Transcript Senate Meeting
April 9, 2019
Michael Baginski, Chair: Welcome to the April 9, 2019 meeting of the University Senate. This is our eighth meeting of the 2018–19 academic year.
If you are a senator or a substitute for a senator, please be sure you sign in onto the sheet at the top of the room. Be sure you have your clicker, because we have two action items today. Second, we need to establish a quorum. We have 87 Senators in the Senate and we need 44 for a quorum. Please turn on your clicker. Please press A on your clicker to show you are present.
Let the record show that we have 58 present to start the meeting, so a quorum is established. I now call the meeting to order. [1:58]
I would like to remind you of some basic procedures for the Senate meeting for senators and guests. Let me explain the Senate rules about speaking. If you’d like to speak about an issue or ask a question, please go to the microphone on either side aisle. When it is your turn, state your name and whether or not you are a senator or a substitute and the unit you represent. The rules of the Senate require that senators or substitute senators be allowed to speak first and then after they are done guests are welcome to speak.
The Senate is not a time for personal conversation with the speaker or anyone else, please limit yourself to one or two questions unless you are making a motion or an amendment before the Senate. For additional discussion you should meet with the people or the speaker after the meeting.
The agenda today was set by the Senate Steering Committee and posted on the Web site in advance, it’s now up on the screen.
The first order of business is to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 5, 2019. Those minutes have been posted on the Senate Web site. Are there any additions, changes, or corrections to the minutes? (pause) Hearing none the minutes are approved by unanimous consent.
Next, I have a few comments. It’s getting close to the end of the semester and I am sure many of you are a bit anxious about finishing up everything on time. I encourage everyone to try to attend any Senate or University Committee meetings that you have in the upcoming weeks. Also let us know if you see a potential problem or have any concerns.
I’d also like to introduce the new VP for Research, Jim Weyhenmeyer. I don’t know how many of you have met him, this is the first time for me to formally meet him today. Lastly, I’d like to congratulate our basketball team and Coach Bruce Pearl on the best season ever in Auburn history. There’s more on this later from Beverly.
I’d like to introduce the officers of the Senate and our administrative assistant. Dan Svyantek is the immediate past chair, Nedret Billor is the chair-elect, Dr. Beverly Marshal is the secretary this year, and Adrienne Wilson is the secretary-elect: Herbert Jack Rotfeld is our Parliamentarian. Finally, our administrative assistant is Laura Kloberg.
Now, action items, the professor of practice will be presented by Emmett Winn and Christian Dagg. [5:16]
Christian Dagg, head of the school of Architecture Planning and Landscape Architecture: Hello, I am the head of the school of Architecture Planning and Landscape Architecture, and we want to share with you this new potential of Professor of Practice title series. Some of the reasons why a number of schools feel this is a really important opportunity to hire faculty without traditional teaching credentials, but with a vast knowledge and experience within a certain practice area and then also to answer any questions that you might have about this title series.
To begin with I want to simply say that Dr. Winn and I have been working on this for the last couple of weeks and received a lot of feedback from some of the units that feel this would be a very valuable title series for their faculty members. To go through some of the reasons that we’ve been thinking and realizing this would be an important thing to do, we wanted to first of all share with you that the purpose of this title series is to be able to find potential faculty members who can interact with our students to create a great learning experience who may be coming out of academic, business, or government positions and that they’ve established themselves as leaders within their area. Again, they may not have traditional teaching credentials and often times we’ve been able to identify that there’s a number of innovators and leaders in certain areas who may have not even finished college or have only achieved a bachelor’s degree and they still have presented themselves as leaders within a certain field. Then also we can recognize that a lot of innovation that is happening in our industries is coming directly out of practice.
Some of the benefits of the title that we feel is that it often times is able for us to identify mature, seasoned degree programs. It’s an opportunity, again, for endowed or sponsored professor titles. And in many cases, hopefully at the very end when I show you some of schools that have already adopted or other universities that have adopted this title series, what it hopefully will show is a serious and significant title. One of the things is certainly an important consideration is often times in professional practice, I can speak directly to architectural practice here in the state of Alabama, so those of us who carry licenses to practice architecture we are already identified by our education experience and examination, so many practitioners are already teaching interns how to study for the examinations, they are involved with continuing education, developing our codes of ethics and elements of that nature, and also are inevitability mentoring young interns throughout the process of them learning to become leaders in their own practice.
We put out a call a few weeks ago, a month ago, as to what schools would be interested in this title series. I immediately received a number of responses, particularly from Fisheries, Pharmacy, Nursing, a lot of the departments in Engineering, and certainly all the departments within the College of Architecture, Design, and Construction. Some of the quotes we received from our colleagues about why this title series would be important focus on… (hopefully you can read a number of these comments above), but there were these types of…focusing on the nature that we are at a competitive disadvantage, that we don’t have this particular title series. As I said, in Aerospace Engineering there’s a wealth of resources in Huntsville and Mobil or on the Florida coast where we can begin to attract professors who don’t necessarily have traditional teaching credentials and they would be a great benefit to our students. Often times nationally world leaders in certain areas do not have the traditional teaching credentials and they would be very valuable to our programs and also there’s an opportunity for additional research and outreach that might begin to be associated with this professor title series.
You can see again, Pharmacy was pointing out one of the ways that we currently hire these types of leaders within practice is through either TES positions or an adjunct teaching position. Again, somebody with 10–20 years of experience with an industry, we need to offer up a title that’s a bit more honorific in terms of what it is they are going to be doing here while they are within the university. Again, Nursing offered up the idea that there would be appointments that would include more scholarly work in addition to the work that is already going on.
The last slide that I want to share with you is that just a quick internet search, some of you are probably familiar with these schools, I know I look to schools that I see as aspirational universities, and you can see here especially within architectural practice, within engineering, within nursing, and even within law schools we found a number of universities that already use this title series. Just one of the things I want to point out here, if you look at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, there is the John Portman Professor of Practice. I’m sure many of you know John Portman was an incredibly well-known architect/developer in Atlanta. If you stayed at some of the large atrium hotels in Atlanta, those are his buildings. So, of course, being able to name a professorship at Harvard after John Portman is a very valuable endowed professorship. And there are naming possibilities for these types of positions. And of course there’s also the distinguished professor of practice of law at the University of Alabama. The University of Alabama is already using this title series so we thought it would be worth while to consider it as well.
I am going to turn it over to Dr. Winn. [11:11]
Emmett Winn, Associate Provost and Professor: Okay, just a quick review of some of the specific points about this title series. It is a non-tenure track faculty title series. The Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee reviewed the entire document which you all have access via the Senate Web site. We were able to incorporate all of their suggestions and changes into it. It is not eligible for promotion, so unlike the lecturer there is no promotion to senior lecturer it is simple Professor of Practice. It can be either part-time or full-time which is unlike the other non-tenure track faculty positions which can only be full-time. Professors of Practice are prohibited from teaching core courses, that’s not the point of the title series. And of course, Professors of Practice, like all instructional faculty at Auburn, including you and me, must meet the SACS COC credentialing requirements for the courses that they would teach. And no Auburn University unit is required to use the title series. Again, the entire document is available to you.
Since we presented this as a pending action item a month ago, both Christian and I received a lot of positive comments about this title series, we won’t go into those. I did receive two e-mails that contain 3 suggestions. The Senate Steering Committee reviewed all of these last Thursday, so, what I am bringing to you has been reviewed by the Senate Steering Committee. Two of the comments were related to concerns that unqualified individuals may somehow be appointed for Professors of Practice. That of course, is not a concern. The faculty of each department would review credentials and decide on who is and who isn’t eligible for a position like this, if a department even decided they wanted to use the Professor of Practice. So, the Steering Committee asked me to clarify that the intent of the title series is to bring the most qualified individuals to Auburn to enhance the academic expertise in the units. The third comment was related to the concern that the unit faculty, the departmental or school faculty, should be allowed to review professor of practice holders regularly, for example, perhaps at the end of their first appointment and then maybe every 2–3 years after that. The Senate Steering Committee was not opposed to this idea so if after comments and discussion today there is no opposition to that, we will just accept that as a friendly amendment, include it in the guidelines, before it goes forward.
Finally, as a last reminder, once approved by the Senate, Provost, and the President the entire document would then be sent to the Faculty Handbook Review Committee, who would review it prior to it being put into the Facutly Handbook.
So, at this point Christian and I are happy to answer any questions and accept any comments that you have. [14:30] Mike said that I could call for the vote. So, I think you press A for yes, B…
Michael Baginski, chair: Oh, we have a question.
Emmett Winn, Associate Provost and Professor: Lourdes, I thought we had gotten away with it.
Lourdes Betanzos, substitute senator for Foreign Languages and Literature: Besides the periodic review described there would this professor of practice also fall under the annual review of the chair in the unit?
Emmett Winn, Associate Provost and Professor: Yes, Lourdes, every instructional personnel at Auburn University regardless of their appointment must be reviewed each year. Yes, mam. [12:31]
So, with Mike’s permission, I am going to call for the vote. Make sure you power button is on, and A for you approve, and B for you do not approve. A=66, B=5. It passes. Thank you so much.
Michael Baginski, chair: Thank you Emmett, Thank you Christian.
Next will be Beverly Marshall to talk about the approval of committee volunteers. [17:00]
Beverly Marshall, secretary: Again, this is posted, an error here that someone didn’t want to be on more than one committee, so we struck that one, and there were 2 people from Liberal Arts here and we adjusted those. For Academic Computing we have 3 volunteers, for Academic Program Review also 3 volunteers. (statement from senator that they cannot hear.) Two volunteers for Academic Standards, two for Administrator Evaluation, two for Calendar and Schedules, Competitive Research Grant, two, one for Core Curriculum and General Education from Architecture, 3 for the Curriculum Committee, 2 for Faculty Handbook, one for Faculty Research, 2 for Faculty Salaries and Welfare, 2 for Graduate Council, one for Library, 2 for Tenure-track, 2 for Retention, 2 for Teaching Effectiveness, and 4 for Writing. This is not all of the volunteers. There’s still spaces available and we are working very hard to fill all of our Senate Committees. Prior to your approval all of these have gone through the Senate Rules Committee and have been approved by our Senate Steering Committee. We are asking for your vote today to approve this list of volunteers. Any questions?
If all are in favor please press A, make sure you turn it (the clicker) on, and all opposed press B. A=69, B=2. It passes. Thank you for your vote and thank you all that volunteered.
(Some discussion regarding the change in number of votes between the first vote and the second item voted. Sometimes senators choose to not vote or arrive later.)
Ralph Kingston, chair of Faculty Handbook Review Committee: As usual I’ll keep this short and sweet. What would the Senate meeting be without seeing me here? [references that he’s been at all 2019 meetings to present and item.]
The Faculty Handbook Review Committee has been asked to add a line to the list of documentation required for improving outreach activity for promotion and tenure candidates. So, under 3.6.5.3.C Outreach, the list of documentation for Outreach, this applies specifically and solely for candidates for promotion and tenure who have assignments in the Alabama Cooperative Extension System. What this change will do will codify a promotion and tenure practice that is already effectively in place. It originated with a request from the University P&T Committee that a letter of support or I guess non-support from the Extension Director be included in all dossiers for tenure-track faculty with Extension Specialist positions.
The intention here was to create consistency. From the point of view of my own committee, the Faculty Handbook Review Committee, consistency in terms of spelling out the documentation required of candidates is important in terms of reducing the anxiety that people normally feel going through tenure and promotion. If you know what you need to produce, you produce it.
So, Emmett Winn worked with the Extension Services, the Deans of the affected colleges to basically come up with this, we are codifying it in the Handbook. This amendment, as you see, has already made it’s way through various layers of the university, it’s already in place, this is the last step in order to basically solidify it so everybody is on the same page.
This is a pending action item, so you don’t get to vote on it today, but if anybody has any questions I will try to answer them or find someone better than me who can. Thank you very much. [22:09]
Michael Baginski, chair: Thank you, Ralph.
Now Beverly is going to come back and talk about athletics and what exactly a FAR does.
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: Don’t take that too far now (referring to the microphone)…I broke my femur, ya’ll know, 6 weeks ago, so I can’t walk yet, but I’m doing pretty good.
Good afternoon, I’m Beverly Marshall the SunTrust Professor of Finance in the Harbert College of Business and effective last year in January 1 I took on the role of Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) here at Auburn, and yes, I am also Senate Secretary. So, it’s been a very busy year.
This past fall marked my 20th anniversary here so while I am new to the role, I am not new to Auburn University. When somebody casually asks me what the FAR does. I have a couple of short answers. So, these are my short answers.
I make sure student athletes get to be and are students. That’s one answer. Another answer is kind of vague, it says, I serve as a liaison between academics and athletics. So, that’s the short answer, but guess what, you are not going to get the short answer. The actual role entails a lot more.
So, now to answer the question what does the FAR do? A good place to start is the FAR Handbook by the NCAA. There are 1115 member-schools in the NCAA, 65 of them like them are in the Autonomy or “Power 5 Conferences.” The NCAA requires all of its member schools, all 1115, appoint a faculty athletics representative. Our independence is mandated by the NCAA.
The FAR duties are 3-fold: our first is to provide oversight of the academic integrity of athletics; the second is to serve as an advocate for student-athlete well-being; and the third is to play a part in maintaining institutional control of the athletics program. Note that I underlined a part here because it’s not my responsibility entirely. Again, the reason that I am talking to you is that institutional control as Auburn employees is a responsibility for you as well.
We will start with academic integrity or maybe it is helpful to think about the flip side of that which is academic fraud and athletics.
In January the NCAA handed down stiff penalties to Missouri. Here’s some background on the academic fraud. The former tutor alleged in November 2016 that she improperly assisted 42 student athletes over 18 months. Basically, what happened here is that she was pretty much trying to blackmail the university in a way. She reported it to Missouri, who then actually self-reported the violation to the NCAA. Of those 42 student athletes, what actually occurred was that the tutor was doing the work for, the entire coursework for 12 student athletes.
So, the NCAA acknowledged proactive steps taken by Missouri in investigating the fraud once they were aware of it, but the school’s administration was stunned that it was not reflected in the severity of the penalties. Missouri plans to appeal and SEC Commissioner Sankey has indicated the conference’s support. They submitted their appeal on March 25 to the NCAA and the NCAA has 30 days to respond. The penalties that were imposed on January 31 were postseason ban on football, baseball, and softball, 3 years probation, 5% reduction in scholarship, reductions in unofficial visits, official visits, recruiting, communication, also they fined Missouri $5,000 plus 1% of their budget in their revenue sports of football, baseball, and softball and vacation of victories for those ineligible athletes rendered ineligible for the student work.
So, many were questioning after Missouri was handed such a stiff penalty whether this was a wake up call. So, I grew up in New Orleans and we had season tickets back in the day when the New Orleans Saints played in Tulane Wave Stadium, and as a long-time Saints fan I couldn’t resist this response by the Times Picayune to the missed call in the playoff game just before the Super Bowl. This may hit closer to home for some of you that were watching TV on Saturday night. So, it’s important to understand kind of the timeline and what was going on at about the time the Missouri case broke.
So, the Missouri case broke in November 2016. At that time the NCAA was closing up one of the longest running academic scandals in college sports history at UNC Chapel Hill.
This case involved 18 years of classes that had no instruction, were graded by a secretary, and involved over 3100 students (with roughly half being student-athletes). So, again Missouri, 42; UNC Chapel Hill more like 1500.
Because the “Fake” classes had non-athletes enrolled (a loophole at the time) UNC was not charged with academic misconduct. Impermissible extra benefits to athletes also did not stick because these classes benefitted the entire student body.
So, the UNC case had critics blasting the NCAA, so again, this is right at the start of 2016, months after the Missouri case was self-reported, because it said it cleared the way for universities to create classes with little or no rigor, which the NCAA could not touch because they were open to all students.
So, in 2016 the UNC was close to coming to a close, the NCAA formed the Academic Misconduct Working Group. So, again at the end of 2016 they formed this group which was to look at the oversight of academic integrity.
The Academic Misconduct Working Group findings noted that many campuses, but not all, regularly monitor academic matters involving student-athletes as part of ongoing compliance and good governance practices. These often include tutoring policies, major degree clustering for student-athletes, and the use of independent student study courses among other factors.
Again, this committee, the Academic Misconduct Working Group, came to the conclusion that such efforts help an institution identify outliers that may benefit from further inquiry and develop the necessary policies and protocals to minimize academic misconduct.
Again, the NCAA’s intention here is not to overreach when ongoing compliance and good governance practices are in place. So, what happened with Missouri? I think it’s important to look at the NCAA’s response to the Missouri case. One of the things that they said is that in the committee’s past basically they look to the institution and the persons employed at that institution that engage in unethical conduct and they are held accountable for their actions. But, again, the institutions are responsible for self-detection of violation and concluded that that was a responsibility that Missouri did not fulfill. They did not self-detect, but for the fact that the tutor came public with this information that she had assisted these student-athletes, they said it went undetected by Missouri, even though they self-reported. The offending conduct continued for one year but for the tutor’s decision to come forward with her conduct, Missouri would not have known that the tutor was completing student-athletes academic work.
Again, the conclusion is you not only need policies and procedures to prevent, but you need measure to detect academic fraud. So, again looking at what the Academic Misconduct Group was recommending here are some other things that has Auburn’s FAR do in academic monitoring. Coming from my background in auditing, I guess that’s a good place to start.
I am part of a team that looks at incoming admissions of student-athletes. I also track progress of any student-athletes that fall below our incoming averages. And I’ve gone back in time to do so.
I am part of the team that looks at continuing academic eligibility of our student-athletes and monitors their graduation success. NCAA, if you are not aware, stipulates percentage of degree and GPA requirements for our student-athletes.
I meet with Dr. Kathryn Flynn who is over academic services in athletics and we discuss availability of academic services to our student-athletes as well as tutoring policies and procedures.
Each semester and any time a change is required I sign off on team rosters. This is a critical process because if a student-athlete is later deemed ineligible then any contests they competed in are vacated.
I am notified of all grade changes involving student-athletes and some members of your faculty may have received an e-mail from me and I obtain faculty justifications as warranted. If the entire class, the faculty member did not get the grades in on time and the grade was assigned an NR, then the entire class later gets a grade, that’s not one that I follow up on, but again, every other grade change that involves a student-athletes I track on.
I review course enrollments for concentrations of student-athletes. I meet with colleges when online classes have a significant percentage of student-athletes, to again discuss ways that they are ensuring that the student-athlete is the one actually completing the work. I also review grade distributions between student-athletes and non-student-athletes and between online and traditional sections of the same course.
I also track on athletically related absences – and before issuing any waiver to a team I verify that the students are not identified as “at risk’ in any of the courses they are missing class in.
As I said that is just one aspect of my job, the other part is making sure the academic attainment of continuing student-athletes and the rates at which they graduate.
For the general student-body we use the federal graduation rate (as our yardstick). It is the percentage of entering freshman completing their degree at the initial school within 6 years. Transfers then under the Federal Graduation Rate are academic failures. In athletics they use something they refer to as the Graduation Success Rate. This is a division 1 rate that accounts for transfers in and out. Again, we track student-athletes we don’t the general student body when they leave Auburn and go to another school. Again, they track student-athletes in and out if students are in good academic standing. So if a student transfers but is not in good academic standing at the time then that is an academic failure under the graduation success rate as well.
[Although we do not use this measure for the general student body, athletics uses a slightly different metric that adjusts for transfers in and out that are in good academic standing. With recent changes in the NCAA to allow greater student-athlete mobility via a transfer portal, I expect the difference between Federal Graduation Rates and the GSR to widen.]
Assuming a 6-year graduation interval, students that entered in 2011–12 would graduate in 2017–18. Let us compare the Federal Graduation rate of student-athletes versus the student body.
At Auburn, 77% of the entering student body stays at Auburn and graduates within 6 years. Among student athletes that falls to 63%. Black students in the general student body population and among student-athletes fare worse by about 10 percentage points.
For our NCAA peers, the FGR for student-athletes (not shown there) at Division 1 schools is 68%, actually 2% above the student body at these schools. Our FGR rate for black male student athletes is just 1% below the NCAA Division 1 rate of 56%. Our FGR rates for student-athletes are very comparable to our NCAA peers over time but our student body is more likely to stay at Auburn and graduate than our NCAA peers. So, their general student-body doesn’t tend to stay like they do here at Auburn.
To compare to our general student-body we only can use FGR but the NCAA uses a broader measure to adjust for transfers in and out of athletes. So, when we look at student-athletes we can look at this measure called the Graduation Success Rate (GSR) that complete their degree at another institution. Using this measure, 84% of student-athletes at Auburn graduate in 6 years. This is lower than the NCAA Division 1 Football Championship rate of 86%. So, we are not quite up with our peer group in that regard.
Auburn’s GSR for women student-athletes is on par but the GSR for male student-athletes is 77% at Auburn versus 82% for our NCAA peers. Black male student-athletes graduation success rate of 73% is also below our NCAA peers of 76%.
So. let us look at Men specifically and at our revenue sports (that’s usually the question I get). [37:03]
Ours is: baseball is 70%, basketball 64%, football 72%. Men’s cross country is 88%, and men’s other is 87%.
The NCAA graduation success rates among all Division 1 in these sports are: 81% for baseball, 82% for basketball, and 77% for football. So, they are all higher than Auburn although we are improving.
For those that want to compete with the other school in our state. I looked theirs up as well. At Alabama it is 90%, 100%, and 84% in baseball, basketball, and football respectively is what they report.
We’ve got a ways to go so hopefully we will improve in those areas and continue a trend of graduating our student-athletes.
On average, our student-athletes have a GPA of 2.97 with a cumulative GPA of 3.07. Women’s volleyball and equestrian were our top GPA teams this past year.
One of the most rewarding aspects of my job is my role in endorsing our student-athletes for post-graduate scholarships. The NCAA requires a letter of endorsement from the Faculty Athletics Representative. I just want to tell you how successful our student-athletes have been. These students are so impressive – not only are they excelling in their sport and stellar performers in the classroom – most of them are very engaged in our community as volunteers as well.
These are scholarships to pursue postgraduate studies and the amount is $10,000. What is so impressive about our group is that there are only 126 scholarships awarded annually across the approximately 1100 NCAA schools and about 530,000 student-athletes. This past year, Auburn student-athletes received 5 of the possible 126, which speaks very highly of the success of our student-athletes.
I put this together, obviously trying to meet the deadline of the meeting on Friday and an example of a top performer in her sport and in the classroom is Sam Cerio, the SEC post-scholar. Sam graduates this semester in aerospace engineering and has a job with Boeing. She is the President of our Student Athlete Advisory Committee. All while competing at the highest level for Auburn in gymnastics.
Unfortunately, the sad news, and I want you to keep her in your thoughts, this past weekend while competeing in Baton Rouge, LA she sustained two dislocated knees and significant ligament damage. She’s undergoing surgery this week, she’s getting married at the end of May, supposed to report to Boeing in June. So, please be thinking about her as she recovers from that surgery. She is just an awesome person.
In the past, I have reported our student-athletes by college. This year I became aware of NCAA data on degrees earned. They use Federal Classification of Instructional Programs (or CIP codes). So, I have used the NCAA methodology to compare Auburn student-athletes to NCAA Division 1 student-athletes. All errors are my own. This was not easy to accomplish.
There are some differences of course. We have far more student-athletes in STEM programs [in blue] (nearly double our NCAA Division 1 peers). On the other hand, only a handful of our student-athletes are classified in health professions. Student-athletes at Auburn are half as likely to be education majors versus our NCAA peers. It is my understanding that some of this stem from issues in fulfilling the practicum requirements in these majors. We have no park and recreation majors that account for 6% of NCAA Division 1 student-athlete degrees [in orange]. We have more in multidisciplinary (which includes interdisciplinary studies and human sciences, which is a draw because of the nutrition program there).
How do the degrees earned of Auburn student-athletes compare to our general student body? In general, our student-athletes are more concentrated in business and less in STEM. We have more student-athletes in STEM than our peers, but again less than our student-body. They are again underrepresented in certain majors including health professions and education and overrepresented in social sciences, communication, and multidisciplinary. So, the question that I had and the reason for the interest in the NCAA data research was “Is this only an Auburn phenomenon? Is this something unique to our school?”
To answer this question, we need to see how different NCAA Division 1 student-athletes are relative to their student bodies. You will see some similarities. The data suggests this is not an Auburn issue only. NCAA D1 student-athletes are less likely to graduate in STEM majors and twice as likely to major in park and recreation (we do not have that program). Nationally we do not see the large gap in health professions and education that we see at Auburn.
Timing and flexibility are big issues for student-athletes. Student-athletes generally take the bulk of their classes between 8 and 1. In addition, travel can be very disruptive in some majors and certain classes. Semester long practicums are generally not feasible if a student-athlete is competing in a sport. Finally, student-athletes both at Auburn and nationally are attracted to majors that have some connection to their love of sports – which includes: communication, nutrition, fitness, and at other schools, parks and recreation.
Ultimately, my goal as the FAR is that student-athletes are not restricted in their selection of majors and that we reduce barriers to majors to the extent we can. So, again I think this is important information for us to think about how we can improve the ability of our student-athletes’ participation in all majors here at Auburn.
That’s just the first aspect of my role and only one-third of my job. Since you did not plan to be here past dinner, I will skim through the other two-thirds, but these roles are equally important.
For part 2 a student-athlete’s safety and well-being, both physical and mental. After all that’s why the NCAA was founded.
Back to the FAR Handbook, the NCAA FAR Handbook provides a list of specific things the FAR should do in this area. According to the FAR handbook the things I need to be doing are; I need to know that missed class time policies are being honored, I need to determine any gradation or cancellations to student financial aid, assist them with waivers or appeal procedures when they are having scheduling class difficulties, be alert to conditions that affect the health of student-athletes both physical (things like concussions, ACL) and also psychological problems. Student mental health is a big issue and is one thing the NCAA is trying to address. And attend our student-athlete advisory committee meetings, which are held monthly. [45:03]
I also sit on exit interviews of our student-athletes that are finishing their eligibility at Auburn are quiting their team or transferring. As FAR I am a member of the athletic sexual assault prevention collaboration team. Maybe one of my least favorite parts is I am also involved in all drug, alcohol policy violations. In my role as FAR I sit in on all meetings involving drug, alcohol policy violations, these include investigation, notification, appeals and probationary meetings. Annually, the committee on Intercollegiate Athletics reviews a report from the Drug Testing and Review Committee on test results and information on drug education and treatment efforts.
Okay, last but not least, you are getting close, you will get home for dinner I think. Institutional control over athletics. So again, it’s important to understand what the committee on infraction says that policies and procedures are in place to deter violation and not merely discover existence after they have taken place. When proper procedures exist and are appropriately enforced, especially when the result in prompt detection and investigation reporting there is no lack of institutional control. Although there may be an individual within the institution directly involved that may be held responsible.
Again, although the NCAA does not dictate specifically which policies, at least not yet, we have to have in place at Auburn, we need to make sure we have policies, procedures that deter violations, that we follow them. If we have policies and procedure that we follow them. That we detect, and we investigate, and we report any violations detected. A lack of institutional control is far more serious than a failure to monitor.
Again, it’s not just my job. Remember that I underlined that I am part of institutional control at Auburn. I can’t do it alone. It’s not my just my job as FAR, I need you and that is for you to be aware and let me know when things are going on. Don’t let loyalty to your coworkers, student-athletes, or athletic boosters take precedence over loyalty to Auburn and its commitment to comply to NCAA rules. There is a lack of institutional control if individuals are afraid to report violations because they have a reason to fear negative consequences.
I want everyone to be aware of this Web site.
https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/en/report_information.asp?clientid=8072&violationtypeid=483&companyname=Auburn%20-%20Other&override=yes
[47:56] Trouble loading ethicspoint site. [48:34]
So this is EthicsPoint, I’ve been involved on the team to investigate items that have been brought through EthicsPoint. It is important to understand that it remains anonymous, you do not have to report who you are, you can also indicate people that you do not, that might be involved. So, again, our internal audit group investigates. It is an anonymous way of reporting violations. And I am part of the team that would then follow up and investigate whether anything has happened. So, I need you to be my eyes and ears, I can’t be everywhere.
Again, institutional control over athletics is something as faculty we need to be aware of.
That’s pretty much what I do at Auburn, but it is also important to know that there are 1115 FARs across the nation and we play a major role in NCAA self-governance. We’re an active voice on pending legislation at the conference and the national level. We meet regularly, about once a quarter I am meeting with other FARs across the country. If you have any questions, I’d be happy now to try to answer them. [50:02]
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: Are there any senators that have questions? (no response)
I’m not a senator so wanted to make sure. I’m Mike Stern. I made comments about your presentation last year, all of my criticisms, I think people are familiar with them, equally apply to this presentation. Failure to break out the distribution of majors by race and gender, does not study the issues as I stated last time and I showed the data why this has been studied many times. One reason you have to is the demographics for instance of the general student-body do not look like the demographics of the students on athletic scholarships. The concentration of African American males is incredibly higher among the student-athlete population. Incredibly so, especially a place like Auburn has the biggest gap in the country in fact, I have seen. The biggest gap in the country between the percentage of regular students that are African American males and the percentage that are African American male scholarships in the revenue sports. So, incredibly different demographics. Okay.
Therefore, to not show distribution of majors or what programs they are in in accordance with that demographic, doesn’t study the issue. Okay. Since we are willing to show what percentage of African American males GSR, but we’re not willing to show what programs those are in versus non-athlete African American males doesn’t address the concerns of the NCAA or the fundamental question. So, I have to repeat that criticism for consistency.
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: We are dealing with small populations.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: I understand that. I was able, not as FAR, to put that on display last May and did so. It’s very easy to do. And this university does it for general students, it puts up on the Web the distribution by gender and ethnicity in all programs, it comes out of Drew Clark’s office, it’s on the Web. So if we can do it for regular students, but we apparently can’t do it for when we don’t want to talk about something, okay, related to our student-athletes that everyone knows has been a concern.
I have a new criticism in regard to some of those slides. In regard to the UNC scandal and harsh language we use, I agree with you, their conduct was atrocious. However, UNC used Auburn University as a defense, explicitly. And therefore, if we’re willing to criticize what happened at Missouri and UNC, even though UNC has not been found in violation, if we are going to be critical of that, as Auburn, we should at the same time put on display criticisms of what goes on at Auburn. There has been many, many things in the vogue of UNC what goes on at Auburn to specifically use that in their defense to NCAA as to why you can’t punish us because you didn’t punish Auburn. I think we need to be fair since we are talking about Auburn and our problems in comparison to the other university’s problems for that.
For your last slide about institutional control.
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: Do you have a question?
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: I do about the last one. Are you as FAR required to report, um, violations to the NCAA? Are you a reporting officer?
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: Yes.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: Okay. So, is it a violation of NCAA if people are afraid of the institution for retaliation for reporting? Your last slide if you’d show your last slide, that you bold and underlined, does that constitute an NCAA violation?
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: could not hear response.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: So, would it be an NCAA violation if the president of the university believed he would be fired over who he appointed as FAR? It’s just a question I have for you? [54:09]
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: I can’t answer that.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: That’s a specific question.
Michael Baginski, Chair: You are asking things that are not something that’s within her prevue. Please, just get to the point.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: I did.
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: What’s your question?
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: Your last slide I asked if that was an NCAA violation, do you have to report it. Would it be an NCAA violation if the president believed that he would fired on the basis of who he appointed as FAR?
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: I’ve never heard that allegation.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: Please, Michael, I try to give you a broad brush here, but you’re asking things that she can’t answer. The president is not here. Ask him.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: I didn’t ask what would happen, I said if the president were to believe that, because you said if people fear negative consequences for this stuff, is there a lack of institutional control?
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: I don’t believe that the president would be fired over who he appointed as the FAR.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: You stated in the slide about beliefs. So, I am just wondering if the beliefs constitute an NCAA violation or is it the actions?
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: I don’t know how to answer that question Mike. I don’t have an answer to that question.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: Okay.
Michael Baginski, Chair: Why don’t we talk about this…
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: I don’t think the president feels like he is going to be retaliated on, I don’t think there’s an issue for an NCAA… [55:35 bkup]
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: (cannot hear) issue for action for retaliation of NCAA violation as opposed to just people’s fear.
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: I don’t know of such NCAA violation in the appointment of the FAR.
Mike Stern, not a senator, economics: Again, I am going by what you said on your last slide.
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: I know of no such NCAA violation that occurred in my appointment. (applause for some in room) I don’t know what else to tell you. [56:12 bkup] Any other questions?
Michael Baginski, Chair: I want to say one thing. This is an abbreviated discussion, she has a lot more to say if she had the time.
Beverly Marshall, [FAR] Faculty Athletics Representative: I just want to get you out of here on time. Thank you so much for your attention and for all you do for our student-athletes. If you have any questions or concerns about student-athletes in your class or your department about what you can and cannot do, if you have attendance issues, if you have anything like that that you need questions on, I just want to make sure that you know who to contact and feel free to do that. [56:53 bkup]
Michael Baginski, Chair: Finally, this concludes our formal agenda for today.
Is there any unfinished business? Pause ….Hearing none, is there any new business? …. Hearing none, I now adjourn the meeting. [57:30]
Mike do you want to come up here?…