The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 1, 2003
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall

1. Prof. George Williams, chairperson of Faculty Council, called the meeting to order at 11:07 a.m.



2. Members attending: Profs. Allen, Andrade, Bishop, Bloss, Briggs, B. Carter, Chen, Davakos, Dunlop, Kelley, Lally, Lipscomb, Matthews, Murray, Clinton for Niksch, Pilcher, Snively, G. Williams, Woolsey and Zuraw.



3. Members absent: Profs. Foley, Foster and Woo.



4. Provost Carter made a special appearance before the Council to bring up the increasingly bad problem of class absences. He noted that several dozen suitability boards per year are held for students whose excessive demerits result from class absences, that an attempt to ratchet up the pain level in absence punishments had not worked, and that it was the cadet leadership which had come to him and asked for a new approach. When asked to find out what would work if demerits and tours did not, the students had suggested an academic penalty. He therefore wanted to discuss the merits of a proposed new policy that, building on the present option of a professor to flunk a student absent from 20% of classes, would mandatorily fail a student in a course if he or she were absent unexcused from 10% of classes.
   
   Provost Carter suggested that this might be done by reviving section marchers, students who would take the roll and hand it in. Others remembered the days when professors turned in an absence report with Late, Excused or Unexcused instead of just the simple Absent; this had not worked because Jenkins Hall then re-decided who was excused and not. Provost Carter emphasized that the proposed new policy should be automatic, perhaps a function of the Registrar; in response to questions, he noted that a different proportion of absences could be worked out for once-a-week labs and that cons or reprimands could be used to warn students getting close to the 10%. Prof. Bishop noted that she had been lenient this past term because of doubt as to the legitimacy of harshness, since college students were theoretically adults with free choice, but that her leniency had produced too many absences. Provost Carter said that he had never taken attendance in his teaching years, but at The Citadel he had made a philosophical shift on the issue because going to class was one of the cadets’ military duties and they should be pushed not to neglect their duty. There was some discussion about speeding up absence reporting, perhaps by filling in bubbles for scanning, so that students who were in the process of shutting down and just giving up (which was generally a counselling issue rather than an academic one) could be spotted earlier and perhaps helped. Prof. Lally expressed the desire to be able to mark students absent for sleeping in class. Prof. Williams agreed that a new policy was a good idea, since in the worlds of employment and athletics absences are frowned upon and thus we are doing students a disservice by being lax with them as to class; the new criteria could be made clear in course syllabi.
   
   Prof. Woolsey moved and Prof. Allen seconded that Faculty Council pursue the question; this was passed unanimously. Prof. Woolsey moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that the Council form a subcommittee over the summer to work on the question; this was passed unanimously, though no members were put forward at this meeting. Provost Carter then left the meeting.



5. Prof. Williams welcomed several visitors who were there to participate in various issues. Prof. Bishop solicited information as to the attendance at the meeting of March 20^th, having lost the attendance sheet; when she had filled in the blanks, Prof. Lipscomb moved and Prof. Briggs seconded that the minutes of the March 20^th meeting be approved. This was passed unanimously. Prof. Williams suggested that Prof. Bishop finish the partly completed minutes for April 26^th and write the minutes for the present meeting soon so that they could be approved by e-mail and put up on the website by Prof. Steve Comer.



6. Prof. Tom Thompson, head of the Committee on Committees, reported on the status of the project to bring all committee charters up to date. He explained that the Committee on Committees did two things, staffing the college committees and reviewing their charters; the reorganization into schools had necessitated all committees updating their charters to get rid of references to deans who no longer existed and the like. His fall sabbatical and other things had meant that some committees had not yet sent in their version of the charter template his committee had made for them to fill in; but he now hoped to get it done to submit to Faculty Council in the fall. The Council gave Prof. Thompson a round of applause for his work on this and Prof. Comer a round of applause for his work as the Council’s webmaster.



7. Prof. Briggs moved and Prof. Zuraw seconded that the meeting’s agenda be accepted, an unusual piece of punctilio that passed unanimously. Prof. Williams then called attention to some agenda items for our information only, such as the final membership of the special-events parking committee.



8. The Ad Hoc Intellectual Property subcommittee produced its version of the proposed intellectual property policy. Prof. John Peeples, as head of this subcommittee, described its work in addressing concerns that the policy was too short and needed to define some terms. The subcommittee ended up consulting AAUP guidelines and defining "directed works" and "exceptional use of College resources"; its proposed policy makes clear that work produced on a sabbatical or with a research grant makes use of normal resources and thus is not exceptional use. After the preamble and definitions, the expanded policy reads: "Ownership of intellectual property will reside with the originator, whether a member of the faculty, a member of the staff, or a student, unless (a) the property is created at the specific direction of the College, or (b) the originator has made exceptional use of College resources in creating it. At the time when the work is directed by the College or at the time when the College makes exceptional resources available to the originator of intellectual property, the Provost and the originator will together determine ownership and will negotiate a written agreement concerning that property. These determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis."
   
   Prof. Allen moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that this version of the policy be approved; this was passed unanimously, and the Council gave Prof. Peeples a round of applause for his work on the matter.



9. Prof. Lally reported on the work of the Student Evaluation of Teaching subcommittee. Its main conclusion, which the AAUP agreed with and suggested, was that the issues surrounding student evaluation are so important that a standing college committee should be formed to supervise it on an ongoing basis. Prof. Lally moved and Prof. Woolsey seconded that such a committee be formed, the Student Evaluation of Teaching Committee. There was a debate on whether this would make too many college committees and whether the task should instead be given to an existing committee, such as Curriculum and Instruction or the currently underemployed Intercollegiate Relations. The issues such a committee would examine were discussed: they included different use of the student forms by different departments, the long period in which the questions have remained unchanged, the need to tailor the form to the issues of different disciplines, and obscenity and harassment in the comments on the back. Prof. Allen suggested and Prof. Williams agreed that the new committee should have not just regular faculty but Academic Board members on it. Prof. Woolsey suggested that the committee also be charged with examining the issues of other, non-student kinds of evaluation of teaching, such as peer evaluation and post-tenure review. After some speculation as to whether this would have the effect of separating the Curriculum and Instruction Committee into two committees, (1) Curriculum and (2) Instruction, Prof. Allen moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that the word "student" be dropped from the name of the proposed committee and that it just be called the Evaluation of Teaching Committee. Prof. Lally accepted this as a friendly amendment. There was some talk about whether the committee would overlap with the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee if it scrutinized the issues of peer review; it was noted that the FTP Committee is concerned with the result of evaluation for individuals, whereas this new committee would look at the process in general. Prof. Williams summed up by saying that there seemed to be a lack of communication and knowledge of evaluation issues on campus, and this committee could be valuable in finding out what regulations existed as well as doing new work on improving evaluation. Prof. Lally re-moved and Prof. Andrade seconded that a new standing Committee on Evaluation of Teaching be formed; this was passed unanimously.



10. Prof. Williams reported on the final work stint of the Ethics Initiative Subcommittee, which had taken most of the suggestions sent in in reaction to the draft of the Faculty Ethics Code, and shortened the final Code to two pages. He described the hard work of the subcommittee and his own expertise in the subject, and intimated that the whole area of ethics was a difficult field, sometimes edging over into legal issues, but the committee had pondered everything very carefully and the code should not be hastily dismissed. Prof. Comer, who was there for this purpose, spoke in support of an e-mail he had just sent objecting to the entire tone of the code because it confused (universal) ethics with (specific) professional responsibilities and even legal issues; Prof. Chen agreed, and they pointed to the code of Saddleback College, which had one section on ethics and a separate section on professional conduct, as a better way. Prof. Williams advocated the position that Gen. Grinalds had asked for a code of ethics from everyone, if we tabled this one nothing would happen till well into fall, and we should not get bogged down in details but the Council should approve it and then change it afterwards, perhaps as a topic at a CAC luncheon next year. Prof. Lipscomb objected to the mere two lines about relations with the community and wanted more about issues concerning the black community and The Citadel; there have been many efforts to improve their relations, but the open parking meeting in December was the first time faculty and staff have really met together in large numbers, and many of the African American staff people felt uncomfortable around the white people. Prof. Bishop pointed out that this was not an issue of ethics for individuals but of College policy and practice as a whole, and didn’t belong in the ethics code, though it certainly should be pursued.
    
    The idea emerged, to Prof. Bishop’s surprise since as a member of this subcommittee she had thought all year that the code would be purely advisory, that once passed by Faculty Council it would go to Academic Board, then to Provost Carter, then to the Board of Visitors and become part of college policy. Prof. Chen expressed her discomfort at adopting it so fast under these circumstances, and wanted more time to talk about it. Prof. Woolsey noted that tenured faculty can be fired for moral turpitude; therefore, if the faculty ethics code became official college policy, would a future Administration be able to fire tenured faculty for not living up to it? Prof. Comer wondered whether if the Council voted down the code it could then be fine-tuned better; Prof. Williams said that would be a slap in the face for the subcommittee.
    
    Prof. Davakos moved and Prof. Allen seconded that the Faculty Code of Ethics be approved with the understanding that Faculty Council would go on improving it. The motion passed by a vote of 11 to 5.


11. Prof. Williams noted that all college-wide committee chairs should send year-end reports to Faculty Council for informational purposes.



12. The quorum having been lost by a mass exodus just after the Ethics Code vote, the Council postponed electing new officers until the first fall meeting.



13. The meeting was adjourned at 12:48 p.m.