The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 5, 2004
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall

1. Prof. Bill Woolsey, chairperson of Faculty Council, called the meeting to order.
   
   
2. Members attending; Profs. Hoyle, Trautman, Moody, Politano, Andrade, Crawford, Murray, Davis, Harbaugh, Hammond, Richardson, McKinney, Davakos, Carter, Knapp, Grenier, Lally, and Niksch.
   
   
3. Prof. Woolsey reported on the most recent Academic Board meeting.

• Academic Board passed an unexcused absence policy. A concern was athletes missing too many classes and being absence from exams. The Provost suggested that Faculty Council’s Athletic Committee look into these concerns and take some authority.
• Ethics statement. No decision was made regarding adoption of the AAUP statement. They will study it and vote.

4. Prof. Woolsey opened discussion for FC secretary and Vice Chair. As there were no nominations for the position of secretary, Prof. Carter volunteered. The nomination was seconded and carried. The position of Vice Chair will be filled at the first meeting in fall 2004.
   
   
5. Committee on Committees. Profs. Francel and Matthews were nominated and elected to fill the open slots.
   
   
6. Approval of Campus Affairs Committee charter (attached). Prof. Davakos moved to accept. Prof Moody offered an amendment to II.C that meetings be announced to the campus at large and attendance encouraged. Prof. Lally seconded. Prof. Lally offered an amendment to III.2.(2) to add "and between residents and physical plant". The amendment was seconded by Prof. Crawford. The motion, with amendments, carried.
   
   
7. Student Evaluation of Instruction. Prof. Lally reported for the FC subcommittee. The committee worked for two years and saw a need to review the instrument. According to the AAUP the issue is in flux and the faculty needs to be involved. The subcommittee sent out a college-wide survey. They received 68 responses (1/2 of the faculty), and the results are posted on the FC website. Prof Lally distributed her report (attached) and summarized highlights: 56% of faculty do not feel pressured to amend their teaching; they would like the original forms returned, not transcripts; student attitudes are of concern; and faculty are concerned with the weight given to SEI in promotion and tenure. Pages 5-6 of the report discuss recommendations.
   
   

Last year FC voted to create a committee to deal with SEI. Academic Board thought it should reside with the Curriculum committee. FC decided to wait for the SEI subcommittee’s report before deciding on further action. Considerations:

• Return original forms to professors
• Do not require students to indicate gender
• Vulgar, threatening comments should be disregarded and students should know this
• FERPA vs. transcription errors

The subcommittee recommends that FC take up the six recommendations in the fall, including reaffirming the FC contention that a separate faculty committee should handle SEI.

8. Ethics of the wearing of the uniform by faculty. Prof Knapp proposed changes to Section III-F-5 of the Faculty Manual (see attached). The genesis of the proposal:
• It is a lie to be in uniform in light of Citadel ethics initiatives.
• The UMSC is a "fig leaf’ to make it legal. We tend to wear it badly and so dishonor it.
• Many do not wear it regularly, again a breach.
• There is a double standard – BOV member and coaches do not wear the uniform.
• The uniform can create confusion in the minds of the students. Are we the same as the military? How are we different? We are doing academic work. We are not the subordinates of the military side, but academics.
Prof. Politano seconded the motion.


Discussion:

• Prof. Hoyle asked if faculty could refuse to wear the uniform. Prof. Woolsey replied that faculty could propose changes to the faculty manual.
• Prof Hurren said he was troubled by the "option" in the proposal. Faculty should do one or the other. He also saw both sides of the issue.
• Prof. Grenier said the uniform can be useful, especially for younger faculty, but it demeans us as scholars. We don’t need to pretend to be officers. As for wearing it badly, there are rules and they should be enforced.
• Prof. Crawford discussed practical concerns such as the difficulty in getting uniforms and the change in headgear. Would access to the barracks (for example, academic advisors) be more difficult without the uniform?
• Prof. Niksch said those who wear the uniform properly do not offend ROTC officers. He also said the 8:00-4:00 time frame refers to the "duty day", not that faculty must be at their desks during those hours.
• Prof. Lally said faculty are not told why we wear it and not always intentionally look improper. In previous votes all constituencies, except the BOV, wanted faculty out of the uniform.
• Prof. McKinney said the doing away with the uniform fundamentally changes the nature of the school. This is a military environment and this would be taking a step back from that environment.
• Prof. Richardson replied that civilian clothes do not take away from the military environment. For example, at the Naval Academy, only active duty teachers wear uniforms.
• Prof. Grenier proposed deleting the reference to the faculty considered on duty from 8:00-4:00 (F. 5 c.). She also commented that we all knew about the uniforms when we came here, but maybe it is not a good policy.
• Prof. Moody said there is inconsistency in recruiting and orientation. It was explained clearly to her that the uniform was part of the job, but not to wear it off campus.
• Prof. Knapp said another inconsistency is in dealing with CGPS vs. SCCC. Also, the uniforms hurt recruitment.
• Prof. Hammond, who is an alum and ROTC faculty, suggested the faculty bring the "SCUM" reputation on themselves. The BOV will not agree to do away with uniforms, so we should look at going in the other direction and wear it properly and with pride. Cadets respect proper wearing of the uniform.
• Prof. Hurren suggested we postpone the decision until fall in order to poll our faculty. Prof. Woolsey agreed, and Prof. Hurren moved that FC postpone the decision until fall in order to poll the entire faculty; Prof. Harbaugh seconded. The motion carried with 17 in favor and 1 opposed.


9. Faculty governance. Prof. Woolsey reminded FC of the Provost’s proposal for more responsible faculty governance, i.e., a Faculty Senate. He suggested forming a committee of former FC chairs and faculty member who have served on Faculty Senates in other institutions. He will bring a more specific proposal in the fall.
   
   
10. Common Reading program. Prof. Knapp asked if faculty had any input in the book selection. Prof. Woolsey said next year the faculty should push for more input. It also may be a good way for more faculty buy-in.
    
    
11. Prof. Woolsey asked that corrections to the April minutes be sent to Prof. Bishop so she can post them on the web.
    
    
12. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 PM.