Faculty Meeting Minutes
January 31, 2000
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. in McIntyre 103. Eighty-one voting members of
the faculty were present.
Minutes of the December 7, 1999 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
President Pierce asked for announcements, and none were offered. She continued by announcing that
she had made a parliamentary decision that the Ward proposal of an alternative to the omnibus motion
currently under discussion (see attachment) be deferred until the faculty move from Decision 4 to Decision
5. She invited comment from Ward, who expressed satisfaction with this deferral. President Pierce then
inquired whether Dean Cooney or Faculty Senate chair Haltom had reports to give; they had none.
President Pierce then invited David Balaam to speak to his motion, which remained on the table (having
been moved and seconded on Dec. 7) from the last faculty meeting, to wit:
Each student graduating from the University of Puget Sound with a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor
of Science degree must complete at least one course in the following category: Encountering
Other Peoples. (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, nationstate, 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. (3) Courses fulfilling the
encountering other peoples requirement also could be used to satisfy requirements in the Core
curriculum, a student’s major or minor program of study, a University elective, or any combination
of these other categories. Balaam handed around a sheet listing a wide range of currently existing
courses that “could potentially count” for the requirement (attached).
Balaam deferred to Florence Sandler, who spoke in support of the motion, recapitulating and embellishing
some points made in a Jan.7 memo to faculty (attached): 1) it’s “cleaner” to introduce an international
studies requirement as a graduation requirement than as a core requirement, as it gives students greater
choice in their manner of meeting it; 2) institutions with whom we compare ourselves (e.g., Colorado
College, Franklin and Marshall) have such requirements, though not as “clean” as the one here proposed;
3) a majority of our students already take courses that would meet this requirement, leaving only a small
percentage who would benefit from this additional expectation; 4) because so many courses already on
the books would meet the requirement as written, new courses would not have to be developed to support
it; 5) this proposal stands up to an appropriate measure of what meaningful requirements should have in
common: that they be few, important, and satisfiable with a broad range of choices.
Suzanne Barnett inquired about the acceptability of courses on ancient cultures to meet the requirement,
given that Sandler’s memo to the faculty had explicitly ruled out a course on the ancient Greeks that
appeared in Balaam’s list. She added that she supported accepting courses on historical cultures in the
spirit of Denise Despres’ argument that the “historical other” be considered on the same terms with
contemporary “other peoples.” Sandler and Balaam conceded that their views on this question differed,
and that the acceptability of such courses was still “up for grabs.”
At this point, Bill Beardsley raised a procedural objection. Recalling that the motion on the floor had been
tied to another (on “American Pluralism”) in the previous faculty meeting, that the two had been divided
arbitrarily before being debated, that the “American Pluralism” proposal had been voted down as he
recalled not on its merits but because assembled faculty rejected overlays, that the current proposal was
still on the table simply because time had run out in the previous faculty meeting to vote on it, he argued
that we should not be debating the merits of “Encountering Other Peoples” without having given that
hearing to its prior twin. President Pierce clarified the parliamentary question of reviving this earlier,
defeated amendment, saying that it could be returned to the table only through a motion offered by
someone who voted with the prevailing side in the first vote. Juli McGruder offered to make this motion, if
Beardsley felt strongly that she should. Beardsley declined the offer, asking instead that someone make a
convincing argument that the “Encountering Other Peoples” overlay differed substantially from “American
Pluralism,” such that we would not want to vote it down on the same grounds.
President Pierce requested that we return to the motion on the table. John Rindo then M/S/P to call the
question (on a voice vote). Douglas Cannon requested a paper ballot for the vote on the motion. The
proposal to add an “Encountering Other Peoples” overlay to the core Failed on a vote of 62-19.
Rindo then immediately M/S/vote reported later to end Decision 4 of the faculty discussion of Core
reform. Barnett expressed uneasiness that the faculty hadn’t yet discussed such housekeeping details as
whether students may “test out” of certain requirements in the core or whether courses from other
institutions might be acceptable in meeting one or another core requirement. Mott Greene said that these
details might be ironed out by whatever faculty body we send the omnibus motion on to. Cannon inquired
about matters the Faculty Senate had considered as needing attention during Decision 4: 1) an upper
division course requirement; 2) some sort of independent study requirement. Would we not need to see
to these before ending Decision 4? President Pierce, reviewing those elements intended for attention
during Phase 4 (e.g., AP/IB/transfer credit/study abroad), said she understood that the items in question
were intended by the Faculty Senate to be “illustrative” rather than “definitive,” and Haltom added that the
Senate’s will was no longer relevant since it had remanded the core discussion to the full faculty, whose
will takes precedence.
Sandler asked whether now was the time to discuss “redundancies, or a principle of no redundancy,”
regarding whether courses meeting one requirement might also be permitted to meet another. President
Pierce said she thought this question had been addressed as each of the pieces of the omnibus motion
was voted on. McGruder inquired whether the guidelines we’ve already passed would permit a student to
transfer in a course to meet a freshman seminar requirement. Greene responded by repeating his view
that until a full set of guidelines is worked out by the faculty body to whom the omnibus motion is next sent
we won’t be able to answer questions such as McGruder’s. Ted Taranovski spoke in favor of moving on
at this point so we don’t get bogged down in details like International Baccalaureate credit; once we settle
on the core and the guidelines for implementing it, then we can attend to the details. Terry Cooney asked
that the faculty remember that the core is a part of the University’s larger “curriculum statement,” and that
we will need to look at issues of how curricular expectations outside the core (e.g., upper division course
requirements, major requirements) affect and are affected by changes made to the core.
There being no further discussion, P (unanimous voice vote) to end Decision 4 of the faculty
discussion of Core reform.
President Pierce then opened Decision 5 by inviting suggestions on how to proceed. Greene suggested
that the omnibus motion be sent to the Faculty Senate, which can decide how next to proceed. Dean
Cooney warned that doing so might compromise options. Sending a framework (the omnibus motion as it
currently stands) to the Senate would imply that their task would be to “fill in the blanks” but not to change
the framework. What opening would there be then for the Ward/Singleton/Barnett proposal (or other
alternatives) to get a hearing? President Pierce replied by saying that “other frameworks” are in order now
that we are in Decision 5.
Taranovski proposed that the faculty now confirm earlier votes on 1) Seminars, 2) Ways of Knowing, 3)
Connections, uniting them into a single motion, vote on that unitary package, then put this package and
any alternative to a vote before the full faculty to reach a final decision on whether a reformed core will
replace the current core. Haltom countered that he would prefer to see the details of the omnibus motion
“spelled out” so that the entire faculty could see the full package, then also have the
Ward/Singleton/Barnett alternative fully elaborated for consideration by the Senate.
Beardsley objected that such a process was unfair. The omnibus motion currently before the faculty has
been discussed, haggled over, changed, and voted on, and thereby has passed the test of intense faculty
scrutiny. The Ward/Singleton/Barnett proposal, on the other hand, has not faced the “litmus test” of
faculty support that would justify “equal billing” with the omnibus motion. Beardsley felt that a more
equitable approach would be to give the Ward/Singleton/Barnett proposal a fair hearing in a faculty
meeting before sending it on to the Senate. President Pierce, referring to early understandings of the
process, then made a parliamentary ruling permitting both amendments and alternatives to the omnibus
motion (thus opening the door to the Ward/Singleton/Barnett proposal) on condition that the full faculty has
the opportunity to vote on them. Dean Cooney inquired whether, if a vote were to be taken immediately,
the assembled faculty would know exactly what they were voting on. To a general murmuring that a
clearer articulation of the omnibus motion was needed, President Pierce suggested that a group be
identified to put together all of the details of the decisions already voted on by the faculty. Beardsley
suggested that Faculty Secretary John Finney be asked to do this.
Rindo objected that we already have a document (distributed by Haltom in the faculty meeting of Dec. 7,
1999) detailing the decisions the faculty have reached. David Tinsley countered by requesting that a new,
fully detailed document be developed rather than simply relying on an old one. Barnett supported him,
insisting that what we have needs amplification. President Pierce added that she thought a vote on the
omnibus motion in its final form was deserving of ample notice to all faculty before a vote was taken.
Greene asked that a vote on the omnibus motion be sought expeditiously, in a week or two rather than a
month from now. President Pierce asked for agreement that the meeting be called for the week of
February 14, after next week’s visit of the Trustees.
Taranovski returned to the question of who would “flesh out” the omnibus motion, the Faculty Senate or an
ad hoc committee. He also returned to the question of fairness in giving alternative motions equal billing
with the omnibus motion under development throughout the debate on the Core. He added that he
thought that the Ward/Singleton/Barnett proposal needed further amplification, particularly in defining its
“Fine and Performing Arts” rubric. Haltom replied that he didn’t find the Ward/Singleton/Barnett proposal
any vaguer than the omnibus motion currently is. He further supported the notion of considering
alternative proposals with the argument that the faculty have taken this long to hammer out a new core so
as to avoid arriving at a 51/49 vote on the final product. If colleagues believe they can develop an
alternative proposal that is more straightforward and elegant than the current omnibus motion, then they
should be heard.
Ward reminded the faculty that he had voted four times in favor of decisions leading to the omnibus
motion (for Seminars, Ways of Knowing, Connections, and a foreign language requirement), but that the
process of reaching the current omnibus motion had led him to see a more satisfactory alternative in
reconstituting the core we have. Thus, for him and his colleagues, the process has led to a formulation of
the alternative; his proposal is not an “eleventh hour” hijacking of the process.
At this point, Cannon offered a procedural motion. M/S/P (unanimous voice vote) that Faculty
Secretary Finney bring together all elements of the omnibus motion as voted by the faculty to
date, and that this omnibus motion and any substitute motions be brought before the full faculty
in the week of February 14 to be heard and voted on.
Bruce Lind concluded the discussion with his observation that the difference between the omnibus motion
and the Ward/Singleton/Barnett proposal was like the difference between an “upscale Buick and a
downscale Cadillac” (not offering a view on which was which); that is, not very great.
We adjourned at 4:58.
Respectfully submitted by the Secretary Pro Tem,
Jack Roundy
A Proposed Amendment to Restate the Omnibus Motion
Reconceptualizing the Revised Core Curriculum
For Consideration by the Faculty as Appropriate and Allowed by Parliamentary Procedure
The Amendment
PART A - To re-approve the current core curriculum with the following modifications:
1. Replace Communication 1 and Communication 2 rubrics with two freshman seminars,
Freshman Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric and Freshman Seminar in Creative and
Scholarly Inquiry, as already approved by the faculty;
2. Collapse of the Historical Perspective and the Humanistic Perspective rubrics into a
single rubric intended to broaden students’ understanding of human experience;
3. Collapse of the Society and International Studies rubrics into a single rubric intended to
broaden students’ understanding of social, economic, and political systems;
4. Reduce the Natural World core requirement from two units to one;
5. Collapse of the Comparative Values and the Science in Context rubrics into a single
rubric entitled “Comparative Studies” with courses at the upper level only;
6. Rename the Fine Arts rubric as Fine and Performing Arts.
PART B – To add the foreign language graduation requirement approved on 11 November 1999
for the omnibus motion as previously developed.
Comment on the Amendment
•
This motion would yield a core curriculum of 8 units in the following structural scheme that
could have labeled categories such as those below:
ENCOUNTERS (2 units)
Freshman Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric
Freshman Seminar in Scholarly and Creative Inquiry
EXPLORATIONS (5 units)
Mathematical Reasoning
Historical and Humanistic Perspectives
Fine and Performing Arts
Society and International Studies
Natural World
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REFLECTION (1 unit)
Comparative Studies (junior or senior standing)
1
8
•
The proposed “Reflection” requirement in Comparative Studies would attempt to encompass
principles of the “Connections” requirement, though it would replace the requirement of
interdisciplinarity with the possibility of such inquiry.
•
The proposed altered omnibus motion would yield a core curriculum with the following
desirable characteristics:
1. “Change within tradition”: an acknowledgment of the value of the current core curriculum as
well as the incorporation of curricular proposals that have been developed as part of
discussions toward revision of the core. Specifically, this proposal attempts to include our
work on rubrics, first-year seminars, a foreign language requirement, and Connections.
2. Fulfillment of the effort to reduce the number of units in the core curriculum.
3. “Verticality” in the core as served particularly by the freshman seminar sequence and the
upper-level Comparative Studies requirement.
4. Clear core venues for the humanities (Historical and Humanistic Perspectives), the social
sciences (Society and International Studies), the natural sciences (Natural World),
mathematical reasoning, and the fine and performing arts. Alternative venues are available
for each of these divisions of the liberal arts and sciences curriculum in the first-year
seminars and/or Comparative Studies.
•
Understood is the necessity of creating one-paragraph descriptions of the intent and general
content of each core rubric, which means revisiting paragraphs currently in existence and
drafting paragraphs for new rubrics. The creation of specific guidelines can await later
development through an appointed faculty committee.
Keith Ward/Ross Singleton
Suzanne Barnett
1/27/2000
Memorandum in Support of the “Encountering Other Peoples” Overlay
Florence Sandler
By electronic mail, January 27, 2000
To: Faculty Colleagues
From: Florence Sandler
May I ask you to give a little time to the issue that we will discuss and vote on in the Faculty
Meeting on Monday -- the proposal to require students to take a course that involves the
encounter with another culture outside the United States? (I know we’re sick of the Core
discussions; I know that people just want to get rid of any more suggestions. I’m asking for your
thoughtful attention, all the same.)
I’m sponsoring the motion out of personal conviction, which has grown all the stronger through
this period at the turn of the millenium, when we have been trying to get a clear view of what the
big issues will be in this next century and of the world our students will be dealing with. If this is
to be "America’s century," nothing seems more crucial than the issue of how we relate to the rest
of the world, whether out of ignorance or out of knowledge. And we seem to live here in a
general cultural environment whichremains as ethnocentric as ever.
Much, then, depends on whether the education system ensures that students do have some
sympathetic encounter with the "other." A liberal arts college may carry a particular obligation in
this respect. We note that our mission statement carries the claim that "a Puget Sound education
… encourages a rich knowledge of self and others." The present proposal won’t achieve this by
itself, but it is a practical contribution.
Here is the proposal before the Faculty. It seemed helpful and time-saving to add certain queries
raised by colleagues in faculty meeting or in various conversations, with the answers that we
have given. (See below)
The proposal:
Each student graduating from the University of Puget Sound with a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor
of Science degree must complete at least one course in the following category:
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 othertype of organized human collective – outside of the United States.
2.Courses that fit under the rubric should include a 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.
3. Courses fulfilling the "encountering other people" requirement also could be used to satisfy
requirements in the Core curriculum, a student’s major or minor program of study, a University
elective, or any combination of these other categories.
Rationale for this requirement: 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.
A rubric such as this could include a variety of courses in different disciplines and programs:
Economics, Politics, Comparative Sociology, History, Latin American studies, Foreign Language
(above the 100 level), International Political Economy, Religion, Asian Studies, Music, Art,
English, Business and Public Administration, Communication and Theater Arts, Philosophy, and
others.
Queries:
Q. Would the requirement be fulfilled by a course on the Ancient Greeks?
A. The emphasis here is on cultures which presently exist. A course on the Ancient Greeks,
though valuable, would probably not meet this particular requirement.
Q. Is this another core requirement?
A. No. The requirement can be fulfilled by a course anywhere in the degree by a course in the
major, in the core, or among the electives, as thestudent chooses. We’ve agreed to keep the core
down to 8 or so units; indeed, if we can adopt the principle of "no redundancy" and allow courses
taken for the major to fulfill core requirements as appropriate in the Four Ways of Knowing
category, any one student will in practice take less than 8 courses specifically for the core. (Why
should a math major have to take an additional course in mathematical knowledge?) It’s to avoid
adding to the core and to the student’s load that this proposal suggests a graduation requirement
instead – one that can be fulfilled by a course anywhere in the degree and therefore in the great
majority of cases a course that the student would have taken anyway.
Q. If most students would take such a course anyway, why do we need the requirement?
A. As part of the encouragement of a "rich knowledge of self and others." For those students (the
big majority) who are already interested in learning about the rest of the world, the requirement
simply confirms their choice. The others (perhaps 15 %?), who haven’t reached this point, and
wouldn’t take such a course without obligation, are those who will benefit most from the
requirement.
Q. Can’t the same result be achieved by advising?
A. We notice that there are plenty of students who don’t come for advice, or don’t take advice
seriously. Here as with other parts of the curriculum we’ve been voting on, what will achieve the
result is advising and the requirement together .
Q. Should this be a requirement also for students who come from outside the U.S.?
A. We’re proposing that all Puget Sound students meet the requirement. The rather small
number of students who come from outside the U.S. and who have already encountered "the
other" will get their own kind of benefit out of the course and probably won’t need any
persuasion as its value
Q. Will this requirement involve setting up new courses?
A. No. Or if so, only minimally. We already have so many courses in the curriculum (and in
many different parts of the curriculum) that meet the description, and so many students who
already take such courses, that the requirement will cause no great strain on the present syllabus.
(It should be much easier to provide for this requirement than for the present Comparative Values
courses.)
Q. Will the graduation requirement be difficult to administer?
A. No. It’s pretty straightforward. A faculty committee will need to make some decisions as to
which courses qualify, but since many will, there should be no rush of student petitions to deal
with. Once in place, the requirement should pretty much administer itself through computer
accounting.
Q. Is this aim of this proposal to play down the significance of Western culture?
A. Hardly. The criterion can be met equally by a course on an Asian culture or a European one,
African or Latin American….(Note that it’s a Shakespearean who’s proposing this.) The
requirement is simply an endorsement of the value of knowing about some culture outside one’s
own, which goes to the heart of a liberal education.
Courses that Could Potentially Count for “Encountering Other Peoples”
Distributed by David Balaam at the Faculty Meeting
January 31, 2000
Art: 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 367, 368
Asian Studies: Hist 245, 346, 347, 348; Rel 328; PG 323, 324, 372; CSoc 341
BPA: 371, 375
CSoc: 208, 211, 230, 309, 318, 325, 340, 341
Econ: 242, 314B, 371
Engl: 221, 222, 223, 255, 377, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 474, 475, 483
For Lang: Fr/Gr/Sp 250, 265, 365, 370, 375, 393, 395: Ch 301, 302: Fr 401, 402, 403, 404: Gr
402, 404: Sp 321, 350, 401, 402, 403, 405
Hist: 211, 217, 230, 231, 232, 233, 245, 247, 248, 280, 281, 283, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306,
309,310, 315, 323, 324, 330, 332, 333, 334, 346, 347, 348, 380, 382, 385
IPE: 201, 311
Phil: 387
PG: 102, 103, 321, 322, 323, 324, 340, 341, 371, 372, 373, 374
Rel: 233, 253