Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
May 8, 2014, Skaggs Building, Room 169
Call to Order –roll call
Chair Putnam called the meeting to order at 3:10p.m.
Interim Registrar Hickman called roll.
Members Present: L. Ametsbichler, J. Bardsley, D. Beck, A. Belcourt, B. Borrie, M.
Bowman, S. Bradford, G. Burns, J. Cavanaugh, A. Chatterjee M. Chin, H. Eggert, R.
Fanning, L. Frey, C. Galipeau, E. Gagliardi, L. Gillison, J. Glendening, S. Gordon, L. Gray,
K. Harris, C. Henderson, W. Holben, D. Hollist, M. Horejsi, H. Kim, A. Kinny, C. Knight, A.
Larson, J. Laskin, B. Layton, S. Lodmell, D. MacDonald, M. Mayer, N. McCrady, K.
McKay, J. Montauban, P. Muench, H. Naughton, C. Palmer, E. Plant, E. Putnam, M.
Raymond, D. Schuldberg, D. Shepherd, J. Sears, S. Shen, D. Shively, A. Sondag, M.
Stark, A. Szalda -Petree S. Tillerman, E. Uchimoto, R. Vanita K. Wu, K. Zoellner
Members Excused: K. Bell, W. Chung, M. DeGrandpre, C. Hahn, M. Neilson
Members Absent: T. Crawford, N. Greymorning, J. Hirstein, E. Plant, R. Premuroso,
S. Richter
Ex-Officio Present: President Engstrom, Interim Associate Provost Hinman, Interim
Registrar Hickman
Guests: T. Thibeau, P. Zagalo-Melo
Minutes: The minutes from April 10th were approved.
Executive Session – Posthumous Degree Candidates

Professor Brian Cochran presented the request to grant Noah Baker a
posthumous doctorate degree in Psychology. The Senate unanimously
approved.

Professor Kathy Kuipers presented the request to grant Sam Fitch a posthumous
bachelor’s degree in Sociology. The Senate unanimously approved.
Communication:
The meeting began with the UM Minute. Chair Putnam recognized the contributions of
Associate Provost Walker-Andrews and Dean Forbes who are retiring at the end of the
academic year.

President Engstrom
President Engstrom thanked the Senate for talking about the great things happening
with students and continued to highlight several accomplishments. We should take
every opportunity to celebrate our students. Faculty members are doing a
tremendous job nurturing them. It is faculty members’ dedication that allows the
students to be successful. The faculty have also had an amazingly productive year,
with the initiation of a new Cyber Security Certificate, a Big Data Week, and a new
Neural Injury Center. Faculty hosted conferences on Race and Creative Writing, and
on Human Trafficking, and brought Leon Panetta, Former Secretary of Defense and
CIA Director to campus for an interesting discussion.
The Ed Ready Project put the University of Montana in a Leadership role with the
respect to students in remedial Math succeeding. It is a collaborative effort of
faculty in the College of Education and Human Sciences, College of Humanities and
Sciences, and the Montana Digital Academy. You discovered a new species of fish
and helped the University to be recognized as one of the most environmentally
friendly campuses in America according to the Princeton Review. You performed at
Carnegie Hall and won leadership awards in areas such as Fire Management. You
helped to further the legacy of the institution by archiving the Baucus papers.
Collectively you have conducted research and scholarship in places such as Vienna,
Ghana, China, Siberia, and Africa, to name just a few. And you brought people from
around the nation and world for seminars, collaborations, and various learning
experiences. People are investing because they believe in what we are doing. We
have set an all-time record of fundraising at $38 million and counting.
As a Senate this year you have debated important topics such as the importance of
languages. You have examined and approved new programs and modifications that
enrich educational opportunities for our students. This, in a way, is your fundamental
responsibility as a Senate. And you have done it very well. You have now taken on
an examination of our curriculum portfolio to ensure that our students have
interesting and relevant educational opportunities for the future. And you will make
recommendations for improvements by building on our current strengths. You
provided important feedback on a number of issues, such as performance based
funding and our budget challenges. You provided input on the placement of the
Missoula College in terms of the physical space and academic connection to the rest
of the university. Your leadership, Chair Putnam and Chair-elect Lodmell have
represented you extremely well in discussions both on and off campus with the
Regents, Legislators, various committees, and regular meetings with the President
and Provost. Senators should know how hard they have been working on behalf of
faculty. He gave a sincere thank you for the Senate’s work this year with a round of
applause.
 Provost Brown
Provost Brown echoed the thanks given by President for all the hard work over the
past year. He also thanked the members of the Missoula College / Main Campus
Taskforce. He then proceeded to highlight the Taskforce’s report. We have been
slow in integrating Missoula College into the fabric of the main campus. It became
the ninth college of the University in 1994. We are making progress, but have much
more to do. The Board of Regents is interest in expanding two-year education
because Montana is behind the rest of the nation. With the aid of a grant from the
Lumina Foundation and other things progress is being made with regard to transfer
education, workforce development, developmental and adult basic education (in
Missoula this is being accomplished by Dickenson Adult Learning), lifelong learning,
and community development. Four of the two-year colleges in the Montana
University System are imbedded in Universities (City College / MSU-Billings,
Highland College / Tech in Butte, Gallatin College / MSU Bozeman, and Missoula
College/ UM).
The report focuses on various questions that came out of open forums and other
discussions.
1. Has Missoula College received a disproportionate number of tenure track
positions? No, Missoula College has had 0 growth where the main campus
has had a 5% growth.
2. Has the budget at Missoula College grown faster than the main campus? No,
Missoula College’s budget has grown by approximately 4% where the main
campus has grown by 5% until the recent budget decline. In 2012 Missoula
College and the College of Humanities and Sciences received a stimulus to
resolve a structural problem. Although for a time Missoula College’s
enrollment increased due to the economy downturn, over the long term the
growth has been about the same,
3. Can Missoula College students take a large part of the course load at the
Mountain Campus at a lower tuition rate? Missoula College students can
take courses at the Mountain campus, but only under the following cases:
courses are required in the students’ program of study but not offered at the
Missoula College. Students in the transfer program that have declared a
major certified by an advisor may take up to 6 credits at the 100 or 200 level
that apply towards the major. Any student may take HHP activity courses.
4. Do some Mountain Campus students take courses at Missoula College
because they are less expensive? Mountain Campus students take courses
at Missoula College, but they do not pay lower tuition for those courses.
5. Will the Mountain Campus offer lower-division courses in the future? Yes,
absolutely. The Missoula College may offer additional lower division courses
than they do now to provide a more holistic experience for its students.
There are some programs working with the Missoula College to offer sections
because Mountain Campus courses are over capacity.
6. Is it appropriate for Missoula College to offer some courses in a small lecture
format when the same courses on the Mountain Campus are in large lecture
formats? Yes, the populations being served are very different. Missoula
College has a very wide array of student abilities and backgrounds. Because
of the open admission policy they get many students who have not had a
good educational background and need a lot of assistance. Forty percent of
the student population on both campuses is first generation, but the Mountain
Campus students are 18-22 years old and Missoula College students are 3555 years old. Older students often have children and jobs and different
needs.
7. Is Missoula College doing away with technical / vocational education? No-this
is part of Missoula College’s mission. Over half of their students are in
technical vocational programs. The workforce development focus has had
great success in terms of the nursing program and the energy technology
program. The students graduate then take the licensure exam with a 100%
passing rate.
8. Are students that progress from the Missoula College to other colleges at the
University academically prepared? Yes, the Workgroup looked at the data of
transfer students from Missoula College and other two-year schools. There
was not a significant difference after two years. There is a dip the first
semester and then they bounce back. There is one anomaly that cannot be
fully explained. Students transitioning from Math 115 at Missoula College to
STAT 216 at the Mountain Campus do less well than students who have
taken Math 115 at the Mountain Campus. The Workgroup is looking deeper
at this.
9. Are the qualifications of the instructors at Missoula College appropriate to the
level of courses being taught? Yes, the process for evaluating qualifications is
the same. There are more faculty with Masters degrees than terminal
degrees, but that is sufficient for the course level.
10. Does Missoula College add, without consultation, courses already offered on
the Mountain Campus? Missoula College faculty submit course proposal to
be reviewed by ASCRC same as Mountain Campus faculty.
There is better integration now than there has been. Efforts on improved
communication will continue in order to ensure the quality of education provided.
Faculty from Missoula College are on the Faculty Senate and Missoula College
Students are on ASUM. Any questions should be sent via email.
 Janet Sedgley and Marlene Zentz- Electronic and Information
Technology Accessibility
The resolution agreement mandates a campus policy. The draft policy was available
for review. Senators are encouraged to send any questions via email. This is a big
change, but it is being implemented in small steps with as much support as possible.
Your feedback is needed on the steps in the policy. There is also a self-study
mandated by the resolution. It should be completed by June 6th. Faculty need to
complete the form on the Accessibility site so the self-study is accurate. It is
necessary to gather information about the types of technology used in instructional
materials in order to be aware of what needs to be addressed as well as the volume
that requires support.
Marlene Zentz (UM Online) and Janet Sedgely (Information Technology) are
available over the summer to help make courses accessible. There are workshops
and IT short courses available for faculty. They can also set up appointments to
discuss their courses one-on-one. IT will look at websites faculty use in their face-toface courses, caption videos, and analyze documents. IT also supports technology
classrooms, all the technology medium conversions, and software.
Senator Harris had an accessibility audit conducted on her courses and found it very
helpful. She received course-specific recommendations. She highly recommends
taking advantage of the service.
Captioning videos should take no longer than a week, but depends on the length and
technicality of the video. There are a combination of ways IT works within time
constraints for making materials assessable. Professor Frey was told by Disability
Services for Students that in order to caption a video it would need to be submitted to
DSS three months in advance.
Senator Beck: The policy states all materials used in courses must be accessible
whether there is a student with a disability enrolled course or not. He copies journal
articles and book chapters and hands them out in his seminar course because this is
the cheapest way to get the material to the students.
Janet Sedgely: Accessibility should be created from the start. Use a copier that has
optical character recognition (OCR Profile recognition). All new copiers have this
function. Library copiers have this capability. She is meeting with department
administrative assistants to discuss this issue. The OCR Profile Recognition allows
a digital version to be created. This also can be done through a PDF. IT will work
with faculty regarding workflow for the best option. The goal is easy access for
faculty to create assessable course material.
Senator Chatterjee: The policy was discussed at a recent Political Science
Departmental meeting. Faculty are reluctant to send all their course materials
(lecture slides) to the Library for students to download.
Janet Sedgely: This is not an automatic requirement of the policy. She will review
the relevant section of the policy for clarity. She and Marlene Ventz are available to
meet with individual departments to discuss concerns.
Senator Plant: What if you want to show a current YouTube video? The use of
spontaneous material is not prohibited. Go ahead and show the video and then
have it captioned for future use. However, if you have a student with a disability you
need to make sure that they get an equivalent experience.

Chair’s report
Performance Based Funding
The Performance Based Funding Taskforce is getting prepared to deliver (May 1st)
and present (May 21st) proposed metrics to the Board of Regents. The proposed
metrics are divided into metrics for every campus (Retention and Undergraduate
degrees and certificates awarded) and then metrics specific to individual missions
(Graduate degrees awarded and External research expenditures). There was a link
to the proposed metrics on the agenda.
The discussion of how to weight and appropriate the metrics will begin in the
summer. For this biennium 5% of the budget was allocated based on performance
metrics. Next biennium this is estimated to increase to 10%. There are a lot of
data indicating states are struggling with allocating funds according to performance.
The Taskforce is doing everything possible to ensure the University is not hurt by this
again. Any comments should be sent to a member of the Taskforce.
External research expenditures will be normalized by tenure track FTE as well as
dollars awarded CoBRE/EPSCoR states. This is to prevent comparison with large
institutions such as Texas, California, or New York with large research infrastructures
in the event federal research funding becomes even more volatile. It is understood
that this metric does not include half of campus. The problem is defining and
capturing data on the other type of research that is more representative of our
mission as a Liberal Arts Research University. Because of this, the Taskforce is
proposing that the metrics be revisited, at least after the next biennium. So by then,
all research (including service, outreach, and agricultural experimental stations) will
be defined and have a measuring and data gathering system in place. Both
campuses are working on this for the future. Chair Putnam thanked everyone who
participated in the forums and provided input. She turned the floor over to Chairelect Lodmell to speak to Academic Alignment and Innovation.
Academic Alignment and Innovation Program (AAIP)
The Charge as outlined by President Engstrom was posted to the agenda. “The
purpose of the program is to examine our portfolio of academic programs, identifying
both opportunities to strengthen existing programs and opportunities for new
programs that are consistent with our mission and strategic plan.” We will be looking
at all of our offerings and considering whether they are relevant to a first class liberal
arts education for the 21st century. This is a tall order, so we are being cautious.
Faculty what to know who determines whether programs are relevant and how is this
determined. Initial efforts have been to frame a process. ECOS has been
collaborating with the Provost’s Office and others on a draft document. The
proposed heading for it is “UM faculty members will lead a campus-wide review of all
academic programs.” The process will focus on strong commitment to curricular
portfolio that fits within our mission, aligns with our strategic plan, strengthens our
liberal art identity and strengthens opportunities for growth. The idea is to start to
collect numerical data over the summer. The reasons for this is that 1) many faculty
are not on contract in the summer, but the Office of Planning, Budgeting, and
Analysis is on contract, and 2) numerical data are not that hard to collect. The
quality of data and what the data say is a much more complicated issue. So in the
fall, a Taskforce consisting of deans and faculty, and hopefully a faculty research
fellow (a proposal will be submitted to the Provost) will analyze the data and conduct
interviews and see what can be determined with regard to the relevance, the
demand, and the value of a liberal arts education from the University of Montana.
Among faculty and staff around campus, there appears to be a widespread
perception that AAIP is a part of an overall fiscal strategy to deal with the budget
shortfall and low enrollment, i.e. as a way to cut programs. ECOS and the AAIP
Steering Committee feel that it is important not to conflate these separate endeavors.
AAIP, as ECOS understands it, may look at programs with low enrollment to
determine how a small infusion of resources, or a modification could improve
enrollment. The budgetary concerns are separate from AAIP, whose role is to find
ways to enhance relevance and vigor among our programs. The review will evaluate
demand, but it is not looking to cut programs. The Senate will need faculty
volunteers with imagination who are prepared to conduct a comparative analysis of
our offerings compared to the best Liberal Arts Institutions. We are interested in how
we can make what we are offering better. This is ECOS’ perspective of AAIP. We
would like faculty to start thinking over the summer whether they would like to be
involved with the Taskforce. The President has offered the faculty a large role in this
task, so we will be doing significant work next fall. We will of course make use of the
existing current program review self-studies and external reviews or accreditation
reports. We hope to have a draft report by the end of the next academic year.
Implementation would occur the following year.
Questions:
The fifth area of expanded opportunities for interdisciplinary, international and online
offerings came out of the recommendations of the Academic Planning Workgroup
that deliberated last summer. President Engstrom would like to see the University
build on the international heritage of the institution and expand on its strengths. The
interpretation of these opportunities is open for faculty interpretation and
development.
How is this different from program assessment? And could some of the data
collected be used for program assessment? Some of the same information may be
considered. Rather than justifying a programs existence the AAIP review of all
programs together may identify where a little investment could help a program thrive.
All results/ recommendations will come back to the Faculty Senate for consideration.
It would not be efficient for the work to be done by the committee of the whole. The
Taskforce will communicate regularly with the Faculty Senate on its progress.
Although Dawn Ressel alluded to a link between the metrics for a future budgeting
algorithm and the AAIP in recent meetings, they are not linked. Some of the data
collected may be the same, but the purposes are very different. The Senate
leadership will talk with Associate Vice President Ressel.
Annual report
Chair Putnam thanked members of ECOS for their dedication and work this year.
She highlighted the important accomplishments of the Senate which include:
 Revisions to the policies and procedures resulting from the resolution with
the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Mayer was acknowledged for his
work on this.
 Regular updates from the Performance Based Funding Taskforce. These
will continue as Chair Putnam is serving in perpetuity according to OCHE.
 The end of the UDWPA and implementation of the University-wide Programlevel Writing Assessment. The Writing Committee was acknowledged for its
work on this.
 Clarification regarding the General Education Language requirement. The
General Education Committee and ASCRC were acknowledged for this
effort.
 A start on the AAIP. Hopefully this will be a transformative exercise that will
move the university forward in terms of relevance for students and the state.
 Improved relationship with MSU’s Senate. This has created better
communications with the Board of Regents resulting in better understanding
of faculty concerns across the state. Bob Mokwa, is the Chair of MSU’s
Senate and currently holds the Montana University System Faculty
Association Representatives (MUSFAR) seat at the table at Board of
Regents meetings. This seat rotates between UM and MSU each year.
Committee Reports
ASCRC Chair Henderson





The English Language Proficiency Policy presented as information at the last
meeting was revised slightly and approved.
The Credit Hour Policy was approved
The curriculum consent agenda including three one-time-only general education
courses was approved.
ASCRC Chair Henderson highlighted a few items on the annual report. The
committee was short faculty and student members this year. He asks senators to
recruit engaged undergraduate students to serve on ASCRC. The student voice is
important and it was missing this year because ASUM was unable to fill the five
vacant seats. He recognized the efforts of the Committee members.
ASCRC was very pleased with the new Advising Handbook and encourages faculty
to use this resource. As Chair of ASCRC, he serves on the Graduation Appeals
Committee. Most graduation appeals are the result of poor advising. He hopes the

Advising Handbook will elevate some student appeals. The Office of Student
Success put a lot of work into the document.
The Curriculum Deadline memo was on the agenda as a reminder to faculty that
curricular forms are due early in the fall, Oct 3rd. All crosslisted courses and
symbolic systems exceptions to language are up for review and require a special
form. One fourth of the writing courses are also scheduled for review. Level I and
level II forms require preliminary approval by the Provost’s Office, so should be
submitted at least a week in advance of the deadline.
Professor Henderson was thanked for his work as ASCRC Chair.
General Education Committee Chair Nadia White

A few items on the annual report were highlighted. General Education Committee
Chair Nadia White appreciated the Senate’s action on the language motion. The
committee has moved on to contemplate programmatic assessment of general
education. It extended its meetings to an hour and a half and met more frequently
given the charge from Associate Provost Walker Andrews that student level
assessment is necessary for accreditation. The Committee assesses courses and
the general education groups during the rolling review, but is struggling with how to
assess student work related to general education learning outcomes. This issue will
continue to be deliberated moving forward. The committee is concerned that it has
not been included in conversations involving general education with regard to
academic planning that took place last summer and now the AAIP. There seems to
be frustration with the general education program, but no one is willing to take
responsibility or engage in a solution. The committee is in a quandary of having to
assess the general education program when there is a question about whether it will
be changing.
Professor White was thanked for Chairing the General Education Committee.
Writing Committee Chair Chin

The Writing Committee had a very rewarding and productive year starting with the
approval by the Faculty Senate of the new University-wide Program-level Writing
Assessment. The focus of the new assessment is to empower faculty to help
students become more effective in their written communication. It does not assess
individual faculty or individual students. It uses a rubric to assess student work in
approved writing courses. Instructors of approved writing courses were asked to
have their students upload a sample of writing to Moodle that best represented the
achievement of the writing course learning goals. We heard from several instructors
that final drafts were not available by the deadline. This issue has been solved for
next year. A random sample of these papers was scored using a holistic rubric at a
retreat. The faculty that attended the retreat found it to be a valuable experience of
coming together and having conversations across disciplines looking at papers
across disciplines in order to come to consensus on scoring. Professional
development is at the heart of the University-Wide Program-level Writing
Assessment.
Writing instructors were thanked for their participation. Students were asked to
complete a short survey on revision prior to uploading their paper. The survey is
intended to provide information on the type of revisions students did and whether
there was a correlation with the scores. Nancy Clouse, UM Online Instructional
Designer was instrumental with designing the Moodle shell and procedures along
with Naomi Kimbal, the temporary Writing Assessment Coordinator. Students with
questions regarding the upload were able to contact Nancy. We are working to
make the process as simple as possible. We did not get 100% student or faculty
participation this year, but will work on improved communication to increase the
participation rate. The April Writing retreat had 38 participants from across
disciplines. We hope to have broader participation in the future. The Writing
Committee is planning professional development workshops in the fall on how to
create rubrics, integrate rubrics into course work, and give feedback on revision.
Writing instructors were thanked for their participation.
The Committee also reviewed one fourth of the Writing Courses and found that
additional effort is needed to help faculty understand and effectively address
information literacy. Professor Raiford analyzed data to determine whether transfer
students performed better or worse in upper-division writing courses than nontransfer students. While statistically significant, non-transfer student GPA
performance is only 0.088 points better than transfer students, making it difficult to
conclude that transfer students are the root cause of any highly variable writing
performance.
Professor Chin was thanked for her service as chair of the Writing Committee.
Senator Lori Grey, Graduate Council member (standing in for Graduate Council
Chair Steve Sprang who had a conflict with the meeting)



The Graduate Advising Guidelines were revised after receiving additional
feedback. The guidelines were endorsed by the Faculty Senate.
The IIP Oversight Committee also revised its procedures. These were provided
as information on the agenda.
Senator Grey highlighted a few items on the annual report. Graduate Council
reviewed 51 Bertha Morton applications and awarded 25 scholarships. The
Council conducted curriculum and program review and met with Vice President
Whittenburg and the Provost Brown. The discussion with the Provost will
continue with regard to the role of the Graduate School (an external review has
been recommended) and vision for Graduate Education.
University Library Committee Chair Wakimoto

The University Library Committee presented a resolution as a seconded motion.
Part of the charge of the Committee is to advocate for the Library. A healthy library
is the sign of a healthy University. As in the past, the library collections budget was
targeted because it does not cut personnel. Dean Zhang has done what she can to
make the Library an inviting place for study with a very small operating budget.
Senator Frey reviewed the list of proposed list of cancelations. Some of these are
not insignificant, especially for a research institution. She supports the resolution
Senator Bradford also supports the resolution. Good information is essential to any
academic program. The collection is a critical to academics and should not be cut at
a significantly higher rate.
Senator Beck: If we are to think of UM as a serious research institution we have to
have some of these resources available on campus.
The resolution passed unanimously.
The ULC appreciates the Senate’s support in changing the bylaws to include an
additional representative to assure the Missoula College was represented. Mostly the
Committee serves as a conduit for communication and provides feedback to the
Library.
Professor Wakimoto was thanked for his service as the University Library Chair.
Unit Standards Committee Chair Steve Lodmell

Although 11 unit standards were scheduled for review, the Committee reviewed
seven. The others were not submitted. It was a great committee and had a lot of
help from Jasmine and Nancy in the Provost’s Office.
Professor Lodmell was thanked for serving as chair.
Unfinished Business – Center Reviews

This year an external review has been incorporated into the center review
process so the reports were delayed. ECOS has suggested a revised timeline
moving forward to continue the tradition of presenting the reports to the Faculty
Senate in March or April. The reports and recommendations for continuance for
the Broadcast Media Center, Clinical Psychology Center and Rural Institute on
Disabilities were approved.
New Business
Chair Putnam thanked everyone who served this year. It has been a challenging year
and she appreciates all the faculty for their work on committees and engaging discussion
on the Senate. She also thanked the President, the Provost, and all the members of
their offices, as well as Vice President Reid and Associate Vice President Ressel and
their staff for all the support this year.

Outgoing senators were thanked with a round of applause and new senators
were seated and welcomed.

Senator and ECOS member Bill Borrie was nominated and confirmed by an
affirmative vote as chair-elect for the next academic year.
The floor was turned over to Chair-elect Lodmell. He thanked Chair Putnam for
her leadership over the year.

The College of Humanities and Sciences and Professional Schools caucused to
nominate members of ECOS. The College nominated Senators Mike Mayer and
Jim Sears to serve on ECOS for a second term. The nominees were confirmed
with an affirmative vote. The Professional Schools nominated Senator MaryAnn
Bowman. She was confirmed with an affirmative vote.
Good and Welfare



Senator Frey: A student was admitted to the IIP program that did not have a single
credit from UM. This should not have been allowed to happen. This issue will be
brought to the attention of the IIP Oversight Committee
Senator Sears: Bill Frets, A UM Geosciences graduate, has become president of the
University of New York.
Chair-elect Lodmell: ECOS is working on a proposal for a faculty research/leadership
fellow to facilitate the AAIP. We don’t know yet whether this will be approved, but
requests that anyone who might be interested to contact a member of ECOS. The
Provost indicated this will happen. So we will be looking for someone who is
interested in this work.




Senator Gillison: Summer school students are required to finalize their registration
before they know whether they were awarded financial aid. Their registration will be
dropped if they don’t finalize and will have to re-register.
Senator Bunch: The Department of Sociology would like some information on credit
for Prior Learning and credit for on the job training. This is on the agenda for
ASCRC next fall.
Senator Chatterjee: The curriculum review process is pretty frustrating for a new
faculty member. He proposed a GLI courses that was accepted and then had to
complete general education forms that were rejected. He doesn’t presume to tell his
colleagues how to teach, yet a member of the review committee suggested a
language change on his syllabus.
Senator Bradford: The General Education Committee has a difficult charge. There
needs to be a broader discussion on issues such as internationalism and
interdisciplinary. More dialog is needed about specific concerns about the general
education program. The Committee is struggling with the broad definition of many of
the groups. Clarification and dialog is desperately needed to eliminate the chaos.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P.M.