Curriculum Committee Minutes
October 10, 2000
Present: Barry, Beck, Breitenbach, Clark, Hale, Kerrick, Kontogeorgopoulos, Lenderman,
Livingston, Neff-Lippman, Neshyba (chair), Pasco-Pranger, Pinzino, Stevens, Tomhave, Warning,
Washburn
Visitor: Ricigliano
Neshyba called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. The minutes for the meeting of October 3,
2000, were approved as posted.
Neshyba announced that he will not be able to attend the Committee meeting scheduled for
October 24. He asked that anyone willing to chair that meeting contact him.
Discussion of Guidelines for the Proposed New Core
The Committee began by discussing the preface to the guidelines drafted by Barry. Breitenbach
suggested moving the first sentence about Learning Objectives to the end of the preface. Barry
agreed to revise the preface and circulate it by email to Committee members.
Neshyba turned the Committee’s attention next to the guidelines for the Seminar in Writing and
Rhetoric. Hale requested and Neff-Lippman provided clarification of two phrases: “intellectual
habits” (found in the Learning Objectives) and “stock issues and questions” (found in section I.C.
of the Guidelines).
Neshyba next directed members’ attention to parenthetical lists found in sections I.C. and I.D. of
the Guidelines. Section I.C. states that seminars must address “standard argument forms and
other persuasive strategies (such as traditional and contemporary models of reasoning, narrative,
etc.)” and section I.D. states that seminars must address “methods of evaluating arguments
(including evidence evaluation, identification of logical fallacies, etc.).” Neshyba wondered
whether these parenthetical lists were intended to be exemplary or prescriptive, and, if
prescriptive, whether the lists were intended to be exhaustive. Barry and Neff-Lippman, who had
served on the Writing and Rhetoric task force, replied that the list in I.C. was intended to provide
some concrete examples. The list in I.D. was intended to be more prescriptive (in the sense that
all seminars must treat these two methods of evaluating arguments) but not exhaustive. PascoPranger suggested that it would be clearer to insert the phrase “at least” in I.D. after the word
“including.” Neshyba and Livingston called for the elimination of “etc.” from both lists.
Breitenbach suggested omitting the parenthetical lists altogether; Kontogeorgopoulos agreed,
saying that it should be the responsibility of the course proposer to explain how the course would
address these particular guidelines. In response, Washburn noted that most proposals for Core
courses do not now provide a clear explanation of how the course meets the guidelines; as a
consequence, subcommittees must engage in exegesis of syllabi. She wondered whether faculty
would be willing to provide such statements. Barry noted that listing concrete examples in the
guidelines might prove helpful to the Curriculum Committee when it reviews and approves
courses for this Core rubric. Livingston remarked that the guidelines are written for faculty
proposing courses, not for the Curriculum Committee. She suggested that the Committee could
develop its own internal document for evaluating Core courses. Pasco-Pranger expressed
misgivings about creating a private set of guidelines behind the public guidelines; she thought it
better to leave the examples in the guidelines. Stevens and Kontogeorgopoulos urged that the
items in these lists be explicitly identified as examples. Neshyba noted that the same confusion
about the status of parenthetical lists arises in section II of the Guidelines. He concluded the
discussion by suggesting that the Committee ask the Writing and Rhetoric task force to clarify the
meaning of the parenthetical lists and in particular to indicate whether these lists are intended to
be prescriptive or exemplary. The Committee assented to Neshyba’s suggestion.
Barry opened a new topic by asking whether section III of the Guidelines is needed. Section III
states, “Individual instructors determine topics, themes, and texts for each seminar.” NeffLippman stated that the task force had intended this statement as an assertion of the autonomy
of instructors. It was a guarantee that no Core committee or administrative body could set a
common theme for all courses in this rubric. Pasco-Pranger remarked that such a guarantee was
unnecessary given that no institutional structure existed by which such a common theme could be
mandated. Neff-Lippman commented that the statement also affirmed the legitimacy of
organizing Writing and Rhetoric seminars around a theme rather than expecting these courses to
be organized around a series of topics and techniques related to writing and rhetoric. Barry
thought that the wording was too defensive; it would be enough simply to state that thematic
courses are acceptable. Warning thought that the statement did not belong in the guidelines.
Stevens acknowledged that the statement did not really fit, but he believed it to be an important
protection for faculty, which should be included here because there was no other obvious place to
put it. Breitenbach observed that the question of whether writing and rhetoric courses should be
“about” some topic or “about” writing has been a perennial subject of debate among the faculty.
He predicted that the faculty would debate it once again when these guidelines are brought
before them. Pasco-Pranger proposed, and the Committee assented, to ask the task force to
clarify the purpose of section III, especially whether the statement was intended to guarantee the
autonomy of instructors, to assure proposers that thematic courses are acceptable, or to insist
that all courses in this rubric must have themes.
Warning made a general observation about the Committee’s approach to Core guidelines. He
noted that faculty gain latitude by omission, and he suggested that the Committee leave things
out of the guidelines whenever possible. For example, if the guidelines said nothing about
themes in Writing and Rhetoric seminars, faculty would presumably be free to create courses with
themes. Pasco-Pranger remarked that this particular Core rubric is the most prescriptive, so in
this case it is worth stating positively that thematic courses are acceptable. Barry concurred and
observed that over all, these guidelines are leaner than the guidelines for the current Core.
Warning expressed a concern about the inefficiency of the Committee’s work on the proposed
Core guidelines. He worried that at the current pace the Committee will not finish with them
before the end of the semester. Stevens noted that the guidelines for the two freshman seminars
will likely take the most time and that the pace will quicken when we get past them. Barry
commented that the Committee even at its most inefficient is more efficient than the faculty
operating in plenary session. Warning suggested that members could expedite the Committee’s
work by studying the proposed guidelines and identifying issues before the meetings. Members
agreed to do so and to inform one another by email before reassembling next week to discuss the
guidelines for the Seminar in Scholarly and Creative Inquiry.
At 9:51 a.m. Stevens M/S/P to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
William Breitenbach
Secretary