February 8, 2013 - Faculty Governance

Meeting of the Faculty Council

Friday, February 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

3:20 Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

Provost Bruce Carney

3:30 Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period

Prof. Jan Boxill

3:45 Faculty Code Amendments: Second Reading

Presented by Prof. Joe Ferrell, Secretary of the Faculty, for University Government Committee
Resolution 2013-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Change the Functions of Division and Divisional Officers in the College of Arts and Sciences, and Update the Composition of the Divisions
Resolution 2013-3. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Clarify Term Limits for Elective Committees

3:50 Strategic Plan Updates and Faculty Executive Committee Resolutions

Provost Bruce Carney and Prof. Jan Boxill
Resolution 2013-4. On Support for the UNC Faculty Assembly’s Response to the Draft Strategic Plan (Passed by Faculty Executive Committee, 1/28/2013)
Resolution 2013-5. On Endorsing Resolutions of the UNC Faculty Assembly in Response to the UNC Strategic Planning Process (Passed by Faculty Executive Committee, 1/28/2013)

4:10 Standing Committee Annual Reports

Committee on Undergraduate Admissions Annual Report
- Prof. Bobbi Owen, Chair
- Mr. Steve Farmer, Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admissions
- Dean Owen’s PowerPoint

Faculty Information Technology Committee Annual Report
- Prof. Anselmo Lastra, Chair

4:40 Faculty Athletics Committee: Regular Update

Prof. Joy Renner, Chair
Prof. Renner’s PowerPoint

4:50 Open Discussion

5:00 Adjourn

Minutes

Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened February 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 62 Council members attended: Bachenheimer, Balaban, Baumgartner, Bhardwaj, Boulton, Boxill, Bulik, Bunch, Cavin, Chambers, Champagne, Chenault, Chera, Cohen, Copenhaver, DeSaix, Eaker-Rich, Earp, Engel, Ferrell, Friga, Garbin, Gerhardt, Grabowski, Hill, Hodges, Houck, Howes, Jones, Joyner, Kang, Koomen, Kramer, Leonard, Linden, Lund, Maffly-Kipp, Mayer-Davis, McMillan, Milano, Miller, Moon, Moracco, Moreton, Olcott, O’Shaughnessey, Parise, Parreiras, Patel, Persky, Pertsova, Reiter, Renner, Rodgers, Schoenbach, Swogger, Thorp, Toews, Waterhouse, H. Watson, R. Watson and Webster-Cyriaque.

The following 30 Council members had excused absences: Boettiger Cooney, Brice, Chapman, Chen, Collier, Gallippi, Gilland, Guskiewicz, Hackman, Heenan, Heitsch, Hess, Hirsch, Hsu, Ives, Kurtz-Costes, Lee, Mayer, Miller, Nelson, Palmer, Parker, Paul, Shields, Spagnoli, Stenberg, Steponaitis, Stewart, Wang, 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 Holden Thorp updated the council on the Board of Governor’s Academic Review Panel. The panel has finalized its report and made it public. They reviewed previous investigations, have accepted the findings of the investigations that we initiated, and have validated the plans we have set in motion for the future. The panel agreed that there would always be unanswered questions of what transpired over the previous 16 years. He said the next step is to follow the recommendations by the Faculty Executive Committee’s subcommittee and to continue the discussion about the challenge of balancing athletics and academics. The university has invited Dr. Hunter Rawlings, President of the Association of American Universities, to put together a panel to host a discussion about the role of intercollegiate athletics in higher education.

After hearing about the recent complaint regarding the handling of sexual assault cases, the chancellor said that he contacted Dr. Biddy Martin, the President of Amherst College, who recommended consulting Gina Smith, who is a legal expert on best practices for handling sexual assault cases. Ms. Smith visited the campus this week and met with Student Affairs staff and the University Counsel and held an open meeting at the Campus Y. The meeting was well attended by students and faculty. The chancellor said that he is glad that awareness is being raised, and he welcomes the opportunity for change. He said that having public conversations is an important step for bringing about positive changes.

The chancellor also noted that Vice Chancellor Winston Crisp has hired Ew Quimbaya-Winship for the new position of Deputy Title IX Officer. The position is mandated by a “dear colleague letter” sent from the Department of Education in April 2011. Quimbaya-Winship will begin in March.

Prof. Cynthia Bulik (Psychiatry) thanked the chancellor for talking about sexual assault. She pointed out that UNC seems to have an increase in violence against female students and she cited Eve Carson, Faith Hedgepeth and Danielle Jameson as recent examples. She believes that we may be getting more desensitized to violence against students. She emphasized the need to have broader conversation about the safety of our female students and to not become desensitized.

The chancellor said that he agrees and believes that faculty should stay engaged in these conversations.

Prof. Victor Schoenbach (Epidemiology) suggested that indicators of student well-being should be publicized on a website where they are accessible to the university community. The chancellor said the university will be improving resources on the web for sexual assault. He thinks this will be a good opportunity to add additional resources.

Prof. Thomas Linden (Journalism) expressed concern about Gov. Pat McCrory’s remarks about the role of public education as it relates to jobs. He is concerned that the governor is devaluing the humanities and liberal arts. He asked what the university is going to do to defend our academic mission and the value of all disciplines. The chancellor said he agrees that the preservation of liberal arts education is our most important objective. He suggested that faculty continue to write op-eds and talk to people. He believes that the faculty have made it clear what their views are concerning liberal arts education. He asked Prof. Linden what other type of statement should be made. Prof. Linden responded that Faculty Council should make a statement collectively. The chancellor replied that the council is welcome to make a statement and if they do he will vote for it.

Prof. Frank Baumgartner (Political Science) returned to the previous topic of violence against female students. Based on discussions with students, he believes the legacy of UNC-Chapel Hill as a predominately male university has created an environment that does not fully incorporate female students. He said that some female students will not take classes at night and make educational decisions based on safety concerns. He believes that the university should take national leadership on reforming sexual assault policies and making the university safer for female students. The chancellor agreed with Prof. Baumgartner and said that he hopes the measures he has taken so far show how important the issue is and that he takes it seriously.

Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

Provost Bruce Carney addressed Prof. Linden’s previous point about the importance of humanities. He pointed to the fact 36% of students admitted to the School of Law have undergraduate degrees in the humanities as an example of the value of humanistic studies. He said it is clear to him that humanities graduates make important contributions to society.

Provost Carney said that he recently received data on retention and graduation rates from General Administration. He reported that the goal set for undergraduates entering in 2008 was to graduate 75% in four years. The actual rate of students graduating was 80.4%. For the 2006 graduating class, the goal was to graduate 84% of those students in six years. The actual rate was 89.2%. He said that over time we have seen an improvement in graduation rates.

Provost Carney mentioned the salary equity study that was started two years ago and sent back to deans and department chairs for feedback. He reported that 11 of 13 schools have responded so far to requests for comments on the data. He said the Provost’s Office will again review the data alongside the feedback they received.

On the topic of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), the provost reported that several class proposals will be moving forward and the MOOC task force is in discussions with MOOC providers.

There were no questions for the provost.

Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period

Prof. Jan Boxill (Philosophy) briefly announced the upcoming faculty elections and thanked the faculty for filling out the faculty interest survey. She said the work of the Chancellor’s Search Committee has been going well, but that she was unable to give any details.

Prof. Boxill recalled that the Strategic Plan has been adopted by the Board of Governors, and she emphasized that this is an important time for faculty to be engaged, especially during the plan’s implementation. She said that the Governor McCrory’s recent remarks about liberal arts education on Bill Bennett’s radio show are troubling, but she encouraged faculty to listen to the interview in its entirety. She noted that many faculty have written letters to editor and placed calls to the governor, and that the Faculty Executive Committee has written an open letter to Gov. McCrory inviting him to campus to meet with the faculty. She explained that the Faculty Executive Committee debated whether to draft a resolution for adoption by the Faculty Council or to write a letter from the Faculty Executive Committee and decided on the latter.

Prof. Boxill expressed concern about the complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education that alleges violations of Title IX’s provisions concerning sexual harassment of women students. She said that the complaint has not yet been made public, but the issues are serious. She reminded the faculty that there are many resources available. She encouraged the faculty to attend HAVEN trainings sponsored by UNC Counseling and Wellness Services and to reference resources on safe.unc.edu. Prof. Boxill said that the movement of sexual assault cases from the jurisdiction of the Honor System has created confusion about how such offenses are currently handled. She plans to invite the new Deputy Title IX Officer Ew Quimbaya-Winship to meet the Faculty Council after he starts at the university. At next month’s Faculty Council meeting, the Faculty Executive Committee will present a resolution asking the council to join the Employee Forum in recognizing Sexual Assault Awareness Month and to bring greater attention to the issue of sexual assault in general.

Prof. Boxill said that Baker Tilly issued a clarification about the report’s findings, which was circulated as a handout to the council (Appendix A). The clarification stated that the nature of the Faculty Athletics Committee discussion in 2002 about independent study courses is unclear. She said that the Martin report has been criticized for not answering all the possible questions about the independent study courses, but the Board of Governor’s report found that the Martin Report provided more information than was previously available. The Board of Governors said that while there are many questions still unanswered, it is unlikely that we will be able to answer them all. The Board of Governors expressed confidence in the controls that have been put in place to prevent future academic fraud from occurring.

Prof. Boxill said that she wishes to move forward from the past and hopes that the campus can begin having a broader discussion about the future of intercollegiate athletics.

Prof. Boxill called on Prof. Lloyd Kramer (History) to make a statement.

Prof. Kramer circulated a statement (Appendix B) expressing concern that the Martin report misrepresented the Faculty Athletics Committee and misapplied the concept of academic freedom. He explained that while he would like to move on, he believes it is important to correct the historical record and clarify the details of the report since faculty were not consulted or interviewed when the report was drafted.

Prof. Kramer said that as faculty work is increasingly publicly scrutinized, the concept of academic freedom is being questioned. He insisted that academic freedom must be defended and that the voice and perspectives of the faculty must be included in public discussions. He pointed out that faculty have recently been excluded from the strategic planning process and the Martin report. He asked that his statement be entered permanently in the record.

Prof. Harry Watson (History) thanked Prof. Kramer for bringing attention to the issue. He said that the bigger issue still looms. He referenced a recent op-ed in The New York Times that claims a Carolina student-athlete was steered into a major because the classes fit with his football practice schedule. He asked how the administration will respond to this new information and how it impacts the finding that the fraudulent courses represent an academics issue and not an athletics issue.

Prof. Boxill reiterated that the balance between athletics and academics is a university-wide issue, not an academic or athletic problem. She said that Prof. Kramer’s statement is addressing a specific issue. On the other issues, faculty and athletics are working together to implement new policy changes and hiring a new director of the Academic Support Center.

The chancellor said he understands Prof. Watson’s point, but two years have gone by and now we have to move on. He said he is glad that Prof. Kramer made a statement. He reminded the faculty that the report was independently conducted and that the university is trying to get to place where we can address the broader questions about intercollegiate athletics.

Committee on University Government and Faculty Executive Committee Resolutions

Prof. Joe Ferrell (Government) presented a second reading of Resolution 2013-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Change the Functions of Division and Divisional Officers in the College of Arts and Sciences, and Update the Composition of the Divisions on behalf of the Committee on University Government (Appendix C). He explained that the resolution would bring the Faculty Code into alignment with current practice. There was no discussion or debate. The resolution was adopted and will be enrolled.

Prof. Joe Ferrell (Government) presented a second reading of Resolution 2013-3. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Clarify Term Limits for Elective Committees on behalf of the Committee on University Government (Appendix D). He explained that the resolution will allow a faculty member who was appointed to fill a vacancy on an elective committee for less than two years to be subsequently elected two consecutive full terms. This amendment clarifies an ambiguity in the Faculty Code. There was no discussion or debate. The resolution was adopted and will be enrolled.

Prof. Ferrell explained that the Faculty Executive Committee is empowered to act on behalf of the faculty when the Faculty Council is unable to act in time. He reported that the Faculty Executive Committee has endorsed two resolutions regarding the Strategic Plan that will be enrolled as Resolution 2013-4. On Support for the UNC Faculty Assembly’s Response to the Draft Strategic Plan (Appendix E) and Resolution 2013-5. On Endorsing Resolutions of the UNC Faculty Assembly in Response to the UNC Strategic Planning Process (Appendix F).

Strategic Plan Updates

Prof. Boxill said that since the adoption of the strategic plan, she has met with Prof. Hans Kellner, Chair of the Faculty at NC State, to discuss the possibility of creating joint task forces on issues that are of concern to the faculty. She said some of those items of concern are: assessment, e-learning, core competencies, and community college articulation agreements.

The provost said that when he first read the strategic plan draft he was upset by some of the recommendations, but upon later readings he said he found that there are many positive recommendations. He said that there are still a lot of important items that are missing from the plan. He thinks some of the positive items are the goals of setting ambitious degree attainment measures, better serving the state, strengthening academic quality and ensuring a financially stable university system.

Provost Carney said that the plan presents some opportunities for the university to participate in discussions about e-learning, maintaining lower tuition, encouraging global engagement, and expanding research in specific areas. He said that learning assessments will most likely be instituted and he plans to consult with deans and administrators at NC State to see how we can get involved in shaping the implementation. Provost Carney said that the decision to institute core competencies in general education alarms him, and he believes we should be careful that this item does not affect our accreditation or the diversity of course and program offerings.

The provost said that the maximizing efficiencies section initially worried him. He said he believes that measures of efficiency differ from campus to campus and that if a lower performing campus needs help, that campus should be able to look to other higher performing campuses for help. On the topic of active portfolio management, the provost said he is not clear on what that item will entail.

The provost said that the main item that was missing from the strategic plan is financial aid. He said it is the greatest hallmark of helping students succeed and graduate in four years. He said we can graduate more students if we focus on getting them through in four years rather than six years.

Prof. Beth Mayer-Davis (Public Health) said that she thought it was odd that there are five specific areas outlined for research funding. The chancellor replied that the research section of the plan was put together in haste. He said that it shows the areas that some people on the strategic directions

Prof. Mayer-Davis asked if will affect funding for other areas. The chancellor responded that he does not know, but it may make it easier to get proposals for funding for those specific areas. He said there has not been much money available in fund proposals in the next few years.

The chancellor said he met with the Faculty Executive Committee and the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee and he emphasized that if curricular changes are going to be made, the faculty will have to approve the changes for accreditation purposes. He said he emphasized this in his discussions with General Administration and he has sent excerpts from the SACs handbook to General Administration.

Prof. Paul Friga (School of Business) said that he takes seriously Prof. Mayer-Davis’ question, and he is still concerned that the allocation of funds for specific programs will make it harder to request funds for other programs. The chancellor replied that it is sometimes easier to get money for projects in the strategic plan, but it does not prohibit requests for funds for projects not in the plan. In the past, the university has asked successfully for items not in the plan, but it has been easier to argue for funds for items that are included in the strategic plan. Prof. asked if it is too late to provide input. The chancellor replied that the faculty need to get energized and continue thinking about the big issues facing higher education. The he said we need a vigorous discussion.

Prof. Steven Bachenheimer (Microbiology and Immunology) asked about the connection between MOOCs and the e-learning language in the strategic plan. The chancellor said that enterprising faculty will figure out ways to find money and adapt. He said that as long as the faculty controls the curriculum and research he is optimistic.

Prof. Jan Boxill said that there is a task force already working on eLearning. She would like to augment our task force with faculty from NC State.

Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) suggested that we add colleagues from Duke as well since they have already begun offering MOOCs. Prof. Boxill agreed that adding colleagues from Duke would be a good idea.

Committee on Undergraduate Admissions Annual Report

Senior Associate Dean Bobbi Owen, chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions, explained the charge of the committee and presented the membership roster. She said that students who apply to the university come from a wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances. Applications for admission to the university are up by 5% this year. Dean Owen explained that the committee has subcommittees for applicants with disabilities, special talents, and transfer students. Her full presentation is included in Appendix G.

Prof. Steven Bachenheimer (Microbiology and Immunology) asked Mr. Steve Farmer, Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admissions, how the measures he was working to develop for predicting academic success for incoming students were coming along. Mr. Farmer responded that his office has been working on a formula to predict academic success for several years. They worked with a consultant in the Odum Institute and provided him with data to come up with a way of better predicting performance. They came up with a first year G.P.A. of a 2.3 as an indicator. If a student has below a 2.3 G.P.A. in their first year, they come before a subcommittee because they are considered at risk for not completing their degree.

Faculty Information Technology Committee Annual Report

Prof. Anselmo Lastra (Computer Science), chair of the Faculty Information Technology Advisory Committee, discussed two issues the committee has been working on over the past year: the campus firewall plan and changes to ONYEN password expiration time periods. He explained that the university is considering a campus firewall plan that would that would adopt a firewall to block incoming security threats, while allowing traffic to freely go out from campus. The committee has also discussed a plan with ITS to allow ONYEN passwords to expire in a year rather than 90 days, with the requirement that ONYEN passwords be more complex and contain more characters and numbers than the current requirement. He said that change is based on a research project in which his colleagues in Computer Science used 7,700 expired ONYENs to see how easy it would be to guess the passwords. They found that if they could guess a user’s previous password, 40% of the time they could guess the succeeding one. They found that people only change one or two letters or numbers and reuse old passwords, which creates a security concern. The change to ONYEN password expiration times will occur in six to eight months after coding changes are made. The committee plans to continue to discuss and clarify policies regarding FERPA and computer security.

Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) asked how he could access student information for writing letters of recommendation. He suggested that there be a way to access student records through the Registrar’s Office so that he does not have to save information on a laptop. Prof. Lastra suggested that he access the information from a secure server so he does not have it on his laptop.

Faculty Athletics Committee: Regular Update

Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health), chair of the Faculty Athletics Committee, presented the regular update on the activities of the Faculty Athletics Committee. She explained that over the past month, the committee has reviewed records with regard to admissions for student-athletes. Her full presentation is included in Appendix H.

Prof. Steven Bachenheimer (Microbiology and Immunology) commented that many faculty are concerned about the overlap between academic advising and the academic support program counselors. He asked Prof. Renner to clarify the roles of counselors and advisors in course planning. Prof. Renner responded that the collaboration is just beginning and once the new director of the academic support program is selected, they will work on this issue.

Dr. Lee May, Associate Dean and Director of Academic Advising, said that the primary purpose of academic advising is help students with course planning, but student-athletes often see counselors more frequently so they go to them for advice. The counselors are more familiar with NCAA rules.

Dean Bobbi Owen said that counselors used to have course advising in their job descriptions, but that has been slowly changing.

Prof. Paul Friga asked how our admissions data and practices compare to peer institutions. Prof. Renner responded that she plans to gather that data, but said that UNC-CH has one of the best practices in the country for admitting student-athletes.

Prof. Tim McMillan (African and Afro-American Studies) asked how many of the student-athletes who go before the committee are actually admitted. Mr. Farmer responded that not all special admits go to the committee. The athletics department carefully considers which applicants it decides to brings to the subcommittee. He said this year four or five candidates were passed on because of their academic record and the athletics department withdrew those candidates.

Adjournment

Having completed its business, the Faculty Council adjourned at 5:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty

Appendix A: Academic Anomalies Review Clarification regarding Faculty Athletic Committee References in Martin Report

February 5, 2013

Prepared by James G. Martin, Ph.D., Former Governor of North Carolina

Assisted by Baker Tilly

This clarification relates to the references to the Faculty Athletic Committee (FAC) that were made in the December 19, 2012, Academic Anomalies Review Report of Findings, prepared by James G. Martin, Ph.D., former Governor of North Carolina, assisted by Baker Tilly. While it was not the foundation of our conclusions, we wish to clarify what we said in our report regarding communications within the Faculty Athletic Committee regarding independent study and student-athletes.

In our report, and in any remarks that have been made about it, there has been no intent to imply that the FAC or its members were aware of the now-known issues prior to initial reports of academic anomalies discovered in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies (the Department). At the time that meeting minutes reflect that the FAC discussed student-athletes’ involvement in independent study, no one understood the true nature and volume of courses

that are now known as anomalous, and certainly no one suspected the occurrence of academic misconduct in one department.

Our report does not say that the Faculty Athletic Committee knew about “bogus” classes. We said in our report that, in hindsight, an interchange regarding student-athlete participation in independent study may have represented a missed opportunity for inquiring further into the offerings of the Department, but that was easy to say in hindsight, and was not in any way intended to place blame on the Faculty Athletic Committee.

References to communications with the FAC in our full report represent valid accounts of what we heard from more than one witness. To corroborate interviews, we partially relied on the Report of the Special Subcommittee of the Faculty Executive Committee, July 26, 2012, which noted the following: “Further, athletic counselors have been discouraged from contacting faculty or questioning decisions about pedagogy. For example, in 2002 Robert Mercer and John Blanchard met with the FAC to discuss the teaching of IS courses, and were told that faculty members have great latitude to teach courses as they see fit.”

We did not interview all FAC members. We referenced meeting minutes to evidence that topics were discussed. Meeting minutes are intended to capture actions of a convening body, not to be fully representative of all aspects of a discussion, so we considered additional corroborating accounts. Memories fade over time.

Ultimately, related to FAC communications, we anticipate that what was said, or not, when, and by whom will not be determined with certainty. We expected that the possibility that certain conversations occurred would be of interest, so we reported it. But FAC-related communications were not the basis of our conclusions and, therefore, this clarification in no way impacts the conclusions of our review.

Appendix B: Statement on the Characterization of the Actions of the Faculty Athletics Committee in the Martin Report

Submitted by Lloyd Kramer (Member of the Faculty Athletics Committee in 2003-07)

At the meeting of the Faculty Council on January 11, 2013, I expressed a concern that the Martin Report on “Academic Anomalies” had misrepresented the actions of the Faculty Athletics Committee (FAC); and I pointed out that the Report seemed to question the faculty’s academic integrity as it described a “misapplication” of the principle of academic freedom. In response to these comments, the Chair of the Faculty proposed that I write a statement about my concerns and about my memory of the FAC deliberations during the years in which I was a member of the committee.

I therefore conferred with other elected faculty members with whom I served on the committee in 2006-07. The following colleagues collaborated in reviewing and revising a summary of concerns, and all agreed that the statement and comments below conform with their memories and with their interpretations of the minutes from the relevant FAC meetings: Kathleen Harris, George Lensing, Mary Lynn, Steve Reznick, Desmond Runyan, Rachel Willis, Barbara Wildemuth.

Statement: The Martin Report on “Academic Anomalies” mischaracterizes the actions of the Faculty Athletics Committee (FAC). The abuses that the Report rightly condemns were not condoned by the FAC, and the principle of academic freedom was not used to justify academic misconduct.

Comments: This statement seeks to clarify the record of actions by the Faculty Athletics Committee (FAC), and it grows out of several concerns about the Martin Report’s account of FAC deliberations:

(1) The Report’s discussion of the FAC is not based on interviews with the elected faculty members who served on the Athletics Committee during 2002 or 2006; in fact, none of the elected faculty representatives were interviewed or asked to make statements for the Report.

(2) There is no evidence in the minutes of the Athletics Committee and elected faculty representatives (listed above) do not remember Committee deliberations to support the claims of the Martin Report that:

(1) Concerns about “term paper courses” were taken to the FAC, evidently in 2006 (p. 8).

(2) “Questions were brought forth… in 2002 and 2006 related to the construct of certain courses offered to students (including student-athletes)” (p. 22).

(3) “Athletics administrators brought to the attention of the Faculty Athletic Committee (FAC) in 2002 and 2006 their questions about trends related to the frequency of student-athletes’ earning credit through independent study course sections.” (p. 52)

(4) “Athletics administrators in 2006 raised a general question to the FAC regarding the propriety of lecture courses that were being taught in an independent study format.” (p. 52)

(5) When the FAC was allegedly informed that “lecture courses were being taught in an independent study format,” the FAC responded “that it was incumbent upon each instructor of record to determine how to teach his/her own course” (p. 8).

(6) The FAC, in providing this alleged guidance to Athletics administrators, was guilty of the “misapplication of the concept of academic freedom.” (p. 53)

(7) “On two occasions (in 2002 and 2006) leaders of Academic Support for Student Athletes brought to the Faculty Athletics Committee their concerns about students taking nominally lecture courses that did not meet and only required one 20 page term paper, and other forms of questionable independent study…. [And] these concerns were dismissed with reassurances that instructors had wide latitude [on] how to teach a course.” (p. 72, appendix c)

These assertions are not supported by the evidence of the FAC meeting minutes. The minutes from 2002 show discussion of the general rate of student–athlete participation in independent studies courses, and a comparison of that rate with the rate shown by non-student-athletes. But there is no evidence that issues about course content or pedagogy were “brought to the attention of the FAC,” and there is no description of reported concerns about courses offered in suspect formats.

The 2006-07 minutes note only that the FAC “has an interest in receiving current information” with regard to “student-athlete registrations in independent study courses,” but there is no evidence that such reports were later provided. Indeed, the minutes show:

No references to questions that were reportedly raised by Athletics department officials about the “propriety” of course designs;
No evidence that the concept of the “term paper lecture course” was ever broached;
No evidence that the FAC ever invoked “academic freedom” in defense of questionable pedagogy or unusual “lecture courses”; and
No evidence that the FAC received warnings about courses flagged for its review or affirmed the propriety of such courses.

The minutes thus fail to substantiate the Martin Report’s summary of the meetings of the Faculty Athletics Committee; and elected faculty colleagues do not remember discussions or actions that would corroborate the Report’s account of FAC deliberations.

Finally, it should be acknowledged that the authors of the Martin Report have recently issued a “clarification,” which affirms that there was no intention “to place blame” for academic misconduct on the FAC; but this clarification does not specifically address the alleged FAC actions that are listed above.

The present statement and accompanying comments are therefore submitted to provide a never-requested faculty contribution to the process of clarification and to the written record of historical memories.

February 8, 2013

Appendix C: Resolution 2013-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Change the Functions of Division and Divisional Officers in the College of Arts and Sciences, and Update the Composition of the Divisions on behalf of the Committee on University Government

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 Gender Studies.

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 permanent tenure;

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 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.

§ 8-3. Arts and Sciences Advisory Committee.

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.

§ 8-4. Divisional faculties.

(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.

Appendix D: Resolution 2013-3. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Clarify Term Limits for Elective Committees on behalf of the Committee on University Government

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

members;

2) unless otherwise specified in this Article, members serve for staggered terms of three

years;

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 faculty;

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.

Appendix E: Resolution 2013-4 On Support for the UNC Faculty Assembly’s Response to the Draft Strategic Plan.

Resolved,

The Faculty Executive Committee, acting on behalf of the Faculty Council pursuant to Section 2-10(d)(2) of the Faculty Code of University Government, expresses its support for the UNC Faculty Assembly’s response and request for revisions to the draft Strategic Plan, “Our Time, Our Future,” which is currently in preparation for presentation to the UNC Board of Governors.

We appreciate the urgency with which the Strategic Plan preparation process has been conducted, and while we would have preferred a more exhaustive and robust consideration of the issues facing the University, we understand the value of preparing a timely and clear account of the University’s aspirations and goals for public higher education in North Carolina. We hope these efforts will help the people and legislative representatives of North Carolina make the most effective and efficient use of the resources their University offers.

The “Five Goals” of the Plan – degree attainment, academic quality, serving the state, realizing resource efficiencies, ensuring accessibility and stability – represent a thoughtful and well considered understanding of realistic and achievable objectives. The realization of those goals, informed by rigorous supporting evidence, transparent accountability, and clear implementation paths, is also well conceived. Our intention is to assist, in any and every way we can, in the promotion of these ideals.

To this end, there are a number of especially critical areas of concern where, we believe, the Strategic Plan could be significantly strengthened:

The unique capabilities and missions of the University’s constituent institutions are inadequately acknowledged, and the special contribution those institutions can make to the realization of the Plan’s goals should be more fully developed.
The full potential of faculty expertise in determining the substance of curricular content, the management of instructional delivery, and the governance of University institutions, is insufficiently utilized.
The usefulness of intellectual and disciplinary diversity in promoting creativity, innovation, and civic well-being should be the fulcrum, not a secondary or derivative consideration, in conceptualizing the University’s public mission.

Measures of accountability ought to be more rigorous, more robust, and more usefully informative about student achievement and learning outcomes, and faculty productivity.
Policy directed at the use of information technology for instructional delivery needs to be more carefully crafted in consideration of extant research and evidence.
The important role of post – baccalaureate education in sustaining academic excellence must be given the emphasis that it deserves.

Many of the specific reservations and recommendations embodied in the Faculty Assembly’s Response to the Strategic Plan draft speak more or less directly to these broad concerns. We believe that accommodating those recommendations, and addressing those reservations, would augment the University’s capacity to realize the ideals of the Strategic Plan. The friendly amendments this would require are relatively straightforward. We encourage the Strategic Directions Committee to incorporate the principles and proposals enumerated in the UNC Faculty Assembly Response as part of the Strategic Plan, “Our Time, Our Future.”

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution of the Faculty Executive Committee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, adopted Monday, January 28, 2013.

Secretary of the Faculty

Joseph Ferrell

Appendix F: Resolution 2013-5. On Endorsing Resolutions of the UNC Faculty Assembly in Response to the UNC Strategic Planning Process

Resolved,

The Faculty Executive Committee, acting on behalf of the Faculty Council pursuant to Section 2-10(d)(2) of the Faculty Code of University Government, fully endorses the following resolutions of the UNC Faculty Assembly:

Resolution 2013-01 In Response to the January 16, 2013, Draft Strategic Plan;

Resolution 2013-02 On Faculty Responsibility for Assessment; and

Resolution 2013-03 On Concerns With e-Learning as Presented in the Draft Strategic Plan.

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution of the Faculty Executive Committee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, adopted Monday, January 28, 2013.

Secretary of the Faculty

Joseph Ferrell

Appendix G: Committee on Undergraduate Admissions Annual Report Power Point

Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions 2011-2012 Report

Bobbi Owen, Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education, College of Arts and Sciences and Michael R. McVaugh Distinguished Professor, Department of Dramatic Art

Charge

The committee, appointed by the Chancellor, serves in an advisory capacity to the director of undergraduate admissions. In particular, it addresses the design and application of admissions policy, recommends guidelines for special talent and exceptional admissions, and monitors and responds to the national college admissions environment.

The committee meets at least once each semester or more on call of the chair. The chair calls a meeting whenever requested by the director of undergraduate admissions. (Faculty Code 4-24.b-c)

Membership

Dean of the Arts and Sciences (or designee) as chair
Associate dean for academic advising
Two other academic deans from outside Arts and Sciences
Seven faculty members engaged in undergraduate instruction, with at least five holding primary appointments in Arts and Sciences
University registrar, director of undergraduate admissions, vice chancellor for student affairs (ex officio and non-voting) Faculty Code 4-24.a

Members, 2011-2012

Chair: Bobbi Owen
Advising: Lee May
Deans: Gary Marchionini, Information and Library Science and William McDiarmid, Education
Faculty: Paul Cuadros (Journalism and Mass Communication), Reginald Hildebrand (Arts and Sciences), Tim Marr (Arts and Sciences), Layna Mosley (Arts and Sciences), Mitch Prinstein (Arts and Sciences), José A. Rial (Arts and Sciences), and Jennifer L. Smith (Arts and Sciences)

Members 2012-2013

Chair: Bobbi Owen
Advising: Lee May
Deans: Gary Marchionini, Information and Library Science and William McDiarmid, Education
Faculty: Sabrina Burmeister (Arts and Sciences), Jon Engel (Arts and Sciences), Paul Cuadros (Journalism and Mass Communication), Reginald Hildebrand (Arts and Sciences), Tim Marr (Arts and Sciences), Layna Mosley (Arts and Sciences), and Jennifer L. Smith (Arts and Sciences)

Subcommittee on Disabilities

Advises on the admission of students who disclose disabilities
Educates about disabilities and their likely impact on students’ academic and extracurricular performance
Advises about individual candidates who voluntarily disclose disabilities and provide documentation
Evaluates appeals of admissions decisions lodged by candidates who have disclosed disabilities
Consists of at least three ex officio members

Subcommittee on Special Talent

Advises on the admission of students recruited by programs that require special talents—currently athletics, dramatic art, music
Recommends admissions policies that are consistent with University mission and policies
Establishes procedures that maintain academic integrity, respect the competitiveness of admission, recognize the contributions of talented students, and encourage the success of those who enroll
Evaluates prospective special-talent students who meet any of several criteria
Consists of at least six voting members, the majority of whom are tenured or tenure-track faculty members in Arts and Sciences

Subcommittee on Transfer Students

Develops strategies to enhance the experience of transfer students, and especially their retention and graduation rates
Focuses on the needs of students from recruitment through graduation, with a special emphasis on the needs of those who transfer as juniors
Expands programming and services, including advising, orientation, and evaluation of transfer credit
Increases participation in learning opportunities outside the classroom
Consists of thirteen members appointed by the chair of the Advisory Committee

Activities 2011-2012

Met with and offered advice to faculty chairs of the Academic Plan Implementation Committee
Discussed the strategic plan for the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes
Reviewed and approved guidelines for the use of standardized testing in admissions
Reviewed the minimum admissions requirements for UNC-system universities scheduled to take effect for Fall 2013
Discussed the appeals policy
Received reports and statistics

Activities 2012-2013

Discussed the profile of the entering class
Advised the admissions office about draft priorities
Reviewed the findings of an admissions office-Odum Institute study of the association between college-level courses in high school and first-year academic performance at the University
Reviewed and revised the charges of the three subcommittees
Discussed Fisher vs. Texas and possible race-neutral alternatives in the evaluation of candidates
Still to come: advising the admissions office about goals for the next three to five years; implementing findings of college-level course study; learning about need- and merit-based aid

Appendix H: Faculty Athletics Committee Regular Update

Admissions

Information/Education Phase
Discussions – 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 handouts with additional statistics provided at second session

Admissions

Athletics is permitted to recommend up to 160 first-year students for admission
Covered under the “special talent” clause which provides for students “who give evidence of possessing special talents for University programs requiring such special talents.” (same clause covers Departments of Music and Dramatic Art)

Admissions – Reviewed by Subcommittee

The # of students is relatively small and has generally been trending downwards over time.
2013 – expected # is 16 – down from 23 in each of the last two years, using the current criteria;
Down from 30, using the previous lower thresholds, in 2001
Down from the middle 30s in the 1990s
Of the 16 this year, all have predicted first-year grade-point averages above 2.0.

Admissions

Complex review of applicants for potential for success
Seven most recent cohorts enrolling at UNC six or more years ago, the six-year graduation rate was 56% with another 25% either still enrolled or left the University with cumulative grade-point averages of 2.0 or higher.
Reviewing past practices to learn about the success or failure of previous students to inform the current decisions

Admissions

Subcommittee working with the Athletics Department and the Academic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA)
Improving academic profile of the 160 admitted athletes

Admissions

Three groups: 1) predicted first-year GPAs below 2.3, along with any others who require review by the subcommittee; 2) predicted GPAs between 2.3 and 2.6; 3) predicted GPAs of 2.6 or higher.
Over the last six years – Half of the students were in the first two groups combined and the other half in the third group.
Working with athletics to reduce the share in the first two groups and increase the share in the third. (this plan is consistent with the athletics dept’s new strategic plan)

Admissions

Literacy skills question
Fall 2012 First-year class included 26 students who scored below 450 in Critical Reading or below 17 in English.
Of these 26 students, 18 were recruited athletes; the others were not.
The # of students with verbal test scores at these levels has generally trended downward over time, both among all students and among recruited athletes.

Admissions

In 2005, the # of first-year athletes with such scores was 25; 2012 the # was 18; 2013 projected to be 12.

Admissions

The 26 students with scores at this level who enrolled at Carolina last fall have now completed their first full semester.
Sixty-two percent of them, including 56 percent of the recruited athletes, have GPA averages at or above 2.3. The range in the averages is wide: from 0.97 to 3.68 for the non-athletes, and from 1.07 to 3.46 for the athletes.

Admissions – Current Summary

Process in place for improving the academic profile of our entering student athletes
Admissions profile trends moving in the right direction
Plans for more data reporting
At FAC year end – more data to analyze and review in context of other information – student athlete exit data, advising resources, and academic support programs

February – Advising

Topic Experts – Beverly Foster and Eileen Parsons
Information/Education Phase
Lee May, Associate Dean and Director of Academic Advising
Brent Blanton, Associate Director of Student Success and Academic Counseling

Expertise & Collaboration: Serving Student-Athletes

Academic Advising Program
Academic Support Program