WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE MINUTES of the meeting: Monday, May 17, 2010
Members Present: Anderson, Bolin, Bryant, Celestin, Craft, Decker, DeSilva, Hemans, Hershfield, Horn, Hu, Klunder, Kreinath, Lewis-Moss, Miller, Monroe, Moore-Jansen, Mosack, Myers, Pickard, Rillema, Rokosz, Ross, D. Russell, L. Russell, Scherz, Skinner, Smith-Campbell, Strattman, Taher, Wolf, Yeager
Members Absent: Baker, Baldridge, J. Bennett, T. Bennett, Brooks, Carruthers, Dale, Lezotte, Monroe, Spurgeon
Members Excused: Henry, Soles,
Ex-Officio members present: Miller
Summary of Action:
1. Voted on the recommendation for program discontinuance of the MA in Gerontology
– 5 agree with recommendation, 26 do not agree.
2. Voted on the recommendation for program discontinuance of the BS/BA in Physics
– 3 agree with recommendation, 27 do not agree.
I. Call of the meeting to order: The meeting was called to order at 3:30p.m. by President-Elect Hemans, because President Soles had a family emergency.
II. Informal Statements and Proposals: none
III. Approval of the Minutes: none
IV. President's Report: none
V. Committee Reports: none
VI. Old Business: none
VII. New Business:
It was moved, seconded, and passed to discuss discontinuance.
Provost Miller reported that the review process was going well. He discussed the
Program Review Committee process as required by KBOR, and noted that the committee's
report was presented to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, which endorsed the
process. He noted that discussions have been underway with the College of Health Professions
regarding Gerontology and with Engineering regarding Physics. He indicated that the
forthcoming process would involve reviewing the advisement of this and all other meetings
on discontinuance and then making a recommendation to President Beggs, who will decide
the schedule of procedures at that point. He said that any decision to discontinue
a program would trigger the process on faculty retention outlined in Policies and
Procedures.
A. Recommendation for program discontinuance of the MA in Gerontology-- Speakers were
invited to make statements about the proposal to discontinue the MA program in Gerontology.
Michal Birzer from Community Affairs announced that he had recently reviewed a proposal
from the College of Health Professions to absorb the Gerontology program. He discussed
the potential of and need for the program, noting that the aging of the population
and increased life expectancy create a need for workers in geriatric care, and he
pointed to predictions by the Department of Labor of a significant future demand for
such workers. He said that for the past 3-4 years, one tenure-eligible faculty member
(plus, when possible, one or two adjunct instructors) had taught several hundred credit
hours per semester. He said that inadequate resources had been allocated to the running
of the program and that there is a need to advertise the program. He said that the
Gerontology program would fit well within the College of Health Professions.
Richard Muma from the College of Health Professions said that Gerontology had been
in CHP until moving to LAS in the early 90s, that the program had been successful
within CHP, and that it was not known to him why the faculty of Gerontology had decided
to move to LAS. He warned that discontinuing the program would jeopardize the offering
of courses in Gerontology. He said that all department chairs in the college, as well
the dean, supported consideration of the proposal to incorporate Gerontology. He said
that a per-hour fee would be assessed to gain revenue to support the program. He said
that Gerontology would fit well into the College of Health Professions because Gerontology
is a sub-discipline of Public Health and because there is widespread support within
the college. He said that the college plans to change the Gerontology curriculum so
as to make the program more practical and focused on providing needed skills. He said
that the college plans to make efforts to feed CHP students into the program. He said
that if the program cannot meet KBOR quotas by 2013, the college will recommend discontinuance
of the program.
Hemans then opened the floor for questions about the proposal to discontinue the
Gerontology program. Someone asked about the implications of discontinuance for current
students in the program; Hemans replied that university policy allows current students
to finish under the existing curriculum structure. Scherz expressed support for the
proposal to move the program to CHP. Gordon noted the general aging of the population,
including current faculty. Hershfield asked whether CHP administration would commit
resources to the program beyond the proposed student fee; Muma replied that at present
the fee would be the main source of revenue and that he could not speak for the dean
beyond that. Hershfield asked whether the program's viability would require further
tenure-stream hires or whether existing faculty resources were adequate; Muma replied
that two gerontologists would be ideal, but others already in CHP have teaching competence
in Gerontology and could offer courses. The current faculty member in the Gerontology
program said that the faculty arrangement outlined by Muma is common in Gerontology
programs in other universities, which are often multi-disciplinary and use distance
learning. Hershfield asked whether the faculty member believed that the program would
be viable without another tenure-stream hire; she replied that it would be, and that
the program's primary need is for administrative support to oversee, advise, and recruit
students. Gordon said that interdisciplinary programs are necessary, but that universities
must invest to provide administrative support for such programs. Myers asked whether
Gerontology, with more administrative support, would be workable within in LAS, or
whether it would be better to move to CHP; the faculty member in Gerontology replied
that it would be better to move the program to CHP, since most students are coming
to the program from CHP. Someone expressed support for the proposal to move Gerontology
to CHP.
The question was called and a vote was taken. There were 5 votes for discontinuance,
and 26 votes against discontinuance.
2. Recommendation for program discontinuance – BS/BA in Physics --- Speakers were
then invited to make statements about the proposal to discontinue the BA/BS in Physics.
Nick Solomey, chair of Physics addressed the necessity of physics to engineering,
the natural sciences, the university, the community, and industry. He said that he
joined the program fewer than 3 years ago, and found that lack of enrollment was due
to inadequate advertising of the program. He said that there was an increasing trend
of majors and graduates in 2007-2010, due largely to improved advising on the importance
of a physics major. He predicted that the program would be able to satisfy KBOR quotas
by 2012. He said that there was an increased trend in credit hour production, paired
with low expenses involved in maintaining the program and its faculty. He said that
physics majors could expect strong salaries, low rates of unemployment, and strong
demand even in recession. He discussed the importance of the university's service
to a local industry experiencing a shortage of physicists. He said that the program
has sent graduates to many top graduate programs in physics. He said that four scholarships
have been donated to the program by Boeing, and that there has been industry support
for the work of several of the program's faculty members. He said that WSU had the
potential for a leadership role among Kansas universities on the Auger Cosmic Ray
Observatory project, and that the funds for that 25-year project would go only to
those universities that had a physics program. He said that it is common for students
in Mathematics and Engineering to double-major in Physics, even though the current
system makes such a double major a double degree requiring 1.5 additional years; he
said that moving Physics into Engineering would not solve that problem, although the
problem could be solved between Engineering and LAS. He said that the program teaches
classes for several colleges (Engineering, Health Professions, Education, LAS, Fine
Arts) as well as for general education. He said that discontinuance would make it
difficult to recruit faculty of the appropriate level.
Christian Wolf from Mathematics said that WSU needs a strong research emphasis in
order to compete with other institutions, and that all research must be preserved
equally in order to maintain the quality of the whole university, citing as an example
the importance of a strong Physics program for a strong Engineering program. He said
that the university needs to remain a part of discipline-wide progress in Physics,
which has the potential for important social changes. He discussed the strength of
the Physics faculty, including their earning of research grants. He said that program
assessment should be about program quality, and not just about numbers of students.
He said that Physics is an important area of general study for students in several
specialized areas. He said that the university should be persistent in supporting
Physics, and that efforts to grow the program have been given inadequate time, since
a new chair was hired only 2.5 years ago.
Thomas DeLillo from Mathematics said that the discontinuance proposal was made on
the basis of incorrect information and under time pressure. He discussed the contributions
of Solomey to academic life in Physics, which had produced benefits for local educators.
He explained the nature of the Auger project, its importance as a research opportunity,
and its potential impact on knowledge in physics. He said that the program is important
in order to attract industry to the area. He criticized the process that led to the
discontinuance proposal, the rush of the process at the end of year-long reshaping,
and a lack of transparency.
The floor was then opened for discussion. VP Miller responded that Auger project
is not inevitable, that it has been discussed from many years, and that many obstacles
remain; he said that the near-term prospect is not optimistic. David MacDonald from
ORA affirmed this, and questioned especially the prospects of Kansas' involvement
in the project. Solomey replied that important steps in the project are already underway
and that he is already involved in them. Gordon said that the university must decide
whether they want to be part of emerging research, whether the project is inevitable
or not; Wolf said that it is important that the university make the most of what opportunities
there are, whether they are inevitable or not, and that discontinuance would remove
those opportunities for WSU. Horn asked about projections for Physics to meet KBOR
quotas; Hemans replied that program review looked only through the Spring 2009 semester.
Someone said that the advances that the program has made are significant. Keith Pickus
said that Solomey's data on those trends are not accurate, as they are not based on
criteria used to report to KBOR; he acknowledged an upward trend, but said that growth
is not as significant as had been suggested in the meeting. Hershfield noted the historic
centrality of physics to the liberal arts and sciences; he encouraged consideration
of creative strategies to facilitate double majors in Physics and other programs,
especially across colleges; and he encouraged consideration of such strategies for
smaller programs in general, so that students could earn double majors without having
to earn double degrees. Gordon said it was difficult for programs to count majors
in real time for the purposes of program review; Hemans replied that he and President
Soles have met with Martha Shawver to address such concerns. Myers asked whether low
programs in Physics at KSU and KU were also facing discontinuance; Solomey replied
that the dean at KSU reports that their administration is taking no such action. Someone
from Chemistry discussed the importance of Physics to Chemistry, noting previous beneficial
research collaborations; he said teaching quality in Physics would suffer without
tenure-stream instructors; he said it would be difficult to recruit chemists to an
institution without a Physics program; and he warned of the difficulty of maintaining
vibrant work in the sciences without a Physics program.
The question was called and a vote was taken. There were 3 votes for discontinuance,
27 votes against discontinuance, and 1 abstention.
The Senate then moved to executive session. There was discussion of a Senate response
to the discontinuance proposals. Members offered comments and amendments to a draft
statement presented by Hemans.
VIII. As May Arise: