MINUTES-1998-99 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING #12
April 14, 1999; 8:00 a.m.; Behmler Conference Room
Present: Cerar, Farrell, Frenier, Haugen, Lee,
Leroux, McIntosh, Neuharth, Taylor, Woll
Guest(s): Kjersti Hanneman, Mooney
Absent: Busch, Kissock, Korth, Thielke, Utoft,
[In these minutes: changes to Honors Program; EDP
grant recommendations; recommendation of Women's Studies major.]
announced he was asked to chair the Curriculum Committee meeting
in Mike Korth's absence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farrell
asked for corrections or additions to the previous minutes. He
mentioned three that he would like made. On page two, first paragraph
under Academic Support Services Committee, the sentence is changed
to read "...in some way
than through in the
technology issues." On the same page, the last sentence of
the second paragraph under GER Designations of Variable Topics
Courses should read, "Farrell said
exactly, it seems irrelevant agreed
and felt it was irrelevant." The
last correction is in line one of page three, "Farrell said
a result there is no information to make
a judgment." There were no other changes, so Farrell asked
for a voice vote.
MOTION: (Understood) To approve the amended minutes of the 3/31/99 Curriculum
VOTE: Unanimous in
HONORS PROGRAM CHANGES: Farrell referred the CC members to the revised Honors Program handout they received with the agenda. He mentioned that Matt Senior was unable to be present today to discuss the changes. He wondered if the CC wished to postpone discussion until Senior was able to attend. Lee suggested that the CC members discuss any questions they had informally and wait with any formal action until Senior was present. Farrell agreed with this suggestion and asked for questions.
Lee mentioned what he described as a minor point. He said that the new description states that academic programs abroad could be counted as Honors courses with the approval of the faculty and the Honors Program director. He wondered if this was up to the director's discretion or if there were specific guidelines to base the decision on. Mooney stated that criteria for Honors courses did exist.
Farrell asked if there were other questions and if
the committee preferred to postpone the discussion. Leroux said
without any questions or concerns it would seem unnecessary to
postpone a vote. McIntosh stated he had a concern. He noted that
the current wording limits the Honors class size to 20 students,
which is fewer than the number of students in the average class.
Mooney pointed out that this was not a change. McIntosh agreed,
but stated that with the Common Course capped at 18 and the Honors
courses limited to 20, both are smaller than the other class sizes.
The result is students are pushed out of those classes into other
classes where the class size is already an average of 26 - 27
students. Farrell said the intent for Honors and Common Course
is to be below the average class size. Lee said this allows for
more discussion and dialog between the students and the faculty.
McIntosh wondered if that didn't mean there would be less discussion
and dialog in the average classes. Farrell pointed out that some
Honors classes are taken with the regular class. He said the student
may be taking the course anyway, so there is some question of
how much other class sizes may be impacted by Honors class size
limitations. McIntosh stated that students need to go somewhere.
Farrell agreed and then asked for any other questions or comments.
There were none, so he asked if the committee wanted to vote.
Lee felt that without further concern, the committee was apparently
comfortable with voting on approval of the Honors Program changes
without Senior being present.
To approve the Honors Program changes as proposed.
VOTE: Unanimous 9-0-0
Farrell stated that Frenier had made a request prior to the meeting that Agenda items 3 and 4 be reversed. He asked Frenier to share her reasoning for this request with the committee. Frenier felt that EDP discussion could take a significant amount of time. The discussion of the EDP grant recommendations could become complicated since she alone had two questions. She assumed other committee members also had questions. She suggested putting item #4, Women's Studies major proposal, ahead of item #3, EDP grant recommendations. The committee began the discussion of the Women's Studies major at an earlier meeting. Members came to this meeting prepared to discuss the Women's Studies major proposal and would like to go ahead with the discussion today. She understood, however, that the EDP grant recommendation was due by Monday of the following week.
Farrell asked the committee what its wish was concerning
the proposed agenda change. Leroux said that if the EDP grant
recommendation deadline was Monday, the CC almost had to proceed
with that agenda item at this meeting. Farrell stated it was not
just a deadline issue, he pointed out that faculty need to know
soon so they can begin planning their already abbreviated summer.
Lee said that hopefully the EDP discussion would not be that complicated,
and would not require a lot of time. Farrell agreed and recommended
that the CC continue with the agenda items in the original order.
EDP GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Farrell assumed the CC members had an opportunity to review the proposals and the rationale used to determine the sums. He asked for discussion or questions regarding the recommendations. Frenier mentioned a question about Turner's request. She noted that it consisted exclusively of print costs. She wondered if this was the only way to cover those costs.
Frenier's second question concerned Hitchcock's proposal. Frenier said the proposal was appealing to her, but she wondered about funding the equipment. She stated she was not opposed to the proposal, but she wondered if non-toxic printmaking equipment was necessary. Farrell said his understanding is that this would be a whole different approach to printmaking and that the project cannot go forward without the equipment. Frenier commented that she was surprised by this request, but delighted. She feels the purchase of non-toxic equipment is a move in the right direction.
Leroux returned to the discussion of Turner's request with a question about the possibility of doing this printing on campus rather than through an off-campus vendor. Farrell stated that in regard to printing on campus, it could possibly be done, but would be a cost to the division office. He also wasn't certain what the quality would be and he is aware that Turner's intent is for this completed book to go beyond this campus. Leroux asked if students would be purchasing this book. Woll said they would not; the books will be stored in the Hasselmo Language Teaching Center for student's use. Farrell also mentioned that this was a work in progress. Turner will possibly have reproductions made on campus when the book is in its final form.
Lee mentioned that Frenier had raised an important
question regarding the purchasing of equipment. He questioned
whether the cost of equipment should be an EDP expense or if it
should be covered by the division office. Lee suggested that the
CC establish some guidelines for future application for the purchase
of equipment with EDP funds. He said EDP funds could certainly
be used to help a division cover the cost of equipment, but guidelines
would be helpful. Farrell agreed and suggested that a note be
made to consider this before the CC meets again regarding EDP
grant proposals. Leroux wondered if a Grant-in-Aid would cover
equipment costs. Farrell stated that it will sometimes, but equipment
costs are a low priority. It is not the main function of Grant-in-Aid.
Since there were no more questions, Farrell requested a voice
To approve the EDP Subcommittee grant recommendations as proposed.
VOTE: Unanimous 9-0-0
WOMEN'S STUDIES MAJOR PROPOSAL:
Frenier mentioned that before the CC begins the discussion of
this issue, she would like to make a correction to the proposal
that did not get to Mooney in time to send out with the revised
packet. The correction is in the background material. On page
four, the 4th learning objective should read, "Students will
learn to critically assess
of the academic disciplinary structure."
Frenier mentioned that it had been pointed out to her that this
contained a biased phraseology that she is trying to avoid. Farrell
asked the CC if there were any objections to considering this
change as a friendly amendment. There were none, so the change
Frenier pointed out the statistics and data that were gathered to respond to some of the questions that arose during the last discussion. She noted the list of Morris 14 and COPLAC schools that have a Women's Studies major and/or minor. She also noted the number of Women's Studies students that graduated between 1990 - 98. The number of Women's Studies minors fluctuated between 2-3 per year and there were a total of five Women's Studies majors for that period. Frenier mentioned the list of the number of students enrolled for each course included the number of 66 for Winter quarter, which is not a final figure.
Lee asked Frenier if she would expect an increase in the number of students that choose a Women's Studies major if they are no longer required to go through the Area of Concentration process, gathering signatures from faculty, Division chair, and the Dean. Frenier believed there would be an increase, possibly 4-5 more initially. She had no idea how quickly those numbers would grow, but when students realize how much feminist scholarship has increased in academia, there may be more interest. She mentioned that UMM has one Women's Studies student that was published this year with Paula O'Loughlin in Political Science. Disciplines in every division are affected by Women's Studies and Women's Studies theory.
Taylor wondered if new courses were to be added for a Women's Studies major, whether that would result in financial implications? Frenier said the courses are indirectly funded. She stated that the disciplines have been consulted by members who want to teach a Women's Studies course and do so with discipline support. At this point, UMM has a person under the Dean's office who is teaching Women's Studies courses. She plans to continue this for at least 4-5 years. This takes the burden off any particular discipline. Frenier did state, however, that when this faculty member retires, this will have to be absorbed somewhere.
Farrell said that financial implications are an important question, but it is not the primary concern of the CC if it is not excessive. The CC focus is concerned mainly with the academic credibility of the program. Mooney mentioned that LAHS has a requirement for an IS course as part of the major. UMM manages to have faculty to teach this required course.
Farrell assked as a point of interest whether Frenier had a sense of to what extent this degree would impact other disciplines? Frenier said at this point the minor has been a recruitment tool. When faculty are being recruited, if they show interest in teaching Women's Studies courses, the minor is highlighted and is a draw to the prospective faculty member. Therefore it is a good recruitment tool for other majors.
Farrell asked if there were other comments or questions. Guest Kjersti Hanneman introduced herself as a senior graduating with a double major: an Area of Concentration in Women's Studies and a History major. She presented the CC with a letter expressing her support of the Women's Studies major along with 14 pages [two additional pages added later] of signatures supporting a petition to create this major. Frenier mentioned that this has the support of the Women's Resource Center; they circulated the petition. Farrell informed the CC that the petition consisted of 14 pages with 25 signatures per page. When asked if there were any men's names on the list, Frenier said there were. Woll mentioned that many men have taken at least one Women's Studies course.
Farrell asked if there were any other comments or
questions. Frenier requested a roll call vote. McIntosh requested
a wording of the motion.
MOTION: (Frenier, Woll) The Curriculum Committee approves the Women's Studies major
proposal and sends it to the
Farrell asked the committee if they wished to take
a roll call vote. Lee wondered if the CC had done a roll call
vote in the past. He said he could see no substantive reason to
have one; he didn't believe the CC had to have one unless there
was a specific reason. He felt that if there was, the CC should
be able to have one. Farrell asked if a roll call vote was the
wish of the CC. He wondered, specifically, if Frenier was requesting
a hand raising vote so she could identify how everyone voted.
Frenier said yes, that is what she desired. Lee said he was not
strongly in favor of a roll call vote and felt it should be used
only in controversial cases. Farrell mentioned that the CC was
in the midst of a vote on the motion that was currently on the
floor. Farrell asked the CC to complete the vote process that
was in progress.
VOTE: Approved 7
Meeting adjourned 8:40 a.m.
Submitted by Melody Veenendaal