����ԭ��

�󲹳��ܱ��ٲ�&�Բ�����;����Բ��ٱ�&�Բ�����;������Ի岹&�Բ�����;–&�Բ�����;�����ٱ𳾲����&�Բ�����;8,&�Բ�����;2025

�󲹳��ܱ��ٲ�&�Բ�����;����Բ��ٱ�&�Բ�����;�Ѿ��Գܳٱ��–&�Բ�����;�����ٱ𳾲����&�Բ�����;8,&�Բ�����;2025

Senators Present:  Ann Abraham, Loretta Aller, Bob Antenucci, Omid Bagheri, Tina Bhargava, Casey Boyd-Swan, Jennifer Cunningham, Mark Dalman, Ed Dauterich, Omar De La Cruz Cabrera, David Dees, Ambre Emory-Maier, Julie Evey, Michele Ewing, Michelle Foster, Tianyuan Guan, David Kaplan, Sean Kennedy, Terri Kent, Janice Kroeger, Velvet Landingham, Richard Mangrum, Mahli Mechenbier, Taraneh Meshkani, Oana Mocioalca, Ashley Nickels, Linda Piccirillo-Smith, Helen Piontkivska, Lockwood Reynolds, Lydia Rose, Susan Roxburgh, Athena Salaba, Jim Seelye, Deborah Smith, Gregory Smith, Eric Taylor, Brett Tippey, Francisco Torres, Lauren Vachon, Laurie Wagner, Theresa Walton-Fisette, Christopher Was, Kyle Winkler 

Senators Not Present: Matt Butler, Vanessa Earp, Michael Fisch, Vic Perera,

Ex-Officio Members Present: President Todd Diacon; Executive Vice President and Provost Melody Tankersley; Senior Vice President Eboni Pringle; Senior Vice President Jeannie Reifsnyder*; Vice Presidents: Sean Broghammer, Doug Delahanty, Amoaba Gooden, Doug Kubinski, John Rathje, Charlene Reed, Randale Richmond, Stephen Ward; Deans: Sonia Alemagno, Christina Bloebaum, Allan Boike, Ken Burhanna, Alicia Crowe, Versie Johnson-Mallard, Sharon Wohl for Mark Mistur, Deirdre Warren for Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Diane Petrella, Elizabeth Piatt*, Amy Reynolds, Scott Sheridan*, Alison Smith, Deborah Spake      

*Interim 

Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Vice Presidents: Peggy Shadduck, Valoree Vargo,

Observers Present: Emeritus Professor Janson

Observers Not Present: Ms. Hanna Sietz (USG), Ms. Shiza Nisar (GSS)

Guests Present: Jake Ball, J.R. Campbell, Sue Clement, Frank Congin, Cesquinn Curtis, Shannon Driscoll, Aimee Dudas, Nick Gatozzi, Carla Goar, Christopher Groening, Jennifer Hebebrand, Ben Hollis, Michael Kavulic, Tracy Laux, Jennifer McDonough, Jennifer Newberger, Susan Perry, Amy Quillen, Therese Tillett, Kevin West

1.          Call to Order 

Chair Kaplan called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. in the Governance Chambers, Kent Student Center. 

2.        Roll Call 

   Secretary Dauterich called the roll.  

3.         Approval of the Agenda

A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda (Nickels/Dees). The agenda passed unanimously. 

4.        Approval of the Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2025

           Chair Kaplan asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2025, Faculty Senate meeting. A motion was made and seconded (Bagheri/Kent).               

           The minutes were approved unanimously as written.

5.      Chair’s Remarks

          Chair Kaplan delivered his remarks. He welcomed everyone to his first meeting as Faculty Senate Chair. He mentioned the issues with SB 1 in Ohio and across the country where there have been attempts to “reign in the faculty.” Some states are ensuring that Faculty Senates are advisory only and that they have limited scope when consulting about academic matters. Texas does not currently allow senates to elect their own members. Chair Kaplan said he was relieved that we have not gotten to that point yet, but he also asked why there was so much hostility toward faculty senates and universities in general. He emphasized people should recognize the importance of universities as engines of economic development regardless of political bias. He pointed out that universities educate students, help them better their lives, and find their dreams. He suggested that perhaps people are against faculty more than universities. However, you cannot have a university without faculty. For universities to thrive, faculty must thrive. The quality of the faculty will affect the quality of the university. He added that this must be considered when we look at the role of universities and faculty senates. 

          He continued by saying that shared governance is important; faculty can voice concerns about curriculum, research, and other matters at this forum. These matters go through Faculty Senate. It is also significant that faculty can work with a wider variety of university stakeholders. He said that if we have a robust senate, all aspects of the university will receive the benefits. Students, administrators, staff, and faculty can work with one another to address the concerns of the university. Students benefit by having their concerns heard. Administrators can work to understand the faculty point-of-view to effectively mediate situations. He added that without such cooperation, faculty without a voice may very well leave the other states he mentioned. He urged all of the senators to take their responsibility to represent all faculty seriously. He said he would like Faculty Senate to be an open forum where everyone can bring up their concerns. He urged senators to feel not just free, but obligated, to bring points that are important to the senate floor. He then thanked everyone for their efforts.

          There were no comments or questions.

6.       �ʰ��DZ��Dz���’s&�Բ�����;��𳾲������

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley delivered her remarks.

She informed the audience that she would be happy to answer comments or questions about SB 1 after Associate Provost Sheridan gave his report on SB 1.

She then invited comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith expressed a concern that some administrators have been telling faculty they could not disseminate their research publicly or present it in classrooms while identifying themselves as members of ����ԭ�� if the subject was politically controversial. She asked what Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley has done to work with this.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley replied that faculty still have academic freedom as long as it meets learning outcomes in the class. There is also no prohibition of dissemination of research or showing affiliation with ����ԭ�� outside of the classroom when presenting research. Controversial presentations are invited in the classroom when they include evidence-based practice and scientific research behind the information. She has passed on these important aspects of academic freedom to deans, chairs, and directors, who also understand this.

Senator Mocioalca expressed concern about the amount of work the university and its faculty will have to do to evaluate every faculty member on a yearly basis. She asked how this would work.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said that they are still waiting on the Chancellor of Higher Education to clarify what the evaluations will mean, what questions will be asked, and how the evaluation process will work.

Senator Ewing asked how student organizations can get access to their needed rooms for activities and wondered whether this change to room scheduling came from SB 1.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said she is working to make sure all student organizations are registered through Student Life and that they get support from that division. All student organizations are supposed to register through Student Life, and they are supposed to schedule through the scheduling center there; this is a safety issue in case support needs to be sent to a building. Student Life can also provide financial support equitably. This is not a part of SB 1.

Senator Bhargava asked about low-enrolled degrees being sunset by SB 1 and wondered whether the law applied to certificates and other things not mentioned in the law. She wanted to know who to go to for more information.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley replied that she could provide the information, but she said that even graduating an average of five students per year over a rolling three-year time frame will not be financially feasible for the university in the future. She added that minors, certificates, and other earned credentials will also have to be examined to find the right number that needs to be offered. She said she will be working with academic leadership and faculty to address this. She brought up policies about graduate degrees and undergraduate degrees at other universities and said that if we followed their lead, we would have to eliminate 38% of our programs. She said that we need to populate courses with an adequate number of students and to offer the programs that we need to offer. She said we need to look at it more holistically going forward, but it has not yet been formally broached.

Senator Bhargava said some low-enrolled programs are very important and wondered how those could be saved through collaboration with other departments or in some other way. She wanted to know whether conversations have started.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said that the idea behind the reorganization of academic units is meant to break down those silos, so the budget model will not be reliant on individual areas competing with one another. Colleges and departments are looking at this to help implement T28. She added that some degrees may be lost, but courses (for example, in Africana Studies) will not be lost.

Senator Bagheri asked whether there were ways to appeal programs being shut down. He wanted to know what the process was for the administration.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley answered that there are criteria. There is a one-year waiver that allows people to sunset a program and teach out the students. There were 24 requests to the state from ����ԭ�� for this type of waiver. For five programs, the university asked for a two-year waiver, which means that they have time to gather data to show they will not be on the sunsetting list after the next two academic years. ����ԭ��’s administration looked at the pipeline of students and data showing extenuating circumstances for those five programs; they submitted a lot of data before the two-year request was made to the state. She emphasized that the state has not yet made decisions about any of the programs.

Senator Boyd-Swan said that she heard from faculty that the university has been taking a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel approach; we may be eliminating programs that are inexpensive to offer based on courses being offered, faculty needed, etc. She wondered why things would not be financially feasible if courses were being offered at low cost and were full. She wondered whether this could be looked at more closely on a financial level.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley replied that there are no graduate degrees being eliminated. She added that the state focuses on degrees and not courses. In addition, the programs on the list of those to be ended have graduated numbers below what the state law now requires. None of them made the cutoff over the last four years; the administration looked back farther than what was required by the state. She said that courses will still be able to be offered; it is only the degree that would be affected by state law.

There were no further comments or questions.

7.     EPC Action Items:

a. Department of Accounting—Accounting, Business Technology and Analytics—M.S. (establish a new program to be offered mostly online through the Kent Campus (fall 2025 pending final approvals))

Associate Dean Chris Groening presented the item. Five existing accounting courses are being combined with five existing business analytics courses to create the new degree. It will require no additional resources. There is also demand in the accounting world and among students for such a degree.

Senators were offered the opportunity to ask questions.

                       There were no questions.

                       A motion was made to approve the new program (Cunningham).

Senator Boyd-Swan asked whether there was evidence that the program would have a high enough sustained graduation rate to meet the new state threshold.

Associate Dean Groening said that there is a demand for the program, and if we do not address it, someone else will. He suggested that the department has been conservative when creating programs and expects to have enough students to meet the threshold.

Senator Rose asked whether the business school could just offer a general degree with concentrations rather than creating a new degree.

Associate Dean Groening said it would have been possible, but the department wanted to send a signal to future students and employers that their concerns are being addressed in the title of the degree.

There were no further comments or questions.

                       The motion passed unanimously.

b. Division of Research and Economic Development—Anti-Racism and Equity Institute (Revise name to Community Engaged Research Institute; EPC previously approved name change to Arc Institute on 19-May-2025 (fall 2025))

Vice President Delahanty presented the item. The administration wanted to make it clear that they were not simply trying to evade DEI prohibitions of SB 1, which is expressly forbidden by the law. The new name more accurately reflects what the institute did and reflects the mission of what it will do in a clearer way.

Senators were offered the opportunity to ask questions.

                       There were no questions.

                       A motion was made to pass the name change (Dees).

                        Senator De La Cruz Cabrera asked what other names were considered.

Vice President Delahanty replied that there were forty names or more, but he could not remember all of them.

Carla Goar (Director of the Institute) answered that they considered the new name to be the best reflection of the mission of the institute.

                       The motion passed unanimously.

8.      Updates from SB 1 Committees

        Associate Provost Sheridan presented a PowerPoint.

        He then invited comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith asked who the word “I” refers to in the intellectual diversity statement mentioned in the presentation, and how teaching out discontinued programs would work if students had recently enrolled.

Associate Provost Sheridan replied that no students will be kicked out of programs. Teachout plans will be developed to get them through all of the coursework. Some students may switch to a different program.

Regarding the “I” statement, Chair Kaplan said that the subcommittee will work with the language in the future.

Senator Torres asked whether the university would be creating a group to give advice or guidelines to units and curricular committees to help avoid heavy-handed interpretations of what intellectual diversity might mean.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley responded that it is an affirmation that we will follow the part of the law that mentions intellectual diversity; there will not be heavy-handed oversight.

Senator Boyd-Swan asked whether senior guests fill out teaching evaluations and whether they could be identified if they do.

Associate Vice President Therese Tillett (Curriculum Services) said senior guests audit the course and do not fill out evaluations unless they register for credit and pay tuition.

        Senator Wagner asked when the intellectual diversity statement will be ready.

Chair Kaplan said he will put up a motion for approval, and it will be put into CIM (the Curriculum Information Management system) by Curriculum Services as soon as possible.

Associate Vice President Tillett said that if all the courses were being moved from one college to another, faculty in the concerned colleges would not have to worry about doing that; they would only have to work with new and revised courses after the courses moved.

        Senator Salaba asked who is affirming the intellectual diversity statement when it gets into CIM. 

        Chair Kaplan deferred to Senator Nickels.

Senator Nickels said that the “I” language will probably be revised, but they are still working toward a term to show that the requirements of the law are being met.

Senator Vachon asked whether the button to approve the statement would have to be pressed for existing courses.

        Chair Kaplan said it would not.

Senator Vachon wondered whether if she pressed the button but was wrong, she would then be legally protected by the university.

Senator Nickels said that any decisions around compliance should be held within unit expertise, and she mentioned that Senator Vachon’s question keeps coming up in discussions.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said that the requirement is the same as providing learning outcomes. Faculty who submitted the proposal as individuals would not be responsible any more than they are for the legality of the learning outcomes.

        Senator Tippey asked what happened if fewer than three students filled out an SSI.

        Chair Kaplan replied that no report is generated.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith asked about the changes to the SSIs. She is worried about the question that asks whether a class has an atmosphere free of political and racial bias. She said that in her courses, the material will often show political or racial bias and that the question would be difficult to work with after a semester of such course material.

Senator Deborah Smith responded that this could possibly be handled through the tenure-track policy for annual performance reviews. This says that people cannot be fired for cause for items that fall under academic freedom. The university may be able to change the policy to apply to other faculty.

Senator Walton-Fisette asked whether the civics course would have one identical final for all the courses that meet the requirement.

Associate Provost Sheridan said that there would be one final for each course, not a blanket final for all the courses that meet the requirement.

        There were no further comments or questions.                                 

9.      Actions Taken by SSI Working Group (Action Item)

        Chair Kaplan explained that the following actions were taken by the group:

1. Add the 3 state-mandated questions (below) immediately after the 4 university-wide “core” questions.

· Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender, and religious bias? Yes, No

· Are students encouraged to discuss varying opinions and viewpoints in class? Yes, No, Not applicable

· On a scale of 1-10, how effective are the teaching methods of this faculty member with 1 being not effective at all and 10 being extremely effective.

2. Retain the current scale system for existing SSI questions rather than try to make all questions consistent with the 10-point scale on Question 3 of mandated questions.

                        3. Continue requiring 3 or more surveys returned for a course to report the results.

4. Continue the current practices regarding course types that are surveyed, with the additional recommendation that the Faculty Senate SSI subcommittee consider courses that are not currently reviewed (such as math emporium, flight classes, etc.).

5. Allow course schedulers to remove persons from the SSI process who do not meet the policy definition of instructors of record (/��DZ����������/�ܲԾ�����������ٲ�-��DZ�������-���Բ��ٰ��ܳ��ٴǰ���-���dzܰ������-����…). Course schedulers currently have this ability for individuals such as course coordinators with no direct instructional role. The group further recommends that university schedulers maintain a record of those instructors who are removed and the reasons for doing so for reporting purposes.

6. Generate SSI reports in the standard way, with the mandated questions included with all other SSI questions, rather than a separate report of the results of the 3 mandated questions.

7. Compliance reports should demonstrate the inclusion of the 3 questions within the Student Surveys of Instruction.

8. Paul Creed, the system administrator, will generate a process report of the numbers of classes in which surveys were administered and the numbers of classes with data reported (more than 3 surveys returned). Any instructors present in banner who are not surveyed will contain a rationale (related to course type or exemption based on non-instructional role). This information will be communicated to the designated university administrator charged with ensuring legislative compliance.

          There was a motion and a second to approve the actions (Mocioalca/Dees).

          Chair Kaplan offered the opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Piontkivska asked again about senior guests and whether we could modify the third bullet point to apply to only registered students.

Senator Deborah Smith said she would like to make it a university policy that senior guests do not get the survey.

          Associate Provost West confirmed that senior guests do not have access to the SSIs.

          Senator Cunningham asked why third point in the actions existed in the first place.

Senator Deborah Smith responded that slash courses should be combined for the SSIs and not generated separately.

Senator Bagheri said that they have used Zoom courses that took place simultaneously over many campuses at the regionals and that every semester, they cancel all reviews because they do not have more than three respondents at individual campuses. He keeps having to ask to get the reviews combined.

          Chair Kaplan said he hopes someone can look into it.

          Senator Bhargava said that she can look into whether or not that can be resolved.

          There were no further comments or questions.

          The motion passed unanimously.             

10.   Actions Taken by the Intellectual Diversity Working Group (Action Item)

        Chair Kaplan explained that the following actions were taken by the group:

                   1. Add the following statement as a checkbox in the University CIM System:

“This course and its learning outcomes meet the requirements for “Intellectual Diversity” as outlined in Section 3345.0217 of the Ohio Revised Code.”

2. Have Jennifer Kellogg (and team) move forward with integrating the approved language into the CIM system, but not "go live" until required by law.

3. Decisions regarding requirements for intellectual diversity compliance will be determined by the department/ school curriculum committees. This decision-making body is the most appropriate for understanding the ways to enact intellectual diversity within each unit.

A friendly amendment to item 2 was made by Senator Deborah Smith to remove “I” from #2 and change it to “this course.”

          There was a motion and a second to approve the actions as amended (Bagheri/Piontkivska).

          Chair Kaplan offered the opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Nickels confirmed that she would like the second point in the actions to remain in the motion.

          There were no further comments or questions.

          The motion passed unanimously.

11.    Old Business: Update on Rescheduling Committee (Jennifer McDonough, Christopher Was)

        The presenters led the audience through a PowerPoint presentation.

        They then invited comments or questions.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith asked whether the group would be surveying ����ԭ�� students and faculty.

Senator Was said they will, through Student Life, for students. They are working on ideas for faculty.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith asked about a hybrid option that was eliminated for Spring and wondered how the decision was made.

        Senator Was said his group was not responsible.

        Associate Dean Warren said that she had sent out the information about the hybrid course.

Senator Roxburgh asked whether it would be better to wait until we see how things are going to schedule MWF classes since they are scheduled in the spring semester.  

        Senator Was responded that there are already MWF classes scheduled for this semester.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said that all days and schedules should be used. Previous rules for scheduling are still in place. If a class is scheduled as a hybrid and approved by department chairs, that is fine within the department; this does need to be made clear to students before they sign up for the course.

Senator Mocioalca said the goal is student success, so instructors would know best what schedule is best. She urged the committee to take this as a recommendation.

        Chair Kaplan agreed.

Senator Vachon asked whether the needs of faculty giving service on Fridays would be considered by the committee. Since many service obligations take place on Fridays, she wondered whether that could factor in the decision-making process.

Senator Was said the committee is taking those ideas into account. This was discussed in the committee’s first meeting. They will try to find a solution that works as well as possible for everyone.

Senator Wagner asked whether priorities for scheduling classrooms could be reevaluated based on the movement of some departments and colleges.

        Senator Was responded that they are looking into space utilization.

        Chair Kaplan emphasized that this would be an ongoing discussion and thanked the presenters.

        There were no further comments or questions.

12.    New Business

        Senator Boyd-Swan wrote the following statement.

        She then invited questions.

        There were no questions.

Chair Kaplan said the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will move as soon as possible, and he will act on the expressed concerns.

13.    Additional Items

        There were no additional items.

14.     Announcements/ Statements for the Record

Chair Kaplan invited announcements or statements for the record from the floor.

Senator Deborah Smith read the following document.

Senator Reynolds encouraged everyone to read both SB 1 and HB 96 around page 1287, which concerns a fiscal caution dealing with enrollment in many ways and also touches on other issues that might allow the state to take over operations for the university.

          There were no further announcements.

15.    Adjournment

          A motion was made and seconded to adjourn (Boyd-Swan/Nickels).

          The motion was approved unanimously.

Chair Kaplan adjourned the meeting at 5:42 p.m.

          Respectfully submitted by Edward Dauterich

          Secretary, Faculty Senate