MEET AND CONFER
April 15, 2004
Meeting Notes
Faculty Association: Dale Buske, Fred Hill, Steve Hornstein, Chris Inskter, Robert Johnson, Judy Kilborn, Bill Langen, Andrew Larkin, Annette Schoenberger, P. N. Subbanarasimha,
Donna West, Notetaker
Administration: Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Rex Veeder
Guests: Judy Foster, Mark Nook
The agenda was moved to New Business, Item #1.
1. Administrative VP Search Status (FA)
FA: In view of what we considered as important for this position, we recommend you commence a national search in the fall with the usual 60 percent of faculty participating. We request you send us a written position description and call for faculty reps.
Admin: Let me give you a little background. The AFSCME group came to me and asked about these conditions. I called HR, and AFSCME was supportive. I talked with the FA President as well as the union reps, and they were encouraging; so I shared this with the FA President, and she was encouraging. I heard there were concerns; and because of this, I put off the search until fall. I won’t go into specifics, but I will certainly take your recommendations under advisement.
FA: Can you elaborate – I’m a little confused about the language you’re referring to. Which model and which specifics?
Admin: You were very specific about your demands, and I’ll accept them as a proposal, and I’ll get back with you.
Admin: I have the honor to chair an Asian American Pacific Islander scholarship kick-off in the cities this afternoon. They want me to be emcee -- I’m to introduce two or three scholarship awardees and the people who are donating. That’s why I’m leaving -- I’ll be thinking about you when I’m driving over. I appreciate the item. My heart was in the right place and so were the people who approached me. We’ll move forward. We want to make sure we have the funds to move forward. I think we’re redirecting.
Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes of February 26, 2004 – The FA needs to review these notes and we’re not ready to accept them.
Unfinished Business:
1. Student Credit Hour Generation Report (Admin) (9/25)
FA: This is in the process of being reviewed.
Admin: We knew that.
2. Proposed Policy for On-Line Courses (Admin) (11/20)
FA: We went through the curriculum committee, and it was tabled at the last Senate meeting; therefore, it will come up again.
3. Financial Aid – Verification of Attendance (Admin) (12/11)
FA: We believe it is now waiting for a report from the task force.
Admin: I thought we were using the existing committee.
Admin: We met with your retention committee, and we had a good meeting; and there were issues discussed with a review on how we could accomplish this task. They’re completing their work and are ready to get back together; and I believe things will come together with a recommendation to come back to FA and will be well received. The first meeting went very well with a good exchange – they were a good group of folks you sent.
4. NSSE (Admin) (1/22)
FA: We’re not real sure where this is. We will need to get back to you.
5. Endowed Chairs and Professorships (Admin) (2/26)
FA: This subject is on the Senate agenda, and we haven’t gotten to it yet.
6. Partnerships Agreements (FA) (2/26)
Admin: It seems the issue of partnerships and assignment of courses in several respects is similar to just offering classes on campus. I think it’s a good idea that faculty in departments be consulted before these agreements are entered into, and we’ll encourage this to take place.
FA: I understand what happens with courses, but I’m wondering to deliver a four-year program with all classes off campus how it should come back. It seems to me the FA has some interest when we’re creating programs – an interest in on-line programs. It seems to be a separate issue.
Admin: I would think the degree being offered unconventionally would have more validity if offered by SCSU faculty, the same as offering on campus. We initiated a Masters in COB, and it didn’t go through Meet and Confer– nobody thought it was appropriate.
FA: What I understand is there wasn’t a lot of discussion with faculty about this. I’m concerned if I’m expected to teach there, it affects the terms and condition of employment as well as my own department.
Admin: I think it’s a good idea to talk to folks before doing this, and I’ll encourage that.
FA: I agree I think consultation needs to move farther than departments.
Admin: I agree.
7. Technology Committees (Admin) (4/1)
FA: We put calls out for these and no one volunteered. This is one of those things I observed during the time when tenure and promotion recommendations were being made by deans, a number of people told me “my dean told me I shouldn’t serve on so many committees.” We need deans to encourage people to serve on committees – those who aren’t serving on many. If you make it so there is no reward, then the request is hollow. Somehow we need to get a system for people to be rewarded. We will put out another call.
FA: How many calls have there been?
FA: We did it when they first asked, and we’ll keep asking. Until there is a reward system in place, its not going to go anywhere.
Admin: Following the inherent logic of union membership, deans are in no position and cannot be of help; so for deans to encourage people to please serve on a committee would be making statements faculty might not accept.
FA: We need to get to the point where deans would not say you can’t serve on any committees?
Admin: We had this come up in a previous Meet and Confer; and in the Academic Affairs Council, we discussed this issue with the deans. If they have a concern, the thing to do is say “you need to do more in this area” and not less in that area. It could be that a faculty member could be told by a dean you need to do more in terms of service -- this is legitimate for a dean to communicate.
Admin: I’ve gone as far as saying “you have a focus inside of the department – would you consider having an outside focus?” (thereby not making a statement about FA membership).
FA: I guess all of us in universities go through this -- for university work to be done in committees, and we have this service (tenured and non-tenured) -- I’m speaking broadly here. I’m frustrated committees don’t get filled and we’re consistently seeking members. I’m just expressing my frustration. We need to both come up with some solution. I know we can’t force tenured faculty. It’s my request we all come up with something.
Admin: I guess there is a certain expectation of professionalism one has for a faculty member; and, perhaps, we might attempt to encourage people to meet this expectation. For departments, one of the ways to address this might be for faculty to express to a colleague “you’re not pulling your weight”; I know of departments where this hasn’t been said very nicely and it has caused problems; but maybe doing so in a gentler way would be better.
The agenda was moved to New Business, Item #5.
5. Article 22 and 25 (FA) - 3:30 PM Time Certain:
FA: I made copies of the promotion and tenure procedures. If anybody needs a copy, I’ll send them around clipped together. The tenure and promotion procedures look almost identical, so please be careful.
FA: I know both teams have looked at these. These were developed between Kristi Tornquist, Judy Foster, and Mark Nook over the course of six hours. There are no real substantive changes -- what’s here is mainly a focus on dates. There is only one major change, and that occurs in the professional development materials. It occurs on the very bottom of Page 5. The most important issue we want to discuss in Meet and Confer are the dates, and we want to see if they’re okay. They haven’t been changed from last year; and this is an issue with tenure and promotion. In part, materials being sent to the dean and to the Provost have the same deadline as faculty meeting with deans. The statement I was pointing to on Page 5 at the very bottom is this little note about faculty members. What we’re really looking at is if, contractually, you’ve been tenured, regardless of your status, you go on to a four-year evaluation cycle, being the norm.
Article 25 states to stand for promotion, you will have had to go through two evaluations; so if a cycle is four years, you’ll need to wait eight years (minimum). The contract does state if you are on a frequency of once every four years, you can request a frequency greater than this. A recommendation to faculty is to try to get on a one or two-year evaluation cycle if they choose to in order to be looked at in a timely fashion. We don’t want to say everyone needs to do this, since some people are not interested in going for a promotion; therefore, we have left this up to the faculty and the dean on how they’d like to manage this.
FA: I will draw people to one change: this year’s procedures regarding the deadline for faculty to submit their promotion was reversed, and we’ve corrected it for next year.
Admin: Those in a four-year reporting cycle, by choice, would be put in first. These people were being given an intermediate evaluation after two years. Why wouldn’t we consider that report as a full evaluation?
FA: You can. I wish Kristi were here to comment. The point is that in the contract, the two-year review is a summary not an evaluation. The contract states the evaluation occurs at the end of the evaluation period.
Admin: But I have to respond to this, right? It makes life easier to consider it as an evaluation.
Admin: We’ll look into this.
FA: We want to be careful – while you’re willing to count this summary as an evaluation, deans change, and we might come into a situation where they'll say “no, that was a statement.”
Admin: We need to do this as a policy and will look into this with the deans and with MnSCU.
Admin: The truth is that would be a two-year cycle.
FA: Officially, the year it’s looked at is a four-year cycle.
FA: Two years is not a requirement for faculty members to meet with the dean.
FA: Actually, we’re off a little bit, because if they’re not fully promoted, they still need to do a PDR.
FA: Is that a never mind?
FA: We need it on the record that it is an evaluation, and with these reports we need documentation.
Admin: We’ll study that part of the issue and talk about this in the future.
FA: The situation is even worse than that. If you are on a one-year cycle, you may not be considered for evaluation of your annual goals. I was told that I needed to send a letter requesting formal evaluation.
Admin: I think you need to send a letter to say you need to stand for evaluation.
FA: The joint committee agreed we would welcome negotiation on this part of the contract from both sides and would promote simplification.
FA: There are numerous inconsistencies in this part of the contract.
Admin: I’m alarmed that faculty would say this document is redundant.
FA: I just hope those faculty who are caught in the transition process will not be harmed by this change of process – hoping it would count as an evaluation for purposes of a later promotion application.
Admin: I don’t think there has been an issue regarding this.
FA: We agreed last time we brought this to Meet and Confer, during this transition period we would need to provide latitude.
Admin: It might be good to have a memo stating this; because in a few years where people describe the process of evaluation, we won’t be able to evidence this.
Admin: I thought we had agreed. It’s in the Meet and Confer notes we agreed to do this.
Admin: Maybe that’s good enough.
FA: What we’re doing here now means this is what we’re going to do.
Admin: What we’re doing here is agreeing to a calendar of dates.
Admin: Does anyone have any objection to the dates? I think, then, we’re formally submitting this set of dates for the FA’s notification next year.
Admin: Even though you brought this, I can formally submit it! (laughter)
Admin: I’d like to thank everyone. It’s a complex system. Looking at your calendar, I kind of know what’s going on! (laughter)
Admin: I’m still confused! (laughter)
FA: If the dates are agreed upon, we want to let you know we’ve been working on language changes. We’re not ready to bring to them to Meet and Confer yet. It’s possible we can bring them to the last Meet and Confer -- we have been tweaking some language and are working on more substantive issues.
Admin: Judy and Mark -- we’re forever in your debt!
The agenda was moved to Unfinished Business, Item #8.
8. Summer Contracts (Admin) (4/1)
FA: At the last Meet and Confer, we brought up the situation of faculty being asked in January to teach in the summer and the possibility of those classes being cancelled as late as the day before being scheduled to start. What you had said then was you would find out what other colleges’ policies are.
Admin: I wanted to have Dennis Nunes here to address those. I think in some cases there may be some differences, but sometimes decisions need to be made about running or not running a class based on the number of students in the class. I’d rather have Dennis here to say what has happened over the years; however, he had to be out of town for a conference.
Admin: If we can discuss this issue at our next Meet and Confer, our senate will consider this! (laughter)
FA: In the meantime, in one college a certain minimum class size is required -- some determinations have already been made and have been sent out.
Admin: If you would communicate the specifics of this situation, I’ll talk with Dennis and the dean before the next Meet and Confer.
FA: Okay.
Admin: We’ll leave this topic on the agenda.
2. Multi-Cultural Resource Center Proposal (Admin)
Admin: I thought I brought a copy to give you, but I don’t have it. Administration and faculty along with students have been working on this, and it has been an ongoing project for 10 years. This comes originally from the understanding among students and faculty over concerns for multi-cultural issues and has been a longstanding project for the university to deal with these issues.
Admin: This was developed by those people working together; so because it’s a center being established in the LR&TS facility under the jurisdiction of a dean, it came to the Academic Affairs Council from the dean where the proposal was endorsed as well as the Presidents’ Council, and we’re providing a copy of the proposal so we can establish the center in place for the fall semester. This has been a long time coming – it’s here now, and we’ll move forward. I apologize for not bringing you copies.
Faculty on the task force are:
Steve Casanova
Semya Hakim
Julie Blake
Renee Rude
Susan Motin
Pamela Salela
Tom Hergert
Marian Rengel
FA: We’ll bring copies to senate.
Admin: I don’t have an electronic copy, but Kristi does.
Admin: Steve Casanova may have a copy of it.
Admin: I think it came from Kristi.
FA: This is the outcome of a joint task force?
Admin: Yes.
Admin: I think what you’re confirming is this is an official procedure for establishing a center on campus and that’s why it has gone through this process.
FA: To clarify, under New Business, Item #2, it doesn’t include “Center,” and it should read Multicultural Resource Center Proposal.
Admin: Are there any other comments or questions? I know it’s hard to ask questions if you haven’t seen the proposal, but it hasn’t stopped some of us in the past! (laughter)
3. Internal Audit (FA)
FA: The FA asked for an internal audit after hearing about the large differential between instructional costs at Mankato and SCSU. Both FA President Fisher and President Saigo went to John Asmussen. We understand President Saigo agreed with the project, and John Asmussen is ready to start; and we will present our questions about the audit to FA President Fisher who will funnel them in.
Admin: We can give you some explanation based on an analysis of the numbers.
Admin: It’s fairly straightforward in broad terms. First of all, this is for 2002 so your expenses as a faculty member on campus this year are different; therefore, you need to make sure your questions are based on the same fiscal year. I pulled up public data from MnSCU’s website; and in 2002, we had a 4 percent higher upper division cost. It’s about $5,000 in upper division costs for students. For SCSU, we also have a higher enrollment than Mankato. Almost our entire extra enrollment was in upper division, and we had 1,200 more students. Take those and multiply times $5,000, and it cost $6 million difference. The other difference is in lower division cost – our costs were 17 percent greater, and we had only 2 percent more students in the lower division ($500) -- 7,500 students x $500 equates to about $4 million. We have higher enrollment. Almost all of the difference was in upper division, and it costs more to teach upper division, where we put our resources into the instruction of students. Upper division enrollment was reflective of the number of graduates. In broad terms, what is publicly available is we have 1,200 more students. Our average class size has increased since 2002 – classes, on average, have more students. If you look at the disparity of costs two years ago to your feeling today, it’s different. The enrollment differential has grown smaller. What you experience today is not what was back then. I offer that as a simple analysis.
FA: I’m sure I remember your giving an opening activity speech where you spoke on the need for our attention to go towards retention of upper division, and we’re succeeding; but we’re getting lambasted.
Admin: You’re looking at numbers from two years ago. We had a larger number of students in 2002 and a record of the highest number of graduates last year -- something like 400 more graduating. Those students were not replaced, essentially, and is one of the reasons for the enrollment number being lower. We got those students graduated, and we haven’t replaced them.
FA: None of this is accusatory.
Admin: I don’t hear it as that.
FA: I thought part of the strategy was to let community colleges do perhaps what they do already and for us to focus more on the effort we ought to give to upper division.
Admin: There are two problems with that: 1) upper division instruction costs more money, and 2) our transferability rates, transfer friendliness, are not as great as other four-year universities. If that were our goal, we’d make it easier for students to transfer; and in some ways, we make it more difficult – our transfer students applying and admitted has been going down.
FA: I think one of those reasons is why costs are more expensive – 4 percent is not a big deal, but 70 percent more is a big deal. You told us where the numbers came from, and we want to know why.
Admin: Two reasons: 1) lower division costs are lower than ours, and 2) a larger-than- average class size, and they used more adjuncts and graduate assistants.
Admin: The only way we can reduce lower division numbers is to retain our students better. If we treat them better between the freshmen and sophomore years, we’ll do this -- we can’t “magically” grow juniors and seniors.
FA: I would be curious about the lower division numbers. I am aware in the English Department in Mankato, they offer assistantships in teaching – I know they give full tuition remission.
Admin: They might count that money in different categories.
Admin: Do we count scholarships or graduate assistants as cost of instruction?
Admin: I’d have to go back and look at the data. I can’t make an assumption about the data.
Admin: If we looked at the data from last year and for this year, I think you’d find disparities have diminished -- that our average class size this year is larger than theirs was two years ago, and that’s all part of a result of budget cuts.
FA: FA President Fisher said I get to talk any time I want! This was brought to us with “Look at this -- you guys aren’t doing enough. Look at how much more this costs us for instruction.” Now you’re saying it was two years ago and is not as bad as it looks. You need to look at what the data really is before you say something. Why come to us with an accusatory statement? I don’t know how to think about that.
Admin: I think it certainly seems clearer since we’ve had this analysis of the numbers. They may have been looked at in a different way earlier on before we understood.
FA: Does anyone know if the data is constant -- if we can do a trend?
Admin: I haven’t looked at a comparison of the 2003 and 2004 data since it isn’t complete; but I will try to make those comparisons and get that information to you ASAP.
Admin: Several of us have been front-liners -- one of the struggles is comparability of data. That’s part of the problem – not every institution does data in the same way. You have to keep in mind there are flexible ways of what counts as instruction and what doesn’t -- you can take that with a grain of salt. It isn’t always fully-comparable data. You can’t get too frustrated.
FA: Maybe in an audit you can ask why and how.
Admin: There has been some flexibility.
FA: We’re doing all of this and spending time and effort to find out how we’re compared to other institutions -- are we less efficient or less quality oriented, and what can we learn about this? Why compare ourselves with Mankato – who cares?
Admin: The issue that came up was it seemed we were spending more on instruction than they were, yet we were struggling to provide classes at the same time.
FA: The President came to our Deans’ Advisory Council meeting. Yes, the bottom line is we need to do more with less because of the lack of resources. Specifically, the Mankato study is a basis to say to faculty we need to work harder, so it does become a work issue.
Admin: I recognize that faculty have been working harder; and personally, I’m grateful for the additional work faculty have been doing. I think there are other kinds of efficiencies we can pursue and other things to do with the difficult budget circumstances; but it’s clear to me the average class sizes have gone up, and I know there is much closer scrutiny to reassigned time and people have had to give up something for that, and I’m appreciative.
FA: I think it’s always important we have these kinds of investigations. Whoever the Chancellor would be would say the same thing – the reason why is the economy. Some research has been done and was able to estimate we were $ 8 million in the hole, being hit by the funding formula. I don’t know if it will change if we have this financial data tied into economies of scale.
Admin: If we got the allocation model funded, would we benefit?
Admin: If they implemented 2 to 3 percent, we would get another half million dollars.
Admin: The interesting thing is our comparisons with Mankato may or may not appear to be useful; but the idea they’re using graduate students and adjuncts to keep their costs down is interesting. I know we’re working hard to keep our graduate programs in areas, and they are now claiming they have the second largest graduation program in the state. They’ve been working on graduate assistants, but that’s what they’ve done; and it clearly has something to do with this difference. In some ways, it’s good to wonder what that means to us.
Admin: Further, one of the things you do when trying to figure out how you’re fairing with resources compared to your peer groups is you take longer to get the most recent data for peer institutions in other states; however, we can get Mankato’s from MnSCU.
FA: As I listen to all of this, it appears that external pressure is impeding this institution against itself, and we cannot survive as an institution by going over to whomever, receiving instructions to implement without questioning those instructions we’ve been given. I’ve been here 14 to 15 years, and I see most faculty members working all year- round because they don’t have time to publish in the regular semester, and these publications make SCSU visible everywhere. It’s time for us to stop saying “okay I’ll go back and tell them” and question some of the things. I don’t think SCSU is well liked by some people in the state, and we shouldn’t just accept instructions. We’ve been doing more with less for the past six years and then we accuse each other. No, we are not the problem -- the problem is external, and let’s face this adversary.
Admin: when is the next Gubernatorial election?
Admin: I’m serious
Admin: So am I.
Admin: You’re right -- every study we’ve done we suffer because we don’t get the same amount per students as our peer institutions. Those of us on the administration side were encouraged to serve on those committees to create a more fair allocation model. If we implemented 2 or 3 percent at a time, we’d get a pittance. One institution, one vote doesn’t seem to help us much. The best we can hope for is to continue in positive ways -- we need to be better liked in the world of MnSCU and keep asking for 2 or 3 percent, and maybe, eventually, we’ll get more money. A base-crossed model is the problem.
FA: SCSU is certainly an ugly stepchild within our own system. It may be that those financial distances will even increase. We’ve done a pretty good job to find professors to teach classes; and as there are pressures to move away from that model, we’re moving away from learning and more towards access -- and Mankato has moved more toward access. The world’s worse classroom teacher generally is better than the best technology where there is no teacher, yet we’re forced to have online, two-way television, two-way audio – and learning goes down with those.
FA: My conversations with the negotiations team are often uncomfortable because they lambaste SCSU; but I will never forget one conversation we had which turned to academic strength, and I was slack-jawed when everyone said you have real academic programs, not like us. That’s our reputation in this state, and these figures are one dimension of the material reality; but that is the concession of our academic superiority, and I hope faculty and administration, alike, are totally committed to preserving this.
Admin: I think we are.
4. Mandatory Diversity Training (Admin)
Admin: We talked about this at the last Executive Committee meeting. I want to update you on our planning. We’ve been having conversations with High Impact Training, and they’re developing a 75-minute training unit. There are a couple of principles they’ll be following. The first three days of the exam period when we have four exam blocks each day, we’ll schedule one 75-min period in each of those blocks on those three days with 12 opportunities to attend training. We’ll also provide two additional training sessions and have additional training available during convocation. We will require all new faculty to attend training, and it will be available to returning faculty who may have missed this training. We will also maintain and continue to work to develop more comprehensive and more beneficial kinds of training throughout the next academic year.
FA: Our position is we endorse having high level, high quality, meaningful, comprehensive training addressing short and long-term needs on campus. We’re prepared to take a stance that our faculty participate in such training. We’ll inform them of the moral and imperative need, if you will, of being informed of one another and how such sessions can lead to that type of understanding; and we will encourage people to participate.
Admin: I want to thank the FA for this support and encouragement.
FA: So, you’re going to offer those 12 sessions. Will they be located in rooms that will accommodate such a large number of people?
Admin: We’re looking into the new conference room in Atwood, and the training company has asked us to limit each session to 75 individuals.
FA: I want to be sure members are not told there is no room for them.
Admin: You can’t dictate who will go where – hopefully 75 people in each of the 12 sessions will be okay. The only alternative is to assign people to sessions, and no one is prepared to do that.
Admin: We can let people know we’ll try to control that number a little bit and say if they sign up earlier, they’ll be assured to attend – kind of what students face!
Admin: You want to make sure you fit in.
FA: I have three points: first, we cannot get involved in sanctions for reasons I’m sure you know; but from your discussion the other day, your analysis and experience from court has led you to believe you must impose sanctions. We think it would be helpful if faculty understand where the sanctions are coming from.
Admin: That attendance is mandatory by virtue of the court settlement -- yes.
FA: We want to keep the number of incidents to an absolute minimum, so it would be helpful to remind people what the state statutes are for harassment in the workplace and what MnSCU’s policies are that bear on full and vigorous debate and limits pertaining to them, because there are such things. I’m not sure if faculty is aware of them. Regarding the people who attended training in the fall, some of those writing their names down thinking they were fulfilling this requirement, how do we tell these people they’re done with what they needed to do? We need to be clear with these people.
Admin: How many names do we have? We need to determine those events were diversity training with an anti-Semitism component.
Admin: The legal language is very specific.
FA: Some of those people will think that they completed the mandatory training when they took a workshop earlier in the year.
Admin: There is a long-range plan and there is collaboration of faculty and administration and there is a very specific timeline, and even those people involved may not fit into the specific long-range plan. I should be able to look at the list given to
John Burgeson from that training to tell who isn’t required to attend.
FA: Should they get in touch with you, or will you write all of them a letter?
Admin: If I find there is a list, I’ll contact those people.
FA: As we make arrangements for trainers, I think it would be worth our while to at least include different elements of racism we want the trainers to concentrate on and make it known that anti-Semitism is one, racism is one, discrimination against gays is one -- all of this; because if we don’t, they might skip some and we’re back to “square one.” It’s not just about one component but is multifaceted.
Admin: It will be that.
FA: When will the announcement come out?
Admin: FA President Fisher asked for me to come to the next Senate meeting, and it’s my intent to do so. We’ll have a firmer knowledge about timing and dates by then, and we’ll publish this information on Announce and a number of different ways; but I want to enlist the support of Faculty Senate to speak to their department colleagues as well as the Meet and Confer team.
FA: By the time you talk with Senate, would you have a definite schedule so we can go back and report this to our departments?
Admin: I may not have the full curriculum but will have a schedule for at least the ones during exam week.
FA: I have one concern about Rex deciding who has satisfied the requirement -- it
probably needs to be the court, doesn’t it?
Admin: We wouldn’t put anybody’s name on a list unless we felt the court would agree. We would have to have pretty clear evidence.
FA: People should probably plan on attending the training, and I’m thinking I’ll tell people to plan on attending.
Admin: I hope my explanation would provide the logic there is a long-term plan in place with a specific requirement – almost two different plans.
Admin: We have to go into court on July 12 saying everybody has been trained or something else is planned for those who haven’t. The training continuing next year will contain a number of diversity issues.
FA: You mentioned the possibility there might be WebCT or a Desire to Learn component acceptable.
Admin: The idea hasn’t been dropped, but I’m not sure it’s acceptable. For those faculty off campus, WebCT might be best. I’ll check with the attorneys to see if it’s acceptable for those people who can’t attend training.
FA: It would be helpful if we placed the emphasis on this as ongoing and that we can never learn enough to continue to allow ourselves to grow and develop about members of the community and to get through this. We don’t want the spirit to be destroyed -- to place on a higher plane -- to learn about our friends and colleagues even if we already went through this training. We’re always learning as more people and configurations are coming in, and there is never a time we can’t learn about people. We would like the emphasis placed on how this would benefit us as a community – not just because of a court order.
Admin: Can I quote you?
FA: The innoculation theory of education is once you’ve been inoculated, you don’t have to be again.
Admin: I hope there is no one at this table assuming this is some kind of inoculation. I am 110 percent agreeable with what Robert says -- to look at this as an opportunity and to make this clear and get across this is an ongoing part of our community in our interactions with one another.
FA: What Robert said is true, but it requires crafting the language and requiring openness -- placing all the cards on the table; because once we tell people the court mandates that everyone attend diversity training and it’s all or nothing, at the same time we’re saying be prepared to continue this training or you might be in trouble. This requires a high order kind of thinking and communication in order not to alienate those who are ambivalent and is ongoing. We need to find a language making the transition from “court mandated” to become part of us.
Admin: We want this to be a required first step.
Admin: On administration’s side, we will explain why anti-Semitism is the core feature of the training, and it must include primary issues of diversity training.