A bill updating the diversity and inclusion syllabus statement policy and a bill on senators attendance were up for first reading during the Faculty Senate meeting last Tuesday. They were discussed but no action was taken.

Modification to Providing Students with Syllabi which updated the University Policy Manual based on a bill passed last semester, was discussed by senators. The debate was not centered so much on the bill itself but on Faculty Senate’s right to require faculty to place policy in their syllabi.

“Policy statements don’t belong in the syllabi,” said George Durler, professor of business administration. “Things relating to the course belong in the syllabi, but university policies don’t belong in the syllabi. We already have locations where the policy can be found by students and faculty.”

Larry Scott, associate professor of mathematics and economics, said he agreed and felt that the policy was “micromanaging” the faculty.

“It’s gotten to be ridiculous how much micromanaging we do with individual faculty members,” Scott said. “There’s no real reason for putting all this stuff in the syllabi.”

According to Scott and Durler, students are not interested in reading the university policy in the syllabi.

“They get bored with it and then do not read the important parts (of the syllabi),” Scott said. “The only things students really want to know…is ‘how hard is this course going to be’ and ‘what do I have to do to get a particular grade in this class.’ That’s it.”

Durler said this problem is made worse when students see the same policy repeated.

“Whenever students see the same thing in every single syllabus, I guarantee that is one more thing that they do not read,” Durler said. “You’d be better off to have a single URL or whatever, a reference to where all the policies can be found and leave it at that.”

Other faculty members from the School of Business agreed, asking if it would be better to just include a URL link, according to Antonina Bauman, assistant professor of business administration.

This would not be possible based on the policy passed last semester, according to Steve Lovett, president of Faculty Senate and assistant professor of business administration. The actual statement is required in the syllabus.

“Last year we passed the diversity, equity and inclusion statement at the end of the term and we didn’t realize that we missed adding that statement into the…Policy for Providing Students with a Syllabus,” said Brenda Koerner, chair of academic affairs and associate professor of biological science. “What this change essentially does is it reiterates that the diversity, equity and inclusion statement must be included in your syllabus.”

Ceara Shaughnessy, assistant professor of counselor education, and Mike Behrens, assistant professor of English, modern languages and journalism, said that the arguments against the bill were a moot point, as the original bill had already passed and this one was just for consistency.

Greg Larson, coordinator for budget and project portfolios in information technology, said he wanted to remind the senate of the 40 or 50 students who supported this bill last semester.

“I really don’t like the infringements on faculty,” Scott said. “I know the bill was passed last year. That doesn’t mean we can’t repeal it this year.”

Scott reiterated his support for the statement and the ideas in the statement several times and said he strongly supported them.

“The idea of putting it on the syllabus is what I’m concerned about,” Scott said. “If I were coming out of graduate school at this point and time I am not sure I would pursue an academic career. Academic freedom was a big part of the reason I chose to come to the university…If I knew I was going to have to put up with all of these crazy rules, I would probably have gone to a pharmaceutical company and be making three times the money I’m making now.”

Scott said he was also concerned for Emporia State’s ability to recruit faculty if they continued passing bills like this.

“I think we’re going to have trouble recruiting faculty, if we keep doing this kind of stuff,” Scott said. “I understand the proposal, but all these restrictions are just dumb.”

The second bill discussed during Faculty Senate defined what meeting attendance is for senate meetings, if virtual attendance counts and what reasons a senator would need in order to attend virtually, according to Koerner.

“This bill is to clarify what attendance is,” Koerner said. “Whether attendance could be virtual or needs to be in person. It is differentiated between individuals who have an acknowledged disability, we don’t really have a choice at all in that type of instance, versus senators who feel that it is inconvenient to attend in person and for convenience purposes would rather attend virtually.”

The bill states that all members must attend in person except when there is professional or emergency conflicts. If senators cannot attend, they “shall provide documentation and or other evidence in support of the request to the first Vice President of faculty senate,” according to the bill.

After that, the executive committee will vote to approve or deny the exception. If approved, the senator must provide a substitute or attend electronically.

Accommodations due to a disability must be made through Human Resources, according to the bill.

“Are we really going to have the executive committee vote on what’s an emergency or not? Seems like an emergency is an emergency,” Durler said. “If it’s truly an emergency, it would be difficult to get prior approval.”

The bills will be up for a vote during the next Faculty Senate meeting at 3:30 p.m. Oct. 2 in the Preston Family Room in the Memorial Union.