November 17, 2005
Loyola Marymount University
Faculty Senate Minutes
November 17, 2005
The Hill, Malone
3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Present: Marta Baltodano, Cynthia Becht, William F. Cain, S.J., Jeffrey Davis, Charles E. Erven,Victoria Graf, Paul Harris, Chun I. Lee, Blake Mellor, Ed Mosteig, Elizabeth Murray, Suzanne O’Brien, K.J. Peters, Damon Rago, James A. Roe, Rhonda Rosen, Omar Es-Said, Susan Scheibler, Robert Singleton
Excused: Jok M. Jok, Ralph Quiñones, Nina Reich
President Graf called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Paul Harris read two passages by G. K. Chesterton on the spirit of openness and inventiveness. A moment of silence was observed.
I. A Discussion with Fr. Robert B. Lawton, S.J., President of LMU
-Fr. Lawton addressed the topic of academic rigor, citing recently voiced student concerns that the university should become more rigorous academically. However, developing more rigorous programs might produce negative consequences such as less popular majors not attracting enough students and the possibility of overburdening students. Fr. Lawton invited faculty senators to discuss the topic.
Discussion:
Comment: A lot of faculty would like to push harder but feel there is resistance from administrators. Merit pay increases are based purely upon student evaluations. If you are too rigorous a professor, the majority of students would complain. Establishing a more rigorous campus would work if all departments were equally rigorous and supported one another.
Comment: Student evaluations often are based on personality and a professor’s chemistry with the class. It’s difficult to find that right note. I don’t feel my teaching is evaluated substantially. In my opinion student evaluations are not useful or helpful.
Comment: Student evaluations are important for evaluating first and second year teaching. However, if several faculty teach the same course, a more rigorous professor gains a reputation as being the one whose classes are to be avoided. Other professors, not just students, may contribute to that sort of negative advice.
Comment: There are websites, like DogEars.net, where students can evaluate professors online and identify which faculty are the easiest. Students are drawing upon these resources as a way of determining their workload. As for rigor in first year courses, these classes are usually taught by part-time and non-tenure-track instructors. They may not feel motivated to be more rigorous.
Comment: We have a problem with expectations. Most students applying to college don’t expect much from LMU academically. We’ve been a fall-back school for many applicants, not their first-choice school. We should turn around expectations. By capping enrollment and pushing up standards of admission, we might become known as a rigorous university.
Comment: Part of the problem is culturally embedded within the university. A lot of faculty perceive students’ identification with LMU as being more socially directed than it is academically driven.
Comment: The student academic culture is a problem. Some of my best students have transferred out of LMU after two years because of the lack of academic rigor. Other groups of students don’t talk about ideas outside of class. They don’t know how to connect intellectually. Perhaps we can develop venues for them. We might create a more coherent program with more networking across the curriculum between departments.
Comment: There need to be places for intellectual conversation. Maybe we can implement this into the plans for the new Library.
Q: What would be the response of students to a more rigorous program?
Comment: Rigor must be established in the freshman year. Students who are scathingly opposed to a rigorous program in the first years will understand by the time they reach upper division classes what they have gained. It is a gradual process of developing the culture and encouraging discipline in the students.
Comment: I think we need to seek suggestions directly from the students. We need to identify avenues that are conducive to intellectual community. There are some successful student-run academic societies. It is also important to establish a standard grading system across disciplines.
Comment: If we institute a more rigorous program across the board, students will be more amenable to the idea, seeing other students experiencing the same rigor. Pushing the students means pushing the faculty. Commitment has to be on all sides, including Administration.
-Fr. Lawton concluded the discussion with thanks, stressing that the topic of academic rigor will be an on-going conversation.
II. Information Technology Services Report -- Erin Griffin, Assistant Vice President for Information Technology, and Joseph Cevetello, Director of Academic Technology Services
-The following IT issues were discussed:
1. Academic Technology Services. Joseph Cevetello, Director, was reintroduced to the Senate and his responsibilities outlined. His role is to make sure that faculty have the media and resources they need in order to teach, learn, and research effectively. Classroom Management and computer labs have been added to his charge.
2. The updated version of the Information Technology Services Report. Erin Griffin welcomes feedback on the update.
3. The state of technology at the beginning of the school year. The IT infrastructure had to be replaced when Collegis departed. Transition difficulties were acknowledged with apologies for any inconvenience and an assurance that ITS is working on improving its program throughout the department.
-Discussion:
Q: We need an effective way of evaluating IT. There is a problem with the work order questionnaire evaluation emailed at the end of the work order. I’ve had trouble submitting it.
A: In the past evaluations were gathered annually by Collegis. We need to do that and we’ve currently acquired a survey assessment tool in order to get it up and running. If the work order questionnaire doesn’t go through, we won’t know unless you tell us.
Q: Regarding the Online Learning Committee mentioned on page 9 of the report, what is the status of that committee? Why is there no one from the Library participating on that committee?
A: The committee has been formed but has not yet been able to meet. It consists of the Assistant Deans of all the schools. We wanted to keep it small so that it moves quickly. Various people will be invited to talk to the committee.
Q: Thank you for the honest assessment of the beginning of the semester. Would it be helpful if you had faculty members on your committees as consultants to get a sense of how faculty might respond?
A: All feedback is welcome and there are many committees on which there is faculty representation. However, we specifically want to keep the Online Learning Committee small in order to make it efficient.
Q: The perception that making a committee small gets things done isn’t necessarily accurate; the process may actually end up being less efficient. It creates a tangle when people are left out of the decision-making process. Also a few changes in the customer service language on the screen might help ITS keep a “human face.”
A: We feel that the smaller framework for this committee will be more efficient, at least initially. Joseph Cevetello is a specialist in Online Learning so he’s chairing it. Any input is welcomed by the committee.
Q: Are the work order evaluation surveys received by ITS anonymous?
A: No because the Help Desk ticket is not anonymous. The technicians may not know who wrote an evaluation but their supervisor does.
Q: Are ManeGate and PROWL responsibilities of IT?
A: We are responsible for implementing the functionality of software but not for their content. We do not have any input on how ManeGate and Prowl operate. That is the function of the Banner User Group which works within ITAC.
Q: What is being done about replacing IT staff positions that have been left unfilled?
A: Funds are in place to redevelop the positions that were lost in the transition.
III. Review of the Faculty Handbook -- Matt Dillon
- Phase I revisions are ready to be voted upon by the Senate. Ideally the package should be pushed to the faculty for a vote this semester. A sample ballot will be included in the package for ease of counting votes. There are some serious omissions that were not included in Phase I but will be rectified in Phase II, including:
1. Descriptions of various faculty titles.
2. The Anti-Discrimination/Harassment policy. Line Item #17 (Anti-Discrimination Policy) is being withdrawn from the current package as a new policy will superseded it.
-Discussion and Voting:
Line Items #5, 15, 16 and 19 were reserved for discussion.
It was moved and seconded to accept Line Items # 3-4, 6-10, 12-14, 18. Call for the question. The motion passed with 17 in favor, O opposed, 2 abstentions.
Line Item #5 (Title: Deans) discussion:
There is no statement regarding evaluation of deans. The language of “indefinite period” is problematic. It is important to make administrators accountable with a faculty vote of confidence.
-It was moved and seconded to accept # 5 with the provision that it will be revisited for debate in Phase II. Call for the question. The motion passed unanimously.
Line Item #11 (Description: LRC) discussion:
Although LRC currently staffs the courses and labs noted, the departments connected to these labs wish to retain responsibility for staffing and pedagogy. The listing of specific courses and labs should be omitted.
-It was moved and seconded to accept #11 with the omission of all course and lab descriptions after the word “courses.” Call for the question. The motion passed unanimously.
Line Item # 15 (Description: Emeritus Faculty) discussion:
There is continued objection to the eligibility requirement of “20 or more years” since it excludes large numbers of faculty who might otherwise make tremendous contributions to the LMU community.
-It was moved and seconded to accept #15 on the understanding that it will be revisited in Phase II. Call for the question. The motion passed with 17 in favor, 2 opposed, 0 abstentions.
Line Item #16 (Tenure Policy) discussion:
-It was moved and seconded to accept #16 after a clarification of the text. Call for the question. The motion passed unanimously.
Line Item #19 (Pre-tenure Sabbatical) discussion:
There needs to be a clarification of the text in conditions 1) and 2). Are the commas in “...department, chair...” and “...department, chairperson...” typographical errors or is the text correct as written?
-It was moved and seconded to accept #19 on the provision that it will be revisited for discussion in Phase II. Call for the question. The motion passed with 18 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention.
-It was moved and seconded that the final version of the Faculty Handbook be distributed both as hard copy and electronically. Call for the question. The motion was approved unanimously.
IV. Announcements by the President of the Faculty Senate
-Any IT-related comments faculty wish to send in via their faculty senators will be gathered by the Senate Executive Board and funneled to Erin Griffin.
-It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the October meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously after an emendation in the Senator Reports.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Submitted by: Cynthia Becht
Prepared by: Mary Stroud