Academic Standards Committee Minutes
April 21, 1999
Present: Ken Clark, John English, Marianne Taylor, Wade Williams, Peter Wimberger, Kate Evans, Tom
Gething, Greg Elliott, Sue Hannaford, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The minutes of the April 7 meeting will be distributed shortly.
2. Announcements: Committee chair English offered congratulations to Wimberger and Elliott on their
recent tenure news, and in return committee members wished English well in his impending retirement.
3. Petitions Committee: In Tomhave’s absence, the usual Petitions Committee report was not
available. Committee members Williams, Hannaford, Clark and Gething reported that 20 petitions had
been brought before them at the most recent meeting, only 10 of which they got through. Many of the
petitions (6) were for a waiver of the rule that two Natural World core classes must be completed before
the Science in Context requirement may be met with an SCXT course.
Elliott inquired what the process would be for rescinding this rule, which many faculty, including him,
didn’t believe in. English replied that he thought the ASC could send a recommendation to the Faculty
Senate that the Curriculum Committee review the rule. English further asked for “context” (to a round of
wry smiles) for this recommendation. Three problems with the current rules were advanced as arguments
for rescinding: 1) the requirement that both Natural World courses be taken before the Science in Context
course is taken causes many students scheduling problems, often in their major; 2) the Science in
Context courses taken by students are often unrelated to the Natural World courses they have taken
previously; and, 3) Science in Context faculty often develop the science they use in their courses “from the
ground up” because so many of their students have not had introductions to the science discipline in
question (see number 2). Several members of the Petitions Committee felt that their decisions on SCXT
petitions were “arbitrary,” and the four scientists present (Elliott, Hannaford, Clark, Wimberger) all
favored a revision in the prerequisite rule. English agreed to develop the recommendation to the Senate
for a review of the policy. Gething suggested that he ask Tomhave how many SCXT petitions had been
filed this year in addition to the six the Petitions Committee handled at their last meeting.
4. Housekeeping for the End-of-Year Report to the Senate: English, noting that today’s was the last
scheduled ASC meeting of the year, asked for help preparing our final report to the Faculty Senate. We
summed up our work on two major elements of that report:
a.
Academic Integrity: MSP to recommend that an annual letter be sent to faculty reminding
them of our academic honesty policy and process, and encouraging them to report instances of
academic dishonesty. Williams and Wimberger have agreed to draft this letter, which they will then
send to English, who in turn will run it by committee members. English proposed that the letter be
sent to faculty every year in early October, after the blizzard of early semester emails has relented a
bit. MSP to commend the “teaching guide” on plagiarism developed by Wilson, Di Scala and Brodey
to the Faculty Senate. MSP to recommend that the teaching guide be forwarded to the Curriculum
Committee for use in first-year writing seminars.
b.
Class Scheduling: English requested of Evans that she write a summary of ASUPS Senate
feedback to schedule proposals she took before them earlier in the semester. He noted that he would
ask Finney to write a similar summary of the presentation to a meeting of department chairs.
Williams asked whether we wanted to make a scheduling recommendation to the Faculty Senate,
and the consensus was that we did not. English indicated that he intended to recommend in his
senate report that ASC be charged in the coming academic year with continuing its work on class
scheduling.
5. Class Disruption Policy: Roundy asked for committee input on classroom climate as it related to
student disruptiveness. Had faculty seen an increase in disruptive behaviors of all kinds (students
chattering, arriving late, sleeping in class, speaking out inappropriately or aggressively, etc.)? Consensus
of those present was that such disruptions, while they did occur, were infrequent and insignificant enough
that they did not pose a serious problem on our campus. Clark thought that inconsiderate tardiness had
become more of a problem recently, and Wimberger thought that more instances of excessive absence
had occurred in his classes this year, but when Williams inquired whether the ASC should take the matter
up next academic year as a new charge, no one felt that it merited ASC action.
Roundy also stated his concern that the “Disruptive Class Behavior” policy (Logger, p. 45), which was
used again this year in one case, lacked a clearly stated “due process” step, whereby students could
appeal faculty action against them. English thought that the usual chain of appeal (department chair,
dean) was available in these cases and would suffice. Gething, amending Roundy’s use of “due
process” with the University’s phrase, “fundamental fairness” (since Puget Sound is not bound by due
process in the legal sense), suggested that a clarifying sentence about student appeals could be
developed with John Finney’s help, leaving ASC involvement out of it.
With this, we adjourned at 8:50.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy