Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes
Thursday April 6, 2017 2:30 pm
Attending were Dave Dobson (Clerk), Alfonso Abad Mancheño, Gwen Erickson, Sherry Giles, Kathryn Shields (minute taker), Don Smith, and Eva Lawrence, Beth Rushing.
The meeting began with a moment of silence.
Minutes from March 30 meeting-Approved
Discussion of revised name and charge for Diversity Action Committee
New name: Committee on Inclusion and Equity
Their old charge will not work any more.
LAGER is an ad-hoc committee, so should not be mentioned.
Membership seems large. Previous make-up: originally Cultural Pluralism was a faculty committee. It transitioned to Diversity Action with campus committee with faculty representation. Perhaps it is a remnant of the previous administration.
What about the position Michele Malotky has now as Director of Inclusion through Faculty Development. How does she coordinate with and/or how does her work relate to this committee?
Some ideas for possible structure going forward to reduce redundancy:
- Maybe appoint representatives for contact in the case of some areas: Advancement, Admissions, Athletics, for example. What if they could be listed as consulting parties? We have a Retention group. Those folks (and others) are working directly with offices implementing procedures.
- Or have people appointed on committees on campus who serves as representatives of the concerns related to Diversity and Inclusion. From their bullet points that would include the first two, Curriculum and Faculty Development (we do have faculty designated to address diversity in faculty development and other committees as part of the response to Integrity for Guilford’s concerns). In that scenario, there may still be a need for:
- Strategizing/Support/Training for privileged groups
- Campus Resources
Not included: champion of these issues in a broader context
3) Periodic meetings (twice per semester?) from representatives for relevant committees and groups.
Make this an advisory group that offered the opportunity to share information from various constituencies across campus, bring issues, etc.
We wonder about the interactions with President’s Council on Diversity & Inclusion.
- The charge says will “work with” this group.
- Two committees seem to be too many. We wonder how/why it is justifiable to maintain the two committees. It occurred to some people that perhaps that work needs to happen first and/or instead of this committee. If we were to decide NOT to have this committee it would makes a lot of difference who nominating places on SPOC (maybe even specific designates for the President’s Council on Diversity and Inclusion).
There may not be a comparable structure on the staff side to address these concerns the way there is on the faculty side. What about staff development or opportunities to share concerns for staff?
Would it make sense to talk to Jane about this issue? In the fall she recommended that DAC stay on the books while some of the issues are being visioned and planned with the President’s Council on Diversity & Inclusion. If it will continue to be in “hibernation,” we need to reappoint the faculty representatives.
Response to the proposal: Dave will send an e-mail to the committee chairs of the Diversity & Inclusion Committee and copy the members listed on the proposal.
This is a start, here are our thoughts:
Where does redundancy exist with President’s Council on Diversity & Inclusion and a lot of other committees already functioning?
We have a concern about representation, specifically the ability to address faculty concerns/issues, given the nature and number of people on the committee. Similarly, we have a concern about the number of members. We recommend the faculty members + crucial people on campus (MED Director, Accessibility Resource Director, others?)
Next year a priority would be to identify the distinction of this committee from the President’s Council on Diversity & Inclusion.
As we see it, there are three options:
- Continue with new charge
- Lay it down until the President’s council is further along
- Working group that assemble periodically to review and revise efforts on campus
Change to withdrawal grades for credit/no credit courses-Approved
Concern about impact on GPA for students who withdraw. In that case credit/no credit courses can never count for credit. WF does have an impact on a person’s grade. Recommendation is to add
CW: withdrew, received credit; NW: withdrew, no credit received.
Review of faculty meeting April 5
- Approved commencement change with some faculty members standing aside. Provides a potentially good model for consideration of the Gen Ed Curriculum when it comes time to do so.
- Ara’s announcement.
- Slate Approved.
Discussion of next steps for to General Education Revision and response to Faculty Meeting
What do we want Guilford students to get out of their education? What inspires us?
About a year ago we met and did some visioning.
Maybe we could find notes from that meeting
Also might be good to revisit now since we have a tangible direction in mind.
What about the 4.5 Model. Is this a horse we could ride?
Felt closer to seeming so yesterday. Some remaining skepticism and questions about implementation. From conversations, responses to the meeting, and Moon Room posts we have heard some concerns about the looming imperative to do something quickly, CIPs watered down, CIPs too large, the fact that the proposed curriculum is not, in fact, “bold,” etc.
Maybe we could leave the structure there and begin talking about other pieces.
Some consensus on the basic structure and idea of multi-disciplinary teams
More acceptance on the inclusion of Critical Perspectives
The issue of a Student-led component and/or curriculum.
One faculty member brought up the idea of using questions as a way to prompt students through the curriculum.
Proposing options for them (like a choose-your-own-adventure)
Working up to being student-led later in the course or the program
Faculty development for us to learn how to do this.
Leaders, followers, dead weight (give them the opportunity to deal with it)
What is the administrative support from Jane’s perspective?
We will have money to implement the Art & Science recommendations
Collaborative, interdisciplinary teams, for example. If we keep collaborative, multi-disciplinary experience (CIPs) in, we are closer to aligning the initiatives.
The underlying notion and strategy of this Gen Ed curriculum gets us closer. Jane expressed her support of it in theory at the March 8 meeting. She talks about it as a four-year experience.
Resources/support could be discussed later.
We also do need to know what we are asking her to support.
A marker in the proposed budget was requested for faculty development over the summer to prepare for the first year class next fall.
What will we do next Wednesday?
A forum for visioning/narrative
Dave will put together something to share with the faculty including a document he received.
Topics for upcoming faculty meetings –
- Gen Ed revision
- Future of Diversity Action Committee
- Jane – VP salary information and raises
Remaining Wednesday Dates:
|April 12 – Faculty Forum|
|April 19 – Open date for called meeting or forum|
|April 26 – Faculty Meeting|
|May 3 – Reserved for Faculty Meeting|
|May 10 – Reading Day|