Curriculum Committee Minutes
September 26, 2000
Present: Barry, Beck, Breitenbach, Clark, Hale, Kerrick, Kontogeorgopoulos, Lenderman,
Livingston, Neff-Lippman, Neshyba (chair), Pasco-Pranger, Pinzino, Stevens, Sugimoto,
Tomhave, Warning, Washburn
Neshyba called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. The minutes for the meeting of September 19
were approved with the following correction: the deadline for the revised schedule of spring
semester courses is (was) September 22.
Report of the Study Abroad Subcommittee
Beck (subcommittee chair) reported that the Director of International Programs had asked the
Curriculum Committee to set a six-week minimum for summer study-abroad sessions, with the
exception of the existing summer program at Salamanca and the existing two courses in the
Study Abroad Archaeology Program. These exceptions would be grandfathered in with shorter
sessions. Beck stated that the subcommittee supports the Director’s request. Barry noted that
the two archaeology courses in fact meet the six-week standard because they have one week of
preparatory work in addition to five weeks abroad. Beck indicated that students who want credit
for shorter study-abroad summer-session courses could petition for a waiver, but the petition
would be to the Academic Standards Committee, not to the Director of International Programs.
ACTION: Beck M/S/P to adopt a six-week minimum for summer study-abroad sessions,
with the exception of the existing summer program at Salamanca and the existing two
courses in the Study Abroad Archaeology Program.
Report of the Humanistic Perspective Core Subcommittee
Warning (subcommittee chair) brought forward two courses for approval. The first course is an
existing Core course carried over from the fallow-year review. ACTION: Warning M/S/P
reapproval of Philosophy 252 (Philosophy in Literature) as a Humanistic Perspective Core
course. The second course is a newly proposed course that, in the judgment of the
subcommittee, clearly meets the Humanistic Perspective guidelines. ACTION: Warning M/S/P
approval of Religion 234 (Religious Traditions of China) as a Humanistic Perspective Core
course.
Report of the Comparative Values Subcommittee
Sugimoto (subcommittee chair) brought forward one course for approval. ACTION: Sugimoto
M/S/P approval of Religion 369 (Power, Gender, and Divinity: The Construction of
Goddesses) as a Comparative Values Core course.
Drafts of New Core Guidelines
Washburn distributed the following materials: the eight guidelines written by task forces for the
proposed new Core; an excerpt from the minutes of the March 8, 2000, Faculty Meeting
instructing the Curriculum Committee to prepare the new Core guidelines for the Faculty Senate;
and a draft preface to the new Core guidelines written by Barry. Barry gave a brief summary of
the work of the eight task forces, after which he remarked that his draft preface is designed to
explain the connection between the “Learning Objectives” sections and the “Guidelines” sections
in the new Core guidelines. Barry went on to suggest a process for the Committee’s
deliberations: first examine the guidelines written by the task forces and then examine the
University’s Curriculum Statement with the aim of suggesting revisions and adjustments to it that
would be necessitated by the passage of the new Core.
In response to a question by Warning about the extent of the Committee’s responsibility, Barry
stated that the Committee’s examination of the proposed guidelines should be limited to the
charges given by the Faculty, viz., looking for “inconsistencies across categories, insufficient
distinctions between categories, or inadequate definition of categories.” In response to a
question by Pinzino about how to deal with problems discovered in the guidelines, Barry stated
that the Committee should work with the task forces rather than attempt to rewrite the guidelines
itself.
Neshyba told Committee members to read through the proposed guidelines in preparation for
next week’s meeting. He then led members on a brisk tour of the University’s Curriculum
Statement, pointing out the places that would need to be changed if the new Core were adopted.
Neshyba noted that under the existing Core, the Curriculum Committee possesses the authority
to alter details of Core guidelines because the Faculty as a whole had enacted into the
Curriculum Statement only the initial, “enabling” paragraph for each Core area. Presumably the
Curriculum Committee would lose this authority if the new Core guidelines were passed in toto by
the Faculty. Breitenbach expressed the hope that the new simpler guidelines would make
tinkering by the Curriculum Committee less necessary. Barry urged the Committee to study the
Curriculum Statement carefully, taking advantage of the opportunity to suggest revisions that are
unrelated to the proposed new Core.
At 9:51 a.m. Neff-Lippman M/S/P to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
William Breitenbach
Secretary