Graduate Council Minutes
February 18, 2015
Attendance: Charles Border, Carol De Filippo (minutes), Hector Flores, Joe Hornak, Chris
Jackson, Deanna Jacobs, Chris Licata, Stephanie Ludi, Kshitij Luthria, John McCluskey, Jim
Perkins, Andrea Savakis, Tom Trabold, Linda Underhill, Don Wilson, Sean Rommel
Announcement
Joe Hornak began by stating that he expects to receive a proposal this week for a PhD
program in Mathematical Modeling. He anticipates that it will require additional time for
GC to deliberate on this proposal because, as he has been made aware, there is a minority
perspective and the dissenting group would like their views to be heard.
Original agenda item
C. Border was prepared with a presentation about a draft Clipboard survey on course
scheduling. His presentation was postponed so we could discuss the issue of dissent on a
program proposal.
Background on the upcoming proposal
A subset of the faculty of the School of Mathematics have opposing views about the
proposal, but it received a majority vote from the School and College curriculum
committees and was approved by the College dean. Joe planned to give the proposers the
usual 20-30 minutes for their presentation and response to GC questions, and then give
one representative of the dissenting faculty up to 10 minutes for their presentation and
response to GC questions. He believes it is important for both groups to be present to
hear what each side says to GC.
Discussion. It will be important for us to learn:
What is the nature of the dissent? Do the dissenting faculty merely have a difference of
opinion on aspects of the program – they requested revisions and are just unwilling to
yield to the majority – or are there serious weaknesses in the program?
Were the dissenters given adequate opportunity to express their opinions?
How large is the dissenting group? In general, do the views of 25% of the faculty carry the
same weight as those of 75% of the faculty?
Joe: Within the School of Mathematics, there were 30 aye,* 9 nays, 4 abstentions, and 2
faculty were absent.* (* Numbers added to minutes.)
Concerns expressed by GC members
This points up a larger issue for GC: How many dissenters are necessary for us to allow them
a hearing at GC? Will we follow this same process any time there is a quarter of the
faculty not supportive of a proposal?
1
The principle to consider is this: Who has the right to be heard by a governance group (who
has access to governance groups like GC)? Are our meetings open or closed?
We first need a clear understanding of our charge as a governance group. Newly revised
Policy D1.0 states only general functions of GC. Perhaps we should consult with
Academic Senate regarding our role?
When we allow a hearing of a dissenting minority, aren't we making a comment on the
process used by the College? The process of approving program proposals belongs to the
colleges.
Do we represent ourselves or our colleges at GC? We have agreed that we each should be
taking a more active role on our college curriculum committees, providing constructive
feedback at that level, to be sure that a proposal is ready for review when it arrives at GC.
We need a written description of complaints before a proposal is presented and discussed,
with time to review it before we vote on any action. This will tell us the scope of the
issues, whether there are a few items or many items, and whether they are correctable or
not. We can discuss the information as a group and formulate any questions we may want
to ask the proposers (and/or the dissenters).
If we do not allow dissenting voices to enter into our GC deliberations, they are very likely to
be raised at Academic Senate when Joe makes his presentation, blindsiding him. We need
to understand what the issues are, in writing, ahead of time. That will also allow us to
determine if we want to meet the dissenting faculty in person. Then if we decide that this
is a matter of reconciling the two sides, we might have good reason to bring the proposers
and dissenters together in the same room.
Opinions on the issues
Our role is not to be a rubber stamp for the college curriculum committees. We have an
obligation to hear what a dissenting group has to say about a proposal.
We should preserve the openness of the committee while maintaining the practice of having
the chair of GC control our agenda.
We maintain our governance authority by doing due diligence, by being the initiators of a
request for submission of issues in writing. We then discuss it among ourselves and, if we
feel there is an issue and we need more information, we make the decision about inviting
dissenters to a meeting.
We are not a venue for proposers and dissenters to interrupt or question each other. We must
remain in control of this body.
Both proposers and dissenters should be present at the same meeting so they can provide
comment on the other's presentation. Otherwise, we would have no way of knowing if
some of the information is wrong.
Entertaining the possibility of hearing the dissenting group's issues will drag out the process.
However, all proposals have required at least two meetings because we only have one
hour together each week.
2
Decision
1. Joe will request from the dissenting faculty, in time to allow us to be ready for next week's
meeting:
a) The extent to which the dissenting faculty had opportunities to voice their concerns,
b) A written list of the problems identified by the dissenting faculty,
c) … with all of their signatures. (This request was not intended to be a petition, but a
measure of how large the dissent is.)
2. We will reserve next week's meeting for discussion by GC members of the dissenting
faculty's points (no others present).
3. We will schedule the program proposers for the following week.
4. Or, if the dissenters cannot prepare a statement for us to consider next week, we will go
ahead with a presentation by the proposers.
3