Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 11, 1999
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Eighty-five voting members of the
faculty were present.
Minutes of the October 26, 1999 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
In response to President Pierce's call for announcements, student Larissa Crawford invited faculty
to the December 3, 1999 ASUPS-sponsored “Mistletoast,” including a hayride and a swing dance
in Marshall Hall. President Pierce added that she would be attending this free event and
encouraged others to do so.
David Droge invited faculty to nominate students for the new Millenium Scholarships through the
Gates Memorial Scholarship Committee. He said applications would be available beginning
November 20, 1999. The scholarships pay tuition, room, and board for eligible students from
under-represented groups. He said that further information is available on the web at
http://www.gmsp.org/. Also, faculty may call Kim Bobby, Director of Access Programs, at
extension 3991, for more information.
Dean Cooney had no report, but he reminded faculty of the lecture tonight at 7:30 in the Rotunda
by Sue Owen and Peter Ehrenhaus on "Why We Fought: Holocaust Memory in Spielberg's Saving
Private Ryan.”
Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom distributed hard copies of a document entitled “Scorecard,”
enumerating tentative decisions already made in Phases One, Two, and Three of the faculty’s
review of the core curriculum. A copy is attached to these minutes.
We returned to discussion of the core curriculum. David Balaam M/S/vote reported later “to
add one ‘Encountering other Peoples’ unit to the new core curriculum, as follows:
1. A course that includes within its curriculum an effort to develop an
understanding of another group of people, whether this group be regarded
as a nation, nation-state, society, religious group, culture, or any other type
of organized human collective--outside of the United States.
2. Courses that fit under this rubric should include the study and exploration
of some aspect of, or combination of, those other peoples' political,
economic, or social system and/or their cultural traits, attributes, and
values.”
Balaam argued in support of the motion, reciting arguments contained in the “Rationale” section of
the handout he distributed at the meeting. A copy of the Balaam motion and rationale is attached
to these minutes.
Florence Sandler asked whether the proposal was for an addition to the core or whether courses
already in the new core would count. Balaam responded that both were true: his proposal would
create a new core category, but double-counting would permit its fulfillment by other core courses
with the appropriate content. Droge asked if a freshman seminar could fulfill the requirement, and
Balaam said yes.
Droge asked whether the proposal might not take on the form of an “overlay” for core courses
already in the new core and exist thereby as a graduation requirement but not a separate core
category. Balaam responded that no, he intended this to be a separate core area.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 11, 1999, Page 2
Ted Taranovski spoke against the motion, arguing that we would have to redefine the direction of
the new core if we were to add this course. He said that if we are successfully to shrink the core
we have to move it away from a knowledge base, toward methodologies of learning. He said the
proposed course just adds a knowledge area and is contrary to the spirit of the new core.
Kate Stirling asked if a student from an Asian country could count a course on Asian societies
toward fulfillment of the proposed requirement. Balaam responded that issues like this could be
worked out. Harry Velez Quinones argued that we know other peoples by encountering
differences and that the ways of knowing core courses could encompass what the proposal
intends.
Sandler said she had become convinced that we should approve the proposed course because
encountering other peoples is important enough to add as an independent consideration in the
core. She argued that our students should not study only American topics.
Haltom responded that we would have a 32-unit core if everything someone feels is important
were included. He said we need to ask “more important than what?” and that we need to prioritize
the various proposals. He said that he felt that “providing exposure” was not important enough to
cause us to increase the new core from eight to nine units. He said that as the core grows we run
out of faculty to teach the freshman seminars. With regard to the current proposal, Haltom urged
us to “hold out for an overlay,” a graduation requirement that ensures every student has this kind
of exposure without adding a new core category.
Suzanne Barnett said that she, too, opposes adding a ninth core unit, and that the spirit of the
proposed course can be fulfilled through courses already included. Molly Pasco-Pranger asked
what the proposed course would to that an overlay would not do. Balaam responded that the
proposed unit is important enough to be a separate core requirement. Barnett said this implies
that the other core courses cannot provide the desired exposure. President Pierce pointed out
that as would be the case with the Balaam proposal, major courses can fill the ways of knowing
core requirements. She suggested that Bill Haltom’s “Scorecard,” which he had passed out
before the meeting, be amended to reflect whether “double-counting” would be allowed.
Bill Beardsley said he thought the connections course was designed to handle requirements like
this. Balaam responded that it would be possible to fulfill the connections requirement without
encountering the kind of exposure his proposed unit would provide.
Bob Matthews M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice vote.
The main Balaam motion then failed on a voice vote.
Ili Nagy M/S/vote reported later “to proceed to discussion of Decision IV.” Before
proceeding with discussion, President Pierce invoked the chair’s prerogative and asked if there
was anyone still wanting to propose something under Decision III. No one came forward, and we
proceeded to discuss the motion. Jim Evans asked what the motion meant. Taranovski read
from the October 16, 1998 process document what the faculty had agreed would constitute the
Decision Four phase of the core review:
“Decision Four  Faculty discuss and vote on options for fulfilling requirements
(including transfer) and content encouraged but not required for general
education.
“Although senators believed that encouraging Puget Sound students in studies
that too many undergraduates neglect was important, such encouragement might
take different forms depending on prior decisions. The senators explicitly hoped
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 11, 1999, Page 3
to encourage study of foreign language(s), for example. If faculty opted not to
designate multicultural courses as part of decision-set two, they might consider
such designation (as per the Diversity Committee’s memorandum) in this stage.
“In addition, this stage would be appropriate for various “housekeeping” details
and issues, such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate,
“Running Start” and transfer students, study abroad and transfer units, and
statements of mission and core guidelines. The senate stands ready, as
executive committee of the faculty, to make suggestions if faculty deem that
appropriate.”
Taranovski summarized by suggesting that Decision IV is intended to provide opportunity to
discuss other options and how to implement the new core. Droge asked whether moving to
Decision IV meant we will have a core of eight units. President Pierce responded that if the
motion passed to move to phase IV, the omnibus motion would contain eight units and that
although the omnibus motion could be amended, a vote now to move to an eight-unit core would
appear to reflect the current will of the faculty.
The Nagy motion to move to Decision IV passed on a voice vote.
Jim Evans M/S/vote reported later “to adopt a foreign language graduation requirement,
which could be met by at least one of the following:
1. Two semesters of a foreign language at the 101-102 college level, or
one semester of a foreign language at the 200 level or above.
2. Test out by passing a proficiency exam that would be at the level of 3
years of high school language or first year college, scoring at or above
the first year on the U.P.S. foreign language proficiency exam.
3. A semester in an approved study-abroad program requiring intensive
instruction in a foreign language.
4. Receive a score of 4 or 5 on the A.P. exam.
5. Students with documented learning disabilities which affect the ability
to process language may be eligible for waivers.”
Evans spoke to the motion and the advantages of exploring a foreign language in some depth.
He said this is not a core requirement. Evans and Michel Rocchi distributed data provided by
George Mills on high school foreign language exposure of freshmen who matriculated in 1996 and
1999. Evans pointed out that, among 1996-entering freshmen, 2.5% had no foreign language or
only one year, 28.4% had two years, and the remainder (69.1%) had three or more years. Evans
said that the proficiency exams students could take would be administered by the Center for
Writing and Learning.. He said students could take the exams as many times as they wanted to.
Noting that the proposal allows the foreign language requirement to be fulfilled by a semester of
study abroad, Nagy argued that students in the study abroad programs with which she is familiar
in Rome and Milan “learn next to nothing from the courses in Italian.” She argued that study
abroad should not automatically fulfill the foreign language requirement.
Evans said that a possibility for the proposal would have been simply to recognize high school
foreign language courses instead of proficiency exams. But he said it is difficult to gauge foreign
language proficiency from grades in high school foreign language courses. Pasco-Pranger said
she at one time administered proficiency exams in Latin, and observed first hand how little Latin
some students with high school courses in Latin actually knew. Bill Breitenbach asked how we
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 11, 1999, Page 4
would administer proficiency exams in languages we don’t ourselves teach. Rocchi responded
the best way is to use proficiency tests already constructed by Brigham Young University.
Pasco-Pranger M/S/vote reported later “to amend the motion by striking item 3, ‘a
semester in an approved study-abroad program requiring intensive instruction in a foreign
language.’”
Taranovski said he thought retaining the item would encourage students to study abroad. He
suggested leaving the item and testing all study abroad students. Evans suggested approving
only study abroad programs that have an intensive foreign language component. Nagy opposed
this, saying that most study abroad programs do not have a strong foreign language component
and that we should not expect this of them. Beardsley pointed out that referring to the study
abroad programs as “approved” puts us in an awkward position.
Rocchi suggested retaining item three and adding a testing requirement. Pasco-Pranger pointed
out that retaining item 2 and deleting item 3 has the same effect. Rocchi responded that he liked
that idea. Droge said we need to define what we mean by “proficiency.” Evans responded that
this is not a proficiency requirement, but a requirement for foreign language “exposure with
depth.”
Peter Wimberger M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice
vote. The Pasco-Pranger amendment to the main motion then passed on a voice vote.
Doug Cannon said he wanted reassurance about which foreign languages could count. He asked
if BYU has a test on every language. He asked whether Native American languages could qualify.
He said we need to be specific and refer to some list. Rocchi responded that we should not worry
about this. He said that tests that BYU may not have are available from other sources. Martin
Jackson asked whether native language proficiency of students for whom English is a second
language would qualify. Evans responded that native foreign languages would be okay. Tinsley
suggested certifying these students through the TOEFL exam of English as a second language.
Taranovski added that "lots of things are petitionable with the proper evidence and
documentation.” He said that speaking a language is not the same thing as knowing a language;
that one can speak a language and still be illiterate.
Beardsley said he didn’t think we should be in the business of deciding what qualifies as a foreign
language; that we should not develop a list or stick just to the BYU exams. Barnett argued that
proficiency at the 101-102 level should be enough without requiring both the 101 and 102 courses.
Curt Mehlhaff asked why we would list a 200-level foreign language course as meeting the
requirement if we believe two semester through the 102 level are sufficient. Evans responded
that the intent was to require exposure with depth and that students need college-level courses for
this. He said that students capable of college-level foreign language study beyond the 102 level
would be rewarded by having to take only one course.
Hans Ostrom M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate pass on a voice vote.
The main Evans motion then passed on a voice vote. The motion as passed was “to adopt
a foreign language graduation requirement, which could be met by at least one of the
following:
1. Two semesters of a foreign language at the 101-102 college level, or
one semester of a foreign language at the 200 level or above.
2. Test out by passing a proficiency exam that would be at the level of 3
years of high school language or first year college, scoring at or above
the first year on the U.P.S. foreign language proficiency exam.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 11, 1999, Page 5
3. Receive a score of 4 or 5 on the A.P. exam.
4. Students with documented learning disabilities which affect the ability
to process language may be eligible for waivers.”
We adjourned at 5:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 11, 1999, Page 6
Scorecard
(Distributed by Bill Haltom at the November 11, 1999 Faculty Meeting)
Here is an overview of decisions of the faculty to date.
PHASE ONE
The target number of units of general education was set at seven, with the understanding that this
number can be adjusted upward or downward at subsequent meetings.
PHASE TWO
Two first-year seminars that may not count toward any major, one unit each: "Seminar in Writing
and Rhetoric" and "Seminar in Scholarly & Creative Inquiry."
PHASE THREE
Approaches to Knowing (5 units): methodological and disciplinary orientations characteristic of
each of five sorts of knowledge.
Humanistic Approaches: disciplinary orientations of classics, literature, history,
philosophy, religion, and related programs such as Asian Studies.
Fine Arts Approaches: approaches characteristic of existing fine arts cores.
Social Scientific Approaches: disciplinary orientations of economics, politics,
psychology, sociology, relevant courses in communication, and related programs
such as Political Economy or Environmental Studies.
Natural Scientific Approaches: disciplinary orientations of biology, chemistry, geology, and
physics.
Mathematical Approaches: disciplinary orientations of mathematics and computer
science.
Connections (1 unit): 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.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 11, 1999, Page 7
Proposal to add one unit to the new Core curriculum
Title: Encountering Other Peoples
Proposer: Dave Balaam
1. A course that includes within its curriculum an effort to develop an understanding of another
group of people, whether this group be regarded as a nation, nation-state, society, religious
group, culture, or any other type of organized human collective--outside of the United States.
2. Courses that fit under this rubric should include the study and exploration of some aspect of,
or combination of, those other peoples' political, economic, or social system and/or their
cultural traits, attributes, and values.
Rationale:
1. A meaningful curriculum of a liberal arts university should include a course that offers
students the opportunity to encounter people in societies outside of their own.
2. As such this rubric could include a variety of courses in different disciplines and programs:
economics, politics, comparative sociology, history, Latin American Studies, foreign language,
international political economy, religion, Asian studies, music, art, English, business and
public administration, communication and theatre arts, and philosophy, among others.