2020-2021 Motions

September 23, 2020

October 21, 2020

Faculty Senate Motion, for October 21, 2020 Full Senate Meeting
BS degree in Sport Management at Maine

BACKGROUND on the Sport Management BS degree proposal
In October 2019, the Maine Business School sent forward an Intent To Plan a 15-credit Sport Management major, which was approved at the UM System level in November 2019. The BS in Sport Management would leverage existing and new courses to offer a flexible degree with a core foundation in Sport Management, with electives offered in Park Recreation and Tourism, and Kinesiology and Physical Education, and Communication. The proposed launch date is for Fall semester of 2021.

The Maine Business School has identified the opportunity to prepare UMaine students for a growing field. They report that the U.S. professional sport industry is worth over $530 billion, and $1.3 trillion globally. This multifaceted industry offers a range of career opportunities, including but not limited to PR Specialists, Postsecondary Education Administrators, and Administrative Services Managers. The job growth in North America in Sport Management-related professions for 2016-2026 is estimated at 10 percent. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that coaches and scouts should enjoy employment growth of 13 percent during the decade of 2016-2026. Agent and business manager positions in the sport market are expected to grow 5 to 9 percent.

Sport Management programs in the USA are not meeting the current need for these professionals. A Burning Glass tech query by UMaine’s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment suggests that Maine institutions conferred only 44 degrees in Sport Management this year, for 394 current sport-related job postings in Maine. The New England region conferred 773 Sport Management degrees, with 11,939 current sport-related job postings. Nationally, there were 10,217 degrees in Sport Management conferred, with 174,426 sport-related job postings. This analysis demonstrates a clear unmet need for Sports Management graduates locally, regionally, and nationally.

The Maine Business School has five full-time faculty (Muralee Das, Susan Myrden, Erin Carter, Tim Lu, and Martha Broderick) who have taught or could teach sport-related courses. Existing courses at UMaine suitable as electives within this major are taught in Recreation and Tourism, Kinesiology and Physical Education, and CLAS; Ken Ralph, Athletic Director at UMaine (who holds a MS degree in Sport Management), could teach courses in sports ethics..

The team submitted their full proposal to the Senate PCRRC in August, 2020. At that time, the full proposal was circulated to the Senate via email; the PCRRC subsequently met to discuss and identify questions arising. The PCRRC scheduled a campus-wide meeting on the BS in Sport Management at 3:30pm on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 via Zoom: https://maine.zoom.us/j/83498818302?pwd=ZHpPQmxNaEpHYlpha3NlQ2JzcmNiQT09

Password: 367837.

RESERVATION:
The proposal states that adding a Sport Management major would have minimal impact on MBS resources and would be feasible without adding additional overloads. Since the proposal was submitted, one of the proponents, Nic Erhardt, has left UMaine for another position. Starting up the program in fall 2021 might be feasible without Prof Erhardt, but getting the major to capacity may depend on MBS hiring to replace expertise required for this program.

Acknowledging this reservation, based on the discussion in committee and at the October 13, 2020 campus-wide meeting, PCRRC recommends that the proposed program move to a vote in Faculty Senate on October 21, 2020.

MOTION:
The Program Creation and Reorganization Review Committee (PCRRC) has met with faculty of the Maine Business School associated with the creation of this new BS degree, thoroughly examined and reviewed the proposal, and moves, with the reservations outlined above, to accept the creation of the new Bachelor of Science in Sport Management, a degree at the University of Maine.

Vote: Approved

Additional Motion from the Floor:
Background:
The COVID-19 related circumstances have put a large stress on both students and faculty. In order to alleviate the stress on the students and allow faculty to help students determine the best path to success, it would be beneficial to reconsider the P/F option for grading, and at the least move the Withdrawal from course without academic penalty deadline to the end of the semester, as was done in spring 2020.

Motion:
The Faculty Senate moves to change the “Withdrawal from a course without academic penalty” deadline from November 13^th to December 11^th, the last Friday of classes. No discussion.

Vote: Approved

November 18, 2020

November 18, 2020
Chancellor Dannel P. Malloy
University of Maine System
Chancellor’s Office
15 Estabrooke Drive
Orono, ME 04469

James R. Erwin, Board Chair
University of Maine System
Board of Trustee Office
15 Estabrooke Drive, Office 251
Orono, ME 04469

Dear Chancellor Malloy & Board Chair Erwin,

With due deliberation and full faculty senate support, the faculty senate of the University of Maine endorses the University of Southern Maine’s resolution regarding the recent negative and unilateral actions of the University of Maine Board of Trustees regarding Changes to Retiree Health Benefits that was submitted on November 10, 2020 by the Faculty Senate of the University of Southern Maine. We join the Senates and Assemblies across the system in opposition to the changes of the employees’ retirement healthcare benefits from a group plan to an individual party plan.

Resolved, that the faculty of the University of Maine joins the University of Southern Maine and the other system campuses and stands in strong opposition to the Trustees’ action to strip UMS employees of their longstanding group healthcare plan for all retirees, whether faculty or staff, and urges UMS administrators to reverse course.

Respectfully submitted,
William Dee Nichols, PhD

Professor of Literacy, Language and Culture
University of Maine Faculty Senate President
Email cc:
University of Maine President Ferrini-Mundy
UMaine AFUM Jim McClymer
University of Maine Faculty Senate Executive Committee
USM Faculty Senate Chair Blake Whitaker

Vote: Approved

Motion to Change the Default Completion Period for Incomplete Grades for Undergraduate Students
Academic Affairs Committee, November 2020

Introduction:
Upon receiving an Incomplete grade, undergraduate students have by default a maximum timeframe of 140 days to complete their work for consideration for a grade. Undergraduate students receiving Incomplete grades over the Spring semester find that they can have difficulties completing their work in facing a disadvantage in that the Summer months, when Faculty are off-contract and students are typically working in various employments, makes their completing their coursework difficult. The Office of Registrar notes that they receive many requests for extensions beyond the 140 days, permissible by UMaine policy which allows for up to of one year from the course’s end. In response to these factors, the Office of the Registrar has suggested a 160 period as more reasonable. Faculty will continue to retain the right to set a shorter period of time for completion or grant an extension beyond the default date for a period of up to one year.

Current undergraduate policy (https://studentrecords.umaine.edu/home/grades-and-grading-policy/) reads:
Upon selecting the “I” grade during the grade input process, the instructor will be prompted to provide information related to the incomplete grade including:
1. A description of the assignment(s) needed to complete the course requirements and have the “I” replaced by a regular grade.
2. Grade reflecting quality of the work submitted to date.
3. The date by which work is to be completed. The maximum time allowed is 140 days from the end of the semester in which the class was held. The “end of the semester” is defined as the final day that grades may be submitted. [Exceptions to this rule are rare and allowed only with the formal approval of the faculty member, the faculty member’s department chairperson or school director, and the associate dean of the faculty member’s college. The formal process for requesting extensions requires the completion of the Extension for Incomplete form. The extension is not to exceed one year from the original end of the semester in which the course was taken.]
Once the grade is posted the details of the Incomplete Contract are available to the student in MaineStreet.

Motion:
The Faculty Senate requests that the Registrar’s Office change the default maximum time from 140 days to 160 days for undergraduate students to complete their work for consideration for a grade.

Discussion: In a meeting this week a question was asked about setting times. Do students actually see the time? It was stated that it will need to be checked but the timeframe is not in the catalogue. It’s between the faculty and the student. MaineStreet should show students how much time they have.

Vote: Approved

December 16, 2020

February 10, 2021

March 10, 2021

Motion Requesting Requisite Clarity in UMSystem Academic Planning and Design
Academic Affairs Committee, 10 March, 2021

Introduction:
Over the past several years, the UMSystem has increasingly focused on various multicampus academic programming initiatives, including the establishment of a MaineMBA and the proposed Statewide College of Engineering, Computing, and Information Science, both of which involve faculties from the University of Maine and the University of Southern Maine. As these new academic programs take form, they can only work if the faculty making them possible have a clear sense of how they can design their curricula effectively. As the UMSystem creates new administrative structures involving the various campuses with several new proposals evolving, the faculty needs clarity in terms of programmatic organization, so that it can successfully develop strong curricula, inter-campus faculty relationships, shared academic decision making, and lines of academic reporting. The UMaine faculty welcome opportunities to continue to develop strong curricula that will best serve the evolving needs of our students and society at large, but to do so, we need far greater clarity about any new initiatives. Faculty alone have the responsibility and professional knowledge to design curricula for academic programs, including degree programs, minors, certificates, and any other related forms.

The Faculty Senate Constitution (https://umaine.edu/facultysenate/constitution), Article II, Section 3 notes that “The responsibility for the determination of the requirements which students must meet to be eligible for a degree rests with the faculty of the University of Maine”, in accordance with the Board of Trustees of the University of Maine System, Policy and Procedures Manual, Section 303, Academic Degrees: “The responsibility for the determination of the requirements which students must meet to be eligible for an academic degree rests with the faculties of each of the several units of the University of Maine System.” (https://www.maine.edu/board-of-trustees/policy-manual/section-303) Shared Governance documents at both the university and UMSystem level clearly honor the responsibilities of the faculty in academic program design and all curricular decisions. The UMaine Shared Governance Policy, C., Academic Policies, notes that “The university’s curriculum is the responsibility of the faculty. The faculty, acting as a committee of the whole or through representatives elected by the faculty to the

Faculty Senate or designated via procedures established by faculty legislation, must give approval to academic policies affecting more than one college prior to the implementation of the policy.” (https://umaine.edu/facultysenate/wp-content/uploads/sites/218/2010/12/SharedGovernanceUMaine.pdf) Speaking more broadly, the UMSystem Board of Trustees Statement on Shared Governance notes that “Faculty have a critical role in fundamental areas such as curriculum, instruction, research and student life”, which underscores a stated need for clarity in how initiatives will

develop in the UMSystem through the contractual guidelines on cooperating departments, as noted in Article 7.A.7 of the AFUM – UMSystem Contract. (https://www.maine.edu/board-of-trustees/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/11/StatementofSharedGovernance.pdf and https://www.maine.edu/human-resources/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2020/08/2019-2021-AFUM-CONTRACT-signed-for-posting-08.13.2020.pdf)

To these ends, the Faculty Senate has developed the following motion.

Motion:
So that the faculty of the University of Maine can effectively meet their responsibilities in developing new curricula in cooperation with the faculty at the other six universities of the University of Maine System, the Faculty Senate at UMaine moves that the university’s administration provide clarification in an organizational chart and possible explanatory narrative showing the lines of reporting for all academic development and programming that involves the UMSystem and any of the other six campuses that make up the system, much on the model that we have on-campus with the UPCC and Graduate School’s Curriculum Committee. Receiving this information by the end of this March would best serve the faculty’s active participation in the shared governance process. Particularly with the UMSystem suggesting the creation of a system-wide college, the lines of academic responsibility and administrative reporting need be spelled out clearly so that the faculty can best serve in their professional capacities as educators, researchers, and collaborative partners with a broad diversity of communities statewide.

Vote: Approved

Motion Requesting the Extension of the Pass/Fail Option for the Spring of 2021
President of the Faculty Senate with the Support of the Environment Committee
10 March, 2021

Introduction:
This collaborative motion from the President of the Faculty Senate and the Environment Committee, with the support of the Provost office and Upper Administration of the University of Maine, acknowledges and supports the Student Government Association’s concerns regarding the current Pass/Fail policy and the growing mental health concerns of our student body for the spring 2021 semester. The motion is intended to affirm the support of the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine for extending Covid-19 pandemic Pass/Fail grading policies and procedures into the spring semester 2021.

In recognition of the extraordinary circumstances presented by the Covid-19 pandemic, the University of Maine instituted a temporary modification to University policy and procedures around Pass/Fail grading for courses during the spring 2020 and fall 2020 semesters. These temporary modifications allowed students flexibility in electing to take any course for a pass/fail grade. Following the fall semester, based on the data the Senate had at that time, the decision was made to revert to standard University of Maine policies around pass/fail. This decision was not taken lightly and was the reached after considerable discussion, careful consideration, and coordination among the faculty senate and University of Maine Administration.

However, as we approach the heart of the spring semester, and after receiving compelling data and a well-articulated argument shared by the University of Maine’s Student Government Association, it is clear that the situation is not appreciably different and arguably worse than the previous two semesters and the students’ learning environment remains essentially unchanged relative to fall 2020.

Motion
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine moves that the University extend the temporary pass/fail grading policies and procedures based on the fall 2020 policies and procedures described above to the spring 2021 semester. In doing so, we further request that the University Administration 1) communicate clearly to students the temporary nature of these policy changes, 2) encourage academic units to advise students on the potential consequences of pass/fail decisions for their future professional accreditations and licensures, and 3) work to provide support to students who select pass/fail so that they can continue their academic success once the standard policies are reinstated.

Vote: Approved

Motion Requesting the Extension of the Course Withdrawal Option for the Spring of 2021
President of the Faculty Senate
10 March, 2021

Introduction:
This collaborative motion from the President of the Faculty with the support of the Provost office and Upper Administration of the University of Maine, acknowledges and supports the Student Government Association’s concerns regarding the current Course Withdrawal policy and the growing mental health concerns of our student body for the spring 2021 semester. The motion is intended to affirm the support of the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine for extending Covid-19 pandemic Course Withdrawal policies and procedures into the spring semester 2021.

In recognition of the extraordinary circumstances presented by the Covid-19 pandemic, the University of Maine instituted a temporary modification to University policy and procedures around course withdrawal during the spring 2020 and fall 2020 semesters. These temporary modifications allowed students flexibility in electing to extend the last day to withdrawal from a course until that last day of classes. Following the fall semester, based on the data the Senate had at that time, the decision was made to revert to standard University of Maine policies around course withdrawals. This decision was not taken lightly and was the reached after considerable discussion, careful consideration, and coordination among the faculty senate and University of Maine Administration.

Motion
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine moves that the University extend the course withdrawal policies and procedures based on the fall 2020 policies and procedures described above to the spring 2021 semester. In doing so, we further request that the University Administration 1) communicate clearly to students the temporary nature of these policy changes, 2) encourage academic units to advise students on the potential consequences of course withdrawal decisions for their future professional accreditations and licensures, and 3) work to provide support to students who select to withdrawal from courses so that they can continue their academic success once the standard policies are reinstated.

Vote: Approved

MOTION
To Identify Available Resources to Support the Use of Technology for Teaching and Student Learning

PREAMBLE
The University of Maine (UM), the UM System’s flagship and public research institution, relies on System support for development and use of academic technologies to support student learning. Currently support for academic technologies come from a variety of sources generally related to bond issues. The Classroom for the Future is an example of funding provided by a bond.

Prior to the adoption by the Board of Trustees of the Unified Fee in 2003, student bills included a list of fees in addition to standard tuition and room & board costs (like today’s student bills). At the time, then Director of Budget Claire Pratt said the “decision developed because of parent complaints upon receiving bills.” Interim CFO Mark Anderson said publicly that “ ‘a lot of parents felt we were nickel-and-diming them to death … we felt it would be a lot more honest to say ‘this is a fee we need to charge to cover the costs of education’‘”It might be noted that, at the time, “UMaine’s new fee also includes whatever lab fees students may have individually been assessed based on their course load. ‘The burden of fees is absorbed,’ said Pratt, ‘it’s the cost of doing business on campus’.“^[1] However, lab fees are no longer included in the Unified Fee.

Included among the fees that were rolled into the Unified Fee was a Technology Fee, which was assessed per credit hour enrolled and was specifically earmarked for supporting student learning through the use of instructional technology to complement and extend how we teach. After the adoption of the Unified Fee, some campuses reserved a portion of the monies received from the System through the Fee for the purposes the Tech Fee represented. However, campuses were not required to do so. Indeed, over time, for UM, the Unified Fee has come to be used for general operational support without institutional memory of its origin or intent.

Today we rely on the System’s intermittent ability to secure technology bonds that are then levied to campuses. The design and designation of these bonds is not in the hands of UM faculty. We have no formal input to designing learning technologies for the classroom that actually engages and supports how we teach. Faculty have not been an integral part of the exploration and decision-making about instructional technologies, even though providing instruction is the sole responsibility of faculty and so should be our determination as a matter of respect for shared governance.

Today, “information is ubiquitous and readily available, and students can pick it up when and where they want….[Hence,] the classroom ought to focus on assimilation and application of knowledge to new contexts. The teacher becomes the guide on the side, instead of the sage on the stage, requiring wholly new learning spaces and teaching techniques.” (Eric Mazur, Balkanski Professor of Physics and Applied Physics, Harvard University). Indeed, “Pedagogical innovation demands a space that enables exploration by both teacher and student” (Stern Neill, Associate Professor, and Rebecca Etheridge, Director of the Teaching and Learning Center, University of Washington). However, “Among the many methods employed to foster student development, the use of the physical environment is perhaps the least understood and the most neglected” [Banning and Canard (1986)]. Yet, “We know too much about how learning occurs to continue to ignore the ways in which learning spaces are planned, constructed, and maintained” (Nancy Van Note Chism, Professor, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis). Indeed, “It is paramount that we not only acquire the latest technology, but also work to thoughtfully integrate it into all levels of our curriculum. How we use these resources is just as important as acquiring them” (Kenneth Ender, President, Harper College).

Instead of thoughtful integration, we repeatedly find ourselves attempting to adapt our teaching and presentations to the limits imposed by technologies bought on sale to scale system wide.

Furthermore, the System-based funding we receive is not predictable and so is not reliable. We cannot plan and build our future without a secure, sustainable funding source. Upgrades to current classroom technologies should be made on a scheduled refresh. Development of new classroom technologies, integration of distant teaching technologies and shifts in teaching pedagogies should be planned for in advance. We need to acknowledge the need for predictable funding sources for initiating and transforming our use of technology for how we teach.

To help reclaim this aspect of our academic destiny, we need to identify campus-level resources to support the use of technology for teaching and student learning. There currently exist technology fees but these are applied to student cohorts unevenly (e.g. may be applied only to students in asynchronous sections of courses also offered in blended/in-person formats), and that cannot be properly used to transform classroom technology for general instruction and student learning support.

The administration should review such current fee structures with an eye toward the consistent, sustainable use of funds to support all aspects of technology integration and transformation on campus, as well as online.

Identifying resources explicitly reserved as a kind of Technology Fee levied per student credit hour would provide a reliable, sustainable basis for instructional technology development on campus.

The identified resources would be used to support: (list is not in any order of importance)

Improvements in educational infrastructure and resources and to support, maintain, improve and transform classroom spaces.
Leadership and stewardship for supporting, maintaining, improving, and transforming classrooms and computer lab spaces as learning spaces.
Planning for future teaching and learning spaces with appropriate college departments.
Gathering from each department the concerns and interests of its instructional staff, especially how to help staff maintain and improve the education of our students.
A working group of faculty and staff charged with the ongoing enhancement of teaching and learning spaces and facilitate and implement recommendations from the group.
The management of classrooms and lab computers and the maintenance, improvement, and coordinated purchase of proper hardware, software, and equipment and supplies for public classrooms and lab spaces.
Adoption of best practices in learning space design and presentation technology enhanced teaching trends.
Research and evaluation of new hardware, software and courseware that enhance teaching and learning.
Training and educational opportunities for users of classroom spaces and instructional technologies.
Budgeting for proper inventory and for future needs.

MOTION
That the Faculty Senate requests the Administration to identify and designate campus-level resources that will sustain and enhance existing and future instructional technologies to support student learning.

Vote: Approved

^[1]McKinnon, Christy. “USM’s set to instate unified fee.” The USM FREE PRESS: April 14, 2003. http://usmfreepress.org/2003/04/14/usms-set-to-instateunified-fee/ retrieved 02/21/2021.

May 5, 2021

A Motion for consideration by the University of Maine Faculty Senate May 5, 2021

Background: As of this writing (April 29, 2021) more than 117 colleges and universities have mandated Covid-19 vaccinations for the Fall Semester – for their students, and in many cases, faculty and staff (see continuously updated list published by the Chronicle of Higher Education; April 29 article and list are appended here).

Many colleges and universities have not followed suit, citing legal issues surrounding the FDA’s current authorization being “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)” and not “Full Authorization”. Most childhood vaccines (e.g., against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio and varicella) have Full FDA authorization and are required by law in most states.

The policy of the University of Maine adheres to Maine State Law for all entering students (https://studentrecords.umaine.edu/home/records/immunizations-information/).

Maine State Law requires:
… all degree-seeking students and full-time, non-degree students born after December 31, 1956 to provide the following proof of immunization:

One (1) dose of Tetanus/Diphtheria (Td or Tdap) received within the last ten (10) years.
Two (2) doses of Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) received after (not on) the first birthday. If measles immunization was done prior to 1968, students must provide proof it was done with a live virus.

Currently, the Chancellor of the University of Maine System has elected not to stipulate a Covid-19 vaccination mandate for UMS, presumably because of the EUA status of Covid-19 vaccines.

Because it is anticipated that the FDA will, by summer, give Full Authorization to the currently-available Covid-19 vaccines, when UM Faculty are off-contract and the Faculty Senate is recessed, it would be wise for the Senate to state its position now.

Motion:
Should the FDA, in the near future, grant Full Authorization of the suite of Covid-19 vaccines, which are currently available only by Emergency Use Authorization, the University of Maine will require all students, faculty and staff who will be present on campus, to be fully vaccinated prior to the start of the Fall Semester, recognizing current exceptions allowed by law or University of Maine health and safety policies.

Vaccine-Motion-Apr-29-2021-data-updated-to-Apr-28

Vote: Approved

Ad Hoc Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee
May 5, 2021

Motion to amend the Faculty Senate Bylaws to establish a standing Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Background and Rationale:
It may feel, because the white majority in Maine is so overwhelming, that UMaine is exempt from the need to address issues of racial equity. However, recent events have made long-existing inequities and their consequences undeniable, even at the University of Maine. In September 2020 President Joan Ferrini-Mundy established a standing Council for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Simultaneously, colleges and individual units formed committees and groups to address equity and justice issues within their purview. The Faculty Senate responded with an ad hoc Committee on DEI established at the start of AY 2020-2021. During the year, the ad hoc DEI Committee’s collaborative work with the University Environment Committee provided evidence of the need to establish this committee: the Environment Committee description was capacious and diffuse enough that their work had come to include not only learning, workplace, and physical environments, but attendant matters of campus culture specifically related to equity, such as the bias literacy and inclusive classroom training lost when Rising Tide Center activities were suspended. On the basis of such meetings, research, and consultation with the current and former Provosts, the ad hoc Committee on DEI recommends that the Faculty Senate establish a permanent standing committee to address these issues.

UMaine Faculty Senate has never established a DEI committee, yet many public universities throughout the country have had committees for this purpose since the 1970s. Our administration needs the perspective of faculty in examining policy, and status quo practices that affect protected classes of people specifically and the diversity of the campus generally. Faculty elected to the Senate want to know they can make progress toward justice through this work. Therefore, the ad hoc Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion proposes amending the Faculty Senate Bylaws to establish a standing Senate DEI Committee.

Diversity is a fact.
Inclusion is a practice.
Belonging is an outcome.
Equity is the goal.

Activities of the committee might include:

presenting recommendations to the Senate, the Senate’s committees, and the administration to:

promote activities that encourage a balanced and multi-pronged approach to the reduction of barriers to equity, diversity, and inclusion in hiring, support, mentoring, retention, and advancement, such as establishing relationships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and investing in cohort hires
- increase access to leadership positions for faculty from protected and marginalized groups;

encouraging inclusive training and learning opportunities across campus that focus upon the experiences and perspectives of people from protected and marginalized groups in order to transform and improve teaching, curriculum, and instruction;
promoting support for faculty in areas of global engagement and cultural competency, and encouraging a sustained investment in deeper understanding of systems of inequality and power, both historical and ongoing;
seeking feedback actively about the experience of faculty from protected and marginalized groups and responding appropriately to concerns or opportunities brought to the Committee’s attention; and
communicating the Committee’s areas of engagement to other committees and councils and collaborating with them on projects of mutual concern.

Proposed description for inclusion in Senate Bylaws:
ARTICLE XXX. STANDING COMMITTEES
Section XX. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee

Function. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee sustains and supports the University’s commitment to equity, inclusion, and justice for people of protected classes or marginalized groups. It collaboratively reviews, researches, and makes recommendations to the Senate regarding issues, policies, and practices having impact on equity, inclusion, and justice on campus. Motions to the Administration focus on advocacy for representation of people of protected groups, identification and elimination of policies and practices that contribute to structural racism or other kinds of inequity, and creating a more diverse, inclusive campus and workplace.
Membership. Members of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee may be drawn from all colleges and from UMaine Cooperative Extension, as well as from part-time faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students. Non-faculty members of the University community, such as the Associate Provost for Academic Excellence and Faculty Development, the Vice President for Student Life and Inclusive Excellence, or other provost-level diversity/equity officer shall be consulted on committee business whenever possible and where relevant.

Motion:
In recognition of the need to advance the rights of protected groups and to work against oppression in all its forms at the University of Maine, the Faculty Senate hereby moves an amendment of the Faculty Senate Bylaws to establish a standing committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and offers the committee description above to be added to the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate.

Vote: Approved

Motion to Place the Current Process for Assessing General Education Under Review
Academic Affairs and General Education Committees
April, 2021

Purpose
The General Education Committee recommends we place our current process for assessing general education under review. The committee has asked the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) to give us a short report on alternative assessment methods used by other Gen Ed programs. We would like to use this information to modify our current assessment.

Background
Faculty Senate created learning outcomes for each Gen Ed category in 2012. Faculty Senate worked closely with Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) to create rubrics and an assessment process in 2017. The Ged Ed Committee recruited faculty from across campus, and these faculty teams designed our current rubrics and assessment process. They based the rubrics on the Association of American Colleges and Universities’ VALUE rubrics. The learning outcomes and rubrics/assessment required motions, which are on Faculty Senate’s webpage.

We assessed Western Cultural Tradition in spring 2018, Social Contexts and Institutions in spring 2019, and Cultural Diversity or International Perspectives in fall 2019/2020 (we needed a second session due to low participation in the first). Reports from these are on the Gen Ed Committee’s Faculty Senate webpage.

Description of current assessment method
The 2017 motion mandated that we conduct assessment of one Gen Ed category per semester. There are nine categories so we should assess them all in one five-year cycle. OIRA randomly selects 20 classes that teach the category we are assessing and asks faculty to submit samples of work from 10 students that OIRA randomly selects. OIRA removes student and class identities from these papers. The Gen Ed Committee chair recruits volunteers to assess these papers. Assessors use rubrics to do the scoring at an end-of-semester assessment session. The rubrics score five or six criteria from 0-4, so the output from an entire assessment session is the aggregate of these scores: one Gen Ed category scored from 0-4 along the five or six criteria. A sample rubric appears at the end of this report.

Drawbacks of our current assessment method
There are two major drawbacks:

Results are less useable than desired
Recruitment difficult/high effort level required for limited results

The list below enumerates these drawbacks in more detail:
1.) Rubrics do not always fit Gen Ed category: Faculty at the assessment sessions have noted that the rubrics do not always match the learning outcomes and they do not always fit what we assume the category should teach. In particular, the rubric for Cultural Diversity or International Perspectives never assesses anything about understanding another culture’s viewpoint. Others, especially science and math, look as though they will be hard to apply to what students actually produce in these classes.
2.) Not all data usable: Given the point above, some of the data seems unusable. If part of the rubric is not relevant, it is hard to see how faculty can use the data to modify courses. This a principal concern. It is also unclear what Faculty Senate, or faculty teaching these classes, should do with the data (see appendix for a sample, see Gen Ed Committee’s website for all three data sets).
3.) No target scores: There is no way of knowing what our target scores are. Is a 2.5 a sign that students are meeting our goals? Or is a 3.5 needed? Not only have we never decided this, it is unclear clear how we would reach such a determination. Scores are higher in 300 and 400 level classes, and perhaps this shows improvement over time, although students taking a Gen Ed class at the 400 level have likely taken more than one class in that category.
4.) Misses large classes: Many students earn Gen Ed credits in large classes that use multiple choice tests. Our process cannot assess these.
5.) Data less reliable than desired: We employ calibration sessions, but inter-scorer reliability is lower than we would prefer. In addition, the scores from Social Context were broadly similar to Cultural Diversity, even though faculty saw much more alignment with the learning outcomes in the latter. This suggests we are scoring based on the rubrics’ predetermined categories rather than on the student texts’ content. We have included these scores after the motion.
6.) Recruitment: The 2017 motion mandates we recruit fifty faculty to a half day assessment session every semester. This has proved difficult; our numbers have shrunk due to faculty fatigue. Numbers dropped each time we ran this, even before COVID. The motion’s level of faculty effort seems unrealistic and unsustainable. We should consider a new motion requiring chairs to send us participants. Prior participants have said that if we could point to improvements driven by the assessment, we would be more likely to recruit faculty at this level. In addition, the math and science assessments will require fifty faculty assessors with knowledge of those fields. Recruitment is a major concern going forward.
7.) Process needs a home: The General Education Committee chair recruits faculty and runs the faculty side of this process. However, Faculty Senate never discussed, to the best of our knowledge, the change this creates in the General Education Committee. It is now engaged in the regular administrative work of assessment. All other Faculty Senate committees make policy recommendation, none administer anything. This is a fundamental change we never discussed. It might be desirable but needs debate.
8.) Faculty do not know the rubrics exist: Who should inform new faculty, or faculty teaching new courses, about the rubrics and assessment process? This is another routine administrative task without a home.

Strengths of our current assessment method
1.) We were able to detect a lack of alignment between learning outcomes and the Social Contexts and Institutions learning outcomes. This was the qualitative evaluation made by scorers in the group discussion after the scoring, and it was borne out by the scores (see end of this document). Our current systems shows us broad patterns of alignment, which is the most important goal of assessment.

2.) Faculty felt the group discussion after the scoring was useful and should be built upon. These sessions have started a culture of assessment around Gen Ed that is necessary and valuable. Faculty told us that the discussion after the scoring was the best part of the assessment.

Motion: In order to build on the culture of General Education assessment created by our 2017 motion, and in order to better align our General Education courses with their learning outcomes, the Faculty Senate of the University of Maine moves to place the current process for assessing General Education under review. Faculty Senate also asks the General Education Subcommittee to work with Office of Institutional Research and Assessment to propose modification of our current system that will help us achieve better alignment between our courses and their learning outcomes.

Motion to Review General Education Assessment

Vote: Approved

Motion to Form a Committee to Recommend General Education Changes
Academic Affairs and General Education Committees
April, 2021

Background
Faculty Senate created our current General Education requirements between 1995 and 1997. They provide breadth to complement students’ majors and offer valuable exposure to multiple ways of thinking.

General Education, however, suffers from an interrelated set of problems at UMaine. Students have told the General Education committee that too often our requirements are seen as hoops to jump through. They also express that they did not always understand our Gen Ed categories or why they had to take certain classes. Worse, they talk about how Gen Eds lead to alienation and higher dropout rate. A quick perusal of our regional peers and competitors shows that our Gen Ed system is unlikely to recruit students. There is also little stewardship of Gen Ed. Faculty do not always know they are teaching a Gen Ed class or which Gen Eds the class provides. Courses change content but still offer the same Gen Eds. There is no plan for adding new classes, and both CLAS Academic Council and UPCC feel they lack guidance. Without a plan to guide Gen Ed evolution, it becomes a way to increase student numbers for many units. Gen Eds classes have gone from about 450 to 900 since 1997. While this increases choice, it is also the result of having no plan in place; expanding choice became our policy by default.

To address these issues, UMaine sent a team to the Association of American Colleges & Universities Institute for General Education and Assessment in summer 2019. That team presented an action plan to Provost Hecker in summer 2019, and Provost Gilbert in fall 2019. We then presented on the need for reform at the Provost’s Faculty Forum in November 2019. Following this, we founded two working groups in spring 2020 but suspended them when we entered lockdown. We learned a lot from these groups but need to restart the reform process now.

Action
We suggest the Faculty Senate form an ad hoc committee to recommend changes to our General Education curriculum, including recommendations on issues such as stewardship and communication. The committee should convene once in May 2021 to set a schedule and agenda for next year. It should deliver recommendations to the Faculty Senate by the end of spring 2022.

Recruitment and selection of committee members shall be made by the Chair General Education, the Chair of Academic Affairs, the Faculty Senate President, and the Faculty Senate Vice President. These shall include representatives from all colleges and the full breadth of disciplines within colleges as well as representatives from Undergraduate Student Government.

The committee should work closely with the Vice Provost of Student Success and/or Academic Affairs to ensure coordination with administrative initiatives.

Motion
The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine moves to form an ad hoc committee to recommend changes to the General Education curriculum, with recommendations due to the Senate by its final meetings of spring 2022.

Vote: Approved