a student transfers into Penn State from another school is that the student has taken courses at that school which fulfilled their General Education introductory requirements. My assumption is there would be an inclination to accommodate that student. I have certainly done that type of thing lots of times over the years. I do not think these requirements are designed to punish a student. It is designed to provide an enlightened experience for people who take them. If I were that student’s advisor, I would make out a course substitution form, stating I am accepting the NYU course for the Penn State course. I do not think the thrust of this legislation, nor do I think the thrust of the University advising program, is to make it more difficult for students to graduate. I feel the intent is to figure out a way making it possible for a student to graduate, not to create impediments to graduation. So Joe, that is how I would answer your question.

Laurie Breakey: From the Curricular Affairs Committee, I need to respond to something that Leonard Berkowitz said. Other Existing Courses means the original course proposal has to have this 25 percent content. It has to be the original course proposal that is on file with Curricular Affairs. That is the one that you look at to see if it has the 25 percent content. If it is a different course than the original course proposal, you will have to submit the new course proposal or course change proposal to meet the requirement. So it is the original course proposal.

Chair Bise: Are there any additional questions? Seeing none, since this report comes from a special committee it has already been moved and seconded. Are we ready to vote? As many as are in favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education entitled, “Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement,” please signify by saying, “Aye.”

Senators: Aye.

Chair Bise: Opposed?

Senators: Scattered Nays (a few).

Chair Bise: The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved the proposal from the Senate Committees on Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education entitled, “Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement.” This report will now be sent to the President for his approval and implementation. Thank you, Chair Moore and thanks to the members of the Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education Committees.

Our final Legislative Report for today comes from the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics. It appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix D and is entitled, “Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes.” Intercollegiate Athletics Committee Chair, Martin Pietrucha, will introduce this report.




Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes


Martin Pietrucha, Chair Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

Martin Pietrucha: Thank you, Chris. I would like to point out that there is one small change on the report located on Page 3, Paragraph 2. The paragraph should read, “A student-athlete shall represent the University in an intercollegiate athletic contest only if the student has acquired the designated number of credits at the end of each appropriate semester (in residence) as follows:” That change is by way of a friendly amendment.

Chair Bise: Are there any questions?

Diane Disney, Commonwealth College: I apologize for not checking into this before, but we have three different ways that a student can participate in intercollegiate athletics. The first one is by being a student at University Park in Division One NCAA. The second one is by participating at two other campus colleges that are Division Three. The third option is at seventeen other locations that are not yet NCAA. Does this proposal address all of those or just University Park?

Martin Pietrucha: At this moment the 67-00 rule addresses all locations. This morning at the Intercollegiate Athletics committee meeting, it was discussed that next year we are going to take a major look at Senate Policy 67-00, as it relates to all the different locations of the University. There have been some comments from the Faculty Athletic Representatives from various locations other than University Park that there are sections of 67-00 that do not work well at non-University Park locations. We feel this needs a very serious look from a combined group of Faculty Athletic Representatives, athletic directors, and campus executive officers. This needs to be looked at in greater detail, but specifically, this report was addressed to concerns at University Park. The reduced number of credits should actually help the situation at non-University Park locations.

Chair Bise: Any other questions? Seeing none, since this report comes from a committee, it has already been moved and seconded. Are we ready to vote? As many as are in favor of the legislation from the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics entitled, “Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes,” please signify by saying, “Aye.”

Senators: Aye.

Chair Bise: Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved this legislation from the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics entitled, “Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes.” This report will now be sent to the President for his approval. Thank you, Chair Pietrucha and thanks to all members of you committee.




Chair Bise: Agenda Item I, Informational Reports. If there are no objections, I would like to move the Senate Committee Intercollegiate Athletics report that was carried over from our March Senate meeting to the top of our Informational Reports. It appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix H.







Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Integration of Intercollegiate Athletics with the University Community.



Promotion and Tenure Summary 2002-2003. This annual report from the Faculty Affairs Committee was presented by Vice Provost Robert Secor.  The report tracks cohorts by location, gender and minority/non-minority designation entering the tenure-track over a seven-year period.



Paid Parental Leave for Faculty. This report jointly sponsored by the Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits Committees gives major changes to HRG 18, based on studies showing that tenure-track and tenured women are disproportionately disadvantaged, both personally and professionally, when they have children.  The report was presented by Vice Provost Robert Secor.



Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2003-2004. Gary Catchen, Vice Chair of Faculty Benefits Committee and Chair of the Salary Subcommittee, presented this report. Tables for the Faculty Benefits report comparing Penn State salaries with other universities may be found at




Report on Salary Equity, Academic Year 2003-2004. The Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations sponsored a report on salary equity that includes data from the Pennsylvania College of Technology and offers comparisons across various Penn State colleges.  Alfred Mueller, Chair of the Salary Equity subcommittee, presented this report.

Trends and Patterns in the Use of Full and Part-Time Fixed Term Faculty. This report was also sponsored by the Intra-University Relations Committee and provides data on the use of part-time and non-tenure-line faculty at Penn State, CIC and other universities.  The report discusses the implications of the use of such faculty for academic life at Penn State and concludes with a series of questions for the Senate and the larger University to consider. Barbara Wiens-Tuers, Chair of the Full and Part-time Faculty subcommittee, presented this report.




Summary of Spring 2004 Officers’ University Park Visits. This report discusses findings from the Senate Officers’ visits to five units.  Jamie Myers, Senate Secretary, presented this report.




Status of Construction at Locations Other Than University Park. The University Planning committee sponsored this report on six construction projects at campus college locations.  Mark Bodenschatz, Director of Commonwealth Services, gave a PowerPoint presentation.


Chair Bise: The next item on our Agenda is entitled, “Report of Senate Election.” Jamie Myers, Chair of the Elections Committee and Secretary of the Senate, will announce the election results.




Secretary Myers: Thank you, Chris. I have a number of election results to report, but before I do, I would like to thank very much the members of the Senate staff and the members of the election committee who helped with the recent elections.


The first is the election for Senate Council 2004-2005 Senate year. E. Jay Holcom, College of Agricultural Sciences; Kristin Sommese, Arts and Architecture; John Spychalski, Smeal College of Business Administration; Terry Engelder, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; Dorothy Evensen, College of Education; Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering; Robert Ricketts, College of Health and Human Development; Dennis Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts; Wayne Marshall, College of Medicine; Peter Jurs, Eberly College of Science; Debora Cheney will represent University Libraries, combined departments of Military Science, College of Communications, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Dickinson School of Law, and the Great Valley Graduate Center; James Smith, Abington College; Mila Su, Altoona College; Ronald McCarty, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College; Andrew Romberger, Berks-Lehigh Valley College; Howard Sachs, Capital College; Tom Glumac, Commonwealth College.


Next is the Committee on Committees and Rules, five members were elected to serve a two-year term. They are as follows: Melvin Blumberg, Lynn Carpenter, Pamela Hufnagel, Deidre Jago, and Nancy Wyatt.


The University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, three members were elected to serve a two-year term. They are as follows: Subhash Chander, Earth and Mineral Sciences; Mary Tevethia, Medicine; and Jose Ventura, Engineering.


New members of the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, Secretary Myers, chair of the Elections Commission presented the results. They are as follows: John Johnson was elected for a three-year term; Adam Sorkin was elected for a one-year term; Bonj Szczygiel an alternate for a three-year term; and Nicholas Joukovsky an alternate for a two-year term.


For the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, we have three categories. All positions are for three-year terms.


Faculty from University Park: Sallie McCorkle, Arts and Architecture, Member; Cynthia Brewer, Earth and Mineral Sciences, Alternate.


Faculty Other than University Park: Melvin Blumberg, Capital College, Member.


Deans: John Burke, Behrend College, Member; Richard Durst, Arts and Architecture, Alternate.


Elected members of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President are as follows: Caroline Eckhardt, Liberal Arts, received the greatest number of votes and will serve a three-year term. Mark Casteel, Commonwealth College, York, received the next greatest number of votes and will serve a two-year term.


For the office of Secretary of the Senate, Dawn Blasko, Behrend College.


For Chair-Elect of the Senate, Jamie Myers, Education.


Thank you. Congratulations to everyone.



Chair Bise:
Now we turn to the seating of our new officers. Secretary Dawn Blasko is not able to be with us today, because she is in Spain presenting a paper. Chair-Elect Myers, please move to your new seat.


Kim, please come to the podium. Jamie and Kim, I have really enjoyed working with you this year. I wish both of you all the best in the future, and I know you will do a fine job. Kim, you are now the chair of the University Faculty Senate. I am pleased to present you with the gavel you will use throughout the year to keep us in order.




Now, I am sure some of you thought when it was announced last year that Kim Steiner was elected chair-elect that there are going to be problems. We have a professor of Forest Biology and a professor of Mining Engineering working together. I mean after all, a tree hugger and a coal miner. The truth of the matter is, the two of us were not that far apart. We both consider ourselves conservationist in our own ways. So I thought just to show solidarity between our two fields, I’d try to get something to show the respect miners have for people in forestry. I had real trouble finding something. I finally found a bumper sticker that I thought would work well. It says, “Strip mining prevents forest fires.” (Laughter.) Kim, you can put this on your car. I did not think that was enough, and I did not think he would put that on his car. So I thought, what are you going to do when you are a forester, you are out in the woods, and now you are the chair of the Senate? Mother Nature needs to know that you have a position of importance. In keeping with the importance, and to be sure Mother Nature knows you are an important guy, I had a hat made for you. It is made out of camouflage material and says, “Chair, Faculty Senate Office.” Kim, wear it with pride.


Senators: Applause.




Thank you, Chris. I want you to come back up here, because I would like to discuss the similarities and difference between mining engineers and foresters. First of all, I want to say a few things about this transition from last year to this year. I have to say, as I sat in Jamie’s position 12 months ago, I had a hard time seeing how I would be prepared for this moment. I had a hard time seeing that, but the Senate leadership did not have a hard time seeing that. They saw it very clearly, because there are systems in place to bring us along in that role, and now, 12 months later, I feel almost comfortable. In large measure this is because of the helpful advice, and assistance that I received from Chris Bise, and other members of the Senate leadership over the past 12 months. So Chris, thank you I very much enjoyed our year together. If you would like to continue this relationship by going with us on our fall campus visits, you are welcome to come along.


Susan, thank you. I have appreciated your help. I am certain I will appreciate it even more over the next 12 months.


John Moore, sitting in the back. I have to mention you, because you have also been very helpful.


Jamie, and Dawn wherever you are in Spain, I look forward to working with you this next year.


One of the really enriching aspects of Senate service is the opportunity to learn about the entire University and its varied faculty and campus cultures. Officers particularly have a chance to do this through our numerous visits to other university campuses and colleges. Those visits, I have to say, over the past several months have been perhaps the most pleasurable part of being chair-elect, if exhausting. I especially had fun doing this with Chris, Susan, and Jamie, even if we got lost on every trip. I have to tell you, Chris was usually in the front seat when this happened. In fact, we always got lost when you were in the front seat. Sometimes, we even got lost when he was not in the front seat.


It is fascinating to spend long hours on the road with people who come from different academic backgrounds. For example, I learned that what we call “soil” in the College of Agricultural Sciences is called “dirt” in the rest of the University. That was really appalling to me to hear that. For example, somebody in the College of Agricultural Sciences would say “gardeners dig in the soil and get dirty.” Someone from Liberal Arts, John, might say “gardeners dig in the dirt and get soiled.” These are differences that are interesting. Then I found in Earth and Mineral Sciences, they do not use the term soil or dirt at all. It is called “overburden.” When we drove through some parts of east-central and western Pennsylvania, I noticed that Chris became more and more animated in words and gesture, exactly in proportion to the barrenness of the landscape. When we drove through stretches of what is left of Penn’s woods, my interest would pick up. But in the woods, with no strip mine in sight, Chris would become subdued, seemingly depressed and even morose. I am here to bear witness that Chris Bise seems to love coal mines. While we are all different, this made our trips interesting.


Now, you may know that Chris has recently moved into a new house in a new development. It is an area that is largely void of trees, and maybe Chris prefers it that way. However, in the spirit of goodwill and good stewardship, I would like to give him a little encouragement toward reforestation by offering him this small gift of a small seedling. Remember the smaller the seedling the greater the potential.


Outgoing Chair Bise: Kim, you know you are committing this to death.


Incoming Chair Steiner: Chris, I thought of that. Here are two seeds as backup.


One more thing. Chris has been in leadership positions before, and I would like to particularly draw your attention to his former role as drum major for the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets marching band, known as the Highty-Tighties. (Laughter.) From this photo of Chris in action in 1972, to today’s occasion, he has graduated from leading scores of people who are in lock step with the man in front to leading hundreds who most certainly are not. But the job is much the same. The leader gets most of the attention, the followers are doing all the real work, and everyone is blowing his own horn. So, Chris, I would like to give you a PhotoShop update of this image, now with a bit of a Penn State theme, as an ornament for the office.


Carrying on with the Agenda.








Chair Steiner: Are there any comments?


Cynthia Mara, Harrisburg: I have asked the Senate to adopt a resolution that states, “The Penn State University Faculty Senate commends the Penn State students who have pledged $10 million toward the Pediatric Center Pavilion, a facility for children with cancer, that is to be developed within the Penn State Children’s Hospital in Hershey. This pavilion will enable children to receive most of their cancer care in one place.”


Chair Steiner: I understand that you are reading this into the Record, and that the Senate is not proposing to adopt a resolution on this statement. Are there any other comments?


I’d like to remind you again to attend the reception across the hall in 102 Kern.





Chair Steiner: May I have a motion to adjourn?


Senators: So moved.


Chair Steiner: All in favor, please say, “Aye.”


Senators: Aye.


Chair Steiner: Motion carries. The April 27, 2004, meeting of the University Faculty Senate was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.


Please note that the next meeting of the University Faculty Senate will take place on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in 112 Kern Graduate Building.

Appendices to Senate Record


Back to top
Go to Faculty Senate Homepage