Meeting Minutes

Educational Equity and Campus Environment


October 17, 2017

Members Present:  Azad Azemi (Chair), Julia Bryan (Co-chair), Denise Bortree (conference call), Dwight Davis, Alicia Dexter, N Christopher Giebink, Tom Hogan, Timothy Lawlor, Grant Littke, Aex Shockley (undergrad student rep), Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost), Cynthia Young.

Members Absent:  Gilbert Ambler, Michelle Houck, Bing Pan, Ketul Patel, Eileen Williams.

Guests: None.

  1. Review of the Agenda
  2. Azemi: Called the meeting to order. Introductions were made. Reviewed the agenda.

  3. Approval of Previous Meeting’s Minutes
  4. Azemi: Reviewed the September 12, 2017 minutes.
    Alex Shockley: Motion to approve
    Dwight Davis: Seconded
    Minutes approved unanimously by voice vote.

  5. Announcements from the Chair
    1. Report from Officers and Chairs’ Meeting
    2. Azemi: Mentioned the Senate’s discussion of Faculty Benefits and the child care report they are working on. Curriculum affairs is working on letter designations for minors.

      An important consideration this year is the way Senate is structured. They are looking at several models regarding Chair/Chair-Elect or Chair/Vice Chair (one ticket) to create continuity. In terms of Graduate Education, Senate making effort to change undergrad education to education in general so as to include grad education and make it clear that Senate has oversight of both. Regarding fixed term titles and promotions, it should have started July 2017, but the problem is implementation. Not many colleges have started implementation. Promotion committees will look at fixed terms, mostly assistants. There was discussion of pricing for prescription medication and CVS Care Merck and how it would work with our consistent structure. No-one seems to know much about the program.

      Azemi: To questions from Hogan and Lawlor, mentioned that this health insurance agreement is shorter than the previous and Aetna chosen because it has wider hospital coverage especially in the west of the State and they have a deeper discount.

    3. Report from the Alumni Council Executive Board Meeting
    4. Azemi: Invited to Tom Hogan to give report.

      Hogan: Hogan indicated that he is the chair of committee celebrating academic achievement. President Barron spoke to the Board about the importance of transformative education and out of classroom experiences to augment in-class experiences. The president spoke about rewarding faculty members who are innovative and creative and providing the opportunity to use funds to create pilots. There was also a lot of discussion about the issue of the First Amendment and freedom of speech and how the University will deal with that as a land grant institution and at the same time, balance the needs of minority students and faculty. President really supports transformative education and how we can connect other initiatives, e.g., economic development, to what we do and our students.

      Davis: What was Pres. Barron’s definition of transformative education?

      Hogan: He talked about students who leave and create companies and jobs. what education they got that led them to create innovative solutions to social problems. What kinds of experiences are they getting to create innovative solutions to social problems. He paints a picture of the kind of student we want to develop.

      Davis: What would teachers work on in this course that would be for the majority of the students be additive in the classroom?

      Hogan. I asked that. What would it look like from a faculty member’s perspective? Think he is leaving that to us to configure.

      Azemi: He inquired about the committee meeting about free speech.

      Hogan: I convened a special committee meeting to talk about free speech and marginalized students. It is not a problem to be solved but to manage. Purpose was to start a dialogue. What should Penn State do if a controversial speaker like Richard Spencer, requests to speak through a student organization? President Barron asked what are the strategic options we have when someone like this makes a request. Freedom of speech is important, but protecting faculty and students outweighs that. What are the strategic options? What do other universities do?

      Bryan: What is name of the committee?

      Hogan: Joint Commission Chairs JCC

      Shockley: State of Florida declared a state of emergency for the county because Richard Spencer is coming to UF. What are your thoughts?

      Hogan: Richard Spencer and his group are very strategic about where they request to speak. Penn State fits their profile. We are trying to avoid a situation like UVA and to learn from it. Risk management is involved. There are plans to deal with the situation. All of us need to be a part of the solution. How do we protect freedom of speech and protect diversity and inclusion.

      Young: Particular right wing people/groups are causing this. It is not the far left. We (African Studies) get the flyers and the anonymous notes questioning out legitimacy How can we be kept in loop? When do we get informed about when Richard Spencer is coming, and what the deliberative process is?

      Hogan: We on JCC are sensitive to this. President has a number of strategic advisors and a strategic team. That’s what they are paid to do. We were not informed last time either. I will continue to push on that issue.

      Whitehurst: There is a strategic communication protocol. Because of Charlottesville – we can argue because of imminent danger we can deny their request. Thus far we have not heard back from Richard Spencer. We do have a strategic communications team who will handle communications and determine location and emergency location in and out to the facility.

      Bryan: Is he suing the University?

      Whitehurst: He sued Auburn, UF, and UVA. President Barron says he expects to see a lawsuit in the long run.

      Azemi: What is the long-term effect of allowing him here?

      Hogan: The other side will argue what is the long term effect of not having civil discourse, of denying freedom of speech.

      Azemi – Invited Vice Provost Whitehurst’s comments.

  6. Comments from Vice Provost for Educational Equity
  7. Whitehurt: New Vice Provost of Affrimative Action, Suzanne Adaire, from November 1, 2017. Title IX will move back into her office.

    President Barron has invited Dr. Lonny Bunch from the National Museum of African American Culture and History in DC to Penn State on Nov 1. He will talk about the history behind creating museum. 6:00 pm in Hub-Robeson Center.

    Faculty forum– White supremacy at Penn State, what it is and how to fix it. Dr. Keith Gillyard, 10/23 at 6 pm, auditorium in Hub. Cynthia Young will be on the panel as well as the chair of Senate Matthew Woessner.

    Affordability task force was created by the Trustees (composed of all trustees and Vice Provost of Finance David Gray) to look at the debt burden for students. Penn state tuition costs are close to some privates and leading among the Big 10.

    Alicia: Won’t tuition go up if the budget is not passed by the state?

    Shockley: President Barron sent email to parents. Student gov’t has been working on this since last year.

    Student leaders did a video to release this week on social media.

    Whitehurst: All leaders, deans, provosts were asked to determine how they would handle a 5% reduction to their budget if state budget not passed.

  8. Old Business
    1.  “All In” Video informational or legislative report.
  9. Azemi: We looked at the possibility of making the report advisory or forensic. The consensus at last night’s meeting was to stick with an informational report.

    We need to consider who will be watching the All In video.

    Both Julia Bryan and Alex Shockley have made drafts of the report.

    Azemi: asked Bryan to talk about draft report

    Alex: he created a draft report and talked to faculty about it. How can faculty get this going?

    The informational report should talk about the importance of doing this.

    Hogan: Faculty will need support and tools and training to talk about bias in the classroom. We can’t assume that faculty would be able to talk about bias in the classroom.

    Shockley: The focus on faculty is not emphasized.

    Hogan: The people who are leading follow up conversations to the video need to have certain skills. Those conversations can go astray very quickly. Training is needed.

    Shockley: The video not as controversial as we think.

    Whitehurst: Sam Richards, along with a team of facilitators, has agreed to serve as a support and resource if we choose to show the video to a class. They will serve as a resource for facilitated dialogue.

    Young: If we are piloting it in the First-Year experience, there’s all sorts of people to facilitate the conversation afterwards. That’s how we did it with Gender Equity. We could tie the screening of the All In video to workshop with trained facilitator. Faculty should be trained and a quick here’s how you do it comes up.

    Davis: I view this as an opportunity for an experience that most of us believe is important. I also understand or try to realize the discomfort of some of the faculty. I wonder if there is an opportunity for a feedback loop from faculty who do it as to how it came across, how it was received by students, and the kinds of issues that were raised. What might be something that we get back out of this concerning the experience that both our students and faculty have?

    Azemi; any recommendations?

    Whitehurs: Maybe we can have that conversation outside of this meeting. Suggested follow up with Sam Richards to see how he would support this if faculty were to do it. Recommended inviting Sam and Laura in to EECE.

    Shockley: The meeting with Sam could happen and we can still have time to develop draft before Oct 27 deadline.

    Bryan: We could use Google doc or Box to work on the draft.

    Azemi: We have a deadline by Monday. Stated that he will put both reports in Board Effect.

    Alicia: Asked the difference between informational and forensic report?

    Azemi: Informational – no obligation to follow through. Forensic – the senate will vote on it.

  10. New Business
    1. Priority B2: How to make the World in In Conversations widely available to incoming students
    2. Shockley: Shared about similar requirements at various universities. University of Illinois has a similar requirement. PSU has a similar Gen Ed requirement. University of Iowa has a culture and diversity requirement. University of Nebraska Lincoln has Husker dialogues. They habe over 360 faculty and staff facilitate conversations on diversity. They developed playing cards; you go out with faculty or student leader and use these cards to facilitate dialogue. Noted that he could see a potential framework like this at Penn State. Given that the Student Safety report was not passed last year, something like this would be a different spin off rather than making it mandatory. I could see something along these lines as being more feasible.

      Hogan: Asked about student the Safety report and it not being passed.

      Shockely: Given the effort put into that report and that it was not passed, this may be a better alternative.

      Azemi – we can recommend it as part of First Year seminar.

      Alicia Dexter left at 9:40 to teach.

    3. Priority A2: Resources available to faculty helping with student that require mental health support

    Shockley: He shared a packet of mental health resources for faculty from various universities – UC, Cal State resources

    Whitehurst. Alex have you had a chance to sit down with Ben Locke? I think his office already has something.

    Shockley: This would be a consolidation of resources.

    Azemi: How can we make all of this information available/accessible to faculty and students? Do faculty need training to identify these students?

    Lawlor: On our campus, we talk about this quite a bit. It would be helpful to have the information readily available.

    Bryan: This is important. The anxiety level of students very high. These resources need to be a click away. We should consult with Ben Locke in CAPS.

    Whitehurst: Shockley this is a great idea. Ben Locke needs to be in on this. Well Check was just adopted by CAPS. Deals with anxiety and children in the classroom and providing resources for students in the classroom. Important to have these resources a click away. What kind of report would you want?

    Vice Provost Whitehurst left at 10:00 am.

    Azemi: All of these are information reports. Brief. We can include links with our recommendations.

    A3: Consult with committee on tenure. Equitable support on commonwealth resources

    Azemi: Last priority in our form. Very limited resources exist for students on the commonwealth campuses. When students come to UP, they see a dip in their GPA.

    Lawlor: I can share 2 or 3 Inter-relations IRC reports I worked on. Reasons for GPA drop for transfer students – partly environment related and related to continuity in advising. It is only in IST that you don’t see a dip in grades. I will dig those files out.

    Bryan: IST seems to be very hands on for advising.

    Azemi: Any other things? Let’s review.

    I will start the folder on Box and put the All In video and report drafts on there so we can all add language. Shockley will email Sam Richards to see if he has any feedback.

    Tim can you upload reports for A3?

    Shockley will upload mental health report to Board Effect. He will also contact Ben and invite Azemi and Bryan to meeting.

    Azemi: Will check to see if we can keep 504 Agricultural Sciences conference room. Bryan mentioned checking into use of College of Education Dean’s conference room as a possibility.

  11. Adjournment
  12. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10.

    Julia Bryan.
    back to top


    September 12, 2017

    Members Present: Azad Azemi (Chair), Julia Bryan (Co-chair), Dwight Davis, Alicia Dexter, Timothy Lawlor, Grant Littke, Bing Pan, Alex Shockley (undergrad student rep), Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost), Cynthia Young.

    Members Absent: Gilbert Ambler, Denise Bortree, Carina Curtis, N Christopher Giebink, Ketul Patel.

    Guests: None.

    I. Review of the Agenda

    Azemi: Called the meeting to order. Introductions were made. Reviewed the agenda.

    II. Approval of Previous Meeting’s Minutes

    Azemi: Reviewed the April 25, 2017 minutes.
    Motion to accept – Davis
    Seconded – Lawlor
    Minutes approved unanimously by voice vote.

    III.       Announcements from the Chair

    a. Report from Officers and Chairs’ Meeting

    Azemi: The Officers and Chairs meeting discussed a number of topics including LionPath, new faculty benefits, Rec Hall closing and charging faculty for recreational facilities, World campus and future of online teaching, and SRTE’s.
    Informational report will be done about shared governance and how campuses feel about shared governance. Provost Nick Jones does not want faculty to be over surveyed.
    Number of full-time faculty at campuses are below UP’s, 46%-20% full time faculty.
    Libraries will address charges about Digital Archives.
    There were also various charges re. videoconferencing.

    b. Review of Committee Priority Form

    Azemi: EECE has three high priorities and we need to decide which one we will work on for the October meeting. Faculty Senate chair suggested we work with JCC to come up with strategic approach to free speech. Need someone to go to meeting. Neither chair (Azemi) or co-chair could attend but Azemi would teleconference into JCC meeting on Friday September 15, 2017. President Barron has asked for a strategy on free speech.

    Lawlor: Could we invite someone from JCC to talk with us.

    Azemi: Once we know the charge, we can invite someone from JCC

    Azemi: Let us examine the charges on priority form.

    i.   A1. A report on ways the “All In” video could be more effectively used in the college   classroom. Consider the utility of showing the video at either first year orientation, or other venues. Consult with the leadership of UPUA as appropriate.

    Shockley:  Three of the priorities A1, A2, and B2, all came from student government.

    Student government’s aim is to create inclusive environments. Ideally, they wanted the video played in all classrooms at the beginning of semester. This didn’t happen. Use of All In video.

    Lawlor: It would have been great to play at Convocation

    Whitehurst: Has anyone see the video? Maybe we can look at it next meeting.

    Davis: Is there a link that can be shared? We can watch before next meeting.

    Azemi – After the All In video is shown is a discussion wanted?

    Shockley:  Discussion would be great but not required.

    Young: Could be offered to students as an assignment for first week.

    Whitehurst: It may require some conversation afterwards. Showing it at convocation may be tricky. May be better in the classroom or to have students look at it.

    Azemi – We need to look at pushbacks from faculty. Can it be a part of first year seminar? But we don’t have that at all campuses. We must address “Where do we see it?”

    Davis: Where is its place in our instructional format? How do people view themselves and their surroundings? Question of infringement on rights. A segment of faculty may have negative views. How would this play out with segments of our students and faculty?

    Azemi: Also, some faculty have no training. Are and should faculty be trained to have these discussions?

    Davis: Have we had discussion at the university level?

    Whitehurst: Mentioned his awareness of challenge. The suggestion about the video came from students. The first thing maybe we can do an informational report to present to faculty.

    Young: We must be careful not to conflate the video with saying this is a majority thing. This is a video of students sharing experiences of what it is like as a diverse student at Penn State and while people may not like their experiences, it is their experiences.

    Azemi: This may create problems with faculty.

    Young:  We do this all the time, in our syllabi, include comments on sexual bias, etc.

    Azemi: We need to ask is it effective? Including these comments in the syllabus.

    Shockley: The concern is resistance. Faculty may feel uncomfortable facilitating this discussion. Promoting the video is not as difficult as the discussion piece.

    Lawlor:  Can we move this to an advisory report? The committee feels this is more important than information.

    Bryan: We seemed concern about unintended consequences. These are difficult conversations to have even when you are trained to have them. We need to look outside the box and find/create spaces for students to have this discussion. We can assuming our university is representative of the wider society in range of views.

    Young:  Suggested faculty meeting screenings so faculty could see the video at their meetings and have discussions about how they could use it, when and where.

    Littke: We need a discussion with impact that isn’t repeated endlessly.

    Davis:  This is an opportunity for context. Could we show the video in faculty senate and think about in what context we might want to have some kind of discussion about it?

    We would get a spectrum of views from our peers and also from students.

    From that forum that may be a lead to how we as a university may want to utilize it and in what forums. Some faculty may even want it yet not have ability to facilitate conversation and unintended consequences.

    Whitehurst: I like Grant’s suggestion of first year seminar as a starting point.

    Navigating the video may require some sophistication. We should see it first.

    Whitehurst said he would send the video link to us.

    Azemi: First year seminar faculty can show in class, but then need to have a backup, such as discussions/break out groups.

    Dexter: Maybe those who teach these topics (e.g., African studies) can lead a town hall. But that would only be a few of us.

    Littke and Whitehurst had to leave for other meetings.

    At this point, we watched the video.

    Bryan: The video seems tame, perhaps to us.

    Shockley: There’s also a second video.

    Azemi: What’s the goal?

    Shockley: To show we are all in as Penn State, followed by a discussion. To demonstrate we have an inclusive classroom and climate.

    Lawlor: Students could student leadership on this.

    Shockley: We do every day

    Davis: This is where we are trying to move toward, the desire to work every day toward inclusivity

    Azemi: I saw at the last meeting at senate last year when worked on safety committee to add a course, it was voted down.

    Indicated his hope the report will be revisited. The safety committee’s proposal could address the current Greek situation. To put video in freshman seminar, we would need an argument that it requires an educational component – the moment it is put in freshman seminar, that it is what we are saying. Then we need to have all arguments to support it.

    Young:  Think we are making a bigger thing of the video than needed. The main message is what President Baron says, that we need to respect each other and make our community inclusive. We may be over thinking it. The video says here’s what inclusivity is. It says we have a lot of work to do in a very mild way. Based on the video, there’s no need for discussion. We may be overthinking it.

    Bryan: It’s very mild. We could pilot test by showing faculty senate.

    Young: President Baron is on there. Vetted. Here’s the message we want to send as a university.

    Azemi: We need to determine how to use it effectively.

    Cynthia: The video can’t be used if people don’t see it.

    Azemi: It’s not as drastic as we thought. What’s the message we want to see?  It shows the diversity or make up of the university environment.

    Shockley: In classroom settings, how do you make sure students don’t see it five times? Agreed we should show the video at faculty senate. Suggested that maybe we present this as an advisory report and ask for feedback.

    Azemi: we need some solutions. The suggestions are 1) First year seminar and convocations, 2) Do not want to show 2 or 3 times, 3) If follow up conversation is needed, then experts needed.

    Young: first year experience should have follow up mechanism in place, for example, different workshops (already in place), journals assigned. The video wasn’t on the list of resources for the

    Shockley: Let’s not stay focused on UP – this is just as or more important at campuses.

    Azemi – Indicated this is a fourth solution. 4) Make sure the video is included on the first year seminar list of resources. 5) For commonwealth campuses – show at Convocation.

    Lawlor: Could have different videos playing on screens in public spaces.

    Shockley: We have shown it in the Hub. We are trying to show it in the classroom.

    Lawlor: On commonwealth campuses, public and classroom spaces not so separate.

    Azemi – So some suggestions are to have clips displayed at commonwealth campuses and in academic buildings, to have a workshop added to first year experience linked to All In video.

    Could the workshops be taped (short videos) so others outside UP can watch?

    Young: We could use Zoom.

    Azemi: After last year’s experience on the safety committee, let’s cover all the bases. Let’s do our homework.

    Young:  How do we revive safety proposal from last year?

    Azemi: the vote was very close.

    Bryan: We can take back up the safety report.

    Azemi: the Greek issue came up after the proposal was voted down. It was if you are a student in a Greek society, you take 2 specific Gen Ed courses

    ii.    A2. Jointly with Student Life, draft an informational report that outlines the resources available to faculty, helping them to identify students that may require mental health support. Discuss the best practices to disseminate the information to faculty. Include a discussion of how the willingness to seek-out mental health support varies among under-represented groups at Penn State. [EECE will take the lead on this report.]

    We briefly examined charge A2.

    Azemi: Cynthia and Alex, would you proceed on charge A2 for next meeting?

    Young:  This is an impetus. Faculty don’t know where students with mental health should go.

    Shockley: Highlighted a resource in California schools. We could make this resource available through a link, perhaps on CANVAS.

    III.    A3. Consult with the Special Committee on Gender Disparities on report that outlines the unique challenges female faculty confront in securing promotion and tenure at Penn State. Working with the SCGD, identify best practices employed by other institutions to help female faculty secure tenure. Consider conducting focus groups or survey exit interviews as needed. [Special Committee on Gender Disparities will take the lead on this report.]

    Azemi: A special Committee on Tenure and Equity will take the lead on A3 – the committee not convened yet

    iv.    B1. A report on how to make the World in Conversations presentations widely available to incoming students.

    B1) Consider drafting an informational report about equity for learning support for the Commonwealth Campuses as compared to University Park.

    Azemi: GPAs drop when students move from campuses to UP.

    Lawlor: Offered to dig out the last report on this issue.

    v.    B2. A report on how to make the World in Conversations presentations widely available to incoming students.

    We did not discuss charge B2.

    Concerning charge A1, Julia, Alicia, & Azemi will take the lead on the A1 informational report. The deadline is Oct 27 for this report to Faculty Senate in time for the Dec meeting.

    IV. Comments from Vice Provost for Educational Equity
    None. Had to leave for another meeting.

    V. Old Business: None.

    VI. New Business: None.

    VII.     Adjournment

    The meeting was adjourned at 11:00

    Preparer’s name: Julia Bryan.
    back to top


    April 25, 2017

    Members Present: Kimberly Blockett, Denise Bortree (representative of Commission for Women), Dwight Davis, Robert Loeb (Chair), Karyn McKinney (representative of CORED Commission), Dara Purvis (representative of LGBTQ Commission), Eileen Trauth, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost for Educational Equity).

    Members Absent: Julia Bryan (Vice Chair), Erinn Finke, Timothy Lawlor, John Malchow (Student graduate), Adam Malek (Student undergraduate).

    Visitors: Keith Jervis, Director, Disability Services Resources, Leah Zimmerman, Disability Specialist.

    1. Review of the Agenda
      Loeb: Called the meeting to order at 8:35. Reviewed the agenda.
    2. Approval of Previous Meeting’s Minutes
      Loeb: Reviewed the minutes.Motion to accept – Davis; Second – Blockett.Minutes approved unanimously by voice vote.
    3. Announcements from the Chair
        1. Report From Officers and Chairs’ Meetin
          Loeb: Incoming Chair of the Senate indicated that the CORED report’s recommendation to include information of how to report bias in syllabi will be controversial. (This recommendation was the one, of three in Forensic Report for the Faculty Senate at the March Plenary session.) Will be standing for questions at the Faculty Senate meeting, those in the room should feel free to contribute to discussion.Davis: What were the concerns?Loeb: There were some expressed concerns that students might use reports of bias to challenge professors.Trauth: And that it infringes upon academic freedom. But faculty members should be aware that you don’t control the classroom like you used to, and you don’t know what students are reporting about your class.Davis: I suggest that the committee in the future look at whether reports of bias change in the future, to see whether including the information in syllabi generates more or different reports.
        2. Comments from Vice Provost for Educational Equity
            1. Observations by Marcus Whitehurst, Vice Provost for Educational Equity
              Whitehurst: I am happy to report we’ve had our first conference, the All In conference on Diversity and Inclusion, last week at the Penn Stater. We had four really powerful speakers: Sylvia Hertado served as our keynote speaker, and three other faculty members from Berkeley, Syracuse, and Northwestern. There was great turnout, initially we were hoping to have 200 registrants, and when the first invitation went out we had 160 people register. The Provost then decided to provide resources to expand the conference to 400, and we had 425 people in attendance. The messages were pretty clear: we had a focus on faculty recruitment, on creating a welcome classroom environment, and four breakout sessions. Two individuals received the All In Diversity and Achievement award, one a faculty member at Penn State Hershey and one a Schreyer Honors College undergraduate student. We had 50 nominations, and the committee could not come up with just one winner. We had 20 of our 24 campuses represented at the conference. A consistent question was whether we would continue to have a conference, and we intend to close out this All In year to evaluate the program and decide how to proceed in the future with this initiative.One of the other things from a faculty perspective we have running is profiles in faculty diversity and inclusion. Dwight Davis was the first, we have a second in Penn State Today, and we know we want to continue highlighting the work of our faculty members in diversity and inclusion. If you know of any faculty doing great work in that area, please send me their name and I’ll send editors out to profile them.Davis: Are any components of the conference archived?Whitehurst: Yes, as soon as it’s edited and captioned we will have video attached to the All In website for everyone to have free access to it, and we’ll announce it on the All In website when it is ready.
            2. Old Business
              1. Status of CFW Report – Robert Loeb
              2. Legislative Report Bias Website in Syllabi – Robert Loeb
              3. Reports from Commission Representatives

          (Moved out of order in the agenda, as Keith Jervis scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m.)

          Loeb: We put up two reports before the Faculty Senate Council. The first was approved, the second didn’t fare as well. I put in a request with the Senate Chair to ask what happened, and he suggested that the report was not ready yet. The Chair didn’t see it that way, so was surprised when the Council sent it back to committee.

          Whitehurst: The biggest concern was about childcare centers. The other issue was exit surveys: Blannie Bowen just wanted more details as to how we could successfully execute and sustain it. So that piece needed more clarification on. Those were two of the major recommendations, and at that point Jim determined it would be good to send back to EECE or the Commission to fill in those areas.

          Trauth: Could you clarify the issue with exit interviews?

          Loeb: I believe Blannie Bowen wanted specific advice about how to improve it. Exit interviews have been a longstanding issue in that they are important and the University doesn’t get as many as it should.

          Bortree: I went to Betty Harper and she said she didn’t want it discussed in the report, as we have a group that’s already dealing with that. So I tried to just say we need to improve it, but it sounds like Blannie Bowen was concerned about that. Part of the exit report area falls in his area and part in her area, and we tried not to step on her toes, but it sounds like in doing that we didn’t include enough detail.

          Whitehurst: In this discussion it was suggested we invite those individuals into an EECE meeting in the future and pose questions to them so we can strengthen our reports before they go to Senate Council.

          (conversation suspended for visitors)

            1. Presentation by Keith Jervis, Director, Disability Services Resources 9:00 AM
              1. Overview of Disability Services Resources at Penn State

          Jervis: There are two challenges illustrated in our handout I’d like to draw your attention to. I came on board about ten years ago, and at the time we had one disability specialist for every 200 students. Today we have one disability specialist for every 500 students, more than doubling the number of students we’re serving. In some ways that’s good: students are coming forward more, there may be less stereotypes and stigma around disability, but legislation also drives things. Passed in 2008 and implemented in 2009, the Americans with Disabilities Act was amended in a way that broadened the definition of disability. Showing disability was meant to be less burdensome. The consequence, and Penn State is not unique in this at all, is doubling the number of students we serve. We serve about 3.5% of the total student population, about 3500 students total, including the campuses. That compares dead on for what we see in the rest of the Big Ten.

          The other marked thing, and you see this in the pie chart on the handout, that psychological disorders are now 25% of our population and learning disorders are 20%. That is a ground shift. I was hired for my first job because I had experience working with students with learning disabilities. All of the research on accommodations for students with disabilities has primarily been done to determine what are efficacious accommodations for students with learning disabilities, not students with mental health issues. Now we’re serving students with mental health disabilities, but our accommodation models focus on learning disabilities and our actions are not research based. The important thing about the population is that it’s very time intensive. Students with mental health issues can do very well, but often present at our office in crisis, and when they’re ill and need to get better, they need to time out. So you see a lot of erratic performance, and depending on their circumstances they may need to withdraw. This appears in our accommodations as flexed accommodations. This means you might flex the requirements for attendance or testing so that the student can test on a day when they’re better. You might flex the assignment deadline. All of these can become problematic, especially within a 15 week semester. So the hope is the student may experience difficulty a few times throughout the semester but they won’t be very long, so they can manage it. The frequency and duration of those waxing and waning phases become very important – and it varies a great deal between individuals, so you can imagine why disability specialists working with more students is a great work burden. And it’s very difficult for faculty members, who have to individually negotiate and meet with each student, and our office is called upon to provide guidance to faculty members. We’ve now received guidance that we can’t put faculty in the position of negotiating themselves, so then we need to get more information from the faculty members about the requirements for their course to determine what kinds of accommodations are appropriate. We need to not only individualize accommodations to the individual student, but also to the course in question. So we plan to develop liaisons within each department to help us understand the objectives and requirements for courses.

          Another area that is difficult for faculty is our 50% time requirement for testing. We generally require an extra 50% of time for exams, in our center we allow double time as well as other accommodations (students who need to read aloud, students who need a scribe, and so on). There are about 1500 students who receive such testing accommodations, so we cannot accommodate them all in our testing center. So we are trying facilitate departments identifying and planning ahead to provide testing rooms, proctors, etc.

          I don’t mean to paint a dark picture, because there are a lot of exciting things going on in disability services. One positive aspect is employment. Individuals with disability experience one of the highest rates of unemployment. Legislation is driving public employers looking to hire more students with disabilities, and that is translating into internships and jobs for our students. We’ve also looked to make the workforce recruitment program (recruiting individuals with disabilities to work for the federal government) stronger among students.

          Davis: How well equipped are the other campuses as opposed to University Park? Is there a resources problem at other locations?

          Zimmerman: Yes, I think there’s difficulty with resources at our campuses. Typically our campuses are one-person shows that might have an admin assistant helping. University Park we have the benefit of having staff who specialize in different areas (note-taking assistance, alternative text, exam-taking coordinator). At the campuses one person typically does all those things. In theory accommodations are the same across the board. The chart indicates numbers at UP, but I believe this mirrors the rates at campuses. But campuses have been contacting us to ask about the buyout, that some positions are not being filled, some disability coordinators are being brought in as part-time staff rather than full-time.

          Davis: Are there academic standards for a given course that must be met for a student to be successful in that course? I’m thinking specifically of the time factor. How is that handled when you utilize all the resources you can, but the student can’t meet whatever those standards are. I guess I’m getting in a roundabout way at what the success rate is for a given population.

          Jervis: We haven’t looked specifically recently, but retention and graduation rates are fairly similar. Typically it means a student takes longer to get through their degree. There are some specific risk points, but I’m not sure how it compares to the general student population. I’m not sure that it’s accommodations that cause students to be at risk – it is often demographics similar to the larger student population that indicate risk, such as their class rank or SAT score compared to the average. If you add a disability on top of that, certainly you have more challenges. When I’ve done more research on this in the past at my other institution, we found a bimodal distribution: either students are really successful or moderately successful.

          Davis: Can you do early counseling to say a student with a disability who wants to be a chemical engineer, and end of freshman year has failed half their courses, but may have the ability to have a second option for an area where it looks like they might be successful. What do you do with that student?

          Jervis: We would redirect them to DUS or Career Services. The model in UP, maybe not necessarily so much at the campuses, is a decentralized or compliance type of model: we’re primarily driven by compliance to provide accommodations based on the ADA. Other institutions might have more centralized models, or a core mission of the office might be to provide academic and career counseling. We touch on those, but we also recognize we have limitations: we have a lot of majors here and it’s not our area of expertise. We’re fortunate in that DUS is across the street and do walk-in counseling, so we can easily refer them there.

          Trauth: I had an experience in which I and another faculty member taught a student, there was a pretty significant trigger event, and it appeared the resources were needed in a crisis were not known or available, and campus police became involved. I don’t know if that was an issue within my college of not knowing the resources, but it caused a lot of disruption for the faculty and we weren’t sure what to do. The other issue is notification. In the past I feel like I got a letter from students notifying me of a disability, but I don’t think I have in 16 years. Is that a privacy concern? From the point of view of faculty who want to help, I’m not sure we know what the right thing is to do. So I give that as feedback.

          Jervis: That’s alarming. More recently, there is a crisis availability through CAPS, we’ve also used community agencies. There’s a protocol of numbers as well as things to do through the behavioral threat management team. That maybe should be something like a Title IX mandated thing, adding it to the protocol of things that everyone needs to know. Those services are provided outside of our office, and we have basic skills in that regard, and we could refer you. But in that situation I probably would tell you to call the police. Our community agency can help and is very responsive, but I don’t know how widely that’s known. If you call CAPS after 5, they flip you right into the agency.

          Trauth: Overall I think there’s a lack of information that could be available online. Is it available online?

          Jervis: Yes, and another thing you probably should be aware of if one professor is telling others to notify them, that should probably be mentioned to the behavioral threat management team.

          To address our standard protocol, after we’ve done an intake interview and had third party evaluation to verify their disability, we then sit down with the student, go through their courses, write up a letter identifying what their accommodations will be, and then they’re given that letter with a document that outlines their rights and responsibilities for disclosing their disability. They’re told to present it to their faculty, have a form signed, and returned to our office to verify the faculty received it. So from the faculty side, you don’t need to do anything until you receive a letter. And I believe it is recommended or required to have language in your syllabi to inform students the process of coming to our office.

          Zimmerman: It’s important for us to know that faculty aren’t aware, as these significant proportion of psychological disorders mean there may be more crisis moments.

          Blockett: Additionally, in the context of psychological disorders, I may not have a letter – I get the letters for learning disabilities. Rarely does a student bring it up before a crisis hits. There isn’t protocol for how or whether or when to address. We just had a discussion at my campus, and our concern is there is not centralized information. If one faculty member is noticing behavioral issues or red flags, how does that one faculty member communicate it to other faculty and staff who might be engaging this student. We didn’t have anything set up to do this, and we should know when something is going on.

          Jervis: There is in place a way to let other people know, and that’s the behavioral threat management team. I believe the whole database is meant to be university-wide. This is really an outgrowth of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and the recognized need to inform the community so that all eyes can be looking out for things. You shouldn’t feel like it’s bad, or that it’s going to reflect badly on a student. It’s important not just for students, but also people in the community. There was a person calling and making threats to several campuses, and the reason we knew it was several campuses is that the behavioral threat management team had multiple reports.

          To answer your question too about the individuals, CAPS has on their website some videos that go through a disclosure process. When I train faculty, I tell them they can always talk to the student about what you observe, so start with observable behavior: “I see you’re not coming to class as regularly as you were, could you tell me about that.” That can invite more conversation, and it’s not crossing a line to talk about what you directly observe.

          Loeb: Am I getting myself in too deep doing that?

          Jervis: If you feel you are, you can refer or consult with someone in a mental health setting. I might go to the mental health folks and say, “this is what I’m observing with a student.” You can also have your conversation with someone else in the room, in a semi-private session but someone else is there.

          Loeb: Are you actually recommending that faculty get involved in this way? Or is this something that counseling should be doing?

          Jervis: I’m saying people should do what they feel comfortable doing. What they shouldn’t do is just let entropy take over. At least filing a report with the behavioral threat management team is helpful.

          McKinney: Does everyone go through a training regarding scenarios, warning signs, and so on?

          Jervis: That’s a resource for everyone, I think you’re talking about the faculty scenarios on the CAPS website. And that might be a good context for a facilitated discussion.

          Purvis: To flag a particular context, I think in the law schools there can be specific difficulties with disclosure. Faculty members are particularly concerned with the privacy rights of students when it comes to notifying other faculty members about potentially troubled students. And students have to go through a character and fitness component of bar admission, and are often concerned that disclosing or seeking treatment for emotional or psychological difficulties will be reported to the bar and potentially keep them from achieving their professional license. So the legal community can be particularly challenging in terms of both faculty providing help and students seeking services they need.

          Jervis: FERPA was amended specifically with idea of keeping the community safe after Virginia Tech. So there is already legislation that allows for that type of disclosure in those situation, but limits it. If students are concerned, a great opportunity would be to engage the Office for Civil Rights and have them present speaking about disability discrimination in the context of legal employment.

          Davis: Alterations in behavior is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, and one concern raised in my experience is the context of discrimination: that a student might be approached by someone who has a picture of what normal behavior should be, and in actuality there’s nothing wrong with the student in terms of mannerisms or dress or other kinds of things. Are there scenarios where we run into problems crossing the line in terms of discrimination?

          Jervis: Yes, and I think that’s a good reason that faculty may not want to be the ones doing that, as you’re in a position of evaluating the individual. The place where discrimination occurs is where someone suffers an adverse consequence as a result of discrimination, and faculty members evaluate student performance. The disability coordinators are not in a similar position in which they evaluate students.

          Davis: My concern is that there is not uniformity or information provided to faculty giving them direction about when to seek help, or how to interact with students.

          Loeb: Does each campus have a behavioral threat management team?

          Whitehurst: My understanding is that such teams generally operate somewhat under the radar, and only flag problems once an evaluation has taken place. Keith, did you want to share some of the ideas around the task force?

          Jervis: Yes, we are planning this summer to address the types of flexibility or consideration accommodations. I mentioned earlier the Office for Civil Rights has said that disability services are not to have faculty or students in the position of negotiating the accommodations around attendance, rescheduling exams, or extensions of assignments. We would like to have some representation from faculty, students, administrators, and mental health treatment folks. There isn’t good research out there to indicate what is best for students – for example, giving an extension to a student with anxiety may not help, and may even be counter-therapeutic. So what we want to do this summer is work on identifying what that process might look like. Currently the process is a student gets a letter saying they get flexibility accommodations, and on the back of the rights and responsibilities portion is a form where the faculty and student agree as to accommodations. We don’t get a high rate of return, nor a high rate of specificity. The ones we get a good response on are the students who have had repeated issues so that faculty know they need to nail down accommodations in advance. At Wisconsin, the office is in the process of cataloging requirements for courses, so they know where they can apply accommodations and where they can’t.

          McKinney: That would be helpful, as I’ve had students come and demand something, and it’s unclear whether I have flexibility when a student says they need something.

          Jervis: Generally, the letter is meant to be only partially specific. So the letter may read “note-taking assistance,” which could mean any number of things. The law says you can choose amongst equally effective accommodations, you give preference to the individual request but obviously getting notes can be done through any number of ways. Many of our students now use livescribe pens from our office, which records as the student writes. The majority of them like that, so we’re not doing nearly as much assistance regarding note-taking as we used to. Fortunately most of our campus liaisons are very curious and are building similar capacity at their campuses.

          McKinney: I would also really recommend the CAPS training, as it gives specific and helpful information.

          Jervis: Yes, it gives one scenario where you probably would want to call the behavioral threat management team.

          Loeb: Would you be willing to work with this committee next academic year to generate a report to go before the Faculty Senate, and both of you could be there to answer questions and present?

          Jervis: Sure, although it seems like particularly concerns as to psychological disabilities, I would urge you speak with Ben Locke, the director of CAPS, and maybe both of us could consider presenting.

          Trauth: We just had CAPS at a recent Faculty Senate meeting, and it was extremely disturbing the caseload they have.

          Jervis: I look at this as a three-legged stool. There’s no way CAPS can do what it was initially set up to do, which was just short-term counseling. The number of students who present with anxiety is through the roof. They’re always triaging and figuring out who they really need to be serving. So they need faculty support. There’s a community response. And if a student’s really in crisis, they may need hospitalization, engagement with a family doctor, and so on. They may be more successfully able to get an appointment there. So it’s a matter of making those three legs stronger, and not expecting CAPS to address it disproportionately.

          Trauth: Yes, and I think CAPS was asking for more money. And a big part of this is the loosening of gun laws.

          Jervis: I am terrified they would allow guns on college campuses. I say that will be the day I retire.

          Loeb: Thanks so much, and we will add a report from Disability Services to the EECE agenda for next year.

            1. Old Business

          b. Status of CFW Report – Robert Loeb
          c. Legislative Report Bias Website in Syllabi – Robert Loeb

          (return to CFW report)

          Trauth: I just went through an exit interview, and if I were a woman who had experienced bias, I would not have felt comfortable discussing it. And I don’t want to cast aspersions on the person who performed it, but the interview started “may I report this to the dean and President of the university.” If I was subjected to systemic bias and retiring or leaving under those circumstances, I would not have felt comfortable. It felt bureaucratic, pro forma, and uncomfortable.

          Bortree: And that was our concern, often it’s another faculty member within your own college, who you likely will not feel comfortable disclosing things to. Additionally, the exit interview is still only for tenure-line faculty, and as far as I know plans are still to conduct the interviews within the college. Our major recommendations were the two groups to investigate, one on child care and one on service disparity. And research has recently come out regarding service levels between men and women and how that affects tenure rates. We had not tried to focus on the exit survey, and it sounds like that part tripped up the report as a whole.

          Trauth: Is it possible in the exit interview to say we have a group of people who are particularly skilled at doing interviews regarding issues with diversity, would you like one of them to conduct your exit interview?

          Davis: Why are only tenure line faculty included?

          Bortree: They said it’s a resource issue right now, that there aren’t the resources to do that many interviews. Additionally, our peer universities tend to not include non-tenure-line faculty in exit interviews.

          Loeb: The exit interview director at DuBois interviews anyone, tenure line or not.

          Bortree: That’s interesting, and it should be like that everywhere. The report put out every other year only includes tenure line exit interviews.

          Blockett: So there’s no training, no University-wide standard, and no consistency in how it’s done.

          Whitehurst: I think next time it would be helpful to massage the report a bit, since a relatively minor part of the report became a major part of the discussion at Council.

          Loeb: I suggest that for the committee next year, you split it into two reports. Wait for the report to come out on the exit interviews over the summer, and I suspect you might want to ask Faculty Affairs to jointly work on a report with this committee. I’m hesitant to say to work with Blannie Bowen’s replacement, since if they come from outside Penn State the learning curve may be steep. I think childcare may need to resolve itself with budgetary issues.

          I also have a greater concern that this committee may want to take on with Faculty Affairs. The latest P&T report just came out, and 55% of female faculty came through the process, where 63% of male faculty did. The inequality in this process is something that EECE and Faculty Affairs should be taking up.

          Whitehurst: And that’s just assistant to associate. It’s even worse associate to full.

          Bortree: If we split the reports into two, can EECE put both forward?

          Loeb: EECE can put both forward, but I also think we want it charged by the Chair of the Faculty Senate.

          Blockett: If EECE takes on questions of gender and promotion and tenure, I ask that you pay attention to processes and the rate from associate to full.

          1. Reports from Commission Representatives

      CORED: Report attached to minutes. The academic team is putting together a letter to the President to discuss faculty recruitment and retention and are looking for participants in focus groups. The student team is working on World in Conversation making videos on facilitating discussions on diversity. We have our last meeting coming up, which is our annual meeting with the President.

      CFW: We just had our awards presentation, and had Sue Paterno speak, and about to have our last meeting of the semester as well.

      LGBTQ: Also had our awards presentation and meeting with the President recently, were going to have a meeting at Hershey but will have to reschedule due to an emergency with one of our main contacts down there.

          1. New Business
            1. Comments on EECE in 2016-2017 Senate Year – EECE Membership

            Trauth: Sometimes a well-intentioned professor can make efforts that backfire, such as over-focusing on four female students in a class of fifty. I think it is worth trying to think about how to bring the aims of diversity down to the day to day business. For example, a woman in my department said I don’t need to go to the All In conference, I know it. How do we bring these concerns to other people?

            Whitehurst: Yes, and that was our target, not diversity champions. And I’m happy to report the folks in attendance were a wide range of individuals. I would preface, when you introduce the legislative report, back to the student panel that kicked things off in October. Remember, our students asked the Faculty Senate what faculty can do to change the climate in the classrooms and make students feel more welcome.

            Davis: I think as we discuss items to address, it’s important to have a student voice.

            Loeb: I think we should be sure to invite Carmen Borges, Ken Lehrman’s second in command, to come to the committee next year, in Lehrman’s place to address progress with the Faculty Search process.

            Thanks for a marvelous year doing great work.

            Davis: I think I speak for all of us that we have been fortunate to have you taking a leadership role with us this year. Thanks for carrying on the good fight.

            Whitehurst: And I appreciate your confidence on the Senate floor.

            VIII. Adjournment

            Loeb: Meeting adjourned.

            back to top


            March 14, 2017 (Rescheduled for March 21, 2017)

            1. Review of the Agenda
              Bryan: called meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Reviewed the agenda.
            2. Approval of Previous Meeting’s Minutes
              Bryan: Reviewed the minutes.
              Motion to accept – Malchow; Second – Trauth.
              Minutes approved unanimously by voice vote.
            3. Announcements from the Chair
              1. Report From Officers and Chairs’ Meeting
                Bryan: Intra-university Relations is working on a report on gender relations and fixed term faculty. This report will not be presented at the Faculty Senate meeting later today, but it is in progress. WorkLion will be discussed at today’s meeting, and will be going live in July.Today’s meeting will also have a vote on standardized titles for fixed term faculty members. Michael Berube reported that there seems to be deep support across campus for it.
            4. Old Business: (a) CORED Report – Karyn McKinney
              (Moved out of order in the agenda, as Denise Shivery scheduled to begin at 9:00a.m.)McKinney: There have been two CORED meetings since we last met, due to the rescheduling of EECE and Faculty Senate meetings due to weather the previous week. Mike Lowrie, the interim police chief, spoke at one meeting regarding a community police unit that will be working with student groups and the university regarding policing in State College. The Black Caucus and Latino Caucus issued a joint letter condemning President Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven countries, which they sent to the student body and faculty members at Penn State. They also planned a march in solidarity against the travel ban.CORED leadership reported to the commission membership regarding the January report that EECE presented to the Faculty Senate. Laureen Teti, co-chair of CORED, will follow up with Rob Loeb regarding the forensic report to be presented in today’s Faculty Senate meeting. The Academic Team put together a draft letter to President Barron, hoping to have a meeting regarding faculty diversity.The March 16 CORED meeting was a special regional meeting involving all commissions held at Greater Allegheny. Attendees discussed challenges regarding faculty and best practices regarding conversations about diversity in the classroom. Representatives from Fayette and Beaver campuses talked about the challenge of the lack of diversity. Altoona mentioned a need for training for faculty to manage difficult conversations in the classroom. Various campuses reported an increase in threatening behaviors and incidents on campus since the November election.Trauth: I want to make sure an extremely important issue is reflected in our minutes, as it was in last month’s. This goes back to the issue of standardized titles for non-tenure track faculty. What I have observed in my time at Penn State is that there is a lack of clear and consistent policy in the line between tenure and non-tenure track, and rules regarding moving from one to the other. This has potential to create significant issues in terms of diversity: if there isn’t a consistent policy, a department might have a low bar to recruit a postdoc candidate, then move that person into a tenure track position. Or if someone is already on the tenure track but not meeting publication requirements, and there isn’t a consistent policy, one person might be allowed to move to the non-tenure track while others are denied and forced to leave Penn State. There are inconsistencies in policy both between departments and even within the same college. If this isn’t managed correctly, it has the possibility to set the university back significantly, with serious implications for diversity.
            5. Presentation by Denise Shivery, Communications and Training Specialist
              1. Possible Additional Training Related to Diversity
                Shivery: The goal of Penn State’s annual compliance training is to keep short (around thirty minutes or less), feature different topical areas, and make different every year. There is certainly an opportunity to add a section to the annual training on diversity and inclusion. The new annual compliance training comes out in the fall, and is prepared before the fall semester begins. One thing to keep in mind is that we want the training to be brief – the idea is that it reminds employees of topics they already know they should do.A first step in proposing a diversity and inclusion topic would be to think about what content to show people. Would this require a full stand-alone course and then a reminder in the annual training, or could a short 3-4 slides in the annual training adequately raise the issue? We would look to EECE for recommendations about what the committee believes people need. Another thing to know is that the concept of the training is primarily issue-spotting: if you see this, we would like you to speak up. Do committee members have a sense of whether this would be a full course required upon onboarding new employees? Or could this be covered adequately in the annual compliance course?Bryan: This came out of a CORED report in which there was significant student input. That report recommends significant training. As a committee, we felt incorporation in the annual compliance training would be useful to get on the radar of every faculty member. We noticed that embedded in slides of recent trainings were links to other resources, so perhaps we could similarly embed links to best practices on creating an inclusive classroom.Shivery: I imagine that could be a good way to plant a seed of do I consider this. Then if you do want to provide additional information, do you want to make viewing that information required for all faculty or all employees? I say that with caution, as no one likes to be required to do anything.Bortree: Is the annual training the same for faculty and staff?Shivery: Correct.Purvis: Does the training program track how many people click through to optional additional information?Shivery: No, we don’t track the clicks to view optional items, although we can set it up to require every user to click through.Bryan: What is the procedure for adding questions or materials into the annual compliance training?Shivery: I head a committee with representatives from different components of the university (Clery Act, Title IX, etc.). So what I would look for from EECE is a representative who could be on that team, approve our content each year, and then be responsible for collaborating with the group and pulling together slides (we like to keep sections to three slides) that we could incorporate. We will be starting to program the new version for the fall soon.Malchow: I’m curious about more day to day bias and resources available to students.

                Shivery: The next step, if you’re interested in this fall’s version of the training, would be to let me know, and I will invite a representative of the group to our planning committee.

            6. Old Business:
              VI. Old Business (b) Educational Equity and Faculty, Forensic Report
              Bryan: There will be three questions put to the floor at the Faculty Senate meeting later today.
              VI. Old Business (c) Revision of AD 84 Preferred Name and Gender Identity Policy, Advisory and Consultative Report
              Bryan: This came straight from the administration to us and will be on the Senate floor today. It’s a simple change in language so there likely will not be questions, and will just hold the vote.
              VI. Old Business (d) PreCollege Programs Report, Advisory and Consultative
              Bryan: This is from last month’s presentation. The authors cannot be at the rescheduled meeting, so I will be presenting it.
              VI. Old Business (e) Commission Reads Program, Informational Report
              Purvis: Will attend Faculty Senate meeting to present.
              Bryan: I will go up to introduce you and then turn the floor over to you.
            7. New Business (a) Status of CFW ReportBortree: The Commission for Women looked at reports presented to the Faculty Senate in the past. One examined disparities in the tenure rates of male and female faculty at Penn State as compared to other universities.The faculty exit survey is available to faculty who leave the university for any reason. When we looked at the exit survey, we saw a couple of things that could contribute to female faculty members leaving Penn State. There were a number of comments about childcare in exit surveys. Most of the faculty leaving for a reason other than retirement said that childcare was very important. Satisfaction with childcare availability was low. Another problem was the equity of assignments. Female faculty members reported that they believed they had a higher service load than male faculty members.There are inconsistencies in who knows about the exit survey and how it is administered. The response rate is low, which also complicates conclusions to be drawn from it. How faculty find out about the process is hit or miss.Trauth: I wonder if one reason for low participation is that people give feedback within their college. There would probably be greater participation if exit information was provided more at the university level.Bortree: We got strong pushback from the assessment office, which is currently looking at the process to create training for interviewers and promote the exit survey and interview process. They have asked the CFW to hold off until next July to give them time to improve the process, and will then resubmit to the Commission what they plan to do.Trauth: That is helpful, but until the process moves out of each employee’s college, they likely will not get honest feedback. Employees need greater confidence in anonymity to give candid responses.Bryan asked for a motion to have the CFW Report approved. Trauth moved and Malchow seconded the motion. The decision was unanimous with a voice vote.
            8. Adjournment
              Bryan: Meeting adjourned.

            back to top


            January 24, 2017

            1. Review of the Agenda
              Bryan: called meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Reviewed the agenda.
            2. Approval of Previous Meeting’s Minutes
              Bryan: Reviewed the minutes.
              Motion to accept – Davis; Second – Purvis.
              Minutes approved unanimously by voice vote.
            3. Announcements from the Chair
              1. Report From Officers and Chairs’ Meeting

              Bryan: Major point of discussion as to faculty affairs considering universal titles for fixed-term faculty. This would cover 85-90% of faculty at the university. One issue is whether to apply titles of assistant/associate/full professor to people who do not hold terminal degrees.
              Trauth: Believes that there are implications for this committee arising out of discussion. Requests that when this policy is implemented, this committee ought to request or ensure that procedures are in place to anticipate and avoid bias in decisions moving people back and forth between universalized titles and tenure-track versus nontenured positions.

            4. Comments from Vice Provost for Educational EquityM
              1. Observations by Marcus Whitehurst, Vice Provost for Educational Equity

              Whitehurst: University is concluding a successful celebration of MLK commemoration this week, which closed on Friday with a visit from Dr. Cornel West. On Monday, the President’s Council as well as student leaders held a facilitated discussion on the All In initiative, talking about what it means to be committed to diversity and inclusion. This event included the President, the Provost, all members of the President’s council, and about thirty student leaders. This kicked off what should be a number of facilitated dialogues about diversity and inclusion.
              The past weekend was a recruitment weekend for high-achieving students who probably consider Penn State as one of their top three or four potential universities. The goal is to convince some of these top talented potential undergraduates to commit to attending Penn State. There was a good group of two hundred diverse students, and we hope to match last year’s yield. (Last year was the first year of the program, about two hundred students took part and forty percent ultimately came to Penn State.)
              Finally, last year there was an issue with LionPath, in that with the change in the system it unintentionally sent a large number of offers out to a great deal of students. As a result, rather than our typical admitted group of new University Park students of around 7600 students, there were close to 8900 students accepted to UP. As a result, the University created an offer called the 1-3 program, allowing students who lived close to one of the other campuses to go to that campus for the first year. Financial incentives were built into the offer, and roughly 300 students accepted. The LionPath issue should not be repeated this year, but of the 300 or so students who took part in the 1-3 program, the University gave them another incentive to consider staying at their campus for a second year. About 100 students accepted the second year.

              VII. New Business: (d) Status of CFW Report – Denise Bortree (Moved out of order in the agenda, as Bortree had to drop off of call early)
              Bortree: At the last meeting I presented some ideas that the Commission for Women had regarding a possible report. The Commission has since met and talked about topics, and are collecting data on two topics: (1) loads of teaching, research, and service, looking along gender lines; (2) faculty exit surveys and comments regarding childcare. The plan is to meet with Rob Loeb to hone in on one topic to bring to the group. We will have a more detailed report next month for the committee to consider.

              VI. Old Business (a) Addressing Issues of Classroom Climate and Bias in the Classroom Advisory and Consultative Report, UFS Plenary Session January 24, 2017 (Moved out of order in agenda, as visitors were not scheduled to arrive until later.)
              McKinney: There was some discussion at CORED regarding deleting some of the recommendations in the draft CORED report as presented at the December 2016 EECE meeting. There were a couple of concerns: first, UPUA put together the recommendations and there was some concern that students would question why their work was not in the final report. There was also some questions regarding why all recommendations but the first were removed, since the first recommendation is what university already does. There was also conversation about whether faculty would feel that they were being told what to do if they were instructed to put a particular statement in their syllabi.
              Loeb: Addressed CORED concerns about putting the three recommendations into a forensic report to put on the floor of the Senate. I hope that the forensic report will be approved. Instead of going through discussion regarding the other recommendations on the floor today, the report would simply make reference to the fact that other questions are part of a forensic report that the EECE approved today to hopefully be brought into the March meeting.

              VI. Old Business (b) Penn State Veterans – Historical Perspectives, Informational Report, UFS Plenary Session January 24, 2017 (Moved out of order in agenda, as visitors were not scheduled to arrive until later.)
              Bryan: I could entertain discussion if there are questions, or move on.
              Davis: One of the open questions on the issue when we talked about this before was regarding infrastructure support across the university at various locations. I realize that some of the campuses may not have large populations, but how is the university addressing the needs of veterans no matter where they are?
              Whitehurst: President Barron recently created a new position, hiring a Senior Director for Veterans Affairs (Eugene McFeely). McFeely’s role is to establish linkages and connections with campuses, centralize relations from a University-wide perspective, outreach to veterans, in addition to their benefits.

              V. Presentation by Stephen Holoviak, Senior Director, Talent Search Programs and Mickey Bellet, Director Upward Bound Programs, 9:30 AM

              1. Talent Search Programs Advisory and Consultative Report

              Holoviak: Our report (draft distributed to Committee) asks the University to take a look at the housing and business practices around our precollege high school/middle school programs at the university. The costs of the program have been escalating significantly. We want to make clear that we are not trying to take another University unit to the woodshed in any way – our hope is to tread lightly and ask for evaluation where the costs of University facilities are connected to this set of values for a set of students who can’t themselves write checks to come to Penn State for summer camp.
              Whitehurst: The concrete language regarding to low income students is appropriate, and goes back to the President’s imperative of access and affordability. So if the recommendation is simply to examine what our practices are, I think it’s a fair recommendation.
              Bellet: In programs such as Upward Bound, we have an academic year component, but another major piece of the budget is the residential program in the summer. We bring as many students as we can afford to campus to stay for six weeks in the dorm. Table 12 shows the progression of what we have been charged for this, the number of students we’ve been able to bring, and the decreasing number of students we are able to afford. Our budget is relatively stagnant, and has been since 2005. The institution’s charges, and what they charge per student, has gone up dramatically. We think it is reasonable to request that the University look into our institutional goals for students like ours.
              Davis: Where does your budget come from?
              Bellet: The federal government through the Department of Education.
              Davis: Does Penn State support the program?
              Holoviak: Not directly, but we do receive support through Educational Equity. Marcus Whitehurst sends several of us to Washington, DC using university funds to let us meet with the Department of Education.
              Davis: Do other universities give support more directly?
              Whitehurst: It might be good to add to this document a benchmark of other Big Ten peer institutions and see if they directly supplement the support from the Department of Education.
              Bryan asked for a motion to have the Talent Search Programs Advisory and Consultative Report approved. Davis moved and Trauth seconded the motion. The decision was unanimous with a voice vote.

              VII. New Business

                1. Educational Equity and Faculty, Forensic Report

            Loeb: The intent is to write another advisory report with recommendations to move these points forward. Obviously this report will not be brought forward in the meeting today, but the March meeting if all goes well.
            McKinney: Happy to see this, thinks it takes care of the concerns CORED had as expressed earlier.
            Davis moved to approve the Forensic Report and Trauth seconded the motion. The decision was unanimous with a voice vote.

          2. Revision of AD 84 Preferred Name and Gender Identity Policy, Advisory and Consultative Report
            Bryan: We need to approve this report, bearing in mind it has already been to the administration and approved at that level.
            Davis moved to approve the Revision of AD 84 Preferred Name and Gender Identity Policy, Advisory and Consultative Report and Trauth seconded the motion. The decision was unanimous with a voice vote.
          3. LGBTQ Commission Reads Program, Informational Report – Dara Purvis
            Purvis: This is the first year of the Commission Reads program, patterned on the Penn State Reads program. The Commission suggested two plays by Larry Kramer and has had a slate of programming throughout the academic year, including a lecture by Larry Kramer himself. The Commission for LGBTQ Equity is very happy with the attendance and participation at Commission Reads events, and intends to make it a regular program.
            Trauth: I hadn’t heard about this, and was wondering if it might be brought to the attention of someone in the undergraduate education program to further publicize. Perhaps if the program could be pointed out to an undergrad education point person in different colleges and departments, they could pass it along to faculty in case the events would be relevant or useful in the faculty’s courses.
            Davis moved to approve the LGBTQ Commission Reads Program, Informational Report, Advisory and Consultative Report and Trauth seconded the motion. The decision was unanimous with a voice vote.

      Adjournment Bryan: Meeting adjourned.

      back to top


      December 6, 2016

      Members Present: Kimberly Blockett, Denise Bortree (Representative of CFW), Julia Bryan (Vice Chair), Dwight Davis, Erinn Finke, Timothy Lawlor, Robert Loeb (Chair), Karyn McKinney (Representative of CORED), Dara Purvis (Representative of CLGBTQ), Eileen Trauth, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost for Educational Equity).

      Members Absent: John Malchow (Student graduate), Adam Malek (Student undergraduate)

      Guests: Laureen Teti, Chair, CORED; Renee Thornton-Roop, Penn State Veterans

      REVIEW OF THE AGENDALoeb:  Called meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Reviewed agenda.

      APPROVAL OF MINUTESLoeb: Reviewed minutes. Asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Davis moved, Purvis seconded. Minutes approved unanimously by voice vote.

      ANNOUNCEMENTS

      Report from Officers and Chairs’ MeetingLoeb reported on meeting from previous evening.

      COMMENTS FROM VICE PROVOST FOR EDUCATIONAL EQUITY

      Marcus Whitehurst, Vice Provost for Educational for Educational EquityWhitehurst: Provided information on All In Campaign and related committees, events, and initiatives. The programming committee handles All In calendar of events. The All In Commemorative committee – President Baron wants a commemorative permanent structure to represent the University’s commitment to diversity – has put out an RFP for the design.Loeb: Is the campaign going to be presented to Senate?

      Whitehurst: President Barron will cover All In during January Plenary Meeting.

      Whitehurst: The Joint Awareness Task Force, which was appointed a few years ago, made recommendations about the University’s diversity courses. The courses must have 50% content indicating they are diversity courses.

      Whitehurst: President Baron has signed a document about Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) along with leaders of other universities. Also, there is petition with over 400 signatures indicating that we are going to protect students from deportation.

      Trauth: What can faculty do about diversity courses as individuals? Can the faculty be asked to think about diversity in their course syllabi? If their courses do not meet the 50% diversity content criteria, what can faculty do to help their students think about diversity?

      Whitehurst: Will ask faculty what can be done in their courses to address diversity. Also working with faculty on a grant. As well, working on campus housing dining options to provide ethnic selections once a month.

      Davis: Could there be a statement about diversity at the beginning of each syllabi?

      Loeb: Should the Commission for Adult Learners (CAL) should have a representative on EECE?

      Whitehurst: The Commission for Adult Learners focuses on issues such as Veterans. CORED, CFW, and CLGBTQ focus on equity while CAL’s mission is focused on awareness and support for learners over 22 years old.

      Davis: Have equity concerns been raised by CAL?

      Whitehurst: Perhaps equity issues around veterans. Other commissions look at national diversity trends and make changes at PSU to support diversity.

      Blockett: Inquired about CAL’s mission and its focus on equity.

      Whitehurst: Except for veterans, equity does not seem to be a central core issue.

      Trauth: Veteran students with disabilities are not being served appropriately. This topic merits consideration.

      Loeb: Suggested leaving CAL with Outreach.

      Davis. If CAL is working with groups that have equity issues, then EECE should be part of the discussion but no CAL representative on EECE and not part of the EECE Duties.

      Loeb: Took Davis’ comment as a motion to delineate EECE interaction with the CAL.

      Trauth: Seconded.

      Motion carried unanimously.

      Presentation by Laureen Teti, Chair, CORED (9:12 AM)

      Addressing Issues of Classroom Climate and Bias in the Classroom, Advisory and Consultative Report for consideration by EECELoeb: Welcomed Laureen Teti, Chair of CORED. Reported working with CORED on developing the report since June 2016. Revised CORED submission to improve clarity.Teti: Report emerged as a result of President Baron asking CORED to identify 3-5 topics for the University to focus on. Implicit bias was pinpointed. Increased reporting of bias occurred after the election. Highlighted recommendation 3, to include report bias link in all syllabi.

      Finke: Inquired about how reports of bias are handled.

      Whitehurst: Provided description of the online process and then noted that the student is interviewed. If criminal conduct is involved the incident is referred to the police. If student misconduct involved, reported to the Office of Student Conduct. If the report is anonymous, the incident is just documented.

      Finke: Described process as a Catch 22. If you can’t get to the perpetrator, nothing improves.

      Lawlor: Nothing obvious on website as to where students go to report. Website seems clunky.

      Whitehurst: A focus group is working on the website.

      Teti: Highlighted recommendation for faculty training to recognize and deal with bias.

      Davis: Suggested an electronic course on implicit bias for faculty.

      Blockett: Training should not be just up to departments but if the University means to have faculty recognize and deal with bias, then the University should have mandatory faculty training just like the child abuse training faculty is required to do.

      Finke: President Baron is recommending that all trainings be condensed into one. Questioned whether implicit bias training could not be added to that.

      Discussion continued on the importance of faculty training and the importance of leveraging the University’s values and looking at structural changes now.

      Bortree: Ethics office currently building new modules for faculty training. If EECE can get support, then can expand Compliance Training.

      Teti: Asked for clarification of recommendation 4 in the report.

      Loeb: Provided new wording for recommendation 4 because the original wording may be misinterpreted by Senate Council and the report would be sent back for revision.

      Blockett: Inquired how we could get it through to Full Senate consideration.

      Davis: The key is rationale and how the recommendation is framed. We have students who have talked about bias in the classroom and the report presents the related data. The University can be affected if the faculty do not understand implicit bias. Faculty should be able to indicate their competency.

      Loeb: Bryan will stand in for Loeb at the January 24, 2017 UFS Meeting when the CORED Advisory and Consultative Report will be presented at UFS Plenary Session.

      Whitehurst: In regard to faculty training on bias, an effective strategy would be to invite Regis Becker, the Director of University Ethics and Compliance, to EECE. He can be a key person in advocating for adding implicit bias training to compliance training. He needs to be the front person to support the initiative. This is an important issue for EECE to focus on.

      Loeb: Suggested that we present the CORED report, and follow with an invitation to Regis to a future meeting, perhaps March 2017 meeting.

      Bortree: Implicit bias issue is important to the Ethics committee and that questions could be added to the Climate Survey.

      Whitehead: Climate Survey comes out next Friday.

      Loeb: Suggested that the words “required compliant training” not be included until we have the wider University on board.

      Whitehead: Reiterated that this conversation is important and hence the need to get Regis Becker on board. For the CORED report focus on the syllabus recommendation.

      Loeb: The revision recommends college workshops to involve colleges in the process. Just focusing on syllabi in the report is not a good idea.

      Teti: Suggested the report focus on syllabi first. Then we can get Regis Becker on board moving on compliance training.

      Loeb: Table the notion of compliance training, leave the four recommendations as in the report before EECE.

      Davis: Plan for another report in Spring to move toward discussion of compliance training.

      Teti: Would work with other commissions to get to compliance training. Indicated that she would ask to get Loeb on the agenda for Joint Commission’s Leadership December meeting.

      Loeb: Asked for a motion to approve the report. Davis moved. Blockett seconded. There were no questions or discussion. Motion was passed unanimously. Thanked Teti.

      Presentation by Renee Thornton-Roop, Associate Director of Office of Veterans Programs, University Park 10:11 AM

      Penn State Veterans – Historical Perspectives, Informational ReportLoeb: Welcomed Renee Thornton-Roop. Stated the report was very informative and EECE would invite her to come back in the future to help EECE understand the challenges that veteran students face. Observed this is a joint report with the Committee on Outreach.Thornton-Roop: Began by indicating the Office of Veterans Programs serves veterans including those with the post-911 GI bill benefits. Reviewed the history of the GI Bill.

      Davis: Inquired about the success rates for veterans.

      Thornton-Roop: Veterans tracking is difficult because of so much mobility due to deployment, medical withdrawals, persons with disabilities, etc. Veterans are typically on par with their peers in GPA.

      Davis: Inquired about veteran student debt and the challenges veterans face.

      Thornton-Roop: This is being tracked and is a sub-committee is working on improving experiences for veterans. Penn State Veterans have discussed certified training and a Veterans advocacy group, but these have been put on hold.

      Blockett: Noted if no one is trained in veterans’ issues at each University location, that is a problem. Inquired about what the VA versus the University considers success.

      Thornton-Roop: The VA is provided graduation rates. The data are skewed due to mobility.

      Loeb asked for a motion to approve the report. Davis moved. Kimberly Blockett seconded. Unanimously passed.

      Loeb: Thanked Thornton-Roop and noted that EECE looks forward to working with her in the future on Equity issues for Veterans.

      Old Business

      Millennium Scholars Program Informational Report, UFS Plenary Session December 6, 2016Loeb: Report will include students in presentation.

      New Business

      Status of CFW Report – Denise BortreeBortree: She wrote a report and presented it to the CFW Planning and Assessment Committee to change the process to improve reporting for women faculty leaving the University (exit interviews).Loeb: Need for a comparison on tenure flow rates for female faculty across colleges.

      Bortree: Noted colleges do not want to provide tenure flow information. CFW is interested in looking at teaching and teaching load as well as child care and the cost of child care.

      Loeb: Inquired whether EECE wanted to go forward with considering a report.

      Davis: Yes.

      Loeb: Gave Bortree recommendations on how to draft report including a focus on a four or fewer issues for female faculty.

      Bortree: Will work on the report.

      Davis: Emphasized importance of getting before the full Senate.

      Loeb: Report is only first step for EECE consideration of how female faculty can be supported appropriately to be successful.

      Bortree: Asked if EECE was interested in salary equity.

      Loeb: Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits examine salary equity.

      Status of LGBTQ Report – Dara PurvisA Day Without Art Program, Informational ReportPurvis: A Day Without Art Program was successful, report for EECE review in January.

      Adjournment

      Loeb adjourned the meeting at 11:00 am.

      Preparer: Julia Bryan. Editor: Robert Loeb.

      back to top


      October 18, 2016

      Members Present: Kimberly Blockett, Julia Bryan (Vice Chair), Dwight Davis, Timothy Lawlor, Robert Loeb (Chair), Dara Purvis (representative of LGBTQ Commission), John Malchow (Student graduate), Adam Malek (Student undergraduate), Eileen Trauth, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost for Educational Equity).  Erinn Finke, (on conference call).

      Members Absent: Representative of CFW; Representative of CORED.

      Guests:  Senior Faculty Mentor, Keith Gilyard, Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English and African American Studies

      REVIEW OF THE AGENDA

      Loeb:  Called meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Reviewed the agenda.

      APPROVAL OF MINUTES
      Loeb: Reviewed the minutes.
      Kim Blockett had a question regarding the minutes, correcting a couple of typos.
      Minutes were approved unanimously by voice vote.

      ANNOUNCEMENTS

      Report from Officers and Chairs Meeting

      Gender neutral bathrooms has been taken up by University Planning Committee, rather than EECE.

      Dwight Davis introduced a brief discussion about the previous meeting’s student discussion.

      Loeb reviewed the question of graduate student diversity. This will be taken up by the committee on research and will probably be reviewed by EECE.

      Announcements delayed till visitor finished presentation. Loeb moved to items IV b) prior to returning to the Announcements.

      Meeting with Joint Commissions Leadership Group

      Review of Progress with Committee Priority Form

      COMMENTS FROM VICE PROVOST FOR EDUCATIONAL EQUITY

      Observations by Marcus Whitehurst, Vice Provost for Educational Equity

      Observations delayed till visitor finished presentation.

      Presentation by Senior Faculty Mentor, Keith Gilyard, Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English and African American Studies.

      Loeb welcomed Dr. Gilyard.
      Dr. Gilyard: Described his role as Senior Faculty Mentor. He highlighted that his office provides financial support to attend presentations and conferences. He described his role as a ¼ time mentor (i.e., a ¼ of his appointment). This includes welcoming and acting as mentor for new minority faculty.  He also serves as an advisor, aiding in the success of tenure line faculty moving through the tenure line.  During this semester, this includes up to as many 10 faculty members.

      Loeb noted that Dr. Gilyard was a great asset to minority faculty and thanked him.

      This was followed by a question and answer period.

      Kim Blockett: Questioned why his position as Senior Faculty Mentor was only ¼ time.

      The issue of this resource at UP vs. at the other campuses was raised. It was noted that particularly minority faculty at the campuses are especially isolated. The lack of this valuable resource at the other campuses puts a burden on faculty of color to mentor themselves. It was suggested that perhaps we need to mainstream mentoring that takes into account minority faculty members.

      Dr. Gilyard: Noted that they want to figure out ways to push out to other campuses.

      Eileen Trauth: Noted that structural issues at the department level may be barrier to faculty of color in the tenure process.

      Dr. Gilyard: He speaks to department heads and intervenes at faculty’s request.

      Vice Provost Whitehurst: Concerning question from Davis about mechanism to provide mentoring to faculty of color at other campuses, he noted they were working on creating a network of senior faculty that could work alongside Dr. Gilyard.

      Loeb: Noted the great need. Asked whether Dr. Whitehurst could put together a report that this committee could put forward.

      Davis: Said he felt faculty would be extremely supportive of this initiative.

      Kim Blockett: Noted that this would be very connected to President Barron’s All In initiative.

      Loeb: Noted that a lot of minority faculty at other campuses are isolated due to lack of mentoring. A network once existed with Jim which dissipated when he left. Thanked Dr. Gilyard for coming.

      After visitor presentation, Loeb returned to items III C) – Announcements, followed by IV A) Vice Provost’s comments.

      “III c) Review of Progress with Committee Priority Form.

      A summary and discussion of where we are for each action item on the committee priority form. Eight items were reviewed including that LGBTQ and student services may be sponsored for a review and/or discussion of the Straight Talks Education.

      We also discussed the status of bridge programs.

      Dara Purvis: She reported on item A6 on the priority form: Sponsor LGBTQ Commission to deliver a report, perhaps an overview of “Straight Talks Education Program.”

      Purvis noted that Commission members are currently in the middle of a Curriculum Reads initiative using Larry Kramer’s book. The Commission will present on the initiative and on engagement in LGBTQ issues. In response to questions about how word of the commission’s events reach faculty and the other campuses, Purvis noted that events are posted on Facebook and all streamed.

      Loeb: Asked that the commission’s presentation be made to the EECE prior to the senate.

      Dara Purvis said that she would write the report. She said that she could be ready for the January meeting.

      IV a) Observations by Marcus Whitehurst, Vice Provost for Educational Equity

      Nov. 3rd is the deadline for justifying refilling positions vacated from the ‘golden parachute’ program. 47% accepted (of about 1300)

      Counselling center data, most visits for social isolation, discrimination, sexual orientation and identity, LGBTQ issues

      First amendment presentation with a panel of four lawyers.

      Dr. Whitehurst: Said that the provost will talk about the voluntary retirement program at the UFS meeting today. Over 588 faculty and staff accepted the voluntary retirement program; 206 were faculty.  He noted that the positions go back to the Provost and unit executives will have to put in a requisition to get back a position.

      Dr. Whitehurst commented on the Counseling Center. Ben Locke is the new director.

      He presented statistics on reasons why students go to the counseling center: 13.5% social isolation, 2.8% racial identity, 2.5% sexual orientation, 1.4% religion, 0.8% gender identity, 0.7% discrimination.

      First Amendment Panel discussion (All In initiative)

      Dr. Whitehurst confirmed that the panel discussion, comprising four lawyers will take place on Thursday, October 27, 2016. The panel discussion will be advertised by email and a link on the website.

      Dwight Davis: Asked whether re. the counseling data, was there an effort to remind faculty of the issues that students face and that they may not be seeking help. This could help faculty to be more sensitive.

      Dr. Whitehurst: Noted he was not sure what outreach the counseling center does to faculty, but that student government are taking a proactive approach.

      He said that Ben Locke presented at the Academic Leadership Council and will present to the Board of Trustees. We could reach out to do a forensic report.

      Dwight Davis: Reiterated Dr. Whitehurst’s point that it would be helpful for faculty to understand counseling issues that students face. Noted that he was in favor at some point of having a report in front of the faculty senate.

       

      OLD BUSINESS

      Forensic Session, Vice Provost for Educational Equity Report UFS Plenary Session October 18, 2016

      Loeb said that this evening at the faculty senate he will ask two questions simultaneously.

      Question 1: What is the Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity doing to foster diversity at Penn State?

      Question 2: Does the Faculty Senate have suggestions on how this office can further advance diversity?

      Dr. Whitehurst departed at this point.

      New Members Informational Report UFS Plenary Session October 18, 2016

      Loeb also said that the New Members Informational Report was on the docket this afternoon.

      NEW BUSINESS

      Millennium Scholars Program Informational Report UFS Plenary Session December 6, 2016

      Loeb said that Professor Fisher would talk about this at faculty senate. He asked if there were any questions. There were no questions.

      Dwight moved approval. Dana seconded. Report carried unanimously by voice vote.

      CORED Advisory and Consultative Report UFS Plenary Session January 24, 2016

      Loeb said that he would find out about progress on the CORED report.

      Loeb noted that Julia Bryan will chair the January 24, 2017 meeting in his absence.

       

      ADJOURNMENTLoeb adjourned the meeting 10:35 AM.

      back to top


       

      September 6, 2016

      Members Present: Kimberly Blockett (via phone), Julia Bryan (Vice Chair), Dwight Davis, Erinn Finke, Timothy Lawlor, Robert Loeb (Chair), Dara Purvis (representative of LGBTQ Commission), Adam Malek (Student undergraduate), Eileen Trauth, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost for Educational Equity)

      Members Absent: John Malchow (Student graduate), representative of CORED, and representative of CFW.

      Guests: Kenneth Lehrman III, Vice Provost for Affirmative Action and Tracy Powell, Associate Vice President of Marketing

      Review of the Agenda
      Loeb:  Called meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Reviewed the agenda.

      Approval of Previous Meeting’s MinutesLoeb: Reviewed the minutes. Motion to accept – Davis; Second – Malek. Minutes approved unanimously by voice vote.

      Report from Officers and Chairs’ MeetingLoeb: Reviewed EECE Priority Form. Need to review New Membership Informational Report (A1 on the EECE priority form) was presented. Also need to review revision of charge to EECE was presented.

      Review of Committee Priority FormLoeb: Reviewed each task/charge on the Priority Form and their due dates.
      Noted that the New Members Report was due to the Senate in October.
      Loeb will present Forensic Report (Student Panel on Diversity) today at the Senate Plenary meeting.
      No mandated reports are required from EECE now.
      Priority Form has each Commission presenting an individual report rather than three in a joint report.
      CORED’s Best Diversity Practices informational report (A5 on priority form) is due in January.Davis: inquired about the reason for not having mandated reports any longer.
      Loeb: Senate Chair set the EECE Priorities. Welcome opportunity for all Commissions to present.
      Davis: Questioned whether we should communicate this formally, that these are three important commissions that the Faculty Senate heard a joint report last year.
      Loeb: Agreed, the charge to EECE needs to be changed, since it only mentions CORED.Bridge Programs (A8 on priority form).
      Loeb: Noted he is trying to get the report on the Bridge programs moving.Graduate Student Diversity
      Loeb: Discovered at the Officers and Chairs’ meeting that Research still has the charge but not on EECE Priority form. Chair of Research stated the EECE is still working on the research report from last year. Will pursue question with Senate Chair.Revision of Committee Charge:
      Loeb: Request originated from Senate Chair.
      Davis: Asked if the EECE was the only committee whose charge was written a decade ago and is no longer viable. Questioned whether we should raise the idea of a periodic review of charges with the Committee on Committees and Rules.
      Loeb: Good point but best to see how Committee on Committees and Rules responds to the EECE requested change first.

      Comments from Vice Provost for Educational EquityDelayed till visitor finished presentation.

      Old Business

      Administrative Diversity Report Follow-up ReportPresentation by Dr. Kenneth Lehrman III, Vice Provost for Affirmative ActionLoeb: Administrative Diversity report on the Status of Diversity in Academic Administrative Positions, starting on p. 11 of the meeting book, had been approved. President Barron’s response is on p. 14 of the meeting book.Whitehurst: President turned over the Administrative Report to Whitehurst, Lehrman and Basso, who have been meeting to go over the report.Dr. Lehrman spoke on the availability of data and lack of personnel to collect and deal with affirmative action data. AAO used a law firm last year to put the affirmative action plan together. The plan was absolutely useless. AAO is now bringing in vendors to see who can put the affirmative action plan together. The criteria for selection is that the vendor must be familiar with higher education. Once he has the plan, he would like to come back to this committee and report results.Loeb: Welcomed second presentation. EECE will need to re-construct the subcommittee to deal with the report. Kimberly Blockett was the only remaining member of the Subcommittee that drafted the report.Lehrman: Need to aggregate data on individuals with disability because going down to unit data raises possibility of identifying individuals. Concerning LGBTQ data, AAO has not found anyone who is positive about collecting LGBTQ data. AAO is not required to report that data. A concern is respondents will suspect motives of PSU if collecting these data. This is a separate question from conducting a head count on campus. Noted the sensitive nature and that people may not self-identify. There may be some suspicion.Trauth: What has the LGBTQ Commission said?Lehrman: Not sure what Commission would compare data on LGBTQ to. Can go back to the LGBTQ Commission to see their interest in collecting the data.Davis: Appreciated the comments and the sensitivity of asking applicants to self-identify. A general survey would communicate an important message that Penn State is evolving in the way we see and embrace diversity. Ten years from now we will be different. It may be important to ask the question. He would like further discussion of the survey.Lehrman: Where it could be important is a head count. That would provide individual data over time.Whitehurst: LGBTQ chair was interested, but there was no consensus among the members who wanted to do a focus group.Lehrman: Need to do a good job framing this message.Trauth: Important if someone is looking at a where somewhere is a friendly place to work

      Lehrman: Currently a watch and wait proposal. The U.S. Civil Rights Office may ask us to start collecting LGBTQ data.

      Blockett: Great for PSU to be ahead of the game, to start to collect data to show we are benchmarking and we care about these communities.

      Davis: Where is the LGBTQ Commission on trying to put together a survey?

      Lehrman: Now may be the time to pursue this.

      Whitehurst: When the representative joins us we can pose that question to them.

      Davis: Important to put together a thoughtful rationale to show that we have a vested interest in diversity at all levels.

      Lehrman: It may be helpful in tracking LGBTQ students.

      Trauth: PSU is already identified as an LGBTQ friendly campus.

      Lehrman: Because of the student resources provided.

      Davis Important to discuss the security of the data given the threat of hacking. This is a very sensitive issue. As part of the conversation, we need to discuss our ability to protect the data.

      Lehrman: Would want to talk to the Chief Security Officer (who we are now recruiting) to discuss security or language we can use.

      Loeb to Lehrman: Email us as soon as you are ready to present on new plan.

      Purvis (the representative to LGBTQ Commission) joined late.

      Whitehurst: No-one in the Big Ten has done collecting data on LGBTQ.

      Loeb to Blockett: Interested in her serving as chair of a subcommittee communicating with Lehrman?

      Blockett: Yes.

      Dr. Lehrman’s report finished at 9:30 a.m.

      Tracy Powell, Associate Vice President of Marketing joined us at 9:30 a.m. as part of Vice Provost for Educational Equity Report.

      Whitehurst: This year President Barron wants a year-long Diversity campaign with October 6, 2016 as the kickoff. The theme is “We are all in.” This give us the full opportunity to work on it and be responsible for diversity. Tracy Powell is charged with coming up with the logo. Senate Chair, Jim Strauss, wants each Senate meeting to have with some diversity item. On October 26, 2016, Provost Nicholas Jones and David Gray, Senior VP for Finance and Business, will hold a town hall meeting.

      Following, on October 27, 2016 there will be a panel of legal scholars held at the Law School on the First Amendment and its Intersection with Diversity and Inclusion.

      Various committee members suggested that these events be live and recorded.

      Tracy Powell (presentation at 9:41 a.m.) The name of the campaign is “Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion at Penn State.” Answer to question of how do we unify efforts at commitment to diversity across campus. The word commitment works better – it’s ongoing and lives on. The campaign is right now in the communication phase. October 6, 2016 is the kick-off. September – April is the storytelling phase – keeping momentum. The final stage will be hand off to Marcus. The logo is a marketing opportunity that can create elements that could be used and changed in numerous ways and by various groups. Marketing will provide various kits so that various consumers can use it. For example, at sports events, an “all in” wall/billboard in the Hub – students could put their names and a message on post it notes and put it on the wall/billboard. “All in” will be projected onto the face of Old Main. It will take over the face of Old Main on October 6, 2016. The kick-off will be a demonstration of our commitment and will show the evolution of diversity, 1855 – present. Projection show (3-4 mins). It will be a can’t miss show.

      Trauth: What is the background for this campaign?

      Whitehurst: This is coming from Dr. Barron. He wants PSU to be a model for how universities come together around diversity. Looking at the university last year and the issues that arose, President Barron wants to say that PSU is taking a proactive approach.

      Davis: For the outside person who does not know the university, e.g., an applicant to the medical school, have we thought about whether we need to have a statement about why? What should they understand about the context of this?

      Powell: We can craft additional messaging for other purposes. We also have core messaging.

      We haven’t thought about it from an admissions perspective.

      Finke: We want others to understand what PSU believes. This is an opportunity to say this who Penn State is.

      Davis: The message for all of us at PSU is to understand the importance of this? What is the message for those outside?

      Trauth: Is there a unit that will enable other units to take this and apply it? Seems like two different universities, on one hand “we are all happy and love each other,” on the other “we are afraid to self-identify and report our diversity identity.”

      Loeb: This is about changing hearts and minds.

      Whitehurst: This is a call to action. Embracing this will lead to reducing fears of self-identifying. We want to focus on different pieces of diversity each month.

      Purvis: With the billboard, is there a policy on writing?

      Marcus: Damon Sims, Vice President Student Affairs, will figure out how this works.

      Finke: It’s not going to be all good. We want to know. If students write negative things/slurs on the board, we want to know.

      Davis: Over the past year we have been exposed to hidden closet feelings. We may not have moved as far along in the country as we think.

      Finke: Shared what HDFS did to orient new graduate students to the cultural norms that are acceptable in HDFS. This is important especially for international students, e.g., students coming from cultures that may not value women in the same way we do.

      Davis: What’s the most appropriate way to handle dissent? What is the university response to handling dissent?

      Powell: We want to know if they have negative views so we can engage in conversation and provide opportunities for education. Remember, October 6 at 7 p.m. on the lawn and livestream.

      Whitehurst: Will promote the panel on the first amendment and diversity to faculty.

      Powell and Whitehurst left the meeting.

      Trauth to Finke: Wanted to know if there is an orientation video used with HDFS students.

      Finke: No but did a 3 hour orientation.

      Davis: Three day orientation on diversity in the medical school.

      New Business

          1. Forensic ReportLoeb: On Plenary Session Agenda as first Forensic Session
          2. New Member’s report
            Loeb: Report titled Membership and Duties of the Educational Equity and Campus Environment Committee starts on p. 16 of meeting book.Trauth and Davis: Asked for clarification about policies.Loeb: Reviewed Policies in the report.Trauth: No policies mandated?Davis: Are there any other policies that we should list?Loeb: Noted there were no other policies to list, and none mandated.Loeb asked for a motion to have the Membership and Duties of the Educational Equity and Campus Environment approved. Davis moved and Trauth seconded the motion.The decision was unanimous with a voice vote.Loeb: Memorandum titled revision of the Faculty Senate Statement of Duties for the EECE is p. 17 of the meeting book. Changes were based on no longer doing separate diversity plan. Now each unit must integrate diversity and diversity planning. Explained proposed rewording to the EECE’s statement of duties. Among changes:“The Committee will not only participate in the current strategic planning activities for the University but will also develop and maintain an action plan for the University Faculty Senate specifically addressing the challenges as outlined in the University’s diversity strategic plans.”changed to:“The Committee will participate in joint explorations and investigations with other Senate standing committees to enhance the consideration of diversity and equity issues in Senate deliberations.”Davis: Wording reminds other committees that they should have diversity responsibilitiesLoeb: Change puts out there that all senate committees should take responsibility to ensure that diversity is part of their deliberations.Davis: Asked who will get back to us on this.Loeb: Dawn Blasko, Chair of Committee on Committees and Rules.Lawlor: Questioned the word “enhance.”Loeb: Change to “advocate for.”Loeb called for motion to approve amended Memorandum.Purvis moved and Finke seconded.The voice vote was unanimous.
          1. Vice Provost for Educational Equity Report, USF Plenary session, October 18.Loeb asked if there were any questions. Hearing none, asked for motion to approve.Davis moved. Purvis seconded.Loeb: Asked for any questions.The voice vote was unanimous.Loeb: Asked for any other New Business:There was none.Comments for the Good of the Order:Loeb: Would investigate the Research Report.Loeb: Meeting adjourned.

    back to top


     

    April 19, 2016

    Members Present: Anthony D’Augelli (LGBT Equity Representative), Kimberly Blockett, Dwight Davis (via phone), Erinn Finke, Patreese Ingram (CORED Representative), Elizabeth King, Robert Loeb (Vice Chair), Jennifer Sliko (via phone), Daniel Stern, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost Educational Equity)

    Members Absent: Matthew Marano (DUS Representative), Luis Ocampo (GPSA Representative), Yae Park, Holly Thuma (CFW Representative), Tramble Turner (chair), Roberto Valdes, Johanna Wagner,

    Guests: none

    1. Discussion and Adoption of the Agenda
    2. Discussion and Acceptance of Previous Meeting’s Minutes
    3. Announcements from the Chair
      1. Officers and Chairs’ Meeting
    4. Comments from Vice Provost for Educational Equity
    5. Old Business
      1. Administrative Diversity Report Follow-up
      2. Three Commissions Report
      3. Status of Collaboration with University Faculty Senate, University Faculty Senate Student Affairs Committee, and LGBTE Commission
      4. Collaboration with Research Committee on Graduate Student Diversity
    6. New Business
      1. Discussion of Recommendations for 2016-2017 Committee Charge
    7. Adjournment (9:56)

    Meeting called to order (8:30) by Robert Loeb (standing in for Tramble Turner).

    Reviewed minutes

    Whitehurst: Re: last meeting’s minutes, page 4 (big paragraph) We’re still hopeful that we’ll have the state appropriations by the end of the semester

    Minutes approved

    Whitehurst: Circulated the response from Dr. Barron to the advisory and consultative report. He accepted the report from EECE. Charles Knoffsinger – is the new University Police, Neil Sharkey will be the new vice president for research. We have a new state appropriation and it comes with a 5% increase over last year.

    Loeb: Joint Diversity Awareness Task Force – the components of that report were approved by the president.

    Whitehurst: The response to that report was a little different from the first report mentioned.

    Loeb: Read some of the response

    Whitehurst: The US/IL reports are different

    Ingram: We were charged with looking at the US/IL courses. Our subcommittee did a survey of faculty and asked them to what extent their courses meet the criteria. It showed that more than 50% of the courses cover most of the criteria. The last criterion about dialogue on diversity issues was added by this committee a few years ago. That criterion is not being met as well as the others. The recommendation is that there will be a review process. We recommend an additional criterion about social justice. We are recommending that for new courses, that that be an additional criterion.

    Whitehurst: Distributed that US/IL report. Patreese requested that there be appropriate funding. That comes in as a second report.

    D’Augelli: Who would evaluate these courses?

    Ingram: There would be a committee with appropriate members.

    Whitehurst: Talked about the charge of the task force.

    King: Brought up the question that Brent Yarnal might ask as a heads-up for Patreese. He will likely ask if classes will be removed if they don’t meet 50%.

    Ingram: It’s not written in the report, but there likely would be a grandfathering in and a time period that those classes will have to get up to that 50%.

    D’Augelli: All of our syllabi are online so you can see if they’re meeting the criteria

    Whitehurst: Did the group talk about reducing the number of classes?

    Ingram: We didn’t recommend that there be a reduction, but there are likely a lot of classes that really shouldn’t have that designation.

    Finke: How does a class get that designation and is there a renewal process?

    Ingram: Our recommendation is that there be a systematic review.

    Finke: Things change so rapidly that these classes need to adapt.

    Whitehurst: Talking about social justice will be an important addition. Middle States hit us hard about not assessing learning outcomes.

    Blockett: Shouldn’t this evaluation and review be part of the assessment process?

    Ingram: That’s one of our recommendations. This has been a three year process.

    Loeb: I personally thank you for this work. I’ve been waiting for the report to come out.

    Loeb: We’ve covered V.a. (Administrative Diversity Report Follow-up) nicely

    Blockett: Is there an opportunity or time for a commission or committee to come back and say they don’t want to be at the end?

    Finke: Is this normal for the meetings to be this long?

    Blockett: It’s the new normal

    Loeb: I’m hoping to be in the second meeting. There is no way to influence where you appear on the agenda.

    Loeb: The kind way of describing what happened this year is that reports got backed up.

    Loeb: It would be nice to have something from the Commission for each of our meetings. I will put forward that request.

    Loeb: Item c.  – discussion with Azita – the survey needs to be reconsidered by the commission and the two committees again next year. The charge will likely arise again for the committees.

    Loeb: Item d. – The Research Committee responded to each question and added two items. Thoughts?

    Finke: I think #11 ties back to #6. It’s difficult because the funding mechanisms aren’t specific to diverse graduate students.

    Loeb: Other thoughts?

    Whitehurst: What is the next step?

    Loeb: We will ask for these questions to be forwarded to the Dean of the Graduate School and the Vice President for Research.

    Blockett: moved to accept, Finke seconded

    Approved unanimously

    Loeb: I received an invitation to present at the Board of Trustees meeting about diversity issues. The incoming chair of the senate was in the room. He suggested we provide a similar presentation at a future senate meeting.

    Ingram: What was the presentation about?

    Loeb: The students gave their perspectives about the diversity challenges at the university.

    Finke: Shouldn’t there be a Central Pennsylvanian?

    Loeb: What you really want to do is to challenge the faculty to think differently. With limited time, I’d be careful about adding to the list of participants.

    Ingram: Do you feel the board was receptive?

    Loeb: It was quite a marvel. It was a very powerful session.

    Whitehurst: I think it would be good to have that perspective up there with the other students.

    Finke: It’s about climate.

    Blockett: We do get climate. With the limited amount of time, I’m hesitant to think that group needs to be represented in that group.

    Loeb: I believe that the majority have very poor perspectives about how the minority students feel.

    Whitehurst: I would hope we could focus about what it’s like in the classroom.

    Finke: We need a student with a disability.

    Ingram: It would be nice to have more time.

    Blockett: Timing will be important.

    Loeb: We will try to get into the first meeting. If not that, the second. A forensic session happens early in the meeting. We will sit down with the students and figure out timing.

    Finke: I think some faculty aren’t sensitive to students with disabilities.

    Blockett: There’s a funding issue for disabilities. It’s the faculty member’s responsibility to figure out the how and the when. It can be a logistical nightmare.

    Whitehurst: I have 8 groups listed: African American, Hispanic Latino, Disability, Muslim, International, LGBT, Asian, Veteran

    Loeb: I will try to get two sessions – four in each

    Whitehurst: Again, I think it should focus on diversity in the classroom.

    Davis: I think this is a very important discussion you’re having.

    Loeb: So far we have two charges (three commissions and student presentations). Follow-up on the research report is another one. Survey of LGBT was another one. Faculty search process is another one.

    Loeb: Administrative diversity report, survey report.

    Whitehurst: I want to make sure I talk to the right people about the LGBT criterion

    D’Augelli: Shared a handout about the LGBT academic symposium. There will be speakers coming in and it’s an all-day session.

    (put the link into the minutes)

    Loeb: How did the president’s meeting go?

    Ingram: I thought it went well. One of the things that did come up was that the president recommended having students come to a senate meeting to talk about diversity in the classroom. So that is right in line with what we are planning.

    Whitehurst: CIC is undergoing a name change. It will now be the Big Ten Academic Alliance.

    D’Augelli: Last week’s report from the vice president of student affairs about sexual misconduct. This was a very detailed survey. There is a summary report and individual campus reports. It’s very clear that women and LGBT groups are under a lot of stress.

    Finke: We were discussing this yesterday. There was a new graduate student who mentioned how few call stations there are around campus.

    D’Augelli: This can be seen as a climate survey for the LGBT community. It’s really disturbing.

    Whitehurst: One of the diversity parts that was missing was that 31% of students who are assaulted have a disability.

    D’Augelli: I’ll put the survey on ANGEL. https://studentaffairs.psu.edu/assessment/SMCS/

    Loeb: Any discussion of outcomes of the report? New training for faculty?

    Whitehurst: None yet.

    D’Augelli: I would like to thank you for the work you’ve done. Applause all around.

    Davis: I also want to say how much I appreciated all you did this year.

    Loeb: Thank you all.

    Loeb: moved to adjourn, moved and seconded. Adjourned at 9:56

     back to top


     March 15, 2016

    Members Present: Anthony D’Augelli (LGBT Equity Representative), Kimberly Blockett (via phone), Dwight Davis, Erinn Finke, Patreese Ingram (CORED Representative), Elizabeth King, Robert Loeb (Vice Chair), Jennifer Sliko, Daniel Stern Johanna Wagner, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost Educational Equity

    Members Absent: Matthew Marano (DUS Representative), Luis Ocampo (GPSA Representative), Yae Park, Roberto Valdes, Holly Thuma (CFW Representative), Tramble Turner (chair)

    Guests: Azita Ranjbar

    1. Discussion and Adoption of the Agenda
    2. Discussion and Acceptance of Previous Meeting’s Minutes
    3. Announcements from the Chair
      1. Officers and Chairs’ Meeting
    4. Comments from Vice Provost for Educational Equity
      1. Latest Draft of Diversity Statement
    5. Old Business
      1. Administrative Diversity Report Follow-up
      2. Three Commissions Report
      3. Status of Collaboration with University Faculty Senate, University Faculty Senate Student Affairs Committee, and LGBTE Commission
    6. New Business
      1. Collaboration with Research Committee on Graduate Student Diversity
    7. Adjournment (9:30 AM – Loeb meets with Research Committee)

    Meeting called to order (8:30) by Robert Loeb (standing in for Tramble Turner).

    Loeb: Distributed Agenda and Minutes of previous meetings

    Loeb: Skip to agenda item V.c. Status of Collaboration with University Faculty Sentate, University Faculty Senate Student Affairs Committee, and LGBTE Commission

    D’ Augelli: Met to discuss how to get a sense of the climate and decided that focus groups might work best. Some reasons not to do a survey – expense, possibly not enough LGBTE responses. So, we decided that the focus groups would be a good way to go. The time and energy of a survey might not be well spent.

    Whitehurst: Agreed that the focus group idea seemed to be the consensus

    D’ Augelli: Focus groups would be campus specific. We do have representatives from this SOGSI group on campus (a group of people on each campus who is the liason between the local groups and the campus)

    Loeb: Hearing what Toni and Marcus said, we should stop talking about a survey.

    Blockett: Focus groups might send a more optimistic message. You have people and faces and more of a conversation and not another survey that seems to go into a black hole.

    D’Augelli: How to do it is the next step

    Loeb: Azita, maybe you can go back to student life and get their support for this

    Ranjbar: That sounds good. Thanks for having me

    Loeb: Toni, thanks for talking to the commission about this. It has seemed that were were at a standstill

    Loeb. Asked for Minutes from January meeting approved

    Finke: I was here at the last meeting.

    Sliko: Please change my last name from Meyer to Sliko

    Whitehurst: Another change to the minutes: All three of those searches had gender and racial diversity.

    Loeb: I will correct the minutes.

    Loeb: Motion to have the minutes approved (Wagner moved, Whitehurst seconded)
    Committee: Agenda adopted and January Minutes accepted with three changes

    Whitehurst: President Barron has accepted the letter. There was one recommendation. Dr. Barron is looking to send that Susan, Ken, and Marcus for further clarification.

    Sliko: It is possible to be fired in PA for being gay. I realize Penn State may be different, but how do you plan to deal with that (some people might be hesitant to respond).

    Whitehurst: We are looking into that. President Barron is one of the first executives in the state to support and try to overturn the current lack of support for LGBT colleagues.

    Davis: Do we know if any other Big Ten universities have walked down this path of trying to understand the LGBT population?

    Whitehurst: We’re looking at that now.

    Davis: If not already done, our start on this could be translated to other institutions. It would be a major statement to the country that the Big Ten has taken this step. It could be a fairly prominent national statement to make.

    D’Augelli: That box (like the race and ethnicity piece) is voluntary to check.

    Loeb: Kim, any thoughts as the architect of that report?

    Blockett: I also agree with Dwight’s comments. I would be shocked if other Big Ten schools haven’t made progress in this area and it would be good to know what they’ve done.

    Davis: The rationale for going down this path would be extremely important for buy-in. That this is an open and welcome environment.

    Whitehurst: President Barron signed on to Pennsylvania Competes. It will build on the focus group activity as well. President Barron said it was a great idea, but wants us to do our due diligence.

    Whitehurst: We will be mindful of certain vendors on campus to be sure that they have a welcoming climate in their business practices. We will explore all of our partnerships.

    D’Augelli: That’s a dramatic stance. David Gray was extraordinarily supportive throughout the process. I don’t know how it will play out, but it’s an important step. Chik Fil A will probably still be here I guess.

    Blockett: I would like to see us not sit and wait for that branch of the data collection.

    Loeb: What you’re suggesting is the work that Marcus and his group are doing is vital, but you’re suggesting the committee could take another action in attempting to explore the focus group action?

    Blockett: The recommendation that we gave was not just about better data collection about the LGBT community. There were gaps and holes in all of the areas for underrepresented groups. That was the most glaring.

    Whitehurst: We had no way of tracking LGBT professional population. The president wanted the focus to be in that area, but Susan Basso is going through a major human resources transformation. Those things are also in the works. The LGBT piece stood out because it didn’t exist.

    D’Augelli: The commission asked for me to get a college to be a pilot group. If Ken Lehrman has any other possibilities in mind.

    Whitehurst: It would be good to involve Susan and Ken.

    Whitehurst: We shared the Diversity statement with editors across the university. President Barron was comfortable with the final edits. There was a story in Penn State Today. The statement is alive and active. WPSU is working on an inclusivity video and a multicultural video. We’re hopeful that we’ll have a draft at the end of this semester. Some general information – we have not received a statement about the state appropriation. We’re still hopeful it may happen before the end of the statement. An update about those three searches. The closest is the dean of the Penn State Law School. The final candidate is working with the provost about taking the position. The assistant vice president for university police and public safety – the first candidate offer didn’t go through. The vice president for research interviews are complete. We are waiting to see if an offer is accepted. The assistant vice provost for educational equity. We had public presentations. I’m hopeful we’ll have an announcement in April about that. Ken and Susan and I have been working on a list of 100 volunteers for search committee liaisons where some executives didn’t feel that they could look at candidates form a diverse lens. It will be the Equity Action Resource Team (EART). When they have a search, they can invite someone from this list to serve on a search committee. Susan, Ken, and I will train all 100 volunteers. Human resources is developing a policy around searches. We’ll then use that policy for the training.

    Sliko: Will the EART be involved in those committees?

    Whitehurst: Yes, they will be.

    Loeb: Why are the staff searches and faculty searches going to be handled differently?

    Whitehurst: Faculty searches are more of an independent level – at the dean and department level. We need to show some success at the staff level so that they might buy into this approach. We can’t take a top-down approach. They need to determine that this is something viable for them to implement.

    Loeb: I recommend that we put together an advisory and consultative report for the senate that this should apply to the faculty searches too.

    Davis: The purview and oversight of the senate can relate to staff issues?

    Loeb: No, that is not within the scope of our operation.

    Davis: Is the question of information to the senate about the process and the appropriateness with respect to staff involvement and whether or not that is appropriate for a senate agenda.?

    Loeb: I don’t think this relates to staff. I’m just saying we should put that to the senate to treat the faculty searches the same way.

    D’Augelli: I know Ken does a training for search committee chairs. There are other ways that could make that much more formal. Each search committee could be asked by the deans and department heads to have someone related to affirmative action. I support what you’re (Loeb) saying.

    Whitehurst: We’re going to pilot this first in finance and business and then slowly get it out to the deans and chancellors. I’ll keep you up to date about how this unfolds?

    Blockett: Timeline? When would the pilot happen?

    Whitehurst: We’re waiting for the HR policy.

    Blockett: Can deans and chancellors reach out for help with this now?

    Whitehurst: Yes, absolutely.

    Loeb: The policy will be one of the documents that the committee reviews at that point. This model exists and is used by some campuses already.

    Whitehurst: That concludes my updates.

    Loeb: Thank you Marcus. Done with old business a and c.

    Loeb: Passed out Joint Report from the President’s Commission for Equity (The Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Equity; the Commission on Racial/Ethnic Diversity; and the Commission for Women) Informational

    Loeb: Passed out the EECE first draft of question to ask of the Vice President for Research as well as the Dean of the Graduate School concerning Diverse Graduate Students.

    Loeb: I wanted to discuss this one last time. Are there any flares to shoot up?

    Stern: In question 10, are we asking about graduate students specifically?

    Loeb: I will verbally explain that to the research committee. The question will be put forth by them.

    D’Augelli: Is there a timeline for a response?

    Loeb: I will tell you after my meeting today. I would be shocked if it was in this Senate year.

    Stern: Will this include information about graduate students who aren’t research based?

    Loeb: I think the intention is yes.

    Sliko: If we’re looking at this by College, at Harrisburg, that’s one big unit. I think you’ll lose some information because of that. I know at University Park, each college is different. Can we break it down by schools at the other campuses? I apologize for not bringing this up when you asked for feedback.

    Loeb: We are the petitioners in this, not the judges.

    Finke: Would we be able to look at the data in different ways?

    Loeb: The concern is that if the population is too small, there are privacy concerns.

    Finke: It seems that it needs to be one or the other then – confidentiality or better data.

    Loeb: Let’s trust the process that they will dig down into the data if necessary.

    Ingram: I think this is massive.

    Whitehurst: Are we going to invite them to an EECE meeting?

    Loeb: I would request a joint meeting. I don’t know if they would honor that or not.

    Stern: They don’t have these statistics sitting around. They’ll need to go out to the students themselves, right? We do have this list of stuff – how are we going to get the answers – how good is that data going to be?

    Finke: That’s going to be the problem forever.

    Ingram: Concerning the definition of diversity in this draft document, why do we include Colors?

    Whitehurst: This is from where?

    D’Augelli: This is from the Graduate School’s definition.

    Finke: Let’s figure out what we can collect first and see where we are. I think it will be interesting to get the answers to these questions.

    Loeb: Asked for motion for Adjournment (Stern- move, Ingram – second) (9:40)

     back to top


     January 26, 2016

    Members Present: Anthony D’Augelli (LGBT Equity Representative), Dwight Davis, Patreese Ingram (CORED Representative), Elizabeth King, Robert Loeb (Vice Chair), Matthew Marano (DUS Representative), Daniel Stern, Johanna Wagner, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost Educational Equity), Jennifer Meyer (via phone)

    Members Absent: Luis Ocampo (GPSA Representative), Yae Park, Roberto Valdes, Erinn Finke,
    Members Excused: Kimberly Blockett, Holly Thuma (CFW Representative), Tramble Turner (chair),

    Guests: none

    Senate Committee on Educational Equity and Campus Environment Agenda
    January 26, 2016 Meeting 8:30 AM

    1. Discussion and Adoption of the Agenda
    2. Discussion and Acceptance of Previous Meeting’s Minutes
    3. Announcements from the Chair
      1. Officers and Chairs’ Meeting
      2. Review of Mid-Year Report
    4. Comments from Vice Provost for Educational Equity
      1. Latest Draft of Diversity Statement
    5. Old Business
      1. Administrative Diversity Report final comments
      2. Three Commissions Report Progress
      3. Status of Collaboration with University Faculty Senate, University Faculty Senate Student Affairs Committee, and LGBTE Commission
    6. New Business
      1. Collaboration with Research Committee on Graduate Student Diversity
    7. Adjournment (9:30 AM – Loeb meets with Student Affairs Committee at 9:40 AM in Keller Building)

    Meeting called to order (8:30) by Robert Loeb (standing in for Tramble Turner).

    Loeb: Distributed Agenda the previous meetings Minutes. Asked for Minutes from December meeting approved (Ingram moved, Wagner seconded)

    Committee: Agenda adopted and December Minutes accepted

    Loeb: Updates from Officers and Chair’s meeting. Also, will talk with Student Life (Student Affairs) to discuss our work with them in creating a LGBT survey. Midyear report handed out. See Committee ANGEL site.

    Ingram: I am on the subcommittee in JDATF sending out survey about US/IL courses.

    Loeb: Distributed EECE Diversity in Academic Administration report. See Senate website.
    Wagner: Liberal Arts Caucus would like to see stronger recommendations in this report.

    Loeb: Asked for more details about what they mean by recommendations. Should I make an emphasis about this during the Senate meeting?

    Davis: With the data we have, the recommendations are appropriate. The Senate might suggest thoughts about what more should be said in this report.

    Loeb: Let’s say someone has a sentence in mind to strengthen the recommendation. How should I react to this proposal while on the floor?

    Davis: No problem with grammatical change. If major changes are suggested, I would rather it come back to the committee.

    Wagner: I think it depends on what those changes may be.

    Ingram: I agree that it should be only minor changes.

    D’Augelli: How can we think about this being a larger collection process? Should this be integrated into University wide efforts to collect data for all employees?

    Loeb: I think a major part of this report is to show the Senate that we might need to collect data with more employee groups/

    D’Augelli: I hope this can help increase the data collection efforts.

    Loeb: I think this will be the first nudge.

    Davis: The concern is the possibility of requiring disclosure of this kind of personal information. Also, the complications of doing this data collection with how we might be able to do it legally.

    Whitehurst: We have access to the HR diversity data through Susan Baso? She will be sitting in on the Senate meeting

    Davis: But we don’t have data on other elements of diversity such as sexual orientation which is self-reported. My point is that this report represents information that we have data on, but the Senate might need to understand where those limits are.

    Whitehurst: Are we suggesting that in the hiring process that we ask not only about race etc. but also sexual orientation?

    Davis: I think that is something to be answered by the University. Let’s understand where the University’s limits are with respect to diversity issues, and where the Faculty Senate stands on these issues.

    Whitehurst: I think the Penn State might be at a place to collect and see what that data looks like, but I question what the proper protocol is to have that conversation.

    Loeb: I believe asking for the conversation to be held is what we are starting with this report.

    Davis: With the data set in the report, one question we might have is can we use this data in the future to compare how we may have made progress or not.

    Whitehurst: In the report on second page, first bullet- “The percentage of executives from… (one additional hire since 2008).” I know of more than one new hire.

    King: I believe that data was a net change of one new hire.

    Loeb: I will clarify if asked at the Senate Meeting.

    Loeb: Distributed out drafts of reports from three Presidential Commissions, and noted that the report not available at the Committee ANGEL site.

    Loeb: Please read through these and send feedback to me by Thursday (1/28) for me to return feedback to each Commission. I will send a format of the report to Barbara Welshofer. Remember our names will be at the bottom of this, so do not hesitate to give me feedback.

    Whitehurst: Given national conversation about our Muslim population, we have had some not so positive things about our Muslim population here at University Park. We organized a breakfast with around 50 students from different Muslim organizations. We wanted to support them, make sure they feel comfortable and safe, and want to keep a dialog open to make sure they feel safe.

    Davis: Were there commonalities with University Park Campus and the rest of the world?

    Whitehurst: Example of female Muslim student having complications with her religious attire and using public residential hall’s shower.

    Whitehurst: Three major searches ongoing actively: Vice President for Research Assistant, Vice President for Public Safety, Dean for Law School at University Park Campus.

    D’Augelli: Is the implication that other searches do not have any diversity.
    Whitehurst: That is correct.

    Davis: Clarifying that the advertisements still had diversity request.

    D’Augelli: Is there anything ongoing method in regards to the female Muslim student, to help other students in this situation?

    Whitehurst: Not at the moment, that is a good point.

    D’Augelli: This is interesting in regard to transgender bathrooms on campus. We normally think of them as toilets, but showers make this issue more complicated.

    Whitehurst: We will also send out the University Statement on Diversity shortly.

    D’Augelli: To Loeb, can you share with us what is happening with the Student Affairs Committee?

    Loeb: At Officer’s and Chairs I reported that we are talking about putting together a working group with the LGBT Commission to help develop the survey who will then report back to each of our Committees and the Commission.

    Ingram: Distributed Report of CORED meeting to EECE seen on Committee ANGEL site.

    D’Augelli: I will start doing this as well.

    Loeb: Asked for motion for Adjournment (Davis – move, Wagner – second) (9:27) Unanimous.

     back to top


    December 8, 2015

    Members present: Kimberly Blockett, Anthony D’Augelli (LGBT Equity Representative), Dwight Davis, Erinn Finke, Patreese Ingram (CORED Representative), Elizabeth King, Robert Loeb (Vice Chair), Matthew Marano (DUS Representative), Daniel Stern, Holly Thuma (CFW Representative), Johanna Wagner, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost Educational Equity)

    Members Absent: Jennifer Meyer, Tramble Turner (chair), Luis Ocampo (GPSA Representative), Yae Park, Roberto Valdes

    Guests: none

    Meeting called to order (8:35) by Robert Loeb (standing in for Tramble Turner)

    Minutes from October meeting approved (Ingram moved, Wagner seconded)

    Loeb: passed out the report on LGBT resources

    D’Augelli: the commission has major problems with the survey, it’s a major undertaking that would have to be done by a professional organization

    Loeb: approached by student life, goal is to meet with the representatives of student life, show them what has been done, and involve more than just these two committees, willing to bring Marcus’s office into this.

    Whitehurst: should involve the office of ethics and compliance

    Loeb: Do you feel ok with me contacting these representatives so that we all get to be part of this process? I don’t want a blind survey coming out of Marcus’s office

    D’Augelli: There are a number of places on campus who routinely do surveys, This is a climate issue.

    Blockett: It seems that three commissions are to be involved. Whatever group you put together, I would make a list of the resources available. That group reports back and asks who can provide the resources.

    Loeb: Does this committee support me contacting Student Life, this committee, and the commission?

    D’Augelli: I’m not clear that this is what is being asked. This seems like a major survey. I need clarification.

    Finke: Read from A3.

    Wagner: We need a clarification of the charge.

    D’Augelli: The questions are kind of a done deal. It can be done, but who is going to do it?

    Loeb: My interest is putting together a working group that could move this forward. Can you I ask you (D’Augelli) to ask for input from the commission? Or is the commission not interested?

    D’Augelli: It’s a resource issue.

    Whitehurst: If it’s a university wide survey, it has to go through Regis Becker, what are we going to do with the results of the survey? We need 2, 3, 4 people to sit down with Regis and figure out what is needed.

    Loeb: I’m hearing agreement about approaching Student Affairs to create a working group. Is that right?

    D’Augelli: I guess. To do this is not within the technical expertise of any of these individual groups. We don’t want to waste time.

    Loeb: Agreed. I will take that action.

    Loeb: Referencing commission report from last year, hoping that a draft can come to this committee by the next meeting (January 26).

    Ingram: I discussed that with CORED. They are ready and willing to do that. I couldn’t get anything from Tram. I appreciate getting some target dates. Do we want to have a template for a combined report or three separate reports?

    Loeb: Let’s obtain as three separate reports, one from each Commission and the reports can be combined for the Information report to the Senate from this Committee.

    Whitehurst: Each group gives an individual report to the president. For the context of what Dr. Ansari wants – it’s one report. That’s still doable.

    Loeb: I will plan on it being a linear report – 1, 2, 3. In advance, thank you for those reports.

    Loeb: I spoke with the chair of Research (Chris Forest) last night and I asked him to move that forward.

    Loeb: Any questions about IV and V before I go back to III? Officers and Chairs – I got to the meeting at 6:45.

    Blockett: We have the statement on diversity.

    Loeb: Tram will need to fully explain the “fluidity and identity” for the Committee. Marcus, when will the statement be released to the University Community?

    Whitehurst: sometime in spring – adopt the university statement on diversity, also not sure about the “fluidity and identity” part

    Loeb: Marcus – please bring the latest draft of the statement to next committee meeting. Any updates?

    Whitehurst: Nightline planning to come to Penn State in January to discuss sexual assaults on campus, we hope this will be a positive recognition of how we move forward with this topic. The agreement is not to talk about Sandusky. There are three finalists for Vice President for Research. Four chancellor searches are going on – Greater Allegheny, Beaver, Behrend, Abington. Fisher vs. UT Austin is going back to Supreme Court. Penn State is involved because we signed on with 8 other institutions in support of the notion that considering race helps support diversifying universities. Our law school, medical school, and graduate school considers race. Undergraduate does not. That’s what is being targeted. Office of Governmental Affairs – is not Governmental and Community Relations, Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment – now Office of Planning and Institutional Research. Penn State has moved up in each of the categories in the Diversity report. President Barron is really concerned about first amendment and diversity and inclusion and where those two collide (passed around a picture of a man downtown with various signs). There is interest in having some town halls about that.

    Davis: Referencing Nightline special: How do we look?

    Whitehurst: We hired a cluster of 12 faculty members who have a specialty in sexual assault. They’re doing research in that area. 12 of the $60 million fine will come back to the university for research into preventing sexual assault of minors. We recently had a Title 9 hire. We’re going to highlight progress in the 18 recommendations that President Barron accepted.
    Davis: Are we satisfied that diversity was properly incorporated in those searches that are going on.

    Whitehurst: There is gender diversity in the final pool, but an intention was for racial and ethnic diversity.

    Thuma: I had a question about Fisher case. Just clarifying that PSU considers race in graduate, but not undergraduate.

    Whitehurst: Yes – that is consistent across the nation.

    Item IV

    Blockett: We started a draft. Dwight said charts would be helpful. Patreese had concerns about making a direct request of the President. How strongly should we state what it is we’re looking for to come out of this report?

    Davis: My take would be not to directly address the President. Also, if adopted by the Senate, the Chair of the Senate could ask for other recommendations. There are several ways this could play itself out.

    Ingram: I agree with that. I didn’t feel comfortable with us directing this at the President.

    Loeb: The sentence that you close the paragraph with – open the paragraph with that?

    Loeb: Does it make more sense to report it without the offices?

    Blockett: My only concern is that the two sets of data put together might be contradictory because they’re grouped differently.

    Loeb: That could be a recommendation – that there is consistency in reporting

    Blockett: My hope is that this would be part of the final strategic plan.

    Loeb: I’d rather see this report be a little more polished than putting it in the strategic plan.

    Davis: What is the timing of the strategic plan? We probably could spend more time (up until the next to the last meeting) and still make the strategic plan.

    Loeb: Should we keep the offices separate?

    Stern: I agree that the categories are more important than the offices they come from.

    Whitehurst: Add to the title – “academic”.

    Loeb: Again with reversing order. Take the last two sentences and put them at the top in the introduction.

    Davis: Questions for Marcus: Where do you think we are now? What’s your perception of where we are now with regards to processes in place to improve the diversity of academic administrative positions? Is there data to corroborate that improvements have been made?

    Loeb: At some campuses, we seem to have taken a few steps back.

    Whitehurst: We’ve remained stagnant.

    Blockett: It seems that numbers change within the underrepresented groups. For example, an African American was replaced with an Asian American.

    Finke: This is a weird question – how does this get counted?

    Blockett: It’s how a person identifies.

    King: I’ll put the link to the Google Doc in the ANGEL group so the group as a whole can make editing suggestions.

    Finke: I don’t think it needs to be super wordy.

    Loeb: Maybe remove the word “significant”. A statistician might take issue.

    Blockett: Do we want to include charts?

    Loeb: They will want it in paragraph form. Keep it the way it is. How about bullets?

    Blockett: Ok – bullets.

    Loeb: get the asterisks in the proper places, not just the explanations

    Finke: maybe ask that it be included in the strategic plan

    Loeb: I’m not sure we can ask for anything in an informational report.

    Blockett: I assume this can be in the recommendations situation.

    Finke: Maybe use “recommend”, but keep “bold and deliberate”.

    Thuma: Why isn’t LGBTQ included?

    Loeb: Because the university doesn’t gather that data

    Davis: Good idea not to list individual groups that aren’t included

    Blockett: Good idea – I’ll include a statement that includes all other underrepresented groups.

    Loeb: I’ll close that section of the agenda? Any new items to raise?

    Ingram: This a report from the last CORED meeting (distributed).

    Blockett: brought up the PASSS Program (Loeb says it’s on five campuses), wondered if any diversity body like CORED weighs in on that program.

    Loeb: Mentioned the LEAP program, which is similar.

    Ingram: I can bring that up to CORED.

    Loeb: Any other business? Move to adjourn.

    Adjournment (Davis – move, Blockett – second) (10:24) Unanimous.

     back to top


    October 27, 2015

    Members Present: Kimberly Blockett, Anthony D’Augelli (LGBT Equity Representative), Dwight Davis, Patreese Ingram (CORED Representative)1, Elizabeth King, Robert Loeb (Vice Chair), Daniel Stern, Holly Thuma (CFW Representative), Tramble Turner (Chair), Roberto Valdes (via Telephone), Johanna Wagner

    Members Absent: Erinn Finke, Matthew Marano (DUS Representative), Jennifer Meyer, Luis Ocampo (GPSA Representative), Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost Educational Equity), Yae Park

    Guests: None

    Meeting Called to Order (8:35).

    Turner: Reviewed September 17, 2015 Meeting. Reminder of President Barron’s remarks.

    Davis: (To Turner) Review context of President’s Remarks.

    Turner: Marcus drafted Penn Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusive excellence (see appendix to Minutes of September 15, 2015 EECE meeting). President questioned progress made by Penn State in regard to diversity. EECE working groups have a focus on needs of diverse populations. Question to Ingram concerning past years work committee.

    Ingram: Focus on hiring committee’s work.

    Davis: Was President not being supportive of diversity versus new investigations of diversity of faculty, administration and staff.

    Ingram: President’s comments focus on underrepresented groups with intent of increasing representation of these groups.

    Turner: Also President included economic diversity. Separate diversity plans are gone, included in broader unit strategic plan.  Cited UFS Constitution for charge of EECE. Diversity one of six pillars in Strategic Planning process.

    During conversation handout of Minutes, Agenda, and Priority Form (Loeb).

    Turner Motion for Modification of Agenda,

    Item VII Planning for Working Group:

    Commissions Report includes three Commission Representatives and another EECE Members.

    VII.5

    Discussions for Brainstorming on Diversity

    Needs for Underrepresented Committees

    Best Practices:

    Investigation of Assistant/Associate Deans for Diversity

    Investigations of Advisory Committees for Diversity

    NCAA Inclusion

    Unanimously Adopted.

    Motion to Approve Modified Agenda (Move Wager, Second Davis), Unanimously Adopted.

    Motion to Approve Minutes (Move Ingram, Second Blockett), Adopted with abstention of D’Augelli.

    Forthcoming clarification from Officers and Chairs – line 2

    Welcome and Comments from the Chair:

    Priority Form: Joint Report from Commissions needs to be Working Group

    Officers and Chairs: No report.

    Comments from Vice Provost for Educational Equity: None

    Blockett: Charge versus Priority clarification.

    Turner: Charge broader concerns for diversity.

    Davis: Reports of past year’s Committee Work should be continued.

    Turner: Reviewed Priority Form Reports. Defines task of working groups including Diversity in Administrative Positions.

    Davis (To Blockett): What needed for Diversity in Administrative Positions?

    Turner: Need to organize meeting agenda with time limits.

    Ask for move VIII to under IV (King moved D’Augelli Seconded: Adopted with Loeb opposed).

    Turner: What is information in draft report?

    Blockett: Information available. Provide current information to EECE ANGEL Site

    Turner: What is the source of tables?

    Blockett: From University sources.

    Turner: Is all of the available data present in the University reports?

    D’Augelli: Not all of the categories are available in current reports.

    Turner: Build on what currently available have and suggest more categories for collectable data.

    Davis: Write the report with available data and expect Senate to ask for additional categories and information.

    Turner: If categories are adequate, then move forward Informational Report.

    King: No report exists, data, and outline of what desired to be presented.

    Davis: Request of Loeb for standard format of report.

    Loeb: Will inquire with Senate Office and distribute. Inquired of working group composition: Blockett, Davis, Ingram and King. Members agreed to serve. Members agreed to draft for next meeting in order for submission by Priority Form date of December 18, 2015.

    Turner: Asked for review of NCAA handout, particularly NCAA inclusion statement.

    Davis: Statement fits Penn State Inclusiveness statement?

    Turner: Not fully matched by Penn State Affirmative Action Statement.

    Davis: More expansive in regard to geographical location.

    Turner: What are additional areas for inclusiveness for Penn State? National origin, income, parental status, etc.

    Davis: Legal limitations for inclusion are a consideration.

    King: Noted contributing author for brochure. Should inquiry be made to get more information.

    Blockett: University can expand upon legal minimum.

    Ingram: Are you suggesting consideration of expansion for diversity?

    Turner: What is framing of statement? What is University addressing?

    Blockett: What are you asking of the Committee in regard to inclusion statement?

    Turner: Does the Committee work to a consensus for definition of diverse climate? Not using Diversity as an umbrella term. Who needs advocacy?

    King: President’s questioning of University success with diversity. Does that mean changes in hiring processes?

    Turner: Are units defining diversity, neglected categories?

    Blockett: What is the Committee asking for in regard to diversity definition?

    Turner: Is the Committee interested in defining inclusion?

    Davis: Is this a Unit or University level of inclusion definition work? Is there a broad diversity statement which is reasonable?  Concern for possible breadth of statement.

    Turner: Should the Committee participate in the University’s redefinition of inclusiveness? Problems with self-definition. Fluidity of definition of gender. Opportunities for differently challenged people. Individual comments and exchange of thoughts. Review of charge next meeting.

    Next meeting – draft of report on Administrative Diversity.

    Davis: Does the University have a diversity statement?

    Blockett: What statement are we looking at for the exchange of thoughts?

    Turner: Developing a broad definition of diversity. What are areas of concern? Fluidity and identity issues.

    Davis: Diversity is a complex issue. Challenge to make comprehensive statement. Alternatively, openness is vital.

    Blockett:  What is the end game of discussion?

    Turner: What categories and concerns do we want to assure for inclusion? Senate takes a leadership role in attention.

    Blockett: Eventually have a Senate forensic session?

    Turner: Need a statement that is welcoming. What elements of diversity are neglected or not addressed? Take on concerns for action plans.

    Valdes: Balance for expansion beyond legally protection but not exhaustive list.

    Ingram: Distributed CORED report.

    Loeb: Request reports for Commission reports for upload to EECE ANGEL site.

    Davis: Ask Vice Provost Whitehurst to comment on discussion points.

    Adjournment (Davis – Move, Ingram – Second)  (10:38 AM) Unanimous.

     back to top


     September 15, 2015

    Members Present: Kimberly Blockett, Dwight Davis, Erinn Finke, Patreese Ingram (CORED Representative), Elizabeth King, Robert Loeb (Vice Chair), Jennifer Meyer (via Telephone), Luis Ocampo (GPSA Representative), Daniel Stern, Holly Thuma (CFW Representative), Tramble Turner (Chair), Roberto Valdes, Johanna Wagner, Marcus Whitehurst (Vice Provost Educational Equity)

    Members Absent: Anthony D’Augelli (LGBT Equity Representative), Yae Park

    Guests: None

    Meeting Called to Order (8:38).

    Handout of Minutes, Agenda, Updated Charge, Membership List (Loeb).

    Agenda Modification: Old Business Added; Update to Committee Charge – Equity Commissions Report changed from one Commission per year to Report from all three Commissions together.

    Motion for Modification of Agenda, Unanimously Adopted.

    Motion to Approve Minutes, Unanimously Adopted.

    Welcome and Comments from the Chair:

    Question of how Diversity fits into the operation of the University. President Barron stated to the University that Diversity is integrated into all parts of the University. One point of discussion for the EECE is what does Diversity mean for the University?

    Officers and Chairs:

    Inter-committee Work is going to include co-report with Research Committee for Graduate Students. LGBT resources across the University working with Student Affairs.

    Forensic Session for Joint Task Force for Diversity (presented by Larry Backer).

    Old Business: Diversity in Administration (Blockett and Ingram).

    Blockett: Handout of draft of Outline as well as three documents showing data from three University Offices. Report of Marcus Whitehurst to be posted on Committee Angel site. Review of Diversity in Administrative positions. Review of Diversity Strategic Plan shows decreasing diversity among Administrators.

    Finke: Representation in Assistant Professor rank is low.

    Turner: Reviewed types of reports that can be given by Committee. Alternatively, can have a forensic session, would this be useful approach?

    Ingram: What would be questions asked in the forensic session?

    Turner: Questions to get a sense of unanticipated concerns.

    Loeb: Forensic session needs to have generation of data.

    Turner: Data we have is valid.

    Whitehurst: Yes. Good to bring new Associate Vice Provost for Planning to EECE for data revision. Lance C. Kennedy-Phillips, Associate Vice Provost for Planning and Assessment.

    Blockett: Data shows low diversity in Administrators.

    Turner: Barron summary of data questions trends in improvement of diversity.

    Whitehurst: Women 25% of Full Professors, Barron want to see improvement in mentoring.

    Blockett: Diversity definition not accepted across University.

    Whitehurst: Barron charged Vice Provost to prepare a statement (copy shared, see Appendix 1) which is going to be introduced to Senate by Larry Backer.

    Turner: How involved is the Affirmative Action Office? Assured AAO office involved. Better to define “inclusive” more broadly (i.e. veterans. etc.) within protected categories.

    Blockett: Previously “diversity” defined by units.

    Whitehurst: Yes, transition now to one statement. Each unit works with statement for their situations.

    Blockett: No “diversity” definition.

    Whitehurst: Definition was not included in order to make the statement more concise.

    Turner: Senators in plenary session may question need for Statement in order to lead to significant discussion.

    Wager: Statement intended to be made public and distributed to units?

    Whitehurst: Yes, one statement for University.

    Davis: Could units have same University Statement but differences in how to define diversity?

    Whitehurst: Yes, focus of units may differ.

    Davis: Direction for units in diversity planning not given, Statement given to work from.

    Whitehurst: Demographics for campuses to be considered in planning.

    Blockett: What is the focus of the report?

    Turner: Recommendations in addition to statistics. Alternatively report starting points for future reports.

    King: Does forensic session follow up with a report?

    Turner: Report prior to forensic session.

    Whitehurst: Recommendations from an actionable point of view. Administrative leadership recommendations to President; while faculty recommendations to Deans.

    Turner: Broad distribution to ACUE and CADS for faculty report.

    Introductions of Committee Members: Members introduced themselves.

    Turner: Reviewed history of the “We Are Penn State” in regard to diversity and football team.

    Whitehurst: “We Are” statute research revealed related to cheerleaders.

    Turner: Not simple path we are embarking on. Geographic diversity, presented by Barron, is new perspective. Barron is signaling a reassessment of values. Important to note diversity differences among counties of Pennsylvania. Recognizing AAO categories is important thread to pursue. Inquired perspectives on Barron’s economic diversity issue.

    Blockett: Has Barron responded to Diversity Plans?

    Whitehurst: Yes, also Provost and Vice Provost for Educational Equity met with unit leaders to make sure fully integrated into diversity strategic plans in unit strategic plans.

    Turner: Reviewed the charge of the Committee. Larry Backer, Chair of Joint Diversity Task may speak to Educational Equity and Campus Environment Committee. Explore planning for national conference for diversity. Diversity as core value.

    Adjournment (10:37 AM) Unanimous.

    Minutes submitted by

    Robert Loeb, Committee Vice Chair

    back to top