March 3, 2004

John Douglass called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.

Present: Professors Ahrens, Arneson, Burke, Cochran, Douglass, Fagelson, Flug, Forst, Heintze, Jacoby, Jennings, Karch, King, Langbein, La Salle, Loesberg, Olmsted, Richardson, Riley, Rosenbloom, Schaeff, Streitmatter, Vogelsong. Provost Kerwin and Dean of Academic Affairs Broder.

Absent: Professor Fantie.

The minutes of the January 21 and February 4, 2004 meetings were approved.

Report of the Provost
Neil Kerwin’s report covered the meeting of the Board of Trustees in February. He also provided updates on the Middle States process, the fall enrollments, and AU Abroad. In addition, he provided information on the reduction of adjunct faculty, and he continued his discussion with the Senate about block scheduling.

Board of Trustees
Provost Kerwin reported that the Board of Trustees had been positive in their reaction to the Middle States re-accreditation process, including their own interaction with the site team during the visit February 8-11. He said he Board was complimentary about the quality of the self-study report and pleased with the participation by all aspects of the university’s community.

Dr. Kerwin reported that the Board had approved two program actions: The creation of a new Master of Science in Management degree in Kogod School of Business, and the termination of the Bachelor of Science in Computer Information Systems, also in Kogod. The Board also requested an update on the two-year budget, and Provost Kerwin and Vice President Don Myers reported that the university was on track to make budget for the current fiscal year, the second of the two-year cycle.

He also advised that the Board was continuing to monitor operations at WAMU. He said the radio station was in the midst of its spring fund-raising drive, and every effort was being made to ensure that the drive will be successful.

Middle States Process
Provost Kerwin reported that the university was awaiting the letter from Mark Gearen, chair of the Middle States site visit team, to formalize the verbal report the team made to President Ladner on February 11. Upon receipt of the letter, President Ladner would have a week to respond to any errors in fact. The entire package would thereafter be transmitted to Middle States Commission for action.

Enrollments for Fall 2004
The enrollments for the fall semester continued to look promising. As of March 1, applications for the freshman class were 20 percent ahead of last year at the same time. Although it was early in the admissions cycle, deposits for freshmen were about 17 percent ahead of last year, which may reflect early admit decisions. Transfer applications were ahead 26 percent, and deposit figures for transfers were up approximately 12 percent.

The graduate programs continue to grow, with masters’ applications 15 percent ahead of last year, and deposits at a remarkable 75 percent ahead. Applications at the doctoral level were down, reflecting to some extent the implementation of last year’s program terminations. Dr. Kerwin did note, however, that the teaching units had reported that the decline in doctoral applications was not substantial. The quality indicators for the graduate programs continue to look good.

AU Abroad
Provost Kerwin commended the Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs for their work with Bob Pastor, vice president of international affairs. Dr. Kerwin said Vice President Pastor was preparing a comprehensive communication to the committee with regard to his working relationships with the faculty.

Reduction in Adjunct Faculty
Based on a report that Haig Mardirosian, director of general education, submitted to Dean Broder, Dr. Kerwin said he was pleased to announce that the number of adjunct faculty teaching in the General Education Program had dropped to 17 percent, from a high in recent years of nearly 30 percent. He commended Professor Mardirosian, the deans, and the faculty for bringing about this dramatic change in the instructional program.

Block Scheduling
The final item in the Provost’s report was a carryover from the previous meeting. Referring to a handout prepared by the University Registrar, Linda Bolden-Pitcher, Dr. Kerwin said the report reflected data on block scheduled 100-200 level undergraduate sections for fall and spring terms going back to 1986-87. He noted that a couple of the particulars were striking. One was the relative constancy of the numbers over the period from 1986-87 to 2003-2004—the numbers have been running between 9-12 percent for courses taught at 5:30 p.m. for the last 20 years, with a much lower number for the courses taught at 8:10 p.m. Two, the number of block-scheduled courses during the day was actually higher back in the mid-eighties than it is currently. Therefore, Dr. Kerwin concluded, while there is still work to do with the 8:10 time slot, it appears that the numbers are headed in the right direction. That has all been achieved, he said, through informal conversations among the faculty, the department chairs and program directors, and the deans. He said a Senate resolution regarding block scheduling would not be necessary, as long as progress continues.

The Senate requested that percentages for the 100-200 level courses be added to the report. The revised document from the Registrar’s Office is appended to the record copy of the minutes.

Report of the Chair
John Douglass requested that Jill Olmsted, past chair of the Senate, give an update on the nominations for the upcoming Senate elections. Noting especially those positions where broader representation from the units was desirable, Professor Olmsted noted the number of nominations for two at-large seats on the Senate, and to fill vacant positions on the Committee on Faculty Relations, the Committee on Faculty Equity and Grievances, and the Faculty Hearing Committee. She asked the senators to encourage their colleagues to participate in governance process. She also requested that they drum up support for service on two special committees: General Education and Honors Advisory. The vacancies on those two committees will be filled by the Senate at the May meeting.

John Douglass then introduced a proposal to revise Academic Regulation 50.00.04, Rules of the Faculty Senate, as follows:

Article X. Eligibility for, Nominations and Elections to the Senate and Its Committees

C. Nominations and Elections within Units
Representatives of the various colleges, schools and the University Library, both as Senate members and members of its committees, are to be elected by secret ballots using whatever system for nominations and elections that is approved by the faculty of the individual units. The Dean of that college or school and the University Librarian for the library will notify the Provost and Chair of the Senate, no later than April 10, of names of the newly elected Senators and committee members.

D. Nominations and elections of Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs
Committees whose chairs, and for the Committee on Faculty Relations its vice-chair, are members of the Senate, shall conduct their own elections of these officers as soon as practical following the annual election of its new members. The chairs will serve for a term of one-year. The committees may use whatever system they decide and the chair whose term is ending will notify the Provost and Chair of the Senate of the results of who the new chair and, when appropriate, vice-chair are.

He said the intent was: (1) to allow more time to get information out to the new Senate; and (2) to define the terms for the committee chairs. The Senate voted unanimously to approve the revisions.

Results of the Questionnaire Regarding Issues of Diversity
Caleen Jennings, Department of Performing Arts, presented the results of a survey she had conducted in November 2003. She noted that with the Senate’s permission, she had distributed the questionnaire to take a pulse on how the Senate felt about examining issues of diversity as one of its priorities. The document that she distributed that outlined the results is appended to the record copy of the minutes.

She noted that the majority of the senators had indicated the following responses:

• The perception that American University is fairly to moderately diverse.

• The perception that the AU faculty is fairly to moderately diverse.

• The perception that student body is also fairly to moderately diverse.

Professor Jennings then reminded the Senate that Mary Kennard, the university’s general counsel, had spoken at the November meeting about the University of Michigan decisions. Professor Jennings also commented upon recent efforts by the Multi-Cultural Initiatives Project Team, a group formed by the Office of Campus Life. Concluding, she emphasized that diversity issues had become quite complicated, in terms of both purpose and spirit, and also in terms of what can legally be done.

The Senate discussed what the results might mean in light of the Senate’s mandate, and there were suggestions for follow up.

• Recommend that some portion of the new “Campaign for AU” be designated for fellowships/chair/programs to recruit a more diverse community.

• Institute some mechanism for updating the Senate on the university’s progress. For example, provide a report that would include summary statistics on the composition of the faculty by rank, by school, and by demographic characteristics.

• Institute some mechanism for sharing information on the university’s progress with colleagues in the teaching units.

Provost Kerwin said the ability to distill the elements that the Senate would find particularly useful is readily available, since the Academic Reference Book is published annually. He said he would ask the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment to provide a report to the Senate at the beginning of the academic year.

Discussion of the University College Proposal
John Douglass introduced Nanette Levinson, Associate Dean of the School of International Service, who chaired the University College Project Team. He then asked that Cathy Schaeff, co-chair of the Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs, and Wendell Cochran, chair of the Committee on Student Learning and Academic Engagement, lead off the discussion by presenting the reactions of their committees to the proposal.

Curriculum and Academic Programs
Cathy Schaeff reported that the committee had discussed the University College proposal several times, attempting to distill ideas about specifics of the proposal that need thought or that lead to other questions. The committee also addressed several of the questions that were raised by Provost Kerwin in his letter of December 22, 2003.

She noted the following responses to three of Provost Kerwin’s questions:

Can we assure that the additional one credit for the first-year seminar is not interpreted in such a way that content related to the University College is limited to the equivalent of one credit worth of attention?
Given the non-academic components in the college, having students view the college as significant to their academic programs may be problematic. Faculty seem concerned about their ability to foster some non-academic activities, which may further undermine the success of those activities.

Are any or all of the options offered for the first-year seminar sufficiently different from what students currently experience in General Education or other courses when in their first two years?
Given time and attention to general education’s mission and the program’s high level of development, much of what the university wants for incoming students is provided by their participation in the general education program. There are quantitative differences in terms of emphasis—for example, smaller classes, more off-campus activities, more emphasis on different aspects of ethics. The proficiencies outlined in the university college proposal are covered by some general education courses, but not by all. Proficiencies that are unique to the college include the effort to strengthen the identity with American and to facilitate the transition to campus.

Is it feasible to expect faculty will respond positively to this call to adjust their pedagogy to this level of commitment to integration with residential life?
Faculty will do enormous amounts of work, put all kinds of effort into developing all kinds of things, providing it is linked to their pedagogy and to the curriculum they are committed to teaching to students. So the response will depend on how that is linked. One of the issues that faculty raise is whether or not there is a more efficient way to achieve the goals outlined in the college. For example, with the proposed one-credit experiential learning seminar—in theory, it is one extra credit hour, but the time and commitment may be similar to one of the science labs where faculty meet with students a few extra hours a week, and it’s like developing a whole other course. Can AU afford to have its junior faculty, even though they may be fabulous teachers, invest time in the one extra credit hour?

Professor Schaeff also noted that a central concern for the committee was the interaction of the university college with the general education program. The committee asked, for example, what the impact would be on general education as a whole, if one or two of the foundation-level courses are used to support the college. She said the committee did agree that the college gains an academic focus through its link with the general education program.

David Fagelson, co-chair of the Curriculum Committee, also commented on the committee’s deliberations. He said the committee had found it difficult to identify the fundamental purpose of the proposal. It seems that it could have one of any number of purposes, he said, including building stronger spirit, having a unique program, having some universal college experience, but they are not all the same thing, nor are they necessarily mutually reinforcing. So the committee did not know under which rubric to evaluate the program.

Committee on Student Learning and Academic Engagement
Wendell Cochran reported that the central issue that troubled most members of the Student Life Committee was the relationship between the university college and the general education program. The committee was not sure, for instance, that students would distinguish between a three-hour course that is a seminar and a traditional foundation-level general education course.

The committee also questioned whether the university college was envisioned as a program for all 1000-1200 freshmen each year, and whatever the number is for the following sophomore class, or is it a distinctive program some students may choose. That question, he said, was largely related to resource issues—the number of faculty that would be needed to provide for 20-person seminar sections for the entire freshmen class.

The committee also expressed the opinion that the university college would have a significant impact on AU’s culture, cautioning that the current culture should not be diminished without thought and reflection. It was noted that many students chose American University over small, liberal arts colleges, because of what AU is and what it represents.

Finally, the committee suggested that in relation to the first year of the university college design, the second year appears much less well-developed. The design for the sophomore year, which is critical, needs to be strengthened.

Other Comments/Reactions
During the remainder of the session, the senators and other members of the faculty debated the merits of the proposal. While there was praise for the work of the project team, there were also a number of suggestions about how the design might be altered. Excerpts from the conversation that took place are below.

Faculty Load/Faculty Involvement
• The issue of how the one-credit hour seminar would count as faculty load does seem to be something that units are going to have to take a look at. The question is how the load will be counted for various members of the faculty, especially junior faculty, who are just being absorbed into the university’s culture.

• If you look at the move toward residential colleges in American higher education, which this proposal has appropriately not tried to emulate, one of the things that is emphasized is the involvement of very senior faculty. An operational test of the potential success of the university college model would be the degree to which AU’s scholar/teachers of the year emerge as volunteers. If that were to happen, it would be some indication that AU had a really solid program that students would celebrate.

• The assumptions about the goals for integrating students’ experience in the classroom with those outside of the classroom have to be framed against the fact that more than a few faculty on campus feel a bit beleaguered, in terms of all the things that go on. It’s not just the 15 hours that students have in the classroom plus whatever is left. There is something called research. And writing. And publication. And professional obligations. And activism. And community service. Obligations to families and friends. The proposal is going to be a terribly hard sell…and the one-credit hour question is going to have to be settled by leadership—the deans and associate deans, the Faculty Senate.

Residential Housing Component
• One of the biggest concerns of the faculty was precisely the connection of the residential part of the proposal to the course part. Assuming that most students are going to take university college seminars in their major, you’re going to end up with all the majors living together. And faculty thought that was actually not very wise from an intellectual point of view. It would make more sense to have dispersal. One could increase the quality of intellectual programming within the dorms, do some of the things we are talking about, with regard to the courses themselves, but absolutely not have them soldered together.

• From the campus life perspective, the Student Confederation and the Residence Hall Association feel strongly against the residential neighborhood part of the plan. It could have the potential to limit student’s academic freedom and social freedom. Limit their ability to move around campus the way they feel they should.

Relationship to the General Education Program
• The general education program should be considered as part of the university college experience…the university college is not an add-on to what is currently the general education program. The problem in the design is that the general education program has been so successful. To get to an effective university college experience that extends over two years, we have to look at the general education program as it exists, be willing to break it apart and put it back together again within the context of a university college concept.

• From a marketing perspective, there is confusion about where general education leaves off and the university college begins. Has thought been given to amending general education and calling it University College, or amending the general education program and incorporating part of the university college? Not only from a marketing point of view, but from a perspective of how confusing it is when all these separate things are aimed at the same audience.

Structural Issues
• The proposal underestimates the consequences of excluding the natural science courses from the foundation-level courses that are to be chosen for the University College. If the natural sciences are excluded, there are potential ramifications for students who are science majors, and also possible adverse effects for the proposed research award symposium and the sophomore awards. (Note: It was noted during the discussion that the University College Project Team did not intend to exclude the sciences, which the team sees as central to students’ learning. The team is consulting with science department chairs about how to include science seminars. The proposal will be revised to clearly show that there will be no omission of the natural sciences.)

• The structural issue of the fourth or fifth credit bears some scrutiny and some reflection and a frank discussion about student choice needs to take place. If there is some threshold that prevents first-year students from doing other things, this is an important consideration in the design of the college.

• Has thought been given to a common universal experience, such as one course that all students take in their freshman year? Or one three-credit course in both semesters of the freshman year? Or even identifying five courses at the first level of the General Education Program so the attention to the goals of the college might be spread across five courses rather than many more than that. The goals would be to make the college as cohesive as possible, to guarantee a higher level of quality, and to also guarantee student exposure to the very best faculty.

Psychological Issues
• Students are under a tremendous amount of stress and more and more often, faculty members are called upon to deal with life-skills issues or psychological issues affecting the students. Faculty members who get involved in the University College will need some kind of training to feel comfortable in dealing with such issues.

Additional Comments
• The plan is very ambitious. There are a lot of wonderful ideas that in one way or another are already being implemented and can be expanded. The plan is so ambitious that the question is can AU develop the college at a level that is truly distinctive and academically rigorous. We should go slow and experiment as we implement changes.

• The proposal is ambitious—it tries to do a lot of things and has a lot of goals. It might be helpful to focus the program a little more, look at what the objectives are, pick out one or two objectives and try to focus the University College on those particular points. And given the number of initiatives the university has with regard to globalism, maybe what we want is to focus on the intersection of the United States and the world. Use that as a theme. In the first semester, have everybody take a class that would somehow revolve around that theme. It could be art, it could be music, it could be politics. But somehow point out that the United States and the outside world are running into each other. So the suggestion is to scale down and do one or two things well, as a first step.

Concluding Comments by Provost Kerwin
Let me just make a couple of observations about the proposal and the process and where I think things should go from here. Number one, to come back to some first principles, I think when Ben first proposed the university college, it was part of a much broader vision of the institution that I think is articulated well in the entire document. And that is we’ve recognized for years that we compete for the attention of our undergraduates with a city that is irresistible, in many respects. So to the extent possible, the things that are done with our students in this first year and possible year two as well, should prepare them for what we hope is the single most intellectual experience they’re ever likely to have. Now, maybe a graduate school does that, maybe a professional school does. But let’s operate with the assumption that these four years with us are going to be a dramatic period of intellectual change and personal change. Does that first year experience, as its currently structured, accomplish that? Ben felt, going into it, that more needed to be done.

With regard to general education, I would remind the senate that we evaluated the general education program two years ago. Significant reforms to the program were presented to this body a year ago and endorsed by the senate. Including the reform that elevated preparation in the sciences to seven credits over six. We have just completed a self-study that has been reviewed by a site visit team that reinforces again our commitment to general education and the president, no more than a week ago, indicated in his remarks to the campus that that commitment is unshakable. So the fact that the university college commitment and the general education commitment are linked the way they are shouldn’t be very surprising…. I see the two inextricably linked. I don’t know how we can send messages that aren’t consistent between the general education program and the university college and not expect some kind of horrible cognitive dissonance to overtake our undergraduates.

Let me suggest the following, by way of process from here on in. First of all, let me just publicly thank Nanette Levinson and the project team for a job that was enormously difficult. Difficult, in part, because we already do so much in these first two years. Job number one was just to inventory exactly what elements of the existing program might be better articulated, better communicated to our students. Second, there were as many agendas in that room as there were people, I suspect. If you want to talk about distinctive AU culture, that’s a good part of what we do around here. We certainly have points of view…. We’ve been given a document that has caused a tremendous amount of reaction on campus. And will continue to. And the reason is because it does contain some interesting ideas, a number of challenging ideas. And we’re finally now realizing the true implication of instituting something on this scale, if indeed we’re going to do that.

So let me suggest the following process. One, we now have had very serious discussion about this document in two senate committees, in a number of the units across the campus, including the College of Arts and Sciences EPC and the chairs, in one department in the School of Public Affairs, and at least rudimentary discussions in other settings. I want to ask that those be assembled, summarized, and placed on my website, so that the entire community has access.

I’m also asking that our enrollment services acting vice president take some time with her staff to discuss, for want of a better word, the marketing aspect of this. And remember, if the university college does not promote greater interest in this institution by the finest students in the United States, then we’re working against ourselves. So the enrollment services people are the ones that best know, at least at this point in our university, what it takes to attract the kind of student body that we’ve been attracting here for these last many years, and how we’ll be able to continue to do that.

I’ll ask Gail Hanson again and her very able staff to look at these items as well. But I think the key for us in this body is that these ideas and proposals be driven back into the teaching units so that the faculties in the teaching units have another opportunity to comment and to critique and to make recommendations. I’d like to use the remainder of the spring semester to do that, so that when we assemble again in May, we’ll have the distillate of those conversations in front of us and perhaps a better timetable for when a proposal might come forward….

I think the program is what I would call in an intermediate stage. It’s not in a final stage. And it’s not at the beginning. We’ve done a lot of work. A lot of work has been devoted to it. This thing needs to generate as much heat as light. I expected this to be as controversial as it’s proving to be. And the fact that’s it’s going to touch, if it’s successful, every undergraduate that comes through here, is significant….

I’ll be meeting with the project team late in March. I would hope by that time at least a couple of more teaching units will have weighed in. Obviously the senate committees are free and welcome to discuss this at great length. And I’ll be in communication with Gail Hanson and Cheryl Storie and with the deans, to ensure that the discussion takes a priority…. We know there is a lot of work left to be done here. The proposal, if nothing else, provides a foundation and asks all the right questions.

For the Good of the Order
Bernie Schulz, special assistant to the vice president of campus life, presented the results of a web survey conducted by the University Center Project Team. The survey asked questions about possible changes to Butler Pavilion/Tunnel and the Mary Graydon Center. The results are appended to the record copy of the minutes.

He asked for reactions from the senators, with regard to expanding existing services. Several senators spoke in favor of having a Starbucks on campus. There was also a request for more of a variety in eating places, with the inclusion of additional seating areas.

The report from the American Consulting Team, with recommendations to the University Center Project Team, will be available by April 1.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.