-
At this meeting, the preliminary report of the Ad-hoc Committee to Review the Basic Education Requirements was discussed. The Senate focused particularly on problems implementing the Substantial Writing Course mandate handed down in the Vick Report.
-
At the ninth regular meeting of the University Council for the academic year 1986-7, Frank Bash (Accounting) reported that the Educational Policy Committee would not take action on the Students’ Association request for changes to the SWC requirement.
-
The University Educational Policy Committee elects to take no action on the student request for changes to the SWC requirement because the Ad Hoc Committee to review the basic education requirements will soon report its recommendations.
-
_Daily Texan_ editorial, p. 4. Graduate students in comparative literature support the "Writing about Difference" curriculum.
-
At this meeting, Kenneth Tolo (Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research) responded to Kurt Heinzelman’s question about whether and for how long E 306 would be offered on campus during the long sessions.
-
Kury Heinzelman asks for clarification about the status of E 306 because recent news articles report that in two years it will no longer be offered residentially in the long sessions, yet Fonken promises that the course will be offered for many years to come.
-
At the end of this meeting, James Vick (Mathematics) expressed concerns about the English writing requirement, which would be very weak after the cancellation of E 346K, and Kurt Heinzelman (English) asked what would become of E 306, who would teach the course, and how many sections would be offered.
-
This reply to Kinneavy's Request for Faculty Action Concerning the English Composition Program argues that Kinneavy wanted to make the English composition program permanently dependent upon lecturers, that Kinneavy dismissed the judgment of his department, and that he should not be allowed to appeal to the University Council after he lost at the departmental level. Attached is a copy of the E 346K Committee Report (6 March 1986)
-
At this meeting, Kinneavy's Request for Faculty Action Concerning the English Composition Program was discussed. A motion was entertained to refer the matter to the University Council's Educational Policy Committee, but this motion was tabled in favor of letting individual departments settle curricular matters. Kinneavy, Ruszkiewicz, and Hairston spoke against the E 346K Evaluation Committee plan, while Sutherland, Kruppa, and Rebhorn spoke in favor of it.
-
This agenda for the 17 March 1986 meeting of the University Council lists Kinneavy's Request for Faculty Action Concerning the English Composition Program.
-
This proposal was submitted to the University Council by James Kinneavy to criticize the English Department's plan to revamp the composition program and to propose that the writing program be separated from the English Department. The proposal was classified as minor legislation to be considered at the 17 March 1986 University Council meeting.
-
At this meeting, the Faculty Senate report on E 346K was discussed, and so was the Faculty Senate Report on the Status of the Lecturer.
-
Sledd documents the importance of the English Composition requirements (particularly E 106 and E 206), alleging that the decision to waive the E 346K requirement is part of a broader attack on the English composition program. FEPC (10 February 1984 and 27 April 1984). Faculty Senate record of material submitted by Sledd.
-
This report discusses the process leading to the decision to delay E 346K, raising concerns about the absence of faculty consultation and asking that the English Department find a solution to the problems caused by the E 346K waiver before September 1985.
-
The Faculty Senate recommends further discussion around four motions: 1. Though spikes in enrollment may create need for lecturers in a given year, when enrollment remains high, the administration should take measures to ensure that most classes are taught by faculty. 2. There should be no university-wide policy for lecturers, but each department should develop its own policy, and put it in writing.
Attached is a sample departmental policy on lecturers from Mathematics.
-
An one-page agenda listing proposed revisions of the Vick Report for discussion at the October 5, 1981 meeting of the Faculty Senate. Many of the attached documents raise concerns or propose alternatives to the Vick Report's recommendations for a 12-hour university-wide writing requirement.
Attached are:
Report Concerning Recommendations of the University Council Committee on Basic Education Requirements by James Vick
An Alternative Proposal on Basic Education Requirements by Terence Grieder
Response to the “Report Concerning Recommendations of the University Council Comittee on Basic Education Requirements” by the College of Fine Arts
Comments from the Committee on Basic Education requirements in Response to the Issues Raised by the College of Fine Arts Committee on Educational Policy and Curriculum
Another Proposal Concerning Basic Education Requirements by Neill Megaw
Proposal to Amend the Recommendation Regarding Mathematics in the Report of the University Council Committee on Basic Education Requirements by John Durbin
Memorandum Concerning the Proposed General Education Requirements by James Daniel
Proposal to Amend the Recommendation Regarding Natural Science Requirements in the Report of the University Council Committee on Basic Education Requirements by Mary Ann Rankin
College of Engineering Response to Proposed General Education Requirements by Earnest Gloyna
Dean Werbow’s HANDOUT at the March 23, 1981 Council Meeting
Attachment to the Minutes of the University Council Meeting of March 23, 1981. Report from the School of Nursing
Procedural Motion (Handout at February 16 Meeting)
-
Attached is an earlier version of the Proposal by the College of Liberal Arts for an Undergraduate University Requirement in English.
At this meeting, the COLA proposal for an undergraduate requirement in English is discussed.
-
After the University Council's criticism of the first four recommendations in the Faculty Senate's report on workload requirements, the senate reconsidered all four and voted to maintain and recommend departmental reporting of faculty workloads (recommendation 2), rescinding the remaining three.
-
At this meeting, recommendations 7-10 of the Gogh report are discussed (concerning TAs). Sledd objected to all the recommendations, alleging that the faculty are not taking seriously their abuse of TAs and further claiming that dwindling federal funds in support of faculty research had left UT in a financial pinch, forcing faculty to rely graduate instructors as a source of cheap labor. Sledd eventually called a quorum, making it impossible to vote on any motions because no quorum was present.
-
At this meeting, recommendations 11-15 (concerning undergraduate education) from the Faculty Senate report on faculty workloads are considered, some slightly amended, and approved. The meeting opens with extensive refutation of James Sledd's claim that the faculty were doing as little as possible to address the TA situation and that research primarily serves big business and big government.
-
At this meeting, among other things, the Report from the Committee on Ways and Means to Implement General Faculty Resolutions Concerning Faculty Workloads and Teaching Assistants was debated.
The first 6 motions suggested (regarding reporting of faculty workloads in terms of 40 hours per week by way of individual and departmental reports) pass with some amendment.
Attached are 15 motions revised from the previous report and put before the Faculty Senate.
-
Submitted 2 March 1978, for discussion at the 6 March 1978 Faculty Senate Committee Meeting
This report is in response to the University Council resolutions (Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty 12414-17) calling for reform in the way faculty workloads are defined and reported. The report recommends specific changes to the way faculty workloads are calculated and reported; the way graduate instructors are trained; and the distribution of coursework among faculty and graduate instructors.
-
At this meeting, James Sledd's questions about the status of E 106K, E 206L, E 316, and E 346K are answered by upper administration. The general faculty also discuss the proper procedure for waiving and canceling courses and the proper division of authority between upper administration and the colleges.
-
Alan Friedman (English) asked the president about the status and hiring of lecturers. President Flawn confirmed that lecturers provide the university with the flexibility to meet instructional needs and do not threaten the tenure system, so he does not support a university-wide moratorium on hiring lecturers.
-
Documents and Proceedings of the University Council 9914-9915, Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty 15823-15824
James Sledd submits questions to the president for discussion at the next Faculty Senate meeting. What is the status of E 106K/206L? Does E 316K have a substantial writing component? Will will the E 346K requirement be reinstated? How and by whom were the decisions to drastically alter the writing program made?