Faculty Senate Meeting
October 23, 2019
Kyle Morrow Room, Fondren Library

Senators present: Gwen Bradford, Gregory Chambers, Sergio Chavez, Nate Citino, Dennis Cox, Erik Dane, Michael Diehl, Mahmoud El-Gamal, Sarah Ellenzweig, Christopher Fagundes, Pat Hartigan, Chris Johns-Krull, Marek Kimmel, Eden King, David Leebron, Jun Lou, Angel Marti-Arbona, Seiichi Matsuda, David Messmer, Ed Nikonowicz, Ray Simar, Scott Solomon, Jesús Vassallo, Nicole Waligora-Davis, Pablo Yepes, Colin Zelt

Senators absent: Daniel Domingues, Esther Fernandez, Dawn Finley, Charles Geyer, Emilia Morosan, Jamie Padgett, Rob Raphael, Doug Schuler

PROCEEDINGS

(To listen to an audio tape of this meeting, email senate@rice.edu.)

Senate Meeting Agenda (and actions taken):

  1. Call to Order and Welcome
  2. Announcements
    1. Formation of Committee on Freedom of Expression
    2. Announcements from the floor
  3. Report from Officers and Standing Committees (None)
  4. Working Group Reports
    1. Calendar working group update - Discussion of GA text on exams
  5. Unfinished Business (None)
  6. New Business
    1. Motion to approve Master of Social Policy Evaluation degree program (PASSED)
    2. Motion to approve new methodology for setting the fall/spring semester calendar (PASSED)
    3. Motion to approve the 2021-2022 fall/spring semester calendar (PASSED)
  7. Adjourn

Minutes

  1. Call to Order and Welcome

    Speaker Chris Johns-Krull called the meeting to order at 12:07 p.m.

  2. Announcements
    1. Formation of Committee on Freedom of Expression

      Johns-Krull said that a Committee on Freedom of Expression was established a few weeks prior through the president’s office and he was representing the Faculty Senate on the committee. President Leebron said that the committee grew out of the very good work done by the Student Association a couple years ago. He said he wanted to make sure university policy reflected the statement from the Student Association. He added that he often encounters fundamental misunderstandings about the meaning of freedom of expression.

    2. Announcements from the floor

      President Leebron gave an update on the Slavery, Segregation, and Racial Injustice Task Force. He said the university was days away from announcing the composition of that task force. He said co-chairs Alex Byrd and Caleb McDaniel were doing a great job and after an initial memo from him about the task force membership, he expected the task force to take over the work.

  3. Report from Officers and Standing Committees (None)
  4. Working Group Reports
    1. Calendar Working Group update - Discussion of GA text on exams

      Johns-Krull said the calendar working group would bring motions forward later in the meeting, but there was one item which required guidance from the Senate. He said that the working group’s recommendation would be to reduce the number of final exams days from eight to seven. He explained that the General Announcements states that a student cannot be required to take more than two exams in one day. Registrar David Tenney added that his office recognizes the restriction exists and does its best to accommodate the policy but does not factor it in to final exam scheduling. Johns-Krull asked if the policy was overly generous to students or too strict. Senator Angel Marti-Arbona asked how the third exam and professor are identified. Tenney explained that whichever exam is offered third that day is required to be moved. If a student presents evidence to a professor that they are giving the third exam of that student’s day, the professor is required to accommodate the student.

      Deputy Speaker Ed Nikonowicz asked if he was correct in his understanding that faculty cannot require students to turn in work during final exams. Tenney answered that faculty can choose to use their scheduled final exam day or the last day of finals. Senator Scott Solomon asked how “final exam” was defined. Tenney answered that take home and scheduled final exams are included, but papers and presentations are not. Senators expressed some confusion over whether faculty could require exams, papers, and presentations to be turned in during non-scheduled final exam times. Tenney reiterated that while the rule regarding the number of exams in one day exists, most students don’t seem to know about it and perhaps don’t care. Johns-Krull asked senators if they felt the issue needed to be addressed. Senator Mahmoud El-Gamal said status quo bias wins, and Senator Pat Hartigan said that it would be dangerous to over-legislate the issue and a certain level of flexibility is needed.

  5. Unfinished Business (None)
  6. New Business
    1. Motion to approve Master of Social Policy Evaluation degree program (PASSED)

      Johns-Krull said there had already been strong discussion over the proposal for a Master of Social Policy Evaluation. He said the proposal had been reviewed and approved by the Graduate Council, and forwarded to the Executive Committee, who voted to place the proposal on the agenda. El-Gamal seconded the motion to approve. Interim Dean of Social Sciences Susan McIntosh then provided background on the proposal. She said the history of the proposal went back several years and the idea originated with Economics faculty members Ken Wolpin, Antonio Merlo, and Flavio Cunha. She said the goal of the program was to create a research center dedicated to the formulation of evidence-based policy. It would be a curricular research center that would support the professional masters program. It could also grow the ranks of professionals. She said then-Dean Merlo oversaw the original proposal, which did not make it to the Senate for approval. She said over the summer the proposal was rewritten by Wolpin, who restructured the program and recruited tenured faculty and researchers to teach in the program. She said that the Texas Policy Lab would be a key resource for the program. McIntosh said she circulated a revised draft of the proposal in August and in early September departments reviewed the proposal. She explained that the departmental letters included in the proposal have varying degrees of support. McIntosh said she met with some faculty who were critical of the proposal and she took their concerns seriously, but that she had to consider their comments in the larger perspective of the priorities of the previous dean and the extent of positive support within the School of Social Sciences. She said that she would not have sent the proposal forward if she did not think it was ready for discussion at the Senate and that deliberations should be focused on the current proposal.

      Margaret Beier, faculty director of the proposed program, summarized the program curriculum and learning outcomes. She noted that the outcomes involve “sophisticated skills” that are extremely marketable. She said the program’s founders anticipate a lot of students will be returning professionals from across the nation coming to work with the Texas Policy Lab. She said the program would have a significant impact on the quality of government services.

      Johns-Krull then asked for comments and questions related to the proposal. Rick Wilson said he came to speak on his own behalf and was not representing his Political Science department. He outlined a number of concerns he had with the program. He said that he was worried the MSPE would have unpopular effects on departments. He explained that he did not know where his own department would go in the future and he did not want to see future positions dictated by the program. He said he was also worried that the program would syphon off teaching faculty from departments and other programs. Wilson said he agreed that the credentialing aspect of the program was impeccable and that policy evaluation is important. Wilson added that he was worried about optimistic projections for the number of students the program would attract and the tuition money that would be brought in. He said that public sector salaries are not very high and it is a guess as to whether students’ investment would pay off.

      El-Gamal said he wanted to make a point of process. He said there are opportunity costs and trade-offs with professional masters programs, but that the Faculty Senate should trust the process that addressees the trade-offs earlier. He said that it was too late for some of the concerns to be considered, or to try to address issues that were delegated to earlier steps in the program approval process.

      Robin Sickles said he was chair of the subcommittee that reviewed the MSPE proposal for the Graduate Council and that all subcommittee members supported the proposal, and that in the Graduate Council all members voted to approve the program, except for one abstention.

      Senator Pat Hartigan asked what procedures existed to remove a professional masters program. Sickles answered that the Graduate Council has a vetting process and that professional masters programs are reviewed three years after their approval. Senator Sergio Chavez said he was in charge of scheduling classes for the Department of Sociology and that the program does cause a strain on scheduling.

      Johns-Krull said that he understood senators to be expressing some risk in the creation of the MSPE but that he personally believed there could be a big pay-off for the program. Nikonowicz motioned to end debate and Gwen Bradford seconded. The Faculty Senate voted to approve the Master of Social Policy Evaluation, with 88 percent voting to approve and 13 percent voting to abstain. The voting record is available with net ID on the faculty wiki page. The proposal for the MSPE is posted HERE.

    2. Motion to approve new methodology for setting the fall/spring semester calendar (PASSED)

      Bradford seconded the motion to approve the new methodology for setting the fall/spring semester academic calendar. Johns-Krull reviewed the current and proposed methodologies and highlighted the differences. The new methodology would shift the fall start times to begin on the Monday between August 23 and 29. He said the later start time could allow for students to take advantage of summer opportunities. The second proposed change was to reduce the number of final exam days. He said the working group surveyed students regarding the highest number of exams students had in a given semester and how many days they thought were necessary for exams. Eighty-eight percent of students said seven or fewer days were necessary. The working group also found that Rice had more final exam days than most peer institutions as well. He pointed out that removing one day from final exams resulted in adding one day to the winter recess.

      Johns-Krull said that the rule for Spring Break would be updated to make sure the university’s Spring Break continued to align with HISD’s. A final recommendation, Johns-Krull said, was to move graduation up by one week. He said the working group felt it was important to keep graduation before May 15. This would allow the “Maymester” courses to continue and could also increase faculty participation in graduation. He said under the recommended formula, finals would end on Tuesday and graduation would be on Saturday. In this case, he said, it would be unlikely the university could certify degrees before graduation. The working group found that the large majority of Rice’s peers already do this, and in fact Rice already allowed this in some cases, in addition to the new December ceremony.

      El-Gamal commented that it would be advantageous to allow certification of pending degrees earlier. Johns-Krull noted that some people feel “Senior Week” is an important part of Rice culture and the calendar updates could impinge on that. Senator Ray Simar asked if degree conferral would still occur at graduation. Johns-Krull answered that the script has always included language referring to the registrar’s list. He also explained that Latin Honors would be computed after graduation and not published in the ceremony’s program.

      Nikonowicz asked if the updates really impacted the summer semester since it currently begins in April. Tenney answered that they were going to work on that. Senator Eden King said it was important to focus on the increased educational opportunities available to students as a result of the calendar changes. Interim Provost Seiichi Matsuda asked when the December graduation ceremony would happen and Tenney answered that is happens during the reading days. There was a motion to end debate, seconded by Bradford. The Faculty Senate voted to approve the updated methodology for the academic calendar, with 95 percent voting to approve and 5 percent abstaining. The voting record is available with net ID on the faculty wiki page. The new methodology for determining the academic calendar can be viewed HERE.

    3. Motion to approve the 2021-2022 fall/spring semester calendar (PASSED)

      Johns-Krull said the proposed calendar had been posted on the Senate wiki for review. Bradford seconded the motion to approve the calendar. Johns-Krull explained that the working group chose not to address the issue of unequal teaching days in the fall and spring semester because they felt it was important to see how the new Wednesday before Thanksgiving holiday impacted classes that week. So, the new approved formula and proposed calendar had 69 days in the fall and 67 in the spring.

      Hartigan asked if the calendar would continue to require a yearly vote if the methodology had been thoroughly reviewed and updated. Nikonowicz motioned to end debate and Bradford seconded. The Faculty Senate voted unanimously to approve the 2021-2022 academic calendar. The voting record is available with net ID on the faculty wiki page. The 2021-2022 academic calendar, as approved is posted HERE.

  7. Adjourn

    Johns-Krull adjourned the meeting at 1:16 p.m.