FACULTY SENATE MEETING
November 7, 2001

I. Call to Order.

CHAIR ROBERT WILCOX - Let's begin.

II. Correction and Approval of Minutes.

CHAIR WILCOX - The minutes were published from the October 3rd meeting. Are there any changes or corrections?

PROFESSOR CHARLES ALBER (GERM) - I would like it to be noted that I was present at the previous meeting.

CHAIR WILCOX - We will make that change to reflect your presence. As reminder, I think you had probably signed in that time and we just missed it, but be sure that, if you are a senator, you initial the sheet when it comes around. We've had some problems sometimes getting it around. So before you leave, be sure you've signed in. Also as a reminder, the senators need to sit in these middle two sections here so we get you on that kind of thing. We appreciate that. Any other changes or corrections? Is there a motion for the approval as amended? Second? All in favor? Aye? Opposed? Minutes are approved.

III. Reports of Officers.

PRESIDENT JOHN PALMS -

Good afternoon. I have a smiley face on because I just finished kissing a pig in front of the Russell House to help raise money for St. Jude's Hospital. They had these little buckets there to place your money. They had Coach Tanner, Dennis Pruitt, and Don Greiner, and me. I was a little bit ahead about $25 or so. I didn't like the way it was going so I put a $100 in Coach Tanner's little bucket figuring that would end it. He went around and borrowed a $100 and put it in mine, so it was a tie. We both had to kiss the pig. So, this meeting is a refreshing new beginning of the day for me.

You probably have read that we have had a budget cut this week. We have been very, very carefully scrutinizing the University's budget since last year. During the last budget cycle, we worked to keep from being cut in a major way while, at the same time, understanding the dire circumstances of the state's economy. With the events of September 11, our economic downturn has become more pronounced. We anticipated having a cut, so we have been prudent. I hope that all the deans have been too in anticipating a cut.

We are going to recommend to the executive committee tomorrow how we might absorb this budget. We are trying to protect our students concerning tuition and trying to protect the departments, but the University does have needs. There will be options that we discuss and then Jerry and I will make a recommendation. We will let you know as soon after the board meeting as possible.

I want to commend all the faculty who are participating in the SDI committee. Late in the evening Jerry's light is still on as I walk the dog on the Horseshoe. He is earning his overtime.

Last Saturday, during the football game, I was at the Palmer House in Chicago at the National Collegiate Honors Council convention. This group represents all the honors programs and honors colleges in the United States. This year, they decided to give an award to a President who has been most supportive of honors education and honors colleges, and they have given your President that award. As I told the deans before I left, this is a real tribute to everyone's cooperation in making our Honors College (which I believe is the best honors college in a public institution in the country) exemplary. The 1,700 attendees at this conference thought the same. So I want to thank all of you participate continually to improve the quality of our honors program, both with your own personal resources and the departments' cooperation to provide those courses. I am so very grateful, and I hope we get a little more publicity about that.

Just to remind you of the many events on the campus during the Bicentennial. We have an interfaith celebration going on tomorrow from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. We have a conference on Thursday until Saturday on "Democracy and Diversity in Education." This is a collaborative effort among 15 colleges and departments. We also have a wonderful conference on one of the most distinguished social science professors that ever taught here; the Lieber Symposium begins at 9:00 a.m. on Friday. I hope you will attend that. Our community is going to build a Habitat for Humanity house in front of Preston next week. University Day, which was postponed because of September 11, will be held on November 15. One of the three black students who broke the racial barrier to enroll at USC, Dr. Henrie Montieth Treadwell, will be here. Dr. Treadwell is now a program director at the Kellogg Foundation. We will also have two panel discussions, one among college presidents and the other with community and government policymakers.

That is the essence of my report. I know that you have a resolution to consider, and I don't want to say too much about that. I think that is something that you need to debate, and I think it would be appropriate if I wasn't here during that debate. But, I will tell you that when I arrived here and found out that it has been a tradition for the presidents to come here and make a report, I thought it was just one of the finest means for top administrators and faculty to communicate. For the president and the provost to be invited here—to listen to constructive (and destructive) comments and to answer questions, I think is a privilege for all of us. At another institution, the president one time decided to come before the faculty. He was so upset by the questions and comments that he told me, "I am never going to appear before the faculty again unless I have to."

If you don't want us here, that is up to you. But I think this opportunity enriches our communication and helps this institution have the relationship between the faculty and the administration that it does. That is really all that I want to say. Thank you. I will be glad to answer any questions anyone may have.

PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK (ART) - Do you have any ideas about what is going to be happening in the spring in relationship to budget cuts? We have got 4% now and is there...

PRESIDENT PALMS - We have been told that there needs to be caution. There might be a half-percent more, or slightly more than that. What is going to happen in the coming year concerning the state's economy is uncertain. The tourist industry has picked up to almost normal in Charleston and Myrtle Beach, etc., but manufacturing is dismal in the Upstate. People are just not purchasing; they are staying away from the malls. People are buying more on the Internet where they don't have to pay sales tax. If there are no more tragedies like September 11, and we get some consumer confidence back, it might turn around. But right now, there is considerable shortfall in the expected revenues for the state, and they are required by law to present a balanced budget. That is what the Governor will do in January. He is cautiously optimistic that he won't have to cut certainly as serious as he proposed last year. He spoke to all the educators at Coastal Carolina about four weeks ago and said he was trying to find some innovative ways to lessen the burden on education. And, he said "You know I am very good at doing that." Last year, he helped out when he finally as he said "rolled up his sleeves." So I hope he rolls up both sleeves again and protects higher education.

You may have read about the efforts to get lottery money to go to endowed professorships for programs of excellence and research. This will be tied to economic developments in critical areas. We are encouraged so far by the political support that has gone into it. It would be wonderful if a portion of those funds coming in from the lottery would support those standards of excellence, would support really outstanding research faculty. It now has bipartisan support, but we will just see what happens in the spring. Other questions?

CHAIR WILCOX - Mr. President could you talk about whether there are possible long range plans that could be put in place to try to soften the blow from these kinds of cuts in the future? Are there different ways of looking at financing for the university? Are there proposals that could be forthcoming in that regard?

PRESIDENT PALMS - We have all in the last half dozen years or so looked at all sorts of revenue sources. For example, we had an agreement with the legislature concerning tuition. We (and this is determined by average tuition for your sector) would not raise tuition above the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) as long as the state also increased their funding by the same or relative percentage each year. Clearly, that has not been the case. If we raise the tuition next semester to help offset this short fall, we will still be within the guidelines because tuition at USC is not as high as at Clemson now. Another revenue source is private giving. The campaign has helped, but nearly all of these funds are dedicated to specific programs, and they are not recurring. We have maximized our bonding indebtedness capacity, which we had been very lax in using. That is why you are seeing dormitories built and that is why we used student fees to build a wellness center. We are also trying to add more academic space. Jerry is looking at innovative ways to fund a building of more research space. However, where we are hurting is the general operating budget for all of higher education in this state. I don't know of any way to address that based upon the way funding is being determined in the State right now. About 14.5 percent of the revenue coming into the State goes to higher education. Fifteen years ago, that was 17 percent, so we are getting a smaller percent of those revenues for higher education. There is such tremendous need in K-12 and the perception still is that it should have priority. We have always made the case that education should be considered K-16. That is what you are hearing now from members of the legislature and the business community. But, that has not yet been translated into tangible increases in our operating budget. We are just not going to get where we want to go without more state support. Thank you.

PROVOST JEROME ODOM -

Thank you Mr. Chair. Let me just very briefly follow up on one of the President's comments. That is that in my own feelings I have always been here at the invitation of the Faculty Senate to give you information that I felt was necessary and also to answer any questions. I will continue to feel that I am here, if I am here, at your invitation.

Let me briefly talk about the SDI committee. We have heard all the presentations. We are having some fairly intense discussions right now. We have increased our schedule and we are now meeting from 3:30 to 7:30 p.m. both on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We feel like we may need to use a couple of Saturdays to complete our discussions but we are still on schedule to have a report to the President before the end of this academic year so that he will have our recommendations. One of the things that we have had significant discussions about has been scholarships and you have seen an article in the paper about scholarships. I wrote a letter to the faculty about our University Bookstore. Let me just clarify for a moment, I am certainly not trying to coerce you or force you in any way to use the University Bookstore. What I am asking you to do is to consider using the University Bookstore because we get back an amount of money from them based on their net sales for scholarships. Now in the Steering Committee meeting before this, I think every single person around the table had had some significant problems with the bookstore. I have found the Barnes and Noble management to be very interested in hearing problems and solving those problems. Clearly we have a lot of problems that have to be solved because people have had bad experiences with our Russell House Bookstore. I certainly am committed to help solve those problems. I probably could spend a couple of weeks now working on ones that I heard upstairs just this afternoon. But, if you have particular problems with the store, if you think they are not being responsive to you, or if they are not fulfilling your needs -- if you will just correspond directly with me, I pledge to you that I will work on those problems with the management and I will try to solve those problems. So I would again urge you to consider using the Bookstore and help us with our scholarship money. A big discussion point with the committee is what we can do to increase scholarship money. We don't have many things that we can do other than go out and work harder on the capital campaign and private donations and things like the Bookstore where we have a source of funding for scholarships.

Very briefly in terms of dean searches we are furthest along with Social Work. We have had three people in. I met with the search committee last week to talk about those three visits. Then I met with the President and we will be moving forward on that particular search.

The President mentioned endowed chairs. I have worked with the provosts of the other two research universities in trying to craft how we would use the money from endowed chairs. We are talking about perhaps $40 million a year. That could be in an endowment to help us attract endowed chairs, start-up funds, research centers, and so forth.

Finally let me end on what I consider a positive note. As you have probably seen in the paper it appears that the Child Development Center may be back on track. We are looking at trading some land with the Development Foundation so that we can build a Child Development Center on Wheat Street. On Friday and Monday I had some very productive discussions with the folks at ETV about combining our Child Development Center with their Children's Place. And, we will continue to move forward on that front. I am very hopeful that sometime next fall we will have a state of the art Child Development Center on our campus.

That concludes my report and I will be happy to answer questions.

PROFESSOR DAVID TEDESCHI (PHYS) - Could you just comment a little bit more on this combination of USC and ETV day care? When you hope next fall perhaps a state of the art on campus, does that mean the ETV facility would shut down and just move here to campus?

PROVOST ODOM - Right now they are running about a $200,000 deficit and they are going to have to take some action. As you probably know from the paper (and if you have any personal experience) they had considered that. They had received some help but it was primarily one time help. They are interested in knowing if they can partner with us on a permanent basis. They have talked to us about either building there on their grounds or using our facility. The person that we are working with, a private developer who was going to build the facility from his funds or his corporations funds, is not very interested in building at ETV and so right now the discussions are certainly aimed at Children's Place facility being incorporated into our facility. Those are just discussions. They have been productive discussions but that is what it has been.

PROFESSOR DAVID BERUBE (THSP) - I would like to know what role if any will this body play in getting the SDI recommendations before they become a blueprint for decision making?

PROVOST ODOM - My understanding with the chair is that these recommendations will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate at the same time that they go to the President. And, I would assume that the Chair of the Faculty Senate (although I certainly cannot speak for him) would make sure that those recommendations were debated in the Senate.

CHAIR WILCOX - David to follow up on your question, we will take that up. I am waiting at this point to see what their report looks like to figure out how to debate it. Until we have something in hand, it is going to be hard to know how to approach it, but this body will have a basis for discussion and comments back on that report. I have talked to the Provost about the timing, looking at a point where it may have already been submitted in a form, but when we could get our input before too much has progressed. So we are looking for meaningful input at that point.

I have asked two people to come today to address briefly for you some issues of academic responsibility -- to bring this body up to speed on the picture of the state of academic responsibility in the University. As you know, one of the things I mentioned a couple months ago was that I wanted this body to immerse itself as much as we can in the academic issues of the University. I think one of those major issues is academic responsibility. So for information this afternoon I have asked Dennis Pruitt to bring us some information from the University prospective.

IV. Report from Dennis Pruitt

DENNIS PRUITT (Vice President for Student and Alumni Services) - Thank you. A brief bit of history - many of you will remember in 1988 that the University of South Carolina became interested in academic integrity through a survey conducted by the Student Government Association that indicated that there was less academic responsibility on behalf of our students' than was desired. And, since that time particularly starting in 1990, a wide range of the public press have commented on academic integrity on college campuses on everything from cheating on standardized exams like the SAT, to term papers off the internet, to even faculty who have falsified their research. We continued our interest in academic integrity when, in 1993-94, the University appointed a task force study group to determine whether our academic responsibility policies were adequate or whether they needed to be revised.

That committee was chaired by Professor Wilcox. They quickly determined that the

responsibility code needed to be revised and they went about the business of studying revisions. The committee considered a wide variety of questions. They looked at whether or not we should have a honor code, a single sanction honor code, such as those found at the University of Virginia or the military academies. They reviewed ways of handling minor transgressions where a faculty member, with less invested time, could resolve individual violations, but with great respect for the students' right of due process. The committee also looked at ways the faculty could enforce the code. They discussed having a central depository of code violations and edited a clear definition of what constitutes a violation of academic integrity. In 1994, the committee recommended a new academic integrity policy called "The Rule." Many of you are familiar with it. Many of you work with it in your colleges. One of the things the study committee wanted was to ensure that while the students' due process were upheld, minor transgressions of academic integrity could be addressed in a timely manner and without unreasonable investment of time by the faculty - because that excessive investment of time may be a deterrent to the faculty reporting academic integrity violations. There is a minor glitch on the handout you have in terms of numbers. We filed these cases by student identification number. The reason we do that is because our goal is not to see how many cases we have, but to determine whether or not students are violating the academic integrity policy in more than one college, because second sanctions are harsher than single or first sanctions. So, we put these together. The total case count is accurate. The number of cases for Liberal Arts was actually 35, not 3. The spreadsheet has been corrected. The bottom line number of 387 cases is accurate. Just to give you a perspective, between 1979 and 1992, which is a span of 13 years, we had 83 known violations of the academic integrity code. Between 1992 to 2001, which is a span of 9 years, we had 387 violations. So, we have had in a span of 9 years as opposed to a span of 13 years, almost a five-fold increase in the number of cases that were reported. I think there is some indication that the new policy that was envisioned by the Wilcox committee has made it easier to address these issues of academic integrity. By individual colleges you might be interested to know business schools, nationally, report the greatest number of academic integrity violations. I just point that out to you as a piece of information.

PROFESSOR WILCOX - Do we have any questions for Dennis? Would you be willing?

ASSISTANT DEAN MARY ANN BYRNES (LIBERAL ARTS) - Dennis, I really appreciate the effort that you went through to compile all this but I think in the spirit of this discussion I would like to point out that the numbers for the College of Liberal Arts are desperately low. Last year from the fall and spring semesters I had 58 cases and that is a pretty average year. So I think that what you are reporting to us is a little low. I will be happy to get my, I hope very accurate, figures to you so you can make these more accurate.

DENNIS PRUITT - Thank you.

PROFESSOR PHIL ROLLINSON (ENGL) - Is this your principle job? Is this part your job description to do this?

DENNIS PRUITT - It is not. It is part of the job responsibility of folks in my division yes.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Okay. What is the Student Alumni Services? Could you tell me?

DENNIS PRUITT - Well, I like to put it this way sir, the Division of Student Alumni Services are many of those functions that no one else wants to do but are necessary functions for the University to engage. For instance...

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - How long has this been going on?

PROFESSOR PRUITT - Since about 1636.

PROFFESOR WILCOX - Let's hold off on that, I want to focus on the integrity issues.

PROFESSOR RICHARD CONANT (MUSC) - Can these questions be remained focused?

CHAIR WILCOX - We will do our best. Any other questions?

PROFESSOR THORNE COMPTON (THSP) - Yes, I want to clarify two things. First of all I don't believe that it is true that before 1990 we weren't interested in academic responsibility. I think a lot of us were extraordinarily interested in it for a very long time. It's also true that before this record keeping started it is not that we had only 89 cases in that period, I had a lot more that that when I was an associate dean in Liberal Arts. But at that time not all cases were reported to one central place. Most colleges resolved their cases within the college. So while we may have had only 89 cases reported to central facilities there were a lot more cases than that, that were resolved within the colleges.

CHAIR WILCOX - One of the things that we found when we began to look at this, as you mentioned I was chair of the Academic Responsibility Committee that year that we had to do this, one of our concerns was the reporting. A particular concern we had at the time, and one of the reasons that I wanted this brought up, was that faculty, instead of going through a process, would instead say "You've got an 'F' in the course and I never want to see you again - you can go away." And the student would go away but they might go over to the next school and repeat. We could not be confident that that wasn't happening. So I do think that part of it was that the reporting mechanism which is better now. I also asked Gerald Cowley to come address it from the college perspective - what his experiences have been. He handles these things for the College of Science and Mathematics. I thought he might be able to put it on the local level a little bit in terms of dealing with these issues.

VI. Report of Dr. Gerard Cowley.

ASSISTANT DEAN GERALD COWLEY (SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS) - First off I am sure there are still quite a few cases where professor and student will work it out on their own and reports never do make it to my office in the College of Science and Mathematics. I was looking over Dennis's numbers a little while ago and Mary Ann, of course, said they were a little bit low. Originally I thought that his were a little bit low for me too. He had two fewer cases reported in the last three years than I had. And then I looked over my data and it turns out that in two cases the students were exonerated. So I guess we have come out even. Any way the way that we handle it in Science and Math for those that are reported. We go strictly by what is in the Carolina Community procedures that are there. We have a standing committee of three faculty members and two alternates although, you know it is impossible to get everyone to be there at the same time usually, so whenever we have a committee sitting to hear a case we will have three faculty members. We have a small pool of undergraduate students who can be called on according to their schedule. So we will always have a committee sitting consisting of at least three faculty members and two students. We have one fewer student than we do faculty members. I started looking at cases since the fall of 1998 and we've had surprisingly few. Of course, we are not as big a college as some others. I think we rank number 3 in the university and the two that are larger than we are are much larger. I have seen 27 cases that came to me. Of those, 21 of them confessed to their sins so to speak. Mostly they were matters of using crib notes, copying from a neighbor, and in some cases duplicating laboratory or written reports. None of the cases that came to me had a previous infractions. They are always checked out with the Office of Student Judicial Programs. So they are all first offenses. In the case of relatively minor cases and first offenses, if they confess we had them sign a statement that they had an infraction of the Code of Student Academic Responsibility and agreed to a sanction. This would be in consultation with myself and with the chairman of the committee. And in those cases the sanction was the minimum, which was a warning which went on record in the Office of Student Judicial Programs. In the cases that either denied the allegations or cases which were more serious, then they went to the committee. Of those all except for two of them were cases of copying on exams or using crib notes. And of those there were those who were given reprimands and warnings and there were some that were exonerated. Off the hook, not because the committee necessarily felt that they were innocent of the allegations but usually because we felt there was or the committee felt (I don't sit in on those meetings) that there was insufficient evidence. Of course, innocent until proven guilty. We had two cases that were more serious. They were cases of attempted grade change fraud. Somehow they had gotten a hold of grade change forms, forged signatures and usually did a bad job of it to get grades changed. Both of these admitted the infraction. One of them did not admit after quite a bit of communication with him but finally admitted it about a half an hour before the meeting. We still had a meeting. He was suspended for a period of time. Another one admitted it and said, "It doesn't really matter I am not coming back to school." But we had meeting anyway because that sort of thing needs to be on the record. Also suspended. So we did follow the rules and the regulations and the procedures as laid out in the Carolina Community. I did have two cases that I could not take to the committee. They were kind of interesting ones but they were the kind of thing I felt I could not take to the committee. They were doing bad things but they were not trying to defraud the University or the records system or anything else - they were conning their parents. We had meetings with parents and I expect both of those young gentlemen are being watched very closely at home.

CHAIR WILCOX - Thank you for that snapshot. Any questions for Professor Cowley?

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCE) - I have a question for both of you. Do your numbers include graduate students as well as undergraduate students and comment on fractions in those two groups per populations?

ASSISTANT DEAN COWLEY - I only have gotten few graduate students. I think you know where they are from. They were dealt with in pretty much the same fashion. Another thing that I would like to point out: Students from other colleges with serious infractions in a Science and Math course are reported to their college of record.

CHAIR WILCOX - Thank you.

PROFESSOR BOB FELLER (BIOL) - I chaired the academic responsibility committee for the College of Science and Mathematics for a number of years. I always felt a little frustrated because the cases kept rolling in and I am just curious whether in any of your discussion, Mr. Chairman, or your's, Assistant Dean Cowley, if there is any way we can get reports of what is going on with these committees in the Gamecock or some kind of publication so the student awareness of these problems is bolstered a little bit. I would like to hear what you think about that.

CHAIR WILCOX - I don't think there is a problem as long as you don't violate the privacy problems. I am a big fan of publication. I like your suggestion. My personal view on this is that you need to -- throughout your experience at the University -- be constantly reminded of your duties, and that is one way of reminding people to see how their brethren have faired. So I may refer that over to Dennis's office to look into the best means of publishing this information. If you could maybe give me a letter back at some point as to some thoughts on that?

PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK - Public pillory might be a good idea. Has there been any attempt to take these statistics and match them up with peer institutions to see if this is a problem that all institutions of higher learning are experiencing? Or is this something special to us and how we fair?

CHAIR WILCOX - Dennis, would you comment on this?

DENNIS PRUITT - These are the data that most institutions don't publicly share. It is a public relations issue. There are very few institutions that release this information. I agree with the comments about putting it in The Gamecock - both behavioral and academic integrity violations. Because it is a deterrent. One of the things students tell us is nobody gets caught and if you do get caught you are not held accountable. Students perceive that if you do get caught and you are found quilty, you can manipulate the outcome. So, that just creates a cycle of people wanting to cheat because they think they can. It is a good suggestion and we will take it into consideration.

CHAIR WILCOX - Any other questions? Thoughts or suggestions? I think that is very helpful. Let's move on to the business at hand. I thank both of you all for sharing that with us today. Incidentally I may put those reports we are going to continue to do this but I may put I may put them toward the end of the meetings. Try that because there is some question about where the best place is. So next month we may do a little different order of things.

VI. Reports of Committees.

A. Faculty Senate Steering Committee, Professor Sarah Wise, Chair:

PROFESSOR WISE - The Committee on Libraries has a vacancy for the Spring Semester. Nominations will be accepted at the December meeting. If you have the attendance roster, please pass it. We've had some complaints. Please sign it and pass it. Thank you.

B. Committee on Curricula and Courses, Professor Jeff Persels, Chair:

PROFESSOR PERSELS - The Committee on Curricula and Courses has several items for your consideration on pages 21-25 of the attachment. There are some corrections I will be making as we go along. Roman numeral I. College of Engineering and Information Technology - two new course EMCH 308 FINITE ELEMENT AND STRESS ANALYSIS and again EMCH 498 TOPICS IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING and then a number of changes in prerequisites you can read those I won't go through all those. I would like to move Roman numeral I.

CHAIR WILCOX - The committee has moved Roman numeral I. -- two new courses and some changes in prerequisites in the College of Engineering and Information Technology. Any discussion?

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - EMCH 498 should be chemical engineering isn't it?

CHAIR WILCOX - Should it be ECHE then?

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - I think so. But I'm not sure I haven't seen the paperwork.

CHAIR WILCOX - What we will do then if it is approved it will be approved subject to checking that and being sure we have it right and correct. We don't want to put the wrong department there. Any other discussion? With that one proviso all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed. So moved.

PROFESSOR PERSELS - Roman number II, from the College of Liberal Arts there are two major items. In the Department of French and Classics there are changes in course descriptions as well as for Latin. All of these let me explain them briefly are to make clear for advisors what has already been practiced. It was just to clarify it existing language. One deletion - GREK 342 GREEK COMPOSITION. And then capital letter B. Southern Studies Program - there is a new course SOST 302 RESEACH AND SOUTHERN STUDIES and then change in curriculum. And, I need to correct that. The proposed wording should read as follows: "The minor requires a minimum of 18 credit hours, including SOST 301; and one of the following: SOST 302, SOST 310 or SOST 320; and four additional courses..."

CHAIR WILCOX - The committee has moved Roman numeral II. which is various changes in descriptions and one deletion in the Department of French and Classics and then a new course and change in curriculum in Southern Studies Program with the amendment to the proposed curriculum changes. Southern Studies being with the addition of the words "one of the following: SOST 302, SOST 310 or SOST 320; and four additional courses..." Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. That is approved.

PROFESSOR PERSELS - What should be Roman numeral III. is listed as IV. The College of Science and Mathematics. There is one new course MATH 172 MATHEMATICAL MODELING FOR THE LIFE SCIENCES. The prerequisite was inadvertently left off. It should read "(Prereq: C or better in MATH 122 or MATH 141). And then the change in curriculum applies to the entire College of Science and Mathematics and not just the Department of Mathematics. That is a change in curriculum.

CHAIR WILCOX - We have moved Roman numeral III. a new course MATH 172 with the addition of a prerequisite and then the change in curriculum at the bottom of page 25.

Any discussion?

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN - I asked you a couple of questions earlier but the change means that this course may not be used to satisfy the quantitative requirements but courses which it cannot be taken in addition to can be used?

PROFESSOR PERSELS - Is there someone here from the college who can speak to that issue?

PROFESSOR MATT MILLER (MATH) - I am one that originated the proposal for this course. It is primarily intended for biology majors. We have letters of support from Biological Sciences. Right now, biology majors satisfy their quantitative requirement by taking MATH 122 and MATH170 or MATH 174 and then STAT 201. This would allow another option: the sequence 122 and 172 and then Statistics. I am not a senator so I can't make a motion here but in converting this course from 172X to a regularly scheduled catalog course we inadvertently did not look into the language of the requirements of the College or of the Department of Biological Sciences. And I would request that one of my colleagues or one of the biology representatives move that this course be listed as a possible alternative for students in biology.

PROFESSOR EASTMAN - That was the basis of my question. Wondering why it was not listed?

PROFESSOR MILLER - It was simply because I had assumed that the 172X course could be listed for more than one year. When we put through all the paperwork to make the regular course we didn't look at all the rest of the text of the catalog. It occurs on two pages and I think my colleague Dr. Ghomi has the references of the two pages where this occurs.

CHAIR WILCOX - Do we need to hold this one for a month and get the language exactly as they want it? Is there a problem holding it a month?

ASSISTANT DEAN COWLEY - Actually we do have a booklet for our advisors "Guidelines for Advisement" and that course when it was 172X was put in there under the biology requirements or options and I hadn't realized that biology had a letter into the committee supporting addition of the course. The new catalog statement under Group II - Quantitative, instead of MATH 170 or 174, should say MATH 170, 172, or 174. That is all that has to be done. Again I am not a senator so if somebody wanted to make a motion out of it...

PROFESSOR WALTER PIEGORSCH (STAT) - Mr. Chairman, I would like to move two things. One that we consider these separately to make it a little easier. If the course is approved by this body then we can move to the second issue.

CHAIR WILCOX - We will as a matter of right then sever the two issues. So let's leave the change in curriculum for a moment, since that is where I believe the discussion is. The first matter would be the approval of new course - MATH 172 with the change of adding the prerequisite. Was there anything else that needed to be done with that? Okay discussion then of simply adding the new course? All in favor of that part being approved signify by saying aye. Opposed? Okay the new course is now approved. Now we will take up the change in curriculum issue.

PROFESSOR PIEGORSCH - I would like to move that under Group II - Quantitative we make the additional change that is says "and either MATH 170, 172, or 174."

CHAIR WILCOX - In essence adding the 172 into that line there? Does that address the problem then adequately?

ASSISTANT DEAN COWLEY - It appears two places in the catalog. It is under General Education Requirements page and also on the Department of Biological Sciences Guidelines for the Majors page.

CHAIR WILCOX - I think we would need that specific other reference. What I would recommend is bring that change back to us in December. Then we can go ahead and make this change now if you wish and we will bring that change back in December.

As far as this reference that would correct the problem. Is that correct? Any further discussion with that amendment that has been offered? I guess we would have first have to have a second to offered amendment? Is there a second? All in favor of that amendment signify by saying aye. Opposed. Approved. Okay we will now take up the underlying issue which is the change in curriculum as amended. Any further discussion on that? All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. It is approved and then if you will bring back to us next month the additional reference that we need to change.

UNKNOWN - We will submit the paperwork on that.

C. Faculty Advisory Committee, Professor Daniel Feldman:

PROFESSOR FELDMAN - We have completed our work on the changes in the naming of endowed chairs in the procedures designed for naming endowed chairs. It is a long meeting and apparently it is going to get even longer. So I will briefly just tell you that our proposal will be on the provost's web page probably within a week and will then ultimately be on the Faculty Senate web page. This will be voted on at the next General Faculty meeting, so it won't be voted on until the spring semester. The key elements of the policy are that all chairs will be announced to all eligible faculty so there will be wider announcements of chair openings; everybody will know that there is a chair available and what the criteria are. Each college will have a separate and distinct committee for the awarding of endowed chairs. People will be given an adequate time to apply for those chairs, and so forth. The details are in the document, but I wanted to get back to you from the last meeting to let you know we completed our work on that and it will be voted on at a subsequent meeting.

CHAIR WILCOX - In the interest of time, are there any additional committee reports? Other than running through them all. That being the case let us get the report of secretary.

VII. Report of Secretary.

No report.

VIII. Unfinished Business.

CHAIR WILCOX - I don't believe we have any unfinished business other than our first item of new business.

IX. New Business.

CHAIR WILCOX - For the item of New Business I will recognize Professor Rollinson who submitted a proposed motion.

PROFESSOR PHIL ROLLINSON (ENGL) - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is moved that the "Reports of Officers" (item 3) usually coming out on our agenda be permanently removed from the Faculty Senate Agenda. I have given a reasonable explanation I think - I hope. At least I can honestly say that nothing said there is untrue.

CHAIR WILCOX - Before we proceed is there a second to the motion? Okay there is a second we may now discuss it.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - I am not going to reread this. I just hope that everyone has given it consideration inspite of the remarks by President Palms which were a little dismissive and humorous and everything. This is not a humorous or a frivolous motion. I think it is something that is very, very important. That the Faculty Senate assert that we really are our own body and that whatever business we do we do not do under the influence of the administration. So I seriously hope you will vote for it. Thank you.

CHAIR WILCOX - Is there further discussion?

PROFESSOR GREG ADAMS (LAW) - Over the last 18 years when I have, off and on, served in the Faculty Senate, I thought that the Reports of the Officers had exactly the opposite effect that Professor Rollinson sees in it. It seemed to me that it demonstrates monthly that this body and this faculty controls the academics of the institution. And we call the President and Provost to come and justify what they do before us and open themselves up to questions. It is certainly true we don't take advantage of that very often, but there have been times when we have. It reminds me of the practice of the British Parliament where there is regularly question time where the Prime Minister and the members of the Cabinet must come and answer questions, and, often hard questions, posed by the Parliament. That is an important constitutional aspect of that government in reminding the Cabinet of their relationship to the Parliament. We have a new president coming next year and there is a feeling that in the Board of Trustees some members believe that we ought to have a successful business executive come in to be president. I hope that doesn't happen, but if it does I would certainly like for us to have institutional ways to inform that new president of the roles and the prerogatives of this faculty. And, I can think of no better way than to say to that president, "You must come every month and explain to us what you are doing and answer our questions." There is a powerful message in that. We heard discussion of the Children's Center and many of you have been in this room in the last couple of years when this issue has come up repeatedly. I think the resolution of that issue has been affected by the fact that the President and the Provost have had to answer hard questions and had to face the views of this faculty on the importance of the Children's Center. Not just to people who have children in the center but to this faculty as a whole. I saw today in the Steering Committee the way the Provost reacted to faculty feelings about the Bookstore. I don't know if you read his letter the way I did, but I thought it was coercive when I got it. And I listened to him back pedal up here, because he was facing us and he knew that he was subject to hard questioning if he came across as coercing us into doing something not good for our students. I think it would be a terrible, terrible mistake to eliminate our opportunity to question the President and the Provost about what they are doing.

PROFESSOR MACK - I appreciate Professor Rollinson's intentions here but as someone who has made overly repeated use of the opportunity on questioning the officers I would like to know if we didn't have them come before. If we didn't insist on their presence here when would be able to communicate with them. We often complain that there is too much distancing of our administrators from the faculty. This is one place where they do have to come together, where they are answerable to our questions. I have never viewed this as their enforcing their viewpoints upon us. Quite the contrary I have seen this as way in which can express our viewpoints.

PROFESSOR RICHARD CONANT (MUSC) - I have known Professor Rollinson for a long time and appreciate the fact that he is an opera fan and has been very supportive over the years. But I have to say I do appreciate the President and the Provost taking time from what has to be a very busy schedule to come here and share reports with us and take questions, which sometimes is, more against what they probably intended for them to do. I have found this administration and others to be quite supportive when I have been chairman of committees, whether it is Faculty Club, Safety, Student Affairs Committee, or whatever. And, sometimes the administration has been very "laissez faire," pretty much letting us do what we wanted and not getting in the way. But as far as the comments about assistants to assistants and so on it is much more complex society than when Professor Rollinson came here and for that matter even when I did a few years later. I find it a little inflammatory--the language. So I am against the motion.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - I call the question.

CHAIR WILCOX - A motion has been made to call the question. All in favor of terminating the discussion signify by saying aye. Opposed. Okay we then move to the resolution that you have before you. The motion that the "Reports of Officers" be permanently removed from the Faculty Senate agenda. I ask for a voice vote initially. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. I hear the motion as having failed. Is there any further new business to come before the body?

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Mr. Chairman, this is not inflammatory. In fact I thought my language was rather restrained -- in my most operatic way.

Mr. Chairman I would like this to be referred to the Budget Committee for consideration and report next month the following idea (again this is in the mildest form I can think of): That the Budget Committee of this body consider the budgetary crises and problems that we have or are in right now - a resolution of that involving a serious and significant cut back in the administrative staff of this university. I have one reason. I was inspired to do this by a recent visit to Gambrell Hall's second floor where we were told earlier that we were looking for academic space - while we have $154 worth of repairs and maintenance left undone during this period - my dean of Liberal Arts has appropriated 580 square feet of classroom space for more of her staff assistants to the assistants and the associates, etc. And, I would like from this body not the Provost's strategic directives but from the Budget Committee. It seems to me that comes under our providence since the budgetary constraints combined with the excesses of a bloated bureaucracy are in fact materially diminishing our capability as a faculty to deliver our product to our students that we are teaching. The English department does not have enough teachers. We need more people. We do not need more administrators or more space for the administrators. So I would like for you to ask the Budget Committee to take a look at it if possible. Thank you.

CHAIR WILCOX - Without formal action I will be happy to refer that matter to Al Leitch and ask the Budget Committee (they will be meeting later this month) to discuss that and report back to the Senate. Other new business. Is Zach Scott here? Zach is a representative from the Student Government. We from time to time have allowed representatives from Student Government to come. They have a request which may or may not require action on our part.

ZACH SCOTT - I do want to thank first of all Chairman Wilcox, and Professors Sabia and Feldman for the chance to speak on such short notice. Recently the Student Senate passed another resolution calling on the Board of Trustees to add the term "Sexual Orientation" to the University's anti-discrimination policy. That was passed unanimously for the first time. Every senator agreed with this. After which a committee was formed and I was placed as chairman. Our job is to go around and rally support from the faculty, the students, and different student organizations to take to the Board of Trustees in early December (I believe their meeting is December 15), to show them that the University is united behind this one cause and that we would like a change. What I am asking from all of you and, especially if we need to send it to the Welfare Committee is, to review it and for all of you to come together, united and make a statement that a sexual orientation needs to be added in the discrimination policy to effect both students and faculty. Whenever you are hiring, looking at admissions practices or looking for housing. So do you have any questions?

CHAIR WILCOX - Let me tell the body. We have discussed this but the institutional memory is a little short here and we need to go back and look at the minutes of this body. We believe this has already come before this body and been approved and that there is a standing resolution in which case we will convey that to you. At the body's wish we will refer that and let the Welfare Committee do the research and report back on the status.

PROFESSOR MACK - Could I suggest that if indeed and, I believe we did do it, it is some years back and it might be good to have simply a reaffirmation.

CHAIR WILCOX - What I was going to ask is that the Welfare Committee come back to us next month with whatever we need to do. They can bring it and we can do with it as we choose at that point.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - I was in the Senate during that period and if I remember correctly we were informed that the reason it couldn't go forward was because it was inconsistent with the current state regulations. And, as state employees we were subjected to those rather than those we aspired to use.

CHAIR WILCOX - We have a lot of foggy memories. We know it went forward to a point and stopped but we are not sure exactly where it stopped. But the best recollection we have is that it did come out of this body and then stop before implementation. What the students are looking for is when they go to the Board to be able to say the faculty and the students have adopted this. If we need to breath new life into it, it can come forward at that point next month. But it was not on the agenda this month so I would rather not put it before the body at this point. The Board will not meet before our next meeting. So we will refer it to Welfare to report back to us.

X. Good of the Order.

XI. Announcements.

PROFESSOR JERALD WALLULIS (PHIL) - President Palms has already mentioned that there will be a conference on democracy and diversity. There will be total of seven speakers speaking on Thursday evening, Friday afternoon, Friday evening, and Saturday morning. Val Littlefield and I are co-organizers of the conference and we want to welcome all of you to participate and to encourage participation from the students. These are very effective public speakers that your students will be able to understand. I have Xeroxed copies of the brochures. I thought I would just mention the first days program Thursday evening - Mary Louis Ramsdale, Director of First Steps will be speaking on the "Challenge and Opportunities of Multi-Cultural Education in South Carolina." And, Theresa Perry will be speaking on "Revisiting Our Schools As Multi-Racial, Multi-Cultural Democracies." If you come on Thursday, you might want to come on Friday afternoon, Friday evening and you get the thrust of my advertisement. If you are interested in copies of this please see me after the meeting, I'd be happy to give them to you. Val and I would like very much for your support.

PROFESSOR MACK - As usual during a bicentennial year, I suppose, we have a lot of conflicts. There is a conflict with that very worth event and it is the Francis Lieber symposium with which I am involved. That is also Friday and Saturday. A group of 18 international scholars being gathered together to talk about the ideas, still very current of Francis Lieber. That is taking place in the Euphradiam Hall of Harper College and the public is more than cordially welcome and you all are. Beginning at 9 a.m. each day.

PROFESSOR THORNE COMPTON (THSP) - I am delighted that my colleagues are talking about our projects here. I wanted to touch on two things that especially involve faculty. One is University Day which President Palms mentioned. It celebrates the day when this became a real public university. When we desegregated on September 11, 1963. We were originally scheduled to have this on September 11. That day turned out rather differently but I hope that everybody can be a part of this moment celebrating that aspect of our history. Dr. Henrie Treadwell will be speaking at 1:00 p.m. on the Horseshoe that day followed by discussions by with a group of university presidents on the next ten years of higher education in South Carolina. And, then by a group of legislators and business leaders on the same topic. It is a good time for us get some of our questions out about the next ten years in higher education.

On December 19 will bring at last the bicentennial year to a close and I want to say one brief thing about that. What is going to happen that day, we are celebrating the chartering of the University on December 19, 1801. We are going to do that in a ceremony that takes places on the steps of the statehouse. We will be joined by the Governor and by the Legislature and Constitutional Officers and other overpaid people like that. Will be joining us, really showing the partnership that the University of South Carolina has with the people that it serves - for the University of South Carolina. We are going to ask faculty to gather on the Horseshoe in front of Rutledge for a few minutes around 11 a.m. and then we will have a procession to the statehouse for the beginning of this ceremony. And, we would like for as many of you as possible to be involved. When we got together on January 19 for the opening ceremony we had the largest group of faculty that I have ever seen here and I think that anybody has ever seen here. It was very impressive to the Governor and a number of other people. So you can join us and we will march to the statehouse and either march up the steps and take over the building and throw the bums out or perhaps we can prostrate ourselves on the steps. But either way we would be delighted for you to join us to bring the bicentennial celebration to a close. It is really important to be there on that day to demonstrate to the Legislature who we are and why we are important. If you want to buy a CD rom tour of horseshoe I urge you to do that - two $15 bucks at the Bookstore. All done by University faculty, staff, and students. Thanks a lot.

CHAIR WILCOX - Thank you very much Thorne. And, on the 19th the procession to the statehouse will be in full regalia, so we can hold up city traffic as you cross Sumter Street in your regalia. We will invite Bob Coble to come. We will make town and gown work right there.

One other quick announcement just for your information. If anybody is interested in an appointed committee, the Board of Student Publications, which is the Board that oversees the radio station, The Gamecock, things like that has a faculty vacancy. If it interests anyone, you do not have to be in the Journalism school to be on this committee. It is a 3-year appointment - if you will let me know ASAP I will forward your name to those who make those appointments.

Also one of the matters today was conduct of these meetings and I would welcome any communications from you. Feel free to send them to me over at the Law School with your ideas, your comments, your critiques of our meetings and what we could do to make them more efficient, more effective. We have been a little longer today than I like to be. I am aware of that but I would very much appreciate your input. So feel free to send me letters, e-mails, telephone calls whatever. Is there any other business to come before the body? If not, we will stand adjourned until December.


[BACK TO FACULTY SENATE HOME PAGE] [USC HOME PAGE] [SEARCH THIS SERVER]

This page created 20 November 2001 by the Office of the Faculty Senate and Computer Services.
Copyright 1999-2001, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina
URL http://www.sc.edu/faculty/senate/01/minutes/1107.minutes.html