Minutes of the 11/30/05 Meeting of the College of Arts & Sciences

Proxies were held by:

Jocelyn Boryczka for Kevin Cassidy

Cecelia Bucki for Yohuru Williams and Danke Li

Joe Dennin for Joan Weiss

Rick DeWitt for Elizabeth Gardner

Jesús Escobar for Marice Rose and Katherine Schwab

Mark McGregor for Marti LoMonaco

Laura McSweeney for Matt Kubasik

Call to order: Prof. Crabtree called the meeting to order at 4:05.

Approval of minutes of 10/21

Prof. Lane moved to approve, seconded by Prof. Bowen. Prof. Dennin noted, in reference to the first substantive paragraph, that after the meeting, Dean Snyder had graciously acknowledged that Profs. Dennin and Mulvey had been correct in describing how departmental votes are allocated by the College Governance document. The minutes were approved unanimously with 5 abstentions.

College Response to the University Strategic Plan

Crabtree began the discussion by explaining that when the draft Strategic Plan was posted, we were all asked to respond without a formal structure for doing so. The Steering Committee thought there should be a positive response from the College carving out a place for CAS within the Plan. The response under consideration today was developed out of a presentation by Lane regarding concerns and opportunities for the College, discussions in the Steering Committee, discussions among the Program Directors and a conversation in the Dean’s Council about an earlier version of this response. Although individuals in the College may have already given their own feedback about the Plan, today is the deadline for feedback, so we should consider a formal response from the College.

Snyder, speaking as a member of the drafting committee, said that they struggled with the issue of strategy versus tactics in the plan, and ended up with a document that was deliberately not specific. For example, he would like to have seen a specific call for more full time faculty members, but, even though that issue arose a number of times, it was too specific a goal for the Plan. That’s one of the goals fleshed out in the proposed College response.

Prof. Gardner asked whether we had a quorum. With proxies, there were about 45 members, or more than 25% of the faculty represented.

Prof. Salafia, seconded by Prof. Bucki, moved to approve the document identified as “College of Arts and Sciences Response to the University Strategic Plan”.

Mulvey questioned the point of the document, suggesting it sounded like a commercial for the CAS. Crabtree answered that much in the Plan concerns the College without being specifically identified as such, so the Response identifies areas relevant to the College and acknowledges the charges to the College within the Plan. In other words, the Response is somewhat of an ad for the College, in the sense of saying that we’re ready to meet the challenges, so we should be given the funding to do so.

Crabtree then suggested working through the document paragraph by paragraph, and received no comments on paragraph 1. Regarding paragraph 2, Dennin offered a cynical view based on a long history of “planning” at the university along with much more recent events. Specifically, paragraph 2 applauds the Plan’s emphasis on diversity, yet the President recently passed up his first opportunity for a major diversity hire at the Vice Presidential level, so why should we waste time on this Plan. Lane, sharing much of Dennin’s history, noted that this Plan lays out the groundwork for the Budget Committee, and in that sense, it is the first doable attempt at long range planning in his 25 years at the university.

Crabtree noted that goal 1 is clearly very relevant to the College, and received no further comments on that paragraph. Moving on to goal 2, questions were raised about the accuracy of the parenthetical remark that advisement of clubs is done primarily by CAS faculty. The body agreed that though it is most likely true, if we do not have the precise numbers, we would look presumptuous by including it, and should, therefore, cut it.

Prof. Epstein asked about the comments in goal 1 about having more full time faculty teaching in the core, He noted that changes could be defined individually or departmentally, but that either way, tremendous resources would be required. Crabtree read some of the relevant, and intentionally vague text from the Plan. Prof. Cherepinsky wondered why we weren’t doing this already with hires in the College. Snyder responded that current hires are supposed to include core teaching and to decrease adjuncts, but Cherepinsky said that the interdisciplinary hires wouldn’t meet these goals, so they’re at odds with what we’re arguing. Snyder agreed that the interdisciplinary hires might not teach in the core, but that needn’t be the primary goal; our primary need is for more faculty. Dennin reiterated his cynicism, doubting that increasing full time faculty teaching in the core would happen after the Plan is in place, when we’re passing up opportunities to move in that direction now.

Regarding goal 2, Prof. Petrino asked about efforts to help faculty live closer to campus and whether that sentence was meant to be so vague. Crabtree responded that yes, the Response’s language echoes the language of the Strategic Plan, but that the Salary Committee is currently working on specifics. Snyder noted that those efforts on the Salary Committee were being spearheaded by members of the College, specifically Profs. Boquet and Boryczka. Prof. Braginsky questioned why we would encourage faculty to live closer to campus rather than in urban areas. Mulvey explained that the goal is simply to make living closer more affordable for those who would like to do so.

Bowen asked about including Study Abroad in the list of things that College faculty do. Crabtree noted that the section describes programs College faculty participate in, not just those we run. Dean Gogol added that almost all of the advising for Study Abroad is done in the College. Snyder said that this list is more evidence that the College is the pistons, the oil, and other apparently important car parts for the university.

Moving to goal 3, Crabtree explained that there had been debate in the Dean’s Council and the Steering Committee about the relevance of the item on graduate programs to the College. Ultimately goal 3 was included in the Response because of concerns about ignoring one-third of the Plan, and because the graduate programs in the College are under-resourced, and therefore need more recognition. The Response attempted to reiterate the Plan, while also recognizing that marketing for graduate programs should emphasize academic standards more than mission. This section was also written with an eye toward Prof. Humphrey’s argument that the College needs to have its stature restored to its rightful place at the center of the university.

Prof. Naser asked whether there was thinking about the actual goals of the graduate programs, beyond revenue enhancement. Snyder read from the Plan about the need to educate graduate students regarding the Mission. He suggested that the subtext was about accommodating and responding to the community, and making graduate education more holistic. He gave an example of making university facilities fully operational in the evenings. Naser said that each piece of the institution feels marginalized by the presence of others, and there’s no clear articulation of the goals of the whole university. Speaking as a member of the drafting committee, Prof. Keenan said that the task force for this goal didn’t seem to think that their charge was to place graduate programs within the overall mission of the university. Crabtree commented that she sensed mixed messages from the President- are we a comprehensive university, or must graduate programs relate to the core liberal arts component of the university?

Braginsky argued that it seemed crass to discuss new revenue streams in a section on Jesuit values. Snyder said that this section is part of our emphasis on promoting the College. He often attends meetings at which other graduate programs are labeled as part of their schools, while the programs in American Studies and Math are not identified with the College, even though we have more graduate students than does SON.

Prof. Lang noted that the Response follows the whole process. The President identified three areas to focus on, though these foci don’t encompass the entire institution, That may be fine, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that everything in the Plan is equally important. He then asked whether the Plan really says that all operations will be subject to accountability. Lane said that that was the case. Lang expressed doubts that this would actually happen, especially in light of the fact that we couldn’t get clear, measurable objectives for the merit program.

Mulvey asked whether the first sentence under goal 3 (“The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences recognize the value of integrating Jesuit values more deeply into the graduate and professional programs…”) is actually true. Crabtree acknowledged that that was the most controversial line in the document. Lane said that the President is making that a central goal for the graduate programs, so we should get on board. Naser suggested that Mulvey’s question was really, what are the Jesuit values we’re talking about? He noted that accrediting bodies look at whether the Mission is tied into programs, so we need to do it. Mulvey said that it would be easy to talk about the Mission, because we know what that is, but we don’t know what “Jesuit values” are. Crabtree pointed to an earlier section of the Response where Jesuit values are defined, but said that she liked Mulvey’s suggestion of replacing “Jesuit values” with “University Mission”. Prof. McGregor argued that “Jesuit values,” though not fully defined, should be retained because Jesuit is a brand within and outside of the university. Crabtree noted that the Jesuit affiliation is acknowledged at other points in the document.

Lane, seconded by Bowen, moved that the first sentence of goal 3 replace “Jesuit values” with “University Mission”. The motion passed unanimously.

Motion to forward the Response as amended (striking, “largely done by College faculty” with reference to advising student clubs, and replacing “Jesuit values” with University Mission”), passed 39-0-1.

College Planning

Crabtree explained that the next order of business is to think about the process and content of implementation. Lane asked whether there was a timetable. Snyder said that the President was going to appoint an implementation team, and that future budget requests will need to be related to the Plan. There will also be an emphasis on integration between academics and student services, and a focus on admissions. With regard to Dennin’s earlier comments about diversity hires, Snyder said that he shared Dennin’s concerns, but felt that the College has made progress, and he will seek further resources.

Dennin asked whether the College hopes for more graduate programs. Snyder said that the question is not whether we want them, but can we ensure that current and future graduate programs have the same high standards as our undergraduate programs, have no negative impact on the undergraduate programs, and that revenues generated come into the College for more lines. Dennin pushed the question of whether the College would be interested in new graduate programs and Snyder said yes. Bucki asked at what point graduate programs are no longer dependent on the extra energy and good will of the full time faculty doing extra courses. Snyder said that he is not a fan of overloads and would not support future programs built on faculty overloads. Lane added that the Budget Committee and the EPC will look closely at these programs, especially American Studies, which are run on the backs of the good will of the faculty. Naser noted the substantially higher costs of running graduate programs without heavy reliance on overloads.

Crabtree asked about a process for implementation- should things be happening in the departments, or should there be committees? Bowen suggested that she didn’t feel well-prepared at this point to consider process. She would like the Steering Committee to present a couple of models to the body as possible ways of moving ahead. Bucki asked whether the President’s implementation committee would be appointed. Keenan said that that was not yet clear, which was another reason to support Bowen’s suggestion.

Bowen, seconded by Bucki, charged the Steering Committee to come up with 2 or 3 models for strategic planning. The motion passed unanimously.

As we moved inexorably toward adjournment, Mulvey requested that future meetings be advertised with both start and end times. Crabtree agreed to the request. She also announced that she would be putting out a call for nominations for faculty in the Humanities to serve on the CAS teaching award committee. She explained that the committee was originally appointed, but each year one member was being replaced through elections.

Dennin, seconded by Lane, moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:24.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Susan Rakowitz