1.0 Call to Order
2.0 Call of the Roll:
Obie Garza, Merideth Brodsky, Marion Schrock, Tina
Fuchs, Linda Keller, Linda Stonecipher, Stephanie Tunison, Brian
Bonnlander, Jim Chadney, Leo Rasca-Hidalgo, and President
Youngblood were absent.
3.0. Corrections to and approval of the minutes from the previous senate meeting/Agenda Adjustments. Minutes approved. Joel requested an agenda adjustment to move agenda point 8.1 (Consideration of New Business: WOU/Diversity - Presentation regarding recent hate crimes on WOU campus) to the first order of business, to be introduced within his senate president report. This adjustment was approved.
4.0. Reports of the Presidents
4.1. Senate President
Joel welcomed everyone, with an emphasis on introducing many
guests (these included Mike Walsh, Peter Callero, Summer
Wolcott, and several students). He introduced the first order of
business, the topic of diversity/hate crimes, by reiterating the
recently approved new mission statement that recognizes respect
for diversity as a central component of education at Western
Oregon University. He also emphasized that today's
presentations, he hoped, would provide information, generate some
discussion, and ultimately lead to faculty sharing information at the
Division level for future discussion. He then introduced Peter
Callero who briefly discussed the recent defacing of the GAP (Gay
and Proud) signs, suggested that this vandalism should be
considered a potentially more pervasive sign of intolerance on
campus.
Peter then introduced Summer Wolcott in terms of her
academic integrity and courageousness, asking that we consider
her words and history as we attempt to define the vandalism
incident and its deeper implications in terms of respect and
diversity.
Summer Wolcott spoke honestly and openly, narrating her own
personal, academic, and athletic history at Western, emphasizing
problems she has encountered with intolerance (at the interpersonal
level, at the level of university club/activity functions, and in
professional or administrative settings). She spoke as well of
friends and student leaders who have experienced similar problems
at similar levels. She described specific steps that have been
taken (either with campus public safety or with Monmouth Police)
to deal with several of these overt instances; however, she
stressed that many acts do go unreported. She outlined in specific
detail the problems encountered with the recent GAP signs and
said that this incident has provided a focal point for evaluating all
the other instances because of the overtness of the harrassment.
When asked what specific steps faculty could do, in her opinion, to
address these issues, Summer said she felt that some faculty
could be more sensitive about all levels of diversity (facilitated,
perhaps, by training workshops that encompass all kind of diversity
issues), and perhaps that more lifestyle choice diversity issues
should be incorporated into current liberal arts/multicultural core
coursework. Peter added that it was clear that training must
include not only faculty but infrastructure (e.g. counselors and
administrative staff).
Joel then introduced Campus Security officials who discussed their
role in documenting and dealing with campus violations. They
discussed the specific cases that had been reported which
Summer described and said that some cases remain on campus
(dealt with eventually by Mike Walsh/Student Conduct) while
others are handled by Monmouth Police/Courts. Where the case
goes depends on the victim and the violation. At least one incident
involved a physical assault and is being handled by the City of
Monmouth. More recent acts of vandalism and harrassment are
being handled via Student Conduct. Peter asked Campus
Security whether these violations were being called, in the legal
sense, "hate crimes." The officers said that the closest term to
"hate crime" was "first degree intimidation" or "second degree
intimidation" (both of which involve aggression with the intent to put
down another person because of, among other things, a difference
in perceived values). I asked Mike Walsh what sorts of penalities
campus violations translate to in terms of probation, suspension,
etc. He said that it depends on the level of the violation and the
number of times a student has been involved in misconduct.
Joel thanked the presenters and again reiterated the goals of this
presentation in terms of future discussion. Peter Callero and David
Hargreaves commended this discussion and expressed thanks that
issues were communicated and emphasized, again, that these
issues must be a source of continued discussion. All guests
except Mike Walsh left the meeting at this time.
4.11 Enrollment Management Committee - Michael Cihak introduced this new committee, emphasizing that the goal of the committee is management of slow change and retention - not rapid recruitment. He invited two elected faculty members to join the committee, one from Liberal Arts and Sciences and one from Education. Meetings will occur once a month. Chehallis Strapp asked whether Western has an exit program that examines student perceptions about their academic experiences. Michael said there was no such program.
4.12 REMINDER:
IFS nominees due by NEXT MEETING
4.13 Joel completed his report by asking whether a faculty senate webpage was of interest. It would, in his vision, include minutes, standard university forms that could be downloaded, the faculty handbook, relevant professional/grant links. Faculty seemed interested in this, although there were some questions about the consistency of forms, given that some departments seem make minor adjustments to some forms. No motions were made.
4.2 President of Western Oregon University:
Dr. Youngblood was
absent. Dr. Minahan spoke briefly on the enrollment figures (4526
total as of Friday before meeting). He also reiterated the
importance of retention as an enrollment mechanism, reporting that
our retention rate is 73% at present, up nearly 10% from the year
prior.
4.3 Student Body President:
Obie Garza was absent.
5.0 Reports of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senators:
Irja Galvan
reported that there had been no IFS meetings since the last senate
meeting.
6.0. Reports of Faculty Senate Subcommittees Brian Caster reminded faculty that the Curriculum Committee would meet Nov. 16 and advised new proposals be sent ASAP for that meeting. Some current proposals to be discussed, he said, involved the Information Technology Major and the Social Science/Economics issue. Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon confirmed that the library would like a position on the Jenson Lectureship Committee and the Senate approved this addition.
7.0 Old Business
7.1. Honor Code
Joel introduced Mike Walsh who briefly talked about his roles on
campus (which span managing RAs, dealing with Student Conduct
- both academic and non-academic violations). He emphasized
that faculty faced with any issues of potential misconduct
(everything from cheating to potential harrassment expressed by
students) should feel free to talk with him about effectively handling
situations. His office is in the University Residences and he can
be reached at 8-8426.
Mike went on to talk about his experience with Honor Codes,
particularly that at his alma mater, William and Mary. Mike
stressed that he believes students would respond to some form of
an oath that was taken/signed upon admission to Western and
which agreed to the basic tenets of most Honor Codes ("I will not
cheat, plagiarize, etc; I have an obligation to the Honor Code to
turn in others who do so"). Some faculty suggested, in light of the
previous presentation on "hate crimes" that this oath may also be
expanded to include a statement of respect and diversity. Several
questions about whether this was legal (in that we are a public
institute and these "oaths" may constitute value judgements or
violate components of Consistutional Law) were addressed. Mike
pointed out that William and Mary is a state school. He will pursue
more research on the legality issue for support, however. David Hargreaves
asked, however, whether Western should pursue a campus
wide Honor Code or, as indicated in the Rice University website, a
more divisional-level Code (because, as noted on the Rice site:
imposing an all-purpose Code may be difficiult). The issue of
simply using individual syllabus-based conduct Codes was also
discussed. It should be emphasized, however, that syllabi are not
contracts in the legal sense (a true contract must be negotiated).
This brought up the need to include students in any subsequent
Honor Code negotiation process. Joel recommended that an Honor
Code subcommittee be formed to include one member of each
Division, two students, and Mike Walsh. This motion was
approved. Please bring this to the attention of your divisions.
The meeting was adjourned.