March 9, 2018
Meeting of the Faculty Council and General Faculty
Friday, March 9, 2018, 3:00 p.m.
Kerr Hall, 1001 (Eshelman School of Pharmacy)
3:00 p.m. Chair of the Faculty remarks
- Professor Leslie Parise
3:10 p.m. Provost’s remarks
- Provost Bob Blouin
3:40 p.m. Second reading: Resolution 2018-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Allow for Technical Corrections (PDF) (General Faculty vote)
- Professor Connie Eble, chair of the University Government Committee
3:45 p.m. My Course Analytics Dashboard (MCAD) presentation
- Professors Kelly Hogan (Biology) and Viji Sathy (Psychology)
- MCAD video (YouTube)
- PowerPoint (PPT) (as a PDF)
- MCAD dashboard (HTML)
4:10 p.m. General Education Curriculum update
- Professors Jaye Cable (Marine Sciences), Dan Anderson (English and Comparative Literature), Kelly Hogan (Biology) and Viji Sathy (Psychology)
- PowerPoint (PPT) or as a .pdf (PDF)
4:40 p.m. Faculty Assembly update
- Professor Charlotte Boettiger (Psychology)
4:45 p.m. Reports accepted by title:
- Faculty Executive Committee annual report (PDF) (submitted by Professor Leslie Parise)
- Faculty Welfare Committee annual report (PDF) (submitted by Professor Rhonda Gibson)
- Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Tenure annual report (PDF) (submitted by Professor Jessica Smith)
4:50 p.m. Open discussion
5:00 p.m. Adjournment
Video of proceedings
Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council and General Faculty
The Faculty Council and General Faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened on March 9, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in Kerr Hall, room 1001 at the Eshelman School of Pharmacy.
The following 50 members attended: Ansong, Austin, Babb, Berkowitz, Bloom, Boettiger Cooney, Burch, Calikoglu, Clement, Coble, Cox, Daughters, Estrada, Fisher, Fry, Furry, Gilland, Graham, Hannig, Hastings, Hill, Ives, Joyner, Kang, Khan, Kris, Larson, Lee, A. Levine, Lithgow, Malloy, Mauro, Melehy, Mizzy, Nelson, Parise (Chair of the Faculty), Perelmuter, Pukkila, Renner, Savasta-Kennedy, Sawyer, Stearns, Steponaitis (Secretary of the Faculty), Tepper, Thorp, Thorpe, Upshaw, Wallace, Walter and Willett.
The following 18 members received excused absences: Aikat, Ammerman, Anksorus, Arnold, Baumgartner, Berman, Cuddeback, Felix, Giovanello, Kireev, C. Levine, Mayer-Davis, McBride, Moore, Muller, Neta, Scarlett and Song.
The following 23 members were absent without excuse: Beltran, Brewster, Chambers, Chapman, Coyne-Beasley, Dobelstein, Duqum, Edwards, Elsherif, Estigarribia, Gilchrist, Hessick, Hobbs, Koonce, Lundberg, Mayer, Osterweil, Platts-Mills, Ramaswamy, Rashid, Tuggle, Williams and Zamboni.
Others in attendance: Provost Blouin, Filene (Undergraduate Representative), Rubin (Undergraduate Representative) and Stember (Graduate Representative).
Call to order
The Secretary of the Faculty called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Chair of the Faculty remarks
Chair of the Faculty Leslie Parise welcomed everyone to the Faculty Council meeting and gave an overview of her recent activities. Professor Parise, Provost Blouin, Chancellor Folt and other University administrators recently visited Arizona State University (ASU). They met the President of ASU Michael Crow and explored the Integrative Sciences Program, the Online Program, the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership and the Entrepreneurship Program.
Professor Parise said the University is renegotiating its contract with Elsevier Publishing. The University may have to decide which journals to keep and which to discard. Professor Parise asked faculty to lend University Libraries their full support and cooperation if they run into difficult decisions.
Provost Blouin extended best wishes from Chancellor Folt, who is representing the University at the ACC basketball tournament and gave an overview of recent University affairs. Provost Blouin said the trip to ASU was fascinating and the work President Crow has done is remarkable. When Crow arrived at ASU in 2001, the four-year graduation rate was 13% and their external funding was $75 million. The current four-year graduation rate is 65% and external funding is $600 million. Provost Blouin said they learned about change management and how ASU approached change within the University.
Provost Blouin and Chancellor Folt visited Harvard University to compare and contrast their online program with ASU’s online program, because many faculty members are looking at alternative ways to bring education to our students, particularly online programs. University leadership thought it would be helpful to learn what other universities are doing as they start to think about the types of infrastructure the University needs in order to support faculty. Many campus units are contracting third-party Online Program Management (OPM) providers, to help them build infrastructure to support online education or other innovative education models. Some residential and distance-education faculty members utilize the Carolina Office for Online Learning (C.O.O.L) located in the Friday Center, but this program needs to be expanded to be better fit faculty needs. Provost Blouin said he would appreciate faculty input as they move forward.
Professor Paul Friga (Business) said the visits to ASU and Harvard were amazing. ASU was extremely generous and gracious in their willingness to share information. Harvard’s Online Program is a stand-alone entity, outside of the main faculty. Professor Friga said we have the opportunity to grow our online program with faculty involvement. An online program has the potential to serve nontraditional students and generate resources for the University. Surplus money from the program can be reinvested into the University. An online program also spurs innovation and introduces new technologies.
Provost Blouin said ASU invests $35 million a year into their online program and they reinvest $40 million back into their arts and sciences program. Harvard reinvests $20-40 million back into their arts and sciences program.
Professor Muge Calikoglu (Pediatrics) asked how the University would balance its online program with other programs in the UNC System.
Provost Blouin said the University has been slow in embracing the use of technology in education and behind the curve in online education, compared to other universities. Harvard created noncompeting academic programs through their online program. They did not replicate programs already on their campus, they took advantage of the strengths that exist in multiple departments and created courses that have another dimension and add unique value.
Professor Hassan Melehy (Romance Studies) asked where ASU got the money to create their online program.
Provost Blouin said he is not entirely sure where they got the money, but he thinks President Michael Crow borrowed it, because he knew the program would make a profit.
Professor Rosa Perelmuter (Romance Studies) asked who would loan that much money to President Crow.
Provost Blouin said since ASU is a state association, they qualify for a state bond. The state of Arizona is not as supportive of higher education as other states, so he does not think the state loaned the money.
Professor Danianne Mizzy (University Libraries) said some universities have been able to secure funding so alumni can access quality information resources they can access after graduation.
Provost Blouin said this is a great idea and we need to find a better way to keep alumni connected intellectually. Alumni can share their life experiences and offer opportunities for student mentoring. In turn, the University can maintain an intellectual connection with alumni.
Professor Vaughn Upshaw (Public Health Leadership Program) said online education is a valuable service that the University provides to life-long learners who are able to come back and have UNC-CH as a place that supports them through their professional cycle. Professor Upshaw said as the University works with third-party Online Management Providers, it is a challenge for faculty to figure out what the core values are in terms of making content available for instate students.
Provost Blouin said University leadership would like to utilize some of the methods of ASU and Harvard, while preserving our core values and appropriately reaching North Carolinians. This is challenging because we have a strong residential reputation that we want to protect. At the same time, if we do not do outreach we may lose the connection to residents and alumni. There are many highly qualified students in North Carolina who did not complete college.
Professor Jan Hannig (Statistics and Operations Research) said the University is making huge cuts to the budget of the College of Arts and Sciences. He asked how the Office of Sponsored Research (OSR) is $2.4 million in debt.
Provost Blouin said over the last 15 years grants and contracts have increased to $1.2 billion. The amount of money the University spent supporting faculty research over the last 15 years did not increase. As grants and contracts increased, the University did not proportionately invest in the infrastructure of the research enterprise, which negatively affected OSR. Over the last 15 years, OSR has faced many problems due to lack of staff members. A few years ago, OSR suffered a major loss in talent and the University had to make a huge investment, which improved the function of the office. Provost Blouin said there is still work to do in order to cover the continued growth of the University’s research operation.
Professor Hilary Lithgow (English and Comparative Literature) asked Provost Blouin what his observations are about the political leanings of the program at ASU.
Provost Blouin said that the predominantly right-leaning legislature in Arizona supported the center at ASU in an effort to provide a diversity of political viewpoints. Princeton, which has a similar center, put a lot of emphasis on recruiting a strong, credible faculty leader for the program. They said the center is intended to promote an array of scholarly perspectives on issues, not to promote ideas on the left or right. ASU wanted to recruit faculty that would fit more comfortably within existing departments at the University and leverage the expertise of current faculty. He said it felt very natural, and it didn’t seem as if there was conflict and the program enabled public debate without discord.
Dean Kevin Guskiewicz said that there was a lot of emphasis on civil discourse at ASU.
Provost Blouin said he spent time yesterday at UNC System Office, and the Board of Governors is considering a new budget model for the system. They are moving away from the complex 12-cell-matrix budget model. The model differentiates universities in the system by mission. R1s are treated differently. The emphasis in the current budget model is based on predicted student headcount. Enrollment dollars are then allocated to campuses. The UNC System would like to simplify the budget model. They would like to use actual credits completed instead of headcount to determine the allocation of state funds. The new model may not differentiate between R1 universities and non-R1 universities. The new model may have ramifications for UNC-Chapel Hill.
Second reading: Resolution 2018-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Allow for Technical Corrections
Secretary of the Faculty said the General Faculty must pass any change to The Faculty Code of University Government twice. Resolution 2018-2 will allow the Committee on University Government to correct the language of the Code to update the names of units and the titles of officers without having to bring forth a resolution to the General Faculty. The first reading of Resolution 2018-2 passed unanimously at the February Faculty Council meeting.
Professor Steponaitis stated the question, Resolution 2018-2 and opened the floor for further discussion.
Resolution 2018-2 passed unanimously with no abstentions on the second reading.
My Course Analytics Dashboard (MCAD) presentation
Professors Kelly Hogan (Biology) and Viji Sathy (Psychology and Neuroscience) presented information about My Course Analytics Dashboard (MCAD), a new tool that will be available to faculty to see de-identified demographic information about their students after their courses are completed. Demographic information that faculty will have access to includes gender, race/ethnicity, Pell-eligibility, residency status, first-generation status and transfer status. Faculty will be able to see student performance by gender, race/ethnicity, Pell-eligibility, residency status, first-generation status, transfer status, and/or incoming SAT score.
Professor Hogan said that they have launched a pilot with a small group of faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences. There is training available for how faculty can use the dashboard. Professor Sathy provided a demo of the tool in Infoporte. She said that the faculty in the pilot provided feedback that the tool helped them realize there were disparities in performance of which they weren’t previously aware.
Professors Hogan and Sathy asked the faculty to break into groups and discuss what resources faculty would need to teach with the tool.
Professor Nadia Yaqub (Asian Studies) asked if she will be able to see her students’ performance while the class in ongoing.
Professor Hogan replied that faculty will only be able to look at the data after the class ends.
A faculty member suggested that resources be provided to improve teaching.
Professor Hogan said they hope to provide ongoing workshops for inclusive teaching techniques.
Professor Jan Hannig (Statistics and Operations Research) said that when faculty look at the data for different demographics, the number of students gets smaller. He asked how they are taking that into account.
Professor Sathy said that they remind faculty during training to pay attention to sample sizes and not percentages when the number of students gets smaller.
Professor Christina Burch (Biology) suggested replacing percentage with number in the tool.
Professor Sathy replied that the decision to use percentage was made so they could offer some comparative data.
Professor Cal Lee (Information and Library Science) asked if the tool is available for graduate students.
Professor Sathy said the tool is not currently available for graduate students, but there is interest in rolling it out for them.
Professor Muge Calikoglu (Pediatrics) said that she understands why performance data are not available until the conclusion of the class, but she asked if the demographic information could be available.
Professor Hogan said the University can provide University-wide data, but the tool cannot.
Dean Abigail Panter said the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment has created a dashboard for directors of undergraduate studies that provides student demographic information by department for majors and intended majors.
Professor David Zvara (Medicine) asked if there are benchmarking opportunities to see how a faculty member compares with other faculty members.
Professor Hogan said that there are some reports available in the dashboard.
Professor Erin Malloy (Psychiatry) said that the Center for Faculty Excellence would like to partner to provide training opportunities.
Professor Hilary Lithgow (English and Comparative Literature) said that some faculty may not use the tool because they are uncomfortable with new technologies. She suggested having a general workshop on the topic of inclusive teaching to introduce faculty to the tool.
Professor Jan Hannig (Statistics and Operations Research) asked if the data for individual instructors will be available to department chairs and deans and if the data were going to be used for tenure and promotion consideration.
Professor Sathy replied that the data are only available to the individual instructor.
General Education Curriculum Update
Professors Dan Anderson (English and Comparative Literature) and Jaye Cable (Marine Sciences) presented an update on the General Education Curriculum revision process. Professor Anderson said that the committee is gathering feedback from faculty who are impacted by the changes. They are adjusting the timeline for rolling out the new curriculum.
Professor Cable gave an overview of the 11 feasibility and design committees. The committees are working on how capacities and courses can be implemented. The committee has revised the roll-out timeline to allow pilot courses to be assessed first. No proposals will be brought to Faculty Council this year.
Professor Anderson said that Carolina has more requirements than other comparable universities. The committee is trying to simplify the requirements.
Professor Charlotte Boettiger (Psychology and Neuroscience) asked if current classes that meet the general education requirements will be reevaluated.
Professor Anderson said that most classes will likely align with the new capacities, but they will be reevaluated by a committee.
Faculty Assembly Update
Professor Charlotte Boettiger provided on update on the Faculty Assembly’s activities. She said that the Faculty Assembly has been concerned that faculty don’t have representation on the Board of Trustees for all constituent universities. The Faculty Assembly passed a resolution asking for representation.
Professor Boettiger said that the Faculty Assembly passed a resolution opposing the centralization of diversity and inclusion services.
The Faculty Assembly also passed a resolution asking for representation on and transparency for all chancellor search committees.
Professor Boettiger said that proposed system funding model raises concerns. A faculty member has been allowed to join the working group examining performance-based funding.
The UNC System Office is trying to promote inter-institution collaboration with research grants. March 23 is the deadline for pre-proposals. The System Office recently hired a new Vice President for Digital Learning. Professor Tim Ives (Pharmacy) is working to identify faculty who are interested in digital learning to consult with this new official.
Professor Vaughn Upshaw (Public Health) asked if the interest in digital learning is only for undergraduate courses.
Provost Blouin said that the UNC System Office is interested in expanding digital learning at the undergraduate and master’s levels.
Reports accepted by title
The Faculty Executive Committee annual report, the Faculty Welfare Committee annual report, and the Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Tenure annual report were accepted by title. There were no questions for the committee chairs.
University Librarian Elaine Westbrooks gave an update on contract negotiations with Elsevier, the largest publisher with which UNC-Chapel Hill has a license with. She said that University Libraries are preparing to give up some underutilized content in order to re-license with the vendor. She said that the libraries will look at cost per use to help guide decision-making. Licenses are provided institution by institution so there is no discount for collaboration with other universities. Journal prices have been steeply escalating over the past 20 years. Libraries are supporting open access as an alternative, but the cost of research keeps growing, especially in STEM. Promotion criteria reinforce high-cost journals. Physics has been the leader of publishing articles in open access journals.
Provost Blouin suggested that departments examine the journals that are really necessary to continue subscriptions.
Its business having concluded, the Faculty Council and General Faculty adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
University Program Associate
Secretary of the Faculty