#8
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2015-2016
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
October 27, 2015
3:30pm, HMSU 414
Draft Minutes
Members Present: C. MacDonald, T. Hawkins, S. Lamb, V. Sheets, D. Hantzis, E. Hampton, J.
Conant
Members Absent: C. Paterson, L. Brown
Ex-Officio Present:
Ex-Officio Absent: President D. Bradley, Provost M. Licari
Guests: L. Campbell, W. Downs, R. Guell, K. Butwin
1) Administrative Reports: None.
2) Chair Report:
i) C. MacDonald: None.
3) Approval of Minutes
a) Motion to approve as amended. (V. Sheets, D. Hantzis) Vote: 7-0-0
4) Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
a) E. Hampton: I was shocked by the vile nature of the language shouted directly at our
students today. These are things I don’t want to hear, things I would not want my own
children to hear. I can’t believe they are not stepping over the boundaries of free speech. I
would like to hear from counsel about what we can do. I don’t think it is up to us to
define what is appropriate, but I think the lawyers can help us.
b) D. Hantzis: I think it’s interesting that they have received a lot of pushback. There is a lot
more reaction than in the past.
c) S. Lamb: Was it ever this vile?
d) E. Hampton: This person was engaging in hateful slander.
1
e) D. Hantzis: To be this sexually explicit is not normal.
f) V. Sheets: It’s been explicitly sexual all semester.
g) E. Hampton: If you were on the street yelling these things at someone’s face, I am not
sure it’s not legal…but on campus to a student?
h) C. MacDonald: We will forward our increased level of concern to K. Butwin. The
minutes can show the faculty that we are talking about it.
i) R. Guell: It might be useful to have the university record what they say. This can be used
as evidence.
j) D. Hantzis: My guess is that some parents might believe that ISU is trying to silence
preachers. Recorded material would help them understand that there is “no loving God”
in what these people say.
5) Revision to 955—Tobacco Policy
a) Motion to approve revised policy as amended. (T. Hawkins, D. Hantzis): Vote 4-3-0
b) W. Downs: This is a change we are making as a result of discussions with the student
body. We have done more research into e-cigarettes. Initially they were considered a way
for people to stop smoking, but that is proving to be unsubstantiated. The vapors are also
setting off fire alarms in the residence halls. We are tweaking the policy so that ecigarettes will be considered the same as cigarettes.
c) D. Hantzis: I am teaching a course now where more than one team of students wanted
this to be a class issue. They were very concerned. I was surprised they were aware of it.
d) W. Downs. People are gravitating to this. The number of people are increasing.
e) S. Lamb: There is no tobacco in e-cigarettes?
f) W. Downs: There is nicotine.
g) V. Sheets: I don’t know that it fits the rest of the policy. I do have a concern if just
because people starting to do something that someone doesn’t like, then we simply add it
to the list. I don’t know that there’s a particular problem. I don’t know anything about
setting off fire alarms, but that is a concern. It doesn’t make sense to me in the original
form. What other like substances does it refer to?
h) L. Campbell: I will say that I have had conversations with Chief Newport. We did have
issues in January with employees smoking in their offices. That’s why we now have signs
near offices. The vapor is not just water. It has some carcinogenic properties. Based on
my conversation with Chief Newport, you are now able to smoke illegal substances in ecigarettes. This would help combat some of these issues and eliminate illegal activity.
i) J. Conant: There is some inconsistency in the language. You can’t define e-cigarettes as
tobacco products. You can prohibit smoking a tobacco product or smoking materials.
j) C. MacDonald. Smoking materials are prohibited.
k) D. Hantzis: The concern V. Sheets raised is of an all-inclusive umbrella. Now we are not
sure what is limited. There needs to be a further definition of the use of tobacco.
l) S. Lamb: What about to “inhale”?
2
m) D. Hantzis: If the sentence ended in e-cigarettes, and we have to revisit it later, we will.
n) L. Campbell: I understand the verbiage can be misleading.
o) T. Hawkins: Can the new language read: “Smoking materials are defined as cigarettes,
cigars, pipes, or any other device used to burn tobacco or other like substances. Ecigarettes are also prohibited.”
p) J. Conant: You also have a problem with e-cigarettes.
q) C. MacDonald. That’s why he pulled it out.
r) E. Hampton: The document backs up smoking on campus. There was a clear reason for
tobacco, but I’m not sure there are clear reasons for e-cigarettes. I want to make sure we
can back it up.
s) V. Sheets. I have no problem with passing this, but if we are using the smell as the
reason…
t) L. Campbell: There is another point to this, too. Regarding the wellness screenings that
just ended, when individuals list a cessation device, we ask if they were using e-cigarettes
more than cigarettes. It’s a grey area and is hard to address. I was using the FDA policy.
u) S. Lamb: What I’d like to do is get a sense of how many of us want to ban e-cigarettes
whether or not the language fits perfectly. C. MacDonald, can you poll us?
v) C. MacDonald: Sure. If you are in favor of the concept of prohibiting e-cigarettes like we
do other types of smoking, raise your hand. That looks like most of us.
w) R. Guell: Does chewing tobacco fit into this policy? I find this practice disgusting.
x) L. Campbell: We had a few students bring up the issue of smokeless tobacco. This policy
does not prohibit it.
y) R. Guell: If we are using this policy to have an impact on health…
z) D. Hantzis: E-cigarettes have been around for eleven years. What we’ve seen in that time
are changes in the heat production. It turns out that it produces formaldehyde depending
on which e-liquid you’re using. I do think that it’s true we haven’t made any decisions
based on its use as a cessation device. It’s a cigarette. Kids see it as that. That’s why I
voted the way I did. I really want people not to smoke, I want people to live.
aa) S. Lamb: Can’t we take T. Hawkins’ suggestion? Separate it out? We recognize it doesn’t
fit perfectly.
bb) T. Hawkins: I support taking my own suggestion.
cc) E. Hampton: I can see making a policy against setting off the fire alarms. I don’t want to
legislate health.
dd) T. Hawkins: Everyone legislates health. That is what the language in 955.1.1 is about.
We can parse this language down to the point where it becomes meaningless. The point
of the policy and the reason to ban e-cigarettes isn’t to prevent the combustion of
tobacco. Instead, this product produces something that harms others. That’s why it’s an
issue.
ee) V. Sheets: The issue is kids can put other stuff in it. As a parent, that concerns me.
Honestly, I’m not sure I want a broad policy to address that. I wasn’t always an atheist. I
3
was raised in a pretty conservative church. I wasn’t supposed to play cards because it’s
associated with gambling.
ff) D. Hantzis: You have to abstain from all appearances.
gg) V. Sheets: Right.
hh) C. MacDonald: There is no single reason. There are multiple reasons.
ii) D. Hantzis: I think Tim’s separation makes sense. I’m still held up by the language about
burning tobacco. I would be happier if you could list examples.
jj) J. Conant: Why don’t we say you can’t burn tobacco on campus?
kk) D. Hantzis: The research shows that in 2017, more people will be using vapor cigarettes.
ll) L. Campbell: Ours is a smoke-free campus, but not tobacco free.
mm)
D. Hantzis: Should the sentence end after “cigarettes”?
nn) C. MacDonald: No after “pipes”.
oo) T. Hawkins: “Smoking materials are defined as… E-cigarettes are also prohibited.”
pp) S. Lamb: I agree.
qq) R. Guell: This is one of the most violated policies with no consequences.
rr) C. MacDonald: If we want to address consequences, we need to have administrators here.
6) Overview of Faculty Governance
a) Motion to endorse “An Overview of Faculty Governance at ISU”, post the document on
the Senate website, and express gratitude to C. MacDonald for her work (S. Lamb, D.
Hantzis) Vote: 7-0-0
b) C. MacDonald: I had a request to make this document more formal. I suspect you have
seen it before. It is not formal, since it has never been officially approved by Exec or the
Senate. I have made a couple of minor changes and taken my initials out of it. However,
the content is fundamentally the same.
c) V. Sheets: I would like to have it attributed to you. I think having it on the Senate website
is fine. You have done a lot of work. This will be valuable for the future.
d) C. MacDonald: I would expect this to be altered as necessary.
e) V. Sheets: We wouldn’t want to have it altered every year.
f) C. MacDonald: The rationale, I understand, for having it as an official document is that it
sets some things in stone. Most of it does come from the Handbook, but not all of it.
g) E. Hampton: By approving it, what would we be doing? Will it be hard to adapt? This has
to reflect the actual policy. One should be able to pass from the Handbook to the other.
h) D. Hantzis: The Handbook is referenced.
i) C. MacDonald: Yes, as much as I could.
j) S. Lamb: It should be kept in accord with any future changes.
k) V. Sheets: As long as we can emphasize that it is not permanent. It does not have formal
legal status. We can’t tie the next president’s hands.
l) C. MacDonald: We can endorse it rather than approve it.
4
m) E. Hampton: I think it’s a great document. It does refer to the Executive Committee
informally as “Exec” in the document. Do we want to use “Exec”?
n) C. MacDonald: The first time the term is used, it is cited appropriately. We refer to
ourselves as Exec.
o) S. Lamb: At the beginning of the year the chair of the Executive Committee is called
upon to make this very speech.
p) C. MacDonald: We did use it as part of a meeting with new senators.
q) C. MacDonald: I will post the new version on the BB site and note it has been endorsed.
7) Discussion of FAC items:
a) Anti-Bullying (creation of 906)
i) C. MacDonald: These are discussion items now because D. Bradley and M. Licari are
not here and have not had a chance to weigh in. Hopefully, soon we can put these
recommendations to a vote.
ii) E. Hampton: I have a question on the first sentence in 906:
“Hostile behavior pervasive or severe enough that a reasonable person would
find it hostile and/or intimidating and that does not further the University’s
academic or operational interests is unacceptable to the extent that it makes
the conditions for work inhospitable and impairs another person’s ability to
carry out his/her responsibilities to the university.”
What kind of unwelcome behavior would further the University’s interests?
iii) C. MacDonald: Coaches can yell at their athletes.
iv) R. Guell: The University’s academic interest is served by vigorous academic debate.
This is protected via 906.3 and 904.4. For example, 906.4 is there to make sure that a
chair or dean appropriately admonishes an individual. If it is an appropriate directive,
even if an individual might find it intimidating, it is not a violation of the first part of
the sentence. Let me make it very, very clear that this language comes almost entirely
from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I am defending someone else’s rationale.
I believe we need a policy. Why? This is a carry-over from the debate last year over
the whistle-blower policy. Some of us believed that was a proper vehicle to deal with
inappropriate retaliation by deans, etc. against faculty members. The university
attorney at the time was not comfortable with that position. The new university
attorney has her own views. When I was Faculty Senate chair, the President and I
agreed that we would interpret the whistle-blower policy narrowly if we were allowed
to bring forward a policy such as this and have it vetted. On that score, when elected
chair of FAC, I went to look for comparable policies at other institutions. There were
only a few. This one has the elements that we needed. For example, 906.4 is a
necessary element for administrative support. In Madison, this policy does not have
unanimous support. There some consider it to be a civility policy. But it isn’t.
5
v) S. Lamb: I’m glad you mentioned the fear of confusion with a civility policy. I’m
glad the administration is not ready to deal with this so we can have time to think
about it. It is an important document. I like the phrasing in 906.3.
vi) R. Guell: I had to please three people: the President, the attorney, and Steve.
vii) S. Lamb: I would like for us to go through this and see if there are sections that might
need to be reworked.
viii) E. Hampton: Back to the first sentence. The policy does not prevent someone
from being hostile while promoting the university’s interest. It is an out for
administrators. We have time to look at this.
ix) D. Hantzis: I agree. There is enough language after the first sentence to allow for
clarification.
x) S. Lamb: I don’t usually get into this. I don’t appreciate myself getting into this. But
what does “conspicuous” mean in this context?
xi) D. Hantzis: We have cases at the university where individuals are not invited to
attend meetings even though their attendance is required. That’s isolation.
xii) S. Lamb: Those cases do exist. But there are individuals who would be willing to
misuse that.
xiii) D. Hantzis: That is what D. Bradley worries about—a bunch of specious claims.
xiv) E. Hampton: On 906.3, regarding the Context of Academic Freedom. The
“occasionally insensitive language” part seems to be at odds with Part A in 906.1
above. Is that appropriately and efficiently written?
xv) R. Guell: It’s covered in 906.2
xvi) E. Hampton: So that overrides this?
xvii) R. Guell: Yes.
xviii) C. MacDonald: Sometimes we say things out of ignorance. The soft language is
there to recognize that we do stupid things sometimes.
xix) R. Guell: If we can use this policy to deal with the X number of people who are
always abusive, that would be positive.
xx) D. Hantzis: This conversation started at FAC a long time ago when we were talking
about the notion that some behavior is not covered by our policies. There really was
no way for the university to pursue these claims. We can’t afford to think that X is a
small number. If you do, you’re mistaken.
xxi) R. Guell: All you need to do is look at the COACHE spreadsheet to see the extent
of the problem. Only a third of the faculty said none of this ever happened to them.
xxii) C. MacDonald: I know of a faculty member who was picking on students who
were not part of a protected group. She liked to call out, harass, and embarrass them.
It took a lot to get that faculty member gone. She is no longer here.
xxiii) D. Hantzis: I think also that it’s really important to look at the COACHE data. I
feel we didn’t fully exploit it. Nationally, there’s a lot of attention to this. We want to
6
protect civility. But we need to deal with the fact that we live in a more uncivil
climate.
xxiv) S. Lamb: Do you believe it is more pervasive now?
xxv) D. Hantzis: Yes. People don’t come to everyone with their stories.
xxvi) R. Guell: Hazing is less pervasive at fraternities. But, also, the community
response has changed. That is what we need to do. Many junior faculty members feel
like there is a hazing mentality among senior faculty.
xxvii) C. MacDonald: That is similar to what the literature on bullying has shown. Prior
to the mid-1970s, bullying was considered a developmentally normative thing. We
have come to the realization that it is not appropriate to consider bullying a phase. We
need an anti-bullying policy. Unfortunately, bullying does not stop after high school.
xxviii) D. Hantzis: It is part of being stewards of our profession. Reasonable people can
agree and disagree.
xxix) S. Lamb: What I fear is a clever person looking through meeting minutes and
isolating certain comments. We laugh at our faculty meetings and enjoy our
interactions. I don’t think I have ever purposefully said anything hostile.
xxx) D. Hantzis: It is in part a generational gap. The way we respond to the behavior is
marked by all sorts of societal pressures—like everything else is. We don’t respond
evenly, fairly, and sometimes we trivialize and diminish people. One doesn’t always
work, especially if there’s this person injuring my professional career or landing me
with PTSD. It’s interesting to me that the language on domestic violence is similar.
xxxi) S. Lamb: My son, who is an atheist, is currently being driven out of his workplace
because of his viewpoints. It was done in an ugly fashion. I looked into the law to see
if there were any protections for his workplace environment. The lawyer told me no
there were not.
xxxii) K. Butwin: Not unless it falls into protected classes. We have a process for that.
Collective bargaining agreements may also have certain protections. But, unless we
make it our policy, no.
xxxiii) E. Hampton: I like the document. This addresses a lot of what should be
controlled behavior.
xxxiv) V. Sheets: I only had some issues with the latter half: the last paragraph under
906.5.1.
xxxv) R. Guell: That’s also ISU language. L. Eberman believed that if an informal
process is to have any point, it has to be the big red flag in the personnel file. If it
happens again, then further action needs to be taken.
xxxvi) V. Sheets: I would want that modified. My issue is that informal action can be as
simple as going and talking to this person. Or, my friend talking to this person. There
is nothing that an administrator would have evidence of. Now you are saying it is
going to be in my file. Then, people can file a grievance if the initial process didn’t
7
work. It’s not clear who decides it initially and if they grieve the person who they
complain about or the administrator who didn’t do anything about it.
xxxvii) R. Guell: This section comes from Wisconsin. If you would like to instruct us to
make it more clearly aligned with our grievance process, I think that would be
appropriate. We were really uncomfortable given that the President and two previous
provosts kept asserting that the X group was a really small one. I felt pressure to keep
the Wisconsin language intact to address the general problem we have. We purposely
kept the Wisconsin vision to defeat the criticism. I am perfectly happy to align 906.5.
xxxviii)
S. Lamb: As a chair, I always appreciate the opportunity to settle issues
informally. The success I have had is because I have employed that aggressively. I
understand that when you have a chair who does not understand the servantleadership concept, then you need documentation. But, I also believe more
documentation makes a department less functional. It just doesn’t work.
xxxix) R. Guell: It is the abusive behavior that causes people to want to write rules.
xl) K. Butwin: I cannot speak for the Provost and President because I haven’t had the
chance to speak with them yet. Discrimination cases will have to be determined
separately. We are in the process of revising the procedures for investigation. I’m not
sure that just doing a policy like this in some form is enough. I think there has to be
something to go along with it. We have to set the expectations about appropriate
behavior. Until we set those expectations and unless we are willing to call people out
for inappropriate behavior, then the policy would only add to paperwork.
xli) D. Hantzis: In regards to the informal process, I think it’s important to distinguish
between casual concerns and informal processes. There does need to be a documented
process, and it may or may not be a part of a personnel file. In the first sentence of
906.5.1, it says “a person…may wish…” No, they choose to keep it at this level.
We need to distinguish between an informal process and a casual intervention. Also,
all references are to grievance processes that are not here. I hope that if we pass this,
we say here is the map. We need to tell people where to go to file the grievance.
xlii) K. Butwin: In 906, is this an all-university policy?
xliii) R. Guell: FAC wanted this here. Whatever comes out of Senate would need Staff
Council input. I did what I could to open it up, because C. MacDonald wanted that.
xliv) K. Butwin: Does it imply student-to-student and faculty-to-staff interactions?
xlv) C. MacDonald: If students are the aggressors that is a different policy. If it is
faculty or staff, this is the policy.
b) Progressive Discipline (Amendments to 246 and 350)
i) R. Guell: One of the recommendations I sent to the Executive Committee a while
back is that faculty take more responsibility for faculty behavior. That’s part of the
insertion of the word “discipline” in 246.13. This committee would not just meet for
dismissal purposes but would have broader disciplinary responsibilities. That would
be the vehicle to deal with the following problem: now, either a chairperson writes a
8
letter of admonishment, basically a slap on the wrist, or the death penalty is imposed.
Those are the options for the administration to deal with faculty problems. Last year
on Senate, we got into a discussion regarding progressive discipline. (I don’t know if
you were paying attention to the news during the summer this year, but a New Jersey
teacher was fired for showing up late most of the days. The teacher sued the school
corporation on the grounds that there was no progressive discipline. The teacher
won.) It is a due process right. I came to the conclusion that what the President was
asking for last year and what we may ultimately have to do is to create something in
between a “slap on the wrist” and “off with your head”. I didn’t want to create a
whole new process, so I inserted some language into 246. The changes are minor,
mostly additions of the word “discipline”. And, in 246.13.65 findings becomes
“findings and alternatives”. Beyond the chair admonishment, the Faculty Discipline
and Dismissal Hearing Committee becomes involved. If it finds the person is in need
of discipline, dismissal is an option, but there are alternatives: e.g., loss of salary
increases, suspension, and reduction in rank.
ii) V. Sheets: You’ve got “a semester without pay”, could it be “up to” a semester? In
some cases you could manage it without interfering with classes.
iii) R. Guell: I don’t think FAC would have a problem with that. But, what kind of
offenses would a faculty member commit that would not cause them to be fired? It is
hard to figure that out. We are conscious of the crimes that are too big to notice.
Then, it is “off with your head.” But, there are other actions that require
consequences. We just talked about the example of senior faculty who are constantly
abusive to junior members.
iv) D. Hantzis: Like a no-contact order…
v) R. Guell: This adds to the letter of admonishment. But, if you want to go beyond that,
you can—with approval from a group of colleagues.
vi) D. Hantzis: I think it speaks to climate. There are some folks who know they can do
almost anything and not get in trouble. The stakes are so high. If you’re not willing to
go all the way, what do you do? I like the notion that due process includes
progressive discipline. We want to give people the chance to improve their behavior.
Note that in 246.13.4, where you create the committee, the title of the committee in
the text does not include the word “discipline”.
vii) V. Sheets: If someone is reduced in rank to associate, could they be re-promoted?
viii) D. Hantzis: A good question.
ix) E. Hampton: I have heard similar arguments made about plagiarism if it is a small
thing.
x) C. MacDonald: One can make an argument that we have new students who need to be
taught. It is an educational moment for a first-time offense. On the second
assignment, you would step up the consequences.
xi) R. Guell: There are gradations of sin and of consequences.
9
xii) D. Hantzis: I think plagiarism is plagiarism. The way the student policy works is that
the faculty have a big role to play. What concerns me is when no action takes place.
xiii) E. Hampton: I am in favor of progressive discipline. But, won’t it become
something we will always have to follow? Will we be unable to go straight to “off
with your head”?
xiv) R. Guell: You can say that a crime is so big that “off with your head” is the only
option. You can say that alternatives must be considered. In the New Jersey case there
was no other option besides doing nothing or firing. There was nothing in between. In
another case from a few years ago, “off with your head” was the only option.
8) Liaison Reports:
a) E. Hampton (AAC): Our next meeting is on 11-18-15.
b) C. Paterson (AEC): Absent
c) L. Brown (CAAC): Absent
d) V. Sheets (FAC): R. Guell has reported the work of FAC.
e) S. Lamb (FEBC): We are meeting at 11 am on 10-28-15.
f) T. Hawkins (GC): We are meeting at noon on 10-28-15.
g) D. Hantzis (SAC): Our monthly meeting is next week for November. I would ask R.
Guell to let me know about the study-week discrepancies. I can share that at the meeting.
h) J. Conant (URC): We are reading proposals.
9) Adjournment: 5:04pm
10