bmcc

[ On Monday, June 26, President Antonio Perez, ignoring the Faculty Council and its Curriculum Committee, went directly to the Board of Trustees with a last minute addendum to the Chancellor's Report to abolish DSL 101. The Board called this circumvention of faculty governance and control over curriculum a "routine academic matter." At the meeting, the trustees asked President Perez a question: Will doing away with DSL 101 harm students? President Perez assured the Board that it would not harm the students.

The following was prepared for the Gadfly by colleagues from the Department of Student Life. ]

PEDAGOGICAL IMPACT

1. No Awareness of Special Needs of ESL Students: In the past, immigrant students/ESL students were given special attention in block courses. Basic information about the college was presented slowly and with care to these students through the DSL course. Now these students are in Freshman Year Experience Workshops with native English-speakers. Information can no longer be presented with sensitivity in a way that accommodates their lack of English skills and encourages their continuous practice of the language.

2. Process Thinking Replaced with “Students will BE taught”: Many of our students need help with process thinking. The workshop outline emphasizes “students will be taught” rather than encouraging thinking skills, problem solving and definition of responsibilities.

3. Potential Increase in Failures: Since this is not a course, fifth week rosters are not issued. There is no way to inform students that they are on the path to WU failure and to educate them about the process of withdrawal and its impact on their GPA and financial aid.

4. Disregard of Special Program Students: College Discovery students are now scattered throughout workshops. Previously they were placed into specially designated sections where they met with their assigned counselor, bonded as a group and received program specific information. The College Discovery sections served as an important tool through which contact was maintained with these special program students during their first semester in college.

5. Inadequate Curriculum: Module outline provides no discussion of essential factual information such as credits, grades, financial aid, etc.

6. No Pedagogical Theory Offered to Support Workshop: It has been reported that Vice President Bragg, Dean Janis Jones and Dean Hsu worked together to create the Freshman Year Experience Workshop. They have never provided a rationale for the workshop, have offered no substantiated reference list of sources consulted or current research and/or educational theory supporting the creation of a non-credit, non-required, ungraded workshop.

7. No Assessment of Individual Student Programs: Within the first week(s) of the semester, the counseling faculty reviewed student programs in DSL class and helped students prioritize course work, for example, passing RDG 062 so that credit courses could be taken next semester.

8. No Way to Create a Bond Between Student and Counselor: The literature documents that one of the most significant benefits of DSL-like courses is the bond that develops between student and faculty member. This connection, more than anything else, contributes to retention.

9. Counselors Can No Longer Serve as References for Students: Since the Counseling Faculty no longer have a caseload of students derived from the DSL course, the counselors can no longer provide personal references for students. Counselors developed relationships with their students and assessed the academic ability of their students through homework, tests and written assignments. This knowledge permitted students to use their counselor when they needed a reference for a job, for transfer to another college or for recommendation to a special program.

CREDIT/FINANCIAL IMPACT

10. Loss of TAP Financial Aid: Because of the lack of one DSL credit, many students taking 12 equated credits of remedials plus an art course (2 real credits) did not receive their TAP (first semester requires 3 real credits). These are not students on welfare as suggested by President Perez, but rather students who work at minimum wage jobs and who meet the TAP income requirements. This is not a welfare handout, but a way of assisting the most financially impoverished students to get an education and of maintaining the tradition of City University as a source of free education. The truth is over 80% of our students received financial aid and only 5% of are students are registered as on welfare through the COPE office.

11. Loss of Credits: Some students were forced to drop credit courses in order to fit the workshop into their schedule, thus, in fact, impeding the earning of credits toward their degrees, rather than accelerating the earning of credits. Evening students (usually the students who make the most sacrifices and work hardest) were damaged the most because the blocks of time required for the Freshman Year Experience often forced them out of evening credit classes and/or into Saturday classes.

ETHICAL IMPACT

12. Academic Trust Violated: Students were knowingly lied to by the administration in order to get them to register for the course and in order to force them to attend the course.

13. False Information Provided: Students were given an erroneous concept about college grades – to wit that grades are based on attendance.

14. Contractual Information Unavailable: The college catalogue is considered a contract with the student which both student and college are expected to follow. No catalogues, handbooks or similar (even temporary) contractual information have been made available to Fall 2000 first semester Freshmen.

FAMILY/WORK IMPACT

15. Reduced Income/Increased Expenses: Students were forced to

conform to unrealistic workshop scheduling penalizing working students and mothers dependent on child care. They have had to reschedule work or baby sitters in order to fit in the four-hour, four-week sessions. Once the workshop is over these same students may not be able to return to their former schedules and thus may lose income or a job and/or incur additional babysitting expenses.

16. Less Family/Personal Time: Many students were forced to take only the Freshman Year Experience on a Saturday or only the Freshman Year Experience on a day that was otherwise free of all formal academic work.

Stay tuned – updates on DSL 101 will appear in future issues of the Gadfly

Over 125 members of the faculty and professional staff witnessed a rather bizarre occurrence at the September 27, 2000 Faculty Meeting. During a heated discussion of the abolition of DSL 101 and the creation of the Freshman Year Experience (FYE) course, Professor James Blake of the Department of Student Life made a series of impassioned criticisms of President Perez, Vice-President Gardner and Dean Hsu. Professor Blake argued that the administration had misled both the DSL faculty and the students by instructing the counselors and academic advisors to tell students that the FYE course was required, would be graded and they would be forced to repeat the course if they failed it. As most of us know, these explanations to students were, at best half-truths, or in many cases outright falsehoods.

In the midst of Professor Blake’s powerful indictment of Perez, Gardner and Hsu, President Perez jumped to his feet and told Professor Blake that his behavior was inappropriate and would not be tolerated. Professor Blake, who had merely stated his position in a clear and forceful manner, paused briefly and then continued to make his arguments. Most of us at the meeting were puzzled by President Perez’s behavior, but believed that the incident was over.

It was not. On October 3, 2000 Professor Blake received a letter from President Perez, that was placed in Professor Blake’s personnel file, castigating Professor Blake for his comments at the Faculty Meeting. President Perez claimed that Professor Blake “demonized” Gardner and Hsu, making them “objects of ridicule,” and warning Professor Blake that “The mantel of academic freedom does not condone the casual vilification of colleagues.” More ominously, President Perez warned Professor Blake that the PSC-CUNY contract “provides that disciplinary charges can be brought against faculty members for, among other things, ‘conduct unbecoming a member of the staff.’”

President Perez was referring to Article 21.1(d) of the contract, which states that “Members of the Instructional Staff may be disciplined by removal, suspension with or without pay, or any lesser form of discipline for one or more of the following reasons…Conduct unbecoming a member of the staff. This provision shall not be interpreted as to constitute interference with academic freedom.”

What is “conduct unbecoming a member of the staff”? Among the actions that have resulted in Article 21 action against faculty and professional staff are:

· Sexual harassment of, or improper sexual relations with students and colleges

The only verbal actions that have resulted in Article 21 actions have been in a case where a faculty member irrationally swore and verbally abused students and colleagues. Put simply, sharply expressing disagreements with administrators, impugning their motives and condemning administrative actions as detrimental to faculty, staff and students are not examples of “conduct unbecoming a member of the staff.”

Professor Perez’s letter is not simply a gross misrepresentation of the contract’s provisions in Article 21, but it is a clear violation of the spirit and letter of the “Preamble” to the contract, which states “WHEREAS, CUNY and the PSC seeks to maintain and encourage, in accordance with law, full freedom of inquiry, teaching, research and publication of results the parties subscribe to Academic Freedom for faculty members. The principles of Academic Freedom are recognized as applicable to other members of the Instruction Staff…”

Put simply, President Perez’s letter to Professor Blake is a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate Professor Blake and the rest of us—to limit the exercise of free speech in an academic environment. Professor Blake’s comments, whether we agree with their tone or content, were completely legitimate expressions of academic freedom. Faculty Council, at its October 25, 2000 meeting, has already roundly condemned the President’s letter to Professor Blake as an attack on academic freedom. Similar resolutions will be presented at Departmental meetings in November and at our next BMCC-PSC chapter meeting on November 15^th. We urge all faculty and professional staff to support these resolutions and stand up to this attempt to gag faculty. If President Perez can get away with this gross violation of the spirit and letter of our contract in this case, the rights and freedoms of the rest of the faculty and staff are in danger. As the old union slogan puts it, “An injury to one is an injury to all”—all of our academic freedoms are at stake.

DSL 101

Are they making this stuff up as they go along? Some background: On Monday, June 26, President Antonio Perez executed an end run around faculty governance by going directly to the Board of Trustees to abolish DSL 101. The Board added insult to injury, calling the course’s abolition (and substitution of a non-credit workshop) a "routine academic matter." In September, DSL faculty taught the non-credit workshop and the administration told students that the course was mandatory. Then, after four weeks, the administration abruptly removed the course from DSL, staffed it with non-faculty, and told students it was NOT mandatory.

In response to these events, some our colleagues in DSL prepared the following sheet about academic truth and honesty in dealing with students and faculty.

“Where the explanation avoids falsehoods it provides only half-truths.” (quote from the 9/27/00 Gadfly)

· They were told they would be forced to repeat the Freshman Year Experience if an unsatisfactory grade was given.

· No written policy regarding requirements or grades for the workshop has been issued to date.

QUESTIONS??? Is this a way to encourage honesty and truthfulness in students? Or will it teach them how to skew results to achieve a desired goal? Or will it teach students how to manipulate facts to avoid stating the truth?

· Students were told Freshman Year Experience grades would be based on attendance.

· Students were told that they would receive a “U” in the workshop if they had more than two absences.

· It is not clear to the students or to the counseling faculty where this grade will appear and/or if it is legal to give grades for a voluntary workshop.

QUESTIONS??? The grade does not appear on the transcript, does it remain somewhere on the student’s record. Can it ever become part of the student’s academic record? Are grades based solely on attendance fair or honest? What do such grades assess? Are grades a requirement of voluntary workshops? What conclusions about the value of academic work and methods of grading can students draw from the Freshman Year Experience workshop?

a) Incorrect and misleading information was knowingly disseminated to the counseling faculty who were used to broadcast the erroneous information to the students.

b) Through this process the credibility of the counseling faculty has been seriously injured.

QUESTIONS??? What message is sent to the students about faculty honesty? Do we presume that all students are cynical and all faculty are untrustworthy. Do we presume that ethics coursework required in the training of all counselors and in the licensing of mental health professionals has no application in a college counseling program?

4. Misinformation was given about sources/resources used in the preparation of the workshop.

· References used to support the pedagogical thinking behind the workshop were not documented and were verbally misrepresented.

QUESTIONS??? In most institutions of higher learning students would receive failing grades for poorly prepared research. Is this the kind of scholarship we wish to impress on our students? If students fail for doing poorly prepared research what are the consequences when higher education administrators design programs based on poorly documented research? Is this the kind of intellectual and educational preparation that Academic Affairs finds acceptable from the faculty?

FINAL QUESTION??? Are these the ethical and academic standards of a “premiere community college”?

President Moves Unilaterally to Eliminate DSL

t the end of June, the President moved unilaterally to eliminate the DSL 101 Academic Life and Skills course and requirement and substitute a no-credit, no-tuition workshop. The union, after consultation with the UFS, BMCC governance leaders and members of the Student Life Department went to court seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) as a prelude to an injunction that would prevent the President from implementing his intention. The plaintiffs argued that this action was arbitrary and capricious and ignored the faculty's prerogatives in regard to curriculum. The judge denied the TRO and the injunction, opining that since the Middle States team had recommended consideration of a no-tuition course, the President's action was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Furthermore, he suggested that nothing in state education law, bylaws or governance prevented the administration or the Board of Trustees from taking independent initiatives in matters of courses or curriculum without consultation with faculty. The judge's decision is not yet final and the BMCC chapter and PSC central are considering their next action, including possible appeal.

Any course, any curriculum can stand improvement. No one argues otherwise. Disagreement arises, however, over what constitutes improvement and who bears primary responsibility for developing changes and putting them in place. The Regents, the Board of Trustees, the college administration and the faculty are all players. But the CUNY Bylaws, the university's Statement on Governance, BMCC's own Governance Plan and past practice all vest primary responsibility for curriculum with the faculty. Or so we thought.

On Monday, June 26 we discovered to our surprise that in an addendum to the June Chancellor's Report the following "routine academic matter" appeared: "Course Withdrawn DSL 101-Academic Life and Skills"

REASON: Effective Fall 2000, the College will offer content that was formerly offered in the DSL 101 Academic Life and Skills course in a workshop format for no credit and at no cost to students.. The Academic Life and Skills workshop will be offered in a variety of flexible time options to meet the needs of our students.

EXPLANATION: The Department of Student Life has been consulted for the last two years regarding this action. The faculty were given numerous opportunities to submit a model for DSL 101 Academic Life and Skills for no credit and at no cost to students as per the 1997 Middle States evaluation team. The workshops model for DSL was discussed in great length at the college-wide Curriculum Committee during the 1999-2000 academic year. The administration responded to the faculty's questions/concerns regarding this action at the May 2000 Faculty Council meeting.

Where the explanation avoids falsehoods it provides only half-truths. The President from the first has expressed his intention to restructure the Student Life Department and its offerings. The department members made a good faith effort to respond to his concerns and follow best practice in the field, going so far as to completely redesign DSL 101. The administration frustrated department efforts by ordering Vice President Gardner, the department chair, to withdraw his signature from an innovative course proposal, thus preventing--on a technicality--consideration by the Curriculum Committee of Faculty Council and any recommendation to the Council as a whole.

Last spring after the deadline for the submission of new course proposals had passed, and without providing the Department of Student Life the opportunity to consider or respond, the administration submitted the workshop format proposal to the Curriculum Committee of Faculty Council. Nevertheless, as a courtesy, the Committee agreed to consider the proposal. After considerable give-and-take the Committee voted to table the proposal until the fall since too many questions remained unresolved. The Committee took this action in good faith and had every reason to believe that the administration saw the Committee's action this way.

At the final meeting of the Faculty Council in May, in response to a query from Professor Douglas Anderson about "rumors" that he intended to take some action with respect to DSL 101, the President responded, "A rumor is only a rumor until there is some action. I'll do what I need to do." He offered no further information.

The next we knew, an addendum had been attached to the Chancellor's Report for June, dated only days before the Board meeting that would be asked to accept the Report in toto, not item-by-item. The public hearing on issues before the Board had occurred the previous week so no one could respond. At the Board meeting itself, the UFS Chair raised questions and objections but got no response and no support. The Board accepted the Chancellor's Report with the Addenda and, as a result, DSL 101 as the faculty had created and approved it, ceased to exist.

The Muddled Present: As of this writing, the workshops run, with students refused permission to complete registration if they did not sign up, warned that an "unsatisfactory" grade would mean a repeat, and then, after the fact told by the President that none of this was true. The scheduling of the workshops has wrought havoc with freshmen programs. Where do we go from here? The administration’s answer, it seems, is none of our business.