Faculty Senate Minutes, April 11, 2025

September 15, 2025

10:00 AM-12:00 PM: Hammond – Alumni Hall

Minutes

Voting Members Present:
Ali Alavizadeh, Khair Al Shamaileh, Lee Artz, Gokarna Aryal, Geoffrey Barrow Shreya Bhandari, José Castro-Urioste, Frank Colucci, Jim Dolen, John Durocher, Masoud Fathizadeh, Rob Hallock, Wei He, Maria Hughes, Shontrai Irving, Patrick Keegan, Hansung Kim, Kenny Kincaid, Dave Kozel, Roger Kraft, Robert Kramer, Yun Liu, Patti Ludwig-Beymer, Hassan Naji, Laurie Parpart, Sheila Rezak, Pam Saylor, Diane Spoljoric, Pitparnee Stompor, Nicolae Tarfulea, Kathy Tobin, Sarah White, Donna Whitten

Voting Members Absent:
Jessica Ivy, Amanda Kratovil-Mailhiot, George Stefanik, Cheng Zhang

Non-Voting Members Present:
Tony Elmendorf, Alan McCafferty

Others Present:
Chris Holford, Marie Mora, Chloe Belford, Catharine Olsen, Jen Williams, Tim Winders

Determination of quorum.
- Quorum determined at 10:00 AM
Call to order.
- Meeting called to order at 10:00 AM
Approval of the agenda.
- Motion for approval by L. Artz
- Seconded by A. Alavizadeh
- Approved by voice vote
Approval of the minutes from March 14, 2025
- Kim requested a friendly revision to the minutes. His original statement was incorrectly recorded as him being unaware of AI courses offered by the Center for Faculty Excellence. In fact, he is aware of AI courses offered by CFE and asked if Information Technology would also offer courses.
- Motion for approval with requested revisions by P. Ludwig-Beymer
- Seconded by S. Rezak
- Approved by voice vote
Remarks by the Senate Chair
- Convocation
  1. The Senate will hold Faculty Convocation on April 25, 2025
  2. Speakers and topics include
    1. Chancellor Holford – Q&A
    2. Provost Mora – Strategic Plan and Q&A
    3. Becky Stankowski – Strategic Plan
    4. Stephen Turner – Budget updates
    5. Matt Wells – Legislation updates
  3. She encouraged everyone to attend.
- She announced the Fight Like A Girl Self-Defense Class taking place next Thursday in Hammond.
Remarks by the Chancellor
- Chancellor Holford thanked the Chair and the Senate
- Highlights on campus
  1. Alumni Hall of Fame Induction
    1. Nicole Kupchik
    2. Mason Macenski
  2. 3 new awards
    1. Rick Calinski – Pride of PNW Alumni Award
    2. Ayana Clark – Power Onward Emerging Leader Award
    3. Debbie Bachmann – PNW Campus Pride Alumni Award
  3. A new display wall for emerging leaders in CLO is being developed.
  4. Events on campus
    1. Indiana State Science Olympiad
    2. CIVS Steel Consortium
    3. Second Annual Staff Showdown Pickup Game
  5. Athletic additions
    1. Women’s Hockey
    2. Women’s Flag Football
      1. He stated that flag football is an emerging sport backed by the NFL and will be an Olympic trial sport in 2028.
      2. He added that PNW will be the first institution in Indiana to offer flag football.
    3. He said announcements introducing new athletic coaches have been made on social media.
  6. The latest edition of Inside PNW was released on April 8.
  7. Groundbreaking for the new residence hall will take place on April 21. Administration anticipates the dorm opening for the fall 2026 incoming class.
  8. Visited each of the colleges to discuss student activities and events, stating that these offerings must be rethought as more students live on campus.
  9. Spring Commencement is Saturday, May 10, in Hammond.
  10. The Computer Science Department hosted an AI Quantum Workshop during which over 125 high school students participated.
    1. The Vice-Chair said ECE was also part of the AI Quantum Workshop
  11. External awards
    1. He expressed pride in the faculty for their many accomplishments, including:
    2. $15.43M in external grants and contracts- a record for PNW.
    3. $15.33M in external grants as of the end of February.
  12. Anticipating Carnegie classification

Remarks by the Provost/VCAA
- Provost Mora thanked the Senate for the opportunity to speak.
- She echoed the Chancellor’s congratulations to the faculty for their accomplishments.
- Congrats to newly promoted and tenured faculty, effective August 18, 2025:
  1. PNW faculty members promoted to the rank of professor:
    1. Christopher Belous, Professor of Couple and Family Therapy
    2. Patti Ludwig-Beymer, Professor of Nursing
    3. Claudia Mich, Professor of Marketing
    4. Maged Mikhail, Professor of Mechatronics Engineering Technology
    5. Yu Ouyang, Professor of Political Science
    6. Shengyong Zhang, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
  2. PNW faculty members promoted to the rank of associate professor:
    1. Patrick Keegan, Associate Professor of Education
    2. Afshin Zahraee, Associate Professor of Construction Engineering and Management Technology
  3. PNW faculty member promoted to the rank of clinical professor:
    1. Shontrai Irving, Clinical Professor of Business Law
  4. She announced that the Provost’s Office is increasing support for the Center for Faculty Excellence. This will be budget-neutral funding to expand support for them.
    1. 82% of all full-time faculty have engaged with CFE
    2. Support for mid-career faculty
    3. Incorporating AI in the classroom
  5. Meetings with the colleges have been engaging.
  6. A delegation of mostly faculty and some administrators traveled with the Provost to the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez to discuss the potential for academic, student, and faculty collaborations. This marked the first meeting of many discussions that we expect will be productive.
  7. Strategic Implementation Action Committee
    1. The Strategic Planning Process is concluding phase one, moving forward to implementation and action.
    2. She acknowledged B. Stankowski for her work on the Strategic Plan and thanked everyone who helped support these efforts.
  8. New Deans
    1. She stated that our new CES Dean, Dr. José R. Sánchez, will begin on May 1.
    2. Additionally, our new CHESS Dean, Dr. Richard Sévère, will begin on July 1, 2025.
    3. She thanked those involved in the search committees for these appointees, including Rachel Clapp-Smith and Amy Fry.
  9. Provost Mora concluded her remarks by stating that she looks forward to seeing everyone at commencement on May 10 at 10:00 AM in Hammond.

SGA Report (Chloe Belford)
- Belford thanked the Senate
- End of Year Report
  1. Discussions on increasing lighting and adding charging stations on campus are ongoing and will continue next semester.
  2. A Mental Health Day survey was distributed to students and received over 800 responses, the largest number of responses from a student survey.
  3. Extended facility hours for the fitness and recreation center were approved.
  4. Graphing calculators are now available in the library, 6 in Hammond, and 2 in Westville. Leasing agreements were drafted to check out these items.
  5. The snack cart initiative has been approved and will be implemented this month.
  6. SGA has worked with the café to add halal to the menu.
  7. The initial steps for providing CPR training on campus are complete, and they are currently being discussed with the Red Cross. Initiative to continue next semester.

Unfinished Business
- Vice-Chair Election Nominee
  1. Jessica Ivy
    1. The Chair said J. Ivy accepted the nomination for Senate Vice-Chair. She is attending MHFA training and will make remarks at the next meeting.
    2. The Vice-Chair said he believes Ivy would be a great choice for the position and will be an excellent Chair/Vice-Chair.
    3. Vote
      1. All in favor
      2. No one opposed
      3. Approved by voice vote
    4. New Business:
      - Curriculum Documents Approval
        
        19 documents up for approval.
        
        Motion to approve by L. Artz
        
        Seconded by H. Kim
        
        Approved by voice vote

For Action:
- FSD 24-04 Student Absence Policy
  1. Dolan presented the document, explaining that it consolidates into one comprehensive document all existing policies, including:
    1. Religious observance
    2. Grief
    3. Military leave
    4. Jury duty
    5. Parenting leave
    6. Medical
    7. Extracurricular activities
  2. Artz clarified that this does not change minimum attendance requirements.
  3. Motion to approve by J. Dolan
  4. Seconded by J. Durocher
  5. Approved by voice vote

Discussion Items:
- FSD 24-05 First-Year Experience Procedures and Guidelines
  1. Tobin presented updates to the document

Reports from Senate Standing Committee Chairs
- Curriculum (Lee Artz)
  1. Artz said the committee will discuss nine proposals at today’s meeting.
  2. Program deadlines for inclusion in the catalog have passed.
  3. Each course approved today will be revised and available for the fall.
  4. Chancellor Holford said that is correct concerning programs. Relating to courses, almost all departments have access to variable topic numbers, which the course could still run once approved under a variable topic number.
- Faculty Affairs (Rob Hallock)
  1. Hallock said A. Rodriguez will work on the faculty handbook
  2. Discussing P&T Guidelines
  3. The Administrator and Senate Leadership survey will be distributed soon.
- Gen Ed & Assessment (Kathy Tobin)
  1. Tobin thanked R. Hallock and their committee for coordinating survey distribution timelines to prevent overlap.
  2. She said Gen Ed has regular business, accepting or rejecting revisions.
  3. 77 respondents to the survey. Responses were heartfelt and intelligent.
  4. The following steps are a meeting to look at employer surveys by AAC&U and NACE.
  5. Aligning goals with the latest version of the Strategic Plan.
  6. Meeting with department chairs on April 25.
  7. In contact with E. Hixon regarding a discussion about Gen Ed.
  8. The committee would like to hear back from faculty before September.
- Nominations, Elections, & Awards (John Durocher)
  1. CES has filled three vacant spots on the faculty grievance committee.
    1. Bir B. Kafle (’28)
    2. Barbara Mania-Farnell (’27)
    3. Grethe Hystad (’28)
    4. Wubeshet Woldemariam (alt.)
  2. Founders Day debriefing meeting
    1. Explained that at least two faculty members were left off the list and will work to prevent this in the future.
  3. The committee was asked to come up with a PNW Outstanding Non-Tenure Track Teaching Award.
  4. It was clarified that clinicals are okay for engagement.
  5. The Parliamentarian asked if the committee received election results from department chairs for expiring Senate seats. J. Durocher said he would look into this.
  6. The Parliamentarian clarified that their academic unit must re-elect anybody staying beyond the end of their term.
  7. The Chair asked if departments held their elections
  8. Artz clarified that it is the responsibility of the committees to elect their next chair.
  9. The Provost said there will be an additional nomination request for a Senate representative on the Strategic Implementation and Action Committee.
- Ed Policy (Yun (Tom) Liu)
  1. Bhandari provided the report.
  2. Bhandari presented FSD 24-07 Resolution on Grade Submission Deadline Fall 2025.
    1. The resolution proposes moving the Fall 2025 grade submission deadline from Thursday, December 23, 2025, to Monday, December 22, 2025. The change is suggested because the university is set to close on Wednesday, December 24, leaving insufficient time for students to contact instructors or advisors before the holiday break. The adjustment is intended to give students more time for such communication.
    2. Kramer discussed the challenges of scheduling meetings at the end of the semester, particularly during the week of final exams. He suggested that there should be an effort to avoid scheduling departmental meetings during the week prior to grade submission. This would help faculty have sufficient time to process and submit grades without additional administrative distractions. He noted that while a resolution about this exists, it is often not followed in practice.
    3. The Parliamentarian clarified a point about Senate meetings during finals week. He referenced the document R. Kramer referred to – FSD 18-13 Relief from Meetings at End of Semester – that states no meetings should occur during finals week, with the exception of the Senate itself.
    4. Grades will be due December 22 at 5:00 PM.
  3. FSD 24-08 Process for Changing Academic Organizational Structures
    1. It was explained that this document was developed in partnership with the Provost’s Office, which has been extremely open to feedback and recommendations from Ed Policy. The document aims to create a transparent process for organizational structure changes.
    2. Key Features
      1. Includes provisions for initial feedback
      2. Requires input from units affected by proposed changes
      3. Emphasizes transparency and collaboration
      4. Recognizes the Faculty Senate’s advisory role
      5. Intended to replace existing ad-hoc approaches to organizational changes
    3. No existing document previously outlined the process for academic organizational structure changes.
    4. The Vice-Chair said this document has been circulated through the Senate, Ed Policy, and the Provost’s Office for some time. The point is to involve affected departments from the beginning. This is only an advisory role, but it is still important.
    5. Provost Mora said they would be willing to add language indicating a reasonable time frame.
    6. The Chair clarified that after the document is approved on the floor of the Senate, it will go to the Board of Trustees for final approval.
    7. Kramer said this was a productive and constructive process. The Provost has been very receptive, and we have to remember that this is an administrative function to which we are being allowed to provide input. He said it was commendable that we’ve been allowed to provide that input.
    8. The Parliamentarian said that, while it is an administrative decision and our role is advisory, the constitution states under III.C.5 that all proposed changes and procedures concerning the academic organization of Purdue University Northwest are part of the advisory role of the Senate.
    9. For action on May 9.

Student Affairs (Jessica Ivy)
1. Dolan provided the report.
2. The committee completed their last vote on Student of the Month and has nominated Riley Connor from Criminal Justice and Psychology. The student was contacted today, and their award will be announced more broadly in the coming weeks.
  1. Dolan added that it has been a joy for the committee to highlight these students, four of whom were acknowledged this academic year.
3. Still reviewing the Honor Code and Pledge provided by SGA.

Subcommittee Reports
- West Lafayette Report (Joe Coates)
  1. Coates was unable to attend. The Chair provided their report in absentia.
  2. PUWL met on March 24 via Zoom.
  3. President Chiang announced more than 86,000 applications for AY 2025.
  4. They are still very concerned and are closely monitoring executive directives and court orders at the state and federal levels.
  5. Working with college deans on staff positions, bridge funding, performance evaluations, and recruiting top faculty and PHD students.
  6. Differences in compensation between men and women professors have been noticed and are being looked into. The Exponent reported last month that Purdue’s top five highest-paid men made almost four times as much as its top five highest-paid women in 2024.
  7. PUWL will not raise tuition for the 14^th consecutive year.
- IFC Report (Geoffrey Barrow)
  1. Barrow said IFC met on March 28.
  2. Fort Wayne (FW) affirmed interference with academic actions from external political meddling.
  3. FW was pleased to have had time to read the document circulated from the lawyers to the trustees. In 1964 or 1965, a document was created to state that we are a community of scholars without political machinations.
  4. PNW IFC reps provided updates on infrastructure development, including the acquisition of a building in downtown Hammond, IN, and the new student housing facility.
  5. Our involvement in the quantum corridor was also highlighted and positively received.
  6. PNW IFC reps also provided updates on our athletic programs, including the inaugural competitive women’s ice hockey.
  7. The Senate Chair had the CFO speak at the last meeting.
  8. The PUWL Senate now has 106 members.
  9. Next meeting is next Friday, April 18
  10. PNW is the co-coordinator of IFC this year.
  11. The Chair spoke about the move to MS Teams. Will ask J. Coates to express the thoughts of PNW faculty on this.
- DEIJB Committee (Pam Saylor)
  1. Saylor said the committee has agreed that they would like to keep the current name of the committee.
  2. The committee needs new members, including representatives from MaPSAC, CSSAC, SGA, and a community member.
  3. The presence of ICE on campus was discussed. She and Co-Chair Kenny Kincaid will meet with Dean of Students Britt Hudson, Director of Hispanic Serving Institution Initiatives Iris Sanchez, and Indiana Legal Services regarding that process.
  4. Morrow shared with the committee information about a recognition award for L. Fitzpatrick for her work in behavioral science.
  5. The committee discussed briefly salary equity at PNW.
  6. The committee would like to continue efforts to create a space of community for students, faculty, and staff at PNW.
  7. Saylor mentioned a memorandum from PUWL sent on June 3, 2024, which includes a board-adopted policy on institutional neutrality. Specifically, she noted that the policy prevents the university from commenting on political issues. This memorandum was part of the context for the DEIJB Committee’s discussion about addressing current campus concerns while respecting the institution’s guidelines on neutrality.
  8. Saylor said some of her committee members are attending via Zoom to participate in the discussion on the following draft, created to address the aforementioned issues.
  9. She emphasized that the committee wanted to understand how to address current campus issues and advocate for students and faculty who are worried and anxious, while being mindful of the university’s institutional neutrality policy. Pam presented the proposal as a starting point for discussion, hoping to get input from senators about how to proceed.
  10. Chancellor Holford briefly commented on the proposed resolution, stating that the university has openly affirmed its position on academic freedom and free speech for individuals, particularly faculty. However, he expressed reservations about the resolution itself. Specifically, he:
    1. Questioned the wisdom of the resolution
    2. Raised concerns about its potential impact on institutional neutrality
    3. Was worried about unintended consequences for the student body
    4. Stated that he and the Provost would not participate in discussing the resolution
  11. The Chancellor emphasized the university’s commitment to academic freedom while maintaining institutional neutrality and chose not to engage further in the discussion.
  12. Chancellor Holford and Provost Mora excused themselves from the remainder of the discussion and promptly left the meeting.
  13. FSD 24-06 Resolution on constitutional right of free expression
    1. Kincaid discussed several key points:
      1. He attended three events related to the Hispanic and Spanish-speaking community on campus.
      2. Students are generally concerned about current issues, particularly regarding ICE’s presence.
      3. The committee is seeking guidance on how to handle situations such as:
        
        What students should do if ICE arrives on campus.
        
        How to provide support in classroom settings.
      4. He noted that at a recent immigration rights presentation, lawyers and community representatives suggested consulting administration about legal concerns
      5. Kincaid emphasized that the committee lacks clear understanding of the administration’s current guidelines and stance on these issues
      6. He shared a personal example of finding information about potential ICE encounters in his classroom, but noted this information was not created by the university.
    2. Morrow stated that the proposed resolution is an important issue for faculty to address
      1. She noted that the Chancellor’s statement does not disallow faculty from voicing concerns in this particular way.
      2. Morrow suggested framing the resolution as an ethical position, committing to free speech and academic freedom.
      3. She referenced the Columbia University case as an example of government attempting to control academic curricula.
      4. She said that this is not an unusual activity or expression; faculty in universities across the country are taking similar actions.
      5. Morrow stated that acquiescing to government interference has historically been ineffective.
    3. The Vice-Chair said he distributed a letter to the committee yesterday evening. He raised the following concerns:
      1. He responded to Colette’s remarks with a nuanced critique of the proposed resolution, focusing on potential unintended consequences. He highlighted significant risks facing universities, including federal investigations, funding cuts, and potential deportation of students and faculty for protest participation.
      2. Drawing from the 1967 Kalven Report and a 2007 board-approved document, Kozel argued for a careful approach to free speech. He emphasized that while individual faculty and students should have robust free speech rights, the institution itself should remain neutral. This neutrality, he contended, is not a sign of weakness but a deliberate strategy to protect diverse viewpoints and create an open forum for discussion.
      3. The Vice-Chair’s primary concern was that a collective institutional stance could paradoxically limit free speech by creating an environment where certain perspectives feel suppressed. He warned that drawing attention to the campus through such a resolution could potentially invite unwanted scrutiny from federal agencies, risking research funding, student aid, and the safety of students and faculty.
      4. He advocated for supporting free speech through individual expression and institutional neutrality, rather than through a formal resolution that might create more problems than it solves.
    4. Kramer said he’s received comments from faculty members asking for a response from the Senate. He said that, in the short time provided to review the document, its tone and context seem negative in nature.
      1. Drawing on Purdue’s historical approach to sensitive issues, particularly how the university managed protests during the Vietnam War, Kramer emphasized the importance of maintaining a balanced, thoughtful approach to free speech. He argued that the university has been historically effective at allowing voices to be heard while maintaining institutional stability, and he believed the current draft did not reflect that nuanced tradition.
      2. Procedurally, Kramer was critical of the short notice given for reviewing the document. He advocated for more time to gather comprehensive input from faculty members and to develop a more positive, constructive statement. While fully supporting the principle of free speech, he believed the current resolution was not the right vehicle for expressing those ideals.
    5. Artz said he doesn’t understand why we can’t say we defend free speech and academic freedom. We support dissent and dialogue.
      1. In response to Artz’s suggestion about creating a resolution supporting free speech, R. Kramer agreed that a positive statement could be valuable, but he felt the current document was too negative in tone. He believed that while supporting free speech is important, the specific language and approach matter. Kramer wanted a more constructive document that could gather broader faculty support, rather than the current draft, which he perceived as divisive and potentially counterproductive.
    6. The Chair reflected on our position as the most diverse campus in the Purdue system. She stated that the Belonging Committee had been working on this matter for months and shared the document for initial review, not for immediate action. She stressed that the document was intended to spark dialogue and gather input, rather than to be a finalized statement.
      1. The Chair outlined the next steps that included meeting with Purdue West Lafayette’s legal counsel and continuing to refine the document. She provided guidance on campus emergency procedures and emphasized that the resolution was a living document, evolving daily in response to input and changing circumstances.
    7. The Vice-Chair explained that the typical process for bringing resolutions to the floor of the Senate includes prior review and discussion by the Executive Committee and placing them on the agenda at least one to two weeks before discussion. This would provide senators ample time to review, consider, and discuss complex materials.
      1. He stressed the importance of crafting statements and resolutions with careful consideration of their potential consequences. He argued that any communication from the senate should be designed to support and protect students and the university, rather than potentially causing unintended harm.
    8. Morrow accepted that the verbiage of the document could be portrayed as negative, though she did not agree.
      1. Morrow respectfully stated that the current climate of fear itself represents a limitation on academic freedom. She contended that by being afraid of potential consequences, such as defunding or administrative repercussions, the faculty is already self-censoring and constraining academic discourse. Morrow emphasized that the current approach of avoiding potential conflict is precisely what allows governmental and administrative overreach to continue unchecked. She maintained that standing up for academic and speech freedoms requires proactive defense, rather than retreat, and that acquiescing to potential threats only emboldens those seeking to restrict academic expression. Her core argument was that by allowing fear to dictate their actions, faculty would be complicit in undermining the very principles of free speech and academic inquiry they claim to protect. She concluded by expressing appreciation for her time on the floor.
    9. The Chair concluded the discussion, recommending that the committee take the document back for further refinement and potentially schedule a meeting with legal counsel if feasible.
      1. She referred faculty to the memo sent on February 20, 2025: Protocol for Warrants and Government Subpoenas.

Budget Subordinate Committee (Tom Roach)
1. Roach was not in attendance.
2. No report

Open discussion (as time permits)
- AAUP Document on SB 448
  1. The Chair brought to the Senate’s attention a significant new piece of legislation, Senate Bill 448, which had just passed the previous day. The bill represents a potentially transformative approach to evaluating academic programs, focusing on their economic and employment outcomes. By mandating comprehensive reviews of academic programs, the legislation will scrutinize curricula through multiple lenses, including labor market alignment, enrollment trends, completion rates, and program costs.
  2. A particularly notable aspect of the bill is its detailed tracking of graduate compensation. The state will now monitor graduates’ earnings at multiple career stages – immediately after graduation, at three years, five years, and ten years post-graduation. This approach suggests a narrow, economic-centric view of educational value that could particularly impact humanities and liberal arts programs that may not have direct, linear career pathways.
  3. The Chair emphasized the uncertainty surrounding the bill’s implementation, noting that while the broad strokes are clear, the specific mechanisms remain undefined. She highlighted potential immediate risks, particularly for programs like CHESS (College of Humanities, Education, and Social Sciences), which might be viewed as less directly vocational. She urged senators to remain vigilant and informed about how this legislation might reshape higher education’s landscape.

Adjournment
- Meeting adjourned at 12:00 PM