[Type text][Type text]Faculty Senate 2015-16

Minutes

Fort Lewis College Faculty Senate

17 February 2016, 2:30-3:30 pm, 130 Noble Hall

Senators present: David Blake, Nancy Cardona, Lorraine Taylor, Ginny Davis, Betty Dorr, Steve Fenster, Lee Frazer, Kris Greer, Andy Gulliford, Tony Holmquist, Bill Mangrum, Justin McBrayer, Billy Nollet, Astrid Oliver, Dugald Owen, Ellen Paul, Jen Rider, Ryan Smith, Kaori Takano, Laurie Williams

Senators absent: Erik Juergensmeyer (Sabbatical, Sp.’16), Carrie Meyer, Chuck Riggs (sabbatical, Sp.’16),

Guests: Richard Fulton, Vera Furst, Michael Martin, Pete McCormick, Barbara Morris, Delilah Orr, Ken Pepion, Amy Sellin, Lisa Snyder, Kelly Stanley,

President Dugald Owen called Senate to order at 2:30 pm sharp.

I.  Announcements

A.  Combined conversation with President Thomas and discussion of Strategic Plan on March 2. Senators can ask questions of President Thomas and then we’ll discuss the Strategic Plan (with the president still here).

II. Consent items

A.  3 February 2016 Minutes. Approved by consent.

B. Course approvals: here Approved by consent.

III. Action items and reports

A. Academic Standing Committee proposal (Justin McBrayer & Dawn Mulhern)

Justin explained the basics and rationale behind the proposal(s) in the handout: “Information and Proposals From the Academic Standards Committee, Spring 2016.” Related to grade inflation, Provost Morris says we have no academic standards policy for departments with many pass/fail courses, and she is concerned. Justin will add this to their list.

The committee has four proposals: to make a minor change to the GPA calculation—that includes all attempts at courses in the GPA. And to delay the major GPA calculation enforcement by 1 full year since we’ve just changed the way major GPA is calculated. To prevent students being penalized for not knowing the new standards, until Fall 2017. Justin motioned to approve the language changes on p.1. David Blake seconded. Discussion: Laurie Williams asked if this system that counts all attempted courses in the GPA hurts students. Justin says that the wording change is to make GPA calculation more fair. There were several questions about the delay in implementing the policy. Ryan called the question. Seconded by David. Motion approved; 1 against.

The Academic Renewal Policy: a way for students to keep some of the credit they earned previously but be held harmless re: their former GPA. The problem now is that students are supposed to apply for “academic renewal” when they reapply for admission, but they don’t know about it. This just opens the window and gives them a few weeks after the start of classes to apply for academic renewal (and get the help they need to be successful on this attempt). Motioned, voted, approved.

Dawn explained proposal 3, re: new academic dishonesty policy. These policy changes are based on real life experiences and the need for more clarity. The committee thinks the decision about a student’s case is best made by a committee instead of a single person (Ken Pepion). They are concerned about pressure from well-connected students and community members on a single person (whoever it might be in the future). Betty Dorr asked about proctor situations. The instructor of record should report what they were told by the proctor. Ken is offended by the suggestion that he would be influenced by outside pressure. Justin says the concern is protection from the person who replaces Ken. Ken gave an example of a situation where a cheater and his accomplice were given the same punishment and he felt that the accomplice did not deserve the same blame. Ryan Smith doesn’t like the gray area—it’s either cheating or not. Laurie disagrees—all cheating is not the same.

Provost Morris is concerned about the front end of the policy (trying to make the back end the same). She’s concerned about situations where it becomes high stakes after the first charge, perhaps in a single semester. The word “should”—faculty should report academic dishonesty—is stronger than the current policy. And this new policy mandates that faculty must inform the provost if a student’s grade has been changed as a result of a penalty for cheating, even if the faculty member did not report the incident.

There were questions about the gradations of cheating and instructor discretion. The provost wonders why the second offense is always taken so seriously. Vera Furst explained that the Academic Standards Committee looks at the seriousness of the cheating; it’s not as black and white as it sounds.

Ken Pepion says there are 10-15 reports per semester.

First offense: nothing goes on the transcript. Jen Rider asked if having such a severe second offense sanction might act as a deterrent to faculty reporting. Justin agreed that it might. The current policy does, too, however.

Ken says 5 A and B are unclear. He thinks there should be a process for a student to appeal a charge. He is concerned about due process. Justin explained that a student who wishes to appeal the charge can sign something saying they deny the charge and then go before a hearing. Bill Mangrum is concerned with the ambiguity under 2, reporting, “when appropriate.” It’s up to the individual professor to determine intent.

The Academic Standards Committee has taken intent out of the policy. They intend for faculty to make the call about intent.

Justin thinks we should revisit this proposal after two weeks and bring in the Handbook Committee to discuss their thoughts (about where the policy belongs).

Ryan moved to table; seconded.

Motion to extend senate for 2 minutes: approved.

The ASC thinks Turnitin would be a great learning tool for students, even if instructors decide not to use it. We’ll revisit the topic in two weeks.

Motions to adjourn; approved. Senate adjourned at 3:31pm.

B. Grad/Post-Bac Academic Standing Committee proposals

C. Assessment Committee report

-elp