Thursday, February 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

Notes re the Feb. 14 [2013] meeting of the (rep council of the) Academic Senate
Reminder: faculty are represented by the Academic Senate with regard to “academic matters” (teaching, course development, program development, etc.). With regard to contractual matters, faculty are represented by the “Faculty Association” (union).

The Feb. 14 meeting turned out to be a real humdinger. Discussions re the IVC mascot (the laser) and whether a certain Geography course should count as a “physical science” course produced heat.

COLLEGE COUNCIL. Ac. Senate Prez Kathy Schmeidler reported that the all-important College Council had expanded to such an extent that it became necessary to “uninvite” duplicative members. I imagine that Glenn and crew did the pruning.

The committee met 8 days ago (relative to Feb. 14). Evidently, construction of the Fine Arts Bldg. has been shifted up or forward; also, owing to encumbrances to state monies (or lack thereof), the A400 “renovation” project will move ahead more quickly. This concerns the arcane rules tied to state money (e.g., buildings sporting fake brick walls made in San Bernardino between 1986 and 1989 get double bonuses if the college President’s middle name is “Hank”).

THE IMMINENCE OF LASER PERMANENCE. Also, College Council voted to name the soon-to-be-constructed Barranca college entrance “Laser Road.”

I noted that a decision to name the road after the “laser” cemented into place the latter as our mascot. But, not so long ago, unhappiness with the mascot led to the formation of a committee charged with finding a replacement mascot. This College Council naming decision assumes what appears to be false: that we are happy with our mascot. My remarks led to much discussion and some gnashing of teeth.

Evidently, at the aforementioned College Council meeting, college flack Diane Oaks proclaimed that the “mascot” committee has disbanded and there’s no chance we will be changing our mascot. But who is D.O. to make such pronouncements?, I asked.

Some used the occasion to complain about our mascot, noting that any concrete mascot corresponding to the “laser” would seem inevitably to fail to be “[warm and] fuzzy” or “make a noise,” thereby relegating it to inadequacy, mascotwise. One participant of the discussion opined that there appears to be “dark politics” afoot according to which the mascot will not be changed (this was an allusion, I believe, to the notion that some unexplained and unidentified political reality has protected the “Early College” program all these years, despite the program’s manifest failings and expense).

Kathy suggested that we “agendize” this matter for the next meeting. Meanwhile, she will communicate with the usual suspects that we are unhappy with this naming move. (Expect all efforts to stop this freight train to meet with cursory dismissal.)

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES. Ac. Senate VP Bob U discussed what he has learned about significant organizational changes occasioned by the retirement of Roger Owen (Milquetoastian Dean of Fine Arts) and the exit of David Anderson (Office of Extended Education, Director). We viewed a chart, which made reference to an part of the college called “Liberal Arts,” and that seemed to suggest that, with the reorganization, our own Karima F would cease being dean of H&L. I noted this. Evidently, the chart failed to make clear that it was presenting new duties—on top of existing duties—per administrator. Phew! The upshot: Karima will continue as our dean. (Bob acknowledged that the chart was “confusing.”) VPI Craig Justice explained the principle behind some of these changes: academic administrators supervise academics. (Hence Anderson’s exit, I guess.)

Craig noted that Kathy Werle’s duties have been expanded (by about 20%) owing to changes in accreditation guidelines. Karima’s duties have been brought back to what they were a year or so ago. Or so said the Craigster.

RANDOM FACTOIDS. Recently, there was a “walkthrough tour” of the new Life Sciences building. BSTIC 119 will be getting new furniture after Spring break.

CURRICULUM. Courses Committee chair, Diana H, has changed the deadline for new courses and revised courses. These changes attempt to ameliorate stress, she said. Now, “everything” is due on Nov. 1, I believe.

THE GREAT “PHYSICAL SCIENCE” DEBATE. Item 3 was “Senate Approval of Curriculum for 2013-2014 Catalog.” Evidently, this involved a list of General Ed transfer courses (for UC and CSU). Kiana Tabibzadeh, senator for the School of Physical Sciences and Technologies (PST), evidently objected to inclusion of Geography 10 among courses satisfying the “physical sciences” requirement. She seemed to say that Geography is housed in the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, not the “physical” sciences, and so what’s this social science course doing here?

Tracy F, political science instructor, was on hand to defend inclusion of the course in that category. She noted that Geography 10 is recognized state-wide as a “physical sciences” course, in part because of geography’s manifest nature as “cross-disciplinary”—i.e., it comprises both social science and physical science. That Geo 10 is housed in the Social Sciences, said Tracy, doesn’t mean that it is not cross-disciplinary. Perhaps, she suggested, PST fails to understand this.

Diane H, current curriculum maven, noted that PST had an opportunity to raise this objection two years ago, but evidently it felt no need to do so.

Tracy F was visibly angered by Kiana (and Chem pal’s) recalcitrance or obduritude. It didn’t help that Kiana seemed incapable of speaking about Geo 10 without referring to it as geology (I think that was it). Tracy commenced peppering her discourse with such terms as “elitist” and “turf war.” Oh my.

THE DREADED “HUMAN ASPECT.” Kiana then argued that her School and its courses are characterized by the absence of a “human aspect.” If there is a human aspect to a course, then that course is not about physical science. (By that logic, I suppose, a Nestle bar ceases to be chocolate if it has a rat hair—aka a rat aspect—in it.)

Tracy seemed to sense in Kiana an inclination to view the social sciences as “not science,” and this plainly caused her to become a seething cauldron of peevitude & righteous anger, a very dangerous object in the room. (Sensing danger, I nudged myself slightly to her starboard.)

Tracy returned to her simple argument: geography is a cross-disciplinary field. Hence it has a leg in two worlds: the social sciences and the physical sciences. Hence, its embrace of “human aspects” does not remove it from the category of courses that teach physical science. QED.

In the end, a vote was taken, with 18 voting for Tracy’s position and 3 voting for Kiana’s. (There was single abstention.) I do believe that Kiana stalked off in a huff, though I might have only imagined that.

Kathy S noted that here, on the senate floor, is precisely the place to have these kinds of discussion. (Unpleasant and hostile ones? Not sure.)

Item 6 concerned the ongoing review of Board Policies and Administrative Regulations. Nothing much to report here.

HIRING PRIORITY LIST. As it turns out, the Academic Affairs Committee is recommending revisions to the Full Time Tenure-Track Faculty Hiring Priority List Development Process. The changes that Kathy has proposed seem largely superficial. Tier 1 is eliminated, but blah, blah, blah.

PROPAGANDA ‘R’ US. Academic Affairs Committee is recommending approval of the revised Completion Agenda/Call to Action for IVC. You’ll recall that this concerns a political gesture to maximize control of, well, the state’s completion agenda. The Ac. Affairs committee was none too pleased with the original draft, and changed every sentence in it. Evidently, the president (the Rockster) has brought forward his own version. What will be its fate?, I asked. “It will reside in Sharepoint,” said Kathy. I take it should was suggesting that it has entered oblivion.  The Senate approved the AA committee’s draft 20-0-1.

Those interested in joining the “debate” regarding the completion agenda should do so by tapping into the state Academic Senate’s ongoing efforts to battle the stupidity and cluelessness of those who make important decisions in our state (not that the state senate doesn’t itself occasionally indulge in S & C).

BASIC AID FUNDING SCRAMBLE. Bruce Hagan came by to present background information on the developing District IT Proposed Priority Project List. This is a list of projects, unprioritized,  proposed for Basic Aid funding (which is reserved for one-off projects, nothing ongoing). Bob U noted that the list is of the “kitchen sink” variety: it includes everything and is not filtered by reason, prudence, of common sense. Hagan seemed to say that we are invited to provide “input” via emails and such.

At yesterday’s School meeting, Hagan offered the same presentation, whereupon, again, he was mighty vague about the nature of inputtery. Evidently, the IT group that will be making recommendations will meet on Monday. They will produce a report that lists the allegedly best ideas, I think. In the end, likely only 2 or 3 of these projects will be funded (by basic aid funds).

If you’d like to peruse this list, use this link:
http://inside.ivc.edu/committees/collegecouncil/SitePages/2013-2014%20Basic%20Aid%20Funded%20Technology%20Projects%20Survey.aspx

Note that these are district, not college, projects.

BOOK STORE PLANT LIFE. Some reps from the Book Store came to talk at us. Don’t really know what they said. They were surprisingly pleasant. They insisted on sitting in on the entire meeting, like potted plants.

--Yours,
Roy Bauer

Your Senators:

Roy Bauer

Melanie Haeri

No comments:

Post a Comment