Meeting,
Approved 5/6/04
|
Members Present: |
M. Bachmann, D. Beck,
T. Bedunah, F. Brown, N. Browning-Bradley, C. Bruneau, G. Burns, K.
Canty, J. Carter, J. Crepeau, L.
Dent, P. Dietrich, S. Derry, D. Doyle, E. Edlund, P. Fandozzi, D. Fillmore, C. Gajdosik, L. Gillison, L.
Hayes, T. Herron,W. Holben, R.
Judd, S. Kalm, K. Kane, C. Knight, B. Knowles,
C. Krussel, J. Laskin, M. |
|
Members Excused: |
E. Ametsbichler, S.
Ganesh, G. Cobbs, D. Dalenberg, R. Field, S. Greymorning, J. Gritzner,
R. Ledbetter |
|
Members Absent: |
C. Brewer, R. Chacon,
N. Hinman, C. Johnston , D. Six, G. Smith, L. Tangedahl |
|
Ex-Officio Present: |
Provost Muir, Vice
President Duringer, Associate Provosts Walker-Andrews and Staub,
Dean Fetz and D’Andraia, |
Chair Knowles called the
meeting to order at
Registrar Bain called roll.
The
Communications:
Some interesting things
happened at the Board of Regents meeting.
The athletic fee proposal was pulled from the table and the MontPIRG compromise resolution to allow the funding process
on the UM campus only passed, but then a subsequent motion to repeal the funding
mechanism was approved
The election for next year’s
ASUM senators is coming up on April 28th and 29th. They are transitioning to online elections
this year. There are more students
running for senator and executive positions this year. Please help get the word to students to vote as
a means to encourage civic engagement at this stage in life. The primary is next week. There have been
instances of torn down posters, so please remind students that the campaign
process is a part of free speech.
At the end of May,
A resolution supporting a
students’ Bill of Rights can be found at:
http://www2.umt.edu/asum/government/resolution.htm#56
It would be great to hear
what faculty members have to say about the issue. Academic freedom is covered in the collective
bargaining agreement for faculty, but there is nothing covering students. This resolution offers some guidelines, but
there is no enforcement mechanism.
This is
Faculty Senate Chair Knowles report
The Regents meeting was terrific
in terms of things accomplished. Several
new programs were approved: PhD in
The proposal for a Military
Science Minor at MSU was pulled from the agenda by Regent Roehm,
a former military officer, because, as Roehm termed
it, it is “academically vacuous.” So both MSU and UM Military Science programs
are working to strengthen the academic content of their proposed minors.
The Chair-Elect bylaw amendment also requires an amendment to the Articles of
Faculty Organization, which requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds from
those faculty members voting from the faculty at large, as well as President
Dennison. The
online vote from faculty members stands at 106 in favor and 1 against. The request for approval is now on the
President’s desk and we expect to have his consent by May 6th. The new rule does not apply to Vice Chair
Winkler who will be a candidate up for election next academic year. If there are candidates interested in running
they should contact the Faculty Senate Office so a ballot can be prepared for
the May meeting.
The Chair-elect position
involves a two-year commitment to serve the Senate and
The Senate Elections are
just about complete. There are two
run-off ballots taking place, otherwise the votes are in and the Elections
Committee will certify the new senators tomorrow.
Committee Reports:
The curriculum motion
containing two courses in
The grading option motion
pasted last month was fine tuned for implementation clarity by the Registrar’s
Office and
Senator Crepeau asked about
the intent of the language: Moreover,
students are cautioned that some degree programs may have different
requirements regarding CR/NCR credits, as stipulated in the catalog.
Chair Hayes responded that
this language was approved last month and is intended to caution students
considering changing majors that departments may have other policies.
Senator Gillison stated that
this assumes when a student enrolls in a course he or she has to know that they
want to use the course for general education.
The motion was approved
unanimously.
New Business:
General
Provost Muir referred to the
original charge to the General
1. To consult widely with faculty, administrators, and students to determine
how effective the current General
The request for this was
made because the first year she was here it was tough to have the number of
classes students needed available given the financial situation of the
institution. It seemed that a student
could get through the general education program and not have the diversity of
courses intended.
2. From these findings, to draw up general principles and guidelines for
modification of the General
The transfer situation is still
a concern of the state demonstrated by the current legislative performance
audit of the Montana University System with regard to transfer issues.
The proficiency-based
requirements are inline with assessment issues.
The University has to make sure that it accomplishes what it intends in
courses.
Regents Professor Borgmann
agreed to chair the committee. Changes
to general education are never easy, but yet the program is the foundation of
educating students and citizens. After
20 years it’s time to look at the program.
A great deal of work has gone into the review: wide consultation,
various discussions, and consideration of models at other institutions. Please take the time to visit the website to
get an idea of the work that has led to the proposed revisions.
There are some issues that
the task force has identified of why it is important to think about revision. Over
time, the General
The information was taken
from a random sampling, which has its limitations as all researchers are aware.
However, these are the kinds of things that need to be considered. Has the
foundation program slipped over time?
The Task Force identified
other issues including the need for an additional composition course.
The Provost has discussed
with the chair and others that there could be an issue of too many credits in
the revisions framework. In today’s
professional and science programs the number of general education requirements
is a difficult situation for the majors in order to graduate students in four
years. So this is something that the
individuals involved in the next phase should consider.
One of the current issues is
assuring students immerge with current information and technological literacy. Do they have the conceptual knowledge to
unable them to evaluate and transform the information if needed?
The Provost has some
suggestions on where to go from here.
The proposed directions include:
- Faculty Senate appoints a Standing Committee on
General
- Committee can report directly to the Senate and
coordinate with
- Charge the Standing Committee with refinement
and implementation of the framework for a revision of General
There is a need for a
separate committee on general education because
Regents Professor Albert Borgmann
was invited to comment.
As the Task Force studied
the general education program, Borgmann developed a great admiration for Jim Flightner, who almost single handedly demonstrated the need
for a new program and designed a program that has served the university and
students really well. At the time there
was a general upwelling of high mindedness for
the old system, but in fact a very strong new program was implemented. It has suffered over time and needs to be
revised.
Faculty members are trained
to criticize, to find fault, to ask why. It is a sacred tradition and
obligation. However, the Task Force has
spent a lot of time on this and there is a very rich record of their work on
the web site. Please give the proposal
the benefit of the doubt. If there is
doubt look at the material for the reasons why the proposal has come out the
way it has.
Unfortunately, there is a tradition
at UM of committees not honoring the work of their subcommittees. The committee does the work all over again by
taking the proposal apart to the extent that the subcommittee may well not have
done anything. Please honor the work
that the Task Force has done. The point
is not to set aside any real reservations that you may have, but to respect the
efforts and take the time to understand the reasons for the outcome.
He hopes that the Faculty
Senate will appoint a standing committee on general education. General
Pressures that erode general
education are the burdens of major requirements and the endeavor to serve
students by making things easier or more assessable for them. These pressures
can do damage to the general education system, thus a committee that serves as
an advocate is needed.
Once the standing committee
is in place, they should, in consultation with the faculty specify the details
of the program. At this crucial
juncture, he pleads for the acceptance of the framework, a standing committee,
and the kind of high mindedness that previously produced a strong general education
program.
Chair Knowles reminded the
Senate that the framework will not be voted up or down by the Senate
today. Senate bylaws call for the
proposal to be referred to
Senator Gillison asked
whether the new program would be made up of existing courses or would new
courses need to be created. What was the
intent of the Task Force?
Professor Borgmann responded
that the Task Force did discuss the issue.
Their suggestion would be that the standing committee look at the
current courses and see which ones fit within the new framework. There is
clearly the need for new courses, thus the standing committee would need to
invite the creation of new courses as well.
There was concern expressed
about availability issues. Professor
Borgmann indicated that the Task Force suggests that the impact of the new
program should be neutral in terms of student credit hours. There should be a
mechanism for both large and small sections.
The transition should not cause significant dislocations.
Senator Thompson asked for
clarification. It seems that the
possible next step involves doing the work all over again.
The Provost responded that
the report is from the General
Senator Burns stated that
this seems like a move in the right direction.
There is a need for revision, but he is concerned that the proposal
includes more credits than the current program.
Another issue that needs to be taken into account by the standing
committee is the personal health and wellness issues of American society. Our society is in crises in terms of
obesity. An educated society needs to
understand health and exercise issues.
Professor Borgmann indicated
there is a new category entitled, Ecology
and Human Well-being under Ethics and
Human values. There are eleven
categories and it does involve additional credits. Students are required to take a course in
each category. There will be a process by
which faculty with the expertise in the perspective would develop the specifics
of the requirements within the category.
Senator Mayer strongly urged
the Senate that if a subcommittee is created that it needs to be a product of
the Faculty Senate period, and if the Senate decides that members from
The Provost completely agrees.
She can provoke thought or effort but the faculty will have to decide. She
hoped that this discussion would have taken place even earlier. A broad discussion among faculty is needed
with regard to general education.
Senator Kalm congratulated
the Task Force on all their hard work and sees a lot of good suggestions in the
proposal. As a chair of a professional
program that requires 80 credits or more, their students would not be able to
graduate in four years with the additional credits required for general
education. He is concerned that starting
with this framework that clearly stresses the credit requirement of
professional schools majors will create a mechanism that will be even more
tedious.
Provost Muir indicated that
this is why one of her suggestions is that the standing committee be charged
with refinement of the framework to deal with these kinds of issues.
Senator Schantz asked
whether it would be possible to design the program so that it didn’t expand the
credit hour needs.
Professor Borgmann provided history
that should be considered. Prior to
moving to semesters there were 11 perspective courses. When the Regents instigated the 120 credits
for graduation perspective courses were reduced to 10. A reduction to 9 perspective courses occurred
only to accommodate transfer students, which is not a good reason. There should be a separate mechanism to
accommodate transfer students. So
perhaps 10 might be right, but it will need to be approved by the Faculty
Senate. This a difficult question that
the standing committee will have to answer.
Senator Canty asked about
the rational for the de-emphasis on arts and literature.
Professor Borgmann indicated that the rationale is
that currently students have the choice. From a random sampling 18 out of the
50 students did not take a single literature course. Thus, with the proposed revisions there is
the assurance that students will at least take one literature course. It was clarified that students must take both A and B under the perspectives. For example under perspective 5, Cultural Literacy students must take a course in a)
Expressive Arts and b) Literature.
Senator Gillison commented
that under the competency requirements there is an understanding that many
students would be able to test out. Was
there any sense from the Task Force that there would be a mechanism for
students to test out of the perspectives?
Professor Borgmann replied
that this would be something the standing committee would need to work
out. The standing committee will have to
look at mechanisms to reduce the credit requirement in effect. The Task Force didn’t work out the details
because the revisions will have to be done in stages to gain acceptance. There can be testing out through placement
exams, there can be double dipping, and general education courses will be
allowed to count for major requirements.
The standing committee will have to meet with the various departments
for input.
Professor Silverman commented
that there are many things about the proposal that he likes. He was always amazed that computer science,
math and foreign languages were entangled in the symbolic systems requirement. He likes the idea of two writing courses, which
implies additional resources. He was
wondering whether the recommended revisions were to be resource neutral.
Professor Borgmann responded
that the proposal is student-credit-hour neutral. In terms of resources there
should be funds available for the additional writing course and for faculty to
design new courses.
Senator Silverman asked
whether there are other potential resource needs.
Provost Muir indicated that
there might be, but that shifts in resources happen all the time. The requirement for the two composition
courses doesn’t imply where the courses are. The provost indicated that there
might be, but shifts in resources happen all the time. The current system has two writing courses
prior to the major writing course, but they are w-courses and not all writing.
This could be handled in many different ways: distributed, fields, subsets, or
ad-ons. There
are resource implications and we would want to systematically work through
those.
Senator Uchimoto asked what
constitutes one course and about the lab component in the science courses. Many introductory science courses are 4-5
credits which would expand the required credits for the general education
program even more.
Professor Borgmann indicated
that all the courses would at least be three credits in the perspectives, and
could be more in the competencies. In
evaluating the random sample there were 27 students that didn’t take
biology. It would be up to the standing
committee to determine the specifics. He
would suggest that there be e mixture of lab courses and non-lab courses. This is just another one of the issues that
the standing committee will need to wrestle with.
Provost Muir stated that
there are Science courses with a lab that are only three credits such as Human Biology.
Senator Dietrich asked if it
was the supposition of the Task Force that the courses under the World Citizenship
perspective would be survey courses, and if so who would teach them.
Professor Borgmann responded
that there are survey books available.
The fact is that students leave the university and don’t know how the
world hangs together. It’s up to the standing committee to consult with
individuals who have expertise in the disciplines. The courses can be from different
perspectives but should give students a general understanding of world
geography and the course of human history. The knowledge is going to be thin,
but it is better than nothing. Again
this will be up to the standing committee and the expertise they drawn on from
the faculty.
It was asked whether it would
be possible to get two sections together or perhaps have a thread that runs
through a number of courses under the Ethical and Human Values perspective to
gain a greater understanding of the environment for example.
Professor Borgmann answered
that at one point the Task Force had skills across the curriculum. It was decided that this idea didn’t hold
anyone accountable and it was better to have a course with clear responsibility
for the requirement.
Senator McNulty stated that
the Provost mentioned the importance of technology. How did the Task Force see technology falling
into the general education program?
Professor Borgmann responded
that technology means two different things. One is computer savvy in which case
the students are just picking it up. The
other meaning is cultural, social, psychological, ethical dimension of what
technology is doing to us.
Senator Carter asked whether
the Task Force considered combining categories.
Professor Borgmann indicated
that the sense was that something is lost unless it becomes a 6 credit course. There are certain things an educated person needs to
know and it takes some time to get the information across. How can you reasonably talk about creationism
and genetic engineering without knowing evolutionary theory and the basics of
genetics? So giving the students the scientific methods does not prepare them
when faced with the question, what are the merits of creationism. Therefore,
they need to take a course in both the physical and biological sciences.
Senator Tonev asked whether
Social Science was in the correct place.
Professor Borgmann responded
that the social sciences are under scientific literacy which should be separate
from the issue of hard and soft sciences.
Senator Beck indicated that
the Native American Studies department has concern that the move from western/
non-western to U.S. Society/World Citizenship view is almost a step backward in
the sense that it embraces mainstream culture.
Tribal culture and Native American societies are distinctively very
different from mainstream culture, and there doesn’t seem to be a place in the
proposal for meeting the compliance stipulated in the “Indian
Professor Borgmann replied
that the Chair of Native American Studies Kate Shanley was on the Task Force
and it deferred to her. At one point there was a requirement in one of the
courses that there be a Native American component. Professor Shanley was apposed to this because
the material should be taught by faculty from the Native American Studies. She was an advocate to have something that was
worked into the program over time.
Senator Beck indicated that according
to departmental faculty discussions it was not Professor Shanley’s
intention that Indian education be left out of the perspectives but rather it
was important that faculty trained in Native American issues teach them.
Professor Borgmann stated
that he and the Task Force are strongly committed to implementing the law. It is perfectly fine for the standing
committee to revisit the issue and try to implement something stronger in this
regard.
Senator Eglin asked whether
the term global was replacing non-western and whether that implies courses have
to be global as in “Lets Walk the Globe with William McNeal,” or would an
upper-division course in French History qualify.
Professor Borgmann was
convinced by History’s past presentation to
Senator Judd asked whether
current courses would be folded in to the framework or whether faculty will be
asked to develop new courses.
Professor Borgmann suggested
that the standing committee should have experts create guidelines and then look
at existing course. The expectation is
that quite a few of the current courses would fit into the framework and quite
a few would have to be designed.
Senator Schantz commented that
the framework looks reasonable. Is it
the intent of the committee to allow upper-division courses apply to the
general educational requirements?
Professor Borgmann indicated
that would be up to the standing committee.
Accommodations should be made that make educational sense.
Provost Muir thanked all the
faculty members who did the work on the Task Force.
Chair Knowles stressed that
the work on this Task Force was done by our colleagues. He asked the Senate how they would like to
proceed in terms of referral.
Senator Mayer moved to refer
the matter to
Senator Holben asked whether
it would be feasible to allow departments time to consider the proposal.
Chair Knowles indicated that
would clearly be the work of the standing committee. This will be a long process.
Senator Winkler asked for clarification
regarding whether this would include a separate committee.
Senator Mayer indicated he
would accept any friendly amendment
Senator Gillison amended the
motion to ask
Senator Dietrich stated that
the faculty need to discuss the validity of the proposal
before a standing committee is appointed.
There are serious questions about this proposal on a variety of
levels. He would recommend, at the risk
of giving more work to more people, to refer the issue to
Chair Knowles stated that
this is a good point. He clarified that the motion is in regards to structure
not content of the proposal.
Senator Hayes strongly urged
the Senate to avoid going down the road of further fragmenting the curriculum
management system that could lack communication, coordination and links to
Senator Mayer withdrew his motion.
Senator Hayes’ comment was
then considered a motion and was seconded by Senator Mayer.
Chair Knowles restated the
motion: The Faculty Senate directs the
Academic Standards and Curriculum Review Committee to establish a permanent
subcommittee to deal with all issues pertaining to General
Senator Canty has concern
regarding the overwhelming work load involved in the start up phase of creating
a new general education program.
Senator Hayes responded that
only a few members of
Senator Dietrich commented
that if we are in fact in the process of reinventing the wheel, traditionally there
have been subcommittees of
Senator Mayer stated that he
was on
Vice Chair Winkler asked who
was proposed to draft the charge of the subcommittee.
Senator Hayes responded that
The motion passed
unanimously.
Professor Valentin’s Hiring
Process Resolution
Professor Valentin thanked
Chair Knowles for allowing him to address the Senate. He informed the audience that he did not send
the story to the Missoulian, but did respond to their questions. He then read from a prepared
statement.
Chair Knowles stated that
Professor Valentin submitted a resolution for consideration, but in accordance
with Robert’s Rules a motion is required to consider the resolution for action.
Hearing no motion in favor of the resolution, Chair Knowles ruled that questions
and or comments on the points in Valentin’s statement
are appropriate as a courtesy to a faculty colleague.
Provost Muir stated that the
premise to this is not supported by the facts. Over a month ago the Provost urged
faculty members to go to open meetings. There were a number of opportunities to
attend the meetings. People ultimately choose to go or not, all she can do is
make the opportunity available. The
first time candidates visited campus there were 25-35 faculty in attendance at
the open forums. For the second campus
visits attendance was much less at the open forums.
There were reports provided from
people who attended the sessions.
Looking at the numbers there was roughly an equivalent attention to each
candidate. The feedback tallies were as
follows:
|
|
Evaluation forms |
Letters |
|
Charles Wood |
79 |
3 |
|
Dian Michelfelder |
70 |
4 |
|
Gerald Fetz |
81 |
12 |
|
Gordeon Anderson |
63 |
4 |
|
|
65 |
2 |
There is a bit of a
discrepancy but not an overwhelming one.
It would have been nice to have 200-300 evaluation forms.
Professor Valentin indicated
that he didn’t understand why there was only 2 or 3 faculty attending the official
1 ½ hour session open to all
Provost Muir responded that
Professor Valentin has a good point, but you cannot force people to attend such
sessions. Those responsible for searches assure that each candidate has the
same opportunity for exposure to faculty so that the information is consistent.
Possibly those who were interested in the outcome of the search felt they had
enough exposure to the candidates during the initial sessions. She was disappointed that the attendance was
so low for the second campus visits.
In regards to the internal verses external hire issue. Since the Provost has been on campus there
have been six administrative searches. Four external candidates and two
internal candidates have been hired.
Thus recent history indicates that more outside candidates are hired.
Professor Valentin is confused
about how faculty members find out about the candidates and complete the forms.
Senator Gillison clarified
that the morning session was open to Humanities faculty only. These are the sessions that had only two or
three faculty attending.
The Provost indicated that
in the first round there was a session for
Professor Valentin commented
that there seems to be a need to improve the process with respect to representation--equal
feedback from those affected by the outcome of the search.
Chair of
Professor Ausland from
Foreign Languages commented that his experience
is that the line between a professional recruitment and political campaigning has
become blurred. If it gets out of hand
it can become a war. Foreign Languages has some knowledge of this
occurrence. The Senate has an
opportunity here to look at the issue closely.
There has been very little discussion regarding the involvement of the
search committee in all of this. There
are concerns regarding the process from the periphery and maybe the center as
well. Perhaps the Senate could refer the
issue to a subcommittee for evaluation and report.
Provost Muir objects to the
claim that something bad happened.
National searches are taken very seriously. She collects as much information as possible
on the candidates, considers the material, and ultimately makes the decision. That is what happened in this search. Individuals had strong feelings about the
candidates and expressed them, as is their right. There was no political lobbying. She took all
the information into account and believes she made a fine decision.
Senator Gillison responded
to the comment of whether chairs should pull the faculty in their department. If faculty members don’t attend the events,
she sees no reason to pull them. Anyone
can express there comments or support for a candidate during a search.
Senator Bachman commented
that the university has an Equal Opportunity Officer whose job it is to assure
the search is conducted in a fair and equitable manner.
Professor Maria Bustos-Fernandez from Foreign Languages indicated that the non-participation of faculty is
worrisome. She commented that in
Foreign Languages there was contention for several years. The solution was to make all faculty participate because it is their responsibility to be
involved in things that affects their work life.
Senator Crepeau moved to
postpone.
Chair Knowles ruled the
motion out of order, saying “there’s nothing to postpone because no one had
been made a motion regarding the resolution.
This discussion was a courtesy to a colleague. He, along with several members of
Vice Chair Winkler made the
point that there are others who would like to discuss the issue and it can be
addressed again at the next meeting.
The Meeting was adjourned at
5:10 p.m.