MSCHE Exchange Series: Session 2

MSCHE Exchange Series: Session 2

Standard 2: Ethics and Integrity

Ethics and integrity are central, indispensable, and defining hallmarks of effective higher education institutions. In all activities, whether internal or external, an institution must be faithful to its mission, honor its contracts and commitments, adhere to its policies, and represent itself truthfully.

Criterion: Climate that fosters respect for those from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives

  • Question: How do we define diversity? How does MSCHE?
  • From a racial/ethnic perspective, we are very diverse in student body.  Also diverse in faculty and staff, although not as much as student.  We are working on the faculty.
  • Respect for diversity of perspectives, particularly political views, may be an area of opportunity

Criterion: Grievance policy that is documented and disseminated to address complaints or grievances raised by students, faculty, or staff. The institution’s policies are fair, impartial, and assure that grievances are addressed promptly, appropriately, and equitably. For student complaints: Also need longitudinal analysis of complaints and evidence of action when patterns noted.

  • Senate is reviewing the timeline for student complaints.  Broader issue of tracking was discussed, but not sure it is being pursued as rigorously
  • Documentation of student complaints at the dean level seems in place; could be improved by including final disposition in the files.  Departments may also have at their level.
  • Areas of opportunity: Documentation at Provost step.  Adoption of a workflow software/application to track student complaints at all levels and allow longitudinal analysis

Criterion: Fair and impartial practices in the hiring, evaluation, promotion, discipline, and separation of employees.

  • Increased diversity in hiring of faculty
  • Electronic application system has the ability to increase tracking and monitoring of impartiality for hiring
  • Areas of opportunity: (1) increasing transparency overall; (2) increasing communication about, clarification of, and adherence to guidelines for both hiring and promotion; (3) being on the same page and focused on university improvement; (4) consistent leadership and lines of responsibility in the area.
  1. Example: use of interim appointments when the timeframe would have accommodated a search.
  2. Example: perception that dates and policy elements for promotion may vary across units and/or within one promotion cycle.  Possible data – survey of understanding of promotion guidelines and comparison across units.  (NB: COACHE will provide some insight re: faculty.)

Criterion: Services or programs in place to enable students to understand funding sources and options, value received for cost, and methods to make informed decisions about incurring debt.

  • Strengths: Workshops offered throughout the semester, financial literacy course, multiple knowledgeable staff on campus, fewer credit card tables in GSUB than in the past (may signify NJCU has taken a stand), students leave with lowest debt (NB: calculated on a specific subset of our students)
  • Areas of opportunity: Adding to the OTC curriculum, additional workshops, an assessment of our policies from a student finance perspective – whether our timelines/workflow are facilitative for students in terms of long term financial impact.

*click here for pdf version