CCSU Faculty Senate
Minutes—May 5, 2003
VAC 105 3:00 PM
Abadiano, Altieri, Austad, Benfield, Best, Blitz, Braverman, Capitao, Carter-Lowery, Conway, Cox Crundwell, Dowty, Duquette, Foshay, Fried, Gallagher, Halkin, Halloran, Hensley, Kleinert, Knox, Leake, Martin, Martin-Troy, Mezvinsky, Mueller, Murphy, O’Connell, Osterreich, Packer, Pessaro, Petkova, Rajaravivarma, Sarisley, Seider, Sevitch, Terezakis, Thornton, Williams, C. Williams, M. Wolff.
Ex Officio Members: Snr V.P Demos, Deans Whitford, Lemma, Root, Kremens, and Pease.
Guests: Matthew Warshauer, Chair Academic Standards
Carolyn Magnan, Counsel to the President.
Chris Pudlinski, Chair, Curriculum Committee
Richard McCallum, Office of Academic Affairs and Asst to Provost.
J. Calvert, Computer Sciences.
President Best opened the meeting at 3.05
- Approval of Minutes of 04/21/03
Motion to approve Minutes of
a. AAUP Report Sen Austad.
Sen. Austad indicated that as a result of the recent elections she was no longer President of AAUP and had been succeeded by Bill Jones of Computer Sciences. She introduced President Jones who indicated he had been joined on the new executive by Judith Walo (Treasurer), Mike Terezakis (Secretary) and Cindy White (Vice-President). He looked forward to working with and for all members and indicated that the first formal occasion would be the social on May 8 and the faculty luncheon in the fall. Date of the latter to be announced.
b. New CSU Text book policy. Carolyn Magnan.
Attorney Magnan explained that a new textbook policy had been negotiated between CSU and the State Ethics Commission. It is based on a 2002 State Ethics Commission opinion that faculty cannot profit from textbook sales to their own classes nor employ students in an outside capacity e.g. as workers supervised by a faculty member in a consulting role. The exceptions as noted in this policy are when textbooks are the standard in the field or when the text provides a unique perspective on the topic of study.
CCSU had not yet issued a policy but Attorney Magnan anticipated a memo implementing the policy from the President very shortly and that the policy would take effect from the date of issuance of the memo.
For royalties from textbook sales, there would be a two-month amnesty period for royalties earned in the 01-02 and 02-03 academic years if the individuals who earned those royalties donated them to a non-profit entity. This amnesty period would begin to run from the date of the President’s memo implementing the policy. It would be up to individuals to self-report the royalties earned and to demonstrate that they had been donated to a non-profit entity.
Sen. Halkin: Does this apply to summer field Assistants?
Attorney Magnan: No, there is no problem as long as they are working for the university.
Sen. Craine: Do students employed in 2001 fit under the amnesty
Attorney Magnan: No. The amnesty only applies to royalties from textbook sales.
Sen. Abadiano: What about the case where a department employs a faculty member text?
Attorney Magnan: In the decision-making process the textbook writer should not vote and the minutes of the departmental meeting should so note.
Sen. Blitz: This is a serious limitation on both academic freedom and freedom of speech. The question of uniqueness has been debated since Aristotle and is not definitive. Notwithstanding the issue of royalties is de minimus he recommends a motion recommending the President NOT institute this as CCSU policy until faculty, and particularly lawyers representing faculty have reviewed this.
Dean Pease: What about the case where faculty recruit students to baby sit, rake leaves etc. Is this outside employment?
Attorney Magnan: No, this is not an issue under the Ethics Code.
Sen. Jones: what about a student who works and then subsequently takes a class from a professor?
Attorney Magnan: I do not have a clear answer for this; the attorneys at the Ethics Commission will be able to provide us with guidance.
Sen Jones: If there is no fiscal gain to the author is this an issue?
Attorney Magnan: No. There is no issue under the Ethics Code if there is no personal gain to the faculty member.
Motion: That the University Senate advise the President not to implement the new CSU textbook policy at CCSU pending review by faculty and their lawyers, including AAUP lawyers, owing to concerns over loss of Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech.
Sen. Halloran: Speaking in support of the motion indicated that this was the thin end of the wedge and experience elsewhere, specifically The Pennsylvania State University, suggests that this could be the beginning of a serious and dangerous course.
Sen. Austad: Indeed it was a dangerous precedent.
Majority in favor
There were no “nays”
Sen. Braverman handed out the results of the senate committee elections, the results of which will be on the web shortly. However as there was a tie vote, there was need for a runoff election for Planning and Budget Committee. Senators voted and Dr. David Fearon was duly elected.
Senate noted how this electoral process was often difficult and onerous and thus expressed its thanks to Sharon Braverman by giving her deserved applause.
- Senate Committee Reports
a. Dr Pudlinski presented the Curriculum Committee report
Motion to accept Curriculum Committee Report Martin-Troy/Carter-Lowery
b. End of year report of Graduate Studies Committee Dr. Malley
Jim Malley, outgoing Chair of the Graduate Studies Committee, presented his annual report. He mentioned that this year's primary focus was to determine ways to bring the Graduate Tenets (Community of Scholars, Scholarly Inquiry, Intellectual and Personal Integrity, Excellence, and Leadership) alive so as to serve as the bedrock for all graduate activities. To continue to build the graduate community of scholars, the GSC held fall and spring Graduate Forums to enhance communication between graduate departments and to discuss ways to promote excellence in all graduate programs. He noted that the newly established Graduate Community of Scholars Tribute for was presented to the Biology Department for fostering a spirit of intellectual inquiry, for modeling high standards of professional behavior and inspiring others to do the same. Jim noted that there were two changes to the By-Laws of the Graduate Studies Committee, the first to clarify criteria for committee membership, and the second to detail the process for seeking Graduate Studies Approval for changes in graduate curriculum, scholastic standards, or admissions policy. Another resolution passed by the committee requires undergraduates who wish to enroll in a graduate course to have an undergraduate GPA of at least 3.0. As this concludes Jim's tenure as Chair of the GSC, Dr. Gustavo Mejia, Associate Professor of Modern Languages was elected to be the new GSC Chair and Kimberly Farrington, Assistant Librarian and Head of Interlibrary Loan, was elected as Secretary. Dr. Lemma, Associate Vice President Academic Affairs and Dean of Graduate Studies reminded members that the Graduate Research and Presentation Day was scheduled for May 14. Jim concluded by thanking Dr. Steve Cox, Past GSC Chair, Dr. Ernie Pancsofar, outgoing Secretary, Dr. Cassandra Broadus-Garcia, Chair of the Graduate Policy Committee, Dr. Peter Vernosoni and Dr. Charles Dimmock, both who are retiring and who have made significant contributions to the Graduate Studies Committee, and to Dr. Paulette Lemma, Graduate Dean, for her support and encouragement.
Questions of Dr Malley:
Was this report to be placed on the web?
Dr Malley: Yes
Dean Lemma: Noted that the Graduate studies web site was in process of revision and would be available soon. Furthermore the:
2 nd Annual Graduate Research day was set for May 14 with 41 student participants/ submissions it will commence at:
in Belin for Technology students and
In the Student Union for all other graduate researchers.
Sen. Wolfe: Was a 3.00 GPA advisable for Undergraduates taking a graduate level course?
Dr Malley: 3.00 was considered fair but indeed it could be higher. There is no strict definitive reason why 3.00 should be the level.
Motion to accept Graduate Studies Report with two changes to the By-Laws of the Graduate Studies Committee, the first to clarify criteria for committee membership, and the second to detail the process for seeking Graduate Studies Approval for changes in graduate curriculum, scholastic standards, or admissions policy.
c. Academic Standards Committee. Matt Warshauer
Dr Warshauer presented five submissions from Academic Standards Committee for senate deliberation:
(i) Leave of Absence Policy
Sen. Blitz asked if the condition holding approval last meeting namely the problem of students being absent for over two semesters owing to military service has been resolved. Dr Warshauer indicated that he had checked and this was covered by other policies of the university.
Motion to approve leave of absence policy Crundwell/Wolff
(ii) History Department Prerequisites
Sen. Wolff noted that with approval of this change, the History Department prerequisites would apply to those programs it administers, namely the certification programs in both History and Social Sciences for secondary education.
Motion to approve History Department prerequisites Wolff/Fried
(iii) Comparable Course Substitution Policy
Dr Warshauer indicated that this policy was in response to a Mathematics Department issue in which a student who subsequently passed a course at a higher level could use that course as replacing the need for the lower level course.
Sen. Halkin: was confused. If the student failed a lower course why not just retake? The earlier failure would still be on the transcript yet a grade substitution would still be recorded for that course.
Sen. Blitz: It may be that a course is no longer offered.
Sen. Abadiano: Are there no limits to such an occurrence?
Dr Warshauer: Yes 17 credits.
Sen. Halkin: Surely the difference in a 300 and 500 level course is such that the substitution is not comparable.
(iv) Course Withdrawal and Academic Misconduct.
Sen. Martin-Troy: Had difficulty with the mixture of academic misconduct and judicial punishment.
Sen. Halloran: agreed that academic misconduct should be addressed and while the intention was correct the mixture was problematic
Dr Warshauer: Indicated there was a link as students at present could sidestep punishment for academic misconduct by withdrawing. The intent was never to force students to say in a course.
Sen. Dowty: described the policy as waste from a male bovine, and should be rejected out of hand.
Sen. Halloran: Was of the opinion it was not well thought out and really looked like punishment for punishment sake.
Sen. Abadiano: was of the opinion withdrawal was preferable to being part of the class.
Sen. O’Connell: Suggested the University has no legal or ethical right to keep them in class and thus the policy was ambiguous.
Halloran & Martin-
Motion to Approve Blitz/Mueller
(v) Honor Pledge
Sen. Dowty: considered such a pledge ill conceived, illegal and fluff
Sen. Conway read into the minutes a letter from Prof. Moran who could not be present:
Dear Senate Colleagues:
You have before you a proposal to introduce a student pledge regarding academic integrity.
There is no such proposal in the Senate Ad Hoc Committee's work to date. It was not a part of our application for a Strategic Initiative Project in Academic Integrity, and there are reasons for that. In my reading prior to designing the project, I found that researchers had found reduced cheating at schools with Honor Codes, i.e., forms of agreements students either signed or accepted with admission, which committed them to maintain institutional integrity by their own behavior and by reporting misconduct when they saw it. However, the schools where these codes are reportedly most effective are very different from CCSU. They are small, residential, communities, with strong traditions.
In fact, the Center for Academic Integrity, a national organization located at Duke, considers the creation of an Honor Code the last stage of four in institutional change regarding integrity. (See Institutional Stages of Development, Abstract of Drinan Typology) CCSU is probably somewhere between stage 2 and 3 today.
Although the Ad Hoc Committee has taken no position on this proposal, I am personally opposed for several reasons.
1. I have an ingrained personal objection to being forced to say anything that I haven't had a chance to think about and don't have a chance to opt out of. There is a strong element of coercion in requiring the assembled multitude to stand and repeat certain words. (Any action taken to punish those who refuse would encounter a constitutional objection.)
2. This appears to be an attempt to introduce an honor code here. Honor codes seem to produce reductions in academic misconduct, but the researchers DO NOT conclude that they work everywhere. They require a community of students, a willingness to report misconduct to uphold community standards. Neither characteristic applies to a largely commuter school, with a noted absence of student community. In fact, the Center for Academic Integrity urges preliminary work on establishing a culture of integrity BEFORE an honor code is introduced. If you have any doubts about the absence of student community, consider that approximately 600 students participate in student elections, and that last year not a single part-time student ran for the 6 SGA seats reserved for part-timers.
3. I would ask whether or not the Commitment to Civility that is administered at Convocation has produced any measurable results. I am VERY strongly supportive of the goals of this pledge. The question is, does it work? Entering students are still adolescents; and some may just be contrary. What ideas are instilled when someone objects to group behavior?
4. Our anonymous survey of 170 CCSU students indicates that most students see themselves (but not others) as honest (most of the time). This corresponds to the results of many other student surveys reported in academic journals. I'm not sure whether introducing a pledge will affect the behavior of the few who are truly unethical, or those who get caught in a time/effort squeeze. It may serve no more than to point out that Misconduct is part of the culture here.
5. Student leaders are currently developing a Code of Ethics, which will include these issues. I think they may be more effective than a statement imposed from outside, or an additional pledge added to the Commitment to Civility.
Dr Washauer: Indicated he had no disagreement with the first point raised by Dr Moran but respectfully disagreed with the rest as there were other studies that would challenge these findings and thus the research may be flawed.
Sen. O’Connell: Would like to see such studies and hence more discussion is required
Sen. Crundwell had difficulty with our goal of training free thinkers only to make them give a pledge. Moreover items 3-10 are purely symbolic.
Sen. Petkova: Was upset by the demotivating nature of the pledge and wished for a more positive approach to challenging our students.
Motion to accept Packer/Wolff
- Unfinished Business
There was none. Attached however is the report of the solicitation of material from Budget and planning Committee that Sen. Blitz had promised for this meeting.
Report may be found at:
- New Business
a. Candidates for Graduation
The following Motions were introduced (Blitz/Martin-Troy)
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Graduate Studies in the May 2003 graduation lists for the degrees of M.A., M.B.A., M.Sc. and Six-Year-degree subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Arts and Sciences in the May 2003 graduation lists for the degrees of B.A, B.S and B.F.A subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Education in the May 2003 graduation lists for the degrees of B.S, and M.S subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements.
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Business in the May 2002 graduation lists for the degrees of B.S subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements
All CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
(b) Resolution introduced by Sen. Fried:
WHEREAS the global community is becoming increasingly complex and interconnected, and
WHEREAS college students are faced with increasing needs to develop multicultural competence as part of their undergraduate education, and
WHEREAS Central Connecticut State University includes many members of the faculty, staff and student body who are both skilled and talented in helping our entire community increase their multicultural knowledge and skill;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
That the Senate expresses its appreciation to Provost Dr. Pearl Bartelt and Dr Felton Best for organizing and implementing the first annual Diversity Week celebration at Central Connecticut State University and,
That the Senate encourages the continuation of this celebration annually, under the appropriate leadership, in order to continue to enhance community education and dialogue about matters of diversity and cross-cultural understanding.
Sen. Halkin: Must we do this every year?
Sen. Blitz: The resolution only speaks to continuation in some form. However he would like to add his own recognition of a job well done and would like to add the name of our President Dr Best who was joint chair and who also deserves inclusion in the resolution.
Motion to adjourn
The Senate adjourned at 4.35 p.m