Academic Senate
Santa Barbara Division

General Education Workgroup
Minutes of the Meeting of May 9, 2003
[draft by D. Blake, amended by H. Marcuse, 5/16/03, approved 10/03]

Members Present: M. Higa (AS Rep.), D. Kohl, (Undergraduate Council), C. Lawson (AS President), H. Marcuse (Co-Chair, GE Workgroup; Policy), C. Michel (Co-Chair, GE Workgroup; Vice Chair, Undergraduate Council), D. Montello (L&S Executive Committee), A. Wyner (Dean, Undergraduate Studies, L&S), X. Zhao (Undergraduate Council)

Others Present: D. Aceves (Student Rep.), D. Blake (Analyst, Undergraduate Council), C. Chapman (Director, Academic Senate), M. Dahleh (Assistant Dean, Student Services), M. Lopez (AS Rep.), S. McLeod (GE Consultant; Undergraduate Council, Writing Program Director), J. Proctor (Undergraduate Council), D. Segura (Chair, Undergraduate Council), W. Yuen (Chair, Academic Senate)

The GE Workgroup met for an extended period (12:30-5:00) so as to allow a more in-depth discussion of the possible incorporation of one or more new core subject areas or special requirements to accommodate interdisciplinary courses (INT) and some form of integration of ethnicity, gender, and queer studies (EGQ). It was agreed at the last meeting that following discussion of these and other ongoing concerns, a straw vote would be taken to assess the level of agreement on the various topics the workgroup has considered for the past several months.

The workgroup also reviewed data collected by members of the workgroup and Steve Velasco, Director of Institutional Research. After considerable discussion, Senate Chair Walter Yuen commented that these topics will require broad consultation with faculty before they can be included in any proposal to the Faculty Legislature. He was concerned that the workgroup would not have a viable proposal to be addressed at the Faculty Legislature meeting on May 29, the last of the academic year.

Mr. Yuen was assured that the workgroup indeed has a set of criteria to propose that has already been endorsed by the Committee on Undergraduate Academic Programs and Policy and introduced to the Undergraduate Council. The proposal regarding these criteria will be finalized at the upcoming Council meeting on May 15 and immediately distributed to the Faculty Legislature for review. It was strongly advised that the proposal also be distributed to Deans and other administrators prior to the Legislature meeting. It was agreed that the Undergraduate Council will include in its report to the Legislature that the GE Workgroup will continue to explore the issues it has been working on that are not yet ready to be addressed in the current proposal.

The workgroup continued to discuss the possibilities for INT and EGQ until 3:00, when the preannounced straw voting was carried out. There were 13 voters present. (GSA rep. J. Heinen sent in her votes on some issues in advance.) Abstentions can be assumed when the votes recorded do not reflect this number. The results are as follows:

  1. Should a requirement be established for courses that are defined as interdisciplinary?
          Yes 10       No 3
  2. Should the INT requirement take the form of a core subject area or a supplemental requirement? (See also question 12 on whether to require one or two courses.)
    Core 7      Special requirement 3
  3. Should a requirement be established for courses that integrate ethnicity, gender, and queer studies?
          Yes 8       No 4
  4. An additional vote on this question was cast by ladder faculty present only.
          Yes 6      No 2 (or 3)
  5. Should the EGQ requirement take the form of a core subject area or a supplemental requirement?
          Core 0      Special requirement 11
  6. Should the Western Civilization requirement be renamed to European Traditions and the non-Western Culture requirement be renamed non-European Traditions?
          Yes 8       No 3
  7. Should the content of the current Western Civilization requirement be kept in the curriculum whether the name is changed or not?
          Yes 12      No 1
  8. Should it remain in the form of a core area or as a special requirement?
    [Note hm: there was considerable confusion on implications here, resulting in 4 abstentions and re-votes. This issue needs more discussion.]
          Core 3      Special requirement - 5
  9. Should the content of the current non-Western culture (NWC) requirement remain in the GE Program?
          Yes 12      No 0
  10. Should the NWC requirement remain as a supplemental requirement or be integrated into the core?
          Core 4      Special requirement 6
  11. Should the Western Civilization and NWC requirements be linked so as to be equally correlated within the GE Program?
          Yes 13      No 0
  12. If a core area is established for INT courses, should 1 or 2 courses be required?
    1 course 11            2 courses 0
  13. How many courses should be required within the existing core Areas C and D?
    Area C            2 courses 0            3 courses 13
    Area D            2 courses 13      3 courses 0
  14. Should Areas F and G be combined to create sub-areas F1 and F2 with 1 course required in each area and the remaining course from either area?
    [Note hm: no member of the workgroup is, strictly speaking, from a department in these areas. This would clearly require consultation with affected departments.]
          Yes 12      No 0
  15. Should Area E be renamed Historical Studies and the definition changed to the one offered by the former GE Task Force?
          Yes 13      No 0

(After this vote some voters had to leave the meeting, leaving only 10 remaining.)

  1. If an INT area was established, should 2 or 3 courses be required within Area E?
          2 courses 10      3 courses 0
  2. Without an INT core area, should 2 or 3 courses be required within Area E?
          2 courses 8            3 courses 1
  3. If a separate core area for European, non-European, and transregionally comparative courses is established in the core, should 2 or 3 courses be required within that area?
          2 courses 0       3 courses 10
  4. If the European/non-European content areas are incorporated into GE as supplemental requirements, should 2 or 3 courses be required?
          2 courses 10      3 courses - 0
  5. Should there be a faculty director of the GE Program?
          Yes 8            No 0

Attest: Harold Marcuse

prepared for web by H. Marcuse on Oct. 22, 2003
back to top, UCSB GE Workgroup homepage, prev. meeting, next meeting (5/23, none 5/16)