University Senate Meeting Agenda at Purdue University, Lecture notes of Corporate Finance

Download University Senate Meeting Agenda at Purdue University and more Lecture notes Corporate Finance in PDF only on Docsity!

~ PURDUE UniversitySenate

~ UNIVERSITY®

Sixth Meeting, Monday, 21 March 2022, 2:30 p.m. Zoom Meeting

AGENDA

1. Call to order
2. Statement of Land Use Acknowledgement
3. Approval of Minutes of 21 February 2022
4. Acceptance of Agenda
5. Remarks of the Senate Chair
6. Remarks of the President
7. Question Time
8. Résumé of Items Under Consideration by Various Committees
9. Consent Agenda

Senate Document 21-25 Nominees for the Educational Policy Committee

Senate Document 21-26 Nominees for the Faculty Affairs Committee

Senate Document 21-27 Nominees for the Steering Committee

Senate Document 21-28 Nominee for the University Resources Policy Committee

Professor Stephen P. Beaudoin

Professor Stephen P. Beaudoin

Professor Stephen P. Beaudoin

President Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

For Information Professor Elizabeth A. Richards

Professor Robert Nowack

Professor Robert Nowack

Professor Robert Nowack

Professor Robert Nowack

10. Senate Document 21-15 Bylaws Change to 2.00 (a) For Action and (c) Professor Signe Kastberg

11. Senate Document 21-18 International Harassment of Purdue Students and Family Members (revised)
12. Senate Document 21-20 Nominees for Vice- Chairperson of the University Senate
13. Senate Document 21-21 Recognizing and Valuing the Voices and Contributions of Black and Underrepresented Faculty & Staff
14. Senate Document 21-22 On the Need for a Policy to Define and Declare an Academic Emergency (revised)
15. Senate Document 21-23 Addition of a Winter Session to the Academic Calendar (revised)
16. Authorship Standard Presentation
17. Senate Document 21-29 On the Need for Campus-Wide Curricular Treatment of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
18. Senate Document 21-30 Statement on Shared Governance at Purdue-West Lafayette
19. Senate Document 21-31 Request for an Investment Plan for the Purdue Endowment
20. Senate Document 21-32 SAT/ACT and Undergraduate Admissions
21. New Business

For Action Professor Signe Kastberg

For Action Professor Robert Nowack

For Action Professor Brian Leung

For Action Professor Thomas Siegmund Professor Janice Kritchevsky

For Action Professor Thomas Siegmund

For Information Research Integrity Officer and Associate Dean Jamie Mohler

For Discussion Professor Thomas Siegmund

For Discussion Professor Thomas Siegmund

For Discussion Professor Janice Kritchevsky

For Discussion Professor David Sanders Professor Brian Leung

22. Adjournment

Sixth Meeting Monday, 21 March 2022, 2:30 p.m.

Zoom Meeting

Present: Manushag N. Powell (Secretary of Faculties and Parliamentarian), Stephen P. Beaudoin (Chair of the Senate), Colleen Brady (Vice-Chair of the Senate), Dulcy Abraham, Jay T. Akridge, Bradley J Alge, Paul A. Asunda, Alan Beck, Peter A. Bermel, Ximena Bernal, Bharat Bhargava, Thomas H Brush, Michael A. Campion, Yingjie (Victor) Chen, Laura J. Claxton, Matt Conaway, Todor Cooklev, Chittaranjan Das, Abigail S. Engelberth, Edward A. Fox, Jennifer Freeman, James P. Greenan, Stephen Hooser, Shannon S. Kang, Signe Kastberg, Erika Birgit Kaufmann, Yuan H. (Brad) Kim, Cara Kinnally, Neil Knobloch, Jozef L. Kokini, Klod Kokini, David Koltick, Nan Kong, Janice Kritchevsky, Eric P. Kvam, Douglas LaCount, Brian J. Leung, Andrew L. Liu, Julie C. Liu, David J. Love, Oana Malis, Rose A. Mason, Shannon C. McMullen, Michael McNamara, Terrence R. Meyer, Lin Nan, Deborah L. Nichols, Larry Nies, Robert Nowack, Madelina E. Nuñez, Jan Olek, Erik Otárola-Castillo, Alice Pawley, Rodolfo Pinal, Bob Pruitt, Li Qiao, Vanessa S. Quinn, Elizabeth (Libby) Richards, Brian T. Richert, Mark C. Rochat, Sandra S. Rossie, Chris Ruhl, Yumary Ruiz, Antônio Sá Barreto, David Sanders, Dennis Savaiano, Steven Scott, Juan P. Sesmero, Thomas Siegmund, Joseph B Sobieralski, Qifan Song, John A. Springer, Kevin Stainback, Rusi Taleyarkhan, Tony J. Vyn, Eric N. Waltenburg, Jeffrey X. Watt, Ann B. Weil, Kipling Williams, Rod N. Williams, Steve Yaninek, Yuan Yao, Jane F. Yatcilla, Dabao Zhang, Haiyan (Henry) Zhang, Mark D. Zimpfer, Megha Anwer, Michael B. Cline, Keith Gehres, Melissa J. Geiger, Peter Hollenbeck, Lowell Kane, Carl T. Krieger, Lisa Mauer, Beth McCuskey, Jamie L. Mohler, Jenna Rickus, Alysa C. Rollock, Katherine L. Sermersheim and Stephanie L. Dykhuizen (Sergeant-at-Arms)

Absent: President Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., Charles A. Bouman, Sabine Brunswicker, Eugene Chan, Min Chen, Ariel de la Fuente, Daniel H. Frank, Alan M. Friedman, Lori A. Hoagland, Alexander V. Kildishev, Lata A. Krishnan, Angeline M. Lyon, John J McConnell, Pete E. Pascuzzi, Felicia Roberts, John W. Sheffield, Vikas Tomar, Heather Beasley, and Amanda J. Emmons

Guests: Michelle Ashcraft (Student Success Programs), Dave Bangert (Based in Lafayette Newsletter), Spencer Deery (President’s Office), Jason Fish (Purdue Online), Ani Kasparian (WLFI), Karen Marais (Undergraduate Curriculum Council), Clarence Maybee (Undergraduate Curriculum Council), Kristi Mickle (Finance), Jill Newton (Undergraduate Curriculum Council), Abbey Nickel (Purdue Today), Joseph Strickler (Student Success Programs), Marion Underwood (HHS), Lei Wang (Academic Progress and Records Committee), Randall Ward (Disability Resource Center), Kris Wong Davis (Enrollment Management), and Mitchell Zischke (Undergraduate Curriculum Council)

1. The meeting was called to order at 2:32 pm.
2. Chair Beaudoin read the following Statement of Land Use Acknowledgement, as per Senate Document 20-55:

The Purdue University Senate acknowledges the traditional homelands of the Indigenous People which Purdue University is built upon. We honor and appreciate the Bodéwadmik (Potawatomi), Lenape (Delaware), Myaamia (Miami), and Shawnee People who are the original Indigenous caretakers.

The minutes of the 21 February 2022 Senate meeting were entered as read.

The agenda was accepted by general consent.

In his remarks [Appendix A], Chair Beaudoin provided an update on the work of the chair’s select committee addressing sexual violence on campus, which had made its first round of recommendations to the administration and received responses, and had very recently made a second round of recommendations as well. Actions that will be taken include more resources available for education on sexual violence, including four new online modules; additional staff and support for the CARE Center, including marketing support for their work; and the timely warning language required by the Clery Act would be modified to be more supportive of survivors. Ongoing efforts continue to improve the process for reporting, and student organizations will work to expand the Sober Drivers program. The committee looked forward to further productive discussions with the administration.

Chair Beaudoin also reported that 604 faculty had responded regarding the possibility of a faculty lounge or club; most respondents were tenured or tenure-track. Most respondents were supportive of the idea (33% extremely interested and 38% somewhat interested), with highest interest levels for lunch, snacks, and happy hour uses for the area. There was strong interest in potentially hosting colleagues and being allowed to bring guests. Overwhelming support was reported for the idea that any instructors in the university should be allowed to use such an area. The majority of faculty indicated they wanted a lower price point than the suggested break-even figures, and so there may need to be some consideration of the cost structure if the plan moves forward.

Finally, Chair Beaudoin noted that Alpine Clinic, one of the largest mental health providers in the area, recently closed its doors without much notice, badly exacerbating the continuing shortage of mental health professionals in West Lafayette. Resources available to Purdue insurance users include the Center for Healthy Living and LiveHealthOnline. The wait time for the Center for Healthy Living is five weeks out, but 40% of mental health service appointments are no-shows. Chair Beaudoin urged Senators and their constituents to consider using online options such as LiveHealth in order to see that their mental health needs are met.

President Daniels was unable to attend the Senate meeting.

Provost Akridge was available to address pre-submitted questions. He welcomed faculty back from spring break and into the final stretch of the semester. On the

matter of the arrest of Purdue undergraduate Adonis Tuggle, Provost Akridge explained that the special prosecutor investigating the arrest still had not reached a decision, and that until that happened, Purdue’s administration was prohibited from providing additional information about the matter. Once the conclusion of the special prosecutor review made it possible to disseminate information, including the body cam footage of the incident, throughout the Purdue community it would be done expeditiously.

Another question concerned the recently announced tenth year of frozen tuition, and whether this would be sustainable given current high rates of inflation being experienced by faculty, staff, and students and their families. Provost Akridge stated that during the period of tuition freeze, Purdue had made significant enrollment gains, and our growth allowed us to maintain the steady tuition rate while increasing our budget. One of the factors considered when making decisions about tuition is whether Purdue will be able to continue to make competitive merit investments in faculty and staff. To this point in time, we have been near the top of our peer groups in this category for the past several years. The next Purdue Moves Initiative includes a major investment in Transformative Education 2.0, as well as the findings of the Equity Task Force, and investments made in research enterprise in plant sciences, national security, and the Purdue Applied Research Institute. In December, it was announced that our merit pool for this year would be 4%, with 1% of the total salary base being held back as a targeted competitive adjustment pool. One area of focus of that 1% will be graduate student stipends; another will be particular faculty groups where we are not fully competitive with market demands. There has also been an analysis of staff positions to determine areas where we are not competitive and suffer from high turnover; part of the funds will be targeted to those groups as well. The university remains in a very strong financial position. The question of tuition increases is revisited annually with the same criteria.

8. Professor Elizabeth Richards, Chair of the Steering Committee, presented the Résumé of Items Under Consideration by Various Committees [Appendix B] and asked for updates. Professor Robert Nowack, Chair of the Nominating Committee, reminded returning Senators that they needed to fill out their surveys for Standing Committee interests. Per the Bylaws, Nominating must fill out Committee rosters by April, and their strong desire was to be able to take into account Senator preferences when doing this.
9. A consent agenda, brought forth by the Nominating Committee, consisted of Senate Document 21-25 Nominees for the Educational Policy Committee; Senate Document 21-26 Nominees for the Faculty Affairs Committee; Senate Document 21- Nominees for the Steering Committee; and Senate Document 21-28 Nominee for the University Resources Policy Committee. The Documents were approved by the general consent of the body.

10.Professor Signe Kastberg presented for action Senate Document 21-15 Bylaws Change to 2.00 (a) and (c) on behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee. There being no discussion, the question was called. The motion carried, meeting the 2/3 threshold

required for Bylaw changes, with 74 votes in favor, three opposed, and no abstentions.

11.Professor Kastberg presented for action Senate Document 21-18 International Harassment of Purdue Students and Family Members (revised) on behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee. The motion being made and seconded, discussion began. Professor Alice Pawley stated that she was theoretically in favor of the proposal, but that other members of the Purdue community, such as Jewish students or Puerto Rican students, had in recent times been harassed because of their identities, and that in such cases there had not been an administrative response similar to the one made following the harassment of the Chinese graduate student discussed in this case. Professor Kastberg explained that since in this case there was a statement made by President Daniels, the Faculty Affairs Committee felt that it should be addressed by the faculty as well. The question of whether there should be or have been additional statements had not been discussed, but was something the FAC could take up in the future. Professor David Sanders said he was curious about the ending of the President’s statement that was quoted in the Document: “those seeking to deny those rights to others, let alone to collude with foreign governments and repressing them will need to pursue their education elsewhere.” He wanted to know whether any action had actually been taken against students under this policy. Provost Akridge said that he was not aware that any specific action had been taken, or that the student in question had filed any formal complaints against specific other students. There being no further discussion, the question was called, and the motion carried, with 71 votes in favor, three in opposition, and three abstentions.

12.The next item of business was the election of the new Senate Vice Chair, following Senate Document 21-20 Nominees for Vice-Chairperson of the University Senate. There were no nominations made from the floor. Each candidate was asked to speak for up to three minutes.

Professor Matthew Conaway, who noted he had just returned from accompanying the band to the NCAA tournament in Wisconsin:

“Doing that kind of activity, student travel and working a little bit outside my main academic focus, highlights what I feel to be the biggest strength to my candidacy, which is a proven track record of working with a very wide cross-section of stakeholders here at Purdue University. I taught for ten years here in town in the West Lafayette community schools before I came to Purdue, where I worked with our administration very closely to get some much-needed resources for our music program. I actually worked with many university stakeholders at that point, and many of your students were in my program. After I started at Purdue on the faculty ten years ago, I quickly became connected with various other stakeholders who enhance the overall environment for our students and staff here at Purdue. I’ve been part of the University Senate for five years, one year as a replacement Senator and now four years as our department’s elected Senator. I’ve been involved in the Student Affairs Committee during that time and currently serve on the Steering Committee. But regardless of the committee assignment, I look at the students as my primary reason

for serving on the Senate, and my primary reason for being at Purdue in general. I work in the Purdue Bands and Orchestras Department, and I’ve served as a mentor or advisor for nearly every one of our student volunteer teams and service fraternities. I work as our athletics department liaison, where I’ve been championing performance opportunities for our students. For seven years, I’ve been a member of the University Advisory Committee on Equity, which works closely with OE and the Dean of Students at resolving cases of harassment and sexual violence among our students and our staff. And most recently, I was appointed to a five-year term on the Athletic Affairs Committee, and outside the campus I was just named the Director of the Lafayette Citizens’ Band. Through all these activities, I have to work very closely with a very wide range of people. And in all of those cases, I am never afraid to defend my program’s interests, although my approach to conflict resolution tends to be more about collaboration over confrontation. I believe there’s great value in just picking up the phone and having a good conversation to resolve an issue, rather than trade an inflammatory back-and-forth, both privately and publicly. I do welcome new ideas for making this campus a better place for all of us. And I’m excited by the opportunity to speak with those who have suggestions on how this body can improve on the already excellent service and resource we provide to the Trustees and administration. I personally have several thoughts on how we might improve our value to the university, whether it’s increased efficiency in our meetings, increasing reliance on and trust in committee work, and even firmer adherence to our Bylaws and AIP. But I also recognize that whoever’s elected today, in about a year and a half’s time, is going to be the voice of the Senate whether or not we personally agree with those views. I recognize how important this is, I recognize how significant this is, and I look forward to a chance to serve you in this capacity. Thank you.”

Professor David Koltick:

“Thank you for the honor of this nomination, I bring to the Senate not only a state and national viewpoint, but also a global viewpoint to match Purdue’s worldwide impact through international interactions of faculty and students. I grew up in North Africa, and went to graduate school in the United States. While at Purdue, I have worked in large international collaborations at all the major particle physics laboratories in the United States, in Japan, and in Germany, and I continue to do so. I’ve taken advantage of Purdue’s support of intellectual property and commercial commercialization by founding the 2K Corporation, and advanced physics technologies. I’ve consulted to international companies in the United States, China, Malaysia, and Europe on security applications and international trade. Purdue recognizes our responsibilities to the greater community. And as a result, I ran for political office as state senator of Indiana, and served on the Tippecanoe County Council. My concerns for the Senate are first, of course, maintaining our freedom of scholarship, pursuit of intellectual property, and serving the greater community. Secondly, because Purdue is on the international stage, our students and faculty are affected by authoritarian players that are becoming more ardent, and capable of controlling our ability to have free and open pursuit of truth. They can threaten students, faculty, and our families. No value is more central to Purdue than the freedom of inquiry and expression. Senate committees are putting forward strong

resolutions affirming this principle. The threat can come from governments, corporations, security concerns, or via media narratives. The Senate needs to be vigilant to guard these principles. And finally, the issue of shared governance needs continued discussion. Some feel this can be put in place in short order. During my forty years, great success has been achieved under Purdue’s present system of decision making. Many feel the Senate needs to work on this issue with great care and deliberation in order to strengthen Purdue’s international status. Let’s work together to continue Purdue’s success. And thank you for your consideration.”

Professor Brian Leung:

“Good afternoon. I’m very pleased for this opportunity to address Purdue University’s Senate and guests. I want to first share a personal note: my Chinese father moved from Hong Kong to San Diego in the early 1960s to study engineering. And it comes as no small point of pride for him that a little over sixty years later, his son is a candidate for Vice Chair at the Purdue University Senate. I love at last being in a position where I can’t disappoint him—that’s on you. Now, I accepted this nomination for Vice Chair only after some reflection as to what might recommend me for the seat. As your chair of the Senate Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee this year, I’ve led 26 members from across the university, not only in regard to academic disciplines, but with representatives from staff, students, faculty, and administration. Our year of hard work has been built around goodwill and respect, a word you’ll hear again shortly. In its diverse makeup, the EDIC is a microcosm of the larger Senate body, and I think it’s fair to say I’ve led the committee through discussions on weighty topics with nary a flareup, and with nobody stomping their foot and taking their ball home. Also, as Chair of EDIC, I’ve met each month with Provost Akridge and Vice Provost John Gates, and then also with President Daniels as a member of the Advisory Committee. I have a healthy and productive working relationship with these administrators, something that I suspect could be an important continuity going forward, should I be elected as Vice Chair. But just like you, I’m evaluating three candidates and wondering how each is thinking forward. In addition to being in service of the goals of the incoming chair, my mind is also on how the university and this Senate address the dramatic changes in higher education coming in the next five to 10 years. A number of colleges and universities will most certainly be closing and are consolidating. And in that environment, how does Purdue function as a land grant university with our legacy commitments and also engage in disruptive innovation? How can we upgrade contemporary reading and writing literacies to meet the challenges of this new future? And consequently, I’m thinking about how the Senate can use a significant voice to make sure that every university decision respects you, the people who make up the university: students, staff, faculty, and administrators. Data-driven decision making has its merits, but human respect is too often a missing element. Numbers don’t lie, but they also don’t necessarily tell the truth. University decision-making must prioritize respecting its community members. Robust shared governance is part of this. With a sincere respect for you all, I’m Professor Brian Leung, and I ask for your vote. Thank you.”

In the initial round of voting, 21 votes were cast for Professor Conaway, 29 votes for Professor Koltick, and 26 votes for Professor Leung. Per Senate Bylaws, a run-off election was then held between Professors Koltick and Leung. 82 votes were cast, with 43 votes for Professor Leung, and 39 votes for Professor Koltick.

Professor Leung was declared the winner, and was immediately congratulated by Professor Koltick. Chair Beaudoin thanked all three candidates for their service in stepping forward for election.

13.Professor and Vice-Chair Elect Leung presented for action Senate Document 21- Recognizing and Valuing the Voices and Contributions of Black and Underrepresented Faculty & Staff on behalf of the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee. There being no discussion, the question was called. The motion carried, with 67 votes cast in its favor, three in opposition, and three abstentions.

While voting took place, Professor Leung thanked Professors Conaway and Koltick.

14.Professor Thomas Siegmund and Professor Janice Kritchevsky presented for action Senate Document 21-22 On the Need for a Policy to Define and Declare an Academic Emergency (revised) on behalf of the Educational Policy Committee and the University Resources Policy Committee. The motion being made and seconded, discussion began. Vice Provost Peter Hollenbeck reminded the Senate that Oregon State University and the University of Oregon are, in fact, different institutions, which was carefully noted by the Secretary of Faculties.

Professor Pawley offered to respond to questions raised during discussion of the Document in the February Senate meeting.

Provost Akridge said that he stood by his comments from the previous Senate meeting, wherein he had stated that he was not in favor of a new policy in this space, because the existing policy codified the way that we approached planning during the pandemic with respect to engaging academic leadership deeply and utilizing existing governance processes to make decisions. Emergency situations are unique and by nature difficult to put a rigid structure around. Provost Akridge said he had spoken with Professors Siegmund and Pawley about the idea of broadening the definition of what might constitute an academic emergency. Certainly, this was worth considering, since current policy is focused on public health and pandemics, and could potentially better define academic leadership, and define the inclusion of MaPSAC (Management and Professional Staff Advisory Committee), CSSAC (Campus Support Staff Advisory Committee), and other constituents who were deeply involved in the process that was used to navigate COVID, and whose deep engagement was one of the reasons that process was successful. Those two areas could be refined, but the need for something with a lot of structure is not clear, given the amount of uncertainty that is, by definition, involved in these kinds of situations. Professor Siegmund responded that the Document was not an attempt to litigate the past, but instead to provide a forward-looking process, particularly as we do continue in the

COVID crisis, which could yet return to haunt us. Having more certainty on how new emergencies would be addressed was the desire of the EPC and URPC.

Professor Pawley made a presentation [Appendix C]. She stated that existing policy was focused on health emergencies but that there might be other circumstances that required urgent academic action. She said that the committees wanted to emphasize how shared governance can still be followed in spirit even with different processes necessitated by the emergency. The Document asked for increased transparency about who makes what changes, and asks for declaring who academic leadership is, and also asks that such a declaration of some emergency policy be time-bound, which existing policy is not. The document also asked that revised policy come back to the Senate and to the regional campuses and Purdue Global before continuing on the normal decision-making route. She then wished to address questions from the last meeting. On the question of how much specificity could really be brought to such a policy, she clarified that the Oregon document cited was meant as an example rather than a model, and that the most likely outcome at Purdue would be to modify the IV.A.8 policy. She said articulating who academic leadership is, explicitly committing the policy to norms of shared governance, and committing to transparency would not reduce nimbleness. She emphasized that regardless of the state of the COVID pandemic, the proposed policy was intended to be to be forward- looking and build on what we have learned. She said that while the adverse weather policy was shorter scale that what Professor Pawley had in mind, none of the Senate’s current proposal would come into conflict with that policy, either. Finally, it was pointed out that policy IV.A.8 did go through the system-wide policy development process, which included the Senate chair, but since we know more now, she thought further revision was called for.

There being no further discussion, the question was called. The motion carried, with 52 votes in favor, 18 in opposition, and six abstentions.

15.Professor Siegmund presented for action Senate Document 21-23 Addition of a Winter Session to the Academic Calendar (revised) on behalf of the Educational Policy Committee. It was noted that the Faculty Affairs Committee had also voted to endorse the Document. The motion being made and seconded, discussion began. Professor Siegmund noted many revisions had been made since the previous presentation of the Document in the February meeting to respond to feedback received both therein and from colleagues following the meeting. As a result, the Document was more cautious than in previous versions. It had been discussed with Vice Provost Kris Wong Davis, Dean Marion Underwood, Provost Akridge, Graduate Dean Linda Mason, the Faculty Committee on Academic Progress and Records, and with staff representation. In the current proposal, Winter Flex would be a session of ten instructional days with no on-campus component. The first opportunity for its implementation, the academic year 2022-23, would stipulate a Winter Flex term including only study-abroad options, while subsequent implementation might include asynchronous online instruction. While the 3-cedit option remained, there was more definition of what constitutes a credit, to underscore that Winter Flex instruction must be equivalent to that in the standard academic year. The Document emphasized that

the Senate’s support would be contingent upon the voluntary nature of Winter Flex participation remaining truly and not merely theoretically voluntary. The need to protect graduate students from overload work was particularly addressed, as well. The committee had engaged with staff representation, and specifically tried to address the need for increased staffing and the appropriate compensation for any staff supporting the new winter session. In all, the tone of the revisions was to make clear that the Senate supported the Winter Flex proposal but with caution and reservations.

Provost Akridge thanked the EPC for its efforts on the proposal. He reminded the Senate that we had begun looking into the possibility of a January term more than a year ago, and while feedback showed that the original proposal was not unproblematic, there was a strong campus contingent supportive of the idea that encouraged us to revisit the idea of winter instruction. He emphasized that the spirit of the 3-week Winter Flex proposal was to create opportunities for interested volunteers but not to compel participation. More than 20% of faculty indicated interest in engaging winter study abroad or asynchronous instruction; this new proposal would create an opportunity for them to pursue winter teaching.

There being no further discussion, the question was called. The motion carried, with 60 votes in favor, 13 opposed, and three abstentions.

16.Associate Graduate Dean and Research Integrity Officer Jamie Mohler presented on his work to create language clarifying Authorship Standards [Appendix D]. He explained that there had been about seven disputes around authorship referred to the RIO office since 2019, both faculty-faculty and faculty-student. 11 out of 14 Big 10 institutions have authorship policies or guidance and mediation procedures. His proposal was a clarification of existing Purdue policy modelled on language in use across the Big 10, and edited in consultation with Purdue lawyers, the Provost’s Office, and several faculty members. His hope was to have the language, which has the endorsement already of the Graduate Council, also gain the endorsement of both the Purdue Graduate Student Council and the University Senate in the near future.

Provost Akridge thanked Dean Mohler for his work, noting that it would help to build awareness around authorship discussions, as well as prevent situations from arising that are very difficult to adjudicate after the fact.

Professor Sanders said that he endorsed the idea of adopting authorship standards. He suggested that the document should focus not only on the rights of authorship, but also on the responsibilities of authorship. E.g., if there are questions about an article, responsibility for its contents should fall on all authors; the privilege of being an article author must also mean accepting authorial responsibility for the piece. His other comment had to do with the proposal following COPE standards rather than the ICMJE’s, which are more rigorous than COPE’s. He said that COPE does valuable work, but can be too concerned with protecting their members. Dean Mohler responded that a responsibility section could be added, and that he would be happy to include an explanation of the ICMJE policy given the general consensus around

their being the gold standard; his hesitation had been over the medical focus of ICMJE, given that Purdue does not have a medical school.

Purdue Graduate Student Government President Madelina Nuñez said that the PGSG would be voting on the proposal in their 30 March meeting.

Professor Bharat Bhargava expressed his wish that students would always be given authorship before professors, and that in evaluating work, especially interdisciplinary work, we should not assume that credit only goes to the first few professors, but is rather the work of an entire group.

17.Professor Siegmund presented for discussion Senate Document 21-29 On the Need for Campus-Wide Curricular Treatment of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on behalf of the Educational Policy Committee. He explained that while Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have been receiving attention from the university and the Senate, the academic aspects of such efforts have been less well addressed. The UCC (Undergraduate Curriculum Council) was attempting to address this issue by proposing a new Core required category in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Professor Mitchell Zischke, the UCC Chair Elect, was invited to present on the Document [Appendix E]. He said that within the Big 10, eleven institutions have a university-wide core, but that Purdue is one of only three such schools that lacks a narrowly focused Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion category (although five academic units at Purdue do have these requirements). Many accrediting organizations are interested in emphasizing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion curricula. Professor Zischke discussed the history of the Core Curriculum and the work of the UCC to oversee its foundational and embedded learning outcomes. He said that the proposal for adding a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion requirement to the Core was the result of a great deal of research and many discussions, but that the UCC were still seeking feedback as well. With the Senate’s support, the UCC would then bring a finished proposal to the Senate in the fall of 2022.

Professor Leung thanked Professor Zischke for bringing forward the proposal.

Provost Akridge thanked the UCC for their work, and suggested that a fundamental question still to be settled was whether the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion requirement should be a foundational or an embedded learning outcome. He explained that this is a complex question requiring careful study by the faculty and the EPC, particularly given that we have many degrees capped at 120 credits. He also gave credit to the many units across campus already requiring engagement with different cultures in multiple ways, and pointed to the list of JEDI courses already identified by the Equity Task Force.

Vice Chair Colleen Brady asked what a Core requirement in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion would mean for colleges that already had their own core requirements in this area. Professor Zischke said that the hope of the UCC was that current college requirements would map closely to any proposed university-wide requirement.

18.Professor Thomas Siegmund presented for discussion Senate Document 21- Statement on Shared Governance at Purdue-West Lafayette on behalf of the Educational Policy Committee. He asked Professor Pawley to present on the proposal [Appendix F].

She noted that both the EPC and FAC had voted to endorse the Document, and that the URPC was currently considering it as well. She then explained that she had heard from many colleagues that there were two major concerns about Purdue’s shared governance. The first was the decision by the Board of Trustees to set aside the vote of the Senate when they adopted the civics literacy graduation requirement. She said that both the Fort Wayne and Northwest Senates had also voted to endorse Document 20-60, which addresses this matter. The other major area of concern was the work of the shared governance task force being led by Professor Deborah Nichols, who was a Senator and Immediate Past Chair of the Senate, but who initiated this work in her capacity as a faculty member, not as a Senator.

The purpose of the Document at hand was to establish a firmer foundation for conversations around shared governance that would include basing them more strongly on the AAUP statement on government. This would entail agreeing that the AAUP Statement on Government is the authoritative statement on shared governance and the starting point for any conversation about shared governance at Purdue, in recognition of its widespread adoption and recognition as the gold standard for shared governance nationwide. Further, the Document asked for a conversation among the Trustees, administration, and Senate to come to a better shared understanding about what the AAUP statement means for Purdue.

The FAC had asked for and received modifications to the Document before voting on it. While some feedback for the Document asserted that it was unnecessary, and unlikely to influence the Trustees, Professor Pawley maintained that AAUP’s statement on government could still be useful to us, and that it aligned with much of the University Code that is still in effect. She noted that for Senate Documents to accomplish actions, they must be taken up by others—for example when the Senate voted to make menstrual products free in all bathrooms. Senate Documents become harder to ignore when the faculty take them up and do work with them. She said that AAUP statement had been used in SD 20-60 and 21-22, as well as conversations about budget cuts to English and SIS, and conversations about how Purdue Online’s policies support faculty expert control over programs and courses. Its utility would include fixing our standards to a foundation external to Purdue. She closed by welcoming questions and feedback.

19.Professor Janice Kritchevsky presented for discussion Senate Document 21- Request for an Investment Plan for the Purdue Endowment on behalf of the University Resources Policy Committee. In a popular move, she invited Professor Pawley to speak on the proposal, noting that the Document had originated with the Sustainability Committee, of which Professor Pawley is Chair.

Professor Pawley presented additional slides [Appendix G], and began by explaining a bit about the history and concerns of the Sustainability Committee, which is a Faculty Committee reporting to the URPC, and which includes representatives from faculty, students, and staff pulled from many of our regional campuses as well as from West Lafayette. Sustainability is charged with working via five-year goals, one of which was detailed in the proposal currently before the Senate. The proposal wished to acknowledge and connect to a broader effort at universities and other institutions of divesting endowments from fossil fuel investments, following the University of Michigan’s Trustees, which unanimously endorsed the decision to develop a renewable resource investment plan and in asking for such a plan to be developed here by end of fiscal year 2023. Professor Pawley said that PRF had responded to requests for their engagement by explaining that energy is not an area of focus in their assets, and that they are not currently thinking about divestment. Moreover, she said that President Daniels stated pre-pandemic that he considered divestment analogous to a “posturing statement,” rather than productive action, but in February’s Senate meeting had hinted at a new Giant Leap concerning CO reduction. Professor Pawley stated that what are called divest-invest strategies are increasingly mainstream, are fiscally responsible, and practical for universities. Divestment efforts have redirected 39.2 billion dollars globally away from fossil fuel companies, which makes a practical difference. She emphasized that in taking this action, Purdue would not act alone, nor would it need to limit itself to a since strategy in environmental stewardship. She expressed her openness to feedback. There was no immediate further discussion.

20.Professors Sanders and Leung presented for discussion Senate Document 21- SAT/ACT and Undergraduate Admissions on behalf of the Student Affairs Committee and the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee. Professor Leung said that Professor Sanders had presented to the EDIC on the Document, and that he and the EDIC felt this was something Purdue and its Senate needed to engage as part of a wider national conversation: what these tests are, who they exclude, and what predictions they make. While the conclusion of such a conversation was not foregone, there was an urgency to the need to join it.

Professor Sanders said that both at Purdue and at institutions around the country, the pandemic had given rise to a period of test-optional and test-flexible policies for taking the SATs and ACTs as a condition of admissions, particularly given that people of lower socioeconomic status had more difficulties in being able to take the test in pandemic circumstances. This period made clear that standardized tests were not absolutely required for college admissions. And as partial consequence of this period as well as a general reconsideration of the role of standardized tests in college admissions, many more institutions have moved either to eliminating tests or have adopted test-optional admissions. Professor Sanders stated that the main reason for thinking about this was that standardized tests are not a measure that predict success in college as opposed to, e.g., high school GPA. The main correlation for one’s scores on the SAT or the ACT is socioeconomic status for a variety of reasons, but especially including access to test preparation. Both the tests and preparation companies are non-government-regulated, private business enterprises, so that in

essence a private corporation created an exam that discriminates on the basis of family wealth, and it is being used as the basis for admissions decisions.

Senator Tony Vyn asked whether any colleges at Purdue currently did not require standardized testing, and whether the Document should allow for flexibility a la the GRE, which is required by some graduate programs for admissions but is not required by many others. Professor Sanders replied that we do have a mixed system at Purdue; some colleges have testing admissions requirements and others simply follow the admissions of the university. On the other hand, graduate programs admit students directly, rather than relying on a centralized university admissions process.

Professor Antônio Sá Barreto asked whether AP tests should also be treated as standardized tests. He also asked whether there was acknowledgement that, for example, colleges like UCLA might not take SAT scores into account for admissions, but did take them into account for matters such as math course placement.

Provost Akridge clarified that admissions requirements do apply across the university at the undergraduate level; Enrollment Management makes initial admissions decisions. He said that at the moment, we are on a test-flexible course because of the challenges of taking the ACT and SAC during COVID, although prior to COVID, tests were required for all undergraduates seeking admission. He also reminded the Senate that this topic had been debated two years prior, and that Vice Provost Kris Wong Davis had prepared a white paper [Appendix H] including broad data and extensive analysis for some of the questions raised. Moving forward, there have been some changes made with respect to the text by the State of Indiana.

Vice Provost Wong Davis explained that one reason Purdue uses test scores across all disciplines at the undergraduate level is that prospective undergraduates often have multiple interests and don’t yet know what they want to study, and may be applying to more than one major at a time, even majors in different colleges. SATs scores are just one component of admissions review. Many schools use SAT scores for placement, because they are predictive in that context. And we use the SAT math score for placement at Purdue as well. Test scores are also an element used in scholarship applications. AP scores can also be constituted as standardized tests, and it would be unfortunate if a student were to misunderstand the test policy and lost the opportunity to carry forward college credit from the AP exams. Finally, the State of Indiana has contracted for the testing of all high school students to graduate from high school in 2024 and beyond to be the SAT test. They will also offer AP, LSAT and CLEP tests free to all Indiana students, removing a major socioeconomic barrier to standardized testing.

Professor Sanders responded that this would not remove socioeconomic barriers to test preparation, only to taking the test itself. He reiterated that according to his documentation, SATs measure family wealth more directly that preparation for college. He also reminded the Senate that the Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives [Todd Huston] was paid more than $400K by the College Board [where he served as senior vice president for state and district partnership],

suggesting that the plan to outsource testing to the College Board was not a reflection of the merit of the SAT itself. He also clarified that his understanding of the previous question was whether individual majors had standardized test requirements, and said that he believed that admission to Purdue did not also mean a student was automatically admitted to, for example, the College of Engineering, and that individual units might use standardized tests in their decision making. He also clarified that the Document before the Senate was about testing for admissions, and not AP exams.

Vice Provost Wong Davis explained that the Undergraduate Admissions Office actually manages admission to all undergraduate programs at the new beginner and transfer level, and that this is direct to major. Colleges do not manage their own new admissions at the undergraduate level. She asserted that the math score on the SAT was extremely predictive. She clarified that the College Board is a not-for-profit institution.

Professor Erik Otárola-Castillo wished to acknowledge that in 2020-2021, as Chair of the EPC, he had also discussed this proposal with Professor Sanders; variations on this resolution have come up several times in the past several years. He agreed that there is a socioeconomic component to the SAC and ACT, not only in paying for the test itself, but in preparing and practicing for it; many families, including his own, could not afford prep classes. However, he also noted that in researching the issue last year, some faculty had registered that standardized tests were required for certification in their areas, and that this matter needed to be looked into.

21.During New Business, Purdue Graduate Student Government President Nuñez wished to acquaint the Senate with four pieces of legislation that had passed the PGSG Senate and would be coming soon to the University Senate. The PGSG hoped for Senate support in the following areas: implementation of an Infant at Work program, advocacy for English graduate studies and their funding, greater transparency around graduate student leave of absence policies, and a petition to increase graduate student representation on Senate Standing Committees. President Nuñez welcomed feedback on any of these matters.

22.After offering hearty congratulations and deepest condolences to Professor Leung for his new role as Vice Chair Elect, the Senate adjourned at 5:07pm, solemnly vowing to meet one final time in April to conclude the year’s business.

i;--=") PURDUE I UniversitySenate c.....::r-' UNIVERSITY ®

Senate Document 21 - 25 21 March 2022

To: The University Senate

From: University Senate Nominating Committee Subject: Nominees for the Educational Policy Committee

Reference: Bylaws of the University Senate

Disposition: Election by the University Senate Proposal: For the three openings on the Educational Policy Committee, the Nominating Committee proposes the following slate of nominees. The faculty members elected are to serve for terms as specified:

Name Term Years Department/School

Alice Pawley Steven Scott Howard Sypher

Engineering Education Pharmacy Practice Communication

Committee Votes:

For: Against: Abstained: Absent:

Dulcy Abraham Michael McNamara Andrew Lu Liu Larry F. Nies Robert Nowack Jan Olek Qifan Song

Joseph Sobieralski Vikas Tomar

i;--=") PURDUE I UniversitySenate c.....::r-' UNIVERSITY ®

Senate Document 21 - 26 21 March 2022

To: The University Senate

From: University Senate Nominating Committee Subject: Nominees for the Faculty Affairs Committee

Reference:

Disposition: Proposal:

Bylaws of the University Senate Election by the University Senate For the four openings on the Faculty Affairs Committee, Nominating Committee proposes the following slate of nomin The faculty members elected are to serve for terms as specified:

the ees.

Name Term Years Department/School

Patricia Davies 3 Mechanical Engineering Nastasha Johnson 3 Libraries Jennifer Scheuer 3 Design, Art, and Performance Anish Vanaik 3 Honors College

Committee Votes:

For: Against: Abstained: Absent:

Dulcy Abraham Joseph Sobieralski Michael McNamara Vikas Tomar Andrew Lu Liu Larry F. Nies Robert Nowack Jan Olek Qifan Song

i;--=") PURDUE I UniversitySenate c.....::r-' UNIVERSITY ®

Senate Document 21 - 27 21 March 2022

To: The University Senate

From: University Senate Nominating Committee Subject: Nominees for the Steering Committee

Reference: Bylaws of the University Senate

Disposition: Election by the University Senate Proposal: For the three openings on the Steering Committee, the Nominating Committee proposes the following slate of nominees. The faculty members elected are to serve for terms as specified:

Name

Elizabeth (Libby) Richards Adam Watkins Darci Trader

Term Years 3 3 3

Department/School

Nursing Honors College Medicinal Chemistry and M Pharmacology

olecular

Committee Votes:

For: Against: Abstained: Absent:

Dulcy Abraham Michael McNamara Andrew Lu Liu Larry F. Nies Robert Nowack Jan Olek Qifan Song

Joseph Sobieralski Vikas Tomar

i;--=") PURDUE I UniversitySenate c.....::r-' UNIVERSITY ®

Senate Document 21 - 28 21 March 2022

To: The University Senate

From: University Senate Nominating Committee Subject: Nominee for the University Resources Policy Committee

Reference: Bylaws of the University Senate

Disposition: Election by the University Senate Proposal: For the opening on the University Resources Policy Committee, the Nominating Committee proposes the following nominee. The faculty member elected is to serve for the term as specified:

Name Term Department/School Years Julio Ramirez 3 Civil Engineering

Committee Votes:

For: Against: Abstained: Absent:

Dulcy Abraham Joseph Sobieralski Michael McNamara Vikas Tomar Andrew Lu Liu Larry F. Nies Robert Nowack Jan Olek Qifan Song

i;--=") PURDUE I UniversitySenate

c.....::r-' UNIVERSITY ®

•

Senate Document 2 1 - 15 21 February 2022

To: The University Senate

From: Faculty Affairs Committee Subject: Bylaws Change to 2. 00 (a) & (c)

Reference: University Senate Bylaws

Disposition: University Senate for Discussion and Adoption Rationale: To bring the Bylaws into alignment with the reapportionment mandated by SD 21- 11 (passed on 15 November 2021 ) Proposal: Due to the reapportionment of the Senate for AY 2022- 2023 , two Bylaws changes are needed. The following two changes to the Bylaws are proposed:

1. Current: 2.00 Composition a) The Senate is composed of 102 members

Proposed: 2.00 Composition a) The Senate is composed of 104 members

2. Current: 2.00 Composition c) Between six and sixteen designated Advisors to the Senate are accorded full floor privileges but not the vote. One of these represents the Honors College, elected by the faculty of the Honors College in a manner consistent with the election of Senators (2.03). …

Proposed: 2.00 Composition c) Between six and sixteen designated Advisors to the Senate are accorded full floor privileges but not the vote. One of these represents the Honors College, elected by the faculty of the Honors College in a manner consistent with the election of Senators (2.03). …

Committee Votes:

For: Against: Abstained: Absent:

Faculty Faculty Faculty Signe Kastberg Min Chen Charles Bouman Jozef Kokini Edward Fox Stephen Hooser David Koltick Angeline Lyon Lata Krishnan Brian Richert John Springer Eric Waltenburg Steve Yaninek

Advisors Peter Hollenbeck Lisa Mauer

i;--=") PURDUE I UniversitySenate c.....::r-' UNIVERSITY ®

Senate Document 2 1 - 18 (revised) 21 February 2022

To:

From:

Subject:

The University Senate Faculty Affairs Committee International Harassment of Purdue Students and Family Members

Reference:

Disposition: Rationale:

Sebastian Rotella, “Even on U.S. Campuses, China Cracks Down on Students Who Speak Out” ProPublica , 30 November 2021 Open Letter from President Mitch Daniels, Purdue University, 31 January 2022 University Senate for Discussion and Action President Mitch Daniels has taken a courageous stand on behalf of Purdue University regarding the dissemination of ideas and of unrestricted discussion and debate in search of truth in an open letter, which has been widely distributed.

This letter alerts us to and outlines the unacceptable harassment of an international student that has taken place on the Purdue Campus, and, remarkably, an expansion of the harassment at the international level by government officials of the student’s family overseas. These acts were done in concert in order to suppress open discussion and debate, which is an attack on the fundamental core of what Purdue is and what it stands for.

President Daniels has pointed out that Purdue University is a force on the international scale and that its core principles are invariant. As stated distinctly in the open letter,

[J]oining the Purdue community requires acceptance of its rules and values, and no value is more central to our institution or to higher education generally than the freedom of inquiry and expression. Those seeking to deny those rights to others, let alone to collude with foreign governments in repressing them, will need to pursue their education elsewhere.

Proposal: The University Senate is faculty and student body of Purdue University are in complete agreement that someone who would abrogate the freedom of inquiry and expression of any member of the Purdue University body or its guests or collude with a foreign government to do the same, will “be subject to significant sanction,” as noted out in the letter from President Daniels.

Committee Votes:

For: Against: Abstained:

Faculty Min Chen Edward Fox Signe Kastberg Jozef Kokini David Koltick Lata Krishnan John Springer Eric Waltenburg Steve Yaninek

Advisors Lisa Mauer

Absent:

Faculty Charles Bouman Stephen Hooser Angeline Lyon Brian Richert

Advisors Peter Hollenbeck