2003 - 04 
FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Foothill Suite, University Union
3:00 - 5:00 p.m.
 

MOMENT OF SILENCE

GEORGE VICEK
Emeritus Staff, Transportation and Parking
1959 - 1986

OPEN FORUM

CONSENT CALENDAR

CONSENT INFORMATION

CONSENT ACTION

Curriculum Policies Committee
David Lang, At-large, 2006
Manuel Barajas, At-large, 2005

Research and Creative Activities Subcommittee
Mridula Udayagiri, At-large, 2005

Anthony J. Leones Scholarship Committee
Juanita Barrena, At-large, 2006
Chevelle Newsome, At-large, 2006

ASI Board
Sue Holl, Faculty Representative, 2004

ASI Appellate Council
William Dillon, 2004

ASI Elections Complaint Committee
Ernest Uwazie, 2004

Search Committee for Vice President, Academic Affairs
Rita Cameron-Wedding, Women's Studies
Cristy Jensen, Public Policy and Administration
Tom Krabacher, Geography
Val Smith, Communication Studies

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program change proposal:

Master's of Physical Therapy

In light of a national effort to standardize the entrance requirements for students applying to physical therapy programs across the country launched by the American Physical Therapy Association, Section on Education, Academic Administrators, the Department of Physical Therapy is requesting approval of the changes in the prerequisite requirements for entry into the Master's curriculum to coincide with the next catalog year.

Delete the following pre-requisites:	Bio 122 - Advanced Human Anatomy (4 units) Bio 123 - Neuroanatomy (3 units) Bio 132 - Neurophysiology (3 units) Kins 176 - Perceptual Motor Development (3 units) Kins 176A - Lifespan Motor Development (3 units) Chdv 30 - Human Development (3 units)
Add:	Kins 151A - Biomechanics (3 units) as an alternative to Kins 151 - Kinesiology (3 units)

The Faculty Senate approves the continuation through the 2003-2004 academic year of the “Senate Floor Procedures” originally proposed and adopted unanimously by the Senate in the fall of 1999 (Attachment B).

REGULAR AGENDA

FIRST READING

WHEREAS:	Proposition 54 would inhibit the ability of agencies such as the California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC) to carry out their work, thereby reducing the ability of the CSU to make informed decisions or reach reasoned judgments about matters of policy. Lacking data collected by the state, CPEC would have no factual basis on which to determine success of publicly-funded colleges and universities in providing access to all ethnic/racial groups, or to ascertain whether some lack equal opportunity in the high schools to complete the admissions requirements; and
WHEREAS:	By prohibiting the State from collecting data on ethnicity, Proposition 54 would restrict the ability of faculty and students to analyze such data to the benefit of the State and its citizens. It would deprive faculty and students of data compiled by the State that is used for scholarly research, for analysis of trends in California society, economy, and politics, and for policy planning. The CSUS Faculty Senate shares the concerns of the Academic Senate of the University of California about the potentially deleterious effects of Proposition 54 on this primary function of the academy (its statement is online at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/crecnoresp.pdf); and
WHEREAS:	Proposition 54 is, therefore, at its very heart, anti-intellectual and anti-empirical. Proposition 54 would significantly inhibit the ability of the CSU to realize its goals of making higher education available to historically under-represented students, many of them from ethnic or cultural minorities, and the goal of expanding the cultural and gender diversity of its faculty. By prohibiting all agencies of the State of California from collecting or maintaining data on race or ethnicity of employees and other individuals (e.g., students and staff), Proposition 54 would prevent the CSU from measuring the extent to which it is succeeding in providing access to all ethnic and racial groups and in diversifying its faculty and staff positions. If the state of California were unable to collect data on the race and ethnicity of high-school graduates, there would be no basis on which to identify which racial or ethnic groups are underrepresented; and
WHEREAS:	Proposition 54 would similarly obstruct the CSU's efforts to gauge the success of efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty. The ways that the University addresses its goals of opportunity and diversity will change as the racial and ethnic composition of California changes--a group that is underrepresented today may not be in ten or twenty years. But it is, and will be, possible to know who is underrepresented only if data are available. Proposition 54, if passed, would deprive CSU of these data. Proposition 54 would therefore weaken efforts to expand educational opportunity for prospective students from under-represented groups and to increase diversity of the faculty and staff; and
WHEREAS:	These effects make Proposition 54 antithetical to the policy document entitled “The Mission of the California State University,” adopted by the Board of Trustees in November 1985; and
WHEREAS:	The CSUS Faculty Senate shares the concerns of California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC), which strongly opposes this initiative, and those of the many non-partisan organizations that oppose it, including the League of Women Voters. And it shares the concerns of the citizens who see it as harmful to their children, their communities, and the future of this state, blocking the efforts of the University to realize in full its commitment to the California public, and most especially to the students it is intended to serve; and
WHEREAS:	As reported in the Sacramento Bee (August 31, 2003), Proposition 54 author, Ward Connerly, “contends the measure is largely symbolic and that the exemptions and ambiguities break in favor of continued data collection in several key instances”. Nevertheless, as reported, “… one thing most everyone agrees on is this: If Proposition 54 passes, the practical implications will be battled out in the courts for years to come” at taxpayers expense; and
RESOLVED:	That the Faculty Senate considers Proposition 54 to be ill-considered, poorly constructed, and lacking a clear practical problem that its passage would solve; and further be it
RESOLVED:	That the Faculty Senate declare its strong opposition to Proposition 54, the Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin, Initiative Constitutional Amendment; and further be it
RESOLVED:	That the Faculty Senate communicate immediately to the California State University Academic Senate, Chancellor Charles B. Reed, the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the press that it opposes this initiative.

REFERENCES:

SFSU Resolution in “Resolution In Opposition To Proposition 54”. “Prop. 54 prompts debate on racial data”, Stephen Magagnini, Sacramento Bee, August 31, 2003.

Background:  The United States, unlike other advanced industrial nations, does not provide the opportunity for many of its college-bound children to begin learning a second language in elementary school (when learning is most natural and effective.) For reasons that include the cultural diversity of California and its desire to continue to participate in a global economy (not to mention the personal benefits enumerated in the goal statement that follows), all Californians should have the opportunity to at least experiment with a second language.

From the General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee's perspective, the most significant "argument" for developing learning goals and a rationale for the foreign language proficiency graduation requirement is that all components of the "core" of the University's requirements (GE and supplementary graduation requirements) should involve all segments of the university community in their implementation, evaluation and assessment. Like General Education, the courses making up the graduation requirements are parts of a university curriculum and not the responsibility of any single department.

The Committee found no substantive or philosophical difference between the development, adoption and implementation of the University Baccalaureate Learning Goals and the General Education Area Learning Goals and this effort to develop a rationale and learning goals for the foreign language graduation requirement.

The Faculty Senate recommends the adoption of the following "Goals of the CSUS Foreign Language Graduation Requirement". To provide students with:

The ability to enter into a language community other than their own.

Rationale: The study of a foreign language enables students to enter into the world of a distinct linguistic and cultural community, and thereby to transcend the limits of their own culture. Language is the bond that holds together a people and its culture, and is the key that provides entrance, interpersonal contact and communication to newcomers.

Awareness of another culture.

Rationale: One of the CSUS Baccalaureate Learning Goals is, "understanding the development of world civilizations and the values of different cultural traditions." The study of culture in conjunction with the study of a language enables the student to develop sensitivity to the values, attitudes and behaviors expected of members of a distinct language community, in order to interact with members of that community with mutual dignity, respect and acceptance.

The development of skills to increase communication with foreign language speakers in one's anticipated career field.

Rationale: Another Learning Goal is the "ability to work collaboratively with those who come from diverse cultural backgrounds." Many students will, in the course of their professional activities, encounter speakers of other languages, some of whom may not be fluent in English. This ability to work with members of other language communities may provide a strong motivation for students by providing a tangible benefit they can understand.

The ability to communicate with people from other cultures using appropriate social skills and mannerisms.

Rationale: Another Learning Goal is "understanding of, and respect for, those who are different from oneself." In addition to the words of a foreign language, students will learn the attitudes, gestures and underlying beliefs of the culture behind the language, thus enabling them to interact with dignity and respect.

A preparation for lifelong learning about other cultures and the acquisition of increased fluency if desired.

Rationale: A principle stated in the CSU Baccalaureate Learning Goals is "Baccalaureate students should possess a range of knowledge, values, and skills that will enrich and shape their lives long after their formal education has ended." Many students who, at the present time, do not see the need for developing knowledge and understanding of another culture or language may later discover the need for deeper study.

An opportunity to interact in a foreign language within the classroom setting.

Rationale: Fluency in a foreign language is best obtained in the country where it is spoken. Ideally, we might want to send each student to spend some time in a foreign country. Since this is not a realistic goal, providing a "mini-immersion" in the context of the classroom is a possible substitute.

These goals and rationales are intended to function as:

1. The basis for evaluating the intentions and implementation of the foreign language proficiency graduation requirement and
    
2. The principles underlying the development of an assessment plan for the foreign language proficiency requirement and
    
3. The criteria for the development of new course proposals and cyclical review of the courses offered to meet the foreign language proficiency requirement and
    
4. The public, informational statement for students, faculty and staff

Background:

CONTEXT: The Academic Policies Committee reviewed existing CSUS policies dealing with academic dishonesty during the 2002-2003 academic year. This was prompted by several factors, including a brief survey of department chairs undertaken the previous year on the extent of dishonesty problems, university interest in subscribing to anti-plagiarism services, and complaints to the committee in May 2002 over the handling of a recent academic dishonesty incident. On the basis of the review, the Academic Policies Committee decided to undertake the following: (1) develop and recommend a revision of existing policies, and (2) develop and recommend a plan for the dissemination of the dishonesty policies to the CSUS community. The policy revision was completed in spring 2003 and is presented to the Senate here; development of the dissemination plan will take place this year.

RECOMMENDED POLICY: The proposed Academic Honesty Policy was developed in consultation with representatives of Associated Students, Inc. and the office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. It included a review of similar policies at a number of other CSU campuses and a meeting with a representative from the University of California, Davis to discuss the procedures in place there. The proposed policy revises and consolidates existing CSUS policies and procedures (that currently exist in several places throughout the CSUS policy manual and elsewhere) into a single policy. It contains the following elements: a statement of general principles, definitions of academic dishonesty, identification of faculty and student responsibilities, and a description of procedures, safeguards, and sanctions for handling cases of alleged dishonesty.

PROS AND CONS: Members of the Academic Policies Committee were in general agreement over the elements contained in the proposed policy with one exception: whether to adopt the statement on the “proportionality” on academic sanctions. There was disagreement on this, in that some committee members agreed that a case of cheating should be sufficient cause to fail a student for the entire course. The Committee was unable to resolve the question and agreed to send the proportionality language to the full Senate for its consideration.

RELATED ITEM: The Academic Policies Committee also recommends to the Senate a proposed amendment (FS 03-41) to the existing policy on Grade Appeals. This amendment would make the Grade Appeals Policy consistent with the proposed Academic Honesty Policy.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the policies and procedures regarding academic honesty as outlined in Attachment C.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Grade Appeal procedures as follows:

(underscore = addition)

III. Appeal of grades assigned for cheating or plagiarism

Grade appeal panels shall be limited to deciding claims that grades assigned for cheating or plagiarism are grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary.

1. Grade appeal panels shall not try or retry charges of cheating or plagiarism when hearing grade appeals. Instead they shall be bound by the disposition of those charges made by instructors or the Office of Student Affairs under the CSUS Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty.
    
2. In any grade appeal that seeks to overturn a grade assigned for cheating or plagiarism because it is disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary, the assigned grade shall be upheld unless it can be shown to be grossly disproportionate to the offense. Gross disproportionality shall be shown by reference to Sections V.A.2 and 3 of the CSUS Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty and a demonstration by the student at the discretion authorized there has been abused. Strict or close proportionality shall not be required of instructors when assigning academic sanctions for cheating or plagiarism.

INFORMATION

1. Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics - report at http://www.csus.edu/policy/cleryact.htm
2. Grade Appeal Findings, September 8, 2003 memo from Shirley Uplinger, Vice President for Student Affairs
3. Report on 2002-03 cases of cheating/plagiarism, September 4, 2003 memo from Ric Brown, Vice President for Academic Affairs
4. Faculty Senate's home page:  www.csus.edu/acse, or, from the CSUS home page, click on Administration and Policy, then Administration, then Faculty Senate.
5. Status on actions taken by the Senate:  http://www.csus.edu/acse/02-03_actions.htm   
6. John C. Livingston Annual Faculty Lecture Convocation - Tuesday, October 21, 2003
7. Upcoming Senate meetings: 

September 25, 2003 - tentative October 2, 2003 - tentative October 9, 2003 - tentative October 16, 2003 - tentative October 23, 2003 - tentative October 30, 2003 - tentative November 6, 2003 - tentative

November 13, 2003 - tentative November 20, 2003 - tentative November 27, 2003 - Happy Thanksgiving! December 4, 2003 - tentative December 11, 2003 - tentative December 18, 2003 - tentative