Organizational Structure and Working Methods of the Steering Committee, Working Groups, and Teams

The Self-Study Steering Committee comprises 19 members, including a faculty Co-Chair and administrative Co-Chair. Care was taken to design an inclusive Steering Committee with members who represented all facets of the University community. Individuals represent knowledgeable and invested faculty and administrators from multiple schools and units throughout the institution. The same approach holds true for the creation of the Self-Study Working Groups and Teams. Steering Committee members will also serve as Co-Chairs or members of the Working Groups and Teams.

    • Greer Jason-DiBartolo, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Associate Dean for Academic Administration, Gabelli School of Business
    • Melissa Labonte, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science; Faculty Affiliate, Institute of International Humanitarian Affairs
    • Steve Albanese, Associate Dean, Lincoln Center, Rose Hill, and Westchester, School of Professional and Continuing Studies
    • Binta Alleyne-Green, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Graduate School of Social Service
    • Orit Avishai, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology
    • John W. Buckley, Vice President for Enrollment
    • Jonathan Crystal, Ph.D., Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
    • Keith Eldredge, Assistant Vice President, Student Affairs; Dean, Student Services
    • Julie Gafney, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for Community Engaged Learning
    • Bernice Grant, J.D., LL.M., Senior Director, Entrepreneurial Law Program, Fordham Law School
    • Sertan Kabadayi, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing; Director of Teaching Excellence, Gabelli School of Business
    • Donna Lehmann, Associate Vice President for Marketing, University Marketing and Communications
    • David Marcotte, S.J., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Psychology
    • Michael McCarthy, Senior Director, Finance and Treasurer
    • James McCartin, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Theology
    • Jeannine Pinto, Director, Office of Institutional Research and Assessment
    • Gülay Siouzios, Associate Director, Employee/Labor Relations-Athletics Department HR Liaison, Office of Human Resources Management
    • Akane Zusho, Ph.D., Professor of School Psychology, Graduate School of Education

At its first meeting, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Dennis Jacobs formally charged the group:

The Steering Committee will serve as the oversight body in Fordham University’s preparation for and liaison during the Middle States Self-Study site visit in spring 2025.

It provides leadership to each of the Self-Study Working Groups and Teams to ensure thorough, inclusive, and effective achievement of their respective charges. Steering Committee members serve dual roles by representing their own unique communities and the institution as a whole. Members should speak to their role-based experiences, yet equally and objectively represent the best interests of the entire University.

The Steering Committee will also be responsible for coordinating the collective and collaborative efforts of all the Working Groups and Teams, and ensuring adherence to the timeline for the development and completion of the Self-Study process and final report. In facilitation of this goal, select Steering Committee members will be asked to Co-Chair each of the Working Groups and Teams.

    • Providing formative input into Working Group and Team charges, membership, and lines of inquiry;
    • Actively participating in meetings and forums related to the work of the Self-Study;
    • Ensuring the Self-Study is built upon a foundation of rigorous and comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data;
    • Reviewing and integrating each of the draft Self-Study chapters and Evidence Inventory for institution-wide review and feedback; and
    • Enhancing awareness of the Self-Study process across various University units and areas, including through the community-wide communications plan.

With the Co-Chairs leading the majority of the Self-Study efforts in fall 2022 and spring 2023, the Steering Committee, Working Groups, and Teams will be most active during the 2023-2024 academic year, with the exception of the Evidence Inventory Team, which will begin work in earnest in summer 2023. After spring 2024, the Steering Committee will focus efforts on collating Working Group reports into a unified Self-Study, engaging in a transparent and inclusive process with the broader Fordham community.

As mentioned earlier, each Working Group will be mapped to an individual standard and relevant requirements of affiliation,2 while also designed to reflect the relational nature of all standards achieved through cross-group collaboration. Working Group efforts will be integrative of all institutional priorities, driven by lines of inquiry and supported by evidence. Working Groups will create sub-reports, which will be synthesized into the Self-Study. In addition to seven Working Groups, three Teams will be formed to supplement the efforts to ensure an inclusive, transparent, and data-driven process. All Working Groups will include faculty and administrative representation.

  • Working Groups

    1. Mission and Goals
    2. Ethics and Integrity
    3. Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience
    4. Support of the Student Experience
    5. Educational Effectiveness Assessment
    6. Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement
    7. Governance, Leadership, and Administration

    Teams

    • Evidence Inventory
    • Communications
    • Student Voice

Working Groups and Teams will all be guided by a general charge, with additional specific charges specified for each committee. Standard to be addressed, Relevant Requirements of Affiliation, Related Institutional Priorities, and Lines of Inquiry are provided below for each Working Group and Team. Working Group and Team membership will be finalized in the coming months in collaboration with Steering Committee members and Working Group/Team Co-Chairs. Final composition of all Working Groups and Teams will consist of faculty and administrator representation, with the exception of the Student Voice Team, which will primarily consist of a diverse student membership.

General Charge for All Working Groups and Teams

    • Each Working Group and Team will convene regularly from 2023 through fall 2024. Meeting minutes will be kept and stored in the Google Shared Drive.

    • Working Group and Team leadership will report regularly to the Steering Committee, including through presentations of their progress during select Steering Committee meetings.

    • Working Group and Team Co-Chairs will be responsible for establishing a timeline for completing their bodies’ respective work that aligns with the Self-Study timeline.

    • Working Groups and Teams will develop an understanding of the MSCHE Standards for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation, and of the criteria for the Standard respective to each Working Group, especially the final assessment criteria.

    • Each Working Group will identify, collect, and analyze the documentation and evidence needed for inclusion in the Evidence Inventory in order to demonstrate Fordham’s compliance with the MSCHE Standards for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation, including drawing appropriate connections with Fordham’s Mission and Institutional Priorities.

    • Working Groups and Teams are highly encouraged to collaborate with one another, as well as with other University support units and offices, governance bodies, and stakeholder groups throughout the Self-Study process.

    • Working Groups will address fully the respective Lines of Inquiry elaborated as part of Specific Working Group Charges. This should be done as early in the Self-Study process as possible to identify gaps in evidence or in processes and procedures. Where feasible, Working Groups should develop and implement approaches to address identified gaps during this phase, in collaboration with other Working Groups and Teams, especially the Evidence Inventory Team.

    • Working Groups will undertake periodic assessment of the evidence and processes inherent in their respective Standards for Accreditation, including demonstrating how assessment data has been utilized to strengthen policies and practice.

    • Using the periodic assessment results and in consultation with the Steering Committee, each Working Group will prepare a Gap Analysis and Emerging Recommendations document. This document should feature any findings to date, organized by the Standard’s criteria and Lines of Inquiry; a brief report on what may be missing in terms of demonstrated compliance with the Standard; suggested revisions to the Evidence Inventory; and the Working Group’s recommendations that are likely to be incorporated into the Self-Study Final Report. Templates for and guidance on the Gap Analysis will be provided. A draft of this document will be due no later than December 15, 2023.

    • In accordance with the established Steering Committee timeline for producing the final Self- Study Report, Working Group Co-Chairs will be responsible for completing two draft Self- Study Chapter Reports that align with the respective Standard for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation under focus–an initial draft and a final draft.

    • Working Groups will submit their initial draft Self-Study Chapter Reports, following the drafting reporting guidelines, to the Steering Committee no later than January 31, 2024. These initial drafts should demonstrate whether and/or how Fordham has complied with the respective Standards for Accreditation covered by each Working Group, and include the Working Group’s assessment of the institution’s strengths, challenges, and areas for improvement relative to its related Standard, as well as the relationship between the related Standard and the Institutional Priorities. Initial drafts should also demonstrate fulfillment of the relevant Requirements of Affiliation.

    • Following receipt of Steering Committee feedback on the initial drafts, Working Groups will integrate recommended revisions and submit their final draft Self-Study Chapter Reports to the Steering Committee, no later than March 31, 2024.

    • Working Groups will review the full draft of the Self-Study Report, which will be prepared during summer 2024 by the Steering Committee Co-Chairs, and provide feedback to the Steering Committee by October 1, 2024. As the Steering Committee synthesizes individual Working Group reports into a final, coherent Self-Study Report, Working Groups should be available to discuss revisions throughout fall 2024.

    • Working Groups and Teams will be available for the one-day MSCHE Evaluation Team Chair site visit, anticipated to be held in December 2024 and the multi-day MSCHE Evaluation Team site visit and response, anticipated to be held in spring 2025.

Document Management

Fordham’s Self-Study will utilize several resources to manage its work and ensure a coordinated and comprehensive handling of all documentation and evidence:

    • The Self-Study website will serve as a primary and accessible repository for key public-facing documents, reports, and updates throughout the Self-Study process. The Self-Study Communications Plan (see p. 47) includes a number of planned, multi-channel communications efforts that will center on information-sharing with the broader Fordham community and allow invitational and inclusive participation at key moments in the process.

    • The Steering Committee, Working Groups, and Teams will utilize a Self-Study Google Team Drive to carry out and manage their work.

    • All three bodies will maintain minutes of their meetings, which will be saved in the Self-Study Google Team Drive.

    • Working Groups will save all resource and working documents, Gap Analyses and Emerging Recommendations, and Self-Study Draft Chapter Reports within readily identifiable subfolders in the Self-Study Google Team Drive.

    • All documentation utilized during the Self-Study process will be accessible to members of the Steering Committee, Working Groups, and Teams.

    • The document-based (e.g., policy guidebooks, strategic plans, annual reports) and data-based (e.g., enrollment and retention data) information and evidence specific to each Standard for Accreditation will be centrally stored within the Evidence Inventory folder, and will be further organized by individual Working Group in the Self-Study Google Team Drive.

Specific Working Group and Team Objectives

View full membership for each working group and team.

  • Standard I: Mission and Goals

    The institution’s mission defines its purpose within the context of higher education, the students it serves, and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals are clearly linked to its mission and specify how the institution fulfills its mission (MSCHE 2015).

    Requirements of Affiliation:

    • Mission and Goals

    Related Institutional Priorities (P=Primary, S=Secondary):

    • Wisdom, Knowledge, and Learning - P
    • Holistic Student Success and Flourishing - P
    • Community and Institutional Belonging - P
    • Institutional Vitality and Continuous Improvement - S

    Lines of Inquiry:

    1. How are Fordham’s mission and goals developed collaboratively to address all stakeholders, approved by an appropriate governing body, implemented, and assessed?

    2. What processes are used to link the mission and goals to the strategic plan and what processes were used in developing the strategic plan?

    3. To what degree are Fordham’s mission and goals realistic and appropriate in the current context of higher education? What policies, practices, and methods are used to evaluate this?

    4. How do the mission and goals guide decision-making for planning, resource allocation, program and curricular development, and related institutional and educational outcomes? How effective is this process?

    5. In what ways do the mission and goals of the University advance the Institutional Priorities?

    6. In what ways are the mission and goals supported by administration, educational, and

      student support programs?

    7. How effectively are the mission and goals communicated and publicized to internal and

      external constituencies? What evidence is available to demonstrate the level of awareness

      within and across the University community?

    8. What processes are used to periodically assess the mission to ensure the University’s

      strategic goals are relevant and achievable?

    9. Did your investigation reveal evidence that would lead to the conclusion that there are

      operations in the institution that are not fully consistent with the mission and goals?

    10. What actions could be taken to better activate Fordham’s mission and goals in their daily

      operation?

    Co-Chairs:

    • James McCartin, Steering Committee, Associate Professor, Department of Theology
    • Julie Gafney, Steering Committee, Executive Director, Center for Community Engaged Learning

    This Working Group will consult with:

    • All other Working Groups, especially WG 2: Ethics and Integrity, WG 3: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience, WG 4: Support of the Student Experience, WG 6: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement, and WG 7: Governance, Leadership, and Administration

    • Evidence Inventory and Student Voice Teams

    • Members of the following Committees:

      • Educating for Justice: Strategic Plan ○ Diversity Action Plan
      • FAS Anti-Racism Task Force

    •  President’s Cabinet, especially:

      • Vice President for Mission Integration and Ministry and te
      • Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs and team ○ Chief Diversity
      • Officer and related committees
      • Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and team

    • Deans of undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Faculty Senate and relevant committees

    Examples of assessment data, processes, documents, and procedures to support the Self-Study Report for this Working Group include:

    • Educating for Justice
    • CUSP Bothered Excellence
    • DEI Action Plan
    • Metrics for the Strategic Plan
    • Documentation that Shows the Board of Trustees’ Approval of the Mission and Resolution for Approval of Educating for Justice
    • Board of Trustees By-Laws
    • Faculty Senate By-Laws
    • Fordham Educational Goals
    • Fordham’s Strategic Planning Website
    • Faculty Handbook
    • Mission, Guiding Principles, and Institutional Expected Student Learning Outcomes
    • Statement for Job Postings
    • DEI Dashboards for the Board of Trustees
    • President Tetlow’s 2021-2022 Annual Report to the Board of Trustees
    • Anti-Racism Action Update
    • Examples of Communication of Mission, Goals, and Learning Goals
    • Annual Reports from Enrollment, Library and Information Technology, Advancement, Human Resources, Facilities, Communications, and Finance
    • Undergraduate College, Graduate, and Professional School Strategic Planning and Assessment documents (mapped to Educating for Justice and Annual Reports)
    • Student Affairs Strategic Plan and Assessment (mapped to Educating for Justice and Annual Reports)
    • DEI Action Plan Strategies, Initiatives and Assessment (mapped to Educating for Justice)
    • Peer and Aspirant Institutions—Lists
    • Curriculum Committees—Charge and Annual Reports
    • Course Catalog
    • Environmental Action Plan
    • Other possible data elements - % core expenditure: instruction; public service; research ● Scholarly productivity (FAR)
    • Economic/societal impact measures

  • Standard II: 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 (MSCHE 2015).

    Requirements of Affiliation:

    • Compliance with Government Laws 6. Compliance with Commission Policies
    • Governing Body
    • Accurate Information

    Related Institutional Priorities (P=Primary, S=Secondary):

    • Wisdom, Knowledge, and Learning - S
    • Holistic Student Success and Flourishing - S
    • Community and Institutional Belonging - P
    • Institutional Vitality and Continuous Improvement - S

    Lines of Inquiry:

    1. How does the University demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and how does it establish and sustain a climate of respect among diverse constituents, especially among students, faculty, staff, and administration?

    2. In what ways does Fordham respect and appreciate community members of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives?

    3. How does the University demonstrate a commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of expression, respect for intellectual property rights, and avoidance of conflicts of interest? How well do stakeholders understand these policies?

    4. How does the University demonstrate a commitment to and deliver on affordability and accessibility?

    5. How effective are the University’s processes for the development and implementation of policies and procedures to assure fair and impartial hiring, evaluation, promotion, discipline, and separation of employees? How effective are current policies communicated and applied throughout the community?

    6. How effective are the University’s processes for maintaining honesty and truthfulness in public relations announcements, advertisements, recruiting and admissions materials, and internal communications? What are the components of the process and how well do they interconnect, both with the University’s mission and strategic plan, as well as represent consistency across materials?

    7. How effectively and timely does the University address complaints or grievances raised by students, faculty, staff, or third parties? Are there any gaps in these processes? How consistent, equitable, and fair are the policies and is the process?

    8. How does the University address violations of policy by students, faculty, staff, or third parties? How consistent, equitable, and fair are the policies and is the process?

    9. How does the institution honor and monitor its contracts (including third-party)? Are clear protocols/policies and lines of responsibility defined, including the role of the Board of Trustees?

    10. What are our policies, procedures, and arrangements related to third-party arrangements and how do we know they are effective?

    11. What is the process for ensuring the institution complies with all applicable federal, state, and Commission reporting policies, regulations, and requirements, including those items in the Verification of Compliance?

    12. How does the institution periodically assess ethics and integrity as evidenced in institutional policies, processes, and practices, and the manner in which these are implemented? How do processes enable the University to continuously improve? What processes are in place to ensure appropriate rigor and external validity?

    Co-Chairs:

    • Celia Fisher, Marie Ward Doty University Chair in Ethics, Center for Ethics Education Director,HIV/Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Institute Director

    • Gülay Siouzios, Steering Committee, Assistant Director, Employee/Labor Relations-Athletics Department HR Liaison, Office of Human Resources Management

    This Working Group will consult with:

    • All other Working Groups, especially WG 1: Mission and Goals, WG 6: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement, and WG 7: Governance, Leadership, and Administration

    • Evidence Inventory and Student Voice Teams

    • President’s Cabinet, especially:

      • Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs and team ○ Chief Diversity Officer and related committees
      • Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and team
      • Vice President for Mission Integration and Ministry and team
      • Vice President for Human Resources and team
      • Vice President for Administration and team
      • Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer and team ○ Vice President for Enrollment and team
      • Interim Vice President for Marketing and Communications and team

    • Deans of undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Faculty Senate and relevant committees

    • Director of Gender Equity/Title IX Coordinator

    • Dean of Undergraduate Admission/Associate Vice President

    • Enrollment Services team

    • Public Safety team

    • Institutional Review Board

    • FAS Anti-Racism Task Force

    • Deans of Students

    • Human Resources staff responsible for employee grievances

    • Policies and Procedures Committee (Policy on Policies)

    Examples of assessment data, processes, documents, and procedures to support the Self-Study Report for this Working Group include:

    • Systematic Review of Board Policies
    • Financial Aid Information (including % Pell; cohort default rate; income; net price; discount rate)
    • Conflict of Interest Policy
    • Privacy Policy
    • Grievance Procedures
    • Hiring Procedures
    • Promotion, Reappointment, and Tenure Policy Procedures, and Appeal Procedures
    • Faculty and staff retention numbers
    • Student/Faculty ratios
    • Remediation of Non-Compliance Issues
    • 2023 Institutional Profile
    • Verification of Compliance Report
    • Consumer Information Page
    • Student Surveys (including third-party and/or internal)
    • Freedom of Speech Policies
    • Policies on Student Complaints about Grades and Other Matters
    • Copyright and Trademark Policies
    • Course Catalog
    • Examples of Communications to Students, Faculty, and Staff
    • Title IX Compliance Documentation
    • Policy on Requesting Accommodations of Disabilities by Students (including % of student sdisclosed disabilities) with
    • Academic Policies
    • Staff Handbook
    • Faculty Handboo
    • Code of Student Conduct
    • University Student Handbook and Residential Student Handbook
    • Student Adjudication Procedures and Appeal Procedures
    • Whistleblower Protection Policy
    • Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Confidentiality Disclosure
    • Faculty Hiring Guide
    • Staff Hiring Guide
    • Human Resources Policies—Equal Employment, Americans with Disabilities Act, Bias, Non-Discrimination, etc. (including student, faculty, and staff data broken down by central sub-populations)
    • Performance Evaluation Policy
    • Collaboration with Admissions and Communications with the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment for Reporting Accurate Data
    • University Fact Book and Fact Sheet
    • Post-Graduation Placement Survey Report, College Guides, Various Rankings, etc.
    • Cost of Attendance Calculator
    • Financial Aid Website and Policies
    • Admissions—Relevant Information
    • Fordham Consumer Information Webpage
    • Verification of Compliance Document—MSCHE
    • Educating for Justice
    • DEI Action Plan
    • Anti-Racism Action Update
    • DEI Dashboards for the Board of Trustees
    • Consumer Information Webpage
    • Retention/Graduation Dashboards
    • MSCHE Annual Institutional Updates (AIU)
    • Internal Audits
    • Review of Board of Trustees Policies
    • Review of Other Policies

  • Standard III: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience

    An institution provides students with learning experiences that are characterized by rigor and coherence at all program, certificate, and degree levels, regardless of instructional modality. All learning experiences, regardless of modality, program pace/schedule, level, and setting are consistent with higher education expectations (MSCHE 2015).

    Requirements of Affiliation:

    • Systematic Evaluation of Programs
    • Student Learning Programs
    • Institutional Planning
    • Faculty

    Related Institutional Priorities (P=Primary, S=Secondary):

    • Wisdom, Knowledge, and Learning - P
    • Holistic Student Success and Flourishing - P
    • Community and Institutional Belonging - P
    • Institutional Vitality and Continuous Improvement - S

    Lines of Inquiry:

    1. How are core learning goals and objectives integrated into the design and delivery of the University’s curricula? Are we accomplishing them? What gaps exist?

    2. To what extent, both within and across schools, does the design and delivery of the University’s undergraduate curriculum, including the liberal arts, humanities, and sciences, and major requirements, meet institutional learning outcomes, enhance coherent student learning, align with the University’s mission and goals, and prepare students for achievement after graduation?

    3. To what extent, both within and across schools, does the design and delivery of the University’s graduate and professional schools’ curricula meet institutional learning outcomes, enhance student learning, align with the University’s mission and goals, and prepare students for achievement after graduation?

    4. How does Fordham periodically assess the effectiveness of its academic programs providing student learning opportunities? Does Fordham use proper reviews?

    5. How are the rigor and coherence of all learning experiences, modalities, and levels (certificates, undergraduate, and graduate degrees) ensured? What can be learned from this process? How sustainable and meaningful is the process? What examples of this process exist, and what do they say about the return on investment (ROI) of the process?

    6. To what degree are student learning experiences designed, delivered, and assessed by faculty and/or other appropriate professionals who demonstrate effectiveness of professional responsibilities, hold requisite qualifications, are sufficient in number, engage in professional growth, and are evaluated regularly? How successful are we in this process? What is the student to faculty ratio?

    7. How effective are the processes of developing and designing new undergraduate and graduate programs for the University? Are they consistent with existing curricula, do they enhance student learning experiences, and do they prepare students for emerging careers? What are the components of the process and how are they “externally valid”?

    8. In what ways does the undergraduate curriculum offer new areas of intellectual experience, prepare students to make well-reasoned judgments, offer opportunities for research, encourage independent thinking, and develop general skill areas?

    9. How effectively does Fordham respond to the changing landscape of higher and graduate/professional education to offer new and relevant academic programs? How does the University reflect agility in doing so? When do we know that a program(s) is/are especially relevant? How well do we consider Fordham’s Mission when considering new programs?

    10. To what extent are diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging integrated coherently into the learning experiences Fordham offers?

    11. To what extent do University resources support the delivery of the student learning experience and academic progress?

    12. How clearly, accurately, and regularly does the University communicate information related to academic programs of study, academic progress, and resources to foster student success?

    13. Are academic programs of study clearly and accurately described in official publications of the institution in a way that students are able to understand and follow degree and program requirements, and expected time to completion? How regularly are the catalog and website reviews undertaken?

    14. What types of faculty and staff professional development are provided to support growth and innovation in teaching pedagogy/andragogy, and program offerings?

    15. To what extent are Fordham’s efforts to recruit and retain a diverse body of faculty effective and institutionally supported? What is the faculty retention (overall, and also for programs)?

    16. Where Fordham employs third-party providers, what are the assessment outcomes of these partnerships and student learning opportunities? What is the track record of following up on what has been learned?

    17. Based on these evaluations, recommend opportunities to enhance continuous improvement in the ways the University plans, designs, seeks approval for, delivers, and assesses student learning experiences.

    Co-Chairs:

    • Bernice Grant, Steering Committee, Senior Director, Entrepreneurial Law Program, Fordham

      Law School

    • Maura Mast, Dean, Fordham College at Rose Hill

    • Stanley Veliotis, Associate Professor, Area Chair, Accounting and Taxation, Gabelli School of Business

    This Working Group will consult with:

    • All other Working Groups, especially WG 1: Mission and Goals, WG 4: Support of the Student Experience, WG 5: Educational Effectiveness Assessment, and WG 6: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement

    • Evidence Inventory and Student Voice Teams

    • Members of following Committees:

      • Educating for Justice: Strategic Plan
      • Reimagining Higher Education
      • Undergraduate Core Curriculum Revision
      • Task Force on Interdisciplinary Cultures and Structures
      • Reimagining the Function and Structure of Arts and Sciences at Fordham

    • President’s Cabinet, especially:

      • Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs and team ○ Chief Diversity Officer and related committees

    • Deans of undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Curriculum Committees across undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Faculty Senate and relevant committees

    • Academic advising professionals across undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Office of Research

    • Directors of Honors Programs across schools

    Examples of assessment data, processes, documents, and procedures to support the Self-Study Report for this Working Group include:

    • Educating for Justice
    • Learning goals for each school and program
    • Fordham’s Strategic Planning Website
    • Outcomes website for undergraduates
    • Outcomes websites for each graduate school
    • Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Degrees Conferred
    • University Bulletin and Course Catalog, including departmental and interdisciplinary
    • program goals
    • NYSED filings for New and Revised Programs
    • Faculty Handbook
    • Teaching and Learning initiatives
    • Annual Reports of undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools, including Reports of
    • Assessment Activities
    • Departmental and Interdisciplinary Program Annual Reports
    • Faculty and Staff Performance and Merit Review Processes
    • Faculty Hiring Guide
    • Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Human Resources Survey
    • Common Data Set—Faculty Info
    • Global and Off-Campus Education
    • Office of Mission Integration and Ministry/Center for Community Engaged Learning
    • Counseling and Psychological Services
    • University Health Services
    • Office of Disability Services (include data on % of students with disclosed disabilities)
    • Retention and Graduation Rates, disaggregated as needed
    • The Career Center (including placement and salary data)
    • Undergraduate Research and Creative Projects
    • Core Curriculum Assessment
    • Accreditation and Reaccreditation Reports from Schools Across Fordham University,
    • such as Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) for the Gabelli
    • School of Business
    • A&S Templates for Department and Interdisciplinary Program Annual Assessment Reports,
    • and Relevant Documents from Other Fordham University Schools
    • Policies on Curriculum Governance—Course Approval, Program Approval, Major Approval
    • National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment NILOA and American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) Designation of Excellence in Assessment
    • Program Reviews
    • Program Review Guides and Schedule—Academic and Support Units
    • Guide for Centers and Institutes
    • National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), Pa. Department of Education, American Chemical Society (ACS), Computer Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB) Accreditation Documents
    • Undergraduate and Graduate Admission Websites and Other Marketing Materials

  • Standard IV: Support of the Student Experience

    Across all educational experiences, settings, levels, and instructional modalities, the institution recruits and admits students whose interests, abilities, experiences, and goals are congruent with its mission and educational offerings. The institution commits to student retention, persistence, completion, and success through a coherent and effective support system sustained by qualified professionals, which enhances the quality of the learning environment, contributes to the educational experience, and fosters student success (MSCHE 2015).

    Requirements of Affiliation:

    • Systematic Evaluation of Programs
    • Student Learning Programs<
    • Institutional Planning
    • Faculty

    Related Institutional Priorities (P=Primary, S=Secondary):

    • Wisdom, Knowledge, and Learning - S
    • Holistic Student Success and Flourishing - li
    • Community and Institutional Belonging - li
    • Institutional Vitality and Continuous Imlirovement - S

    Lines of Inquiry:

    1. How effective are the University’s policies, procedures, and processes in supporting student success and flourishing? What initiatives are in place to support student retention, persistence, completion, and success?

    2. What key indicators demonstrate improvement of student success and flourishing, including retention and graduation rates? What information is published to publicly provide outcomes regarding student achievement, including student outcome measures? To what extent are these data valid, meaningful, and useful?

    3. How effectively do the policies and practices link together through the entire student experience, including recruitment, admission, academic success, completion, and post- completion placement for all educational offerings and modalities? (Metrics include placement; salary; melt/yield/matriculation)

    4. What processes are in place to ensure the institution has clearly stated ethical policies and processes for admissions, financial aid, retention, supporting underprepared students and student achievement?

    5. How do we ensure the continued and sustainable implementation of the academic, fiscal, and administrative principles and policies that govern athletics, student life, and other extracurricular activities?

    6. How effective are the extracurricular and non-academic services and programs offered to support the student experience and foster student success and flourishing? To what extent does the University evaluate and improve these policies, processes, and practices?

    7. How does the University periodically assess and improve the effectiveness of programs supporting the student experience and what are the assessment outcomes of any student support services?

    8. To what degree are student support experiences designed, delivered, and assessed by appropriate professionals who demonstrate effectiveness of professional responsibilities, hold requisite qualifications, are sufficient in number, engage in professional growth, and are evaluated regularly?

    9. To what degree is accurate, accessible, and comprehensive information regarding educational costs, fiscal responsibilities, and repayment options made available to all students and interested parties? How do we ensure that the information available is evaluated for accuracy?

    10. What policies and procedures are used to evaluate and accept transfer credits and credits awarded through various learning approaches? In what ways does the institution ensure that it does this appropriately?

    11. What policies and procedures are used for the safe and secure maintenance, and appropriate release of student information and records? How effective are they?

    12. How do functional areas responsible for supporting the student experience assess and report on the effectiveness of their programs in supporting the student experience? How well do they interact?

    13. How meaningful, useful, and cost effective are student experience assessments?

    14. What opportunities exist for continuous improvement and enhancement of student experience support efforts?

    Co-Chairs:

    • David Marcotte, S.J., Steering Committee, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology
    • Keith Eldredge, Steering Committee, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Student Services

    This Working Group will consult with:

    • All other Working Groups, especially WG 1: Mission and Goals, WG 3: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience, WG 5: Educational Effectiveness Assessment, and WG6: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement

    • Evidence Inventory and Student Voice Teams

    • Members of following Committees:

      • Retention
      • Transfer Student Experience

    • President’s Cabinet, especially:

      • Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs and team
      • Chief Diversity Officer and related committees
      • Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and team, including both Student Life and
    • Deans of undergraduate and graduate/professional schools
    • Faculty Senate and relevant committees
    • Academic advising professionals across undergraduate and graduate/professional schools
    • Offices of Student Affairs/Involvement, Residential Life, the Career Center, Counseling and
    • Psychological Services, and Disability Services across different units/Schools
    • Tutoring and Academic Support Services
    • Office of Prestigious Fellowships
    • International and Study Abroad Programs Office
    • Center for Community Engaged Learning
    • Global Outreach Office
    • Fordham Foundry
    • Social Innovation Collaboratory
    • Field Placement professionals
    • Library professionals
    • Athletics professionals, especially Athletics academic advisors
    • Enrollment Services team, including Registrar
    • Dean of Undergraduate Admission/Associate Vice President

    Examples of assessment data, processes, documents, and procedures to support the Self-Study Report for this Working Group include:

    • Orientation and First-Year Programs and Assessments
    • Retention and Graduation Rates (aggregate and broken down by sub-population)
    • Consumer Information Webpage
    • Policies: Registration, Grade Dispute, Grading, Graduation, Academic Standing, Refund of
    • Tuition and Fees
    • Fordham Financial Aid Website
    • University Bulletin and Course Catalog
    • Admissions Materials
    • Enrollment Trends—Fact Book
    • HHMI Data and/or Math ALEKS Assessment
    • Office of Institutional Research and Assessment analyses of factors associated with student
    • retention and course outcomes
    • Accessibility Resources
    • Foundation Seminars
    • Student Advising Structures/Policies and Documentation
    • Transfer Student Task Force Action Plan
    • CICU Transfer student survey results
    • Credit Transfer Policies
    • Fordham Verification of Compliance Report
    • Registrar’s Office Policies
    • Data Request and Reporting Policy
    • External Requests for Research Policy
    • Privacy Statement
    • Student Disciplinary Records Retention Policy
    • Student Educational Records
    • The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
    • Records Retention Policy
    • Research Involving Human Subjects/Institutional Review Board
    • Responsible Use of Computing Technology
    • Internet Privacy Policy
    • Transcript Policy
    • Athletics Teams
    • NCAA reports on student success
    • Civic Engagement
    • Club Sport Manual
    • Outdoor Leadership and Education
    • Photography Release
    • University Student Handbook and Residential Student Handbook
    • Student Adjudication Procedures and Appeal Procedures
    • Social Media Policy
    • Sportsmanship and Dispute Resolution Form
    • Student-Athlete Handbook
    • Student Clubs and Organizations Lists and Policies
    • Student Travel Activities
    • Student Affairs—Annual Assessment Reports and Program Reviews
    • MyVoice Survey, HERI Your First College Year (YFCY) Survey, Higher Education Research Institute
    • (HERI) Senior Surveys
    • Writing Center
    • Teaching and Learning Resources
    • Information Technology
    • Library and Information Technology Surveys
    • Veterans-Oriented Policies and Websites
    • Staff to student ratios (disaggregated as needed)
    • Percentage of core expenditures dedicated to student support and academic support (in absolute terms and relative to peers)

  • Standard V: Educational Effectiveness Assessment

    Assessment of student learning and achievement demonstrates that the institution’s students have accomplished educational goals consistent with their program of study, degree level, the institution’s mission, and appropriate expectations for institutions of higher education (MSCHE 2015).

    Requirements of Affiliation:

    • Systematic Evaluation of Programs
    • Student Learning Programs
    • Institutional Planning

    Related Institutional Priorities (P=Primary, S=Secondary):

    • Wisdom, Knowledge, and Learning - P Holistic Student Success and Flourishing - P
    • Community and Institutional Belonging - S
    • Institutional Vitality and Continuous Improvement - S

    Lines of Inquiry:

    1. How effectively are educational goals at the institutional and academic program levels clearly stated, integrated with one another, and aligned with the University’s mission and goals? How regularly are these evaluated?

    2. What routine and systematic methods are used to assess comprehensively student learning and achievement to demonstrate the attainment of curricular and institutional learning goals? What evidence demonstrates that these methods are effective? What is done with the evidence?

    3. To what extent are programs periodically assessed in terms of student learning, graduation rates, and other key indicators of student success?

    4. How are the results from student learning and achievement assessments demonstrated, documented, and used to improve teaching, learning, and student achievement, and to enhance educational effectiveness consistent with mission? How are they communicated to stakeholders?

    5. To what extent are assessment results regularly reviewed and used to set strategic goals for educational improvement?

    6. How accessible and integrated are educational effectiveness data sources? How effectively can they be used to measure/assess educational goals?

    7. Based on these analyses, where are there opportunities for continuous improvement and enhancement of the University’s educational effectiveness assessment?

    8. How appropriate and valid are the assessment methods that are used?

    Co-Chairs:

    • Akane Zusho, Steering Committee, Professor of School Psychology, Graduate School of Education

    • Susan Mun, Senior Research Analyst, Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

    This Working Group will consult with:

    • All other Working Groups, especially WG 3: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience, WG 4: Support of the Student Experience, and WG 6: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement

    • Evidence Inventory and Student Voice Teams

    • President’s Cabinet, especially:

      • Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs and team
      • Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and team

    • Deans of undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Curriculum Committees across undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Faculty Senate and relevant committees

    • Academic advising professionals across undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Office of Research

    • Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

    • Various academic area and department chairs

    • Assessment committees across schools, when available ● Directors of Honors Programs across schools

    Examples of assessment data, processes, documents, and procedures to support the Self-Study Report for this Working Group include:

    • Documentation describing assessment mechanisms within each school
    • Annual Assessment Reports
    • Curriculum Mapping
    • Relevant Academic Policies (especially policies and procedures on educational effectiveness
    • assessment)
    • Assessment report compilation including indicators of follow up to findings
    • Guides for Academic Program Reviews and Centers and Institutes
    • Faculty Handbook
    • Assessment Resources including webpage
    • Core Curriculum Assessment
    • Learning Goals/Competencies for all Fordham University Schools
    • National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) and American Association of
    • College and Universities (AACU) Designation of Excellence in Assessment
    • Departmental and Interdisciplinary Program Annual Reports
    • Template for Department and Interdisciplinary Program Annual Assessment Reports
    • Rubric for Evaluating the Department Annual Assessment Reports
    • Policies on Curriculum Governance—Course Approval, Program Approval, Major Approval
    • Higher Education Research Institute student surveys (YFCY, CSS)
    • Career Placement Metrics, Career Paths, Outcomes Webpage
    • Departmental Webpages and Brochures
    • Campus Labs—Repository of Reports
    • Annual Reports of all undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools, including Reports
    • of Assessment Activities
    • Assessment Consultations
    • Teaching and Learning Resources and Documentation
    • Academic Affairs Webpages
    • Office of Institutional Research and Assessment Websites on outcomes and assessment
    • Student Outcomes Websites for each school
    • Retention and Graduation Rates Dashboard
    • Office of Institutional Research and Assessment analyses of factors associated with student
    • retention and course outcomesAdvising Committee—Annual Reports
    • Program Reviews
    • Program Review Guides—Academic and Support Units
    • Guide for Centers and Institutes
    • American Chemical Society (ACS), Computer Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB)
    • accreditation documents
    • Template for Assessment Reports for each school
    • Rubrics or processes for evaluating the assessment reports for each school
    • Schedule for External Program Reviews
    • Student course evaluation results
    • Accreditation and Reaccreditation Reports from Schools Across Fordham University, such as Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) for the Gabelli School of Business

  • Standard VI: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement

    The institution’s planning processes, resources, and structures are aligned with each other and are sufficient to fulfill its mission and goals, to continuously assess and improve its programs and services, and to respond effectively to opportunities and challenges (MSCHE 2015).

    Requirements of Affiliation:

    • Systematic Evaluation of Programs
    • Institutional Planning
    • Financial Resources

    Related Institutional Priorities (P=Primary, S=Secondary):

    • Wisdom, Knowledge, and Learning - S
    • Holistic Student Success and Flourishing - S
    • Community and Institutional Belonging - S
    • Institutional Vitality and Continuous Improvement - P

    Lines of Inquiry:

    1. How has the University’s strategic planning process evolved to increase its effectiveness in advancing mission and institutional improvement?

    2. How effectively do Fordham’s planning and budgeting policies, processes, resources, and structures allow the University to respond to the changing landscape of higher education to enable agility and continuous achievement of the University’s mission and goals?

    3. Are institutional and unit-level objectives clearly stated, documented, and communicated; assessed appropriately; linked to mission and goal achievement; reflective of conclusions drawn from assessment results; and used for planning and resource allocation?

    4. Are decision-making processes well-defined with clear assignment of responsibility and accountability?

    5. To what extent do planning and improvement processes include broad constituent participation and incorporate the use of assessment results?

    6. How effectively does the University ensure the sustainability of its long-term assets in alignment with the mission, strategic goals, and institutional priorities?

    7. How does the University demonstrate effective stewardship of strategic resources?

    8. How does the financial planning and budgeting process align with and support Fordham’s

      mission, institutional priorities, and strategic goals?

    9. To what extent are financial planning and budgeting processes clearly stated, documented,

      communicated, and appropriately assessed?

    10. Does the University engage in an annual independent audit confirming financial viability with

      evidence of follow up on any concerns cited in the audit’s accompanying management letter? How useful is the audit in helping the University measure financial sustainability?

    11. To what extent do the institution’s financial, human, physical, and technological resources adequately support its operations?

    12. How does the institution engage in comprehensive planning for facilities, infrastructure, and technology linked to the institution’s strategic and financial planning processes? To what degree are the physical and technical infrastructure updated to meet the needs of innovation and delivery of new and existing academic and research programs?

    13. How does the institution periodically assess the effectiveness of planning, resource allocation, institutional renewal processes, availability of resources, and institutional decision-making processes? How effective is this assessment? Are there metrics or other evaluation approaches that are particularly effective for the institution?

    Co-Chairs:

    • John Buckley, Steering Committee, Vice President, Enrollment
    • Mark Conrad, Professor, Law and Ethics, Gabelli School of Business

    This Working Group will consult with:

    • All other Working Groups, especially WG 1: Mission and Goals, WG 2: Ethics and Integrity, WG 3: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience, WG 4: Support of the Student Experience, WG 5: Educational Effectiveness Assessment, and WG 7: Governance, Leadership, and Administration

    • Evidence Inventory and Student Voice Teams

    • All President’s Cabinet members and their teams

    • Deans of undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Faculty Senate and relevant committees

    • Finance and Budget Personnel across all schools and units

    • Human Resources professionals

    • Information Technology professionals

    • Finance, Budget, and Investment professionals

    • Facilities, Operations, and Capital Projects professionals

    • Development and University Relations professionals

    Examples of assessment data, processes, documents, and procedures to support the Self-Study Report for this Working Group include:

    • Annual Reports (areas/offices/units/programs/centers/institutes noted above)
    • Program Review process and sample reports
    • Diversity Action Plan commitments, timeline, outcomes
    • Strategic Plan commitments, timeline, outcomes
    • Strategic Plan commitments’ impact on budgetary decisions
    • University/BOT policies and guidelines re: annual budgeting process and capital budget
    • Equal Employment Opportunity policy
    • Affirmative Action policy
    • Compensation policy, including comparative salary information
    • Background and credentials check policy
    • Use of Computer Technology Policy
    • Facilities Report
    • Campus Master Plan
    • Policy for Use of Facilities by Internal and External Constituents
    • Library and Information Technology Report
    • Forbes Financial Grade
    • Enrollment and Budget Projections
    • Budget Memo
    • Information Technology Memo—Computer and Technology Requests
    • Capital Budget Memo
    • Enrollment Plan
    • University Organizational Chart
    • Provost’s Office Organizational Chart
    • Policies on Purchasing, Signing, Contracts, Reimbursement, Travel, Hiring, etc.
    • Board of Trustees Meetings Minutes and Summaries
    • Financial Planning Documentation
    • Audited Financial Statements
    • Financial Projections for the Next Two Years
    • Student Outcomes Page
    • Post-Graduation Report
    • National Survey of Student Engagement Report
    • MyVoice Survey and Reports
    • Strategic Planning Metrics
    • University Fact Book (10-year enrollment trends by school and campus)
    • Rankings and Key Metrics (University trends and/in comparison to peers)
    • Guidelines for Replacement and New Positions
    • Training Schedules and Documents for Student-Facing Administrative Roles
    • Environmental Action Plan
    • Unit-level Strategic Plans

  • Standard VII: Governance, Leadership, and Administration

    The institution is governed and administered in a manner that allows it to realize its stated mission and goals in a way that effectively benefits the institution, its students, and the other constituencies it serves. Even when supported by or affiliated with governmental, corporate, religious, educational systems, or other unaccredited organizations, the institution has education as its primary purpose, and it operates as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy (MSCHE 2015).

    Requirements of Affiliation:

    • Governance Structures
    • Governing Body
    • Accurate Information

    Related Institutional Priorities (P=Primary, S=Secondary):

    • Wisdom, Knowledge, and Learning - S
    • Holistic Student Success and Flourishing - S
    • Community and Institutional Belonging - S
    • Institutional Vitality and Continuous Improvement - P

    Lines of Inquiry:

    1. How clearly articulated and transparent are Fordham’s governance structure, including a legally constituted governing body with clearly defined roles, responsibilities for oversight, and accountability for decision-making by each constituency?

    2. To what degree is the governance structure clearly articulated to stakeholders to outline roles, responsibilities, and accountability for decision-making by each constituency? How well do Fordham’s stakeholders understand the governance structure? To what degree does the governance structure add to a sense of community?

    3. Does the institution have a Chief Executive Officer and sufficient Administration who have appropriate experience, skills, and credentials; clearly defined roles and reporting relationships; appropriate resources and working relationships; and processes for evaluation?

    4. How effectively does the Board of Trustees enable other parts of the University to meet institutional priorities and strategic goals?

    5. How are governance, leadership, administrative, and faculty structure effectiveness periodically and systematically assessed? How does it lead to improvement in governance?

    6. How does the University ensure these assessments support Fordham’s Mission and Institutional Priorities; and how are they used to guide continuous improvement in institutional vitality, operations, and agile adaptation?

    7. To what extent does the University’s shared governance model ensure the support of institutional innovation through strategic resource management and stewardship? How will institutional innovation be evaluated?

    8. How effectively does the governance structure interact with faculty, staff, and students to enable the systemic and sustainable achievement of academic excellence and advance the University’s mission?

    9. What opportunities to enhance continuous improvement and innovation were discovered, and what recommendations can be made for improvement in these areas?

    Co-Chairs:

    • Orit Avishai, Steering Committee, Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology
    • Jonathan Crystal, Steering Committee, Vice Provost, Office of the Provost

    This Working Group will consult with:

    • All other Working Groups, especially WG 1: Mission and Goals, WG 2: Ethics and Integrity, WG 3: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience, and WG 6: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement

    • Evidence Inventory and Student Voice Teams

    • Board of Trustees

    • All President’s Cabinet members and their teams

    • Deans of undergraduate and graduate/professional schools

    • Faculty Senate and relevant committees

    • Finance, Budget, and Investment professionals

    • Human Resources

    Examples of assessment data, processes, documents, and procedures to support the Self-Study Report for this Working Group include:

    • Board of Trustees (member bios; committee structure, meeting minutes, surveys, self-assessments)

    • University Organizational Chart

    • Provost’s Office Organizational Chart

    • Policies and Procedures Committee (Policy on policies)

    • Faculty Senate (minutes, composition, By-Laws, committees, working methods)

    • Board of Trustee By-Laws and comparison to AGB guidelines

    • University-wide and School-Specific Faculty Statutes and By-Laws

    • Conflict of interest statement

    • Administrative credentials

    • Human Resources Policies

    • Administrators’ Council announcement and by-laws, minutes, composition

    • Communications to the University Community from the Board of Trustees, University President, Cabinet Members, Deans, and other University Leaders

    • Recordings/transcripts of Town Hall meetings and other events, such as those by the Finance Team

    • Data on the affordability and rise of low-cost and no-cost higher/graduate education

  • Objective:

    This team is charged with supporting the Steering Committee and the Working Groups in identifying and collecting substantial documentation to demonstrate fulfillment of the Standards and the Requirements of Affiliation in the development of the Self-Study. This team will also ensure verification of compliance with accreditation-relevant federal regulations. In addition, this team will provide leadership in identifying opportunities for interactions and areas of efficiency between Working Groups.

    Co-Chairs:

    • William Colona, Assistant Vice President, Government Relations, Federal and Urban Affairs
    • Jeannine Pinto, Steering Committee, Director, Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

    This Team will consult with:

    All Working Groups, as well as units and offices across the University that are responsible for producing and maintaining relevant data, documentation, and related types of evidence needed to demonstrate compliance with the Standards.

  • Objective:

    This team is charged with developing and implementing a communications plan on behalf of the Steering Committee to ensure the Self-Study process is transparent, inclusive, and informed by community-wide input and engagement. This team will also establish style guidelines for and will copy edit the Self-Study, as well as ensure that the final Self-Study has a consistent “look and feel” after the independent Working Group reports are synthesized into the final Self-Study Report document.

    Co-Chairs:

    • John Fortunato, Professor, Communications and Media Management, Gabelli School of Business
    • Donna Lehmann, Steering Committee, Associate Vice President for Marketing, University Marketing and Communications

    This Team will consult with:

    The Steering Committee, as well as University Marketing and Communications.

  • Objective:

    This team is charged with leading a representative and diverse group of students to ensure that their voices inform and are integrated into the efforts of each Working Group. This team will act as a bridge between Fordham undergraduate and graduate students, and the Working Groups, seeking information from students that will provide insights, perceptions, data, suggestions, and recommendations for Working Groups to consider.

    Co-Chairs:

    • Binta Alleyne-Green, Steering Committee, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Social Service

    • Rafael Zapata, Steering Committee, Chief Diversity Officer, Special Assistant to the President for Diversity, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs

    Suggested Membership:

    Students representing:

    • Diverse backgrounds and experiences
    • Undergraduate and graduate/professional programs
    • Rose Hill and Lincoln Center campuses
    • Residential and commuter students
    • Domestic and international students
    • Student athletes
    • Military veterans and ROTC members
    • Leadership organizations/student government
    • Academic support programs, such as HEOP, CSTEP, TRIO, etc.

    This Team will consult with:

    All Working Groups, as well as various student governance, leadership, and other student groups representative of the above-listed communities, across the institution.