Tuesday, November 25, 1997
Initiative passed sans approval
TECHNOLOGY: Students, faculty feel left out of the
decision-making process
By George Sweeney
and Brian Fishman
Daily Bruin Contributors
The implementation of the Instructional Enhancement Initiative
(IEI) may have preempted faculty and student authority to determine
UCLA’s curriculum.
Some faculty members feel slighted because the administration
did not seek advisement from the Academic Senate – a move in direct
conflict with shared governance. And only one group of students was
consulted: the Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC).
"An initiative like this has ramifications on academics, and the
faculty should have been consulted," said Chand Viswanathan, chair
of the Academic Senate.
At the end of last year, former Chancellor Charles Young passed
the IEI, in spite of a Student Fee Advisory Committee veto. The IEI
took affect this quarter, creating class web sites and funding new
computer labs.
The decision to pass IEI represents "a breakdown in the shared
governance system," said David Rodes, chair of the undergraduate
council of the Academic Senate.
Young specifically stated that this was not an Academic Senate
issue and that the only group that needed to be consulted was
SFAC.
Several Academic Senate members expressed their belief that
shared governance is vital to the UCLA community. They also said
the Academic Senate is responsible for evaluating academic issues
like IEI.
"Usually an initiative like that would go through several
Academic Senate committees for discussion," Rodes said.
"It did not get sent to those councils, and I don’t know why,"
he finished. They felt that the initiative was not giving enough
bang for the buck.
The SFAC was consulted and voted against new technology fees.
"The (IEI) cost the students too much and was not giving enough
benefit for the cost," said Lina Velasco, undergraduate
representative to SFAC.
"The administration needs to receive the consent if they are so
adamant about charging students additional fees," said Max
Espinoza, the Academic Affairs Commissioner for USAC.
"The fact that SFAC opposed the initiative and they instituted
it anyway points to a major problem in the way that students are
required to pay their fees," he said.
Brian Copenhaver, provost of the College of Letters &
Sciences, defended the administration in the decision.
"The chancellor decides on policy. What should have happened is
exactly what happened. The role of the student advisory committee
is to advise," he said.
Inevitably, the issue of the IEI will have to be breached by the
Academic Senate, Copenhaver said.
"There are Academic Senate issues implicit within the
initiative. The web is going to change the way teaching and
learning go on," Copenhaver said.
"Because the faculty is concerned with how the courses are
created, the Academic Senate will eventually have to get involved,"
he said.
Copenhaver stressed that the administration has created no
policy governing what would be placed on the web sites, but some
faculty members say that the administration is coercing them to
post information on the web sites.
"Faculty are being forced to participate in the web sites, and
this is an infringement on their academic freedom," said Chand
Viswanathan, chair of the Academic Senate. "This is because the
faculty cannot be forced what to teach."
The administration has tried to downplay the impact that the IEI
will have on mandating teaching.
"It did not change the curriculum only insofar as the faculty
has more access to the technology," Copenhaver said.
The administration can monitor course material on the web sites
and that represents an infringement on academic freedom, according
to John Rosenfeld, a professor of Earth and space science.
Course information could be used for other purposes than those
that the professor intends.
"A well taught course might have a whole textbook in there,"
Rosenfeld said.
"It’s happening at some schools, they think they can teach a
class without the teacher," he finished.
The new fees also raise concerns about overriding the advisory
committee and the lack of consultation students are afforded.
"If it were only an issue of the implementation of student fees
it might not go through the Academic Senate," Rodes said. "This is
not simply an issue of fee raise, it is an academic one."
Because of student concerns, the governing bodies of both the
students and the faculty will be investigating the issue.
"We are trying to investigate how to get the faculty involved,"
Viswanathan said.
"We are looking into how does this impact our teaching and with
our interaction with our students." said Vickie Mays, vice chair of
the Academic Senate and professor of psychology.
In addition to the Senate’s action, SFAC has begun to audit the
technology enhancements and the computer labs, investigating their
accessibility and usefulness.
In retrospect, said Copenhaver, it seems that the issue of the
academic ramifications were not fully discussed.
"The most important dimension, broadly, is how on the spot, in
the class it effects teaching and learning. It is that part on the
whole that is least developed," Copenhaver said.