ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL

Arizona Faculties Council Meeting Minutes

Date: Friday, August 11, 2006
Place: LaPaz Room, 223, Memorial Union
Time Frame: 7:30-9:00 a.m.

Present:
Marc Ford, NAU, Arizona Faculty Council President (2006-2007) and NAU Senate Past President;Gary Anders, ASU at West campus Senate President; Duane Roen, ASU at Tempe campus Senate President; Bill Verdini, ASU at the Tempe campus Senate President-Elect; Betty Capaldi, ASU at the Tempe Campus; Executive Vice President and Provost of the University; Marjorie Zatz, ASU at the Tempe campus, University Vice Provost; Wanda Howell, UA Senate Chair of the Faculty; Robert Mitchell, UA Senate Vice-Chair of the Faculty and Presiding Officer of the Senate; George Davis, UA Provost; Juan Garcia, UA Vice Provost; Bill Alexander, UA South Faculty Forum President; Marsha Yowell, NAU Senate President; Blasé Scarnati, NAU Senate President-Elect; Liz Grobsmith, NAU Provost; Karen Pugliesi, NAU Vice Provost for Undergraduate Instruction; Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR staff, Associate Executive Director for Academic and Student Affairs; Mark Denke, ABOR staff, Assistant Executive Director for Academic and Student Affairs; Darby Shaw, Tempe Senate Executive Assistant

The meeting was called order at 7:30 a.m. following the breakfast buffet.   

Marc welcomed all to the meeting for the Arizona Faculties Council members, their provosts and staff, and members of the ABOR staff.  He noted that at the luncheon on Thursday a majority discussion occurred on the issues of the offensive course content statement/policy.  He opened this topic to the group for further comment.

Topic: Study of the syllabus - offensive content statement   

Points of Discussion:

·       NAU President Hager is ready to discuss a policy with the deans and the Faculty Senate.  The AFC yesterday agreed that there is political advantage to alignment with the UA statement, but each university will make a decision separately. 

Marc explained the structure of AFC to benefit Betty Capaldi, our new ASU Provost.  

·       The Regents do not want to see this on the political table again, and ASU is currently discussing the UA statement.  Like UA, they wish to emphasize the development of effective syllabus guidelines.   

·       UA has handled issues in the past that have come up on course content.  There have only been 2-3 specific inquires to the President and the Provost.  They used reasonableness and found other options for the students who did not want to watch the movie Midnight Cowboy.  There has not been a large number of inquires.

·       NAU has not had any inquiries like this.  In the past there have been some complaints, but they were related to materials with sexually explicit content.

Marc said that it is not a huge problem for NAU either and really not a statewide problem. 

·       At ASU in 1996 there was a sudden problem that came up and a crowd of 300 people gathered on campus to protest, and it appeared in the Arizona Republic.  Sometimes things can turn suddenly and become a huge issue, so, we believe this is something we need to work on at ASU, and clarify for both our faculty and our students.  The UA statement is a good one and it does not infringe on academic freedom.

·       It is the choice of the professor as to what is put into the syllabus and what is taught in the classroom.

·       Students need to know that they may encounter discussion of controversial materials in the classroom.

·       NAU wants to stress the positive and to develop a policy/statement that recognizes the need for academic freedom as well as the responsibilities for faculty.  The deans' statement is a fair one and the chairs have expressed--why do we have to have this?  The faculty are just starting a conversation, and we feel that there is a need to have this discussion.  So, we are in a growth dialogue mode.  It is a natural response for the faculty to want to teach what they are expert in.  We may even have something from the AAUP statement in our document but we are just beginning our conversation. 

·       Gary likes the approach that UA took in developing a policy on what should go into the syllabus.  He is hesitant to roll this issue out at the West Senate with the entire history attached for a full debate.  He suggested it should be presented as a "syllabus development issue" at Downtown Phoenix, Polytechnic, Tempe, and West campuses.  Wanda agreed that is what they did at the UA Senate.  Duane expressed that it would help professors make their syllabi more effective.  Marjorie reminded that some syllabai are regularly posted on the web.  The students have the opportunity to review it.  CLTE can help in reminding faculty that if they do not have a syllabus put up that the students need to know what happens in their class.

Liz said that at NAU they began the conversation a year ago, and at first she was concerned about the direction the legislature wanted to go.  Having alternative content and materials mandatory for all faculty in their classes is very hard to do.

·       NAU would like to see a positive framing of the matter.

            The Deans have rewritten a positive statement

            We would like to tell our students somehow that we live in a world where if you expand your boundaries, you may feel threatened as that happens.

            There is no real option at this time not to discuss syllabus content. 

            If the faculty at NAU can live with this statement (dean's version) then we can take it to the Board for use with the legislature.

            How we work through this process is hampered by faculty not being present on campus over the   summer. 

            The conversation at NAU is just beginning in the Senate and yet by September when the Regents meet at NAU we may not be ready to present a statement. 

Recommendation:

Agreed that we will all try for something like the UA statement; and when ASU adopts their statement, NAU will have a draft statement ready to review at the next AFC meeting in September at NAU.  We can work together as educators to allow freedom and differences at our campuses.  NAU does have syllabus policies in place -- truth in advertising is our motto.  The UA has policies too.  The method of notification can be worked out among us.

Provost Davis said that although this is not so controversial, he is not sure what he thinks about the issues of a highly evolving syllabus.  Perhaps there should be something to replace the syllabus.  A day of orientation to the class that explains what is expected of them.  (After all, do prerequisites really mean what they used to?)  We get many "no compliance requests" from students and the faculty.  They find it hard to integrate their classes, labs, and field trips; some lack the necessary prerequisites and want to take the upper division courses anyway.  So, I feel an orientation day would be good to inform students of what is expected of them in each class.

Points of Discussion: 

·       Recommendation that even more than orientation day, we need to purchase American flags, Constitution copies, and a copy of the Bill of Rights to place in each classroom.  We could even work collectively in purchasing them (as the Regents are always urging us to do), and then have them in the classrooms.

·       We need to have our students sign something which says that they understand the syllabus and agree to follow it without exception.

·       Avoid putting this into the policy manual.

·       Develop a statement as members of AFC that could be discussed system-wide and that way a faculty member who is interested may locate it and read it.

·       Take it back to our faculties separately and discuss dynamics of our campus, before we issue an AFC statement.

·       Does the legislature realize that the faculty are not on campus over the summer to discuss this issue?

·       Maybe it is not really such a hard discussion to have but rather one that can be handled in a positive manner quickly?

·       NAU has nothing that addresses point 13 (sensitive course content) in their syllabus policies.  We need to discuss that. 

·       It would be helpful if each class had a syllabus, and we could present this as an information item to our senates, rather than have it come up for a vote.

·       Just tell the faculty this is the way it is going to be?  (Several of us would have problems with that plan.)

·       NAU takes shared governance and curriculum seriously.  A discussion of this magnitude will take time.  NAU can frame it positively to the Executive Committee and Senate, but this type of statement needs to be done in a timely manner and then tell the Board in September that NAU is in the process of adopting a statement or policy similar to UA and ASU.  NAU can also say that the AFC supports that.

·       Where do faculty go to find syllabus content ideas?  (On the Web.)

·       A progress report is all the ABOR has asked for at the September meeting.

·       Reality is that we should try and accomplish this task before the legislative session begins in January.

·       The faculty voice cannot be heard until they return to campus and that will not be time enough before the September board meeting.

·       Hopefully we are not going the direction of developing a more detailed contract as we develop our syllabus, because fewer and fewer students read them the longer they get.

·       Again, the suggestion that they sign something to prove they read the syllabus and understand what it says would be good.

·       Since we cannot give all examples of academic integrity on our syllabus, a link is provided to a fact sheet of examples.  Similarly, if we emphasize a contract in the syllabus, we should also stress the student responsibility and the faculty responsibilities on a separate sheet and provide a link.  We do not want a six-page syllabus.   

·       November is time enough for NAU to come up with something before the legislature opens in January.  We will have conversation with the Provosts before the September meeting.

·       We should emphasize broad system values as we do this exercise and perhaps incorporate Learner Centered Education principles in syllabus development.  (Try to see how students are prepared, where they are in their learning experience, and what learning modalties are best for them.)  This is not a human capital issue, students as customers--but we do not want to be in opposition to our students.  

·       L.C.E. does have student responsibilities for learning built in, which is why we need to dovetail this issue with L.C.E. 

·       There is more to this than meets the eye.  The UA statement is a good one, if we develop standardized policy on syllabus development, what then happens to tolerance for differences? 

Question: Where are we with L.C.E. proposals now?  Stephanie presented copies of the basic outline and power point of the Carol Twigg proposal.

Points of Discussion

·                ABOR is supportive of L.C.E., but it is difficult for them to see the measurable outcomes from what we have accomplished in this last cycle (accountability that illustrates what cost effective measures were employed--that are tied to increased learning).  We are considering the release of a new RFP.  It was agreed that no one wants to see L.C.E framed negatively.  We really need a chance to learn about what we have done over the last cycle.  Bill Verdini is serving on the group this time.

·                Carol's proposal seems to rely heavily on technology.

·                It is a hybrid plan that uses technology in the classroom to bolster learning.

·                This seems to be in contradiction with the original concepts of  L.C.E.  Teaching and learning that occurs in a multiplicity of environments and with faculty becoming wiser and wiser about learning modalites and technology per se does not enter into that.  Why can't we just pull the L.C.E. out of that funding and move money to other issues.

·                It is a proven way to teach large classes successfully, and NAU is moving away from the larger sections now placing more emphasis on relationships formed in the classroom, personal intercommunication skills, and technology that can support and foster those relationships. 

·                We can have interaction online and then come together as a cohort.

·                 NAU is asking deans to break down the section numbers to 35 per class and to use technology to enhance learning.

·                But what will not happen is that the grants now used for L.C.E. cannot be broken down successfully into small grants to each university.

·                The two years allotted for this large grant is not enough time to learn to use and implement all this new technology and software.  We do not want our faculty to perceive that L.C.E. means technology, as a move to replace employees.

·                The Twigg proposal does emphasize the "growing of the students who are reached by faculty."  Technology is an important asset in doing that.

·                There is risk in proscribing to the faculty on the development of their syllabi and instruction.

·                As we are continuing the L.C.E. grant for three more years, why not go back in six months to encourage new proposals, not new projects, new proposals out of two or three disciplines.  If we decide to do this program then we should call it what it is -- Exploring Technology Use in Intensive Learning.        

Marc had to leave for the ABOR AFC report and he thanked everyone for their candid input and willingness to discuss this with our Senates and then to come back again in September with updates on syllabus content.

The meeting concluded at 9:05 a.m.

Submitted by Darby Shaw
Executive Assistant - ASU at the Tempe campus

BACK