CAS
MEETING
MINUTES
Friday,
January 27, 2017
Alumni House
3:30 p.m.
Proxies
were held for:
By:
Janet Struili
Angela Biselli
Sunil Purushotham
Liz Hohl
Philip Eliasoph
Jo Yarrington
Amanda Harper-Leatherman
John Miecznikowski
Marti LoMonaco
Lynne Porter
David Lerner
Laura Nash
Brian Torff
Laura Nash
Irene Mulvey
Susan Rakowitz
The
Chair called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. with approximately 50
members present.
I.
Approval of the November 18 Minutes
The
Chair called for a motion to approve the November 18 Minutes.
Professor Miecznikowski MOVED that they be passed; Professor
McSweeney SECONDED and with a vote of 45 in favor, none opposed, and
none abstaining, the motion PASSED.
II.
Faculty Research Minutes
The
Chair explained that no Research Minutes had materialized for this
meeting but that this feature would return at the next meeting.
III.
Election of CAS Faculty Secretary Semester Replacement &
Humanities Semester Replacement (call for nominations)
The
Chair called for a replacement for Faculty Secretary Carol Ann Davis and
asked the membership to thank her for her service, which they did with
applause. The Chair
explained that one nomination had come forward, Professor Margaret
McClure from Psychology, and sought additional nominations from the
floor. Prof. McFadden MOVED
to elect Prof. McClure, Prof. Nash SECONDED and with all in favor and
none opposed, Prof. McClure was elected.
The
Chair explained that in order to replace him in the ASPC, a one-semester
replacement in Humanities was needed while he acted as interim chair.
The Chair explained that one nomination had come forward,
Professor William Abbott from History, and sought additional nominations
from the floor. Seeing
none, Professor Abbott was elected by acclamation.
The
Chair explained that given Prof. McClure’s election as Secretary, there
was now a one-semester leave replacement spot available on ASPC for the
Social and Behavioral Sciences. Because
the Chair would like a full planning committee meeting before the next
College meeting, he called for nominations from the floor.
Dean
Williams: I nominate Prof.
Audra Nuru from Communication.
Seeing
that Prof. Nuru accepted the nomination, it was seconded by Prof.
Boryscka and Prof. Nuru was elected by acclamation to the ASPC.
V.
Discussion of Core Proposal with Interim Provost Siegel
The
Chair explained that the body would spend 25 minutes with Interim
Provost Siegel and then 45 minutes discussing the Core Proposal amongst
ourselves.
Interim
Provost Siegel: First I’d
like to say thanks to the College and to the ASPC for the opportunity to
be here. Just to recall how
we got here: in December, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC)
approved an updated proposal of the Core revision that was mentioned
briefly at the General Faculty meeting in December.
Then we talked about it more fully at FDEC Day, which was meant
as an update about the proposal. Since
then I’ve become aware that there was a concern there wasn’t an
opportunity to discuss the proposal there, but that was a day more to
share information than discussion.
This brochure was developed for that day just to give the
one-page as a reference. I’ll
pass it out in case some were not at that day, but I’m not here to
present today. I’m here to
discuss and to listen.
I’ve
heard a number of concerns from the CAS faculty.
The primary concern is about process, that there has not been
chance for CAS, who would be tasked with delivering the Core, to talk
about it. I’m happy to
answer any question and then I understand you need to talk amongst
yourselves.
For
those of you who have not been following this closely, a quick update.
The last time we changed the Core curriculum was in 1979 from
an 81 credit core to a 60 credit core.
Over the years there have been exemptions and exceptions but it
hasn’t undergone a wholesale change in all of that time.
In
Spring 2014, a task force was assembled to take a look at a 35 year-old
Core. Through all that
work, we got to this Core. The
UCC passed it. This
recommendation is for a 45 credit core courses distributed across two
tiers. The first tier is
foundational, and the second integrates additional work in additional
disciplines. In addition to
reducing the core from 60 to 45 credits, this proposal attempts to make
it more purposeful for our students through the introduction of three
signature elements. That’s
a short explanation, and I’m not going into detail in order to give us
time to talk.
That’s
basically the proposal. The
concerns I have heard in addition to process were the fact that Tier 2
is described in terms of learning outcomes and not owned by departments.
The onus would be on the UCC to approve those outcomes.
It moves students and faculty away from current understanding;
faculty and students approach departmentally.
I’ve heard and understand the importance of a
departmental-based understanding of Tier 2.
Another
concern you’ll see in the middle page of the brochure was a recommended
alternative approach for the School of Engineering.
This recommends that engineering students be required to study
a non-English speaking culture in two core courses.
This alternative pathway created the exemptions that we were
trying to avoid with Core revision.
If part of our goal is to create a common experience for
students, this undermines that. Those
were the concerns I heard. I’m
happy to answer questions and concerns.
Prof.
Borycska: Can you sum up
for me based on your vast experience in this area, what argument has
surrounded including neither the natural nor the social sciences in Tier
1.
Interim
Provost Siegel: Good
question. Part of the goal
was to go from a laundry list to a foundational approach.
When we looked at what was foundational, we looked back at the
history of Jesuit education, which places Religious Studies and
Philosophy as foundational. Also,
areas
where there is an introductory class, such as HI 10, RS101, they make up
the heart of humanistic education.
Social Sciences and Natural Sciences don’t have those entry-level
foundational classes and weren’t part of the longstanding Jesuit
foundation.
Prof.
Schwab: I’m
listening to what you are saying, but VPA also has entry level work
(as noted for Politics). We are nowhere in Tier 1. When we
get into Tier 2, Arts appear as part of a wedge. It gets murky and
I’ve been away for a while so it’s a little jarring for me to see
that. We’ve gone from zero to a chance to have a student for a
class. What I don’t understand in the chart for Tier 2, you have
PH, RS, and HI and in the language and history could be defined as
“history of” class (Core Proposal 1b), and we went through this a year
ago (with the Epstein Proposal) and it (the qualification
of “history”) goes all the way back to the 2020
plan.
Interim
Provost Siegel: That’s the
debate that’s ongoing. In
the learning outcomes model, the UCC would define what would be the
learning outcome for a history course.
That’s the placement of learning outcomes in Tier 2.
There are some concerned that that is not appropriate;
personally I don’t have an opinion about that.
Prof.
Pearson: I think those
should be departmentally refereed if not necessarily departmentally owned
because the people who should decide about key learning outcomes in
History are History professors. This
still allows other departments to offer core courses in a given
discipline, as right now we have 4 or 5 courses cross-listed English
core courses per year from other departments. I would
agree with anyone who raised the concern that it sets the stage for in
the future a very reductive idea for what qualifies as a discipline.
Eventually we could all just be teaching courses for really
broad Arts and Sciences outcomes. It
doesn’t set us on a good path for professional development in the
disciplines. And there is
important assessment work that we have performed within disciplines.
Interim
Provost Siegel: Nels
articulated that side of the argument really well.
It was a nice articulation of concerns that I’ve heard
repeatedly.
Prof.
Carolan: As a point of
information, the current Core, isn’t that decided by the UCC?
Interim
Provost Siegel: I’m not
sure if there is policy or precedent on that.
Prof.
Rakowitz: There is a policy
in the Journal of Record.
Prof.
Thiel: Thank
you for coming here. It’s a terrific thing when a senior
administrator comes to address concerns; we all appreciate it.
Faculty are concerned about the two issues you mentioned. Giving
up the principle of a common core for all undergraduates is especially
troubling since it invites the future unraveling of a revised core year
after year.
On
the other matter, learning outcomes should not be a criterion for
judging the suitability of core courses. I don’t think any member of the
College has a degree in learning outcomes. We have degrees, and
expertise, in our respective fields that we teach to our students in the
core. You’re right to say that people are concerned about how learning
outcomes would be used by some to qualify their courses for core
credit. They’re especially concerned for the History Dept.
History is the architectonic discipline of the Humanities and, to a
measure, even in the Social Sciences. So just doing a course in
the “History Of X” could usurp the integrity of a legitimate discipline.
You
mentioned these two issues but here’s what you left out: how were
those two changes made? A number of faculty in this room ardently
worked in the summer, the summer came to a close without those changes
appearing in the core proposal. Then, in the fall, suddenly those
changes appeared. Can you speak to how these changes were made?
Interim
Provost Siegel: that is the
other concern that I’ve heard and it’s a fair one.
Over the summer faculty worked to articulate the three
Signature Elements of the Core and how they went together.
The three groups worked in parallel but independently.
We were at the point that we had recommendations but we had to
put them together into a proposal.
There
were concerns throughout about the distribution of courses.
Particularly the WAC group, as initially all humanities courses
in tier 1 would be WAC, so the WAC group over the summer recognized
there were potential implementation problems with that and limiting WAC
to Tier 1 means writing ends at sophomore year.
They saw how WAC could be spread across the two tiers.
That opened up an opportunity to look at what courses were in
Tier 1 and Tier 2. The
question was where are arts and literature appropriately placed.
In the fall a group gathered to look at distribution:
me, Lynne Porter, Johanna Garvey, Kathy Nantz, and Shannon
Harding. WAC can be
distributed; Kathy and Shannon had gone through iterations previously in
the process that looked like what we now decided.
Lynne
and I decided that, along with colleagues from CAE who weren’t there to
make the decision but to advise us.
Prof.
Thiel: That was one Core
decision; what about Engineering?
Interim
Provost Siegel: How did we
get to this engineering alternative pathway?
For three years the other group of people who have been talking
about the Core are the deans. And
the Dean of Engineering said, this is not working for engineering.
Knowing that, I said let’s talk to Engineering.
Lynne and I met with Bruce Bernadier and Adrian Rusu.
What was not working was two things: they already have a 45
credit core, so this is not a smaller Core for them.
There are no other Engineering schools that require the study
of foreign languages or modern languages in the country.
No other AJCU institutions require it, so we are going to lose
students. I asked Lynne to
meet with Engineering and with Modern Languages and Literatures.
To their credit Engineering and some members of Modern
Languages and Literatures talked about this.
The exception was brought to the Modern Languages and
Literatures, who discussed it and they did not endorse.
Some were in support; others were not.
It was a good faith effort to work with Engineering.
Prof.
McFadden: I’ve got a
process question: assuming
there are a lot of faculty concerned about the learning outcomes
approach. Assuming we
wanted to change it back to disciplines, where would it be appropriate?
Are we coming to General Faculty next?
Interim
Provost Siegel: This Core
proposal passed through UCC and we were on the way to the Educational
Planning Committee (EPC) when we asked ASPC if I could come to see the
CAS faculty, so we stopped going through the routing which would be EPC,
AC, GF. The CAS Faculty
recommendations could become amendments to the EPC or it could go as a
recommendation for an amendment to AC.
It could return to UCC. The
faculty would have to decide to do that.
The proposal has twice passed UCC but I don’t know how it would
work on that end. Arts and
Sciences faculty will discuss how they would like this to go forward.
And I do think History has already suggested that type of
motion to AC.
Prof.
Bucki: This on its face is
discipline bound but it’s misleading.
If you’re going back that’s not anywhere here in Tier 1.
Interim
Provost Siegel: It’s not
intentional.
Prof.
Bucki: A lot are concerned.
Interim
Provost Siegel: A lot of
people are concerned. You
as a faculty have to decide. It’s
yours and you can decide where to go.
It’s challenging. So
there’s not a clear path for this since we’ve not done it in forty
years. It could take a path
from UCC to AC to General Faculty.
It could go to the floor of General Faculty.
At
this point Chair asked that we limit to a few more questions in order to
make sure there is time for the CAS faculty to discuss matters
privately.
Prof.
Abbott: I had a number of
email exchanges with Lynne Porter about how the learning outcomes model
was finalized by Core leadership, and I have an email from her saying
that that leadership decision was made with the CAE leadership as well,
including Jay Rozgonyi and Carol Ann Davis (Emily Smith was not present
because of family obligations). Can
you address that?
Interim
Provost Siegel: At end of
the summer both tiers of the Core were still oriented to departments.
Lynne Porter and I made those decisions, with the advice of the
CAE leadership. We decided
it in part to address the concern that Kathy raised about why certain
disciplines were in Tier 1 or Tier 2.
From my lens it’s not that much of a leap to learning outcomes,
but I know that is not everybody’s lens.
It didn’t seem that different to me when we did it; however I
appreciate what it means to you.
Prof.
Boquet: I think this is
maybe connected, Christine, to what you were just referencing because a
question that I have has to do with expectations for the ability to
assess the revised Core as a revised Core.
One of my concerns has to do with the way we have approached
institutionally the need for Core reform.
I think the national conversations around general education and
Core reform in institutions such as the AAC & U sets as a premise a
Learning Outcomes and Objectives approach for common core.
And that is how decisions for a revised Core get made.
Ours proceeded from a different point, because of our history
as a Jesuit institution. Now
I worry we are caught between faculty understanding and expectation and
administrators and accrediting agencies, certifying bodies that expect
to be doing that. Shared
commitments to leaning objectives is something to address:
what is the expectation and how are we talking about the Core
as a thing that exists out there.
Interim
Provost Siegel: Beth just
did a better job explaining why learning outcomes appealed to me and why
in my mind from my background being in that national conversation I
thought learning outcomes were appropriate.
Early on there were those that said learning outcomes is where
we should start with the process and I got some pressure to go in that
direction. I didn’t think
that our faculty wanted that. I
still believe if we started there we wouldn’t be here.
This has been a challenge for me as I’ve negotiated this along
the way Prof. Boquet articulated it was why it didn’t seem like a big
deal to me to frame Tier 2 in terms of learning outcomes.
How
are we going to assess it is a great question.
What I think is unique and special are those Signature Elements
and those allow us to bridge this tension.
The Core can be departmentally based and yet still get to what
holds this together as a curriculum.
The outcomes assessed would be the three signature elements.
We could stand very securely in our NEASC and in national
conversation on those outcomes.
Prof.
Xiao: I
want to ask Christine if you could address the issue about this missing
piece of world diversity in this. When we look at it we can
imagine students fulfilling the new core without taking a single course
that has been designated as world diversity course. Also to
reiterate, as a department MLL doesn’t endorse the exemption of
engineering students from the language requirement.
Interim
Provost Siegel: As a
department MLL does not endorse it; some members worked to help but I
won’t speak about endorse or support.
With
regard to diversity in April 2014 those of you on the task force recall
we defined scope of the charge to look at the Core.
First we looked at if revision necessary and if so what would
that revision look like. We
had to deciding what is Core, and whether that included the diversity
requirement. We ultimately
decided it was not. At the
time (and still) those were graduation requirements with their own
structure. We tabled it.
Time went by while we have been doing this work.
In the summer of 2014 the Black Lives Matter movement started
to take off and demonstrated on this campus and throughout the country,
students called for something different from the core.
It started to feel as if the US and World Diversity
Requirements were not separate and needed to be attended to in a
different way. Last spring
a subcommittee to UCC independently said it should be part of the Core
curriculum, at that time it was called multicultural competence.
The summer work came up with the title Social Justice.
I think those who worked on that working group believe that
World Diversity courses could meet these learning outcomes with some
tweaking of language or not and it’s possible.
This Core does not currently call for specifically non-Western
content.
The
Chair asked that at this time we move on to the next session.
Interim
Provost Siegel: Thank you
for having me; my time is up but I’m happy to answer individual
questions individually.
Prof.
Abbott: I move to thank
Prof. Siegel for a fine presentation.
[Applause]
VI.
CAS Faculty Open Discussion of Core Proposal
After
the departure of the Interim Provost, the Chair opened the floor for
discussion of the Core Proposal.
Prof.
Patton: I appreciate the
work absolutely, and very distressingly, this is the most Eurocentric
curriculum I’ve observed. I’ve
read through all the writings and there is nothing that compels students
to take a course studying another country.
Far from internationalizing the curriculum, this revision is
rolling it back to the Stone Age.
Prof.
Pearson: My understanding
of it is that that is included under the Learning Outcomes for Social
Justice, which is a good idea making social justice a fundamental and
integral part of the Core. It
might be it’s not articulated well enough to identify world diversity
within the Learning Outcomes for Social Justice.
My concern is that we are limiting ourselves if the key
elements of the SJ1 Learning Outcomes are limited to Tier 1 because so
much is tied to Tier 2. Politics,
Sociology, Anthropology and Literature are grounded in cultural studies.
SJ1 Learning Outcomes should also be able to come from Tier 2
where so many courses focus on cultural critique and use cultural
studies methodologies.
Prof.
Keenan: I have two big
issues well articulated by Nels and John: the learning outcomes model
and Engineering. I have a
concern that there is a chance that this is going to get out of our
hands. We are the body that
primarily delivers the Core. I’d
hate to have it go all the way to the General Faculty before we
discussed it. I’m handing
out a motion that is specifically designed to address concerns raised by
David and John and Nels. It
has a front and a back; the significance of the back will become clear
in a moment.
Prof.
Keenan read his motion (below); Prof. Lane SECONDED.
Text
of motion:
The faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
directs the Arts and Sciences Planning Committee to conduct an election
of a four-person committee, drawn from the full-time faculty of the
College of Arts and Sciences, to bring to completion the proposed
revision of the Core Curriculum as it stood in the spring of 2016 (while
incorporating the work accomplished by faculty in the summer of 2016 on
the writing across the curriculum component, the interdisciplinary
component, and the social justice component), and shepherd this proposal
through the process of: (1) approval by the faculty of the College of
Arts and Sciences, (2) approval by the appropriate Faculty Handbook
committees, and (3) approval by the General Faculty.
The committee will consist of one former
member of the Fairfield
2020
Core Curriculum Task Force, and one former member of each
of the Summer
2016
Working Groups (the Writing Across the Curriculum Component, the
Interdisciplinary Component, and the Social Justice Component).
The four-person committee will aim to bring a
proposal to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences for a vote
by the end of the academic year.
The
Chair opened discussion of the motion.
Prof.
McFadden: I like this
except that to really have this owned by CAS and to avoid tie votes, we
should ad an at-large member from the College who has not been involved
in the process so far.
Prof.
Abbott: You can add that as
a friendly amendment.
Prof.
McFadden: I MOVE to amend
the proposal to add an at-large member from the College who has not been
involved in the process so far.
Prof.
Bucki SECONDED
The
Chair opened discussion of the amendment
Prof.
Schwab: I suggest that
there be only one person representing a department.
We can’t have everyone there but I think we do need some
distribution.
Prof.
Lakeland: Point of order,
this is not discussing the amendment.
Prof.
Carolan: Not one member of
the department of Modern Languages and Literatures has been included
thus far, to Kathy’s point.
Prof.
Bayne: So you’re speaking
in favor of the amendment.
Prof.
Carolan: Yes.
Prof.
Porter: I’ve been working
with Christine since this summer to be inclusive, and I would like to
address certain statements.
Prof.
Bayne: This is a discussion
solely of the amendment to add an at large member to the committee.
Prof.
Lakeland: I’m not opposed,
I understand Mary Ann’s point. What
we have to hope if this motion goes forward what the planning committee
will do is compose the persons who can best do the job regardless of
their department.
Prof.
Rakowitz: Is the amendment
only to add a fifth person or is it a fifth person not from the
committees?
Prof.
McFadden: An additional
member, not from task force or working group.
Prof.
Bayne: This is not a
comprehensive list of people who have been involved.
Prof.
Rakowitz: It’s bizarre to
me to exclude people who were involved.
Why should we insist they were not involved?
Prof.
Lakeled CALLED the question to vote on the amendment to the motion;
Prof. Bowen SECONDED.
In
a hand vote, 22 and 3 proxies were in favor, 35 and 8 proxies were
opposed. With one
abstention and a vote of 25 in favor and 43 opposed, the amendment
FAILED.
The
Chair then re-opened discussion of the motion.
Prof.
Lane: I would like to speak
in favor. The professor who
made it is the most considerate of members and I am for it.
Prof.
Patton: I don’t see how
this change addresses the internationalizing the curriculum. Where is
internationalizing the curriculum?
Prof.
Thiel: Along
the way in this process, Christine clearly said errors were made.
I’m not certain that this process has been shepherded well. My
hope is that we can elect members who in rather short order can present
to us a proposal of the curriculum that we could actually deliver.
For instance, this proposal adds three WAC courses in the curriculum.
Has a survey been done in the college to gauge faculty interest in
teaching WAC courses? Even
though the way this proposal was brought forward followed the Journal of
Record, it would be a travesty for this faculty and would be this
faculty’s destruction if the proposal for the Core was approved by a
vote of the General Faculty over the will of the CAS faculty. It
would be the end of our faculty. We, as a College, have to approve
a Core proposal first. That’s what this motion calls for.
Prof.
Porter: As
I said before, I am the Director of the Core. I am speaking
against this motion because a lot of this work has been done and because
the time line this imposes. It sets this back a year. As for
the questions that are being raised here today—there are answers to
these questions, and they are reasonable answers. Those questions
can be answered here on the floor of this meeting, rather than forming
an ad hoc committee. We could endorse changes and move forward
without this committee.
Prof.
Xiao: I need some
clarification. You would
shepherd this through the rest of the process?
Prof.
Keenan: I’m not clear what
the question is. The four
people elected will present before this body.
Those four would take the will of this body and then shepherd
it through the UCC and the EPC.
Prof.
Xiao: They would come to
us?
Prof.
Keenan: There would be I
imagine a vigorous discussion that would take place here.
Prof.
Bucki: Why couldn’t we have
that discussion now?
Prof.
Nantz: I’m not sure if I’m
speaking in favor or against. What
kinds of latitude are we granting this committee to make changes in the
proposal? Large groups of
faculty came to consensus on a proposal last spring, and then there was
a new smaller group that made changes over the summer and fall, leading
to frustration in the earlier group.
I see this proposal as having another round of that, with new
elements introduced into the proposal that were not agreed to by earlier
committees. I am concerned
about things that are left out of this current proposal that would
better define a new committee's charge.
Prof.
Behre: I’m in favor of the
motion and I think there’s a real need.
Let’s put this back under the aegis of the CAS.
We need a speed bump now because this process is almost out of
our control. At the last
meeting of the Board of Trustees a graphic was put up and was explained
as being implemented by the fall.
Prof.
Porter: I would like to
speak to that. All that was
told to the trustees was that we would be piloting signature elements by
the fall in a few existing courses.
Prof.
Behre: It may be that I
misunderstood. Piloted
instead of implemented.
Prof.
Porter: Implementation is
not on the table for fall 2017.
Prof.
Epstein: I will speak in
favor of the motion as it strikes me as being very carefully crafted. I
hear concerns and objections of my colleagues but the motion has a
specific charge. It has a
specific charge, “to bring to
bring
to completion the proposed revision of the Core Curriculum as it stood
in the spring of 2016 (while incorporating the work accomplished by
faculty in the summer of 2016 on the writing across the curriculum
component, the interdisciplinary component, and the social justice
component), and shepherd this proposal through the process of: (1)
approval by the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences, (2)
approval by the appropriate Faculty Handbook committees, and (3)
approval by the General Faculty.”
A
lot of work was done last year and a lot of work was done over the
summer. Those elements
weren’t fully integrated. The
work done in Task Force and last year was intentionally not defined by
learning outcomes. The work
done over the summer was intentionally defined by learning outcomes.
To speak to Beth’s concerns, the three areas of summer work are
perfect examples of general education from the perspective of learning
outcomes. In terms of
diversity concerns, they were very conscious or world diversity, but
they identified learning outcomes that would cover those areas and other
socio-political pedagogy that we wanted to be dedicated to.
WAC removed from model in which it was tied to courses in Tier
1. What a lot of people
have been feeling is those two prongs have not been fully integrated,
the summer work on Learning Outcomes and prior work that proceeded from
disciplinary classroom experience. The
language
here in this motion is the point at which these two elements of this
process can be integrated, integrating the deliverable and the
disciplinary. I speak for
the motion.
Prof.
Rakowiz: I’m in favor of
the motion. From a
governance perspective you do not want to edit the document from the
floor of this body, so a committee makes a whole lot of sense.
Additionally, we absolutely want a six-month hold on the time
line. This proposal
requires resources. Anyone
in a position to promise those resources now will not be in that
position in six months.
Prof.
Carolan: Will the four
members of this committee consult with colleagues in all departments?
Our department was consulted but we voted against the
suggestion that still went forward.
In order for me to support a motion like this I would have to
know that our department would be listened to.
Prof.
Keenan: It would be up to
the committee. It would be
in the best interest of the committee to consult widely with the
constituents. I didn’t want to get into micromanaging that but I thought
it would be prudent. I
would assume they should send out a survey, figuring out if the
implementation is practical.
Prof.
Lakeland: I wouldn’t want
to speak for whoever on the committee gets appointed.
If the charge from our committee proposal is to bring it to
completion in the light of specific areas, I will be expecting return to
departmental control for Tier 2 and one Core for everyone.
Seeing
no more discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
In
a show of hands, 46 in person and 7 proxies were in favor, 7 in person
and 5 proxies were opposed. With
4 abstentions, and 53 in favor and 12 opposed, the motion PASSED.
VII.
Dean's remarks
The
Chair invited Dean Williams to make remarks.
Dean
Williams: The hour is late
and the day is long so I’m not going to keep you.
I had hoped to be able to talk with you about the budget,
capital requests and requests for hires, but I will save it for another
day.
The
Dean asked faculty members who taught a recent graduate to stand.
Dean
Williams: A lot of times we
don’t recognize the power of faculty in delivering education and your
impact isn’t felt to be tangible. Then
you
receive a letter like this.
The Dean then read excerpts from a letter written by the parents of this
graduate thanking the CAS faculty for their dedication and for the
positive impact that the faculty had on their daughter.
Dean
Williams: Those of you who
stand symbolically for those who deliver an exceptional education.
Thank you.
VIII.
Announcements
Prof.
Bayne: There is one
announcement that I know about. I
want to update you on the process of the move of Economics to the School
of Business. The ASCC met
and reviewed the proposal and voted not to approve the addition of the
Quantitative Track to the BS. As
a result moving forward with the Economics move there are two aspects of
the proposal. On the
curriculum side there is a new BS in Business Economics that has passed
the SOB Curriculum Committee, UCC and EPC.
Economics will continue to have BA and BS in the CAS.
The second aspect of the move is where the Economics faculty
will be reporting; the reporting through DSB was approved by EPC and
DSB. That’s where we stand
with the move of Economics.
Prof.
Bowen: When should we
expect to have election for the committee [from the motion]?
Prof.
Bayne: The Planning
Committee will conduct an election at the next meeting or by email.
Any other announcements?
Prof.
Davidson: School of
Humanities will have a meeting next Thursday at 4:30 p.m.
Dean
Williams: Happy birthday
Anna Lawrence.
Associate
Dean Sally: I wanted to
pass out information about a proposal for a collaboration with the
Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum for a summer workshop.
Faculty, please take a look at a great partnership opportunity.
Prof.
Yarrington: Anyone from any
discipline can take part; just let us know.
IX.
Adjournment
Prof. Lane MOVED to adjourn, Prof. Davidson SECONDED, at 4:59 p.m. the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret McClure
Interim Secretary, College of Arts & Sciences