|
|
|
Faculty Assembly Minutes
|
September 19, 2001
|
||
| CLAS Home > For Faculty > Faculty Governance > Faculty Assembly >
Minutes of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Faculty AssemblyAttending: Abbas, Adrain, Aikin, Arnone, Arthur, Boggess, Bonacina, Borreca, Broffitt, Creekmur, Davison, Dettmer, Dominguez, Farrell, Fethke, Fielding, Finamore, Fitch, Franklin, Freeman, Gross, Guenter, Hatasa, Heard, Helms, Hesli, Honey, Kleiber, Kuntz, Lafky, Lang, Lara-Braud, Larsen, Lewis, Lutgendorf, Marvin, Maynard, Méndez, Miller, J. Nelson, Niño-Murcia, Norbeck, Oden, Pietrzyk, Plapp, Polumbaum, Randell, Redlawsk, Schnell, Schwalm, Silliman, Solow, Ton-That, Thompson, Troyer, Vlastos, Whitmore, Young, Zbiek Excused absence: Altman, Darling, Hanley, Heilenman, Hochstrasser, Latham, Peters, Snider Absent: Buss, Gölz, Hendrix, Jones, Leddy, Mills, Rigal, Robertson, Slatton, Spiess, Squire, Trachsel, Wilcox, Woodard Guests: Fred Antczak, Associate Dean for Academic Programs; JoAnn Castagna, Dean's Office; Raúl Curto, Executive Associate Dean; Rick Fumerton, Philosophy, former member of the Educational Policy Committee; Teresa Mangum, English, member of the Educational Policy Committee; Linda Maxson, Dean 1. The minutes of the Faculty Assembly meeting of April 18, 2001 were approved as submitted. 2. Increasing the influence of the Faculty Assembly. Chair Hesli introduced the subject by reminding the Assembly that before it was constituted, it had been necessary to put issues that required faculty approval (e.g., the establishment of new majors) to a vote of the full faculty. She noted that in addition to voting on motions submitted to it by the Executive Committee or the Educational Policy Committee, the Faculty Assembly could also initiate proposals and submit motions to the EC or EPC for action. She asked for a motion to explore ways to increase the clout and improve the role of the Faculty Assembly. The motion was made and seconded, and Hesli asked for discussion. Member John Nelson (Political Science) suggested identifying the business that used to be submitted to the full faculty for a vote but that does not now come to the Faculty Assembly. Member Carol Fethke (Economics) suggested that the Dean might be asked to address the Assembly on the "state of the state of the college" in a manner that was forward looking, identifying the issues that were likely to arise in the coming year. Member Carolyn Lara-Braud (Health, Leisure & Sport Studies) agreed that identifying earlier the issues that the EC and EPC are discussing would be helpful to the Assembly in shaping the motions that it ultimately votes on. Dean Maxson noted that much of what the College has to act on has a very short time frame for a response. Issues that are generated outside the College are often taken up first in the Faculty Senate and Faculty Council. She suggested that the Assembly may want to have representatives at those meetings to report back to the Assembly. Hesli agreed that finding a way to regularize a report on matters under discussion in the Senate and Council would be helpful to the Assembly. Hesli pointed out that the rapid turnover of Assembly membership and leadership, as well as infrequent meetings, is characteristic of weak assemblies. In response to the question of whether the Assembly might meet more often, Ed Norbeck (Physics & Astronomy) suggested that it would be more practical to have informal committees take up issues and bring focused reports or proposals to regular meetings. The membership of the informal committees could be drawn from a list of Assembly members interested in particular topics. Hesli said she would be interested in gathering that kind of information by email. Dean Antczak said that if more Faculty Assembly representatives reported back to their departments, it would promote the Assembly's visibility and improve its role in faculty governance. Lara-Braud suggested that monthly agendas be sent by email to the administrative assistants of the departments to be forwarded to all faculty. Member Lisa Troyer (Sociology) suggested that members have a Faculty Assembly report placed on the agenda of their department meetings as a standing item. Nelson countered that in some departments it would not be helpful to extend department meetings with standing reports. Member Jael Silliman (Women's Studies) maintained that Assembly business that is relevant to a particular department is already taken back to the department for discussion. She said that giving people more paper or email to sort through would not be helpful. Member Ken Kuntz (Religion) said that Assembly members need to have consideration for their colleagues' time when reporting back to their departments, especially at times when the department has a great deal of business to attend to. Hesli called for a vote on the motion, reminding the Assembly that a positive vote would require the Assembly to change its behavior by exploring ways to increase its influence. The motion passed. 3. Ad hoc committees: College Visibility and College Renewal. Hesli said that as chair she would establish two ad hoc committees this semester, the Task Force on College Renewal and the Task Force on College Visibility. Silliman asked what was meant by "college renewal." Hesli replied that there had recently been a lot of discourse on revitalizing the College, for example, President Coleman's recent proposal to the Regents. She would like to find out what the faculty's priorities for renewal are, since in a resource-scarce environment priorities determine what proposals are actually implemented. Dean Maxson reminded the Assembly that the reinvigoration proposal to the Regents was a time-constrained proposal and one that had actually been submitted, and she would hope that the faculty would give the proposal their full support. She said she welcomed dialogue on the College's priorities, but that infighting about priorities in a proposal that has already been submitted would be counterproductive. In the long-term however, she would very much like suggestions from the faculty about what the College's priorities should be. Turning to the Task Force on College Visibility, Hesli said the committee would identify ways for the College to gain more attention. She mentioned Jim Broffitt as a possible co-chair of the task force. Nelson asked whether "visibility" referred to visibility inside or outside the University. Hesli replied that she had external visibility in mind, but that she was open to suggestions for internal visibility as well. Hesli called for volunteers to serve on the task forces and asked that interested members see her after the meeting. She envisioned the task forces meeting once or twice, during fall term only, and reporting back to the full Assembly with their suggestions. 4. Internal research opportunities. Member Lisa Troyer reminded faculty of an announcement they had received of new research funding opportunities from the office of the Vice President for Research. Four new programs this year are targeted to support the social sciences, interdisciplinary research, informatics, and undergraduate research programs. They have larger awards than many past internal research programs and include summer support. She added that when College faculty obtain these awards, it increases the visibility of the College. 5. EPC motion for a major in Collegiate Studies. The Educational Policy Committee has submitted the following motion to the Faculty Assembly:
The full proposal for the collegiate studies major is currently available on the web at http://www.clas.uiowa.edu/faculty/governance/epc/collegiatestudies_fav1.pdf. Hesli asked for a motion to postpone a vote on the proposal until the Assembly's next meeting, so that members would be able to discuss the proposal with their units before voting on it. It was so moved, and the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote. Rick Fumerton (Philosophy), a former member of the Educational Policy Committee, introduced the proposal by saying that it was a response to some of the practical problems of getting students enrolled in majors. He maintained that it was the equivalent of having three minors, which would be an attractive option for some students, one that would allow them to explore several possible majors without placing their chances of earning a degree in four years in jeopardy. Member Philip Lutgendorf (Asian Languages & Literature) suggested that multidisciplinary studies would be a better label than collegiate studies. Troyer agreed, saying that she liked the proprosal, but the current name might be a disadvantage to graduates of the program, since it does not convey a clear sense of the program to potential employers and graduate schools. A member asked whether some departments might refuse to participate in the program. Fumerton replied that a department could not prevent a student from taking four of its upper-level courses, which is all the participation required of the department. He added, however, that the program would definitely have to rely on advising, and if a department did not provide an advisor to students in the program, it could detract from the program's effectiveness. Teresa Mangum (English), a member of the EPC, said that the proposed multidisciplinary program differs from interdisciplinary studies in that the multidisciplinary program would serve students who are unsure about what they want to study, whereas the interdisciplinary studies major is for students who know exactly what they want to do. Interdisciplinary studies often involves more than three fields of study. In response to a question from a member about evaluation of the program, Antczak said that there would be a five-year audit of the program and that they would track data on students and graduation rates. Member Judith Aikin (German) expressed concern about the adequacy of advising. The student would have only one advisor, who might not be competent to advise the student about courses in the other two fields of the student's choice, particularly when it came to upper-level courses. Students in this situation could easily get out of their depth. Antczak noted that students do not currently have advisors for their minor fields, and that situation does not seem to pose problems or arouse concern. Fumerton acknowledged that advising was an existing problem for many majors, and that ideally a student would seek advice from many sources, though in practice it does not happen often. He pointed out that departments should have prerequisites in place to prevent students from taking courses for which they are unprepared. Vice-chair Solow expressed concern that the proposed major would attract students who were not quite able to make it in any one discipline, and the resulting collection of courses they took would amount to a mediocre education. Fumerton said that the students he talked to did not think it would be an easy major, since it required 12 100-level courses. Antczak said that the requirement for 12 upper-level courses was about average for majors in the College. Member Judy Polumbaum (Journalism & Mass Communication) said she thought the pragmatic rationale for the program was clear, but she did not see the intellectual rationale. She did not have objection to the program as long as it was recognized that the impetus behind it was pragmatic rather than intellectual. Antczak replied that the concept of a major is a fairly recent construct, and that the intellectual rationale of a traditional major may not be the only standard by which to judge new programs. Fumerton maintained that a multidisciplinary program could provide just as valid and as valuable an education as a traditional major. Nelson said that it seemed to him that the proposed major was non-disciplinary rather than multidisciplinary, since inherent in the concept of a discipline is guidance from faculty and a foundational level of knowledge, which together form the basis of a coherent intellectual perspective. The proposed program has no distributional requirements, no lower-level requirements to provide a disciplinary foundation, and no discipline-based advising in two of the student's fields. Antczak pointed out that by this definition of discipline, minors are non-disciplinary. Several members of the Assembly replied to Antczak that students who do minors also must complete majors, and this assures faculty-defined coherence for some of the courses, whereas the collegiate studies proposal requires none. Fumerton concurred that there is often no guidance for minors, but he also said that if the foundational courses were necessary for understanding the upper-level courses, they should be prerequisites. Nelson asked if the collegiate studies program could require the approval of three advisors rather than one. Fumerton said that such a requirement would produce practical problems, in that it is difficult to get students to see even one advisor. Lara-Braud said that students currently are able to enroll in courses for which they have not completed the prerequisites. She maintained that this general problem would be exacerbated by the proposed program. Antczak acknowledged the problem. Fumerton said that students could be forced to drop courses if they had not completed the prerequisites. There was some discussion of whether there might be minimum GPA requirements for admission into the program and for graduation. 6. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at its scheduled time. Respectfully submitted,
|
|||
© 2008 The University
of Iowa, College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences |