The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 20, 2000
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall

1. Prof. Julie Lipovsky, Faculty Council chairperson, called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m. without a quorum.

2. Members attending (eventually): Professors Bishop, Chen, H. Ezell, Feurtado, Hurren, Kelley, Lipovsky, Maynard, Pages, Pilcher, Silver, Thompson, B. White, Woo, Zuraw, and Barrickman for Wolf.

3. Members absent: Professors Brown, Dunlop, Emanuel, Foster, McDowell, Toubiana and G. Williams.

4. Prof. Lipovsky announced that this was the last regular meeting of this version of Faculty Council, and that the May meeting would feature new members and vice-president Tom Thompson as the new chairperson.

5. Prof. Lipovsky reported on her meetings with administrators about their lack of immediate response to the ugly remarks at the Talent Show. They had diverse reactions as to why, and General Mace gave her some handouts, which she shared, about the military side's support for academics and incentives for cadets to behave well. There was more discussion of why the ugliness occurred. Prof. Feurtado objected to a call for "adult supervision" on the grounds that cadets already were (young) adults and should be responsible. Prof. Zuraw opined that people like the cadet who was pulled in for objecting to "special" treatment for women in the Post and Courier had a right to their opinion; if this sort of thing is punished too much will it just go underground? The Dog Day incident, in which General Grinalds had to repudiate any official Citadel connection to what became a binge-drinking shambles, was mentioned, and there was speculation on why this sort of thing happens. Prof. Feurtado said faculty should be informed about events like this perhaps by an official Administration newsletter. Prof. Barrickman described the weekly Commandants' Meeting, in which these things are discussed, and Prof. Silver suggested that the faculty should have a representative there. Profs. Barrickman and Lipovsky felt this would be a good and possible idea for next year.

6. A quorum was achieved at 11:34. Prof. Thompson moved and Prof. Ezell seconded that the minutes for the March 23 meeting be accepted; this was passed unanimously.

7. Prof. Lipovsky reported on Academic Board's responses to Faculty Council's changes to the Post-Tenure Review document. We cannot change the language to say a review committee "may" rather than "must" have a member from outside the department, as Columbia mandates "must", but we can clarify that the reviewed person would have input on who the outside member would be. The discrepancy we found between pp. 4 and 11 about revocation of tenure was resolved by their taking out the words on p. 4 and making it clear on p. 11 that two "Unsatisfactory" ratings in post-tenure review are simply the trigger for General Order 12's termination policies to begin.

Prof. Silver moved and Prof. Feurtado seconded that we endorse the Academic Board changes. This was passed unanimously.

8. The Council continued on changes by Academic Board to our changes to General Order 12. The Board is not yet finished discussing all of it and will try by our next meeting May 11th. They paid most attention to our request that the Student Evaluation of Instruction instrument be validated by outside professionals; their conclusion was that it couldn't be done, the company that made it couldn't and an outside study would take $17,000 and to refrain from using it until validated would simply mean never to use it again. Faculty Council discussed the issue again; Prof. Pilcher said we could investigate our own people's specific local complaints without a $17,000 study. The sense of the meeting shifted toward leaving it alone; either they like you or they don't, we have five different levels of assessment and student evaluation is not the only invalid one. However, Prof. Zuraw noted that Academic Board was all white men and one not-in-the-classroom woman, and thus they didn't get slapped with comments about wearing shorter skirts and such. Prof. Thompson moved and Prof. Ezell seconded that we keep our advice to validate the instrument and send it to Academic Board, and if they rejected it we send both versions to Gen. Carter and have him decide. This passed 14 to 1.

9. Prof. Ezell moved and Profs. Hurren and Zuraw seconded that Faculty Council endorse the letter opposing Internet censorship in state public libraries, written after the last meeting mandated it. After a couple of minor corrections (from "Nazi" to "Neo-Nazi" and punctuation) it was passed unanimously, though Prof. Maynard pointed out that despite agreeing with everything in the letter he is in favour of limiting Internet access to actual children.

10. Prof. Lipovsky talked about the proposed new First Year Experience course, meant to orient freshmen to the transition between high school and college. A large ad hoc committee studied this and the Curriculum Committee endorsed it; the big question now is, who will teach it? How will faculty volunteers be compensated: with summer-school-like pay, development funds or what? Prof. Silver pointed out how close the Curriculum Committee vote was (5 to 4 with several abstentions) and wondered if it could be stopped; there are too many unanswered questions about it. Prof. Bishop opined that to have this course actually help rather than overburden freshmen it would have to be a course with no work, like a twice-a-week support group. Prof. Ezell said that we should really go back to a plan rejected twenty years ago, to bring the freshmen in for academic as well as military training six weeks early. Prof. Lipovsky noted that those with opinions on the matter could go and talk to Dean Ozment about it.

11. The meeting was adjourned at 12:18.