Reports

Senate Executive Review Committee Report (draft) on Faculty Input into Hiring and Review of Executive Administrators

D R A F T

Senate Executive Review Committee [ad hoc] on Review of Executive Administrators
DRAFT Report and Recommendation to the University of Oregon Senate March 13, 2013

1. Committee Charge

The UO Senate adopted two motions that were referred for further work to an ad hoc Committee on Review of Executive Administrators:

• Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators [No. US12/13-03]; and

• Review of Executive Administrators [No. US12/13-04].

Those motions are attached to this Report.

The committee was charged with the responsibility of recommending policies thatanswer the call of the two motions.

2. Committee Membership and Methods

Committee members were Doug Blandy, Bill Harbaugh, Rob Kyr, Julie Newton, and Margie Paris.

The committee met periodically throughout January, February, and early March. It gathered information about current UO hiring and administrator review processes. It also investigated processes employed by similar higher education institutions. President Michael Gottfredson supplied the committee with a draft review policy, dated December 11, 2012, entitled “Review Procedures for Academic Deans, Vice Provosts, and Vice Presidents with Academic Appointments,” with an attached list of the personnel to be covered by such a policy. Also among the information the committee considered was a Memorandum from President Gottfredson to his Executive Leadership Team, dated January 18, 2013. The Memorandum establishes the President’s expectation that each UO employee, including senior administrators, will be reviewed annual by the appropriate supervisor. Attached to the Memorandum are a form entitled “Performance Review for Senior Administrators” and an organizational chart of the President’s Office. Both of these documents, with attachments, are appended to this Report.

3. Committee Report

The committee supports the adoption of formal policies that ensure meaningful faculty input into the hiring of administrators and into periodic reviews of such administrators. It notes that President Gottfredson also is supportive of faculty input into these processes.

With respect to the hiring of administrators, important general principles that should be embodied in the policy are as follows:

• Faculty and other constituencies should participate meaningfully in the hiring of administrators holding academic appointments, as well as those whose responsibilities extend to academic matters as commonly understood in higher education [a list of pertinent administrators is included in the policy recommended in Part 4(a), below];

• UO statutory faculty, as defined in the UO Constitution, should comprise the majority of hiring committees;

• Other constituent groups (officers of administration, students, classified staff, and career non-tenure-track research faculty) should be represented insofar as their participation is appropriate to the position being hired, as should deans, other members of the University community, and external constituencies;

• The University President, the Senate President, and the President’sFaculty Advisory Council [FAC] should collaborate to select hiring committee members, with the Senate President and the FAC each
providing the University President with a list of names from which a specified number of members will be chosen;

• There should be a diversity of backgrounds and ranks on hiring committees;

• Hiring committee members should be clearly identified on a website, along with their contact information;

• The hiring process should be as open as practicable, and, whenever possible, finalists should make public presentations; and

• Whenever possible, the hiring committee should solicit input on the candidates from appropriate constituencies.

With respect to the review of administrators, important general principles that should be embodied in the policy are as follows:

• Administrators holding academic appointments, as well as those whose responsibilities extend to academic matters as commonly understood in higher education [a list of pertinent administrators is included in the policy recommended in Part 4(b), below], should undergo university-wide reviews every five years, in addition to the annual reviews conducted by their supervisors;

• Supervisors are encouraged to solicit frequent feedback about administrators, and in any event they should solicit broad feedback during annual reviews, after consulting with the Senate President about the level of interest in submitting feedback;

• Faculty and other constituencies should participate meaningfully in university-wide reviews of administrators, and these reviews should be conducted by review committees;

• UO statutory faculty, as defined in the UO Constitution, should comprise the majority of review committees;

• Other constituent groups (officers of administration, students, classified staff, and career non-tenure-track research faculty) should be represented insofar as their participation is appropriate to the position being reviewed, as should deans, other members of the University community, and
external constituencies;

• The University President, the Senate President, and the President’s Faculty Advisory Council [FAC] should collaborate to select review committee members, with the Senate President and the FAC each providing the University President with a list of names, from which a specified number of members will be chosen;

• There should be a diversity of backgrounds and ranks on review committees;

• Review committee members should be clearly identified on a website, along with their contact information;

• Review committees should solicit broad input – including confidential input – from appropriate constituencies; and

• Review processes will conform to Oregon laws concerning the confidentiality of personnel matters, but administrators undergoing university-wide reviews should be encouraged to share the contents of their reviews with appropriate constituencies.

4. Committee Recommendation

The committee recommends the adoption of the following policies:

(a) Policy on Hiring of Executive Administrators

I. Introduction

Each administrator covered by this policy will be hired through a process of meaningful participation by faculty and other constituents as appropriate to the position.

II. Covered Administrators

Administrators covered by this policy are as follows:

• Senior Vice President and Provost

• Vice President for Equity and Inclusion

• Vice President for Research and Innovation

• Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

• Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

• Vice Provost for International Affairs

• Vice Provost for Graduate Studies

• Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies

• Deans:

o Clark Honors College

o College of Arts and Sciences

o College of Education

o Graduate School

o Lundquist College of Business

o School of Architecture and Allied Arts

o School of Journalism and Communication

o School of Law

o School of Music and Dance

o University Libraries

Note that some members of the Committee on Review of Executive Administrators would include the following additional administrators:

• General Counsel

• Vice President for Student Affairs

• Director of Intercollegiate Athletics

• Faculty Athletics Representative

III. Process

A. Hiring Committee

Upon learning of a position vacancy or the creation of a new position at the level of Vice President or Provost, the University President, the Senate President, and the President’s Faculty Advisory Council [FAC] will collaborate to determine whether to hire a search firm and to select hiring committee members, with the Senate President and the FAC each providing the University President with a list of names from which a specified number of members will be chosen. For positions reporting to the Provost or the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Provost and the Senate President will collaborate to select hiring committee members, with the Senate President providing the Provost with a list of names from which a specified number of members will be chosen.

UO statutory faculty, as defined in the UO Constitution, will comprise the majority of hiring committees.

Other constituent groups (officers of administration, students, classified staff, and career non-tenure-track research faculty) will be represented insofar as their participation is appropriate to the position being hired, as should deans, other members of the University community, and external constituencies.

There will be a diversity of backgrounds and ranks on hiring committees.

Hiring committee members will be clearly identified on a website, along with their contact information.

B. Administrator’s Position Description and Application Call

The University President or Provost will provide a position description and draft of the application call to the hiring committee for review before the position opening is posted. The hiring committee will solicit feedback from appropriate constituents and make recommendations for revision in the materials as needed. The hiring committee will recommend a search structure and timeline appropriate to the position. Searches may be posted with deadlines or remain open until filled.

Typically, the process will require applicants to submit a current vita, references, and letter of application, including suitability for the position, personal objectives, summary of accomplishments, management style, vision for the unit, and ideas for accomplishing the vision.

The hiring committee will review applications in a timely manner, narrowing the pool to a selection of semi-finalists for vetting before determining a small number of finalists for interviews.

Typically, finalists will make public presentations and meet with constituent groups.

C. Confidentiality

Although the hiring process will be as open as practicable, applicant information will remain confidential. References will be contacted when permission is obtained from candidates. When finalists are announced, candidates' letters of application, CVs, references, and other materials as appropriate will be made available on a public web site. If possible, candidates' public presentations will be video recorded and posted for viewing on the website.

D. Hiring Committee’s Solicitation of Input

The hiring committee will solicit input broadly from the university community. Where appropriate, the hiring committee also will solicit input from external constituencies.

The hiring committee will use effective means to collect input, including, where appropriate, letters soliciting opinions, group meetings with finalists, and one-on-one interviews.

E. Report of the Hiring Committee

The hiring committee will recommend final candidates to the university President or Provost, as appropriate, with a summary report of each candidate's strengths and weaknesses, as well as of constituents' and references' opinions.

Oregon law governs the confidentiality of the report.

IV. Processes for Interim Searches

For an interim search, the goal is to quickly identify a short list of candidates and make an appointment informed by input from the university community to the extent practicable. The University President or Provost will consult with the Hiring Committee, the Senate President, and the President's Faculty Advisory Council to identify candidates, taking into consideration the principles detailed above and inviting campus input before making the appointment in a timely manner.

(b) Policy on Review of Executive Administrators

I. Introduction

Each administrator covered by this policy will have a comprehensive performance review at the outset of the fifth year of service and at five year intervals thereafter. The President will undertake reviews of the Senior Vice President and Provost. The Senior Vice President and Provost will undertake reviews of all other administrators.

II. Covered Administrators

Administrators covered by this policy are as follows:

• Senior Vice President and Provost

• Vice President for Equity and Inclusion

• Vice President for Research and Innovation

• Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

• Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

• Vice Provost for International Affairs

• Vice Provost for Graduate Studies

• Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies

• Deans:

o Clark Honors College

o College of Arts and Sciences

o College of Education

o Graduate School

o Lundquist College of Business

o School of Architecture and Allied Arts

o School of Journalism and Communication

o School of Law

o School of Music and Dance

o University Libraries

Note that some members of the Committee on Review of Executive Administrators would include the following additional administrators:

• General Counsel

• Vice President for Student Affairs

• Director of Intercollegiate Athletics

• Faculty Athletics Representative

III. Process

A. Review Committee

Upon learning from a covered administrator that service beyond the fifth year is desired, at the beginning of the fifth year of service a review committee will be appointed by the President or the Senior Vice President and Provost to conduct the review.

The review committee will include statutory faculty, who will hold the majority of membership positions. Depending on the administrator’s portfolio, the review committee also will include other constituent groups (officers of administration, students, classified staff, and career nontenure-track research faculty), deans, other members of the University community, and external constituencies. No fewer than six members of the statutory faculty will be appointed to the review committee, at least three of whom will come from a unit not reporting to the administrator under review. The Senate President will nominate six members of the statutory faculty for consideration, and the chair(s) of the President’s Faculty Advisory Committee [FAC] will nominate two. At least fifty percent of the review committee’s statutory faculty members will be selected from those lists. The Senate President and FAC chair(s) also may be asked to nominate members of other constituent groups.

The review committee will embody a diversity of backgrounds and ranks.

Review committee members will be clearly identified on a website, along with their contact information.

B. Administrator’s Personal Statement and Job Description

The administrator under review will submit a current vita and a personal statement. The personal statement should include objectives, initiatives, accomplishments, challenges, and ideas for the next term.

The review committee will have access to the administrator’s job description.

C. Administrator’s Letter of Waiver / Non-Waiver

The administrator under review decides whether to retain the right of access to the review file or to waive access. The administrator’s letter of waiver or of non-waiver will be obtained before the review committee begins to solicit input.

D. Review Committee’s Solicitation of Input

The review committee will solicit input broadly from the university community. Where appropriate, the review committee also will solicit input from external constituencies. In addition, the administrator under review may submit his or her own list of people who will be consulted for input.

The review committee will use effective means to collect input, including, where appropriate, electronic surveys, letters soliciting opinions, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews. Survey responses, letters, and other input will be provided directly to the review committee.

The administrator’s decision to waive or retain access to the review file will be explained to those from whom input is sought. If the administrator waives access, the review committee will seek candid and confidential input by explaining that only a summary of input, without identifying features, will be provided to the administrator under review. If the administrator does not waive access, the review committee must explain that individual input will be available to the administrator.

E. Campus Presentation

Reviews of the Senior Vice President and Provost and of deans of academic units will involve a public presentation by the administrator under review. Public presentations may also be appropriate during reviews of other administrators. In the presentation, the administrator will address goals, achievements, and aspirations.

F. Report of the Review Committee

The review committee will submit its report to the President or the Senior Vice President and Provost, as appropriate. Oregon law governs the confidentiality of the report. An administrator under review – particularly if that person is the Senior Vice President and Provost or an academic dean – will be encouraged by his or her supervisor to share the contents of the review report with appropriate constituencies.

Report from UO Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace

UO Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace

Report at the UO Senate meeting

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

In the summer of 2010, this ad hoc committee was formed, which includes all campus stakeholders, to make recommendations to the UO Senate regarding a campus wide cultural shift for a respectful workplace. We reviewed UO policies, Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA), state and federal laws, and policies at other institutions of higher education. We had guest speakers: Linda King, Associate Vice President of Human Resources, regarding professional development and community service opportunities. Annie Bentz, AA/EO Specialist from Affirmative Action discussed the overarching themes from the OA and Classified Staff focus groups ordered by Frances Dyke. And Caitlan Hendrickson, Director of Conflict Resolution Services within the Office of the Dean of Students, regarding Ombuds Office research collected from other institutions of higher education (including the PAC 12 and comparators). We had successful meetings with Jamie Moffitt, Doug Blandy, Human Resources and Affirmative Action staff members. Learning about adding an Ombuds Office has been our focus for nearly a year. Ten of the PAC 12 institutions have an Ombuds Office. All of our comparator peer institutions have an Ombuds Office.

Since the summer of 2010 our committee has taken a look at the campus climate. Our assessment as a committee has been that one thing we can confidently move forward on is to have an Ombuds Office on our campus to help resolve matters of conflict through professional methods of resolution and reconciliation.

The committee has been particularly pleased with our interactions with Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration, and CFO. We appreciate her support as a colleague and her commitment and pro-active approach involving conflict resolution.

The committee unanimously supports President Gottfredson’s desire to have an Ombuds Office at the University of Oregon, and give notice of motion today for UO Senate legislation to support this endeavor.

IAC Report on the 'Random Drug Testing OAR's'

To: Senate President Robert Kyr
From: IAC Chair Brian McWhorter

Report on Athletic Department Substance Use and Drug Testing OARs 571-004-0020, 571-004- 0025, 571-004-0030, 571-004-0038, 571-004-0045, 571-004-0050, 571-004-0055

You sent me the following:

1) The Senate will not vote on the revisions to the OAR on Random Drug Testing, because the actual changes in the policy are in the administrative portion of it. The actual aspects of it that are related to scholarships were not revised, but have been in force since 1999 (for the past thirteen years). Thus, the actual revisions to the policy do not fall within the Senate's responsibility to focus on "academic matters as commonly understood in higher education."

2) The process of reviewing the revisions to the OAR on Random Drug Testing has revealed some important issues related to scholarships. I am asking the IAC to consider the following questions that relate to academic matters and that were revealed by the SEC's review of the OAR on Random Drug Testing:

a) Are there policies in force that are related to the revoking of scholarships awarded to student-athletes? If so, what are they?

b) If there are such policies, are scholarships revoked because of athletic performance (or a breaking of rules related to athletics) or because of academic performance, or for other reasons?

c) If the scholarship of a student-athlete is revoked, does a process for appeal exist and what is it?

The consideration of these important questions is clearly within the charge of the IAC. Thus, I am
asking it to prepare a report on these matters and to present it at the January Senate meeting. I will
also meet with the IAC at its upcoming meeting in order to discuss the items above.

You can find the answers as provided by the Athletic Department within this document.

As the IAC has considered this matter many concerns have arisen, primarily regarding students’ rights to privacy and the potential academic impact a positive test can bring about. That said, the administration of this university has made it clear that this is not an academic matter, and, thus, the faculty should not expect to claim governance over this issue.

Since I joined the IAC (fall of 2011 and three Presidents ago), there has been an ongoing, tedious and annoying debate about governance and jurisdictional lines. I am not concerned with those jurisdictional lines and am not interested in trying to deliberate the definition of something as ambiguous as “academic matters as commonly understood;” rather, this report is concerned with articulating the IAC’s consideration of these questions from you and conveying some of the concerns that have come up.

These are our students after all.

In considering the questions, which notably just focus on issues around “SCHOLARSHIPS” (which I will refer to from now on as GRANT IN AID - the technical term for the monies awarded to student-athletes), the IAC has brought up several concerns. Generally, the answers given by the Athletic Department on the questions about GRANT IN AID, have satisfied the IAC. But the membership routinely circles back to discussions on the intrinsic merits and problems of drug testing our student-athletes.

The IAC membership has discussed several points that I’ll list here.

basics

1. The test can be administered in two ways: randomly and with reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion part of this test has been in place for 13 years - the new part of this test is the random component.

2. The test looks for 2 classes of drugs: performance enhancing and illicit/illegal

3. The test affects about 450 student-athletes - any student-athlete that has been engaged in intercollegiate athletics. The fact that this test is not equitably administered to the whole student population is problematic.

4. The money given to student-athletes is technically GRANT IN AID - not SCHOLARSHIPS

merits and problems of drug testing

5. The primary reasons for implementing this rule are 1. student health and 2. promoting a drug-
free environment

6. The NCAA does not require that the UO adopt this rule - the NCAA already has a drug testing
program that it currently administers

7. The relatively little research done for random drug testing indicates negligible effectiveness in
deterring use (see attached summary)

8. The term “unreasonable search and seizure” has been used to describe this OAR - though the Supreme Court Vernonia decision does validate randomly drug testing high school students

9. There seems to be a growing awareness that our values concerning drugs at this university are disparate. Consider that we are now part of a tobacco-free campus, have a drug test that screens for drugs for student-athletes, and, at the same time, we have a more than half million dollar contract with Miller-Coors.

test results, sanctions and safe harbor

10. A student can admit to drug use and claim “safe-harbor” from university sanctions without necessarily taking a test. Upon completion of the treatment program however, as outlined in the OAR, the student will be considered to have completed the sanctions for the first positive test. A positive test after claiming “safe-harbor” would then be considered a second positive test, and the more serious sanctions would be applied.

11. If a student tests positive without claiming safe-harbor, they can be kicked off the team and their grant in aid can be removed. This has an academic implication at the very least.

12. On positive test results: “(1) The director of athletic medicine, the athletic director, the head coach, and other appropriate personnel shall review a positive test result and shall, bearing in mind the type of drugs identified, the recency of use, and the medical, safety and performance-enhancing effects of the use, formulate an appropriate program for the student-athlete. Such program shall include abstention from further use and periodic retesting and may include counseling, reduced playing time, and withdrawal from drills, scrimmages, or competitions. The program shall also describe potential sanctions for repeated use or abuse of substances for which tests are conducted. However, a student-athlete may be dismissed from the team and lose all athletic financial aid, beginning with the next academic term after a single positive test result.” [emphasis added]

13. Because this rule is not part of the Student Code of Conduct and only reported to three specific personnel, the student would not be reported to the legal authorities. On the other hand, there is a concern that positive test results, and imposed sanctions, should also be screened by an academic representative and/or the President.

14. There is a subjective element to imposing sanctions on students with a positive test. This could yield inadvertent and unfair results (e.g., softer punishments imposed on star players].

In my personal opinion, the Drug Testing OAR is problematic. While drug-testing student-athletes does seem to be a reasonable attempt to encourage a drug-free environment and address health concerns, it is also a threat—a threat with academic implications. It’s not required by the NCAA, it’s essentially taking part in the failed Drug War, the available research suggests no deterrent effect of drug use, it challenges basic civil liberties, and it directly affects a very small group of students—student athletes—who, as a whole, are getting national attention for being treated more like uncompensated employees and not students.

I fully realize that this rule has been implemented but the questions asked by the Senate have spurred this broad criticism. As chair of this advisory committee, I offer the following for the President, Faculty Senate and Athletic Director to consider:

a. Consider ways to incentivize “safe harbor” more than it currently is

b. Consider adding an academic representative and/or the President to the list of people who should review positive tests and sanctions

c. Consider ways to have broader conversations involving faculty, staff, administration, the community and even the business world on current and innovative strategies/research that could help Athletics achieve a drug-free environment and protect the health of student-athletes without challenging civil liberties that the vast majority of the UO community enjoys

I would ask that the President, Faculty Senate and Athletic Director consider these matters and let me know when I might expect a response.

Brian McWhorter
Chair, Intercollegiate Athletics Committee
Vice Chair, Graduate Council
Associate Professor of Music
University of Oregon

Draft report from the Conflict of Commitment Working Group

Subject: Corrected Draft Report for Review and Comment

Cc: "James Bean", "Peter Gilkey"
From: "Pam Palanuk" Add to address book...
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:25:41

10 December 2009

To: UO Faculty and other interested parties

From: Robert Melnick, Chair Conflict of Commitment Working Group

Subject: Corrected DRAFT Report for Review and Comment

Last academic year Academic Affairs and the UO Senate President appointed a joint working group to consider issues pertaining to conflict of commitment and make policy recommendations about how these issues should be handled on this campus.

The members of the working group are: John Bonine, School of Law; Ron Bramhall, Lundquist College of Business; Mike Bullis, College of Education; Moira Kiltie, Office of Vice-President for Research and Graduate Studies; Robert Z. Melnick, Department of Landscape Architecture (chair); Larry Singell, College of Arts and Sciences; Christine Theodoropoulos, Department of Architecture; Lisa Wolverton, Department of History.

We have completed our draft report and are seeking comment from a broad cross section of the university community.

The Draft Report is attached to this memo. We invite you to read it and provide feedback to the working group at the following email address: coccomm@uoregon.edu

In accordance with state law, responses will be made publically available. We would appreciate your response following winter break or sooner.

Thank you very much.

Original Version

4 December 2009
To: UO Faculty and other interested parties
From: Robert Melnick, Chair Conflict of Commitment Working Group
Subject: DRAFT Report for Review and Comment

We have completed our draft report and are seeking comment from a broad cross section of the university community.

The Draft Report is attached to this memo. We invite you to read it and provide feedback to the working group at the following email address: coccomm@uoregon.edu

Responses will remain confidential and will be viewed only by the working group, prior to submittal of our final report.

We would appreciate your response following winter break or sooner.

Thank you very much.

Web page spun on 10 December 2009 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises

DENIED PROPOSALS

Posted 19 November 2009 at 09:46. Later revisions will be posted as received.

PRELIMINARY FALL 2009 CURRICULUM REPORT

OVERVIEW

The body of this report consists of two major sections: Course Proposals reviewed Fall 2009 and Other Curricular Matters. Policies and definitions governing group and multicultural general-education requirements are under Other Curricular Matters.

Course proposals approved by both the University of Oregon Committee on Courses (UOCC) and the University Senate are effective Fall term 2010, unless a specific term is requested by an academic department and stated otherwise in this report.

The UOCC will consider new proposals during winter term and will submit a winter quarterly report to the University Senate in March 2010.

Routing of Minor Changes: The UOCC has confirmed that the following minor course changes may be made without review by the full committee: minor edits of course description, pre- or corequisites, grading option, and conditions of repeatability. Changes may be submitted in writing directly to the Office of the Registrar and Design and Editing Services, in care of Mike Jefferis (jefferis@uoregon.edu) and Scott Skelton (sskelton@uoregon.edu). The memorandum should indicate the effective term for the change(s). Note: extensive changes may be referred to the UOCC for review.

Courses Not Taught Report: The UOCC has changed the policy of dropping courses not taught within the past three years from the fall curriculum report to the spring curriculum report. This allows the correct listing of courses in the catalog for the following curricular year. The intention for this change is to allow departments a chance to reply earlier and provide a more thoughtful response while still involved in curricular planning and staffing for the next academic year and can best determine which courses they are able to offer.

Multicultural Courses Policy:As part of general education, offerings of multicultural courses at the 100, 200, and 300 levels need to be available to a wide spectrum of students from all across the university. Departments wishing to offer courses to satisfy the multicultural requirement should make these courses available at the more general 100, 200, or 300 levels whenever possible, rather than at the more specialized 400 level.

Extended Course Descriptions for Group-Satisfying Courses: All proposals for courses that would satisfy a group requirement for general education must include a suitable extended course description, for use with the course, as specified in senate legislation:

ÒFor all group-satisfying courses to be offered during a particular term, faculty members or departments are asked to post electronically, in the Schedule of Classes, course descriptions that are substantially expanded over those provided in the catalog. The posted course information should be understandable to someone unfamiliar with the field and should emphasize the questions or issues that reveal, by their breadth and significance, why the course has earned group-satisfying status.Ó (US03/04-8, May 12, 2004)

LOOKING AHEAD

Academic Year 2009–2010

December 2, 2009: University Senate considers Fall 2009 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

December 16, 2009: Curricular proposals for consideration in the winter 2009 round must be submitted to the provostÕs office.

March 10, 2010: University Senate considers Winter 2010 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

March 17, 2010: Curricular proposals for consideration in the Spring 2010 round must be submitted to the provostÕs office.

May 12, 2010: University Senate considers Spring 2010 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

Members, University of Oregon Committee on Courses

Voting: Paul Engelking, Chair Ex officio: Sue Eveland

Jack Boss John Crosiar

Paul Peppis Marian Friestad

Frances White Scott Skelton

Shlomo Libeskind Andrew Wahlstrom

Jens Noeckel (absent for fall round)

Student: Alex McCafferty Staff: Tami Oar

Elizabeth Aldrich Mike Jefferis

Motion

The University of Oregon Committee on Courses moves that the following course proposals and other curricular matters be approved.

Unless indicated otherwise, courses may be taken either pass/no pass or for letter grades. ÒP/N onlyÓ or Ògraded onlyÓ indicates that all students must take the course as specified in the bold print. Separate grading options for majors are bracketed in this report and appear in UO class schedule notes; they are not printed in the UO Catalog. R after course credits means that the course number may be repeated for credit. ÒSequenceÓ after the description means the courses must be taken in numerical order.

College of Arts and Sciences

BIOLOGY

NEW COURSES

BI 485/585 Techniques in Computational Neuroscience (4) Introduction to numerical techniques for modeling the nervous system from single neurons to neutral networks. Prereq: BI 360 or BI 461, and Math 241-242 or higher

(Course previously taught as 410/510 in fall 2008)

BI 490/590 Theoretical Ecology (4) Provides a novel and fun way of learning how to use simple mathematical methods to understand complex ecological systems. Prereq: BI 212-214; or BI 251-253

EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES & LITERATURE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

EALL 510 Experimental Course: [Topic] (1-5R) Effective winter 2010

ECONOMICS

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as 410/510 in winter 2010)

EC 422/522 Economic Forecasting (4) Basic techniques of economic forecasting that are typically used in a business environment Prereq: EC 420 Coreq: EC 421

ENGLISH

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 360: African American Writers

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 361: Native American Writers

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 362: Asian American Writers

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 363: Chicano/Latino Writers

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 222: Introduction to the English Major

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as ENVS 399 in (winter 2009)

ENVS 335 Allocating Scarce Environmental Resources (4) [Graded only for majors] Considerations for the design of environmental and natural resources policies and regulations: balancing societyÕs preferences and the costs of environmental protection and resource conservation Prereq: MATH 105 or higher.

Requesting that this course satisfy Social Science group requirement.

GEOGRAPHY

(UOCC Administrative Action)

GEOG 204: Geography of Russia & Neighbors

GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES

(UOCC Administrative Action)

GEOL 399: Special Studies [Topic] (1-5R)

HISTORY

(UOCC Administrative Action)

Existing Course Change

HIST 409 Supervised Tutoring (1-2R)

HIST 409 Supervised Tutoring (1-4R) Effective Fall 2009

LINGUISTICS

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AEIS 610 Experimental Course: [Topic] (1-5R) Effective fall 2009

POLITICAL SCIENCE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PS 470 Constitutional Law

(Drop the prerequisite PS 275)

NEW COURSE

PS 378 Games in Politics (4) Politics can be viewed as strategic interactions among politicians, voters, countries, etc. Course focuses on how to model these interactions, using tools of ÒGame TheoryÓ.

PSYCHOLOGY

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

PSY 302 Statistical Methods in Psychology (4) Prereq: MATH 111, PSY 201, 202, WR 121, 122.

(changed pre-requisite)

PSY 302 Statistical Methods in Psychology (4) Prereq: MATH 111 or MATH 243, WR 121. Sophomore standing required. Effective winter 2010.

PSY 303 Research Methods in Psychology (4) Prereq: PSY 302, WR 121, 122.

(changed pre-requisite)

PSY 303 Research Methods in Psychology (4) Prereq: PSY 201 or PSY 202, PSY 302, WR 122 or 123. Effective winter 2010.

PSY 412 through 480 Prereq: WR 121 and 122 or 123; PSY 303.

(changed pre-requisite)

PSY 412 through 480Prereq: PSY 201, PSY 202, PSY 302; WR 122 or 123. Effective winter 2010.

ROMANCE LANGUAGES

REINSTATED COURSE

ITAL 461/561: Vico and Settecento (4) Prereq: 317, 318, and 319

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

FR 399: Special Studies (1-5R)

SOCIOLOGY

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

SOC 425/525 Issues in Family Sociology (4)

(Changed Course Title, Repeatability)

SOC 425/525 Issues in Sociology of Family: [Topic]

Repeatable

Repeatable 2 times.

Repeatable for a maximum of 12 credits.

Repeatable under the following conditions: when topic changes

PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

School of Architecture and Allied Arts

ART

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

ART 115 Basic Design: Fundamentals (4) Intermedia laboratory for fundamentals of communication design.

Development of visual vocabularies.

(Changed Course Description, Course Title, Grading Options)

ART 115 Surface, Space, and Time (4) Graded only.

Introduces interdisciplinary media processes, critical theory, formal communication design, color theory, skills in objective evaluation and critique, and how materials, processes and context establish meaning.

ART 116 Basic Design: 3D (4) Visual communication and critique. Development of visual vocabularies through investigation of space and structure.

(Changed Course Description, Course Title)

ART 116 CORE Interdisciplinary Laboratory (4)

Rigorous studio projects in the Core STUDIO sequence stressing interdisciplinary media transitions and the inter-relatedness of conceptual and formal concerns.

Pre/corequisite(s): ART 115

ART 233 Drawing (4R)

(Changed Course Description, Course Title) Beginning course in observation, selection, and recording of significant elements in various drawing media.

ART 233 Drawing I (4R)

An introduction to basic drawing concepts and practices.

NEW COURSES

ARTD 256 Introduction to Production (4) Graded only. Traditional camera, sound, and lighting techniques in production are taught, nonlinear editing is introduced, and key theoretical, historical and aesthetic approaches to video art are surveyed.

ARTF 268 Introduction to Fibers: Structures (4) Students develop skills and cultivate conceptual concerns pertaining to structural textile construction. Introduces historical and contemporary work through slides and lectures. Prereq: ART 115, 116, 233

ARTF 269 Introduction to Fibers: Surfaces (4) Students develop skills and cultivate conceptual concerns pertaining to embellished or manipulated surfaces of textile forms. Introduces historical and contemporary work through slides and lectures. Prereq: ART 115, 116, 233

ARTF 368 Textile Printing (4R) Introduction to screen-printing process for fabric and alternative substrates. Textile history, the relevance of printing, and related ideas of decoration, repetition, and appropriation are explored. Prereq: ARTF 253, 268, or 269 Rmastery of subject

ARTF 369 Woven Structures (4R) Introduction to floor loom hand weaving. Traditional and experimental use of materials, techniques, and structures are used to understand weaving as a cross-disciplinary practice. Prereq: ARTF 253, 268, or 269 R mastery of subject

(Course previously taught as 410 in winter 2009)

ARTP 481 Adv Painting Practice (4R). This course allows the student to pursue individual creative practice and to form the critical intelligence necessary to develop as an artist. Sequence: ARTP 281, 381, 390 Prereq: 2 terms ARTP 390 R mastery of subject

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as LA 4/508 in spring 2008)

LA 446/546 Landscape Urbanism (4) Landscape theory and practice as the foundation of urban design, synthesizing architecture, infrastructure, microclimate and ecology across multiple scales and time frames

(Course previously taught as 610 in fall 2007)

LA 617 Introduction to Landscape Architecture Theory (4) P/NP only. Survey and critique of the theoretical frameworks, prevalent ways of knowing, ways of expanding understanding, and argument in landscape architecture

PLANNING, PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

OLD COURSES DROPPED

PPPM 683 Professional Practice in Nonprofit Organizations (1)

Topic area covered in other nonprofit courses. Substituting the philanthropy seminar for this required course.

NEW COURSES

PPPM 623 Professional Development in Public Administration (1) P/NP. The goal of this class is to catalyze students to articulate preliminary career goals and begin mapping out the necessary steps to accomplish their goals.

ARCHITECTURE AND ALLIED ARTS

OLD COURSE DROPPED

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 409 Supervised Tutoring (1-12R)

NEW COURSES

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 404 Internship [Topic] (1-12R)

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 409 Practicum [Topic] (1-5R)

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 604 Internship [Topic} (1-12R)

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 609 Practicum [Topic] (1-12R)

(Course previously taught as 410/510 in fall 2008)

ARCH 438/538 Housing Prototypes (3) An examination of modern housing prototypes (1920s-present) with an emphasis on understanding the many and varied factors involved in the production of quality housing. Junior standing required. Open to all majors.

PRODUCT DESIGN

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PD 198 Workshop: [Topic] (1-12R)

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PD 199 Special Studies: [Topic] (1-5R)

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PD 399 Special Studies [Topic] (1-5R)

Charles H. Lundquist College of Business

FINANCE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

FIN 609-Practicum [Topic]: (1-9R)

MANAGEMENT

(UOCC Administrative Action)

MGMT 609 Practicum [Topic] (1-16R) Pass/No Pass

(change grading option)

MGMT 609 Practicum [Topic] (1-16R) Optional Grading

SPORTS BUSINESS

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

SBUS 609 Practicum: [Topic] (1-4R)

(variable credit change)

SBUS 609 Practicum: [Topic] (1-9R)

College of Education

COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY AND HUMAN SERVICES

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

FHS 491 Jr. Professional Practices & Issues I (3)

(Changed Grading Options)

UO grading option: Graded Only

Majors grading option: Graded Only

FHS 492 Jr Professional Practices & Issues II (3)

(Changed Grading Options)

UO grading option: Graded Only

Majors grading option: Graded Only

FHS 493 Jr Professional Practices & Issues III (3)

(Changed Grading Options)

UO grading option: Graded Only

Majors grading option: Graded Only

SPECIAL EDUCATION AND CLINICAL SCIENCES

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

SPED 488/588 Professional Practices (3)

(Changed Course Title)

SPED 488/588 Professional Practices: [Topic]

COMMUNICATION DISORDERS & SCIENCES

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

CDS 609 Practicum Speech-Language-Hearing

(Change from optional grading to pass/no pass only)

Law

UOCC REINSTATED COURSES

Law 670 Public Land Law [Topic] (1-3R) Effective fall semester 2009

Law 658 Local Government Law Effective fall semester 2009

Physical Education and Recreation

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

PEL 409 Practicum: [Topic] (1-3R)

(Change credits)

PEL 409 Practicum: [Topic] (1-4R)

Effective summer 2009

Journalism and Communication

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

(change prerequisite)
J 464/564 Newspaper Design (4) Prereq: J 361

J 464/564 Newspaper Design (4) Prereq: J 202, J 203, J 204 or J 205, J 206, J 207. Effective winter 2010

OTHER CURRICULAR MATTERS

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

State BoardÕs approved the Bachelors of Arts in Cinema Studies on September 17, 2009.Effective date of Winter 2010. (State Board has delegated of final approval of the new program to its Academic Strategies Committee).

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

In 1993, the M.ED and D.Ed degrees in Communication Disorders and Sciences were listed as inactivated in the UO catalog, and were no longer offered by the department. The seven-year sunset period has expired and no students are enrolled in either of those degree programs. Communication Disorders and Sciences offer the M.A., M.S., and Ph.D. only.

COLLEGE OF JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATION

Effective fall term 2009 these majors will be dropped: JEM Journalism: Electronic Media (J&C) B.A., B.S., JMAG Journalism: Magazine (J&C) B.A., B.S., and JNE Journalism: News-Editorial (J&C) B.A., B.S..

MULTICULTURAL REQUIREMENTS

Students who participate in University of Oregon sponsored study abroad programs can fulfill one Category C International Cultures-satisfying course through this participation in order to meet Multicultural Requirements.

The UO Foreign Study Programs Committee in collaboration with Study Abroad staff will identify which UO-sponsored programs will meet the International Culturesrequirement, based on the following criteria:

Students must be enrolled full-time and maintain satisfactory academic progress throughout their academic programs abroad.
Approved study abroad programs must be a minimum of five weeks in length. If the program is between five and nine weeks in duration, it must have substantial cultural immersion, and meet at least two of the following three criteria:
1. Include a home stay or immersion living experience
2. Offer a language-intensive and/or culturally-immersive curriculum
3. Provide an internship, service learning, or integrated work or volunteer program
Programs of ten weeks or longer will automatically satisfy the International Cultures requirement
A student who participates in a program that does not fit any of the criteria above has the option to petition the Academic Requirements Committee under their usual guidelines.

DENIED PROPOSALS

PENDING PROPOSALS

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND ALLIED ARTS

(Moved to the Winter term, request for new syllabus)

ARTF 456/556 Advanced Fibers (3-5R)

(Changed Course Description, Course Title)

ARTF 456/556 Adv Fibers: Craft & Textile Construction

(Moved to the Winter term request for additional information)

ART 333 Drawing II (4) Building on previous drawing skills, course emphasizes synthesis of ideas and approaches, complex subjects, investigation and expression. Sequence: ART 233 Prereq: ART 233

Course emphasizes development of individual studio practice through an exploration of contemporary issues in textile-based processes and an expansion of the rhetoric of craft.

Course will be taught Once or more per academic year

Pre/corequisite(s): ARTF 368; and 267 or 369

(Moved to Winter term, request for revised syllabus)

(Course previously taught as 510 in 2006WI)

LA 619 Contemporary Landscape Architecture Theory (3) Critical survey of important landscape design ideas and examples from the last thirty years by examination of articles, texts, dialogues, sites, built works and personalities Prereq: ArH 578 Offered alternate years.

HONORS COLLEGE

(Moved to Winter term, waiting for revised syllabus).

HC 377 Thesis Orientation (1) Sophomore/junior year preparation for thesis project. Prereq: HC 223 or HC 233

WITHDRAWN PROPOSALS

SUBMITTING COURSE PROPOSALS

The Committee on Courses offers the following reminders:

Proposals to the Committee on Courses must be submitted on electronic forms, available on the CAS website, http://uocurriculum.uoregon.edu/. Arrangements for access may be made by contacting the appropriate college curriculum coordinator for each individual professional school or college. Proposals submitted on old forms will be returned, without review, to academic departments, schools, or colleges. Proposals must be submitted to the Committee on Courses prior to the beginning of the term in which they are to be considered. Proposals received after the beginning of the term will be deferred to the following term. All departments should consult their college curriculum coordinator for deadline dates or go to http://uocurriculum.uoregon.edu/ and click the ÒImportant DatesÓ link.
The following minor course changes may be made without review by the full committee: minor edits of course description, pre- or co-requisites, grading option, and conditions of repeatability. Changes may be submitted in writing directly to the Office of the Registrar and to Design and Editing Services, in care of Mike Jefferis (jefferis@uoregon.edu) and Scott Skelton (sskelton@pages.uoregon.edu), respectively. The memorandum should indicate the effective term for the change(s). Note: extensive changes may be referred to the UOCC for review.
If there is any question that a proposed new or changed course might duplicate coverage in an existing course from another department or school, the proposing department must gain written confirmation that the other department has been consulted and does not object to the new or changed course.
Proposals for new courses must be accompanied by full syllabi.
For 4XX/5XX level courses, both proposal forms and syllabi must state explicitly the substantive and measurable differences in type and amount of work for the two levels.
The minimal requirements for general-education status of a course are regarded as necessary, but not always sufficient, for inclusion of a course as part of a comprehensive general-education program at the university.

Group satisfying courses are intended to provide students with a cohesive general-education program. Proposals for group-satisfying status of a course should explain how the course enhances general-education at the university, explicitly stating how the course would complement other group-satisfying courses, and which other courses would be especially suitable for students to take in accompaniment. Approved March 10, 2004.

According to University Senate legislation, courses submitted for group-satisfying status must be submitted to the Intercollege General-Education Review Committee.

Proposals for undergraduate group-satisfying and multicultural courses must include written justification, regardless of whether they are new or existing courses.

The minimal requirements for multicultural status of a course are regarded as sufficient for inclusion of a course as part of the multicultural course requirements.

Any course that might appear to satisfy the university multicultural requirements, either by title, description, or content, is carefully examined to see if it should be listed as a multicultural course. If a course might appear on its face eligible for multicultural status, the committee needs clear explanation of why the course does—or does not—satisfy multicultural course guidelines. Arbitrary exclusion of courses from the list of multicultural satisfying courses can engender student confusion or cynicism. Approved on March 10, 2004.

The UO Committee on Courses has established the policy that the phrase Òor instructorÕs consentÓ will not be stated along with any other course prerequisites. The prerequisites of any course may be overridden by instructorÕs consent, and need not be stated explicitly for individual courses. Academic departments are able to override any prerequisite requirements in Banner should a student qualify to enroll.

ÒInstructorÕs consentÓ is reserved for use alone as a sole prerequisite to allow departments to monitor suitability of enrollment in courses for individual students, preventing enrollment without prior approval. Academic departments should be aware they must code the courses correctly and assume enrollment management responsibilities, preauthorizing each student individually, with this option. Approved March 10, 2004.

CONTENTS OF COURSE SYLLABUS

As the primary, commonly available summary of a course, the syllabus serves several purposes. It outlines the course, it denotes what students may expect from the course, and it locates the course in the curriculum. The syllabus is the best, most concise description of a course by its teacher available to both prospective students and colleagues. The Committee on Courses uses syllabuses in its review of courses. To maximize the usefulness of a syllabus to students and faculty, it should contain the following contents:

1. Course Number

2. Title

3. Credits

4. Term, place, time, instructor

(For a new course proposal, indicate when it is likely to be offered, and how frequently)

(For a new course proposal, indicate who is likely to teach the course)

5. Position in the curriculum

¥ Satisfies group requirement? Explain why

¥ Satisfies multicultural requirement? Explain why

¥ Satisfies other general-education requirement?

¥ Satisfies other major or program requirement?

¥ Preparatory for other courses?

¥ List prerequisites or other suggested preparation

6. Format (lecture, discussion, and laboratory)

7. Outline of subject and topics explored

8. Course materials (texts, books, readings)

9. Instructor expectations of students

¥ Be explicit (by pages assigned, lengths of assignments)

¥ Level of student engagement expected (see suggested Student Engagement Inventory on following page)

¥ Readings

¥ Problems

¥ Attendance

¥ Project

¥ Writing

¥ Laboratory

¥ Field work

¥ Work with electronic media, network, online

¥ Performance

¥ Presentation

¥ Exams

¥ Differential expected for graduate work for joint 4xx/5xx-level courses

10. Assessment

¥ Methods (testing, homework)

¥ Times or frequency

¥ Grading policy

¥ Incomplete policy

[See Faculty Handbook for other recommendations regarding university policies.]

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT INVENTORY

To aid in assigning student credit hours uniformly to courses in the curriculum, the committee inventories the amount of student engagement in a course. The committee has found the following tool to be useful. Departments preparing course proposals are invited to use this form when deciding how many SCH units to request for a proposed course. Departments are encouraged to report to the committee how this tool may be improved for their use.

Please identify the number of hours a typical or average student would expect to spend in each of the following activities. The general guideline is that each undergraduate credit should reflect thirty hours of student engagement. Therefore, a 3-credit course would engage students for ninety hours total among the activities listed below, whereas a 4-credit course would list 120 hours of activities in which students are engaged over the course of the term. (Graduate students are expected to perform work of higher quality and quantity, typically with an additional 20–25 percent effort expected.)

Educational activity	Hours student engaged	Explanatory comments (if any):
Course attendance
Assigned readings
Project
Writing assignments
Lab or workshop
Field work, experience
Online interaction
Performances, creative activities
Total hours:

Definition of terms:

Course attendance	Actual time student spends in class with instructor or GTF
Assigned readings	Estimated time it takes for a student with average reading ability to read all assigned readings
Writing assignments	Estimated time it takes for a student with average writing ability to produce a final, acceptable written product as required by the assignment
Project	Estimated time a student would be expected to spend creating or contributing to a project that meets course requirements (includes individual and group projects)
Lab or workshop	Actual time scheduled for any lab or workshop activities that are required but are scheduled outside of class hours
Field work, experience	Actual or estimated time a student would spend or be expected to spend engaged in required field work or other field-based activities
Online activities	Actual or estimated time a student would spend or be expected to spend engaged in online activities directly related to the course, separate from online research required for projects or writing assignments
Performance, creative activities	Actual or estimated time a student would spend or be expected to spend outside of class hours engaged in preparing for required performance or creative activity

UNDERGRADUATE GENERAL-EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

GROUP-REQUIREMENT POLICIES

The following criteria were proposed by the Undergraduate Council and the College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee. The University Senate approved them in May 2001 by Motion US0001-3 Replacement Motion governing the approval of courses meeting general-education requirements and the distribution of courses student must complete within each group.

1. Group satisfying courses in Arts and Letters, Social Science, and Science must meet the following general criteria:

1.1. Group satisfying courses in arts and letters must create meaningful opportunities for students to engage actively in the modes of inquiry that define a discipline. Proposed courses must be broad in scope and demonstrably liberal in nature (that is, courses that promote open inquiry from a variety of perspectives). Though some courses may focus on specialized subjects or approaches, there must be a substantial course content locating that subject in the broader context of the major issues of the discipline. Qualifying courses will not focus on teaching basic skills but will require the application or engagement of those skills through analysis and interpretation.

1.2. Group satisfying courses in the social sciences must be liberal in nature rather than being professionally oriented or limited to the performance of professional skills. They must cover a representative cross-section of key issues, perspectives, and modes of analysis employed by scholars working on the subject matter addressed by the course. The subject matter of the course will be relatively broad, e.g. involving more than one issue, place, or time. Courses with an emphasis on methods and skills will satisfy the requirement only if there is also a substantial and coherent theoretical component.

1.3. Group satisfying courses in the sciences should introduce students to the foundations of one or more scientific disciplines, or should provide an introduction to fundamental methods (such as mathematics) that are widely used in scientific disciplines. Courses should introduce students to the process of scientific reasoning.

2. Specific Criteria:

2.1. Group satisfying courses must be numbered at the 100, 200, and 300 levels.

2.2. Lower division courses must be offered annually, and upper division courses at least every other year.

2.3. Approved courses must be at least 4 credits each.

2.4. Upper division group satisfying courses must provide depth and rigor beyond that of typical lower-division general-education courses. Departments must justify, in terms of content, workload, and method of instruction, the assignment of a course to the upper level.

2.5. Courses that are offered for majors only are excluded from group status, but courses that are designed for both majors and other students may qualify.

2.6. Although laboratory courses are not automatically excluded from group status in the sciences, to acquire this status, the courses must not focus primarily on techniques or data collection.

3. Procedures governing the approval of all courses designed to meet General-education requirements.:

3.1. Before submission to the Senate, such courses proposed by departments must be reviewed at several levels:

3.1.1. By the curricular committees of the various colleges and schools

3.1.2. By an inter-college committee including the members of the CAS Curricular Committee and two representatives appointed by the deans of the others schools and colleges. This second committee is also charged to review such courses as do not meet the standards set in paragraph (2.) and to negotiate a solution with the sponsoring department.

3.1.3. By the University Committee on Courses.

3.2. The inter college committee is authorized to establish procedures governing the review process.

4. Completion of group requirements (student progress):

4.1. Within the full set of courses that fulfills all of the requirements, students may not count

4.1.1. more than one course that has the subject code of the major, or

4.1.2. more than three courses that have the same subject code.

4.2. Within the smaller set of courses that fulfills the requirements of each group, students must complete at least two courses that have the same subject code.

SUSTAINABLE COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

The 2000–2001 academic years was the first year that the Committee on Courses systematically deleted from the university catalog courses that have not been taught for three years or more.

In several cases, departments had not offered a specialized course under a course number and title specified in the catalog. Yet similar courses had been taught regularly in the department in various formats, under experimental numbers (410, 510, 610), or under the general designations for special topics seminars, workshops, or practicums (the 406/407/408/409, 506/507/508/509, 606/607/608/609 series). With time, departments had discovered that a course description in the catalog was too specialized to apply to any of their courses as actually being taught.

Unfortunately, removal of an overly specialized course, although untaught, still might have consequences for departments. Often that course had been the sole representative in the catalog of subjects that are taught by a department and are part of the regular curriculum. Dropping that course could make it appear that a department offered no courses in that courseÕs subject area.

The committee has noted another, companion problem. Over the years, the committee has observed that new courses tailored to the particular research interests and instructional style of an individual faculty member are likely to fall into disuse within a few years as the personÕs teaching assignments and interests change, or if the instructor becomes unavailable for teaching that particular course.

The Committee on Courses recommends that departments and programs develop more sustainable course descriptions. A sustainable course description would identify a subject area and general approach, but would not be so restrictive as to exclude different perspectives or specializations also representative of that subject area.

The committee also recommends that departments and programs be selective when proposing permanent course status for specialized courses that can only be taught by one particular instructor.

For example, a department with several experts qualified to teach ceramics, but having only one instructor who specializes in Ming porcelain per se, might currently have a specialized course titled Ming Dynasty Porcelains in the catalog. A more sustainable course title could be Chinese Porcelains or even Porcelains, depending upon the range of expertise available to teach the course. Another approach would use the topics course Ceramics, possibly repeatable as the exact subject material—and transcript title—changes.

Departments following these recommendations could then represent the full range of their curricular offerings and could maintain a sustainable list of courses in the catalog.

MULTICULTURAL-CATEGORY DEFINITIONS

Category A: American Cultures. The goal is to focus on race and ethnicity in the United States by considering racial and ethnic groups from historical and comparative perspectives. Five racial or ethnic groups are identified: African American, Chicano or Latino, Native American, Asian American, European American. Approved courses deal with at least two of these groups in a comparative manner. They do not necessarily deal specifically with discrimination or prejudice, although many do.

Category B: Identity, Pluralism, and Tolerance. The goal is to gain scholarly insight into the construction of collective identities, the emergence of representative voices from varying social and cultural standpoints, and the effects of prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination. The identities at issue may include ethnicities as in the American Cultures category, as well as classes, genders, religions, sexual orientations, or other groups whose experiences contribute to cultural pluralism. This category includes courses that analyze the general principles underlying tolerance, or the lack of it.

Category C: International Cultures. The goal is to study world cultures in critical perspective. Approved courses either treat an international culture in view of the issues raised in Categories A and B (namely, race and ethnicity, pluralism and monoculturalism, prejudice and tolerance) or explicitly describe and analyze a worldview (i.e., a system of knowledge, feeling, and belief) that is substantially different from those prevalent in the twentieth-century United States.

CRITERIA FOR ADDING AN ÒHÓ SUFFIX TO A COURSE NUMBER

The Committee on Courses has discussed the criteria for adding an ÒHÓ suffix to a course number and recommends the following:

The ÒHÓ suffix is intended to advise students that a course provides honors content of significant difficulty and requires honors effort from students. The Committee on Courses will be looking for evidence of the following in determining whether a course should hold an ÒHÓ suffix designation:

1. Students enrolling should have a cumulative GPA of at least 3.30 in their major.

The content of the class, and the level of analysis, should be significantly deeper than for nonhonors classes.

Class size should be small enough to promote intensive student participation.

The faculty member(s) teaching the course should be available for close advising outside of class.

SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISING DEFINITIONS OF

UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS, MINORS, CERTIFICATES

MAJOR

Definition

Courses in designated primary subject areas or disciplines in which a student commits to gaining in-depth knowledge, skills, competence, and attitudes through a coherent pattern of courses. A footnote accompanies the major definition: Divisional major programs emphasize a general and integrated approach to learning, with the studentÕs major program broadly inclusive of work in several of the discipline or subject areas within the specific division within which the studentÕs degree program lies (i.e., humanities, social science, science). For instance, a divisional major program in the social sciences would call for the student to include within his or her major work from several of the disciplines or subject areas in the social sciences (such as sociology, political science, or economics). Because of the breadth of disciplines or subjects included in the major, the student has less opportunity to delve in depth into a single subject area such as sociology, political science, or economics, than they would be able to do were they in a Òdepartmental majorÓ program in a single one of these disciplines or subject areas.

Minimal Requirements

36 credits, of which a minimum of 24 must be upper division. Departments should consider setting minimum residency requirements.

MINOR

Definition

Courses in a designated secondary subject area or discipline distinct from and usually outside the studentÕs degree major in which knowledge is gained in a coherent pattern of courses.

Minimal Requirements

24 credits, of which a minimum of 12 must be upper division. Should be within a discipline that already has a preexisting major or is sponsored by a department.

CERTIFICATE

Definition

An approved academic award given in conjunction with the satisfactory completion of a program of instruction requiring one year or more, but less than four years, of full-time equivalent, postsecondary-level work. The conditions and conferral of the award are governed by the faculty and ratified by the governing board of the institution granting the certificate.

Minimal Requirements

36 credits—24 upper division with 12 minimum at 400 level. The sponsoring department must provide guidance—a template or check list and the name of an adviser, with notice that the student must consult an adviser to apply for the certificate at least two terms prior to graduation.

Web page spun on 19 November 2009 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises

University Senate

Report from the Vice President for Finance and Administration

November 11, 2009

To: President Peter Gilkey and Members of the University Senate

I have been asked to report on the following:

Concerning Implementation of the Senate Resolution Concerning a Smoke Free Campus US08/09-6
Concerning Implementation of Transparency of University Financial Transactions US08/09-8

Smoke Free Campus

In April 2009 the University Senate passed the following motion:

ÒThe UO Senate endorses the report of the smoke free task force and recommends that the University of Oregon move toward becoming a smoke free campus.

First a little background. Beginning in July 2006 all buildings on campus became smoke free. There are no tobacco sales on campus or at the Duck Shop. Current University policies meet the January 1, 2009 revisions to OregonÕs Smoke-free Workplace Law. This law prohibits smoking within 10 feet of entrances or exits to buildings, windows that open and ventilation intakes of workplaces or public places. Additionally, both University Housing and the Lillis Business Complex do not allow smoking within 25 feet of building entrances.

Two primary issues came to my attention during my review of the task force report and the discussion at the Senate.

The first relates to individual rights. In looking into why the Environmental Issues Committee did not endorse the report, it appears that one concern expressed at that committee meeting was acknowledgment that creating a smoke-free campus infringed on the personal right to choose. This concern was also raised during the Senate discussion.
The second related to whether implementing a smoke free policy during a time of high personal stress among our employees and students due to economic circumstances is an appropriate action.

I find these concerns compelling and ones that require further discussion.

There were also other issues identified that relate to implementation.

The definition of smoke free has not been agreed.
The impact on neighbors if all smoking activity moves away from campus to outside the campus perimeter
The definition of campus boundaries both within Eugene and in other locations as they apply to any implementation of additional constraints on smoking activities. The university controls property in Coos Bay, in Bend, in Portland and in Washington State. The university sponsors programs in both domestic and international locations. This potentially has a significant impact on outside speakers and performers coming to campus and on ticket holders for athletic and other events on campus.
Enforceability. Both the practicality of enforcing policy related to smoking activities and the mechanism for enforcing policy.
Appropriate communications particularly with regard to future students and future employees and visitors to campus.
Sufficiency of education programs.

These are important issues and deserve attention. An additional challenge in this environment is balancing priorities for limited staff resources. In my judgment looking at the sufficiency of university supported educational programs is an appropriate place to start and potentially provides the greatest impact on our ability to encourage smoke free environments. Accordingly I will be exploring this issue with both the Office of Human Resources and the Student Health Center. At this time we do not have sufficient administrative capacity to investigate the other issues.

Transparency of University Financial Transactions (this report is made jointly by Don Harris and Frances Dyke)

The UO Senate passed the following motion:

The University Senate respectfully requests the University of Oregon Administration to establish a publicly accessible, on-line budget reporting system at the University of Oregon by 15 November 2009 that will allow users to track current and retroactive individual university expenditures as is currently done at our sister institution Oregon State University on their budget reporting website (https://bfpsystems.oregonstate.edu/webreporting/).

Frances Dyke comments:

The CIO, Don Harris is here to answer any of the more technical questions you may with regard to the financial reporting tool that will be available on November 16 (the first workday after November 15). As discussed at the May University Senate meeting work began on developing this tool after a major enterprise software upgrade project was completed in September.

The tool you will be able to access starting next Monday is the initial roll out of a financial reporting tool for compliance with the university Senate motion on financial transparency. In the course of discussions related to development the work group has identified impediments to our ability to provide transactional level detail in a publicly available financial reporting tool. There are issues of both security and legally binding confidentiality that must be balanced against the desire for full transparency. As mentioned at the October Senate meeting I am now asking the Senate President to appoint an advisory group to help analyze these problems and find solutions that can be legally and operationally implemented. In making this request I also recommend that the Senate President consider creating this advisory group by drawing on membership of the Senate Budget Committee and other members of the Senate or university community who have a particular interest or expertise in financial management reporting.

As a side note the state will be implementing a web site to comply with HB 2500 on financial transparency at the state level. This website will be active in January 2010 and will contain salary information on all state employees including all employees in the Oregon University System. It will also include information summarizing payments from agencies to vendors. A copy of the House bill is attached.

Don Harris comments:

The application developed uses the WEB development portal tool kit and will be accessible via DuckWeb. This was done so that we could deploy a resource that could be supported by IS Enterprise Administrative Applications and several programmer/analysts who are trained in the use of this toolset. The application will be easy to use and incorporate pull down menus, drilldown capability within specified limits, the ability to compare several years of data, and the ability to download data into an Excel spreadsheet. We have developed this application to be responsive to the senate motion while seeking to balance the needs for transparency and the security and confidentiality issues that have become apparent. As the VPFA and I work with the advisory group appointed by the Senate president appropriate modifications will be made.

DENIED PROPOSALS

FALL 2009 CURRICULUM REPORT

OVERVIEW

The UOCC will consider new proposals during winter term and will submit a winter quarterly report to the University Senate in March 2010.

LOOKING AHEAD

Academic Year 2009–2010

December 2, 2009: University Senate considers Fall 2009 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

December 16, 2009: Curricular proposals for consideration in the winter 2009 round must be submitted to the provostÕs office.

March 10, 2010: University Senate considers Winter 2010 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

March 17, 2010: Curricular proposals for consideration in the Spring 2010 round must be submitted to the provostÕs office.

May 12, 2010: University Senate considers Spring 2010 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

Members, University of Oregon Committee on Courses

Voting: Paul Engelking, Chair Ex officio: Sue Eveland

Jack Boss John Crosiar

Paul Peppis Marian Friestad

Frances White Scott Skelton

Shlomo Libeskind Andrew Wahlstrom

Jens Noeckel (absent for fall round)

Student: Alex McCafferty Staff: Tami Oar

Elizabeth Aldrich Mike Jefferis

Motion

The University of Oregon Committee on Courses moves that the following course proposals and other curricular matters be approved.

College of Arts and Sciences

BIOLOGY

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as 410/510 in fall 2008)

BI 490/590 Theoretical Ecology (4) Provides a novel and fun way of learning how to use simple mathematical methods to understand complex ecological systems. Prereq: BI 212, 213, 214; or BI 251, 252, 253.

EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE

NEW COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

EALL 510 Experimental Course: [Topic] (1-5R) Effective winter 2010

ECONOMICS

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as 410/510 in winter 2010)

EC 422/522 Economic Forecasting (4) Basic techniques of economic forecasting that are typically used in a business environment. Prereq: EC 420 Coreq: EC 421

ENGLISH

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 360: African American Writers (4) Examines the origins and development of African American writing in relevant cultural, social, and historical contexts.

(Change Course Description)

ENG 360: African American Writers (4) Examines the origins and development of African American literature and culture in relevant intellectual, social, and historical contexts. Effective fall 2009.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 361: Native American Writers (4) Examines the origins and development of Native American writing in relevant cultural, social, and historical contexts.

(Change Course Description)

ENG 361: Native American Writers (4) Examines the origins and development of Native American literature and culture in relevant intellectual, social, and historical contexts. Effective fall 2009.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 362: Asian American Writers (4) Examines the origins and development of Asian American writing in relevant cultural, social and historical contexts.

(Change Course Description)

ENG 362: Asian American Writers (4) Examines the origins and development of Asian American literature and culture in relevant intellectual, social, and historical contexts. Effective fall 2009.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ENG 363: Chicano and Latino Writers (4) Examines the origins and development of Chicano and Latino writing in relevant cultural, social, and historical contexts.

(Change Course Description)

ENG 363: Chicano and Latino Writers (4) Examines the origins and development of Chicano and Latino literature and culture in relevant intellectual, social, and historical contexts. Effective fall 2009.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

(Add Course Prerequisite)

ENG 222: Introduction to the English Major (4) Prereq: ENG 220 or 221. Effective 2010.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as ENVS 399 in (winter 2009)

Requesting that this course satisfy Social Science group requirement.

GEOGRAPHY

REINSTATED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

GEOG 204: Geography of Russia and Neighbors (4) Natural regions, major population groups, and the economic development of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Satisfies the social science group requirement and international cultures multicultural requirement. Effective spring 2010.

GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES

NEW COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

GEOL 399: Special Studies [Topic] (1-5R)

HISTORY

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

HIST 409 Supervised Tutoring (1-2R)

(Change Credits)

HIST 409 Supervised Tutoring (1-4R) Effective Fall 2009

LINGUISTICS

NEW COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AEIS 610 Experimental Course: [Topic] (1-5R) Effective fall 2009

POLITICAL SCIENCE

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PS 470 Constitutional Law

(Drop the prerequisite PS 275)

NEW COURSE

PS 378 Games in Politics (4) Politics viewed as strategic interactions among politicians, voters, and countries; focuses on how to model these interactions using tools of game theory.

PSYCHOLOGY

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

PSY 302 Statistical Methods in Psychology (4) Prereq: MATH 111, PSY 201, 202, WR 121, 122.

(changed pre-requisite)

PSY 302 Statistical Methods in Psychology (4) Prereq: MATH 111 or 243; WR 121. Sophomore standing required. Effective winter 2010.

PSY 303 Research Methods in Psychology (4) Prereq: PSY 302, WR 121, 122.

(changed pre-requisite)

PSY 303 Research Methods in Psychology (4) Prereq: PSY 201 or 202; PSY 302; WR 122 or 123. Effective winter 2010.

PSY 412 through 480 Prereq: WR 121 and 122 or 123; PSY 303.

(changed pre-requisite)

PSY 412 through 480Prereq: PSY 201, PSY 202, PSY 302; WR 122 or 123. Effective winter 2010.

ROMANCE LANGUAGES

REINSTATED COURSE

ITAL 461/561: Vico and Settecento (4) Prereq: ITAL 317, 318, and 319. Effective spring 2010.

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

(Add Course Prerequisite)

FR 399: Special Studies (1-5R) Prereq: FR 301, 303

SOCIOLOGY

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

SOC 425/525 Issues in Family Sociology (4)

(Changed Course Title, Repeatability)

SOC 425/525 Issues in Sociology of Family: [Topic]

Repeatable

Repeatable 2 times.

Repeatable for a maximum of 12 credits.

Repeatable under the following conditions: when topic changes

PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

School of Architecture and Allied Arts

ART

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

ART 115 Basic Design: Fundamentals (4) Intermedia laboratory for fundamentals of communication design.

Development of visual vocabularies.

(Changed Course Description, Course Title, Grading Options)

ART 115 Surface, Space, and Time (4) Graded only.

ART 116 Basic Design: 3D (4) Visual communication and critique. Development of visual vocabularies through investigation of space and structure.

(Changed Course Description, Course Title)

ART 116 Core Interdisciplinary Laboratory (4)

Rigorous studio projects in the core studio sequence stressing interdisciplinary media transitions and the interrelatedness of conceptual and formal concerns.

Pre- or coreq: ART 115.

ART 233 Drawing (4R)

(Changed Course Description, Course Title) Beginning course in observation, selection, and recording of significant elements in various drawing media.

ART 233 Drawing I (4R)

Introduction to basic drawing concepts and practices.

NEW COURSES

ARTD 256 Introduction to Production (4) Graded only. Traditional camera, sound, and lighting techniques in production; nonlinear editing; and key theoretical, historical, and aesthetic approaches to video art.

ARTF 268 Introduction to Fibers: Structures (4) Skills and conceptual concerns in structural textile construction. Introduces historical and contemporary work through slides and lectures. Prereq: ART 115, 116, 233

ARTF 269 Introduction to Fibers: Surfaces (4) Skills and conceptual concerns in the embellished or manipulated surfaces of textile forms. Introduces historical and contemporary work through slides and lectures. Prereq: ART 115, 116, 233

ARTF 369 Woven Structures (4R) Introduction to floor-loom hand weaving. Traditional and experimental use of materials, techniques, and structures are used to understand weaving as a cross-disciplinary practice. Prereq: ARTF 253 or 268 or 269. R until mastery of subject is achieved.

(Course previously taught as 410 in winter 2009)

ARTP 481 Advanced Painting Practice (4R) Pursuit of individual creative practice and forming the critical intelligence necessary to develop as an artist. Sequence: ARTP 281, 381, 390. Prereq: two terms ARTP 390. R until mastery of subject is achieved.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as LA 4/508 in spring 2008)

LA 446/546 Landscape Urbanism (4) Landscape theory and practice as the foundation of urban design, synthesizing architecture, infrastructure, microclimate, and ecology across multiple scales and time frames.

(Course previously taught as 610 in fall 2007)

PLANNING, PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

OLD COURSES DROPPED

PPPM 683 Professional Practice in Nonprofit Organizations (1)

Topic area covered in other nonprofit courses. Substituting the philanthropy seminar for this required course.

NEW COURSES

PPPM 623 Professional Development in Public Administration (1) P/NP Articulating preliminary career goals and mapping the necessary steps to accomplish these goals.

ARCHITECTURE AND ALLIED ARTS

OLD COURSE DROPPED

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 409 Supervised Tutoring (1-12R)Effective winter 2010.

NEW COURSES

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 404 Internship [Topic] (1-12R) Effective winter 2010.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 409 Practicum [Topic] (1-5R) Effective winter 2010.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 604 Internship [Topic} (1-12R) Effective winter 2010.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

AAA 609 Practicum [Topic] (1-12R) Effective winter 2010.

PRODUCT DESIGN

NEW COURSES

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PD 198 Workshop: [Topic] (1-12R) Effective fall 2009.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PD 199 Special Studies: [Topic] (1-5R) Effective fall 2009.

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PD 399 Special Studies [Topic] (1-5R) Effective fall 2009.

Charles H. Lundquist College of Business

FINANCE

NEW COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

FIN 609 Practicum [Topic]: (1-9R)Effective fall 2009.

MANAGEMENT

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

MGMT 609 Practicum [Topic] (1-16R) Pass/No Pass

(change grading option)

MGMT 609 Practicum [Topic] (1-16R) Optional Grading. Effective fall 2009.

SPORTS BUSINESS

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

SBUS 609 Practicum: [Topic] (1-4R)

(variable credit change)

SBUS 609 Practicum: [Topic] (1-9R) Effective winter 2010.

College of Education

COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY AND HUMAN SERVICES

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

FHS 491 Junior Professional Practices and Issues I (3) Effective fall 2009.

(Changed Grading Options)

UO grading option: Graded Only

Majors grading option: Graded Only

FHS 492 Junior Professional Practices and Issues II (3) Effective fall 2009.

(Changed Grading Options)

UO grading option: Graded Only

Majors grading option: Graded Only

FHS 493 Junior Professional Practices and Issues III (3) Effective fall 2009.

(Changed Grading Options)

UO grading option: Graded Only

Majors grading option: Graded Only

SPECIAL EDUCATION AND CLINICAL SCIENCES

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

SPED 488/588 Professional Practices (3)

(Changed Course Title)

SPED 488/588 Professional Practices: [Topic]

COMMUNICATION DISORDERS and SCIENCES

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

CDS 609 Practicum: Speech-Language-Hearing

(Change from optional grading to pass/no pass only)

Law

UOCC REINSTATED COURSES

Law 670 Public Land Law (3R) Effective fall semester 2009

Law 658 Local Government Law (3) Effective fall semester 2009

Physical Education and Recreation

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

PEL 409 Practicum: [Topic] (1-3R)

(Change credits)

PEL 409 Practicum: [Topic] (1-4R)

Effective summer 2009

Journalism and Communication

EXISTING COURSE CHANGE

(change prerequisite)
J 464/564 Newspaper Design (4) Prereq: J 361

J 464/564 Newspaper Design (4) Prereq: J 202, J 203, J 204; or J 205, J 206, J 207. Effective winter 2010.

OTHER CURRICULAR MATTERS

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

In 1993, the M.Ed. and D.Ed. degrees in Communication Disorders and Sciences were listed as inactivated in the UO catalog, and were no longer offered by the department. The seven-year sunset period has expired and no students are enrolled in either of those degree programs. Communication Disorders and Sciences offer the M.A., M.S., and Ph.D. only.

COLLEGE OF JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATION

Effective fall term 2009 these majors will be dropped: Journalism: Electronic Media (J&C) B.A., B.S., Journalism: Magazine (J&C) B.A., B.S., and Journalism: News-Editorial (J&C) B.A., B.S.

DENIED PROPOSALS

PENDING PROPOSALS

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND ALLIED ARTS

(Moved to the Winter term, request for new syllabus)

ARTF 456/556 Advanced Fibers (3-5R)

(Changed Course Description, Course Title)

ARTF 456/556 Adv Fibers: Craft and Textile Construction

(Moved to the Winter term request for additional information)

ART 333 Drawing II (4) Building on previous drawing skills, course emphasizes synthesis of ideas and approaches, complex subjects, investigation and expression. Sequence: ART 233 Prereq: ART 233

Course emphasizes development of individual studio practice through an exploration of contemporary issues in textile-based processes and an expansion of the rhetoric of craft.

Course will be taught Once or more per academic year

Pre/corequisite(s): ARTF 368; and 267 or 369

(Moved to Winter term, request for revised syllabus)

(Course previously taught as 510 in 2006WI)

HONORS COLLEGE

(Moved to Winter term, waiting for revised syllabus).

HC 377 Thesis Orientation (1) Sophomore/junior year preparation for thesis project. Prereq: HC 223 or HC 233

WITHDRAWN PROPOSALS

SUBMITTING COURSE PROPOSALS

The Committee on Courses offers the following reminders:

Proposals to the Committee on Courses must be submitted on electronic forms, available on the CAS website, http://uocurriculum.uoregon.edu/. Arrangements for access may be made by contacting the appropriate college curriculum coordinator for each individual professional school or college. Proposals submitted on old forms will be returned, without review, to academic departments, schools, or colleges. Proposals must be submitted to the Committee on Courses prior to the beginning of the term in which they are to be considered. Proposals received after the beginning of the term will be deferred to the following term. All departments should consult their college curriculum coordinator for deadline dates or go to http://uocurriculum.uoregon.edu/ and click the ÒImportant DatesÓ link.
The following minor course changes may be made without review by the full committee: minor edits of course description, pre- or co-requisites, grading option, and conditions of repeatability. Changes may be submitted in writing directly to the Office of the Registrar and to Design and Editing Services, in care of Mike Jefferis (jefferis@uoregon.edu) and Scott Skelton (sskelton@pages.uoregon.edu), respectively. The memorandum should indicate the effective term for the change(s). Note: extensive changes may be referred to the UOCC for review.
If there is any question that a proposed new or changed course might duplicate coverage in an existing course from another department or school, the proposing department must gain written confirmation that the other department has been consulted and does not object to the new or changed course.
Proposals for new courses must be accompanied by full syllabi.
For 4XX/5XX level courses, both proposal forms and syllabi must state explicitly the substantive and measurable differences in type and amount of work for the two levels.
The minimal requirements for general-education status of a course are regarded as necessary, but not always sufficient, for inclusion of a course as part of a comprehensive general-education program at the university.

According to University Senate legislation, courses submitted for group-satisfying status must be submitted to the Intercollege General-Education Review Committee.

Proposals for undergraduate group-satisfying and multicultural courses must include written justification, regardless of whether they are new or existing courses.

The minimal requirements for multicultural status of a course are regarded as sufficient for inclusion of a course as part of the multicultural course requirements.

The UO Committee on Courses has established the policy that the phrase Òor instructorÕs consentÓ will not be stated along with any other course prerequisites. The prerequisites of any course may be overridden by instructorÕs consent, and need not be stated explicitly for individual courses. Academic departments are able to override any prerequisite requirements in Banner should a student qualify to enroll.

CONTENTS OF COURSE SYLLABUS

1. Course Number

2. Title

3. Credits

4. Term, place, time, instructor

(For a new course proposal, indicate when it is likely to be offered, and how frequently)

(For a new course proposal, indicate who is likely to teach the course)

5. Position in the curriculum

¥ Satisfies group requirement? Explain why

¥ Satisfies multicultural requirement? Explain why

¥ Satisfies other general-education requirement?

¥ Satisfies other major or program requirement?

¥ Preparatory for other courses?

¥ List prerequisites or other suggested preparation

6. Format (lecture, discussion, and laboratory)

7. Outline of subject and topics explored

8. Course materials (texts, books, readings)

9. Instructor expectations of students

¥ Be explicit (by pages assigned, lengths of assignments)

¥ Level of student engagement expected (see suggested Student Engagement Inventory on following page)

¥ Readings

¥ Problems

¥ Attendance

¥ Project

¥ Writing

¥ Laboratory

¥ Field work

¥ Work with electronic media, network, online

¥ Performance

¥ Presentation

¥ Exams

¥ Differential expected for graduate work for joint 4xx/5xx-level courses

10. Assessment

¥ Methods (testing, homework)

¥ Times or frequency

¥ Grading policy

¥ Incomplete policy

[See Faculty Handbook for other recommendations regarding university policies.]

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT INVENTORY

Educational activity	Hours student engaged	Explanatory comments (if any):
Course attendance
Assigned readings
Project
Writing assignments
Lab or workshop
Field work, experience
Online interaction
Performances, creative activities
Total hours:

Definition of terms:

Course attendance	Actual time student spends in class with instructor or GTF
Assigned readings	Estimated time it takes for a student with average reading ability to read all assigned readings
Writing assignments	Estimated time it takes for a student with average writing ability to produce a final, acceptable written product as required by the assignment
Project	Estimated time a student would be expected to spend creating or contributing to a project that meets course requirements (includes individual and group projects)
Lab or workshop	Actual time scheduled for any lab or workshop activities that are required but are scheduled outside of class hours
Field work, experience	Actual or estimated time a student would spend or be expected to spend engaged in required field work or other field-based activities
Online activities	Actual or estimated time a student would spend or be expected to spend engaged in online activities directly related to the course, separate from online research required for projects or writing assignments
Performance, creative activities	Actual or estimated time a student would spend or be expected to spend outside of class hours engaged in preparing for required performance or creative activity

UNDERGRADUATE GENERAL-EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

GROUP-REQUIREMENT POLICIES

1. Group satisfying courses in Arts and Letters, Social Science, and Science must meet the following general criteria:

2. Specific Criteria:

2.1. Group satisfying courses must be numbered at the 100, 200, and 300 levels.

2.2. Lower division courses must be offered annually, and upper division courses at least every other year.

2.3. Approved courses must be at least 4 credits each.

2.5. Courses that are offered for majors only are excluded from group status, but courses that are designed for both majors and other students may qualify.

2.6. Although laboratory courses are not automatically excluded from group status in the sciences, to acquire this status, the courses must not focus primarily on techniques or data collection.

3. Procedures governing the approval of all courses designed to meet General-education requirements.:

3.1. Before submission to the Senate, such courses proposed by departments must be reviewed at several levels:

3.1.1. By the curricular committees of the various colleges and schools

3.1.3. By the University Committee on Courses.

3.2. The inter college committee is authorized to establish procedures governing the review process.

4. Completion of group requirements (student progress):

4.1. Within the full set of courses that fulfills all of the requirements, students may not count

4.1.1. more than one course that has the subject code of the major, or

4.1.2. more than three courses that have the same subject code.

4.2. Within the smaller set of courses that fulfills the requirements of each group, students must complete at least two courses that have the same subject code.

SUSTAINABLE COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

The 2000–2001 academic years was the first year that the Committee on Courses systematically deleted from the university catalog courses that have not been taught for three years or more.

The committee also recommends that departments and programs be selective when proposing permanent course status for specialized courses that can only be taught by one particular instructor.

Departments following these recommendations could then represent the full range of their curricular offerings and could maintain a sustainable list of courses in the catalog.

MULTICULTURAL-CATEGORY DEFINITIONS

CRITERIA FOR ADDING AN ÒHÓ SUFFIX TO A COURSE NUMBER

The Committee on Courses has discussed the criteria for adding an ÒHÓ suffix to a course number and recommends the following:

1. Students enrolling should have a cumulative GPA of at least 3.30 in their major.

The content of the class, and the level of analysis, should be significantly deeper than for nonhonors classes.

Class size should be small enough to promote intensive student participation.

The faculty member(s) teaching the course should be available for close advising outside of class.

SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISING DEFINITIONS OF

UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS, MINORS, CERTIFICATES

MAJOR

Definition

Minimal Requirements

36 credits, of which a minimum of 24 must be upper division. Departments should consider setting minimum residency requirements.

MINOR

Definition

Courses in a designated secondary subject area or discipline distinct from and usually outside the studentÕs degree major in which knowledge is gained in a coherent pattern of courses.

Minimal Requirements

24 credits, of which a minimum of 12 must be upper division. Should be within a discipline that already has a preexisting major or is sponsored by a department.

CERTIFICATE

Definition

Minimal Requirements

Web page spun on 5 January 2010 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises

US09/10-10 Senate Working Group to implement US08/9-8

Report by the UO Senate President to the UO Senate 13 January 2010

US09/10-10 Senate Working Group to implement US08/9-8

The UO Senate passed a motion (US08/9-8) stating The University Senate respectfully requests the University of Oregon Administration to establish a publicly accessible, on-line budget reporting system at the University of Oregon by 15 November 2009 that will allow users to track current and retroactive individual university expenditures as is currently done at our sister institution Oregon State University on their budget reporting website ( https://bfpsystems.oregonstate.edu/webreporting/). ".

At the 11 November 2008 UO Senate meeting, Frances Dyke reported "The tool you will be able to access starting next Monday is the initial roll out of a financial reporting tool for compliance with the university Senate motion on financial transparency. In the course of discussions related to development the work group has identified impediments to our ability to provide transactional level detail in a publicly available financial reporting tool. There are issues of both security and legally binding confidentiality that must be balanced against the desire for full transparency. As mentioned at the October Senate meeting I am now asking the Senate President to appoint an advisory group to help analyze these problems and find solutions that can be legally and operationally implemented. In making this request I also recommend that the Senate President consider creating this advisory group by drawing on membership of the Senate Budget Committee and other members of the Senate or university community who have a particular interest or expertise in financial management reporting."

The Senate President is directed to consult widely and to appoint the advisory group recommended above.

The following people will comprise this committee

Bill Harbaugh (Economics)

Carla McNelly (Office of Multicultural Academic Success)

Roberta Mann (Law School)

Nathan Tublitz (Biology-chair)

Kelly Wolf (Business Affairs Office)

Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey

UO Senate President 2009/10

The following people will comprise this committee

Report by the UO Senate President to the UO Senate 13 January 2010

US09/10-9 Joint administration/senate committee on State Accountability Metrics

The UO Senate directs the UO Senate President to appoint members of the University Community to a joint administration/faculty committee concerning State Accountability Metrics that may be part of a new governance structure/relationship to the State Of Oregon. The UO Senate President shall consult widely.

University of Oregon leaders are currently engaged in conversations with the chancellor, OUS presidents, and elected leaders regarding fundamental changes in how OUS institutions are funded and governed by the state. This conversation will continue to occur over the next few months and will include a dialogue with our campus community and state policy leaders. The internal conversation will focus on how the UO can continue to fulfill its critical public mission and remain accountable to the state under a more autonomous structure. The campus conversation will help reinforce the idea that under any model, the University of Oregon remains focused on meeting the needs of Oregonians.

The following people will comprise this committee

James Bean (Provost – COCHAIR)
Krista D Borg (Business Affairs Office)
Larry Dann (Finance)
Kassia Dellabough (Education)
Peter Gilkey (Mathematics – COCHAIR)
Mary Ann Hyatt (Law)
Robert Kyr (Music)
Katy Lenn (Library)
Leah W Middlebrook (Comparative Literature)
Debra Merskin (Journalism)
Alec Murphy (Geography)
Nathan Tublitz (Biology)

Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey

UO Senate President 2009/10

Motion IFS-2010-1 (Draft)

The following is a draft of a motion passed by the InterInstitutional Faculty Senate Saturday 9 January 2010. A bit of final wordsmithing will be done before it is in final form.

MOTION IFS-2010-1

Whereas the Oregon High School Graduating Class of 2010 will be the largest in Oregon History.

Whereas the requests for the Oregon Opportunity Grant have outstripped current funds allocated for 2009/2010 and requests for 2010/2011 are already far ahead of requests at this time last year.

Whereas enrollment in Oregon higher education institutions has increased greatly and is expected to increase further by 2025, state funding has not increased proportionally and in fact has decreased.

Whereas we will be unable to achieve the 40-40-20 goal by 2025. It is clear that the state of Oregon is unable under current funding and structural constraints to meet the higher education needs of Oregon citizens today nor plan effectively to meet the needs of future Oregon students.

Any efforts to resolve these issues must be consistent with the following core principles.

a) Any restructuring of Public Higher Education must improve the education of all Oregon Students.
b) Any restructuring of Public Higher Education must be based on a careful examination of other reorganization attempts such as what happened to the academic programs at OHSU.
c) Any restructuring plans of Public Higher Education must strengthen the values that these individual Public Institutions bring to Oregon.
d) The faculty in general and the IFS in particular must be involved every step of the way.
e) Public Higher Education Institutions in Oregon should function collaboratively as a unified system for the benefit of Oregon.

Web page spun on 9 January 2010 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises

Reports

Senate Executive Review Committee Report (draft) on Faculty Input into Hiring and Review of Executive Administrators

Report from UO Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace

IAC Report on the 'Random Drug Testing OAR's'

Draft report from the Conflict of Commitment Working Group

DENIED PROPOSALS

DENIED PROPOSALS

University Senate

DENIED PROPOSALS

DENIED PROPOSALS

US09/10-10 Senate Working Group to implement US08/9-8

US09/10-10 Senate Working Group to implement US08/9-8

The following people will comprise this committee

Bill Harbaugh (Economics)

Carla McNelly (Office of Multicultural Academic Success)

Roberta Mann (Law School)

Nathan Tublitz (Biology-chair)

Kelly Wolf (Business Affairs Office)

The following people will comprise this committee

The following people will comprise this committee

Motion IFS-2010-1 (Draft)

2012-2013 Senate

UO Governance