|
College of Arts and Sciences
Faculty Meeting Minutes
October 1, 2003
- Minutes of May 7, 2003, were approved.
- President's Report: As President Bragdon was unable
to attend, Dean Johnson read the report.
"I regret that I cannot be present at the meeting of the
Faculty tomorrow. I consider it important to attend such
meetings, particularly as I try to become better
acquainted with members of the Faculty and to get a sense
of the faculty.
"I would have little that's new to report to the faculty
at this time. I do plan to join with Jim Walker and
others to produce presentations for the faculties, staff,
students and ultimately the Board of Trustees which will
present the environment, with its issues and challenges,
of which the College is a part as well as information
with respect to the College itself and some of the
specific issues which it confronts. One purpose is to
give all constituencies the opportunity to develop a
common understanding of our circumstances and what lies
ahead. A second purpose is to inform a strategic
planning process, with the most significant component,
academic planning. This year I also expect to take steps
to assure that the College is ready to address all
significant funding sources in all categories of giving
in a continuous, systematic way, with the capacity as
well to enhance the climate for giving. We will then be
prepared to pursue the priorities which will emerge in
good time through the planning process. We have recently
sent a questionnaire or survey to the Trustees to
determine their opinions on the present format of Board
and Committee meetings and to seek suggestions for
improvements. We have also suggested some alternatives
to the existing modus operandi. For the most part, these
alternatives relate to the scheduling of committee
meetings, and the agendas for Board meetings, on the one
hand, and the incorporation in the Board program of more
opportunities to interact with Faculty and students,
formally and informally, on the other hand. For those
interested in this subject, the survey is on the website,
or you may obtain a copy from my office. We will be
taking other steps this year to encourage Board
understanding of its responsibilities and in providing
information to promote understanding of the College and
to inform decision-making.
"In my own understated way I have said that this is a
very good Faculty doing very good work. And the Faculty
is certainly a principal reason why a goodly number of
very good students want to come here. In my positive
appraisal of the Faculty, I include all of the usual
things-quality of mind, effective teaching, productivity
in significant scholarly pursuits, and service to the
community-this one and the one beyond the campus. I have
meant something else as well, however. In my opinion,
this Faculty has wrestled with the difficult issues of
the nature of liberal education, the contours of general
education, meaningful interdisciplinary combinations, and
the development of a common course for first-year
students which has brought recognition to the College
from your peers and caught the attention of college
counselors, potential applicants and their parents. No
doubt you have wrestled among yourselves in a contentious
process as well! The College, then is NOT JUST ANY
COLLEGE. Sad to say, many of our sister liberal arts
colleges may do very well in the depth component of a
liberal education-the major, and, yes, the specialized
and the professional-sometimes with a bow to breadth by
invitations or requirements to enter a variety of
specialty shops to snoop around. In sum, general
education and a thoughtful concept underlying it are
given short shrift. And the common course falls by the
wayside.
"With the perspective I have on the College today, I
would have to say that I am concerned. I am wary of
becoming JUST ANOTHER COLLEGE in today's universe of
liberal arts colleges. My focus of concern is the haste
with which Inventing America is being abandoned, the
haste and mechanical nature of the examination of what
would succeed it in the second semester, the seemingly
slight examination of how some of the significant
purposes of Inventing America will be served in the
second semester, the failure to examine the contours and
underlying concept of general education at the College,
and the slight attention paid to the effect of abandoning
a course which has brought recognition to the College
without serious consideration of what might follow it
which would serve our students as well and bring similar
accolades. I am concerned that "the something else"
which I mentioned earlier, leading to the conclusion that
this is a good faculty doing good work in a good place,
survives."
- Dean's Report:
- Memorial service for Oliver Zlonis will be held
early next week. His death has strongly affected
students; please refer students to support services on
campus. This was the first suicide on campus in the
history of the College. He also reported on a very
serious illness recently diagnosed in another student,
Thomson McCorkle. Dean Johnson asked the faculty to
give Jon Eldridge a vote of thanks for all he and his
office have done.
Questions and comments:
- How do you bring up the topic of counseling
with a student who you believe may need it?
Mr. Eldridge: Say, "I have noticed X, Y, Z, and I
am concerned." Contact Student Support Services.
Many of our students have sought counseling
before.
- Jerusha Detweiler-Bedell noted that faculty may
also want to try to normalize their reactions and
let them know that many others have used the
Counseling Center for support.
- Linda Angst stated that it is awkward to bring
these issues up, but when she did, she felt much
better and the students quietly accepted what was
said.
- Dean Johnson added that in every case where
faculty brought this up, the students appear to be
very grateful.
- Bruce Prodobnik heard a rumor that some
students wanted to go to a support meeting and a
professor expressed hesitation about meeting class
or a student group. Dean Johnson responded that he
is not aware of this, but that he hopes faculty are
sensitive to students' needs during what is for
some a difficult time.
- Deborah Heath stated that she was in contact
with a student who described all of the ways in
which the students have felt supported.
- Jane Atkinson stated that as soon as Oliver's
body was discovered, there was a search for all of
Oliver's friends so that they could get support.
She added that the problem with Thomson McCorkle
was first identified by Ann Whiting.
- Peter Christenson reported that a student in
one of his classes said that "the system of
counseling here discourages ongoing care." What
are the resources at the Counseling Center? Jon
Eldridge explained that there are about 4.5 FTE
counselors for 1,700 undergraduates plus law and
graduate school students. The counseling center
will see people multiple times; but if the person
needs regular treatment, the staff works with the
student to find referrals for long-term care.
Students will not be turned away from the
counseling center.
When asked by Katja Altpeter-Jones if there is a
way of sharing information related to past problems
with the faculty, Mr. Eldridge replied that it is
always a difficult call. Oliver was doing all of
the things he was supposed to do. There are cases
where we do notify faculty; but, in his case,
things appeared to be going okay. Mr. Eldridge
encouraged faculty to contact him if they have
additional questions.
- Thomson McCorkle successfully underwent surgery
for a brain tumor on Sept. 30. He has some double
vision, and his parents have decided to withdraw him
this term. The family will remain in Portland for his
treatment, and they invite visitors.
- The College hosted the first Bicentennial
Symposium, which was well attended on both days. A
number of excellent presentations on Lewis and Clark
in the 1800s were given, and the audience was engaged,
attentive, and full of praise. Dean Johnson thanked
faculty colleagues Stephen Tufte, Nora Beck, Stephen
Beckham, and Stephen Lambo for their contributions.
On Friday afternoon, the Great Hall was dedicated as
Smith Hall.
- Spring textbook orders are due by October 15.
This can be done online, and "same as before" is
fine.
- Dean Johnson will be appointing a
Sponsored-Research Officer in his office to help
faculty with external grants. The position has
external funding for three years. This person will
help faculty locate sources of funding and help to
write grants. Faculty are encouraged to take
advantage.
- Mervyn Brockett has been appointed Acting
Registrar until Dell Smith returns at the end of fall
semester.
- Retention has gone from 78 percent five years ago
to 84 percent this last year. Advising Pilot
participants are returning at a rate of 87 percent.
The sophomore-to-junior rate has gone from 66 percent
last year to 73 percent this year. These are positive
trends for the College.
- Inventing America review: We appear to be moving
quickly toward a new program. The clear view at the
retreat was that a new program should be formed and
that a one-semester model is preferred. The concern
is that without the second semester of Inventing
America, we don't have a clear idea of how to
accommodate the first-year students in the spring
semester or even whether we would have a sufficient
number of courses available to meet the need. The
faculty need to consider what educational and academic
goals they would like to achieve in the
second-semester courses, and Dean Johnson urges the
faculty to be deliberate and thoughtful with this.
Discussion: Nick Smith stated that the president
needs to be clearer about the import of his comments.
As a member of the committee, this is the first he has
heard about the president's concerns. President
Bragdon needs to let the faculty know how serious he
is about this - this feels like the 11th hour.
Deborah Heath stated that the faculty recognize how
hard the committee has worked and that she hopes we
can move on to the proposal.
- Bill Kinsella announced that the Environmental
Affairs Symposium is coming up. On Friday, October
17, faculty are invited to participate in a potluck
dinner honoring Evan Williams. If faculty have photos
of Dr. Williams to share, please contact Dr.
Kinsella.
- Committee on the Curriculum - Elliott Young
Both the art department and the mathematical sciences
department are undergoing external reviews. The
committee also wants to follow up on the current status
of the CAP report. Most of the committee's attention is
now focused on Inventing America. Additional comments
and input are welcome and encouraged.
There was some consensus on Inventing America:
- People wanted small, writing-intensive courses but
feel this isn't possible without additional
resources.
- What about money that would be released from no
longer using adjuncts for the second semester?
- A writing course in the first two years seemed to
be more doable.
- Some people indicated they could open up new
smaller courses for first-year students (especially
the psychology department).
- There were questions about the timeline and
various options for approving the beginning of the new
course.
- Committee's goal is to come back to faculty in
November with a plan.
- The committee is focused most on the core
requirements.
- Discussion:
Steve Beckham pointed out that the Curriculum Committee
should address all the issues; Dr. Young responded that
the committee is focusing on core, international
requirements, and larger pedagogical issues.
Stuart Kaplan noted that there needs to be additional
attention paid to courses beyond the social sciences and
humanities - there will be a big rush to some of the
natural sciences and to art. You have to look closely at
the impact. Dean Reiness has assured the committee that
the natural sciences would welcome additional students.
In response to a question from Susan Glosser of whether
what our students need was discussed, Dr. Young stated
that it had been discussed by the task force. Also, in
response to questions from Bob Goldman and Jean Ward, Dr.
Young added that the committee has discussed the
pedagogical goals of the second-semester course as well
as the goals of both the two-semester core and the
international study program requirement.
Stephen Lambo asked if the committee is considering the
fact that there are no social sciences requirements. Dr.
Young responded that it is and asked the faculty to send
him suggestions of the issues that are important to
them.
Rich Peck asked if the demand on classes would primarily
be in the first year of this change, with Dr. Young
agreeing that that could be the case. Jane Atkinson
remarked that it would not be only a one-year
phenomenon.
- Andrew Cortell is chair of AAAS; names of other
chairs will be circulated electronically.
- New Business
- Steve Hunt has agreed to serve as
parliamentarian.
- Inventing America - Ben Westervelt (Copies of the
Task Force proposal with three supporting motions were
circulated with the agenda and are attached.)
Ben Westervelt reported the Task Force needs 105
faculty supporting the course to feel confident about
it. He noted that the title can be changed. In terms
of the message of the course, the Task Force has paid
attention to these issues.
Dean Johnson announced that this discussion would be
continued on Thursday, October 23, 5:00-8:00 p.m.
Dr. Westervelt continued to say that approval and
implementation of the course is a multi-step process.
The Task Force thinks there should be a content to the
course (not a content-less course). About 2/3 of the
faculty said they would feel it would be appropriate
to have small, writing-intensive seminars as
supplement to the core. The Task Force needs to know
if this is the will of the faculty.
Discussion:
Bob Mandel: To what extent do we need to know the
goals of spring before we approve/vote on the fall?
Dr. Westervelt: We should first decide whether the
one-semester core is what we want.
Eban Goodstein: The writing-intensive motion number
two will help get at the question of the spring
semester. Deborah Heath: Writing-intensive courses
sounds like a good idea - would they be
discipline-specific? Dr. Westervelt: Yes.
Stuart Kaplan: Does the Task Force have data telling
us that the College will be able to staff this? Dr.
Westervelt responded that, at the retreat, people said
they couldn't commit until we give a clear proposal,
but he is optimistic. Stepan Simek add that what is
proposed now does seems to have the most potential
support.
Steve Hunt: Getting to the idea of content-full or
content-less course, the proposal seems very
ambiguous. The proposal seems very ambiguous and
there is so much still unknown, should this be assumed
to be purposeful?
Dr. Young: It is purposeful because the faculty
couldn't come together as a whole to a common
syllabus. We imagine three-five groups of faculty
coming into clusters. It's not completely
content-less.
Dr. Westervelt: At the earlier stage of Inventing
America, the content was equally amorphous. We are
just at this early stage right now.
Robert Eisinger stated that we need to say more than
Yea or Nay - we need to commit to the core and say
whether or not we are willing to teach this.
Jean Ward: My concern also is about staffing. So I'm
going to second Robert's plea. I understand the
title, but I could easily substitute a number of other
titles. So it seems to me that you've borrowed a lot
of the language from the current Inventing America
course. I don't see anything that suggests the
rejection of America as content. Dr. Westervelt
responded that the Task Force is saying that the
faculty does not want to restrict its study to
America. We have not been able to find a large group
of faculty excited about America as content, so
flexibility can be given through the cluster
model.
Eban Goodstein: The third motion is to commit to
teaching some part of general education program. I'm
excited to think about teaching in a cluster.
Chana Cox: If two-person clusters are allowed, you
have the potential for 12 different classes. Why not
bump up the requirement to three-four? Dr. Westervelt
responded that the Task Force sacrificed greater
coherence for greater flexibility. Several larger
clusters are preferred.
Dean Reiness stated that he thinks this is a great
idea but that the chances of him teaching are
miniscule but not zero. He pointed out that certain
values - writing, small classes - are important. A
number of people in the sciences feel quantitative
issues would be very important in the first year. He
would like to discuss goals for general education; he
would like the faculty to make judgments on the whole
of general education.
Dr. Westervelt responded that these are arguments to
be made, but do we need to resolve them before we make
decisions on this topic?
Herschel Snodgrass noted that the problems caused by
having students "free" in the second semester will
settle down, but why not have this course in either
the first or second semester?
Nick Smith: One reason is to give a common experience
of being in this class, which includes community
building.
Lyell Asher: I have been a critic of Inventing
American the whole time I've been here. The Task
Force has shown the faculty what it wants, but I think
there is no content in this proposal. While not
faulting the Task Force, he stated that this course is
designed to offend as few people as possible. We are
trying to get as many people to teach as possible.
Why not drop the pretense of a common course and just
have seminars - which is really all this proposal
amounts to anyway.
Stepan Simek disagreed. We may actually find that
there are 35+ people who would like to get together,
collaborate, and teach a heartfelt course. The title
is problematic - you could put anything in it - but
you are not doing this alone.
Lyell Asher: So then we have to see what materializes
first? How can we vote on this? Dr. Westervelt
responded that the content will be based in the
clusters. We are voting to approve a program that
will allow faculty who are interested to create the
course.
Lyell Asher: I don't know how you're going to sell
this to incoming freshmen. Inventing America was
much more coherent and better in that respect.
Eban Goodstein: This course has significant
advantages over Inventing America. We can't just do
whatever we want; we need to think bigger. But we
also can be passionate about the topics. We have to
work on the marketing pitch. We are challenging the
faculty to create and organize coherence.
Motions were put forward.
Erik Nilsen/Eban Goodstein: Change in language in
motion 3: "That all tenured and tenure-track faculty
be required to teach regularly …" This motion
was accepted as friendly.
Erik Nilsen: Also reconsider the requirement of a
19-student cap. And could two people from the same
department be in a cluster? Dr. Westervelt: They
could with an interdisciplinary focus.
Paulette Bierzychudek: I'm enthusiastic about many
aspects of this proposal, but it's unlikely that
people in the sciences will be teaching this course.
The problem is doing this three years in a row - what
we teach every year isn't very flexible. The second
motion required a departmentally based,
writing-intensive course. Science courses do not make
this possible unless labs are dropped.
Dr. Westervelt: Not every department would need to do
this. The first point is an excellent point to make.
But we could work around that.
Robert Eisinger: There needs to be flexibility in the
course within clusters. We don't necessarily have to
have a title to sell the course. Why don't we come up
with clusters now? Maybe we can propose clusters
before the vote.
Brian Detweiler-Bedell said he would email his
comment, but the best title may be "Inventing
Americas."
Deborah Heath: I agree that we should avoid
micromanaging ourselves, but let's trust ourselves and
one another to engage collaboratively. We've done
this, in part, through the current second semester of
Inventing America.
Jane Atkinson: I am intrigued with the theme, and I
think this would bring along people who taught
Inventing America. I would like to trust colleagues
to put something together. Her concern is that our
focus has been on what faculty want rather than what
students need. How does this class contribute to the
LC education?
|
