Theme II. Facing the Challenges of a Changing Faculty and Student Profile

Historically, San Francisco State University has drawn its students from the local area and has largely served non-traditional students who were older, employed, and had family responsibilities. Recent data, however, indicate that this demographic profile is changing. Data collected through the NSSE and FSSE surveys over the past four years indicate dramatic changes in both the student body and the faculty. Because of these changes, the WASC Steering Committee determined that further in-depth study of the impact of these changes was needed. Essay 2 analyzes the changes in the student and faculty demographics and recent responses to those changes.

Capacity Issue: What is the story emerging from the data on student enrollment? [CFR 4.2, 4.4, 4.5]

When student enrollment data for the past 10 years are displayed graphically, they paint a striking portrait of the changing demographics at San Francisco State.


The student population at San Francisco State has experienced a period of rapid growth and significant changes over the past 10 years. In Fall 2000, a total of 26,826 students were enrolled compared to 30,469 enrolled in Fall 2009. Hidden inside the substantial growth of 13.6% overall are even more dramatic changes in the composition of the student population:

  • The incoming freshman population doubled from 2,042 to 4,032.
  • The percentage of freshmen coming from outside the San Francisco Bay Area has more than tripled, increasing from 574 to 1,815.
  • The student average age has changed from 26.2 to 24.5, while the average undergraduate age has dropped from 24.0 to 22.8.
  • The graduate population has declined from being 24.1% of the student body to 17.9%.


San Francisco State places a high value on its commitment to social justice and equity, as demonstrated in Essay 1. One measure for the embodiment of this value is the ethnic diversity of the enrolled student population and the students who graduate. As the student population has become younger and more likely to come from outside the Bay Area, the ethnic makeup of the students has been watched closely to determine if the campus retains its ethnic diversity. [CFR 1.5, 4.5] Comparing the ethnic data from Fall 2000 to Fall 2009, several trends are apparent:

  • The undergraduate Chicano/Latino population has grown steadily from 15% to 20.3%.
  • Asian/Pacific Islander undergraduates have declined from 39.5% to 32.8%.
  • African American undergraduates have declined from 7.3% to 6.3%, although the number of African Americans enrolled has increased by 12.9%.
  • The graduate populations have seen similar changes, except that Asian/Pacific Islander graduates have grown from 20.7% to 22.4%.

The best evidence of the continuing campus commitment to supporting a diverse student body is found in a comparison of the ethnic breakdown of undergraduates enrolled to the undergraduate degrees awarded. The ethnic breakdowns of the two groups are remarkably aligned, giving testament to San Francisco State's ability to support the success of all students.

Enrollments by College/Program

  • Enrollments by college and major typically rise and fall over time. Review of undergraduate and graduate enrollments since Fall 2000 show the following trends:
  • Growth by major for freshmen has been most notable in two colleges: Business and Health and Human Services.
  • For new transfers, the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences showed the most dramatic increases in the first five years of the decade, but this has leveled off. The number of new transfers into the College of Health of Human Services has doubled in the past 10 years.
  • Graduate enrollments have also fluctuated year to year, but the most significant changes have occurred in the College of Education, which has grown from 934 to 1,411 students (+51%), and the College of Business, which has declined from 759 to 416 (-45%) students.

The reasons behind these enrollment trends have provided ripe opportunities for thought and analysis. Looking forward, further consideration of the changes in the student population leads logically to the question:

Capacity Issue: How should the University respond to increasing student enrollment with uneven distribution across majors and class levels? [CFR: 2.10, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.10]

As the undergraduate student population has grown, several academic departments have come under increasing pressure from students seeking access to classes, particularly in high-demand majors. As a result, faculty in more departments have sought designation as "impacted" majors, which is defined by the CSU as having more students who want to enroll in a particular major than can be accommodated by the faculty and class resources available to the department. As a part of the WASC CPR, an Impaction Committee was convened to study the need for impaction and the possible unintended consequences of allowing departments to impact. Impacted majors are allowed to impose higher supplemental criteria on students hoping to be admitted to the major, and as of Fall 2011 a total of 11 departments will have impaction status.

Four of these departments have long-term experience with impaction: Nursing, Social Work, Interior Design, and Apparel Design and Merchandising. These departments have found that they are much better able to regulate the flow of students through the majors and make courses available to the students when they need them. The majors have developed robust systems for faculty to review applicants based on supplemental materials and select the students with the best likelihood to succeed in the major.

Three additional majors were approved for impaction for the Fall 2010 admissions cycle: Psychology, Dietetics, and Journalism. As one of the largest undergraduate majors on campus, Psychology in particular presents challenges to the University and the department to limit the number of students enrolling. The department fell from 495 new students enrolled in Fall 2009 to only 160 new students in Fall 2010. Because students who are not selected for admission can choose to come to San Francisco State in an alternate major, some students not admitted to Psychology are expected to come in the second choice major, creating a ripple effect in the number of students in related majors, for example, Sociology. We have already seen this happening in the Fall 2010 enrollments. The other two newly impacted majors, Dietetics and Journalism, are smaller, but might have similar ripple effects as impaction becomes a reality for their applicants.

In Spring 2010, four more programs applied and were approved for impaction in Fall 2011: Child and Adolescent Development (CAD), Design and Industry, Environmental Studies, and Pre-Nursing. The CAD major serves a large number of students who want to work with children in various capacities. Pre-Nursing is a pre-major that allows students to work toward prerequisites required for admission to the Nursing major. Impaction for both CAD and Pre-Nursing is expected to have a similar noticeable impact on other campus departments as fewer students receive access to their first choice majors.

If more departments move to request impaction in response to enrollment pressures, the effect on the University as a whole will become increasingly apparent. To analyze the outcomes and identify possible unintended consequences of this situation, the Enrollment Management Committee has begun a serious review of the effect of increasing the number of impacted majors on the campus and its students. There is concern that increasing numbers of impacted majors might affect the rich diversity of the student body, possibly eroding the University's mission of social justice and equity. Moreover, the question of the capacity of each major given the severe budget restrictions and shifting student demographics is an issue that must be addressed in the very near future. In response, the Provost has appointed a Capacity Task Force to identify the variables that determine capacity. Both of these issues will be addressed in the 2010-11 academic year. [CFR 1.5, 2.10, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.10]

Recommendation 9: Academic Affairs and Enrollment Management, located in Student Affairs, should work together to develop methodologies for departments to analyze their optimal size given their current resources, and they should align their academic planning and budgeting within these analyses. [CFR 3.5]

All of these demographic and enrollment changes draw attention to whether the University has changed its focus and curricular offerings in response to the changes in the students. The next research question addressed in this theme follows this train of thought:

Capacity Issue: How has the campus focus changed in response to the student demographic changes?

With an increasingly younger and more residential population, the need for campus support services and co-curricular activities has grown significantly. Examination of enrollment data and recent NSSE results reveals that San Francisco State University, while maintaining some characteristics of its past as a "commuter" campus, has also become a student population that works less, commutes less, and is on campus for longer periods of the day and week. Campus support units must be aware of the demographic changes and respond as needed to serve the expanding student population.

Student Affairs/Student Life

To address the co-curricular needs of the changing student population, the Division of Student Affairs has been recently restructured to provide a greater focus on the needs of this new student population within Student Affairs. Under the guidance of an experienced Student Affairs professional, the Student Life area is expected to become a coordinated unit with the mission of attending to the developmental needs of the younger student population, while not neglecting the needs of SF State's traditional older student populations. [CFR1.3, 2.10, 2.11, 3.8]

The Student Life area focuses on several goals:

  • To improve retention and assist with facilitating graduation
  • To provide and develop robust programs, support services, and events for students
  • To establish policies and procedures to address safety and security concerns
  • To be proactive in assessing student needs and providing appropriate services
  • To connect faculty, staff and administrators with students through co-curricular programming

As part of this shift, the Division of Student Affairs has undertaken an intensive, year-long effort to bring assessment and student learning outcomes into the vocabulary of student affairs professionals and staff. [CFR 2.10, 2.11]

Housing: A coordinated response involving campus housing is critical to the efforts to accommodate this shift in the student population. San Francisco State has built and acquired several additional residential properties in the last decade as described in the Campus Master Plan:

  • The Village at Centennial Square was built in 2001 housing 720 students.
  • University Park South apartments were acquired in 2001 on the southern perimeter of the campus footprint, adding 156 bed-spaces.
  • University Park North apartments were acquired in 2005 on the northern perimeter of the campus, adding 697 apartment units.

Although the properties are still transitioning to being fully occupied by students and other University-affiliated tenants, the inevitable result of having more housing options near campus is that students are much more likely to live on or near campus than in the past. The increased availability of housing near campus has reinforced the trend toward a younger, more residential population. In addition to the fundamental change of acquiring additional housing units, University Housing has also recently undergone organizational changes:

  • In June 2010, University Housing was renamed University Property Management and changed reporting lines from Enrollment Management in Student Affairs to Physical Planning and Development in Finance and Administration. This shift enables the University to take a comprehensive management approach to the growing complexity of the various properties under its control.
  • At the same time, Residential Life was removed from reporting to University Housing and folded into the newly constituted Student Life area.
  • A new, experienced Director of Residential Life was hired to oversee the integration of a Student Life philosophy into the fabric of daily life for students living in campus residential facilities.

With Residential Life now an integral part of the Student Life area, the University has greatly improved its capacity to create a coordinated, deliberate approach to student programming and development. [CFR 3.1, 3.5, 3.8]

Living/Learning Communities have been an active force in campus residence halls for several years. The primary objective of residential learning and theme housing at SF State is to provide an environment where students can explore the interconnected relationship between what is learned and what is lived. By offering these communities, the University has made a commitment to creating a holistic learning environment that provides peer networking opportunities, increased faculty support, and community-based learning inside and outside of the classroom. [CFR 2.10, 2.11, 2.13] Currently, the following learning communities are offered for first-time freshmen:

  • FASTrack Learning Community – For undeclared students as they decide on a major
  • Behavioral & Social Sciences (BSS) Learning Community – For students majoring in programs in the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences
  • Science & Technology Theme Community – For students majoring in science, mathematics, and engineering fields
  • LiFE Learning Community – For students majoring in programs in the College of Health and Human Services
  • Humanities Learning Community, IDEA – For students majoring in the College of Humanities
  • College of Creative Arts Theme Floor – For students who have declared a major in the College of Creative Arts
  • Business Learning Community – For students majoring in or completing a minor in Business
  • Living/Learning Communities represent an important and active collaboration between Residential Life, and the academic colleges in the effort to assist new, young students in their transition to a successful University life.

Activities/Organizations: The unit in Student Affairs that coordinates student leadership and campus activities at SF State is called LEAD (Leadership, Engagement, Action, Development). LEAD supports SF State students, faculty, and staff by providing leadership development programs, student organization resources, and event coordination and consultation.

As part of the change in campus focus, driven by evolving student demographics, LEAD has become a more essential tool for assuring that students are served well as they grow and mature in their life at the University. LEAD has undertaken several initiatives in recent years in response to the demographic changes:

  • A leadership program has been developed to provide training and networking opportunities for students.
  • Welcome Days, a two-day program, is offered the week before classes begin to greet new students and their families and introduce them to the campus and its services in an informal and engaging way.
  • Staff members responsible for student programming activities in the residence halls have been shifted from Housing to become part of the LEAD staff.
  • A comprehensive database (OrgSync) has been set up to allow student organizations to communicate with and keep track of their members.
  • Policies and processes for requesting use of campus facilities and space by organizations and individuals have been refined and are more widely disseminated.
  • A Leadership Learning Community has been established in Housing to allow incoming students to join like-minded peers who may want to become future student leaders.

These are just a few examples of the numerous initiatives that LEAD has undertaken to address the shift in the demographics and needs of students at SF State.

Recreation: The Campus Recreation Department is another student-focused unit that strives to meet the dynamic needs of students by providing programs and services that promote positive physical and mental health; encourage lifetime interest in active, healthy lifestyles; and provide student leadership opportunities that complement the academic experience. [CFR 2.13] Campus Recreation programs enable students, faculty, and staff to achieve a greater understanding of campus life through sport, aquatic, and wellness based activities.

To respond to a growing younger student population, Campus Recreation has expanded to the limit of the campus's physical and fiscal boundaries. The program offers physical activities in a wide variety of formats, including group fitness, wellness programs, club sports, and intramural sports. The number of students participating in intramural sports has grown dramatically over the past 10 years from 405 students in Fall 2000 to 1,105 students in Fall 2009. Similarly, the number of recreation opportunities available to students has grown dramatically over the past 10 years from 2 clubs to 14 student-led teams that range from martial arts to rugby.

Looking to the future, the Campus Recreation program is partnering with the Associated Students (student government) and the Student Center to plan a new Recreation and Wellness Center to be funded by a small increase in local student fees. When the new Center is finished in 2014, it will provide both residential and commuter students with access to a state-of-the art facility where students can gather, exercise, socialize, and develop. In the Fall 2010 PULSE survey, 80.2% of students responding indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I would like to see more recreation activities on campus." In response to another question, 73.9% agreed that they want more intramural sports activities on campus. A new Recreation and Wellness Center will go a long way to respond to this desire for more opportunities for recreational activities. The Master Plan envisions the opportunity to build additional sports and recreation playfields that will serve the recreational needs of a growing, more residential population.

Campus Grounds: Perhaps a surprising hallmark of a university set in an urban site is the well-kept lawns and lush urban forest at SF State. The Campus Master Plan describes a campus located in a larger green space network.

In the short term, less grand efforts have already been completed to connect the campus core with the recently acquired residential properties on the perimeter of the campus. Notably, a sloping footpath was built in 2009 that leads from the academic buildings and stadium up to the University Park North apartments, creating a visible and convenient pedestrian and bicycle link for students and University employees who live there.

The need for usable open space on campus remains strong. In satisfaction surveys, students often complain about wanting more space to study, play, and even sit. Despite the addition of the apartments on the north and south of the core campus, SF State continues to have the smallest acreage of all 23 CSU campuses. The long-term Master Plan will address many of these needs and will focus on a greener, more sustainable campus environment.

Counseling/Psychological Services: With changing demographics comes a parallel change in students' needs for counseling and psychological support services. [CFR2.13] The University understands that younger student populations living away from home for the first time have different needs than those of older, more mature students. The trained counselors in the Counseling and Psychological Services unit have observed new and increased demand for mental health and other support services among these younger students.

As one response, in Spring 2010 Counseling and Psychological Services assigned a counselor to set up a satellite office located within the residence halls and make himself available to both students and Residential Life staff in an effort to intervene proactively when mental health concerns arise. Coordination of psychological services with the new Director of Residential Life will be an important component in the overall effort to support new students in their adjustment to the academic and social demands of college life.

Recommendation 10: Student Affairs should continue to develop co-curricular offerings that enrich the SF State student experience. [CFR 2.11]

Capacity Issue: Are learning styles of the changing campus population different and is pedagogy changing to respond? [CFR 2.10, 4.7]

Equally important to the question of how the University is responding to changing student demographics in terms of co-curricular support is the question of how the University is responding to the changing learning styles of the new student population. [CFR 2.10] To explore this question, several data sets were employed:

  • WASC Faculty survey, Fall 2009
  • Faculty focus groups, Spring 2010
  • WASC Student survey, Fall 2009
  • PULSE survey, Spring 2009
  • Student focus groups, Spring 2010

Data Analysis

In both the faculty and student surveys and focus groups, the responses uniformly pointed to newly developed technologies as the major sources of change in preferred learning modes. The recurring theme in the responses was the ubiquitous nature of technology in students' lives and their expectations for the rapid interaction that technology provides. Faculty consistently identified the need to use technology to communicate effectively with the current generation of students, though several lamented a loss of attention span that they believe has been reinforced by the use of new technologies. In the December WASC survey, students identified iLearn (the SF State learning management system), podcasts, video conferencing, online exams, and email as the technologies they wanted their professors to use more frequently.

Academic Technology

Although the number of students who have taken a purely online class has increased three fold over the past seven years, there is still somewhat of a split in the preference for purely online classes, with 50.9% in favor of online delivery for classes that are hard to get, 31% preferring online over traditional delivery, and 22.5% saying that they do not prefer online courses. Nonetheless, 95% of SF State students are already very active in the university's online learning management system, iLearn, and they use it for one or more of their classes. In one month alone (May 2010), students completed 61,568 quiz attempts, 16,541 assignment submissions, and 13,815 forum postings.

The Office of Academic Technology (AT), which supports and advances effective learning, teaching, scholarship, and community service with technology, has focused much research and activity towards this emerging area of need over the past three years. It has also developed a new mission and purpose, a new internal organizational structure that focuses more on faculty and student support, and an expanding suite of integrated and accessible online tools and services. [CFR 3.6, 3.7]

Organizationally, universities have been called upon to provide enterprise-level academic technology systems and services that offer the required levels of performance, scalability, and reliability to support the evolving learning and teaching mission of the university in a cost-effective manner. We know that the new generations of learners and faculty expect integrated, innovative, and interoperable online tools to either complement, or fully enable, the delivery of their courses.

Following and often leading a national trend towards implementing customizable open-source learning technologies, AT develops, supports, and optimizes a suite of open-source software environments such as its Moodle-based iLearn. These tools provide similar functionality and usability to social networking and external media sites such as blogs, wikis, media, video, and other activities that students are accustomed to using in their daily lives, However, these SF State-hosted solutions are more secure, more accessible to people with disabilities, and more customizable to the learning and teaching context of the university. [CFR 3.2]

As a complement to iLearn, which often serves as the hub for integrations to relevant educational services, AT's current suite of learning and teaching technologies includes CourseStream (Lecture capture), DIVA (Digital Virtual Archive), Online Syllabus Tool, POWER (Personal Online Workshop and Events Registration system), LabSpace (virtual access to campus computer lab desktops), FRESCA (Online Faculty Profiles), web conferencing, video conferencing, electronic textbooks, audiovisual equipment, and technology enhanced classrooms and lecture halls.

To further support learner-centered approaches, AT has been recognized by the AAC&U and the CSU as a Center of Excellence for Electronic Portfolios, which have been expanding from the ground up through faculty interest. ePortfolios are currently used in 22 departments for both student and program assessment, and for professional development. [CFR 3.6, 3.7]

AT has been working closely with the faculty-led Educational Technology Advisory Committee, university senate committees, and university units to research, implement, promote, and evaluate innovations and best practices to support learner-centered uses of technology. AT has worked with the Senate Student Affairs Committee to research and develop an electronic implementation of online course evaluations, and with the Senate Strategic Issues Committee to develop an online education policy that identifies new course definitions ranging from Traditional, Technology-Enhanced, HyBrid, HyFlex, and Online, and establishes appropriate levels of support for students and faculty to ensure quality of education. [CFR 4.2, 4.6, 4.7]

Assessment of Academic Technology

Students are increasingly drawn to SF State's HyFlex course offerings, which provide them the opportunity to attend classes face-to-face, online, or a mixture of the two. Enabled by lecture capture technologies, AT is building the infrastructure to target bottleneck courses with this HyFlex approach because it might help students accommodate their preferred learning styles, gain access to impacted courses, and improve their understanding through repeated viewings of lecture materials. AT will be launching a major study to investigate the educational effectiveness of HyFlex courses compared to Traditional lecture courses, and we will be gathering student and faculty input on their experiences with these new learning environments.

Strategic Planning of Academic Technology

AT has also launched its own Go Digital! Campaign and is encouraging faculty and students to work in a digital realm. AT is building a podcasting studio in collaboration with the College of Humanities, preparing podcasting kits for faculty checkout, and helping departments such as the Poetry Center digitize their university assets.

Faculty and students can receive technical help from AT by email, phone, drop-in, chat, and a growing database of online QuickGuides, videos, screencasts, and online professional development courses. In addition, AT has restructured its faculty development and support model to provide a team-based approach to curriculum development for faculty who are converting their courses into new technology-enabled approaches. A cohort of AT staff has recently completed Instructional Technologies graduate degrees to modernize their instructional design skills to better serve faculty. [CFR 3.4, 3.7, 4.7]

The new library, scheduled for January 2012 completion, will further support faculty and students in their technology use by providing three videoconferencing rooms, five enhanced instructional spaces, student and faculty drop-in multimedia development labs, video and audio editing suites, a television studio, a digitization center, and many technology-enhanced student project rooms.

In the next academic year, AT will be working with various planning groups on campus, and especially with students, to develop a purposeful, strategic plan for how emerging technologies can fit within a larger technology vision to enable 21st century learning, teaching, research, and community service. [CFR 4.2]


San Francisco State has experienced dramatic changes in the nature of its student population over the past 10 years. Despite the dual challenges of coping with increasing enrollment pressures and living with a reduced budget, the University has made significant attempts to respond to the demographic changes, both in terms of co-curricular activities and support services, and in terms of curricular innovations such as the increased use of technology in the classroom. Campus administrative and faculty leaders are largely aware of the demographic shifts and have demonstrated the capacity to adjust programs and resources to respond to these changes. Though many challenges remain, the organizational structures are in place to continue the efforts to mold the University to serve the new generation of students while continuing to serve the traditional audience it has educated for over one hundred years. As we move into the Educational Effectiveness Review, the following recommendations are offered:

Recommendation 11: The University should continue to incorporate academic technology into the academic program as appropriate and assess the impact of these pedagogical changes on student learning. [CFR 3.6, 3.7]

The changes in faculty over the past 10 years have been just as dramatic as the changes in the student population. Over 50% of the faculty was hired in the last 10 years, and university data from 1998 and 2008 show a significant increase in the ranks of assistant professor, from 15% to nearly 34%. The ranks of assistant and associate have grown from 35% to 58% of the total of tenured and probationary faculty, while the ranks of professor have decreased during the same period from nearly 64% to just over 42%. The lack of hiring over the past several years will give the University a chance to reestablish more of a balance as the new faculty move through the tenure ranks and older faculty retire.

These changes led the WASC Steering Committee to pose the following question for the Capacity and Preparatory Review:

Capacity Issue: What is the impact of the significant faculty hiring at SF State as a previous generation of faculty has retired?

Data gathered to investigate this question include:

  • Campus-wide faculty survey, Fall 2009
  • ACE/Sloan Institutional Survey, 2008 (40% faculty response rate)
  • Faculty focus groups, Spring 2010

Data Analysis

Data from the faculty focus groups proved to be most revealing regarding the impact of the changes. Complimenting what students noted in their surveys, faculty commented on students' reliance on technology, and particularly their need for more visual reinforcement. Although we were unable to quantify the response to this change, many faculty stated that they had changed their own teaching pedagogies to address these student preferences. [CFR 2.3, 2.4, 2.5] Faculty also noted that while students might be more expert in the use of technology, such expertise has not necessarily improved their basic skills or preparation for university work. The wide range of student ability, the lack of preparation in basic subjects (writing, critical thinking, oral communication), and inadequate preparation for university work are still challenges for faculty in their teaching and advising, but they are changes that many faculty willingly embrace.

With regard to faculty demographics, many reported that having fewer faculty at the rank of professor has resulted in a smaller pool of individuals who participate in some areas of governance, from department promotions committees to university-wide committees. With the recent increased emphasis on research, many of the new faculty believe that governance and service take time away from their research agendas, which are more heavily weighted in retention and tenure review.

The newer faculty, in particular, pointed out the tension between the increased teaching and service expectations due to budget cuts and the greater emphasis on research and grants. Similarly, the mentoring of new faculty has occurred unevenly, and previous attempts to create a university-wide program have not met with success. In some cases, senior faculty who were not hired with heavy research expectations cannot adequately mentor faculty on moving through a research agenda, and new faculty who are focused on research may not see the value of the service and governance experience of the senior faculty. These conflicting values have created tension in some departments. Because of these issues, the Office of Faculty Affairs has played an increasingly important role among faculty, mentoring them in the development of their academic portfolios. [CFR 3.2, 3.4] In addition, the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects has also played a crucial role in assisting faculty in the development of research agendas and publications.

Of all the issues raised by faculty in open-ended questions on the survey, the one topic that took priority was the impact of the budget cuts. Faculty noted the consequences of these cuts on class size and on teaching, professional development, and service. Yet in spite of the challenges of under-prepared students, lack of funding, and shifting priorities in teaching and research, faculty remain committed to their students and inspired by their colleagues. They expressed a great desire for more opportunities to meet informally with colleagues, and faculty repeatedly lamented the absence of a restaurant or faculty lounge where such meetings could occur. [CFR 3.11]


Recommendation 12: Changes resulting from recent budget cuts have altered the workload of many faculty members. The role that each RTP area (i.e. teaching, professional achievement, and growth, and service) plays in the evaluation of faculty needs to be clarified and evaluated carefully in an era of scarce resources. [CFR 3.3]

Recommendation 13: The University should provide a comfortable place where faculty, staff and administration can meet socially. [CFR 3.4]


Supporting Documents