The Fairfield University Core Curriculum was presented in 1969, and approved in April 1970.


Area I: Mathematics and Natural Sciences


Area II: History and the Behavioral and Social Sciences


Area III: Philosophy and Religious Studies


Area IV: English and Visual and Performing Arts


Area V: Classical and Modern Languages


Diversity Requirement: U.S. and World Diversity

Is this initiative imposed?
Is this initiative focued on shrinking the Core?
Is this process a "done deal”?

Prof. Epstein said he that he believes the answer to each of these questions is no, but he understands the concerns expressed in these questions.  He added that the Core review and revision process started as a faculty-driven initative.  Now that we are moving on from the Fairfield 2020 discussion of the Core, the process for revising or updating the Core has now been placed in the hands of the faculty (through the Core Advisory Task Force).

Prof. Epstein explained that his role as Director of the Core (working with the Core Advisory Task Force) is three-fold:

• Usher Core revision proposal through formal routing process and approval
• Oversee implementation of any approved revisions/proposal
• Oversee assessment of future/revised Core

He clarified the parameters within which the Core Advisory Council must operate.  The Director of the Core and the Advisory Concil cannot make radical changes to what came out of the Fairfield 2020 process.  Similarly they are not in a position to adopt an entirely new model.  Nonetheless, they are prepared to adapt and revise the existing draft model based on colleague feedback and discussion

Proposed Core

1 course each in English, Math, Religious Studies, Philosophy, History
2 courses in a foreign language, any level (universal)
*No place outs (no  AP place outs, no language place outs)
*Intentional writing across curriculum component across this tier

Three options:  cluster course in tier 2, a team taught course, or an individually taught course
*Tier three is actually an interdisciplinary "component" of Tier 2 (to be taken with Tier 2)

Notes on the Proposed Core & Core Advisory Task Force

Dennis Keenan (PH)
Paul Lakeland (RS)
Laura Nash (VPA)
Anna Lawrence (HI) 
Shannon Harding (PY)
Laura McSweeney (MA)
Shelly Phelan (BI) 
Audrey Beauvais (Nursing)
Christine Siegel (ex officio)

Questions & Answers

1. Will AP credits apply for graduation, but not for Core?
           Prof. Epstein:  Certainly not in Tier 1… but I'm not certain about Tier 2
2. I like the interdisciplinarity of Tier 2
3. When we get Core "resources" let's target them for building interdisciplinary courses.

Good afternoon. I first want to begin by reminding you that my appointment is not official until July 1, 2015. Jim Simon is currently the acting Dean. It would be highly inappropriate for me to comment on anything other than the proposal, which was shared.  But even this I will do sparingly.

Given the voluminous duties associated with my own post as associate vice President for Academic Affairs not to mention my teaching and research commitments I have not had the opportunity to fully commit time to exploring all of the challenges, rewards, and opportunities that await us as we work collectively to strengthen the College of Arts and Sciences. I have also not had an opportunity to meet with the College Staff or even fully debrief with Jim so any comments from me regarding anything other than my own appointment would be premature.

I agreed to attend today’s meeting primarily to listen to any concerns that have been shared regarding SVPA Babington’s announcement concerning changes to the leadership structure of the college, which has, in many ways been misconstrued among other things as an attempt to break up the college and circumvent faculty governance. Let me be firm and clear in this regard, there is no plan to break up the college. What SVPA Babington was hoping to stimulate was dialogue on how to best leverage the tremendous talent and resources that reside within the college but are not always visible.  

After reading through all of the comments and engaging in conversation and trading emails with various parties it is quite clear that this not how Lynn’s comments were perceived. Hopefully we can address some of those misconceptions today and get back to the business that should remain our highest priority, serving our students.

In order to facilitate that discussion I have shared the comments from the suggestion box with Bob Epstein whom I assume has shared them with all of you [see Appendix II]. I have a few copies for anyone who would like one. The purpose in asking that the suggestions be kept anonymous was to encourage candor and protect junior faculty who might not otherwise participate. However given the negative perception on the part of some that this was not transparent they have now been shared.

I would hope that our conversation this afternoon could remain civil and that all would recognize our shared interest in promoting both the interests of the college and the larger university community.

From the CAS Governance Document:
3.5.1.4 Arts and Sciences Planning Committee

From the Faculty Handbook (p. 20):

Comment 1 timestamp : Thu Apr 09 07:43:43 EDT 2015
The College should be lead by a Dean who is an advocate for the College, its faculty and students. The Dean should have one associate dean. The associate dean should be responsible for assisting the Dean with the faculty development and budgets. The Dean should have some external responsibilities that should not be limited to the Advisory Council, but rather that the Dean be expected to "on the road" one day a week. The assistant deans should be focused on the day to day challenges presented by our students with the direction from the Dean. However, for this simple plan to work, we need to restore the office of the Dean of First Year Students.

Comment 2 timestamp : Thu Apr 09 06:35:36 EDT 2015
My question is what are the problems/ challenges that would necessitate a change in the governance structure of A&S?

Once a detailed analysis of the problems/ challenges is completed, are there examples of other universities with our structure that have solved the problems/ challenges by changing the governance structure?

I would especially be interested in looking at the IR data/ budget data that points to significant problems/ challenges.


Comment 3 timestamp : Wed Apr 08 18:59:20 EDT 2015
I don't know what you mean by a "leadership model." 

In general, like most other schools, our spending on administrative staff has skyrocketed.  We need to reduce our admin staff by at least 25%, including the admin staff for the College.  Ten years ago there was a dean with a secretary.  There are now two secretaries, two other support staff (though these mostly deal with students and are obviously kept busy at it), three people answering phones, and two "associate deans."  Have we really increased our workload that much in a decade? Robbin massively increased the staff to undertake "initiatives" that built her CV.  That's fine for her, but bad for the institution.  Even good initiatives can be bad for the institution.

In terms of the Dean's search and its aftermath, part 1: we were never told why the search failed.  The committee seemed to have a candidate they liked, but he or she was eliminated.  This is exactly what happened in the first SVPAA search.  If the administration is going to ignore its faculty committees, there is no reason to convene them.  Just do what you want and don't waste our time.

Part 2: Prof. Williams is a perfectly nice guy; he will make a fine interim dean. Still, almost anybody could do it.  Simon was a fine interim dean.  Why change?  It would seem to involve a lot of needless reorganization.  No explanation has been given.

Part 3: Where did this thinking about leadership team come from (or whatever it is)? Gudalunas, Walker and Nash are all associate professors.  None of them have extensive administrative experience, and none have even been promoted (though some are young enough they probably have not had time).  I am thrilled by the diversity: two gay men, a woman, and a Black man -- that's progress.  But there was never a call to select these people and no faculty input at all.  Why?  (If the answer is that the faculty are homophobic, racist, and misogynistic, then I am for the selection.  But if that is not the answer, I want to know what is.)

In sum: eliminate the associate deans' positions.  Eliminate two secretarial positions. Hire some faculty member to do the work of dean for a three year, potentially renewable term and let's stop wasting money on failed searches.  We need to focus on teaching.  That's what pays our bills.  All of the drama being constantly generated distracts all of us from the one task that matters. And for God's sake, let's stop chasing "initiatives" of every color and flavor.

Comment 4: timestamp : Tue Apr 07 08:57:11 EDT 2015
What we have had in the past (a Dean and an associate dean (or two)) seems to have been working.  No need to change what isn't broken.

We are the heart of the institution.  Please don't consider breaking up the college. The liberal arts and sciences are what makes FFU the wonderful institution it is.  That is why students come here and faculty want to teach here.

Comment 5: timestamp : Mon Apr 06 08:28:31 EDT 2015
Consider having a conversation about the suggestions submitted.

Comment 6: timestamp : Thu Apr 02 15:39:33 EDT 2015
 I’m not going to comment on leadership models because the prior question of how we got here is more pressing.
 
I had every hope and expectation that this administration would be marked by transparency and collaboration. Yet last week’s presentation to the College faculty was anything but. If the SVPAA had concerns about structures in the College, she should have brought these concerns to the Arts and Sciences Planning Committee. Even better, she should have let the new interim Dean do so, rather than micromanaging the business of the College. The Planning Committee could have brought this discussion to the CAS faculty who could have set up a committee consisting of elected faculty and appointed administrators to study the issues raised and make recommendations as appropriate.  Such a process would respect the College Governance Document and, thereby, the Faculty Handbook, “Each School's faculty shall determine its own structure of governance, subject to the approval of the University President.”
(p. 20)
 
I frankly don’t understand the goals of the current exercise, and I don’t want to speculate about possible ulterior motives. What I can say is that bypassing the elected College leadership has left many faculty feeling angry and alienated, just at the time when College faculty support is most needed for moving forward on core revision. But I don’t think it’s too late. A mea culpa and retreat from the unilateral imposition of anything beyond the appointment of an interim dean could go a long way toward restoring the confidence and trust that were so shaken in a few brief minutes last week.
 
Comment 7: timestamp : Wed Apr 01 20:47:55 EDT 2015
I believe that this process is backwards.  I would like to see a list of “problems” (structural) that exist in the College.  That list should be brought to a CAS meeting, vetted, and voted on by the faculty.  At that point, a committee could begin working on solutions to these agreed upon problems.
 
Second.  I would like to be provided with a list of colleges/universities that had the traditional CAS (or “liberal arts”) model that have dismantled the college and moved to another, presumably better, leadership structure.  Having recently been through the college app. process, I cannot say I am aware of any such models, except at very small schools.  If such examples exist, they could assist us in formulating both our “problems” and the solutions. If they do not, why are we trying to do this?
 
Comment 8: timestamp : Mon Mar 30 16:19:03 EDT 2015
Before submitting any suggestions, I would like to have: (1) a clear definition
of "leadership model"; (2) a clear explanation of why a new "leadership model"
is necessary (i.e. what are the problems that such a change would solve?); and
(3) who among the faculty are proposing such a change? (Nobody I know appears to
have any knowledge of it, or of what is driving it).
 
Comment 9: timestamp : Mon Mar 30 09:19:05 EDT 2015
I would like a leadership model for the College that values transparency, which would be exactly the opposite of the leadership model that has launched this initiative on a new leadership model for the College.  Here’s what I would NOT expect the next Dean of the College to do:

• Stand before the faculty of the College and state that there had been talk in the past year in the College about a new structure for the College when there had been no such talk.  (Blank lookson the faces of the College faculty).
• In the face of questions about where such talk had actually transpired, give answers that were evasive or changed the subject. 
• State to the same audience that he/she had talked to senior faculty in the College about the need for a new leadership model in the College when he/she had not, unless, of course, “senior faculty” referred to the very people he/she had appointed to a newly-announced “Thought Leadership” team. 
• Appoint a “Thought Leadership” team composed nearly entirely of faculty members now serving in administrative positions and so beholden directly to him/her, thusbypassing the elected College of Arts and Sciences Planning Committee. 
• Post an invitation to faculty on my.fairfield that asks faculty to comment on their ideas and suggestions for a new “leadership model” for the College without ever previously having stood before the College and made a coherent argument – or any kind of argument at all, even a poor one – about one’s identification of a problem, a vision, or need that such an initiative would address. 
• Post asurvey like this without stating who will read the responses and without promising to distribute all the responses to the faculty of the College.
  

Comment 10: timestamp : Sun Mar 29 09:17:05 EDT 2015
First problem here: would someone please own up to being the sponsor of this request. SVPAA? Select committee of three acting deans and one full-time faculty member? Which?
 
Second issue:
I have absolutely no idea why anyone should imagine that it is necessary to change the "leadership model" for the CAS. My impression is that whatever conversation there has been about this has taken place at levels of administration, lower or higher, where someone has an investment in marketing "change." As far as I know, there has been minimal informal conversation about this topic among the CAS faculty and no formal discussion at all. The standard and time-tested leadership model of a college of arts and sciences is to have a dean. Of course, it has to be a good dean, who sees her/his first responsibility to be to lead the college to greater heights, admittedly in a changing academic climate. The historic integrity of the arts and sciences is best protected by this model. As so often in the past, when changes have been suggested to this or that feature of the university, I have asked the question that is never answered, so I will ask it one more time: what is the problem which this proposal is intended to solve? Merit pay? Core "restructuring"? and now, leadership model? So, please, select committee, if that is who you are, start by explaining what the problem is and then perhaps we can think constructively about a model. if we need to.

Comment 11: timestamp : Sun Mar 29 11:26:07 EDT 2015
fewer deans and vice presidents... the growth of admin over recent years has not reduced the admin roles of faculty and dept chairs, nor has it strengthened the university's financial position. faculty need time and perhaps a few discussions to review and consider alternative models from other institutions. i would not be against an alternative model, but i would want to see clearly where we might be headed, and how (specifically) the new model could be monitored and assessed for efficacy and efficiency.  As we get more sophisticated with monitoring and assessing academic outcomes (including the cost/benefit-SWOT analysis the CAS did two years ago), the university would be remiss to not extend a similar "consciousness" and strategic plan to measure impacts and cost/benefit analysis of admin units.  For every dollar in (salaries, expenses, travel, etc), what comes back?
 
Comment 12: timestamp : Fri Mar 27 10:19:18 EDT 2015
I don't understand what is being considered.  Our "leadership model," as outlined in the Governance Document for the College of Arts & Sciences, is a Dean [section 2], the Dean's Council [3.4], a Council of Graduate Programs [1.13], and Standing and Special Committees [3.5]. 
 
If the charge of the "thought leaders" is to consider a new leadership model, are they to suggest, for instance, no longer having a Dean, or perhaps, eliminate the Dean's Council?
 
The charge of the "thought leaders" remains unclear to me.  It would be
helpful to have a written charge for our next College meeting.

Comment 13: timestamp : Thu Mar 26 17:08:23 EDT 2015
It would help guide the discussion of leadership models if CAS faculty was provided with a brief report on the strengths and weaknesses that have been identified in the current structure.
 
Comment 14: timestamp : Thu Mar 26 16:14:04 EDT 2015
Please keep the leadership model the way it is! We've been through so many proposed shake-ups and new initiatives and upheavals. It would be great to just focus on what's going on in the classroom and with our students.   Thank you for asking.