Faculty Senate Meeting 
Tuesday, October 26, 
3:30 p.m. Columbia Room 

1.0 Call to Order 

2.0 Call of the Roll: 
Obie Garza, Merideth Brodsky, Marion Schrock, Tina Fuchs, Linda Keller, Linda Stonecipher, Stephanie Tunison, Brian Bonnlander, Jim Chadney, Leo Rasca-Hidalgo, and President Youngblood were absent. 

3.0. Corrections to and approval of the minutes from the previous senate meeting/Agenda Adjustments. Minutes approved. Joel requested an agenda adjustment to move agenda point 8.1 (Consideration of New Business: WOU/Diversity - Presentation regarding recent hate crimes on WOU campus) to the first order of business, to be introduced within his senate president report. This adjustment was approved. 

4.0. Reports of the Presidents 

4.1. Senate President 
Joel welcomed everyone, with an emphasis on introducing many guests (these included Mike Walsh, Peter Callero, Summer Wolcott, and several students). He introduced the first order of business, the topic of diversity/hate crimes, by reiterating the recently approved new mission statement that recognizes respect for diversity as a central component of education at Western Oregon University. He also emphasized that today's presentations, he hoped, would provide information, generate some discussion, and ultimately lead to faculty sharing information at the Division level for future discussion. He then introduced Peter Callero who briefly discussed the recent defacing of the GAP (Gay and Proud) signs, suggested that this vandalism should be considered a potentially more pervasive sign of intolerance on campus. 
Peter then introduced Summer Wolcott in terms of her academic integrity and courageousness, asking that we consider her words and history as we attempt to define the vandalism incident and its deeper implications in terms of respect and diversity. Summer Wolcott spoke honestly and openly, narrating her own personal, academic, and athletic history at Western, emphasizing problems she has encountered with intolerance (at the interpersonal level, at the level of university club/activity functions, and in professional or administrative settings). She spoke as well of friends and student leaders who have experienced similar problems at similar levels. She described specific steps that have been taken (either with campus public safety or with Monmouth Police) to deal with several of these overt instances; however, she stressed that many acts do go unreported. She outlined in specific detail the problems encountered with the recent GAP signs and said that this incident has provided a focal point for evaluating all the other instances because of the overtness of the harrassment. When asked what specific steps faculty could do, in her opinion, to address these issues, Summer said she felt that some faculty could be more sensitive about all levels of diversity (facilitated, perhaps, by training workshops that encompass all kind of diversity issues), and perhaps that more lifestyle choice diversity issues should be incorporated into current liberal arts/multicultural core coursework. Peter added that it was clear that training must include not only faculty but infrastructure (e.g. counselors and administrative staff). 
Joel then introduced Campus Security officials who discussed their role in documenting and dealing with campus violations. They discussed the specific cases that had been reported which Summer described and said that some cases remain on campus (dealt with eventually by Mike Walsh/Student Conduct) while others are handled by Monmouth Police/Courts. Where the case goes depends on the victim and the violation. At least one incident involved a physical assault and is being handled by the City of Monmouth. More recent acts of vandalism and harrassment are being handled via Student Conduct. Peter asked Campus Security whether these violations were being called, in the legal sense, "hate crimes." The officers said that the closest term to "hate crime" was "first degree intimidation" or "second degree intimidation" (both of which involve aggression with the intent to put down another person because of, among other things, a difference in perceived values). I asked Mike Walsh what sorts of penalities campus violations translate to in terms of probation, suspension, etc. He said that it depends on the level of the violation and the number of times a student has been involved in misconduct. 
Joel thanked the presenters and again reiterated the goals of this presentation in terms of future discussion. Peter Callero and David Hargreaves commended this discussion and expressed thanks that issues were communicated and emphasized, again, that these issues must be a source of continued discussion. All guests except Mike Walsh left the meeting at this time. 

4.11 Enrollment Management Committee - Michael Cihak introduced this new committee, emphasizing that the goal of the committee is management of slow change and retention - not rapid recruitment. He invited two elected faculty members to join the committee, one from Liberal Arts and Sciences and one from Education. Meetings will occur once a month. Chehallis Strapp asked whether Western has an exit program that examines student perceptions about their academic experiences. Michael said there was no such program. 

IFS nominees due by NEXT MEETING 

4.13 Joel completed his report by asking whether a faculty senate webpage was of interest. It would, in his vision, include minutes, standard university forms that could be downloaded, the faculty handbook, relevant professional/grant links. Faculty seemed interested in this, although there were some questions about the consistency of forms, given that some departments seem make minor adjustments to some forms. No motions were made. 

4.2 President of Western Oregon University: 
Dr. Youngblood was absent. Dr. Minahan spoke briefly on the enrollment figures (4526 total as of Friday before meeting). He also reiterated the importance of retention as an enrollment mechanism, reporting that our retention rate is 73% at present, up nearly 10% from the year prior. 

4.3 Student Body President: 
Obie Garza was absent. 

5.0 Reports of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senators: 
Irja Galvan reported that there had been no IFS meetings since the last senate meeting. 

6.0. Reports of Faculty Senate Subcommittees Brian Caster reminded faculty that the Curriculum Committee would meet Nov. 16 and advised new proposals be sent ASAP for that meeting. Some current proposals to be discussed, he said, involved the Information Technology Major and the Social Science/Economics issue. Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon confirmed that the library would like a position on the Jenson Lectureship Committee and the Senate approved this addition. 

7.0 Old Business 

7.1. Honor Code 
Joel introduced Mike Walsh who briefly talked about his roles on campus (which span managing RAs, dealing with Student Conduct - both academic and non-academic violations). He emphasized that faculty faced with any issues of potential misconduct (everything from cheating to potential harrassment expressed by students) should feel free to talk with him about effectively handling situations. His office is in the University Residences and he can be reached at 8-8426. Mike went on to talk about his experience with Honor Codes, particularly that at his alma mater, William and Mary. Mike stressed that he believes students would respond to some form of an oath that was taken/signed upon admission to Western and which agreed to the basic tenets of most Honor Codes ("I will not cheat, plagiarize, etc; I have an obligation to the Honor Code to turn in others who do so"). Some faculty suggested, in light of the previous presentation on "hate crimes" that this oath may also be expanded to include a statement of respect and diversity. Several questions about whether this was legal (in that we are a public institute and these "oaths" may constitute value judgements or violate components of Consistutional Law) were addressed. Mike pointed out that William and Mary is a state school. He will pursue more research on the legality issue for support, however. David Hargreaves asked, however, whether Western should pursue a campus wide Honor Code or, as indicated in the Rice University website, a more divisional-level Code (because, as noted on the Rice site: imposing an all-purpose Code may be difficiult). The issue of simply using individual syllabus-based conduct Codes was also discussed. It should be emphasized, however, that syllabi are not contracts in the legal sense (a true contract must be negotiated). This brought up the need to include students in any subsequent Honor Code negotiation process. Joel recommended that an Honor Code subcommittee be formed to include one member of each Division, two students, and Mike Walsh. This motion was approved. Please bring this to the attention of your divisions. 

The meeting was adjourned.