Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee
Jan. 12, 2017 Minutes
Present: Rodney Bransdorfer, Clem Ehoff, Christos Graikos, Dan Lipori, David Martin, Danielle Neal, Matt Altman
Absent: Janet Finke, Deepak Iyengar, Wendy Cook, Tim Englund
Guests: Lindsey Brown
The meeting was called to order at 3:33 p.m.
Rodney moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 8. 2016. Clem seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.
Chair updates:
Dan reported that the Last Week of Classroom Instruction policy was approved at the Jan. 11, 2017 Faculty Senate meeting. The Interdisciplinary Programs Policy was withdrawn.
Dan also gave an update on the College Reorganization policy/procedure the AAC discussed at the Dec. 8 meeting. He wrote up the material and sent it to the Deans and colleges involved so they can look at it. Sathy would like to have it done by the end of January.
Old Business:
a. Interdisciplinary Programs
Dan explained that the Interdisciplinary Programs policy originally had been brought up at the Nov. 30, 2016 Faculty Senate meeting. It ended up being tabled without much discussion, but some people found it too restrictive. Apparently there was some sort of group formed at one time in COTS that was working on Interdisciplinary Programs; if there really is such a group, it might be worth asking them for feedback.
No one in the committee was aware of such a group. Rodney indicated that there could perhaps be a group (or groups?) of people who meet, but it is not something official.
Matt suggested emailing the people who are involved in interdisciplinary programs. Dan agreed and indicated that the AAC should have gotten some feedback from those who are involved. Only one senator gave feedback after the Nov. 30 Faculty Senate meeting. Once the AAC is done with the policy, it goes to Faculty Senate. Ideally, it would be helpful to have some Interdisciplinary Programs representatives looking at the policy too.
Rodney pointed out that college Deans are the directors of Interdisciplinary Programs. To save time, we could go to the Deans and ask for a couple representatives from their college. Christos suggested emailing department chairs to find out who is in charge in each department.
Dan agreed; he will invite some Interdisciplinary Programs representatives to come to the next AAC meeting and maybe cc the chairs as well.
b. Required meetings during exam week
Matt presented a question regarding interpretation of CWUP 5-90-040 (36) Final Examinations. There are significant differences in how faculty go about holding the final class meeting during exam week. Some tell students to turn in a paper and do not have a final class meeting. Some meet for 20 minutes; others do something online. He questioned what, exactly, the policy means and how it can be interpreted. If students are told to drop off a paper during exam time, is that enough?
Rodney understood the policy to mean that a professor has to hold a final class meeting at some point. Because of the word “expected” in (36.A.2), meeting is expected but not required – but if you do meet, it has to follow the posted final exam schedule.Finals week is part of the quarter so it’s a required instruction day.
Danielle indicated that she is in the classroom at the scheduled final exam time to receive final papers and return students’ work. David described situations that have arisen when he has had two options for final exam times based on how his class schedules work; if he chooses the latter option, the classroom is not available when it is supposed to be.
Dan pointed out that the key word is “expected.” We could try to make the policy more rigid with less room for interpretation but there is no way to make sure faculty will follow it. Matt wondered if we could get by with not changing anything, but adding a statement about how the AAC interprets the policy.
Dan suggested changing “expected” to “required.” This would be the easiest way to make the policy stronger. Rodney indicated that the policy could be rewritten in the strongest terms but without enforcement no one would follow it. Enforcement seems more like a department-level thing.
Matt pointed out that it’s hard to enforce a policy if faculty are unsure what it means. Danielle suggested changing “expected” in (36.A.2)and giving an explanation, such as having to do with the credentialing process or number of contact hours. However, considering that, there could be a reason for why the wording is the way it is now, with the word “expected” being in place. David said that using the word "required" could cause a problem if faculty have a conference or something scheduled that week. Rodney agreed and said that he was against putting “required” in the policy because there has to be some flexibility.
Dan suggested that a chair step in and give his or her interpretation of the policy, which would then become the way the policy is to be followed in that particular department. Matt said he had talked to other chairs to get their opinions, and they all vary. Dan wondered if this policy is something that could be brought up at ADCO; Matt would like to go to the Provost and see what she thinks.
Rodney indicated that the policy is something worth pursuing. The committee agreed. Dan will go to the Provost and get her opinion.
New Business:
a. Class Attendance & Participation Policy
Dan explained that this policy has been discussed before. The Athletic Department has submitted a proposal for changes. The Provost would like the AAC to look at it again and discuss. TheAthletic Department wants toremove “instructors are encouraged to make accommodations…” Dan said that he would recommend against that as is gets into academic freedom.
Matt questioned the phrase “university-approved activities.” It’s ambiguous – does it include clubs? Danielle indicated that clubs wouldn’t be included, but questioned who determines “appropriate accommodations.” Whatever students consider “appropriate accommodations” will be different from what professors consider acceptable.
David pointed out that “university sponsored activities are part of the university. Those activities are also part of students’ education, so we should be doing what we can to support that. The policy is about athletics, but what if it’s a scholarship activity such as a conference? Would that be denied?
Lindsey explained that ENG 101 and 102 are the largest problems, along with general studies programs and Education as well. David added that in his program if you miss a quarter, you’re delayed for a year. Matt suggested a policy to the English department stating that students who are absent for “university sponsored activities” can’t be given a failing grade for missing the class.
David questioned if there is a definition of “excused absence.” Rodney explained that individual professors are able to decide how they want to define it. Lindsey said there is not a definition but added that the policy on bereavement leave passed last year.
Matt pointed out that this is a question of whether or not we want to force every faculty member at the university to make accommodations. Rodney said that the existing policy works just fine; adding requirements that we accommodate certain people imposes on academic freedom. Clem indicated that the policy says what it says so just follow it. The AAC is not charged with enforcing it; that’s someone else’s job. We shouldn’t change policy for that reason.
Dan pointed out that it sounds like only a couple of departments—specifically English and Education—are doing this. The last time it came up, it was from ROTC.
The committee decided not to make changes and to leave the policy as it originally stands.
b. Other:
Lindsey mentioned some policies that will be coming forward soon. The admissions policy is coming with changes for international purposes. It should be coming any time. Transfer credit is another. Dan added that the College Reorganization policy might come back too.
Rodney moved, and Clem seconded, to adjourn.
Meeting adjourned at 4:44 p.m.
Next Meeting: Jan. 26, 2017, 3:30 p.m. – SURC 301
Jan. 12, 2017AAC MinutesPage 1 of 4