Members Absent Without Representation:
Cheeke, Cowles, Daniels, Elwood, Farnsworth, Foster, Frank, Gregerson, Hale, Huyer, Jepson, Leong, Levine, Lomax, Longerbeam, Mallory-Smith, Powelson, Reed, Righetti, Riven, Rose, Schowalter, and van der Mars
Faculty Senate Officers/Staff Present:
M. Niess, President; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Administrative Assistant
Guests of the Senate:
B. Balz, M. Fraundorf, E. Fritzell, A. Hashimoto, G. Hobart, N. Hoffman, Z. Holmes, H. Hoogesteger, D. Johnson, R. Landau, P. Lee, F. Miller, L. Pinto, S. Prock, M. Prucha, J. Ringle, J. Schuster, R. Schwartz, M. Spraggins, B. Stroh meyer, and C. VanAlstine
The Class of 1998, OSU's 129th graduating class, had 481 seniors who qualify for Academic Distinction and included 237 'cum laude' (gpa 3.50–3.69), 132 'magna cum laude' (gpa 3.70–3.84), and 112 'summa cum laude' (gpa 3.85 and above).
Motion 98-539-01 to approve the proposed list of degree candidates and honors passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Category I Proposals
Bob Burton, Curriculum Council Chair, presented two Category I proposals for approval: 1) Consolidation of Two Existing Baccalaureate Degree Programs Into a New Program Leading to the Bachelor of Science in Fisheries & Wildlife Science and 2) a name change from the Department of Agricultural Chemistry to the Depart-ment of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology.
Burton indicated that the Fisheries & Wildlife Science proposal is revenue neutral and was unanimously approved by the Curriculum Council. Consolidation of the Fisheries Science and Wildlife Science degrees will allow the department to have one degree with many options.
Senator Fisk, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, questioned the omission of oceanic courses in the proposal. Erik Fritzell, Fisheries & Wildlife Department Head, responded that the degree program has marine fisheries courses taught at the Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC). He also noted that students who take the specialty option with the title "marine" in it, would be required to attend the courses at HMSC. However, they are not required courses for all students. Senator Fisk commented that no oceanic courses at the 100400 level are offered in the program. Fritzell felt that there will be more students choosing to take oceanic courses, as well as other disciplines. This program will be a much more student centered curriculum which will require more advising.
Senator Fisk moved that a 300 level oceanographic course, specifically OC 331, be added to the Fishery Science Option in the grouping of classes containing Z 361, ENT 433 and FW 494; motion was seconded. In response to Senator Coakley questioning what the class was, Fisk indicated Introduction to Oceanography was a junior level course in all aspects of marine science.
Senator Thies, Science, felt that OC 331 was too general and not appropriate for this purpose.
Senator Mix, Science, felt that fine tuning the proposal should be up to the department or committee rather than the Faculty Senate.
Motion 98-539-03 to amend the Fishery Science Option to add OC 331 was defeated by voice vote with one vote in favor.
Senator Manogue, Science, commented that it appears there is quite a lot of curriculum reform in the proposal and questioned what is new or different about the proposal. Fritzell felt that the biggest change was the way in which education is approached, consisting of more integration and by engaging students in the process of developing their own education. There is also an additional internship requirement and a group problem-solving exercise.
Motion 98-539-02 to approve the Consolidation of Two Existing Baccalaureate Degree Programs Into a New Program Leading to the Bachelor of Science in Fisheries & Wildlife Science passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
In relation to the second proposal, Burton noted that every Agricultural Chemistry course above the 400 level has the word "toxicology" or "environment" in its title. There are two basic types of researchers in the department, Environmental Toxicologists and Molecular Toxicologists. The name change is aimed at bringing the department up to date and to make it consistent with the professional communities.
A comment from the audience indicated that the structure looks like a nightmare and questioned if there has been any consideration to simplify the proposal. Ian Tinsley, Agricultural Chemistry Chair, indicated that toxicology interacts across a wide range of biological emphasis and two centers listed in the proposal have been very involved in the toxicology program for a number of years. He didn't feel the structure was a major issue since faculty in the center programs are already involved in the toxicology program.
Motion 98-539-04 to rename the Department of Agricultural Chemistry to the Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Burton then provided an update on the Category I proposals which were postponed in January. The Environmental Sciences proposal is fairly far along and is being studied by the College of Science Curriculum Committee; it is expected to be on the table at the November Senate meeting.
The Natural Resources proposal is not as far along and may take longer to reach the approval stage.
Proposed Changes to Academic Regulations 2 and 14
Marshall English, Academic Regulations Committee Chair, presented proposed changes to Academic Regulations 2 and 14.
English noted that AR 2, as approved in May, contained an error. He proposed the following revision to paragraph c. concerning articulation agreements, as outlined in the May agenda materials [strike-throughs indicate portions to be deleted]:
Credit will be awarded only upon the recommendation of the appropriate department and college,
and approval by the Academic Requirements Committee.
Motion 98-939-05 to delete the above section of AR 2 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
In his introduction of AR 14, English explained that the proposal originated with the Liberal Arts Curriculum Committee who felt that attendance is fundamental and that the proposed change, below, would clear up ambiguity on attendance [highlighted sections indicate sections to be added and strike-throughs indicate sections to be deleted]:
An instructor has the privilege of considering class participation in arriving at a student's grade, but it is not intended that attendance in and of itself shall normally be a factor in measuring a student's academic accomplishment in a course. Attendance is one of the most important factors in students' academic success. Therefore, an instructor may consider attendance in arriving at a student's grade. While attendance should not be the primary factor in determining a student's academic accomplishment in a course, it may be used as a partial measure of performance.
Motion 98-938-06 to approve the proposed change to AR 14 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Difference, Power and Discrimination
President Niess reported that, in light of recent discussion surrounding the Difference, Power and Discrimination (DPD) program funding, the Executive Committee voted to present a motion to obtain a sense of the Senate concerning support of the program. She then briefly presented background information on the DPD program:
1) July 1991 – President Byrne and Faculty Senate President ZoeAnn Holmes formed the Cultural Diversity Course Development Committee based on a recommendation from the Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) and the Executive Committee. The BCC drafted structural elements necessary to make Affirming Diversity an area of the Baccalaureate Core to begin the work.
2) November 1991 – The Committee reported a name change from Cultural Diversity to Affirming Diversity.
3) January 1992 – The Committee reported moving away from the development of a single course to multiple courses. The Committee suggested a change in the title from Affirming Diversity to Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination. The explanation of difference was that cultural diversity seeks to have students and faculty look outward while the proposed course asks individuals to look inward in the context of diversity. Senators recom mended a more positive label. The Committee also recommended the need for a full time person to run the program.
4) April 1992 – The Committee announced the summer diversity workshop was developed to deal with cultural diversity, power and discrimination issues for faculty to complete course revisions. Faculty were also reminded that the course will take three of the floating credits in the Baccalaureate Core. The Committee also recommended that the title be Dif-ference, Power and Discrimination since this title is the most descriptive and accurate and has the appropriate connotations. The Committee also proposed a list of six criteria proposed for faculty to use in course development, and recommended selecting a program coordinator (to begin in September 1992) and summer workshop director for Summer 1992.
5) May 1992 – Approval of motion that set the criteria for the DPD category of the Baccalaureate Core and course approval process. The Provost indicated funding commitment for the biennium as this was an institutional priority to move forward. The coordinator position was set at .5 FTE.
6) During ensuing years, the program development was successful in identifying a program in support of faculty development of DPD courses and in teaching these courses. However, the number of courses hoped for was never attained.
7) April 1998 – DPD Advisory Council members indicated there is a crucial need for additional DPD courses in the Baccalaureate Core and for continued support of faculty who teach DPD courses. The Council requested that $56,396 be placed in the budget for next year to provide the needed support. Prior to this biennium, the program had been funded with approximately $100,000 per year. Because of funding difficulties, it appeared unlikely that funding would be restored.
8) May 1998 – Faculty Senate President Niess requested the administration reconsider the budgeting with respect to DPD. Recognizing that the general education funds were severely limited, she asked if there were other potential sources of funds that could be used for this important area.
In response to the last concern, the Executive Committee developed the motion printed below. The intent is to record the Sense of the Senate six years after the initial approval for DPD. At the time the motion was developed, DPD funding had not been restored, however, funding has now been identified to support a part-time interim director with the intent of developing a long range plan that is based on an assessment of DPD, the strengths and what needs to be done in order to achieve a sufficient number of DPD courses and provide necessary support for faculty. Much progress has been made through the hard work of the DPD Advisory Committee and faculty in their work with Andy Hashimoto. President Niess commended them for their efforts in changing the direction of the discourse to be constructive and productive.
The Oregon State University Faculty Senate reaffirms its support of the Difference, Power, and Dis crimination (DPD) requirement in the Baccalaureate Core, and strongly urges the OSU Administration to budget funds on an immediate priority basis to fund fully the DPD Director position and the DPD faculty and curriculum development program.
Senator Plant, Engineering, reported that he polled his department and, of those who responded (6–1), they sup ported courses in the Baccalaureate Core but, in light of finances, they are not in favor of this motion.
Senator Carson, Liberal Arts, emphasized that a director is necessary to continue helping faculty develop courses since the development often involves a rethinking in the ways in which subject matter can be conceptualized. She also noted it is absolutely critical that the director be responsible for running the Center. Her experience as a participant in the DPD seminar was extremely rigorous, as well as invigorating, and it takes money to support faculty who participate in the summer and to support the director, who is a hands-on teacher during the seminar.
Lani Roberts, Liberal Arts, announced that an informal agreement has been reached between the Provost's Office and DPD Advisory Council to fund the program at around $16,000 for the rest of the biennium and to consider future funding of about $56,000. This last amount would fund the seminar, stipends, office, and support faculty. She suggested that the "full funding" wording in the resolution was, perhaps, a flexible term. Niess acknowledged that this term was chosen since various funding amounts were being discussed.
Senator Gross, Liberal Arts, added that Associate Provost Hashimoto is seeking outside funding for the program.
In response to Senator Grunder, Science, questioning if the success of the DPD program had been evaluated, Senator Gross noted that is the intent of the director for next year.
Senator Collins, Liberal Arts, was impressed at a recent DPD meeting with the depth of feeling from students of color in terms of what they think DPD is accomplishing to make their life better. Collins felt it was important to support this motion and let the students know the faculty are behind this program.
Senator Plant noted that it's necessary to cut things when times are tight, rather than continue funding everything, and felt that there were enough DPD courses in the catalog to satisfy all the graduates currently in programs. In response, Roberts indicated that the DPD courses began in fall 1994 and seniors graduating this year were not likely to have been required to fulfill the requirement. It probably won't be known until a year from now whether there are enough available courses, or if graduating seniors may be impacted.
Senator Matzke, Science, supported the motion but cautioned that the university would be better off by developing a structure that rewards departments that develop DPD courses so there eventually won't be a need for a director.
Senator Morris, Science, moved to amend the motion to strike the word "fully." The motion was seconded; there was no discussion. Motion 98-539-09 to amend the motion passed with two dissenting votes.
Senator Tate, Science, questioned how long the director position would continue. Senator Gross responded it would continue until there are adequate courses. She also noted that the assessment next year will include the role of the director.
Senator Plant was puzzled why this program needs a director when it wasn't necessary for the synthesis courses. Senator Coblentz, Agricultural Sciences, responded that courses educating incoming students how to live in a multicultural/multiracial society should be incorporated into the curriculum and instructors need to be taught how to incorporate them. Senator Rodriguez (pro-tem), Liberal Arts, felt that, as a matter of principle, if OSU is going to 1) commit to diversity in its mission statement and 2) open up people's minds against prejudice in its guidelines on the web, then that diversity cannot be tokenism. Those teaching the courses need to understand different ethnic backgrounds.
Senator Gardner, Science, felt it was clear that this body supports diversity, but there are concerns about its direction and the faculty is eagerly awaiting its evaluation. Gardner then called for the question. Motion 98-539-10 to call for the question passed by voice vote with no some dissenting votes.
Motion 98-539-08 to approve the Sense of the Senate motion, as amended, passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Assessment of Teaching Task Force Report
ZoeAnn Holmes, task force member, presented the report for discussion. She briefly outlined each charge to the task force and recommendations and rationale related to each charge:
Charge I. Evaluate and critique the efficacy of the university-wide Student Assessment of Teaching instrument and, if appropriate, propose a revision or replacement of this form.
Recommendation 1: Student assessment of teaching should be conducted in each class every term.
Rationale: Students feel like they are disenfranchised when they don't have a chance to provide formal input on courses. From a faculty perspective, it allows the establishment of a database that statistically gives strength to the assessment tool.
Recommendation 2: For evaluative processes (P&T and other personnel matters requiring evaluation), each college should design a minimum set of survey questions for student assessment of teaching that will be used by all teaching faculty in the college; each department should add questions to the college set to assist in evaluations at the department level.
Rationale: This university is amazingly diverse and one form does not adequately assess all disciplines of the univer sity.
Charge II. Assess the effectiveness of the peer assessment of teaching procedures and, if appropriate, propose assessment procedure(s) that may be utilized to achieve a valid evaluation of faculty teaching effectiveness by peers.
Recommendation 3: Each college should design a minimum set of peer review guidelines to be used for evaluative purposes. Each department should extend these guidelines to meet departmental specifics. Individual faculty members should further clarify with their peers the criteria to be used in the specific peer review.
Rationale: Although there is a peer evaluation in place in most units, it is frequently not in written form and not all faculty are aware of the process. This would allow flexibility for the uniqueness of each unit.
Charge III. Recommend processes for both student assessment of teaching and peer assessment of teaching that consider recommendations for working with faculty to enhance their teaching.
Recommendation 4: Each college should develop a process for the assessment and evaluation of teaching that utilizes and integrates both student assessment and peer assessment. This process should be clearly described to the faculty and submitted to the Provost who, in consultation with the Promotion and Tenure Committee, approves the process as supporting both P&T and the enhancement of teaching.
Rationale: Provides flexibility to the colleges in developing a process that will meet P&T requirements as well as the needs of faculty or graduate teaching assistants for support in the enhancement of teaching.
Recommendation 5: The Provost should establish a minimum of a .5 FTE faculty position (with support personnel) as Coordinator of Teaching and Learning. The coordinator should be a faculty member with the widest possible successful teaching experience in a breadth of courses offered at OSU: services courses (such as Baccalaureate Core Courses), undergraduate and graduate teaching, etc. The coordinator should assist the various colleges and committees in focusing on questions surrounding the appropriate organizational support for faculty in ongoing profes sional development for the enhancement of teaching and learning.
After two years, the Coordinator should work with the Advancement of Teaching Committee to conduct an evaluation of the teaching/learning processes at OSU and make recommendations for the advancement of OSU's commitment to the support of enhancing teaching and learning.
Rationale: Bring together teaching and mentoring groups and processes available on campus.
Recommendation 6: The Advancement of Teaching Committee of the Faculty Senate will develop a series of forums that should actively engage all OSU faculty in a discussion of the question: "What is effective teaching?"
Rationale: Engage faculty in the debate and clarification of defining effective teaching through a series of forums during the next academic year.
Senator Shor, Engineering, felt that rather than funding a coordinator, the money should be used to support faculty who can assist other faculty to upgrade their teaching. Holmes indicated that responses from focus groups stated this type of activity is now available and the group didn't feel it was necessary to be included in the proposal.
Senator Landau (pro-tem) Science, expressed concern that student evaluations often seem like a popularity contest and felt that students should have responsibility in the process. He objected to students who don't do the homework evaluating whether the instructor was effective; he felt this responsibility should be built into the system.
Senator Wrolstad, Agricultural Sciences, stated that the forms are helpful but felt that they are largely a reaction to how students feel about an instructor rather than a course evaluation. He also suggested that students should indicate whether or not they learned anything in the course.
Senator Daley, Agricultural Sciences, felt that peer review can be useful as well as a source of pressure.
Senator Schwartz, task force member, commented that student assessment forms are attitude surveys and are intended to be used in conjunction with the peer review. He felt that few questions that provide legitimate answers. He suggested that the way to determine whether students are learning is to give them entrance and exit exams. He also stated that the task force is insistent that the student assessment be only one component of the evaluation of instruction.
Robby Robson, Science, stated that the Honors College has an alternate form of student assessment of teaching involving group interviews of students conducted by an evaluator and questioned if this process had been considered. He also noted that it is fairly well accepted in distance education that standard student evaluations are not necessarily appropriate in a distance setting. He suggested there may be a mechanism to set different standards across colleges. Holmes responded that one goal is to be flexible in the evaluation process.
Senator Rodriguez commended the task force on the report. He suspected that the term "clients", used on page 3 of the report, is synonymous with "students" preceding it and suggested omitting "clients." In reference to the "Selected Bibliography" page, he felt there was a certain pattern in the journals being drawn from and suggested that the task force look at others. He also noted that page 5 of the report indicates that "Research supports nine key characteristics," but Appendix A lists only five. Holmes noted that the suggestions would be taken under consideration. She also indicated that the task force talked about the terms "students" and "clients" and they are interested in instruction, regardless of who is being instructed.
Duane Johnson, Promotion & Tenure Committee Chair, stated that his Committee strongly encourages usage of both "students" and "clients" since many off-campus faculty are teaching non-credit courses to audiences and are expected to be evaluated in the same way as faculty teaching in the classroom. He also noted that the university has a focus on excellence in teaching and the process of both this report and the Post-Tenure Review Task Force speak to helping faculty being more effective as teachers; it is not seen as being a punitive process. The P&T Committee also encourages the option of allowing the student or learner to give no opinion; they should not be forced to evaluate a criteria if they do not have an opinion.
Senator Burton, Science, questioned whether the Teaching Portfolio Guidelines in Appendix C were being recommended. Holmes noted that the task force is not recommending the material contained in the appendices. Although the appendices were used in the development of the recommendations, they are not being recommended based on input from the focus groups.
The report will be presented for approval at the October Senate meeting.
– Guidelines to accompany the previously accepted Post-Tenure Review Task Force report will be presented to the Senate for approval in the fall.
– Sandra Woods has resigned from the Executive Committee and, in accordance with the Bylaws, has been replaced by Phyllis Lee who will complete her term through December 1999. President Niess expressed appreciation for Woods' help on the Executive Committee.
– President Niess thanked all committee members and chairs for their efforts during the past year. She also expressed thanks to Senators who will be retiring in June.
Provost Arnold's report included the following items:
Dr. Arnold stated that the DPD Advisory Committee will meet on June 12; their discussion will focus on the specifics of implementing decisions made regarding next year, as well as to initiate planning and assessment activities. He noted there has been significant involvement on the part of students in this conversation and felt that ongoing student input needs to be continued.
President Risser and Provost Arnold have been meeting with college and faculty/staff groups. Questions and concerns emerging from these meetings include looking ahead in terms of the future and what the timing is in terms of a better resource situation for OSU, and the priorities, process and decision-making that will determine how resources are allocated at OSU. These meetings have been helpful in that there are emerging conceptual models to be considered when resources are allocated, such as: 1) looking at benchmark data; 2) strategic investments – where are there opportunities for investments in programs that would generate more net students/revenues; and 3) performance indicators – graduation and retention rate, external support, diversity, etc.
Senator Lundy, Engineering, questioned if there was a sense of how additional revenues would be distributed. Arnold responded that it would be used to off-set deficits, to sustain existing programs and identify a modest enrollment reserve pool to meet course sections that have a high demand.
Senator Morris expressed concern about the quality of students being admitted since the ratio of acceptance has increased. Arnold acknowledged that the acceptance rate has increased due to hard work on the part of admissions folks in all parts of the university to determine where to target efforts in terms of expected yield. The performance indicators indicate the quality is being strengthened. Senator Beach, Associated, stated that the average GPA for first-time freshman is 3.45, which is the highest in the state. Senator Bontrager, Associated, added that the academic indicators for those students are also up.
President Niess' report included the following items:
Reasons to celebrate:
– Degree candidates approved for commencement; their success is the result of hard work on the part of faculty, staff and students.
– In May, the Senate approved Dr. Bob Bomengen to receive the OSU Distinguished Service Award and Dr. Sally Francis to receive the D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service Award.
– The University Day program will begin at 10:00 AM on September 16.
– OSU was successful in international competition with two OSU web-based courses being selected for honorable mention.
Concerns surrounding deficits in Athletics and Information Services have been expressed during the past year. Niess felt that these units have responded in a professional way and she appreciated how Curt Pederson, has been receptive to faculty concerns. She also noted that she has been impressed with the care Mitch Barnhart is taking with the reorganization and his concern in trying to reduce the expenditures by over $2 million next year.
She felt there is still another difficult year ahead, and reminded faculty of the goal to provide a compelling learning experience for students. The University community has worked hard during the past year to deal with the concerns and priorities. Although the direction has not always been agreed upon by all parties, she felt that all have worked together in a professional and productive manner. She urged faculty to celebrate the work of the past year, continue to display professionalism and to prepare for the coming year.
There was no old business.
Mike Caudle, ASOSU President, thanked the Senate for passing the DPD motion in a resounding manner. He also encouraged Senators to look carefully at the Faculty Senate President-Elect and noted that the overwhelming support for the DPD program is not shared by the President-Elect. He urged Senators, for the purpose of good governance, to instill some form of recall against Robin Rose. He also strongly encouraged that some form of recall procedures be incorporated into the Bylaws. Caudle moved that the Faculty Senate give its President-Elect, Dr. Robin Rose, a vote of no confidence; the motion was seconded.
The ASOSU Undergraduate Senator from the College of Home Economics and Education stated she spoke with representatives from the college and they supported the motion.
Senator Matzke asked whether the students had spoken with Rose. Caudle stated that three students have made at least three phone calls each and they have not had any response from him.
Senator Rodriguez moved to suspend the rules to allow non-Senators to speak; motion was seconded. Motion 98- 539-12 to suspend the rules passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Senator Field, Science, expressed sympathy with the students' point of view and felt that tolerance for an individual's point of view should be taught, and particularly that one is not removed from office due to a disagreement.
Kelli Koski, ASOSU, stated that she, as well as other students, was very offended by comments made publicly by Robin Rose in The Barometer and in an e-mail from him to Dr. Risser. Koski got the sense that, as a representative of the Faculty Senate, Rose was representing the Senate and that faculty agreed with him.
Caudle made the motion in the hope that the Senate's support for DPD shows that Rose doesn't represent the interests of the Senate.
Cory VanAlstine, ASOSU, spoke in favor of the motion, citing The Barometer article, and urged Senators to approve it if they feel that Rose does not represent their views.
Senator Plant felt that everyone should have a right to express their views and didn't feel that Rose was repre senting the Senate in the article.
Landau felt that tenure is important to allow faculty to express their point of view, even if it is unpopular.
Senator Rodriguez agreed with the need for an environment of tolerance, but noted that in Rose's e-mail there was clearly a tone of intolerance, which he finds appalling in an intellectual community.
Senator Wrolstad indicated he had not read the e-mail and felt that everyone should have an opportunity to read the documents mentioned before voting.
Niess suggested that the motion could be postponed, which would make it an automatic item for the next regular meeting.
Susan Prock, graduate student, agreed that people have a right to their own opinion. However, she felt that the e-mail was the most vicious, unprofessional piece of work she has ever seen; she was extremely insulted and absolutely appalled that a professional on this campus acted in that manner.
Senator Morris stated that Senators could be appalled without voting. He felt that by approving the motion, the Senate would send a message that it is intolerant about intolerance; he urged a no vote.
Koski encouraged all to read the article and e-mail. She felt that Rose's message went against the University's mission, it's not good for retention or recruitment, and makes students uncomfortable when he publicly humiliates and degrades students of color and women.
Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, moved to postpone the motion; motion seconded. Motion 98-539-13 to post-pone the vote of no confidence and bring it before the Senate in October passed by a show of hands with 57 in support and 6 in opposition.
In response to a request for distribution, Niess indicated that the materials previously referred to will be distributed to Senators.
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant