Meeting of the Faculty Council

Friday, March 8, 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

Agenda

3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Chancellor Holden Thorp

3:10  UNC System 2013-18 Strategic Plan

3:35  Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Provost Bruce Carney

3:40 Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Prof. Jan Boxill

3:45 Regular Committee Reports

4:05  Update from the Faculty Athletics Committee

4:15  Vote:  Resolution 2013-06.  On Campuswide Implementation of the Recommendations of the 2012 Independent Study Task Force

  • Presented by the Educational Policy Committee (Prof. Theresa Raphael-Grimm, Chair)

4:25  Vote:  Resolution 2013-07.  On Commitment to a Safe and Inclusive Campus

  • Presented by the Agenda Committee (Prof. Jan Boxill, Chair)

4:30  Inclusive Excellence and Connecting Diversity Networks

  • Dr. Taffye Benson Clayton, Vice Provost for Diversity and Multicultural Affairs and Chief Diversity Officer
  • Dr. Clayton’s Powerpoint

4:40  News from the Retired Faculty Association

  • Prof. Emeritus Donald Boulton

4:45  Statement from the Athletics Reform Group

  • Prof. Jay Smith

4:55  Vote:  2014 Honorary Degree Nominees (Document available on Sakai; Faculty Council members log in to view.  Closed Session)

  • Prof. Joe Ferrell, Secretary of the Faculty

5:00 Adjourn

Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened March 8, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in the Hitchcock Multipurpose Room of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History.

The following 65 Council members attended: Bachenheimer, Balaban, Bhardwaj, Boulton, Boxill, Brice, Bunch, Cavin, Chambers, Chen, Chenault, Chera, Collier, Copenhaver, DeSaix, Eaker-Rich, Earp, Engel, Ferrell, Garbin, Grabowski, Heenan, Heitsch, Hirsch, Hodges, Houck, Howes, Ives, Jones, Kang, Kramer, Kurtz-Costes, Lee, Leonard, Linden, Maffly-Kipp, Mayer, McMillan, Milano, T. Miller, V. Miller, Moon, Moracco, Moreton, Olcott, O’Shaughnessey, Palmer, Parise, Parker, Parreiras, Paul, Persky, Pertsova, Reiter, Renner, Rodgers, Schoenbach, Shields, Stenberg, Steponaitis, Swogger, Wang, Waterhouse, H. Watson and R. Watson.

The following 25 members were granted excused absences: Boettiger Cooney, Bulik, Champagne, Cohen, Friga, Gallippi, Gerhardt, Gilland, Giovanello, Guskiewicz, Hackman, Hess, Hill, Hsu, Joyner, Koomen, Lund, Mayer-Davis, Nelson, Spagnoli, Stewart, J. Thorp, Toews, Webster-Cyriaque, and You.

Call to order

Chancellor Holden Thorp called the Council to order at 3:00 p.m.

Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

Chancellor Thorp congratulated Prof. Anne Marion Taylor (Biomedical Engineering) for winning a Sloan Research Fellowship. He also praised Prof. Kareem Crayton (Law) for collaborating on an amicus brief before the Supreme Court on racial discrimination in elections and voting rights. He congratulated Prof. Kevin Guskiewicz on the positive recognition that his work on concussions in athletes has received.

Chancellor Thorp said that he is aware many faculty are concerned about the issue of sexual assault, and he encouraged the Council to pass the resolution on today’s agenda reaffirming out commitment to maintaining a safe and inclusive campus. He thanked the Chair of the Faculty, outgoing and incoming Student Body Presidents, Graduate Student Body President, and Chair of the Employee Forum for collaborating on a letter to the editor in The Daily Tar Heel. The letter states the university does not tolerate sexual assault and we must work together to prevent sexual assaults from happening on campus. He said that this is the first time all four elected bodies have written a letter together. He said that this is a challenging situation and that the university has a way to go before it can prevent sexual assaults from occurring.  His office received a letter from the Department of Education that said they will investigate complaint. The letter does not imply what the finding will be. He said they are a neutral fact finder and the administration will respond to their findings.  The process will give the university a chance to document measures that have been taken and policies that have been implemented in the last 18 months.

The chancellor pointed out that the university has retained Gina Smith, a lawyer who is an expert on sexual assault cases.  She is currently on campus meeting with different parties. He said he is pleased to be working with her. He also thanked Prof. Joanne Hershfield, the chair of the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies for her letter describing measures that should be taken to address sexual assault.

The chancellor announced that the searches for the Deputy Title IX/Student Complaint Coordinator and EEO Compliance Officer have been completed.  He thanked Prof. Donna Lefebvre (Political Science) and Undergraduate Student Attorney General Amanda Claire Grayson for their work with the Honor System.

Ms. Gina Smith arrived and addressed the Council at the chancellor’s request. Smith explained that she has spent the last few weeks meeting with different parties on campus and learning from her interactions with administrators, faculty and students. She said sexual assault policies are similar to a “three-dimensional labyrinth.” The first dimension is the regulatory framework that includes state and federal laws, student privacy laws and reporting laws. The second dimension involves the unique dynamics of sexual assaults that can include victimization, repeat offending and the role of drugs and alcohol. The last dimension is the history, culture, climate, personnel and policies of the particular institution.

Smith said that she brings experience in the first two dimensions, but she is spending time learning more about the third. She has met with several student groups, staff, and the Chair of the Faculty. Her goals are to gather information and engage the community to develop recommendations for policy implementation.  She has found that there is a gap between policy and students’ perceptions of how policy is implemented.  She said students are not aware of the policies or where to find them. Implementing additional trainings outside of student orientation can help.  During the process of speaking with others, Smith said that she has found opportunities to provide information about Title IX and sexual assault. She believes that colleges and universities are not equipped to provide the same outcomes as the legal system. She suggested that we need to do a better job of educating about what can be done; otherwise all constituencies will be unhappy with the results.

Smith said that measures to receive student input have been undertaken. A suggestion box on the campus conversation website has elicited feedback from students, faculty and staff. She said Carolina students are smart and engaged young people. She was especially impressed by the number of young men who are actively engaged in sexual assault education and awareness.

The chancellor said that he is relieved and comforted that Smith is here and he thanked her for her service.

Chancellor Thorp continued with his remarks. He reported that the athletics panel will take place on April 19, 2013 with AAUP President Hunter Rawlings who will be joined by Jim Delany, Bob Malekoff, Amy Perko, and Patricia Timmins-Goodson. At the end of their meeting they will decide how they want to move forward. Dr. Rawlings will determine the schedule of meetings.

The Chancellor announced that the fall football schedule will include a Thursday night game in Chapel Hill but since the game occurs during Fall Break, the campus will not close down early. Faculty and staff will be given the option to leave the campus early in preparation for the incoming traffic, but no one will be expected to leave early.

UNC System 2013-18 Strategic Plan Discussion

Chancellor Thorp welcomed President Tom Ross who addressed the Council about several issues in the final draft of the strategic plan that have concerned faculty. The first issue is the process and speed with which the committee acted. He explained that the committee wanted a plan in place before the new legislative session since they knew there would be high membership turnover in both houses of the General Assembly as well as a complete change in leadership.

The committee created a Faculty Advisory Council and appointed a student and a staff representative to the committee. They retained an advisory group of chancellors, policy leaders, and business leaders to gain support for the items in the plan. President Ross noted that five-year plans in the past have not been as inclusive as UNC Tomorrow, which created a different set of expectations for the timeline of the planning process. UNC Tomorrow took two years to draft.

President Ross explained that the landscape of higher education is changing and resources are declining. He noted that regulations and demands for accountability continue to increase while costs per student also increase. He said that producing degrees is easy, but quality is harder to achieve. The strategic plan looks at areas where the universities can collaborate with relatively small investments. He said one way to be more efficient is to minimize the average number of credit hours students take, which is currently 140, to match the number they need to graduate.

President Ross said that a budget request has been made to the legislature that includes funding for all parts of the strategic plan, but he is not optimistic that he request will be fully funded. He said that the university may receive further budget cuts in the coming fiscal year but he does not know where the cuts will be made.

President Ross said that the Faculty Assembly is creating an advisory group to help with implementation. They have already created a list of the first hundred tasks that need to be done. A chancellor’s advisory group for the creation of MOOCs has also been established.

Prof. Altha Cravey (Geography) said that the NC Vision Coalition wrote on March 4 asking the Board of Governors to meet with the coalition and to make their meetings more transparent by 1) allowing time for public comments, 2) providing adequate seating in the meeting room, and 3) providing standard UNC email addresses for all members. She asked if he was aware of the letter.

President Ross said that the BOG meets in the largest room available at General Administration and that they must comply with the fire code. They open the board room when the meeting starts. He explained that since Board members are volunteers appointed by the legislature, they are free to use their own email addresses and are not required to use UNC email accounts.

Prof. Jane Thrailkill (English and Comparative Literature) asked about the consulting report for the Strategic Plan that was not included in the final draft titled “Developing Alternatives for Active Portfolio Management.” She said that some of the recommendations were causes for concern.

President Ross explained that the committee disclosed the consulting report in an effort to be transparent, but the committee did not agree with their recommendations so they were not included in the final report. Prof. Thrailkill asked who commissioned the report and who wrote it. President Ross said the report was commissioned with private funds and the consulting firm McKinsey and Company wrote it. Prof. Thrailkill said the part that worries her most is the section on centralized government authority. She said that where there is centralized power to put recommendations in effect, decisions can be made about closing programs, increasing class size, and faculty personnel issues without faculty input. President Ross said that we want to be ahead of other states in academic excellence. There is a lot that he does not agree with in the consulting report. He said that despite UNC having a centralized structure, there is a long history and culture of shared governance.

Prof. Elliot Moreton (Linguistics) expressed concern about shutting down low productivity programs.  He said that defining productivity by the number of students produced per program is problematic because small programs will always be considered low productivity programs. He asked if there are plans to revisit that definition. President Ross said that the definition of low productivity programs has been in effect for some time and there are no plans to revisit it. He suggested that Prof. Moreton contact Dr. Suzanne Ortega, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, with suggestions.

Prof. Victor Schoenbach (Public Health) thanked President Ross for all he has done during the strategic planning process.

President Ross said that he often gets asked if he regrets being in his position, but he said the best advice he ever got was that you should go where you can have the most impact. He said that faculty have an important role because they have a lasting effect on people’s lives.

Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

Provost Bruce Carney abbreviated his comments in the interest of time. He reported that General Administration is beginning to form committees to implement the strategic plan, including a General Education Council, an E-learning Faculty Development Committee, and a section size workshop.  The Provost asked that faculty volunteer to serve on these committees.

Chair of the Faculty

Prof. Jan Boxill (Philosophy) also abbreviated her comments. She announced that the faculty election will take place during the week of April 15, 2013. She encouraged faculty to vote. The Chancellor Search Committee is making progress. She briefly mentioned a letter to the editor published in The Daily Tar Heel that addresses the sexual assault complaint. She said that the issue concerns all of us and she thanked Jackie Overton, Will Leimenstoll, Michael Bertucci, Kiran Bhardwaj, and Christy Lambden for collaborating on the letter.

Prof. Boxill said that the Honor system will soon undergo changes as a result of proposals that have been submitted to the Committee on Student Conduct (COSC) in December. COSC will submit its recommendations for major reforms in April to Faculty Council. Prof. Boxill thanked everyone who was involved in reevaluating the Honor System.

Administrative Board of the Library Report

Prof. Fitz Brundage (History) presented the annual report for Administrative Board of the Library. He said that he has deep abiding respect for what the library has been doing. He explained that the library has endured severe cuts, but has consistently provided an excellent level of service with reduced resources.  He plans to write a letter to the provost regarding the recurring budget gap the libraries have experienced.  The budget gap emerged in the late 1990s. To cover it, the provost makes a one-time budget allocation that has been renewed year after year. Now the gap constitutes 31.5% of the libraries’ budget. He explained that if the provost’s successor decides not to cover the gap, our ranking as a leading research library would suffer.  He said he will meet with the provost to talk about this. He recommended that the Faculty Council consider action asking that funding for the gap be made a permanent part of the library budget.

Prof. Shielda Rodgers (Nursing) asked whether the budget problem extends beyond the Academic Affairs Libraries. University Librarian Sarah Michalak said that the Health Affairs library is included in the statistics. Prof. Brundage said that if the budget gap goes unfunded, it will affect the Health Sciences Library because of the expense of serials.

Buildings and Grounds Committee Report (Received by title)

The Buildings and Grounds Committee Annual Report, filed by Prof. David Owens (Law) was received by the council. There were no questions or comments.

Committee on University Copyright Report

Sarah Michalak, University Librarian, presented the annual report on behalf of the Committee on University Copyright. She said the committee has been researching concerns about faculty ownership of lecture content. She recommended that faculty reference copyright guidelines available on the library’s website. She added that the committee is monitoring several court cases that could have an impact on copyright policies at the university level.

Scholarships, Awards and Student Aid Committee Report

Prof. Charles Daye (Law) presented the Scholarships, Awards and Student Aid Committee Annual Report. He abbreviated his presentation and referred the Council members to the Office of Faculty Governance website for more information. He explained the charge of the committee and the work of the Office of Scholarships, Awards and Student Aid. He said that in 2011-12, we gave aid to 20,475 students. The total amount of aid given was $370 million in state, federal and private funds. Forty-two percent of undergraduates received need based aid in 2011-12. The proportion of undergraduate students demonstrating need has increased significantly since 2008.  He said the economy has created a burden on families, higher unemployment rates and cuts in federal student aid programs. The committee has also been concerned about increased tuition costs.

Faculty Athletics Committee Regular Update

Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health) presented the regular update on the activities of the Faculty Athletics Committee.  She explained that over the past month, the committee has been working to better understand the academic support system in place for student athletes. Her full presentation is available in Appendix A.

Prof. Vincas Steponaitis thanked Prof. Renner for her work. He asked if the committee was planning to gather more data or draft recommendations next year. Prof. Renner said that the committee will likely do both.  She said they will work on communicating with the university community to clarify what our mission is going to be. She said the Rawlings panel will influence what recommendations will be made. The committee is currently asking what data needs to be generated and published annually.

Resolution 2013-06.  On Campus-wide Implementation of the Recommendations of the 2012 Independent Study Task Force

Prof. Theresa Raphael-Grimm (Nursing) presented Resolution 2013-06 (See Appendix B.). She provided some contextual background on the independent study recommendations. She explained that the Educational Policy Committee was charged with researching the recommendations in the fall. The committee contacted the professional schools to find out if the guidelines put forward in the Independent Study Task Force Report would present an obstacle. They heard back from School of Education and School of Nursing. They were concerned about the definitions of practica, internships and independent studies.

Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) asked if independent studies include research for credit. He pointed out that many labs have undergraduates performing research for credit. Prof. Raphael-Grimm said that it does not include organized research labs in the College of Arts and Sciences.

The resolution was adopted without dissent.

Resolution 2013-07.  On Commitment to a Safe and Inclusive Campus

Prof. Jan Boxill read the resolution in its entirety (See Appendix C.).

The resolution was adopted without dissent.

Inclusive Excellence and Connecting Diversity Networks

Dr. Taffye Benson Clayton, Vice Provost for Diversity and Multicultural Affairs and Chief Diversity Officer, explained the idea of “inclusive excellence” and how it has informed the work of the Office of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs.  Her full presentation is included in Appendix D.

News from the Retired Faculty Association

Prof. Emeritus Donald Boulton announced that the Retired Faculty Association will have a new location in the Friday Center. He thanked Rob Bruce, the Chancellor’s Office, the Provost’s Office and the Office of Faculty Governance for supporting the Retired Faculty Association. He said the organization plans to fundraise for the university from the Friday Center.  Virginia Ross Taylor will provide staff support.

Athletics Reform Group Statement

Prof. Jay Smith (History), convenor of the Athletics Reform Group, distributed a statement. (See Appendix E.) He called for a series of town hall meetings about athletics. He said that the Hunter Rawlings panel coming in April may not be the vehicle for a campus-wide prolonged discussion. He said the visit will be valuable and should be a part of a larger series of public discussions.

Chancellor Thorp said he expects the Rawlings panel to stay on for the summer to continue discussion of athletics, but the schedule will be up to them.

Prof. Smith asked the Faculty Council to express enthusiasm for lengthy public discussion.

Prof. Tom Linden (Journalism) agreed that a public discussion is needed. He thinks the dilemma is that we are part of a financially based athletics system and that the NCAA promotes a money-centered sports culture. He hopes to talk about getting out of the ACC and aligning with other comparable universities that share our commitment to the preeminent place of academics in the university. He hopes the university will look for alternatives to the existing structure of athletics in the United States.

Prof. Jan Boxill thanked Bubba Cunningham for being very open about answering questions. She believes town hall open meetings are a great idea. She said the Parr Center and Black Caucus have sponsored similar meetings in the past.

Mary Willingham, Assistant Director of the Center for Student Success and Academic Counseling, added that the faculty must uphold academic integrity and must be involved in athletic reform.

Prof. Copenhaver (Biology) said that Prof. Smith’s motive is probably a good one but he feels the Athletics Reform Group casts student-athletes in a negative light.

Prof. Vin Steponaitis (Anthropology) said that a tremendous amount of work has been done to reform athletics on campus. He believes that we are at a point now that we can talk about things in a wider forum. He said town hall meetings fit with the work of Faculty Athletics Committee and Rawlings Committee. He supports finding a way to bring these efforts together.

Prof. Richard Southall (Exercise and Sport Science) invited the faculty to join the College Sport Research Institute 2013 Conference on April 17-19 at the Friday Center. He said there will be a town hall meeting as a response to the defunding of NCAA scholarly colloquium.

Closed Session: Special Report of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards

Prof. Joseph Ferrell moved that the Council go into closed session to discuss nominees for honorary degrees to be awarded at Commencement 2014. The motion was adopted.

Prof. Ferrell, on behalf of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards, presented five nominees to be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval for honorary degrees. Each nominee was approved.

Prof. Ferrell moved that the Council return to open session. The motion was adopted.

Adjournment

Its business having concluded, the Council adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty

Appendix A: Faculty Athletics Committee Regular Update

March – Academics

Information/Education Phase

Discussion – Academic Support Program personnel; FAC topic experts Glynis Cowell and Andy Perrin
Harold Woodard, Associate Dean and Director Center for Student Success and Academic Counseling
Brent Blanton, Associate Director of Student Success and Academic Counseling from Loudermilk
Susan Malloy, Tutor Coordinator
Bradley Bethel, Learning Specialist

Overview of the tutoring program

  • Structure: organization of program
  • Staff
  • Students served (required for some and/or who qualifies and how identified and referred)

Mechanisms for checking attendance as well as assessment/evaluation of program — tutors and students

Learning specialists—qualifications and roles

Changes implemented in the last year

FAC Meeting with SAAC

  • March 27th meeting with SAAC
  • Formerly – exit interviews
  • Revision – interviews include range of academic years and representation from all sports
  • Large and small group discussions related to academics and overall UNC experience

Academic Experience at UNC

  • Describe your academic experience at UNC. Do you feel you are receiving a good education?  Do you feel prepared for the next step?
  • Describe your relationship with faculty?  Were you able to take advantage of office hours?
  • As an athlete, have you experienced any disadvantages with regard to academics?  (include major, courses, career plans)
  • Did your coaches support your academic pursuits?
  • What have been your experiences with the Academic Support Program? With Academic Advising?
  • Have you witnessed or experienced academic dishonesty (consider tutors, student-athletes, students overall)?
  • Of the following services, which were available to you?: drug education seminars, community service opportunities, career development services, Carolina Leadership Academy
  • Did you take advantage of other services available on campus?
  • Were the services you experienced beneficial and of good quality?
  • Are you having a good experience as an athlete at UNC?
  • What is the climate on your team with respect to…diversity, hazing, gambling, alcohol and other drugs
  • Is the Athletics Administration available to you?  Do you know to whom you can go if you have an issue and you do not want to discuss it with your coach(es)?
  • What have been the most positive aspects of your overall experience at UNC?
  • What can be improved?
  • Do you feel there is anything you are unable to do because you are an athlete?
  • If you could do it over again, would you choose Carolina?  Would you choose to participate in your sport again?

April

  • Continuation of academics discussion with review of data related to academics and the student-athlete population
  • Review of relevant current policies and procedures and proposed new and revisions to policies and procedures
  • Review of operations

May

  • Wrap it up –Where are we now?
  • Pull it together – Are there gaps in where we are and where we want to be?
  • Move it forward –What are the next steps for clearly establishing and communicating our University philosophy for the bonding of athletics and academics in sync with our mission and values?

Thank you for all your input and support!

 Appendix B: Resolution 2013-06. On Campus wide Implementation of the Recommendations of the 2012 Independent Study Task Force

The Faculty Council resolves:

That the rules and regulations concerning independent studies recommended by the April 10, 2012, report of the College of Arts and Sciences Independent Study Task Force  apply to all undergraduate programs and curricula, except that the following rules do not apply to appropriately supervised out-of-classroom internships/practica in undergraduate programs offered in the professional schools: (1)  the limit of twelve hours of graded independent study credit, excluding honors thesis courses, that may be counted toward graduation; (2) the limitation that no more than twelve hours may be taken in any one semester, and (3) the two-student restriction on the number of students a faculty member may supervise in cases involving internships/practica required by the professional school.

Submitted by the Educational Policy Committee

Comment:

In September of 2011, Karen Gil, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, requested that Bobbi Owen, Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education, ask the Administrative Board of the College or Arts and Sciences to develop guidelines for undergraduate independent study courses and directed readings courses.  Dean Owen formed the Independent Study Task Force (ISTF) of faculty from across the college to work on this project; their report was issued on April 10, 2012 (http://www.unc.edu/news/050412/Independent%20Study%20report.pdf).

In August of 2012, Provost Bruce Carney asked the Educational Policy Committee to review the report with the goal of adopting its recommendations for all undergraduate programs university-wide.  Prof. Theresa Raphael-Grimm, EPC Chair, contacted the administrative leaders in all of the professional schools to ascertain potential obstacles to campus-wide adoption.  Officials in the schools of Nursing (SON) and Education (SOE) identified problems having to do with practica and internships, which, in both schools, are defined quite differently from “independent studies” but which, according to the current language of the ISTF report, would fall under the general umbrella of “independent studies.”  Because SON and SOE practica courses carry considerable course credit, adopting the ISTF report in their schools would render undergraduate students in those schools perpetually in violation of the independent study credit limit included in the ISTF report and adopted by Faculty Council in Resolution 2012-12.

Language recognizing this reality is the most significant revision that will need to be made to the ISTF report before it can be fully implemented for undergraduate programs campus-wide.  It is suggested, specifically, that language on p. 8 of the ISTF report be updated to include the following clarification:

Special Circumstances Pertaining to Professional Schools

Professional schools at UNC-Chapel Hill with undergraduate degree programs – majors and minors –  (Business, Dentistry, Education, Journalism, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health, SILS, Social Work, Allied Health Sciences in the School of Medicine) confront circumstances that warrant special consideration with respect to 1) the limits on counting independent study credit toward graduation, and 2) the restriction on the number of students a faculty member may supervise during a semester or summer session in internships/practica. Clinical placements, student teaching, and professional practica are a recognized and important part of their undergraduate curriculum.  They often fulfill an important standard established by external accrediting bodies.

Therefore, the limits established by Faculty Council Resolution 2012-12 “On Revising the Regulation Concerning Independent Studies for Credit” shall not apply to appropriately supervised out-of-classroom internships/practica for a professional school’s undergraduate program.  Specifically the statements that do not apply are these:

  • Only twelve hours of graded independent study credit, excluding honors thesis courses, may be counted toward graduation.
  • No more than twelve hours may be taken in any one semester.

Further, professional schools shall be excluded from the two-student restriction on the number of students a faculty member may supervise in cases involving internships/practica required by the professional school.

Other suggested revisions to the ISTF report include language incorporating the requirements already implemented by Faculty Council Resolution 2012-12 and language clarifying the definitions of independent studies as opposed to internships and practica.

 Appendix C: Resolution 2013-7. On Commitment to a Safe and Inclusive Campus

WHEREAS, the recent complaint to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has underscored the importance of sexual violence conversations; and

WHEREAS, the month of April has been designated Sexual Assault Awareness Month in the United States, with the goal of raising public awareness about sexual violence and educating communities and individuals on how to prevent sexual violence; and

WHEREAS, the University has a commitment to creating a welcoming and inclusive environment which supports the right of every member of the Carolina community to learn and work in an atmosphere that promotes fairness, equity and access to its employment and educational programs; now therefore,

The Faculty Council resolves to reaffirm our commitment to a safe and inclusive campus community. We strongly support campus, local, and state efforts to prevent violence in all its forms, to connect survivors of sexual violence with support and resources, and to hold the perpetrators of such acts accountable.

Submitted by the Agenda Committee

Appendix D: Inclusive Excellence and Diversity Infrastructure at Carolina

What Is Inclusive Excellence?

  • An Institutional Philosophy
  • Fuses Diversity and Excellence
  • Change Focused, Data-Driven, Iterative Planning Process
  • Employs a comprehensive and coordinated approach to diversity, equity and inclusion
  • Considers the influence and impact of diversity in all of its forms on the learning experiences of all students
  • Utilizes disaggregated data to establish excellence priorities

Why Is Inclusive Excellence Important?

  • Clearly Demonstrates Carolina’s Institutional Commitment to an Opportunity for Success  for all Students
  • Provides a shared institutional language, philosophy and focus for diversity and excellence work

What Does Inclusive Excellence Require?

  • Committed, engaged leadership
  • Campus-wide buy-in and involvement
  • Reflection, assessment and benchmarking
  • Collaboration and cooperation
  • Reprioritization of resources
  • Rethinking traditional excellence and success models

Evidence of Inclusive Excellence at Carolina

  • Carolina Millennial Scholars Program
  • Chancellor’s Science Scholars Program
  • Carolina Covenant Scholars Program
  • Course Redesign Efforts in Gateway Science Courses
  • Minority Peer Mentoring Programs
  • Summer Bridge Program

Advancing IE and D&I Efforts Via Infrastructure

  • Institutional Diversity and Inclusion Collaborative
  • Provost’s Committee on Inclusive Excellence and Diversity

Increasing our Diversity Infrastructure

  • Increase connectedness and coordination
  • Provide a construct and context for stakeholders
  • Initiate and sustain activity
  • Monitor progress

Institutional Diversity and Inclusion Collaborative

The IDIC will:

  • Connect important diversity and inclusion stakeholders from across the University
  • Share institutional diversity priorities, promising practices, challenges and progress
  • Provide updates on the work of DMA, the Provost’s Committee on Inclusive Excellence and Diversity and other diversity and inclusion progress
  • Assist in identifying diversity and inclusion matters of interest

Institutional Diversity & Inclusion Collaborative (IDIC)

  • Faculty, staff, administrator and student representatives from diversity-related offices or organizations: Affinity groups leaders, Center heads, Department and organization representatives, Committees and subcommittees designees, Work or resource groups representatives and Council representatives

Provost’s Committee on Inclusive Excellence &Diversity

  • Responsible for providing advisory guidance and recommendations for action to senior leadership
  • Consists of university administrators, faculty, students, and staff uniquely positioned to influence, impact, and implement strategies by virtue of their roles within the institution
  • Nominated in March/April 2013 by Vice Chancellors, Vice Provosts, Deans, Unit Heads and other Campus Stakeholders
  • Divided into topical workgroups determined by institutional diversity data

Areas of Emphasis

  • Underrepresented student success
  • Faculty diversity recruitment retention and success
  • Diversity climate strategy assessment and metrics
  • Latina/o Focus 20/20
  • Women and minorities in STEM
  • Intergroup dialog

Adjusted IDIC “Ramping Up” Timeline

  • Initial convening: February 2013
  • Spring follow-up meeting: March 2013
  • Fall kick-off: August 2013

Adjusted PCIED “Ramping Up” Timeline

  • Nomination process begins: March/April 2013
  • Initial charge given: April 2013
  • Workgroup activity begins: August 2013

Appendix E: Statement of the Athletics Reform Group

Student participation in competitive sports is a valued and valuable experience, and few deny that sport will always have a place at universities.  But after three years of scandal and controversy related to our University’s athletic program, it is incumbent upon UNC-CH faculty, students, and administrators to debate openly and honestly the University’s commitment to NCAA Division-I competition. We call for a multi-year, broad-ranging agenda of town hall meetings, to begin this March, between the faculty, students, athletic department administrators, and University leadership.  We must restore faith on campus, across the state, and around the country that our University operates an athletic enterprise that is just, honest and in line with the academic ideals and standards of UNC-Chapel Hill.

For its part, and following its “Statement of Principles” of 2012, the Athletics Reform Group (ARG) also asserts:

Honesty means:
a) acknowledging openly what the current collegiate model of athletics denies athletes (the moral autonomy afforded other adults),
b) admitting that their ability to generate wins and revenue is the prime ‘special talent’ that leads the University to accept academically challenged students,
c) admitting that the admission of under-prepared but “profit-generating” athletes poses huge challenges and may compromise the moral integrity of the University, and
d) admitting that the concern for player eligibility and team APR scores creates pressures that subordinate educational choices to institutional needs and threaten academic standards.

Justice means:

Compensating athletes for their contributions to Carolina in the best way we can.  Within a system that denies salaries to the athletes whose athletic talents fuel the current collegiate model of athletics, the University needs to ensure that the education delivered to its admitted athletes—and their equal and open access to it—measures up to what all Carolina students expect.

In line with University standards means:

a) using transparent and published standards of admission in evaluation of applicants and recruits

b) referring to academic expectations of this campus for appraising the suitability of league expansion, travel commitments, practice time commitments, and other obligations that may affect the academic performance of athletes.

The ARG offers the following specific changes as examples of reforms that would be consistent with the above-stated principles:

1) Guarantee athletes their rights of due process, and promptly provide funding for independent legal counsel to any athlete accused of wrongdoing by UNC or the NCAA.

2) Fulfill the now several year-old commitment to increase the number of literacy and learning specialists available to help under-prepared athletes.

3) End weeknight football games.

This document was drafted and/or endorsed by:

E. W. Brooks
Rudi Colloredo-Mansfeld
Richard Cramer
W. Miles Fetcher
Wayne Lee
Lewis Margolis
Jay M. Smith
Richard Southall
Silvia Tomášková
Jonathan Weiler
Mary Willingham

All of the ARG.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email