The Faculty Senate of Seton Hall University


Vol. 1, No. 9, May 2004






               Program Review Update

The Senate has asked the Program Review Committee to present a list of action items regarding the 2002-203 programs and departments for approval at the June meeting.  This is expected to expedite the approval process.

Program Review will commence in September with the review of the 2003-2004 group of programs and departments.  The Steering Committee's recommendations will then be sent to the Senate for action at its November meeting.

For 2004-2005, the Steering Committee will be co-chaired by Thomas Marlowe and Mary Balkun. 

Anyone interested in serving on one of the subcommittees is urged to contact Mary Balkun.



Faculty Senate                                           Value Statement on Technology

The following statement was approved at the May Senate meeting.

"It is the sense of the Senate that . . .

As an academic community, we, the faculty, value quality education and student learning.

We value the use of technology as an asset in achieving our educational goals.

We are varied in our training, interests and inclinations, and our use of technology differs accordingly.

The appropriateness of particular tools, we affirm, is determined by the context in which they are applied and the goals to which they are directed. Technology is not an end in itself.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the implications of technology on our scholarship, teaching and student learning.

We have invested time and energy in mastering the tools provided by information technology, and we recognize the value of our efforts.

As scholarship can take many forms, we feel that our research should be assessed based on its content and its impact regardless of the medium of its presentation.

We assume that due consideration will be given to our accomplishments in the use of technology in all assessments of faculty performance including promotion and tenure decisions.

These statements reflect the resolve of the Seton Hall University faculty.



In last month's newsletter, an article about the SGME faculty stated: "The faculty of the School of Graduate Medical Education has petitioned the Senate to be officially added to the Faculty Guide."  The SGME faculty have not officially petitioned the Senate; rather, they are interested in exploring the possibility of being added to the Faculty Guide.  We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.


Core Curriculum Update

The Core Curriculum Committee will be working throughout the summer to develop the materials which it plans to present to the full faculty in the fall.   

As Provost Mel Shay wrote in a recent email to university faculty:

"More than three years ago I gave a charge to the faculty to consider the development of a new undergraduate core curriculum. The faculty embraced the challenge and has responded beyond my expectations. The dialogue about who we are as a Catholic University and what we want our students to think, to know and to do as graduates of Seton Hall, has been intense in breadth and depth. The dialogue has been brought to the learning community in several town meetings and has been shared with virtually every university academic department. I applaud the initiative and creativity of the Core Curriculum leadership.

Now we are at the developmental stage wherein curriculum strands can be articulated in writing. The Core Curriculum Committee has identified Project Titles, representing potential courses, that will be developed as proposals over this summer. These written proposals, brought into one document, will serve as the basis for faculty discussion on the broad goals and the details of what may become a new core curriculum....

I congratulate the core curriculum membership responsible for bringing us as far along the path as we have come and extend my gratitude for their enthusiasm in continuing with this most challenging endeavor."

During the next few months, the committee--as well as  faculty experts in a  variety of areas--will be developing the extensive written overviews for the new core, including reading lists for proposed courses and a plan for outcomes assessment.

For further information, contact the committee co-chairs, Peter Ahr and Roseanne Mirabella.





Faculty Guide Decisions

The Senate unanimously approved two motions presented by the Faculty Guide Committee.

The body first approved     the committee's motion that the composition of the university rank and tenure committee not be changed at this time. The actual motion reads as follows: 

"The Guide Committee moves that article 5.4(b) on the composition of the University Rank and Tenure Committee not be changed.  This means that this Committee’s  membership remains at 9 persons, with Arts & Science keeping 3 representatives and all other colleges having 1 representative each, with the extra membership slot rotating by year among the colleges with largest faculty membership." 

A substitute motion to add permanent representatives from the College of Education and Human Services and the Whitehead School of Diplomacy for a total of 10 members was defeated.



The 2004-2005 Senate was seated at the May 7 meeting.  The new Executive Committee was also selected:

Chair: Roseanne Mirabella

Vice Chair: Judith Stark

Executive Secretary: Mary Balkun

Members-at-large:              Janet Koehnke Robert Shapiro



Senate Membership  2004-2005

Senate Committees  2004-2005


Meeting Minutes          May 2004


Images: The Frick Museum Collection



If you have comments, questions, or suggestions regarding the material in this newsletter, please contact Mary Balkun, Faculty Senate Executive Secretary, at


[Developed for the Faculty Senate by the TLTC.]




The Faculty Guide Committee's motion "to approve the change recommended by the Provost and University Counsel to article 3.4(d)" was also approved.  The Guide now reads as follows:

In the conduct of its investigation, the committee shall enjoy the full cooperation of the University Administration and of the faculty member under review, with access to all documentation relevant to the issues relating to the dismissal proceedings, consistent with rights of privacy and other legal rights.   Because each matter is unique, access to documentation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the individual circumstances of each matter and the parties’ rights under those circumstances.

A final motion "not to approve the change recommended by the Provost and University Counsel to article 15.2" was tabled.