Minutes of the Academic Affairs Committee Meeting

29 April 2003

Present: Lisa Chase, Leslie Couse, Jim Dembowski, Glenn Geher (chair), Yoav Kaddar, Cindy McCormick, Debra Miller, Robin Smith, Chih-yang Tsai. Matt Schwartz stopped to check in at the start of the meeting but was unable to stay because of a conflicting commitment.

The meeting was called to order about 11.35 a.m.

The committee received the report of Kevin McFarland, chair of the Scholarship Committee (a standing committee of Academic Affairs). Mr. McFarland noted that the committee worked cooperatively and efficiently and that it successfully discharged its duty to find suitable recipients of general foundation scholarships. Mr. McFarland thanked his fellow committee members for their efforts, and made a special note that work with the committee went smoothly and seemed to be a generally positive experience for all members. He briefly fielded questions about the committee’s procedures. Two particular issues concerning scholarships were raised that might warrant future attention. One, we currently have no general scholarships for graduate students on this campus. Two, we might want to improve the dissemination of scholarship information to students.

We reviewed and recruited candidates (from within our current committee ranks) for re-election to the Academic Affairs Committee.

There was brief discussion about the need to reach out to students who have the right and the obligation to participate on faculty committees, including this committee and its standing committees (such as the Academic Appeals Committee). Committee members noted that our student representative this past year, Matt Schwartz, has been a useful member whose point of view has been valuable. We are grateful for his participation.

The committee received the report of Jerry Persaud, chair of the Academic Appeals Committee (another standing committee of Academic Affairs). He noted that the Academic Appeals committee is currently addressing two cases of plagiarism. Several issues concerning the topic of plagiarism were raised:

– Incoming freshfolk are often unclear about what constitutes plagiarism.

– The student advising handbook might be revised to clarify definitions of plagiarism, and should include advice about using and citing web-based resources.

– Teachers and advisors might wish to take stronger proactive stances to educate students about plagiarism and address its consequences.

– We should seek to educate students about plagiarism in ways that go beyond merely placing statements in the student handbook. For example, we might wish to have incoming student orientation activities that address plagiarism.

A question was raised concerning whether faculty should be required to put specific statements about academic integrity on all syllabi. Some members objected to the idea of requiring all faculty to make specific statements on their documents, but everyone seemed to feel that encouraging (rather than requiring) faculty to address academic integrity through syllabus statements and other methods seemed a good idea.

The committee turned its attention to the confirmation of members of standing committees. A procedural point was clarified in that members of standing committees are appointed, not elected. The Academic Affairs committee members noted that our present list of standing committee membership appeared incomplete. We decided to defer confirmation of standing committee membership until we could obtain a complete list of members.

There was some brief discussion of issues surrounding the last full faculty meeting and the failure of the faculty at that meeting to approve an academic calendar. The committee members noted the need to ensure that some procedure is found to allow the full faculty to vote in future on calendar alternatives (i.e., to choose options) as devised by this committee.

The meeting adjourned at 12.35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Dembowski