College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Dogwood Room

3:33 pm to 5:01 p.m.

Proxies were held for

Eileen Reilly-Wiedow by John Miecznikowski

Carol Ann Davis by Matthew Tullis

The meeting was called to order at 3:33 p.m. by the Chair, Marti LoMonaco.

1.    Announcements from the Chair

The Chair welcomed everyone to today’s College of Arts and Sciences Meeting and wished everyone a great holiday season.

2.    Approval of the CAS Faculty Meeting Minutes on November 10, 2017 (Weiss/Harding).  The minutes were approved with six abstentions.

3.    Merit Committee Elections

The Chair thanked the Faculty members who volunteered to serve on Merit Committees.

Shannon Kelley was elected as an at-large member on the Humanities Merit Committee.  In the Social Science Merit Committee, Mike Andreychik was elected to a two-year term as an at-large member and Michael Pagano was elected to a one-year term as an at-large member.

4.    Faculty Research Minutes

Bill Abbott 

I have been working on animal-rights movements in late 19^th-century Britain, and more specifically the political and intellectual ties between the anti-vivisectionist movement and the drive for the increased professionalization of nursing.  Tactical considerations, backed by deeper beliefs concerning the roles of nurses and doctors, could bring each movement to support the other.  Anti-vivisectionists were happy to support the rights of nurses to speak out publicly against doctors and hospital administrators when the latter two groups’ activities allegedly involved vivisection.   For her part the leading nurse reformer Ethel Bedford Fenwick adopted an increasingly anti-vivisectionist stance at the same time that she was attacking hospital administrators and other opponents of her campaign for the state registration of nurses.  Broader attitudes that supported this connection included a blurring of the distinction between nurse and doctor; the ordinary general-practice physician was seen to have more in common with the nurse, as clinical observer and caregiver, than either had with the “hyper-scientific” researcher who controlled and spoke for the medical profession on the issue of vivisection. 

Sergio Adrada-Rafael

I am currently working on two different research projects in collaboration with colleagues at other universities. First, I am investigating the differences on writing skills between heritage learners of Spanish and Spanish L2 learners (anglo students). More specifically, I am looking into three different measures, CAF (Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency) in the writing production of these types of learners. Research suggests that Heritage learners have better oral skills than L2 learners, but findings regarding writing are still inconclusive.

Second, I am examining how learners of Spanish process reformulated feedback on a writing task. I am doing this by taking a psycholinguistic approach, asking learners to verbalize their thoughts by thinking aloud, and then coding and classifying the processing of that feedback into different levels (low, intermediate, high) to finally correlate it with their correction of errors at the rewrite stage. These results will allow us to gain more insight into learners' processing of information in a second language.     

Gayle Aberda

Both political parties seek to control who votes via laws that govern our elections. Through the rules that govern the ballot box, policymakers can determine who is and is not able to cast a ballot or the ways voters can cast a ballot. One controversial law in particular, early voting, is the primary focus of my research. Early voting allows voters to cast a ballot prior to Election using the same voting equipment that is used on Election Day. Intuitively, it would seem that as voting becomes easier for voters, that more voters would cast a ballot. In the case of local elections, my research has found the opposite to be true; early voting depresses turnout by almost 5 percent. This is concerning because turnout in local elections is already abysmal. My research takes a closer look at how early voting affects turnout in local elections. If indeed early voting depresses turnout, then extending the duration of the vote might not be the solution to the low voter turnout problem in US elections.

Jocelyn M. Boryczka

My current project is a book-length manuscript titled Globalization and Sex, which I was invited to write as part of Rowman and Littlefield’s Globalization Series.  This book project moves sex - generally found on the margins of studies in globalization - to the center of analysis.  Sex, I argue, is the most intimate dimension of globalization.  The book’s central question is: what previously invisible power relationships become visible when we look at globalization through the lens of sex to help us better understand body politics, citizenship, and transnational activism in the twenty-first century?  To engage this question, the book is organized around four themes – producing, personalizing, policing and politicizing. 

I explore different case studies globally while focusing on my developing area of expertise in East Africa that range from bathroom politics and sex trafficking to legislating homosexuality.  These cases speak to broader debates about whether or not citizenship as determined by the modern nation-state can sufficiently account for what it means to belong to contemporary political communities in the globalized era. I argue that it is not sufficient.  Alternatively, I argue for revisioning home and belonging via the sexed body to advance thinking about citizenship as (trans)sexed.  This step moves toward reimagining membership in globalized communities where subjectivity and bodily integrity belong to all persons as they move, or do not, across and through time and the spaces of the twenty-first century.  

Matthew Kubasik

I am a physical chemist.

My research consists of the preparation of new molecules in order to test and calibrate quantum mechanics, which is the most commonly applied theory for the structure and behavior of matter at the level of atoms and molecules. 

Specifically, I prepare molecules that are inspired by helical structures found in proteins.  I am interested in the forces that develop and maintain biological secondary structures such as helices.  In one of my projects, Fairfield students (who I regularly include as research collaborators) and I synthesize helical peptide molecules that ceaselessly interconvert between left- and right- handed forms.  We are interested in the conditions that affect the rate of interconversion between left and right-handed helices.  We relate the rates of interconversion to helical stability.

A second interest of mine is the computer visualization of molecular structures.  Because molecules are too small to see, we need methods to envision the world at the level of atoms and molecules.  I encourage you to visit my website to see an “artist’s rendition” of the left-to-right handed helical interconversion I mentioned earlier.

5.  Discussion on Assessment 

Dean Greenwald thanked everyone for attending today’s meeting. 

Colleges and Universities get to assess themselves.  The Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences have the opportunity to define our own assessment profiles.   The Assessment bodies are putting more Colleges and Universities on warning. 

NEASC was critical of the of the assessment data that the College of Arts and Sciences provided during the recent accreditation visit.     The College of Arts and Sciences needs to capture data that confirms what we are doing.   NEASC will come back in a few years to check for progress on assessment.  The College of Arts and Sciences needs to be proactive since we could be put on warning.    If the College of Arts and Sciences is placed on warning, the College of Arts and Sciences may not be eligible to receive federal grant funding.

For the most part, assessment is easy.  It is not rocket science.  The goal is to find a manageable amount of assessment data that will be used to advocate for resources, faculty lines, and strategic planning purposes. 

In the Departmental Annual Reports, there are bits and pieces of assessment data.  However, the data are not connected year-in and year-out.  The goal is to do a steady stream of assessment and to capture what is going on in departments.  The hope is that we will redo the Departmental Annual Report forms and have a smaller and more manageable assessment form.  We will aim toward starting something in 2018.

6.  Open discussion on new programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels

A new initiative on College of Arts and Sciences Innovation Grants was introduced.  The goal is to think of curricular programs that will attract students.  Both undergraduate and graduate curriculum programs are welcome.

A handout was presented and included the information given below.

CAS Curricular Innovation Grants

All full-time faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences are invited to submit proposals to develop new and innovative curricular programs for the College.   A Committee of your peers will select the programs they find most promising for further development, and the faculty who drafted the program will be asked to develop a full proposal during the spring semester.

Committee Members:

Anna Lawrence, Aaron Van Dyke, Linda Henkel, Peter Bayers, Jo Yarrington

Goal: to foster innovation in curriculum leading to new programs (tracks, certificates, concentrations, majors, graduate degrees or interdisciplinary programs) that will lead to increased enrollment and attract new students to CAS.

Stipend Grants will be awarded to faculty (or team of faculty) based on the quality of application and fit of program for CAS. The amounts awarded will be up to $3000, depending on the scope of the project.

Applications (Due February 21, 2018) can be in narrative form (3 pages approximately), but need to address the following:

• Need: Is there a perceived need for the program (nationally, regionally)? This could be identified by an environmental scan of like-minded programs.
• Fit: How does such a program fit the mission of the College and University?
• Enrollment: How will such a new program attract new students to the College?
• Curricular design: Briefly describe what would the program look like.
• Budget: Explain the program’s financial impact or new resources that would be needed.

Come to the Faculty Innovation Gala reception on January 23, 4:30-6:30 p.m. in the Dogwood Room to share and collaborate on your ideas with your CAS colleagues  

Upon award, faculty will use the stipend to develop a full proposal for the new curricular innovation that will be submitted to the Dean in a form that could be submitted through the University’s governance process. The Associate Deans will be available to consult with faculty members as they develop draft proposals and bring their programs to completion.

Timeline:

Call announced: November 16

Faculty Innovation Reception: January 23

Applications Due:  February 21

Award Period: March-June

Final Program Proposal/Design Due: Summer 2018

Submission Instructions: Please send proposals electronically to Jean Daniele (jdaniele@fairfield.edu) by the submission deadline. 

Prof. Phelan asked if there was data from admissions as to what kinds of programs the students are asking for.

The Dean responded that the data that Prof. Phelan requested was not available.  The yield rate for undergraduate admissions is 11 %.  Some students say they are not choosing Fairfield because there is no undergraduate research available.  That is incorrect.  The undergraduate research opportunities are not marketed correctly. 

7.  Open Conversation on Academic Freedom

There was a discussion on academic freedom and the worries and concerns that people had on academic freedom on November 29^th.   One takeaway was that

we are missing an opportunity to engage students to discuss controversial issues.  

The Dean acknowledged that many speakers are Departmental based.    He is thinking about having a College of Arts and Sciences speaker series.  There will be a theme for each semester.  

Prof. Abbott mentioned that there is a 12-member task force that is coordinated by Prof. Kris Sealy.  The charge of the task force to develop a set of principles from which, policy can be derived from by the President and the Provost.

Prof. Lakeland mentioned that he serves on the 12-member task force with Prof. Abbott.  There are closely related things to talk about.  One is academic freedom and the other is free speech.  Public institutions are required to welcome anyone who wants to come to their campus to speak.  Private institutions do not have to follow this policy. 

The Dean stated the College of Arts and Sciences should not shy away from these important issues.  As a University, we can invite a dialog to happen and demonstrate how this happens to the community and the students.

Prof. Bucki liked having debates on campus.  Does this imply that noxious individuals will be invited to campus?  We want to invite intellectuals to campus to debate important issues. 

Prof. Behre wants to set a tone that students are expected to be participants in the community, and that they should not attend events just to receive extra credit.  We want to get students to come to these events without being offered extra credit. 

Prof. Biselli mentioned that a lot of students have conflicts and cannot attend scheduled talks. She stated that it would be nice to have a common hour on Wednesday’s when these speakers would be on campus.

Prof. Epstein is worried that many young people cannot tolerate a view other than their own.  How do you avoid bringing in speakers who may discuss controversial topics?

The Dean is recommending that we should start a community based speaker series with some limits.   We will need a statement of principles as to what will be tolerated from the speakers.  Students should be engaged and help to invite speakers.

Prof. Carolan liked the idea of having a speaker series.    She suggested that we have a conversation with students and ask if there are issues that they are pondering.

Prof. Xiao is in favor of having students attend community debates.   She further suggested that we should have debates on a regular basis in our classrooms.   

Prof. Iddins suggested that we poll students as to what topics they would like to have speakers present and debate issues on.  She stated that this happened a few years ago when there was a conversation on water on campus. 

Prof. Rugg mentioned that we should not just focus on ideas that the speakers will debate but also reflect on ways the individuals present their ideas.

Prof. Epstein stated this academic freedom and free speech are part of our mission.   Absolute neutrality about social principles are not part of the mission.

The Dean mentioned that there are multiple issues on many perspectives.  We need to have our students hear both sides of the issues presented.

Prof. Schwab asked how do we prepare students to engage with people with very strong different opinions.

Profs. Carolan and Xiao stated they have team taught a course together and often disagreed with each other during class discussions.  The students received multiple perspectives.   There is no one interpretation of a text or a film.

Prof. Lakeland mentioned that he had the same experience as Profs. Carolan and Xiao thirty-three years ago teaching with Fr. Regan. Each of us knows a lot more than the average student about the topic we are teaching.  We want the students’ ideas to develop.  We are triangulating this relationship.  The students are listening to different points of view and are trying to figure out where they stand on the point of view.

Prof. Bayers stated that students do not feel comfortable in certain classes.  Students do not necessarily have the tool belt to argue certain points.

Prof. Bucki stated that she had a similar experience team teaching honors classes.  She also mentioned that several students invited Prof. Bucki to debate an issue with a faculty member from Economics.  Students want to see people have debates. 

Prof. Gunter mentioned that she is glad that we are having conversations about academic freedom.  We can all have our work mischaracterized.

Prof. Aberda stated that many conservatives are not supported on campus and that they are marginalized.

The Dean wants to see the conversation continue.  Anything that happens has to be faculty led.   He wanted to see the members on campus to become more engaged and learn about things, even items they disagree with.

The Dean wished everyone all of the best for the holidays and the new year!

8.  Adjournment.

A motion to adjourn was made by Prof. Porter and seconded by Prof. McClure at 5:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

John R. Miecznikowski

CAS Secretary 2017-2019.