University of Puget Sound
Faculty meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001
Dean Terry Cooney, serving as Acting President while President Pierce is on sabbatical, called
the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. in McIntyre 103. Forty-six voting members of the faculty were
present by 4:30 p.m.
Minutes of the February 1, 2001 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
In response to Dean Cooney’s call for announcements, (1) Bill Barry announced that the first
lecture in the spring Chism series will be held at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 15, 2001 in
Wyatt 109, a lecture by Josiah Ober on "Socrates as a Social Critic and as a Citizen;” (2) Matt
Warning announced that Paul Rice, Director of Transfair, will speak on "Crisis in the Coffee
World: Globalization and the Fair Trade Alternative" in the Rotunda at 7:30 this evening; and (3)
George Tomlin announced that on February 20, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Rotunda there will be a
forum on the Middle East.
Dean Cooney reported that the Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation is giving the university
$175,000 over two years to help support student summer research awards in the arts, social
sciences, and humanities. He said that in two years the university may ask the Foundation to
endow the support long-term, but that that would depend on the success of the program between
now and then. He therefore urged faculty to encourage their good students to apply. In applying,
students should follow the same guidelines and deadlines that apply to University and Kilworth
summer awards, described on the university’s web site at
http://www.ups.edu/dean/student_rsch/sum-hum.htm.
Dean Cooney reminded faculty who are interested in developing uses of technology in teaching
under the Culpeper-Rockefeller grant or the Murdock consortial grant to contact Bill Barry or him.
Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom had no report.
We turned to the main activity of the day, continued discussion of the proposed core curriculum.
Dean Cooney called on Jane Marie Pinzino who, for the fine arts task force, introduced the
proposed Fine Arts Approaches Rubric learning objectives and guidelines. These were originally
distributed to faculty on November 15, 2000, and copies were available at today’s meeting.
Pinzino described three issues that the task force had dealt with in developing the learning
objectives and guidelines: 1) courses in artistic creation like studio courses fulfill the rubric if they
also have an analytical component both oral and written, i.e. training the student in analysis of an
artistic tradition; 2) literature courses may count as one of the fine arts, allowing for a faculty
member who would like to make a case; the goal of the task force was to be inclusive rather than
exclusive; 3) a breadth component is reflected in the "artistic tradition" language while leaving it up
to the proposing faculty member to suggest the significance and influence of that tradition.
Pinzino then read the learning objectives and guidelines aloud:
FINE ARTS APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Fine Arts Approaches courses acquire an understanding and appreciation of
an artistic tradition and develop their skills in the critical analysis of art.
GUIDELINES
I.
The Fine Arts include the visual, performing, and literary arts. Courses in Fine
Arts Approaches may either be in the history of art or in artistic creation.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001, Page 2
II.
Courses in Fine Arts Approaches examine significant developments and
representative works of an artistic tradition.
III.
These courses introduce students to methods of aesthetic and formal analysis
and require students to reflect critically, both orally and in writing, about art
and the creative process.
John Rindo M/S/vote reported later “to amend Guideline I to be 'The Fine Arts include the
visual and performing arts. Courses in Fine Arts Approaches may either be in the history
of art or in artistic creation.’”
In support of his motion, Rindo said that “Shakespeare on the page is different from Shakespeare
on the stage.” David Tinsley asked whether theater history courses offered by the
Communication and Theatre Arts department could qualify for the fine arts rubric. Rindo and
Geoff Proehl both responded that they could because these courses are not purely historical, but
involve formal analysis as well. Keith Ward said the same applied to music history courses. Ted
Taranovski asked whether there would be enough courses available to meet demand under the
more restrictive wording being proposed. Bill Barry said there would be.
Tinsley asked what the reasoning was originally behind the task force’s decision to include
“literary arts” in the guidelines. Pinzino responded that the task force wanted to be more inclusive,
but Rindo and Ili Nagy (both task force members) said they had been opposed to including
”literary arts.” Ray Preiss asked if poetry courses could be included. Barry responded they could if
performance of the poetry was a key component of the course. Rob Garratt asked whether
interdisciplinary humanities courses that have components of music and art could qualify. Barry
said he thought the Connections Rubric might be the best place for such courses, but that
perhaps they could fit under fine arts.
Suzanne Barnett asked on what basis the Curriculum Committee would ever exclude from fine
arts any course in music, theatre, or art. Molly Pasco-Pranger pointed out that some such
courses do not have the required writing component, and Rindo said he would never propose his
acting course for fine arts. Priti Joshi asked whether creative writing courses would qualify. At a
later point in the meeting Barry responded that there is no current creative writing fine arts course
that would be excluded from fine arts by the proposed language because there are no creative
writing courses in fine arts currently because the English department withdrew them all from fine
arts some years ago. Peter Greenfield responded that the department might want to add some
back, depending on what patterns emerge from the new core. He said we should keep “literary
arts” in the guidelines. Rindo said he didn’t think the motion would require the exclusion of
creating writing courses.
Juli McGruder spoke against the motion, arguing that literature courses with a performance
component “would be perfect” for fine arts. Haltom also opposed the motion because removing
“literary arts” would lead to less competition among fine arts courses “by narrowing the kinds and
numbers of courses that can fulfill the rubric.” He said he did not think that the overlap between
humanities and fine arts rubrics was relevant. “The rubrics are not mutually exclusive,” he said.
Nancy Bristow and Taranovski also spoke against the motion.
Barry spoke in favor of the motion arguing that “students are inexperienced in interpreting nonverbal forms of expression.” He said also that logistically it is difficult for the Curriculum
Committee to apply fine arts guidelines that include literary components and that the focus of the
fine arts rubric should be on the performing arts. Proehl agreed that “we’re in a text-heavy setting
and there’s something to be said for requiring students to engage the body, paint on canvas, etc.”
Steve Rodgers asked Barry whether a theater course in which students read plays would have
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001, Page 3
trouble meeting the guidelines. Barry responded that such a course would meet the guidelines so
long as its primary focus was on analysis of performance.
Barnett asked if we agreed that, as has always been true in the past, a given course can fulfill only
one core rubric. The consensus was that this would continue to be the case.
Warning M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a unanimous voice
vote. The original Rindo motion then failed on a hand vote.
Doug Cannon asked if musical performance would fulfill fine arts, and Ward responded no,
because there’s no analysis involved. Dean Cooney added that music performance courses
usually have prerequisites whereas core courses do not. Cannon and McGruder immediately
challenged Dean Cooney on this arguing as McGruder put it, “we get to make new rules with a
new core.” Dean Cooney agreed that the prerequisite question and other issues could be brought
up later. Cannon asked if we could agree that artistic expression includes performing music, and
the consensus was that it does.
Dean Cooney asked if there were any more revisions to be proposed to the fine arts learning
objectives or guidelines. There were not. This meant the rubric remained as proposed by the
task force, unchanged. He asked if
we were ready to move to discussion of the humanities
rubric. The consensus was that we were.
Warning introduced the proposed Humanistic Approaches Rubric learning objectives and
guidelines for the humanistic task force. He gave a brief history of the work of the task force and
then read aloud the proposed language:
HUMANISTIC APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in courses in Humanistic Approaches acquire an understanding of how humans
have addressed fundamental questions of existence, identity, and values and develop an
appreciation of these issues as constants of intellectual and cultural experience. Students
also learn to explicate and to evaluate critically products of human reflection and
creativity.
GUIDELINES
I.
Humanistic Approaches courses examine products of individual or collective
human reflection and creativity. Accordingly, the “texts” of the course may
include literary or artistic works or the collective evidence of the beliefs,
customs, and institutions of a culture or cultures.
II.
Courses in Humanistic Approaches introduce students to methodologies
appropriate to the exploration of beliefs about human existence, identity, and
values.
III.
Humanistic Approaches courses explore these issues over time or across
cultures.
Cannon asked if history courses could fulfill the humanistic rubric, and Warning responded that
the intention of the task force was that they could.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001, Page 4
Taranovski M/S/P “to strike ‘the “texts” of the’ and to replace ‘course’ with ‘courses’ in
Guideline I.” The motion passed on a voice vote.
With his question “What does ‘collective evidence’ mean in Guideline I?” Taranovski began what
became a lengthy discussion and a string of motions and friendly amendments that led eventually
to the ultimate Pasco-Pranger motion “to amend Guideline I to be: Humanistic Approaches
courses examine products of individual or collective human reflection and creativity.
Accordingly, courses may address literary or artistic works or other evidence of the
beliefs, customs, and institutions of a culture or cultures.
Along the way, Pasco-Pranger argued that “other evidence” includes everything an historian might
draw on that are not literary or artistic works. Barry offered tombstones as an example. Dean
Kris Bartanen suggested that the language of Guideline III serves to clarify what “other” would
mean in Guideline I, that is, issues over time or across cultures. Several worried that the
proposed language implied that literary or artistic works must be treated in Humanistic
Approaches courses as “evidence of the beliefs, customs, and institutions of a culture or cultures.”
They opposed this restriction. Haltom responded that there is no such implication; that simply
listing “a or b or c” does not imply “that a and b are related to c.”
As a test, he said, of our commitment to the ongoing debate, Warning M/S/F to adjourn. The
motion to adjourn failed on a voice vote. Discussion continued a few more minutes and then
Taranovski M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice vote.
The Pasco-Pranger motion then passed on a voice vote.
Haltom declared that in the learning objectives language “the word ‘constants’ clangs on my ears.”
He said he would have thought the matters referred to were variables, not constants. Barry
responded that they are constants “as issues or questions.” Dean Cooney suggested we not
ramble on without a motion on the table, and Bill Breitenbach M/S/P “to strike ‘as constants’
from the learning objectives.” The motion passed on a voice vote.
Garratt asked if a course in Shakespeare would qualify for the humanistic rubric, given the
language in Guideline III. Taranovski responded “no, over my dead body,” but Jacalyn Royce
suggested that a course in Shakespeare can include text by scientists and historians, reaching
across a range of disciplines or periods, and should therefore qualify. Bristow reported there was
no agreement on this within the task force, but that she thought such a course could count.
Barnett asked if there were any principles of exclusion in the language. Barry responded that the
requirement that a course must address all three themes (existence, identity, and values) would
lead to the exclusion of some courses.
Dean Cooney asked if there were any further revisions to be proposed to the humanistic rubrics
learning objectives or guidelines. There were not. The net effect of today’s work therefore was to
produce the following:
HUMANISTIC APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in courses in Humanistic Approaches acquire an understanding of how humans
have addressed fundamental questions of existence, identity, and values and develop an
appreciation of these issues of intellectual and cultural experience. Students also learn to
explicate and to evaluate critically products of human reflection and creativity.
GUIDELINES
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001, Page 5
I.
Humanistic Approaches courses examine products of individual or collective
human reflection and creativity. Accordingly, courses may address literary or
artistic works or other evidence of the beliefs, customs, and institutions of a
culture or cultures.
II.
Courses in Humanistic Approaches introduce students to methodologies
appropriate to the exploration of beliefs about human existence, identity, and
values.
III.
Humanistic Approaches courses explore these issues over time or across
cultures.
Dean Cooney asked if we were ready to move next time to discussion of the Mathematical
Approaches Rubric, and the consensus was that we were.
Julie McGruder M/S/P to adjourn and we did adjourn at 5:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty