CLAS Home > For Faculty > Faculty Governance > Faculty Assembly>

The College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
Faculty Assembly
Minutes
March 26, 2008

Attending: Jill Beckman, Frauke Bleher, Cinzia Blum, Adi Hastings, Christopher Cheatum, David Cunning, Warren Darling, George DeLaPeña, Douglas Dion, Maria A. Duarte, Jennifer Glanville, Loren Glass, Richard Hurtig, Pamela Keel, Paula Kempchinsky, Amnon Kohen, Réne Lecuona, Russell Lenth, Waltraud Maierhofer, John Menninger, Barbara Mooney, Suely Oliveira, David Peate, Craig Pryor, Jim Pusack, David Redlawsk, Jon Ringen, Gerard Rushton (for Geography), Jeanne Saunders, Morton Schlütter, Sujatha Sosale, David Stewart, Glenn Storey, Steve Varga, Vershawn Young

Guests: Executive Associate Dean Raúl Curto; Helena Dettmer, Associate Dean for Academic Programs; Downing Thomas, Director, UI Center for Human Rights; Rex Honey, as a representative of the Educational Policy Committee; Diane Jeske, representing the PEOPLE program; Greg Friestad, Department of Chemistry; Tom Rice, Chair, Department of Political Science

Absent (Excused): Joni Kinsey, Katina Lillios, Alvin Snider

Absent: P. Amad, M. Andrejevic, D. Arkush, A. Borreca, A. Curtius, J. Denberg, L. Holte, R. Leutner, M. Khandelwal, J. Kimmich, K. McGannon, C. Orgren, D. Roseman, L. Branch, R. Subramanian, P. Zebroski, Y. Zhang

1. Minutes of February 20, 2008. The minutes were approved as distributed.

2. Brief Messages and Announcements . There were no announcements at this meeting.

3. Discussion of the “One Community, One Book” (OCOB) Project. Chair Pusack introduced Professor Downing Thomas, who was visiting the Assembly as head of the UI Center for Human Rights (UICHR). He explained that the Center, along with the Provost’s Office, was leading a campaign to encourage campus- and community-wide discussion of Ishmael Beah memoir, A Long Way Gone, this fall. The Provost’s Office is purchasing a copy of the book for each entering first-year student, and the publisher will be including a tipped-in page of welcome from President Mason. UICB is in negotiations to bring the author, who is currently living in New York and working for UNESCO, to campus for a lecture/discussion. The Department of Rhetoric is working with UICB and will include the book as a text in Rhetoric courses. Professor Thomas encouraged faculty assembly members to consider using the text in upper-level courses. He noted that there has been some controversy about the truthfulness of the memoir, and that this aspect, too, could be a focus of teaching and discussion. Additional information is available from Professor Thomas.

4. Discussion of a Proposal to Convert the PEOPLE Certificate into an Interdisciplinary Major called Law, Ethics, and Society . Chair Pusack then introduced Professor Diane Jeske, Department of Philosophy, to answer questions about the motion from EPC asking the Faculty Assembly to approve a proposal to convert the PEOPLE certificate into an interdisciplinary major.

Professor Jeske began by noting that while the proposal houses the new major in the Department of Philosophy, there will be a steering committee of faculty from the cooperating departments – Economics, Philosophy, and Sociology – to provide oversight for the new major. Advising of majors will initially be done by Philosophy, again, in conjunction and under the guidance of the steering committee, but if a sufficient large number of students declare the major, the cooperating departments would become directly involved in advising. She also explained that the departments were very enthusiastic about offering students a way to explore the connections between these three units with a special emphasis on how research and analysis within these units affects law and society.

Professor Richard Hurtig, Communication Sciences and Disorders and Past Chair of the Assembly, began the discussion by asking what mechanisms would be in place to assure that needed courses would be available. He noted this is always a concern with interdisciplinary programs drawing courses from a number of different offering units. Professor Jeske responded that the cooperating departments were committed to making courses available, and that course choices, especially for the foundation courses, had been made from courses that are central to and regularly taught, by those units.

Professor Tom Rice, Chair, Department of Political Science, asked for permission to speak as a non-member, which was granted by the chair. Professor Rice told the Assembly that the Department of Political Science was consulted about an earlier version of this proposed major last fall. The Department voiced concerns about the major and the DEO worked with Professors Jeske and Fumerton to try to design a major that would be agreeable to Political Science. In the end, these efforts were not successful and Political Science voted not to support the major. Political Science has the same concerns about this new major. In particular:

• The Department of Political Science believes the new major would have severe and negative effects on the department because the new major includes the word “law” in the title. This will attract many student who hope to study law, drawing them away from other disciplinary majors, including Political Science. Political Science would not oppose the major if the word “law” as removed from the title.
• Political Science questions the rigor of the proposed major. For example, it is possible for students to complete almost half of the major by taking introductory classes in a variety of fields.
• Political Science would like assurance that the Law School is prepared to allow potentially large numbers of students into the Law School classes that form a critical part of this major.
• Political Science would like a clear set of governance guidelines for the major that includes shared governance among the core Departments in the major. In addition, Political Science would like clarification on who will advise students in the new major and how those majors will be parceled out to departments in CLAS’ majors count

In short, Professor Rice urged the Assembly to agree with the Department of Political Science that the proposal was not yet ready for approval.

In response, Professor Jeske said that:

• The College of Law has agreed to make the law courses available to students in the major
• The Departments of Economics, Philosophy, and Sociology all expect that some students who might have declared in their fields will be attracted to the new major, but they also expect many students to double-major and, she suggested that students might easily combine the new major with a major in Political Science.
• Administrative details are difficult to sketch out in advance – for now, the Department of Philosophy will take on administrative leadership and there will be a steering committee.

She suggested that the question for the Assembly was “Is this a sound pedagogical option for students?” and reminded the Assembly that the three cooperating units and the EPC have all said “Yes.”

Associate Dean Helena Dettmer, who was attending as a guest, stressed that the EPC carefully consider ed the proposal and judged   the major to be quite rigorous and that it would not attract a large number of students. The College surveyed other institutions with similar programs and did not find any problems for political science enrollments. She reported that EPC decided that the major met the legitimate needs of some students and did not interfere with the political science major or mission. The EPC minutes and the semester summary of EPC’s work that appeared in the DEO memo noted the committee’s support of the major and of its immediate movement to Faculty Assembly.

Professor Rex Honey, Geography, rose to speak as a member of the EPC on the EPC’s motion to approve the proposal. He told the Assembly that there was unanimous support on the EPC at the time of the proposal’s approval. He also noted that students use many programs to prepare for law school – he himself teaches a course in the Department of Geography on the Geography of Justice. He pointed to the International Studies major – an interdisciplinary major that is fairly new – and pointed out that while it has attracted many students, many of those are second majors. He encouraged the Assembly to approve the proposal and if problems develop, well, then they will be dealt with.

Professor Vershawn Young, Department of Rhetoric, expressed his feeling that the Assembly should take seriously the concerns of Departments, especially when a DEO comes to speak to the Assembly. He suggested that perhaps there should be continuing dialogue between the units proposing the major and the Department of Political Science. Both Professor Rice and Professor David Redlawsk, Political Science and Vice Chair of the Assembly, added their beliefs that the Department should have been notified and consulted before this meeting of the Assembly.

Professor Jeske responded that the Department of Political Science was consulted, and when the Department indicated that it did not want to participate in a joint proposal, the departments moved ahead with out further discussion. In her view, the Department of Political Science had removed itself from the discussion.

Professor Hurtig rose to say that there are many routes taken by students interested in “pre-med” preparation and perhaps that could be used an analogy. The science units are not concerned which major a student chooses. His statement elicited comments from several other members from science units. Professor Christopher Cheatum, Chemistry, said that it appeared that there had not been enough discussion with Political Science; that the Department of Political Science seemed to feel disenfranchised and therefore further discussion might be warranted. His colleague, Professor Amnon Kohen, also urged the Assembly to seek consensus by bringing Political Science back into the discussion before the Assembly made a decision. On the other hand, Professor Pamela Keel, Department of Psychology, said she did not hear any resolvable issues being expressed. Professor Loren Glass, English, agreed with Professor Keel that there seemed little likelihood that anything would be resolved by further discussions with Political Science.

After some further comments by faculty in the Department of Political Science, reiterating concerns about the proposal, and some further statements from Professor Jeske about the administrative structure and content of the proposed program, Professor John Menninger, Biological Sciences, rose and made a motion to refer the matter back to the Educational Policy Committee.

After a brief discussion with speakers for and against the motion to refer, Chair Pusack asked the Assembly for a vote via a show of hands. The motion to refer was approved.

V. Discussion of Graduate Students and Preparation to Teach in English. Chair Pusack then introduced Executive Associate Dean Curto, who was attending on the invitation of the Assembly to discuss current policies on graduate students and preparation to teach in English. He reminded the Assembly that it was in 1988 that the Regents first required the University to develop policies that would ensure that all graduate students were proficient in communication in English before they were offered teaching assistantships. He noted that there was a one-year window after first admission in which students could become proficient if they were not deemed to be so when they were first tested. He encouraged departments to have phone conversations with prospective students well before they are offered admission. And, he said that if a student is found on arrival on campus to need remediation, those courses should take priority over all other course work.

Faculty members told the Dean that in disciplines as disparate as chemistry and rhetoric, students who the departments felt were ready to teach had been tested as unready. They would like to see the departments given a greater voice in the process of evaluation, and they suggested that additional levels of teaching readiness might be appropriate. As Professor Gregory Friestad, Chemistry (a visitor to the Assembly) said, it was important that TAs know how “to speak Chemistry” as well as “English,” and someone who “spoke chemistry” better than he/she spoke English might still be a good instructor in a lab situation.

Professor Jill Beckman, Linguistics, said that there are plans to pilot discipline/content specific evaluations to add to the SPEAK test.

VI. Adjournment. The time for adjournment being at hand, the Assembly decided not to complete its agenda. A discussion of Faculty CVs ( purposes, procedures, formats, and stability) will take place at a future meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Cinzia Blum
Secretary, 2007-2008