Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting
November 8, 1999
Senators Present: Bartanen, Bowe, Bruce, Cooney, Edwards, Haltom (Chair), Holland, HummelBerry, Kline, Sousa, Ward, Wimberger.
Guests: Carrie Washburn
Haltom called the meeting to order at 4:19 p.m.
After the minutes were approved, Wimberger asked about the true nature of the seven course Core
target that had been adopted by the Faculty last spring. Haltom and Cooney agreed that the motion
provided a guideline for Faculty, and that Faculty could exceed this number if they so desired.
The Senate then moved on to the Business du jour.
Haltom asked Bartanen to discuss binge drinking. Bartanen first addressed the definition of binge
drinking and the difficulties of finding a definition that captured all the aspects of the problem that might
be relevant, such as time over which the drinks were consumed and imbiber body weight. Binge
drinking has been defined as 5 or more drinks in one sitting for males and 4 or more drinks in a single
sitting for females. The definitions used on campus reflect the research literature on the topic and are
an accepted standard. Bartanen provided the Senate with a brief review of relevant literature and
statistics and concluded her presentation by reporting that six students have received emergency
medical treatment this fall as the consequence of excessive drinking and that the University needs to
attend to the potentially tragic consequences of these events.
Haltom initiated a discussion about the use of the descriptor, “binge,” and wondered if it would be more
precise to describe binge drinking as “excessive” or “risky.” In addition he asked, if binging means
doing something out of the ordinary, is it possible to binge more than three times a week? Bartanen
replied that other language could and should be used and that the use of “binge” and the direction of
the poster and ad campaign was motivated by the fact that social norms approaches to education work
better than fear approaches.
The Senate then moved to the discussion of the 2000-2001 academic calendar. Haltom told the
Senate that our function was to ratify - major changes should have been made earlier. Holland asked
if there were any major changes in the new calendar. Washburn replied that the calendar had
received initial approval in 1996 and that there were no major changes from previous years. Cooney
stated that any major adjustments would need to be made by the Senate and the Curriculum
Committee. Haltom asked if the conflict between Mother’s Day and Commencement had been
considered. Bartanen replied that the Commencement Committee was aware of the conflict. Sousa
expressed concern over the January 2 due date for Fall grades falling so close to January 1, that time
being a peak travel time for many faculty. Washburn replied that the grade due date adheres to the
usual 10 working days after the day of the last final. Many students request transcripts during that time
and transcripts are held up until all grades are in. Finney and the ASC also need the transcripts for the
January 5 probation/dismissal meeting. Bartanen asked if approving the 2000-1 calendar implied
approval of the 2001-2 calendar. Washburn replied that it did not because the Curriculum Committee
was still considering a longer Fall Break (wouldn’t it be loverly?). Holland asked why Fall Break day
couldn’t be moved up a week to coincide with Columbus Day, especially considering that Yom Kippur
coincided with Columbus Day next year. Washburn replied that breaks used to float; for instance,
Spring Break used to float but now always comes at the end of the seventh week. With regard to Fall
Break, the Admissions office requested that Fall Break not be held on Columbus Day because we
normally receive many prospective students on that day.
M/S/P to accept 2000-1 calendar.
The next issue on our plate was a clarification of the recent memo on sabbatical policy recently
circulated by Dean Cooney. Cooney said that a problem ensued because his memo contradicted the
following sentence from the Faculty Professional Development guide:
“Leaves provided through competitive external funding or through competitive internal grants or
fellowships will be included in teaching years for the purposes of this program.”
Cooney went on to say that two problems arise from the above statement. The first is how do we
decide what constitutes an outside competitive grant. What are the standards we apply in deciding
which grants should qualify? The second is whether the University can afford to continue the practice
of counting years spent not teaching in the tenure clock. Too many leaves can ultimately shortchange
students and destabilize programs. Cooney thinks that sabbaticals should be viewed as a chance to
step away from teaching; time on leave doing research does not constitute full-time teaching. He said
that these issues need to be discussed further by the UEC.
Ward asked how junior leaves, such as Martin Nelson Junior Sabbaticals, would be counted under the
new plan. Cooney replied that if someone was on such a leave for a semester they would qualify for
sabbatical in the second semester of their seventh year. Sousa asked whether unit releases would
delay tenure. Cooney replied that they would not because they were considered part of a full-time
teaching load. Edwards asked whether the new plan served as a disincentive to pursue outside
funding for leaves. Terry answered that he did not see the new plan as removing incentive for
applying for external funds because such funding and a sabbatical would potentially allow one to do
research for two years out of eight instead of one out of seven. He reemphasized the point that in his
view sabbaticals are designed as respites from teaching and that being away was not a good excuse
for being away. He mused that perhaps the UEC might consider an upper limit on externally-funded
leaves that might still count towards sabbatical. Wimberger asked whether rules for sabbatical
eligibility were in any way tied to promotion and evaluation. Cooney stated that the sabbatical eligibility
and evaluation schedules were completely independent. Holland asked whether there could be any
grandfathering of the old policy. Cooney responded that UEC policies often change and that they are
somewhat fluid anyway to accommodate situations where too many people from a department request
leaves in a given year. Wimberger asked whether Cooney could see the new policy affecting faculty
recruitment. Cooney said he would be surprised if it did since UPS has a fairly liberal sabbatical
policy. Haltom wondered whether faculty who delay taking their sabbatical should contact Jones.
Cooney replied that if someone is delaying for personal reasons there is no reason to contact Jones;
however, if a person delays for the University or their Department, then that delay must be
acknowledged by the Department and the Administration. [something in my notes about 3 years?]
Haltom asked if Senators wanted to talk about the current Curriculum Reform. Edwards expressed
concern that the Natural World requirement was being reduced to a single course and that scientific
illiteracy has a real impact across disciplines. A number of senators agreed with the sentiment but
wondered why we should increase natural sciences and not other disciplines where illiteracy is equally
apparent. They opined that if having a smaller core was important then we would have to make some
sacrifices. Haltom maintained that science courses, and perhaps all core courses generally don’t have
the impact for which we hope. Edwards replied that core size was not really the issue and that he
thought the old core worked. He worries that there is overly broad overlap between Fine Arts and
Humanities and would rather see that sacrificed for another NW course. He and Cooney noted that
there has been no real discussion of principles or philosophy to guide our building of the new core and
that we might have had more direction in our recent efforts at redesigning the core had these
discussions preceded the core building.
As the afternoon darkened, the body, as a body, M/S/P to adjourn at 5:34.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Wimberger