Perhaps I missed this as I read the minutes, but does a simple majority at
a faculty meeting do away with perhaps the most important issues I have
read discussed on Raven?

As one who taught many of your students public speaking here and who read
what were turned in as finished papers, I must admit that I am scared that
we expect to send our graduates into the workforce without better skills at
making presentations, writing formally and using the blasted life-changer
(the computer, which has replaced our support staff with more programs to
fill our time and to supposedly make our lives easier).

Out of the 5 universities where I have either toiled as a student, faculty,
staff or administration, this one houses the most students without
necessary communications skills, both written and oral. Please don't tell
me that we should not have professionals teach these skills. I hate to say
this, but being good at something does not mean one will necessarily
incorporate it into his or her curriculum. A chemist should not be expected
to teach someone to enunciate or to project, nor how to form a sentence.

I also cannot fathom that with all of the written materials at your
disposal, you voted down physical education as a requirement. If anything
we should require aerobics of some kind, resistance training and nutrition,
heart health and anti-smoking classes!  Did Plato teach us nothing? Correct
me if I err, but did he not espouse that physical fitness was the most
important subject?

I keep reading how everyone is worried that we are not paid enough, that we
are not placing enough value on teaching, and, yes, we are all concerned
that we will have our programs cut. I say we cut everything, but those
areas that help make our students thrive as effective communicators and as
healthy citizens. Those who are change the world.


At 05:05 PM 3/17/2004, Richard Rice wrote:
>For your information and corrections if needed, I submit unofficial minutes
>of today's meeting. Please email me with any suggested changes.
>
>
>The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>Faculty Minutes
>March 17, 2004
>
>Faculty Senate President Marvin Ernst called to order the Second Called
>Faculty Meeting of 2003-2004 at 3:20 P.M.
>
>First item was approval of the minutes of February 26, 2004.  Prof. Fanning
>moved approval; Prof Collins seconded. Approved.
>
>Second item was to eliminate faculty approval of the graduation list. Prof.
>Ernst suggested declassifying it as a major issue [thereby not requiring a
>second reading]. Prof. Sachsman moved approval; Prof. McCullough seconded.
>Approved. Decision followed.
>
>Prof. Russell: My committee thought about this and the origins at UC when
>everyone knew all students. We think it is superfluous in a large modern
>university. Only occasionally in my 34 years has there been a faculty
>question at the meeting. The Records Office is careful about fulfillment.
>
>Prof. Hutchinson: I disagree. The real problem is that the faculty do not
>care enough to follow through and come to faculty meetings. Lazy colleagues
>are the problem.
>
>Prof. Ernst: I agree, faculty do need to participate, but many are in classes.
>
>Prof. Sturzer: The board could approve or disapprove our candidates.
>
>Prof. Sachsman: A friendly amendment: send the list electronically to
>faculty. Faculty can then contact Records Office. Seconded by Prof. Hiestand.
>
>Sandy Zitkus: Many times faculty call me to say that an individual will not
>pass; it is very helpful as we prepare for graduation.
>
>Prof. Barrow: Sometimes we can catch mistakes and cheating.
>
>Prof. Nelson: I am in favor or retaining tradition. Why not do away with
>graduation?
>
>Prof. Ernst called a vote. The amendment to electronically distribute the
>list passed.
>
>Prof. Rushing: Will we say at graduations that students have been
>reviewedrather than approved.
>
>Prof. Arfkin: To clarify, do we assume the approval is tacit?
>
>Prof. Ernst called for a vote to eliminate the approval at faculty
>meetings, as amended per Prof. Sachsman, and it passed.
>
>Second item was the second reading of the proposal to eliminate as
>university requirements oral communication, writing, and computer literacy.
>
>Prof. Sturzer made a motion to separate, and it was seconded. The motion
>failed.
>
>Prof. Kuhn: The reason for dropping the courses is rational, but wrong. I
>have not heard a good reason for dropping the requirements. Not every
>department can handle these skills.
>
>Prof. McCullough: If they are no longer university requirements we lose one
>level of administration.
>
>Prof. Darken: My argument is that they are important. Nobody has argued
>otherwise. Some say students will get these skills other ways. There is no
>data support for this, on the contrary. Others say that they are done other
>ways. I find this a bad argument. Departments will not meet these important
>needs unless they are monitored. It was mentioned accreditation agencies
>are watching. But this is not true; I was in charge of General Education
>and back in 1990 these were not being taught.
>
>Some say other requirements are more important in the majors. Could someone
>explain why a legacy is being protected in the departments? Why do
>departments not use the courses if they think the skills are important. I
>would like to hear why we want to eliminate these requirements? Besides the
>argument of 120 hours.
>
>Prof. Sachsman called question; Prof. McCullough seconded; motion failed.
>
>However, there was not further discussion and Prof. Ernst called the question.
>
>The vote was 64 in favor of eliminating the university requirements; 59
>opposed.
>
>Next item was the proposal to eliminate the P.E. requirement.
>
>Prof. Fanning: We have met the mandate of 120 hours.
>
>Prof. Trimpey: Some programs will not drop these classes, so it is too soon
>to say we have met the 120 hour requirement.
>
>Prof. Fanning: It was asked last time if there is supporting evidence if
>those who took courses did better than those who did not. We did a
>published UTC study that showed it did make a difference. Our students were
>less likely to be obese, and a Canadian study and others found the same
>results. It has been cut from middle school, high school, and now UTC. The
>result is $1.7 trillion cost in health care; 70% would go away if we were
>physically active. Congressman Wamp has asked us not to drop the
>requirement. Thank you. [applause]
>
>The motion to eliminate the P.E. requirement passed, 66 to 42.
>
>There was no other business, but Prof. Ernst announced that at the faculty
>meeting tomorrow the proposed new peer groups will be discussed by Provost
>Friedl and Richard Greutzemacher.
>
>Prof. Ernst adjourned the meeting at 3:55 P.M.
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>Richard Rice, Faculty Secretary
>________________________________________________________________________
>Note the final regular Faculty Meeting of 2003-2004 will be April 20th at
>10:15 A.M. Refreshments will be served at 9:45 A.M. Please make a note on
>your calendar now.

Kim Edward Renz, Director
Patten Performances, UTC Fine Arts Center
Department 1351, 615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37403-2598
[log in to unmask]  www.utc.edu/finearts
Office: 423-425-4379  Fax: 423-425-5249