91PORNA

FACULTY SENATE

Meeting Minutes March 16, 2026

Senators Present: Ann Abraham, Loretta Aller, Bob Antenucci, Omid Bagheri, Tina Bhargava, Casey Boyd-Swan, Matt Butler, Jennifer Cunningham, Mark Dalman, Ed Dauterich, Omar De La Cruz Cabrera, David Dees, Vanessa Earp, Julie Evey, Michele Ewing, Michael Fisch, Michelle Foster, Tianyuan Guan, David Kaplan, Sean Kennedy, Terri Kent, Janice Kroeger, Velvet Landingham, Aaron Maguire, Richard Mangrum, Mahli Mechenbier, Taraneh Meshkani, Oana Mocioalca, Ashley Nickels, Vic Perera, Linda Piccirillo-Smith, Helen Piontkivska, Lydia Rose, Susan Roxburgh, Jim Seelye, Deborah Smith, Gregory Smith, Jennifer Taber, Eric Taylor, Brett Tippey, Francisco Torres, Lauren Vachon, Laurie Wagner, Theresa Walton-Fisette, Christopher Was, Kyle Winkler

Senators Not Present: Taryn McMahon, Athena Salaba

Ex-Officio Members Present: President Todd Diacon; Executive Vice President and Provost Melody Tankersley; Amy Quillen for Senior Vice President Eboni Pringle; Senior Vice President Jeannie Reifsnyder*; Vice Presidents: Sean Broghammer, Doug Delahanty, Amoaba Gooden, Doug Kubinski, James Raber*, Charlene Reed, Rebecca Murphy for Stephen Ward; Deans: Sonia Alemagno, Christina Bloebaum, Allan Boike, Ken Burhanna, Alicia Crowe*, Marcello Fantoni*, Versie Johnson-Mallard, Mark Mistur, Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Diane Petrella, Kelly Cichy for Elizabeth Piatt*, Michael Beam for Amy Reynolds, Scott Sheridan*, Deborah Spake

*Interim

Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Vice Presidents: Randale Richmond, Peggy Shadduck, Valoree Vargo

Observers Present: Emeritus Professor Janson, Ms. Shiza Nisar (GSS) Observers Not Present: Ms. Hanna Sietz (USG)
 

Guests Present: Sorina Ailiesei, Daniel Alenquer, Sarah Andreas, Asli Arikan, Jake Ball, Elizabeth Bihari, Ginger Bihn-Coss, Autum Boone, Garrison Bricker, Brenda Burke, Shelby Burkhart, Rachele Burkholder, Carolyn Carvalho, Robert Cimera, Nick Ciofani, Sue Clement, Vanessa Courie, Chris Dorsten, Kieran Dunne, Erica Eckert, Susan Emens, Jay Frye, Ashley Galati, Jill Garst, Carla Goar, Kim Hahn, Phillip Hamrick, James Hannon, Tony Hardin, Jennifer Hebebrand, Shannon Helfinstine, Joel Hughes, Jasmine Jefferson, Lynette Johnson, Michael Kavulic, Jennifer Kellogg, Tiffany Kiphart, Nicole Kotlan, Andrew Kuebeck, Tracy Laux, Dana Lawless-Andric, Thomas Lee, Joanna Liedel, Eric Mansfield, Jennifer Marcinkiewicz, Miriam Matteson, Julie Mazzei, John McDaniel, Paulo Mussi Augusto, Elias Nader, Jennifer Newberger, Tricia Niesz, Shiza Nisar, Hyunjoo Noh, Amy Nuesch, Collin Palmer, Susan Perry, Lynette Phillips, JD Ponder, Amy Quillin, Dirk Remley, Kara Robinson, Renée Roll, Susan Rossi, Said Shiyab, Kuldeep Singh, Sarah Smiley, Jillian Sokso, Angela Spalsbury, Jeanne Marie Stumpf-Carome, Pritha Subramanian, Lashonda Taylor, Therese Tillett, Pamela Tontodonato, Kristen Traynor-Mytko, Adil Wadia, Sue Wamsley, Deirdre Warren, Kevin West, Nicole Willey, Sonya Williams, Sharon Wohl, Kathy Zarges, Cathy Zingrone, Melissa Zullo

1.Call to Order

Chair Kaplan called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. in the Governance Chambers, Kent Student Center.

2. Roll Call

Secretary Dauterich called the roll.

3. Approval of the Agenda

A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda (Cunningham/Kent). The agenda passed unanimously.

4. Approval of the Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2026

Chair Kaplan asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2026, Faculty Senate meeting. A motion was made and seconded (Tippey/Mocioalca).

The minutes were approved with the correction of one typo.

5. Chair’s Remarks

Chair Kaplan talked about the responsibilities of the Faculty Senate (primary, shared, and advisory). He read out what the primary responsibilities are. He said that the Faculty Senate shall have primary responsibility for the academic standards and the educational policies of the university. He added that the Faculty Senate shall have primary responsibility for general policies related to professional standards of the university and its faculty. This responsibility includes general policies on faculty appointment, rank, promotion, leave, tenure, academic privilege, welfare, and dismissal. This also encompasses general policies related to the evaluation of academic programs, units, and personnel. He continued, saying that the Faculty Senate also has primary responsibility for defining the mechanism of approved or established faculty participation in university governance and in statewide faculty issues and bodies.

Chair Kaplan noted that these were the primary responsibilities, and he mentioned that once they are passed by the Faculty Senate, they go to the administration. If what is passed by the Faculty Senate is not accepted by the president or an appropriate officer, the matter shall be discussed in detail by the interested parties with the desired end being a mutually satisfactory resolution.

He then listed shared responsibilities. These have to do with long-range academic planning, student affairs, selection of academic administrative officers, academic facilities, and long-range planning.

Finally, he listed the advisory responsibilities, which include matters related to the university budget, administrative organization related to academic divisions, and giving advice on non-academic facilities. These are areas where the Faculty Senate should at least be consulted with respect to proposed changes.

Chair Kaplan then addressed current concerns about academic personnel being ambushed by activist media who were working to entrap faculty, staff, and administrators into saying things that show evidence of liberal bias or refutations of SB 1. He said that he had many years of experience as an educator and did not have to worry about being recorded in the past. He said this meant that a classroom could be a space where what happened in classroom stayed in classroom. He talked about how technology entered the classroom during his career as a professor. He said that now it is different and less safe with regard to teaching and imparting information to students. Everyone has a camera and an audio recorder in their pockets, and the law allows recording without the consent or knowledge of the other parties. He said that there is little we can do to prevent this; however, it creates a brave and perilous new world. Words can be manipulated so that they are unrecognizable in the context in which they were spoken. He said the three main takeaways are as follows: 

(1) we have come to the realization that single words and phrases can be used against academics through selective editing

(2) we may now be subject to public awareness and ridicule in ways we are not equipped for; and 

(3) we have an inclination to trust , help, and explain things to other people, which is why we enter the profession, but the people using technology against us can easily dupe us because of it. He said he has no clear answers yet and is working through these issues himself. He also suggested that the President would address the problem in his upcoming remarks.

He then invited comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith said there is no amount of being careful that can prevent people from making AI deep fakes. She argued that we need a university that gives maximal due process and does not assume that someone who files a complaint is right to do so.

There were no further comments or questions.

6. President’s Remarks

President Diacon talked about historical protests of calculators in 1972, and then acknowledged the uncertainties of the times we live in. He said that in an institute of higher education, there is a lot of anxiety. He listed changes in policies, procedures, laws, wars, student preparedness, student emotional conditions, student psychological conditions, and higher education legislation in other states, all of which have been significant in recent years. He saluted faculty and the Faculty Senate for all they have gone through, for their deep discussions, and for their hard work.

He again acknowledged that this is an uncertain moment. Then, he read the following from the 1940 AAUP academic freedom statement:

“1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.

3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should always be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”

President Diacon then said that people can best protect themselves by following that statement while going about their work.

He added that 38 states and Washington D.C. are one-party recording states, including Ohio.

 Anyone can be recorded without their knowledge. He said he and Vice President Kubinski should discuss this at a Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting as a next step.

He then invited Assistant Vice President Eric Mansfield to present on media on campus.

Assistant Vice President Mansfield described the functions of the media relations office and said that as a policy, media on campus should engage with his office first, and they usually do. He said that if a faculty member is approached by media, that faculty member should direct the media to speak with his office beforehand. The office will then work with faculty to see whether what is reported is accurate and how things might be handled differently in the future if necessary.

He then invited comments or questions.

Senator Mangrum asked whether there was information about any student’s ability to record and transmit portions of classes. He also wanted to know whether smart glasses are legitimate devices to use for such activities.

Vice President Kubinski said he will look into the matter of smart glasses.

Senator Vachon said she has the words “you may not record without my consent” in her syllabus, and she wondered whether that would hold up legally if she left it in.

President Diacon said he will look into how other Ohio public universities deal with this, and he will look into this with the Executive Committee and report back in May.

Chair Kaplan asked whether this was similar to gun-free zones in schools. President Diacon replied that he is not an attorney.

Senator Walton-Fisette asked whether there were other things being explored to restrict the types of media interactions that could lead to trouble for faculty and administrators. She asked whether access could be restricted.

President Diacon said he will explore this too, but he added that he personally speaks to no media unless they have worked through the Division of University Communications and Marketing (UCM) first. He said there are ID restrictions for going into the statehouse and other places.

Vice President Kubinski added that we are a public institution. The university grounds are public areas. He said that buildings get a little bit more complicated. He claimed that the university can issue reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on buildings, but they have to be viewpoint neutral.

Senator Walton-Fisette clarified that she wanted to know whether staff could refuse to speak to media if they were to be approached.

Vice President Kubinski and President Diacon agreed that faculty and staff could refuse.

Senator Deborah Smith said that it would help if there was some form of identification required in these cases because the recent event on campus involved someone posing as a parent.

Vice President Kubinski repeated that access per building could be restricted, but anyone could walk on campus.

Senator Torres asked about faculty administrators who were speaking in their areas of expertise. He said that he could see a faculty administrator whose expertise is in studying issues of justice saying that every university in Ohio is still doing DEI work because they have to deal with issues of accessibility, even if the state government does not see DEI in that way. He wanted to know how expertise gets defined and whether an administrator’s expertise could be leveraged when they were acting in their roles.

President Diacon replied that if he was a faculty member right now, he would wonder whether he should speak to anyone. He said that he did appreciate those willing to speak to the public, but they need to remember they could always be recorded. Faculty rights are different from administrative rights. He said that administrators lose the rights listed in the AAUP statement that he read earlier; administrators speak on behalf of the institution. He said it can be confusing when faculty have moved into administrative roles, but in general, administrators are always speaking for the institution, and they have a different set of limits.

Vice President Kubinski agreed that faculty have more free speech rights, especially in their teaching/scholarship capacity, and he agreed that administrators are usually seen as speaking for the institution.

Senator Mocioalca asked about how intellectual property connects with one-party recording. President Diacon said that the university should look into it.

Senator Deborah Smith said that it sounded as though President Diacon and Vice President Kubinski were saying they gave up their 1^st Amendment rights when they became administrators. She understood that they lost rights on campus, but she wondered why they could not continue to exercise free speech as citizens.

President Diacon said he is always speaking for the institution.

Senator Deborah Smith asked him whether he had any free speech rights.

President Diacon responded that he always speaks for the institution but was not sure where the line is drawn.

Vice President Kubinski said that the only loss of protected speech is when speaking as an administrator, but people should be clear when they are speaking only on their own behalf.

There were no further comments or questions.

7. EPC Action Items

Secretary Dauterich (as Chair of the EPC) briefly explained all the items below. Others listed after each of the items below were there to answer questions in more detail if necessary.

GRADUATE POLICIES COUNCIL (Melissa Zullo/Erica Eckert)

1.Course Repeat (fall 2026)

After many years of discussion, the committee has recommended allowing course repeats for graduate students that would permit the highest grade to remain in the overall GPA and exclude the lower attempt. They differentiated from the undergraduate policy by only allowing for one additional attempt rather than two.

A motion was made to approve the revision to the policy (Mocioalca).

Senator Mocioalca asked exactly what this applied to.

Secretary Dauterich and Chair Kaplan responded that this only applies to courses.

Senator Evey asked for clarification. She wanted to know whether the higher grade is the only one that stands.

Secretary Dauterich confirmed that it was.

Senator Maguire asked why this was even being considered. He did not understand the rationale for allowing graduate students to do this.

Associate Dean Zullo explained that the concerns expressed by Senator Maguire were valid, but students have changed over time. She said that current students have a lot more going on, and she added that the changes to the policy make it more student-friendly.

Senator Mocioalca asked how this works if students cannot take the course again for another year.

Associate Dean Zullo said this policy would not change the policy for graduate dismissal.

Senator Antenucci said that the wording was confusing and wondered whether the students got one or two retake opportunities.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith asked what happened if someone got a C in a graduate course in the fall, the course was not offered again, and they were then at risk for dismissal. She said that the policy says they have the right to repeat the course, so she wanted to know whether dismissal superseded the right to repeat for graduate students.

Chair Kaplan replied that it did.

Senator Mocioalca asked whether the policy could make it clear that dismissal takes precedence over the repeat of the course and moved to have the wording changed to reflect that.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith seconded the motion.

Associate Dean Zullo said the dismissal policy stands, and programs can decide how they want to proceed. She added that department handbooks cover this.

Senator Deborah Smith said that we should not be talking about this chance as a right, but rather as an opportunity. If it is presented as a right, then it would take precedence over the dismissal policy. She added that she would be voting against the revision.

Senator Bhargava said that this policy was meant to address emergency situations rather than to allow students to try to turn a B into an A whenever they felt like it.

The amendment passed by voice vote. Faculty Senate then moved back to the policy.

Senator Maguire said the policy favors big programs that can offer a course routinely and wondered how students in departments where courses were not offered as often could have the same opportunities as those from other departments who could offer courses on a more frequent basis.

Senator Boyd-Swan suggested that the policy be further amended so that only a grade of C- or lower could be repeated.

Senator Torres said he did not see how the amendment passed earlier could work because the places where it applies were not clearly explained in the wording of the amendment, and then, he stated that a policy like this makes a lot of sense. He felt that we should support the mental health of students.

Senator Was said that programs like his, a C or less would prevent students from moving through sequenced courses. He added that his program has a leave of absence policy that dealt with the emergencies mentioned earlier.

Senator Cunningham asked whether it would help if language making this specific to the unit was added.

Chair Kaplan said that this allows departments to do what is in the policy, but they would not be required to do so.

Associate Vice President Tillett responded that graduate students would be allowed to repeat; they already can. This revision just changes how their GPA is calculated. There is no criteria for graduate dismissal at the university level. Program areas could set limits on any courses, minimum grades needed, etc., and the university is not obligated to offer courses that need to be repeated. Prerequisites always stand. There is no way for the university to limit what minimum grade could be made acceptable by a department.

Senator Kent disagreed with the premise and reasoning for the revision because graduate and undergraduate programs have different missions, requirements, and expectations. She also asked whether we do not already have something in place for students in emergencies.

Chair Kaplan said that we have a leave of absence policy.

Senator Kent said she has seen students petition the graduate college for exceptions in these situations.

Associate Provost Sheridan (as Graduate College Dean) agreed that exceptions are possible.

Senator Maguire asked for clarification that the only change being made was that rather than averaging the grade, only the higher grade would be calculated. He asked what the rationale was for that.

Associate Dean Zullo replied that it would allow students a chance to recover their GPA and to graduate with a 3.0.

Senator Bagheri asked how many other graduate programs offered this kind of opportunity. Director Joanna Liedel said this is not a common policy at other institutions.

Chair Kaplan called the vote.

The roll call votes were as follows:

Aye (24): Abraham, Aller, Antenucci, Bhargava, Boyd-Swan, Dauterich, Dees, Earp, Evey, Ewing, Guan, Kennedy, Mangrum, Mechenbier, Rose, Roxburgh, Seelye, Taber, Taylor, Torres, Vachon, Wagner, Walton-Fisette, Winkler

No (19): Bagheri, Cunningham, Dalman, De La Cruz Cabrera, Fisch, Foster, Kent, Kroeger, Landingham, Maguire, Meshkani, Mocioalca, Nickels, Perera, Piccirillo-Smith, Piontkivska, Deborah Smith, Gregory Smith, Was

Present (2): Kaplan, Tippey 

The motion passed 24-19-2.

2. GPA Adjustment (fall 2026)

After many years of discussion, the committee has recommended allowing course repeats for graduate students that would permit the highest grade to remain in the overall GPA and exclude the lower attempt. But just like with undergraduate students, sometimes course repeat does not suit the student’s purpose if they are not planning to continue in the same program. The council felt that GPA adjustment should also be extended to graduate students to complement course repeat and afford graduate students additional options to be successful in their program.

A motion was made to approve the revision to the policy (Mocioalca).

Senator Deborah Smith said she was against the revision. She said that it degrades the quality of graduate programs.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith asked for the rationale behind letting three classes be repeated.

Director Liedel said that three was the number decided on because of students who may have moved to a new program and were still struggling with grades from the old program.

Senator Cunnigham asked whether language could be added to make it program specific.

Associate Vice President Tillett responded that at the graduate level, there is only one overall GPA. Programs do not currently matter with regard to this. She added that the Graduate College could create a system to calculate major and overall GPAs, but such a system does not currently exist.

Senator Cunningham wanted to know whether it could change.

Associate Vice President Tillett agreed that it could. She added that if the grade in a course is forgiven, it would no longer apply to this policy.

Senator Bhargava said that when grades are so inflexible, students are driven by grades rather than learning. She said that when learning does not matter, students stop prioritizing it.

Senator Boyd-Swan asked whether there was anything preventing students from returning to the program after they left it.

Director Liedel said they could not use those classes again. Most students trying to do this would probably already have been dismissed. They could not use the policy to be readmitted.

Senator Maguire asked what percentage of students were being discussed. Director Liedel said it would be statistically small.

There were no further comments or questions.

A roll call vote was taken on the motion. The results were as follows:

Aye (24): Abraham, Aller, Antenucci, Bhargava, Dauterich, Dees, Earp, Evey, Ewing, Guan, Kennedy, Mangrum, Mechenbier, Piccirillo-Smith, Rose, Roxburgh, Seelye, Taber, Taylor, Torres, Vachon, Wagner, Walton-Fisette, Winkler

No (16): Boyd-Swan, Cunningham, Dalman, De La Cruz Cabrera, Fisch, Foster, Kent, Kroeger, Meshkani, Mocioalca, Nickels, Perera, Piontkivska, Deborah Smith, Gregory Smith, Was

Present (4): Bagheri, Kaplan, Maguire, Tippey The motion passed 24-16-4.

UNDERGRADUATE POLICIES COUNCIL (Joanna Liedel/Dirk Remley)

1. Graduation (fall 2026)

It was recommended that all references regarding the late graduation application be removed from the policy. It is not necessary to include this information, and removal allows flexibility to evolve our business practices without being tied to the catalog. This will allow for an easier process for those who missed the deadline to still be allowed to apply for graduation and reduce unnecessary barriers for both the student and the offices involved in graduation clearance and commencement.

A motion was made to approve the revision of the policy (Torres). There were no comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

DIVISION OF STUDENT LIFE (Amy Quillin)

1. Class Attendance and Class Absence and Administrative Policy (fall 2026) The proposed revisions are recommended because they:

   1. Provide greater clarity for both faculty and students regarding class attendance and absence; and addresses alternative forms of "class attendance" by identifying "at all levels and within all modalities" (A).

       

1. Provide an avenue for faculty to address excessive absences if they jeopardize the student's ability to be academically successful in the course (C).
2. Provide flexibility to faculty to allow for other reasons for absences beyond what's stated in the policy (D:1).
3. Curate, in one section, the categories of "excusable absences" (D:1, a-h).
4. Provide greater clarity relative to the expectation for documentation of absences (D:2 and D:3).
5. Provide greater clarity to questions relative to SAS accommodation-related absences (D:5).
6. Address attendance conflicts specific to College Credit Plus student and their school-sponsored activities (D:7).
7. Provide guidance to students when their absences have jeopardized their ability to be academically successful in the class (F).

A motion was made to approve the revision of the policy (Bhargava).

Senator Deborah Smith said that the marked-up policy was inaccurate. There were many things added that were not in the markup in sections B and C. She was concerned about why the markup was redlined inaccurately. She was also concerned about struck language in B that says, “the individual instructor has both the responsibility and prerogative for managing student attendance.” She did not like that this was struck. She also said that if we are improving the policy, she would like to see language in D4 changed to explicitly say that reasonable academic support does not require the faculty member to give personalized lectures.

Senator Deborah Smith then moved to send it back to committee. Senator Tippey seconded.

There were no further comments or questions.

The motion to send it back to committee passed unanimously.

8. Old Business

Discussion Item: Kent Core

Associate Provost Sheridan presented a brief PowerPoint (attached here).

Senator Dees informed Faculty Senate that the committee was originally charged with three items: (1) to create a new model that addresses the expectations of the Higher Learning Commission; (2) to make sure that the model does not extend time to graduation; and (3) to capture the distinctiveness of Kent State and showcase who we are and what we do. He said the model presented attempts to do those things. He added that we need to think about what the role of general education is at 91PORNA. He said that when the university first began general education requirements, the passion for this curriculum centered on the ideas of liberating the students' minds, hence the name it had at that time, Liberal Education Requirements. Then, the faculty were worried about the narrow focus of specific ideas that was limiting our students' perspectives and the responsibility of being an educated citizen in a democracy. They wanted students to see how ideas outside of their major related to one another and impacted the problems of our world. For years, it was that kind of ideology that informed the general education curriculum.

He continued, saying that in our last major revision of the Kent Core, we invited majors to double-dip to allow major requirements to be counted both in a major and as general education. This move had great intentions. It allowed majors to reduce credit hour requirements, so students could complete degrees more quickly. It created revenue streams for colleges to add major electives for students. It also created revenue streams for courses in the Kent Core. That was encouraged by the budget model at the time, so it made sense. Much of it was driven by accreditation requirements, the need for students to be better prepared for their majors, and a need for more disciplinary courses as the knowledge sets became more and more complex for many of our majors.

He said that the unintended consequence was that majors became reliant on Kent Core courses to achieve some of their outcomes. It represented a shift in our thinking and a neoliberal perspective which focused more on market-driven competition and workforce preparedness.

He added that this is the issue we need to consider today as we begin these discussions. He said we need to ask what we want general education to be (liberating the mind, broadening thinking, requirements of the major, etc.). He said that the current proposal attempts to reach a compromise between those things. It continues to offer majors the ability to double-dip while still inviting an avenue for faculty collaboration through the “pressing issues” category. It also allows us to highlight the incredible work that goes on at the university. He said they were trying to address the desires of both camps without completely rupturing the university. He said that this is not the model that the design the team originally wanted. The outside pressures that continue to build this process pulled back much of the liberating aspect of the proposal, but the committee felt it was important to keep some aspect of this awareness alive in the curriculum, if possible.

He finished by saying this type of curriculum deliberation is exactly what needs to occur in this body. He welcomed the upcoming conversation and thanked all the committees who worked on the proposal for their efforts and their patience.

Chair Kaplan then invited comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith expressed concerns about the course distribution. She said it bothers her that humanities are being cut by three credit hours. She suggested bumping the credit requirement back up to 9 for humanities and dumping the elective.

Chair Kaplan said that the next questions should focus on the course distribution.

Senator Boyd-Swan said students do not like general education and that while she appreciated the rebranding, she said it was unlikely to change student opinion about it. She also did not like the three credit hours dedicated to a “pressing issues” course. She said it was unclear how new courses could be created and added to the Kent Core in a way to make it timely enough to be pressing. She said that other courses already deal with pressing issues in the Kent Core and suggested that those three hours be reallocated.

Senator Dees said that the thinking was that the issues would change with time, but they were also very broad categories. What they were trying to get to was interdisciplinary activity regarding what was being taught.

Senator Mangrum read the following prepared remarks:

“On behalf of the faculty in the School of Aeronautics in the College of Aeronautics and Engineering, I would like to begin by thanking the Kent Core Committee for the considerable time and effort invested in developing this proposal. We appreciate the work that has gone into rethinking general education and the intention behind strengthening the academic experience for our students.

At the same time, the faculty in our school believe it is important to raise several concerns about the negative impact this proposal would have on our programs and our students.

The AAUP reminds us that faculty are not only granted academic freedom but also carry professional responsibility as officers of the institution. A central part of that responsibility is the stewardship of the curriculum and ensuring that students are educated according to the standards of their disciplines. Faculty within programs are the ones best positioned to determine what knowledge, skills, and experiences their students need in order to succeed in their professions. Faculty governance is one of the foundations of this institution, and decisions about curriculum, especially those that affect highly specialized professional programs, should remain grounded in the expertise of the faculty who teach in those disciplines.

In aeronautics, many of our programs are already tightly structured due to external regulatory and accreditation requirements. A good example is the Professional Pilot program, one of the university’s most visible and in-demand programs. Each year we turn away qualified students because of the program’s popularity and capacity limits.

That program is governed not only by university curriculum decisions but also by FAA regulations, as well as AABI accreditation requirements. These external standards dictate a significant portion of the curriculum and leave very little room for additional structural requirements.

Even under the current structure, it can be challenging for students in the Professional Pilot program to complete all of their requirements in four years. Flight training is affected by weather, aircraft availability, maintenance schedules, and other operational factors that can slow training progress despite students’ best efforts.

Adding additional structural requirements to the general education framework makes an already complex program even more difficult to navigate and increases the likelihood that students will need additional time and expense to complete their degrees.

Several of our aeronautics programs would exceed 120 credit hours under the proposed framework. That runs counter to the broader goal of helping students complete their degrees efficiently and limits their ability to explore other areas of interest across the university.

For these reasons, the faculty in the School of Aeronautics believe this proposal, in its current form, would not serve our students well. We encourage further discussion and reconsideration before moving forward.

More specifically, we propose several adjustments that would preserve the goals of the proposal while avoiding unintended consequences for highly structured programs.

First, we recommend removing the second English composition requirement and returning to a single composition course. Faculty within disciplines are best positioned to determine how writing and communication skills should be developed within their programs.

Second, we recommend removing the American Civics requirement as a separate category within the general education framework. The requirement itself can remain, but the courses that fulfill it should reside within the appropriate Ohio Transfer categories where they naturally belong.

Third, we recommend eliminating the ‘Pressing Issues’ category as a separate requirement. Courses addressing topics such as emerging technologies, innovation, or entrepreneurship can and should exist, but they should reside within appropriate existing categories rather than occupying a separate structural requirement.

Taken together, these adjustments would restore flexibility within the framework and allow for twelve hours of pathway electives, giving students meaningful opportunity to explore areas of interest across the university while still meeting the goals of the general education program.

Most importantly, these changes would allow programs like ours to remain within reasonable credit limits while preserving the flexibility that helps students pursue their academic and professional goals.

Finally, we encourage the university to ensure that courses completed as part of the Ohio Transfer 36 at another Ohio public institution are accepted toward the appropriate Kent Core category for transfer students, even when an exact course equivalent does not exist at 91PORNA.

With those considerations in mind, I would be happy to move that these changes be incorporated into the current proposal, if such a motion would be appropriate for this body to entertain at this time.

Thank you.”

Chair Kaplan asked whether the statement was from Senator Mangrum or the School of Aeronautics.

Senator Mangrum replied it was from the school.

Senator Vachon supported Senator Deborah Smith’s ideas that the humanities needed to have more hours and was dismayed to see them drop when other categories remained at the same level. She understood that the state had a lot of control, but she talked about different ways to meet the requirements. She asked why humanities seemed to be the first thing to get cut during these discussions.

Senator Torres commented that students’ perceptions of general education are more of a failure on the end of the programs than on the students. He said we need to be able to sell students the idea of why general education matters; we must send the right message; we cannot just blame students’ lack of interest. He agreed that the humanities should be given more hours, but he disagreed that programs are the best place to decide what general education should be. Faculty Senate and the university should define those things.

Senator Meshkani thanked the committee for their efforts and said the College of Architecture and Environmental Design was concerned about extra credits being added to the curriculum that would make essential architecture courses difficult to deliver without adding to the credits the program would need for graduation.

Senator Cunningham read the following prepared statement:

“Thank you, as always, for your work on this proposal and for the time you’ve devoted to re-envisioning our general education curriculum and for ensuring that faculty consultation has taken place during this process.

I’ve voiced my concerns about removing the second writing course from our general education curriculum while serving on various Kent Core Redesign subcommittees over the years and, more recently, as a member of EPC Exec and EPC. At our last EPC meeting, members voted to move forward a model that retains the second writing course, which you’ll see reflected in the materials attached to the Senate agenda today, but I’d like to briefly restate my concerns related to removing the course for this body:

For a significant number of our students, ENG 21011 – Research Writing – is not a ‘second’ writing course. Many students complete ENG 11011 – College Writing while still in high school through CCP. That means Research Writing is often

their first sustained writing experience in a university setting. ENG 11011 - College Writing is designed to focus on the writing process—moving students beyond formulaic writing to pass standardized tests and preparing them for disciplinary expectations. ENG

21011 - Research Writing is where students learn how to do university-level scholarly research and extended writing.

In Research Writing, students learn how to locate, evaluate, and integrate scholarly sources using academic databases. They learn disciplinary citation conventions—often APA, rather than MLA, which they typically learn in high school. As specified in the Ohio Transfer 36 learning outcomes, students write sustained essays, including an 8–10-page research paper. They develop information literacy, critical thinking, and, increasingly, AI literacy—learning how AI intersects with secondary research practices, authorship, and plagiarism. This course is what prepares students for writing-intensive courses and for the kinds of writing they will be asked to do in their majors.

Also worth noting is that most public universities in Ohio have retained a second writing course as part of general education. Unlike Ohio State, who doesn’t enjoy shared governance and whose Administration removed their second writing course without faculty consultation, peer institutions that continue to require a second writing course include the University of Akron, Cleveland State, the University of Cincinnati, Miami University, Ohio University, Shawnee State, the University of Toledo, Wright State, and Youngstown State.

Removing this course from our general education weakens our students’ preparedness and places additional strain on instructors in upper-division courses who must then compensate for that loss. For these reasons, I strongly urge faculty to retain ENG 21011 – Research Writing as part of our general education curriculum.”

Senator Maguire agreed that Research Writing is an important course, but he wanted to ask two questions: (1) why could research writing skills not also be part of the major in the way that writing intensive courses are; and (2) if the third learning outcome of the proposed model is to communicate effectively as citizens of a global community why could a communications course not be an alternative option to Research Writing?

Chair Kaplan said that communications courses could be in the Kent Core.

Senator Dees said that where communications sits currently was in the additional category. He said that it is possible to make a change in the way suggested by Senator Maguire, or it could still be left in the open electives.

Senator Maguire stressed the importance of spoken and visual communications courses being part of the Kent Core.

Chair Kaplan asked Senator Maguire whether he wanted to have a communications course added or whether there could be a choice between that and other courses.

Senator Maguire said he would be okay with a choice but would prefer that a communications class of some type was required.

Senator Ewing added the following concerns from the School of Visual Communication and Design: “Our concern is that the proposed revision would require programs such as the BFA in Visual Communication Design and the BFA in Photography to adjust their degree structures to remain within the 120-credit hour limit. If adopted, this increase would necessitate the removal of elective courses from our majors, reducing students’ opportunities to explore specialized areas of study and develop breadth within the discipline.

For these reasons, the VCD faculty oppose this amendment, as it would directly limit elective opportunities and flexibility within our BFA programs.”

Senator Tippey said that the courses being required now are no longer counting toward many of the College of Architecture and Environmental Design’s programs. He said they would either need to add more credit hours for degree completion or remove classes from programs that they believe are essential. He said this change would hurt his program quite a bit because they want students to take courses from other departments, but under the new model, Kent Core courses would not count toward program requirements.

Senator Dees said that the model still allowed people to double-dip.

Senator Tippey responded that the bucket groupings were still a problem because there are not enough slots in the buckets for students to take courses required by the program without extending program hours and using all their electives.

Senator Dees said that the “pressing issues” grouping was cut from nine to three hours over time, so fewer programs were affected, but there are still programs where this impacts electives and he acknowledged Senator Tippey’s concerns.

Senator Bhargava said that she was hearing two things from her years serving on the revision committee: (1) the Kent Core has 36 hours allotted, but some programs need more than the remaining 84 hours for students to get essential skills, so they want more electives in the core that they can fit in with their programs, which takes away from general education as a program; and (2) other programs want the specific requirements for the Kent Core hours to prioritize some subjects over others and for requirements to be as clear as possible when it comes to courses that have to be taken. She said that these two positions (more electives vs. fewer electives) are in opposition to one another, but since we are required to have a general education requirement by the state, the new model was an attempt to meet in the middle with the number of elective courses.

Senator Seelye said he thought keeping the Kent Core as broad as possible is vital. He added that we could all make great arguments for why our discipline is the best; however, fighting among ourselves is not what we want to do. He agreed with Senator Cunningham that both English classes need to be in the final model. He asked whether we could require three hours in humanities, three in social sciences, and then make the last three a one or the other choice. He also wanted to know whether there was an AI or entrepreneurship requirement.

Senator Dees said that choice of either social sciences or humanities for the final three hours could not be given.

Chair Kaplan said that the other requirements Senator Seelye asked about concerning AI and entrepreneurship were not yet established laws.

Senator Mangrum said that by pulling “pressing issues” and the required civics course out as standalone requirements, the committee did eliminate some double-dipping that students could take advantage of. He added that some of the discussion on the floor assumed that writing was not taking place within the major curriculum for some programs. He said his students are writing as part of their major. He added that they have no choice between FAA and accrediting bodies. He said establishing one writing standard for a university with 275 degrees rather than letting faculty who work in the majors have a decision about how writing was taught was something he disagreed with.

Senator Dees said that math and science credit hours added pressure to programs as well, but there is no wiggle room there because these were decided at the state level.

Senator Mocioalca asked who decided what courses satisfy a particular requirement.

Senator Dees said the first deciders are at the department level. If a department thinks that a course is part of the general education requirement, it goes to the URCC. If URCC decides it can fit into the requirement, it has to go to Columbus for approval. Faculty from across the state review the courses for the state to see whether they belong in the OT36.

Chair Kaplan summarized what happened and called on Senator Fisch for one last comment. Senator Fisch asked for clarification on the difference between general education and the OT36.

Senator Dees explained that 24 credit hours are prescribed by the OT36 for general education, and the remaining twelve credit hours must fit into disciplinary buckets provided by the state.

Senator Fisch talked about the possible upcoming perspectives proposal. He said that one of the requirements for this would be to have people work and communicate as a group; he appreciated that it was a non-core course that could be fit into programs like his. He said that the current general education proposal will drive engineering programs down because there is not enough time for students to complete all the requirements.

Senator Deborah Smith said that state no longer allows a critical reasoning class to fit into the math/logic hours for general education. She asked what the proposed model meant when it referred to critical reasoning and what the goal was of having it listed as it was.

Senator Dees asked for a working group to be formed to hammer out changes to slide 5 before the next meeting.

Chair Kaplan summarized the previous ideas and asked for volunteers to form a group to study it for the next discussion.

There were no further comments or questions.

Faculty Senate will return to the issue in the April meeting.

Discussion Item: Course Scheduling Report

Senator Was summarized the report by reading the charge and recommendations (full report attached here).

The group was charged with recommending strategies for effective use of course time patterns throughout the week for undergraduate courses on the Kent campus. Their review was guided by statements reinforcing the institution's commitment to students first. Specifically, they aimed to support students’ academic success, create an engaged campus environment, maximize scheduling time patterns, and optimize classroom space usage.

They interviewed students and advisors, looked at course scheduling, looked at classroom space, looked at what other universities are doing, and looked at the research.

Their recommendations are as follows: (1) prioritize two-day per week in-person course formats;

(2) maintain a mix of in-person and online options to preserve flexibility; (3) reduce Monday, Wednesday, Friday offerings to pre-Spring 2026 levels; (4) consider the needs of working students in scheduling decisions; (5) determine the availability of systematic room by room usage data; (6) review exclusive space use across the Kent campus; and (7) review and improve the centralized management of course scheduling practices.

He then invited comments or questions.

Senator Maguire asked about Wednesday/Friday classes and whether they were an option.

Senator Was said they could be an option based on the data the group found, but some students did not see the appeal of Friday classes.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley thanked the committee and said she has never received a more thorough report. She added that everyone should read the report.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith asked whether the provost had a timeline for the decision.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley replied that she will respond to Faculty Senate about this, possibly in her next remarks.

There were no further comments or questions.

9. New Business

There was no new business.

10. Additional Items

Associate Provost Kevin West shared information about the change from FlashFolio to Scholarly. He said that many faculty were involved in deciding on the new platform, and he added that it is easier to use and more linear than FlashFolio was. There will be general training for Scholarly on March 26 and March 31. Anyone going up for RTP in Fall 2026 can receive training on April 6 and April 14.