1

Faculty Meeting Agenda, April 2017

The April, 2017 meeting of the University Faculty will be held on Tuesday, April 4 (and, if needed, on Tuesday,
April 18) from 12:00 to 12:52pm in the Langone Center Forum. Corrections and additions to the March meeting
minutes should be sent to Gary Steiner, Secretary of the Faculty, prior to the April meeting.

AGENDA

1. Amendments to and approval of the March, 2017 minutes.

2. Remarks by the Chair of the Faculty:

A. Update on FAPC's plans to present new Handbook language regarding (1) period of review for retention
and tenure decisions, (2) how exceptions to requested submission of additional materials may be handled,
and (3) DRC/Deans'/URC role in accepting/securing additional information.

B. Update on FISE's plans to present its report in the fall.

C. Update on Tom Cassidy's motion regarding the timing of declaration of major.

3. Remarks by the President, including his response to a question submitted by Professors Katelyn Allers and Sue
Ellen Henry:

In the November 2010 faculty meeting, you expressed concern that "Bucknell is moving away from being a
need-based institution, a concern that has become perhaps more poignant in the intervening years.
Recently, a New York Times article ranked Bucknell as among the worst colleges in terms of
economic diversity. More troubling are trends that show a rise in the percent of our student body coming
from the wealthiest families as well as a steady decline in students coming from low income families. Our
comprehensive fee continues to rise at a rate faster than inflation, putting a Bucknell education further out
of reach for many families. In light of the growing income inequality among Bucknell students,
- What steps are the Trustees and administration taking to ensure that a Bucknell education becomes
affordable for low income students?
- What efforts are being made to reduce the rate of increase of Bucknells comprehensive fee?
- What measures are being taken to move the merit aid ratio back to the expected 3:1 intellectual:sports
balance?
- How are we distributing need-based aid, and how will recent donations shift this balance?
- What specific efforts are being used to recruit low-income students?
If possible, could your office provide an update on the status of the comprehensive fee and financial aid at
Bucknell addressing the concerns listed above?
 2

4. Faculty Council report on slate for election, and invitation for additional nominations [addendum 1].

5. Faculty Council report on policy regarding cross-college curricular conflicts [addendum 2].

6. Discussion of and vote on two motions from the URC [addendum 3].

7. Discussion of and vote on a motion from CCSL [addendum 4].

8. COI report on its pilot method for filling subcommittee vacancies, and an update on its work related to academic
engagement.

9. CCSL report [addendum 5].

10. Discussion of and vote on motion for committee review of existing freedom of expression policies [addendum
6].

11. Discussion of and vote on freedom of expression resolution [addendum 7].

Addendum 1: Faculty Council report on slate for election:

FACULTY/UNIVERSITY COMMITTEES
PRELIMINARY SLATE FOR ELECTION TO THREE-YEAR TERM

Terms Commencing Fall, 2017

Faculty Council (FC)

1 A&H
John Hunter
Carol White

1 Management
Neil Boyd
Eric Santanen

Committee on Campus and Student Life (CCSL)

2 at Large
Ramona Fruja
Sharon Garthwaite
Jan Knoedler
Kat Wakabayashi
 3

Committee on Faculty and Academic Personnel (FAPC)

1 Tenured
Chris Magee
Janice Mann

1 Untenured
Abby Flynt
Rebecca Switzer

Committee on Faculty Development (FDC)

2 at Large
David Evans
Pam Gorkin
Sally Koutsoliotas
Jeff Trop

1 A&H
Stephanie Larson
Erik Lofgren

Committee on Honorary Degrees (HDC)

1 at Large
Qing Jiang
Anna Paparcone

Committee on Instruction (COI)

1 at Large
Morgan Benowitz-Frederics
Lisa Caravan

1 Social Sciences
Chris Boyatzis
Atiya Stokes-Brown

1 Engineering & Management

Indranil Brahma
Tim Raymond
 4

Committee on Library and Information Resources (CLIR)

1 NS & Math
Matt Amthor
Jeffrey Langford

1 Social Sciences
Judy Grisel
Andrew Stuhl

Planning and Budget (P&B)

1 at Large
Mike Malusis
Katharina Vollmayr-Lee

1 A&H
Jason Leddington
(a second candidate is required to complete slate)

Committee on Staff Planning (CSP)

1 NS & Math
Beth Capaldi
Ned Ladd

1 Engineering & Management

Christine Buffinton
Ryan Snyder

Faculty Hearing Committee (FHC)

1 A&H
David Del Testa
Matthew Slater

Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT)

1 NS & Math
Ellen Herman
Marty Ligare
 5

1 Management
Matt Bailey
Tammy Hiller

Addendum 2: Report from Faculty Council regarding cross-college curricular conflicts:

Resolving Cross-College Curricular Matters

March 10, 2017

Curricular changes will emerge from within each college. Before submitting a proposal to a college curriculum
committee, the department or program initiating curricular revision shall confer with any unit (i.e. college, program,
department) that might be affected by the proposed curricular revision. A proposal submitted to a college curriculum
committee shall describe the outcomes of such conferrals.

All proposals submitted to a college curriculum committee will be forwarded to the chairs of the curriculum
committees in the other two colleges in order for them to assess whether there will be any effect on their
colleges. The curriculum committee(s) of the affected college(s) may make recommendations to the curriculum
committee of the initiating college. Such recommendations should be made in a timely manner so as not to delay
unduly the action on a proposal.

If a resolution cannot be found between the affected and the initiating college, the deans of the colleges and the
chairs of the curriculum committees will then confer. If still not resolved through these discussions, a petition may
be made to the provost for final consideration.

Addendum 3: Two URC motions:

First proposed handbook change: review timeline for promotion to Professor. The University Review Committee
proposes the following changes to section III M of the Faculty Handbook:

b. Procedure: It is the individual who will initiate a review for promotion, following consultation with the
department chairperson and/or dean. This meeting will occur on or before the first day of classes of the fall
semester of the academic year in which they wish to apply for promotion. No later than October 1, and in
accordance with the DRCs approved procedures statement, an annotated list of potential external reviewers
who can assess the quality of the candidates scholarly work will be created, and a list of past and current
students to be contacted to evaluate the candidates teaching will be developed. At the same time, the candidate
will provide the DRC chair with copies of the scholarly work that is to be sent out to external reviews. No later
than November 1, the material should be sent to external reviewers and letters solicited from students. By the
first day of the spring semester, No later than January 15, the candidate will provide the DRC with their full
promotion packet. The case for promotion will then be evaluated by the DRC (see Section III.L.1 and 2.) with
the same materials and procedures as used for tenure reviews except as modified within an approved DRC
procedures statement. No later than February 1 February 15, the DRC will provide the candidate with their
evaluation and redacted copies of all student letters and external reviews if they have not already been made
 6

available, permitting the candidate to respond to the DRCs evaluation and recommendation. The department
chair will forward the candidates materials and DRC report to the dean no later than February 15 March 1 for
submission to the URC. The URC will formulate its own recommendations to be reported to the president. The
president shall exercise the authority set forth under Section II.C.6 and will forward the URCs recommendation
to the Board of Trustees for final approval. The Deans of the colleges will send a letter of notification of the
University Review Committees actions to the candidate on or before April 15.

Rationale: To give department review committees more time to do their evaluation of the candidates before needing
to give them an evaluation. Currently, there is less than two weeks between candidates submitting their files and the
DRC providing them with its evaluation. The new timeline would give the DRC a month to complete its initial
review, then two more weeks to respond to any concerns of the candidate. The URC will still have plenty of time to
complete its review between March 1 and the April 15 deadline.

Second proposed handbook change: composition of Department/Program Review Committees. The University
Review Committee proposes the following changes to section III L 1 of the Faculty Handbook:

Each instructional department has a Departmental Review Committee (DRC) responsible for reappointment and
tenure recommendations. The form of each DRC as described in the department statement is determined by the
individual department and reviewed by the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure and by the Provost. Each
DRC must be constituted of at least four tenured members of the full-time instructional faculty. Departments (or
programs) that lack a sufficient number of tenured members shall consult with the appropriate dean to constitute a
DRC from tenured faculty members from within the relevant academic division outside the department (or
program) within the University. Untenured members of the faculty are not eligible to participate in or observe the
deliberations of a DRC.

Rationale: To allow more flexibility in selecting members to serve on department / program review committees.

Addendum 4: CCSL motion:

Motion: Move to adopt the following changes to the Committee on Campus and Student Life charge.

CCSL Charge (Faculty Handbook, II.D.2)

The Committee (CCSL) seeks to promote an active, diverse, enriching community of students, faculty,
administrators, and support staff to further the intellectual and personal aims of a Bucknell education. It will
evaluate the services, programs, and other matters within its jurisdiction to ensure that University activities that
complement academic instruction are an integral part of the student and community experience at Bucknell. We seek
members from all represented constituencies with a willingness to work with a diverse student body, integrate
diversity issues into University administration and decision-making, and navigate across cultural and social
differences.

The Committee on Campus and Student Life coordinates its recommendations with other campus committees.
CCSL reports its activities and forward all recommendations to the President. CCSL also apprises the faculty and
the BSG of its activities and recommendations. These recommendations are based upon the diverse integrated
perspectives represented by the Committee, in order to best represent the Bucknell community. The faculty or the
BSG may request the CCSL to reconsider any action taken, including recommendations forwarded to the President,
and may also communicate directly with the President concerning a CCSL recommendation. If the faculty or the
BSG believes administrative action taken on the CCSL's recommendation to be inappropriate, they may request to
meet with the President (or other appropriate administrative officer) to discuss the decision. Likewise, CCSL may
 7

request to meet with any organization or committee (BSG, university committees, or the faculty) that take
administrative action that affects the areas of concern described here.

CCSL's continuing areas of concern include:

a. Services provided to students by administrative units of the University, including but not limited to, e.g.,
the Division of Student Affairs, including Bucknell Student Health Services, Psychological
ServicesCounseling and Student Development, Campus Activities and Programs, Residential Education,
and Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, Office of Multicultural Student Services, Women's Resource Center,
Office of the Chaplains and Religious Life, Office of LGBTQ Awareness Resources, Office of
International Student Services, The Craft Center 7th Street Studio, The Elaine Langone Center and
programs affecting graduate student life. These units will report to the Committee when requested or
within a five-year review cycle as communicated by CCSL. An advisory board for any of these units
may be established by CCSL or by the appropriate administrator. Such boards will regularly report to
CCSL, which must review major changes of policy or procedure implemented by these aforementioned
units.
b. Cultural and informational programs for students (e.g., lectures, art exhibits, theatre, concert, and film
offerings, where appropriate.
c. Special non-instructional student University functions that occur on a regular basis, e.g., New Student
Orientation.
d. Regulations relating to the non-instructional use of University buildings and grounds, student residences,
student conduct on University property, including rules and practices employed by the Bucknell
University Public Safety Office.
e. Procedures and policies affecting the student experience outside of the classroom and co-curricular
activities., including those of the Career Development Center, Bookstore, Dining Service, Post Office,
and Cowan Conference Center. The Committee shall not infringe upon the mandates and responsibilities
of these organizations but it may concern itself with their contributions to the academic community.
f. Student extracurricular activities, including the Bucknell Student Government, fraternities, and sororities.

The President, the University Faculty, or the Congress of the BSG may request that an item be placed on the agenda
of the Committee.

Six faculty members elected at-large

One BSG Executive Committee Member
One representative from BSG (appointed by the BSG President)
Four students selected at-large
Four students elected by the BSG
Student Affairs Chair or other Representative of the BSG
Vice President of the BSG
Provost or his/her designee
Dean of Students
One Dean of Students designee

Membership

Dean of Students and 3 designees from Student Affairs

4 faculty members
6 student members (VP for Operations, Student Advocacy Chair, and 4 at-large)
Provost or Provosts designee
The President may meet with the Committee without vote.
One student chair and one faculty member chair shall be elected from the Committee membership.
 8

Addendum 5: CCSL report:

Report to the Faculty

Spring, 2017
Committee on Campus and Student Life

Our committee, constituted of students, staff and faculty, has met weekly throughout the semester, discussing many
issues related to campus climate and student life. Below, we explore the items we have attended to this semester.
Our minutes are available on the Faculty Governance website.

Campus Climate Report: In the fall, 2016, The Dean of Students Office launched a comprehensive campus climate
survey, MyVoice, in November 2016, and data will be available in late spring, 2017. Participation rates were
exceptional for this survey (N=2101) and was developed in close consultation with students.

Student Academic Support: The Committee remains concerned that tutors in Athletics earn $20/hour, compared to
$7.15 at the Teaching and Learning Center, and that this difference is reflective of a largely non-uniform system of
student pay rates across the institution. Following exploration by the Provosts Office, it appears that the NCAA
contributes the fund to pay tutors in Athletics. Pay differences for a variety of types of work exist on campus. CCSL
encourages academic departments to review the pay rates for the student workers they employ, in order to explore
whether the differences represent inequities. CCSL is communicating with the Writing Center and the Teaching and
Learning Center to encourage both organizations to see about ways to improve student pay.

Sexual Assault Outreach/Title IX: The Committee met with Kate Grimes, Title IX Coordinator and Clery Act
Compliance Officer and Rachel Stewart, Interpersonal Violence Prevention Coordinator to learn about programming
meant to reduce sexual assault on campus and the sexual assault reporting process. All first year students have
exposure through mandatory programming in Orientation and in optional follow up FYIS programs (51% of first
year students participated in a follow up session), and 52 SpeakUp Bucknell educators work with student groups to
provide programming. Faculty are now considered responsible employees required to report and refer reports of
sexual assault to Kate Grimes.

Campus Safety: Following the Committees fall 2016 work, member Katie Chambers consulted with BSG and
Public Safety to develop and post information in classrooms and residence hall rooms with safety protocol easily
visible by all. Additionally, Katie also contacted all academic departments on behalf of BSG, encouraging them to
receive the Campus Safety/Active Shooter training offered by Public Safety. Several departments are in the process
of arranging for the training and all academic departments are encouraged to do so. It is clear from our discussion
that students expect their faculty members to be aware of campus safety procedures in the unfortunate event of a
campus crisis.

First Year Book/Faculty Engagement in Orientation: The Committee heard from Ellen Amarante, Parker Watson
18, and Laura Bart 19 (FYR leaders) about Just Mercy, the book selected for the first year reading for inclusion in
Orientation. We also learned about a new approach to discussing the themes of the text: a series of TED-style talks
offered by faculty, followed by group discussions. Volunteers are welcomed please email
Ellen.Amarante@bucknell.edu.

Updates made to the Committee:

Kelsey Hicks joined the University as Director of the Women's Resource Center.

Appreciation: The Committee wishes to thank our outgoing members:

Katie Chambers, Danielle Retcho, Abby Flynt, Sue Ellen Henry, Roger Rothman, and Elaine Williams
 9

Addendum 6: Motion for review of existing freedom of expression policies:

Motion for April Faculty Meeting on Review of Existing Freedom of Expression Protections for Faculty and
Staff

The faculty asks FAPC and CAFT and Faculty Council to review current language in the Faculty Handbook
regarding academic freedom, in consultation with the President and Counsel, and report back to the faculty at our
November meeting on the following three questions (in bold below):

1. In Section III k of the Faculty Handbook, the justification for protected freedom of expression (in relation to
tenure and employment) seems to be based on scholarly research and artistic performance. Is freedom of political
or identity expression, when not related directly to a scholarly or artistic field of expertise, protected under
current Handbook language?

2. The faculty handbook urges faculty to support academic freedom for students and colleagues, but colleagues may
or may not be paid Bucknell staff. Would the Handbook provide clearer protection for freedom of political or
identity expression if paid staff explicitly were included in its language?

3. The Handbook in Section III p and Appendix A limit political expression to the extent it might threaten the
Universitys 501(c)(3) status. Our understanding of nonprofit law is that nonprofits are not allowed to engage in
program activities that support partisan election activities of a candidate or specific legislation being considered by
lawmaking bodies of government. Is the Handbook language and the university policy in Appendix A
unnecessarily restrictive or ambiguous with regard to political expression (and potentially identity
expression), in relation to the university's tax status?

Other supplemental questions follow from this last question, which we also encourage the above-mentioned bodies
to consider in their review: Is the current language clear in allowing members of the Bucknell community to foster
political expression for educational or research purposes, as well as to express their identity and further university
goals such as diversity? If fostering such expression does not count as the kinds of political activities forbidden
under restrictions that apply to 501(c)(3) charities, is it clearly allowed and protected under our current Handbook
and university policy language? What counts as political activity and what specific types of activities are forbidden?
What type of sponsor for a program or activity at the university would be considered an official program of the
university from the standpoint of our IRS tax exemption--does a departmental or student program represent an
action by Bucknell as a corporation? Are expressions of political opinion or personal identity (racial, ethnic, sexual,
religious, etc.) that might be considered in some way political, by a person who includes their official university role
(as one might do in an op ed article in a newspaper), considered political by Bucknell with respect to limitations of
the 501(c)(3) regulations.? Does current Handbook language prohibiting university support for political activity
extend to use of university resources such as email, phones, copy machines, library resources, campus space, as well
as staff and faculty work time? Do such restrictions work against protection of political speech and freedom of
expression of identity, especially for non-hourly salaried university employees? Is the language's citing of 501(c)(3)
status reflective of current best practice and understanding of such tax status at American liberal arts colleges and
universities?

Respectfully submitted,

Chris Ellis, Carl Milofsky, Alexander Riley, Alf Siewers, Janice Traflet
 10

Addendum 7: Proposed text for faculty resolution on freedom of expression:

Motion for April Faculty Meeting on Freedom of Expression

The faculty affirms that as an institution of higher education, the University should be committed to free and open
inquiry in all matters, guaranteeing all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak,
write, listen, challenge, and learn. The University should fully respect and support the freedom of all members of the
University community to discuss any problem that presents itself.

Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it
should not be the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find
unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University should greatly value civility, and
although all members of the University community should share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of
mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect should not be used as a justification for closing off
discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

In a word, the Universitys fundamental commitment should be to the principle that debate or deliberation may not
be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University
community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It should be for the individual members of the
University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act
on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they
oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and
deliberation in an effective and responsible manner should be an essential part of the Universitys educational
mission.

The faculty affirm that, as a corollary to what should be the Universitys commitment to protect and promote free
expression, members of the University community should also act in conformity with the principle of free
expression. Although members of the University community should be free to criticize and contest the views
expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they
should not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To
this end, the faculty affirms that the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless
freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

Respectfully submitted,
Chris Ellis, Carl Milofsky, Alexander Riley, Alf Siewers, Janice Traflet