January 11, 2013
Meeting of the Faculty Council
Friday, January 11, 2013 3:00 p.m.
Hitchcock Multipurpose Room
Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History
Chancellor Holden Thorp and Professor Jan Boxill, Chair of the Faculty, presiding
Twitter hashtag: #FacCouncil
3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period
- Chancellor Holden Thorp
3:20 Provost’s Remarks and Question Period
- Provost Bruce Carney
3:30 Global Visiting Students at UNC
- Ron Strauss, Executive Associate Provost and Chief International Officer
3:35 Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period
- Prof. Jan Boxill
3:50 Regular Update from Faculty Athletics Committee
- Prof. Joy Renner, Chair of Faculty Athletics Committee
4:00 Update on UNC System Strategic Planning Committee
- Prof. Rachel Willis
- Background reading:
- Strategic Plan Draft: Our Time, Our Future: The UNC Compact with North Carolina (January 7, 2013)
- Faculty Advisory Committee’s Report to the UNC Strategic Directions Committee: Our University, Our Future: A Faculty Vision for UNC Strategic Directions (November 25, 2012)
- Faculty Assembly Resolution 2012-07: Concerning Minimum General Education Comptetencies
- General Education Curriculum Overview from Office of Undergraduate Curricula (UNC-CH)
4:15 Contextual Grading: Instructor Grade Reporting Tool Demonstration
- Prof. Andrew Perrin and Mr. Chris Derickson, University Registrar
4:25 Priority Registration Update
- Prof. Theresa Raphael-Grimm, Educational Policy Committee Chair
- Prof. Raphael-Grimm’s Powerpoint
- Resolution 2013-1. On Amending Resolution 2007-13 to Priority Registration
4:40 Committee Reports (Received by title)
4:45 Committee on University Government Annual Report (with two Code amendment resolutions; see below)
- Prof. Vin Steponaitis
- Resolution 2013-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Change the Functions of Divisions and Divisional Officers in the College of Arts and Sciences, and to Update the Composition of the Divisions [first reading]
- Resolution 2013-3. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Clarify Term Limits for Elective Committees [first reading]
4:55 Closed Session: Edward Kidder Graham nominee (ONYEN login required)
Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council
January 11, 2013
The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened January 11, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in the Hitchcock Multipurpose Room of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History.
The following 75 Council members attended: Bachenheimer, Balaban, Baumgartner, Bhardwaj, Boxill, Bulik, Bunch, Cavin, Chambers, Champagne, Chapman, Chen, Chenault, Chera, Cohen, Collier, Copenhaver, DeSaix, Eaker-Rich, Earp, Engel, Ferrell, Friga, Garbin, Gerhardt, Grabowski, Guskiewicz, Hackman, Heitsch, Hess, Hill, Hirsch, Hodges, Houck, Howes, Hsu, Ives, Joyner, Koomen, Kramer, Kurtz-Costes, Lee, Leonard, Linden, Lund, Mayer, Mayer-Davis, McMillan, Milano, T. Miller, V. Miller, Moon, Moreton, O’Shaughnessey, Palmer, Parise, Parker, Parreiras, Patel, Paul, Persky, Pertsova, Reiter, Renner, Schoenbach, Spagnoli, Stenberg, Steponaitis, Swogger, Thorp, Toews, Waterhouse, H. Watson, R. Watson, Webster-Cyriaque.
Call to Order
Chancellor Holden Thorp called the Council to order at 3:00 p.m.
Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period
Chancellor Thorp greeted the council members and congratulated the campus on being ranked Kiplinger’s number one value in higher education for the twelfth consecutive year. He thanked the faculty for their hard work and contributions to making the university an excellent place to get a degree.
The chancellor recalled that the Martin Report was released on Dec 20, 2012. He urged the faculty to read the report, especially the sections about the policies and procedures that have been put into place to prevent future academic irregularities. He felt the study was comprehensive and emphasized that Governor Martin and the accounting firm Baker Tilly had examined thousands of records and courses. They found no academic irregularities in departments other than Afro- and African American Studies. He said that the administration embraces the report.
The chancellor mentioned that the state budget process will begin soon. He does not believe there will be a state budget shortfall this year. He said that the administration will be prepared if there are budget cuts affecting the UNC System, but he is not expecting any.
The chancellor provided a brief update on the search for the new Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. He said he expects the search to begin soon. Dean Kristen Swanson (Nursing) is heading at 21-member committee.
He announced that the Vice Chancellor for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer, Larry Conrad, is leaving for the University of California at Berkeley, and his resignation will be effective on February 18. The chancellor noted that Mr. Conrad has done an excellent job and has reduced recurring ITS costs by $12 million. Mr. Chris Kielt will serve as interim vice chancellor until the next chancellor leads the search for a new vice chancellor for information technology.
There were no questions for the chancellor.
Provost’s Remarks and Question Period
Provost Bruce Carney announced that a letter to the deans and department chairs about budget planning will go out soon. The memo will basically say that it is too early to tell what the budget situation will be like for FY 2013-2014. He said that he does not expect major cuts to be made. In the interest of allowing time for discussion about the strategic plan, the provost shortened his remarks.
There were no questions for the provost.
Global Visiting Students at UNC
Executive Associate Provost and Chief International Officer Ron Strauss, gave an overview of the global visiting students program for undergraduate and graduate students. In order to diversify the campus, the program works to bring international students to Carolina. He said that bringing more students from abroad will balance the number of UNC-CH students we send abroad each year. Global visiting students will be classified as out-of-state students and will be sponsored by their home nations.
In response to a question from Prof. Diane Leonard (English & Comparative Literature) Prof. Strauss said that visiting students will have above average English proficiency. The program will be rigorous and in order for visiting students to be eligible, they will be expected to have higher TOEFL scores than our current graduate admissions standards require.
Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period
Prof. Jan Boxill (Philosophy) congratulated Chancellor Thorp on being named a “charter fellow” in the National Academy of Inventors. The council members applauded the chancellor.
Prof. Boxill announced deadlines for the faculty mentoring awards and honorary degree nominations. She mentioned the upcoming faculty elections and the provost search, and urged the faculty to attend the 2013 Keohane Lecture by Dr. Jeffrey McDonnell on January 16. She gave a summary of the Martin Report and expressed her desire that the campus move forward and look toward participating in Hunter Rawling’s project during the spring. She concluded with remarks about the strategic planning process currently being undertaken by the Board of Governors. She asked faculty to provide feedback to our Faculty Assembly Delegation on the draft report of the UNC Advisory Committee on Strategic Directions entitled “Our Time, Our Future,” which outlines goals for the next five years being recommended to the Board of Governors. Prof. Boxill urged faculty to recognize that a “one size fits all approach” for each constituent campus in the university system will not enhance the quality of education. See Appendix A for the full text of Prof. Boxill’s remarks.
Prof. Lloyd Kramer (History) said that he understands the need to move forward, but he is concerned about the Martin Report. He was on the Faculty Athletics Committee dDireuring the time period the Martin Report references. Prof. Kramer feels that page 52 of the report misrepresents a discussion about independent study courses that he believes did not happen in the Faculty Athletics Committee when he was a member. He also said that he was never provided a list of independent study courses. He is concerned that the report implies that the Faculty Athletics Committee knew that Prof. Julius Nyang’oro was providing lecture courses as independent studies to student-athletes and that the committee justified those courses by invoking the idea of academic freedom. He thinks the faculty have a duty to correct this finding and to dispute the suggestion that faculty would let academic fraud continue under the guise of academic freedom. He asked how he might be able to register his disagreement with the Martin Report’s findings.
Prof. Boxill asked if there were minutes of the Faculty Athletics Committee indicating that a discussion of this topic occurred.
Prof. Kramer said that he recalled a discussion of an incident at Auburn in which a lone faculty member provided independent study courses to student-athletes, but not about lecture courses being taught as independent study courses at UNC-CH.
Chancellor Thorp said that because the report was independently conducted, the university did not criticize the findings but accepted them as coming from an impartial source.
Prof. Jay Smith (History) expressed frustration that the faculty did not want to discuss the academic freedom and academic fraud issue further. He asked when the Athletics Committee had first discussed the issue of an inordinately large number of student-athletes being registered in independent study courses.
Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health), current chair of the Athletics Committee, said that comments mentioned by Prof. Kramer were made in the context of a discussion of what was going on at Auburn. In retrospect, those comments are now being interpreted differently. She clarified that she was not on the committee at the time so she can only speculate as to the content of the discussion.
Prof. Vin Steponaitis (Anthropology) said that with all the resources that have been devoted to investigating academic irregularities, it may not be worth the time to continue pursuing information about past events when we need to move forward.
Prof. Boxill noted that many times faculty do not precisely remember conversations that occur in committee meetings, even if they are in the recent past.
Prof. Joseph Ferrell (Government) commented that many times when committee minutes are taken, only discussion that leads to an action being taken is recorded in detail.
Prof. Victor Schoenbach (Public Health) suggested that former members of the Faculty Athletics Committee write to the chancellor and others about their interpretation of events to clarify the historical record.
Prof. Kramer stated that the larger point is that he does not want people to think that faculty would excuse academic irregularities for any reason, let alone academic freedom, because that would leave the impression that faculty cannot govern themselves and that faculty do not care about academic integrity.
Regular Update from Faculty Athletics Committee
Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health), Chair of Faculty Athletics Committee, provided an update to the faculty on admissions criteria for student-athletes. The committee will move on to the topic of advising in February. She said that the committee has invested time in trying to find out more about how “countable hours” for student-athletes are decided. The committee has decided to delay taking up discussion about the terms “student-athlete” and “collegiate model of sport.” Prof. Renner’s full presentation is provided in Appendix B.
Prof. Renner said there had been discussion of limiting the composition of the Faculty Athletics Committee to those whose responsibilities involve undergraduate instruction.
Prof. Ferrell responded that the nominating committee pays attention to the composition of committees with regard to faculty engaged in undergraduate instruction. He noted that not all undergraduate instruction occurs in the College; there are large undergraduate enrollments in Kenan-Flagler, Education, Journalism, Nursing, and other professional schools.
Update on UNC System Strategic Planning Committee
Prof. Rachel Willis (American Studies), member of the Faculty Advisory Council to the UNC Advisory Committee on Strategic Directions, thanked the faculty for coming to the faculty forum on strategic directions in the fall semester and for their feedback on the system-wide survey.
Prof. Willis said that the Strategic Directions committee needs to give faculty and units autonomy to be successful. Mission, history and resources of the universities involved affect research, and the 17 institutions within the UNC system need to be differentiated. She said that the faculty advisory council struggled with specific proposals of what the plan should detail, but she believes the overarching need is for faculty to have the autonomy in matters of educational policy. She expects that the final strategic plan will be adopted at the next Board of Governor’s meeting in February.
Prof. Steve Bachenheimer (Microbiology and Immunology) commented that he was having trouble understanding how language like “seamless education across UNC campuses” helps faculty to maintain autonomy.
Prof. Willis (American Studies) responded that there are representatives of 17 campuses who are writing the report and that may be why the language does not seem consistent. However, she interprets that language to mean that the UNC system schools should be transparent in how credits transfer.
Provost Bruce Carney expressed concern about standardizing transfer course credit because it could potentially cause problems with accreditation.
Chancellor Thorp explained that many members of the Strategic Directions Committee are still learning about accreditation policies. He said when he was on a body that discussed an early articulation agreement policy, he found that most of its members did not understand how community college credits transfer toward a bachelor’s degree.
Prof. Andrew Perrin (Sociology) commented that he is concerned that only a partial draft is available. He asked what options faculty could choose to take to voice concerns and minimize the negative impact of some of the proposed measures.
Chancellor Thorp said we have delegates on the Faculty Assembly and the Faculty Council who can articulate the concerns of the faculty.
Prof. Ferrell stated that the Faculty Executive Committee is another body that could voice faculty concerns.
Prof. Vin Steponaitis (Anthropology) commented that he was pleasantly surprised by how the Strategic Directions Committee’s and Faculty Advisory Council’s reports aligned.
Prof. Willis explained that the Faculty Advisory Council wrote their draft three weeks before the strategic directions committee released theirs. She said the advisory council members had meetings with the business community and those groups echoed faculty concerns that students must be taught critical thinking.
Prof. Paul Friga (Business) commented that it would be helpful to hear a timeline of when the faculty should interact with the Board of Governors. He asked if there is a way to give feedback as the reports are written and provide a systematic gathering of faculty opinion on each initiative. He asked if the survey results would be available. He is interested in the faculty coming up with goals that are measurable.
Prof. Boxill said that the Faculty Executive Committee will continue the discussion at their meeting on Monday.
Prof. Bachenheimer (Microbiology and Immunology) asked if the Faculty Assembly Delegation could be invited to the FEC meeting.
Prof. Boxill agreed that the Faculty Assembly should come to the meeting and extended the invitation to any member of the Faculty Council who would like to join for a focused discussion of the strategic plan draft.
Contextual Grading: Instructor Grade Reporting Tool Demonstration
Prof. Andrew Perrin (Sociology) and Mr. Chris Derickson, University Registrar, provided an overview and demonstration of the new contextual grading application. The computer-based application will allow instructors to see their own grading patterns and others’ grading patterns. It allows data to be broken down by course sections. Some reports will allow instructors to view department, division, and university-wide comparisons. Prof. Perrin noted that the application only provides data for undergraduate grades.
Priority Registration Update
Prof. Theresa Raphael-Grimm (Nursing), chair of the Educational Policy Committee, explained that the Priority Registration Policy expired in 2012 and the committee is recommending that it be renewed with some changes. She gave an overview of the current policy, which allows priority registrants to register for classes 30 minutes before their cohort. She reported that 83 percent of priority registrants are student-athletes and the remainder are groups with special needs. See Appendix C for her full presentation.
Prof. Copenhaver (Biology) asked if there could be a way to automatically reserve seats for priority registrants.
The Registrar responded that it would not be worth the time or effort to reserve the seats when only a small number of courses would be affected by the 15% threshold.
Kiran Bhardwaj (GPSF Observer) asked if there was student representation on the committee.
Prof. Raphael-Grimm said there are student representatives on the Educational Policy Committee but not on the Priority Registration Subcommittee; however, the student members of EPC reviewed the proposed endorsement of continuing priority registration and supported the committee’s recommendations..
Prof. Raphael-Grimm presented Resolution 2013-1 (Appendix D) to amend the current priority registration policy. The resolution is adopted with some dissent.
Committee Reports (Received by title)
The Chancellor’s Advisory Committee Annual Report, filed by Prof. Evelyne Huber (Political Science), and the Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committee Annual Report, filed by Prof. Richard Whisnant (Government) were received by the council. There were no questions or comments.
Committee on University Government Annual Report
Prof. Vin Steponaitis (Anthropology) presented Resolution 2013-2 (Appendix E) and explained that the resolution would amend the Faculty Code to reflect current practice with respect to the divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences. He said that when the current Code provisions were written, each division of the College held regular faculty meetings. That practice has fallen into disuse, he said, as the divisions have not been functioning in the way envisioned by the Code for 30 years or more. He explained that the resolution will eliminate the offices of divisional chair and vice-chair. Under the current Code, the divisional chair is elected as such. The only current duty associated with the position is ex officio membership on the Arts and Sciences Advisory Committee (ASAC). The resolution will continue that practice by having each division will elect one member of ASAC. Currently, the divisional vice chair’s only duty is ex officio membership on the College’s curriculum committee. The resolution will eliminate that as an elected position and require instead that each division be appropriately represented on that committee which is appointed by the dean. Finally, the resolution provides that the divisions will no longer have by-laws and will not be directed to meet periodically. Instead, the resolution provides a procedure for calling a divisional faculty meeting if one is needed for any reason.
The resolution passed the first reading without dissent and is scheduled for a second reading at the February 8 meeting of the Faculty Council.
Prof. Steponaitis explained Resolution 2013-3 (Appendix F). Currently, the Code limits members of elective committees to election for two consecutive terms. It does not address the situation in which a person is appointed to fill a vacancy. The resolution amends the Code to provide that service on an elective committee for less than two years does not count as a full term for purposes of the two-term limit.
The resolution passed the first reading without dissent and is scheduled for a second reading at the February 8 meeting of the Faculty Council.
Special Report of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards
Prof. Joseph Ferrell, Secretary of the Faculty, moved that the Council go into closed session to consider the nominee for the Edward Kidder Graham Award. The motion was adopted.
On behalf of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards, Prof. Ferrell presented one nominee. The nominee was approved.
Prof. Ferrell moved that the Council return to open session. The motion was adopted. Having completed its business, the Faculty Council adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
Appendix A: Chair of the Faculty Comments
We have a full agenda today because there some important issues that we must address, especially the strategic plan for the university. This is the most important issue facing the future of UNC as we know it.
Let me begin with Congratulations to Nobel Prize winning scientist Oliver Smithies and to Chancellor Holden Thorp on being named “charter fellows” in the National Academy of Inventors.
Faculty Mentoring Awards:
Nominations are being sought for the Faculty Mentoring Awards, sponsored by the Carolina Women’s Leadership Council; these awards recognize outstanding men and women faculty members who go the extra mile to guide, mentor and lead — whether they mentor undergraduate students, graduate students or junior faculty. Each recipient will receive $5,000. Nominations are due March 4, 2013.
Be on the lookout in the next couple of weeks for our annual survey asking for your interest and willingness to serve on various Faculty Governance committees. I encourage you all to complete the survey and also ask that you urge colleagues to complete the survey as well. The nominating committee, which will meet in February, takes the survey responses very seriously in developing a slate for the spring faculty elections.
Provost Search: As you know the Provost Search is again underway, and your input is valuable.
2013 Keohane Lecture:
Dr. Jeffrey McDonnell will be giving the 2013 Keohane Lecture on January 16th on a topic related to UNC’s Water theme. Dr. McDonnell, a watershed hydrologist and eco-hydrologist, will present “Tracking raindrops: Basic science for understanding global change impacts on fresh water” at 5:30 p.m. on Jan. 16 in the Nelson Mandela Auditorium in the FedEx Global Education Center.
Nominations for UNC Honorary degrees to be given at the 2014 Commencement ceremony are due January 18th. I encourage you to submit nominations. Full information is available on the Faculty Governance website.
Gov. Martin Report:
Of course, as we are all aware, just before the holiday break we received the Governor Martin report. As I said in my letter to you at that time, while many still have questions, the review conducted by Gov. Martin and consultant firm Baker Tilly was very thorough. In expanding upon the time period covered by the Hartlyn-Andrews report issued last spring, this review team based their findings on data analysis covering all course sections with undergraduate students enrolled from Fall 1994 to Summer 2012. They examined every course section, every department, every instructor teaching these courses, and every student in those courses spanning an 18-year period and 68 terms, resulting in 4,603,810 data elements.
We have now had 5 different investigations which have been costly to us in dollars, time, energy and attention available for other important issues. The chancellor has already discussed the next step: the Hunter Rawlings project this spring, which we hope will bring all these previous efforts together to allow us to move forward.
Speaking of the Rawlings commission, I have been thinking and discussing with the chancellor how best to engage and invite faculty participation in this project. Some ideas that have occurred to me are forming a faculty advisory council, having an open forum at Faculty Council, or inviting faculty to discuss ideas with the Faculty Athletics Committee. I would welcome your thoughts about what you think would be the most productive way to proceed.
Strategic Directions Committee 2013-2018:
“Our Time, Our Future”
You received the partial draft of the UNC system Strategic Plan, and we will devote a great deal of time today on its discussion. You also received a resolution (adopted as last November’s system wide Faculty Assembly meeting) concerning minimum general education competencies. After fruitful discussions with Dean Owen, Erika Lindemann, and Nick Siedentop, we have decided not to seek your vote of endorsement for this resolution, but rather wanted to make you aware of it, and seek to invite your comments about it.
There are some very good goals, strategies and action steps in the strategic plan draft, but there are also some elements that are worrisome for our campus, or that need clarification. The Faculty Assembly will take up the draft at its meeting next Friday. Therefore, your discussion today will be valuable in allowing the Faculty Assembly delegation to bring Chapel Hill’s perspectives to their meeting next week. I want to thank the many of you who have already sent valuable input, and I look forward to our discussion today.
As the draft says, “The University of North Carolina enjoys a sterling academic reputation, a long history of path breaking scholarship, and intellectual talent that rivals the finest institutions in the world.” In making sure we retain this reputation, we must protect what has gotten us here.
I am fortunate to be one of the fellows of the IAH Academic Leadership program, and yesterday we discussed various leaders who had an impact on the world. Of the 10 we discussed, two seem to me to have significance for what we are facing with the strategic plan: Robert Hutchins and Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, was concerned specifically with higher education, and Sloan about the business of America.
As most of you likely know, Hutchins’ view of education held that students should follow a prescribed course: they should study classical disciplines as conveyed in the “great books” and receive a single Bachelor of Arts degree as soon as they had demonstrated intellectual readiness. This view was at odds with his faculty who had a more pluralistic, or a more practical, view that embraced a number of viable curricula. Now of course, Hutchins did go on to build the University of Chicago with very talented scholars from other institutions, but while great books remain as part of the curricula, his educational view was not sustainable.
Alfred P. Sloan, presiding over General Motors, was concerned about the sustainability of capitalism. As he saw it, companies of GM were faced with a major challenge: how best to combine optimally features of both decentralization and centralized power and control. He fully realized that “one size fits all” was not sustainable; there was no “best car.” Rather he needed to create a range of products that collectively would address the needs and desires of a full range of consumers.
As he said, “a car for every purse and purpose.” An appeal to both “mass” and “class” became the company’s watchwords. Sloan also recognized that in leading to the “top of the market,” the quality of the product was more crucial than the few hundred extra dollars in cost. To succeed in this process, he also realized that each division contributed to the welfare of the organization as whole based on its own profit-making basis.
In contrast, rival Henry Ford aimed at economy above all else. You might remember his famous quote: his customers could have any color car they wanted as long as it was black. Ford assumed his policy would coincide with the average consumer, while Sloan proceeded carefully studying the market and policy alternatives. Ford’s policy proved to be one of the most costly mistakes in American business history.
Sloan’s strategy might be fruitfully applied to education, and may help us think about the UNC system as the strategic plan is finalized. We are not just one university with branches, but different entities with our own missions and purposes to fit the needs of everyone. Given the financial crises we are facing, we cannot afford a “one size fits all.”
The general education of our students and the development of our curricula must remain in the hands of each constituent institution and its faculty—both for the effective operation of the system, for retention of faculty, and to meet SACS accreditation standards. The faculty at each institution has the right, and I might add, the duty, to evaluate its own curriculum in light of its campus mission and the students whom it serves.
This places a burden on all of us. Many of us have been complacent. We need to have an interest in what is happening and what courses serve as general education curriculum and requirements. The Faculty Council must defend the curricular authority of UNC-Chapel Hill in order to retain that sterling reputation, that path breaking scholarship, and that intellectual talent that rivals the finest institutions in the world—and that best serves the particular students who choose to come here. So our discussion today is vital, because the process is moving very quickly. We will be required to act on and provide comments by the 17th which is next Thursday.
Appendix B: Faculty Athletics Committee Update
Conversations, Input, Discussions
- Connections – between many groups/committees related to athletics
- Understanding – interrelationship of concerns and issues and successes
- Informed discussion – FAC process
- Open meetings: Join us!
Plan for the remainder of the year
- Complete review of existing and proposed enhancements of processes, services and policies related to athletics and academics activities
- Recognize and evaluate the close integration of all of our reviewed topics (admissions – student support)
- Submit FAC suggestions or questions to the appropriate personnel/bodies based on the reviews and questions asked during the year
- December – Information/Education Phase
- Discussions with and from: Steve Farmer and Barbara Polk from UGA; Layna Mosley and Beverly Foster, FAC topic experts
- Reviewed documents – Charge to the Special Talent Admission Subcommittee; Statement on Evaluation of Candidates; Summary of Admission Practices; Data handout
December – Take Aways
- Not “behind closed doors”
- Honest conversations about admissions, academic performance, levels of support
- New metrics being developed to better predict success at UNC
January – Admissions
- Questions raised by FAC and other faculty members related to admissions
- Outside input from peer institutions – pending
- Considerations for year-end suggestions and recommendations – still formulating
February – Complete Admissions Q?s; Begin Review of Advising
Conversations, Input, Discussions
Input from faculty members last meeting:
- Requests that the University strike the terms “student-athlete” and “collegiate model of sport” from its lexicon.
- Explain what it regards as “countable hours” of sport-related activity for its sport teams.
- Requests that the FAC propose that, in the future, eligibility for membership on the FAC be restricted to faculty who teach undergraduates on some regular basis.
Appendix C: Educational Policy Committee’s Review and Recommendations: Priority Registration
- Current PR policy set to expire at the end of 2012
- EPC to examine current policy and determine whether
- Allow to expire (disappear)
- Propose renewal without changes
- Propose renewal with changes
Priority Registration Subcommittee:
- Theresa Raphael-Grimm
- Jennifer Coble
- Mark Schoenfisch
- Bobbi Owen
- Chris Derickson
Working Assumptions of Subcommittee:
- PR is useful and appropriate for specific populations of students
- Some accommodation for athletes is warranted given that they
- officially represent the University
- were recruited with agreement to participate
- must meet NCAA & Univ. eligibility requirements including semester credits and accumulated credits
- Not within EPC’s purview to consider general role of athletics in University life
- How successful is the current PR process in allowing Priority Registrants (PRs) access to courses given the limitations of their schedules?
- Who uses the system and in what concentrations?
- Does advantaging one segment of the undergraduate student body (PRs), disadvantage other members of the student body (non-PRs) and if so, to what extent?
Remember the actual advantage:
- PR Seniors 30 minutes before other seniors
- PR Juniors 30 minutes before other juniors
- PR Sophomores 30 minutes before other sophomores
- PR First years 30 minutes before others
EXAMPLE Fall 2012 Statistics:
- 1,188 Total Students participated in PR (~5%)
- Athletic endeavors accounted for 83% of PR
- 721 athletes, 81 managers, 57 cheerleaders = 828
- Non-season athletes were 220 of those 828
- Student teachers
- Students with disabilities
- Robertson Scholars
- Other 17% of PRs included:
Example of Data Analysis: Fall 2012
- Of 917 courses offered in Fall 2012, 48 (5.34%) exceeded 15% enrollment limit of PR students
- Some individual sections were higher but were below 15% when examined across all sections of a course
- Clusters (2 or >) were in:
- Portuguese 4
- ENGL 2
- COMM 6
- PHIL 2
- EXSS 11
- PWAD 2
- MNGT 3
- ARMY 2
Basic PRAC Statistics
Number of Students Approved by PRAC since Fall 2010:
|Fall 2010||863||Spring 2011||1033|
|Fall 2011||1034||Spring 2012||1068|
|Fall 2012||832||Spring 2013||1076|
Number of Classes (Sections) that have exceeded 15% threshold:
|Fall 2010||84||Spring 2011||161|
|Fall 2011||87||Spring 2012||163|
|Fall 2012||87||Spring 2013||153|
Basic PRAC Statistics (cont.)
Number of Courses exceeding the 15% recommendation each Fall since 2010 = 22
|1 AFAM||1 INLS||5 PORT|
|3 ENGL||1 JOMC||1 SOCI|
|8 EXSS||1 MATH||1 SWAH|
Number of Courses exceeding the 15% recommendation each Spring since 2011 = 33
|1 AFAM||7 EXSS||2 JOMC|
|4 COMM||1 FREN||2 MATH|
|6 EDUC||1 INLS||3 PORT|
|3 ENGL||1 ITAL||2 SPAN|
Basic PRAC Statistics (cont.)
- Number of Courses exceeding the 15% recommendation each Fall semester since 2010 = 22 from 9 different departments
- Number of Courses exceeding the 15% recommendation each Spring semester since 2011 = 33 from 12 different departments
- 12 Courses from 6 different departments exceeded the recommended 15% threshold in every semester since Fall 2010
But, do data reflect advantage?
- Clearly PRs are represented in greater numbers in some courses
- Are those same courses highly desirable among non-PR students?
- Are high PR #’s reflective of courses within majors where PRs are more heavily represented?
Are non-PR students disadvantaged?
- Registration data cannot reveal this
- Are many non-PR students desiring Portuguese and being thwarted?
- From advisors
- Exists outside of the PR (seat scarcity for other reasons)
- The registration system has no way of recognizing the extent to which students are attempting to gain access to, and being denied, specific courses. Much of that info is:
- The practice of PR should continue
- No more than 5-6% of the undergraduate student body should participate in PR in a given semester
- Within the 5-6%, more students come from non-athlete categories of eligibility
- Examples include:
- Single parents (Women’s Center)
- Long-distance commuters (Parking Office or Dean of Students)
- Working students (?>25 hrs/wk) (Scholarships and Student Aid)
- Academic success students (Disability Services)
- Exception to 15% rule is for courses within highly PR populated majors
- Any course (not section) where the proportion of PR students in any semester, exceeds 15% of capacity will be slated for potential removal from PR eligibility in subsequent semester(s).
- PRAC (Priority Registration Advisory Committee) work with the registrar and EPC to determine which courses are problematic and need to be deemed ineligible
- One of the two faculty representatives to PRAC be a current (elected) member of, and act as liaison to, EPC
- The PR period for each eligible student exist for only 30 minutes. After that, the window will be closed and any additional changes made only during that students regular, lottery-assigned registration time slot.
- The Priority Registration Policy be re-evaluated every 3 years with particular attention to any courses or sections in which priority registrants are over-represented. (Registration software is now capable of tracking such activity).
Appendix D. Resolution 2013-1. On Amending Resolution 2007-13 Pertaining to Priority Registration
The Faculty Council resolves:
The Faculty Council endorses the modifications to the Priority Registration process established by the University Registrar pursuant to Faculty Council Resolution 2007-13, as recommended by the Educational Policy Committee. The revised text of the pertinent provisions of Resolution 2007-13 is as follows:
“Proposal for Priority Registration
Some groups of undergraduate students encounter unusual challenges in our registration system that inhibit their academic progress and threaten their timely graduation. For example, students with physical or learning disabilities may require reasonable accommodations in order to reduce barriers to their academic success. Education majors in teaching programs spend the second semester of their senior year off campus as student teachers, and during their junior and senior year must complete specific courses required for certification in their areas of specialization. Nursing students must spend significant amounts of time in clinical rotations in order to meet licensure requirements. Varsity athletes must fit their class schedules with their practice/competition schedules so that they can make progress toward their degrees as required by the University and the NCAA. This proposal suggests a process for Ppriority registration that provides a flexible but transparent approach to these issues.
A process for determining how students qualify for priority registration is described in subsequent paragraphs. Those students who qualify for priority registration will be allowed to register ahead of their cohort. UNC has adopted a new registration ordering plan in which the order in which students register is based on the number of semesters completed. Students who qualify for priority registration would receive the earliest assignment times for their semester cohort. In other words, a sophomore who receives priority registration would register 30 minutes before other sophomores but not before any juniors or seniors. At the end of the 30 minute period, any additional registration activity by that student would resume at the student’s usual, lottery-assigned, time.
The Registrar will convene a Priority Registration Advisory Committee (the PRAC) that will meet each semester to review the student groups who have been recommended for priority registration. Members of the PRAC will be appointed by the Registrar and will include faculty, students, and administrators representing a range of interests and expertise. We recommend that the The PRAC will include some individuals who have had experience in educational policy, academic advising, and disability services. One of the two faculty representatives to PRAC will be a current (elected) member of, and act as liaison to, the Educational Policy Committee. Each semester, prior to the start of registration, an official who has responsibility for students who are potentially eligible for priority registration (e.g., a Dean, Director, or Department Chair) will send the Registrar a list of students who are recommended for priority registration and a rationale for the need for priority registration given the demands of the students’ activities. The Registrar will forward these rationale statements to the PRAC along with a tally of the number of students being proposed (i.e., the Registrar will not give PRAC an actual list of names). In the interest of transparency and accountability, the PRAC’s meetings will be open to the public, and all rationale statements and tallies as well as the PRAC’s decisions will be publicly available. Having received advice from the PRAC, the Registrar will adjust assignment times for those students who are selected for priority registration.
The PRAC will review summary data regarding the operation of priority registration (e.g., the specific courses that are selected during priority registration) and suggest modifications to the Priority Registration Policy as needed. The Registrar will consult with the PRAC and seek advice from the Educational Policy Committee regarding any amendments to the Priority Registration Policy. The Registrar will present an annual report to the Educational Policy Committee indicating the number of students who were granted or denied priority registration, and evaluating whether course selection during priority registration appears to be serving its intended purpose.
The Priority Registration Policy proposed here will be in effect for a trial period of four years. reviewed every 3 years. After four three years, the Registrar will request that the Educational Policy Committee in collaboration with Faculty Council review how well the policy is working and make a formal recommendation regarding whether the policy should be continued as is, modified, or allowed to lapse.revised.
As a general rule, we recommend that no more than 15% of the seats in each section be available for priority registration and that no more than 5-6 % of the student body be granted priority registration status. The Registrar and the PRAC will monitor the distribution of priority registration students across sections sections to determine whether any sections courses are being selected disproportionately. If significant over-enrollment occurs in selected courses, the Registrar will work with the department involved so that seat availability in selected courses is capped at 15% during the next priority registration. the Educational Policy Committee to determine whether those courses need to be removed from priority registration eligibility.
Eligibility for Priority Registration
Priority registration will be extended to undergraduate students who encounter unusual challenges in our registration system that inhibit their academic progress and threaten their timely graduation. It is difficult to establish an a priori definition of “unusual”, but the Priority Registration Task Force has identified three groups that would be exemplars of these unusual registration challenges but recognizes that more students than is currently the norm, need to come from non-athlete categories of eligibility. Thus, these student groups are eligible to be considered for priority registration if the students in the group meet any of the following conditions:
- The student engages in an activity that formally represents the University and by virtue of that representation is required to attend practices and events during hours in which classes are offered (e.g., varsity athletes during a semester in which the student’s practice obligation is at the NCAA maximum of 20 hours per week);
- The student is enrolled in a degree program requiring that at least one semester be spent off campus (e.g., student teaching), that specific courses in Arts and Sciences be successfully completed in order to obtain licensure (e.g., Education majors), or that requires significant time be devoted to clinical practice (e.g., nursing, allied health, etc); or
- The student has a disability or hardship for which priority registration is an approved accommodation.
Other groups that may have comparable registration challenges may be proposed for priority registration by an official who has responsibility for their program (e.g., a Dean, Director, or Department Chair), and these groups will be reviewed by the PRAC. Individual students may not apply directly to the Registrar for priority registration.”
Submitted by the Educational Policy Committee
Appendix E: Resolution 2013-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Change the Functions of Divisions and Divisional Officers in the College of Arts and Sciences, and to Update the Composition of the Divisions.
The General Faculty enacts that:
Section 1. Article 8 of the Faculty Code of University Government is amended as follows
(deletions are crossed out, additions are underlined):
§ 8-1. Divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences.
(a) The College of Arts and Sciences is organized into the Divisions of Fine Arts, Humanities,
Natural Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. These Divisions comprise the
departments and curricula listed below:
1. Fine Arts: Art,; Dramatic Art,; and Music;.
2. Humanities: American Studies,; Classics,; Communication Studies,; English and
Comparative Literature,; Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures,; Linguistics,;
Philosophy,; Religious Studies,; Romance Languages and Literatures,; and Women’s and
3. Natural Sciences and Mathematics: Applied and MaterialsPhysical Sciences,; Biology,;
Biomedical Engineering; Chemistry,; Computer Science,; Environment and Ecology;
Exercise and Sport Science,; Geological Sciences,; Marine Sciences,; Mathematics,;
Physics and Astronomy,; Psychology,; and Statistics and Operations Research; and.
4. Social Sciences: Aerospace Studies,; African, and Afro-AmericanAfrican-American, and
Diaspora Studies,; Anthropology,; Archaeology; Asian Studies,; City and Regional
Planning,; Contemporary European Studies; Economics,; Geography,; History,; Global
Studies; Latin American Studies; Military Science,; Naval Science; Peace, War, and
Defense; Political Science,; Public Policy,; and Sociology.
(b) The secretary of the faculty assigns to the appropriate division any department or curriculum
not specified above in subsection (a).
(c) The Committee on University Government, with the approval of the chancellor, may adjust
the assignment of departments and other units in subsection (a) whenever required by changes in
the organization of the College.
(b) Members of departmental faculties have voting privileges in only one division, but may have
advisory privileges in other divisions in which their departments have special interests. Thus,
those from Art, Dramatic Art, History, and Music have advisory privileges in the Humanities;
those from Philosophy in the Natural Sciences and Mathematics and Social Sciences; and those
from Psychology in the Social Sciences.
(c) Faculty members who have no departmental affiliation have voting privileges in the division
to which they have been assigned by the secretary of the faculty.
(d) For the purposes of elections stipulated in § 8-3, members of departmental faculties have
voting privileges only in the division of their primary appointment. Faculty members who have
no departmental affiliation have electoral voting privileges in the division to which they are
assigned by the secretary of the faculty.
(e) For the purposes of § 8-4, members of the voting faculty with multiple appointments may
participate in more than one divisional faculty, in accordance with their appointments.
§ 8-2. Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences. All members of the General Faculty
holding primary appointments in departments and curricula within the College of Arts and
Sciences are members of the Arts and Sciences Faculty.
§ 8-3. Arts and Sciences Advisory Committee.
(a) The Arts and Sciences Advisory Committee consists of the chairs four members of the Arts
and Sciences Faculty holding the rank of professor, one elected by each of the divisions
specified in § 8-1, above. from among its members. The term is three years, and members may
not be elected to more than two consecutive terms. Sitting department chairs may not serve on
this committee. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences consults the committee on:
1. Appointments, reappointments, and promotions that have the effect of conferring
2. Promotions to a higher rank of persons holding permanent tenure at the rank of associate
professor or assistant professor; and
3. Appointments to distinguished professorships.
(b) Interim vacancies are filled by the secretary of the faculty from the list of those voted on in
the two most recent elections in the order of the highest number of votes received unless all such
persons decline appointment or are ineligible, or there is an insufficient number, in which case
the vacancy is filled by the secretary in consultation with the chairs of the units that comprise the
§ 8-4. Divisional faculties.
(a) The faculty of each Arts and Sciences Division is composed of the voting faculty members of
its component departments and curricula. Each Division has a chair and such other officers as its
by-laws specify. The chair and other officers are elected by members of the voting faculty
holding primary appointments in departments and curricula assigned to the Division. Each
Division, in consultation with the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, adopts appropriate
rules and regulations governing its functions and procedures, including procedures for electing
(b) Each division, in cooperation with the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, concerns
itself with the instructional programs of the units within its division.
(b) A meeting of any divisional faculty to discuss matters pertaining to the division may be
called by the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and must be called upon the written
request of ten percent of the divisional faculty or three department or curriculum chairs in that
division, except for the Division of Fine Arts, in which a written request from only two chairs is
required. The division’s representative on the Arts and Sciences Advisory Committee serves as
the presiding officer; in the absence of this representative, a presiding officer is chosen by the
(c) A quorum is conclusively presumed at any meeting of a divisional faculty called on at least
ten days’ written notice. Otherwise, the presence of 20% of the division’s voting members is
necessary for a quorum.
(d) The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences shall insure that each divisional faculty is
represented on the Administrative Boards of the College and General College, and on any other
standing committees that deal with the instructional programs of the College or General College.
Section 2. The bylaws of the Division of Fine Arts, the Division of Humanities, the Division of
the Basic and Applied Natural Sciences, and the Division of the Social Sciences, as constituted
under the prior provisions of Article 8, are hereby suspended. Nothing in this resolution prevents
the College divisions from creating new bylaws in the future, should the need arise.
§ 8-2. Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences. All members of the General Faculty holding primary appointments in departments and curricula within the College of Arts and Sciences are members of the Arts and Sciences Faculty.
§ 8-3. Arts and Sciences Advisory Committee.
(a) The Arts and Sciences Advisory Committee consists of the chairs four members of the Arts and Sciences Faculty holding the rank of professor, one elected by each of the divisions specified in § 8-1, above. from among its members. The term is three years, and members may not be elected to more than two consecutive terms. Sitting department chairs may not serve on this committee. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences consults the committee on:
Appointments, reappointments, and promotions that have the effect of conferring permanent tenure;
Promotions to a higher rank of persons holding permanent tenure at the rank of associate professor or assistant professor; and
Appointments to distinguished professorships.
(b) Interim vacancies are filled by the secretary of the faculty from the list of those voted on in the two most recent elections in the order of the highest number of votes received unless all such persons decline appointment or are ineligible, or there is an insufficient number, in which case the vacancy is filled by the secretary in consultation with the chairs of the units that comprise the division.
§ 8-4. Divisional faculties.
(a) The faculty of each Arts and Sciences Division is composed of the voting faculty members of its component departments and curricula. Each Division has a chair and such other officers as its by-laws specify. The chair and other officers are elected by members of the voting faculty holding primary appointments in departments and curricula assigned to the Division. Each Division, in consultation with the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, adopts appropriate rules and regulations governing its functions and procedures, including procedures for electing its officers.
(b) Each division, in cooperation with the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, concerns itself with the instructional programs of the units within its division.
(b) A meeting of any divisional faculty to discuss matters pertaining to the division may be called by the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and must be called upon the written request of ten percent of the divisional faculty or three department or curriculum chairs in that division, except for the Division of Fine Arts, in which a written request from only two chairs is required. The division’s representative on the Arts and Sciences Advisory Committee serves as the presiding officer; in the absence of this representative, a presiding officer is chosen by the dean.
(c) A quorum is conclusively presumed at any meeting of a divisional faculty called on at least ten days’ written notice. Otherwise, the presence of 20% of the division’s voting members is necessary for a quorum.
(d) The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences shall insure that each divisional faculty is represented on the Administrative Boards of the College and General College, and on any other standing committees that deal with the instructional programs of the College or General College.
Section 2. The bylaws of the Division of Fine Arts, the Division of Humanities, the Division of the Basic and Applied Natural Sciences, and the Division of the Social Sciences, as constituted under the prior provisions of Article 8, are hereby suspended. Nothing in this resolution prevents the College divisions from creating new bylaws in the future, should the need arise.
Appendix F: Resolution 2013-3. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Clarify Term Limits for Elective Committees.
The General Faculty enacts that
§ 4-1(a) of the Faculty Code of University Government is amended as follows (deletions are
crossed out, additions are underlined):
§ 4-1. Organizational principles.
(a) Standing committees of the faculty are organized as nearly as practicable in accordance with
the following principles:
1) unless otherwise specified in this Article, a committee consists of no more than seven
2) unless otherwise specified in this Article, members serve for staggered terms of three
3) no person may serve more than two consecutive terms on one elective committee,
except when the first term fills an interim vacancy pursuant to § 4-3(d) for less than two
years, in which case a third consecutive term is allowed;
4) elective committees select their own chairs, and appointing officers designate the chairs
of committees they appoint;
5) necessary aid and assistance is provided to expedite the work of the committees of the
6) service on all standing committees begins on July 1 following election or appointment
and end on June 30 of the appropriate year;
7) standing committees report to the Faculty Council on their activities at least once each
academic year unless the chair of the faculty authorizes the postponement of a committee’s
annual report.[<a href=”//storify.com/kturnerunc/unc-faculty-council-january-23-2013″ target=”_blank”>View the story “UNC Faculty Council, January 23, 2013” on Storify</a>]