FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Sheri Layral 312 Signers' Hall 474-7964 FYSENAT A G E N D A UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60 Monday, December 4, 1995 1:30 p.m. - 3:50 p.m. Wood Center Ballroom 1:30 I Call to Order - Eric Heyne 5 Min. A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #59 C. Adoption of Agenda 1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min. A. Motions Approved: 1. Motion to modify the deadline schedule for add/drop, withdrawal, credit/audit, and freshman low grade reports 2. Motion to amend the policies on course compression and course approval 3. Motion to amend statement on Interdisciplinary Studies B. Motions Pending: none 1:40 III. Guest Speaker A. Patty Kastelic, Executive Director for 15 Min. Human Resources 1:55 IV Remarks by Provost Keating 5 Min. Questions 2:00 V Governance Reports A. ASUAF - J. Hayes 5 Min. B. Staff Council - M. Scholle 5 Min. C. President's Report - E. Heyne 5 Min. (Attachment 60/1) 2:15 VI Public Comments/Questions 20 Min. 2:35 VII Consent Agenda 5 Min. A. Motion to delete Budget Committee of the Governance Coordinating Committee (Attachment 60/2) 2:40 VIII Old Business A. Motion on Amorous Relationships 10 Min. (Attachment 60/3), submitted by Faculty Affairs 2:50 VIII New Business A. Motion on American Sign Language as 20 Min. fulfilling the non-English language option of the "Perspectives on the Human Condition" in the Core (Attachment 60/4), submitted by Core Review B. Motion on procedure for appeals during the 5 Min. Promotion/Tenure process (Attachment 60/5), by submitted Faculty Affairs C. Resolution of censure of Chancellor 15 Min. Wadlow's actions on the CRA Dean Search Committee (Attachment 60/6), submitted by Faculty Affairs 3:30 IX Committee Reports 10 Min. A. Curricular Affairs - Dana Thomas (Handout) B. Faculty Affairs - Barbara Alexander (Handout) 3:40 X Discussion Items A. UA Political Action Committees 5 Min. (Attachment 60/7) 3:45 XI Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min. 3:50 XII Adjournment ********************* ATTACHMENT 60/1 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60 DECEMBER 4, 1995 PRESIDENT'S REPORT - Eric Heyne Two more sets of Regents Policy drafts will be before faculty for their recommendations in the next couple of months, concerning faculty appointments (04.04.04-.07) and research. Several committees will be looking closely at the proposed policies, but all senators are encouraged to read and provide suggestions on the changes. Contact the Governance Office for copies. The UAF Governance Coordinating Committee, composed of students, faculty, and staff, has a Health Issues Committee, chaired by Grant Matheke. It currently has no faculty membership. If you are interested in serving on that committee, please let me know. The Health Committee will be considering issues such as changes to indirect compensation of the sort being discussed at our meeting by Patty Kastelic. Given that we have a very busy schedule for this meeting, including some lively issues for discussion, we will try to follow parliamentary procedure a little more strictly than usual. Please keep your comments as succinct as possible, make it clear whether you are speaking in favor of or against the motion under consideration, and try not to repeat what other people have already said. I will try to recognize all members who have not spoken before coming back to members who want a second opportunity to speak. ********************* ATTACHMENT 60/2 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60 DECEMBER 4, 1995 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Governance Coordinating Procedures as indicated below. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The actions of the Budget Council and the budget process have changed over the last few years. As a result, the committee has been inactive. The individual governing bodies all have some type of budget or fiscal committee to track information. This committee duplicates functions that are covered in other areas and this duplication is deemed unnecessary. To delete the Budget Committee from the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee requires an amendment to the Procedures. The amendment requires a two-thirds vote from each of the three governing bodies, ASUAF, Faculty Senate, and Staff Council, and Chancellor's approval. * * * * * * * * * * (( )) = Delete ARTICLE V Committees Sect. 1 The conference committees of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee shall include: Academic Computer Users Committee ((Budget Committee)) Committee on Transportation and Campus Security Intercollegiate Athletics Committee Library and Information Technology Users Committee Rural Affairs Committee UAF Grievance Council Health Issues Sect. 3 Conference Committees Charges ((B. Budget Committee The charge for the UAF budget Committee shall be: 1. follow and study the annual budget development including methods of determining budget allocations among and within the Major Administrative Units of the University of Alaska. 2. conduct hearings on the UAF budget as deemed appropriate or necessary.)) ********************* ATTACHMENT 60/3 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60 DECEMBER 4, 1995 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt a policy statement on "Consensual Sexual (Amorous) Relations between Faculty and Students" as formulated by the AAUP Council. The UAF Faculty Senate so moves with the understanding that adoption of the AAUP statement does not preclude amendments consistent with the Faculty Affairs Committee's "Report on Rationale and Options." AAUP Policy Statement on Consensual Sexual Relations Between Faculty and Students Sexual relations between students and faculty members with whom they also have an academic or evaluative relationship are fraught with the potential for exploitation. The respect and trust accorded a professor by a student, as well as the power exercised by the professor in an academic or evaluative role, make voluntary consent by the student suspect. Even when both parties have initially consented, the development of a sexual relationship renders both the faculty member and the institution vulnerable to possible later allegations of sexual harassment in light of the significant power differential that exists between faculty members and students. In their relationships with students, members of the faculty are expected to be aware of their professional responsibilities and avoid apparent or actual conflict of interest, favoritism, or bias. When a sexual relationship exists, effective steps should be taken to ensure unbiased evaluation or supervision of the student. EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor Approval ********************* ATTACHMENT 60/4 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60 DECEMBER 4, 1995 SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate recommends that American Sign Language be recognized as fulfilling the non-English language option of the "Perspectives on the Human Condition" as required by the Baccalaureate Core. The UAF Faculty Senate further recommends that given the structure and depth of ASL courses, that three semesters of ASL (9 hours) be counted as we presently count two semesters (10 hours) of other languages. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1996 RATIONALE: For an inordinately long time, voices of reason within the UAF academic community have urged that the University¹s Core Curriculum be extended in a way that offers students the opportunity of using American Sign Language (ASL) courses to meet Core Requirements in the same manner as other languages. At the same time, vocal resistance to this minor change has been forthcoming. The reasons offered for this resistance seem to emanate from a lack of awareness in an educated community. In prefacing the motion from the Core Review Committee urging acceptance of ASL as Core Curriculum credit, we wish to address the specifics of the aforementioned objections and to offer supporting reasons for the Committee¹s recommendation. 1. It has been suggested that there is no ³body of literature² associated with ASL that would stand as foundation for this language as a perspective on the human condition. This objection is perhaps the most offensive to the culture at the very center of which ASL stands as core. First, the implication shows little understanding of the concept of culture. Many of us who actually teach the concept of culture refer definitionally to Geertz (1973) who says culture is a ³design for living,² or to Goodenough (1970) who claims it is ³whatever one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members.² However one chooses to define culture, all cultures share the objectives of adaptation and survival in a specific environment, and maintenance of group identity and unity over time. For Deaf Americans, their families, friends, and authentic associates, ASL, as the heart of their culture, functions in exactly the same way. As a language in and of itself, ASL is not a transformation of any oral language, but rather an evolution of the need to communicate among and with persons who have little or no access to sound. The language sets Deaf culture apart from others with similar sensory loss (e.g., the blind). ASL has its own unique phonological, syntactic, and semantic structure, with the flexibility required to develop new vocabulary and new grammatical structures (Friedman, 1977). It serves the same social and intellectual functions as spoken languages. It also has regional dialects and slang. All by way of explaining that ASL is a unique, evolving language and not some manual/digital code for English. Note that identity comes not from being deaf per se, but from the cultural matter of ASL use. Further, cultural matters (such as marriage patterns, societal structure, and material artifacts) define ASL users, documentation of which is extensive and available on request from Deaf Community Services of Fairbanks or from the Chairperson of the Core Curriculum Review Committee. In specifically addressing the matter of a ³body of literature,² we speculate that such an objection seems to be that there is no accumulation of written literature. We hope that it is recognized that no native language which is taught and accepted as Core Curriculum credit has written literature. Frishberg (1992) discusses Deaf traditions of oratory, folklore, and performance art, and notes that "...written forms of language are not required for a community to possess a well-formed aesthetic in poetry, narrative, humor, and rhetoric" (p. 45). Please become aware, however, that ASL culture has fostered an extensive wealth of materials across a variety of genres. There exists a body of ASL history, poetry, stories, plays, and novels. There are libraries of print, videotape, and film (Please see: Gannon, 1981; Lane, 1984; Groce, 1980; Miles, 1975; Klima & Bellugi, 1975, 1979; Eastman, 1974; Bragg & Bergman, 1981; Rutherford, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987). The folkloristic tradition of Deaf America is over 175 years old, replete with legends, tall tales, jokes, folkspeech, games, sign play, folk poetry, customs, rituals, and celebrations (Rutherford, 1984, 1987; Carmel, 1980). The study of American Deaf Culture has shown distinct differences between that culture and the mainstream society in social attitude, patterns for daily living, world view, humor, and literature. Additionally, the deaf community in America has a long and extensive tradition in all forms of the visual arts (Rutherford, 1992, pp. 32-33). There are Deaf publishers whose primary focus is the publication of Deaf literature and related materials in print and electronic media. Among them are T.J. Publishers, Inc.; Dawn Sign Press, Inc.; National Association of the Deaf; and Gallaudet University Press/ Linstok Press, Inc. focuses on scholarly publication. Mainstream publishers, including Harvard University Press, University of California Press, University of Illinois Press, Alfred A. Knopf, and Random House, among many others, have published major works on Deaf culture and literature and are becoming increasingly interested in the field. National publishers focusing primarily on videotape and film production of works in ASL include D.E.A.F. Media, Inc., Sign Media, Inc., and Beyond Sound, Inc. Other producers of ASL videotape materials include Gallaudet University, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, and the San Francisco Public Library (Rutherford, 1992). Persons with an interest to further their awareness of ASL culture, literature, and tradition will find useful bibliographic material attached to this background material. (See especially Corwin and Wilcox, 1985). 2. It has been implied that ASL courses are taught without standard syllabi and are taught by persons who do not have ³University-level credentials.² The Core Review committee has requested and received evidence that conclusively refutes the syllabus rumor. ASL courses are conceived, organized, and taught with as much or more care than many courses accepted by UAF. The matter of who teaches ASL is significant but ³university- level credentials² most certainly are not. Any University in which accredited courses in indigenous languages are available (University of New Mexico, University of Nebraska, University of Arizona, University of Oklahoma, University of Alaska Fairbanks,) sensibly recognizes that no better source of a language can exist than native speakers. Yet we know further that all ASL teachers in the UAF system are either degreed or are working to become so at this time. Further interest in the topic might be referred to ³Who is Qualified to Teach American Sign Language² (Kanda, J., and Fleischer, L., 1992). As additional information, the Core Review Committee would like to offer the following: - Modern Languages at UAF not only has no objections, but endorses ASL for use in the core. - The State of Alaska recognizes ASL as a language. - The State of Alaska mandates ASL as foreign language credit at the public school level. - Major Universities throughout the Lower 48 allow students to satisfy foreign language requirements using ASL (e.g. Iowa State University). - ASL is the fourth most commonly used language in the United States of America. The Core Review Committee and others who endorse this minor alteration of the UAF core recognize that changes can be unsettling, particularly to persons comfortable with the status quo. We must understand, however, that standing still puts us behind in the broad movement towards better education as the central product of our institution. Lamb & Wilcox (1992), in discussing the establishment of ASL as a baccalaureate degree program at the University of New Mexico, say that ³ ... we were aware of the rather cumbersome bureaucracy through which any request of this nature would have to move² (p. 165). But there, too, the faculty and administration came to understand the significance of Deaf culture to the American plurality and moved toward a supportive recognition of ASL as both language and as the central feature of an extensive American culture. Selover (1992) tells us that in establishing ASL as a language in the curriculum of higher education we will ³ ... meet with opposition. This largely stems from basic misunderstanding of the language and culture of Deaf persons. Your job is to educate as you go - most people will listen² (p. 160). As members of the Core Review Committee, we certainly hope so. ********************* ATTACHMENT 60/5 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60 DECEMBER 4, 1995 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that Regent's Policy 04.04.05 provide for inclusion of appropriate procedure in MAU rules and regulations for responding to any violation of the tenure and promotion process at any point prior to decision of either tenure or promotion. At UAF the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee shall be empowered to adjudicated any grievance prior to such time that the candidate's file is forwarded to the next level of review. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: There is currently no procedure for remedy of a violation of policy and/or regulations during the process for tenure and promotion review, and such procedure is sorely needed. ********************* ATTACHMENT 60/6 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60 DECEMBER 4, 1995 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS RESOLUTION =========== Whereas, the Administrative Committee of the UAF Faculty Senate, in a memorandum dated October 18, 1995 disagreed with the Chancellor's action in setting aside "university policy for the search committees for Deans/Directors" and requested appointment of "a representative search committee"; and Whereas, the CRA Faculty Council, in a memorandum dated October 26, 1995, supported the request of the UAF Faculty Senate Administrative Committee and additionally requested "that the search not be limited to the UAF community but at least be extended statewide"; and Whereas, the UAF Faculty Senate, at its Meeting #59 held on November 13, 1995, passed a resolution, viz., "The UAF Faculty Senate does not recognize the validity of the current selection process for the Executive Dean of the College of Rural Alaska and directs the Chancellor to follow the established procedure"; and Whereas, President Heyne, in a letter to President Komisar dated November 14, 1995, expressed the Senate's position "that if procedures developed through shared governance are to have any credibility or validity at all, they must be followed by the Chancellor"; and Whereas, the Chancellor has thus far refused to follow to follow existing procedure for the hiring of either a Vice-Chancellor or Dean; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the UAF Faculty Senate moves that there be a vote of censure of Chancellor Joan K. Wadlow in the event that the Chancellor fails to remedy the search process for the position of Executive Dean of the College of Rural Alaska. ********************* ATTACHMENT 60/7 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60 DECEMBER 4, 1995 SUBMITTED BY LEGISLATIVE & FISCAL AFFAIRS DISCUSSION PAPER: University of Alaska Political Action Committees The following concepts are offered only as a framework for opening the discussions at each MAU in regards to the establishment of political action committees (PACs). In considering the formation of political action committees (PACs) at the University it seems appropriate to utilize as much as possible the existing Governance structure(s) at each MAU, as well as the Statewide Faculty Alliance. . It also seems apparent that a pro-active stance is needed to insure that faculty concerns are heard by policy makers. Should the unionization drive currently underway within our system succeed some of these concerns may be dealt within the context of negotiations and the union structure its self. That said, I still believe that a case can be made for a more politically active faculty. Public education is state education by definition. It is through the political process that ALL of our professional lives are influenced whether represented by a governance structure or a union. Therefore, if we are to ensure that our concerns are to be heard within the debate, we need to provide policy makers with forum with which to communicate and a reason to respond. In my experience that means either money or votes, usually a bit of each! Assuming that there is a adequate level of interest at each of the MAU (Anchorage already has such a body), I would suggest as a beginning that: 1) each MAU file the necessary forms with the Alaska Public Offices Commission to form a political action committee. Further, that the statewide faculty alliance be delegated as the executive committee representing the interests of the faculty(s) as whole; ( the idea here is to use the elected faculty officers of the Senate(s) as the executive committee of the PACs, rather than trying to establish yet another set of committees at each MAU). 2) each MAU use the legislative and fiscal affairs committee of their respective Faculty Senates as the central contact for legislators, administration and faculty for issues specific to each campus. The Legislative and Fiscal Affairs committee would also serve as the working committees for the executive officers of each MAU. Issues which have statewide and/or cross MAU foci will be referred to a representative statewide faculty body ( the Faculty Alliance ?) 3) the University PACs establish a initiation fee and a monthly dues schedule (membership fees), which should be uniform across the three campuses; a percentage of these Moines should be made available to the executive committee. a) each MAU retain the major portion of those dues/donations and that a proportion be passed along to the executive committee for issues of statewide/cross MA interest. Perhaps a 60%/40% split? 4) membership be voluntary and that membership fees and dues be collected via payroll deduction ( this will require the opening of a bank account and all the requisite accounting and auditing of said account be attended to ) 5) each MAU PAC will establish its own policies concerning the distribution of funds for the support of issues of concern. 6) the statewide PAC will support the necessary political activities to ensure that faculty concerns are heard during the legislative process as well as through out the year. This may mean that the statewide PAC maintain a presence in Juneau during the legislative session as a point of contact for legislators as well as the faculties from each MAU. In order to asses the level of interest, the Faculty Senates should survey their faculties. This could be accomplished via electronic mail. Should there be enough interest in the formation of PACs, a working group should be formed to begin the process.