Rollins College: Rollins Scholarship Online (RSO)

A fictional work exploring community, addiction, obsession, and spirituality in modern day Scotland

Smith, David

The Angus Swaraj

https://scholarship.rollins.edu/studioart_all/1049/thumbnail.jp

Sala, Liv

Zooxanthellae Expulsion and Coral Reef Bleaching Over Time

https://scholarship.rollins.edu/studioart_all/1068/thumbnail.jp

Van Doren, Haley

Dispersion

https://scholarship.rollins.edu/studioart_all/1047/thumbnail.jp

Perry, Sophia M.

Reminiscence of it All

https://scholarship.rollins.edu/studioart_all/1046/thumbnail.jp

Grey Mirage

This thesis takes an in-depth look at the problem of nihilism in the Modern and Postmodern  world. It uses the theories proposed by French philosopher Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel to analyze the birth of nihilism and its development in the Western World. This thesis also gives a literary analysis of the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky Osamu Dazai, and the film Everything Everywhere All at Once in relation to Camus’s work to show how art has been used over the past two centuries to combat the pervasive force of nihilism

Foley, Taylor

English

Nihilism and Rebellion: Anti-nihilistic Art in the Modern and Postmodern World

Curriculum Committee

Rollins College 
Rollins Scholarship Online 
Curriculum Committee Minutes College of Liberal Arts Minutes and Reports 
2-7-2023 
Minutes, Curriculum Committee Meeting, Tuesday, February 7, 
2023 
Curriculum Committee 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.rollins.edu/as_cc 
1 
 
Curriculum Committee 
Meeting Minutes  
February 7, 2023 
 
In attendance: Emily Russell (chair), Doragnes Bradshaw, Samantha Fonseca-Douguet, Mae Fitchett, 
Robin Gerchman, Tiffany Griffin, Perry Middleton, Susan Montgomery, Kasandra Riley, Marc Sardy, 
Steve Schoen, Yusheng Yao, Stephanie Henning, Ashley Kistler, Rob Sanders, Erica Mungin (SGA) 
 
 
I. Approval of minutes from January 31, 2023 meeting 
Motion to approve by Susan Montgomery; second by Steve Schoen 
Unanimously approved 
 
II. Subcommittee Reports 
a. Academic Appeals 
i. No update 
b. New Course Proposals 
i. No update 
c. Registration 
i. No update 
d. SDG Task Force 
i. Task Force attending CC meeting on March 7 
 
III. Intercultural Competency requirement 
Motion to move to Committee of the Whole by Emily Russell; second by Perry Middleton 
Unanimously approved 
 
Motion to move out of Committee of the Whole by Emily Russell; second by Kasandra Riley 
Motion to approve by Kasandra Riley; second by Perry Middleton 
Unanimously approved 
 
a. Next steps 
i. Will go to full faculty on February 23, 2023 
ii. Forwarding to Diversity Council for endorsement 
iii. Forwarding to Student Government Association for endorsement 
   
 
Adjourned 1:43pm 
Intercultural Competency Requirement  
 
Rationale 
A Rollins education prepares students to find meaning and professional success in a complex 
world. One of the best ways to achieve these goals is to learn about experiences beyond one’s 
own. This knowledge and the skills to navigate such differences are often called “intercultural 
competency,” most notably by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) 
who has named it an Essential Learning Outcome.  
 
Since our adoption of the rFLA program, over half of the courses taught already address 
questions of intercultural competency. It has not, however, been a stand-alone requirement. 
 
Not having this requirement can have at least three negative effects: 
1) Many students who have chosen to take these courses report feeling like they are in 
an echo chamber. They are interested in hearing from a broader spectrum of 
viewpoints.  
2) Students who do not take intercultural courses are missing content and skills that 
are essential to our educational mission.  
3) The absence of a requirement can serve as an unintended signal that we don’t value 
intercultural competency. 
 
Context 
• At least 28 of our 30 benchmark institutions require a similar course 
• National organizations, including AAC&U and the National Association of Colleges and 
Employers (NACE) identify this education as essential for career readiness, personal 
thriving, and an engaged citizenry 
 
Structure & Policies 
• Faculty choose to apply for an ICMP designation to be attached to a specific course  
• Follows the ECMP model of distribution across courses both in the major and in rFLA or 
Honors 
• Need 18-20 courses per semester 
• Anticipate the vast majority of ICMP courses to come from courses already being taught 
• Assessment through “Intercultural Knowledge & Competency” AAC&U VALUE rubric  
• Courses may double count for more than one competency 
 
Implementation and Timeline 
• Requirement will apply to both A.B. and A.B.H students in the entering class of Fall 2023 
• First round of ICMP Designation forms due March 22 for publication on the 23-24 
schedule (current student registration begins March 27) 
• Faculty will convene for training before the courses are offered as ICMP 
• Faculty teaching ICMP courses will meet once per year to discuss assessment and 
teaching strategies 
• Course Design/Re-Design workshop anticipated for summer 2023 
 
Catalog Revisions—rFLA and Honors 
Add the following catalog language to both A.B. and A.B.H. Degree Requirements 
 
In t e r cu lt u ra l Com p e t e n cy (ICMP): A Rollins educa tion  p repares studen ts to  find  
m ean ing and  professiona l success in  a  com plex world  by learn ing abou t 
experiences beyond  the ir own. In  In te rcu ltu ra l Com petency courses, studen ts will 
ga in  knowledge  of the  ways cu ltu ra l d iffe rences enrich  the  world  and  how past and  
p resen t custom s have  advanced  or in fringed  upon  the  p rom ises of a  dem ocra tic 
socie ty. Studen ts will asse ss and  critique  curren t theories as tools to  understand  
d iffe rence  and  com m onality and  will exam ine  various stra tegies a im ed  a t ach ieving 
m ore  just, equ itab le , and  p roductive  socie tie s. Studen ts in  ICMP courses will b ring 
m ultip le  viewpoin ts and  experiences, crea ting an  opportunity to  engage  in  
d iscussion  across d isagreem ent; question  one’s own be lie fs and  b iases; and  find  
com m on solu tions to  advance  a  shared  p roject—all e ssen tia l skills for th riving a fte r 
gradua tion .  
 
Students will sa tisfy th is requ irem ent by com ple tion  of any Rollins course  tha t 
carrie s the  In te rcu ltura l Com petency (ICMP) designa tion  or com ple tion  of an  
approved  transfe r course  tha t includes the  study of in te rcu ltu ra l com petency. 
 
 
Approved by Curriculum Committee: 
Approved by Executive Committee: 
Approved by CLA Faculty:  
INTERCULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND COMPETENCE VALUE RUBRIC 
for more information, please contact value@aacu.org 
 
 
 The VALUE rubrics were developed by teams of  faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States through a process that examined many existing campus rubrics and related 
documents for each learning outcome and incorporated additional feedback from faculty. The rubrics articulate fundamental criteria for each learning outcome, with performance descriptors demonstrating 
progressively more sophisticated levels of  attainment. The rubrics are intended for institutional-level use in evaluating and discussing student learning, not for grading. The core expectations articulated in all 15 
of  the VALUE rubrics can and should be translated into the language of  individual campuses, disciplines, and even courses.  The utility of  the VALUE rubrics is to position learning at all undergraduate levels 
within a basic framework of  expectations such that evidence of  learning can by shared nationally through a common dialog and understanding of  student success. 
 
Definition 
 Intercultural Knowledge and Competence is "a set of  cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and characteristics that support effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of  cultural contexts.”  
(Bennett, J. M. 2008. Transformative training: Designing programs for culture learning. In Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Understanding and utilizing cultural diversity to build successful organizations, ed. 
M. A. Moodian, 95-110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.) 
 
Framing Language 
 The call to integrate intercultural knowledge and competence into the heart of  education is an imperative born of  seeing ourselves as members of  a world community, knowing that we share the future 
with others. Beyond mere exposure to culturally different others, the campus community requires the capacity to:  meaningfully engage those others, place social justice in historical and political context, and put 
culture at the core of  transformative learning. The intercultural knowledge and competence rubric suggests a systematic way to measure our capacity to identify our own cultural patterns, compare and contrast 
them with others, and adapt empathically and flexibly to unfamiliar ways of  being. 
 The levels of  this rubric are informed in part by M. Bennett's Developmental Model of  Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, M.J. 1993. Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of  intercultural 
sensitity. In Education for the intercultural experience, ed. R. M. Paige, 22-71. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press).  In addition, the criteria in this rubric are informed in part by D.K. Deardorff's intercultural 
framework which is the first research-based consensus model of  intercultural competence (Deardorff, D.K. 2006. The identification and assessment of  intercultural competence as a student outcome of  
internationalization. Journal of  Studies in International Education 10(3): 241-266).  It is also important to understand that intercultural knowledge and competence is more complex than what is reflected in this 
rubric.  This rubric identifies six of  the key components of  intercultural knowledge and competence, but there are other components as identified in the Deardorff  model and in other research. 
 
Glossary 
The definitions that follow were developed to clarify terms and concepts used in this rubric only. 
• Culture:  All knowledge and values shared by a group. 
• Cultural rules and biases:  Boundaries within which an individual operates in order to feel a sense of  belonging to a society or group, based on the values shared by that society or group. 
• Empathy:  "Empathy is the imaginary participation in another person’s experience, including emotional and intellectual dimensions, by imagining his or her perspective (not by assuming the person’s 
position)".  Bennett, J.  1998.  Transition shock:  Putting culture shock in perspective.  In Basic concepts of  intercultural communication, ed. M. Bennett, 215-224. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. 
• Intercultural experience:  The experience of  an interaction with an individual or groups of  people whose culture is different from your own. 
• Intercultural/cultural differences:  The differences in rules, behaviors, communication and biases, based on cultural values that are different from one's own culture. 
• Suspends judgment in valuing their interactions with culturally different others:  Postpones assessment or evaluation (positive or negative) of  interactions with people culturally different from one self. 
Disconnecting from the process of  automatic judgment and taking time to reflect on possibly multiple meanings. 
• Worldview:  Worldview is the cognitive and affective lens through which people construe their experiences and make sense of  the world around them.
INTERCULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND COMPETENCE VALUE RUBRIC 
for more information, please contact value@aacu.org 
 
 
Definition 
 Intercultural Knowledge and Competence is "a set of  cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and characteristics that support effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of  cultural contexts.”  (Bennett, J. M. 2008. Transformative training: Designing 
programs for culture learning. In Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Understanding and utilizing cultural diversity to build successful organizations, ed. M. A. Moodian, 95-110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.) 
 
Evaluators are encouraged to assign a zero to any work sample or collection of  work that does not meet benchmark (cell one) level performance. 
 
 Capstone 
4 
Milestones 
3     2 
Benchmark 
1 
Knowledge 
Cultural self- awareness 
Articulates insights into own cultural rules and 
biases (e.g. seeking complexity; aware of  how 
her/his experiences have shaped these rules, and 
how to recognize and respond to cultural biases, 
resulting in a shift in self-description.) 
Recognizes new perspectives about  own cultural 
rules and biases (e.g. not looking for sameness; 
comfortable with the complexities that new 
perspectives offer.) 
Identifies own cultural rules and biases (e.g. with a 
strong preference for those rules shared with own 
cultural group and seeks the same in others.) 
Shows minimal awareness of  own cultural rules and 
biases (even those shared with own cultural 
group(s)) (e.g. uncomfortable with identifying 
possible cultural differences with others.) 
Knowledge 
Knowledge of  cultural worldview frameworks 
Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of  the 
complexity of  elements important to members of  
another culture in relation to its history, values, 
politics, communication styles, economy, or beliefs 
and practices. 
Demonstrates adequate understanding of  the 
complexity of  elements important to members of  
another culture in relation to its history, values, 
politics, communication styles, economy, or beliefs 
and practices. 
Demonstrates partial understanding of  the 
complexity of  elements important to members of  
another culture in relation to its history, values, 
politics, communication styles, economy, or beliefs 
and practices. 
Demonstrates surface understanding of  the 
complexity of  elements important to members of  
another culture in relation to its history, values, 
politics, communication styles, economy, or beliefs 
and practices. 
Skills 
Empathy 
Interprets intercultural experience from the 
perspectives of  own and more than one worldview 
and demonstrates ability to act in a supportive 
manner that recognizes the feelings of  another 
cultural group. 
Recognizes intellectual and emotional dimensions 
of  more than one worldview and sometimes uses 
more than one worldview in interactions. 
Identifies components of  other cultural 
perspectives but responds in all situations with own 
worldview. 
Views the experience of  others but does so through 
own cultural worldview. 
Skills 
Verbal and nonverbal communication 
Articulates a complex understanding of  cultural 
differences in verbal and nonverbal communication 
(e.g., demonstrates understanding of  the degree to 
which people use physical contact while 
communicating in different cultures or use 
direct/ indirect and explicit/ implicit meanings) and 
is able to skillfully negotiate a shared understanding 
based on those differences. 
Recognizes and participates in cultural differences 
in verbal and nonverbal communication and begins 
to negotiate a shared understanding based on those 
differences. 
Identifies some cultural differences in verbal and 
nonverbal communication and is aware that 
misunderstandings can occur based on those 
differences but is still unable to negotiate a shared 
understanding. 
Has a minimal level of  understanding of  cultural 
differences in verbal and nonverbal communication; 
is unable to negotiate a shared understanding. 
Attitudes 
Curiosity 
Asks complex questions about other cultures, seeks 
out and articulates answers to these questions that 
reflect multiple cultural perspectives. 
Asks deeper questions about other cultures and 
seeks out answers to these questions. 
Asks simple or surface questions about other 
cultures. 
States minimal interest in learning more about other 
cultures. 
Attitudes 
Openness 
Initiates and develops interactions with culturally 
different others.  Suspends judgment in valuing 
her/his interactions with culturally different others. 
Begins to initiate and develop interactions with 
culturally different others.  Begins to suspend 
judgment in valuing her/his interactions with 
culturally different others. 
Expresses openness to most, if  not all, interactions 
with culturally different others.  Has difficulty 
suspending any judgment in her/his interactions 
with culturally different others, and is aware of  own 
judgment and expresses a willingness to change. 
Receptive to interacting with culturally different 
others.   Has difficulty suspending any judgment in 
her/his interactions with culturally different others, 
but is unaware of  own judgment. 
 


Minutes, Curriculum Committee Meeting, Tuesday, February 7, 2023

Faculty Research and Development Committee

Rollins College 
Rollins Scholarship Online 
Faculty Research and Development Committee 
Minutes College of Liberal Arts Minutes and Reports 
2-24-2023 
Minutes, Faculty Research and Development Committee Meeting, 
Thursday, February 24, 2023 
Faculty Research and Development Committee 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.rollins.edu/as_rd 
Page 1 of 6 
 
 
 
 
Approved Minutes 
College of Liberal Arts’ Faculty Research & Development Committee Meeting 
Friday, February 24, 2023 
2:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. 
Olin 319 
 
Committee Members 
 
The following colleagues were present: 
Mike Gunter (2023 Committee Chair & At-Large Rep) 
Eric Smaw (Humanities Division Rep) 
Pavielle Haines (Social Sciences Division Rep, Note Taker) 
Nancy Chick (Non-Voting Member) 
Kara Wunderlich (Social Sciences Applied Division Rep) 
David Caban (Business Division Rep) 
Pamela Brannock (Science & Mathematics Division Rep) 
Serina Haddad (At-Large Rep) 
Devon Massot (Non-Voting Member) 
Jana Matthews (Executive Committee, Non-Voting Member) 
Dan Myers (Science & Mathematics Division Chair, Non-Voting Member) 
 
 
The following colleagues were not present: 
Ashley Kistler (Non-Voting Member) 
 Janette Smith (Non-Voting Member) 
 
 
 
CALL TO ORDER 
 
Mike Gunter called the meeting to order at 2:33 PM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 2 of 6 
OLD BUSINESS  
 
 
I. The minutes from 2/10/23 were unanimously approved. 
 
 
 
NEW BUSINESS  
 
 
I. The committee discussed by-law changes that would put the Arthur Vining Davis 
Awards and Cornell Awards under the purview of the FRDC. 
 
a. Mike Gunter noted that the Cornell Award originally came with a permanent 
salary bump but that this was no longer the case. Jana Matthews confirmed that 
this change was made in October 2021. The explanation given was that the 
endowment had not grown fast enough for this to be sustainable given that so 
many faculty had received the award and that it was a permanent raise. Mike 
Gunter noted that the award was created specifically to provide a pay bump and 
that its revocation occurred without faculty consultation. 
 
b. Eric Smaw outlined the proposed changes to the bylaws. He also articulated 
support for making these changes: 
i. Remove the FITI and Internationalization Grants from the purview of the 
FRDC. The logic here is that these are all-college grants and the FRDC is 
not an all-college grant committee. 
ii. Place the Arthur Vining Davis and Cornell Awards under the purview of 
the FRDC. There is support from the Executive Committee, President, and 
Provost. The logic here is that: (1) Rollins prioritizes division 
representation. The ad hoc committees that currently review these 
applications for these awards do not provide divisional representation. (2) 
Moreover, putting these awards under the purview of FRDC creates 
uniformity in the review process. (3) Next, putting these awards under the 
purview of the FRDC could allow for a formal, uniform appeals process. 
Eric Smaw suggested that in his experience, appeals for these awards are 
currently informal, personal, and lacking in transparency. (4) Finally, 
putting them under the purview of FRDC would increase transparency for 
faculty in terms of relevant information on the awards, including monetary 
considerations. 
 
Page 3 of 6 
c. Jana Matthews noted the Executive Committee supports putting the Arthur Vining 
Davis and Cornell Awards under the purview of the FRDC. She noted that the 
FRDC has increased transparency surrounding how grants are evaluated, and that 
this might be true for these awards as well. She also highlighted the need for a 
standardized process for evaluating candidates for these awards, as decisions are 
currently based on subjective evaluations made by the ad hoc committees. 
 
d. Pamela Brannock noted that based on discussions with those who have sat on the 
ad hoc committees in the past, there is careful review of extensive candidate files 
to make decisions and that the process is not lacking in rigor. 
 
e. Mike Gunter noted that the conflicting reports of processes for evaluating 
candidates might be due to lack of consistency from year to year. 
 
f. Dan Myers shared his experience working on the Arthur Vining Davis ad hoc 
committee several years ago. He clarified that for this award, the committee 
reviews nomination letters. The Cornell Awards feature more extensive 
applications. 
 
g. Mike Gunter articulated that in his experience on the Arthur Vining Davis ad hoc 
committee, ad hoc committees provide no division representation and offer no 
formal processes. 
 
h. Nancy Chick asked how these ad hoc committees were formed. Jana Matthews 
clarified that previous award winners were simply asked by the Provost if they 
would like to serve, although she wasn’t sure how decisions were made about 
who to invite to the committee. 
 
i. Jana Matthews noted that one reason the Executive Committee would like to 
move the awards under the purview of the FRDC is to reduce bias. The logic 
being that if the committee members are disproportionately from one division, the 
propensity would be to award more people from that division. 
 
j. Kara Wunderlich noted that one purpose of the FRDC was to help educate faculty 
about grants and awards. She suggested that the FRDC needed to help explain 
these issues before a vote was taken. 
 
k. Pamela Brannock noted that many in the Science & Math Division felt that 
because of the prestige of these awards, the FRDC was not the appropriate 
committee to make such decisions. She noted that because many of the people on 
Page 4 of 6 
the FRDC are untenured, they might feel pressured to vote for certain candidates. 
Mike Gunter asked whether that might be true for the ad hoc Arthur Vining Davis 
award as well, where some of the members are untenured. Dan Myers noted that 
the processes for the two awards were very different. Cornell Awards require the 
submission of extensive packets, and the ad hoc committee is comprised of 
established faculty who have won the award previously. The Arthur Vining Davis 
award requires nomination letters and untenured faculty may serve on the ad hoc 
committee. 
 
l. Pamela Brannock also noted that some members of the Science & Math Division 
felt that no one committee should have all the power over CLA grants and 
awards. 
 
m. Eric Smaw responded to the concern that senior faculty might threaten or 
manipulate untenured faculty on the FRDC. He noted that at one point, Rollins 
had few women on the faculty. It would have been wrong to prevent them from 
making controversial decisions as part of committee work on the grounds that it 
could have made the men upset and threaten their tenure. He suggested that fear 
of bullying of untenured faculty shouldn’t be a reason not put these awards under 
the purview of the FRDC. Tenured faculty should be self-policing to prevent 
bullying of untenured faculty. He also noted that many of the junior faculty are 
highly skilled and capable of evaluating these awards. 
 
n. Dan Myers affirmed that he heard many of the same things from the Science & 
Math Division as Pamela Bannock. He noted that they put a lot of weight on the 
fact that the Cornell Award decisions were made by people who had already 
received the award. 
 
o. Jana Matthews noted that there may be structural problems with the awards. For 
instance, some faculty could be doing great work but not feel comfortable self-
nominating. She also noted that from a philosophical standpoint, she felt 
untenured faculty should be treated as equals and empowered to make decisions 
as part of the self-governance process. She suggested that the processes used by 
the current ad hoc committees are problematic in that they exclude divisional 
representation and offer no transparency. She suggested that in some ways they 
date back to the times of the “good old boys” club. 
 
p. Pamela Brannock noted concern that Dan Myers had been invited to the 
committee given that she is meant to be the one representing the Science & Math 
Division on the FRDC. Mike noted that everyone from the Executive Committee 
Page 5 of 6 
was invited, and that Dan Myers agreed to attend. 
 
q. Pamela Brannock noted that FRDC had been moving slowly through the grants 
they are currently responsible for, so now may not be the time to add more 
responsibilities to the committee.  
 
r. Eric Smaw articulated similar concerns about outside faculty. He wondered why 
outside colleagues were being called into the FRDC to “help explain” what 
elected members of the FRDC had stated during meetings. However, he disagreed 
that FRDC was inefficient in reviewing grants. He noted that the committee is 
working to develop rubrics to ensure the process is transparent and consistent 
through the years. This takes time. 
 
s. Serina Haddad noted that other committees, including CC have untenured faculty. 
If some have concerns about untenured faculty on the FRDC reviewing grants, 
then they should have issues with all standing committee’s having untenured 
faculty influencing decision-making. 
 
t. Mike Gunter suggested that for some of past under consideration, the FRDC 
could have previous awardees provide their recommendations or simply provide 
rubrics or participate in the debate. 
 
u. Kara Wunderlich asked about next steps. She asked if the FRDC should 
take a vote or send it back to the Executive Committee. 
 
v. Eric Smaw suggested rather than putting this as a packet vote (vote on 
all the changes as one thing), the FRDC suggest that the EC bring this to 
this to the faculty change by change. This is because some items seem to 
not be as controversial as others. 
 
w. Jana Matthews suggested that the FRDC could come up with a rubric to  
present to the faculty to illustrate that it wishes to have more 
transparency and consistency of how these awards are evaluated. 
 
x. Kara Wunderlich asked whether bringing the rubric to a faculty meeting 
would open the meeting up for input and amendments to change these 
documents. Rather than using faculty meeting to vote on the change, we 
might spend the whole meeting debating minute details of the rubric 
instead. 
Page 6 of 6 
y. Mike Gunter feels as though for the Arthur Vining award developing a 
rubric based off the 5 boxes would be fairly easy and not require too 
much time. 
 
z. The question was brought up: on what exactly is the FRDC voting on? 
 
i. The proposed changes to the FRDC bylaws to drop the FITI and 
the RIG grant from the FRDC charge, while adding the Vining 
Davis Award and the Cornell Distinguished Faculty awards to the 
FRDC charge. 
 
aa. Five members voted in favor of these bylaw changes, 1 member voted 
against them. 
 
bb. Again, the FRDC recommends that the EC brings these changes one by 
one to be voted on to the faculty rather than being brought to as a 
collective packet. 
 
cc. These changes will now go back to the EC. 
 
 
ADJOURNMENT 
 
 
Mike Gunter adjourned the meeting at 3:47 PM. 


Minutes, Faculty Research and Development Committee Meeting, Thursday, February 24, 2023

Crummer Graduate School of Business Faculty,

Rollins College 
Rollins Scholarship Online 
Crummer Graduate School of Business Minutes 
and Reports Faculty Minutes and Reports 
2-8-2023 
Minutes, Crummer Graduate School Faculty Meeting, Wednesday, 
February 08, 2023 
Crummer Graduate School of Business Faculty 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.rollins.edu/crummer_fac 
Recommended Citation 
Crummer Graduate School of Business Faculty, "Minutes, Crummer Graduate School Faculty Meeting, 
Wednesday, February 08, 2023" (2023). Crummer Graduate School of Business Minutes and Reports. 133. 
https://scholarship.rollins.edu/crummer_fac/133 
This Minutes is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Minutes and Reports at Rollins Scholarship 
Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Crummer Graduate School of Business Minutes and Reports by an 
authorized administrator of Rollins Scholarship Online. For more information, please contact rwalton@rollins.edu. 
Roy E. Crummer Graduate School of Business 
Rollins College 
Crummer Faculty Meeting 
February 8, 2023 
Crummer 108 
10am-11:30am 
 
Minutes 
 
Attendance: Nana Amoah, Dan Biller, Henrique Correa, Mary Conway Dato-on, Bill Grimm, Kim 
Jentsch, Jim Johnson, Mike Kazazis, Halil Kiymaz, Misty Loughry, Greg Marshall, Tracy Perry, Bill 
Seyfried, Koray Simsek, Brian Walkup, Keith Whittingham 
 
Approval of Minutes…………….…….…………………………………………………………….…..…..Greg Marshall 
Minutes approved unanimously (slightly modified before approval: ENT Concentration)  
 
Director of Enrollment Management Update………………………………….……………………..Bill Seyfried 
• Craig Kaufman resigned his position effective Jan 31; Carolyn Turner is taking over the 
position in the interim 
• Search firm has been hired to conduct the search for the new Director of Admission (NES, 
formerly Napier Executive Search) 
• Members of the Crummer Search Committee include Bill Seyfried (Chair, Mike Kazazis, 
Nana Amoah, Melanie Rodriquez, Lovelyn Findley and Carolyn Turner 
 
Serious and Contagious Illness Policy…………………………………………………………………….Bill Seyfried 
• New campus-wide policy for serious and contagious illness 
• A serious and contagious illness is defined as, “For the purposes of this policy, 
“serious and contagious illness” refers to an infectious disease that is spread from 
person to person through casual contact or respiratory droplets, which may lead 
to life-threatening illness and impact the health of the campus community. These 
diseases include but are not limited to: tuberculosis (TB), mumps, measles or 
German measles (rubella), certain strains of hepatitis and meningitis, as well as 
any coronavirus, influenza, monkeypox, and chickenpox. Other potentially less 
serious infectious diseases, such as pneumonia and febrile illnesses will be 
addressed on a case-by-case basis.” 
• The current attendance policy for Crummer will remain in place, this is in addition 
• Motion is moved (Dr. Jentsch) and seconded (Dr. Amoah); all in favor; motion approved 
 
Curriculum Committee……………………………………………………………………………………..…Koray Simsek 
See presentation for full details and edits 
• Flex MBA Attendance Policy 
o Policy and text for Flex syllabus approved: see below (approved unanimously)  
o “We value in-person education for student learning and engaging with faculty and 
classmates in the classroom. Though students are encouraged to participate in person, 
we have designed the Flex MBA program to allow for the use of virtual participation to 
provide the flexibility desired in today’s work environment. As such, students may attend 
classes virtually up to a maximum of 5 times in a 12-week semester and 2 times in a 6-
week term. A grade reduction of one full course letter grade will occur if students exceed 
the maximum number of virtual attendances allowed during the semester.” 
o Faculty must notify the Crummer registrar when they are holding a class virtually 
• Dr. Simsek is currently collecting Spring Syllabi from faculty 
• PMBA Assessment completed; the members of the Assurance of Learning will meet in the 
summer and should be able to close the loop at that time  
• The Curriculum Committee will meet March 1st and March 29th  
 
Zoom/Teams Update…………………………………………………………………………..…………….………..Various 
• Crummer was allowed to continue to use ZOOM this year while the rest of Rollins went 
to the Microsoft Teams platform 
• It is anticipated that Crummer will move to Microsoft Teams by late summer. 
• Faculty were invited to join meeting with Troy and Brooklyn to address specific concerns 
regarding the use of Teams 
• Vadym (GA) is available to provide tech support to any professors that might be in need 
of assistance. 
 
Other Business…………………………………………………………………………………..………………Greg Marshall 
• The Rollins Deans are working on a process that will involve faculty nominations for 
Faculty awards 
• Innovation Triangle 
• The city of Winter Park changed commissions since initial approval of the new 
building and had issues with some elements of the plan; the plans have been 
revised 
• The commission is expected to consider the proposal this spring 
• Marketing Search underway 
• Meetings with Dean’s search candidate will take place in mid-February 


Minutes, Crummer Graduate School Faculty Meeting, Wednesday, February 08, 2023

College of Liberal Arts Executive Committee,

Rollins College 
Rollins Scholarship Online 
Executive Committee Minutes College of Liberal Arts Minutes and Reports 
4-6-2023 
Minutes, Executive Committee Meeting, Thursday, April 6, 2023 
College of Liberal Arts Executive Committee 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.rollins.edu/as_ec 
Recommended Citation 
College of Liberal Arts Executive Committee, "Minutes, Executive Committee Meeting, Thursday, April 6, 
2023" (2023). Executive Committee Minutes. 252. 
https://scholarship.rollins.edu/as_ec/252 
This Minutes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts Minutes and Reports at 
Rollins Scholarship Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Executive Committee Minutes by an authorized 
administrator of Rollins Scholarship Online. For more information, please contact rwalton@rollins.edu. 
 
 
EC Agenda 
April 13, 2023 
12:30-1:45pm Woolson House 
 
 
I. Approval of April 6, 2023 Minutes 
 
II. Business 
a. Approval of Revised FEC Slate 
b. Overview of Holt Strategic Planning (8 minutes) 
c. Holt HSL Name Change Proposal 
d. Holt General Education Proposal 
e. Holt Transfer Credit Policy 
1:30pm 
f. SPOT 
g. Target of Opportunity Hire Proposal 
 
 
Executive Committee Meeting Minutes 
April 13, 2023 
 
  Present 
Amy Armenia, Don Davison, Rosana Diaz-Zambrana, Hannah Ewing, Todd French, Kevin Griffin, 
Emmanuel Kodzi, Jana Mathews, Anne Murdaugh, Nancy Niles, Rob Sanders, Emily Russell 
 
Guests: Doragnes Bradshaw, Brian Barilone, David Painter  
 
Call to Order 
Mathews called the meeting to order at 12:28 PM.   
 
Approval of April 6, 2023 EC Meeting Minutes 
Mathews asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the April 6 meeting. Moved by Russell, 
second by French. Motion passed.  
 
 
BUSINESS 
 
Approval of Revised FEC Slate 
Nominee for FEC slate – Patricia Tome. Motion to approve revised FEC slate. Motion passed. 
 
Overview of Holt Strategic Planning 
Robert Sanders, Dean of Hamilton Holt School: Referred to slides sent ahead of meeting, which 
were also presented to the BoT. Strategy team led by Eric Spiegel was commissioned to do a 
business analysis of the Holt School, with the intent of achieving sustainable revenue growth. The 
decline of revenue jeopardizes both Holt and CLA programs. The analysis suggested 3 possible 
options for Holt (I. the Status quo, II. an Optimized Model, and III. a Fully Competitive Model). 
Option II was selected. Selecting Option II necessitates changes to how Holt operates. Further 
discussions have culminated in a charge by the President and Provost to reimagine how Holt 
organizes itself.   
 
Emily Russell, Chair of CC: There have been many conversations by the Curriculum Committee 
about Holt. The following changes presented to EC have been approved by CC: 
 
Proposal to rename Holt HSL 
Motion to change program name from “Health Services Leadership” to “Healthcare Management” 
to represent a broader scope of what students look out for in healthcare-related programs. Moved by 
Niles, second by French.  
Question about how including “Management” in name will affect AACSB accreditation; Be 
prepared to clarify that this is not part of the Business program. 
Motion passed. 
 
Proposal to implement changes in the Holt General Education requirements 
David Painter, Representative of the Master of Arts in Strategic Communication: Doing nothing 
will almost certainly terminate the Holt program, which is a valuable service reaching a population 
different from the typical CLA student. Transfer students should have a clear path for having 
general education credits approved instead of navigating idiosyncratic terminology.  
Motion to approve changes in the Holt General Education as circulated. Moved by Russell, second 
by Niles. Rationale: The proposed changes are independent curricular changes for the adult learner 
population specific to the Holt School. They are intended to provide greater access to a wider array 
 
of liberal arts disciplines for Holt students. These proposed changes are not intended to add 
additional responsibilities for Holt general education course requirements to the course loads of 
CLA faculty and/or require CLA departments to offer additional on-load courses to accommodate 
completion of Holt general education requirements. 
Discussion:  
Q: For the social sciences, it is unclear whether provision has been made for the international 
dimensions of general education. 
A: The requirements are structured differently, but with a distribution model appropriate for a large 
transfer population; global citizenship is important but will be discussed later. 
 
Vote on Motion to approve changes in the Holt General Education as circulated. Motion passed. 
 
Proposal to approve Holt Transfer Credit Policy 
Emily Russell, Chair of CC: This policy came to CC thrice. Clarifications were needed in terms of 
what it means to address military student needs, for example. Motion to pass revised transfer policy 
as circulated. Moved by Russell, second by Niles. 
Discussion:  
Framing in circulated document is about the needs of adult learners who have taken more circuitous 
paths in their education; credit to be offered for IT or military training; other exceptions to transfer 
credits for CLA (e.g. not from Full Sail) remain in effect.  
 
Vote on Motion to accept the transfer credit policy as circulated. Motion passed. 
 
Comments on the Holt Program Changes 
Emily Russell, Chair of CC: Proposed that the full version of these comments be read into the 
minutes of the CLA meeting. Existing structure of shared governance is not working between CLA 
and Holt. However, there are people deeply invested in the success of Holt and may disagree with 
those who believe the “CLA at night” model is the most appropriate for Holt. The staffing model 
changed in 2020, where full time faculty in CLA only serve Holt Programs in an adjunct role. So, 
when external consultants recommend creating new programs, what would be the process if we 
don’t have people to work on these new programs as invested Rollins faculty? It is difficult to 
consider Holt in the governance agenda given that we need constant education about the needs of 
adult learners. Should Holt be autonomous? But then, faculty are charged with maintaining the 
quality of education. So, who are the appropriate stakeholders to oversee the change to a hybrid 
model that Holt is currently pursuing, for example? Transparent mechanisms are needed to 
shepherd these changes and have more structured discussions with stakeholders – a committee will 
be formed, and work will start in May. 
 
Motion to endorse comments by Russell. Moved by French, second by Niles. Motion passed. 
Holt discussion will be part of the May CLA Faculty meeting.  
 
 
Review of edits to SPOT Model 
Todd French, Chair of FAC: Motion to change language from the previous version. Moved by 
French, second by Russell. These are minor changes. 
 
Question 1 – Toni Holdbrook (Assistant Provost for Institutional Effectiveness and SACSCOC 
Liaison) had provided guidance informing the revised categories of “less than 7.5 hours”, “about 
7.5 hours”, and “more than 7.5 hours”. Two issues arose about (a) whether the question is solely for 
accreditation purposes or whether we derive useful information for faculty needs; and (b) the 
observation that these categories are not appropriate for 2-credit or 6-credit courses.  
Consider the possibility of returning to a continuous scale between 0 and 10; or incorporating a 
slider between 1 and 15. 
 
Consensus to adopt an ordinal scale: 0-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12 or more, which could still yield a mean 
and median.  
Vote to adopt an ordinal scale as described above. Motion passed. 
 
Questions 4 and 6: Confirmed these will have a randomized drop-down menu. 
 
Questions 8-12. Eliminate double-barreled questions while maintaining simplicity of new model. 
Question 8 – The professor helped me to understand complex concepts/materials and accomplish 
course goals. 
Question 11 – The course enhanced my ability to think critically evaluate information and form 
conclusions. 
Vote to change the phrasing of Qu8 and Qu11 as described above. Motion passed. 
 
Comment: Harris plans to motion to replace Qu8-12 with existing CIE questions to preserve the 
value of longitudinal data on those items.  
Decision to split the SPOT model into two sections, vote on the first section, then vote on whether 
to uphold the motion from Harris to replace the second part.  
In terms of making a case for SPOT, we include in the rationale, language that recognizes previous 
recommendations from the White Paper and the Diversity Council response to that document, as 
well as analysis from Institutional Research.  
 
Target of Opportunity Hires Proposal 
Motion to move into committee of the whole by Russell, second by Ewing. Motion passed. 
Discussion of the proposal and about scheduling its presentation to the CLA Faculty. 
Motion to move out of committee of the whole by French, second by Griffin. Motion passed. 
Motion to bring proposal to approve Target of Opportunity hires to the CLA Faculty meeting. 
Moved by Mathews, second by French. Motion passed. 
 
Motion to adjourn by Diaz-Zambrana, second by French. 
Meeting adjourned at 1:44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
