Faculty Senate Minutes
February 7, 2000
Present: Kris Bartanen, Michele Birnbaum, Kathie Hummel-Berry, Heather Bruce, Terry Cooney,
Doug Edwards, Connie Hale, Bill Haltom, Suzanne Holland, Keith Kelley (for Dave Bowe), Chris
Kline, Elma Nahm, Hans Ostrom, David Sousa, Keith Ward.
Visitors: Suzanne Barnett, Bill Barry, John Finney, Sunil Kukreja, Ryan Mello, Erin Smith, Ryan
Sweeney, Carrie Washburn
Meeting Called to Order: 4:05 pm.
The minutes of the Senate meeting of January 24, 2000 were approved.
Announcements: Sousa brought up the issue of junior faculty retention as an issue of concern.
The impression is that we have lost very good junior faculty in the past few years and this seems
to be an important issue to discuss. Holland agreed that there may be a morale problem involved
that should be discussed. Haltom suggested that a campus-wide discussion may be the direction
to go and that this topic will be on the agenda for next meeting.
Items of Business: John Finney addressed the rationale for determining the appropriate
number of days in an academic semester. Finney discussed the definition of a unit of credit as
taken from the Accreditation Handbook from the Commission on Colleges in the Northwest
Association of Schools and Colleges. Finney noted that there are two ways of looking at credit;
one represents what a typical student might be expected to learn in a week of full-time study (4045 hours including class time and preparation). The second is where the unit represents 3 hours
of student work per week (e.g., one hour of lecture, two study hours, and three laboratory for 10
weeks a quarter and 15 weeks a semester). A unit as defined here represents one-quarter of a
UPS unit. Finney also noted that earlier at UPS semesters were 16 rather than 15 weeks long.
The 15 week change occurred due to an earlier start and a desire to end before Christmas. The
15-week includes 14 weeks of classes and one week of finals. Finney then discussed
comparison groups including eight college peer groups from across the U.S., then next-step peer
institutions, and finally four Northwest peer institutions. Finney made a provisional suggestion
that one additional day be added in the fall and two days in the spring be dropped, giving 70 days
each semester. In this scenario classes would be held on Labor Day and on Martin Luther King
day. Kris Bartanen asked if this proposal would permit final exams on weekends. Finney
responded that the finals schedule would remain the same. The Reading Period would be
reduced from four days to two. He reiterated that under his proposal we would have Labor Day
classes and class on Martin Luther King day. Finney noted also that final exams in the evening, if
they were an option, would move four days of exams to three. Terry Cooney noted that this may
lead to too many exams on one day. Finney responded that there would probably be not more
than three in one day.
Barnett suggested that changes in the calendar should go before the whole faculty,
especially when considering reducing reading period. Haltom said that the whole premise of
these conversations was to send something to the faculty. Finney noted that his proposal should
not be seen as final. It is one proposal to show how one can implement the addition of an
additional day at midterm break and at Thanksgiving break without changing the length of the
semester. Ostrom asked for clarification about Martin Luther King Day being included. Finney
noted that that class day would not be a holiday and indicated that we are in a minority of schools
that do not have class on that day.
Holland said that the handout showing Northwest colleges indicated that several had
fewer days than us and asked why. Finney noted that various rationales have been developed by
schools but that the ideal type has been 70 days.
Birnbaum asked whether transfer students are an issue. Is the issue a burden on us or
the schools to which they are transferring? Cooney responded that earlier discussion of the
transfer was in regard to prestigious colleges where transfers are not an issue. In the Northwest,
Reed with its lower number of class days (65) was an exception. This was due to their emphasis
on independent projects. Reed had to develop a rationale for the accreditation teams for why they
had fewer days. Each institution must make its own case.
Ward asked if 70 class days per semester is the standard whether our current system of
69 in the fall and 72 in the spring was an issue. Finney responded that this was not asked by the
accreditation team; it does not seem to be an issue. Cooney noted that the whole accreditation
issue revolves around what the year is worth and not just a semester.
Holland noted that the Religion department's list of college's and their class days only
dealt with the fall semester because the primary issue was whether to extend by two days the Fall
and Thanksgiving breaks. Edwards sought to clarify the Religion Department's draft by reiterating
Holland's statement that fall schedules were compiled because that was the issue the Curriculum
Committee brought before the Senate for change. Edwards noted that when comparing UPS's
schedule with other Northwest schools, even when excluding Reed, the average was 69, which
will easily allow us to take one day out for the fall, without changing the current schedule.
Cooney moved that all the material be forwarded (the Finney and Religion Department
report) to the full faculty, which was seconded. Holland asked whether the Senate should send a
recommendation along with it. Cooney responded that he did not feel that that was helpful since
the faculty would discuss the issues in any case. Sousa suggested that alternative proposals
could be given, just as with the curriculum debates. He suggested that we pass Cooney's motion
and then others can introduce alternative proposals as they feel the need to. Bartanen argued
that material on Orientation should be included to see how any changes will impact it. The
motion was amended to include four items to be sent forward to the Senate, which included the
Orientation memo, the Religion Department memo, the recommendation from the Committee,
and the material from John Finney. M/S/P.
Birnbaum also suggested that some explanation of the materials should be sent, with it.
Vice-Chair Bruce will be in charge of this and send the information by e-mail.
The next order of business was a brief presentation by Erin Smith, Student Senator-atLarge, regarding an open forum for students on the core curriculum. Haltom noted that the
current scheduled meeting conflicts with the Faculty Senate meeting and that we might not be
able to attend. Cooney noted that core changes take some time to implement, that it generally
will not impact current students, and he hopes students are aware of this. Haltom also mentioned
that there is a faculty meeting on this issue prior to the meeting and that students are invited to
attend and participate.
The next issue was a discussion on proposed curriculum changes, especially the new
proposal brought forward by Ward and others. Ward and Barnett presented a discussion of the
proposal and how it differs from the Omnibus motion. Ward noted that his proposal seeks to build
on past conversations and to integrate more completely the discussions that have evolved. He
argued that in comparison with the Omnibus motion, both have verticality, both maintain
academic divisions, both have a requirement of a foreign language, both are eight courses, and
both have the freshman seminar. The two major differences he suggests are the character of the
rubric. He seeks to combine the humanistic and historical rubric into one as well as the society
and international studies rubric into one and to maintain an upper-level course requirement.
Barnett discussed this latter requirement, which merges the current c.v. and Science in Context
courses into what is called "comparative studies" under a rubric provisionally entitled "reflection."
People could take courses that formerly were in the comparative values core or in the Science in
Context. The goal was to reconceptualize the new core by grounding it in the old. Ward
indicated that their goal with this category was to replace the requirement of interdisciplinarity
which seemed too general and vague, with something that had more substance but nevertheless
could maintain an interdisciplinary component.
Hummel-Berry asked about other courses outside this rubric that might be included.
Cooney noted that the current fine arts core invites interdisciplinary approaches and indicated
that it is better not to specify interdisciplinarity as a specific core area. The "reflections" approach
allows interdisciplinarity but does not mandate it. Barnett noted that interdisciplinary courses are
in the core already--some historical, courses, humanities courses, and comparative values
2
courses already do this and not only at the upper level. Ostrom asked for the rationale for the
"reflection" category. Barnett responded that comparative studies allow an upper division course
to bring together students from different disciplines into a common course. Science in Context
also includes the study of values. It is better not to merge Comparative Values and Science in
Context, however, since they have different understandings of value. Ostrom stated that other
than drawing together various majors and preserving existing categories, he is not sure why such
a rubric is needed. Ward suggested that verticality is one reason. Such courses would differ
from the lower-level courses. Kline suggested that coherence, not reflections, indicates what this
rubric is about. It brings things together. Barnett noted that not all reflection has coherence.
Cooney reiterated that the interdisciplinary focus was not an appropriate link, that these proposed
categories better reflect the issues.
Birnbaum had a question regarding the integration of historical/humanities categories.
She was not clear whether one course or two were going to be required or whether courses were
expected to integrate both a historical and humanities component into their course. Ward stated
that the paragraphs were left vague to allow for either possibility.
Ostrom noted that the Ward proposal seems an improvement over the "ways of
knowings" category but still smacks of a distribution requirement. Why not simply make it a
distribution scheme and get rid of these rubrics and the requirements attached to them? Chair
Haltom noted that the faculty had voted many times to not go to the distribution system. Cooney
argued that the distribution aspect may work for lower-division offerings but that core guidelines in
fact had shaped the character of courses offered in these lower courses, including those in
Natural World. Thus, historical courses were shaped by the expectation that the course should
have breadth. Some course proposals were sent back if they were not considered broad enough.
In short, what we now teach has been shaped by past guidelines.
Holland felt that some of the categories in the Ward proposal reflected a kind of a "70s,
Berkeley, touchy-feely" approach. Barnett responded that the categories are not writ in stone.
Hummel-Berry indicated that the Science in Context did not seem to be at the end of a vertical
study. The old rubric--two natural worlds to science in context, perhaps contained that
component. In these proposals that does not seem to exist. A more open category such as the
Ward proposal could include non-science courses, which she felt was a good idea. Alternatives
to comparative values courses may be currently too limiting. A course that increases interest in
science may not be technically a science course but would still be very valuable.
Haltom noted that accreditation folks and others that he talked with would not be keen on
any disjunctive requirements in the new write-up that would indicate something like a Level 1, 2,
or 3 set of categories. Proposals that would allow people to take either historical or humanities to
fulfill a requirement will also be an issue. There needs to be a coherent description that combines
the two. Ward said that such descriptions were important for him, as well. Haltom suggested that
"reflection" should not be in the plural such as the Connections rubric which is a wide-open
category. Ostrom asked why some courses would be excluded from this category. Barry
indicated that the Connections category was too loose and the Ward proposal may be more
focused.
M/S/P to adjourn at 5:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas R. Edwards
3