Response to Concerns conveyed by Jeffrey Jordan, Chair
University
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
These responses relate to a phone call on
Concern 1: The proposed minor is located administratively under the Dean of Arts and Sciences rather than being housed within a department. Response 1: The Task Force and the Dean’s office are unanimous that housing this minor within a department makes no sense. The proposed courses will be taught by faculty in Museum Studies, Foreign Languages and Literatures, Music, English, Biology, Individual and Family Studies, and
Philosphy, departments that are not even all in one college. It seems irrational to the Task Force and Dean’s Office to put the minor within a department. Which department does the Committee for Undergraduate Studies recommend? Letter Number 4 in this Addendum states that the Dean’s Office prefers the minor be located under its administration as are several other minors in particular “studies.”
Concern 2: Several of the courses taught last year and this year are using the rubric ARSC, which should be reserved for honors courses. Response 2: This is inaccurate. There is precedent for the ARSC rubric to be used for non-honors courses. See Item Number 3 in this Addendum from Mary Jo Mankin, Registrar’s Office, who has been the advisor to the Task Force that planned this proposal.
Concern 3: No request from the Task Force nor from the dean has been made to the Registrar for a new rubric. Response 3: See Item Number 3 in this Addendum from Mary Jo Mankin that addresses this concern. Her advice to the task force was to wait until the minor was approved to request a new rubric. According to her, there is no policy that states a rubric must be requested before a program or minor is approved. However, after she spoke to Joe DiMartile she suggested that we go ahead and apply. Dean Bauer’s email, Item No. 2 in this Addendum, includes a request from the Dean for a new rubric to be assigned. The information provided to the Task Force is that the rubric SGST will be assigned to conform to other minors that are “studies.”
Concern 4: The proposal indicates that the Dean of
the
revision that was signed by college committees and the dean but unfortunately the electronic version of the proposal was not changed. The revised, thus correct version, of the proposal was taken to Karen Helsel-Spry over a month ago so you should have the correct version in the electronic format. The Dean’s office has been supporting the minor and plans to continue to do so.
Concern 5: The Proposal did not include letters from chairs of the departments that offer courses that are included in the curriculum for the minor. Response 5: Those letters are included with this Addendum to the Proposal.
Therefore, I believe that with this Addendum we should have satisfied the concerns expressed by telephone by Jeffrey Jordan. As indicated above, Dean Bauer requests that we be notified of the time and place of the meeting when you will further consider the proposal so that we may clarify any of the information within this Addendum or respond to other concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry W Peterson, Professor
Co-Chair, Task Force to Plan a Minor in Sexualities and Gender