Faculty Senate Minutes
November 13, 2000
Senators and ex-officio members present: Kline, Holland, Haltom, Harwood (student),
Wimberger, Tomlin, McGruder, Balaam, Jackson, Ward, Breitenbach
Visitors present: Barry, Neshyba, Bartenan, Jasinski, Taranovski, Pickard
Senate meeting commenced at 4:05 with pronouncements from the Chair regarding how the
discussion of various matters would be dependent upon the arrival of persons who might bring
them up at this or some future meeting, to wit:
Bruce Mann with a report from the Ad Hoc Committee on teaching
Connie Hale and the already published report on instructors at the University, available
via Connie's web page.
In response to a query, the Chair clarified the schedule for upcoming Senate meetings and the
rationale for same.
At the Chair's invitation, Senate next undertook to examine the wording of the document provided
to Senators by Messrs. Neshyba and Barry (Chair of the curriculum committee and ex-officio
member, respectively). The document under scrutiny, dated November 8, 2000, conveyed new
wording for core curriculum rubrics.
First question was from Senator Ward who was concerned with how "greater attention" to
quantitative rather than disciplinary material would be reckoned in the mathematical approaches
to knowing category. (See II.). Barry answered that curriculum committee had experience with
this sort of weighing of emphases under current guidelines.
Similarly, Senator Kline queried how the balance between emphasis on analysis of creative
processes and on artistic production might be adjudged in the fine arts core category. (See III.)
Senator Jackson expressed concern over disunity of style and voice across categories, and noted
that only the social sciences rubric began with a definition. Cooney suggested a simple fix for
these concerns and Barry agreed that the consistency of style for the document as a whole still
needed attention.
Senator Balaam wondered at the inherent meaning of "a model of human behavior" as part of the
social science rubric. It seemed to imply that social sciences aimed at explanations of individual
human acts might be privileged over explanations of human groups, institutions, societies and the
like. (See I.B.) Barry answered that this phrase was not meant to emphasize explanations of
individual behavior and Balaam suggested a re-wording that might better convey that intent.
Senator Haltom suggested a deletion that would help and Dean Bartanen suggested an addition
for clarity.
As editing mode had been energized by this point, the question arose from Barry as to whether
we saw ourselves as making substantive or clerical changes and how we might best proceed.
Several Senators and visitors discussed whether the course of merit lay in handling as many of
the edits as possible in the Senate or in forwarding all such questions, large and small, to the
faculty as a whole. Barry responded that the changes discussed in Senate to that point were
neither large nor significant and could be made, with the consent of the task force convenors,
before presenting the document to the Faculty if that were the wish of the Senate.
Senator Jackson perceived a lack of clarity in the description of the interdisciplinary
"Connections" rubric given that several alternative nouns described what was being connected:
processes, perspectives, approaches, issues. Visitor Taranovski answered, as a member of the
task force on this rubric, that the term "interdisciplinary" is itself "mushy," and that the intent of the
language was to provide inclusivity and flexibility while eschewing vagueness. Jackson and
Taranovski continued to discuss the wording of this rubric. The former asked for a ruling on
whether all courses in this category must accomplish all of the items listed under II A through D,
and expressed concern with the unclear referent "these" in III. He asked that "these" be deleted
form III. Taranovski commented that disciplinary "approaches" could be seen as synonymous
with "methods." Cooney offered a remedy to the unclear referent that seemed to satisfy many,
i.e. that "multiple" be substituted for "these" in II B and D in the Connections rubric. Discussion of
this rubric continued with several Senators asking for exemplars of permissible courses and many
such examples proffered. At that point student Senator Harwood asked to know the difference
between the current Science in Context core and the new Connections core. He was assured
that the latter would likely subsume the former, along with parts of the current Comparative
Values core. Senator Holland queried: "Is there the expectation of team teaching (in this rubric)?"
Loud cries of both "yes" and "no" rang out. Neshyba clarified that teams could be formed but
would not be required. Barry reminded those assembled that the possibility of both team and
individual teaching in this core category had been clearly mandated by the faculty. In response to
a query from Senator Ward, Neshyba stated that the responsibility for justification of the adequate
multiplicity of perspectives in a course lay with the proposer. Senator Holland asked whether in
judging a course proposal the curriculum committee would interrogate the adequacy of
interdisciplinary preparation in the background of a proposer. Taranovski's answer indicated that
the judgment would be on the basis of the proposal itself.
At last attention turned to a different rubric. Kline questioned whether the mention of pro/con
argumentation in the Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric precluded more dialogic, multi-vocal,
heteroglossic kinds of arguments. Jasinski, of the Writing and Rhetoric task force understood the
concern but felt that pro/con logic was a basic starting place yet going beyond this model was not
precluded by the language of the rubric. Kline wished for additional and more inclusive language.
Neshyba argued against additions while observing that this is the most prescriptive and highly
defined core area. Several Senators and visitors agreed that the current language does not
preclude going beyond pro/con structures for argumentation.
Again a procedural question was brought to the fore. Cooney asked whether Barry's remarks in
response to Senate queries should go to the whole faculty. Barry preferred to circulate
suggested changes directly to task force chairs for incorporation if agreed. Bartanen M/S/P that
the report containing wording for the new core rubrics be forwarded to the faculty with the
changes delineated by the Senate incorporated. Barry added that the introductory
paragraph, not attended to in detail by the Senate, would, of course, also be included.
Neshyba asked for guidance or strategy from Senators as to how the discussion might best be
facilitated at full faculty meeting. Haltom reminded Senate that it does not actually have the
power to order events at faculty meeting, but stated we might begin with a suggestion or
resolution on how to proceed. Senators and visitors discussed possibilities. Breitenbach saw it
as desirable to move the whole package instead of individual rubrics. Taranovski nominated
Barry for that job. Jackson pointed out that there was still the matter of the curriculum statement
to which the document under discussion would be attached. Barry added that other logistical
matters had still to be sorted out in curriculum committee (transferability, class size, etc.).
Cooney noted the counterproductive possibility inherent in considering the whole package if the
faculty were to become impatient for action and close debate before all issues were thoroughly
aired. Discussion continued with lessons drawn from the history of core curriculum revision.
Senators and visitors disagreed on whether reading guidelines aloud helped or hindered decision
making. It was generally agreed that a productive strategy would include making it clear that,
after ample opportunity for discussion and amendments, the entire resulting document would be
voted up or down. Haltom agreed that as Senate Chair he would move, at faculty meeting, that
the omnibus motion on the core curriculum as a whole be voted on at a subsequent meeting
(date certain) and that the next meeting or meetings be for debate and emendation of individual
rubrics. He would characterize this procedural motion as the recommendation of the Senate.
Discussion continued on how this strategy would work and what other courses for alteration
would remain open to the faculty. None were seen as completely closed. Cooney M/S/P that in
faculty meeting the motions for procedure and for moving acceptance of the final core
package be handled by Bill Haltom and Bill Barry, respectively.
Adjourned at 5:30.
Respectfully submitted,
Juli McGruder