General Education Requirements:
Updating of General Subject Area Definitions and Terminology

(suggested GE legislation by the Undergraduate Council on 5/10/04;
postponed on 5/13/04 because the L&S Faculty Executive Committee wanted to hear more campus comment;
only a minimalist version of motions 2 and 7 was put forward instead final proposal )

The GE General Subject Areas shall be revised as follows (see the 9+2 separate motions, below):

General Justification

Why is the Undergraduate Council proposing new wording for the definitions of the general subject area objectives?

• First, some of the existing definitions are vague and confusing. Some of them are so broad that many courses on this campus arguably fulfill several of them. Based solely on the current "objectives," it is often not possible to distinguish between courses appropriate for areas D or E (Social Sciences, and Civilization and Thought). Also, most courses in Areas F and G (Arts and Literature) also achieve the objectives of E or D. The former GE committee and now CUAPP find that many faculty are confused about which area is appropriate for the courses they propose for listing. If faculty find the current area definitions confusing, students are likely to as well. This confusion generates a steady stream of memos we would like to avoid.
• Second, some of the current definitions are outdated. Some fields have developed in such a way that the area definitions exclude courses that faculty want to include in these areas, or are out of date with current usage. This is especially true for the Arts and Literature areas F and G, whose current objectives emphasize the study of "master works," but also for area E with its ethnocentric notion of (Western) "civilization."
• We note that these area definitions were introduced in the 1994 GE legislation as an afterthought, without campus discussion. The 1994 legislation stated:
  "'Objectives and Definitions' of Areas C-F/G, heading the listings of courses comprising the general subject areas, are to be printed in the General Catalog and General Education Program Requirements. (The omission of these statements was either an egregious oversight or a stupid decision)."
  Apparently, since at least 1985 only internal descriptions were in use. As part of its work in 2001, the Senate GE Task Force discussed the proposed area definitions and titles at length across campus. The GE work group reviewed the results and solicited additional feedback in fall 2003. The present proposals are based on the Task Force proposals and the additional discussion since their publication.

1. Motion 1: Modify the description of the objective and title for Area D as indicated in the table above.
• Based solely on the current definition, it is impossible to distinguish between courses in areas D and E. This proposal makes explicit the criteria to be applied under this area's title, "social science." It is better to publish the criteria that CUAPP uses to determine into which General Subject Area a course is to be placed, than for the committee to use implicit criteria.
• Making the title plural recognizes the diversity among the various disciplines in the social sciences.
2. Motion 2: Modify the description of Area E's objective as indicated in the table above.
• The current terms "perspective" and "civilization" imply a historical approach.This modification is only intended to make explicit the criteria currently used to determine the suitability of courses for this area, the overwhelming majority of which have a historical dimension.
• This new definition is not intended to exclude any courses focusing nonhistorically on ideas or "thought" from the GE program. It will merely help to categorize them with courses with similar approaches. For example, if ahistorically analytical studies of human thought now included in this area are based on the analysis of texts, they might be better placed in "textual studies" (Area G).
• The objective of this area is to provide an "understanding," not just a "perspective."
3. Motion 3: Modify the title of Area E to "Historical Studies."
• This title makes explicit the attention to the temporal dimension that ultimately distinguishes courses in this area from courses in other areas.
• The term "civilization" should be replaced because when used in this context it is widely regarded as ethnocentric ("culture" is now more widely used). Although the term "culture" appears in the definition and might make the title appear more inclusive, we recommend against including "Cultural Studies" in the title of Area E because cultural studies is an established term that also includes work in the social sciences, arts, and literature.
4. Motion 4: Modify the title and description of Area F's objective as indicated in the table above.
• The current wording is out of touch with the approaches of many courses proposed for this area, which do not focus on "master works" and go beyond developing an "appreciation." The proposed definition is more accurate and informative, and better reflects the objective of this GE requirement.
5. Motion 5: Modify the title and description of Area G's objective as indicated in the table above.
• same reasoning as for motion 4.
6. Motion 6: Modify the description of Area C's objective as indicated in the table above.
• The change for the sciences area C is being introduced to obtain consistency of wording with the other areas.
7. Motion 7: Replace the subdivision Area E-1 with a Special Subject Area requirement worded as follows:
   "European Traditions. At least one course that focuses on a European culture or on a culture in the European tradition."
• After much discussion about the GE Task Force's majority recommendation to remove the "Western Civilization" requirement entirely, advocates of both sides came to a compromise agreement that this requirement could be retained as a symmetrical requirement to the current "Non-Western Cultures" requirement, but that it should not be privileged as a core area.
  Documentation of this discussion can be found on the GE work group website:
  www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/ge (select "Western Civ background" in the navigation bar). The most recent in-depth discussion can be found in the link at the very bottom of that page, namely a Nov. 2003 exchange in the History department, whose former chair Warren Hollister introduced the requirement in 1985. (Follow the link to the 1985 report for Hollister's original rationale.)
8. Motion 8: Remove the separate description of subarea E-2.
• As noted in motion 2, nonhistorically analytical studies of thought are more similar in approach to courses in area G. The overall area E description (current or proposed) is sufficient, so this language should be removed regardless of the outcomes of motions 2, 3 and 7.
9. Motion 9: Rename the current Special Subject Area requirement from "Non-Western Culture. At least one course that focuses on a non-Western culture" to "World Cultures. At least one course that focuses on a culture outside of the European tradition."
• The GE Task Force, GE work group, and all departments that took a position on this issue feel that it is inappropriate to define a group by the absence of a characteristic. Many alternatives were considered, all of which had flaws. "World Cultures" was the most broadly favored of the proposed designations. It is understood that the cultures to be designated for this requirement may have been greatly influenced by European traditions, but that they have distinct origins and features.

Two final motions may not need legislative approval, but in any case we would like to take this opportunity to introduce clearer and more accurate terminology that will facilitate future discussions of UCSB's General Education program.

10. Motion 10: Designate the current "General Subject Area Requirements" as "Core Area Requirements."
• The current term is inaccurate because these are disciplinary, not "subject" categories. The word "general" is redundant. The term "core" is commonly used in general education programs to denote disciplinary areas such as these.
11. Motion 11: Designate the current "Special Subject Area Requirements" as "Special Subject Requirements."
• The current term is inaccurate because these are not "areas." The use of this word invites confusion with the "General Subject" (or "Core") area requirements.