The University of Iowa
Tuesday, March 29, 2004
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm
Penn State Room, #337 Iowa Memorial Union
Members Present: Judith Aikin, Michael Cohen, Edwin Dove, Ronald Herman, Philip Lutgendorf, Frank Mitros, Sue Moorhead, Catherine Ringen, Linda Snetselaar, Karin Southard, Shelton Stromquist, Steve McGuire, Jerold Woodhead
Members Absent: Paul Heidger, Sheldon Kurtz, James Nepola
Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Katherine Tachau, President; Richard LeBlond, Vice President; Claibourne Dungy, Secretary; Margaret Raymond, Past President
Guests: Ana Diaz-Arnold (Presidential Committee on Athletics), Betsy Altmaier (NCAA Representative), Michael Hogan (Provost), Kristen Schorsch (Press Citizen), Alex Lang (Daily Iowan), Charlotte Westerhaus (EOD), Marion Johnson (Nursing), Joe Kearney (CLAS), Mark Schantz (General Counsel), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)
Faculty Senate President Katherine Tachau called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.
A. Meeting Agenda
Professor Moorhead moved, second by Professor Dove, to approve the meeting agenda. Agenda approved by voice vote.
B. Faculty Council minutes of February 22, 2005
Professor McGuire moved, second by Professor Cohen, to approve the Council minutes for February 22, 2005. Motion approved by voice vote.
A. No Report from Faculty Senate President, Katherine Tachau
B. University of Iowa Faculty Representative to the Big Ten, Professor Betsy Altmaier
Professor Altmaier gave an update of current NCAA academic reforms. The NCAA has relied on a six-year graduation rate to evaluate member schools’ academic progress. However, the NCAA has recently put into place a system of academic reform that contains rewards for academic achievement and penalties for academic under-achievement. However, using the six-year graduation rate for this new system had several problems. The NCAA Committee on Academic Performance has developed a new metric for evaluating the academic performance of institutions. The new metric provides more information than the previous model and also measures the performance by team. The academic progress rate (APR) calculates team performance on retention and graduation. It is based on the criteria that teams graduate 50% of their athletes. During the first year of the APR’s implementation member institutions were given their scores and were also provided information on what would have happened if the penalties had been in effect. In order to be in good standing programs must achieve an APR of 925 or above. Two University of Iowa teams failed to make the 925 scores, but their scores were within confidence levels. Therefore, they would not have been subject to penalties. After the first information year, the penalty phase (contemporaneous penalty) will be implemented. That penalty consists of not being able to award the scholarship of any player who leaves the team academically ineligible for one year. There is a cap of 10% of the number of available scholarships during the contemporaneous penalty time period. After four years of data are gathered, changes in the penalty structure will be implemented (historical penalty phase).
After the APR performance standards were released by the NCAA February 14, 2005, Professor Altmaier met with Fred Mims, Associate Director of Athletics for Student Services and the coaches to review the APR and its ramification. The University of Iowa and the Big Ten look good so far, but the new guidelines will require a different approach to recruitment for some coaches. The APR is being phased in over two years. Professor Altmaier stated that while some individuals felt the APR is too lenient, others felt the two-year contemporaneous phase is a way to help universities and coaches make adjustments in their recruiting patterns to come into compliance prior to implementation of the historical penalty phase. Professor Herman questioned the six-year graduation standard since in Pharmacy, the first degree is a six-year degree, which requires 18 semester hours per semester. Professor Altmaier said provisions were in place for these types of degree programs. Professor McGuire asked for clarification of the four-year graduation rule. Professor Altmaier stated this was a rolling four-year data collection. Professor Altmaier also stated in response to another question from Professor McGuire, that coaches want the focus on athletes who have an impact on the program, but they must remember the academic mission of the program. She directed Council members to the NCAA website (www.ncaa.org) for individuals wishing to obtain additional information about academic reforms in the NCAA and the APR rankings by institution. Several Council members mentioned that they were not able to access information on APR rankings at the NCAA website. Staff member Julie Thatcher will verify the correct web address and distribute that information to all Senate and Council members. Professor Aikin expressed concern that some schools may offer watered down degrees as a means of bypassing the academic reforms and wanted to know how the NCAA would monitor for the potential of this happening. Professor Altmaier said there were no plans for the NCAA to do such surveillance work. It is the responsibility of the faculty on each campus to ensure the academic integrity of their offerings. Professor LeBlond questioned whether conferences who perform poorly in the APR contemporaneous penalty phase might opt out of the NCAA and form a new organization. Professor Altmaier thought this would be an unlikely event.
Mark Schantz, University Counsel, stated the Office of the University Counsel had reviewed the anti-harassment policy because of First Amendment concerns. The policy was reviewed by a committee created by University Counsel and a committee from the University of Iowa College of Law. The areas of particular concern were items 2B and 2C(2). After review by the College of Law committee the counsel felt the revised policy was satisfactory. However, Mr. Schantz stated that free speech does not apply if it imposes a clear and present danger. He also stated that much of what would be considered hate speech would not be covered by the policy. Professor Raymond asked if the anti-harassment policy revisions were consistent with the policies on sexual harassment. Charlotte Westerhaus, Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity said that with the revisions, the two policies are parallel. Professor Cohen moved, second by Professor Lutgendorf, to approve the anti-harassment policy revision. Motion was passed by voice vote unanimously.
A. Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics
Discussion ensued on the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) Proposal on Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics: Principles, Rules and Best Practices. Professor Tachau informed the Council that approval in principle does not imply approval in total. She stated that Senate officers had received nine e-mails, six in support of the COIA statement and three opposed. One of those opposing felt that the matter should be referred to the President’s Committee on Athletics (PCA). Professor Diaz-Arnold, Chair of the PCA and guest at the Council meeting, informed the Council the PCA had reviewed the framework and felt it was appropriate to the University of Iowa. The PCA does not have a problem with the statement. The PCA did recommend that the statement be reviewed by the Provost’s office to see if it would have implications for admissions policies at the University of Iowa. Professor Stromquist questioned what “approval in principle” means. Senate President Tachau responded that it means agreement with most of the recommendations, but that we may want to make some changes in certain areas to reflect practices and procedures at the University of Iowa. Associate Provost Lopes stated that an example existed on page 12 of the report in the paragraph on Integration. While the report favors athletic learning centers being a part of the university academic advising program, the University of Iowa has a separate athletic learning center, which works well in our setting. Thus we would disagree with that particular item while supporting most other items. Director Westerhaus commented that the statement was silent in regards to responsibility of faculty. Professor Tachau indicated she would pass that information on to the authors of the report. Professor Cohen moved, second by Professor Aikin, to support in principle the COIA report. Motion passed by voice vote unanimously.
B. Diversity Charter Committee
Professor Tachau reviewed the rationale for the changes resulting in the creation of a diversity charter committee. She also stated that if approved by the Senate, the recommendation would be forwarded by the University administration to the Board of Regents for their consideration. Discussion of the motion focused on 1a(1). It was recommended that the phrase the president and other university officers be inserted in section 1a(1) between Advise and on the formulation. Professor Cohen moved, second by Professor Ringen, to adopt the Diversity Charter Committee proposed membership. Motion approved by voice vote unanimously.
C. Addition to the Statement on Non-Discrimination , Sheldon Kurtz
Due to Professor Kurtz’s absence, the Addition to the Statement on Non-Discrimination was not discussed.
Senate Vice President LeBlond asked the Council for its consideration of the proposed agenda for the May 2005 Faculty Council retreat. Professor LeBlond proposed a review of the structure relationship of the Senate and its committees. He expressed concern that the Senate, as currently structured, can not be responsive in a timely manner. The Board of Regents meets monthly and various University administrative committees meet on a frequent basis. The Senate, with its current structure and meeting times, has difficulty being an active participant in many deliberations arising from the Regents and University administration. Thus, the Senate is frequently relegated to a role of “rubber stamping” items. Professor Dove questioned what role the university administrators would play in the retreat. Professor LeBlond indicated that the administrators would serve as consultants to the Council to provide input on how the Senate could be more responsive. Professor LeBlond concluded his remarks stating that the Senate would be well-served by reviewing its current organization and structure to determine methods of increasing efficiency.
Professor Tachau encouraged members to attend the Celebration on Excellence and Achievement Among Women currently ongoing in the Main Lounge of the IMU. She also encouraged everyone to attend Provost Hogan’s address on April 14, 2005. Professor Tachau then referred Council members to the announcements listed in the agenda.
A. Faculty Council, April 12, 3:30-5:15, Penn State Room, 337 IMU
B. Provost’s Address, April 14, 2005, 4:00pm, Shambaugh Auditorium, reception will follow.
C. Faculty Senate, April 26, 3:30-5:15, Terrace Room, 166 IMU
D. Faculty Council/Administrative Retreat, May 24, 2005, Gold Room, Oakdale Hall
Meeting was adjourned at 4:25 pm
Claibourne I. Dungy, MD, MPH
Secretary, Faculty Council