Revised Proposals for Catalog Changes in the College of Natural Sciences.

Proposed changes to requirements for BS degrees in biological sciences, physics, and chemistry and biochemistry (D 203-214, D 274-297, D 307-314) would have reduced the foreign language requirement from three courses (506, 507, and an additional three-hour course) to one course (506). These proposed changes in foreign language requirements were protested by Shelley Payne (microbiology) and Michael Starbird (mathematics) (D 436-437).

In explaining the protest, Payne expressed concern that BS degrees were becoming increasingly narrow. She also felt that the review process for degree changes was becoming uneven, and suggested that the Council create an ad hoc committee to review the method by which changes are reviewed and approved. Starbird said that because of the increasing influence of changes brought about by scientific advances, especially through the biological sciences and computers, it was important that the people in those fields have an understanding of the social implications of the changes; thus he favored exposure to the social sciences and liberal arts.

On behalf of the College of Natural Sciences, Dean Mary Ann Rankin introduced revised proposals that would give four options (D 475-476). The first would require two semesters of a foreign language; the second would require one semester of a foreign language and one culture course in the same language area; the third would require two foreign culture courses; and the fourth would require a foreign culture course and an additional course from specified areas in liberal arts.

In elaborating on the proposal, David Laude (natural sciences) and David Hillis (biological sciences) explained the need to include more courses in areas such as computer science and, at the same time, to keep the total number of required hours under control. Hillis also traced the history of proposed changes in his area, going back to the realization several years ago

Carver traced the history back to admission standards imposed by business administration when their enrollment grew out of control some years ago. Restrictions have since been adopted by other components of the University.

Opiela expanded on the arguments in his written protest. Desmond Lawler (civil engineering) opposed the second proposed change, since only a 2.00 gpa is required for graduation. Carver assured John Walthall (cabinet of college councils) that any changes would not affect students currently enrolled. Andrew Riggsby (classics) questioned the usefulness of the third recommendation.

Monti said there is no question that psychology needs enrollment management, but he questioned whether this proposal was the best solution. He said that such a "rolling gpa" approach had not worked well when tried in business administration, and suggested a plan in which psychology determines how many majors it can handle and then controls enrollment on the front end. He indicated the provost's office would be willing to work with liberal arts in looking for a satisfactory solution.

The first recommendation was then approved, and the second and third were tabled, on motions from John Gilbert (chemistry and biochemistry) and Tom Griffy (physics), respectively.

Harold Billings (director of General Libraries) said the committee had not asked the Council to vote on anything. He said the committee had not presented legislation. It had made recommendations to him. He said he had not decided what to do about the first recommendation; this recommendation would depend on how technology develops over the coming months.

As to the second recommendation, Billings discussed the input from the committee and read a message from a graduate student. He then said that "based on information our subcommittee gathered, based on the sort of requests I've been receiving, it is my intention to implement the semester-long loan period for graduate students."

Davis said it was his understanding that as a standing committee of the General Faculty, the Library Committee's recommendations should come to the Council for consideration. The secretary agreed, and referred to the Rules and Regulations of the Council. The secretary expressed his agreement with some of the arguments put forward by Holloway. He had special concern about lack of ready access to standard references, especially in his own department (mathematics), due to extended loan periods and repeated renewals. He felt the issue deserved broader input from the faculty than that provided by the Library Committee, and especially by the subcommittee that had recommended the policy.

Griffy said that as he recalled the rules, the duty of the Library Committee was to advise the director of General Libraries, and not to make recommendations to the Faculty Council.

[Secretary's remark: In the list of standing committees and their functions and membership, the function of the Library Committee is described as follows: "To be so well informed concerning the functions of the Library that it can assist in developing operational procedures; to assist in development of both personnel and fiscal policies and procedures; to advise the Faculty Council and the President concerning the direction and growth of the Library; to advise the President in the event it becomes necessary to appoint a new Librarian."

The Rules and Regulations of the Faculty Council contain the following statement: "The standing committees of the General Faculty, except the Rules Committee, shall be responsible to the Faculty Council, and any changes in the list of standing committees shall originate in the Faculty Council. A report from each committee shall be submitted to the Faculty Council through the Secretary by April 1, with a copy to the President and the chair of the Faculty Committee on Committees. In addition, each committee shall keep the Faculty Council informed of its on-going activities by including the Office of the Faculty Council on the mailing list the committee uses to send meeting notices and reports. These documents will be made available for examination by members of the Faculty Council."]

Tracy Hamilton (graduate student assembly) supported the position of the committee, based on input from graduate students from a broad range of departments. She also read a message from a student supporting the change.

Presiding chair Davis again asked if the Library Committee was going to move the recommendations for action. Doty said he wasn't sure what to do, but he felt fully satisfied with making recommendations to Billings and his staff. He said, "if you want to direct this otherwise, that's another matter." Davis then asked for a motion that the Council "accept" the report. A motion to that effect was approved by voice vote.