General Faculty Meeting Page 1February19,2016

General Faculty Meeting

Friday February 19, 2016

Gonzaga Auditorium, 3:30-5 pm

Agenda

1. Announcements

2. Approval of the minutes of 1/22/16 (attachment, pages 2-7)

3. Tabled motion for the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (excerpt from 10/23/15 General Faculty minutes attached, pages 8-10)

4. Update from the Faculty Salary Committee

5. Informational presentation organized by the Student Life Committee on the

current state of student mental health and crisis management (attachment, page 11)

6. Adjournment

The meeting will be followed by a gala reception hosted by the Faculty Welfare Committee/AAUP

General Faculty Meeting Page 2February19,2016

Fairfield University General Faculty Meeting

January 22, 2016 Draft Minutes of Meeting

These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

No votes using proxies were taken.

Chair Alison Kris called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m.

1. Announcements

Prof. Qin Zhang, Chair of the Communication Department, offered the following remembrance of Prof. Gisela Gil-Egui:

Let us have a moment of silence in memory of our beloved colleague and friend, Dr. Gisela Gil-Egui.

Originally from Venezuela, Gisela joined Fairfield University in 2004 after receiving her Ph.D. from Temple University. She served as an Associate Professor, Director of the Communication graduate program, and Director of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. She was a very active member of the University community, serving on numerous faculty committees, mentoring our undergraduate and graduate students, and conducting service trips abroad with students and fellow colleagues. She was a strong advocate for activism and social justice, and was never afraid to speak the truth.

Gisela was a passionate professor, close colleague, and dear friend who worked tirelessly to support students and others whenever they needed her. I feel forever grateful to have worked with her as a colleague and have known her and Jose as close friends. She was the most genuine, compassionate, positive, and selfless person I know, and she was never too busy to care and help students and others. She would not simply go the extra mile for students and friends. She has gone many more such miles, and there is no limit to the lengths she would go in helping others.

When my family first moved to Fairfield in 2005, she and Jose generously invited us to her home for dinner the next day, making us feel so welcome and warm. Gisela has touched the lives of so many of us. She had a natural and special talent connecting with people. She challenged us to be better professors, better people, and a better department. I cannot imagine the Communication Department without Gisela. But I’m certain that she will continue to be there for me and for the Department.

In addition to her kind heart and contagious smiles, I was always amazed at her quick wit, brilliant sense of humor, and keen intellect. She was so thoughtful and resourceful that she always had solutions to seemingly unresolvable problems. Her brain was like a dictionary of analogies and metaphors, and she would always pop out a perfect yet funny analogy, which would often bring us a good laugh and spice up sometimes difficult conversations.

Gisela has left us so many wonderful memories. She has enriched our lives and community immeasurably. She leaves a legacy of love, generosity, enthusiasm, authenticity, and service. She was so much loved, respected, and missed.

Thank you Gisela. The Communication Department is better and stronger because you have been here. We will always remember you, my dear friend. We will do our best to keep your memory and spirit alive.

2. Update on the Campus Master Plan from President Jeffrey von Arx, S.J. and Assoc. VP David Frassinelli

Pres. Jeffrey von Arx began by explaining that he joined the faculty in mourning for Gisela. They had started at Fairfield in the same year and he had many warm memories of time they spent together, particularly when they were part of a Fairfield group that toured Cuba.

General Faculty Meeting Page 3February19,2016

He then moved to the campus master plan, noting that many people had participated in various aspects of it. He said that Assoc. VP David Frassinelli and Provost/SVPAA Lynn Babington would join in presenting an overview of where we are and where we're headed, and the three of them would then take questions.

AVP Frassinelli began by explaining that a master plan defines expectations, but it is not necessarily cast in stone. His comments were accompanied by the attached powerpoint presentation.

The 2020 process included many committees that discussed space and those discussions formed the basis for the master plan. The plan has to balance a number of priorities- advancement, debt planning, enrollment projections, operational requirements and architecture. Then the timing depends on planning and zoning, pressure from major gift donors, and how many projects can be handled at one time. He talked about areas of focus being Nursing and Health Sciences, Business, parking, and dining.

In Wave One, the RecPlex will be completed and the new Nursing/Health Sciences building will start construction on 5/23/16 and is expected to be completed in Fall of 2017. The School of Nursing faculty will be housed in McAuliffe during the construction. The second floor of the current building will remain in use through May of 2017. The Nursing annex may be closed in April, but there won't be an impact on parking until after commencement. The completed project won't take parking but construction will take the last bay of parking behind Bannow off line from May of 2016 through August of 2017. There are plans for a temporary lot across from Campion during this time. It will provide about 130 spaces and will be turned back into lawn after the building is finished.

At this point, Provost Babington offered some details about academics. She said that the building design entailed extensive input from the faculty of the Schools of Nursing and Engineering, and the natural science departments in CAS. The current SON building has a 100-person auditorium, 2 classrooms, a conference room, and the simulation center. The new building will have 10 new classrooms to support SON and the entire academic community. Some floors will be exclusively for SON and some will be shared. Along with smaller rooms, there will be a classroom for 120 that can be divided into 2 60-person classrooms, suitable for hosting a plenary talk and breakout sessions. There will also be common areas, study spaces, and collaborative spaces. The building will connect to the current SON which connects to Bannow. Some classrooms will be moved out of Bannow and turned into labs to address the growth in SOE. She noted that the Sustainability Committee has collaborated in determining the placement of the building.

AVP Frassinelli retook the podium, explaining that the Nursing/Health Sciences building was furthest along. Another Wave One project is a parking garage in the parking lot east of the Kelley center. There are concerns about having a big garage so close to the main entrance of the University, so they are considering how to improve the façade. There will be walkways and green areas in front. They have hired a designer, but not yet a construction manager. They are likely to go to the Town this spring for approvals, and hope to start construction in May of 2017 and complete it in the first quarter of 2018.

Another part of Wave One concerns dining services. There are congestion and traffic flow problems currently along with a lack of acceptable handicapped access and no bathroom facilities within the check-in area. He also noted trends in food services today toward having preparation and service in the same location. Possible plans are shown in the powerpoint slides. The renovation will include a designated faculty/staff dining room. Because dining services cannot be offline during the academic year, the proposal is to do the construction in the summer of 2017.

The final Wave One project is a residence hall. They've determined that sophomore level housing will provide the greatest flexibility. The style would be double rooms around common areas with no kitchen facilities except in study lounges. They haven't yet hired an architect or construction manager. At this point, the goal is to begin in May of 2017 and bring the facility online in August of 2018.

The distinctions between the two Waves are driven by financing. They expect to complete Wave One in 2018. The financing for Wave One includes architects to start planning Wave Two. AVP Frassinelli went on to provide an overview of the Wave Two projects. The Dolan School of Business building needs to be renovated. They haven't yet hired a designer, but proposals have been solicited. McAuliffe is in a critical location and is in serious need of attention. They need to determine its best use; it may need a combination of renovations and additions. The labs in Bannow need to be refurbished. Logistically, the details can't be

General Faculty Meeting Page 4February19,2016

worked out until the Nursing/Health Sciences building is online, then Bannow needs will be easier to evaluate. Even less defined is the library/academic commons component of Wave Two. The changing role of university libraries needs to be addressed, but it's unclear what that will mean. Finally, it's unclear exactly what upgrades of the quad will entail, but it will probably include updating bathroom facilities, adding air conditioning (making use of existing basic infrastructure), and maybe increasing living/learning environments. Wave Two is expected to run from 2018 through 2020.

At this point, the floor was opened to questions.

Prof. Kathy Schwab expressed concern about the aesthetics of the proposed parking garage, especially at the moment that prospective students are entering campus. She noted that an earlier landscape study recommended moving all parking to the perimeter of campus as has been done to beautiful effect at other schools. She also wondered about underground parking. AVP Frassinelli said that consultants have determined that we have a good amount of parking on campus, but campuses are dynamic. At certain hours, with many courses offered and/or high profile athletic or Quick Center events, there are problems, especially for campus visitors who don't know where to look for parking. They looked at a number of locations for a garage, partly in response to similar concerns raised by the Board of Trustees. They settled on the proposed location because of the ability to blend in with the Kelley Center and not lose green space. In fact the plan will result in a little less asphalt than the current parking lot has. Furthermore, a garage on the perimeter wouldn't endear us to our neighbors, who now see trees. The Kelley location can't be seen by the neighbors. And density in the center of campus creates a sense of activity that is then balanced by the green space elsewhere on campus. With regard to underground parking, he explained that that's much more expensive, requiring sprinkler systems, exhaust systems, and possible water issues. The proposal isn't an ideal solution, but it's the result of an exhaustive consideration of options.

Prof. Betsy Bowen remarked that Donnarumma Hall (DMH) is apparently not slated for any renovation. She wondered when it would be renovated or whether it was seen as perfectly acceptable. AVP Frassinelli said that today's presentation was by no means exhaustive. Besides the still vague plans for an academic commons and Bannow renovations, significant renovations are needed for all buildings. Some of that will be funded by the annual operating budget for capital improvements. It's on his radar that DMH does need attention. Pres. von Arx added that depending on what we do with McAuliffe, there may be falling dominoes related to DMH and Canisius. Provost Babington elaborated that there are ongoing discussions about where programs might come together. Once those decisions are made, there may be implications for McAuliffe and other buildings. Finally AVP Frassinelli noted that a wholesale renovation of DMH would require relocation of faculty. Completing some of the other building projects will provide some elbow room for such relocation.

Prof. Kraig Steffen asked about environmental issues, specifically, LEED standards, whether the parking structure would have integrated photovoltaics, and whether the Nursing/Health Sciences building would have a green roof. AVP Frassinelli said that the Nursing/Health Sciences building was situated so as to preserve the trees behind it as much as possible. Because of its placement, part of the building will be below grade so much of the mechanical and HVAC systems will be on the roof. That, and the fact that the roof wouldn't be visible from anywhere on campus, means it wouldn't be an ideal location for a green roof. However, the air conditioning will be from the CUF plant so it's fairly green. He went on to explain that they have been designing and building to LEED silver standard for a number of years. They haven't applied for LEED certification because it's quite costly. As for photovoltaics, with the co-gen facility and our locked in prices for gas, photovoltaics wouldn't necessarily be worthwhile. In response to a follow-up question about expanding the co-gen facility, he explained that there is limited ability to expand but there is sufficient capacity for the renovated RecPlex and the Nursing/Health Sciences building. He also explained that we have lots of electric capacity in the winter, but we import electricity in the summer. Introducing air conditioning in the quad might necessitate doing something further to address summer electricity usage.

Prof. Dawn Massey returned to the parking garage, suggesting that the traffic flow from the Kelley Center parking lot would make that a problematic location for the garage. She suggested that the DSB parking lot, close to 2 exits and surrounded by trees might be a better location. Pres. von Arx noted that he would be able to see such a garage from his house. AVP Frassinelli said that traffic consultants had looked at flow and saw a benefit to capturing cars coming to campus. They're considering changing the flow so that the garage could only be entered from Loyola Road and would exit only to Leeber Road. Regarding DSB, he suggested that a

General Faculty Meeting Page 5February19,2016

2-story garage would overwhelm the 1-story building and that there is a greater need for parking at the center of campus.

Prof. Paul Caster expressed disappointment that the plans were to renovate the current DSB building rather than moving the DSB faculty closer to the center of campus. He suggested that the faculty became isolated as soon as they moved into their current building. He wondered whether that building could be used for something else while the faculty were moved closer to the rest of the faculty. AVP Frassinelli said that they considered many possibilities, including building a new building closer to the center of campus, but that would mean losing another section of green space. Also, DSB is not that isolated and will be less and less so with more development. From a sustainability perspective, it's best to build nothing and second best to renovate an existing building. The Board of Trustees has made it clear that they don't want the DSB renovation to look like a bandaid on an old building. They want a distinctive persona for the building and the best opportunities for achieving that are with the existing building.

Prof. Joe Dennin said that the additional building is presumably related to the plan to increase the undergraduate population to 4000. He asked how that increase is projected to affect net revenue in light of the discount rate and the costs of teaching and supporting additional students. He also asked about the effects on academic quality of going deeper into a shrinking pool. AVP Frassinelli said that the growth in the undergraduate population is relatively modest, especially since we've had classes over 1000. Some of the problems, especially with dining facilities and housing capacity, are already here. He said that depreciation issues have been addressed in the financial model. Pres. von Arx added that the undergraduate population has been growing over several years. It's now about 3700, up from 3500 10 years ago. The plan for 4000 involves increases in areas with both demand and capacity, like Nursing and Engineering. There is an impact on the operating budget in that we will collect more tuition discounted by financial aid. He added that we're the smallest of our competitors apart from Holy Cross. Provost Babington said that as the population grows or is planned to grow, we have added extra sections and in the longer term, we have added faculty in SON, SOE, DSB, and some areas of the College. She said that components of faculty are needed in Modern Languages and English to meet core requirements and that we remain committed to offering small classes.

Prof. Vin Rosivach asked whether there was an athletic component to the master plan. Provost Babington said that nothing else is planned now.

There were no further questions.

3. Approval of the minutes of 10/23/15

GFS Susan Rakowitz explained that the numbering of the minutes in the distributed packet was wrong, but that the posted minutes were correctly numbered.

Motion [Caster/Salafia]: to approve the minutes of 10/23/15. The motion passed unanimously.

4. Adjournment

A motion to adjourn [Dennin/Lerner] was uncontested at 4:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Prof. Susan Rakowitz Secretary of the General Faculty

General Faculty Meeting Page 6February19,2016

General Faculty Meeting Page 7February19,2016

General Faculty Meeting Page 8February19,2016

Excerpt from the GF Meeting of 10/23/15

3. Update on the Core Revision Process

Prof. Bob Epstein prefaced the attached presentation by noting that he has been visiting departments and schools, so most people have seen this information already. Today is intended to provide an update on an ongoing process. The current core has been in place for a long time. As part of the 2020 process, there was a core curriculum task force with broad representation. They had many meetings, with the whole process being faculty driven. Any proposed changes are coming from faculty and will have to be approved by faculty, ultimately by the General Faculty.

The task force developed a set of common goals. Their primary concern was not to shrink the core, but to have a core that was uniform, clear, simple, and had more rationale than a checklist. They agreed that there should be a sense of progression through the curriculum and some sort of integrative experience. These features are consistent with many core conversations happening at other schools. Finally, the core should clearly indicate what a liberal arts education is and does.

The task force recommended that a director of the core be appointed and charged with setting up an advisory council, and shepherding the proposal for core revision through the faculty. The routing is Undergraduate Curriculum Committee to Academic Council to General Faculty. He listed the members of the Advisory Council and noted that he has been meeting weekly with Assoc. VPAA Christine Siegel and every other week with the full Advisory Council.

The proposal consists of a first tier- orientation, and a second tier- exploration. There is also an integration component that would not entail additional coursework. Currently students in the School of Engineering have the smallest core requirement, with 15 core courses outside of engineering. The goal of uniformity led the task force to design a 15-course core.

Tier one includes 2 semesters of language, 1 English, 1 Math, 1 Religious Studies, 1 Philosophy, 1 History. Unlike the current core, there would be no place outs and tier one would have to be completed by the end of the sophomore year. One goal is to create a sense of a cohort moving through the curriculum together, though students wouldn't have to complete tier one prior to beginning tier two. In tier one, the EN course would be a writing course and the RS, PH and HI courses would contribute to writing across the curriculum (WAC). He explained that WAC can be many things. If the proposal moves forward, it would need to be defined for Fairfield; that's an exciting opportunity. The tier one Math course is still to be determined by the Math Department. The language requirement would be 2 semesters at any level, but with no place outs.

Tier two includes 1 course in each of the following: Literature; Visual & Performing Arts; Religious Studies; Philosophy; Natural Science; Social/Behavioral Science; Math or Natural Science; Social/Behavioral Science or History. The integration requirement could be addressed through a cluster course, team-taught course, or an individually taught course. These elements would require additional resources and faculty development.

Prof. Epstein explained that when he agreed to be the Core Director, the understanding was that he would have to work with the proposal from the task force. He can improve the proposal within its framework, but he can't simply discard the work and start from scratch. He noted that tier two could be reorganized to look more like a reconceptualization of the core. As it emerged from the task force, it looks more like a negotiated reduction in courses without inherent logic. He suggested grouping the tier two elements by the traditional divisions. The resulting tier two would be: 4 humanities courses from 4 different departments; 2 science or math courses from 2 different departments; 2 social/behavioral science courses from 2 different departments. This rearrangement also eliminates the grouping of social/behavioral science with history, though it did so by moving ½ course away from the humanities and to the social/behavioral sciences.

Prof. Epstein said that he has heard concerns about the loss of a specific literature course and a guaranteed course in visual and performing arts. The humanities, as the largest part of the current core, was taking the biggest decrease in this proposal. He is still talking with the Advisory Council about how to address these concerns and find ways to make the reconceptualization work. He's trying to find ideas with as much support as possible going forward. He's continuing to meet with schools and departments. He hopes to go to the UCC

General Faculty Meeting Page 9February19,2016

in the Spring. Implementing the proposal will need a commitment to resources and reorganization. He will be going to the Educational Planning Committee with a strategic plan for resource needs.

At this point, the floor was opened for questions. Prof. Kathy Schwab said that she thought that the task force proposal called for the history course in tier two to include the possibility of a history course within VPA. Someone from the back of the room confirmed that that was so. Prof. Epstein said he would look into that.

Prof. Ron Davidson read the following statement:

I wish to thank Professor Epstein for his efforts at core revision, which is a difficult, nay thankless task.

But the situation is now one in which the overall agenda for Core Reform is set by the administration, and that is not acceptable, particularly as the plans to date propose dramatic revisions of the core by 25%, with the burden falling unequally on some departments while leaving others unscathed. Neither plan in its architecture or language takes fully into account either the university Mission Statement or the Journal of Record overall goals for the core.

Let us acknowledge, however, that in some measure the current state of affairs is the fault of the faculty, for not providing a mechanism for regular core review and revision. Instead, we have a continual series of piecemeal revisions that are all dissatisfactory in some measure, and there is no long-term continuity of purpose.

The Journal of Record, if I understand it correctly, assigns core oversight to the UCC, but makes no provision for a faculty committee, either a standing committee or a subcommittee of UCC, that is charged with revision of the core on a regular basis. That means we go for decades between core revisions, guaranteeing unnecessary recrimination over great sweeping changes, ones imagined to survive for the next several decades, even though all our disciplines—as well as student aptitudes—are swiftly changing.

This unhappy state of affairs within faculty governance has allowed the administration to fill the void in the Fairfield 2020 Core Curriculum Task Force Final Report. By Epstein’s admission, that model is the basis for the administration’s charge to the Director of the Core to refine the Fairfield 2020 core proposal. While Professor Epstein has done so, he has not acknowledged the many aspects of both the Fairfield 2020 model or of his own model that are quite problematic. Some of them, in his own words, would involve “Considerable administrative oversight” of the core offerings in every department involved in delivering the core. For those of us who service the core, any model that requires departments to surrender their academic authority and intellectual integrity to an outside appointed entity is unacceptable, yet the plans to date expressly involve this.

Moreover, these plans have been entirely formulated outside of the parameters of faculty governance. Indeed, I am astonished that this has not come up to the degree it should have so far, but I can say that most faculty have expressed patience and wished to listen to the proposals prior to any other response.

But now it appears time to respond. The core is the academic statement of cura personalis, for it is through the core that Fairfield University commits to the care of our students as intellectual, social, physical and spiritual beings, in the language of the Journal of Record. As such, it needs to be handled in as intentional a manner as we have done for all our other academic efforts. Consequently, I believe it is now time for the UCC to embrace the business of core review, revision and renewal, rather than allow the agenda to continue to be set by the administration.

UCC should be charged to form a subcommittee on core review and revision. Such a subcommittee would be able to have regular, ongoing meetings to hear ideas, express opinions, and so forth. Most particularly, a regular system of faculty governed review would allow incremental changes on a regular basis, grounded in real needs, not simply because of the argument that time has elapsed or that we need to regress to the AJCU mean because everyone else has done so.

A subcommittee of the faculty could establish and revise the core learning outcomes and investigate burning issues: team-taught courses, interdisciplinary courses, the mechanism for core cluster core courses, to name but a few that have been mentioned in the documents circulated to date.

So, I would like to make a motion:

General Faculty Meeting Page 10February19,2016

Motion [Davidson/Nash]: In light of the centrality of the core to the Fairfield University undergraduate experience—and given the need for a regular mechanism of core review, revision and renewal—the General Faculty charges the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee with developing a committee or subcommittee dedicated to that purpose.

Depending on what UCC wishes to do, this committee or subcommittee could act in a manner similar to the World and US Diversity subcommittees, with membership drawn from the larger faculty and invested in a constant review of the core.

Be that as it may, the core plan established by Fairfield 2020, or the plan moved forward by the appointed Director of the Core, neither seem to mesh well with the stated goals of the Fairfield faculty, the Mission Statement or the Journal of Record.

Prof. Beth Boquet spoke against the motion. She said that she appreciated Prof. Davidson's point, and as a number of 2020 recommendations move forward toward implementation, we might craft a broader motion for the Committee on Committees to consider proposing regular review processes for all Handbook committees. She didn't see a need to single out the UCC in this way. She also reminded the faculty that Prof. Epstein's presentation included a clear routing procedure.

Prof. Vin Rosivach suggested that Prof. Davidson's proposal raised two issues, both of which were valuable. One was the process issue, which was addressed by Prof. Boquet. The second is the broader question of what we're doing- what is the philosophy and purpose of the core? He noted that one of the slides said that the core requirements should "manifest what the College of Arts & Sciences does and what a liberal arts education is meant to provide," but felt that that issue was missing from today's presentation. So it was valuable that Prof. Davidson raised the issue, but this motion is a surprise to most in the room right now. He therefore suggested tabling the motion to the next meeting so that people could come prepared to discuss it.

Motion [Rosivach/Caster]: to table the Davidson/Nash motion to the next meeting. Motion to table passed: 55-12

Prof. Chris Staecker asked whether computer science had been considered as a way of filling the tier two math/natural science requirement. Prof. Epstein said that it was not his call. If a proposal with a math requirement goes through, it will be up to the math department to consider which courses would satisfy it.

Prof. Walt Hlawitschka asked whether the Advisory Council was meant to be representative. Prof. Epstein said that it was meant to be representative of the College of Arts & Sciences, where the core resides. There is one representative from outside of the College. Prof. Hlawitschka suggested that there should be representatives from all schools. Prof. Epstein apologized for the lack of wider representation and noted that though he is trying to meet with all schools, he has not yet been able to meet with the School of Business.

Prof. Joan Lee pointed out that programs were also not represented. She spoke specifically of applied ethics, suggesting that it was a problem that a Jesuit school doesn't have an ethics requirement in this proposed new core. Prof. Epstein said that ethics had been discussed a lot in the task force and continues to be discussed in the Advisory Council. He met with Prof. David Schmidt in the Spring to discuss the relation between applied ethics and the liberal arts. He said that much of the discussion has been about the difference between ethics and applied ethics. Far from being ignored, the question of the place of ethics is ongoing.

There were no further questions

General Faculty Meeting Page 11February19,2016

For agenda item 5: Pre-Violence Indicators

• Change in voice pitch, repetition and strained speech

• An increase in pitch when speaking

• Inappropriate humor, Aggressive statements and sarcasm

• The person talking to others about someone as if they are not present

• Target staring or glancing

• Wide eyed stare

• Showing the bottom whites of their eyes

• Looking through you

• Blading the body back

• Dropping the head

• Aggressive lower body stance

• Hands to head or hips

• Pulling their hair

• Clinching and or re-clinching the fists

• Face becomes red or pale

• Rapid , deep breathing through lips or flared nostrils

• Rocking or bobbing back and forth

• Excessive blinking

• Sweating

*The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker