Curriculum Committee Minutes
February 29, 2000
Present: Barry, Breitenbach, Cannon, Cooper, Ives, Kerrick, Kontogeorgopoulos, Livingston,
Mitani, Neff-Lippman, Neshyba (chair), Pasco-Pranger, Pinzino, Stevens, Sugimoto, Tomhave,
Washburn
Visitor: Marilyn Mitchell
Neshyba called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. The minutes for the meeting of February 22
were approved with the following correction: Classics 211 and 212 are cross-listed as History
211 and 212 respectively. The reapproval of these courses as Historical Perspective Core
courses applies to both designations.
Request by Department of Politics and Government
Neshyba presented a request by the Department of Politics and Government to postpone its
curricular review for one year. The department has recently added two new requirements to its
major, and it would like more time to accumulate and study data about the effectiveness of these
requirements. ACTION: The Committee agreed to permit Politics and Government to
postpone its curricular review for one year.
Report of the Fine Arts Subcommittee
ACTION: Stevens (subcommittee chair) M/S/P that the following courses be reapproved as
Core courses in Fine Arts:
Art 275 (Studies in Western Art I: Ancient Art to Renaissance)
Art 276 (Studies in Western Art II: Renaissance to Modern Art)
Art 277 (History of Modern Art)
Art 278 (Survey of Asian Art)
CTA 270 (The London Stage)
CTA 275 (Theatre Survey)
English 220 (Introduction to Literature)
English 267 (Form and Perspective: Literature as Art)
FL 300 (Introduction to Literary Studies)
Hon 206 (The Arts of the Classical World and the Middle Ages)
Music 100 (Survey of Music Literature)
Music 220 (Survey of American Musical Theater)
Music 221 (Jazz History)
Music 222 (Music of the World’s Peoples)
Music 230 (History and Literature of Music I)
Music 274 (The Age of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven)
Music 275 (Romanticism in Music)
Music 276 (Twentieth-Century Music)
Stevens reported that the subcommittee had had a question about how English courses in the
Fine Arts Core differed from English courses that might be found in the Humanistic Perspective
Core. Conversations with instructors reassured the subcommittee that the Fine Arts Core
courses emphasized the art of writing.
Report of the Science in Context Core Subcommittee
ACTION: Ives (subcommittee chair) M/S/P that the following courses be reapproved as
Core courses in Science in Context:
SCXT 305 (The Idea of Archaeology)
SCXT 310 (Health and Medicine)
SCXT 314 (Cosmological Thought)
SCXT 320 (Science and Racial Prejudice)
SCXT 321 (Psychiatry and Race)
SCXT 325 (Science and Policy)
SCXT 328 (Biology at the Bar: Science in Legal Context)
SCXT 330 (The Idea of Evolution)
SCXT 335 (Thinking about Biodiversity)
SCXT 345 (Physics in the Modern World: Copenhagen to Manhattan)
SCXT 350 (Cognitive Science: An Interdisciplinary Approach)
SCXT 360 (Origins and Early Evolution of Life)
Ives mentioned two issues that had emerged during subcommittee deliberations. First, the
subcommittee noted that most SCXT courses did not have prerequisites, so students often
entered these courses without having taken the Natural World Core courses that might have
provided the best preparation. Washburn recalled that when the faculty created the SCXT Core,
it decided not to require particular Natural World prerequisites. Cannon observed that the Core
guidelines explicitly permit prerequisites from among Natural World courses, so long as they do
not unduly limit the audience in numbers or in level of scientific sophistication. Breitenbach
remarked that prerequisites would present a practical problem for students who are already
sufficiently frustrated about access to desired Natural World and SCXT courses. Barry
commented that it is the instructors who have not sought prerequisites; the Curriculum Committee
has no preference on this matter. Cannon speculated that instructors might not realize that they
could impose prerequisites. The subcommittee could call their attention to this possibility.
The second issue raised by Ives and the subcommittee concerned SCXT 325, a general course
on “Science and Policy” that has several sections with different titles and topics. The
subcommittee wondered whether these were variants of the same course or different courses
altogether. Ives noted that a student who wished to enroll in a second one of these sections
would not receive credit because of the redundancy rule. Washburn said the faculty intended that
SCXT courses be limited in number (see guideline III.D). Having separate sections within a
single course was one way to limit the number. Washburn asked whether it would be possible to
remove Core status from one of the sections without affecting the Core status of the others.
Cannon urged the Committee to subsume all sections under one general course title and then
reapprove that course. He considered the sections to be employing a case-study approach to
one general subject. Hence it was appropriate that students not be permitted to take more than
one version of the course. Cooper remarked that the sections seemed sufficiently different that a
student in Environmental Studies might legitimately want to take more than one of them. She
urged that the subcommittee chair to ask the Science in Context Advisory Committee to consider
whether this course should be broken into several separate courses. Ives agreed to do so.
ACTION: Ives M/S/P that SCXT 312 (Issues in Science and Religion: Biological Freedom
and Human Responsibility) be approved as a SCXT Core course. This is a newly proposed
course.
Other Business
Neshyba asked the Committee to discuss informally its potential role in writing the guidelines for
the new Core. He noted that some advance planning was desirable because if the Committee
became heavily involved in writing the guidelines, it would need to expedite its regular work.
Stevens said that the new guidelines should be written by the people who will be teaching in the
Core areas, not by the Committee. Barry remarked that it will be the faculty, not the Committee,
which decides what role, if any, the Committee will have. Pasco-Pranger suggested that
subcommittees draft memoranda outlining the issues that have arisen during the “fallow year”
review of the old Core. Barry expressed a preference for having the guidelines written by
independent task forces, but he hoped that representatives from the pertinent Curriculum
Committee subcommittees might sit on those task forces. He also hoped that the task forces be
told the lessons learned by the subcommittees—specifically, the need for guidelines that are
consistent and simple. Washburn commented that next year’s Committee will have new
members; she urged the current members to record their ideas and recommendations while they
are fresh. Livingston stated that she preferred not to have the Committee involved in writing the
guidelines. The Committee should be the administrator of the guidelines, but the guidelines
themselves should be written by the people who will be teaching the Core courses. Barry
acknowledged that the teachers should have a role in shaping the guidelines, but he also noted
that the Core belongs to the faculty as a whole. Pasco-Pranger remarked that many Committee
members do considerable teaching in the Core, so they would be able to bring both perspectives
to the task of writing guidelines. Sugimoto wanted the writers of the guidelines—whoever those
writers might be—to remember that the guidelines they write will come back to haunt them. For
that reason they should restrain themselves. Ives suggested that each subcommittee chair
compose a memorandum identifying the most important issues, questions, and recommendations
that have arisen during subcommittee deliberations this year. There seemed to be general
agreement to charge the subcommittee chairs with this responsibility.
Kerrick appeared on the scene just in time to move adjournment. His motion passed at 5:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
William Breitenbach