1- Governor’s Budget
includes potential cuts.
2- Stable exchange rate.
3- Continued containment of costs abroad.
1) Request for a
matrix of county/sub-center with areas of academic disciplines that
students may pursue for distribution to all ACIP members at the April
2012 meeting.
2) AFAC would like to continue to recommend that if
changes to the current partnerships are deemed necessary or desirable,
that necessary or desirable, that prioritization of changes, either in
reductions, additions, or the reopening of sites will follow the same
precepts found in the “Guidelines for New Program Development, ACIP
AFAC October 20, 2006” so that OIP maintains maximum accessibility
(given funding) to the greatest number of students, and to maintain or
improve programmatic diversity: culturally, geographically and in the
variety of fields of study.
3) In relation to the reopening of the Israel
Program, the AFAC recommends that the above mentioned guidelines be
considered, and that the Office of International Programs report back
to the ACIP at the Spring 2012 meeting:
a. The findings of
the Security Report
b. The location or locations deemed most advisable to
restart as well as rationales for the particular location/s.
c. The assessment of the curricular offerings
2- Making an exception to the Travel Advisory
Warnings can be confusing, and therefore AFAC recommends that any
request for an exception needs a serious and compelling reason and AFAC
requests that such information should be provided to ACIP in a timely
manner.
3- The AFAC recommends in light of the developments
of the past 10 years, and in order to provide a more inclusive
perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian issue that priority and effort
be given to exploring new partnerships such as: Birzeit University,
Arab American University in Jenin.
4- In addition to these requests, the AFAC requests
that the previously agreed upon importance of opening a site in the
Arabic world be placed on a fast track, and would like to begin
preliminary site discussions at the Spring 2012 meeting.
5- The AFAC also applauds the new requirement passed
by ACIP on April 15th 2011, requiring one college level course with a
focus on contemporary Middle Eastern Studies (i.e. history, politics,
geography, religion, humanities, social sciences), is a minimal
requirement. As such it helps to counteract the overwhelming
pro-Israeli US media and US international policy that casts
Palestinians as the sole aggressors and as the origin of violence
within the multi-cultural nation, while it ignores Israeli violence.
AFAC would like to recommend that all students going to sensitive areas
of the world have a briefing before they go by their home campuses
about issues that they might face.
6- AFAC would like to request that the Office of
International Programs continue to explore new agreements in Spain and
Japan as stated in the minutes of the AFAC Committee report of Spring
2011.
1- Encouraging ACIP
members to advertise RD opportunities.
2- FAC reviewed and revised the RD interview
questions and amended some of them.
3- FAC planned for the RD application review meeting
on Jan. 27.
4- FAC discussed the issue of the evaluation of the
RD by students, OIP staff and host country program staff and faculty,
for purposes of development and program assessment.
5- ACIP asks that IP coordinators and ACIP members
invite RD applicants to participate in the campus IP student
application process.
6- FAC discussed the Wang scholarship review process
and criteria.
7- FAC discussed the need of an RD in Israel in case
it re-opens. We trust that the IP office will perform a thorough
assessment of the program in terms of safety and security and that IP
will keep CSU students’ best interest in mind.
1- In case that the
Israel program is re-opened, and in order to offer flexibility in its
re-establishment, ACIP recommends to remove the policy that requires
the presence of an RD in Israel. (approved)
2- The FAC requests access to the results of the
student post-program questionnaire pertaining to the question about the
Resident Director (question #24) including the personal comments
section. (approved)