Senate Meeting of 8 April 2021

Changes proposed by the Theater Arts Department to its Concentrations in Acting, Technical Theater, and Theater Studies and approved unanimously by the EPC were accepted by the Senate on a consent basis. See,, and The Senate also approved the Candidates for Graduation in May 2021 on a consent basis. See team drive for complete listing.

The Senate also accepted on a First Reading a proposal from THAR via EPC to discontinue the Concentration in Dance. See

The Senate agreed to award a posthumous degree in Geography, Environmental Studies and Planning to Lisa Dunwoody. There is a rule that a posthumous degree can be awarded only to a student who dies while currently enrolled. Since Lisa left SSU in 2003, the Senate voted (unanimously) to waive this rule for this one case.

A motion that the Academic Senate endorse the EPC Statement on Administrative Encroachment into Curricular Matters had been postponed to this meeting. It passed at this meeting 18-2. The text of both the EPC letter and the letter of CCJS to the EPC are attached in the Appendix.

A major revision to University RTP Policy was presented for a First Reading by FSAC. There are extensive changes proposed, but they are mostly about re-organization, improvements in clarity, and general word-smithing. [The document is very long; anyone wishing to see it in full should check out the full Senate agenda for this meeting. Professor Richard Whitkus of Biology led the effort.]

The request from the Engineering Department for a Waiver to the A-3 requirement for transfer students was considered for a Second Reading. It passed 18-1. The proposal is that its majors be exempt from the A-3 general education requirement (Critical Thinking). This request, though approved by EPC and the Senate, requires authorization from the Chancellor’s Office. The rationale is that 1) the Engineering program itself adequately fosters critical thinking and 2) Engineering is traditionally a high-unit major, and under the present structure there is insufficient “space” in a 120-unit major for adequate instruction in Engineering given the unit-heavy GE requirements.

In her report President Sakaki mentioned

  • She met recently with Congressional Representative Mike Thompson, and they discussed 1) the economic impact of SSU on the County; 2) support for DACA and Dreamers; and 3) a proposal to double the size of Pell grants.
  • Saturday 10 April is “decision day”, and she is hopeful that SSU will attract a sufficiently large cadre of incoming students.
  • She has been made a member of the WASC Board
  • Tentatively the campus is preparing to conduct predominately in-person classes in the fall term.
  • She urged everyone to get vaccinated. However, vaccinations will not be required, although a decision may be made to require vaccinations of dorm residents.

Interim Provost Moranski reminded everyone that this is Social Justice Week. She also announced the awarding of a grant to SSU for the study of Inclusive Justice, with foci on racism, diversity, and other topics.

VP Sawyer reported that there will be 1,084 students housed in residence halls in the fall term.

Statewide Senators Senghas and Ostroff reported that two issues being discussed at the ASCSU are “moving beyond bias” and Anti-Asian violence.

FSAC Chair Lane reported that the students are unhappy with the resolution which the Senate passed at its last meeting on “Trigger Warnings”, and passed a resolution of their own and setting forth their point of view. Provost Moranski issued a response, largely agreeing with the students, and requesting the Senate to reconsider. This matter will be calendared for the next Senate meeting. The AS resolution and the Provost’s response are appended, along with some comments by faculty members.

Here is a summary of the issue from the previous Senate meeting:

“There was a Second Reading of a proposal from FSAC that had been drafted by the AFS

(Academic Freedom Subcommittee) and the PDS (Professional Development Subcommittee) concerning the teaching of sensitive materials. It is an attempt to compromise between faculty rights to choose the content of their courses and students’ desire not to be traumatized. There were concerns expressed on both sides: The document goes too far, and limits the Academic Freedom of faculty; the document does not go far enough, and exposes students to potential trauma. The Student Senator was adamant that avoiding traumatizing students far outweighed the faculty’s right to Academic Freedom.

“The Academic Freedom Subcommittee and the Professional Development Subcommittee created a document for best practices for the teaching of sensitive material which the Senate endorses: Questions about this document can be addressed to Ajay Gehlawat, Chair of

AFS or Suzanne O'Keeffe, Chair of PDS.”

>>        Submitted by Rick Luttmann, Senate Representative for SSU-ERFSA


            STATEMENT from EPC and CCJS


CURRICULAR MATTERS, from Faculty of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Studies

             Associated Students of Sonoma State University GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION:

Reexamination of Teaching Sensitive Material

               ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE to Joint AFS/PDS Statement Concerning Teaching

Sensitive Materials

COMMENTS by Senator Sam Brannen, Mathematics & Statistics, Faculty Chair Jeffrey Reeder, and Hutchins Professor Janet Hess

JOINT STATEMENT by the Academic Freedom Subcommittee (AFS) and Professional Development Subcommittee (PDS) Concerning Teaching Sensitive Material


From:  Educational Policies Committee, Sonoma State University (approved unanimously)

To:       Academic Senate, Interim Provost Karen Moranski, President Judy Sakaki Re:  Administrative Encroachment into Curricular Matters

In EPC’s capacity as the faculty governance committee responsible for “the curriculum and academic standards of the University,” we are committed to ensuring the academic policies and procedures set forth through shared governance are adhered to by all parties. The CCJS Department presented the included statement below regarding a recent incident to EPC, in which the Social Sciences Dean (Dean Troi Carleton) violated long established policies and procedures related to making changes in curriculum when she appointed herself as the CCJS Department’s Internship Coordinator, created a new section of a major core required course, and appointed herself as the instructor of this new course.

In addition, Dean Carleton indicated to CCJS that she would change the CS code of this course section unilaterally without regard for any of SSU’s established policies and procedures for curricular changes. EPC views the CS code associated with an approved course as fixed unless changed through the usual course revision processes. An administrative change to a set CS code is a violation of shared curricular approval processes. Even with a code of CS 36, the new section of the course is being offered with an enrollment that far exceeds the enrollment the CCJS Department sees as suitably corresponding to workload and pedagogical standards.

Dean Carleton has enrolled students in her new section of the course she created despite not being qualified by the department to teach a CCJS course. She is not adhering to the academic requirements or CS code for the course, which were approved through the required curricular policies and procedures when the course was originally established over ten years ago. EPC has grave concern about the actions of Dean Carleton as they not only infringe upon faculty’s right to establish curriculum and to set and maintain academic standards, but they also violate the very premise of shared governance by indicating administration can make unilateral decisions about curriculum.

EPC stands with the CCJS Department, and urges the Academic Senate to stand up against this egregious overstep into curricular matters, and protect faculty’s purview over curriculum. EPC also calls upon SSU Administration to reverse Dean Carleton’s actions and to reaffirm President Sakaki’s commitment to shared governance and faculty purview over curriculum.


MATTERS, from Faculty of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Studies

February 18, 2021

On February 5, 2021, Dean Carleton removed Dr. Emily Asencio as Internship Coordinator of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Studies (CCJS) because of her refusal to accept additional students in CCJS 499 (Internship) over the enrollment cap. Without the consent of the CCJS Department, Dean Carleton –

  1. appointed herself as CCJS Internship Coordinator,
  2. opened an additional section of CCJS 499 (Class Number 4419) with her as class instructor, and
  3. changed the CS code of CCJS 499 from the CS36 to CS78 to circumvent the enrollment cap under CSU and SSU policies.

Since then, Dean Carleton has approved internship applications and allowed students to enroll in CCJS 499 without considering whether the proposed internships meet the standards set by CCJS for internship placements. Students were also told that “projects” would be allowed as substitute for an actual internship required under the CCJS B.A. curriculum.

We are deeply concerned by Dean Carleton's actions. They violate several CSU and SSU policies and the CFA/CSU Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). More importantly, they constitute an unprecedented and egregious encroachment into curricular matters. Among others:

  • Appointing herself as CCJS Internship Coordinator and a CCJS 499 class instructor encroaches on faculty's control over curricular matters given that she (1) is not a CCJS faculty member, (2) has not been deemed qualified to teach CCJS 499, and (3) has not been selected by the CCJS faculty to serve as CCJS Internship Coordinator.
  • Unilaterally changing the CS code of CCJS 499 from CS36 to CS78 violates the well-established process for changing course classification at SSU and infringes on the university's policy of shared governance. CCJS 499 has always been classified as a CS36 course in the CCJS curriculum; a CS78-classified CCJS 499 does not exist. Administrators do not have the authority to unilaterally change CS codes.
  • Disregarding course requirements and evaluation criteria in CCJS 499, which were developed by the CCJS faculty in more than 2 decades of offering the course, infringes on the faculty's right to determine the appropriate methods of teaching and grading and to set academic standards.
  • Removing Dr. Emily Asencio as CCJS Internship Coordinator for adhering to CSU and SSU policies on enrollment cap for a CS36 classified course constitutes an act of reprisal under Article 10.33 of the CBA, especially since the issue is the subject of a pending statutory grievance against Dean Carleton and Sonoma State University (CFA Case No.

2020-331 and CSU Case No. R03-2020-361).

We, the undersigned CCJS faculty, stand behind our colleague, Dr. Emily Asencio. We condemn in the strongest terms this unprecedented and egregious encroachment into curricular matters.

We ask President Sakaki to show leadership and reverse Dean Carleton’s actions. We urge the Academic Senate to exercise its duty to protect faculty’s right to determine curricula, methods of teaching, appropriate class size, and academic standards.

We call upon all SSU faculty and academic departments to share their voice on this important issue and protect the integrity of our academic programs by signing the linked Statement of Support.

This is not just a CCJS issue. Dean Carleton’s actions set a bad precedent for all faculty and academic departments at SSU. We must not allow them to stand.


                Emily K. Asencio         Christopher Hansen  Napoleon C. Reyes      Bryan Burton

                Caitlin Kelly                Henry Eric Sinrod       Robert Faux                Michael Hooper 

                Anastasia Tosouni      Diana Grant                 Patrick Jackson           Judith Volkart

Associated Students of Sonoma State University


Reexamination of Teaching Sensitive Material 




The mission of the Associated Students of Sonoma State University (AS), a  student run, student led auxiliary corporation, is to enrich the lives of students and build a sense of community; and



the Associated Students of Sonoma State University is the official voice of  over 7,000 students that attend the institution; and


the Associated Students of Sonoma State serve Sonoma State’s students through  awareness, advocacy, and representation; and



the Professional Development Subcommittee (PDS) created a joint statement  with Academic Freedom Subcommittee (AFS) which impacts the lives of students; and



the Professional Development Subcommittee created a statement which impacts  students with no student input or representation; and 



both committees previously responded to a resolution from the Associated          Students published in 2017 regarding trigger warnings; and



in this statement the committees said they had input and approval from both  Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) and Disability Services for Students (DSS) at Sonoma State University, a claim that was false, and confirmed as false by both programs; and



the committees failed to address the Associated Students' primary request to  provide students with a warning before showing graphic material in the classroom; and 




warnings allow students to make informed decisions with  regard to managing  their own trauma reactions; and


the Associated Students are asking faculty to be responsible with their academic  freedom and be transparent with students on the course material; and 



the Associated Students' resolution of 2017 was not asking faculty to treat students’ trauma reaction or remove curricula or content; the statement of resolution was simply to provide a warning before sensitive material was presented; and 



the Joint Statement by AFS and PDS is designated as a “Best Practice” statement  though it fails to address research from a variety of academic fields that indicate the value of warnings for trauma-informed teaching; and




the committees' statement indicates “Some discomfort is inevitable in  classrooms when the goal is to expose students to new ideas; to have them question beliefs they have taken for granted; to grapple with ethical problems they have never considered; and, more generally, to expand their horizons contributing to an informed and democratic society.”; and



academic discomfort is very different from a trauma reaction; and



due to the lack of this warning resource, the dilemma students may encounter would be too late to make informed decisions having to drop a class after the add/drop period; and



these kind [sic] of actions undermine students’ ability to achieve their academic  goals; and


some faculty members have failed to understand the difference between  “discomfort” and trauma reaction and require students to disclose a diagnosis of PTSD or report that they have experienced trauma and leave students with no other option but to be referred to DSS or CAPS for class accomodations [sic]; and




requiring students to disclose trauma demonstrates a continued stigma with mental health issues; Executive Orders 1095 and 1097 indicate that a Confidential Advocate and/or Title IX are able to request supportive and/or interim measures without students disclosing a diagnosis; and


only three Faculty in Senate voted against this joint statement; and



the University has created numerous ways to hold students accountable  but fails to hold faculty accountable; and



CSUs like Cal State Long Beach, Cal Poly Pomona, and others have initiated  similar programs that support the use of trauma-informed instruction and language in syllabi; 


Therefore let it hereby be resolved that the students of Sonoma State University demand [sic] the following actions by the University and the Academic Senate: 

  • make it mandatory for faculty to have trauma-informed instruction, 
  • publish the Confidential Advocates, Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), and Office for the Prevention of Harassment & Discrimination (OPHD) contact information on all syllabi, 
  • and reexamine the Teaching Sensitive Material joint statement.

Action Plan


  1. Associated Students will distribute this resolution to the Sonoma State University Academic Senate.
  2. Associated Students will distribute this resolution to the Sonoma State University President.
  3. Associated Students will distribute this resolution to the Sonoma State University President’s cabinet.
  4. Associated Students will distribute this resolution to the Sonoma State University Academic Deans and the Dean of Students.

April 5, 2021.

To: Paula Lane, Chair, Faculty Standards and Affairs Committee  

Jeffrey Reeder, Chair, Academic Senate  

From: Karen Moranski, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs,

Wm. Gregory Sawyer, Vice President for Student Affairs  

Joyce Lopes, Vice President for Administration and Finance  

Brent Boyer, Director, Disability Services for Students and Testing Services  

Laura Williams, Director, Counseling and Psychological Services  

Susan Pulido, Confidential Sexual Assault Advocate  

RE: Administrative Response to Joint AFS/PDS Statement Concerning Teaching Sensitive Materials  

On March 18, 2021, the Academic Senate voted to endorse a Joint AFS/PDS Statement on the Teaching of Sensitive Materials. Since that time, the Associated Students (AS) has prepared a resolution asking the Senate to reconsider the Joint Statement, based on misrepresentations and misunderstandings inherent in the statement and the Senate debate. Upon review of the Statement and in response to the Associate Students' resolution, a group of administrators, including the Vice Presidents from Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and Administration and Finance, along with the Directors of DSS and CAPS and the Confidential Sexual Assault Advocate, offer the following letter in support of the AS resolution. We ask that the Senate reconsider the Statement.  

Our first concern deals with the role DSS and CAPS played in the development of the statement. DSS and CAPS were contacted by email on May 22, 2019 to provide information on the services they offer for students who have experienced trauma. They were provided with an earlier version of what is now paragraph 5 of the statement, not the full AFS/PDS Statement.  

Both unit administrators reviewed that paragraph and suggested changes to it. The Joint Statement indicates that the statement was developed by AFS and PDS "with input from CAPS and DSS." It needs to be noted, however, that prior to the Senate's endorsement of the Joint Statement on March 18, neither unit administrator was asked to review or comment on the wording of the whole statement, and they were not asked for nor did they provide their endorsement of the Statement, despite claims in the Senate meeting that "CAPS and DSS both had a chance to review this document and provide their input" (Senate transcript). Any consultation was only on trauma services and not on the central question about trigger warnings. The implication that these two unit heads were in favor of the statement is misplaced, since they never saw it.  

Moreover, we have reservations about some of the wording of the statement. In particular, we note the conflation of two issues – the treatment of trauma and the use of trigger warnings in course syllabi. The concerning sentence is "Exposure to certain graphic images/discussions can elicit reactions associated with trauma; however, the classroom is not the appropriate venue to treat PTSD or trauma, both of which may require professional treatment." All of us agree that most classes are not the appropriate place to treat trauma or mental illness (with the exception of clinical courses in which students are learning those skills).  

The problem is that the statement assumes that trigger warnings are the equivalent of treating mental illness in the classroom. That is not the case. Trigger warnings are not treatment. They acknowledge the possibility students may be adversely impacted by some material, allowing students to make informed decisions about whether a course is a good match for their learning needs and about whether they should seek appropriate accommodations. The conflation of trigger warnings with treatment creates unnecessary concern about whether faculty should be involved in treatment. They should not be involved. Trigger warnings, as the AFS/PDS statement rightly suggests, are merely "part of an effective teaching pedagogy."  

Research indicates that students can experience trauma in the classroom, sometimes as a result of course materials. Students have a right to a safe learning environment, and referrals to student support services are a valuable tool in the faculty member's toolkit. CAPS, DSS, the Office of Confidential Advocacy, and the Office for the Prevention of Harrassment [sic] and Discrimination are all offices at Sonoma State that provide supportive measures to which students could be referred. Supportive measures do not require a diagnosis of PTSD and need not interfere with course content. All of the offices mentioned above can work with faculty to craft supportive measures that do not interfere with course content.  

A second concern is related to the claim that faculty are being asked to remove course content. Again, we endorse the premise that some discomfort, grappling with ethical problems, and expanding of horizons, are all laudable benefits of a college education, as suggested in the AAUP report and the AFS/PDS Statement. And we also endorse academic freedom and the instructor's right to determine content and pedagogical approach. Trigger warnings are not the same as asking a faculty member to remove course content – they are not a constraint on a faculty member's choices. At their simplest, trigger warnings simply indicate that sensitive material is included in the course content, again allowing students to ask questions and make decisions.  

We want to make it clear that the discussion in the SSU Academic Senate on March 18, 2021 misrepresented the views of DSS and CAPS, claiming they supported the statement when they did not. Furthermore, we argue that the AFS/PDS Statement Concerning Teaching Sensitive Material fails to address the central concern posed by Associated Students, that trigger warnings about the use of sensitive materials in a course would help students to make informed choices. Trigger warnings are not treatment of trauma, nor are they a request to remove sensitive materials, and they should be debated in a forum that is not confused by those claims. We encourage the Senate to have an appropriately informed debate about the value of trigger warnings in syllabi, leaving aside treatment issues and removal of materials from courses.

Comments by Senator Sam Brannen, Mathematics & Statistics:

Fellow Senators,

Today, if we agree to add the item to our agenda, we will discuss (time allowing) the AS Resolution on the Reexamination of Teaching Sensitive Material.  If we have that discussion, I intend to ask the following questions:

  1. What would be on the list of things that students must be warned about?  Would it include smoking, as the Netflix warnings now do?

Would the list evolve, as movie warnings have? (See excerpts from the Movie Rating Rules site below.) Would faculty be required to keep up with the evolving list? Would there be a committee in charge of updating the list? Who would be on such a committee?

  1. What would be the consequences for faculty who fail to provide warnings or who fail to keep their list updated?
  2. Who would monitor whether faculty are properly warning students?
  3. Would students be allowed to choose to not attend classes that include material that they do not want to be exposed to, for whatever reason? Or would students be required to drop courses that they learn have content that they do not want to be exposed to, so that students who chose to take the course would be expected to attend all class meetings (unless they were ill, etc.)?


Sam Brannen


PG-13:  Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context.

R:  May include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements.

NC-17:  Can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse, or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.


Other examples of Content Warning:

Demi Lovato: Dancing with the Devil on YouTube

Content warning: So many content warnings, including rape, childhood sexual abuse, substance abuse, eating disorder, suicide

Ginny & Georgia on Netflix

Content warning: Childhood sexual abuse, body dysmorphia, financial abuse

Flack on Amazon Prime

Content warning: An older man who watches child pornography, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, substance abuse, relapsing in recovery from addiction

Dare Me on Netflix

Content warning: Rape, grooming, depictions of PTSD

The Flight Attendant on HBO Max

Content warning: Alcoholism, children of alcoholics, questions around memory and trauma

From Faculty Chair Jeffrey Reeder:


I appreciate the discussion around this important and sensitive topic. I hope that we will advance in a deliberative and intentional way, rather than being reactive. For that reason, I would like to bring this topic forward at next week’s meeting of the executive committee for potential consideration in two weeks as a full Senate, depending on the executive committee‘s action. 

I hope that you will support this effort to provide space for deliberation and thoughtful commentary in service both of our students and our academic freedom, in accordance with our university’s academic freedom policy, and I hope that you will demonstrate this support by allowing any further action to flow through our executive committee and then the full Senate, in such a manner that we will have more time to consider and interact with our constituencies.

COMMENTS by Professor Janet Hess, Hutchins:

To the Faculty Senate, and Sam Brannen:

If I may, and as the Faculty Senate may not arrive at this decision item, as per Jeffrey Reeder's message:

I think the Senate may take its cue from what the Associated Students are requesting.  The President of the Associated Students is not requesting a warning about the consumption of alcohol or smoking.  Rather, students are encouraging warnings about graphic material.  I think the "reasonable person" standard applies here: would a reasonable person think subject material is graphic and disturbing?  For those of us with a diagnosis of PTSD, and even for students who do not (yet) have a diagnosis (and PTSD exists on a spectrum from mild to severe), exposure to such material is no academic exercise.  If provided with a brief warning – for example, "this film contains graphic depictions of violence," or, "this text contains graphic descriptions of sexual assault," students who have PTSD, or students who are sensitive to graphic content, can prepare and ground themselves, rather than going through the excruciating re-living of a trauma.  Anyone who knows someone with PTSD knows that, when not prepared beforehand, such material can have devastating consequences.  

This to me is a simple matter of compassion.  We have extensive training on Canvas for students with visual impairment.  More than twice as many people in this country have PTSD as visual impairment, and the solution for students with trauma or sensitivity is simple: a brief statement about graphic content, so that students can employ grounding techniques or make other informed decisions about coursework. Sonoma State does not enforce accessibility for the visually impaired or hearing impaired, to my knowledge, but we all want to comply with such inclusive and compassionate policies. Statements about graphic content would similarly be encouraged, and, I am confident, be supported by DSS and CAPS.  

Respectfully offered,

Janet Hess

JOINT STATEMENT by the Academic Freedom Subcommittee (AFS) and Professional Development Subcommittee (PDS) Concerning Teaching Sensitive Material

The following is a Best Practices statement regarding teaching sensitive material developed by AFS and PDS, with input from CAPS and DSS, and intended for our fellow faculty. This statement is based on related studies conducted by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), regarding trigger warnings. The full text of the AAUP report is available here:

Associated Students expressed concern over graphic or sensitive course content that has the potential to elicit overwhelming feelings of anxiety, stress, trauma, and/or grief.

Neither the Professional Development Subcommittee (PDS) nor the Academic Freedom Subcommittee (AFS) advocates for the removal of sensitive content. We do believe providing context with any assignment can be part of an effective teaching pedagogy, however it is entirely up to the instructor to determine the most effective pedagogical approach, as well as whether, how and when to provide such context.

Some discomfort is inevitable in classrooms when the goal is to expose students to new ideas; to have them question beliefs they have taken for granted; to grapple with ethical problems they have never considered; and, more generally, to expand their horizons contributing to an informed and democratic society. In addition, as professors, we have the academic freedom to include whatever course content we deem necessary to address our course standards.

As two University Faculty Committees, we listened to the students who are advocating for their needs and attempted to find an equitable solution for both students and faculty. We also fully considered the importance of upholding our individual and collective academic freedom as faculty. Exposure to certain graphic images/discussions can elicit reactions associated with trauma; however, the classroom is not the appropriate venue to treat PTSD or trauma, both of which may require professional treatment.

A student who is reporting a diagnosis of PTSD or reporting that they have experienced trauma should be referred to Disability Services for Students (DSS) if they would like class accommodations, and/or to Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) if a psychological treatment consultation is desired. Professors are encouraged to help guide students to these available resources. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the DSS office works with students and faculty members to provide accommodations to ensure equal access, while maintaining the academic integrity of the course. Referrals should be made and accommodations addressed without affecting other students’ exposure to material that has educational value.

Faculty who are interested in learning practices that support the teaching of sensitive material may wish to contact the Center for Teaching & Educational Technology (CTET), which offers customized workshops for departments and schools, in addition to free, confidential, non-evaluative consultations for individual faculty. It is important to note, however, that such workshops and consultations are not mandatory and it is the individual faculty member’s decision to participate in such workshops.