Faculty Senate of Virginia Tech

January meeting minutes

January 20^th, 2004

(Pamplin 32)

Senators in Attendance: Susan Anderson, Rick Ashley, Carlyle Brewster, Carol Burch-Brown, Terry Clements, Jack Cranford, Helen Crawford, Sam Easterling, Leon Geyer, Richard Goff, Frank Gwazdauskas, Tom Hammett, Valerie Hardcastle, Bernice Hausman, Ian Herring, Kathleen Jones, Rakesh Kapania, Ann-Marie Knoblauch, Ellen Krupar, Amy Nelson, Jim Pease, David Radcliffe, Kerry Redican, Susanna Rinehart, Kamal Rojiani, Nan Seamans, Edd Sewell, Uri Vansberger, Jim Weaver, Dennis Welch, Yonsenia White, Sharon Witonsky, Randy Wynne, Diane Zahm, Shep Zedaker

Senators not in Attendance: Larry Alexander, Bill Greenberg, Mike Gregg, Sam Hicks, Brad Klein, Michael Lambur, Jack Lesko, Shelley Martin, Sean O'Keefe, Shelly Nichols Richardson, Brian Woerner

President Diane Zahm called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

November minutes were approved.

December Committee and Commission written reports were approved, after correcting the name of the College of Architecture and Urban Studies.

[No December minutes; December Senate meeting was cancelled due to inclement weather]

Presentation and discussion: Draft of “Rights and Responsibilities of Graduate Students at Virginia Tech” (Margaret Merrill and Pankaj Gupta)

Senators had read the 1-14-04 draft of the “Rights and Responsibilities of Graduate Students at Virginia Tech”, which has received a first and second reading by the Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies.

Merrill explained that the intent of the document is to “make explicit what is already implicit” in existing policies and practice; and that the Commission had used documents of peer institutions (UC Davis, Michigan, etc.) and the existing AAUP’s statement on graduate students for guidance.

In response to a senator’s question as to how widespread are the problems in this arena, Merrill responded that there are currently memos and pieces in place concerning conduct, evaluations, training and guidance, but no formal comprehensive document that puts it all together. There has been a sense from graduate students that there need to be clear guidelines.

Karen DePauw, also present, commented that most of our peers have documents such as this in place; that problems could be more easily resolved if a document existed.

Merrill: It is a minimum set of guidelines to help faculty and students, especially in a litigious society.

DePauw: Document can create a positive, affirming, informed environment, and help with open communication.

Senator: Document doesn’t say anything about sexual harassment.

Merrill: Policies already in place on that. Links will be provided to other policies which apply.

Senators’ concerns/ responses:

· Many of us have a resistance to the word “rights” in this context. A “right” to office space?? You don’t want to actively invite controversy and resistance.

· Agree with fellow senator. Are you using language which has legal meaning beyond what is intended, causing the document to backfire in its stated intent to avoid litigation?

· Have other universities with these documents found that it made things more litigious?

· How can we guarantee the availability relevant course offerings given the ongoing impact of budget cuts?

· Makes sense that graduate students deserve certain things, but the language is definitely adversarial. Need to make it so “two-sided”. We provide a context where we all work together. Our institution and faculty have a responsibility to provide the context within which to gain an education, and to help the graduate students to understand and work within that context to gain an education. It is a shared responsibility.

· A collective concern as to what is broken and why we’re fixing it.

· Individual units/departments have different issues and need autonomy and flexibility. Many departments already have similar documents specific to the culture of that department.

· The document is heavy on rights and low on responsibility for the students, whereas the faculty and administration have a long list of responsibilities.

· Could it be retitled to something like “Guidelines, Expectations and Desiderata with respect to Graduate Education at Virginia Tech”

· Perhaps should refer to the Faculty Handbook. This document is affording rights to graduate students that the faculty do not have.

· Many statements in the document could be stated more simply and in declarative statements; and could be “genderless”.

· Senators took particular issue with the section entitled “Right to recognition and protection of intellectual property”. Authorship resides with the initiator of the idea and the resources. Should get wording from the policy on intellectual property. A particular suggestion was made for item E. of that section (top of page 4), that it should be rewritten to read simply, “Faculty and graduate students should agree as early as possible upon authorship positions”, leaving out the second half, which is unnecessarily prescriptive.

· As faculty members, this institution is currently not exactly living up to our expectations of what we need to do our jobs, its responsibilities to us. We do, of course, want graduate students to get what they need.

· As written, it is a negative and adversarial document; it needs to be written positively.

Senators’ comments will be taken under advisement. Faculty can email any further concerns, questions or suggestions to mmerrill@vt.edu and/or pgupta@vt.edu

Diane Zahm announced that Jessie Chen needs a substitute to serve on the Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies, and Susanna Rinehart needs a replacement on the Commission on Outreach. Jim Pease volunteered to replace Susanna.

Shep Zedaker announced that the Faculty Review Committee is desperately seeking membership, and passed around a sign-up sheet for those willing to be called upon.

Commission on Faculty Affairs Report (Sam Easterling)

Sam reported that the CFA is reaching closure on editing issues relating to teaching policies:

1) faculty will be evaluated by students, every class, every semester 2) protecting students regarding scheduling of exams, etc. in the last part of the semester 3) explicitly allowing for assignments other than traditional exams in place of the final

P & T review is ongoing. There was input gathered a couple of years ago; looking at peer institutions – policies and procedures are “all over the map” at different universities. Concerns involve roles of various people in the process, double votes, etc.

Computer Privacy Policy is still in the same place. The working committee is meeting, moving forward, and involved in substantive and relevant discussion.

Senators mentioned that we may need to look into problematic marketing issues in textbook sales.

There was a brief discussion regarding student evaluations. Are any alternate methods being considered? Terry Wildman has ideas on that subject. Also, senators were reminded that faculty can add their own questions for students to answer in written or opscan form.

Report from the Faculty Senate of Virginia (Susan Anderson)

Susan reported on Higher Education Advocacy Day, January 15^th, 2004 in Richmond.

[Handouts (All handouts are attached to these minutes): 2004-06 Budget: Recommendations; Non-voting Faculty Representatives to Boards; State Employee Health Care Recommendations; Legislative Issues of Importance to Faculty & the Commonwealth; Contact information for senators and delegates]

Approximately 15 faculty members participated, compared to 33 last year. 5 out of the 15 were from our region. Handed out tote bags with the slogan “Higher Education: Invest and Grow”.

Did good work with the house on House Bill 64, with good results. Three senators sent emails to the members of the house education committee.

We need to email senators on the Education Committee; Susan provided contact information for senators and for delegates (attached), as well as talking points on the legislation (attached). Bob Andrews and Susan suggest polite emails and phone calls. We need at least two more votes. Those most likely to change their vote to yes are Bolling, Lambert, Lucas, Martin and Newman. Also, faculty should contact those who voted yes, to thank them for their support.

Diane Zahm reported from the Academic Council that Jim Blair put in motion a new way to determine how indirect costs funds are distributed and reallocated.

Diane strongly urged that this discussion not go forward without faculty input; Provost McNamee will convene a committee. Senators recommended that the committee have broad representation across departments and colleges.

Helen Crawford introduced the Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity’s position statement regarding the impact on students of the Patriot’s Act [text follows minutes], and asked that the Senate put forward a similar statement in support of the CEOD.

After some discussion, it was decided that Helen would look into the legality of item 5, which reads, “AFFIRMS that Virginia Tech should provide notice to individuals whose education records have been obtained by law enforcement agents pursuant to Section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act and other federal security legislation”, and then bring it back to the Senate.

Diane asked for responses to University Council Resolution 2003-04A, “Resolution to Amend the University Council Constitution and By-Laws to Accommodate Organizational and Administrative Changes of the University”.

Senators agreed that the changes in membership wording now may tip the balance in numbers between faculty and administrators, and asked Diane to research the actual numbers. In addition, concern was expressed that under “Elected Representatives”, one faculty/student minority is singled out for guaranteed representation, while numerous other minority populations are not. Senators asked that this concern be addressed.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm.

[Minutes taken by Susanna Rinehart]

Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity Position Statement

A POSITION STATEMENT REAFFIRMING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has a rich history of securing the inalienable rights of individuals, dating to the first settlement of our Commonwealth in 1607, through the Revolutionary War and the adoption of key documents authored by Virginians such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason; and

WHEREAS, these documents include the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, the United States Constitution, and the U.S. Bill of Rights; and

WHEREAS, Virginia Tech deeply appreciates its Police Department’s commitment to our country’s cherished rights and liberties; and

WHEREAS, Virginia Tech houses a diverse population, including citizens of other nations, whose contributions to the University community are vital to its character and function; and

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution guarantees to all persons living in the United States fundamental rights, including: freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and privacy; protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process and equal protection to any person; equality before the law and the presumption of innocence; access to counsel in judicial proceedings; and the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial; and

WHEREAS, Federal, State and Local governments, in their efforts to protect residents from terrorist attacks, should do so in a rational and deliberative fashion to ensure that any new security measures enhance public safety without impairing constitutional rights or infringing on civil liberties; and

WHEREAS, our nation has taken its strength from the freedoms guaranteed of all citizens and should lead the world in setting the example of Democracy's ability to protect itself without undue coercion of its citizens or resorting to government secrecy, violation of due process or invasion of privacy.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY AT VIRGINIA TECH:

1. AFFIRMS its strong support for fundamental and constitutional rights; and

2. AFFIRMS its opposition to measures that single out individuals for government scrutiny and enforcement activity based on their ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and country of origin; and

3. REQUESTS that Virginia Tech law enforcement continue to preserve and support the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution and thereby preserve individuals’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and privacy; the right to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings; and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; and

4. CALLS UPON all members of the community to demonstrate similar respect for civil rights and civil liberties; and

5. AFFIRMS that Virginia Tech should provide notice to individuals whose education records have been obtained by law enforcement agents pursuant to Section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act and other federal security legislation; and

6. AFFIRMS that Virginia Tech libraries should post a sign in a prominent place within the library a notice to library users as follows: "Library Patrons: Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) records of books and other materials borrowed from this library, as well as Internet activity in this library, may be obtained by Federal agents. This federal law prohibits librarians from informing you if records about you have been obtained by Federal agents"; and

7. REQUESTS that the Virginia Tech administration and police department continue to ensure that all persons within the University community are guaranteed their fundamental constitutional rights, including: freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and privacy; protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process and equal protection to any person; equality before the law and the presumption of innocence; access to counsel in judicial proceedings; and the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial.