ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú

Call to Order and Announcements

The University Senate was called to order at 3:30 p.m., via Zoom, on Monday, February 22, 2021. Members absent: Dan Bosworth, Reena Murphy, Marielena Orozco, Brandon Small, Danielle Stein, and Harper Sutton.

1. Announcements and Remarks by the Chair of Senate Executive Committee, James Bielo.

   1. The next Senate Working Session will be on March 1 and will be led by Senators Thesz and Bosworth. The topic will be attendance policies. If there is interest in assisting Senator Poetter with coordinating and organizing the sessions, please see Senator Poetter or Executive Committee.

   2. Executive Committee is also interested in having a working session regarding updating the campus closure policy. If you have interest in attending or leading this type of discussion, please reach out to Senate Executive Committee.

   3. A survey to determine interest in Senate committees was sent to members of Faculty Assembly on February 22. It is our primary way to fill committee vacancies. The deadline is March 8, 2021. The goal is to place people where they are interested.

Approval of University Senate Minutes

2. A motion was received, seconded, and carried to approve the February 8, 2021, minutes.

Consent Calendar

3. The following items were received on the Consent calendar:

   1. Fiscal Priorities Fall 2020 report

   2. Graduate Council Minutes - January 26, 2021

   3. Liberal Education Council Minutes - January 26, 2021

Senator Wardle noted that Fiscal Priorities Committee specifically requested that they want Senate Executive Committee to review their report.

Old Business

4. Amorous Relationships Policy – Final Draft – Senator Liz Wardle

   1. Senator Bielo offered a procedural reminder and an explanation regarding friendly and substantive amendments. Anyone can make a friendly amendment, and if there are no objections, it will be included in the resolution. Amendments that are more substantive will require a motion and a discussion focused only on that amendment. When discussion is ended, senators will vote on whether to accept that amendment.

   2. Senators had the following comments:

      1. Senator Wagner introduced a friendly amendment to be appended to the paragraph on pursuit: “Mere presence or activity on an online dating application is not evidence of pursuit of amorous relationships prohibited under this policy." This is in partial response to some of the concerns raised at the last meeting. There also have been concerns about this policy being similar to the reporting arrests policy. The goal is to work toward making the policy as protective and formative as possible. She knows first-hand the need for the policy because there is a significant power difference between faculty and students and sometimes staff and students. It is an uncomfortable situation to put students in. Senators were asked if there were objections to the friendly amendment, and none were expressed.

      2. Senator Stephan talked to constituents and students and wanted to summarize some objections. We need to be treating students as adults, but this would be treating them as children. As a public institution, we are going into encroaching into dangerous territory when it comes to the private lives of our faculty, students, and staff. The old policy is strong enough in addressing ethical concerns and power relationships. The new policy is overzealous and overreaching.

      3. Senator Hamilton indicated that he is in an unusual position. He supports the policy, but some faculty expressed the opinion that outside of their College, there should not be an issue with faculty dating older undergraduate students. It was mentioned that it some may find it difficult to find relationships in Oxford that aren’t with students.

      4. Senator Moser recognized how much time and work went into drafting this policy. This policy and other policies that attempt to regulate behavior of faculty and staff off campus make him nervous. In order to enforce this policy, ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú would be forced to ‘stick their noses into our proverbial bedrooms’. It is an overreach.

      5. Senator Ghazaryan received all negative feedback from her constituents. It is an encroachment on personal lives. The proposed policy is perceived as disrespectful because it assumes that faculty members cannot make appropriate judgment calls. The reporting requirements are intrusive when it comes to family members, but even more intrusive when it comes to pre-existing relationships. If it is a relationship that is legal, there may be serious reasons why people don’t want to disclose or discuss. This was considered very overreaching. Additionally, the anonymous reporting (third-party reporting) through Ethics Point was seen as ‘completely unacceptable’. Several colleagues have asked her not to support the new policy.

      6. Senator Green indicated that at least one person in her department (Psychology) expressed concern. However, when talking to chairs and other administrators, she has learned that this is a bigger concern than what we may appreciate. She expressed support for the policy and stated that we need to be able to protect our undergraduate students who do not have the power to do so themselves.

      7. Senator Pennington supports the policy. Her faculty have raised concerns and have asked that the policy be amended to limit the broad overreach. Under the prohibited section, she is proposing that the first sentence, ‘Subject to the limited exceptions outlined here, all ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú faculty members are prohibited from pursuing or engaging in an amorous relationship with any ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú undergraduate students’ be removed. The next section, which addresses graduate students, would be modified to read: ‘Subject to the limited exceptions outlined here, all ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú faculty members are prohibited from pursuing or engaging in amorous relationships with any ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú undergraduate or graduate students who are in their courses, or who are enrolled in programs in the faculty member’s department or program, or over whom they have supervisory responsibility’. The prohibitions would be the same for graduates and undergraduates.

      Senators had the following questions and comments regarding this amendment:

      1. Senator Morris asked how this is now different than existing policy. Senator Wardle replied that existing policy only prohibits you from dating those in your classes. This is broader than that. It would include anyone in your program or your department.

      2. Provost Osborne added that one of the issues with narrowing it down is that undergraduates permeate the university (e.g. 3,000 have more than one major.) Some faculty are very strategic in how they go about doing this. There are issues at most institutions. We are focusing on the faculty perspective, but we need to be talking about the educational experience of our undergraduate students.

      3. Senator Wardle indicated that this came up as an issue when the committee met. It’s a line that does not have a clear boundary, which is why they did not propose the same language as the amendment. She added that Oxford is a small community and power is power.

      4. Senator Jett expressed that she is vehemently opposed to the amendment. From a student perspective, she sees every professor as a mentor and knows that there are power differences. This issue has a psychological impacts on students, and she will not be supporting the amendment.

      5. Senator Stephan feels that the amendment is a step in the right direction and is an objective measure. It is a compromise, and with it, the policy could move forward.

      6. Senators voted on the Amendment. It was defeated: 15 Yes; 39 No; 4 Abstentions

       

   3. Discussion continued regarding the policy:

      1. Senator Stuart stated that good policy is about common sense. He is in support of the policy.

      2. Senator Von Zastrow is in support of the policy. Students are here to receive an education and ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú prides itself on being a school with excellent teaching and mentoring. The possibility of a relationship between a faculty member and a student does feel uncomfortable because there is an inherent power difference between a faculty member and a student.

      3. Senator Coleman indicated that this policy was drafted with all stakeholders in mind. It does insulate faculty in that it would protect the faculty member if the situation were inverted (e.g. a student were pursuing a faculty member.)

   4. SR 21-21 was approved: 41 Yes; 12 No; 5 Abstentions

SR 21-21

February 22, 2021

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate approves the Consensual Amorous Relationships Policy as outlined below:

Consensual Amorous Relationships Policy

What is Prohibited

Subject to the limited exceptions outlined here, all ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú faculty members are prohibited from pursuing or engaging in an amorous relationship with any ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú undergraduate students. 

ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú graduate assistants are prohibited from pursuing or engaging in an amorous relationship with any ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú undergraduate student enrolled in their courses or over whom they have other University responsibility or authority, wherein the graduate assistant has the power or authority to alter or influence the conditions of the student’s participation in the University’s educational programs or activities. This specifically includes supervision in a lab or tutoring site.

Staff are prohibited from pursuing or engaging in an amorous relationship with any ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú graduate or undergraduate student over whom they have University supervisory responsibility or authority, wherein the staff member has the power or authority to alter or influence the conditions of the student’s participation in the University’s educational programs or activities. This specifically includes student employment, coaching, athletic training, and advisors to student organizations.

“Pursuit” means seeking a date or romantic relationship, making romantic or sexual comments to a student that a reasonable person would perceive as having intent toward such a relationship, or to seek out an amorous personal relationship. Mere presence or activity on an online dating application is not evidence of pursuit of amorous relationships prohibited under this policy.

“Student” refers to persons who have been admitted to the University (beginning at their orientation) and continuing during academic terms for which they are enrolled, and during breaks between academic periods including University holidays and vacations, and during periods of suspension. A person is no longer deemed a student when they have completed their degree program and graduated, are not seeking re-enrollment, or following one semester of having not been enrolled.

Relationships in violation of this policy should not be pursued or engaged in while the student is enrolled or the faculty or staff member is employed by ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University.

[Note that sexual harassment is covered by a different policy--the Sexual Misconduct Protocol—and is defined as unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex, including gender, gender identity, or expression, or sexual orientation, that is sufficiently severe and pervasive to adversely impact a term or condition of a person’s ability to participate in the University’s educational programs or activities. Sexual harassment includes conduct that unreasonably interferes with a person’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working learning, or living environment.]

Exceptions

Relationships that exist prior to employment or enrollment at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú will generally be exempted from this policy. This includes ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú employees whose partners enroll in classes at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú.

Process for Reporting Exceptions and Violations and Enforcing Consequences

Requesting and Reporting Exceptions

Relationships that exist prior to employment or enrollment at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú should be reported by the employee when employment or enrollment begins and on the required Ethics Questionnaire. When partners of ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú employees enroll in classes, this should be reported via the required Ethics

Questionnaire

If an employee begins a relationship that is allowed by the above policy (for example, a faculty member begins dating a graduate student outside their department over whom they have no supervisory responsibility) or is already in such an allowable relationship, they should report the relationship to their supervisor and the appropriate personnel office to ensure any conflicts in reporting or supervision can be addressed. These relationships, barring any unusual conflicts, will be exempted from this policy.

When existing or developing and allowable relationships are reported, a central purpose of the reporting is to ensure that no immediate conflicts exist or come to exist in teaching or other supervisory roles.

Employees should be aware for their own protection that what appears at the time to be

consensual behavior may later be perceived by one of the parties to be sexual

harassment. Thus, those disclosing pre-existing or allowable amorous relationships should be aware that disclosing a relationship does not change the power differential or protect from future accusations of sexual harassment or misconduct. In the event of a charge of sexual harassment arising from such circumstances, the university will in general be unsympathetic to a defense based upon consent when the facts establish that a faculty-student or staff-student power differential existed within the relationship.

Reporting Potential Violations of the Policy

Anyone seeking to report a violation of this Consensual Amorous Relationship policy may make an anonymous EthicsPoint report, contact Human Resources or Academic Personnel Services, use the ,  and/or contact a supervisor such as the department chair or area supervisor of the person who is believed to have violated the policy.

All reports will initially be reviewed by OEEO to ensure that reported actions do not violate Sexual Misconduct policies. Sexual harassment or sexual misconduct will be handled as the policies and laws governing such violations dictate. If the Sexual Misconduct policies do not apply, the matter will be referred to the employee’s department chair, dean, or supervisor.

Actions that violate this Consensual Amorous Relationship policy will be treated in the first instance as an opportunity for education, following the existing guidelines for disciplinary action for each category of employee, as linked below. Note that for faculty members, chairs are charged with initially advising their faculty regarding policy violations; “If problems identified by the department chair are not resolved following one or more personal meetings, and/or written communications, then the chair may issue a written summary, which will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file, along with any response from the faculty member.” In combination with the first-line education described above, the policies linked below constitute, in effect, progressive disciplinary procedures intended to curtail the behavior and protect all involved.

Administrative staff not covered by any of the above are typically governed by contracts that outline consequences.

New Business

5. ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Plan Revision – Dr. Shelly Jarrett Bromberg, Director, Office of Liberal Education and Dr. Leighton Peterson, Associate Professor, Anthropology and Interim Associate Director, Office of Liberal Education (Attachment A-I)

   1. Dr. Peterson was introduced as the Interim Associate Director of Liberal Education.

   2. The new plan is not yet finalized. The Committee is in the process of gathering feedback. The general model has three components: Foundational Areas: Signature Inquires; and, Knowledge in Action.

   3. During this process, there have been a few working assumptions. There will be a slow and steady implementation plan (4-5 years). There will be targeted resources and support for faculty development with LEC being a consultative resource. Additionally, LEC will have clear and structured guidelines. The plan is to begin this process in Fall 2021.

   4. The current Global ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Plan requirements are reconceived as four primary Foundational Areas with two key points of access: ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Signature Inquiries and Knowledge in Action. The Signature Inquiries are an interdisciplinary approach to course threads. This model furthers the core foundations of ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú's educational reputation, renewing its meaningful connection to the present and future while encouraging signature ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Moments. The three pillars (Foundational Areas, Signature Inquiries, and Knowledge in Action) meet the ODHE requirement of 39 hours (Foundational Areas with double-dipping allowed with Signature Inquires). There is a new category within the Foundational Areas, called Global citizenship, which allows ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú to stand apart from other institutions. Signature Inquiries are a three-course requirement built around ideals of interdisciplinarity. The Knowledge in Action area represents the existing experiential learning area and capstone.

   5. All ideas are held up by four core principle areas where students learn transferable skills. The areas are: Civic-Mindedness & Social Engagement; Collaboration & Innovation; Critical & Integrative Thinking; and, Communication & Expression. The newly designed Foundational area consist of Science & Society, Formal Reasoning & Communication (including the Advanced Writing Component), and Arts & Humanities. The Global Citizenship (12 hours) area includes a 3-hour Diversity, Equity & Inclusion course as well as Intercultural Consciousness courses (3-6 hours), formally Intercultural Perspectives, and Global Inquiry courses (3-6 hours). Learning outcomes for each category have been developed.

   6. The Signature Inquiries area is a way for students to study in areas beyond their primary major. One of the areas of distinction is that the courses are not tiered and can be double-dipped into Foundational Areas. The ideal course in the Signature Inquiries area is interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary or it links to courses in other areas. The courses are designed for non-majors who can then use those skills in their own discipline. The learning outcomes, being developed by the GMP working group, ensure that the courses make connections across areas.

   7. The Knowledge and Action requirement contain courses that have a portfolio building component within the student’s major to allow them to move on. It is an active application of knowledge beyond what a normal course would provide.

   8. Dr. Bromberg indicated that there is going to be a clear and measured rollout, taking approximately four to five years. This spring, a group of courses meeting the ODHE DE&I requirement were identified and put on the course list for the fall. LEC will begin to work with departments and faculty in fall 2021 to develop the curricular and creative processes. In spring 2022, some Signature Inquiry courses as well as more DE&I courses will be tested.

   9. There will be four upcoming listening sessions:

      • Listening Session #1 Thursday, March 4, 2021; 2:50-4:10 PM

      • Listening Session #2 Monday, March 8, 2021; 4:25-5:45 PM

      • Listening Session #3 Wednesday, March 10, 2021; 2:50-4:10 PM

      • Listening Session #4 Tuesday, March 16, 2021; 4:25-5:45 PM

• 1. Senators had the following questions and discussion:

     1. Senator Tai asked if the Signature Inquiry replaces the current Thematic Sequence. Dr. Bromberg answered yes and added that one of the recommendations in the strategic plan is that the Thematic Sequence be eliminated. Replacing the Thematic Sequence was also mentioned in listening sessions. Senator Tai expressed concern that Thematic Sequences are included as a part of curriculum in some majors. Dr. Bromberg indicated that some Thematic Sequences may survive as Signature Inquiries. LEC has the understanding that there are intricacies in the curriculum that will need to be worked out at the departmental level.

     2. Senator Stuart expressed his thanks to LEC for all of the work that has gone into the Plan. He is excited about what was presented and sees good outcomes for students. He would like confirmation on the number of credits for the revised Plan. Is it 51 credits? Dr Peterson answered that for a student coming to ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú with no AP/CCP credits, it is a 42 credit hour requirement the number of credits will remain the same as the current plan. The double-dipping of the Signature Inquiry allows for that. We are accounting for 27 ODHE credit hours.

     3. Senator Coates also expressed that LEC has done a phenomenal job and thanked them for their work. He had two questions. For a course to be global or intercultural, how much of the content should be global/intercultural? His second question had to do with this issue of interdisciplinary/cross disciplinary. The material has to be systemically and simultaneously woven throughout the course. We have a remarkable set of courses in the Advanced Writing area, and we need to make sure they are incorporated into the new ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Plan. We also need to ensure there’s only one measure for each type of course area. Dr. Bromberg clarified that the Advanced Writing requirement is part of the Global ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Plan. The Howe Center for Writing Excellence has done a great job ensuring that the Advanced Writing courses are of high caliber. She is hoping to have similar outcomes with global, intercultural and D,E,& I courses. Dr. Peterson remarked to Senator Coates’ earlier statement that LEC is in the process of auditing current courses, and not all courses are going to meet all connections.

     4. Senator Kenworthy asked a question regarding minors. Currently, in most cases, if a student takes a minor, they do not have to complete a Thematic Sequence. There is thinking that the Signature Inquiries are going to make it harder for students to do minors. There is also a concern that there are not deep connections between classes. Yet, developing those deep connections is going to take a lot of time for the faculty to rethink and redesign their courses. What kind of support is there going to be to do that heavy lifting? Dr. Peterson answered that students don’t do a minor to get out of a thematic sequence. After having spoken with 37 department chairs across the Colleges, there were some thoughts on how to align some of the minors with Signature Inquiries. There are about 500 petitions a year for students who don’t complete minors. Dr. Bromberg added that there are targeted resources to help faculty. The E-portfolio is a possible way for the students to do some of the heavy lifting and have them make the interdisciplinary connections between their courses instead of having the faculty do that.

     5. Dr. Bromberg thanked Associate Provost Carolyn Haynes for her support. The Global ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Plan Redesign Committee has also been instrumental throughout this process.

6. Remote Proctoring Services- ASG Resolution – Jannie Kamara, ASG Student Body President and Wes Payne, ASG District 7, On-Campus Senator (Attachment A-II)

   1. Senator Bielo began by saying that the proposed Sense of the Senate resolution emerged from ASG and has been reviewed by Executive Committee. ASG is asking for an inquiry, and because it is a lower stakes request, the hope is to have a vote today unless there are significant objections.

   2. Today’s presentation is asking for an investigation into remote proctoring services at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. ASG Senator Wes Payne stated that ASG is asking for an unbiased, impartial investigation into whether or not the usage of remote-proctoring services here at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú reflect the words of the “University Values Statement”: ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University is a scholarly community whose members believe that a liberal education is grounded in qualities of character as well as of intellect. We respect the dignity of other persons, the rights and property of others, and the right of others to hold and express disparate beliefs. We believe in honesty, integrity, and the importance of moral conduct. We defend the freedom of inquiry that is the heart of learning and combine that freedom with the exercise of judgment and the acceptance of personal responsibility.

   3. ASG senators have been working on this since November 2020, and they have heard many student concerns about Proctorio. Since the pandemic, the use of remote proctoring services has skyrocketed. This Sense of the Sense does not call for a ban. Some other institutions have stopped using remote proctoring services, including Proctorio. What is being presented today does not include a condemnation. ASG wants to engage the opinions of faculty, administrators, and students.

   4. The investigation will focus on whether remote proctoring services reflect the value statement, particularly the portion: We believe in honesty, integrity, and the importance of moral conduct.

   5. Hundreds of students have come to ASG with concerns regarding technological and moral issues with Proctorio. ASG attended a Senate working session, which was very productive. Some issues and potential issues were discussed at that session. The ASG Secretary, Ruku Pal, has also worked very closely on this.

   6. The outcome that ASG is hoping for is a ruling as to whether or not the usage of remote-proctoring services (Proctorio) at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú reflect the words of the University Values Statement and recommendations for alternative remote proctoring formats or recommendations that aim to lessen Proctorio’s impact on the student academic experience.

   7. Senators had the following questions and discussion:

      1. Senator Wise-Powell stated that Proctorio has been an issue on the Regional campuses regarding the wifi capabilities. There are issues with students being able to afford the necessary wifi as well issues with the privacy aspects. The Regional campuses support the investigation of the use of Proctorio for those reasons. ASG Senator Payne indicated that ASG is working on increasing accessibility for the Regional campuses.

      2. Senator Wagner asked if an ad-hoc committee would be formed, or would it be referred to a standing senate committee? Who would be included on this committee so that important issues were heard? ASG Senator Payne answered that administrators, faculty, students as well as the Provost’s Office should be represented. The parameters for the committee were intentionally left vague to allow University Senate to have as much input as possible. Additionally, having a member of IT Services would be ideal.

      3. Senator Wardle thanked the students for taking the lead on this important issue. It has been a concern in the Howe Center since going online last Spring. The concerns around Proctorio are very wide-spread nationally and internationally. This is an issue of teaching, learning and equity. How do you do the work of teaching and assessment well when you are remote? You can do this without Proctorio, but that needs support. Could the money spent every year on Proctorio be used and focused on teaching and learning, which would be in keeping with our mission? The other concern is about equity. Proctorio has been documented as being racist, exclusionary, and classist.

      4. Senator Alessio commented that she has just worked with OIR to send out surveys to students and faculty to ask them their perceptions regarding using proctoring software. She is willing to share the results of the survey and work on a committee.

      5. Senator Coleman asked if we are totally deleting Proctorio and any of their other software or are we just investigating ‘proctoring software’? Is this being imposed on a specific enterprise or specific category? ASG Senator Payne answered that the investigation is targeting remote proctoring services, not necessarily just Proctorio. Issues have been with Proctorio, but some of the other equity and technological issues are widespread around remote proctoring services.

   8. The Sense of the Senate was shown and approved 49 Yes; 3 No; 4 Abstentions

• SR 21-22

  Sense of the Senate

  Investigating the use of Remote Proctoring Services

  BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate supports the investigation into whether or not the use of remote proctoring services, such as Proctorio, is in line with ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University’s ‘University Values Statement.’

7. Graduate Student Research Fellowship – Dean Michael Crowder, Graduate School

   1. The proposed change is to the summer stipend policy that has been in place for 40 years. There were cuts in the Graduate School; therefore, benchmarking was done with other universities. The results were that only one other university, University of Dayton, had a similar summer funding program. Their program is funded by an endowed fund. The Graduate School was charged with drafting a policy that would not as expensive and would have a strategic use of funds. The Graduate School started working with faculty and graduate students last July. What is being presented is a new policy that would apply to students who started in fall 2020 and thereafter. Students who started prior to fall 2020 would be under the old policy. This is a strategic use of funding, and while it is less money than in the past, it is a very strong commitment by the University to our graduate students. This is something that is not done in the rest of the country.

   2. The funding for the summer fellowship is still coming from E&G funds, but Dean Crowder is working to find alternate funding sources.

   3. Senators had the following questions and discussion:

      1. Senator Poetter asked what is the relationship between the number of these awards going out under the new policy (which will be 300) and what is being currently awarded. Dean Crowder responded that last summer, approximately 640 fellowships were offered. Senator Poetter asked if there was conversation with department chairs regarding the internal ranking. Dean Crowder responded that the Graduate School is starting that process, but didn’t want to go to the chairs until Senate had weighed in on the policy. Strategically, ranking can be used as a recruiting tool, or it can be used in the case of international students who cannot work off campus. The Graduate School is going to make sure that the students who are put forward for the stipend are eligible, something that was not done in the past.

      2. Senator Green asked if there is a sense of the number of eligible students as compared to the 300 stipends. She indicated that her constituents think that this seems very appropriate, but are concerned that there are students doing mandatory things in the summer toward their degrees and wouldn't’t have time to get a job to support themselves. Dean Crowder answered that there are so many layers to this issue, but we really need to change the culture at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. If we have students working on externally funded grants, we need to have their summer support as part of our budget. If they are working on a grant from an external agency, they should be compensated. There are unpaid internships that students have to do for their degree work, and those students are still eligible for the summer scholarship.

      3. Senator Euen had a point of clarification. In the expectations sections, where it is discussed about the grades that will and won’t count, the X grade will need to be added, because it behaves exactly like a P grade.

      4. Senator Navakas acknowledged that it is rare for an institution to offer funding. How do our overall stipend funding packages compare nationally? Dean Crowder answered that the Graduate School did a benchmarking of stipends. There was a national study done by Oklahoma State University in 2018 for R1 and R2 schools (doctoral programs only.) The results were that ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú’s doctoral 9 month stipends are higher than the average of the other 62 universities, some of them significantly high, with the exception of Psychology. All the other departments were thousands of dollars higher. There has not been a comparison done with Master’s programs. The Dean has indicated to chairs and program directors that if our stipend is not comparative, we need data to show it. We shouldn’t be fixing 9-month stipends with a summer stipend program. We don’t have money coming from the state to support this.

   4. This policy will come back to Senate on March 8, 2021 for a discussion and vote.

8. Sunsetting Dormant Graduate ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú – Dean Michael Crowder, Graduate School

   1. A brief introduction was given as to the issue. There are processes to start and end programs. Our current practice is to start with the Course Inventory Management System (CIM), but when working in AEPIP, it was discovered that there are a number of programs that stopped accepting students prior to the CIM system. We don’t have a way to use our normal procedure to sunset them, and it would be a huge waste of the Chair’s time to enter the programs in CIM to just delete them. This would also save the Registrar’s Office time.

   2. This request is from the Graduate School and Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. Both areas are responsible for different paperwork that has to be submitted to fully sunset programs. Dean Crowder submits paperwork to OHDE and Assistant Provost ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Knight submits paperwork to HLC.

   3. Questions and discussion will occur on March 8, 2021.

Adjournment

9. The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.