Meeting Minutes #263

Members Present: John Kolassa, John Evans, Jeffrey Zahn, Ted Szatrowski, Anna Haley, Lei Yu, Ralph Bowen, Heather Pierce, Peter J. Morrone, Mei Ling Lo, Thomas Davis, Tom Stephens, Sanjib Bhuyan, Ana Pairet Vinas, Jack Bouchard, Francis Ryan, Karen Thompson, Kenneth McKeever, Eleanor LaPointe, Tuğrul Özel, Jessey Choo, Robert Boikess, Gary Rendsburg, Francois Berthiaume, Xenia Morin, Dilafruz Nazarova, Nikolaos Linardopoulos, Jeremy Morgan, Anne McPherson, Marci Meixler, Carmel Schrire, David Kryscynski, Silke Severmann, Jennifer Shukaitis, Changlu Wang, Marybeth Gasman, Jimmy Sweet, Madeline Flahive Di Nardo Union, Thomas Figueira, Rafiq Huda, Ronnee Ades, Glenn Amatucci, Ellen Williams, Sue Shapses, Alexander Pichugin, Alisa Belzer, F. Javier Diez, Linda Oshin, Mariann Bischoff, Meenakshi Dutt, Crystal Akers, Jennifer Shukaitis, Peter Morrone, Benjamin Paul
 

Non-Members Present: Saundra Tomlinson-Clarke, Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Carolyn Moehling, Senior Vice Provost and Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education, Kathy Loder-Murphy, Assistant Director of the Office of Disability Services, Carlie Andrews, Senior Director of the Office of Disability Services, Martha Cotter, Parliamentarian

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Chair Haley on Friday, February 23, 2024, at 1:10 pm via Zoom.

2.  Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was approved.

3.  Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 26, 2024

The minutes were approved without objection.

4. Chair's Report – Anna Haley 

  • Chair Haley began her report by following up on the breakout room discussions at the last meeting, which were about faculty priority issues and survey findings. She mentioned that the survey findings document could be shared with other faculty and colleagues, and that comments and questions would be welcome. Furthermore, she requested that individual committees consider these priorities, see how they align with their focus area, whether they duplicate existing charges, or should be considered and added to that committee’s list of charges.
  • She then followed up on the two open houses, which were well attended and led to great conversations. Some of the important issues that were discussed include: how to enhance the impact of the NBFC, the importance of communication between the NBFC and its constituents, as well as the Chancellor. On the former, she mentioned that she has pressed the issue to the Chancellor that the NBFC does not have direct access to its constituents via an email list, which impedes the NBFC’s shared governance function. On the latter, she said that resolutions would benefit from more specific language on timeline and actions that are expected.
  • She then reported on the ongoing process of revising the NBFC by-laws, which was mentioned at the previous meeting for the first time. Meetings will be held with interested representatives and an invitation was extended to whomever is interested. The goal of these meetings will be to generate a revised document that can be brought up for discussion at the March meeting. The final revised by-laws document would then be brought up for a vote at the April meeting.
  • Finally she reminded the members of a number of upcoming events: (1) A budget meeting is going to be held on March 7, and that it would be very helpful for those who want to understand how RCM works. (2) A teaching pre-conference on Artificial Intelligence will take place on April 12 via Zoom. This will address an overwhelming concern related to teaching expressed in the faculty survey. A larger in-person conference on AI will be planned to take place in the fall. (3) A call for an NBFC social get together will be sent out shortly. The event will likely to be held on a Wednesday or Thursday in the last 3 weeks of the semester.

Since the first guest speaker had already arrived, we moved to the next agenda item and no questions were taken at that time.

5. Presentation and Discussion on Student Support Services for Non-traditional and Disabled Students

Chair Haley welcomed the four guests, who would be speaking about student services. First, Provost Sandra Tomlinson-Clarke and Senior Vice Provost and Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education Carolyn Moehling will speak about pathways for non-traditional students. Second, Senior Director of the Office of Disability Services Carlie Andrews and Assistant Director of the Office of Disability Services Kathy Loder Murphy, will speak about services to students with disabilities. This will be followed by a Q&A.

  • Provost Saundra Tomlinson-Clarke highlighted the initiative's focus on access and creating pathways for success for non-traditional students. She began by mentioning that there used to be a “University College” that was focused on adult, part-time, and non-traditional students. That college was dissolved and since 2007, two reports have been generated to study, feasibility, needs, and access. 
  • Carolyn Moehling then spoke about the main emphasis, which is currently on access and knowing the entry points for students and how to create pathways for success. Some of this involves partnering with companies such as Amazon, who will pay for their employees’ education, and community colleges. She also mentioned that they are trying to increase their presence in the area of “micro-credentials” such as certificates that officially acknowledge a small educational experience that a candidate can list on their LinkedIn account. It is expected that this population of adult learners will increase, and we should think of how to better serve them. The team also recognized the need for affordable pathways, including options for textbooks, as books are often a significant expense for students.
  • Thomas Figueira from the NBFC audience expressed his concerns about the loss of expertise and experience following the disbanding of the old college system, suggesting that lessons learned from that time should be applied to current initiatives. Saundra agreed with Thomas's point, emphasizing the need to recapture past successes and improve upon them.
  • Carlie Andrews, Senior Director of the Office of Disability Services (ODS), introduced herself and discussed the importance of understanding and supporting students with disabilities. She emphasized that disability can take many forms and can be seen as another aspect of diversity. Some disabilities are very apparent, while others are not. It is a shared responsibility at Rutgers to provide equity and access for disabled students. Carlie also highlighted that while disability services were in place at Rutgers well before they were required to be offered, at this time they are a legal requirement in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • Kathy Loder-Murphy, Assistant Director of ODS, explained the process by which students register and connect with ODS. Students must initiate the process and ODS schedules a meeting with the student so that accommodations can be tailored to each individual's needs. ODS then issues a letter to instructors that explains what accommodations must be provided for each particular student. Carlie then discussed the resources available for faculty, including a chat feature on the office's website, a faculty support page with information about common accommodations, and a barrier reporting form to help identify accessibility issues. Carlie also announced an upcoming event on March 1st for a more open discussion about accessibility concerns.

Open Discussion

  • Tugrul Ozel from the NBFC Faculty & Personnel Affairs Committee expressed concerns about how to better support faculty when managing larger classes with students with disabilities. He highlighted the need for quiet testing areas and raised questions about the support provided to faculty. One specific issue that was mentioned is the fact that exams administered by ODS must be given at least one day before the rest of the class, which means that a different exam must be written for the disabled students vs. the rest of the class to preserve academic integrity, especially since the staff handling exams at ODS are often student workers. Carlie acknowledged the challenges and offered to continue the discussion about exam administration offline. Tuğrul proposed the idea of having a dedicated ODS location per large teaching classroom facility.
  • Xenia Morin asked if students can submit high school information to Rutgers ODS and in general how early are students made aware of ODS. Carlie agreed on the importance of early engagement with incoming freshmen to ensure they receive the accommodations they need. She responded that they can use high school information if it is recent enough. She also said that funding is available to help the student gather the information, if necessary.
  • Ted Szatrowski asked questions about the demographics of students using ODS. Carlie responded that ODS runs demographic data once a year to understand the demographics of the students that are being served by ODS, as well as what schools they're coming from.  These data are compared to data for the entire student population to identify potential gaps in service. Ted also asked about the number of non-traditional students that are being served and Saundra said she didn’t have the data off hand. However, she said that about 60% of New Jersey residents don’t have a college degree, and thus represent the potential clientele. Carolyn agreed to provide more information on current numbers of non-traditional students.
  • Karen Thompson asked why some letters of accommodation seem like form letters while others look more personalized. Kathy responded that all letters are specific to each individual and will always contain student name, course title and number, and what their approved accommodations are. The similarities are due to the fact that certain types of accommodations (such as extra time and reduced distraction environment) are very common and will be seen on many of the ODS letters. 
  • Alisa Belzer raised concerns about providing support to non-traditional learners while they are pursuing courses, beyond just getting them enrolled in courses and programs. She focused on the accessibility score on the Canvas platform, suggesting that information on how to improve a page is not readily available or clear. The team agreed that there is a need for more support at many levels, such as lactation spaces, affordable childcare, and so on. Carolyn mentioned that the Institute for Teaching, Learning and Inclusive Pedagogy will provide more support for faculty.
  • Sanjib Bhuyan also expressed concerns about the effectiveness of career services and requested the creation of a pathway for students to change careers. The team concluded that they need to improve their outreach to non-traditional students and ensure that resources are easily accessible.
  • Ellen Williams mentioned that she is teaching a volunteer program aimed at helping probationers with time and stress management. She suspects that some of the students could have disabilities, but she is often not informed of this. Kathy responded that students may opt to send ODS letters to certain courses only, depending on whether they will need the accommodations or not. For example, a student may not report a disability to a teacher for a course without exams, but it would be good to encourage the student to speak about the disability to the teacher.
  • Anne McPherson raised concerns about the accessibility of the school's performance spaces for students with physical disabilities, noting that minor changes to make the spaces more accessible are not allowed due to the need to then bring the entire building up to compliance. Carlie and Kathy responded that they have an ADA compliance officer, Laura Latoury, who advocates for making spaces as accessible as possible. They also mentioned that there is a committee working to improve accessibility on their campuses, with recent funds allocated for such improvements. Carolyn added that Carlie and her team are advocates for making their campus more accessible and highlighted a virtual mapping service for navigating the campus. She also mentioned that October is Disability Awareness Month, during which activities are held to raise awareness of disabilities and how people with disabilities interact with different spaces and programs. 

6. Proposed Resolutions from the Academic Affairs Committee

Two proposed resolutions that were passed earlier by the Academic Affairs Committee were scheduled to be presented for a vote: (1) A resolution on test-optional undergraduate admissions; (2) A resolution on the use of the GRE test for graduate admissions.

The resolution on test-optional undergraduate admissions was discussed first:

Ted Szatrowski, chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, moved the resolution, which has two parts: the first part commends Rutgers Enrollment Management for implementing a test-optional holistic admissions procedure; (2) the second part requests annual reports from the Chancellor to understand the impact of this approach on diversity, admissions rate, and academic success.  The floor was then open for discussion of the resolution.

  • Thomas Figueira expressed concern over the movement against any use of test scores, noting that there may be all sorts of add on effects on different communities. He argued that the process of abandoning standardized tests co-conspires with an attempt to cover up failing school districts, and that taking exams is an important intellectual skill. As a result, he only supports the second part of the resolution, which aims to collect data on the impact of the test optional measure.
  • Robert Boikess expressed support for the move to make testing optional due to the tests' economic discrimination against certain groups, because nowadays more affluent kids can enroll in all kinds of tutoring and test preparation courses. He continued with explanations on the existence of bias in these tests and said that the data show that going test optional increased the diversity of our entering class. For these reasons, he supports the first part of the resolution, which commends the test optional approach adopted at Rutgers.
  • Glenn Amatucci stated his opinion that the test optional policy is potentially a worst case scenario because students who don’t submit scores may do so because they are not good. He recognized the potential advantage of having access to tutoring, but eliminating the test also eliminates an opportunity for people to really show what they're capable of. Furthermore, there is no alternative provided since state scores are not easily interpretable because every state has a different test. Universities that don’t traditionally require SATs rely on longer applications and interviews to know the candidates. In addition, if an alternative to the SAT is used, one should make sure that it does not create more bias than the test.
  • Alisa Belzer said that our most important goal is to push for collecting data on the impact of this decision over time in terms of diversity, and therefore we should not debate the merits of the SAT right now. Sanjib and Alisa clarified that the resolution was not about eliminating standardized tests, but rather understanding their impact on diversity at Rutgers. As a result, they are not opposed to removing the first part of the resolution.

Thomas Figueira then formally moved to amend the resolution by removing the first part. After a brief additional discussion, a vote to call the question was held. The vote resulted in 34 yes, 6 no, and 3 abstain votes out of 43 respondents. Thus, debate on the removal of the first part of the resolution was ended.

Then a vote was held on the amendment to strike the first part of the resolution. The results were 20 yes, 15 no, and 6 abstention votes. A simple majority of votes (21 out of 41) was required to pass the amendment; therefore, the amendment did not pass. There was some confusion whether quorum was still there in the meeting at that point, but upon checking the by-laws, which require that 1/3 of the members to be present, which is 25 out of the current NBFC 75 members. Thus, quorum was indeed still present.

Next, a vote on the full resolution was held since the amendment did not pass. Bob Boikess made a few more statements in support of the resolution. The vote tally was 28 yes, 6 no, and 4 abstention votes. The original resolution passed, and is posted here: https://nbfc.rutgers.edu/documents/resolution-test-optional-admissions.

Because the time was almost 3 pm, a motion to extend the meeting duration by 20 minutes was presented for a vote, but only gathered 61% favorable votes among the 35 members present at that time. Since a 2/3 majority was required to be adopted, it did not pass. The resolution on the use of the GRE test for graduate admissions was not discussed due to lack of time, and will be considered at the next month's meeting.

Tugrul Ozel commented that having so many speakers earlier in the meeting cut down the time for discussing these resolutions, and that we should be mindful of time allotted to guest speakers in the future.

7. Committee Reports

There was not enough time for standing committee reports this month.

8. Old Business

No old business was discussed.

9. New Business

No new business was discussed.

10. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Francois Berthiaume, Vice Chair, and Martha Cotter, Parliamentarian