The
Regular session – December 12, 2005 – 3:30 p.m. – Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789
e-mail: facsen@ou.edu web site:
http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/
The Faculty Senate was called
to order by Professor Roy Knapp, Chair.
PRESENT: Albert,
Apanasov, Badhwar, Benson, Biggerstaff, Blank, Bradford, Burns, Catlin, Civan,
Cramer, Croft, Draheim, Elisens, Fast, Fincke, Forman, Franklin, Frech, Gade, Geletzke,
Gutierrez, Hawamdeh, Hobbs, Houser, R. Knapp, Lewis, Liu, Magnusson, Marcus-Mendoza,
Megginson, Raadschelders, Roche, Rugeley, Scamehorn, Sharp, Skeeters, Tabb,
Trytten, Warnken, Wei, Wood
Provost's office representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Hough, Smith
ABSENT: Brown,
Dewers, Dohrmann, C. Knapp, Kolar, Lai, Pace, Ransom, Schwarzkopf,
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcements:
Schedule of spring 2006 Faculty Senate meetings
Faculty development award recipients
McNair Scholars Program
Remarks by Vice President for Student Affairs
Senate Chair's Report:
Central campus instruction committee
Certificates to outgoing senators
Faculty death
Information Technology support
Course syllabus
Election, Senate Executive Committee
Courses with numbers ending in 60, 70, 80, 90
Plus/minus grading
________________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Journal
for the regular session of November 14, 2005 was approved.
The regular meetings of the
Faculty Senate for the spring 2006 semester will be held at 3:30 p.m. in
Jacobson Faculty Hall 102 on the following Mondays: January 23, February 13,
March 20, April 10, and May 8.
The Faculty Senate is pleased
to present the faculty development awards for the fall 2005 semester to
Kianoosh Hatami (Civil Engineering & Environmental Science), Emily Johnson
(Modern Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics), Nancy LaGreca (Modern
Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics), Feng Lai (Aerospace & Mechanical
Engineering.), Amanda Sauer (Music), and Mark Yeary (Electrical & Computer
Engineering).
The McNair Scholars Program
is a federal grant-funded program to prepare students for graduate study. Students eligible for the McNair Scholars
program must be Native American, African American, or Latino/Hispanic American
or a first generation college student and receiving financial aid. Students must want to earn a Ph.D, be a
junior by the end of the spring semester and have a 3.0 GPA. Faculty may refer eligible students to the
program and consider serving as faculty mentors. Further information is available at http://www.ou.edu/special/mcnair/.
Prof. Knapp said Mr. Clarke
Stroud was invited to describe the work of the Division of Student Affairs and
Dean of Students. Mr. Stroud distributed
a brochure that listed all the services and programs in Student Affairs. The Student Affairs Division works with
students outside the classroom in student support services that are
co-curricular in nature. Its main goal
is to be supportive of students so they can be successful in the
classroom. Areas within Students Affairs
include housing and food services, counseling and testing, health center,
leadership program, disability services, student life, recreational services,
and the union. Food Services provides one
million meals a year for students, does the catering for football games, and
owns most of the food franchises on campus, including Chick-Fil-A and Burger
King. Student Affairs works with student
organizations on issues such as alcohol and hazing but also on campus
activities. An initiative started this
year limits the number of hours students can participate in activities outside
the classroom so the activities do not cause problems in the classroom. The goal is to provide services for students
and be supportive of faculty.
Prof. Sharp said she was told
that the university was considering a student recovery program similar to the
one at Texas Tech. Mr. Stroud replied
that Texas Tech puts significant resources toward its recovery program. OU is focusing on the three Es of alcohol: environment, enforcement, and education. The administration is looking at various
options and not concentrating specifically on just recovery. A decision should be made this spring. Prof. Sharp noted that Texas Tech is able to
fund over 100 students a year because of private endowments. Mr. Stroud said the support would depend on
institutional priorities and whether the President and regents would want to
direct such funds toward general scholarships instead.
Prof. Apanasov brought up the
situation that the Triangle fraternity (for scientists, architects, and
engineers) lost university recognition this semester because it refused to sign
a contract to comply with the new alcohol policy. Mr. Stroud said the fraternity had ample time
to comply with the university’s alcohol policy before the President withdrew its
recognition as a student organization. The
decision would be reconsidered if the fraternity was willing to comply with the
alcohol policy. Prof. Apanasov said the
fraternity did not want to sign away its constitutional rights. Mr. Stroud said the members were entitled to
their opinion. The alcohol policy has
been refined over the last year in an attempt to make it useful to
students. The policy does not apply to
faculty or staff. The advisory committee
did not want the policy to be education based only but address alcohol on a
comprehensive level. In the area of
environment, President Boren decided to make Greek houses and residence halls
dry. For enforcement, the three strikes
policy was created, and it applies to on-campus and off-campus violations. In addition, the city is taking some action
on code enforcements. Efforts in
education include a mandatory online alcohol education program, interpersonal alcohol
education in the residence halls, and a mandatory education program in the
fraternities and sororities. The
committee is also working on developing a recovery aspect. House checks are done. Implementation has been a difficult task. Addressing the impact of the new policy, Mr.
Stroud said we have seen some significant changes. Safe Ride, a program to deliver students
home, is averaging close to 250 rides per week, compared to 15-20 rides before the
policy went into effect. Even if fraternities
made good decisions when they had alcohol at their houses, they could not
control the bars in the individual rooms.
Some of the problems have been pushed off campus, and the University is
trying to address that. It could be a
couple of years before we know if we have made progress.
Prof. Skeeters asked about
expectations and enforcement. Mr. Stroud
said the University checks public areas at random times but tries not to intrude
on people’s privacy. The organization is
responsible for control. A house can be
charged with an alcohol violation if an incident is traced back to that house. Those who check the houses call on the way
over to make sure someone can meet them at the door. The expectation is they will not have alcohol
in the house. Prof. Fincke asked whether
the three strikes applied to houses or individuals. Mr. Stroud said the strikes are against
organizations and individuals. If
someone gets a DUI, that individual gets a strike. If alcohol is found in a room in a house, the
organization gets a strike. Prof. Raadschelders
asked how the Safe Ride program was financed.
Mr. Stroud said the President has been funding it. It is a difficult position because it
involves behaviors that we do not condone, but on the other hand, we want to get
them home safely. If students have a
function where they serve alcohol, they have to follow certain steps. Using a third party vendor that has insurance
and a license ensures there is no underage drinking.
Prof. Hawamdeh asked whether
student advisors were involved in making sure the policy was working. Mr. Stroud said he was trying to involve the advisors
of organizations in planning and attending events, especially the larger
ones. Events that are sanctioned and
serve alcohol have to have an alumni advisor, faculty member or staff member
attend. Alcohol is not allowed at events
on Thursday nights anymore. Many fraternity
advisors and presidents are happy with the changes. There is less vandalism and fewer unpleasant
odors. Alumni are doing more things for
the houses, and upper classmen are staying in the houses. Prof. Rugeley asked whether DWIs in
Prof. Megginson asked Mr.
Stroud to follow up on his comment about the number of meals served. Mr. Stroud said a million meals a year are
served in Couch cafeteria, and the cafeteria offers a variety of food. Prof. Benson suggested that it might
encourage students to stay at OU on the weekends if the cafeteria stayed open
on the weekends. He said he realized it
was probably for economic reasons and that there were opportunities for students
to eat elsewhere. Mr. Stroud said
economic reasons were a big part of the decision. Most students were not eating at the
cafeteria but at Cate, which is still open and has a lot of options. We do want students to stay on campus.
The ad hoc committee on central
campus instruction has met three times and has spoken with students and the Provost. The members submitted a resolution today, and
it may come to the Faculty Senate in January.
Certificates of appreciation
were presented to senators whose terms were ending due to leaves.
This month’s report of
faculty retiree deaths includes George Bogart (Art), who died November 23.
The Senate Executive Committee
and Information Technology Council would like feedback about Information
Technology (IT) support. The groups
would like to know about problems with IT services, particularly the conversion
to the Desire2Learn courseware, and whether IT helps resolve the problems. Comments may be sent to the Faculty Senate
office at facsen@ou.edu.
At last month’s meeting, the
senate considered a response to the Student Congress resolution requesting
professors to post current class syllabi and grade information for each student
on learn.ou.edu (see 11/05 Journal and http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/stucongrrsln_syllabus.htm). Prof. Sharp had proposed the following
motion: The Faculty Senate endorses a goal of having 90 percent of the
undergraduate course syllabi available online within two years in order to
provide students with greater access to the course materials.
Prof. Raadschelders reiterated
that there was no way to monitor the 90 percent benchmark. He said he did not see the purpose of the
motion. Prof. Burns suggested that the
wording be changed to read, “The Faculty Senate encourages professors to make a
reasonable attempt to have course syllabi available.” Prof. Knapp said it could be simplified by
saying, “The Faculty Senate encourages faculty to make syllabi available
online.” Prof. Burns said he did not
mean to say “online.” Prof. Knapp
pointed out that faculty members are already required to have course
syllabi. Prof. Fincke commented that the
90 percent could be deleted and then the Senate would simply be endorsing the goal. That would respond at least to the student
request. Prof. Benson said he thought it
was good that students wanted to be involved and get their syllabi, but he was
concerned about why the Senate was doing this.
If we have the good faculty that we have heard we have, then why do they
need to be encouraged to do something? A
faculty member might not make a syllabus available, but we should not make a
policy for one person. If professors are
not making syllabi available, their chairs, deans, or Provost should hear about
it. He said he supported the policy that
faculty should make syllabi available.
Some faculty may choose not to put it online for good pedagogical
reasons, such as to give them a chance to see their students.
Prof. Sharp said her concern was
that not responding to the student resolution would look like a lack of
interest by faculty. She thought the
faculty should address a legitimate student concern. Students should not have to deal with the
consequence of things not being handled properly. Prof. Raadschelders wondered if there were
data to support the statement that syllabi are not available to students. Prof. Sharp noted that the statement in the student
resolution was that some professors would not provide a second copy. Prof. Megginson asked whether the motion
would encourage faculty to have syllabi online generally or in a specific data
base. Prof. Knapp said Prof. Sharp did
not include learn.ou.edu in her motion, with the intent that syllabi would be
generally available. Prof. Hawamdeh said
he thought this was a departmental issue.
Prof. Sharp amended her motion to read, “Faculty Senate encourages faculty to make undergraduate course syllabi
available online.” Prof. Burns suggested
that it read, “…online or by some other reasonable means.” Prof. Raadschelders asked whether the motion would
imply that syllabi were not accessible. Prof.
Sharp said no, the motion would just encourage faculty to do something. Prof. Raadschelders said he agreed that the chair
or dean should get involved when things were not handled properly. Prof. Knapp pointed out that the resolution would
not keep that from happening. Prof. Sharp’s
resolution was approved on a voice vote and by a show of hands.
The Faculty Senate approved
the nomination of Roberta Magnusson (History) to replace Robert Dohrmann (Art)
on the Faculty Senate Executive Committee for the spring 2006 semester.
The Academic Regulations
Committee (ARC) submitted three proposals concerning courses with numbers
ending in 60, 70, 80, and 90 (attached--http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/ARCprop.htm). Prof. Knapp
invited Mr. Matt Hamilton, Registrar and Associate Vice President, to provide
information about the proposals. Mr.
Hamilton, Chair of the ARC, explained that the voting membership of ARC was composed
of six faculty and one student. In
addition, four members serve as ex officio, non-voting. In the spring, the Faculty Senate Executive
Committee forwarded the issue of S/U versus letter grading for independent study
and directed readings courses to ARC. ARC
originally recommended that 60 and 90 courses be S/U graded, 80 be S/U except
by appeal, and 70 be letter or S/U.
After receiving complaints that the recommendation was too intrusive to
the faculty, ARC revised proposal one to read that 60, 80 and 90 courses be S/U
graded except by appeal and 70 be letter or S/U. The rationale is it would provide a consistent
standard and an appeal process. A special
form is available for making changes in course grading, and the change can be
temporary or permanent. ARC believes the
proposal will eliminate confusion and ease administrative burden for
departments and administrators. Proposal
two would make titles for these particular courses consistent and endorse what is
the understood policy regarding variable topic and independent study courses. If a course is to be offered regularly, there
is a process through the Academic Programs Council (APC) that involves faculty
peer review. Dr. Paul Bell, Vice Provost
for Instruction, sent a letter on August 26 to deans, chairs, and directors to
remind individuals of the process. Having
some consistency would help in enrollment, advising, and degree audit, since
there are limitations on how many attempts are allowed with some of these
courses. Proposal three, which
recommends that all departments have these courses established, would ensure uniformity. This policy would facilitate change if a department
did not have such courses set up so the department would be in compliance with
the consistent titles in proposal two.
Prof. Biggerstaff thanked the
committee for its work. He commented
that proposal two said a specific topic could only be offered twice under a 70
number. He asked whether a permanent course
would expire if it was not taught for a number of years. Dr. Bell said the practice has been that if a
formally-approved course has not been taught in five years, the department is
asked whether it wishes to continue the course.
Prof. Sharp said she thought it would be better to change the language
to “…twice within a certain time frame.”
Some special topics courses might be taught 5-7 years apart. A department could go through the effort of
getting a course approved and then not teach it for seven years, or a
particular faculty member could have left.
Prof. Wood asked whether there was a limit currently on the number of
times a topic could be offered. Mr. Hamilton
said the practice in Classroom Scheduling is to notify professors the second
time the same title is offered and remind them to go through the APC
process.
Prof. Marcus-Mendoza said her
department had other approved course numbers for seminars and special topics
that did not end in 70. She asked
whether those courses would be replaced with the 70 numbers, with resulting
program modifications. Mr. Hamilton said
the notion was to make the titles as consistent as possible, and his office
would help with the process through proposal three. Dr. Bell added that the four course numbers
represented fairly common activities across the University. Most departments already use those
numbers. Even if the university went to
a uniform numbering system, departments could still create any other designators
as long as the courses had been vetted through APC. The four courses would become the minimum for
those kinds of activities, but departments would be free to develop any other
courses that seem appropriate. Prof. Marcus-Mendoza
summarized that the ones that already existed would stay in place then. Dr. Bell said the proposal did not represent
any desire to make a change in practice for other courses, but to have some
uniformity in how these courses are numbered.
Prof. Marcus-Mendoza pointed
out that military students have trouble getting tuition assistance for S/U graded
courses, so her department had talked about creating letter graded courses to
avoid that issue. Dr. Bell responded
that current policy gives faculty discretion whether the courses are S/U or
letter graded. Mr. Hamilton said the
practice is dictated by the college. For
example, the
Prof. Gutierrez remarked that
faculty would have to go through an appeal process to assign a letter grade. Mr. Hamilton responded that independent study
courses typically have less standard of comparison in any given semester. On the other side, faculty could compare the
work with a body of knowledge. The committee
thought there should be a standard but that faculty should be able to go
through an exception process. There have
been issues with lack of consistency. The
proposal would leave S/U as the default but provide a process for exceptions. Prof. Gutierrez said this would add
bureaucratic steps. Prof. Knapp said it has
been done in less than 24 hours. Prof. Blank
said the ARC was not proposing to add any new bureaucratic steps to the
exception process. It would be what is already
in place, which is very simple. Prof. Forman
noted that all law readings courses are letter graded. Prof. Biggerstaff said his department sometimes
uses independent studies classes for interdisciplinary studies and would prefer
to give the students a letter grade. He
wondered whether the bureaucracy might stifle smaller interdisciplinary offerings. Provost Mergler mentioned that an individual
student could petition to be graded pass/no pass. Dr. Bell explained that the faculty member does
not know that a student is enrolled as pass/no pass and assigns the S/U or
letter grade as usual. The grade is not
allowed for courses that count toward a major.
Provost Mergler added that everyone in a class has to be graded by one
standard or another. Dr. Bell said a
letter grade could be based on a body of knowledge. The issue is not one of a comparative
standard but a faculty member’s standards.
Prof. Knapp pointed out that by filling out the form to give a letter
grade, the professor takes the responsibility that there is a standard. He said the senate would consider the
proposals next time. He asked whether
the senators wanted to consider the three proposals separately or together, and
the general consensus was to consider them separately.
Prof. Megginson announced
that the Business school faculty had voted in November to bring a proposal for
plus/minus grading to the Senate at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:55
p.m. The next regular session of the
Faculty Senate will be held at
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
A. Steve Bradford, Secretary