May 15, 2008, 2:00 p.m.

Towner Auditorium - PSY 150

 

1.          CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 2:03 pm. All the voting members were present except the following: COA: L. Day, M. Hermann, D. Jacques; CBA: M.C.J. Walter; COE: S. Lam, R. Nguyen; CLA: S. Young; CNSM: T. Kelty; STD SVCS: P. Ratanasiripong; STAFF: F. Neely, STUDENTS: M. Andrews, S. McClinton, J. Davis; DEANS: J. Houck; EX OFFICIO: M. Crego, M. Khan, R. Kochan, D. Para.

 

2.         APPROVAL:  Academic Senate Agenda for May 15, 2008

Chair Soni  moved that item 7.1 (RTP Policy) be discussed after 7.5 since it was unlikely that discussion on it would be finished today, and therefore allow other business to finished today.  D. Hamm seconded. 7.1 after 7.5

Chair Soni informed the Senate that the GWAR policy had been placed under new business, because after conversations with several senators after the last meeting it was not clear if vote at the last meeting was for a first reading or to postpone a first reading.

The Agenda was unanimously approved as amended.

 

3.         APPROVAL:  Academic Senate Minutes of May 1, 2008

The approval of the Minutes of the May 1 meeting was moved, seconded and approved unanimously.

 

4.        REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES AND COUNCILS

4.1          Executive Committee

4.11      Announcements

 

W.A.S.C. broad participation has begun.  The President and Provost are on board. This is the second step of the W.A.S.C. accreditation process which is referred to as the Capacity and Preparatory Review. The purpose of the Capacity and Preparatory Review is to demonstrate that CSULB has sufficient capacity and systems of quality assurance and improvement in place, that these systems are functioning well in terms of continuous improvement, and that they are likely to be sustained over time. All university communities need to participate.   Volunteers are needed. They should responded by June 15^th to the call for participation sent out by Chair Soni.

 

Today at The Pointe is the Faculty and Staff awards ceremony.

 

At the MLSC building the College of Natural Sciences & Mathematics will be hosting a reception for Dot Goldish on her retirement. She is being congratulated for 50 years of service to the University.

 

Today in the Anatol Center from 3-5 p.m. is the retirement reception for Dean Houck.

 

There were no announcements from the floor.

 

4.12     CFA Report

 

L. Sondhi informed the Senate that the Alliance for the CSULB would be at graduation to gather support. Literature and buttons will be distributed. There will be rolling lobby days throughout the summer. We are looking to put pressure on Orange County representatives. Teri Yamada has been elected to serve as CFA President in the fall. 

 

E. Klink moved a vote of thanks to Lydia Sondhi for her work with CFA and the Alliance. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

 

4.13     Nominating Committee

 

D. O’Connor spoke on behalf of the Nominating Committee. He thanked them for their service this year.

 

D. O’Connor moved the appointment of the following nominees:

 

Academic Appeals Committee

·         Chou, Sam                                                                 2011

o   COA: Music

·         Vogel, Brenda                                                                        2009

o   CHHS: Criminal Justice

·         Leiter, William                                                           2011

o   CLA: Political Science

·         Prince, Judy                                                               2009

o   Student Services: CAPS

·         Goodman-Lowe, Gwen                                             2010

o   CNSM: Biological Sciences (Lecturer)

 

General Education Governing Committee

·         Doyle, Alicia                                                               2011

o   COA: Music

·         Costa, Margaret                                                         2011

o   HHS: Kinesiology

 

GWAR

·         Brown, Lori                                                                2011

o   CBA: Information Systems

 

Grade Appeals Committee

·         Murgolo, Frank                                                          2010

o   ENG: CECS

·         Fox, Todd                                                                   2009

o   CLA: English (Lecturer)

 

International Education Committee

·         Smith, Ed                                                                   2011

o   CBA: Management/HRM

·         Haglund, Elaine                                                         2011

o   CED: EDPAC

·         Martin-Dunlop, Catherine                                        2011

o   CNSM: Science Education

·         Kelty, Tom                                                                  2011

o   CNSM: Science Education/Geology

·         McEneaney, Elizabeth                                              2011

o   CLA: Sociology

·         Velcic, Vlatka                                                             2011

o   CLA: CWL&C

·         Anglin, David                                                             2011

o   COA: Music (At Large)

 

 

Teacher Preparation Committee

·         O’Connor, Dan                                                           2010

o   CED: Liberal Studies

·         Hamm, Deborah                                                        2009

o   CED: Teacher Education (Lecturer)

 

University Library Committee

·         Green, Yolanda                                                          2010

o   HHS: Social Work

·         Underwood, Dessie                                                   2010

o   CNSM: Biology

 

Committee on Athletics

·         Murgolo, Frank                                                          2010

o   COE: CECS

·         Shafer, David                                                             2010

o   CLA: History

·         McCroskey, Linda                                                      2009

o   CLA: Communications Studies

·         Kelty, Tom                                                                  2010

o   CNSM: Science Education/Geology

·         Safer, Alan                                                                 2010

o   CNSM: Mathematics & Statistics

·         Moss, Kirran                                                              2009

o   CLA: Communications Studies (Lecturer)

 

Faculty Advisory Committee on Technology (F.A.C.T.)

·         Acosta-Deprez, Veronica                                          2011

o   HHS: Health Science

·         Dunagan, Colleen                                                      2011

o   COA: Dance

 

Faculty Center for Professional Development Advisory Board

·         Dunagan, Colleen                                                      2011

o   COTA: Dance

·         Mayfield, Tracy                                                          2011

o   LIB & ATS

 

Panel on Professional Responsibility

·         Pavri, Shireen                                                                        2011

o   CED: EDPAC

·         Jacques, David                                                          2011

o   COA: Theatre Arts

·         Baber, Walter                                                             2011

o   HHS: Public Policy & Administration

·         Nelms, Bobbie                                                                       2011

o   HHS: Nursing

 

 

Associated Student Senate

·         Vail, Leland                                                                2010

o   COA: Music (Faculty Representative)

 

Student Union Board of Directors

·         Kim, Simon                                                                2010

o   CED: EDPAC (Faculty Representative)

 

Instructionally Related Activities Fee Advisory Board

·         Daugherty-Phillingane, Emma                                2010

o   CLA: Journalism (Faculty Representative)

 

Staff Council

·         Costa, Margaret                                                         2010

o   HHS: Kinesiology (Faculty Representative)

 

Learning Assistance Advisory Committee

·         Sciortino, Antonella                                                   2011

o   COE: CECEM

·         Keely, Beth                                                                 2011

o   HHS: Nursing

·         Meyer-Adams, Nancy                                                           2011

o   HHS: Social Work

 

The nominations were seconded and approved unanimously except for the College of Liberal Arts members of the International Education Committee. Anna Sandoval was nominated by Kathleen Di Vito for the International Education Committee.  The nomination was seconded. This made three nominees for two places. D. Hood moved to postpone the run-off election of the College of Liberal Arts members to the Fall.  The motion was seconded and carried.

 

                  Councils

4.21 Status of Policy Statements before the Academic Senate (CONSENT CALENDAR)---None

 

5.         REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES—None

 

6.        SPECIAL ORDERS

6.1                      Report of the President—TIME CERTAIN (2:30)

 

The President thanked Kirstyn Chun for her help with a meeting with local city councilors as well as Doug Robinson and Fred Neely.  One of our graduates was playing in major golf tournament and had a “Dirt Bag” cap on. Because last year we signed a licensing agreement, the graduate was able to able to buy the hat in the Charlotte, North Carolina airport. The licensing agreement is worth 2 million dollars in revenue to University. There have been 200 requests for” Dirt Bag” hats since the graduate’s television appearance.

President Alexander thanked everybody involved in getting the Master Plan approved by the city especially Scott Charmack and Susan Brown.  Mitigation costs demanded by the City will be minimal.  Other cities often hold Universities hostage for costs unrelated to University.  The city of Long Beach understands value of the University. First major change to Master Plan since 1962 will ultimately allow us to raise our FTE Cap. This process is our local accreditation process and it went very well.   We have a great mayor and a former CSU trustee is on city council

State Budget / May Revise and Fees:   The May Revise had good news.  The President gave credit to the Governor for prioritizing State needs.  Sacramento is beginning to understand the difference between investments and expenditures.

 

$100 million in funding has been returned to the CSU budget, but we are not yet out of the woods. We still don’t have funding for some mandatory costs. There is still a $213 million system-wide shortfall.  The Governor is talking about new revenues.  The issue is now on the table and the makings of a budget compromise. We must keep up the pressure on the state legislature. We will probably not have a budget until November.

The CSU Trustees approved fee increase for students. The President expressed mixed feelings on student fees.  He doesn’t like to see costs rise, but University needs the resources. We must have a balanced approach.  The President then presented a series of a graphs and charts placing the fee increase and cost of a degree from the CSU in a broader national context. Despite the increases, The CSU system still provides on one of the best bargains in higher education in the United States.

7.         UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND MATTERS POSTPONED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

7.1          Revision: PS 96-12 Retention, Tenure and Promotion Policy (AS-742-08/FPPC) —SECOND READING (deferred to fall 08)

7.2         Technical Corrections (AS-760/EC)---SECOND READING.  (deferred to fall 08)

7.3         Amendment to the GE Policy: GE Certification for Transfer Students (AS-716-07/GEGC/CEPC)---SECOND READING

 

M. Samuelson submitted a revised version of the amendment she submitted last time. She hoped that the new amendment would be clearer. The motion was seconded by V. Del Casino.

K. Freesemann proposed another amendment in lieu of M. Samuelson’s amendment.  His proposal was seconded.

K. Freesemann stated that his amendment clarified and codifies campus practice.  It addressed the issue of transfers from the U.C. He stated that his amendment accomplishes the same goals as M. Samuelson’s amendment only it was clearer and addressed more issues. It had been reviewed and endorsed by the CEP Council. His amendment provided a better explanation of what is expected and matches the new GE policy just approved by ASCSU.

D. Huckaby supported K. Freesemann’s amendment as is the more complete option.  K. Freesemann’s amendment adds to what the amendment proposed by M. Samuelson

M. Samuelson determined that K. Freesemann’s amendment was unfriendly. She believed that her amendment was simpler and more inclusive.  She felt that the Freesemann amendment only added confusion.

V del Casino spoke to the question. While he appreciated D. Huckaby and K. Freesemann’s efforts, an amendment  needed to pass today to correctly advise SOAR students.

Dave Huckaby moved to vote all immediately on the substitution of K. Freesemann’s amendment for M. Samuelson’s amendment. The motion failed.

It was moved to vote to approve M. Samuelson’s amendment. The motion carried and M. Samuelson’s amendment was approved.

 

7.4         Elevation of M.S. in Mathematics, Option in Applied Statistics to M.S. in Applied Statistics (AS/758-08/ACSN)---SECOND READING

 

 The second reading was moved and seconded. A. Safer spoke to the motion. He said that job placement is excellent for graduates with advanced qualifications in applied statistics. There is considerable interest among students. We have seven faculty members to support the program. We have great connections with companies in the region for placement.  Name change would make the nature of the degree clearer to prospective students and employers.

The second reading was approved unanimously and the motion was passed.

 

7.5         Request for a waiver of GE units by the College of Engineering (AS-XXX-08/CEPC)---SECOND READING

 

The second reading was moved and the motion was seconded. S. Cynar spoke to the motion. The new G. E. policy (PS 08-00) did not provide for a carryover of the College of Engineering’s G.E. waiver which it has had since 1961. Therefore according to the policy they are requesting a 3 unit waiver. Otherwise the College of Engineering would be the only program with no drop in units as a result of the new policy.

J. Torabzadeh stated that for the last 20 years the College of Engineering has had a 6 unit waiver because of the high number of units in the major required for engineering degrees. He requested to amend the document to increase the waiver to 6 since the whole point of the new policy was to help students graduate.

D. Huckaby said that since all students got a 3 unit drop in their G.E. requirements, a 3 unit waiver was all that was required to bring the new policy into agreement with past practice. J. Torabzadeh disagreed.

Dean F. Golshani suggested that the Senate approve the 3 unit waiver now with the understanding that the issue of an additional 3 unit waiver would be revisited at a later time.

The question was called and the motion was carried.

 

8.        NEW BUSINESS

8.1          Revised GWAR Policy (AS-XXX-08/CEPC)---FIRST READING (deferred to fall 08)

8.2         Discussion of Issues raised by Dr. Alexandra Jaffe.

 

A Jaffe moved to put her resolution on the first agenda of the fall semester.  The motion was seconded by T. Caron. K. Gould asked a question about the priority of items on the agenda since she was anxious that the RTP policy be addressed by the Senate as soon as possible in the fall. Chair Soni referred the question to Dr. Hood who clarified that the Senate may place an item on the agenda, but that the Executive Committee determines the order of items on the agenda. After this clarification the motion was carried.

 

9.         ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:01 p.m.                                                                           

 

May 15, 2008, 2:00 p.m.

Towner Auditorium – PSY 150

 

1.       CALL TO ORDER

 

All voting members were present except: COA: K. Clippinger; CBA: P. Ammermann; COE: S. Lam; CHHS: R. Friis; CLA: J. Van Camp; CNSM: R. Francis; STAFF: F. Neely; STUDENTS: C. Herrera, T. Potter, A. Vasquez; EX OFFICIO: M. Crego, M. Grenot-Scheyer, R. Kochan, D. Para, M. Solt, A. Taylor.

 

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

 

The Agenda was approved unanimously

 

3. WELCOME TO NEW SENATORS

 

Chair Soni asked the new senators to stand and be applauded. He thanked them for serving and welcomed back returning senators.

 

Chair Soni then explained the procedure for the election. Each office must be elected separately and each election must be completed before moving on to the next election.

 

5. ELECTION OF ACADEMIC SENATE OFFICERS

 

            Chair

 

M. Viera nominated Keith Freesemann and spoke in support of the nomination. The nomination was seconded. K. Freesemann addressed the Senate in support of his nomination.

 

Luis Arroyo nominated Chair Praveen Soni for reelection and spoke in support of the nomination. The nomination was seconded.

 

The nominations were closed

 

After balloting, Chair Praveen Soni was reelected.

 

            Vice-Chair

 

D. O’Connor nominated Vincent del Casino and spoke in support of his nomination. The nomination was seconded. V. del Casino spoke in support of his nomination.

 

S. Pavri nominated Jalal Torabzadeh and spoke in support of his nomination. The nomination was seconded. J. Torabzadeh spoke in support of his nomination.

 

C. Chavez Nominated K. Freesemann. C. Chavez spoke in support of the nomination. The nomination was seconded. K. Freesemann spoke in support of his nomination. He also took the opportunity to congratulate Chair Soni on his reelection.

 

After balloting, J. Torabzadeh was elected Vice-Chair.

 

 

 

           

Secretary

 

L. Arroyo nominated E. Klink and spoke in support of the nomination. The nomination was seconded. E. Klink spoke in support of her nomination.

 

There being no other nominations W. Johnson moved to cast a unanimous ballot. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. 

 

E. Klink was elected Secretary by a unanimous vote.

 

 

6. ELECTION OF FOUR (4) AT-LARGE MEMBERS TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

 

1^st at Large.

 

T. Caron nominated D. O’Connor and spoke in support of the nomination. The nomination was seconded. D. O’Connor spoke in support of his nomination.

 

B. Vogel nominated L. Huckabay and spoke in support of her nomination. The nomination was seconded.  L. Huckabay spoke in support of her nomination.

 

C. Chavez nominated K. Freesemann and the nomination was seconded.

 

D. O’Connor nominated V. Del Casino. Then nomination was seconded.

 

There being no further nominations, H. Fradella moved to elect the four nominees to the four at large member positions as a slate. The motion was seconded by C. Chavez. Chair Soni advised the body that this was contrary to the procedures outlined in the Senate Constitution and referred the matter to Parliamentarian W. Johnson. He informed the Senate that the usual procedures could be dispensed with, but a 2/3 vote was required. The question was called by Chair Soni

 

Ayes. 22

Nays 23

 

The motion failed and the election for the First At-Large Member continued.

 

After balloting, D’O Connor was elected Member at Large to the Executive Committee.

 

            2^nd Member at Large

 

C. Chavez nominated K. Freesemann. The nomination was seconded.

 

Brenda Vogel nominated L. Huckaby. The nomination was seconded.

 

Galen Pickett nominated V. Del Casino.  The nomination was seconded.

 

After balloting, V. Del Casino was elected the second Member at Large.

 

 

 

3^rd Member at Large

 

C. Chavez nominated K. Freesemann. The nomination was seconded.

 

B.  Vogel nominated L. Huckaby. The nomination was seconded

 

L. Forrest nominated M. Samuelson and spoke in support of her nomination.  The nomination was seconded. M. Samuelson spoke in support of her nomination.

 

The first round of balloting led to a run-off between K. Freesemann and M. Samuelson.

 

K. Freesemann was elected Member at Large on the second round of balloting.

 

            4^th Member at Large

 

T. Caron nominated L. Vollendorf and spoke in support of her nomination. The nomination was seconded. L. Vollendorf spoke in support of her nomination.

L. Forrest nominated M. Samuelson. The nomination was seconded.

Alan Colburn nominated G. Pickett and spoke in support of his nomination. The nomination was seconded. G. Pickett spoke in support of his nomination.

After balloting, M. Samuelson was elected Member at Large

H Hhhhhhhh

6. ELECTION OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE

 

The election was nominating committee was deferred until the first meeting of the Fall semester.              

 

7. ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned

Election of College of Liberal Arts Representatives to the International Education Committee (2 Positions with Terms Ending in 2011)

Candidates

·         Elizabeth McEneaney, Sociology

·         Vlatka Velcic, Comparative World Literature & Classics

·         Anna Sandoval, Chicano Latino Studies

Due to confusion over the term expiration of a member of the Academic Appeals Committee, and in the interests of fairness and continuity in the committee, it is proposed that an additional faculty member from the College of Liberal Arts be allowed to serve on the Committee for the year 2008-2009.

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION (RTP) of TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

                                                                     PS  96-12      

 

 September 9, 2008

 

 

The Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) policy for California State University, Long Beach establishes the mission, vision, and guiding principles for the evaluation of tenured and tenure-track faculty members (including coaches, librarians, and Counseling and Psychological Services  personnel) eligible for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.[1]  The University RTP policy also specifies the process by which faculty work shall be evaluated.

 

1.0 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

 

1.1 University Mission and Vision

California State University, Long Beach is a diverse, student-centered, globally-engaged public university committed to providing highly-valued undergraduate and graduate educational opportunities through superior teaching, research, creative activity, and service for the people of California and the world. CSULB envisions changing lives by expanding educational opportunities, championing creativity, and preparing leaders for a changing world.

 

1.2 Guiding Principles of Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP)

1.2.1 A faculty dedicated to excellence in teaching, scholarship, creativity and service is essential to accomplishing the University’s articulated mission and vision. CSULB faculty members integrate the results of their research and creative activities into their teaching, invigorating and enhancing student learning. Faculty members are expected to make significant and ongoing contributions to their department, college, university, community, and the profession. 

 

  

1.2.2 Decisions regarding Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) are among the most important made by our university community. RTP decisions must be clear, fair, and unbiased at all levels of review. Faculty achievements may vary from those of colleagues yet still meet the standards for reappointment, tenure, or promotion. The RTP process must ensure that excellence will be rewarded and that faculty members who meet department, college, and university standards and expectations will have an reasonable opportunity for advancement.

 

1.2.3 Tenured and tenure-track Faculty members shall be evaluated on the quality of their achievements and the impact of their contributions over the period of review in: a) instruction and instructionally-related activities, b)research, scholarship, and/or creative activities, and c) service and engagement at the university, in the community, and in the profession.  All faculty members will be evaluated on the basis of all three areas.

 

1.2.4 This policy should not be construed to prevent innovation or adjustment in workload with respect to teaching, research (SCA) or service based upon faculty expertise and accomplishment, department and college needs, and university mission.

 

 

 2.0 RTP AREAS OF EVALUATION

 

Colleges, departments, and other academic units are responsible for defining the standards of excellence and accompanying criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion in their various disciplines, taking into account consistent with the mission and needs of the University. RTP standards and criteria shall articulate expectations for faculty accomplishments in all three areas of evaluation:  instruction and instructionally-related activities; research, scholarship, and/or creative activities; and service and engagement at the university, in the community, and in the profession. 

 

2.1 Instruction and Instructionally-Related Activities

Faculty members are expected to demonstrate that they are effective teachers. Instruction and instructionally-related activities include teaching and fostering learning inside and outside the traditional classroom.  Instructionally-related activities include, but are not limited to, curriculum development, academic and departmental advising, supervision of student research and fieldwork, direction of student performances and exhibitions, quasi administrative positions eg. Program coordinating (Amendment proposed by Holly Harbinger) and related activities involving student learning and student engagement.  Additional instructional activities may include, but are not limited to, student mentoring, study abroad, and thesis and project supervision.

 

2.1.1 Instructional Philosophy and Practice

Effective teaching requires that faculty members reflect on their teaching practices and assess their impact on student learning.  Thoughtful, deliberate efforts to improve one’s instructional effectiveness are expected of all faculty members. Effective teaching also requires that faculty members engage in professional development activities associated with classroom and non-classroom assignments.  Teaching methods should be consistent with course/curriculum goals and accommodate student differences.

 

 

2.1.2 Student Learning Outcomes

Effective teaching requires that faculty members provide evidence of student learning.  Instructional practices and course materials should clearly convey to students the learning goals, and expected student outcomes. Assessment methods should align with instructional practices. (Amendment proposed by Galen Pickett) No candidate may be rated as excellent by any peer review committee for any level of review after the 2008-09 academic year in the absence of data documenting the extent of student achievement of the appropriate outcomes.

 

2.1.3 Student Response to Instruction

Student course evaluations shall be used, along with additional evidence of teaching effectiveness as defined by department and college RTP policy documents shall be used to evaluate teaching effectiveness. (Grammarian) Student course evaluations alone do not provide sufficient evidence of teaching effectiveness.  Utilization of the university standard evaluation form is only one method of presenting student response to learning and teaching effectiveness. Importantly, any single item on this form—or the entire form, by itself and in isolation from other information—does not provide sufficient evidence of teaching effectiveness. 

 

2.2 Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities

Departments and colleges shall develop their own definitions, standards, and criteria for the evaluation of research, scholarship, and creative activities. The University RTP policy provides a guiding framework for this charge.

 

Faculty members are expected to make significant and ongoing contributions of substance in research, scholarship, and/or creative activity throughout their career.  All faculty members are expected to produce quality research, scholarship, and/or creative achievements that contribute to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of the discipline or interdisciplinary studies.

 

Academic disciplines vary in the meaning, scope, and practice of research, scholarship, and creative activity.  Evidence of these activities and accomplishments include, but are not limited to, publications of merit reviewed by professional peers, scholarly presentations, fellowships, grants, contracts, and artistic exhibits and performances.  These achievements must be reviewed by professional peers and disseminated to appropriate audiences. 

 

2.3 Service

Quality service contributions and activities are necessary to ensure and enhance the quality of programs and activities at the university, in the community, and in the profession.  All faculty members are expected to participate in the collegial processes of faculty governance and to maintain active engagement within the university, community, and profession through quality service contributions and activities throughout their career.  Meaningful service should be related to the academic expertise and rank of the faculty member.

 

Departments and colleges shall develop their own standards and criteria for the evaluation of quality service.  The Department shall make clear to the candidate what types of service are appropriate to department, college, and university missions and goals consistent with faculty rank and experience.  Examples of service contributions may include, but are not limited to, leadership roles in faculty governance activities and committees; authorship of reports and other materials pertinent to university, college, or department policies and procedures; ongoing advising of student groups; service or leadership activities for professional organizations or boards; conducting external evaluations; consulting in public schools, local government, and community organizations.

 

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE RTP PROCESS

(RTP Policy – Amendment proposed by

 Jalal Torabzadeh and Luis Arroyo, 5-15-08)

 

Participants in the RTP process include the candidate, the dDepartment,[2]  RTP committee, the department chair, the college RTP committee, the dean, (the External Evaluation committee if needed), the Provost, and the President. In addition, there may be external reviewers participating in the RTP process. For details on conducting external evaluations, please see the Academic Senate Policy on External Evaluations.

 

The Collective Bargaining Agreement allows faculty, students, academic administrators, and the President to provide information concerning the candidate during the open period. The assessment by external evaluators may also be included at any stage of the evaluation process in accordance with Academic Senate Policy 86-07.

 

Deliberations on reappointment, tenure, and promotion shall be confidential.  Access to materials and recommendations pertaining to the candidate shall be limited to the RTP candidate, the department RTP committee, the department chair, the college RTP Committee, the dean, (the External Evaluation committee if needed), the Provost, Associate Vice President for Academic Personnel (as an appropriate administrator), and the President (see CBA). In addition, external reviewers, if any, will have access to appropriate materials for evaluation and recommendation.

 

3.1 Candidate 

A candidate for RTP should make every effort to seek advice and guidance from the department chair, particularly regarding the RTP process and procedures and how criteria and standards are applied.  The candidate has the primary responsibility for collecting and presenting the evidence of her/his accomplishments. The candidate’s documentation must include all required information and supporting materials.  All supporting materials should be referenced and clearly explained.

The candidate shall submit a narrative that describes his/her goals and accomplishments during the period of review, including a clear description of the quality and significance of contributions to the three areas of review: a) instruction and instructionally-related activities; b) research, scholarship, and creative activity; and c) service to the university, community, and/or profession. The candidate shall provide all required supplemental documentation, including summary sheets from student evaluations and an index of all supplementary materials. The candidate shall provide all prior RTP reviews and periodic evaluations over the full review period, including candidate’s responses or rebuttals, if any.

 

3.2 Department RTP Policy

The department shall develop and articulate specific standards and criteria to be applied in the evaluation of candidates in all three areas of evaluation.  Department standards shall not be lower than college-level standards.    

 

The department RTP policy is subject to ratification by a majority of tenured and tenure- track department faculty members and to approval by the college faculty council, the dean, and the Provost.  Department RTP policies shall be subject to regular review by the department faculty.

 

3.3 Department RTP Committee 

The department RTP committee has the primary responsibility for evaluating the candidate’s work and makes the initial recommendation to the college RTP committee regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion.  Department RTP committee members are responsible for analyzing critically the candidate’s performance by applying the criteria of the department.

 

The tenured and tenure-track faculty of a department elect representatives to the department’s RTP committee. The Collective Bargaining Agreement restricts membership on RTP committees to tenured, full-time faculty members. The CBA also states that faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) may serve on RTP committees if requested by the majority vote of tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department and approved by the President.  However, RTP committees may not be made up solely of faculty participating in the FERP.

 

No one individual may participate in the evaluation of any single candidate in more than one level of review.

 

3.4 Department Chair

The department chair is responsible for communicating the department, college, and university policies to candidates.  The chair also provides ongoing guidance to candidates over time as to whether their performance is consistent with department expectations.  The chair, in collaboration with college or department mentors, is responsible for talking with candidates about their overall career development and providing professional mentoring.

 

The chair shall meet with the department RTP committee prior to the beginning of the department evaluation process to review the department, college, and university processes and procedures.

 

Department chairs shall write independent evaluations of all RTP candidates unless the department chair is elected to the department RTP committee.  In no case, however, may a department chair participate in the evaluation of any single candidate in more than one level of review.

 

3.5 College RTP Policy

The college RTP policy shall specify in writing the standards to be applied in evaluating candidates in all three areas of evaluation, consistent with university and college missions standards and with the mission of the college.  The college RTP policy shall ensure consistency of standards across the college.  Colleges have the responsibility for setting forth the standards appropriate to the breadth of disciplines in the college. 

 

College RTP policy is subject to ratification by a majority of voting tenured and tenure-track college faculty members and to the approval by the dean and the Provost.  College RTP policy shall be subject to regular review by the college faculty.

(proposed amendment by Senator Jaffe) Assessment of Research, scholarship and creative accomplishment for both tenure and promotion will be evaluated relative to the resources that have been made available to faculty during the evaluation period to conduct research and creative activities (that is, resources that do not compensate faculty for significant administrative or other duties). Faculty who have enjoyed access to greater resources for research will be held to a higher standard of research and creative output; faculty who have had lesser access will not be held to the same standard. Colleges and departments will establish explicit guidelines for what constitutes a minimum acceptable level  of research and scholarly output  for faculty who receive little to no research-oriented assigned time. Colleges and departments will also establish clear performance expectations that are calibrated to the resources that they can provide to their faculty members.

 

 

3.6 College RTP Committee

The college RTP committee reviews the materials submitted by the candidate as well as the department RTP committee and department chair evaluations and recommendations.  The college RTP committee evaluates the candidate’s file in accordance with standards established in the department, college, and university RTP policies.  The college RTP committee shall ensure that fair and consistent evaluation occurs at the department and college levels according to the standards set by the department and college RTP documents.  The college RTP committee shall take into serious account the department’s specific standards for evaluating the candidate. 

 

The college committee prepares and forwards its own independent recommendation to the college dean.

 

 

3.7 Dean of the College

The dean has a unique role to play in providing oversight and guidance in the RTP process within the college.  The dean mentors department chairs regarding their role in the RTP process, encourages departments to develop and clarify their expectations for faculty performance, provides clear guidance to the college RTP committee, and ensures that all evaluations are carried out in accordance with department, college, and university policies.  The dean ensures that standards across the college are maintained.

 

The dean of the college shall review the candidate’s file, including all prior evaluations, and provide an independent recommendation to the Provost based upon the three criteria listed earlier.

 

3.8 Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs 

The Provost provides oversight for the university’s RTP process, establishes the annual calendar of the RTP cycle, provides training for committees, chairs, and deans, and distributes relevant information to prospective candidates, chairs, deans, and members of college and department RTP committees.

 

The Provost shall review the candidate’s file, including all prior evaluations, and make a final recommendation. 

 

3.9 President

The President has the authority to make final decisions for the University with respect to reappointment, tenure, and promotion.  This authority The President may be delegate this authority to the Provost.

 

4. 0 TIMELINES FOR THE RTP PROCESS

 

All tenured and tenure track faculty undergo performance review and evaluation.[3] Tenure-track faculty members are evaluated each year. During years when the candidate is not being reviewed for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, the candidate will undergo periodic review. Tenured faculty members are evaluated every five (5) years.

 

The following timelines apply to candidates who are appointed at the rank of assistant professor with no service credit; actual timelines may vary according to level of appointment and service credit.

 

4.1 Evaluation of Tenure-Track Faculty for Reappointment

In the first year and second years of service, the annual evaluation takes the form of a periodic review.  The periodic review provides the candidate with feedback on progress toward tenure. The periodic review is conducted by the department RTP committee, the department chair, and the college dean. 

 

In the third year of service, the annual evaluation takes the form of a reappointment review. Successful candidates are reappointed for either one, or two, or three years. 

 

4.2 Evaluation of Tenure-Track Faculty for Tenure and Promotion

In the first and second years of reappointment (or fourth and fifth years of continuous service), the annual evaluation takes the form of a periodic review.  In the third year of reappointment (or the sixth year of continuous service) the annual evaluation takes the form of a tenure review, which may also be a review for promotion.

 

A tenure-track faculty member may request consideration for early tenure and promotion prior to the scheduled sixth year review. This process is discussed under evaluation of faculty work below Section 5.5.

 

4.3 Evaluation of Tenured Faculty for Promotion

An associate professor becomes eligible for promotion review to full professor in the fifth year at the associate rank.  A tenured associate professor may seek early promotion to full professor prior to the fifth year in rank.  This process is discussed further under evaluation of faculty work below Section 5.5.

 

A tenured faculty member may choose not to be evaluated for promotion in a given year; however, the faculty member will still be required to undergo the five-year periodic evaluation of tenured faculty as outlined in a separate Academic Senate policy document.

 

5.0 APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTIONAL LEVEL CRITERIA

 

Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion will be evaluated in all three areas: instruction and instructionally-related activities; research, scholarship, and/or creative activity; and service.

 

5.1 Reappointment Consideration for Probationary Faculty 

(Amendment by Senator Harbinger) The candidate must have completed at least one performance review periodic evaluation and must demonstrate that he/she is making significant progress towards tenure. Based upon criteria established by the department and the college, a candidate for reappointment must show evidence of quality in all three areas of evaluation.

 

The candidate for reappointment is expected to demonstrate effective teaching responsive to the learning needs of CSULB’s diverse students and to the University’s educational mission.  The candidate is expected to show progress in his/her program of ongoing research, scholarship, and/or creative activity and to have produced initial scholarly and creative achievements.  The candidate is expected to have made service contributions primarily at the departmental or program level and consistent with departmental and college service expectations.

 

5.2 Consideration for Awarding of Tenure 

The awarding of tenure represents the University’s long-term commitment to a faculty member and is granted when the candidate has demonstrated the ability to make ongoing and increasingly distinguished professional contributions to the University and to the profession.  

 

Tenure is based on a candidate demonstrating a sustained record of excellence over multiple years.  Tenure is not based solely on the quantity of scholarly output, courses taught, or committees on which one has served.  Tenure is based on evidence leading to the belief that a candidate will continue being productive.

(Amendment proposed by senator Pavri)The candidate must present evidence of excellence meeting the required tenure criteria in all three areas of evaluation as established in the RTP policies of the department, college, and the University.

 

(Amendment by Senator Harbinger) In rare instances, the University may decide that a candidate’s achievements merit promotion to the rank of associate professor without a concomitant awarding of tenure. This decision represents the belief that a candidate has produced a body of work sufficient for promotion, but has not yet fully demonstrated the sustained record upon which tenure is based.

 

5.3 Appointment/Promotion to Associate Professor

An associate professor is expected to be an excellent teacher who is highly effective in the classroom, fosters quality learning experiences, and is responsive to the needs of CSULB’s diverse students and to the University’s educational mission.  At this rank, the faculty member is expected to have a successful and ongoing program of research, scholarship, and/or creative activity.  The candidate is expected to have produced high-quality peer reviewed work, which contributes to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of his/her discipline or interdisciplinary fields of study.  The candidate is expected to have made high-quality service contributions to the University or the expanded community.

 

 

 

5.4 Appointment/Promotion to Professor

Standards for promotion to full professor shall be higher than standards for promotion to associate professor.  A full professor is expected to demonstrate a consistent record of excellence in teaching, student engagement, and curricular development.  The successful candidate will have a proven program of research, scholarship, and/or creative activity that includes high quality contributions to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of his/her discipline or interdisciplinary fields of study.  The candidate is expected to have disseminated a substantial body of peer reviewed work at the national or international levels.  In addition, a full professor shall have provided significant service and leadership at the University and in the community or the profession.

 

(Amendment proposed by Alan Colburn) A professor’s post-tenure contributions may be somewhat more specialized in the teaching , scholarly, or service realm than they were pre-tenure.  These candidates are still worthy of promotion, if they can provide convincing evidence that they made significant contributions to the University’s mission.

 

 5.5 Early Tenure or Early Promotion

A potential candidate should receive initial guidance from the department chair and dean regarding the criteria and expectations for early tenure and early promotion.  Early tenure and early promotion are granted only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons.  Assistant professors may apply for early promotion early tenure or both.  A candidate applying for early tenure is expected to meet all criteria for early promotion to associate professor. Tenured associate professors may apply for early promotion to full professor. However, non-tenured associate professors may not apply for early promotion to full professor without also seeking early tenure.

 

5.5.1 Early Tenure

Early tenure may be granted in rare cases when a candidate demonstrates a record of distinction in all three areas and superior accomplishments significantly beyond what is expected for tenure on the standard six-year timeline. The candidate’s record must establish compelling evidence of distinction in all areas and must inspire confidence that the pattern of strong overall performance will continue.

 

In addition, candidates for early tenure are encouraged to participate in the external evaluation process according to the Academic Senate policy on external evaluation.

 

5.5.2 Early Promotion

In order to receive a favorable recommendation for early promotion to associate professor or full professor, a candidate must achieve a record of distinction in all three areas of evaluation that clearly exceeds in substantial ways the requirements established in the department and college policies.

 

In addition, candidates for early promotion are encouraged to participate in the external evaluation process according to the Academic Senate policy on external evaluation.

 

6.0 STEPS IN THE RTP PROCESS

 

6.1 The Division of Academic Affairs determines the timelines for the RTP process, including deadlines for the submission of the candidate’s materials, dates for the Open Period, completion of all RTP reviews by all review levels, and final decision notification to the candidate. The deadlines for notification of final actions shall be consistent with the requirements of the CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

 

6.2 The Division of Academic Affairs notifies all faculty members of their eligibility for review and specifies items required to be provided by all candidates.

 

6.3 Departments shall post in the department office a list of candidates being considered for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, following timelines and guidelines for the open period provided by the Office of Academic Affairs and consistent with the requirements of the CBA. A copy of all information submitted shall be provided to the candidate.  The department RTP committee chair prepares an index of the materials submitted during the open period material to be included in the candidate’s file.

 

6.4 Candidates prepare materials for review and deliver them to the department RTP committee by the deadline.

 

6.5 The department RTP committee reviews the candidate’s materials and, using the standard university form, provides a written evaluation and recommendation to the next level of review by the deadline.

 

6.6 The department chair, if not an elected member of the department RTP committee, reviews the candidate’s materials and provides an independent written evaluation and recommendation to the next level of review by the deadline.

 

6.7 The college RTP committee reviews the candidate’s materials and provides an independent written evaluation and recommendation to the next level of review by the deadline.

 

6.8 The dean reviews the candidate’s materials and provides an independent written review and recommendation to the Provost by the deadline.

 

6.9 The Provost reviews the candidate’s materials and provides an independent written review and recommendation to the President. The President has the authority to make final decisions for the University with respect to reappointment, tenure, and promotion.

The President (or Provost as designee) notifies the candidate of the final decision regarding reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion by the deadline.

 

 

7.0 ADDITIONAL PROCESSES

 

7.1 Prior to the final decision, candidates for promotion may withdraw without prejudice from consideration at any level of review (see CBA). This provision also applies to candidates for early tenure.

 

7.2 If, at any time during the review process, the absence of required evaluation documents is discovered, the RTP package shall be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided.  Such materials shall be provided in a timely manner. 

 

7.3 At each level of review, the candidate shall be given a copy of the recommendation, which shall state in writing the reasons for the recommendation, before the recommendation is forwarded to the next review level.  The candidate shall have the right to provide a rebuttal/response in writing no later than ten (10) calendar days following receipt of the recommendation.  A copy of all of the candidate’s rebuttal/responses shall accompany the RTP package and also be sent to any previous review levels.

 

7.4 The candidate or evaluators at each level of review may request an external evaluation, consistent with Academic Senate policy and procedures for external evaluation.

 

8.0 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE RTP POLICY

 

Changes to CSULB RTP procedures may occur as a result of changes to the Faculty CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).   Additionally, campus administrators may make certain procedural changes to accommodate the university calendar or other campus needs.  In general, changes to procedures do not require a vote by the faculty.

The faculty of CSULB, voting by secret mail ballot (with pro and con arguments attached), may amend the policy and evaluation criteria section of this document.

 

Amendments may be proposed either by the following:

 

(1) A direct faculty action via petition from ten percent (10%) of the tenured and tenure track faculty to the chair of the Academic Senate.

(2) By action of the Academic Senate.

(Amendment proposed by Alan Colburn) Proposed amendments shall be submitted for discussion at a public hearing for the faculty called within fifteen (15) instructional days following their receipt and shall be distributed in writing by the chair of the Academic Senate to the faculty at least five (5) instructional days before the public hearing.

 

Amendments to this document shall become effective when they have received a favorable vote of a majority of the faculty voting in a secret mail ballot conducted by the Academic Senate within twenty (20) instructional days of the public hearing and they have the concurrence of the University President.

 

 

Effective: Fall 2009

[1]Every effort has been made to ensure compliance with the current Unit 3 (Faculty) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).  However, this document should not be considered as a substitute for those parts of the Agreement that affect RTP matters. 

[2] Throughout this document, the designation ‘department’ applies also to ‘program’ or an equivalent unit in a non-instructional area whose employees are considered to be faculty under the provisions of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Thus, unit heads and directors are the equivalent of department chairs and deans.

[3] Evaluation of lecturers is not covered in this policy; see the Academic Personnel web site and the Policy on Range Elevation for Lecturers, PS 02-03).

***DRAFT*** STATEMENT ON DR. KEVIN MACDONALD’S WORK

for Academic Senate review and discussion                                  5/5/08

 

WHEREAS

                1.Professor Kevin MacDonald serves on the editorial board and has published widely in the White nationalist journal The Occidental Quarterly, a journal devoted to “the cultural, ethnic, and racial interests of Western European peoples,”[i] which has consistently tried to make “the case for inherited human inequality.”[ii]

 

                2. MacDonald has advocated for the protection of the interests of “White European” Americans: ideally  through the creation of a white ethnostate[iii] or failing that, through a return to the racially based restrictions of earlier U.S. immigration policy.[iv]  He  argues that white Europeans in the United States should limit non-white immigration in order to avoid “a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these people [white Europeans].”[v]

 

                3. MacDonald’s writings about Jews include the following:

                                a. repeated desciptions of Jews as a threat to white, European civilization[vi]

                                b. the characterization of Western anti-Semitism as a rational, defensive                                                                              response to the presence of Jews and their “hyper-ethnocentrism” and collectivist culture;[vii]

                                c. description of his own work as “rational anti-Semitism; ”

                                d. the statement that he considers being called an anti-Semite a “badge of  honor”; 

                                e. The argument that Jews support cultural relativism, multicultural policies and nonwhite                                                immigration to the United States in order to undermine White European culture and maintain their                               own positions of superiority. 

 

                 4. Throughout  his writings, Dr. MacDonald  insists that his generalizations about White Europeans, Jews, African-Americans  and other groups have a genetic basis, and that these groups can be legitimately ranked along scales of positive and negative attributes, including loyalty, intelligence and so forth. MacDonald has argued that (Ashkenazic) Jews have specific abilities for intelligence, that White Europeans have a genetic predisposition for individualism, and that Blacks have lower abilities for intelligence.[viii]        

               

                6.  MacDonald's writings, and his status as a tenured full professor at CSULB are regularly used by white separatists and neo-Nazis to legitimize and promote their agendas. White supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke has posted MacDonald’s articles to his Website and the anti-Semitic newspaper American Free Press has promoted a videotaped interview with him. The white supremacist Nationalist Party USA devotes a section to his work on its Website and the neo-Nazi National Alliance includes three of MacDonald’s books in its “repository of knowledge and inspiration for our people.”

 

WHEREAS all members of the California State University at Long Beach Academic Senate firmly believe in and seek to protect the principle of academic freedom, but also understand that the mantle of "academic freedom" can be used to advance racism, bigotry, or other forms of intolerance;

 

                WHEREAS bigotry and intolerance directed at any social group runs counter to the foundational values of respect and tolerance embedded in the University mission “to prepare students to function effectively in a culturally diverse society, by developing an understanding of our diverse heritage”;

 

                WHEREAS Academic Senate Policy Statement 00-07 on Professional Responsibility enjoins all faculty “to seek and to state the truth as they see it”;

                WHEREAS Dr. MacDonald’s home Department (Psychology) has issued the following statement on misuse of psychologists’ work:

The Department of Psychology regards it as deeply unethical that any faculty member knowingly allow his/her work to be used to support groups that disseminate views of racial/ethnic superiority and/or racial/ethnic hatred. Moreover, in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, we expect faculty to take all reasonable steps to prevent the misuse or misrepresentation of their work. We are concerned that psychological research has been used in the past in intellectually unjustifiable and socially harmful ways, such as limiting immigration of certain groups or justifying unequal opportunities in education and employment. We wish to make it clear that these uses are distortions of scholarship in the field.

AND, because of their “concerns about how Dr. MacDonald’s research is being used by extremist groups,” has also issued the following statement of disassociation:

 

“the department wishes to dissociate itself from the controversial writings of Dr. Kevin MacDonald.  We respect and defend his right to express his views, but we affirm that they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach”;

 

                WHEREAS the Department of History has publically stated that:

“The prejudicial views expressed by Professor Kevin MacDonald in his writings and in his public statements are professionally irresponsible and morally untenable;” has characterized his approach to historical investigation as “antithetical to our discipline” and have written that “just as he has the freedom of speech to advance his white nationalist agenda so to, do we have the freedom of speech to deplore his prejudicial views of Jews and non-whites and state that Dr. MacDonald’s writings on white ethnocentrism, Jews, race, and immigration do not enjoy the respect of the members of the Department of History”;

 

WHEREAS the Jewish Studies Program has characterized MacDonald's writing and public statements as “professionally irresponsible and morally untenable,” and has issued a statement in which they write that “Just as he has the freedom of speech to advance his white nationalist agenda, so too do we have the freedom of speech to deplore his prejudicial views of Jews and non-whites and state that Dr. MacDonald's writings on white ethnocentrism, Jews, race, and immigration do not enjoy the respect of many of his colleagues”;

 

                WHEREAS the Department of Anthropology has stated that, “Kevin MacDonald’s use and patent abuse of many concepts central to anthropology and other disciplines — race, social evolution, population genetics, endogamy and ethnocentrism — to promote intolerance are of grave concern to us and can not be ignored. We wish to make it clear that we do not seek to impede Kevin MacDonald’s First Amendment rights; however, just as he has rights, we have the right, if not the obligation, to denounce his writings on race, ethnicity and intelligence that promote intolerance, as not only inaccurate, but as professionally irresponsible and morally untenable”;

 

                WHEREAS  the Department of Linguistics has affirmed that, “We firmly and unequivocally disassociate ourselves from the positions on Jews, African-Americans, immigrants and other minority groups that he [Kevin MacDonald] has expressed in his writing and speech, and which have been widely used to legitimate the discriminatory agendas of a variety of hate groups who have associated themselves with his name”;

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT

While the Academic Senate defends Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s academic freedom and freedom of speech, as it does for all faculty, it firmly and unequivocally condemns and disassociates itself from the anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric views he has expressed.

[i] Editors and Publisher of The Occidental Quarterly, “Invitation to the first annual Jack London Literary Prize Banquet,” 2004.

[ii] “Editor’s Note,” The Occidental Quarterly, 6:3 (Fall 2006), 3.

MacDonald, “Immigration and the Unmentionable Question of Ethnic Interests.”

[iv] Kevin MacDonald, “Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off ‘Racist’?”

[v] Macdonald, The Culture of Critique, 329.

[vi] Kevin MacDonald, “The 2004 Jack London Literary Prize:  Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?” The Occidental Quarterly, 4:4 (Winter 2004), available online at http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no4/km-model.html.

[vii] MacDonald, “Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?”

[viii] For the high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, see MacDonald,  “Preface to the First Paperback Edition,” lxx, The Culture of Critique, see also Kevin MacDonald, Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport:  Praeger, 1998), 50 (“eugenic processes among Jews have resulted in genetic tendencies for intelligence and high-investment parenting”); for white individualism, see supra and also his online lecture notes for Psychology 361HD, http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/361-6-Ch14.htm ; for the lower intelligence of blacks, see Kevin MacDonald, “Turkheimer:  Is Race Science Good For the Jews?,” 26 November 2007, http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/blog-IQ.htm , where he discusses the “costs for ignoring the possibility of genetic influences” in explaining “the relatively low achievement of American Blacks and Latinos.”

Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR)Policy

(Supersedes Policy Statement 79-11, 80-10, 94-12, and 99-14, and 04-06.  Adopted pursuant to Executive Order 665, Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics.)

This policy was recommended by the Academic Senate on May 13, 2004aa/bb/cc

and approved by the Ppresident on June 14, 2004xx/yy/zz.

I.        Introduction

 

A.  In order to obtain a degree or certificate from CSULB, all students must demonstrate upper-division competence in academic writing in English.  The student is responsible for developing the skills necessary to demonstrate this competence.

 

B.  Because the overall education of students includes the development of writing skills, faculty members have a responsibility to encourage development of the appropriate level of skill and to refer students to sources of assistance where necessary.

II.       The Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR)[1]

 

A.  For the purpose of fulfilling the GWAR, students must demonstrate upper-division competence in academic writing in English, incorporating analysis and exemplification, with one or more of the following: synthesis, critique, inquiry, and argument.

 

B.  Assessments of writing competence at CSULB shall be approved by the GWAR Committee and shall be reviewed by the GWAR Committee every three (3) years for re-certification.include but are not limited to:

 

1.  The CSULB Writing Proficiency Examination (WPE),

 

2.  Other examinations, approved in accordance with VII.A.2, below, and

 

3.  Assessments connected to upper-division, writing-intensive courses, approved in accordance with VII.A.3, below. [2]

 

C.  An assessment of writing competence at CSULB that meets the following standards may be used to fulfill the GWAR.

1.Proposals for such assessments must specify which students may attempt the assessment (e.g., all students, students who have failed the WPE, graduate students, and/or students earning degrees in a specified college). Any student who meets the stated criterion (a) may attempt the assessment.[3]

1.2.    The assessment must include formal writing that is evaluated under the following conditions:.

         

         

 

a.       2.       The student under evaluation is known to be the sole author of the writing.

b.  The faculty readers who do the evaluation have successfully completed the course of training approved by the GWAR Committee.

 

c.  All instructors of courses approved by the GWAR Committee as satisfying the GWAR shall themselves be qualified readers as specified above in II.C.2.b, above.

 

d.  At least two qualified readers, approved for that purpose by the GWAR Coordinator, agree that the writing meets the GWAR standards, If the demonstration of writing accompanies a course, the course instructor shall serve as the third reader.[4]

3.       The proposal must include aA defined procedure for reporting the resulting score to the student and to Enrollment Services must be specified.

 

D.   Students who fail the CSULB Writing Proficiency Examination (WPE)any approved GWAR assessments two times may not attempt the WPEa GWAR assessment for a third time unless they consult a GWAR Committee-approved advisor and receive the advisor’s approval for a third attemptfirst obtain a diagnostic assessment of their writing skills from a designated faculty or staff advisor in the Learning Assistance Center and then pursue the prescribed corrective measures.[5]

 

III.      Undergraduate Students

 

A.  As a requirement for graduation, all undergraduate students must demonstrate writing competence by:

 

1.  Passing an approved CSULB assessment of writing competence (GWAR) or

 

2.       Having already passed an assessment of writing competence (GWAR) while matriculated at another CSU campus.

 

     B.  Assessments of writing competence from non-CSU campuses will be proposed to the GWAR Committee for approvalevaluated by the GWAR Coordinator[6] as a fulfillment of the GWAR, on an articulation basis if possible or on a case-by-case basis if necessary.

 

     C.  Continuing students who have not already satisfied the GWAR must attempt to satisfy the GWARdo so no later than the semester in which they complete 65 unitsby their junior year.

 

     D.  Upper-division tT[7]ransfer students must attempt to satisfy the GWAR early in their first semester in residency at CSULB, unless they have demonstrated competence at another CSU campuspreviously satisified it.

     [8]D. Continuing students and upper-division transfer students must first attempt to satisfy the GWAR by taking the WPE. After taking the WPE one time, continuing students who did not receive a “Pass” may attempt to satisfy the GWAR by using any of the assessments provided for in II.B.

IV.      Graduate Students

A.  As a requirement for advancement to candidacy for a master’s or doctoral degree, all graduate students must demonstrate writing competence by:

 

1.  Passing an approved CSULB assessment of writing competence (GWAR),

 

2.  Having already passed an assessment of writing competence (GWAR) while matriculated at another CSU campus, or

 

3.  Earning a CSULB-approved passing score on the writing portion of an approved standardized graduate admissions test, such as the Graduate Record Examination or the Graduate Management Aptitude Test.

 

B.  Assessments of writing competence from non-CSU campuses will be proposed to the GWAR Committee for approvalevaluated[9] by the GWAR Coordinator as a fulfillment of the GWAR, on an articulation basis if possible or on a case-by-case basis if necessary.

 

C.  Students with degrees from non-CSU campuses must either provide proof of meeting the requirement with adequate scores on a CSULB-approved standardized test or attempt to satisfy the GWAR by the end of their first semester of matriculation at CSULB.

D.  Students who have previously earned graduate degrees from English-speaking institutions in countries where English is the primary language of discourse are deemed to have satisfied the GWAR.[10]

V.  Requirements for Courses Used to Fulfill the GWAR:  

 

A.       Oonly upper-division, writing-intensive courses at CSULB may be approved for use in satisfying the GWAR requirement, subject to the following provisions.

 

1A. The course must include a substantial amount of instruction in academic writing, either of a general nature or specific to the discipline in which the course is taught; the course must include regular feedback to students concerning their progress in meeting the Uuniversity’s expectations for upper-division academic [11]expository writing.

 

2B. Prior to the end of the second week of instruction, students enrolled in the approved writing-intensive course must indicate that they wish to use the course to fulfill the GWAR and must pay the required fee, if applicable[12]. The instructor must then provide to each such student the scoring guide that will be used to evaluate the student’s written work. Students may also take the writing-intensive course without designating it as their means of demonstrating GWAR competency.

 

3C. A student’s written work in a writing-intensive course must include at least twothree pieces of formal writing, and preferably more. The writing may include work done outside the classroom provided the instructor is able to certify that the work is the student ’is the sole authorown. [13], but only if the instructor is able to certify that the work is the student’s own. The writing submitted in an effort to satisfy the GWAR must be kept free of bias in either direction; therefore, if these pieces of formal writing are also used to help establish the student’s course grade, any grades or comments must either be added after the GWAR scoring or be returned on a separate sheet of paper. The writing samples themselves may be returned to the student.

 

4D.     The writing samples used to satisfy the GWAR must be submitted no later than the last week of instruction.  Each student’s writing samples must be free of instructor’s or tutor’s remarks and of any other evaluative marks (e.g., grades, points). evaluated independently by three faculty, one of whom is the instructor of record for the course; all three faculty must have successfully completed the training process approved by the GWAR Committee. Insofar as practicable, the identity of the students should be masked when the readers evaluate the writing samples.[14]

 

5E. The instructor of record[15]three faculty readers will determine whether the student’s written work demonstrates upper-division competence in academic writing in English. The instructor may also submit any student’s written work to the GWAR Committee (or to a designated sub-committee) for further evaluation (for a second and/or third reading) in determining upper-division writing competence. However, the writing samples, the scoring guides used to evaluate the writing samples, and the instructor’s scores for the writing samples must be retained by the instructor of record for at least two semesters subsequent to the semester in which the GWAR course was offered.  These materials must be made available for review by the GWAR Committee (or by a designated sub-committee) at its discretion. ^[16]

 

6F. Instructors of courses approved by the GWAR Committee as satisfying the GWAR shall have consulted with the GWAR Coordinator concerning uniform use of the GWAR rubric.[17]

The GWAR Committee must approve in advance any course proposed for use in satisfying the CSULB GWAR, by determining that the course contains an appropriate amount of instruction in academic writing, either of a general nature or specific to the discipline, and that the course is writing-intensive.

G. The faculty readers who do the evaluation shall have successfully completed the course of training approved by the GWAR Committee[18]

 

7H. After the evaluation of the student’s writing samples has been completed, a list of the students who took the course to fulfill the GWAR must be submitted by the instructor to the GWAR Coordinator and to Testing and Evaluation Services, along with their scores. The GWAR Committee may request a representative set of writing samples for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of this policy prior to preparing its annual report to the Academic Senate, as provided for below in VII.F. [19]

 

8I. The GWAR Committee must approve in advance any course proposed for use in satisfying the CSULB GWAR by determining that the course contains an appropriate amount of instruction in academic writing, either of a general nature or specific to the discipline, and that the course is writing-intensive.

Instructors of courses approved by the GWAR Committee as satisfying the GWAR shall have successfully completed, or have waived, the course of training approved by the GWAR Committee.[20]

Such upper-division writing-intensive courses may include English 301 and 302 (or their successor courses, if any), Interdisciplinary General Education Courses, or other appropriate upper-division or graduate courses.[21]

VI.           Decisions of the GWAR Committee on the approval or disapproval of examinations or other writing assessments proposed as means for satisfying the GWAR, on the training process for faculty seeking to become qualified as readers of GWAR writing assessments, on exceptions to the GWAR, or on other matters may be appealed to the Curriculum and [22] Educational Policies Council and, if still unresolved, to the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate. [23]

The GWAR Coordinator[24]

 

A.  The Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the GWARExecutive[25] Committee of the Academic Senate, shall appoint the GWAR Coordinator for a two (2) year term with the possibility of a one-year re-appointment. ^[26]

 

B.  The GWAR Coordinator must be a member of the faculty with appropriate experience and qualifications.

 

C.  The GWAR Coordinator shall oversee the implementation of this policy; additional duties may be assigned by the Provost in consultation with the GWARExecutive[27] Committee of the Academic Senate.

VII.                   Requests for exceptions to the GWAR may be submitted to the GWAR Committee.[28]

     XVIII.       This policyThe CSULB Policy on GWAR[29], and its implementation, shall be reviewed by an external consultant from another CSU campus and by the Curriculum and Educational Policies Council and the Graduate Council [30] every five years, with the initial review at the end of three years[31].

 

[1] This abbreviation is given in the heading and is, therefore, redundant here.

[2]This provision specifies a process for establishing GWAR assessments comparable to the process for establishing the list of GE courses.

[3]The deleted provision is unnecessary and suggests inconsistent criteria for various assessments.

[4]The three deleted provisions do not apply to standardized tests (i.e., GRE, GMAT) and other externally administered assessments.  Requirements for approved GWAR courses are specified in later sections.

[5]The goal of the proposed revision is to prevent repetitive WPE attempts without effort at skill development.  The proposed policy allows for GWAR Committee-approved advisor(s) in colleges.  The proposed revision does not prohibit repeated attempts to satisfy the GWAR through enrollment in GWAR courses since that alternative provides instruction and skill development as well as assessment.

[6]This revision establishes a process consistent with the approval process for other forms of GWAR assessment.

[7]This revision specifies more exactly milestones in students’ academic programs when they are required to attempt the GWAR.  The intent of this provision is to promote early intervention for students who need language and writing skill development.

[8]Current policy requires all students to take and fail the WPE in order to access other approved GWAR assessments.  Eliminating this requirement is a pivotal step in motivating academic departments to offer GWAR courses, in establishing a writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) model in place of the current high-stakes test model, and in encouraging students to seek writing instruction early in their academic careers.

[9]This revision establishes a process consistent with the approval process for other forms of GWAR assessment.

[10]Current policy does not exclude students who have previously completed graduate degrees.  Graduate degree requirements exceed GWAR requirements for upper-division academic writing.

[11]“Expository” refers to a specific genre of academic writing.  For consistency and accuracy, “expository” should be replaced with “academic.”

[12] Currently, no fee is charged for evaluation of portfolios submitted in connection with GWAR courses.

[13] This revision is recommended for clarity and concision.

[14]This revision is recommended for clarity and concision.

[15] The current policy requires that three trained readers read writing samples submitted in connection with a GWAR course.  This process is time consuming, unwieldy, and probably not sustainable long term.  Unlike WPE essays, portfolios submitted in connection with GWAR courses include approximately 4,500 words presented in multiple texts with multiple drafts.  Experience with portfolio readings has demonstrated highthigh inter-rater agreement and no perceptible benefit from multiple readings.

[16]Instructors should have recourse to 2^nd and 3^rd readers when appropriate.  Regular, periodic oversight is needed to ensure consistent standards across disciplines and over time.

[17]This provision ensures that all GWAR instructors are working within a uniform set of normative standards.

[18] This section was moved from IV.D.2.b.

[19]This provision has been replaced by the content of item V A5.

[20]This provision was renumbered and reworded but remains essentially unchanged. 

[21]Part B was deleted because the inclusion of the names of courses is unnecessary, as all applications are screened by the GWAR Committee.

[22]This revision is needed to align policy with the current structure of the Academic Senate.

[23] Most of this statement is not new.  It was moved here from section VII.G. of PS 04-06, which makes it appear as new.  The rest of old section VII is now the charge document for the GWAR Committee.  This statement is less about the charge to the committee as it is about appealing decisions of the committee.

[24] This section (VI in PS 04-06) requires the provost to appoint a GWAR Coordinator.  This administrative position was created by a previous provost and its continuation is within the purview of the provost.  This section is, therefore, unnecessary.

[25]The GWAR Committee has a more relevant and informed perspective on this important appointment.

[26]This revision specifies the term as a matter of policy.

[27]The GWAR Committee has a more relevant and informed perspective on the duties of the GWAR Coordinator.

[28] This statement replaces the longer statement detailing a mechanism for waiving the GWAR (section VIII in PS 04-06).  The new statement is broader and leaves the mechanism up to the committee.  A similar statement will be in the charge to the committee.

[29] This revision is suggested for economy of expression.

[30] These revisions are necessary to align policy with the current structure of the Academic Senate.

[31] The initial review has already been done, a year earlier than required.  This statement has, therefore, no meaning.

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT STATEMENT

 

A majority of Psychology Department faculty members approved
the following statement.

 

While the Department of Psychology highly values academic
freedom, many faculty members are concerned that our Department and University
are being seen as supporting the work of our colleague, Dr. Kevin
McDonald.  This work on ethnic/racial differences, more specifically the
conclusions he has drawn on Jewish culture, has been embraced by certain
extremist groups, and used by some as a rationale for their ideology.

 

Concerns about how Dr. MacDonald’s research is being used by
extremist groups led to a forum in December 2007 during which Dr. MacDonald was
invited to present his work.   During this forum and subsequent
on-line discussions, faculty raised a number of concerns.  Faculty were
particularly concerned that Dr. MacDonald’s research on Jewish culture does not
adhere to the Department’s explicitly stated values on academic freedom,
responsibility in research, and human diversity (see the Department’s position
statements at http://karl.papubs.csulb.edu/cla/psychology).
Faculty also raised concerns about potential violations of the American
Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct (http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html)
and a variety of conceptual and methodological issues.  It was also noted
that many of these writings have appeared in other media rather than in
psychological journals that require peer review and rigorous scientific and
psychological methodology.

 

As a result of these concerns, the department wishes to
dissociate itself from the controversial writings of Dr. Kevin MacDonald.
We respect and defend his right to express his views, but we affirm that they
are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the Department of Psychology at California State
University, Long Beach.

 

Statement approved by ballot
23 April 2008.

 

JEWISH STUDIES PROGRAM STATEMENT

Statement
Concerning Dr. Kevin MacDonald

In light of the ongoing controversy regarding Dr.
Kevin MacDonald, the members of the CSULB Jewish Studies Program have agreed to
the following statement:

We
in the CSULB Jewish Studies Program firmly believe in and seek to protect the
guiding tenets of academic freedom, but we also understand that the mantle of
"academic freedom" can sometimes be used to advance racism, bigotry,
or other forms of intolerance. When racism or other forms of intolerance are
promoted in academia, they undermine the principles upon which CSULB was
founded.

As
a university, we have an obligation to maintain a campus climate in which
individuals from a wide range of religious, cultural, and linguistic
backgrounds can have meaningful exchanges in a context of mutual respect. The
prejudicial views expressed by Professor Kevin MacDonald in his writings and in
his public statements are professionally irresponsible and morally untenable.

We
refer in particular to MacDonald's close association with the white nationalist
journal The Occidental Quarterly, his
call for the creation of a white ethnostate to "protect" the interest
of white Americans, and his repeated descriptions of Jews as a threat to white,
European civilization. Not only do MacDonald's writings bear a close
resemblance to aspects of Nazi racial theory (and, in fact, he relies on one
such theorist explicitly), but his writings are regularly used by white
separatists and neo-Nazis to advance their cause.

In
his recent public writings, MacDonald is identified as a professor at
CSULB.  These writings have damaged both
the reputation of the university as well as the relationship between the
university and the wider community.  The
community has expressed shock and dismay over these writings and asked why the
university does not disassociate itself from these white nationalist and
anti-Jewish statements.  An analysis of
these writings (see attached Appendix) shows that these concerns are
legitimate.  This has led some in the
community to mistakenly believe that MacDonald’s work has the university’s
endorsement.  The university should make
it clear that MacDonald does not speak for CSULB when he advocates any of the
positions described above.

We
wish to make it clear that in no way do we wish to impede Dr. MacDonald's First
Amendment rights or interfere with his academic freedom. But just as he has the
freedom of speech to advance his white nationalist agenda, so too do we have
the freedom of speech to deplore his prejudicial views of Jews and non-whites
and state that Dr. MacDonald's writings on white ethnocentrism, Jews, race, and
immigration do not enjoy the respect of many of his colleagues.

 

Dr. Arlene Lazarowitz               Dr. Donald Schwartz

Co-Director, Jewish Studies Program             Professor, History Department

Associate Professor, History Department

 

Dr. Jeffrey Blutinger

Co-Director, Jewish Studies Program

Assistant Professor, History Department