Curriculum Committee Minutes
October 12, 1999
Present: Barry, Breitenbach, Cannon, Cooper, Ives, Kerrick, Kirkpatrick, Kontogeorgopoulos,
Livingston, Neff-Lippman, Neshyba (chair), Pasco-Pranger, Pinzino, Stevens,
Sugimoto, Tomhave, Warning, Washburn
Visitor: Marilyn Mitchell
Neshyba called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. The minutes for the meeting of September 21,
1999, were approved as posted.
Announcements . Washburn distributed a table listing the members of the subcommittees.
Neshyba announced that Mitchell was attending the meeting as an invited visitor representing the
Library. Neshyba alerted members that the Latin American Studies Program has requested that its curricular review be deferred.
Humanistic Perspective Subcommittee report . Warning (subcommittee chair) distributed the first two pages of the syllabus for FL 320 (Modern Japanese Literature) and briefly summarized the subcommittee’s discussions with the proposer. ACTION: Warning M/S/P that Foreign
Languages 320 (Modern Japanese Literature) be approved as a Humanistic Perspective
Core course.
Science in Context Subcommittee report.
Ives (subcommittee chair) described the review process for SCXT 321 (Psychiatry and Race). The subcommittee’s main concern was that the proposed course has been created and will be taught by just one person. Ives urged the committee to approve the course for the Core on a one-year basis, with the understanding that this approval does not constitute a precedent for other single-teacher Science in Context courses and with the expectation that the committee will use its “fallow year” to clarify guidelines concerning team-teaching in this Core area. ACTION: Ives M/S/P that SCXT 321 (Psychiatry and Race) be approved as a Science in Context Core course for one year only.
Dean Barry praised the course proposal for its exemplary list of objectives for learning outcomes.
2000-2001 Academic Calendar . Washburn distributed the proposed Academic Calendar for
2000-01 and reported that the dates on it had been cleared with the Registrar, Controller, Dining
Services, and Residential Programs. Pinzino asked if it would be possible to impose new calendar guidelines now for next year’s calendar. Washburn responded that the Faculty Senate must set the calendar by late November, which did not leave enough time to secure approval for new guidelines. Livingston (chair of the Calendar Subcommittee) also noted that her subcommittee’s report on the timing and length of the fall break would not be finished until after the November deadline. Washburn corrected some typos on the calendar that had been distributed. ACTION: Warning M/S/P that the Academic Calendar for 2000-2001 be approved as distributed and corrected.
Calendar Subcommittee report.
Livingston (chair) distributed a summary of the subcommittee’s preliminary conclusions about the timing and length of the fall break. Referring to last year’s survey of faculty opinion on this matter, she observed that there is little agreement, except for a general unwillingness to accommodate a longer fall break by beginning the semester earlier or ending it later. In the face of this disagreement about how to lengthen the fall break, her subcommittee had identified six proposals that could be removed from consideration because they seemed least likely to generate widespread acceptance. The subcommittee also identified three proposals that seemed to have sufficient support to merit further consideration. These three proposals are (1) reducing the length of the Reading Period, (2) reducing the length of the
Final Exam Period, and (3) permitting Final Exams on Saturday and/or Sunday. Livingston then appealed to the committee for guidance. As if to confirm Livingston’s comments about the absence of consensus, Breitenbach and Kerrick expressed a desire to resurrect proposals that

the subcommittee had hoped to bury. Ives asked if it would be possible to create a longer fall break by shortening the number of teaching days in a semester. He urged the committee to find out if other colleges and universities manage to get accredited even though their semesters are shorter than 15 weeks. Barry noted that changing the length of the semester would adversely affect the formula for calculating the value of credits transferred in from schools on a quarter system. Ives then suggested that the easiest solution would be to reduce the Reading Period by one day and add it to the fall break. Cannon defended the four-day reading period, saying that it was important for students enrolled in courses that require a comprehensive exam or a major project at the end of the semester. In response to a question by Cannon, Washburn noted that the ending day for exams could not always be set on December 20 because the university must begin its orientation and its first day of classes on particular days of the week. Breitenbach advised the subcommittee to abandon all hope of forging a consensus and simply to make a recommendation based on its best judgment. Stevens indicated that the aforementioned three proposals could be turned into a set of alternatives for the full committee’s consideration.
Livingston closed by exhorting members to make calendar decisions on the grounds of curricular benefits rather than personal preferences.
The committee will next meet at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 19, in Library 134.
At 5:00 p.m., Stevens M/S/P that the meeting adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
William Breitenbach