~I I nIl t (' :~ () f' Lh,. r
v
' (' n ti rw 0 r I I ](~ {.. (. ;Iir':: CWnmlt.I. , ,-' 
',. ','d nn~;d[ly, II rr'j '\ 1H, 19'19 
J :00 p. m. Room 2067 - CUS\ II '!d h ! i 
Jr'p.s~nt: Dr. l!lll , Mr. (c;uinhy, ':ichlf~'y, Dr. Swan, 
., 
Dr. Yo ug; l , Dr. r·;d p;a r 
1. 
2. 
,['here vms consensus to wai t 1: il the next meeting for 
a pproval of the minutes of I. r 1 11. 
r'r. rohe n 1tW S present for d j :~ ~ ~sion of the experimental 
courses proposal. 
f) r. Swan pointed out s ome bas :
i 
problems. There are a 
number of By-Law changes nee dc , the charge of the 
Curriculum Committee would be :mnged and the Academ ic 
Vice Fresident's role (as evi~ nt in the Red Book) 
would chRn~e. There would be chan~e in the respon 
sibilities 2nd ri~hts ~iven f~ ulty over curriculum 
matters. This experimental c r ~se proposal isa 
restriction on their ri~hts tr ieny such courses. 

Item #2 js disastrous because ~me schools may apply 

a nd s upposed ly others will no t 

Cr. Cohen f elt that the char!';c ) f the Curriculum 
Committee included jurisdict i c over this kind of 
proposal. He continued, th': r ( i s a problem to be 
c onsidered, there is an impl i ( tion that a college may 
not subscribe to the proposa l. Department courses may be 
s o interrelated that some c ol ) ,;es (administration) 
m;'lY !10t Vla nt any experiment;~lJurses. Approval is by 
~ep~rtments only. the by-pa ;s~ ~ of approval by the Deans, 
Curr.lc ul um Commi t tees, e tc. L the end result. Hhatis 
i mplied is that when a dep~ rt :nt approves a course, it 
i s a valid oneand'accepte6 a~ t he col lege level. 
{'. rea requirements will be r "lno red by all departments and 
s chools, re~ardless of whe t~er or not a school offers 
e xperiment nl courses. A s r ~wo1 can deny its departments 
t~e option o f offering expEr im~ntal courses, however 

t~ese courses will receive ~retit in all schools. The 

i n tent of item #2 is to alJ ow a school to say to its 

departments, you may elect not to offer experimental 

c 0urses , but you may not drny t heir validity. 

11r. Richley's opinion of item 12 was that a School may 

disapprove of these coursef, and refuse to recognize the 

credits, the rein. 

r~r. Cohen pI) inted out that ite m #2 was necessary, a school 
nn y desire its departments to follow the traditional 
pa th in curriculum proposa l s . 
Dr. Swan was concerned wi tl' the phrase, II subscribing to 
this pol i c y II in item #2. 1: 'e I r e talkin~ about a Universi ty 
policy which applies to al] s c hools, however, a school 
ma y not wish to create exp~rimental courses •. 
" " % 

!lr. Cohen anr.wnrcd, rif lIt nOltl " T" ~ (' ,")r hav) 11 ." :1 
new courf)(~ approved goes from .~ f'; ' J Lty, throur~h U, 
school sand Univers tty commi t t , " : U,, ;tnS, etc. 
'T'he idea of this proposal is t, " flU: , a (J epartment t'l 
approve a cou rse, if the school '1 s \' I 1 inr~ to a cce pt 
exp erimental courses. The schc L ml . be will inp; to 
accept these courses. When an xpe: ':ental course is 
approved, the entire Universitj mus: t'ecor;nize it as 
a valid course. ~IY thoughts ar , a ! hool should have 
the prero~ative to say no to a J l ex! rimental courses 
within. 
Dr. Edgctr sup:p:estp.d reltlordinp; i tem 1/2 to r'ead, the facul ty 
of any ~iven school may decide to reject the proposed 
experimental courses as applied to their s chool. 
Dr. Swan added, in academic departments curriculum is a 
faculty matter. 
Dr. Cohen agreed that the area of curriculum revision is a 
prerogative of the faculty. 1'lis proposal is simply 
addin~ the possibility of a s[ 1edy enactment and acceptance 
of their curriculum proposals. It is still a departmental 
matter and within faculty res[ )nsibilities. We're not 
talkinp; about the development )f a course, we're talking 
about quick acceptance of that course. This is a faculty 
matter, however, the Academic fice Fresident does not 
think it violates the contract and the Ac~demi6 Senate 
can vote on it. 
Dr. Swan argued, the view of t~e OEA Executive Committee 

is that it does violate the contract. The freezing of 

ri~hts to function in certain areas, where those rights 

are now present, is an example. 

In Dr. Cohen's opinion, the proposal is not inconsistent 
with the purposes of the OEA. It is an academic isstie 
and should be examined, if it violates union contract, 
it won't go. It's our responsibility to take the 
academic initiative. Items #5 and #14 are used as checks 
to prevent thefloodin~ of the apparatus with experimental 
courses. However, I don't think this will be a problem, 
since instructors don't dream up courses that quickly. 
Dr. Swan asked what might happen if the Senate approved 

it all, except item #14. 

Dr. Cohen answered that item # 14 is the Senate's reign 
on these courses, and he didn't suppose them to be willing 
to approve the proposal without it. 
Dr. Ed~ar thought item #14 to be a good check in holding 
back the mul tiplyinr, of courses. ." 
Dr. Swan pointed out that we do need a quicker method . 
from thoupht to action. However, there are some problems 
in the proposal's wording which violate the contract. 
) fDr. Hi.11 fisk(!d Dr. Cotll" l t1' he h: ·rj t l\Jp;h ! the 
technical problems whic:i1 might d:vel )J Uli ll' h quick 
init tation. For example, will serne r tho ,~ experimental 
courses replace courses in the m; .jor 
[)Po Cohen answered, it will depe.ld lX~ 
n t , 
de pa rtment, 
so~ ha'c required courses and 0 ' her. 
.' ) 
auc ept all 
hour3 within their department. 
Dr. Hill continued, I could see n st· t i n my depart 
ment gett inp; confused by an -expe ;· 'tme' , ourse which 
has temporarily replaced a required 
Dr. Swan wondered if there would be ) 1 ·) I S in trans 
ferrin~ credit to other institutions The course may 
never appear in the catalog and only ' 5 a X course on 
the transcript. 
Dr. Cohen added, to have a course not pre -8nt in one or 
another catalog is a usual problem in tra Gcripts. 
Dr. Kour.;l pointed out that this could al:: o be a problem 
within the University. How could these c ourses be 
checked. after one year 
J 
when they are off the inventory? 
Dr. Cohen answered that the Dean of Admissions and 
Records will keep a copy of all courses designated · 
experimental, which do not appear in the catalog. These 
copies will be available for transcripts. 
Dr. Rill asked if a person reading just the title of the 
course would have trouble recognizing the content and 
requirements it entailed. Shouldn't 'we also require 
that a record of and description of the experimental 
courses be kept by the Registrar's office. 
Dr. Cohen answered that it will be recorded for reference. 
Dr. Pichley was concerned with item #12. I will have 

no contro] at allover whether or not a course will 

satisfy area requirements. It it turns out to be a 

roor course and never is offered again, I'll still have 

to grant area credit for it. Won't this encourage some 

departments to offer courses with fancy names to attract 

students? 

Dr. Cohen answered, most of the faculty is very professional 
and they are dedicated teachers. They won't want frivolous 
courses in their departme nt. With additional freedom 
there may be some abuse, but I don't forsee it as serious. 
I see the main benefit of the proposal to be on the 500 
level. I'll be optimistic and suppose the experimental 
courses will be just as rewarding as the current courses, who 
checks on quality now? 
Dr. Hichley answered, my department and many others check 
the quality of courses offered, so do the various 
8.ccredi t in~ units. I'm upset ac'out the last sentence in 
Jtem !l12 , wherein the Chairman has no control over the 
" 

appl iCRbil i ty of thcs i , ~ourses towards requirements. 
Dr. Cohen pointed out t.hat prescribed curriculum will 
not be interferred '.... iLh. 
Dr. Richley continued , in our prescribed curric ulum, 
i f a sc i ence course is required it is because we feel 
it meets the students' needs. However, when the student 
takes an experimental course, how can we be sure of the 
requirements it fullfills? 
Dr. Ed~ar asked Dr. Cohen if he expe~ted experimental 
courses would also be put through the regul~r channels 
of approval, at the time of proposal. 
Dr. Cohen answered yes, since the experimental tag allows 
a course to be tauv,ht only once. If it is a ~ood course, 
I'd like to teach it again, so I would start the traditional 
approval process. 
Dr. Ed~ar asked if practically all new courses would be 

proposed in both ways. 

Dr. Cohen answered, only one course per department per 

quarter can be designated experimental. 

Dr. SVla n argued, if rwas on the Curriculum Committee and 

read that these courses must be automatically approved, 

I think I'd scream. I wouldn't want to be a rubber 

stamper. 

Dr. Vou r l agreed with this rUbber-stamping idea. She asked, 
why can't the veto power go to the University Curriculum 
Co mmittee instead of bumping it over to the Academic Vice 
President, 
Dr. Cohen felt that if the Curriculum Committee had this 

power they would s pend time considering carefully the 

course, t hus defeatinp: the purpose. He assumed the 

Academic Vice President would veto whenever he received 

a reasonable objection; much more expediant than a 

committee vote. 

Dr. Svmn asked if this wasn't throwing the whole problem 

into Dr. Edgar's lap? • 

Dr. ~ich] ey asked if it was the schools' curriculum 

committees which usually presented the bottleneck, 

Dr. Cohen answered yes, and added that all appropriate 

persons would be sent copies of the proposed courses. 

Dr. Hill presented this problem, what if the University 
Curriculum Committee is the only group to raise objections 
about a particular course. They arc too busy and misR 
the date for filin~ ob jections, will the course be auto 
matically approved within a week or so, If there are no 
objections does it become a valid course as soon as ~ne 
Rev,istrar processes it? 
flr. Cohen answered yes I T ~; UPPoS(~ ·part., ('l it:. coul ,' 
sneak in .' 1 po tent i.nlly (:on t rove r~; 'xpf:r'IIII " ntal c> ': rse. 
However, I don't think department 1 d o Lll is. 
Dr. Hill added, you seem to feel the . nl chec the 
Ac ademic Vice President, is impor 
Dr. Cohen answered yes, anc that . ~: rn a ,)· b( ~ lost if the 
proposal goes under the wile. He " I lon 't i~agine 
this will i happen. I think thinge _ r un smoothly. 
Dr. Edgar was not sure it ~ould ~ 
can be raised to me. Howe\ er, or 
school will receive the prc posals 
know about the course, thu~ can r 
; 0 s moothly. Objections 
certain few in the 
! ma jority will not 
no ob jections. 
Dr. Cohen conceded this po j nt. M: . 
experimental courses as rei ular 0 . '. 
then it will go through. I his pra ll ] 
the experimental courses C
1 
ncept. 
we should treat the 
if no one objects 
.:1 stlOuld. not kill 
Dr. Swan added, maybe liJhat·s needed is an (~xpedited time 
limit on the current proce: s. 
Dr. Richley added, perhaps the University Curriculum 
Committee could be admonis: ~d to circulate quickly certain 
courses. Perhaps the- X de i gnation might be the process 
by which we sped up and qu ckly circulate t he course. 
Dr. Hill asked if the Chai man of the Curriculum Committee 
has the resources to circu a te courses immediately. 
Dr. 	Edgar answered he wasn t sure of the process. 
Dr. 	Hill su~gested a check to see what can be done 
procedurally in the Univer ity Curriculum Committee. 
J > 	 There will be no meetine; r:ext week unless new business 
is introduced. 
·'