Correspondence to Dennis Showers, School of Education, South 222C, email@example.com, 245-5264
Note: Page numbers indicate pages as per the paper copy of the Bulletins.
Pages 109 - 119
April 9, 2013
Faculty Affairs Committee minutes of February 110
Research Council Miinutes of February 15, 2013 111
Student Affairs Committee minutes of February 19, 2013 114
Student Affairs Committee minutes of March 12, 2013 115
Minutes FAC Meeting
February 12, 2013
Attendance: Jun Okada, Michael Oberg, Jim Allen, Cristina Geiger, Heidi Savage, Lei Gao, James Mclean, Rob Kahrs, Amy Sheldon (excused)
Add to the agenda: email from Steve Derne about Form H. Suggestions to the agenda?
Status of Senate SOFI Resolutions
President Dahl decided not to accept the FAC/Senate suggestion to stop administering the SOFIs two weeks before the end of this semester (spring 2013).
Administration of SOFI’s
Julie Rao, of Institutional Research, has not been aware of motions passed by Senate. She is pleased to follow procedure passed by Senate and approved by the administration.
Consistent with Senate policy, SOFIs will automatically be open during the last 2 weeks of semester. Instructors may open the SOFI’s during the third to last week of the semester (i.e., the 12th week of a 14 week semester) by contacting CIT. This may make it easier for instructors to administer SOFI’s in class that week, if they wish. These features will apply only to full semester courses (14 week courses) during regular Fall and Spring semesters.
SOFI Information and Notification Document
Institutional Research sends a one page document to all teaching faculty prior to the opening of the SOFI’s each semester. Jim revised the SOFI document. He moves that we accept the changes he made to the SOFI doc.
The provost wants to take administration of the SOFI’s out of office of Institutional Research and into hands of FAC and the Student Association.”
The original version of document said that the profs had to open the SOFIs, but has changed the doc to give the option to the prof to open SOFIs or not.
Discussion centered on wording changes to increase clarity. A revised version of Jim’s revision was passed unanimously.
There is an institutional memory problem. FAC easily forgets to send out this document every semester, because of turnover in leadership and membership. Suggested that Institutional Research sends a reminder to FAC and SA every semester that document needs to be sent to teaching faculty (IR will have better institutional memory).
Question about whether FAC should be involved in SOFI administration at all.
(Jim) The Provost thinks that SOFI’s should be administered by FAC and Student Association.
(James) There have to be student opinions…we are writing this letter even though we aren’t in complete control, FAC is in most control of any other group. With this privilege comes responsibility.
FORM H Discussion
(Jim) The Provost suggests wording changes. More wording on interdisciplinary work and public scholarship. For example, deleting “discipline related.” Anything that mentions that you can only work in your own discipline.
Discussion centered on meaning of “public scholarship” and “interdisciplinary” studies. There was also a concern about whether the use of the term interdisciplinary implied a new and increased work load for faculty.
Committee decided to invite the Provost to attend next FAC meeting to hear her thoughts.
Some in sociology are having trouble interpreting the new decision labels for the new Form H. In particular, some are unsure of the meaning of “model.” Many in our committee agreed that this label was unclear. There was also concern about the meaning and interpretation of “needs improvement.”
Committee decides not to vote on language of FORM H.
Meeting is adjourned.
Research Council Minutes
15 Feb 2013
Members Present: Paul Pacheco, Jenny Apple, Anne Baldwin, Doug Baldwin, Ted Everett, Kelly Keegan, Michael Lynch, George Marcus, Traci Phillips, Farooq Sheikh, Eugene Stelzig, Doug MacKenzie, Kazushige Yokoyama, Meredith Harrigan, Emilye Crosby
The meeting was adjourned at 4:24pm.
Submitted by Traci Phillips and Paul Pacheco
College Senate Student Affairs Committee
19 February 2013
Present: Tim Bowersox, Sandy Carroll, Rick Gifford, Joel Inbody, Erica Joyce, Jennifer Katz, Maria Volpe-McDermott, & Dan Repinski
Agenda Item: SAC impressions of its discussion about campus hazing with Dr. Lenny Sancilio (Dean of Students) at the 2/12/2013 meeting.
D. Repinski distributed the Geneseo pamphlet Stand Up and Stop Hazing which informs the campus community of hazing – forwarded to the SAC by L. Sancilio and the Center for Community.
The following points were offered by members of the SAC:
- The culture of hazing is much broader and more complex than we may have originally thought. We as a committee were unfamiliar with many aspects of the culture of hazing, its practice, and the terminology. (e.g., “a drop-off;” “a call-out”). This suggests that campus education about the issue is warranted.
- As we know too well, hazing is a threat to the health and safety of our students and an impediment to positive climates at Geneseo, and among our sports teams and student organizations.
- Geneseo needs to develop a more comprehensive and clearer definition of hazing. Representative activities suggesting hazing may be present, but at what point do these activities become hazing? The definition of hazing should relate to Geneseo student experiences rather than general criteria.
- The discussion Dr. Sancilio left us with many unanswered questions: what is the nature and prevalence of the problem at Geneseo?; what else can be done to address the problem?; how frequently do our students report hazing?; what proposals are under review for enhancing our efforts?; how can we employ empirically-validated education/prevention efforts? The meaning of the comment Geneseo is doing better than most schools in addressing the problem is ambiguous if we do not know the extent of the problem. Presently, it is a challenge to accept that no substantial new prevention/education efforts are warranted at Geneseo.
- Dr. Sancilio reports that an anonymous survey of Geneseo students is planned. A survey licensed by the University of Maine is one of the best survey instruments available, but there appear to be some obstacles to purchasing the survey. It was suggested that SUNY-wide directives may be issued regarding hazing policies, procedures, and prevention efforts.
- Because the hazing policy, its prohibitions, and prevention/education efforts are being externally imposed upon students, they may have some resistance to these efforts. To be most effective, education/prevention efforts should promote a hazing-free environment and employ empirically-validated approaches which target, among other issues, hazing dynamics, ethical decision-making, group dynamics, bystander intervention, and internalization of the idea that hazing is unacceptable.
- The SAC should meet with other campus officials who deal with student hazing -- Wendi Kinney, Assistant Dean of Students for Fraternal Affairs, and Mike Mooney, Director of Intercollegiate Athletics – to learn more.
- What schools have effective hazing prevention programs? Are there published ‘best practices’ when it comes to dealing with hazing? Are there empirically-validated education/prevention approaches?
- Geneseo should invite to campus a scholar on the topic of college student hazing to deliver a College-wide lecture. Perhaps Chip Matthews would be willing to include this speaker in the CU speaker series.
- D. Repinski indicated he would invite W. Kinney and M. Mooney to meet with us to discuss hazing at the SAC meeting on March 12 2013.
Agenda Item: The SAC discussed President Dahl’s Response to the four College Senate recommendations regarding student safety and the campus response to sexual assault. General comments are listed below. Specific SAC comments addressing the response to each item are listed below the recommendation.
- The President’s response should be published in the Senate Bulletin.
- D. Repinski will make a report on our deliberations to the Senate in March.
- The President’s response was positive overall, but more needs to be done to educate the College and prevent sexual assault.
1. that the President should support funding for sexual assault prevention and education
- It appears progress is being made. It was noted that the Advisory Committee for Campus Safety (ACCS) requested funding for an Interpersonal Violence Prevention Coordinator. The degree to which the Administration supports this proposal is unclear. New prevention and educational programs are being proposed and will require funding.
2. that the President should support the development and funding of a service to transport to Strong Hospital medically stable students seeking forensic evaluation
- The Student Advocate Response Team (SART) http://www.geneseo.edu/sart began operations 8/25/2012 but is not well know.
- SART is a free transportation service to Geneseo students seeking specialized medical attention, a forensic evaluation, or both following a sexual assault. Students are transported by a trained driver and accompanied by a trained victim advocate. Drivers and advocates are SUNY Geneseo students, faculty, and staff. This is a confidential service. Students transported by the SART are not required to report the incident.
- SART is available during the fall and spring semesters when students are on campus and classes are in session (i.e., not over breaks). During these times, at least one advocate and one driver will be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
- A new vehicle assigned to University Police is available and ready for SART to use.
- The SAC noted that this is significant progress and commends the effort of those students, faculty, staff, administrators and college offices supporting SART. Contributors include the Division of Student and Campus Life, University Police, Lauderdale Center for Health and Counseling, Residence Life, Geneseo First Response (GFR), and the SART members.
3. that the organization and procedures of the college sexual assault effort be reviewed
- There appears to be less forward progress on this issue. The President notes that a number of issues warrant resolution prior to further consideration of this recommendation. These include the following:
-as a follow-up to the “Dear Colleagues” letter issued by the Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education (2012), SUNY engaged the OCR in discussions regarding a SUNY-wide response to the OCR directives. The outcomes of these discussions remain to be determined; and
-the College is seeking to appoint a Director of Affirmative Action. This person will serve as the campus “Title IX Coordinator” and will direct campus-wide compliance efforts.
- Melinda DuBois, Administrator Director of Lauderdale Center for Health and Counseling and Co-Chair of the ACCS is also a Deputy Title IX Coordinator. Consequently, Melinda could offer the SAC an informative update on the College’s progress in this area. D. Repinski will invite Melinda to update the SAC on 3/12.
- It was noted that the College is exploring the option of “sharing” an Interpersonal Violence Prevention staff position with Monroe Community College (MCC) – recall the SUNY directive to capitalize on “shared SUNY resources.” Further, it was noted that although a <.5 staff line would improve on the current situation (i.e., no dedicated staff), it may well be inadequate to meet NYS, SUNY and federal mandates.
- Again, it was noted that important decisions by many remain to be determined (e.g., SUNY, OCR, etc.).
- Do we know the prevalence of sexual assault at Geneseo? It was noted that we have some data. Jenny Katz (Psychology) reported on her research:
- A 2010 anonymous campus survey of Geneseo students (N = 1701) showed that 1 in 4 reported nonconsensual sexual experiences and about 15% of women and 8% of men reported behaviorally-specific experiences of attempted or completed rape at college or in the Geneseo community. These rates are similar to those reported by others, including research commissioned by the National Institutes of Justice (Krebs et al., 2007). For the full report, please see https://www.geneseo.edu/health/spring-2010-campus-wide-survey.
- An anonymous campus-wide survey of Geneseo students’ experiences of dating violence and stalking will be launched in April.
- D. Repinski distributed a new discussion of ‘best practices’ entitled Campus Sexual Assault: Suggested Policies and Procedures published by the American Association of University Professors. This follows the “Dear Colleagues” letter issued in 2012 by the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights regarding Title IX issues.
4. that the President initiate a change to the Student Code of Conduct to increase the likelihood that students will seek help during an emergency (i.e., ‘medical amnesty’)
- The President reports that a proposal is being drafted. An update on the status of the draft is warranted.
- The amnesty policy should be extended to narcotics. The spirit of the “Ethos of Care” is enhanced with an amnesty policy.
- D. Repinski noted that the SAC can receive an update from Vice President Bonfiglio when he meets with the SAC in April.
The next meeting is scheduled for 4:00 PM March 12 in the President’s Conference Room (Erwin 206).
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM.
Recorded by R. Gifford and D. Repinski
Research Council Minutes
8 Mar 2013
Members Present: Paul Pacheco, Jenny Apple, Anne Baldwin, Kelly Keegan, Michael Lynch, George Marcus, Traci Phillips, Farooq Sheikh, Eugene, Doug MacKenzie, Kazushige Yokoyama, Meredith Harrigan, Emilye Crosby, Anne-Marie Reynolds, Jennifer Rogalsky, Lori Bernard, Lynette Bosch-Burroughs
a. Office of Undergraduate Research Working Group:
George Marcus, chair, updated the Council on the working group’s discussions:
1. Gathering data we have on campus for research and what kind of matrix could be designed and regaining direction from the Provost on what this office might look. Provost Long will attend one of their meetings
2. Council discussion included using information from the Directed Study form, could research information be separated out from the Faculty form they fill out, and if information is going to College Advancement that could be used to garner additional funds. Could this information be gathered without additional work for faculty?
b. Working Group to Actively Support Grant Writing:
Emilye Crosby, chair, updated the Council on the working group’s progress.
1. The group had discussed how important communication to the faculty is of upcoming deadlines and internal and external funding opportunities.
2. Highlight Proposal Writing Course Release success stories. And could this program work on a non-deadline based situation? Instead of deadlines, if a faculty member knew that they needed a course release to work on a submission, could they just apply to the program? Anne will review that possibility.
3. Faculty members that have had successful research submissions could be mentors to others and help them with where to start and provide examples and models.
4. Research Council members could also present at their department meetings.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35pm.
Submitted by Traci Phillips, Lori Bernard, and Paul Pacheco
College Senate Student Affairs Committee
12 March 2013
Senators present: Rick Coloccia, Tim Bowersox, Sandy Carroll, Joel Inbody, Jennifer Katz, Maria Volpe-McDermott, Emily Gamello, Sharon Peck, Duane McPherson, Joyce Miller, Denise Scott, & Dan Repinski
Guests: Melinda Dubois, Wendi Kinney, and Mike Mooney
-D. Repinski noted that given the two agenda items, the SAC meeting may last until 5:30 pm.
-The Geneseo pamphlet Stand Up and Stop Hazing which informs the campus community of hazing and was forwarded to the SAC by L. Sancilio and the Center for Community was made available to those who had not received one.
-D. Repinski reported on recent communication with Dean Sancilio – Geneseo now has access to the University of Maine hazing survey and data collection is scheduled to take place in April.
-The SAC will next meet on Tues. 26 March. The agenda includes discussion of the adequacy of recreation space for students (e.g., College Union, indoor and outdoor recreation space, etc.). Andrea Klein (Events Scheduling), Mike Mooney (Director, Intercollegiate Athletics), Chip Matthews (Director, College Union & Activities), and Bob Bonfiglio (Vice President, Student and Campus Life) will meet with the SAC for that discussion.
Agenda Item: Further discussion of the campus response to student hazing
Mike Mooney, Director, Intercollegiate Athletics; and
Wendi Kinney, Assistant Dean of Students for Fraternal Life and Off-Campus Services
Wendi reported on some of the efforts of her office
- Starting this year, additional campus student groups are being included under Wendi's advisory realm. She now consults with the 27 social/fraternal organizations that are part of the Inter-Greek Council, and three groups that are service/professional in nature (i.e., Alpha Phi Omega, Alpha Kappa Psi, and Phi Delta Epsilon). All these groups have new member orientation programs/guides, and Wendi's office reviews all these documents. Wendi meets with the organization's leadership to ensure written and actual practices are aligned.
-All 30 of these groups participate in hazing prevention workshops.
- Mike Mooney was asked about his understanding of the genesis of hazing among the women’s volleyball team.
-He reported that the incident was a surprise.
- He noted that hazing is not a college-only or athletics-only activity. Rather, it is part of the culture of many groups and students often first experience hazing in high school or earlier. As an example, he noted the recent incident involving a local high school boy’s athletic team which had its season cancelled due to incidents of hazing. Moreover, he noted hazing happens elsewhere in collegiate culture. If hazing happens in middle- and high-school, it's not surprising that it happens in college. Somehow our students think they are immune from getting caught, and parents say "it is no big deal." We can no longer say, "Since it was ok then, it is ok now."
- It is a challenge to define hazing; it is vague; it involves context and a power differential among individuals; hazing often involves something one is asked to do that the individual may not want to do; hazing does not always involve alcohol consumption (e.g., excessive water consumption can prove to be fatal); hazing involves elements of a "group think" thing. It is clear, however, that individuals cannot make good choices when their performance is impaired due to alcohol, drugs, sleep deprivation, etc.
- The Department of Intercollegiate Athletics maintains a “zero-tolerance policy” with regard to hazing among members of athletics teams. It is probably the case that not all incidents are reported and thus college staff and administration do not know everything that happens.
- Mike drew parallels between bans on hazing and alcohol consumption by persons under age 21 years -- neither ban put an end to the activities; educational programming is necessary to bring changes in behavior.
-Since some hazing happens to build camaraderie among team members, we should search for activities that can be used in its place.
-Student athletes start each season with a program of four sessions:
-completion of NCAA-related paperwork;
-introduction to the training room;
-education/prevention programming on alcohol, illegal substances, and hazing; and
-discussion of the ‘expectations of a student-athlete.’
-Mike suggests to athletes and students, ‘if something doesn't look or feel right, at a minimum, get out of the situation; the ideal response would involve standing up and saying that what is happening "is not right."
-The Department of Athletics hosts a picnic for new athletes -- this serves as another opportunity to communicate with students about what might occur and how events now can have consequence in the future.
- Additional points were made during the discussion including the following:
- Some organizations have "paper members" or members that may not have had to “earn” their memberships. This can create a status imbalance, whereby sometimes individuals "want to be hazed" in order to be on equal standing with other members.
-Question: Are there documented programs available to help stop/minimize hazing? Do they lead to success?
-Answer: Geneseo uses a multi-faceted approach to prevention. For example, we require our student athletes to go to three GOLD seminars. We are trying to help students build skills for living, leadership skills, and to become civic-minded (e.g., through participation in community service and other volunteer activities). Three Department of Athletics staff members have attended the National Hazing Institute in an effort to identify approaches to address the issue.
-Question: College-aged individuals seem to not understand the full weight of the possible consequences of actions. How can we impress on them the significance of possible consequences?
-Answer: Put people in front of our athletes who can relay personal experiences to them -- "This could happen to you and you could be me, is that what you want?" Also, address “group-think” as the desire to be accepted causes people to do things they otherwise might not do. Add to this the view among some college-age students that they are invulnerable, -- so, individuals then let their guard down and do things they would never think of doing. The group negatively influences what people do.
-“Best practices” include emphasis on the following: there is "hidden harm" to hazing, there are value judgments involved, and hazing is a cyclical dynamic (i.e., the hazed become hazers).
-There are education/prevention videos and programs/messages which are compelling and touch students, but which do not seem to stick with students for the long term. How do we sustain the “a-ha moment?” People often don't make the connection between large incidents and small ones. In addition, given the on-going additions/deletions to the college community, it is a challenge to maintain on-going efforts amidst “the parade.”
-An on-going challenge is to get the entire community to believe that we are stakeholders in the hazing issue. Mike and Wendi’s offices reach only 1500 of our 5000 students - how do we reach the other 4000
-Question: How do you measure effectiveness of educational programs about hazing?
-Answer: We find out about incidents only when they are reported. This is why “Stand Up” is important. We'd like to believe we're making progress, but sometimes we feel like we're not. Indications of success include an increase in membership in fraternal organizations (from 560 to 1000 in 12 years), there is less visible hazing around campus, and the appeal of fraternal groups is stronger.
-Question: Since this pattern of behavior may have long-standing roots, and given the transition from high school to college, is there an opportunity to apply positive peer pressure (i.e., anti-hazing) to students?
-Answer: College is looking more like high school every day; the era of adolescence is being protracted in American society and college is no longer a place where many students are growing up and end up feeling like adults. So, there is a tendency for individuals to deny responsibilities.
-Question: Given the significant overlap between College departments and offices, are there efforts at collaboration?
-Answer: Some; there is more we could do
- All members of the campus community (i.e., students, parents, alumni, faculty, staff, and administration) are stakeholders. All need to participate, be educated, and take ownership to prevent hazing.
- The SAC can assist Mike and Wendi to reach the majority of students who are not impacted by their education/prevention efforts, and to reach out to educate faculty and staff.For example, are there things happening in classrooms that faculty and staff need to be able to recognize and report?
- Amnesty/student conduct concerns apply to the reporting of hazing. Is there a way to do something with amnesty for reports of hazing? We need to make it easy to report hazing. People need to be able to report hazing and not be afraid of getting in trouble once they've done so.
Agenda Item: Further review of the President’s response to the Senate’s recommendations regarding campus safety and the College’s response to campus sexual assault
Melinda DuBois, Administrative Director, Lauderdale Center for Health and Counseling; Deputy Title IX Coordinator for Students; Co-Chair, the Advisory Committee for Campus Safety
-Melinda reported that the Senate’s attention to these issues has been a positive contribution to on-going efforts.
-Melinda noted that hazing is closely related to sexual assault:
-both activities are rooted in cultural norms which accept interpersonal violence;
-issues regarding prevention/education are parallel;
-a shift in campus culture whereby individuals want to report incidents and assist their peers would serve to minimize risks associated with both hazing and sexual assault.
-Despite the Senate’s recommendations, funding for educational programs, prevention efforts, and program management remains ad hoc and typically these programs are funded by Lauderdale Center for Health and Counseling. Dedicated funding remains a need and a top priority. Requests for program and staff funding have been submitted but have yet to be approved.
-As reported elsewhere, on-campus interviews are underway to fill the position of Director of Affirmative Action. Among other responsibilities, this person would oversee Title IX compliance on campus. For example, this person would be responsible to investigate sexual harassment grievances and claims. In 2010, the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in a “Dear Colleagues” letter expanded Title IX protections to include sexual harassment and sexual violence. As noted by President Dahl in his response to the Senate’s recommendations, the implications of this are both far-reaching and have yet to be fully articulated and understood. The to-be-appointed Director of Affirmative Action will play a key role in over-seeing the College’s Title IX compliance efforts. SUNY and the OCR are involved in discussions to develop a SUNY-wide response protocol.
-It was noted that Sarah Keller, Livingston County Rape Crisis Center, is on campus up to four hours each week and may serve as a resource for students.
-The Student Advocate Response Team (SART) is operating with the support of the Division of Student and Campus Life.
-Melinda contends that with increased education, more awareness of resources, and increased reporting options, it is likely that more students will come forward to report incidents of sexual assault.
-Enhanced education is needed:
- students report significant confusion about whether an act was truly sexual assault;
- often in discussions the barriers to reporting are highlighted; this may inadvertently deter students from reporting an incident of sexual assault;
- students need the option to make an anonymous report – this will aid the collection of accurate data;
- faculty and staff need to be educated about response resources, reporting options, doing the right thing for students, etc.
-In 2011-12, nine incidents of sexual assault were reported to campus officials; so far this year, 13 incidents have been reported.
-Beyond ‘official reports,’ Melinda logs anonymous reports and trends; two identifiable trends are an uptick in sexual assault incidents around the start of the semester, and often incidents involve alcohol consumption (most typically by the perpetrator).
-Melinda perceives reluctance by some campus officials to talk openly about the issue and hesitancy among some officials to share reports of sexual assault incidents with other officials, despite recognized “best practices” and legal mandates to do so.
-The spring 2010 survey of 1700 Geneseo students indicated that 1 in 4 students experienced a behaviorally-specific incident of sexual assault. The Geneseo data corroborates findings reported by others who surveyed college populations. The Advisory Committee on Campus Security is sponsoring a campus-wide survey of students’ experience of stalking and domestic violence.
-The Sexual Misconduct Policy is currently being revised to include additional categories of covered individuals and additional acts of misconduct.
-Responses to the National College Health Assessment will be accepted through Friday (3/15). The local version includes two questions regarding sexual assault on campus.
-Continued oversight of the campus response is warranted as are conversations with the to-be-appointed Director of Affirmative Action.
The Senate Student Affairs Committee extends its thanks to Melinda DuBois, Wendi Kinney, and Mike Mooney for meeting with us.
Submitted by Rick Coloccia, Emily Gamello, and Dan Repinski.