The Faculty Senate of Seton Hall University

Newsletter

Vol. 4, No. 9,  May 2007

 

 

FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION

 

Faculty Guide Amendments        

 

 

FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The Faculty Senate submitted the following resolution to the Provost to be forwarded to the appropriate University officers to effectuate the following resolution

Summer Course Policy

Whereas, the current budgeting system provides considerable disincentives for offering academically rigorous, necessary, and financially profitable courses, including many summer study abroad courses, and

Whereas, these disincentives harm the profit-generating potential and the academic mission of the South Orange campus, limit the educational opportunities and sometimes have serious negative impact on our students, particularly those in highly structured programs, and in addition dramatically curtail the possibilities for  additional compensation of South Orange faculty, and

Whereas, the current budgeting system could be easily rectified by considering actual net revenue from summer courses, rather than using preset enrollment minimums, and allocating course revenue (or at least the greater part thereof) to the college in which a course is being offered, and

Whereas, summer courses provide an opportunity for faculty to try experimental courses, and/or novel material and formats, and

Whereas, in particular, summer study abroad courses provide a highly desirable experience and competitive credential for students in many of the University’s undergraduate majors, and are limited by the same restrictions as other summer offerings, and

Whereas, the move to 120 credits and flat tuition for undergraduates requires the reform of the May and summer sessions,

Be it resolved, the Faculty Senate strongly urges the Provost to advocate on behalf of this needed reform and put into place, where possible, a budget allocation system and a summer course policy that properly relates to financial exigencies, academic best practices, and the overall well-being of students, faculty, and the South Orange campus — in other words, a system based entirely on academic needs and enrollment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

****

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

                       

 

The Faculty Senate adopted and sent to the Provost the following proposed changes to the Faculty Guide.

 

 

I.

Change to Faculty Guide Re: Male Pronouns

Whereas all the pronouns in the Faculty Guide should be gender neutral,

Be it resolved, the Faculty Senate proposes, as an editorial change, that all male pronouns in the Faculty Guide be changed to the gender neutral expressions, he/she, his/her, him/her, where appropriate.

II.

Change to Faculty Guide Re: Academic Integrity

Whereas the maintenance of the academic integrity of the faculty is essential to the university’s educational function,

Whereas the definition of academic integrity and the procedures for determining sanction-able violations must be added to the Faculty Guide,

Be it resolved, the Faculty Senate approves the following changes to the Faculty Guide:

The addition of a seventh clause to Article 3.7(b):

7.   serious act or acts of academic dishonesty as defined in Article 7.1(e).

The substitution of “academic” for “intellectual” in Article 7.1(e):

Old:

e.   …They practice intellectual honesty.

New:

e.   …They practice academic honesty.

 The addition of the following to Article 7.1(e):

 e.       …The definition of 1) what constitutes academic dishonesty, 2) its levels of severity, and 3) the procedures for determining its existence and possible consequences in individual cases are to be determined by the Faculty Senate with the approval of the Provost and published to the faculty.

 

Important Links

Meeting Minutes Draft March 2007April 2007

Executive Committee Report March 2007, April 2007

Senate Membership 2006-2007

Senate Committees 2006-2007

 

For comments, suggestions, or corrections, contact the webmaster, Robert E. Shapiro, at shapirro@shu.edu.     

 

Template developed for the Faculty Senate by the TLTC.]

 

                      

 

****

 
  The Faculty Senate approved and sent to the Provost the proposed MACPC on line Program and its attendant certificates in the College of Arts and Sciences to be adopted by the University.

Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved the Faculty Senate requests the President of Seton Hall University to sign and forward on behalf of Seton Hall University the "Talloires Declaration."

 

The Faculty Senate adopted and approved the following Program Review Recommendations for the University Honors Program and forward them to the Provost to complete the Program Review process for the University Honors Program

Program Review Committee Report on the University Honors Program:

The Honors Program, situated in the College of Arts and Sciences, serves the entire SHU community. It has been a model of creative curricular design and pedagogy and its external reviewer praised the honors program as one of the most extensive of its kind.  With funding from Regent Thomas Sharkey and under the leadership of Prof. Gisela Webb (its director for 10 years), the program has been able to expand its numbers and enhance its curriculum. 

Prof. Peter Ahr assumed the position of Director in the fall of 2007 and is working closely with Acting Dean Joseph Marbach on both curricular and programmatic initiatives. The PRC is hopeful that these initiatives will lead to further growth of the program. To that end, here is summary of the PRC’s concerns and recommendations.

Concerns:

bulletThere is an appearance of duplication in that other colleges, programs and/or majors have honors sections tracks
bulletThe pressure to expand the program could compromise its academic integrity
bulletCompetition with the university core for faculty and other resources
bulletResolving the tension between establishing a stable group of ‘core faculty’ and involving faculty from other departments and college

Recommendations:

1.      Increase the stipend of the director of the Honors Program (which has not been adjusted for two decades).

2.      Be more intentional in including non-Western traditions and addressing global perspectives in the curriculum in all four colloquia.

3.      Alternatively, a new colloquium might be created that focuses on themes of global citizenship on critical issues of our times.

4.      Increase the inclusion of the natural sciences in the honors program curriculum.

5.      Junior and Senior courses could be developed to cover issues such as Globalization and Peace, Global Development and Interdependence, Human Rights, Conflict Resolution and Dialogues among Civilizations.

6.    Continue to serve as an educational laboratory, as this provides benefit to other units of the university. Specifically, we recommend that the team-teaching approach be retained.

7.     Incorporate more study abroad programs and international exchanges to expand the international dimension of this Program and to improve students’ cross-cultural competence.

8.     Increase involvement of new faculty through (1) creating a “guest lecturer” system, other faculty members who have expertise on particular topics can be invited to lecture and be compensated with an honorarium; (2) creating several rotation positions in this program, interested new faculty members can join this program for a specific period of time as rotation members (probably a four or five year term). (3) establishing a means of compensating departments for the release of their faculty to serve in the program; Director Ahr has suggested that departments be given one new faculty line for relinquishing faculty to teach twelve credits in the honors program.

9.     Under no circumstances should the program relax its admission standards, even if there is pressure to expand (expansion should not compromise academic integrity).

10.    Maintain a 15:1 ratio of students to faculty

11.    Work with the admission office to recruit students more aggressively and earlier in the application process.

12.    Develop a strategy for and engage in on-going program evaluation.

                        ****