�Ը�������

FACULTY SENATE

Meeting Minutes May 11, 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, Taryn McMahon, Mahli Mechenbier, Taraneh Meshkani, Oana Mocioalca, Ashley Nickels, Vic Perera, Linda Piccirillo-Smith, Helen Piontkivska, Lydia Rose, Susan Roxburgh, Athena Salaba, 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: 

Ex-Officio Members Present: President Todd Diacon; Josh Perkins 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, Peggy Shadduck, Stephen Ward; Deans: Sonia Alemagno, Christina Bloebaum, Allan Boike, Ken Burhanna, Alicia Crowe*,  Tracy Motter for Versie Johnson-Mallard, Sharon Wohl for Mark Mistur, Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Diane Petrella, Kelly Cichy for Elizabeth Piatt*, Amy Reynolds, Scott Sheridan*, Deborah Spake       

*Interim 

Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Executive Vice President and Provost Melody Tankersley; Vice Presidents: Randale Richmond, Valoree Vargo; Deans: Marcello Fantoni* 

*Interim 

Observers Present: Emeritus Professor Janson, Ms. Shiza Nisar (GSS)

Observers Not Present: Ms. Hanna Sietz (USG)

Guests Present: Daniel Alenquer, Jake Ball, Michael Beam, Bradley Bielski, Autum Boone, Brenda Burke, Shelby Burkhart, Rachele Burkholder, Cristin Compton, Scott Courtney, Chris Dorsten, Shannon Driscoll, Kieran Dunne, Susan Emens, Valerie Feagin,  Jocelyn Folk, Tammy Frietchen, Jay Frye, Jill Garst, Beate Gersch, Carla Goar, Kim Hahn, James Hannon, Tony Hardin, Paul Haridakis, Jennifer Hebebrand, Ben Hollis, Eric Johnson, Lynette Johnson, Michael Kavulic, Jennifer Kellogg, Tiffany Kiphart, Karil Klayko, Mourad Krifa, Tracy Laux, Dana Lawless-Andric, Wei Li, Joanna Liedel, Miriam Matteson, Julie Mazzei, Jennifer McCullough, Jennifer McDonough, Emily Metzgar, Paulo Mussi Augusto, Amy Neusch, Jennifer Newberger, Amy Petrinec, Susan Perry, Cherrie Reger-Watson, John Sankovic, Sarah Smiley, Jillian Sokso, Diane Sommers, Vicki Sott, Angela Spalsbury, Kristen Traynor-Mytko, Adil Wadia, Sue Wamsley, Deirdre Warren, Kevin West, Nicole Willey, Sonya Williams, Virginia Wright

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 (Piccirillo-Smith/Cunningham). 

The motion passed unanimously. 

A motion and a second were made to change the order of items on the agenda; the Kent Core items were moved to take place before the EPC items (Dauterich/Deborah Smith).

The amendment passed.

The agenda passed unanimously as amended.

 4.       Approval of the Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2026

Chair Kaplan asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2026, Faculty Senate meeting. A motion was made and seconded (Piccirillo-Smith/Mocioalca).                        

The minutes were approved unanimously as written.

 5.      Chair’s Remarks

Chair Kaplan delivered his remarks []. 

6.       President’s Remarks

President Diacon discussed good news and accomplishments across the university and thanked everyone for their hard work this year. He then explained the Stanford List, which is a list of the top 2% of researchers in the world put out periodically by Stanford University. He said that Kent had 38 professors on the list from many areas including Physics, Translation Studies, Business Analytics, Anthropology, Mathematical Sciences, English, Geography, Psychological Sciences, Brain Health and others. 

He added that the university continues to be a leader in global education; he mentioned that shortly after COVID, the university won the Senator Paul Simon award for best global studies program in the U.S. He also explained that we have been leading globally since the 1950s when the university hosted a delegation of Soviet educators. President Diacon also mentioned that �Ը������� has hosted seven Fullbright-supported international graduate students from seven different countries and that two �Ը������� professors were recently awarded Fullbright Scholar awards (Lei Xu in Computer Science and Landon Hancock in Peace and Conflict Studies). In addition, the Kent campus will be hosting two Fullbright pre-academic programs. 

He then moved on to name some of our graduate programs that were listed among the top 100 programs in the United States by U.S. News and World Report: Rehabilitation Counseling (#18), Audiology Doctoral Program—run jointly with the University of Akron (#36), Nursing Master’s Program (#45), and the Studio Art M.F.A. (#54 nationally and #2 in Ohio).  He also mentioned the accomplishments of many alumni and faculty.

He also mentioned the number of degrees we conferred this year (4,987 total degrees, which include 643 associate degrees, 3,332 bachelor’s degrees, 835 master’s degrees, 162 doctoral degrees, and 15 education specialist degrees).  

President Diacon concluded his remarks by thanking all who attended graduation, all outgoing members of Faculty Senate, and everyone who helped make all the success possible at the university.

He then invited comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions.

7.     Old Business: Kent Core Revisions

Action Items: Kent Core Revisions (presented by David Dees)

1. Student Committee for the New Kent Core (recommendation #3 in the attached )

Senator Dees explained that the committee would not be one that voted on curricular issues. He gave some background and explained what the design team had done. He said the committee would be like other advisory groups—meet a couple times per semester or year and get their input about things like the “Pressing Issues” category, etc. 

A motion and a second were made to approve the formation of the committee (Torres/Aller).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions. 

Chair Kaplan wondered whether it would have been better to have students serve on the faculty committee that had already been approved to oversee the Kent Core, rather than creating a separate committee of students.

Senator Dees pointed out that the faculty group does have a student representative.

Senator Tippey asked for clarification over whether the students would be volunteers and whether they would be nominated by the colleges.

Senator Dees responded that student government would be contacted to strategize over how the students could be best selected.

There were no further comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

2. Course Distributions in the New Kent Core (Options A-D can be found )

(This was a discussion continued from the April Faculty Senate meeting. Letters of support from different senators that were delivered at that meeting can be found here:

​�ċ

​

​�ċ

​

A motion and a second were made to vote on the options (Torres/de la cruz cabreara).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith mentioned that senators in the chamber had ranked choice ballots and wondered how senators attending online would be able to vote.

Secretary Dauterich explained that they would communicate their preferences in order through the chat function in Teams to Vice Chair Abraham who would pass them on to Secretary Dauterich when the votes were to be counted.

The motion passed unanimously.

There was then discussion.

Senator McMahon said that she and Senator Kent had consulted with all of the FACs in the College of the Arts. They overwhelmingly supported Option C followed by Option A. The reasons for this came down to the absence of Research Writing and the lowering of the Fine Arts and Humanities requirements in Option B and Option D. The faculty found Option D to be particularly problematic because it did not have required credits in oral communication or research writing when one of the big six outcomes that Faculty Senate had already approved were effective communication skills. She also read statements from individual faculty members in the College of the Arts that supported her statement.

Senator Mangrum spoke in favor of Option D on behalf of the faculty of Aeronautics and Engineering.  

Senator Kent supported Senator McMahon’s comments.  

Senator Ewing supported Senator Mangrum and shared the list of schools in CCI who supported Option D. These included the School of Media, the School of Emerging Media and Technology, the School of Media and Journalism, and the School of Visual Communication and Design. She stressed the importance of flexibility for students and programs.

Senator Fisch said he saw the letter from Architecture and had read CAE’s letter and had a question about flexibility; he wanted to know whether the flexibility was for students or programs or both.

Senator Dees responded that it would be a little bit of both, but regardless, we had to follow the Ohio Transfer Module. 

Senator Dees then invited Secretary Dauterich to explain voting for the options and how it would work.

Secretary Dauterich explained the fractional single transferable vote system, why it was being used for this election, and how votes would be counted.

There were no further comments or questions.

Secretary Dauterich invited Senators Cunningham and Mangrum to watch him count the votes.

48 votes were cast. Option A received 29 votes. Option B received 2 votes. Option C received 10 votes. Option D received 7 votes. 

Option A was the option that received the most votes.

Chair Kaplan stated that the vote was in favor of Option A.

8.     EPC (Educational Policies Council) 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.

1. OFFICE OF THE PROVOST (Associate Provost Scott Sheridan)

Merge the College of the Arts and the College of Communication and Information (fall 2027)

These colleges are being merged as a result of T28.

A motion was made to approve the merger (Mocioalca).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

2. OFFICE OF ADMISSIONS (presented by Director Kristen Kolenz)

Revise policy for Admission of Undergraduate Students Revise policy (fall 2026)

Policy revised to remove the word “felony” and the phrase “personal explanation statement” from the policy.

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

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Fisch asked what types of non-felony offenses would be covered by the revised language, noting that the proposal excluded traffic violations and questioning which misdemeanors applicants would be expected to disclose.

Examples of possible misdemeanors (e.g., shoplifting and DUI) were discussed informally.

Senator Boyd-Swan asked whether applicants who were 18 or older would be required to disclose juvenile misdemeanor offenses that occurred before they turned 18.

A member of the admissions office explained that the disclosure question applies to all applicants regardless of age and that applicants are expected to disclose qualifying offenses even if they occurred while they were juveniles. The representative noted that applicants may provide additional context and that disclosed information is reviewed as part of the admissions process rather than serving as an automatic basis for denial.

Senator Piccirillo Smith expressed concern that requiring disclosure of juvenile offenses could undermine the purpose of sealed juvenile records and questioned how such disclosures would be verified or used in admissions decisions.

Senator Wagner asked whether disclosure of a criminal offense would automatically result in denial of admission. 

The admissions representative clarified that disclosures are reviewed by a committee which makes a recommendation regarding admission.

Senator Maguire asked whether the proposal simply aligned the catalog with existing application language. 

The admissions representative clarified that the proposal instead removes the word “felony” from the catalog to make it more inclusive and consistent with the application.

There were no further comments or questions.

The voice vote was indecisive, so there was a motion and a second for a roll call vote (Piccirillo-Smith/Tippey).

The results of the roll call vote are as follows:

Yeas (11): Abraham, Aller, Dauterich, Dees, Guan, Kennedy, Mechenbier, Gregory Smith, Taylor, Wagner, Walton-Fisette

Nays (24): Bhargava, Boyd-Swan, Butler, Dalman, De La Cruz Cabrera, Earp, Evey, Fisch, Foster, Kent, Landingham, Mangrum, McMahon, Meshkani, Mocioalca, Nickels, Piccirillo-Smith, Rose, Deborah Smith, Taber, Tippey, Torres, Was, Winkler

Abstentions (13): Antenucci, Bagheri, Cunningham, Ewing, Kaplan, Kroeger, Maguire, Perera, Piontkivska, Roxburgh, Salaba, Seelye, Vachon

The motion failed.

The policy will go back to the Undergraduate Policies Council of the EPC for revision.

There was a motion and a second to vote on Items 3-6 as a slate (Dauterich/Bhargava). The items are as follows:

3. COLLEGE OF APPLIED AND TECHNICAL STUDIES

Insurance Studies - B.S. Inactivate degree program per SB1 (fall 2026); Faculty Sente 

approved (10-Feb-25, 2-Feb-26) replacing this program with the Accelerated Bachelor of  Applied Studies degree in Insurance Studies 

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

4. Department of Biological Sciences - Plant Biology - B.S. - Inactivate degree program per SB1; admission was suspended summer 2026 (fall 2026)

5. Department of Philosophy - Philosophy - B.A. - Inactivate degree program per SB1; admission was suspended summer 2026 (fall 2026)

COLLEGE OF THE ARTS

6. School of Music – Music B.A. - Inactivate degree program per SB1; admission was suspended summer 2026 (fall 2026)

The motion to vote on the items as a slate passed.

There was then time for comments or questions.

Senator Mocioalca asked about the inactivation of a program. She said that timelines for when this happened were unclear.

Associate Provost Sheridan said that if a program falls to an average of under 5 graduates over a three-year period at the end of an academic year, then by July 15, that program must put in a waiver request or end the program.

Senator Deborah Smith said she wanted to know why admission to the Philosophy major was suspended before it went through EPC and Faculty Senate. She expressed concern about the failure of the curricular process being honored. She said that she was informed about the suspension from Associate Dean Warren and asked Dean Warren who had informed her about it.

Dean Warren said she had heard about it from Curriculum Services.

Senator Deborah Smith asked why the program was sunset before the curricular process had played out.

Associate Provost Sheridan said that the provost had talked to Curriculum Services, and they had discussed removing it for the Fall 26 semester because incoming students would not be able to declare it as a major.

Senator Deborah Smith asked about students who were already here and wanting to switch majors or add a second major. She wondered why they were not able to do so. She asked again why the program was sunset before it was voted on by the Faculty Senate.

Chair Kaplan said she would have to address the question with Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley and Associate Vice President Tillett when they were available.

Senator Deborah Smith replied that she was worried about it becoming part of a pattern.

Senator Bhargava said that she thought suspending programs was a unit decision and inactivating them was a Faculty Senate decision.

Chair Kaplan replied that the people who were more involved in the process were not able to be here today.

Senator Vachon asked theoretical questions about what happens if they vote against shutting down the programs. She understood the state law would shut them down regardless of the vote, but she felt she could not vote yes to shut down any of them.

Chair Kaplan agreed that there was not much real choice here for faculty.

Senator Dauterich said that the only reason these came through EPC and then before Faculty Senate was that the state wanted to be sure that the closures went through the curricular process.

Senators Earp and Tippey spoke in agreement with Senator Vachon.

There were no further comments or questions.

The motion did not pass.

President Diacon informed the Faculty Senate that he would look into the issue of whether people were prematurely discouraged from declaring a major in one of the sunset programs. 

Senator Deborah Smith replied that it is not too late to let people major in philosophy or any of the other programs that had been sunset by the state. 

9.      New Business

Senator Bhargava asked for the timeline for the Kent Core.

Senator Dees responded that the goal was to have it implemented by Fall 27 at the earliest. He encouraged people to join the oversight committee, and he thanked everyone for going through the process of changing the Kent Core.

10.    Additional Items

There were no additional items.

11.     Announcements/ Statements for the Record

Senator Piccirillo-Smith read the following statement for the record:

“I have wanted to make a statement for the record since December of last year.  Most meetings ran so long that it felt abusive to do so; some had other statements and I held on mine, but it is the last meeting of the academic year and I would like to sum up the experiences of this past year:

Teaching faculty in all tracks have experienced an enormous amount of pressure and stress during this particular academic year.  There is no real way to quantify the amount of time spent on concerns that had very little to do with enhancing student learning or benefiting students in any way.  Some actions felt like quite the opposite.

Preparing for the academic year required removing from our syllabi any direct connection to the “dangerous” words Diversity Equity and Inclusion.  We were also required to remove any reflection of acknowledgement of the land the university sits on and the peoples in our region who originally inhabited this land.  For me, this was a painful and deeply disturbing process; it felt a betrayal to MY core beliefs, to the values the university has long said it holds in its mission statement and to the students I serve.

It was suggested we ‘sanitize’ word choices in our syllabus so as not to have it flagged by searches; we could say ‘all students are valuable and respected’.  While true, this felt akin to how some people responded to Black Lives Matter by saying All Lives Matter. Most of us understood that all lives SHOULD matter, but the lives of Black, Brown, and Indigenous people and the lives of members of the LGBTQ communities seem to matter LESS than the lives of others.  But I tried to comply.

In my courses (which focus on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion), when asked a specific question linked to contemporary political issues (which were, in fact, related to learning outcomes), I had to take long pauses to reflect on how I could best answer the question without raising any ‘alarms’.  Because 18- to 22-year-olds often see me as, let’s just say ‘older’, I felt the need to state that I wasn’t having a stroke but was pausing intentionally to process the best way to answer a question in order to stay in my ‘SB1 lane’.  Maybe this made me a better instructor, but it definitely did not feel like it.

When the ‘hypothetical’ became real as some faculty and administrators received SB1 complaints and challenges, NO counter argument ever seemed to be offered; in other words, we are the villains AND the victims both for saying things like ‘we welcome and support Students of Color or students who are members of the LGBTQ community’ – things that should be EASY and AFFIRMING to say. Perspectives that make us, dare I say, INCLUSIVE, which, last I checked, is an American value embraced on the large woman who has been standing in the middle of the Hudson River holding up a torch for over 100 years.

While we are tying ourselves into knots to prevent raising the ire of the ‘anti-woke’ crowd, their own leadership was (a) posting images of a past president and his wife as apes (b) hosting white supremacists for lunches (c) using dog whistle language about ‘damaging the blood of our country’ (d) removing acknowledgment of the accomplishments of African Americans, Women, and members of the LGBTQ communities from national parks, military museums and installations, and schools on military bases. 

My point is that while we continue to be compliant so as not to upset those in power, what are we sacrificing ? And at what point, will compliance no longer be an option?  In an early scene in the musical Hamilton, Aaron Burr (aka NOT the hero ) says to Hamilton – ‘Talk less. Smile more’ to be more compliant with British rule so as not to incur their ire.  Hamilton (aka the hero)’s response is ‘Burr, if you stand for nothing, what will you fall for’ – As we move into the next academic year under the cloud of SB1 and perhaps its evil twin HB698, it might do us all well to consider Hamilton’s words. At what point do we lose what we have long said we stand for by trying to remain silent and just ‘smile more’?”

Senator Boyd-Swan said that given the real concerns about the budget, she was hoping Faculty Senate could get a budget update at the next meeting.

Interim Vice President Reifsnyder said she will present on the budget at the next meeting. 

Senator Maguire expressed dissatisfaction with how Robert’s Rules of Order were being used to conduct Faculty Senate Meetings. He said that the rules were used when they were convenient and discarded when they were not. He encouraged Faculty Senate to find a parliamentarian to apply the rules consistently.

Secretary Dauterich replied that he was soon going to be taking a course on parliamentary procedure with money he received from the Winebrenner Professional Development Excellence Awards.                                  

12.    Adjournment                                                   

Chair Kaplan adjourned the meeting at 5:13 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Edward Dauterich

Secretary, Faculty Senate