Call to Order

• Woods affirmed that he is getting e-mails from the various committees about their minutes and the election of their Chairs. He then announced that the Senate web page is now linked to NGCSU's main page, explaining that it took so long because he needed to relocate files to another directory on the Gold Server. Showing an overhead, he demonstrated that the Senate information could be found by following the links NGCSU Main to Faculty/Staff Information to Faculty Senate.  Woods has, he said, complied with IIT's request to include the NGCSU header in the new site's structure.

• Woods then brought the pending bylaws change (cf. Senate archives, now available to all) up for the scheduled vote.  Again with the aid of an overhead, he reviewed the change.  Robert Fuller moved to approve the change, Sally Wiedmann seconded, and with no discussion, the Senate voted unanimously in favor of the change.

• Robinson came forward, passed out copies of her proposals, and thanked the assembled for the audience.  She then read a prepared statement in support of her proposals.  Donna Gessell moved that the Senate endorse the proposals, and Harriette Richard seconded.
• Noel Campbell offered 2 questions, the first addressing the difference between "consumption and education" and drawing the line between the two. Secondly, he wondered whether the benefits (of the proposal's requirement and tabulation of cultural events attendance) are greater than cost.  He challenged the notion that such attendance would make students "more marketable," adding that the Registrar would have to keep track of everything and attendance verification would have be set up.  He went on to speculate about the possibility of students lying about attendance, and reminded that fraternity/sorority events are not open to all students.
• Sally Wiedmann was concerned about the provision for “departments & schools” to dedicate core courses for such requirements.  She believes that the proposal is unclear on this, and added that the "cocurricular asterisks" for such designation are problematic.  She said that, except for some history and English courses, students now have choices in the core, and wondered if the proposed requirements would affect those choices.  Robinson replied to all this by stating that she doesn’t want to prescribe any particular method for mandating such requirements, but speculated that they would start with the schools and move later to the individual departments & programs.
• Weidmann said that she understood, but wondered about the relationship between these events and course content.  In many courses, she said, there would be weak links between the two.  Robinson again underlined the open nature of the proposals and programs' individual choice as to whether or not to make such requirements.
• Weidmann then said that if the Senate approved the recommendation, it should be stated more clearly, as she doesn’t want it to go straight to the administrative phase without the proper discussion by faculty.
• Robert Fuller said that the proposal's goal is commendable, but that he is not sure about making [attendance at cultural events] a course requirement.  He then said that he does so on ad-hoc basis when he thinks it’s appropriate, giving his Human Geography course as an example.
• Carl Cavalli reported that the General Education Committee recommended had already recommended such requirements.
• Michael Powell stated his belief that employers aren’t concerned with this kind of thing, but rather they’re more interested in what potential employees can do for them.  Acknowledging that such experiences make students' lives richer, one can’t force them to go because it forces undesirable choices.
• Barry Friedmann asked Robinson if there are departments that already do this, and wondered: "What are their experiences?"  Robinson gave the example of Language & Literature's visiting novelists.  Responding to the department's recommendations, she said, these authors have been invited, offering diversity and augmenting coursework.  Students are sometimes resistant at first, she said, but are positive about the experience afterwards, as in the case of Much Ado About Nothing. As for Noel Campbell's "consumption" versus "culture" question, she said, in America it is an issue, but if [such events] "engage the mind," they will also stimulate it.
• Campbell then wondered about transfer students and how we would address them, pointing out that USG wouldn’t let us require that such events be "made up" if students already have credit for a transfer course.
• Andy Schafer suggested that the only way to require events would be to have them during the course's meeting time.  Robinson reminded him of the archiving and taping of events that is mentioned in the proposal; "technologically engaged events," she called them.  Schafer then replied that this is more like homework than a cultural event.
• Sally Weidmann then asked how we could be assured that students have seen such a video? "How do we police it?" she wanted to know.  Jeff Sommers suggested that perhaps we should put our resources toward having more & better events.
• Noel Campbell wondered: "Who’s doing this?"  Robinson replied that USC Sumter requires co curricular transcripts and Gainesville College requires attendance at cultural events, but that she wasn't sure about others.
• Barry Friedman offered his hopes that the Senate would adopt aspects of the proposals, but that it would be voluntary.  He then moved that the proposals be given to a committee assembled by the Senate C.E.O. in order to develop a more detailed version.  Robert Fuller seconded.
• Vice-President Buckhiester asked for clarification as to what such a committee would do, and Friedman complied.  Buckhiester then explained that Robinson had come to the Deans' Council to present her proposals, and that the Deans had discussed it over the summer. It was, at that time, suggested that it be brought before the Senate to see if there is support for the cultural events requirement.  It would be better, he felt at the time, to gauge the support level for the proposals than to force everyone to do the work necessary to clarify them and then meet solid resistance.  Why, in other words, have a committee if the Senate doesn’t want the requirements in the first place?
• Sally Weidmann wodered whether it really amounts to adding requirements to a course rather than adding a cultural events requirement.  Jimmy Woods pointed out that it would not be happening "across the board."
• Bud Reiselt then moved to postpone Gessell's motion and go back to our constituents.  Sally Weidmann seconded.
• Phil Buckhiester brought up the "underlying" concern about requiring cultural events attendance and then scheduling too many competing events.  He pointed out that this proposal goes beyond what The Cultural Events Committee is already doing – goes beyond its scope.  We shouldn’t, he warned; equate "cultural events" exclusively with events in the humanities.  They have a broader scope, he said, giving Ed Larson's talk as an example.
• Bill Shaw said that he would boil [the question] down to "a requirement versus a goal," and that making attendance a requirement brings out all the problems.  He would rather make it a goal.
• Harriette Richard asked what the real reason was for bringing this up.  Phil Buckhiester replied that the C.E. Committee believes that much of a student's education comes from outside course requirements.  Ed Larson's lecture, he said, was overflowing because the faculty talked up the event, as well as Leonard Pitts' visit.  Richard then offered the idea that that such events should be planned well in advance.
• The motion to postpone passed and Jimmy Woods said that senators should take the proposals back to their constituents.  Donna Gessell asked "What are we voting on next time?"  A brief recap of the day's interlacing motions followed.

Respectfully submitted,