A&S Faculty Assembly Minutes April 29 2005

College of Arts and Sciences

Faculty Assembly Meeting

April 29, 2005

Registering Attendance:


S. Parkhurst, E. Segal, C. Tillquist


J. Alexander, G. Cobbs, P. Ewald, J. Jack, A. Karpoff, M. Klotz, M. Perlin, D. Schultz, E. Wong


F. Luzzio, G. Pack, J. Richardson

Classical & Modern Language:

R. Buchanan, W. Cunningham, M. Dalle, J. Greene, G. Hutcheson, A. Leidner, A. Mastri, F. Nuessel, C. Pooser, R. Roebuck, C. Sullivan, L. Wagner, W. Yoder, L. Zeng


J. Berman, M. Cunningham, M. D’Silva, S. Esrock, C. Fosl, A. Futrell, J. Gregg, G. Leichty, S. Phillips, R. St. Clair, K. Walker, E. Warner


D. Anderson, M. Biberman, T. Byers, K. Chandler, G. Cross, S. Griffin, P. Griner, K. Hadley, D. Hall, K. Kopelson, E. Lin, K. Mullin, G. Ridley, M. Rosner, S. Ryan, J. Webb, A.E. Willey, B. Williams, T. Yohannes


J. Anderson, C. Hanchette, G. Lager, C. Leuthart


A. Allen, B. Beattie, J. Cumbler, W. Lee, S. Levi, J. McLeod, R. Njoku, K. Spierling, B. Tyler, L.S. Weissbach


A. Allen, K. Gray, M. Stenger, E. Wise

Justice Administration

G. Higgins, G. Vito, W. Walsh, P. Cerrito, L. Larson, T. Riedel, D. Swanson

Pan-African Studies:

T. Adams, M. Bani, J. Hudson


R. Kimball. A. Kolers, T. Maloney, D.A. Masolo, D. Owens, R. Urekew, O. Wiggins


D. Brown, W. Hoston, C. Jayanthi, S. Liu

Political Science:

A. Caldwell, D. Clayton, J. Farrier, L. Rhodebeck, S. Wallace, C. Ziegler


H. Petry


J. Beggan, J. Busch, A. Furr, H. Taniguchi

Theatre Arts:

A. Harris, L. Thomas

Women’s & Gender Studies:

D. Heinecken, N. Theriot

Professor Hall, Chair, called the Assembly to order.

The minutes of the meeting of April 26, 2004, were approved as distributed.

The candidates for graduation for May 2005 were approved, pending successful completion of all requirements.

Professor Richardson, on behalf of the Honors Advisory Committee, moved the designation of Stefanie B. Bumpus as recipient of the Woodcock Medal for 2005. Ms. Bumpus is a chemistry major with a concentration in biochemistry. The motion was approved unanimously.

Professor Hall was unanimously reelected to chair the Assembly for AY 2005-06. Professor Laemmle was elected parliamentarian.

The Chair recognized Acting Dean Hudson for remarks on budgetary issues. Dean Hudson discussed benchmark adjustments, the merit pool, and adjustments to graduate stipends.

The Chair recognized Professor Klotz, chair of the Planning and Budget Committee. A copy of Professor Kotz’s report is appended at the end of these minutes.

Discussion pertaining to the relation between the Planning and Budget Committee and the Curriculum Committee included Professors Stenger, Maloney, Segal, and Byers.

The Chair recognized Professor Beattie, chair of the Curriculum Committee, for a discussion of the committee’s report requesting guidance from the faculty regarding requirements for BA and BS degrees. A copy of the report, which took the form of a series of questions, is appended at the end of these minutes.

Professor Beattie moved, and it was seconded, that the Assembly move to quasi-committee of the whole for the discussion. The motion carried.

At the end of the allotted time, the Chair announced that the committee of the whole rose and reported the following to the Assembly:

--On a straw vote of 61 for and 18 opposed, faculty had indicated support for a foreign language requirement for all degrees.

--Faculty indicated support for re-examination of the College policy limiting BA degrees to 40 hours in the major field.

The Chair recognized Professor Byers who requested that the minutes record congratulations to all graduating students. The motion was met with general applause.

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned.


College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Assembly meeting April 29, 2005

Report from the Planning and Budget Committee:

The A&S Planning and Budget Committee (PBC) met regularly on behalf of the faculty to discuss issues related to accountability of our College. In the past and due to the budget crisis of the Commonwealth, the committee emphasis was more or less on budget issues in that we advised the college administration on how to strategize and make budget cuts from the faculty and staff perspective. During the last academic year, the committee has increased its emphasis on planning issues as we felt that several of the shortcomings on the college scorecard were related to intra-college planning.

At the beginning of our 2004-2005 term, the committee was charged by the Dean “to submit a written report to the faculty of the College stating clearly how well, in the Committee’s opinion, the current standing budget will permit attainment of the College’s goals and priorities.” This written report is forthcoming.

Let me begin with critique directed towards ourselves and to the college administration. The committee was charged in writing “to meet with the Dean twice per year to review the budget proposal for the College before submitting it to the University administration, to review and discuss with the Dean proposals for new or altered programs, proposed legislation or other matters of budgetary nature “– almost all of which has not been implemented. It was therefore not possible for the committee to submit to the Faculty a written report pertaining these issues.

On the other hand, the committee had successful dialog with the faculty and the Dean’s office. The committee communicated twice in writing to the Dean on its agenda and provided recommendations. The committee welcomed the Dean in its March meeting during which some of the issues addressed in the Committee memos were discussed.

So what has the committee discussed and accomplished? The agenda roster included:


  • Working conditions and morale of employees:
    • state of physical plant and cleanliness
    • interactions between faculty and staff
  • Review of the General Education requirements
  • Review of restructuring of advising and its impact on retention and graduation
  • Review of accountability with regards to institutional research and its impact on retention and graduation in connection with the College Scorecard and Accreditation.
  • Review of graduate research and education in the College of A&S

What did the Committee achieve?

  • With strong support from the Dean’s office, our revised version of the policy on GE requirements has been forwarded to the office of Assoc. Provost Billingsley where it is currently being reviewed.
  • With the input of faculty expertise from the Department of Sociology, the Committee has crafted a memorandum to this faculty body that contains a proposal for action to improve the college scorecard regarding student retention and graduation.
  • With support from the Dean office through its liaison in person of ex-officio committee member Assoc. Dean Jayanthi, the committee brings forward a memo with a proposal for action to improve graduate research in the College of A&S, with emphasis on the doctoral programs; and
  • In a third memorandum, the Committee strongly advocates concerted action of the faculty and the administration of this college to request and negotiate with Central Administration a drastic change in enrollment appropriations and unit tuition recovery to benefit exclusively the teaching mission of our College, which provides the lion’s share of this institution’s instruction, mentoring and advising activities.

Last but not least, in thinking about the college’s wellbeing, the committee has discussed the urgent need for more creative development activities, which likely also requires a shift in institutional development policy, which is based on “turfs.” The committee also finds that part of this development policy should be an aggressive campaign to improve the image of the College that portraits the College appropriately. It is our understanding that this begins inside the College, in that we openly value all contributors to the success of the college and stop selling ourselves as a “ College of Liberal Arts.”

If we wanted to uphold this model we should rename ourselves into the College of Liberal and Illiberal Arts, where the first are taught to educate the free man and the latter are taught for the scholastic pursuit of science in sensu strictu.

The following comment was not mentioned during the assembly:

[Historically the Artistic Faculty “ ordo artistarum” was as one of the four founding faculties of a “Universitas Generale” and constituted the foundation for Theology faculty “Ordo Theologorum”, law faculty “Ordo Legistarum” and the Ordo Physicorum, or medical faculty. In the middle ages, Ordo artistarum was divided into artes liberales et artes illiberales; however, an “Ordinarius” (full member of the faculty representing a field) in the sciences was not appointed until the 1800s, as that privilege needed to be whittled away from ordinaria for medicine, theology and rhetoric (“Anatomie, Theologie und Beredsamkeit”) …….. I do enjoy academic history J].



To: A&S Faculty

From: Blake Beattie, Chair

Curriculum Committee

Date: 14 April 2005

Last year, the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences charged the Curriculum Committee with producing guidelines for new Bachelor of Science degree programs. At the Faculty Assembly of 16 April 2004, the Committee presented a broad set of guidelines, which the Assembly rejected. After consulting with A&S faculty and examining the practices of UofL benchmark institutions, the Committee identified a number of possible points from which to proceed in developing new guidelines. Before going any further, however, the Committee would like to get a sense of what the College expects from these guidelines. Thus, the Curriculum Committee requests that the A&S faculty consider the following points for discussion and a straw vote at the next Faculty Assembly (29 April 2005).

* The Committee is unclear as to whether the College envisions these guidelines as essentially an internal document, for the use of the Curriculum Committee, or as a public document, to be included in published catalogs or on the College website.

* The Committee would like to know how the College understands the conceptual parameters of the term “Bachelor of Science.” At many institutions, the term has a primarily disciplinary connotation and is restricted to programs in the Natural Sciences and some (thought not all) of the Social Sciences. At many others, it signifies a difference in approach: whereas the BA degree places a greater emphasis on intellectual breadth, the BS emphasizes disciplinary specialization, with a significantly greater number of courses in the major (typically, around 60 hours, as opposed to 40 hours for the BA). Where does the College stand?

* Over the years, several departments have proposed BS programs which eliminated programmatic language requirements. Since that time, a number of faculty members have communicated to the Curriculum Committee their desire to see twelve hours of foreign language required for all A&S degrees. Others have suggested that BS degree programs require, if not a full twelve hours of foreign language, then at least some (8-9 hours); still others have suggested requiring computer languages or formal languages for students who forego the study of foreign languages. Insofar as much of the current controversy over the BS degrees seems to hinge on the question of language requirement, the Curriculum Committee would very much like to hear the College’s views on this matter.

* At many institutions, BS programs place an emphasis on quantitative methods, requiring a certain number of courses in mathematics or statistics (typically, 9-12 hours). Would the College like to see an analogous requirement for BS degrees at UofL, and if so, should we require that the quantitative courses be sequential, as the 12 hours of language are?

*Would the College like to see all existing BS programs re-evaluated in accordance with the new guidelines and required to be in conformity with them?