Faculty meeting Minutes
October 26, 1999
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Sixty-seven voting members of the
faculty were present.
Minutes of the September 22, 1999 faculty meeting were approved with one correction: Peter
Wimberger’s question was whether an interdisciplinary course could be taught by two people in
closely related disciplines, not in the same discipline.
In response to President Pierce's call for announcements, Dean of Students Kris Bartanen asked
faculty who are interested in nominating students for Who's Who Among College Students in
America to respond to the October 20 memo sent by David Bowe in campus mail; deadline is
November 17. Nominations are also invited for the USA Today All-USA Academic Team, which is
a legitimate recognition program with $2500 awards for outstanding students. She said that Linda
Critchlow, Fellowships Assistant, could provide more information; the deadline is November 30.
She also announced that representatives of the Seneca Group and the Zimmer Gunsul Frasca
architectural firm would be on campus next week to meet with interested faculty about
programming designs for a possible new residence hall. Meeting times are Tuesday, November
2, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. and Wednesday, November 3, 1999 at 3:00 p.m."
President Pierce announced that the new academic building will be named Lowry Wyatt Hall, and
that its dedication will take place during commencement weekend next spring. She also
announced that the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation has awarded the University $263,000 to
equip the foreign language lab in the new Wyatt Hall. The gift includes $100,000 to help faculty
incorporate technology in international courses.
Dean Terry Cooney had no report, nor did Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom.
We returned to discussion of the core curriculum. President Pierce reminded us that we are still
at Decision III of the five-phase process for reform of the core curriculum approved by the faculty
on October 20, 1998.
George Tomlin and seconder Doug Cannon withdrew their motion made at the September
22, 1999 faculty meeting: “approval of the ‘Connections’ interdisciplinary core course
requirement described in the proposal dated September 9, 1999.”
Tomlin M/S/vote reported later:
“1. To adopt a new core requirement, to be called Connections. Courses satisfying
the requirement will contribute to students' understanding of the
interrelationship of knowledge, or to their informed appreciation of self and
others as part of a broader humanity in the world environment, or both.
2. These will be upper-level, interdisciplinary courses that create connections
between disciplines with respect to methodology and content. The courses
will involve the collaboration of faculty from more than one department or the
efforts of individual faculty with interdisciplinary expertise.
3. Courses that satisfy the Connections requirement should include one or more
assignments to be done collaboratively by diverse groups of students from the
course section.”
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
October 26, 1999, Page 2
Cannon described this motion as “a refined proposal for an interdisciplinary core requirement,”
incorporating issues and concerns expressed at the September 22, 1999 faculty meeting. Copies
of the proposal were distributed to faculty by email on October 25, 1999, and hard copies were
available at the meeting. A copy is attached to these minutes. Cannon spoke to the proposal,
emphasizing several of the points listed as E1 through E8 under “Our Understanding of the
Motion,” appended to the document containing the motion, attached.
Peter Wimberger M/S/vote reported later “to substitute the following proposal for the
Connections proposal currently on the floor:
1. Courses fulfilling this requirement shall combine at least two “Ways of
Knowing.” “Ways of Knowing,” for the purposes of this proposal, conform to
the tentatively approved “Ways of Knowing” Core categories (Fine Arts,
Humanities, Social Science, Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Computer
Science).
2. Courses fulfilling this requirement may be team-taught or taught by individual
faculty members with interdisciplinary expertise.
3. Courses fulfilling this requirement may be taken at any time during or after the
sophomore year ”
Copies of the Wimberger/Sousa proposal were distributed at the meeting. A copy is attached to
these minutes. Wimberger spoke to the proposal, emphasizing arguments made in the
“additional comments” section appended to the document containing the motion, attached.
Suzanne Barnett said that item #1 placed a heavy demand on course proposers because it does
not recognize the vast range of differences within the various ways of knowing. She said the
proposal implies, for example, that the humanities and the social sciences are each
homogeneous, whereas in fact they are not.
Ray Preiss called on the makers of the original motion to comment on the substitute proposal.
Cannon responded that he could live with the substitute, although he prefers the original motion.
He said existing courses “don’t have such a wide spread” as that required under the substitute
proposal, and that the latter is too restrictive. He said, for example, that the existing “Origins of
Life” science in context course would not quality for the core under the substitute motion. Tomlin
added that he was uneasy about the substitute proposal “because it is too knowledge-based.”
Larry Stern suggested voting on the motion in parts. Dean Cooney suggested we vote on the
broad proposals before trying to mix and match the various points of each. Bill Beardsley said we
should vote on the substitute motion first and then amend the original motion. Wimberger said
“good idea.”
Ted Taranovski said he does not favor the substitute motion because its success is too
dependent on how we define the various ways of knowing, which would require a lot of work to do.
He said the substitute proposal “is too imprecise.” Wimberger responded that he thinks the
original proposal is itself too vague. He argued that many students already get what the original
motion would require, and that he was looking to require something broader.
Molly Pasco-Pranger M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice
vote. The Wimberger/Sousa substitute motion then failed on a voice vote.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
October 26, 1999, Page 3
Taranovski M/S/vote reported later “to delete item #3 from the Tomlin/Cannon motion.”
That item states: “Courses that satisfy the Connections requirement should include one or more
assignments to be done collaboratively by diverse groups of students from the course section.”
Taranovski argued that this is too pedagogically prescriptive and limiting and should not be part of
the motion.
Tomlin argued for keeping the prescription. He said that students should take at least one course
that requires them to work collaboratively with diverse groups. He said that this is how the world
operates these days and that “our students should experience it.” Suzanne Holland asked if this
meant that the Curriculum Committee would then make sure that each connections course
includes a collaborative exercise, and Tomlin responded “yes.” Holland said she doesn’t favor
this because it is too prescriptive. Keith Ward added that this is a pedagogical, not a curricular
issue, and should remain in the hands of instructors.
Bob Matthews M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice vote.
The Taranovski motion to delete item #3 then passed on a voice vote. The motion on the
floor then became:
“1. To adopt a new core requirement, to be called Connections. Courses satisfying the
requirement will contribute to students' understanding of the interrelationship of
knowledge, or to their informed appreciation of self and others as part of a broader
humanity in the world environment, or both.
2. These will be upper-level, interdisciplinary courses that create connections between
disciplines with respect to methodology and content. The courses will involve the
collaboration of faculty from more than one department or the efforts of individual faculty
with interdisciplinary expertise.”
John Hanson then M/S/F to close debate. The motion to close debate was too close to call
on a voice vote. The motion required two-thirds in favor to pass, and failed in a show of
hands, with 31 in favor and 28 opposed.
Ward M/S/vote reported later “to strike ‘upper level’ from item #2 and to add item #3 from
the failed Wimberger/Sousa proposal.” David Droge said he was troubled by this because we
had already voted down the Wimberger/Sousa proposal. President Pierce ruled the motion in
order because she said the sense of the discussion had been an understanding that we might
want to consider incorporating elements of the failed substitute motion into the main motion.
Ward argued that interdisciplinary learning can take place at the sophomore level as well as at the
junior and senior levels. He said that item #2 of the proposal should focus on interdisciplinarity,
not on the level of the student. Taranovski and Cooney agreed that the level of the student is a
different issue from the level of the course.
Juli McGruder M/ to close debate. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Bartanen argued for retaining the “upper level” language and the requirement that students taking
the course be juniors or seniors so that the verticality of the core is maintained. Hanson agreed
that this should be an upper level interdisciplinary course. Wimberger countered that it might be
better to teach an interdisciplinary course to “unjaded” lower level students. Stern added that he
thought interdisciplinarity could do as much good at the lower division as at the upper division.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
October 26, 1999, Page 4
Holland M/S/P to close debate on the Ward amendment. The motion to close debate
passed on a voice vote. A hand vote was called for on the Ward amendment. The Ward
amendment then failed with 22 in favor and 34 opposed.
We returned to discussion of the main motion. Chris Ives asked what the clause following “or” in
item #1 was designed to accomplish. He suggested that there was a logical inconsistency
between that clause and item #2 because while the thrust of the motion seemed to be toward
interdisciplinarity, the “or” clause seemed not to be interdisciplinary in nature. Cannon responded
that in practice all existing courses that might fulfill the “or” clause of item #1 are in fact
interdisciplinary. Ives seemed satisfied, but Taranovski said he still believed there was a logical
problem between these two sections of the proposal.
Hans Ostrom M.S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice vote.
Paper ballots were requested for the vote on the main motion. The Tomlin/Cannon motion
then passed with 42 in favor and 18 opposed. The motion that now becomes a part of the
omnibus motion to be voted on later, is:
“1. To adopt a new core requirement, to be called Connections. Courses satisfying the
requirement will contribute to students' understanding of the interrelationship of
knowledge, or to their informed appreciation of self and others as part of a broader
humanity in the world environment, or both.
2. These will be upper-level, interdisciplinary courses that create connections between
disciplines with respect to methodology and content. The courses will involve the
collaboration of faculty from more than one department or the efforts of individual faculty
with interdisciplinary expertise.”
As a last announcement before adjournment, President Pierce explained that the endowed chair
currently held by Rob Garratt is to be renamed the James Dolliver National Endowment for the
Humanities Distinguished Teaching Professorship.
We adjourned at 5:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
October 26, 1999, Page 5
A Refined Proposal for an Interdisciplinary Core Requirement
George Tomlin and Douglas Cannon
October 26, 1999
The Refined Motion, Itself
1.
To adopt a new core requirement, to be called Connections. Courses satisfying the
requirement will contribute to students' understanding of the interrelationship of
knowledge, or to their informed appreciation of self and others as part of a broader
humanity in the world environment, or both.
2.
These will be upper-level, interdisciplinary courses that create connections between
disciplines with respect to methodology and content. The courses will involve the
collaboration of faculty from more than one department or the efforts of individual faculty
with interdisciplinary expertise.
3.
Courses that satisfy the Connections requirement should include one or more
assignments to be done collaboratively by diverse groups of students from the course
section.
Our Understanding of the Motion
In making this proposal, we have certain expectations about how the requirement would work out
in practice. They are not part of the motion itself, and they will have weight only as any eventual
implementation gives them weight. But they do influence our thinking in making the proposal.
E1.
The aims that the proposal expresses, drawn verbatim from the "Educational Goals for
the University," will remain goals that the faculty specifically endorses. Many faculty will
agree that these goals cannot be adequately served with the tools of any single discipline.
E2.
These aims are currently served by Science in Context and Comparative Values courses,
among others. Many of those courses could, with minor modifications, satisfy the
Connections requirement.
E3.
Some Connections courses will compare various cultures as to their values, their thought,
and their experience. Some will compare or combine various literary, artistic, or scientific
endeavors. Some will compare various socio-economic systems.
E4.
Some Connections courses will consider conceptions and practices relating to race,
gender, or other dimensions of human difference.
E5.
Many of these courses will encourage deliberation and resolution with respect to
dilemmas in human experience.
E6.
A large majority of courses fulfilling this requirement will be offered by the University's
existing and future interdisciplinary programs. Many appropriate courses already exist.
E7.
Among these may be courses that also satisfy the requirements of a major or minor. Also
included may be courses that have prerequisites.
E8.
Details of the Connections requirement will be worked out by an appropriate implementing
body.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
October 26, 1999, Page 6
Yet Another Proposal for an Interdisciplinary Core Requirement
(Combining “Ways of Knowing”)
Peter Wimberger and David Sousa
10/26/99
The Proposal Itself
1. Courses fulfilling this requirement shall combine at least two “Ways of Knowing.”
“Ways of Knowing,” for the purposes of this proposal, conform to the tentatively
approved “Ways of Knowing” Core categories (Fine Arts, Humanities, Social Science,
Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Computer Science).
2. Courses fulfilling this requirement may be team-taught or taught by individual faculty
members with interdisciplinary expertise.
3. Courses fulfilling this requirement may be taken at any time during or after the
sophomore year
Additional comments:
Why another proposal?
We offer this proposal to provide a contrast to the Connections proposal currently on the floor.
We think that the faculty’s discussion of an additional core course will be more productive if
Faculty can compare different alternatives. We hope that the addition of an eighth course,
whatever we decide it should be, will be the final unit of the new Core.
How this proposal differs from the Cannon/Tomlin proposal:
•
This requirement builds on the “Ways of Knowing” requirements that have been
tentatively approved as part of the Core revision.
•
Disciplines, for the purposes of this proposal, are more broadly defined than in the
Connections proposal. Thus, a combination of two disciplines within a “Way of Knowing”
category would not fulfill this requirement, whereas it would probably satisfy the
Connections requirement.
•
Courses fulfilling this requirement could be taken by students anywhere from the
sophomore to the senior year.
•
There are no pedagogical prescriptions for courses fulfilling this requirement.