The ASCSU passed the following resolutions:
Fostering a Welcoming and Safe Campus Climate for African American Students requests that all mission statements and strategic planning documents espouse the importance of recruiting, retaining and graduating students of African descent, that CSU campuses continue to report racist incidents directed towards persons of African descent, and recommends that campus presidents, provosts, others adopt a list of specific actions to address related concerns. This was deemed urgent due to recent incidents on CSU campuses.
Appreciation for the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation’s Partnership with The California State University to Improve the Preparation of K-12 Teachers Across the State of California is self-explanatory and echoes previous resolutions of appreciation. The foundation is closing its doors soon and will be recognized at the BOT meeting next week.
In Support of Ethnic Studies Programs in the CSU affirms a commitment to Ethnic Studies as beneficial curricula, shares the concerns that led to AB 1460 and recommends that campus senates revisit the Ethnic Studies Task Force Report to implement recommendations for Ethnic Studies curricula through faculty-driven processes of shared governance. This was deemed urgent given the aforementioned bill currently being considered in the legislature.
Endorsement of Criteria for Engineering Model Curricula (MC) for Transfer to Receive the Same Admission Advantage as for Transfer Model Curricula (TMC) urges campuses to grant students completing associate degrees aligned with one of the four Engineering Model Curricula (MC) for Transfer the same admission eligibility advantage as for students who have completed a Transfer Model Curriculum (TMC) yielding an Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) so long as no more than three lower-division GE courses be postponed to post-transfer as per prior ASCSU resolution. This was deemed urgent due to a desire to give encouragement to engineering faculty to continue doing work on this proposal in order to benefit transfer students as soon as is feasible.
In Support of “The Strategic Advantage of the Distinctiveness of the Twenty-three Campuses of the California State University System” (Board of Trustees, Nov., 2008) reminds system leaders of this principle enunciated by the Board which has seemingly been violated by recent administrative actions and in responses to ASCSU resolutions. The urgency stems from recent developments including a response to an ASCSU request that variations in campus Early Start programs be allowed.
On the Academic Senate CCC Resolution 5.02 S19 “Support for the CSU United States History, Constitution and American Ideals Commonly known as the American Institutions Requirement” thanks the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) for its interest in exploring the inclusion of a requirement similar to the existing CSU United States History, Constitution, and American Ideals (“American Institutions”) requirement into the CCC associate’s degree. This is urgent because these considerations are ongoing.
Call for the Establishment of a Working Group on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Higher Education accepts a white paper on the impact of AI on employment, education, and life-long learning; it calls for the creation of a working group to study the implications of the themes from this white paper and to develop possible recommendations to address them.
Request That the ASCSU Schedule an Interrupting Racism Training Session in September 2019 recognizes the compelling need to recognize many forms of bias and requests that the training that ASCSU began this academic year be completed next year.
Endorsement of the Student Success White Paper Process—Student Perspectives encourages consultation with students during the completion of this white paper which recognizes that student success is multi-faceted and involves many constituents.
Preference for Consulting Assignments for CSU Faculty, Librarians, Coaches, and Counselors encourages the publication of consulting opportunities internally and the utilization of internal CSU expertise in these assignments.
Special Rule of Order Governing Debate on Substantive Motions: 3 For/3 Against formalizes this rule which has been followed by ASCSU without apparent documentation of its adoption.
Resolution in Support of Faculty Publication Rights with a Green Open Access Policy for the California State University urges central administration to review policies at the University of California and Harvard and to develop a similar policy for campuses to consider which supports open access.
Recommending a Fourth-Year Quantitative Reasoning Requirement for Admission to the California State University: Towards a Responsible and Responsive Policy commends the policy development process and urges that steps be taken to ensure that any policies developed to reform the a-g standards with respect to this requirement mitigate any adverse impact on underserved students.(Note: there appears to be more support across the state for a fourth year of quantitative reasoning overall rather than a senior year requirement. This requirement will likely not increase the number of required a-g courses. It likely will require that the elective course have a quantitative reasoning component. The proposed policy is still being refined.) The Board will take up this issue in July.
For a more detailed report on the May 2019 ASCSU plenary session, see the Campus Report May 16-17, 2019. If you have questions, feedback, or comments, please contact Vanessa or Scott.
CSU Faculty Innovation & Leadership Awards (FILA)
Nominations for the CSU Faculty Innovation & Leadership Awards (FILA) are being accepted to recognize faculty who demonstrate leadership or advance student success programs to improve degree completion or eliminate equity gaps. 23 awardees across the CSU will be honored and presented with $5,000 cash awards and $10,000 will be allocated to their academic departments to support awardee activities.
Deadline for nominations: May 3, 2019.
General Education (GE) Task Force Report Feedback
In May, ASCSU will consider two second reading resolutions, each of which provides different advice to the 2019-20 ASCSU Executive Committee. One acknowledges receipt of the report and refers it to our Academic Affairs (AA) and Academic Preparation and Education Programs (APEP) committees for their review. The other recommends that the ASCSU create a new standing subcommittee on General Education Program Review for the CSU system and refer the report to that committee for completion. The ASCSU will decide which path to recommend. Any recommendations the full ASCSU approves will be forwarded to the Chancellor for final approval and inclusion in system-wide GE policy.
ASCSU developed a feedback page for comments on the GETF Report. Required information includes your name and role in the university (faculty, student, administrator, etc). Responses to the survey over 4500 words should be emailed as a single PDF to email@example.com Please include your name and status (faculty, student, administrator, community member, etc.) at the beginning of the document.
Survey results and documents will be posted weekly to a public Dropbox folder accessible here.
- Request for Action on Infringement of Faculty Intellectual Property responds to the actions of organizations such as Course Hero which publish class notes, etc. without permission of the faculty who create them. It requests that the Chancellor’s Office staff help to educate students about related law, provide faculty with means to stop the appropriation of their intellectual property, block web sites that violate the law, and pursue legal action when appropriate.
- Border Issues and Separation of Families: Impact on Students, Faculty and Staff in the CSU calls upon the CSU to continue to support immigrant students, faculty and staff and increase programs to support these communities.
- 2019 Legislative Advocacy Positions of the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) is self-explanatory and allows the Fiscal & Governmental Affairs and Executive Committees to represent formal positions as legislation moves forward in this legislative session. Positions of “support”, “oppose” or “no position” were discussed on bills of potential interest and impact for the ASCSU. Significant discussion was had about what to do when the body supports the intent of proposed legislation but opposes legislative intrusion into issues appropriately left to campuses and faculty.
- Support for AB 829 (Bloom) and the Occupational Therapy Doctorate (OTD) in the CSU supports granting authority for the CSU to offer this professional doctoral degree. It was felt that strong support early in the legislative process was important, hence the second reading waiver. This resolution amplifies the support position in the legislative advocacy resolution (see above). This bill is currently moving forward rapidly.
- Flexibility in the Implementation of Early Start calls for flexibility to meet the different needs of students attending the 22 campuses offering Early Start, including delaying some proposed curricular changes until they have been proven effective. It was deemed urgent because campuses are already well into the process of preparing for next summer’s Early Start programs.
- Support for a Higher Education Facilities Bond Act amplifies the support position in the legislative advocacy resolution (see above).The current budgetary practice of paying for CSU infrastructure using yearly budget allocations does not allow for the needs of the CSU to adequately be addressed. The general obligation bond being contemplated would address critical infrastructure needs and is a very high priority for the CSU.
The following topics may be included on the May plenary agenda:
- Resolution Rejecting the February 2019 General Education Task Force Report asks that no action be taken on the report and that it be referred to a new subcommittee, the GE Program Review Committee, for completion
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Higher Education includes a white paper on the impact of AI on employment, education, etc. and calls for the creation of a task force to study the implications of the themes from this white paper and to develop possible recommendations to address them. (Referred by to committee).
- Request that the ASCSU Schedule an Unconscious Bias Training in September 2019 requests completion of the training that began this year.
- Endorsement of the Student Success White Paper 2.0 Process encourages consultation and data collection during the completion of this white paper.
- Preference for Consulting Assignments for CSU Faculty, Librarians, Coaches, and Counselors encourages the publication of consulting opportunities internally and the utilization of internal CSU expertise in these assignments.
- Receipt of the General Education Task Force Report expresses gratitude to the members of the task force and directs the Executive Committee to refer campus feedback to two standing committees for review. Concerns expressed by various discipline councils and campuses were acknowledged during the introduction and discussion of this resolution.
- Preference for Hiring Incumbent Contingent Faculty, Librarians, Coaches, and Counselors to Non-Contingent Positions requests that a database of these contingent faculty be developed and that hiring committees for non-contingent positions be urged to consult it.
- Special Rule of Order Governing Debate on Substantive Motions: 3 For/3 Against formalizes this rule which has been followed by ASCSU without apparent documentation of its adoption.
- Resolution in Support of an Open Access Policy for the California State University urges a policy which increases student access to scholarly articles written by CSU scholars while maintaining copyright protections.
- Recommending a Four-Year Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning Requirement for Admission to the California State University: Towards a Responsible and Responsive Policy urges that steps be taken to ensure that any policies developed to reform the a-g standards with respect to this requirement mitigate any adverse impact on underserved students.(Note: there appears to be more support across the state for a fourth year of quantitative reasoning overall rather than a senior year requirement.)
For a more detailed report on the March ASCSU plenary session, see the Campus Report March 19. If you have questions, feedback, or comments, please contact Vanessa or Scott.
The following report was adopted from an email sent by Catherine Nelson, ASCSU Chair on February 22, 2019.
Background: In 2017, the Academic Statewide Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) recommended the establishment of a task force to “…examine, offer suggestions and report on GE programs system-wide.” The General Education Task Force (GETF) Report was completed on February 8, 2019. The report includes a conceptual model and a series of recommendations to the ASCSU for the modification of CSU GE Breadth outlined in EO 1100(Rev).
Next Steps: ASCSU is planning a two-step process. The first step is for the report to go through the two-reading resolution process that formally receives the report and refers it to the ASCSU Academic Affairs (AA) and Academic Preparation and Educational Programs (APEP) Committees for review. The first reading of the resolution will occur in March; the second reading for amendments, debate, and a vote will occur in May. The second step of the process is for the AA and APEP committees to review feedback and make recommendations. Then, in accordance with ASCSU’s established process, the GETF Report, including recommendations, will be forwarded to the Chancellor for final approval.
Note About Process: ASCSU is committed to broad and inclusive system-wide consultation to get feedback about the GETF Report. ASCSU is working to provide ample time for full consideration and discussion of the report’s contents on the various campuses. ASCSU expects to collect feedback through October 2019, with the first reading of a resolution containing any recommendations AA and APEP make following at the earliest at the November 2019 plenary meeting. Chancellor White has assured ASCSU no new executive orders regarding GE will be issued before the ASCSU weighs in on the GETF Report. The only exception would be if there is a legal requirement to do so, such as a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that requires some kind of change in GE.
Opportunity for Input: ASCSU recognizes the importance of the report and encourages all stakeholders to provide feedback, through all available mechanisms. ASCSU is currently working to set up an online mechanism for direct feedback to ASCSU. CSUMB senators (Scott and Vanessa) will let you know as soon as the system is available. In addition, ASEC is exploring additional mechanisms for campus-wide feedback. You will be notified by the Academic Senate of any planned forums or other CSUMB-wide mechanisms.
If you have questions, feedback, or comments, please feel free to contact Vanessa or Scott.
Preliminary results following EO1110 changes
The Chancellor’s Office has been analyzing the result of the new EO 1110 courses (especially those in Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning). They are still waiting on further data from one or two campuses, but the preliminary results are positive (higher rates of passage for math courses).
Governor Newsoms’ proposed budget
Governor Newsom proposed an increase 6x higher that former Gov. Brown’s recommended increase: $300 million increase for the general fund, and $262 million in one-time funds. This represents a 6% augmentation for CSUs (vs. 4% for UCs). The Governor’s expectation is that tuition will remain flat and that CSU will grow in student headcount. At the same time, the Governor’s proposed increase was less than what the CSU Board of Trustees requested. For more details, see Governor’s Budget Summary link.
Chancellor plans to introduce bond
Chancellor White intends to place an $8 billion general obligation bond on the ballot for 2020, largely for facilities. The funds would be shared between UC and CSU. The Chancellor did qualify these plans by noting there was much work that will need to be done both politically and strategically to make this happen. In describing the need for these funds, the Chancellor pointed out that 60% of the buildings in the CSU were 30 years or older, and there is a need to update classroom design for 21st century.
Tenets of System Level Shared Governance in the CSU approved
The resolution to adopt the Tenets of System Level Shared Governance in the California State University passed. However, it is worth noting that the resolution included a clause a guiding principle that states: “The Chancellor shall not unilaterally decide what form the expedited consultation process should take or when it should be used.” Relatedly, the Encouraging Responsible Curriculum Development and Modification under HEERA resolution also passed. That resolution included the stipulation “that ASCSU reassert our objection to the severely time constrained and flawed shared governance process and consultation surrounding Executive Order 1100 (revised) and Executive Order (EO) 1110 and insist that the practice of joint decision making mandated in HEERA be respected and adhered to.” The next step will be for the Chancellor to approve the Tenets document, which he is expected to do.
For a more detailed report on the January ASCSU plenary session, see the detailed report. If you have questions, feedback, or comments on the resolution, please be in contact with Vanessa or Scott.
CSU Basic Needs Initiative
The deadlines for the CSU Basic Needs Initiative mini- grants are fast approaching: Due 20/21 December, depending on grant. The Basic Needs Initiative is a CSU effort to study and address the problem of food and housing insecurity in higher education. The following grants are available:
- Faculty (-student) research, up to $15K
- Campus Community Garden enhancement ($3K)
- Student Research, $1,000 and $2,500
Addressing Bias in the CSU
The ASCSU membership participated in a truncated Unconscious Bias training in an effort to move towards more equitable membership and processes as a body.
Tenets of Shared Governance Resolution Update
Resolution to adopt the Tenets of Shared Governance was discussed as a first read. Concerns about adopting the Tenets primarily revolved around the perception that the Chancellor’s Office has more authority regarding“expedited consultation” that faculty were satisfied with. However, there was also discussion about how adopting the Tenets does not close the process of discussion of consultation; additional action can always take place.
20th Anniversary of the CSU Center for Community Engagement
ASCSU passed the Observing the 20th Anniversary of the CSU Center for Community Engagement, and Student Success in Service Learning and Community Engagement resolution. Copies of this and other resolutions can be found at http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolutions/.
A more detailed review of Plenary business can be found here.
On January 17th, the ASCSU will be taking action on a resolution to adopt the Tenets of System Level Governance in the CSU. Several campuses have already provided their Sense of the Senate responses when the Tenets came up for a first read in November. Your Statewide Senators would benefit from both individual feedback as well as a CSUMB Senate statement regarding the position of the campus faculty.
The Tenets represent an agreement between the ASCSU and the Chancellor’s Office that reaffirms guidelines for shared governance. It captures the outcome of six two-hour meetings between the CO’s representatives (including the Chancellor, himself, at two meetings) and the ASCSU Executive Committee. These meetings were initiated by ASCSU in response to the egregious disregard for consultation on EO1100 and EO1110. As a result, the Tenets represent an effort to remind the CO that the faculty play a primary and invaluable role in establishing curriculum in the CSU.
One of the points in favor of adopting the Tenets is that they embody a good faith effort between the ASCSU Executive Committee and the Chancellor’s Office to affirm a sense of shared governance. Further, the Tenets can stand as a first step, not a final step, in holding the CO accountable for its actions. Adopting them also affirms the actions of the Executive Committee and conveys a sense of solidarity and follow-through on behalf of CSU faculty to the CO.
On the other hand, the Tenets do not expand the rights of the faculty in any formal way; they are a negotiated understanding on the order of an MOU. And they include elements that some faculty have concerns about. Specifically, the following is raising concerns (italics added by blog author):
The formal consultation process will therefore make provision to allow for an explicit agreement between the ASCSU and the chancellor to engage in a mutually agreed-upon process of expedited consultation in such cases, while still recognizing the formal role of the academic senates as the faculty voice on the matters under consideration. In the unlikely event that agreement cannot be reached, the chancellor will decide. Because an expedited process is not the most optimal form of consultation and shortchanges a robust shared governance process, its use should be limited to those rare circumstances that justify departing from the more comprehensive process intended by this document.
The CO position is that there will be rare instances when action cannot wait for the processes of ASCSU to produce a representative response. The ASCSU pushed back and stated that even in those circumstances, the CO would work with the ASCSU to define an expedited process. Regardless, some faculty are still concerned about the possible implications of this paragraph (i.e., its concessions to the CO).
CSUMB faculty are encouraged to read through the Tenets document, as well as the response from sister campuses (given below) and provide feedback to Vanessa and Scott both as individuals and as members of the Academic Assembly. Please feel free to contact Vanessa, Scott or the Senate Chair, Michael, if you have questions.
Responses from other campuses:
CSUS Resolution (In Support)
CSUDH Resolution (Opposed)
Stanislaus Resolution (Opposed)