THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 1:30 PM in

112 Kern Graduate Building

[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, you may call the Senate Office

at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be

done after normal office hours by calling the same number and a voice mail announcement can

be heard concerning the status of any meeting. You may also leave a message at that time.]

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

Minutes of the January 29, 2002, Meeting in The Senate Record 35:4

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)

of February 12, 2002

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of February 12, 2002

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS –

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS –

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

Committees and Rules

Revision of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the

Senate – Excessive Absences

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

University Planning/Undergraduate Education

University Calendar

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

Faculty Affairs

Promotion and Tenure Summary for 2000-01

Student Life

Interim Expulsion

Student Perceptions of Safety

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -

-----------------

Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday,

March 26, 2002, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 865-5789 – fax

Date: February 14, 2002

To: John S. Nichols, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report, dated February 12, 2002, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu, on or before March 14, 2002.

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication. Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.

Special Announcements:

1. The Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and its subcommittees have been diligent in reviewing all General Education proposals that have been submitted to the Senate Office. As of the January 29, 2002, committee meeting, 203 General Education courses have been recertified or, if new, approved. Based on the original college plans, this means that 449 courses which colleges expected to submit have either not been submitted or reviewed.

Based on the original college plans, courses were to be reviewed before January 2003. Thus, it is imperative that the colleges move their course proposals along expeditiously if our students are not to suffer. In order for a course to be approved for a General Education designation by January 2003, course proposals must be received in the Senate Office no later than August 1, 2002. Even with this deadline, it will be extremely difficult for the appropriate committees to accomplish their reviews on time.

The committees request the assistance of the colleges in helping to move the recertification process along to a reasonable conclusion.

2. The review of courses for recertification in the International and Intercultural Competence category (GI) has also been progressing quite slowly. In an attempt to assist faculty in the proposal preparation process, the International and Intercultural Competence Subcommittee reviewed the material in the Guide to Curricular Procedures to determine if revisions were needed.

The Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs, upon recommendation of the International and Intercultural Competence Subcommittee, has approved revisions to the Guide to Curricular Procedures. We believe these revisions will assist proposal writers in preparing quality GI proposals. There have been no changes in the requirements or in the material that must be presented. We have simply reworked the statements in the Guide to better reflect the organization of the proposal that will best communicate the intent of the proposing faculty.

Proposals already in the system will not be delayed by this revision although faculty working on the preparation of new proposals might find it useful to review this new documentation. The new guidelines for the GI course proposals may be found on the Senate Web page in the Guide to Curricular Procedures at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/guide/contents.html

3. The Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs has also reviewed the requirements for a Minor as published in the Guide to Curricular Procedures. Several clarifications have been made in those requirements and the section has been rewritten. Faculty proposing new or revised Minors are encouraged to review this new material to assist them in the preparation of proposals.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

University Calendar

(Advisory and Consultative)

The Senate Committees on University Planning and Undergraduate Education transmit the report and recommendations of the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar (attachment 1) for Senate action.

The Senate Committee on University Planning unanimously supports the changes to the university calendar recommended by the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar and recommends approval by the Senate. The Senate Committee on University Planning’s rationale and comments appear as attachment 2.

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education also has reviewed the report but does not support the set of calendar recommendations. The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education's rationale appears as attachment 3.

The Senate vote will be on the following recommendations from the Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar report.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. We propose that the fall and spring semesters consist of 72 “instructional days” each. While not shortening the semester to 14 weeks of instruction, this schedule has the potential to provide greater flexibility in starting dates, in effect allowing each semester to begin somewhat later than the present calendar allows. We do not recommend any change in the present ending dates of fall or spring semester, as determined by the December holiday or May graduation schedules. In addition, we recognize the prerogative of units such as the Graduate Center, the College of Medicine, and the Dickinson School of Law to configure their instructional time differently.

2. We propose a period of 4 “final assessment days” at the end of each semester. These days would allow for a variety of final assessment activities including the traditional forms of final examinations as well as more flexible alternatives, such as presentations, group projects, term assignments, and the like. Arrangements for designated periods would be required in advance, with students in individual classes informed in a manner timely enough to allow for the resolution of conflicting schedules. Certain “block” scheduling to reduce potential conflicts may be possible, but instructors would be required to specifically request use of final assessment days for class activities.

3. In order to facilitate the use of final assessment days, we propose that Senate Policy 44-20 be revisited in order to endorse the concept of multiple forms of final assessment. Those faculty wishing to maintain the current practices of final examinations, including common exams and alternate seating arrangements, should be accommodated. At the same time, those favoring other strategies of assessment and feedback should have flexibility in assigning final activities, including the scheduled use of assessment days.

4. As the Calendar Committee recommends the use of distinct “assessment” days following scheduled “instructional” days, we propose that summer sessions be configured to allow for designated assessment days distinct from scheduled instructional time.

5. Because the number of interruptions of scheduled classes during the fall semester present both pedagogical and attendance problems for instructors and students, we propose that “fall break” and the Thanksgiving recess be consolidated into one week at Thanksgiving. Such a break will be symmetrical in length, though not in timing, to the spring break, allowing students to travel, recreate, and “catch up” prior to the end-of-semester class activities.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON SENATE COMMITTEE ON

UNIVERSITY PLANNING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

P. Richard Althouse Cheryl Achterberg

William J. Anderson Richard I. Ammon

Anthony J. Baratta, Chair Theresa A. Balog

John P. Boehmer Thomas E. Boothby

Michael J. Cardamone Richard J. Bord

Eric C. Cowden James E. Brasfield

Gordon F. De Jong John J. Cahir

Joseph Ferenchick Paul F. Clark

Peter B. Everett Peter D. Georgopulos

William M. Frank Gary L. Hile

Daniel R. Hagen Robert S. Hill

Ali R. Hurson Richard Kennedy, Jr.

Rodney Kirsch James L. McDonel

Karen H. Morin Laura L. Pauley, Chair

Robert N. Pangborn Paul A. Ricciardi

Paula J. Romano Robert D. Ricketts, V-Chair

William A. Rowe, V-Chair David W. Russell

Louise E. Sandmeyer Dennis C. Scanlon

Gary C. Schultz Thomas A. Seybert

Paul J. Tikalsky Terry R. Shirley, Jr.

Daniel E. Willis D. Joshua Troxell

Gregory R. Ziegler Eric R. White

ATTACHMENT 1

JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

Final Recommendations

University Planning

and

Undergraduate Education

Background:

Comments received during the Senate Officers’ visits to colleges and campuses as well as communication directly to the administration highlight several problems with the present academic calendar. Items mentioned by students and faculty include:

· absences during the three days prior to Thanksgiving

· a “telescoped” orientation period at U.P. prior to fall semester

· the lack of designated exam days in the summer sessions (UP)

· the disruption of fall semester caused by three “breaks” (Labor Day, fall break, Thanksgiving)

· the availability of sufficient orientation time (especially if “diversity” orientation is to be added)

· the adequacy of study days.

Questions have also been raised whether more effective use could be made of time at the end of the semester, instead of traditional final exams, as many faculty adopt active and collaborative learning models. Alternative forms of assessment throughout the semester have become common in many disciplines. The Calendar Committee was asked to review the University calendar to respond to these concerns.

Discussion at the October Senate forensic session and the subsequent e-mail correspondence confirm the diversity of opinion regarding possible modification of the semester calendar. Members of the Senate were polarized: substantial support for maintaining the status quo contradicted urgent calls to do something to ameliorate the problems with the current calendar, including shortening the semester which many believed was too long and too interrupted by breaks. Similarly, while some advocated the traditional practice of final examinations, others were more open to varieties of final assessment not requiring dedicated final examination periods. At the risk of alienating either position, the Calendar Committee seeks to propose a compromise.

In our final analysis, the Committee wishes to reaffirm the following principles that have guided all our deliberations:

· The University calendar should provide flexibility in serving the academic interests and needs of students and faculty.

· The calendar should provide appropriate time for examinations and other assessment activities as part of the fall and spring semesters and each summer session.

· The fall and spring semesters should be as symmetrical (i.e. equal in length) as possible.

· There should be an appropriate “break” during each semester.

· A post-Labor Day start is highly desirable.

· The fall semester should end before the traditional December holiday season.

· National holidays should be recognized if possible.

· Arrival day (UP) should occur on a Saturday.

· Commencement (UP) should occur on a Saturday.

· There should be provision for orientation time at the beginning of each semester.

The analysis of the benchmarking data collected during our study supports the following conclusions:

· There is no universal standard for class days/hours in class per credit-hour, nor is there one standard for state or state-related institutions in Pennsylvania.

· There is no universal standard for a minimum number of “instructional days” per course or for counting the instructional days since some institutions include final exam days while others do not.

· Within the “Big Ten” the present calendar places Penn State among the highest-ranking schools on the semester calendar in terms number of “instructional days” whether or not exam days are counted.

· Similarly, compared to other national research universities, Penn State semesters are among the longest, with several outstanding institutions having significantly fewer instructional days per semester.

· At University Park, approximately 40% of classes actually schedule final examination periods.

· Because of increased pedagogical diversity (e.g., active and collaborative learning) and alternative means of assessment (e.g., group project presentations), the number of classes needing final examinations has declined and may decline further.

· If there is no change to the class schedule (i.e., minutes per class), the impact of calendar change on scheduling classrooms and laboratories will be minimized.

· Considerable precedent at other institutions and residual support at Penn State exist for reducing the number of instructional days.

· Fall semester issues are much more troublesome than spring semester issues.

Recommendations:

Rationale:

The calendar configuration proposed above offers several advantages over the present semester schedule. Currently, we lose as many as 2 or 3 instructional days in the fall due to “extensions” of both fall break and Thanksgiving. Thus, the duration of the semester may be reduced without significant pedagogical impact. Reducing the schedule of instructional and assessment days will allow us to begin fall and spring classes three or four days later than we do now. The additional time will permit more time for transition

and orientation activities at the University, and it may relieve some of the time pressure on student internships, co-ops, and other summer activities discussed during the forensic session. It may even be possible to schedule a non-weekend “study day” between the end of instructional days and the beginning of assessment days.

The recommendations regarding final assessment reaffirm the Senate’s commitment to allowing for a designated time for final activities separate from “instruction,” and guarantees consistency, even during the more flexible scheduling patterns that characterize Penn State’s summer sessions.

While we are sensitive to the arguments in favor of preserving the break at mid-semester during the fall, we believe that the pedagogical disadvantages of the interruption and the diluting of the original justifications for the break outweigh those arguments. At the same time, the consolidated break may allow for easier (and safer) travel for students as well as greater flexibility in planning activities for the break period, as is the case at institutions that have already adopted this practice. In fact, this change likely will result in the fall semester schedule effectively offering more fully utilized instructional days than the present schedule does.

Conclusion:

While we recognize that the recommendations above do not reflect either pole of opinion expressed during the calendar discussions, we believe that they offer a strategy to accommodate most needs and to address many of the criticisms of the present calendar. In addition, while we note that a post-Labor Day start to fall semester may not be possible under these recommendations we believe that the remainder of our guiding principles are supported.

JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

Anthony Baratta

George Bugyi

John Cahir

Peter Emigh

Donald Leslie

James Smith, Chair

Jane Sutton

Josh Toxell

James Wager

ATTACHMENT 3

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Background:

In November 2001, the Undergraduate Education Committee received recommendations from the Calendar Committee. The Undergraduate Education Committee includes faculty from University Park, the Commonwealth College, Behrend College, and Capital College. Four student senators, one college Dean, and the Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Studies also serve on the Undergraduate Education Committee. Therefore, all university constituents are represented on the committee to allow all opinions to be voiced. The Undergraduate Committee members attended the Senate Forensic Session on the Calendar and heard the comments from other Senators. The transcript from the Forensic Session appears on the Senate web site and could be reviewed as needed. UE committee members invited comments from their constituents before the UE discussion in December. The comments and suggestions from constituents were often voiced during the discussion at the UE committee meetings.

On December 4, the Undergraduate Education Committee met to review and to discuss the recommendations from the Calendar Committee (Attachment 1). Before the committee discussion, the statement from the Academic Assembly was distributed to all UE Committee members. A discussion of Calendar Recommendations 1 and 5 was followed by a straw poll. The discussion then focused on Calendar Recommendations 2 and 4 followed by a straw poll. After the UE Committee had discussed the Calendar Recommendations, the committee met with the University Planning Committee to allow comments and concerns to be shared between the committees.

After the December meeting a draft report was prepared as a summary of the committee discussion. The UE Committee draft report was reviewed, discussed, and revised at the January 29 meeting of the Undergraduate Education Committee. Revisions were made to the report and a discussion of the entire set of Calendar Committee Recommendations was held. The Undergraduate Education Committee voted on the entire set of recommendations made by the Calendar Committee and the result of this vote appears below as the UE Committee recommendation.

Committee Vote:

Since some of the Calendar Committee Recommendations are related to each other, the Undergraduate Education Committee was asked to vote on the set of five recommendations as a package. Although the Undergraduate Education Committee did not agree unanimously, a majority of the committee members did not support the set of Calendar Recommendations. The vote in the Undergraduate Education Committee was 7 in favor of the Calendar Committee recommendations, 13 opposed, and 0 abstained. A second vote was taken to determine if committee members wanted to keep the current calendar. 2 were in favor of keeping the current calendar and 18 were opposed to keeping the current calendar. No one abstained. Therefore, a majority of Undergraduate Education Committee members wished to see the university calendar changed but were not supportive of the entire set of recommendations presented by the Calendar Committee.

Rationale:

From our discussions, we found that Undergraduate Education (UE) Committee members did not agree unanimously with any of the recommendations from the Calendar Committee Report. Described below are the varied opinions for each recommendation.

Calendar Recommendation 1: Change the semester calendar to 72 instructional days in Fall and Spring semester.

Although the current number of instructional days in Fall semester is 74 and in Spring semester is 75, many classes are not held on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving Break or the Friday before Fall break. Most UE Committee members considered the present calendar to not accurately reflect the actual number of instructional days. Changing the calendar to 72 instructional days would not reduce the actual days of instruction but just make the calendar an accurate reflection of reality. Classes on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving was considered particularly problematic at University Park Another reason for reducing the instructional days is that it would allow for a longer orientation period on weekdays before the start of class. Also, students with summer jobs could work longer if classes began later, preferably after Labor Day.

Other committee members were concerned that reducing the number of instructional days will not assure that classes will be held on the stated instructional days or that students will attend classes on all of the instructional days. Current University Policy requires that classes are held on instructional days but this is not always done. Also, a 72 instructional day semester would cause some days of the week to have more class periods than others. This could be particularly difficult for courses where different sections meet on different days. There is also concern that reducing the number of instructional days would also reduce the amount of material that can be covered in a course.

Calendar Recommendation 2: Change the current five-day examination period to a four-day assessment period.

Most considered that the change from “examination period” to “assessment period” allows for many different forms of assessment to take place in the week after the instructional days. This will encourage faculty to use innovative methods. Since only 40% of University Park courses give a final exam, allowing other forms of assessment in the assessment period will better utilize this week. Since many courses do not use the examination period, reducing the number of days from five to four was not considered problematic. The four-day assessment week might begin with a weekday study day. Or the Assessment Period might be from Monday to Thursday and allow final certification for graduation to occur on Friday. This would benefit the Schreyer Honors Program that awards the honors medal at a ceremony on Friday afternoon. In addition the ROTC program commissions new officers on Friday afternoon. Currently, final exams in Fall semester may conflict with these events.

Other committee members supported the change from an “examination period” to an “assessment period” but do not agree that the assessment period should be reduced to four days. Although only 40% of classes have a final exam, some students may find that all of their classes have a final exam. Compressing the assessment period to four days would make it more difficult to adequately prepare for the final exams and may also increase the number of conflicts or overloads that students apply for. Also, by allowing other forms of assessment to occur during this period, the assessment period may be more heavily used and warrant an additional day to schedule the assessment activities.

Calendar Recommendation 3: Review Policy 44-20.

The Undergraduate Education Committee viewed this item as a reminder that Policy 44-20 should be updated to refer to “Assessment Period” instead of “Examination Period” if Recommendation 2 was approved.

Calendar Recommendation 4: Schedule an Assessment Period for Summer Session.

There were no objections to this recommendation. Some committee members did not consider this to be an important issue.

Calendar Recommendation 5: Eliminate Fall Break in October and change Thanksgiving Break to be an entire week.

Most UE Committee members favored the current schedule. Students consider Fall Break to be a much-needed chance to rest or catch up on studies. The Fall Break can also be used to schedule a full day class activity, field trip, or volunteer project. It was recognized that some students may leave early or return late for Fall Break and Thanksgiving Break. This was not considered a reason for changing the current schedule. Students should be held accountable for class material missed and instructors should be held responsible for holding class on scheduled days.

Fewer UE Committee members favored the combining of Fall Break and Thanksgiving Break into one full week at Thanksgiving. Having several breaks in the semester is disruptive. It is well known that very few classes are held on Wednesday (and even Tuesday) before Thanksgiving Break. The Friday before Fall Break has also seen very low attendance. The present situation of cancelled classes and poor attendance before a break should be recognized and the two breaks in Fall semester should be combined to reduce the amount of lost class time.

Other Suggestions Receiving Strong Committee Support

During the calendar discussion in the Undergraduate Education Committee meeting, there were several suggestions that received strong support.

Eliminate all instruction on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving but keep the dorms open until at least 12:00 noon on Wednesday to allow students to leave on that day.

The Fall semester should start after Labor Day when possible. It was recognized that in some years this may not be possible.

To allow for a later start date in Fall semester, some final exam periods may be scheduled after the Commencement Ceremony always held on a Saturday. Since only 6% of undergraduates are graduating in a particular fall semester, it may be possible to schedule the final exams for graduating students before commencement but continue the exam period into the next week. It was noted that students do not actually graduate at the Fall Commencement Ceremony; they receive their diploma in the mail.

If Fall Break is eliminated, consider designating a week in January before the start of Spring semester to be used for field trips, service, intensive courses, enrichments, teaching innovations, research, and international studies.

The number of instructional days and general operating principles, such as approximate start and end dates of the semesters, should be standardized but each campus college should be allowed to set their own calendar. Other campuses do not face the same problems as University Park and may find that a different instructional calendar works better.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Promotion and Tenure Summary for 2000-2001

(Informational)

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs presents a series of charts showing the tenure and promotion decisions made in the academic year, 2000-2001. The figures show the following:

TENURE

Dossiers for the award of tenure for 93 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the 2000-01 University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The University Committee recommended 89 faculty members for tenure, and the President approved tenure in 88 cases. Eleven of the cases approved were for early tenure.

PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR, SENIOR SCIENTIST, AND LIBRARIAN

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of professor, senior scientist, and librarian for 62 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended 59 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for all 59 candidates.

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, AND ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of associate professor, senior research associate, and associate librarian for 76 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended 72 faculty members for promotion and the President approved promotion for all 72 candidates.

TENURE PROGSSION THROUGH SEVEN YEARS: 1992 + 1993 + 1994

Following the tenure and promotion charts for 2000-2001 are a chart and graph presenting a three-year composite for faculty entering the tenure ranks in 1992, 1993, and 1994, showing how many of each cohort were retained and tenured by their eighth year at Penn State. The charts show that, on the average, 51% of the entering group as a whole ended up receiving tenure. That does not mean that 51% of the group being considered for tenure in their decision year received tenure; it means that for our three most recent cohorts 51% of all faculty who began with us in provisional status remained with us and were granted tenure at the end of seven years or earlier. The percentage for women faculty members was 40%, and for minorities, 43%. These data describe what has happened in terms of promotion and tenure; the data do not explain why individual decisions were made or why differences exist in the promotion and tenure profiles of various demographic groups.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Susan M. Abmayr

Syed S. Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

Melvin Blumberg

Clay Calvert

Richard A. Carlson

Lynn A. Carpenter

Roy B. Clariana

Cheng Dong

James M. Donovan

Charles R. Enis

Jacqueline P. Esposito

Dorothy H. Evensen

Mary I. Frecker

Margaret B. Goldman, Vice-Chair

David J. Green

Janis E. Jacobs

W. Larry Kenney

Sallie M. McCorkle

Howard P. Medoff

Katherine C. Pearson

Andrew B. Romberger

Robert Secor

Kim C. Steiner

Mila C. Su

Joan S. Thomson

Vasundara V. Varadan, Chair

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

Interim Expulsion

(Informational)

INTRODUCTION

Recent cases involving sexual assault on female students reported by the Daily Collegian and other media sources have raised concern over the University’s policies dealing with students charged with such crimes. Some groups and individuals have asked whether existing procedures are strong enough to ensure students’ safety. Student Life was charged to review existing University policies to see if they are in general sufficient to protect students from the threat posed by the presence on Penn State campuses of individuals charged with serious crimes.

INTERIM EXPULSION

The Penn State disciplinary procedure[1] provides students accused with misconduct with due process, which includes an opportunity to explain one's own actions and present evidence of one's innocence. Typically, Judicial Affairs staff will respond to charges by holding a Disciplinary Conference, at which point the majority of cases are resolved. It does not normally file formal charges prior to this Disciplinary Conference, except when there is reasonable cause to believe that the student is an immediate threat to the safety of himself/herself or other persons or property or is an immediate threat to disrupt essential campus operations.

In such cases, the Director of Judicial Affairs (or another University Official designated by the Vice President for Student Affairs) may impose interim expulsion. This removes the student from campus immediately, pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. Permission to be on campus for a specific period of time or purpose must be granted in writing by the Judicial Affairs Director (or Campus Executive Officer at other location.) Any such student who returns to campus without permission may then face indefinite or permanent expulsion.

In the interest of ensuring immediate safety to the community, that is, the University does have the right to order a student summarily removed from campus without giving him or her the right to due process.[2] However, the University is then normally obligated to provide the student with a hearing within five business days of the notice of interim expulsion. (An exception would occur if a student were already incarcerated for criminal charges and so would be unable to appear for a hearing until release.)

In some cases disciplinary hearings have to be postponed for long periods of time, for a number of valid reasons. As noted above, a student may be incarcerated and unable to appear. Or a victim may not initially agree to come forward and testify. In many cases, police officials (who often are important witnesses) may not agree to participate in a University proceeding prior to criminal proceedings, in fear of jeopardizing their investigation. Thus the University may not yet have appropriate evidence needed to proceed.

In cases such as these, the University needs to have compelling evidence that an accused student is responsible for the alleged misconduct and is in fact a danger to the community, especially in cases in which the accused may lose his/her status as a student. When such students maintain their innocence, imposing interim expulsion without a timely hearing risks depriving them of due process. Thus the policy cannot be used indiscriminately whenever a student is charged with a serious crime.

CONCLUSIONS

The University's Interim Expulsion policy seems adequate to protect students against sexual predators. In October, an intoxicated student who entered several women's dormitory rooms and fondled them was immediately imprisoned and given interim expulsion. One must keep in mind, however, that such a policy does not give Judicial Affairs unlimited rights to ban any accused student from campus. Also decisions about expulsion are ultimately made by Hearing Boards, not by Judicial Affairs personnel, and only after giving students a chance to present their side of the case in confidence.

One may with reason argue about the use of University policies in particular cases, and about the decisions reached by individual Hearing Boards, just as one may disagree with decisions reached in criminal cases by judges and juries. The Student Life Committee finds no pressing need to revise the overall policy governing such situations. However, we do believe that this policy should be more widely publicized and understood.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

William W. Asbury

Arthur W. Carter

Mackenzie L. De Vos

Bill Ellis (Chair)

Andrzej J. Gapinski

Wallace H. Greene

Nichola Gutgold (Vice-chair)

Karen Johnson

Jeffrey S. Mayer

Nicholas J. Pazdziorko

Irwin Richman

Robyn A. Ricketts

Jose A. Ventura

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

Student Perceptions of Safety

(Informational)

INTRODUCTION

A feeling of safety among students is an important factor in maintaining a positive student environment. At Penn State, a variety of initiatives have been taken to create a safe campus environment, including installing more blue light boxes, lights on walkways, and sprinkler systems in dormitories. However, if student perceptions of safety are not positive, then these safety initiatives are not worthwhile. Do students feel safe at Penn State? Yes, according to student perceptions and crime statistics. But why do students feel safe? The committee consulted two sources: the students themselves and police crime reports.

Student perceptions were collected through existing Penn State Pulse surveys (the 1995 “Safety” survey and specific safety questions from the 1998 “Diversity Climate” survey, the 1999 “Student Satisfaction” survey, the 2000 “Guns and Other Weapons on Campus” survey, and the 2000 “Women and Personal Safety” survey[3]), informal surveys conducted by the committee Spring 2000 and Spring 2001, student focus group meetings conducted by the University Student Government, and informal conversations with parents and students during the 2000 Faculty in the Residence Halls for Students in Transition (FIRST) program activities at University Park. Most of the student information came from University Park, with three other campuses represented, including Lehigh Valley, Berks, and Hazleton. When asked “What does ‘safe’ mean to you?” the consensus of student responses to these surveys defined safety as “bodily and material protection.”

In order to show relative safety from crime on Penn State campuses, the committee collected statistics for murder/homicide, forcible sex offenses, aggravated assault, and burglary/robbery/motor vehicle theft for Big Ten main campuses, small population schools, and Pennsylvania main campuses. The data are for crimes on campuses that were reported to the police and do not include off-campus incidents involving students. Data was obtained from Penn State's "Crime Statistics and Cleary Act Information: Annual Security Reports,"[4] from the US Department of Education's "OPE Campus Security Statistics Website,"[5] and from the annual Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports.[6] These data are used to understand why students feel safe at Penn State.

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY

Several formal University surveys have investigated student perceptions of and concerns about safety. In April 1998 a Pulse “Diversity Climate” Survey (N = 778)[7] investigated students’ perceptions of the climate of diversity on six campuses. However, question # 20 asked, “Since the academic year began last August, how often have you personally been threatened or physically assaulted?”

Figure 1: Percent of students threatened or physically assaulted.

	Zero	1 or more times
Altoona (N = 105)	99%	1%
Behrend (N = 104)	99%	1%
Berks (N = 58)	98%	2%
Delaware (N = 109)	98%	2%
Abington (N = 41)	100%	--
University Park (N = 357)	97%	3%

Question # 22 asked, “Since the academic year began last August, how often have you personally had your property stolen, damaged or defaced?”

Figure 2: Percentage of students having damaged, defaced, or stolen property.

	Zero	1 or more times
Altoona (N = 105)	99%	1%
Behrend (N = 104)	98%	2%
Berks (N = 58)	100%	--
Delaware (N = 109)	99%	1%
Abington (N = 41)	98%	3%
University Park (N = 357)	97%	3%

These data suggest that there are few safety breaches at Penn State.

In a September 1999 Student Experience and Satisfaction Survey (N = 5,770),[8] 70% of students expressed satisfaction with the quality of “The ‘safety and security’ at your campus location” (68% University Park N = 900; 70% all other campuses). A January 2000 Pulse “Guns and Weapons on Campus” Survey (N = 774)[9] explored how weapons affected students’ perceptions of safety. The majority agreed that the University provides a “reasonable level of security”: 73% agreed, 19% agreed somewhat, and only 7 % did not agree. More students felt safer "on campus"

ATTACHMENT 2

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

Other Suggestions Receiving Strong Committee Support

Promotion and Tenure Summary for 2000-2001

TENURE

PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR, SENIOR SCIENTIST, AND LIBRARIAN

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, AND ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN

TENURE PROGSSION THROUGH SEVEN YEARS: 1992 + 1993 + 1994

INTRODUCTION

INTERIM EXPULSION

CONCLUSIONS

Student Perceptions of Safety

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY

Figure 1: Percent of students threatened or physically assaulted.