Faculty Meeting Minutes
April 4, 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. Thirty-five voting members of the faculty were
present by 4:15, and another five arrived subsequently.
Minutes of the March 26, 2001 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
In response to Dean Cooney’s call for announcements, Ili Nagy announced the lecture in the
concert hall at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow on art in the 1900’s by well-known art critic Robert Rosenblum.
She also announced that on April 23 E. Hector Williams will speak on "Goddesses, Whores,
Vampires and Archaeologists: Excavating Ancient Mytilene" in Wyatt 109.
Dean Cooney reported that on April 9 the first Norton Clapp Visiting Artist Endowment event will
be held, featuring Bill T. Jones, well-known choreographer and dancer. He said the endowment
was created by Matthew Clapp and that this first visitor is sponsored by trustee Nathalie Simsak
and her husband. Dean Cooney also announced that the family of trustee Bill Neukom is creating
a scholarship endowment. Mr. Neukom’s daughter Gillian graduated from Puget Sound in 1994
and was his representative in working out the details of the scholarship. This is to be an endowed
scholarship for entering freshmen of color with financial need, renewable for four years so long as
a minimum grade average is maintained. The family hopes eventually to endow four full-ride
scholarships.
Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom reported that several faculty had asked him “what the deal is”
with the new class schedule that has been announced. He said he is putting it onto the Faculty
Senate agenda for the April 16 meeting in the McCormick Room at 4:00 p.m. He reminded us
that Senate meetings are open to visitors who agree not to vote or make fun of the chair.
We then continued discussion of the revised Curriculum Statement. Dean Cooney reminded us
that at our last meeting we agreed to request from the Curriculum Committee new language for
the bolded paragraph in section I: General Considerations.
Bill Barry introduced two versions of a reworded paragraph. These versions were distributed to
nd
faculty by email on April 2 and hard copies were available at today’s meeting.
Version 1:
An undergraduate liberal arts education should ground undergraduates well in a
field of specialization, develop their ability to write with clarity and power, deepen
their understanding of the structures and issues of the contemporary world,
broaden their perspective on enduring human concerns and cultural change, and
provide the foundation for continued learning and appreciation. Such an
education should prepare a person to pursue interests and ideas with confidence
and independence, to meet the demands of a vocation, and to cope with the
complexity of modern life.
Version 2:
An undergraduate liberal arts education should provide the foundation for
continued learning and appreciation by grounding undergraduates well in a field
of specialization, developing their ability to write with clarity and power, deepening
their understanding of the structures and issues of the contemporary world, and
broadening their perspective on enduring human concerns and cultural change.
Such an education should prepare a person to pursue interests and ideas with
confidence and independence, to meet the demands of a vocation, and to cope
with the complexity of modern life.
Barry reminded us that the faculty’s charge to the Curriculum Committee was to invert the two
sentences to de-emphasize the original emphasis on vocation. He said that Version 1 does that
most closely, while Version 2 reflects more fully the Curriculum Committee’s sense of the faculty
discussion. He said that Version 1 emphasizes first the importance of the academic major, while
Version 2 begins with an emphasis on a more long-term educational purpose.
Bill Breitenbach M/S/P “that we adopt Version 2.”
Vélez-Quiñones asked if Version 2 takes care of all the issues that were raised at the March 26
meeting, and Barry responded that it addresses all the issues the Curriculum Committee was
asked to address.
The motion passed on a voice vote with several abstentions.
Barry M/S/P “to amend Version 2 by replacing ‘continued learning and appreciation’ with ‘a
lifetime of intellectual inquiry.’” The motion passed on a voice vote. Version 2 that replaces
the originally proposed second paragraph in section I: General Considerations in the Curriculum
Statement thus became:
Version 2:
An undergraduate liberal arts education should provide the foundation for a
lifetime of intellectual inquiry by grounding undergraduates well in a field of
specialization, developing their ability to write with clarity and power, deepening
their understanding of the structures and issues of the contemporary world, and
broadening their perspective on enduring human concerns and cultural change.
Such an education should prepare a person to pursue interests and ideas with
confidence and independence, to meet the demands of a vocation, and to cope
with the complexity of modern life.
We began discussion of section III: Graduation Requirements.
Bill Breitenbach M/S/vote reported later “to add a new degree requirement: ‘In order to
receive the baccalaureate degree from the University of Puget Sound the student must
earn three units outside the major at the upper division level.’” Breitenbach proposed that
this requirement follow requirement “G” in the list in section III, with a renumbering of
requirements “H,” “I,” and “J.” He said that the original ad hoc core committee had recommended
that major courses not be allowed to fulfill distribution requirements and that three of them had to
be taken at the upper division level. Breitenbach argued that the proposed requirement would
provide verticality and depth, that it would get juniors and seniors out of lower division courses in a
positive way (he noted that the new spring 2003 registration priority scheme attempts to achieve
the same objective in a negative way), and would encourage creation of some new upper division
core courses.
Haltom proposed as a friendly amendment the addition of “at least” between “earned” and
“three.” Breitenbach and the motion’s seconder accepted this and the motion under
consideration became “to add a new degree requirement: ‘In order to receive the
baccalaureate degree from the University of Puget Sound the student must earn at least
three units outside the major at the upper division level.’”
Vélez-Quiñones asked Breitenbach if he was worried about “the hidden prerequisite issue.” He
wondered if existing prerequisites would make the requirement difficult to fulfill in some cases.
Breitenbach responded that he did not fear this as a necessary consequence because three units
is a fairly small number. Suzanne Barnett asked if “outside a major” meant that the courses could
not count toward a second major, and Breitenbach responded they could not under the current
motion.
Ted Taranovski said he was sympathetic with Breitenbach’s purpose in making the motion, but
that he wondered if the requirement would actually change students’ enrollment patterns.
Breitenbach referred to a transcript study John Finney had done and Finney said that the study
showed that the average number of upper division units students take outside the major was
1
about three. Finney added in response to Taranovski’s question that the effect of the proposed
requirement would be to ensure that all students completed at least three.
David Tinsley pursued the issue of the second major and asked Breitenbach if he really meant
that the three required upper division units could not count toward a second major. Breitenbach
responded that someone could move to amend the motion but that as it currently stood the units
could not count toward a second major.
Haltom M/S/vote reported later “to amend the motion by replacing ‘the’ with ‘a’ so that the
proposed requirement is ‘In order to receive the baccalaureate degree from the University
of Puget Sound the student must earn at least three units outside a major at the upper
division level.’” Haltom explained that this means that students could have any number of
majors, but so long as there were three upper division courses outside of one of them, “that would
do the trick.”
Taranovski supported the amendment, arguing that double majors could have many upper
division courses. He said that extending the exclusion beyond one major could produce
unintended undesirable consequences. Barnett also supported the amendment but said she
thought the language of the requirement was confusing.
Molly Pasco-Pranger suggested as a friendly amendment to the amendment replacing “a”
with “the first” and Haltom and the seconder accepted this. The motion under
consideration then became: “to amend the motion by adding ‘first’ so that the requirement
is ‘In order to receive the baccalaureate degree from the University of Puget Sound the
student must earn at least three units outside the first major at the upper division level.’”
Barnett said she now opposed the motion because it might encourage students to add second
majors. Bill Beardsley asked how the requirement would have that effect, and Barnett cited a
report that after the University of Chicago reduced its core requirement from 22 to 18 units, the
number of double majors increased. She said that adding majors does not promote liberal
education. Dean Cooney suggested that the issue of double majors is perhaps a different issue
that should be addressed separately.
Haltom argued that “outside the first major” does not presume a second major any more than
“outside the first marriage” presumes a second marriage. He said that “‘the first major’ need not
imply that there will be a second major unless we decide that’s what it need imply, and we don’t.”
He said that reducing the number of core requirements would make it easier for students to take a
second major, but agreed with Dean Cooney that this was a separate issue. Martin Jackson
suggested that students might interpret the wording of the requirement to mean that we expect a
second major.
Barry: M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a hand vote. The
Haltom amendment then passed on a voice vote.
Haltom asked if the proposed requirement would cause problems for majors without vertically
ordered course numbering systems. Martin Jackson responded that in math students might be
less inclined to take MATH 271 (statistics) at the end of a math career.
1
After the meeting ended, Finney hunted up the study and found that it showed that the average number of 300
and 400 level courses taken by graduates outside the major was 3.65.
Curt Mehlhaff asked if it was the will of the faculty that students be juniors or seniors in order for
these upper division courses to count toward the degree requirement. Taranovski responded that
students could take upper level courses at any time and have them count. Mehlhaff responded
that departments could simply renumber their courses and not do anything different.
Breitenbach said that staying with the 300/400 level designation was “cleaner” than introducing
notions like “advanced courses” or “not introductory courses,” else we would need to accumulate
lists of eligible courses. But Beverly Pierson said that in sciences many 200-level courses have
up to three pre-requisites and anyone in humanities who managed to handle one of these 200level courses “would be in a very substantial course.” Doug Cannon asked why they were 200
level courses. Pierson responded that in a vertical curriculum, these are the courses students are
expected to take as sophomores after completing two or three prerequisite courses.
Taranovski suggested that we could either revise the requirement and create some list of
“advanced,” eligible courses, or we could retain the existing wording and departments like biology
could do some renumbering. Jackson responded that current numbering systems reflect what we
expect of majors and that he would hesitate to renumber.
Vélez-Quiñones asked if departments like biology that might be disadvantaged by the requirement
could come up with a list of “high-power” courses that could be considered upper division courses
for purposes of the requirement. Mott Greene suggested the requirement could say “normally” at
the 300/400 level but allow certain courses with pre-requisites also to count. Breitenbach said we
might separate courses into introductory and advanced categories in the bulletin.
Jackson asked what a 100 level class in history means as opposed to a 200-level course.
Greene responded that it means something different in every department; that he simply doesn’t
want someone to be locked out of a good 200-level science course. Jackson asked what the
effect would be if the motion included 200-level courses. Cannon said that some departments
have introductory courses numbered at the 200 level. Dean Cooney suggested we could specify
“or an appropriate advanced course determined by the Curriculum Committee.”
Haltom suggested that we postpone consideration of the motion until the next meeting to permit
time to come up with better language. But Barnett said she preferred to vote on the motion today,
and that Dean Cooney’s phrasing suggestion sounded pretty good. Vélez-Quiñones said that
would allow departments to submit to the Curriculum Committee courses they wanted to be
considered “advanced courses,” and that this would work so long as it did not become “an annual
song and dance between the Curriculum Committee and departments.” But David Tinsley said he
did not think it was wise to set up this kind of process. He said that although he is behind the
spirit of the motion, the numbering system at this university is “chaotic,” and the motion in effect is
based on a numbering system that “doesn’t exist.” Tinsley suggested tabling or postponing the
motion until we come up with a better way of determining what an advanced course is. Greene
said that “we shouldn’t be constrained by absurdity” and that redoing the numbering system is “too
high a bar.” Barry commented that the new spring 2003 registration priority suggests there is in
fact something meaningful in the current numbering system, with lower division courses tending to
be introductory and upper division courses tending to be more advanced.
Taranovski agreed that we do draw distinctions between lower and upper division courses. He
wondered how many students who might want to take that 200 level biology course would not
already have fulfilled the requirement elsewhere many times over. He said he wasn’t sure that
this was a real problem that needed to be fixed so specifically.
Greene suggested substituting in the motion “upper division” where that means a 300 or 400 level
course or a 200-level course with a pre-requisite. Breitenbach responded that that would be fine
with him. Dean Cooney asked about 200 level foreign language courses with two-course
prerequisites. Greene suggested letting departments determine what upper division is.
Breitenbach asked how we will designate 200 level “gateway” courses for the new spring 2003
registration priority scheme. Finney responded that departments will designate which of their
courses are gateway courses. Barnett responded that simply declaring all non-gateway 200 level
courses “advanced” for purposes of the degree requirement under consideration, probably would
not work.
Haltom: M/S/F “to postpone the discussion of this motion until the next faculty meeting.”
The motion to postpone failed on a voice vote.
Cannon suggested as a friendly amendment adding to the motion “which is understood to
be 300 or 400 level courses or 200 level courses with at least two prerequisites.”
Breitenbach and the seconder accepted this, and the motion under consideration became:
“to add a new degree requirement: ‘In order to receive the baccalaureate degree from the
University of Puget Sound the student must earn at least three units outside the first major
at the upper division level, which is understood to be 300 or 400 level courses or 200 level
courses with at least two prerequisites.’”
Dean Cooney asked whether departments will determine whether a 200 level course is or isn’t
upper division or whether that would be automatic if the course had two prerequisites. Greene
suggested that departments should be able to decide.
Eric Orlin suggested as a friendly amendment exchanging “appropriate prerequisite” for “at least
two prerequisites,” but Breitenbach said he did not wish to accept it as a friendly amendment.
Anne Wood pointed out that accepting 200 level biology or chemistry courses toward the
requirement might involve accepting courses that wind up being included in a minor. She said the
problem is that rarely will a student take two or three science courses for just depth alone.
Greene responded that including 200 level courses is an effort to include science in the mix while
still keeping the general spirit of an upper division requirement. Haltom said that he thought that
Pierson was speaking of the relative disadvantage of the non-vertically numbered departments,
such as politics and government.
Pasco-Pranger said she did not object to a 200 level course with two prerequisites counting as
advanced work even in a foreign language. Pierson noted the case of a student being considered
for membership in Phi Beta Kappa who did not have any upper division courses outside the major
but who did have 200 level biology courses, which Pierson argued were certainly advanced work
Barry: M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a hand vote.
The Breitenbach motion then passed on a voice vote with one abstention.
We continued discussion of section III. Graduation Requirements.
George Tomlin asked about the foreign language requirement exemption and the language “may
be eligible for waivers.” Has asked if there had been any discussion about how that eligibility
would be determined. Barry responded that there had not. Dean Cooney explained that Ivey
West certifies learning disabilities based on documentation.
Orlin suggested the language should read “are eligible” rather than “may be eligible.”
Kris Bartanen: M/S/vote reported later “that ‘may apply for waivers’ replace ‘may be
eligible for waivers.’”
Barnett wondered how specific we need to be. She said that we have not designated the process
for taking the language proficiency exams, nor perhaps do we need to specify the process for
seeking waivers.
Bartanen suggested that the Office of Registrar would handle this based on communication with
Ivey West. Dean Cooney added that it is important for students to provide documentation of a
learning disability up front when they enter the university.
Breitenbach said he did not support the motion because it opens up the possibility a waiver could
be denied. He said we should simply remove the words “may be.”
Orlin M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed in a hand vote.
The Bartanen motion then failed on a voice vote.
Breitenbach M/S/vote reported later “to substitute ‘are’ for ‘may be.’”
Dean Cooney said that the troublesome word “eligible” is still in there. Jacalyn Royce said that
there are persons with learning disabilities who might not need a waiver. Vélez-Quiñones said he
has had dyslexic students in his language classes, one of whom is either minoring or majoring in
a language. He said, though, that a severe case of dyslexia might require a waiver as an
accommodation. Taranovski argued that the word “eligible” is okay because it suggests that
students do not have to apply for a waiver, but that they may if they choose to.
Breitenbach: M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a hand vote.
The Breitenbach Motion then passed on a voice vote. The parenthetical statement at the
end of the foreign language requirement thus became: “(Students with documented
learning disabilities that affect the ability to process language are eligible for waivers).”
Dean Cooney asked if we were finished discussing section III and were ready to move at the next
meeting to discussion of section IV. Taranovski indicated he had further concerns about section
III.
We adjourned at 5:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty