Talk:Ball State University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Academic Extracurriculars

Academic Extracurriculars have been removed because they are not necessary to the article itself, because no other college pages have them (that I am aware of), and because to update the academic extracurriculars of a school (beyond its debate team) would require a lot of time and energy and would have to be changed on a year-by-year basis to reflect the changes in a school. Bearing in mind that the audience of this article is probably seeking basic information on the school, it is my recommendation that the extracurriculars either be kept out of the main page or be moved to a sub-page that can be linked from the main page. As always, I welcome questions and discussions here or on my talk page. --Martin Osterman 15:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro Blurb

I’m sorry, but BSU simply is a little more than the home of the academy. The "Academy" sentence as it is now is immaterial and frankly just plain menial. Either dump it or tie it into BSU in terms of the Academy’s significance to BSU, not the other way around (e.g. link this with the BSU teacher’s college and the use of the academy as a teaching laboratory). Also, when you single out individual programs as "excellent", the presumption is that ONLY those programs are decent. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t single out one or two programs for praise (e.g. Teaching, Architecture, Business/Entrepreneurship), but that grouping them in one sentence without supporting evidence and with only a generic adjective in tow instills a sensation of mock praise. A good starting point would be BSU’s current national academic rankings. [Ball State: Rankings and Recognitions] (Unsigned comment made by 207.191.220.59)

Currently this article is little more than a stub of sorts with very little information within it save a listing of important information. As a student of the university, I plan on devoting time and energy to this article in the coming weeks as time and school permit. Your critiques of the article as it is, at present, are welcome as they will give everyone an idea of a direction to move as this article is "fleshed out". Bear in mind, however, that I put the Academy reference back in at the end of the paragraph (as opposed to where it had been before you removed it) because there is no "body" of the article for me to put the sentence presently. However, since the Academy does have its own Wiki page, I felt it relevant to make sure it does get mentioned in the mainpage. Once the article is brought up to spec the sentence in question will have a better home where it fits in better. --Martin Osterman 02:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Format Change

Alright, after lots of work, I would like to ask those here to take a look at the revised and amended article and let me know if it'll fly. Additional information added to it is welcome, as always. The page can be found here: User:Martin Osterman\Ball State University Thanks! --Vortex 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good - move it over. (But don't get too upset if other folks start editing it mercilessly) - Davodd 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That's what Wiki is for. :) Let me put some meat on the two sections that are currently empty and then we'll be ready to do it. --Vortex 12:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

New Page

The fork I worked on over break is now up and in place. There are two sections that I removed which can be re-added, but I want the community to mull them over first. The first is the "Notable Faculty" section which, in my opinion, was looking more like a list than anything else (and only two of the names actually linked to other bios within Wiki). If we're going to do something like that, I think that we need to make sure it follows whatever "notable" criterion that Wikipedia has set. That way, at least, we're not simply creating a page filled with lists.

Second, I removed the "Athletic Successes" subsection. While I want to be able to tell of BSU's successes on the field athletically, going back only to 1989 and covering only basketball kinda leaves the subsection at a loss. I'd love to see all of BSU's athletic achievements showcased, but that would be a good topic for a sub-article. My thoughts are that if the section is re-added, a brief summary of BSU's recent successes (within the last 5 years or so) be mentioned. If we do details, let's save them for a sub-article.

I am now working on a sub-article for the history of the University, accessible through my mainpage. I hope to have it done in a couple weeks -- I'm through the 1950s now -- and posted shortly thereafter.

I hope I haven't gone off the deep end with this! If anyone has any problems or such, I'm very open to change! --Vortex 12:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I would like to see the rewriting of the history section address the following pairwise-related topics:
    • the sequence of four (failed) predecessor private institutions from 1899 to 1917 that formerly were housed in what is now BSU's Administration Building. That sequence would mention the name (and renaming) of the institution and the years operating under each name. (One of the four, Muncie Normal/National Institute, had a renaming during its continuous operation.) Also, this sequence appears to have little or no continuity/carry-over from one institution to the next, except the building and surrounding land. Indeed, no normal school was in operation for two periods: a portion of 1907 to a portion of 1912 and a portion of 1917 to a portion of 1918. Because of these discontinuities, the successful BSU of today can trace its establishment to 1918 (at most in the remnants of prior institutions). A very brief reference for all this is: http://www.bsu.edu/president/bsupresidents but I suspect your book references are superior in breadth and depth.
    • the parallel evolution of ISU and BSU from 1918 onward
      • Indiana State Normal School (and Eastern Division in 1918, renamed Ball State Normal School in 1925) renamed as
      • Indiana State Teachers College (and Ball State Teachers College) in 1927
      • Indiana State College (and Ball State College) in 1961
      • Indiana State University (and Ball State University) in 1965.
    • the Terre-Haute-based Indiana State Teachers College Board of Trustees governed both Indiana State Teachers College and Ball State Teachers College (and earlier normal school names) until 1961 as one statewide system of teachers colleges. That name of the trustees was less in the spirit of Indiana-State(-University)'s Board of Trustees as it was more in the spirit of The State of Indiana's Board of Trustees for All of Indiana's Teachers Colleges. Something similar is occurring nowadays with the evolution of Ivy Tech to be a statewide system of community colleges out of a prior institution of a somewhat different mission.
    • what generally caused the four predecessor normal schools in Muncie to fail where Ball State succeeded Generally this is related to:
      • Teachers were not paid much a century ago.
      • Women teachers knew that their career was bounded a century ago by the rule that they generally were not allowed to continue in their teaching career once they married, and especially once they were pregnant or bore a child.
      • Knowing these limits on their earning potential during their career, teachers preferred lower-cost training to higher-cost training.
      • Private normal schools were generally higher-cost than state-supported normal schools, such as the Indiana State Normal School in Terre Haute.
      • Private normal schools were sensitive to annual financial weakness due to their enrollment if too many teachers preferred the state-supported normal schools that year.
      • The Ball family understood the above-listed full interplay and logic. That is a core reason that they bought the remnants of the then-closed Muncie National Institute and donated it to the State of Indiana system of teachers colleges, which was synonymous with what is now ISU.
    • the Indiana state-supported higher-education landscape of the 20th century was evolving as time progressed At approximately the same time that ISU/BSU evolution from teachers college to college to university was occurring around 1961 and 1965 within the statewide system of teachers colleges, a very similar evolution was occurring in the IU and Purdue systems. At approximately the same time as the 1961 independence of BSU from ISU, IPFW was in the process of forming from 1958 to 1964, which in turn inspired IUPUI to be formed out of the four disparate institutions that the IU and Purdue systems operated in Indianapolis during the latter 1960s, culminating in the 1969 merger. Further, as BSU was being made independent of ISU, what is now Southern Indiana University in Evansville was being established to maintain ISU as a statewide system analogous to the IU and Purdue systems. The main thrust of this is that perhaps the 1958 to 1969 period is what best bounds the statewide reorganization of state-supported colleges & universities that resulted in the full-fledged universities of today of BSU, ISU, IPFW, and IUPUI, because arguably what came before that reorganization period for each of these institutions was of a substantially different character than today's full-fledged universities.
There that would capture that lineage of history of BSU and enhance what is said about BSU over on the ISU article. To some degree today's BSU began in 1899 with the formation of the first normal school to occupy one of its main buildings, but to some degree BSU began in 1918 as a regional campus of a statewide normal school system, but to some degree BSU began in 1925 when its name first contained "Ball State", but to some degree BSU began in 1961 when it gained independence from the statewide teachers college system, but to some degree BSU the university began in 1965 with its recharter with the State of Indiana. The only way to definitively solve when that blossoming over time actually caused BSU to be established is to present those stages of blossoming and paint the picture that the formation of BSU was incremental over time, as opposed to other institutions that began on one specific day in one specific year. (The same is true of ISU, IPFW, and IUPUI.) —Optikos 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, most of your comments are going to be included in the more in-depth History page that I am working on now (see my User page for a link). I didn't want to go into too much depth in the main article with things that would be better-suited for a separate article. Thus, the main article's History section was created as a basic general summary of the history. I hope this helps! (And I hope I didn't misread what you were saying) --Vortex 17:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I wouldn't expect nearly as much detail as I gave regarding the overall context of the 1958 to 1969 reorganization of the IU system, Purdue system, and teacher college system promulgated by the Indiana Commission on Higher Education that I went into. I was providing justification of why a single phrase or a single sentence mentioning this context is important for people (especially those not experts in the history of Indiana state-supported higher eduction) to see this BSU evolution in a larger context of statewide transformation of state-supported universities. Other previous bullets (italicized portion) and subbullets (the causes of previous private normal school failure) though I think should be covered and would comprise my checklist of what is necessary to be covered at a mininum. By the way, generally, I am contributing and editing to make all university and college articles more consistent in certain regards, especially infobox, campus map external link, athletics program external link, as I think that this is important information that people expect to be able to learn easily about a university or college. So far I have not added itemized listing schools/colleges to my list of consistency across all university and college articles, but I perhaps am leaning that way because it is a wonderful summary of what the institution thinks are its strengths. Even more undecided to me is whether every department within each school/college should be listed (for verbosity reasons), although I agree that it can be highly useful in summarizing the character of a university's academcic specialties. So far I am focusing on infobox, campus map link, and athletics link consistency for all universities and colleges before tackling the academic-unit list topic. As one can suspect though, complexities regarding of how a university came into existence (which is especially complicated for IUPUI) is related to presenting accurate/informative information in the "established" field of the infobox rather than merely picking a not-100%-accurate established date (e.g. 1899 in BSU's case). —Optikos 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It is for those reasons that I removed the department list from the page, as well as other non-essential lists. WP:NOT is not simply a collection of lists. I do look forward to working more with you on this as time allows and permits; my progress is slow because I am, in fact, a student of Ball State at the moment, and most of my time is devoted to my studies. However, if you have things you wish to add, you are more than welcome to do so! I would love to see this entry in Wiki become much bigger, bolder, and fuller than it is now... at least the replacement I made is better than what was there previously! --Vortex 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

History

If you aren't aware, my User page has a history of BSU itself through the 1950s or so. You are welcome to use that or revise the page on my User page. --Vortex 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I created a history at a glance table that helps decipher the multiple paragraphs of text in the history section. For the more controversial facts I added references. Before removing anything from the History at a glance table, please check the normative references because they might differ from your colloquial/commonfolk understanding. Optikos 18:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • i think the history section is getting a bit out of control. compare ball state's history section to nearly any other university. anyone else think this section should be edited down? Randella 20:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
We should not delete well-researched facts just to look like other articles. The goal of WP is that each article excels; not that each article blends in indistingushible from all other similar topic entries. If a particular section is too big, it should be made into its own article: History of Ball State University, for example. Ball State's history is more varied and interesting than that of most U.S. public universities that are either state-founded (Indiana/Indiana State) or U.S. land grant universities (Purdue) - since it isn't either of those - and therefore its founding deserves more attention since it is unique among Indiana colleges and universities.
One also could argue that Ball State's history section is better - i.e. more complete - than many other university articles. If the article continues to develop this way - it may become the third U.S. university article to be a Wikipedia featured article. The only university articles with feature status now are Michigan State University and University of Michigan, both of which have detailed histories similar to that of Ball State's current history.
- Davodd 01:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
OK -- Created History of Ball State University. Hope it works - in both allowing an expansion of Ball State's story without bogging down the main article, which should be holistic in its coverage. - Davodd 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Ball State's history is "more varied and interesting than that of most U.S. public universities". I agree with your creation of another main article which is referenced in the Ball State University article. Thank you. Optikos 05:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that there is a History of Ball State University article, I agree that the history section in the Ball State University article can be reduced in length somewhat. Optikos 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
nothing wrong with having well-researched facts available. i think moving a lot of that over was a good way to retain the information but also find more balance for the average reader. Randella 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

1918 or 1899?

I'm thinking we should change the founding date to be 1899 - since that is when the school was first started. I'm not sure the 1918 date is truly accurate - it's just the demarcation of the time when the state took over control of the campus. What do you folks think? Davodd 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that each university's article should use the established date officially recognized by the institution itself, especially the office of the president/chancellor. Then if there are additional details to present that add color to the single raw established date, then they appear in the History at a glance table, as can be seen for most of the university and college articles throughout Indiana (and soon Illinois then Michigan then...).
    • For example, some might argue that the modern Ball State University was not established until the 1965 rechartering as a true diversified university. Prior to 1965, what existed of BSU was largely today's Teachers College. Arguably, Ball State Teachers College (nee State Normal School) was renamed in 1961/1965 Teachers College (an academic unit within Ball State College/University) and then a brand spankin' new institution composed of multiple additional colleges was established on that base in 1965. In this line of thought, the history prior to 1965 is the history of merely one college of the 7 degree-granting colleges comprising today's BSU and the history of the 6 other degree-granting colleges substantially commences in 1965. Conversely, as you reason, arguably, BSU to some degree was established in 1899, but did not resemble BSU other than occupancy of a building and some minimal resemblance to the later normal school and resulting Teachers College. However, the modern BSU's administration is headquartered in that 1899 building, which is no small statement of 1899-originated heritage. Rather than each editor (or groups of editors) of this article advancing one line of reasoning over another of why 1899, 1918, 1924 (the first BSU president and first appearance of Ball in the name), or 1965 should be the established date of BSU as a university.
    • Thus, I advocate a universal principle for all university and college articles: use whatever established date the president/chancellor/head-officer says.
      • In UCLA's case this is not UCLA's equivalent of BSU's 1899 date as a prior private institution nor UCLA's equivalent of BSU's 1918 date as a two-year normal school, but rather UCLA's equivalent of BSU's 1965 date when UCLA became a full-fledged multi-program four-or-more-year university within the UC system.
        • Well, it depends. I think 1899 would best reflect the "founding date", although some would argue that 1965 would be more accurate. I guess it all depends on how you look at it. Wikichange 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Eastern Michigan University and Western Michigan University sort of claim two established dates: date established as a two-year normal school way back and date established as a university in the 1950s.
      • In IPFW's and IUPUI's cases, this is not the date of the oldest 19th-century privately-funded piece of the institution (analogous to BSU's Teachers College, an older piece of the modern diversified university), but the 1964/1969 date of their respective mergers that formed the modern IPFW and IUPUI universities.
      • In Taylor University's case, Taylor's president does consider the established date to be of a differently-named institution 60 miles to the north that changed its name and moved to Upland in the 1890s.
    • It all comes down to what was established: the university as a true university beyond today's Teachers College versus an institution with Ball somewhere in its name versus a continuously-operating publicly-funded institution versus any post-secondary institution that once occupied BSU's land/buildings versus some other well-reasoned definition.
    • In my opinion, most public universities in Indiana other than Purdue University have very fuzzy evolving date of establishment. This is especially true for Ball State University, IPFW, IUPUI, USI, Vincennes University, and the Ivy Tech community college system, all of which have a date at which their modern personality began which is much different than the date of their first nacent beginnings. Even the period from 1820 to 1838 at Indiana University is a blossoming flower, where the Indiana Seminary institution founded in 1820 differed significantly from the later Indiana University (see Trustees of Vincennes University v Indiana U.S. Supreme Court case, regarding whether Vincennes University status as a publicly-funded four-year land-grant university in the Territory of Indiana could be revoked and transferred to Indiana Seminary to transform Indiana Seminary / Indiana College into Indiana University). Rather than cover up that blossoming-flower aspect of the tumultuous histories of universities in Indiana (which continues anew today with the tumultuous history of a community-college system in Ivy Tech), I think that we should simply embrace the blossoming over time and admit there is no single established date for, well, any of the many public universities in Indiana other than Purdue University. When one single established date is needed to fill in a form, use the single established date that the president of the institution likes to use. Exposing the incremental evolution over the years shows a dynamic progressive moving-forward-over-time side to Indiana. By deferring to the wishes of the institution regarding its established date, each article can have a single defensible normative fact as official policy. No other option provides this level of officialness. We should not be performing original invention of information, but merely relaying existing accepted official fact (even if one university president's criteria for established date differs from another university president's criteria for established date). Then, as I have shown throughout Indiana's college and university articles, the history at a glance table can facilitate the reader in making apples-to-apples comparisons between multiple institutions. Optikos 21:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe the established date should be reflected as 1918, which has commonly been used by the University for years. The physical building is mostly arbitrary. If I have an outdoor supply business and I move it to a building which was erected in 1900 and previously held some form of supply store, I can't claim my business was established in 1900 by that fact alone. The two would be mutually exclusive of the other. However, if my business began as "Fred's Dry Goods" in 1920, became "Fred's Outdoor Dry Goods" in 1930, was renamed to "Outdoor Supplies" in 1940, and eventually became "Outdoor World" in 1960, you can certainly see there is a lineage that can easily be traced to 1920. It doesn't matter whether the owners changed or the business was moved. The same applies to the founding of Ball State University. MDA - 03/16/06

Moved to talk page:

The following original research has been moved here until better sourced:

Happy Friday Guy

Beginning with the fall semister of 2004 a student every Friday has donned a unique costume and rode a motorized skooter through campus shouting "Happy Friday!" and sometimes handing out candy. It is not yet known exactly who Happy Friday is, but it is known that he brings joy to everybody that he meets.

-- Davodd 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He exists and makes the run across campus every Friday, rain or shine. What kind of sourcing do you want? Pope Guilty 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
For clarification, inclusion of facts should conform to: Wikipedia: Original research. Davodd 18:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
How about the first article listed here, with an interview with said Friday Guy of Happiness? Pope Guilty 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I just do not buy that this is notable. There are MANY people and aspects about Ball State that are not covered - that are more important to the university and the world in general. Five years from now, this individual will be gone and forgotten on campus as he moves on with his life and live only in the memories of a few alumni. Maybe a story about him would be more suitable at Wikinews, which covers more fleeting and less encyclopedic topics. - Davodd 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
So what was with the "better sourced" bit? Why not just say "This doesn't belong here" from the start?Pope Guilty 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Because, I was honestly ignorant. I wasn't aware of what you were talking. Now that you point it out, I'm not sure it's notable enough to include in an encyclopedia entry about the third-largest university in Indiana. That's all; no big conspiracy. Davodd 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Shafer Tower?

Should there be a small section about the carillon in the article? I know that it is only a few years old but could someone elaborate on it just a bit? Thanks! Wikichange 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations

 Ball State University/Archive 1 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 9, 2006

Not too far from passing, good effort from the editors! The Dumpus/Vanishbox reference is either vanity/spam and needs to be expunged (nothing at Dumpus suggests notability - indeed it got speedy-deleted while this review was being written!) or it needs to be referenced to show just how significant it is. The referencing is variable - some footnotes explaining where in the main reference section facts are sourced from (see Corinthian War for an excellent example of how to do this) would be wonderful. Many facts have are completely unreferenced, including ones which obviously should be. The inline external links, if intended to be references, should be rewritten as references/footnotes (see WP:CITE). Further, the "academics strengths" section uses several well-known reports to support claims of particular strengths. That's a good example of using respected sources. However, they need to be referenced properly, and not just to an internet address (since they are mostly originally "paper" references, reference the correct paper copy then give the external link). Everywhere where external links are used (under references and "external links") it would be a good idea to include in brackets after the address something like (URL accessed 9 April 2006).

Use of images is good, and mostly they are well-tagged for copyright status. Image:Ball Brothers 1.jpg needs more work - it should have a source listed, and a brief description on its image page that establishes that is a photograph published prior to 1923. (If the best you can do is show that it got taken prior to 1923, I doubt anyone will complain too hard, though!) As for Image:BallStateUHoriz.jpg and Image:BallStateSpiritMark.jpg, read the instructions on the template tag. Somebody needs to write fair use rationales, explaining why each individual use of the images in WP articles is fair use. (This is different to PD or GFDL, because once a photo is PD or GFDL, it just is PD/GFDL, full stop. "Fair use" photos are only fair use in a particular context, so they need a new rationale everytime they are used, saying why, in that context, it's fair use. Even for logos, fair use is not blanket - you can't use logos purely decoratively, or to effectively "brand" Wikipedia's coverage of a topic.) One excellent piece of practice could be found on Starship Troopers - not only was each image correctly tagged and rationaled, but a message was hidden in the code for the article using <!-- ..... --> , which stops the "..." getting displayed when the article is just being viewed. The message also explained why the use was fair use, so fair use was recorded both in the article source and on the image page.

Other than that, the article reads pretty well and looks nice. The lead is a little weak, however, and could do with summarizing the article better (see WP:LEAD for tips). You had a "--" instead of a "—" (use the code &mdash followed directly by a ; since -- doesn't render as a full dash (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for an explanation) so I corrected that. I also am not sure about the way the "Cheerleading" bit is written after the sports table, it looks a little odd to use the large font and italics - I thought at first it was a caption for the table. Perhaps it could be included in the table, splitting the table up into NCAA and non-NCAA? Or maybe there is some other way of including it. The subsectioning is good and consistent, the table of contents isn't bloated, and aside from the questionable music references in the lead seems NPOV. I also added this article to the category for the county it's in - seemed a relevant categorization to me! So, almost up to GA status, still some way away from FA status but that's definitely achievable if you build up on the strengths of this article and improve the referencing. Please renominate it once you think these concerns are addressed! There's lots of good work here, would be great to see it even better! TheGrappler 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the much-needed observations, tips and beneficial critiques. They will surely help us in our effort to build this article into a top-quality WP entry. - Davodd 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

List moved from article due to disputed notability

Moved the below list here from the front page - only one has an article here - the rest are red links, which immediately throws their notability in doubt. Of the lot, only Steve Bell, would be easily recognizable outside of Muncie academic circles. - Davodd 19:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Davood - I think Ray Steele is recognizable for his industry leadership in the IT/telecommunication field. And Barry Umansky is a former FCC legal expert who is well known in TV and telecommunication circles. I can speak just to them; I am sure the others are well renowned too.

Honestly, that's probably because you're a telecommunications major, as am I. I would however say that Phil Bremen is pretty well known. He was a correspondent overseas and was also the late Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon's Press Secretary. Jackola

Noted Ball State staff

  • Mir Masoom Ali, statistics
  • David L. Arnold, geography
  • Ramon Avila, marketing
  • Mohammad Behforuz, chemistry
  • Stephen Bell, Telecommunications professor (former host of Good Morning America)
  • Dick Bellaver, information and communication sciences (formerly with AT&T Bell Labs)
  • Sheldon Braaten, teaching: special education
  • Phil Bremen, Telecommunications instructor (former reporter for NBC News)
  • Teh-Kuang Chang, Political Science professor
  • Anthony Costello, architecture
  • Tracy Cross, gifted studies
  • Curtis Gary Dean, actuarial science
  • Raymond Dean, neuropsychology
  • Frank Felsenstein, humanities
  • David Haber, wellness and gerontology
  • Ruth Howes, physics and astronomy
  • Wes Janz, architecture
  • Charles V. Jones, Office of Teaching & Learning Advancement
  • Sherry Kloss, fine arts
  • Claude D. Oliver, Jr., religious studies
  • Robert Palmer, music
  • Glenda Riley, history
  • Gary Santoni, economics
  • Gene Stamm, physical education
  • Rayford L. Steele, information and communication sciences
  • Barry Umansky, Telecommunications professor
  • C. Warren Vander Hill, environmental studies
  • Robert Yadon, information and communication sciences (formerly with the National Association of Broadcasters)
  • Judy Yordan, performance studies
  • Terry Zivney, finance
  • James Chesebro, Distinguished Professor of Telecommunications in the Department of Telecommunications
  • John Dailey, Assistant Professor of Multimedia