University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, MN





March 4, 2002, 1:00 p.m. Behmler Conference Room


Present:           John F. Schwaller, Craig Kissock, Michael Korth, Jooinn Lee, Jenny Nellis, Jim Carlson, Vicky Demos, Chris DeVries, Van Gooch, Jillian Evans, Bridget Hollerman, Michael Urness, Dorothy De Jager, Nancy Mooney, Jeri Mullin, and Ruth Thielke


Absent:           Clare Strand and Amanda Johnson


Visitors:          Bert Ahern and Leslie Meek


Carlson distributed materials and gave a short presentation on the progress of Campaign Minnesota. He announced that they have met their goal and are now focusing on expanding the base of giving. At this point they are not focusing on the amount of money given by the amount of people giving. The committees goal is to get 100% participation of University Faculty, Staff and Students, however they are going to work to get close to that number. Schwaller explained that when outside agencies are approached about giving to the University it is important to have a high number of faculty, staff and students giving to U of M, it gives the outside agency a good impression of the University.



Schwaller asked for a motion to approve the minutes from February 25, 2002.


MOTION:      (Carlson, Nellis) To approve the minutes from February 25, 2002


            VOTE:            (11-0-0) Unanimously approved




Bert Ahern visited the meeting to present the African American Studies Minor proposal. Ahern explained that the minor has come from the Social Science and Humanities Divisions where it was created. There have been many faculty meetings over the past few years to get the program going. Page two of the proposal lists the faculty members who are involved in the process. This is a no-cost minor which makes use of courses currently staffed and will now show on a student’s transcript, there will be a record showing a minor in this area of study. Ahern explained that the last two pages of the proposal are divided as courses with primarily African American or African content and then courses with partial African American content. A member asked if UMM isn’t a decade late in doing this. Ahern explained that we may be late offering this minor but not in the sense that we are late jumping on the bandwagon. Another member suggested that the major reason this is being proposed now is due to student interest, both African American and others, and helps to address issues of diversity. The member also explained that years ago we did not have the faculty necessary to offer it as we do now.


            MOTION:      (Carlson, Urness) To approve the African American Studies Minor Proposal.


Discussion: Several members expressed that they were in favor of this proposal. One member stated that this proposal is within reason and would welcome more minors if resources were neutral. The member also agreed that the timing is right, as another member mentioned, because of the number of courses being offered now. A member stated that this minor is good to see because it allows students to get more interdisciplinary in their major. The member also questioned if students will be allowed to petition other courses to be counted toward the minor if the content allows? Ahern agreed that yes there will be that flexibility and the minor will be reviewed annually to review courses that will fall into the category. A member questioned if the minor will work with the timing of course offerings. Ahern explained that it is possible for the students to meet the minor requirements with four courses for the main part as history and sociology have regular course offerings. If the demand is high they may run into problems. Ahern explained that student interest in a more visible program is a large part of the rationale for adding the minor and also that it is resource neutral. Several members agreed that the program might be beneficial in recruiting minority students to UMM. One member raised the issues of Hist 3302 and Engl 2012, new courses and changes in prereqs. Ahern explained that the course list should be made current with the current course information.


            VOTE:            (10-0-1) Motion approved as suggested with current course information.



Schwaller explained that he is concerned with the number of issues being discussed by CC. If CC does not act soon on the First Year Seminar Review Committee report FYS will lose out this semester. Therefore Schwaller would like to make a proposal at this time.


Looking at the recommendations of the First Year Seminar Review Committee there are two policy issues to be decided by CC and the other issues should be left to the faculty who are teaching the course. The issue of the topic and consistency of workload should be reviewed by a separate committee and a recommendation made to CC for action. The other issues such as the reader, type of course, etc are all course delivery and should be left to the faculty who are teaching.


Proposal: To send to the FYS Steering Committee two policy issues; the topic and the consistency of the workload. The Steering Committee is to hold hearings to discuss widely across campus with faculty and students these issues and bring back to the Curriculum Committee, in a timely fashion, a recommendation for action by the Curriculum Committee.


            MOTION:      (Schwaller, Demos) To accept the proposal.


Discussion: A member stated that this is similar to what was proposed at the last meeting and would agree to this proposal as well because it will be discussed widely among the campus community and will not proliferate another committee. Another member in agreement with the proposal indicated that she liked it because is it was clear and simple and will get the work done.


VOTE:            (10-0-2) Motion approved.



 Schwaller explained that this issue came about in the discussion Thielke was having with the Disciplines. The definition is outlined and this practice does differ somewhat from what is done in the Twin Cities. We are working on the technical issues and would like it to acted upon by CC.


            MOTION:     (Carlson, Nellis) To approve the use of Co-Requisites.


Discussion: The issue of co-reqs and concurrent registration was discussed. Mooney read the catalog description of pre-req and concurrent. The definition of pre-req and co-req will be clear in the new catalog. Schwaller explained that the addition of “co-req” terminology wouldn’t change current practices. This is just clarifying what we do now. A member noticed the definitions on the handout were mixed-up. A member suggested postponing action until the definitions were corrected.    


            MOTION:     (understood) To table the previous motion.


VOTE:            (11-0-0) Unanimous in favor to table the motion.



Nellis explained that in ArtH there are corrections, additions, deletions suggested by Thielke when they met. Nellis mentioned that the # sign is difficult to strike through so there are brackets around the # signs that need to be deleted.


Nellis explained that in ArtS the same thing is happening. A questioned was raised on the course sequence for Printmaking. It was suggested that this course appear the same as Basic Studio with the addition of I, II, etc. Schwaller suggested making an amendment to add I and II where applicable.


Schwaller stated CC would continue with the Humanities course approvals at the next meeting.


Meeting adjourned 2:00 p.m.

Submitted by Karen Van Horn


Send comments to Karen Van Horn at

Send comments to Curriculum Committee at