Meeting of the CCAS Faculty Senate
Approved Minutes
April 30, 2024
The meeting was called to order at approximately 12:45 p.m., with CCAS Faculty Senate President Robert Emmons presiding. There are 31 Senators, including 2 officers and 2 senators-at-large. Of the 30 voting members, 18 were present. A quorum was met.
- A motion to approve the minutes of April 2, 2024 (March meeting), was made. The motion to approve the minutes was approved.
Voting record: 18 ayes, 0 opposed, 0 abstention.
- Courses and Programs presented by Alex Roche, Chair of the APC, for Faculty Senate recommendation:
|
Courses presented for discussion and recommendation by APC to Faculty Senate |
Voting Record |
||||||
|
Department |
Course # |
Course Title |
Credit Value |
New/ Revision |
Aye |
Nay |
Abstention |
|
History |
50:512:333 |
Black Entrepreneurship in Historical Perspective |
3 |
NEW |
18 |
0 |
0 |
|
Psychology |
50:830:260 |
Vision & Art |
3 |
NEW |
18 |
0 |
0 |
|
Visual, Media, & Performing Arts |
50:965:262 |
Costume Construction |
3 |
NEW |
18 |
0 |
0 |
|
Programs presented for discussion and recommendation by APC Committee to Faculty Senate |
Voting Record |
||||||
|
Department |
Minor |
Date when program will begin |
Aye |
Nay |
Abstention |
||
|
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
||
I. Senate Business
a. Q&A with Kwangwon Lee, Faculty Director of Equity
i. Discussion of DEI SIRS diversity questions/recommendations
-
-
-
-
-
- “Did the instructor support an inclusive and respectful learning environment?” (Scale of 1 to 5)
- “How might the class climate be made more inclusive of diverse students?” (Open-ended answer)
-
-
-
-
Summary of Senate discussion: Motivations for completing SIRS include faculty pressure and extra credit; disgruntled students use SIRS to complain about instructors. There is concern around, for both faculty and students, understanding of the terms being used and what the questions really mean. Having consistent and very specific grading rubrics across the school may be a helpful tool and warrants discussion. If the question asks students about their own experience, as opposed to someone else’s experience, it may be better received by faculty and move in the right direction. The way that SIRS are structured, and the fact that they are tied to promotion and tenure, are problems that faculty want to address so that student feedback is meaningful and not only used for things like retribution. Are there other options for capturing student concerns regarding diversity and inclusion? The SIRS results tend to carry a very particular weight with some of our more vulnerable faculty members/NTTs/Lecturers. Perhaps the DEI questions may be better instituted at a department level instead of SIRS. An idea/option to garner student feedback may be to implement a sort of exit survey or ask students (graduating seniors) to write a paper on professionalism.
Response from Dr. Lee: The DEI subcommittee understands that SIRS is not a perfect tool, but the group feels like they must start somewhere; approaching this idea in good faith. SIRS are technical and knowledge based, however, there is no transparent and fair grievance process when students do not agree with grades, for example. The addition of the DEI questions to SIRS would serve as a measure and conversation starter on whether students feel respected. The DEI subcommittee’s attempt is to make the campus more inclusive. Aside from SIRS, there is no other mechanism for measuring the data. The questions were selected from a list based on the “belonging” quantitatively and qualitatively, that were generated by OTEAR: https://rutgers.app.box.com/s/6l39srrmwao72rhs8uicsdoue7lvwpzb.
ii. Vote on endorsement of DEI SIRS additions
The President made a motion to vote on the addition of the DEI questions to SIRS as they stand. The motion was seconded by Jim Brown. The President will write up a list of suggestions and recommendations (as received via email from Senators) for Dr. Lee and the DEI subcommittee.
Voting record: 4 ayes, 14 opposed, 1 abstention.
b. Presentation of Dean Griffin’s issues for advisement regarding online education policy
Dean Griffin talked about online education and how it fits. The Dean is seeking help from the Seante in thinking about policy and possible policy changes. The current policy is very blunt in that it states that faculty must teach one of their two courses a semester in person, which creates not a lot of good pedagogy. The goal is to have the new Undergraduate Dean collect information over the summer about where we stand with online education; what percentage of Camden courses are online in comparison to the other Arts & Sciences schools at Rutgers. We don’t have control over pedagogy in online courses at other schools, but we also lose revenue for those courses. We don’t have control over quality in online education; rubrics aren’t used to measure quality. We have seen courses listed as in-person that very quietly are turned into online courses. Is that fair to students? How do we support online education and ensure we have quality online education? How do we have a policy that supports our students as much as our faculty? Dean Griffin is looking for a group of volunteers (4 or 5 Senators) willing to work with him and the new Undergraduate Dean over the summer to think about what is needed to have a good discussion; what data should be collected; what information do we want to know; what are best practices?
Asst Dean Jennifer Thiel: If students don’t meet with academic advisors, their registration is their prerogative. However, over the last two years Advising has made a concerted effort to enforce the residency policy, where a student is required to take 30 of their final 42 credits at RU-Camden.
An ad hoc committee on Online Education will be formed consisting of: Robert Emmons, Kayla Preito-Hodge, Jim Brown, Randy Mershon, Craig Agule, and Maureen Donaghy.
II. Announcements
a. Search for Faculty Senate Secretary Nomination
A new Secretary is needed for Senate for next year. Please email nominations to Rafey Habib and/or Robert Emmons.
b. Because there was not a quorum at the FASC Faculty meeting on 4/29/24, neither a discussion nor a vote could be had on the bylaws. Dean Griffin will be meeting with Selim Cakmakli and Bill FitzGerald to confirm that an electronic vote can be sent via email to the full faculty, instead. The plan is to send a link to the vote in the same communication regarding elections. If the bylaws are not passed as-is, there will need to be a discussion in the fall semester to hear what concerns faculty may have.
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Present: Craig Agule, Ross Allen, Paul Bernstein, Jim Brown, Michelle Carlin, Brian Corbett, Robert Emmons, Rafey Habib, Hunter King, Randy Mershon, Susan Mokhberi, Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, Kayla Preito-Hodge, Alex Roche, Amy Savage, Zara Wilkinson, Anthony Wright
Absent (Senators): Margery Amdur, Margaret Betz, Iman Dehzangi, Sean Duffy, Jamie Dunaev, Osama Hamed, Ana Laguna, Xingyun Qi, Jovanna Rosen, Stass Shpanin, Nathaniel Wright
Excused Absent (Senators): Anthony Grasso
Present Senators-at-Large: Bart Everts
Absent Senators-at-Large: Nathan Fried
Excused Senators-at-Large:
Present (Invited Guests): Maureen Donaghy, Dean John Griffin, Kwangwon Lee, Jennifer Thiel
Drafted by Melinda Aviles, 4/30/24