Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee

Minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2006

Convened at 3:35

Committee members in attendance: Professors Ed Dew, Johanna Garvey, Olivia Harriot, Ron Davidson, Jesús Escobar, Ron Salafia, Steve Bayne, Sara Brill, Jim Simon, Vin Rosivach and Dean Tim Snyder

1. Appointment of Secretary: Sara Brill

2. Approval of the minutes from the meeting on February 14^th, 2006.

A. Davidson moved to approve the minutes and Escobar seconded.

B. Discussion:

i. Davidson noted one correction: for the PO170 Special Topics course it was Ron Salafia who seconded Garvey’s motion to direct the committee to ask the Dean for a one time approval of the PO132 course.

ii. Escobar asked Simon for an update on the course and Dew responded that the professor who wanted to teach the proposed PO170 course would instead teach a course that was already on the catalogue entitled African Politics.

3. Announcements

Simon announced that his search through the list of current course offerings for courses offered but not listed in the catalogue resulted in only two such courses. When chairs of the departments in which such courses were being offered were notified they quickly and graciously withdrew those courses, explaining that their presence in the list of courses offered was simply an oversight. Simon noted that the tradition of the chair of the A&S CC doing such a search for each semester should be maintained.

4. Old Business:

Five-year review of Irish Studies Program: By way of background, Simon reminded the committee that during its last meeting he had been charged with meeting with Jim Mullan, program director for the Irish Studies program, to work together to arrive at an acceptable review document, using the engineering program’s document as a model. The result of this collaboration was a revised review document made available to all members of the committee. Simon then introduced Jim Mullan and gave the floor to him.

A. Mullan’s comments:

i. The first review document submitted to the A&S CC was created out of the best intentions; the intent was to include as much information about the program as possible so that all parties involved in the program would be represented. The revised document is pared down to the hard figures and facts requested by the committee at its last meeting when it charged Simon to work with Mullan on revising the review document.

ii. After the initial $40,000 allotment the program has received little financial support.

iii. Mullan expressed doubt about the future of the program for the following reasons: its dwindling financial resources, its lack of courses in the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture, and the difficulty in finding faculty to teach courses within the program.

iv. Mullan did note, however, that the number of courses offered in the program jumped from 6 in the 99-00 academic year to 12-15 in the current year, with courses coming from disciplines such as English, Politics, History and Fine Arts. It is Mullan’s sense that the program has branched out as far as possible, and with no money that can be used to hire new faculty it has hit a ceiling in terms of course offerings.

v. Simon opened the floor for questions.

B. Questions directed to Mullan:

• Dew asked how many courses within the program were offered in any given semester and Mullan responded between 4 and 5 courses.
• Escobar asked about the program’s financial resources, namely, whether the program contained simply no remaining money beyond the initial allotment, even for library books, and Mullan responded that the program has been given some funds beyond its initial bequest but that those funds cannot be used for hiring purposes.
• Dean Snyder asked what the program’s annual library budget was and Mullen responded that it was approximately $5,000.
• Salafia noted the small number of students enrolled in the program, the difficulty in finding faculty who can teach within the program, and Mullan’s own concerns about the validity of the program and wondered whether there was a strong sense of enthusiasm for the program or not. Mullan commented that it was not as though he could not find faculty interested in teaching in the program but rather that they had hit a ceiling with respect to courses that current full-time faculty could offer. Salafia followed up by asking whether the program justifies its cost. Mullan replied that while the program will never have a flood of students, there will always be (given the make-up of Fairfield’s student body) 15-30 students who are deeply invested in the program. Mullan continued by noting that he took his role to be to educate students who are interested in American immigration in an Irish context. Mullan also noted the Irish emigration to America in many ways set the stage and context for the emigration of other peoples to America; thus, concluded Mullan, learning about Irish emigration is instructive in the broader context of emigration studies.
• Escobar asked whether or not it was possible for the program to continue with its current budget of $2,000; Mullan replied that it was possible but he was not sure for how long.
• Escobar then asked who Mullan thought would be possible candidates to direct the program after Mullan stepped down; Mullan replied that both Kevin Cassidy and Bill Abbott would be good possibilities.
• Rosivach asked if the 5-year review report had been reviewed by the program’s advisory committee and, if so, whether those committee members had made comments on the report. Mullan responded that yes, the current report had been made available to the advisory committee, and no, that committee did not have any comments.
• Rosivach asked if many of the courses in the program were taught only once and never offered again. Mullan replied that this was true for only one course (Literature of the Famine), and that that course will be put forward to the English department for recommendation to be entered into the catalogue. All other courses offered in the program are taught at least once every 4^th semester; this sequence, along with study abroad courses, does give students in the program what they need to complete it in a timely fashion.
• Rosivach followed this up by asking how many students who participate in study abroad programs to Ireland go on to enroll in the Irish Studies program. Mullan replied that quite a few do so.
• Rosivach wondered whether Mullan had explored the possibility of seeking joint hires in order to address the need for new faculty to teach within the program and suggested that Mullan could advocate for hires with an overlapping interest in the program in any appropriate discipline that was already searching for a full time hire, such that one stipulation of the department’s hire would be that the new hire be able and willing to teach at least one class within the program. Mullan replied that he had talked with Prof. Goldberg about the possibility of a joint hire but that he hadn’t gone as far as Rosivach was suggesting.
• Dew noted that the enrollment number for courses that were cross-listed in the Irish Studies program were impressive and suggested that the program supplied a kind of education for our students that might not exist otherwise. Dew also wondered whether there were any other area studies programs that had their own endowment, and whether, now that that endowment was dwindling, the program could begin to draw from the same internal pools from which other such programs benefit.
• Simon noted that these were issues that should be addressed during the committee’s discussion after questions have been posed to Mullan.
• Davidson noted a discrepancy between the courses listed for the program in the course catalogue and the courses listed for the program in the review document on pg. 7. Davidson went on to ask why the student club affiliated with the program was no longer listed on FUSA’s web listing of clubs. Wouldn’t the club be a useful means of enlisting students into the program and if so, wouldn’t it behoove the program to keep the club active? Mullan replied that he hadn’t mentioned the club in the review document because he didn’t want to claim more than was his due. He further noted that making FUSA aware of the club’s existence had simply fallen though the cracks but that the club was rebuilding and that Irish Studies program material is handed out at every meeting.

Seeing that there were no further questions, Simon thanked Mullan, Mullen exited, and Simon opened the floor for discussion.

C. Discussion of the program:

i. Simon asked to clarify the committee’s charge with respect to the five-year review process and Rosivach replied that the purpose of the five-year review was to have some means of oversight before a program was made permanent; the committee’s job now is to decide whether or not to recommend making the program permanent and to suggest any changes that the program needs, should it need any. Rosivach also reminded the committee that it is concerned with curriculum issues, not funding issues as funding is for the EPC to sort out. Dew asked whether the review document would then go to UCC, and Rosivach replied yes, and then to EPC and eventually to Academic Council; the A&S CC is the initial step in an approval process of which the Academic Council has the final word.

ii. Salafia then stated that he felt quite torn about the program, a statement that garnered many nods from the room, and asked if Dean Snyder would offer his own comments. Dean Snyder agreed and responded that an independent review of interdisciplinary programs in the college is currently underway and that two concerns have emerged out of the review:

1. CAS has approximately 2,000 students and 20 programs: does the existence of so many programs, given our student population make our curriculum too diffuse? This concern is relevant to the Irish Studies program because the number of students in the program seems small given the number of courses offered and the study abroad options.
2. On the other hand, we must also ask if we were to consolidate programs, would this negatively impact prospective students’ enthusiasm for the university. In other words, we would need to figure out the extent to which the number of special programs acts as a positive incentive to come to Fairfield.

Dean Snyder concluded by noting that the committee needs to determine what the ultimate value of the program is. From the perspective of both enrollment and on-campus events, the Irish Studies program does not currently seem to be making a significant impact, but these may not be the only factors that go to determining the ultimate value of a program.

iii. Escobar noted that the list of courses offered in the program on pg. 7 of the review document needs to be clarified; for instance, the course listed there as Studio Art 224 isn’t even in the catalogue. What stages are all of these listed courses in—are they new, current under review, etc?

iv. Dew noted that current study abroad offerings increase the number of courses available within the program.

v. Rosivach stated that he was concerned about Mullan’s statements that the number of courses is maxed out—will there only be fewer and fewer courses offered as current professors cease teaching them and no new courses become available? Nor is it a good idea to hire adjuncts to teach such courses. Finally there should be a contributing steering committee making decisions about the program, rather than just one person.

vi. Harriott noted that if the courses currently cross-listed as fulfilling the Irish Studies minor would be offered regardless of the existence of the program then it is difficult to see how the minor really benefits students.

vii. Dean Snyder noted that a counterargument to this observation would be that the program is attractive to prospective students. Dean Snyder also noted that Marice Rose is a recent hire, some of whose courses will be able to be cross-listed with the Irish Studies program.

viii. Dew moved to approve the review in order to structure the discussion around a motion and Davidson seconded the motion.

D. Discussion of the motion:

i. Rosivach noted that there is more to a program than its course offerings; programs bring in outside speakers and create events that wouldn’t happen without the program.

ii. Davidson made the following observations: as to date the program has been tied to and identified with its current director; approximately 30% of Fairfield students come from Irish American backgrounds, yet few students are currently enrolled in the Irish Studies program; the study abroad program in Galway is enormously popular, but not always for the right reasons. Davidson concluded that in his opinion the program is in need of comprehensive changes to the way the program is administered and to the campus culture associated with it, but that these changes are really worth making, as an Irish Studies program has real value for Fairfield.

iii. Garvey noted that there is faculty involvement in the program that could be built upon.

iv. Salafia queried whether the minutes to this meeting would be made available to the other parties in charge of reviewing the program; Simon replied in the affirmative whereupon Salafia commented that he supported the program but had real concerns about its current state.

v. Rosivach noted, sympathetically, that a program’s state is often determined by its director’s presence and health. He went on to state that what the committee does in this meeting will effect the way issues are shaped in the five-year reviews for all programs that occur subsequently. He concluded by suggesting that, rather than approve the program for permanent inclusion, the committee could approve the program for another five years, after which time it would again come up for review.

vi. Rosivach moved an amendment to the motion that we recommend the approval the program. The amendment is: the committee recommends the approval of the program for another five years. The motion to amend was seconded by Salafia.

vii. Dew called to question, 7 voted for calling the question, 2 opposed; the question was called.

8 voted to approve the amendment to the motion, 1 opposed; the amendment passes.

viii. The committee then voted on the amended motion: 8 voted to approve the motion as amended, 0 opposed, 1 abstained; the amended motion passed.

5. New Business:

A. Due to time constraints, Associate Dean Aaron Perkus’ presentation on aligning A&S courses with versions offered by UC will be rescheduled for the May A&S CC meeting.

B. Dean Snyder’s update about teaching credit for mentoring students through independent study or research: The sub-committee charged with exploring this issue has regretfully not had a chance to meet yet, but they will do so shortly, and in the mean time, Dean Snyder offered three thoughts on the subject:

i. We should keep in mind this question: Is our current curriculum so narrow as to be in need of expansion by independent study courses?

ii. Although our number of full time faculty is expanding, we still have too many adjuncts. If we expand the number and/or frequency of independent study courses will we be increasing the number of adjuncts we need? Clearly, alternatives to this, like restructuring the current curriculum or the sequences of courses, must be explored. This goes for research and internship courses as well.

iii. Agreed-upon standards for expectations in independent study courses need to be established.

C. Structure and numbering of Special Topics courses:

i. Dew wondered whether it would be possible to have a special topics course at the introductory level. Davidson replied that this was not a good idea as special topics courses really should rely upon a common background body of knowledge that should be obtained in introductory level courses. Garvey noted that the English department chose to resolve this issue by offering special seminars at the introductory level (EN11) while reserving Special Topics courses for more advanced levels.

ii. Bayne noted that the flexibility of the Special Topics course is a real benefit insofar as it allows particularly topical courses to be developed and taught quickly, as with, for example, Larry Miner’s course on Hurricane Katrina.

iii. Simon noted that if the purpose of the Special Topics course is to test drive a new course than it seems as though this could occur at any level. Rosivach responded that the intent of the Special Topics course is not to test drive a new course but to provide faculty the opportunity of teaching a course within their current research interests with the assumption that as their research interests change, the course will no longer be taught but the catalogue has not been cluttered with myriad past faculty-research-oriented courses.

iv. Simon wondered whether we simply needed a new labeling system for ‘test drive’ courses. Rosivach rejoined that there is nothing wrong with requiring that a full syllabus be submitted for approval even for a course one was ‘test driving’. Simon replied that previously a sub-committee charged with exploring the issue, of which he was a member, decided to let departments deal with Special Topics courses, but that it seems as though this issue needs to be re-opened. Simon said he would suggest to his successor that the issue be examined in the fall.

Rosivach made a motion to adjourn, Garvey seconded the motion.

Meeting was adjourned at 5:10.

Respectfully submitted,

Sara Brill