Harold's quick summary of May 2, 2003 GE Work Group Meeting

(e-mailed to gegroup list on Sat. May 3, 2003, 12:50pm)

Attendance was low, but we did some important things. Let me send this quick summary so we are up to speed.

  1. We discussed Claudine and Chrystine's data on courses that would fulfill EGQ (Eth, Gender, Queer). A substantial amount, but still probably not quite enough. They will provide a list of courses, subdivided into an "A" list of clearly EGQ and a "B" list of probably at least 2 of EGQ, to Steve Velasco on Monday. Steve will try to get 3 or 5 year data on enrollments and classroom capacity before he leaves on Thursday, but maybe not til after May 9 meeting.
  2. Steve will receive a list of ca. 185 courses from Jim on Tuesday, also subdivided (perhaps into A, B, C groupings), and get same data asap, but maybe not until after next meeting.
  3. CUAPP will move forward with the course criteria implementation. UD standing required is ok. Steve will get data on courses with just one course prereq. (2nd tab of that spreadsheet).
    We will ask the UgC to move on the AP question more broadly than just for GE. UgC should ask Deans to assess impact on enrollments etc. After that has happened we can assess more stringency for GE. David will ask UCB and UCLA for info regarding impacts (David?).
  4. Chyrstine and Claudine both had handouts with new options for adding reqs. in interdisciplinary (ID) and EGQ. Harold noted that NWC canNOT be made into a subdivision of a single core area (E was proposed) because it cuts across core areas. This will probably not fly with the faculty who teach NWC, and implementation would be very troublesome. The status of WC as a subdivision of a core area is extremely awkward, as evidenced by the CompLit and ArtHist series in E-1 and another core area (also RelStud might belong in D, Philo sequence maybe in G).
    Looking towards future course developments and evolution of GE list, Harold strongly favors a new core area for ID, and a new special req. for EGQ, IF we decide that these new requirements should be created.
    Chrystine and Claudine made very eloquent statements establishing the need for an EGQ requirement (Chrystine had a wonderful artifact: a large cloth with student demands.) David weighed the reasons for hesitating to implement this new requirement, recalling the situation when the present US-ETH was established. Claudine said how times have changed in the past decade at UCSB, and argued that the time is right for this. We discussed the magnitude of student and faculty support and opposition. We need more data. See next item.
  5. IF WE CAN GET ACTUAL PROPOSALS OF WORDING FOR ID AND EGQ FOR NEXT TIME, we can begin to poll faculty and students to gauge sentiment. Perhaps an internet poll like the one Walter set up for the anti-Iraq-War resolution could be implemented, separate for faculty and students.
  6. Harold, after consultation with Sarah Cline (leading spokesperson for NWC), suggested that NWC be renamed non-Eurocentric culture. If WC folks demand a symmetric requirement, then WCiv might be renamed European Traditions or Heritage.
  7. NEXT WEEK WE WILL MEET BEGINNING AT 12:30 IN A MARATHON SESSION to get final wordings and implementation issues done. Claudine will have lunch provided. Someone will help Debra with minutes.

Hope I didn't miss anything important or screw up--attendees please provide feedback as needed!

prepared for web by H. Marcuse, May 3, 2003
back to top, GE Work Group homepage