Return to 2006-2007 Minutes' Archive

Curriculum and Educational Policies Committee

CEPC Minutes 12/6/2006

Members present: Dietz (chair). Beld, Cisar, Gross, Lind, Lovett, McClure

Visitors Present: Wendy Allen, Carolyn Anderson, Gwen Barnes-Karol, Susan Bauer, David Booth, Bob Entenemann, Dave Hagedorn, Karil Kucera, Judy, Kutulas, Phyllis Larson, Tony Lott, Anantanand Rambachan, Ann von Bibra, Tom Williamson

  1. Call to order:

    -     Chair Dietz called the meeting to order at 3:20 in the Valhalla Room

  2. Approval of minutes from 11/29/06:

    -     The minutes from 11/29/06 were not discussed.

  3. Discussion of MCS:

    -     Chair Dietz provided background information to the committee and visitors regarding proposed changes to MCS leading up to this meeting.

    -     The CEPC distributed a list of five questions to the members and visitors to help focus the discussion.

    - Chair Dietz opened the floor to discussion.

    -     A summary of discussion points is provided in the addendum below.

  4. Adjourn :

    - The meeting was adjourned at 4:52.

Submitted by Robert McClure

 

What does CEPC want from you today?

We are particularly interested in your reaction to the two proposals for revising the Multicultural Studies General Education requirement -- Diversity Studies and Studies in Understanding Human Differences -- especially in light of the following questions:

  1. What do we want students to get out of this requirement?  What knowledge, attitudes, and/or values do we want them to have as a result of these two courses?

    - A formalized study of culture as a construct with content and skills components.

    - Reflection on how students position themselves in relation to other cultures.

  2. How can we ensure that the new requirement can be implemented across a range of disciplines?

    - There is concern about this issue, especially from FA. Dance, for example, worries that there is so much content to cover in something like “World Dance” that there isn’t room for adding the suggested skills and outcomes.

    - Generally folks don’t want to feel that they have to be specially educated (e.g. phd in sociology or anthropology) to offer an MCS course.

  3. What are the pros and cons of moving away from separate "global" and "domestic" requirements? For example, would we be concerned if students considered only domestic issues and topics or only global perspectives in their two courses?

    - Pro: students learn skills that can be used anywhere-whether on Lake St in Mpls (is that really an example of domestic culture?) or in a Cairo market. Carolyn and Tom hesitant to say that US is different from the rest.

    - Con: Mission of college is to promote global understanding. Many faculty uncomfortable with giving up on global aspect. Want to respect the intent of the original MCS idea.

  4. What are the pros and cons of broadening the content of MCS courses (or whatever they're called in the future) to consider any of a range of topics (such as race, class, caste, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or sexuality)? For example, would we be concerned if students focused on gender issues in both of their courses?

  5. What are the pros and cons of requiring that students take their required courses in two different departments or programs (this was not in either of the proposals, but we discussed this idea briefly at last week's CEPC meeting)?

Miscellaneous comments:

  • SUHD focuses on skills and sound pedagogy. Matches intellectual vitality of other GE requirements.
  • To what extent can we do something about MCS without also looking at HWC?
  • HWC might be the right place to address the “west.”
  • There was talk about requiring an experiential component, either on campus or off.
  • The term “social inequality” is loaded. There is concern that some will say “there go those liberal faculty again.”
  • There was discussion about whether to include Perry’s study in the rationale.