University Senate - February 12, 2024 Minutes

UNIVERSITY SENATE

Meeting Minutes

February 12, 2024

The University Senate was called to order at 3:30 p.m., in 111 Harrison Hall on Monday, February 12, 2024. Members absent: Kenya Ash, Riley Crabtree, Caleb Eckhardt, Evan Gallagher, Jennifer Green, Venus Harvey, Patrick Houlihan, Carol Jones, Jeffrey Kuznekoff, Yong Lin, Carla Myers, August Ogunnowo, Carrie Powell, Ganiva Reyes, Nyah Smith, Adam Strantz, Peng Wang

Call to Order and Announcements and Remarks – Tracy Haynes, Chair of University Senate Executive Committee
1. The Ohio Faculty Council meeting in January:
  1. OFC is accepting nominations for the new John McNay ��hip Award. Each institution will nominate one person for the award and the Awards Committee of OFC will determine the winner. The Senate Executive Committee will be putting out a call for nominations and determining a nominee to send to OFC.
  2. Jim Bennett, Chief of Staff & Sr. Policy Advisor for Chancellor at Ohio Dept. of Higher Ed, was present at the meeting and discussed the Governor’s merit based scholarship that will provide $5,000.00 for the top five high schoolers in the state to help retain students in Ohio, stopping the policy of transcript withholding, and the new FAFSA and its potential impact on enrollment.
  3. Rosemary Pennington attended this meeting and will be joining me at future OFC meetings this semester.
2. An update to my announcement from the last meeting concerning the loss of access to files created by students who have left the university for more than 180 days. The date has been extended to March 6.
Approval of University Senate Minutes
1. University Senate Full Meeting Minutes_01.29.2024 (Results: 45-Yes, 00-No, 00-Abstain)
  1. With update to absentee list
Consent Calendar: The following items were received and accepted on the Consent Calendar:
1. Curricular Items _02.07.2024
  1. Pulled Elimination of Majors from Curricular Items from Consent Calendar
2. Graduate Council Minutes_02.01.2024
3. LEC Meeting Minutes_11.28.2023
4. LEC Meeting Minutes_01.30.2024
5. Department Planning & Improvement Process Committee Minutes_10.26.2023
  1. Pulled Department Planning & Improvement from Consent Calendar
Special Reports
1. Ryan Center, Jenny Darroch, Dean of Farmers School of Business, and Melissa Thomasson, Associate Dean for Faculty Excellence
  1. Ryan Family Scholars, Grainger Scholars, Passport Program - No. 7 Entrepreneurship Program in the world. Princeton Review, 2024
    1. Two ��, One Goal: Your success is our mission
    2. Riann Yates-Miller ‘03 - “I get a lot of support, both academically and emotionally, and I think that’s really helped my college experience, for me to have a lot of growth in the past four years. Having to not deal with the financial burden of ‘Am I going to be able to pay for housing? Am I going to be able to eat this week?’ has really allowed me to throw myself into academics, into social life, into clubs, and really enhance my experience to make the most of it at ��”
  2. A $2m gift became $4.5m (in addition to earlier gift of $1m)
    1. Altman Summer Scholars Internship Support:
      1. Grainger Foundation $300,000 +
      2. Farmer Family Foundation $300,000 +
      3. Ryan Family Foundation $100,000 +
      4. Farmer Family Foundation $650,000 +
      5. Total $800,000
    2. Advising Support:
      1. Grainger Foundation $350,000 +
      2. Farmer Family Foundation $350,000 +
      3. Total $700,000
    3. Scholarship Support for Ryan Family Scholars and Grainger Scholars: +
      1. Grainger Foundation $350,000 +
      2. Farmer Family Foundation $350,000 +
      3. �� University “Match the Promise” $175,000 +
      4. Ryan Family Foundation $650,000 +
      5. Farmer Family Foundation $650,000 +
      6. �� University “Match the Promise” $325,000
      7. Total $2,500,000
    4. Research Support to establish the Ryan Center for Opportunity in Education
      1. A new research institute that will examine the predictive indicators of success for underrepresented and first-generation students.
      2. Ryan Family Foundation $250,000 +
      3. Farmer Family Foundation $250,000
      4. Total $500,000
  3. Ryan Center for Opportunity in Education
    1. Mission: to transform lives, foster equality, and advance society through dedicated research aimed at understanding and enhancing social mobility, alleviating poverty, and identifying predictors of success for underrepresented low income, and first-generation students.
    2. How? Funding grants to faculty across the university to determine the predictive indicators of university success for students in these groups, as well as to explore key factors that drive upward social mobility.
    3. College attendance is a strong predictor of upward mobility.
    4. Closing the attendance gap between students from lower-and higher-income families has the potential to significantly reduce disparities in various economic outcomes and promote greater intergenerational mobility.
    5. University admissions policies can also create enrollment challenges, GPA, ACT/SAT scores, and high school academic preparation are correlated with retention, degree attainment, and other measures of student success.
    6. Much of the variation in success across students remains unexplained.
    7. Traditional metrics disadvantage underrepresented students and students form lower-income families.
    8. The Ryan Center will help researchers better understand how to identify students who can succeed at a university and to explore how institutions can ensure the success of a more diverse student population.
    9. The Ryan Center will also support research on the role entrepreneurship and innovation can play in poverty alleviation and advancing social mobility.
  4. Objectives and Metrics
    1. Fund research that:
      1. Explores the factors that predict student success among low-income, underrepresented, and first-generation students before they enter university, during their university studies and after graduation; and
      2. Seeks to increase economic mobility, alleviate poverty, and solve persistent social problems by understanding how to increase educational attainment among lower-income students and alleviate poverty and inequality by focusing on entrepreneurship education and research in social entrepreneurship.
    2. Act as national convener for dialogue on these issues with while papers, publications, and potential conferences
  5. Organization and Budget
    1. Location: Office of the Provost
    2. Director: Organizes calls for proposals external funding efforts, leads process for selection of awards Position is uncompensated for now, but this may change as the center grows.
    3. Faculty Affiliates: Faculty from across the university who have research agendas in the areas of statistical modeling applied to education or social entrepreneurship may send a CV and statement of interest to be considered (with approval of Board and Director).
    4. Staff Affiliates: Associate Vice President for External Relations and Development and the Director of Passport, Ryan Family Scholars and Student Organizations (FSB)
  6. Organization and Budget, cont.
    1. Advisory Board: Chaired by the Dean of FSB or their designee; will include Dean of Undergraduate Studies, at least one faculty member outside of FSB, and others TBD.
    2. Budget: Initial funding will come from expendable gifts. No funds will be paid for salaries for Director or Affiliates, so that expendable funds can maximize research opportunities, provide funds for external speakers, and travel to conferences.
  7. Senator Question and Comments
    1. Senator: This is a call for research proposals as they relate to expanding opportunities for underrepresented populations (A) To try to understand what factors can lead to social mobility or success in education.
    2. Senator: Is this going to be open to all points of view or just some point of views?(A) All proposals are welcome.
    3. Senator: Are we talking about course loads and reduction of course loads for those that are doing this research? (A) We have not determined that. We are having a meeting to get the first call out, we are working getting all these questions answered.
    4. Senator: By research interest I assume you are talking about those that have publications in the area?(A) Yes; Scholarship in this area.
    5. Senator: Are you still going to be in the Deans office while doing this too?(A) Yes
    6. Senator: Are you going to come out with announcements regarding dates?(A) Yes, be on the lookout during early spring. We would like a broad perspective regarding this.
2. Management of Conflicts of Interest in Projects with External Funding, Susan McDowell, Vice President for Research and Innovation
  1. Clarified Language:
    1. Revised Section on Scope to: “All individuals listed on proposals to a federal agency”
    2. Clarified throughout: “Investigator” replaced with “Individual”
    3. Inserted throughout: "federally funded"
  2. Modernized language Section: General
    1. Replaced - “affected by the activities proposal for funding” with “related to the individual responsibilities”
    2. Removed - “Financial conflicts of interest with externally funded projects are prohibited (or subject to University review/management) when there is a Significant Financial Interest as detailed within this policy.”
  3. Added Definition of: Institutional Responsibilities
  4. Reorganized Section: Exemptions From Disclosures
  5. Modernized Language Section: Identification of Actual or Potential Conflicts of Interest
  6. Added examples Section: Plan for Addressing Conflicts of Interest
  7. Section:Enforcement Policy - Added details on retrospective review
  8. Added Section: Sponsor Specific Requirements
  9. Senator Question and Comments
    1. Senator: Is there a reason that we are not going to vote?(A) COAD didn’t vote on this either, as of right now these are considered an update, and the senate is listed as a reviewer and not responsible for this policy. We are double checking on it and can bring it back for a vote, as needed. The Deans were supportive of this too.
    2. Senator: Why are all the changes there? It is just a protocol, correct?(A) Before you can submit a proposal you have to do a disclosure first. It is all about what could be a conflict of interest. For example, before we can open an award we have to check to see if any of the conflict of interest questions you check a yes on. If you did check yes for one or more then we would have to decide if there was a true conflict of interest before we could open the award.
    3. Senator: Thank you for what you have done. (A) Thank you for saying that.
    4. Senator: How many people or percentage of the University would this affect?(A) It is probably going to be a very small percentage like .5 or 1% will have this affect them. This is pretty much a trickle down effect from the concerns within government agencies that are responsive to those who are funding them.
3. Call for a Sense of the Senate, Nathan French, Associate Professor, Department of Comparative Religion, and James C. Hanges, Professor and Chair, Department of Comparative Religion
  1. Department of Comparative Religion Current Status
    1. Proposal - A “sense of the Senate” recommending the elimination of the Department of Comparative Religion
    2. Rationales -
      1. Nationally, departments devoted to the academic study of religion face similar headwinds (i.e., enrollments, demographic shifts, career visibility)
      2. Institutionally, �� presents similar challenges to sustaining a Department of Comparative Religion
      3. Institutionally, there are other creative and innovative ways to preserve the study of religion and ensure its contribution to our intellectual life and our students’ self-formation
    3. The Department of Comparative Religion consists of 6 faculty:
      1. Dr. James C. Hanges, Professor and Chair
      2. Dr. Liz Wilson, Professor
      3. Dr. Scott Kenworthy, Professor
      4. Dr. John-Charles Duffy, Associate Teaching Professor
      5. Dr. Hillel Gray, Assistant Teaching Professor,
      6. Dr. Nathan S. French, Associate Professor
    4. However, there are numerous faculty, across our divisions, with teaching and research interests in the study of religion
    5. Our Department emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach comparative in both methodology and subject matter to the academic study of religion
      1. We do not teach theology and we observe all constitutional and legal boundaries).
    6. Department has a B.A., minor, and two thematic sequences (Religion & American Life, Historical & Comparative Study of Religion)
    7. Teaches 700-800 students in the �� Plan each year
    8. Our faculty are engaged, nationally and internationally, in research, teaching, and public-facing scholarship
    9. Our Department hosts annual endowed lectures (the Wickenden, the Puff) and launched a Centennial Fundraiser in coordination with our alumni.
    10. Our Department contributes across campus in its teaching, research, and service
    11. Following academic program review, the APEIP process (��RISE) – and in consultation with programs at the University of Vermont, Emory, and Georgia State – we developed an applied approach to the academic study of religion
    12. In Fall 2023, the Office of the Provost invited us, along with others, to reconsider the role of our Department on campus
  2. Department of Comparative Religion | History
    1. “Religion” is woven into the history of the institution – although its role and definition has changed over time
    2. The Department traces its origins to 1927, when the Board of Trustees Arthur Wickenden to develop courses in biblical history and to consult with students on the question of faith and living authentically in public life
    3. Since 1927, the Department has held a national reputation as one of the two oldest Departments for the study of religion at a public institution (other: Iowa)
    4. Our faculty have contributed to ��’s advancement on matters of civil and political rights and equality (e.g. Dr. Roy Ward)
    5. Our graduates have contributed to society as: business leaders, economists, financiers, physicians, nurses, lawyers, archaeologists, policymakers, public officials, active-duty military personnel, government security agents, religious officials, and distinguished academics – among others
    6. Our faculty continue to teach a curriculum with an applied approach to the academic study of religion in consultation with our Comparative Religion Alumni Advisory Board
    7. We have demonstrated clear career and graduate school success:
  3. Future Plans | Trends
    1. Contrary to the New York Times, WSJ, Fox News, , coverage, religiosity is not “declining” nationally or internationally
    2. A �� student educated for the rigors of an ever more pluralistic state, country, and world must have basic religious literacy to succeed in professions in business, healthcare, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
    3. Religious literacy is essential to our civic life and democracy
    4. View slide presentation for graph of Projected Change in Global Population. Along with slide for Size and Projected Growth of Major Religious Groups
  4. Department of Comparative Religion Future Proposal & Plan?
    1. If the closure of the Department and the elimination of the major move forward, the faculty will plan:
      1. The preservation and continued contribution of the academic study of religion across ��’s divisions
      2. The creation of a certificate of religious literacy for professionals (e.g., students in healthcare, business, STEM, etc.) intended to provide them a competitive advantage relative to their peers
      3. A renovation of the REL minor with the certificate at its “heart”
      4. A proposal for the creation of Center for the Study of Religion, Policy, and Public Life (working with partners, such as LIFE in FSB) that will elevate ��’s national reputation for the study of religion and open up new grant-seeking and development opportunities
  6. Senator Question and Comments
    1. Senator: Someone has put together a list of departments for elimination. So what you are proposing is to get rid of a BA and bring back a minor or certificate for a center of religion study to help fund the 6 faculty lines and in order to keep your work here?(A) I don’t want to speak out of turn. Before the pandemic, we had about 50 majors. Since the pandemic, it has bottomed out. We have 8 majors right now; most will graduate this year. However, this presents value added for other students. As I understand it, our faculty members will be redistributed to other deans. We’ll teach curriculum within other departments.
    2. Senator: What would be the plan for the lines in the decades moving forward? Will this allow those lines to continue here until retirement? (A) That’s an administrative question. This could offer us ways to survive; endowed lectureships, for example. There are a lot of development opportunities here for us.
    3. Senator: Very concerned about those lines. I understand that, according to our policies and procedures, the only way to eliminate tenure faculty lines is if their departments are eliminated. This means that it opens a door to eliminate tenure lines. I would like to see a commitment from the institution to protect those lines, because I feel as though if this moves forward, we could put those 6 lines in danger. That is why this is very concerning to me. (A) That remains our biggest concern. We’ve raised it at every level too.
    4. Senator: Given the state of the world it feels like we really need this department. Do you really want us to support this proposal or is this what the Board has asked?(A) There is a certain sense in which our options are limited. Using the metrics we have, the department is not viable. We need to find a way to be folded into some umbrella and become part of something else. We’d like to keep the curriculum centered in some way that keeps us doing what we’re doing, but working with other departments. We decided to take the initiative and to try to take control of the future as best we can. This seemed like the best choice, all considered.
    5. Senator: I know that Faculty lines are being reassigned. Are staff lines also being considered?(A) We share an admin assistant with Anthropology. We are considering staff lines too.
    6. Senator: In the process is there a plan for an �� Humanities department to get put together or will you guys be put in all different places and then the center be your link together?(A) I’m not sure about an �� Plan. At present, we plan to move with other humanities scholars. We’re working on which department that might be. For now, the curriculum will live within a department. That’s part of the coordination process that will unfold.
    7. Senator: Are you all going into certain places? If you do, is that where your line will go then? (A) We’re just beginning to talk about where we might land. Discussions are in the earliest stages. I anticipate we’ll find a department where we’ll make a difference for that department. Some of us can go into History, some to Global In. Studies, or maybe some would consider Classics. We have people trained in all these areas because we are trained in an interdisciplinary way.
    8. Senator: The questions about what happens to lines with hiring and firing, that is a part of the Union contract. What happens to faculty lines after a department closes/goes away is all a part of the bargaining process. Grievance and Arbitration is also going to be very important in that. I encourage everyone to familiarize yourself with that information and to become a member.
    9. Senator: There is a financial model to this. Should you look for reallocation for tenure faculty or is that possible? (A) In the discussion that we have had to this point the appropriations of steps have been followed to this point. Being able to keep the curriculum and streamline it with a minor that students could complete quicker, I would think we would attach more students then we ever have before; to give our students a program every semester that will progress through the minor. The hope is to get more affiliates to help spread religion throughout the campus.
    10. Senate Chair asked for a motion to assign a process coordinator.
    11. Senator: Call to question - (Results- 14- yes, 18- no, 00-abstain)
    12. Senator: I think the process vote is very important because that begins a process. I still have not heard an argument that suggests that closing a department based on majors is the right thing to do. I would like to see some type of good explanation about the financial part, about some of the other parts with details that would lead me to vote a yes for something like this.
    13. Senator: Please explain how this saves the University money when the 6 of you will still be working here along with the staff person? As you will be teaching the same students and possibly more, I don’t understand how this would be saving us any money.
    14. Senator: I agree that I would love to see those numbers too. I want to remind everyone that we should trust our colleagues and that they think this is what would be best for them, given the options that they have been handed.
    15. Senator: How are your class sizes? Do you generally have 25 per section? This isn’t like you guys are showing up and only have 3 or 4 students.(A) We all teach the intro level classes. We have 9 sections of REL 101. We have one late sprint online. We’ve streamlined the curriculum.
    16. Senator: The process coordinator will come back as many times as everyone would like them too
    17. Senator: I want to give the departments here more time to think about it and we need to have these discussions earlier. These are tough conversations and I would like us to have those conversations earlier.
    18. Senator: I see no reason to rush this and to give us time to follow the processes we usually follow unless there is a good reason not to.
    19. Senator: I think the bigger picture is how do we count the value of faculty and are we penalizing them because they fall into this category? It is only under RCM that we moved away from that and now that RCM is no longer on the table. We need to have a conversation on how we value our faculty.
    20. Senator: Do you want to move on this motion? Is that what you truly want to do? (A) If you’ll remember, one of the first comments I made was based on the metrics we’re facing. I don’t know how to answer the question about whether or not this is the “best way”; that assumes we’re aware of other viable options. We’re going with what we were able to come up with. The idea of thinking of the possibility of moving toward a center or institute was generated here in the Senate. One of the problems is that if we’re using a metric, the answer might be to get out from under the metric of majors. A center would allow us to not be under that metric anymore.
    21. Senator: There is no conversation going on regarding the elimination of tenured or permanent faculty members. In the past, lines have been reallocated from majors that have a few students to majors that have lots of students. We are a liberal arts university, so we must have humanities studies at ��. I think this is going to have to look a different way, though. The Humanities Futures group is working right now In the hopes that we can innovate and increase future enrollments. Going into this fiscal year, we are millions in the red in academic affairs. This means we are overspending on the number of vacant lines. Right now, if some of the biggest departments came and said we need a new line because we are bursting at the seams, we have nothing to give to them because we are in deficit. We are fortunate to have one-time money; we have a good savings account, but our paycheck account is dwindling, and we don’t have the net tuition revenue that we have had in the past. We have to figure out how to reduce expenses and generate revenue. It is my hope and goal not to retrench a single faculty member at this university, but we have got to figure something out. Some of the majors that are low-enrolled need to do some of these very innovative things to produce more students in these areas so that the footprint of faculty doesn’t shrink into the future or continue to shrink.
    22. Motion to table until February 26, 2024, passed by majority
New Business
1. MME - Mechanical and Smart Manufacturing Engineering, Master of Engineering, Kumar Singh, Professor and Department Chair, The curriculum document can be accessed at - click on 'title' and type 'Mechanical and Smart Manufacturing*' in the Search section. Presentation only; Discussion and Anticipated Vote on February 26, 2024
  1. Rationale of the Program - Leveraging New (Updated) Smart Manufacturing Program and Proposed Smart Factory Lab
    1. Offering a combination of Mechanical Engineering and Smart Manufacturing Engineering skills to students to cater a range of industries
    2. Design, analysis, and simulation in the areas of Systems, Thermo-Fluids and Materials
    3. Prototype, manufacturing, and process design/planning for product design and development
  2. Unique program catering to regional and national needs
    1. National Initiative ()
      1. White House ()
      2. Department of Energy (DOE) – SMMEs ($50 M)
      3. CHIPS for America ($50 B)
      4. American Rescue Act ($54 M) – Advanced Manufacturing
      5. NSF – Future of Manufacturing
    2. Ohio Potential
      1. #3 in nation for manufacturing GDP
      2. Attracting new companies (Intel, Honda EV etc.)
      3. Aligning with workforce development initiatives at the local and state level – , , Butler County Advanced Manufacturing Hub, etc.
    3. Skill and Competency needs in Industry Benchmarking (Fall 2023 Industry Advisory Board)
    4. Mechanical Design and Analysis
    5. Simulations and Analysis (e.g., CAD, CAE, FEA)
    6. Problem-Solving and Troubleshooting
    7. Manufacturing Processes and Materials Knowledge
    8. Quality Control and Assurance
    9. Continuous Improvement (e.g., Lean Manufacturing, Six Stigma)
    10. Product Development and Improvement
    11. Root Cause Analysis
    12. Process Improvement Problem-solving
  3. Benchmarking Job Description and Qualifications 123 positions (40 in Ohio)
  4. Master of Engineering (MEng.) in Mechanical and Smart
  5. Manufacturing Engineering (MEng-MSME) curriculum offers competencies in these areas
  6. Increased Opportunities for Students and Professionals
    1. An additional option for current students (Combined Students)
      1. Not interested in committing to research option
      2. Suitable option for existing majors (Mechanical, Smart Manufacturing, Engineering Management and Robotics Engineering)
    2. Potential to attract international students in high-demand areas
      1. �� nature of the program in evolving areas of automation, robotics etc.
      2. Accelerated option with opportunity for internship
    3. Upskilling opportunity with a new degree for industry professionals
      1. Hybrid options for offering graduate courses
  7. MEng-MSME: Overview
    1. A course-work based option for a professional degree - Built on the existing coursework without developing additional courses
    2. Targets increased enrollment of combined students and new (additional) international students and industry professionals
    3. Fewer credit hours for completion: 30 Credit hours
    4. Potential for accelerated completion: 1 (Three terms: 12-12-6 credits) or 4-6 semester terms (those choosing internship opportunities)
    5. Recruitment of fee-paying students
    6. Multiple options for culminating experience: Additional coursework, internship (CPT for international students), faculty-led projects
  8. MEng-MSME: Differences with Existing MS in Mechanical Engineering (MS-ME)
  9. MEng-MSME: Admission Criterion
    1. A Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in Mechanical, Manufacturing, and related fields is required for admission to this program.
    2. For non-�� applicants: A minimum GPA of 2.75, a curriculum vitae, two letters of recommendation, GRE, as well as a TOEFL score of at least 95 for international applicants.
    3. Current �� students (combined program) : A minimum GPA of 3.00, a curriculum vitae, and one letter of recommendation.
    4. For combined student BS/MS, double-counting of courses is allowed.
    5. Some students and professionals may be recommended for additional prerequisites or the permission of the instructor.
  10. MEng-MSME: Outcome and Impact
    1. A Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in Mechanical, Manufacturing, and related fields is required for admission to this program.
    2. For non-�� applicants: A minimum GPA of 2.75, a curriculum vitae, two letters of recommendation, GRE, as well as a TOEFL score of at least 95 for international applicants.
    3. Current �� students (combined program) : A minimum GPA of 3.00, a curriculum vitae, and one letter of recommendation.
    4. For combined student BS/MS, double-counting of courses is allowed.
    5. Some students and professionals may be recommended for additional prerequisites or the permission of the instructor.
  11. Senator Question and Comments
    1. Senator: India and China are listed on your recruitment. Why not add Africa to your recruitment process?(A) The QS company is a recruitment company. They work with all countries, including Africa. We want to recruit from there too, and we do. So, yes Africa we also recruit from.
    2. Senate Chair: Since it is getting so late I ask that the presenter comes back to the next senate meeting to answer any additional questions.

6. Adjournment

��������

��