Rice University logo
 
 
 

Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting 

Special Session 

May 5, 2008, 12 p.m. 

Shell Auditorium, McNair Hall 

  

  

Agenda 

  

I.         Deputy Speaker Election for 2008-09 

II.        Continuation of Sport Management discussion from April Meeting 

  

  

Senators present: Randy Batsell, John Casbarian, Ed Cox, Steven Cox, Michael Deem, Rebekah Drezek, Christian Emden, Deborah Harter (Speaker), John Hempel, Matthias Henze, Ben Kamins, Phil Kortum, David Leebron (ex officio), Eugene Levy (ex officio), Peter Mieszkowski, Robert Raphael, Dale Sawyer, Gautami Shah, Evan Siemann, Randy Stevenson, James Weston, Duane Windsor, and Jim Young. 

  

Senators absent: Michael Emerson, Brian Huberman, Tom Killian, Nancy Niedzielski, 

Matteo Pasquali, Meredith Skura, Mike Stern. 

  

  

I. Deputy Speaker Election for 2008-09 

     

Deborah Harter (Speaker) thanked the Senators for their attendance at this special meeting. She announced that although the vote for Deputy Speaker ended in a tie at the last regular meeting of the Faculty Senate (held April 23, 2008), Randy Stevenson has decided not to run for the office this year. Duane Windsor is thus elected as the Deputy Speaker for 2008-09. There was a round of applause for Professor Windsor. 

     

     

II.  Proposal for an Undergraduate Degree in Sport Management 

  

Harter stated that she was impressed with the work that had been done by Susan McIntosh (Chair, Committee on Undergraduate Curriculum) and John Hutchinson (Chair of the CUC Subcommittee) and their committees. Harter said they asked all the right questions and they handled all the issues correctly while reviewing the Sport Management proposal. Since the last meeting, the Senators have been able to read allthe documents produced by these committees and more detailed information has come forth. One thing that has become clear through this process, Harter stated, was that the Faculty Senate needs to find ways to work more efficiently with its committees: to keep the lines of communication open and the Senate informed. 

     

Harter suggested a 4-point plan for the meeting: 1) two presentations: one by Randy Stevenson, the Senate liaison to the CUC, and one by Carol Quillen, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs; 2) a 10-minute open forum stating questions that remain; 3) an approximately 20-minute session to discuss/answer the questions that have been presented; 4) a 20-minute discussion to consider whether a vote for approval of an undergraduate degree (B.A) in Sport Management is appropriate. 

     

Randy Stevenson then reviewed the main questions that were raised at the last meeting, starting with the broadest question: Is Sport Management the kind of endeavor we want at Rice? Stevenson stated that Sport Management is happening at Rice whether the Faculty Senate approves this proposal or not; currently it is a track within the Kinesiology Department. 

     

Another question that had been raised, Stevenson stated, is what is the nature of the Sport Management program? He said the overall idea of this program is a teaching and training mission (not research), similar to the Center for the Study of Languages (CSL), with a strong director and somewhat fluid faculty members. Stevenson said he felt this structure is appropriate. 

     

Stevenson then stated his last question: is Sport Management going to be able to compete for resources within the Department of Humanities? Stevenson’s opinion is that Sport Management/Kinesiology does not seem to fit within the intellectual endeavor of Humanities, and he said Humanities Dean Gary Wihl had agreed that Kinesiology does not belong in Humanities. Stevenson said perhaps this proposal should be a first step towards a separation between Sport Management and the rest of Kinesiology, and he said he could support this proposal as an inter-disciplinary major. 

  

Carol Quillen explained that there are three independent tracks within Kinesiology: Sport Management, Sport Medicine, and Health Science. The three tracks have separate requirements, but the degree conferred for all three is Kinesiology. Quillen stated that Nick Iammarino, Department Chair of Kinesiology, sees some areas for potential collaboration with the Texas Medical Center, especially for Health Science, and for a new field entitled Medical Humanities. Quillen stated that the three tracks need to be thought of in more independent ways. 

     

Quillen further stated that Sport Management has existed at Rice since the early 1980’s, and today it has a strong director in Clark Haptonstall; the program is now more rigorous. She stated that it should be separated from Kinesiology as that title does not reflect Sport Management well; it is better suited to Managerial Studies, the Social Sciences, and the business minor. Quillen said this proposal will create a situation where more interaction can occur between those departments, and it will strengthen the Sport Management program for the students. It will also allow the other tracks within Kinesiology to move towards a Medical Humanities focus. She concluded by saying that approving this proposal is the best step the Senate can take now, not only for Sport Management, but for Kinesiology in general.  

     

Harter then asked the Senators to articulate the questions that might still remain, but to delay discussion until all the questions were stated. 

     

Peter Mieszkowski questioned the repetition of courses, both required courses and electives. He said he doesn’t see how the program fits together--why does Kinesiology teach Statistics, for example? He questioned the inter-disciplinary nature of this proposal. 

     

James Weston questioned the relationship between Sport Management and the Jones School. 

     

Michael Deem questioned the focus of this major—is it too narrow? 

     

Randy Stevenson asked about the structure of the Sport Management organization—is it indeed going to have structure similar to the CSL, or is it going to include more tenure-track faculty as noted in a letter from Dean Wihl? 

     

Susan McIntosh stated that Clark Haptonstall had patterned this program after the national organization’s curricular guidelines. Haptonstall confirmed this and further stated that Rice has exceeded these guidelines. 

     

Rob Raphael said Carol Quillen had nicely articulated the Sport Management connection with Managerial Studies and the business minor, and he wondered what the barrier is to structuring this major that way now. He said it might answer some of the concerns others have expressed. 

     

Carl Caldwell stated that, in the past, the faculty has avoided approving a vocational path and has instead focused on a general education for Rice students. As an example, he mentioned that the business minor requires students to have a major in another field. He questioned whether Sport Management should be a stand-alone major; perhaps it should be a minor under Management or Business. 

     

Michael Deem asked about tenured versus non-tenure-track faculty in this program. 

  

Dale Sawyer wondered if the Senate is being asked to correct a short-term problem (the proper representation of a major that exists at Rice), and if so, he is in favor of the proposal, or is the Senate being asked to take this step as part of a long-term solution to the problems within Kinesiology, without knowing what will happen to the other parts? 

     

Susan McIntosh stated that the Sport Management proposal includes a five-year review clause to determine if the program still merits continuation as a stand-alone major. The review will be conducted by the steering committee and the Dean of Humanities. 

     

Rob Raphael stated he wanted the Senate to consider what is best for the students—is it that the Sport Management program become a major or perhaps become a minor? 

     

Harter asked to extend the meeting until 1:15 p.m. and asked that the discussion begin regarding the questions that had been raised. 

     

Carol Quillen said these were excellent questions, and she said these were the same questions that the committee, the dean, and she herself had raised. She asked that the Faculty Senate consider the system as it now exists—a program that has existed since the 1980’s, but today has the commitment from Haptonstall to becoming the best in the country. The Sport Management program already exists at Rice; the goal is to facilitate relations with other management and business programs on campus while disaggregating it from programs with which it has little in common. She encouraged the Senate to view the situation as it exists, not as it should be. 

     

Randy Stevenson asked Quillen to expand on how making Sport Management a stand-alone major makes it a better program. Quillen said as a major it will be better able to facilitate interaction with other programs. 

     

Gautami Shah asked how the current track will differ from the proposed major. Quillen replied that the proposal requires no changes other than the renaming of the degree. 

     

Susan McIntosh added that the proposal is a renaming but also includes a better administrative structure. She also addressed the idea of making Sport Management a minor instead of a major, stating that the Sport Management major requires 45 credit hours while most majors require 30 to 36 hours, and minors require 18. 

     

Jim Young said he’d like to repeat the earlier question from Stevenson regarding the faculty structure of this program. Quillen replied that this will be an interdisciplinary major with faculty who have “homes” in other departments. The Sport Management structure will consist of a strong director and mainly non-tenure-track faculty. 

     

Harter asked about the future viability and funding for the program. Quillen stated that Sport Management has permanent funding. She said its resources are secure. 

     

Steve Cox asked that Mieszkowski’s earlier question be answered regarding the 45 hours of work required for this major, and he also questioned the accreditation of this program. 

     

Clark Haptonstall replied to the question of overlap of courses, using Marketing as an example. The Sports Marketing class is required, while Marketing is not. Some students take both courses and there is some overlap, but not much, he stated. The Sports Marketing course covers some basic marketing principles, but the Marketing course is more in-depth. 

     

In regard to the Sales and Revenue Generation course, Haptonstall stated that 70% of the graduates’ first jobs will be sales-related, so this course helps them to be successful right away. Regarding the communications-related classes, one public speaking class and one writing class are all that are required but more are encouraged. Haptonstall stated his opinion is that the general Rice student’s overall presentation skills are not as strong as they should be, and he feels that the Sport Management students will be the best communicators graduating from Rice. 

     

Cox next asked specifically about the two statistics courses, and Haptonstall replied that Statistics 280 is a prerequisite for the business minor, and Kinesiology 319 is similar, but not exactly the same. Kinesiology 405 is theoretical, but also a hands-on program, taught by Dr. Jimmy Disch. 

     

Evan Siemann stated that the connection with other departments within Rice has been touted, but he noticed that the representatives from these schools do not seem impressed with the proposal. 

     

Duane Windsor stated that he is convinced that the committee has done a thorough job reviewing the proposal, and if it were to be approved, the students would be better served. He said the proposal is a reasonable solution, and he is, in general, in favor of approving it. However, he said he would like it made very clear that problems exist within the Kinesiology program and finding solutions to them should be a priority. 

     

Harter then showed a resolution regarding these problems that was written by Tom Killian, Rob Raphael, and Rebecca Drezek, and which had been distributed electronically to the Senators prior to the meeting. However, it had later been revised by Randy Stevenson. Harter read the revised resolution aloud, and after some discussion, the Senators agreed it could replace the original resolution. (The revised resolution will hereafter be called “Resolution.”) 

     

Jim Young then made a motion for an amendment to the Sport Management proposal that the five-year review clause it contains be strengthened to include review by the Faculty Senate (not just the steering committee and dean), and there was a second. 

     

However, a suggestion was made almost simultaneously to further amend the Resolution by adding the words “to the Senate” after the word “articulate.” A motion to approve this amendment was seconded and the resulting vote was for approval. 

     

Young then withdrew his previous motion that the Senate be added to the five-year review clause in the proposal. McIntosh sought to clarify the conversation, and all agreed that the original Sport Management proposal does not have to be changed; review by the Senate is assured with the amendment to the Resolution. 

     

Harter then asked for a vote by secret ballot on the Sport Management proposal, but President Leebron requested that the vote not be conducted with secret ballots. James Weston agreed, saying in fact, that this would represent a change in procedure. Harter then asked for a show of hands of those in favor of the Sport Management proposal accompanied by the amended Resolution, and there were 11 in favor, with 6 opposed. 

     

*****The B.A. in Sport Management proposal, with the accompanying Resolution, was thus approved. Please use these links to view the documents: 

Sport Management proposal and the Faculty Senate Resolution on Sport Management and the Department of Kinesiology.  

     

The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m.