Meeting Minutes
ACADEMIC SENATE
April 3, 2017
Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Academic Senate, held on April 3, 2017, was called to order at 3:00
pm by Xan Johnson, Senate President. The meeting was held in the Eccles Institute of Human
Genetics auditorium.
Present: Sarah Hinners, Brenda Scheer, Robert Allen, Alberta Comer, Yongmei Ni, John Funk,
Rajeev Balasubramonian, Chuck Dorval, Sudeep Kanungo, Hanseup Kim,
Ken Monson, John Regehr, Denny Berry, Michael Chikinda, Stacy
Manwaring, Susan Naidu, Nelson Roy, Les Podlog, James Anderson,
Karin Baumgartner, Disa Gambera, Eric Hinderaker, Lex Newman,
Adrian Palmer, David Hill, Tom Lund, Alicia Brillon, Luke Leither, Julie
Barkmeier–Kraemer, Nadia Cobb, Julio Facelli, Per Gesteland, Mia
Hashibe, Katherine Kendall, Nicole L. Mihalopoulos, Ravi Ranjan, Robert
A. Stephenson, Thomas Winter, Ravi Chandran, Paul Jewell, Lauren
Clark, Lynn Hollister, Steve Ott, Donald Blumenthal, Randy Dryer, Joel
Brownstein, Yekaterina Epshten, David Goldenberg, Dmytro Pesin,
Thomas Richmond, John Sperry, Andrejs Treibergs, Adrienne Cachelin,
Korkut Erturk, Duncan Metcalfe, Paul White, Jason Castillo, Mary Beth
Vogel–Ferguson, Joanne Yaffe, Caroline Li, Madison Day, Zach Zundel,
Zach Marquez, Robert Coffman, Rachel Petersen, Carley Herrick, Nathan
Ong, Sabrina Hancock, Jake Knight, Kyndle Pardun, Connor Roach, Jack
Bender, Zoe Tsoutsounis
Absent: Shundana Yusaf, Elena Asparouhova, Brian Cadman, Adam Meirowitz,
Jeff Nielsen, David Plumlee, Todd Zenger, Olga Baker, Mark Durham,
Leticia Alvarez, Xiaoyue Liu, Michael Cottle, Ning Lu, Joe Marotta,
Melonie Murray, Jim Martin, Julie Metos, Nadja Durbach, Avery Holton,
John Bramble, John T. Langell, Antoinette Laskey, Brad Rockwell,
Frederick Strathmann, David Dinter, Andrea Bild, Tommaso de Fernex,
Pearl Sandick, Michael Shapiro, Jennifer Shumaker–Parry, Wade Cole,
Thomas Cova, Baodong Liu, Zhou Yu, Edmund Fong, Lauren Adams,
Edwin Lin, Kevin Yang
Ex Officio: Bill Johnson, Bob Flores, Xan Johnson, Paul Mogren, Margaret Clayton,
David Pershing
Excused with proxy: Sara Simonsen, Linda Tyler, Michael Stapley
Excused: Vivian Lee, Ruth Watkins, Dianne Harris, Mathieu Francoeur, Sean
Lawson, Terry Kogan, Maureen Murtaugh
Others: Chris Bell, Karen Gunning, Heather Sobko
Approval of Minutes:
The minutes dated March 6, 2017 were approved with a motion from Joanne Yaffe and a second
from Jim Anderson.
Consent Calendar:
The current list of appointments and resignations dated April 3, 2017 was approved with a motion by Jim
Anderson and second by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Executive Committee Report
Request for New Business
No new business
Report from Administration:
President Pershing gave an update on the activities of the U administration. He noted that the
legislature passed a 2.5 percent tuition increase for all state universities in Utah (called “tier one”
tuition). The U’s differential tuition request passed as well, which includes the law school’s
request to redo its tuition structure. Fall enrollment requests from students are still strong–
application numbers are up, as is the quality of applicants. In athletics news, the U gymnastics
team won the PAC–12 title, won the sectional meet, and is now off to nationals. Additionally, the
U’s ski team won the NCAA championship. In construction news, the new ski team training
facility will be dedicated soon, the Gardner building construction is well underway, Milton
Bennion Hall is coming down, to be replaced by the Garth building, and the Crocker Science
Center will be opening soon. All of these new buildings will help increase teaching capacity on
campus. Finally, commencement is May 4; Conrad Anker is the speaker, and both he and Gayle
Miller will receive honorary degrees at the ceremony.
Report from ASUU
Jack Bender gave an update on ASUU’s activities. ASUU recently held student elections, and
had its highest voter turnout in the past few years, with approximately 4,400 students
participating in the elections. The new president and assembly members are currently
transitioning into their positions. The U’s spring concert, the Wasatch Music Festival, will be
held on April 21 in the Huntsman Center; Cold War Kids and American Authors will be
performing. Finally, April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and ASUU has teamed up with
the Center for Student Wellness to hold various events throughout the month. More information
can be found at http://wellness.utah.edu/.
Notice of Intent
No items of intent
Debate Calendar
Brenda Bowen and Sarah Hinners presented a proposal for a new Center for Ecological Planning
and Design. This will be a joint center within the Global Sustainability and Change Center and
the College of Architecture and Design. This center was originally under the College of
The minutes dated March 6, 2017 were approved with a motion from Joanne Yaffe and a second
from Jim Anderson.
Consent Calendar:
The current list of appointments and resignations dated April 3, 2017 was approved with a motion by Jim
Anderson and second by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Executive Committee Report
Request for New Business
No new business
Report from Administration:
President Pershing gave an update on the activities of the U administration. He noted that the
legislature passed a 2.5 percent tuition increase for all state universities in Utah (called “tier one”
tuition). The U’s differential tuition request passed as well, which includes the law school’s
request to redo its tuition structure. Fall enrollment requests from students are still strong–
application numbers are up, as is the quality of applicants. In athletics news, the U gymnastics
team won the PAC–12 title, won the sectional meet, and is now off to nationals. Additionally, the
U’s ski team won the NCAA championship. In construction news, the new ski team training
facility will be dedicated soon, the Gardner building construction is well underway, Milton
Bennion Hall is coming down, to be replaced by the Garth building, and the Crocker Science
Center will be opening soon. All of these new buildings will help increase teaching capacity on
campus. Finally, commencement is May 4; Conrad Anker is the speaker, and both he and Gayle
Miller will receive honorary degrees at the ceremony.
Report from ASUU
Jack Bender gave an update on ASUU’s activities. ASUU recently held student elections, and
had its highest voter turnout in the past few years, with approximately 4,400 students
participating in the elections. The new president and assembly members are currently
transitioning into their positions. The U’s spring concert, the Wasatch Music Festival, will be
held on April 21 in the Huntsman Center; Cold War Kids and American Authors will be
performing. Finally, April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and ASUU has teamed up with
the Center for Student Wellness to hold various events throughout the month. More information
can be found at http://wellness.utah.edu/.
Notice of Intent
No items of intent
Debate Calendar
Brenda Bowen and Sarah Hinners presented a proposal for a new Center for Ecological Planning
and Design. This will be a joint center within the Global Sustainability and Change Center and
the College of Architecture and Design. This center was originally under the College of
Architecture + Planning, as the Ecological Planning Center, and has been a provisional center
since 2012. The work of the center involves many fields, such as ecological science, social
science, planning and design, and engineering, and it was looking for more interdisciplinary
partners to further its work. It will now be included under both the CAP and GCSC umbrellas,
and the name will be changed to be inclusive of CAP, as well as other fields, such as
engineering. Motion was made by Randy Dryer to approve the proposal and forward to the
Board of Trustees. Motion seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Steve Alder and Alicen Bringard presented a proposal for a new Master of Public Health
extended program in Ghana. This is an existing degree, and the proposal is merely to have the
existing degree offered at the extension location in Africa. The Division of Public Health hopes
that this is the first step to developing an extended campus in Ghana, with more opportunities for
facilities and programming in that region. The division is trying to extend its global vision with
this proposal. Motion was made by Jim Anderson to approve the proposal and forward to the
Board of Trustees. Motion seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Gianluca Lazzi presented a proposal for a new undergraduate certificate in engineering
entrepreneurship. The graduate–level certificate for this subject has already been approved. There
is a great degree of interest from engineers in developing business concepts, especially at the U,
with its strong reputation for entrepreneurship. These types of programs are available at other
institutions, and students on campus have expressed strong interest in developing one here. It is a
20–credit hour certificate. The program will also have a strong partnership with the Lassonde
Institute. Motion was made by Jim Anderson to approve the proposal and forward to the Board
of Trustees. Motion seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Mary Parker and Brenda Burke presented a proposal for new policy 6–420 Student Financial Aid.
The goals of this new Policy are to streamline scholarship processes and definitions, define
award types so that everyone across campus is using standard language, follow best practices in
terms of how money is disbursed to students, and ensure the U is in compliance with Title IV
regulations regarding the distribution of federal financial aid. Motion was made by Joanne Yaffe
to approve the proposal and forward to the Board of Trustees. Motion seconded by Jack Bender.
Motion passed unanimously.
Amy Wildermuth presented a proposal for revisions to Rule 6–310. Changes to this Rule will
allow Career–line faculty to serve on the Interdisciplinary Teaching Program Committee. The
Committee has a role in approving appointments, reappointments, and promotions of Lecturer
faculty in the interdisciplinary teaching programs (including LEAP, Honors, Entertainment Arts
& Engineering, and Environmental & Sustainability Studies). From the 2010 inception of the
Committee until now, only Tenure–line faculty were eligible. This proposal will add slots for
three Career–line faculty to serve along with six Tenure–line faculty, which, better reflects the
growth of career–line faculty across campus. Motion was made by Randy Dryer to approve the
proposal and forward to the Board of Trustees. Motion seconded by Jim Anderson. Motion
passed unanimously.
since 2012. The work of the center involves many fields, such as ecological science, social
science, planning and design, and engineering, and it was looking for more interdisciplinary
partners to further its work. It will now be included under both the CAP and GCSC umbrellas,
and the name will be changed to be inclusive of CAP, as well as other fields, such as
engineering. Motion was made by Randy Dryer to approve the proposal and forward to the
Board of Trustees. Motion seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Steve Alder and Alicen Bringard presented a proposal for a new Master of Public Health
extended program in Ghana. This is an existing degree, and the proposal is merely to have the
existing degree offered at the extension location in Africa. The Division of Public Health hopes
that this is the first step to developing an extended campus in Ghana, with more opportunities for
facilities and programming in that region. The division is trying to extend its global vision with
this proposal. Motion was made by Jim Anderson to approve the proposal and forward to the
Board of Trustees. Motion seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Gianluca Lazzi presented a proposal for a new undergraduate certificate in engineering
entrepreneurship. The graduate–level certificate for this subject has already been approved. There
is a great degree of interest from engineers in developing business concepts, especially at the U,
with its strong reputation for entrepreneurship. These types of programs are available at other
institutions, and students on campus have expressed strong interest in developing one here. It is a
20–credit hour certificate. The program will also have a strong partnership with the Lassonde
Institute. Motion was made by Jim Anderson to approve the proposal and forward to the Board
of Trustees. Motion seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Mary Parker and Brenda Burke presented a proposal for new policy 6–420 Student Financial Aid.
The goals of this new Policy are to streamline scholarship processes and definitions, define
award types so that everyone across campus is using standard language, follow best practices in
terms of how money is disbursed to students, and ensure the U is in compliance with Title IV
regulations regarding the distribution of federal financial aid. Motion was made by Joanne Yaffe
to approve the proposal and forward to the Board of Trustees. Motion seconded by Jack Bender.
Motion passed unanimously.
Amy Wildermuth presented a proposal for revisions to Rule 6–310. Changes to this Rule will
allow Career–line faculty to serve on the Interdisciplinary Teaching Program Committee. The
Committee has a role in approving appointments, reappointments, and promotions of Lecturer
faculty in the interdisciplinary teaching programs (including LEAP, Honors, Entertainment Arts
& Engineering, and Environmental & Sustainability Studies). From the 2010 inception of the
Committee until now, only Tenure–line faculty were eligible. This proposal will add slots for
three Career–line faculty to serve along with six Tenure–line faculty, which, better reflects the
growth of career–line faculty across campus. Motion was made by Randy Dryer to approve the
proposal and forward to the Board of Trustees. Motion seconded by Jim Anderson. Motion
passed unanimously.
Amy Wildermuth and Matt Miller presented a proposal for revisions to Policy 6–100—
Instruction and Evaluation, to add a section regarding “essential course information.” A
paragraph in Policy 6–100 will be modified to require faculty to provide course goals and
projected exam dates, where applicable, as essential course information, one week prior to the
start of courses. This is standard practice for many faculty, but there has not been a standard
policy to require it. This will help students as they plan their academic and work schedules, as
well as childcare arrangements. A template form will be provided to facilitate the process for
faculty. Motion was made by Randy Dryer to approve the proposal and forward to the Board of
Trustees. Motion seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed unanimously.
Dave Hill, as chair of the Senate Personnel and Elections Committee, presented a proposal to
temporarily reduce the size of three Senate committees for one year, and during that year to
study prospects for their continued existence and functions. They are: the Senate Advisory
Committee on Budget and Planning, Senate Advisory Committee on Library Policy, and Senate
Advisory Committee on Salaries and Benefits. The upcoming annual vacancies on these
committees will not be filled in this year’s Senate elections cycle, and the committees next year,
in collaboration with ex officio committee members (i.e. related administrators, etc.), will be
tasked with evaluating the activities of the committees and deciding whether they should be
returned to full size, or perhaps consolidated, reduced, or eliminated. Motion was made by
Joanne Yaffe to approve the proposal Motion seconded by Chuck Dorval. Motion passed
unanimously. The Personnel and Elections Committee will now implement the first step in this
proposal, in the upcoming annual Senate committee elections process, by not including the usual
ballots for filling the annual vacancies on these three committees (as Policy 6–002 ordinarily
requires be done for Senate–elected committees).
Ann Darling, as co–chair of the Senate Ad Hoc Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee for
2015–2017, presented a proposal for revision of Policy 6–001 Academic Units and Academic
Governance. The proposal will add required reporting from departments regarding learning
outcomes assessment. The revised Policy will govern when and by whom learning outcomes
assessments will take place. Universities of Arizona, Washington, and Nebraska were considered
as models for the process. The process will be owned by faculty and will be woven into the
process of seven–year Graduate Council reviews of academic departments. It is recommended
that assessments occur periodically over the seven–year review timeline. The assessment process
will also be part of the existing curriculum management process and will thus efficiently take
advantage of existing processes and offices, instead of creating a need for new processes and
offices. Departments will be responsible for determining their own learning outcomes. The
proposal was developed after a mandate from the university’s accrediting body. Motion was
made by Joanne Yaffe to approve the proposal and forward to the Board of Trustees. Motion
seconded by Lynn Hollister. Motion passed with one nay vote and one abstention. The individual
who voted “nay,” Professor David Goldenberg, will write a minority report, which is appended
at the end of these minutes.
Information and Recommendations Calendar
The following items were presented for the information and recommendations of the Academic
Senate:
Kai Medina–Martinez and Kathryn Stockton presented on the topic of student preferred
names and pronouns. Their proposal contains a request that course instructors include
language in their syllabi regarding students’ right to be called by their preferred names
and pronouns. This will be recommended (not mandatory) language for course syllabi,
and will hopefully be prepopulated in the University’s online “Canvas” system of web–
pages for administering courses to make it easy for instructors to include the
recommended information. There are more students identifying as transgender and
gender–non–conforming on our campuses, as well as more students who are more
informed about these issues than are many faculty and staff. Students who are
misgendered or mispronouned do not feel comfortable in classroom environments, so
making students feel welcome and supported enhances the academic environment. The U
would be leading its peer institutions if it were to take on this issue. The preferred name
on record for a student in the online Campus Information System (CIS) should be pulled
to populate all university materials, but this is a work in progress (i.e. in Canvas and
some other areas). Graduating students may also identify their preferred names to appear
on their diplomas, dissertations, and theses. Kathryn also noted that, if there is a question
about a person’s preferred pronoun, the use of they can be employed until the preferred
pronoun is determined.
Dale Spartz presented a proposal to revise University Rule 5–302B, to change the
retirement benefit vesting structure for University Hospitals and Clinics (UUHC) staff
employees. The prior structure was that UUHC employees would be vested 50% after
four years, and 100% after six. The proposed structure will provide for 20% vesting each
year, so employees will be fully vested after five years. This is competitive with the
national healthcare market, due to competition for hiring clinical staff.
Bobbi Davis and Shawn Adrian presented a report on academic advising at the U. They
hope to formalize the relationship between the University Academic Advisors Council
and the Academic Senate, to improve communication between academic advisors and
faculty. Advisors feel they have a unique relationship with students that is different from
that between students and faculty, and as such, they think they would bring a valuable
perspective to the Academic Senate. There is already a UAAC representative on the
Undergraduate Council, which has been a very successful partnership. Other partnerships
between faculty and academic advisors have been ad hoc and irregular. As such, they
hope to establish an ex officio position for an academic advisor on the Academic Senate.
It was explained that the Senate Executive Committee has approved starting a project to
revise Policy 6–002 and then implement the change, such that a representative of the
Academic Advisors Council, and a representative of the University Staff Council, will be
added as non–voting ex–officio members on the Senate, and an Academic Advisor
representative will be included as an ex officio member of the Senate Advisory
Committee on Academic Policy. This project is to be carried out in the 2017–2018 Senate
year.
The following items were presented for the information and recommendations of the Academic
Senate:
Kai Medina–Martinez and Kathryn Stockton presented on the topic of student preferred
names and pronouns. Their proposal contains a request that course instructors include
language in their syllabi regarding students’ right to be called by their preferred names
and pronouns. This will be recommended (not mandatory) language for course syllabi,
and will hopefully be prepopulated in the University’s online “Canvas” system of web–
pages for administering courses to make it easy for instructors to include the
recommended information. There are more students identifying as transgender and
gender–non–conforming on our campuses, as well as more students who are more
informed about these issues than are many faculty and staff. Students who are
misgendered or mispronouned do not feel comfortable in classroom environments, so
making students feel welcome and supported enhances the academic environment. The U
would be leading its peer institutions if it were to take on this issue. The preferred name
on record for a student in the online Campus Information System (CIS) should be pulled
to populate all university materials, but this is a work in progress (i.e. in Canvas and
some other areas). Graduating students may also identify their preferred names to appear
on their diplomas, dissertations, and theses. Kathryn also noted that, if there is a question
about a person’s preferred pronoun, the use of they can be employed until the preferred
pronoun is determined.
Dale Spartz presented a proposal to revise University Rule 5–302B, to change the
retirement benefit vesting structure for University Hospitals and Clinics (UUHC) staff
employees. The prior structure was that UUHC employees would be vested 50% after
four years, and 100% after six. The proposed structure will provide for 20% vesting each
year, so employees will be fully vested after five years. This is competitive with the
national healthcare market, due to competition for hiring clinical staff.
Bobbi Davis and Shawn Adrian presented a report on academic advising at the U. They
hope to formalize the relationship between the University Academic Advisors Council
and the Academic Senate, to improve communication between academic advisors and
faculty. Advisors feel they have a unique relationship with students that is different from
that between students and faculty, and as such, they think they would bring a valuable
perspective to the Academic Senate. There is already a UAAC representative on the
Undergraduate Council, which has been a very successful partnership. Other partnerships
between faculty and academic advisors have been ad hoc and irregular. As such, they
hope to establish an ex officio position for an academic advisor on the Academic Senate.
It was explained that the Senate Executive Committee has approved starting a project to
revise Policy 6–002 and then implement the change, such that a representative of the
Academic Advisors Council, and a representative of the University Staff Council, will be
added as non–voting ex–officio members on the Senate, and an Academic Advisor
representative will be included as an ex officio member of the Senate Advisory
Committee on Academic Policy. This project is to be carried out in the 2017–2018 Senate
year.
Nona Richardson presented a report about Athletics’ academic services. There is a large
staff of academic advisors, interns, learning specialists, and academic mentors. Student–
athletes’ success in the classroom is measured by the academic progress rate, the
graduation success rate, and the federal graduation rate. There are penalties if student–
athletes do not fulfill the NCAA’s academic progress rate. The U’s student–athletes
perform well compared to other PAC–12 schools on this metric. Gymnastics is the U’s
top performer in regards to the three–term grade point average. The majors that are
highest populated by student–athletes are sociology, communication, and business
administration.
Joanne Yaffe presented a year–end report for the Senate Advisory Committee on Student
Course Feedback. The committee attempts to answer the following three questions: what
should the feedback instrument look like, how should the instrument be administered, and
how should results of the survey be disseminated or used. Other issues include falling
response rates, likely due to a lack of incentive for completing the survey; extremely long
surveys; and improper use of survey data for RPT decisions, particularly by student
advisory councils (SACs). The committee recommends that surveys are shortened;
questions should be about student experience in the class, not about what students learned
(which will be handled by the aforementioned new processes for learning outcomes
assessment). The committee recommends a small standard question set, allowing for
additional questions for specific formats of classes, such as practicums, etc. The
committee also wants to explore the possibility of moving the student course feedback
survey administration back into the classroom during a regular class session (rather than
be administered outside of a class meeting), although still in an electronic format. Almost
all students carry at least one internet–connected device to their classes; allotting a
specific time period for students to fill out their surveys would potentially increase the
response rate. The committee also wants to produce a guide for how SACs and other
students should use this data, what the data means, etc.
Caren Frost presented a report on the activities of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on
Faculty Review of Administration. The committee has looked at how peer universities
approach faculty review of administration. There is a robust process at many PAC–12
institutions, as well as other institutions within the Utah system. The committee’s primary
point of reference was the process implemented several years ago by the University of
Colorado–Boulder, and the committee plans to develop a similar model for the
consideration of the Senate by this fall.
Jason Perry presented a report on the activities of the Faculty Committee on Community
and Governmental Relations. Jason gave an update on the activities of the 2017 Utah
Legislature. The compensation increase went through at 2 percent, of which funding the
U will need to come up with 25 percent. There was also an 8 percent increase for
healthcare costs. The U also received approval to expand the University Guest House, $8
million in ongoing funding for the Regents Scholarship program, a substantial amount of
funding for the Huntsman Cancer Institute, among others.
Eric Garland presented the provisional approval of a new Center for Mindfulness and
Integrative Health Intervention Development. It is an interdisciplinary center housed in
staff of academic advisors, interns, learning specialists, and academic mentors. Student–
athletes’ success in the classroom is measured by the academic progress rate, the
graduation success rate, and the federal graduation rate. There are penalties if student–
athletes do not fulfill the NCAA’s academic progress rate. The U’s student–athletes
perform well compared to other PAC–12 schools on this metric. Gymnastics is the U’s
top performer in regards to the three–term grade point average. The majors that are
highest populated by student–athletes are sociology, communication, and business
administration.
Joanne Yaffe presented a year–end report for the Senate Advisory Committee on Student
Course Feedback. The committee attempts to answer the following three questions: what
should the feedback instrument look like, how should the instrument be administered, and
how should results of the survey be disseminated or used. Other issues include falling
response rates, likely due to a lack of incentive for completing the survey; extremely long
surveys; and improper use of survey data for RPT decisions, particularly by student
advisory councils (SACs). The committee recommends that surveys are shortened;
questions should be about student experience in the class, not about what students learned
(which will be handled by the aforementioned new processes for learning outcomes
assessment). The committee recommends a small standard question set, allowing for
additional questions for specific formats of classes, such as practicums, etc. The
committee also wants to explore the possibility of moving the student course feedback
survey administration back into the classroom during a regular class session (rather than
be administered outside of a class meeting), although still in an electronic format. Almost
all students carry at least one internet–connected device to their classes; allotting a
specific time period for students to fill out their surveys would potentially increase the
response rate. The committee also wants to produce a guide for how SACs and other
students should use this data, what the data means, etc.
Caren Frost presented a report on the activities of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on
Faculty Review of Administration. The committee has looked at how peer universities
approach faculty review of administration. There is a robust process at many PAC–12
institutions, as well as other institutions within the Utah system. The committee’s primary
point of reference was the process implemented several years ago by the University of
Colorado–Boulder, and the committee plans to develop a similar model for the
consideration of the Senate by this fall.
Jason Perry presented a report on the activities of the Faculty Committee on Community
and Governmental Relations. Jason gave an update on the activities of the 2017 Utah
Legislature. The compensation increase went through at 2 percent, of which funding the
U will need to come up with 25 percent. There was also an 8 percent increase for
healthcare costs. The U also received approval to expand the University Guest House, $8
million in ongoing funding for the Regents Scholarship program, a substantial amount of
funding for the Huntsman Cancer Institute, among others.
Eric Garland presented the provisional approval of a new Center for Mindfulness and
Integrative Health Intervention Development. It is an interdisciplinary center housed in
the College of Social Work, with collaborations in psychiatry, anesthesiology, family
medicine, physical therapy, and psychology, among others. The goal is to generate
substantive research on mindfulness and other integrative health interventions in relation
to issues such as prescription painkiller misuse for chronic pain. Having been
provisionally approved by the central administration, the Center will next be presented to
the Senate for permanent approval, within the three–year provisional period.
Seven–year review of the Department of Economics
Seven–year review of the School of Music
Distinguished Professor appointments
Distinguished Innovation and Impact awards
Hatch Teaching Prize
Early Career Teaching Awards
January President’s Report
February President’s Report
New Business
No new business
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 4:59 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Maddy Oritt
medicine, physical therapy, and psychology, among others. The goal is to generate
substantive research on mindfulness and other integrative health interventions in relation
to issues such as prescription painkiller misuse for chronic pain. Having been
provisionally approved by the central administration, the Center will next be presented to
the Senate for permanent approval, within the three–year provisional period.
Seven–year review of the Department of Economics
Seven–year review of the School of Music
Distinguished Professor appointments
Distinguished Innovation and Impact awards
Hatch Teaching Prize
Early Career Teaching Awards
January President’s Report
February President’s Report
New Business
No new business
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 4:59 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Maddy Oritt
To: Prof. Xan Johnson, President of the Academic Senate
From: David P. Goldenberg
Date: 18 April 2017
RE: Senate vote on Learning Outcomes Assessment, 3 April 2017
Xan,
I am writing in response to your request, at the end of the Academic Senate meeting on 3
April 2017, that I provide some comments regarding my negative vote on the adoption of policies
regarding “learning outcomes assessments” (LOAs) for departments and other academic units. I
apologize for my delay in providing these comments, but the past few weeks have been especially
hectic.
First of all, I would like to say that I do appreciate the hard work done by the Senate Ad-
hoc Committees working on this issue, and I certainly think that it would be useful to know what
our undergraduate students have learned by the time that they graduate, and how that compares
with what he hoped they would learn. I also appreciate that the policy that has been adopted
places responsibility of the assessments with the departments and their faculty, rather than an
administrative office. On the other hand, I felt that the policy was rushed through the Senate
without a chance for us to understand its implications, and I still have misgivings about how much
additional work the policy will make for departments and whether or not there will be real benefits
for our students.
Perhaps my understanding is incomplete or wrong, but I had understood that changes to Uni-
versity Policies were presented at least twice to the Senate before being voted on, once under the
Intent Calendar and then under the Debate Calendar at a subsequent meeting. So far as I can re-
member and can tell from the previously posted agenda, LOAs were not brought up previously
to the Senate in the two years that I have now served. In addition, the LOA documents for the 3
April meeting were posted on Canvas under the Information Calendar (although I now see that the
Agenda document does indicate that it was intended to be a debate item). I did read and try to
understand the documents before the meeting, but I did not expect a vote on them.
Once the subject was brought up at the meeting, I found the description of what would con-
stitute valid assessments quite vague, apparently deliberately so. Since my department graduates
approximately 200 students per year, this was a particular concern for me. I think that it would
have helped if those presenting the proposed policy could have offered some more explicit exam-
ples of possible assessment methods. In the absence of more complete information, I did not feel
that I could vote in favor of policy changes that could have a major impact on the work of faculty
members. I don’t know what the actual amount of time spent on this issue was, but the Agenda
indicates that only 10 minutes were set aside for it. This is the same amount of time that was
scheduled for the report on student athlete academics, though my impression was that more time
was spent on that report than on discussing and voting on a policy change.
I also question whether or not implementing campus-wide LOAs will really enhance the edu-
cation of our students. Based on my own experience and conversations with numerous colleagues,
I suspect that a large fraction of our graduating students do not, in fact, learn nearly as much as
we hope they will. If this suspicion is confirmed by systematic assessments, what will we do with
that information? It would be nice to think that we would turn around and use the information to
1
From: David P. Goldenberg
Date: 18 April 2017
RE: Senate vote on Learning Outcomes Assessment, 3 April 2017
Xan,
I am writing in response to your request, at the end of the Academic Senate meeting on 3
April 2017, that I provide some comments regarding my negative vote on the adoption of policies
regarding “learning outcomes assessments” (LOAs) for departments and other academic units. I
apologize for my delay in providing these comments, but the past few weeks have been especially
hectic.
First of all, I would like to say that I do appreciate the hard work done by the Senate Ad-
hoc Committees working on this issue, and I certainly think that it would be useful to know what
our undergraduate students have learned by the time that they graduate, and how that compares
with what he hoped they would learn. I also appreciate that the policy that has been adopted
places responsibility of the assessments with the departments and their faculty, rather than an
administrative office. On the other hand, I felt that the policy was rushed through the Senate
without a chance for us to understand its implications, and I still have misgivings about how much
additional work the policy will make for departments and whether or not there will be real benefits
for our students.
Perhaps my understanding is incomplete or wrong, but I had understood that changes to Uni-
versity Policies were presented at least twice to the Senate before being voted on, once under the
Intent Calendar and then under the Debate Calendar at a subsequent meeting. So far as I can re-
member and can tell from the previously posted agenda, LOAs were not brought up previously
to the Senate in the two years that I have now served. In addition, the LOA documents for the 3
April meeting were posted on Canvas under the Information Calendar (although I now see that the
Agenda document does indicate that it was intended to be a debate item). I did read and try to
understand the documents before the meeting, but I did not expect a vote on them.
Once the subject was brought up at the meeting, I found the description of what would con-
stitute valid assessments quite vague, apparently deliberately so. Since my department graduates
approximately 200 students per year, this was a particular concern for me. I think that it would
have helped if those presenting the proposed policy could have offered some more explicit exam-
ples of possible assessment methods. In the absence of more complete information, I did not feel
that I could vote in favor of policy changes that could have a major impact on the work of faculty
members. I don’t know what the actual amount of time spent on this issue was, but the Agenda
indicates that only 10 minutes were set aside for it. This is the same amount of time that was
scheduled for the report on student athlete academics, though my impression was that more time
was spent on that report than on discussing and voting on a policy change.
I also question whether or not implementing campus-wide LOAs will really enhance the edu-
cation of our students. Based on my own experience and conversations with numerous colleagues,
I suspect that a large fraction of our graduating students do not, in fact, learn nearly as much as
we hope they will. If this suspicion is confirmed by systematic assessments, what will we do with
that information? It would be nice to think that we would turn around and use the information to
1
improve our curricula and courses. But, that would require a large investment of faculty time and
university financial resources, both of which are in short supply. In addition, learning outcomes
depend on factors, such as students’ investment in their own eductions, that are beyond the control
of the faculty and university. Frankly, I think that it is much more likely that we would somehow
refine the assessments (or design them from the outset) to demonstrate great learning outcomes,
regardless of the actual situation.
Finally, I was concerned by the statements, made after the vote, that these policy changes
were being mandated by the accrediting organization and university administration, and the Senate
didn’t really have any choice but to approve the policy. This raises serious doubts in my mind
about whether or not the notion of shared governance of the university has any real meaning.
I realize that these comments do not represent much of a coherent argument and reflect a
rather cynical view of the governance of the University of Utah, especially regarding undergraduate
education. Like many others, I am deeply concerned about the state of higher education in the
United States, and I work hard to provide my students with the best education that I can. But, I
often feel that these efforts are largely unsupported, and sometimes undermined, by the university
administration. I would like to see the Academic Senate stand up occasionally to pressures from
the administration that seem, to me at least, to have more to do with creating an image of improved
education for our students than real improvements.
Yours Sincerely,
university financial resources, both of which are in short supply. In addition, learning outcomes
depend on factors, such as students’ investment in their own eductions, that are beyond the control
of the faculty and university. Frankly, I think that it is much more likely that we would somehow
refine the assessments (or design them from the outset) to demonstrate great learning outcomes,
regardless of the actual situation.
Finally, I was concerned by the statements, made after the vote, that these policy changes
were being mandated by the accrediting organization and university administration, and the Senate
didn’t really have any choice but to approve the policy. This raises serious doubts in my mind
about whether or not the notion of shared governance of the university has any real meaning.
I realize that these comments do not represent much of a coherent argument and reflect a
rather cynical view of the governance of the University of Utah, especially regarding undergraduate
education. Like many others, I am deeply concerned about the state of higher education in the
United States, and I work hard to provide my students with the best education that I can. But, I
often feel that these efforts are largely unsupported, and sometimes undermined, by the university
administration. I would like to see the Academic Senate stand up occasionally to pressures from
the administration that seem, to me at least, to have more to do with creating an image of improved
education for our students than real improvements.
Yours Sincerely,