Description of the following audio piece:
ROBEL: Welcome back. We're—¬we're—we're living in the proverbial interesting times and that's that will challenge that challenge us this year I think to be, to be better people in thinkers, that's how I'm trying to think it through. We—we begin as we always do with the approval of the minutes. Could I please ask for a motion?
RASMUSEN: So moved.
ROBEL: Thank you and the second?
CALLOWAY-THOMAS: [comment indistinct]
ROBEL: Great. All in favor? [aye] Of opposed? [silence] Terrific. Thank you so very much. I turn at this point to our Vice Provost Eliza Pavalko for a memorial resolution, Eliza—
PAVALKO: Thank you. This is a memorial resolution for Vernon Dee Pace. Vernon Dee Pace is associate professor emeritus in the School of Education where he held academic appointments, first as a doctoral student graduate researcher and then as a professor for thirty years in the department of curriculum instruction. From 1964 to 1994. He died at the age of eighty three. He was dearly loved by all of his past doctoral students who supported him throughout his retirement and is remembered fondly by both former students and colleagues for his sense of humor, good nature, and love of sports. Vernon graduated from Massena High School in 1949 with high honors. He was drafted into the Army where he served for several years. He then attended Simpson College in Iowa and graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Education in 1954. Vernon went on to earn a master's degree from Drake University while teaching and coaching and then becoming principal of a local high school. In 1964, Vernon relocated to Indiana University, where he worked on his doctoral course work as a research assistant to Professor Phil Peek. After earning his doctorate in 1967, Vernon immediately accepted a position as assistant professor in the School of Education at Indiana University and he quickly rose to prominence as a scholar in school evaluation. In 1969, Vernon was appointed as director of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Later, he became the executive director for the National Survey for Student Engagement, one of the top ten educational organizations in the U.S. During his career at IU, he primarily taught courses in general secondary education methods and organized teams of academics to conduct school evaluations in Indiana, throughout the U.S., and internationally. While at IU, Vernon was an avid IU football and basketball fan. He was an IU season ticket holder for both sports and member of the Varsity Club from the day he arrived in Bloomington in 1964 and throughout his retirement. In recognition of Vernon Dee Pace's contributions to the University, the profession, and the world around him, be it resolved that this resolution be made part of the minutes of the Bloomington Faculty Council and then copies be sent to family members including his children.
ROBEL: Thank you so much. Please stand in honor of our colleague. [standing in silence] Thank you. I turn to our new president, Alex Tanford, for a report from the executive committee.
TANFORD: Thank you, Lauren. For those who haven't met me I'm Alex Tanford. I'm a professor at the law school and I have been serving my year as president of the faculty. I'm afraid I lack, for those of you here from last year, I lack Rebecca's wit. And unfortunately, I lack her memory. So for those of you who have been—one standard way as you know doing business in the BFC is to collar one of us in the hallway and say, "you know there's something you ought to look into." If you do that with me, send me an email, follow up, because I won't remember it by the time I get back to my office.
A couple of notes on where we are-sort of the focus of our meetings the next, this and the next two faculty council meetings, barring various emergency things that come up. Our focus today is on issues of diversity. And speech—University of Virginia controversy or speech on campus—that kind of group of issues. For the next meeting, September 19th, we will focus on the physical campus. We'll have a presentation on the new hospital health campus going up on the edge of Bloomington. We will ask for an update on Ballantine renovations, for all of you who occupy or pass through Ballantine, so you'll know what's going on and there be some other issues related to facilities and parking for those of you at SPEA. And we'll see what's going on. Then on October 3rd, our third meeting, the central focus will be on the status of non-tenure track faculty and looking at some preliminary discussions on—particularly on how to think about and improve their voting in participation rights starting with the faculty council itself.
Now as you may or may not know, if you actually read the constitution and bylaws, over the summer when you all are off gallivanting around Europe, the Executive Committee has the authority to act in your interests and in your absence. We are required to report what we did - in case you want to reverse us. There are some things that we did over the summer. One is we created an expanded, non-tenure track task force and put Nick Williams from English in charge of it and has referred to it. The general issue this year of thinking about in organizing our discussion of moving forward on the N.T.T. report that came out of the N.T.T. subcommittee. We have referred the issue of faculty reaction - faculty roles and responsibility on controversy or campus speech - and the Benton murals you know in a teaching classroom. We have referred that to the Student Affairs Committee because it also in - overlaps with a proposed change in the student conduct code on student speech, so we've rolled that in there.
We voted to leave COIA - an obscure acronym to many of you - which is the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. This was an organization originally started with about thirty universities - university senates, university faculty councils put it together a coalition on intercollegiate athletics. And it had in the past few years sort of fallen into dysfunction and had gotten so large that it no longer seemed to have a clear purpose. In a move led by our colleagues at Michigan State and Minnesota, I believe, the - there was a proposal that the Big Ten univ—university faculty senates would be more effective and would have a more listened-to voice for the faculty role on Division One athletic programs. If we were reformed as a Big Ten Athletic Committee, an issue which will be discussed at the upcoming Big Ten something Association meeting, that I have to go to –
ROBEL: Academic Alliance
TANFORD: Academic Alliance. See, I can't even remember the name. Right. Much to my shock I discovered that apparently the primary role of being proud— I don't even get to preside at these meetings, Lauren gets to preside. My perm— my primary job as president, and I'm not trying to sell this short for all of you who want to be interested in running, but is going to meetings.
And the other thing we did we appoint - we declared a vacancy on the Faculty Board of Review, a one year vacancy, and appointed Laura Ginger from the Kelly School, who has previous experience on it, to fill it for one year. That is one of those rare comm—groups that if there is a vacancy it's technically the Faculty Council that votes for the replacement jo—not just the nominations committee—but there was reason to think that that needed to be done because at that point it was down to one member.
The other two things I think we got done over the summer—one was we actually got the agenda to the first meeting out a week ahead of the meeting. And that's a major accomplishment for those who've been around for a while. And—and we, meaning our—the director of Faculty Council office Elizabeth Pear, has created a new fancy Bloomington Faculty Council web site, which she will introduce to you.
PEAR: Thanks. As Alex mentioned, we have a new website for the BFC and I want to quickly highlight two things. First is where you can find the agendas, the minutes, and the circulars for any meeting. Now you go to the meetings tab, you click on the 2017-2018 schedule and if you click on a date it will bring up the agenda and have links to all of the circulars there. This is also where you'll find the minutes, the transcripts, and the audio once the meeting has concluded, so everything will be on that date. The other thing I want to talk about very quickly is that now the website will only have this year's information and materials on it. Before, it had been years prior. Those were all in PDF and PDFs are very bad for ADA compliance and accessibility so we have transitioned all of those into the archives, which you can find here under the archives tab. If you are looking for anything, it's all text searchable and it has everything up through last year. If you are missing something, if you're looking around and you're not finding something that you are looking for, please email the office —we can either get it uploaded in there or we have all of those documents available in the office and we can provide it in any format, printed or electronic, that you that you need. So that's the website.
TANFORD: Can we go back to the first page of the website. On the - on the first page of the website underneath the picture of six happy people is the—just a reminder from last year at the end of last year, the BFC Scholarship Program. This was—this was Rebecca's inspiration last year. Do you want to say something quickly about it?
SPANG: Simply to remind you that this is arose from conversations that we had with the UndocuHoosier Alliance which highlighted the extent to which some citi—some students, because of citizenship status are not eligible for state or federal funding. So any support for them has to come from private donations, such as those that the faculty itself can make. We started it with the hope that we would get a majority of Faculty Council members to make a subscript—to make a contribution. The recommended contributions were for full professors, five hundred and up; for associate professors, two-fifty; for untenured and non-tenure track, one hundred; but those are just suggestions and as anybody who's done anything in development knows, it's crucially important that we can show a large percentage of people—of our members support this initiative. So even if you can, you know, spare thirty dollars it would be great if we could say one hundred percent of the members of the BFC, or eighty-five percent of the members of the BFC have contributed to the scholarship and I would be very happy to give an update on what the giving looks like later in the semester. Thanks.
TANFORD: Then, just a few quick reminders. A reminder one that our BFC meetings are paperless, so that if you need printed copies, for whatever reason, either print them out or contact the BFC office. A reminder that - we're going to make a - we start every year going to make a plausible attempt to try to follow Robert's Rules of Order and our actual bylaws of how we're supposed to proceed.
And, as part of that the usual way or standard procedure for you all to get an action item on the floor of the B F C—an action item is a policy, a resolution, or proposal to amend the bylaws, or I suppose a proposal to call a meeting of the full faculty—is for you to put it in writing and send it, in some form, to the executive committee because the executive committee is charged under the bylaws with preparing the agenda so that's the easiest way to do it. You can get to the executive committee through me, through the faculty council office, through anybody on the executive committee. The other thing you can do is communicate directly to the chairs of the standing committees. They have all been appointed. Their names are on the BFC website and so if you think our Student Affairs Committee should seriously consider whether or not freshmen should be required to live on campus- I don't know whatever you are - and you just think that that's a topic we should be looking at, and there's an obvious Committee for it, you just talk to the chair of the committee. The committees—we the executive committee have some issues we're going to refer to committees, or have already referred to committees, that have come up last year over the summer. The committees also form their own agenda based on their exploration of their areas and on things people tell them. That's how issues - they don't get in front of us is somebody suggests —so the—the—the least effective way to do that is to try to do it spontaneously on the floor in the middle of some other discussion when you don't have anything in writing. That's just very difficult to deal with procedurally and if that happens there will generally be a motion to refer it to a committee, or refer it to the executive committee, so we can at least get something in writing so we all know what we're talking about.
General questions about procedures of committees and review boards and the BFC should generally go to Elizabeth Pear at Bloomington Faculty Council office. Questions about BFC procedures, substitutes, you're going on leave and can't come to meetings, things like that—those precede - how to get in an amendment considered on the floor, those issues to Elizabeth Housworth, our parliamentarian. Other things—gripes, complaints, impeachment motions—those can be given to me. And just a reminder to you, and if the people from your units, when they come up and say "hey, you know, aren't you are representative for the BFC, how do we get something before the BFC?" They go through you, they can come to us directly, we'll take input from anyone - a faculty member, staff, students. It—we encourage people with ideas about how to make this campus a better place, we encourage all of those ideas to be brought to us. We do ask that just generally better if you talk to us in advance of a meeting.
ROBEL: Thank you so much, Alex. Well I—I want to just begin my remarks by thanking you all for agreeing to serve on the council. It is a commitment of time. It's an important commitment of your time to share governance from the campus. We are always going to be better for having the input of the faculty and our student representatives—the representatives of student government who also serve on the council, and the representatives of the staff who are present for the council so I appreciate—I appreciate the fact that you've made this commitment. We'll try to be respectful of this commitment and your time as we go through the year. I wanted to start today with a quick presentation, just to tell you where we ended up with our entering class.
This is the new class for the campus. We have eight thousand and one entering members of the class. They are all in beds in the - in the residence halls. No one is in a lounge at this point, so I want to thank very much, both Tom Morrison's office for working with us so—so assiduously over the summer and Vice Provost Venkat’s work to estimate the—where we were likely to end up this year and make sure that we had the facilities available to accommodate them. And of course all of you for being such spectacular faculty members and thinkers, that people want to come here and study with you. It is—I have been able to say this every year since I have been Provost—it is the most diverse class we have ever had. We have more under-represented students here than we ever have in the past. We have a highly international class, forty-six—or forty countries are represented just in the entering class. We have forty-six states represented in the open and are in class and ninety-one of Indiana's ninety-two counties. The one that continues to elude us is Switzerland County. I—I keep—I keep hoping that we will take Switzerland, but so far the Alps are proven too difficult for us to get through.
The class is also the most academically talented, by the gross numbers of the median G.P.A. and average S.A.T. that we have ever had. It can be continues to be the case that even as our classes are larger, they are highly academically qualified and I want to publicly thank David Johnson, and his staff in the Office of Enrollment Management, for managing a particularly challenging set of circumstances this year to bring us this spectacular class. David's office, with our support of course, decided to take the leap into the common application and we had a record number of applications which meant that predicting where we would end up at the end of this journey, this year, was - was a - was a challenging modeling task or for David's office and they performed it spectacularly and I—I really—I think they deserve a round of applause for the work that they've done. [applause]
Well on a more sobering topic, the attorney general announced earlier today that the president had decided to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. More accurately I believe he's kicked this to Congress. Congress is a—with let's—let's send our most positive thoughts towards Congress and it's grappling with—with this program. Indiana University has strongly supported the DACA program. We have many students on this campus, but quite a few more students in the DACA program at the Indianapolis campus and on some of the regionals and so we've worked very hard to provide all the support we can afford these students who are here through—through no, you know, no decision that they made. And who are our students and therefore deserve every bit of support we can give them. The president released a statement earlier today on DACA, and I'm violating the paperless rules just hand it out, because it was released about an hour or so ago and I'm not sure that you've seen it. We will continue to work with our representatives in Congress. We are hopeful about the fact that House Speaker Paul Ryan has been a supporter of the program in the past and will—will do everything we can to continue to support our students as we as—we always have. So stay tuned and we'll see where that—where that goes. I also am planning to send a statement around tomorrow germane to our discussion topic later in the—in the meeting. It's going to be a complicated year, I think, and assuring that we—that we're able to engage in respectful, civil disagreement as the year goes by, in a way that is consistent with our obligations, both to community and to our legal obligations under the First Amendment of the constitution, is going to take all of our work—our heart—hardest work, really, as educators and teachers. And so I'm—I am drafting—I'll share the draft as it is right now, it will change slightly before I send it tomorrow, a message to the campus that talks about these—these obligations and a little bit about my hope that we're able to think hard about our responsibilities for assuring the ability of our students of whatever—whatever their viewpoints to participate robustly in our classes and that we can engage with all of our students with a sense of empathy for the different backgrounds they come from.
As I say in the note, I have a lot of trust in our community to be able to handle those kinds of conversations but on the back is also sort of rules of engagement that I think we can talk about today. I think they're at a level of generality that should not trouble anyone but I there is so much misunderstanding, I've discovered, about the basic parameters of requirements under the First Amendment that I thought it best that we—I at least open—open the bidding and this conversation as we go forward. And then veering wildly back from more serious to more enjoyable topics, I want to urge every one of you to go this Thursday to the first of the First Thursdays. As usual it is around the Showalter fountain. It has a ton of wonderful acts, performances, participation from lots of the arts and humanities cultural institutions and departments on the campus and schools. It's—if you want to feel good about the world, this is a place to go feel really good about the world and the future. And I encourage all of you to think about bringing a member of the broader Bloomington community with you. Bring your kids if you have them, your partners, your friends. It's free, it's open to everybody and it's nice to kind of throw open the gates at the beginning of the year and welcome our—our broader Bloomington community to our campus. So with that I'll stop and try to keep us on time and ask for comments and questions.
ROBEL: I hope so. If I don't please share. Thank you. I’d welcome any comments on what I'm—what I’m writing as well. By email, or here. Great. Questions? All right. Well, I'm particularly delighted to be able to introduce John Nieto-Phillips as our Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion. John is following Martin McCrory in that role and the office—he has been working very hard to recruit good talent to the office and to restructure it a little bit and—. So I thought it would be helpful for you all to have a sense of where he's going and what he's thinking and to—to think a little bit about who he's brought into the office. So, John.
NIETO-PHILLIPS: Thank you. Everybody hear me OK? Thank you, Provost Robel, for - for inviting me here and thank you President Tanford and the entire BFC for making time to talk about diversity in your first - your first meeting of the year. It's definitely - these are definitely interesting times. My - my telephone is going off at all hours about all kinds of events. Charlottesville of course, a big one, but there are many other issues that are really hot button issues of our day that we have to contend with. I think as a campus, yourselves as a BFC, and in my capacity as vice provost for a relatively new entity. Vice Provost Office of the - Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion. So I wanted to share with you a little bit of the work I've been doing. But, somebody who I hadn't seen in quite a while saw me the other day and said John what's wrong and I said, "What's wrong? I don't know what it looks wrong?" He said well it looks like you've been drinking from the fire hydrant and because I'm trying to assimilate so much information and try to respond to so many different events in real time that I think the issues are wearing on my on my demeanor - on my face or something. But there are lighter moments and there are wonderful moments to doing this kind of work and I just want to open by sharing just a couple of moments—what I call my paycheck moments. Really for me they are paycheck moments. To be able to stand in front of an auditorium at Wittenberg or in the I.M.U. to welcome a near record class of Groups students to you with a record high G.P.A.
In this summer's group's class there were fifty-five 4.0 [GPAs]. Those who completed the summer—summer program with a straight A record. To be able to look out on an auditorium full of students of color is something that I think is very rare at this campus and something I hadn't experienced since I left New Mexico State University fifteen years ago to come here so that's a pay check moment for me. To have that repeated when I go to see 560, another record enrollment of Hudson and Hall and scholars and to be able to welcome them to campus that too is a paycheck moment. These are - these are important positive moments so I hope you will take the Provost's encouragement to go on Thursday and experience hopefully a very good moment, if not a paycheck moment, a very good moment to take us out of the midst of a lot of —a lot of mayhem in the larger context. So, twenty months ago I addressed the BFC and I had just taken the position of Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Development Diversity. Within the office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Academic Affairs. Eliza Pavalko and I worked together all of last year and I completed that - that work on the fifteenth of May when I assumed my new position as Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion and so I wanted to talk a little about—about the work that I did last year and how it figures into the new organization of my office. Among the initiatives that I worked on in the capacity of Associate Vice Provost was we built on a request that was made by my predecessor Claude Clay, who founded the position. A request that was made to the deans of each of the schools to think deeply about diversity what it means to their units, how it figures into their objectives and their goals, the best practices that they plan to institute to bring about greater diversity within their units, and then assessment measures and account for accountability to assess their success. And the deans have undertaken that task, they undertook it. Many of them assigned committees to do the kind of outreach to stakeholders. And some did just a spectacular job of bringing together many voices around a table to talk about how to bring about greater diversity in their units and they put together very thoughtful plans. And so if you haven't seen that diversity plan from your Deans I think I would encourage you to request to see those plans because they should be forthcoming very shortly. I have had the pleasure of this summer of sitting and reading through - I've nearly completed all of them and I think that they reflect the kind of thought and the kind of value that's placed on diversity in the units. So that was one initiative that I undertook last year and I'm glad to say that we have—we have those diversity plans in hand now.
Another initiative that I was part of—had to the pleasure of being a part of was strategic hiring. Efforts to reach out to the deans and to explain how the strategic recruitment fund works to see what I could do to help to facilitate hiring and - between the provost and Vice Provost Pavalko and we did - I think a real vigorous job of outreach and I'm really really pleased with how various units and hiring committees responded. I can talk a little bit more at the end of this presentation—I'll talk a little bit more about figures but that was one of the—that was one of the kind of highlights of my work last year that I that I really enjoyed. I also worked on retention efforts—retention efforts to retain faculty who are contemplating leaving or who were in some cases kind of sounding out their options—had a chance to meet with them individually, had a chance to speak with their chairs and in some cases their deans to see what we could do to try to retain our best faculty and that was something I really enjoyed and feel like we did our best effort and I think in many instances we did a really good effort.
More generally, I was involved in faculty outreach, met with faculty to feel their concerns about issues of climate in their departments, in their units. I met with new faculty to welcome them to campus and to orient them to some of the resources and various kinds of communities that they could be a part of. And I met with prospective faculty to also welcome them to the campus and to sound out any of their concerns about coming to a predominately white institution such as Indiana University. So that - that job ended for me in May of this last year when I started the new position and the new structure builds on a position that Martin McCrory, my predecessor, began - inaugurated four years ago. Now Martin was the Vice Provost for Educational Inclusion and Diversity, as the office was then known. And in his portfolio were six academic programs including Hudson and Holland, Groups, Twenty First Century, mentoring, leadership initiatives, the academic support center, and the DEMA overseas study program. So all of those programs reported to Martin. In thinking through how we could best coordinate our efforts—efforts directed toward faculty on the one hand, efforts directed toward student recruitment and retention and success on the other, but then also efforts directed at the units and trying to coordinate diversity across the schools. The Provost, myself, and Vice President James Wimbush met a few times and we thought through what a new structure might look like to be able to coordinate those efforts and we came to the conclusion that it would involve the assistance of three Associate Vice Provosts. One that would be faculty facing, one that would be student facing, and one that would be institutional—institution facing and so that's exactly what we—we—we settled on. I was over the summer had the great pleasure to be able to reach out to some of our colleagues in the faculty ranks and I'm very - very pleased to welcome on board Professor Dionne Danns who's the chair of her department in Education Leadership and Policy Studies, Professor Stephanie Lee who's a Susan Gubar chair in English, and Professor Mary Murphy who's in Psychological and Brain Studies. And so each of them respectively are working on institutional faculty and student facing initiatives.
As part of this new portfolio however, we folded in the five culture centers: the Asian culture center; First Nations Educational and cultural center; La Casa, the Latino cultural center; LGBTQ+ and the Neil Marshall Black Culture Center. And so between those six programs and the five centers those are all folded into this new office. And so it's a fairly large portfolio and it ranges from everything having to do with these diversity plans sort of on the school, or the unit scale, all the way down to advising students and mentoring them and pairing them up with faculty. And I know that you're going to have a presentation by one of my directors—one of our directors, Arnell Hammond, and about opportunity to do just that.
So briefly what have we done or what are we embarking on? Well I think there's some good things. Things that we could feel good about for the last year. I think the provost rightly pointed out that our entering class is not only the largest class in the history of IU, it's also the most diverse. Seventeen percent of the entering class of eight thousand students is under-represented minority. That is to say African-American, Latino, Native American, and of mixed race, and that in itself is a record. And they are as well the most academically accomplished under-represented cohort. So that's something that we can feel accomplished about, feel good about. I think there's been incremental change over the last ten years or under-represented minority percentage of the total student population of you has doubled in the last ten years so there's progress, it's been incremental, and it's been in the right direction.
Where faculty of color are concerned, on the tenure track level we all also have realized some gains that I think deserve some consideration. This last year there were seventy seven tenure track positions filled, so we welcomed seventy seven faculty to you Bloomington campus who are on the tenure track and of them twenty three percent are under-represented minority and that too is for us is a notable achievement. The previous year that number was thirteen percent. So I feel that we've made some progress, some headway there and if we can sustain that then I think we really have accomplished something special. I think I'm going to stop there to leave some time for Q and A but I have other statistics and things that I could refer to but I think I'll just stop it right there.
ROBEL: Thank you so much, John. I really appreciate that report. Let's open it up for questions.
ARNOVE: So John, before the meeting we talked about diversity within the tenure track faculty but not non-tenure track faculty so Eliza Pavalko has that information, right? Could you just tell us a little bit more about the diversity within the tenure track? And then when you were talking what struck me when you were discussing standing before the incoming groups Group and Wittenburg auditorium, could you talk a little bit about - bit about the diversity within the groups program and not only with regard to ethnicity, but let's say rural-urban, social class, or disability. To what extent those factors are also taken into account but I do want to congratulate you on these significant initiatives not only to recruit and retain, but to welcome and encourage - provide conditions that enable diverse students and faculty to feel engaged with the university so congratulations.
NIETO-PHILLIPS: Thank you, but it's really not me who you should congratulate. It's really the directors who look at you and say are really the directors of the programs are—are the ones who are really responsible for the gains that we've seen. I just had the good fortune of being in the right place at the right time and stepping into those numbers, so it's really the many directors that we have on board who are doing such a fabulous job. So now to start with the—you want to kind of a breakdown of the under-represented minority tenure track faculty.
So an interesting phenomenon that we've seen in recent years is there's a rise in two or more races being the designation—self designation that many people are—are marking on their applications and either employment or in just in their application to the university. And so that number that number is up, but so too are the numbers for across the board African-American and Native—and African-American Latino faculty members are up. What we are not doing as good a job as we really ought to do in is Native American scholars who are vastly vastly grossly under represented and that's not just here at IU but that's throughout academia in the United States. But we, in particular, at the I think have a real challenge and I think we need to address that challenge and that's what I take to be one of my important priorities and missions for the coming—the coming year.
You asked about the diversity within Groups. I can't speak to disability diversity within Groups. I'm sorry that I don't have the breakdown of the entering class for this year by disability. I can say that first generation students of all backgrounds, of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, their numbers absolutely are up along with along with particularly Latino students. I cannot speak authoritatively with the exact numbers of African American students on campus. I can say that their numbers have generally been up but more modestly than Latino numbers. A couple of things could account for that. Demographic trends. The African-American population in Indiana has grown but very modestly in the last say five years. It's projected actually to decline in the coming five years. That is to say the overall state population of African-Americans and more specifically the cohort that is the eighteen to twenty four age bracket. The inverse is true the of—of—for Latinos nationwide Latinos comprise virtually one in four elementary school students is Latino or Latino. And those are - the shifting demographic nationally is going to have an impact on those who apply to IU but also Indiana is starting to reflect the tremendous growth of the Latino population so our numbers for Latinos are up, African-Americans holding steady roughly, and first generation are up.
ARNOVE: And then, I don’t know if Eliza can talk a little bit about the non-tenure track faculty what the composition - composition is. And the numbers.
PAVALKO: I don't know off the top of my head so but I'd be happy to talk about it other than…
NIETO-PHILLIPS: I can tell you a little bit, I think if you'd like of some just a general statement about that. The numbers of the gains that we've seen at the tenure track level I think were due in part to the investments that were made by the campus in incentivizing diversity at the tenure track level. Those investments were huge. They were double the previous year’s investments. Consequently we had roughly double the number of minority faculty being hired and senior women faculty being hired using those funds. We've seen they make real gains those are real substantive, not flash in the pan gains - those are real gains that are grounded I think in our investments in where we put our funding priorities. So those have paid off and in a real way. I can't say that that is true necessarily for the non-tenure track faculty and folks have asked me "So why don't you fund the same kind of investments for non-tenure track faculty?" and I think that's a difficult question. It's sort of beyond my realm because I don't deal specifically with how those investments are made or not but I do think that the gains that we've seen are made because we've also made real investments, not just in terms of money but in terms of the hiring workshop that we now require for tenure track hires, to help people think through implicit bias. To think through their best practices for recruiting a highly diverse pool of candidates. And that requirement by the way is very much attached to the funding so any tenure track hires that are made at IU are made with the expectation that a least one member of the hiring committee must attend that hiring workshop. And this year's hiring workshop is going to be September fifteenth from 9am to 1pm in the Frangipani room.
ARNOVE: Thank you.
CALLOWAY-THOMAS: I would also like to thank you John for your progressive report. I'm keenly interested in the departments and units where these new individuals are. Can you give us a sense of the breakdown in terms of departments and units?
NIETO-PHILLIPS: I think it's difficult to say because when we're talking about seventy seven faculty members, they are spread out across the campus and I wouldn't say that they're clustered particularly in one school or in one department. So you can imagine the numbers. Twenty-three percent of seventy seven would be seventeen or so faculty and they're not clustered in a particular unit or department.
CALLOWAY-THOMAS: And how many of the hires due to the Provost's money?
NIETO-PHILLIPS: I would say, if not all, the vast majority.
CALLOWAY-THOMAS: Interesting. And how do you reconcile that with the progress that other departments and units have being made in light of the money to be coming from of the Provost?
NIETO-PHILLIPS: I was wondering and can you clarify a little bit what you mean by that? I'm not quite sure.
CALLOWAY-THOMAS: Yes. That's a large proportion of the funds seem to be coming from the Provost's money. I want to know how you reconciling the progress that is being made if it were not for that money. In other words what are units and departments to do and independently of the Provost's money?
NIETO-PHILLIPS: I think that's an excellent question and I think that the Deans would be more well positioned to answer how they prioritize diversity within their diversity plans and within their practices. I can't speak for them I can only speak to the outcomes of our efforts to reach out to them. I can say that they're—that when we explain to them the purpose of the mechanism of the strategic hiring find and they come to understand how it can incentivize the work of diversity they're very interested but there are also plenty of Deans who are, independent of the funding, are very committed to diversity. So, in instances where I think you have a concern you absolutely should consult your dean and find out. Kind of ask—put that question to them.
ROBEL: Okay, I mean I'd just say that I feel a little uncomfortable with the characterization of this as the Provost's money. This strategic hiring fund was created I think by this body's action quite a few years ago and it has—it has been a—I think both as a dean myself before I was provost and since I've been in the office I'm in now. What I think it really helps to do is help faculty members and deans think about how there can make progress on diversity in all fiscal climates you know. So there are there are lots of tradeoffs that deans and faculties make when they're hiring. Everybody in this room knows that. We've all been involved in those kinds of discussions. And this is a firm commitment from the campus backed up by this body backed up by—really by the entire campus to say when you can make progress on these goals we will support you. So I prefer to kind of think of it that way you know I don't think it's a sort of a choice between commitment and not commitment. I think it's a thumb on the scale for providing a predictable source of resources for our campus commitment to this set of goals no matter what the other fiscal climate might be in the school.
CALLOWAY-THOMAS: May I ask another question please?
ROBEL: Okay. All right. I yield.
RASMUSEN: Let's see here. By the way so I just press that yes, on. Okay, I want to congratulate you or your office on the academic ability approving of the minorities that is an achievement to be proud of. What are the G.P.A. and SAT levels for them?
I don't have the exact—maybe I do so you can hold on just one second. I can give you for the Groups incoming class. It is up from 3.33 to 3.42 in one year which is substantial. Again a record—near record size of enrollment as well as accomplishment. And I don't have—I don't have those figures but I do know, having spoken with the director, that their academic scores again were substantially higher. Did I mention to you that from the previous year for 420—that Hudson Holland has gone—the program has grown to five sixty in one year from 420 to 560. The number of students that were funded through that program. Massive.
ROBEL: Thank you and…
HENSHEL: In the past, diversity has generally included women in the sciences, both at the undergraduate, graduate, and at the faculty level and I heard nothing of that. Could you discuss that, please?
NIETO-PHILLIPS: Yeah. The same fund that we've been discussing also is available for the recruitment of senior women in areas where they are underrepresented and that is many areas across the campus. And so that has actually enabled - at least half of the strategic hires have fallen into that category. So in terms of sciences, certainly that has been perhaps are the biggest challenge in terms of recruitment and also the retention and promotion of women in the sciences and it continues to be I think one of the most challenging and. I think important priorities that we have before us. In terms of undergraduate women in the sciences, I don't have any specific information to offer to you in that regard. What exactly did you want to know?
HENSHEL: Well, there used to be a bunch of programs to encourage women to move into the sciences and stay in the sciences and to keep graduate students—graduate women in the sciences and I mean I keep hearing you talk about underrepresented minorities which is fine but women in the sciences is still a huge problem on this campus.
ROBEL: I can speak a little bit to that. For quite a few years now I have supported a fund that supports what women faculty members and graduate students in the sciences and professional development. It's mostly in the college. And it's pretty fully subscribed every year. And it's actually led to a lot of professional development opportunities I think for the people involved. We also have worked really hard at the campus level through Maureen Biggers' incredible efforts in the Center of Excellence for Women in Technology to try to encourage and support women - in particularly in technology - but there are a lot of women in the sciences who take advantage of that program. And it at it has ended up being one of the most explosive growth areas of the entire campus. They seem not to double every year but to kind of grow in a - you know in in a mushroom sort of way. So I think that there's a lot of effort in that area that is being led by various parts around the campus and we're seeing it in requests to the strategic hiring fund as well. And for those of you who were who were maybe mentally noting at the beginning when John mentioned the terrific colleagues that he had recruited into the office. Three Associate Vice Provost that seems like a lot of people. They actually add up to one person in terms of their number of appointments and they're really quite a talented group and I'm looking forward to having the opportunity for you all to meet them. And at this point I think we're at the point in the agenda where I need to stop, but we can certainly come back to this topic another time. Thank you so much, John. And thank you to all of your colleagues.
At this point I think I'll turn to Steve Sanders is the chair of the Student Affairs Committee and Michael Moroney is chair of the Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee. And I know Steve you just got here and I feel bad because I got handed something out of the very beginning, so I'll make sure you have a copy to you. This is a draft of something that I've hoping to get out to the campus tomorrow but subject to the discussion that we're about to have.
SANDERS: Okay. Thank you Lauren and I don't have an - I can speak for Michael and I don't think we have a lot to present specifically. My understanding is that Alex had asked us to basically just facilitate some discussion among members of the Council of issues that fall under the general heading of speech, expression, diversity, campus safety, civility. In part because our two committees are the two committees that are most directly concerned with those issues and particularly because as Provost Robel and Vice Provost Lori Reesor, our Dean of Students, continue to work on clarifications or revisions or possibly extensions of policies related to speech on campus. Those things are likely to come to one or both of our committees. These things almost inevitably involve students because students are either the sponsors or the audience for these things and as faculty members we have a responsibility for the commons for the larger climate and common good of our campus and I think both of our committees see it as our purview and our committees exist in part so the faculty can assert their responsibility for those things. Michael and I hosted, or led, or facilitated, a discussion at the BFC retreat related to these issues. Some of you were there. We didn't have anything on the table. We didn't reach any particular conclusions or come to any particular proposals or recommendations.
I think it's fair to say our discussion revolves around diversity, speech, expression, civility, on two different planes. There is of course the class room plane and I think it's fair to say that our discussion underscored the idea that everyone had a consensus that faculty members must retain authority and control over what happens in their classroom, their pedagogical goals, classroom management, that the classroom cannot be hijacked by a particular voices or particular kinds of expression in ways that disrupt the learning environment. The Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning has, if you're interested, in it a fairly good website a fairly extensive discussion of what it calls managing difficult classroom discussions rather than give you the whole U.R.L. you can just Google IUCITL and managing difficult classroom discussions and it will provide that. The General Counsel's office provided to Lori Reesor and Lori in turn I think provided it to Eliza and Eliza in turn provided to academic associate deans, some First Amendment guidance about what faculty members may and may not do in the classroom to police or regulate particular kinds of speech and expression. I have those in front of me. I wasn't going to take the time to read it, but if anyone who if anyone would like clarification on that I can provide it or I think that's basically a public document now it can be provided to you it went to the academic associate as of our schools.
So I mentioned there's the classroom context but also there's the context of the larger campus community. I think we feel that diversity in affirmative action and student affairs in part exist to look out for the larger welfare of our campus climate to assure again the safety, civility that this remains a place where learning and discussion can take place. I think there was consensus among the people who were in our group at the retreat that faculty and academic units and recognized student organizations should continue to be able to organize and host speakers and events as they choose and those who disagree with those perspectives should be allowed to constructively critique them. But that the campus administration should be responsible for reasonable safety precautions. But the campus administration doesn't exist to pass judgment on the merits of particular events or protests or speakers or panels. It's obligated to handle those, as it is by law under the First Amendment, in an even handed way we as a public university are bound by the First Amendment in some ways, whether we like those restrictions or not. There's a lot of case law that's been developed about what is or is not an infringement of First Amendment rights in particular classroom or campus conduct. But that at a time when the rule of law is under pressure and under difficult times in various aspects of our country, we may for better or worse have to embrace the idea that we are bound by the rule of law when it comes to the First Amendment. I didn't really prepare anything formally. That's my kind of off the cuff recollection of the broad outlines of the discussion we had at the retreat.
MORRONE: That pretty much sums it up but what I would add is that the agenda item is asking us to discuss the idea of the faculty role and managing conflict and maintaining collegiality is well stated. I think that we really need to know where faculty feel empowered; where they feel challenged to carry out their role in managing this conflict. What do they see as the particular pressure points? Do they know where to go if the conflict becomes bad and I think that hearing from you will help guide us in terms of the work that we will do this year.
SANDERS: So with that I think our job is simply to facilitate a kind of listening discussion, again with the understanding that particular things may come to one or both of our committees. Vice Provost Reesor told me this morning that she and others, and Lauren, are continuing to work on not so much new policies but on restatements or clarifications of existing policies related to campus speech and expression events that student organizations may sponsor, may be involved with. And Lori has indicated that she would like to talk those over with our committee before anything becomes concrete. So I think we have a very good working relationship in the understanding that as the campus administration works through these issues we have tried to underscore, and I believe Lauren and Lori and others recognize, that the faculty have been in an obvious interest in these matters and should play a role in these policies as they are developed.
ROBEL: I think that discussion that you us and might just describe would be enormously helpful for thinking this through as a community. So with that, I opened it up.
ARNOVE: Since you decided to talk about free speech at the level or the plane of the classroom I like to bring it to the level of the campus. And I'm going to talk about a hypothetical situation which is not so hypothetical and is likely to be an impending issue. The group of Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan decide to march on campus with assault rifles and torches. Is this a free speech issue or is it a provocation to a riot? How is the university going to respond to this possible problem?
ROBEL: I am happy to talk about that the. First off torches are banned on our campus, so just to be clear. And many kinds of open flame also but torches in particular. As are weapons, so I think we're in a pretty good position to resist that kind of imposition on our campus. I have had difficulty getting my hands on the decision, perhaps you have it Steve, that the judge in Charlottesville issued with respect to that particular demonstration. I have—I suspect that there is no—there was—and I don't know how they got to the conclusion they got to just to be blunt—but we don't allow firearms and we don't allow torches. So I hope that that's helpful. One of the things we have to be able to do is evaluate safety in all kinds of contexts and one of the ways in which we have to do that is in a context in which we recognize that the presence of people who vehemently disagree with views or despise them is not enough to tell people they can't be on our campus. We can impose time, place, and manner restrictions, we can impose protocols for using our facilities. I have very strong views about that. But we have to be able to recognize that there are limits to what the campus can and can't do.
SANDERS: I think Bob another way of putting it is that the campus may regulate conduct, like carrying firearms, carrying torches, as long as those rules are neutral. They apply to everybody, whether it's the Anti-Fa or the White Supremacists or whoever what the campus can't do is censor particular messages or ideas that people want to express if they're doing it in a in a way that doesn't present an imminent threat to safety or some other conduct violation that we already regulate.
ARNOVE: Who's going to decide what constitutes an imminent threat to safety? And assuming that people are marching hundreds but marching without torches and weapons, what kind of response would the university have to that situation?
SANDERS: I think—I would—not that I'm trying to dodge it, I think the answer has to come from the administration but so often these things have to do with the training the police are given and an imminent threat, the courts have made fairly clear, means an actual sort of call to arms. Expression that specifically calls on people to engage in some act of violence and some act that that harms someone's safety or property but unfortunately the lawyerly answer is also that sometimes we don't know until a tragedy occurs and it's sorted out by the courts whether or not the police acted reasonably or not.
HOUSWORTH: So you're particularly talking about classroom discussions. And the Chairs, at least in the College, were sent a communication recently from the Dean of Students about what to do for instance if somebody shows up to class where wearing offensive materials, like showing up with a swastika on their shirt or hat. And part of that document was that you weren't supposed to kick them out just because they showed up wearing that clothing, and another part was that you could use this as the opening of a discussion, probably depending on what type of class you teach. I can't quite fathom how to bring that into a math class. And then the other thing is if it got disruptive then there are standard procedures where you do not have to tolerate disruptive students in your class. And talking about it with others some people actually feel that, say wearing a swastika on a shirt or a hat, in some types of classes is itself disruptive because the class itself might be about the Holocaust, for instance. Is there a time ever when the clothing itself might be deemed disruptive?
SANDERS: I can only—so I can attempt to answer that not on behalf of the Student Affairs Committee but in my understanding of First Amendment law as a lawyer. And Elizabeth, the guidance you mention is exactly what I referred to earlier. It's essentially an email, it really wasn't a formal policy but it was a sort of informal e-mail drafted by Kip Drew in the general counsel's office sent to Laurie, in which Laurie then shared with the academic associate deans, and which as you say made its way to chairs. I would say you described it accurately and my—I am not a First Amendment expert but my understanding—I feel fairly confident in saying that in the scenario you described, that probably if you prohibited a student from wearing that shirt and were taken to court you and the university would probably lose. The courts, again whether we like this or not, this was not a statement of Kip Drew's opinion, this is a statement of her understanding of First Amendment law. The courts have been fairly clear that the offensive clothing has to be something that actually does generate or is almost to a moral certainty, that the teacher knows it will generate a disruption of the learning environment meaning that learning really can't take place. And that doesn't mean a heckler's veto, it means that actually it means that if people start skipping class and boycotting the class saying they can't be in the same classroom, that might be something that adds up to a viable theory that there has been a disruption. The frustrating thing about this kind of law, like so many other parts of Constitutional law is it's very fact dependent. Something can happen and we don't know until the court—unless some court has considered precisely that claim, we don't know how a court might come down if the students sues.
ROBEL: Can I add though, when General Counsel was formulating that answer and the question came up, I don't know how many collective years of teaching experience there is in this room. I would guess thousands. And in all of that time, having a student show up to do something like was just described in a class in which the student—well at all, I want even qualify it—is not within my memory or contemplation. So I think it's important for us to really think about this not necessarily, you know, just as First Amendment lawyers, but also just as teachers and think about our experience in the classroom. I think that if an undergraduate student did something that provocative, it's a conversation that you have with the student. Right? It's a conversation you have with the student as a teacher. And my guess, my hope, is that having not had this experience and understanding that we can keep people out of our classes who aren't signed up for them, for the most part those students are in relationships with us.
If a conservative student can write in the I.D.S. as one did this week, that "no conservative student would even think to speak up in class because they're so afraid that they're going to be, somehow, judged harshly by their faculty members" then I think hopping straight to the swastika on the shirt is probably a big jump. Yeah, Alex?
TANFORD: I've done a fair amount of First Amendment legal work and I can assure you all that the law is not an answer to any of your questions. And that's for two reasons. One is because it is tremendously complicated. I was involved in a case in which the A.C.L.U. appeared on both sides of the case. One was a state chapter and one was the national chapter so that if they can't decide there, then the answer is not going to be simple. There are a couple things clearly. One is that there's sort of this general notion that there's some Constitutional limit on hate speech. There's no such concept in the law as hate speech. The First Amendment isn't needed to protect pleasant speech because no one objects to it. And the other problem with thinking about the law is the law will sort this out after three years of litigation and the students have all graduated. What we have to do is figure out how, as reasonable people, we deal with - we respond at the time in some reasoned and thoughtful way. Preferably one that does not get us on the front page of The Star but if it even if it does that's after the fact. And what we've got is sort of an immediate issue.
HENSHEL: Can I get some clarification please part of the problem including in academia has been incitement to harassment and part of that is through social media obviously. A) What's the legal status of that? and B) where does IU stand on that and otherwise could we develop a policy?
ROBEL: Are you talking about what people do under social media accounts?
HENSHEL: Yeah, but I mean, it ends up affecting their life in general when it gets to a certain point, right. And I think it's not violence per se though it does bleed over into violence, in some cases and bleeds over into direct threats in some cases, not on this campus but it has happened. And I think we can't ignore the fact that social media is a means by which communication happens and it can be a means of incitement. And so I would like to hear what you have to say about it.
ROBEL: Me personally? Or me as a representative?
HENSHEL: As a representative. Sorry, Lauren.
ROBEL: Okay. I think for the most part people social media accounts are their own social media accounts. And that if there are things going on the social media accounts that raise concerns about safety and that they come to our attention, then you go you go straight to the person involved and you often involve law enforcement. There's not a very old case when the Supreme Court on this very thing so it's a—these I just have to say these are just very fact intensive.
HENSHEL: I understand what you're saying but you're also saying is you think that there's a single person in the end that, or once the rabbits out, you can go after a single person and stop the rabbit or start.
ROBEL: No. I'm really not saying that. I'm saying that often—so the experience I've had with social media accounts ranges from people finding them offensive, which is not my business, to things that feel like and look like actual threats towards a specific human being, which can be my business. And if we're in that latter place, we call the police, we have the police look at it, we talk to the person who's the target. You know, we do those the kinds of sensible things that you think, but we're just not in the business otherwise of regulating what people do in social media.
SANDERS: I have done—I have actually identified sort of social media as an area I'd like our committee to look at this year, specifically with the Office of Student Conduct. I think it's accurate to say right now, though, that the basic answer to your question is, rightly or wrongly, the code of student ethics currently doesn't have any separate category for social media. That is, basically, if someone says something on Facebook that is sufficient, sufficient to trigger the idea that they are making a credible legitimate threat or attack on somebody, that is treated no differently than if they said that in a face to face confrontation or wrote it in a memo or on e-mail. Similarly if somebody is just spouting off an ideological viewpoint on social media, just as they're free to stand in Dunn Meadow and say that same thing, they're free to say it on social media. So up until now the code doesn't treat social media as a distinct form. If something is threatening, if something is harassment, rises to the level that it triggers our definition of harassment, there's no special consideration given to whether it happened on social media or in some other expressive context.
HENSHEL: Okay, so the issue that I think needs to be looked at and addressed specifically is the amplification problem of social media because it may start from a single person but the incitement is to this amorphous set of people that can become trolls and then that's where it's uncontrolled and that's where it gets very dangerous because now you've got people that are, you know, in it because they feel like being obnoxious.
SANDERS: You know, I agree with you. I have the instinct that social media does have some unique properties. I think the first thing we'll probably do, and the first thing that the Office of Student Conduct will want to do, is say well what have other universities done, what are some best practices on this topic.
HENSHEL: And then I just point out that there have been trolling of professors, happened at other universities through this kind of incitement and amplification, so it's not like it's not happening and not to mention the other major things that have happened across multiple universities or that have targeted faculty.
ROBEL: Thank you. Rebecca?
SPANG: Very briefly I wanted to mention that when the memo from Kip Drew went around, I happened to be in a meeting with the lamp a student advisory board so I said to the students, "what would you think if somebody came to class wearing a Nazi armband or a Confederate uniform?" And the student said "we'd think he's a real creep." And what was super interesting to me is the way that they all jumped to the assumption it would be a guy. And I mean it was a mixed gender group of students but they all knew anybody who would do that, he is a creep. So then I said, "Do you think I should address the student?" And one of these students said, and she's an R.A., and I'm sure she's had training on how to deal with disruptive students, the student who's an R.A. said, "Not in the classroom because what that student wants is attention, and if you take time away from whatever the class discussion is supposed to be to say hey Johnny what's with the armband, then all of us have to sit through your conversation with this creep. So you should definitely talk to him but wait until the rest of the students are gone." So there's the advice that I got from, I think, a very wise twenty year old.
ROBEL: Great. Eric is next.
RASMUSEN: As Alex was saying, law doesn't work too well, rules may not work too well. We're teachers we should remember and we're facing immature students so I think you have to, at the moment, decide is this a case where I talk to him after class or is this a case where all the other students will one drive through something in class. I can imagine this coming up probably not with swastikas so much as maybe naked bodies on t-shirts or things like that. If anybody has any advice on that, maybe the rest of us do need to hear about that.
CHERRY: Yes if we're going to look at some of these issues more closely I just want to draw to your attention that in June, Harvard rescinded admissions to at least ten perspective students because they traded sexually explicit memes in messages that sometimes target minority members on Facebook. And so it seems related to me anyway, what is the scope of how a university might respond to I didn't know people happen to be aware of that and whether that's something you might want to take into account is what some of the actions of some of the universities have been.
SANDERS: I think I'd heard the basic outlines but I don't know enough about the particulars. One important distinction may be that because Harvard is private, it is not subject to the First Amendment and we are public. So that may be a difference in what they can get away with versus what we can get away with.
CHERRY: That can be, but I just thought it might be interesting because it just so happened I had a recollection of it so I brought it up really quickly on my web here, but it says in the group it just factually just so happens that students sent each other memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, deaths of children, those kinds of things. It just might be worth looking into to see to what extent it, is, does or does not, hinge on the fact it is a private university. I don't know but it just thinks it's helpful to be aware of what others are doing to see where the line drawing is. So I just didn't know if others were aware of that so I just thought I'd mention it.
ROBEL: Other thoughts and comments or things that the committee should take on?
WINECOFF: This is really just a question. I'm having students talking to me or asking me about the Benton murals and was wondering the extent to which the administration wants to have an open conversation about this and will provide mechanisms for doing so. I tried to explain some of the history but it is some more communication to the whole community might be useful.
ROBEL: That's a great question. The Benton murals come up about every five years and so the university - I was looking recently to find out what the protocols are for the classroom because those have kind of waxed and waned as well and also what the - what kind of educational context is outside the classroom, where that video is that people had produced when this came up last time, and I just don't feel like I'm quite ready to have that conversation yet. I think I need a little bit more time to just be sure I know exactly what's happening around those miracles at this point. I see a couple of, you know, I see many sides to this. It's an important piece of art and it's an important piece of art that we as a university have stewardship over. The history and the video and the educational materials around it can give you the context. It's also in the classroom, which means that if you're going to provide the context you have to take class time and work through that so I just feel like I need a little bit more time to understand exactly what's happening around the murals now.
ARNOVE: I was on the committee that initially dealt with issue and recommended the movie in that the first class of the semester in that Woodburn Hall room to discuss the history of the mural and right now if you go to Woodburn Hall, outside the classrooms, there's the description of the history but the main point of that murals is to show that the press and education are fighting ignorance and prejudice. Is that this is part of it and it can be fought and the press and teachers and others can fight it. So that was the important point that we came out of with the movie and the initial discussion on the first day of class.
ROBEL: Other thoughts or comments that could be useful for the committee?
COHEN: Thank you for this discussion. I want to go back a little bit to the message that was sent around earlier, in the sense that sort of in between in Elisabeth and Lauren's comments, the situation that was suggested within the context of the Jewish Studies program certainly raised a great deal of alarm even though it has never happened in the memory of many of us. I have never seen it although there were anti-Semitic actions that were done that led to the destruction of property that were addressed. And so the first thing I'd like to suggest is first that specific instances like that, that we be very careful about stating those as potential situations that could arise before they arise. Secondly, that we have a number of international faculty here who look at freedom of speech rights in very different ways. Let's say a member of the faculty that comes from Germany may look at the appearance of a swastika somewhere in a very different way than someone who was raised in the United States or has much more familiarity and so I'd like to also suggest that there be specific ways to address international faculty in order to prepare them for these kinds of situations.
SANDERS: Not to try to pass the hot potato but I wonder if I'm thinking of Eliza, whether there's—and I don't know whether there is any particular orientation program that say international faculty get, that other faculty don't or has thought been given to the idea of maybe for all faculty, some kind of crash course about the First Amendment and speech in these kinds of issues. In other words, should the university be training faculty about this and if that is the case, I would think that would come through the Vice Provost's office.
PAVALKO: Yes, currently we don't have any particular training orientation for that but I mean we certainly could think about it. But I would say this point where I would steer faculty is the Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning because they do have such good resources and I know they do workshops and brown bags on it as well as well as the resources they have on their website. So certainly that's a really good resource for all of our faculty.
ROBEL: And I do really want to thank you, Judah, for that reminder. About thirty-five percent of our faculty I think are from other traditions and countries and so it's important and that's assuming that faculty members in the United States understand what the First Amendment requires, which is, that you know which is a stretch to begin with so I think it is important. What this little note I put together was intended to just put some first principles out but it is important to understand that we're very different from many other liberal democracies in the way we approach speech and important that people who have the responsibility of thinking about our classrooms have also the opportunity just think about these principles. Moira? Last one.
MARSH: Just a little historical note. Remembering back you know these many years the first time that I came to a BFC meeting as a BFC member, I believe that on the agenda there was a discussion of scurrilous t-shirts, more scurrilous phrases on t-shirts and what should we do about them and I think that the consensus was at the end of we had to put up with them because of history. And so the reason I mention that now is to some extent we've been here before as is often the case.
ROBEL: Well thank you for taking us historically into the archives since we don't have Rebecca in this role right now and with that I'm sure these are discussions will return to personally and professionally many times this semester. I really thank you Michael and Steve for taking this on and thinking about it and let us know if there's more that we can do to inform the committees’ discussions. So I'd like to turn to our last topic which is a presentation on the Vice President for Diversity Equity and Multicultural Affairs faculty mentoring initiatives. And I'll look to Arnell.
HAMMOND: I have some brochures. Would it be alright to hand them out? Okay.
ROBEL: They're going around if any of you have comments on what I wrote and handed out of that you would be willing to send me, I would like to get it out to morrow I think but if there's anything that you'd like to alert me to, at this time that would be helpful.
HAMMOND: My name is Arnell Hammond and I'm director of faculty mentoring initiative so I'm here today to acquaint you with the program and ask for your support in encouraging faculty in your schools and disciplines to become mentors to an undergraduate student. Facul-mentoring initiative is a program that matches faculty with underclassman in a mentor-protégée relationship it's really a revitalization of the old Phase faculty and staff for student excellence mentoring program that was on campus for many years. The Phase peer mentoring program is still in existence. The program is offered under the auspices of the office of the Vice President for Diversity Equity and Multicultural Affairs with James Winbush and the Office of the Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion with John Nieto-Philips and Mentoring Services and Leadership Development Patrick Smith. The goals of the program are to enhance undergraduate student detention, encourage persistence to timely degree completion, inspire student engagement and leadership development, and foster mentoring relationships between faculty and undergraduates on the Bloomington campus. In terms of time commitment mentors and protégés are asked to meet for one academic year. They can continue into the next academic year, if it's mutually agreeable. Matches decide when and where they will meet and for how long depending upon their individual schedules.
Faculty mentors work with sophomore, junior, and senior protégés throughout the academic year, one on one, in small groups, by e-mail or by phone, in person, in large groups with campus partners, however they decide they want to do it. Mentors receive training and ongoing support from faculty mentoring initiatives staff. This year we've planned several workshops The first will be with Dr. Buffy Smith from the University of St. Thomas. She is a nationally recognized expert on mentoring. She'll be here September 28th and 29th. She will talk about best practices for mentoring helping students achieve success in the formal curriculum as well as the hidden curriculum. And she'll talk about some of the common myths of mentoring and keys to successful mentoring. In terms of statistics, last year which was the inaugural year we had about one hundred faculty and one hundred forty students signed up for the program. There were sixty-five—okay, for mentors there were sixty-five female mentors, thirty-six male mentors. There were four top schools: the College, SPEA, Public Health, and the Kelly school. Then there were 102 female protégés, thirty-seven male protégés, and they came from the College, Public Health, SPEA, Kelley School, and Informatics. Two-thirds of the mentors are non-faculty of color. Protégés come from all majors and all programs. We've emphasized Twenty First Century Scholars, Phase groups, Hudson and Holland, and culture centers and the academic support centers, DEMA groups. However, any Bloomington student can request a mentor. So this year we're asking the academic advisors to refer students they think would benefit from mentorship as well. So the protégés is have very high expectations about what they're looking for in a mentor. Some of the qualities are the basic knowledge about careers internships, majors, graduate school, law school, but others want more so they're very trusting and very hopeful. So for example one person said by signing up for this program I hope to gain priceless knowledge from the professor that I am paired with. I hope to know and better myself as I prepare for my professional career but also broaden my view of the world. I hope to gain valuable experience on how to better myself as a student and as someone hoping to enter a graduate program one day. Another student said I don't really expect a lot I just expect them to be honest, thorough, genuine. And when I say this I mean honesty in everything that involves me: my current situations, my future, just things in general. I know they'd expect thoroughness, commitment, and honesty from me so I expect the same.
So now I'd like to introduce you to her name is also Arnell. Arnell Paul, who was a protégé last year. Dr. Candace Smith was her mentor and she'll just talk to you a little bit about her experience.
ARNELL (Paul): As she said, my name is also Arnell. So are now I'm a senior studying human resource management through SPEA. As she said through my past year with Dr. Candace Smith, we were able to meet within a group setting with her other protégés as well as by ourselves one on one. On one of my favorite moments with her was, as a first generation student and a group student at Twenty First Century Phase, all of them, I'm in a lot of them.
It was with her and we sat down and we talked about graduate schools and professional schools because I had no idea of where to start and plans for my future. Some other negative parts of our experience was probably when she I just like that she was honest with me.
When some of my plans were probably just too much for me or just over booking myself and I think as students we'd like someone to tell us that. I mean our parents tell us that we're overbooking ourselves but when we see someone look up to like our mentor telling us, "hey you're overbooking yourself" it's like man I probably am overbooking myself. So I looked at that maybe three weeks later, I was like man, I need to thank her because I really was overbooking myself and I just really thank her for encouraging me on just all the different projects that aspire to do. And she's able to like help me with just anything with applications and anything like that and I just aspire to be like her. Not exactly like her, but she's gone through her undergraduate and her graduate career and so for me as undergraduate student it was just really helpful and so that was a little bit of my experience.
HAMMOND: Thank you so much. And that's one of the things that we tell students too that you have no idea what you're faculty have gone through to get where they are and I think they kind of understand that a little bit. So in closing I'd just like to say some of the other initiatives in development. Or we're looking at a maritime faculty to help maybe bring in staff again. As I said earlier, we really need men, male mentors. We're also looking at some social science and arts and humanities research as well. We've done a lot of - I know on campus there's a lot of STEM mentoring done but we want to do a little bit more with social sciences and humanities. So thank you. Do you have any questions? What questions do you have?
ARNOVE: So. Many years ago I'm there was a precursor program for incoming first year students for under-represented minority and over the years I mentored a Latino male, two female African-American women, and the problem was to get them to the junior year. And the problems, were not just academic preparation there were serious financial, medical, and home family problems they were all making it very difficult for the students to succeed. The Latino male went to the army to get money and came back. The two female students I don't think ever finished but I maintain a relationship with them over the years which was very nice. The problem is being able to marshal all these resources so the students get to the junior year. Do the first year programs still continue or not?
HAMMOND: We do have a first year peer mentoring program and the faculty mentoring program is specifically for sophomores, juniors, and seniors, so hopefully they'll be a little farther along looking more towards their careers and graduation. But that's the purpose of the program is that they need that support they need all of those resources marshaled and put together. Shown what's possible.
TANFORD: I think the answer this question is obvious but, do you, in terms of the sort of faculty that you want involved in this, I assume you're also including would turn your track faculty, clinicians, instructors?
HAMMOND: Yes, anyone. And we have many of those.
CALLOWAY-THOMAS: I wish to ask you a question about your mentor? You say her name was Candace Smith? I would love the minutes to reflect that Professor Candace Smith is in the department of African-American and African Diaspora studies. So I'd like that banner to go up.
ROBEL: So noted. Other questions or comments?
CHERRY: Just a quick question process. So is both the selection of the student and the mentor, are these all self-selection processes so they have to be initiated by the student to want to be and it has to be an initiation or acceptance by the faculty member to participate?
HAMMOND: No, I do recruiting. We send out by e-mail, by telephone, however we can to faculty and then as well to as to students. By newsletters.
CHERRY: But then once what how they respond it is a form of self-selection. If you just send a note out and then it's those people self-selecting say I want to get involved is that what that's what I write is that how it works?
HAMMOND: Yes, yeah.
CHERRY: So, if so far based on this self-selection you're getting mostly women, by both students and faculty, it seems that maybe there should be some discussion or consideration about what it might take to get more male students and or faculty to select and to get involved. That's all I'm saying. I'm trying to understand the process.
HAMMOND: I agree. If anyone has ideas, that would be helpful.
ROBEL: Other comments or thoughts? Yes.
LIGALI: How long approximately are students able to be in in this program and so are they based on the time frame, are they able to be in the program longer, just with their mentor or how is that determined?
HAMMOND: Yes, we ask for a year commitment from the mentor and their protégé and then if they decide later they want to change or they want to continue with the person they can.
ROBEL: Could you introduce yourself because you don't have a name tag?
LIGALI: Yes. I'm sorry I came a little later, but my name is Kehinde Ligali. I am a second year masters student in SPEA getting my masters of public affairs as well as my masters of Arts in African studies.
ROBEL: Terrific, well welcome.
LIGALI: Thank you. And I'm the. Benefits Officer for the Graduate and Professional Student Government
ROBEL: Terrific. Thank you for being here.
RENEKER: So I feel like I should ask as the president of the Graduate Professionals Student Government is what role, if any, do graduate and professional students play in this process either on the mentor or the mentee side because I know it's something that we've been looking into over the last couple years with not really a lot of success and just kind of confusion on how to move forward.
HAMMOND: Well this program is specifically for faculty and undergrads. However, some of the training programs like mentoring 101 or we have some programs with Professor Abegunde that we're collaborating with those kind of training programs. I think would be really helpful to your staff, your instructors.
ROBEL: Any other questions or comments. Well thank you both so much for being here today. Arnell, thank you so much for this terrific program and our Arnell thank you for coming and having the courage to speak to a roomful of faculty members you don't know.
HAMMOND: Thank you.
ROBEL: All right I believe we've come to the end of our agenda and traditionally I have not waited for a motion to adjourn we have adjourned by unanimous consent by standing. If we're at that point, let's adjourn.